State vs. Jason Lynn Young 02-29-12

[Cammy]

I am very puzzled by CB's boss. He is creepy to me. If you are prior LE and you believe one of your employees is not always truthful, why would you call your fellow LE and encourage them to interview her? It just doesn't make sense. You are encouraging a troublemaker to go to LE with a suspect story. If he is telling the truth, he is not very considerate of LE which has way too much on their plate than to chase down a fabricator's story. His story is awfully convenient for the PT.

:goodpost:

Plus, if she was such a troublemaker, how did she keep her job for 28 years, and is still there?

Wonder if they had any reports where she was "written up" for her behavior?

 

[Stella5]

I like how she said she was "weary" of talking about it. Yes, five conversations over months is definitely draining! :waitasec: Yet, very perky to be in court ready to face questioning. She definitely enjoys drama, in some way. That doesn't make her a liar, though.

My eyebrows were up at the slow motion nature of the recounting, with a number of specifics to the interior of the vehicle.

It is what it is at this point, and so is Gracie's testimony. I wouldn't bank on either one.

BBM agree... Honestly the number of very specific things about odd things was one things that really did bother me about her testimony, and set off my mommy-fibbing radar. I know when my kids start embellishing their stories or outright lying by the number of details of things that don't matter that they include when they're trying to sell me a load of goods. I cannot believe that with all the detail about the inside of the car, and what color hair the woman had, how they turned their heads from her lights, and apparently a ring on a womans finger, etc... but couldn't say what color the car was. Or what kind of vehicle, other than "soccer-mom" type. I know when my lights hit cars in the dark, the first thing I notice is the color of the car. Second being type, especially if I think it's a decent looking car. Soccer-Mom type could be anything from a Cross-Over, SUV to a Minivan... so what was it?!

I honestly don't give her or Gracies' much weight. I don't think Gracies is required to prove that JY had enough time & gas to murder Michelle. There are things called gas cans, and I wouldn't have put it past him to have those at the ready. MOO

 

[octobermoon]

I want to say I have enjoyed posting on here and reading every ones opinions. I will be leaving Raleigh tomorrow morning to travel to Baltimore for my uncle's funeral. I will not be back in Raleigh till Saturday. I will have to watch closing arguments sometime over the weekend when I return. I will be be taking my kindle fire to Baltimore and be looking at websleuths when I can. So keep me posted. Praying for justice for MY, RY, MF, and LF

:grouphug:

 

[fifteen89]

:goodpost:

Plus, if she was such a troublemaker, how did she keep her job for 28 years, and is still there?

:floorlaugh:

They're usually the hardest to get rid of, in my experience anyway.

 

[fran]

I think it's POSSIBLE, the mail-carrier is mistaken on not necessarily what she saw, just the DAY she saw it. But in order to insert herself, she EMBELLISHED and made it the day of the incident. Like I've said, I've known someone EXACTLY like that. Making stuff up that in the long run doesn't matter, but adds drama to a situation or even a world event. I won't bore you with the details, but they told a story about me that was absolutely not true, never happened. I didn't find out for several years later and thought "What the heck?! Why would they do that?" IMHO, just because.

OTOH, the little lady yesterday was sure it was on one street she named, then she changed it. She was confused, although I think she was perhaps not confused before she was. LOL

Then you have one delivery person who saw something entirely different that day, ie NOTHING, and he didn't seem confused at all. He even said something about talking to LE within days after it happened. He probably wouldn't have even been called, because he saw nothing, but the other two witnesses, although they KIND of sound the same but different, are unreliable.

Sorry, I would throw out the def two witnesses. But then again, I'm not a juror on the case, so it doesn't really matter what I think. I'm just explaining my REASONING behind my point of view.

JMHO
fran

 

[Cammy]

They're usually the hardest to get rid of, in my experience anyway.

The Jurors can argue over it now, who they believe and disbelieve, it will be in their hands soon enough.

 

[Boodles]

I think it's POSSIBLE, the mail-carrier is mistaken on not necessarily what she saw, just the DAY she saw it. But in order to insert herself, she EMBELLISHED and made it the day of the incident. Like I've said, I've known someone EXACTLY like that. Making stuff up that in the long run doesn't matter, but adds drama to a situation or even a world event. I won't bore you with the details, but they told a story about me that was absolutely not true, never happened. I didn't find out for several years later and thought "What the heck?! Why would they do that?" IMHO, just because.

OTOH, the little lady yesterday was sure it was on one street she named, then she changed it. She was confused, although I think she was perhaps not confused before she was. LOL

Then you have one delivery person who saw something entirely different that day, ie NOTHING, and he didn't seem confused at all. He even said something about talking to LE within days after it happened. He probably wouldn't have even been called, because he saw nothing, but the other two witnesses, although they KIND of sound the same but different, are unreliable.

Sorry, I would throw out the def two witnesses. But then again, I'm not a juror on the case, so it doesn't really matter what I think. I'm just explaining my REASONING behind my point of view.

JMHO
fran

OT, but I just love Ms. Hinsley and I felt bad when she said "I'm always alone." I want to take her to lunch. She's hilarious.

 

[fran]

:goodpost:

Plus, if she was such a troublemaker, how did she keep her job for 28 years, and is still there?

Wonder if they had any reports where she was "written up" for her behavior?

ehhhh,..............she worked for the U.S. Postal Service!

I'll just say, UNION.

just sayin'
fran

PS>...but to be fair, I KNEW MANY people that worked for the post office.

 

[Albert]

CY didn't identify the attacker when reenacting the crime seemed to be the one thing all of them cited. Trouble getting Jason home that night, didn't find Gracie compelling. They believe Jason's story because the agent proved the twig trick could be done.

Again, I didn't push much, because I didn't feel up to a debating them, because our debates drag on and on and on.

IMO

To all that feel NG I would like to understand if the following situations have believable explanations:

1. Leaving the hotel door propped as a courtesy to other hotel guests.

2. Preventing the exit door from locking by using a twig. I am not so concerned if this can be done as it has been proven true. What I really want to understand is that is it believable that due to the courteous act in situation 1 that JY decided not to use his key card for the exit door. Why would it not be expected that the key card to be carried with JY so that he could reenter the exit door without worrying about twigging the door.

3. JY had nothing to do with the camera being moved at this exit door. How believable is it that the camera is moved while he is smoking a cigar and therefore does not capture his reentry when he completed the cigar.

Perhaps you could indicate whether these 3 situations are believable to you? Or do you find these 3 situation unbelievable and feel NG because the PT did not produce a "smoking gun"

Thanks

 

[fran]

OT, but I just love Ms. Hinsley and I felt bad when she said "I'm always alone." I want to take her to lunch. She's hilarious.

Me too! I wanted to give her a hug!

fran

 

[Cammy]

<mod snip>


Agree, but I am not going to argue about it.

I believe Terry Tiller, Cindy Beaver, Faye Hensley, and Travis Branch as to what they saw or did not see at Birchleaf that am.

I do not believe one word Gracie Bailey Dahms Calhoun has said.

But, it's not what you or I believe that matters now, it is the Jurors.

JMO

 

[Stella5]

So she simply got lucky when she told LE she noticed all the lights were on at Birchleaf?

I thought in yesterday's testimony she said that the pilars were on and the porchlight, but she didn't recall if the inside lights were on or that it was hard for her to see. I'd have to go back & watch her testimony regarding the inside lights, but I don't recall her seeing that. And it's never been stated if those pilar lights are dusk to dawns, which in my experience in my neighborhood all them are on the drives that have them. Wired originally by the builders. I still think Cassidy was the one to turn all the lights on. I can't see JY or some other phantom killer turning the lights on to kill a pregnant mother.

 

[Turnadot]

I am very puzzled by CB's boss. He is creepy to me. If you are prior LE and you believe one of your employees is not always truthful, why would you call your fellow LE and encourage them to interview her? It just doesn't make sense. You are encouraging a troublemaker to go to LE with a suspect story. If he is telling the truth, he is not very considerate of LE which has way too much on their plate than to chase down a fabricator's story. His story is awfully convenient for the PT.

Not prior LE here, but I would encourage her to talk to LE because "what if". Now, if it turns out that she lied, then so be it, but I would feel ethically bound to at least put her in contact with LE.

IMO

 

[janesdean]

Well, well, well... sounds to me like Cindy blabbed for the sake of drawing attention to herself at work. While she never likely saw a thing, she wanted badly to be "popular" at work -- "Ooh, Cindy, what'd you see girl?"

Supervisor gets wind of this and understands if this is at all possible, she needs to contact law enforcement. Guy is former le himself. She won't call, he has to call WCSD. So now she's in it. It's too late. She's got to come up with a story. After all, she's told her coworkers this tale and was the office celebrity for a day/week(?). Rather than back down and be exposed for exaggerating or inventing a story, she creates a very detailed description of what she "saw", down to a ring on a driver's finger. Cindy went all in, and now because of her dire need for attention, she stands between the brutal murder of Michelle Young and justice being served for that ultimate case of domestic violence. Really wonder how she sleeps at night.

Excellent summary of a pathetic womans bs story !!!

 

[Cammy]

Me too! I wanted to give her a hug!

fran

She was a sweetie, everyone's typical Grandmom !!

I am sure she did not want to get involved either, she was just trying to do the right thing.

We have to admire that, I know I do.

:heart: for Mrs. Hensley.

 

[SteelerGirl43]

I thought in yesterday's testimony she said that the pilars were on and the porchlight, but she didn't recall if the inside lights were on or that it was hard for her to see. I'd have to go back & watch her testimony regarding the inside lights, but I don't recall her seeing that. And it's never been stated if those pilar lights are dusk to dawns, which in my experience in my neighborhood all them are on the drives that have them. Wired originally by the builders. I still think Cassidy was the one to turn all the lights on. I can't see JY or some other phantom killer turning the lights on to kill a pregnant mother.

Even downstairs.... Wouldn't blood be downstairs then??

 

[hindsight2020]

Lots of reasons to question it, if one wants to.

She doesn't pay attention to news, but learned of it on the news. Initial request came for info between something like midnight to 5 a.m., so she didn't say anything. C'mon if you saw a vehicle leaving a murder scene minutes after a possible window, you're going to close it out as not relevant? Then, when the window was widened the necessary hour or whatever, still didn't want to call LE though talking the story up at work? Then grow "weary" when the police have the audacity to ask more than once about the story/recollection? Sorry, to bother you - it was just a brutal unsolved murder in your neighborhood!

Yeesh. . .several houses down the same street she lives on, to boot.

 

[JiminWilton]

Reading the posts is a fascinating look into confirmation bias. Those of you who have predetermined guilt (as opposed to those who follow the innocent until proven line) disbelieve every witness who tends to raise doubt and blindly accept every word of those who support your belief.

I've watched this with a sense of amusement, particularly the interactions and incredibly constructed machinations of JYL's behavior with no shred of evidence to support them. No evidence, just supposition... could have....might have...etc.

Did I correctly hear the Det. Sgt. testify that for 60 days there was a video camera in King, to identify the "regular customer" who was never found, and between early 2007 and today, the SO has not found the time to review those tapes. Did I hear that? Is that good investigative work?

I have no dogs in this fight (as I abhor dog and and any other animal fighting), I have watched to see if the prosecution could convince me of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They have not.

I have no answer as to who may have committed this heinous crime. That's not my job. I'm a doddering retiree who dabbles in Apple options. But that so many of you on this board would vote guilty on the evidence offered is indeed scary.

Really scary.

 

[ynotdivein]

Not a big fan of quoting myself, but now that testimony is done for the day, it seems appropriate to re-post this reminder.

AHEM.

Things I KNOW are true:

1. WS posters are very smart.

2. Multiple WS posters can look at the same evidence and come to very disparate conclusions about said evidence.

3. Not everyone who is following this case now, followed the first trial.

4. WS posters can and most often do post with great respect for one another and for the families of all those involved in the cases we follow here.

The above facts lead me to the conclusion that every. single. person. who chooses to post on MY's forum. has the ability to do so in a manner that is respectful of the victims' family, AND of the opinions of other posters who may or may not agree with them.

Review TOS and the Rules, and keep it civil, please.

 

[Madeleine74]

I suspect the sentiment towards (or completely) NG is because of a lack of indisputable proof, requiring no inference at all, as to the perp's identification.

Because evidence linking JY is circumstantial in this case, because he was not seen committing the crime, was not captured on video at 4 Bros, did not confess, did not leave a hand print in MY's blood in his residence, was not seen on video unplugging or moving the video camera at the HI, didn't leave his fingerprints on the camera at the HI, that means there are "holes."

And even if you conclude those are JY's shoe prints in MY's blood, if you can't prove JY's feet were actually in those shoes at the time of the murder, then that's still not proof of anything. And without ironclad proof that no one can argue away, there is at least one or more holes, and a hole equals doubt. And if there's any possible doubt, that might mean reasonable doubt.

That's my interpretation of what I think drives at least some of the NG opinions. No, I didn't say all, and I didn't say most. Some. That's my belief of an explanation of why some people think JY is not guilty.

I don't think that. I am convinced beyond all doubt he is guilty of this murder.