Jason Young to get new trial #2

[MyBelle]

Or, maybe she wasn't there at all. We really don't know as there were 3 conflicting reports about how she was found.

Well, the one about finding her in the bed might be believable to somebody who has never been around toddlers but to me, it is a tad far-fetched.

 

[otto]

The child was put to bed in her own bed. Her mother was on the floor, not the bed. It's not believable to me that the child put herself in her parent's bed when her mother was on the floor.

JMO

There are documented cases where a toddler of a deceased mother will remain close to the mother. That seems to have happened here as well.

 

[otto]

Well, the one about finding her in the bed might be believable to somebody who has never been around toddlers but to me, it is a tad far-fetched.

I believe that the child wanted to be close to her deceased mother and chose to be in her parent's bedroom. She was found under the covers in her parent's bed, but there is no testimony suggesting that the child was asleep. In fact, she may have been playing on the bed with her shoes when Meredith arrived, and simply pulled the covers over her head when she heard someone enter the house.

Toddlers are not that complicated, and they're not that helpless.

 

[MyBelle]

There are documented cases where a toddler of a deceased mother will remain close to the mother. That seems to have happened here as well.

The documented cases don't involve the child being found with clean hands and clothes across the room from mom's dead body. I do not believe that happened in this case, either.

 

[MyBelle]

I believe that the child wanted to be close to her deceased mother and chose to be in her parent's bedroom. She was found under the covers in her parent's bed, but there is no testimony suggesting that the child was asleep. In fact, she may have been playing on the bed with her shoes when Meredith arrived, and simply pulled the covers over her head when she heard someone enter the house.

Toddlers are not that complicated, and they're not that helpless.

Toddlers are fairly predictable. They certainly do not avoid touching their mother for hours on end.

Ava Worthington not only was found clinging to her mother, her bloody hand prints were all over her. It's also a fact that the Worthington murder was very much in the news at the time of Michelle's murder.

"She said, 'Mommy dirty. Tried to clean mommy,'" Detective Kimberly Squire told jurors at the trial of Christopher McCowen.

According to police witnesses, a pool of blood surr
ounded the head of the victim, a 46-year-old fashion writer. There were child-sized bloody handprints on her abdomen.

Squire said Ava also told her, "Those are my paints, not mommy's."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/23/capecod.murder/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

 

[otto]

Toddlers are fairly predictable. They certainly do not avoid touching their mother for hours on end.

Ava Worthington not only was found clinging to her mother, her bloody hand prints were all over her. It's also a fact that the Worthington murder was very much in the news at the time of Michelle's murder.

"She said, 'Mommy dirty. Tried to clean mommy,'" Detective Kimberly Squire told jurors at the trial of Christopher McCowen.

According to police witnesses, a pool of blood surr
ounded the head of the victim, a 46-year-old fashion writer. There were child-sized bloody handprints on her abdomen.

Squire said Ava also told her, "Those are my paints, not mommy's."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/23/capecod.murder/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

I suspect that we disagree on whether the child could have slept through the night, transferred blood to the carpet between the master bedroom and bathroom, removed her pajama pants, removed her diaper, accessed the sink/water, tried to wash her feet, put on her pajama pants, wandered around, played in her room, put on her shoes, and was on her parents bed when Meredith arrived. I suspect that some children aged 2.5 years of age could have done all of that. By all accounts, Jason's daughter was a bright, active, verbal child, so perhaps she could have accomplished that by herself.

 

[MyBelle]

I suspect that we disagree on whether the child could have slept through the night, transferred blood to the carpet between the master bedroom and bathroom, removed her pajama pants, removed her diaper, accessed the sink/water, tried to wash her feet, put on her pajama pants, wandered around, played in her room, put on her shoes, and was on her parents bed when Meredith arrived. I suspect that some children aged 2.5 years of age could have done all of that. By all accounts, Jason's daughter was a bright, active, verbal child, so perhaps she could have accomplished that by herself.

It isn't a matter of what the child could have done. What matters is what she actually did. It's not believable that a toddler was alone with her mother's body for 16 hours yet failed to touch her mother's bloody body with her hands or touch anything else including her clothes with those same bloody hands.

She certainly did not remove her pajamas, wash them and dry them and place them back on her body.

JMO

 

[oenophile]

It isn't a matter of what the child could have done. What matters is what she actually did. It's not believable that a toddler was alone with her mother's body for 16 hours yet failed to touch her mother's bloody body with her hands or touch anything else including her clothes with those same bloody hands.

She certainly did not remove her pajamas, wash them and dry them and place them back on her body.

JMO

It is believable that she likely did everything Otto said, and that she touched her mother's body in places where there was not blood. It's clear she was close to her mother given that she got blood on her feet.

I've been around toddlers alot too, and all of the evidence is absolutely consistent with the expected actions of a toddler put in those circumstances, including getting up on the bed. And I contend that the evidence is consistent with no one washing her PJ's and putting them back on.

One other thing about toddlers: they have short attention spans. If she had been found at some point during the morning, I suspect she would have been found clinging to her mother. At another time she would have been found crying. A third time would have found her playing with her dolls. Etc. It is impossible to determine all of the activities that she had been doing or make a judgement based primarily on how she was found.

 

[sunshine05]

It is believable that she likely did everything Otto said, and that she touched her mother's body in places where there was not blood. It's clear she was close to her mother given that she got blood on her feet.

I've been around toddlers alot too, and all of the evidence is absolutely consistent with the expected actions of a toddler put in those circumstances, including getting up on the bed. And I contend that the evidence is consistent with no one washing her PJ's and putting them back on.

One other thing about toddlers: they have short attention spans. If she had been found at some point during the morning, I suspect she would have been found clinging to her mother. At another time she would have been found crying. A third time would have found her playing with her dolls. Etc. It is impossible to determine all of the activities that she had been doing or make a judgement based primarily on how she was found.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. There were streaks and smears of blood all over the bathroom walls. I can't picture a 2 year old (if not even an adult) having their hands in that amount of blood and not transferring it to their shirt at all. The new theory that is floating around --- that "no one" cleaned up the child will never fly in court.

 

[oenophile]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. There were streaks and smears of blood all over the bathroom walls. I can't picture a 2 year old (if not even an adult) having their hands in that amount of blood and not transferring it to their shirt at all. The new theory that is floating around --- that "no one" cleaned up the child will never fly in court.

I don't believe it is a new theory.

The problem is that the theory that someone cleaned her up defies logic. What possible benefit could the murderer(s) gain from cleaning up CY? What is the motivation? Why would you clean her then leave her with the body where she can get blood on her clothes again? Why would you clean her but not clean the bathroom? Why would you allow her to get blood all over the bathroom in the first place? I find it unfathomable that any court or jury would believe that she was cleaned up then left there.

 

[sunshine05]

I don't believe it is a new theory.

The problem is that the theory that someone cleaned her up defies logic. What possible benefit could the murderer(s) gain from cleaning up CY? What is the motivation? Why would you clean her then leave her with the body where she can get blood on her clothes again? Why would you clean her but not clean the bathroom? Why would you allow her to get blood all over the bathroom in the first place? I find it unfathomable that any court or jury would believe that she was cleaned up then left there.

Yes, but they did believe just that. Tracey Raksnis, jury foreman stated that only he would have cared for her in that way. He was convicted partially based on the fact that she was cleaned up.

Why the blood in the bathroom? If the prints were staged to make it appear that she was alone with the body all night - that could be a reason for the blood in the bathroom.

Why not just leave the blood on her also? I think it's possible that the child would have freaked out about that. Some kids don't like to have their hands dirty.

 

[oenophile]

Yes, but they did believe just that. Tracey Raksnis, jury foreman stated that only he would have cared for her in that way. He was convicted partially based on the fact that she was cleaned up.

Why the blood in the bathroom? If the prints were staged to make it appear that she was alone with the body all night - that could be a reason for the blood in the bathroom.

Why not just leave the blood on her also? I think it's possible that the child would have freaked out about that. Some kids don't like to have their hands dirty.

Both of those are weak explanations at best given that she was left with the body anyway.

I do find it ironic that we've done a 180 from "CY was cleaned so JY must have done it because only he would have cared that much about CY" to "CY was cleaned so JY must not have done it since it doesn't fit the timeline".

If I put those two together, then CY must not have been cleaned because JY didn't have time to do it yet JY was the only one that cared enough about CY to do it (unless you blame MF, which the evidence doesn't support).

 

[JusticeFever]

The point I was trying to make was both cases SP and JY were based on CE. So do you believe SP should have been found not guilty?

The cases are completely different. Laci was missing and her body not found for months. Michelle was found just hours after her death..there are just too many differences in the cases to compare.

 

[otto]

It isn't a matter of what the child could have done. What matters is what she actually did. It's not believable that a toddler was alone with her mother's body for 16 hours yet failed to touch her mother's bloody body with her hands or touch anything else including her clothes with those same bloody hands.

She certainly did not remove her pajamas, wash them and dry them and place them back on her body.

JMO

How are we accounting for 16 hours that the child was alone?

The child was put to bed around 8-9PM. She was watching a movie. Michelle was murdered sometime between midnight and 6AM. I think the time of death might have been adjusted to between midnight and 4:30AM. The child normally woke up around 6-7AM. The deceased was found around 1PM.

Michelle was face down. I'm not familiar with her injuries, but I believe that the blood would have been between the bed and the wall underneath the deceased. I doubt that it would have been easy for the child to get into that area, but I would need to see photos of blood pooling and an opportunity for the child to put her hands in the blood. We know that she walked near her mother and stepped in blood.

The child could have removed her pyjama pants in the bathroom, removed her diaper, sat on the floor to put on her pyjama pants, transferred blood to her skin, put on her pyjama pants, and transferred the blood to the inside of her pyjama pants. That's seems more realistic than someone doing laundry at the scene of a murder. If someone wanted to get rid of the blood on the pyjamas, it would be easier to put the child in a clean pair of pyjamas and throw the bloody pair in a dumpster.

Isn't the entire theory about laundering the pyjamas based on implicating another family member? Clearly Jason didn't have time to do laundry, and a random murderer doesn't loiter around a murder scene to care for his victim's children.

 

[sunshine05]

Both of those are weak explanations at best given that she was left with the body anyway.

I do find it ironic that we've done a 180 from "CY was cleaned so JY must have done it because only he would have cared that much about CY" to "CY was cleaned so JY must not have done it since it doesn't fit the timeline".

If I put those two together, then CY must not have been cleaned because JY didn't have time to do it yet JY was the only one that cared enough about CY to do it (unless you blame MF, which the evidence doesn't support).

I think it's clear by now what I believe happened and it's my opinion that there is plenty of evidence to support it.

The evidence of staged footprints is not "weak" when you consider the orientation of the prints, the fact that they are all very dark (multiple trips/dips) and in some instances there is only toe prints yet there is no trail of prints from the body to the bathroom. I believe staging is the only valid explanation to explain the presence of CY's prints as we see them.

If one were to do an experiment --- stepping in blood and then walking 10 feet across a carpeted floor onto tile and examined the blood that would be transferred, I believe it's likely that very little would be visible on the tile as the blood would have dried and rubbed off on the carpeting while walking across the carpeted surface. At the very least, we may see one or two partial and probably light in color transfers of blood. I would not expect to see it as bright as we do especially given the fact that there is no trail. I think investigators were smart to take this into account when considering -- Was the child removed from the scene to be cleaned up? We know they didn't find blood in the Lexus, but the fact remains that there is no explanation for the blood prints as we see them and no explanation for the absence of any blood residue in the sink and tub. This is why I believe a crime scene reconstruction needs to be done by a competent forensic expert.

ETA: If I can find some old carpeting scraps, I will do this experiment myself and will report my findings and take photos.

 

[sunshine05]

How are we accounting for 16 hours that the child was alone?

The child was put to bed around 8-9PM. She was watching a movie. Michelle was murdered sometime between midnight and 6AM. I think the time of death might have been adjusted to between midnight and 4:30AM. The child normally woke up around 6-7AM. The deceased was found around 1PM.

Michelle was face down. I'm not familiar with her injuries, but I believe that the blood would have been between the bed and the wall underneath the deceased. I doubt that it would have been easy for the child to get into that area, but I would need to see photos of blood pooling and an opportunity for the child to put her hands in the blood. We know that she walked near her mother and stepped in blood.

The child could have removed her pyjama pants in the bathroom, removed her diaper, sat on the floor to put on her pyjama pants, transferred blood to her skin, put on her pyjama pants, and transferred the blood to the inside of her pyjama pants. That's seems more realistic than someone doing laundry at the scene of a murder. If someone wanted to get rid of the blood on the pyjamas, it would be easier to put the child in a clean pair of pyjamas and throw the bloody pair in a dumpster.

Isn't the entire theory about laundering the pyjamas based on implicating another family member? Clearly Jason didn't have time to do laundry, and a random murderer doesn't loiter around a murder scene to care for his victim's children.

Then there would have been blood all over the pants and shirt and it would have been very visible.

[modsnip] Let's just stick with the facts --- the pajamas appeared to be clean but later investigators found the presence of blood on the shirt and pants. One explanation is that they may have been laundered.

 

[otto]

Both of those are weak explanations at best given that she was left with the body anyway.

I do find it ironic that we've done a 180 from "CY was cleaned so JY must have done it because only he would have cared that much about CY" to "CY was cleaned so JY must not have done it since it doesn't fit the timeline".

If I put those two together, then CY must not have been cleaned because JY didn't have time to do it yet JY was the only one that cared enough about CY to do it (unless you blame MF, which the evidence doesn't support).

Therefore, it's very likely that there is an alternate explanation for why there was blood, invisible to the eye, on the inside of the pyjama pants.

 

[oenophile]

I think it's clear by now what I believe happened and it's my opinion that there is plenty of evidence to support it.

The evidence of staged footprints is not "weak" when you consider the orientation of the prints, the fact that they are all very dark (multiple trips/dips) and in some instances there is only toe prints yet there is no trail of prints from the body to the bathroom. I believe staging is the only valid explanation to explain the presence of CY's prints as we see them.

My bolding

Can you please clarify the bolded items:
1. Are there photographs of the bloody prints other than the single photo on the WRAL site?
2. On what basis do you say that the orientation of the prints is only one way?
3. Where in the testimony does it say that there was no trail of blood between the bedroom and the bathroom?
4. MF said in the 911 call that "there's like blood footprints all over the house from her daughter...like her daughter's little footprints". Is there evidence that contradicts this?

Thanks

 

[otto]

Then there would have been blood all over the pants and shirt and it would have been very visible.

We don't even have to consider the family member. Let's just stick with the facts --- the pajamas appeared to be clean but later investigators found the presence of blood on the shirt and pants. One explanation is that they may have been laundered.

Weren't the pyjamas laundered by Meredith prior to the forensic analysis?

It's more likely that there was blood, but no one really noticed it or paid attention to it at the time that the murder was discovered. Without photographic evidence, it's more likely that there was an error in judgement rather than an absence of blood.

 

[otto]

My bolding

Can you please clarify the bolded items:
1. Are there photographs of the bloody prints other than the single photo on the WRAL site?
2. On what basis do you say that the orientation of the prints is only one way?
3. Where in the testimony does it say that there was no trail of blood between the bedroom and the bathroom?
4. MF said in the 911 call that "there's like blood footprints all over the house from her daughter...like her daughter's little footprints". Is there evidence that contradicts this?

Thanks

I posted a quote a couple of times where it is stated that there was blood between the master bedroom and the child's bedroom. One must walk past the bathroom to get from A to B, therefore there was blood on the carpet between the master bedroom and the bathroom.

"Investigators also found blood on the carpet between the room Michelle Young was found murdered in and Cassidy's bedroom."

http://abc11.com/archive/6540109/