www.justiceforchandra.com

[rd]

[Rainbow]

Thanks for refreshing all of our memories, RD. Have you heard anything more about the "Chucky" stories? Those seemed preposterous! Could those cons have stolen that tale from the "Central Park-Preppie" murder story, which also had a similar aspect, if I remember correctly?
Also, have you heard anything more about the "knots" in the leggings/tights? Has there been any information made public as to whether the knots were tied by a right- or left- handed individual?

[rd]

I do not recall that that was ever ascertained, Rainbow. Certainly not from the police, only the vaguest of information was leaked about the knotted leggings to start with.

And as I understand it, that was part of what the police and coroner would not allow the forensic experts to examine. Helen Kennedy reported in August, 2002:

The Levy dream team of forensics experts hired by family lawyer Billy Martin is still waiting impatiently for access to her bones and other effects to do its own tests.

But Washington police, widely seen as having bungled the case, are not eager to hand over evidence to Levy experts who might show them up yet again.

"Regrettably, as of this moment, nothing to my knowledge has been arranged," said Pennsylvania coroner Cyril Wecht, one of the Levy trio of medical examiners, along with Michael Baden of New York and Henry Lee of Connecticut. "Martin has continued to attempt to gain access for us to these materials, but frankly, we are still waiting."

They were still waiting when Chandra's remains were finally released to her family to be buried more than a year after being found.

Would they have known which handed knots they were? We'll never know. The DC establishment made sure of that.

rd

[Rainbow]

Great post, as usual, RD! Did we ever hear anything about whether her tennis-shoe laces were tied or untied and/or whether the shoes and laces showed any indications of being worn before the crime or put on afterwards or just placed nearby?

[Rainbow]

Hi All!
I need to clarify something. . . There was a home video that showed Robert Chambers demonstrating the commission of a crime on a "Barbie" doll in the "Preppie" murder.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/not_guilty/park/2.html
Here is the link to the "Chucky" doll. The press has been making comments about Guandique identifying himself with "Chucky" and how scary and bad a criminal that makes him out to be.
So. . . here's"Chucky".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chucky_(Child's_Play)

[Rainbow]

I posted something on this subject on another thread. Here is some information about the false confessions in the case know as"The Central Park Jogger Case".

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/12/17/findlaw.analysis.centralpark.jogger/index.html

[Rainbow]

This article may already have been posted. It might be helpful to read it again.

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=1115&u_mod=ap.online.headlines.us&u_sid=10608171

[jane]

I am wondering about Guandique's tattoos. I am no expert on tattoos by any means, but I have the notion that jailhouse tattoos are markedly different from the ones people get outside the big house (presumably because the professional equipment is not available in prisons).

Another thought - the MO attested by some of the informants is quite different from the known Guandique attacks in that he acted alone, while some of the informants describe Guandique attacking Chandra with two teenage accomplices.

One would think at least one of those two witnesses to Chandra's disappearance and murder would have been lured by the reward money offer.
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

[jane]

In a recent article, I read the following:

[rd]

Sloppy is right, jane. These reporters are rookies when it comes to the Chandra Levy case. They have no idea what they're talking about, and they have the floor of the national audience.

And they are spreading disinformation at an alarming rate either through incompetence, or willfully for the political establishment in DC or, as I believe, both.

I fell asleep last night in the middle of writing a post about this. They have a full time job of misleading and brainwashing the public. We have other responsibilities and have to almost need a fulltime job of correcting the errors and misperceptions they're publishing as well.

And have to pay and support these bozos in mischief with tax dollars and advertising support through readership to boot.

In addition to what you point out, jane, Chandra's clothes were not jogging clothes, they were what she wore casually all the time. I'd like to put a heavy sweatshirt and spandex leggings on one of these bozo reporters and trot his ass for miles through Washington everytime he reports Chandra was in jogging clothes.

He'd also get a taste of how far he could get prancing around like that. These reporters have no problem telling the public Chandra did it. They'd be singing a different tune, so to speak, if they tried it themselves.

Also, these rookie reporters are repeating as fact now that Chandra was murdered in a random assault on a Rock Creek Park trail.

The defense surely will establish that a woman found where Chandra was was dumped from a vehicle as every other body found in Rock Creek Park has been, that someone went to a great deal of trouble to hide her body hundreds of feet down a steep hillside when they dumped her body, which indicates someone who knew her, and that for multiple reasons, Chandra's history, Chandra's training, Chandra's habits, and Chandra's activities in the days prior to her disappearance, Chandra didn't jog anywhere, much less to a remote forest hillside where she was found.

I believe that the jury will hear and understand this despite the best efforts at brainwashing the jury pool by people protecting Congress from an investigation of murder of one of their own.

rd

[sigsky]

Would anyone care to speculate as to whether Guandique's trial might be televised? I was fascinated by the recent OJ trial.

Guandique's public defenders are Santha Sonenberg and Maria Hawilo. Not sure why he would have two if they are court appointed. I have tried unsuccessfully to learn anything about their level of competence but let's hope they are sharp. Wouldn't the prospect of a televised trial perhaps motivate a top defense lawyer to take the case for the publicity.

Of course there are any number of powerful people who would probably be strongly opposed to the publicity of a televised trial.

[jane]

I really don't think it will be televised. There would be a great deal of public interest in watching it, I'm sure - but I don't think the authorities would go for that. They just want this case to go away. They probably thought they could pressure Guandique to confess long before this stage.
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

[rd]

sigsky, I agree with jane, but I hope that Guandique's defense pushes strongly for a televised trial. I think it is critical to receiving justice, both for Guandique but more importantly for Chandra, that the visibility into the process that televised sessions and scrutiny from commentators brings would make it crystal clear what the DC establishment is doing.

And you bet they don't want this to go trial, much less let people see the detail behind the framing of Guandique and trashing of Chandra they're trying to do.

I suspect they're offering Guandique any deal short of lewd behavior in a public park with intent to jaywalk to be able to walk away from this without a trial and close the book on Chandra's murder. And trying to intimidate him with anything short of waterboarding to get it.

As for defense attorney's, I don't know anything about Sonenberg and Hawilo, but I'm more comfortable in this case with a couple of women defense lawyers, one whose name may indicate she speaks Spanish, versus some hot shot publicity seeking male defense attorney.

It is important that Guandique, and by extension Chandra, be able to prevail on the merits of the case which I think these two defense lawyers would be capable of presenting without getting in the way of it.

It is equally as important that some leftist defense lawyer who has a history of arguing that everyone is innocent regardless of the merits of the case not be allowed to overshadow the actual merits of this case.

The merits I feel are well represented in this thread. I would not want a defense lawyer who is like one of these reporters, ignorant of the details and context of Chandra's case, doing the opposite of what the reporters are doing, and posing a simpleton if the glove don't fit you must acquit defense for example.

The merits are quite complex, but a jury of our peers will appreciate the complexity of the details and context of Chandra's life in understanding how Chandra's death did not occur as police and prosecutors will try to prove with various made up stories.

rd

[Rainbow]

Thank you, Jane. That article is upsetting because it states that the judge feels he/she has probable cause to arrest Guandique. I think that the driving forces behind a lot of these false allegations are the women who Guandique originally victimized, who don't want him released from prison. No matter how much we all empathize with their feelings, though, it doesn't justify falsely accusing Guandique of Chandra's murder.
I also agree with you, Jane, that the writer of this article did not check his/her facts. The original group of police and investigators assigned to the case believed that the Rock Creek Park crime scene was a SECONDARY, not a Primary one! DEAD WOMEN DON't JOG--period!
Also, other witnesses HAVE come forward (and some told to GO BACK)and related information to law enforcement, which hasn't been made public!
And, as RD has said repeatedly, this is NOT how law enforcement and members of the American justice system should be treating Chandra, one of their own!

[Rainbow]

Hi Sigsky!
As far as trial televsion coverage goes. . . Some of the people who were brave enough to come forward with information about this case went "on television" in the year 2001-2002 in order to physically (and otherwise) PROTECT themselves, because of the political context of this case. The plethora of information that was generated by their self-protective actions contributed greatly to what the media terms, "The Summer of Chandra".
Since then, the stream of information coming from the people closest to the case has come to a halt. . . They don't appear on talk shows; they haven't written books. Is this "coincidental"? Is "9-11" to blame? Or, were certain people told to "cease and desist" from bringing their "intimate" details of the story to the public's attention?
Based on the inofficial "gag-order" that has been placed on this case by individual(s) from certain agencies, I would be surprized, indeed, if the "True" story ever were to receive television coverage on a network like "Tru TV". I believe that the only coverage that this case is going to get will be a synthesized version of a combination of the" Central Park Jogger" and "Preppie Murder" cases. It seems like the "powers- that -be" which feel responsible for shaping political thought in America want to sell us "Barbie" and "Chucky", not "Killer Tomatoes"!