Friday, December 05, 2008

An Odd Twist

There was an odd twist today in one of the murder investigations I follow. In the murder of Michelle Young, of Raleigh, NC, her husband, Jason, has never been officially named a suspect. The vast majority of the search warrants that have been released or unsealed point directly to him, but not enough has been gleaned for the DA to allow charges to be filed against him.

The murder happened over two years ago, and, as that deadline approached with no criminal trial in the offing, the victim's mother, Linda Fisher, filed a civil suit. Called a Wrongful Death suit, the Plaintiff sought to have Jason declared her daughter's slayer, so that he would be unable to claim her life insurance or otherwise profit from her death.

Jason never answered the suit. No delaying tactics, no denial; nothing. That caused linda Fisher to win the case by default.

Today, the judge ruled that Jason IS Michelle's slayer, based not only on Jason's failure to answer, but also on affidavits from the investigators in the case.

I can't remember another case where a Wrongful Death suit is allowed before the criminal case has even gone to trial.

One of the more interesting items in the Judgment is the statement that Investigator Spivey is of the opinion that Jason killed Michelle, and that he has been working on this case almost exclusively for eighteen months, and that there is evidence that has not been released to the public.

Here is a link to a PDF file of the Judgment.

I am elated that Mrs Fisher has won her Judgment, and I hope for an arrest and criminal trial happens soon.

This wife-killer needs to stand before Justice and receive his due.


  1. WOW! That is amazing, Ronni.

    I only hope that this judgement in no way inhibits or is seen to "taint" any pending criminal procedings.

    At the very least, I would suspect it would be declared as too inflamatory/discriminatory to be admitted as evidence but I worry that it would give his counsel reason to argue that the jury pool has been intractably prejudiced by the public nature of the decision.

    That said, it is hard not to give kudos to this judge for working to the absolute limit of the civil jurisdiction knowing the failings of the criminal justice system.

    It can be argued that a higher standard of proof must exist in criminal cases but oftentimes it is carried far beyond what is reasonable in my humble opinion.

    If it walks like a duck ....

    Thanks for posting this, Ronni.


  2. I am no lawyer, but this stinks of defeat.

    I am not sure they can win a criminal case against him now.

  3. Thing is, there is no statute of limitations on murder, so the criminal investigation could go on for years. There is, however, a two year statute of limitations for a civil suit, so she had to do it then.

    I agree that mention of it will not be allowed at trial, but the investigators have stated publicly that there will be a trial.

  4. In the name of justice, this should be brought up at trial. I also believe that criminal history should be brought up at trial, too. But that's me.

    How can they jury decide unless they know who the person REALLY is?

    Defense lawyers get away with all sorts of false accusations, why is that fair?