State vs Jason Lynn Young 2-7-12

[gracielee]

Is there any evidence that Cassidy Young had duplicates of those particular pyjamas?

Not that I know of, but the only evidence describing which jammies Cass was wearing was from Michelle's friend, who'd been there the night before. And what I was saying was, little girls pink jammies are very often quite similar in color, style, fabric etc. I'm curious as to how certain that friend was exactly which pink PJ's Cass had on that night.

 

[Cammy]

The night audit clerk just said that the bushes looked like they had been trimmed, that they were a lot thicker back in 2006. The prosecution is bringing up all sorts of things that we've debated in the last couple of weeks ... it almost sounds like they're answering the questions we've had ... could they have been reading here?

Lol, you have noticed that too?

 

[otto]

Keith Hicks says the bushes were a lot thicker and bushier back then, and that these photos being shown looks like the bushes had been trimmed .

That got my attention too. It's difficult to argue that Jason did not grab a stick if the bushes were thicker ... it's hard to say how big they were without a photo taken by police at the time in Nov 2006.

 

[Cammy]

There are 10-12 cameras, so it would be very helpful to know where the other cameras are.

It sure would, because otherwise Jason would have had to knock them ALL out in the stairwell.
:waitasec:

 

[otto]

Lol, you have noticed that too?

I'm a little surprised, but everything we've suggested, from adding clear illustrations to questioning what the bushes looked like 6 years ago ... and more, is being addressed.

 

[Cammy]

There's evidence coming up to show he left the hotel shortly after his arrival. The prosecution believes he drove back to Raleigh, killed Michelle, then drove back to the hotel in Virginia. He was late to his business meeting the next morning and a gas station clerk will testify that he stopped there for gas in the early morning hours. This station would have been on his way back to VA from his home in Raleigh.

I can not wait for the gas station attendant !!

She was very confused last time.

IMO

 

[Cammy]

Here comes the defense.

Total hotel capacity: 86 rooms

 

[Cammy]

To those who watched the 1st trial:

Most here seem to think he's guilty. Were you surprised it ended in a hung jury? What do you think the jurors were most hung up on?

What evidence was the 1st jury not allowed to hear?

The timeframe, the set of 2 shoeprints, the fact there was no blood in Jason's SUV, and most importantly, that Cassidy was not scared to see Jason again that nite. Also, the fact Jason had no scratches, bruises, or marks on his body anywhere.

If she had seen her father kill her Mother she would unlikely forget in just hours. Now, if days or weeks have gone by, maybe, but, not that soon afterwards.

I know of no evidence the Jurors were not allowed to hear.

IMO

 

[otto]

I didn't know that ... the night audit clerk testified that there were problems with the time stamps on the cameras. That suggests that any testimony regarding time stamps about cameras on or off could be incorrect.

 

[Mama-cita]

Yes, it is.

IMO

If you have proof that unknown DNA was found on the dropper could you kindly provide a link? This was not stated at trial or amongst any evidence that I can find.

 

[otto]

If you have proof that unknown DNA was found on the dropper could you kindly provide a link? This was not stated at trial or amongst any evidence that I can find.

I mistakenly thought it was DNA as well, but according to news reports, "a print that investigators could not connect to any of the people tested was on the Tylenol cap?" (I posted a link in post 125)

 

[thumbtack]

The timeframe, the set of 2 shoeprints, the fact there was no blood in Jason's SUV, and most importantly, that Cassidy was not scared to see Jason again that nite. Also, the fact Jason had no scratches, bruises, or marks on his body anywhere.

If she had seen her father kill her Mother she would unlikely forget in just hours. Now, if days or weeks have gone by, maybe, but, not that soon afterwards.

I know of no evidence the Jurors were not allowed to hear.

IMO

Thanx!

If Cassidy only saw her dad after the killing, he might have said he was helping her mom w/ her boo boos. That would also answer why she said, "Daddy did it" & why she wasn't afraid of him.

 

[MyBelle]

"Investigators found two medications that can cause drowsiness - adult-strength Tylenol cold medicine and a prescription drug manufactured by the company where Jason Young worked.

A medicine dropper that contained traces of both substances, as well as Cassidy's DNA, was also seized. Defense attorneys pointed out that Jason Young's prints were not on the dropper or the Tylenol bottle, but a print that investigators could not connect to any of the people tested was on the Tylenol cap."

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/06/21/1288427/young-defense-begins-with-mother.html#storylink=cpy

I don't recall Spivey's testimony quite that way. iirc, he said he noticed the medicine bottle and dropper when he was looking through crime scene photos. iirc, the search warrant said the dropper contained tylenol and that it was possibly given to Cassidy with the mistaken belief it would make her sleepy.

The intruder may have given her medication. But, not for a minute do I believe that child was given the exact dosage of medication in the wee hours that made her sleep until the exact moment her aunt arrived after lunch. That's simply not realistic.

JMO

 

[RaleighNC]

It was not a drug for children. It had no pediatric uses according to the testimony at the last trial.

JMO

Kids are jr adults. If a drug is safe for humans, it "can" be used in kids. Their reactions may be slightly different, but there's nothing to say a drug CANNOT be used in a "child" (and how do you define THAT?) and only in an adult. it's not like kids are different species than adults.

And just because drug companies don't get drugs approved for pediatric use or for certain uses, there is often "off label" usage and a drug rep would certainly know of these things.

 

[MyBelle]

Kids are jr adults. If a drug is safe for humans, it "can" be used in kids. Their reactions may be slightly different, but there's nothing to say a drug CANNOT be used in a "child" (and how do you define THAT?) and only in an adult. it's not like kids are different species than adults.

And just because drug companies don't get drugs approved for pediatric use or for certain uses, there is often "off label" usage and a drug rep would certainly know of these things.

I disagree that a toddler is a "jr. adult" or that all medications are safe to give them. I also disagree that there is nothing to say a drug can not be used in a child. The FDA does regulate prescribed drugs, not the drug companies who make them.

JMO

 

[otto]

I don't recall Spivey's testimony quite that way. iirc, he said he noticed the medicine bottle and dropper when he was looking through crime scene photos. iirc, the search warrant said the dropper contained tylenol and that it was possibly given to Cassidy with the mistaken belief it would make her sleepy.

The intruder may have given her medication. But, not for a minute do I believe that child was given the exact dosage of medication in the wee hours that made her sleep until the exact moment her aunt arrived after lunch. That's simply not realistic.

JMO

Children are often creatures of habit regardless of how tired they are. I remember from way back that the child was usually up at 6:30 because of work schedules and daycare.

 

[gracielee]

Kids are jr adults. If a drug is safe for humans, it "can" be used in kids. Their reactions may be slightly different, but there's nothing to say a drug CANNOT be used in a "child" (and how do you define THAT?) and only in an adult. it's not like kids are different species than adults.

And just because drug companies don't get drugs approved for pediatric use or for certain uses, there is often "off label" usage and a drug rep would certainly know of these things.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Kids are *human*, and if it's safe for *humans*..... well.... I know what I can and can't give to my dogs, but then much as I might believe it, they really aren't *human*. :waitasec:

 

[MyBelle]

Children are often creatures of habit regardless of how tired they are. I remember from way back that the child was usually up at 6:30 because of work schedules and daycare.

ITA. Her voice in the background of the 911 call sounded animated, chatty and not at all drugged. The other thing I noticed in the 911 call was that she didn't call out to her mommy. She spoke about her, not to her. Most kids that age want mommy's attention and get upset if she doesn't respond.

JMO

 

[Cappuccino]

Kids are jr adults. If a drug is safe for humans, it "can" be used in kids. Their reactions may be slightly different, but there's nothing to say a drug CANNOT be used in a "child" (and how do you define THAT?) and only in an adult. it's not like kids are different species than adults.

And just because drug companies don't get drugs approved for pediatric use or for certain uses, there is often "off label" usage and a drug rep would certainly know of these things.

It would not take a drug rep to know that if a drug says "causes drowsiness" on the packaging, then it will cause drowsiness in a child. Anybody who could read could work that out.

That's really weak evidence against Jason Young.

 

[otto]

I disagree that a toddler is a "jr. adult" or that all medications are safe to give them. I also disagree that there is nothing to say a drug can not be used in a child. The FDA does regulate prescribed drugs, not the drug companies who make them.

JMO

Personally, I would never give adult medication to a child.