Case 1:12-cr-00847-PGG Document 502 Filed 01/24/18 Page 1 of 7

U.S. Department of Justice

United States Attorney

Southern District of New York

The Silvio J. Mollo Building

One Saint Andrew’s Plaza
New York, New York 10007

January 23, 2018

BY HAND and ECF

The Honorable Paul G. Gardephe
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007

Re: United States v. Christopher Asch

S4 12 Cr. 847 (PGG)

Dear Judge Gardephe:

The Government respectfully submits this letter in connection with the sentencing of
Christopher Asch in advance of his sentencing, which is scheduled for January 29, 2018. As the
Court is aware, Asch was convicted after trial on the above-referenced Superseding Indictment
(the “Indictment”) charging him with two separate conspiracies to commit kidnapping, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1201(c).

As set forth below, the seriousness of the crimes of conviction, which involved detailed
and grotesque plans to kidnap, rape, torture and murder women and children, cannot be
overstated. Nor can the defendant’s role in those planned crimes, or the actions he took to
further those crimes. To this end, the Government strongly disagrees with the Probation
Department’s recommendation in this case, along with their justification for that
recommendation, as they seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the defendant’s
culpability in this case and his role in the crimes of conviction, as is discussed further below. In
order to protect society from this individual, the Government respectfully submits that the Court
should impose a substantial sentence of incarceration, significantly above probation’s
recommendation of 120 months.

Background and Procedural History

Having presided over Asch’s trial and the subsequent Rule 29 litigation, the Court is
uniquely aware of the facts in this case.
 Case 1:12-cr-00847-PGG Document 502 Filed 01/24/18 Page 2 of 7
Page 2

The investigation in this case began in October 2012, after the FBI learned that co-
conspirator Michael Van Hise was sending electronic mail and instant messages to solicit
individuals to kidnap, rape, and kill his wife as well as his sister-in-law and her children. (Tr. 54
56). 1 Pursuant to Court-authorized search warrants, members of the FBI reviewed
communications from Van Hise’s e-mail account to Asch, a former New York City public high
school librarian, and Richard Meltz, then-Chief of Police at the U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs, Bedford VA Medical Center in Massachusetts, about their shared objective to kidnap,
rape, torture, and kill women, and children, including specific members of Van Hise’s family.
(Tr. 139-142).

At trial, the evidence showed that Asch and Meltz met in 2008, and began emailing in
June of that year about a potential kidnapping. (GXs 201, 202). After establishing a relationship
of trust, Meltz and Asch began to look for other like-minded men to join their group. They found
Van Hise who shared their interest in kidnapping and torturing women and children, and began
communicating with him, as well. At some point before the spring of 2012, Asch and Van Hise
met in person, and crystallized their agreement to kidnap, rape, and murder a woman. (See, e.g.,
GX 361-T). During the summer of 2012, Van Hise and Meltz, and Van Hise and Asch discussed,
over email, the kidnapping of members of Van Hise’s family, including the children. (See, e.g.,
GXs 203, 204, 205, 209, 210, 214, 215, 216, 217).

In October 2012, the FBI approached Van Hise at his home, and he agreed to speak with
agents. (Tr. 57). Van Hise admitted that he used the internet to communicate with other people
who had an interest in kidnapping, raping and killing women; that he was able to identify the
people who were serious about committing a kidnapping and other violence; and that he sought
out people whom he believed were serious about going through with acts of violence. (Tr. 64-
65). Van Hise also told the FBI that he had been in touch with at least one person who Van Hise
believed was actively looking for an opportunity to kidnap, rape and kill a woman. (Tr. 65).

In December 2012, at the request and direction of the FBI, Van Hise emailed Meltz and
Asch, and introduced “Darren” – an FBI agent working in an undercover capacity, claiming to
have an interest in kidnapping and raping women. (Tr. 431-32). Soon thereafter, Darren began
communicating directly with Asch by email. (Tr. 432-34; GX 802). Email communication led to
phone conversations (Tr. 436-37), and then to a series of in-person meetings during which Asch
and the FBI undercover agent discussed a kidnapping scheme. (See, e.g., GXs 352-T, 353-T,
355-T.) In February 2013, because Asch had previously suggested to Darren certain methods of
identifying random female victims to kidnap, in the interests of public safety, Darren proposed
targeting a specific female, who was actually an FBI agent working in an undercover capacity
(the “Female Undercover”). (Tr. 491).

1
“Tr.” refers to the trial transcript in the above-captioned case; “GX” refers to Government
Exhibits introduced at trial.
 Case 1:12-cr-00847-PGG Document 502 Filed 01/24/18 Page 3 of 7
Page 3

Together, Darren and Asch “surveilled” the Female Undercover, and during one such
surveillance Asch told Darren that she “has to die.” (Tr.506-07). Through Asch, Darren
connected by telephone with Meltz (Tr. 499), and they began to discuss the kidnapping plan.
During this same period, pursuant to a Court order, the FBI began to monitor phone calls
received on, and made from, Asch’s landline. (Tr. 489-90). The FBI intercepted a number of
calls between Asch and Meltz in which Asch and Meltz discussed the kidnapping of the Female
Undercover, and Meltz provided to Asch strategic advice on how to commit a successful
kidnapping without getting caught. (See¸e.g., GXs 401-T, 402-T, 404-T, 405-T, 409-T.) Meltz,
for example, advised Asch on the purchase of a stun gun (GX 402-T, 404-T) and suggesting
avoiding toll roads once the victim had been abducted and forced into the kidnappers’ van. (GX
402-T). Based on Meltz’s advice, on April 6, 2013, Asch traveled from New York to a gun show
in Allentown, Pennsylvania and purchased a stun gun. (GX 604K, Tr. 812-819).

While Asch and Meltz were communicating over the telephone about the kidnapping,
Darren and Asch continued to meet in-person. At a meeting on March 13, 2013, Asch brought a
number of supplies that he said could be used to subdue, abduct and torture the victim. (GXs
504, 603, 603A – 603Z, Tr. 536-553). At a meeting on April 15, 2013, Asch brought a number of
other items to use in the kidnapping, including a stun gun. (GXs 604, 604A-604K, 605, 605A –
605M, 606, 606A - 606 G, Tr. 579-591). At that meeting, Asch was arrested. (Tr. 581-582).
Meltz had been arrested the day before, after meeting with Darren. During this meeting, Darren
and Meltz discussed the kidnapping, and Meltz provided advice on how best to dispose of the
victim’s body after she had been kidnapping and killed. (Tr. 574-576).

On April 15, 2013, Asch was arrested pursuant to a Complaint, presented before a United
States Magistrate Judge, and detained on consent. Asch subsequently sought bail before Your
Honor, and that application was denied.

A Grand Jury in this District returned several indictments and superseding indictments,
under docket number 12 Cr. 847 (PGG). On September 18, 2013, the Grand Jury returned
Indictment S4 12 Cr. 847 (PGG) in two counts, both of which charged the violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1201(c). Specifically, Count One charged Van Hise, Asch and Meltz
with participating in a conspiracy between spring 2011 through January 2013 to kidnap, rape and
kill members of Van Hise’s family. Count Two charged Asch and Meltz with conspiring
between January 2013 and April 15, 2013, to kidnap, rape and kill the Female Undercover.

On January 16, 2014, Meltz entered a plea to a superseding information charging him in
two counts with participating in kidnapping conspiracies in violation of Title 18, United States
Code, § Section 371. This Court sentenced Meltz to the statutory maximum term of 120 months’
imprisonment. Van Hise and Asch proceeded to trial in February 2014. On March 14, 2014 a
jury returned guilty verdicts against Van Hise and Asch on Count One, and against Asch on
Count Two. Van Hise and Asch both filed post-trial motions seeking a judgment of acquittal on
 Case 1:12-cr-00847-PGG Document 502 Filed 01/24/18 Page 4 of 7
Page 4

Count One, and Asch sought a judgment of acquittal on Count Two. On August 8, 2017, this
Court denied the defendants’ motions in their entirety.

Discussion

I. Governing Legal Framework

Although the Sentencing Guidelines are no longer mandatory, they still provide strong
guidance to the Court in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) and United States
v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005). Specifically, while Booker restored discretion to the
district court in fashioning an appropriate sentence, it also instructed that the Guidelines remain
in place and that district courts must “consult” the Guidelines and “take them into account” in
imposing sentence. 543 U.S. at 264. As the Supreme Court has stated, “a district court should
begin all sentencing proceedings by correctly calculating the applicable Guidelines range”: that
“should be the starting point and the initial benchmark.” Gall v. United States, 55 U.S. 38, 49
(2007).

After that calculation, however, a sentencing judge must consider seven factors outlined
in Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a): “the nature and circumstances of the offense
and the history and characteristics of the defendant,” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1); the four legitimate
purposes of sentencing, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2); “the kinds of sentences available,” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(3); the Guidelines range itself, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4); any relevant policy
statement by the Sentencing Commission, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(5); “the need to avoid
unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants,” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6); and “the need to
provide restitution to any victims,” id. § 3553(a)(7). In determining the appropriate sentence, the
statute directs judges to “impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply
with the purposes” of sentencing, which are:

(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to
provide just punishment for the offense;

(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;

(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and

(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical
care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner.

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).
 Case 1:12-cr-00847-PGG Document 502 Filed 01/24/18 Page 5 of 7
Page 5

Courts may not presume that the appropriate sentence necessarily lies within Guidelines
range, but “the fact that § 3553(a) explicitly directs sentencing courts to consider the Guidelines
supports the premise that district courts must begin their analysis with the Guidelines and remain
cognizant of them throughout the sentencing process.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. at 50 n.6.
Their relevance throughout the sentencing process stems in part from the fact that, while the
Guidelines are advisory, “the sentencing statutes envision both the sentencing judge and the
Commission as carrying out the same basic § 3553(a) objectives,” Rita v. United States, 551
U.S. 338, 348 (2007), and the Guidelines are “the product of careful study based on extensive
empirical evidence derived from the review of thousands of individual sentencing decisions,”
Gall, 552 U.S. at 46; see also Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. at 349. To the extent a sentencing
court varies from the Guidelines sentence, “[it] must consider the extent of the deviation and
ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance.”
Gall, 552 U.S. at 50.

II. Asch is a Danger to Society and Should be Sentenced to a Substantial Period

of Incarceration, Significantly Above Probation’s Recommended Sentence of
120 Months.

Here, all of the factors that the Court must consider in imposing sentence—including the
seriousness of the offense, the need for deterrence, the need to protect the public from the
defendant, and the defendant’s need for specialized help—all support the need for a substantial
term of incarceration. While it has been four years since the defendant was convicted, the facts
of this case remain vivid to all of the individuals involved in prosecuting this case. Through the
pendency of the conspiracy, Asch was an individual who was obsessed with sexualized violence
against women and children. He sought out other men who shared this obsession, and
specifically sought out men who, like him, were looking to act out his violent fantasies. Richard
Meltz, Asch’s co-defendant who pled guilty, was one the people he found; so was Michael
VanHise, and “Darren,” the undercover FBI agent who Asch met, on numerous occasions, to
discuss their plans to rape and torture women.

In his sentencing submission and, presumably, in defense counsel’s advocacy to the

probation department, the defendant seeks to advance the argument that the jury—and this
Court—rejected: that his violent fantasies were just that, fantasies, and that he would never act
on them. The facts of this case fly n the face of that argument. As the Court is aware, Asch met
with “Darren” on multiple occasions to discuss the possibility of abducting a woman for the
purpose of torturing her. In its report, probation states (and bases its recommendation at least in
part) that Asch was not the “driving force or the facilitator of the event.” This is false. Asch
discussed with “Darren” his ideas for abducting a woman from a public space; he talked about
his previous attempts to follow women during parades and other public events, and about how he
would go out looking for women to target on his own. The probation department seems to view
the fact that the FBI introduced an undercover as a potential target as a mitigating factor—but
 Case 1:12-cr-00847-PGG Document 502 Filed 01/24/18 Page 6 of 7
Page 6

it’s the opposite. As the Court is aware, the reason that was done was because the agents
involved in the investigation had concerns that Asch was actively looking for a target—and it
was an effort to focus his attention in a controlled way, to protect the safety of the public. And
Asch jumped at the opportunity, participating in trips to follow her leaving work, and sleeping
with a picture of her by his bed.

Further, while it is true that he seemed unlikely to go forward with action on completely
his own, this is, again, an aggravating factor here, not a mitigating one, because it makes clear
that Asch’s advanced age cannot give the Court or the public comfort that he will not engage in
this type of behavior again. Part of Asch’s motivation for this crime was the sexual excitement
or gratification of being with other men, terrorizing and demeaning women. Throughout the
period of the charged conspiracy and for years before it began, Asch was actively looking for
men to join him – certainly well before the FBI ever introduced an undercover agent—and
particularly younger men, like “Darren,” who would be able to help him execute the plans he had
been fantasizing about for years. Indeed, during the course of the conspiracy, Asch would reject
individuals who he deemed unlikely to go through with any real life action, and ceased
communicating with them. Asch was 60 years old when engaged in the crimes of conviction, but
his age didn’t stop him because, for him, much of the thrill was the group mentality and
engaging with younger men who could take on the more physically demanding aspects of the
crime. Asch’s role was to gather supplies to help incapacitate and abduct a woman, and then he
would get to participate in her torture after she was subdued, and it is a role that he could very
well engage in again if and when he is released from prison. Accordingly, a substantial sentence
is warranted.

Moreover, all of Asch’s communications with Meltz, “Darren,” and others, must be
viewed in light of the steps he took to prepare for the crimes, including meeting meeting Darren
with supplies to carry out a gruesome and brutal crime. Along with the taser that he travelled to
another state to buy—and took steps to hide the purchase of—Asch collected tools of sexual
torture, such as a “leg spreader,” a contraption that would force a woman to keep her legs spread
open against her will. He also brought practical things such as a chemical agent to help knock a
a woman out, rubber gloves, and bleach – to clean up the blood and body fluids after the rape
and torture was complete. There is no sexual thrill in buying and transporting bleach—it is a
practical item, in this case purchased by someone who had thought through the reality of
physically torturing another human being, and knew it would be messy and take steps to clean
up. And while Asch’s friends and loved ones wrote letters about the man they knew, who they
couldn’t imagine hurting someone, it is clear that Asch hid this aspect of himself from them, and
thus their assertions about his peaceful nature and inability to hurt someone must be given little
weight. As should his absurd claims about being a pacifist and an advocate for women’s
rights—claims that are absurd on their face. This man was a teacher, who spent most of his days
teaching children in New York City’s elite public schools, while behind the scenes spending
years corresponding with other men about the physical and mental abuse of women and children.
 Case 1:12-cr-00847-PGG Document 502 Filed 01/24/18 Page 7 of 7
Page 7

He not only wrote letters for years (before the internet) detailing his desires to demean and
torture women and young people (see Exhibit A, which the Government is submitting under
seal), he collected pornography depicting these acts, not only on adult woman, but on children.
Asch requested and received child pornography from an individual with whom he was chatting
online about his shared interest in “raping little girls and babies.” This included the following images
of real children:

• A nude 18-month old girl, sitting on top of an adult male whose erect penis is in contact with
the girl’s vagina;

• A 2 year old girl with an adult male’s erect penis over the girl’s vagina, and there is semen on
the child’s body; and

• A five or six year old girl, lying on her stomach while her ankles are bound and her genitalia
are exposed.

This pornography was made using real children, real victims, who suffered through the production of
the material. During the search of Asch’s apartment, the FBI also found at least two VHS tapes that
contained images of pre-pubescent boys performing sexual acts on themselves and each other. Mr.
Asch had all of these images in his possession during the pendency of the charged conspiracies, and
presumably, for years before. He also conducted research and hoarded magazines and articles
relating to real life sex crimes and murders that involve real, non-consenting victims. Asch’s self-
serving claims that he never involved real people or engaged in abusive or illegal conduct outside of
“internet” chat rooms are ridiculous, and should be treated as such.

Asch’s conduct in this case was serious, and while the charged conspiracy lasted only a
couple of years, all indications are that Asch has spent the entirety of his adult life obsessing over the
opportunity to demean and harm women and children. His conduct has shown that, when given that
opportunity, he acted on it. He should be punished accordingly, and the public prevented from him
ever getting such an opportunity again. Asch’s sentence must involve substantial sentence of
incarceration, significantly longer than probation’s recommendation.

Respectfully submitted,

GEOFFRY S. BERMEN
United States Attorney

By: /s/ Brooke Cucinella

Brooke Cucinella/Hadassa Waxman
Assistant United States Attorney
(212) 637-2477/2277