|
www.justiceforchandra.com Justice for Chandra Levy and missing women
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
jane
Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 3227
|
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 9:27 am Post subject: Thomas Sowell article about Chandra's disappearance |
|
|
This was written a few months after Chandra's disappearance. It is an article that most of us have already read, but it's worth another read, I think. (I snipped the end of the article where Sowell speculates about a pregnancy.)
fair use
Quote: | Jewish World Review
August 6, 2001
Thomas Sowell
Chandra Levy clues
http://www.jewishworldreview.com
ONE of the clues in the Chandra Levy case that may have been dismissed too quickly was a call to the police on the morning of her disappearance, reporting a woman's scream heard in the building where she lived. This seems to have been disregarded as an unrelated event because it occurred hours before the time when Chandra Levy was supposed to have used her computer in her apartment.
But nobody actually saw her using the computer. All that is known is that the computer was used. If Chandra Levy was abducted hours earlier, whoever had her also had access to her keys. Why would such a person, or an accomplice, come back to that apartment and use a computer? Only to throw off the police.
Obviously, no ordinary street criminal would do that. Only someone with a vested interest in misleading the police would do it. But then, nothing else about the Chandra Levy case suggests that her disappearance was the work of a random street criminal.
Ordinary rapists, muggers and robbers do not go to such trouble to dispose of a body that a massive police dragnet fails to find it. Street criminals get what they want and then leave the scene before they are either caught by cops or recognized by witnesses.
Everything about the way Chandra Levy left her apartment suggests that she was going to meet someone she knew. Ordinarily she was very security conscious and took precautions, such as having her cell phone with her. Yet on this occasion she left everything behind in her apartment and took only her keys with her.
This does not necessarily mean that she knew the person who abducted her or killed her. She could have been lured to where that person was waiting by a message from someone she did know and trust, and who said that he or she would be at that place. Chandra might well have screamed when she was ambushed by somebody else.
All this suggests premeditation. Sometimes people have an argument that escalates out of control and leads to violence or death. But at such an emotional moment, one is not very likely to come up with a scheme for disposing of the body so cleverly that an army of cops cannot find it.
Murders are all too common. But murders in which the body cannot be found are much rarer. There has to be some compelling reason why a killer does not just flee the scene of the crime.
Obviously, if the crime occurred in the killer's home or on his job, then the body must be moved. But, if it happened somewhere else, then the dangers of hanging around or carting a body around would have to be weighed against whatever advantage could be gotten by hiding the body.
What do you gain by hiding the body? In some cases, it may be possible to hide the fact that any crime was committed. If a globe-trotting reporter were murdered in London and the body never found, then that reporter might just be regarded as missing in action anywhere around the world. But that was impossible in the case of Chandra Levy.
As an intern whose term was up at a particular time, and whose parents were expecting her back in California shortly afterwards, Chandra Levy's disappearance was bound to be noticed, whether a body turned up or not. With the passage of time, the likelihood of an accident would have to decline to the vanishing point and foul play left as the only reasonable conclusion.
If her death was caused by someone who knew her, then that person would also know this. Thus there would be no point in trying to conceal the very existence of a crime. All that could be concealed would be the identity of whoever was responsible. Misleading the police about the time at which her abduction happened might be worth spending some time at her computer or having someone else spend time there.... |
_________________ "There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
laskipper
Joined: 17 Sep 2002 Posts: 1232 Location: Northern Ohio
|
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good article and the authors' comments still ring true. All of them. _________________ A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves
~
French philosopher Bertrand de Jouvenel (1903-1987) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MrRich
Joined: 26 Aug 2003 Posts: 52 Location: Tulsa, Ok
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | But then, nothing else about the Chandra Levy case suggests that her disappearance was the work of a random street criminal. |
This was written before Chandra's remains were found in a park where other women had been the victims of a random attacker, and before the police began to focus on Ingmar Guandique as a suspected random attacker. I don't think it still holds true.
-Rich _________________ All things being equal, the simplest answer is usually best. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jane
Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 3227
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, Rich, and to quote the Church Lady, how conveeeenient. _________________ "There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ |
|
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
|