Jason Young to get new trial #3

[otto]

I think he got the newspaper so he could cover the camera with it while he was manipulating it - and not be seen on the camera

There would be footage of the newspaper if that happened.

 

[minor4th]

He managed to plan lots of things in his life: several rendezvous with MM, sales call(s), increasing the life insurance to an amount neither the attorney or his wife thought was reasonable, printouts of a map and ebay purse auction (took the map, oops turned the ebay printout over and left it on the printer--then why the urgent need to get someone to retrieve a piece of paper upside down on the printer?), a plan to stop for dinner at Cracker Barrel (oops, didn't realize the camera above the cashier would capture pics of his shoes).

He could and did plan but he's not perfect; no one is perfect. He got caught, big time. And he lied and lied and lied and got caught in that too when he went on record in his first trial and then had to face a 2nd. There's a reason he did not take the stand again. But too late. A jury can watch his testimony from his first trial and compare it to the evidence that is introduced that rebuts what he said.

And this is pretty typical of anyone who commits a premeditated murder. There is no way to plan every detail and account for every contingency. Jason planned part of his alibi, but he didnt perfectly anticipate all that would add up to incrimnating evidence.

He thought he would get away with it because he was out of town and thought there would be no way to prove his involvement. Just like Jodi Arias, just like Martin MacNeill, and just like every criminal who got convicted after they thought theyd get away with it.

 

[SStarr33]

Why? Because they had heard he went by himself? Were they taken aback because they thought he lied under oath? Perhaps we will hear from Cort in the next trial?

They didn't bring him as a rebuttal witness?

 

[SStarr33]

That would suggest that the body was moved and the scene was staged some time after the murder.

Yes it does.

 

[otto]

And this is pretty typical of anyone who commits a premeditated murder. There is no way to plan every detail and account for every contingency. Jason planned part of his alibi, but he didnt perfectly anticipate all that would add up to incrimnating evidence.

He thought he would get away with it because he was out of town and thought there would be no way to prove his involvement. Just like Jodi Arias, just like Martin MacNeill, and just like every criminal who got convicted after they thought theyd get away with it.

The conviction of Arias was very easy given that she took photos of the murder and then left the camera at the scene of the crime. Chris Porco drove several hours to murder his parents, then he returned to his campus residence. There was all sorts of footage and identification of his vehicle during that round trip. Why isn't there footage of Jason during his round trip?

 

[SStarr33]

The conviction of Arias was very easy given that she took photos of the murder and then left the camera at the scene of the crime. Chris Porco drove several hours to murder his parents, then he returned to his campus residence. There was all sorts of footage of his vehicle during that round trip. Why isn't there footage of Jason during his round trip?

Excellent question.

Comparing this to evidence in the Arias trial is showing desperation IMO.

 

[minor4th]

Thanks ... the thing with the witness with memory issues ... I think it is a fact that she no longer has any memory of the event. It has been so many years that even someone with a good memory will lose some clarity of memory. It believe that the only way that witness could testify again is if she is told what to say.

Her memory can be refreshed with her police statements and her prior testimony. If she still cant remember or testifies to something different, then her previous statements can be admitted as prior inconsistent statements.

I believe her testimony will be weighted appropriately, given her memory issues and her cognitive issues and the way in which the identification was made.

Her testimony may not bee completely reliable or trustworthy, but its probably a small tick in favor of the state. Her testimony on its own would not convince anyone of JYs guilt but it fits in perfectly with the states proposed time line, and she has no motivation to fabricate her testimony or insert herself in the case. The same can basically be said of the defenses eye witnesses as well.

 

[otto]

Excellent question.

Comparing this to evidence in the Arias trial is showing desperation IMO.

This case has nothing in common with Jodi Arias ... in my humble opinion. This is allegedly a situation where a young man decided to murder someone and who did everything possible to avoid detection while driving hours to and from the murder scene. Chris Porco did this. Allegedly, Jason Young did this. Porco's vehicle was captured by several local video cameras leaving and returning to campus. His vehicle was seen at his parent's home. Porco committed the murder prior to the death of Michelle, so, if anything, there would have been more cameras than when Porco murdered his father and left his mother with a severe, permanent brain injury. Where is that footage?

 

[minor4th]

The conviction of Arias was very easy given that she took photos of the murder and then left the camera at the scene of the crime. Chris Porco drove several hours to murder his parents, then he returned to his campus residence. There was all sorts of footage and identification of his vehicle during that round trip. Why isn't there footage of Jason during his round trip?

My point was - she thought she would get away with it because she was out of town on a pre-arranged trip. The question was asked why Jason would commit a murder when he must have known his affairs and phone records and marital difficulties would be scrutinized. That was the comparison I was trying to make with Arias - it happens all the time; criminals plan what they believe is a crime that they will get away with, even though we can all see in hindsight that the criminal obviously did not make a very good plan and would inevitably be investigated and caught.

Yes, of course, the evidence was much stronger and irrefutable against Arias, and Im not comparing the cases on that basis.

 

[minor4th]

Excellent question.

Comparing this to evidence in the Arias trial is showing desperation IMO.

If you read the post again (the one that youre referring to as desperate) you will find that there was no comparison of the evidence. Not sure why you would say that when the post is clearly only comparing the shaky alibis

 

[otto]

Her memory can be refreshed with her police statements and her prior testimony. If she still cant remember or testifies to something different, then her previous statements can be admitted as prior inconsistent statements.

I believe her testimony will be weighted appropriately, given her memory issues and her cognitive issues and the way in which the identification was made.

Her testimony may not be completely reliable or trustworthy, but its probably a small tick in favor of the state. Her testimony on its own would not convince anyone of JYs guilt but it fits in perfectly with the states proposed time line, and she has no motivation to fabricate her testimony or insert herself in the case. The same can basically be said of the defenses eye witnesses as well.

BBM

Anyone with an unreliable or untrustworthy memory should not be a witness at a murder trial. I think that is common sense.

Her memory can be refreshed with a lot of help, like it was during the second trial. If I were the defense, I would deliberately mix her up, switch up the questions, throw in questions that intend to identify whether she is reciting or remembering. I would focus on the fact that nothing she said that morning was factual, and nothing could be verified.

People of reduced intellect often want to please adults and people in authority. She has no reason to fabricate a statement, but investigators do have a reason to use her to further their agenda.

 

[SStarr33]

Listening to the trial, I am embarrassed for the State. Reminds me of the way I felt about the Zimmerman case.

They just keep harping on the fact that he did not talk to anyone. Such a joke.

 

[otto]

My point was - she thought she would get away with it because she was out of town on a pre-arranged trip. The question was asked why Jason would commit a murder when he must have known his affairs and phone records and marital difficulties would be scrutinized. That was the comparison I was trying to make with Arias - it happens all the time; criminals plan what they believe is a crime that they will get away with, even though we can all see in hindsight that the criminal obviously did not make a very good plan and would inevitably be investigated and caught.

Yes, of course, the evidence was much stronger and irrefutable against Arias, and Im not comparing the cases on that basis.

I see a significant difference in that Arias was on a road trip at the time of the murder, so she wasn't presumed to be in any particular location. Jason Young and Chris Porco were presumed to be at a specific location at the times of the murders.

 

[SteelerGirl43]

Grammy Jean, I don't think this is entirely true. The state went to great lengths to discredit Mrs. Beaver and I thought they treated her horribly. If you listen to her testimony, you will hear how she was bullied over the years when giving her statements and how there even came a time, she wanted to back out. She couldn't take it any more. I am sorry, but they were really rough on her and the court allowed it. Her testimony never wavered and she knew what she saw. She lived on that street for 21 years.
A busybody would have been down at the Youngs house later that day butting in and giving her information. She never did that.....

Shame on the state... Bullies....

 

[minor4th]

I see a significant difference in that Arias was on a road trip at the time of the murder, so she wasn't presumed to be in any particular location. Jason Young and Chris Porco were presumed to be at a specific location at the times of the murders.

I think youre still missing my point

 

[minor4th]

I think that hotel exits need lighting, so there would have been enough light, even at night.

What was the wind speed next to the building?

I dont think thats necessarily true of emergency exits that are restricted. Not sure though

 

[minor4th]

Listening to the trial, I am embarrassed for the State. Reminds me of the way I felt about the Zimmerman case.

They just keep harping on the fact that he did not talk to anyone. Such a joke.

No need to feel embarrassed for the State; they got a unanimous guilty verdict, unlike the Zimmerman prosecutors who ended up with a unanimous not guilty verdict.

The fact that JY did not talk to anyone for 3 years and then comes forth with an explanation tailored to fit the evidence is a big deal. If it was just a joke and unimportant, the defense would not have tried to have the conviction overturned on the basis of the state discussing JYs 3 year silence and disinterest in helping police solve the murder.

 

[SStarr33]

"Something to do?" Ever try to read a newspaper outside at night, in the dark, in windy conditions? How did that work out?

How was he able to hold the newspaper and smoke a cigar at the same time? Remember the wind was gusty that evening -- he went into great detail about how he had to light up an entire match book in order to get the cigar lit. Where was the newspaper then? Finally, how would he have been able to see anything as small as sports scores in the dark?

More flotsam.

Here is an example for you. It's not dark, but you have not shown evidence that there was no light where he was smoking:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/fts/biloxi_201004A01.html

If he could smoke a stogie outside on his boat, I am sure JY could too

 

[minor4th]

BBM

Anyone with an unreliable or untrustworthy memory should not be a witness at a murder trial. I think that is common sense.

Her memory can be refreshed with a lot of help, like it was during the second trial. If I were the defense, I would deliberately mix her up, switch up the questions, throw in questions that intend to identify whether she is reciting or remembering. I would focus on the fact that nothing she said that morning was factual, and nothing could be verified.

People of reduced intellect often want to please adults and people in authority. She has no reason to fabricate a statement, but investigators do have a reason to use her to further their agenda.

Well, you cant just prohibit a witness from testifying in advance because the other side thinks a witness is not reliable. If theres a problem with her recall or her reliability, shell be impeached or called into question on cross examination. Its for the jury to decide how much weight to give her testimony and how to judge her reliability and credibility.

 

[otto]

I think youre still missing my point

No. I get what you're saying, it's just that I see the connection between Young and Arias as being obtuse, and the connection between Porco and Young being acute. All three allegedly attempted to get away with murder by establishing an alibi such that they were hundreds of miles away. Arias was somewhere unknown, miles away, Porco was on campus and was seen there on the night of the murder, miles from the murder ... same with Young ... seen on the night of the murder, miles from the murder. Porco and Young allegedly made a round trip in the middle of the night. Arias didn't.