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
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 24, 25, 26  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index -> Murder on a Horse Trail
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jane



Joined: 22 Sep 2002
Posts: 3280

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From AP's "Trial Begins" article:
    ....Sonenberg said the defense learned only on Sunday that authorities had tried to match fingerprints from a crime scene not only to Guandique but also to another man. Sonenberg said the defense had heard of the other man and had no information on whether police may have at one time considered him a suspect.

    Prosecutors responded that they thought they had disclosed the man's name to the defense....
Oh those forgetful prosecutors (how conVENient!)
_________________
"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: 870
Location: THE LEFT COAST

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:59 pm    Post subject: Juror Questionnaire-Distinguishing Marks Reply with quote

And once again, I will state that the victim had a visible rose tatoo. Moreover, it wouldn't have been covered by leggings, as it was far too hot to wear leggings in the heat-wave D.C. was suffering during the time of her disappearance.

I believe that Guandique didn't get his gang tatoos, until after he was incarcerated for the jogger attacks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rainbow



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

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:24 pm    Post subject: The Name of the Game! Reply with quote

Hi Jane!
Has the name of that suspect been disclosed?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jane



Joined: 22 Sep 2002
Posts: 3280

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Rainbow - the name of the suspect hasn't surfaced in any of the articles I've seen. It sounds as though the prosecution is claiming to have given it to the defense, but I suspect either they did not or it was hidden among the huge deluge of papers they delivered to the defense in 2009. I think there is supposed to be a witness list given to the opposition - not individual names sprinkled around among sheafs of papers.
_________________
"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: 870
Location: THE LEFT COAST

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:54 pm    Post subject: Thanks for the Research! Reply with quote

Thank you, Jane!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9241
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jane wrote:
From Mike Doyle's "Jury Sorting" article: "....Guandique's attorneys, Santha Sonenberg and Maria Hawilo, indicated they may need as little as one day to present their defense, which will come once the prosecution finishes...." Boy, I hope they plan to do a thorough job of countering every argument the prosecution presents. Think of the OJ trial and the Steven Smith (Kennedy relative) trial. These were different in that the gullty (IMO) party was on trial. But my point is, it's not enough to just roll your eyes at the flimsy case of the opposition (as Bugliosi pointed out about Marcia Clark in the OJ trial)...


I can't emphasize enough how true this is. I wonder how much the "may" is in "may need".

Rolling their eyes doesn't cut it.

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



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

PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's an interesting chat transcript with Washington Post writer Keith Alexander. Provides some nice perspective to the trial.

http://live.washingtonpost.com/chandra-levy-t-rial:-10-18-10.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Rainbow



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

PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:14 pm    Post subject: In-sight Reply with quote

Thank you, Sigsky. Great synopsis!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9241
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sigsky, I will read that chat link in a moment. I'm reading Keith Alexander's excellent background on the case talking to Chandra's parents Robert and Susan Levy and there is this statement:

For Chandra Levy's family, trial won't bring an end to grief
By Keith L. Alexander
Washington Post Staff Writer
October 18, 2010

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/17/AR2010101701783.html

He is a gang member and is charged with first-degree murder, kidnapping and sexual assault in Levy's death.

end quote

Yes, he is a gang member in federal prison and yes, as the DC prosecutors go on and on about, he got heavily tattooed in federal prison, but he was neither before he went to prison, when Chandra disappeared.

What kind of freakin statements are those to make by reporters and prosecutors? There's a reason people join gangs in prison, because they kill each other in there. It's a damn hellhole full of miscreants. The gangs are both a source of danger and protection from danger from other gangs.

This is not the time and place to discuss the evils and pros and cons, but what the hell does joining a gang and getting gang tattoos in prison have to do with a crime before he went to prison?

They just keep saying it over and over. It's like the prosecutors want to convict him for having tattoos. It's mind boggling.

It's also pretty much their case, hence this eerie fixation the prosecutors have on it.

There was a police report on Guandique six days after Chandra disappeared that clearly states by the arresting officer that Guandique had no visible tattoos. The three incidents he was arrested twice for:

- a breakin of an apartment six days after Chandra disappeared in which he stole a ring where he was scared away by the returning woman and found and arrested

- a dangerous assault of a female jogger on Beach Drive two weeks after Chandra disappeared in which he was fought off

- and another dangerous assault of a female jogger on Beach Drive eight weeks after Chandra disappeared in which he was fought off and found and arrested.

In each case he acted alone, there has never been any indication he was involved in a gang or that these attacks were gang related, and he was not visibly tattooed.

Joining a gang and getting heavily tattooed in prison has nothing to do with Chandra's murder. I know why the prosecutors try to decieve the public about it, but why would a good reporter like Keith Alexander make such a statement that in saying he is a gang member insinuates these charges are gang related?

It is not factually incorrect, he is a gang member, in federal prison. Is you decide whether he was a gang member before he went to prison supposed to be unbiased reporting?

When in fact everyone will assume that he was a gang member when Chandra was murdered because they have no information otherwise.

It is left to this site justiceforchandra.com to counter major news organizations and the federal government with the actual facts and context of these kinds of statements. It is critical in that the prosecution's case hinges on convincing the jury that Guandique was involved in a gang murder of Chandra as "cellmate confession" prisoners have said they were told by Guandique. So it is imperative to the US Attorneys that it be so.

Problem with that and everything else the DC prosecutors are saying about Guandique, it ain't so.

Major newspapers covering the case like the Washington Post shouldn't be implying otherwise.

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



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9241
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An excellent, touching article by Keith Alexander with the Levys with only one factual error, which is remarkably good reporting. Not to nitpick, but it's important.

The Levys had just finished a family vacation to Hershey, Pa. Robert Levy drove the rental car to Metro Center in the District, kissed his daughter, Chandra, on the head, said goodbye and headed to the airport with his wife.

It was the last time Robert and Susan Levy would ever see their only daughter. A week later, about May 1, 2001, Chandra went missing.


end quote

It was actually two weeks later. The reason it's important is that a week later Chandra unexpectedly got told to pack up her things at the Bureau of Prisons Public Relations Office because her internship was over. This after having some sort of casual encounter with a person in HR and mentioning in passing that she had completed her degree in December but was attending the May graduation ceremony in LA for her Masters Degree which her internship was part of.

There are a lot of questions concerning dumping Chandra out of the government just befiore she disappeared that need answers under oath on this. To see the details on it and what led from it, read chapter BOP in Murder on a Horse Trail and see what you think about it.

It was a week after she was shocked at her dismissal from her internship job in the BOP, a job she told her family she was applying for as a permanent job along with applying to the FBI, that she disappeared.

There are answers in those events. They are not being sought.

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



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9241
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I read the Washington Post chat transcript with Keith Alexander. Excellent stuff.

I want to excerpt this one response:

Q.
scene of the crime
Was there any DNA found at the scene where Levy's remains were found?

*
October 18, 2010 1:45 PM

A.
Keith Alexander writes:

No DNA was found at the scene. Actually the defense attorneys aren't convinced Levy was killed in the park. At one hearing, they told the judge they believe her body or remains were dumped in the park.
October 18, 2010 1:52 PM



There are three things I got from this Q&A. One is the above, which is an excellent foundation of a defense as we have written about all along.

The other is that Alexander twice mentioned he believes the prosecutors may pull a surprise in the trial with additional evidence. Of course I think Criminal Law 101 from the tv shows is that the evidence had to be made available to the defense before the trial but maybe there are ways around that.

The third was quite interesting. He says that the prosecution may want to put Condit on the stand to "fully explain to jury why he is not a suspect."

That will be interesting. That opens him up to cross examination, does it not?

As if he will answer unfettered questions without taking the Fifth? Or a plan to seek immunity and thwart any future prosecution?

Michael Doyle of McClatchy has some insight to those questions.

rd

Former California congressman Gary Condit could testify at Levy trial
By Michael Doyle
McClatchy Newspapers
October 19, 2010
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/10/19/102296/former-california-congressman.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9241
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Speaking of Allan Lengel who I mentioned in a recent post as one of the two or three great reporters on the Chandra Levy disappearance back in 2001, he contributes a remarkable read on AOL News talking to Bert Fields, Condit's current lawyer / spokesman and apparently book agent.

You've got to see these quotes from Fields on the Condit manuscript in his safe to believe it.

One item Lengel adds that is very disturbing:

Jack Barrett, who was the chief of D.C. police detectives at the time, told AOL News that four to six weeks into the investigation "we had come to the conclusion that he was not involved in the disappearance." But he said it took three months to convince the media and the U.S. Attorney's Office of that, which he says became a distraction for investigators.

"The U.S. Attorney's Office thought he and his wife were involved in the disappearance," Barrett said.


end quote

I disparage Barrett in recent posts. This is the same guy who said recently the DC Police were too focused on Condit to investigate others such as Guandique.

Now he is saying this. My question is, is this not the same US Attorney's Office that had just blocked the search warrant request for Condit's condo the DC Police made when urgently contacted by Condit's former executive assistant and prior mistress Joleen McKay through the FBI. As soon as she saw Condit and the missing Chandra's pictures on tv she called the FBI.

And what did the US Attorney's Office do? They blocked it.

Now Barrett claims they actually are the reason for this alleged (and untrue) undue focus on Condit.

We saw how Barrett handled the Chandra disappearance investigation. Now we see why it was so screwed up.

I don't trust anything he has to say, but it would be a real circus trick for him to explain how the US Attorney's Office both blocked the DC Police search warrant request and pressured them to investigate Condit.

One of those is not true, and the US Attorney's Office blocking the search warrant request was leaked to the press by the DC police back in 2001.

I'm not one for believing rewritten history.

Now back to real life, check out these quotes Allan Lengel got. He adds a lot of depth from his experience covering this case.

rd

Ex-Congressman Linked to Chandra Levy Writing Book
Allan Lengel
AOL News
October 19, 2010

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/ex-congressman-gary-condit-once-linked-to-chandra-levy-is-writing-book/19680993
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: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A lot of disinformation being floated around by Condit's latest legal fling, Fields, and also Jack Barrett.

I have never believed that Condit will try to have a book published. If he does, it might look like one of those declassified documents, with lots of black marker through all the interesting bits!
_________________
"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: 870
Location: THE LEFT COAST

PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:21 am    Post subject: Public Relations Reply with quote

As far as I could tell from potential witness(es) who were interviewed by member(s) of D.C. MPD, other D.C. detective(s) did not necessarily agree with Jack Barrett's opinion(s) on the investigation. Potential witness(es) who stayed in contact with D.C. police detective(s) through the years got the impression when they wanted to relay information to the MPD that Jack Barrett was somewhat superficially involved (may be as a spokesman/public relations man) for the MPD, but not someone who was "hands-on" with the "interviewing of potential witness(es)" aspect of the investigation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
James Anderson



Joined: 18 Jul 2005
Posts: 46

PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alexander says that "Mrs. Levy isn't entirely convinced that Condit was not involved in her daughter's murder, even though police and prosecutors have said he was not a suspect."

I don't think Chandra's family would be disappointed if Guandique is found not guilty. They might actually be relieved that the REAL killer could still be brought to justice.

He also says that "Prosecutors have a very difficult job ahead of them in proving Guandique is the right guy. There is no forensic evidence, no eyewitnesses and only alleged confessions he made to his fellow inmates about killing Levy."

The only reason they have a difficult job ahead of them is because there is NO PROOF that Guandique had anything to do with this, and plenty of proof to indicate he didn't. The ONLY thing they have going for them is a judge who is obviously biased against the defense, the entire Washington power structure that has been trying to obscure the facts that indicate a sitting congressman killed his girlfriend for the last nine years, and a friendly media that willfully ignores the facts that prove Guandique's innocence and Condit's guilt.

I also found this in an AP story quoting attorney George Jackson, a Chicago-based lawyer with the Polsinelli Shughart law firm and a former federal prosecutor:

"Jackson said the defense (for Guandique) will have to tread lightly because jurors will be put off if they sense attorneys are trying to make an innocent man (Condit!) into a scapegoat. And the government will surely be ready to counter suggestions that Condit was involved. But because Condit is so closely linked to the case in the public's eye, the defense has some leeway to approach the issue with subtlety. If it's feasible to suggest that this guy (Condit) may have been involved, you put it out there" to help create reasonable doubt in a jury's mind, Jackson said. "But it's a dangerous thing to do because you don't know if there will be a backlash."

Exactly who is turning "an innocent man into a scapegoat" here? Also, If the defense is serious about defending Guandique why would they say they only need one day to present their defense? Not admitting the results of the lie detector tests was bad enough, and now this?
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 -> Murder on a Horse Trail All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 24, 25, 26  Next
Page 2 of 26

 
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