State vs Jason Lynn Young 2-15-2012

[Boodles]

If JY did take CY outside to wash her feet that could explain the blood on the downstairs door knob. When I carry a child with dirty feet, I hold their back against my chest with their feet sticking out in front. Has the DNA expert testified about that blood?

I agree with you. And I think somehow he was holding her this way in the bathroom, with her struggling/resisting, thus the little prints on the lower part of the wall. And no, I can't explain why JYs prints aren't in there as well. Not yet anyway.

 

[Cammy]

Wasn't Jayson mowing the lawn and putting up a hammock before starting out on his business trip? If so this could explain why the water hose was leaking. If CY was with her dad helping, which my granddaughter is in the yard with daddy or anyone else working and riding the lawn mower, just being a little helper. when finished, the two walked over to rinse their legs and feet off, which is a must at my house, CY probably wanted to turn the faucet on and off. Not being able to tighten the faucet left it leaking and daddy did not notice. Sometimes the answers can be very simple. MOO

So, that's what it is..!!

Got it !!

Thanks, Coug!!

 

[MrsWendy]

JY got back to HI around 6:30am. The camera was then pushed up to the ceiling at 6:35am.

The rock was found in the door at 5:50am. At the same time the HI employee also found that the video camera on that exit had been unplugged. It had been unplugged since 11:20pm the night before. This is the exact same camera that would, in about 45 min, be pushed up to the ceiling after being plugged back in and checked.

Perhaps I missed something, but if a hotel employee noticed the rock at 5:50, then how was JY able to enter the hotel at 6:30 with the door shut? Did the hotel employee not remove the rock?

 

[3doglady]

I agree with you. And I think somehow he was holding her this way in the bathroom, with her struggling/resisting, thus the little prints on the lower part of the wall. And no, I can't explain why JYs prints aren't in there as well. Not yet anyway.

Well, if JY just shut CY up in the bathroom for a while, then took her outside to wash her feet, his prints would not be in the bathroom.

 

[Allusonz]

JY cannot be excluded as a contributor of the DNA on the jewelry box. That doesn't mean it matches him, only that he cannot be excluded as a source.

I have to be honest here.

When you are discussing 2 alleles of DNA, some of which is LCN DNA which must be amplified many times over there is no match just probabilities.

There will also be the probability of varying number of profiles that could be produced from those 2 alleles. That I have not seen introduced in this trial previously and have not had a chance to review the testimony today.

There are worldwide accepted protocols for DNA and LCN DNA and I have to admit I am truly amazed that numbers this low were even allowed into this trial.

The DNA from does include him and about half the population.

I certainly would not want to be someone going around stating that it was his DNA as it was testified that it was more apt to be of hispanic origin in the first trial.

 

[Talina]

JY got back to HI around 6:30am. The camera was then pushed up to the ceiling at 6:35am.

The rock was found in the door at 5:50am. At the same time the HI employee also found that the video camera on that exit had been unplugged. It had been unplugged since 11:20pm the night before. This is the exact same camera that would, in about 45 min, be pushed up to the ceiling after being plugged back in and checked.

I thought the testimony from the night audit clerk was that he found the rock during one of his rounds (either putting the express checkout notices under doors or placing the USA today papers on the doors). He said he did that in two different rounds since it was cumbersome to do at one time and it was one of these (he coudn't remember which one) that he found the door propped open with the rock. He said he usually began this process around 3 to 3:30am each morning, IIRC and he said that it was either around that time or 4:30am that he found the rock.

I'll have to go back and find that testimony but I am fairly certain it was earlier than 5:50.

Earl testified that he came on his shift around 5am and it was closer to around 5:30 or so that he went to take care of the camera being unplugged. AT the time the night audit clerk told him about the camera, the night clerk had already removed the rock from the door and told Earl about it then as well as the camera issue.

I think I'm remembering this correctly but I intend to go listen to the testimony again to verify.

IMO

 

[Cammy]

Trying to catch up here.

Someone asked about the reliablity of eyewitness testimony. Poor Otto I know I harp on this but it is so very vital especially when the only person that puts in at the gas station has changed or her story has been rehabilitated.

"The most common element in all wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA evidence has been eyewitness misidentification"

http://www.innocenceproject.org/fix/Eyewitness-Identification.php

I could not agree more, Allusonz. :seeya:

Plus, this trial it came out someone had told her about the murder in Raleigh, one of her friends.

We had never ever never heard that before.

 

[Madeleine74]

Perhaps I missed something, but if a hotel employee noticed the rock at 5:50, then how was JY able to enter the hotel at 6:30 with the door shut? Did the hotel employee not remove the rock?

I wish there could be a sticky on this topic since the question comes up all the time.

There are 2 doors side by side: Glass entry door with card reader, that is locked from 11pm to 6am, and metal gray emergency exit door.

At the point JY gets back to the hotel, that glass entry door was unlocked and he was able to slip in without having to use a key card. He was then able to get behind the video camera as he entered the stairway door, and push that recently plugged in camera up to the ceiling. Then he walked up the stairs and on to his room, which he had also left propped in such a way that the locking mechanism had not engaged (a shim of some kind). Another example of luck being on JY's side that morning since the rock had been found on the other door and removed by then.

 

[Talina]

Perhaps I missed something, but if a hotel employee noticed the rock at 5:50, then how was JY able to enter the hotel at 6:30 with the door shut? Did the hotel employee not remove the rock?

Two separate doors involved. The rock was in the Fire Exit Door in the stairwell. (and I recall testimony being that the rock was removed earlier than 5:50). That door is locked 24/7 as far as access from the outside - only from a key.

There is another guest entrance door that is somewhat to the left of this door (facing the building from the outside) that is open from 6am to 11pm and then locked with room card key access from the hours of 11pm to 6am. All JY had to do at 6:30 if that is in fact when he returned is walk through the side entrance door.

IMO

 

[Allusonz]

I totally understand where you're coming from on this. We live in a great country that works to keep us free, and that is because we have a good Constitution, with emphasis in individual rights. We should want nothing less.

OTOH, there's the human side. I would like to think that there are MANY people who, IF they're innocent of a crime committed against their loved one, would honor the vows they took on their wedding day. Love, honor, cherish, till death do us part. With that in mind, should someone cut short the life of your beloved spouse, they would do everything humanly possible to catch the person(s) responsible.

I must be old fashioned. I raised 6 children and had the good fortune of being a SAHM the majority of the time. My family came before me. Of course, many don't feel that way, I realize. But it's just incomprehensible to me, that someone would have such low regard for their spouse, they'd rather let a killer go loose, just because they're afraid. Afraid of being accused when they're innocent.

Usually those that are TRULY innocent, don't fear being accused because they know they did nothing wrong. All they want is whoever harmed their loved one, to pay.

Course, that's JMHO
fran

Funny you should bring this up. I was watching a dateline episode last night that might interest some of you. (As you can tell I am behind on many things this week as it has been hectic)

 

[the couger]

So, that's what it is..!!

Got it !!

Thanks, Coug!!

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.

 

[Talina]

I could not agree more, Allusonz. :seeya:

Plus, this trial it came out someone had told her about the murder in Raleigh, one of her friends.

We had never ever never heard that before.

BBM

Yes, she did testify to that but she also said that this conversation with her friend happened about 2 weeks after LE had been there to talk to her.

She said when speaking with LE she had no idea why they were asking her if she recognized the photo of JY and after answering their questions she still did not know why they were asking.



IMO

 

[Allusonz]

Here is my issue with "the rock"

LE chose ONE rock without taking any other rocks.

If I did a line up of rocks (man I am being totally ridiculous here but serious) and put them in front of the night clerk I would love to know the odds of him being able to pick which rock was actually the rock he kicked.

These are landscaping rocks and I bet he never paid any attention to which one it was. In their wisdom LE took ONE rock and decided to test it. It was not a BLIND test. They were given JY's DNA profile and told to find out whether it matched.

In laymans terms it did not match. What the DNA expert did not introduce was how many profiles could be obtained from those 2 alleles.

For those of you that followed the Amanda Knox trail the experts quit counting the number of profiles that could be obtained. It was also LCN DNA.

 

[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.

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?

 

[dgfred]

There is no missing DNA. The DNA found does not match any individual they tested against that had been in the house including JY

What dna was found on the missing drawers... prey tell.

 

[the couger]

I could not agree more, Allusonz. :seeya:

Plus, this trial it came out someone had told her about the murder in Raleigh, one of her friends.

We had never ever never heard that before.

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.

 

[fran]

The Adias was in Brevard. There was a blood spot on it with unknown dna. The expert retrieved a complete profile and ran it through the database for criminals. There was no match.

I would think this is going to turn out to be a non-issue. These were from Brevard, WAYY after MY's murder. JY probably lent his shoes to someone, who doesn't happen to be a criminal with their dna on file with COTIS.

I think what people need to keep in mind is, no result, meaning has no bearing, one way or the other on the pointing towards guilt or innocence, IMHO, DOES point to something. It's a non-issue, or CANNOT rule the accused out and they did check known criminals and perhaps felons that are registered.

When LE starts an investigation, their FIRST job is to rule OUT possible suspects, beginning with the USUAL, ie spouse/SO, immediate family, close friends, acquaintances, strangers,. and so on and so on. Think of the beginning of the investigation as a drop of water in a pond, swelling outwards from the victim, as the relationship with the murder victim becomes non family, less personal, perhaps fellow employee or business acquaintance, someone further removed from the daily life of the victim.

LE must follow the evidence. IF the evidence keeps coming back to the spouse, well he's STILL on the list. But that doesn't stop LE from investigating possibly someone else. When a spouse or SO is never removed from the list of POI or suspects, many claim 'rush to judgement.' IMHO, this is a preemptive move by the pros while showing the defendant canNOT be ruled out.

IRC one case where the pros had a number of witnesses who ended up being a non issue at the end of the day, well kinda'. The accused claimed they'd been to a certain location on a specific day. The pros, during their turn, called every single person who worked that day, and voila! Not ONE saw the accused as he'd originally told LE. Actually, by the time it was the def' turn, they hardly had any witnesses to provide, because in some way or other, they were proven to NOT exist at all. People complained of a boring week or two, but they didn't get it, the pros was making a case, not entertaining them.

Enough circumstantial pieces of the puzzle fit, it'll be impossible for the jury to believe it was all just a big coinkydink! Enough circumstantial pieces fit together, it can show a picture of murder.

JMHO
fran

 

[Just the Fax]

Gritguy, thanks for offering your legal expertise. It is very frustrating having to wade through inaccurate legal stuff posted here as fact.

 

[dgfred]

No but if LE is clearly considering you as suspect you in an investigation you might change your opinion on following your lawyers advice.

NOPE, if I am completely innocent I would take my chance to find the person that actually committed the crime. Sorry.

 

[Talina]

Here is my issue with "the rock"

LE chose ONE rock without taking any other rocks.

If I did a line up of rocks (man I am being totally ridiculous here but serious) and put them in front of the night clerk I would love to know the odds of him being able to pick which rock was actually the rock he kicked.

These are landscaping rocks and I bet he never paid any attention to which one it was. In their wisdom LE took ONE rock and decided to test it. It was not a BLIND test. They were given JY's DNA profile and told to find out whether it matched.

In laymans terms it did not match. What the DNA expert did not introduce was how many profiles could be obtained from those 2 alleles.

For those of you that followed the Amanda Knox trail the experts quit counting the number of profiles that could be obtained. It was also LCN DNA.

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