Michelle Young, pregnant mom, murdered Part 15.

[jilly]

Hi Jilly,

IIRC the library card came from the house.

The thing is that would Jason bother to use the internet at the library if he was going to search methods of killing? He and Michelle had one computer at home and there was a laptop as well which was in Jason's possession so I would assume it was a personal business laptop of Jason's.

I don't think the laptop was supplied to Jason by ChartOne or they would have received a SW as the owner as well as Jason.

Both the home PC and Laptop were internet enabled. If Jason wanted to google without Michelle knowing, he would most probably have done it n the laptop out of public view, when she was asleep, in the shower, when she was at work or he on lunch breaks, etc.

If the library has computer catalogue databases that don't require a logon of the person searching, then nothing could be gained from that network as far as what Jason looked up (books).

They will be able to look up what he has borrowed and when he borrowed, and can use those dates to see if he had used any internet library computers on those dates.

Sami

Hi Sami - Yes, but what I'm thinking is that he's not going to use the home computers for all this googling because he knows maybe that if he's suspected in her murder, LE is going to take those computers and find out what he's been up to. Scott Peterson as we all know was having a hay day searching tides, currents etc. Maybe JY heard about this - the whole world did, I think, lol.

I was just wondering if there was any link between the computer history & his library card......which the more I think about is probably a stupid question, lol. Even if they took the library computers that he used, there would be a kzillion other users as well.

I somehow, don't think that he used the library computer for his communications with MM. THAT could be done at home when his wife wasn't around.

 

[Samiya]

Hi Sami - Yes, but what I'm thinking is that he's not going to use the home computers for all this googling because he knows maybe that if he's suspected in her murder, LE is going to take those computers and find out what he's been up to. Scott Peterson as we all know was having a hay day searching tides, currents etc. Maybe JY heard about this - the whole world did, I think, lol.

I was just wondering if there was any link between the computer history & his library card......which the more I think about is probably a stupid question, lol. Even if they took the library computers that he used, there would be a kzillion other users as well.

I somehow, don't think that he used the library computer for his communications with MM. THAT could be done at home when his wife wasn't around.

Apart from selling Medical Software, Jason seems to be, in the least, an 'average computer user'. If he was knowledgeable in the area of whether or not Forensics could get information off his computers, he wouldn't have used his home computer or laptop to email MM at all. So he would also certainly assume he would be safe on lappy or home PC if he was googling weapons et al and that he could just clear cookies, cache and searches and not be 'caught'.

As for a link between his computer and his library card....who knows. If he was googling certain things then hiring books on the same subject from the library, then uh oh.

Sami

 

[Bee Charmer]

I think Jason's attorney shut him down for the simple reasons
that Jason was having a relationship with another woman and he
was on a business trip the night of the murder.

That early decision has paid off, unfortunately it seems to me.

 

[liveoutloud]

I think Jason's attorney shut him down for the simple reasons
that Jason was having a relationship with another woman and he
was on a business trip the night of the murder.

That early decision has paid off, unfortunately it seems to me.

Hi!
Newbie
I think in the long run, that decision is going to cost him with jurors. I really do.

 

[liveoutloud]

Question

I just finished reading another Scott Peterson book. I'm struck with the similarities between these two cases only, this guy, this Jason Young, was actually somehow worse in my opinion than Scottie. At least Scottie--as far as we know--didn't hurt Lacy. Now the question. From just what has been seen in this case and what can be inferred from that, how would it fare if it went to trial? SP's case was circumstantial after all. Thanks for any responders.

 

[scandi]

Hi Liveoutloud, I have read several comments at CTV that this might not be brought in during trial. The statements by LE saying he is uncooperative could be deemed prejuducial and the defense will probably move to strike them.

Doesn't seem fair, does it, if that is true. Scandi

 

[Bee Charmer]

Hi!
Newbie
I think in the long run, that decision is going to cost him with jurors. I really do.

I think so too, if the Prosecutor is clever enough to expose
his unhelpfulness to the jury, through other witnesses.

Then imo, you will see all those claiming that his refusal to help in the investigation doesn't mean anything, posting that the jury should not be allowed to know that he was uncooperative....lol

 

[liveoutloud]

Hi Liveoutloud, I have read several comments at CTV that this might not be brought in during trial. The statements by LE saying he is uncooperative could be deemed prejuducial and the defense will probably move to strike them.

Doesn't seem fair, does it, if that is true. Scandi

Ah, no not fair.
However, jurors are going to know anyway. If they don't know ahead of time, the DA will get it in (probably stricken by objection but in just the same) anyway.

 

[jake]

Howdy,

From what I read here and on other boards, I am definitely in the minority because I believe Jason was smart to hire an attorney and stand on his right to refuse grilling...eh, an interview... by the cops.

No, I'm not going to try to convince anyone to my way of thinking. But it seems to me that if the cops are intent on proving me guilty, as seemed obvious from the beginning in this case, I am not going to help them.

I can't help but believe that the Founding Fathers wrote the constitutional right to silence for the innocent, not the guilty. But again, this is just my opinion because I'm too lazy to research what James Madison had to say about it. Maybe I'll go there now.

I just wanted everyone to know that there is at least ONE here who doesn't equate Jason's silence with guilt....it is not a unanimous verdict.

--Jake

 

[jake]

Howdy,

I just found these two articles about the right to remain silent in a criminal procedure. Others more knowledgeable may be able to direct you to better articles.
And why don't they show up as links? I have no idea.

--Jake

http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-v-to-the-u-s-constitution

http://www.justicelearning.org/justice_timeline/AmendmentsTimeline.aspx?ID=5&timelineID=7

 

[jake]

Ah, no not fair.
However, jurors are going to know anyway. If they don't know ahead of time, the DA will get it in (probably stricken by objection but in just the same) anyway.

Howdy,

Now you wouldn't suggest that the DA would use Jason's exercise of his right as evidence against him, would you?

Just kidding, sorta. I know what the real world is like, and so does Jason. Hence, his silence.

--Jake

April 1965
Prosecutor’s comments to jury about defendant’s decision not to testify violate the Fifth Amendment
In Griffin v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination not only allows a criminal defendant to refuse to take the witness stand during his trial; it also bars the prosecutor at the trial from urging the jury to interpret that silence as an indication that the defendant has something to hide. The Court reasons that the right against self-incrimination would be meaningless if a defendant’s exercise of the right could be used as evidence against him.

 

[jilly]

Howdy,

From what I read here and on other boards, I am definitely in the minority because I believe Jason was smart to hire an attorney and stand on his right to refuse grilling...eh, an interview... by the cops.

No, I'm not going to try to convince anyone to my way of thinking. But it seems to me that if the cops are intent on proving me guilty, as seemed obvious from the beginning in this case, I am not going to help them.

I can't help but believe that the Founding Fathers wrote the constitutional right to silence for the innocent, not the guilty. But again, this is just my opinion because I'm too lazy to research what James Madison had to say about it. Maybe I'll go there now.

I just wanted everyone to know that there is at least ONE here who doesn't equate Jason's silence with guilt....it is not a unanimous verdict.

--Jake

Jake, I don't think anyone is criticizing the guy for getting a lawyer. It's the fact that he's hiding behind the lawyer saying "hey Mr DA, you come and prove that I did it - until then I'm not talking".

I think I've read your rebuttal to this saying "oh but he's only following his lawyer's advice".

This is true, but don't forget - jy is paying the lawyer. He's the customer! If he was truely innocent, he would be jumping up and down imo to get his name cleared and help with this investigation. He would be insisting to his lawyer that he wants to cooperate with LE. He could do this with the lawyer holding his hand.

This is not a novice idea Jake. If you've ever followed any other cases you would see that many suspects/POIs are throwing themselves out there volunteering for a polygraph - anything! to get on the right track & find the killer. I ask you Jake - what would you do if you came home and found your wife murdered (God forbid)?

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

Howdy,

Now you wouldn't suggest that the DA would use Jason's exercise of his right as evidence against him, would you?

Just kidding, sorta. I know what the real world is like, and so does Jason. Hence, his silence.

--Jake

(snipped)

FYI,
I had reason to observe a U.S. District Court jury trial last August (it was a DWI and assault case, but jurisdiction was the U.S. District Court because it was an Army Soldier, and the incidents happened on a military base). In the defense attorney's opening statements, he got the basics to the jury in his own way - he was up front with his statements that the defendant's not testifying on his behalf was his constitutional right...and the defendant had refused to submit to DWI Standard Field Sobriety Tests, as well as blood and breath tests. It was very clear and reiterated several more times during the trial.

Rather than assuming the DA may get Jason's lack of interviewing, etc. to the jury in a back-handed manner (as other people sometimes assume they might), it should also be considered that his Defense Atty's will also bring it out in the beginning, putting their own spin, so to speak, on it...just as the defense atty in the trial I mentioned. Sometimes it's just best to tell it like it is and have initial control. Of course, Jason's attorneys know all this and are quite experienced, from what I've read. JMO.

ETA: Assuming he even gets charged with Michelle's murder. Forgot that part, LOL.

DD

 

[Tia]

Howdy,

Now you wouldn't suggest that the DA would use Jason's exercise of his right as evidence against him, would you?

Just kidding, sorta. I know what the real world is like, and so does Jason. Hence, his silence.

--Jake

April 1965
Prosecutor’s comments to jury about defendant’s decision not to testify violate the Fifth Amendment
In Griffin v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination not only allows a criminal defendant to refuse to take the witness stand during his trial; it also bars the prosecutor at the trial from urging the jury to interpret that silence as an indication that the defendant has something to hide. The Court reasons that the right against self-incrimination would be meaningless if a defendant’s exercise of the right could be used as evidence against him.

From all the I have read on the case, exercising he right is not what is happening here. The comment in just about every article is that Jason Young is not cooperating, much different that exercising his right.

 

[Barney Fife]

Jake, I don't think anyone is criticizing the guy for getting a lawyer. It's the fact that he's hiding behind the lawyer saying "hey Mr DA, you come and prove that I did it - until then I'm not talking".

I think I've read your rebuttal to this saying "oh but he's only following his lawyer's advice".

This is true, but don't forget - jy is paying the lawyer. He's the customer! If he was truely innocent, he would be jumping up and down imo to get his name cleared and help with this investigation. He would be insisting to his lawyer that he wants to cooperate with LE. He could do this with the lawyer holding his hand.

This is not a novice idea Jake. If you've ever followed any other cases you would see that many suspects/POIs are throwing themselves out there volunteering for a polygraph - anything! to get on the right track & find the killer. I ask you Jake - what would you do if you came home and found your wife murdered (God forbid)?

Yes Jilly, everything about Mr Young's behavior is "not norm". If it were me, I would let the cops cool off from thinking the obvious (spouse is killer) and then approach them on MY TERMS with the intention of helping find the killer. No, not being grilled. HELPING with the investigation so they get on the right track of finding the real killer.

Not happening in this case because the "real killer" is in Brevard.

 

[scandi]

From all the I have read on the case, exercising he right is not what is happening here. The comment in just about every article is that Jason Young is not cooperating, much different that exercising his right.

Really interesting Tia!

So the right not to incriminate oneself is only when you are in a court of law. There if you tell a lie you are subject to charges of perjury. What the law does is protect this person it seems from telling the truth if it will show guilt in any way, don't you think? And all along the person is legaly considered innocent until proven guilty, and the court can and does have the right to exclude prejudicial evidence which might show a propensity to guilt!

What were our forefathers thinking, anyway!?

So what our judicial system does is put the burden of proof of guilt soley and squarely on the State to prove without a reasonable doubt the person is guilty. This doesn't make it easy. You would think our forefathers could have found a better solution to this problem so those likely to be guilty couldn't hide behind a law! :banghead:

In saying this I am thinking of the rights of the victims. It seems they were second in line of thought in the minds of our forefathers. Scandi

 

[jake]

Really interesting Tia!

So the right not to incriminate oneself is only when you are in a court of law. There if you tell a lie you are subject to charges of perjury. What the law does is protect this person it seems from telling the truth if it will show guilt in any way, don't you think? And all along the person is legaly considered innocent until proven guilty, and the court can and does have the right to exclude prejudicial evidence which might show a propensity to guilt!

What were our forefathers thinking, anyway!?

So what our judicial system does is put the burden of proof of guilt soley and squarely on the State to prove without a reasonable doubt the person is guilty. This doesn't make it easy. You would think our forefathers could have found a better solution to this problem so those likely to be guilty couldn't hide behind a law! :banghead:

In saying this I am thinking of the rights of the victims. It seems they were second in line of thought in the minds of our forefathers. Scandi

Howdy,

I disagree slightlly with what you say. I believe that in order to gain justice for the victims the founding fathers insured the innocent would be protected.

Where would be justice for the victim if the innocent were convicted? The innocent and the victim are first in line of thought in the minds of our forefathers.

Certainly the innocent are protected in court. But I believe they also are protected from the cops before court is convened. Thank God!

--Jake

 

[jilly]

I was just looking at some past articles and even though I watched the footage at the funeral, I now see a couple of stills of jy that day. The whole time, in his sunglasses, that guy kept looking at the ground.

Kind of reminds me of SP at the memorial in his baseball cap - didn't want to be seen. I am so glad that People did an article on this guy. I wonder how many women came forward?

Here's the link to the stills (bottom of page).

http://www.wral.com/apps/search/sea...&before=&sort=date&order=&filter=&max_results

 

[poco]

Jake, I don't think anyone is criticizing the guy for getting a lawyer. It's the fact that he's hiding behind the lawyer saying "hey Mr DA, you come and prove that I did it - until then I'm not talking".

I think I've read your rebuttal to this saying "oh but he's only following his lawyer's advice".

This is true, but don't forget - jy is paying the lawyer. He's the customer! If he was truely innocent, he would be jumping up and down imo to get his name cleared and help with this investigation. He would be insisting to his lawyer that he wants to cooperate with LE. He could do this with the lawyer holding his hand.

This is not a novice idea Jake. If you've ever followed any other cases you would see that many suspects/POIs are throwing themselves out there volunteering for a polygraph - anything! to get on the right track & find the killer. I ask you Jake - what would you do if you came home and found your wife murdered (God forbid)?

Cooperate with them to the fullest ---- UNLESS I had something to hide!

 

[poco]

Question

I just finished reading another Scott Peterson book. I'm struck with the similarities between these two cases only, this guy, this Jason Young, was actually somehow worse in my opinion than Scottie. At least Scottie--as far as we know--didn't hurt Lacy. Now the question. From just what has been seen in this case and what can be inferred from that, how would it fare if it went to trial? SP's case was circumstantial after all. Thanks for any responders.

He didn't hurt her???????? He friggin' killed her!!!!