State vs. Jason Lynn Young 02-29-12

[Grammy Jean]

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.

I really like this, I wish PT would use those very words in closing

 

[Turnadot]

IMO, it matters. All of it matters, every single unidentified print matters, unless a defense team is really crappy.

 

[ynotdivein]

I did not follow the first trial, and today is actually the first day I have been able to watch the live stream of this one (thank you, Mr. Sinus Infection). I've followed all of your posts avidly. So am a tainted "mock juror" at best.

That said, I believe that this expert witness is potentially troublesome in that he has good cred, but is throwing up supposed questions that really don't conclusively point to either G or NG.

I do hope that the PT is ready to come out of the gate swinging hard in their closing statement.

 

[hindsight2020]

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

. . .right, and/or that there is no physical evidence linking JY to the crime/murder scene.

 

[iucpa]

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.

But keep in mind, it isn't the DT job to find the smoking gun. Their job is to point out reasonable doubt. In my unbiased mind, despite the fact that it appears JY is a despicable low-life, this evidence SCREAMS reasonable doubt.

I honestly don't see any other way to look at this evidence. Am I missing something?

 

[Stella5]

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

Exactly! And the paper paper, that could have come from MY or JY's work as well if they needed printer paper at home.

I think the entire point of this witness was to muddy the waters and create reasonable doubt. Didn't work on me. Too many other variables to explain the prints.

 

[octobermoon]

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

I am on cold meds, ignore me if you must.

There are fingerprints, palm prints, latent prints in every inch of this world. Let alone an old house, in an old neighborhood.

Unless it is an unidentified print in MY's blood () it means nothing. As in nothing proven nothing gained.

 

[Madeleine74]

It appears there is some conflicting interpretation of that sheet rock and finger prints and order of prints vs blood. CCBI / SBI testified to something different. This witness is giving his interpretation. Prints by JY on the wall. DNA testing matched JY to the exclusion of anyone else (10 markers confirmed). The blood is MY's on the wall.

I'm not seeing evidence pointing to some other perp.

 

[aliciabal]

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?

I think what we have is a difference in how evidence is being interpreted. The jury has their work cut out for them. Its interesting to see how our group is divided on how they see the evidence stacking up.

 

[iucpa]

I am on cold meds, ignore me if you must.

There are fingerprints, palm prints, latent prints in every inch of this world. Let alone an old house, in an old neighborhood.

Unless it is an unidentified print in MY's blood () it means nothing. As in nothing proven nothing gained.

Again, not the DT's job to "prove" anything. Their job is to introduce doubt. This is doubt - no two ways to look at it. Now, whether an individual juror dismisses it and says it could have been anyone from anytime, or whether a juror says "wow, this just makes me wonder" is up for debate.

As in, hung jury-type material.

 

[Madeleine74]

Assumptions vs Assessments

Could be true; Could be not true

Educated guess

Rock paper (scissors)

 

[ynotdivein]

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.

A "tell" as to how firm the DT is in their case/conviction that JLY is not guilty. If the DT had good solid evidence to say "JLY was a such-and-so, but he was not a murderer because of item A, item B, and item C," then they would say that. Instead we got JLY's mom on the stand and some testimony that backhandedly indicated that JLY was in fact a poop.

So as a defense lawyer, what do you do? You bring in the ridges. The swirls. The "more than likely"...

Again, just MOO.

 

[Tipstaff]

So the expert says the JY's fingerprint was on the wall BEFORE the blood spatter...so ok he braced himself with one hand while he struck some of the blows to MY. The blows were so severe so as to have the blood spray as he continued to strike MY.

 

[Cammy]

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?

Agree,

All this evidence originally came in through Karen Morrow, it is only fair that the defense gets to challenge it by calling a witness of their own.

HC was not happy about this witness, as he has mainly been a Pros witness over 400 times, and only 3 times as a defensive witness.

 

[Boodles]

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!

That's why they should have ruled out LE's prints from the evidence. The pros KNEW they were going to present these unidentified prints. This is a sad omission on the part of the State, to not have done that and ruled out LE. Because I strongly suspect the prints on the computer papers were LEs. Who else would CARE about them?

 

[MyBelle]

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

That means he doesn't know.

At least to me.
JMHO
fran

He's an expert offering a professional opinion. He can't claim anything with 100% certainty just as DNA analysis isn't 100% perfect.

JMO

 

[aliciabal]

But keep in mind, it isn't the DT job to find the smoking gun. Their job is to point out reasonable doubt. In my unbiased mind, despite the fact that it appears JY is a despicable low-life, this evidence SCREAMS reasonable doubt.

I honestly don't see any other way to look at this evidence. Am I missing something?

True but I think, IMO, they haven't shown me reasonable doubt. All they've shown is that the house contained lots of fingerprints along with the hotel. When I consider the life insurance, his character and the enormous coincidence of tampering with the hotel camera, I come away with the conclusion that he had ample means, motive and opportunity. Not every case is going to be loaded with forensics so circumstances must be considered IMO.

 

[~n/t~]

But keep in mind, it isn't the DT job to find the smoking gun. Their job is to point out reasonable doubt. In my unbiased mind, despite the fact that it appears JY is a despicable low-life, this evidence SCREAMS reasonable doubt.

I honestly don't see any other way to look at this evidence. Am I missing something?

I think that's what he's doing. I have no sound so just going by the posts, it seems he is casting doubt that the print is definitely, without a doubt, no question, JY's and it may not be at all.

Enough to cause one juror to hang? perhaps. But that is the defense strategy.

 

[dmaxphil]

This is an extremely weak line of questioning by pros IMO. Silly questions with a hint of anger, again IMO.

 

[fran]

I THINK in my UNeducated assessment, I could figure out that JY touched the door jam, PRIOR to the crime, as the blood droplets were on TOP of the prints.

Oh, and that would be MY's blood, which MAY or MAY NOT have been left from the actual crime. As she lived there, the blood droplets could have been from earlier, BEFORE the crime occurred.

:innocent:
fran