www.justiceforchandra.com

[rd]

I happen to disagree with that, benn. Not sure how others feel, but a dna test is first of all something that the daughter could voluntarily offer and secondly doesn't answer the many questions I pose to the Thomases in Murder on a Horse Trail.

All they have to do is answer the questions. In my opinion OC Thomas is just as much to blame as Condit in Chandra's death until he explains in depth what happened. I personally think it is unlikely that the child was fathered by Condit, but Chandra's life ended when she questioned Condit about it.

OC Thomas can start by explaining it all.

rd

[Pepper]

About the dna test. The only way that would work is if Condit's dna was available, along with that of the child, and the only purpose in doing that would be to establish paternity if the mother sues Condit for child support.

Here's my theory on what happened. This was my theory before reading your book, and it has not wavered.

Chandra gets a call from Condit. He wants to see her once more before she leaves town. He is probably telling her he will get her a permanent job in DC, etc...........

Anyway he tells her he wants to meet her in Rock Creek Park, and that he has arranged for *someone* to pick her up. The *someone* might be on a motorcycle. I can picture her putting on a helmet and getting on the back of a bike. This person takes her to the park, and Chandra is trusting him, because Gary said he would be there in the park waiting for her with a picnic lunch, or a bottle of wine. After she is lured deeper into the forest, she is killed by this mysterious *someone*. Condit, of course, is nowhere around there. The killer leaves her body there to decompose. Perhaps he stages the crime scene to look like a sexual assult, but he is smart enough not to leave his dna there.

Now who is the actual killer? That is harder to pinpoint. It could be one of his staffers like Michael Dayton. It could be brother Darryl. It could be one of Condit's biker friends. It could be someone who owes Condit a political favor.

In any event, I am quite certain that Condit didn't dirty his hands by being the killer, but it was done at his request. Someone in his position doesn't have to say much to get what he wants. He could have just said that this woman Chandra was getting to be a big problem for him, and that he wished she would just disappear. Presto, someone takes that as an assignment, and the next thing you know Chandra disappears.

I absolutely do not believe that Chandra was the victim of a random act of violence. She was deliberately killed to eliminate her as a source of embarassment for the Congressman.

[gozgals]

First I will state:

I have not completed the book so I'm not up to par on what is going on and what rd has uncovered.

To date, most of what I feel is in agreement with Pepper.

One fact I'm still pondering over is if GC wanted Chandra dead or just sent a alert out to "get rid of her!"

I have discussed this with a few people, (that have not read the book) and are just interested in the case. They believe - "GC did it and wanted Chandra gone!" These opinions, (to note) have come from mostly men. For various reasons they do not like Mr. GC.

I still waver as stated on if he actually sent the alert out on if she should be killed or just warned.

But, I must admit--- I have to finish the book.

[benn]

I will see if I can put my thoughts together here. Interesting discussion anyway.

My primary thought about the dna test, or whether Condit fathered Jeniffer's son, is that if the test proved that he did, then that would have been a very very strong motive for him to want to silence Chandra.

Of course in the opposite vein, a negative dna test would completely free Condit from being associated with Jennifer's son. If Condit is not the father a dna test could only help him, not hurt him.

>>>In my opinion OC Thomas is just as much to blame as Condit in Chandra's death until he explains in depth what happened. I personally think it is unlikely that the child was fathered by Condit, but Chandra's life ended when she questioned Condit about it.

OC Thomas can start by explaining it all. <<<

I agree that Chandra's life may have been ended when she questioned Condit about the Otis Thomas story. Then why do all contemporary time lines omit Chandra possibly questioning Condit entirely? If Chandra did question Condit then that would have immediately thrown up danger signals to him that Chandra was talking about him to her family. Condit did not want anything to do with girlfriend's families.

If we can narrow the most important points down here then that might give us specific questions that we could ask Mike Doyle about, or perhaps Joseph McNamara. I don't like to write to either one unless I think I have something that might lead to something.

>>> secondly doesn't answer the many questions I pose to the Thomases in Murder on a Horse Trail."<<<

I was just thinking about this the other day when I suggested that someone write an article about the Chandra Levy case emphacising some of the topics we emphacise here.

There are so many different reader groups, rd. I have never looked into that at all, but many people probably very seldom read a book, and others may read everything they can get their hands on, and others maybe read mostly non-fiction (I am one of those. I went from reading mostly fiction in libraries to reading almost only non-fiction in libraries). So rd I think you might have to explore different reader groups to get your comments out about Chandra. Maybe everyone is watching tv and not reading much of anything. I don't think that is true, but there are certainly many different reading material choices.

Some reading groups may only consist of a few people, such as one Mike Doyle would be on, or Joseph McNamara.

Thomas was questioned a long time by the FBI. I don't know why we should blame Thomas for anything, except maybe he is the easiest to pick on. He had no lawyer, and he is not a political figure. Thomas still needs a lawyer. The Levys probably spent a lot of money on lawyers, but their lawyers, or the Levys, did not make the right choices about what to investigate, or to get the authorities to investigate. I might write emails to Doyle and McNamara. What the heck, nothing much is being done in the case, a poorly written letter by me asking a few specific questions is not going to absolve anyone.

benn

[Pepper]

[benn]

gozgals and pepper. There seems to be a lot of evidence pointing in the direction of that Condit had to get rid of Chandra. Because the evidence seems to point in that direction does not necessarily mean that he was involved in any way, but he really has not done much to distance himself from the crime.

I don't think this has anything to do with whether I like GC or not, but there are GC supporters and there are others maybe who just don't like him. I don't think the Levys were contradicting Condit because they just did not like him.

I wrote once somewhere here that Condit should not have been astonished that he was found out by his constituents, and that he was then voted out of office. Condit should have been astonished that he was not found out sooner by his constituents and voted out of office.

Extra marital affairs do not make for good political stability. I guess GC just thought that he could get away with it. No one in law enforcement seemed to really want to investigate Condit. I guess their jobs were more important to them than finding out the truth. But Condit's influence has faded and as it does something might develop.

benn

[Pepper]

[gozgals]

[James Anderson]

I'd like to bring up a few ideas based on everything I know about this case. To be honest I think people may be off when they say that they don't believe that Condit was the one who directly murdered Chandra. I believe this was a crime of passion. My theory is that Condit's wife was in town. Since Chandra spilled the beans and let him know that she had been discussing their relationship with other people, Condit was keeping his distance from her. Since Chandra therefore had no idea his wife was in town, she called Condit's condo and got his wife on the phone. They probably had an argument on the phone, and Condit's wife was furious. She probably angrily told Condit about this, and this on top of everything else, pushed Condit over the edge. From this point I would say that Condit, who was known to ride his bike through Rock Creek Park, and was familiar with the terrain, hatched his plan to lure Levy out into the woods and do away with her.

This probably all happened within a 48 hour time frame before May 1. He likely requested the meeting with Dick Cheney as a cover, contacted Levy about meeting him at the Klingle Mansion. He was probably riding his bike when he went into the park, and rode to Klingle Mansion. From there he suggested that they go to his preplanned destination, the most remote spot he could find, and suggested a sexual encounter involving bondage, something Condit was known to participate in. At the crime scene, her walkman and headphones were still sitting on a rock, as if they had been calmly set there. When he got her into the most vulnerable situation he could, he probably strangled her, since her hyoid bone was damaged. I don't believe that Condit would involve anyone else in this, especially his drug addled brother. There would always be the risk of them talking, and I don't think that is something Condit could live with. Condit never would have, and probably never will tell ANYONE the truth about what happened that day. Of course, there are only two people who know exactly what happened, and only one is still alive. People sometimes put their political leaders on too high a pedestal, and some like to think that a Congressman would never dirty his hands by directly committing such a crime. That might be just one of the many reasons this crime remains unsolved to this day.

[rd]

I agree with you substantially on intent, James, but differ on the timing of some of the details. Along the lines of your thinking when so many think that a Congressman could not dirty his own hands with a murder, consider this.

If Condit knew Chandra would be murdered by someone else, he would not be in a position of implying he was with VP Cheney when the murder occurred, he would have practically made himself available for a photo shoot or some other very public way to establish an alibi.

The fact that he has no alibi proves to me that he was in fact involved with Chandra's disappearance that Tuesday afternoon, alone I don't know, but I do agree with you that he would not have trusted most anyone else to be involved, I break ways concerning his brother Darrell however. In fact, I consider Darrell a critical planned plausible denial intermediary between Condit and Chandra's disappearance.

I will believe that unless it is firmly established that Darrell was in fact still working his temp construction job in Florida that day instead of disappearing from the job as rumored by tabloids. Certainly I believe if there were pay records they would have been produced long ago by his high priced Watergate lawyer to prove that Darrell was not involved that day.

Crime of passion on short notice? Yes, I agree. However, the phone call between Chandra and Carolyn Condit probably took place before Carolyn's trip to DC, in fact, was probably the reason for her trip. A critical question that sheds light on that is when the earliest RSVP from Carolyn to attend the First Lady's Luncheon was. Certainly we know from Condit's expense filings that Condit's office did not purchase a ticket for her attendance in advance as he did the next year while also finally paying for her prior year's attendance during Chandra's disappearance.

We also know that Carolyn rarely if ever attended events such as the First Wive's Luncheon in earlier years, just this one rare trip to DC during which Chandra disappeared following a five to ten minute call to Condit's apartment while he was in session. All of a sudden Carolyn wants to go to DC to attend a Wive's Luncheon for which she has no ticket. This is certainly not believable and even openly questioned in the press, but the answers were not published. It seems that Carolyn is just as unforthcoming as her husband Gary and brother-in-law Darrell.

In fact, everyone who is silent about Chandra's disappearance is named Condit. That cannot be a coincidence.

rd

[rd]

I think it is very telling that anomynous sources were quoted as saying that Chandra frequented Rock Creek Park, "her favorite place to jog" stated by one reporter, others quoted "friends" as saying she walked there frequently.

We know that her known friends with names, Jennifer Baker and Sven Jones, stated emphatically that she didn't jog outdoors and was not known to them to visit Rock Creek Park. So who were these "friends" that reporters quote about Chandra in Rock Creek Park?

I believe that Condit used his office as a powerful congressman to call in favors from certain news organizations to either knowingly lie for him or to at least take his word or that of his staff that such friends existed and did say this. I believe these news organizations did this for political reasons believing that Condit was unfairly being blamed and they expected political payback in the form of exclusives and inside information put best, put worst to have a form of blackmail over Condit to get such information.

I only implied this throughout Murder on a Horse Trail, asking rhetorically where such information certain reporters were quoting was coming from. I certanly don't expect them to answer those questions, there were a lot of anomynous quotes and they are all important pieces of information, but in hindsight I expect news organizations that now know they were used by Condit to say so or at least followup on where they were misled.

The fact that they haven't is not looking good for those reporters that may have deliberately misled the public and police for political payola.

rd

[rd]

A person who has extensive knowledge of Chandra's case registered on websleuths just to post this:

from websleuths.com

Markco wrote:

I have been looking back, lately, to the details of the Chandra Levy case. I hope not to upset anyone, but I have an alternate explaination for her death. It looks like to me that a simpler scenario would fit also. She was hiking in Rock Creek Park in a remote area. She stopped to take a break and have a snack. She choked on something she was eating. The location of her body was overlooked in the search for her. Time and animals scattered her remains.

The above is consistent with what is publicly known about the crime scene and circumstances. The damage to the bone in her throat and a possible cracked skull seem to indicate that she choked and struck her head during the suffering to try to dislodge food from her throat.

Then there is the leotard.

No stockings were listed in the items of clothing found. If the listing of her clothing is correct that I have seen, everything else was there. If I am correct, the leotard leg ends were tied on the inside of the leotard. I would say that she knotted them, turned them right side out, and wore them that way; hence no stockings. In the extended time that her remains were there, in is not inconcievable that they got turned wrong side out by acts of nature-- animals, etc.

Perhaps there never was a murderer.


I responded:

My understandiung is that the knotted leggings were attached to her limbs, disjointed as they were. For more on that and a description of the horse trail where Chandra was found, I invite true crime readers to read "Murder on a Horse Trail: The Disappearance of Chandra Levy".

I look forward to other explanations from sharp eyed readers looking at the details of Chandra's disappearance.

rd


and


Markco wrote:

I have read through the other material, posted elsewhere, that rd suggested. There is an awful lot of speculation. I couldn't find a direct quote from authorities that the leggings were tied onto any bone remains. What I did see was that the leggings were wrong side out and, as far as I can tell, tied at the leg ends. Of course details are obscured by authorites in an ongoing investigation out of necessity. The other direct reference appeared to be that they were found "very near" the remains.

A lot of this points to a petty thief with a Spandex fetish. In some 1700 acres of woodland I would tend to suspect a family of Racoons. They have a passion for shiny objects and intelligence and motor skills that rival that of primates. They are also omnivores.


I responded:

You have remarkable knowledge of the case, Markco. You are correct. The Washington Post reports that the leggings were found "near" her skeletal remains, the NY Post reports a knotted leotard found "next" to the remains. The police were at the same time reported to have speculated that the ends tied together suggest that she may have been restrained for a sexual assault.

The question is, were they just leggings tied together laying next to her on the ground or was the Washington Post deliberately reporting obscure information from the DC police? And were the ends merely tied together or were her leggings in fact found as a rope? Consider the following:


Knotted leotard clue to death of Chandra Levy
By Charles Laurence in New York
Daily Telegraph UK
May 26, 2002

Clues found at the Washington park where her skeletal remains were discovered last week included a torn leotard twisted into a rope.



Levy case likely to be filed as homicide
By Mary Shaffrey
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 28, 2002

Police sources say they are 90 percent sure Miss Levy was tied up with her own clothing, her hands bound by her tights.



GRIM PARK SITE IS REOPENED BUT CHANDRA
By NILES LATHEM
New York Post
June 1, 2002

The only clue is Levy's spandex legging, found inside out and knotted on both ends, indicating the possibility that she was restrained and sexually assaulted, police say.



Levy death may be classified as homicide
By Matthew Cella
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 25, 2002

Chief Gainer declined to comment on reports by WTTG-TV (Channel
5) that Miss Levy was bound, saying the source of that information
acted in an "immoral and unethical" manner in releasing it.



If the police are 90% sure Chandra was bound and felt it so important to the case that they thought it was "immoral and unethical" that it was leaked, I wonder with your extensive knowledge of the case Markco why you suggest otherwise?

rd

[propria]

i have followed this case from the very first news reports of chandra's disappearance, and i've done my share of speculating on the many possible implications of the handful of known facts available to the general public. however, with all due respect to marko, i can't help noticing that the lengths to which he has gone to construct an alternative explanation for chandra's death and the condition of her remains when she was found stretch even the wildest imagination well beyond the breaking point. indeed, the scenario he has presented is so far fetched that i have to wonder why he would go to so much trouble to construct a theory with such a weak foundation, just in order to make chandra appear to be responsible for her own death.

i have never heard of anyone injuring their hyoid bone while choking on food, and there were no reports of any kind of food wrappers or other evidence of eating found with her remains. i would also be surprised if a person were able to fracture their skull while thrashing around in an effort to dislodge a piece of misdirected food. if she was eating, she would certainly have been sitting down, and that's an awfully short distance for her head to go before it reached the ground or any rocks that might have been nearby. i'm all for going over and over this case, coming up with any and every possible scenario that is grounded in published fact and based on reasonable, rational possibilities that are in keeping with the facts ... marko's alternate explanation fails to meet either of those criteria.


nanci
_________________
the Truth has a name, and there is power in that Name!

[fallout]

Hello, Its nice to see the recent discussion here. My two cents....

1. The discovery location in Rock Creek Park was probably a secondary site:

a. The area is too busy for someone to commit a planned murder. Dog walkers, kids from the local cram school, Nature Center personnel, heavy metal enthusiasts, tree climbers from the D.O.D. and, apparently, bank robbers could show up at any time. The spot where the body was found is within sight of hiking trails even if it is off the paths.

b. The articles of clothing found on branches and on the ground near the remains would not have remained in place for one year. The USC sweatshirt (or t-shirt) should have attracted the attention of searchers immediately. Given the estimate by Chief Ramsay that the searchers were close to that area, the shirt should have been spotted in July of 2001. It was not seen at that time.

c. Looking at Condit as a suspect- If he or someone in his hire murdered Chandra this area would point back at him as a suspect. It was only a matter of bad luck that the police did not find the remains if the remains were there. Almost any other location would have been better if pre-meditated. If a crime of passion, the necessity, in the first days before her disappearance became a police matter, of removing the body and dumping it in the Chesapeake Bay or the Atlantic would have become clear to the killer if it were Condit.


2. Looking at the behavior and activities of the "prime suspects" in the case.

a. Condit goes on the offensive. He goes public with the Connie Chung interview. He runs for re-election. He maintains a high-profile on the Congressional Committees. After his defeat and retirement- Condit becomes litigious- He brings suit against commentators and news organizations, taking the chance that he would be more carefully investigated. He settles all of these suits successfully. He takes the proceeds to open a small business and remains married to his wife.

b. Sven Jones leaves his prestigious job as a leading spokesman for the Federal Bureau of Prisons. He moves from the Washington D.C. area. He has no furthur contact with the media.

c. Congressman Joe Scarborough announces his resignation effective September 7, 2001 leaving his constituents without a representative until the following January. One month later Scarborough's office assistant Laurie Klausutis mysteriously dies in Scarborough's Ft. Walton Beach office. Scarborough is in D.C. at the time but no questions are asked about the unexplained death of a 27 year old marathon runner. He also resigns from his community newspaper but then re-appears a year later as the host of a Fox TV talk show. He cites family reasons for his resignation from Congress but moves to New York a year after wanting to spend more time with his family in Florida.

d. The FBI and a few other alphabet agencies: A bright young woman with unlimited potential and solid experience with the Bureau of Prisons has applied to several government agencies. The FBI should have already begun a background check on Chandra Levy. Is it possible that they, or another agency, discovered that she was involved with a married Congressman? If so, how would this have affected the search for Chandra over the next year? During those profiling sessions with Condit did the FBI have information with which to find discrepancies in what Condit told them based on what they had learned in the background checks?

e. The Levy family.. Do they have information that should be made public that would assist a potential witness in realizing that he had vital information about the case. There could be someone who saw something who does not realize that it could solve the case because he has never been asked.

Well, I hope something breaks soon.

See ya later,
James

[rd]

from websleuths.com (fair use)

RD;


Please, please, no need to become so defensive. I was not attempting to topple other theories, or reduce anyone's book royalties, just searching for possible truth, like everyone else is. I do not claim special knowledge of the case. I was only hoping to clarify what it was that was released for facts about the leotard. And also to present another possible theory. If the facts about the leotard and other details of the crime scene are ever press released by the Washington Police department, I will be happy to accept them. And if a murderer is found I will be as pleased with justice as anyone will.

...also I am not positive that Ms Levy would have sat passively by, while a killer removed her shoes and stockings, pulled the leotard off, turned it inside out, and knotted and twisted it into a rope to do whatever. Perhaps her stockings were taken as a souvineer? They were not listed among the retrieved clothing. And don't professional killers dispose of bodies, rather than making sure they are on display complete with murder weapon?


Markco