www.justiceforchandra.com

[Rainbow]

Evidence sent to the D.C. police was sent to the F.B.I. lab in Quantico, VA for examination. I wonder if that evidence was sent out to the same firm (Bode) for testing.
I also think that the judge needs to give the defense a lot more time to go over the evidence that was collected over the years, as this was such a long-term investigation. Does anyone know if it's standard procedure to provide DNA profiles of people who handled evidence, when requested by a defense attorney?

[rd]

right, Rainbow. I know the laptop forensics was outsourced by FBI to private firm, but private firm wasn't named. (Also required six weeks to examine laptop because DC police tried to run it and crashed it. Plus running it would destroy lots of critical evidence to boot.)

Don't know who the contaminators work for. Also don't know who the male is that contaminated the tights but given prosecution is grudgingly ruling out Guandique, Condit, and some unknown set of employees, and given it is called "contamination", it was probably contaminated by police in handling it at the site.

Interesting that they won't attempt to identify the contaminator. They seem to know who the female lab worker who contaminated the bra though.

What a cluster these people are. They prove over and over that they know nothing about Chandra and press ludicrous charges that confirms it.

rd

[Rainbow]

Has anyone found any information about the car that the defense wants to have testing done on?

[jane]

Hi Rainbow! I don't think anyone has found any info - the article just says that it was parked near the park. It doesn't say when, but it would have to be around the time of her disappearance, wouldn't it?
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

[rd]

It's a good question. It couldn't be around time Chandra was reported missing. They spent weeks waiting fo her to turn up from "running away" before deciding they needed to perform forensics on her apartment. It was 10 weeks before they determined what Chandra had looked at on her computer before she disappeared.

Yes, 10 weeks, 2 1/2 months. Maybe they were waiting for her body to mummify before they decided to investigate her disappearance. After all, a congressman told them she was crazy, so what should we expect?

So they walked some clueless police cadets around Rock Creek Park, telling them not to stray too far off the roads lest they get their shoes dirty, meanwhile refusing all offers of help from trained search teams with dogs around the East coast. Did a cadet bump into a car parked during their own version of a walk in the park and police decided it looked suspicious? Who knows with these clowns.

In any event, it was two and half months after Chandra disappeared, but the way the DC police and prosecutors throw things into Guandique's indictments, they probably think it's relevant. Maybe they found Guandique's dead gang he murdered along with Chandra in it. Who knows? They have the dead gang in the indictment as well.

Man, what a bunch of clueless morons.

rd

[rd]

Guandique's lawyers move for move of trial outside DC.

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1890281

I think this is valid and part of a good defense. I also think that it will be denied.

Personally I think the jury needs the opportunity to be able to observe an attempted re-enactment put on by defense of prosecution's claims. Just because they're in DC doesn't mean they would be alllowed to, but would not be able to visit the crime scenes in person from elsewhere.

However, this is really needed, and I recommended it quite awhile back. DC has done everything they can to convict Guandique in the Washington Post, and in the process repudiate every known aspect of Chandra's life, before the trial even starts.

rd

[sigsky]

I hope it will be denied. I think it is important that the jury see the park in person to understand how unlikely the prosecutor's scenario is.

At the same time, I recognize the problems in constructing a good jury in a city that elected Marion Barry (twice).

[Rainbow]

As far as the "car" scenario goes, do we know if the car is related to the original long-term investigation and its corresponding "persons-of-interest" or is it related to the apparent "Guandique" set-up?

[jane]

Hi Rainbow - this is just a guess, but it seems unlikely evidence from the car would relate to Guandique.
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

[sigsky]

Here's some elaboration on the change of venue motion from Michael Doyle:

http://www.newtondailynews.com/articles/2010/02/18/r_uyu08vefr9yulrhrvoidqg/index.xml

[sigsky]

Sex, Power & Murder: Chandra Levy and Gary Condit--The Affair That Shocked America

The above Doyle artical mentions that a third book on the Levy murders by the Washington Post reporters is about to be released. I didn't know there was more than one. Of course we know RD's book. Is this the other? Is it worth a read?

[rd]

wow, what an interesting article from Michael Doyle.

The attorneys further said that the [Washington] Post’s series by reporters Sari Horwitz and Scott Higham was about to become the third book published on Levy’s killing, which was also the subject of more than one Internet site.

Here's the thing about a book on Chandra Levy's disappearance and murder. Publishers are very leery of publishing a true crime book on an open case. Basically they say they won't do it. A couple of publishers were willing to look at my Murder on a Horse Trail manuscript, and one even said bring it back when it's no longer an open case. But it did no good in getting the truth out if it wasn't published, so I self-published it.

There are exceptions. High profile names who can release a book that doesn't cause anyone any heartburn have been published, but rarely. The only case I can think of like that is JonBenet Ramsey. That's why True Crime sections in bookstores are so anemic and out of date. In a way it's good for us on the internet because we provide what publishers won't for true crime.

And then there was the 30 year old Martha Moxley case, two books written that did cause heartburn for Michael Skakel, and a subsequent conviction. But the names were the highest of profiles, Dominick Dunne and Mark Fuhrman, and apparently 30 years passing made a difference.

So the Washington Post reporter Sari Horwitz took leave to write a book sure that it would be a book of a Guandique conviction ala Scott Peterson, and soon, with a trial coming up in January. Then on day of conviction the book is released and gets the sensational sales that Scott Peterson books got.

Only the trial was asked to be postponed by prosecutors and defense, so maybe lots more fine tuning of a coming book in anticipation of an October trial. The interesting thing is, if Guandique is found innocent then the case is still open but they might still have potential for a book about the trial. Of course all the groundwork they laid to convict Guandique in the Washington Post series would be all for naught, or maybe they would press the case that justice wasn't served, who knows. But given how hard they worked to exonerate Condit without getting any answers to hard questions that's about all they could do.

The reference to Chandra being the subject of more than one internet site I guess is us and the Levy's site, www.whokilledchandra.com . There are some threads on crime boards on Chandra, a good one at www.helpfindthemissing.org , but nothing of the nature where the board could be construed as on the subject of Chandra Levy besides us and the Levy's site. Unlike the Washington Post series, we don't have any problems asking the hard questions.

Then Doyle mentions that Condit insiders say he is still collaborating on a book, and as I mentioned when first reported, I welcome any insight Condit can offer on what transpired leading up to Chandra's disappearance. I think it would sell decently and give him a bit of money to settle some debts, but he'd have to offer actual insight, not a rehash of what he's told reporters up to and through the Washington Post series, that everyone but him is a liar.

This is especially ironic given that with his eight versions of what transpired leading up to Chandra's disappearance, by definition seven are untrue.

And the eighth one was the biggest whopper of them all.

rd

[rd]

hi sigsky, that's a National Enquirer imprint (American Media). Do a search on this site (at top of page is Search) on sex power murder chandra (be sure to click Search for all terms, Display results as posts, and Post time ascending).

I got 44 matches. Not all are about the book, but most are. I haven't read it. Too much NE garbage that would pollute my memory of the facts.

But some good posts on it. May answer your questions.

rd

[Rainbow]

Hi Sigsky, RD, Jane, Gozgals and gang!
As I stated in an earlier Chandra thread, some of the potential witnesses in the original investigation were "dissuaded" from continuing to probe into the "disappearance" and murder of Chandra Levy. In order to get some of their side of the story across, they felt they had to go to the tabloids, I guess. So, some of what is written in these papers is true and some is not, as names, times, places had to be changed to protect the innocent and the guilty.

[James Anderson]

Sex Power & Murder is actually not a bad book. It came out around 2003, and reading it you will come away with the strong impression that Condit is guilty of Chandra's murder.

They quote FBI profiler Greg McCrary and investigators as saying "Someone in her personal life murdered her', and give us plenty of reasons to believe that. That was back before the establishment decided they would try to pin this on Guandique