State vs Jason Lynn Young 2-10-12

[~n/t~]

The problem with proof is that for some people, unless there's a video of the perp committing the murder or the perp loudly proclaims "I did it! I really, really did it," or there's a trail of dripping blood leading from the victim right to the hands of the murderer and he better be holding the bloody weapon in his hand, there is never enough proof.

And the inclination for some (perhaps many) people is to look at each piece of circumstantial evidence separately and to come up with an explanation about it that makes it innocent in their mind. That's not the way to evaluate C.E., but people still persist.

In a court of law it's persumption of innocence. The problem with CE is that if one chooses they can take one piece of the puzzle and totally disregard it. They can take one witness testimony and discredit them. When that happens, the pieces slowly start falling apart and the picture becomes blurred which results in reasonable doubt.

Unless the prosecution can tie it all together and paint a picture for the jury, they will fail and even though I didn't watch the first trial but from what I heard and read that is what happened. Furthermore, the defendent took the stand and in my opinion reinforces the belief that he must be innocent if he took that risk.

CE case is not easy.

 

[Madeleine74]

If everyone honestly can't use common sense and understand the law as it relates to circumstantial evidence and they need everything wrapped up in a 60 minute show with either a confession or a smoking gun, there's going to be a lot more murderers walking around. It's sad.

It is sad. Turns out common sense isn't so common, afterall.

 

[Madeleine74]

In a court of law it's persumption of innocence. The problem with CE is that if one chooses they can take one piece of the puzzle and totally disregard it. They can take one witness testimony and discredit them. When that happens, the pieces slowly start falling apart and the picture becomes blurred which results in reasonable doubt.

Unless the prosecution can tie it all together and paint a picture for the jury, they will fail and even though I didn't watch the first trial but from what I heard and read that is what happened. Furthermore, the defendent took the stand and in my opinion reinforces the belief that he must be innocent if he took that risk.

CE case is not easy.

CE cases can be extremely powerful and are seen by the law as equal to direct evidence cases. Comes down to how much CE is there in a case.

A good analogy someone used is if you think of a rope in which each strand is a piece of CE. Even if you take away a few strands, if you have a thick rope (i.e. a lot of CE) the strength of the rope remains intact. It does not fall apart just because of a few broken strands. It's the totality of the CE that makes a case strong.

 

[gritguy]

Wait, wait, wait..............I got in late this morning. Was this in Linda's testimony?

tia,
fran

I don't think so. These were from search warrants. Hopefully they will come in.

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/11/06/3914018/20081106190923866.pdf

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/4712532/

 

[~n/t~]

Circumstantial Evidence IS Evidence. I cannot believe so many people in America have the CSI Syndrome.

When someone is murdered by a spouse or a significant other that's a sociopath, that has the ability to plan, premeditate a murder and lives in the same home, there is not going to be the type of DNA evidence or a smoking gun found. When the same type of crime is committed by someone that just blows up because of drugs, alcohol or jealousy, there's usually tons of evidence and an arrest is immediate. Jason falls into the sociopath category. Many times these guys end up getting away with it the first time, even if they are POI's until they end up killing again. Drew Peterson, Barton Corbin, Josh Powell for example.

If everyone honestly can't use common sense and understand the law as it relates to circumstantial evidence and they need everything wrapped up in a 60 minute show with either a confession or a smoking gun, there's going to be a lot more murderers walking around. It's sad.

One must set emotion aside and look at the facts. So far I would not be able to convict him even though I "think" he did it.

Putting character witnesses on the stand is just not doing it for me. Yes, I feel terrible for what Michelle had to go through with this jerk but is that all he was? A jerk? Did he ever physically hit her?

They have to put him at the crime scene and so far they haven't done it yet. Maybe they will, IDK In the Scott Peterson case, they did and that's why they got a conviction. Nobody else but Scott Peterson could have murdered Laci.

 

[fromageball]

The problem with proof is that for some people, unless there's a video of the perp committing the murder or the perp loudly proclaims "I did it! I really, really did it," or there's a trail of dripping blood leading from the victim right to the hands of the murderer and he better be holding the bloody weapon in his hand, there is never enough proof.

Turning the tables...I've seen plenty of comments about "even if he is found not guilty, that just means he got away with murder" or referring to him as the "slayer" - he is innocent until proven guilty, but I doubt there is anything that could convince some that he didn't do it - and that's fine, it doesn't matter what any of us thinks.

It is possible that he did not murder Michelle.

A guilty verdict doesn't get justice for Michelle, Rylan, or her family if Jason didn't actually do it.

 

[Cammy]

In a court of law it's persumption of innocence. The problem with CE is that if one chooses they can take one piece of the puzzle and totally disregard it. They can take one witness testimony and discredit them. When that happens, the pieces slowly start falling apart and the picture becomes blurred which results in reasonable doubt.

Unless the prosecution can tie it all together and paint a picture for the jury, they will fail and even though I didn't watch the first trial but from what I heard and read that is what happened. Furthermore, the defendent took the stand and in my opinion reinforces the belief that he must be innocent if he took that risk.

CE case is not easy.

I wouldn't be surprised to see him take the stand again.

There is just no predicting trials or jurors.

If we could, Casey Anthony would be eating a bologna and cheese sandwich from a tray placed in between the bars of her cell right now.

 

[~n/t~]

CE cases can be extremely powerful and are seen by the law as equal to direct evidence cases. Comes down to how much CE is there in a case.

A good analogy someone used is if you think of a rope in which each strand is a piece of CE. Even if you take away a few strands, if you have a thick rope (i.e. a lot of CE) the strength of the rope remains intact. It does not fall apart just because of a few broken strands. It's the totality of the CE that makes a case strong.

I agree. Haven't seen that thick rope in this case.....yet.

 

[MoonFlwr]

I have never been able to decide if I think JY killed Michelle. I guess I have been on the fence all the time.

I am listening to testimony in this trial, to see if it I can see/hear evidence of JY's guilt......but I have yet to hear it.

Gracie's testimony would unsettle me terribly if I were on the jury - I found her testimony confusing, contradictory and hard to follow.

The therapist who Michelle saw one time was lukewarm...and what she spoke about was communication difficulties between a married couple with a small child - nothing beyond that stood out to me.

As for the email that Sarah Powers read out from JY to Michelle, discussing his problems with Linda Fisher, it almost made him sound like a decent guy - the way he began it so considerately! (Of course, I found that interesting because some people on the message boards have gone on and on for so long about how disgusting this man is, that I was SURPRISED to see the civility shown in the email.)

 

[fran]

Could I please ask you all a favor?

This is a very emotional case, I get that. Many of us saw the first trial and have our opinions already in place. Other's, didn't watch the first trial, may not have followed the case, and, or think he's innocent, they don't know yet? Take pieces of evidence differently than others.

Let's discuss the issues, the testimony. You can give your opinion, but PLEASE, respect the opposing opinions and posters. You're not going to change their mind by being snarky or angry....................you can agree to disagree and move on. If you have to, go to another forum or case until Monday when court is back in session.

I'd also like to remind you all it is against our TOS to call anyone names, demean either the victim's or accused's family. You can be angry at them, you can criticize them to an extent, but please show them some respect. AFter all, there's only one person on trial for this murder. As of now he's alleged to have murdered Michelle. We have allowed the word 'slayer' when referring to the accused, only because it was in previous legal documents on a civil matter. This is now criminal court and he's being tried. Until IF and when he's convicted, he is the defendant, or alleged killer or murderer.

The entire Young family didn't ask or plan to be put into this mess. They are just like the Fisher family, they are victims. They may show faith in their son, brother, but that is the way families often are, they can't believe their loved one would commit such a horrible crime. It's not their fault.

I'd especially like to ask all of you to please be good this weekend. This is going to probably prove to be the most difficult time in recent memory for many Websleuthers with regard to a case followed and sleuthed here. This weekend they're going to have a number of specials on the Powell family and the two children of missing Susan Powell are to be laid to rest in a televised event. We are going to have our hands full, not to mention our emotions raw. Rather than getting angry about this case, please go a light a candle for missing Susan and her two murdered little children, Brandon and Charlie. Say a special prayer now that the boys have gone to be with their mom.

Thank you for listening. Have a good weekend and we'll be back bright and early Monday. Let there be justice for Michelle.

Sincerely,
fran

 

[Cammy]

One must set emotion aside and look at the facts. So far I would not be able to convict him even though I "think" he did it.

Putting character witnesses on the stand is just not doing it for me. Yes, I feel terrible for what Michelle had to go through with this jerk but is that all he was? A jerk? Did he ever physically hit her?

They have to put him at the crime scene and so far they haven't done it yet. Maybe they will, IDK In the Scott Peterson case, they did and that's why they got a conviction. Nobody else but Scott Peterson could have murdered Laci.

This is a very emotional case, how could it not be?

Beautiful, young loving Mom, 5 months pregnant ,with her little girl found at a bloody crime scene.
If this does not tug at the heart of anyone watching, what would?

But, you are right, we have to place him at the scene, we have to have physical evidence to put him there.

The defense has much to work with.........

 

[gritguy]

Almost every case is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The presumption of innocence should prevent the jury from looking at defendant's actions through a filter of "It makes sense he did that since he killed his wife." But, they should also look at all evidence in totality and decide if the burden of proof is met based on that. And of course they can disregard any piece of evidence they want.

Most people posting have an opinion on guilt either way already. But the jury, if they are doing their duty and they likely are, need open minds until they are charged and deliberating. The prosecution has lots to go and so does the defense.

 

[terminatrixator]

In a court of law it's persumption of innocence. The problem with CE is that if one chooses they can take one piece of the puzzle and totally disregard it. They can take one witness testimony and discredit them. When that happens, the pieces slowly start falling apart and the picture becomes blurred which results in reasonable doubt.

Unless the prosecution can tie it all together and paint a picture for the jury, they will fail and even though I didn't watch the first trial but from what I heard and read that is what happened. Furthermore, the defendent took the stand and in my opinion reinforces the belief that he must be innocent if he took that risk.

CE case is not easy.

A defense attorney can take things and twist them and the juror has no common sense and doesn't understand that Circumstantial Evidence IS Evidence. Again CSI syndrome.

During the first trial there was a failure on the part of the Prosecution in assuming and not preparing for Jason Young taking the stand. Had they prepared for it properly, Jason would have been put away and we wouldn't have been here.

The tactical move on the part of the defense was actually quite brilliant. Unfortunately, in this day and age, it's believed that someone that is guilty would not take the stand and innocent people will take the stand, again another stereotype perpetuated by the CSI Syndrome.

Sociopaths believe they are smarter than everyone around them. I wonder if the defense will allow him to take the stand this time.

 

[Cammy]

Could I please ask you all a favor?

This is a very emotional case, I get that. Many of us saw the first trial and have our opinions already in place. Other's, didn't watch the first trial, may not have followed the case, and, or think he's innocent, they don't know yet? Take pieces of evidence differently than others.

Let's discuss the issues, the testimony. You can give your opinion, but PLEASE, respect the opposing opinions and posters. You're not going to change their mind by being snarky or angry....................you can agree to disagree and move on. If you have to, go to another forum or case until Monday when court is back in session.

I'd also like to remind you all it is against our TOS to call anyone names, demean either the victim's or accused's family. You can be angry at them, you can criticize them to an extent, but please show them some respect. AFter all, there's only one person on trial for this murder. As of now he's alleged to have murdered Michelle. We have allowed the word 'slayer' when referring to the accused, only because it was in previous legal documents on a civil matter. This is now criminal court and he's being tried. Until IF and when he's convicted, he is the defendant, or alleged killer or murderer.

The entire Young family didn't ask or plan to be put into this mess. They are just like the Fisher family, they are victims. They may show faith in their son, brother, but that is the way families often are, they can't believe their loved one would commit such a horrible crime. It's not their fault.

I'd especially like to ask all of you to please be good this weekend. This is going to probably prove to be the most difficult time in recent memory for many Websleuthers with regard to a case followed and sleuthed here. This weekend they're going to have a number of specials on the Powell family and the two children of missing Susan Powell are to be laid to rest in a televised event. We are going to have our hands full, not to mention our emotions raw. Rather than getting angry about this case, please go a light a candle for missing Susan and her two murdered little children, Brandon and Charlie. Say a special prayer now that the boys have gone to be with their mom.

Thank you for listening. Have a good weekend and we'll be back bright and early Monday. Let there be justice for Michelle.

Sincerely,
fran

Very well written.........thank you.
I agree 100%.

 

[~n/t~]

I wouldn't be surprised to see him take the stand again.

There is just no predicting trials or jurors.

If we could, Casey Anthony would be eating a bologna and cheese sandwich from a tray placed in between the bars of her cell.

What's interesting is I have been watching some of the coverage on HLN with Vinnie and I believe Beth Karas is in the court room. The times I've watched, there has been no mention whatsoever about the jurors. Perhaps they learned their lesson after the Anthony trial. Nobody can predict a jury. Smiling, fidgety, bored, note taking, etc. = means nothing.

Just gut instinct......he will not take the stand this time.

 

[Madeleine74]

Turning the tables...I've seen plenty of comments about "even if he is found not guilty, that just means he got away with murder" or referring to him as the "slayer" - he is innocent until proven guilty, but I doubt there is anything that could convince some that he didn't do it - and that's fine, it doesn't matter what any of us thinks.

It is possible that he did not murder Michelle.

A guilty verdict doesn't get justice for Michelle, Rylan, or her family if Jason didn't actually do it.

The law says "Guilty" or "Not Guilty." "Innocent" is not what a jury decides. Someone can be factually guilty of a murder and still get away with it through an acquittal, a verdict of "not guilty." That's exactly what happened in the OJ case.

Jason Young, through defaulting on the wrongful death suit was legally declared the "slayer" of his wife. This exact term is used in the judgement against him. The Fishers were awarded $15.5M judgement as well. So when people call him the 'slayer,' he legally is the slayer of Michelle.

As for his innocence, nope. I believe, looking at the totality of evidence that I've seen, that he brutally murdered his wife and unborn son. I know I'm not in the minority. The jury will decide what they decide.

 

[Cammy]

I have never been able to decide if I think JY killed Michelle. I guess I have been on the fence all the time.

I am listening to testimony in this trial, to see if it I can see/hear evidence of JY's guilt......but I have yet to hear it.

Gracie's testimony would unsettle me terribly if I were on the jury - I found her testimony confusing, contradictory and hard to follow.

The therapist who Michelle saw one time was lukewarm...and what she spoke about was communication difficulties between a married couple with a small child - nothing beyond that stood out to me.

As for the email that Sarah Powers read out from JY to Michelle, discussing his problems with Linda Fisher, it almost made him sound like a decent guy - the way he began it so considerately! (Of course, I found that interesting because some people on the message boards have gone on and on for so long about how disgusting this man is, that I was SURPRISED to see the civility shown in the email.)

:goodpost:

Moonflower!!

Good to see you and your post could not explain it any better or clearer!

 

[gritguy]

A copy of a post I made before on another trial re: jury instructions that sets out how to view the evidence:

Here are some NC Pattern Jury Instructions I have quoted before and that relate to how the judge will probably charge the jury when he instructs them, in regard to evidence, the burden of proof, and weighing it all to decide a verdict.

“There are two types of evidence from which you may find the truth as to the facts of a case -- direct and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is the testimony of one who asserts actual knowledge of a fact, such as an eye-witness; circumstantial evidence is proof of a chain or group of facts and circumstances indicating the guilt or innocence of a defendant. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. Nor is a greater degree of certainty required of circumstantial evidence than of direct evidence. You should weigh all the evidence in the case. After weighing all the evidence, if you are not convinced of the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant not guilty.”

“You should consider all the evidence, arguments, contentions and positions urged by the attorney(s) and any other contention that arises from the evidence; and using your common sense you must determine the truth in this case.”

“Reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense, arising out of some or all of the evidence that has been presented, or lack or insufficiency of the evidence, as the case may be. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that fully satisfies or entirely convinces you of the defendant's guilt.”

“You are the sole judges of the weight to be given any evidence. By this I mean, if you decide that certain evidence is believable you must then determine the importance of that evidence in light of all other believable evidence in the case.”

 

[~n/t~]

This is a very emotional case, how could it not be?

Beautiful, young loving Mom, 5 months pregnant ,with her little girl found at a bloody crime scene.
If this does not tug at the heart of anyone watching, what would?

But, you are right, we have to place him at the scene, we have to have physical evidence to put him there.

The defense has much to work with.........

Emotion meaning angry at the defendant. People and especially a jury might hate him but that has to be set aside and focus on the facts in the case.

 

[Madeleine74]

Had they prepared for it properly, Jason would have been put away and we wouldn't have been here.

Had Kelly Siegler (of TX) been the one doing the cross exam, he would have been on that stand for 3 days, he would have needed Depends, and he would not ever need a colonoscopy after she was done with him.