Upcoming Trial - 2012

[Cammy]

Greetings, Lynx, and :welcome: !!!!




We're glad to have another member to bea part of this trial forum. It's gonna be tuff, I think, but we'll just have to see where it goes.

Glad you're here!

I think I am going to like you, you sure are friendly.

 

[NCEast]

It's certainly extremely rare for a guilty person to that the stand and leave themselves open to answering all the questions that the investigators claimed he was unavailable to answer. There he was, sworn to tell the truth and prepared to answer every question that anyone had ... and still a jury could not find him guilty.

That was due in part to the prosecutor's inability to ask the right questions and/or to pursue various responses by JY in depth. She was in over her head with JY's cross and that's exactly where most of the breakdown in the trial occurred in my opinion. Had she pursued some of her own questions and especially many of his responses he would have opened the door to a more elaborate cross examination.

 

[Lynx]

The last Jury may have wanted some kind of confirmation from the witness that could not be found that was at the gas station that morning as well.
Now , what is this with a twig and cigar?
I am not there yet.
IMO

Cammy,

I was speaking of Jason Young's testimony in the first trial.

He pretty much admitted he was a bad husband, admitted to the affairs/trysts and most everything that Holt threw at him. His story differed rock vrs. twig....and he smoked a cigar. What else did the prosecution find out?

 

[Just the Fax]

Cammy...I thought you said you "read here forever" :waitasec:

 

[Lynx]

Greetings, Lynx, and :welcome: !!!!




We're glad to have another member to bea part of this trial forum. It's gonna be tuff, I think, but we'll just have to see where it goes.

Glad you're here!

I am so glad to be here!:seeya:

Thanks for the warm Welcome.

 

[Cammy]

Cammy,

I was speaking of Jason Young's testimony in the first trial.

He pretty much admitted he was a bad husband, admitted to the affairs/trysts and most everything that Holt threw at him. His story differed rock vrs. twig....and he smoked a cigar. What else did the prosecution find out?

Got it and if I don't, I will get there by Mon morning.!

 

[otto]

That was due in part to the prosecutor's inability to ask the right questions and/or to pursue various responses by JY in depth. She was in over her head with JY's cross and that's exactly where most of the breakdown in the trial occurred in my opinion. Had she pursued some of her own questions and especially many of his responses he would have opened the door to a more elaborate cross examination.

I see two possibilities: that there simply was nothing specific that investigators wanted to know, or she didn't have enough information to ask the right questions. Either way, the argument that Jason was unwilling to answer questions certainly can't be used again. It seems he was more than willing to answer any questions investigators had as long as it was in a courtroom.

 

[borndem]

I remember a banned poster from another board that had a problem with the lady at the gas station :laugh:

Personally, I think Gracie was extremely credible.

I agree -- her testimony was crushing, but she was intimidated by the DT and got very nervous. With proper rehabilitation on the stand, she would have been strong as a lion. Roar! Killer. Alas....

I hope she's armed for bear this time!

 

[Just the Fax]

I see two possibilities: that there simply was nothing specific that investigators wanted to know, or she didn't have enough information to ask the right questions. Either way, the argument that Jason was unwilling to answer questions certainly can't be used again. It seems he was more than willing to answer any questions investigators had as long as it was in a courtroom.

I don't recall the investigators asking him questions in the courtroom:waitasec:
Too bad, cause i'm sure there would have been a far different outcome.

 

[otto]

I agree -- her testimony was crushing, but she was intimidated by the DT and got very nervous. With proper rehabilitation on the stand, she would have been strong as a lion. Roar! Killer. Alas....

I hope she's armed for bear this time!

I don't really see any way to rehabilitate testimony stating that the man she dealt with at the gas station was 5 feet tall. If she suddenly changes that fact,she's got a problem ... furthermore, prosecutors can't counsel her to change that testimony. I think the prosecution is stuck with witness testimony that a 5 foot guy was buying gas.

 

[Just the Fax]

I don't really see any way to rehabilitate testimony stating that the man she dealt with at the gas station was 5 feet tall. If she suddenly changes that fact,she's got a problem ... furthermore, prosecutors can't counsel her to change that testimony. I think the prosecution is stuck with witness testimony that a 5 foot guy was buying gas.

Guess you forgot her statement to LE 4 years earlier?
That otto, is rehabilitation.

 

[otto]

I don't recall the investigators asking him questions in the courtroom:waitasec:
Too bad, cause i'm sure there would have been a far different outcome.

The complaint was that Jason wouldn't answer questions. Presumably, investigators had many questions. Presumably all of that information was provided to the prosecution's office. Those questions could have been asked and answered when Jason was on the stand. The fact that only some questions were asked could mean that investigators did not have many questions after all. Alternatively, maybe they only wanted to ask those questions under their terms.

 

[otto]

Guess you forgot her statement to LE 4 years earlier?
That otto, is rehabilitation.

I think we've established that the witness stated that the man she dealt with was tall. When asked to explain what "tall" meant, she indicated that he was 5 feet tall; the same as she.

No amount of "rehabilitating" a witness can change that fact. Police should have obtained more specific facts such as: how tall was he? It seems that they were so eager to have a witness for the gas purchase that they neglected to use a photo line-up and neglected to understand what the witness meant when she said "tall".

 

[Lynx]

I think we've established that the witness stated that the man she dealt with was tall. When asked to explain what "tall" meant, she indicated that he was 5 feet tall; the same as she.

No amount of "rehabilitating" a witness can change that fact. Police should have obtained more specific facts such as: how tall was he? It seems that they were so eager to have a witness for the gas purchase that they neglected to use a photo line-up and neglected to understand what the witness meant when she said "tall".

I completely agree with this post otto.

My question is does she still remain the states star witness?

 

[Cammy]

I don't really see any way to rehabilitate testimony stating that the man she dealt with at the gas station was 5 feet tall. If she suddenly changes that fact,she's got a problem ... furthermore, prosecutors can't counsel her to change that testimony. I think the prosecution is stuck with witness testimony that a 5 foot guy was buying gas.

Agree, that was one of the things that most concerned me and possibly the Jurors, past and recently seated.
And, one of the things that have made me reconsider if Mr. Young did this.
And, as for blue jeans, unless there were a lot of business men in suits pumping gas that morning at the station, that is what most men wear.
I don't see that as an out of the ordinary detail.
Agree again, that the state is stuck , but what can they do now, unless they decide not to call her?
IMO

 

[Just the Fax]

I think we've established that the witness stated that the man she dealt with was tall. When asked to explain what "tall" meant, she indicated that he was 5 feet tall; the same as she.

No amount of "rehabilitating" a witness can change that fact. Police should have obtained more specific facts such as: how tall was he? It seems that they were so eager to have a witness for the gas purchase that they neglected to use a photo line-up and neglected to understand what the witness meant when she said "tall".

That question was never asked, otto.

It is up to the jury to decide if her statement 4 years earlier was more credible than her faded memory in 2011.

Case in point....I see many poster's memory has faded recalling all the facts from 2006/2007.

 

[otto]

Agree, that was one of the first things that caused some real concern for me that Mr. Young did this.
All the Jurors have to do is look at him and the witness and see the difference in height.
And, as for him wearing jeans, unless there were a lot business men going to work at the same time there pumping gas, pretty much most guys wear jeans.
I don't find that an out of the ordinary detail at all.
Also, agree the Prosecution is stuck with her, what can they do now?
Great points, Otto.

Wearing jeans or having blond hair seems completely meaningless to me. Jason owned jeans and he had blond hair, just like millions of others. The detail, for me, is in his height. If she had said brown hair, jeans and 6 feet tall that would have worked for me, but not blond hair, jeans and 5 feet tall. It's impossible to believe that she didn't notice that she had to look way up to talk to him.

 

[Grammy Jean]

I went to the courtroom several times for the BC trial and found it so interesting. Honestly, I only paid surface attention to this case due to my obsession to the CA trial. I am ready to give this trial a lot of attention. I was wondering if anyone could tell me which court room this trial will be held.

 

[Just the Fax]

Wearing jeans or having blond hair seems completely meaningless to me. Jason owned jeans and he had blond hair, just like millions of others. The detail, for me, is in his height. If she had said brown hair, jeans and 6 feet tall that would have worked for me, but not blond hair, jeans and 5 feet tall. It's impossible to believe that she didn't notice that she had to look way up to talk to him.

The more you post your opinion on this, the weaker your argument gets.
MOO

 

[Just the Fax]

I went to the courtroom several times for the BC trial and found it so interesting. Honestly, I only paid surface attention to this case due to my obsession to the CA trial. I am ready to give this trial a lot of attention. I was wondering if anyone could tell me which court room this trial will be held.

Same courtroom, 3-B.