Trial Delayed until at least January

[otto]

"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?

Do you think that friends of the family were over-reacting when they told Jason the police were looking to nail him for the murder?

 

[NCEast]

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, too, noticed that security company sticker or sign.

 

[otto]

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?

I think that some very important steps have been taken since the murder regarding cleaning up the justice system in North Carolina.

"North Carolina's criminal justice system remains beset by scandal almost a year after an independent audit revealed that state crime lab technicians provided false or misleading test results in 190 cases of murder and other major crimes. "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/30/north-carolina-crime-lab_n_887516.html

Prior to this information becoming public, I suspect many people wondered about they system, but as long as it didn't impact their lives, they didn't really care.

Police should have talked to Jason as a grieving husband, not a suspect. We know that whatever was said on the phone between police and Jason while he was in transit was enough to put off the entire family. We also know that as soon as Jason and family arrived, even his parent's luggage was seized. What were police thinking ... that Jason was the murderer and his parents were hiding evidence in their own luggage, next to their medications? Perhaps, given the track record of the NC justice system, if the entire family had been mentally challenged they would all be in jail for the murder today.

 

[NCEast]

"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?

Absolutely. Plus, the spouse is always the first person LE turns to....even if that person was halfway around the world. They want to be absolutely certain they can either rule them out, or in. Jason's behavior toward LE from the very first moment created suspicion that seemed to grow and grow.

 

[otto]

I, too, noticed that security company sticker or sign.

Even with a securtiy sticker, many people know that as soon as the home is sold, the security system is quite often not hooked up. Furthermore, the garage overhead door was partially open, meaning that anyone could simply duck under the door to enter the garage. Once inside the garage, why not try to the door to the house to see if it was unlocked. It appears that it was unlocked as there was no forced entry.

 

[otto]

Absolutely. Plus, the spouse is always the first person LE turns to....even if that person was halfway around the world. They want to be absolutely certain they can either rule them out, or in. Jason's behavior toward LE from the very first moment created suspicion that seemed to grow and grow.

I think it's a chicken and egg thing. We don't know how cooperative Jason would have been had he not received warnings from friends that police were looking to nail him for the murder.

 

[NCEast]

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.

I agree about the fishy lab stuff. What a horrible mess it has created for many cases that they handled during that time frame.
However, maybe, just maybe, JY's friends were warning him because they may have had a little tiny idea that yes, he did it. They knew how absurd and stupid and crazy he could get. I think he has a personality disorder (I have the educational degree to have my own opinion that's not based on supposition) and maybe his closest friends recognized, too, that something didn't click right with him. Who knows why he didn't cooperate. Had my husband been murdered I would park myself at the desk of the lead detective on the case and not move--offering as much info as I possible could to ensure a positive result.

 

[otto]

I agree about the fishy lab stuff. What a horrible mess it has created for many cases that they handled during that time frame.
However, maybe, just maybe, JY's friends were warning him because they may have had a little tiny idea that yes, he did it. They knew how absurd and stupid and crazy he could get. I think he has a personality disorder (I have the educational degree to have my own opinion that's not based on supposition) and maybe his closest friends recognized, too, that something didn't click right with him. Who knows why he didn't cooperate. Had my husband been murdered I would park myself at the desk of the lead detective on the case and not move--offering as much info as I possible could to ensure a positive result.

If his friends thought he was guilty and they warned him that police were singularly focusing on him, that presumes that they wanted him to get away with murder. I don't buy that ... that friends of the family were all shady characters that want murderers to go unpunished.

If someone I knew was murdered in NC and I was the main suspect, I would steer clear of investigators until they solved the case. I would be very afraid of their false and misleading tactics that resulted in 190 questionable convictions. I don't believe for a moment that prosecutors were unaware of their shady relationship with the forensic's lab ... they needed certain information and the lab spoon fed it to them. Additionally, there are police officers making bold public statements about the guilt of people without trial ... judges labelling people as slayers based on bad party behavior and without trial or speaking with the "slayer". From the outside looking in, none of it appears to be above board. Then we have a jury that is 6-6 that is told to try harder. They do and move towards 8-4 not guilty but instead of being told to try harder (we can see which direction it's going), the judge declares a mistrial.

 

[gracielee]

I think it's a chicken and egg thing. We don't know how cooperative Jason would have been had he not received warnings from friends that police were looking to nail him for the murder.

So what you are saying is, if it were you in this situation, a completely *innocent victim* of a horrible crime to your wife and unborn child, you'd lawyer up and not be the least bit interested in who killed half of your family? I'm thinking of Kathryn Eastburns husband. I don't recall him having any *fear* of the judicial system when he was called and informed that his wife and two of his three daughters were brutally murdered in N.C. After all, he had plenty of time to have committed that crime, his murdered family wasn't found for days. I personally find it a bit odd, to say the least, that routinely, those husbands who refuse to speak to the cops have behaved quite differently upon being notified than those who come forward immediately, without lawyering up, take polygraphs, give information, attempt in any and all ways to cooperate with authorities, and most importantly DEMAND TO KNOW 'who killed my family?' 'What have you found out?' 'Do you have any suspects?' 'What do you need, what can I do, I want you to find out who brutally murdered my pregnant wife!' :maddening:

 

[gracielee]

LE didn't testify what kind of gas supply they found on hand so apparently they found no evidence to support your theory.

JMO

And if our three or four 5 gallon cans ended up being two or three, there would be no one the wiser that somebody grabbed *one* of those five gallon cans to use in their tank, and disposed of the gas can along with their bloody clothes, shoes, and any other *incidentals* along the long route back to Virginia. :waitasec:

 

[gracielee]

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

IIRC, it did take momma Young some time to come up with the bail money. :twocents:

 

[Madeleine74]

Otto posted: 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.

That's their interpretation.

Again, pretend you are the lead investigator.

WHO do you want to talk to?
WHAT INFO do you want to get?
WHERE would you have the forensic samples sent?
WHAT priority would you assign them?

How you would conduct this investigation?

Now justify wanting to talk to the people you want to talk to. Are you trying to railroad them or are you trying to gather information?

 

[otto]

So what you are saying is, if it were you in this situation, a completely *innocent victim* of a horrible crime to your wife and unborn child, you'd lawyer up and not be the least bit interested in who killed half of your family? I'm thinking of Kathryn Eastburns husband. I don't recall him having any *fear* of the judicial system when he was called and informed that his wife and two of his three daughters were brutally murdered in N.C. After all, he had plenty of time to have committed that crime, his murdered family wasn't found for days. I personally find it a bit odd, to say the least, that routinely, those husbands who refuse to speak to the cops have behaved quite differently upon being notified than those who come forward immediately, without lawyering up, take polygraphs, give information, attempt in any and all ways to cooperate with authorities, and most importantly DEMAND TO KNOW 'who killed my family?' 'What have you found out?' 'Do you have any suspects?' 'What do you need, what can I do, I want you to find out who brutally murdered my pregnant wife!' :maddening:

What I'm saying is that given the track record of the justice system in NC and if I was warned by friends that I was considered a suspect in a murder even though I was out of town at the time of the murder, I would be very wary of investigators. I would immediately talk with a lawyer and I would listen to that lawyer's advice. If false or misleading evidence was manufactured in 190 major crimes, that suggests some very shady investigative tactics were used by police and prosecutors ... obviously the forenic lab got their cues about the preferred evidence from someone. I would be a fool to trust a system like that so ... regardless of how badly I wanted an update on the case, I would not contact investigators. Instead, I would get my updates through the newspaper ... and there were many updates about the case that everyone could read throughout the investigation.

 

[otto]

And if our three or four 5 gallon cans ended up being two or three, there would be no one the wiser that somebody grabbed *one* of those five gallon cans to use in their tank, and disposed of the gas can along with their bloody clothes, shoes, and any other *incidentals* along the long route back to Virginia. :waitasec:

Was any evidence of gas cans introduced during trial? Did Jason have a gas mower?

 

[otto]

IIRC, it did take momma Young some time to come up with the bail money. :twocents:

It did, but who would expect a retired school teacher to have that kind of money lying around!

 

[Just the Fax]

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 ...

So what would you do?
Reach down and grab a rock 1 foot away, or stretch out and break off a twig 4 feet away? Nobody said it was impossible to use the bush, just makes zero sense.

 

[Just the Fax]

It did, but who would expect a retired school teacher to have that kind of money lying around!

She didn't.
She used property deeds...her home and land she inherited in Bumcombe County

 

[otto]

That's their interpretation.

Again, pretend you are the lead investigator.

WHO do you want to talk to?
WHAT INFO do you want to get?
WHERE would you have the forensic samples sent?
WHAT priority would you assign them?

How you would conduct this investigation?

Now justify wanting to talk to the people you want to talk to. Are you trying to railroad them or are you trying to gather information?

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.

 

[otto]

So what would you do?
Reach down and grab a rock 1 foot away, or stretch out and break off a twig 4 feet away? Nobody said it was impossible to use the bush, just makes zero sense.

The bush is't 4 feet away ... it's one foot away. Besides, most of those decorative rocks look really small and most likely most of them wouldn't prop open a door. They are light and have holes in them.

 

[Just the Fax]

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.

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.