State vs Jason Lynn Young 6-21-11

[lib's mom]

I found C. Beaver (post office lady) to be very credible. She *never* "changed" her testimony...she said that in Janurary of 2008 she was interviewed again and a new agent was more persistant and kept asking "Are you certain?" Isn't it possible it was another Friday?" "Isn't it possible?" and she finally told him, "Well, I guess anything is possible." She told them a to find the newspaper person, that would confirm her date, because she didn't want to be mistaken about something of this magnitude.

I didn't find her testimony "laughable" as others here did. She drove that road for twenty one years. That morning stood out because the house was lit up and she said it was normally dark "back there." She noticed the car because she was worriedthey were going to pull out in front of her. She felt bad because she thought she had "blinded" the people in the car with her high beams and looked to see what they would do as she drove past. When she drove back by the house that afternoon there was more unusual activity around the house and she noticed that. She never changed her testimony and I believe she is very certain about what she saw and when she saw it.

Unless the pros. has a reasonable way to discredit her testimony this a.m. I think she saw a car leaving the Young house the morning of Nov. 3, 2006 and the house was lit up. The newspaper lady's testimony backs her date up. Wonder what the written testimony by Mrs. Hensley submitted yesterday says?

 

[lib's mom]

I would have never pegged CB as VW Beetle driver. She seems more like a Ford Taurus kind of lady.

LOL! I know exactly what you mean! When they asked her what kind of car she was driving that day I was thoroughly expecting her to say some kind of Buick...instead she was rolling in a Vdub!

 

[cody100]

You never know what someone will be driving. I did not see VW Beetle coming either. LOL

 

[Madeleine74]

Regardless of what the witnesses saw at the Young home, none of that changes the other facts of the case. *Someone* wearing sz 12 HP Orbital shoes was walking around in MY's blood. That someone purchased those shoes at DSW 1 yr before. JLY's DSW receipt shows he purchased those very shoes. Those shoes are missing.

So unless someone else can be shown to have entered the Young house (without breaking in), put on JLY HP Orbital shoes, made those shoes appear on the feet of JLY in Cracker Barrel 11/2, walked around in MY's blood and then discarded those shoes, JLY was there at the time of MY's murder and he is her killer. If there are other people involved in MY's murder, that doesn't negate the involvement of JLY.

Guilty!

 

[cody100]

Lib's mom, I have heard that tape again of CB. The prosecution tried hard to discredit her without much success. As to her being laughed at by some, I find that to be the double standard lithmus test. Personally, I like to use the same criteria for everyone.

What it all means is unclear. However, I do think there are other very incriminating pieces of evidence that point to JY, including the missing shoes with similar patterns as the impression in the blood.

 

[lib's mom]

Lib's mom, I have heard that tape again of CB. The prosecution tried hard to discredit her without much success. As to her being laughed at by some, I find that to be the double standard lithmus test. Personally, I like to use the same criteria for everyone.

What it all means is unclear. However, I do think there are other very incriminating pieces of evidence that point to JY, including the missing shoes with similar patterns as the impression in the blood.

Thanks, and I like to use to same criteria for everyone also. Certainly nothing she testified to negates other evidence that implicates JY. But it does make me curious...

 

[raisincharlie]

<snip>

I do not believe LE was trying to get her to change her mind, but if she wasn't sure, or it wasn't the truth, or whatever, she would possibly change her story.....................Well, she did! The final question, I understood from reading various sources, was "Are you 100% sure it was THAT Friday night?" That's where it fell apart. She was NOT sure and she finally admitted it in court, when she was questioned by the opposing side.

Fran,

This is how I see this as well. She was not 100% sure, she admitted so, that she saw the vehicle and the persons she described - what is most telling - she admitted it was a Friday night, keeping Michelle's murder happened on a Thursday night - well there is some confusion.

I do think however she probably did see everything she described, except she saw the house after police had already taken charge of it. Would you agree on Friday night it would have been lit up like a fireworks display ? And at the time of the morning she describes, it is also possible the big long soccer Mom vehicle she saw could well have been from the medical examiners office, typically unmarked as you know.

 

[cody100]

Fran and RC,

She was insistent she saw it on the way to work that Friday morning. Then she observed a lot of cars at the same house that afternoon when she came home along with a lady in street with a blond baby. Lady was crying. This is a sharp woman who just got tired of the relentless questioning. I know, same thing you experience around a hospital. Same question 50 times.