Jan. 2 - Jan. 12

[alterEgo©]

The clothes Jason was videotaped wearing at midnight have been the subject of several SWs, but apparently weren't found. Any evidence of the crime on those clothes would have disappeared with the clothes themselves.The first search for the clothes being in Feb 2008, right?. When they also decided to check the bedroom furniture for trace evidence.

[alterEgo©]

It would be a way of making LE look inept and causing doubts on their investigation. I don't know if it was mentioned here but it has been mentioned on another blog that one of JY's favorite TV crime
episodes had a killer leaving teo different show prints to throw off investigations. Planting evidence after the crime scene was released would be a great idea in a premed murder which I don't have any doubts this was.
Ineresting that it isn't mentioned as PC in any SWs.

If evidence was going to be 'planted', why waste the effort on a tooth fragment? What do you think the tooth is evidence of that it had to be planted?

[Cardinal]

The first search for the clothes being in Feb 2008, right?. When they also decided to check the bedroom furniture for trace evidence.

Actually, my guess would be that the first search for the clothes occurred after they obtained the SW for Jason's SUV.


ETA: And it obviously wasn't found in his luggage from his out-of-town trip.

[Tia]

LE is still able to get "touch DNA" from her clothes around the waist and such if someone had redressed her.
This is how LE was able to exhonerate the Ramsey's because there was foreign DNA on JonBenet's underwear or pj's.


To the best of my knowledge, no foreign DNA was found in the Young home. If foreign DNA had been found, the discussions here, IMO, would be very different!

[Cardinal]

AE, it's no longer a guess on my part. I just re-read the Feb 07 SW, and it states very clearly that the shirt Jason was seen wearing in the video was not found in his luggage, and that his mother "...denied that her son washed, changed, or discarded any clothing while at her home."

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/08/12/3365337/1219081477-20080818133406629.pdf

So the shirt, specifically, that Jason was seen wearing in the videotape was not in his vehicle or his luggage when he arrived in Fuquay.

Where is it?

[Hey Paula]

AE, it's no longer a guess on my part. I just re-read the Feb 07 SW, and it states very clearly that the shirt Jason was seen wearing in the video was not found in his luggage, and that his mother "...denied that her son washed, changed, or discarded any clothing while at her home."

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/08/12/3365337/1219081477-20080818133406629.pdf

So the shirt, specifically, that Jason was seen wearing in the videotape was not in his vehicle or his luggage when he arrived in Fuquay.

Where is it?

I think JY dumped it, along with the murder weapon, on his way back to VA.

[alterEgo©]

:shrug:Actually, my guess would be that the first search for the clothes occurred after they obtained the SW for Jason's SUV.


ETA: And it obviously wasn't found in his luggage from his out-of-town trip.
It's not listed as an item to be searched for :shrug:

[Lindsey]

AE, it's no longer a guess on my part. I just re-read the Feb 07 SW, and it states very clearly that the shirt Jason was seen wearing in the video was not found in his luggage, and that his mother "...denied that her son washed, changed, or discarded any clothing while at her home."

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/08/12/3365337/1219081477-20080818133406629.pdf

So the shirt, specifically, that Jason was seen wearing in the videotape was not in his vehicle or his luggage when he arrived in Fuquay.

Where is it?

Hey Cardinal,

I believe that was Feb 08 SW, wasn't it? That "missing" shirt bothered me a LOT at first until I realized how long it took them to search for it AND all the other things they 'overlooked' or just flat out neglected to check out. They had the tape within days after Michelle's murder so why didn't they look for the shirt sooner? It would carry a whole lot more weight with me if they had.

All JMO

[alterEgo©]

Hey Cardinal,

I believe that was Feb 08 SW, wasn't it? That "missing" shirt bothered me a LOT at first until I realized how long it took them to search for it AND all the other things they 'overlooked' or just flat out neglected to check out. They had the tape within days after Michelle's murder so why didn't they look for the shirt sooner? It would carry a whole lot more weight with me if they had.

All JMOYou're right Lindsey, it is from Feb '08, not Feb '07. And I agree, they didn't look for it upon the initial search of his vehicle because they didn't know about it for a few days. But they never went back to look for it.

Not for a year and half.

[Kat4Eagles]

To the best of my knowledge, no foreign DNA was found in the Young home. If foreign DNA had been found, the discussions here, IMO, would be very different!


We don't know if there was or was not any foreign DNA found at the crime scene.

We do know that L E took prints of anyone that had been in the Young home for comparison.

They already had Jason's prints, so who or what did they need to compare them to?

Sounds like something foreign to me.

Kat

[Kat4Eagles]

You're right Lindsey, it is from Feb '08, not Feb '07. And I agree, they didn't look for it upon the initial search of his vehicle because they didn't know about it for a few days. But they never went back to look for it.

Not for a year and half.


And, by then there could be several legit reasons..

Why did they wait so long?

Kat

[alterEgo©]

We don't know if there was or was not any foreign DNA found at the crime scene.

We do know that L E took prints of anyone that had been in the Young home for comparison.

They already had Jason's prints, so who or what did they need to compare them to?

Sounds like something foreign to me.

Kat
What did they compare them to? It's not like they processed the furniture in the bedroom.

Oh wait, they waited until AFTER the furniture had been moved from the home into a storage facility and then after several months, they they decided to check it out.

[Tia]

We don't know if there was or was not any foreign DNA found at the crime scene.

We do know that L E took prints of anyone that had been in the Young home for comparison.

They already had Jason's prints, so who or what did they need to compare them to?

Sounds like something foreign to me.

Kat

To my knowledge, LE never said they discovered foreign DNA in the house. I would think that would have come up in the SW's.

[Kat4Eagles]

What did they compare them to? It's not like they processed the furniture in the bedroom.

Oh wait, they waited until AFTER the furniture had been moved from the home into a storage facility and then after several months, they they decided to check it out.

Hi A/E !!

I would imagine they compared them to any foreign prints.
:)
Kat

[Kat4Eagles]

To my knowledge, LE never said they discovered foreign DNA in the house. I would think that would have come up in the SW's.


Why would they tell us that?

Kat

[Tia]

Why would they tell us that?

Kat

Why wouldn't they??? They didn't because there was no foreign DNA.

[alterEgo©]

Hi A/E !!

I would imagine they compared them to any foreign prints.
:)
KatThat's just it....they didn't check the bedroom furniture for any prints or other FE when they had the house secured as a crime scene. .

[Kat4Eagles]

Why wouldn't they??? They didn't because there was no foreign DNA.


Nahhh, they have never confirmed or denied if any foreign DNA was or was not found.

They have , however, gone to great lengths to tell us about "keys".

:rolleyes:

Kat

[Kat4Eagles]

That's just it....they didn't check the bedroom furniture for any prints or other FE when they had the house secured as a crime scene. .


I know it, so therefore if they didn't check it, how would they know?

Kat

[Leanne Weich]

That's just it....they didn't check the bedroom furniture for any prints or other FE when they had the house secured as a crime scene. .

There's no doubt the CSIs screwed up big time which, imo, is what is making this case more difficult to bring before a GJ (although I do think they'd get an indictment) but taking it to trial may be a different matter. I don't think it is because they are lacking evidence but that they need to have an abundance of evidence to counteract the screwups.

[Cardinal]

:shrug:
It's not listed as an item to be searched for :shrug:

Neither were many of the items they seized. Besides, they would hardly have known what he was wearing the previous evening at the time they requested that SW. I believe they DID know exactly what he was wearing before they released his vehicle, and they didn't find that shirt.

[Cardinal]

Hey Cardinal,

I believe that was Feb 08 SW, wasn't it? That "missing" shirt bothered me a LOT at first until I realized how long it took them to search for it AND all the other things they 'overlooked' or just flat out neglected to check out. They had the tape within days after Michelle's murder so why didn't they look for the shirt sooner? It would carry a whole lot more weight with me if they had.

All JMO

So it would carry more weight with you if they looked for the shirt earlier?

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/08/12/3365337/1219081477-20080818133406629.pdf

"On November 4, 2006 investigators from the Wake County Sheriff's Office traveled to the Hampton Inn in Hillsville, Virginia. The investigators were able to obtain computer records of Jason Young checking in to the Hampton Inn on the night of November 2nd, 2006. In addition they were able to view a security video that showed Jason Young at the front desk and in the lobby area of the Hampton Inn...."

"After the Young's arrived at Ms. Fisher's home, and prior to Jason Young's Ford Explorer being unpacked, uniformed deputies arrived and secured the vehicle. A search warrant was obtained for the vehicle and the items found in the vehicle were seized. The dark colored long sleeve pullover garment with a lighter colored thin stripe bisecting the chest area was not among the items found in the vehicle."

LE knew what Jason was wearing on Nov 4 and they looked for the shirt while the SUV was still in their possession, Lindsey. How soon was that?

[Cardinal]

That's just it....they didn't check the bedroom furniture for any prints or other FE when they had the house secured as a crime scene. .

AE, where is this documented?

[Barbara2]

That's just it....they didn't check the bedroom furniture for any prints or other FE when they had the house secured as a crime scene. .

How do you know that they didn't check the furniture initially unless you were part of the investigation team? Can you think of any reason why they would be interested in checking it a second time after friends and family moved the furniture?

[Hey Paula]

How do you know that they didn't check the furniture initially unless you were part of the investigation team? Can you think of any reason why they would be interested in checking it a second time after friends and family moved the furniture?

Perhaps LE recovered prints, which didn't match JY's, MY's or CY's the first time, and checked new prints left by family and friends the second time, to see if they matched the foreign prints they recovered the first time?

[bookie]

AE, where is this documented?



It's in one of the warrants. I want to say the Feb 08 warrant. The abcdig one that was posted here awhile back.

[Cardinal]

It's in one of the warrants. I want to say the Feb 08 warrant. The abcdig one that was posted here awhile back.

I'd appreciate it if you could find it and point it out to me, because I looked and didn't see it.

[bookie]

I'd appreciate it if you could find it and point it out to me, because I looked and didn't see it.



I'm trying to find it but can't so far. I have to leave in an hour but I'm sure AE will have it when she logs on later. It's in one of the warrants, they talk about going back to check the furnitue for trace evidence.

[Cardinal]

I'm trying to find it but can't so far. I have to leave in an hour but I'm sure AE will have it when she logs on later. It's in one of the warrants, they talk about going back to check the furnitue for trace evidence.

And does it say that LE didn't check for any prints or other FE during the initial investigation?

[bookie]

And does it say that LE didn't check for any prints or other FE during the initial investigation?



I don't recall the exact wording but that was definitely the impression several people got. It definitely didn't say they had taken the evidence but lost it so I don't know of any other reason they'd need to go almost 18 months later to get trace evidence from furniture they'd had control of for almost 2 weeks.

Look at page 7 of the warrant you linked this morning. It talks about the detectives going to ask Pat Young about the furniture. I think it was in the warrant you linked but for some reason the rest now appears to be missing.

[Cardinal]

I don't recall the exact wording but that was definitely the impression several people got. It definitely didn't say they had taken the evidence but lost it so I don't know of any other reason they'd need to go almost 18 months later to get trace evidence from furniture they'd had control of for almost 2 weeks.

Look at page 7 of the warrant you linked this morning. It talks about the detectives going to ask Pat Young about the furniture. I think it was in the warrant you linked but for some reason the rest now appears to be missing.

I see in the SW I linked earlier that Pat Young was asked about "...the whereabouts of furniture and other items removed...." from Birchleaf, but I don't see anything about checking it for trace evidence. In fact, Pat's response led LE to the storage unit - and the SW for the storage unit doesn't show any furniture being seized.

[bookie]

Found it......page 6 of this warrant.

"In reviewing photographs and video from the scene and seeing the close proximity of the furniture, one can see the possibility that additional latent and trace evidence may still be contained in or on the surface of the furniture. If latent and/or trace evidence remains then there still exist a possibility that they can be collected and analyzed."


http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/08/12/3365337/1219081353-20080818133840861.pdf

[Cardinal]

Found it......page 6 of this warrant.

"In reviewing photographs and video from the scene and seeing the close proximity of the furniture, one can see the possibility that additional latent and trace evidence may still be contained in or on the surface of the furniture. If latent and/or trace evidence remains then there still exist a possibility that they can be collected and analyzed."


http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/08/12/3365337/1219081353-20080818133840861.pdf

Thanks, bookie, I appreciate it. It also says they needed to take photographs for scale. But it says "additional" latent and trace evidence, which implies to me that there WAS evidence taken during the initial investigation, which, after all of this, was my point. :)

[bookie]

Thanks, bookie, I appreciate it. It also says they needed to take photographs for scale. But it says "additional" latent and trace evidence, which implies to me that there WAS evidence taken during the initial investigation, which, after all of this, was my point. :)

It also says "If latent and/or trace evidence remains then there still exist a possibility that they can be collected and analyzed."


If they had taken trace evidence from the furniture they wouldn't need to take trace evidence again. They would already have it and would have analyzed it.

[Cardinal]

It also says "If latent and/or trace evidence remains then there still exist a possibility that they can be collected and analyzed."


If they had taken trace evidence from the furniture they wouldn't need to take trace evidence again. They would already have it and would have analyzed it.

But it says "additional". If there were no evidence taken the first time, there could be no "additional" evidence.

[bookie]

But it says "additional". If there were no evidence taken the first time, there could be no "additional" evidence.



They took photographs. Trace would be additional to the photo's already taken.

[Cardinal]

They took photographs. Trace would be additional to the photo's already taken.

The SW says "...additional latent and trace evidence...." [emphasis added]

Bookie, we can argue semantics endlessly, without agreeing. Either of us could be right.

The point I've been trying to make is that it was stated here, as FACT, that LE didn't check for prints or other FE during the initial investigation. And that isn't a FACT.

[bookie]

The SW says "...additional latent and trace evidence...." [emphasis added]

Bookie, we can argue semantics endlessly, without agreeing. Either of us could be right.

The point I've been trying to make is that it was stated here, as FACT, that LE didn't check for prints or other FE during the initial investigation. And that isn't a FACT.



I disagree. The fact that, almost 18 months later, they wanted to get latent and trace evidence from the furniture shows they didn't get it in the beginning.

[Cardinal]

I disagree. The fact that, almost 18 months later, they wanted to get latent and trace evidence from the furniture shows they didn't get it in the beginning.

You have your inference; I have mine.

[Silsbee]

So it would carry more weight with you if they looked for the shirt earlier?

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/08/12/3365337/1219081477-20080818133406629.pdf

"On November 4, 2006 investigators from the Wake County Sheriff's Office traveled to the Hampton Inn in Hillsville, Virginia. The investigators were able to obtain computer records of Jason Young checking in to the Hampton Inn on the night of November 2nd, 2006. In addition they were able to view a security video that showed Jason Young at the front desk and in the lobby area of the Hampton Inn...."

"After the Young's arrived at Ms. Fisher's home, and prior to Jason Young's Ford Explorer being unpacked, uniformed deputies arrived and secured the vehicle. A search warrant was obtained for the vehicle and the items found in the vehicle were seized. The dark colored long sleeve pullover garment with a lighter colored thin stripe bisecting the chest area was not among the items found in the vehicle."

LE knew what Jason was wearing on Nov 4 and they looked for the shirt while the SUV was still in their possession, Lindsey. How soon was that?

Good Morning Card, I was reading this same search warrant this morning going over what was said and done in regards to the shirt. I wonder why they never mention the pants? Is it just because they can't see them as clearly?? Is he missing a pair of pants? Ok, I digress.

According to Pat Young Jason exited his vehicle wearing a white shirt and dress pants and did not remove anything from his car while there. They all drove back in his car to Meredith's house. When they arrived LE detained his vehicle and Jason went inside Meredith's home. It is stated the shirt was not found in his vehicle.

It is possible that Jason put the sweater on while traveling back to Raleigh. Upon his arrival LE at that time did not know what he was wearing in the video at the Hillsville. There is no statement from Meredith as to what he was wearing when he arrived at her home - I wonder why? Did they ever bring up the sweater to Meredith prior to the Feb 08 warrants? Also in this warrant I find it a little odd Meredith was not asked to identify Jason in the Hillsville video? Why MM and not Meredith?

So bottom line - where is the shirt? They did not list it on the SW from the homes so where is it? After all of this time it could be gone for legitimate reasons or they overlooked it. I am curious if anyone ever saw him wear that shirt since Michelle's murder. Just Possibilities.

Sils

[Silsbee]

The SW says "...additional latent and trace evidence...." [emphasis added]

Bookie, we can argue semantics endlessly, without agreeing. Either of us could be right.

The point I've been trying to make is that it was stated here, as FACT, that LE didn't check for prints or other FE during the initial investigation. And that isn't a FACT.


I am reading the SW the same way Card. They are looking for more prints and trace evidence but I don't understand how they can get that after it has been moved from the crime scene and handled by different people. Also I am curious about what they saw in the photos and video that suggested there was more evidence to be collected. I wonder why they did not just take the bed frame and keep it until they were sure they had everything they needed? Just more questions I have.

Sils

[Cardinal]

Good Morning Card, I was reading this same search warrant this morning going over what was said and done in regards to the shirt. I wonder why they never mention the pants? Is it just because they can't see them as clearly?? Is he missing a pair of pants? Ok, I digress.

According to Pat Young Jason exited his vehicle wearing a white shirt and dress pants and did not remove anything from his car while there. They all drove back in his car to Meredith's house. When they arrived LE detained his vehicle and Jason went inside Meredith's home. It is stated the shirt was not found in his vehicle.

It is possible that Jason put the sweater on while traveling back to Raleigh. Upon his arrival LE at that time did not know what he was wearing in the video at the Hillsville. There is no statement from Meredith as to what he was wearing when he arrived at her home - I wonder why? Did they ever bring up the sweater to Meredith prior to the Feb 08 warrants? Also in this warrant I find it a little odd Meredith was not asked to identify Jason in the Hillsville video? Why MM and not Meredith?

So bottom line - where is the shirt? They did not list it on the SW from the homes so where is it? After all of this time it could be gone for legitimate reasons or they overlooked it. I am curious if anyone ever saw him wear that shirt since Michelle's murder. Just Possibilities.

Sils

Hi, Sils. I don't think there's anything distinguishing enough about Jason's pants to look for a specific pair. Not that I can see anyway.

Pat Young also states that Jason had his jacket slung over his shoulder when he arrived at her home. I would think that if he were going to put something on during the trip back, it would be his jacket. Why go searching through his luggage while they're in the car for a sweater when he had a jacket?

We don't know that there's no description from Meredith of Jason's clothing upon his arrival. We only know it hasn't been included in the PC for the SWs. As for Meredith not having been asked to identify Jason in the video, maybe LE wanted identification from someone whose objectivity wouldn't be questioned.

So the bottom line indeed is - where is the shirt? The fact that it apparently wasn't found in the Feb searches doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that he was wearing it that night in Hillsville, and it wasn't on his body when he arrived in Brevard or in his luggage when he arrived in Fuquay. Pat says nothing was removed from the car or left at her home, and you can bet that if she'd put that sweater on him during the trip, she'd have said so by now.

So why would the shirt disappear in that short period of time?

[Cardinal]

I am reading the SW the same way Card. They are looking for more prints and trace evidence but I don't understand how they can get that after it has been moved from the crime scene and handled by different people. Also I am curious about what they saw in the photos and video that suggested there was more evidence to be collected. I wonder why they did not just take the bed frame and keep it until they were sure they had everything they needed? Just more questions I have.

Sils

I don't know, Sils - I'm not a forensics expert so I don't know what they can find or when they can find it. I have questions about the way the beginning stages of this investigation were handled, too. And I think Leanne may be right that they are now trying to overcome early mistakes with an abundance of evidence.

[Silsbee]

Hi, Sils. I don't think there's anything distinguishing enough about Jason's pants to look for a specific pair. Not that I can see anyway.

Pat Young also states that Jason had his jacket slung over his shoulder when he arrived at her home. I would think that if he were going to put something on during the trip back, it would be his jacket. Why go searching through his luggage while they're in the car for a sweater when he had a jacket?

We don't know that there's no description from Meredith of Jason's clothing upon his arrival. We only know it hasn't been included in the PC for the SWs. As for Meredith not having been asked to identify Jason in the video, maybe LE wanted identification from someone whose objectivity wouldn't be questioned.

So the bottom line indeed is - where is the shirt? The fact that it apparently wasn't found in the Feb searches doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that he was wearing it that night in Hillsville, and it wasn't on his body when he arrived in Brevard or in his luggage when he arrived in Fuquay. Pat says nothing was removed from the car or left at her home, and you can bet that if she'd put that sweater on him during the trip, she'd have said so by now.

So why would the shirt disappear in that short period of time?

We don't know that the sweater was in his luggage. It may have been sitting on his seat in his vehicle. It may have been more comfortable to wear over his shirt than his jacket on the ride back. I realize we don't know if there is a description from Meredith but that was sort of my point. If Meredith also supported he was not wearing the sweater all the more reason to include her statement in the SW. It was just something I noticed and wondered about.

Short period of time? It was over a year later that they searched the homes for the sweater. Anything could have happened in a year's time. But I do agree with you - if the sweater in question is still around I would think Pat or Jason would make sure LE knew it or if it is gone would be looking through every picture taken of Jason since Michelle's murder hoping he was wearing it.

Sils

ETA: I think I misread your short period of time - did you mean from Nov 2nd to Nov 3rd?

[Cardinal]

We don't know that the sweater was in his luggage. It may have been sitting on his seat in his vehicle. It may have been more comfortable to wear over his shirt than his jacket on the ride back. I realize we don't know if there is a description from Meredith but that was sort of my point. If Meredith also supported he was not wearing the sweater all the more reason to include her statement in the SW. It was just something I noticed and wondered about.

Short period of time? It was over a year later that they searched the homes for the sweater. Anything could have happened in a year's time. But I do agree with you - if the sweater in question is still around I would think Pat or Jason would make sure LE knew it or if it is gone would be looking through every picture taken of Jason since Michelle's murder hoping he was wearing it.

Sils

ETA: I think I misread your short period of time - did you mean from Nov 2nd to Nov 3rd?

Yes, I meant from Nov 2nd to Nov 3rd. Why would the shirt disappear in little more than 24 hours?

[alterEgo©]

AE, where is this documented?
"In reviewing photographs and video from the scene and seeing the close proximity of the furniture, one can see the possibility that additional latent and trace evidence may still be contained in or on the the surface of the furniture. If latent and/or trace evidence remains then there still exists a possibility that the can be collected and analyzed."
http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/08/12/3365337/1219081353-20080818133840861.pdf

[Cardinal]

There still would have been signs of her blood had JY taken the time and trouble to shower in their house before leaving. That is if LE took the time and trouble to chemically test the shower in their house for blood. My first instinct was to think that it was definitely JY, but now I am not so sure. Once again, this was not a clean crime scene. There would have been dna all over the place on the victim and the perp. I am thinking that there was dna on MY, but LE could not identify it as JY's.



Don't you think Jason's DNA would be all over the place in his own bedroom and shower? And on Michelle?

And don't you find it strange that Jason's DNA was present in the blood spatter near the closet?

[alterEgo©]

Yes, I meant from Nov 2nd to Nov 3rd. Why would the shirt disappear in little more than 24 hours?Why did they wait a year and a half to look for it elsewhere?

[alterEgo©]

Don't you think Jason's DNA would be all over the place in his own bedroom and shower? And on Michelle?

And don't you find it strange that Jason's DNA was present in the blood spatter near the closet?It wasn't 'in' the blood splatter.

[Cardinal]

"In reviewing photographs and video from the scene and seeing the close proximity of the furniture, one can see the possibility that additional latent and trace evidence may still be contained in or on the the surface of the furniture. If latent and/or trace evidence remains then there still exists a possibility that the can be collected and analyzed."
http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/08/12/3365337/1219081353-20080818133840861.pdf

Hi, AE. Bookie found it for me earlier, but thanks.

[Cardinal]

Why did they wait a year and a half to look for it elsewhere?

I don't know, but it doesn't change the fact that it was missing the next night.

[Cardinal]

It wasn't 'in' the blood splatter.

Fine - "within" the blood spatter. I still find it strange.

[alterEgo©]

I disagree. The fact that, almost 18 months later, they wanted to get latent and trace evidence from the furniture shows they didn't get it in the beginning.
Absolutely. They are looking for additional FE that may be contained in or ON the surface of the furniture.

Additional to what? Well obviously, to what they collected from the crime scene already since they claim it will aid NCSBI in their scientific analysis of what was already collected.

[alterEgo©]

Fine - "within" the blood spatter. I still find it strange.Surrounded by, actually :tongue:. It is strange altho it could be nothing.

[Silsbee]

Yes, I meant from Nov 2nd to Nov 3rd. Why would the shirt disappear in little more than 24 hours?

What if it hadn't disappeared? There is no official statement from Meredith that he was not wearing it when he entered her home. It's still a possibility.

Sils

[alterEgo©]

Hi, AE. Bookie found it for me earlier, but thanks.I see that now, sorry for the duplication.

[Cardinal]

Surrounded by, actually :tongue:. It is strange altho it could be nothing.

LOL I've had my semantics argument for the day, AE!

Nothing maybe, or it could be used to place him at the scene.

[Cardinal]

What if it hadn't disappeared? There is no official statement from Meredith that he was not wearing it when he entered her home. It's still a possibility.

Sils

We haven't seen any official statement from Meredith at all, so I don't see how we can know one way or the other what she said about Jason's attire when he arrived.


ETA: If it hadn't disappeared, there's a strong possibility Jason could have used it to clear himself, IMO. It seems to me that he would want the sweater to be found more than anyone.

Edited again: If he's innocent.

[alterEgo©]

So it would carry more weight with you if they looked for the shirt earlier?

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/08/12/3365337/1219081477-20080818133406629.pdf

"On November 4, 2006 investigators from the Wake County Sheriff's Office traveled to the Hampton Inn in Hillsville, Virginia. The investigators were able to obtain computer records of Jason Young checking in to the Hampton Inn on the night of November 2nd, 2006. In addition they were able to view a security video that showed Jason Young at the front desk and in the lobby area of the Hampton Inn...."

"After the Young's arrived at Ms. Fisher's home, and prior to Jason Young's Ford Explorer being unpacked, uniformed deputies arrived and secured the vehicle. A search warrant was obtained for the vehicle and the items found in the vehicle were seized. The dark colored long sleeve pullover garment with a lighter colored thin stripe bisecting the chest area was not among the items found in the vehicle."

LE knew what Jason was wearing on Nov 4 and they looked for the shirt while the SUV was still in their possession, Lindsey. How soon was that?
The warrant for his SUV was executed at 3:30 in the morning on Nov 4th. They hadn't been to the Hampton Inn yet to see the video so they didn't know to look for the shirt.

The luggage is not listed as items seized, so when did they look for the shirt in his vehicle and luggage to draw the conclusion that it wasn't there?

[Cardinal]

The warrant for his SUV was executed at 3:30 in the morning on Nov 4th. They hadn't been to the Hampton Inn yet to see the video so they didn't know to look for the shirt.

The luggage is not listed as items seized, so when did they look for the shirt in his vehicle and luggage to draw the conclusion that it wasn't there?

Doesn't "seized" mean kept as evidence permanently? What was seized isn't necessarily the same as what was examined.

I remember reading a long time ago that LE kept the vehicle for quite some time. And I would certainly think that would be the case.

One of the items listed as seized was the receipt for the Hampton Inn on Nov 2nd. LE wasted no time getting up there, and I doubt they released the vehicle or its contents before seeing that video.

[alterEgo©]

We haven't seen any official statement from Meredith at all, so I don't see how we can know one way or the other what she said about Jason's attire when he arrived.


ETA: If it hadn't disappeared, there's a strong possibility Jason could have used it to clear himself, IMO. It seems to me that he would want the sweater to be found more than anyone.

Edited again: If he's innocent.Since LE waited a year and a half to search for it specifically, it could be argued that it was clothing he gave away or discarded as a matter of course.

It's inexcusible that they didn't look for the shirt after Jason set up residence with his sister right after the murder and instead waited over a year to do so.

[alterEgo©]

Doesn't "seized" mean kept as evidence permanently? What was seized isn't necessarily the same as what was examined.

I remember reading a long time ago that LE kept the vehicle for quite some time. And I would certainly think that would be the case.

One of the items listed as seized was the receipt for the Hampton Inn on Nov 2nd. LE wasted no time getting up there, and I doubt they released the vehicle or its contents before seeing that video.No, they listed the Rx's of Jason's parents and returned their meds to them at a later time. They also listed the wallet w/keys. 'Seized' is items they take and give receipt to the owner of the item - it can mean they will keep it until trial or until they determine it isn't of evidentiary value anymore or until they are requested to return the item to the owner.

Yes, they had the vehicle until Jan '07.

But they don't list the luggage as being seized.

[Cardinal]

Since LE waited a year and a half to search for it specifically, it could be argued that it was clothing he gave away or discarded as a matter of course.

It's inexcusible that they didn't look for the shirt after Jason set up residence with his sister right after the murder and instead waited over a year to do so.

Why wasn't it among his possessions when he arrived in Fuquay the next night?

[Silsbee]

We haven't seen any official statement from Meredith at all, so I don't see how we can know one way or the other what she said about Jason's attire when he arrived.


ETA: If it hadn't disappeared, there's a strong possibility Jason could have used it to clear himself, IMO. It seems to me that he would want the sweater to be found more than anyone.

Edited again: If he's innocent.

I'm not stating any facts - just pointing out possibilities. I agree that he would want LE to know if it was still around.

Sils

[Silsbee]

Why wasn't it among his possessions when he arrived in Fuquay the next night?


He was wearing it? :smile:

Sils

Sorry Card - couldn't help myself.

[Cardinal]

He was wearing it? :smile:

Sils

Sorry Card - couldn't help myself.

LOL I understand, Sils!

Wouldn't it be lovely if it were that simple? But I don't think it is.

[Silsbee]

LOL I understand, Sils!

Wouldn't it be lovely if it were that simple? But I don't think it is.

Unfortunately, there is nothing simple about this case. Two years and counting.

Sils

(Have a good day - going to spend some time with the kids)

[Leanne Weich]

I think we're all getting hung up on semantics relating to the SWs. I spoke to my b-i-l about the wording of PC affidavits in SWs and he said that invariably not a hell of a lot of thought goes into the wording. Apparently, as long as the meat and bones of the evidence is put down to ensure they get the warrant, that is all that counts.

He did say that this seems a classic case of many mistakes being made early on where because of all the evidence at the scene, CSIs probably thought there'd be an enormous amount of evidence and they may well have overlooked some very basic things to preserve.

He also said that he thought LE could think JY had help and they may have a piece of unidentified FE from the scene and going back to the furniture so much later could be to see if whoever helped move the furniture might in fact have been JY's accomplice.

[alterEgo©]

Sorry, I'm not hung up on semantics. It's patently obvious that not only did CCBI fail to provide a source of measurement on the bathroom tile pictures, they failed to do the same with pictures of the bedroom furniture. And they didn't bother to gather any FE from the furniture and WSCO had to send the SBI back once more to try to rectify the situation.

The only excuse for CCBI not collecting anything and everything is incompetence.

And I agree with your BIL to a point. Yes, the minimal amt of info needed to support PC is included - that doesn't mean they can just make things up or mislead the court.

That being said, I reserve the right to be wrong.

[Cardinal]

I think we're all getting hung up on semantics relating to the SWs. I spoke to my b-i-l about the wording of PC affidavits in SWs and he said that invariably not a hell of a lot of thought goes into the wording. Apparently, as long as the meat and bones of the evidence is put down to ensure they get the warrant, that is all that counts.

He did say that this seems a classic case of many mistakes being made early on where because of all the evidence at the scene, CSIs probably thought there'd be an enormous amount of evidence and they may well have overlooked some very basic things to preserve.

He also said that he thought LE could think JY had help and they may have a piece of unidentified FE from the scene and going back to the furniture so much later could be to see if whoever helped move the furniture might in fact have been JY's accomplice.


Oh, no! You mean I don't get to argue the exact meaning of every word any more?? LOL

Seriously, Leanne, thank you for sharing your BIL's insight and experience. I've said before that it seemed to me that the content and tone of the SWs varied according to their respective authors.

I find his thoughts about the furniture particularly interesting. I wonder what they found?

[Barbara2]

Oh, no! You mean I don't get to argue the exact meaning of every word any more?? LOL

Seriously, Leanne, thank you for sharing your BIL's insight and experience. I've said before that it seemed to me that the content and tone of the SWs varied according to their respective authors.

I find his thoughts about the furniture particularly interesting. I wonder what they found?

All I know is that whatever they found seemed to keep leading them back to Jason. Also, Spivey believes based on all the evidence that Jason is responsible for the murder. MO.

[Cardinal]

All I know is that whatever they found seemed to keep leading them back to Jason. Also, Spivey believes based on all the evidence that Jason is responsible for the murder. MO.

That's true. The SW to examine the furniture was executed nearly a year ago, and all of the SWs since then have focused on Jason.

[achristie]

I think we're all getting hung up on semantics relating to the SWs. I spoke to my b-i-l about the wording of PC affidavits in SWs and he said that invariably not a hell of a lot of thought goes into the wording. Apparently, as long as the meat and bones of the evidence is put down to ensure they get the warrant, that is all that counts.

He did say that this seems a classic case of many mistakes being made early on where because of all the evidence at the scene, CSIs probably thought there'd be an enormous amount of evidence and they may well have overlooked some very basic things to preserve.

He also said that he thought LE could think JY had help and they may have a piece of unidentified FE from the scene and going back to the furniture so much later could be to see if whoever helped move the furniture might in fact have been JY's accomplice.

Leanne, always the voice of reason. Semantics being the ony thing that has kept this discussion/argument alive at IS, IMO. The bottom line is that all roads lead to the husband, JY. No matter how you spin it or parse it, it is what it is. Not the sister, not the mother, not an intruder.

MOO Aggie

[Silsbee]

I think we're all getting hung up on semantics relating to the SWs. I spoke to my b-i-l about the wording of PC affidavits in SWs and he said that invariably not a hell of a lot of thought goes into the wording. Apparently, as long as the meat and bones of the evidence is put down to ensure they get the warrant, that is all that counts.

He did say that this seems a classic case of many mistakes being made early on where because of all the evidence at the scene, CSIs probably thought there'd be an enormous amount of evidence and they may well have overlooked some very basic things to preserve.

He also said that he thought LE could think JY had help and they may have a piece of unidentified FE from the scene and going back to the furniture so much later could be to see if whoever helped move the furniture might in fact have been JY's accomplice.


"In reviewing photographs and video from the scene and seeing the close proximity of the furniture, one can see the possibility that additional latent and trace evidence may still be contained in or on the the surface of the furniture. If latent and/or trace evidence remains then there still exists a possibility that the can be collected and analyzed."

It does not sound like they are looking for evidence that was placed on the furniture after the fact. I could be wrong but I don't know how obtaining fingerprints from the furniture a year later can help their case. I'm not trying to be argumentative - I honestly don't understand how they can go back after it has been handled by others and prove when those prints got there.

Did they see something in particular (that showed up in the pics) like they did with the deck prints?

Sils

[Cardinal]

"In reviewing photographs and video from the scene and seeing the close proximity of the furniture, one can see the possibility that additional latent and trace evidence may still be contained in or on the the surface of the furniture. If latent and/or trace evidence remains then there still exists a possibility that the can be collected and analyzed."

It does not sound like they are looking for evidence that was placed on the furniture after the fact. I could be wrong but I don't know how obtaining fingerprints from the furniture a year later can help their case. I'm not trying to be argumentative - I honestly don't understand how they can go back after it has been handled by others and prove when those prints got there.

Did they see something in particular (that showed up in the pics) like they did with the deck prints?

Sils

But what, Sils?

[Silsbee]

As easy as it is to conclude Jason is guilty I still have questions. It is not a matter of semantics, spin or parsing for me. I like to read and analyze the SW's to see if there is info or lack of info that may explain some of the evidence against him.

"Jason did it" is already covered - I want to look at the other side too. There is a reason he has not been arrested.

Sils

[Silsbee]

But what, Sils?


Good question Card. I can't imagine what it could be but they went back for something and it sounds like it was something they could see but maybe I'm reading too much into it as has been suggested. LOL

Sils

[Cardinal]

Good question Card. I can't imagine what it could be but they went back for something and it sounds like it was something they could see but maybe I'm reading too much into it as has been suggested. LOL

Sils

In reading it again, it refers to the "close proximity of the furniture". Maybe LE thought that some kind of trace evidence was trapped on a side surface?

[Kat4Eagles]

In reading it again, it refers to the "close proximity of the furniture". Maybe LE thought that some kind of trace evidence was trapped on a side surface?

Hey..:)

In all investigations ,something is going to be missed or overlooked at some point....

But, if the rest of the evidence is strong enough and has been handled properly, there should not be any problems.

We have have spent days , weeks, months, years here wondering what the hold up is in this case.

Clearly, something is wrong, and has been for some time.

When I argue that point, I am told repeatedly that the DA just needs more time to build a stronger case.

It is finally good to see that some people are starting to come around and realize that not only were mistakes were made, but those mistakes may even be crucial enough to prevent an arrest from ever happening.

This is the result of focusing on Jason Young, and Jason Young only.


JMO
Kat

[achristie]

As easy as it is to conclude Jason is guilty I still have questions. It is not a matter of semantics, spin or parsing for me. I like to read and analyze the SW's to see if there is info or lack of info that may explain some of the evidence against him.

"Jason did it" is already covered - I want to look at the other side too. There is a reason he has not been arrested.

Sils

The reason it is easy to conclude that JY is guilty is, for me, based on the evidence as we know it thus far. I will agree that the evidence is sparse, yet it all leads back to him. This board and it's discussion has everything to do with semantics, spin and parsing. That may apply to you or it may not. We all like to read and analyze each and every detail and nuance. You are no different in that respect. I believe the reason he has not been arrested is possibly due to poor police work in the beginning. I don't believe, as perhaps you do, that it points to anyone else being the murderer. The concern I have is that JY may just get away with murder. May satisfy his supporters but certainly leaves me unsettled. Just sayin' MOO Aggie

[Kat4Eagles]

That's true. The SW to examine the furniture was executed nearly a year ago, and all of the SWs since then have focused on Jason.

But, still no arrest...:no:

Kat

[achristie]

Of course Jason's dna would have been everywhere around his home.I have not heard that JY's DNA was present in the blood spatter near the closet, (link please) but I do know that whomever killed MY has his/her dna under MY's fingernails in the form of skin as she fought. This is normal and a given in this sort of a circumstance. For example, anyone's significant other's dna is present near and on them, but scrapings of skin under their fingernails would not be normal under ordinary circumstances. Also, of course, JY's dna would be present in the shower, but if he had showered after committing this crime her blood spatters would be evident with the chemical LE uses to detect blood even when it is washed away. Even bleach can't remove the traces of blood if this chemical to detect it is used.

Scrapings under fingernails would not be normal ? Could you expound on this? Something I have wondered about since the beginning.
As for the blood in the shower? It was reported early on by an insider that there were blood swipes on all three walls of the shower in the master bath. We heard this early on , long before it was released via a search warrant.

[Silsbee]

The reason it is easy to conclude that JY is guilty is, for me, based on the evidence as we know it thus far. I will agree that the evidence is sparse, yet it all leads back to him. This board and it's discussion has everything to do with semantics, spin and parsing. That may apply to you or it may not. We all like to read and analyze each and every detail and nuance. You are no different in that respect. I believe the reason he has not been arrested is possibly due to poor police work in the beginning. I don't believe, as perhaps you do, that it points to anyone else being the murderer. The concern I have is that JY may just get away with murder. May satisfy his supporters but certainly leaves me unsettled. Just sayin' MOO Aggie

I disagree with your assessment that the discussion on this board is only about spin, etc. I think my posts speak for themselves. I have always been respectful when posting on this board and others.

I understand why people believe he is guilty. I am open and willing to discuss other possibilities - that does not change the fact that Jason is the main suspect. If the reason he has not been arrested is due to poor police work then justice for Michelle and Rylan may never come and that would truly be a tragedy.

Sils

[annalyzer]

Scrapings under fingernails would not be normal ? Could you expound on this? Something I have wondered about since the beginning.
As for the blood in the shower? It was reported early on by an insider that there were blood swipes on all three walls of the shower in the master bath. We heard this early on , long before it was released via a search warrant.

I think DesertDreams means scrapings of the spouse's skin would not be a normal thing.

[Cardinal]

Of course Jason's dna would have been everywhere around his home.I have not heard that JY's DNA was present in the blood spatter near the closet, (link please) but I do know that whomever killed MY has his/her dna under MY's fingernails in the form of skin as she fought. This is normal and a given in this sort of a circumstance. For example, anyone's significant other's dna is present near and on them, but scrapings of skin under their fingernails would not be normal under ordinary circumstances. Also, of course, JY's dna would be present in the shower, but if he had showered after committing this crime her blood spatters would be evident with the chemical LE uses to detect blood even when it is washed away. Even bleach can't remove the traces of blood if this chemical to detect it is used.

Link provided:

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/08/12/3365337/1219081477-20080818133406629.pdf

[Lindsey]

New thread started. Come on over. Bring any posts you want to continue discussing.

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=347731