State vs Jason Lynn Young 2-15-2012

[Boodles]

I am not spreading misinformation about 5th amendment rights and charges to a jury...

Video from the first trial.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9772804/#/vid9772804

Jury Instructions concerning the law begin around 9:00.

Watch the part around 16:00 if you want to hear it for yourself.

It is the defendant's 5th amendment right to refuse to cooperate with police and is not an inference of guilt, a right protected by the 5th amendment.

This is a direct order to the jury in words and on paper!

He also specifically says that they may use his refusal to cooperate to determine his truthfulness as a witness.

I am paraphrasing because it is a long section of audio. Is there a transcript available?

Wish there was a transcript. But for now, I will pour a glass of vino and hunker down and try to concentrate. My eyes and brain are glazed over after the testimony today.

 

[Cammy]

Don't know why this info was not brought out in the first trial. This question could have saved some brain cells.As soon as I heard her DNA was the only one on it, I had flashback of my precious GD. She was and still is at 5 a chatterbox and nothing gets by her.

Lol , that makes more sense, imo

The temp had been warmer that week during the daytime, but at nitetime it was freezing, down to 31 degrees.

I doubt Jason would take her outside in that kind of element, especially if his plan was to drug her and put her to sleep.

That would have only made her more awake,

Thank you, Coug.:seeya:

 

[Allusonz]

I've read the theories that Jason showered in the back yard in the middle of the night in November, but is the prosecution suggesting that the child also did this? For what reason? I think it's quite likely the child played with the hose in warm weather ... but I really don't think tying a child to a hose in the backyard does anything to convict Jaosn of murder.

Your right Otto.

It has already been testified to that there was no blood here and there would be if it was used to wash off.

To now suggest that CY as well washed off is grasping and once again requires alot of leaps to get there such as why did the newspaper carriers not see them?

I have not seen the prosecution be able to put together a coherant timeline that gets me over my other hurdles forensically.

 

[Talina]

I agree and didn't understand why the DT would bring it up other than to muddy the water.

That's my take on it too and probably why the Prosecution objected to it.

 

[Cammy]

I am not spreading misinformation about 5th amendment rights and charges to a jury...

Video from the first trial.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9772804/#/vid9772804

Jury Instructions concerning the law begin around 9:00.

Watch the part around 16:00 if you want to hear it for yourself.

It is the defendant's 5th amendment right to refuse to cooperate with police and is not an inference of guilt, a right protected by the 5th amendment.

This is a direct order to the jury in words and on paper!

He also specifically says that they may use his refusal to cooperate to determine his truthfulness as a witness.

I am paraphrasing because it is a long section of audio. Is there a transcript available?

Thank you so much, Folster !
That really helps with this issue.

 

[Allusonz]

The rock was collected just a couple of days after the murder. The night clerk says that he pushed (or kicked) it out of the door jam and then shut the door. He said it ended up on the sidewalk, not back in the landscaped area.

When he showed the area to LE, that same rock (appeared to him to be same rock) was right there where he remembered it being when he removed it from the door jam.

It isn't as though they went over to the lava rocks in the landscaping bed and plucked a rock from there. There was one lone rock on the sidewalk a distance from the landscaped area and where the night clerk remembered it being when he removed it from the door jam.

I don't have an issue with whether or not this was "the rock".

Whether or not it was this rock or one of the thousand of other rocks there on the property, the night clerk found that the door had been jammed open with a lava landscaping rock and he removed it.

When tested later it was confirmed this would, in fact, jam the door open.

Other than that, DNA not being on the rock is not an issue with me at all.

I think there is way too much emphasis placed in today's investigations as to the lack of DNA being evidence of innocence.

IMO

Once again though much like a line up if LE had of put 6 rocks there could he of identified the right rock?

I am willing to bet he could not.

 

[dgfred]

Wish there was a transcript. But for now, I will pour a glass of vino and hunker down and try to concentrate. My eyes and brain are glazed over after the testimony today.

Great idea! But the main thing I was trying to get across was the individual jurors 'can' decide for themselves what coincides with showing guilt. They do not have to say they decided this themselves disregarding instructions and nobody will ever know they did unless they state so plainly. They are permitted to 'think' what they want, and who can really say they thought a certain way.

 

[Grammy Jean]

I know they said that was the first time he told his story and why did he wait so long to tell it and the days and all. that's a fine line but that's not the same as saying he refused to talk to the police so it may have been just that - a clever thing. however, a refusal to talk to the police can come in in certain circumstances.

i apologize for the short answer but gotta run see Les Mis!

here's a nice blog on the very topic though:

http://sogweb.sog.unc.edu/blogs/ncclaw/?p=2757

OT Les Mis!!!!! my favorite show! I am seeing it Saturday night.

 

[Cammy]

Not only that Cammy, but before she revealed this info, right at the git go of her testimony she testified" I am a big news watcher". Very short memory, if she was a "very big news watcher" I am sure she had to see on the news of Michelle's murder.

I am almost positive she said her friend told her about it before LE arrived to interview her, but that she herself did not see anything about it on the news until weeks later.

I will try to put it on my list of testimony to look up from this trial.

Thanks again !!

 

[borndem]

:laugh:

Hopefully the stranger(s) were about to get married or were married and wanted new rings.....and the ones they stole from the jewelry box were the right sizes.

And that one, fifteen, is the biggest coinky-dink of them all!!

Love it!:giggle:

 

[Cammy]

Your right Otto.

It has already been testified to that there was no blood here and there would be if it was used to wash off.

To now suggest that CY as well washed off is grasping and once again requires alot of leaps to get there such as why did the newspaper carriers not see them?

I have not seen the prosecution be able to put together a coherant timeline that gets me over my other hurdles forensically.

The timeline has always been my biggest obstacle to get around, and then, the NTO would come next......

 

[Talina]

Once again though much like a line up if LE had of put 6 rocks there could he of identified the right rock?

I am willing to bet he could not.

Likely not but what would that matter? It still would not change the fact that he found the door propped open with a lava rock. To me that is way more important than the lack of DNA on any single rock.

It is part of the odd happenings at the hotel that evening. In and of itself, it does not amount to much but factored with the other oddities with the camera being unplugged, later pointed up with plugged back in, JY admitting that he messed with his own guest room door so that he didn't have to use his card key, JY admitting that he propped open the door (he says with a twig not a rock) , etc etc. All of this together makes the night clerk finding the door propped open with a lava rock important in the whole puzzle. At least to me it does.

I couldn't care less whether or not it was the actual rock that was used.

 

[Allusonz]

Hi I am new to WS been reading alot of catchup, You all sound like you know what you are talking about, so hopefully you don't roll eyes at me haha..My question is when does LE think JY got back to the Hampton Inn that morning, I also read a worker at the HI found the rock holding open the door, what time was that..Thanks for any info..

:welcome:

 

[foltster]

I am not spreading misinformation about 5th amendment rights and charges to a jury...

Video from the first trial.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9772804/#/vid9772804

Jury Instructions concerning the law begin around 9:00.

Watch the part around 16:00 if you want to hear it for yourself.

Transcribed, probably poorly, by me.

Judge Stephens:

"Ladies and Gentleman the 5th amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the citizen the right to refuse to answer questions of the police during a criminal investigation. The exercise of that Constitutional right may not be used against that citizen later at trial to create an inference of guilt. Therefore the defendant's decision not to answer questions by law enforcement officers during the criminal investigation may not be considered against him as evidence of guilt to the pending charge. However, that same 5th amendment does permit the jury to consider the defendant's refusal to answer police questions, to the extent that the evidence surrounding that refusal bears upon the defendant's truthfulness as a witness at trial. Therefore I instruct you that you may consider evidence of the defendants refusal to answer police questions during this investigation for one purpose only. If considering the nature of that evidence you believe that such evidence bears upon the defendant's truthfulness as a witness at this trial than you may consider it for that purpose only. It may not be considered by you as evidence of guilt in this case."

 

[fran]

Your right Otto.

It has already been testified to that there was no blood here and there would be if it was used to wash off.

To now suggest that CY as well washed off is grasping and once again requires alot of leaps to get there such as why did the newspaper carriers not see them?

I have not seen the prosecution be able to put together a coherant timeline that gets me over my other hurdles forensically.

IMHO, the pros has already brought up there was no blood in the drains, thus no one showered after the murder. The water was noticed, point taken, pros said no blood evidence, now they say CY's dna. noted.

Still confusing there's no blood anywhere else in the house, downstairs especially, except for a little on the door-knob to the garage. But, that's part of the point, no blood on the way out of the house, no blood on anything JY, like car, clothes, suitcase, shoes, nothing.

No blood downstairs, no blood on JY, no one except MY and CY. Obviously whoever did this was able to get through the house without leaving a trace of evidence. Likewise, the fact there's NO evidence with JY, doesn't rule him out as a suspect.

The def, of course wants everyone to believe, because JY has no evidence, he's not guilty. But, there's also no evidence of anyone else, except JY.

Stand off. IMHO, now it boils down to how many coincidents occurred during that 24 hour period, that were, ...........unusual,............out of the ordinary,.........to have happened that COULD possibly point towards guilt? Then it's up to the jury, imho, to decide if they believe it points to JY.

JMHO
fran

 

[Allusonz]

Likely not but what would that matter? It still would not change the fact that he found the door propped open with a lava rock. To me that is way more important than the lack of DNA on any single rock.

It is part of the odd happenings at the hotel that evening. In and of itself, it does not amount to much but factored with the other oddities with the camera being unplugged, later pointed up with plugged back in, JY admitting that he messed with his own guest room door so that he didn't have to use his card key, JY admitting that he propped open the door (he says with a twig not a rock) , etc etc. All of this together makes the night clerk finding the door propped open with a lava rock important in the whole puzzle. At least to me it does.

I couldn't care less whether or not it was he actual rock that was used.

Yes it would as in the first trial he identified it under oath.

What is even more important is the fact that it was NOT a blind test they were only looking for alleles that matched JY. In other words there could of been stronger profiles on it and they did not introduce that.

Secondly the was LCN DNA and during the first trial it was stated that there were 3 alleles but one was NOISE or stutter. They took no other rocks for comparison. Thus there were only 2 alleles which matched JY and when the probabilities were introduced it was more likely to come from someone whom is hispanic.

LCN DNA are very minute amounts of DNA. We do not know how many rfu's (strength) were of these alleles.

Were they 50 rfu's 60, 70, 80, 90...we don't know.

How many other profiles could be obtained from that rock? 5, 10, 20? We don't know as they only looked for JY's DNA.

 

[dgfred]

If considering the nature of that evidence you believe that such evidence bears upon the defendant's truthfulness as a witness at this trial than you may consider it for that purpose only.

Well, that kind of says you can.

 

[Madeleine74]

The fact that emergency exit door was propped at all, on that very night, starting at midnight (which JY admits to doing), on the same night the camera covering that very door is first unplugged at 11:20pm and then later moved to focus up to the ceiling again at 6:35am, is highly unusual. Had never happened before in that combo. Had not happened in over 10 years. Yet it happened that very night.

 

[~n/t~]

The murderer would have had to do it before killing MY. That would have risked being discovered by MY.

Not sure I understand. Are you agreeing that it should have been done before and not after? The murderer was going to kill MY so what difference would it have made if she discovered it? CY was walking around so I believe if any drugs were given to her, it would have been before the murder.

 

[fran]

Transcribed, probably poorly, by me.

Judge Stephens:

"Ladies and Gentleman the 5th amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the citizen the right to refuse to answer questions of the police during a criminal investigation. The exercise of that Constitutional right may not be used against that citizen later at trial to create an inference of guilt. Therefore the defendant's decision not to answer questions by law enforcement officers during the criminal investigation may not be considered against him as evidence of guilt to the pending charge. However, that same 5th amendment does permit the jury to consider the defendant's refusal to answer police questions, to the extent that the evidence surrounding that refusal bears upon the defendant's truthfulness as a witness at trial. Therefore I instruct you that you may consider evidence of the defendants refusal to answer police questions during this investigation for one purpose only. If considering the nature of that evidence you believe that such evidence bears upon the defendant's truthfulness as a witness at this trial than you may consider it for that purpose only. It may not be considered by you as evidence of guilt in this case."

So, they can use the fact he refused to speak during the investigation, as compared to his testimony, on if they believe his testimony?

That's how I take that. In other words, they could believe he's had all that time to think up his story, so the time lapse could be such that they feel the def story is made up.

I could be wrong. But then again, I'm not on that jury, thank goodness. Such a heavy burden.

Thanks for the time you've spent on this. I and I'm sure many other posters appreciate your contribution. LOL, hope the jury isn't as confused about this as we are!

fran