Jason Young to get new trial #3

[minor4th]

Of course you are right. I think some are forgetting that 1) Jason was being advised by excellent attorneys during the time of the civil lawsuits and 2) the entire issue of the civil suits will be inadmissible at the next trial and 3) the jury pool is now aware he didn't receive a fair trial.



For all we know, JY may STILL be obtaining legal advice from those same attorneys re: child custody.



Without the extremely prejudicial elements of the civil lawsuits, I think the prosecutor is going to have a very difficult time obtaining a guilty verdict at the next trial. The evidence just isn't there.





JMO

The prosecutor can still talk about the custody case and the wrongful death suit. They just can't read the custody petition to the jury because it contains unproven allegations and it's unfairly prejudicial to Jason.

Yes, Jason was receiving and paying for excellent legal advise during the custody and wrongful death suits. His choice not to participate was strategic and based on carefully considered legal advice. It was not because he didn't have access to funds to litigate, as he testified under oath at his murder trial.

 

[oenophile]

JY did not have to pass multiple cameras. He had to pass one -- the same one -- to use the one door he selected. It's all in the testimony, exactly where the cameras were. How ironic the two cameras that could have verified his alibi beyond reproach -- the one by the stairwell door and the one covering the breakfast area, managed to either be tampered with twice on the very night/morning his wife gets murdered, when he put himself within possible striking distance by only going halfway to his appointment, or somehow failed to capture him getting his breakfast.

That is at odds with what Otto said, here:

3. At the Hillsville hotel, the same camera was unplugged. Again, no connection to Jason. There were 14 cameras in the hotel and Jason was on the fourth floor. Why was only one camera tampered with at 6:35AM if Jason had to pass several cameras to return to his room in the morning.

Momma is not a derogatory term. Neither is mommy or mother.

It is when used to describe the relationship between a grown man and his mother.

 

[MyBelle]

That's what I recall. All decisions about the day to day care of the child, such as education, religious, and medical decisions, would be joint.

It was an agreement reached in settlement, it was joint and it can be changed. Hopefully, MF has made sure that CY has maintained contact whether it be by visit, phone call or letter. This is very important.

Jason was never judged to be an unfit parent. Inmates are released from prison and resume full custody of their children even if they are still on parole. This isn't exactly uncharted territory.

JMO

 

[minor4th]

JY did not have to pass multiple cameras. He had to pass one -- the same one -- to use the one door he selected. It's all in the testimony, exactly where the cameras were. How ironic the two cameras that could have verified his alibi beyond reproach -- the one by the stairwell door and the one covering the breakfast area, managed to either be tampered with twice on the very night/morning his wife gets murdered, when he put himself within possible striking distance by only going halfway to his appointment, or somehow failed to capture him getting his breakfast.

Momma is not a derogatory term. Neither is mommy or mother.

Not only is it in testimony, it's also conclusively established by the absence of Jason's image entering or leaving his room, or walking through the lobby. And we know he did those things.

 

[Madeleine74]

That is at odds with what Otto said.

Otto is incorrect.

It is when used to describe the relationship between a grown man and his mother.

That's JY's own term, that's his language.

 

[citygirl]

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.

True. He was caught on camera wearing dark, heavy clothes.

 

[oenophile]

Not only is it in testimony, it's also conclusively established by the absence of Jason's image entering or leaving his room, or walking through the lobby. And we know he did those things.

No, that is incorrect. The cameras do not take a continuous stream of video. They take a snapshot. It was possible for him to come in and leave several times with all cameras working without an image being taken of him.

 

[minor4th]

I think the Appeals Court found the Judge's professional judgment to be lacking, not his common sense.



JMO

The court of appeals did not comment on the judge's professional judgment or common sense. The appeals court said the judge should have prevented the custody petition from being read to the jury.

On all the other points of appeal the court upheld Stephens' rulings.

 

[citygirl]

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.

Absolutely agree. No need to vilify Judge Stephens ( not that he would give a whit...way far above this, IMO).

 

[otto]

JY did not have to pass multiple cameras. He had to pass one -- the same one -- to use the one door he selected. It's all in the testimony, exactly where the cameras were. How ironic the two cameras that could have verified his alibi beyond reproach -- the one by the stairwell door and the one covering the breakfast area, managed to either be tampered with twice on the very night/morning his wife gets murdered, when he put himself within possible striking distance by only going halfway to his appointment, or somehow failed to capture him getting his breakfast.

Momma is not a derogatory term. Neither is mommy or mother.

There were cameras at the ends of the hallway on each floor. Jason had to get to the fourth floor (I don't know if there were more cameras in the stairwell). He had to avoid the cameras on that floor, which means that he had 14 seconds to enter the fourth floor hallway and disappear into his room without being seen. I don't believe that he could avoid those cameras or that he was so lucky as to accidentally time it such that they did not capture him re-entering his room in the morning.

 

[minor4th]

No, that is incorrect. The cameras do not take a continuous stream of video. They take a snapshot. It was possible for him to come in and leave several times with all cameras working without an image being taken of him.

Right, and the working cameras failed to catch a snapshot of Jason entering or leaving his room or walking into the lobby - even though he did those things.

Therefore, one cannot logically conclude that Jason could not have exited the hotel (or that he stayed in his room all night) just because the cameras didn't snap a photograph of him sneaking out or sneaking back in.

 

[otto]

But do you really think Jason believed it was best for Cassidy if Meredith had primary custody and moved farther from him? I don't. If the Fishers had not brought the suit, Jason would still have Cassidy I'm his sole possession and she would have no contact with a the Fishers. That's not just a guess on my part - that's what Jason and his mother both told us and both demonstrated.

He WAS trying to retain full custody of Cassidy, despite the chaos and disruption and instability in his life, and he WAS trying to extricate the Fishers from Cassidy's life completely.

I do not criticize Jason for ultimately agreeing to joint custody with Meredith, and I applaud him for doing what's best for his daughter - irrespective of whether his motives were pure or not. He could have put everyone, including his daughter, through a prolonged and unnecessary custody battle that would have caused even more harm to Cassidy..

I wish he had done that by agreement before it became necessary for the Fishers to seek judicial intervention.

We don't know why Jason decided to transfer day to day care of his daughter to Meredith. We can't judge that. He certainly wouldn't be the first parent to completely back away from an acrimonious custody dispute that was ugly at the outset.

 

[Madeleine74]

There were cameras at the ends of the hallway on each floor. Jason had to get to the fourth floor (I don't know if there were more cameras in the stairwell). He had to avoid the cameras on that floor, which means that he had 14 seconds to enter the fourth floor hallway and disappear into his room without being seen. I don't believe that he could avoid those cameras or that he was so lucky as to accidentally time it such that they did not capture him re-entering his room in the morning.

The cameras could not each capture the entire floor. That's why there were cameras mounted at each end as well as at the elevator. You'd have to go back and watch testimony. It's all there, the position of the cameras. The camera he needed to be disabled was first unplugged and then, later after being plugged back in and repositioned the next morning, was, about 40 min later, pushed out of focus. Same camera, same stairwell coverage.

How did JY manage to get his breakfast in less than 14 seconds, which is what he'd have to do to avoid being seen on the camera covering the buffet area? That camera wasn't disabled. He wasn't there in the breakfast area is a logical conclusion.

 

[MyBelle]

Three things:

1. After reading the civil statute, I can understand why the family chose to pursue the wrongful death suit, as it had a 2 year statue of limitations. If they believed that JY was possibly the killer, then it made sense for them to file the suit as they did not know if the DA would file charges. I can't blame them for that, but I do think that there is something wrong with the statute if someone can use a civil suit to try to get around the fifth amendment.

2. Using the term "momma" to describe JY's mother is derogatory. She isn't on trial here.

3. I'd still like to have an explanation from someone who believes JY is guilty why JY would disable a single camera when he would have to pass multiple cameras in order to avoid being caught on film, and how he would ensure that the outside door would remain open all night for that identical route.

They used it to try to get around the Fifth Amendment. When that didn't work, they filed for child custody. Didn't happen there, either. It had all just been played out in the Brad Cooper case. It wasn't a coincidence.

JMO

 

[otto]

Otto is incorrect.



That's JY's own term, that's his language.

Are there no cameras at the ends of the hallway on the fourth floor?

 

[otto]

Right, and the working cameras failed to catch a snapshot of Jason entering or leaving his room or walking into the lobby - even though he did those things.

Therefore, one cannot logically conclude that Jason could not have exited the hotel (or that he stayed in his room all night) just because the cameras didn't snap a photograph of him sneaking out or sneaking back in.

Similarly, one cannot argue that Jason tampered with cameras to avoid being seen. If he wanted to ensure that he wasn't seen entering the his fourth floor hotel room in the morning, why didn't he tamper with all the cameras? Why only one?

 

[Madeleine74]

The prosecutor can still talk about the custody case and the wrongful death suit. They just can't read the custody petition to the jury because it contains unproven allegations and it's unfairly prejudicial to Jason.

And the state can still elicit testimony that CY was kept from her maternal grandmother and aunt for upwards of 3 years because they would not agree to publicly state that JY was innocent. Any jury will wonder why CY was whisked away so quickly after the daycare incident in which she acted out her mother's murder and then why she was so limited from seeing her mom's side of the family, only being allowed a few supervised visits, and then all contact cut off when they didn't allow themselves to be blackmailed, only to later be handed physical custody.

 

[MyBelle]

There were cameras at the ends of the hallway on each floor. Jason had to get to the fourth floor (I don't know if there were more cameras in the stairwell). He had to avoid the cameras on that floor, which means that he had 14 seconds to enter the fourth floor hallway and disappear into his room without being seen. I don't believe that he could avoid those cameras or that he was so lucky as to accidentally time it such that they did not capture him re-entering his room in the morning.

iirc, no cameras caught Jason leaving the hotel for the final time, either. Or, the cameras did and LE decided not to collect the evidence. I know which way I'm leaning on that one...

JMO

 

[otto]

The cameras could not each capture the entire floor. That's why there were cameras mounted at each end as well as at the elevator. You'd have to go back and watch testimony. It's all there, the position of the cameras. The camera he needed to be disabled was first unplugged and then, later after being plugged back in and repositioned the next morning, was, about 40 min later, pushed out of focus. Same camera, same stairwell coverage.

How did JY manage to get his breakfast in less than 14 seconds, which is what he'd have to do to avoid being seen on the camera covering the buffet area? That camera wasn't disabled. He wasn't there in the breakfast area is a logical conclusion.

Are you saying that the cameras in the hallway were unable to capture the entire width of the hallway, but the cameras in the dining area were able to capture the entire width of the dining area?

 

[otto]

iirc, no cameras caught Jason leaving the hotel for the final time, either. Or, the cameras did and LE decided not to collect the evidence. I know which way I'm leaning on that one...

JMO

It's surprising that there were no cameras on the parking area. If there were, it would be obvious whether Jason's vehicle was missing during the night.