Jason Young to get new trial #4

[JusticeFever]

When I listen to police reports, I think about spousal murder cases in places like North Carolina, where police make up their minds before they understand evidence. Different angles are examined when a police force is open minded. Police in NC need to convince others that they didn't have tunnel vision. ... oops ... tangent ...

The fact that the prosecution, the forensic lab, and officers were in bed together as the innocent were convicted, for more than a decade will always be a stain on NC.

And, in some cases, the reason for 3 overturned convictions in NC.......

 

[oenophile]

My opinion of guilt was/is based on the TOTALITY of the evidence. Not just the cameras, the doors, the blood splatter and print, the hushpuppy orbital print, Gracie's testimony, the closet and moving of Michelle, Cassidy's bathroom, Cassidy being left there, the hose running, Meredith's call to find her sister...

I and others who think he is not guilty believe so based on the TOTALITY of the evidence as well. I think where we differ is that we look at each piece of evidence and evaluate its credibility based on a thorough examination from multiple perspectives. If you just look at evidence from the perspective of the prosecution, or based on an emotional reaction assuming his guilt, then you are likely to form the conclusion that they want you to form. But the TOTALITY of the evidence also needs to consider exculpatory evidence, the level of credibility of evidence (including testimony), etc. The fact that the evidence is circumstantial is irrelevant, the important part is to weigh the evidence according to its probative value and credibility.

...JY's lack of cooperation, JY's lack of communication, etc. I also view Cassidy being kept from the Fishers, the lawsuits and JY being named the one who slaughtered Michelle, Jy handing over custody to avoid psyche exam and questions as VERY damaging to JY.

But these are not things that should be used to determine his guilt. And the consideration of the civil lawsuit is precisely the reason why the second trial was overturned. The reason why people are protected from self incrimination is because law enforcement are EXPERTS at making innocent people seem guilty.


This case constantly reminds me of the Christmas cartoon "Santa Claus is Comin to Town" where the Narrator explains how Kris Kringle did something, and the little girl's voice says "Oh THAT's how he does that!". The little girl believes that Santa can do something, like come down a chimney, but cannot figure out how he did it, and the Narrator makes a perfectly rational explanation for how it was done. The little girl is satisfied now that she understand how it works, because she comes into the story assuming that Santa can come down chimneys. But she completely ignores the fact that there is no such thing as Santa.

 

[oenophile]

Yes, I am the one who has been referred to as saying I think JY is guilty and nothing will change my mind. Yes, I lived very close to Birchleaf and yes, I formed an intelligent and educated opinion based on all evidence presented at both trials.

On second thought, I am going to directly challenge you on this statement. Based on the threads on this forum, you stated your opinion as to JY's guilt prior to either trial. Long before either trial, in 2008 to be specific. Are you saying that sometime between 2008 and the beginning of the first trial, you changed your mind and you became unsure of his guilt?

I can honestly state that I formed an intelligent and educated opinion based on the evidence discussed here and from watching parts of both trials. I did not enter this forum believing him to be either innocent or guilty, and I did not come to a conclusion prior to ALL of the evidence being presented at trial.

 

[JusticeFever]

Many things about this case are still unclear and maybe always will be.

But, the one that leaves me :banghead: is my fault for not listening to all of Gracie's testimony and for never seeing these things pointed out before, such as Gracie saying there was no one else at the gas station when Jason was, and for not following up with the receipt or if the gas station had a record of an overage. Wouldn't Gracie be obligated to tell her boss, Tiki, when she came in that am, that the records on the pumps would show she was going to be over $5.00 and give some type of explanation of what happened. Also, it is so hard to follow Becky Holt in this trial, there is one sentence where she says UMM at least 4 times, and she is so slow paced, and seems to get lost in the questioning, and to be honest, either doesn't know this case that well, or is just unprepared, which makes listening to any testimony difficult. I also don't know why the defense did not ask Tiki Ingram any questions at all .

 

[Madeleine74]

The point where I felt that JY was responsible/guilty was when I saw the testimony on how he and his family took CY away right after the daycare incident and then later would not allow her to spend more than a couple hours, supervised at every point, with her maternal family and then only 2 or 3 times and then they cut off all visits, even refusing to give CY her presents from her maternal side. Manipulation of a toddler child and blackmailing her aunt and grandma were additional nails in that coffin. That kind of behavior showed exactly who and what JY and his mom and associates were all about. IMO it was never about CY's best interests and the primary focus was protecting JY. Then, when JY later wrote an email to his sister, hoping that there would never be an arrest for the murder (and referencing Raven Aboroa and Eric Rudolph), that was a telling thing as well. IMO he had lots of tells in his behavior and actions.

 

[JusticeFever]

Jason Young never mentioned Eric Rudolph is his email to Kim. Never. Ever. Never.


Also, the relationship between the Youngs and Fishers had started to go downhill fast, not only because they may not have shown any support for Jason , but because there was testimony
that LF said at the funeral they should grab CY and just go. This probably had a lot to do
with any visits, supervised or unsupervised....wouldn't you think?

 

[JusticeFever]

On second thought, I am going to directly challenge you on this statement. Based on the threads on this forum, you stated your opinion as to JY's guilt prior to either trial. Long before either trial, in 2008 to be specific. Are you saying that sometime between 2008 and the beginning of the first trial, you changed your mind and you became unsure of his guilt?

I can honestly state that I formed an intelligent and educated opinion based on the evidence discussed here and from watching parts of both trials. I did not enter this forum believing him to be either innocent or guilty, and I did not come to a conclusion prior to ALL of the evidence being presented at trial.

Where are you now, on guilt vs. innocence?

 

[oenophile]

Where are you now, on guilt vs. innocence?

I now believe him to be innocent. I'll admit I was hesitant at first to make a judgement either way, but based on the totality of the evidence, I believe that he didn't do it. Which is to say that I go above and beyond that he is "not guilty" due to reasonable doubt, but rather that the preponderance of the evidence points toward innocence. The only circumstantial evidence that suggests he did it is Gracie's testimony, and I do not find that remotely credible. I do think she had an encounter with a belligerent person that morning, however there is absolutely no evidence that would make me believe that it was JY that she encountered. In addition, there is so much exculpatory evidence (gas mileage, cigarette butts, shoe prints, etc) that I simply cannot fathom how anyone can conclude that he is guilty of this crime.

 

[citygirl]

I was just making an observation about the thread. You have all of the right in the world to form any opinion that you wish about Jason Young and to talk about it to and with anyone who will listen. Jason's actions were pretty despicable in my opinion also. And the adverse opinions that have been formed from the revelations about Jason's infidelities have probably been the X factor in his conviction.

If there were a law against adultery and the like, I would have no problem with him being found guilty and punished to the full extent of the law. However, I am not for finding a person guilty based upon how unlikable he is.

Those infidelities are relevant only if they revealed that Jason wanted out of his marriage to be with one of those illicit lovers, but that does not appear to be the case.

I really do not know what point you were trying to make about the shoeshine kit. The LE were the ones who tested it and found DNA which did not match Jason Young. The LE were the ones who found the DNA on the jewelry box which did not match that of Jason Young. The LE were the ones that found the hair clutched in Michelle's hand which had been pulled out by the root, the DNA of which did not match Jason Young nor Michelle Young. They were the ones who selected the items to be tested. I am only commenting on what probable, rational conclusions can be drawn from that evidence.

I do not recall who found the cigarette butts with DNA that did not match that of Jason Young. But it also is pertinent, providing another bit of real forensic evidence that there were unknown people in the house that night and the probability that they were participants in the murder.

All of that is probable evidence of someone else besides Jason Young being the murderer. The hair is the closest thing anyone can find to proof positive that Jason was not the murderer. If that hair had of been Jason's, I would have no doubts that Jason was the murderer.

Glenn

The X factor? I've never seen or read about him being convicted due to his indiscretions. Did I miss this?

Nor have I seen where he was convicted because he is unlikeable.

His infidelities are relevant because it points to his state of mind prior to his wife's murder. He sent an email to GC , just 2 months shy of his wife's murder, declaring his undying love for her. He chastised her for "visiting" him in his dreams and causing him to lie awake for the rest of the night. One would assume he was lying awake next to his pregnant wife with his toddler in the next room. But he wanted to stay married and he loved his wife? Really? We are to believe that he was a solid husband and yearning to make his marriage work?

I honestly knew nothing about the shoeshine kit. Just picked up on that when reviewing JY's testimony. Was curious about the chain of custody, that's all. JY's DNA was found on the wall outside of his closet. Everyone said that was old and not in blood. Let's apply that standard to the DNA on the shoeshine box and the jewelry box. Neither were in blood right? Who knows how old that DNA is? Yes it is unknown but it could be anyone in the past.

The same applies to the cig butts. No way to know how long they had been there. Does not in any way infer that this person was there that night.

MOO.

 

[SteelerGirl43]

The X factor? I've never seen or read about him being convicted due to his indiscretions. Did I miss this?

Nor have I seen where he was convicted because he is unlikeable.

His infidelities are relevant because it points to his state of mind prior to his wife's murder. He sent an email to GC , just 2 months shy of his wife's murder, declaring his undying love for her. He chastised her for "visiting" him in his dreams and causing him to lie awake for the rest of the night. One would assume he was lying awake next to his pregnant wife with his toddler in the next room. But he wanted to stay married and he loved his wife? Really? We are to believe that he was a solid husband and yearning to make his marriage work?

I honestly knew nothing about the shoeshine kit. Just picked up on that when reviewing JY's testimony. Was curious about the chain of custody, that's all. JY's DNA was found on the wall outside of his closet. Everyone said that was old and not in blood. Let's apply that standard to the DNA on the shoeshine box and the jewelry box. Neither were in blood right? Who knows how old that DNA is? Yes it is unknown but it could be anyone in the past.

The same applies to the cig butts. No way to know how long they had been there. Does not in any way infer that this person was there that night.

MOO.

Actually you can tell how long it may have been there.. If out there for a bit in the weather it would change color... If in the snow or rain it would be wet..Or be very dry... You can tell if a cig butt is fresh (like a few days) or been out theres for days on days....

 

[SteelerGirl43]

Jason Young never mentioned Eric Rudolph is his email to Kim. Never. Ever. Never.


Also, the relationship between the Youngs and Fishers had started to go downhill fast, not only because they may not have shown any support for Jason , but because there was testimony
that LF said at the funeral they should grab CY and just go. This probably had a lot to do
with any visits, supervised or unsupervised....wouldn't you think?

If I or any of my loved ones or friends overheard my in laws saying they would take my child & run you can bet your sweet behind I'd keep him or her away from the wanna be kidnappers....

 

[JusticeFever]

I now believe him to be innocent. I'll admit I was hesitant at first to make a judgement either way, but based on the totality of the evidence, I believe that he didn't do it. Which is to say that I go above and beyond that he is "not guilty" due to reasonable doubt, but rather that the preponderance of the evidence points toward innocence. The only circumstantial evidence that suggests he did it is Gracie's testimony, and I do not find that remotely credible. I do think she had an encounter with a belligerent person that morning, however there is absolutely no evidence that would make me believe that it was JY that she encountered. In addition, there is so much exculpatory evidence (gas mileage, cigarette butts, shoe prints, etc) that I simply cannot fathom how anyone can conclude that he is guilty of this crime.

I started out guilty as well, but the evidence that was supposed to be so completely overwhelming, just isn't there. The case went on too long, and there is just sooooooooo much doubt.

Gracie has been completely discredited, imo.....in fact, if you compare her testimony from the first trial to the 2nd trial, which I am listening to now, I just found some glaring major discrepancies!!!! I will link and post them later.

 

[JusticeFever]

If I or any of my loved ones or friends overheard my in laws saying they would take my child & run you can bet your sweet behind I'd keep him or her away from the wanna be kidnappers....

I know.......

 

[oenophile]

Gracie has been completely discredited, imo.....in fact, if you compare her testimony from the first trial to the 2nd trial, which I am listening to now, I just found some glaring major discrepancies!!!! I will link and post them later.

Just to be clear, I believe that Gracie believes she saw JY. Which is what makes it so sad. Eyewitness testimony is among the most unreliable, just look at the innocent people that have been convicted of crimes and then exonerated. When she was interviewed, the memory already wasn't fresh, and JY was suggested to her by police. Now I am pretty sure she is convinced it was JY, but I have zero confidence that it actually was.

 

[citygirl]

Jason Young never mentioned Eric Rudolph is his email to Kim. Never. Ever. Never.


Also, the relationship between the Youngs and Fishers had started to go downhill fast, not only because they may not have shown any support for Jason , but because there was testimony
that LF said at the funeral they should grab CY and just go. This probably had a lot to do
with any visits, supervised or unsupervised....wouldn't you think?

Totally agree. So the Youngs made a preemptive strike. They grabbed CY and took her to Brevard. Away from her aunt and grandmother who she had spent more time with her. The best thing for CY after losing her mother. Just whisk her away and take her to the mountains. Ummm, okay.

 

[citygirl]

Actually you can tell how long it may have been there.. If out there for a bit in the weather it would change color... If in the snow or rain it would be wet..Or be very dry... You can tell if a cig butt is fresh (like a few days) or been out theres for days on days....

Fair enough. Where has any of that analysis been done? Was it ever done? Should it have been done by the defense? Who dropped the ball on such implied significant evidence? Why did the defense not hammer away at this?

 

[citygirl]

On second thought, I am going to directly challenge you on this statement. Based on the threads on this forum, you stated your opinion as to JY's guilt prior to either trial. Long before either trial, in 2008 to be specific. Are you saying that sometime between 2008 and the beginning of the first trial, you changed your mind and you became unsure of his guilt?

I can honestly state that I formed an intelligent and educated opinion based on the evidence discussed here and from watching parts of both trials. I did not enter this forum believing him to be either innocent or guilty, and I did not come to a conclusion prior to ALL of the evidence being presented at trial.

You watched PARTS of both trials and came to an intelligent and educated opinion? Also based on the evidence discussed here? And this makes you more qualified than the original poster? More intelligent and educated? Do I have that right? Just askin'.

 

[citygirl]

Many things about this case are still unclear and maybe always will be.

But, the one that leaves me :banghead: is my fault for not listening to all of Gracie's testimony and for never seeing these things pointed out before, such as Gracie saying there was no one else at the gas station when Jason was, and for not following up with the receipt or if the gas station had a record of an overage. Wouldn't Gracie be obligated to tell her boss, Tiki, when she came in that am, that the records on the pumps would show she was going to be over $5.00 and give some type of explanation of what happened. Also, it is so hard to follow Becky Holt in this trial, there is one sentence where she says UMM at least 4 times, and she is so slow paced, and seems to get lost in the questioning, and to be honest, either doesn't know this case that well, or is just unprepared, which makes listening to any testimony difficult. I also don't know why the defense did not ask Tiki Ingram any questions at all .

Perhaps they didn't pursue it is because they knew that Gracie had told her about the altercation and accounted for the extra $5 dollars in the register?
I agree.The umms are killers. Holt is slow as is JY's other attorney. Not Klinkosum. MOO.

 

[oenophile]

You watched PARTS of both trials and came to an intelligent and educated opinion? Also based on the evidence discussed here?

Yes, absolutely. You do not need to have watched both trials in their entirety to come to an intelligent and educated opinion. The format of trials is for both sides to present a narrative, then they enter evidence in order to support that narrative. You can come away with a sufficient understanding of the evidence and narrative without watching the entire trials. Part of this is through observing debate. In addition, I watched substantial portions of the trials, especially the important testimony (MF, JY, MM, Gracie, blood experts, hotel management, etc). While I would agree that it would deliver a more complete view of the case to watch both trials in their entirety, it certainly isn't necessary to come to a reasoned conclusion, particularly when the discussions here reveal the critical parts of the case to focus on. I've served on a jury before for a criminal case. I remember vividly from that case the critical testimony, both from the prosecution and the defense, that swayed my opinion. In a good portion of a trial, you can take an hour long piece of testimony and summarize it in a sentence. You needed the hour in order to establish the foundation for what the witness said, but if the sentence-long summary is uncontested, there really is no need to go back and watch the entire hour.

And this makes you more qualified than the original poster? More intelligent and educated? Do I have that right? Just askin'.

I never said I was more qualified than the original poster. And I'll make no judgements about comparing intelligence and education. I am saying that I walked into the discussion without an opinion as to his innocence or guilt. Many people that claim to have started with an open mind were talking about his guilt long before either trial started. And thus I can say that it makes me less biased than those people.

 

[JusticeFever]

new board, new format, nice!!