Trial Delayed until at least January

Status
Not open for further replies.
It would help if you didn't eliminate the name of the person that posted the comment.

If I'm investigating a murder, I want to look at the scene and talk to the last person that was known to be with the victim when she was alive ... that was not Jason and it was not the victim's sister. After talking with that person, I would talk to the second last person that was there and so on. It seems that police immediately focused on the second last person that they believed was at the home and made it clear to friends of the family that he was their main suspect. That was just one of the many mistakes made in this case.

We also know that the last person that was with the victim when she was alive described how she and the victim were creeped out by something they thought was outside ... don't remember the details, but they were a little concerned about something. There was also a history of something suspicious in the back yard.

There is a trailer park just on the other side of the trees and it was always a possibility that someone from that area came through the trees and was near the house that night. Perhaps someone came to the house, saw two women alone, saw one of the women leave, saw the garage door partially open, entered the garage, tried the door to the house, found it open, thought he would enter to rob the place, wandered upstairs, was rifling through the jewelry box (therefore the unknown prints on it), startled the victim, an altercation ensued and he fled with just what he found in the jewelry box. The 2 year old then woke up, entered her parents bedroom, tried to help her mom with a wash cloth, decided to clean her own feet and then went to sleep in her parents bed. The burglar than left the home and went around towards the forest, but stopped at the outside hose to wash up a bit ... not bothering to completely turn off the hose at a home where he doesn't know the people and doesn't care if the water is running all night long.

Your argument holds no water.
A light SUV was seen at 3:30AM in front of the home.....a trailer park person could not have wondered from the woods.

The garage door was closed. The automatic opener was broken, but the door functioned manually. How do you think the intruder entered? There was no forced enyty, so the garage door makes sense, right.
Who would have a notion they could simply open a closed garage door? Everyone I have seen is always locked, as a remote is always needed.

Of course the homeowner, JLY knew it would open with a simple tug....
 
tarheel is suggesting that because LE said that was the case.
Bloody child prints in the bedroom and hall bath, but none in the hall.
LE speculated she was carried from the bedroom to the bath.

There are no photos of the hallway, but there is blood on the carpet just outside the bathroom door. Who is to say that there were no bloody footprints in the hallway? These are the same investigators that photographed the bathroom and then had no idea about the size of the evidence ... so they had to go back and lay a ruler on the floor, take more photos and then try to match them with photos they took earlier. Furthermore, this is the same crowd that relied on the forensic's lab to provided false or misleading test results when needed (190 times). All of a sudden they need real evidence, not manufactured evidence, and they're making all sorts of mistakes.
 
Your argument holds no water.
A light SUV was seen at 3:30AM in front of the home.....a trailer park person could not have wondered from the woods.

The garage door was closed. The automatic opener was broken, but the door functioned manually. How do you think the intruder entered? There was no forced enyty, so the garage door makes sense, right.
Who would have a notion they could simply open a closed garage door? Everyone I have seen is always locked, as a remote is always needed.

Of course the homeowner, JLY knew it would open with a simple tug....

A light colored SUV was seen by one witness, a van was seen by another. Are they both right, both wrong, was it really a van? Who knows.

The garage overhead door was not closed. It was jammed open.

garageyoung.jpg


http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/image_gallery/9727548/
 
It's dark out at the time he was propping that door. Are there floodlights on that shrubbery? Why would a shrub several feet to his left grab his attention rather than a rock he could grab without any problem?

Also, he'd be fighting with that shrub to grab a twig and then it would have to be a twig strong enough to keep open the door. It's a live shrub and 'twigs' are not just sitting there. He'd have to break one off...if it's green inside (as the branches of alive shrubs are) it would not just snap off. IMHO.

Makes zero sense.

Also you don't know the width of the door nor how far open that door can go. Those are your assumptions, which are not in evidence.
 
There are no photos of the hallway, but there is blood on the carpet just outside the bathroom door. Who is to say that there were no bloody footprints in the hallway? These are the same investigators that photographed the bathroom and then had no idea about the size of the evidence ... so they had to go back and lay a ruler on the floor, take more photos and then try to match them with photos they took earlier. Furthermore, this is the same crowd that relied on the forensic's lab to provided false or misleading test results when needed (190 times). All of a sudden they need real evidence, not manufactured evidence, and they're making all sorts of mistakes.

Who is to say?
I would read the SW's and also listen to the defense.
They outlined this as well, implying MF carried her.

BTW, the prints are obviously made by a toddler.
Big deal, they were back at the house and someone said go ahead and take measurements, even though it is obvious they came from a baby
 
A light colored SUV was seen by one witness, a van was seen by another. Are they both right, both wrong, was it really a van? Who knows.

Terry Tiller saw the light SUV at 3:30AM and a minivan across the street.
She was very credible to me.

The postal clerk saw a 'soccer mom' car at 5:30AM.
I thought she was not credible at all.
 
He'd be fighting with that shrub to grab a twig and then it would have to be a twig strong enough to keep open the door. It's a live shrub and 'twigs' are not just sitting there. He'd have to break one off...if it's green inside (as the branches of alive shrubs are) it would not just snap off. IMHO.

Makes zero sense.

Also you don't know the width of the door nor how far open that door can go. Those are your assumptions, which are not in evidence.

Exterior fire doors are a standard size. They are at least 3 feet wide if not wider. I went with the narrowest of the possibilities - and it appears to be a standard 36" wide door. It is impossible that a fire exit is narrower than 3 feet so ... yes ... I do know something about the width of an exterior door. I also know that standard fire exit doors will have a swing of 90+ degrees, depending on local building code and wheel chair access. Fire exits have to close after each use ... like the doors at the hotel. It may make zero sense to you, but not to people that know about this stuff.
 
Who is to say?
I would read the SW's and also listen to the defense.
They outlined this as well, implying MF carried her.

BTW, the prints are obviously made by a toddler.
Big deal, they were back at the house and someone said go ahead and take measurements, even though it is obvious they came from a baby

Taking measurements was the reason for returning to the house months after the murder.
 
Who is 'someone'?"

The hose running in November is not normal.

Does it matter who posted that the hose was next to the people door to the garage? If you go back a few pages, you'll find the comment.
 
WRONG!!!
The door was CLOSED when MF arrived

Please stop speculating based on your interpretation of a photo taken days later.

Are you suggesting that the photos entered into evidence were misleading ... that the garage door was not broken or that the garage door was staged as being stuck half open? The photos were taken Nov 3, not days later ... you can get this information from the link provided.
 
Taking measurements was the reason for returning to the house months after the murder.

Sorry, you are wrong .
They went to the house to remove deck boards because they thought they saw a shoe impression in the stain.

While there with a SW, they decided to go inside and take the measurements of the tiles so there would be a perspective for the photos of the tiny toddler prints.
 
Terry Tiller saw the light SUV at 3:30AM and a minivan across the street.
She was very credible to me.

The postal clerk saw a 'soccer mom' car at 5:30AM.
I thought she was not credible at all.

Two witnesses saw two different things. One saw a light colored vehicle, the other saw a van with two people - one possibly a woman with bushy hair. I can't say that one is more credible than the other. One fits the prosecution theory of the husband doing all sorts of things in the middle of the night and the other doesn't ... I don't see any reason to selectively dismiss witness testimony.
 
Are you suggesting that the photos entered into evidence were misleading ... that the garage door was not broken or that the garage door was staged as being stuck half open? The photos were taken Nov 3, not days later ... you can get this information from the link provided.

I am not suggesting any such thing.
That photo showed the door open after 1:30PM because MF opened it.
It was NOT open when MY went to bed.

BTW, it is not "stuck",. It was rolled up partially by simply pulling it by the handle
 
Two witnesses saw two different things. One saw a light colored vehicle, the other saw a van with two people - one possibly a woman with bushy hair. I can't say that one is more credible than the other. One fits the prosecution theory of the husband doing all sorts of things in the middle of the night and the other doesn't ... I don't see any reason to selectively dismiss witness testimony.

Again, your facts are wrong.
The woman that saw 2 people never said it was a "van"
 
Sorry, you are wrong .
They went to the house to remove deck boards because they thought they saw a shoe impression in the stain.

While there with a SW, they decided to go inside and take the measurements of the tiles so there would be a perspective for the photos of the tiny toddler prints.

And to measure the bathroom tiles.

If they had done a good job the first time around, they would not have needed to return to the scene to gather evidence that would give a scale value to the photos they took earlier. This doesn't change the fact that they neglected to photograph the hallway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
143
Guests online
1,958
Total visitors
2,101

Forum statistics

Threads
627,285
Messages
18,542,473
Members
241,242
Latest member
sm981s
Back
Top