Jason Young to get new trial #4

[JusticeFever]

In his first trial I could Hv sworn he testified that they both wore each other's shoes..esp tennis shoes. Raffa naval wears shoes two sizes too small if raffia can anyone can. Esp someone staging a scene of death. Lots of athletes do it.

Does anyone know what this means? Who wore each other's shoes?

 

[Nymeria]

I think that's Texas, Otto......and good to see you as always!

And yes, she will be going to trial In Texas.

OMG this thread has been flying by the last few days... have to catch up later.
:seeya: Be nice everyone!

 

[Nymeria]

O/T and FYI-
Texas grand jury indicts Amanda Hayes on body-dumping charge

Read more at http://www.wral.com/texas-grand-jur...-dumping-charge/13573065/#cULkzQ88Qf2ekBJP.99

 

[JusticeFever]

O/T and FYI-
Texas grand jury indicts Amanda Hayes on body-dumping charge

Read more at http://www.wral.com/texas-grand-jur...-dumping-charge/13573065/#cULkzQ88Qf2ekBJP.99

I don't know how I missed this, fantastic news, I hope she gets the max ..thanks.
Enjoy Texas, Amanda, when you are done in NC......:seeya:

Wow, Grant has 5 infractions already and one for trying to escape....

 

[SStarr33]

Does anyone know what this means? Who wore each other's shoes?

And who is raffa naval?

 

[JusticeFever]

A few inches taller than someone is just a little bit taller but someone a 4 inches or more is not even close... Im 5'4 and my husband is 6'3..Guess I could say well hes just a little bit taller than me.. LOL!!!

I wish we had photos of Jason and Gracie side by side, I was hoping the defense would ask them to stand next to each other in the court room. Jason would tower over her by a foot !

 

[JusticeFever]

And who is raffa naval?

No clue, maybe a basketball player?

 

[SStarr33]

I wish we had photos of Jason and Gracie side by side, I was hoping the defense would ask them to stand next to each other in the court room. Jason would tower over her by a foot !

This is from the link I posted above:

After the first trial concluded, Defendant's counsel learned that Ms. Calhoun had received disability benefits since she was a child. Ms. Calhoun stated that when she was six-years-old, she was hit by a truck. This accident caused her brain to be dislodged from her skull and to fall onto the street. Doctors reinserted her brain and Ms. Calhoun stated that she has had memory problems her entire life as a result of the accident.

They won their case with this.:banghead:

 

[SteelerGirl43]

No clue, maybe a basketball player?

I believe hes a tennis player.... And no way could my husband who wears a size 12 in tennis shoes wear my size 8 tennis shoes and vice versa....

 

[JusticeFever]

This is from the link I posted above:

After the first trial concluded, Defendant's counsel learned that Ms. Calhoun had received disability benefits since she was a child. Ms. Calhoun stated that when she was six-years-old, she was hit by a truck. This accident caused her brain to be dislodged from her skull and to fall onto the street. Doctors reinserted her brain and Ms. Calhoun stated that she has had memory problems her entire life as a result of the accident.

They won their case with this.:banghead:

I have nothing against Gracie, I liked her and thought she was just trying to do what the state wanted from her. I always remember the words she said at trial "The state said they needed me"
But, a man's life is at stake here and to convict him on her testimony is all kinds of wrong.

 

[JusticeFever]

I believe hes a tennis player.... And no way could my husband who wears a size 12 in tennis shoes wear my size 8 tennis shoes and vice versa....

Rafeal Nadal then!!

 

[otto]

No way of knowing if the killer wore gloves, just a theory.
And, what about their arms, face, or any other part of their body?
Because, Jason sure did not show any signs of being part of any brutal attack.

The hand print on the pipe at the hotel exit appears to be a hand print, not a glove print. Did Jason wear gloves or not? If he wore gloves, why did he take them off to pull himself up on the pipe to tilt the camera (why else is there a hand print on the pipe?). The janitor didn't put it there. In any case, the print doesn't match. Is the theory that Jason wore gloves during the murder, but not when disguising/staging the evidence?

He had a blood blister on his toe ... if only the prosecutor had asked. If you increase red saturation on his hand in a funeral photo, you can see marks on his hand ... but if they were there, they would be in evidence. Was the prosecutor afraid to ask a question for which she did not know the answer because he would give a legitimate answer?

 

[otto]

Did they prove someone washed the pjs? I think each argument has equal weight. I think it is reasonable to think she "could have" had duplicate pjs, many little girls do. It would make sense after someone cleaned up CY, (IMO it was JY) and then put on duplicate pjs. The trace amount of blood was found only on the bottom of the pjs and not visible to the eye. If we look at the bloody footprints of CY in the bathroom it is apparent that at some point she lay on the floor and made footprints on the wall. I think that trace amount of the blood that was on her bottom was not thoroughly cleaned and that is why it was found only on the bottom of duplicate pjs. IMO
The other argument is someone washed the pjs. That is also a "could have" argument.

Meredith was holding the child when she was observed by the officer. She then washed the pajamas. After that, the pajamas were submitted for evidence. I don't think anything can be said about the pajamas that will not come into question.

A stranger would not stop to care for the child. I think we can accept that as a premise. If the child was cleaned and changed, Jason did not do it simply because he did not have enough time to do it. There we have a problem. Was she cleaned?

 

[otto]

But where? I don't think anyone would drive very far with bloody evidence in their SUV that would tie them to a murder.

Absolutely not. A murderer wants to put as much distance between himself and the murderer as fast as possible, with not knowing the victim being the greatest distance (no ref now.

 

[JusticeFever]

Meredith was holding the child when she was observed by the officer. She then washed the pajamas. After that, the pajamas were submitted for evidence. I don't think anything can be said about the pajamas that will not come into question.

A stranger would not stop to care for the child. I think we can accept that as a premise. If the child was cleaned and changed, Jason did not do it simply because he did not have enough time to do it. There we have a problem. Was she cleaned?

That's just it, we don't know. Wouldn't it have been better for CY to have been taken to an emergency room and checked out, and then have her clothing photographed and taken into evidence. I know she was checked at the scene, but there was no way to know if she had any internal injuries , etc.. That would have been the best thing to do, than have them go shopping at Target for new clothes.
I think the pjs were handed over to LE at that time and MF only took the tee shirt home to wash.

 

[JusticeFever]

I am having computer problems, so I am signing off, but I just wanted to add, wouldn't it have been better for LE to provide some kind of emergency services to both CY and MF after the scene they had just left? A brutal, and horrific murder, shouldn't there have been some type of immediate grief counseling to help them deal with what they saw? Even the most trained officers in the field need an outlet after viewing a crime scene, shouldn't something have been provided for CY and MF?
A trip to Target and then go home? Really?

 

[otto]

I think this is the crux of our disagreements about who we believe was the killer. Why would any random killer wash CY and her pjs? JY certainly would not have time to launder her pjs. But what I believe he did do quickly is wash her and put on the duplicate pjs. So then if not JY who then would take time to do this? I think that is the exact reason many of you believe another person ( She who will not be named) was the guilty party.

Investigators had all the time and information necessary to identify whether there were pajamas missing bottoms. Was that presented in court?

 

[otto]

But, it's more than just the pj's, its how to account for all the hours CY was alone, and if she was all alone why wasn't she crying, upset, or hungry and thirsty when found?

And, which theory is true? Was she drugged or taken from the home? And, how did she get her shoes and when? And, I am pretty sure her socks were never collected, and yet how does she get cleaned up and still have enough blood on her right foot to make an impression in a shoe?

And, what did she do all those hours she was alone? And, not get into anything?

And,what about the dog? Wouldn't Mr. G find his way to CY at some point or the other way around? There are just too many things that don't add up. The car in the driveway at 5:30 am is the exact same time Jason is believed to be in King, NC, if the eye witness is to believed. Who were the 2 people in the car and what were they doing there? It's too much of a coincidence that they were there that morning, the day a murder happened.

One would certainly hope that the dog, Mr G, found hs way to the child. Dogs are instinctive. It's very unusual that the dog, when panicked, did not go to a family member. It does not make sense that the dog was panicked and therefore avoided a family member; the child.

Children also seek out the family dog when they are upset.

I have also questioned whether the bloody socks were collected from the crime scene during the 10 days that the house was secured by investigators. I believe that bloody sheets or towels were also left behind. We know that body matter was left behind.

The prosecution time line does not add up. It does not fit in the timeline that the child, and her pajamas, were cleaned or exchanged for other clothing. It does not fit that the dog avoided a family member in duress or under threat. Even if the murderer is a family member, it does not fit that the dog and child at no time sought each other.

 

[otto]

Well, you didn't say that. You said she was on the treadmill when he came in. Are you saying she then got in bed and waited for him? This doesn't make sense, IMO.

I have consistently read on this forum that the treadmill was turned on when the body was discovered. There was nothing more that could be concluded ... it was turned on ... no idea if anyone was using it and fled, or used it and forgot to turn it off. I don't know how "turned on" was translated into: "she was on the treadmill when the murderer entered her home".

What doesn't make sense is the strange interpretation of "the treadmill was turned on when the murder was discovered".

 

[otto]

One would think that would come in during the appeal.

Not likely.