It would certainly explain why they are being so quiet about the search if they believe he had help disposing of her.
Right. But the timeline is confusing from the article quoted. Here's what the article yw0403 says about this:
So, turned off and the chip removed for 3-4 hours after the kidnapping -but what do they define as "after the kidnapping?" Sometime soon after he had picked her up at 2:04, or sometime later in the day after he was done with her? It isn't entirely clear. Also, they say they are reconstructing the crime seen from evidence from, among other things "outdoor sites." How did they get the location of the outdoor site(s)? From data from her phone carrier? (Remember, her phone was active until at least 2:38, when she received the apartment manager's text message) From his -because he turned it off later, and not immediately after picking her up? Many possibilities. Also, they believe she was killed about 5 hours later. Later after what? 5 hours later after 2:04 PM (so around 7:00PM), or later after he had turned his phone back on after a 3-4 period of being off? (so maybe as late as 11:00 PM, if he turned his phone off shortly after he picked her up...). And if that 5 hour and 3-4 hour period are starting at the same time (2:04), why would he turn his phone back on before he was done with her? Also, it doesn't say exactly when he put the chip back in. He could have turned it on after 3-4 hours and still used some features without the chip in the phone. Maybe I'm parsing it too much and over-thinking it, but it seems to me from this that it isn't entirely clear when this 3-4 hour window starts.....
I think the clean up explanation is simple: remove any and all trace evidence she was ever in the car (hair, flaked skin, fingerprints, fibers from her clothes) from the moment she was picked up.
I don't think it was sudden and quick. I think he likely tortured her for a few hours, and she either died during it, or he finished her off after he had had his fill and decided it was time to start cleaning up and covering his tracks. The question for me is where was it done? At his apartment, or an outdoor location, or say the Johnson plant? We do know this much: he took her to his apartment and she struggled with him there. That comes from the criminal complaint, the indictments, and the bond hearing. My guess is that he either did it there at the apartment, or he took her back out and did it in a secluded outdoor location. Many scenarios you can envision. You can make arguments pro and con about doing it in any of those three locations (apartment, outdoors somewhere, Johnson plant).
So given the time frame, we do not know whether he planned for her death or not. I always thought he did it to obtain a slave and he would want to keep her alive and immobile somewhere close to his home.
The special findings section of the superseding indictment, and the press release from the DOJ says this:
"....
Christensen committed the offense after substantial planning and premeditation to cause the death of a person"
That says to me that they have uncovered enough evidence to show that he did this fully intending for his victim to die. This also matches something I have heard from a local Chinese source: He ultimately intended to torture and kill many women; at least one from each age of a specific age range, and that race/national origin wasn't really a factor -apparently YY was just a target of opportunity.
I have no doubt he would have loved to have a permanent slave; or to have someone he could torture for days/weeks/months before finally killing them. But, he's smart, and he knows in his current financial and life situation, that that scenario would be exceedingly difficult to pull off. Sure, he could keep her at the Johnson plant; but how is he going to ensure that she would never escape while he is off somewhere else? Sure, he could chain her up; but how is he going to ensure that no one who accesses the plant for work isn't going to stumble across her location in there one day? How is he going to explain to his wife where he's going every couple of nights for a few hours; that's easy, you don't have a job so you can go during the day while she's at work! Ok, well,how are you going to ensure that no one who might be working on the grounds of the plant sees you going in and follows you or confronts you about it? Also, how are you going to keep someone at the apartment complex from noticing from time to time that you are walking over to that plant and going in, and wondering "WTF is that creepy ******* doing going over to that plant all of the time?......... Jesus, there's this girl missing from campus..... I wonder..........."
I'm sure he would have loved to prolong her suffering (and that of any other future victims) as long as possible; but it seems most likely he knew his best situation would be to torture her for several hours then get rid of her, and he planned accordingly. Also, even though he knew it might be days before someone would notice her missing, it might only be hours before the search was on, so it wouldn't be safe to keep her around for days/weeks. If this is what he thought, he was exactly right
From what I understand, current GPS tech on current smartphones can resolve down to 5-8 meters, so that is around 15-25 feet, so I guess they could differentiate his location at the apartment and locations on the plant grounds -but no idea how good his signal would be inside the plant, or in the basement levels
In my scenario that I envision, he had her at his apartment for a few hours after she died, then he took her out under cover of darkness in a container, then drove somewhere pre-determined within an hour of his apartment and buried her. If he leaves his phone at home, they would have no way to track him doing this. IT is also possible he could have disposed of her at the Johnson plant. I re-read some of the other comments, and the grease pit in the basement sticks out in my mind. I'd imagine she'd be difficult to detect if she was sunk to the bottom of that. It would have the added cover of being so close to his place, that people, like me, might think it is too close and too obvious for him to stash her there.
I have no idea if they have searched that place. I can't imagine they haven't, as they searched nearby Kaufmann lake; but maybe the owner doesn't want to cooperate and they can't get a search warrant without more evidence suggesting she would be there -although the very close proximity to where he was known to have taken her would seem to me to be probable cause enough for that.......[/QUOTE]
OK I'm gonna go on a mini rant here. I'll start be saying I am in no way a detective nor a lawyer. But if I'm understanding correctly, the prosecution has to turn over all evidence that it will be allowed to use to the defense. That has been done. So, if the plant was searched, only 2 things could have happened. They found YY's body OR they didn't . If they did I would assume the public would have heard of that. If they DIDN'T I would also assume the public would know that as well. Right? Either way that information would have to be in the hands of the defense . So why do we, the public , not know? How would making public info that they already have would harm their case??
I suppose some day , when this finally gets to trial, there may be an answer as to why the FBI is being so tight lipped. But for now, for me anyway, I find it infuriating!
I'll end my rant with this. I do not even have the words to convey to the Zhaang family the hurt and pain they must have. I'll further stir the pot with this. I realize that the Zhaangs come from a different culture, one that is far more polite and respective towards authority figures. But if this had been my daughter, you all would be seeing me on the news constantly. Demanding answers!!
