Michelle Young, pregnant mom, murdered Part 17

[nanandjim]

Everyone is being misled by YOU. I'm writing you off. First, you say you were at the house and you saw.... Then, you're busted, and you say "well, I actually wasn't there, my wife was, but i saw pictures". Then, I read where you told again today, what you saw "when you were in the house". You're so full of goose ***** it isn't funny!
:boohoo:

I agree. Jake says that he doesn't trust LE in a few posts. Then, he says that he was raised to respect them in another. He goes round and round with his answers. I am tired of making HIM the center of attention. He is here to be a "big shot" and take information back to his guilty friend, Jason. I am no longer responding to his posts.

 

[jake]

Everyone is being misled by YOU. I'm writing you off. First, you say you were at the house and you saw.... Then, you're busted, and you say "well, I actually wasn't there, my wife was, but i saw pictures". Then, I read where you told again today, what you saw "when you were in the house". You're so full of goose ***** it isn't funny!
:boohoo:

You'll never find a post by me saying I was not in the house. You'll find other posters saying I only saw pictures of the house. They seem to want to believe I wasn't in the house.

Then you'll see me not bothering to correct those posters. They're going to believe what they want to believe no matter what I say. So will you.

I have never on purpose misled anyone. I think people ought to read carefully and not be so quick to jump to conclusions. This includes you.

--Jake

 

[jilly]

I was raised differently than anyone in Jason's generation. I was taught to respect LE, and I still do.

I was also taught, mainly by example, to right wrongs myself if I could. I believe in this case I would try to.

--Jake

I know where you're coming from Jake - I believe we're on the same side of the generation gap. We were raised to be loyal - a trait which I see slowly disappearing.

I understand your dilemma and emotions in this situation but since I also believe that you are an educated man with a conscience, I believe you would do the right thing.

I sincerely wish you well.

 

[jake]

I agree. Jake says that he doesn't trust LE in a few posts. Then, he says that he was raised to respect them in another. He goes round and round with his answers. I am tired of making HIM the center of attention. He is here to be a "big shot" and take information back to his guilty friend, Jason. I am no longer responding to his posts.

I can respect LE without trusting them with my life. Sorry you can't understand that. You really ought to put me on "Ignore".

--Jake

 

[raisincharlie]

I agree. Jake says that he doesn't trust LE in a few posts. Then, he says that he was raised to respect them in another. He goes round and round with his answers. I am tired of making HIM the center of attention. He is here to be a "big shot" and take information back to his guilty friend, Jason. I am no longer responding to his posts.

Ground Hog Day

 

[jake]

I know where you're coming from Jake - I believe we're on the same side of the generation gap. We were raised to be loyal - a trait which I see slowly disappearing.

I understand your dilemma and emotions in this situation but since I also believe that you are an educated man with a conscience, I believe you would do the right thing.

I sincerely wish you well.

Thanks, Jilly. After more than 4,000 posts, you've seen about everything on this board. I like to think I will do the right thing.

--Jake

 

[Barney Fife]

Hi, Shaggy. Welcome. Your first post! You're no longer a virgin on this board!

Yeah, I've seen that article before. No sex, no affair, through a computer or phone, though. Just a "relationship".

--Jake

You obviously do not know JY very well Jake. MM has told the truth to LE and her friends and they know there was a sexual affair. If you think otherwise, you are totally in the dark. Of course you told us she was pregnant. Gossip that you thought would stir up some commotion (it did).
Did it get you the attention that night you were craving ?

 

[Tia]

You obviously do not know JY very well Jake. MM has told the truth to LE and her friends and they know there was a sexual affair. If you think otherwise, you are totally in the dark. Of course you told us she was pregnant. Gossip that you thought would stir up some commotion (it did).
Did it get you the attention that night you were craving ?

Hey Barney! You know Jake signs off when the HARD questions are asked!

 

[raisincharlie]

You'll never find a post by me saying I was not in the house. You'll find other posters saying I only saw pictures of the house. They seem to want to believe I wasn't in the house.

Then you'll see me not bothering to correct those posters. They're going to believe what they want to believe no matter what I say. So will you.

I have never on purpose misled anyone. I think people ought to read carefully and not be so quick to jump to conclusions. This includes you.

--Jake

You have never answered my question about if you were being deceitful about the search warrant for the hammer/mallet. You would not know what the probable cause section of that warrant said unless your read it or the information was told to you by someone who did. I know you did not read it as at the time, the warrant was not returned - if you read it, it could only be because JY's lawyer showed it to you. If someone told you what it said, it sort of goes against your claim that JY is not talking - obviously he would have had to say something to someone who relayed it to you.

So which is it - are you being deceitful about the warrant or about your sources - or both ? Since you do not wish to mislead - please answer the question.

 

[jake]

You have never answered my question about if you were being deceitful about the search warrant for the hammer/mallet. You would not know what the probable cause section of that warrant said unless your read it or the information was told to you by someone who did. I know you did not read it as at the time, the warrant was not returned - if you read it, it could only be because JY's lawyer showed it to you. If someone told you what it said, it sort of goes against your claim that JY is not talking - obviously he would have had to say something to someone who relayed it to you.

So which is it - are you being deceitful about the warrant or about your sources - or both ? Since you do not wish to mislead - please answer the question.

I've answered this already. I misread the newspaper article about the hammer/mallet.

--Jake

 

[jake]

You obviously do not know JY very well Jake. MM has told the truth to LE and her friends and they know there was a sexual affair. If you think otherwise, you are totally in the dark. Of course you told us she was pregnant. Gossip that you thought would stir up some commotion (it did).
Did it get you the attention that night you were craving ?

Well hi there, Barney. Coming on the board at bedtime trying to "stir up some commotion"? You still craving attention?

You remember your early very personal posts giving juicy details about how the MM affair started? That got you the attention you craved, didn't it?

Maybe we'll see an arrest soon, before the week is over. What do you think? Who do you reckon it will be?

--Jake

 

[j2mirish]

:laugh:

Ground Hog Day

and oh, how annoying is that movie ?

 

[raisincharlie]

Still, wouldn't you think WRAL would report on the fact that a search warrant was used to take possession of a possible murder weapon? Seems strange to me.

Another thing I noticed in the search warrant: for perhaps the first time, the warrant does not mention Jason's lack of "cooperation".

--Jake

Jake

I don't buy your mis-read claim. Here is what you said about the search warrant. No where in either the N &O report or the ABC 11 is there even a remote mention of JYs cooperation or lack thereof.

This is another of your inventions, specifically stated to purposely mislead.

In case you wish to look again : http://www.newsobserver.com/141/story/565986.html

 

[Scout]

Jake,

What can you tell us about the trip that Jason, Cassidy, and Mrs. Young took to New York in late February or early March?

 

[raisincharlie]

:laugh:



and oh, how annoying is that movie ?

Very !

 

[jake]

Jake,

What can you tell us about the trip that Jason, Cassidy, and Mrs. Young took to New York in late February or early March?

Don't remember when it was. They went for a visit, came back, and said they enjoyed it. No details about the trip. Maybe somebody on the ctv board can tell you more.

--Jake

 

[nanandjim]

Jake

I don't buy your mis-read claim. Here is what you said about the search warrant. No where in either the N &O report or the ABC 11 is there even a remote mention of JYs cooperation or lack thereof.

This is another of your inventions, specifically stated to purposely mislead.

In case you wish to look again : http://www.newsobserver.com/141/story/565986.html

RC, please forgive me for taking the focus off of Jake for a moment , but I hadn't read this article. I don't know what object they found, but do you really think that Jason would leave the murder weapon behind? I think that he probably cleaned it and took it with him or put it back in its place in the home. What do you think?

 

[Scout]

Don't remember when it was. They went for a visit, came back, and said they enjoyed it. No details about the trip. Maybe somebody on the ctv board can tell you more.

--Jake

A visit with whom? Was there any other purpose for the trip?

 

[jake]

A visit with whom? Was there any other purpose for the trip?

I think the purpose was a visit with grandpop Alan. Nothing sinister that I know of.

--Jake

 

[jake]

I've been having some thoughts about the legal ramifications of arresting someone as a material witness. I've got a link and short summary from Wikipedia....probably just enough information to confuse me and others.

Maybe someone on the board with a legal background will tell us how this applies to this case---or not, if you think I am just trying to get free legal advice. But this might be of interest to everyone shortly.

I'm guessing that anyone--such as Jason--who is a suspect would not be a material witness. He would be testifying against himself.

I'm guessing that Jason's lawyer could not be a material witness.

I'm guessing that anyone else who is suspected of having pertinent information might be subject to arrest....Jason's family, Michelle's family, my family, your family, etc.

I have no idea why LE would use this arrest power rather than a subpoena.

--Jake

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_witness

A material witness is a person with information alleged to be material concerning a criminal proceeding. The authority to detain material witnesses dates to the First Judiciary Act of 1789, but the Bail Reform Act of 1984 most recently amended the text of the statute, and it is now codified at Section 3144 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

[citation needed] The most recent version allows material witnesses to be held to ensure the giving of their testimony in criminal proceedings or to a grand jury. Since September 11, 2001, the U.S. has used the material witness statute to detain suspects without charge for indefinite periods of time, often under the rubric of securing grand-jury testimony. This use of the statute is controversial and is currently under judicial review.