State vs Jason Lynn Young 2-15-2012

[Boodles]

Trace evidence of carpet fibers? Bedding fibers? Hotels are cheap places (sorry, not a direct aim at this chain) and they are used by lots of people. It would have been on the hoodie, the shoes, his jeans, etc.

Why do we have none of that?

And, I'm not trying to rile anything up with this. But, the folks involved with this looked for a LOT of stuff. They looked for this. They found none.

So, does anyone think that more or less points towards the other ideas: a) not JY, b) a hit or paid killing of some kind or c) an accomplice doing the bulk of it?

It wasn't wiped up because no one would know what to wipe when it came to fibers, etc. It was certainly looked for in multiple places. It was tested for.

It's puzzling, the thing about the "hit" theory is, you don't bash the @#!$ out of the victim, you just kill the victim. This was personal and IMO depicts a lot of rage, but the baby is cared for. That screams Jason to me. Who else could have hated Michelle this way? This is a serious question...who else had a motive to attack in such a personal way? And with a child in the house? This wasn't a burglary gone wrong.

 

[dgfred]

Why were there no fibers in the house if he rushed out of his hotel room, drove back to Raleigh and committed a murder?

I understand how he could have cleaned up the blood, etc.

But, this would have been things on the way into the house: Carpet fibers from the room floor at the hotel were pulled to compare. Bedding, etc from the hotel was pulled. Why did they not find anything on the reverse traces?

I am curious as to how people think he could have kept from leaving any of these type things at the murder scene.

So you are saying a person taking clean clothes from home out of a bag... putting them on, putting on shoes, walking out of the room and down the hall is going to leave fibers from the hotel room at the scene of a murder miles and miles away???
Maybe in his car, but that wouldn't mean anything either way (from home or hotel).

 

[~n/t~]

I guess you would see the Scott Peterson and Brad Cooper convictions as not really proven then.

Not at all. The pros did a great job in those 2 cases. This trial isn't over yet but so far, most of the TH's agree that the State has proven JY was not a good guy but not proven he murdered MY.

Scott Peterson's case had Amber Frey. She was a star witness proving his lies. Then there was Laci and Conner's bodies washing up where he went "fishing".

Brad Cooper the deposition video sunk him.

 

[3doglady]

No, but I find it amazing that there is nothing (no blood, hair or anything) in the Explorer. That's the only thing that makes me think there might be someone else involved with JY.

That's why I think he cleaned himself up and changed in the bedroom closet. There was only one spot downstairs on a door knob. If he went in with gloves, hat, black pullover and long pants all he had to do is strip into a plastic bag and wipe off his face. He may even have had ski mask. He had clean clothes and shoes in the closet. Who else could have gotten out of the bedroom without tracking blood?

 

[otto]

I think he cleaned CY so she would not get blood on him. The bathroom looks like she was shut up in there for a while, probably while he was changing and cleaning himself. Then he had to get her back to sleep so he washed her off before rocking her.

If he wanted to avoid getting blood from his daughter onto him, he would run to the nearest sink, not wander through the house, out the garage and use the garden hose in the middle of the night.

 

[octobermoon]

So you are saying a person taking clean clothes from home out of a bag... putting them on, putting on shoes, walking out of the room and down the hall is going to leave fibers from the hotel room at the scene of a murder miles and miles away???
Maybe in his car, but that wouldn't mean anything either way (from home or hotel).

Great post. Good point.

I think I am losing brain cells watching MM testify from the last trial.

 

[dgfred]

Not at all. The pros did a great job in those 2 cases. This trial isn't over yet but so far, most of the TH's agree that the State has proven JY was not a good guy but not proven he murdered JY.

Scott Peterson's case had Amber Frey. She was a star witness proving his lies. Then there was Laci and Conner's bodies washing up where he went "fishing".

Brad Cooper the deposition vidoe sunk him.

So it is the prosecution's fault in this case that guilt has not been proven to you or the evidence?

A liar does not make a murderer in regards to SP, and the bodies washing up exactly where he went 'fishing' could be seen as a coincidence... right?

How did the deposition 'sink' BC in regards to the murder of his wife?

 

[dgfred]

Great post. Good point.

I think I am losing brain cells watching MM testify from the last trial.

I know what you mean... it is hard to decide whether she is in love/infatuated/spiteful/hateful/dense/naive/trying to help/or just doesn't give a &*%$.

:maddening:

 

[otto]

otto, the point I think one side of the argument was trying to make was regarding JY actually admitting putting a twig in the door and the (coincidence) of an employee actually finding a rock wedged in the door the very night his wife is murdered/he leaves his room and returns without using a key at any door/CAMERAS unpuggled/moved/not seen re-entering hotel after smoke/missing shirt/etc.

Not the fact per se of the dna on the rock, if was the exact rock, if it is the one the employee says it is, etc.
The point being his 'excuse' for not needing his key was the twig he placed in the door... not a rock. Obviously he used something... probably not to wise to say he use a rock if he actually did. And what are the 'chances' of all these coincidences on the very night his wife is slaughtered?

The camera was unplugged, the camera was tilted, keycard use on the room door was not registered after one entry, a rock was in the fire exit door and his wife was murdered.

There doesn't appear to be anything connecting the cameras to Jason ... no prints, DNA or footage. Galloway testified that Jason's measurements were:

feet to waist: 41 inches
waist to shoulder: 30 inches
shoulder to elbow: 15 inches
elbow to wrist: 19 inches.

That was his sworn testimony. That means that Jason, who is 73 inches tall, has a head/neck that is 2 inches tall. Galloway then did some interesting monkey business with human anatomy and attached Jason's arm to the top of his shoulder, concluding that Jason would have no difficulties reaching a height of 105 inches with ease.

That is a clear example of the quality of testimony that officers are presenting in court in this trial. It's complete nonsense, but they say it with such confidence that people are inclined to buy into it. Would you want your life and freedom to depend on that type of sworn testimony?

 

[johnfear]

So you are saying a person taking clean clothes from home out of a bag... putting them on, putting on shoes, walking out of the room and down the hall is going to leave fibers from the hotel room at the scene of a murder miles and miles away???
Maybe in his car, but that wouldn't mean anything either way (from home or hotel).

If you walk down the hall and get into your car from your hotel room, you've touched things and if you have a hushpuppy shoe on that is later stuck in blood, you were clearly walking around in the home, no?

Why is there no hotel in the home?

The investigators were clearly thinking it would be or could be or something, to compare all of that.

Ironically, it's been trotted out that the series of coincidences is all in favor of the defense, but it isn't.

It's pretty dang neutral (coincidence wise) and I am wondering why the two (even in trace evidence) don't seem to be linkable.

I get that he could shed all of his clothing at the house, his heavy gloves, his shoes, his hoody (all of which have been proposed to have been in the hotel) and the like.

What I don't get is how he didn't get anything in the house from his hoody, his shoes, gloves, etc from the hotel. If they hadn't tested pretty much every surface and every option, I'd be with you all that the coincidence fell for the defense and this dude just got lucky, but you can't plan to be walking down the hall in a hoody and shoes (that may or may not have a footprint in the blood at the scene. Not sure if he was wearing them then or not. )from a hotel, drive to your home just a few hours away and walk into the home and beat someone to death and not leave evidence the other way.

 

[3doglady]

If he wanted to avoid getting blood from his daughter onto him, he would run to the nearest sink, not wander through the house, out the garage and use the garden hose in the middle of the night.

He couldn't go in the bathroom because it was full of blood. He could have gone downstairs to a sink or he could have just used baby wipes on CY. I don't know where he cleaned CY but I think he did. I was just suggesting why JY and CY's DNA on the outside faucet could be evidence.

 

[johnfear]

I know what you mean... it is hard to decide whether she is in love/infatuated/spiteful/hateful/dense/naive/trying to help/or just doesn't give a &*%$.

:maddening:

I think whatever agent told her she was nuts was right (irregardless of his guilt) and she needed to avoid the future circus that surely would have been.

Unfortunately, she doesn't seem like she "gets it".

 

[otto]

Hi Otto,
I'm rewatching MM, haven't changed my mind a bit. I think she harms JY's case more than helps. But I am trying to. :innocent:

Maybe I should re-watch it as well. I was going on memory and memory certainly changes over time. I completely believed that Jason was guilty when I viewed that testimony, so I suppose I interpretted it differently. After the end of the first trial, I had more questions than I had to begin with ... more questions today than ever.

 

[3doglady]

If you walk down the hall and get into your car from your hotel room, you've touched things and if you have a hushpuppy shoe on that is later stuck in blood, you were clearly walking around in the home, no?

Why is there no hotel in the home?

The investigators were clearly thinking it would be or could be or something, to compare all of that.

Ironically, it's been trotted out that the series of coincidences is all in favor of the defense, but it isn't.

It's pretty dang neutral (coincidence wise) and I am wondering why the two (even in trace evidence) don't seem to be linkable.

I get that he could shed all of his clothing at the house, his heavy gloves, his shoes, his hoody (all of which have been proposed to have been in the hotel) and the like.

What I don't get is how he didn't get anything in the house from his hoody, his shoes, gloves, etc from the hotel. If they hadn't tested pretty much every surface and every option, I'd be with you all that the coincidence fell for the defense and this dude just got lucky, but you can't plan to be walking down the hall in a hoody and shoes (that may or may not have a footprint in the blood at the scene. Not sure if he was wearing them then or not. )from a hotel, drive to your home just a few hours away and walk into the home and beat someone to death and not leave evidence the other way.

That's what I would think too, but in the Anthony case we know there was a dead child decomposing in the trunk of her car and all they found was one hair. No DNA and no fibers. So :waitasec:

 

[fromageball]

Wouldn't a bat leave fragments?

I was thinking the killer could have used a crow bar if a weapon was used - seems like there would need to be a weapon with broken jaw/knocked out teeth.

 

[NCEast]

Don't forget he went to his mom's before he ever returned to Raleigh. Some of the motel evidence could have been left there.

Good grief, my brain cells are dead too from watching the MM testimony in the first trial again. My response upthread to John F. made no sense. So sorry.

 

[3doglady]

I was thinking the killer could have used a crow bar if a weapon was used - seems like there would need to be a weapon with broken jaw/knocked out teeth.

That would explain the clump of hair too.

 

[gracielee]

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

Bears repeating! And repeating. I can't recall another recent case with so much unsubstaniated junk being thrown around over & over. :banghead:

 

[dgfred]

If he wanted to avoid getting blood from his daughter onto him, he would run to the nearest sink, not wander through the house, out the garage and use the garden hose in the middle of the night.

I believe the hose being on just might be a 'red herring' he left on (on purpose). :waitasec: Or maybe just used it to wash his hands at the very end before jumping in his car.

I also believe except for maybe a bit of blood on his hands from cleaning the child... he was completely clean when he came downstairs. JMO

 

[NCEast]

Bears repeating! And repeating. I can't recall another recent case with so much unsubstaniated junk being thrown around over & over. :banghead:

Actually, I feel as though I know less about this case today than 2 weeks ago before the 2nd trial began. I'm having a difficult time keeping what's what straight.
And some of the 'tude on here has diminished my capacity for enjoying this forum as much as in the past.