State vs. Jason Lynn Young 2-23-2012

[Turnadot]

As to what people are saying about this case to get a true balance of where this case is in the public opinion.

They are all over the spectrum, some think a woman killed Michelle...some think it was a hit..........some think Jason and some think no way it was Jason.

I am listening to TTV right now, and they think it is going to be very difficult to get a Guilty Verdict............

Talking heads, whether they believe it will be a guilty verdict or not, have no credit with me at all. They don't know anything more than we do; in fact, I think they more often than not, know even less about the case, IMO.

 

[Turnadot]

Thank you Madeline! As Linda Drane Burdick said "all it takes is common sense!"

Apparently not. Sadly.

 

[Talina]

Yes Talina. There is a signed form, by Jason, that increased MY's policy to $2M, dated in Sept '06, just prior to MY's murder.

It had a double indemnity clause of accidental death. Accidental, in my understanding, includes murder. Something not natural cause, ie cancer or heart attack.

I THINK I heard there was $1M, or it may have been $2M paid to MY's estate in trust for CY.

When a person is under suspicion of murder, the insurance company withholds the claim. Then if the beneficiary is deemed guilty of murder of the insured in a court of law, he/she cannot collect as they would then be benefitting for the crime.

A similar thing happened on the Laci Peterson case. The insurance put a hold on the policy amount and placed it in a trust. Laci's family filed a claim after the guilty verdict came in and they were awarded the policy amount.

hth,
fran

PS, ETA.........I believe the insurance was awarded AFTER the civil suit judgment came in. That judge deemed Jason the 'slayer of Michelle Young.' fwiw

Thanks. I understand that whatever was paid went to the estate and why. What I am confused about is now the amount is much higher than what I'd originally seen posted leading up to this trial.

I realize that whatever the base amount is was doubled due to the A/D/D rider.

If the amount was increased to $2MM as the base amount, then $4MM should have been what went to the estate when the policy paid out.

Correct?

And I thought that is what I heard the insurance agent say on the stand, that $4MM is what was paid to the estate.

I'm just wondering where the $1MM came from that was in all the prior posts and perhaps it is just now that this is new info coming out in this trial and was not known up until now that JY had the coverage doubled and then with the A/D/D rider the amount was actually the $4MM amount.

That is a lot of money and I can't imagine that he had the coverage doubled with no nefarious reason to do so. That is well beyond what their current living circumstances warranted and far beyond what they would need to maintain if either one died.

IMO

 

[ncsu95]

We do also follow DR's advice and isn't it 10 X annual income (In MY's case since she worked)? So 500-600K would be reasonable. The 2M$ and the timing is suspect to me.

Yes. 2 million is very much excessive. I was just responding to a post questioning the need for life insurance for a sahm.

 

[mck16]

If you are able to see all the circumstantial evidence and you are able to line it all up and look at all of it in the context of this 24 - 36 hr period of time, you will be able to see evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

However, if you look at each item in isolation and then try to find reasons each individual item could be explained away and call each item or event a mere coincidence that happens to everyone and means nothing, then you won't see a picture emerge. If using logical inference and common sense and reasoning is discounted or not possible for someone to bring to a case, then they will often not be able to see proof of anything.

So what was the evidense that led them to him in the first place? tia

 

[Turnadot]

Thing is, I don't even think "common sense" is needed to convict here. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, IMO. There's only one conclusion, based on the totality of the evidence: Guilty.

 

[cityslick]

Talking heads, whether they believe it will be a guilty verdict or not, have no credit with me at all. They don't know anything more than we do; in fact, I think they more often than not, know even less about the case, IMO.

I think what's happening is they see that the PT has started to focus and drive hard at motive. They really have nothing more in terms of evidence that actually links JY to the crime so they have go to another angle to drive home the point that JY stood to benefit very well from MY's death. Historically, juries tend to vote guilty more on evidence linking to the crime than over motive (at least on different studies that I've read).

As I said in the beginning of the thread, if one or two jury members cannot get past that JY was in some ways very lucky in the hotel to commit this crime, it's going to hang again.

 

[Mama-cita]

Apparently not. Sadly.

The pinellas 12 lacked common sense. Among other things...

 

[Madeleine74]

So what was the evidense that led them to him in the first place? tia

It's not so much any one piece of 'evidence,' as it is the way a typical investigation proceeds. LE always starts with the people closest to the victim. That would include spouse, children, anyone who was with the victim the day they died or before... it's a process of elimination. They gather info to see who they can start to exclude and who they can't exclude.

Evidence starts to emerge and it starts to create a trail. Sometimes a clear trail, sometimes a murky trail, but inevitably a trail or 2 appears.

Then there are the simple basics: how was the victim killed? At home? Somewhere else? Forced entry into home? Other victims? Robbery? What was taken? Who did the victim know? Any enemies? etc, etc.

Have you followed a murder case before?

 

[Cammy]

Considering the theory is that Jason tried to create the best alibi possible for himself, I'd say he was banking on getting away with murder, IMO. He thought he'd get that 4mil payout.

Possibly, but here is the thing:

Let me flip sides for a second...

Let's say Jason did kill Michelle, what in the world was going to stop police from suspecting him in the first place?

Because, you were in a hotel 2.5...2.45 or 3 hours away?

Your arguments with your wife are not only well known by everyone, you have a wife who was seeing a therapist..........

Wouldn't you be worried what she had told that therapist?

You are having an affair with her friend, her sorority sister........
That is not going to raise a few suspicions...

Then you have a recent trip where you went to see her in Orlando.

Then you have all the phonecalls, texts, and emails that are going
to be made public.

You are not going to get any support from your MIL, that is for sure,
she is not going to take your part or support you.

Then all your drunken animal house party behavior is going to come to light.

Think you are dead in the water yet?

Add in all the witnesses who will testify to how immature, irresponsible, and what a jerk you are and have been to Michelle.

Think the Jury is in love with you?

Why would a person who so much values freedom at all costs, take the risk of going to prison, perhaps even Death Row?

You are going to lose your daughter, your home, your job and go to jail forever....

You are a man who loves the outdoors, camping, hiking, canoeing, now, you are going to be in a cell.....

So, you plan to murder your wife, but you don't do the little things, like maybe unlocking a window on the
ground level of your home so that it would look like a break in?

Why make an unforced entry point directy to you?

How about throwing some things around to make it look like a burglary?

How about filling up some gas cans with gas?

What in the world makes you think you are going to get away with it?

 

[Turnadot]

The pinellas 12 lacked common sense. Among other things...

Yeah, but TBH, I wouldn't rely on my common sense when deciding someone's fate. Only the totality of the evidence would matter. Then again, I may be using some hair-brained definition of common sense all this time, because some English stuff is still hard to understand the subtlety.

I don't think the famous 12 paid attention to the evidence at all, and that was the real problem.

IMO

 

[the couger]

Sorry--I stepped away for a bit. This is a good question, Couger. I didn't marry mine, THANK GOODNESS (this relationship was 20 years ago). I did, however, bloody my head against a brick wall for five years before waking up. I certainly can't speak for anyone else, but after watching a number of these relationships up close and from a distance, it seems possible there was some "if I love him enough he'll change" or "only I understand the real him" stuff going on. I'm sure a psych person would say there are family of origin and/or self-esteem issues in play--trying to fix something from your past, familiarity, and/or feeling this is what you deserve. I had a tulmultuos childhood, and unhealthy relationships produced feelings that were very familiar to me--not in a good way, but familiar nonetheless. I had to wade through several such relationships before realizing the only relationship I could change was the one I had with myself. In other words, the only person I could change was me. That, in turn, changed everything. I would never tolerate today what I found acceptable back then. I don't presume to know if any of my experiences apply to MY, but my heart aches for her and the dreams she had for her family in the future.

TY for your answer and I am glad you finally(see bold). I have just been so fortunate in my life and would slap one of my boys that I even suspected treating his wife or any women with disrespect..

 

[mck16]

It's not so much 'evidence,' as it is a typical investigation. LE always starts with the people closest to the victim. That would include spouse, children, anyone who was with the victim the day they died or before... it's a process of elimination. They gather info to see who they can start to exclude and who they can't exclude.

Evidence starts to emerge and it starts to create a trail. Sometimes a clear trail, sometimes a murky trail, but inevitably a trail or 2 appears.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear in my question. That is what I want to know. What is that trail and where did it start? Was it because he was having multiple affairs, or that he didn't want his second child, or insurance money. I really don't know as I was not following this case in the beginning. And so far I haven't seen anything that would make me convict him except I think he did do it. I just want the jury to have everything and I am not so sure they do. jmo

 

[Turnadot]

Possibly, but here is the thing:

Let me flip sides for a second...

Let's say Jason did kill Michelle, what in the world was going to stop police from suspecting him in the first place?

Because, you were in a hotel 2.5...2.45 or 3 hours away?

Your arguments are not only well known by everyone, you have a wife who was seeing a therapist..........

Wouldn't you be worried what she had told that therapist?

You are having an affair with her friend, her sorority sister........
That is not going to raise a few suspicions...

Then you have a recent trip where you went to see her in Orlando.

Then you have all the phonecalls, texts, and emails that are going
to be made public.

You are not going to get any support from your MIL, that is for sure,
she is not going to take your part or support you.

Then all your drunken animal house party behavior is going to come to light.

Think you are dead in the water yet?

Add in all the witnesses who will testify to how immature, irresponsible, and what a jerk you are and have been to Michelle.

Think the Jury is in love with you?

Why would a person who so much values freedom at all costs, take the risk of going to prison, perhaps even Death Row?

You are going to lose your daughter, your home, your job and go to jail forever....

You are a man who loves the outdoors, camping, hiking, canoeing, now, you are going to be in a cell.....

So, you plan to murder your wife, but you don't do the little things, like maybe unlocking a window on the
ground level of your home so that it would look like a break in?

Why make an unforced entry point directy to you?

How about throwing some things around to make it look like a burglary?

How about filling up some gas cans with gas?

That's the crux of the entire post really. My answer is this: Peterson, and Cooper. Both wanted their freedom more than anything else, both thought murdering their wife was the answer. Jason Young is not a special case; he's a common wife killer who wanted his freedom.

IMO

 

[fran]

The problem with some of these allegedly well planned out murders, the perp thinks he's smarter than anyone and everyone else.

Of course, they also do NOT take into account, that the crime will be investigated by people who HAVE been trained in criminal investigation. That's their J O B !

In other words, JY is NOT as smart as HE thinks!

Now it's up to a jury to show him how NOT smart he is.

JMHO
fran

 

[evelyn24]

Talking heads, whether they believe it will be a guilty verdict or not, have no credit with me at all. They don't know anything more than we do; in fact, I think they more often than not, know even less about the case, IMO.

They're horrible and the reason why I never watch CourtTV now TruTV commentators regarding cases. Beth Karas is one of the few who keeps down the hyperbole and tabloid antics and has pretty good insight into what was really going on with a trial. I don't even know if she does trial coverage anymore because it's been that long since I watched.

 

[Tipstaff]

Accidents can be reopened and reinvestigated years and years later..

Don't you think this would have been done in some matter?

MY is gone and while it is possible I think they had bigger fish to fry with the murder investigation. Look we are talking about this in the trial and it has become part of the bigger picture.:twocents:

 

[Boodles]

They're horrible and I never watch CourtTV now TruTV commentators on trials. Beth Karas is one of the few who kept down the hyperbole and tabloid antics and had pretty good insight into what was really going on with a trial. I don't even know if she does trial coverage anymore because it's been that long since I watched.

Beth is really objective in her reporting plus she really knows the law. She was covering this case initially and then disappeared as of late last week. I wish she would return.

 

[gracielee]

Yes. 2 million is very much excessive. I was just responding to a post questioning the need for life insurance for a sahm.

I wasn't questioning the *need* for insurance on a SAHM. I was speaking specifically to *our* own personal needs. This was 35 years ago. Our youngest child at the time would be entering school full time within 2 years. All our children would then be in school, and only need before/after school care. We had friends/neighbors, who would have helped out hubby with before/after school care. Close neighbors, other SAHM's, who would have seen to it that our girls got on the school bus in the mornings. The bus stopped right at the top of our driveway before and after school. Our girls could have gone on with their same 'routine', waiting for the bus with all the other neighborhood friends of theirs. Returning home to their friends mom's in the afternoon, just as they did when I wasn't home in the afternoon. We neighborhood mom's all had each other as 'back-ups' for emergencies. All the kids knew, "If mom isn't home when the bus drops me off, to go to so and so's mom's house. etc.

 

[the couger]

WRAL back on