Jason Young to get new trial #3

[otto]

Can you explain this? Are you saying that it was unavoidable for Jason to pass by other cameras (apart from the unplugged one) when returning to his room?

Yes, that is what I'm saying. There were cameras in the hallways ... I believe there was one at the end of each hallway on each floor. If Jason sneaked into the hotel in the morning at 6:35AM, he had to pass several cameras between the exit and his room on the fourth floor. Why was only one camera tampered with? Why did no other cameras capture his movements as he returned to his room to collect the newspaper and room receipt? Why was there no keycard record of him entering his room in the morning if there was an eye witness report that the door was secured at the time that the newspaper was placed on the door and the receipt was slid under the door (prior to 6AM)?

 

[JusticeFever]

He will continue to be detained because he remains under indictment on murder charges. He'll stay there til he makes bond or the charges are dismissed or he gets acquitted in his third trial.

Actually, he won't stay in prison, he will be transferred to jail in Raleigh after we get the next ruling. He will be where Cooper is waiting for his next trial. Then JY will most likely get a bail hearing. Since he made bail before, he shouldn't be considered a flight risk. JMO

 

[minor4th]

The appellate court agrees with you and so does probably anybody with common sense. It might be time for the Judge to step aside and retire. The system seems to have lost its integrity plus the lawsuits being filed by those wrongfully convicted are starting to mount up in costs to taxpayers.

In other murder cases, the civil suit was set aside until after the criminal trial. O.J Simpson and Scott Peterson to name two high profile ones.

JMO

Was Jason even indicted at the time the wrongful death suit was initiated? I don't think he was, so there would have been no grounds to abate the suit.

In any event, Jason never made a request that the civil suit be abated - he didn't even file an answer or make an appearance in the case, and those kinds of procedural issues don't magically get resolved if no one makes a motion and requests the court to do so.

Come on, y'all, let's think these things through before we automatically jump to conclusions that Jason was unfairly prejudiced or deprived of his rights.

 

[minor4th]

Actually, he won't stay in prison, he will be transferred to jail in Raleigh after we get the next ruling. He will be where Cooper is waiting for his next trial. Then JY will most likely get a bail hearing. Since he made bail before, he shouldn't be considered a flight risk. JMO

Yes, you're right about that. I only meant that he will remain in detention because he is under indictment (unless he makes bail or the suit gets dismissed or he gets acquitted ultimately)

 

[sunshine05]

Wow, okay, so let's recheck the facts:

1. JY would have had to walk by several cameras both leaving and entering the hotel.
2. One camera was unplugged, but no other cameras were touched.
3. JY had no way of knowing whether or not the cameras were actually taking and recording uninterrupted video. (this is an assumption, it is possible but highly improbable that he knew the details of that particular camera system at that particular hotel)
4. Had the cameras been recording uninterrupted video, then JY's actions would have been recorded that night.

Thus, IF JY was attempting to hide his actions that night, he would have to take out all cameras that could have tracked his route both going out the hotel and coming back. He also would have to ensure that the same route would be free and clear without obstacles on his return, including the exterior door.

For those that are 100% convinced of his guilt, how do you get around this? How was JY expected to get past the other cameras without being recorded? It doesn't sound like a very good plan.

Just be aware that these were not video cameras. They will capture still shots and cycled approximately every 14 seconds, so one could easily evade a camera but just by chance because you never know exactly when it's going to capture. It would be impossible to time it just right intentionally to know when each camera is going to click. I think that's why we see JY at the front desk and then again when he picks up a paper and then walking toward the exit --- random shots of him and clearly he wasn't trying to avoid cameras if we're to believe he is being conscious of them as part of his alibi. I guess the camera stuff is just a red herring but it was effective as this was part of the "SO many coincidences" cited by jurors.

 

[JusticeFever]

Yes, you're right about that. I only meant that he will remain in detention because he is under indictment (unless he makes bail or the suit gets dismissed or he gets acquitted ultimately)

Or, if he is offered a plea.. With 2 years served he could maybe do a hard 8....

 

[minor4th]

I don't know the answer to that question, however ...



I recall the comments he made after the verdict was read and it came through loud and clear that he was not impartial, and that he had strong opinions about Jason's guilt on grounds that were not really raised during the trial. I haven't listened to his comments since then, but I remember his stance that Jason was an abusive husband that treated Michelle poorly throughout the marriage. What surprised me about these remarks was that this was not a point that was stated by the prosecution.

I don't think that's fair. Judges are allowed to form an opinion about guilt - especially when a jury has just convicted him of first degree murder of his wife. His comments were in line with the evidence and the jury's verdict. If he had made those comments before the verdict was read, of course they would have been grossly inappropriate.

I do think there was evidence presented about Jason being a domestic abuser and treating Michelle badly throughout the marriage. There was plenty if evidence about Jason's character as well. Whether the prosecutor stated it that explicitly or not, it's a reasonable inference to draw from the evidence.

 

[sunshine05]

Was Jason even indicted at the time the wrongful death suit was initiated? I don't think he was, so there would have been no grounds to abate the suit.

In any event, Jason never made a request that the civil suit be abated - he didn't even file an answer or make an appearance in the case, and those kinds of procedural issues don't magically get resolved if no one makes a motion and requests the court to do so.

Come on, y'all, let's think these things through before we automatically jump to conclusions that Jason was unfairly prejudiced or deprived of his rights.

Can you imagine what the legal expenses would have been to respond to both civil suits? Few could ever manage that. The State knew it.

 

[minor4th]

Or, if he is offered a plea.. With 2 years served he could maybe do a hard 8....

Right - or if he dies before his bail hearing, or escapes from custody, etc LOL.

I do wonder if there will be plea negotiations, don't you?

 

[otto]

Wow, okay, so let's recheck the facts:

1. JY would have had to walk by several cameras both leaving and entering the hotel.
2. One camera was unplugged, but no other cameras were touched.
3. JY had no way of knowing whether or not the cameras were actually taking and recording uninterrupted video. (this is an assumption, it is possible but highly improbable that he knew the details of that particular camera system at that particular hotel)
4. Had the cameras been recording uninterrupted video, then JY's actions would have been recorded that night.

Thus, IF JY was attempting to hide his actions that night, he would have to take out all cameras that could have tracked his route both going out the hotel and coming back. He also would have to ensure that the same route would be free and clear without obstacles on his return, including the exterior door.

For those that are 100% convinced of his guilt, how do you get around this? How was JY expected to get past the other cameras without being recorded? It doesn't sound like a very good plan.

That's exactly the situation. The circumstantial evidence is that one camera was tampered with, and therefore Jason is the culprit. However, Jason had to pass several cameras to accomplish what police allege, so the question remains: why was only one camera tampered with, and why did no other camera capture his movements when he allegedly returned to the hotel at 6AM and traveled to his room on the fourth floor?

I seem to recall that the camera recording cycled such that each camera recorded a couple of seconds, then the next, and so on. One of the cameras on the fourth floor should have captured him in the hallway.

 

[JusticeFever]

I don't think that's fair. Judges are allowed to form an opinion about guilt - especially when a jury has just convicted him of first degree murder of his wife. His comments were in line with the evidence and the jury's verdict. If he had made those comments before the verdict was read, of course they would have been grossly inappropriate.

I do think there was evidence presented about Jason being a domestic abuser and treating Michelle badly throughout the marriage. There was plenty if evidence about Jason's character as well. Whether the prosecutor stated it that explicitly or not, it's a reasonable inference to draw from the evidence.

The only problem I have with the Judge is how involved he was in this case from the very beginning, signing off on many of the search warrants and presiding over all the trials.

Minor, I keep forgetting to ask you what you thought of the prosecution as well as the defense team.... At this time, JY has no attorneys, one of his last attorneys is now a Judge(Bryon Collins), and I am not sure the position of Mr. Klinkosum. That means his new defense will need a lot of time to catch up with the case.

 

[minor4th]

Can you imagine what the legal expenses would have been to respond to both civil suits? Few could ever manage that. The State knew it.

Those weren't the state's cases, they were private plaintiffs. And Jason did have money to hire legal representation or he could have represented himself. Plenty of people do. In fact he did hire a family law attorney to negotiate the custody case.

I know one thing, Jason's legal fees would have been a heck of a lot less than that default judgment that was entered against him. Know what I mean

 

[otto]

Was Jason even indicted at the time the wrongful death suit was initiated? I don't think he was, so there would have been no grounds to abate the suit.

In any event, Jason never made a request that the civil suit be abated - he didn't even file an answer or make an appearance in the case, and those kinds of procedural issues don't magically get resolved if no one makes a motion and requests the court to do so.

Come on, y'all, let's think these things through before we automatically jump to conclusions that Jason was unfairly prejudiced or deprived of his rights.

I think one of the issues at the time of the wrongful death suit was finances. If he had no money for lawyers, would one have been provided to him?

 

[otto]

I don't think that's fair. Judges are allowed to form an opinion about guilt - especially when a jury has just convicted him of first degree murder of his wife. His comments were in line with the evidence and the jury's verdict. If he had made those comments before the verdict was read, of course they would have been grossly inappropriate.

I do think there was evidence presented about Jason being a domestic abuser and treating Michelle badly throughout the marriage. There was plenty if evidence about Jason's character as well. Whether the prosecutor stated it that explicitly or not, it's a reasonable inference to draw from the evidence.

When I first followed this case, I stated the opinion that this was a case of domestic abuse. It was those that supported Jason's guilt that vehemently disagreed with me. I felt somewhat validated when the Judge made those remarks, but it was also true that there were no prosecution arguments supporting domestic abuse. I'm of the opinion that the judge can remark on the facts of the case, but that it is stepping outside of what is allowed to draw a conclusion of domestic abuse when that was not a factor at any time during the trial. That was an opinion stated by a lawyer that became a judge ... and lawyer's opinions have no place in a courtroom.

 

[tarheellvr]

Can you imagine what the legal expenses would have been to respond to both civil suits? Few could ever manage that. The State knew it.

and he just handed over Cassidy the child he had spent YEARS keeping from the Fishers........?????????

these are the kind of things some of you excuse or make exceptions for......is this really realistic? not to me, not at all

 

[tarheellvr]

Right - or if he dies before his bail hearing, or escapes from custody, etc LOL.

I do wonder if there will be plea negotiations, don't you?

I don't think JY would ever take a plea........he would go to trial. I honestly believe he will never, ever admit he slaughtered, yes slaughtered his wife.

 

[minor4th]

BBM



Police were always well aware of Jason's alibi. They had hotel receipts from the car. They knew every detail about his alibi, and then they attempted to demonstrate that it was a false alibi. 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.

No one besides Jason and his lawyer knew what Jason's explanations would be until he testified at his trial.

He did not talk to the Fishers or anyone else (other than lawyers) about the case or the investigation until he took the stand 3 years after Michelle's murder. Jason stated that himself when he testified.

So you don't think it makes him look guilty to completely stonewall his friends, investigators and his and Michelle's relatives for years - even to the point of taking a multi million dollar default judgment and relinquishing primary custody of his daughter? Especially since he ultimately did testify, and didn't rely on a 5th Amendment privilege <--- doesn't that raise for you some questions about his innocence and the veracity if his testimony? Do you accept his testimony as true?

I don't understand how his behavior looks totally innocuous and indicative of an innocent man. Not criticizing yours or anyone's opinions, just finding some things hard to understand.

 

[minor4th]

[ QUOTE=otto;10605826]I think one of the issues at the time of the wrongful death suit was finances. If he had no money for lawyers, would one have been provided to him?[/QUOTE]


Yes, he said he didn't have the money to litigate the custody case or the wrongful death suit (notable that he did not ever even hint that he was exercising his 5th Amendment privilege).

The evidence of Jason's income and available resources, however, proved this to be false.

Do you really believe that his mother suddenly required him to pay her $6000 in back rent if he needed funds to defend the lawsuits? Not a chance. IMO

He paid that money to his mother (and another $6000 to his sister) to keep those funds from being used in satisfaction if the judgment against him (IMO). That $12,000 would have made a good retainer payment to lawyers if he had any desire to participate in the civil cases. He also had significant assets he could have sold or leveraged to raise capital to pay lawyers. He also could have represented himself pro se or applied for legal aid if he really had no money.

 

[otto]

and he just handed over Cassidy the child he had spent YEARS keeping from the Fishers........?????????

these are the kind of things some of you excuse or make exceptions for......is this really realistic? not to me, not at all

Who is now preventing the child from having access to her father?

 

[tarheellvr]

BBM

Police were always well aware of Jason's alibi. They had hotel receipts from the car. They knew every detail about his alibi, and then they attempted to demonstrate that it was a false alibi. 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.

Not true Otto.......he kept this little girl from her Mother's family, the family who was extremely close to her. They were forced to see her at daycare and when he finally let them see her, they were watched, monitored as if they were criminals. They couldn't even take her to the bathroom for God's sake!

I am so sick of the argument he had the right to decide what was best for his child, he was her parent and made decisions, etc. What was right for Cassidy? What was best for a little girl who had her Mommy taken from her?
Isolation from those closest to her Mommy???? In essence, she lost THREE of her family and JLY is to blame!! Well, I forgot to include Pat, who returned all gifts and aided in Cassidy's isolation from her grandmother and aunt.

Abolutley no excuse.......he hurt this innocent child and did so willingly.