State vs. Jason Lynn Young 2-21-2012

[pjcitizen]

BBM What does that mean, typical Michelle fashion?

She was a planner, planned a big surprise for Jason.

 

[LyndyLoo]

You know what, this is a really good point I hadn't considered. If Gracie wanted to fabricate, she'd have had to go back and look at what purchases were on the list of register transactions to see what fit, and just cross her fingers that it fit into the timeline as brilliantly as it did. She'd either have to have used ESP to know the customer's volatile temperament, or she fabricated that too on the off chance she might get it right. Does anyone believe her capable of all that Machiavellian foresight, perception, and maneuvering, able to create such a story based on a few little numbers on a register receipt?

At the very least, the incident happened. I'm finding it easier to believe that Gracie has difficulty verbalizing proportion and measurement, than I am believing that a 5 foot tall man cursed her out at 5:30 in the morning.

And not to mention that Def. wants the jury to believe her brain injury at 7 somehow made her into an idiot..Sooo between ESP and ability to alter gas receipts within register She'd have to be either part of LE conspiracy to frame Jason..and then give not so accurate desciption of Jason..Makes ya go ummmmmm :waitasec:

 

[cityslick]

And not to mention that Def. wants the jury to believe her brain injury at 7 somehow made her into an idiot..Sooo between ESP and ability to alter gas receipts within register She'd have to be either part of LE conspiracy to frame Jason..and then give not so accurate desciption of Jason..Makes ya go ummmmmm :waitasec:

TBH, I don't think the jury needs to believe Gracie to convict. There is enough other stuff there that it's just not necessary. Just like that don't need CY saying 'daddy did it' to convict. If you need one eyewitness and the testimony of a 2 yr old to convict, your case wasn't that strong to begin with.

 

[Shelby1]

Does anyone know why the testimony from the daycare workers regarding the dolls wasn't presented at the first trial? Did pros. decide not to put it in, or did the judge not allow it?

 

[nursebeeme]

Peeps, everyone is entitled to their opinion. If you are using snark in your posts please leave it out. This lands randomly at random ;-)

 

[Cammy]

Not easily explained at all"

Cammy, below I am bringing over some questions I posed in a comment to your explanation of shoes. Could you give me your opinion on how they could be answered.

Where where are the shoes JY was wearing in CB and HI videos. He bought a pair before the NTO almost the exact shoe as seen in the videos. Those round toed brown toed shoes were not found with his belongings. Why buy a new pair of shoes after the murder that look exactly like the ones in HI and CB video and it just happens those shoes have never been located.
Edit/Delete Message

Jason appeared on the stand, ready and eager to answer all the Pros questions in the first trial.....
Why didn't BH ask him where his shoes and shirt were?
Maybe he had an answer and she did not want to hear it.
So far, everything he has said, that was in question, has held up....


jmo

 

[Wolfpack]

I have a few more than two..The biggest ones are the hushpuppies, the 2 year old witnessing what happen to her mommy, the dog locked away from upstairs as there was no paw prints in the blood, whomever did this knew the house well..removed all garbage including diaper removal of Cassey, Nothing but personal items stolen (wedding rings) and we all know he loves wedding rings!! the amt of gas purchased (over 50 gal that night/morning) the missing clothes he was seen wearing when left Hampton..

Man oh man..IF I put some stranger on the other side of the sheet Just how can you compare applications of these facts to someone targeting Michelle??

I keep recalling something that I have heard many times during trials..and that is "The absence if evidence (DNA/Prints/blood trail downstairs) is in of itself Evidence"..Random killer would not bother caring for child, penning up dog, clearing out garbage, and leaving Car and electronics behind..All good items for a burglar to steal!!

Just thinking outloud and connecting dots :rocker:

Please continue to think aloud! At the end of the State's case, I am going to post my "list" of how I've organized the evidence in this case, and where I place everything (guilt, innocence, irrelevant columns). It's obviously just my opinion only, but it'll be a good place to jot down my thoughts before the defense starts their case. And I'd love to get feedback when I do.

 

[Wolfpack]

Jason appeared on the stand, ready and eager to answer all the Pros questions in the first trial.....w
Why didn't BH ask him where his shoes and shirt were?

I think he had an answer and she did not want to hear it.

jmo

Becky Holt should not have asked him where the shirt and shoes are, because an open ended question on cross exam can only end badly. It allows the witness to make up excuses, as JY did (regardless of guilt or innocence).

What she should have done was boxed him into a corner with leading questions like "You've known the shirt was evidence in this trial." "You never produced that shirt." "If asked to produce that shirt to this court, you would not be able to do that." And left it at that. She can't draw the conclusion herself, and she can't give him the opportunity to explain.

BUT, if he had a great answer, and it was truthful, the defense could have brought that out more clearly.

ETA: I don't think I'm being clear, and this is probably coming out in a very confusing manner, but there's a "handbook" of sorts for Trial Advocacy, and one of the first rules of cross exam is do NOT ask open ended questions.

 

[Cammy]

TBH, I don't think the jury needs to believe Gracie to convict. There is enough other stuff there that it's just not necessary. Just like that don't need CY saying 'daddy did it' to convict. If you need one eyewitness and the testimony of a 2 yr old to convict, your case wasn't that strong to begin with.

This case took 3 years to get an arrest, it was never an easy case.

The last trial ended with 8 jurors ready to acquit, again, not an easy case.

I am curious as to why detectives and LE would even bother to check the local airport for flight plans unless they were having trouble with the timeline.

 

[Cammy]

Please continue to think aloud! At the end of the State's case, I am going to post my "list" of how I've organized the evidence in this case, and where I place everything (guilt, innocence, irrelevant columns). It's obviously just my opinion only, but it'll be a good place to jot down my thoughts before the defense starts their case. And I'd love to get feedback when I do.

I have the defense list ready to go, as well.

 

[Cammy]

Becky Holt should not have asked him where the shirt and shoes are, because an open ended question on cross exam can only end badly. It allows the witness to make up excuses, as JY did (regardless of guilt or innocence).

What she should have done was boxed him into a corner with leading questions like "You've known the shirt was evidence in this trial." "You never produced that shirt." "If asked to produce that shirt to this court, you would not be able to do that." And left it at that. She can't draw the conclusion herself, and she can't give him the opportunity to explain.

BUT, if he had a great answer, and it was truthful, the defense could have brought that out more clearly.

ETA: I don't think I'm being clear, and this is probably coming out in a very confusing manner, but there's a "handbook" of sorts for Trial Advocacy, and one of the first rules of cross exam is do NOT ask open ended questions.

Since LE did not issue a warrant for these items until much later, I don't think the defense is/was worried.

Open ended questions being the same as never ask a question you do not know the answer to.

You have to at least wonder why she did not ask.

 

[Madeleine74]

Does anyone know why the testimony from the daycare workers regarding the dolls wasn't presented at the first trial? Did pros. decide not to put it in, or did the judge not allow it?

Shelby,

Nothing official has been published to tell us why.

We do know trial #1 was rushed, based at least partly on the judge not wanting JY's trial to take a long time, like the Brad Cooper trial did. So that impacted the JY case some. Other than that...mistakes, miscalculations, assumptions...take yer pick.

All along folks who knew what evidence had been found said that not all of it was being shown during that first trial and no one could understand why they would do that. It seemed idiotic to not introduce everything you had to make your case... but stuff was left out. Go figure.

 

[cityslick]

This case took 3 years to get an arrest, it was never an easy case.

The last trial ended with 8 jurors ready to acquit, again, not an easy case.

I am curious as to why detectives and LE would even bother to check the local airport for flight plans unless they were having trouble with the timeline.

Was the rarity of the HP's brought out in the first trial, because that's really a blow to the defense? I actually don't put as much emphasis on the daycare teacher as others do, because I don't think it's a convincing argument that the perp is JY. It's a argument, but not a convincing one IMO.

If the camera activity at the hotel was more frequent (tampering), I'd be more inclined to think that as a fluke than I do. The rarity of the shoes really hurts though. That and the hotel is going to be hard for a juror to get past. It doesn't help that he was a jerk to his wife either.

 

[traveler]

Since LE did not issue a warrant for these items until much later, I don't think the defense is/was worried.

Open ended questions being the same as never ask a question you do not know the answer to.

You have to at least wonder why she did not ask.

They issued a search warrant THAT night for Jason's SUV. His parents testified that he did not unpack his luggage once in Brevard - so where else could his shirt be?

 

[Cammy]

Was the rarity of the HP's brought out in the first trial, because that's really a blow to the defense? I actually don't put as much emphasis on the daycare teacher as others do, because I don't think it's a convincing argument that the perp is JY. It's a argument, but not a convincing one IMO.

If the camera activity at the hotel was more frequent (tampering), I'd be more inclined to think that as a fluke than I do. The rarity of the shoes really hurts though. That and the hotel is going to be hard for a juror to get past. It doesn't help that he was a jerk to his wife either.

The shoes and shirt have pretty much been the issue for a long time.

There are lots of explanations, but if you don't ask the defendant himself,
then how do you find out?

Is the Pros trying to force Jason in testifying again?

 

[NCEast]

You guys are doing great with helping me follow along. I have had so many phone calls this morning I had to mute the trial volume but had no trouble getting the gist of things from your posts. I hope this afternoon will be a bit calmer here and I will be able to watch.
Good job....keep those thoughts going!

 

[Cammy]

They issued a search warrant THAT night for Jason's SUV. His parents testified that he did not unpack his luggage once in Brevard - so where else could his shirt be?

There was a specific s/warrant issued much later as well.

 

[iucpa]

Far too many quinkidinks for me!!

LOL at "quinkidinks"... Not that this is even a real word, but it's actually coinkydinks (play on word "coincident"). Makes me laugh because there are so many words that we think we know based on how they sound but then you find out they are actually something different.

Case in point, my wife for years thought there was a word "bratyu" that meant "sponsored". When I asked her where that came from she said "you know at the end of a TV show, they say "bratyu by..." by running the words "brought to you by" together so quickly...

That's that that reminded me of...

/OT off

 

[Shelby1]

Shelby,

Nothing official has been published to tell us why.

We do know trial #1 was rushed, based at least partly on the judge not wanting JY's trial to take a long time, like the Brad Cooper trial did. So that impacted the JY case some. Other than that...mistakes, miscalculations, assumptions...take yer pick.

All along folks who knew what evidence had been found said that not all of it was being shown during that first trial and no one could understand why they would do that. It seemed idiotic to not introduce everything you had to make your case... but stuff was left out. Go figure.

Thanks for your answer.

Yes, it seems very strange that they didn't put it all out there the first time.

I figured that the judge would have allowed it the first time, since he allowed it this time, but I wasn't sure if maybe case law had changed or something.

 

[Prancy]

Does anyone know why the testimony from the daycare workers regarding the dolls wasn't presented at the first trial? Did pros. decide not to put it in, or did the judge not allow it?

I don't recall anything about it in the first trial. I would have thought it was inadmissible. But, hey, you never know. I have recently heard that the evidence could be used in the def's favor, since if the attacker was her dad, why didn't she say that to the daycare worker. ???