www.justiceforchandra.com

[jane]

The bra being contaminated does not mean that other articles are contaminated.
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

[rd]

jane, it won't take much of a defense lawyer to argue that if any of the clothing is contaminated it's all suspect.

However the primary ingredient concerning Innocence Project is that Guandique's DNA has already been established not to be on them. That's their focus. To go out and do DNA testing on potential suspects requires 1) permission or court order to get DNA from each one, 2) a huge amount of money to test each one, and 3) someone to pay for it, and it won't be government.

In addition, it's quite ludicrous that any DNA survived the elements. It's not an accident that the one match was to an examiner of the evidence. To believe these buffoons about multiple DNA on the evidence (or whatever they're implying) is to believe in fairy tales.

The reason they listed DNA evidence was to have some physical evidence cited in the affadavit even though it is misleading and a lie, which is a theme that runs through everything they're doing.

rd

[rd]

This is Guandique's soon to be story unless the kangaroo court is persuaded otherwise. Sloppy work on contaminated evidence, eyewitness accounts picking out whoever the police want to railroad, and the public fed Running Man propaganda for months ahead of the trial to contaminate public opinion as badly as they contaminated and missed evidence and investigation.

Yes, this is justice from righteous police and prosecutors and willing accomplices who make up stories the police and prosecutors use for their dirty work.

And they will trash Chandra to allegedly defend her memory and life with a conviction that requires trashing her to make their made up stories possible.

They should be ashamed of themselves, but there is no shame in Washington, D.C., or any of these other prosecutors and police who railroad poor people over and over in the same way, eyewitnesses picking out strangers the police point them to and a kangaroo court.

Barring some extremely identifiable characteristics or knowing the attacker, it is next to impossible for victims to identify strangers. This has been demonstrated over and over, in real life and in tests. It's sad to say, but people can't do it. Police guide them to pick someone they want to convict.

This also holds true for the clueless person who claims they saw Chandra in Rock Creek Park that day. They would have no more idea what Chandra looked like and what she would be wearing than the man in the moon. But police love these clueless people that will either make up stories for compensation or think they're helping by "recalling" seeing what the police want someone to have seen.

But investigate a Congressman who actually had means and motive to do away with Chandra and hide her body on the side of a cliff a mile or so from his condo?

No, you won't see the Washington police and prosecutors pursue that story and conviction or even validate an aliibi. They are funded by a Democratic congress, after all. Much easier to railroad an illegal immigrant.

All in a days work for Washington.

rd

from NY Times (fair use)

Man Held for 23 Years Is Set Free by DNA Tests
By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.
August 7, 2009

(snip)

Ernest Sonnier was convicted of [kidnapping and rape] and sentenced to life in prison largely on the strength of the victim’s testimony, even though the forensic evidence gathered from her body and clothes showed that someone with a blood type different from the defendant’s had raped her, lawyers from the Innocence Project in New York said.

“It’s just sloppy science, at best,” said Alba Morales, who represents Mr. Sonnier.

Over the last 18 months, genetic testing of evidence found on the victim’s clothing and at the scene of the attack had yielded no trace of Mr. Sonnier, the Harris County district attorney’s office said. Instead, it has implicated two other men. Both are felons and known associates. One is awaiting trial for a different rape.

(snip)

The crime for which Mr. Sonnier was convicted occurred on Christmas Eve in 1985. Two men abducted a woman at a gas station in Alief, Tex., and then repeatedly raped her during a seven-hour drive to San Antonio. She escaped at 4 a.m. Six months later, she picked Mr. Sonnier’s picture out of a photo array. Later, in a police lineup and at trial, she identified him as one of the attackers.

click to read rest
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/us/08houston.html

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

[Rainbow]

Another point for the defense: Detectives reported that Chandra's aparment was sanitized, regarding anything she had of Mr. C.'s. So, why would Guandique and Co. be interested in absconding with items relating to Mr. C. only and not her stereo, wallet or other valuables? Moreover, where in the world are those items? Who's in possession of them?

[jane]

Hi Rainbow - good point.

I am wondering about the status hearing Judge Alprin set, coming up in October (according to July 31 Associated Press article).
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

[rd]

Next hearing is coming up this month. I will be more than disappointed if there's nothing more than a bunch of bellyaching about not having enough time to prepare this time.

If trial cannot be set in springtime so that jury can see conditions that existed when Chandra disappeared, rather than the dead of winter I believe prosecutors asked for and manipulated the judge into setting, then I would demand change of venue for Guandique's murder trial. It will have been demonstrated he cannot get a fair trial when the prosecution can manipulate the judge so easily.

My concern is that being public defenders they do not want the trial away from DC, so Guandique will have to take his chances in a city that dearly wants to convict anyone but an uninvestigated Democratic congressman named Condit.

rd

[Rainbow]

Otherwise, we will have to sick the "Innocence Project" on them!

[rd]

That's what I'd like to call this trial, Innocence Project Part 1.

rd

[sigsky]

I found this today. It appears that the defense attorneys are doing their job. Makes perfect sense that they should have an opportunity to interview the jailhouse snitches.

What is with the Texas State professor? This doesn't even sound like science! If the prosecutor is relying on this strategy they must have a weak case indeed. Maybe we will learn of the ruling on some of these motions on Oct 16.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/76734.html

[Rainbow]

Just the fact that the prosecution's so-called "case" incorporates ambiguous testimony from these questionable witnesses and that this even needs to be "challenged" demonstrates what a "farce" this case has become.
The prosecution's been singing "I've Been Working on the Railroad" and it's the only song they seem to know.

[rd]

Some good reporting from Michael Doyle of McClatchy, sigsky. I don't like what defense lawyers do but when you have prosecutions like this (and so many others) then what they do is justified, apparently because prosecutors and detectives think whatever they do is justified, as sad as that is to say.

The geographic profiling professor thing is goofy. It's like one of those many academic studies where everyone goes "and someone paid these goofballs to come up with this revelation?"

The key is "in the area". These people wouldn't know in the area if you dropped them from a helicopter in it. I want to see this professor taking the Chandra Levy Jog in the Park Challenge while he records for the jury his testimony that Chandra was "in the area" of Guandique's attacks on Beach Drive.

Except the numnut would never make it there, along with these detectives and prosecutors claiming it if they had the balls to try it.

rd

[Rainbow]

. . . Not to mention with thick and heavy hair like Chandra had, wearing a sports-bra, USC sweatshirt, leggings (tights?) and sneakers in the middle of a DC heat-wave.

[jane]

I can see using geographic profiling to look for suspects while trying to solve a crime. But I don't see how it can be used to prove guilt without corroborating physical evidence or something more substantial then jailhouse gossip.
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

[rd]

It's not proof these people are up to. It's death by a thousand cuts they're going for. They took the best that the scummiest of the scummiest of evil people locked up in prison could make up about Guandique in a bid to get out of prison, along with other hapless and vulnerable people they can squeeze in DC, people harboring illegals for example, and that's their story.

Quite frankly I don't consider the prosecutors and detectives running this scam any better than the people they're using. All of them have an angle, none have any integrity as amply demonstrated by their statements and manipulations.

Which leads me to my point here. I guess the defense lawyers are doing what they're supposed to, it's all so predictable, just what those prosecutors are counting on. You lay out a pile of crap, each bit laughable but a cut, a thousand cuts.

The defense lawyers predictably complain about not having enough time to deal with such a pile of crap, and predictably told to suck it up.

The defense lawyers predictably ask that some of the more laughable cuts be thrown out, and the response will be just as predictable. The whole scenario is that of a government steamroller set on course, a predictable course, with the predictable results of a crushing judicial victory. That is, when everyone plays by the predictable script, to a predictable jury already brainwashed by "inadmissible" evidence. The government made sure of that.

I would ask, is predictable defense the best defense for Guandique? Is it not better to put those scummiest of the scummiest of our federal prisons on the stand for a jury to see what the government is claiming to be true? To be questioned in their lies, one after another, for all to see the basis of the government's case?

The government is predictable, this is what they do, and they think the outcome is predetermined. They have done it enough to know.

I would not predictably lay down in front of their steamroller. Confront their lies in front of the jury, because that will lead to the truth.

And the truth is the best defense.

rd

[jane]

Link to Michael Doyle article: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/nation/story/77680.html
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ