The actual filing by the defense detailing BC's mental issues and treatments at UIUC....
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilcd.70076/gov.uscourts.ilcd.70076.289.0.pdf
They are doing this with an eye toward generating sympathy toward BC with at least one juror in the hopes that it will lead to them sparing his life. I think this is risky, because if you read what BC says he was thinking and what he did, it could backfire. He basically says he has been having thoughts of killing someone and knows it is wrong; he began thinking about how to dispose of a body and bought items for that purpose -then disposed of them. He details all these thoughts and emphasizes that he knows it is wrong.........................................................
and then several weeks later, he goes out and does it, anyway.
Kind of undermines his whole position. Yeah, you knew it was wrong -but you went out and did it anyway because you didn't care, you just wanted to do it.....
jeez, they're even attempting to go for system failure at university...
Whether Illinois Law Provides a Cause of Action Against UICC is Irrelevant The government first argues that Dr. Zoline’s testimony should be excluded because it amounts to a negligence claim against the University of Illinois and Illinois law does not provide for "a cause of action against health care providers.” Motion, at 3- 4. This argument is nonsensical at best, a sophism, at worst, and requires little response. It is obvious that this is not a civil lawsuit, and the government does not deign to explain why Illinois’ state law concerning the liability of health care providers (whatever that law may actually be) is of any import in the context of a federal capital case. Certainly, it cites no authority that would fill in such a logical gap. did not comply with the applicable standards of care in several clearly delineated area); the basis of her opinion (her background as a Licensed Clinical Psychologist and Professor of Psychology through which she is familiar with the standards of care in the mental health professions); and finally, her qualifications (in the form of her lengthy curriculum vitae). It is difficult to understand why this summary does not provide the notice required by Rule 16(b)(1)(C) and the Motion provides no help in this regard. As the government has written, it is hard to imagine what more notice was required “short of providing . . . [the] direct examination questions.” See Response to Defendant’s Motion for a Bill of Particulars, Dkt. 128, at 8. 8 The government does not argue for the exclusion of evidence concerning Mr. Christensen’s visits to the UICC, as indeed it cannot. That he voluntarily sought out treatment for his homicidal and suicidal ideation and addiction is highly relevant to a host of issues in a capital trial, including his character, the etc (pp8)
and this
Whether Illinois Law Provides a Cause of Action Against UICC is Irrelevant The government first argues that Dr. Zoline’s testimony should be excluded because it amounts to a negligence claim against the University of Illinois and Illinois law does not provide for "a cause of action against health care providers.” Motion, at 3- 4. This argument is nonsensical at best, a sophism, at worst, and requires little response. It is obvious that this is not a civil lawsuit, and the government does not deign to explain why Illinois’ state law concerning the liability of health care providers (whatever that law may actually be) is of any import in the context of a federal capital case. Certainly, it cites no authority that would fill in such a logical gap. did not comply with the applicable standards of care in several clearly delineated area); the basis of her opinion (her background as a Licensed Clinical Psychologist and Professor of Psychology through which she is familiar with the standards of care in the mental health professions); and finally, her qualifications (in the form of her lengthy curriculum vitae). It is difficult to understand why this summary does not provide the notice required by Rule 16(b)(1)(C) and the Motion provides no help in this regard. As the government has written, it is hard to imagine what more notice was required “short of providing . . . [the] direct examination questions.” See Response to Defendant’s Motion for a Bill of Particulars, Dkt. 128, at 8. 8 The government does not argue for the exclusion of evidence concerning Mr. Christensen’s visits to the UICC, as indeed it cannot. That he voluntarily sought out treatment for his homicidal and suicidal ideation and addiction is highly relevant to a host of issues in a capital trial, including his character, the etc (pp11)
So, he states he is non- violent, yet there was an incident in 2013 when he attempted to choke a girl in a graveyard!
He places all blame on Michelle, yet he had a girlfriend and membership of many dating clubs...
I wish they had noted which substances and methods of killing and body disposal he had procured and allegedly returned. Did he really return anything?
Are there records of these purchases or this research on his personal computer and does the FBI have this info?
But, then again, he will be innocent for the penalty phase, right?
Possibly amnesiac for the guilty phase.
It's all a game and the system enables it.
Where is YY?
