Jason Young to get new trial #4

[SteelerGirl43]

Chilling. You can see where she might have laid on her back and made bloody swipes with her feet. Disgusting. Poor child. Just awful.

I do not believe she laid on her back.. Wheres the bloody shirt?

 

[SStarr33]

I am new to this forum, although not entirely new to the case. I approach everything with a presumption of innocence just as I would if I were a juror. I actually have only come close to being a juror once,so I really do not know the view from the inside.
With any trial, I am looking for evidence, whether it be direct or circumstantial, in order to come to a conclusion of guilt or innocence. In this case, I probably do not have enough facts to make a really informed choice.

For instance, the gas mileage receipts paint a picture that is pretty consistent. But I do not have enough information on the Ford Explorer to get much further.
For a Ford SUV with a V8 engine, 19.5 MPG is a stretch, but still within the realms of possibility. However, with a 4.0 liter V6, 19.5 MPG is doable.

I did a bit of math myself, adding the miles from Hillsville back to Raleigh, to King NC, back to Hillsville, to Clintwood, and the Duffield. A total of around 550 miles. If JY had filled up in Hillsville before allegedly heading back to Raleigh, then picked up 6.94 gallons of gas in King, then added a little over nineteen gallons in Duffield, that would require that his vehicle average 20.7 or more MPG. For a 4.0 V6 engine, this is a bit of a stretch, but not out of the realm of possibility.

If Jason would have had to have filled up in Hillsville or not too far out on his alleged return trip, or the apparent gas mileage would have really been out of whack.

That being said, it is the prosecutions job to provide evidence that Jason did fill up in Hillsville or between Hillsville and Raleigh. Thus far, they have not done so. To me, that is a fatal flaw in their theory, although the last jury did not seem to be bothered by that too much.

I have the same problem with shoes. The prosecution has no evidence that Jason ever purchased a pair of size ten Franklin shoes. I have a problem with the theory that he wore them to throw investigators off track. I have a size 11 foot and can squeeze my feet into a size ten. I have a handicapped son who does have size ten foot and I tried to put on his shoes by mistake a couple of weeks ago. I never made it. I just cannot imagine getting into a shoe two sizes too small.

Any supposed plans, etc. having to do with those unidentified shoes on Jason's part is just conjecture unsupported by any evidence. I am big on evidence and not much for conjecture.

I don't put too much stock in Jason's other girl friends as a motive for wanting to get rid of Michelle. There are a lot of people in adulterous relationships that do not commit murder. And there are some that do. But Jason seemed to have a "good thing" going, i.e. he was having his cake and eating it too. A wife with a good income and a couple on the side. Not a very nice guy in that respect. But, to me, not enough for a murder motive. In fact, maybe just the opposite. This is a toss-up to me. My opinion could change with evidence that Michelle had found out and was maybe priming for a divorce.

I am wondering why Michelle was still fully dressed in the middle of the night. I have not seen that aspect explained anywhere yet. It may have been covered in other threads. Is this something that was normal for her, wearing her regular clothes to bed? If she like most women that I know, she would change into her night clothes before going to bed, and maybe even lounge around in them while watching TV or working with her laptop just before retiring.
If she were in the more normal habit of donning bed clothes, such as pajamas or a nightgown, that to me, would indicate an earlier time for the murder to have occurred rather then some time around three or three thirty A.M.

A thought on Cassidy's "excited utterance" about "mommy being spanked for biting". I am wondering just what a surprised intruder would have done if being bitten by a person he/she was trying to subdue???

I am also a bit confused by the supposed attempted strangulation marks. The killer supposedly was trying to strangle Michelle but became enraged when she fought back and beat her too death with a blunt object that has not been found. Where did the intruder get the object? Did he/she bring it in or pickit up out of the room? Was there anything found to be missing from the room or from JY;s SUV that could have been used? Was it close enough at hand to just switch suddenly from strangulation to bludgeoning? Or did someone else hand it to the would be strangler, or did someone else than the would be strangler wield that blunt object?

These are thoughts and questions that have occurred to me over time.

Glenn (I use the handle Glenn101 because I am just basic.)

Hi Glenn--so glad to have someone else here who has an open mind--woohoo!!!

The gas mileage calculation is a huge point for the defense. I think there is a whole thread on it here. And their shoe theory is not only unproven, it is just plain ridiculous.

I think their theory of her being fully dressed in the middle of the night is due to the fact that their heat pump was out and it was a 40 degree night. Personally, I can see wearing a warm top to bed, but not a full zip hoodie (of course this is coming from someone who does not wear the same shoes more than one day in a row.

I also think the spanking due to biting is what happened, but that is something we will never know unless the real killer decides to tell us. I do hope that MY took a big chunk out of him/her. I wonder if they swabbed her mouth to check for DNA other than her own. Or maybe that is part of the rape kit that was never done.:banghead:

Most of the anti-Jason folks around here attribute that comment to CY or a friend getting a spanking due to biting.

I never heard about anything that was missing from the house other than all of her jewelry. I was reading some old threads and a bunch of the anti-Jason people said there was going to be big announcement about a lamp, but I can't find that talked about anywhere but here.

 

[SStarr33]

What??
Am I reading this wrong?
You can not wear the same shoes 2 days in a row?
I think I am tired and not grasping your post :facepalm:

PS- Unless you are in fact Imelda Marcos :giggle:

I guess I could wear them more than one day in a row, but I don't. I rotate them--even my workout shoes. I have three of the same pair and switch them out. I even write the date on the bottom so I know when it is close to buy new pairs (of workout shoes).

Is that weird???:floorlaugh:

 

[sunshine05]

According to Crime Scene Investigator Michael Galloway's testimony there was "small bloody footwear impressions" on the carpet at the top of the stairs leading to the hall (CY's) bathroom. There was also "bloody footwear impressions" in the hall (CY's) bathroom. He also said that on the wall in that bathroom "there appear to be bloody footwear impressions".

Since he called the bloody footprints in the bathroom, that was clearly made by CY, "bloody footwear impressions" then one can conclude that the "small bloody footwear impressions" in the hall leading to that bathroom also came from CY. Also in the video it appears that those hall bloody footprints appear to be the same size as the ones in that bathroom. Then it appears that CY was not carried into that bathroom but walked in there on her own.

This part of his testimony can be heard beginning around 38:47 in the following video.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10723727/

MOO

There were a couple of smudges of blood outside of the bathroom on the carpet but there is NOT a trail leading from the body to the bathroom. This is why investigators speculated that she was likely carried to the bathroom.

 

[citygirl]

What difference does it make? Are you trying to suggest that the shoes he had were the murder shoes? Remember that there was no blood in his vehicle or at the HI. Clearly they were NOT at the crime scene.

No. I'm not trying to suggest anything. I'm trying to figure out how many pairs of shoes he had with him. They didn't seize the clothes he was wearing. I'm assuming he was wearing his dress shoes. Are you saying LE photographed another pair in his car but didn't take them? Then they came back later looking for the shoes and he couldn't account for them?

 

[TorisMom003]

I counted at least 9 bloody footprints going towards the hall bathroom. There is definately more than a "couple". Two of those bloody footprints are on the carpet at the bathroom threshold, where the carpet meets the tile. If she was carried, it was not all the way to the bathroom but instead carried to a little past where the stairs meet the hallway.

MOO

 

[citygirl]

I counted at least 9 bloody footprints going towards the hall bathroom. There is definately more than a "couple". Two of those bloody footprints are on the carpet at the bathroom threshold, where the carpet meets the tile. If she was carried, it was not all the way to the bathroom but instead carried to a little past where the stairs meet the hallway.

MOO

This would support MF's testimony when she first came up the stairs. She thought CY may have gotten into hair dye. It looked like dark shoe polish.(paraphrasing)She saw it on the landing and to the right of the landing by the bathroom and and her bedroom.

I don't recall seeing good photos of that area. The bathroom was clear but not the carpeting.

 

[TorisMom003]

I'm going back and watching JY testify. Now, why on earth does any defense lawyer, when their client is on the stand, ask their client if they killed the person they are on trial for killing?!?! Does anyone really expect the client, person on trial, to answer yes when asked that question? Complete waste of time IMO. We all know he isn't going to admit that he killed Michelle, so why in the heck bother asking?

MOO

 

[TorisMom003]

This would support MF's testimony when she first came up the stairs. She thought CY may have gotten into hair dye. It looked like dark shoe polish.(paraphrasing)She saw it on the landing and to the right of the landing by the bathroom and and her bedroom.

I don't recall seeing good photos of that area. The bathroom was clear but not the carpeting.

You can see the area in the video that was shown in court. It isn't very clear but it is obvious, once the detective points out the footprints, that there are more than a couple of footprints and that they are small like the size of the ones in the bathroom.

It was Galloway that took the video and explained it in court.

MOO

 

[oenophile]

I'm going back and watching JY testify. Now, why on earth does any defense lawyer, when their client is on the stand, ask their client if they killed the person they are on trial for killing?!?! Does anyone really expect the client, person on trial, to answer yes when asked that question? Complete waste of time IMO. We all know he isn't going to admit that he killed Michelle, so why in the heck bother asking?

MOO

Because jurors want to hear the accused state that he is innocent.

Just look at some of the posters here that have repeated said that he never proclaimed his innocence to anyone. If you don't say it, then the jury wonders "why didn't he deny it?". It also gives the jurors a chance to evaluate whether or not the accused is being honest.

 

[SStarr33]

You can see the area in the video that was shown in court. It isn't very clear but it is obvious, once the detective points out the footprints, that there are more than a couple of footprints and that they are small like the size of the ones in the bathroom.

It was Galloway that took the video and explained it in court.

MOO

Did he explain how those faint carpet footprints could become so pronounced when they were on the bathroom tile? Seems to me like the carpet would have sucked up most of the blood that was on her feet.

 

[otto]

Did he explain how those faint carpet footprints could become so pronounced when they were on the bathroom tile? Seems to me like the carpet would have sucked up most of the blood that was on her feet.

I think that the carpet would have absorbed the blood on the bottoms of the child's feet as she walked from the master bedroom to the bathroom, especially if the blood had partially dried between the time of the murder and the time that the child woke up in the morning. Once in the bathroom, the blood appears fresh and wet, which would happen if the child put water on her feet. Stepping onto the carpet, after leaving the bathroom, would again result in the remaining blood on her feet being absorbed by the carpet.

 

[SStarr33]

I think that the carpet would have absorbed the blood on the bottoms of the child's feet as she walked from the master bedroom to the bathroom, especially if the blood had partially dried between the time of the murder and the time that the child woke up in the morning. Once in the bathroom, the blood appears fresh and wet, which would happen if the child put water on her feet. Stepping onto the carpet, after leaving the bathroom, would again result in the remaining blood on her feet being absorbed by the carpet.

If she would have put water on her feet, the footprints would not be in that direction.

 

[sunshine05]

No. I'm not trying to suggest anything. I'm trying to figure out how many pairs of shoes he had with him. They didn't seize the clothes he was wearing. I'm assuming he was wearing his dress shoes. Are you saying LE photographed another pair in his car but didn't take them? Then they came back later looking for the shoes and he couldn't account for them?

Yes, there were two pairs of slip on men's shoes in the Explorer - a pair in the back (Kenneth Cole I believe) and a pair on the front floorboard passenger side. The pair in the front was not collected. Keep in mind that there were other passengers enroute to Raleigh so it's unclear who the shoes may have belonged to.

LE filled out a search warrant in '08 to try to locate the shoes purchased in 2005, to include the Hushpuppies and some athletic shoes from a DSW receipt. They didn't find the Hushpuppies and this evolved into "Where are the shoes..." There is no evidence that the shoes he was wearing that night were ever missing. He didn't currently own Hushpuppy shoes and was not wearing the pair purchased in '05 but that was the implication - because of the bloody footprint.

 

[sunshine05]

I think that the carpet would have absorbed the blood on the bottoms of the child's feet as she walked from the master bedroom to the bathroom, especially if the blood had partially dried between the time of the murder and the time that the child woke up in the morning. Once in the bathroom, the blood appears fresh and wet, which would happen if the child put water on her feet. Stepping onto the carpet, after leaving the bathroom, would again result in the remaining blood on her feet being absorbed by the carpet.

If she wet her feet in the bathroom, there should have been blood in and around the tub or sink and certainly should have been bloody footprints exiting the bathroom. There weren't.

 

[otto]

If she would have put water on her feet, the footprints would not be in that direction.

The prints are in all directions, on the step stool, on the wall, with the door open and closed, and there is blood on the towel. If the blood on her feet dried somewhat, then she was in the bathroom, then she added water (which seems necessary to create so much wet, smeared blood marks), then we would also see the blood evidence that is visible in the bathroom.

 

[otto]

If she wet her feet in the bathroom, there should have been blood in and around the tub or sink and certainly should have been bloody footprints exiting the bathroom. There weren't.

Was the sink tested for blood?

 

[JusticeFever]

I'm going back and watching JY testify. Now, why on earth does any defense lawyer, when their client is on the stand, ask their client if they killed the person they are on trial for killing?!?! Does anyone really expect the client, person on trial, to answer yes when asked that question? Complete waste of time IMO. We all know he isn't going to admit that he killed Michelle, so why in the heck bother asking?

MOO

Because they need to deal with the most obvious basic question first, before they can proceed onto anything else..

 

[JusticeFever]

Was the sink tested for blood?

Yes, sink, tub, pipes, no signs of blood, which is why the hose became such an issue.

 

[JusticeFever]

The prints are in all directions, on the step stool, on the wall, with the door open and closed, and there is blood on the towel. If the blood on her feet dried somewhat, then she was in the bathroom, then she added water (which seems necessary to create so much wet, smeared blood marks), then we would also see the blood evidence that is visible in the bathroom.

I know there are a few faint footprints of CY on the carpet, but how come in the bathroom they footprints are so much heavier, her feet look like they had to be covered with blood..to make that many prints.
It just doesn't add up that the farther she was away from the crime scene, her footprints become so much more obvious.
How can that be?