Deceased/Not Found IL - Yingying Zhang, 26, Urbana, 9 June 2017 #7 *Arrest*

[Angleterre]

https://www.clementlaw.com/divorce/...t-is-it-and-what-happens-to-it-after-divorce/

Here's another article that appears to show the confidential privilege still applies after divorce in certain scenarios.

Ok apologies I didn’t see this before I answered your previous post and this seems to renege on the info contained within my ‘reply’ post to you. So now I’m very confused as this link is at odds with what I’ve read up on... unless of course this is just in New York as this is referred to in the article? Or is it applicable to ALL states? Who knows.
So now I’m not sure if what I posted is correct. I’m going to see if I can find more USA caselaw to confirm it one way or another. Apologies [emoji33]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dm92]

UPDATE:

Judge will not recuse himself from the trial.

Letter that was of issue was a letter sent from a community member urging him not to delay the trial further, and he says it will not impact his ability to be impartial during the trial...

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2018-03-16/judge-will-not-step-aside-christensen-case.html

 

[kittythehare]

UPDATE:

Judge will not recuse himself from the trial.

Letter that was of issue was a letter sent from a community member urging him not to delay the trial further, and he says it will not impact his ability to be impartial during the trial...

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2018-03-16/judge-will-not-step-aside-christensen-case.html

from your link-

His trial is due to start in April of next year, although attorneys said plea discussions have taken place.

I wonder whether this refers to new plea discussions ?

The way they have worded it seems to suggest it does??

 

[dm92]

from your link-

His trial is due to start in April of next year, although attorneys said plea discussions have taken place.

I wonder whether this refers to new plea discussions ?

The way they have worded it seems to suggest it does??

from your link-

His trial is due to start in April of next year, although attorneys said plea discussions have taken place.

I wonder whether this refers to new plea discussions ?

The way they have worded it seems to suggest it does??

I don't read it that way; I think it’s just referring to the previous court filings that incidentally revealed that plea discussions have occurred. They may very well be going on (see below), but no way to be sure from how that is written.

I read the judge’s ruling on recusal and at the end he calls the motion frivolous. I am convinced his attorneys know he’s guilty as sin and are just throwing whatever they can on the wall to see if something sticks; plus, making sure they demonstrate that they are going to every length possible so it can be shown he had an engaged, competent defense.

It’s my guess now that there will eventually be a plea bargain, but it will take a while, possibly because of a complicating factor.

Remember the language in the Notice of Intent to Seek a Sentence of Death? When they listed the non-statutory aggravating factor that he represents a continuing danger to the community? In addition to citing his lack of remorse and the desire to be known as a killer, they also mentioned that he claimed to be an expert at avoiding detection and made claims of other victims. They may be trying to determine if those claims are BS or not; and if there is something to them, they may be trying to include revealing info on these additional victims as part of a plea deal. If there is anything to this, it could get pretty complicated.

 

[kittythehare]

I don't read it that way; I think it’s just referring to the previous court filings that incidentally revealed that plea discussions have occurred. They may very well be going on (see below), but no way to be sure from how that is written.

I read the judge’s ruling on recusal and at the end he calls the motion frivolous. I am convinced his attorneys know he’s guilty as sin and are just throwing whatever they can on the wall to see if something sticks; plus, making sure they demonstrate that they are going to every length possible so it can be shown he had an engaged, competent defense.

It’s my guess now that there will eventually be a plea bargain, but it will take a while, possibly because of a complicating factor.

Remember the language in the Notice of Intent to Seek a Sentence of Death? When they listed the non-statutory aggravating factor that he represents a continuing danger to the community? In addition to citing his lack of remorse and the desire to be known as a killer, they also mentioned that he claimed to be an expert at avoiding detection and made claims of other victims. They may be trying to determine if those claims are BS or not; and if there is something to them, they may be trying to include revealing info on these additional victims as part of a plea deal. If there is anything to this, it could get pretty complicated.

I'm pretty sure they have very hard evidence in order to have cited it in a death penalty request, which would have only been granted on evidence..
But, pretty tough for his former victims if they will need to be cross examined.. Grand Jury indictment, sealed, may well have contained their evidence via sworn affidavit?

I seriously doubt they would submit an unsubstantiated claim when they had to bring it to sessions, himself..

 

[dm92]

I'm pretty sure they have very hard evidence in order to have cited it in a death penalty request, which would have only been granted on evidence..
But, pretty tough for his former victims if they will need to be cross examined.. Grand Jury indictment, sealed, may well have contained their evidence via sworn affidavit?

I seriously doubt they would submit an unsubstantiated claim when they had to bring it to sessions, himself..

I read that phrase in the Notice and took it to mean that he was claiming to have killed others and has gotten away with it. It was listed as one of several items indicating that BC represented a continuing danger to the community. It’s BC’s stated claim that adds to qualities that make him represent a potential danger. The hard evidence in question for the Notice is likely either him being recorded saying this by TEB, or the jailhouse informant being told this by BC.

How this might complicate a plea bargain is that the Feds are going to want to try and determine if there is anything to these claims or if they are just BS....

 

[kittythehare]

I read that phrase in the Notice and took it to mean that he was claiming to have killed others and has gotten away with it. It was listed as one of several items indicating that BC represented a continuing danger to the community. It’s BC’s stated claim that adds to qualities that make him represent a potential danger. The hard evidence in question for the Notice is likely either him being recorded saying this by TEB, or the jailhouse informant being told this by BC.

How this might complicate a plea bargain is that the Feds are going to want to try and determine if there is anything to these claims or if they are just BS....

My understanding is that it refers specifically to another incident, a few years ago.. the year was noted, the type of offence and the initials of his victim.

 

[dm92]

My understanding is that it refers specifically to another incident, a few years ago.. the year was noted, the type of offence and the initials of his victim.

That incident is, I think, referred to earlier in the same section as a “prior violent act.” The claims of additional victims as written is plural, so I’ve interpreted this to mean that he’s told someone(s) that he’s hurt/killed multiple others in addition to Yingying.

 

[Yellow]

Anyone know why this is still in federal court? Must be a pretty strong interstate connection. It's presumed that a kidnapping occurs interstate but that presumption can be rebutted and nearly all of these murder/kidnapping cases are in state court. Technically kidnapping could be enough but most kidnapping cases are in state court (think of the Nicole Lovell murder in Virginia where the body was found in NC; that case was in state court). very few of these cases (unfortunately way too many cases that involve murder/kidnapping) are tried in federal court so I wonder why the exception here? I have not followed this case in awhile so I wonder if defense tried to get it moved. It can't just be computer evidence since all cases have that now. I wonder if her status as a Chinese national impacts the choice to keep it in federal court. Legally it shouldn't but optics-wise maybe it is.

The thing is I think he has a decent case on appeal about the use of federal courts being a way to evade the state's death penalty statute. I believe IL is a non death penalty state so the only way he gets death penalty here is federal court which I assume is why they are keeping it there. His lawyers have to be complete idiots not to get it back to state court. I think on appeal he will have a compelling case on the legal argument about using the federal court when usually federal courts aren't used in these type of cases so as to get the death penalty in a non death penatly state. I think that type of case would reach the Supreme Court because it presents an interesting legal issue on whether they should be permissible.

Also double jeopardy would not apply if he gets acquitted in federal court so strategically if not having the body proves to be a problem for the prosecution they could get another bite out of the apple so to speak in state courts either by doing the same case under the state kidnapping statute or by trying it as a murder case in state court. As stated, I don't see why the defense would want it in federal court.

 

[Yellow]

Perhaps she has doubts about testifying. If she decided she did not want to testify then could they still use what she had told the FBI? If she testifies but these details are ruled inadmissible then there won't be much she can contribute by the sounds of it.

Unless she is formally separated or divorced, which, as I read this, destroys the marital privilege. Is that a correct interpretation of mine?

This is getting complicated.

I believe marital privilege would still extend to acts during the marriage even if later divorced. So he's covered in that sense since I assume everything happened during the marriage.

 

[kittythehare]

That incident is, I think, referred to earlier in the same section as a “prior violent act.” The claims of additional victims as written is plural, so I’ve interpreted this to mean that he’s told someone(s) that he’s hurt/killed multiple others in addition to Yingying.

I cannot see the fBI using hearsay evidence.. has to be more than that..
Maybe they did find quite a lot of evidence of prior acts of violence by him, also possible he wrote it.

I would hope they spoke with all his fetlife contacts as well as contacts on any other networking or social media site..
I wonder whether any further superseding indictments can be applied at this stage, if further evidence emerges or upon existing evidence, not yet declared.?

 

[kittythehare]

Anyone know why this is still in federal court? Must be a pretty strong interstate connection. It's presumed that a kidnapping occurs interstate but that presumption can be rebutted and nearly all of these murder/kidnapping cases are in state court. Technically kidnapping could be enough but most kidnapping cases are in state court (think of the Nicole Lovell murder in Virginia where the body was found in NC; that case was in state court). very few of these cases (unfortunately way too many cases that involve murder/kidnapping) are tried in federal court so I wonder why the exception here? I have not followed this case in awhile so I wonder if defense tried to get it moved. It can't just be computer evidence since all cases have that now. I wonder if her status as a Chinese national impacts the choice to keep it in federal court. Legally it shouldn't but optics-wise maybe it is.

The thing is I think he has a decent case on appeal about the use of federal courts being a way to evade the state's death penalty statute. I believe IL is a non death penalty state so the only way he gets death penalty here is federal court which I assume is why they are keeping it there. His lawyers have to be complete idiots not to get it back to state court. I think on appeal he will have a compelling case on the legal argument about using the federal court when usually federal courts aren't used in these type of cases so as to get the death penalty in a non death penatly state. I think that type of case would reach the Supreme Court because it presents an interesting legal issue on whether they should be permissible.

Also double jeopardy would not apply if he gets acquitted in federal court so strategically if not having the body proves to be a problem for the prosecution they could get another bite out of the apple so to speak in state courts either by doing the same case under the state kidnapping statute or by trying it as a murder case in state court. As stated, I don't see why the defense would want it in federal court.

It was initially investigated as a federal case and prosecuted as a federal case based on objects of interstate commerce, namely a mobile phone and a vehicle.
They could and they did.

 

[Shiressleuth]

It was initially investigated as a federal case and prosecuted as a federal case based on objects of interstate commerce, namely a mobile phone and a vehicle.
They could and they did.

Remember the statement from FBI via Chinese media about his phone chip being removed and that YY was dead within 5 hours was it? Perhaps they have traffic cam evidence of him travelling across a state line and returning that evening?

 

[Shiressleuth]

I believe marital privilege would still extend to acts during the marriage even if later divorced. So he's covered in that sense since I assume everything happened during the marriage.

Do you have a link confirming that? Did they marry in Illinois? Sorry but I'm not clear whether they would have to agree the items were confidential and that privilege still applied. (I think :thinking
:cow:

 

[kittythehare]

Remember the statement from FBI via Chinese media about his phone chip being removed and that YY was dead within 5 hours was it? Perhaps they have traffic cam evidence of him travelling across a state line and returning that evening?

It's a possibility.

But they can obtain the status on very little evidence..He purchased car in a different state was , as far as I remember the rationale. It's hard to remember everything without going through every thread again.

 

[dm92]

I cannot see the fBI using hearsay evidence.. has to be more than that..
Maybe they did find quite a lot of evidence of prior acts of violence by him, also possible he wrote it.

I would hope they spoke with all his fetlife contacts as well as contacts on any other networking or social media site..
I wonder whether any further superseding indictments can be applied at this stage, if further evidence emerges or upon existing evidence, not yet declared.?

Certainly if during the ongoing investigation they find evidence that he has killed someone else, they would bring charges, or refer the information on to the relevant state authority to bring chagres.

The section we are talking about is in the non-statutory aggravating factors portion of the Notice. I have the PDF of that somewhere. Later today I will find it and paste the language here. They are saying, among other things, his claims of additional victims and "being an expert at avoiding detection" indicate that he represents a danger to the community.

The FBI may think that these claims are just BS and that BC is talking out of his @ss, or, they may be taking them seriously and looking to see if he might be responsible for some other unsolved kidnappings/murders (which would complicate plea negotiations) -either way though, coupled with his "stated desire to be known as a killer," the claims represent added reason to consider him a danger to the community. This is just one additional factor, among many others in this case, that the Feds are using to justify seeking the death penalty here.

 

[dm92]

Here's some of the non-statutory aggravating factors from the Notice

III. NON-STATUTORY AGGRAVATING FACTORS
1. Victim impact evidence. The defendant caused injury, harm, and loss to
Y.Z. and loss to her family, friends, and co-workers. The injury, harm, and loss caused
by the defendant is evidenced by Y.Z.’s personal characteristics and by the impact of
her death upon her family, friends, and co-workers.


2. Future dangerousness of the defendant. The defendant is likely to commit
criminal acts of violence in the future that would constitute a continuing and serious
threat to the lives and safety of others, as evidenced by, at least, his demonstrated lack
of remorse for his acts of violence; his other serious acts of violence; his expressed desire
to be known as a killer; and his claims of additional victims and expertise in avoiding
detection.


3. Lack of remorse. The defendant has demonstrated, by statements he made
following the offense, that he lacked remorse for the kidnapping resulting in the death
of Y.Z.


4. Other serious acts of violence. The defendant has committed other serious
acts of violence including, at least, the following: in or about 2013, the defendant choked
and sexually assaulted M.D., in the Central District of Illinois.

In blue are the references to the other specific act we know about; the sexual assault. In red is the language where they say he is claiming additional victims. This has to be victims other than the sexual assault known to the authorities. It appears from the language in #4 that there is one that they know of (the sexual assault), but they clearly believe there is a reasonable possibility that there are others -presumably from his claims of additional victims. It appears from the language that they don't have enough evidence (at least at the time this was drawn up) to confirm there were others, but that they take the claims seriously -and at least think they provide further confirmation that he is a threat to the safety of others.

Here's the link to the full Notice:

https://www.justice.gov/file/1027506/download

 

[kittythehare]

Here's some of the non-statutory aggravating factors from the Notice



In blue are the references to the other specific act we know about; the sexual assault. In red is the language where they say he is claiming additional victims. This has to be victims other than the sexual assault known to the authorities. It appears from the language in #4 that there is one that they know of (the sexual assault), but they clearly believe there is a reasonable possibility that there are others -presumably from his claims of additional victims. It appears from the language that they don't have enough evidence (at least at the time this was drawn up) to confirm there were others, but that they take the claims seriously -and at least think they provide further confirmation that he is a threat to the safety of others.

Here's the link to the full Notice:

https://www.justice.gov/file/1027506/download

They MUST have evidence..
I reckon they do.
see 3
3. Substantial planning and premeditation. The defendant committed theoffense after substantial planning and premeditation to cause the death of a person.(Title 18, United States Code, Section 3592(c)(9)).

That's Murder 1.
Premeditated.

3. Substantial planning and premeditation. The defendant committed theoffense after substantial planning and premeditation to cause the death of a person.(Title 18, United States Code, Section 3592(c)(9)).

2-; his other serious acts of violence;

This is plural. 4. 4. Other serious acts of violence. The defendant has committed other seriousacts of violence including, at least, the following: in or about 2013, the defendant chokedand sexually assaulted M.D., in the Central District of Illinois.

I seriously think he's #curtains..

 

[Niner]

I went back a few posts, but didn't see this posted.... sharing! Sorry, if it's already been posted!

Motion to recuse denied in Christensen case
http://foxillinois.com/news/local/motion-to-recuse-denied-in-christensen-case

The Supreme Court said under the law there is no reason for the judge to recuse himself because there wasn't enough compelling evidence that the judge would be biased.

 

[kittythehare]

this was posted before

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ath-penalty-ui-kidnapping-20180119-story.html

Of interest

No details of the alleged 2013 sexual assault by Christensen were provided other than the initials of the victim, “M.D.” The alleged assault occurred the year Christensen was admitted to the university’s highly competitive physics graduate program.

Was that his first?

In making the announcement, prosecutors alleged for the first time that Brendt Christensen “choked and sexually assaulted” another victim in 2013 in central Illinois. He also has claimed “additional victims” and expressed a “desire to be known as a killer,” according to prosecutors.

The last person to be sentenced to death in a federal courtroom in Illinois was Dr. Ronald Mikos, who was convicted in 2005 in Chicago of murdering a former patient to keep her from testifying against him in a Medicare fraud trial.

Mikos, 69, whose appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied nearly a decade ago, is still awaiting execution in federal prison in Terre Haute, Ind., federal records show.

Earlier this month, it was revealed prosecutors would seek the death penalty against Billy Arnold, an alleged gang member accused of killing two rivals in Michigan. In December, Sessions greenlighted pursuit of the death penalty against Jarvis Wayne Madison, a Florida man who allegedly kidnapped and killed his estranged wife.

I have a feeling there are very many more victims out there.. too afraid to come forward at the time..

I wonder whether there is any way to sleuth them.

choking is at least one of his methodologies...