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 

The recovery site
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  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
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9240
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jane wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, Horwitz and Higham had a job to do, and they did it: Get the public ready for Guandique's conviction for the murder of Chandra Levy.

well, you're right. They did a bang up job of that.
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 Nov 24, 2010 2:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not that I approve of what they did. And Horwitz was hanging around the halls during the trial like the hostess of the social event of the season.
_________________
"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
laskipper



Joined: 17 Sep 2002
Posts: 1272
Location: Northern Ohio

PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:06 am    Post subject: Re: Student Investigators Reply with quote

Rainbow wrote:
Thank you, Rd. The head of the institute told me on the phone that you had lectured and/or conducted some seminars at Bauder College and that you had done a fabulous job. Everyone learned a lot and thought you were great! She also told me at the time that the students weren't going with your theory, but another one and that Susan Levy had also participated in their coming to that conclusion.

When the opinions of college students, who did not participate in the original investigation of the crime, are given more weight than the testimony of someone like D.C. career homicide detectives that were on the case from the beginning, Jim Robinson and Anne-Marie Smith, who were completely immersed in the investigation, or someone like yourself, who has been thoroughly analyzing the case since the beginning, then I know that whatever conclusion they came to was their version of "barking up the wrong tree".



Shocking on both points but the first explains why Susan Levy was not a participant on this board/forum.
_________________
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves
~
French philosopher Bertrand de Jouvenel (1903-1987)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rainbow



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

PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:41 pm    Post subject: Conversations with the DCMPD Reply with quote

My opinion is that Mrs. Levy wasn't given all of the information that the police had. She wasn't a (direct? or whatever you want to call it) witness in her daughter's disappearance. My understanding from what I have been told by a former D.C. homicide detective is that the D.C. Police Department was waiting to get enough evidence on the real suspect(s), that would hold up in court.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9240
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And here we find that just any old thing holds up in court.

rd
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: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:50 pm    Post subject: Stong Evidence Reply with quote

You are right! What a contrast!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rainbow



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

PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 8:19 am    Post subject: If it doesn't fit, get a fanny pack! Reply with quote

Now, I know why it was so important for the prosection to make "fanny pack" inferences. Cosmetics (lipstick) were found at the recovery site, which by the way were not the brand Chandra used. How else could the prosecution make inferences about where the cosmetics (lipstick) would have been kept, if not for a mysterious "fanny-pack"?

But why would Chandra take cosmetics with her, but no key and/or pepper spray? Once again, this is inconsistent with her personality profile.


Last edited by Rainbow on Thu Nov 25, 2010 2:51 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9240
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

and what, Guandique threw out the lipstick before running off with the now empty fanny pack?

Maybe they think he just wanted a fanny pack really bad.

I think of all the women that have been hidden by silent ex's, and if in DC and the silent ex is a Congressman, the lengths authorities would go to explain how the woman got herself there to be murdered.

And in most every case, the silent ex claimed that she had gone off to the park or run off with someone.

Condit made the claim to the police, after mentioning it to Chandra, probably asking her a question about it, like where would be a good place to go talk in Rock Creek Park.

Who could know how many people would throw her under the bus.

rd
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: Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:55 pm    Post subject: RCP Reply with quote

I'm suspicious of the whole "Rock Creek Park" computer searches. That place is a well-known "recovery" site for people who have already been murdered. This is purely my own speculation, but I think that that was part of the "Big Mislead" in the whole series of events. That computer was "out-of-commision" for a month or so, if I recall.

And how could Mr. Geragos, Mr. C's attorney-at-law at the time of the "recovery", predict the month that the remains would be found. And, why would he say that that would point to Chandra's murderer being a "serial killer" or "serial" anything?


Last edited by Rainbow on Thu Nov 25, 2010 2:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jane



Joined: 22 Sep 2002
Posts: 3280

PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know what you mean - taking over a year for the body to show up would not point to a random murder by a serial killer, but to someone who knew the victim.
_________________
"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: Thu Nov 25, 2010 2:59 pm    Post subject: Lip-schtich! Reply with quote

Good commentaries, you, two! Why would Guandique throw out the lipstick and run off with the fantastical fanny-pack?

And, why wouldn't he have snatched Chandra's sunglasses? I'm sure they weren't some cheapo glasses. Dwayne Stanton, the Levy detective I spoke to on several occasions, said that Chandra wore what he termed, "designer" clothing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rainbow



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

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 6:33 pm    Post subject: Mr- and Mis- Trial Reply with quote

This whole trial should be declared a mistrial, because the owner of the DNA on Chandra's leggings was not revealed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rainbow



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

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 6:59 pm    Post subject: Another Geragos Comment-CL and JC Reply with quote

CNN LARRY KING LIVE
Panelists Discuss Gary Condit and Chandra Levy Investigation
Aired August 22, 2001 - 21:00 ET

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0108/22/lkl.00.html
(CROSSTALK)

Quote:
KING: One at a time. Who is -- what lady is going first?

GRACE: I will go. To me, it signifies it is very obvious that this was not an amateur. No amateur could pull this off. We would have found the body by now. There would be a trace. This is someone who knows exactly what they are doing and this was very well planned. Whoever took Chandra, it is very obvious to me.

EPSTEIN: Exactly, exactly, Nancy...

KING: You agree, Julian?

EPSTEIN: Yes, I do. I couldn't agree any more. I think John Walsh is saying the same thing. And let me tell you, I think of the four panelists on the program tonight. I'm the only one that actually lives in that community. I live blocks away from that, and I got to tell you, it is in the same community that Joyce Chiang, another young congressional ex-staffer that I new very well also disappeared and was found dead several months later.

GRACE: Impossible.

EPSTEIN: What's impossible.

GRACE: Because serial murderers always dispose of the body in the same ammo. It is part of their ritual and that is not the case in the Levy disappearance.

EPSTEIN: Nancy, you said impossible before I made a statement. I assume you are not Carnac.

GRACE: Because we have talked about it before.

EPSTEIN: I don't know that you know what I was going say. If I could have the courtesy of just...

KING: You want to finish?

EPSTEIN: Yes, I do. I do want to finish that but I think the essential point is that after three or four months, of a body disappearing, Nancy is actually right about that. I don't think that anyone in this community thinks that lives there, thinks that a six term congressman, who has no criminal background, who has no criminal history whatsoever, has any capacity to actually pull something like that off.

I don't think anybody remotely thinks that. I think that is clearly work of somebody who is very professional, somebody who knows what are they doing, and this, the point is not to say that it is a serial case, Nancy, the point is that this happened before in that same community, just a couple years ago.

GERAGOS: And Joyce Chiang was missing for longer than Chandra has been missing.


KING: Barbara could also say it could have been a hired person, right, who would do it very professionally?

OLSON: Well, I mean this is why we keep talking about this, Larry. I mean, what Mary (sic) Grace says is absolutely right. A serial killer, not only will they dispose of the body in the same way, but usually serial killers leave evidence. There is something about a serial killer that you find after the fact that they actually want to be sought. They want to be known about. They have a sickness that wants notoriety.

And what other people said, this is a congressman, this congressman has no history. The only thing that we can go on is that we know she left without her ID. We know she left with only her keys. We know she had a relationship, that she was very close with the congressman, and he asked her to leave without an ID, without any keys. So we want to know answers
.
Quote:
KING: Nancy, do you want to get a word in? As I said already, Bob Franken did question the police chief, who denies it -- Nancy? GRACE: Right. Well, I can see the police chief, Terrence Gainer, maybe ducking the question or refusing to comment on the question. But I don't think he would come out and vehemently deny that theory if he was lying, because that would come back to haunt him at trial, I promise you. So I don't believe that.


Last edited by Rainbow on Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rainbow



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

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:53 pm    Post subject: Pre-suggestive Reply with quote

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0108/22/lkl.00.html
More from the interview mentioned in the preceding post.
Quote:
OLSON: Once again, you have to realize that your source was too convenient in his timing. Suddenly, we're going to have a Gary Condit interview, and my goodness, the week of the interview we hear about a third party stalker. It was too convenient. We have been following this case. After 115 days, it doesn't wash.

EPSTEIN: If we could get a little bit of light in the middle of some of that heat -- I mean, I think that whatever the case is, I think that almost every single reporter that's covering this case closely will tell you that the police are looking at at least three to four different theories that are not connected to Mr. Condit.

OLSON: Of course they're looking at theories!

KING: Why would he vehemently deny it then, Julian?

EPSTEIN: Well, Mark was the one, I believe, that got the source -- that spoke about the one. I had heard that from reporters as well. I don't know whether it's credible or not credible, but I know that there are other avenues that they're looking at that don't lead to Mr. Condit, and the point that Mark and I were making last night...

OLSON: And we know what they are.

EPSTEIN: ... is that we don't focus on that very much.

OLSON: Julian, we know what those theories are because we've gone through them: she was murdered, she is missing, she is the victim of a serial killer. We know what those are. But the idea that this week a theory comes out, of a stalker -- I was curious last night where that was coming from, and why it so conveniently would come out to take off the heat on Gary Condit when he wants to do a political statement. It just doesn't wash after 115 days.

GERAGOS: What Julian is talking about, and I've heard the same thing repeatedly, is that everybody who's covering this case closely says that there are a minimum of three different people that they're looking at, and that they're looking at closely.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rainbow



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

PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:00 am    Post subject: Whose DNA on Chandra's leggings? Reply with quote

I found this on a Chandra Levy thread connected to a Jon-Benet Ramsey discussion forum. You may have already discussed this, but I think it is still relevant.

Topix.com-Bode Technology-Chandra Levy Case
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TUHTB7CJ0TEFDI2QF/p5
candy
Quote:
East Lansing, MI
Reply
|Report Abuse
|Judge it!
|#95
Oct 27, 2009 These are from some court filings by the Defense, asking for the DNA of Bode Technicians, etc. It's very relevant to the Ramsey case, for obvious reasons:

The government further opposed the defense request for DNA profiles from BODE analysts and agents who may have come into contact with the material submitted for testing at BODE. In this case, the government contends that at least one item of clothing left at what the government describes as the "crime scene" was contaminated by an analyst from BODE. In the first instance, the defense is entitled to conduct an independent examination as to the nature of this alleged contamination...

The final report shows that an unknown male - that is, an unknown male that is NOT Mr. Guandique - left biological material on the tights the government believes belonged to Ms. Levy. In it's opposition to continue the IPA hearing, the government contended that it believed those tights were also contaminated. The defense cannot conduct an independent examination into this and similar claims without first securing the DNA profiles of any analyst which may have come into contact with this clothing. If in fact contamination has occurred, the extent and nature of the contamination will become significant. Moreover, the defense is entitled to conduct independent examinations to determine whether in fact the unknown profile belongs to a third party perpetrator. It cannot conduct such testing without the requested profiles
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 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
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