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 Trial Postponed, New charges to come!
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  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
sigsky



Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 209
Location: South Carolina

PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:55 pm    Post subject: Guandique Trial Postponed, New charges to come! Reply with quote

Very Interesting
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/23/AR2009112301651.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
lector



Joined: 07 Nov 2009
Posts: 40

PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dates to watch:

Dec. 15th, when the new charges will be announced.

Oct 4, 2010, the new trial date.

Ironically, only a few weeks ago, it was the prosecution objecting to the defense's request to examine evidence collected during the investigation, alleging that it was a tactic for delaying the trial.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9244
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

perhaps Guandique's Defense thread was too effective, sigsky and lector.

This is a classic face saving, kick the can down the road move by DC people. They could add a charge of rape of a prison inmate based on one of the inmate stories. Maybe attempted assault based on someone who thinks someone looking like Guandique attempted to assault her? Heaven knows.

But the new judge is in place, Judge Gerald Fisher, and a new trial date of October 2010, which just so happens to be when Guandique is scheduled for release after serving his 10 year sentence, which by the way he's an illegal and what does that mean? Doesn't it mean deportation?

So DC people say they'll move to hold him in DC jail for the trial, but this all smacks to me of bluff didn't work, arrange a politically convenient cover for the DC police and prosecutors who as noted in our posts would have been shamefully embarrassed in front of the country and many people overseas watching the spectacle of attempted injustice.

Safe to say the inmate who made up the recent stories who refused to answer discovery questions because of fake death threat letters he wrote himself won't be getting out of jail real soon now like he planned.

What a bunch of incompetents.

And justice for Chandra still not being looked for.

rd

Murder on a Horse Trail Chapter 24. Guandique

click to read the online true crime mystery novel Murder on a Horse Trail: The Disappearance of Chandra Levy

www.justiceforchandra.com home page
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Rainbow



Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 870
Location: THE LEFT COAST

PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 5:14 pm    Post subject: The truth will set Guandique free! Reply with quote

Question: Why can't people be big enough to just own up to the fact that they made a mistake. Whatever happened to "The buck stops here." ? Or, "Two wrongs don't make a right."?
Answer: "Pass the buck." and "Cover your a--." politics.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jane



Joined: 22 Sep 2002
Posts: 3280

PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But if a trial does occur, it still won't likely happen at the correct time of year, with the date now being set for October.
_________________
"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: 9244
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yeah, jane, some difference in foliage, but there's be no hindrance to jurors examining the crime scenes or for defense to press prosecution with a re-enactment of their claims.

yes, agreed, Rainbow. That would be the honorable thing to do. But I smell something sneaky coming out of these people. I wouldn't be surprised if they lower the threshold so much for conviction of lesser charges that the try the bluff again, but a sweetheart time served and a complimentory sendoff back to El Salvador offered this time.

Then they can declare victory and close Chandra's case like they always wanted to.

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



Joined: 22 Sep 2002
Posts: 3280

PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi everyone! Sounds right, rd. Still no satisfaction for Chandra's family and loved ones, though (other than the 'guy' she loved).
_________________
"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: 9244
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Right. That would be the agenda.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
scott20037



Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Posts: 10
Location: DC

PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:28 pm    Post subject: new charges Reply with quote

I am inclined to believe that Guandique had nothing to do with Chandra's disappearance, but I think some of the comments misperceive what the prosecutors' motives are. The prosecutors are not engaged in some conspiracy to hide the truth. They simply want to get a conviction in a notorious case, and Guandique is giving them the opportunity. After originally saying he had nothing to do with Chandra's disappearance, once he understood that this was a high profile case and one that could make him and his newly adopted gang look tough, he warmed up quickly to the role of Chandra's killer, to the point of telling several differing stories of how he killed her. In some versions, he raped and killed her. In some versions he killed his accomplices as well!!! And in some versions he took money from Condit to kill her. (How incredible can you get?) Those varying accounts do not sound credible as the truth, but do sound consistent with a very dumb guy trying to sound like a very tough and important guy, reading or hearing about the newspaper accounts and doing his best to fit himself into the story. But, consistent with his prison gang tough guy role, threatening to kill those who repeated his stories to the authorities.

The new charges would make the case a lot easier for the prosecutors. Right now, they have no hard evidence tying Guandique to the crime. The best they have is POSSIBLY a witness who can place Guandique in Rock Creek Park on the day in question, although that strikes me as unlikely to be very credible testimony -- "remembered" only months after this witness was in Rock Creek Park. But if the prosecutors can get the judge to combine the trial of the murder with a trial about threatening to kill someone who ratted on him, that leaves the very strong impression in the juries' minds that Guandique thinks he is guilty. I frankly am not sure the judge will allow the two trials to be combined. But in any case, adding the charges both makes the murder case easier, and also provides more certainty that Guandique will at least be convicted of something, and kept in jail a while longer.

So I guess I would say, heap all the blame you want on the police for botching this investigation at every turn. Blame the judge for not being open to allowing testing of evidence from places other than Rock Creek Park and which might implicate another murderer, but don't blame the prosecutors for wanting to convict someone who seems to want to make their job easy, who finds being a prison gang member his highest calling in life, one that beats going back to boring poverty in El Savador.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sigsky



Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 209
Location: South Carolina

PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have to disagree. The prosecutors should be interested in both the truth and the conviction. I sense that this prosecutor is more than willing to sacrifice the truth to get a conviction and that is the way the legal system often works.

I'm not sure without knowing the additional charges that I understand how it makes the murder charge much easier to prove. Perhaps you could elaborate. No one is denying that Guandique frequented RCP and is the perpetrator of multiple attacks. The prosecutor must have something else. We'll see Dec 15th.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9244
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

scott, that's an interesting take on it, about the best face that can be put on what the prosecutors are doing that can be made. But I agree with sigsky.

First and foremost, our public servant prosecutors need to seek justice, not a so called easy notch in their belt with a wrongful conviction of someone they think bragged about the murder after passing a lie detector test that he in fact had nothing to do with Chandra's murder.

And I would expect these public servants to have integrity, and while not expecting much in the intelligence department, at least the wherewithall not to be embarrassingly dumb, and unfortunately they've demonstrated neither integrity nor intelligence in the basis of their charges against Guandique so far.

You cite the prosecutor rhetoric right out of the arrest warrant. Guandique had no visible tattoos or gang associates in 2001. The prosecutors go on about gang and tattoos with every other word, and it's all after the fact prison behavior.

What do these prosecutors expect? I've written on how our entire prison - parole system needs to be constructed and run, and some of the electronic monitoring is coming to pass, though not in the cost effective manner I describe, but basically you've got a bunch of animals in prison and these prosecutors think that getting tattoos and joining a prison gang somehow became retroactive so they can use it as part of the justification of their murder charge. Like I say, they have no integrity nor intelligence, and are a disgrace to the public they are supposed to be serving.

As to Guandique's alleged bragging about the murder, we know that the first inmate that claimed this failed his lie detector test, passed on no details that were true other than the park where the searches took place, and therefore has not one iota of credibility.

We know another inmate claimed Guandique was bragging, passed on every detail which was false, and wrote himself a death threat letter and refuses to answer any questions. The defense has obtained a court order to get a handwriting sample from him to be able to demonstrate that.

We also know that this alleged bragging behavior was to some inmate that claimed to be raped by Guandique. The same one? I don't know. But Guandique is only claimed to be a braggart by solitary inmates who come up with preposterous stories that are wrong in every verifiable detail and contain no unknown details that could legitimize it as coming from the perpetrator, and you consider this a Guandique feature rather than crazy inmates trying to get out of jail with "cellmate confession" stories.

Like I said, an interesting take, one the prosecutors couldn't have put forth better, but just as fatally flawed as their entire agenda.

In addition, the prosecutors are malicious in what they said and how they said it, I would liken to the way Condit said things, that kind of evil parsing that corrupt politicians have. They said Guandique had a picture of Chandra and spoke of some "Italian looking girl", knowing full well that Guandique was investigated for Chandra's murder, was questioned at length, passed a lie detector test about it, and knows very well who Chandra is and knows he was accused of her murder all the way back to 2001. And if one of these dufus prosecutors were similarly accused of a murder, they would not be interested in having information about the person they were accused of murdering? And if they did, they're the murderer?

I think not. I detest lack of integrity like these prosecutors display.

Lastly, and most importantly, these prosecutors have not shown one iota of knowing and caring about who Chandra was and how it came about for her remains to be found in Rock Creek Park. They don't have the integrity to know all the reasons why Chandra was brought there dead or alive instead of claiming she jogged there in a scenario they can't possibly re-enact, including details the police claim about where she was when her sunglasses were allegedly knocked off or any other detail for that matter.

No, I am disgusted with those alleged public servants in DC, all of them, especially including the prosecutors, and will be until I see the integrity and intelligence demonstrated that we should demand from our justice system.

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



Joined: 18 Jul 2005
Posts: 46

PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The prosecutors know that they have one of the flimsiest cases imaginable, and that if they bring this to trial, they will lose. They have no case, and they never did. What they have is an illiterate juvenile defendant who at various times over the last 8 and half years has wanted to appear larger than life to his fellow small time criminal buddies by taking credit for the most well known murder of the last decade. The prosecution thought they had a patsy and could pull a fast one, but it failed. Even if they continue with this farce, it will inevitably end in defeat and embarassment for them. The only downside is that they can say that they tried to resolve this case, when we know in fact all they tried to do was take the easy way out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scott20037



Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Posts: 10
Location: DC

PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:18 am    Post subject: the prosecutors are not omniscient and are not conspirators Reply with quote

Yes I absolutely agree that prosecutors need to be concerned with both
getting a conviction and getting the right conviction, i.e, getting to
the truth. But they are not given by God any magic insight into what
the truth actually is. Nor are we. Here is a guy, Guandique, who may have bragged about this killing to his jail mates. Maybe the evidence will prove otherwise. Here is a guy already convicted of attacking women in the park. Here is a guy who a witness will testify was in the park that day (so I read in the media). Here is a woman who may have been looking up Rock Creek Park on her computer that morning. Here is a body that ends up in an area of Rock Creek Park that was never searched by police.

There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that Guandique killed
Chandra, and I think it is entirely fair to test that evidence with a
jury of ordinary citizens and see what they think. If there is a
reasonable doubt, Guandique will be acquitted. Guandique's lawyers,
thankfully, seem to have made great use of this site to educate
themselves about the case. I grant that to a large extent Guandique's
lawyers hands are tied by the fact that this has gotten so far down the
road and the ability to collect evidence from Condit disappeared a long
time ago, but they are not powerless and calling jail house witnesses
into question sometimes succeeds.

As I have said before, RD has done a brilliant job of putting together a
coherent theory for how and why Condit could have had Chandra whisked away and killed. It's all there -- Condit's motive to keep his boy scout reputation, the trigger when Chandra asked about his prior involvement with the pastor/gardener's daughter, his opportunity, his lack of alibi, his call from Luray, his telling his ex? mistress he might have to
"disappear for a while", his association with a wayward brother and a
murderous biker gang, his attempt to throw away evidence, etc., etc.
BUT it is only a THEORY. The fact that we always can come up with
plausible reasons why our theory is right and opposing theories are
wrong does not mean that we are necessarily right -- it only means that,
with the fragmentary partial knowledge that we have, we can always
supply assumptions that make up for the fact that we don't really know.

We think we know about Chandra based on some comments of friends and relatives, passed through the media. We think she would never venture into Rock Creek Park. But try this. If you have ever known someone who has been written up in the newspaper, how accurate was the story? Most likely, it had a bunch of facts, some true and some imagined, tied together in a laughably inaccurate mishmash. (And in fact many on this site have complained about the failings of the media to get the facts right in this case.) Well, ultimately, what we think we know about Chandra has been passed through this same filter. So what we think we know really isn't 100% true. For example, I am perfectly willing to believe that Chandra was so giddy with excitement about her possible
"big news" that she might have felt invulnerable, decided to find out a
bit more about this beautiful city she had been living in for the past
few months, and decided to go for a long jog in the park. By chance,
perhaps, she was one of Guandique's victims. The "fact" that some people have said she was security conscious and only liked to exercise in the gym cannot be taken as established absolute invariable truth. I mean have all of you always done everything the same way every day of your lives?

From experience I do know that when the assumptions we have to make to get the facts to fit together involve theories about large conspiracies,
it is usually far from certain that the facts are on our side. I started out my last post on the simple point that the prosecutors are not part of some conspiracy. They may or may not be misguided in pursuing Guandique, but certainly no one is trying to do this to protect Condit, as has been suggested, because he is nominally a Democrat and therefore deserving of protection by a conspiracy of the Democrats in power in Washington. I mean, really, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and President Obama with all their power couldn't form a conspiracy if they tried, because there are too many lines of power in Washington. You can't simply order people to join a hush hush conspiracy and immediately get blind allegiance. Maybe Stalin could have done this for a while under threats of death or banishment to Siberia, but this mild mannered bunch of Dems
in DC today sure couldn't. And moreover, as I have said, even if they
weren't all so busy with health care, the rotten economy, foreign
crises, etc., the last thing the Dems in power would want is to mix
themselves up with such a sorry excuse for a Democrat and a person as ex Cong Condit (pun intended). So really, WHAT IS THE SOURCE AND WHAT IS THE MOTIVE OF THE CONSPIRACY? In reality, there is no conspiracy, there has just been a concatenation of poor investigations, lost evidence, kid glove treatment of Condit because he is a congressman, and to cap it off the decision (possibly) by Guandique to play tough guy by making up stories to his jailhouse buddies.

I don't believe I know the truth. I know how much I would bet on either
of the leading theories about who murdered Chandra. I'd say 70% Condit
did it and 30% Guandique did it, but the fact is we will probably never
know. So let's not fault the prosecutors by supposing that THEY KNOW
what happened or could know, and are acting contrary to that supposed
knowledge. They are simply using the tool we have in our system of
government for coming as close to the truth as we can, and that is a
jury trial. And, by the way, the indictment of Guandique came from a grand jury made up of ordinary citizens, and in my experience those citizens take their responsibilities very seriously, even though clearly the prosecutor presenting evidence to them holds a lot of sway over them.

So yes, let's try to get to the truth. But don't assume everyone has improper motives and is in on some sort of vague conspiracy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gozgals



Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 3353
Location: A Place Called Vertigo

PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To sum it all up, There is no justice for Chandra....
Short and sweet....Gary did it. You may say I'm a fool, but he did it or had someone do it for him. That is how I will always stand on this case. Sure, it looks like a 30 - 70% chance but I'm for Gary. Justice will not be shown to Chandra and her family.


Good summary Scott.


Goz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rainbow



Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 870
Location: THE LEFT COAST

PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:47 pm    Post subject: "Power, Privilege and Justice" in the Emerald City Reply with quote

Hi Scott!
Thank you for your very well thought-out, well-meaning, and well-written statement. Your analysis of the public face put on the Chandra investigation is very good. The majority of what you wrote is probably what most of the general public (influenced by a lot of the national media) believes. A lot of the original investigation was not made public, however, as is the case in most investigations done by law enforcement. Even though the D.C. cops appeared to be "Keystone" cops at times, they were real police officers and investigators. I am aware of sources who had real-time conversations with these detectives and investigators, who by the way, were not interviewed for the "Washington Post" series on Chandra's murder.
No matter how you look at it, the murder of Chandra Levy was a political murder (or politically sensitive murder), just by the very fact that Chandra was involved in some kind of a relationship with a political figure--someone who was a "Blue Dog" Democrat, which meant that he had good (and maybe some bad )relations with members of both parties, Democratic and Republican, alike. In addition, this political figure was connected to the intelligence (appropriations?) committee, which in turn would connect him to all of the intelligence agencies, including the C.I.A. and Department of Justice, with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and its Counter-Intelligence unit (all of which Brad Garrett, the famous FBI profiler who was eventually assigned to the case, was affiliated with, as well). The Department of Justice has connections to the Attorney General's Office. The Attorney General's office in turn can exert influence on the prosecutor's office, e.g., who will be prosecuted, what evidence will be allowed, and what potential witnesses will be allowed to testify. Moreover, political figures also have affiliations with other political figures (as evidenced by the meeting with former V. P., Dick Cheney, and a friendship with Governor Davis, etc.), diplomats, representatives and nationally- and internationally- based business-people.
The old "investigating guard", including D.C. police and private investigators, differentiated between the date and place of Chandra's disappearance, the date and place of her murder, and date and place of the subsequent placing of her body and staging of her murder in Rock Creek Park. The police in the original investigation cleared Ingmar Guandique as a suspect, as he had an airtight alibi. . . He was either at work or in jail at the time the murder was committed. This led to the statement by Ron Sullivan, an Assistant U.S. Attorney at the time, I believe, which supported the case for not bringing charges against Guandique for the murder of Chandra Levy.
As far as other suspect(s) were concerned, not enough evidence of the kind which would hold up in court had been obtained, in order to secure a prosecution. Investigators also felt that there may have been some "professional" type of assistance in Chandra's abduction and murder (Police used the terminology that her apartment had been "sanitized"), which may have contributed to this "lack of evidence" dilemma, too. And, may be there was some overlap between where evidence of Chandra's murder was collected and people and places covered by the national security act and/or diplomatic immunity.
The case was rather quiet for about 7 years in which the old investigative guard retired and/or went on to greener pastures. In the meantime, a website was established by the Levy family. Some of the original investigative team had hopes that the real killer(s) would confess via the website.
Then along came the new, well-intentioned, investigative crew, including "fresh" D.C. police and reporters for the Washington Post. A cold case research institute (Bauder College) also got involved, whose compassionate leader even allowed Mrs. Levy to be a part of the investigative work. This cold case research institute weighed in on its opinion on the case to the "new investigative guard" and to the news media, in general.
Witnesses, who had connections (or wished they had) to the "jogger" case(s) came forward, as the time of Guandique's sentence was running out and the victims of those attacks were scared that he was being released. A grand-jury seemed to project the new alleged "jogger case" evidence on to the unsolved Levy case, with the help of a limelight seeking prisoner, named "John Mark Carr" Ingmar Guandique and the new law enforcement guard went along for the ride. As James Anderson concluded, the "new team" (obviously without the benefit of the evidence gathered by the "old team") found what they thought was an "easy" or "obvious" solution to the case.
A U. S. Attorney named Jeffrey Taylor (who had close connections with intelligence agencies and high government sources) was on his way out and had a few last cases to close, including this case and the D.C. Madam case.
In some ways, Washington resembles the land of "Oz". Unfortunately, Chandra Levy (like most of us) was a type of "Dorothy", idealistic and naive. As the paths of "seemingly", "temporarily", and "enduringly" powerful individuals and agencies intersect with weaker ones and more or less noble and honorable ones on a daily basis on the "yellow-brick road" of Washington, an "imbalance of power" is sometimes created. Chandra Levy was swept up in this tornado.
RD's book, "Murder on a Horsetrail", along with his "Justice for Chandra" website provide a peak behind the curtains of the "Emerald City" that Chandra was propelled into. On the one hand, it is up to the reader to form his/her opinion as to what kind of people these so-called "wizards" really are and how they exercise the power that they hold. On the other hand, it is also important to remember that there are a lot of scarecrows, tin-men/women, cowardly lions and just plain munchkins living in Oz, as well. It is to them that we make our appeal for "Justice for Chandra", as well as Ingmar Guandique.
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 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 1 of 10

 
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