www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index www.justiceforchandra.com
Justice for Chandra Levy and missing women
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Guandique's Defense
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index -> Chandra Levy and missing women
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Rainbow



Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 866
Location: THE LEFT COAST

PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:26 pm    Post subject: Red Herring Reply with quote

Modbee.com--Michael Doyle, October 5, 2002

Investigators Tie Suspect to Levy's Death

http://www.modbee.com/reports/levy/v-print/story/128662.html

Quote:
"Mr. Ingmar Guandique is not linked to the Chandra Levy case by a single shred of evidence," Ronald Sullivan Jr. of the Public Defender Service said in a statement, adding that Guandique has passed a lie detector test that has since come under question.

Allies of Rep. Gary Condit, D-Ceres, are unhappy, too. They say this proves they were right all along in decrying the intense public focus on the congressman and his connection to Levy. Condit, now 54, never denied published reports that he had an affair with the 24-year-old Levy.

"It's absolutely galling in some ways," Condit's lawyer, Mark Geragos, said Friday. "It does not take Sherlock Holmes to figure out (Guandique) was a prime suspect."

Geragos asserted that "the fixation" on Condit distracted police from doing a better job during the investigation that is now in its 17th month.

He said he had an investigator look into Guandique's criminal file shortly after Levy's remains were found in May in Rock Creek Park, where Guandique had attacked other women. Geragos said that information should have clearly pegged Guandique as a prime suspect.

The file includes a summary from a psychological assessment that Guandique "may act out impulsively and may have trouble controlling his anger" and cites "major concerns" about "emotional self-control."



Thses kinds of comments really irk me. Mr. Guandique was totally ruled out as a suspect. As a matter-of-fact, detectives let people who were close to the case know that Ingmar Guandique was unavailable at the time of the murder; id.est., he was either at work or in custody.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's no way he was in custody. He broke into a neighbor's apartment six days later, ran from the apartment with a stolen ring and screwdrivers he used to pry the lock off when she came in and screamed, and was found a little later by police with those items.

He was arrested and booked, and there is no indication he had a prior encounter and was in custody six days earlier (or had any visible tattoos or scratches or gang associates while we're at it).

Now, as to whether he had a witnessed alibi for May 1, I'm sure that defense attorneys would have had the charges dismissed by the judge if they could have verified his whereabouts that day.

But yes, Geragos and Condit are the ones behind the "less than" whatever talk about the lie detector test, insinuating and getting their press friends at the Washington Post to repeatedly report those insinuations without stating what they were, that being using a Spanish translator for the test. This is standard Justice Department procedure and was used for the other inmate making the claims about Guandique who failed his test.

But Geragos and Condit had to attack Guandique passing his lie detector test to take the heat off Condit and try to focus it back on Guandique. Successfully I might add with fervent support from the Washington Post (not just the series last year but all along in their deliberately obscure undermining of the lie detector test as "less than ideal" etc., basically being hitmen for Condit and Geragos).

This is really funny in that Guandique was willing to take a lie detector test and passed while Condit refused to take it.

Or answer any questions under oath ever since, for that matter.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Rainbow



Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 866
Location: THE LEFT COAST

PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:58 am    Post subject: Time of Death Reply with quote

Hi RD!
I have to disagree with you regarding the possiblility that Guandique was not under arrest, in custody, or at work at the time of Chandra's murder. There is absolutely no proof that Chandra died on May 1, 2001. People close to the primary investigation knew that the original group of police and private investigators had other potential murder date(s) in mind. This information was not made public at the time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Understood, but she disappeared on the 1st, and an alibi for Tuesday afternoon is still pertinent.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Rainbow



Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 866
Location: THE LEFT COAST

PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:18 pm    Post subject: Times of Importance Reply with quote

Including an "alibied" timeline for all (potential) parties involved, starting on April 30th, at the latest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lector



Joined: 07 Nov 2009
Posts: 38

PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:31 pm    Post subject: Re: How convenient! Reply with quote

Rainbow wrote:
And how convenient was Mr. Geragos' prophesy regarding the time period he predicted that Chandra's remains would be discovered!

Quote:
Last night, Condit family attorney Mark Geragos appeared on "Larry King Live" and revealed he had been told months ago that Chandra's remains might turn up soon. Said Geragos, "My investigators had suggested-- if this was the work of a serial killer-- that based upon the two other young ladies that were found-- you might find that Chandra may turn up sometime in May."


http://telepixtvcgi.warnerbros.com/dailynews/extra/05_02/05_23a.html

Extratv.com--Daily News--May 23, 2002


That comment from Geragos still brings me up short. I don't know what to think. Whatever scenario one might construct, the comment seems just mind-bogglingly stupid. It's hard to imagine the motivation for it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rainbow



Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 866
Location: THE LEFT COAST

PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 3:46 pm    Post subject: Sowing the Seeds of Doubt Reply with quote

In my opinion, Mr. Gerragos was trying to establish "reasonable" or "unreasonable" doubt on behalf of his client with the public-at-large/jury pool, by tieing Chandra's murder in with the other girls' murders. I also feel that he may have had inside information on when, where, how, and or by whom Chandra's remains might be uncovered. Or, he was privy to some inside information relating to the other dead girls' cases.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jane



Joined: 22 Sep 2002
Posts: 3225

PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is, indeed, mind-boggling. It seems too much to think of it as just a lucky guess. Yet, if he did have inside info, how crazy to tip his hand.
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rainbow



Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 866
Location: THE LEFT COAST

PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 4:29 pm    Post subject: "Mark" His Words! Reply with quote

Again, I feel that he said that to influence the potential jury pool, in order to help his client. And, I might add, it looks like he has succeeded!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lector



Joined: 07 Nov 2009
Posts: 38

PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jane wrote:
It is, indeed, mind-boggling. It seems too much to think of it as just a lucky guess. Yet, if he did have inside info, how crazy to tip his hand.

I keep wondering if it was a double-bluff - we're supposed to think that no one involved with Chandra's disappearance/murder & perhaps moving the body would be dumb enough to talk in public like that, therefore the Condit camp couldn't possibly have done any of it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rainbow



Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 866
Location: THE LEFT COAST

PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 5:57 pm    Post subject: Train of Thought Reply with quote

That's an interesting train of thought, Lector.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jane



Joined: 22 Sep 2002
Posts: 3225

PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah - the fact that it gives us so much pause shows just how clever it really was, I suppose.
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 1:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd say first of all that Geragos was a tool for Condit, and said it because Condit suggested it to him.

Let's look at the timing of this. The grand jury was homing in on Condit and his staff, and Condit had just taken the Fifth and refused to answer any questions under oath, as he has to this day.

The grand jury started calling his staff members in, starting with Randy Groves and Mike Lynch, with Dayton coming up next. It's at that point that Chandra was found.

The very next day, in interview with Larry King, Geragos says that he told Condit "last month" (when Condit was taking the Fifth) that Chandra would be found in May "if this was the work of a serial killer".

Did they never have that conversation and Geragos just made it up to point to a serial killer instead of Condit? (The coincidences of Condit and Joyce Chiang's life and death not withstanding.)

I think they did have that conversation, and that there's a reason that Condit suggested to Geragos that Chandra would be found in May to head off a grand jury investigation into him.

I just don't know what it is.

In any event, it should be patently clear that Chandra was hidden 238 feet down the side of a monster hill by someone who wanted to hide her body, and that almost always indicates someone who knew her well.

It should also be clear that it requires driving up to grove 18 to get her body close to where she could be pulled down that hill, and that the DC police thought Condit didn't have a car until they found out from his other mistress Anne Marie Smith that he did.

Looking at news articles at the time she was discovered, just as Geragos and Condit predicted, they say, all the initial reactions were clearly of a dumped body.

Something caused the police to ignore that and the information that Condit did have a car.

Again, I just don't know what it is. That inmates made up stories about Guandique and at least one of them failed a lie detector test about it surely can't be it.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Rainbow



Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 866
Location: THE LEFT COAST

PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:00 pm    Post subject: In a Nutshell Reply with quote

It looks like you summed it all up right there, RD, except for one important point. The original police and investigative team did not think that Guandique had anything to do with the disappearance and/or murder of Chandra Levy. They figured out the "true" murder date and knew that Ingmar Guandique had a water-tight alibi. That is why he wasn't charged for her murder all of those years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lector



Joined: 07 Nov 2009
Posts: 38

PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In a Google session, just now, I stumbled onto the perhaps tangential information that Judge Geoffrey Alprin, who's been the judge on the case thus far, is on the verge of retirement:

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/11/jnc-releases-list-of-judgeship-applicants-.html

Presumably the search for a replacement will extend well past January & he will be on the bench to see this trial through to its conclusion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index -> Chandra Levy and missing women All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 6 of 8

 
Jump to:  
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