www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index www.justiceforchandra.com
Justice for Chandra Levy and missing women
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Guandique trial
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 24, 25, 26  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index -> Murder on a Horse Trail
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9232
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 4:33 pm    Post subject: Guandique trial Reply with quote

Jury selection starts Monday. I still think this was all a bluff to try to scare Guandique into a plea bargain for a reduced sentence that didn't work, and now are faced with following through on having everything in the indictment affadavit cross-examined.

That can't be something they're looking forward to.

I still think the DC prosecutors are hoping for another extended delay or mistrial. In my opinion that's what they were hoping for when they revealed that DC police and possibly prosecutors wrote Guandique under a guise and tried to get him to confess, then listed the letters in the affadavit as evidence that Guandique was bragging to others about his murder.

They didn't get the mistrial. But there's a lot of shenanigans still to come.

rd


Background and analysis:

Guandique pretrial motions

Guandique Trial Postponed, New charges to come!

Guandique Murder Analysis

Prosecutor seeks life sentence for Guandique

Guandique's Defense

Guandique indicted by DC federal grand jury

Guandique to be charged with Chandra's Murder Feb.20/09

Washington Post investigation of Chandra Levy cold case

Murder on a Horse Trail Chapter 24. Guandique

click to read the online true crime mystery novel Murder on a Horse Trail: The Disappearance of Chandra Levy

Track offenders with GPS recorders!

www.justiceforchandra.com home page
_________________
ralph@ee.net
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9232
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

from Matthew Barakat of AP:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101017/ap_on_re_us/us_chandra_levy

Condit's spokesman, Bert Fields, said Condit expects to be called as a witness at Guandique's trial, though he has not been subpoenaed.

Fields said Condit will cooperate fully with authorities. But the ex-congressman, who is writing a book about his experience, will not comment on the trial until it ends.


end quote

Interestingly, AP is reporting that Condit will most likely be called as a witness for the prosecution.

I will be shocked if he does anything but take the Fifth as he has from the very beginning.

He always says he is cooperating but always takes the Fifth.

Of course it's important for the defense to show him taking the Fifth. He should be called to testify, and not given immunity.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9232
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 7:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

from http://helpfindthemissing.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6615&page=17 , annalyzer questioned the basis of the case against Guandique with no DNA or physical evidence, and prosecution claims he fooled a lie detector test.

I agree with your points, good points, but concerning not leaving DNA evidence, Chandra's remains were exposed certainly through the winter and no DNA was found, not even that of Chandra's remains. In other words, there is no evidence that she even decomposed there where she was found.

Her remains were spread across the hillside but the core torso was below a tree in a shallow washout, so that was where the DNA of her decomposition would be found. All decomposition and anyone else's DNA could have washed away, there is no evidence one way or the other.

I hope to emphasize to knowledgeable crime readers such as on HFTM that it required a car to bring Chandra up to grove 18 and someone to go to great lengths to drag her hundreds of feet down through the trees and hide her body in a shallow leaf covered washout. That is what murderers do when hiding an intimate, as you all know from the many cases of missing people you cover.

In one of the threads are great pictures from one of the mods there of the remoteness and height of the location up on Ridge road where she was found. Although newspapers describe it as "not far" from where Guandique assaulted two joggers along Beach Drive, one has to make the journey to understand how far and remote Chandra's location actually is. I describe it in chapter Horse Trail in Murder on a Horse Trail. I hope everyone gets a chance to read the descriptions in my book as the Guandique trial unfolds to be knowledgeable about what the prosecution is claiming.

And I'll pipe in my comments along the way.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
jane



Joined: 22 Sep 2002
Posts: 3280

PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can you imagine police coming up with the phony "Neutron Proton Negligence Intelligence Test" to supposedly show whether a person fired a gun (in an unrelated case, as Doyle mentions in a recent article)? Oh my.
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sigsky



Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 208
Location: South Carolina

PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

from the Matthew Barakat article posted above,

"The defense wants to present expert testimony from a university professor on the pitfalls of accounts from jailhouse snitches. However, prosecutors say jurors should be allowed to judge the credibility of witnesses for themselves. Superior Court Judge Gerald I. Fisher has indicated he will not allow the vast majority of the professor's proposed testimony."

I find this very disturbing, since it seems to support the foundation of the prosecution's case. I'm assuming we won't have America's finest legal minds on the chosen jury.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9232
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 12:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That and not allowing Guandique's passed polygraph to be heard by the jury. On the other hand the cross examination of the "cellmate confession" inmates should be illuminating.

I've seen nothing about them since the one refused to answer questions claiming he was threatened by Guandique through some kind of notes? but now those witness tampering charges dropped against Guandique to "streamline" the case.

Someone needs to tell those US attorneys they're only supposed to be able to lie to suspects.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9232
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 12:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

from http://helpfindthemissing.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6615&page=17 , Harmony pointed out that the Washington Post reporters who wrote Finding Chandra write about unidentified male DNA found on Chandra's leggings.

Hi Harmony, good to see you again. The DNA was determined to be from those handling the evidence. A lab techician's DNA was found on her bra, and they won't identify whose was found on her legging, but was acknowledged by prosecution as contamination.

They listed in the affadavit that DNA was "submitted" as part of the indictment, but was just Guandique's they took when questioning him in prison. The affadavit and Washington Post reporters made it all sound very suspicious to get the indictment, all of this only came out in pre-trial hearings throughout the past year.

When they want to get you, they have a lot of power to hide incompetence, which is disturbing. There's too many bad people running around (including Guandique) to engage in questionable practices that make all prosecutions suspect. But we see this over and over with people who were convicted in similar ways who were freed years later with DNA evidence, often with prosecutors attempting to prevent it.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
gozgals



Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 3353
Location: A Place Called Vertigo

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This should be really interesting as you said RD:

Can't wait...

Quote:
That and not allowing Guandique's passed polygraph to be heard by the jury. On the other hand the cross examination of the "cellmate confession" inmates should be illuminating.




Goz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9232
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That reminds me, goz, I need to check whether any of this is being covered on a (the?) trial channel. I'm not a trial watcher so not sure about those channels. Last thing I saw was some creepy docutainment on Chandra and Guandique on some crime channel. We discussed it awhile back here.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
sigsky



Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 208
Location: South Carolina

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've done a pretty extensive search and have been unable to find anything about TV or streaming video coverage of the Guandique trial. They would not cover jury selection in any case and opening arguments are supposed to be next week. I feel sure we will get some definitive information about coverage in the next week. I'll post anything I find here unless someone beats me to it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
sigsky



Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 208
Location: South Carolina

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

arrrgghh!

The anchor on MSNBC just reported that Chandra Levy was "working for Gary Condit". Heaven help us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9232
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yeah, it just gets worse from here as people who have no idea what they're talking about start talking about Chandra's case.

We'll see a whole lot more of she disappeared jogging in Rock Creek Park. We can thank the Washington Post Finding Chandra writers for that. They have done a really good job setting forth the DC establishment's agenda for them.

Back in the day Allan Lengel of the Washington Post was along with Michael Doyle of McClatchy the ultimate sources on the case. Michael Doyle still is and Keith Alexander is doing a bang up job for the Washington Post but there's a Finding Chandra crowd at the Post that is a virtual brainwashing team for the US Attorneys in DC on this case.

I saw similar reporting activity back in 2001 I document in Murder on a Horse Trail. They appeared to be doing political favors for Condit et al with a similar agenda of placing Chandra in Rock Creek Park from unnamed sources referred to as "friends".

All we can do is present the truth here in context on justiceforchandra.com so readers have an unbiased source of the information on Chandra's life, which sheds great light on her death.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Rainbow



Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 870
Location: THE LEFT COAST

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 1:52 pm    Post subject: Suspect or Non-suspect? Reply with quote

In the original investigation of the case, police detective(s) asked potential witness(es) to say how much the person(s) they saw with the person resembling Chandra resembled one/some of the other person(s) that have often been mentioned in connection with this case. To the potential witnesses(es) being interviewed, this/these question(s) made it seem that the D.C. police considered this/these particular individual(s) as "suspect(s)", not "non-suspects". Since this is such an important issue, why didn't the present investigative team re-interview the potential witnesses from the original case?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jane



Joined: 22 Sep 2002
Posts: 3280

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

excerpt from Washington Examiner
    The 55 questions include:

    •Would the fact that a witness is currently incarcerated cause you to automatically reject or disbelieve his testimony?
    •Do you know anyone who has belonged to a gang or been a target or victim of gang violence?
    •What is your opinion about people who are members or affiliated with Mara Salvatrucha/MS-13?
    •What is your opinion or impression of people with extensive or visible tattoos?
    •Are you aware of holding any negative feelings or opinions towards people of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity?
    •Have you, or any member of your family or close personal friend ever worked for, or been a member of any group or association that takes a stand on U.S. immigration policies?
    The questionnaire also asks prospective jurors to summarize what they recall about the highly publicized case.

    The first panel of 56 potential jurors in D.C. Superior Court has received the questionnaires. Another panel is expected to be called in later Monday.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/blogs/capital-land/a-peek-at-the-levy-juror-questionnaire-105190474.html
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jane



Joined: 22 Sep 2002
Posts: 3280

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From Mike Doyle's "Jury Sorting" article: "....Guandique's attorneys, Santha Sonenberg and Maria Hawilo, indicated they may need as little as one day to present their defense, which will come once the prosecution finishes...." Boy, I hope they plan to do a thorough job of countering every argument the prosecution presents. Think of the OJ trial and the Steven Smith (Kennedy relative) trial. These were different in that the gullty (IMO) party was on trial. But my point is, it's not enough to just roll your eyes at the flimsy case of the opposition (as Bugliosi pointed out about Marcia Clark in the OJ trial)...
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index -> Murder on a Horse Trail All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 24, 25, 26  Next
Page 1 of 26

 
Jump to:  
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