Jason Young to get new trial #4

[Glenn101]

No, I disagree that we exclude her based on her testimony because her early memory at the time of the crime was that the SUV was at that house. She took Spivey to that house. It was all in the notes.

Whether Tiller saw it at 3 or 4 doesn't matter much except that if at 4 it definitely excludes JY's vehicle due to the tight timeline. We still have 3 witnesses who told police just days after the murder that they saw the SUV. CB saw two people inside it. Much more convincing than unverified Gracie.

In addition, if I have read the news reports etc. correctly, Cindy told he supervisor about what she saw the next Tuesday after the murder. The LE interviewed her that very day. If I am wrong, someone please correct me.

Thanks,
Glenn

 

[otto]

Sunshine, do you have a link to Tiller's original 4-5 am statement? I know I read it somewhere, but now I can't remember where.

Is Tiller the NYTimes delivery person? If so, it is in a sworn search warrant that she was at Birchleaf Dr between 4-5AM. The defense should have held her to that statement.

Here's the warrant that states her timeline:

Page 1
http://content.news14.com/pdf/Michelle_Young/probable_cause.pdf

 

[Glenn101]

Is Tiller the NYTimes delivery person? If so, it is in a sworn search warrant that she was at Birchleaf Dr between 4-5AM. The defense should have held her to that statement.

Here's the warrant that states her timeline:

Page 1
http://content.news14.com/pdf/Michelle_Young/probable_cause.pdf

That makes Cindy Beaver's testimony even more credible. Tiller saw the house with all of the lights on between four and give with a vehicle parked as if it were to be loaded with something. At 5:20 Cindy Beaver sees a similar vehicle leaving the residence and noted that there were more lights than usual on. She did not say that all of the lights were on.

Just some more circumstantial evidence.

Glenn

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Yes, of course he could have stopped somewhere else.

But that has to be proved by the State. :banghead:

I'm sure if one of your loved ones was falsely accused, you would let this kind of stuff slide, right?

:tyou:

 

[Grammy Jean]

No, I disagree that we exclude her based on her testimony because her early memory at the time of the crime was that the SUV was at that house. She took Spivey to that house. It was all in the notes.

Whether Tiller saw it at 3 or 4 doesn't matter much except that if at 4 it definitely excludes JY's vehicle due to the tight timeline. We still have 3 witnesses who told police just days after the murder that they saw the SUV. CB saw two people inside it. Much more convincing than unverified Gracie.

I disagree. Fay Hinsley did not take Spivey to the house. Again she definitely says I was not on Birchleaf. You can find this at the 9:42 mark. She says she was on Enchanted Oaks Drive. She says Enchanted Oaks drive is the only way out of my neighborhood. Spivey took her to Birchleaf she did not take him. Listen at the 10:35 mark she says," He knew where the house was he took me to it."Also it was August of 2011 when Spivey took her there. So to be fair it would have been more credible if Spivey asked Hinsley to show him how to get to the house. All of this is why I say FH and Gracie could cancel. Those who say law enforcement should have shown Gracie a line up of pictures if you listen to this link I am providing it seems clear Hinsley was not on Birchleaf and LE should have asked her to point out how to get to the house.
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10789701/

 

[sunshine05]

I disagree. Fay Hinsley did not take Spivey to the house. Again she definitely says I was not on Birchleaf. You can find this at the 9:42 mark. She says she was on Enchanted Oaks Drive. She says Enchanted Oaks drive is the only way out of my neighborhood. Spivey took her to Birchleaf she did not take him. Listen at the 10:35 mark she says," He knew where the house was he took me to it."Also it was August of 2011 when Spivey took her there. So to be fair it would have been more credible if Spivey asked Hinsley to show him how to get to the house. All of this is why I say FH and Gracie could cancel. Those who say law enforcement should have shown Gracie a line up of pictures if you listen to this link I am providing it seems clear Hinsley was not on Birchleaf and LE should have asked her to point out how to get to the house.
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10789701/

Clearly the woman got confused at trial, but it's in the police notes just days after the murder that she saw the SUV at the edge of the Young's driveway while on her way to a hair appointment at 6:30-7AM. This is the only reason the defense called her.

 

[Grammy Jean]

Clearly the woman got confused at trial, but it's in the police notes just days after the murder that she saw the SUV at the edge of the Young's driveway while on her way to a hair appointment at 6:30-7AM. This is the only reason the defense called her.

She did not know the Young's, so she could not have said " edge of the Young's driveway" I am sure she saw a car in a driveway but on the day of her hair appointment but that was on Enchanted Oaks not Birchleaf. She says the only way out of the neighborhood is Enchanted Oaks.

 

[SteelerGirl43]

She did not know the Young's, so she could not have said " edge of the Young's driveway" I am sure she saw a car in a driveway but on the day of her hair appointment but that was on Enchanted Oaks not Birchleaf. She says the only way out of the neighborhood is Enchanted Oaks.

And Graci said JY was bald headed and about her height.... So she couldn't have been talking about JY.... Looking at JY photos hes far from bald & hes not short... Thing is more than one person says they saw a vechicle & lights on at the Youngs house.. Only Gracie is saying she saw JY even though she says others were there.. But no one has came fwd.... Hmmmm!!!
So they dont cancel each other out.. Just Gracies... Because I think she was confused, but the state helped "her mind" say it was JY.... A good defense attorney would have proved that.....
I just love how Gracie has memory problems, but she has no problem with that night.. SMH!!!

 

[Glenn101]

Glenn, have you watched either of the trials? Also, are you familiar with the concept of circumstantial evidence? If so, do you accept that it is valid evidence or do you feel that it is, by definition, insufficient?

I'm not being snarky, just curious since I have read your posts and these questions came to mind.

Boodles, I would just like to update my thoughts about the shoes a bit. I did a bit of research o the topic. Hush Puppies are far from a rare breed of shoe. They have been in vogue for decades and in 2006, they sold over 19 million pairs world wide. I have not been able to find specific demographics for sales local to the Raleigh area, but it the fact that a shoe print that could have come from one of three models of Hush Puppies is hardly surprising.

I am aware that some members of the jury said that Jason's failure to produce the shoes and shirt were factors in their decision to find him guilty, but again, that is requiring Jason to prove his innocence rather than requiring the prosecution to prove him guilty.

I don't mind your questions, however, I would like for you to respond to my logic with facts of your own to back up your feelings on the matter.

Thanks,
Glenn

 

[JusticeFever]

Gracie's account of JY has been cancelled out since the day she entered the case, there has never been anything in 8 years to substantiate anything she has said. Never. Ever. Never.

jmo

When I was spell checking substantiate :wink: all these words popped up:
prove
support
uphold
justify
verify
collaborate
validate
authenticate
confirm

Nope, nothing like this......ever.

 

[JusticeFever]

This is exactly why Gracie should have reported the incident with Jason Young.

https://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3153.pdf

Please refer to Page 6:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, (BLS) Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries for 2007, assaults and violent acts claimed 864 lives in 2007 and represented over 15% total of the 5,657 workplace fatalities in the US.
Homicides represented the majority of these violent acts, claiming 628 lives in 2007, or 11% of the fatalities. Over 26% of the homicides ( a total of 167) occurred in the retail trades, with:

39 @ convenience stores
32 @ gasoline stations
7@ liquor stores

While homicides have shown a marked overall decline, since 1994 when they peaked at 1, 080, they were the third leading cause of work related deaths in 2007 and remain a serious risk for late-night retail workers.

Risk Factors:
1) The exchange of money making them targets for robbery
2) Solo work and isolated work sites
3) The sale of alcohol
4) Poorly lit stores and parking areas
5 )Lack of staff training in recognizing and managing escalating hostile and and aggressive behavior

The encounter with Jason was in Nov, 2006....just 1 month before this official study began.
We know Gracie's store sold liquor as she told the story of someone underage trying to purchase alcohol, and if Jason got in her face and cussed her out, that would fall under hostile and aggressive behavior.

 

[Boodles]

Boodles, I would just like to update my thoughts about the shoes a bit. I did a bit of research o the topic. Hush Puppies are far from a rare breed of shoe. They have been in vogue for decades and in 2006, they sold over 19 million pairs world wide. I have not been able to find specific demographics for sales local to the Raleigh area, but it the fact that a shoe print that could have come from one of three models of Hush Puppies is hardly surprising.

I am aware that some members of the jury said that Jason's failure to produce the shoes and shirt were factors in their decision to find him guilty, but again, that is requiring Jason to prove his innocence rather than requiring the prosecution to prove him guilty.

I don't mind your questions, however, I would like for you to respond to my logic with facts of your own to back up your feelings on the matter.

Thanks,
Glenn

Glenn101, my questions to you weren't in regard to the Hush Puppies per se. I was curious about your knowledge level of the case and perspective about circumstantial evidence since you said you didn't have a guilty/innocent opinion. And I appreciate that you responded.

I watched both trials and have no doubts about his guilt. It comes not just from shoe evidence, Gracie testimony, or any other single thing. It's the totality of the evidence that led me to that conclusion. I don't think there's any other way to arrive at an informed conclusion of the "truth" than by going through the trial. There is so much misinformation online, including here. "Facts" are constantly misstated.

As far as the shoes, IMO the evidence is extremely compelling in implicating JY. I don't agree that he was required to "prove his innocence" and I believe the prosecution proved guilt with the vast amount of circumstantial evidence presented in this case.

 

[Glenn101]

Glenn101, my questions to you weren't in regard to the Hush Puppies per se. I was curious about your knowledge level of the case and perspective about circumstantial evidence since you said you didn't have a guilty/innocent opinion. And I appreciate that you responded.

I watched both trials and have no doubts about his guilt. It comes not just from shoe evidence, Gracie testimony, or any other single thing. It's the totality of the evidence that led me to that conclusion. I don't think there's any other way to arrive at an informed conclusion of the "truth" than by going through the trial. There is so much misinformation online, including here. "Facts" are constantly misstated.

As far as the shoes, IMO the evidence is extremely compelling in implicating JY. I don't agree that he was required to "prove his innocence" and I believe the prosecution proved guilt with the vast amount of circumstantial evidence presented in this case.

Thanks for your reply. I have been trying to catch up on anything I have missed evidence wise by reading as much as I can and going back and fact checking when there seems to be a disagreement on just what the facts are.

I did a lot of reading before my first post. I have mentioned a few things that keep me on the undecided side of the fence.
(1) There is no evidence that ties Jason to the scene of the crime.
(2) The consistent gas mileage receipts
(3) The two sets of shoe prints
(4) Unidentified DNA on cigarette butts found at the home and on at least one item in Jason's closet.
(5) Several eyewitnesses that say a vehicle at the house at a time when it would have been impossible for Jason to be there and make it back to Virginia in time for him to make that 7:40 A.M. phone call.
(6) The timeline itself. Everything would have had to have fallen in place pretty precisely for him to have traveled back to Raleigh, killed Michelle, cleaned up without leaving a trace, cleaned up Cassidy, gotten rid of the bloody evidence (shoes, shirt, murder weapon etc. and doing it so well that no one has been able to find a shred of those clothes even though the route that he had to pretty closely follow is well known) and make it back to Virginia in time for him to make that 7:40 A.M. phone call. Even the prosecution knew that there was a problem with the time line because they were looking to maybe find a small airport where he could have chartered a plane.
(7) The complete absence of any wounds on Jason

I do not listen much to talk about affairs, etc. unless there is evidence that the one having the affair really wanted to end the marriage. Were there indications, emails, testimony that Jason wanted out of his marriage??? Or was he fat dumb, and happy having a wife with a good income and being able to get something extra on the side? Not a very nice gut, to be sure. But being a philanderer is not normally a motive for murder. For being murdered maybe.

But I would really like for you to lay out the totality of evidence for me that has you convinced, or maybe point me to a previous post that lays it out. I have not seen anyone really lay it out yet. Is there a thread where I can find it so you or anyone else will not have to go over it again???

Right now I am on hold waiting for the evidence of cash gasoline purchases between Hillsville and Raleigh or between Raleigh and King. There is absolutely no way that Jason could have made that trip without purchasing additional gasoline. Any such evidence would be pretty much a slam dunk for the prosecution and would be a tipping point for me.

Thanks,
Glenn

 

[otto]

That makes Cindy Beaver's testimony even more credible. Tiller saw the house with all of the lights on between four and give with a vehicle parked as if it were to be loaded with something. At 5:20 Cindy Beaver sees a similar vehicle leaving the residence and noted that there were more lights than usual on. She did not say that all of the lights were on.

Just some more circumstantial evidence.

Glenn

The gas station attendant's memory improved over time, and the newpaper delivery person's memory failed over time. They both modified their statements to support the prosecution theory.

 

[JusticeFever]

The gas station attendant's memory improved over time, and the newpaper delivery person's memory failed over time. They both modified their statements to support the prosecution theory.

I listened to Gracie's testimony over the weekend, I wanted to check a few things, will post what I found interesting tomorrow.

 

[JusticeFever]

After 1 hour listening to Gracie's testimony in its entirety and wondering why the part I highlighted was never pointed out before.

LE came in and showed her a photo of a white SUV asking her if she had seen it, she never volunteered that info or said anything about it on her own. Then the showed her a photo of Jason, and asked if she saw him, and then they told her they were looking for him.

Later at the 28:32 mark is where Gracie's story falls apart. She says that @ 5:27 am when Jason pulled into the gas station and up to the pump, there were no other cars at 4 Bros., that his was the only car at the gas station. How can that possibly be?
There are transactions at 5:26 and 5:28, how did those people come there without a car, did they walk in
from the highway?


http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9714910/

 

[Glenn101]

After 1 hour listening to Gracie's testimony in its entirety and wondering why the part I highlighted was never pointed out before.

LE came in and showed her a photo of a white SUV asking her if she had seen it, she never volunteered that info or said anything about it on her own. Then the showed her a photo of Jason, and asked if she saw him, and then they told her they were looking for him.

Later at the 28:32 mark is where Gracie's story falls apart. She says that @ 5:27 am when Jason pulled into the gas station and up to the pump, there were no other cars at 4 Bros., that his was the only car at the gas station. How can that possibly be?
There are transactions at 5:26 and 5:28, how did those people come there without a car, did they walk in
from the highway?


http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9714910/

I don't have time to go back through that testimony right now, but it would seem that her statement about there being a regular customer in the store at the time was not part of her testimony. Was that statement made to the investigators only???

Thanks,
Glenn

 

[Glenn101]

In going over the testimony from the trials and other information, I understand that the infamous camera was first noticed by the night auditor, Keith Hicks. Apparently it was unplugged around 11:19 P.M. Keith had a maintenance worker plug it back in sometime in the 3:30 to 4:00 A.M. time frame. It was during that camera inspection that he saw a rock in the exit door that was normally locked either 24/7 or from 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM, one or the other. That is not really all that important.

What is important is that Keith said that he kicked the rock out of the door. That rock was retrieved and tested for DNA traces. There were some traces of DNA which did not match Jason Young.

Jason Young testified that he propped the door open with a twig, which is entirely possible, especially if the twig is used to keep the latch from catching on the striker. I do not see any reason for Jason to say he used a twig if he in fact used a rock.

This fits in very well with someone other than Jason placing the rock in the door to keep it open.after Jason had finished his cigar and returned to his room, removing the twig from the door.

I would like to know more about the camera system. Some posters have said that they do not take continuous video, but once very fourteen seconds. I did not get this from the testimony of Keith Hicks. He said that the output from the cameras are displayed on a split screen monitor showing video from four cameras at once, cycling between the various camera every fourteen seconds. I am familiar with such systems. The ones I have worked with have a constant video stream which is recorded on a multi-track video tape. I think that a person would have to approach that camera from the backside, from the exit door side, in order to unplug it or push it up towards the ceiling without being seen.

I need to find some high resolution pictures of that camera and the doors to round this out in my mind.

Glenn

 

[JusticeFever]

I don't have time to go back through that testimony right now, but it would seem that her statement about there being a regular customer in the store at the time was not part of her testimony. Was that statement made to the investigators only???

Thanks,
Glenn

Yes, the regular customer is part of Gracie's testimony and LE made an effort to find him, and then never showed her the tapes. The whole thing is just really strange, and if I had to use one word to describe it, it would be forced, a forced to fit scenario...
It makes no sense. LE comes in 3 days later and asks her if she has seen a white SUV, she says Yes.,...well, I would imagine a white SUV is not that rare. Then they show her a picture, just one picture of Jason, and ask if she recognized him, and then she says Yes. But, she never told them about the SUV on her own. And, she never told anyone else anything about it, even in passing to her boss. Like I had this weird guy who yelled at me..nothing.
Then everything else is just a little off too.......no cameras, no customer who supposedly said Jason was rude, and now I just found out she says there were no cars there the same time Jason was, that is impossible!!
There are transactions going on at the same exact time!
But, the biggest thing that has always bothered me, is this! The eye witness who can say JY left his hotel room, was on the highway purchasing gas, can break the case wide open, and they don't even bring Jason in for questioning? Huh?

I always felt that they wanted the jurors to believe her, when they did not believe enough in her themselves.

JMO

 

[citygirl]

I have not watched either of the trials. I have read quite a bit on many of the forums about the trials and the evidence that was presented.

I am aware of the concept of circumstantial evidence. When someone points out what he or she feels is a strong bit of circumstantial evidence, I go back and do a bit of research on that aspect of the trial. I am really big on evidence.

The shoe evidence is circumstantial. And it most plausibly points to two people being involved in that murder.

The unknown DNA found on the shoeshine kit in Jason's closet is another bit of circumstantial evidence that points away from Jason. As is the unknown DNA from the cigarette butts.

The gas receipts are circumstantial evidence that points away from Jason being in Raleigh that night. That is the biggest hurdle that anyone needs to overcome to have me lean towards a guilty verdict. Up to this point, no one has presented any evidence to overcome that bit of circumstantial evidence. And it is not like the investigators did not try.

At this point, as I have stated, I do not know. I have not seen any evidence, circumstantial or direct, that would provide a tipping point for me.

Thanks,
Glenn

I would suggest you take the time to listen to testimony in both trials. As far as the prints on the shoeshine kit? Who cares? How does this have anything to do with the murder? I am sure there were many unidentified prints all over their home.

I do wonder about one thing though. The blood that was found on the door leading to the garage. It was MY's. I assume there was no finger print. Would this indicate that the perp wore a glove?