State vs. Jason Lynn Young 2-22-2012

[ohiogirl]

Of course, but do you believe the PT effectively got that point across to the jury? For some reason I don't, maybe because the delivery.

This is about the only point I feel was effective so far. jmo

 

[gritguy]

Of course, but do you believe the PT effectively got that point across to the jury? For some reason I don't, maybe because the delivery.

I haven't seen any testimony the last few days.

Acting under his constituional rights, JY chose not to testify or give an account until his defense team and he believed it necessary at his first trial.

That is the obvious reason he did not contest custody.

The rest is just speculation. He couldn't afford it? He was shown to have money. Would go on forever? Any evidence of that - no. I'm pretty sure the courts get on with issuing orders in custody cases. They did in the BC case; that didn't go on forever.

The one clear reason. He didn't want to risk his freedom. That's his right. What it says about him each can judge for themselves, IMO.

 

[NCEast]

Klink would be organized, articulate and crystal clear if he was doing this.
It's sad the state has such a weak team seeking justice for Michelle.

I really feel for LF and MF. If we are agonizing over this, I just cannot imagine how it's affecting them.

 

[gritguy]

To me, it's clear that with this rehash of JY's testimony, the defense will have to put him back on the stand if they have any hope of clearing this up.

If that's correct, then this is far fromover. It would mean, IMO, the defense team would be concerned that the state's case coul result in conviction enough to overcome the risk of the defendant testifying, though it was a success last time.

It would give as you say the defense to reduce the state's case, but it gives the state another live crack at the witness.

I'm sure I'll be on travel when that happens....

 

[happy2binNC]

For years we were told, it was because MY was not going to be able to work full time, after the baby came,
and that would hurt their income greatly.

Then her boss testifies that they were agreeing on a plan Michelle worked out, where she could still work 30 hours a week,
and be reached on her days off and receive full time benefits...It was ready to be submitted to see if it would be okay.

But, its that one BIG thing that has always been missing, and it still is.
Like a MOTIVE.

Why did Jason kill Michelle?

Doesn't look like money......

Freedom?

This guy was out of town 1-2 x a month.

Michelle Money?

Were they were going to kill MM's husband, Steve. too?

He hated MY so much.

For what?

Because they argued, and he didn't like her Mom ?

So?
And?

BBM

Being out of town 1-2 nights a month is quite different from the type of freedom he wanted IMO. He wanted no responsibilities, no strings. Basically, he wanted a promiscuous, college frat-boy lifestyle and you can't have that when you're married with a child and another on the way. He refused to grow up.

Again, this is all MOO.

 

[Lori59]

To me, it's clear that with this rehash of JY's testimony, the defense will have to put him back on the stand if they have any hope of clearing this up.

I was thinking that was another point Cummings was making today...come on JY, I'm ready for you this time!! lease:

 

[NCEast]

Wonder if Howard was serious when he said "sorry, I've got some short term memory loss"?

I think he was dead serious.

Me too. And I honestly think this case needs to be his 'last hurrah'...win or lose. He needs to retire.

 

[fredwomble]

The idea that JY didn't fight custody because the battle would never be over is complete and utter speculation and is also not factual.

What is clear is that he wanted to remain silent, and fighting custody would not have allowed for that.

The motive is clear.

Is there nothing this man did wrong?? :waitasec:

I agree with you. But it's also likely that people like us know more about this case. Did Cummings ask Spivey if Jason Young would've been forced to answer questions at any custody hearing? Even if he did, his presentation is absolutely devoid of energy or seeming grasp of the case.

Most of these things are not that hard. And he is going over and over and over matters that do not impeach Jason Young clearly and damningly. How long did it take to establish that it was cold and windy that night? And yet really, does it prove Young lied about smoking a cigar (if you had zero knowledge of this case beforehand)?

I also get that he lied about the anniversary dinner and that was dumb. But as a juror, I might even give that a pass. Guy lied about talking on the phone with his mistress. I might ask why he felt the need to lie about a material fact he'd already confessed. But that he lied about talking to her on the phone doesn't prove he committed this crime. Repeating the "I've lost everything" but not "my wife?" Sorry, that is also meaningless as far as proving guilt (although I imagine there was a psychological, subconscious component to that answer). He said he lost his family and that includes Michelle and Rylan -- defense can, and likely will, easily rebut that as immaterial.

No one is more certain of Young's guilt than me. But if he is not convicted this time, Holt and Cummings should be fired. And Colon Willoughby should resign. As JTF already alluded, expect Klinkosum's cross to be far easier to follow, more focused and ergo, more effective.

I said yesterday at least three times that allowing Young to "testify" again better set the stage for something big today. It's lunchtime and I'm sorry but I don't see it (understanding, and appreciating, some of his lies have been shown). I hope I'll be proven wrong this afternoon.

 

[Lori59]

OMG! Talking head on In Session, responding to how JY NEVER asked how his daughter was or anything about what happened and actually hung up on investigators....responds that well, JY probably thought if he were to ask questions then they would say that he was trying to find out about the investigation! This is the kind of crap that drives me nuts. ANY innocent person, upon finding out their wife and son was murdered would ask ..What Happened and is my daughter okay and RUSH home...not stop for dinner.

 

[heidisams]

Oh Geesh! Really? I'm watching IS and Mike Brooks and CP are discussing the case, and MB just said (paraphrasing), " well, he put that fleece sweater on when he went back outside..." Point being, he was referring to the sweater from the bday party picture.... He thinks it's the same sweater. He either isn't paying attention, and didn't catch on, or the pros isn't making this very clear. I really hope it's the former. CP gets the facts wrong a lot, but MB is usually pretty sharp.....

 

[Just the Fax]

I wonder if the biggest 'gotcha moment' will be details of that wreck he described in early June 2006. If it existed at all, I bet we hear about the real circumstances and the extent of the man's injury. I doubt we will hear he suffered a 'knock-out blow'.
Could be interesting......

 

[gritguy]

Fred,

Yep I'm not seeing the videostream, but I would surmise from the posts that it is not the state's finest moment.

It's unfortunate, IMO, that in the determination of guilt or innocence the quality of presentation and tactics matter as much as they do given those are not facts and vary considerably in quality, but they do.

 

[Mama-cita]

Fred,

Yep I'm not seeing the videostream, but I would surmise from the posts that it is not the state's finest moment.

It's unfortunate, IMO, that in the determination of guilt or innocence the quality of presentation and tactics matter as much as they do given those are not facts and vary considerably in quality, but they do.

Well if Casey Anthony's jury can be swayed by Jose Baez saying "good morning" to them, just goes to show, maybe we do need professional juries!!! Sad but true!

 

[gracielee]

One, or was it both? Previous victims testified at the Runnion trial. I understand the jury from the previous trial, or at least some, apologized publicly to the girls for not believing their previous testimony.

With regard to this case, we need to remember or realize, CY was a complete innocent. We have to believe there's a LOT of truth as to what her statements were, especially just after her mom and brother's murder!

"Out of the mouths of babes,"

JMHO
fran

It's been so long, I did follow this case, little Samantha Runnion, at the time. IIRC, his prior trial involved two little girls, approx 5 or 6 yrs. old???? And although they both testifed as to what Sam's killer did to them, the jury found them to be not-believable. And so he was acquitted of the crimes against them. I want to say, the day the killer got Samantha, he was actually out looking for one of those little girls. They lived near, or in the same complex as, Samantha. He was unable to find the child, but did come upon Samantha and her little play-mate, and grabbed Sam. I heard that early on in the case, whether that was ever clarified, I'm unsure. I also want to say that was how he, the killer, was identified so quickly. The other child gave a description of him, Sam's play-mate, and the mother of one of his previous victims saw the drawing and identified him as the guy who had been acquitted of molesting her child. I could be all wrong here, as it's been so many years now and I follow a lot of these cases. :waitasec:

 

[Lori59]

Well if Casey Anthony's jury can be swayed by Jose Baez saying "good morning" to them, just goes to show, maybe we do need professional juries!!! Sad but true!

Hahaha! That "Good Morning" annoyed the crap out of me!

 

[parasol]

OMG, these talking heads on TruTV are talking about what a "credible, good witness" JY was. It's hard to believe seasoned legal professionals could be so credulous. I thought they would have good BS detectors by now. That said, I'm sure some of them know that they can get booked on a show for being reliably pro-defense, pro-prosecution, or what have you.

 

[Boodles]

How long did it take to establish that it was cold and windy that night?

I think of the song from the Broadway play "Rent": Five Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand-Six Hundred Minutes

yeah, I know it was probably only about 15 minutes, but agree, that's far too long to establish weather conditions. I could have "named that weather in 2 notes!"

 

[gritguy]

OMG, these talking heads on TruTV are talking about what a "credible, good witness" JY was. It's hard to believe seasoned legal professionals could be so credulous. I thought they would have good BS detectors by now. That said, I'm sure some of them know that they can get booked on a show for being reliably pro-defense, pro-prosecution, or what have you.

Perhaps evidence of evolution, perhaps intelligent deisgn, but there is an expert out there for every theory!

 

[gracielee]

Hahaha! That "Good Morning" annoyed the crap out of me!

I'm amazed at the difference in juries. The jury that convicted scott peterson came out, discussed their verdict. They didn't hide and skulk away into oblivion. They were certain enough about their decision to talk openly about it. Say what evidence they believed, which witnesses they found to be honest and truthful, etc. It seems to me that juries confident of their opinions, juries who have actually *deliberated*, aren't afraid to speak out and say why they made the decision they did IMO.

 

[happy2binNC]

Is anyone in the courtroom today? I want to know if the man in the front row of the jury (juror #5?) is dozing again.
:sleep: