www.justiceforchandra.com

[jane]

Good points, everyone!

rd, another indication police bought Condit's baloney about an obsessed runaway Chandra/did not consider Condit a suspect early in the investigation: They didn't search his condo for months after her disappearance.
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

[jane]

rd, I hope you can respond to this discrepancy - you (albeit jokingly) claim that a person given a push from the picnic area/unloading site would tumble right past the site of the remains, whereas Wecht claimed in his book (see reference earlier in this thread) that trees would block a corpse from rolling to the spot where remains were found. What say you, rd?
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

[jane]

....He also didn't formally rule on a defense attempt to secure testimony from an academic expert on prison snitches, although he made clear he doubts that Loyola Law School Professor Alexandra Natapoff could offer "a real life understanding" of the case.

"I find a lot of problems with this particular effort to put on an expert witness," Fisher said. "I'm not sure there are opinions she can provide that are beyond the ken of the average layperson."....

I find a lot of problems with what Fisher is saying. You could take it to mean, "Anyone knows that prison snitches make ridiculously unreliable witnesses." OK, then, Judge... Why put them on the stand at all?
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

[rd]

I agree with one thing the judge is saying, that being this expert testimony is not beyond the ken of the average person. Everyone knows that prison inmates have an incentive to tell a story they made up in exchange for protection and early release.

The problem is getting that "not beyond the ken of the average person" introduced in testimony and spelled out to the jury to force them to take it into more consideration than assuming it.

That requires an "expert" to tell everyone something they already pretty much know but would take into account to varying degrees.

If not an academic expert who has made studies of testimony from prison inmates, then it's just an opinion on reliability of the witness. With an academic who has studied it, it becomes concrete evidence of followup studies on testimony from prison inmates arranged by prosecutors and any effects it had on the prisoners time served.

That is not beyond the ken of the average person to anticipate and understand, but it's not information we know offhand.

If there were no studies on aftereffects on prison sentences which "coincidentally" bought them parole or time off or released for time served for protection purposes, then it would be nothing more than an elaborate psychological assessment from an academic telling us something we already know, and there the judge would be correct.

I think there was mention that this academic had studied these arrangements for testimony though so I think there is something to bring to the table here in testimony, but the judge will have some indication of just what could be presented.

rd

[rd]

jane, you're absolutely right. I was writing tongue in cheek about giving someone a push down the hill, but it's critical I not leave the wrong impression as I did.

I have written many times that the trees would block any body from rolling downhill, and that her body had to have been dragged or carried down to where it was found. It was very difficult for me to traverse down the slope without sliding and having nothing to hold on to in the form of brush, so my expectations are that her remains were dragged down the slope to the final resting spot below a tree in a shallow washout.

That's in trying to control your descent, or trying to get a handhold to climb, not having anything to hold onto, and sliding back down a few feet as you try to climb. A body rolling or sliding wouldn't get far at all. A person pushed would bounce around a bit but would come to rest against one of the trees without getting too far downhill.

I wrote that to indicate the steepness and slipperiness of the slope where Chandra was found hundreds of feet downhill through the trees, for example saying that you wouldn't be able to see down there, but you're absolutely right, is not slideable through those trees at all.

Good point. Thanks.

rd

[rd]

Rainbow, you're right that Condit's condo wasn't searched for months but I have always been puzzled why the press kept asking about it. There is no way Chandra was brought to Condit's condo and murdered leaving blood on the one visit to DC by Condit's wife, who was with other Congressional wives when Chandra disappeared on May 1.

And yes, I know you have posted that Chandra was reported to have been seen in the area later, and no, I don't believe that Chandra essentially ran away and quit communicating with her family and friends, so sightings are like any other sighting that convict innocent people, or for that matter, like the alleged sighting of Chandra in Rock Creek Park that the prosecution will bring into testimony, completely and utterly unreliable. I don't care what someone thinks they saw when it impugns Chandra's integrity with no other indications otherwise that her integrity should be impugned.

Now it is true that when Joleen McKay saw Condit's picture in the press with the disappeared Chandra, she immediately called the FBI and urged them to search Condit's condo. She had stayed with him there when he hired her as his executive assistant, and she obviously knew that the police should be investigating Condit forcefully and immediately.

So the DC police did seek a warrant to search Condit's condo, and the US Attorneys office, I believe the same office prosecuting this farce against Guandique to protect themselves and Congress and the DC police and FBI, blocked that search warrant. Condit was protected from that moment on.

So Joleen thought there was something to search for, and she would know better than most, but blood was all the DC police was looking for, and I do not believe there is any possibility Chandra and Condit were in his condo while his wife was visiting nor that she was murdered with force to leave blood.

So I always thought the press clamoring for a search to sate themselves and readers was silly, and shows that those clamoring in their disjointed yelled questions have no idea what they're talking about in Chandra's case. There are thank goodness a few knowledgeable reporters that are an exception to this.

rd

[Rainbow]

The Chandra "sighting/sightings" close to the time of her disappearance are important because she was seen with person(s) that resemble other(s) who have been named in the investigation for various reasons. One/Some of the "sighting(s)" back(s) up testimony and timeline(s) given to investigators by Anne-Marie Smith and Jim Robinson. The information about the sighting(s) was important enough to D.C. police and Levy private investigators that they stayed in touch with the potential witnesses for years following the disappearance. They felt the information was relevant enough, so much so in fact, that they even discussed elements of the case and potential suspects and "non-" suspects with these potential witnesses, e.g. Guandique was in custoday at the time of the "real" murder and therefore was completely innocent of this crime, etc.

I am not including this information to make Chandra look bad. As we all know, there is more to this story than meets the eye. Once again, no matter how you want to slice it, this was and still remains a "political murder".

[rd]

well, it's insight to keep in mind.

rd

[Rainbow]

So, why do prosecutors feel that the testimony of jailhouse snitches is more valuable than the testimony of Jim Robinson, attorney-at-law, or Anne-Marie Smith? Why did an old-guard political figure, who was formerly associated with the Attorney-General's office worry about Jim Robinson's participation in the case so much that he felt it necessary to tell him to "Drop it!"?

[jane]

These are the questions that should be asked, but I fear it will only be a railroading of Guandique with the defense barely allowed to present a case.
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

[Rainbow]

In other words, the testimony of jailhouse snitches is more credible than the testimony of one/some of the D.C. police investigator(s) and Levy private investigators?

[rd]

No, they're not more credible, they're just saying what the prosecutors want to hear. And a lot of stuff got thrown at the wall to see what would stick in the process.

You know, those federal prosecutors are going to try real hard to start out assuming Chandra was playing Little Red Riding Hood, minus a hood or much of anything else, to Guandique's Big Bad Wolf on a horse trail through the forest.

But it's imperative we make them prove Chandra's body wasn't dumped and hidden down the hill behind grove 18 as is obvious it was.

We don't know how she got there doesn't cut it. In addition, we make them prove that Chandra's search on Rock Creek Park wasn't related to the subject of the rest of her searches, that being Condit.

Chandra had something to find out to give her landlord an answer the next day on whether and when she was moving out, she had big news she rushed to tell her aunt Linda but didn't divulge to her parents, and she had yet to arrange a trip back to California for her graduation, a trip that up until a week earlier was a round trip such as the one that Condit provided her a few months earlier, and she was monitoring her phone constantly for a message. All of that points to Condit.

In addition, Condit disappeared for over five hours at the same time Chandra did, with no alibi, his wife was in town for first visit in anyone's memory and no prearrangements for it, and Condit's street of Adams Mill dead ends into Klingle Road.

Everything points to Chandra meeting Condit when she disappeared, a meeting with her boyfriend who had a car and motive to shut her up as she was both on record as wanting to challenge his wife for Condit and questioning Condit about an alleged affair with an eighteen year old black minister's daughter back home in Modesto, a deadly combination for a married family man congressman.

And the prosecution would have you believe she was playing Little Red Riding Hood in Victoria Secrets panties on a horse trail in the middle of the spooky forest.

Two false assumptions by the government before we even get to Guandique and the government's chosen fables.

rd

[Rainbow]

Great analogy, rd!

[rd]

thanks, Rainbow. I hope the defense is just as innovative.

rd

[sigsky]

from Michael Doyle:

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/10/14/2314359/judge-rules-levy-murder-trial.html