does anyone have any information on this case since it happened? Its about identicals twins but fredrick took the blame for what cedrick did. like what state did it happen in and what prison is fredrick in

This Case has always intrigued me. Two twins where one was charged with burglary and swears that it was his twin brother that committed the crime. This one is a tough case it is really hard for me to make a decision on who to believe the one that was locked up really was convincing but, I have to wonder why any judge would convict someone with this much reasonable doubt. I hate to play this card but this may have been racially motivated what do you all think about this one? I mean on top of the resonable doubt the sentence that the judge gave was too harsh for the crime.. Fred has been locked up for 13 years now and you would think that a circuit court would be able to over trun the verdict based on the evidence that the State of North Carolina submitted to me would not be enough to convict someone for 77 years. Then the testiomy from Chris Ross who swear that it was the other twin.. still was not enough to vindcate the incarcerated twin.. This case is one I follow very closely as it is not far from home.. here is a link on Fredrick Young http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/apps/offender/offend1?DOCNUM=0457283&SENTENCEINFO=yes&SHOWPHOTO=yes&numtimesin=2Also in a Ironic twist of fate the so called innocent twin Cedric Young is also incarcerated as well and juding from his criminal record I am conviced that Fredrick is innocent and needs to be released .. here is the link for the other brother.( there is no picture but the birthdates confirmed it for me they are exactly the same http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/apps/offender/offend1?DOCNUM=0457085&SENTENCEINFO=yes&SHOWPHOTO=yes&numtimesin=2 So I guess karma came around and Cedric got his in the end.. I would never let my brother suffer for something I have done.. This is really a case where JUSTICE WAS NOT served !!! Oh boy this just gets better.. The child hood friend Chris Ross was charged with robbery as well but seems like he received a lighter prison term then Fredrick but as landed himself back in jail again here is a link on him as well http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/apps/offender/offend1?DOCNUM=0352319&SENTENCEINFO=yes&SHOWPHOTO=yes&numtimesin=2

thank you very very much i appreciate. you were more than helpful. It looks like cedrics been out of jail since 2001 tho

You are welcome.. yeah I looked over that. seems like he has been out since 2001 seem like Fred ain't never getting out!!!

you know i wonder if he communicates with his brother

**** I know I wouldn't if what I say was true that it was him that committed the crime I think I would never have anything to say to him.. I know that has got to hurt

This is a very sad case. I too believe that the wrong twin was arrested. And the Young's mother believes that as well.

Sadly, this is a common problem. I've read about other cases where a twin was arrested for their twins crime. There was even an episode of "Without a Trace" last year that dealt with the wrong twin getting arrested for a crime. One of the FBI investigators even knew that the wrong twin was behind bars but there was no way to prove it and that's how the episode ended - with the wrong brother arrested. I remember turning to my friend and saying, "That is so messed up," and she replied that she agreed with me, but that it happens all too often." :(

yea i agree with you guys. The law knew it wasnt him but they didnt want to do anything about it

yea i agree with you guys. The law knew it wasnt him but they didnt want to do anything about it
I wonder if Fredick has exhausted all his apeals? I guess so if he is still stuck in prison that I am sure his brother commited this crime

Cedrick Young absolutely disgusts me, think I mentioned it on another thread. This is one instance when I dead-set wanted to throw a brick through the TV. How could you let your brother take the rap for you like this is beyond me. :(

Cedrick Young absolutely disgusts me, think I mentioned it on another thread. This is one instance when I dead-set wanted to throw a brick through the TV. How could you let your brother take the rap for you like this is beyond me. :(
YEAH HE MAKES ME SICK AND THE IDEA OF THROWING A BRICK THREW THE TV AND IT ACTUALLY HITTING HIM IS VERY APEALING!!!

does anyone the airdate for this

YEAH HE MAKES ME SICK AND THE IDEA OF THROWING A BRICK THREW THE TV AND IT ACTUALLY HITTING HIM IS VERY APEALING!!!

Actually, a brick would be way too soft. :D

You'd have to be a snake to do your own blood in like that. I found myself snickering the moment he started crying those crocodile tears when he appeared on that talk show.

You'd have to be a snake to do your own blood in like that. I found myself snickering the moment he started crying those crocodile tears when he appeared on that talk show.

Obviously the term 'Brotherly Love' doesn't mean anything to Cedrick (the guilty party).

I know I couldn't go on living normally if my bro was in prison for a crime I committed. And, if I looked exactly like him or vise-versa that is. Where is the Brotherly Love on Cedrick's part. (Frederick is in prison for Cedrick's crime, isn't he?)

I especially feel for Frederick and their Mother to have to deal with this.
I've seen this segment.

Obviously the term 'Brotherly Love' doesn't mean anything to Cedrick (the guilty party).

I know I couldn't go on living normally if my bro was in prison for a crime I committed. And, if I looked exactly like him or vise-versa that is. Where is the Brotherly Love on Cedrick's part. (Frederick is in prison for Cedrick's crime, isn't he?)

I especially feel for Frederick and their Mother to have to deal with this.
I've seen this segment.
I can't agree any more myself this is sad!

Obviously the term 'Brotherly Love' doesn't mean anything to Cedrick (the guilty party).

I know I couldn't go on living normally if my bro was in prison for a crime I committed. And, if I looked exactly like him or vise-versa that is. Where is the Brotherly Love on Cedrick's part. (Frederick is in prison for Cedrick's crime, isn't he?)

I especially feel for Frederick and their Mother to have to deal with this.
I've seen this segment.

Oh yeah, he sure used that twin thing to his advantage. In my opinion, there isn't any brotherly love because if there were, he wouldn't have allowed his own brother to go down for a crime in which HE actually had involvement in. That was cold-hearted and it definitely spoke volumes as to how much he doesn't value him.

Does anyone know if this case was featured on any of the unsolved mysteries dvds?

No, it's not on any of the DVD's. Of course it isn't. It's actually a good segment!

No case of UM has had more of an impact on me than this one. It literally kept me up at night. That clip from that talkshow where the guilty brother claimed to not have done it and his brother in jail just started crying is something I'll never forget. How can all the police and detectives involved in this case be so idiotic? It's as plain as day to see that they got the wrong guy. I wish I could contact the brother in jail by mail. Anyone know of a way to find his address?

Just a heads up, Lifetime is scheduled to air this clip on Wed, June 21 for those interested. Interesting segment, it's been an enternity since I've seen it. Maybe I'll make a special effort to catch it.

I must have missed every airing of this segment.

My concern is as follows... Do we 'know' that the wrong brother took the fall for this?!?

It seems to be the popular consensus.... but is it not possible that the right one was indeed apprehended?!?

Regardless I look forward to hopefully catching the segment next time and forming my own opinion.... and assuming it's as obvious as you all make it out to be, I'm sure I will likely be of the same opinion

What was the airdate on this???

Someone has to kno

came on today...

This was the first time I had seen this case. Another example of the police botching an investigation. I dont know we have some real crap for brains that are working in the police departments in this country. I mean these cases arent rocket science, a kid in junior high could figure out these cases with good detective work. Well someone earlier posted the links to these guys on the North Carolina Department of Corrections website. I thought Fredrick was innocent from the start but even if someone was convinced at first that little fake crying episode his brother Cedric did on Geraldo pretty much was the clincher. I have never heard of a judge doing that in terms of ruling against a new trial even after the other guy in the robbery said that it wasnt Fredrick but Cedric and that he had planted the gun in Fredrick's car. Fredrick Jones is still in prison right now. Jones is inmate No. 0457283 and is currently serving his time at the Caswell Correctional Center in Yanceyville, North Carolina which is a medium security prison. Apperantly Jones has got in some trouble in prison. But I dont think he did the robberies and shouldnt be in prison in the first place. Jones is due to be released on January 3rd, 2024 when he will be 52 years old.

The so called innocent brother Cedric Jones did some time in prison as another poster stated earlier. Apperantly he did time for child abuse but was paroled and is on supervised release right now.

Chris Ross the guy who was the accomplice in the robbery and plea bargained his way to a lighter sentence was paroled was paroled in 2002 after serving 8 years of his 20 year sentence for robbery. Ross however is now back in prison. In 2005 he pled guilty to a charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. These charges resulted from a January 5th, 2005 incident. Ross started serving his sentence on November 2nd, 2005 and is due to be released from prison December 26th of this year. Ross is currently serving his time at the Avery Mitchell Correctional Institution in Spruce Pine, North Carolina.

Let me ask one more time. Does anyone know where I can find the address to Fredrick Young in jail?

Fuji, go to the North Carolina Department of Corrections website. Look up how you write to a prisoner. Usually you have to put down the inmate's full name plus his inmate i.d. number. Then look for the address for the Prison that he is currently incarcierated in. Okay, I just looked it up for you, this is the address you would use.

Fredrick Young # 0457283
Caswell Correctional Center
Box 217
Yanceyville, NC 27379

Fuji, go to the North Carolina Department of Corrections website. Look up how you write to a prisoner. Usually you have to put down the inmate's full name plus his inmate i.d. number. Then look for the address for the Prison that he is currently incarcierated in. Okay, I just looked it up for you, this is the address you would use.

Fredrick Young # 0457283
Caswell Correctional Center
Box 217
Yanceyville, NC 27379


Ooh, do I sense some sleuthing on the part of Mr. Fiju?

It looks like Frederick has a custody review (I'm thinking this is a parole board hearing) on August 4th. I hope he can get released, this whole case is just awful. Hopefully during the hearing they can get a statement from Chris Ross or Frederick's mother can urge Cedric to come forward and clear Frederick of the charges. 77 years is extremely excessive for giving the cops a false name and possessing the gun involved in the motel robbery.

We should all try to write the parole board to help Frederick. I'm thinking about writing him now that kadrmas has provided his mailing address.

During the trial re-enactment one of the attorneys mentioned 6 armed robberies? Did that mean 6 separate armed robberies or did he mean 6 counts of armed robbery during the motel robbery?

I dont know exactly Skunky. I remember hearing that there was at least two other robberies in addition to the motel robbery that night that Cedric Young and Chris Ross committed. Well the reason he got sentenced to so much was because he fought the charges in a trial and was convicted and a lot of the time if you fight it in trial they will give you the maximum or at least a lot more time than you would get if you pled guilty. Fredrick Young knew he could have pled guilty and got a 20 year sentence like Chris Ross got but he didnt want to plead guilty to something he didnt do. I would actually encourage people to write to him to let him know that there are people that believe he didnt do it. I am thinking of writing to him myself actually.

If there were separate robberies, then I can see how the sentence was 77 years. But for one robbery, it just seems excessive to me. That's pretty much life in prison.

So is a custody review a parole board hearing or what?

Thanks so much guys. You guys did a hell of a job with this information. This is my favorite unsolved mystery case of all time. I have never forgotten about it. Thats why i started this thread. Free Fredrick Young, Free Fredrick Young!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One last question guys. This is for everyone. Was it Fredrick or Cedrick????????????

does anyone kno the airdate for this case? It seems like no one knows

This is a very sad case. I too believe that the wrong twin was arrested. And the Young's mother believes that as well.
I think most of us believe Fredrick is innocent. And it's very telling that their mother believes the wrong twin is behind bars. I wish there was something we could do to help Fredrick out...

I just saw this case on Unsolved Mysteries not even a few minutes ago and I am outraged. I followed the link given earlier and this man is now 37 years old, he couldnt have been more than in his early 20s when this whole mess started. Can you imagine spending the majority of your life in jail knowing you're innoncent and couldnt do anything about it! How helpless and hopeless he must feel! I too was almost moved to tears when they aired that segment from the Geraldo Rivera show. Our legal system cannot continue to fail the citizens of the United States like this. Has anyone heard anything else? I see that he has a custody review on 2/1/2010. I may just send him a letter, card, anything to let him know that people are praying for him. What, if anything, can be done? Presidential Clemency??

Completely botched case from the police.

I think that a number of posters are forgetting that Frederick Young been truthful w/ the police (or at least had kept his mouth shut and asked to speak to an attorney) it's unlikely that he would have been arrested for the burglary the first place.He was after all driving a car w/o a license and had an outstanding warrant out against him.

Even after he was arrested, he could have been much more honest than he was and he certainly could have used better judgment than he did. Not until he was ready to be convicted during a trial(a lengthy process in itself) did he start to claim that his brother was actually the guilty party.

Finally, as much publicity as this case would (and has) presented in the media, you have to ask people that think that Frederick Young is innocent;don't you think a good lawyer would have taken a look at this and if his claims of innocence had any merit, that they would have taken this case? Even pro bono? Or that a Hollywood production company wouldn't have footed the legal bill in exchange for the film rights of what would likely be a hit film?

It appears,IMHO, the Mr. Young is in the place where his big mouth and his poor judgment have placed him. And that may also be where he deserves to be.

I think that a number of posters are forgetting that Frederick Young been truthful w/ the police (or at least had kept his mouth shut and asked to speak to an attorney) it's unlikely that he would have been arrested for the burglary the first place.He was after all driving a car w/o a license and had an outstanding warrant out against him.

Even after he was arrested, he could have been much more honest than he was and he certainly could have used better judgment than he did. Not until he was ready to be convicted during a trial(a lengthy process in itself) did he start to claim that his brother was actually the guilty party.

Finally, as much publicity as this case would (and has) presented in the media, you have to ask people that think that Frederick Young is innocent;don't you think a good lawyer would have taken a look at this and if his claims of innocence had any merit, that they would have taken this case? Even pro bono? Or that a Hollywood production company wouldn't have footed the legal bill in exchange for the film rights of what would likely be a hit film?

It appears,IMHO, the Mr. Young is in the place where his big mouth and his poor judgment have placed him. And that may also be where he deserves to be.

So you say that it "may also be where he deserves to be", but what if he's innocent? Because he used poor judgement he should be in jail? That makes no sense. I'm not saying that Fred is an angel, and he did do a stupid thing by posing as his brother on the night he was pulled over. But it's obvious that this man is 100% innocent. Why else would his alleged accomplice Chris Ross say his brother Cedric was the one involved in the robbery? What motive would Ross have to lie? Mr. Young does deserve to be in prison. Only it's Cedric Young.

So you say that it "may also be where he deserves to be", but what if he's innocent? Because he used poor judgement he should be in jail? That makes no sense. I'm not saying that Fred is an angel, and he did do a stupid thing by posing as his brother on the night he was pulled over. But it's obvious that this man is 100% innocent. Why else would his alleged accomplice Chris Ross say his brother Cedric was the one involved in the robbery? What motive would Ross have to lie? Mr. Young does deserve to be in prison. Only it's Cedric Young.

1) Where's the proof that Frederick Young is "100% innocent?"
The segment doesn't present him having an alibi for the time in question. He lied about being his brother in the first place which is what started the ball rolling. In the time period prior to the trial when he could have given his alibi for the time period in question or even implicated his brother, he didn't.
When he finally seemed to realize that he needed to implicate his brother (during a trial no less, not during a plea bargain) he did as such in a manner that wasn't convincing to the jury that convicted him nor to the judge that sentenced him.
Do "innocent people" often have that happen to them?

2) I again posit the question: There are numerous projects out there being run by lawyers that will work pro bono to free innocent prisoners. None of them have stepped up to free Mr. Young, in what would be a publicity bonanza for them if they did. They have to be well aware of that fact...and yet, none of them have taken on this case. Why is that?

Also, many television and film production companies are looking for "true" stories like this one to develop into projects. Why aren't any of them all over this situation shoving money into' lawyer's hands trying to buy the story rights to this?

The truth probably is that both groups have looked into the merits in this case and have found based on what they have seen, the jury's decision and judge's sentence were both appropriate for the defendant and the crime.

Do "innocent people" often have that happen to them?


Uh, yes. How many people have been wrongfully convicted and released years later based off of newly discovered DNA evidence?

1) Where's the proof that Frederick Young is "100% innocent?"

Chris Ross openly admits his involvement in the robberies. He says he was accompanied by Cedric, not Frederick. What motive would Ross have to lie? He was already in prison serving time for his part in the crime.

There are numerous projects out there being run by lawyers that will work pro bono to free innocent prisoners. None of them have stepped up to free Mr. Young, in what would be a publicity bonanza for them if they did. They have to be well aware of that fact...and yet, none of them have taken on this case. Why is that?

Why do lawyers have to be "well aware" of the Young case? Because it aired on Unsolved Mysteries? Geraldo Rivera was "all over this situation" and it felt it credible enough to be featured on his show back int he 90's.

Everyone on this board is in agreeance that UM leaves out crucial details...how do we know Fred never gave his alibi to police on the night in question? He lied about being his brother because they were identical twins and he didn't have a license. If he had just committed armed robbery the day before, wouldn't he be better off telling authorities he was Fred and that he didn't have a license? And why would he openly let the officers search the vehicle if he knew the shotgun used in the crimes was there? At the trial he was offered a plea bargain but refused it insisting he was innocent. (His attorney at the trial had his license suspended for neglecting his clients, BTW) Walter Johnson is Frederick's new attorney (or at least at the time of the UM segment he was) and he was fighting for Frederick's release. The state considers the case closed so that's probably why there's a lack of interest.

Also, many television and film production companies are looking for "true" stories like this one to develop into projects. Why aren't any of them all over this situation shoving money into' lawyer's hands trying to buy the story rights to this?

The same question can be asked for virtually every Final Appeal trial that was profiled on UM. Why no Tommy Zeigler movie? Why no Jeffrey MacDonald movie? Maybe because they happened so long ago they figure people wouldn't want to watch something that is considered "closed".

Uh, yes. How many people have been wrongfully convicted and released years later based off of newly discovered DNA evidence?



Chris Ross openly admits his involvement in the robberies. He says he was accompanied by Cedric, not Frederick. What motive would Ross have to lie? He was already in prison serving time for his part in the crime.



Why do lawyers have to be "well aware" of the Young case? Because it aired on Unsolved Mysteries? Geraldo Rivera was "all over this situation" and it felt it credible enough to be featured on his show back int he 90's.

Everyone on this board is in agreeance that UM leaves out crucial details...how do we know Fred never gave his alibi to police on the night in question? He lied about being his brother because they were identical twins and he didn't have a license. If he had just committed armed robbery the day before, wouldn't he be better off telling authorities he was Fred and that he didn't have a license? And why would he openly let the officers search the vehicle if he knew the shotgun used in the crimes was there? At the trial he was offered a plea bargain but refused it insisting he was innocent. (His attorney at the trial had his license suspended for neglecting his clients, BTW) Walter Johnson is Frederick's new attorney (or at least at the time of the UM segment he was) and he was fighting for Frederick's release. The state considers the case closed so that's probably why there's a lack of interest.



The same question can be asked for virtually every Final Appeal trial that was profiled on UM. Why no Tommy Zeigler movie? Why no Jeffrey MacDonald movie? Maybe because they happened so long ago they figure people wouldn't want to watch something that is considered "closed".

Umm..there WAS a Jeffrey MacDonald book and film.Both were called Fatal Vision and both portray MacDonald as both being the killer and as being a sociopath.The author even believes that to be the case.

1) Chris Ross has apparently changed his story several times. Which version should be believed?

2) You asked and answered your own question. If the case made Geraldo's TV show (who's credibility even at that time was pretty weak) then hundreds of lawyers would have seen the show or at least heard about it. That none are now apparently working to free (or have freed) Mr. Young means that they can't find enough evidence to overturn the verdict.

3) As for why Mr. Young did things that he shouldn't and didn't do things that he should, I guess that the most likely answer is that he is a pretty stupid individual. He was driving around w/o a valid license which he lost completely to other acts of stupidity on his part. He attempted to deceive the police by pretending to be his brother and then continued to deceive them after he was arrested and booked for the burglary.

His lawyers, who as officers of the court and advocates of his rights have no reason to lie, have never stated that Mr. Young told them he had changed his story when he was in the police station. In fact, had Mr. Young been a little less stupid , he would have seen the disadvantages his earlier deceit had caused and he would have told the authorities through his lawyer that he lied prior to the trial.

Even at the beginning of the trial, when he could have potentially caused a mistrial by doing as such, Young again failed to tell the court that he had deceived the police and also had a solid alibi for the time that the burglary occurred. In fact he waited until the trial was turning against him to spring "the truth" on everybody. And, of course, not too many people believed him.

Finally after rejecting a deal that would have had him out of prison by now, he goes on a rather incompetently run innocence campaign which fails to answer even the basic questions about why he continued to lie after it proven to be a mistake, why so many have failed to get his brother to confess and ultimately failed to obtain enough evidence to compel an appeals judge to overturn the verdict and give him a new trial.

Yep...Mr. Young is a stupid man. He may or may not be a criminal as well (the jury said he was) but mainly he's really just an idiot.

1) Charlie Ross has apparently changed his story several times. Which version should be believed?

2) You asked and answered your own question. If the case made Geraldo's TV show (who's credibility even at that time was pretty weak) then hundreds of lawyers would have seen the show or at least heard about it. That none are now apparently working to free (or have freed) Mr. Young means that they can't find enough evidence to overturn the verdict.

3) As for why Mr. Young did things that he shouldn't and didn't do things that he should, I guess that the most likely answer is that he is a pretty stupid individual. He was driving around w/o a valid license which he lost completely to other acts of stupidity on his part. He attempted to deceive the police by pretending to be his brother and then continued to deceive them after he was arrested and booked for the burglary.

His lawyers, who as officers of the court and advocates of his rights have no reason to lie, have never stated that Mr. Young told them he had changed his story when he was in the police station. In fact, had Mr. Young been a little less stupid , he would have seen the disadvantages his earlier deceit had caused and he would have told the authorities through his lawyer that he lied prior to the trial.

Even at the beginning of the trial, when he could have potentially caused a mistrial by doing as such, Young again failed to tell the court that he had deceived the police and also had a solid alibi for the time that the burglary occurred. In fact he waited until the trial was turning against him to spring "the truth" on everybody. And, of course, not too many people believed him.

Finally after rejecting a deal that would have had him out of prison by now, he goes on a rather incompetently run innocence campaign which fails to answer even the basic questions about why he continued to lie after it proven to be a mistake, why so many have failed to get his brother to confess and ultimately failed to obtain enough evidence to compel an appeals judge to overturn the verdict and give him a new trial.

Yep...Mr. Young is a stupid man. He may or may not be a criminal as well (the jury said he was) but mainly he's really just an idiot.

1) It's Chris, not Charlie. Where are your sources that Chris Ross changed his story several times? His story needs no changing if he says Cedric was the man with him, he has NO REASON TO LIE!

2) I fail to see your logic about how a lawyer would jump all over this case...Fred had a lawyer at the time of the UM segment (and since the UM segment showed clips from the Geraldo show, the Geraldo show happened first) so there's a lawyer who stepped up and was exhausting his appeals. He was Walter Johnson, and he was interviewed on the segment.

3) As I've stated before, I don't think Fred was an angel. Let's just say for S & G's that Fred is innocent...let's look at the facts. He's driving along, gets pulled over, doesn't have his license, and lies to police. Stupid? Yes. But he didn't have a license (but his identical twin brother did), so he used Cedric's name thinking this was just a routine traffic stop. Then police find the gun in his car. Fred alleges that he had no idea it was in there, and he very well may have been lying about that. But even if he was lying about not knowing the gun was in there, he still would have no idea that this gun was used in a robbery the night before. Chris Ross said he put the gun in the car, not Fred. So police now have the man in possession of the gun used in the armed robbery. At this point he has no idea who was really involved in the robbery and he thinks that he's just being held because he had the gun. He figures at the trial that it will be an open and shut case. It wasn't until the trial that the witness fingered Fred as being the one who pointed the gun at her. That's when he realized that it had to be Cedric involved. That would explain as to why he didn't bring this up earlier...he probably had no clue who was involved (other than Chriss Ross, I'm sure investigators either brought it up to him during questioning or it was brought up during the trial). Why would the jury believe him? Ross was never called to testify, so all we have is the word of an accused man saying he didn't do it. How often do juries hear that? The witnessed said it was Fred, that swayed the jury IMO. So he "may or may not be a criminal" but because he's an "idiot" he still doesn't deserve a new trial? WRONG.

And Jeffrey MacDonald allegedly slaughtered his wife and children and made up this enchanting tale of druged up hippies who were responsible. Frederick Young was alleged to have been involved in an armed robbery, where no one was hurt or murdered. Which book/movie would you write?

1) It's Chris, not Charlie. Where are your sources that Chris Ross changed his story several times? His story needs no changing if he says Cedric was the man with him, he has NO REASON TO LIE!

2) I fail to see your logic about how a lawyer would jump all over this case...Fred had a lawyer at the time of the UM segment (and since the UM segment showed clips from the Geraldo show, the Geraldo show happened first) so there's a lawyer who stepped up and was exhausting his appeals. He was Walter Johnson, and he was interviewed on the segment.

3) As I've stated before, I don't think Fred was an angel. Let's just say for S & G's that Fred is innocent...let's look at the facts. He's driving along, gets pulled over, doesn't have his license, and lies to police. Stupid? Yes. But he didn't have a license (but his identical twin brother did), so he used Cedric's name thinking this was just a routine traffic stop. Then police find the gun in his car. Fred alleges that he had no idea it was in there, and he very well may have been lying about that. But even if he was lying about not knowing the gun was in there, he still would have no idea that this gun was used in a robbery the night before. Chris Ross said he put the gun in the car, not Fred. So police now have the man in possession of the gun used in the armed robbery. At this point he has no idea who was really involved in the robbery and he thinks that he's just being held because he had the gun. He figures at the trial that it will be an open and shut case. It wasn't until the trial that the witness fingered Fred as being the one who pointed the gun at her. That's when he realized that it had to be Cedric involved. That would explain as to why he didn't bring this up earlier...he probably had no clue who was involved (other than Chriss Ross, I'm sure investigators either brought it up to him during questioning or it was brought up during the trial). Why would the jury believe him? Ross was never called to testify, so all we have is the word of an accused man saying he didn't do it. How often do juries hear that? The witnessed said it was Fred, that swayed the jury IMO. So he "may or may not be a criminal" but because he's an "idiot" he still doesn't deserve a new trial? WRONG.

And Jeffrey MacDonald allegedly slaughtered his wife and children and made up this enchanting tale of druged up hippies who were responsible. Frederick Young was alleged to have been involved in an armed robbery, where no one was hurt or murdered. Which book/movie would you write?

Let's see:

1) Ok...I changed it to "Chris." But again, he has changed his story several times. That kills the limited credibility that he already had. Perhaps if he had told all of details the way they happened the first time , then it would be easier for people to believe him.You really have problems when a proven liar is the best witness in your defense.

Mr. Ross has to be able to convince a jury (not me and not you) that he isn't lying. So far that doesn't seem to have happened.

2) Sigh. Mr. Young's lawyer doesn't seem to be doing that well, does he? If his client is (your words) "100% innocent" why hasn't he been able to mount a successful defense to prove that innocence? He has many years to do as such and should have been greatly assisted by the UM segment as well as the Geraldo interview.
There are likely only two reasons: He incompetent or his client is guilty.

Also, lawyers like the free publicity that comes from freeing an innocent man. It makes them look like great attorneys and it brings them additional clients and potential book and movie deals. Who would pass up a case of twin brothers where one was guilty and let the other take the fall? It's like a modern day Cain and Abel. So...since the case took place many years ago, a number of lawyers have had numerous chances to examine the evidence against Mr.Young. Don't you think that at least one really good lawyer would have offered to take his case pro bono or offered to assist his attorney in this case?
If they haven't, you have to ask why they haven't given the potential bonanza an exoneration would provide for the client and especially for themselves.

3) Angel or not, Frederick made (and apparently continues to make) a number of moves that can only be described as being stupid. He lied when he didn't have and continued to do as such even after those lies proved to be his undoing.
He allow himself to go to trial hoping that his many lies would be overlooked and he would found "innocent" because he said that he "didn't do it." When this relatively weak "defense" was shredded by the prosecution, he decides to finally tell the"truth" according to him.

This proved unbelievable to the jury and he was convicted. The judge didn't void the jury's conviction and sentenced him to a long term in prison. His lawyer was unable to mount a successful appeal of his conviction and apparently no one in Mr. Young's family was either able to offer evidence exonerating him or force the other Mr. Young to plead to his role in the crime to save not just his brother, but his TWIN, from jail.

Finally, many news stories and a number of years later, Mr. Young (who convicted himself w/ his lies in the first place) and his lawyer has been unable to convince various judges in the appeals system that the evidence and motions that they have presented are sufficient to overturn his conviction and to grant him a new trial.

So, are all of these people, who have access to more evidence from the trial than you and I do, wrong? Are they simply not seeing something that Mr. Young is presenting? What benefit would they get keeping an "innocent" man in prison and allowing his "guilty" twin brother to go free? If they are ignoring evidence that could lead to his acquittal, what's their motivation?

The only people that Mr. Young seems to have convinced of his innocence are , ironically, not the people necessary to overturn his conviction and free him from jail.

Let's see:

1) Ok...I changed it to "Chris." But again, he has changed his story several times. That kills the limited credibility that he already had. Perhaps if he had told all of details the way they happened the first time , then it would be easier for people to believe him.You really have problems when a proven liar is the best witness in your defense.

Mr. Ross has to be able to convince a jury (not me and not you) that he isn't lying. So far that doesn't seem to have happened.

2) Sigh. Mr. Young's lawyer doesn't seem to be doing that well, does he? If his client is (your words) "100% innocent" why hasn't he been able to mount a successful defense to prove that innocence? He has many years to do as such and should have been greatly assisted by the UM segment as well as the Geraldo interview.
There are likely only two reasons: He incompetent or his client is guilty.

Also, lawyers like the free publicity that comes from freeing an innocent man. It makes them look like great attorneys and it brings them additional clients and potential book and movie deals. Who would pass up a case of twin brothers where one was guilty and let the other take the fall? It's like a modern day Cain and Abel. So...since the case took place many years ago, a number of lawyers have had numerous chances to examine the evidence against Mr.Young. Don't you think that at least one really good lawyer would have offered to take his case pro bono or offered to assist his attorney in this case?
If they haven't, you have to ask why they haven't given the potential bonanza an exoneration would provide for the client and especially for themselves.

3) Angel or not, Frederick made (and apparently continues to make) a number of moves that can only be described as being stupid. He lied when he didn't have and continued to do as such even after those lies proved to be his undoing.
He allow himself to go to trial hoping that his many lies would be overlooked and he would found "innocent" because he said that he "didn't do it." When this relatively weak "defense" was shredded by the prosecution, he decides to finally tell the"truth" according to him.

This proved unbelievable to the jury and he was convicted. The judge didn't void the jury's conviction and sentenced him to a long term in prison. His lawyer was unable to mount a successful appeal of his conviction and apparently no one in Mr. Young's family was either able to offer evidence exonerating him or force the other Mr. Young to plead to his role in the crime to save not just his brother, but his TWIN, from jail.

Finally, many news stories and a number of years later, Mr. Young (who convicted himself w/ his lies in the first place) and his lawyer has been unable to convince various judges in the appeals system that the evidence and motions that they have presented are sufficient to overturn his conviction and to grant him a new trial.

So, are all of these people, who have access to more evidence from the trial than you and I do, wrong? Are they simply not seeing something that Mr. Young is presenting? What benefit would they get keeping an "innocent" man in prison and allowing his "guilty" twin brother to go free? If they are ignoring evidence that could lead to his acquittal, what's their motivation?

The only people that Mr. Young seems to have convinced of his innocence are , ironically, not the people necessary to overturn his conviction and free him from jail.

I really don't see how you don't understand why he was so easily convicted. Ross did not testify at his trial. He was fingered by one of the victims as the man who held the gun on her. And he had the weapon used in the robbery in his vehicle he was driving in. What jury wouldn't convict him? And how often does a crime like this happen where the brother implicates his twin as being the perp? I'm sure the jury didn't buy it at that point. Had Ross testified, the trial may have turned out different. I don't think Fred is "stupid" as much as unfortunate. Imagine how many appeals the courts get daily. How often are these cases granted new trials? The courts and law enforcement consider this an open and shut, closed case. In their mind, it's just beating a dead horse over and over again. But just because his appeals have never been granted does not make him a guilty man. There really is no convincing necessary. Ross said it was Cedric, not Fred. That is really all there is to be regarding this case. No matter how many times Ross's story has changed it does not matter. He's always said Cedric was his accomplice. Please tell me how Ross would have a motive to lie.

And the reason Fred got such a harsh sentence was because he didn't take a pela bargain. Would a guilty man who was presented with a deal that would have almost guaranteed a parole after 5+ years not take it to plead innocent and face an even longer sentence? Ross took his plea bargain, and he was eventually released. The fact that he hasn't been granted a new trial, or there wasn't a book or movie written about him (:rolleyes:) is irrelevant, Ross said he was with Cedric the night of the robbery.

I really don't see how you don't understand why he was so easily convicted. Ross did not testify at his trial. He was fingered by one of the victims as the man who held the gun on her. And he had the weapon used in the robbery in his vehicle he was driving in. What jury wouldn't convict him? And how often does a crime like this happen where the brother implicates his twin as being the perp? I'm sure the jury didn't buy it at that point. Had Ross testified, the trial may have turned out different. I don't think Fred is "stupid" as much as unfortunate. Imagine how many appeals the courts get daily. How often are these cases granted new trials? The courts and law enforcement consider this an open and shut, closed case. In their mind, it's just beating a dead horse over and over again. But just because his appeals have never been granted does not make him a guilty man. There really is no convincing necessary. Ross said it was Cedric, not Fred. That is really all there is to be regarding this case. No matter how many times Ross's story has changed it does not matter. He's always said Cedric was his accomplice. Please tell me how Ross would have a motive to lie.

And the reason Fred got such a harsh sentence was because he didn't take a pela bargain. Would a guilty man who was presented with a deal that would have almost guaranteed a parole after 5+ years not take it to plead innocent and face an even longer sentence? Ross took his plea bargain, and he was eventually released. The fact that he hasn't been granted a new trial, or there wasn't a book or movie written about him (:rolleyes:) is irrelevant, Ross said he was with Cedric the night of the robbery.

Sigh...

This is not a case where the police went out,found a suspect and then framed that suspect for a crime. Nor is it a case where a serial confessor confessed to a crime and then the police and prosecutors "smoothed over" the "rough edges" to make him/her appear to be guilty.

Frederick Young LIED about his identity. Even after the police found a gun in the car that he was driving, he could have simply told them, there and then, that he had lied about his identity. He didn't and allowed himself to arrested for this crime.
Prior to his trial, Mr . Young was incarcerated. At no point during that incarceration did he apparently tell anybody that he had used his brother's identity. Had he done that, the prosecutors would have been hard pressed to even present a case to a jury. In fact, they might have even dropped the case had this tidbit of information been brought forward as they aren't interested in convicting the wrong man.

At his trial, Mr. Young's attorney could have presented a solid alibi for the time period when the robbery took place. He didn't. He could provided an alternate explanation of the crime. He apparently didn't this very well,if at all. He could have asked for a mistrial based on the fact that Mr. Young lied to the police about his identity. He apparently didn't do this, and a jury convicted based on the evidence presented.

After Mr. Young was convicted, Mr. Ross finally states that the OTHER Mr. Young was his accomplice in the crime. He however tells additional lies which undercut his already limited credibility. Why should he believed if his credibility is already suspect?

Do you honestly believe that the numerous judges and attorneys that have looked at this case are somehow unable to see that this man was "falsely convicted" and yet you who have seen a UM segment and a Geraldo broadcast and not all of the evidence presented at trial and during his appeals are able to divine his innocence? Based solely on what you saw on those two segments?
Really?

If they had sufficient evidence to void his conviction, then it would have happened. If they did have evidence, they could have gotten him a new trial based on his appeals. THAT didn't happen.

They could have presented the evidence to the governor of Maryland, who could have commuted his sentence or even granted him a pardon based on his "innocence." The could have also asked for a Presidential pardon. That didn't happen either.

Finally I return to the fact many attorneys that could have made MILLIONS of dollars proving that this man was innocent. If they haven't done this by now, there must be a reason.
The reason is likely Frederick Young's guilt in this crime.

Sigh...

This is not a case where the police went out,found a suspect and then framed that suspect for a crime. Nor is it a case where a serial confessor confessed to a crime and then the police and prosecutors "smoothed over" the "rough edges" to make him/her appear to be guilty.

Frederick Young LIED about his identity. Even after the police found a gun in the car that he was driving, he could have simply told them, there and then, that he had lied about his identity. He didn't and allowed himself to arrested for this crime.


I'm not accusing law enforcement of having it out for Fred. He also had a history of trouble with the law in addition to not having a license. I've said before he's no angel and that is why he insisted he claimed to be Cedric. He did not wait until the trial to say "Hey I'm not Ced, I'm Frederick Young". He told the cops at the station that he lied about being his brother because of the license issue. He lied initially, but shortly after he was taken in he admitted he used Cedric's name because he had no license. Here's an exact quote from the UM broadcast: "At the police station, Fred came clean about pretending to be Cedric. But by then, it was too late." His lawyer didn't present a case because the guy sucked. Anyone who has their practice suspended for "neglecting his clients' cases" is obviously not a good lawyer. You do not know ANYTHING that was presented at the trial. I'm sure Fred had an alibi. But when the witness pointed him out in the courtroom, none of that mattered. That jury was convinced the second she pointed him out. And up until that point, Fred wasn't even thinking this was a case of mistaken identity. He just figured since he had the gun used in the robbery in his car that he was being unfairly lumped in with Ross. Speaking of Ross just what "additional lies" did he make? And Frederick Young WAS granted a hearing just a year after his original. And Ross did testify at the hearing, but the judge was dissuaded. Just how much money do you think Fred has anyway? Seeking a presedential pardon? You realize that a lawyer would CHARGE money for this. It's safe to bet that the average inmate would not be able to afford this type of defense. That's why they appealed to television (Geraldo, UM) for help. I again ask you to answer this question: What motive would Chris Ross have in implicating Cedric if Fred was actually the guilty party?

I'm not accusing law enforcement of having it out for Fred. He also had a history of trouble with the law in addition to not having a license. I've said before he's no angel and that is why he insisted he claimed to be Cedric. He did not wait until the trial to say "Hey I'm not Ced, I'm Frederick Young". He told the cops at the station that he lied about being his brother because of the license issue. He lied initially, but shortly after he was taken in he admitted he used Cedric's name because he had no license. Here's an exact quote from the UM broadcast: "At the police station, Fred came clean about pretending to be Cedric. But by then, it was too late." His lawyer didn't present a case because the guy sucked. Anyone who has their practice suspended for "neglecting his clients' cases" is obviously not a good lawyer. You do not know ANYTHING that was presented at the trial. I'm sure Fred had an alibi. But when the witness pointed him out in the courtroom, none of that mattered. That jury was convinced the second she pointed him out. And up until that point, Fred wasn't even thinking this was a case of mistaken identity. He just figured since he had the gun used in the robbery in his car that he was being unfairly lumped in with Ross. Speaking of Ross just what "additional lies" did he make? And Frederick Young WAS granted a hearing just a year after his original. And Ross did testify at the hearing, but the judge was dissuaded. Just how much money do you think Fred has anyway? Seeking a presedential pardon? You realize that a lawyer would CHARGE money for this. It's safe to bet that the average inmate would not be able to afford this type of defense. That's why they appealed to television (Geraldo, UM) for help. I again ask you to answer this question: What motive would Chris Ross have in implicating Cedric if Fred was actually the guilty party?

Sigh...
After this, we'll have to agree to disagree.

1) If he did claim at the police station (which is odd because they didn't take him to the station immediately after they found the gun) that he wasn't who he said he was, why didn't the fingerprints (which are different on twins,BTW) show that was the case?

2) Even if his lawyer was incompetent, why wasn't that incompetence used to garner Young a new trial?

3) You are aware that "pro bono" is a Latin legal term meaning "for the public good" ,are you not? It means that the lawyers work for little or no cost to the defendant. MOST innocence projects that take cases, take them on a pro bono basis.
And given the fact that movie rights of this case could pay anybody that owned them millions of dollars (a film starring Will Smith as the attorney is just one thing that comes to mind) and would generate massive numbers of new clients, why WOULDN'T a competent attorney have looked into well-publicized case and taken it on?
Pro bono, course.
Also,pardons are free to file for,poster. Any legal fees would be absorbed into the fee for the media rights if the an attorney chose to file for the pardon, which so far, none has.

Chris Ross is an anti-social personality (he is a career criminal and that's the definition of a career criminal) and is probably just as stupid as both Young brothers appear to be. He could dislike one of the brothers or even dislike them both. He could attempting to use his "notoriety" in this case to leverage advantages for him in the prison system or from concerned viewers that might send him money or letters of support.I have no idea why he's saying its one brother over the other.

I DO know that what he's saying isn't being believed by the people that need to believe it. And frankly that's all that matters, isn't it?

I DO know that what he's saying isn't being believed by the people that need to believe it. And frankly that's all that matters, isn't it?

He testified one time, and one judge was unconvinced. How do we not know that his lawyers incompentence was the basis for his appeal hearing he was granted? If Ross is so "stupid" why would he be clever enough to lie to gain "notoriety" so people will "send money or letters of support"? And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? He implicates Ced so he can tearfully cozy up with the letters written to him for support? And why would he get any letters of support? He admitted his involvement in the crime. Again I will ask you just what lies did Chris Ross tell? (Without the sigh's this time please)

He testified one time, and one judge was unconvinced. How do we not know that his lawyers incompentence was the basis for his appeal hearing he was granted? If Ross is so "stupid" why would he be clever enough to lie to gain "notoriety" so people will "send money or letters of support"? And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? He implicates Ced so he can tearfully cozy up with the letters written to him for support? And why would he get any letters of support? He admitted his involvement in the crime. Again I will ask you just what lies did Chris Ross tell? (Without the sigh's this time please)

Why don't you put this level of effort into getting Mr. Young a new trial? His lawyers obviously aren't, as he's been in prison for more than 12 years.

If his entire case rests entirely on Mr. Ross' testimony, then he's SOL, isn't he? The people that need to believe him, don't. So his testimony is largely useless,isn't?

Why don't you put this level of effort into getting Mr. Young a new trial? His lawyers obviously aren't, as he's been in prison for more than 12 years.

If his entire case rests entirely on Mr. Ross' testimony, then he's SOL, isn't he? The people that need to believe him, don't. So his testimony is largely useless,isn't?

Steve Shores was convicted of a crime he did not commit. The testimony used to convict him was later recanted and the witness admitted to lying under oath, and that she made her whole testimony up out of fear for the two gang members who actually committed the murder that Shores was convicted for. And guess what? He remained in prison for 15 years! And he still wasn't paroled...after 15 years he was finally granted a new trial in which he had to enter the Alford Plea (basically admitting he's still innocent but there's sufficient enough evidence to prove he's guilty). It took Shores' attorney 15 years to get an appeal, even after the overwhelming evidence in favor of Shores innocence was presented to several other appeals courts. Perfect example of how when an innocent person is wrongfully convicted, the courts almost refuse to admit that they were wrong.

Back to Frederick Young, the people who convicted him never heard Ross's testimony. Not useless if he were granted a new, FAIR trial. Please tell me how an UM fan and internet message board poster is going to convince the state of North Carolina to give Frederick Young a new trial.

Steve Shores was convicted of a crime he did not commit. The testimony used to convict him was later recanted and the witness admitted to lying under oath, and that she made her whole testimony up out of fear for the two gang members who actually committed the murder that Shores was convicted for. And guess what? He remained in prison for 15 years! And he still wasn't paroled...after 15 years he was finally granted a new trial in which he had to enter the Alford Plea (basically admitting he's still innocent but there's sufficient enough evidence to prove he's guilty). It took Shores' attorney 15 years to get an appeal, even after the overwhelming evidence in favor of Shores innocence was presented to several other appeals courts. Perfect example of how when an innocent person is wrongfully convicted, the courts almost refuse to admit that they were wrong.

Back to Frederick Young, the people who convicted him never heard Ross's testimony. Not useless if he were granted a new, FAIR trial. Please tell me how an UM fan and internet message board poster is going to convince the state of North Carolina to give Frederick Young a new trial.

You really are not familiar with the American legal system, are you poster?

An Alford plea means that the defendant admits that the prosecution has enough information to convict them but they are not admitting guilt. Just like Mr. Young, Steven Shore foolishly told a number of lies and was unable to convince people when he decided to finally tell his version of the truth.

I actually lived in Chicago for four years, poster. I read extensively about Mr. Shore's trial and subsequent appeals and nothing that I've read directly states that Mr. Shore was innocent of the crime in question. In fact, the Alford plea removes any possibility that that anyone else will be tried and/or convicted for this man's murder.

Here's something that's so obvious that even you should be able to get it: Mr. Young's entire defense should not have should not have hinged upon any of his brother's accomplices testifying upon his behalf. If Mr. Young had and has a strong alibi for the time space of the robbery, why hasn't he produced it?

A strong alibi, with credible witnesses would have made it highly unlikely that Mr. Young would have been convicted in the first place. In fact,none of the stories involving Mr. Young have him presenting any type of a credible alibi for his location at the time of the robbery.

Even if Mr. Young was unable to produce a credible alibi for some reason, if he were actually innocent the preponderance of circumstantial evidence should have proven his innocence. It apparently has not.

That a competent defense attorney, whose job it is to help defendants like Mr. Young, has been unable to find any additional evidence or write a convincing appeal to have Mr. Young's conviction voided, states pretty clearly that no additional evidence exists and that Mr. Young was fairly judged by a jury of his peers.

You really are not familiar with the American legal system, are you poster?

An Alford plea means that the defendant admits that the prosecution has enough information to convict them but they are not admitting guilt.

Isn't that what I just said, "basically admitting he's still innocent but there's sufficient enough evidence to prove he's guilty"?

I actually lived in Chicago for four years, poster. I read extensively about Mr. Shore's trial and subsequent appeals and nothing that I've read directly states that Mr. Shore was innocent of the crime in question. In fact, the Alford plea removes any possibility that that anyone else will be tried and/or convicted for this man's murder.

Shores himself witnessed the crime. His sister was threatened if he testified against the El Ruk'n gang members. The only eyewitness testimony we have that has Steve Shores murdering Garrison Hester are the two El Ruk'n gang members. You are not familiar with the legal system, obviously. It has flaws, and just because one is convicted does not automatically make them guilty. Shores wasn't even convicted by a jury of peers, it was a bench trial (in which he chose to not testify).

Here's something that's so obvious that even you should be able to get it: Mr. Young's entire defense should not have should not have hinged upon any of his brother's accomplices testifying upon his behalf. If Mr. Young had and has a strong alibi for the time space of the robbery, why hasn't he produced it?

A strong alibi, with credible witnesses would have made it highly unlikely that Mr. Young would have been convicted in the first place. In fact,none of the stories involving Mr. Young have him presenting any type of a credible alibi for his location at the time of the robbery.

Again we do not know if an alibi was presented in court. Obviously if he was claiming innocence he had to have something that supported his claim. Chris Ross's testimony was non-existent because he didn't testify at his trial. It doesn't matter if fifty people said they were with Frederick at an Arby's eating delicious chicken sandwiches, the eyewitness who was robbed pointed to Fred as the man who robbed her. That is what got him convicted. The jury did not know this man had an identical twin who's own mother admitted that it was hard for even family members to tell the two apart.

The legal system is not quite as cut and dry as you'd like it to be. Did you happen to catch that Steve Shores movie, or even read the book about the case? And did you read the article about how Shores's defense attorney is now residing in the Hollywood hills counting her millions?

Isn't that what I just said, "basically admitting he's still innocent but there's sufficient enough evidence to prove he's guilty"?



Shores himself witnessed the crime. His sister was threatened if he testified against the El Ruk'n gang members. The only eyewitness testimony we have that has Steve Shores murdering Garrison Hester are the two El Ruk'n gang members. You are not familiar with the legal system, obviously. It has flaws, and just because one is convicted does not automatically make them guilty. Shores wasn't even convicted by a jury of peers, it was a bench trial (in which he chose to not testify).



Again we do not know if an alibi was presented in court. Obviously if he was claiming innocence he had to have something that supported his claim. Chris Ross's testimony was non-existent because he didn't testify at his trial. It doesn't matter if fifty people said they were with Frederick at an Arby's eating delicious chicken sandwiches, the eyewitness who was robbed pointed to Fred as the man who robbed her. That is what got him convicted. The jury did not know this man had an identical twin who's own mother admitted that it was hard for even family members to tell the two apart.

The legal system is not quite as cut and dry as you'd like it to be. Did you happen to catch that Steve Shores movie, or even read the book about the case? And did you read the article about how Shores's defense attorney is now residing in the Hollywood hills counting her millions?

And here we go again through the shrubbery maze: Steven Shore admitted by taking the Alford plea that he did the crime. That was explained to him before he took it and and a judge would have made sure that he understood that prior to his taking the plea.A truly innocent man would not have taken the Alford plea as it would have done nothing to prove his innocence and in fact would be seen in future criminal proceedings as evidence of his guilt.

I'm quite familiar with the legal system, which is why I understand the reason that Mr. Young and Mr. Shores are both almost certainly guilty of the crimes of which they are accused. Having had many years to clear their own names, oddly ( or maybe not so oddly) neither one has been able to do as such.

One question: if the El Rukn's were so interested in framing Mr. Shores for this, why didn't they simply frame him and then kill him when he was in prison? The frame they put on him would only be effective if no other evidence was ever presented and Mr. Shores was unable to testify at a later date. Given the number of former Blackstone Rangers and current El Rukn members that were in Statesville prison with Mr. Shores, it wouldn't have been hard to accomplish.

And finally, we return to Mr. Young. The entire trial hinged on the gun found in his car and eyewitness testimony as well as Mr. Young not having a strong alibi for his whereabouts at the time of the robbery. again, Since years of past from the time when this crime was initially committed as well as when Mr. Young was tried for it, no amount of digging has ever come up with a substantial alternate theory of the crime? Besides, "my brother did it not me?"

Because, regardless of Mr. Ross' "testimony" after the trial, other evidence was used to convict Mr. Young. If that evidence also can't be refuted or disproved, then Mr. Young has no chance in the justice system. Or perhaps he did have his chance, but he simply guilty and it was found to be so by a jury of his peers.

OFF TOPIC re: Steve Shores

I just saw that case yesterday for maybe the 2nd time. I didn't recall much about it and didn't get to see the whole thing. Based solely on what I did see, it looks like he was wrongfully convicted.

I'm wondering how the heck his attorney was able to convince him to request a bench trial rather than to let a jury hear the case. At least with a jury, there was a chance of having one or two of them have some doubts about his guilt.

And he didn't even testify on his own behalf in front of the judge!? I can kind of understand a defendant not willing to be cross examined in front a jury for fear that they will goof up and look guilty when they're not. But for this guy, the judge was his last chance.

It almost seems like his lawyer just wanted to hurry his case through the system, be done with him, and move along to the next job, rather than putting a lot of time and effort into preparing a thorough defense. At the least, it seems that he was very poorly represented.

OFF TOPIC re: Steve Shores

I just saw that case yesterday for maybe the 2nd time. I didn't recall much about it and didn't get to see the whole thing. Based solely on what I did see, it looks like he was wrongfully convicted.

I'm wondering how the heck his attorney was able to convince him to request a bench trial rather than to let a jury hear the case. At least with a jury, there was a chance of having one or two of them have some doubts about his guilt.

And he didn't even testify on his own behalf in front of the judge!? I can kind of understand a defendant not willing to be cross examined in front a jury for fear that they will goof up and look guilty when they're not. But for this guy, the judge was his last chance.

It almost seems like his lawyer just wanted to hurry his case through the system, be done with him, and move along to the next job, rather than putting a lot of time and effort into preparing a thorough defense. At the least, it seems that he was very poorly represented.

it is pretty clear from watching the segment and having read the stories about Mr. Shore's trial in the Chicago area newspapers, that his attorney was ill-prepared, and frankly wasn't very good at her job at the time of his trial.
Although to her credit, she did stick with Mr. Shores, even though he repeatedly lied to her and withheld details that possibly could have been used either to acquit him or at least obtain him a lighter sentence.

I'm also surprised that his lawyer's supervisors allowed this to be a bench trial given the evidence that was presented. So, they are as much to blame as she was for the way the first trial went.

Mr. Shores seems (and seemed) to have a fairly poor understanding of the events involved with his trial. By not being completely honest with his lawyer from the start, he actually impaired his defense and has probably ruined any chance that a future proceeding would find any other party guilty of the murder.

Mr. Shores seems (and seemed) to have a fairly poor understanding of the events involved with his trial. By not being completely honest with his lawyer from the start, he actually impaired his defense and has probably ruined any chance that a future proceeding would find any other party guilty of the murder.

I'll agree with this. I think initially Steve screwed himself by not being completely honest with his attorney. But he had the perfect reason in not naming the El Rukn's, if they did threaten the lives of his family. One of Steve's sisters were murdered, what more intimidation do you want? Wouldn't you take an Alford plea if you were incarcerated for 15 years for a crime you didn't commit? No sane person would ever turn that opportunity down.

Sorry to get a little off topic, I just see some eerie similarities in both the Shores and Frederick Young cases. Who is a jury of peers going to believe? An eyewitness who was also the victim of armed robbery, or a convicted felon who was involved with the robbery? I think the witnesses testimony could have been shaken if it was brought up at Fred's trial that he had an identical twin. Therefore this witness could not be 100% positive in her identification of Fred...but being that this was never brought up, why wouldn't the jury convict this man? Fred insisted that he tried to get his lawyer to subpoena Chris Ross but his attorney just let the request fall on deaf ears. Where is your proof that Frederick Young did not have an alibi the night in question? Because it wasn't featured on UM? How many times do we all say on here that UM tends to leave out very crucial details in their segments? I've said it before and I'll say it again:

1.) The jury had no idea Frederick Young had an identical twin.
2.) The witness (also most likely unaware of the fact that Fred had a twin) identified Fred as one of the perps in the robbery.
3.) Chris Ross did not testify at Fred's trial.

Because of those three things, it simply did not matter at all what alibi Fred would have produced. Fred said it didn't dawn on him about how it could be his brother until the witness singled him out in the courtroom. If he was guilty, why would he want to subpoena Chris Ross? What's the guarantee that Ross wouldn't come out and say it was Fred with him the night of the robbery? Ross had nothing to lose at that point.

Who is a jury of peers going to believe? An eyewitness who was also the victim of armed robbery, or a convicted felon who was involved with the robbery? I think the witnesses testimony could have been shaken if it was brought up at Fred's trial that he had an identical twin. Therefore this witness could not be 100% positive in her identification of Fred...but being that this was never brought up, why wouldn't the jury convict this man? Fred insisted that he tried to get his lawyer to subpoena Chris Ross but his attorney just let the request fall on deaf ears. Where is your proof that Frederick Young did not have an alibi the night in question? Because it wasn't featured on UM? How many times do we all say on here that UM tends to leave out very crucial details in their segments? I've said it before and I'll say it again:

1.) The jury had no idea Frederick Young had an identical twin.
2.) The witness (also most likely unaware of the fact that Fred had a twin) identified Fred as one of the perps in the robbery.
3.) Chris Ross did not testify at Fred's trial.

Because of those three things, it simply did not matter at all what alibi Fred would have produced. Fred said it didn't dawn on him about how it could be his brother until the witness singled him out in the courtroom. If he was guilty, why would he want to subpoena Chris Ross? What's the guarantee that Ross wouldn't come out and say it was Fred with him the night of the robbery? Ross had nothing to lose at that point.

It's clear Fred Young got lousy counsel at his trial, but I have to somewhat concur with Cocytus that Fred certainly didn't help himself either.

The timing of Fred's realization is troubling - he only seemed to formulate his theory that Cedric did it when losing his case. That smacks of a desperation play to me.

It always matters what alibi Fred could produce. A jury might not find it credible, but failing to present one at all is damning. You are right though that the silence of UM on the subject doesn't tell us whether he did or did not present one.

I couldn't find any appellate history on this case, interestingly, although that doesn't mean it's not out there.

It's clear Fred Young got lousy counsel at his trial, but I have to somewhat concur with Cocytus that Fred certainly didn't help himself either.

The timing of Fred's realization is troubling - he only seemed to formulate his theory that Cedric did it when losing his case. That smacks of a desperation play to me.

It always matters what alibi Fred could produce. A jury might not find it credible, but failing to present one at all is damning. You are right though that the silence of UM on the subject doesn't tell us whether he did or did not present one.

I couldn't find any appellate history on this case, interestingly, although that doesn't mean it's not out there.

I honestly think Fred thought he was a suspect in the case solely because he had the weapon in his car. And it wasn't until his trial when he came face to face with the victim and that's when she said he was the man who robbed her. I don't think there was any desperation, he just had no idea his brother was involved. If we could come up with a logical motive as to why Chris Ross would be lying about who was his accomplice in the robbery then that would certainly hurt Fred's defense.

I honestly think Fred thought he was a suspect in the case solely because he had the weapon in his car. And it wasn't until his trial when he came face to face with the victim and that's when she said he was the man who robbed her. I don't think there was any desperation, he just had no idea his brother was involved. If we could come up with a logical motive as to why Chris Ross would be lying about who was his accomplice in the robbery then that would certainly hurt Fred's defense.

That's certainly possible; Fred didn't seem the brightest bulb in the lot and what seems like desperation could simply be stupidity.

As to Chris Ross - who knows? Cocytus claims he's changed his story multiple times - I'm not sure where that information is coming from, but it would certainly impact Ross's credibility, as would knowledge of any animus he had against Fred or Cedric. Ross is less then an ideal witness in the first place.

The lack of an alibi comes back to the issue of poor counsel - if Fred asserted his innocence to counsel (as, presumably, he did), you'd think some of the next questions out of the defense attorney's mouth would have been on alibi - since, obviously, if he says he wasn't there, he had to be somewhere else; it wouldn't be much help, of course, if somewhere else was watching TV alone at home or some other unverifiable activity, but if Fred had any alibi witnesses, they needed to be produced - relying on the state's inability to prove its case is never a great idea if you have anything else to go on.

That's certainly possible; Fred didn't seem the brightest bulb in the lot and what seems like desperation could simply be stupidity.

As to Chris Ross - who knows? Cocytus claims he's changed his story multiple times - I'm not sure where that information is coming from, but it would certainly impact Ross's credibility, as would knowledge of any animus he had against Fred or Cedric. Ross is less then an ideal witness in the first place.

The lack of an alibi comes back to the issue of poor counsel - if Fred asserted his innocence to counsel (as, presumably, he did), you'd think some of the next questions out of the defense attorney's mouth would have been on alibi - since, obviously, if he says he wasn't there, he had to be somewhere else; it wouldn't be much help, of course, if somewhere else was watching TV alone at home or some other unverifiable activity, but if Fred had any alibi witnesses, they needed to be produced - relying on the state's inability to prove its case is never a great idea if you have anything else to go on.

While I wouldn't call Fred an Ivy Leaguer, I wouldn't say he was stupid. How would Fred have any knowledge of his brother being involved, let alone even know about the crime itself? I honestly think he figured he would be easily acquitted of the robbery because in his mind the only evidence linking him to the crime was the gun found in his car. After he was charged, I'm sure he learned that Chris Ross was involved and felt even more certain that he'd be able to win the case knowing that Ross would testify on his behalf, if the trial ever even got to that point. And when the victim picked him out in open court, I'm sure Fred was stunned to say the least.

I don't see how Ross is not an ideal witness. IMHO he is the whole case for Fred's defense. He says two crucial things, Cedric was his accomplice and he planted the gun in Fred's car. The two most damning points of evidence against Fred can be refuted by Chris Ross. Ross was already in jail and he already accepted a plea bargain, and I don't see how implicating an innocent man (Cedric if you are to believe Fred is guilty) would benefit him in any way, shape, or form. I've stated before that I think Fred would have had to come up with some alibi, even if it was a weak one, but UM again left out a crucial detail. (The prosecution would have most certainly brought up the fact that Fred had no alibi for the night in question, and I'm sure UM would have aired it if that were the case)

While I wouldn't call Fred an Ivy Leaguer, I wouldn't say he was stupid. How would Fred have any knowledge of his brother being involved, let alone even know about the crime itself? I honestly think he figured he would be easily acquitted of the robbery because in his mind the only evidence linking him to the crime was the gun found in his car. After he was charged, I'm sure he learned that Chris Ross was involved and felt even more certain that he'd be able to win the case knowing that Ross would testify on his behalf, if the trial ever even got to that point. And when the victim picked him out in open court, I'm sure Fred was stunned to say the least.

I don't see how Ross is not an ideal witness. IMHO he is the whole case for Fred's defense. He says two crucial things, Cedric was his accomplice and he planted the gun in Fred's car. The two most damning points of evidence against Fred can be refuted by Chris Ross. Ross was already in jail and he already accepted a plea bargain, and I don't see how implicating an innocent man (Cedric if you are to believe Fred is guilty) would benefit him in any way, shape, or form. I've stated before that I think Fred would have had to come up with some alibi, even if it was a weak one, but UM again left out a crucial detail. (The prosecution would have most certainly brought up the fact that Fred had no alibi for the night in question, and I'm sure UM would have aired it if that were the case)

Regardless of Fred's intelligence in general, in this matter, he was pretty dumb: if you're facing serious criminal charges, you just can't make assumptions, which he clearly did here. Ineffective counsel certainly didn't help, given that it's counsel's job to help their client flesh out their knowledge to ensure their story gets told.

Ross is a bad witness because he's a criminal, pure and simple. A jury is always going to discount what he says because of who he is, but if he's all you got, you have to go with him.

Regardless of Fred's intelligence in general, in this matter, he was pretty dumb: if you're facing serious criminal charges, you just can't make assumptions, which he clearly did here. Ineffective counsel certainly didn't help, given that it's counsel's job to help their client flesh out their knowledge to ensure their story gets told.

Ross is a bad witness because he's a criminal, pure and simple. A jury is always going to discount what he says because of who he is, but if he's all you got, you have to go with him.

If Fred had a decent attorney I think he would have put Ross on the stand and brought about the fact that Fred had an identical twin brother. Then he could have refuted the eyewitness who placed Fred at the scene of the crime. Perhaps this would have been enough to sway the jury.

That's certainly possible; Fred didn't seem the brightest bulb in the lot and what seems like desperation could simply be stupidity.

As to Chris Ross - who knows? Cocytus claims he's changed his story multiple times - I'm not sure where that information is coming from, but it would certainly impact Ross's credibility, as would knowledge of any animus he had against Fred or Cedric. Ross is less then an ideal witness in the first place.

The lack of an alibi comes back to the issue of poor counsel - if Fred asserted his innocence to counsel (as, presumably, he did), you'd think some of the next questions out of the defense attorney's mouth would have been on alibi - since, obviously, if he says he wasn't there, he had to be somewhere else; it wouldn't be much help, of course, if somewhere else was watching TV alone at home or some other unverifiable activity, but if Fred had any alibi witnesses, they needed to be produced - relying on the state's inability to prove its case is never a great idea if you have anything else to go on.

The information I had about Chris Ross came from an article that was on a link that is now broken. There's also a statement in the UM segment (which unfortunately is also no longer available on an unnamed video site).

Until I can honestly present the information to back up what I put on here on, I'll stop saying it. I don't want to seem like I'm attempting to mislead.

If Fred had a decent attorney I think he would have put Ross on the stand and brought about the fact that Fred had an identical twin brother. Then he could have refuted the eyewitness who placed Fred at the scene of the crime. Perhaps this would have been enough to sway the jury.

I agree that you have to put Ross on, since he was apparently Fred's only witness; any decent States' Attorney is likely going to make mincemeat out of him, though, especially if he can be impeached with inconsistent stories... maybe you get reasonable doubt, but it's no slam-dunk for fred.

I agree that you have to put Ross on, since he was apparently Fred's only witness; any decent States' Attorney is likely going to make mincemeat out of him, though, especially if he can be impeached with inconsistent stories... maybe you get reasonable doubt, but it's no slam-dunk for fred.

Ross alone wouldn't be a slam dunk, but I think if his attorney addressed the fact that Fred had an identical twin he would have had one hell of a case for his innocence. His attorney could then call his mother and other family members to testify on Fred's behalf. Especially his mother, she admitted on the UM segment that she thought it was Cedric who was responsible.

Ross alone wouldn't be a slam dunk, but I think if his attorney addressed the fact that Fred had an identical twin he would have had one hell of a case for his innocence. His attorney could then call his mother and other family members to testify on Fred's behalf. Especially his mother, she admitted on the UM segment that she thought it was Cedric who was responsible.

I haven't "weighed in" on this for a few days...but here goes:

1) What if Cedric Young has a strong alibi for the day in question? Then what? Actually, since he was apparently never investigated for the crime, he may not have to had an alibi as they had already arrested and prosecuted someone else for it: Frederick Young.

But what if he does? Then where does this case go?

2) Wouldn't the gun found in the car have Cedric's prints on it? Or the bullets in the gun? What was the origin of the gun? Did Frederick have clothes w/ GSR (gunshot residue) on them?

3) We return to Frederick Young's alibi: Where was he on the night in question? At home asleep? Alone? He didn't see anybody or talk w/ anybody on the phone? His neighbors didn't see him coming or going?

If Mr. Young had a solid alibi, this case would have been a non-starter. Even if eyewitnesses "identified" him, an alibi would have determined that he was unable to have committed the crime at the time in question.

4) The clothes worn during the robbery: Were they proven to belong to anybody? And,if so, was it Cedric Young? Or Frederick? Where are they now?

5) Frankly, Ms. Young support/belief in her son's "innocence" is largely worthless. At least one of her children is a violent armed robber and both appear to anti-social misfits. That's hardly a credit to her judgment nor to her parenting skills.

Perhaps she cares more for one child than the other. Perhaps she enjoys the attention and sympathy that this case has provided her. Maybe she is getting money that she wouldn't receive if the "mystery" of this case was shown not to be such a mystery after all.

Ross alone wouldn't be a slam dunk, but I think if his attorney addressed the fact that Fred had an identical twin he would have had one hell of a case for his innocence. His attorney could then call his mother and other family members to testify on Fred's behalf. Especially his mother, she admitted on the UM segment that she thought it was Cedric who was responsible.

The mother's opinion isn't evidence. The evidence is that Fred had an identical twin brother and Ross could testify it was him, not Fred, who committed the robbery with him. It presents grounds for reasonable doubt, but still comes down to whether or not the jury would believe Ross.

The mother's opinion isn't evidence. The evidence is that Fred had an identical twin brother and Ross could testify it was him, not Fred, who committed the robbery with him. It presents grounds for reasonable doubt, but still comes down to whether or not the jury would believe Ross.

Not evidence, but still good testimony on Fred's behalf.

1) What if Cedric Young has a strong alibi for the day in question? Then what? Actually, since he was apparently never investigated for the crime, he may not have to had an alibi as they had already arrested and prosecuted someone else for it: Frederick Young.

But what if he does? Then where does this case go?

2) Wouldn't the gun found in the car have Cedric's prints on it? Or the bullets in the gun? What was the origin of the gun? Did Frederick have clothes w/ GSR (gunshot residue) on them?

3) We return to Frederick Young's alibi: Where was he on the night in question? At home asleep? Alone? He didn't see anybody or talk w/ anybody on the phone? His neighbors didn't see him coming or going?

If Mr. Young had a solid alibi, this case would have been a non-starter. Even if eyewitnesses "identified" him, an alibi would have determined that he was unable to have committed the crime at the time in question.

4) The clothes worn during the robbery: Were they proven to belong to anybody? And,if so, was it Cedric Young? Or Frederick? Where are they now?

5) Frankly, Ms. Young support/belief in her son's "innocence" is largely worthless. At least one of her children is a violent armed robber and both appear to anti-social misfits. That's hardly a credit to her judgment nor to her parenting skills.

1) I'm assuming Cedric didn't need an alibi for the date in question because his brother was already apprehended. If he did have an alibi, I doubt LE would have checked it thoroughly enough since they had Fred in custody for the crime. And it was never implicated that Cedric was the accomplice until Fred's trial, and after his conviction police figured the case was closed why probe any further?

2) I'm not sure if the gun was ever fired, but this was another crucial detail left out by UM. We don't know where the gun came from, although Ross says he put it in Fred's car and since that's the only thing we have to go on (and there is no obvious reason as to why Ross would lie about this), that's all we know about the gun in question.

3) I don't know what Fred's alibi was for the night in question. I'm sure he had one, even if he were lying, and at the very least his alibi would have been that he were alone so no one could corraborate it. Let's say he did have someone to corroborate his alibi, who would the jury believe? They would probably think his witness was lying to protect a friend. The jury already knew he was picked out by the witness as the perpetrator and he also had the weapon used in the robbery in his possession. There's no doubt in my mind that's what convinced the jury right there that he was guilty as hell.

4) Another crucial detail UM left off.

5) I'm not saying her opinion was evidence, but her testimony would have helped Fred's case IMO. She could have testified to the fact that for family members it was difficult to distinguish between the two, thereby casting doubt on the witness who claimed Fred was involved in the robbery.

As a Corrections Officer Ive learned at least one thing. Inmates will do and say anything to get out of prison. Im not 100% sure, but I bet he didnt recieve or he want given a bail to get out. So from his arrest til trial he never looked over his paperwork??? Im 100% sure the paperwork said there was an eyewitness who either picked him out of a lineup or from mug shots. The friend goin along with his story tells me nothing at all. I bet these two thought they could get the whole case thrown out by claiming the wrong man was in jail, maybe the other brother cut them off when they were locked up. Inmates in jail are very desperate and will use anything to their advantage. You guys seem so sure the free brother is lying and doing something dastardly to the locked up brother, I feel the locked up brother is playing his last card in the deck and hoping for a miracle. Lying to the Police Officer started this ball rolling, if he wasnt a "career criminal" he wouldnt have lied. Im sure public safety is a tad bit better with him in prison.

As a Corrections Officer Ive learned at least one thing. Inmates will do and say anything to get out of prison. Im not 100% sure, but I bet he didnt recieve or he want given a bail to get out. So from his arrest til trial he never looked over his paperwork??? Im 100% sure the paperwork said there was an eyewitness who either picked him out of a lineup or from mug shots. The friend goin along with his story tells me nothing at all. I bet these two thought they could get the whole case thrown out by claiming the wrong man was in jail, maybe the other brother cut them off when they were locked up. Inmates in jail are very desperate and will use anything to their advantage. You guys seem so sure the free brother is lying and doing something dastardly to the locked up brother, I feel the locked up brother is playing his last card in the deck and hoping for a miracle. Lying to the Police Officer started this ball rolling, if he wasnt a "career criminal" he wouldnt have lied. Im sure public safety is a tad bit better with him in prison.

His alleged accomplice was already in jail serving his sentence at the start of Fred's trial. And he already agreed to a plea bargain, and I've yet to come up with a logical reason as to why he would implicate an innocent person when he was already admitting his guilt in the crime. What would be in it for him?

Isn't it possible that Fred did in fact know his brother was involved, (perhaps he was privy to this information at his trial, his attorney may have in fact told him about the eyewitness) but he didn't want to rat him out? While I still think its more likely that he honestly had no idea about his brothers involvement, it's still very possible that that scenario had crossed his mind but he didn't want to say anything out of loyalty to his brother.

His alleged accomplice was already in jail serving his sentence at the start of Fred's trial. And he already agreed to a plea bargain, and I've yet to come up with a logical reason as to why he would implicate an innocent person when he was already admitting his guilt in the crime. What would be in it for him?

Isn't it possible that Fred did in fact know his brother was involved, (perhaps he was privy to this information at his trial, his attorney may have in fact told him about the eyewitness) but he didn't want to rat him out? While I still think its more likely that he honestly had no idea about his brothers involvement, it's still very possible that that scenario had crossed his mind but he didn't want to say anything out of loyalty to his brother.

Frankly, I've given multiple logical reasons for Mr. Ross to lie. You've simply chosen to ignore them as they don't fit into your perception of the narrative.

1) He lies and people think that he's trying to do the right thing so they put money on his books (pay for his commissary) or they send him or his family members money or even provide him w/ legal support. An excellent motivator.
2) He creates reasonable doubt in his own case by claiming a co-conspirator was falsely arrested and possibly makes it easier for him to be released at a later date.
3) He likes Fred rather Cedric and would lie to get Cedric into trouble.
4) He dislikes both Frederick and Cedric and is lying in a twisted attempt to hurt them both.
5) He lies about the twins and makes himself appear to be the hero. This is the next strongest motivator to the money angle as this would work towards his ego. There are numerous cases where this happened, although none where the defendant is a twin that I can remember.
6) Perhaps he's mentally ill and doesn't realize the consequences of his actions.
7) Maybe he's trying to make a fool of the system that seems to have treated him poorly.

All of those things (and a few more that I left out) are plausible & logical explanations for his actions. If you dismiss those w/o conceding that they could be the reason(s), then you really aren't taking a skeptical look at this case.

The bottom line is both Mssers. Young and Mr. Ross are anti-social personalities at best, and dangerous sociopaths at worst. No one has any idea what they would do (including lie) to obtain their freedom. That includes fabricating a fictional narrative of the events of that evening.

Frankly, I've given multiple logical reasons for Mr. Ross to lie. You've simply chosen to ignore them as they don't fit into your perception of the narrative.

Kind of what you do when you are proven wrong time and time again on certain threads (Pamela Ray, Angela Hammond) where you conveniently stop posting in the thread.


1) He lies and people think that he's trying to do the right thing so they put money on his books (pay for his commissary) or they send him or his family members money or even provide him w/ legal support. An excellent motivator.
2) He creates reasonable doubt in his own case by claiming a co-conspirator was falsely arrested and possibly makes it easier for him to be released at a later date.
3) He likes Fred rather Cedric and would lie to get Cedric into trouble.
4) He dislikes both Frederick and Cedric and is lying in a twisted attempt to hurt them both.
5) He lies about the twins and makes himself appear to be the hero. This is the next strongest motivator to the money angle as this would work towards his ego. There are numerous cases where this happened, although none where the defendant is a twin that I can remember.
6) Perhaps he's mentally ill and doesn't realize the consequences of his actions.
7) Maybe he's trying to make a fool of the system that seems to have treated him poorly.

All of those things (and a few more that I left out) are plausible & logical explanations for his actions. If you dismiss those w/o conceding that they could be the reason(s), then you really aren't taking a skeptical look at this case.

1) What legal support would Ross need, exactly? He was already in jail, admitting his GUILT IN THE CRIME! He was serving his time, and he reached a plea bargain...what else could he possibly need legal help for? How would people perceive this as someone they should send money to? Please think about this for a second. Two men commit a brazen armed robbery, and two men are implicated. One man admits guilt and goes to jail. Another man is implicated in the crime, but the original man convicted says he was helped by someone else. Who should the public have more sympathy for? And who in their right mind would send money to an admitted convicted felon?

2) Again, he accepted a plea bargain, and plead GUILTY. I fail to see how he would benefit from another man being wrongfully convicted. He's admitting his involvement, which leaves zero room for reasonable doubt in his case. And Ross was later released from prison, while Fred is still incarcerated.

3) This could be remotely possible, but why would he still be claiming it was Cedric long after both he and Fred were convicted? Why appear on Unsolved Mysteries, boldly accusing an innocent man of something he did not do? A simple check on Cedric Young's conviction history here: http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do?method=view&offenderID=0457085&SENTENCEINFO=yes&SHOWPHOTO=yes&numtimesin=2 will show what he's been up to since Fred's conviction (larceny, child abuse, carrying a concealed weapon, and felony breaking and entering). And a check of Fred's will show that although he is not an angel (one count of breaking & entering and stealing from a vending machine, assault, and damage to property) he seems less likely to have committed this crime. Check out Fred's : http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do?method=view&offenderID=0457085&SENTENCEINFO=yes&SHOWPHOTO=yes&numtimesin=2

4) This is highly unlikely. It had to be either Cedric or Fred based off of the eyewitness, so how would implicating Cedric if it truly was Cedric, hurt Fred?

5) What exactly is he saying? That he parades around on his downtime in a cape and fights crime in between his armed robbery crimes? Just how is Ross trying to be a "hero"? He served eight years in prison for this crime, that's a lot of time to sit back and enjoy his ego boost. How would lying about your accomplice do anything but help the said accomplice?

6) Wow, this is actually the most possible of them all. IMO, it's the only one that would make any sense.

7) Why exactly would Ross be angry with the system? He was offered a plea bargain, took it, and was paroled after eight years. Seems to me like the system treated him pretty damn good for armed robbery with a weapon.


The bottom line is both Mssers. Young and Mr. Ross are anti-social personalities at best, and dangerous sociopaths at worst. No one has any idea what they would do (including lie) to obtain their freedom. That includes fabricating a fictional narrative of the events of that evening.

Cedric was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon PRIOR to this crime. Fred was never convicted of any weapons related charges. But it seems like good ol' innocent Cedric has kept up with his theft crimes as recent as 2008. You do the math.

Kind of what you do when you are proven wrong time and time again on certain threads (Pamela Ray, Angela Hammond) where you conveniently stop posting in the thread.



1) What legal support would Ross need, exactly? He was already in jail, admitting his GUILT IN THE CRIME! He was serving his time, and he reached a plea bargain...what else could he possibly need legal help for? How would people perceive this as someone they should send money to? Please think about this for a second. Two men commit a brazen armed robbery, and two men are implicated. One man admits guilt and goes to jail. Another man is implicated in the crime, but the original man convicted says he was helped by someone else. Who should the public have more sympathy for? And who in their right mind would send money to an admitted convicted felon?

2) Again, he accepted a plea bargain, and plead GUILTY. I fail to see how he would benefit from another man being wrongfully convicted. He's admitting his involvement, which leaves zero room for reasonable doubt in his case. And Ross was later released from prison, while Fred is still incarcerated.

3) This could be remotely possible, but why would he still be claiming it was Cedric long after both he and Fred were convicted? Why appear on Unsolved Mysteries, boldly accusing an innocent man of something he did not do? A simple check on Cedric Young's conviction history here: http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do?method=view&offenderID=0457085&SENTENCEINFO=yes&SHOWPHOTO=yes&numtimesin=2 will show what he's been up to since Fred's conviction (larceny, child abuse, carrying a concealed weapon, and felony breaking and entering). And a check of Fred's will show that although he is not an angel (one count of breaking & entering and stealing from a vending machine, assault, and damage to property) he seems less likely to have committed this crime. Check out Fred's : http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do?method=view&offenderID=0457085&SENTENCEINFO=yes&SHOWPHOTO=yes&numtimesin=2

4) This is highly unlikely. It had to be either Cedric or Fred based off of the eyewitness, so how would implicating Cedric if it truly was Cedric, hurt Fred?

5) What exactly is he saying? That he parades around on his downtime in a cape and fights crime in between his armed robbery crimes? Just how is Ross trying to be a "hero"? He served eight years in prison for this crime, that's a lot of time to sit back and enjoy his ego boost. How would lying about your accomplice do anything but help the said accomplice?

6) Wow, this is actually the most possible of them all. IMO, it's the only one that would make any sense.

7) Why exactly would Ross be angry with the system? He was offered a plea bargain, took it, and was paroled after eight years. Seems to me like the system treated him pretty damn good for armed robbery with a weapon.



Cedric was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon PRIOR to this crime. Fred was never convicted of any weapons related charges. But it seems like good ol' innocent Cedric has kept up with his theft crimes as recent as 2008. You do the math.

Actually, I stop posting in the other threads because, like this one, nothing new is being presented in response to questions. It might have been better had you asked why I did rather than assuming.

Speaking of assumptions:

1) Did you seriously ask who would send money to a convicted felon? Really?
Do you have any concept how the American penal system works? Apparently not as you would have thought several times before you posted that.

Here's a primer: Prisoners need people on the outside to put money on their books (pay for their commissary) as most are poor before they enter jail, their families are poor and they can't pay for it themselves. That means there's a constant search for people to put money on their books, if their relatives can't.

This had to have been made much easier for Mr. Ross after having appeared on Geraldo "doing the right thing."I wouldn't be surprised if his books were filled every month after that show and possibly are still being filled by people who think that he is a hero.
You know...people like you.

2) You really don't know much about the American system of jurisprudence, do you? Even a plea bargain can be challenged (it's exceptionally difficult, but it can be done) and everybody in prison is looking to get out. Even lifers.

Mr. Ross is an anti-social personality and ,frankly, not that bright. His conviction for armed robbery shows this. Perhaps he's under the impression that if he lies, that he'll get another trial or maybe he'll get out early. I don't know; I guess we could ask.

3) If that Mr. Ross is the same man, he's already out of prison. Why would he even CARE what happened to Mr. Young? And a child abuse conviction? That's not a good sign.

4) Mr. Ross in a convicted felon and anti-social. Who knows why he does anything?

5) Mr. Ross in a convicted felon and anti-social. Who knows why he does anything?

6) Thanks, I know.

7) Mr. Ross in a convicted felon. I have yet to meet a convicted felon that accepts personal responsibility for the crimes they have committed. In fact, that's the reason they usually ARE convicted felons: their lack of personal responsibility.

I revise my last statement as it seems to have lost something in the translation: Both Mr. Young's (the two) and Mr. Ross are all convicted felons, anti-social personalities, and probably violent sociopaths. Who knows why they do, have done, or will do what they do? They don't even know why they do what they do.

Bottom lines bottom line: The appellate court of the state that is imprisoning Mr. Young has not seen fit to grant him a new trial based on the evidence presented to them.
No innocence project has seen fit to take this case nor has any big name lawyer decided to take this case pro bono for the publicity.
Now...could all of those people, who have looked into this case more in-depth than a UM segment and a Geraldo interview be wrong?
Certainly.
However, the likelihood of that occurring is so small as to be non-existent.

Unless, and until, Mr. Young can prove his "innocence" to people that matter, he remain where he is: in prison.

1) Did you seriously ask who would send money to a convicted felon? Really?
Do you have any concept how the American penal system works? Apparently not as you would have thought several times before you posted that.

Here's a primer: Prisoners need people on the outside to put money on their books (pay for their commissary) as most are poor before they enter jail, their families are poor and they can't pay for it themselves. That means there's a constant search for people to put money on their books, if their relatives can't.

This had to have been made much easier for Mr. Ross after having appeared on Geraldo "doing the right thing."I wouldn't be surprised if his books were filled every month after that show and possibly are still being filled by people who think that he is a hero.
You know...people like you.

I've never stated Chris Ross is a "hero", nor do I think any logical-minded person would walk away after watching Unsolved Mysteries (the only show on which Ross appeared, he did not appear on Geraldo) thinking, "Gee I ought to help that hero out." Ross came across in his UM interview as a common thug, not as a mature, thoughtful person who was owning up to responsibility. Just where do you think all of the publicity in this case came from? Geraldo and UM are the only two shows that I know of that ever profiled it, and they were both aired in the days before the internet became the "information super highway" it is today. You've repeatedly stated Ross made several changes to his story, and there are no articles/information to support this. You also say that Ross was reaching out to people in an attempt to gain financial support in prison. Were you a penpal of his? Do you know this for certain, based off a one minute interview with him on Unsolved Mysteries?

2) You really don't know much about the American system of jurisprudence, do you? Even a plea bargain can be challenged (it's exceptionally difficult, but it can be done) and everybody in prison is looking to get out. Even lifers.

Mr. Ross is an anti-social personality and ,frankly, not that bright. His conviction for armed robbery shows this. Perhaps he's under the impression that if he lies, that he'll get another trial or maybe he'll get out early. I don't know; I guess we could ask.

What ground would Ross have to stand on if he challenged the plea bargain? Are you serious? Why do you continue to delve deeper and deeper into possible scenarios that are so far-fetched they're quite laughable? You honestly think that Ross is "not that bright", but he would be smart enough to challenge a plea bargain? So how could lying help Chris Ross in this situation? Wouldn't it be the other way around? You really don't know much about that age old saying, "the truth shall set you free", do you? Isn't that more likely what Ross would be doing, telling the truth about what happened in hopes of getting released early?


3) If that Mr. Ross is the same man, he's already out of prison. Why would he even CARE what happened to Mr. Young? And a child abuse conviction? That's not a good sign.

Cedric Young has a child abuse conviction. You're right, that's not a good sign.


7) Mr. Ross in a convicted felon. I have yet to meet a convicted felon that accepts personal responsibility for the crimes they have committed. In fact, that's the reason they usually ARE convicted felons: their lack of personal responsibility.

Do you not realize that he admitted guilt in this crime and served eight years before being paroled? How is that not accepting personal responsibility?


I revise my last statement as it seems to have lost something in the translation: Both Mr. Young's (the two) and Mr. Ross are all convicted felons, anti-social personalities, and probably violent sociopaths. Who knows why they do, have done, or will do what they do? They don't even know why they do what they do.

Bottom lines bottom line: The appellate court of the state that is imprisoning Mr. Young has not seen fit to grant him a new trial based on the evidence presented to them.
No innocence project has seen fit to take this case nor has any big name lawyer decided to take this case pro bono for the publicity.
Now...could all of those people, who have looked into this case more in-depth than a UM segment and a Geraldo interview be wrong?
Certainly.
However, the likelihood of that occurring is so small as to be non-existent.

Unless, and until, Mr. Young can prove his "innocence" to people that matter, he remain where he is: in prison.

You are right about that, he will remain in prison which has got to be one of the biggest injustices in this country. Ross was paroled after eight years, yet Frederick remains in prison for a crime in which no one was physically harmed and one that he insists he is innocent of committing.

I've never stated Chris Ross is a "hero", nor do I think any logical-minded person would walk away after watching Unsolved Mysteries (the only show on which Ross appeared, he did not appear on Geraldo) thinking, "Gee I ought to help that hero out." Ross came across in his UM interview as a common thug, not as a mature, thoughtful person who was owning up to responsibility. Just where do you think all of the publicity in this case came from? Geraldo and UM are the only two shows that I know of that ever profiled it, and they were both aired in the days before the internet became the "information super highway" it is today. You've repeatedly stated Ross made several changes to his story, and there are no articles/information to support this. You also say that Ross was reaching out to people in an attempt to gain financial support in prison. Were you a penpal of his? Do you know this for certain, based off a one minute interview with him on Unsolved Mysteries?



What ground would Ross have to stand on if he challenged the plea bargain? Are you serious? Why do you continue to delve deeper and deeper into possible scenarios that are so far-fetched they're quite laughable? You honestly think that Ross is "not that bright", but he would be smart enough to challenge a plea bargain? So how could lying help Chris Ross in this situation? Wouldn't it be the other way around? You really don't know much about that age old saying, "the truth shall set you free", do you? Isn't that more likely what Ross would be doing, telling the truth about what happened in hopes of getting released early?



Cedric Young has a child abuse conviction. You're right, that's not a good sign.



Do you not realize that he admitted guilt in this crime and served eight years before being paroled? How is that not accepting personal responsibility?



You are right about that, he will remain in prison which has got to be one of the biggest injustices in this country. Ross was paroled after eight years, yet Frederick remains in prison for a crime in which no one was physically harmed and one that he insists he is innocent of committing.

This is tiring.

Numerous people, who haven't based their judgment on a UM segment and a Geraldo interview and actually have viewed the information of case have found Mr. Young's conviction to be valid.That's fact, not speculation.

If no innocence project is trying to free Mr. Young and no big name lawyers are taking this case, then there's a reason. That's also a fact.

Could they all be wrong and the people who have just seen the segment on UM and watched Geraldo be right?
Sure.The odds,however, so long in that happening that I feel confident that Mr. Young is where he belongs.

One thing is certain here: One twin is playing the "it was my twin" card. The other twin is legit. Either way either one of Cedric or Frederick are bottom of the barrel rotten human beings. Cedirc would be plain old rotten for allowing his brother to rot for a crime he didn't commit. Frederick would be rotten for not being accountable for his actions and actually convincing legions of people he is the victim.

Here is why I lean towards Frederick being the guilty party

- I'll cut him some slack. He isn't very bright, along the same lines of Tim McClure. Both suspects made some decisions and opened up their mouths which made them look very suspicious. They aren't smart men, but not necessarily guilty men. The problem though that I have is that it took Frederick so long to come up with the conclusion that it could be his brother Cedric involved. I don't know about the rest of you guys, but any twin I meet they are trained from birth to handle a conversation like this:

"Hey I saw you the other day"
"No, it wasn't me, it was my brother, we are identical twins."

In 22 years I am almost certain that Frederick had come upon that conversation no less than 100 times. After all his family members - his own MOTHER - mistakes them so forgive me if I am a little confused as to why Frederick didn't think about being mistaken for Cedric from day one. If you are being tried for a crime you were not involved in, wouldn't you figure right off the bat that your criminal brother was behind it?

- Secondly, Chris Ross was a thug. At least in the UM segment he seemed to think this thing was a big joke. Some people like the publicity. He's in jail too remember, he isn't going to rat out ANOTHER member of his "jail society" he'll attack an outsider. Why? Maybe to be protected, maybe for kicks, but I have a hard time taking the word of a hardened criminal who claims he never said anything "because no one asked him" (his words not mine)

- If there was evidence that Cedric committed the crime we would know about this by now. Apparently there wasn't. Cedric isn't exactly a pillar of the community either, but anything from stolen merchandise to money to guns would have been found on him. They weren't. All we know is that Frederick was in possession of the gun in his car that he "claimed" to have never seen.

- Not only was it stupid to pretend to be your brother at the beginning, but it would be a perfect reason to say something like that AFTER you've committed a series of burglaries. If you had committed a bunch of crimes, got pulled over assuming you'd be arrested wouldn't you try the whole switcheroo thing too?

- Also, the court of public opinion is not the jury. Frederick seemed to have convinced many people of his innocence but he could be just as vicious of a person that he claims Cedric to be. What kind of brother would ruin his other brother's life who is OUTSIDE of prison trying to carry on? My thought is, it would be far easier to be in prison, bitter, resentful and come up with a scheme to finger your twin brother than it would to be on the outside knowing your flesh and blood is suffering on the inside. You would feel far less guilty with the former than the latter.



That's my take, Frederick is where he belongs. It seems their mother is convinced it was Cedric too and I often wonder why. Both of her sons weren't angels. She is going on the word of her one son who initially was a liar and deceitful to start with. I can't imagine how their Thanksgiving dinners would be together.

I know Cedric looked really bad with the whole "crocodile tears" on Geraldo while Frederick was legitimately crying. But who knows, maybe Cedric was TRYING to cry because he was painted out to be the villain but he couldn't cry. If I were innocent and my bro was fingering me I'd be so mad I wouldn't be able to cry. Disgusted if anything.

One thing is certain here: One twin is playing the "it was my twin" card. The other twin is legit. Either way either one of Cedric or Frederick are bottom of the barrel rotten human beings. Cedirc would be plain old rotten for allowing his brother to rot for a crime he didn't commit. Frederick would be rotten for not being accountable for his actions and actually convincing legions of people he is the victim.

Here is why I lean towards Frederick being the guilty party

- I'll cut him some slack. He isn't very bright, along the same lines of Tim McClure. Both suspects made some decisions and opened up their mouths which made them look very suspicious. They aren't smart men, but not necessarily guilty men. The problem though that I have is that it took Frederick so long to come up with the conclusion that it could be his brother Cedric involved. I don't know about the rest of you guys, but any twin I meet they are trained from birth to handle a conversation like this:

"Hey I saw you the other day"
"No, it wasn't me, it was my brother, we are identical twins."

In 22 years I am almost certain that Frederick had come upon that conversation no less than 100 times. After all his family members - his own MOTHER - mistakes them so forgive me if I am a little confused as to why Frederick didn't think about being mistaken for Cedric from day one. If you are being tried for a crime you were not involved in, wouldn't you figure right off the bat that your criminal brother was behind it?

- Secondly, Chris Ross was a thug. At least in the UM segment he seemed to think this thing was a big joke. Some people like the publicity. He's in jail too remember, he isn't going to rat out ANOTHER member of his "jail society" he'll attack an outsider. Why? Maybe to be protected, maybe for kicks, but I have a hard time taking the word of a hardened criminal who claims he never said anything "because no one asked him" (his words not mine)

- If there was evidence that Cedric committed the crime we would know about this by now. Apparently there wasn't. Cedric isn't exactly a pillar of the community either, but anything from stolen merchandise to money to guns would have been found on him. They weren't. All we know is that Frederick was in possession of the gun in his car that he "claimed" to have never seen.

- Not only was it stupid to pretend to be your brother at the beginning, but it would be a perfect reason to say something like that AFTER you've committed a series of burglaries. If you had committed a bunch of crimes, got pulled over assuming you'd be arrested wouldn't you try the whole switcheroo thing too?

- Also, the court of public opinion is not the jury. Frederick seemed to have convinced many people of his innocence but he could be just as vicious of a person that he claims Cedric to be. What kind of brother would ruin his other brother's life who is OUTSIDE of prison trying to carry on? My thought is, it would be far easier to be in prison, bitter, resentful and come up with a scheme to finger your twin brother than it would to be on the outside knowing your flesh and blood is suffering on the inside. You would feel far less guilty with the former than the latter.



That's my take, Frederick is where he belongs. It seems their mother is convinced it was Cedric too and I often wonder why. Both of her sons weren't angels. She is going on the word of her one son who initially was a liar and deceitful to start with. I can't imagine how their Thanksgiving dinners would be together.

I know Cedric looked really bad with the whole "crocodile tears" on Geraldo while Frederick was legitimately crying. But who knows, maybe Cedric was TRYING to cry because he was painted out to be the villain but he couldn't cry. If I were innocent and my bro was fingering me I'd be so mad I wouldn't be able to cry. Disgusted if anything.

Someone I've been talking to about Frederick/Cedric Young has told me about 14 different infractions Frederick has gotten while in prison. One of them was masterbating in front of a female guard. I'm starting to kind of see just how guilty he could really be.

Someone I've been talking to about Frederick/Cedric Young has told me about 14 different infractions Frederick has gotten while in prison. One of them was masterbating in front of a female guard. I'm starting to kind of see just how guilty he could really be.

Yikes! Creepy, but it's good to know the guy is keeping busy in prison with..........whatever.

Another thing I thought of that no one mentioned. Why in the world would Chris Ross put the gun in Frederick's car and not Cedric's if he wasn't involved? Are we to assume he had a key to Frederick's car? This is another reason why I would finger Frederick. The segment also didn't mention anything about an alibi for Frederick. Surely the guy can prove where he was. At work? At home with mom? With some friends without a criminal record? At a restaurant with a receipt? Anything! Yet nothing comes to light about this.

Yikes! Creepy, but it's good to know the guy is keeping busy in prison with..........whatever.

Another thing I thought of that no one mentioned. Why in the world would Chris Ross put the gun in Frederick's car and not Cedric's if he wasn't involved? Are we to assume he had a key to Frederick's car? This is another reason why I would finger Frederick. The segment also didn't mention anything about an alibi for Frederick. Surely the guy can prove where he was. At work? At home with mom? With some friends without a criminal record? At a restaurant with a receipt? Anything! Yet nothing comes to light about this.

I always thought Ross put the gun in there to simply get rid of it, maybe in an attempt to frame Fred. I don't see why Ross would lie about dumping the gun in the car, and I still don't see a clear cut reason as to why Ross would implicate Cedric but I'm starting to lean towards Fred being guilty.

:( :( this really mad me cry i could never do my brother r sister like that am i the only one that fine fredrick really hott

:( :( this really mad me cry i could never do my brother r sister like that am i the only one that fine fredrick really hott

I guess you think Cedric is "hot" also then?

Just watched the segment and read the thread here. For me, there is simply not enough information to determine guilt or innocence. What I am sure of though, is this:

1) Frederick's attorney was atrocious; he was suspended from practicing law soon after this case for, as Stack put it, "neglecting his cases." "COCYTUS" wrote that, if his attorney had really been that bad, it would have been brought up on appeal and Fred would have been given a new trial. What? I don't know how many appellate decisions you have read, but it is VERY difficult to prove "ineffective assistance of counsel." In fact, appellate courts have ruled that an attorney falling asleep during the trial was not grounds for a new trial. IMO, Fred did NOT get effective counsel.

2) It is being said that lawyers aren't "jumping at the chance to represent Frederick," and therefore it must mean he's guilty. Even on the UM segment there was Fred's new attorney, who obviously is an appellate attorney. Clearly he is being represented by someone new.

3) Some of the comments on the thread are disturbing, IMO. Some are suggesting that b/c he has a criminal record (all misdemeanors btw; some of you are making him out to be a serial felon) he deserves to be in prison no matter what. One person even said that b/c he lied about the license he deserves to be in jail for 77 years b/c he was stupid? Please I hope such people are never allowed to be on juries.

4) Most appellate decisions are not published online unless they are capital murder cases or death penalty cases (which explains, perhaps, why the appellate decisions in this case are not on line).

5) B/C we don't have all the info (alibis, other evidence not mentioned on UM, etc) we cannot say if Fred did or did not commit this crime. What seems painfully obvious though is that he deserves a new trial due to his attorney's gross incompetence.

The fact that he has not gotten a new trial is the issue for me, not guilt or innocence. The standards for ineffective counsel are SO LOW in this country it is beyond scary.

The fact that he has not gotten a new trial is the issue for me, not guilt or innocence. The standards for ineffective counsel are SO LOW in this country it is beyond scary.

I agree with your entire post. It was painfully obvious that Fred's attorney had no interest in helping prove his client's innocence. All he would have had to have done was subpoena Chris Ross and I think the case may have turned out differently. But yes, guilty or not he does not deserve the 77 year sentence IMHO.

Some of the comments on the thread are disturbing, IMO. Some are suggesting that b/c he has a criminal record (all misdemeanors btw; some of you are making him out to be a serial felon) he deserves to be in prison no matter what. One person even said that b/c he lied about the license he deserves to be in jail for 77 years b/c he was stupid? Please I hope such people are never allowed to be on juries.

Yep, totally agree here. In fact, the whole thing that has bothered me the most about this case is how ridiculously harsh that 77-year sentence was. Even if Frederick was 100 % guilty, he should probably be out or close to being out of prison by now anyway if his punishment actually fit the crime. If Cedric is the guilty party, he has done a terrible thing, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that he might have decided to confess to the crime a long time ago and gotten his brother out if the sentence had been more reasonable. I'm sure he probably does feel guilty about what happened, but not enough to serve 77 years in prison.

how can i write fredrick what is the address i would really love to write him can sum1 help me

My bet is on cedric doing it, they both have records but his is way longer. Just because he doesn't have some advocacy group or high priced lawyer doesn't mean he isn't innocent, how many overturns happen without them tons. Just because someone is a criminal doesn't mean they are never belived again, there testimony is used all the time. The amount of time is way off too when his brother got out in 4 mons for child abuse.

The thing to remember about all of this is this is a family that is just low class, not lower class, but low class. One of the brothers is lying, and honestly not even sure this is even worth the tape it was recorded on for UM.

The thing to remember about all of this is this is a family that is just low class, not lower class, but low class. One of the brothers is lying, and honestly not even sure this is even worth the tape it was recorded on for UM.

I don't care how "low class" a family or person is, if someone is in jail for a crime they did not commit, it is an injustice, period.

Agreed however the point I was trying to make is we are sitting trying to solve this case and guess what? One of the brothers is a scumbag, it's not like the brother not in jail is just missing and went into hiding. This case WILL never be solved, I don't even know if you can call it an "Unsolved Mystery" if it isn't a solvable case. That's all

Regardless of how "low class" the family is, if Fred is innocent he does not deserve to be in jail. Fred probably appealed to UM with the hopes that the broadcast would generate more interest in the case and hopefully grant him a new trial. I still don't understand what motive Chris Ross would have in lying to implicate Ced instead of Fred.

Yeah low class sounds more like an insult to the comon person, since its is often used by rich people, which can commit just as horible of crimes like darren mack. I would use low life for shady people

When it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it might be a duck, honestly just put both brothers in there.

When it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it might be a duck, honestly just put both brothers in there.

By this logic if my brother decided to commit a crime, you may as well convict me as well and throw away the key. It makes no sense.

When it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it might be a duck, honestly just put both brothers in there.

Ooh, dislike! Dislike!

Just because someone "might" be a criminal is no reason to take away their liberties and lock them up in prison. That's what the criminal justice system is for: to afford criminal defendants their constitutional right to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm sure I'll chime in more once I've watched this segment again. For now, it's on my list.

I think Chris Ross should be implicated for framing Frederick Young. I mean, why else would he put the gun in his car? He probably made a deal with Cedric.


I wish Ross would have just manned up and testified in defense of Frederick and told the truth in his first trial. If that had happened, I think things would have been really different.

I think Chris Ross should be implicated for framing Frederick Young. I mean, why else would he put the gun in his car? He probably made a deal with Cedric.


I wish Ross would have just manned up and testified in defense of Frederick and told the truth in his first trial. If that had happened, I think things would have been really different.

Fred's attorney never subpoenaed Chris Ross to testify for his behalf at his first trial. If Ross was called to testify, and if the fact that Fred did have an identical twin I think the trial could have turned out differently.

I personally think Cedric is indeed the guilty party. I think the only reason he only thought it was his brother was because he didn't want to believe his brother could have committed that crime. Also, it is clear that Fred Young cleary got inadequate representation.

After all these years (10) I'm finally Convinced it was Frederick... How can a person (Ross) honestly with a heart not come out during the trial and say it wasn't Fred?? He was probably waiting to see what Fred would do, then when Fred finally decided to blame his brother, it sounded like a good idea to Ross because he didn't want to see his best friend go to Jail. He Left the Guns in his car, cause they were together that night. Frederick got pullover panicked, gave his brothers name cause he had something to hide and prolly forgot Ross didnt remove the guns from the car. I dont believe in the whole crying because if my brother was accusing me of something I didnt do, I would be mad as hell... After all these years of thinking Frederick was innocent, I think God opened my eyes and let me see the light. God Bless

When it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it might be a duck, honestly just put both brothers in there.

Seriously? Do you know how many good, innocent people I know that would be in jail if people were convicted for what their siblings did? Especially in big Catholic families, were there's always at least one sibling that's sheep of a different color. In fact, I know many families where some of the siblings went LE and the others went afoul of LE. That's simply unfair.

After all these years (10) I'm finally Convinced it was Frederick... How can a person (Ross) honestly with a heart not come out during the trial and say it wasn't Fred?? He was probably waiting to see what Fred would do, then when Fred finally decided to blame his brother, it sounded like a good idea to Ross because he didn't want to see his best friend go to Jail. He Left the Guns in his car, cause they were together that night. Frederick got pullover panicked, gave his brothers name cause he had something to hide and prolly forgot Ross didnt remove the guns from the car. I dont believe in the whole crying because if my brother was accusing me of something I didnt do, I would be mad as hell... After all these years of thinking Frederick was innocent, I think God opened my eyes and let me see the light. God Bless

If we are to believe Ross's story, he was incarcerated at the time of Fred's trial. And Fred's lawyer never subpoenaed him to testify at the trial. He did testify at his second trial, however.

I guess the thing that always stood out in my mind about this segment, was how the "free" twin said he understood why the incarcerated twin was claiming that his brother was the real guilty party, because if the roles were reversed, he would blame his brother as well..... That just sounded really odd to me, because If I was guilty of a crime, I would never want any of my siblings to take my place in jail.

It was Cedric Young who committed the crime. Point blank period.....How do you think that most innocent people go to prison???? Innocent people are NOT going to accept a plea deal for 20 years for a crime they did not commit. If Fredrick did commit that crime...knew he was guilty....knew that they had evidence against him...he would have thought just like Ross and JUMPED at the same 20yr plea agreement. But, an innocent person is not going to want to accept 20yrs for a crime they did not commit. The innocent person is going to want to go to trial because they're going to think that they can't get convicted for something they didn't do and that there can't be any evidence against them if they did not do anything. This happens all the time in our judicial system.

That is why if you're poor or a minority or a combination of the two...and you can't afford GOOD representation........even if you're innocent sometimes it's best to accept a plea bargain.

The problem with our country and judical system is that they sometimes like to make examples out of certain individuals. It wouldn't surprise me if they were bias in their sentencing of Frederick, thinking that he was a stereotypical black thug who committed a crime. The courts these days are only about wins and losses, not about getting the truth. I don't think black individuals get much of a fair trial in the US. This case needs a second look in my opinion.

Frederick hasn't exactly been a model prisoner since his incarceration. His infractions are what caused me to doubt his innocence. It wouldn't surprise me if there was more evidence that actually implicated Frederick that UM left out. They seem to do that with their "Final Appeal" segments by painting the appellants in the best light possible.

Frederick hasn't exactly been a model prisoner since his incarceration. His infractions are what caused me to doubt his innocence. It wouldn't surprise me if there was more evidence that actually implicated Frederick that UM left out. They seem to do that with their "Final Appeal" segments by painting the appellants in the best light possible.

I dunno, being wrongly convicted and sent to prison for what is it now 20 years would probably make someone go a little crazy. Especially since it doesn't appear that anyone believes him or that he has any chance of getting out anytime soon. I wouldn't think his behavior in prison is indicative of him being an armed robber.

Of course, I don't know if he did it or not, but my gut feeling is that he didn't.

I dunno, being wrongly convicted and sent to prison for what is it now 20 years would probably make someone go a little crazy. Especially since it doesn't appear that anyone believes him or that he has any chance of getting out anytime soon. I wouldn't think his behavior in prison is indicative of him being an armed robber.

Of course, I don't know if he did it or not, but my gut feeling is that he didn't.

My gut tells me that he's innocent too, but after seeing the list of infractions I started to question it. IMO it speaks volumes of his character. Unfortunately the UM segment was vague and there are certain things we have no knowledge on. Whether or not Frederick had an alibi, witnesses that could corraborate or refute the alibi, evidence implicating Frederick outside of the witness who identified him, etc.

I had emailed Geraldo asking him to do a revisiting of this case, but never got a response. Would love to find out what's going on with everyone involved...

http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do?method=view&offenderID=457085

Looks like cedric is an absconder from probation/parole. Man, I really wonder who did it...

Another crooked case. I wonder who really is the guilty party in this one.

Another crooked case. I wonder who really is the guilty party in this one.

Cedric has not been a law abiding citizen since his brother was convicted of the armed robbery. Chris Ross said he was with Cedric that night and that he put the gun in Fred's car. And I still don't see any reason why he would lie about either of these things.

I think the main deciding factor in this case for me is the appearance of the family on the Geraldo talk show. You can feel the pain of the innocent brother as he pleads with the guilty brother to admit what he did. You can tell that Cedric is trying his best to deny it, but is not good at lying.

I think the main deciding factor in this case for me is the appearance of the family on the Geraldo talk show. You can feel the pain of the innocent brother as he pleads with the guilty brother to admit what he did. You can tell that Cedric is trying his best to deny it, but is not good at lying.

yep, cedrics tears were so fake it was ridiculous. I cant even imagine what typ of person would let their brother rot in jail for the last 20 yrs, if they were the guilty party. it really takes a special type of a-hole to do something like that.

yep, cedrics tears were so fake it was ridiculous. I cant even imagine what typ of person would let their brother rot in jail for the last 20 yrs, if they were the guilty party. it really takes a special type of a-hole to do something like that.

Not only that but the mother and his partner in crime both point the finger at Cedric.

whether he was guilty or not, I think he should have gotten another trial

whether he was guilty or not, I think he should have gotten another trial

Yep. His attorney was disbarred for neglecting clients. I don't think he got the best defense at his trial.

I thought they were all a bunch of lying liars who lied.

I thought they were all a bunch of lying liars who lied.

Basically my sentiments, too.


I've always thought Ced's tears on that television show clip were definitely some of the most forced and faked I've ever seen, however.

the fake tears are definitely what kind of sealed the deal for me that it was probably Cedric. However, the main thing to take away from this is that there should have been another trial and the standards to be able to get one seem ridiculous

Either way, the brothers are gutless scum. If he's innocent, the other bro is an a hole, if he's guilty, he's a liar. Throw em both away 25 to life

the fake tears are definitely what kind of sealed the deal for me that it was probably Cedric. However, the main thing to take away from this is that there should have been another trial and the standards to be able to get one seem ridiculous

He actually did get another trial, and Chris Ross actually testified that it was Cedric, not Fred who was his accomplice in the robbery. He was still convicted the 2nd time, though.

this case always intrigued me. Not sure who is telling the truth though

I think Cedric did it.

I don't think Frederic is a pillar of society or anything, though. It wouldn't surprise me if he was involved in the robbery as well, maybe as a lookout or alternate getaway driver. I'm from Winston-Salem, which is next to Greensboro, so the case has always intrigued me due to the local connections. There are parts of Greensboro (just like Winston-Salem, just like pretty much every major city) where stuff like this is likely to happen.

I don't put much stock in Frederick's infractions in prison. Prison is a different world from free life, and there's probably a lot of "wrong" things that have to be done to survive in there.

I keep coming back to Chris Ross in this case. He had nothing to gain in testifying at Fred's trial, since he was already convicted and serving time. And he has said from the beginning that Cedric was the one he was with. That's really the whole case as far as I'm concerned.

this case always intrigued me. Not sure who is telling the truth though

Agreed. This case makes we wonder how often crimes can be pinned on a twin or situations where nobody knows which twin actually did the crime. Kind of makes me happy that I don't have a twin.

after seeing the case again I must admit that Frederick Young definitely seems like he is telling the truth and doesn't seem like he is lying. If he is, he is a really good actor.

Someone I've been talking to about Frederick/Cedric Young has told me about 14 different infractions Frederick has gotten while in prison.

It's easy to find Fredrick's record if you type "Fredrick Young 0457283" into a search engine. I was able to view his infractions.

Offender Number: 0457283 | Offender Name: FREDRICK L YOUNG

Infraction Date | Infraction Type

04/28/2009 FIGHTING
06/06/2004 NO THREAT CONTRABAND
02/09/2004 MISUSE/UNAUTH-USE PHONE/MAIL
02/09/2004 UNAUTHORIZED FUNDS
09/19/2000 SEXUAL ACT
07/17/1999 NO THREAT CONTRABAND
09/24/1998 NO THREAT CONTRABAND
09/09/1998 UNAUTHORIZED LOCATION
08/23/1998 DISOBEY ORDER
08/23/1998 FIGHTING
03/04/1997 DISOBEY ORDER
01/25/1997 FIGHTING
07/11/1996 DISOBEY ORDER
11/10/1995 ATTEMPT CLASS C OFFENSE

Did you know that Fredrick escaped from prison in September 2011 and turned himself in because he wanted his case to get exposure?

Jail escapee turns himself in (http://www.fox16.com/news/story/Jail-escapee-turns-himself-in/d/story/G3ZbsBepAkOcHfDoLH54lA)

Did you know that Fredrick escaped from prison in September 2011 and turned himself in because he wanted his case to get exposure?

Jail escapee turns himself in (http://www.fox16.com/news/story/Jail-escapee-turns-himself-in/d/story/G3ZbsBepAkOcHfDoLH54lA)

Is that the same Frederick Young? I thought Fred was jailed in North Carolina?

Yeah, that's def. not the same Frederick Young. The crime was definitely committed in NC, but I can't remember if the city was Greensboro or Goldsboro.

That threw me off, too. Is it possible he was transferred? He looks similar and his name is spelled the same way (Fredrick and not Frederick). Also, he was in prison for the same crimes. I think it's the same man.

I watched the video of the newscast at that link and it shows some interview footage of the Fredrick Young who escaped, which definitely confirms it's not the same guy.

But considering that the other Frederick Young already has a 68-year sentence and has little hope of getting released, it initially didn't seem farfetched to me that he would try something like that.

I watched the video of the newscast at that link and it shows some interview footage of the Fredrick Young who escaped, which definitely confirms it's not the same guy.

But considering that the other Frederick Young already has a 68-year sentence and has little hope of getting released, it initially didn't seem farfetched to me that he would try something like that.

I'm sorry I was wrong. Aside from them being in different states, everything else seemed matched up. The whole "I want to bring attention to my case" and the reasons he was in prison (burglary and the possession of a gun) are the same. They have the same name with the unusual spelling. Also, I think they're close in age, although this man may be slightly younger.


Edit: I did some searching and after looking at Fredrick's updated prison photo, I can see they're not the same person now. Both have full lips, but the man who escaped from AK has a large nose. Also, according to his prison record, the AK man does spell his name the usual way: Frederick. The news story spelled it the other way, which is probably why I found it when I Google'd the name. One of his aliases is "Fredrick Young."

It's interesting that both men are due to be released in the year 2023. Fredrick in September and Frederick in October. Both have been in prison since the 1990s. Fredrick is three years older than Frederick, and I had guessed they're close in age.

Fredrick L Young (http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do?method=view&offenderID=0457283&searchLastName=yo&searchFirstName=f&listurl=pagelistoffendersearchresults&listpage=3)

Frederick L Young (http://adc.arkansas.gov/inmate_info/search.php?dcnum=107979&a=1&RACE=B&COUNTY=60&sex=M&agetype=1&RUN=54)

I don't think the sentence handed down was fair at all...I believe Chris Ross has since been released for his role in the crime.

I don't think the sentence handed down was fair at all...I believe Chris Ross has since been released for his role in the crime.

Yeah, I agree, even if Frederick actually did commit the robbery, I think he's done enough time and should be released since nobody actually got hurt.

I've always wondered if Cedric might have been more inclined to take the rap and confess to the crime if Frederick's sentence had been more reasonable. I mean, it's still despicable that he's letting his brother rot in prison, but a 68-year sentence is still a pretty tough trade-off for doing the right thing.

I've always wondered if Cedric might have been more inclined to take the rap and confess to the crime if Frederick's sentence had been more reasonable. I mean, it's still despicable that he's letting his brother rot in prison, but a 68-year sentence is still a pretty tough trade-off for doing the right thing.

This is exactly why I don't think Cedric ever confessed to his role in the crime. I'm kind of amazed that none of his appeals have warranted a further look. Especially the way his original attorney was disbarred for neglecting his clients shortly after Fred's conviction. There could have been enough reasonable doubt brought up at his trial, IMO. All you would have to do is question the witnesses to the crime by holding up a picture of Cedric and say, "is this the man you saw holding the gun on you", etc. Then you could ask the witnesses if they were aware that Fred has an identical twin brother, etc. You could even bring Fred's mom on the stand to say how everyone was constantly confusing one for the other.

Cedric is in jail until 2022... He's considered a habitual felon... http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do?method=view&offenderID=0457085&SENTENCEINFO=yes&SHOWPHOTO=yes&numtimesin=2

Cedric is in jail until 2022... He's considered a habitual felon... http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do?method=view&offenderID=0457085&SENTENCEINFO=yes&SHOWPHOTO=yes&numtimesin=2

Sheesh, if Cedric has such a huge rap sheet and is going to be incarcerated for the next several years anyway, I wish he'd finally just confess to the original robberies and help get his brother out of prison. The problem is that since Cedric is such a habitual offender, I'm not even sure the courts would believe him even if he did confess.

I still cannot come up with one single reason as to why Chris Ross would lie to implicate Cedric just to free Fred, if in fact Fred was the guilty sibling.

I still cannot come up with one single reason as to why Chris Ross would lie to implicate Cedric just to free Fred, if in fact Fred was the guilty sibling.

Yes, IIRC, Ross received a relatively light sentence for pleading guilty to the robberies. If he suddenly decides to lie about who was involved, he's committing perjury, which means extra prison time. Ross isn't exactly a saint, but I don't think he's lying here.

It's been a long time since I've seen the segment, but over on the forbidden site they have the French dubbed version. Obviously, I could only hear/interpret the interview parts of the segment. And after thinking about this case a lot today, I could see why Frederick was convicted the first time. Considering:

-There were at least 4 eyewitnesses to the robberies (I think UM either mentions or shows an article referencing 6 victims). Assuming that the prosecution called all of them to the witness stand, this would look damning to Fred's defense.
-Fred was driving a car that contained the weapons used in the robbery. This is very damning for Fred. For one, it's never explained how or why Fred was driving that particular car in the first place. I know Ross stated that he put the guns in this car, but why? What was his reasoning for this? To frame Fred? Why would he do this, then do a 180 and try to get him out of prison?
-Nothing is mentioned in the UM segment about an alibi. Remember the Michael Scott Martin case? If Fred had an alibi, considering the whitewashing UM does of final appellant's cases, you would think this would have been brought up. Even though UM left out details countless times, their silence in this instance is damning.
-I've searched the internet trying to find ANYTHING relative to this case. I've only found an old article detailing several cases from around the area (North Carolina) where the robberies were committed. Nothing new was revealed with the exception that at Fred's hearing (or was it a 2nd trial??) after he was convicted, the judge did not believe Ross's testimony (he wasn't called at his trial as a witness), saying that he thought it was possible that Ross was lying to help get off a childhood friend.
-We have no idea as to whether or not there was any sort of animosity between Ross and Cedric. This could also be a reason for him to lie.
-Even though the lawyer representing Fred at his trial was eventually disbarred, the courts could find no wrongdoing in his handling of Fred's case. I know on the surface the fact that he didn't subpoena Ross to testify looks bad, because it obviously would have been good testimony for Fred if Ross was on the stand saying that Cedric was the guilty accomplice, but consider the fact that Ross was already in jail for the crimes committed: he would have been picked apart by the prosecution for credibility issues. I think it would have backfired.
-Fred was driving without a license, lied to the police about being his brother, and then when he came clean at the station, it was too late. Granted, Fred's answer does make sense. He didn't have a license but his twin brother did, so he used his name. This is not totally uncommon for people to do this. A coworker of mine had something similar happen to him with his brother. But to the cops/prosecution/courts, this just looks highly suspicious and shady. There is no reason given as to why Fred was driving that car, and why Ross would have dumped the guns inside that car in the segment. And going back to the "whitewashing" aspect of the segments, if there was some sort of collusion between Cedric and Ross to frame Fred (at the time) for the crimes, this would have been alluded to in the segment.
-Which makes me think of another point: why was Fred pulled over in the first place? I know this is a moot point, but it's not like Fred was set up in some sort of frame job by Cedric and Ross...how would they know he would've ever gotten pulled over by the police? And to expand on that, why didn't Fred come clean immediately after the guns were found in the car?

So here's what it boils down to, IMO. There is evidence (circumstantial) to support Fred's innocence. The fact that he was never involved in any sort of violent crime (or felony for that matter) prior to this, while Cedric was, is pretty telling. Plus, if you were to believe Ross, that also supports the fact that Fred is innocent. But, I can now see why he was convicted, and why he still hasn't gotten out of prison.

All in all, I'm starting to lean towards guilty, but am ultimately undecided. It's not like there is some massive conspiracy at play designed to keep Fred in prison for a crime he didn't commit. I don't see any sort of evidence of that. However, this is a unique case, considering that Fred has an identical twin brother, one that whom his own family members would have a hard time identifying between the two. Final thoughts: my gut tells me his guilty (what guy has THAT much bad luck, with THAT much evidence implicating him), but I do think that with better representation, there may have been enough reasonable doubt to get him acquitted. And I do think he should've been paroled roughly the same time that Ross did.

This is an unique Final Appeal case in that there's certainly a plausible case for Fred's innocence but not a great deal of hard EVIDENCE actually supporting his innocence. I think the three biggest points in his favour are:

-Chris Ross claiming Cedric was his real accomplice
-Cedric's "crocodile tears" performance on Geraldo. I'd think that if Cedric was really innocent, he'd be more angry about being falsely accused by his incarcerated brother rather than breaking down into emotional hysterics. I thought Fred's emotions came off a lot more sincerely and he did seem genuinely hurt that his brother was letting him take the rap
-the twins' mother believing Fred instead of Cedric. I know it's common for parents to believe in their children's innocence even when the evidence against them is overwhelming. But in this case, her other son is accused of being the real perpetrator and by siding with Fred, she's pretty much severing her relationship with the one child who's still free and not locked up for the next 60+ years. The fact that the twins' mother has no trouble believing that Cedric is the real perpetrator speaks volumes, IMO

But again, none of these points are definitive proof that Fred didn't commit the crime, so I can why it would be hard to get his sentence overturned. I still learn towards innocence, but I too am bothered by Ross' gun being in the trunk of Fred's car. I'm sure there was no frame-up and it was nothing more than a bad coincidence that Fred was pulled over by the police, but it's still pretty weird that Ross would leave a weapon that he used during a crime there.

Either way, I've always maintained that even Fred committed the crimes, no one was actually hurt, so he should have been released by now anyway.

agreed. Even if Fred committed the crimes I think his sentence was too harsh. Not defending him, just simply because nobody ended up being hurt

It's been a long time since I've seen the segment, but over on the forbidden site they have the French dubbed version. Obviously, I could only hear/interpret the interview parts of the segment. And after thinking about this case a lot today, I could see why Frederick was convicted the first time. Considering:

-There were at least 4 eyewitnesses to the robberies (I think UM either mentions or shows an article referencing 6 victims). Assuming that the prosecution called all of them to the witness stand, this would look damning to Fred's defense.
-Fred was driving a car that contained the weapons used in the robbery. This is very damning for Fred. For one, it's never explained how or why Fred was driving that particular car in the first place. I know Ross stated that he put the guns in this car, but why? What was his reasoning for this? To frame Fred? Why would he do this, then do a 180 and try to get him out of prison?
-Nothing is mentioned in the UM segment about an alibi. Remember the Michael Scott Martin case? If Fred had an alibi, considering the whitewashing UM does of final appellant's cases, you would think this would have been brought up. Even though UM left out details countless times, their silence in this instance is damning.
-I've searched the internet trying to find ANYTHING relative to this case. I've only found an old article detailing several cases from around the area (North Carolina) where the robberies were committed. Nothing new was revealed with the exception that at Fred's hearing (or was it a 2nd trial??) after he was convicted, the judge did not believe Ross's testimony (he wasn't called at his trial as a witness), saying that he thought it was possible that Ross was lying to help get off a childhood friend.
-We have no idea as to whether or not there was any sort of animosity between Ross and Cedric. This could also be a reason for him to lie.
-Even though the lawyer representing Fred at his trial was eventually disbarred, the courts could find no wrongdoing in his handling of Fred's case. I know on the surface the fact that he didn't subpoena Ross to testify looks bad, because it obviously would have been good testimony for Fred if Ross was on the stand saying that Cedric was the guilty accomplice, but consider the fact that Ross was already in jail for the crimes committed: he would have been picked apart by the prosecution for credibility issues. I think it would have backfired.
-Fred was driving without a license, lied to the police about being his brother, and then when he came clean at the station, it was too late. Granted, Fred's answer does make sense. He didn't have a license but his twin brother did, so he used his name. This is not totally uncommon for people to do this. A coworker of mine had something similar happen to him with his brother. But to the cops/prosecution/courts, this just looks highly suspicious and shady. There is no reason given as to why Fred was driving that car, and why Ross would have dumped the guns inside that car in the segment. And going back to the "whitewashing" aspect of the segments, if there was some sort of collusion between Cedric and Ross to frame Fred (at the time) for the crimes, this would have been alluded to in the segment.
-Which makes me think of another point: why was Fred pulled over in the first place? I know this is a moot point, but it's not like Fred was set up in some sort of frame job by Cedric and Ross...how would they know he would've ever gotten pulled over by the police? And to expand on that, why didn't Fred come clean immediately after the guns were found in the car?

So here's what it boils down to, IMO. There is evidence (circumstantial) to support Fred's innocence. The fact that he was never involved in any sort of violent crime (or felony for that matter) prior to this, while Cedric was, is pretty telling. Plus, if you were to believe Ross, that also supports the fact that Fred is innocent. But, I can now see why he was convicted, and why he still hasn't gotten out of prison.

All in all, I'm starting to lean towards guilty, but am ultimately undecided. It's not like there is some massive conspiracy at play designed to keep Fred in prison for a crime he didn't commit. I don't see any sort of evidence of that. However, this is a unique case, considering that Fred has an identical twin brother, one that whom his own family members would have a hard time identifying between the two. Final thoughts: my gut tells me his guilty (what guy has THAT much bad luck, with THAT much evidence implicating him), but I do think that with better representation, there may have been enough reasonable doubt to get him acquitted. And I do think he should've been paroled roughly the same time that Ross did.


sometimes an alibi won't really help. If you were just at home sleeping or watching TV. Nobody can really verify it

If you are innocent and there is prove by someone else who committed the crime than its time to look into not only did the judge not want to do it with it police never want to admit fault cause it was bad investigation

how many people whom are guilty by the vitcum when it wasn't them? he said she said isn't enough for covinciton by any means FACTS

There been plenty of cases the police were wrong and did a terrible job at. At least those officer would go for the truth. We live in what suppose to be fiar, equal treatment to people rights

i do not like cops and nor do i trust cops.... i will never trust cops in else they start having some accountability to there names

This is Fredericks mother he will be getting out on March 19 2016.

Hello this is Fredericks mother he will be getting out march 19 2016.

After all these years (10) I'm finally Convinced it was Frederick... How can a person (Ross) honestly with a heart not come out during the trial and say it wasn't Fred?? He was probably waiting to see what Fred would do, then when Fred finally decided to blame his brother, it sounded like a good idea to Ross because he didn't want to see his best friend go to Jail. He Left the Guns in his car, cause they were together that night. Frederick got pullover panicked, gave his brothers name cause he had something to hide and prolly forgot Ross didnt remove the guns from the car. I dont believe in the whole crying because if my brother was accusing me of something I didnt do, I would be mad as hell... After all these years of thinking Frederick was innocent, I think God opened my eyes and let me see the light. God Bless
Hello, you need to watch your mouth you dont know, I am the mother and it was ced and chris that did the crime.

Hello, Miss Young, I am very happy to hear that Frederick is getting released. I was always of the mindset that even on the off-chance Frederick was guilty, he never should have been given such a lengthy sentence since no one was actually harmed during the robbery. Is Fred being paroled or is his conviction being overturned?

Hello, you need to watch your mouth you dont know, I am the mother and it was ced and chris that did the crime.


Ms. Young, what is ced up to now?

Hello this is Fredericks mother he will be getting out march 19 2016.

Thanks for the update!

I echo RobinW's sentiments. I am also confused at the length of your son's sentence. Despite the obvious question of whether he was the actual guilty party, it seems odd to me that he was given such a long commitment term.

In any case, I am hopeful that upon his release next month, he can start to put his life back together again. :) I'm assuming he must have appeared before some sort of parole board? I've been looking at his inmate information and it looks as if his projected release date isn't until 2023. I sincerely hope that is not the case...

Ms. Young, what is ced up to now?

I'm not Ms. Young, but it looks to me that Cedric is also in prison. Every state's classifications are different, but it looks to me that he's in prison for being a Habitual Felon.

It looks like Ced is in prison. Most of his convictions deal with theft and larceny. I hope Fred do get out soon, so he can turn his life around.

One thing is certain here: One twin is playing the "it was my twin" card. The other twin is legit. Either way either one of Cedric or Frederick are bottom of the barrel rotten human beings. Cedirc would be plain old rotten for allowing his brother to rot for a crime he didn't commit. Frederick would be rotten for not being accountable for his actions and actually convincing legions of people he is the victim.

Here is why I lean towards Frederick being the guilty party

- I'll cut him some slack. He isn't very bright, along the same lines of Tim McClure. Both suspects made some decisions and opened up their mouths which made them look very suspicious. They aren't smart men, but not necessarily guilty men. The problem though that I have is that it took Frederick so long to come up with the conclusion that it could be his brother Cedric involved. I don't know about the rest of you guys, but any twin I meet they are trained from birth to handle a conversation like this:

"Hey I saw you the other day"
"No, it wasn't me, it was my brother, we are identical twins."

In 22 years I am almost certain that Frederick had come upon that conversation no less than 100 times. After all his family members - his own MOTHER - mistakes them so forgive me if I am a little confused as to why Frederick didn't think about being mistaken for Cedric from day one. If you are being tried for a crime you were not involved in, wouldn't you figure right off the bat that your criminal brother was behind it?

- Secondly, Chris Ross was a thug. At least in the UM segment he seemed to think this thing was a big joke. Some people like the publicity. He's in jail too remember, he isn't going to rat out ANOTHER member of his "jail society" he'll attack an outsider. Why? Maybe to be protected, maybe for kicks, but I have a hard time taking the word of a hardened criminal who claims he never said anything "because no one asked him" (his words not mine)

- If there was evidence that Cedric committed the crime we would know about this by now. Apparently there wasn't. Cedric isn't exactly a pillar of the community either, but anything from stolen merchandise to money to guns would have been found on him. They weren't. All we know is that Frederick was in possession of the gun in his car that he "claimed" to have never seen.

- Not only was it stupid to pretend to be your brother at the beginning, but it would be a perfect reason to say something like that AFTER you've committed a series of burglaries. If you had committed a bunch of crimes, got pulled over assuming you'd be arrested wouldn't you try the whole switcheroo thing too?

- Also, the court of public opinion is not the jury. Frederick seemed to have convinced many people of his innocence but he could be just as vicious of a person that he claims Cedric to be. What kind of brother would ruin his other brother's life who is OUTSIDE of prison trying to carry on? My thought is, it would be far easier to be in prison, bitter, resentful and come up with a scheme to finger your twin brother than it would to be on the outside knowing your flesh and blood is suffering on the inside. You would feel far less guilty with the former than the latter.



That's my take, Frederick is where he belongs. It seems their mother is convinced it was Cedric too and I often wonder why. Both of her sons weren't angels. She is going on the word of her one son who initially was a liar and deceitful to start with. I can't imagine how their Thanksgiving dinners would be together.

I know Cedric looked really bad with the whole "crocodile tears" on Geraldo while Frederick was legitimately crying. But who knows, maybe Cedric was TRYING to cry because he was painted out to be the villain but he couldn't cry. If I were innocent and my bro was fingering me I'd be so mad I wouldn't be able to cry. Disgusted if anything.

"I am a little confused as to why Frederick didn't think about being mistaken for Cedric from day one" He hadn't come up with that scheme until later. That is why. Ross was doing it to look like a hero knowing that it likely would not change any outcome while getting attention and possibly being 'taken care of".

Yep. His attorney was disbarred for neglecting clients. I don't think he got the best defense at his trial.


His license was suspended, he was not disbarred, according to the segment.

He actually did get another trial, and Chris Ross actually testified that it was Cedric, not Fred who was his accomplice in the robbery. He was still convicted the 2nd time, though.


A year later the court of appeals agreed to consider new evidence. Ross got on the stand. The judge decided against granting a new trial after the new evidence was presented.

I'm sorry I was wrong. Aside from them being in different states, everything else seemed matched up. The whole "I want to bring attention to my case" and the reasons he was in prison (burglary and the possession of a gun) are the same. They have the same name with the unusual spelling. Also, I think they're close in age, although this man may be slightly younger.


Edit: I did some searching and after looking at Fredrick's updated prison photo, I can see they're not the same person now. Both have full lips, but the man who escaped from AK has a large nose. Also, according to his prison record, the AK man does spell his name the usual way: Frederick. The news story spelled it the other way, which is probably why I found it when I Google'd the name. One of his aliases is "Fredrick Young."

It's interesting that both men are due to be released in the year 2023. Fredrick in September and Frederick in October. Both have been in prison since the 1990s. Fredrick is three years older than Frederick, and I had guessed they're close in age.

Fredrick L Young (http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do?method=view&offenderID=0457283&searchLastName=yo&searchFirstName=f&listurl=pagelistoffendersearchresults&listpage=3)

Frederick L Young (http://adc.arkansas.gov/inmate_info/search.php?dcnum=107979&a=1&RACE=B&COUNTY=60&sex=M&agetype=1&RUN=54)

Burglary and robbery are not the same thing. They have theft in common, but are not the same thing.

This is an unique Final Appeal case in that there's certainly a plausible case for Fred's innocence but not a great deal of hard EVIDENCE actually supporting his innocence. I think the three biggest points in his favour are:

-Chris Ross claiming Cedric was his real accomplice
-Cedric's "crocodile tears" performance on Geraldo. I'd think that if Cedric was really innocent, he'd be more angry about being falsely accused by his incarcerated brother rather than breaking down into emotional hysterics. I thought Fred's emotions came off a lot more sincerely and he did seem genuinely hurt that his brother was letting him take the rap
-the twins' mother believing Fred instead of Cedric. I know it's common for parents to believe in their children's innocence even when the evidence against them is overwhelming. But in this case, her other son is accused of being the real perpetrator and by siding with Fred, she's pretty much severing her relationship with the one child who's still free and not locked up for the next 60+ years. The fact that the twins' mother has no trouble believing that Cedric is the real perpetrator speaks volumes, IMO

But again, none of these points are definitive proof that Fred didn't commit the crime, so I can why it would be hard to get his sentence overturned. I still learn towards innocence, but I too am bothered by Ross' gun being in the trunk of Fred's car. I'm sure there was no frame-up and it was nothing more than a bad coincidence that Fred was pulled over by the police, but it's still pretty weird that Ross would leave a weapon that he used during a crime there.

Either way, I've always maintained that even Fred committed the crimes, no one was actually hurt, so he should have been released by now anyway.


Let's see how unhurt you feel when a gun is pointed in your face and you don't know whether you're about to be shot in the face.

Guessing that really was Fred's mother, he was paroled/released 3/19 this year.

Link (http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do?method=view&offenderID=0457283&searchLastName=young&searchFirstName=frederick&searchGender=M&searchRace=2&listurl=pagelistoffendersearchresults&listpage=1)

Just think how awful it would be if he was in fact innocent. 20+ years.

A year later the court of appeals agreed to consider new evidence. Ross got on the stand. The judge decided against granting a new trial after the new evidence was presented.

For reasons unknown, other than he/she didn't believe Chris Ross.

Yea it would be horrible if he didn't do the crime and his brother actually did. Glad he got paroled early and hope he makes something of himself. He spent almost 25 years in jail and prison. His brother Ced is in prison now and won't get out in a while.


Guessing that really was Fred's mother, he was paroled/released 3/19 this year.

Link (http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do?method=view&offenderID=0457283&searchLastName=young&searchFirstName=frederick&searchGender=M&searchRace=2&listurl=pagelistoffendersearchresults&listpage=1)

Just think how awful it would be if he was in fact innocent. 20+ years.

It's interesting to go back and revisit a case and see how your opinion has changed over the years. I saw this case for the first time in a long time. There was something that I had forgot about (or outright missed) that Stack says early on in the segment.

Based on eyewitness testimony from one of the victims, police arrested two men. One was 22 year old Frederick Young. He was convicted of the motel robbery, as well as two others that same night.

This means that someone other than Chris Ross was also involved in the robbery. And its definitely possible that the third accomplice identified Fred as the guilty party. UM also mentions that Fred had an alibi for the night of the robbery, and that he was out bowling with his mother and sister. But they did not mention that Cedric was also (https://greensboro.com/convicted-felon-blames-twin-for-robberies/article_90988985-bac1-53fa-ab28-76ba24819baa.html) present at the bowling alley. When you add on the fact that it was Fred who had one of the guns in his possession, I'm starting to think that he probably was involved. I don't think his sentence was fair, however.

How did Frederick get parole, if he had all those infractions in prison?

Never believed Fred. Now, I think Cedric is a piece of work too. Both are criminals. Neither are good men. Cedric is now in prison as well, Fred has been released from prison.

But here is the strange thing, the trial happens a year later and when he is fingered in court is the time he says "Oh, snap, that must be my brother she is talking about!" Ummm, no, not buying it. You get arrested, you are charged, you await trial and not once you mention "Oh, by the way, that thing I am being charged for, I was never even there when it happened." But when a conviction looks likely you decide to throw your brother under the bus? Come on, that's cowardly.

Then blame it on a bad lawyer. Maybe he had a bad lawyer, but you could say something to the cops about it long before this.

It just was never believable in my eyes. People say "How awful, Ced is letting his brother rot in prison" and yet people don't think that an equally awful thing of a criminal trying to get out of prison by blaming his twin brother is bad either.

One thing of note, when Cedric was on the Geraldo show in that clip I can see he had a wedding ring. Is he still married, does he have children?

This is just a quick update:

According to the court information below, Cedric was arrested on a domestic violence charge earlier this year. He still hasn't learned a hard lesson because he is still being a degenerate even in his early 50s:

https://portal-nc.tylertech.cloud/app/RegisterOfActions/#/C408D48D868537845FD01E57B569569519591E980C4B71A1234D05E3B0E5720D59BC8A7BC0540F3C38B076FED2A5107952411D51D9E9B517BB7DB188D9AD81764B825FB8401AF961DC69BEF2658692D9/anon/portalembed

His daughter once discussed children having incarcerated parents based on her own experience dealing with having an absentee father due to his habitual criminal history. She is an example of how a parent's reckless actions can affect their children in the long run:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yK5WDeEXiU