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

[gracielee]

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!

Sometimes when I hear a juror give their own reasoning after a verdict has been rendered, I'm like *what?*

Yes, Caylee Anthony is a dead bag of bones, no we can't determine 'cause of death', but we certainly can determine 'manner of death.' She didn't put duct tape over her own mouth, bag herself, and dump herself into the swamp.

:maddening:

 

[gritguy]

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

A big miss. Some things are very clear. He had a pullover with a zip up quarter front; stripe on the front, while he was at the hotel. He didn't have this in his truck when it was impounded. The birthday shot is definitely a different sweater! Just pointing out an attempted ruse like that by the defense would have been worth it, in addition to knocking out the "look at me being surprised at a birthday party with this sweater on" explanation which was left there to fester into unwarranted doubt.

 

[NCEast]

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?

OH GL, I was just thinking the very same things. The nit-picking on here is driving me crazy and it's useless because we have no control over the jury and what their take will be about any of it. I just hope the prosecution can put together the facts and evidence in a manner so as not to confuse any of the issues and the jury will be able to deliberate on the connected dots. I still do not have a good feel for either ADA and they have not proven to me that they can transition the facts in a coherent manner that's easy to follow.

 

[gritguy]

Sometimes when I hear a juror give their own reasoning after a verdict has been rendered, I'm like *what?*

Yes, Caylee Anthony is a dead bag of bones, no we can't determine 'cause of death', but we certainly can determine 'manner of death.' She didn't put duct tape over her own mouth, bag herself, and dump herself into the swamp.

:maddening:

That is a fact. I've interviewed jurors with opposing counsel after civil cases and all of us being surprised by what the jurors were keying in on, and that is no insult to the jurors or the lawyers - it's just the way it is. You do the best you can to convince them, but the outcome is never certain.

 

[janesdean]

Yep, it's my opinion MoonFlwr.
Not "personal" at all.
Just my observation reading your posts.

ITA, it's not a "personal" statement, but an opinion from what I've read so far in this case I agree.

 

[janesdean]

What you said is a personal attack; you're questioning my
objectivity.

The statement "I'm not surprised" or "you didn't want to hear it"
calls my objectivity into question. . .

No amount of passive aggressiveness or bullying will convince me
that I heard specific words when I really heard nothing.

Speculation on my subconscious is a bit out of your jurisdiction Sheriff.

OMG, seriously over dramatizing the comment. No where does it imply anyone is trying to bully you into saying you heard something, poster is stating opinion, nothing more.

 

[Talina]

A big miss. Some things are very clear. He had a pullover with a zip up quarter front; stripe on the front, while he was at the hotel. He didn't have this in his truck when it was impounded. The birthday shot is definitely a different sweater! Just pointing out an attempted ruse like that by the defense would have been worth it, in addition to knocking out the "look at me being surprised at a birthday party with this sweater on" explanation which was left there to fester into unwarranted doubt.

It's precisely that sort of thing that makes me a little put out with juries. It makes one (or me anyway) think that they don't spend much time going over evidence or they would caught that themselves. Clearly others did that were not part of the jury and it doesn't appear to me that the reason others noticed it had anything to do with the prosecution pointing it out. (which is just unreal that they didn't)

IMO

 

[otto]

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

If you take the photo, duplicate it, do a highpass on it at about 10%, change blending mode to hard light ... that gives a similar result. The problem is that all that really does is brings out the contrast or sharpens the light and shadow tones ... and, the image already appears to have had modifications so that process enhances modified information.

I have to wonder why the camera stills at the front desk are so clear compared to the still in the hallway ... presumably all the cameras are the same.

 

[Turnadot]

So that means Jason was wearing gloves when he hit Michelle with his bare hands, removed his gloves during the attack to place his hand on the door moulding, put his gloves back on to touch the medicine?

I'm having trouble with him wearing gloves, changing his clothes, washing off, tampering with the hotel camera - IDK, I just feel I'm supposed to assume he did these things, despite lack of evidence. I'm not looking for a CSI moment; but I absolutely would not convict based on my assumptions or feelings. I didn't find Gracie's eye-witness testimony compelling at all.

And FWIW, I feel he's guilty.

I pray this jury is more receptive to the prosecution's case than the last one.

 

[gritguy]

It's precisely that sort of thing that makes me a little put out with juries. It makes one (or me anyway) think that they don't spend much time going over evidence or they would caught that themselves. Clearly others did that were not part of the jury and it doesn't appear to me that the reason others noticed it had anything to do with the prosecution pointing it out. (which is just unreal that they didn't)

IMO

I don't think the first jury commented on it, so no way to know if they figured it out or even thought it was important. But, the ADA should have shot a pin through that balloon.

 

[otto]

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

The judge ruled that a portion of the tape had been omitted on day 1 and that it had to be played in its entirety ... therefore it was played twice in court. I'm pretty sure it's all there.

 

[Turnadot]

Gritguy, thanks so much for your legal expertise here.

 

[janesdean]

I've looked ... haven't found a right foot. It's likely that the only injury they really saw was the stubbed toe.

Don't you mean smashed toe ?

 

[Grammy Jean]

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10703573/#/vid10703573

This is a link to MF on redirect by BH. The testimony about what was said in the fire truck is here at the 53 min. MF talks about CY referencing her father. Notice the quick objection by Collins at the 53:30. It is when BH prefaces her question to MF with, "You have had an opportunity to talk to CY about what happened" very quick objection. It is overruled but BH limits it to "On that very day" Makes me pretty convinced CY has talked to MF more recently but also sure we will never be allowed to hear that in this trial.

 

[janesdean]

Exactly. I wondered if there the red marks on the top of the foot were caused by the shoe ... and the lines along the ankle appear to be from socks.

and the blister appears to have popped.

 

[~n/t~]

I'm having trouble with him wearing gloves, changing his clothes, washing off, tampering with the hotel camera - IDK, I just feel I'm supposed to assume he did these things, despite lack of evidence. I'm not looking for a CSI moment; but I absolutely would not convict based on my assumptions or feelings. I didn't find Gracie's eye-witness testimony compelling at all.

And FWIW, I feel he's guilty.

I pray this jury is more receptive to the prosecution's case than the last one.

Amen!

 

[~n/t~]

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.

Thanks. I'll take your word for it. Right now there is conflicting comments as to what the jury heard.

 

[Just the Fax]

The judge ruled that a portion of the tape had been omitted on day 1 and that it had to be played in its entirety ... therefore it was played twice in court. I'm pretty sure it's all there.

Not being snarky, but i'm sure you are wrong....at least about the 5:01 portion.

 

[janesdean]

Also, it will only take one juror to question, why she picked a female over the male figure..Many have suggested the defense has already strongly suggested Meredith was involved, will this backfire on the state?

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.

 

[~n/t~]

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

Hair pulling is usually done by women in fights.