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

[CousinYeti]

@dm92 - Good questions. The FBI heavily canvassed the routes north that the Astra could have taken to get to the area around One North. That area quickly turns residential, but they even went door to door looking for home security cameras. They found nothing. You are also correct that they collected video from gas stations and business along those routes. The two main problems were: (1) most businesses weren’t recording for long periods, and overwrite their security footage after short intervals, and (2) gas stations and other businesses use their security cameras to protect their business, not to film passersby, so little of the footage was usable for purposes of finding cars passing a location. There were thousands of hours of footage collected and reviewed, and all the instances we caught of the Astra were played at trial. It wasn’t many, and there was nothing of substance beyond the school as the car went north after Yingying got in the car.

There was at least one route into the cemetery in question that involves very few cameras, and none that captured any usable footage. The agents did search that cemetery though. As you can imagine, a cadaver dog is not much use in a cemetery, but the agents reviewed logs of recent burials and combed through the brush around the cemetery for any evidence. As I mentioned, there were some tips that Christensen used cemeteries to abuse women, so that’s how the cemetery theory came to the forefront. Ultimately, we don’t know what happened between the time Yingying got in Christensen’s car, and the time he got her in the apartment. The trace evidence and his statement to TEB were the only ways this case got made.

Regarding the cell phone ping, it was difficult to glean much information from that. We could triangulate the general direction of the ping, but it was not terribly reliable in pinpointing the location. I am not terribly well versed in this, I apologize. The FBI witness who testified on this (Greg Catey) is a national expert on this stuff, and if there was any way to glean anything useful out of the ping, he’d have found it. The agents even followed up on a Chinese SIM card / number that the family told us she used to call home, and it gave us nothing.

The UIPD focused heavily on the white van you referenced in the early days of the investigation after seeing it near the ping location site. It appeared like people meeting, almost for an exchange, and there was some concern that maybe Yingying had been trafficked. They were able to track that van though, and it turns out those individuals were involved in legitimate business having nothing to do with the case.

As you mentioned, there were some pings in June 12. Per Christensen, he was dumping Yingying’s belongings in business / public trash receptacles. Before the agents had that information, but after Christensen became the primary suspect (think June 17-22), they even went dumpster diving in multiple locations trying to find anything that might provide a lead close to those pings. They first made contact with Christensen, by pure happenstance, on the afternoon of June 12. He had just returned from dumping Yingying’s belongings at the time.

Yingying’s phone would have been an evidentiary gold mine if it had stayed on. Christensen turned it off or destroyed it shortly after incapacitating Yingying. That’s something most criminals don’t do to cover their tracks.

Regarding your trial question, I think the prosecution team believed Christensen did what he said he did on the tapes: sexually assaulted and tortured her in the bedroom, and murdered her In the bathroom. It’s grotesque to talk about, but I think he probably dismembered Yingying on the bed he slept with his wife in after killing her in the tub, and that’s why there was blood behind the headboard. I think the prevailing thought regarding the small bloodstains on the mattress were that they came from the sexual assault. Yingying was cycling at the time of the offense.

The defense was trying to cast doubt on Christensen’s statements to mitigate the damage in the penalty phase of the trial. They admitted guilt, but challenged the forensic evidence, because they wanted the jury to believe he didn’t do what he said he did. Hence why they tried to paint the picture of the murder not happening in the tub, because they could then argue Christensen was lying about everything on the tape. Pretty much everything they said and did was hogwash, and some of it was downright disgusting. This was the same defense team that baselessly slandered TEB in public filings, and outed both TEB and MD, both victims, to try to scare them away from testifying. The only documents they “forgot” about were conveniently two motions that outed their identities and things they were struggling with in their lives. It was absolutely disgusting. Christensen got six taxpayer-funded attorneys. SIX. They filed a bunch of garbage designed to delay and mislead. They even told us at one of the first meetings that we were going to agree to their ridiculous trial schedule (which they wanted years in the future to distance people from the crime), or they would “create error” in the record and force us to try the case again. People wonder why the death penalty is “so expensive” and “takes so long?” It’s because of the astronomical bills redundant defense attorneys rack up filing the same frivolous motions in case after case, and the stupid games defense attorneys play trying to force the government to spend resources hoping we will throw up our hands and agree to give up.

The trial transcripts should be public in the next 90 days. One of the defense attorneys ordered all of them. We aren’t sure why, but it could be to pursue a post-conviction motion to attack the verdict. Christensen has one year from the date of conviction to do that, and it was odd for an attorney to order transcripts in a case that isn’t on appeal.

I will continue to answer stuff as I have time.

 

[CousinYeti]

@dm92 - Good questions. The FBI heavily canvassed the routes north that the Astra could have taken to get to the area around One North. That area quickly turns residential, but they even went door to door looking for home security cameras. They found nothing. You are also correct that they collected video from gas stations and business along those routes. The two main problems were: (1) most businesses weren’t recording for long periods, and overwrite their security footage after short intervals, and (2) gas stations and other businesses use their security cameras to protect their business, not to film passersby, so little of the footage was usable for purposes of finding cars passing a location. There were thousands of hours of footage collected and reviewed, and all the instances we caught of the Astra were played at trial. It wasn’t many, and there was nothing of substance after the school as the car went north after Yingying got in the car.

There was at least one route into the cemetery in question that involves very few cameras, and none that captured any usable footage. The agents did search that cemetery though. As you can imagine, a cadaver dog is not much use in a cemetery, but the agents reviewed logs of recent burials and combed through the brush around the cemetery for any evidence. As I mentioned, there were some tips that Christensen used cemeteries to abuse women, so that’s how the cemetery theory came to the forefront. Ultimately, we don’t know what happened between the time Yingying got in Christensen’s car, and the time he got her in the apartment. The trace evidence and his statement to TEB were the only ways this case got made.

Regarding the cell phone ping, it was difficult to glean much information from that. We could triangulate the general direction of the ping, but it was not terribly reliable in pinpointing the location. I am not terribly well versed in this, I apologize. The FBI witness who testified on this (Greg Catey) is a national expert on this stuff, and if there was any way to glean anything useful out of the ping, he’d have found it. The agents even followed up on a Chinese SIM card / number that the family told us she used to call home, and it gave us nothing.

The UIPD focused heavily on the white van you referenced in the early days of the investigation after seeing it near the ping location site. It appeared like people meeting, almost for an exchange, and there was some concern that maybe Yingying had been trafficked. They were able to track that van though, and it turns out those individuals were involved in legitimate business having nothing to do with the case.

As you mentioned, there were some pings in June 12. Per Christensen, he was dumping Yingying’s belongings in business / public trash receptacles. Before the agents had that information, but after Christensen became the primary suspect (think June 17-22), they even went dumpster diving in multiple locations trying to find anything that might provide a lead close to those pings. They first made contact with Christensen, by pure happenstance, on the afternoon of June 12. He had just returned from dumping Yingying’s belongings at the time.

Yingying’s phone would have been an evidentiary gold mine if it had stayed on. Christensen turned it off or destroyed it shortly after incapacitating Yingying. That’s something most criminals don’t do to cover their tracks.

Regarding your trial question, I think the prosecution team believed Christensen did what he said he did on the tapes: sexually assaulted and tortured her in the bedroom, and murdered her In the bathroom. It’s grotesque to talk about, but I think he probably dismembered Yingying on the bed he slept with his wife in after killing her in the tub, and that’s why there was blood behind the headboard. I think the prevailing thought regarding the small bloodstains on the mattress were that they came from the sexual assault. Yingying was cycling at the time of the offense.

The defense was trying to cast doubt on Christensen’s statements to mitigate the damage in the penalty phase of the trial. They admitted guilt, but challenged the forensic evidence, because they wanted the jury to believe he didn’t do what he said he did. Hence why they tried to paint the picture of the murder not happening in the tub, because they could then argue Christensen was lying about everything on the tape. Much of what they said and did was hogwash, and some of it was downright disgusting. This was the same defense team that baselessly slandered TEB in public filings, and outed both TEB and MD, both victims, to try to scare them away from testifying. The only documents they “forgot” to seal (that should have been sealed) were conveniently two motions that outed their identities and things they were struggling with in their lives. It was absolutely disgusting. Christensen got six taxpayer-funded attorneys. SIX. They filed a bunch of garbage designed to delay and mislead. They even told us at one of the first meetings that we were going to agree to their ridiculous trial schedule (which they wanted years in the future to distance people from the crime), or they would “create error” in the record and force us to try the case again. People wonder why the death penalty is “so expensive” and “takes so long?” It’s because of the astronomical bills redundant defense attorneys rack up filing the same frivolous motions in case after case, and the stupid games defense attorneys play trying to force the government to spend resources hoping we will throw up our hands and agree to give up.

The trial transcripts should be public in the next 90 days. One of the defense attorneys ordered all of them. We aren’t sure why, but it could be to pursue a post-conviction motion to attack the verdict. Christensen has one year from the date of conviction to do that, and it was odd for an attorney to order transcripts in a case that isn’t on appeal.

I will continue to answer stuff as I have time.

 

[CousinYeti]

@TEB - I told you this during the trial, but there likely is no federal trial without what you did. Your words describing why you did what you did (“It was necessary”), have stuck with me. I know the Zhang family appreciated everything you overcame, and the danger you put yourself in, to help them bring closure to this. We did too. I am glad you are well, and I hope to read your book sooner than later. Stay safe!

 

[Ursamajr]

CousinYeti - Thank you for your affirming words. I take no personal offense and do not read into words. I have thicker skin than most people realize. I just am disturbed by the idea that people would take statements made by the criminal without careful consideration. I just wanted to stress that the true evidence is physical in nature, but that I did what I did to play a supporting role, not for attention, and not because a confession in and of itself is meant to stand as fact. There was irrefutable physical evidence, but I could not allow my mind to lean on it. All I could do was speak for my own experience interacting with that person and not back off of my integrity, not for the defense, not for the criminal, and not even for the prosecution. That’s what I saw my job as. No more, no less.

Though many people make assumptions about true crime, I feel like it is important for me to not draw attention for attentions sake, but to use what attention people grant me towards promoting a better understanding of those who find themselves in positions like mine or those who judge people like me. I have and will be judged in many ways by many people, but I was well aware that much was likely the day I accepted the role I played. Some people aren’t, and not many people claim their voice after such experiences for reasons that are understandable. But there was a point for me where I felt I had lost enough and committed so deeply that the course of my life was dramatically altered. It was when I chose to accept the reality of the situation and process the pain and prove that pain need not lead to destructive behavior. And right now, the most I can do is select a few words to share publicly so that if someone who has been through some difficult things sees them, they know that it doesn’t have to destroy them and it’s not an acceptable excuse to be outwardly destructive.

Until I have processed my own trauma to a point I am satisfied with, my book will not become what it needs to be. I want to write the resource I never had. I’m well on my way, having been writing since the day before the final arrest was made. But for now, I can at least not hide behind a character people have tried to turn me into and I can speak towards what I did and admit it was difficult. People need to hear that much.

Thank you for answering a few questions from people in this forum. I know what it feels like to be in the dark about things. Within the bounds of the scope of professional boundaries, I think what you are doing here humanizes those in professions that people make assumptions about. And all of you deserve a collective voice too, no matter what chair you happened to have occupied during the trial. Thank you for whatever role you played. I know you all worked hard. That work is appreciated.

Stay safe.

There were so many roads you could have travelled down after you were thrust into this situation. You chose and continue to choose to be so selfless. I don't doubt that you were always this way. This book you are writing - providing a resource, comfort and understanding to those that most likely are ashamed and alone - what a brave and beautiful soul you are. You deserve the same comfort and understanding that you'll be providing others.

Be safe,
Ursa.

 

[Parametric]

Hi, CousinYeti. Thank you for doing this.

Two questions:

1) How confident was the investigation team that his wife was being cooperative and completely forthcoming with what she knew? Was there anything she did in particular that helped you? I think many of us were struck by their odd relationship dynamics as well as some of her comments to Brendt during the trial and there was some speculation she may have been protecting him.


2) What was his demeanor like during the trial? I mostly understand he had a flattened affect, though he also showed some emotion at other times (possibly faked).

 

[dm92]

Hi, CousinYeti. Thank you for doing this.

Two questions:

1) How confident was the investigation team that his wife was being cooperative and completely forthcoming with what she knew? Was there anything she did in particular that helped you? I think many of us were struck by their odd relationship dynamics as well as some of her comments to Brendt during the trial and there was some speculation she may have been protecting him.

I also am interested in your thoughts on how cooperative she was throughout the investigation and the legal proceedings. I remember reading in a newspaper story a quote from one of the FBI agents working the case (Tengalia, iirc) that basically said Michelle started out very cooperative and helpful, but that her demeanor gradually changed and she became much less helpful and cooperative as the investigation went on.

In addition to what Parametric asked about Michelle, let me throw in a couple other Michelle questions while they are fresh in my mind, so you can perhaps address everything in one posting:

1) Do you, or anyone else involved with the case and trial, think there is any significance to the outfit Michelle was wearing on the day she testified during the guilt phase of the trial? She wore a red top (under a jacket, iirc). I ask because on at least two occasions I remember, when public vigils/ceremonies were held remembering Yingying, the family requested that people attending not wear anything red. This is probably nothing but coincidence, but the scheduling details for these ceremonies and the request not to wear red were publicly reported in the media and occurred well before the trial, and I always thought Michelle's choice of outfit seemed odd.

2) Can you give us any clue as to just what you think Michelle was doing on the night the search warrant for the Astra was executed in regards to coming out of the bedroom, AND remaining *naked* when agents entered the apartment? From my understanding, after coming out naked, agents told her she could put some clothes on -and when she refused, she actually had to be *asked* to put something on. In discussing this case with lots of people over the years, I have yet to encounter anyone who doesn't find her behavior here to be really odd.

thanks again for all you are doing.

 

[Parametric]

A few other questions I've thought of:

1) Apparently, his car had been driven ~200 miles over the weekend that he committed this crime. Do investigators believe most of that happened within a relatively small radius or that he drove far outside of Champaign?


2) Was there anyone that wasn't surprised to learn what he'd done -- people from his hometown, colleagues at U of I or Tinder hook ups during their open relationship? I haven't looked at the details in a while, but I remember noting how spotless his life generally was. Everyone basically described him as a docile, unremarkable loner who was intelligent. There were no harassment complaints from women that I'm aware of or reports that others felt unsafe or disturbed by his behavior in the past. Everyone at the U of I said he was laid back and smart but lazy.


3) I apologize for the morbidity of this question but just to clarify, you said: "...dismembered Yingying on the bed he slept with his wife in after killing her in the tub, and that’s why there was blood behind the headboard." Would a better word be 'decapitated'? I don't remember blood being all over the mattress which would be more consistent with dismemberment; it was mostly concentrated under the headboard.

I always wanted to believe he embellished alot of those details to make himself seem more notorious, but the blood on the bat and under the carpet makes me think he wasn't embellishing. I do think he hit her with it in an attempt to kill her (IIRC, there were some traces of blood spatter in the shower but not conclusively hers), though my hope is that she was largely unconcious by that point.

Thank you again for your willingness to wade back into these unpleasant waters.

 

[dm92]

@dm92 - Good questions. The FBI heavily canvassed the routes north that the Astra could have taken to get to the area around One North. That area quickly turns residential, but they even went door to door looking for home security cameras. They found nothing. You are also correct that they collected video from gas stations and business along those routes. The two main problems were: (1) most businesses weren’t recording for long periods, and overwrite their security footage after short intervals, and (2) gas stations and other businesses use their security cameras to protect their business, not to film passersby, so little of the footage was usable for purposes of finding cars passing a location. There were thousands of hours of footage collected and reviewed, and all the instances we caught of the Astra were played at trial. It wasn’t many, and there was nothing of substance after the school as the car went north after Yingying got in the car.

There was at least one route into the cemetery in question that involves very few cameras, and none that captured any usable footage. The agents did search that cemetery though. As you can imagine, a cadaver dog is not much use in a cemetery, but the agents reviewed logs of recent burials and combed through the brush around the cemetery for any evidence. As I mentioned, there were some tips that Christensen used cemeteries to abuse women, so that’s how the cemetery theory came to the forefront. Ultimately, we don’t know what happened between the time Yingying got in Christensen’s car, and the time he got her in the apartment. The trace evidence and his statement to TEB were the only ways this case got made.

Regarding the cell phone ping, it was difficult to glean much information from that. We could triangulate the general direction of the ping, but it was not terribly reliable in pinpointing the location. I am not terribly well versed in this, I apologize. The FBI witness who testified on this (Greg Catey) is a national expert on this stuff, and if there was any way to glean anything useful out of the ping, he’d have found it. The agents even followed up on a Chinese SIM card / number that the family told us she used to call home, and it gave us nothing.

The UIPD focused heavily on the white van you referenced in the early days of the investigation after seeing it near the ping location site. It appeared like people meeting, almost for an exchange, and there was some concern that maybe Yingying had been trafficked. They were able to track that van though, and it turns out those individuals were involved in legitimate business having nothing to do with the case.

As you mentioned, there were some pings in June 12. Per Christensen, he was dumping Yingying’s belongings in business / public trash receptacles. Before the agents had that information, but after Christensen became the primary suspect (think June 17-22), they even went dumpster diving in multiple locations trying to find anything that might provide a lead close to those pings. They first made contact with Christensen, by pure happenstance, on the afternoon of June 12. He had just returned from dumping Yingying’s belongings at the time.

Yingying’s phone would have been an evidentiary gold mine if it had stayed on. Christensen turned it off or destroyed it shortly after incapacitating Yingying. That’s something most criminals don’t do to cover their tracks.

Regarding your trial question, I think the prosecution team believed Christensen did what he said he did on the tapes: sexually assaulted and tortured her in the bedroom, and murdered her In the bathroom. It’s grotesque to talk about, but I think he probably dismembered Yingying on the bed he slept with his wife in after killing her in the tub, and that’s why there was blood behind the headboard. I think the prevailing thought regarding the small bloodstains on the mattress were that they came from the sexual assault. Yingying was cycling at the time of the offense.

The defense was trying to cast doubt on Christensen’s statements to mitigate the damage in the penalty phase of the trial. They admitted guilt, but challenged the forensic evidence, because they wanted the jury to believe he didn’t do what he said he did. Hence why they tried to paint the picture of the murder not happening in the tub, because they could then argue Christensen was lying about everything on the tape. Much of what they said and did was hogwash, and some of it was downright disgusting. This was the same defense team that baselessly slandered TEB in public filings, and outed both TEB and MD, both victims, to try to scare them away from testifying. The only documents they “forgot” to seal (that should have been sealed) were conveniently two motions that outed their identities and things they were struggling with in their lives. It was absolutely disgusting. Christensen got six taxpayer-funded attorneys. SIX. They filed a bunch of garbage designed to delay and mislead. They even told us at one of the first meetings that we were going to agree to their ridiculous trial schedule (which they wanted years in the future to distance people from the crime), or they would “create error” in the record and force us to try the case again. People wonder why the death penalty is “so expensive” and “takes so long?” It’s because of the astronomical bills redundant defense attorneys rack up filing the same frivolous motions in case after case, and the stupid games defense attorneys play trying to force the government to spend resources hoping we will throw up our hands and agree to give up.

The trial transcripts should be public in the next 90 days. One of the defense attorneys ordered all of them. We aren’t sure why, but it could be to pursue a post-conviction motion to attack the verdict. Christensen has one year from the date of conviction to do that, and it was odd for an attorney to order transcripts in a case that isn’t on appeal.

I will continue to answer stuff as I have time.

Thanks again for all your help. I think all my questions regarding the investigation into how he got her into the bag and back to the apartment have been covered. It is clear that unless he comes out and gives the whole story (which is unlikely) we will probably never know . That is probably true for most other aspects of the case -and even if he were to come clean and give an account for what happened, we still probably wouldn't be able to be sure he isn't just lying yet again.

I have some follow-up questions and observations on the stains on the bed/wall/under the baseboard/carpet and regarding where he dismembered her, but I will wait until after you have addressed the questions Parametric and I had about Michelle, because one of Parametric's questions relates to this. Also, I don't want to dump too much into your lap all at once.

I also want to thank you again for taking the time to answer these. You are providing answers that I, and I am sure others, thought we would never get. Even though, as I and probably many others suspected, the answer is often that ultimately investigators just don't know, nevertheless it is nice to have this confirmed. Also, it is nice to hear what investigators were thinking at the time, what they were doing, and what they believe now.

 

[CousinYeti]

@Parametric, good questions.

Ms. Christensen (I’ll refer to her as MC) was manipulated and moved around like a pawn by her husband and the defense team throughout. She was very cooperative early on (in the days after the crime). Her consent to search their apartment was important, though the agents could have gotten a warrant if she hadn’t consented. The biggest thing she did was convince Christensen to talk to the agents on June 15. That interview was huge. He almost invoked his right to counsel, but MC convinced him to go to talk them. It was clear he did it after that interview, we just had to piece together the evidence at that point (enter TEB).

Early on, MC actually told the agents that based on what she knew, she was 80% certain that he did it. And like many women who are trapped in dead end relationships, she gradually stopped cooperating with the FBI as she spent more time with her husband after the murder. By the time of the trial, she was angry with law enforcement for taking her computer, which was used as evidence at trial.

One of the big things in the pretrial litigation was the defense’s claim that the agents started searching the Christensens’ apartment on June 15 before MC signed a consent form. If true, this could have caused the court to suppress the evidence (prevent us from using it) from the search. This was all of the electronic evidence, which was important. Their claim was wasn’t true, and though MC testified the agents searched before seeking her consent, I actually believe one of the defense attorneys may have convinced her it happened that way. For some reason, the metadata on the discovery files (the reports and recordings that we give defense attorneys to help them prepare for trial) containing the photos from the search showed a time 2 hours earlier than when they were actually taken (meaning the photos the defense downloaded suggested they were taken before the consent was signed). The originals had the correct metadata, and when shown in court, those originals blew up something the defense team pushed hard. One of the defense attorneys actually drafted an affidavit attesting to this false series of events for MC and had her sign it under penalty of perjury—mind you, this attorney was not MC’s attorney, and was not working in her interest, but in Christensen’s. By having her sign it, the attorney subjected MC to perjury for the benefit of their client, not MC. There were previous reports of MC’s statements to law enforcement (lying to a federal agent is a crime) that conflicted with the affidavit, meaning that by signing it, MC had to have lied about something. Yet another of the questionable things the defense team did in attempt to delay justice. In any case, MC’s testimony throughout was strained. I think she actually tried to tell the truth, at least on the things she had not been toyed with or misled on. That was the only obvious point she lied about during the proceedings, and I think she actually believed it by the time she testified. She turned out to be a good witness for us at trial, as she conceded many things that blew up defense arguments—again, I think she was trying to tell the truth.

As I mentioned, she was manipulated by the defendant and defense team. For example, when she came to testify, she wore the same clothes multiple times. The defendant told her to wear those clothes in jail calls because he liked how her chest looked in the shirt. Just one of the many subtle manipulations he pulled. We listened to hours of inane conversation between them. All they talked about was working out and video games, when he wasn’t manipulating her.

MC was quite the contradiction. I think she tried to do the right thing, while still feeling some semblance of loyalty to her husband. I hope she has been able to move on with her life on a positive direction now that he’s removed from it.

Christensen was flat during the trial. The only time he cried or showed emotion was when someone was trying to paint him as a victim. It was manufactured. He played games with his defense attorneys. They brought him things to try to make his time easier, so he decided to abuse it. On one of the jail calls, he told him mom he was going to see how far he could push it, and was having one of lawyers bring him things like lollipops, etc. Overall, I think he enjoyed himself though. Judge Shadid’s comments about him at sentencing were spot on.

 

[CousinYeti]

@Parametric, more good questions.

The mileage is fascinating, isn’t it? It’s one of the big unanswered questions. I would note, it’s also one of the driving factors in the interest in Allerton Park amongst some of the investigative team. The FBI used the mileage to establish a perimeter around Champaign to guide search efforts. They even put up billboards in Indiana and places 50-75 miles out, with the thought that the radius may have extended that far. I tend to think Christensen burned through a lot of that just driving around Champaign. City driving burns gas more than highway, and we know he spent hours driving all over on June 9 (hunting) and June 12 (dumping Yingying’s belongings all over town) at a minimum. The guy was a homebody, he didn’t have friends, and I just think he never left Champaign County. Others wonder, and those others are smart people that I respect. What do you think?

Ironically, regarding your second question, I don’t think the two women closest to him were surprised. I’ll let TEB speak for herself, but as I noted in my previous response, Michelle told the agents on June 16 or 17 that she believed he did it. She even told them that if he did it, he would have strangled Yingying so he could feel the life drain out of her. How morbid is that? It was shockingly accurate too, given what he said on the recording. MC had not heard the recording at the time she told that to agents. I wonder if he ever did something like that to MC that she never told us about.

The discussion of what he did is appalling. When discussing it, I always remind myself it’s what HE did, and brushing it under the rug just brushes his evil out of sight. I think he did what he said on the recording: he sexually assaulted Yingying on the bed, tortured her, and then took her to the tub and hit her with the bat, then cut off her head. The evidence supports all that (he was pretty concerned on the jail calls about the agents taking apart the tub). He told us later, however, that he put her in three bags before disposing of her remains, which means he dismembered her more. I tend to think at least some of that may have happened in the bedroom. That, or he tortured Yingying enough before killing her to cause a lot of bleeding. The cleaning patterns behind the headboard and the carpeting, and the blood soaked under the carpet, suggest Yingying bled a lot in that bedroom. It’s absolutely awful to discuss. Yingying was a beautiful soul, and she suffered through this. It makes me sick.

 

[CousinYeti]

@dm92, I’ll get to your questions ASAP. I’ve run out of time tonight. Be well all.

 

[TEB]

@Parametric,

Ironically, regarding your second question, I don’t think the two women closest to him were surprised. I’ll let TEB speak for herself,

This is something I do not mind speaking about. In fact, I appreciate the space to share clarifications and thoughts that I have needed to keep to myself as I watch how media parrots narratives that make for more enticing news rather than an accurate representation of what actually occurred, in general and during the trial.

I began dating the criminal in April. At that time in my life, I was struggling with existing trauma and disordered eating. As many people who have been abused do, I was desperately reaching out for affirmation and affection. People like that man know how to build others up. They know what to say to boost ones confidence and self esteem, not because they care, but because they are interested in the power it makes them feel. Think about a stray animal, and how it would make most people feel to take it in, clean it up, give it care, and nurse it back to health. Though most people would say that feels good because you are helping the creature, there are those who are more interested in how much influence they have over the appearance of the creature and how beholden that creature is to their new ‘savior.’ This is why the our relationship began in what seemed an unnaturally perfect, whimsical way. It’s only in hindsight that I realized the short period of catering to my needs was simply a way to hook me.

Well before I was approached by law enforcement, though, things changed. It is complex to explain, but I will do my best.

Because of the nature of my ethics, I am very clear and explicit when I go about obtaining consent to engage from anyone I am to be involved with romantically or physically. I was very open about the fact that, at the time, I was involved in the kink community, not because I required kink to be any part of the relationship, but because disclosure is part of consent for me. It would be quite shocking to a new significant other to suddenly find out that your partner is involved in something that makes you uncomfortable, even if it’s with other people. Therefore, the time to disclose this information, for me, was early on. No dirty little secrets, no hiding things, no strategic omissions. I see consent applying to any physical or emotional activity, and my partners need to consent to any of my activities.

He expressed curiosity about BDSM, but only ever attended one public social event with me, and he didn’t interact with others much. This is odd to me, because socially discussing interests freely is generally something that people who are interested in consensual BDSM of any form get quite excited about as a person learns about how to safely and respectfully engage with people who’s interests, abilities, and desires complement their own. He did not seem interested in engaging socially with a community. He was never a member of the BDSM community. So I thought his interest in BSDM was more limited to the private arena.

He stated that he had some experience with basic implements like restraints, what I consider somewhat very basic kink. He knew about the things you would find at a novelty shop to spice things up, not the types of items that people who are actually experienced would tend to have. This, combined with the lack of interest in being involved at the community level, made me categorize him as someone tangentially interested in light BDSM.

This changed quickly the last time we were physical. BDSM is built upon consent. When learning about someone’s personal boundaries for physical activity, all of my experience dictates that learning where boundaries are is the foundation of determining what someone consents to. In my experience (on both dominant and submissive sides of things), determining what someone’s boundary is feels like learning where the lines are in a coloring book: it’s the beginning. One of the most exciting moments in a blossoming relationship is when you have discussed and negotiated what you are comfortable with and what you are not comfortable with, because once the black lines are laid down upon the page, it is safe to color, safe to make people’s dreams come true.

This is not how things went with that man. From the start, he was interested in ‘moving the lines,’ in pushing boundaries. Instead of respecting boundaries to establish what was acceptable, he was more interested in seeing if he could change what those boundaries were and where lines were drawn. While I would have far more discretion now, I was vulnerable then. And my vulnerability was fueled by his feigned concern for and ‘care’ if me. He made me feel like my well being was improved by him despite him pushing me past my clearly articulated boundaries.

There are two incredibly alarming red flags with him. One was that I had warned him about my PTSD triggers and that he repetitively intentionally triggered them. The inevitable result of me being triggered was losing consciousness. This happened more than once. The other Is that mid-relationship, when he experimented more with sadism, when I invoked my right to having and voicing limits, all intimate interaction stopped. Not just sadism, and not just sexuality. All of it. From then on we barely so much as even kissed. But he still wanted to order me around so I would do his housework and so he could influence my weight-lifting and diet, and ultimately, my appearance. When we saw each-other, we pretty much just sat and watched TV shows films that he wanted to watch. That’s it.

It is apparent now like his intentions were toxic. It seems he was only interested in sadism if it was unwanted. That is not BDSM. That is abuse. If someone in the BDSM community ever crossed the lines of consent, they would and have been banned, shunned, and stigmatized as dangerous and not permitted to participate in the community, even socially.

So, while I had allowed myself to genuinely love the man, I felt a great deal of cognitive dissonance when he started lying to me. The first lie was about the duffel bag. He the day he disposed of it, he had told me that he needed to suddenly leave my house to go help out his then spouse with a computer problem. But she said he did not help her with a computer issue, and that me never even showed up at their apartment. It was only later, when I was recording him, that I learned that was the day he was seen leaving the apartment with a duffel bag. When I asked him, while recording, about the duffel bag, he stated that he had a ‘cat tower’ for my cats in the duffel bag, and that he had left it outside on the driveway, and that it was not there when he came back. The problems with this statement are as follows:
1.) There was very little chance that where I lived anyone would steal a random duffel. I lived in an area that was quite safe.
2.) Why would he bring a duffel out of the car parked in front of the house all the way up to the house only to leave it at the door? Why not leave it in the car even if it were some kind of surprise? Why would he have expended the extra effort? It was not like him to exert any more effort than necessary. In fact, it was not even like him to bring me any kind of gift unless it had a direct benefit to him. (Perfect example? Him bringing the my collar to the vigil)
3.) He had stated that his then spouse was allergic to cats, therefore, it could not have been a used cat item. If it was new, then, why would it be in a duffel bag? That man was not the type to take the time as expend the energy to take the contents of a box and transfer the to a duffel bag.
4.) He was gone for a considerable amount of time, yet said he was helping his spouse, who stated to me directly that there was no computer issue and that he never stopped by.

This was in one of the earlier recordings. At that point, the web of lies he offered me became increasingly clumsy until he started incrementally conceding bits of truth.

By that time, I very much wanted out of the relationship, but my relationship remaining in tact was critical to maintaining a position that would provide the most information possible. I held true to my stance from the very moment I was asked if I would be willing to make the recordings: if (IF) he had done nothing wrong, my recordings would be innocuous, but if he was involved I wanted to make use of the unique position I was in to obtain information otherwise unavailable and to get answers. I was aware that nobody could cast me out of the picture through marital privilege or intimidation tactics.

The latter was attempted and it was absolutely disgusting how it was carried out. Among other things, I was asked by messengers of the defense team to consider ‘IF I WANTED HIM TO DIE’ after I had explicitly stated that I did not consent to speaking with them not once, not twice, but three times, and on private property. It took a fourth time of me repeating that I would not be speaking with them (other than to express that I would not speak with them) as well as me taking a few steps towards them and using my height and stature and a much more assertive tone to finally get them to leave where I was presently residing.

I include all of this not to whine or complain, but so people know how some things work. For me, the more times people lie to me and try to manipulate me, the easier it is to recognize. But if there’s anyone out there being lied to, I hope they can feel even a bit more empowered to challenge manipulation tactics. It’s not easy, and it is often difficult for victims to realize. It’s not a victim’s fault for being manipulated, and it’s not weak to not be able to speak up. Its strong to survive at all. It took many people treating me with dignity and respect to realize that it was even an option to ask to be treated humanely, let alone fight for it.

So, when I hear people make conjectures about how I wanted to ‘prove’ his innocence as opposed to watch him weave and weave and weave himself into a corner, it can be grating. But at the same time, I do my best to understand that the narrative the media latched onto was clearly not the narrative of what happened to YingYing, it was centered around the criminal, likely because focusing on him was more sensationalistic for most media than focusing on her. Also, focusing on her would illicit emotions of helplessness and loss in viewers and readers, whereas focusing on him and the narrative his defense team painted would make people hungry for more, furled by disgust and rage. And associating him with me and the social minorities I am a part of made for some lazy scapegoating.

Blaming polyamory is ironic because, were he not in a relationship with me, he could and would have hid behind marital privilege.

Blaming BSDM or kink is ridiculous because his interest in BDSM stops at consent. BDSM minus enthusiastic consent is abuse. Period. He was not interested in designing consensual experiences within the boundaries of consent, he wanted to know how much he could defy boundaries of consent already laid out. As soon as I pushed back and explicitly said pushing boundaries was not acceptable between us, I was no longer an intriguing plaything.

So, the moment people inquired if I would consent to recording, I was completely willing to have a chance to learn why he was lying to me and, more importantly, if he had pushed limits much farther than I had ever imagined with someone else in a direction that still makes me feel ill to think about.

As someone who has been a victim in the past (which the defense also attempted to weaponize against me in pre-trial motions), I understood that if I could be committed to learning as much as possible from the least biased perspective as humanly possible, any discomfort I experienced as a result was the price of justice. Again, I chose to pay it forward as an investment.

I would say that on a continuum of suspecting he was involved, I attempted to not develop a stance, rather, I was focused on obtaining information. If my goal was to find him innocent or guilty, the veneer of my relationship would crack open and my goal would show. If I had no goal but to seek that my character and conversation was convincingly loyal, however grotesque that made me feel, I would be able to obtain far more information and I would be able to uphold the veneer of my role. That is why the public broadcasting of my voice is revolting to me, because the person represented in those recordings is not a representation of me. If I spoke my mind, all would be lost. So I incrementally became the person, conversationally, it seemed that he wanted, which was most often the polar opposite of how I felt. That’s the version of me that was broadcast, the shallow veneer created to complete a task. I think it’s fair that I explain as much. I have spent years watching without saying much. I am selective about the words I choose, and I am selective with how I use my voice.

I hope that much is useful to those who have wondered. And I hope it is articulated clearly enough to follow.

Stay safe,

TEB

 

[dm92]

@TEB

thank you again for all you have done. You may not *feel* like it, but you are incredibly brave -then and now.

This is not how things went with that man. From the start, he was interested in ‘moving the lines,’ in pushing boundaries. Instead of respecting boundaries to establish what was acceptable, he was more interested in seeing if he could change what those boundaries were and where lines were drawn. While I would have far more discretion now, I was vulnerable then. And my vulnerability was fueled by his feigned concern for and ‘care’ if me. He made me feel like my well being was improved by him despite him pushing me past my clearly articulated boundaries.

There are two incredibly alarming red flags with him. One was that I had warned him about my PTSD triggers and that he repetitively intentionally triggered them. The inevitable result of me being triggered was losing consciousness. This happened more than once. The other Is that mid-relationship, when he experimented more with sadism, when I invoked my right to having and voicing limits, all intimate interaction stopped. Not just sadism, and not just sexuality. All of it. From then on we barely so much as even kissed. But he still wanted to order me around so I would do his housework and so he could influence my weight-lifting and diet, and ultimately, my appearance. When we saw each-other, we pretty much just sat and watched TV shows films that he wanted to watch. That’s it.

One of the most disgusting things at the trial for me was an instance where it appeared they were blaming you for contributing to what he had done. Because of my work schedule, I wasn't able to attend much of the trial at the satellite facility in the Urbana courthouse, but I was able to make the closing arguments. I have to paraphrase what she said because I don't have a transcript in front of me, but at one point, Elisabeth Pollock stated that "TEB introduced Brendt to BDSM, and for the first time, Brendt linked sex with violence." My eyes nearly rolled out of my head at that comment. it was disgusting to suggest that you had contributed in any way to what he had done, and she would have to be a complete moron to believe anyone would buy the notion that *this* was the first time Brendt "linked sex with violence." I am almost certain that he had been desiring and contemplating this act for a long, long time.

 

[TEB]

@TEB

thank you again for all you have done. You may not *feel* like it, but you are incredibly brave -then and now.



One of the most disgusting things at the trial for me was an instance where it appeared they were blaming you for contributing to what he had done. Because of my work schedule, I wasn't able to attend much of the trial at the satellite facility in the Urbana courthouse, but I was able to make the closing arguments. I have to paraphrase what she said because I don't have a transcript in front of me, but at one point, Elisabeth Pollock stated that "TEB introduced Brendt to BDSM, and for the first time, Brendt linked sex with violence." My eyes nearly rolled out of my head at that comment. it was disgusting to suggest that you had contributed in any way to what he had done, and she would have to be a complete moron to believe anyone would buy the notion that *this* was the first time Brendt "linked sex with violence." I am almost certain that he had been desiring and contemplating this act for a long, long time.

Thank you for you kind words towards me.

You are correct, what people say, even kindly to me, is difficult for me to internalize still. But I don’t want to live wondering what I could have done and didn’t do. I own my mistakes and failures just as much as I own my strengths. I’m still learning who I am, and who I can be. It takes time to process. And I have a great deal to learn.

With regard to the closing statement you mentioned, be perfectly honest, it’s quite simple. BDSM is not violence. It is a consensually arranged exchange of power.

Violence is colloquially defined as ‘behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.’ The more legal or criminally applicable definition, according to my very brief and basic publicly accessible research is ‘the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.”

The intent of BDSM is not to harm someone even when hurting them, and to only cause consensual sensations or emotions. The only physical force in BDSM is that which is explicitly requested. That would disqualify it from being violence.

Moreover, BDSM play is not inherently sexual. In fact, the extent where sexuality and BDSM overlap is only a narrow area. I will be blunt, that man and I did not mix the two. It takes a huge degree of trust and the learning curve is high. To combine the intimacy of sexuality with the mental, emotional, and physical mutual coordination and negotiations required for BDSM would take much longer for an unseasoned person to navigate without experience. But the defense would not know as much unless the defendant conceded that much, and I do believe his ego would be in the way of him admitting as much, even to himself, let alone his defense team.

I stated that I introduced him to BDSM but did not have the space to explain the context before the defense asked me to define BDSM, flogging, and pansexuality. His defense team did what many defense teams throughout history have done: they found scapegoats in less understood social minorities and tried to shift responsibility (and attention) away from his decisions to someone less socially acceptable.

It was always either blamed on me or on his own life circumstances. Much can be said, but no amount of rhetoric changes the fact that he was and is entirely responsible for his actions and the choices he made. And my calm but complete refusal to buy into the shame people attempted to bring upon me is something I hope stays with people. It was not easy, but it was necessary.

 

[CousinYeti]

@dm92 - I think I may have covered your questions in my responses to Parametric regarding MC — save one. If not, please fire away again.

Regarding the search at their apartment on June 14/15, it was a bizarre series of events. Christensen answered the door in his underwear, then let a bunch of agents in. The apartment isn’t that big (it’s now being used as a leasing office), so MC had to have known that people were filing in. She walked out in her birthday suit, and when one of the agents (I think Mark Hill) asked if she would be more comfortable in clothes, she said she was fine. At that point, Agent Katie Tenaglia took her back to get a robe. That’s just the agents trying to be professional. As for MC, she and her husband were obsessed with their workouts and appearance. MC spent countless hours on jail calls with her husband talking about working out, her other relationships, and her appearance. It was clear she wanted people to notice, and I suspect her coming out naked was part of that—a cry for attention, if you will.

My interactions with MC were pleasant. She’s a complicated person who was in an awkward spot here. She was trying to disengage from a dead end relationship, but still remain loyal to her husband. I think she tried to tell the truth, and I hope she is able to move forward in a positive fashion now.

I would love to hear from all of you, your frustrations, or things you think we could have done better, or differently. I know the lack of public search efforts was a big frustration. Right or wrong, that’s just not how our local FBI operates. They try to keep a tight lid on things. That does not, however, mean they are not thorough. They worked around the clock for a month, and then the two case agents, who are both phenomenal at what they do, worked round the clock for the next couple years helping us prepare for trial.

 

[dm92]

@dm92 - I think I may have covered your questions in my responses to Parametric regarding MC — save one. If not, please fire away again.

Regarding the search at their apartment on June 14/15, it was a bizarre series of events. Christensen answered the door in his underwear, then let a bunch of agents in. The apartment isn’t that big (it’s now being used as a leasing office), so MC had to have known that people were filing in. She walked out in her birthday suit, and when one of the agents (I think Mark Hill) asked if she would be more comfortable in clothes, she said she was fine. At that point, Agent Katie Tenaglia took her back to get a robe. That’s just the agents trying to be professional. As for MC, she and her husband were obsessed with their workouts and appearance. MC spent countless hours on jail calls with her husband talking about working out, her other relationships, and her appearance. It was clear she wanted people to notice, and I suspect her coming out naked was part of that—a cry for attention, if you will.

My interactions with MC were pleasant. She’s a complicated person who was in an awkward spot here. She was trying to disengage from a dead end relationship, but still remain loyal to her husband. I think she tried to tell the truth, and I hope she is able to move forward in a positive fashion now.

I would love to hear from all of you, your frustrations, or things you think we could have done better, or differently. I know the lack of public search efforts was a big frustration. Right or wrong, that’s just not how our local FBI operates. They try to keep a tight lid on things. That does not, however, mean they are not thorough. They worked around the clock for a month, and then the two case agents, who are both phenomenal at what they do, worked round the clock for the next couple years helping us prepare for trial.

Yes, the red top was addressed in your response to Parametric. I will always wonder if part of Christensen's motivation with having her wear red was as a subtle insult to Yingying's family, but that is just speculation on my part.

You also addressed the issue of the blood on the bed and possible dismemberment there. I will have some follow-up on that tomorrow, but I don't have time to write it now (it will be hard to write -it is heartbreaking and infuriating to think about what she endured during the 2~3 hours of her life; she didn't deserve a second of it).

I have many more questions, but I will leave off here with just one, because it relates to the search of the apartment: why did the FBI get a search warrant for *only* his car at the outset? Given the exigency presented by Yingying still being missing AND the strong likelihood that Christensen had lied to agents about where he was on June 9th in his initial contact with the FBI on June 12, why did they not seek a warrant for searching both the car *and* the apartment?

As far as frustrations/different-better stuff, I can't really think of anything at the moment. These type of cases, I think, lend themselves to being frustrating. We can be thankful that he used a rare car with distinguishing characteristics, got caught on camera picking her up, and was stupid enough to 1) make her bleed so profusely on the bed and 2) *keep* the baseball bat he used on her. I really don't know at the moment what investigators realistically could have done differently that might have been an improvement. If I think of anything, I will bring it up.

 

[Parametric]

The guy was a homebody, he didn’t have friends, and I just think he never left Champaign County. Others wonder, and those others are smart people that I respect. What do you think?

Knowing what I know now, I think he probably stayed in the area. You touched on this earlier in the thread but all of his behavior is consistent with having a sloppy, low-effort personality, so why he would suddenly become methodical in this singular aspect of his crime would require an explanation -- most of which seem less plausible than the prevailing theory, when all else is considered.

It's also possible he did leave the CU area, but it wasn't directly related to the crime. Maybe he simply went for a long drive later in the weekend, after he'd already cleaned up.


I did have another question or two, after dm92's:

I was surprised at how little admissible physical evidence (I think I'm saying that correctly) there was, outside of the blood stains in the bedroom. I haven't looked at the details in a while, but I don't believe anything in the car was admissible. There were no hairs found, fibers, skin cells, no fingerprints or fingernails, or even soil from YYZ's shoes that could have linked her to Christensen. That is also true of the apartment (again, excluding the bedroom). The bathroom was obviously a key point of interest but I don't believe it yielded much admissible evidence, and there was some controversy around a cadaver dog showing interest in the bathroom sink.

Assuming I'm not completely wrong on the above, I'm wondering:

1) How come?

2) Was there any evidence that strongly supported the case against Christensen, but wasn't conclusive enough to meet the criteria for being admissible. For example, I seem to remember there were small traces of blood spatter in the car and shower, though it couldn't be determined it was Ying Ying's. I'm sure I'm not using the correct terminology here but you get the spirit of the question, I think.


As to your question about what could be done differently or better, I honestly don't know. I'm nowhere near enough of an expert to critique an FBI investigation and I have personal experience with how wrong information is often worse than no information so I completely understand keeping a tight lid on things.

 

[CousinYeti]

@dm92 - Your question is an interesting one, especially in hindsight. We probably had enough PC for the apartment too at the time, but we considered it risky (or I should say, I considered it risky - the agents always want to advance the investigation, while we have to advance the investigation while ensuring the evidence will be admissible at trial). As with any Monday morning quarterbacking, it’s important to put things in context when exercising hindsight.

Remember, two agents, Joel Smith and Mike Carter (both great - we were really blessed to have a talented bunch of agents here at the time. They often aren’t here long before they transfer to other, more “desirable” locations after a couple years) contacted Christensen at his apartment on June 12. Christensen was cooperative - he let the agents in the car and in the apartment. At the time they were ready to seize the Astra, they already knew he had consented to one search, and they hadn’t found Yingying there. They had no reason to believe Christensen would not be cooperative again. It’s a heavy ask to say, “hey, you mind if we take your car to do a deep search? It might take weeks,” We had no choice on the car, we had to get a warrant. The apartment though, we could afford to take a softer approach.

It wasn’t until June 14 that law enforcement identified the Astra as Christensen’s car (through the hubcap defect). Tony Manganaro and I spent that evening drafting a lengthy search warrant for the car while everyone else prepared. What did we want out of the night? We wanted to seize the Astra, since it was the one thing we absolutely knew tied to Yingying, we wanted to search the apartment if possible, and more than anything, we wanted to speak with both BC and MC. In hindsight, we probably could have gotten a warrant for the apartment up front too, but it was a close call on whether we had enough PC based on what we knew. Remember, every warrant has to be supported by probable cause. That probable cause applies to each unit to be searched. For example, if you are driving down the road and get stopped for speeding, and an officer sees a crack pipe on the passenger seat, he now has probable cause to search the car under the plain view doctrine and the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. Just because the officer can search the car at that point without a warrant, that does not mean he can go to your house too to search for more drugs. He has to have probable cause to support a search there as well - in other words, some reason to believe there are drugs in the house too. In our case, the agents had already walked through the apartment and not found anything. They had nothing really tying the crime to the apartment—Christensen even drove north, away from his apartment after picking up Yingying. Even if our judge would have signed a warrant, we ran the risk of the warrant being tossed later (before trial) if another judge thought there wasn’t enough PC - which would’ve left us without any evidence we found during the search at trial. To me, it just wasn’t worth the risk. Moreover, even if we could get the warrant, that was a very heavy handed approach that was likely to shut BC down from talking to us.

Given Christensen had already been cooperative, they thought a softer touch might work before going nuclear. Had he told us to pound sand, we could’ve still gone and tried to get the warrant for the apartment. The approach we took allowed us to soft play things - “hey, we have to take the car, I’m sorry, but we just wanna talk with you, see what you know, can you help us?” The turning point was when MC convinced BC to go talk to Tony and Eric Stiverson. Andy Huckstadt and Katie Tenaglia (both great) stayed with MC and got a treasure trove of information, much of which we couldn’t use at trial because of marital privilege. She consented to the apartment search though, which was as good as any warrant, and BC gave up just enough in the interview to confirm he was our guy, which is how we hoped it would play out.

The really difficult thing about that night was after the interview. At that point, we had confirmed the guy lied to federal agents, which is a federal felony. We also knew he was probably our guy based on the interview, his demeanor, and Yingying being last seen in his car...not to mention MC’s statements about his behavior and desires. So we could arrest him, but didn’t really have enough to prove a kidnapping, much less a murder. We had seized the computers and devices for search, but those searches would take time. We had a trace evidence team coming to search the apartment later on June 15, but again, those results take time. The FBI management wanted to arrest him on the false statements charge, assuring me they would get the evidence we needed for the kidnapping from the searches while we kept him in custody awaiting trial for the false statements charge. I’m on the clock once I charge someone though. I needed to prove a kidnapping-murder and didn’t want to be stuck putting a murderer on trial for a false statements charge if the searches fell through (in other words, didn’t produce enough evidence). We also still had a missing person with no real leads on where she was. Our office ultimately decided to let BC go and not pursue the false statements charge at that time so we could gather the evidence we needed for the appropriate charge—and hopefully find Yingying. It was one of the most difficult decisions I’ve ever been part of, letting a suspected murderer walk out of a jail so we could gather more evidence. Thankfully, TEB is who she is, and the trace evidence did turn up enough of what we needed to support what he told TEB. Those were some stressful weeks though. FBI and other agencies had him on 24 hour surveillance from June 16 through June 30. Had we arrested him, we never get the statements, and I’m not sure just the trace evidence is enough for a murder charge, so it worked out for the best. What would you have done in our shoes in that moment?

 

[CousinYeti]

@Parametric - Regarding the evidence — every agent or prosecutor always wants more. Thankfully, we had enough.

You are correct that we got nothing out of the car. He cleaned it well. The best we could do was show the extent of the cleaning. They tore that car apart. If there had been anything there, it would’ve been found, and we would have used it. I was surprised we got nothing.

I feel like we got some quality evidence out of the apartment. No-body homicide are pretty rare cases, and proving them is difficult. Having Yingying’s DNA there proved she was likely in that apartment (they could always argue transference). Having her DNA in a blood stain proved there was some force or foul play. Having her DNA on a weapon is about as good as it gets in a no-body homicide case. One things I would have liked to do was get an expert to evaluate how much blood would have had to have been shed to soak into the floorboard and under the carpet. If it was enough volume that someone could not have lived, it would have been a nice additional piece. There is no guarantee an expert could say that though, and it would have been a big risk.

Christensen cleaned well. The agents took everything from the bathroom, including the pipes. They thought they would find bone fragments, or something, but they didn’t. He poured a ton of Drano down that drain, and had a professional cleaning crew come spray the bathroom for “mold.” When the cadaver smelled the drain, three weeks later, it recoiled as if its nose had been burned because of the overwhelming chemical smell. The dog did alert underneath the vanity, a place BC undoubtedly did not clean. All told, I guess I thought we did pretty good out of the apartment given how much cleaning he did. To your point, we always want more though.

As far as additional evidence of guilt that we didn’t get to use, the biggest piece was MD’s statement. If true, it would have been devastating for him in the penalty phase. The judge didn’t let us use it though.

 

[Parametric]

@CousinYeti -

Thank you again for such thorough replies. As horrible as this situation was, it's a testament to your professionalism that you can go into these details without the discussion taking on a callous tone. I'm glad there are people like you out there, willing to engage this side this of life on behalf of victims and their families.

You've asked us what we think the investigation team could done have better. So let me ask you: what do you think we could do better in the future? "We" is the royal we (the public) in this case, but I do live in CU so if there's anything specific to this area, I'd be happy to hear it.