Holt asked Cargol about her teaching job in Texas following the completion of her master’s degree. She testified she taught at an elementary school in Austin for two years until June 2006.
The Assistant DA showed her the email Jason had written on September 12, 2006, addressed to her school email address. Cargol confirmed that the email address Jason had used was accurate. Yet she never saw the email, she said, because she had already stopped teaching by then.
Finally, Holt asked her if she had witnessed Jason engage in any other violent outbursts.
Cargol recalled two.
The first incident occurred after they attended an outdoor concert in Raleigh. Jason had become upset with her for allowing a male friend to walk her home from a bar a few days earlier. They were still arguing while sitting in her car in the parking lot. In anger, Cargol testified, Jason punched the windshield so hard he knocked it out entirely.
A similar incident occurred at his apartment in Charlotte. Cargol testified she had just arrived for a visit with Jason following a road trip from Raleigh and had to use the bathroom. While there, she noticed a letter from another woman sitting on the countertop. When she came out, she asked Jason about the letter. He became so angry she had read the letter, she said, that he punched a hole in the wall of his apartment.
Holt ended her questioning, stood up, and informed Judge Stephens the State’s proffer of evidence was complete.
The judge asked to see a copy of Jason’s September 2006 email and took the time to read it thoroughly. He then looked up, saw Klink on his feet, and asked him why the defense was objecting to the evidence the State had proffered.
Klinkosum’s argument was simple. The State was seeking to prove Jason engaged in a deliberate, premeditated killing of his wife. In contrast, “Everything Ms. Cargol has related,” he explained, “involved some type of heat of passion after drinking or anger or something of that nature.” Her testimony was therefore not relevant, he contended, to the State’s theory of the case.
Judge Stephens responded, as he understood it, the defense’s theory was that Jason “certainly didn’t commit this crime, that he loved his wife and he loved his child.” Holding up Jason’s email, the judge stated Jason apparently “loved Genevieve Cargol powerfully,” sarcasm dripping from his lips. And it was certainly relevant, he concluded, that “when he was engaged in an act of violence in getting the ring back, his eyes were blank and he showed no emotion, basically indifferent to her pain.”
He overruled the objection, telling the lawyers he would allow all of Cargol’s testimony—as well as Jason’s email—to be admitted into evidence.
When the jury reassembled in the courtroom, Holt took her witness back through much of the same territory she had just covered during the State’s proffer.
This time, Cargol was more graphic in describing her fight with Jason in their Texas hotel room, telling the jury that Jason was “jumping on me with all his weight and pinning my arms, both of them, behind me so hard that I felt like my arms were going to come of the sockets of my shoulders.” She testified the scuffle left her bruised on the inside of her arms and her rib cage.
Though Holt asked Cargol about Jason’s contacts with her after she moved to the Washington, D.C. area, she neglected to ask a single question about Jason punching out the windshield of her car or punching a hole in his apartment wall. And for whatever reason, though Holt had Cargol confirm Jason sent his September 12, 2006, email to an accurate email address, she didn’t seek permission to publish the email to the jury, who was left to wonder what Jason had said.
Clearly surprised Holt had omitted these important items from her questioning, Klinkosum asked Cargol only a handful of questions, and then came to an abrupt stop. In view of the damage her testimony could have inflicted, he and Collins felt like they had dodged a very dangerous bullet.
13
CSI
David Saacks and Becky Holt were keenly aware that to prove Jason’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they would need to point to evidence establishing his presence at the crime scene. It would be an arduous task for sure.
Saacks had Detective Brent David testify about his initial observations of the crime scene, which he quickly turned over to CCBI Agent Mike Galloway for processing. Detective David testified about his repeated contacts with Meredith during the investigation—how she inquired nearly daily about new developments. He also told the jury about the extensive cooperation and assistance Linda and Alan Fisher provided. This testimony was clearly intended to contrast Jason’s lack of cooperation.
During cross-examination, Klinkosum had Detective David confirm investigators were so concerned about the distance between Hillsville, Virginia and Raleigh—and resulting tight timeline for Jason to have committed the murder—that they considered the possibility Jason might have chartered a private plane to Raleigh. Detective David acknowledged he had contacted the Raleigh-Durham Airport Police to determine if a private plane had arrived from Hillsville on November 2 or 3. He was informed none had.
Agent Mike Galloway testified for nearly two solid days about the processing of the crime scene. Saacks walked him through the entire house, showing the jury video footage the agent personally filmed of each room. They projected onto a large screen numerous photos of the master bedroom, spending considerable time on the gouge mark on the wall near Jason’s closet. Agent Galloway pointed out the blood that landed in that indentation. He showed the jury Cassidy’s bloody footprints and two of Michelle’s teeth on the closet floor.
Saacks then projected onto the screen several gruesome photos of Michelle’s bloody face. Agent Galloway pointed out how her ear had almost been ripped off, the gash under her chin, and her torn and swollen lip and missing teeth. He also pointed to the spot where blood had dripped off the bed.
The prosecution witness told the jury he noticed something significant when he closed Jason’s closet door—there was a continuation of blood spatter from the dresser to the left of the door onto the front of the door. The blood spatter went up as high as eight feet near the closet door and continued all the way to the lamp on the night table next to Michelle’s side of the bed and above the bed’s headboard.
He walked the jury through a series of photos of the pillows found on and near Michelle’s legs, pointing out multiple shoe impressions made in blood. He also highlighted what appeared to be bloody shoe impressions on some Progress Energy paperwork found on the master bedroom floor.
Mike Klinkosum was determined to turn Agent Galloway into a star witness—for the defense. He began with 21 photos of Jason taken during his submission to the non-testimonial order. Agent Galloway agreed he and his fellow agents were unable to document any cuts, scratches, abrasions, or bruises on Jason’s hands or face. He also confirmed Jason was forced to strip naked in front of investigators—and they were unable to locate any bruising, cuts, or abrasions on his entire body other than the bruise under his left big toenail.
Klink then placed before the witness another 27 photos, this time of Jason’s Ford Explorer. He asked him to review the photos carefully.
“Now, Agent Galloway,” Jason’s attorney proceeded, “one of the reasons you searched this vehicle, or the primary reason, was to uncover any forensic evidence, correct?”
Agent Galloway agreed.
“And by ‘forensic evidence,’ we’re talking about blood, correct?”
Again, the witness agreed.
“Hair, saliva, things of that nature?” Klinkosum homed in.
“Trace evidence, fibers, yes, sir.”
“Trace evidence that would perhaps link Mr. Young or this vehicle to the scene of that crime, correct?”
“Yes, sir,” Agent Galloway replied.
“And you noted in the crime scene photos that this was a very bloody scene, correct?”
“Very. Yes, sir.”
“Agent Galloway, you scoured this Ford Explorer for the presence of blood, correct?” Klinkosum inquired. Again, the witness agre
ed.
Klink then had him confirm his agents inspected the vehicle’s driver’s side, steering wheel, steering column, floor, passenger side, back seat area, and all of the items found in the car, including shoes and soda cans—as well as the entire exterior of the vehicle. He said chemicals such as phenolphthalein were used to enhance any traces of blood.
“Nowhere inside of that vehicle, on the doors or the passenger area or the rear area—nowhere in that vehicle did you find any blood, correct?”
“I collected no blood from that vehicle, sir,” Agent Galloway agreed.
Klinkosum redirected the agent’s attention to the Birchleaf Drive house. Agent Galloway conceded no blood was found in Cassidy’s bedroom, on the garage door, fence gate, concrete walkway by the rear water spigot, or on any of the clothes in Jason’s closet. The defense lawyer walked the witness through photos of the interior of Jason’s closet and Michelle’s closet, both of which were in complete disarray. But again, no blood.
• • • • •
Sergeant Al Sternberg of the Sheriff’s Office was involved in a hodgepodge of activities related to the investigation. Among other things, he conducted a thorough search of Jason’s black suitcase found in his Explorer, which hadn’t been removed following his business trip to Virginia.
Saacks plopped the suitcase down in front of the prosecution witness and had him describe how he carefully documented each and every item it contained. The detective also testified about the items found in the rear cargo area of the Explorer—a pair of jeans, a pair of size 12 Kenneth Cole slip-on brown shoes, a second pair of shoes of a different size, the weekend edition of the USA Today newspaper, a travel atlas, and a Hampton Inn hotel directory.
Sergeant Sternberg also analyzed the eBay printouts found on the printer in the home office, and informed the jury they were made at 7:08 p.m., just before Jason left for his business trip. Another item he processed was an envelope that contained an anniversary card addressed to Michelle, bearing a postmark from Orlando, Florida, and a date stamp of October 7, 2006.
• • • • •
Agent Jennifer Remy, who specialized in hair and fiber analysis, was the first of several SBI crime lab witnesses to testify. She analyzed approximately fifty hairs found underneath Michelle’s body and one found in her left hand—conclusively ruling out Jason’s hair as a match.
She noted many of the hairs, including the one found in Michelle’s hand, contained an “antigen root,” indicating they had been forcibly removed. They were all sent off for DNA testing, as was another hair caked in blood on a pillow.
Agent Remy also analyzed carpeting that had been cut out of the Youngs’ master bedroom. Despite her thorough analysis, she testified she was unable to detect a single trace fiber that originated from Jason’s room at the Hampton Inn.
Klinkosum asked the SBI agent about a hair she analyzed that was stuck on the framed photo of Jason’s and Michelle’s wedding displayed on their dresser, near the bedroom’s entrance. She agreed that hair wasn’t consistent with Jason’s.
Jason’s lawyer also delved deeper into the hair and fiber expert’s search for carpet fibers from the Hampton Inn. She testified she had taken trace samples from fibers on the fitted bedsheet and comforter in the master bedroom, a bed pillow, the sweatshirt and pants Michelle had been wearing, and Cassidy’s pajama pants. Not a single fiber from the Hampton Inn’s carpeting, she agreed, was detected on any of those items.
Next to testify was Special Agent Nancy Gregory, a forensic drug chemist. She had analyzed the medicine dropper from the hutch in Cassidy’s room to determine the contents of the liquid residue. She testified that one of the compounds found in the liquid was dihydrocodeine, an opium derivative. Also included in the liquid were acetaminophen, or Tylenol, and pseudoephedrine, or Sudafed.
Agent Gregory conceded, upon cross-examination, she had no idea how long the liquid had been in the dropper, and the chemical compounds she detected could have been from the residue of different liquids present in the dropper at various points in time.
Special Agent Russell Holley, a serologist, took the stand next. He testified about his analysis of a portion of sheetrock removed from the wall adjacent to Jason’s closet, as well as a large sample of the closet door molding.
The SBI agent noted there appeared to be a handprint or fingerprint on each sample, so he swabbed them in an attempt to collect DNA. The swabbings were then sent to the crime lab’s DNA section. He also informed the jury he swabbed a rock found near the emergency exit door at the Hampton Inn for epithelial DNA—the DNA contained in skin cells.
Agent Holley also analyzed fingernail clippings removed from Michelle’s fingers. The clippings, he told the jury, didn’t include any skin tissue or foreign material and therefore had no “evidentiary value.” He also analyzed a pair of blue jeans and a belt removed from the black suitcase found in Jason’s Explorer, neither of which, he explained, contained any blood.
During cross-examination, the serologist confirmed none of the additional items removed from Jason’s Explorer—Kenneth Cole shoes, Rockport shoes, blankets, a water bottle, fleece coats, a suit jacket, a car seat, and several items of clothing and toiletries from Jason’s suitcase—tested positive for the presence of blood.
Special Agent David Freeman, a forensic biologist who specialized in DNA analysis, took the witness stand next. He testified he had been provided blood stains from Michelle and Jason, which served as DNA “standards” or “profiles” against which to analyze swabbings taken from the crime scene.
He informed the jury the DNA profile from the swabbing taken from the sheetrock adjacent to Jason’s closet matched Jason’s DNA profile. So, too, did the DNA profile from the swabbing of the closet door molding, though there was also DNA in that profile that didn’t match any known standard. “There’s two donors,” he testified. “We have Jason Young as the major and then someone else is the minor.”
Agent Freeman analyzed the DNA profile obtained from the swabbing of the top of the jewelry box. He told the jury though Michelle could be excluded as a match, Jason couldn’t because there were markers in that profile similar to his DNA profile.
He testified a “very weak DNA profile” was obtained from the rock found outside the Hampton Inn’s emergency exit door that was “consistent with the mixture from multiple contributors and, again, no conclusion could be rendered as to the contributors of DNA on that item.”
The forensic biologist also received cheek swabbings from Cassidy to create a profile of her DNA. Using that profile, he confirmed the medicine dropper found in her hutch contained her DNA.
Interestingly, her DNA was found not only on the tip of the dropper that would have been inserted into her mouth, but also on the bulb portion on the opposite end. But neither Michelle’s nor Jason’s DNA was detected on either end of the dropper.
Klinkosum began his cross-examination by focusing on the concept of population frequency data, which, in the world of DNA analysis, establishes the mathematical probability that someone else—other than the suspect—contributed to DNA found at the crime scene. In the typical case, Agent Freeman testified, the odds could be as high as one in “millions of trillions” that DNA found at the crime scene that fully matches a suspect’s DNA profile could belong to someone else.
Jason’s lawyer then asked him, “You did not run the population frequency data for the match to Jason off the sheetrock, correct?”
“That’s correct.”
“And that’s because that was his house, correct?” Klink continued.
“That is correct,” the SBI agent replied.
“Because you would expect to find Jason Young’s DNA in Jason Young’s house, correct?”
“That is true,” the forensic biologist answered. “It’s not uncommon to find your own DNA profile in your home or items that you’ve touched or been around.” He also conceded there was no way to determine when any of the DNA material collected at the crime scene had been deposite
d.
Interestingly, on redirect examination, Holt asked Agent Freeman if he also had a DNA standard for Meredith at the time of his analysis. As it turned out, he did. The prosecutor asked whether Meredith’s DNA profile matched any DNA found on the medicine dropper. He answered it did not.
Special Agent Michelle Hannon, another forensic biologist, took the stand next. She analyzed the DNA from the hair samples that contained antigen roots. She testified all of the samples found underneath Michelle’s body, in her hand, and on the bloody pillow matched Michelle’s DNA profile. But the sample taken from the framed wedding photo, she told jurors, contained a predominant profile from an unknown contributor.
During his cross-examination, Klinkosum asked the witness about her analysis of two cigarette butts found in the garage. The DNA extracted from each, she testified, came from a different, unknown male. That DNA didn’t match the profiles of the more than twenty standards Agent Hannon had been provided from people known to have been inside the Youngs’ home. The defense lawyer also had her confirm she ran the DNA profile from the cigarette butts, and from the hair found on the picture frame, through the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) database containing profiles of convicted and suspected offenders—and no matches were found.
Finally, Klink asked Agent Hannon about DNA testing she performed on an Adidas sneaker found in Jason’s closet in Brevard, which contained some blood in the toe area. Although there was a partial match to Jason’s DNA, the predominant DNA profile, she explained, was from an “unknown contributor.”
“So you found in this case DNA from two unknown males on two cigarettes butts, correct?” Klinkosum asked.
“That’s correct,” she answered.
Murder on Birchleaf Drive Page 15