Deceased/Not Found IL - Yingying Zhang, 26, Urbana, 9 June 2017 #11 *GUILTY*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Anyone here know if BOP can restrict or ban inmate contact with certain specific individuals, either indefinitely or for a period of time? Like, say, for security reasons, or ongoing investigation reasons? I would assume they cant ban family members or an inmate's lawyers; but, the specific person I have in mind isnt a member of his counsel, and *technically* is no longer family...... (hint, hint.....)
 
Anyone here know if BOP can restrict or ban inmate contact with certain specific individuals, either indefinitely or for a period of time? Like, say, for security reasons, or ongoing investigation reasons? I would assume they cant ban family members or an inmate's lawyers; but, the specific person I have in mind isnt a member of his counsel, and *technically* is no longer family...... (hint, hint.....)
why should they ban Michelle?
edit to save another post-
Hopefully she will ban herself and leggit now, she has an opportunity to be free of him forever.
Will she take it?
She may cos she attened under subpnoea, not free will.
She never looked at him once during her testimony.
She did him no great favours and admitted she had told the FBI when she was working with them, that he was secretive and a liar.
He got the infamous migraine.
almost immediately.
 
why should they ban Michelle?
edit to save another post-
Hopefully she will ban herself and leggit now, she has an opportunity to be free of him forever.
Will she take it?
She may cos she attened under subpnoea, not free will.
She never looked at him once during her testimony.
She did him no great favours and admitted she had told the FBI when she was working with them, that he was secretive and a liar.
He got the infamous migraine.
almost immediately.
Yes, but that phone call on June 19th...
 
This is something been kinda buggin me. So the defense had to subpoena MZ to cime to the sentencing part.

First..how are they even all poo wed to do that? Impact statements should be voluntary.

Second. A really stupid move. She could have said anything she wanted to. Could have really derailled that impact thing.
 
This is something been kinda buggin me. So the defense had to subpoena MZ to cime to the sentencing part.

First..how are they even all poo wed to do that? Impact statements should be voluntary.

Second. A really stupid move. She could have said anything she wanted to. Could have really derailled that impact thing.
She kinda did. derail it a tad.
It is hard to tell from tweets, but the journos reporting it were well clued in.
 
Yes, but that phone call on June 19th...
the one about TB do you mean?
Is that the call ?
They asked her about that again, she said it was wrong of her, that she'd been crying before it..
The truth is probably somewhat different.
I think she was trying to calm him down... I dont think she bore any ill will towards Tb , really. Michelle was in a relationship, probably in love, maybe, best thing that could have happened was for BC to get a g/f too..
But that's all speculation.
 
Life sentence for scholar's killer triggers controversy
Life setence for scholar's killer triggers controversy - Chinadaily.com.cn

"The topic "the murderer of Zhang Yingying is sentenced to life imprisonment" had received some 750 million views and 92,000 comments on the social media platform by 2pm on Sunday, and each trending topic related to the case had been viewed hundreds of millions of times.

Toutiao, an online Chinese news portal, launched a survey asking the public if they accepted the judgment, and about 724,000 out of 808,000 respondents replied "no", accounting for 89.6 percent."
 
Life sentence for scholar's killer triggers controversy
Life setence for scholar's killer triggers controversy - Chinadaily.com.cn

"The topic "the murderer of Zhang Yingying is sentenced to life imprisonment" had received some 750 million views and 92,000 comments on the social media platform by 2pm on Sunday, and each trending topic related to the case had been viewed hundreds of millions of times.

Toutiao, an online Chinese news portal, launched a survey asking the public if they accepted the judgment, and about 724,000 out of 808,000 respondents replied "no", accounting for 89.6 percent."

Yeah. We in Canada should have a survey too. Lol
 
Life sentence for scholar's killer triggers controversy
Life setence for scholar's killer triggers controversy - Chinadaily.com.cn

"The topic "the murderer of Zhang Yingying is sentenced to life imprisonment" had received some 750 million views and 92,000 comments on the social media platform by 2pm on Sunday, and each trending topic related to the case had been viewed hundreds of millions of times.

Toutiao, an online Chinese news portal, launched a survey asking the public if they accepted the judgment, and about 724,000 out of 808,000 respondents replied "no", accounting for 89.6 percent."

I *really* hope someone is pointing out to all these people that it was a measly 2 jurors who were responsible for this. It should not be forgotten than 10 voted for death.

I really wish that they would go to a 3/4th majority to get a death sentence (9-3 for death or more). Go ahead and keep it so that you need to have all 12 find intent factors, statutory aggravating factors and non-statutory aggravating factors; but by having it required that 4 jurors or more think that the mitigating factors outweigh the aggravators, you are much more likely to get an outcome that reflects reality, rather than an outcome where you have 1-2 people blow everything up and let some monster have mercy because they have 1-2 mitigating factors that they have an enhanced affinity for and belief in -and think even the slightest presence of those factors for a defendant means mercy no matter what.

To me, if 4-5 or more jurors find mitigating factors outweigh the aggravating ones, then it means that there really is some issue or issues that are important that should be considered for mercy. When it's one or two -ESPECIALLY when those 1-2 have also by result found that a bunch of the intent factors and aggravators have been proven- it's much more likely that there is an mitigator that is of hyperactive and overarching importance to those 1-2 that lead them to give it too much weight.

Not going to make a difference here, I know. It's all like tears in the rain.

Damn, it is so depressing........
 
Last edited:
why should they ban Michelle?
edit to save another post-
Hopefully she will ban herself and leggit now, she has an opportunity to be free of him forever.
Will she take it?
She may cos she attened under subpnoea, not free will.
She never looked at him once during her testimony.
She did him no great favours and admitted she had told the FBI when she was working with them, that he was secretive and a liar.
He got the infamous migraine.
almost immediately.


Again, one of those "trial-by tweet" issues....

Although, one thing I would like to point out with my idea is that I *don't* just mean keeping her from contacting/seeing him. I also mean not letting him contact HER. Suppose he wants to try and repair his relationship with her (if it is damaged and broken as you think)? Pretty hard to do if BOP isn't going to let him communicate with her until he coughs up what he did with YY's remains.

There is always the possibility, too, that Michelle at the penalty phase was doing damage control. She knows the recording makes her look bad. Maybe she is still close to and in love with him, but wants to make repairs to her reputation?
 
the one about TB do you mean?
Is that the call ?
They asked her about that again, she said it was wrong of her, that she'd been crying before it..
The truth is probably somewhat different.
I think she was trying to calm him down... I dont think she bore any ill will towards Tb , really. Michelle was in a relationship, probably in love, maybe, best thing that could have happened was for BC to get a g/f too..
But that's all speculation.

I really wish we could get the transcript of that call. They have not posted it.
 
Again, one of those "trial-by tweet" issues....

Although, one thing I would like to point out with my idea is that I *don't* just mean keeping her from contacting/seeing him. I also mean not letting him contact HER. Suppose he wants to try and repair his relationship with her (if it is damaged and broken as you think)? Pretty hard to do if BOP isn't going to let him communicate with her until he coughs up what he did with YY's remains.

There is always the possibility, too, that Michelle at the penalty phase was doing damage control. She knows the recording makes her look bad. Maybe she is still close to and in love with him, but wants to make repairs to her reputation?
Ahh, that's different.
I see what you mean.
The first part.
I doubt it. I wish though...
I'm only speculating.
So much of her evidence was redacted, it's hard to get a grip on where she's at.
For all we know the 'not looking at him while testifying' could have ben part of an elaborate plan hatched between them,like him 'rubbing his head' and then claiming migraine in order to get back to his cell to email her for the afternoon.
either way, it's all a distraction from the search.
 
Reply from Illinois police email received

We continue to follow-up on leads and have not given up on the search. Thank you for your suggestions.
(I had mentioned in mine to them about the recent media reports of her body being irretrievable.)
I o wonder who fed that story to Fox, AP and I think one other cited 'authorities' as having said that.
If 'authorities' believed her body was or is irretrievable they would not have sent that email.
I mentioned the JR site in mine and any and all buildings between his apartment and the gym and my theory that the 200 miles of petrol could well have been used for far more nefarious purposes than simply driving.
So that is a kind of a green light regarding searches.
 
I *really* hope someone is pointing out to all these people that it was a measly 2 jurors who were responsible for this. It should not be forgotten than 10 voted for death.

I really wish that they would go to a 3/4th majority to get a death sentence (9-3 for death or more). Go ahead and keep it so that you need to have all 12 find intent factors, statutory aggravating factors and non-statutory aggravating factors; but by having it required that 4 jurors or more think that the mitigating factors outweigh the aggravators, you are much more likely to get an outcome that reflects reality, rather than an outcome where you have 1-2 people blow everything up and let some monster have mercy because they have 1-2 mitigating factors that they have an enhanced affinity for and belief in -and think even the slightest presence of those factors for a defendant means mercy no matter what.

To me, if 4-5 or more jurors find mitigating factors outweigh the aggravating ones, then it means that there really is some issue or issues that are important that should be considered for mercy. When it's one or two -ESPECIALLY when those 1-2 have also by result found that a bunch of the intent factors and aggravators have been proven- it's much more likely that there is an mitigator that is of hyperactive and overarching importance to those 1-2 that lead them to give it too much weight.

Not going to make a difference here, I know. It's all like tears in the rain.

Damn, it is so depressing........

Yes.
BUT, the case was badly presented.
Far too much evidence redacted, jail letter, for example
Entire Michelle original testimony to FBI including exact content of the dEcember 2016 convo.
Did he actually tell her about prior victims in the course of that convo?

No bathroom evidence found.
No body found.
No proof at all of anything he said he did in the bathroom found.
Dead cadaver dog signal...
His defense crying! Cos he was not his action.
But they didn't allow him to take the stand to prove he was a nice gentle child who once bought a furry toy for his sister...
How much work did they do really?
A 3 week search, a few computer tests, a forensic search of his apartment, all standard...
I'm surprised they even got a conviction.
It really has the feel of a case where the budget was pulled suddenly.

I do wonder how the police feel about it?
 
Nauseating. Also, my speculative nature makes me wonder the gender dynamics of this jury. Yes, I am about to guess and surmise not provide facts. The jury had 7 men and 5 women. From the handwriting we can tell the foreperson was a woman. I wonder how much authority she was able to command in that deliberation room. I wonder how forceful she was in sustaining analysis.
I almost get the feeling the foreperson was not trusted and barely listened to. I am not blaming the woman at all but wondering how the majority of the men and the other women in the jury perceived her authority.

The role of the jury foreperson is crucial in deliberations:

1. Ensuring that each jury member is present in the jury room when deliberations begin.

2. Confirming that each juror understands the deliberation procedures and knows that each member is allowed to ask questions s/he may have concerning the case.

3. Ensuring that deliberations are conducted in an orderly manner and that the discussion is open to each member.

4. Ensuring that a jury member does not bully another.

5. Confirming that each juror is aware of his/her responsibilities and that each juror is allowed to state their views and reasons as to their verdict.

6. Communicating on behalf of the jury with the judge.

7. Announcing the verdict.

Jury Foreman Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
 
Your captions made me smile and simmered down my rage. Thank you.

 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
59
Guests online
2,777
Total visitors
2,836

Forum statistics

Threads
603,613
Messages
18,159,355
Members
231,786
Latest member
SapphireGem
Back
Top