State vs Jason Lynn Young 2-15-2012

[foltster]

Yeah but the main things to notice are 3 weeks after the anniversary and a closed auction... then the calls to get MF to get her over there.

Sure, but don't say a man can't pick out a purse. Trying to maintain some objectivity.

 

[cody100]

I personally do not have a problem with his wanting his sister-in-law to look at the purse before buying it. I do find it hard to believe that he was so concerned with her discovering the printout that he made numerous calls to try to have her go to the house to pick it up, especially since he was with someone else on their anniversary.

 

[MrsWendy]

Did the previous witness confirm that there was hair under the victim's body and in her hand that was pulled out of someone's head with force and was from someone other than JY?

 

[dgfred]

Sure, but don't say a man can't pick out a purse. Trying to maintain some objectivity.

I didn't. :truce:

 

[dgfred]

They were apart for the Anniversary so it is not competely unreasonable. My primary family (parents, siblings) live in different areas of the country with jobs that require travel as well, so we do our Xmas in the middle of Jan to meet everyone's schedule.

I am celebrating VD at the end of Feb to meet our schedule, etc.

Were was he and what was he doing? :innocent:

 

[Prancy]

I have picked out myself multiple purses for my girl and generally speaking, she loves ANYTHING from Coach. I would have no qualms about buying one for her site unseen. Even if it was "fake" she would likely never now, unless it was one of the fakes with a G instead of a C or something.

It does "seem" like a story to get MF over to his house, but it is not completely ridiculous and I could see myself asking a friend or relative to do the same thing if I was trying to surprise her and screwed up and left something like that on the printer.

Regardless of how hinky the stories may be, if he was not able to physically be present at the house, then it doesn't matter. Right? Can the state prove how he was able to drive it in the time he would have had to in order to be where he was confirmed to be? They did not do that in the first trial and I think it may have mattered. Also, that same store clerk testified too. I guess she was not that convincing at that time.

 

[cody100]

Did the previous witness confirm that there was hair under the victim's body and in her hand that was pulled out of someone's head with force and was from someone other than JY?

That was the conclusion I made from JR's testimony. Perhaps I misunderstood her. That is potent evidence if it is true. I hope someone else heard that to correct my conclusion if it was not what she meant.

 

[mattfz]

What were the dates of their anniversaries? They had two ceremonies ... did they normally do something special for one, the other, both, none?

No idea, but we do know they were married by a justice of the peace first, and then had a ceremony a few weeks afterwards. I think. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. I do not know the dates.

I don't think the purse means much by itself, but it's the damn phone calls and urgency to get the sister-in-law over to the house.

All of this circumstantial evidence can be explained away individually, and most of the testimony can cut both ways, but in the end, put together it amounts to a big big pile of poo poo for Jason.

With that being said, it may create enough reasonable doubt in some jurors minds. especially with virtually no physical evidence. Some jurors are gonna say lock him up, a couple will say we can't lock him up because there can be an alternate theory, and others will say I want to lock him up but the evidence just isn't there.

Personally I would be in the latter group. If I was the defense, I would borrow Cheney Mason's reasonable doubt chart.

 

[johnfear]

Yeah but the main things to notice are 3 weeks after the anniversary and a closed auction... then the calls to get MF to get her over there.

But the PT reinforced this with MF. (By accident) They basically made it look like he would consult her on the purchase and the Ebay setup was not to bid on the item but to show examples of purses.

If the jury gets hung up on these things as being examples of guilt or innocence, we will have a hung jury again and be up for a third trial next Feb.

I think this information will get glossed over (hope it will) so that they can see the fuller picture.

The bigger (fuller) picture is that there was no evidence of Jason Young at the crime scene but there was no evidence (beyond the size 10 shoe print) of anyone else at the crime scene. That's the point a few folks have been driving home. This case is nearly built on a lack of evidence of anything else happening but JY killing MY.

I understand the need to build foundation and be thorough, but there comes a point in that where things can be diluted. Hopefully, HC's closing will reiterate the rest of the case and this will make sense as being one piece of the puzzle. (Needed someone to get to the crime scene and take care of finding the body and the daughter's welfare)

The complexity of this case is knowing when to say when and when to leave things open. HC's strong suit, BH's weakness.

 

[dgfred]

But didn't he actually try to bid on the purse?

 

[mattfz]

That was the conclusion I made from JR's testimony. Perhaps I misunderstood her. That is potent evidence if it is true. I hope someone else heard that to correct my conclusion if it was not what she meant.

Can someone explain this a bit more for me?

 

[fredwomble]

It does "seem" like a story to get MF over to his house, but it is not completely ridiculous and I could see myself asking a friend or relative to do the same thing if I was trying to surprise her and screwed up and left something like that on the printer.

Outside the context of this case, I might buy a man doing something like that. Measured against what we know in this case, though, I find it highly incriminating. The man was protecting his daughter, knowing he'd left a 2-year-old alone in a house for many hours. He had to be incredibly anxious for Cassidy's well-being, hence the multitude of calls, asking his mother call Meredith Fisher. He'd been wooing Michelle Money that day and the day before, why would he give a d*mn about his wife finding an ebay auction printout for an auction he had not won, for an anniversary that was the previous month?

 

[cityslick]

No idea, but we do know they were married by a justice of the peace first, and then had a ceremony a few weeks afterwards. I think. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. I do not know the dates.

I don't think the purse means much by itself, but it's the damn phone calls and urgency to get the sister-in-law over to the house.

All of this circumstantial evidence can be explained away individually, and most of the testimony can cut both ways, but in the end, put together it amounts to a big big pile of poo poo for Jason.

With that being said, it may create enough reasonable doubt in some jurors minds. especially with virtually no physical evidence. Some jurors are gonna say lock him up, a couple will say we can't lock him up because there can be an alternate theory, and others will say I want to lock him up but the evidence just isn't there.

Personally I would be in the latter group. If I was the defense, I would borrow Cheney Mason's reasonable doubt chart.

BBM

And that is the simple explanation of why the first trial ended in mistrial.

 

[fifteen89]

ITA, add up the pieces and you wind up at JY.

One thing that has not been mentioned, at least lately, is the old tried and true question:

Who stands to benefit from the death of Michelle Young?

Consider:
.......$1,000,000.00 Life Ins. Policy, payable to JY
.......Being single again
.......No longer being tied to Raleigh due to her good job
.......No second child to be born into the family
.......His schedule is his own as long as someone tends CY -- playing sports, being with "the guys"
.......No more mother-in-law in the house
.......Possible gain of funds from the sale of MY's car
.......Whatever money he makes is all his
and so forth....

The stranger(s) get(s) the benefit of the wedding rings and whatever else was in the jewelry box.

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.

 

[~n/t~]

Outside the context of this case, I might buy a man doing something like that. Measured against what we know in this case, though, I find it highly incriminating. The man was protecting his daughter, knowing he'd left a 2-year-old alone in a house for many hours. He had to be incredibly anxious for Cassidy's well-being, hence the multitude of calls, asking his mother call Meredith Fisher. He'd been wooing Michelle Money that day and the day before, why would he give a d*mn about his wife finding an ebay auction printout for an auction he had not won, for an anniversary that was the previous month?

If he murdered his wife and unborn child, why would he care about his other child? After all, isn't the presumed motive that he wanted to be free. No wife and kids?

 

[dgfred]

If he murdered his wife and unborn child, why would he care about his other child? After all, isn't the presumed motive that he wanted to be free. No wife and kids?

Still probably had feelings for her... and wanted the body found asap.

 

[Madeleine74]

Not understanding testimony and getting the facts of the case wrong or twisting it =/= reasonable doubt. That is an issue with the person who is having problems comprehending what has been shown, not a problem of the state's case.

Jurors are not supposed to conduct their own investigation or try to determine who else did it...they are to evaluate the case presented to them, with the evidence presented to them, and consider all the evidence.

 

[cityslick]

If he murdered his wife and unborn child, why would he care about his other child? After all, isn't the presumed motive that he wanted to be free. No wife and kids?

That's the one part in this that makes it a little confusing. He murdered this lady and her unborn child with rage and fury, but yet he had a conscience to not only harm his daughter, but get MF over there to take care of her.

 

[mattfz]

ITA, add up the pieces and you wind up at JY.

One thing that has not been mentioned, at least lately, is the old tried and true question:

Who stands to benefit from the death of Michelle Young?

Consider:
.......$1,000,000.00 Life Ins. Policy, payable to JY
.......Being single again
.......No longer being tied to Raleigh due to her good job
.......No second child to be born into the family
.......His schedule is his own as long as someone tends CY -- playing sports, being with "the guys"
.......No more mother-in-law in the house
.......Possible gain of funds from the sale of MY's car
.......Whatever money he makes is all his
and so forth....

The stranger(s) get(s) the benefit of the wedding rings and whatever else was in the jewelry box.

These are great points. He STOOD to benefit, but he had to be crazy to think anything positive could become of this. There is no way any of this could pan out in the end. Even if acquitted, his life is toast.

The defense could make great points about what he stood to LOSE if he actually murdered his wife, and that list would be a hell of a lot longer.

 

[cityslick]

Not understanding testimony and getting the facts of the case confused =/= reasonable doubt. That is an issue with the person who is having problems comprehending what has been shown, not a problem of the state's case.

It's a problem for the state if one of those people is a juror.