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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Calzone said:
Is he guilty of kidnapping?
Click to expand...
A court of law will decide whether he is guilty or not.
Meanwhile you have in effect condemned her poor grieving family of fraudulent activity.
Your comment regarding how this will assist the defence is without explanation though that is what I asked of you.
If what you say is true, it would suggest that Ying Ying is somehow complicit in her own disappearance.. because thats the logic in the words you used.
Yes its victim friendly.
That is why most of us are here, I would imagine.
https://www.corwin.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/4949_Adams_Chapter_5_Chinese_Families.pdf
This article is peer reviewed and cited and I hope it will assist your understanding.
 
kittythehare said:
A court of law will decide whether he is guilty or not.
Meanwhile you have in effect condemned her poor grieving family of fraudulent activity.
Your comment regarding how this will assist the defence is without explanation though that is what I asked of you.
If what you say is true, it would suggest that Ying Ying is somehow complicit in her own disappearance.. because thats the logic in the words you used.
Yes its victim friendly.
That is why most of us are here, I would imagine.
Click to expand...

A court of law will decide his guilt or innocence so the fact that he is incarcerated is irrelevant.

"If what you say is true, it would suggest that Ying Ying is somehow complicit in her own disappearance.. because thats the logic in the words you used." Correct, with one SIGNIFICANT difference. In order to sow doubt in a jury, it doesn't have to be true.
He admitted to picking her up, true. He did not admit to kidnapping her, the Feds have to prove that. He said he dropped her off, the Feds have a burden to prove that was not true and that it was kidnapping. Pick and choose whatever parts of that you want to believe but a slimey lawyer will suggest that it was an elaborate plot to raise money. I never suggested it was true and it doesn't have to be.

Consider for a moment, could BC be a victim also? If not, why not?
 
Chinese culture has long been of the children growing up and financially taking care of the parents. I may not be wording this correctly, but you can google and find many descriptions of the practice. Even though it is not done to the same degree as in the past, it is still very much a practice.

People who wish to donate to funds should carefully read the guidelines for what is being requested and know the cultures behind requests if they are different than what we are used to here in the US. Then make an informed decision on whether to donate or note.

JMO, of course

A small description of the custom of children supporting or helping their parents financially:
https://www.quora.com/Are-children-...their-aged-parents-in-Chinese-societies-today
 
YY's family and their efforts and dedication to finding their daughter in this horrendous situation using whatever means possible.
 
Posts related to / crowd funding have been removed and the subject is off-limits.

Family of a missing or deceased person are considered victims and Websleuths is victim friendly. Victim bashing is against TOS.

WSers do not make accusations or insinuations of legal actions toward other members. Don't go there !!

:wave:
 
sillybilly said:
Posts related to / crowd funding have been removed and the subject is off-limits.

Family of a missing or deceased person are considered victims and Websleuths is victim friendly. Victim bashing is against TOS.

WSers do not make accusations or insinuations of legal actions toward other members. Don't go there !!

:wave:
Click to expand...
Thankyou for clarifying this Sillybilly.
 
yw0403 said:
BC's lawyers decided to withdraw from the case because the suspect doesn't have enough money to pay the legal fees.

http://world.huanqiu.com/article/2017-09/11206608.html
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing this reported on any local central Illinois outlets -- can anyone local (or otherwise) verify it? (not doubting it would be true, just seems odd coming this late, and right after the law firm got a 6-mo. extension to trial).
 
Webthrush said:
I'm not seeing this reported on any local central Illinois outlets -- can anyone local (or otherwise) verify it? (not doubting it would be true, just seems odd coming this late, and right after the law firm got a 6-mo. extension to trial).
Click to expand...

See this article from July 7
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2017-07-09/attorneys-accused.html
Christensen called their law offices even before he was arrested, after authorities seized his car, Bruno said.
Bruno doesn't know how Christensen came to choose him and his sons to represent him. People generally search for lawyers online, he said.

Attorneys also take into consideration in the fee such factors as whether there's a potential life sentence or death penalty involved for their clients, Bruno said.

Christensen faces up to a life sentence if he's convicted of kidnapping. And in a kidnapping involving a death, both mandatory life in prison or death are possible sentences.

I tried a translation of Chinese article and its very similar to this article.
 
I'm not sure what's the source of the information, from the article itself, it seems Mr Wang Zhidong, the zhangs family lawyer who was appointed by the Chinese Consulate of Chicago was interviewed by the newspaper, the main points of the article are as below:

1.on June 20,2017, the Brunos first met with the suspect to give consultations, also told him the attorney fees for his potential charges.

2.on June 30, 2017, the US police arrested the suspect and charged him with kidnapping.Then the lawyer and the suspect met again, agreeing to represent him, and the lawyer made it clear that if there were more serious charges, the cost of lawyer fees would increase accordingly.

3.on Aug 28,2017, federal prosecutors in court indicated that the government would file additional charges in the next 30 to 45 days.Defense lawyers have reason to believe that additional charges mean seeking the death penalty.

4.in the past two months, the suspect and his family have not been able to raise enough money to provide legal fees for possible new charges.So the suspect and the lawyer both agreed that the suspect should be represented by a lawyer appointed by the court.

5.the Brunos believe that any delay in the designation of a new lawyer will adversely affect the interests of the suspect, based on the current amount of evidence and the work that needs to be done before the trial in February 2018, new lawyers should be appointed as soon as possible.

6. the suspect's current legal team will be willing to continue offering free consultations when necessary in future if their withdrawal request is approved by the court.The court has scheduled a hearing on September 8, 2017 to decide whether to agree their request.
 
yw0403 said:
.....snipped for focus .......

6. the suspect's current legal team will be willing to continue offering free consultations when necessary in future if their withdrawal request is approved by the court.The court has scheduled a hearing on September 8, 2017 to decide whether to agree their request.
Click to expand...


Assuming all is true i just wanted to comment about court procedures about this part. I have no real understanding of how all this works and just found some things strange.

I always found it strange how the lawyer has to ask for permission to be removed from representing a client like this.

I think it was the Jodi Arias case where her lawyer also was requesting to be off the case and I think in that case he was denied and forced to continue to represent her.

The rules about this are strange to me and I guess it gets into complex things like how long has the lawyer already been representing the client or whether there is time to allow a change.

I suppose there are good reasons to have these types of rules.

The bottom line to me though is if the lawyer doesnt want to represent a client OR the client doesnt want a particular lawyer then I would think it should be granted a change because it seems like it would open the door for appeals.

For example if a client is not getting along with the lawyer or visa versa then how can the client get good representation if the relationship is ruined. There would be no incentive for the lawyer to do a good job for them.

Or a better example is if the defendent cannot pay for the lawyers fees then why should the lawyer be forced to keep representing them?

I have no idea how all this works and just find it strange that laywers have to ask permission to be removed.

My guess is things tend to work themselves out and Judges probably grant replacements for valid situations like no ability to pay.

I also see a good reason to have some of these rules. One good reason is it prevents a client from asking for a change right near the end of a trial just to postpone a verdict. If they did not have rules like this, then any defendent that knew he was going to lose a trial would just keep asking for a lawyer change right near the end of the trial.

So there are probably very good reasons why rules like this are in place.
 
Hatfield said:
Assuming all is true i just wanted to comment about court procedures about this part. I have no real understanding of how all this works and just found some things strange.

I always found it strange how the lawyer has to ask for permission to be removed from representing a client like this.

I think it was the Jodi Arias case where her lawyer also was requesting to be off the case and I think in that case he was denied and forced to continue to represent her.

The rules about this are strange to me and I guess it gets into complex things like how long has the lawyer already been representing the client or whether there is time to allow a change.

I suppose there are good reasons to have these types of rules.

The bottom line to me though is if the lawyer doesnt want to represent a client OR the client doesnt want a particular lawyer then I would think it should be granted a change because it seems like it would open the door for appeals.

For example if a client is not getting along with the lawyer or visa versa then how can the client get good representation if the relationship is ruined. There would be no incentive for the lawyer to do a good job for them.

Or a better example is if the defendent cannot pay for the lawyers fees then why should the lawyer be forced to keep representing them?

I have no idea how all this works and just find it strange that laywers have to ask permission to be removed.

My guess is things tend to work themselves out and Judges probably grant replacements for valid situations like no ability to pay.

I also see a good reason to have some of these rules. One good reason is it prevents a client from asking for a change right near the end of a trial just to postpone a verdict. If they did not have rules like this, then any defendent that knew he was going to lose a trial would just keep asking for a lawyer change right near the end of the trial.

So there are probably very good reasons why rules like this are in place.
Click to expand...
A client has to be open with his lawyer. If he is not cooperating then the lawyer may not be able to help. E.g. we are talking about a missing young foreign student. If BC knows anything he needs to cough basically. His lawyer will not want a losing case I would imagine and it is obviously going to be a long haul if BC does not come clean with all he knows. :cow:
Not only that, but as Tom Bruno is Deputy Mayor of Champaign City Council, maybe his law firm just doesn't need this case imo.
 
Quick question - if they were able to ping YY's phone to the Terminal, would they also be able to ping BC's phone to the same area at the same time, or to other areas immediately after he picked her up and follow the trail?

If he shut off the phone(s), I assume they wouldn't be able to be pinged. Is this correct?
 
Shiressleuth said:
A client has to be open with his lawyer. If he is not cooperating then the lawyer may not be able to help. E.g. we are talking about a missing young foreign student. If BC knows anything he needs to cough basically. His lawyer will not want a losing case I would imagine and it is obviously going to be a long haul if BC does not come clean with all he knows. :cow:
Not only that, but as Tom Bruno is Deputy Mayor of Champaign City Council, maybe his law firm just doesn't need this case imo.
Click to expand...
To my mind Bruno pulling out has less to do with money than the fact that they have reviewed the evidence and they now know he is guilty of both kidnapping and murder and will be found to be so. They probably hate him even more than most after what they have learned and simply cannot/will not defend evil of this horrendous level.
 
cubby100 said:
To my mind Bruno pulling out has less to do with money than the fact that they have reviewed the evidence and they now know he is guilty of both kidnapping and murder and will be found to be so. They probably hate him even more than most after what they have learned and simply cannot/will not defend evil of this horrendous level.
Click to expand...
Even murderers need lawyers. Who is the public defender in Champaign-Urbana?
Just googled it. Janie Miller is the Public Defender.
 
soakedb said:
Quick question - if they were able to ping YY's phone to the Terminal, would they also be able to ping BC's phone to the same area at the same time, or to other areas immediately after he picked her up and follow the trail?

If he shut off the phone(s), I assume they wouldn't be able to be pinged. Is this correct?
Click to expand...
I think the battery has to be dead or removed for pings not to work but that is surely something LE will check. Turning off the phone doesn't stop the pinging AFAIK. Is it likely he would have his phone with him while cruising around planning something illegal?
 
Tricia is still accepting donations; critical.
Thanks, Mercdes
 
From the time BC took YYZ in his car, when and where is next time time he is known to be seen?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 68 more.
Total: 274 (members: 69, guests: 205)

Online statistics

Members online
69
Guests online
205
Total visitors
274
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,160
Messages
18,250,281
Members
234,548
Latest member
raymehay
Back
Top