State vs. Jason Lynn Young 02-29-12

[Cammy]

IMO JMO MOO

:truce:

:deadhorse:

:whiteflag:


This means nothing. IMO
We know all of this from the PT CIC.
Defense did a good job on cross with those witnesses,
why are we going over this again.

:banghead:

All these prints came from CCBI, this is important.
These prints are all unidentified...

 

[hindsight2020]

This fingerprint analyst testimony will be a major part of DT closing arguments on physical evidence.

 

[Boodles]

IMO I think that mamma knows a whole lot more than she is telling.

I still wonder about accessory after the fact, or possibly even before. I need to understand the criteria for AATF. However, I find the many phone calls in the 30 days prior to the murder, between PY and JY, which were atypically high, suspicious.

 

[tarheellvr]

It COULD be......

It MAY be.........

MY assessment........

 

[Cammy]

That's Jason's print was there before the crime, since there's an overlap, is where they are going with this, IMO.

You got it...!!

 

[twirlygurl]

People in the house could include builders movers, friends, family, plumber, electrician, cleaning lady, baby sitter, baby sitter's boyfriend, carpet cleaner, butcher, baker and Indian Chief.

Indian Chief....hehehe!

I can't remember...anything suspicious brought up about no forced entry to the house?

 

[Madeleine74]

Ynotdive in wrote: But to put up a lot of scientific mumblety-mumble after the fairly damning testimony about JLY's personality over the last two days is, from where I sit and IMO, maybe a tell.

I swear I'm not trying to be obtuse, but what 'tell' are you discerning? Keep in mind I'm not a poker player, if that makes a difference.

 

[Turnadot]

He also keeps saying 'think.' I 'think.'

That means he doesn't know.

At least to me.
JMHO
fran

IDK, science types will most likely qualify with 'I think...' if they can't state something with absolute certainty, and most science can't, so I'm not holding it against him here. He probably does know, but is uncomfortable testifying with certainty because he's a scientist. Kind of like how they qualify stuff with 'consistent with' instead of saying it's the same as this, or that.

All just IMO, of course.

 

[Tipstaff]

I Was following you up until you got to Indian Chief. That one threw me!

Desperation.........

 

[Wolfpack]

It COULD be......

It MAY be.........

MY assessment........

I see this completely opposite. He knows enough about forensics to know you can't be 100% sure about anything. Even the other witnesses say "it is consistent with" not "it is" or "I am certain that..."

 

[Cammy]

Just happened to check out tweets related to trial and people are completely discounting this evidence. I see this as the most direct and relevant evidence that's been presented in the entire trial. Forensics are EVERYTHING - can't be faked, can't be lied about, aren't circumstantial.

This is very significant testimony IMO.

Beth Karras said earlier they Jurors were paying attention and taking notes even during the boring part of this testimony.

I am glad to hear this.

 

[Stella5]

So now we have unidentifiable fingerprints on the eBay printouts... must mean the robbers/murderers broke in to steal those eBay auctions, but then saw they were expired and left them behind.

UGH!

 

[iucpa]

it could be......

It may be.........

My expert assessment........

bbm ftfy.

 

[Turnadot]

I see this completely opposite. He knows enough about forensics to know you can't be 100% sure about anything. Even the other witnesses say "it is consistent with" not "it is" or "I am certain that..."

Yes. Thank you.

 

[Madeleine74]

If finger prints cannot be dated, then it's possible someone touched the paper itself before it was ever in the printer and ended up with an ebay printout on it, right?

I'm trying to imagine what intruder would go over to the printer to look at an ebay printout. Then again, maybe they were hoping to find a Coach purse and were very disappointed that it was just a tease.

 

[fran]

Why does it matter about the Ebay papers?

they weren't even in the room where the crime happened?

Now the Progress Energy papers. Well, they're from her work so someone else at WORK most likely handled them.

This is all useless information.

JMHO,
fran

 

[otto]

Jason's prints are on the door, but the blood splattering event came AFTERWARDS.

Now, this guy is getting it in gear, it just took forever to get here!!

It's an interesting strategy that the defense has ... presenting all the unidentified evidence as evidence that someone else may have murdered Michelle.

 

[aliciabal]

The thing with the blood being atop the print isn't particularly compelling to me. All is proves is that he touched that area at some point in time before the murder. Well, he lived there so I would expect his prints everywhere. As far as the unidentified prints, any number of reasons can exist. Was the home previously owned? Workmen, guests? The prints just aren't going to give a smoking gun IMO.

 

[iucpa]

Why are so many people doubting this evidence or casting it aside? I came into this trial completely unbiased and looking for FORENSIC evidence, and this is the best and most forensic evidence that's been presented. I understand being upset if it goes against your hopes, but if you look at this unbiased and objectively, do you not see this as very relevant evidence?

 

[Cammy]

I wasn't able to watch today. Did the Defense rest? Can someone give me a quick synopsis? Pretty please....

thanks,

wm

The defense has not rested, and I think the Pros is going to take a long time on direct cross with this witness.

HC indicated that he wanted to call his own expert witness to look at this testimony.

I also think the defense has one more witness after this.

They said they had 3 to go this am.