Jason Young to get new trial #4

[JusticeFever]

Didn't he pin her on the bed and remove her ring? Was it the type of physical fight where each person would attack the other, or was it more of a drunk malfunction, she didn't fight back, and she tried to repair the relationship prior to returning home ... perhaps because she felt bad about giving him a hard time for drinking with his buddies at a buddies drinking function. ... or was that the other girlfriend. Is Cargol the realtor weekend, or is that the woman that he contacted after coming across the car accident?

Genevieve Cargol was JY's ex,,,,
Carol Anne Sowerby was the realtor that he knew for years, I think from camp.

 

[JusticeFever]

Lieutenant Ickerd did not ask Gracie what the man looked like, not his facial features, facial hair or not, hair style or hair colour, not his clothes pants/shirt or colour of clothes? Not one identifying feature of this man, not great investigation. :facepalm:

Thanks to you and others for keeping the facts straight!

 

[sunshine05]

He showed her a picture and she said it was him.

I hope that everyone can at least agree that we must demand higher standards with eyewitness identification. Simply showing a person "a" photo of a person is just not sufficient. According to the Innocence Project, incorrect eyewitness identification has occurred in 75% of all exonerations. http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php

North Carolina has standards in place now that could have determined with much better confidence that she identified the correct person.
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArticle/Chapter_15A/Article_14A.pdf

Showing a person one photo and then never going back to do a proper line-up or photo line-up was really poor investigative work. Were they worried she wouldn't identify JY? I think that is obvious.

 

[JusticeFever]

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.

So, where is the stuff? A dumpster behind a store?, a chance to be caught on video ? Nothing was ever found!
And, if JY rode around with bloody items in a trash bag, wouldn't the smell of blood still be obvious in his SUV even hours later?

 

[citygirl]

Lieutenant Ickerd did not ask Gracie what the man looked like, not his facial features, facial hair or not, hair style or hair colour, not his clothes pants/shirt or colour of clothes? Not one identifying feature of this man, not great investigation. :facepalm:

Lieutenant Ickerd and Investigator Broadwell were canvasing the open gas stations along part of the route. They showed her a photo. They asked her what kind of vehicle he was driving. They asked her if she would be willing to talk to investigators. She said yes and gave them her cell phone number. They then continued to canvas the remaining gas stations. Klinkosum was thorough in asking him what more they should have done and pointing out the above on cross.

 

[citygirl]

I hope that everyone can at least agree that we must demand higher standards with eyewitness identification. Simply showing a person "a" photo of a person is just not sufficient. According to the Innocence Project, incorrect eyewitness identification has occurred in 75% of all exonerations. http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php

North Carolina has standards in place now that could have determined with much better confidence that she identified the correct person.
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArticle/Chapter_15A/Article_14A.pdf

Showing a person one photo and then never going back to do a proper line-up or photo line-up was really poor investigative work. Were they worried she wouldn't identify JY? I think that is obvious.

And who would they show in the line-up? I don't agree that they were worried she wouldn't identify him. Gracie stated that most of the customers in the early morning hours were locals. He stood out because he wasn't a familiar face and he mistreated her. Simple as that. MOO.

 

[citygirl]

So, where is the stuff? A dumpster behind a store?, a chance to be caught on video ? Nothing was ever found!
And, if JY rode around with bloody items in a trash bag, wouldn't the smell of blood still be obvious in his SUV even hours later?

He traveled miles that night. Why would he be in a hurry to dispose of the stuff? No one in the middle of the night would have discovered his wife's body. No one knew she was murdered until many hours later. He had plenty of time. That stuff could have been tossed anywhere. MOO.

 

[JusticeFever]

You are correct. I was thinking about Ickerd's testimony. He asked Gracie to identify the person in the photo first and then he asked her about the vehicle.
@ approx. 24 minutes
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9714913/

Also, listening to Gracie's testimony again, the register rang up several sales around the time that the person allegedly came into the store yelling at her to turn on the pumps.

@47:00
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9714910/

Transactions:
2 @ 5:19
1 @ 5:26
1 @ 5:27 (customer who yelled at her, allegedly JY)
2 @ 5:28
2 @ 5:31
1 @ 5:34
1@ 5:35

Yet we're to believe that it's dark, she's behind the counter ringing up all these sales but she stopped to look outside to see a white Explorer?

She also testified that there was only one other customer in the store at the time. Clearly that isn't correct.

There is no way I can believe anything GB said as anything that really happened.
Did not tell her boss,. did not tell the person coming on the next shift, did not fill out an incident report, never found the mystery customer who witnessed what she said. JMO

 

[JusticeFever]

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.

If it were 3-4 hours before MY was found, I could understand it, but we are talking 10-11 hours without any supervision for either CY or Mr. G.
And, I still think MF and CY should have been taken to some sort of crisis facility to process what they had been through. I can't imagine just going home....

 

[JusticeFever]

I cant believe they did NOT collect the sheets... Why??? Hmmmmm!!! Then a tooth was found.... Really?? What kind CSI do they have??

The sheets that contained all the blood were not taken into evidence until later........unreal. Why were they overlooked, they were a big part of the crime scene , did anyone ask LE why they were not collected?
There could have been prints, hair, and since there was a struggle, blood that belonged to the killer.

 

[JusticeFever]

I cant believe they did NOT collect the sheets... Why??? Hmmmmm!!! Then a tooth was found.... Really?? What kind CSI do they have??

That's what I just asked, I am pretty sure it remained a crime scene for close to 2 weeks before it was released.

 

[Glenn101]

In an earlier part of the thread while discussing Cassidy's interaction with the dolls, one poster opined that a child as young as Casssidy does not identify gender characteristics but only responds to mommy and daddy types or something of the sort, so she picked a doll that looked like her mother and one that had the general features of her father.

That may have been the case with Cassidy. I really do not know. But what I do know is that I have a granddaughter that has been living with me pretty much 24/7 since just before her second birthday. One day my wife and I were watching her play. We sort of doted on her, and still do. That little girl took a couple of pieces of paper and stuffed them into the blouse that she was wearing to produce the effect of breasts. She walked around the house with her chest poked like that for a couple of hours. it had my wife and I almost rolling on the floor laughing.

That, to me, does indicate that a two and a half year old child can identify gender characteristics.


Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

Glenn

 

[otto]

I was reading some old threads and saw they gave the option for 2nd degree murder. Is that right??? How in the world could it ever be 2nd degree?

Wasn't that was part of the jury instructions where they could consider that Jason had an accomplice?

 

[sunshine05]

And who would they show in the line-up? I don't agree that they were worried she wouldn't identify him. Gracie stated that most of the customers in the early morning hours were locals. He stood out because he wasn't a familiar face and he mistreated her. Simple as that. MOO.

CG - If you read the attached link you can see what a proper procedure is.

Certainly everyone would expect more if this was about them or one of their family members. This is someone's life. Don't we expect LE to ensure that the correct person was identified?

 

[tarheellvr]

In what way has the brain injured gas attendant been targeted? Has anything been said that is not true?

Gracie is a compromised, forgetful woman that needed help to identify Jason, and then she screwed up with his height ... but she tried hard. I hope she was properly compensated for her time.

No evidence had been "acquired" at the time of the gas attendant's mistaken identification. She identified a short man. Jason is not a short man. Clearly, she was mistaken about his face or his height, but if she argued with him with such a clear memory, then she should have remembered that the man that looked like Jason towered over her ... even though she was standing on a 6" tall false floor. She remembered a man that was her height. Apparently, the very intimidating man at 5:30AM did not tower over her in a threatening posture ... as Jason would have if he was there.

This "brain injured, compromised, forgetful woman was an employee in a convenience store. She worked the register, took money and counted change, turned on gas pumps, locked and unlocked doors/alarms, maintained and kept various paperwork, dealt with delivery people, and was able to deal with customers. It's obvious she can read and write.

I think its very sad a lot of you keep referring to this woman in the negative way you do. If she were the way you describe her, she wouldn't be able to do all she did/does. I think it very wrong to talk about her the way you do.

The juros who all voted guilty obviously put some credence in her testimony. I feel jurors in a third trial would too.

 

[tarheellvr]

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.

How do you know the dog and Cassidy never sought each other in all those hours? None of us know that and what is the point anyway? If they did or didn't means nothing IMO.

 

[SStarr33]

CG - If you read the attached link you can see what a proper procedure is.

Certainly everyone would expect more if this was about them or one of their family members. This is someone's life. Don't we expect LE to ensure that the correct person was identified?

You nailed it. The vast majority of anti-JY people who had a loved one in his position would be going nuts with this FUBAR investigation.

 

[tarheellvr]

Her testimony is pretty chilling. The struggle lasted for 20 minutes and she did fight back. He had been drinking but slept for an hour before the altercation began. She describes her own state of mind when she asked for the ring back. Several weeks later she ended the engagement.
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10739977/

You are right and thank you! I believed every word she said and to downplay the assault is a slap in the face to Gen.

As far as Carol A.......she was just plain pititful on the stand JY took advantage of her palin and simple. Michelle not home, lots of alcohol, sex on sofa, Carol woke up with black markker all over her face......totally humiliating, degrading.

Both of these women are indicitive of the way JY treated women. His disrespect and degrading of Michelle was observed by MANY before they married, after they married, up until he murdered her.

Lets not forget the long letter proclaiming his love he wrote to Gen...........ummmm when was this???

 

[tarheellvr]

Genevieve Cargol was JY's ex,,,,
Carol Anne Sowerby was the realtor that he knew for years, I think from camp.

Yes, JY was her camp counselor.......someone she trusted, looked up to as a CHILD/YOUNG TEEN.

JY was someone who took advantage of her while his wife was out of town, someone he disrespected, humiliated.

 

[otto]

This "brain injured, compromised, forgetful woman was an employee in a convenience store. She worked the register, took money and counted change, turned on gas pumps, locked and unlocked doors/alarms, maintained and kept various paperwork, dealt with delivery people, and was able to deal with customers. It's obvious she can read and write.

I think its very sad a lot of you keep referring to this woman in the negative way you do. If she were the way you describe her, she wouldn't be able to do all she did/does. I think it very wrong to talk about her the way you do.

The juros who all voted guilty obviously put some credence in her testimony. I feel jurors in a third trial would too.

It should not be perceived that there is negativity associated with a brain injury. The issue is her credibility due to the brain injury.