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

[TiffanyL_AS]

Who broke the law? The Feds must first prove who was driving the car. As I stated, from what is known publicly through the videos, you can't tell who is driving the car. To say, "he broke the law", the Feds must prove beyond a reasonable doubt who "he" is.

The Feds would have to prove that she was kidnapped AND by him. Do I believe she was the victim of a kidnapping, yes. However, what we believe hardly constitutes a crime. As is said in my post, given what is publicly known, I don't think this is the slam dunk that many here think it is. Many here seem very quick to accept circumstantial evidence that the accused committed a crime, any crime, by assuming he is guilty of driving the car that picked her up. I believe that is the first big hurdle the Feds have to overcome, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he was driving the car.

Didn't LE state that his hubcap, which had a unique flaw, was seen later by police after BC was interviewed the first time? I also wonder if he got rid of the sunglasses he used while driving, or if they confiscated those. Never mind, they did identify the Saturn as his car.

"Christensen was captured on security video, according to court documents, approaching her in his black Saturn. After police tracked the owners of Saturns in the county — and concluded that Christensen's car had been in the videos because of its sunroof and cracked front hubcap — Christensen was interviewed by police."

Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...t-christensen-profile-met-20170707-story.html

So, they did know it was his car. It's going to be hard to argue that it wasn't him in that car, especially since he later said he had in fact picked her up, but she "panicked" and he dropped her off in a "residential area".

From the same article,

"After initially telling police that he was at home playing video games or sleeping that afternoon, he later told police that he had indeed picked up "an Asian female" who was standing at a corner, looking distressed, according to a federal affidavit. She had gotten out of his car after he made a wrong turn and, according to Christensen, she panicked. Police later searched the car and concluded that Christensen had made an effort to clean parts of it "to a more diligent extent" than the rest of it."

They also have audio of him admitting, to an extent, taking her and selecting possible new victims. I don't think any case is a slam dunk; however, they have plenty of evidence to prove already, IMO, beyond reasonable doubt that he kidnapped her.

At the time, Christensen was under surveillance by federal authorities investigating his involvement in Zhang's disappearance, according to an affidavit filed last Friday. There, Freres said, Christensen was heard describing the characteristics of his "ideal victim" and identified people among the crowd who fit that description. Freres did not offer details of how prosecutors obtained a recording of Christensen, nor did he play any recording during the hearing.

The Sydne Moorer case is similar to this one. Missing person, no body, presumed dead, and a kidnapping. That case came out to a mistrial. It's just my opinion that that won't happen here as there's more convincing evidence (whatever audio they have of BC admitting certain things; also, his original lies to LE / the car, etc and research into abduction). It's going to be hard to dissuade, IMO.

 

[Calzone]

several TERABYTES of video??? that's a LOT of video-- like 500-1000 hours of video per terabyte

I could see 500 hours of CCTV footage alone. They probably looked at hundreds of hours of video from campus cameras alone. Not only from the time of abduction but so many hours/days before and after trying to spot the car. Then, there could be video from businesses along a given route, surveillance video, arrest video, video of his apartment search, and anything they may have found on his computer. Most of it would be irrelevant but would still constitute evidence that would have to be turned over.

I am wondering how long before the Brunos resign from this case. There is nothing that suggests that there is enough money to pay them. Figure a paralegal looks through 500 hours of video @ $100/hour, that's $50,000 just to review video. They have to be working on reimbursement from the courts for their fees.

 

[kittythehare]

Who broke the law? The Feds must first prove who was driving the car. As I stated, from what is known publicly through the videos, you can't tell who is driving the car. To say, "he broke the law", the Feds must prove beyond a reasonable doubt who "he"

The Feds would have to prove that she was kidnapped AND by him. Do I believe she was the victim of a kidnapping, yes. However, what we believe hardly constitutes a crime. As is said in my post, given what is publicly known, I don't think this is the slam dunk that many here think it is. Many here seem very quick to accept circumstantial evidence that the accused committed a crime, any crime, by assuming he is guilty of driving the car that picked her up. I believe that is the first big hurdle the Feds have to overcome, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he was driving the car.

He has already admitted to driving the car that picked her up. In past week or 10 days a post defining kidnapping under these circumstances, under law , was put up on this thread.
He is definitely guilty of kidnapping, that is slam dunk.
But if there is any evidence at all connecting him to murder, its far too scant, possibly non existant to charge him with murder or any other crime.

 

[Calzone]

He has already admitted to driving the car that picked her up. In past week or 10 days a post defining kidnapping under these circumstances, under law , was put up on this thread.
He is definitely guilty of kidnapping, that is slam dunk.
But if there is any evidence at all connecting him to murder, its far too scant, possibly non existant to charge him with murder or any other crime.

Was he read his rights before making any statements? Given the timing, I doubt it. If he had been, he strikes me as smart enough to have not made any incriminating statements. Time will tell.

I'm no lawyer but posters should be cautious of statements like, "He is definitely guilty of kidnapping..." that is a libelous statement at the moment. How quick we are to convict. It is not guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Calzone]

So, they did know it was his car. It's going to be hard to argue that it wasn't him in that car

The point is that no one has to prove it wasn't him, the Feds have to prove it WAS the accused. Big difference.


The Sydne Moorer case is similar to this one. Missing person, no body, presumed dead, and a kidnapping. That case came out to a mistrial. It's just my opinion that that won't happen here as there's more convincing evidence (whatever audio they have of BC admitting certain things; also, his original lies to LE / the car, etc and research into abduction). It's going to be hard to dissuade, IMO.[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]

Again, my point is that no one has to be dissuaded but convinced. First, a jury must be convinced that it was the accused. If not, there is nothing about which to dissuade them. I think it could be a challenge to convince him.

I dont know know the case you cited but you make my point. It ended in a mistrial. Nothing is a slam dunk.

 

[TiffanyL_AS]

Was he read his rights before making any statements? Given the timing, I doubt it. If he had been, he strikes me as smart enough to have not made any incriminating statements. Time will tell.

I'm no lawyer but posters should be cautious of statements like, "He is definitely guilty of kidnapping..." that is a libelous statement at the moment. How quick we are to convict. It is not guilty until proven innocent.

As far as we know, he was not mirandized when he was first questioned by police, because he was not yet under arrest. The police, afterwards, noticed the same flaws on his car as matching those in the video. He was spoken to IIRC on June 12th the first time, where he lies. Later, when spoken to again, is when he claims she was in fact in his car and he hadn't been at home playing video games.

You say he seems smart enough not to make incriminating comments, but did you not hear about what he said in an open space at the vigil for the missing woman?! That's the opposite of what an intelligent person does. They don't boast and select new victims to anyone, let alone in a public space. It's just common sense.

Also, I never said this case would be a slam dunk. That was language you used, which I reiterated back to you. Please don't put words in my mouth, as your post made it sound like I said something which I didn't.

Lastly, I didn't make your point about the Sydney Moorer case. The key difference besides the earlier similarities I mentioned is that we have the suspect owning to the fact he ever had the missing woman in his car
AND egregiously boasting about making another victim.

Moo

I would love to hear that audio....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kittythehare]

Was he read his rights before making any statements? Given the timing, I doubt it. If he had been, he strikes me as smart enough to have not made any incriminating statements. Time will tell.

I'm no lawyer but posters should be cautious of statements like, "He is definitely guilty of kidnapping..." that is a libelous statement at the moment. How quick we are to convict. It is not guilty until proven innocent.

Did you find the post defining kidnapping to which I referred?

 

[Calzone]

I didn't bother to look, it's irrelevant.

 

[kittythehare]

I didn't bother to look, it's irrelevant.

If it was irrelevant I would not have referenced it. Post concerned legal implications of her voluntarily entering the car and how that act became defined as kidnapping through law. I would search for it if I had the time now, its worth reading.

 

[Calzone]

If it was irrelevant I would not have referenced it. Post concerned legal implications of her voluntarily entering the car and how that act became defined as kidnapping through law. I would search for it if I had the time now, its worth reading.

I don't question that she was kidnapped. I question whether the Feds can prove that the accused is the one who kidnapped her. The definition of kidnapping is not relevant if you can't prove he was the one in the car.

 

[kittythehare]

I don't question that she was kidnapped. I question whether the Feds can prove that the accused is the one who kidnapped her. The definition of kidnapping is not relevant if you can't prove he was the one in the car.

Well as he has admitted that not only was he driving his own car when he picked her up, I think its proof enough.
I'm not sure what you are asking if not this?

 

[Calzone]

Well as he has admitted that not only was he driving his own car when he picked her up, I think its proof enough.
I'm not sure what you are asking if not this?

His admission may not be good enough. If it is inadmissible (e.g. He was not read his rights), then it doesn't exist in court. Then the Feds have to prove that he was driving the car. I'm not convinced that they can do that. I believe that they may have rushed into an arrest. I think all they have is that she got into his car, not that he was driving. They would have filed murder charges if they had hard evidence, not circumstantial, that put the two of them together.

 

[kittythehare]

His admission may not be good enough. If it is inadmissible (e.g. He was not read his rights), then it doesn't exist in court. Then the Feds have to prove that he was driving the car. I'm not convinced that they can do that. I believe that they may have rushed into an arrest. I think all they have is that she got into his car, not that he was driving. They would have filed murder charges if they had hard evidence, not circumstantial, that put the two of them together.

Realistically, is there any evidence that they messed up? I very much doubt they did.
I agree they seem to have have no evidence of murder, or any crime apart from kidnapping.
Thats utterly disheartening.
If they have they would have charged him and her body would have been located.

 

[Calzone]

Realistically, is there any evidence that they messed up? I very much doubt they did.
I agree they seem to have have no evidence of murder, or any crime apart from kidnapping.
Thats utterly disheartening.
If they have they would have charged him and her body would have been located.

i don't know if they messed up any evidence. I question whether they have enough. why didn't they arrest him when he changed his story? The greatest likelihood of recovering her was when he changed his story. Why wait so long to arrest him if they could prove he kidnapped her? He wasn't even arrested when he was recorded at the vigil, they waited until the next day. Why?

The evidence is weak and the decision to arrest was not made by the agents on the ground, someone higher up decided that, given what he said, the risk of not arresting him was too high. Not that the evidence for arrest was overwhelming.

 

[kittythehare]

i don't know if they messed up any evidence. I question whether they have enough. why didn't they arrest him when he changed his story? The greatest likelihood of recovering her was when he changed his story. Why wait so long to arrest him if they could prove he kidnapped her? He wasn't even arrested when he was recorded at the vigil, they waited until the next day. Why?

The evidence is weak and the decision to arrest was not made by the agents on the ground, someone higher up decided that, given what he said, the risk of not arresting him was too high. Not that the evidence for arrest was overwhelming.

They originally visited his apartment. They knew she was not there. But they needed to find her quickly, so they cut him some slack but placed him under surveillance, he was suspect from day 3.
They hoped he would lead them to her. He did not.
I doubt the decision was made from a 'higher-up'. Remember its local LE and fBI..I believe that from day 3 they had enough to arrest him and make it stick.
We have to assume that he did whatever he did to her in the first 3 days (june9-12?)



Its quite possible and highly likely that he was picked up on surveillance cameras during that 3 day period..and that his credit cards or other financial trackings give a window or several, into the first 3 day period.

The tight surveillance was not on him immediately after the 3 days.. may well have been lapses..And there may well have been lapses throughout.

After day 3, he knew he was in the headlights. He did nothing, except to carry on as normal, possibly more heavily medicated than usual.. but thats just me speculating.
But, assuming they were thorough from day 3..June9-12 was the only time he had access to her.

To me, though I know the penalties for kidnapping are severe, the charge means nothing, that he is locked up, drugged up and lawyered up means he is in effect disempowered.
But the girl is missing. where is she/ Is this a missing person case, a kidnapping case or a murder case or some kind of a macabre human trafficking case?

What they have to prove, if its a kidnapping case, is that she never left his car in the place he said she left it.. its possible there were cctv's around that area?
Why did they start believing she is dead so early on? did somebody witness him placing something large in a dumpster.. something like that?

 

[Wookiegruffles]

LE has based their belief that she is dead on the evidence they have according to news reports. To my knowledge, I don't think that they have ever said what the evidence is.

 

[Shiressleuth]

Who broke the law? The Feds must first prove who was driving the car. As I stated, from what is known publicly through the videos, you can't tell who is driving the car. To say, "he broke the law", the Feds must prove beyond a reasonable doubt who "he" is.

The Feds would have to prove that she was kidnapped AND by him. Do I believe she was the victim of a kidnapping, yes. However, what we believe hardly constitutes a crime. As is said in my post, given what is publicly known, I don't think this is the slam dunk that many here think it is. Many here seem very quick to accept circumstantial evidence that the accused committed a crime, any crime, by assuming he is guilty of driving the car that picked her up. I believe that is the first big hurdle the Feds have to overcome, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he was driving the car.

He has admitted to picking her up I understand. Lying to the police is against the law and wasting police time, especially when someone's disappearance and life is at stake.

 

[Shiressleuth]

I didn't bother to look, it's irrelevant.

How is it irrelevant please? Isn't that exactly what he is charged with? Its on page 4 of this thread anyway for anyone who does want to look.

 

[Shiressleuth]

LE has based their belief that she is dead on the evidence they have according to news reports. To my knowledge, I don't think that they have ever said what the evidence is.

The evidence is she has disappeared after being seen getting in his car, which he has admitted after first lying to the police, thus wasting their time.
I don't think there is evidence of death or, if there is , LE haven't released it AFAIK.

 

[SteveP]

The evidence is she has disappeared after being seen getting in his car, which he has admitted after first lying to the police, thus wasting their time.
I don't think there is evidence of death or, if there is , LE haven't released it AFAIK.

I do not believe a reasonably intelligent jury will have a problem placing BC as the driver of the car that she was seen getting into, so I feel like the kidnapping charge can be and will be successfully prosecuted. I do not believe LE made the statement that they feel Yingying is dead flippantly, and I believe their actions, and in some cases, lack of actions indicate that they are pretty certain of that belief. At this point, one may wonder, and I do, whether they have the evidence needed to convince a jury of that belief. Having said that. LE never shows their hand completely before a case goes to trial,. JMO