www.justiceforchandra.com

[benn]

goz, thanks for all of the comments. I guess we can mix fact and fiction here, sometimes some of the genuine news articles get mixed up also.

Since the Chandra Levy investigation has been going on so long, goz, I think that that we can begin to pick up clues and hints just by reading old news articles about the investigation, something missed, or not mentioned.
I believe it was Linda Katz's brother who mentioned on the Larry King Live Show, back in July 2001 that the police, and some of perhaps the Levy family, knew that Chandra had keys to Condit's apartment.

That subject seems to have been dropped fast. I don't remember reading it again. I did try to write to Connie Chung and ask her why she had not asked Condit about the keys in her interview with him. I probably did not have her accurate address and did not receive any answer. I also wrote to Jodi Hernandez, who did a local tv interview with Condit on the same evening as the Chung interview, but she did not answer. I may not have had her correct address either.

So many interesting items come up in these old news stories, the genuine news stories, such as done by the Modesto Bee. From what I read of the old police investigation of Condit he was only asked about four questions by the police, and it took four interviews to get the answers.

I think that there is much to be learned just by reading and re-reading some of these old news stories about the Chandra investigation. Condit was an elected official of the voters of his district, but I do not remember seeing any news story that he had been questioned by the Grand Jury in Washington.

Also, goz, why were the Washington D.C. Police seemingly so interested in keeping local law enforcement agencies in California from investigating the case, and Chandra's disappearance? Local government in California could have done some things that DC did not do, such as talking to a witness in Chandra's home district.

A lot of this story seems to be hype and not genuine investigation. I remember one case that came out of Washington, not Chandra's, and at an earlier date, that said: "When things get tough the tough get going."

Throw those gloves away goz. :)

benn

[rd]

You know, it's fair to question whether it's right or fair or unfair to put too much emphasis alone on what Paul Katz or OC Thomas said in those interviews where everyone was looking for answers to Chandra's disappearance. But we still don't understand what Paul and OC said. They raise questions that haven't been answered, and are at the root of Chandra's disappearance.

OC in particular owes it to Chandra and her family to answer a lot more than he dug himself a hole that he couldn't get out of. Chandra ended up in a hole that she couldn't get out of too.

Condit not being forthcoming I understand. There's no excuse for anyone else.

rd
_________________
ralph@ee.net

[rd]

AP has a fascinating article today on an eeriely parallel case under investigation. A hiker's dog in a national forest in May finds a skull with long black hair under brush. Further uphill from the skull is a shallow grave, with bones strewn about.

The May was 2003, a year after Chandra was found, and the national forest Inyo National Forest at Mammoth Lakes, about two hours from Modesto.

With a lot of detective work over three years using experts found via the internet, Mammoth Lakes, Ca. detective Paul Dostie has identified the woman as a southern Mexico indian woman who is rumored in that area of Mexico to have come to the US with the help of a married man in southern California. She told a Mammoth Lake visitor's center employee in heavily accented English that she was afraid of the man she was with, a heavyset white man with a mustache, apparently for good cause, and the employee gave her a card from the local women's shelter.

Then the man came back from getting camping information and they left. She was found wearing a lacy blouse and flimsy jacket and had been stabbed repeatedly, which the local medical examiner did not find. They did make the remains available for other experts to examine and be able to determine that, unlike the DC medical examiner.

Clearly he had not brought her there to go camping. This sounds to me like some publicity will solve this woman's disappearance and murder. Some heavyset married man with a mustache in California took a long weekend in May of 2003 and took his Mexican illegal alien indentured slave to Mammoth Lakes and stabbed her to death, and put her in a shallow hole and covered it with some brush.

He will not inevitably be known to have kept an illegal alien woman somewhere, perhaps keeping her someplace where she could perform labor for him, but if enough people knew the particulars something will click.

Undoubtedly another woman who became inconvenient.

rd

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/2006/11/20/news/local/16057555.htm
From bones, a woman's life unfolds
VICTIM'S ID IS FIRST PIECE TO FINDING KILLER
By Juliana Barbassa
Associated Press
December 3, 2006
_________________
ralph@ee.net

[benn]

[rd]

They did speak plainly of important issues, benn, and to this day they are issues with unanswered questions. I will tell you I don't understand everything they were referring to when they spoke. They were unwilling to go into detail about what they knew and suspected, and none of it has been explained since.

I think OC especially needs to explain what happened. For Chandra to disappear after asking Condit about it, it's too critical to sweep under the rug.

rd
_________________
ralph@ee.net

[rd]

Well, a new DC police chief replaces Ramsey. Cathy Lanier, currently DC police commander for Homeland Security.

Ramsey mentions Chandra Levy one more time on his way out.

rd

from www.nbc4.com (fair use)

http://www.nbc4.com/politics/10512979/detail.html

Ramsey: D.C. Never Really Safe
Police Chief To Leave Post
December 11, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Worrying about potential threats of terrorism attacks in Washington is now a routine task of the chief of police in the Nation's Capital. But the city's outgoing D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey said Monday that authorities could never make the city really safe.

Threats of small- or large-scale terrorism can quickly bring out a massive public safety response to any potential scene.

But five years and hundreds of millions of dollars after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, officials said there is no assurance of protection.

"If you mean, is it 100 percent chance that nothing will happen here, the answer is no. I don't think anybody can give that guarantee. Are we prepared to prevent and respond better than we were prior to 9/11, absolutely there's no question about that," said Ramsey.

Ramsey is leaving his post by Jan. 2 after more than eight years as chief in the nation's capital and a long list of major demonstrations and other events under his belt.

"People forget about Y2K -- all the hysteria around that issue. Chandra Levy, which is a huge case that was knocked off the headlines by 9/11, and then the anthrax, the sniper, you name it, we've pretty much had it," said Ramsey.

But, Ramsey said the city's and nation's response to 9/11 is a defining moment for local police departments.

"I knew that normal had been redefined immediately. I mean, it would never be normal like it was Sept. 10," said Ramsey.

The National Capital Planning Commission last week warned that it is reviewing the increased blockades that have been turning up all around Washington, closing down much of the city in the name of security.

Ramsey said he agrees that police should avoid overreacting.

"You've got to strike that balance of being able to deal with the typical crime issues, but at the same time be prepared to deal with perhaps a very large scale event that might take place," he said.

Ramsey's replacement Cathy Lanier is a 16-year veteran of the force and is currently the D.C. police commander for Homeland Security.

Copyright 2006 by nbc4.com

[benn]

[rd]

Well said, benn. So much, yet so little.

On another note, here's a post I just made on slashdot in reply to this:

from slashdot.org:

bzipitidoo wrote:
Recall the case of Chandra Levy, once an intern working for former Congressman Condit. When she vanished, many people had no problem believing she had been murdered, and thinking up motives Condit might have for doing it, with the most popular being so that she couldn't talk about the affair he had with her.

Circumstantial evidence started pouring out, and things were looking very bad for Condit for a while. Condit lost the next election, but was never arrested or charged, and a year later they found Levy's remains, which enabled them to come up with scenarios that happened not to involve Condit at all. Last I recall, the most likely perpetrator is thought to be a particular thug who was in the area at the time.

Why? He frequented the park, he lived next to it, and he has no alibi for the afternoon she disappeared. By the way, she was his secret mistress, not his intern.

I wrote a book on it and posted it on my website, www.justiceforchandra.com

It's a decent read for people interested in mysteries, especially tech folks.

rd
_________________
ralph@ee.net

[rd]

Good for Dominick Dunne and his lawyer Paul LiCalsi for sticking to their guns in this second defamation lawsuit from Condit. From Michael Doyle's reporting for McClatchy Newspapers:

Goidell wants a federal judge to let him out of a defamation case he brought on the California Democrat's behalf. Facing potential sanctions for filing an allegedly frivolous lawsuit against author Dominick Dunne, Goidell agreed this week that the case never should have been brought.

"The defamation claim in this action is not warranted by existing law, or by a non-frivolous argument for new law," Goidell said in a Jan. 15 affidavit.


But Doyle further reports:

But while Goidell is pushing the eject button, Condit is vowing to fight on.
(snip)
A solo practitioner based on Long Island, N.Y., Goidell told Leisure that he reconsidered the case after LiCalsi threatened sanctions. Goidell further said that Condit is sticking to his guns.

"He notified me that he does not wish to voluntarily discontinue the action, and that he will be retaining new counsel," Goidell said.


Can they go after Condit for essentially trying to blackmail Dominick into a payoff to quit suing him? The lawyer is bailing due to LiCalsi advising him he would seek sanctions against the lawyer for a frivolous lawsuit. Doyle reports:

The sanctions can sting. Several years ago, for instance, a California judge fined a lawyer $500,000 for filing a frivolous lawsuit against the toy-making company Mattel. The lawsuit had been filed on behalf of a Barbie competitor.


I think Condit is pretty desperate to shake someone down for some money. His other lawsuit:

Condit has brought a second defamation lawsuit against a small Arizona newspaper, but it's moving slowly.
(snip)
Condit is already a veteran of multiple libel lawsuits - two of them still pending. His litigious persistence could prove costly, even as it illustrates the rules governing defamation and courtroom decorum.

"It's been my observation that plaintiffs in defamation cases can become so emotionally invested that it is very, very difficult for them to disengage," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "They will pursue libel suits beyond what any normal person would do."


Here's the link to the article:

Gary Condit's lawyer bails out on a defamation lawsuit
By Michael Doyle
McClatchy Newspapers
Jan. 18, 2007

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16492297.htm

rd

[jane]

I am so glad to see Dunne's lawyer defending him so vigorously!

I have always hoped one of these suits would expose some of the info Condit has managed to keep hidden for so long... But that's not going to happen, so let's hope LiCalsi and others like him will finally put the lid on Condit's suits, the sooner the better.
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

[Rainbow]

In her role as current Speaker of the House, which includes being third-in-line to become next President of the U.S., as well as her being a long-term member of the U.S. intell-committee (of which Chandra's Congressman and friend,Gary Condit, was a member), Ms. Nancy Pelosi has an obligation to the Levy family members, God and country to "re-" solve the Chandra murder mystery. There are no if's, and's or but's about it, although there may well be some about her if she doesn't.

[rd]

Given the FBI allegedly has the case, I would think that anything done by a government official other than encouraging the FBI would be considered interference in the investigation.

It'd be nice if the Democrats addressed the issue, but neither did the Republicans, and obviously one would expect none from anyone except the FBI or DC police. Nothing was posted that there would be questions about Hastert if he didn't address Condit's role in Chandra's murder.

rd

[Rainbow]

Dear rd,
On the one hand, I beg to differ. . . Early on, pressure was put on the House Ethics Committee to take a stand. It took quite a while for the committee members to do so publicly.
On the other hand, FBI aces and other public and private agencies have been involved in solving the case and in all likelihood, have done so. Word has it, though, that political "higher-ups" seem to have some kind of stake in maintaining "secrecy" about what the results of the investion are.
This is all very perplexing. . . It is a shameful "injustice" that a sweet, intelligent and beloved American girl and her family are have been made to endure such horrific treatment.

[rd]

Yeah, right. And Garrett went public about trying to solve Chandra's case before he retired as a coverup.

I wrote in Murder on a Horse Trail about the Ethics Committee not taking any action on Condit. Congress wanted rid of him, and California Democrats made sure of it by redrawing his district.

Once rid of him, it wasn't their problem anymore, so you will never see anyone in Congress of either party ever address his role in Chandra's disappearance.

rd

[Rainbow]

Good analysis, rd. It's interesting that Mr. Garrett was assigned to the case, in the first place. Since Mr. Garrett was involved in some major cases of international import, I have always wondered if there is some sort of foreign government component to this case (may be even ancillary).
We are living in a representative form of democracy. The branches of government represent "WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE". An atrocity has been committed (just like Anne Frank in Nazi Germany) right in front of our eyes and is being covered up! The German government was forced to make restitution for its crimes against humanity, and American leaders were a major part in bringing criminals to justice. Where are our "Nuremburg" prosecutors?
Chandra Levy was a student of "Public Government", in the USC Master's Program! Some person/persons (governmental agencies?) is/are allowing her to be a form of sacrificial lamb.
We, the People, need to help Congress and our other institutions of government clean up their acts. Between "covering up" the murders of young women, some of whom are political scientists, themselves, and allowing young pages to be sexually harrassed, We, the People, led by Mrs. Pelosi have our work cut out for us!!! Will a woman do a better job of "cleaning up" the "House" of Representatives? Or, is the stain of "absolute power" and "political expediency" so deeply ingrained in man-and woman- kind, that it is "impossible" to cleanse?
May WE and OUR REPRESENTATIVES who wield political power look deeply into our own souls and play a role in providing "JUSTICE FOR CHANDRA AND HER FAMILY". As was the case for the murderers of Anne Frank in Nazi Germany, RESTITUTION is the order of the day!