I say do it. How many times has the judge said to STFU? And this is still happening in the same trial?

A public caning is in order here. 1 lash for every post.







[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 7:32 PM. Reason : 24 bitches!]

3/6/2012 7:31:31 PM

What law did the hairdresser break? What law did the facebook poster break?

The juror yes, if talked, should be charged with contempt... but the others, what crime did they commit??

3/6/2012 7:32:56 PM

The juror should get one lash for each post her friend made about the deliberation.

3/6/2012 7:38:29 PM

Alright, that works for me. Public caning of bad jurors.

3/6/2012 7:41:45 PM

Public torture for jurors that don't vote the correct way.

3/6/2012 8:11:00 PM

Quote :

"Was that poster from TWW, "Beethovan86", one of those dismissed jurors? Seems to be a ring leader....plus, he/she is nuts. "

From websleuths

Just The Fax

Lol... edited to take out personal attacks against JTF... idiot.

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 9:42 PM. Reason : ]

3/6/2012 9:38:56 PM

You ring leading nutso.

3/6/2012 9:44:02 PM

Quote :

"is nuts"

3/6/2012 9:44:32 PM

I am both proud to be a ringleader, and a nutso one at that. Although I think 99% of you would object to being lead by me

3/6/2012 9:45:39 PM

I would let you lead me by the nuts.




Wait. What.

3/6/2012 9:47:19 PM

wat

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 9:49 PM. Reason : ]

ps... JTF, you spelled Beethoven wrong.

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 9:51 PM. Reason : ]

3/6/2012 9:48:53 PM

Link to web sleuths plz Im too lazy to look it up

3/6/2012 9:51:40 PM

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=165066&page=6

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 9:54 PM. Reason : a noob can't be a ringleader ]

3/6/2012 9:52:45 PM

POSTED

TOTAL

CARP

3/6/2012 9:59:34 PM

the wolf web blog

3/6/2012 10:02:27 PM

websleuths sucks

3/6/2012 10:03:22 PM

Quote :

"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."

3/6/2012 10:03:55 PM

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?s=2713cf0ca63912d258206dff3db16991&p=7668516&postcount=139

3/6/2012 10:05:49 PM

[old]

3/6/2012 10:06:33 PM

Quote :

"WARNING WARNING WARNING"

Read Websleuths at your own peril, I did the BC and JY trial-2 using them for my daily updates while working. They are almost all stay at home or retired women who do not, i repeat DO NOT understand logic and reason. They will completely ignore facts or spin any and everything into what they see as their way, it's almost painful to read thru the shit.

JMOO, IMHO, MOO haha

3/6/2012 10:07:01 PM

I was posting that for the benefit of whoever was asking about it being deleted

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 10:08 PM. Reason : yeah websleuths makes my head hurt]

3/6/2012 10:07:49 PM

They MOO after every post.

MOO

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 10:08 PM. Reason : ^I know, I'm just trying to earn my nutso title.]

3/6/2012 10:07:53 PM

god i fucking wish i knew Beethoven86's old TWW username

3/6/2012 10:09:10 PM

[user]SethLeDown[/user]

3/6/2012 10:09:36 PM

perhaps we can reach an agreement

3/6/2012 10:12:28 PM

[user]NutsoRingLeader[/user]

3/6/2012 10:13:25 PM

from that websluts thread

Quote :

"To our legal WS......... what does this all mean as far as JY ??? another trial? mistrial? lighter sentence? with all the crazy world and laws for the criminal's rights........ I am sick! "

it must be so much easier dismissing someone's constitutional rights when you assume them to be a criminal from the getgo. Fuck, why have the trial? We already know he's a criminal, because, well, you said so...

3/6/2012 10:13:29 PM

^^Totally signing that one up. May even spring for Premie for that name.

3/6/2012 10:14:11 PM

sounds like a retrail to me.

3/6/2012 11:34:50 PM

Hey Nutso....question

If they decide the jurors were out of order...what happens to JY? Does he stay in jail until his retrial? Considering if those 2 jurors weren't on the trial, 2 others could have been on and they may not have come to a guilty verdict?

I'm rambling but I think you kno what I'm saying.

3/6/2012 11:40:58 PM

If the Judge finds out the juror did engage in misconduct, then he has to determine if it had an impact on the verdict. If it did, then he has to decide whether or not to call a mistrial. If so, new trial, but I doubt young will be released on bond this time, since he was essentially already convicted. My guess is that he has to wait it out in prison. But, I doubt anything will come of this.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/10822718/

[Edited on March 7, 2012 at 7:41 AM. Reason : ]

3/7/2012 7:29:25 AM

From page 10 of the websluts thread

Quote :

"and clearly states that the initial vote was 7-5. She also admits to not following the judge's instructions about Jason's lack of a statement to police equalling guilt, too, but that's a different thread."

3/7/2012 8:23:14 AM

Quote :

"Jurors in Jason Young's second murder trial in Wake County said Tuesday that the lack of physical evidence in the case pointed to the defendant's guilt rather than his innocence."

Quote :

"god i fucking wish i knew Beethoven86's old TWW username"

lol

3/7/2012 11:49:23 AM

we should be able to draw and quarter jurors who say that a lack of evidence implies guilt.

3/7/2012 11:52:53 AM

You never know. This could be an elaborate ruse on my part. Maybe I am truly a noob and never had a prior username??

3/7/2012 11:53:49 AM

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8571108

Quote :

"One of the jurors who convicted Jason Young of killing his wife Monday told ABC11 exclusively that she believes he may have had an accomplice. Natasha Baldwin said she and her fellow jurors are positive that Young killed his wife, Michelle. However, they were doubtful he could have done it alone. Young, investigators said, planned an alibi: a business trip to Virginia with a stay in a hotel three hours away. But, how could he have made that drive, beat his wife to death, cleaned the blood off himself and his toddler daughter, and made it back to Virginia by 6 a.m. without leaving a trace of evidence? "He would have had to have, and probably had, help," said Baldwin. "Probably did have help. That's what we had surmised. We were leaning strongly to that possibility." Baldwin, an accountant, lives with her husband and two young sons in north Raleigh. She is one of twelve men and women who convicted Young of the Nov. 2006 murder of his pregnant wife. Baldwin said they began their deliberation with a simple poll. "It ended up being about half and half, so six for guilty, six undecided," said Baldwin. However, not all six were undecided. "Initially I had said 'not guilty,'" said Baldwin. "Not so much that I didn't necessarily believe he had committed the murder, but I just didn't know if the evidence was heavy enough to make that conviction beyond a reasonable doubt." Baldwin said it was a tough decision to make, especially without a smoking gun. "When you consider sending someone to prison for the rest of their life, you want hard evidence," said Baldwin. "And you want a good amount of it. But that just wasn't the case." To Baldwin, the closest thing to that was a bloody shoe print that matched a pair of shoes Jason Young used to own. She said it was different evidence that convinced other jurors but, in the end, all agreed that the law allowed them to convict on overwhelming circumstantial evidence. A pivotal point of discussion was evidence that little Cassidy Young had tracked her mother's blood around the house, but had no blood on her when her aunt found her at the murder scene. "Who would do that except for someone who cared about her," said Baldwin. "Certainly a burglar or a stranger would not take that kind of time." Baldwin said she wasn't bothered by Young not testifying since she saw his taped testimony from the first trial. As for a possible accomplice, prosecutors said while the case is no longer active, they are willing to listen to any information that would warrant reopening it."

3/7/2012 1:14:45 PM

that verdict should be overturned based on that, alone. he had an accomplice who did the murder, yet there's no evidence for it, nor was it even suggested to be the case at the trial. JY was there, yet had an accomplice. He had the perfect fucking alibi, namely being somewhere else, and decided to drive back and kill her anyway, even though he had an accomplice who could have done it all for him.

and this bitch is an accountant?


hey, I don't think there's enough evidence to convict this guy beyond a reasonable doubt, so I say "not guilty." Wait a minute, he could have had an accomplice, and there's no evidence to show that. Fuck it, he did it!

[Edited on March 7, 2012 at 1:22 PM. Reason : ]

3/7/2012 1:20:37 PM

doubtful
probably
probably
leaning
possibility

is this woman insane?

3/7/2012 1:28:06 PM

So I am guessing the folks that post on WebSleuths are the same ones that keep Nancy Grace on the air.

~moo~

3/7/2012 1:33:20 PM

The people who post on Websleuths are a bunch of morons who think Matlock has taught them everything they need to know about forensics. I had a relative that was murdered a couple of years ago and I made the mistake of reading a thread on websleuths about the trial. Some of the conspiracy theories they came up with for the murder were really

3/7/2012 1:37:46 PM

Listen we can talk shit about anything but keep your opinions about Matlock to yourself!



lol

I mean moo

Seriously though that site is horrible. They make 4chan look decent.

3/7/2012 1:45:52 PM

^^^^ I guess that dumb bitch doesn't comprehend the meaning of the words "reasonable doubt." All of those words she used, imply that said doubt existed in her mind, and she still voted guilty

[Edited on March 7, 2012 at 1:46 PM. Reason : ]

3/7/2012 1:46:20 PM

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8572549

Quote :

"RALEIGH (WTVD) -- One day after concerns about social media postings over the Jason Young jury deliberation, more information has been released about what the SBI will be looking for in its investigation. Officials say this investigation could take a few days or even weeks. It depends on what the SBI finds out early on. That investigation could lead to yet another trial for Young, the man tried twice and found guilty of murdering his pregnant wife. Right now, another trial seems a remote possibility especially if the SBI tracks down the sources of the online comments about jurors and they confess it was all made up. However, if investigators find that a juror did communicate with the outside world, that juror could be prosecuted for contempt. That finding would spur more investigation to see if there was any communication back into the jury room from the outside world. If so, that could be grounds for a mistral. Former prosecutor and long-time defense attorney Karl Knudsen has researched the law and followed the case. "Given the emotional toll, the financial drain to everybody, the thousands of hours, and probably, at this point, something point something million dollars of public funds expended to try to bring resolution to this, to somehow lose it because somebody didn't follow the rules would just be terrible," said Knudsen. The foreperson of the young jury told ABC11 that she believes the information in the posts that brought on the investigation was likely fabricated. There's not just one incident under investigation. There was also another posting on the same website in which a woman claims a juror she saw in public talked about the case but claimed he was unbiased."

[Edited on March 7, 2012 at 7:31 PM. Reason : ]

3/7/2012 7:30:32 PM

Out of curiosity, who set the time for his appointment at the hospital, him or the woman he met with?


As far as the whole 'he had help' thing, I ran the accomplice scenarios to death last year, it really doesn't add up. If I recall it was more likely that two other individuals framed him, but that doesn't add up either UNLESS of course Michelle Money is married to Chuck Norris or Liam Neeson.


If you are still sad about not having enough to convict him on, think about the things that happened, that were noone else's doing but his that contributed to the whole situation- the belated anniversary gift thing, and the printout he wanted her sister to fetch from the printer so Michelle wouldn't find it... think about leaving the night before, and purposefully telling everyone you were going to definitely eat at cracker barrel in GSO and probably stay in galax- when it would have made more sense to go to bed at home a little early and leave at 5AM the next day. Think about what people do/say who have been framed or falsely accused. A man who has nothing to hide won't hide shit when his wife/unborn baby boy is murdered, no matter how bad his marriage has gotten he still doesn't want to risk life in prison or worse.

I believe he thought that if he could make the trip in time that noone would ever be able to pin the murder on him (and noone really has) but he also realized the effect this would have on his life as he knew it, and that is why he never used the money he had to fix the heat in their home that fall. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he had actually made a dry run sometime prior to the night of the murder just for good measure. Forget interviewing the goddamn jurors already, lets interview the investigators- because you know that just one more puzzle piece at this point would change the whole thing... and make all this juror misconduct speculation a moot point.


Also, I love how when local news wants a quote from a lawyer they just call up one of the guys who sends you letters in the mail after you get a speeding ticket.

[Edited on March 7, 2012 at 9:19 PM. Reason : ....................................................................................................]

3/7/2012 9:17:25 PM

Quote :

"that noone would ever be able to pin the murder on him (and noone really has)"

except 12 jurors

3/7/2012 9:19:32 PM

And the jury foreman was not a woman when this trial started- so the guy who got the boot after talking about it in the resturant may have been the original foreman. Not that it matters.

[Edited on March 7, 2012 at 9:21 PM. Reason : adsc]

3/7/2012 9:21:33 PM

You don't appoint a foreperson until deliberations....

3/7/2012 9:24:07 PM

Quote :

"that were noone else's doing but his that contributed to the whole situation"

what the fuck? you should be convicted on actual evidence of wrongdoing, not for being a sucky husband. what the fuck is wrong with you?

Quote :

"A man who has nothing to hide won't hide shit when his wife/unborn baby boy is murdered,"

maybe I haven't followed the trial closely enough, but what did he hide? are you calling "not giving something to the police when he's not asked for it" the same thing as "hiding something"? It's not the job of the innocent to prove their innocence. It's the job of the state to prove guilt. Get that through your thick skull.

Quote :

"and that is why he never used the money he had to fix the heat in their home that fall"

or maybe he's just a shitty, lazy husband who doesn't get shit fixed that he should. I've got a damned water heater that I need to replace that I'm ignoring. That doesn't mean I'm about to commit murder and then run away.

Quote :

"It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he had actually made a dry run sometime prior to the night of the murder just for good measure."

Can you possibly add any more wild-assed conjecture into this discussion? Maybe he was abducted by aliens. Maybe he walks around with a giant dildo stuck up his ass. Maybe he likes The Cosby Show.

Quote :

"Forget interviewing the goddamn jurors already, lets interview the investigators- because you know that just one more puzzle piece at this point would change the whole thing"

You don't think the investigators haven't already thrown everything against the wall they could just to see what would stick? It's a bloody murder trial, for God's sake.

3/7/2012 9:29:50 PM

username check:


[user]NutsoRingLeader[/user]

3/7/2012 9:29:59 PM

I may be confusing "juror number 1" with "foreperson", anyhow, does not matter.

3/7/2012 9:35:47 PM