Jason Young to get new trial #3

[citygirl]

The items in the unit were from the Birchleaf house and that is the only reason police would have tested the items. :seeya:

Interesting to note. Mrs Young reported certain items missing. How would she know that if JY never spoke?

 

[citygirl]

This affidavit describes the rental of the storage unit for items from Birchleaf and also describes specifically what they were looking for. Adidas shoes purchased in '05 were on the list. The Adidas had the unidentified blood on them. Clearly they were at Birchleaf at the time of the murder and this is why the blood could be important.

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/08/12/3365337/1219081417-20080818133617555.pdf

It has been awhile since I've looked @ anything concerning this case. This affidavit underlines his DNA on the wall. His print surrounded by blood spatter. Wow.

 

[minor4th]

Thanks. Does anybody have a clue as to how long it takes the Supreme Court to hear the prosecutor's appeal of the retrial decision? The decision from the Appellate Court was handed down the first of April.

I thought the SC declined to hear the appeal. Where did I get that?

 

[tarheellvr]

The killer likely sustained some injuries in the fight. I believe they checked the carpeting and blood from the crime scene to see if someone else bled at the scene.

Yes he did.......he had blisters on his feet from wearing shoes too small. If he wore long sleeves and gloves, he wouldn't have been "injured". He surprised her in bed and when strangling her didn't kill her, he beat her to death, over and over and over again!

A Linear fracture of the base of the skull
A Subarachnoid hemorrhage of the brain
Too many factures of the back of her skull to count

A pregnant 5'4 woman versus a 6ft something fit man?????
And this woman fought hard enough to "injure" JY?? I think not......

 

[MyBelle]

It has been awhile since I've looked @ anything concerning this case. This affidavit underlines his DNA on the wall. His print surrounded by blood spatter. Wow.

No, it doesn't. It clearly says, "was described as a possible print."

The DNA was a match but then, he lived there so it wouldn't be surprising to find his DNA anywhere in the room.

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/08/12/3365337/1219081417-20080818133617555.pdf

 

[JusticeFever]

No, it doesn't. It clearly says, "was described as a possible print."

The DNA was a match but then, he lived there so it wouldn't be surprising to find his DNA anywhere in the room.

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/08/12/3365337/1219081417-20080818133617555.pdf

and, the expert was unable to say how long it had been there.

Michelle definitely fought back, in fact, the search warrant issued for Jason was to see if he had any marks or scratches on him. He did not, and I seriously doubt he wore 2 different shoe sizes to commit a crime that was not supposed to entail any blood or mess.

 

[oenophile]

@ 17:20, Spivey is questioned about his conclusion that the child was likely carried to the bathroom from the master BR due to the minimal amount of blood in the hallway. He saw it firsthand. I think we must trust it as fact that there was not a trail of bloody footprints, otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned it in the search warrant.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10768400/

My bolding. We should absolutely 110% not trust this as fact. We've seen the police come to unlikely conclusions on the basis of this type of "observation" before. I know the Cooper case better, so some examples from that one include "It smelled like Downey", "I saw some hay", "The bed didn't look slept in", etc. We should not trust "as fact" police observations. They seem to recall things that are convenient to the narrative that they are pursuing at the time.

Again, that is the difference between testimony evidence and fact. You can use it as contributing to determining what is fact, but an officer's statement or sworn testimony is not fact. It is evidence.

 

[minor4th]

The fact that there's Jason's DNA and (possible) hand print in the exact location of the void in blood spatter is another piece of circumstantial evidence. It's not proof on its own, but there's no single piece of evidence that constitutes proof. It's when you add all the pieces of circumstantial evidence together when you reach "proof" (or not, depending what the jury decides).

It's not something to just simply be dismissed though.

ETA: finding his DNA and print in that location is different than just finding his random DNA in some random place on the house.

 

[citygirl]

How would finding MY's blood in JY's closet have helped them solve the case?

In post #9 you said they found blood on a shoe originally from his closet. The blood was on the shoe not on the carpet.

 

[sunshine05]

My bolding. We should absolutely 110% not trust this as fact. We've seen the police come to unlikely conclusions on the basis of this type of "observation" before. I know the Cooper case better, so some examples from that one include "It smelled like Downey", "I saw some hay", "The bed didn't look slept in", etc. We should not trust "as fact" police observations. They seem to recall things that are convenient to the narrative that they are pursuing at the time.

Again, that is the difference between testimony evidence and fact. You can use it as contributing to determining what is fact, but an officer's statement or sworn testimony is not fact. It is evidence.

Understood, but this wasn't helping their case because it's forcing them to come up with an explanation for how the child was found in the condition she was in.

 

[sunshine05]

In post #9 you said they found blood on a shoe originally from his closet. The blood was on the shoe not on the carpet.

Yes, I know that. I was responding to your question about why they would have been looking for JY's blood on items from the closet and home and I said that they tested blood from the carpeting to see if there was someone else's blood as well. Carpet, items from closet --- all have potential to have blood from the killer.

 

[sunshine05]

Yes he did.......he had blisters on his feet from wearing shoes too small. If he wore long sleeves and gloves, he wouldn't have been "injured". He surprised her in bed and when strangling her didn't kill her, he beat her to death, over and over and over again!

A Linear fracture of the base of the skull
A Subarachnoid hemorrhage of the brain
Too many factures of the back of her skull to count

A pregnant 5'4 woman versus a 6ft something fit man?????
And this woman fought hard enough to "injure" JY?? I think not......

These types of posts are extremely inflammatory. It is all speculative. There is NO evidence to support that he wore shoes too small (They looked at all of the receipts for purchases prior to and he never bought any Franklin shoes). And why would he think to wear shoes too small? In anticipation of leaving a bloody shoe print? If he's thinking that way, then what? He puts on shoes that fit now and carelessly steps in the blood again? So now he needs a third pair of shoes. This is beyond speculative.

Yes, we are well aware of the horrible injuries inflicted on MY and that is why we all have an interest in this case. We want to make sure the right person is held responsible for this crime and there is no confidence in this verdict. JY is again innocent until proven guilty via the courts.

 

[MyBelle]

Understood, but this wasn't helping their case because it's forcing them to come up with an explanation for how the child was found in the condition she was in.

Very true. It is evidence that tremendously helps the defense.

I doubt any member of either jury took issue with investigator Spivey's observations about lack of bloody tracks on the carpet. The man isn't blind. They had no reason not to believe him.

JMO

 

[oenophile]

Very true. It is evidence that tremendously helps the defense.

I doubt any member of either jury took issue with investigator Spivey's observations about lack of bloody tracks on the carpet. The man isn't blind. They had no reason not to believe him.

JMO

Can't this all be resolved with a photograph?

 

[Landonsmom02]

Unless it is documented somewhere, there is noway of knowing how long those Adidas shoes were in that storage unit. There is noway of knowing when and how long that blood was there. Are we now trying to say that the blood came from an unknown killer and that the police saw the blood but never tested it? Then went back years later to test it? I don't see how these shoes help/hurt the case against JY. Didn't he first live with his sister then his mom? Again there is no way of knowing how long those shoes were in that locker, if so can someone please link to when all the items were placed there. IMO, it's highly unlikely that those shoes went from birchleaf then directly to the storage unit.

 

[Landonsmom02]

Yes, it was from Brevard because all of his belongings were transferred to a storage unit there so the shoes were in the home at the time of the murder.

Do we know for a FACT that those shoes were in his closet at the time of the murder?

 

[Landonsmom02]

The killer likely sustained some injuries in the fight. I believe they checked the carpeting and blood from the crime scene to see if someone else bled at the scene.

Ok so why did they not find the shoes then and take them as evidence?

Isn't it more likely that they were searching the storage unit for other things and came upon those shoes?

 

[Landonsmom02]

Thanks. I wonder how they missed that when they initially examined the closet and gathered evidence.

probably because the shoes weren't there.

 

[sunshine05]

Ok so why did they not find the shoes then and take them as evidence?

Isn't it more likely that they were searching the storage unit for other things and came upon those shoes?

I attached an affidavit yesterday. They had a list of items they were looking for to include this particular pair of shoes. Why they didn't take them into evidence in the first place while at the house --- you would have to ask them.

 

[MyBelle]

I attached an affidavit yesterday. They had a list of items they were looking for to include this particular pair of shoes. Why they didn't take them into evidence in the first place while at the house --- you would have to ask them.

I hope the defense thinks to ask this important question next time around and enter the sales receipt for the shoes into evidence. I've always believed Michelle inflicted some injury on her killer and yet they ignore it because it doesn't fit with Jason did it.

JMO