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

[Madeleine74]

What is that thing that looks like someone is wearing a slinky on their wrist (or a bunch of bangle bracelets)? I'm sure it's not an arm, but I can't tell what it is.

 

[Turnadot]

What is that thing that looks like someone is wearing a slinky on their wrist (or a bunch of bangle bracelets)? I'm sure it's not an arm, but I can't tell what it is.

Maybe it's because I know far too many, but it appears to me like an airline pilot's suit.

IMO

 

[Talina]

Sorry White Rain, I am not attacking the few that claim they did not hear what the vast majority of us heard. That sequence of the recording was the only portion deleted by the court....apparently there was a very serious issue.

At the end of the day, it was not admitted, so the jury will not have the same debate.

I so wish that when MF was on the stand and reading the transcript, listening to the 911 call...that when asked if that is representative of the call as she remembers and if the transcript..yada yada (you know all the questions to validate the evidence) that she had said..well, yes with a few small details missing about CY mentioning daddy quite a few times and saying things about him doing it, not sure what she meant but for some reason that is not on this tape.

IMO

(whereupon the DT would probably immediately stand up screaming to the high heavens Mistrial)

Seriously, though. MF is asked if this represents the call and clearly if CY has been edited out of it in certain places, then how can she honestly say "yes" which is what they are expecting her to say with the judge, DT and PT knowing full well it has been edited.

I just don't get that.

 

[Turnadot]

I so wish that when MF was on the stand and reading the transcript, listening to the 911 call...that when asked if that is representative of the call as she remembers and if the transcript..yada yada (you know all the questions to validate the evidence) that she had said..well, yes with a few small details missing about Cassidy mentioning daddy quite a few times and saying things about him doing it, not sure what she meant but for some reason that is not on this tape.

IMO

(whereupon the DT would probably immediately stand up screaming to the high heavens Mistrial)

Seriously, though. MF is asked if this represents the call and clearly if Cassidy has been edited out of it in certain places, then how can she honestly say "yes" which is what they are expecting her to say with the judge, DT and PT knowing full well it has been edited.

I just don't get that.

Did the Court have the CY bits redacted? I don't remember.

 

[Mama-cita]

Sorry White Rain, I am not attacking the few that claim they did not hear what the vast majority of us heard. That sequence of the recording was the only portion deleted by the court....apparently there was a very serious issue.

At the end of the day, it was not admitted, so the jury will not have the same debate.

You are right JTF, the defense did NOT want that on the tape!! It's clear as a bell to the majority of people who've heard it. We've also had a pediatrician, and an audiologist confirm it! A couple of years ago when it first happened, we had a poster who had the equipment isolate the portion of the tape where she speaks and it was even clearer than clear. There is a REASON it was edited for the court, and I am quite sure it was because the defense knew it would be the nail in JLY coffin.

 

[Talina]

Did the Court have the CY bits redacted? I don't remember.

I didn't watch the first trial but from what I have gathered from some that did, CY is much more prevalent in the 911 tape being played in the 2nd trial.

Also, some have said they've heard a version of the tape that is different (more audible CY saying Daddy did it) than the one played at the trial, even this time around.

 

[Madeleine74]

Yes, some of the CY bits have been redacted. And also, her utterances are not in the 911 transcript given to the jury.

 

[Madeleine74]

P.S. All: I don't think we're supposed to use the full name of the child since she is a minor and a victim. You might want to check your posts and edit to just her initials so you don't get in trouble. The rules are strict here.

 

[enzeder]

What is that thing that looks like someone is wearing a slinky on their wrist (or a bunch of bangle bracelets)? I'm sure it's not an arm, but I can't tell what it is.

I've been trying to figure out what it is too.

 

[Turnadot]

I didn't watch the first trial but from what I have gathered from some that did, CY is much more prevalent in the 911 tape being played in the 2nd trial.

Also, some have said they've heard a version of the tape that is different (more audible CY saying Daddy did it) than the one played at the trial, even this time around.

I wonder though if that portion was redacted from the jury's transcript, yet still allowed to be heard, kind of like a "make of it what you will". IIRC, none of them seemed to react to it, but that doesn't mean anything; they might have heard it.

IMO

 

[borndem]

That's where I'm confused, are they going to be allowed to get into the identity of the dolls and what she was saying, or are they only allowed to talk about cy's actions? I'm hoping they can't go into much detail about the dolls, and if so, I do hope the actual dolls can be shown....

I think that what we saw Friday is what we'll get on Monday, as far as what the witness can say and do. I think the questioning will be fairly close as well. Since the teacher didn't discuss with CY, and apparently CY had no more utterances about it (other than after waking which won't be allowed) that the teacher heard, that will be it. BH does need to bring out her "human-like" choices for the enactment, and the jury needs to see them as we saw them as well as up close.

I think BH needs to ask the teacher before she gets on the stand, "Was she distressed when she said it, or was she matter-of-fact?" Depending on her answer, she may want to ask this on the stand. A matter-of-fact demeanor would be quite telling, IMO -- she didn't like what was being done -- a lot of boo-boos -- , but she was not scared. Mommy did bad, gets a spanking.

 

[Madeleine74]

Any idea which door that mystery man is going through?

 

[Turnadot]

I've been trying to figure out what it is too.

Not saying the man in the pic is a pilot, because I really don't know, but airline pilots have bars on the wrist area that resemble that pic.

 

[Madeleine74]

I wonder though if that portion was redacted from the jury's transcript, yet still allowed to be heard, kind of like a "make of it what you will". IIRC, none of them seemed to react to it, but that doesn't mean anything; they might have heard it.

IMO

As posted several times, the transcript does NOT contain any of the utterances by CY. If the jury hears it, it's not through any prompting via written transcript.

 

[otto]

BBM

Yes, because it's been enhanced, which can allow more detail. Enhancing the image is absolutely not the same, or even in the same ball park as manipulating and editing the image.

IMO

I think that enhancing can change an image ... it really depends on what someone wants to do. If the objective is to refine detail, then that is what is enhanced. If someone wants to enhance various hues, the result can be quite different from the original. It depends on what is enhanced. It's a rather fine line between manipulating and editing.

 

[Talina]

I've never viewed enhancing a photo anywhere at all near the same as manipulating or editing.

Seems to me that if it were considered the same or anywhere near the same, then courts would not allow enhanced photos into evidence. Isn't that allowed if the photo is enhanced by a professional that verified by the court systems just like any other professional/expert that works with both defense and prosecution?

 

[Turnadot]

I think that enhancing can change an image ... it really depends on what someone wants to do. If the objective is to refine detail, then that is what is enhanced. If someone wants to enhance various hues, the result can be quite different from the original. It depends on what is enhanced. It's a rather fine line between manipulating and editing.

I disagree.

Enhancing clarifies; it doesn't change an image.

IMO

 

[Turnadot]

As posted several times, the transcript does NOT contain any of the utterances by CY. If the jury hears it, it's not through any prompting via written transcript.

BBM

Lucky for me, I read all several posts about it - I was just musing as to why, really. Sorry for the lack of clarity. Guess it's a moot point though.

IMO

 

[Wolfpack]

I think that enhancing can change an image ... it really depends on what someone wants to do. If the objective is to refine detail, then that is what is enhanced. If someone wants to enhance various hues, the result can be quite different from the original. It depends on what is enhanced. It's a rather fine line between manipulating and editing.

I think editing, altering, and enhancing are manipulating a photo. That doesn't mean it has to have a negative connotation to it. A photo can be manipulated to show the contrast in hue, allowing us to see bloody footprints. Or it can be manipulated in a disingenuous way to show something as being present that isn't actually there. I think as long as the original is present to be viewed, and someone can testify to what they changed, manipulation is a natural process in surveillance. I believe the surveillance tapes in the BC trial were also manipulated by someone with the SBI.

If a piece of evidence is altered *at all* from the original, then it has been manipulated. As as said before, this doesn't have to make the evidence any less valid, it's just been changed.

 

[Just the Fax]

I think that enhancing can change an image ... it really depends on what someone wants to do. If the objective is to refine detail, then that is what is enhanced. If someone wants to enhance various hues, the result can be quite different from the original. It depends on what is enhanced. It's a rather fine line between manipulating and editing.

Can you point to anything the state presented that was "changed" or "manipulated" in a bad way?
The defense and the judge were fully satisfied with the admitted evidence.