|
www.justiceforchandra.com Justice for Chandra Levy and missing women
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
benn
Joined: 19 Sep 2002 Posts: 2136 Location: Sacramento, CA
|
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
rd, why not try sending your comments in your last message here to a few people who might be interested? Of course there is always that threat from somewhere that someone might be sued.
Some people that you might send your last message to (would that really be your last message? :>) are Mike Doyle at the Modesto Bee, Joseph McNamara at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, Candice DeLong, and any other newsworthy persons who might be interested. I might even write to those three myself. I don't think I have ever written a letter to Candice DeLong.
Candice DeLong did not say much, but at least she did not cave in.
I sent an email to the Public Defender's Office in Washington, D.C. once when Guandique was being reinvestigated, and the reply from one of the Public Defenders was that the DC police began reinvestigating Guandique every time they ran out of new leads. I forget which Public Defender's Office I sent my email to. My letter, and their reply, may well still be on the message board here. Maybe I will look for them.
benn |
|
Back to top |
|
|
twinkiesmom
Joined: 13 Feb 2005 Posts: 9
|
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
RD, I think The Enquirer would have done a better job investigating. This reminds me more of "MSNBC Investigates" which is just repackaged, rehashed Dateline segments.
What this case needs is Mark Furhman. Anyone try writing to him to get him interested? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rd
Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 9273 Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I tried writing to Fuhrman at his radio show a long time ago when I was trying to get someone to write a book about the case. I finally ended up writing it myself.
As far as I can tell everyone considers us fringe elements of society. benn listed the only two people that have ever responded to us. I think that should be clue enough even for us fringe elements. :)
rd |
|
Back to top |
|
|
benn
Joined: 19 Sep 2002 Posts: 2136 Location: Sacramento, CA
|
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello all, I wrote to Mark Fuhrman once, but he did not answer.
I am trying to use a slightly different style of searching. I will probably get the same results anyway. Here are excerpts from one long article about the Levy case. The way the reward money is mentioned here is interesting. I doubt that anyone ever sees all of this information. I doubt very much that the grand jury saw much of the information. No one seems to examine just a small portion of the information to try to make some sense of it. The quoted lines just below about the reward money are very interesting. Did Candice DeLong see these? Did Joseph McNamara ever see these quoted lines?
Condit's 5/17 statement, also below a little ways down, about it not being appropriate for public statements to be made about the case while it was under investigation, sounds very suspicious. That quotation I believe first came from the San Francisco Chronicle. I know it was there, if not elsewhere.
The searching of Condit's apartment is mentioned here, but I don't recall seeing any mention in any news report saying that Condit's apartment was not searched until about 11 weeks after she disappeared. Seems like a lot of dead wood in Washington, or maybe just the good ol' ol' ol' ol' boys club.
Excerpts from http://prorev.com/sexindc.htm#levy
>>>>One mistress was the 18-year-old daughter of a Pentecostal minister and gardener from Modesto, California, in Mr. Condit's home district. The congressman may have sired a child by her. The dates match and, on the birth certificate, the father's name is "withheld".<<<<
>>>>On May 3, Chandra's mother telephoned the congressman to say she hadn't heard from her daughter in a couple of days and did he know where she was.
"No," he said. "But would you like me to put up a $10,000 reward?" This seems a very curious reaction, given that Mrs. Levy had not yet contacted the police and was not yet suspecting the worst. But Mr. Condit was.
On May 5 or 6, well before Chandra's disappearance became news, the congressman told his other woman, Miss Smith: "I'm going to have to disappear for a while. I think I may be in some trouble.". . .
In another Clintonian touch, he had his lawyers draft an affidavit for Miss Smith denying that she'd had an affair with the congressman. Miss Smith declined to sign and instead went to Fox News .. .<<<<
>>>>Make no mistake about it. This is a big case. One classic solution would be to declare it a suicide or to find someone - such as a criminal already facing a murder rap - to take the fall as part of a plea bargain. For example, at least two fairly recent alleged suicides quickly fell down the memory hole - those involving Sandy Hume and House Intelligence Committee staff director John Millis - despite reasonable unanswered questions. And, of course, there remains the big one: the unsolved death of Vince Foster.
But Levy wasn't found dead in a park or motel room, nor did she die in a burglary, and the facts of the case and the great public interest do not lend to such a convenient resolution. This leaves another option: just don't solve the case.
If this sounds cynical, consider what a forensic pathologist involved in many murder cases told your editor during a talk show. The caller said that the way to approach such mysteries is to "think dirty." I told him he would have made a good journalist.
In Washington, however, the opposite approach is favored. Whenever something unseemly happens too close to power, the first reaction of politicians, law enforcement, and media is to think clean. As the late Katherine Graham once told her friends at the CIA, there are some things it's better the public didn't know<<<<
>>>>5/17 Condit releases a statement: "All of us should focus our efforts on getting her home ... it is not appropriate for any of us to make any further public comments about the facts of this case or to speculate about a matter that is under police investigation." Police say they will get a warrant for the next search of Levy's apartment, so any evidence that turns up can be admissible in court.<<<<
>>>>7/10 Condit apartment Searched. Samples of unknown substances found in bathroom and on a blind taken.
7/12 Condit refused to turn over pants with red stain (NewsMax). Chandra's computer/cell phone used day after she went missing and she was pregnant with Condit's child (per Drudge reporting about National Enquirer)<<<<
Well this is some of what was posted. The big news was mentioned, but I can not locate it right now. The "He explained it all," episode is not mentioned. In other words Otis Thomas is mentioned at the beginning of this article, but he is completely eliminated at the end, not mentioned, even though Susan Levy thought that possibly the story had had something to do with Chandra's disappearance.
benn
Last edited by benn on Fri Jul 22, 2005 2:55 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fallout
Joined: 19 Sep 2002 Posts: 566 Location: The Great NorthEast
|
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You folks are quite right that there were no new theories presented in the show unless you consider Ms. deLong's statement that "Chandra wanted to look pretty for someone" the basis for a theory of acquaintance murder. Is it possible that Court TV did have a "stunning new theory" but that their lawyers told them to edit it out for fear of a lawsuit?
If this is the best that the for-profit media can do then it might be up to us. I think Benn has a brilliant point- With the passage of time some of the players will eventually let their guard down and someone who knows something will let the wrong words slip out. Perhaps following the players and watching for those wrong words will bring out the truth.
The program did capture a little of the atmosphere of this mystery and wasn't bad for the limited time it had. Keep in mind that most of the audience is not as aware of the details and fine points as are the members of this forum. We might encourage them to do a follow-up. Maybe they should give RD a call!
Prior to seeing the show I went back over my notes and have been re-inspired to do some work. I only wish that some of the people who knew Chandra could join us and share in the search for the truth. Its never too late for that.
In case there is anyone who missed my earlier reports from my trips to DC I'll try to put up what I found in a few posts:
I'm still intrigued by the prescence of the guy I saw rapelling in the trees at the entrance to the woods near the discovery site on June 4, 2002.
I would like to know more about the strange markings I photographed on the birch tree there.
Could Chandra's ring still be there in the woods or does the killer have it?
Can we ever see a photo of Sven Jones or Condit's Public Relations guy or the lead detective Durant? And where have these guys gone?
Well, keep up the good work guys!
James (fallout) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
peripeteia
Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 1173 Location: Nova Scotia
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:41 am Post subject: TV Special |
|
|
Thanks for all the information and the posting. Welcome James to the forum.
Fallout you make an interesting deduction that the viewers are not as well informed as we are, and given all the hoopla at the time, it is likely that the general public know very little about the details of this case.
Regarding the lipstick and Susan Levy's comments regarding the same posted by Jane. Odd that Susan Levy would make such a comment dismissing that the lipstick was not Chandra's brand. That is unless Chandra rarely wore lipstick, and it seems to me more and more that Chandra was a person of habit, and perhaps even OCD driven. I do not know anyone who wears the same colour of lipstick all the time, or in fact buy the same brand. Given that she was only very young, it seems odd that she would always buy the same colour of makeup, and the same brand. However there are many people who always do things the same.
This brings me back to the thought that if Chandra always did things the same, why would she go out without her cell phone, and why would she go to Rock Creek Park which was is not a safe place.
Is it really true that the lipstick was not tested for DNA. Do we have a source for this information.
Sven Jones was in several interviews on Television, did none of the members see him in any of these interviews? One would think with all the announcements that he does for the Bureau of Prisons that there would be a photo of him or video on line?
Hope you all are enjoying the summer? It is mighty hot in this neck of the woods, and the humidex is extremly high. We are just not use to this
heat.
Kate _________________ A vision sent me on the path of seeking justice for Chandra, nothing I've seen in print to date has diminished the vividness but only served to reaffirm the validity of this vision. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jane
Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 3225
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Kate - I don't think Susan believed that since the identical lipstick wasn't found among Chandra's cosmetics left in California, that it couldn't have been hers. I'll try to find the blurb and post it here. _________________ "There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jane
Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 3225
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here it is:
fair use
Grief-Stricken Parents Still Awaiting Closure
Justice for Chandra Now Their Campaign
By Petula Dvorak
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 20, 2002
...When Susan Levy learned from a reporter last week that a tube of
lipstick was found with her daughter's remains -- a red shade of
Lancome, according to the FBI -- she began rummaging through the
bathroom drawers to see whether her daughter used that brand.
"Mom, she kept her makeup in here," Adam said, leading his mother into
his sister's bedroom.
Susan Levy opened a plastic storage box. "Cover Girl. Max Factor. No,
no Lancome," she said, after opening each tube and twirling it up to
see the dark, earthy colors her daughter preferred.
Chandra Levy, known by her friends as a thrifty, coupon-cutting
bargain hunter, used only drugstore brands of makeup.
Susan Levy took out a blush brush and stroked it over her fingers,
quiet for a full minute, thinking, smiling. "We should really throw
this stuff away," she said. "I don't know if we should keep it all."... _________________ "There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
twinkiesmom
Joined: 13 Feb 2005 Posts: 9
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think that settles it...She wasn't a high-end cosmetics buyer.
Besides, that area was a dumping ground for all sorts of things, and she was found in workout wear....No purse, no pockets. What would she have carried lipstick in along with the Walkman? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
benn
Joined: 19 Sep 2002 Posts: 2136 Location: Sacramento, CA
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well maybe we are getting a little ways here, eliminating something, or adding on. This may be off topic, but I wonder how one gets in contact with Candice DeLong.
I did write an email to Ron Owens at KGO talk radio once about Candice DeLong and received a prompt and not too friendly reply. I had said something about when was DeLong going to be on KGO again and I found out that she had been there many times. But at least I got a response.
I think that she might be one to bring up the subject of a dna paternity test to. We all know whom the test would be for, no need to get people's names into the news if it can be avoided.
A former FBI agent might have some comment on the dna test. That might also be a topic for Joseph McNamara. McNamara and DeLong might be able to bring up the subject without making it a big media splash.
Or should the dna test be forgotten completely? It is part of the investigation that was never done, or was never announced as being done. I guess we could ask the experts that also, should that test never be done, or ever mentioned again.
benn |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rd
Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 9273 Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
More superficial courttv coverage coming, every major case glammed over in an hour, obviously nothing more than an editor putting together outtakes of past coverage.
The article says a 144 page book from People on all these cases as well. Murder on a Horse Trail is 310 pages, just on Chandra's case alone. The People book would seem to be not much more than reprints from their past coverage. I quote People in the book, the writing wasn't bad, especially for articles that are usually pretty short. Had to be, all put together just added up to 144 pages.
Maybe we are seeing some experimental toe dipping in the potential for more in depth true crime coverage later, including on Chandra's case.
rd
from biz.yahoo.com (fair use)
Press Release Source: Court TV
Court TV(R) and PEOPLE Partner for New Original Special, From the Files of PEOPLE Magazine: 50 Crimes that Captivated America
Thursday August 11, 5:25 pm ET
Show Features Expert Commentary from Celebrated Author Scott Turow, Court TV's Nancy Grace and Catherine Crier and PEOPLE Editor's Larry Hackett, Cutler Durkee and Elizabeth Gleick
NEW YORK, Aug. 11 /PRNewswire/ -- Court TV® and PEOPLE magazine, leading media outlets for covering the most compelling crime stories of recent years, announced today an original television special, From the Files of PEOPLE Magazine: 50 Crimes that Captivated America, that will premiere on Court TV on Sunday, August 21st at 10:00 PM EDT (check local listings). The show is based on the 144-page PEOPLE book, "True Crime Stories, Cases that Shocked America," which makes its paperback debut on August 22.
This original one-hour special chronicles high-profile court cases that Court TV and PEOPLE have covered on television and in-book, including the murder of Laci Peterson, the allegations surrounding Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson, the conviction of Amy Fisher, "Preppy killer" Robert Chambers and the Menendez Brothers and the unsolved murders of Jon Benet Ramsey and Chandra Levy.
Court TV anchors Catherine Crier and Nancy Grace along with PEOPLE editors Larry Hackett, Cutler Durkee and Elizabeth Gleick provide their expertise and unique insight throughout the special. The special also includes interviews with author and attorney Scott Turow, journalist Maureen Orth as well as other crime and legal experts.
"I can't think of a better partner than PEOPLE -- when two of the most powerful brands in this genre join forces, the result is a compelling show which will appeal to both audiences," said Marc Juris, General Manager of Court TV Networks. "We hope this will be the first in a series of on-going specials with PEOPLE."
"Crime reporting is an essential part of our magazine and one that resonates deeply with our readers," said Martha Nelson, PEOPLE's managing editor. "Whether a high profile murder or a small town mystery, the dramatic events of the human experience continue to fascinate us."
Court TV® provides a window on the American system of justice through distinctive programming that both informs and entertains. The Court TV® Networks are comprised of Court TV News(SM), which provides live gavel-to-gavel trial coverage in daytime; and Court TV: Seriously Entertaining(SM) in primetime, featuring investigative drama, expert reality and relevant non-fiction series. Court TV Networks is 50% owned by Time Warner, and 50% owned by Liberty Media Corp, and is seen in 85 million homes. (http://www.courttv.com or AOL Keyword: Court TV)
PEOPLE revolutionized personality journalism in 1974 and is today the world's most successful and popular magazine. Each week, PEOPLE brings nearly 40 million readers the latest news, inside scoops, exclusive interviews and in-depth reporting on the most compelling people of our time. In addition to its unparalleled access to and coverage of the entertainment community, the stories of real-life heroes, angels and crusaders remain an essential component of the magazine's editorial approach. With reporters across the globe, the magazine is headquartered in New York City and has editorial bureaus in Los Angeles, Washington D.C., Chicago, Miami, Austin and London. For more information visit http://www.people.com
Press Contact:
Liz Cooper/Court TV - 212-973-7533 Evan J. Schapiro/PEOPLE 212-522-3689
Barry Rosenberg/Court TV - 212-973-8943 Marnie Perez/PEOPLE 212-522-0629
Source: Court TV |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|