page 23

Quote :

"^Yeah, these two are direct quotes from the jurors: "If you were innocent you would be handing this stuff to LE, and he didn't." "If he had produced the shirt, if he had produced the shoes, he'd be a free man right now." There's a reason the evidence was missing, and that's because LE failed to collect it, not because he didn't voluntarily say "here, let me give you this shirt I'm wearing right now, just in case you need it in my murder trial.""

Like those damn ducks from the Cooper trial!!

3/6/2012 2:12:08 PM

Let this be a lesson to aspiring murderers- next time you are out shopping, buy two of everything.


Really though, he didn't give up the clothes he was seen wearing and he didn't have an explanation for where they were, no that does not equal GUILT but it damn sure doesn't mean your name is taken off the top of the suspect list. Combine that with the other slices and all he did was a real good job of hiding pie.

Think of all the other mistakes he could have made, getting pulled over on the way, buying gas at a station with cameras all over the place, not to mention inside the house. The jewelery box drawers missing and the medicine/dropper left out are just sloppy compared to the rest of the caper.

I didn't hear a lot about the supposed murder weapon, no way he beat her to death by hand and didn't get a scratch on him (unless he knocked her out first and grabbed her by the back of the head and beat her face into the floor... wait) but I am willing to bet he chunked that mallet into his neighbors yard too to make things more confusing. Hell he probably even had a gas can with him so he wouldn't run out, who knows maybe he didn't get seen at that gas station, either way he is in jail now where he will get to swallow everything but wedding rings.

You all can get back to whining now, after I finish this cigar I am headed out now to find some size 14s in a SoS drop box, then to SRI to buy some hushpuppies.

3/6/2012 2:21:37 PM

Quote :

"Like those damn ducks from the Cooper trial!!"

NOOOO, the Coopers produced the ducks! Proof of innocence!

Quote :

"Really though, he didn't give up the clothes he was seen wearing and he didn't have an explanation for where they were, no that does not equal GUILT but it damn sure doesn't mean your name is taken off the top of the suspect list. Combine that with the other slices and all he did was a real good job of hiding pie."

This argument bothers me. He wasn't ASKED for the clothes he was wearing until 2008. So, how can it be his fault that his home was ransacked, he moved to another town, and in the meantime, probably got rid of some clothes in the course of 2 years before he was asked for those clothes?

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 2:23 PM. Reason : ]

3/6/2012 2:22:22 PM

Quote :

"NOOOO, the Coopers produced the ducks! Proof of innocence!"

exactly!! but no, still guilty!

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 2:32 PM. Reason : ]

3/6/2012 2:23:01 PM

Oh maybe the missing clothes are in the offices of his public defenders! Yeah right

3/6/2012 2:23:21 PM

If LEO wanted to use the clothes against him, they should have asked for them on that first day.

Instead, like in the Cooper trial, they waited YEARS, even until the point that he was imprisoned, and could no longer produce anything.

3/6/2012 2:24:59 PM

^Sounds like they did use the clothes to get a conviction, you read that statement from the juror. They probably wait on purpose... ladies and gentlemen of the jury, he couldn't produce the clothes. HE COULDN'T PRODUCE THE CLOTHES.

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 2:32 PM. Reason : -]

3/6/2012 2:30:51 PM

Exactly. That's my problem. They did the same thing with Cooper. "He didn't produce the shoes he was wearing! OMG GUILTY"

When, in fact, they asked for the shoes after he was arrested. How is he supposed to produce shoes from jail?? All his belongings were sold! Looks like they took care of that for him.

3/6/2012 2:33:35 PM

Quote :

"what if begonias and Sayer could have saved him"

based on what I've kept up with, I think he's probably guilty but the state did not meet their burden of proof... thus NG

your loss dickhead defense attorney

3/6/2012 2:41:20 PM

It's amazing to me that with all the "ifs" and "shoulda, woulda, couldas" in the explanations of everyone that found/think him to be guilty that the beyond the shadow of a doubt criteria was met even in their own minds.

I know the judge explains the law principles before deliberation, but how much weight is generally placed on emphasizing the burden of proof in cases like this?....seems like the civil burden of proof is being used instead of the criminal burden.

3/6/2012 2:44:29 PM

The burden of proof in a criminal trial is "BEYOND a reasonable doubt" which means the juror must be fully satisfied and entirely convinced of the defendant's guilt. But yes, most jurors see that as preponderance of evidence, which is sad.

The jury is given an instruction before they go to deliberate, and the attorneys can address what reasonable doubt means in their closing argument (which most do, remember Trenkle's closing?), but that is it. They take the instructions back to the room with them, but I don't believe most know how to apply it.

3/6/2012 2:46:39 PM

Quote :

"Oh maybe the missing clothes are in the offices of his public defenders! Yeah right"

hey, I need you to produce the exact clothes and shoes you were wearing 5 years ago on the 5th of March. Do it right now. Oh, wait, you can't? Welp, that means you are a murderer.

3/6/2012 2:47:17 PM

Was the judge the same one from the Cooper trial? If so, did he also make a small speech agreeing with the guilty verdict?

3/6/2012 2:48:18 PM

No, Gessner was Cooper, Stephens was Young.

3/6/2012 2:48:54 PM

Quote :

"Was the judge the same one from the Cooper trial?"

I don't believe this was Judge Magoo.

3/6/2012 2:49:57 PM

The defense should have used the Peterson "Owl Defense", that always works. She just tripped and fell because she was attacked by an owl.

3/6/2012 2:58:18 PM

re: Beethoven86 -- i'm confused about this -- everything was seized in 2008, was it not?

his statements were that nothing left the car from the time he left the hotel, even with his stop in Brevard and return to Raleigh. so, WCSO seized the belongings, didn't find what they were looking for, but failed to request it until 2008? regardless, it didn't jive with young's statement regarding the "chain of custody" (lol) of the bag.

perhaps that's why the defense never went down that road.



[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 3:07 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2012 3:06:45 PM

Night of the murder they seized his suitcase, and impounded his SUV to search it. They did not request the clothes he was wearing at the time.

Further, they did not request the clothes he was wearing the night before (which could very easily have been left at his parents house, since he stopped there on the way back).

They waited until 2008 to request the clothes he wore in the cracker barrel video (the night before), and the shoes he was wearing in them.

So, the only thing they requested in 2006, and were provided, was the suitcase. Not the clothes on his back, not any clothes he may have left in Brevard, nothing else.

Those were his Mom's statements, about nothing leaving the car in Brevard. Then she turned around and said, "oh wait, I got a sweater out of his suitcase, and put it on him." The witnesses who saw him later in the day said "oh yeah, he did have on that sweater." What else was actually removed?

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 3:13 PM. Reason : ]

3/6/2012 3:09:08 PM

Quote :

"Further, they did not request the clothes he was wearing the night before (which could very easily have been left at his parents house, since he stopped there on the way back). They waited until 2008 to request the clothes he wore in the cracker barrel video (the night before), and the shoes he was wearing in them. So, the only thing they requested in 2006, and were provided, was the suitcase. Not the clothes on his back, not any clothes he may have left in Brevard, nothing else."

i understand your position on that, but again, Young's on statements were that the bags went from his hotel room, to the SUV and stayed there until his arrival in Raleigh.

that obviously makes no sense to me (ie. change of clothes, toiletries, etc, at his parents house), but that was his contention regarding the luggage, i believe.

if they never left the vehicle and were never found upon seizure, where were they?

this was one inconsistency that bothered me about the case, from both sides, as i seemed to recall the jeans were produced in some manner, but i'm unclear whether they were obtained in the seizure or produced later. if the latter were the case, then obviously that's inconsistent with his statements as well.

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 3:13 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2012 3:11:57 PM

I edited to answer your question.

Also, I believe the jeans were seized from the suitcase, belt still threaded through the loop.

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 3:14 PM. Reason : ]

3/6/2012 3:13:32 PM

^ ah, i see, thank you.

i know you've kept a closer eye on the testimony than myself this time around and could not recall from the previous trial.

3/6/2012 3:14:39 PM

I still think it's suspicious, the whole scenario with the missing clothing, but because LE refused to request it or account for it early on, it wouldn't go in the "guilty verdict" pile for me.

3/6/2012 3:16:33 PM

Quote :

"If LEO wanted to use the clothes against him, they should have asked for them on that first day. Instead, like in the Cooper trial, they waited YEARS, even until the point that he was imprisoned, and could no longer produce anything."

Obviously the PDs around here need to watch more Law and Order. Detective Munch would never make this mistake!

3/6/2012 3:18:35 PM

Quote :

"I still think it's suspicious, the whole scenario with the missing clothing, but because LE refused to request it or account for it early on, it wouldn't go in the "guilty verdict" pile for me. "

me neither; i fully expected another hung jury this time around.

i believe his only grounds for appeal are going to lie on the testimony of the pre-school teacher. Stephens is a great judge, and i don't see very many holes open other than that.

i'm not sure what kind of issue could be made regarding the 2nd degree murder instruction or the ruling that the jury could use his invocation of silence as weighing on his credibility, but not as evidence of guilt.

3/6/2012 3:28:46 PM

I agree. I think introduction of the doll play, and the introduction of the wrongful death suit would be possible room for error.

But, since the jury didn't pick 2nd, I don't see how it could possibly be reversible error.

3/6/2012 3:30:33 PM

and just when you thought it was over and done with...


http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/10820046/

Quote :

"Jason Young trial judge orders SBI probe into possible juror misconduct"

3/6/2012 4:28:36 PM

Oh damn.

Quote :

"RALEIGH, N.C. — The judge presiding over the murder trial of Jason Young has ordered the State Bureau of Investigation to look into possible misconduct involving a juror who might have talked about the case during deliberations. The panel of eight women and four men on Monday found Young, 37, guilty of first-degree murder in the beating death of his wife, Michelle Young, who was found dead in the couple's home in November 2006. He is serving life in prison without the possibility of parole. It was Jason Young's second trial. His first ended in a mistrial in June after a jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict. Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens met with prosecutors and defense attorneys about the juror misconduct allegation Tuesday morning. It's unclear how an SBI probe might, if at all, affect the outcome of the trial, and attorneys declined to comment Tuesday on the issue. Prior to giving jurors the case last week, Stephens ordered them to turn off their cellphones and not to communicate with anyone during deliberations. Throughout the lengthy trial, he reminded them daily not to discuss the case with anyone and to avoid social networking sites and news coverage of the case so as to avoid any perception of bias and to help maintain the integrity of the justice system. Early on in the trial, during jury selection, Stephens had to dismiss two jurors for talking about the case. One man, who could be charged with contempt, reportedly was overheard discussing it at a restaurant. Another man was dismissed for posting comments about serving on the jury on an Internet message board. Legal experts say technology, social media and increased news access are posing more challenges in court cases. Jurors have easier access to research cases, know more about them before they go to trial, and there is more of a temptation to share on social networking sites. "Now in this digital age, where all of us put our very thoughts and very impressions out there in the world, it's going to have a tremendous impact," Brian Boyd, a professor at Campbell University's Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law, said. Reporter: Tara Lynn"

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 4:32 PM. Reason : ]

3/6/2012 4:29:30 PM

that has the be the dumbest person in existence. I hope the probe into misconduct turns up nothing

3/6/2012 4:33:56 PM

i cannot wait to go see the reactions of the bon-bon eating bovine house wife legal scholars on websleuths in a few minutes

the hand wringing will be a sight to behold.

3/6/2012 4:34:30 PM

Quote :

"i cannot wait to go see the reactions of the bon-bon eating bovine house wife legal scholars on websleuths "

3/6/2012 4:40:10 PM

Apparently it's the fault of the defense team, or the Young family, and they waited until the verdict was in to spread their lies...

UPDATE:

Quote :

"Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens met with prosecutors and defense attorneys about the juror misconduct allegation Tuesday morning after someone posted on WRAL News' Facebook page that a juror was reportedly communicating during deliberations with someone outside the case about the jury's progress. WRAL News reported the posts to Stephens upon finding them Monday afternoon."

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 4:45 PM. Reason : Good thing no one took the posts here seriously on people having "insider information"]

3/6/2012 4:40:45 PM

From page 21

hey now-

Quote :

"My friend on the jury texted me last night he expects a not-guilty verdict by Wednesday."

Someone been reading TWW again?

3/6/2012 4:45:54 PM

omg please tell me they don't think that was real, holy moly seriously?

3/6/2012 4:47:20 PM

does this mean they found out about mootduff?

3/6/2012 4:49:53 PM

Nah, someone posted on WRAL's facebook that "verdict is now at 10-2, was 9-3 before lunch." or something like that.

which actually matches up fairly closely to what the juror who was interviewed said today.

3/6/2012 4:51:17 PM

3/6/2012 4:51:53 PM

^^ yep, was about to come post the same thing

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 4:53 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2012 4:53:28 PM

WRAL just said there were two posts, and one in the morning said the jury was at 7-5 in the morning. That is true, according to the juror interview today.

DAMN, posts are spot on: http://www.wral.com/asset/specialreports/michelleyoung/2012/03/06/10821695/20120306170659598.pdf

Also appears to include the juror's name who may be the subject of the possible misconduct.

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 5:23 PM. Reason : ]

3/6/2012 5:12:20 PM

LOL at sending facebook screenshots through a grainy fax machine. Maybe Young will get another trial after all.

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 5:42 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2012 5:39:25 PM

Quote :

"Jason Young trial judge orders SBI probe into possible juror misconduct"

not it!!!!!!!

3/6/2012 5:51:03 PM

ABC 11 interviewed a juror, and she says they came to the conclusion that he had an accomplice and that's how he pulled it all off in one night... has that possibility even been presented during the trial?

3/6/2012 6:06:22 PM

jesus christ. I almost wish there was a review of the jurors' findings in cases like that, assuming what was said was true. Jurors can just make shit up now and send a man to prison for the rest of his life? what in the flying fuck

3/6/2012 6:08:53 PM

WORST JURORS EVER

3/6/2012 6:09:10 PM

Quote :

"WRAL just said there were two posts, and one in the morning said the jury was at 7-5 in the morning. That is true, according to the juror interview today."

do you have a link to that juror interview?

i was looking for it on wral to no avail.

3/6/2012 6:15:08 PM

Quote :

""Judge Stephens was very clear throughout the trial that we couldn’t talk to anybody, and we’re all pretty close," Melissa Axline, who was juror No. 3, said. "I just don’t see anybody doing that. I think it’s absolutely false." Anthony Fuller, Juror No. 1, said cellphones were off and put away during deliberations and that everyone was trying to come to a unanimous decision with integrity."

^Not on WRAL, it was on HN, whatever that stands for.

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 6:16 PM. Reason : ]

3/6/2012 6:16:07 PM

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000451161210&sk=wall

3/6/2012 6:53:39 PM

Quote :

"WORST JURORS EVER"

<facepalm>

3/6/2012 7:11:36 PM

On Jennifer Russells public Facebook wall:

Quote :

"Jennifer my name is Tom Normanly and I work for WRAL. We'd like to talk with you about your hairdresser and the text she recieved from one of the Jason Young Jurors. If you could call me at 919.612.1004 or call our desk at 919.821.8600. We'd really like to sit down with you."

3/6/2012 7:13:15 PM

Quote :

""My hairdresser is friends with a jury member on the JY trial. They are now deadlocked at 9 Guilty 3 Not Guilty. It was 7 Not Guilty 5 Guilty!" according to one post. In another post, the same Facebook user wrote: "My hairdresser is friends with a woman on the jury. She was supposedly texting her telling her how the vote was going.""

JESUSGODDAMNCHRIST people are dumb.

3/6/2012 7:23:53 PM

Although websleuths is talking about throwing the hairdresser and the facebook poster in jail if it ends up being true... which makes them even more dumb than the poster.

3/6/2012 7:28:59 PM