www.justiceforchandra.com

[jane]

From a WP Sept 2002 article, referring to Guandique's accuser: "....In September 2001, the inmate failed a polygraph test, also administered through an interpreter...."
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

[gozgals]

[rd]

The alleged sighting of Chandra by some witness will be a guaranteed fiasco, I can't even believe the lady has a clue what she would have had to have seen, not sure much of the public understands either, but apparently an alleged sighting of Guandique, which is too mundane to screw up, got screwed up.

Doyle in his blog describes it with some wit.

rd

http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/law/2010/10/chandra-levy-murder-trial-1025-some-first-day-witnesses-stronger-than-others.html

[rd]

While Halle Shilling's testimony is compelling, and again I am thankful she fought this Guandique creep off by jamming her fingers in his face (too bad she didn't jam it right through his skull), Guandique is serving 10 years for that crime.

The testimony is to set a pattern which allegedly would be similar to Chandra's murder, but as I posted on previous page, the differences are vast.

And of course the DC police and prosecutors should be ashamed for placing Chandra in Rock Creek Park in a scenario none of the females have ever, or would ever, attempt themselves.

They have no shame in what they drag Chandra into, rather than deal with what Chandra was dragged into... from a car, dead.

rd

[rd]

Michael Doyle of McClatchy News reports that Susan Levy is in the courtroom flanked by a lawyer and taking notes.

Here's the opening yarn from the DC prosecutors she'll have to transcribe:

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/10/25/3130114/prosecutors-admit-focus-on-condit.html

"Picture a beautiful spring day in May 2001," Haines began, during a statement in which she periodically acted out certain actions. "(There is) a young woman who is going deep into the woods ... she is running into a dream, into a nightmare from which she will never return."

Susan Levy knows better than that. So should the DC police and prosecutors.

rd

[rd]

This is special. The Washington Examiner perhaps (well actually, certainly) inadvertantly shed light on why the woman was so confused placing Guandique in Rock Creek Park on May 1.

Not only did the woman call the police two years later to report she saw Guandique and ran, but a full eight years later the DC police "helped" her pin down the day as May 1.

And we haven't even got to the good parts yet.

rd

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/blogs/capital-land/witness-tries-to-place-defendant-in-park-the-day-levy-disappeared-105714958.html

[sigsky]

Certainly Fitzgerald's testimony (and her boyfriend's) were enlightening. The affidavit to the Guandique arrest warrant is very specific as to when the spooking occurred.

Doyle reports that 5 witnesses were called yesterday. In perusing the articles I can only come up with the following 4. Anyone know who I'm missing?

10/25/2010
Joseph S. Kish - National Park Service employee
Halle Shilling - victim of a May 14, 2001 attack by Guandique
Amber Fitzgerald - lawyer possibly spooked by Guandique in RCP on May 1, 2001?
Ronald Baumgarten – Fitzgerald boyfriend

[jane]

Same here, sig, 4 not 5. If there was a fifth he or she must have been very boring?
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

[caseinpt]

w.r.t hard drives. You can "corrupt" a hard drive in many ways-it all depends on the meaning. Examples include 1) not adhering to proper chain of custody 2) changing the timestamp on the hard drive--easy to do if you do not know what you are doing or if you are not using write blocking media connectors.

Formattting a drive will not necessarily eliminate the data unless you format it 7 times over and over. You can recover quite a bit of data even after a single format. But if chain of custody is not followed or if the timestamp of the drive is changed and there is no backup copy, admitting that drive into evidence is a non-event.

[jane]

Hi case - you make it sound as though someone would have to be trying to corrupt the hard drive?
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

[rd]

Thanks for that info, caseinpt. Good to see you again.

The terminology has been all over the map on this as you can expect with this cluster.

The original story from Gainer was that the hard drive crashed resulting in delayed results back to investigators. This was just a side comment answer to a question from Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times.

No details on where that crash occurred, or if the terminology was actually technically accurate. But it wasn't we have results, they are not forensically admissible, that part is certain.

All sorts of twists have filtered from the DC police since then, as one can imagine considering the bizarre stuff they put into the affadavit. They basically say whatever they think suits their purpose at the moment.

My guess is the crash and corruption is the same thing, and that it was later blamed on the hapless Durant et al they have made fall guys in this latest rewrite of history. They rival Condit in that department.

They actually got data, witness the web site list provided when they got it back from the FBI two months later, the reason it took so long is implied that the data had to be recovered from a failed drive of some sort. If it was an actual physical head crash (the literal meaning of crash) some data would have been lost where the head destroyed sectors, but probably not an actual head crash.

Possibly just the virtual meaning of crash in that it wouldn't come up and they couldn't access it through the computer. I find that hard to believe as well, and if literally true that the hard drive was inoperable one would have to question how Chandra walked away from a working computer and when she disappeared her computer died along with her.

I've taken it to be an excuse the FBI gave Gainer and that they were reading the data off the hard drive after accessing it physically, and typically behind in the outcontracted lab work.

But that's just a guess, because believing what the DC police actually said is unbelievable.

rd

[sigsky]

Did I set up Robert Levy's testimony as a new thread? Sorry, not my intention. Think it properly belongs in here.

Anyway, how about this?

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2010/10/26/defense-plans-to-call-tattoo-expert-in-levy-trial/

I guess the defense let this leak out and now the prosecutors are going to have to find their own tattoo expert. I'm not sure I trust the source of this story. If you have some time on your hands, by all means watch the embedded video.

[jane]

Hi sig - no, I think rd thought there might be lots of discussion specifically about Robert Levy's testimony so he set up a new thread.
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

[jane]

I think it makes sense to have a tattoo expert witness as the prosecution has based much of their case on Guandique's tattoos. The tattoo artist will probably make an interesting witness and having a British accent - that always makes a person seem more intelligent and credible.
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

[jane]

I have to agree with the British tattoo artist that tattoo portraits can be just as convincing as those on canvas. Anyone who has seen a certain movie or trailers, posters of it will recognize this:
http://tinyurl.com/285h5lb
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ