Quote :

"Said hushpuppies had been given away to goodwill months before, he didn't even own those anymore (not sure if this is believable)"

So the missing orbitals had been given away months before the murder? did he provide a receipt for the donation (especially since he said they use them for tax write offs). so what shoes was he wearing in virginia then?

6/22/2011 12:43:57 PM

Alice Stubbs name pops up again in a murder trial .

6/22/2011 12:47:29 PM

I don't think the jury, or anybody, is buying his testimony.

6/22/2011 12:48:59 PM

I love how the lawyer is talking slower and quieter when asking the lovey dovey questions at the end

6/22/2011 12:50:34 PM

Lunch break until 2:00. I hate I'm going to miss a lot of cross. I have an appointment that starts at 2... grr.

6/22/2011 12:52:27 PM

Alice Stubbs serial killer exposed?!?!

6/22/2011 12:58:17 PM

Was she the woman who killed Nancy Cooper, took her hat, and paraded around town wearing it?

6/22/2011 1:04:52 PM

^ no that was Jessica adams

6/22/2011 1:15:50 PM

He doesn't remember if he went to Puerto Rico before or after he was married, lol.

6/22/2011 2:08:33 PM

damn now i see this blinking y'all have been talking about. it's not really the blinking thats unnerving, its the amount of time he leaves his eyelids closed.

6/22/2011 2:24:29 PM

Well the prosecution's turn wasn't very eventful. The women doing it was off putting as well.

6/22/2011 3:06:49 PM

Yeah, where's Boz when you need him.

6/22/2011 3:07:46 PM

That was a terrible cross exam. Boz is a good dude, but I am guessing he used all his energy in the last few months on the Cooper trial.

6/22/2011 3:08:54 PM

the defense rests!

6/22/2011 3:09:49 PM

Quote :

"That was a terrible cross exam."

Thats what I was thinking

6/22/2011 3:15:21 PM

i missed the cross

6/22/2011 3:16:43 PM

Why does anyone care about this at all? I'd imagine that for 99% of the people in this thread it has zero impact on their life.

6/22/2011 3:16:52 PM

then why are you here?

yeah, awful cross.

6/22/2011 3:17:40 PM

I think every defendant would testify if that was the type of cross you would face.

6/22/2011 3:18:20 PM

^^^because it's interesting? because it's entertaining? because we have an interest in the law?

people spend all kinds of time doing things that have absolutely no impact in their life.
and as learning experiences go, i wouldn't say this has absolutely no impact...

6/22/2011 3:18:54 PM

Yeah we learned to keep the different size shoes on when beating someone to death, and not to wear our own shoes at any point.

[Edited on June 22, 2011 at 3:26 PM. Reason : and pay cash at DSW]

6/22/2011 3:25:37 PM

Just got back. Heard they're going to do the charge conference. I can't believe I missed the entire cross.

6/22/2011 3:31:01 PM

Quote :

"I can't believe I missed the entire cross."

Didn't miss much...it was pretty weak. Do the archive the video anywhere?

6/22/2011 3:31:49 PM

^^^That's true. I should take notes in case I ever want to kill someone.

[Edited on June 22, 2011 at 3:32 PM. Reason : ^]

6/22/2011 3:32:14 PM

WRAL has it all in archives at the end of the day's testimony. I'll catch it there tonight.

6/22/2011 3:33:18 PM

^it was weak, weak, weak

6/22/2011 3:47:34 PM

That's what I read on websleuths too, and usually they are all about riding the prosecutors' nuts.

6/22/2011 3:51:38 PM

Judge Stephens just threw into the charge to the jurors that if they think he acted with someone else, they should vote guilty. Defense of course objecting.

6/22/2011 4:04:02 PM

as they should...

that was never part of the prosecution's case

6/22/2011 5:34:22 PM

Well, the judge allowed it. He tried to make an argument "that's what the two shoe sizes could mean."

But it's not part of the case at all!

[Edited on June 22, 2011 at 5:36 PM. Reason : ]

6/22/2011 5:35:48 PM

Closing arguments today, I guess we could have a verdict as early as tomorrow. Especially if they don't want to deliberate over the weekend.

6/23/2011 9:02:41 AM

Klinkosum in the middle of his closing. Can't watch or listen. Good luck to ALL the attorneys today.

6/23/2011 10:15:42 AM

Wow. If I were the defense I'd steer well clear of the dog testimony. As a juror I'd be likely to think the dog didn't get up to investigate because the killer was someone the dog knew - likely Jason.

Either that or there were two killers. One in charge of doing the deed, the other in charge of... giving the dog a bath?

[Edited on June 23, 2011 at 10:53 AM. Reason : -]

6/23/2011 10:52:40 AM

I think that's where they're going. Someone washed that dog off, and it had to have been later. Mr. G didn't have any blood on him, and he was in the house for ~10 hours in that bedroom, where there was blood up and down the hallway too. If you add all that's necessary to have happened post-murder, it puts the timeline almost to breaking point.

6/23/2011 10:55:43 AM

so did meredith fisher clean them up after she found the body?

6/23/2011 10:59:41 AM

According to her--no. She changed Cassidy's clothes when she was in the Target, and then washed them. But she and the dog were clean when she got there.

6/23/2011 11:01:27 AM

If the killer cleaned the dog it would just get bloody again once they left, right?

[Edited on June 23, 2011 at 11:01 AM. Reason : -]

6/23/2011 11:01:31 AM

I think that's the point the defense is making. How likely is it that the dog didn't step in the blood after the fact? The dog *had* to have been cleaned way closer to when Meredith was in the house, and not at 3:30 in the morning.

6/23/2011 11:03:11 AM

Why would anyone clean the dog at the time or shortly after the murder?

6/23/2011 11:05:47 AM

No idea? Just trying to brainstorm why it's important? Doesn't want bloody footprints tracked as evidence through the house?

Also, this gas mileage stuff is interesting.

6/23/2011 11:07:07 AM

That's the question I have. Whelp, better get to giving the dog a bath. Pretty sure no one will notice the body.

Not to mention... I don't know what kind of dog it is, but a dog is going to let a stranger come in, kill their master, and then give it a bath. Yeah. That goes back to my original thought - the dog probably didn't get messed in the first place because they knew who came in the house. Oh, it's just Jason (or a friend of the family or whatever), back to my nap.

You're starting to give me the impression that it was locked up in the bedroom and getting bloodied was inevitable. Didn't he say in closing that the dog had free reign of the house? It could have been in the kitchen the whole time.

[Edited on June 23, 2011 at 11:14 AM. Reason : -]

6/23/2011 11:07:19 AM

Or the dog could have been scared shitless and hid in the bedroom. I could see that being the reaction of my critters. Or they'd start snacking on my corpse. Could swing either way.

6/23/2011 11:09:19 AM

^She was in the bedroom, dog was in the same room.
Maybe the murderer wanted to make sure there was none of his DNA (hair, skin, blood), on the dog? Maybe the dog bit him? No clue.

Same question for why wash the kid?

[Edited on June 23, 2011 at 11:10 AM. Reason : ]

6/23/2011 11:10:21 AM

The dog was scared shitless, there was a bloody mess and teeth all over the floor where his bed was supposed to be.

6/23/2011 11:12:38 AM

Do dogs clean themselves like cats? Could he have licked himself clean ?

6/23/2011 11:14:29 AM

We know the dog got in the blood, because there were bloody paw prints. ^that's a pretty good point actually.

[Edited on June 23, 2011 at 11:15 AM. Reason : ]

6/23/2011 11:14:48 AM

Yeah I can see that.

6/23/2011 11:15:46 AM

Fantastic point on the unlocked door. "Slipping the bill under the door and hanging a newspaper on the handle should have caused an unsecure door to pop open a bit."

6/23/2011 11:25:18 AM

Quote :

"There were no scratch marks on Jason Young's body and nothing to prove indicate he had been in a fight. DNA evidence from two cigarette butts, a hair and a jewelry box suggests that two people were in the Young home that night, since the DNA samples didn't match their client"

If this is true, and Jason Young has similarly retarded jurors like Brad Cooper had, then he's fucked. There was no physical evidence proving Brad Cooper's guilt, but those dumbasses convicted anyway. If there's none for Young, that should be reasonable doubt there.

6/23/2011 11:50:14 AM

There's more tying Jason to this murder than the prosecution ever hoped to have against Brad Cooper. Jurors are unpredictable, but I'm fairly confident it will be a guilty verdict. While there's not a lot of hard evidence, there are some things that are difficult to overcome. After the defense closing, I'm personally not sure, but I think the jury will vote guilty because he was a bad husband, and not a great person in general.

6/23/2011 11:56:44 AM