Deceased/Not Found IL - Yingying Zhang, 26, Urbana, 9 June 2017 #10 *Still Missing*

[Deleted member 158085]

DBM

 

[Deleted member 158085]

BC not being able to give her whereabouts sure makes me think she might not be in the old plant. His lazy stupid *advertiser censored* probably just put her in a dumpster. Which means she's under 2 years of trash. Siigh

This is more than likely where BC is going. Won't be a whole lotta molly coddling there.

Menard Correctional Center - Wikipedia

This is what I believe at this point - she’s likely buried under years of trash. Even if BC told us what he did with her, it doesn’t mean she’s recoverable.

 

[kittythehare]

@kittythehare , I know you want us to search, but she is gone. I think the defense’s unwillingness to make a deal contingent on the recovery of her remains proves that. I, too, wish we could give Mrs. Zhang some amount of peace by at least getting YY’s remains back to China, but it’s not any more possible than bringing YY back to life, I fear.

It's still ambiguous...
It could well be that defendant absolutely refuses to tell his lawyers where he disposed of her but would perhaps give a general area... like, the next county...
It is still possible that he is refusing to disclose the location because he remains fixated on his achievement.. he killed her and his mastermind is better than the fBi , because they could not find him...

 

[kittythehare]

BC not being able to give her whereabouts sure makes me think she might not be in the old plant. His lazy stupid *advertiser censored* probably just put her in a dumpster. Which means she's under 2 years of trash. Siigh

This is more than likely where BC is going. Won't be a whole lotta molly coddling there.

Menard Correctional Center - Wikipedia

It did not state he was unable to give her whereabouts.
It could equally mean that he refused to give any information at all to his own lawyers.

 

[kittythehare]

I just watched the entire therapy video. I thought the intern did a pretty good job, but towards the end I felt he was sizing her up, looking at her sexually... trying to charm her but leering... It's possible that made her uncomfortable.. has everybody seen it?
Link again
https://ecf.ilcd.uscourts.gov/graphics/christensen/Dft Ex 12 Counseling Session UICC.mp4

For the most of the session he was a typical client but it seemed, to me, as though something else moved into his persona as the session progressed... another energy or persona...he started to see her as prey...

 

[tmar]

he never offered to divulge her body location at all in any manner.
Makes it all the more abhorrent to release info on plea deal day after guilty verdict, accidental or not.
Getting mighty sick of this dude being mollycoddled.
No wonder he is laughing... never had so many servants, so much attention.

This monster is enjoying the attention he is receiving.
He should be locked, into a cell for life, without being the centre of importance.
He is no longer required here.
The Death Penalty can be discussed without this creep, receiving more fame.
Let him sit alone, behind bars forever, thinking about his pathetic life, waiting to be executed.
MOO.

 

[kittythehare]

From reading the document re plea deal negotiations, I don't believe defense said her remains were unrecoverable, but rather that defendant would not cooperate in telling where she could be located.

The next day, December 14, 2017, the United States attempted to confirm defense counsel’s position via e-mail:
Thank you for sending us the suggested revisions. As we’ve discussed, it is very important to us to consult with the victim’s family prior to submitting any conditional plea agreement to the Attorney General. Out of sensitivity to the family, however, I am sure you can appreciate that we want to minimize their burden during that consultation. To that end, we want to ensure that the modified language you’ve suggested regarding locating the victim’s remains . . . is your client’s last and best offer. As we read that language, you believe that it is unlikely that her remains will be recovered with the defendant’s cooperation and assistance. We want to make sure we fully understand the revisions and the agreement so we can fairly and honestly present the agreement to the family

That same day, defense counsel verbally confirmed that the United States correctly understood the position of defense counsel.

That does seem to say he is holding out on them.
Also, if her remains were destroyed, why not simply say that or infer that?

Alo FBI stated at trial that they continued searching for her throughout 2018.
They have no evidence of destruction either.

 

[Tricia]

STARTING THIS MORNING, SATURDAY JUNE 29TH, WEBSLEUTHS WILL BE DOWN STARTING AT 9:00.AM EASTERN AND WILL BE BACK ON LINE NO LATER 9:00 PM EASTERN.

This is out of our control. It is scheduled data center maintenance.

Thank you for your patience.

 

[Deleted member 158085]

That does seem to say he is holding out on them.
Also, if her remains were destroyed, why not simply say that or infer that?

Alo FBI stated at trial that they continued searching for her throughout 2018.
They have no evidence of destruction either.

I can think of a couple of reasons not to say it - in hopes of having something to bargain with down the line, and it is the very last bit of power he holds in any way - the knowledge of what happened to her remains.

 

[dm92]

Brendt didn’t offer crap......

At the urging of Ms. Zhang’s family, on Dec. 6, 2017, prosecutors suggested a plea deal that would take the death penalty off the table. It was contingent on finding Ms. Zhang’s remains.


A week later, the defense suggested a modification that would only make the deal contingent on Christensen providing complete and accurate information about the remains of the missing Chinese scholar he was convicted this week of kidnapping and killing June 9, 2017.

“As we read that language, you believe that it is unlikely that her remains will be recovered with the defendant’s cooperation and assistance,” prosecutors then wrote to the defense, asking whether they understood the modified offer correctly.

“That same day, defense counsel verbally confirmed that the United States correctly understood the position of defense counsel,” the prosecution wrote.

Prosecutor filing suggests scholar's remains not recoverable

Fox is clickbait.
That is NOT what the filing says.

I haven't been able to find the filing by the prosecution where they describe the negotiations. Has anyone seen it, and if so, where is it? It is not 251, and Miller's filing that (I think) is the one probably directly addressing this is still unavailable on CourtListener....

 

[dm92]

This is what I believe at this point - she’s likely buried under years of trash. Even if BC told us what he did with her, it doesn’t mean she’s recoverable.

This, or he chopped her up and threw the fragments in a river

 

[dm92]

History of Plea Negotiations:

Docket #287

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilcd.70076/gov.uscourts.ilcd.70076.287.0_1.pdf

 

[kittythehare]

History of Plea Negotiations:

Docket #287

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilcd.70076/gov.uscourts.ilcd.70076.287.0_1.pdf

already posted
post no. 311

 

[kittythehare]

Strike – #434 in United States v. Christensen (C.D. Ill., 2:17-cr-20037) – CourtListener.com

an appalling objection to victim impact statements to be presented by prosecution. Spurious and vexatious.

1) the defense has no time to procure an expert to translate the videotaped interviews; 2) the defense has no time to adequately review the evidence to determine whether any legal challenges are appropriate; 3) the defense still lacks the transcripts of the government’s translations of the tapes; 4) because the government conducted the videotaped interviews unilaterally and without notifying Mr. Christensen, the defense will have no opportunity to cross examine or question these witnesses in any way to remedy any issues their testimony might present; and 5) it is vital that the defense be given adequate time to review

 

[kittythehare]

another here
Miscellaneous Relief – #435 in United States v. Christensen (C.D. Ill., 2:17-cr-20037) – CourtListener.com

this in relation to Counselling centre
As previously noted, while Mr. Christensen acknowledges the possibility that some of the records he seeks may ultimately be deemed exempt from disclosure on grounds of privilege, the University is not free to make its own determination of what it will and will not produce and thereafter disregard the subpoena. Rather, all relevant documents must be submitted to the Court for in camera review so that the Court can determine whether the documents are required to be produced. WHEREFORE, Mr. Christensen respectfully requests that this Motion be granted and that the Court issue an order directing the University of Illinois to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the subpoena duces tecum served upon it.

 

[Raptors001]

all of therapy session is here
https://ecf.ilcd.uscourts.gov/graphics/christensen/Dft Ex 12 Counseling Session UICC.mp4

I think the girl in the office could have been in danger. There is no way she could have defended herself if he attacked. Good thing she had cameras.

 

[tresir2012]

It's still ambiguous...
It could well be that defendant absolutely refuses to tell his lawyers where he disposed of her but would perhaps give a general area... like, the next county...
It is still possible that he is refusing to disclose the location because he remains fixated on his achievement.. he killed her and his mastermind is better than the fBi , because they could not find him...

I may have asked before, but if Christensen has told defence where the remains are specifically, do they legally have to reveal that or can they keep it to themselves? Anyone know?

 

[Laughing]

Yet, he wins.

Child of his parents, to functionally child of MZ, now functionally child of the USA.

He doesn't need to Adult.

Room & board, clothing, health care & dental care, fitness center, library, TV, all provided.

Access to "his" lawyers; access on his terms.

The rest of us will pay for all of this.

Disgusting.

Agreed not a lifestyle many of us would choose, but it seems that BC lives mostly in his own mind anyway.

I once again call for specialized training for correctional facility staff to recognize & avoid manipulation.

JMHO YMMV

RIP, Ms. Zhang

 

[Laughing]

I think the girl in the office could have been in danger. There is no way she could have defended herself if he attacked. Good thing she had cameras.

and, with other statements BC made, he was fully capable of waiting at her worksite & following her home...at least we know that plot was thwarted.

 

[tresir2012]

2:17-cr-20037-JES-JEH # 435 Page 1 of 5 E-FILED
Friday, 28 June, 2019 10:44:29 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
URBANA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 17-20037
)
BRENDT A. CHRISTENSEN, )
)
Defendant. )

SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

NOW COMES the Defendant, BRENDT A. CHRISTENSEN, by and through his

attorneys, and respectfully supplements his previous Motion to the Court for an order

directing the University of Illinois to show cause why it should not be held in contempt

for failure to comply with a subpoena duces tecum served upon it by Mr. Christensen.

On May 30, 2019, Mr. Christensen served a subpoena duces tecum upon the

University of Illinois, demanding production, inter alia, of the following:

Any written communication, note, document, or other recording
concerning the assessment and treatment of Brendt A. Christensen, DOB:
6/30/1989, at the University of Illinois Counseling Center between March
15, 2017, and June 9, 2017. Specifically, any written or electronic
correspondence between staff members of the Center and/or between
staff members of the Center and any other employee or agent of the
University of Illinois, and any documentation thereof, concerning Mr.
Christensen’s assessment and treatment by the counseling center.

In an email to Associate University Counsel Collin Richmond on June 11, 2019,

Mr. Christensen’s counsel further advised the University that documents previously

provided need not be re-produced and that the records sought by the subpoena


1
2:17-cr-20037-JES-JEH # 435 Page 2 of 5



included “emails between staff members about the situation, emails with higher-ups in

the administration, any after-action reports, etc.” On June 12, 2019, Mr. Richmond

responded by email as follows: “The University objects to the Subpoena to the extent it

seeks data or information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the

work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. The University will not

provide documents, data or information protected by such privileges, including

privileged communications between the Counseling Center and counsel for the

University.” Mr. Christensen thereafter asked the University to file a motion to quash

the subpoena if it believed that it had grounds to do so, but the University declined. Mr.

Christensen therefore filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause to obtain compliance

with his subpoena.

The order was issued and the University appeared before the Court, through

counsel, on June 24, 2019. At that time counsel for the University tendered to the Court

for in camera review a binder of documents that it considers responsive to Mr.

Christensen’s subpoena but exempt from disclosure on grounds of privilege.

Additionally, counsel tendered a written Response to Defendant’s Motion for Order to

Show Cause with attached Exhibits. Exhibit A to the University’s pleading is entitled

“Privilege Log of Non-Party The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois.” The

binder of documents is currently under review by the Court.

A review of the materials submitted by the University renders inescapable the

conclusion that a great deal of material responsive to Mr. Christensen’s subpoena has

yet to be provided to the Court. For example, the emails listed in the Privilege Log are


2
2:17-cr-20037-JES-JEH # 435 Page 3 of 5



solely between staff of the University of Illinois Counseling Center and staff of the

University Counsel’s Office and/or outside University counsel Charles Schmadeke. In

its Response, the University states that it has also produced 18 pages of additional mails

that may include University administrators, but those emails pertain only to “the

handling of press inquiries” and “other emails regarding meetings between University

legal counsel and Counseling Center staff.”

It is inconceivable that the staff of the Counseling Center and the University legal

counsel are only people associated with the University who ever communicated

regarding the Counseling Center’s interactions with Mr. Christensen and the

subsequent murder of Yingying Zhang. It is more than reasonable to expect that the

University conducted some type of investigation into the events at issue, at a minimum

to determine the potential legal liability of the institution and/or its staff, explore

questions of indemnification, immunity and insurance coverage for decisions made

within the scope of employment, whether any disciplinary action was required with

regard to any employee and whether changes needed to be made to applicable

University policies and procedures in order to better ensure the safety of its students,

faculty and staff. One would further assume that the matter was at least brought to the

attention of the University Chancellor and the Board of Trustees.

Additionally, the emails referenced in the Privilege Log are primarily from 2019

only. Mr. Christensen was arrested on June 30, 2017, amid a great deal of publicity and

media attention. Defense counsel first requested Mr. Christensen’s records from the

Counseling Center in September, 2017, and some documents were produced on


3
2:17-cr-20037-JES-JEH # 435 Page 4 of 5



September 12, 2017. Yet only seven emails referenced in the Privilege Log are from 2017,

the first one not until December 19th, and there are only three emails from the entirety

of 2018.

As previously noted, while Mr. Christensen acknowledges the possibility that

some of the records he seeks may ultimately be deemed exempt from disclosure on

grounds of privilege, the University is not free to make its own determination of what it

will and will not produce and thereafter disregard the subpoena. Rather, all relevant

documents must be submitted to the Court for in camera review so that the Court can

determine whether the documents are required to be produced.

WHEREFORE, Mr. Christensen respectfully requests that this Motion be granted

and that the Court issue an order directing the University of Illinois to show cause why

it should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the subpoena duces tecum

served upon it.

. Respectfully submitted,

/s/Elisabeth R. Pollock /s/ George Taseff
Assistant Federal Defender Assistant Federal Defender
300 West Main Street 401 Main Street, Suite 1500
Urbana, IL 61801 Peoria, IL 61602
Phone: 217-373-0666 Phone: 309-671-7891
FAX: 217-373-0667 Fax: 309-671-7898
Email: Elisabeth_Pollock@fd.org Email: George_Taseff@fd.org

/s/ Robert Tucker /s/ Julie Brain
Robert L. Tucker, Esq. Julie Brain, Esq.
7114 Washington Ave 916 South 2nd Street
St. Louis, MO 63130 Philadelphia, PA 19147
Phone: 703-527-1622 Phone: 267-639-0417
Email: roberttuckerlaw@gmail.com Email: juliebrain1@yahoo.com



4
2:17-cr-20037-JES-JEH # 435 Page 5 of 5



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 28, 2019, I electronically filed the foregoing with th