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

[gritguy]

Interesting point. Could it then open the door to CY's chattering about daddy while in the fire truck with MF?

If the defense were to try to turn the dolls into some kind of informal lineup in which CY excludes her dad by not picking the doctor, then I think the DA would try to bring in any and every piece of evidence that contradicts that (didn't see much of MF's testimony such not sure what she said about that and if she would have more to say).

But, I would think the defense would avoid that by respecting the judge's ruling that the testimony does not go to identity, and therefore just use the fact that the doll was a grandma doll to imply their point, rather than make it expressly and prop the door open for the DA.

ETA: I would be like this:

DA: Recall MF to rebut testimony of the dolls as identification of attacker as someone other than JY.

Judge: OK, defense opened the door.

DA: Ms. F, did you ask CY what happened to her mother while in the home?

MF: Yes.

DA: Would it refresh your recollection to hear the 911 call at the time?

MF: Yes.

<Play it>, parts at 2 and 5 minutes.

DA: What was the first word CY said after you asked the question what happened to Mommy?

MF: Daddy. I think she said Daddy did it.

DA: And that would be JY?

MF: Yes.

DA: So she referred to the defendant sitting in this courtroom?

MF: Yes.

DA: Did she refer to anyone else then?

MF: No, just her father. He is the only person she mentioned when I asked what happened to her mommy.

DA: In discussing the attack outside, did CY mention anyone besides her mother?

MF: Yes, her father, and then she referred to him as he.

DA: JY, that's who CY referred to when discussing what happened that night?

MF: Yes.

DA: Nobody else?

MF: No.

DA: Ever see JY dress up like a doctor?

MF: No.

DA: Ever see JY with a loose fitting dark pullover with a stripe on it?

MF: Yes.

DA: Who asked you to go to the home on a "fluke"?

MF: JY.

DA: He called you several times to make sure you did?

MF: Yes.

DA: After the murder, has CY ever mentioned anybody else other than her father when referencing the attacks?

MF: No.

DA: Just JY, that's it?

MF: Yes.

DA: Bam!

 

[jon_burrows]

This is my first time reading this thread. Can someone answer a quick question? Did Michelle have a clump of identified hair in her hand or was it just one hair?

TIA

 

[otto]

Good morning!

RE: Image Manipulation - Couple of points.

Image manipulation/editing/enhancing is great when you keep a copy of the original. The problem, when it comes to the surveillance photos, is that the quality is so poor of the original image you could literally draw gloves, shoes, stripes, baseball bats (ok, just use your imagination here) to the image without being able to tell it was doctored. Once you place an image in a capable editor, the sky is the limit. Image error level analysis software can check for this, but on low quality images it can be tough.

There would be no way for us to know if the image was enhanced (lighting/exposure/contrast) or if elements were added/deleted from original photo.

Another note.. I have 15+ years exp working with photo editing software. I have never seen a case where I could make a dark item (the shirt in the hotel video) appear so completely different in desk photo and the hallway photo without losing other bright areas in photo.

For instance, look at bottle cap and skin tone in desk photo. Compare this to newspaper and skin tone in hallway photo. These items are not vastly dissimilar. Now compare the shirt color. It requires an advanced level of image editing to produce these results (destructive type editing).

Again, you could say that this was done to highlight details of shirt. If this is the case, we should be shown original to compare.

It looks to me like he is wearing something completely different in the image in the hallway. Have you tried to enhance the hallway image to raise any more detail? I have and it appears to me that it just isn't there - no detail to raise. The image quality of the front desk shots appears pretty good ... all sorts of details can be refined ... but with the hallway shot ... attempts to raise details results in more refined blurred information. Could that be a result of poor lighting in the hallway? Is the image used at trial already completely overworked with ... as you point out ... destructive editing tools?

 

[Just the Fax]

otto.....I made basic enhancements to this and the is much sharper.
---If that is not the thumb of a leather glove, what is it?--
The rest of the glove is blurred because of poor resolution.

I was thinking you had access to professional image software?
Can you at least duplicate what I was able to do, sharpening the image?
Thanks !

Original

shapened

 

[otto]

Wait. I thought that part wasn't played for the jury ? Can someone confirm what parts of the 911 call the jury heard? Thanks

I think the entire recording was played at the beginning of Day 2 of this trial. It was played the previous day, but parts were omitted, so the Judge ensured that it was replayed in its entirety. Each person on the jury had a transcript of the call.

 

[Just the Fax]

This is my first time reading this thread. Can someone answer a quick question? Did Michelle have a clump of identified hair in her hand or was it just one hair?

TIA

1 hair on hand....clump under her body....all hers.

 

[Just the Fax]

I think the entire recording was played at the beginning of Day 2 of this trial. It was played the previous day, but parts were omitted, so the Judge ensured that it was replayed in its entirety. Each person on the jury had a transcript of the call.

The 5:01 portion of the tape was still deleted on replay the 2nd day.
Never came in, including the transcript.

 

[gracielee]

This is my first time reading this thread. Can someone answer a quick question? Did Michelle have a clump of identified hair in her hand or was it just one hair?

TIA

She had a clump of her own hair under her body.

 

[Talina]

The 5:01 portion of the tape was still deleted on replay the 2nd day.
Never came in, including the transcript.

That is something I just do not understand. Why would that be deleted from what is played at trial? Was there a pretrial hearing on this issue and the judge ruled it too prejudicial or something?

(I'm not saying it isn't there originally. I'm just saying I do not understand the legal justification for deleting it before playing the 911 tape for the jury)

 

[otto]

I really hate to do this to you guys but I'm going to show the feet again below.

Question... Who manipulated the "enhanced" photo? Was that done by someone here or by investigators? By zooming in on one of the sores it appears the image pixel patterns are not a close match. This is easier to see by dropping the left pattern on top of the right and then adjusting from 0% transparency to 100% transparency but for here a side-by-side will have to do.

Of those three images, the middle was presented in court, the other two were manipulated by me. There's no question that the court images were altered from their original ... the question is who and why. It could be that the photographer took poor quality images ... I wondered if the ISO was cranked for all the shots and that they had to be modified to extract information.

 

[dmaxphil]

It looks to me like he is wearing something completely different in the image in the hallway. Have you tried to enhance the hallway image to raise any more detail? I have and it appears to me that it just isn't there - no detail to raise. The image quality of the front desk shots appears pretty good ... all sorts of details can be refined ... but with the hallway shot ... attempts to raise details results in more refined blurred information. Could that be a result of poor lighting in the hallway? Is the image used at trial already completely overworked with ... as you point out ... destructive editing tools?

The whiteness of the newspaper kind of kills the poor lighting argument.

It could be explained in several ways.

1) Shirt portion of lobby photo was enhanced separately from other portions of same photo to show detail. If this is case, where is the original?

2) JY, once off camera, slipped on a black/dark pullover with a similar white stripe. Sneaky guy.

3) Shirt was made with some type of fancy reflective material that reflects different types of light in completely different ways.

I think the bottom line in all of this is what happened to the striped shirt/pullover? May have missed it, but has LE produced a complete inventory of items in JY's car? Was any garment found that could possibly be any of these shirts on camera? Not that I distrust LE, but they do have motive to lose this part of evidence. <- sorry if that offends.

According to MF, JY was wearing business clothes when he arrived that night, after murder. So there would be no reason for him to hide/dump the striped shirt unless he was guilty.

Has JY been asked by pros what happened to shirt? (not sure why I don't recall from 1st trial testimony)

 

[otto]

Not sure if this has been discussed regarding JY's cell phone and being powered off from 11:30-7:30. Did he normally power it off? Can the state check on this? Why would he turn his phone off when he has a pregnant wife - what if there is an emergency? I'm sure he'd say she could call the hotel of course, but don't most people just charge their phone at night w/out turning it off? Did he have a pattern of talking on the phone late at night - all the time except this night?

There was a phone right next to his bed at home. I see no reason for a married man with children to keep his cell phone on all night long when he sleeps with a wired phone next to his head.

 

[gracielee]

All this nit-picking reminds me of what juries do now days. Rather than look at the evidence as a whole, a juror will find one thing, 'grandma doll' rather than 'bigger, taller, androgynous doll' or 'twig' or 'lava rock', and claim 'reasonable doubt' over that single item. the evidence must be taken as a whole, pieced together, to form the crime. As I've said before, how was ANYONE ever convicted before the day of cell phone pings, video cameras, and DNA?

 

[gritguy]

That is something I just do not understand. Why would that be deleted from what is played at trial? Was there a pretrial hearing on this issue and the judge ruled it too prejudicial or something?

(I'm not saying it isn't there originally. I'm just saying I do not understand the legal justification for deleting it before playing the 911 tape for the jury)

There could have been a motion made before trial to have that excluded; I haven't seen any info on pre trial motions or rulings. Everyone knew they'd play the 911 call so if there was an objection to a part, especially one so potentially explosive, it would make sense to object beforehand so you can file a brief, be heard with time to argue, and also have time to develop a strategy if the judge doesn't go your way. I would say either that happened or for some reason the DA didn't try to get it in (which doesn't make sense).

 

[NCEast]

This is my first time reading this thread. Can someone answer a quick question? Did Michelle have a clump of identified hair in her hand or was it just one hair?

TIA

The hair found was her own hair.

 

[gritguy]

All this nit-picking reminds me of what juries do now days. Rather than look at the evidence as a whole, a juror will find one thing, 'grandma doll' rather than 'bigger, taller, androgynous doll' or 'twig' or 'lava rock', and claim 'reasonable doubt' over that single item. the evidence must be taken as a whole, pieced together, to form the crime. As I've said before, how was ANYONE ever convicted before the day of cell phone pings, video cameras, and DNA?

Are you referring to the grandma doll with short hair and long sleeve pullover on compared to the doctor who has short sleeves on? :waitasec: :innocent:

The dolls as a "virtual line up" I hope does not by itself take a juror in any particular direction; they shouldn't indicate identity in any direction!

 

[Just the Fax]

snipped~~

Has JY been asked by pros what happened to shirt? (not sure why I don't recall from 1st trial testimony)

NO....huge blunder by Holt.... inexcusable error, imo

 

[Talina]

There was a phone right next to his bed at home. I see no reason for a married man with children to keep his cell phone on all night long when he sleeps with a wired phone next to his head.

I don't think there is much about JY's behavior that indicates he behaves as one would expect a married man with children at home to behave.

IMO

For me, I would expect that a married man away from home with his pregnant wife and 2 yr old at home would never turn off his cell phone (regardless of there being a land line hotel phone nearby) but that's just me and my own experience talking. I traveled for years on business and never once turned my phone off at night when in the hotel room.

Hubby also occasionally traveled and as far as I know, his phone was never turned off either.

 

[Just the Fax]

dmaxphil,

You said you have extensive experience with photo enhancement.
Can you sharpen the the image I posted up-thread to at least duplicate what I did with basic home image software?

Thanks

 

[Madeleine74]

All this nit-picking reminds me of what juries do now days. Rather than look at the evidence as a whole, a juror will find one thing, 'grandma doll' rather than 'bigger, taller, androgynous doll' or 'twig' or 'lava rock', and claim 'reasonable doubt' over that single item. the evidence must be taken as a whole, pieced together, to form the crime. As I've said before, how was ANYONE ever convicted before the day of cell phone pings, video cameras, and DNA?

YES! Totally agree. Perhaps because of all these CSI type shows, everyone imagines themselves an investigator and then brings those thought processes into their role. Jurors are not supposed to do that. They're not supposed to sit there and try to 'solve' the case using some different scenario and using different people. Analyzing each separate piece of C.E. and then looking for alternative explanations for each one doesn't consider the whole picture and doesn't really help.