State vs Jason Lynn Young 2-15-2012

[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

Could you explain what you meant by this? Or either state what dna was found on the missing drawers from the jewelry box? Since they are missing I don't see how you can make the above statement. I know about the dna found.

 

[Allusonz]

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

There is unknown DNA though. They have not said whether this unknown DNA is blood or cells.

It is not just about the blood it is the repeated amounts of unknown DNA that concerns me even though they tested close to 100 people that had been in that home.

You still shed cells, hair etc.

Thus I do have to disagree.

 

[Madeleine74]

Now combine the weird happenings with the propped door and video camera tampering (twice) with the fact that the dark pullover JY is proven to be wearing at midnight at that hotel, as he walks down the hallway toward that exit, has never been found again. His luggage was seized upon his return to Raleigh the next day.

 

[borndem]

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.

I think he truly hated Michelle -- I am sure he felt that she trapped him into marriage, her mother was a meddling b****, she was successful and climbing - he wasn't, he could always move back home and have very willing babysitters, etc., etc. With that million bucks, he could go anywhere and hire a housekeeper or hire whatever (!!) he wanted. CY would not be a problem.

I can see him truly smiling and enjoying his daughter when she said in her little words, "Go Wolfpack," and I can see him loving her (in his limited way) when she crawled up in his lap and said, "I wuv you, Daddy." He didn't hate her at all. Her, he could handle.

I don't have a problem understanding that he cared about her at least a little -- he had no idea, IMO, what really taking care of her meant...

 

[dgfred]

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.

There are those tricky coincidences again :what: . They sure add up IMO.

 

[Allusonz]

Could you explain what you meant by this? Or either state what dna was found on the missing drawers from the jewelry box? Since they are missing I don't see how you can make the above statement. I know about the dna found.

There is lots of DNA fred. They simply can't determine whom it belongs to. Yes that unknown DNA is on the jewellery box.

Think back to the Knox trail and my explanations there. As well there are all the links to the LCN DNA explanations etc. HTH

 

[foltster]

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

IANAL, but I think you are essentially correct.

They can use his refusal to speak to judge his credibility or truthfulness as witness, and how they treat his testimony given at the trial.

I am curious how this will be applied to the 2nd trial as I personally do not expect he will testify again.

 

[Talina]

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.

I really do not understand what you are saying.

Are you emphasizing that this rock could not have been the actual rock because no DNA from JY?

Or are you saying that there is no proof this is the actual rock used?

Or are you saying there is doubt that a rock ever had the door propped open?

I'm very confused.

All I am saying is that I believe the night clerk found a rock propping the door open and it does not concern me that DNA was unable to be lifted off of a rock pointed out by the night clerk that is likely the rock he removed that identified anyone's DNA.

From what I understand the testimony to be regarding the small amount of DNA is that it could not rule out JY while at the same time it could not rule out a huge huge portion of the population at large. That, in and of itself, does not bother me. I don't expect for each and every piece of evidence in a case to have DNA. I also don't expect a night clerk to be able to pick out a lava rock from a bed of rocks and say that this is THE one. What I heard him testify to in this trial is that he believed it was likely it was the same one because it appeared to be the shape he remembered and it was also where he remembered it landing on the sidewalk when he removed it.

I am not hung up on the DNA on this rock. I'd discount it completely in deliberations. What I would not discount is the testimony that a rock was used to prop open the door at some point during that evening.

IMO

 

[borndem]

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.

I can see what you're saying, mattfz, but I'm not sure he thought about the aftermath that much. He had no idea he would come under that much suspicion...

And I forgot one more item in my "JY to gain list" --

.......He wouldn't have to endure going through divorce. And with possible alimony and for-sure child support, doctor bill payments and college. That would really cut into his entertainment funds. No way he could risk all that.

 

[Allusonz]

Suppose that Jason put his print on the moulding while he was setting up the bed at the time they moved in. Suppose that someone else murdered Michelle while wearing gloves, he or she put his or her hand on the moulding, the spatter goes in areas around the gloved hand and, at the end, Jason's DNA is in the void left behind.

Every other piece of evidence or missing evidence has been explained with the argument that the murderer must have been wearing gloves. Okay, let's go with that for a minute. All of a sudden, we need the murderer to not be wearing gloves in order to match this evidence to Jason. It seems like we have Jason putting on and taking off gloves through the hour that he could have been at the house to explain whatever evidence the prosecution would have us believe. Let's go with the totality ... gloves, no gloves, or a silly murderer that only removes gloves while touching the moulding?

Must agree again Otto. Either the individual is wearing gloves or not wearing them. IIRC the print was actually above the blood splatter as per the first tiral and there is simply no way to determine when DNA is deposited.

 

[borndem]

Yes, it is.

I don't even understand why Jen Remy was called.....

She found nothing to connect Jason to the home, to the hotel, no hairs, no fibers, no traces.

I think it was mainly to show the chain of custody for the evidence she handled. C of C has to be done from top to bottom, or the "other side" (whichever one it is in a trial) will object and that evidence would probably be excluded.

 

[3doglady]

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.

I don't think JY had planned on drugging CY. He thought he would knock MY out while she was asleep and then strangle her. A quiet kill that CY would sleep through. MY fought back and it got violent and loud. CY may have come in the bedroom while JY was changing in the closet. He put her in the bathroom while he finished changing clothes and cleaning. Then he washed her off, either outside or with baby wipes. CY was most likely upset and he had to figure out a way to get her to sleep quickly.

 

[Madeleine74]

My understanding is in DNA testing one is either excluded or not excluded as being a contributor or source of a sample. And then, it comes down to statistical probabilities to populations. Am I incorrect?

So with only 2 alliels on a particular sample matching JY, he cannot be excluded as a possible contributor or source of the DNA. But because it's only 2 alliels (out of a possible 16), someone else could also be the source of that DNA. Thus the statistical probability of that DNA coming from JY and only JY is lowered. In other words, it could be someone else who also shares the same 2 alliels at those points as JY. And because a full DNA profile of 16 alliels from that sample cannot be obtained in testing, that's as far as a 'match' to anyone that particular DNA sample can go.

 

[Allusonz]

I'm a little surprised that the NC prosecutor's office is trying to have such low DNA numbers validated in court ... that could certainly backfire in the long run. Another thought that comes to mind is that people that perceive Amanda Knox as innocent, because of this type (some stronger DNA evidence iirc) of DNA evidence, should certainly consider that this same type of DNA evidence cannot point to guilt in Jason's case ... if we are to have a consistent set of rules for everyone.

Your right Otto. This is LCN DNA. They had this rock tested by 2 different sources. Both state that the DNA is to low so why was it allowed into evidence?

 

[otto]

I don't know, but if the comments at WRAL reflect anything on this case, wow.

So far, we learned the twig held, the bush was in reach, and Jen Remy found nothing to connect Jason to the crime scene.

180 pages of evidence were mentioned yesterday, and this case could come down to a rock and a camera.......

Jurors need to be reminded that same camera, same stairwell, was messed with before, and the nite clerk did not notice it was out for hours and hours, how do we know he did not miss other times?

JMO

A few weeks ago, Just the Fax posted a picture of the side entrance to the hotel. I added people, how I thought the door would appear when open and dimensions to the image and concluded that there was never any doubt that Jason could easily reach one of the bushes from the door. From looking at all the rocks beside the curb, I fail to understand how anyone could conclude that a rock on the sidewalk was the same one kicked out of the propped door a couple of days earlier.

 

[Allusonz]

My understanding is in DNA testing one is either excluded or not excluded as being a contributor or source of a sample. And then, it comes down to statistical probabilities to populations. Am I incorrect?

So with only 2 alliels matching JY, he cannot be excluded as a possible contributor or source of the DNA. But because it's only 2 alliels (out of a possible 16), someone else could also be the source of that DNA. Thus the statistical probability of that DNA coming from JY and only JY is lowered. In other words, it could be someone else who also shares the same 2 alliels at those points as JY. And because a full DNA profile of 16 alliels from that sample cannot be obtained in testing, that's as far as a 'match' to anyone that particular DNA sample can go.

In this situation there are probably many profiles on that rock. What I would like to know is the number of profiles that could be obtained from that particular rock but it does not appear they are going to introduce that.

 

[Allusonz]

I really do not understand what you are saying.

Are you emphasizing that this rock could not have been the actual rock because no DNA from JY?

Or are you saying that there is no proof this is the actual rock used?

Or are you saying there is doubt that a rock ever had the door propped open?

I'm very confused.

All I am saying is that I believe the night clerk found a rock propping the door open and it does not concern me that DNA was unable to be lifted off of a rock pointed out by the night clerk that is likely the rock he removed that identified anyone's DNA.

From what I understand the testimony to be regarding the small amount of DNA is that it could not rule out JY while at the same time it could not rule out a huge huge portion of the population at large. That, in and of itself, does not bother me. I don't expect for each and every piece of evidence in a case to have DNA. I also don't expect a night clerk to be able to pick out a lava rock from a bed of rocks and say that this is THE one. What I heard him testify to in this trial is that he believed it was likely it was the same one because it appeared to be the shape he remembered and it was also where he remembered it landing on the sidewalk when he removed it.

I am not hung up on the DNA on this rock. I'd discount it completely in deliberations. What I would not discount is the testimony that a rock was used to prop open the door at some point during that evening.

IMO

Will try to make this simplier.

If you had a witness that gave 10 different stories which story would you be able to agree with? Probably the testimony would be discounted.

Thus if this rock has 10 different profiles yet you only test it for one how many other profiles are on it? I find this to be unethical.

ETA Time to take a break so much happening over a very short time frame

 

[borndem]

Yes, it is.

I don't even understand why Jen Remy was called.....

She found nothing to connect Jason to the home, to the hotel, no hairs, no fibers, no traces.

I think it was mainly to show the chain of custody for the evidence she handled. C of C has to be done from top to bottom, or the "other side" (whichever one it is in a trial) will object and that evidence would probably be excluded.

 

[Boodles]

Whether JY acted with an accomplice or alone, or whether some goths or a hair pulling woman killed Michelle.... whoever was involved was incredibly skilled at leaving such a small amount of evidence. It's hard to believe that scene could have been found in the state it was in.

I still wonder: where was the dog? Did the dog sniff around and eat strange fibers and/or other bits of evidence, lick up blood smears, etc? How can this lack of blood be explained regardless of whom you believe the killer to be?

 

[otto]

JY washed her feet in the back yard.

Why would he do that? It's not like there wasn't evidence that she had stepped in the blood.