Jason Young to get new trial #3

[Madeleine74]

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?

Not only can one argue it, it was argued in his trials and, if there's a 3rd trial, will be argued again. He didn't need to tamper with ALL the cameras in the hotel and not even all the cameras on one floor. He only needed to tamper with the one camera that covered the one stairwell entrance. This has been detailed many times over the years and there are plenty of pictures on WS because I remember seeing some of them a few years ago.

 

[Madeleine74]

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?

I'm saying you would need to go back and watch the testimony to see the layout and details of the various cameras.

 

[MyBelle]

Based on the opinion of the appellate court, it is highly unlikely any mention of the civil lawsuits will be made at the next trial.

In its 58-page opinion, the three-judge appellate panel wrote that testimony about the judgment – as well as similar testimony regarding a custody lawsuit involving the Youngs' daughter Cassidy – "severely impacted" Jason Young's ability to receive a fair trial.

"Defendant's presumption of innocence was irreparably diminished by the admission of these civil actions," the appeals opinion stated. "This is similar to the prejudice that a jury has when it learns a defendant is previously convicted of charged offenses."

The opinion also notes that Stephens' instructions to jurors "did not explicitly prohibit" them from using the civil cases "as proof of Defendant's guilt in the criminal case."

Read more at http://www.wral.com/nc-appeals-cour...for-jason-young/13528780/#coRI14Jpmsq9dKcm.99

 

[minor4th]

Yes and, iirc, he retained joint legal custody and only agreed Meredith would have full physical custody. He certainly is not going to have any trouble reuniting and obtaining full physical custody of his child should he be acquitted.



JMO

Yeah, I think that's a pretty naive perspective. No offense.

If he is acquitted, hopefully he will work hard and have the patience and compassion to reunite with Cassidy and rebuild a healthy parent child relationship. It's hard and it takes commitment, perseverance and a whole lot of love. That would surely be the best thing for Cassidy - if Jason's innocent. I wish and hope to God he IS innocent because that is also what's best for Cassidy.

But I cannot find innocence in this man, no matter how hard I look. And believe it or not, I am not one to rush to guilty conclusions about any defendant.

As far as regaining full custody of Cassidy. That won't happen. Meredith now has greater rights and duties re: Cassidy than Jason does. Her custodial rights wil not be modified unless she engaged in behavior that puts Cassidy at risk of harm.

It does not matter how innocent Jason might be of murdering Michelle. It does not matter how much he improves his outlook in life - that's not grounds to modify custody unless there's something harmful Meredith is doing to Cassidy.

Pretty sure you won't believe me, and that's ok

 

[oenophile]

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.

That wasn't what I was arguing. I was arguing that he likely didn't know they were only taking pictures, that even if he did know he wouldn't have known exactly when they would be snapped, so simply taking out one camera would not have necessarily protected him against having his picture taken at the hotel.

 

[oenophile]

Not only can one argue it, it was argued in his trials and, if there's a 3rd trial, will be argued again. He didn't need to tamper with ALL the cameras in the hotel and not even all the cameras on one floor. He only needed to tamper with the one camera that covered the one stairwell entrance. This has been detailed many times over the years and there are plenty of pictures on WS because I remember seeing some of them a few years ago.

Ok, please explain this then. Why did he only need to tamper with that one camera? I'm still relatively new to the case.

 

[minor4th]

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.

Yep. Just like in the last trial. Pat Young was a terrible witness for the defense on those issues. She came across as spiteful and vindictive and even ruthless when it comes to helping her son.

She was so reluctant to admit that she would consider it domestic violence when Jason pinned his fiancé down on the bed and forcibly removed her rings - that was so telling. She wanted so much to deny it and brush it off as nothing much.

She also minimized the multiple sexual affairs he had throughout the entire marriage, as well as the admitted verbal abuse, alcohol abuse, pressuring Michelle to have sex when she didn't want to - to the point she felt coerced and was reminded of being raped in college, discussing their private sex life with literally anyone within earshot, gambling away family resources, taking expensive vacations when he didn't have a job, etc etc. you look at all those things together and it paints a pretty ominous portrait of an abusive marriage.

I'm not saying Pat is knowingly helping Jason get away with murder, or that she condones domestic abuse. I feel
sorry for her in a way because it seems like she has no clue about how she ended up here with her son or how it all went so wrong.

 

[citygirl]

You're right. And the financial planner who testified gave some strange testimony that she was worried that Michelle planned to cut back on her work hours after the baby was born because she didn't think the marriage was that strong. Wasn't Michelle smart enough to know how strong her marriage was? And wasn't Michelle, an MBA, capable of returning to a full-time career if her marriage did result in divorce?

This is a very unprofessional and unkind comment to make about Michelle, imo.

Childs also testified that she worried about Michelle Young's plans to cut back on her work hours at Progress Energy after the birth of her second child.

"It was very apparent to me that her marriage was not good and it was not working out, and from what I could see, was headed into the direction of separation or divorce," Childs said.


Read more at http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/10771883/#QJj75Op18cuMJFdQ.99

Whoa there Nellie! Unprofessional? Ms Childs nailed it !First i have seen this.

 

[minor4th]

That wasn't what I was arguing. I was arguing that he likely didn't know they were only taking pictures, that even if he did know he wouldn't have known exactly when they would be snapped, so simply taking out one camera would not have necessarily protected him against having his picture taken at the hotel.

I see what you're saying and I've had similar questions about the cameras. I would have liked a whole lot more information about what exactly the cameras captured between 11:00 pm and 6:30 am. Like I really want to know about the cameras on the 4th floor and where they point and how close they are to the stairwell. You would think that either: 1) the defense would be able to take that camera evidence and firmly make that point that you're talking about -- just how unlikely or impossible would it be for Jason to completely miss being photographed if he entered and exited according to the States theory, OR 2) the state should be able to demonstrate how doable it is to tamper with the stairwell camera 2 times without appearing on any video and also elude all other cameras on his floor and outside despite coming and going at 6:30 in the morning.

I want a demonstration about how it can or cannot be done! Why didn't they explain this more clearly to us?

 

[Madeleine74]

The state demonstrated how the cameras were tampered with. There was testimony about the cameras. It's all right there on www.wral.com.

 

[oenophile]

The state demonstrated how the cameras were tampered with. There was testimony about the cameras. It's all right there on www.wral.com.

Can you be more specific in referring to the testimony?

 

[Madeleine74]

You'll have to watch testimony of the hotel employees. Sorry, but I cannot quote testimony from multiple witnesses. The entire trial (both of them) is on WRAL. It's there for anyone to watch.

 

[otto]

The state demonstrated how the cameras were tampered with. There was testimony about the cameras. It's all right there on www.wral.com.

Were the cameras on the fourth floor tampered with and, if not, why not? That is, if the theory is that Jason had to tamper with a camera to avoid being seen entering the hotel in the morning, why didn't he have to tamper with all cameras between the exit and his fourth floor room? Tampering with one camera makes no difference if other cameras could easily capture his movements on the fourth floor.

 

[MyBelle]

Can you be more specific in referring to the testimony?

The State did not prove Jason ever touched the camera nor did they give a believable reason why he would have touched it. Just more of trying to invent evidence to convict someone.

The Appeals Court certainly figured out that was the reason they introduced the civil cases.

The door to doing that at next trial is nailed closed. Anybody who interprets this as a glowing endorsement of the Judge's decision to allow it really needs to read this decision more carefully. And now that Loren Freeman is Prosecutor, she needs to re-examine her own role in creating this travesty of justice, imo.

This stated purpose demonstrates the State’s intention of introducing these civil pleadings and judgments: to show proof of
Defendant’s guilt, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-149.


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

 

[oenophile]

You'll have to watch testimony of the hotel employees. Sorry, but I cannot quote testimony from multiple witnesses. The entire trial (both of them) is on WRAL. It's there for anyone to watch.

Tell you what, narrow it down to the cameras on the fourth floor. You made a claim that those cameras were inconsequential to the alibi of JY, all I am asking is for the testimony to back up that specific claim.

 

[Madeleine74]

Otto,

You've been following this case many years longer than I have and in much greater detail. There are probably hundreds of posts on WS over the years talking about the various cameras in the hotels, with some in depth analysis. You'll need to review prior posts, including the ones you wrote, and the testimony on wral.com to determine the facts of the case.

I'm not here to do homework for others, nor will I. I formed my opinions based on what I saw during the trials. I watched the testimony. The video testimony is available for one and all on wral.com. It's a helpful resource and no one has to take the word of anyone else, as they can watch testimony for themselves and come to their own conclusion. In fact, when there's an opportunity to do so, it's the best way to determine a case. Why take anyone else's word for anything if you have the chance to see and hear it for yourself? It's rare that case followers have that opportunity.

 

[citygirl]

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.

Very hard to understand. I'm not convinced that he never talked. He told his mother than he had given CY medication. Was he worried his prints would be on those bottles? As it turned out they weren't. Why own up to that? And how did his family know what was missing from the house? Who told them?

 

[citygirl]

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

Nothing to support that claim other than the penitentiary guidelines. Is there an age requirement?

 

[minor4th]

The state demonstrated how the cameras were tampered with. There was testimony about the cameras. It's all right there on www.wral.com.

Yes there was a lot of testimony about the cameras that were tampered with, but there was essentially no testimony or explanation of what it means that:

1. There are no camera captures of Jason entering his room on the 4th floor 6 minutes after he checked in, No pictures of him taking the elevator to the 4th floor.

2. No camera captures of Jason leaving his 4th floor room, traveling down the stairwell, or leaving through the emergency exit with the security camera to retrieve his charger from his car

3. No camera captures of Jason re-entering the hotel back through the propped open emergency exit next to the stairwell at roughly the same time the stairwell camera was unplugged

4. No surveillance footage of Jason arriving back on the 4th floor with his charger around 11:20 and no captures of him re-entering his propped open 4th floor hotel room.

5. No captures of Jason leaving his 4th floor room or walking on the 4th floor around midnight when he took a different route without being captured by any of the hotel's 14 cameras - somehow appearing at the lobby desk at midnight in different clothes than his Cracker Barrel attire and getting a newspaper

6, Video of Jason walking down the hall towards the side exit ( even though he was only a couple of feet from the main entrance/exit at the lobby) and towards the now- inoperable stairwell camera. But no video of him leaving the hotel to smoke a cigar and read the paper, no video of him returning through the propped open door or otherwise, no video of him on the 4th floor or re-entering his propped-open -door hotel room to nestle on for the whole night.

7. No video of Jason leaving his 4th floor room at around 6:30 a.m., no video of him anywhere on the 4th floor, no video of Jason taking the elevator downstairs with his luggage or leaving the hotel (through any door, by any camera)

8. No video of Jason anywhere in the hotel the morning of Nov 3, and a conspicuous absence of Jason on any video shot of the breakfast buffet area where he claims to have sat down and eaten breakfast.

Really think about all of these circumstances and tell me how this is possible if Jason did all the coming and going he testified about.

The question has been raised as to how Jason could possibly leave the hotel at midnight for several hours and return at 6:30 and grab his receipt without ever being captured on camera. My answer is he obviously was able to enter and leave the hotel at least twice without being captured on video and enter and leave his 4th floor hotel room at least three times according to Jason's story and never be caught on video.

That's amazing! It's even more amazing than Jason entering and leaving his room once at around 11, eluding all cameras, getting a newspaper at midnight and leaving the hotel through a propped open side door with no operable camera -and returning around 6-6:30 pointing the stairwell camera up and entering and leaving his 4th floor room once more at 6:30 -ish to grab his receipt and exit through the door with the tampered with camera.

Really chew on this because I suggest the only camera evidence that means anything is the two shots of him at the front desk and in the side hallway (established two points of reference for charting his location at specific times). And the timing of the stairwell camera being tampered with twice. Other than that the absence of Jason in any other surveillance neither proves that he was in his room all night, nor does it prove that he was not in his room.

Poor guy - if he had only taken his key card with him on all those trips outside and back into his room, he could have totally exonerated himself and proved his alibi was airtight!!

 

[minor4th]

Very hard to understand. I'm not convinced that he never talked. He told his mother than he had given CY medication. Was he worried his prints would be on those bottles? As it turned out they weren't. Why own up to that? And how did his family know what was missing from the house? Who told them?

I don't think he talked much to his mom and sister because he had to wait til he had the states evidence before he constructed his story. I do not think he confessed to his family or that they are covering for him or helping him get away with murder.

Jason told his family only what he wanted them to convey to investigators (like what was supposedly missing and the discovery of a humidor in storage months or years later).

Other than feeding self serving intel to investigators through his mom - I don't think he talked to anyone or gave anyone an explanation of his actions on Nov 2-3 until he had constructed a detailed and thorough "alibi" to account for all the states evidence. IMO IMO IMO