Deceased/Not Found IL - Yingying Zhang, 26, Urbana, 9 June 2017 #4 *Arrest*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
BC looks Mad as Heck! Hahaha good. Get use to the bars <modsnip>

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320AZ using Tapatalk
Gotta wonder what he's feeling about now... still feeling in control; as long as they got no body they got a poor case... or is his world entirely crumbling... does he realize he has no future (the guy who wanted to "experience" so much)... gotta be sinking in.
<modsnip>
 
That or the law firm took this on pro bono.

I don't think they took this on pro-bono, That usually occurs when a firm or an attorney sees that there will be high publicity or a real injustice and the client has little resources or access to resources and they feel compelled to help. In this case the firm already is well known and it was mentioned early on some of the other cases they had. It seems to be and you folks can correct me if I am wrong when firms take on pro-bono cases they make it known, yes for the publicity and to make their own statement. I think the firm was chosen for their reputation. I would guess the wife (if she has money married to a student) and/ or other family are going to be footing the bill. This has a real potential to be a very, very expensive trial. The lawyers will make out big time whether he wins or loses. His family most likely if they are not wealthy, will experience grave financial losses. My opinion.
 
[video=twitter;883094250195488768]https://twitter.com/WCIA3Aaron/status/883094250195488768[/video]

Surely his lawyers advised him to plead not guilty? Have his lawyers by now listened to the audio of BC explaining how he kidnapped YY and have determined that it is not very damaging, can be refuted, etc? Have they looked at the reports of what was found in the car/apartment, on his phone and computer, etc? The Brunos must have reason to believe that they can get him out of this, I would assume. Can someone with a better legal understanding than me weigh in please?
 
I'm still catching up (as usual). Sorry if this has been discussed.

From the link Ambitioned posted:



This sounds like the couple lives together, right?

Plus, my other question is, after deducting expenses it leaves $650 spending money for food, petrol, gym, etc, for the two of them. Is this an adequate amount do you all think? It sounds not enough to me.


I have been thinking student loan money, perhaps.
 
If last ping was in fact there he nearly immediately took her phone probably within 2 minutes, which makes obvious sense

.He probably told about the "panic" thinking the more truthful his account of droppng her off, the better he'd fare on that statement on a lie detector?

I felt more like he was telling that as a sort of guilt trip as to what he should have done. He knew he still had a chance to let it all go if he would have dropped her off when she started panicking, ("Ooops. Missed your stop. Alright, I'll let you out.") But, instead he went through with it. It keeps going through his head, that he should have/could have just let her out at that moment.
 
Surely his lawyers advised him to plead not guilty? Have his lawyers by now listened to the audio of BC explaining how he kidnapped YY and have determined that it is not very damaging, can be refuted, etc? Have they looked at the reports of what was found in the car/apartment, on his phone and computer, etc? The Brunos must have reason to believe that they can get him out of this, I would assume. Can someone with a better legal understanding than me weigh in please?

Or maybe their client is just very stubborn and is determined to try his luck at trial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Still catching up, sorry if this has already been posted:

I am wondering if BC threatened the person he told about kidnapping YZ, to not tell anyone or else.

Additionally, Freres said Christensen was heard describing how Zhang fought and resisted him while he held her against her will, and threatening someone close to the case. Freres did not specify whom Christensen threatened or what the substance of the threat was.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...scholar-detention-hearing-20170705-story.html
 
Surely his lawyers advised him to plead not guilty? Have his lawyers by now listened to the audio of BC explaining how he kidnapped YY and have determined that it is not very damaging, can be refuted, etc? Have they looked at the reports of what was found in the car/apartment, on his phone and computer, etc? The Brunos must have reason to believe that they can get him out of this, I would assume. Can someone with a better legal understanding than me weigh in please?


In my experience, every defendant initially pleads not guilty. Not unusual at all. Plea can be changed later.
 
Surely his lawyers advised him to plead not guilty? Have his lawyers by now listened to the audio of BC explaining how he kidnapped YY and have determined that it is not very damaging, can be refuted, etc? Have they looked at the reports of what was found in the car/apartment, on his phone and computer, etc? The Brunos must have reason to believe that they can get him out of this, I would assume. Can someone with a better legal understanding than me weigh in please?

The defense will get limited discovery at the preliminary hearing with full discovery soon after that and definitely way before trial
 
Surely his lawyers advised him to plead not guilty? Have his lawyers by now listened to the audio of BC explaining how he kidnapped YY and have determined that it is not very damaging, can be refuted, etc? Have they looked at the reports of what was found in the car/apartment, on his phone and computer, etc? The Brunos must have reason to believe that they can get him out of this, I would assume. Can someone with a better legal understanding than me weigh in please?

I agree it rattles the mind and heart that he is pleading "not guilty". But remember if he pleads guilty next step is sentencing. And they are not going to go easy on him based on how horrific, premeditated, perverted and soulless this crime is. They don't have a body yet and as big of a braggart he was regarding the kidnapping, he is not going to give that up unless it's a really big trade. So he is going to plead not guilty it is the only slim chance he has. Remember if there is reasonable doubt he could go free.
 
The defense will get limited discovery at the preliminary hearing with full discovery soon after that and definitely way before trial

So they haven't seen anything yet?
 
I wonder if the defence lawyers only get the evidence once their client is actually indicted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
An indictment may come before the prelim date in Illinois if a grand jury is convened first. With his prelim 1week away it should doubtful in this case
 
I wonder if the defence lawyers only get the evidence once their client is actually indicted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They file for it at the indictment right?


Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
Has anyone determined whether BC still owned the older Camaro? He could have used the Saturn for the abduction and then without his partner knowing it transferred Yingying's body to the Camero. If BC used the Camero to take Yingying to a final location there would not be GPS tracking.

It really bothers me that there has not been any known search team efforts to recover her body.
 
Surely his lawyers advised him to plead not guilty? Have his lawyers by now listened to the audio of BC explaining how he kidnapped YY and have determined that it is not very damaging, can be refuted, etc? Have they looked at the reports of what was found in the car/apartment, on his phone and computer, etc? The Brunos must have reason to believe that they can get him out of this, I would assume. Can someone with a better legal understanding than me weigh in please?
Defense lawyers normally advise clients to plead not guilty: it's based on the legal principal of 'innocent until proven guilty'. I don't think they ask whether the client did it or not, or try to figure that out. Their job is to ensure their client gets a fair trial.

They'll often just take a passive stance and see if the prosecution can supply sufficient evidence to persuade the court to find the client guilty. They'll try to cast doubt on the validity of the evidence in a court of law, which might be eg were the proper warrants in place for the wiretapping, again more about technicalities. They may not offer any coherent alternative scenario at all, since they can't usually supply proof, they'll just try to discredit the case the prosecution presents.

The lawyer won't have seen any evidence yet, that comes after the trial date is set. Lawyers have many clients on the go, and at this stage won't be dedicating much time to the case.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
181
Guests online
1,002
Total visitors
1,183

Forum statistics

Threads
599,501
Messages
18,095,921
Members
230,865
Latest member
Truth Exposed
Back
Top