Jason Young to get new trial #3

[sunshine05]

There is evidence of him leaving the hotel that night? You mean Jasons testimony? Other than that, I dont believe there is any evidence of when Jason was in his room or when he went outside or left the hotel. He was caught on camera walking down the hall - same direction of the stairs he had just descended (according to him)

As far as why he stepped outside - it is very important and not nitpicking. If his explanations for leaving the hotel (twice - at least one of which coincides with the camera being unplugged) are so improbable and unbelievable that they make absolutely no sense, then it indicates that his alibi is fabricated and specifically tailored to account for the circumstantial evidence against him.

The State (and some of you here) will suggest that it's not plausible that he would look at a newspaper or smoke a cigar, but who can say that? I mean, why go to the front desk at all to get a paper then? Doesn't that in itself support his story? Are we to believe he got the paper as part of his alibi. The State attacks his reasons for going to the car because they HAVE to. But what it really comes down to is the fact that will never change. There is zero proof that he ever left the hotel premises. Zero.

 

[Boodles]

He had a humidor, which was apparently some trinket that was given out in connection with his previous employment at QuickLock (or whatever). No cigars in it - no indication that he actually used it to store cigars. No one who has ever seen Jason smoke a cigar. No believable reason for him to suddenly crave a cigar at midnight on a freezing and blustery winter night. Is it possible? Well, its not impossible - but its so improbable that its not believable.

It might have been different if the humidor was found in his vehicle when it was seized, indicating that he may have actually brought a cigar with him -- but it was found much later when his house was being cleaned out (or in storage -- cant remember which)

If he actually had cigars, I missed that part.

IMO the cigar story is just an excuse he came up with to explain his leaving the hotel at midnight in case someone saw him or there ended up being some surveillance footage. He was covering his bases just in case some evidence of his departure came out.

But remember, the humidor was found by JY's family and this info was presented in his trial. This is after JY saw all the evidence and concocted his version of events. Mom deserves a big thanks for that one. :wink:

 

[sunshine05]

Its also not typical to take up smoking cigars in the freezing cold at midnight, alone, and at a hotel while ones wife is being murdered.

I could give you a big long list of Jasons behaviors that are not typical.

The humidor is a red herring, and theres no evidence Jason Young had ever smoked a cigar before.

Who are you to say what was "typical" for him? Yes, alone at a hotel, probably bored. Decided to step out for a smoke. What is so odd about that?!

Actually I believe there also was testimony from one of his friends that he would occasionally smoke a cigar.

The red herring is the State suggesting that he lied about smoking a cigar but was actually heading to Raleigh. No proof! Remember the door had to stay propped open all night for this (ridiculous) story to work.

 

[sunshine05]

They are reliable witnesses in your opinion - but their observations led to nothing and really shed no light on whether Jason committed the crime or not.

Led to nothing?! They are facts about this case that can't be explained away. What they indicate is that the case remains unsolved because JY couldn't be in two places at the same time.

 

[minor4th]

Who are you to say what was "typical" for him? Yes, alone at a hotel, probably bored. Decided to step out for a smoke. What is so odd about that?!



Actually I believe there also was testimony from one of his friends that he would occasionally smoke a cigar.



The red herring is the State suggesting that he lied about smoking a cigar but was actually heading to Raleigh. No proof! Remember the door had to stay propped open all night for this (ridiculous) story to work.

You keep saying no proof, no proof, but I and 16 jurors disagree.

As far as postulating on what's typical - I was simply responding in kind to a post that claimed that it's not typical to carry a humidor in the car.

Look, I'm very well aware that every single piece of evidence can be met with an explanation or rationalization or excuse. We all saw Jason do this in his second trial when he tried to account for every bit of minutiae presented I the states case in chief. Of course one can ALWAYS come up with some wild a$$ explanation about every particle of dust in the mountain of circumstantial evidence, but that doesn't mean those explanations are believable.

It's not like Jason has a history and reputation for honesty and integrity. He has a history of lying and cheating and sneaking around in order to do exactly as he pleases, without burdening himself with any concerns for the effects of his behavior on anyone else. Why exactly would anyone believe him without corroboration?

 

[minor4th]

Led to nothing?! They are facts about this case that can't be explained away. What they indicate is that the case remains unsolved because JY couldn't be in two places at the same time.

Uh .. A couple of cars seen by a couple of passers by at questionable and conflicting times and locations is meaningless. It's more likely it was Jason who was seen at 3:30 in the light colored SUV when all the lights in the Young house were conspicuously shining. Another light colored Van was seen at 5;30 .. Are you suggesting that there were 2 separate attacks on Michelle, perpetrated by 2 different assailants a couple of hours apart from each other? How do you decide which account is reliable and true and which one is wrong? How do you conclude that both of those sightings were not Jason parked at his house while murdering his wife?

I just don't see how these car sightings create any reasonable doubt.

 

[SStarr33]

Did the State do the math on the gas that was remaining in the car to determine if it was the correct amount given where JY had traveled?

 

[SStarr33]

Uh .. A couple of cars seen by a couple of passers by at questionable and conflicting times and locations is meaningless. It's more likely it was Jason who was seen at 3:30 in the light colored SUV when all the lights in the Young house were conspicuously shining. Another light colored Van was seen at 5;30 .. Are you suggesting that there were 2 separate attacks on Michelle, perpetrated by 2 different assailants a couple of hours apart from each other? How do you decide which account is reliable and true and which one is wrong? How do you conclude that both of those sightings were not Jason parked at his house while murdering his wife?

I just don't see how these car sightings create any reasonable doubt.

Does the clump of hair and the cigarette butts found that do not match JYs DNA bother you at all?

 

[jova33]

But remember, the humidor was found by JY's family and this info was presented in his trial. This is after JY saw all the evidence and concocted his version of events. Mom deserves a big thanks for that one. :wink:

JY also had receipts for cigars from before the murder. So either he had a time machine and went back in time to purchase cigars, or he's such a criminal mastermind, that he occasionally purchased cigars so that years later he could use smoking a cigar as an alibi when his wife is murdered.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

This is a fact I've always thought pointed to his guilt. He discussed this case with no one for years, then has benefit of discovery/state's case to use as his "blueprint" for his testimony......and he DID.

As far as his testimony, I think we all can criticize Becky Holt and yes, I think she should have been more prepared. IMO, DA's office was caught off guard and never thought JY would get on the stand. I thought his testimony was "staged" somewhat and all those "dry tears". Those close enough in the courtroom never once saw wetness in his murdering eyes!

However, JY and his testimony was crucial to his 2nd trial as he was locked in this testimony and will be in his 3rd trial as well. This will hurt his case IMO.

Investigators claimed that had a long, long list of questions that accumulated over the years. Investigators were desperate for answers from Jason. Their desperation for answers led to criticisms of Jason's silence in the media. Holt had her opportunity to ask each and every one of those questions, but when the time came, she had nothing to say. Therefore, I think that investigators never had any questions. They were simply looking for any excuse to criticize Jason.

 

[sunshine05]

You keep saying no proof, no proof, but I and 16 jurors disagree.

As far as postulating on what's typical - I was simply responding in kind to a post that claimed that it's not typical to carry a humidor in the car.

Look, I'm very well aware that every single piece of evidence can be met with an explanation or rationalization or excuse. We all saw Jason do this in his second trial when he tried to account for every bit of minutiae presented I the states case in chief. Of course one can ALWAYS come up with some wild a$$ explanation about every particle of dust in the mountain of circumstantial evidence, but that doesn't mean those explanations are believable.

It's not like Jason has a history and reputation for honesty and integrity. He has a history of lying and cheating and sneaking around in order to do exactly as he pleases, without burdening himself with any concerns for the effects of his behavior on anyone else. Why exactly would anyone believe him without corroboration?

But there's no evidence that he lied at trial about anything. We must give people accused of something the benefit of the doubt unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise. There is not. It is startling to me that so many are quick to convict on the basis of "could haves". It is not supposed to work that way. How would you feel if you were convicted of murder because the jurors didn't believe you smoked a cigar? This is very serious stuff....to accuse someone of something and stitch together a series of events that in no way point to the person. We've been through it over and over and I can't understand how one could possibly attribute a tampered camera to a person when someone else's prints and DNA were found on the camera. It takes my breath away that this line of thinking exists.

So what is the scenario? He went to his room and changed his shirt in preparation for the trip back to Raleigh (didn't change because it's cold outside), then goes to the front desk so he can be seen (part of the alibi) then what? He didn't even have to say that he went out to smoke, did he? I mean, he sat through the whole trial and no shot of him stepping outside is seen. Could it be....maybe...that he was simply being honest?

 

[sunshine05]

Uh .. A couple of cars seen by a couple of passers by at questionable and conflicting times and locations is meaningless. It's more likely it was Jason who was seen at 3:30 in the light colored SUV when all the lights in the Young house were conspicuously shining. Another light colored Van was seen at 5;30 .. Are you suggesting that there were 2 separate attacks on Michelle, perpetrated by 2 different assailants a couple of hours apart from each other? How do you decide which account is reliable and true and which one is wrong? How do you conclude that both of those sightings were not Jason parked at his house while murdering his wife?

I just don't see how these car sightings create any reasonable doubt.

Three people saw a light SUV
Witness #1 - initially between 4-5AM --- changed to 3-4AM at trial (no reason for this change)

Witness #2 - description of two people inside the light SUV, 5:30AM (VERY precise time as she was enroute to work). Story never wavered. Nothing to gain by coming forward with information.

Witness #3 - again, light SUV - no one inside -- timing is anywhere from 6-7

These are not contradictory at all. They corroborate each other by the simple fact that there are THREE accounts. Compare that to Gracie -- it is she alone, no one to corroborate that and she incorrectly described him and never viewed a proper photo line-up.

It seems likely that the light SUV was there from as early as 3AM and remained until 6-7AM. Three people can't be explained as mistaken. This is exculpatory evidence of innocence and contradicts the State's theory.

 

[sunshine05]

Did the State do the math on the gas that was remaining in the car to determine if it was the correct amount given where JY had traveled?

The State never addressed the mileage/gas at all. It was too damaging to their case.

 

[SStarr33]

The State never addressed the mileage/gas at all. It was too damaging to their case.

Why didn't the defense do it? Math challenged?

 

[SStarr33]

And they were after the truth......the DA's office did everything they could with the evidence they had to prove JY slaughtered his wife and unborn son.

They had nothing except for the fact that he is immature.

The people that slaughtered them were in his driveway when CB drove by.

 

[Grammy Jean]

The State (and some of you here) will suggest that it's not plausible that he would look at a newspaper or smoke a cigar, but who can say that? I mean, why go to the front desk at all to get a paper then? Doesn't that in itself support his story? Are we to believe he got the paper as part of his alibi. The State attacks his reasons for going to the car because they HAVE to. But what it really comes down to is the fact that will never change. There is zero proof that he ever left the hotel premises. Zero.

If he did go outside on a cold windy midnight to read the paper and smoke a cigar( DT could not produce one witness to ever say they saw JY smoke a cigar)
why didn't he then take the paper back up to his room and trash it after he smoked the cigar or toss it in a can by the exit door. I think he took that newspaper and headed right back to Raleigh. Why else would he have had that paper in his car?

 

[Grammy Jean]

They had nothing except for the fact that he is immature.

The people that slaughtered them were in his driveway when BH drove by.

Who is BH? Maybe you meant CB?

 

[Grammy Jean]

Three people saw a light SUV
Witness #1 - initially between 4-5AM --- changed to 3-4AM at trial (no reason for this change)

Witness #2 - description of two people inside the light SUV, 5:30AM (VERY precise time as she was enroute to work). Story never wavered. Nothing to gain by coming forward with information.

Witness #3 - again, light SUV - no one inside -- timing is anywhere from 6-7

These are not contradictory at all. They corroborate each other by the simple fact that there are THREE accounts. Compare that to Gracie -- it is she alone, no one to corroborate that and she incorrectly described him and never viewed a proper photo line-up.

It seems likely that the light SUV was there from as early as 3AM and remained until 6-7AM. Three people can't be explained as mistaken. This is exculpatory evidence of innocence and contradicts the State's theory.

So your witness 1 must be TT the NYT lady who yes when cross examined agreed her time there was more like 3-3:30 and in trial 2 was called by the state
Your witness 2 is CB who was described by her boss as a busy body always getting into other employees business and at one time falsely accused a o-worker of something they did not do. The boss stated he had to constantly intervene.
Your witness 3 FH a witty sweet older citizen who was confused and when cross examined said she was never on Birchleaf that morning. She said that was not the route she took.

So as I said in a previous post if Gracie's account is questionable these 3 witnesses do not help DT

 

[oenophile]

It is startling to me that so many are quick to convict on the basis of "could haves".

RANT

This, to me, is the crux of this entire case. The people that are so adamant to declare that Jason Young "slaughtered his wife and unborn child" are working almost entirely off of "could haves". And I find this beyond appalling, I think it is a scary condemnation of the American Justice System as one that is more interested in finding a scapegoat than finding a killer. I cannot begin to describe the absolute disgust I have when I read how people are unwilling to consider any alternative other than "the husband did it".

Someone was killed, tragically. But automatically blaming the husband because "statistics" say he is the most likely killer is abhorrent. To me, it is almost as bad as the murder itself, because it unjustly destroys an innocent life. And the most vocal advocates hide behind "domestic violence" and other red herrings in order to gain some comfort in punishing someone, however wrongly, for a heinous crime. This is not justice. It is not even vigilantism. It is simply wrong.

JY deserves the benefit of the doubt. If he committed the crime, prove it. Don't hide behind "could haves" and "coincidences". Prove it.

The DA and the Police are particularly at fault here. Unfortunately, in our justice system, there is actually more of a presumption of guilt, because most people believe that the government would not bring charges against someone unless they are actually guilty. In this case, the evidence leads elsewhere. Stop focusing on the "could haves" and focus on what actually happened.

/RANT

 

[Grammy Jean]

Who are you to say what was "typical" for him? Yes, alone at a hotel, probably bored. Decided to step out for a smoke. What is so odd about that?!

Actually I believe there also was testimony from one of his friends that he would occasionally smoke a cigar.

The red herring is the State suggesting that he lied about smoking a cigar but was actually heading to Raleigh. No proof! Remember the door had to stay propped open all night for this (ridiculous) story to work.

I do not believe the DT had one witness to say JY occasionally smoked a cigar. If you have a link that proves me wrong then Okay.
The door in fact did not need to stay open as once it was 6:30 you could get back in without a keycard.