Michelle Fisher Young 4-1-09

[jerry50]

Right.......and in the year 2050 when Jason is in his 80s and Linda Fisher is older (and hopefully still around) and in the absence of any new information and Jason still legally innocent, you'd be able to make the exact same statement wouldn't you?

If JY hasn't been tried and convicted by the year 2050 how much of the $15+M do you think he will have paid Linda?
I wonder how long his Mom will allow him to stay at her house unemployed and not paying a dime for room and board?

[gbmy]

If JY hasn't been tried and convicted by the year 2050 how much of the $15+M do you think he will have paid Linda?
I wonder how long his Mom will allow him to stay at her house unemployed and not paying a dime for room and board?
I don't know the answers to your questions. My point was that in the absence of new information, people who believe he's guilty will continue to talk about there being no rush, no statute of limitations, etc. etc. You can always say that. Assume that Det. Spivey's belief that Jason killed his wife is based on a 95% confidence level. Let's further assume he/the DA wants it to be 99% before making an arrest. If they don't hit 99% until the year 2050 and arrest a then 80 year old Jason Young would they have done the right thing by waiting? Or, would it be better to make the move now when he's much younger and your 'belief' in his guilt is almost as strong? Your answer is?

[Doorbell]

I don't know the answers to your questions. My point was that in the absence of new information, people who believe he's guilty will continue to talk about there being no rush, no statute of limitations, etc. etc. You can always say that. Assume that Det. Spivey's belief that Jason killed his wife is based on a 95% confidence level. Let's further assume he/the DA wants it to be 99% before making an arrest. If they don't hit 99% until the year 2050 and arrest a then 80 year old Jason Young would they have done the right thing by waiting? Or, would it be better to make the move now when he's much younger and your 'belief' in his guilt is almost as strong? Your answer is?

My answer (though you didn't ask me) would be that I have every confidence that the DA will decide to go with what he has long before 2050. For one, he would probably have retired from his office by then; indeed, from life itself.

IMO

[gbmy]

My answer (though you didn't ask me) would be that I have every confidence that the DA will decide to go with what he has long before 2050. For one, he would probably have retired from his office by then; indeed, from life itself.

IMO
Yeah, problem is, we don't know their confidence level in the strength of the evidence they currently have. What we do know is that it is weaker than what LE/the DA wants. We just don't know the degree of weakness.

[BeachMeAgain]

I don't know the answers to your questions. My point was that in the absence of new information, people who believe he's guilty will continue to talk about there being no rush, no statute of limitations, etc. etc. You can always say that. Assume that Det. Spivey's belief that Jason killed his wife is based on a 95% confidence level. Let's further assume he/the DA wants it to be 99% before making an arrest. If they don't hit 99% until the year 2050 and arrest a then 80 year old Jason Young would they have done the right thing by waiting? Or, would it be better to make the move now when he's much younger and your 'belief' in his guilt is almost as strong? Your answer is?

IMO, make the move now if all of the dna tests, financial records, etc. are back. Some days I think that if there was a different DA, the discussion would be about the trial and not the search warrants over and over. Having said that, only those that have seen all the evidence really know the answer as far as waiting or not, but they don't know what a jury will do either so there you go. There is no answer, only speculation.

[Jules2]

Where is your proof Jason didn't want his children? He wasn't forced to marry Michelle. By all accounts, he loves his daughter. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that he didn't also love his son.


My statement was in reply to the one you made claiming that a woman engages in consensual sex and lies about her use of birth control, when asked how a woman deliberately gets herself pregnant.

It would seem to me that you are suggesting Michelle could have done this as well. If you noticed, I used the word "if" when discussing whether or not Jason wanted any more children. In fact, I used the word twice. I did not state it as fact.


Where's your proof that he did want children?

The only one to survive was conceived out of wedlock and quite possibly the reason why Jason and Michelle got married. Of course we may never know this for sure since a wedding hadn't been in the planning prior to Michelle becoming pregnant.


This is also the same child he used on the inter net to get dates, clearly showed a lack of patience with, kept from her grandmother and Auntie for a very long period of time and gave away primary custody of all in the name of his constitutional rights.

Oh, and if there is anything Jason loves more than his daughter, it's himself and his love of silence. IMO

[gbmy]

IMO, make the move now if all of the dna tests, financial records, etc. are back. Some days I think that if there was a different DA, the discussion would be about the trial and not the search warrants over and over. Having said that, only those that have seen all the evidence really know the answer as far as waiting or not, but they don't know what a jury will do either so there you go. There is no answer, only speculation.
I agree with you wholeheartedly

[Jester]

Why would anyone expect there to be blood in the car? Michelle was not removed from the house, and Jason could have showered before leaving the house. It's like saying that there's no blood in the kitchen, so Jason couldn't have done it.

[kingbuff]

Why would anyone expect there to be blood in the car? Michelle was not removed from the house, and Jason could have showered before leaving the house. It's like saying that there's no blood in the kitchen, so Jason couldn't have done it.

Who said there was no blood in the kitchen?

[5swab5]

No, the search warrants do not plainly state that the shirt was not in Jason's car when he returned to Raleigh. That's just more of YOUR spin.

Where's your proof that LE doesn't NOW know the whereabouts of the shirt or shoes?

I'll go with the fact Jason hasn't been arrested as proof the shirt/shoes are NOW a non-issue, thanks.

You mean the original shirt or a shirt that Jason's mommie has since bought to take its place? It is perfectly obvious from the SWs that the shirt was not with Jason when he returned to Raleigh. All we have is Pat's :cough: word :cough: that he didn't remove anything from the vehicle in Brevard, so where's the shirt?

Was that another lie to cover up, like the lame one about the $500.00 in cash in a new wallet in Jason's closet... was that meant to counter the feelings that Jason was irresponsible in paying for a trip for his side of the family, when he and Michelle were having money troubles? Was the $500.00 supposed to undo what witness "A" & "B" told detectives? I think not.

Apple didn't fall far from that tree. Pat Young seems to think that the rest of the population is as gullible as she is. MOO

[Jester]

Who said there was no blood in the kitchen?

Search warrants have identified the scene and the evidence. There is no mention of the kitchen.

[Cardinal]

You mean the original shirt or a shirt that Jason's mommie has since bought to take its place? It is perfectly obvious from the SWs that the shirt was not with Jason when he returned to Raleigh. All we have is Pat's :cough: word :cough: that he didn't remove anything from the vehicle in Brevard, so where's the shirt?

Was that another lie to cover up, like the lame one about the $500.00 in cash in a new wallet in Jason's closet... was that meant to counter the feelings that Jason was irresponsible in paying for a trip for his side of the family, when he and Michelle were having money troubles? Was the $500.00 supposed to undo what witness "A" & "B" told detectives? I think not.

Apple didn't fall far from that tree. Pat Young seems to think that the rest of the population is as gullible as she is. MOO


I don't think Pat Young is any more gullible than the rest of the population. I think Jason is the center of HER universe, and that his needs and wishes are more important to her than anything else, including her own integrity.

JMO

[gbmy]

Why would anyone expect there to be blood in the car? Michelle was not removed from the house, and Jason could have showered before leaving the house. It's like saying that there's no blood in the kitchen, so Jason couldn't have done it.
Put it this way, there is no clear, unambiguous forensic evidence released into the public domain that was found anywhere to link Jason to this crime. They talked about 'something that appeared to be a drop of blood' outside and in the car, but no information further clarifying that was made available. In one of the SWs they talked about his DNA being in the 'surrounding areas' of blood found in their bedroom. (or something like that.....I'm too lazy to look it up. Maybe someone can provide an exact link if they think the jist of this is different).

Again, only going on the things we know that are in the public domain, the lack of forensic evidence and the inability to prove he left the hotel is a real problem. Yeah, we've all heard the just used his keycard once, caught on video walking towards an exit, and rock in the door thing, but that is 'weaker' evidence than if someone saw him during those unaccounted for hours or video showed him leaving the hotel. Stuff like this is the difference between probably cause and reasonable doubt. Now, if they have compelling evidence in both of these areas and are not arresting him......well, then you can simply say what you can always say "they are waiting until they have every shred of evidence they can get so that they are "sure". Easy to say and always true.

If anyone has a link that clearly (without ambiguity) describes forensic evidence linking Jason to this crime, please post it.

[trucrime]

JMO but LE hasnt told us everything and Im quite certain they have more evidence against Jason than they've told the public via released SW's. JMO.

[trucrime]

I don't think Pat Young is any more gullible than the rest of the population. I think Jason is the center of HER universe, and that his needs and wishes are more important to her than anything else, including her own integrity.

JMO

28 calls! It'll be interesting to see how that comes out at trial. IMO.

[trucrime]

If JY hasn't been tried and convicted by the year 2050 how much of the $15+M do you think he will have paid Linda?
I wonder how long his Mom will allow him to stay at her house unemployed and not paying a dime for room and board?

Linda will probably get a tiny bit of money from the townhouse but somehow I dont think Jason will be paying her willingly. IMO.

[5swab5]

Put it this way, there is no clear, unambiguous forensic evidence released into the public domain that was found anywhere to link Jason to this crime. They talked about 'something that appeared to be a drop of blood' outside and in the car, but no information further clarifying that was made available. In one of the SWs they talked about his DNA being in the 'surrounding areas' of blood found in their bedroom. (or something like that.....I'm too lazy to look it up. Maybe someone can provide an exact link if they think the jist of this is different).

Again, only going on the things we know that are in the public domain, the lack of forensic evidence and the inability to prove he left the hotel is a real problem. Yeah, we've all heard the just used his keycard once, caught on video walking towards an exit, and rock in the door thing, but that is 'weaker' evidence than if someone saw him during those unaccounted for hours or video showed him leaving the hotel. Stuff like this is the difference between probably cause and reasonable doubt. Now, if they have compelling evidence in both of these areas and are not arresting him......well, then you can simply say what you can always say "they are waiting until they have every shred of evidence they can get so that they are "sure". Easy to say and always true.

If anyone has a link that clearly (without ambiguity) describes forensic evidence linking Jason to this crime, please post it.

There isn't always forensic evidence, especially when the crime occurs in one's own home. Conversely, if Jason did not do this, where IS all the foreign DNA? Everyone realizes that there was a battle in that bedroom, thousands of skin cells should have been shed, there is evidence that the culprit took a shower, where is the foreign DNA? There is evidence that the murderer cleaned up Cassidy in the other bathroom, where is the foreign DNA?

There isn't always an eyewitness, a video or a confession to a crime. This will be a Circumstantial evidence case, it will rely on 12 jurors using their God given reasoning powers and absent a stealth juror that thinks the sun rises and sets in Jason, Justice will prevail and he will be carted off to Central Prison. MOO

[trucrime]

If Michelle thought her husband was "cold and uncaring" why did she continue to live with him and want to have additional children with him?

We havent heard what was contained within the therapists notes. She may well have thought that. In terms of having additional children, maybe she got pregnant on accident, who knows. Maybe she was having problems with Jason's behavior but continued in the marriage, for now, for Cassidy/Rylan's sake. It will be interesting to see what is released from those notes. IMO.

[gbmy]

JMO but LE hasnt told us everything and Im quite certain they have more evidence against Jason than they've told the public via released SW's. JMO.

I agree with you......Not sure anyone would disagree. You see, there are 2 types of discussions and both are 'fair game' to engage in as long as all parties engaged recognize it for what it is.

1. Discussions that involve sharing opinions that directly tie to a fact (ie 'official' public domain info for example SWs). An example of this would be...Jason must have been at Birchleaf drive in the wee hours of the morning on the night of the murder (opinion) because they have video of him leaving the hotel (fact).

2. Discussions that involve sharing opinions based on an opinion of a fact(s). For example, Jason must have been at Birchleaf drive in the wee hours of the morning on the night of the murder (opinion #1), because he most likely left the hotel (opinion #2) as shown by him only using his keycard once/walking 'towards' an exit/the presence of a rock in the door (fact).

I like to refer to discussion type 2 as 'nested speculation' which a jury would tend to find as weaker evidence vs. non-nested speculation which is stronger, more compelling evidence. The big problem here is, LE can only come to some conclusion on key points they will need to prove (ie did he leave the hotel?) based on nested speculation.

My non-nested opinion is that LE can only offer nested opinions to prove key points such as did he leave the hotel (my opinion) which is why they have not arrested him (fact).

[gbmy]

There isn't always forensic evidence, especially when the crime occurs in one's own home. Conversely, if Jason did not do this, where IS all the foreign DNA? Everyone realizes that there was a battle in that bedroom, thousands of skin cells should have been shed, there is evidence that the culprit took a shower, where is the foreign DNA? There is evidence that the murderer cleaned up Cassidy in the other bathroom, where is the foreign DNA?

There isn't always an eyewitness, a video or a confession to a crime. This will be a Circumstantial evidence case, it will rely on 12 jurors using their God given reasoning powers and absent a stealth juror that thinks the sun rises and sets in Jason, Justice will prevail and he will be carted off to Central Prison. MOO
No doubt, it's possible for a jury of 12 to render a guilty verdict based on lots of CE. It's happened in other cases. This one is no exception. But, I believe Jason will remain a legally innocent man (only a divine source will truly know if legally=definitely, 100%) due to the reliance on CE......and, the nested speculation one needs to apply to it to prove key points.

[reborn]

There isn't always forensic evidence, especially when the crime occurs in one's own home. Conversely, if Jason did not do this, where IS all the foreign DNA? Everyone realizes that there was a battle in that bedroom, thousands of skin cells should have been shed, there is evidence that the culprit took a shower, where is the foreign DNA? There is evidence that the murderer cleaned up Cassidy in the other bathroom, where is the foreign DNA?

There isn't always an eyewitness, a video or a confession to a crime. This will be a Circumstantial evidence case, it will rely on 12 jurors using their God given reasoning powers and absent a stealth juror that thinks the sun rises and sets in Jason, Justice will prevail and he will be carted off to Central Prison. MOO


What foreign DNA? I guess you forgot about the I moved a pillow should I not touch anything else? Just a little refresher lest people forget I have 2 suspects on my list.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/audio/1119462/

[Jules2]

What foreign DNA? I guess you forgot about the I moved a pillow should I not touch anything else? Just a little refresher lest people forget I have 2 suspects on my list.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/audio/1119462/


Then I guess some foreign DNA would be on a pillow. Hardly the murder weapon and hardly anything LE would find suspicious especially if that same "foreign" DNA wasn't found amongst the blood splatter on the walls or in the bathroom or on the bottles of adult medications in Cassidy's room.


IMO

[reborn]

Then I guess some foreign DNA would be on a pillow. Hardly the murder weapon and hardly anything LE would find suspicious especially if that same "foreign" DNA wasn't found amongst the blood splatter on the walls or in the bathroom or on the bottles of adult medications in Cassidy's room.


IMO

We don't know where that DNA was found. LE was suspicious are they still ?

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/12/05/4083955/1228504020-20081205131306653.pdf

[5swab5]

No doubt, it's possible for a jury of 12 to render a guilty verdict based on lots of CE. It's happened in other cases. This one is no exception. But, I believe Jason will remain a legally innocent man (only a divine source will truly know if legally=definitely, 100%) due to the reliance on CE......and, the nested speculation one needs to apply to it to prove key points.

Contrary to what you would like to believe, Circumstantial Evidence cases are very powerful, in fact most of the cases that are overturned were Direct Evidence cases. A jury will not ignore the hundreds of pieces of the puzzle that point to Jason, they will not make excuse after excuse for him.

Unlike some on this board, a jury will not have to see it rain, to know that it did. MOO

[Jester]

Put it this way, there is no clear, unambiguous forensic evidence released into the public domain that was found anywhere to link Jason to this crime. They talked about 'something that appeared to be a drop of blood' outside and in the car, but no information further clarifying that was made available. In one of the SWs they talked about his DNA being in the 'surrounding areas' of blood found in their bedroom. (or something like that.....I'm too lazy to look it up. Maybe someone can provide an exact link if they think the jist of this is different).

Again, only going on the things we know that are in the public domain, the lack of forensic evidence and the inability to prove he left the hotel is a real problem. Yeah, we've all heard the just used his keycard once, caught on video walking towards an exit, and rock in the door thing, but that is 'weaker' evidence than if someone saw him during those unaccounted for hours or video showed him leaving the hotel. Stuff like this is the difference between probably cause and reasonable doubt. Now, if they have compelling evidence in both of these areas and are not arresting him......well, then you can simply say what you can always say "they are waiting until they have every shred of evidence they can get so that they are "sure". Easy to say and always true.

If anyone has a link that clearly (without ambiguity) describes forensic evidence linking Jason to this crime, please post it.

Before the invention of CSI TV shows, and DNA analysis, the guilty were still found guilty. Believe it or not, circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict the guilty. We can sit around and pretend that forensic evidence is necessary, but that's not true.

There are cases where a vehicle similar to one owned by the suspect, and shoe prints similar to those worn by the suspect, are considered valid circumstantial evidence. The color of a car at night is not as important as the style. I think there is a strong case against Jason at this time, but it's possible that additional evidence is not yet analyzed, or that new information continues to be reported. Many friends that initially considered Jason innocent may be rethinking their opinion, and may be adding to their original police statements. The evidence has become stronger over time, and Jason's status has changed from not a suspect, to person of interest, to prime suspect. The length of time it takes to investigate a murder is not related to the guilt or innocence of the suspect. Jason is most likely guilty, and during the last 2.5 years evidence has promoted him to the position of "slayer." It may take another year, or another five years, but eventually there will be enough evidence, circumstantial or forensic, for a first degree murder conviction.

As for the forensic evidence, Jason's DNA is in the blood on the wall at the murder scene but, as with all spousal homicides, there is an alternate explanation.

[Jester]

FYI: Forensic evidence and circumstantial evidence are one and the same thing.

DNA IS circumstantial evidence; bloody footprints are circumstantial evidence and there is a bloody shoeprint of a Franklin shoe that has not been tied to Jason Young.

Jason isn't going to be carted off anywhere if the DA can't prove opportunity.

Circumstantial evidence and forensic evidence are not one and the same. Forensic evidence is a category of circumstantial evidence pertaining to blood, DNA, etcetera. Circumstantial evidence also includes direct evidence, but is the sum of facts inferring a conclusion.

[Jules2]

Yet again, you are wrong. There are two types of evidence, circumstantial and direct. Read this slowly and maybe it will sink in:



http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/direct-evidence.html
The two types of evidence used in court proceedings are direct evidence and circumstantial evidence.

You are also confused about forensic evidence, which falls under the category of circumstantial evidence ALWAYS because it is presented in the form of an expert's opinion, such as the autopsy report.

http://www.communicatingjustice.org/en/glossary
FORENSIC EVIDENCE
This is evidence that is obtained by the application of scientific methods and is susceptible to use in court proceedings; examples include medical evidence such as obtained through DNA testing or pathological examination of a deceased person found in a mass grave, and evidence from a ballistics expert.

I believe Jester clearly stated that forensic evidence was a category of circumstantial evidence. You just stated the same: "falls under the category of circumstantial evidence". So where is Jester wrong?

[Jester]

Yet again, you are wrong. There are two types of evidence, circumstantial and direct. Read this slowly and maybe it will sink in:



http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/direct-evidence.html
The two types of evidence used in court proceedings are direct evidence and circumstantial evidence.

You are also confused about forensic evidence, which falls under the category of circumstantial evidence ALWAYS because it is presented in the form of an expert's opinion, such as the autopsy report.

http://www.communicatingjustice.org/en/glossary
FORENSIC EVIDENCE
This is evidence that is obtained by the application of scientific methods and is susceptible to use in court proceedings; examples include medical evidence such as obtained through DNA testing or pathological examination of a deceased person found in a mass grave, and evidence from a ballistics expert.

That is what I said: that forensic evidence is a category of circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence can be a category of circumstantial evidence. Seeing someone entering a residence at the time of the murder falls under both direct and circumstantial, depending on other evidence.

Stating that they are "one and the same" (your statement) is further from the truth than stating one is a category of the other.

[Jester]

Jason's DNA was not "in the blood on the wall at the murder scene."

You can continue to spin and misrepresent facts for the next five years--and I have no doubt you will--but if opportunity can't be proved, it's a waste of your time.

I'm afraid it was: "In affidavits supporting the request for the search warrants, released Monday, investigators state that DNA in blood spatter on a bedroom wall near where Michelle Young's body was found matched Jason Young's."

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3401466/

[Cardinal]

I agree with you......Not sure anyone would disagree. You see, there are 2 types of discussions and both are 'fair game' to engage in as long as all parties engaged recognize it for what it is.

1. Discussions that involve sharing opinions that directly tie to a fact (ie 'official' public domain info for example SWs). An example of this would be...Jason must have been at Birchleaf drive in the wee hours of the morning on the night of the murder (opinion) because they have video of him leaving the hotel (fact).

2. Discussions that involve sharing opinions based on an opinion of a fact(s). For example, Jason must have been at Birchleaf drive in the wee hours of the morning on the night of the murder (opinion #1), because he most likely left the hotel (opinion #2) as shown by him only using his keycard once/walking 'towards' an exit/the presence of a rock in the door (fact).

I like to refer to discussion type 2 as 'nested speculation' which a jury would tend to find as weaker evidence vs. non-nested speculation which is stronger, more compelling evidence. The big problem here is, LE can only come to some conclusion on key points they will need to prove (ie did he leave the hotel?) based on nested speculation.

My non-nested opinion is that LE can only offer nested opinions to prove key points such as did he leave the hotel (my opinion) which is why they have not arrested him (fact).

I like this concept, gbmy - nested speculation and non-nested speculation.

[Jester]

Forensic evidence is ALWAYS circumstantial evidence, it is NEVER direct evidence.

The link clearly states there are two types of evidence at trial: direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence is never a category of circumstantial evidence. Never.

Perhaps someone else can put it in simpler terms that you can grasp.:rolleyes:


http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-sourc...-evidence.html

The two types of evidence used in court proceedings are direct evidence and circumstantial evidence.

Yes, forensic evidence is always circumstantial evidence. It is a category of circumstantial evidence. Forensic evidence and circumstantial evidence are not "one and the same."

A vehicle similar in style to Jason's was seen at the scene. That is circumstantial evidence. If Jason was seen at the scene, and the murder was known to happen at that time, Jason's vehicle at the scene would be direct evidence.

[Jester]

Instead of regurgitating erroneous media stories, try reading the affidavit yourself:

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/08/12/3365337/1219081417-20080818133617555.pdf

"The area, which was in close proximity to the victim and surrounded by what appeared to be blood spatter, was described as a possible print."

I don't regurgitate.

DNA matching Jason's DNA was found in blood at the scene. You are welcome to post other information, but it does not negate this fact.

[Jester]

You are still wrong.

Forensic evidence IS always circumstantial evidence. Just as a duck is always a duck whether it be mallard or Mandarin.

No, the vehicle seen by the witness is not circumstantial evidence, it is direct evidence.

Why are you repeating what I have posted several times?

A vehicle at a scene is only direct evidence if it connects to other evidence identifying a suspect. The vehicle alone is not direct evidence.

[Jester]

I just posted a link that proves you are wrong. :rolleyes:

Although it seems important to you to prove me wrong, you have only succeeded in repeating my comments several times, and linking to other evidence.:beer:

[reborn]

Linda will probably get a tiny bit of money from the townhouse but somehow I dont think Jason will be paying her willingly. IMO.
What difference does it make what LF gets? If she gets it all it doesn't bring her daughter back. It creeps me out to see posts about what LF is going to get.

[reborn]

Yeah, problem is, we don't know their confidence level in the strength of the evidence they currently have. What we do know is that it is weaker than what LE/the DA wants. We just don't know the degree of weakness.


All the latest warrants have been for paper trails of Jason. I don't believe LE is going to strengthen their case with a paper trail. I wonder if LE thinks they may find other leads to other people with these paper trail ventures.

[Cardinal]

Greed is always creepy, imo.

So are infidelity and murder, imo.

[Jester]

I keep repeating in the hope you will finally grasp it.

Eyewitness evidence is ALWAYS direct evidence whether you accept it or not.

:rolleyes:

You posted that circumstantial and forensic evidence are one and same. This is incorrect.

I posted that forensic evidence is a category of circumstantial evidence. You have then repeated this statement several times.

Clearly I get what I wrote. Since you now get it too, why don't we move on.

[Jester]

Wrongful death suits are a survivor's right, and have nothing to do with greed.

[janesdeaan]

Wrongful death suits are a survivor's right, and have nothing to do with greed.

Hi Jester, you're posts are absolutely correct, and most of us know that.
Thanks for continuing to correct other posters misrepresentations and for doing it with class and dignity. A few here could definitely take a lesson from you !! :thumbup:

[gbmy]

Contrary to what you would like to believe, Circumstantial Evidence cases are very powerful, in fact most of the cases that are overturned were Direct Evidence cases. A jury will not ignore the hundreds of pieces of the puzzle that point to Jason, they will not make excuse after excuse for him.

Unlike some on this board, a jury will not have to see it rain, to know that it did. MOO
I agree with you.....CE is very powerful. It's just not as powerful as not having to rely on it.

[gbmy]

You're right, gbmy in that most cases are primarily circumstantial. This case however has the added element of direct evidence in the form of eyewitnesses, from the delivery person who saw the house lit up like a party to witnesses who saw Jason at the hotel, to witnesses who were in the meeting with him the next morning. And let's not forget the most compelling direct evidence of all, the hotel security video in its entirety.
All direct evidence in Jason's favor. Good points.

[Jules2]

You are still wrong.

Forensic evidence IS always circumstantial evidence. Just as a duck is always a duck whether it be mallard or Mandarin.

No, the vehicle seen by the witness is not circumstantial evidence, it is direct evidence.

This almost feels like an episode of the Twilight Zone.

Jester has repeatedly stated that forensic evidence is always circumstantial evidence and you repeatedly say that she/he is wrong by claiming the same thing!

Although they are not one and the same. FYI...... a Mallard or a Mandarin may both be ducks, but they are far from being one and the same. :rolleyes:

[BSNBREVARDNC]

You're right, gbmy in that most cases are primarily circumstantial. This case however has the added element of direct evidence in the form of eyewitnesses, from the delivery person who saw the house lit up like a party to witnesses who saw Jason at the hotel, to witnesses who were in the meeting with him the next morning. And let's not forget the most compelling direct evidence of all, the hotel security video in its entirety.

Wow, how did you get to see the video in its entirety? You must be the only one posting that has seen it. The rest of us have only seen the photos from a small part of the video.

Also, who were the witnesses that saw him at the hotel? I haven’t see them mentioned anywhere.

Didn’t the person he had the meeting with say that he was late and nervous?

BTW, we can hardly wait to see the links to the video in its entirety. That will be neat. :thumbsup:

[trucrime]

Greed is always creepy, imo.

as if the Fishers are being greedy. :rolleyes:
they'd give anything to have Michelle back.
JMO

[gbmy]

I keep repeating in the hope you will finally grasp it.

Eyewitness evidence is ALWAYS direct evidence whether you accept it or not.

:rolleyes:
There are no eyewitnesses that put Jason at Birchleaf that night. Only a newspaper delivery man who, in the dark, saw a car that 'looked like' Jason's. Again, a nested, speculative statement. Listen, If Jason really committed this heinous crime and has avoided an arrest for 2.5 years, it tells me he was very smart in planning/executing it. It is far from smart to park your car in your own driveway in the middle of the night and light up your house like a Christmas tree.

[janesdeaan]

There are no eyewitnesses that put Jason at Birchleaf that night. Only a newspaper delivery man who, in the dark, saw a car that 'looked like' Jason's. Again, a nested, speculative statement. Listen, If Jason really committed this heinous crime and has avoided an arrest for 2.5 years, it tells me he was very smart in planning/executing it. It is far from smart to park your car in your own driveway in the middle of the night and light up your house like a Christmas tree.

When you've got to make SURE you've cleaned up every trace of your SELF from a crime scene, in a limited timeframe you would need a lot of light. Possibly Jason knew he would NEVER be coming back to that house and wanted to make sure he got what he wanted from it then, thus flipping on lights. I don't think Jason is all that smart, I think he just has a repulsive, inflated sense of entitlement, as well as thinking he's above the law. I find in reading others posts concerning murdered, (sometimes pregnant) wives that most posters do not favor the obvious suspect(husband), rather they are sickened by them, this board certainly is in a "league" by itself in that regard. Sad...

[janesdeaan]

snipped from gbmy's post:

"There are no eyewitnesses that put Jason at Birchleaf that night. Only a newspaper delivery man who, in the dark, saw a car that 'looked like' Jason's."

That, my friend IS an eyewitness, and since there are no others we've heard from I'd say he represents a very important one. This person delivered papers there every nite, he would obviously notice things out of the ordinary and knew he should report it and DID !! His testimony will be VERY important, IMO...:closedeyes:

[janesdeaan]

Wow, how did you get to see the video in its entirety? You must be the only one posting that has seen it. The rest of us have only seen the photos from a small part of the video.

Also, who were the witnesses that saw him at the hotel? I haven’t see them mentioned anywhere.

Didn’t the person he had the meeting with say that he was late and nervous?

BTW, we can hardly wait to see the links to the video in its entirety. That will be neat. :thumbsup:

LOL, touche !:thumbsup:

[janesdeaan]

I agree that no eyewitness has put Jason at Birchleaf that night.

The eyewitness claims the house had all the lights on and appeared to be the location of a party during a certain time frame. The witness said the car appeared to be in the process of having something loaded into it.

I also don't believe the witness said the car "looked like" Jason's. According to the search warrant, the witness said the car was a light-colored SUV. Michelle Young also drove a light-colored SUV.

According to a search warrant, LE believe CY was removed from the scene. Combine these three circumstances--car appeared to be loaded, CY removed from the scene, MF claiming Michelle's keys were her own--and it certainly does not point to Jason Young as the killer.

Not sure if you are confused, but you're second sentence in this post contradicts your first ! Did you notice the edit button at bottom of all posts ? I know I didn't at first... Anyway, the EYEWITNESS reported what he saw out of the ordinary, the house lit up at a very late hour and a light colored SUV parked as tho it was to be loaded. Well, Jason drives a WHITE SUV, Michelle's car was silver which has a tendency to look quite dark at night, in addition it was parked IN the garage. And, IMO Jason would have had to have been loading murder weapons, bloody clothes and tennis shoes (plural) and who knows what else before he could make his exit. So, voila! There you have it. Looks like paperboy is quite a help in this scenario. possibly one of the most important scenarios in this crime, we can all just thank God there was a witness at Birchleaf...Oh and BTW, LE checked out the possibility of Michelle's car having been used that night, possibly for blood evidence and it was clean. And of course they have to check out all avenues and when they realized Jason had possibly drugged his daughter and removed her from the horrific scene, Michelle's car was checked for evidence of that too. Checked out and eliminated that possibility. So, in the end looks to me like ole Jason just doesn't check out in any of these search warrants, sad as it is, he IS the SLAYER...

[Kat4Eagles]

JMO but LE hasnt told us everything and Im quite certain they have more evidence against Jason than they've told the public via released SW's. JMO.



Now, see if I was as 100% certain like some as you are about Jason being the killer, this would scare me.

It would bother me that they have more and still can not secure even an indictment or an arrest...

I think it is time to be worried, whether you want to admit to it or not.


:shrug:

Kat

[Kat4Eagles]

Barbara2, first of all, I admire you answering the questions directly and honestly. And, I like the fact that you offered up additional questions. Here's how I'd answer yours.

Have you seen proof that Jason hated his wife enough to kill her? No But, he certainly committed the grave sin of adultery....worse yet, he repeatedly did this.....this is reprehensible. Thing is here, if I'm sitting on a jury, based on other info in the public domain now, I don't see any other direct evidence of *hatred* and the ultimate act of murder.....Sure, you have 'statements' such as "oh, I could have killed her.....or whatever he said", but I can honestly say that my wife has said that several times and she wouldn't hurt a flee.

Have you seen evidence he purchased gas? No.....only speculative CE which is far too subjective. Having him on video handing a cashier cash, finding a cash receipt, or a credit card receipt....that would be true, compelling evidence.
Have you seen evidence that Jason sent his SIL to his house that day on an out of the ordinary mission? Yes I agree. This still bugs me and shakes my belief in his innocence.
Have you seen evidence that Jason had the means, motive and opportunity to drug his daughter? YesI agree, but again, this would be true of any married spouse in his line of business.
Have you seen evidence that Jason had the means, motive and opportunity to kill his wife? YesThis is too broad of a question because it relies on too many specific questions underlying proving means, motive, and oppty. Once they prove this, he's arrested.


I am curious about the extra gas purchase.
I never heard this before.

Kat

[Tia]

as if the Fishers are being greedy. :rolleyes:
they'd give anything to have Michelle back.
JMO


Yes they would. No amount of money is going to replace her. (allthough they will most likely never see a dime).

[Kat4Eagles]

No, the search warrants do not plainly state that the shirt was not in Jason's car when he returned to Raleigh. That's just more of YOUR spin.

Where's your proof that LE doesn't NOW know the whereabouts of the shirt or shoes?

I'll go with the fact Jason hasn't been arrested as proof the shirt/shoes are NOW a non-issue, thanks.

I am reading a lot of posts that say Jason was accounted for 8 hours...but, we know the first phonecall he made was at 7:40 am near Wytheville, so it is more like 7 hours and 40 minutes, which might not seem that much different, until if you back that call up as to where it was made, Jason had to be in Hillsville close to 7-7:10 am, so it really is more like 7 hours.
Not 8.
And, I think that is important, I think the whole timeframe here is crucial, every single minute of it....


JMO
Kat

[Kat4Eagles]

There are no eyewitnesses that put Jason at Birchleaf that night. Only a newspaper delivery man who, in the dark, saw a car that 'looked like' Jason's. Again, a nested, speculative statement. Listen, If Jason really committed this heinous crime and has avoided an arrest for 2.5 years, it tells me he was very smart in planning/executing it. It is far from smart to park your car in your own driveway in the middle of the night and light up your house like a Christmas tree.


Exactly, :thumbsup:

Why would you park your car outside your own home in the middle of the nite and then turn on or leave on all the lights in your home to call attention to it?

Jason was certainly no stranger to his home, there was nothing he wouldn't know how to locate, and besides that, I also keep reading there was no foreign DNA found?

Since when did L E release that there was or wasn't any foreign DNA, and how do we know or not know this isn't the very thing holding the case up?

When I read this Board, I am so very glad none of us here will ever be asked to be on the jury (if the case ever finds it way into a courtroom) because the preconceived notions of guilt and the way people who who never met Jason, but attempt to analyze him anyway, would definitely cause problems in getting a fair trial for anyone charged with this crime.

JMO

Kat

[Tia]

Not sure if you are confused, but you're second sentence in this post contradicts your first ! Did you notice the edit button at bottom of all posts ? I know I didn't at first... Anyway, the EYEWITNESS reported what he saw out of the ordinary, the house lit up at a very late hour and a light colored SUV parked as tho it was to be loaded. Well, Jason drives a WHITE SUV, Michelle's car was silver which has a tendency to look quite dark at night, in addition it was parked IN the garage. And, IMO Jason would have had to have been loading murder weapons, bloody clothes and tennis shoes (plural) and who knows what else before he could make his exit. So, voila! There you have it. Looks like paperboy is quite a help in this scenario. possibly one of the most important scenarios in this crime, we can all just thank God there was a witness at Birchleaf...Oh and BTW, LE checked out the possibility of Michelle's car having been used that night, possibly for blood evidence and it was clean. And of course they have to check out all avenues and when they realized Jason had possibly drugged his daughter and removed her from the horrific scene, Michelle's car was checked for evidence of that too. Checked out and eliminated that possibility. So, in the end looks to me like ole Jason just doesn't check out in any of these search warrants, sad as it is, he IS the SLAYER...


Great post!

[Kat4Eagles]

I don't know the answers to your questions. My point was that in the absence of new information, people who believe he's guilty will continue to talk about there being no rush, no statute of limitations, etc. etc. You can always say that. Assume that Det. Spivey's belief that Jason killed his wife is based on a 95% confidence level. Let's further assume he/the DA wants it to be 99% before making an arrest. If they don't hit 99% until the year 2050 and arrest a then 80 year old Jason Young would they have done the right thing by waiting? Or, would it be better to make the move now when he's much younger and your 'belief' in his guilt is almost as strong? Your answer is?

I am not believing some of these posts today.!!
It is now being suggested that L E is waiting for MF to take complete custody of CY before they make their arrest of Jason !!

Since when does L E wait one second longer than it would take , if they had the necessary evidence and proof to make an arrest?

Since when does L E let a murderer walk free any longer than they have to ,because, he/she/they have a child?

Didn't stop them from arresting OJ, Blake, or Cooper, to name a few.

Unreal!!

JMO
Kat

[Kat4Eagles]

28 calls! It'll be interesting to see how that comes out at trial. IMO.

It would be more interesting to know how many times they actually went through... though.

:rolleyes:

Kat

[trucrime]

It would be more interesting to know how many times they actually went through... though.

:rolleyes:

Kat

Guess we will find out, wont we?
:rolleyes:
JMO

[Tia]

Guess we will find out, wont we?
:rolleyes:
JMO


We sure will! I can't wait!!!

[Kat4Eagles]

Guess we will find out, wont we?
:rolleyes:
JMO


Eventually.............

:biggrin:

Kat

[Psydwannabe]

Now, see if I was as 100% certain like some as you are about Jason being the killer, this would scare me.

It would bother me that they have more and still can not secure even an indictment or an arrest...

I think it is time to be worried, whether you want to admit to it or not.


:shrug:

Kat




Don't you think you're being a bit presumptuous in assuming that an indictment has not been secured? You might want to read up on the process of securing an indictment if you get a minute. MOO

[gbmy]

[QUOTE=janesdeaan;13023047]<snipped>
I don't think Jason is all that smart <snipped>QUOTE]
Yet he was able to plan/execute a murder and escape an arrest for 2.5 years?? That seems contradictory.

[Kat4Eagles]

Don't you think you're being a bit presumptuous in assuming that an indictment has not been secured? You might want to read up on the process of securing an indictment if you get a minute. MOO


If you have a link stating that an indictment has been served on anyone for the murder of Michelle Young, I am sure we would all
love to see it..

That along with the link showing the extra gas purchase.

Thanxxxx.

Kat

[Kat4Eagles]

[QUOTE=janesdeaan;13023047]<snipped>
I don't think Jason is all that smart <snipped>QUOTE]
Yet he was able to plan/execute a murder and escape an arrest for 2.5 years?? That seems contradictory.

Kinda hard to have it both ways, huh, Gbmy?
One minute Jason is a brillant master minded evil genius, and the next he is some country bumpkin..
Either way, he is free..........that has to speak for something.

:)
Kat

[Psydwannabe]

If you have a link stating that an indictment has been served on anyone for the murder of Michelle Young, I am sure we would all
love to see it..

That along with the link showing the extra gas purchase.

Thanxxxx.

Kat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment#Sealed_indictment


Gas?

[Tia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment#Sealed_indictment


Gas?

Its coming.

2+ years is nothing in a case like this. Jason is no criminal mastermind, he just got lucky..........for a while.

[Psydwannabe]

Its coming.

2+ years is nothing in a case like this. Jason is no criminal mastermind, he just got lucky..........for a while.



I was just trying to point out to Kat that an indictment can be handed down and, if it is sealed, no one but those in the court would know about it. As far as gas, is she predicting I am going to be stricken? If not I missed the connection.

[Kat4Eagles]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment#Sealed_indictment


Gas?

I am aware that they can sit on an indictment, although,
why they would, in this case, doesn't make a lot of sense to me..

Gas?

Yes,a poster said they know of a extra gas purchase Jason made , but failed to provide a link.

Thank you for yours.
:)
Kat

[Kat4Eagles]

I was just trying to point out to Kat that an indictment can be handed down and, if it is sealed, no one but those in the court would know about it. As far as gas, is she predicting I am going to be stricken? If not I missed the connection.


:biggrin:
What?
I am sorry for laughing, can you explain?

Kat

[Tia]

I was just trying to point out to Kat that an indictment can be handed down and, if it is sealed, no one but those in the court would know about it. As far as gas, is she predicting I am going to be stricken? If not I missed the connection.

I guess we all did.

Its coming. Jason will be arrested.

[gbmy]

snipped from gbmy's post:

"There are no eyewitnesses that put Jason at Birchleaf that night. Only a newspaper delivery man who, in the dark, saw a car that 'looked like' Jason's."

That, my friend IS an eyewitness, and since there are no others we've heard from I'd say he represents a very important one. This person delivered papers there every nite, he would obviously notice things out of the ordinary and knew he should report it and DID !! His testimony will be VERY important, IMO...:closedeyes:
A very nested, speculative statement riddled with reasonable doubt. The newspaper delivery guy didn't see any humans, let along one that looked like Jason. He saw a car. I called the News and Observer and was informed that newspapers don't show up in their warehouse until a little before 5am at which time the delivery guys come by and begin putting the papers, typically 200+ per delivery person, in plastic bags. That usually takes 15-20 mins. The warehouse is 20 minutes from Birchleaf. So, the earliest he'd get there would be about 5:45am. That breaks the time line.

[Psydwannabe]

:biggrin:
What?
I am sorry for laughing, can you explain?

Kat



I thought Tia was telling me I was going to get gas so I tried to be funny.

[Kat4Eagles]

A very nested, speculative statement riddled with reasonable doubt. The newspaper delivery guy didn't see any humans, let along one that looked like Jason. He saw a car. I called the News and Observer and was informed that newspapers don't show up in their warehouse until a little before 5am at which time the delivery guys come by and begin putting the papers, typically 200+ per delivery person, in plastic bags. That usually takes 15-20 mins. The warehouse is 20 minutes from Birchleaf. So, the earliest he'd get there would be about 5:45am. That breaks the time line.

WOW.
I wondered about this.
Was this also the same time back in Nov......2006 .?
Good job, gbmy!!

Kat

[Psydwannabe]

Its coming.

2+ years is nothing in a case like this. Jason is no criminal mastermind, he just got lucky..........for a while.

I completely agree.
I think they have had enough to indict for a long time but they haven't had a reason to rush. I think this is a largely circumstantial case so every bit helps. I think they spent the first two years waiting to see if Jason attempted to file for the insurance. Since he hasn't, he has made a huge point in potential jurors minds. Why let a million dollars through your hands? I would be one grieving widow if something happened to my husband but if I had a million dollar life insurance policy handed to me I would be weeping while recovering from my facelift in Fiji.

[Kat4Eagles]

I completely agree.
I think they have had enough to indict for a long time but they haven't had a reason to rush. I think this is a largely circumstantial case so every bit helps. I think they spent the first two years waiting to see if Jason attempted to file for the insurance. Since he hasn't, he has made a huge point in potential jurors minds. Why let a million dollars through your hands? I would be one grieving widow if something happened to my husband but if I had a million dollar life insurance policy handed to me I would be weeping while recovering from my facelift in Fiji.


The one thing about indictments, you know how easy they are to obtain........

You don't think there are any reasons to rush in getting a murderer(s) off the streets, behind bars, and in prison?

How is that justice?

And, how can you say this about a case that is now approaching the 2 and a half year mark?

When would you like the minor little detail of arresting a killer(s) to happen?

Kat

[gbmy]

WOW.
I wondered about this.
Was this also the same time back in Nov......2006 .?
Good job, gbmy!!

Kat
Kat, I didn't ask. I can only make a non-nested assumption and say yes. After all, they try and hold off on cranking up the printing presses until as late as possible so that the news they deliver is as current as possible. Because of this, the N&O gives their carriers until 6:30am on the weekdays to deliver all of their papers and I believe 8-8:30am on Sunday since that paper tends to be so darn huge with all of the advertisements stuffed into them!

[Kat4Eagles]

A very nested, speculative statement riddled with reasonable doubt. The newspaper delivery guy didn't see any humans, let along one that looked like Jason. He saw a car. I called the News and Observer and was informed that newspapers don't show up in their warehouse until a little before 5am at which time the delivery guys come by and begin putting the papers, typically 200+ per delivery person, in plastic bags. That usually takes 15-20 mins. The warehouse is 20 minutes from Birchleaf. So, the earliest he'd get there would be about 5:45am. That breaks the time line.

If this is true, and I have no doubt of your honesty, this would be almost at daybreak.......
What do you make of this, gbmy?
Besides scrunching the timeline into mission impossible?
This has always been something I had doubts about, the timeline.
And, the fact Jason seemed so confident..that his alibi would be enough.

Kat

[Psydwannabe]

The one thing about indictments, you know how easy they are to obtain........

You don't think there are any reasons to rush in getting a murderer(s) off the streets, behind bars, and in prison?

How is that justice?

And, how can you say this about a case that is now approaching the 2 and a half year mark?

When would you like the minor little detail of arresting a killer(s) to happen?

Kat


I don't think it is justice necessarily. But neither would prosecuting a weak case? If my theory was correct, they would have had to wait for that two years to pass in order for him to pass up the insurance which, to me, is inexplicable. MOO

[Kat4Eagles]

Kat, I didn't ask. I can only make a non-nested assumption and say yes. After all, they try and hold off on cranking up the printing presses until as late as possible so that the news they deliver is as current as possible. Because of this, the N&O gives their carriers until 6:30am on the weekdays to deliver all of their papers and I believe 8-8:30am on Sunday since that paper tends to be so darn huge with all of the advertisements stuffed into them!

Well, I guess that would be important enough to find out......:biggrin:
I had just posted back to you before I saw this, btw!!
This is something to think about , and something I am sure L E knows the answer too.
I am pretty sure the timeline they gave on the delivery person was from 4-5am, this would sure blow that out of the water, huh?
Thank you !

Kat

[Kat4Eagles]

I don't think it is justice necessarily. But neither would prosecuting a weak case? If my theory was correct, they would have had to wait for that two years to pass in order for him to pass up the insurance which, to me, is inexplicable. MOO



The 2 year mark happened almost 6 months ago, when the wrongful death suit was filed...

So, almost 6 months later, now, what are they waiting for?

:rolleyes:

Kat

PS. Why do you think this might be a weak case?
It has been posted here constantly that this is a strong c/e case.
I disagree.

[Psydwannabe]

The 2 year mark happened almost 6 months ago, when the wrongful death suit was filed...

So, almost 6 months later, now, what are they waiting for?

:rolleyes:

Kat

PS. Why do you think this might be a weak case?
It has been posted here constantly that this is a strong c/e case.
I disagree.



I don't think it is weak. But any case that isn't as strong as it could be might be seen that way. As for what they're waiting for six months later? Whatever they are still searching for I guess. MOO

[Psydwannabe]

The 2 year mark happened almost 6 months ago, when the wrongful death suit was filed...

So, almost 6 months later, now, what are they waiting for?

:rolleyes:

Kat

PS. Why do you think this might be a weak case?
It has been posted here constantly that this is a strong c/e case.
I disagree.



I don't think it is weak. But any case that isn't as strong as it could be might be seen that way. As for what they're waiting for six months later? Whatever they are still searching for I guess. MOO

[Kat4Eagles]

I don't think it is weak. But any case that isn't as strong as it could be might be seen that way. As for what they're waiting for six months later? Whatever they are still searching for I guess. MOO

Whatever that may be.
I have followed cases where murderers were arrested, tried, convicted and sitting on Death Row and getting ready for an appeal process, in the time that this case has taken to even name someone or give a theory or motive of why this crime happened.
I fail to see anything happening to change that.
I hope I am wrong.
:(
Kat

[Psydwannabe]

Whatever that may be.
I have followed cases where murderers were arrested, tried, convicted and sitting on Death Row and getting ready for an appeal process, in the time that this case has taken to even name someone or give a theory or motive of why this crime happened.
I fail to see anything happening to change that.
I hope I am wrong.
:(
Kat



Sorry for the confusion. I tried the edit button but that didn't work. I meant to add that they're searching for whatever they have listed in the search warrants which they issued a short time ago I think? There are a lot of cases that go as quickly as you said but there are also a lot that have taken longer. I just assumed they were more methodical in the south. If I had all the time in the world, I would proceed with all possible deliberation. They only have one chance. MOO

[Jester]

A very nested, speculative statement riddled with reasonable doubt. The newspaper delivery guy didn't see any humans, let along one that looked like Jason. He saw a car. I called the News and Observer and was informed that newspapers don't show up in their warehouse until a little before 5am at which time the delivery guys come by and begin putting the papers, typically 200+ per delivery person, in plastic bags. That usually takes 15-20 mins. The warehouse is 20 minutes from Birchleaf. So, the earliest he'd get there would be about 5:45am. That breaks the time line.

Actually, the delivery time of the News and Observer has nothing to do with this murder. It was a New York Times delivery person that reported seeing the vehicle between 4 and 5 AM.

"According to one of the search warrants from February of this year that was just released, a New York Times newspaper delivery driver told the police that they were in the Enchanted Oaks subdivision in Raleigh where the Youngs lived between 4am and 5am delivering newspapers. Investigators said in the search warrant that the delivery driver said that they noticed two important details from the morning that Michelle Young was found murdered. First, all of the lights were on in the house and secondly, the delivery driver noticed an SUV parked near the home, similar to one driven by Jason Young."

Furthermore, it has been suggested that the SUV was similar to Michelle's vehicle, but not Jason's.

"The light colored SUV seen by the New York Times delivery person is similar...to the vehicle, a white Ford Explorer, driven by Jason Young at the time of the murder of Michelle Young."

http://www.raleigh3.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=1&twindow=&mad=&sdetail=1233&wpage=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=2724&hn=raleigh3&he=.com

[Jester]

WOW.
I wondered about this.
Was this also the same time back in Nov......2006 .?
Good job, gbmy!!

Kat

Details are so important. Presenting information on the wrong newspaper and drawing conclusions about the time line is entertaining in terms of attempting to eliminate Jason as a suspect, but details do matter.

[Jester]

Kat, I didn't ask. I can only make a non-nested assumption and say yes. After all, they try and hold off on cranking up the printing presses until as late as possible so that the news they deliver is as current as possible. Because of this, the N&O gives their carriers until 6:30am on the weekdays to deliver all of their papers and I believe 8-8:30am on Sunday since that paper tends to be so darn huge with all of the advertisements stuffed into them!

Thankfully the New York Times is early enough to catch a glimpse of the murderer in action.

[Jester]

If this is true, and I have no doubt of your honesty, this would be almost at daybreak.......
What do you make of this, gbmy?
Besides scrunching the timeline into mission impossible?
This has always been something I had doubts about, the timeline.
And, the fact Jason seemed so confident..that his alibi would be enough.

Kat

He has no alibi. His last recorded activity is prior to midnight on November 2nd, and there is no recorded activity of him until 7:40ish the following morning. A vehicle similar to Jason's was seen outside the home between 4 and 5 AM on November 3. His hotel keycard was not used after he was seen at the front desk, but there was a rock propping open the exit door where he was seen at midnight. If the door were not propped open, he would have had to use his keycard.

[Jester]

Well, I guess that would be important enough to find out......:biggrin:
I had just posted back to you before I saw this, btw!!
This is something to think about , and something I am sure L E knows the answer too.
I am pretty sure the timeline they gave on the delivery person was from 4-5am, this would sure blow that out of the water, huh?
Thank you !

Kat

Not blown out of the water at all. The timeline given by the delivery person is accurate.

[5swab5]

Actually, the delivery time of the News and Observer has nothing to do with this murder. It was a New York Times delivery person that reported seeing the vehicle between 4 and 5 AM.

"According to one of the search warrants from February of this year that was just released, a New York Times newspaper delivery driver told the police that they were in the Enchanted Oaks subdivision in Raleigh where the Youngs lived between 4am and 5am delivering newspapers. Investigators said in the search warrant that the delivery driver said that they noticed two important details from the morning that Michelle Young was found murdered. First, all of the lights were on in the house and secondly, the delivery driver noticed an SUV parked near the home, similar to one driven by Jason Young."

Furthermore, it has been suggested that the SUV was similar to Michelle's vehicle, but not Jason's.

"The light colored SUV seen by the New York Times delivery person is similar...to the vehicle, a white Ford Explorer, driven by Jason Young at the time of the murder of Michelle Young."

http://www.raleigh3.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=1&twindow=&mad=&sdetail=1233&wpage=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=2724&hn=raleigh3&he=.com

LOL,

There you go Jester, raining on Jason's exoneration party. Why let a little thing like different papers and different delivery guys stand in the way of the Jason spin cycle? So much for the much needed "mission impossible" timeline. :lol: MOO

[BSNBREVARDNC]

A very nested, speculative statement riddled with reasonable doubt. The newspaper delivery guy didn't see any humans, let along one that looked like Jason. He saw a car. I called the News and Observer and was informed that newspapers don't show up in their warehouse until a little before 5am at which time the delivery guys come by and begin putting the papers, typically 200+ per delivery person, in plastic bags. That usually takes 15-20 mins. The warehouse is 20 minutes from Birchleaf. So, the earliest he'd get there would be about 5:45am. That breaks the time line.

I remember reading that it was a newspaper delivery guy. Can you provide a link to which paper he worked for? Could it have been USA Today, Wall Street Journal, NY Times? Maybe the police described him as a generic "newspaper delivery guy" to keep us from knowing which paper?

Looks like you may have some more calls to make:bored:.

[BSNBREVARDNC]

You're right, gbmy in that most cases are primarily circumstantial. This case however has the added element of direct evidence in the form of eyewitnesses, from the delivery person who saw the house lit up like a party to witnesses who saw Jason at the hotel, to witnesses who were in the meeting with him the next morning. And let's not forget the most compelling direct evidence of all, the hotel security video in its entirety.

Have you found that link yet? I'm still waiting to see the security video in its entirety. :rolleyes:

[achristie]

Hey, BSNBrevard. It sure has been quiet. Anything you care to share on the home front?

[BSNBREVARDNC]

[QUOTE=achristie;13027354]Hey, BSNBrevard. It sure has been quiet. Anything you care to share on the home front?[/QUOTE

Very quiet here as well. The "friends" that I have in common with "you know who" have told me that he has been out of town on vacation for spring break.

[achristie]

[QUOTE=achristie;13027354]Hey, BSNBrevard. It sure has been quiet. Anything you care to share on the home front?[/QUOTE

Very quiet here as well. The "friends" that I have in common with "you know who" have told me that he has been out of town on vacation for spring break.

Thanks. Is he alone or with family?

[5swab5]

[QUOTE=achristie;13027354]Hey, BSNBrevard. It sure has been quiet. Anything you care to share on the home front?[/QUOTE

Very quiet here as well. The "friends" that I have in common with "you know who" have told me that he has been out of town on vacation for spring break.

Still living in that PeterPan world, eh? What 30 something Y-O man still lives his life around Spring Break? One that lives with his mommie, I guess. The word LOSER comes to mind, but SLAYER trumps that.

How come Linda doesn't get his travel money instead? Seems to me, that is disposable income, by all rights it should be hers. Guess it is just another way for him to thumb his nose at the authorities. MOO

[BSNBREVARDNC]

[QUOTE=BSNBREVARDNC;13027369]

Thanks. Is he alone or with family?

I've been told that he took his mom and CY. I don't know if GM went with them or not, but I doubt it.

[Tia]

[QUOTE=achristie;13027382]

I've been told that he took his mom and CY. I don't know if GM went with them or not, but I doubt it.


Jason took his MOM on "Spring Break"?!??!???!

Oh my.........

[Tia]

[QUOTE=BSNBREVARDNC;13027369]

Still living in that PeterPan world, eh? What 30 something Y-O man still lives his life around Spring Break? One that lives with his mommie, I guess. The word LOSER comes to mind, but SLAYER trumps that.

How come Linda doesn't get his travel money instead? Seems to me, that is disposable income, by all rights it should be hers. Guess it is just another way for him to thumb his nose at the authorities. MOO

I bet Pat pays for it. What other reason would a grown man take his mom on Spring Break with him??! Wait.....what grown man still goes on Spring Break?

[Tia]

Not blown out of the water at all. The timeline given by the delivery person is accurate.

In addition, it was the WRONG Newspaper that gbmy called!

[reborn]

Sorry for the confusion. I tried the edit button but that didn't work. I meant to add that they're searching for whatever they have listed in the search warrants which they issued a short time ago I think? There are a lot of cases that go as quickly as you said but there are also a lot that have taken longer. I just assumed they were more methodical in the south. If I had all the time in the world, I would proceed with all possible deliberation. They only have one chance. MOO


What was listed in the latest warrants were just for Jason's unline accounts. I can't imagine what they would hope to find in them that would prove he killed Michelle. Do they think he would be stupid enough to confess on the Internet? I think those warrants were more for getting information on who was emailing Jason and not who Jason was emailing. We still have that Craigslist thing. Did Jason do it? Well by now LE knows. Will they ever tell us probably not. Has Jason received any threats via emails? Well by now LE knows. Will they ever tell us probably not. LE only tells us the things that look bad on Jason . Of all the warrants served on Jason not one piece of evidence has been found that proves he was at Birch leaf the night of the murder.

[reborn]

[QUOTE=5swab5;13027403]

I bet Pat pays for it. What other reason would a grown man take his mom on Spring Break with him??! Wait.....what grown man still goes on Spring Break?


I can answer the question "what grown man goes on spring break" a man that is back in school and is taking the time off to take his daughter on vacation. Your remark about Pat paying for it was probably right. But remember Jason is an heir to Pat and maybe she gets enjoyment out of taking Cassie and Jason on vacation. Some families enjoy each others company some don't.

[Tia]

[QUOTE=Tia;13027709]


I can answer the question "what grown man goes on spring break" a man that is back in school and is taking the time off to take his daughter on vacation. Your remark about Pat paying for it was probably right. But remember Jason is an heir to Pat and maybe she gets enjoyment out of taking Cassie and Jason on vacation. Some families enjoy each others company some don't.


Whats with the quote function? Its acting weird today.

[BSNBREVARDNC]

[QUOTE=Tia;13027709]


I can answer the question "what grown man goes on spring break" a man that is back in school and is taking the time off to take his daughter on vacation. Your remark about Pat paying for it was probably right. But remember Jason is an heir to Pat and maybe she gets enjoyment out of taking Cassie and Jason on vacation. Some families enjoy each others company some don't.

They might as well do it while they can. After all, who knows how much longer everyone will have the freedom to come and go as they please. :smile: IMO

[Kat4Eagles]

Thankfully the New York Times is early enough to catch a glimpse of the murderer in action.


But , not enough to make a positive identification, therefore, no arrest.

Kat

[Tia]

They might as well do it while they can. After all, who knows how much longer everyone will have the freedom to come and go as they please. :smile: IMO


Everyone??????

[Kat4Eagles]

[QUOTE=reborn;13027783]

They might as well do it while they can. After all, who knows how much longer everyone will have the freedom to come and go as they please. :smile: IMO


Do you have a link or anything to back up your story of what Jason is doing?
Otherwise, it is merely a rumor, and CW asks for links to such.
Unless you otherwise state it is only your opinion, which I don't think you did.
Thanxxxx.
:)
Kat

[Kat4Eagles]

Details are so important. Presenting information on the wrong newspaper and drawing conclusions about the time line is entertaining in terms of attempting to eliminate Jason as a suspect, but details do matter.

Yep, they are, and that is why all details should have a link !
It is so much better that way..
:)
Kat

[Kat4Eagles]

He has no alibi. His last recorded activity is prior to midnight on November 2nd, and there is no recorded activity of him until 7:40ish the following morning. A vehicle similar to Jason's was seen outside the home between 4 and 5 AM on November 3. His hotel keycard was not used after he was seen at the front desk, but there was a rock propping open the exit door where he was seen at midnight. If the door were not propped open, he would have had to use his keycard.


His alibi must still stand, otherwise he wouldn't be free.
:)
Kat

[Jester]

But , not enough to make a positive identification, therefore, no arrest.

Kat

It's another piece of the circumstantial evidence. A car similar to Jason's was seen at the house by the NY Times delivery man between 4 and 5 AM. It could be Jason's car. Unfortunately, he wasn't seen with the car, so it's not direct evidence.

[Jester]

His alibi must still stand, otherwise he wouldn't be free.
:)
Kat

He doesn't have an alibi. His whereabouts between 12:01 and 7:40 AM on November 3, 2006 are unknown, and there is some doubt as to whether he was at the hotel. Heading towards the exit at midnight, keycard use, and the rock propped in the door all point to the possibility that Jason left the hotel at midnight.

[Kat4Eagles]

[QUOTE=Tia;13027709]


I can answer the question "what grown man goes on spring break" a man that is back in school and is taking the time off to take his daughter on vacation. Your remark about Pat paying for it was probably right. But remember Jason is an heir to Pat and maybe she gets enjoyment out of taking Cassie and Jason on vacation. Some families enjoy each others company some don't.


There is absolutely no proof that Jason is or was on Spring Break, he may have taken CY on vacation after Easter when she came back home, and all of a sudden that has turned into "Spring Break".
Unless, of course, someone can post a link proving otherwise.:no:
Kat

[Kat4Eagles]

[QUOTE=reborn;13027783]

They might as well do it while they can. After all, who knows how much longer everyone will have the freedom to come and go as they please. :smile: IMO


Once again, BSN, do you have a link to Jason's vacation and where he went?
Thanxx.
:)
Kat

[Kat4Eagles]

It's another piece of the circumstantial evidence. A car similar to Jason's was seen at the house by the NY Times delivery man between 4 and 5 AM. It could be Jason's car. Unfortunately, he wasn't seen with the car, so it's not direct evidence.

Whatever it is or was, it apparently was not enough....
Kat

[Kat4Eagles]

He doesn't have an alibi. His whereabouts between 12:01 and 7:40 AM on November 3, 2006 are unknown, and there is some doubt as to whether he was at the hotel. Heading towards the exit at midnight, keycard use, and the rock propped in the door all point to the possibility that Jason left the hotel at midnight.


If he doesn't have an alibi, how is he is able to go on Spring Break?
:biggrin:

Kat

[Jester]

Once again, BSN, do you have a link to Jason's vacation and where he went?
Thanxx.
:)
Kat
Why do you want a link?

[Kat4Eagles]

Have you found that link yet? I'm still waiting to see the security video in its entirety. :rolleyes:

You need to get in line.
Several of us have been waiting for links for weeks, months, and years now.
:)
Kat

[Jester]

Whatever it is or was, it apparently was not enough....
Kat

Since circumstantial evidence is the accumulation of facts that infer a conclusion, obviously one fact is insufficient to result in an arrest.

[Kat4Eagles]

Why do you want a link?


Why wouldn't I?
Anyone can say anything about what Jason does.
When he went to Puerto Rico, there were pics to document it.
If you have pics from Jason on "Spring Break", please post.
Otherwise, it is just a rumor.
:)
Kat

[Jester]

If he doesn't have an alibi, how is he is able to go on Spring Break?
:biggrin:

Kat

I don't see the connection. He has no alibi, and that has been known since Michelle's murder. He has not offered any information about his activities around the time that Michelle was murdered. It has been the responsibility of the investigators to discover what Jason did during the hours between midnight and approximately 8 AM, and thus far it is possible that he murdered his wife. The problem is that his DNA at the murder scene and in the blood spatter could have an alternate explanation. I'm confident that eventually there will be enough evidence to place him at the scene.

[Jester]

Why wouldn't I?
Anyone can say anything about what Jason does.
When he went to Puerto Rico, there were pics to document it.
If you have pics from Jason on "Spring Break", please post.
Otherwise, it is just a rumor.
:)
Kat

Does it really matter? The only point it raises is how Jason can afford to take vacations when he's $15 million in debt. The obvious answer is that someone else is footing the bill. If Jason took a vacation, and if Pat was with him, there's a good possibility that Pat is paying for the vacations.

[Kat4Eagles]

Since circumstantial evidence is the accumulation of facts that infer a conclusion, obviously one fact is insufficient to result in an arrest.

And, with all due respect, what has the accumulation of facts in this case produced so far?

An indictment?
An arrest?
A trial?
A conviction?
A sentencing?
Anything?

Answer: None of the above.....
JMO
Kat

[Jester]

And, with all due respect, what has the accumulation of facts in this case produced so far?

An indictment?
An arrest?
A trial?
A conviction?
A sentencing?
Anything?

Answer: None of the above.....
JMO
Kat

The circumstantial evidence, thus far, has resulted in a change of status for Jason. Initially, as the husband, he needed to be cleared. That could not be done. Several months later he was identified as a person of interest. Recently, he has been identified as the prime suspect. In a court of law, he has been labeled the "slayer." That, in itself, clearly indicates that the circumstantial evidence is mounting.

[Kat4Eagles]

Does it really matter? The only point it raises is how Jason can afford to take vacations when he's $15 million in debt. The obvious answer is that someone else is footing the bill. If Jason took a vacation, and if Pat was with him, there's a good possibility that Pat is paying for the vacations.

Of course, it matters.
You can't just come to the Message Board and post "stuff" at fact.
For the very reason of what you are doing with it.
To bash Jason and his family, when we don't even know it is true.
On the other hand, if supposedly, they did take a vacation, how did it turn into
"Spring Break"?

No one has been charged with any crime.....
Jason is free to do whatever he wants.

There should be some proof though of the lastest Jason sighting...right?

JMO
Kat

[Kat4Eagles]

The circumstantial evidence, thus far, has resulted in a change of status for Jason. Initially, as the husband, he needed to be cleared. That could not be done. Several months later he was identified as a person of interest. Recently, he has been identified as the prime suspect. In a court of law, he has been labeled the "slayer." That, in itself, clearly indicates that the circumstantial evidence is mounting.


When they get around to arresting someone, let me know.
:seeya:

Kat

[Tia]

Does it really matter? The only point it raises is how Jason can afford to take vacations when he\'s $15 million in debt. The obvious answer is that someone else is footing the bill. If Jason took a vacation, and if Pat was with him, there\'s a good possibility that Pat is paying for the vacations.

Pat more than likely is paying for everything. I guess he has no choice but to Vacation with Pat until he finds someone clueless enough to date him, or is arrested.

[Tia]

When they get around to arresting someone, let me know.
:seeya:

Kat

:seeya:

Im sure someone will PM you!!

[Jester]

Of course, it matters.
You can't just come to the Message Board and post "stuff" at fact.
For the very reason of what you are doing with it.
To bash Jason and his family, when we don't even know it is true.
On the other hand, if supposedly, they did take a vacation, how did it turn into
"Spring Break"?

No one has been charged with any crime.....
Jason is free to do whatever he wants.

There should be some proof though of the lastest Jason sighting...right?

JMO
Kat

I'm not sure I understand your point. Do you mean post stuff like no arrest means he must be innocent, or that the wrong newspaper delivers papers later than stated in search warrants so the search warrants must be wrong?

[Jester]

Pat more than likely is paying for everything. I guess he has no choice but to Vacation with Pat until he finds someone clueless enough to date him, or is arrested.

You're quite right. Jason has been out of work for quite some time, and he has a rather heavy debt load, so he should not be paying for vacations until he has cleared his debt.

[BSNBREVARDNC]

[QUOTE=BSNBREVARDNC;13027897]


Do you have a link or anything to back up your story of what Jason is doing?
Otherwise, it is merely a rumor, and CW asks for links to such.
Unless you otherwise state it is only your opinion, which I don't think you did.
Thanxxxx.
:)
Kat

I live here and you don't. We know what going on around us. We know know who is coming and going. It's that way in a small town. IMO

[BSNBREVARDNC]

[QUOTE=reborn;13027783]


There is absolutely no proof that Jason is or was on Spring Break, he may have taken CY on vacation after Easter when she came back home, and all of a sudden that has turned into "Spring Break".
Unless, of course, someone can post a link proving otherwise.:no:
Kat

Here's a link - Check out April 13th. See what happened on that date.

http://www.blueridge.edu/Calendars/EventCal.php?Action=Event

[BSNBREVARDNC]

When they get around to arresting someone, let me know.
:seeya:

Kat

Until then......where will you be?:rolleyes:

[BSNBREVARDNC]

Hey, BSNBrevard. It sure has been quiet. Anything you care to share on the home front?

Thanks..............I answered your question and got in trouble. (Just joking, I'll PM you with the rest.)

[Tia]

Thanks..............I answered your question and got in trouble. (Just joking, I\'ll PM you with the rest.)


Me too please!!!!


Thank you BSN!

[janesdeaan]

And, with all due respect, what has the accumulation of facts in this case produced so far?

An indictment?
An arrest?
A trial?
A conviction?
A sentencing?
Anything?

Answer: None of the above.....
JMO
Kat

It has resulted in the lead detective in this case testifying in court that Jason Young pre-meditated and committed the murder of Michelle Young, in addition earning him the title "SLAYER" and it is costing him upwards of $15 million (not to mention the custody of his only child).

[trucrime]

Until then......where will you be?:rolleyes:

Maybe asking for links. Funny how the JDI's are required to have them but the JII's can slide by that requirement. JMO

[trucrime]

Why wouldn't I?
Anyone can say anything about what Jason does.
When he went to Puerto Rico, there were pics to document it.
If you have pics from Jason on "Spring Break", please post.
Otherwise, it is just a rumor.
:)
Kat

Just beware all JII's that you too are required to be held to the same standards the JDI's are. JMO.

[trucrime]

Of course, it matters.
You can't just come to the Message Board and post "stuff" at fact.
For the very reason of what you are doing with it.
To bash Jason and his family, when we don't even know it is true.
On the other hand, if supposedly, they did take a vacation, how did it turn into
"Spring Break"?

No one has been charged with any crime.....
Jason is free to do whatever he wants.

There should be some proof though of the lastest Jason sighting...right?

JMO
Kat

How can someone "prove" it if they've seen him personally walking around town or doing whatever it was claimed? If there's no news service following Jason around Id imagine it'd be hard to get "proof". JMO

[achristie]

Thanks..............I answered your question and got in trouble. (Just joking, I'll PM you with the rest.)

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.:wink:
Thanks for the pm. Very interesting.

Aggie

[janesdeaan]

If he doesn't have an alibi, how is he is able to go on Spring Break?
:biggrin:

Kat

huh ?:eek::eek:

[5swab5]

Pat more than likely is paying for everything. I guess he has no choice but to Vacation with Pat until he finds someone clueless enough to date him, or is arrested.

I have no doubt Jason is reduced to dating immature gals. Heaven forbid he tries to date someone that reads the newspaper or watches the news. He won't be so lucky next time. Some gals have brothers or a father that is not at death's door. MOO

[janesdeaan]

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.:wink:
Thanks for the pm. Very interesting.

Aggie

ok, i can't take it (grooooaaaannn) share it you guys, no need for a link for me TIA

[achristie]

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.:wink:
Thanks for the pm. Very interesting.

Aggie

I'll pm you elsewhere.

[janesdeaan]

I'll pm you elsewhere.

I hope you mean me, aggie. just got back on here, my internet is wacko today. gonna go elsewhere, now (hopefully you are talking to me lol) TIA

[janesdeaan]

Hey, where'd everyone go ? Thanks AC, very much.:thumbup:

[reborn]

[QUOTE=Kat4Eagles;13028142]

Here's a link - Check out April 13th. See what happened on that date.

http://www.blueridge.edu/Calendars/EventCal.php?Action=Event


According to that he should have been back in class yesterday.

[BSNBREVARDNC]

[QUOTE=BSNBREVARDNC;13028491]


According to that he should have been back in class yesterday.

Unless he takes a Tuesday - Thursday class....:smile:

[tiny paw-prints]

Why wouldn't I?
Anyone can say anything about what Jason does.
When he went to Puerto Rico, there were pics to document it.
If you have pics from Jason on "Spring Break", please post.
Otherwise, it is just a rumor.
:)
Kat

Yikes! Those Puerto Rico pics were very telling; yes? I can only IMAGINE what the "Spring Break" pics might reveal....Eeeek! A photo is worth a 1,000 words and all that jazz.

[achristie]

Yikes! Those Puerto Rico pics were very telling; yes? I can only IMAGINE what the "Spring Break" pics might reveal....Eeeek! A photo is worth a 1,000 words and all that jazz.

Where are those pics? No links? We want pics!!!!!!!!:thumbsup:

[enigma™]

Where are those pics? No links? We want pics!!!!!!!!:thumbsup:
If it is Jason and Ma at the beach, I'll pass. :thumbdown:

[BSNBREVARDNC]

If it is Jason and Ma at the beach, I'll pass. :thumbdown:

Don't worry. It's not at the beach.

[enigma™]

Don't worry. It's not at the beach.


Phew! I had visions of matching muu muu's for a moment.
So, another GJ day has come and gone, and no indictment that has been made public. It cannot come soon enough. Someone needs to pay for this heinous crime. MUO

[gbmy]

In addition, it was the WRONG Newspaper that gbmy called!
My bad.....sorry. The News and Observer is one of the more common newspapers in the Raleigh area.....

[gbmy]

It has resulted in the lead detective in this case testifying in court that Jason Young pre-meditated and committed the murder of Michelle Young, in addition earning him the title "SLAYER" and it is costing him upwards of $15 million (not to mention the custody of his only child).

Quote: "Legal experts say the ruling has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, but it means Young won't be able to collect benefits from his wife's life insurance policy."

Taken directly from the link below:
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/4712532/

[Jester]

Quote: "Legal experts say the ruling has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, but it means Young won't be able to collect benefits from his wife's life insurance policy."

Taken directly from the link below:
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/4712532/

Quite true. In a criminal court, he has not yet been found guilty, and he is presumed innocent.

In a civil court, he has been found guilty and, for all intents and purposes, has been identified as the slayer.

There are cases like OJ Simpson where someone is found guilty in civil court and not guilty in criminal court, but it is the exception. Jason is not in the same category, as he has yet to be declared criminally not guilty. It is more common for innocent people to be considered not guilty in both civil and criminal court. That, in itself, speaks volumes.

[Jester]

If anyone wants to argue that he gave it all up, so he really wasn't found guilty, I would argue that he gave it all up because he knew he didn't have a leg to stand on, and anything he said could further incriminate him in a criminal trial. An innocent man wouldn't be concerned with criminal trials or further incriminating himself.

[Tia]

If anyone wants to argue that he gave it all up, so he really wasn't found guilty, I would argue that he gave it all up because he knew he didn't have a leg to stand on, and anything he said could further incriminate him in a criminal trial. An innocent man wouldn't be concerned with criminal trials or further incriminating himself.

I wouldn't argue that at all. I think you are exactly right. I find it hard to believe that an "innocent" man wouldn't fight for anything.

[achristie]

Quote: "Legal experts say the ruling has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, but it means Young won't be able to collect benefits from his wife's life insurance policy."

Taken directly from the link below:
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/4712532/

Quick question. How would you feel, your family, and your friends, if you were declared a "slayer" in a civil court?

[janesdeaan]

Quote: "Legal experts say the ruling has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, but it means Young won't be able to collect benefits from his wife's life insurance policy."

Taken directly from the link below:
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/4712532/
*****
Hi gbmy, I am sure you didn't mean to leave out the rest of that decree,the part that states it has everything to do with guilt. So let me help you out (from the actual doc)
(6) (in part)
Plaintiff has submitted the Affidavit of R.C. Spivey III in support of her Motion and contention that the above-quoted Allegation from her Complaint is true. Submitted with Investigator Spivey's Affidavit are two lengthy affidavits which he previously made on 2/13/2008 and 11/6/2008 in support of search warrants...his earlier affidavits detail a significant amount of the evidence gathered during the investigation, he has worked almost exclusively on the investigation...and he also states in his current (the third one) he is familiar with the evidence gathered, including EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC RECORD
...based on his knowledge of the evidence and his experience in law enforcement Investigator Spivey is of the opinion that Jason Young murdered Michelle Young on 2/3/2006...
(8)
Based on the affidavits submitted by the Plaintiff in support of her Motion, particularly Investigator Spivey's three affidavits, the Court finds that the allegation that "[i]n the early morning hours of November 3, 2006, Jason Young brutally murdered Michelle Young at their residence", is an admitted fact in this civil action..
(9)
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to a determination by this Court that Jason Lynn Young willfully and unlawfully killed Michelle Marie Fisher Young within the meaning of General Statute...

http://dig.abclocal.go.com/wtvd/YoungRuling.pdf

[Tia]

My bad.....sorry. The News and Observer is one of the more common newspapers in the Raleigh area.....

I know. I just saw posters running with it saying that "there goes the timeline" and wanted them to know that it was the wrong paper that you called.

:smile:

[Jester]

I wouldn't argue that at all. I think you are exactly right. I find it hard to believe that an "innocent" man wouldn't fight for anything.

Innocent men stand up and shout it to the world, they don't quietly avoid all normal life as the rug is pulled out from under their feet. An innocent man doesn't walk away from a life insurance policy that was intended to provide his family with the quality of life his wife afforded. He doesn't walk away from his children.

[reborn]

Innocent men stand up and shout it to the world, they don't quietly avoid all normal life as the rug is pulled out from under their feet. An innocent man doesn't walk away from a life insurance policy that was intended to provide his family with the quality of life his wife afforded. He doesn't walk away from his children.


You have no idea what you would do if LE made it know from day one they were out to get you and only you.

[Jester]

I know. I just saw posters running with it saying that "there goes the timeline" and wanted them to know that it was the wrong paper that you called.

:smile:

It's amazing what can be learned by sticking to the facts of the case.

[Jester]

You have no idea what you would do if LE made it know from day one they were out to get you and only you.

I don't suffer delusions of persecution, so I would never fear that anyone was "out to get" me.

Jason has been a surprisingly uncooperative, white collar, grieving husband from the beginning. He's bright enough, and educated enough, to know how to do the right thing. He's hopefully bright enough to understand that his wife has been brutally murdered, and that an innocent husband has information that could help in the murder investigation. Rather than act like an innocent, intelligent man, he has acted like he has something to hide, like he is afraid of the law, and like he has the mental defect of fear of persecution. What an odd reaction to finding one's wife brutally murdered.

[Jester]

LOL,

There you go Jester, raining on Jason's exoneration party. Why let a little thing like different papers and different delivery guys stand in the way of the Jason spin cycle? So much for the much needed "mission impossible" timeline. :lol: MOO

I'm happy to debate guilt or innocence based on fact, but going so far as to not research fact, make incorrect assumptions, and attempt to negate the evidence based on incorrect conclusions appears to be a blatant attempt to pull the wool over and argue innocence where there is none.

[Tia]

You have no idea what you would do if LE made it know from day one they were out to get you and only you.

I'd be cooperating and showing them that it wasn't me. Thats for sure.

[Tia]

It's amazing what can be learned by sticking to the facts of the case.

Yes. Amazing!

[Jester]

Yes. Amazing!

The conclusion, at the end of the wild goose timeline chase, is that the police were correct in stating that a vehicle similar to Jason's was seen at the crime scene between 4 and 5 AM in the morning on November 3, 2006, and that this time frame allows for the possibility that Jason walked out of the hotel at midnight, committed murder, and was back on the road at 7:40 in the morning.

[jerry50]

[QUOTE=achristie;13027354]Hey, BSNBrevard. It sure has been quiet. Anything you care to share on the home front?[/QUOTE

Very quiet here as well. The "friends" that I have in common with "you know who" have told me that he has been out of town on vacation for spring break.

JY's in college??????????? Clown or barber? TIA

[Jester]

[QUOTE=BSNBREVARDNC;13027369]

JY's in college??????????? Clown or barber? TIA

I've been meaning to ask that same question. College? Spring Break? Classes resume on Tuesday? Is he only taking one course? Did his mom suggest he take the course to keep active?

What's he learning?

When did he start? January or some other time?

Is he reliving his childhood?

[jerry50]

His alibi must still stand, otherwise he wouldn't be free.
:)
Kat



Do you have a link or anything to back up your assumption that his alibi still stands? Otherwise, it is merely a rumor, and CW asks for links to such.
Unless you otherwise state it is only your opinion, which I don't think you did.
Thanxxxx.

If JY had an airtight alibi he would be talking to LE, would have paid for his wife's funeral and would not have given up custody of his daughter. JMO

If he could prove to LE that he did not have the opportunity to kill Michelle LE would not have spent the last 2 1/2 years serving search warrants that are aimed at Jason Lynn Young. JMO

[Jester]

<snipped for emphasis>

If he could prove to LE that he did not have the opportunity to kill Michelle LE would not have spent the last 2 1/2 years serving search warrants that are aimed at Jason Lynn Young. JMO

And his activities around the time of the murder.