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 

Chandra Levy: An American Murder Mystery Oct. 15 TLC

 
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: 9218
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:00 pm    Post subject: Chandra Levy: An American Murder Mystery Oct. 15 TLC Reply with quote

I am seeing news today on a 3 hour TLC special on Chandra Levy with coverage of Condit which has been rare. I will take a look at the reports and comment on what I see of the excerpts.

Us Magazine is reporting that it airs on TLC Monday, September 4, 8pm ET. I looked up TLC, to be honest sounded like The Learning Channel to me, and was in the beginning, but now some kind of reality series focused thing which I have no interest in.

This is quite an endeavor to focus on this case for three hours. Unless they do looping that would put Nancy Grace to shame it'd be hard to do three hours without some significant coverage of Chandra's case.

My congrats on the effort in any event. Will provide plenty to comment on good and bad.

rd

click to read the online true crime mystery novel Murder on a Horse Trail: The Disappearance of Chandra Levy

www.justiceforchandra.com home page
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9218
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Us magazine excerpt quotes a phrase or two from Ronald Monroe, formerly one of the DC Police executives during Chandra's disappearance. I will be looking to see if this question in our discussion of Murder on a Horse Trail is answered:

Monroe said a call was placed the day Chandra disappeared, but neither specified the number called nor specifically that it was the cell phone he is referring to. It is somewhat implied in the reporting but ambiguous.

Was this based on call information recorded on the cell phone? Was the date and time with each call? Where did he get this information?

If it was on her cell phone bill, that info was never revealed.

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



Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 208
Location: South Carolina

PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thought I might get to open this thread but no matter. I understand this is a new installment of a series following pieces on Jon Benet Ramsey and Casey Anthony, American Murders it is called. I can't imagine there will be anything new of substance. I'll be overseas until September 20th so I doubt I will see any of it until after then. I will have internet access so I'll watch this thread to see if anything exciting happens.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9218
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's an interview of former Levy's private investigator Joe McCann by Fox News Stephanie Nolasco. Highly recommended. Joe truly knows this case and words of wisdom welcome indeed after wading through all the crap from DC prosecutors and police all these years. All of which documented and commented upon here on www.justiceforchandra.com.

There is nothing you will miss about the facts surrounding Chandra's disappearance and murder if you have the time to dig into it here. There's a lot, a lot people don't know and a lot misunderstood. The context of Chandra's disappearance is as important as where her remains were found. Comparing which profile with no evidence is most relevant as important as the fact there is no evidence, but there are compelling profiles. Match them up.

And there are questions that could be and should be pursued. That's called an investigation. A novel concept in Chandra's case.

Thanks Joe for some insightful commentary.

rd

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/08/31/chandra-levy-american-murder-mystery-could-inspire-someone-to-come-forward-says-former-investigator.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9218
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2017 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now the unpleasant business of dealing with an article by a typical media reporter, a tv critic, San Francisco Chronicle's David Wiegand. To his credit he gets all the facts right, showing nuanced knowledge of the case. However he disparages all right and left, apparently upset that GoT has ended for the season and he's left with this to critique.

Let's take the problematic statements in order.

To the astonishment of many, the case heated up again in 2015 when Guandique was granted a new trial. Last year, federal prosecutors said they wouldn’t retry him but, instead, deport him.

What is actually astonishing is that Guandique was convicted with absolutely no evidence except a shopped for cellmate confession story, shopped for by placing Guandique with a known informant collaborator for a few weeks in a Kentucky federal prison for which the collaborator earned witness protection program.

The only people that believed his made up cellmate confession was the prosecution and their handpicked jury of people so uninterested in the case they had never heard of Chandra Levy. They were irritated at how long it took to allow them to rubberstamp the government's case.

So yes, a new trial was granted when it could be proved that the collaborator lied about some things on the stand, and his lies was the entirety of the DC prosecutor's case.

Somehow the collaborator from the witness protection program managed to give the DC prosecutors an excuse to drop the retrial even though the collaborator never actually said he made the whole thing up. The whole lot of them ethically averse.

Yet somehow this reporter and he says many others were astonished. Clearly kangaroo court rubberstamping is a thing.

Now we move on to this gem.

Vince Flammini, Condit’s former driver and self-described “best friend”...Flammini, who was fired by Condit in 2001, says that his ex-boss used to go to Rock Creek Park all the time and that he tried to tell that to “the FBI and different people but they didn’t want to hear it.”...Flammini has little credibility and a first-year law student could tear him apart in five minutes on the stand.

Now you probably can't find a more arrogant and ignorant comment made about this case than this other than from Condit himself. I'm going to quote some info from Murder on a Horse Trail in rebuttal:

from chapter Paid Intern
Vince Flammini had been Condit's staff driver in California for almost ten years. In interviews, Flammini relates Condit describing a girl to him who matched Chandra perfectly, but describing her to him earlier during the summer [than when they allegedly met in his office in October].

from chapter Secrecy:
At some point during these rendezvous Flammini met the stewardess [Anne Marie Smith]. Within a couple of months Condit told Flammini to find another line of work. Flammini had ridden motorcycles with Condit, roomed with him on the road, lifted weights with him in Flammini's gym, and even gardened together, but Flammini had done something to end a thirty year relationship and ten years as Condit's driver and security. Flammini isn't sure why, but he thinks he knew too much. [1]

1. Jardine, Jeff. “Condit faces new allegations.” Modesto Bee 4 July 2001.
Note: It's not clear in this context, but the writing and any errors are all mine. [1] is cited as the source of information, an excellent article by Jardine fron Modesto Bee.

and Wiegand's conclusion:

True crime, for better or worse, is a gift that just keeps on giving, even if the package is mostly empty.

well, I guess it's empty if you think as some people do that deporting Guandique was just a way to get rid of the murderer instead of retrying him.

We'll keep pressing on to get questions answered. That's what True Crime as a genre is all about. And yes, it does make for good tv although I've rarely watched it. I can't stand looping videos.

And I haven't watched GoT. But I did love Breaking Bad. So I'm not completely hopeless.

rd


http://www.sfchronicle.com/tv/article/Chandra-Levy-case-revisited-in-TLC-special-12158850.php
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9218
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Watched this three part three hour series tonight on TLC. Highly recommended. While I and our regular readers here wouldn't learn much if anything new, it covers the case very well and for most would be pretty comprehensive.

A shoutout for good commentary from Diane Dimond, Michael Doyle, Ronald Monroe, Keith Alexander, and Kim Rossmo. Especially enlightening were statements from Vince Flammini, Joe McCann, and Ingmar Guandique with Sylvia Moreno questioning / interpreting from Spanish.

I'll start out with some posts making a few points before more posts on bad information that was given.

The first hour was surprisingly strong on looking at Condit. One interesting thing is they played a few times his two voice mails to Chandra after she disappeared. They went:

1 - How's your schedule, mine's looking pretty good. Call me
2 - Haven't heard from you. Call me.

There are a couple of interesting things here. First is that how his schedule was looking pretty good with his wife in town and the schedule he gave police is obviously a lie, raising questions about the intent of these voice messages.

The second is even more interesting. I had occasion to talk to some knowledgeable people about the case recently and it went from straightening out the usual "Rock Creek Park was one of last things she searched", uh, no it wasn't, to the last search was actually on go.france about travel to France.

Then I said, and guess what Condit's second message left for Chandra was? "Haven't heard from you, I guess that means you're out of the country".

One interesting thing is that they had never heard of this, and I had double checked my own postings because I have posted this and at some point if I'm only one saying this then I need to check my sources again. We source everything here. And so I felt I double checked source but yet this is not commonly known.

So they play the second message on this TLC special and repeatedly don't include anything about being out of the country. And so yet again I'm wondering, what was my source and why am I only one saying this?

So I double checked source yet again tonight. It is:

Condit takes the stand in Levy case
Henri Cauvin
Washington Post
November 1, 2010

When he didn't hear from her, though, Condit followed up with her, leaving two voice messages. Levy was planning to return to California for graduation, and by the time he left the second message, Condit figured she had left Washington.

"Haven't heard from you," he said on the recording, which was played in court today. "I guess that means you're out of the country."


Now why would TLC deliberately exclude this portion of his voice mail repeatedly?

There are significances to this. She searched on go.france and he was establishing she might be out of the country. It could be innocent that she had independent interest to visit France on her own during summer and she told him this, could be he told her about a trip together to mollify her, but although he left that message he never mentioned it to Levy's when they called and asked him if he knew her whereabouts, and never mentioned to police when they questioned him.

As an aside, Condit at some point a few months later started talking about Chandra taking a train trip home, talked to her for "one minute" on Sunday and asked her if she had her train ticket, thought she might be on a four day train trip home, but again didn't mention that to Levy's or police a few days after Chandra disappeared and left a message about out of country, not I guess you're on train home in the voice message.

He changed his story many many times and that's just one example of the impact his changing stories had on the search for Chandra.

All that should be in an investigative story on Chandra, not leaving out what Condit said in that voice message. It's a critical clue to his and her mindset when she disappeared.

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



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9218
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rd wrote:
The Us magazine excerpt quotes a phrase or two from Ronald Monroe, formerly one of the DC Police executives during Chandra's disappearance. I will be looking to see if this question in our discussion of Murder on a Horse Trail is answered:

Monroe said a call was placed the day Chandra disappeared, but neither specified the number called nor specifically that it was the cell phone he is referring to. It is somewhat implied in the reporting but ambiguous.

Was this based on call information recorded on the cell phone? Was the date and time with each call? Where did he get this information?

If it was on her cell phone bill, that info was never revealed.


Speaking of Monroe having good commentary in this TLC special on Chandra, the issue of Chandra making a phone call that day of her disappearance was not mentioned. Monroe was the one who said something about it back then.

I would say at this point that strictly due to Guandique's Public Defenders defense, lots of information was revealed that the DC Police didn't deign to tell anyone, and all we can do is guess that there was actually no phone call that day that Monroe had mentioned or else it would have definitely been a major issue for the defense lawyers to raise. The reported info below:

Lots of Attention but Little News on Intern
By David A. Fahrenthold and Arthur Santana
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, May 18, 2001

Police later returned to the apartment and retrieved Levy's laptop computer and cell phone. A call was placed on the phone May 1, Monroe said.

end quote

This is pretty clear. That call "placed on the phone May 1" has never been explained as far as I have seen in reporting. She also had a landline but you wouldn't be able to tell about calls made on it. This statement implies they saw a call on her cell phone for May 1. Is that statement correct? Who was the call placed to? If not correct, could Monroe expound on where the confusion lies?

Obviously if there is an explanation for this that someone knows about I will post it here.

These are terrible times with Hurricane Harvey bombarding Houston and Cat 5 Hurricane Irma headed through Carribbean islands toward Florida, lots of people dying from disasters and always more murders, and this is a cold case when there are so many active and other cold cases. But this is a murder mystery, and lots of people take on the challenge of mysteries.

And this is a real murder mystery with real life implications.

So if DC Police could answer simple questions that have been left unanswered it isn't an investigation but every answered question leads to more clarity.

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



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9218
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

They covered Robert Kurkjian pretty thoroughly, and reenacted with an actor him taking a lie detector test and passing it. They made Chandra hanging out with Kurkjian "three days before she disappeared!" about as exciting as they could, while also noting that all she did was talk about her boyfriend the congressman and venting about it.

Kurkjian flat out told her she was being played but she obviously didn't believe it. He took her outside to a cab at 1am Saturday morning (she disappeared the next Tuesday) and never saw her again.

The difference between a show like this and Murder on a Horse Trail is I place events in sequence and in context. There is a flow, and these events intertwine. A segment on Kurkjian on a show like this is essentiially oh, a potential suspect, okay, questioned, here's what he said, passed lie detector test, okay, potential suspect cleared, end of segment.

But there's more than that. Kurkjian's segment is in the flow of Chandra's last days and hours before she disappeared. What does it tell us?

We know from Chandra's communications Saturday evening that she was despondent about staying in DC. Friday talking to Kurkjian she was still fighting to be Condit's wife, but Saturday at some point Condit told her that his wife was flying in, he didn't have any firm help on a job, and she appears to be resigned that there is no imminent future for her in DC with Condit or a job. She calls Sven to ask for a lunch date to talk and leaves a message. She may or may not have known he was still on a trip when she left message, in that unknown if she was asking to talk later in the week whenever he got back.

But Sunday everything changed, and it didn't have anything to do with Kurkjian. But readers should know where these events fit into the flow of what became her disappearance and murder.

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



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9218
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There were three segments that put a final touch on this show, and they were very helpful interviews. There was Guandique by phone, then Vince Flammini, Condit's former California driver and security, and Joe McCann, Levy's private investigator.

The Guandique segment was led by Washington Post reporter Sylvia Moreno who questioned and interpreted for Guandique by phone. Although Guandique was speaking Spanish, you could hear the tone of his voice which communicated as much as his words. The tone was of someone who wanted to be helpful and was remorseful for his actions and the Levy's loss.

Before I go any further, be aware that Guandique pled guilty to two horrible assaults on joggers far down below on Beach Drive from Grove 18. He was sentenced and served 10 years for those assaults. They were serious crimes and he served serious time in federal prison. So neither he nor anyone else is making an excuse for him. but he served his time, and seven more years being charged, tried, convicted, and appealing murdering Chandra Levy. And that is what we're talking about here, although in context that he was a serial assaulter with a knife on female joggers alone on trail out of sight of cars passing by on Beach Drive.

He said that he was trying to steal stuff to buy drugs. I think we would all agree that pulling a woman down off the trail with a knife to her throat is more than give me your shiny object (walkman, ring, whatever). On other hand I don't know how that goes. Not sure how well that would work to say stop, and hand over your valuables. It is a muddled, perverse mind involved in this, sexually motivated attack in my opinion. But he says he was doped up on drugs and desperate to buy what he needed for his habit.

He was remorseful for that and for the Levy's loss of their daughter, although he said he had nothing to do with it. The show made the very good point that should DC find reason to try Guandique again, they are able to reindict him and try him for her murder. There is no double jeapordy the way these charges were dismissed.

What we end up with are profiles that match certain behavior but with no evidence for both Guandique and Condit. The difference is prosecutors and people that support that train of thought place Chandra on a long lonely hike or run on a horse trail and Guandique following her for half a mile up Western Ridge horse trail before Chandra inexplicably finds and walks into a narrow No Horses Allowed path deeper into the woods (and it is plenty spooky up that horse trail as it is) and there, Guandique decides to assault her and ends up binding her with her leggings, dragging her 232 feet down a steep slope, and leaving her in a shallow gully, essentially hiding her body.

Now here's the problem with that theory. Chandra wasn't a jogger. Chandra wasn't a nature hiker. Chandra preached safety to her female friends, and preached carry defense with pepper spray, etc. Chandra was an applicant to the FBI. She had worked for the Modesto Police Department. She minored in criminal justice. She interned for the Bureau of Prisons.

If there was anyone who was aware of the danger of a woman hiking on a lonely dark steep horse trail into the densest forest in DC then I would suggest Chandra had as much or more understanding of that danger as any prosecutor, detective, or reporter who glibly consign her to taking up nature hiking on the day she disappeared because "it was a nice day". Chandra was not an outdoors person. She worked out in a gym every day.

Her friends Jennifer Baker and Sven Jones knew her better than anyone who didn't know her at all.

Jennifer Baker told Jim Herron Zamora of the San Francisco Chronicle:
"She never went out alone," Baker said. "One reason
she joined a health club is so she wouldn't have to
jog in the streets there.
"

Lisa DePaulo interviewed several named friends of Chandra for her Talk Magazine article, and she wrote: "Levy didn't smoke, had no pets, didn't jog (she was a fitness fanatic, but always at a gym)."

Sven Jones told Russ Mitchell of the CBS Early Show:
We didn't really talk about her visiting
parks, and we didn't really talk so much about
jogging, either. It was a little bit of a surprise
for me, because we have not--neither one of us em--
embraced jogging fully, so the park--I'm just not
familiar.


But interestingly, the police searched a "jogging path in Rock Creek Park, where Chandra regularly walked". [20] How would police know that Chandra regularly walked on a jogging path in Rock Creek Park, a park that runs for miles through the District and alongside Condit's street, Adams Mill?

20. Fields-Meyer, Thomas, Champ Clark, Michael Fleeman, Macon Morehouse and J. Todd Foster. “Searching For Chandra.” People 25 June 2001: 87. Baker, Jennifer. Interview with Greta Van Susteren. The Point. CNN. 17 May 2001. Transcript.

And look at the beginning of what reporters wold say about Chandra with this flimsy basis provided by who? It is unacceptable for the police to have launched this travesty on Chandra and not cite the source of this misinformation, and quite frankly examine the basis for being told this.

Thomas Fields-Meyer wrote in People that "police have... even brought cadaver-sniffing dogs to several locations, including the jogging path in Rock Creek Park, where Chandra regularly walked".

Newsday reports that this was "a park where Chandra Levy often jogged".

Tucker Carlson said on CNN's Crossfire that the police knew that "she frequently jogged in Rock Creek Park".

CNN again, despite all the information to the contrary, reported that a man reported finding a skull in "an area where Levy was known to go jogging".

WUSA-TV 9 in Washington reported from Associated Press and CBS that:

The park is crisscrossed with running trails and was
one of Levy's favorite jogging runs.

Friends said Levy frequented the 1,754-acre park,
located in Northwest Washington.


end quotes

That's really the sad legacy of Chandra. If a woman's body is hidden in a forest, and it's inconvenient to investigate her boyfriend, reporters will happily make her a jogger or walker or whatever the government wants.

Even if she's bound and hidden hundreds of feet down the side of a hill, with missing but unpawned jewelry, with a boyfriend who's into bondage, and she's never been known by her friends to be a jogger or nature hiker, the government will paint any picture they want with the full complicity of many reporters.

And no one to answer to for it.

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



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9218
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I see this series is running on OWN tonight at 8 p.m. Changing title thread to reflect. I have some more notes on it to post.

As I posted above, recommended. This doesn't reveal anything significantly new to those of us following this board but is an excellent coverage of the case for everyone else.

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: Sun Oct 29, 2017 2:57 pm    Post subject: Well-planned Kidnapping, Removal, and Cover-Up? Reply with quote

So, my questions, rd and gang, begin with: why would GC (one of Chandra’s “friends”), law enforcement, the government, press, etc., promote the false narrative that Chandra was a jogger (when it has been proven she was not) and that a horse trail (GC rode horses and officials working in embassies located nearby sponsored horses in the Kentucky Derby and other races) in Rock Creek Park (a place Chandra, a student of Criminal Justice, considered to be unsafe) was the one and only place she chose to go jogging the only time she went jogging, on an extremely hot and humid day in May 2001 (during a heatwave), wearing a sweatshirt and leggings (which allegedly were used to bind her body, either before her murder or afterwards, if and when her body was moved there), coincidentally during the time frame when she was scheduled to move out of her apartment and return to California for her graduation from USC, without carrying any identification, pepper spray, or house keys, but in the possession of some kind of a Walkman, which allegedly contained a Frank Sinatra cassette or cd (according to a reliable source who spoke off-the-record), an artist she enjoyed listening to with GC?

Why hasn’t information given to detectives and investigators early on been utilized to solve the crime? Why were Anne Marie Smith and other former mistresses of GC so afraid? Who was the man that GC wanted to set Anne Marie Smith up with? Did that person work for the US government or the government of a foreign country? Why was Jim Robinson, Anne Marie Smith’s attorney, told to “drop the case” (may be before publishing a book on it and may be around the time election(s) were being held), which he appears to have taken to heart and concentrated on work as an investment banker, instead.

Was Chandra “kidnapped” from her apartment which had been “wiped clean of fingerprints” (according to detectives close to the investigation and an article which appeared in a newspaper and then was withdrawn), including those on the computer keyboard associated with her computer which had “crashed” and which was located in a building where the security tapes had been recorded over or erased? Was Chandra drugged, possibly flown out of the country (may be to France), hidden in plain sight, and brought to a meeting with this mystery man some time between May 1 and in and/or around May 9-11, 2001, when someone bearing a strong resemblance to Chandra, with a rose tattoo and wearing a short French haute couture style dress (with metallic “spikes”) and extremely high high heels (with a metallic looking strip down the center of the back of the heels) was seen in Adams Morgan in the company of a small group of people, at least one of which, wearing a baseball cap and glasses, resembled someone(s) affiliated with this case? This group of people was strolling around Adams Morgan and stopped into a cassette or cd shop, listened to cassettes or cd’s, and may be even purchased a Frank Sinatra cassette or cd (as this occurred during the time of his final tour and the cd shop was advertising the tour) before being picked up by a red car (all of which was reported to detectives at that time and a photo of the license plate of the red car was submitted to the FBI lab at a later time).

Why was Chandra’s murder pinned on a scape-goat, whom “people close to the investigation”, like Detective Larry Kennedy, knew right from the start had been eliminated as a suspect?

Why did so many of the people involved with the case receive big job promotions (like Chief Ramsey and Assistant Chief, Gainer), although they were criticized for doing such a poor job of investigating and solving the crime?

And why does it appear that the Bureau of Prisons was running interference for the false narrative by setting Guandique up (or allowing him to be set up) as a scape-goat? Why did Condit staffers use attorney(s) affiliated with the Bureau of Prisons and the Timothy McVeigh case to defend themselves against obstruction of justice charges? Was it just because he/she/they were very good lawyer(s)? Did Chandra and/or GC have any knowledge of the whereabouts of the missing documents in the TMV case (GC’s citation of a comment Chandra made to him at a dinner they had at Tryst restaurant in Adams Morgan, regarding a comment her boss at the BOP made to her referencing the FBI’s “hiding of missing documents from the defense” in the TMV case) on page 81 of his book, “Actual Malice”. Another interesting point about GC’s mention of Chandra’s comment was that she went on to say, “I know this hits home for you. I just thought it was strange that the government brought this out six days before the execution date.” (Actual Malice, p. 81). This is particularly interesting, because Timothy McVeigh’s execution was originally scheduled for May 16, 2001. So when did this dinner with Chandra and GC at Tryst take place??? This slip of the pen could be evidence that Chandra was still alive and was in and/or near Adams Morgan, at the time someone bearing a strong resemblance to her was seen in Adams Morgan, accompanied by other character(s) affiliated with this case!!!

Was Chandra Levy just an “inconvenient woman”, an obstacle in the path of a political rising star or the victim of someone in his sphere of influence, cast in one of the main parts of a dangerous b and d role-play/scene?

Or, was Gary Condit set up by a political enemy?

My point is, was Chandra Levy the victim of a “well-planned kidnapping and removal” (Billy Martin) and subsequent cover-up?

Or was Gary

In any case, Chandra’s life, missing person’s case, and death matter! She cared about her “man” (and their 5-year plan according to her aunt), her family, friends, government, and the world, itself! Chandra made a real difference while alive, during the time she was missing, and even more so, in her death. The light that has been directed towards Chandra’s case has been magnified and continues to shine and is shared with many other missing and exploited persons cases.

“Calves are easily bound and slaughtered, never knowing the reason why. Those who love and cherish freedom, like the swallow will learn to fly!” Yes, indeed, “How the winds are laughing, Donna, Donna!” —and not just at the bottom of a ravine off of a horse trail in Rock Creek Park!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
peripeteia



Joined: 22 Sep 2002
Posts: 1176
Location: Nova Scotia

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:49 pm    Post subject: http://www.tagtele.com/videos/voir/246021 Reply with quote

Hi R and others;

watched the 3 part series, and there is vital information missing from the videos/investigation, other than that very well done I thought. Interesting that in Chandra's apt. the notes on the floor are scattered, never heard that before!! Also since your computer smart, how would a computer crash when ya open it up, what would the tech/cop have done to make that happen, sure seems like her computer was tampered. Blanket in the door way, found dead with the same clothes she was wearing to the gym, sure seems like the scene is stagged per se. And of course as you mentioned Condit doesn't really have an alibi for the afternoon of the 1st. too always a puzzle after C meets with Cheney over the Energy hearings/California, that he leaves the office at 12:50 and doesn't attending the hearings, listened to the tapes, and Condit doesn't show up, that's quite something considering he was the Agricultural Minister at the time! Another interesting point was the fanny pack never being mentioned before, until Grandique mentioned it, which is not true, the Gym guy mentioned this, and this was very early on when Chandra disappeared. Will read your comments on the interviews. Interesting what the private detective says, sort of a cliff hanger, he knows what happened?
_________________
A vision sent me on the path of seeking justice for Chandra, nothing I've seen in print to date has diminished the vividness but only served to reaffirm the validity of this vision.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9218
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi Kate, you're right, there is much missing. Such as with the laptop, the producers just don't know enough to film it correctly. We will try to enlighten them here.

The notes that had been slid under the door by management for the landlord would presumably be just on the other side of the door if no one had entered. But Guandique's Public Defender defense pointed out the pictures of the apartment that showed them scattered around on the floor. They made this a point of reasonable doubt that Guandique murdered Chandra because evidently the murderer entered her apartment.

That had zero impact on the witless crew that had been assembled as one can expect. All they wanted to know was where to rubberstamp the guilty verdict so they could go home. Reasonable doubt requires reasoning.

The laptop incident was explained wrong and has been explained wrong by nearly everyone who attempted to describe it. The testimony from the police tech was clear,, and yet next to no one even knows what that testimony was. We documented it here and refer to it but only people that visit here and follow closely have any clue the significance of the laptop sabotage. Not to mention the cerebral hemmorhage note found on the counter.

The sequence ran roughly like this:

May 9
Search of Chandra's apartment. This was first preliminary search.
Det. Wyatt saw laptop powered on and browsed it to see what sites had been visited (presumably took a look at History in the browser)
Then he turned laptop off and left to get search warrant for apartment.

The DC Police then went to Condit's condo apartment to talk to him for first time. This is when Condit found out he was linked to Chandra when he had expected his rules of secrecy to have kept him uninvolved. But Chandra's family had clued police in that they believed Chandra was having an affair with Condit, that he was her boyfriend.

Condit's initial story to police that night, his initail fallback story he never thought he'd have to use I imagine, was that Chandra was obsessed with him and he had to refuse to take her calls. He basically indicated she was distraught and could have done anything.

The DC Police never did shake the Chandra committed suicide notion that Condit planted with them from the beginning. His story only changed as stronger indications emerged of his involvement with Chandra. With each new revelation he morphed Chandra into a mentored friend until by end they were good ol buddies, who he was checking on to see if she had got her train ticket to go home. At least eight versions of his story in that metamorphosis last I counted. But it was a metamorphosis over many months and years from obsessed and distraught.

When the police left, Condit called Ann Marie and told her he was in some trouble, he may have to disappear. Told her not to call him, he would contact her. Obviously Ann Marie was pretty disturbed at what se was hearing from him. She had not seen news of Chandra's disappearance yet.

Next day, May 10

Wyatt returns with search warrant to search Chandra's apartment. He turned her laptop on, it powered up, but nothing was there. "The operating system was obliterated," Wyatt said."

That is not the DC Police crashing Chandra's computer. That is someone sabatoging her computer to make it look like it crashed. I imagine the laptop took some hard blows so that the hard disk read head was destroyed.

And in fact the FBI had to send the hard drive to a forensic firm to extract information from it because the hard drive could not be accessed. That doesn't happen by turning the laptop off and back on the next day.

In addition, the police found a handwritten note on her counter mentioning cerebral hemmorhage and cardiac arrest. In my opinion this was to make Chandra look suicidal from an examination of her apartment.

May 9th, about a week after Chandra disappeared and the police got involved, was a busy night. But I have my doubts whether any show producers will be able to get this important sequence right.

The DC Police didn't even want that cerebral hemmorhage and cardiac arrest note to become public. The Public Defenders found it and raised questions about it, again reasonable doubt for anyone doing any reasoning.

That sequence should be item one for any agency doing a real investigation into Chandra's murder.

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: Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:32 pm    Post subject: Cerebral Hemorrhage and Cardiac Arrest Reply with quote

Hello, rd, perepeteia, and friends!
Could the note about cerebral hemorrhage and cardiac arrest, which can be the consequence of “breath play” failure, have been written by whomever kidnapped her and was responsible for planning her murder or someone in his/her circle, after he/she researched it on Chandra’s computer before the hard-drive was destroyed?
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
Page 1 of 1

 
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