www.justiceforchandra.com

[James Anderson]

I've been a visitor to your site for about a year, and I enjoy getting the latest on the case, and your ideas about how to bring some life into this now "Cold Case". I thought you'd be interested to know that on Wednsday night Court TV is going to have a half hour special on the Levy case. I got this off the Court TV website:

Premieres Wednesday, July 20 at 9:30pm E/P
Encores Friday, July 22 at 11pm E/P

The disappearance Chandra Levy, a 24-year old Washington DC intern, became the biggest story of the summer in 2001. Her congressman and rumored lover, Gary Condit, was questioned repeatedly, but never named as a suspect or arrested. When her skeletal remains were found more than a year later, her death was ruled a homicide. Police have questioned more than 100 people, including a convicted serial predator who attacked two women near where Levy’s body was found. In spite of this massive investigation, no one has ever been charged in her murder. This documentary re-examines the evidence with Washington DC’s police chief, a former FBI criminal profiler, and Chandra Levy’s parents.

[rd]

Wow, thanks for that info, James. I had made a note to try to find out what an ad I saw meant. It flashed on the screen

Under Investigation
Mystery in the Capitol

and I thought the face I saw was that of Candice DeLong, thr FBI profiler who has been involved in covering this case from the beginning.

Being on Courttv and with DeLong's picture, it seemed to be something a little special, but it was too much to hope it was focused on Chandra's investigation.

I just got cable a week ago so I will be able to watch this. Thanks for the heads up, James, and I hope everyone visiting in the next couple of days gets to see your post and watch the special. It will be most interesting to see what everyone has to say at this point.

rd

[fallout]

Thanks James

Just saw the ad for the show on Court TV and am really looking forward to it.

There is a hint in this ad about a new revelation in the case and, strangely enough, the hint includes a video image of what looks like a State legislature. I wonder if the Rita Cosby report last year which mentioned a Maryland lobbyist as a new suspect is part of the Court TV presentation?

RD, that does look like Candace DeLong. Do you think they'll have Sven Jones as well? It would be nice to finally see what he looks like and do a voice stress test on him. Revving up the video recorder for that possibility.

We've been hoping for a break in this case for a long time now. Maybe this is the new beginning of that.

James (fallout)

[rd]

Hi James,

I doubt there would be any appearance by others than listed, that being Ramsey, DeLong, and the Levys, mostly due to what one would hope to accomplish in 30 minutes.

I sure could see a followup half hour on each of the major players in this case, though. Even without willing participation there's a lot of footage and plenty of information for analysts to discuss. I think it would be an interesting series of specials with some focus for people to follow as a series.

rd

[benn]

rd and James, I sent a comment to Court TV on their forum. Of course who reads comments? If they get enough comments they might react. We have a second chance to comment after the program runs.

Something occurred to me about this case maybe yesterday. There are a lot of phrases of the investigation, as reported by the media, that are now "old hat," taken for granted. Many phases of the investigation, or non investigation, have not received much coverage, possibly some of them hidden up because of past threatening civil suits. The civil suits now too are becoming rather "old hat." just taken for granted.

Under those circumstances people with a little inside knowledge might begin to accidently begin blurping something out, something that they did not want to say but had forgotten that they did not want to say it. There are all kinds of phases of the investigation (that never was) that could be researched by an inquiring reporter, or reporters, to give them their day's coverage of news.

This could develop not because a reporter is trying to really uncover anything, but just because he needs a story for the day. The thing to do then, for some of us benign souls, is to tap some of these reporters on the shoulder through emails and ask them, or him, maybe her, "Why didn't you report this?"

Is Michael Doyle ready for such a tap on the shoulder?

No good deeds go unpunished. :>)

benn

[rd]

I saw a more in depth courttv ad just now. They say "stunning new theory" and show a brief glimpse of Candace DeLong talking but I don't think it's of her presenting a new theory.

She is saying "I can't get the picture out of my mind". Sounds like she is referring to something about the murder scene, we'll have to see.

Well, the only new theory printed in the last couple of years was the Enquirer saying an associate of Condit was suspected, a picture was shown to Flammini by somebody, etc.

This was shortly after the Enquirer settled the lawsuit with Condit as I recall. It sounded to me like a tit for tat for a sweet (little money paid out) settlement with Condit in my opinion. Drop the suit and we'll run your side of it, Gary. Must have been someone I introduced her to. Hello, Darrell.

Still, I have to tell you that that was not what I would call a stunning theory. It will be interesting to see what it is and what the Levys and Ramsey and DeLong think of it.

Which reminds me. The title was "Under Investigation". I assume that is what Ramsey adds to this. If it amounts to any more than drop a dime, we're waiting, I will be amazed.

rd

[benn]

>>>"Mystery in the Capital"

A fresh look at the biggest story of summer 2001 -- the disappearance of Washington DC intern, Chandra Levy.

Tonight@9:30pm E/P<<<

I hope I can see it. If not maybe someone can report on it.

benn

[jane]

Here's a link to the Court TV blurb on the upcoming story:

http://www.courttv.com/onair/shows/under_investigation/episode/capital.html
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

[jane]

Oh, I see that the info is exactly what was posted at the top of this thread...
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

[twinkiesmom]

Argh...Nothing new...old file footage, Guandique, the same photos shown over and over. The only thing new appeared to be a few quips from Candace DeLong (who I love, but this was still lame).

The lipstick found near Chandra...was that ever proven to be hers?

Lots of assumptions in this show...that Chandra was alive in the park, that she did the surfing & emailing May 1, etc., and that she was jogging in the park.

No Sven, only one short clip of Linda Zamsky and a short camera shot of Anne Marie.

After seeing that shot of Chandra in the white tank top fifteen times during this one show, I can certainly see why Chandra didn't like to jog. They don't make support bras strong enough for girls that well endowed.

[rd]

Good summary, tw. The show was a really high level summary of the case. What little was stated was wrong or misleading, or both. Siegenthaler I believe formerly from NBC narrated. He probably just read a script without having a clue what he was talking about.

The heavy duty reporters Allan Lengel and Petula Dvorak of the Washington Post were included with the FBI profiler DeLong as commentators.

All the footage was stock. I have written on this case for four years without ever seeing any tv footage, so all new to me. Looks like I didn't miss much. Like tw said, probably saw Chandra's glamour shot 15 times in 30 minutes. They didn't expend much energy gathering footage, that's for sure.

"Stunning new revelation"? The stunning revelation seemed to be Guandique, although DeLong is quoted very well as saying it made no sense being Guandique with his failed attacks right after a successful assault and murder of Chandra. Plus they did say he passed the lie detector test, but DC police were wondering if they should revisit his case. This is all literally from 2002. It may very well have taken this long to get by lawyers to even air.

Barrett, the DC cop who was in charge of the fiasco, said the bags were packed, probably old footage, and also specifically stated that Chandra emailed her mother the day she disappeared that she was checking on flight information. Everything he said was false. Chandra's case was said to be still "under investigation", hence the title of the show. It was also stated it was an official cold case. All several years old information.

Lipstick in the park was Chandra's? The side of this huge hill where she was found was a trash dump, with a shoe, contact lens, beer cans, a condom, and on and on. It would be like having a party on the side of a wall.

In any event, the police didn't even pick the stuff up and test it. Greta and Ted Williams along with Lengel and the Levy investigators had to publically humiliate the DC police by going out there and showing the public what was left behind, like all the stuff mentioned and a good portion of a leg before the DC polic would come back out and pick up the stuff on the side of the hill.

I believe somewhere in the past that Susan Levy was asked about the lipstick and she said it wasn't Chandra's brand, but that's just a vague memory. I could be wrong. In any event, Candice DeLong empahasized that Chandra seemed to be going there to meet someone romantically, and that Chandra wanted to look nice going there is what DeLong was saying she couldn't get out of her head.

No new comments from the Levys or anyone else. I'm glad they gave a half hour to the case, but it was an insult to the intelligence of the courttv audience who already knew all this stuff and also know there weren't any stunning revelations as advertised. Just some decent investigative reporting would have sufficed, I'm sure. Instead it was courttv meets National Enquirer.

rd

[benn]

I did get to see the program, and everything that has been said here about the program seems to be true.

For anyone though who is really agressive I see two possible people who might be sent an email at this time with possibly a chance of receiving some better explanations, or possibly better methods of examining this crime.

I did get a little information once from Mike Doyle, of the Modesto Bee, when I wrote to him and asked him something about the Otis Thomas phase of the case. I forget now what I asked and he answered. Whatever I asked was about the way the Bee had handled the Thomas story.

Another person I have written to only once but who replied very promptly is Joseph McNamara who was a research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and may still be. I have not kept up with him. He has a very strong, good, Police background. I grew up during my grammar school years near to Stanford University.

I remember emailing McNamara on a Sunday, and I believe that he replied on Monday. His letter may still be on the board here. I made a comment or two about the Chandra Levy case. At the time that I wrote the sniper shootings in the East had just been solved.

A good question, to the right person, or persons, might do a lot of good. I think it was Thomas Edison who billed Henry Ford $10,000 for replacing an electrical part at the Ford auto factory.

Ford was upset at the amount of money he was being charged. He told Edison that the part that was replaced had only cost a few dollars. "Yes," replied Edison, "the part only cost a few dollars, but the $10,000 is for knowing what part to replace and where."

I am hoping that eventually someone will ask the right question of the right person, and the Chandra Levy case will begin to be solved.

benn

[jane]

About Chandra's mom and the lipstick - Susan Levy checked through the makeup Chandra had left behind in California, to see whether the same brand and shade was there, and it was not.
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

[James Anderson]

It was no big surprise that the Levy special on Court TV failed to cover any new ground. Basically all they did was compile some interviews from 2001 and 2002, combined with news footage from the same era, and at the end they just seemed to shrug their shoulders and say we still have no idea who did this. However, they did have some pretty good footage of the Klingle Mansion/crime scene area, of Levy's DC apartment, and some home movies of Chandra with her family. In one scene her brother is seen kidding her about being a "big shot in Washington with a job at the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and having a Congressman boyfriend". They seemed like a pretty close knit bunch, and they obviously knew what was going on with her and Condit. Of course, much of the time was spent ignoring, perhaps willfully, the important facts. Did they mention once Condits wife being in DC (a very unusual thing) at the exact same time as her disappearence? Did they once mention the mysterious circumstances surrounding her dismissal from the Federal Bureau of Prisons? They just seemed to spout the old line that Condit is not, never was, and never will be a suspect, ignoring the obvious question, Why Not?

In any case like this, the lover/boyfriend would be the #1 suspect. Especially one with so much to lose if the affair should ever become public. Also, near the end they spent too much time focusing on Ingmar Guandique, who early on passed a lie detector test, and whose crimes didn't even come close to matching what we know about the Levy crime. How could anyone believe he would have dragged her 300 yards into the woods, through thick brush and down a steep slope? The only hint at anything incriminating Condit was when FBI profiler Candice DeLong mentioned that Guandique clearly was not the one that committed this crime, and how Levy's lipstick was found at the crime scene, indicating she went there looking her best for her boyfriend (the only boyfriend she had at the time was Condit).

To be fair Court TV I'm sure knew that Condit was watching closely to see if there was anything on this show that he could sue over, and I'm sure they are aware of the legal hassels Condit put the National Enquirer through, and therefore had to avoid speculating on the obvious fact that Condit should always have been suspect #1. Are the DC police and the FBI really so inept as to fail to pursue so many leads? Of course Condit was quoted as saying " If I go down, a lot of others will go down", and being a powerful Congressman on the Intelligence Committee, he would have inside knowledge on some of the less than stellar personal behaviour, and wheelings and dealings of some of the biggest names in politics, so all it would take is a phone call to the DC police and the FBI to tell them to call off the dogs.

[rd]

Several points you raise James that were absolutely shoddilly reported. If the point of courttv is not to enlighten their viewers, then what is it? Shoddy entertainment ala National Enquirer? No, it's supposed to be serious entertainment, at least take the facts seriously. They have a knowledgeable, intelligent audience out there.

The web page of Klingle Mansion was shown several times. Chandra's web search is covered in depth in chapter Klingle Mansion in Murder on a Horse Trail, published here on this site, and it was anything but a web search on Klingle Mansion.

The web pages for Rock Creek Park no longer exist and the police never released images of what was in her web cache, but in any event the web page shown in the show was random and bogus entertainment.

In fact it is clear that the DC police erred in interpreting the search on Rock Creek Park as being about Klingle Mansion because the park office address showed up on the map, thus simplisticly and ignorantly focusing their search around that park office.

It is also shoddy and ignorant reporting to state on the show that Chandra was found near Klingle Mansion. I would like the airheads making it to walk from Klingle Mansion to the Ridge where she was found a mile and half north as the crow flies and with what little breath they have left to say again "Chandra was found near Klingle Mansion."

She was not. It is only convenient to say so. It is that convenience that has permeated the handling and reporting of this case from the beginning. It is the essence of why Chandra's murder remains uninvestigated and unsolved to this day. It is the very essence of incompetence.

rd