Fisher/Young case 2/12

[Barbara2]

Brought over from the last thread

Unread 02-12-2009, 06:22 PM
5swab5 5swab5 is offline
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chapel Hill, N.C.
Posts: 2,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyn View Post
Wrong.

http://karlknudsenlaw.com/attorneys/Karl-Knudsen/

"One of only five Lawyers Board Certified in State Criminal Law practicing in Raleigh, North Carolina, Karl Knudsen has tried literally hundreds of cases on both sides of the fence, as a prosecutor and as a defense lawyer, including dozens of murder cases."
Thanks for the link Wyn.

Knudsen certainly made a lot of sense last night.MOO
__________________
"Silence is Golden." At what Price?

[Barbara2]

I thought it interesting that he has been on both sides of the courtroom. I think his assessment says a lot with that in mind. IMO

[jerzeegirl]

I think if/when he is arrested and there is a trial, there are going to be alot of "aha's" going on in this forum. There are probably quite a few things that LE and the prosecution know and we dont.

[alterEgo©]

Only dozens of murder cases, eh. Well that explains his idiotic statement about how 'throughough' the investigation is.

[alterEgo©]

Originally Posted by jerzeegirl

I think if/when he is arrested and there is a trial, there are going to be alot of "aha's" going on in this forum. There are probably quite a few things that LE and the prosecution know and we dont.

I think there will be more 'wow's than 'aha's.

At least from me

[Barbara2]

Originally Posted by alterEgo©

I think there will be more 'wow's than 'aha's.

At least from me

I guess it depends on how you define "wow". If it's sort of like "OMG!", I think you may be right. IMO

[alterEgo©]

It appears that this case is gearing up to be one of 'character'. By that I mean, that the evidence against Jason is how he 'acted' and it being deemed inappropiate because it isn't how the person making the determination would have acted/not acted.

I recall many posts in defense of Meredith's 911 call that said 'you don't know how you would act in that situation', yet 'how I would act' is a common theme in 'judging' Jason's character and determing his actions are evidence of guilt.

I'm not trying to start a flame war or another bash Jason session, just asking how the 2 opposites can be reconciled. I have always struggled with the use of character issues to prove guilt, especially in light of the Cynthia Sommers case.

If we are all different and take pride in our individuality, how can that individuality then be used against us as some type of evidence that we committed a crime?

[Barbara2]

Originally Posted by alterEgo©

It appears that this case is gearing up to be one of 'character'. By that I mean, that the evidence against Jason is how he 'acted' and it being deemed inappropiate because it isn't how the person making the determination would have acted/not acted.

I recall many posts in defense of Meredith's 911 call that said 'you don't know how you would act in that situation', yet 'how I would act' is a common theme in 'judging' Jason's character and determing his actions are evidence of guilt.

I'm not trying to start a flame war or another bash Jason session, just asking how the 2 opposites can be reconciled. I have always struggled with the use of character issues to prove guilt, especially in light of the Cynthia Sommers case.

If we are all different and take pride in our individuality, how can that individuality then be used against us as some type of evidence that we committed a crime?

I disagree. I think the evidence apart from his refusal to talk shows his guilt. Some of it obviously has not been made public. I really do think you will have many "WOW!" moments when the case goes to trial and you hear the evidence. JMO

[luna24]

Originally Posted by alterEgo©

It appears that this case is gearing up to be one of 'character'. By that I mean, that the evidence against Jason is how he 'acted' and it being deemed inappropiate because it isn't how the person making the determination would have acted/not acted.

I recall many posts in defense of Meredith's 911 call that said 'you don't know how you would act in that situation', yet 'how I would act' is a common theme in 'judging' Jason's character and determing his actions are evidence of guilt.

I'm not trying to start a flame war or another bash Jason session, just asking how the 2 opposites can be reconciled. I have always struggled with the use of character issues to prove guilt, especially in light of the Cynthia Sommers case.

If we are all different and take pride in our individuality, how can that individuality then be used against us as some type of evidence that we committed a crime?

you're comparing apples to oranges. Meredith had just discovered the body of her murdered sister...JY's actions started that evening and have continued to raise eyebrows for the past 2 yrs and 4 months since her murder.

[achristie]

Originally Posted by alterEgo©

It appears that this case is gearing up to be one of 'character'. By that I mean, that the evidence against Jason is how he 'acted' and it being deemed inappropiate because it isn't how the person making the determination would have acted/not acted.

I recall many posts in defense of Meredith's 911 call that said 'you don't know how you would act in that situation', yet 'how I would act' is a common theme in 'judging' Jason's character and determing his actions are evidence of guilt.

I'm not trying to start a flame war or another bash Jason session, just asking how the 2 opposites can be reconciled. I have always struggled with the use of character issues to prove guilt, especially in light of the Cynthia Sommers case.

If we are all different and take pride in our individuality, how can that individuality then be used against us as some type of evidence that we committed a crime?

I disagree. Gearing up to be a case of character? No way.
More like a methodically built case of circumstantial evidence.

MOO Aggie

[alterEgo©]

So, y'all don't want to discuss the slipperly slope of character assassination used as evidence of guilt. Like what happened to Cynithia Sommers.

I at least expected someone to say something along the lines of 'his affairs showed that he didn't take his vows seriously and that he didn't love his wife. And if he didn't love her, it makes murder
a line he would cross. Because people don't kill what they love."

Can't say I didn't try.

*sigh*

ETA - character (state of mind) is CE and I have no fruit (apples, oranges, pears or grapes)

[achristie]

Originally Posted by alterEgo©

So, y'all don't want to discuss the slipperly slope of character assassination used as evidence of guilt. Like what happened to Cynithia Sommers.

I at least expected someone to say something along the lines of 'his affairs showed that he didn't take his vows seriously and that he didn't love his wife. And if he didn't love her, it makes murder
a line he would cross. Because people don't kill what they love."

Can't say I didn't try.

*sigh*

ETA - character (state of mind) is CE

I don't know anything about Cynthia Sommers. Guess you didn't like my response.

[alterEgo©]

Originally Posted by Barbara2

I disagree. I think the evidence apart from his refusal to talk shows his guilt. Some of it obviously has not been made public. I really do think you will have many "WOW!" moments when the case goes to trial and you hear the evidence. JMO

What non-character/behavior evidence do you think shows his guilt?

[alterEgo©]

Originally Posted by achristie

I don't know anything about Cynthia Sommers. Guess you didn't like my response.

It's not that I didn't like it, it's just that it didn't make sense because behavior is CE.

[Doorbell]

Originally Posted by alterEgo©

It appears that this case is gearing up to be one of 'character'. By that I mean, that the evidence against Jason is how he 'acted' and it being deemed inappropiate because it isn't how the person making the determination would have acted/not acted.

I recall many posts in defense of Meredith's 911 call that said 'you don't know how you would act in that situation', yet 'how I would act' is a common theme in 'judging' Jason's character and determing his actions are evidence of guilt.

I'm not trying to start a flame war or another bash Jason session, just asking how the 2 opposites can be reconciled. I have always struggled with the use of character issues to prove guilt, especially in light of the Cynthia Sommers case.

If we are all different and take pride in our individuality, how can that individuality then be used against us as some type of evidence that we committed a crime?

There are certain universals in human behavior. Grieving is one of them. While it is true that people grieve differently, still, everyone grieves when a loved one dies. When a person's spouse is killed, the survivor wants justice. For Jason not to pursue that is a huge red flag.

It's not so much how he acted compared to how I, personally, or anyone I know, or have read about, or anything like that. It's more that he did nothing.

No inquiries of the police as to how the investigation was going.

No answering questions. No saying, "Ask me anything. Give me a polygraph. I'll tell you whatever I can to help clear my name so you can move on to finding the person who killed my wife!"

No funeral arrangements. This is huge, also. Most of us who have lost a spouse will go to great lengths to be the one to arrange the funeral, memorial, etc., in order to ensure that our spouse's wishes are followed.

No headstone.

No sympathy whatsoever for Michelle's family (with the possible exclusion of Alan).

As far as the 911 call goes, I, personally, do not hear the much touted "flat affect" that Meredith is supposed to have displayed. I heard the tremor in her voice that is very real. I could hear the control that she was clinging to for all she was worth. And, if she did make conflicting statements (which, again, I didn't hear)...well, I have personal experience of making 911 calls and having the words come out garbled.

[alterEgo©]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

The amount of otherwise unknown 'evidence' we have seen via 2 years of SW's is unprecedented.

Oh please.

[achristie]

Originally Posted by alterEgo©

It's not that I didn't like it, it's just that it didn't make sense because behavior is CE.

It didn't make sense? Are you kidding me? So sorry to disappoint you with my limited knowledge.

Were his behavior and character a large part of CE , I'd surmise he'd be behind bars by now.

Were we to discuss such things being valid you would be the first to jump all over it.

MOO Aggie

[alterEgo©]

Originally Posted by Doorbell

There are certain universals in human behavior. Grieving is one of them. While it is true that people grieve differently, still, everyone grieves when a loved one dies. When a person's spouse is killed, the survivor wants justice. For Jason not to pursue that is a huge red flag.

It's not so much how he acted compared to how I, personally, or anyone I know, or have read about, or anything like that. It's more that he did nothing.

No inquiries of the police as to how the investigation was going.

No answering questions. No saying, "Ask me anything. Give me a polygraph. I'll tell you whatever I can to help clear my name so you can move on to finding the person who killed my wife!"

No funeral arrangements. This is huge, also. Most of us who have lost a spouse will go to great lengths to be the one to arrange the funeral, memorial, etc., in order to ensure that our spouse's wishes are followed.

No headstone.

No sympathy whatsoever for Michelle's family (with the possible exclusion of Alan).

As far as the 911 call goes, I, personally, do not hear the much touted "flat affect" that Meredith is supposed to have displayed. I heard the tremor in her voice that is very real. I could hear the control that she was clinging to for all she was worth. And, if she did make conflicting statements (which, again, I didn't hear)...well, I have personal experience of making 911 calls and having the words come out garbled.

See, you listed various character issues and behaviors that you use to futher your argument that he is guilty. And no, I'm not saying your argument is invalid on it's face.

But those same character issues/behaviors have been displayed by the innocent and the guilty. We are all different and we all handle things differently and we all have different personalities. We all have different life events that shape our responses.

The question I have is, for those convinced Jason is guilty, how do you know that Jason's behavior would be different if he was innocent?

[alterEgo©]

Originally Posted by achristie

It didn't make sense? Are you kidding me? So sorry to disappoint you with my limited knowledge.

Were his behavior and character a large part of CE , I'd surmise he'd be behind bars by now.

Were we to discuss such things being valid you would be the first to jump all over it.

MOO Aggie

Um...no, I'm not kidding you.

[achristie]

Originally Posted by alterEgo©

Um...no, I'm not kidding you.

LOL. I'm crushed.

MOO Aggie

[alterEgo©]

Does anyone know the wire tap laws in NC? I recall in Peterson West, Amber's recording of calls with Scott was 100% legal under Cali law that stipulated only one party in the conversation had to agree to the tap.

I'm just curious if MM was taping calls with JY all that time after the murder. LE is going after his email, so they definately want to know what he has been saying....

[alterEgo©]

Originally Posted by achristie

LOL. I'm crushed.

MOO Aggie

Naaaaah, your're not crushed, you're just a good egg.

most of the time.....

[Leanne Weich]

Originally Posted by alterEgo©

So, y'all don't want to discuss the slipperly slope of character assassination used as evidence of guilt. Like what happened to Cynithia Sommers.

I at least expected someone to say something along the lines of 'his affairs showed that he didn't take his vows seriously and that he didn't love his wife. And if he didn't love her, it makes murder
a line he would cross. Because people don't kill what they love."

Can't say I didn't try.

*sigh*

ETA - character (state of mind) is CE and I have no fruit (apples, oranges, pears or grapes)

I'll have no problem discussing the assassination of Jason's character if he is convicted on that and then subsequently exonerated or if a conviction were to be obtained only by what is perceived to be his failure to act in what we (general we) deem to be appropriate.

I don't, however, think this case is going to come down to a character assassination trial. If that were the case, I imagine he'd have been arrested long ago.

Can you honestly say that you don't think that it's very probable that Jason is guilty, given his behaviour pertaining to the WDS and the Custody suit. I know that is also based on character but it's not speculating on rumours etc. It is a fact that he chose to throw in the towel and accepted a civil ruling of being named the slayer.

[Stellagant]

Originally Posted by alterEgo©

Does anyone know the wire tap laws in NC? I recall in Peterson West, Amber's recording of calls with Scott was 100% legal under Cali law that stipulated only one party in the conversation had to agree to the tap.

I'm just curious if MM was taping calls with JY all that time after the murder. LE is going after his email, so they definately want to know what he has been saying....

NC is a one-party state.

Cali is actually a both-party state. I was always mystified why Geragos didn't challenge the admissability of Amber's tapings. I wasn't aware that the Judge did rule on it. Thanks.

[Barbara2]

Originally Posted by alterEgo©

What non-character/behavior evidence do you think shows his guilt?

Not using his key card again when he was known to be out of his room at the hotel

The missing shirt

His dna surrounded by blood spatter on the wall

Not being able to be excluded from the dna on the jewelry box

Shoe print in blood matching a shoe sole known to be owned by him

"Coincidence" of sending his SIL to the house the next day on a suspicious errand

That's all I can think of right now. I'm sure there are others that have nothing to do with behavior/character issues.

[alterEgo©]

Originally Posted by Barbara2

Not using his key card again when he was known to be out of his room at the hotel

The missing shirt

His dna surrounded by blood spatter on the wall

Not being able to be excluded from the dna on the jewelry box

Shoe print in blood matching a shoe sole known to be owned by him

"Coincidence" of sending his SIL to the house the next day on a suspicious errand

That's all I can think of right now. I'm sure there are others that have nothing to do with behavior/character issues.

Not using his room key - that could be argued as a non issue since I'm sure quite a few people have propped their doors so they don't have to use the key to get back in. I am very curious as to the time stamp on the hotel receipt. If it's the same time he was captured on video at the front desk, then I'm left wondering what he had to return to the hotel for that prompted a propping open of the outside door.

The missing shirt - the fact that LE didn't get a warrant to look at Heather and Pat's house for it for well over a year opens the door to a reasonable explanation as to why LE didn't find it - they waited so long to look.

DNA surrounded by blood splatter - since his DNA is expected to be in his house, this too has an 'innocent' explanation....on the surface. For some reason, I was under the impression the area in question had a 'dent' in the sheet rock.

DNA on the jewerly box - didn't a report say the DNA from the jewerly box was degraded? To me, that indicates it is old. And w/o knowing what markers matched, it's hard to say how significant it is to say Jason cannot be excluded as a donor. Again, he lived there and would have an innocent reason to handle the jewerly box.

Bloody shoe print - the outsole pattern matches 2 other shoe models, not just the ones they can prove Jason owned. Did he own them at the time of the murder is the question and if so, where are they now? With the shirt? And what about the size 10 Franklin? How do they tie that to Jason?

The printout. This, to me, is the clencher. And it raises a question in my mind - why would he wait until noon to call Meredith and 'rescue' Cassidy? If nothing else, this plays into a he-drugged-his-daughter argument very well as it could be argued he had to wait to call Meredith because Cassidy would still be out of it.

What doesn't make sense to me is that he had to clean himself up or risk transferring blood from the murder to his vehicle. If the theory that he took a shower is correct, that leaves me wondering why on earth didn't he 'clean up' the bathroom that Cassidy was cleaned up in? Why didn't he just pocket the Pancof after giving it to Cassidy instead of leaving it behind? Perhaps having to deal with Cassidy caught him by surprise with no plan on what to do - but on the same token, the strangulation failure seems to have taken him by surprise (evidenced by the overkill) yet he was seemingly able to clean up to the point that he didn't leave sufficient evidence behind that he was the perp.

[Barbara2]

The police took everything in his car that night when he came back to Raleigh. The shirt should have been there. It wasn't.

As to not cleaning up the bathroom, my thinking is that this crime took a lot longer than anticipated. I believe that it is possible that he took a shower after killing Michelle and it was while he was in the shower that Cassidy came into the room. I think he may have cleaned her up quickly but he was running out of time so he didn't have time to clean up the bathroom.

Those who commit crimes always make mistakes. It's just a matter of whether or not the investigators can tie those mistakes back to the criminal and the crime.

[alterEgo©]

But Barbara2, they didn't know to even look for the shirt when they impounded his vehicle. And they don't even list the luggage as items seized.

[Barbara2]

Originally Posted by alterEgo©

But Barbara2, they didn't know to even look for the shirt when they impounded his vehicle. And they don't even list the luggage as items seized.

I think there was discussion about this back some time ago. There is something about the contents of the car being part of the car and can be searched without a separate warrant. I don't know that they have to list it separately. I know that we were told that the family was upset because their luggage was in the car and therefore was "impounded" with the car. I do believe that they still had the car and luggage when they got the tape. IMO *Going to go look at the wording in the SW now.*

ETA: They viewed the security video on November 4th so they still had the luggage. IMO

[Leanne Weich]

aE, you can refute all those points very well but, at the end of the day, do you think a jury would believe that it is likely that one would have to explain so much away or do you think they'll see it as a sign of a guilty man who has to explain all these things away. It is my opinion that there will probably be so much CE that, in its totality, will seal his fate.

[Stellagant]

Originally Posted by Leanne Weich

aE, you can refute all those points very well but, at the end of the day, do you think a jury would believe that it is likely that one would have to explain so much away or do you think they'll see it as a sign of a guilty man who has to explain all these things away. It is my opinion that there will probably be so much CE that, in its totality, will seal his fate.

I think AE's point is that under our court system, if there is an alternative, reasonable explanation for a piece of evidence--such as the fact Jason lived in the home and his DNA is expected to be present--a jury is instructed by the judge that they have to accept the reasonable explanation.

[Stellagant]

Originally Posted by alterEgo©

Not using his room key - that could be argued as a non issue since I'm sure quite a few people have propped their doors so they don't have to use the key to get back in. I am very curious as to the time stamp on the hotel receipt. If it's the same time he was captured on video at the front desk, then I'm left wondering what he had to return to the hotel for that prompted a propping open of the outside door.

The missing shirt - the fact that LE didn't get a warrant to look at Heather and Pat's house for it for well over a year opens the door to a reasonable explanation as to why LE didn't find it - they waited so long to look.

DNA surrounded by blood splatter - since his DNA is expected to be in his house, this too has an 'innocent' explanation....on the surface. For some reason, I was under the impression the area in question had a 'dent' in the sheet rock.

DNA on the jewerly box - didn't a report say the DNA from the jewerly box was degraded? To me, that indicates it is old. And w/o knowing what markers matched, it's hard to say how significant it is to say Jason cannot be excluded as a donor. Again, he lived there and would have an innocent reason to handle the jewerly box.

Bloody shoe print - the outsole pattern matches 2 other shoe models, not just the ones they can prove Jason owned. Did he own them at the time of the murder is the question and if so, where are they now? With the shirt? And what about the size 10 Franklin? How do they tie that to Jason?

The printout. This, to me, is the clencher. And it raises a question in my mind - why would he wait until noon to call Meredith and 'rescue' Cassidy? If nothing else, this plays into a he-drugged-his-daughter argument very well as it could be argued he had to wait to call Meredith because Cassidy would still be out of it.

What doesn't make sense to me is that he had to clean himself up or risk transferring blood from the murder to his vehicle. If the theory that he took a shower is correct, that leaves me wondering why on earth didn't he 'clean up' the bathroom that Cassidy was cleaned up in? Why didn't he just pocket the Pancof after giving it to Cassidy instead of leaving it behind? Perhaps having to deal with Cassidy caught him by surprise with no plan on what to do - but on the same token, the strangulation failure seems to have taken him by surprise (evidenced by the overkill) yet he was seemingly able to clean up to the point that he didn't leave sufficient evidence behind that he was the perp.

iirc, the residue in the dropper wasn't Pancof, it was Tylenol.
This could be why LE concluded the child wasn't bloodied because she was drugged but was because she was removed from the scene? Don't forget there is the newspaper delivery witness who lends support to this theory.

[Barbara2]

Originally Posted by Stellagant

iirc, the residue in the dropper wasn't Pancof, it was Tylenol.
This could be why LE concluded the child wasn't bloodied because she was drugged but was because she was removed from the scene? Don't forget there is the newspaper delivery witness who lends support to this theory.

They didn't say what the residue was but the latest search warrant went into great detail regarding the Pancof. They also stated in the warrant that Mrs. Young told the detectives that Jason had admitted to her that he gave Cassidy adult cold medicines but that he diluted them with water. They did say that it was a pancof medicine dropper that was seized. IMO

[5swab5]

Originally Posted by Stellagant

I think AE's point is that under our court system, if there is an alternative, reasonable explanation for a piece of evidence--such as the fact Jason lived in the home and his DNA is expected to be present--a jury is instructed by the judge that they have to accept the reasonable explanation.

A judge also tells the jurors that they each bring their own common sense and life experiences with them and that they are not expected to "check" those at the door. Jurors are ordinary people, that are entrusted with finding the truth.

Jurors will take into account some extraneous explanation for certain things, but when they have to start doing that for every little thing, they too realize that they are being asked to make too many excuses, and they will quit.

CE cases are some of the strongest, because they do require the jurors to be very analytical. They get to figure out for themselves which side is trying to fool them. MOO

[5swab5]

Originally Posted by Stellagant

iirc, the residue in the dropper wasn't Pancof, it was Tylenol.
This could be why LE concluded the child wasn't bloodied because she was drugged but was because she was removed from the scene? Don't forget there is the newspaper delivery witness who lends support to this theory.

How exactly, does a newspaper delivery person's statement that there was a vehicle in the driveway early in the morning, that was not dissimilar to Jason Young's...morph into Cassidy was "removed from the scene"? Preposterous. MOO

[Stellagant]

Originally Posted by Barbara2

They didn't say what the residue was but the latest search warrant went into great detail regarding the Pancof. They also stated in the warrant that Mrs. Young told the detectives that Jason had admitted to her that he gave Cassidy adult cold medicines but that he diluted them with water. They did say that it was a pancof medicine dropper that was seized. IMO

A pancof dropper may have been seized but that isn't the one they tested for CY's DNA. In the s/w for Cassidy's DNA (that was sealed), Spivey said he believed the red liquid residual was Tylenol. He also includes a photograph and a description of the red liquid in the Tylenol bottle. He further states:

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local...5131342180.pdf

"On the same shelf as the bottle of Tylenol is a "dropper" which is commonly used to deliver liquid medications to children. Contained within the pipette of the dropper, there appears to be a red liquid residual.

Due to the location of the Tylenol and the dropper, it is believed that the medication was delivered to Cassidy Young.

It is further believed that the medication was delivered to the child under the mistaken belief that it would cause drowsiness. Once the child was asleep, the perpetrator would have been able to continue their attack without worrying about the interference from the child."

[Barbara2]

Originally Posted by Stellagant

A pancof dropper may have been seized but that isn't the one they tested for CY's DNA. In the s/w for Cassidy's DNA (that was sealed), Spivey said he believed the red liquid residual was Tylenol. He also includes a photograph and a description of the red liquid in the Tylenol bottle. He further states:

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local...5131342180.pdf

"On the same shelf as the bottle of Tylenol is a "dropper" which is commonly used to deliver liquid medications to children. Contained within the pipette of the dropper, there appears to be a red liquid residual.

Due to the location of the Tylenol and the dropper, it is believed that the medication was delivered to Cassidy Young.

It is further believed that the medication was delivered to the child under the mistaken belief that it would cause drowsiness. Once the child was asleep, the perpetrator would have been able to continue their attack without worrying about the interference from the child."

I was referring to the most recent warrant. It is more likely to contain the most accurate information, IMO.

[Stellagant]

Originally Posted by 5swab5

A judge also tells the jurors that they each bring their own common sense and life experiences with them and that they are not expected to "check" those at the door. Jurors are ordinary people, that are entrusted with finding the truth.

Jurors will take into account some extraneous explanation for certain things, but when they have to start doing that for every little thing, they too realize that they are being asked to make too many excuses, and they will quit.

CE cases are some of the strongest, because they do require the jurors to be very analytical. They get to figure out for themselves which side is trying to fool them. MOO

Sorry but as much as I know you want to believe it, a juror can't ignore jury instructions. Jurors take an oath they will follow the judge's instructions and don't get to "figure out for themselves" outside of those jury instructions.

[Stellagant]

Originally Posted by Barbara2

I was referring to the most recent warrant. It is more likely to contain the most accurate information, IMO.

I didn't say the most recent warrants weren't accurate, I provided a link that proves the dropper tested for CY's DNA is the one Spivey believed contained Tylenol residue.

Nowhere in the most recent warrants does Spivey claim the Pancof dropper was tested for DNA. Can you never admit when you are wrong? GMAB

[Stellagant]

Originally Posted by 5swab5

How exactly, does a newspaper delivery person's statement that there was a vehicle in the driveway early in the morning, that was not dissimilar to Jason Young's...morph into Cassidy was "removed from the scene"? Preposterous. MOO

The vehicle the witness saw is also similar to Michelle Young's vehicle and thus supports Spivey's theory that CY was removed from the scene. If you find it preposterous, you'll have to take it up with Investigator Spivey:

"Due to the situation with the child's bloodied footprints versus the clean condition of the child's feet when found; the confusion over the keys to the decedent's vehicle and how they came to be placed on the kitchen counter and Meredith Fisher's keys being found on the hood of the decedent's vehicle, it is believed that the 2000 Lexus silver Lexus RX 300 could have been used to transport the child from the scene."

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local...5131306653.pdf