State vs Jason Lynn Young 6-21-11

[traveler]

I missed part of her testimony so intend to go back and listen again. I also thought she said they were driving forward, and if she was headed towards Penny Road, you are right that the passenger would have been on the side facing her. I wonder if the car was leaving a driveway on the right and she's just confused?

ETA: Just listened to her testimony again. She did say the passenger was on her side. I'm extremely impressed that she, in a small car, was able to see into the larger vehicle, with extremely bright dash board lights lighting up the steering wheel enough for her to see the man's jewelry. Quite impressive. She also said that she assumed the passenger's head was turned to talk to the driver and she thought they were talking about her. Interesting because I don't think, driving by someone at five-thirty or so in the morning, that I would have thought they were talking about me even if I did have my bright lights on.

Exactly Wyn...if she was paying so close attention to the detail of the people in the car, how did she even know she was in front of the Young house? Could have been any number of driveways she was passing by.

 

[ohiogirl]

I'm going to get flamed for saying this. And I think JY is guilty.

BUT... From the testimony (and emails) thus far, I understand why JY had an issue with LF. She seems to be a loving mother but also a needy person. She overstepped her boundries constantly and was intrusive in their lives.

I don't believe this behavior was in any way malicious on the part of LF. However, her visits and expectations were excessive. Her own daughter had issues with LF spreading her own news (pregnancy, then later gender of the baby), and her daughter stated in that email that her mother just didn't seem to get it no matter how much she told her. Contacting her daughter's mother-in-law to relay an argument was not her place.

Telling false things to the media...I get the concern.

Completely understand their issues with LF. Now when it comes to MF, I don't understand why she would have been kept from C. for any reason. JY himself stated "thank god for Meredith", and talked about what a good head she had on her shoulders. JY had great respect for her.

And what does this have to do with this trial?

 

[Just the Fax]

I'm just now watching PY's testimony from yesterday. She said he didn't go to Carolina because he needed to go to a state supported school? Huh?

He couldn't get into Carolina is what she meant, I reckon.

 

[Wyn]

Mrs. Y being questioned now about family arriving back in town. They had been discussing Thanksgiving and her understand that J&M&C were coming. Previous discussion about Michelle's mom coming and she said she was shelfish with her time with J and family and she didn't want them to come.

Doesn't recall discussion about Xmas. Where? Her family would just celebrate Xmas in January sometime.

She talked to J thurs nite and she knew to expect him Friday. When he arrived at her house that day and he got out of car and jacket slung over shoulder and she went outside to meet him. He was there 1 hour or 1 1/2 or so before leaving. Over who was in car.

Getting ready to go, they added their suitcases to car. During time J at there house, he didn't take anything out of his own suitcase. At Mills River by 5, 1/2 hour from her home. She was in back seat with J. Laying head on her lap and he had his eyes closed. She told LE he had slept back.

Four phones in car, each person, she believes. At some point she understood that LE wanted to talk to LE. Made call for asking if on way. She called LE back, but doesn't exactly recall. They were given directions to LE, she doesn't recall. Remembers conversation they were on way to sheriffs dept. Confusion on LE knowing they were coming. Confusing time for them.

At some point she got on phone with sheriff's dept and told them they were not coming? She doesn't recall that. She denies she told LE that SHE would not talk to LE without an attorney. Went to sheriff's dept and she provided info, willingly. Not forced to go down. She encouraged J to go? Before spoke to????he said he would go on Monday with his attorney. She respected that and didn't recall attempting to persuade him to go that night. She doesn't recall trying to get him to go that night because he'd said he'd go on Monday.

When she went to sheriff's dept and asked about message she'd asked of Meredith. yes................left message...................she had received info from def that morning asking her to get a hold of M and she doesn't recall ever calling her previously. She had to be given phone # by J, yes........that was in response to his contact with her the morning of Nov 3, she got a message...........called and told Meredith what J had said. His records showed he'd made several attempts to call. He spoke to Gerald?

She doesn't recall if just message or believes he spoke briefly with coming there, etc.....not long conversation.......when she spoke to def Thurs nite had he mentioned anything about Coach purse? no, not that I recall..............when was anniv? Oct 10, doesn't know.......doesn't keep up with anniv like bdays. Now we're into early Nov......yes.

Def left message asking her to contact Meredith. M to go by house and pick up Coach papers. etc...............Shelly and Michelle had interrupted him when he was printing so he thought he'd turned them over on desk. Thought he'd put them in his brief case..........he called and asked if she'd been able to get hold of Meredith? yes, briefly and said he was on his way and can't wait to get home, etc.

By question about Meredith, she'd left message for M and told J when he called her back.

When she was talking to detectives 11/3 and 11/4, they told her it was important J call them to go over anything that could be missing from house. She told them he was asleep and he'd speak to them with attorney. She and J stayed in Raleigh, after funeral, for part of next week after Thursday funeral. Perhaps until Wednesday, waited for car release and their things that had been taken.

Her talking about relationship of J&M....she told LE their first year rocky. She told LE M had been depressed past few months because she'd had a miscarriage. Mrs Y could relate as she'd had miscarriage also. When waiting for LE to talk to her, LE asked her about Michelle MOney and she told them she'd never heard of her. She thought they'd looked at her xmas list because in car she had Michelles name and the word MONEY by it, as she'd asked for Money that Xmas.

First Fischer visit with C and J took her to Charlotte. Then visits took place at Holiday Inn Express. J not present. She and her hubby were there and friends......who's decision to not allow Fischer's alone with C. It was her and friends decision. Couldn't go to bathroom alone. Last visit at her home, the Fischers were told they needed to stand up for J. She said they asked about news articles and Meredith said she had some questions for J to answer and mom said she thought that fair. Def not present during that visit. She didn't recall if she told J about M's question, wanting to answer M's questions.

BBM. Did Pat have her CHRISTMAS LIST with her when she came to Raleigh the night she found out that Michelle was murdered? Was she planning on doing a little Christmas shopping while in town? :waitasec:

 

[Just the Fax]

I missed most of today (gotta pay bills).
What about the minivan? 2 witnesses saw van? One with a male and female in the Young drive? How credible?

 

[borndem]

JTF - Kinda ipsy-pipsy. Most folks on this board were initially scratching their heads a bit, but after weighing it against solid points of the ADAs, chalked it up to the postal lady being possibly confused and not "positive" it was that particular Friday. Or maybe not even the Young house...

She gave a lot of details, down to seeing a ring on the driver's finger since his hand was on the steering wheel in the dark of night but in the glare of her VW bug headlights. She thought the 2 occupants were talking about her... She was very sweet and wanted to do the right thing after she heard about the murder a few days later. She gave lotsa details, and that, many of us thought, made her less credible. Certainly no one thought she was lying, just possibly mistaken.

The other witness was the NYT delivery person, and she said all the lights were ablaze in the house and she saw a light colored SUV in the driveway or on the street. She also saw a van parked "parallel" to the house across the street from the house. She had never seen lights on in the house at that time of night.

It won't take you long to watch it -- they weren't on the stand for long.

Your take on it will be interesting.

 

[Madeleine74]

2 witnesses saw a van on that street.

Remember that 'van' = the new bushy haired stranger

NYT delivery gal saw 'light colored' SUV in Young driveway and all the lights on at the home...around 3:30am, possibly as early as 3am.

Neighbor (who reminds me a little of RZ) saw "soccer mom type vehicle" with 2 people in it, coming out of Young driveway. White male driver and bushy haired passenger (she assumes female). She also saw a van and realized it to be a newspaper delivery van because she saw a bunch of newspapers inside. She says she saw the vehicle around 5:30am and she had her high beams on. She believes this was the same morning as the murder but upon repeated questioning by L.E. she felt bullied and started to concede that maybe it could have been on a different Fri.

Credible? I guess you could argue it either way.

I am looking at all the other evidence that doesn't disappear and still believe JLY is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[otto]

The part where she explained how the police kept pushing her into changing her dates didn't sit well with me.

 

[No Coincidence]

The part where she explained how the police kept pushing her into changing her dates didn't sit well with me.

Can you explain this in further detail? I am unable to watch videos on my work phone :loser:. TIA

 

[otto]

Can you explain this in further detail? I am unable to watch videos on my work phone :loser:. TIA

I have to admit that during testimony, I am basically working and half listening to the testimony, but I seem to recall that the woman said that she doesn't read the paper except for the Sat paper and doesn't pay attention to the news. When she heard that there had been a murder at the house, she went to police and explained what she had seen at the house on the same Friday as the murder. She said that she saw two vehicles at the house, one a van and one an SUV ... at around 5-5:30 in the morning. She was very sure of the time because of when she clocks into work. Police repeatedly asked her if she may have the date wrong, and she kept saying that she was sure she had it right, but after they asked her enough times she finally conceded that it was possible that she had the wrong date, but she didn't think that she had the wrong date.

Perhaps someone else can add to this in case my half-listening missed the facts.

 

[No Coincidence]

Someone may have asked about this earlier, so please forgive me if this is a repeat. How long after the incident did she go to police? If it was the same weekend then how could she have been mistaken about the date?? I suggest she may have mistaken other details but the date does not seem forgettable if she went the following monday. I still think its very weird that this stuck out to her so vividly...

 

[otto]

Someone may have asked about this earlier, so please forgive me if this is a repeat. How long after the incident did she go to police? If it was the same weekend then how could she have been mistaken about the date?? I suggest she may have mistaken other details but the date does not seem forgettable if she went the following monday. I still think its very weird that this stuck out to her so vividly...

I just listened to the interview without any distractions. She heard something about it on the news when she was at home on Monday, but just caught a bit of it. On the Tuesday after the murder, thinking she had some important information but not knowing what to do, she raised the issues with her boss (former police officer) ... who told her to report it immediately. She didn't know what to do or how to report it, so her boss assisted. Police were at her place of work in 10 minutes and she gave a statement. Over time, they returned to question her some more. After many times (at least 6) she became tired of being repeatedly asked if she could have the dates mixed up. She "pondered" it after the last visit, and then called and left a message saying that because of the importance and "magnitude" of the situation, they should check with the newspaper delivery person to see if the stories matched up. She descibed a white man with short hair and a woman with bushy hair that turned her face away when her high beams shone into the vehicle's window ... and another vehicle. She doesn't specifically say a SUV, but more or less describes a SUV and a van.

Speed limit there is 25 mph, but she was going slower because deer are often in the area. She lives on Birchleaf and has driven the route for 21 years ... since the house was normally dark, she noticed all the activity there at about 5:30 AM that morning.

 

[fran]

The part where she explained how the police kept pushing her into changing her dates didn't sit well with me.

I just want to say as someone who's been questioned by LE during something that COULD be a crime, or MAYBE not,..........which it was NOT, they question you over and over and over and over and over.............even more than that! And this is all within the first hour. They ask you THIS way, they ask you THAT way, and then they mix it all together and ask you AGAIN.

Another person, being questioned at the same time, and I discussed this later. They said 'why do they keep asking you over and over, the same thing?'

I said, 'because they want to be SURE you're telling the truth. The truth doesn't change, but lies do. If you say the same thing each time, well...............' See how that works?

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.

This was a make or break situation for LE. They either POSSIBLY let the suspect go free, or arrested him and held him responsible. To this witness, this was a fading memory? possible mind playing trick on an unsuspecting witness, false memory (either intentional or NOT)...............

Eye witness is the MOST UNRELIABLE 'evidence' in a trial.

I'm not on this jury, thankfully, because I felt he was guilty from the start. But IMHO, IF I WERE on this jury, this testimony wouldn't sway me. I think the woman had good intentions and wanted to do the right thing, but IMHO, she was NOT sure and if you weigh that against the pros evidence pointing towards guilt, I would still be THINKING guilty!

LOL, but you heard what the judge said! Something like, "You haven't heard all the evidence and should not have decided guilt or innocence......" (close to that)......I would be in TROUBLE if I was sitting in that jury box!

JMHO
fran

 

[fran]

Someone may have asked about this earlier, so please forgive me if this is a repeat. How long after the incident did she go to police? If it was the same weekend then how could she have been mistaken about the date?? I suggest she may have mistaken other details but the date does not seem forgettable if she went the following monday. I still think its very weird that this stuck out to her so vividly...

It was a few days later, IMHO. Within the first five days or so. But I still think it was enough time for her 'memory' to memorize INCORRECTLY!

JMHO
fran

 

[otto]

I just want to say as someone who's been questioned by LE during something that COULD be a crime, or MAYBE not,..........which it was NOT, they question you over and over and over and over and over.............even more than that! And this is all within the first hour. They ask you THIS way, they ask you THAT way, and then they mix it all together and ask you AGAIN.

Another person, being questioned at the same time, and I discussed this later. They said 'why do they keep asking you over and over, the same thing?'

I said, 'because they want to be SURE you're telling the truth. The truth doesn't change, but lies do. If you say the same thing each time, well...............' See how that works?

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.

This was a make or break situation for LE. They either POSSIBLY let the suspect go free, or arrested him and held him responsible. To this witness, this was a fading memory? possible mind playing trick on an unsuspecting witness, false memory (either intentional or NOT)...............

Eye witness is the MOST UNRELIABLE 'evidence' in a trial.

I'm not on this jury, thankfully, because I felt he was guilty from the start. But IMHO, IF I WERE on this jury, this testimony wouldn't sway me. I think the woman had good intentions and wanted to do the right thing, but IMHO, she was NOT sure and if you weigh that against the pros evidence pointing towards guilt, I would still be THINKING guilty!

LOL, but you heard what the judge said! Something like, "You haven't heard all the evidence and should not have decided guilt or innocence......" (close to that)......I would be in TROUBLE if I was sitting in that jury box!

JMHO
fran

I get the impression that she gave consistent answers until the very last interview, at which time she called them back and said that if they needed to validate or verify what she said they should check with the newspaper people. I think she assumed that the vehicle with the two people was a newspaper delivery vehicle - a substitute driver since it wasn't the regular vehicle.

That said, eye witness testimony is the weakest. If the jury is going to more or less eliminate eye witnesses, then they will also eliminate the gas station witness. That changes the "look" of the evidence to some degree. We have a propped open door at the hotel on the night that Jason was there, missing clothes, a bad marriage, two cigarette butts, two shoe sizes ... and I don't remember all the rest. The fact that a pair of shoes that Jason bought a year earlier were missing doesn't say much to me - many people switch out their shoes once they look a little worn.

It's understandable now why the prosecution didn't introduce the newspaper guy that saw the lights on at 4, it's because another witness claimed to see an almost identical situation at 5:30 ... and that contradicts the prosecution theory. It is a little surprising that two people saw the same set of circumstances at the same house on the same day, but when the timeline didn't work with police theory, they tried to eliminate the second witness - that is how someone could view it.

 

[AmarilloByAM]

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

 

[otto]

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

1999 Beetle

Police were quick to ask the gas station attendant if she had seen a white SUV. Did police ask the second witness if she saw an SUV and show her a picture (since the witness explained that she wasn't good with cars)? Wouldn't that have helped with vehicle identification?

 

[BirdHunter]

I have to admit that during testimony, I am basically working and half listening to the testimony, but I seem to recall that the woman said that she doesn't read the paper except for the Sat paper and doesn't pay attention to the news. When she heard that there had been a murder at the house, she went to police and explained what she had seen at the house on the same Friday as the murder. She said that she saw two vehicles at the house, one a van and one an SUV ... at around 5-5:30 in the morning. She was very sure of the time because of when she clocks into work. Police repeatedly asked her if she may have the date wrong, and she kept saying that she was sure she had it right, but after they asked her enough times she finally conceded that it was possible that she had the wrong date, but she didn't think that she had the wrong date.

Perhaps someone else can add to this in case my half-listening missed the facts.

I am guessing that they simply tried to nail her down on her testimony and she would not commit or sign that statement that it was 100% that Friday. I have been through enough of these to know that a witness will say something and later when police or a lawyer asks them to sign what they are saying so that it will hold up on the stand they waiver.

 

[cody100]

I get the impression that she gave consistent answers until the very last interview, at which time she called them back and said that if they needed to validate or verify what she said they should check with the newspaper people. I think she assumed that the vehicle with the two people was a newspaper delivery vehicle - a substitute driver since it wasn't the regular vehicle.

That said, eye witness testimony is the weakest. If the jury is going to more or less eliminate eye witnesses, then they will also eliminate the gas station witness. That changes the "look" of the evidence to some degree. We have a propped open door at the hotel on the night that Jason was there, missing clothes, a bad marriage, two cigarette butts, two shoe sizes ... and I don't remember all the rest. The fact that a pair of shoes that Jason bought a year earlier were missing doesn't say much to me - many people switch out their shoes once they look a little worn.

It's understandable now why the prosecution didn't introduce the newspaper guy that saw the lights on at 4, it's because another witness claimed to see an almost identical situation at 5:30 ... and that contradicts the prosecution theory. It is a little surprising that two people saw the same set of circumstances at the same house on the same day, but when the timeline didn't work with police theory, they tried to eliminate the second witness - that is how someone could view it.

I agree with your comments, Otto. I know CB from the Post Office. She is sharp, polite, and appears to be a very honest person. Only a senile person would forget this incident within a week. So, I believe she saw someone in the driveway that morning------now it could be someone turning around but I believe she saw something. I am guessing that by the 6th interview over a protracted period of time, she became worn out with it. I am also surprised that two eyewitnesses saw the same thing (house lit up and extra vehicles near the Y house), but no one sees this as being unusually coincidental. In addition, I remember G getting fuzzy as well over time, and yet her story was considered by many as being very good and factual.

Eliminating all eyewitness testimony in this case would still give some pretty incriminating evidence. So, some members of the jury may do just that and consider the remaining items on the list of evidence pointing to JY. IMO

 

[carolinalady]

I hope WRAL will have the statement from the other neighbor on their site soon. I haven't found it yet. Anyone found it?