Trial Delayed until at least January

[tarheel8600]

I did read your post as did another poster who challenged you on it. Here's your posting I replied to where you claim the camera was unplugged at 11:20When another poster, Otto, asked you where you got this information, you replied "testimony." It's a known fact that Mr. Hicks is the only witness who testified about the time he noticed the camera was unplugged. It might be your opinion the camera was unplugged at 11:20 but there is nothing to prove it is fact. LE did NOT testify about a time the camera was unplugged.

JMO

Originally Posted by tarheel8600
I'm just not buying that in the case of JY. He went to get his charger around 11:20 (the same time the security camera was unplugged).

What I was referring to was that you said that I posted that Keith Hicks testified that the camera was unplugged at 11:20. I never posted that. You just assumed that was what I meant.

I will go back and find out who testified to the 11:20 time frame. That will take me some time so give me a couple of days to get back to you. I've got RL things to do tomorrow with family so please be patient until I get back to you about this.

By the way, Otto asked a question and I answered. He never challenged me on it. In fact, he thanked me for my answer. Even though Otto and I disagree about the facts of the case, I find Otto to be respectful.

 

[MyBelle]

What I was referring to was that you said that I posted that Keith Hicks testified that the camera was unplugged at 11:20. I never posted that. You just assumed that was what I meant.

I will go back and find out who testified to the 11:20 time frame. That will take me some time so give me a couple of days to get back to you. I've got RL things to do tomorrow with family so please be patient until I get back to you about this.

By the way, Otto asked a question and I answered. He never challenged me on it. In fact, he thanked me for my answer. Even though Otto and I disagree about the facts of the case, I find Otto to be respectful.

You are not going to find it because it does not exist. There was no testimony from LE about the time the camera was unplugged. The only testimony was from Hicks. I think it would be respectful for you to refrain from misrepresenting the evidence.

JMO

 

[tarheel8600]

LE didn't testify they didn't find any gas cans. While it may be your opinion items were missing, your opinion isn't fact.

It is a fact that the prosecutor went with the witness at the convenience store. They didn't remotely suggest JY took additional gas from home.

JMO

Here we go again.

I never posted that LE testified about not finding gas cans.

It's not even my opinion that he used gas cans. He could have, but I don't think he would have needed to stop at Four Brothers if he had. Also, I think his vehicle would have smelled like gasoline if he had, and I think LE would have noticed that.

My post was in response to your post where you said that LE didn't find any gas cans on hand so evidently JY didn't use any. I just said that LE not finding gas cans on hand didn't imply JY not using them because he could have disposed of them like he did his clothes, his shoes, the murder weapon, and the jewelry.

 

[MyBelle]

Here we go again.

I never posted that LE testified about not finding gas cans.

It's not even my opinion that he used gas cans. He could have, but I don't think he would have needed to stop at Four Brothers if he had. Also, I think his vehicle would have smelled like gasoline if he had, and I think LE would have noticed that.

My post was in response to your post where you said that LE didn't find any gas cans on hand so evidently JY didn't use any. I just said that LE not finding gas cans on hand didn't imply JY not using them because he could have disposed of them like he did his clothes, his shoes, the murder weapon, and the jewelry.

Here's your posting. In reality, nothing was proved to be missing as a result of his taking it whether it be gas cans or the murder weapon. No proof JY left the hotel, made a return trip or disposed of anything at all. There was no evidence presented at trial that gas cans were missing. That would be a huge piece of evidence, if so.

Originally Posted by tarheel8600
Maybe LE didn't find any on hand because JY took the gas cans with him and then disposed of them to get rid of the evidence. He got rid of his clothes, shoes, the murder weapon, and the jewelry so maybe he got rid of the gas cans, too.

 

[tarheel8600]

Here's your posting. In reality, nothing was proved to be missing as a result of his taking it whether it be gas cans or the murder weapon. No proof JY left the hotel, made a return trip or disposed of anything at all. There was no evidence presented at trial that gas cans were missing. That would be a huge piece of evidence, if so.

Originally Posted by tarheel8600
Maybe LE didn't find any on hand because JY took the gas cans with him and then disposed of them to get rid of the evidence. He got rid of his clothes, shoes, the murder weapon, and the jewelry so maybe he got rid of the gas cans, too.

MyBelle,
I NEVER said that there was any testimony whatsoever by anyone about those gas cans.

I NEVER said that JY using gas cans was my opinion.

I NEVER said that JY using gas cans was a fact.

I NEVER said that Keith Hicks testified that the security camera was unplugged at 11:20.

I was NEVER challenged by any poster other than you about the camera posting.

I NEVER misrepresented facts of the case to make JY seem guilty.

I NEVER lied about when and where the photo of the HI exit door was taken.

Please stop arguing points with me about things I NEVER said and things that NEVER happened.

These inane posts take up too much space and are not useful. Let's just discuss the case and not take things so personally. Deal?

 

[MyBelle]

MyBelle,
I NEVER said that there was any testimony whatsoever by anyone about those gas cans.

I NEVER said that JY using gas cans was my opinion.

I NEVER said that JY using gas cans was a fact.

I NEVER said that Keith Hicks testified that the security camera was unplugged at 11:20.

I was NEVER challenged by any poster other than you about the camera posting.

I NEVER misrepresented facts of the case to make JY seem guilty.

I NEVER lied about when and where the photo of the HI exit door was taken.

Please stop arguing points with me about things I NEVER said and things that NEVER happened.

These inane posts take up too much space and are not useful. Let's just discuss the case and not take things so personally. Deal?

If would be helpful if your statements of fact were backed up with links.

You have stated as fact: that the camera was unplugged at 11:20 p.m., that he got rid of his clothes, shoes, the murder weapon, and the jewelry. Where do you even get that his clothes are missing? No mention was made at trial about a camera being unplugged at 11:20 p.m.

You state such unsupported stuff as fact and keep adding to it. Now, you imply he got rid of gas cans even though there is no testimony at trial that gas cans were even missing from his house.

It isn't my posts that are inane.

JMO

 

[tarheel8600]

If would be helpful if your statements of fact were backed up with links.

You have stated as fact: that the camera was unplugged at 11:20 p.m., that he got rid of his clothes, shoes, the murder weapon, and the jewelry. Where do you even get that his clothes are missing? No mention was made at trial about a camera being unplugged at 11:20 p.m.

You state such unsupported stuff as fact and keep adding to it. Now, you imply he got rid of gas cans even though there is no testimony at trial that gas cans were even missing from his house.

It isn't my posts that are inane.

JMO

I stated earlier that I would search for the 11:20 time frame for the camera being unplugged. I asked you to give me a couple of days to find it because it may take a while since I have other family obligations tomorrow.

The following SWs back up my claim that there were missing clothes, specifically the shirt he was seen wearing on camera at the HI on the night of
Michelle's murder and a pair of Hush Puppies that JY was known to own that matched one of the shoe impressions in blood at the crime scene.

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/08/12/3365337/1219081477-20080818133406629.pdf
http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/08/12/3365337/1219081417-20080818133617555.pdf
http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/08/12/3365337/1219081353-20080818133840861.pdf

One more time, let me state that I am not implying that gas cans were used by JY that night. I just replied to your post where you said that since no gas cans were found, then he must not have used them. You said that since no gas cans were found, there was no evidence to support that theory. My point was that IF he used gas cans, he would have thrown them away so as to get rid of evidence. IF he had used gas cans, he wouldn't have kept them in his vehicle for LE to find.

I have supplied links to a lot of my posts. I use them to support the facts. You can go back and see that I have done this.

You post things quite often that are your opinion without supplying links or even explaining how you arrived at your opinion. I believe you stated earlier that you wondered if one of the 4 jurors that held out for guilty was on forums. When someone challenged you on that, you said that you had a right to your opinion.

How about letting me state my opinions, and I'll even explain how I came to the conclusion I did? I am of the opinion that JY murdered his wife. I believe that there is quite a bit of CE to support that opinion.

That said, I think it would be respectful of you to allow all posters the same latitude that you allow yourself. It just seems like the courteous thing to do and the right thing to do.

 

[Just the Fax]

Absolutely agree! It is astounding and also more than a little sickening.

At the time the rock was tested, I do wonder if the prosecution knew it was a random rock or if they discovered it was random when they heard the testimony from Hicks.

JMO

Huh?
Sorry MyBelle, we totally missed the point you tried to make?
The rock was the one tossed out by the staff. It was immediately collected and tested. Guess what, Jay's DNA markers were present.

He is stupid really. He admitted to propping the door, saying he used a 'twig'. He would have been better off saying he used the rock. Just shows he lied.

h

 

[Just the Fax]

tarheel, I hate you had to go retrieve basic facts of the investigation so MaBelle would understand. It gets tiresome, I know.

 

[gracielee]

tarheel, I hate you had to go retrieve basic facts of the investigation so MaBelle would understand. It gets tiresome, I know.

I find it easier to simply ignore. The bottom line in this case is, one has to take ALL the circumstantial evidence in it's totality when deciding a case. I find it ludicrous to suggest any judge would direct a verdict in a case with this much circumstantial evidence. And judge Stephens is certainly not an amatuer. Much like the CA case, the defense throws anything and everything against the wall to see what sticks in their opening, without having to prove any of it. I think most of us in the area who lived with this case in real time, knew who the killer was once the evidence began coming out. I for one wasn't *afraid* of some random killer stalking the streets and towns of Wake Co. Yes, when Stephanie Bennett was found murdered not too far from where we lived at the time, I was a bit apprehensive, creeped out even. But not this one. After all, the killer lawyered up before he even got back to Wake Co. One only had to listen to the 911 tape, hear little CY. We heard washcloth, bandages, mommy boo boos, daddy, not a single 'bad man' on the tape. :rocker: :waitasec: :furious:

 

[otto]

What would you grab, otto?
A rock, 1 foot away or break off a twig 4 1/2 feet away:waitasec:

BTW, my pic was taken 2007...useless?

Based on the photo you posted, when the door is open, anyone standing in the open door should be able to easily reach the bush ... fun with photoshop ...

 

[otto]

Forums and twittering. The Judge in the Cooper trial seemed totally clueless about technology and social media.

I think the fact that this Judge allowed Jason bail is a reflection of his opinion about Jason's guilt.

JMO

It may be that he assumed Jason was unable to come up with $900,000.

 

[otto]

Yep just as I suspected.

Investigators look in depth and have tunnel vision. Crime labs test and it's a waste of $$$.

However, if it's on an episode of CSI it's brilliant!

But done in real life? dumb, waste, too narrow a focus, sickening.

If only real life investigators had the magic crystal balls some posters seem to have.

Otherwise they shouldn't really bother to investigate anyone because it's not fairrrr and only evidence that jumps up and waves should be collected and tested. But if they don't test everything they're still incompetent. Yep, I see how this works.

When invesitagators focus on the husband before he has even reached the crime scene, knowing full well that he was out of town at the time of the murder ... yes, that's called tunnel vision. When they resort to testing random rocks to see if they can connect a rock propping a door to their preferred suspect, I think it's rather obvious that they're no longer looking at the facts of the case but rather looking at the suspect and trying to find ways to connect him with the crime.

 

[otto]

BBM

Otto, Cassidy was definitely carried from her mom's bedroom to the bathroom.
Here's a link to the picture; it's picture 42:
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/image_gallery/9727548/

As you can see there are no bloody footprints in the hallway. It has been theorized that Cassidy could have been cleaned with baby wipes. They could have been easily put into a trash bag and thrown away later. That would explain no blood in the sink drain.

What person do you believe would carry her from the bedroom to the bathroom, clean her, and then place her in bed? I don't think a robber who would beat a pregnant woman to death so mercilessly and with such rage would then turn around and care for a child he is not connected to. It doesn't make sense.

During the 911 call, CY does say that her mommy needs a washcloth and that her mommy has boo boos. Because CY had taken many baths where she was cleaned with a washcloth, it makes sense that she said that her mommy needed a washcloth because her mommy was covered in blood and needed cleaning. That doesn't, however, mean that she could actually use a washcloth and clean herself thoroughly. Most children don't master that concept until years later.

If CY had cleaned herself, you can bet she would have missed some spots and they would have been transferred into the bed. Lastly, if CY cleaned herself, where is the bloody washcloth?

I've increased the red saturation in the image, and there is blood on the carpet leading to the bathroom. Are you suggesting that someone carried her to the bathroom, but put her down outside the door? It's unfortunate that there isn't an image of the hall between the bathroom and the master bedroom.

 

[gracielee]

When invesitagators focus on the husband before he has even reached the crime scene, knowing full well that he was out of town at the time of the murder ... yes, that's called tunnel vision. When they resort to testing random rocks to see if they can connect a rock propping a door to their preferred suspect, I think it's rather obvious that they're no longer looking at the facts of the case but rather looking at the suspect and trying to find ways to connect him with the crime.

I disagree. The investigators didn't focus on the husband before he reached the crime scene. As with ANY case, investigators become suspicious when a key person in any case refuses to speak to them & immediately lawyers up to avoid having any contact with them. If your wife were to be found dead while you were out of town on a business trip, would you hire a lawyer *before* even reaching town to see what in the world happened to your poor wife? *Who* could have done such a henious thing while you were out only one night? After all, you'd only left the night before, and left your wife with a friend to watch, what was it, Grey's Anatomy???

I find it strange, in one of the crime scene photos, there was a big sticker on the doorway window stating the home was protected by a security company. And no signs of forced entry. A random prowler wouldn't know if the security system was on or off. And certainly would have heard there was a dog inside.

 

[otto]

Maybe LE didn't find any on hand because JY took the gas cans with him and then disposed of them to get rid of the evidence. He got rid of his clothes, shoes, the murder weapon, and the jewelry so maybe he got rid of the gas cans, too.

Maybe Jason had gas cans and maybe he had a gas pump in his back yard, but no evidence was found of either, therefore it's not really relevant. Furthermore, it's not like police didn't look ... Jason was a suspect before he arrived at the crime scene, so police had every advantage of obtaining the evidence if it existed.

 

[otto]

Huh?
Sorry MyBelle, we totally missed the point you tried to make?
The rock was the one tossed out by the staff. It was immediately collected and tested. Guess what, Jay's DNA markers were present.

He is stupid really. He admitted to propping the door, saying he used a 'twig'. He would have been better off saying he used the rock. Just shows he lied.

h

The night audit guy said that he "kicked" the rock. How is it possible that he knew which rock it was a few days later when he didn't even remember Jason coming to the front desk at midnight? Would he remember a specific rock when he didn't remember a conversation with a person? Furthermore, if Jason had touched the rock, why wasn't it a 13 allele match (at a minimum)? A 3 allele match is never used to convict anyone of anything.

 

[Madeleine74]

"Focus" on the husband?

Since when is wanting to talk to the husband of the woman who was found murdered "focusing" on the husband? At that point LE didn't know any of the details of JY's whereabouts other than he was out of town.

Should they never have wanted to talk to him? JY is the one who immediately lawyered up. He claims it was based on his friend's advice because the police wanted to talk to him and had questions.

Well of course they had questions... wouldn't you?

 

[Madeleine74]

For all these complaints and criticisms of how investigations are conducted...

I'd like the armchair experts who obviously know better than anyone else to detail exactly how they would approach such a scene and start and conduct an investigation.

Since there are only criticisms...then what exactly would you do that would make an investigation be correct? (don't say what you wouldn't do...just give the details of what you'd do as the lead investigator).

Who would you talk to?
In what order?
When would you want to talk to them?
Where would you talk to them?
What evidence would you collect or ask to be collected?
How would you prioritize what gets tested in a lab -- investigators are asked for their order of priority. So what's your suggested order of priority?

 

[otto]

I disagree. The investigators didn't focus on the husband before he reached the crime scene. As with ANY case, investigators become suspicious when a key person in any case refuses to speak to them & immediately lawyers up to avoid having any contact with them. If your wife were to be found dead while you were out of town on a business trip, would you hire a lawyer *before* even reaching town to see what in the world happened to your poor wife? *Who* could have done such a henious thing while you were out only one night? After all, you'd only left the night before, and left your wife with a friend to watch, what was it, Grey's Anatomy???

I find it strange, in one of the crime scene photos, there was a big sticker on the doorway window stating the home was protected by a security company. And no signs of forced entry. A random prowler wouldn't know if the security system was on or off. And certainly would have heard there was a dog inside.

I guess the way I see it is that if the husband's friends are calling him and telling him to lawyer up before he talks to police, they're basing that on their own conversations with police. For some reason, friends of the family thought they needed to warn Jason that he was considered a suspect right away and that he better be careful. Additionally, the forensics lab in the area had been doing some very fishy things over the years and convicting innocent people. Anyone that was aware of the fact that a mentally challenged person was convicted based on a statement that he supposedly signed with his name spelled incorrectly would be very concerned about being considered a suspect even though it was known that he was out of town at the time of the murder. That is, given the track record of false evidence and false testimony, I think anyone in Jason's shoes would have been very wise to be very wary of police.