State vs Jason Lynn Young: weekend discussion 11-18 Feb 2012

[gracielee]

I believe the DT has already tried to cast suspicion on MF which as I said before( and I know it is their job) but I find that truly despicable. In DT cross of MF they tried to make it sound like she was being untruthful on the 911 call. Again despicable!!!

Especially since JLY handed his daughter over to her on a silver platter, so to speak.

 

[Turnadot]

There were 10 figures in the box, but only three of them had features that reflected real people. They were the child from the hispanic set, the grandmother from the caucasian set, and the doctor, presumably from the professional set.

Gender recognition in adults includes making associations with all the available information, whereas in children, only some information is associated with gender. An interesting exercise in understanding how children interpret their world is to ask them to draw a face. It is only when children are between 6 and 10 that they include details like ears. There should be enough information in the grandma figure for adults to look at it and instantly recognize it as a grandma ... which explains why the discussion started with how to interpret grandma as a man.

Why is gender recognition important? What can the defense do wrt the dolls to blunt the impact of what CY saw? Because I'm looking at this and from where I sit, the best thing the defense can do after the reenactment is stfu and move on from that ASAP.

IMO

 

[NCEast]

I know silly to argue about the specific dolls that is what I meant when I stated earlier about being able to see the forest through the trees. I pray the jury can see the bigger picture then some of us on this blog and I mean no offense to anyone just my opinion.

When my son who is now 11 was 2 years old my husband had a heart attack in the car and died and when I pulled into a parking lot to start CPR and then the paramedics came and it was a big scene that my son watched through the window from his car seat. Over just the next couple of weeks only he reenacted the scene a few times... once with stuffed animals and he would say help daddy which is what I told him that was what was happening at the scene and he would smash on bear on top of another stuffed dog which I know was the CPR. Then the other two times he reenacted the same scene with these fisher price family dolls that he had, he didn't use any gender specific dolls he would just say help daddy and smash one doll on top of another. He also for the same couple of weeks whenever he would see a fire truck he would say daddy. For a two year old there brain is growing and learning so much that he forgot about it and even at five years old I asked if he remembered doing that and he said no. Every now and then over the years I asked him if he remembers and he says no so now I don't bring it up anymore.

CY re enacted a scene that was scary to her just as my son did.

I am so sorry.
As sad as this life event was for you and your son, you can relate to what little CY was doing in a way that most of the others of us cannot. Again, I'm so sorry.

 

[gracielee]

The figure in the red shirt is a child with a school bag over the shoulder in the hispanic set. The figure in purple is the grandmother in the caucasian set. That explains why there is a difference in size/height between the grandmother figure and the figure in red ... one is a child. The third figure, if it is the same set, is wearing green medical colors.

From what I can find online, Marvel toys developed these Educational Toys (that was the search term that I used to identify the toy company) for toddlers in about 1994-5. I assumed they were educational toys for toddlers because there are no moving parts. I guess the company decided that a traditional looking grandmother was more educational than a post-plastic surgery, liposuctioned, hair dyed woman in jeans labeled "grandma". .

I resent that remark. Not myself, nor any of my friends have EVER had plastic surgery, lipo, etc. Hair dye yes, the others, not on your life.

'Grandma' hasn't looked like, for the most part, since my hubby's mom died. And even she looked more feminine then that doll, never saw her in a jogging suit. I doubt many children would identify that doll with a woman. JMO Regardless, the only other choice was a doctor, and I highly doubt Michelle was murdered by CY's pediatrician. :seeya:

 

[Just the Fax]

Sure hope we can see the cracker Barrel video this time. (It was out of view on small TV last trial). I really want to see the shoes and his jeans.
The jeans recovered from his suitcase were cargo style, with a pocket on the right leg.

If the jeans seen at CB were a different style, then we can add the jeans to the missing clothing (shoes and pullover)

 

[otto]

Why is gender recognition important? What can the defense do wrt the dolls to blunt the impact of what CY saw? Because I'm looking at this and from where I sit, the best thing the defense can do after the reenactment is stfu and move on from that ASAP.

IMO

Gender recognition is important because if we are to say that the child interpretted the grandmother figure as a male, we need to justify that she did not distinguish between male/female. A 10 year old might be stumped if presented with two female figures and asked to re-enact something between two males, but a 2 year old would not encounter the same difficulties - simply because they don't have the cognitive ability to clearly define male/female gender distinction in representations of male and female.

What I find more interesting is how the jury will deal wih the information in terms of facts versus imagining what a 2 year old was thinking. If they have to deal with facts - absent any testimony about gender recognition in 2 year olds - then they can only conclude that the child indicated a woman attacked her mother.

Since the testimony can only be used to state that the child witnessed the attack and imply that only a father would leave a 2 year old alive, I think the jury is asked to make two leaps ... without proper connections:

1. the facts need to be interpretted differently than what is given; and
2. no man would murder his child after she witnessed him murder her mother.

Neither seems quite right.

 

[gritguy]

If a child spent a lot of time in Atlantic City or Vegas, the grandma doll would blend right in.

 

[Turnadot]

Gender recognition is important because if we are to say that the child interpretted the grandmother figure as a male, we need to justify that she did not distinguish between male/female. A 10 year old might be stumped if presented with two female figures and asked to re-enact something between two males, but a 2 year old would not encounter the same difficulties - simply because they don't have the cognitive ability to clearly define male/female gender distinction in representations of male and female.

What I find more interesting is how the jury will deal wih the information in terms of facts versus imagining what a 2 year old was thinking. If they have to deal with facts - absent any testimony about gender recognition in 2 year olds - then they can only conclude that the child indicated a woman attacked her mother.

Since the testimony can only be used to state that the child witnessed the attack and imply that only a father would leave a 2 year old alive, I think the jury is asked to make two leaps ... without proper connections:

1. the facts need to be interpretted differently than what is given; and
2. no man would murder his child after she witnessed him murder her mother.

Neither seems quite right.

I see where you're going with this, but the DT would be out of their minds to touch any of this, because once they open the door and challenge the gender, or if the child can distinguish gender, they are f---d because then well, how about: Can she pick her daddy from a crowd? How about when he's beating her mother? From a defense POV (I'm not a lawyer, just a trial watcher), IMO, their best option is to not challenge the reenactment at all, because it's just a reenactment of what the child witnessed, not naming her father as her mother's killer.

IMO

OTOH, I hope they go all stupid and open doors for the PT.

 

[Just the Fax]

HMMM....does anyone see exterior sewn rear pockets from a blue jean????

What happened to these pants Jay?

 

[Turnadot]

HMMM....does anyone see exterior sewn rear pockets from a blue jean????

What happened to these pants Jay?

*plants tongue in cheek*

He donated them to charity.

 

[gracielee]

I see where you're going with this, but the DT would be out of their minds to touch any of this, because once they open the door and challenge the gender, or if the child can distinguish gender, they are f---d because then well, how about: Can she pick her daddy from a crowd? How about when he's beating her mother? From a defense POV (I'm not a lawyer, just a trial watcher), IMO, their best option is to not challenge the reenactment at all, because it's just a reenactment of what the child witnessed, not naming her father as her mother's killer.

IMO

OTOH, I hope they go all stupid and open doors for the PT.

Much like they did on the cross of Meredith, allowing redirect to let Meredith, in reference to the 911 call, get in the fact that CY 'referred to her father' in her chattering. And IIRC, add that 'after the father reference, she later referred to *he*'. No other scary man. No unknown monster killer. 'Referred to her father, and *he*.'

 

[Turnadot]

Much like they did on the cross of Meredith, allowing redirect to let Meredith, in reference to the 911 call, get in the fact that CY 'referred to her father' in her chattering. And IIRC, add that 'after the father reference, she later referred to *he*'. No other scary man. No unknown monster killer. 'Referred to her father, and *he*.'

Yup.

That along with the reenactment will make it crystal clear that that poor baby witnessed her father beat her mother to death. I hope the jury doesn't miss that.

And I hope the DT makes the same mistake and opens a door they should keep closed.

IMO

 

[the couger]

I'm wondering why you think the doll looks like a female ? To me it looks like a man wearing clothes all the same color, like Jason was wearing in the hotel video. Also, Meredith is short, a little overweight and has very curly, long dark hair, so the doll hardly resembles her. In a way if one is to think the doll is a female, then I would say Pat Y comes to mind, she's rather mannish looking, has gray/whitish hair and is old.

Really does not matter what I think, I am not on the jury.

 

[Just the Fax]

Ok, the only long pants recovered in fact had exterior rear pockets (cargo / carpenter jeans). The pair seen at then hotel had interior rear pockets.
Please Ms. Holt, look at the small details and nail him this time!!!

 

[gracielee]

Yup.

That along with the reenactment will make it crystal clear that that poor baby witnessed her father beat her mother to death. I hope the jury doesn't miss that.

And I hope the DT makes the same mistake and opens a door they should keep closed.

IMO

That baby, CY, even had the sequence of events right. 'Spanking mommy with a weapon, then mommy face down on the bed, then mommy on the floor.' If she hadn't witnessed it, she wouldn't have involved the bed, IMO. After all, if she just 'woke up' and found mommy on the floor, dead, why was mommy at one time face down on the bed, in her version. Right down to the red stuff all over, mommy's boo boos all over, etc. Poor little thing. Yet no fear of 'bad guy' himself.

 

[otto]

I see where you're going with this, but the DT would be out of their minds to touch any of this, because once they open the door and challenge the gender, or if the child can distinguish gender, they are f---d because then well, how about: Can she pick her daddy from a crowd? How about when he's beating her mother? From a defense POV (I'm not a lawyer, just a trial watcher), IMO, their best option is to not challenge the reenactment at all, because it's just a reenactment of what the child witnessed, not naming her father as her mother's killer.

IMO

OTOH, I hope they go all stupid and open doors for the PT.

It's the prosecution that has to challenge gender. The figure is clearly a woman and I suspect that everyone here, if offered a million dollars to correctly identify the gender, would have no problem stating that the figure is a woman - an elderly female figure similar to a traditional grandmother figure.

 

[gracielee]

It's the prosecution that has to challenge gender. The figure is clearly a woman and I suspect that everyone here, if offered a million dollars to correctly identify the gender, would have no problem stating that the figure is a woman - an elderly female figure similar to traditional grandmother figure.

And yet CY continually referred to HE in the 911 call. He, not she.

 

[Lori59]

That baby, CY, even had the sequence of events right. 'Spanking mommy with a weapon, then mommy face down on the bed, then mommy on the floor.' If she hadn't witnessed it, she wouldn't have involved the bed, IMO. After all, if she just 'woke up' and found mommy on the floor, dead, why was mommy at one time face down on the bed, in her version. Right down to the red stuff all over, mommy's boo boos all over, etc. Poor little thing. Yet no fear of 'bad guy' himself.

:clap::clap::clap: AND picked a doll that MOST resembled JY. I don't care about the gender...it looked most like JY out of all the dolls. Period.

 

[otto]

And yet CY continually referred to HE in the 911 call. He, not she.

Maybe she was referencing her dad because she was traumatized and the next person that figured prominently in her world was her dad.

 

[the couger]

Even if JY was not on trial here and not a suspect, I would not for one second consider that what happened in that room to MY was done by another woman. The violence, beating, bludgeoning on her head, bloody scene does not make me think it was a woman that did this to her.

IMO

From the evidence in the first trial and what has been presented in this trial so for, I can assume it started between two women and finished off by a male. Again... I not on the jury, so it really moot to what I think..