« Jason Young - Murderer? | Main | I Love You to Death - Reprise »
November 15, 2006
Trotting out the “Constitutionally Incapable” Defense
In the annals of spousal murder cases, the first line of defense from family members or friends of the accused is often, “He couldn’t have done it.” None of us is willing to believe that our loved one is capable of murder; it’s not fathomable to most people that their sons, brothers, friends or priests have a double life or an insane impulse to resort to such a cold-blooded act. Years after a trial, some supporters of convicted murderers persist in defending the innocence of their loved ones. They invest time and resources into appealing convictions, setting up web sites as ad hoc defense cases, petitioning courts, hiring investigators and attorneys, and refusing to accept the verdict. This is not unusual or unexpected.
We naturally resist accepting the evil nature of the human condition, especially in ourselves or someone we love. Despite the barrage of actual crime stories in our midst, and the plethora of crime-related television programs, somehow when it comes to our own family or friends, these dark realities don’t apply. Yet, isn’t it a fact that prominent members of the community: celebrities, sports figures, rabbis, fertilizer salesmen, scout leaders, elders in the church, postal carriers, teachers, scientists, millionaires, and drifters alike have been convicted of murder with no previous history of criminal behavior and, rather, otherwise sterling reputations?
Have we not seen people we would never expect to behave in a manner inconsistent with their values do horrendous and despicable things?
There are cases where the natural suspect was falsely accused and wrongfully convicted, but these are rare. While the court of public opinion may jump to erroneous conclusions and try and convict without the legal standard of reasonable doubt and admissible evidence, criminal courts across the land (arguably) do not. I am the last to claim that our justice system is infallible; however, white middle- or upper-class men usually receive fair trials. It is not the purpose of this blog to be a venue for discussing the justice system. I prefer to look at cases in the context of history, statistics, the psychology of evil, and patterns that appear to recur in staged domestic homicides.
In a recent article about the Young murder, investigators are said to be looking at a peculiar car accident the couple was in prior to Michelle Young’s murder. Armchair sleuths on crime forums are speculating that this was a possible attempted murder that went awry. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t. A man in California was convicted recently for murdering his wife and children by driving his car off a cliff into the ocean where his wife and child drowned as he resurfaced unharmed. It’s a crazy way to kill someone, but it’s not unprecedented. As the saying goes, “There is nothing new under the sun.”
Still, they are examining every aspect of the couple's life together, including a May 29, 2005, car accident in Transylvania County when Jason Young drove off a road down a 100-foot embankment into the French Broad River. Neither he nor Michelle Young were seriously injured."They just wanted to know the circumstances and if I saw anything unusual with the wreck, which I did not," said sate Highway Patrol trooper David Hicks, who investigated the crash.
The couple’s house is still an “active crime scene”, but Jason Young has not been declared a suspect. Neither has anyone else:
Over the course of the investigation, they have taken fingerprints from any person who has had access to the house, including Young's husband, Jason Young, who gave his fingerprints under a court order.Investigators have also interviewed and collected fingerprint evidence from other people, although they have declined to say how many and whom.
Statistically, the longer the crime goes unsolved, the more difficult it becomes. If there were compelling evidence that this murder was committed by a stranger, a neighbor who didn’t belong in the house, a “goth” teenager copycatting Scott Dyleski, or a serial killer who had stalked Mrs. Young and knew her husband would be out of town that night, I suspect there would have been some hint of this from police. As it stands, or until more information points to a different conclusion, Occam’s Razor must apply.
Comments
According to:
http://www.wral.com/news/10330306/detail.html
Twelve days after the discovery, the house at 5108 Birchleaf Drive is still an active crime scene. Investigators say they are preserving the scene in case they need to gather more evidence.
Seems like an inordinate amount of time to me.
Posted by: LDP | November 15, 2006 07:32 PM
I'd rather see the crime scene stay protected longer than "neccessary" than to have anything that may be useful compromised.
Posted by: Nadine | November 15, 2006 07:36 PM
Occam's Razor, huh? Great $5 term for the simplest explanation. Who gets to be the one to determine what the simplest explanation is?
Also, what gets me is that society immediately suspects the spouse when the other is murdered. Why? Shouldn't the spouse be given the benefit of doubt until evidence or circumstance dictate otherwise?
Posted by: Hal | November 15, 2006 07:37 PM
Would you have the spouse not be asked to contribute DNA to eliminate that person as a suspect?
Posted by: Nadine | November 15, 2006 07:40 PM
According to statistics, the spouse is the most likely suspect.
Posted by: vero | November 15, 2006 07:41 PM
Very true, Vero. Better for LE to start inside and work out.
Much easier to eliminate suspects before too much time elapses.
Posted by: Nadine | November 15, 2006 07:46 PM
Everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt. That's why there have been no arrests, yet. But that doesn't preclude our speculating.
Posted by: loretta | November 15, 2006 07:50 PM
Believe me. Not dense here. I get the point. And in one vein...I agree. My statement is more of an observation that it's a sad testament to our society when a spouse who has entered into a lifelong covenant of love and commitment with someone else is immediately suspected when foul play has occurred. That doesn't sit well with me. The pulse here and in the news outlets is almost anxious expectation that Jason will be ultimately arrested.
sad.
Posted by: Hal | November 15, 2006 07:50 PM
Thanks for a reasonable and rational explanation, Loretta.
Posted by: Vix | November 15, 2006 07:51 PM
Oh, I didn't mean it like that. I am glad they are protecting it too.
I also realize that it was a messy crime scene, just seems to me that twelve days is a lot longer than is usually spent collecting evidence.
Maybe I just never paid that much attention to the clock before.
Posted by: LDP | November 15, 2006 07:54 PM
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm#intprop
Here's a Dep't of Justice page with little charts of statistics.
It is a sad testament to our society.
For some reason, there are far too many men who have vowed to love, honour and cherish, who decide to kill rather than divorce. As Sharon Rocha said at Scott Peterson's penalty phase trial, "Divorce is always an option."
We do not WANT the killer to be Jason. Sadly, the odds are that he is.
Posted by: vero | November 15, 2006 08:01 PM
From Vero's link:
For every age group female murder victims are more likely than
male victims to have been killed by an intimate.
For that reason, LE always looks to the victim's immediate circle first before widening the investigation.
Posted by: CountryGal | November 15, 2006 08:12 PM
Actually your stats dont' really prove your point. Per the stats you provided, 69% of husbands who kill their wives use guns. 26% use knives. Blunt force was only the case in 2% of the cases analyzed.
So this case goes against the stats you so strongly seem to profess to believe in. Just an observation since you seem to like stats.
Posted by: Casual observer | November 15, 2006 08:19 PM
I think a person would have to have a lot of anger to beat a loved one to death. I think a hired killer would be more likely to use a gun.
Posted by: vero | November 15, 2006 08:21 PM
I wonder how many days the sheriff would have kept the murder scene closed if the victim and spouse were black, or if the victim and spouse were poor, or lived in a trailer park.
Posted by: Captain Joe | November 15, 2006 08:24 PM
Michael Peterson used blunt force trauma to kill his wife, in NC no less.
Posted by: Barbara | November 15, 2006 08:25 PM
Hard telling, Joe. Another sad fact is that case involving victims with money and "status" get more attention.
Posted by: vero | November 15, 2006 08:28 PM
Not saying it doesn't happen, just that everyone is using stats to say the spouse is likely to do it. Those same stats say if the spouse does it, he's likely to use a gun or knife. I didn't post the stats to begin with but am just making a point.
Posted by: Casual observer | November 15, 2006 08:33 PM
Casual O, I am not saying that Jason is guilty. I am saying that he might well be. The fact that a cour order was needed to get a DNA sample sets off alarms with me.
Posted by: vero | November 15, 2006 08:37 PM
They stats are probably very similar as far as weapons of choice in homicides across the board, Casual observer.
Posted by: Monica` | November 15, 2006 08:37 PM
I rest my case.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm
Posted by: Monica` | November 15, 2006 08:39 PM
I don't care who did this--I just want them put away as soon as possible.
Posted by: CountryGal | November 15, 2006 08:48 PM
I second that, CountryGal.
Posted by: Nadine | November 15, 2006 08:49 PM
"They stats are probably very similar as far as weapons of choice in homicides across the board, Casual observer."
Not really, per the stats you just provided, the average amongst all crimes in 2004 would be blunt force used 4.7% of the time. The spouse statistic is only 2% - hence less than 50% of the national average for all crimes.
Posted by: casual observer | November 15, 2006 09:25 PM
I didn't say murder weapon trends in spousal murders vs. all murders were exactly the same, only similar statistically. And they are. They are rare.
If you are trying to say that Jason is less likely to have committed the crime of murder against his wife because she was killed by blunt force trauma as opposed to some other method, then your theory is flawed.
Not many Americans are murdered that way, period. end of sentence.
I have no idea if he murdered his wife. That was never my point to begin with.
Posted by: Monica` | November 15, 2006 09:48 PM
Just to clear up my last post. The first sentence should have read blunt force trama murders vs. all murders.
Posted by: Monica` | November 15, 2006 10:04 PM
The point is that we are not in the jury pool. We do not write for Nancy Grace. We are merely private citizens who enjoy speculating about crimes, specifically family homicides. We gather at our cyber water cooler and toss a few ideas around.
As Loretta is fond of saying, it's not our first rodeo. We have followed several such crimes over the past few years. We've been right most of the time, with a few glaring exceptions. If we are wrong, apologies will be made. Of course we have no real life effect on law enforcement, news broadcasting or anything else.
We like to see justice done.
Posted by: vero | November 15, 2006 10:08 PM
You don't understand the law if you think its odd for a court order to be obtained to get DNA. *Anything* and I mean anything that is volunarily given to the police is not open to cross examination. No defense attorney in the country is going to have his client give DNA without a court order no matter how innocent they might be. The fact is mistakes happen. In this case, you have a spouse. He's going to have DNA in the house and potentially on the wifes body because they live together and presumably have a conjugal relationship. If there is no "smoking gun" so to speak that makes this a cut and dry case (and despite CSI's portrayal - most are not) then certainly the prosecution can try to build a case around him based on that sort of evidence. As you all have said many times through the posts I perused, most people assume its always the spouse. Thus, law enforcement is going to be working real hard to pin things on him regardless. His attorney is not going to advise his client to submit anything
voluntarily because anything he does could and would be used against him and his attorney would have no grounds for objection. Its quite simple really. If you are the defense, you dont' volunteer anything. His client hasn't been charged with anything. If/when he is, no doubt he'll respond to those charges. However, he hasnt' been and at this point, 10+ days in, its very likely there is no strong evidence pointing to him or police would have at least brought him in for questioning. Any normal defense attorney in the country would handle this case this way.
In a case such as this, when there is strong public urging for an arrest, no one is going to take any chances. This is completely normal procedure as far as court ordered dna, etc...
Posted by: legal eagle | November 15, 2006 10:59 PM
Maybe so, Legal Eagle, but, if my spouse were found murdered, I'd not be thinking in terms of lawyers and defense. I'd be thinking of doing everything I could to help LE solve the crime. I would want justice for my spouse, above all.
"Gee...I'm the spouse, so they'll suspect me first. I'd better get a lawyer."
No.
Try,
"Of course! Take anything! Only find the SOB who did this!"
Posted by: vero | November 15, 2006 11:19 PM
I absolutely agree with the legal analysis above.
It is not, however, true that they would arrest him right away. They may be waiting to get all their ducks in a row. For any suspect, not just the first on the list.
We've seen many murder cases go unsolved for months, even years. Justice is sometimes quite slow.
Posted by: loretta | November 16, 2006 12:32 AM
Morning all. It is still raining!
There have been a few contradictions made, by some of Jason's supporters.
First of all to Cpt Joe. If they have released the time of the attack or the murder, I haven't seen it. So it is possible that Jason being 350 -400 miles away at that time may be a bit premature.
JTF, was it you who said that Michelle would sometimes forget to lock the doors, as pregnant women are inclined to be forgetful? If it was you, you can't have it both ways.
Surely, Michelle would make sure she locked up if the dogs were continually being disturbed.
To those friends who think Jason could never have done this: No-one has suggested that this was a "planned" murder. The blunt force killing looks like a rage attack to me. Too much blood for it to have been planned.
Scott Peterson planned Laci's murder and it was a so called, soft kill.
Merely my personal opinion, of course.
Posted by: Mgt | November 16, 2006 04:47 AM
Vero, I was thinking the same thing. If someone I loved had been brutally murdered, I would be so enraged that I would not be thinking about lawyers and protecting myself.
I would be at that police station doing anything I could to find the b*stard or b*stards responsible. My anger would very soon overtake my grief.
Posted by: Mgt | November 16, 2006 04:50 AM
Even a high profile Defense Attorney appears to have his doubts about Jason's innocence.
The worry factors for him are; the phone call to the sister-in-law and not handing over his DNA until there was a warrant.
He has the same concerns as the people in here. Just thought I would mention that to those sitting in judgment of Misfitting.
Posted by: Mgt | November 16, 2006 07:42 AM
"There have been a few contradictions made, by some of Jason's supporters."
Nope, not really - just some people who lack an attention to detail when reading with a closed mind.
"JTF, was it you who said that Michelle would sometimes forget to lock the doors, as pregnant women are inclined to be forgetful? If it was you, you can't have it both ways.
Surely, Michelle would make sure she locked up if the dogs were continually being disturbed."
Actually, you need to go back and re-read what I said and go back and pay a little bit more attention to detail. I said when I was there a few weeks ago *my* dogs were barking. The young's dog was not a barky type dog. I thought at the time my dogs were barking at something in the woods like maybe a deer, but now wonder if someone could have been back there watching the house. I sincerely doubt that my dogs barking there one night a few weeks ago affected Michelle's decision to lock or not lock any doors. All I am saying is that Michelle was laughing about all the things she was forgetting to do during this pregnancy and it certainly is feasible she forgot or chose not to lock the door. As others, a realtor who lives in the area I believe, has posted, this was considered a safe neighborhood. It was not uncommon to not have alarm systems and to not lock doors.
"To those friends who think Jason could never have done this: No-one has suggested that this was a "planned" murder. The blunt force killing looks like a rage attack to me. Too much blood for it to have been planned."
Then you talk out of both sides of your mouth. This means per you -He didn't plan to kill his wife - just went into a rage when she was *sleeping* as per the observations of people here and on the CTV chat site that the sister described blood on the bed in the 911 tape. So he goes into a random rage that is according to you unplanned, but he is then so fortunate as to be able to think very clearly and to have set up a business meeting and drive to both that and to the family home in western NC, another trip that was planned in advance. He even made it evident that he was going to those trips by being at the home in a "non-enraged state" when Michelle's friend arrived. He then even took the time to look up a purse online and send the info to his home computer so that he could have his SIL pick it up. This was convenient because it was his 3rd anniversary and the 3rd year was leather. So, he meticulously planned out those details, but *forgot* to oh, maybe kick in a door or do something that made it look a little more like a burglary gone wrong. Also, he goes into a rage, even though he was home when Michelle's friend was there to watch TV and was perfectly normal. He leaves the home purportedly on a business trip, but secretly goes back and watches the house. Heck maybe he even has a 'secret" car no one knows about because most likely neighbors would have noticed his sitting in the neighborhood somewhere watching the house. Oh wait, no, I know - he goes to the trailer park and walks across the woods to conduct his surveillance. He then waits until the friend leaves, gives Michelle a call, from VA no less (obviously so she doesn't expect the upcoming and unplanned rage") goes into a rage, because????? I guess it is one of those rages in which you can leave your home witnessed, everything is fine, and then it just hits you?
It is unfortunate you are so blinded due to the Peterson case that you can't see glaring differences here and the fact that other that statistically speaking a spouse is more likely to murder a spouse, nothing else falls into place.
From what we know so far, it does seem that Michelle was the target, but I suspect there is far more to this than meets the eye. We have assumed when LE say its "not random" that that equates to "its the spouse" when not random simply means it was someone targetting her specifically. The question is why.
Posted by: just the facts | November 16, 2006 07:56 AM
Good morning, JTF - for what it's worth, I think your dogs barking is irrelevant. I think it is you who are demonstrating a closed mind.
I believe this neighbor/teen/stalker/serial killer, what have you, is a red herring.
Aliens could have done it, as far as your logic is taking this. ABJ - Anyone but Jason.
I have no stake in this being the spouse. But, until someone can show me something real, the coincidences are just not adding up to a stranger murder. The circumstances are adding up to Jason doing it. So far.
Posted by: loretta | November 16, 2006 08:02 AM
"Even a high profile Defense Attorney appears to have his doubts about Jason's innocence.
The worry factors for him are; the phone call to the sister-in-law and not handing over his DNA until there was a warrant.
He has the same concerns as the people in here. Just thought I would mention that to those sitting in judgment of Misfitting."
And you are that attorney or he has confided in you about his client, thereby putting confidentiality to the wayside and setting himself up to be disbarred?
No offense, but I sincerely doubt that.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 16, 2006 08:08 AM
Has there been any confirmation that Jason had a meeting? Do we know whether the blood on the bed was transferred by the little girl, perhaps?
It is ALL just speculation at the moment. Nothing has been proved or disproved.
I would like to see that Jason is making every effort he can to help LE. Lawyer or no lawyer, he should be consumed with anger that someone has done this to his family.
Maybe he is, who knows.
Posted by: Mgt | November 16, 2006 08:12 AM
Go read the transcripts from Nancy Grace, Anonymous!
Posted by: Mgt | November 16, 2006 08:14 AM
JTF, if you could control your typing enough to present your side of the argument without being snippy towards us, your opinion might cut a bit more ice here.
Please save your testiness for the CTV boards. We really try to be civil here. We don't always succeed, but we try.
Posted by: vero | November 16, 2006 08:15 AM
The quote was
"A"
"high profile defense attorney,"
not
"Jason's attorney."
Posted by: vero | November 16, 2006 08:18 AM
So he left the house BEFORE Michelle's friend left the house? How do you know that, JTF?
I'm not doubting you, by the way.
Posted by: Mgt | November 16, 2006 08:18 AM
I agree, Vero. They sure are getting all snippy. These are Jason's friends, I believe.
Posted by: Mgt | November 16, 2006 08:22 AM
First, I haven't been snippy with anyone. If responding to things you all say that make no sense with a logical answer hurts you feelings, then dont' read what I have to say. There is a simple solution. You think you can blast away at Jason, someone you don't know. As a friend to he and Michelle, when you present a flawed argument, then I'm sure as heck going to poke holes in it. Fair enough.
"Good morning, JTF - for what it's worth, I think your dogs barking is irrelevant. I think it is you who are demonstrating a closed mind. "
I didn't say if my dogs barking meant a thing or not. I just said it was odd behavior by them and it may or not have meant something. You are the person who brought up the dogs in an effort to make a point that Michelle would have locked the doors to keep the dogs from disturbing the neighbors. I simply pointed out that I doubted what my dogs did 3 weeks ago affected any decision she made on locking doors.
"I believe this neighbor/teen/stalker/serial killer, what have you, is a red herring.
Aliens could have done it, as far as your logic is taking this. ABJ - Anyone but Jason."
I don't think I've mentioned a stalker, serial killer, neighbor, teen, etc.." Others have mentioned those ideas. I have not. I've simply said I wondered if the house was being watched. Doesn't have to be a stranger to watch the house. Yes, I know it was anyone but Jason, but the facts show that too if you can get Scott Peterson off the brain. You make points which I and others discredit. However, instead of acknowledging (as with your unplanned rage theory) that the facts don't fit, you then go on to something else because you can't defend your point.
"I have no stake in this being the spouse. But, until someone can show me something real, the coincidences are just not adding up to a stranger murder. The circumstances are adding up to Jason doing it. So far."
Ahh, so now we convict on circumstantial evidence? As you will recall some of us haven't said it was a stranger murder - could well have been an acquaintance, colleague, or family member. Not random would include all of those things.
Posted by: just the facts | November 16, 2006 08:28 AM
Well, if they've been hanging out at CTV, it's understandable that they have got snippy.
One thing Barbara pointed out, though in a different context, is that we all get infected by the toxic nastiness over there, where ad hominem attacks are the rule, not the exception.
I prefer discussion without the bad feeling.
That said, Jason's friend makes some good points. I have not seen Jason on TV. The appearance and manner of the suspect influences my opinion a lot. Failing that, the "lawyering up" still sets off alarms with me.
I don't think it's a "murder for hire," unless he hired a real maniac. Too much gore. Too personal. I think it has to be somebody who (a) knew her and (b) had a grudge.
Posted by: vero | November 16, 2006 08:31 AM
JFT, you seem to be assuming that all of us have the same opinion. You are also responding to one person as if she were several.
Please release the idea that we are "convicting" Jason. This is not a court. We have the right to form opinions.
Posted by: vero | November 16, 2006 08:36 AM
"So he left the house BEFORE Michelle's friend left the house? How do you know that, JTF?
I'm not doubting you, by the way."
I know the friend who was there. She has been interviewed by police. This is no secret to those of us close to the family.
Posted by: just the facts | November 16, 2006 08:36 AM
"She has been interviewed by police."
Before people misinterpret that to mean police are treating her like a suspect, that's not what I meant. I meant that she is one of the people police have talked to and thus the police know Jason left for his trip while she was there.
Posted by: just the facts | November 16, 2006 08:39 AM
Okay, JTF. Thanks for putting me straight on that.
You seem to know more than most, so you will therefore understand the speculation that is going on.
Maybe you could tell us whether the meeting has been confirmed.
Posted by: Mgt | November 16, 2006 08:43 AM
I am not purporting the "sudden rage" theory, nor have I opined about dogs.
Don't conmingle everyone's opinion, speculation or ideas in here.
I have a name. I have my opinion, I am on a different track than Mgt or Vero, and what concerns others may or may not concern me.
I haven't really weighed in on this as much as I usually do. I have yet to be put at ease about some important facts (not speculation)
1. Jason was out of town - convenient much?
2. Sending the SIL over to retrieve a printout/fax whatever -- SMELLS TO HIGH HEAVEN. First instinct - he wanted a third-party to dicover the body and, in this case, see to his daughter. CLASSIC staged domestic homicide behavior.
3. Lawyering up doesn't bother me, but other things about his behavior do. Please don't trot out the "Playbook for Grief." It's just not gonna wash in here AT all.
4. I am not tainted by Peterson's case. I jumped all over Peterson from day one, too. I never thought he was innocent. I have been following true crime cases for 20 years, read hundreds of books, FBI profiling, psychology, etc.
This case smacks of staged domestic homicide - it walks and quacks like a duck, and until I see something that would radically change my mind (like an arrest of a suspect), that's my position.
All your arguments will have merit when you present something that makes sense.
Posted by: loretta | November 16, 2006 08:49 AM
Ahh, so now we convict on circumstantial evidence
We don't, per se, but juries do it every day.
Circumstantial evidence is almost all you have in murder cases like these. What would you think, that we have to have a video of a murder to convict?
FYI - fingerprints, dna, blood evidence, cell phone bills, insurance policies, dogs barking - are all examples circumstantial evidence.
Unless the witness was a 12-yr old instead of a 2-yr old, there can be no direct evidence.
Posted by: loretta | November 16, 2006 08:55 AM
I didn't realise the meeting was only 5 hours away. That gives him quite a window of opportunity. Especially, if he left home before 10:30 PM.
If his meeting was for 9:00 AM (which seems a little early), that is a window of between 10 and 11 hours.
His lack of transparency bothers me.
Posted by: Mgt | November 16, 2006 09:02 AM
There are circumstances here that are similar to those of the Abaroa case, which still remains unsolved.
http://www.wral.com/news/6404283/detail.html
Father gone.
Child unharmed.
Victim killed in a gory manner.
Victim pregnant.
Found in bedroom.
LE says "not random."
Raven Abaroa is not the sterling character that Jason appears to be, having been convicted of embezzlement.
Posted by: vero | November 16, 2006 09:05 AM
Faulty memory. He pled guilty, so it's not, techincally, a conviction. And Janet was stabbed.
Still, when I read about this case, it reminded me of that one.
Posted by: vero | November 16, 2006 09:17 AM
Contrary to popular opinion, circumstantial evidence can be more reliable than direct evidence. Confessions can be false and eye witnesses can be mistaken.
Posted by: Geralyn | November 16, 2006 09:18 AM
Jeanine Pero (sp?) on Greta last night said that rigor is going to set in at 10-12 hours seemingly making the murder to have occured between 1:30-3:30 am. Obviously, I'm not quoting fact.
Most murders occur by someone the victim knew (spouse, friend, acquaintance).
I rarely lock my doors at night or any other time and I live in the suburbs. It's not rural but a safe low crime community. I have 2 barky dogs that would probably shred an intruder. But, I'm under the theory if someone is motivated to get into my house, it really wouldn't be all that difficult even with the doors locked.
I'd lawyer up, immediately and take the advise of my lawyer. Manly because after reading what the media and law enforcement can do to people.
But, I wouldn't deny a Lie Detector Test. It can't be used against you in a court of lawyer regardless of the results. And if I didn't commit the crime, it would go a LONG way in helping police get off my trail and onto the real perp's.
I haven't heard that Jason has volunteered to take one. I'm speculating if he had and passed, his lawyer would certainly let the media know about it.
I do appreciate the insider information and look forward to more evidence being release about the crime.
Good morning.
Posted by: Monica` | November 16, 2006 09:22 AM
Hey Monica! Compared to me, you are the voice of reason.
I've been letting all sorts of thoughts and suspicions run through my mind on this one.
I firmly believe that if it has been confirmed that Jason was at a meeting at a certain time, or even at a hotel at a certain time, which would prove his innocence, his lawyer would be shouting from the roof tops. Don't you think?
Posted by: Mgt | November 16, 2006 09:29 AM
Good morning all!
Vero, FWI there are a couple of video links in the last entry that show Jason & Co. on the day of the funeral.
Posted by: Thumper | November 16, 2006 09:31 AM
AS to the va trip. Receipts were in the impounded vehicle. No doubt police have verified where they were from, obtained video, etc...
Loretta, I have presented many arguments that make sense and discredited your "random act of rage" theory. It seems you don't go back to validate your points when your theory doesn't "make sense". Stay on the lookout for a duck. Maybe one day, you'll find one. I'd check the local ponds - they often are found there.
Posted by: just the facts | November 16, 2006 09:31 AM
Um, It was me who make the "random act of rage" theory.
You seem to keep blaming Loretta for things I have written. Can't think why!
Posted by: Mgt | November 16, 2006 09:37 AM
I have never promoted a random act of rage theory. You are mistaking me for someone else.
Anyhoo, if he did it, he planned it. Whoever did it planned it. Murder One, nothing less.
As far as making sense, the arguments that anyone can make about anyone in this position make sense in that they are all plausible, but they are no more plausible than the idea that he did it. That's what I meant.
Bring me some real evidence that he didn't. I don't have to prove he did, but if you are going to insist he didn't, back up your claims with something more than the tired old "He's not capable of it!! He's genetically not capable of murder! He's such a nice guy, he fixed my flat tire!"
blah blah blah. Been there, done that, have the skull & crossbones t-shirt.
Posted by: loretta | November 16, 2006 09:38 AM
Thumper, Thanks for reminding me about the link you posted earlier.
I really can't tell a lot from that, except that he was wearing a red tie. I know that's probably not a problem for anyone--pretty small potatoes.
A trifle.
I've known people to wear red to funerals because they didn't have anything else.
I also know that all the old "rules" about what to wear to what occasion have been thrown out, and (mostly) rightly so.
Still, I have to wonder why a successful businessman, dressing for his wife's funeral, chooses a red tie.
Maybe it was her favourite colour?
Posted by: vero | November 16, 2006 09:55 AM
Good luck with finding that duck, JTF.
If I was you, I would stop the sarcasm and show a little respect to your Hostess. It is only good manners, after all.
Posted by: Mgt | November 16, 2006 09:55 AM
I suppose it's possible that it was maroon, and the TV camera recorded it as being brighter than it actually was.
JTF, I'm a theater costumer, so am overly conscious of what clothing and the choice thereof says about character.
Posted by: vero | November 16, 2006 09:57 AM
You're welcome, Vero!
Posted by: Thumper | November 16, 2006 10:00 AM
I did see the video footage of him at her funeral wearing his wedding ring, so that rumor is definitely dispelled.
If Jason is like my husband, he'd probably just grab the first tie that was handy. His attire *appropriateness* knowledge is virtually nonexistent. So, Jason's tie choice for the funeral means nadda in my opinion.
I do agree with Mgt that blunt force trauma murder is typically a rage murder. If Michelle's murder was *hired* it more than likely was some thug who didn't receive much compensation for his deed and wasn't very professional. Some goon looking for a few extra bucks who lurked in the shadows of the hirer's world.
Posted by: Monica | November 16, 2006 10:05 AM
You're right that it probably means nothing, Monica.
It's just me, finding it curious.
Posted by: vero | November 16, 2006 10:31 AM
Morning.
I've said this before, but I really do understand exactly what it's like to have someone I'm close to, someone I know and love, someone I believe to be incapable of such violence accused of murder by the general public. It hurts and it's infuriating. It seems that if only people knew this man as we do, they would realize how absurd it is to even think such a thing. There are facts we know that the media and general public do not that would seem to indicate innocence. Things get distorted by the media, speculation by the public becomes "fact" and it seems as if a large number of people are willing, nay EAGER to convict a man who has never seemed anything but an adoring spouse. It's really a difficult and frustrating situation, one for which anyone close to the family has my empathy.
If charges are brought, however, it's going to be even worse. A jury will not be comprised of those near and dear to the family. It will be made up of people who don't know the history of the family, don't know the character of the defendant and have no stake in the outcome. They will be asked to make desicions based solely on evidence presented and reasonable doubt. And ultimately it will be their opinion that matters, not ours, not those close to the family.
Still, speculation, whether fair or not WILL happen and it's unreasonable to believe otherwise. Scenarios will be presented, discussed and either abandoned or given further consideration. Some will seem like attacks. Some will hurt those who love the family. This is unfortunate but clearly inevitable. If you feel you can or want to fight this or argue it, that's your right. But your right to defend will never take precedence over others' right to ask questions.
Posted by: stacey | November 16, 2006 10:32 AM
stacey - what family murder were you close to? I'm new here and now I'm just curious and trying to catch up.
(Was it the Lori Hacking case?)
thanks!
Posted by: fourier | November 16, 2006 10:40 AM
^^^ Stacey... I completely agree.
Posted by: ConcernedCitize | November 16, 2006 10:41 AM
Yes Fourier. It was the Lori Hacking case.
Posted by: stacey | November 16, 2006 10:43 AM
stacey -
And what was the outcome? Was the guy you knew, who the media & general public were accusing end up being the guilty party?
thanks.
Posted by: fourier | November 16, 2006 10:49 AM
Yes, after being defended by friends, family and Lori's mother, Mark confessed to killing Lori. He's in prison now.
Posted by: stacey | November 16, 2006 10:51 AM
He shot her while she slept and put her in a dumpster. The good citizens and police of their home town spent months digging through tons of offal to find her remains.
Posted by: vero | November 16, 2006 10:53 AM
How sad. Thanks for sharing your experience.
I guess you can really never know what goes on inside anyone else's head.
Posted by: fourier | November 16, 2006 10:56 AM
That was such a despicable way of disposing of her body. Such disregard for her dignity in death!
Sorry, Stacey. This must be hard for you.
Posted by: Mgt | November 16, 2006 10:56 AM
FWIW, posters here and elsewhere made some assumptions and speculations that WERE proven incorrect later. And yes, it was readily admitted by them, with apologies and a sincere interest in getting the correct info. Sadly, they were right about Mark's guilt. Something that I have readily admitted as well.
Posted by: stacey | November 16, 2006 10:57 AM
As I recall, he had been piling lie upon lie, and almost succeeded in moving her to...was is Raleigh? He said he was going to medical school there. She found out.
She was pregnant, but there was no proof of that, as it was just a home pregnancy test that she had done. She had not yet gone to a doctor.
Posted by: vero | November 16, 2006 11:00 AM
It is, Mgt. It's harder for the family members though. So I do understand the fear and outrage that those close to Jason and Michelle might be feeling right now. It's just so surreal and hard to believe. I truly do hope that it wasn't Jason. For his family's sake and for the sake of that innocent little girl. Perhaps my experience is coloring my views this time, but the fact is, I have to admit that even the most loving, adoring seeming spouse can be something rather different sometimes.
Posted by: stacey | November 16, 2006 11:02 AM
"Wake County authorities said Jason Young was in Brevard in the western part of the state when his wife's body was found. Authorities have not interviewed him and are not calling him a suspect in the case."
Posted by: a freind | November 16, 2006 11:02 AM
Good Morning,
I am bringing this over from the previous entry, ((snipped)) for space only:
2) Jason called Michelle when he arrived at his hotel in VA (the location of the business meeting). That was at about 11 PM. All was fine.
Posted by: just the facts | November 15, 2006 11:17 AM
On Greta last night they said that they could account for Michelle up until Midnight, "Just The Facts" would have us believe that Jason called Michelle at 11P.M. from a hotel/motel in VA.
If true, who called Michelle at midnight with a small child in the house? Seems a little inconsiderate to me.
Either way, and this is a huge problem for me.
From the beginning it has been stated that Jason was going on a business trip and was going to swing by his parents for a visit.
For Jason to have left Raleigh after meeting with the friend(s) that had come over to watch "Grey's Anatomy"(airs here @ 9PM), be checked into any hotel in VA. and be in a position to call and check on Michelle by 11PM, he would have been a long way from Brevard. Nothing in the distances that justifies that "quick swing-by" to his parents' house for a visit.
The "timeline" kills him.
MOO!
Posted by: Lesa | November 16, 2006 11:05 AM
I think the police avoid using the term "suspect" early on. "Person of interest" seems to be the phrase of choice.
Posted by: stacey | November 16, 2006 11:07 AM
I agree, Stacey. It must be very confusing for families, trying to figure out why they didn't notice things, etc.
I so admired the way the Hacking family handles the situation. Really decent human beings.
Posted by: Mgt | November 16, 2006 11:08 AM
Well spotted, Lesa.
What time would he have had to leave home to be in VA at 11:00 PM?
Posted by: Mgt | November 16, 2006 11:14 AM
Mgt, the Hackings and Mrs. Soares are wonderful people with strength and faith that awes me.
Posted by: stacey | November 16, 2006 11:14 AM
Lesa, I'm confused- I thought the visit to his parents was going to be after the business meeting the next morning. You seem to be saying he didn't have time for it the night before?
Wasn't he on his way to his parents house the next day when they found out what had happened and decided not to tell him until he arrived?
Posted by: abby | November 16, 2006 11:18 AM
That is so obvious, Stacey. They faced up to everything with such dignity.
I believe they even encouraged Mark to just tell the truth and face his punishment.
Really commendable.
Posted by: Mgt | November 16, 2006 11:18 AM
Wake County authorities said Jason Young was in Brevard in the western part of the state when his wife's body was found. Authorities have not interviewed him and are not calling him a suspect in the case."
Posted by: a freind | November 16, 2006 11:02 AM
If true, and they haven't interviewed him as you say, his lawyer must have him by the short hairs and Jason must be worried about himself and not finding the *real* killer.
Hmmmm.
Doesn't look good for Jason, in my opinion. Who wouldn't talk to police (with lawyer present) when their spouse was murdered? Someone who doesn't want to get caught for the deed? Or, someone who doesn't want the murderer to be caught?
Not a very loving picture of a concerned spouse if you catch my drift.
Posted by: Monica | November 16, 2006 11:19 AM
Isn't declaring someone a suspect a legal term that entails an arrest within a certain time frame? Hence the use of the person of interest phrase?
Posted by: Lisa | November 16, 2006 11:23 AM
At the very least authorities would want to know who Jason thought could have done this to his wife.
What her routines/family habits were.
Last time he spoke with her.
To not have interviewed him AT ALL. Well, they are either the worst investigators in history or Jason doesn't want to help them find his wife's killer.
Posted by: Monica | November 16, 2006 11:23 AM
Very true, Monica. Any kind of cast-iron alibi would have been released by Jason's attorney, pronto.
It does not look good for Jason, at all.
Posted by: Mgt | November 16, 2006 11:24 AM
Horowitz said he would have advised Jason to give up hair samples and DNA immediately, if he was his lawyer.
Either, he is behaving like a guilty man, or, he is a guilty man.
Posted by: Mgt | November 16, 2006 11:27 AM
"Wake County authorities said Jason Young was in Brevard in the western part of the state when his wife's body was found. Authorities have not interviewed him and are not calling him a suspect in the case."
Posted by: a freind | November 16, 2006 11:02 AM
A Friend: Just wondering where you got that statement from and when the statement was made. TIA.
Posted by: Thumper | November 16, 2006 11:28 AM
Need to go. Thanks for the use of your arena, Loretta.
Bye for now.
Posted by: Mgt | November 16, 2006 11:29 AM
Sorry Abby,
What I was trying to say is that the distance Jason could have traveled on Thursday night, (assuming that he left after the guest(s) arrived for "Grey's Anatomy") in order to place him in Va. and able to call Michelle at 11PM, would have left him a long way from Brevard.
The trip doesn't make sense. He would have had a very similar trip distance-wise if he had just left from Raleigh to visit his parents. Depending on exactly where in VA. the hotel/motel is supposed to be, maybe even shorter if he had just started out from Raleigh.
No "swing-by" visit. Brevard was way out of the way.
MOO!
Posted by: Lesa | November 16, 2006 11:29 AM
This is the article
Posted by: a friend | November 16, 2006 11:33 AM
http://www.wral.com/news/10330306/detail.html
Posted by: a friend | November 16, 2006 11:34 AM
Thanks, Lesa- I understand it, now. You're right, it doesn't make sense- in terms of it being convenient, anyway.
Posted by: abby | November 16, 2006 11:37 AM
Lesa, he was probably going to do the swing-by after his meeting in the morning. Huh? Maybe?
Posted by: Mgt | November 16, 2006 11:38 AM
Of course, I don't know where the heck these places are.
This time I'm really going.
Bye!
Posted by: Mgt | November 16, 2006 11:39 AM
If Jason drove 2 hours from Raleigh, I-40 to Hwy 95 straight towards VA, (the fastest route to VA.) he would barely be inside the VA. State line.
This would also put him further away from Brevard than where he staterd from.
BBL
Posted by: Lesa | November 16, 2006 11:42 AM
http://ccadp.proboards40.com/index.cgi?board=peterson&action=display&thread=1163396713&page=1
New self-published book on Lulu about Scott Peterson - called "Conduct Unbecoming."
www.lulu.com/content/379503
Interesting. Expensive!
Posted by: loretta | November 16, 2006 12:03 PM
Good morning. Lots to catch up on this morning.
Vero, did I misunderstand about the Abaroa case? Did he plead guilty? I thought it was still unsolved.
Posted by: CountryGal | November 16, 2006 01:16 PM
Didn't he plead guilty to the embezzlement charges?
Posted by: Lisa | November 16, 2006 02:38 PM
Lisa, I believe you are right--I think he pled guilty in August.
Posted by: Michelle | November 16, 2006 02:54 PM
Ok--embezzlement. I was confused and thought he pled to the murder and I missed it. Thanks.
Posted by: CountryGal | November 16, 2006 03:02 PM
Another property owned by Jason and Michelle:
http://msweb01.co.wake.nc.us/realestate/Account.asp?id=0246979&stype=owner&owner=Young%2C+Jason&spg=1
Posted by: Captain Joe | November 16, 2006 04:16 PM
If I were to guess where in Virginia Jason went to it would be Blacksburg, which has a lot of Chartone activity according to google.
Posted by: Captain Joe | November 16, 2006 06:05 PM
OT BUT...Presidents' IQs
A report published Monday, by the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania, detailed its findings of a four month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush.
Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published its research to the educational community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others. There have been twelve presidents over the past 50 years, from F.D.Roosevelt to G.W. Bush, who were rated based on scholarly achievements:
1. Writings that they produced without aid of staff.
2. Their ability to speak with clarity, and several other psychological factors, which were then scored using the Swanson/Crain System of intelligence ranking.
The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points. In order by presidential term:
Franklin Delano Roosevelt [D] 142,
Harry S Truman [D] 132,
Dwight David Eisenhower [R] 122
John Fitzgerald Kennedy [D] 174,
Lyndon Baines Johnson [D] 126,
Richard Milhous Nixon [R] 155,
Gerald R. Ford [R] 121,
James Earle Carter [D] 175,
Ronald Wilson Reagan [R] 105
George Herbert Walker Bush [R] 98,
William Jefferson Clinton [D] 182,
George Walker Bush [R] 91
In order of IQ rating:
182 . . William Jefferson Clinton [D]
175 . . James Earle Carter [D]
174 . . John Fitzgerald Kennedy [D]
155 . . Richard Milhous Nixon [R]
147 . Franklin Delano Roosevelt [D]
132 . Harry S Truman [D]
126 . . Lyndon Baines Johnson [D]
122 . Dwight David Eisenhower [R]
121 . . Gerald R. Ford [R]
105 . . Ronald Wilson Reagan [R]
098 . . George Herbert Walker Bush [R]
091 . . George Walker Bush [R]
The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 115.5, with President Nixon having the highest at 155. President George W. Bush rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91.
The six Democratic presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126. No president other than Carter [D] has released his actual IQ (176). Note the institute measured him at 175.
Among comments made concerning the specific testing of President G.W.Bush, his low ratings are due to his apparently difficult command of the English language in public statements, his limited use of vocabulary [6,500 words for Bush versus an average of 11,000 words for other presidents], his lack of scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA, and an absence of any body of work which could be studied on an intellectual basis.
The complete report documents the methods and procedures used to arrive at these ratings, including depth of sentence structure and voice stress confidence analysis.
"All the Presidents prior to George W. Bush had a least one book under their belt, and most had written several white papers during their education or early careers. Not so with President Bush," Dr. Lovenstein said. "He has no published works or writings, which made it more difficult to arrive at an assessment. We relied more heavily on transcripts of his unscripted public speaking."
The Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania think tank includes high caliber historians, psychiatrists, sociologists, scientists in human behavior, and psychologists. Among their ranks are Dr. Werner R. Lovenstein, world-renowned sociologist, and Professor Patricia F.Dilliams, a world-respected psychiatrist
Posted by: Leola | November 16, 2006 06:46 PM
It's a hoax:
Origins: No,
this isn't a real news report, nor does it describe a real study. There isn't a "Lovenstein Institute" in Scranton, Pennsylvania (or anywhere else in the USA), nor do any of the people quoted in the story exist, because this is just another spoof that was taken too seriously.
The article quoted above began circulating on the Internet during the summer of 2001. In furtherance of the hoax, later that year pranksters thought to register www.lovenstein.org and erect a web site around it in an attempt to fool people into thinking there really was such an institute./i
The piece is simply a political jibe, made obvious by its ranking all the Democratic presidents of the last several decades as having high (even exceptionally high) IQs (note that Bill Clinton's IQ is listed as being exactly twice George W. Bush's) while ranking all the Republican presidents from the same time frame as average to moderate in intelligence, with the current president and his father assigned below-average figures placing them at the very bottom of the list. (President Nixon is the sole exception, presumably because his reputation is still so tarnished that not even a high IQ measurement can yet redeem him in the court of public opinion.)
Posted by: Barbara | November 16, 2006 07:05 PM
Hi Cap'N,
I don't care where his supporters claim he went.
I tried my damnedest to give him the benefit of the doubt and just place him in VA, after 2 hours of travel time.
Blacksburg is west of Roanoake, way in the western part of VA. Didn't happen, in the time span that we have been given.
(He could barely make the VA State line with the original numbers, moving him west is a losing proposition.)
Guess we will be hearing from his buddys tomorrow that they were mistaken, his meeting was in SC.
Stay tuned.
MOO!
Posted by: Lesa | November 16, 2006 07:07 PM
Thanks Barbara!
For the newbies here, Barbara is the official zapper of "urban legends".
Comes in real helpful during computer virus scares.
Just ask me. :)
XXOO
Posted by: Lesa | November 16, 2006 07:11 PM
Hey, I enjoy a good joke as much as the next guy but I really, really like to know when it's a joke. I like accurate info.
Posted by: Barbara | November 16, 2006 07:13 PM
There is no Lovenstein Institute in Scranton. The Air Force doesn't put morons in the cockpit of jet aircraft. Bush's IQ was measured when he joined the Air Guard at 126. (Captain Joe 160 IQ)
Posted by: Captain Joe | November 16, 2006 07:13 PM
you may be right. It was sent to me in an e-mail
See Below:
The Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania think tank includes high caliber historians, psychiatrists, sociologists, scientists in human behavior, and psychologists. Among their ranks are Dr. Werner R. Lovenstein, world-renowned sociologist, and Professor Patricia F.Dilliams, a world-respected psychiatrist For more information on the Lovenstein Institute, go to http://lovenstein.org//
Posted by: Leola | November 16, 2006 07:13 PM
Barbara's IQ is "I don't know and I don't care."
Posted by: Barbara | November 16, 2006 07:15 PM
You needed to read this part of the Scopes Hoax site: "In furtherance of the hoax, later that year pranksters thought to register www.lovenstein.org and erect a web site around it in an attempt to fool people into thinking there really was such an institute."
Posted by: Barbara | November 16, 2006 07:17 PM
Here's the entire article regarding the hoax:
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm
Posted by: Barbara | November 16, 2006 07:19 PM
Barbara
Sorry ALL!!! Please delete.
Should have checked before passing on. I hate eating crow! :)
Posted by: Leola | November 16, 2006 07:44 PM
Shoot no! It was funny!
Like Lesa said, I'm a geek about hoaxes and have to call them out.
Posted by: Barbara | November 16, 2006 07:48 PM
Most of them are hoaxes.
Posted by: loretta | November 16, 2006 07:56 PM
havn't been here since the Scotty trial.....glad you guys are still working hard at the crime solving...
look, I have just read today's nsgs...so give me a break if I mispeak on something that is entirely wrong factually...
Legal.....it may be the legal thing to do....not talking to the cops or giving dna willingly, but its not the NORMAL RESPONSE one would expect from a loving husband and father.....one would expect a fighting mad husband willing to do anyting to find the murderer....
if this were a "hit"....I would think it would have been less bloody and more precise..I think whoever hired the murderer would have arranged to have the baby out of the house at the time...
I am leaning towards the devoted husband coming and killing her himself....all too convenient that he was out of town, so he says....and that fax stuff...just unreal......
of course he could deny ever having said that to the sister, but his call to her would be on record.....
Posted by: lee | November 17, 2006 02:04 AM
Hi Lee,
Man, I hate sleepless nights. OK, no rest for the weary.
if this were a "hit"....I would think it would have been less bloody and more precise..I think whoever hired the murderer would have arranged to have the baby out of the house at the time...
I think you have a very valid point! I don't know exactly what the stats are on a hired hit "person" bludgeoning a barely pregnant woman (no sexual assault or robbery) with a toddler and a dog in the house that they leave unscathed.
Ergo, I like the way you think!
Welcome Back!
Posted by: Lesa | November 17, 2006 02:48 AM
Good morning!
Lesa, you are obviously trying to work this case out logically. Let's hope there is some sort of proof showing where he was and when he was there.
The brutality of this murder seems as though it was 'personal'.
Heh, those IQ results had me going. Certainly believable.
Posted by: Mgt | November 17, 2006 04:10 AM
Does anyone have anything new about the Michelle Young tragedy?
Posted by: Mgt | November 17, 2006 10:00 AM
Well, sounds as though LE think they are making good progress in this case.
Interesting!
Posted by: Mgt | November 17, 2006 10:31 AM
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/511581.html
Posted by: Lesa | November 17, 2006 11:21 AM
Thanks Lesa. That poor child - let's hope she will have no memory of this.
Have a good weekend, everyone.
Hope you and your family are okay after that hurricane, Lesa.
Posted by: Mgt | November 17, 2006 11:28 AM
Or, is it tornado?
Posted by: Mgt | November 17, 2006 11:30 AM
Re IQ:
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Posted by: Captain Joe | November 17, 2006 11:31 AM
Statement from Rhett Fussell down the page "close friend of Jason Young"
http://www.newsobserver.com/141/story/511581.html
Now check out Rhett's Myspace site:
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=25356965
Posted by: Captain Joe | November 17, 2006 05:07 PM
Pretty unsophisticated for a guy in his 30s, and he's gay.
What else do you think, Joe?
Posted by: loretta | November 17, 2006 05:13 PM
I'm thinking maybe Jason is "that way" and perhaps a jellous "lover" killed her.
Posted by: Captain Joe | November 17, 2006 05:33 PM
Michelle's father was not at funeral, estrainged?
Posted by: Captain Joe | November 17, 2006 05:53 PM
From the News Observer article above:
Jason Young bloomed late, and it took him awhile to settle on the idea of marriage, Fussell said. Michelle, as usual, knew just what she wanted. Family was at the top of the list, Fussell said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That just gave me a deja vu of Laci and Scott.
Posted by: Nadine | November 17, 2006 07:06 PM
LE checked the trailer park today. Do you think the cops are reading the blogs?
Posted by: Captain Joe | November 17, 2006 07:43 PM
I know people hate it when parallels are drawn but I felt the same thing Nadine.
The descriptions of Michelle by her friends were so similar to the things said about Laci.
Before I get jumped on by Jason's friends: Of course this does not mean Jason is another Scott Peterson.
Posted by: CountryGal | November 17, 2006 07:47 PM
I think reading the various blogs is a tool used by LE. It has been in recent cases we've followed anyway.
Posted by: Barbara | November 17, 2006 07:48 PM
Michelle's wedding picture and another one that I saw of her by the fireplace with Cassidy reminded me so much of Laci.
Posted by: Thumper | November 17, 2006 07:57 PM
Crime scene tape finally came down today.
But investigators are far from relieved.
They are still working overtime to make an arrest. Investigators no longer are saying there is no suspect, even though one has not been publicly identified.
"We haven't ruled anybody in," said Sheriff Donnie Harrison. "We haven't ruled anybody out yet."
Posted by: CountryGal | November 17, 2006 07:57 PM
Brought over from the previous comment section:
((snipped))
1) There was no fax. There was a print out sent to the home. The print out involved information about a purse. It was the couples 3rd anniversary. The third year is leather. Michelle wanted a nice purse. Jason wanted input from her sister and friends as to the selection and hence why her sister was sent to pick up the print out.
Posted by: just the facts | November 15, 2006 11:17 AM
JTF, Thanks for your input. I thought it was ridiculous for Jason to be shopping for a Christmas present for Michelle before Thanksgiving, but I just assumed that Jason was a different kind of guy than the ones that I know.
BUT, this morning, I read here:
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/511581.html
That The two got married in October 2003.
Since we now know that the fax was not about a Christmas present, because even the guys on the jury would convict on that notion alone. Plus it wasn't about an "Anniversary" present, I know they hadn't been married long, but COME ON! A "secret" present that is a month late? He better of hoped that she did find the "fax", might have saved him some grief.
What's your next excuse going to be?
TIA!
Posted by: Lesa | November 17, 2006 08:13 PM
Good catch, Lesa. If they were married in October, their anniversary had already passed.
Posted by: Thumper | November 17, 2006 08:21 PM
So, let's review the history as we know it:
Married when expecting their first child.
Second pregnancy terminated because of medical problems not long after the mysterious car accident in the river.
Third pregnancy terminated due to murder, although it won't count in NC as a murder. (Get with the program, NC!)
Recent job change, maybe some financial problems - speculation.
Good neigborhood, low likelihood of random murder, serial killer is not an option that's realistic, and no signs of a goth neighbor or other nefarious plots.
Victim probably murdered in her sleep, similar to Lori Hacking.
Only witness a toddler, probably asleep during the murder.
Fishy alibi - uncorroborated as yet by electronic documentation.
Husband has NOT been cleared yet.
Bad signs. All of them.
Posted by: loretta | November 17, 2006 08:24 PM
It's looking more and more like I'm going to be on the side of "wrong" on this case. (I really, really wanted to believe he didn't do this.)
Posted by: Barbara | November 17, 2006 08:25 PM
involved information about a purse.
Oh, no. Don't tell me it was a Louis Vuitton purse, or I might choke.
Posted by: loretta | November 17, 2006 08:26 PM
Yep, it's not lookin' good.
Posted by: Thumper | November 17, 2006 08:34 PM
just a question...
what is the difference b/t a fax and a "computer print out sent to the home?" - as 'just the facts' called it.
If Jason was going to be gone for the weekend, why send himself a computer printout to his home on Friday where his wife would be all weekend? if it was a fax...who receives faxes regarding gift purchases anyways? If he "printed" it out at home and left it in the printer before his business trip - chances are that the wife already saw it so what was the urgency? more holes than swiss cheese!
Posted by: james | November 17, 2006 08:48 PM
I agree about the holes but I don't know if his wife would have necessarily seen a paper laying in the printer. I have a paper in mine right now so if something new printed out, I wouldn't notice it. He could have sent his SIL over there to get it before she saw it.
The question would be WHY would he sent something to the printer in his house? Why not just read it on his computer? If it was some sort of purchase record, why not just receive it in email?
The printout story isn't making sense.
Posted by: Barbara | November 17, 2006 08:55 PM
And if it was a purchase record, where is the purse now?
Posted by: Barbara | November 17, 2006 08:58 PM
I think this is just another case of a guy worrying about being caught in some kind of lie. Who knows what it was - another woman, a big debt, an addiction, any number of possibilities.
He didn't want the new baby and he didn't want the marriage. Pretty simple.
Unfortunately, he didn't want a divorce and child support and the attendant responsibilities.
This particularly selfish example of the X generation (the same generation Peterson is in) is not that rare.
Posted by: loretta | November 17, 2006 08:59 PM
Sorry. I'm backing up again. If I remember, we were told that he was sending it to his house but wanted his SIL to pick it up because he wanted her input on it. Why send it to his own house if it was something that he just wanted his SIL to look at?
Posted by: Barbara | November 17, 2006 09:00 PM
we have to take what "just the facts" was saying with a grain of salt - especially the so called "12 facts", if any of you have seen them floating around. I've been reading forums from several different sites and the *Jason Defenders* have been extremely quiet the past couple of days. Something is up and I agree with Loretta 100% - it's pretty simple. I hope that justice for Michelle is near!
Posted by: james | November 17, 2006 09:28 PM
Either that or they couldn't deal with the debate from the other side any more. I don't think I could go to internet sites and read what was being said about someone I loved. I'm not saying that what's being said isn't true. I just think it would be tough for a loved one to deal with it.
Posted by: Barbara | November 17, 2006 09:51 PM
you're right barbara.
another thing that bothers me though, is that i've read that "jason was[not "they were"] disappointed when finding out that there was a trailer park behind the house". I'm sorry, but we just bought a house and we know what surrounds it for at least a mile. i'm curious in knowing whose idea it was to buy that house? had he been planning this since 2005 and purposely talked her into buying it? (If he's guilty, of course)
Posted by: james | November 17, 2006 10:17 PM
I knew my neighborhood before we moved in but that's because I drove around and checked it out. That doesn't mean everyone would do that.
Posted by: Barbara | November 17, 2006 10:23 PM
I would think in the age of the internet, not only would you check out the neighborhood (especially at night), but you would do a Megan's Law search if you had or were planning kids.
Posted by: CountryGal | November 17, 2006 10:35 PM
I would also think that in this age of the internet a person would email a link to the family to check out the gift rather than sending a print to the printer in your own house where your wife might see it.
Posted by: Barbara | November 17, 2006 10:45 PM
Well Barbara, I think we are getting 3rd hand information and who knows how it has evolved. It will all come out eventually I hope.
Posted by: CountryGal | November 17, 2006 11:01 PM
you're right - it is third hand...most of it from courttv forum...i just had some thoughts though and needed to vent them out. for some reason i cant post there but thanks for listening.
Posted by: james | November 17, 2006 11:19 PM
No problem james. It's good to bounce ideas off of others.
Posted by: Barbara | November 17, 2006 11:26 PM
I've been reading forums from several different sites and the *Jason Defenders* have been extremely quiet the past couple of days. Something is up and I agree with Loretta 100% - it's pretty simple. I hope that justice for Michelle is near!
Hear, here, James!
I'm a subscriber to the KISS theory, myself.
It doesn't look good for Michelle's husband.
Posted by: Monica` | November 17, 2006 11:27 PM
Hey y'all.
Yeah, KISS theory here, too. Unfortunatley, I'll be more surprised if the the husband didn't do it, than if he's guilty.
Loretta, thanks for gathering the info, and the entry. Interesting case.
Posted by: Val | November 17, 2006 11:33 PM
James, that's what I meant about third hand--from Jason supporters who have been all over the boards trying to quash any suspicion of him.
Posted by: CountryGal | November 17, 2006 11:36 PM
thanks countrygal for clarifying - i thought you were calling me out :)
Posted by: james | November 17, 2006 11:52 PM
Oh no! Sorry if my comment made you feel that way.
Posted by: CountryGal | November 18, 2006 12:31 AM
I'm spooked.
Because there *seem* to be so many parallels to the Peterson case, I really want this one to be different.
I still don't "get" the fax/printout argument. Like Lesa, it makes no sense to me that there would be a "surprise" anniversary gift a month late. And it is way early to be calling in the inlaws to conspire on Christmas prezzies.
However, the fact that she was beaten bloody points to a personal motive rather than a paid hit, so IF Jason can prove he was too far away, Cap'n Joe's sick little theory starts to sound plausible.
That's the problem with Cap'n Joe. The sicker his theories, the more accurate his track record.
I haven't forgotten Taylor Behl. You called that one, Cap'n, right down the line. We all said, "No motive," and other things, and the Cap'n was right all along.
Posted by: vero | November 18, 2006 01:15 AM
I still don't understand the logic of the printout on a gift going to the home. I'm not convinced it was too early to start planning Christmas gifts. I consider waiting until now to be late getting it done.
Michelle's sister said she shouldn't have been home that day. What if there WAS an intruder who thought the same thing and was surprised that she was home? There would be panic and adrenaline at work.
Posted by: Nadine | November 18, 2006 01:37 AM
Was Michelle's car there? I haven't heard anything about whether she normally parked in the garage or not.
Nadine, LHAT, I haven't even started. I seriously doubt I would ask someone to drive to my house for any reason other than an emergency.
Posted by: CountryGal | November 18, 2006 01:50 AM
That's what I mean, CountryGal. That part is just strange. Think about it. When you order something online, you get an e-mail confirmation. Why would a printout go to the house? Makes no sense to me.
Yes, what about her car? I haven't heard anything about that.
I just started my Christmas shopping last week. For me, it's a late start. Dang budget and all, besides, if you order something online, you want to be sure to allow enough time for delivery.
Posted by: Nadine | November 18, 2006 01:56 AM
Online ordering-true. But IF he just wanted her 'opinion' a link to a web page via email to her would be all that needed to be done. She has internet. Nope, fishy story either by Jason or by some twist of the story by his friends.
Posted by: CountryGal | November 18, 2006 02:03 AM
I agree it's odd circumstances. Doesn't make sense to me.
Posted by: Nadine | November 18, 2006 02:10 AM
here I am at 1:30 am pst.....lol
nadine......I thought I heard on tv that Michelle had a floating schedule, one that she could alter at her whim, and it wasn't unusual for her to stay home some days...
I am late to the party.....but what about dogs?....certainly that suburban area had plenty of dogs.......were any barking?
Posted by: lee | November 18, 2006 04:40 AM
We are hearing conflicting reports about her schedule. For a while we were being told that she usually stayed home on Fridays, but her sister said on the 911 call that she was supposed to be at work.
Posted by: vero | November 18, 2006 07:19 AM
My antenna pick up and then hover on comments by Jason's real close friends, such as "I know him" and "he's just not like that" don't work for me. Look at what Christopher Porco did. His actions shocked everyone.
They write there's no reason to kill her and talk us out of the "ridiculous" concept of Michelle's life insurance. They weren't married to Michelle. They didn't live with Jason every day.
Jason may not be a suspect but NO-ONE has been called a suspect. He IS the ONLY person a Judge was provided enough valid reason and convinced by whatever evidence that judge issued probable cause and impounded his vehicle, luggage DNA and all.
These concerned city-dwellers visit forums and refute posts that Jason may be involved. They have no conviction in questioning Michelle's sister, father or her own family and her lifestyle suggesting Michelle's baby's blood might be tested (sick). These actions demonstrate a subtle form of attack or anger. Hmmmm. Why?
They post as if Jason is perfect. He's not. No-one is. Could he have done this? Definitely. Did he? We'll have to wait and see. The most ludicrous theory is where a close insider insults intelligence by stating that LE are actually pleased the spotlight is on Jason while they investigate someone else and this keeps the media away from Jason. What a lot of horse cr@p!
Personally, I think Jason's involved and feel his background is not as squeaky clean as his friends are going a little overboard in portraying.
He lawyered up immediately as is his constitutional right. But did the last person known to have seen Michelle alive also lawyer up? Did Meredith lawyer up after discovering the body?
The "Justifying-Jason" posts can't be verified. Personally? I wonder if he's been in trouble before, has had an affair before, has lost his job, has lied and represented himself falsley to keep up with the Joneses and I wonder if he felt like a pimple of the face of success? It's not wrong to wonder if he's led a double life. That IS possible and no-one can say "I know Jason, that's not possible". It IS possible. Very possible imo. Again we shall have to wait and see.
The more I read about what a perfect wonderful man Jason is the more I want to cringe at the thought.
Posted by: JustPassing | November 18, 2006 07:57 AM
My thoughts...
1.) Where was the business trip? Until this is fact... that is one question I have. He would have had to check into a hotel... they would have check-in time. If the departure time from the house is known and the meeting location is known... you would be able to calculate distance/time, and rule out any possibilities.
2.) How far away? Jason drove an SUV (great gas mileage:-))... he probably had to stop for gas a couple times depending on where he was going... possible credit card trail showing time of use. If it infact he was on a business trip he was on an expense account most likely, so I'd guess paying with cash would be unlikely.
3.) The mysterious fax or computer printout... why? If this is true it makes absolutely no sense to me why he would do this... send something to the house. He is concerned enough about it that he would have to call is SIL to pick it up... then why do it? And a fax of a gift? That doesn't make sense... there's this thing called the internet with web sites. You're telling me the sister doesn't have an e-mail account he could send a web link of this "gift"... a fax... give me a break!
4.) If Jason's where-a-bouts can be accounted for through receipts, witnesses, and sher distance... why the silence? He was supposedly away for a business trip. The people he had the meeting with would be able to validate the place and time of the meeting... checkout records from the hotel. If Jason had all of this and truely had nothing to do with this... why the silence?
To me if Jason's story holds any water his lawyers and more importantly Jason would be letting people know this. My guess is it doesn't and that is why the silence. I know if I were accused of anything, murder, robbery, being somewhere I wasn't, etc... and I didn't do did, had a solid explaining showing I didn't/couldn't have done it, I'd be shouting from the mountain tops.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen | November 18, 2006 08:52 AM
I agree with both of these posters.
I also find it curious that Jason's supporters have been quiet for a while. Have they been told by his lawyer that they are not helping?
Posted by: vero | November 18, 2006 09:05 AM
There was a case not too long ago where a young woman was killed (in her mother's home, maybe?) and the first suspect was the husband. He had a rock solid alibi as he was at work. It turned out it was an ex-boyfriend of the woman's sister (I think). I can't remember everything about that case but I know the husband was eliminated almost immediately.
Posted by: Barbara | November 18, 2006 09:06 AM
Good Morning!
Jason Young and his daughter reportedly have been staying with family out of town. Sources told WRAL he returned to Raleigh on Friday and was seen at a local cemetary visiting his wife's grave.
http://www.wral.com/news/10349077/detail.html
Posted by: Lesa | November 18, 2006 09:08 AM
He must not be very high on the suspect list if he's allowed to leave town.
Posted by: Barbara | November 18, 2006 09:17 AM
I'm sure they haven't really let him out of their sight.
Posted by: Lesa | November 18, 2006 09:34 AM
I'm surprised that there hasn't been any mention of the coincidental similarities between this case and the murder of Janet Abaroa.
Posted by: vero | November 18, 2006 09:42 AM
From a news story:
From what Trammel knew and has heard, everything in Michelle's life seemed to be going great. "She had a loving husband," he said. "She had a daughter she really cared about. ... amazing how somebody 29 years old, pregnant with her second child, can have something like this happen," he said.
Compounding the shock is how safe the neighborhood where she was living is considered.
There is no safe neighborhood when your loved ones are the perps.
I have little doubt anymore. The thing that strikes me is that these jerks do the same stupid things and expect not to get caught.
Posted by: loretta | November 18, 2006 09:51 AM
http://www.fox50.com/news/local
Posted by: Concerned Citizen | November 18, 2006 09:53 AM
"just the facts" on 11-18-06 ?
Since Jason left Raleigh shortly after the friend arrived to watch G's A (still have not heard if she came early for dinner and stayed), he would have a very strong alibi by proving he was in Va at a certain time and thus puts him no where near the scene in the time of death window. If this was the case, I would want my attorney to dispell the rumors and state publically that I was in Virginia at the time of the murders, not the repeated statement "Jason was in Brevard visiting his mother when the body was discovered". If this was true, why would he not agree (with attorney)to give a statement to LE with at least this information ? Not agreeing after 2 weeks to ANY interview with LE ?
By the way, if you think he could have checked into a Va motel to cover the timeline and then return to Raleigh later that night to commit the murder, what about the 2 year old ? Don't you think his plan would involve something else so that the child was not be in the house to possibly witness ?
Now that Jason is back in Raleigh, maybe he can pick up his SUV that the sheriff has inspected for over 2 weeks ? While he is at the Sheriff's office, we can then give his statement....yes,"Just The Facts"
Posted by: RPD | November 18, 2006 09:59 AM
Unless it is proven he left the house Thursday before 10:30pm for the Va trip (friend would/ would not verify to LE), imo this was a big argument that got out of control (too much alcohol ?) and he picked up a heavy book end, ect. and she ended up bleeding to death. We have no idea if she had 1 or 15 blows to the head.....only that she died of blunt force trauma to the head. The "blood everywhere" and "on the bed" could easily have been due to the child. If she "bleed out" from the head, there would be a huge amount of blood for the child to transfer elswhere and on the bed .Remember, she was probably with her deceased Mom for 5-6 hours before the sister came on the scene.
Posted by: RPD | November 18, 2006 10:05 AM
If he left at 10:30, he didn't go far. He waited somewhere, killed time, maybe went to a parking lot of a big mall or something.
He eventually drove all the way to VA but not until after the crime. He may have been seen in VA at some point so that he has an alibi, but it would not be until after 1 AM or so.
He knows Michelle's routine. He went back to the hosue after she and the baby went to bed.
Posted by: loretta | November 18, 2006 10:09 AM
That's why the dog didn't bark. That's why we have an 11 PM phone call (IIRC) that could be from a location en route, and then he could have turned right around again.
If he did this, he's really an idiot.
Posted by: loretta | November 18, 2006 10:10 AM
We don't know when he called the sister-in-law on Friday.
Maybe he had started calling her early in the morning, hoping to get her over to the house before the little girl woke up - the sister-in-law didn't call 911 until 1:30, but maybe Jason had been trying for a while and the SIL didn't get a chance until the afternoon to get over there (not knowing the true purpose to go to the house). I'm sure there would be phone records of that.
Posted by: james | November 18, 2006 10:11 AM
I'm with you RPD... if Jason and his lawyer had a strong alibi supported by distance and a paper trail... why not make a public statement?
I have stayed very close to this case... where did VA come into the picture? Is that something from this blog or something released by the media? Where in VA?
Posted by: Concerned Citizen | November 18, 2006 10:15 AM
"I where did VA come into the picture? Is that something from this blog or something released by the media? Where in VA?"
==========================
Jason's gay friend "Rhett" was quoted in the N&O about his business trip to Va.
Posted by: RPD | November 18, 2006 10:33 AM
The longer he refuses to talk to LE, the longer it takes to rule him out. Of course, LE is going to fan out the investigation, but they are also going to have to keep resources on Jason at the same time; things that he could provide for an alibi now have to be searched out instead of just checked out. Cell phone records, motel/gas records, etc. Without his cooperation this will take time. Why wouldn't he want all their resources used to find her killer? Of course an attorney will tell him not to speak with LE. His step-father was anti LE from day one and didn't want him talking to investigators. To me, that only put more suspicion on Jason. I don't think he did Jason any favors.
Michelle's mom was pleading for people to come forward if they knew anything about this murder yet her SIL is not talking with LE to protect his innocent butt. Doesn't add up, IMO.
Posted by: CountryGal | November 18, 2006 11:22 AM
If he's guilty, it's a very good idea to shut up, not cooperate, not speak to anyone.
They might not be able to prove it. He can always rely on that.
If he talks, like Peterson, he might cook his own goose.
If I were his lawyer, I would advise him to remain silent.
Posted by: loretta | November 18, 2006 11:26 AM
Anyone who has watched "The First 48" knows the more time that goes by, the harder it is to solve a murder.
They need him to rule out (home invasion)robbery as well. He would be the only one who would know what might be missing.
Posted by: CountryGal | November 18, 2006 11:29 AM
New Entry:
I thought this entry from years ago was very appropriate today.
Posted by: loretta | November 18, 2006 11:38 AM