Deceased/Not Found IL - Yingying Zhang, 26, Urbana, 9 June 2017 #5 *Arrest*

[Skigirl]

With all due respect, every foreign national in the US is a guest of the US. A status which can be rescinded at any time. All foreign nationals, be they student, business person, actor, athlete, head of state, apply for a visa. As a student and not say a tourist, she needed a sponsor for a visa that would allow her to stay for an extended period of time. The University was her sponsor and may have considered her a "guest" but she was a guest of the US Government.

Afraid not -- "official guest" has a very specific meaning in the Act for the Protection of Foreign Officials and Official Guests of the United States -- they have to be designated as such by the Secretary of State, that does not mean that everyone here who is a "guest" (i.e., not a citizen but here on a visa) is a guest for the purposes of federal jurisdiction in the event of a crime.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1116

 

[Webthrush]

I keep looking into landfills a bit and am discouraged reading about how often bodies deposited in landfills are NEVER discovered. Depending how a body is ‘wrapped’ (protected from the elements) when deposited, you may be dealing with summer heat & weather, animal-and-insect depredation, an immense volume of material (especially if searching didn’t begin ’til days or weeks after a deposit), and also compaction by the delivery trucks. A few bone fragments may yet be found (and that’s all that’s needed for identification), but cost and practicality may preclude such a lengthy search. Sad to admit I'm now open to the possibility that YY might never be found

 

[Calzone]

Afraid not -- "official guest" has a very specific meaning in the Act for the Protection of Foreign Officials and Official Guests of the United States -- they have to be designated as such by the Secretary of State, that does not mean that everyone here who is a "guest" (i.e., not a citizen but here on a visa) is a guest for the purposes of federal jurisdiction in the event of a crime.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1116

"No, university-affiliated students or scholars are university guests, not US government guests."

Your original post, quoted above, made no mention of "official guest". It was a blanket statement that all foreign students are university guests as if universities have some ability to circumvent the visa process, which they don't. Students may apply for a F, J, or M visa which is issued by the US Department of State of which the Secretary of State is the chief executive. "Official guest" designation has been delegated to the Chief of Protocol. We don't have enough information to know whether Yingying was an official guest as designated by the Chief of Protocol (doubtful), but we do believe she was a visa holder (highly likely) and as such was a guest of the USG.

 

[Hithermethis]

Looking ahead to Friday- what time is BC court appearance and what is being decided? Anyone planning on going that I can follow on Twitter for updates?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SteveP]

With all the discussion about the apparent lack of searches for YingYing, I am reminded of how infrequently general searches ever find anyone. Britanee Drexel, who originally brought me to WS, vanished from Ocean Blvd in Myrtle Beach during spring break 2009, and despite countless searches, spanning weeks, months, and even years, she has never been found, although investigators at least now know why (but continue to search still). Holly Bobo disappeared from woods directly behind her house in April 2011, and despite weeks and months of organized searches, she was basically stumbled upon some 3 years later. Kelli Bordeaux, a Fort Bragg soldier, had countless searches, and was only found 2 years after her murder, when her killer led investigators to her remains. I could go on and on. Sierra Lamar, still unfound several years later, after months of searches. Morgan Harrington found by a farmer just checking his property long after organized searches had ended. Mickey Shunick was found in about 3 months, but not by searchers, and Hannah Graham was found in a relatively quick 5 weeks, again, not by searchers. I am not meaning to imply that public searches can never be helpful, because they can be, although more often than not, they do not result in victims being found. And apparently, for whatever reason, LE seems to feel they are not needed in this case. JMO

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[MomminIt]

With all the discussion about the apparent lack of searches for YingYing, I am reminded of how infrequently general searches ever find anyone. Britanee Drexel, who originally brought me to WS, vanished from Ocean Blvd in Myrtle Beach during spring break 2009, and despite countless searches, spanning weeks, months, and even years, she has never been found, although invesyigators at leadt now know why (but continue to search still). Holly Bobo disappeared from woods directly behind her house in April 2011, and despite weeks and months of organized searches, she was basically stumbled upon some 3 years later. Kelli Bordeaux, a Fort Bragg soldier, had countless searches, and was only found 2 years after her murder, when her killer led investigators to her remains. I could go on and on. Sierra Lamar, still unfound several years later, after months of searches. Morgan Harrington found by a farmer just checking his property long after organized searches had ended. Mickey Shun8ck was found in about 3 months, but not by searchers, and Hannah Graham was found in a relatively quick 5 weeks, again, not by searchers. I am not meaning to imply that publ8c searches can never be helpful, because they can be, although more often thN not, they do not result in victims being found. And apparently, for whatever reason, LE seems to feel they are not needed in this case. JMO

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

I agree with your point & Let's not forget Caylee Anthony, so close to her own backyard. Found after the area was searched extensively by a meter reader.

 

[Hatfield]

At some point in our lives we all are susceptible to a degree to charm and flattery, whether it is for nefarious reasons or not.

Agree but I really think her appointment that she was late for caused her to let her guard down and accept the ride if he offered her a ride.

She had just missed her bus and if he pulled up and asked her if she needed a lift then she would have thought. What great luck because she was late for her appointment for the apartment lease.

 

[Hatfield]

I wanted to add too that college towns sometime have a more open atmosphere amongst the college age students. She may have saw his age and thought he was a fellow student and would have never thought in a million years that he would turn out to be a killer.

She may have actually known him as a student teacher from seeing him in school too.

 

[sherpa14]

I wanted to add too that college towns sometime have a more open atmosphere amongst the college age students. She may have saw his age and thought he was a fellow student and would have never thought in a million years that he would turn out to be a killer.

She may have actually known him as a student teacher from seeing him in school too.

she had not taken any classes and only had been here for a month

 

[Hatfield]

I keep looking into landfills a bit and am discouraged reading about how often bodies deposited in landfills are NEVER discovered. Depending how a body is ‘wrapped’ (protected from the elements) when deposited, you may be dealing with summer heat & weather, animal-and-insect depredation, an immense volume of material (especially if searching didn’t begin ’til days or weeks after a deposit), and also compaction by the delivery trucks. A few bone fragments may yet be found (and that’s all that’s needed for identification), but cost and practicality may preclude such a lengthy search. Sad to admit I'm now open to the possibility that YY might never be found

Thanks for checking into it and I agree it is such a daunting task that could be like finding a needle in a haystack.

The other problem as I see it is I am not sure they would get a lot of volunteers willing to be able to handle searching a landfill pile. The smells and danger would be pretty bad. There may even be liability concerns from the landfill owner that any searching would have to overcome the permission aspect of getting to search there.

I can only recall one other case where they ended up searching a landfill and found someone. I dont remember the persons name but I do remember them saying it was like a miracle that they even found the person.

 

[citigirl]

My apologies on the complaint- I read the complaint very close back when it was posted 2 weeks ago and it is really an affidavit, it's not a regular complaint like you see in a civil case which is what I thought it was initially when it was kept being referred to as a complaint. Moreover, it was signed by the FBI agent-we don't know who wrote it or if it was written in part from a template; it does not say it was written by him (court case opinions for instance are signed by the judges, but everyone knows that law clerks often write the first draft or often the whole thing, I would defer to anyone who knows how things work in IL on how it works in terms of drafting there or if FBI agents working high profile criminal cases have the time to write affidavits from scratch or rely on a template written by lawyers). I would suspect they use a template and add in their own facts about interstate commerce. My experience with experts and whatnot is that often legal issues are not the purview of FBI agents - I don't know whether this FBI agent is a lawyer - but oftentimes those legal type issues are handled by the lawyers in the US Attorneys Office not the FBI agent because if they are not a lawyer they would not know the latest constitutional law. And I got the court wrong- I did not realize Urbana would be that central to be in Central District not Southern. I don't believe the substance of what I wrote is wrong, though, if you know and read the caselaw on the commerce clause, or even if you read what a lay person could find on the internet.

Can anyone name any case where the federal court got jxn in a kidnapping case and kept it? I teach constitutional law and am a lawyer so my reading of the caselaw and law review article fails to yield any caselaw where the feds took control and kept it in a case like this. The only cases where they kept it as far as I know are ones where the body shows up in a different state or on federal property or something like murder for hire. Indeed, how is this case different from that of Nicole Lovell, the little girl that was murdered by the VA Tech students allegedly? There she was enticed on the internet, her body was found in a different state yet that trial is in VA state court. The grounds for federal jxn are even stronger there since you have a very strong interstate connection. The only difference here is that the victim is a foreign national but if you read the kidnapping law that does not matter. Why treat one case different from another especially given that the purpose of federal jxn is uniformity?

There are indeed attempts to assert jxn in cases like this based on the enticement theory. The law is fairly new though so I don't think it's a settled legal question because all appeals on those issues are not settled yet. Moreover, the cases where I have seen them trying to stretch it are clearly enticement cases like the Nicole Lovell case where the perp uses the internet to entice. I could understanding jxn being granted there and in fact I would be interested to know why that case isn't in federal court and this one is, other than they know this case is only temporarily in federal court or they got good evidence of interstate conduct like they suspect he crossed state lines to dispose of the body or evidence.

Many of you follow more cases than me - any cases where you see a kidnapping in federal court where there is no clear interstate connection other than possibly using the internet and buying a car? Maybe they have a stronger interstate connection that they don't want to tip their hand in but the facts in the complaint would almost give the feds jxn over any kidnapping case where someone buys a car or uses the Internet. they simply do not have the resources to prosecute all those cases nor do we routinely see cases like this in federal court.

I actually find it an extremely interesting constitutional law question which I may write about because to have jxn here - especially if you are asserting jxn to get around the fact that IL is not a death state- is a very interesting constitutional question and one I think would get alot of publicity and attention from legal academia and the higher courts, especially if he gets the death penalty by the federal courts taking jxn in an abduction case in a state that does not have the death penalty.

I am not a lawyer, and I haven't searched for any other cases where kidnapping leading to murder has been bumped back from federal to state jurisdiction, but could there be a simpler reason? To me, the difference between the Virginia case and this case is that Virginia has use of the death penalty while Illinois doesn't. So perhaps the police want to try the case somewhere where they might be able to get a death sentence?

I edited this to say that I think you have answered with your thoughts on this question in a later post--that a federal judge would be unlikely allow it for this reason. I will amend the question - what about kidnapping-only cases? Where a body has never been found?

 

[Webthrush]

Just a side question: BC proudly shows off his black Camaro on his FB page -- apparently he bought it in May 2016... I assume he already had the black Astra that was registered to him, but do we know when he bought it? Just wondering why he kept both cars (possibly the Astra was for his wife, even though registered in his name, or wondering if he might have kept it on-hand specifically for criminal enterprises)?

 

[citigirl]

Both feds and state could both have jxn here. What I suspect defense will do is file a motion to dismiss based on the lack of jurisdiction because there's no involvement of interstate commerce. They may wait to do it however, because right now there's a rebuttable presumption that kidnapping is out of state if more than 24 hours elapsed. So they may have a hard time rebutting that presumption and say client is innocent plus they might want to argue that some random person kidnapped her and took her out of state or whatever. Many lawyers actually prefer being in federal court too.

But once facts are out and if her body is found in state and the allegations entirely consist of activity in state, they could file a motion to dismiss based on the lack of interstate contacts. I think this would be a strong argument, especially if the only reason this case is being treated differently is because of federal death penalty. The state would then file their own complaint and he would be tried there. If activity is wholly intrastate, the feds may just agree not to prosecute at this time because they will want to preserve trying him at a later date if he should get acquitted in state court. Why would the feds want to get involved in a lengthy constitutional challenge on jxn when he can be put away by state court without those issues? In most cases they wouldn't - they would just give it back to the state. The main reason would be to give him the death penalty which he would not be able to get in state court. Holding the death penalty over him is the best leverage they have at this point to find out where the body is so why not use it? Plus, the optics of this case may be somewhat unique in that China may be pushing for death so they have incentive to keep it in federal court for now.

There may also be other reason that defense could say that the case should go back to state court, but I don't know what those would be. Most people want to remove from state to federal court in civil cases, not the other way around. Moreover, since both state and federal can charge it's not like the defense can say "hey feds, you can't charge him." They can charge him with federal kidnapping, defense could only argue 1) federal kidnapping does not apply here because no interstate conduct nor does the crime fit within any of the other fact scenarios under the federal kidnapping act; or 2) for convenience, etc. try him in state court first, then federal (that is, state a preference for trying him in state court first). State is being smart here because right now his only option is number 1 since the state has not charged him yet. Moreover, the feds would be very reluctant to treat this case differently than other cases- the whole purpose of federal involvement is national uniformity - if the state charges, their normal approach would be to defer, so if they didn't it makes it look like they are not following their own policy. They must be coordinating with the state because they get around this dilemma by the state withholding charges (though at this point, I don't know what the state could charge him with - I assume there is an IL kidnapping law, but that's probably all they can charge him with at this point).

This makes sense to me, but I have a couple of questions:

1. Could use of his phone/internet to research abduction methods be considered interstate commerce?

2. Just to be clear, if a body is not found, you are suggesting federal first, state second? If he is found not guilty in federal court, can the state still try him? What about if a body is found?

3. You did say if he was acquitted in state court, the feds could still try him? Wouldn't that be double jeopardy?

I do not think the police have found a body. I think there is a good possibility they will never find a body. I am worried about an acquittal because of that.

 

[Yellow]

I am not a lawyer, and I haven't searched for any other cases where kidnapping leading to murder has been bumped back from federal to state jurisdiction, but could there be a simpler reason? To me, the difference between the Virginia case and this case is that Virginia has use of the death penalty while Illinois doesn't. So perhaps the police want to try the case somewhere where they might be able to get a death sentence?

I edited this to say that I think you have answered with your thoughts on this question in a later post--that a federal judge would be unlikely allow it for this reason. I will amend the question - what about kidnapping-only cases? Where a body has never been found?

The purpose of federal jxn is to treat case similarly - that is, the purpose is to make sure that if someone does the same crime, one defendant is not punished more than another. To have a policy where the feds charge people in kidnapping cases in states without death penalties seems to be to be a defense attorneys dream scenario because it seems like on its face you are treating cases differently just because you want to give one the death penalty and basically the feds are making a decision to de facto impose the death penalty nationwide. That raises a whole lot of federalism issues about state's right to choose the death penalty or not.

Whether it is just a plain kidnapping case should not matter. I assume most kidnapping cases in the US that do not involve a death are probably parental kidnapping cases and they are not covered by the feds. The only reason to keep it in federal court if it's only a kidnapping is if IL law does not cover this situation or if they have a personal preference for keeping it in federal court because of optics or if indeed federal court gives longer terms.

In fact, if this case turns out to just be a kidnapping case, there may not be any difference between state and federal law in terms of penalty. Perhaps the defense may even want to keep it in federal court if it's perceived that federal prisons are "nicer."

If they later find the body, even if they go through a trial in federal court and he is convicted of federal kidnapping he can later be charged under state law for murder and abduction. Maybe that's their strategy if they fear it will take a long time to find the body or they fear the body is missing.

I still think there's something we don't know about the body. I can't recall a case where they are so definitive she is dead, yet there is no word of looking out for suspicious stuff, no searches, etc. so soon after the crime.

 

[Vail]

For anyone confused why the FBI is involved - They offer additional resources on many homicide and kidnapping cases, the background of which has been linked upthread a few times.

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/violent-crime
https://www.fbi.gov/about/faqs

Here are a few reasons they may have an interest in YingYing and this perp:

1. Liasing with the Chinese Ministry of State Security due to the possible death of their citizen on US soil.
2. Offering additional resources in the forensic investigation of this perp's online shenanigans, especially if he was using the internet to lure victims or using darknet/backpage
3. Potential YingYing was taken across state lines to be trafficked, killed or disposed of
4. Potential or suspicion of this perp having killed one or more other women
5. The crime was committed on state/federal property
6. Using any federally regulated system to perpetrate the crime (mail, email, the internet)
7. Potential crime committed in another country ( ie if there is evidence of him stalking or luring foreigners, I believe their online space is considered crossing borders)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_jurisdiction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law)

If you are just trying to figure out if they will put him through a federal trial for the death penalty, well we will just have to wait for that to be reported. First, let's focus on finding YingYing!

 

[Yellow]

This makes sense to me, but I have a couple of questions:

1. Could use of his phone/internet to research abduction methods be considered interstate commerce?

2. Just to be clear, if a body is not found, you are suggesting federal first, state second? If he is found not guilty in federal court, can the state still try him? What about if a body is found?

3. You did say if he was acquitted in state court, the feds could still try him? Wouldn't that be double jeopardy?

I do not think the police have found a body. I think there is a good possibility they will never find a body. I am worried about an acquittal because of that.

In the general sense, in civil cases, for instance, using the internet can come under the commerce clause. Like if t a company is using the internet to sell things that's interstate commerce. But in recent years, the Supreme Court has started to clamp down on the commerce clause. In the Lopez case for instance, the Court struck down a law banning guns near schools because the mere fact that guns are subject to interstate commerce does not give feds the right to regulate what should be a state activity. There are now all kinds of cases on the commerce clause and the internet, but as far as criminal law and specifically the federal kidnapping law is concerned, they find interstate commerce where it's a clear interstate connection.

The only case I found where they tried to stretch the commerce clause to include intrastate commerce was a kidnapping case in WI I think which turned out to be a hoax (girl faked kidnapping). She used the phone to co-conspire with someone and I think she used text. The case was dissolved before anything came of up so who knows what higher courts would have said about extending jxn in that case, but it's probably doubtful if that case was completed the feds would have kept jxn Moreover, in that case, the interstate conduct was clearer - she was communicating with another person over the phone to perpetuate the crime.

To extend jxn here to simply using the internet to plan a crime would subvert thousands of people more a year to federal jxn and there's no clear law that would even be possible on constitutional grounds. Moreover, as a practical matter, the feds aren't equipped to prosecute all these kidnapping cases. The Internet has been around for 20-25 years and so far I don't think they exercised jxn in those cases except where interstate internet conduct is clearly related to the crime.

There is no double jeopardy between federal and state court, So as I wrote above, feds could try him, and if those lose try him in state court or even if they win in federal court, they could try in state court. You sometimes see this in military cases where they lose in state court and then they try him in federal court or military court because he was subject to the military code of justice.

That's another why extending federal jxn in this case is problematic. If you start extending federal jxn in cases where people use the internet to plan the crime, you are essentially giving the prosecutors two bites out of the apple in thousands of cases. Prosecutors will routinely say, "oh he used the internet to plan a kidnapping," and then use multiple venues to try people, and if they lose in one, try in another. I think if that was routinely happening we would be hearing the defense lawyers in this country in an uproar.

If they don't find the body, there may not be any difference between federal or state court, if the IL state abduction law is the same and if the penalties are the same. There may however be additional state law or federal law crimes they could charge him with, which will probably be the deciding factor for venue

 

[Yellow]

For anyone confused why the FBI is involved - They offer additional resources on many homicide and kidnapping cases, the background of which has been linked upthread a few times.

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/violent-crime
https://www.fbi.gov/about/faqs

Here are a few reasons they may have an interest in YingYing and this perp:

1. Liasing with the Chinese Ministry of State Security due to the possible death of their citizen on US soil.
2. Offering additional resources in the forensic investigation of this perp's online shenanigans, especially if he was using the internet to lure victims or using darknet/backpage
3. Potential YingYing was taken across state lines to be trafficked, killed or disposed of
4. Potential or suspicion of this perp having killed one or more other women
5. The crime was committed on state/federal property
6. Using any federally regulated system to perpetrate the crime (mail, email, the internet)
7. Potential crime committed in another country ( ie if there is evidence of him stalking or luring foreigners, I believe their online space is considered crossing borders)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_jurisdiction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law)

If you are just trying to figure out if they will put him through a federal trial for the death penalty, well we will just have to wait for that to be reported. First, let's focus on finding YingYing!

Yeah, the main possible basis we know of here is it he used the internet to perpetuate the crime. Even though there's a murky constitutional issue there is all he did was use the internet to look up kidnapping scenarios, it would be problematic to show that those methods actually were the ones used to perpetuate the crime. Moreover, if multiple people had access to the computer it may be problematic to prove he alone made those searches. That issue came up in the Casey Anthony case where the mother argued she made some of those searches.

Merely having a car made out of state or buying a car out of state (I forget which one they used in the complaint) would subject pretty much thousands of people to federal jxn, and indeed, if it's the former, almost everyone buys cars made out of state. If they do want this in federal court, I hope they have more because that argument makes it look like they are grasping at straws.

 

[Skigirl]

"No, university-affiliated students or scholars are university guests, not US government guests."

Your original post, quoted above, made no mention of "official guest". It was a blanket statement that all foreign students are university guests as if universities have some ability to circumvent the visa process, which they don't. Students may apply for a F, J, or M visa which is issued by the US Department of State of which the Secretary of State is the chief executive. "Official guest" designation has been delegated to the Chief of Protocol. We don't have enough information to know whether Yingying was an official guest as designated by the Chief of Protocol (doubtful), but we do believe she was a visa holder (highly likely) and as such was a guest of the USG.

I agree that it is exceedingly doubtful that she was an official guest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[citigirl]

The purpose of federal jxn is to treat case similarly - that is, the purpose is to make sure that if someone does the same crime, one defendant is not punished more than another. To have a policy where the feds charge people in kidnapping cases in states without death penalties seems to be to be a defense attorneys dream scenario because it seems like on its face you are treating cases differently just because you want to give one the death penalty and basically the feds are making a decision to de facto impose the death penalty nationwide. That raises a whole lot of federalism issues about state's right to choose the death penalty or not.

Whether it is just a plain kidnapping case should not matter. I assume most kidnapping cases in the US that do not involve a death are probably parental kidnapping cases and they are not covered by the feds. The only reason to keep it in federal court if it's only a kidnapping is if IL law does not cover this situation or if they have a personal preference for keeping it in federal court because of optics or if indeed federal court gives longer terms.

In fact, if this case turns out to just be a kidnapping case, there may not be any difference between state and federal law in terms of penalty. Perhaps the defense may even want to keep it in federal court if it's perceived that federal prisons are "nicer."

If they later find the body, even if they go through a trial in federal court and he is convicted of federal kidnapping he can later be charged under state law for murder and abduction. Maybe that's their strategy if they fear it will take a long time to find the body or they fear the body is missing.

I still think there's something we don't know about the body. I can't recall a case where they are so definitive she is dead, yet there is no word of looking out for suspicious stuff, no searches, etc. so soon after the crime.

I agree with you...I can think of cases where, after many months or years, the victim is presumed dead. But not after such a short span of time.

 

[Tinypeeps]

I appreciate the empathetic and sober responses to my feelings of disappointment. I was sure to state the most important issue, as I see it, is getting answers for the family, not for me. This is something they have stated publicly, not something I am projecting onto them or made up. http://abcnewsgo.net/video/yxsGqqbaUtvM

More importantly, there is absolutely nothing wrong with holding LE accountable for the handling of a case (there are countless recorded instances of LE and FBI bungling a case) or taking an interest in a case. If it was wrong for people to get personally invested in tragic cases like Yingying's WS would not exist. No need to shame those who are feeling impatient. This is a hugely popular case, globally. I stated that given the likelyhood we will not learn anything new about Yingying's whereabouts until the trial (i.e. when LE/Prosecutors deem it auspicious for legal reasons) I would check back with WS then.

By the way, I am a U of I grad and I get messages everyday from faculty, students, and alumni expressing impatience with the lack of updates. So you can extend your criticism to the U of I community at large as they too care less about a legal analysis of this case, than they are with finding Yingying and for her family to have answers.

With all due respect, we have no idea what LE has told YZ's family. I believe they have most likely been very candid with them, and are working diligently to give them "answers." Is there a reason you think otherwise?