Deceased/Not Found IL - Yingying Zhang, 26, Urbana, 9 June 2017 #6 *Arrest*

[Shiressleuth]

That's great kitty. TYVM. Perhaps it can go in media thread so it is always available for all to see.

 

[Shiressleuth]

Even if BC admitted on secret taping to murdering YZ that, by itself, wouldn't necessarily carry decisive weight, and might not even be admissible in court. What I still assume LE has from the apt. is forensic evidence (which may or may not include blood), and sniffer dogs responding to the scent of human death. And yes, probably also video from his cell phone. Given the assuredness of prosecution statements, with words like "heinous," "depraved," etc. in the indictment, I'd be surprised if they don't have a very solid case. Again, I think it will soon move to an insanity plea to save him from the death penalty (JMO). But hey, we're all shootin' in the dark here.

Sounds like he threatened to do it again to a witness, which explains why they acted and arrested him so soon after the vigil. That witness will doubtless give evidence to back up the tape . I don't think he's insane, just a cold, calculated, murderer IMO.

 

[kittythehare]

That's great kitty. TYVM. Perhaps it can go in media thread so it is always available for all to see.

I was posting it specifically because it heavily suggests they know which depraved act he carried out:
defendant intentionally participated in an act, contemplating that the life of a person would be taken or intending that lethal force would be used in connection with a person
and
knowing that the act created a grave risk of death to a person, such that participation in the act constituted a reckless disregard for human life and the victim died as a direct result of the act.
What do people think?
this seems particularly suggestive of a SPECIFIC act in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse to the victim;

how can they make this statement without a body?
They MUST know detail of the methodology of his act..
??

 

[Maroon10]

I was posting it specifically because it heavily suggests they know which depraved act he carried out:
defendant intentionally participated in an act, contemplating that the life of a person would be taken or intending that lethal force would be used in connection with a person
and
knowing that the act created a grave risk of death to a person, such that participation in the act constituted a reckless disregard for human life and the victim died as a direct result of the act.
What do people think?

I think its vague intentionally to try to scare a confession or a deal.

I think they have kidnapping, but unless they massive amounts of blood inside (which hasnt been reported or ppl living with him never said anything) or have a video of actually doing the deed.

 

[kittythehare]

I think its vague intentionally to try to scare a confession or a deal.

I think they have kidnapping, but unless they massive amounts of blood inside (which hasnt been reported or ppl living with him never said anything) or have a video of actually doing the deed.

It could have been a bloodless death- like asphyxiation..hanging..drowning (bath),poisoning(drugging), beating..
Its vague but it uses the work TORTURE.. that word more than anything else in the entire indictment suggests they may have seen a video.
No body. No autopsy.
i doubt they would guess at it.. they are obliged to produce specific evidence at trial.

 

[Deleted member 158085]

That's great kitty. TYVM. Perhaps it can go in media thread so it is always available for all to see.

We don't have a media thread yet, do we? Not that there's been a whole lot of media coverage, but that could change when it goes to trial. I find media threads very useful.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Maroon10]

It could have been a bloodless death- like asphyxiation..hanging..drowning (bath),poisoning(drugging), beating..
Its vague but it uses the work TORTURE.. that word more than anything else in the entire indictment suggests they may have seen a video.
No body. No autopsy.
i doubt they would guess at it.. they are obliged to produce specific evidence at trial.

But unless that video shows an actual death, do they have enough to LEGALLY charge him with murder, not just kidnapping.

Thats what I want to find out, if he's the sole suspect, why be so close to the chest unless they dont have anything. More info might lead to more tips, clues. Thats the part I don't get.

 

[Shiressleuth]

I think its vague intentionally to try to scare a confession or a deal.

I think they have kidnapping, but unless they massive amounts of blood inside (which hasnt been reported or ppl living with him never said anything) or have a video of actually doing the deed.

I think they have him hook, line and sinker. And a grand jury indicted him just to make sure it couldn't be wriggled out of IMO. The evidence will come out at trial.

 

[Calzone]

I was posting it specifically because it heavily suggests they know which depraved act he carried out:
defendant intentionally participated in an act, contemplating that the life of a person would be taken or intending that lethal force would be used in connection with a person
and
knowing that the act created a grave risk of death to a person, such that participation in the act constituted a reckless disregard for human life and the victim died as a direct result of the act.
What do people think?
this seems particularly suggestive of a SPECIFIC act in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse to the victim;

how can they make this statement without a body?
They MUST know detail of the methodology of his act..
??

I think you are reading way too much into the indictment. If you were to google "in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse to the victim" in quotes, you will find numerous references to other indictments. The language is legaleze and not necessarily indicative of any specific act let alone torture.

 

[Calzone]

I think they have him hook, line and sinker. And a grand jury indicted him just to make sure it couldn't be wriggled out of IMO. The evidence will come out at trial.

I am very skeptical that the feds have him "hook, line, and sinker". One thing for sure is that an indictment from a grand jury is not an indication of anything. 99.99% of grand juries return an indictment.

 

[Maroon10]

I think they have him hook, line and sinker. And a grand jury indicted him just to make sure it couldn't be wriggled out of IMO. The evidence will come out at trial.

If they for sure have him, why isnt he charged with Murder? 1st or 2nd?

Why not release info on evidence in hopes of gaining a tip to find the body. If they have him hooklinesinker, what would it hurt? Not having a body is just as upsetting as evidence information being released to public.

 

[Webthrush]

I think you are reading way too much into the indictment. If you were to google "in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse to the victim" in quotes, you will find numerous references to other indictments. The language is legaleze and not necessarily indicative of any specific act let alone torture.

Yes the language is legaleze but I think for a quite specific class of acts, including as they further say, heinous, cruel, depraved acts. I don't think they'd use that language lightly or off-handedly without a LOT of evidence. It's completely normal for the police/prosecution to hold back (from the public) MOST of their evidence/details prior to trial, in order to not prejudice the jury pool.

 

[Webthrush]

If they for sure have him, why isnt he charged with Murder? 1st or 2nd?

<snip>

The legal answer may be that they don't know for certain how premeditated the murder was (was it planned all along or an offshoot of the kidnapping). He already faces the death penalty for "kidnapping leading to murder," so there's nothing further to be gained by making it a murder 1 or 2 charge.

ETA: also, just occurred to me, that a straight murder charge might revert the case back to the state of Illinois (which has NO death penalty). Kidnapping leading to murder keeps it in the Federal jurisdiction where the death penalty applies. But I'm not a lawyer, so someone correct me if I've got that wrong.

 

[kittythehare]

Yes the language is legaleze but I think for a quite specific class of acts, including as they further say, heinous, cruel, depraved acts. I don't think they'd use the language lightly or off-handedly without a LOT of evidence. It's completely normal for the police/prosecution to hold back (from the public) MOST of their evidence/details prior to trial, in order to not prejudice the jury pool.

And its also gone through the Grand Jury already
Here's a link for those that do not understand the full function and role of a GJ
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40823390
In legal terms, it determines whether probable cause exists to believe a crime has been committed.

In order to come to this conclusion, the jury is given investigative powers. It can issue subpoenas to compel people to testify or hand over documentation relating to the case.
Members can also question witnesses, who are not allowed to have lawyers in attendance.

It is in the Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment says: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."

 

[agilbe]

Just a thought. BC's first attorneys asked to be removed. They knew what the prosecution had and that it would be a lengthy process trying to defend him. Just throwing that out there. JMO

 

[Maroon10]

The kidnapping law says that prosecutors would have to prove kidnapping with intent to murder. So the murder itself might not need to be proven, and I wonder if his statements of his fantasies can be twisted to prove intent.

 

[Maroon10]

Just a thought. BC's first attorneys asked to be removed. They knew what the prosecution had and that it would be a lengthy process trying to defend him. Just throwing that out there. JMO

Thats why they left? link?

 

[Shiressleuth]

If they for sure have him, why isnt he charged with Murder? 1st or 2nd?

Why not release info on evidence in hopes of gaining a tip to find the body. If they have him hooklinesinker, what would it hurt? Not having a body is just as upsetting as evidence information being released to public.

You'd have to ask the Grand Jury or a lawyer that.

 

[agilbe]

Thats why they left? link?

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2017-09-05/attorneys-accused-kidnapper-ask-withdraw-case.html
Money was also a part of their decision.

 

[Shiressleuth]

The legal answer may be that they don't know for certain how premeditated the murder was (was it planned all along or an offshoot of the kidnapping). He already faces the death penalty for "kidnapping leading to murder," so there's nothing further to be gained by making it a murder 1 or 2 charge.

ETA: also, just occurred to me, that a straight murder charge might revert the case back to the state of Illinois (which has NO death penalty). Kidnapping leading to murder keeps it in the Federal jurisdiction where the death penalty applies. But I'm not a lawyer, so someone correct me if I've got that wrong.

Sounds right to me. If the death penalty is still on the table he may give up the body location to save his skin-if there is a body.