State vs. Jason Lynn Young 2-24-2012

[PoppyMcTwist]

Because CY prints were found on the faucet handle, she would have to be the one to turn it on and off at clean up time. MOO

I agree.

The only DNA found on the spigot belonged to CY and the water flow was light, so I think it's possible CY turned on the hose to either wash up or give water to the dog.

I also think CY may have been the one who turned on the lights. It seems like something a scared little girl would do as she wandered from room to room.

IMO

 

[fifteen89]

So......the Defense kinda gets a heads up what the jurors are curious about seeing up close and personal during this little evidence review time, too. I wanna know what they're looking at.....not so sure I'm liking the Defense finding out.

 

[borndem]

I would LOVE to know Alice Stubbs take on JY....particularly after watching her depose BC...write a book Alice, write a book. I know she would have to change the names so I am going to help her Jack Old for JY.

Me, too, Tipstaff, me, too! AS is one of the smartest attys I have ever seen. She misses nothing.

I do wonder what she thought of that horrible man.....

And she tore BC out of his wits.... Altho BC's pants were on fire in a Big Way throughout his custody depo, she still made his seat hot, hot, hotter. And he was Narcissistic enuff to think he could go one-on-one with her. Talk about epic fail. Whew, it would've been sad if the poor deponent had been a normal person, but alas, he was not. Oh, I loved every minnit.

I would imagine that AS and MS are probably good friends despite their frequent adversarial legal situations.

 

[Turnadot]

I'm going to ask one more time, because I certainly could have missed a portion of expert testimony.

Was the print dated? Was there testimony as to how the print got there? Did the print cause a void?

I just want to make sure I have the facts in evidence straight.

 

[Madeleine74]

Either of you care to share the story? (pretty please?!)

RIGHT HERE. Hilarious post by GritGuy

 

[aliciabal]

Here's a question for you guys. In a case like this one, how does child support work? I know there's a trust for CY but JY is, unfortunately, still her father. He SHOULD still be required to support his daughter in some manner. He's unemployed and has been since the murder more or less. So is the burden on the state, the trust, and the Fishers? Or is he forced to contribute in some manner?

My understanding of it from when I lived in NC years ago and had a friend receiving support is that payments are taken from the check by the state. The state then disburses the payment to the other parent. Of course, this was ages ago and it might be different now.

Eta: I mean taken from the paycheck due to a court order for support. If there is an order for support but no paycheck, I would think the state would track the amount owed over time and attempt to collect.

 

[Just the Fax]

I think DR Godwin also offers crime scene cleanup after LE departs.
75 bags of 'evidence' is well, hilarious.

Can't wait till this guy takes the stand.
By far, it will be the lightest moment of the trial.

 

[dgfred]

I'm going to ask one more time, because I certainly could have missed a portion of expert testimony.

Was the print dated? Was there testimony as to how the print got there? Did the print cause a void?

I just want to make sure I have the facts in evidence straight.

The only way to date it would be with blood splatter. It wasn't clear enough evidence to totally do that IMO

IIRC there was a void where the print was... but not a full print and not 'all around and over' the print.

 

[Just the Fax]

A search warrant is not evidence though.

What did the actual expert testify to in Court regarding the print? That's evidence.

That's all that matters.

If the expert didn't testify to a void, date the print, or posit how the print got on the wall, then any scenario here at WS regarding the print is personal theory; not fact.

IMO

Yes, I am quite sure Madeleine74 is aware that a SW is not evidence.

 

[Turnadot]

The only way to date it would be with blood splatter. It wasn't clear enough evidence to totally do that IMO

IIRC there was a void where the print was... but not a full print and not 'all around and over' the print.

Thank you so much!

So that makes the print ambiguous, IMO.

 

[~n/t~]

So......the Defense kinda gets a heads up what the jurors are curious about seeing up close and personal during this little evidence review time, too. I wanna know what they're looking at.....not so sure I'm liking the Defense finding out.

I don't get this show & tell before deliberations.:waitasec:

Anybody have the Supreme Court ruling on that? Never heard of it before.

 

[Turnadot]

Yes, I am quite sure Madeleine74 is aware that a SW is not evidence.

Then perhaps it should not be used as a source.

 

[KathrynL]

I'm going to ask one more time, because I certainly could have missed a portion of expert testimony.

Was the print dated? Was there testimony as to how the print got there? Did the print cause a void?

I just want to make sure I have the facts in evidence straight.

Fingerprints can't be dated, according to the testimony. iirc, the print was above blood spatter. As to how the print got there, I don't think anyone could testify to that...only the prints location and it's proximity to the spatter. I believe it's up to the jury to make any inferences or conclusions about the relevance of any given piece of evidence. moo

 

[Mama-cita]

I agree.

The only DNA found on the spigot belonged to CY and the water flow was light, so I think it's possible CY turned on the hose to either wash up or give water to the dog.

I also think CY may have been the one who turned on the lights. It seems like something a scared little girl would do as she wandered from room to room.

IMO

My two year old can not reach the lights. My two year old also does not have the hand/grip strength to turn a hose on. We tighten ours up pretty tight and it's hard for me to do sometimes.

 

[~n/t~]

Thank you so much!

So that makes the print ambiguous, IMO.

It does. IMO, not evidence of anything. Could be, should be but is it?

 

[the couger]

Looks like by the time the jury is through looking at evidence, it will be lunch break.
Dang, I want be here for afternoon court. Will have to catch it tonight.

 

[Talina]

Did Agent Galloway date the print, or posit how the print got there?

BBM

Can a print be dated? I thought there was not way to actually date a print.

IMO

 

[Madeleine74]

Source was a search warrant.

Note the verbiage "surrounded by what appeared to be blood splatter." They are referring to the print. A print that was surrounded by blood splatter. No, a print cannot be dated. But common sense would indicate that if it's a print that is surrounded by blood spatter and no blood is on the print itself, the reason is because something was blocking that specific area. And the thing blocking it would be the finger or hand that made the print in the first place. Common sense to me.

 

[gracielee]

They cannot deliberate at all until the defense has rested, closing arguments are done, and they are handed their little piece of verdict paper after the jury instructions are read. So, no, they cannot deliberate today.

My remarks were in reference to the question as to how/where/when jurors are permitted to view evidence *during deliberations*. Not now, *during deliberations* after they are given the case to deliberate by the judge. A question was asked as to how the jurors in the BC case reviewed evidence during their deliberations.

 

[otto]

I think DR Godwin also offers crime scene cleanup after LE departs.
75 bags of 'evidence' is well, hilarious.

Can't wait till this guy takes the stand.
By far, it will be the lightest moment of the trial.

What am I missing here ... why is it so funny that 75 evidence bags were collected from such a large home on an acreage? It doesn't mean that all of the collections contained evidence, only that 75 items were collected and some would be tested. How many evidence bags were collected by investigators?