Jason Young to get new trial #3

[minor4th]

I want to know how he got out of the hotel with his luggage in the am..I want to know why he did not make sure to interact with another desk clerk or guest. I want to know why he didn't walk by the front desk cameras and make a big production of just waking up and saying he needed some coffee or just making normal conversation with anyone at all, who would say that they saw him and that he acted normal.

Just like the woman at his meeting, Jennifer Sproles, that testified he acted normal.

I want to know if he ever took his luggage to his room.

 

[Madeleine74]

He must have talked with the Fishers as he went to Meredith's house after the crime scene was isolated, and there were arrangements for visitation from the time of the murder until the arrest.

Patently false, backed up by testimony by both Meredith and Linda Fisher. The only thing JY ever said ... to his MIL was, "I'm gonna take a hit on the house... when I sell it, I'm gonna take a hit on the house." Strange thing using the word "hit" twice, especially when his wife had just been hit over the head 30+ times mere hours before he made that comment. He's worried about taking a loss on the house. Interesting priorities he had. He also told his MIL he could not talk to her, said right before he made the "hit on the house comment."

 

[minor4th]

Here is something else that is completely boggling and my fault for not doing my homework and reading this more thoroughly.

The NTO or NTIO as it is also called that was issued on 11/07/06 claimed that JY was the murderer.
That is just 3-4 days after her death, and already they had come to the conclusion that he killed her, based on these 4 charges in this warrant and this wording.

Murder G. S. 14 -17

"There are reasonable grounds to suspect you committed this offense"

Youngs were experiencing financial difficulties.
Deceased was pregnant and planning on cutting back on her hours at work
Deceased was covered by substantial amount of LIfe Insurance with JY as beneficary
Person has refused to cooperate with police.

So, how was this not a rush to judgement case ever? It was always Jason and only Jason.

Of course there was a rush to judgment - and of course Jason would be the primary target of the investigation in the first hours and days.

There's no problem with that though unless the investigators totally declined to follow other leads that pointed in any other direction, or suppressed evidence.

 

[minor4th]

Patently false, backed up by testimony by both Meredith and Linda Fisher. The only thing JY ever said ... to his MIL was, "I'm gonna take a hit on the house... when I sell it, I'm gonna take a hit on the house." Strange thing using "hit" when his wife had just been hit over the head 30+ times mere hours before he made that comment. He's worried about taking a loss on the house. Interesting priorities he had. He also told his MIL he could not talk to her, said right before he made the "hit on the house comment."

Interestingly, upon being informed of Michelle's death, Jason did not ask what happened or how did she die or are you sure. He just "broke" and asked about Cassidy. (According to Pat's and Heather's testimony)

 

[Madeleine74]

Every investigation is a "rush." A rush to gather evidence, a rush to get people to tell what happened, rush to get people married to a story so they can test whether the story is true or not true. It's all a "rush to judgement" because without making some preliminary connections and getting warrants the evidence cannot be seized. The trick then is, can the person be ruled out. People have to be ruled out, is the way I've been told it works. Within the first day or two the sheriff's dept collected fingerprints of all the Young's friends and those friends were interviewed as well. As were both MF and LF and members of JY's family. Standard stuff, really. The spouse of a murdered spouse is always one of the possible suspects. That's universal in every case. Had there been teenage children at home they too would have been looked at.

 

[Madeleine74]

Interestingly, upon being informed of Michelle's death, Jason did not ask what happened or how did she die or are you sure. He just "broke" and asked about Cassidy. (According to Pat's and Heather's testimony)

Correct. I listened to Pat's testimony and posted about it maybe 3 weeks ago or so. He never once asked what happened or what was the cause of Michelle's death. How uncurious can a newly widowed spouse be, eh? It's the little things that make you realize there is no perfect crime.

 

[minor4th]

Also receipts for cigars from before the murder.

Sent from your mom's smartphone

One receipt and I don't think they even mentioned a date for that. Anyone know?

 

[minor4th]

Jason was wearing his invisibility cloak when he entered the fourth floor hallway.

Just to clarify - I was not referring to you as a poster taking liberties with facts.

 

[SStarr33]

I think the only coincidences in this case have to do with after the prosecution knew the first jury decided 8 to 4 for acquittal--and after they realized the defense had discovered about Gracie's brain injury--they desperately added prejudicial evidence they KNEW was highly prejudicial.

Even the appellate court notes that the first jury did not know about the extent and permanent damage from Gracie's brain injury because the defense did not know. A child receiving disability benefits is an indication of permanent, significant damage.

JMO

After the first trial concluded, Defendant’s counsel learned that Ms. Calhoun had received disability benefits since she was a child. Ms. Calhoun stated that when she was six-years-old, she was hit by a truck. This accident caused her brain to be dislodged from her skull and to fall onto the street. Doctors reinserted her brain and Ms. Calhoun stated that she has had memory problems her entire life as a result of the accident.

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2014/04/01/13529333/April_1_2014_Appeals_Court_Opinion.pdf

Unbelievable :thud:

 

[SStarr33]

AFAIK only one has said that there is nothing that could change their opinion that JY is guilty.

For those who are convinced he's innocent, is there anything that would change your mind that he is innocent (short of a video tape of him committing the murder and another video of him yelling at Gracie at 5:30 a.m.)?

Show of hands - whose minds are really still open?

Mine is.

 

[Nymeria]

AFAIK only one has said that there is nothing that could change their opinion that JY is guilty.

For those who are convinced he's innocent, is there anything that would change your mind that he is innocent (short of a video tape of him committing the murder and another video of him yelling at Gracie at 5:30 a.m.)?

Show of hands - whose minds are really still open?

I will be honest, from the jump I came in thinking guilty because I know a lot of members who went through this case from day 1 and they for the most part believe in guilt. And I trust their judgement. YES, I can think for myself, but I do not know these people to be unfair in their views.

Also will be in honest in saying I try really hard to look at every opinion here and want to read and watch it all before I throw down my final judgement.

And finally, I am having a hard time seeing the "innocent" side because it seems like every single thing has an excuse. And when I try to point out something logic based it it not even considered (NOT by everyone, some are willing to consider ideas from a different viewpoint, which I appreciate).

All that being said, so far CE and motive have me tilting, but I continue to watch those who know the case debate, with interest.

 

[sunshine05]

One receipt and I don't think they even mentioned a date for that. Anyone know?

Again, we're asking him to prove innocence by proving that he was a cigar smoker. I don't care if there are NO receipts. Show me the proof that he didn't spend the night at the Hampton Inn.

 

[SStarr33]

Many formed an opinion as to JY's guilt before there was any evidence heard. And some of those have stated that there is nothing that would change their mind that he is guilty.

LOL, yes there are more than one of those on this site.

 

[JusticeFever]

His job? Lol

No, he testifed he rarely went back there because he couldn't see the front desk from there.
Now, I am really wondering why he was there. There was an elevator he could use to deliver the receipts and newspapers.

 

[otto]

Here is something else that is completely boggling and my fault for not doing my homework and reading this more thoroughly.

The NTO or NTIO as it is also called that was issued on 11/07/06 claimed that JY was the murderer.
That is just 3-4 days after her death, and already they had come to the conclusion that he killed her, based on these 4 charges in this warrant and this wording.

Murder G. S. 14 -17

"There are reasonable grounds to suspect you committed this offense"

Youngs were experiencing financial difficulties.
Deceased was pregnant and planning on cutting back on her hours at work
Deceased was covered by substantial amount of LIfe Insurance with JY as beneficary
Person has refused to cooperate with police.

So, how was this not a rush to judgement case ever? It was always Jason and only Jason.

I don't think that the Young's were experiencing financial difficulties. Both Michelle and Jason were fully employed and they owned two residences. Michelle drove a Lexus - not a vehicle for a family that is in financial trouble. Their debt load was probably no different than most professional couples with a young family.

Michelle was 16 weeks into a pregnancy, so there were another 24 weeks for Jason and Michelle to sort out Michelle's maternity leave. She was in the process of seeking approval to work from home part time after the birth of her second child, and I believe it was approved. Any plans to cut back on hours at work related to at least 6 months in the future, and most likely after her maternity leave was finished.

Michelle met with her friend to increase the insurance policy, not Jason. That cannot be attributed to Jason.

Jason's refusal to cooperate was that investigators wanted to photograph him and he didn't cooperate with that request.

It's another example of tunnel vision.

 

[JusticeFever]

I want to know if he ever took his luggage to his room.

Since there is a photo of him getting on the elevator with it, I would say, yeah.

 

[JusticeFever]

I don't think that the Young's were experiencing financial difficulties. Both Michelle and Jason were fully employed and they owned two residences. Their debt load was probably no different than most professional couples with a young family.

Michelle was 16 weeks into a pregnancy, so there were another 24 weeks for Jason and Michelle to sort out Michelle's maternity leave. She was in the process of seeking approval to work from home part time after the birth of her second child, and I believe it was approved. Any plans to cut back on hours at work related to at least 6 months in the future, and most likely after her maternity leave was finished.

Michelle met with her friend to increase the insurance policy, not Jason. That cannot be attributed to Jason.

Jason's refusal to cooperate was that investigators wanted to photograph him and he didn't cooperate with that request.

It's another example of tunnel vision.

Thank you, Otto....for always making sense!
The Youngs were making good salaries and I know Michelle's boss testified to the fact that she had worked out a plan where she could work 30 hours, and, also work from the home, and still keep all full time benefits.

 

[otto]

I need to go back and listen to Keith Hicks again, I believe the camera went out in the stairwell sometime after 11M, but he did not notice it until hours later. Why?

He must have been doing something other than watching the cameras ... maybe he had a nap.

 

[JusticeFever]

He must have been doing something other than watching the cameras ... maybe he had a nap.

But, why was he in that stairwell?

 

[JusticeFever]

Just to clarify - I was not referring to you as a poster taking liberties with facts.

Wouldn't it just be easier to say who you do think is taking liberties with the facts, instead of playing an elimination game? If you feel someone is misrepresenting the facts in this case, call them out. We are all adults.