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 

What TV shows don't tell you about the Chandra Levy case

 
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: 9244
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:15 am    Post subject: What TV shows don't tell you about the Chandra Levy case Reply with quote

There were three crime shows covering the Chandra Levy case recently. A heads up was given in Some new crime show interest in Chandra Levy case and an in depth look at Chandra Levy on Mysteries & Scandals on Oxygen in which I appeared.

The two A&E shows, First 48 with Marcia Clark and Grace vs. Abrams, is so wrong about Condit and his alibi that I had to write a thread Condit does not have an alibi, was with VP Cheney earlier just to address that.

I also wrote to the shows. Hopefully at some point feedback impacts their presentations. Certainly this is one of the most important points about the Chandra Levy case and the establishment politicians and media are very stubborn on this point. The Congressman uses a VP as an alibi for the afternoon, while the VP's office said the meeting only lasted twenty minutes and ended before 1 pm, before Chandra even logged off the internet.

Yet the shows declared this repeatedly as a rock solid alibi for Condit, he couldn't possiblly be involved, he was with the VP all afternoon. And they show Cheney's picture on the screen.

The DC Police lead this parade, so in a way the shows are just repeating what the DC Police are saying, so the problem stems back to the DC police and prosecutors. They clearly do not want Congress involved in this murder, facts be damned.

But after addressing that monstrous brainwashing job the A&E shows were doing on the Condit alibi, the next step was to address the other factual errors in the shows. But that limits the discussion to that which they even mentioned, rightly or wrongly. What about the far more numerous items that aren't even mentioned about Chandra's disappearance?

So having seen these three crime shows on Chandra Levy, something I'm grateful for in at least keeping her open case in the news, I will address what they don't show you about Chandra's case, many of the items you will not see anywhere anymore. This site is the one source for information on Chandra Levy that lots of establishment people wish disappeared long ago.

Sort of like Chandra.

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
_________________
ralph@ee.net
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9244
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm going to take a sweep through the case and highlight the most glaring omissions, things you need to know that shows don't tell you. After that I'll follow up with more minor items that provide important context but are missed in the inevitable narrowing down of information in an hour or two format.

1. Chandra had a law enforcement background

This goes to who was Chandra? Why are law enforcement and prosecutors, the DC Justice system, telling you that Chandra was running on a horse trail in a dark forest on the highest hill in DC, without telling you she was one of them?

They claimed she was doing something that none of them, DC law enforcement, prosecutors, or the press, would do or have ever done, even to attempt to recreate the crime. It's so implausible they wouldn't even attempt it.

Why do they not tell you she was one of their own, someone who wouldn't do this the same as they wouldn't do it?

Let's look at Chandra's law enforcement background.

In Guandique Murder Analysis I write:

The DC police and FBI don't like to talk about this, but Chandra was an applicant to the FBI, having just completed a Master's Degree in political administration, prior to that minoring in college in criminal law, prior to that working for the Modesto police department, prior to that being a member of the police explorers club in high school and wearing her uniform to school.

She also trained in self defense and security, and was an evangelist for women safety measures. That's one reason she never jogged outdoors.

end quote

When I tell a media person that Chandra had worked for the Modesto police department, I get a shocked look. They don't know anything about that. They just buy into this since Chandra was found hundreds of feet down the tallest steepest hill in DC, she must have placed herself there.

She must have foregone all her law enforcement and safety training and taken up jogging the day she disappeared.

What else would explain a woman's body found hidden in a remote forest?

I will tell you if it was one of their own, or if Chandra hadn't been mysteriously removed from her Bureau of Prisons job the week before and was still a government employee, you'd get quite a different tune from the DC Justice League.

It wouldn't have been adults have every right to disappear. It wouldn't be one of our own took leave of their senses and was wandering around on a horse trail in a forest with nothing.

But they didn't treat Chandra as one of their own. And that's something that people need to know to understand the context of Chandra's disappearance.

rd

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



Joined: 19 Sep 2002
Posts: 571
Location: The Great NorthEast

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excellent points RD.

This year we have a linkage with 2001. May 1 will fall on Tuesday just as it did the year Chandra disappeared.

Last night I pulled up an old C-Span video of the 2001 White House Correspondents Dinner. One of my theories, not published here, was that Chandra had been invited to attend this event and that this invitation might have been the "Big News" she mentioned in her message to her Aunt. Remember that in D.C. young attractive people were often invited to big events as guests of the Geezers and Gropers who run our government and propaganda corps. Tonight I scanned the crowd in that video but have nothing to report. It doesn't mean that she wasn't there but I didn't see her in the video.

Still on the case,
James
_________________
"Strictly speaking, all is equally inexplicable"
P.D. Ouspensky 1943 from A New Model of the Universe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
fallout



Joined: 19 Sep 2002
Posts: 571
Location: The Great NorthEast

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

For anyone who wants to check out the video of the White House Correspondents Dinner of 2001, when life was much more civilized than can be seen in the despicable 2018 event, here is the link:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?163957-1/2001-white-house-correspondents-dinner

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



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9244
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

interesting, fallout. Yes, I noticed that this year's days were in alignment with 2001 when I saw that May 1 was on a Tuesday.

Still on the case. Thanks fallout.

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



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9244
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

2. Condit knew Chandra before she came to DC.

The story both Condit and Chandra gave was the tour visit to his office with Jennifer Baker, with Condit just happening to see them, took them on a tour of the Capitol, took a picture with them, and offered Jennifer an internship to work in his office on the spot.

However, it was Jennifer that left and Chandra that stayed behind.

Seems innocent enough, doesn't it? But it was an ideal setup to give cover to Condit and Chandra for Chandra to come to his office and to know Condit better than your typical constituent who took a tour of his office.

And in fact, that was exactly what was said when Chandra disappeared. She was a friend of an intern who worked in his office and dropped by occasionally.

So what's wrong with this story? Well, Condit was describing a girl like Chandra to his California driver, Vince Flammini, the previous summer.

It was unmistakeable, "to a T" in Flammini's words. Greatest body Condit had ever seen, melons for breasts, curly hair, dark complected, and her ex-boyfriend was a police officer. Yes, Chandra's ex-boyfriend was a police officer with Modesto where Chandra worked.

And then we have this. In chapter Friendships I open with:

"Yeah, it's great," Linda Zamsky recalls Chandra saying. Chandra was talking about her boyfriend's motorcycle when she and Linda walked past husband Paul's bike in the garage during the Thanksgiving visit. The Washington Post quotes the exchange between them:

As they walked past a motorcycle in Zamsky's garage, Levy commented, "Oh, my guy drives a bike, too."

"He does? Is it a Harley?" her aunt asked.

"Yeah, it's great," Zamsky recalled the young woman saying.

This from a picture, or what? Having only been dating Condit four or six weeks, as Linda recalled later, with Condit's Harley back home in Modesto, Chandra would seemingly not have seen his bike.

end quote

Condit described Chandra to Flammini, and Chandra was talking about his bike back in California with a familiarity that clearly came from riding on it. But this was the previous summer before they allegedly met.

And what was she doing last summer? She was interning with prior California governor Gray Davis, the same governor Condit's adult children were working for as aides. Chandra didn't intern in the same office, but she was in an office building three blocks away.

In addition, during this time she told friends she was dating a married doctor. But there was no married doctor ever found. What there was was Condit describing Chandra to his pal Vince Flammini, and Chandra describing Condit's California motorcycle when she had allegedly only met Condit in DC.

Add all this up, and you have Chandra seeing Condit before she went to DC.

Now there's a significance to this. I, like probably some of you, don't care about affairs between consenting adults. This isn't about an affair, when it started, what all cover stories were told, none of it. It isn't about that.

What is significant is the ending of Chandra's internship at the Bureau of Prisons a week before she disappeared. She was no longer a government employee when she disappeared.

She was completely stunned at the sudden ending of her BOP internship, and the question is, how did it happen?

And if she otained a $27,000 paid internship in the Bureau of Prisons Public Relations office, another on the spot internship hire, only this with a significant salary and offered when answering a call from California, one needs to wonder a little bit about these on the spot internship hires.

Because if you can get someone in, you're in a pretty good position to get them out, even anonymously.

And it's critical that you not be a government employee when you disappear.

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



Joined: 19 Sep 2002
Posts: 571
Location: The Great NorthEast

PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2018 10:17 am    Post subject: Chandra's Last Days Reply with quote

RD

Glad to see you've maintained the site for so long. Let me know if there is a financial burden that needs to be met. jcforrester2@gmail.com

As before, I still think it wasn't the ambitious Congressman that did it. But you are right that they've left out all the weird behavior; The watchbox dump in Alexandria; The trip to Luray and the call from the phonebooth; the fact that Cheney dismissed him at around 12:20; the false alibi that he went to a doctor after seeing Cheney. ETC

I'm still looking at the weirder angles. The fact that Chandra was being vetted for jobs in the FBI and CIA at the time( They probably knew about the affair). The fact that the body could not have been there over the summer of 2001 without being found by a dog walker. The Washington Post's urgent need to finger Guandique (following instrucitions and direction from ? the CIA etc.)

I met Chandra's parents back in 2001 and they are real. They want an answer. Let's keep going until we get it!

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



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9244
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2018 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks fallout. Should something come up I'll keep your gracious offer in mind.

Speaking of stuff coming up, I'll be addressing all that you mentioned and more, particularly the note on Chandra's counter about cerebral hemorrhage and cardiac arrest.

If there's anything that needs to covered in information about Chandra's disappearance, it is that new information revealed by DC Police questioned on the stand in the Guandique trial. But that along with everything else we'll cover is stuff that TV shows don't tell you. We will tell you.

It's in the stuff that TV shows don't tell you where answers lie.

And your help always appreciated as some of the others here from the beginning.

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



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9244
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2018 2:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

3. Chandra was determined to "have this confrontation".

You would think TV shows covering the murder of a woman would be interested in motives for murder, but they're not. At least not when it comes to Washington DC politics. Too hot for them. They won't tell you, you'll have to read it here.

The TV shows will acknowledge that something was going on between Chandra and Congressman Gary Condit, but it's portrayed more as an unfortunate coincidence for a congressman to be caught up in an ex-intern galivanting around on a horse trail and getting herself killed. Just bad luck, nothing to see here.

Not once will you ever hear of a motive for murder.

But there is a motive, a powerful motive. Chandra was determined to have a confrontation with Condit's wife about their plans for marriage. This was told to her friend Sven Jones and reported by Lisa DePaulo in Talk magazine, a very important and revealing article about Chandra that summer of 2001.

This information is well known, at least back in 2001, well reported, and well analyzed by those of us following the case and writing about Chandra's disappearance.

But you won't see anything about it on TV shows. Heck, one TV host didn't even believe me when I said it, even when I cited DePaulo's reporting. You won't see anything about it even though DePaulo and the source of quote, Sven Jones, are well known and and Sven included in some shows.

Why is that?

I don't know. I don't know if it's too messy or too prurient or too scandalous or too politically hot or too much for lawyers to sign off on. Or maybe all of the above.

And what was this motive for murder that no one will talk about?

Chandra believed Condit when he told her his wife was "terminally ill". He told his other mistress, Anne Marie Smith, that his wife was extremely ill with encephalitis of the brain and that it was more a marriage of friendship than husband-wife. Congressional colleagues had been led to believe that Condit's wife Carolyn was an invalid.

He said that he couldn't get divorced to a terminally ill wife, did not want to "pull a Newt", but Chandra told her parents, her aunt Linda, and Sven that there was a five year plan for her and Condit to get married.

Chandra took this very seriously, she told Sven "I've invested too much in this." She was determined to "have this confrontation", he told DePaulo.

For a congressman with secret mistresses, that is about as strong a motive for murder as there is. What we know is that Condit's wife flew in to Washington and Chandra disappeared.

Carolyn rarely went to Washington. Another California congressman, had seen her "maybe once". The mayor of Modesto had not even seen her attend public events in the past 30 years.

But she flew in to DC, and Chandra disappeared.

But you won't hear about that promised confrontation, a motive for murder in a murder case, even when they've been informed about it and know the reporter and the source. Motives for murder don't matter for someone out on a horse trail in a forest, do they?

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



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9244
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2018 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

4. He "explained it all.'

Chandra's life changed drastically two weeks before she disappeared. It's heart wrenching for all involved to dredge this up, but that isn't why the TV shows don't tell you about it. It's way too messy and scandalous and legally jeopardous for them to tell you. And it doesn't fit the narrative.

So they don't tell you. But you need to know. So here it is.

Chandra was dreamy eyed in love with her boyfriend, and totally devoted to him. She had taken Condit's vow of secrecy. She was not to ever mention their relationship, or it was "done, over, kaput."

And she actually liked the secrecy part of, acting like a government agent, which she aspired to be, even telling her parents she was not to carry ID when with her boyfriend. As you can imagine, her parents were very concerned.

But while Chandra didn't talk about Congressman Condit, she did talk about a make believe congressman who had a lot of Condit's attributes. And her parents started wondering if it could be Condit, hard as it was to believe for them. Condit was married with a family, a long time local conservative talking politician, and much older. But there was a lot of resemblance.

The crucial part of this story is very sensitive, and no one is interested in lives needlessly disrupted more than they have been. But what followed was two weeks of uncertainty and then Chandra's disappearance. It must be told.

Chandra's mother was talking to her part time gardener, who was a friend and a local minister. And Chandra's mother was talking about the most important question in her mind, what kind of situation was her daughter in? It was very distressing to her parents.

And so she asked what her friend, gardener and minister, thought about their congressman and whether he might be who Chandra was seeing. And the minister broke down crying, talking about his own daughter, around 18 at the time when something ended badly with the congressman. He said she was a campaign volunteer when she met him.

Now it doesn't matter how much truth there is to this, whether the gardener / minister / friend had too much empathy and was tryinig to console Susan Levy or just what. But Chandra's mother did is what you would expect. She picked up the phone and called Chandra right there with the minister sobbing in her living room.

For her trouble, Chandra told her to mind her own business.

But it gets worse. This was shortly before her parents came to the east coast to visit family, including Chandra in the DC area. And Chandra told her mother privately, "don't worry, mom, I talked to him about it and there's nothing to worry about". He had "explained it all" to her.

Nothing to worry about except she had talked to him about it. Just what had he explained?

He could explain that the minister had done this before and had a mental problem. Or he could have told Chandra it was a misunderstanding, he had dealt with it. Or more likely that the daughter had been a campaign volunteer and infatuated with him and she was upset that he couldn't accept her advances. Chandra would be able to understand that and believe it.

But the one thing we know of this exchange is that this was a career ender for Condit if this kind of talk got out. The gardener was a local black minister, and the daughter had been a high school to college campaign volunteer, and Chandra's parents suspected him of being in a relationship with their daughter.

The only question is how kaput would it get.

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



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9244
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2018 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

5. "Someone in HR didn't do their job very well."

All the reporting will tell you Chandra was on her way home, and even that is actually unclear, even to Chandra on the day she disappeared, but they don't tell you why. Maybe because it's too complicated, maybe because no one wants to go there.

Chandra was unceremoniously shown the door of her paid internship, and she didn't understand why. "This was not the way the program I was in was supposed to work" she told friends. And it wasn't. But no one wants to find out why.

Chandra disappeared a week later. Disappearing as a government employee in the PR office of the Bureau of Prisons is a big deal. Disappearing as an employee just shown the door is not. Disgruntled ex-employee. Someone with time on their hands, time to disappear into the woods. Yes, losing that internship makes all the difference in the world.

She was someone who had the right to disappear, said the DC Police. Someone who was considered obsessed and a runaway after talking to Condit, who initially told police he had to refuse her calls. So they treated her as a suicidal runaway. Six weeks later they were handing out posters with photoshopped wigs on Chandra. Really really bad photoshopped wigs. Even for 2001.

So why did Chandra's internship end a week before she disappeared? To Chandra, she had a seemingly innocent conversation with someone in HR who managed to elicit from Chandra that she was going to her May graduation in three weeks... but had technically completed her requirements for graduation in December.

As Allan Lengel and Petula Dvorak, two excellent reporters, tell it in the Washington Post: "The personnel officer balked."

This was on a Friday, The HR person said Monday would be her last day.

Now think about that. Think about what it takes to elicit the technical date that she completed requirements for her graduation, "offhandedly" according to then Newsweek's Isikoff.

Think about a so called offhanded remark, in reality surely was discretely pumped from her, about a requirements completion date, that elicits from a random encounter an on the spot "oh, your internship is over".

Who would believe something like this? Well, apparently everyone who's ever read it, which probably is pretty few. It's pretty unsexy stuff. Degree requirements, internship requirements, within so many days, blah blah blah. Who cares?

Chandra cared. And she knew something was wrong. And she told her friends and family something was wrong.

In chapter BOP I analyze those blah blah blah's, and something is wrong. Someone wanted Chandra gone.

And what better way than for HR to find out anonymously that they have an intern who completed her degree last December and shouldn't be there? And who would be in a better position to know this than the person who was involved in Chandra getting this coveted internship?

Worse, far worse, I document the Federal Hiring Recruiting programs for women and minorities out of internships, the DOJ specifically, something Chandra knew about and had applied for a permanent employee position. But you won't hear one word from the BOP or any DC law enforcement about that application or the aggressive recruit to hire program that didn't get in the way of telling Chandra this is your last day. Out of nowhere.

And you won't hear about how the FBI couldn't find her application either, an application she had filed and called about and tried to get some kind of response in knowing whether to stay in DC or have to go home. Nope, nothing to see here. No application says the FBI.

So that's a whole lot of disappearing before Chandra disappears. Someone wanted Chandra gone.

But you only saw it here. If you could get through the blah blah blah's.

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



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9244
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2018 2:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

6. Condit's other mistress provides context to Chandra's disappearance.

For a variety of reasons, you aren't told about Condit's other mistress, Ann Marie Smith, who didn't know about Chandra. There are some legitimate reasons. She isn't directly involved in Chandra's disappearance. Like Chandra, she was in a consenting relationship. It's not relevant.

But thanks to Ann Marie being scared of also disappearing and coming forward to police against Condit's demands, she provides a lot of helpful context to Chandra's disappearance. Helpful context is outside the scope of most drive by True Crimes, too complicated and not enough time. So you'll have to see it here.

One important detail that we learned from Ann Marie was that Condit had access to a car in DC. Now one would think that's not very significant, but he made a point of telling DC Police in his timeline of Chandra's disappearance that he didn't have a car in DC. And like his other statements, you have to parse them.

No, he didn't own the car, his aide Dayton kept it for him. And we wouldn't have known that without Ann Marie coming forward. Condit made a great point of pointing out how he was driven around by his aide Dayton, and pictures later showed it was an SUV he was being driven around in, not the older Ford that was available for Condit. And nothing was said of that car.

In fact, what anyone who has any interest in this case should understand, is that Dayton didn't drive Condit around much at all until Chandra disappeared and the press started hounding Condit. Prior to that Dayton mostly rode his bike to work from his home in Alexandria. Condit rode his bike from Adams Morgan or took taxis. You would never know he had a car. He didn't want you to know.

Foreshadowing some upcoming what they don't tell you posts, Condit for example gave police a timeline that said on the day that Chandra disappeared, that he was driven to work by an aide, he met with Cheney at 12:30 and returned to his office at 3:30, and that later he met with a reporter in Adams Morgan to talk about his meeting with the VP.

But as I mention up thread and went into detail on, Condit only met with Cheney for 20 minutes, and the meeting was over 10 minutes before Chandra logged off the internet. In fact that may not be coincidental.

And the reporter found out she was in his timeline and wondered what her role was in it, and asked for a copy of it. And an office aide gave her a copy.

The reporter sees that Condit says he met with a reporter on Tuesday, the day Chandra disappeared, and no mention of meeting her on Wednesday, the day they did meet. So she tried to get a clarification. Oops! That wasn't supposed to go out. Now everyone knew what lies Condit was providing the DC Police, not that the DC Police cared. Condit's office wanted it back.

Well, she had already posted it on the ABC News website. The horse was out of the barn. Now a revised timeline said that Dayton drove Condit home that afternoon when Chandra disappeared. Condit said he didn't have a car, Condit got to Adams Morgan without Dayton's help until the reporter spilled the beans.

Now Condit involves his aide and being chauffered when he has to come up with something, which in itself is unclear because he still didn't cop to a 20 minute meeting with Cheney instead of spending all afternoon with him, rock solid alibi says the A&E shows, complete with a full screen pic of Cheney. They apparently are incapable of reading Cheney's office press release that says it was over in 20 minutes, Cheney probably mystified at why Condit requested it to start with.

Condit's lawyer at the time, one of many to come, tried to make it 45 minutes, from 12:30 to 1:15, and says Chandra had already disappeared by then, so that clears Condit. ??? Seriously, he told the press that.

more to come

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



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9244
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2018 2:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

7. Condit's other mistress provides more context to Chandra's disappearance.

Ann Marie provides other relevant context. It is through her that we learn of Condit's interest in bondage, at least to the degree of keeping restraints under his mattress. Now again, prurience is of no interest here.

What is of interest is that Chandra's scattered remains were found with her tights knotted on the ends, somewhat sophisticated bondage. You won't hear much about this, certainly nothing about how a teenage Guandique acquired sophisticated bondage techniques for the alleged walk in the park on a horse trail that Chandra is claimed to have made because... well her body was found hidden hundreds of feet down the steepest, most inaccessible place you can imagine, so of course her body wasn't hidden there by someone who didn't want her found.

Shush. Don't ask impertinent questions. That's the Department of Justice talking.

And speaking of remote, inaccessible locations, we have Ann Marie to thank for learning of a midnight payphone call from Luray, Virginia. That's a whole 'nother topic of what they don't tell you, but we wouldn't know about it without Ann Marie.

And the beat goes on.

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



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9244
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2018 6:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

8. Chandra needed answers about leaving or staying in DC.

The first thing you will see in a news article or True Crime show about Chandra is that she was leaving DC to move home to California. And while her fallback position, when pressed, was leaving DC, she was very much unsure about whether she was leaving for her graduation, for the summer, or for good.

And how she would get there and back if it came to that.

Chandra needed answers. About DC job prospects. About what to tell her landlord on Wednesday, the next day, when she had promised an answer for him. About travel plans, which until the previous week had definitely included coming back. She needed answers urgently. And she didn't have them.

Very few understand and convey to you that context of urgency surrounding her disappearance. They instead talk of a walk in the park. Because they don't understand. And don't try very hard to.

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