www.justiceforchandra.com

[laskipper]

For what it's worth, I gave you my answers below Kortnie. I have my own theories as to what happened and they don't differ all that much from yours.

Seeing that rd is taking the cautious route and realizing that we may be monitored by heaven knows who, I went back and modified the heck out of my response, but here it is- shaved bald:

[rd]

It's really a catch-22 to charge somebody with something and then have an investigation to see what the evidence is. What is needed is an investigation into the investigation and see what has been answered and what hasn't and why. The information will need to lead toward charges, not the other way around.

Very wise, skipper. :) I will take a look at those thoughts and I hope others can too.

rd

[art]

What is needed is an investigation into the investigation and see what has been answered and what hasn't and why..... rd.........yes and Why is the big question?????? Is the grand jury still the same one or does there have to be a new Grand Jury appointeed? ...art

[rd]

It changes every month, art. There were a couple of articles I quoted in the book that mentioned that. The new grand jury is supposed to review work by the previous grand juries and continue on. As you and everyone else who's posted on Chandra's case know, this is a very complicated case and there is no way a new jury can come in and grasp what the previous juries were about.

As far as I know, this would be just one of many cases as well. Suffice to say that I think the whole thing is driven by the US Atorneys office and they just trot in someone to say we need a subpoena, and the jury says ok.

I don't think that grand jury can deal with complex investigations, Maybe a special grand jury is required for something like that, but the problem is part of the problem is the Washington legal establishment, and they'll never investigate themselves.

Maybe a Modesto grand jury can investigate instead.

rd

[rd]

I agree with everything skipper wrote. The phone situation is complicated, I try to cover it clearly in MHT, but readers who haven't been talking about for three years like we have can be excused for getting a little glazy eyed at Condit's spook maneuvers.

A call was "placed" on her cell phone that day, according to DC police chief Monroe. News reports on her calls are so vague and conflicted that nearly anything can be read into the reports. I will try to quote later a partial conclusion but my take on it is independent reviews of the cell phone records don't seem to indicate a call on May 1, and I ask for confirmation of the police chief's statement or clarification if in error.

One report states Sven Jones was the last person she called, and a possible interpretation is that Chandra tried calling Sven without leaving a message to see if he was back yet. However, another report seems to place this call along with the one to Linda Zamsky, which took place Sunday, and of course Chandra called Sven on Saturday evening and left a message.

What makes all this so confusing is that Chandra had a cell phone which would have a record of calls kept, a landline phone in her apartment in Edeline's name which would only have records of long distance calls made on it, and she made none on it, and an answering machine on the landline, not voice mail. This answering machine filled up with messages after she disappeared and quit taking more.

She would probably have voice mail on her cell phone, but she was constantly calling a number which showed up on her cell phone bill to check for messages. She may also not have had voice mail with her cell phone. People who knew her called her landline routinely to try to reach her and leave messages. This after trying her cell phone and it was off?

She seemed to not keep her cell phone on much. She would call Condit and tell him her phone would be on between such and such time to call her. On the other hand, there is no record of Chandra placing or receiving a call with Condit after April 13, about the time she told her mother that he "had explained it all" concerning Jennifer Thomas, the daughter of their gardener who told them his daughter had an affair with Condit which ended badly.

Calling Chandra's landline locally didn't leave a phone record, her parents called her landline to leave messages, and Chandra was calling some number repreatedly to check for messages. It would seem to be her landline, and it would seem that Condit was calling it so as to not leave a record of calling her, nor she a record of calling him by using the landline instead of the cell phone to call him.

One key question would be the state of the answering machine while Chandra was online with her laptop. Calls to her landline would get a busy signal when she was online. She didn't have voice mail with her landline. Did she have voice mail with her call phone? Is that what she called to check that day, her cell phone voice mail? If she did, why would Sven, her parents, and her landlord call her landline looking for her and leaving a message?

It doesn't seem she had voice mail with her cell phone. Then who was the call to that day, or did she make a call as the chief said but phone records don't seem to show?

If she made a call, did she call Condit's message line to say she was leaving to meet him? That is the only reasonable explanation it seems to me. If she did make a call, the police have withheld the number called.

If she didn't make a call, she would have had no message that morning while online. It would seem to me that it was prearranged for Chandra to wait for a phone call after 1 from him, thus the reason she logged off to free the phone line up. A call to her landline would not show up in any phone records.

More importantly, why suddenly start using the landline to avoid leaving cell phone records of calling each other in the last two weeks before she disappeared? She does no more than call her voice mail after April 13. Did she no longer talk to Condit after April 13? Condit says they did, and specifically on Sunday, two days before she disappeared. Yet there is no record of it or any other calls between them after he explained it all. Why, and what did he explain?

rd

[Kortnie]

Morning. Skipper, thank you for taking the time to go over what I said yesterday. I appreciate that. It's to the point where I want Chandra to appear in my dreams and tell me what the heck happened! All the whys and hows that we are grappling with. I know that wherever she is in the ether she 's appreciative of our efforts.

I realized yesterday evening that the word I was searching for comprising the abstractions of fate and luck is: Chance. Just by chance, the searchers did not find C's body in the wilderness of Rock Creek Park. It could have also worked the other way, that they did find it. That's the nature of chance and it operates in all our lives all the time. We're not going to be able to know about these "chance" events until the perps actually tell us. All the dots can't be connected by facts alone. That's why I want C to appear in my dreams and tell me what the heck happened!

About the leggings and attractiveness. A 23-24 yr old doesn't have to do much to appear sexy to a 50 something man. She could wear a potato sack and look sexy. I know that because I was told that once in my younger years by a grad school bud when I was complaining about not having had time to go home and change before our evening Writing Poetry class. As you can see, I never forgot that! Now, it might take a bit more for me to gussy up. But for C, and with her small, shapely bod, a pair of spandex leggings would be quite appealing to gray Gary. IMO.

Why move her? If she was killed in a cavern why not leave her there? Someone please tell me what would be the reason for moving her later to the park? Until I get a good reason, I have to continue thinking that's THE crime site, along w/my "chance" ruminations. Supporting RCP as the crime site is the hard, factual evidence of it being looked up online by her the morning of May 1. And yes, I do believe that was her online. Everyone knows that computers are taken as evidence when a crime has occurred and no perp would risk that unless he is a total dumbshit .

Yesterday I thought about the philosophical precept known as Ockham's Razor concerning our endeavor to find out who whacked Chandra. Anyone familiar w/that? Kortnie on Friday (YAY!) morning.

[benn]

Hello Kortnie, I will throw in a few words here. Someone else will probably have some other words.

"Why move her?"

I think that has been discussed here before, maybe some time ago. The idea in moving her, to some place where she would be found, would be to take the heat off of Gary. With no body she could have been dumped in the ocean, as Dunne said, and is now in trouble for.

We have Geragos in April of 2002 saying that he thought Chandra would probably be found in May. If I remember correctly Geragos said that with Condit within hearing range of him. So Condit heard him say that. Part of that is in Murder on a Horse Trail. In a later news article somewhere Geragos was quoted as saying (not verbatim) that where Chandra was found exonerated Condit. That is not an exact quote, but that is the idea. Chandra was murdered by a predator while she was jogging. That would take the heat off of Gary.

That was Geragos interpretation, and part of that, the location, is worked into Gerago's interpretation in MHT.

That could have been the reason why Chandra was moved, to prove that Chandra was killed while jogging, Kortnie.

benn

[benn]

Myself I think it would have been much easier to strangle Chandra in an automobile, and then to transport her to wherever wanted, perhaps to be moved again to the Park. Moving Chandra to the Park after she disappeared might have been very risky, so the odds seem to be in favor of moving her there the same day, before the police had her down as a missing person. It could have been done at night in a very short time, by two people.

benn

[Kortnie]

rd, have you noticed that your title has been changed to MOUNTAIN on a Horse Trail?!!!

Benn, but C came very close to never being found. If her skull hadn't been there w/teeth in it, forget it. Condit and Company could not have known w/certainty that she would be found in RCP ("to prove that she was killed by jogging"). She nearly wasn't. So, I'm still not convinced she was moved. Thanks for responding.

[rd]

benn, it was just a typo on the third post down on page 6. It intrigued her.

When you look at the information carefully, it is hard to explain all those items found on that hillside such as a lipstick, shoe, condom wrapper, rope, figure eight loop, beer cans, and others that are more than windblown trash being deposited by people oblivious to a skeleton being tore apart on the hillside around them. It is possible, but unlikely.

On the other hand, most people would not accept the body being moved without hard evidence. That's understandable. In the end, it is largely irrelevant to the case whether she was brought there alive, dead, or a skeleton in a body bag. What's important is that she was brought there. That is what must be shown.

I cover Chandra on her computer extensively in Murder on a Horse Trail. I give a careful analysis that shows that I think it is her there, but it is just a behavioral analysis. There is no technical information that establishes that it was Chandra on her computer. I present the information and my analysis, ask a lot of questions, and it is up to the reader to judge.

Concerning her computer, I wrote last night on her last call. There are very important questions in that post. I hope people can read it and contribute to our understanding of her last day. It is complicated, but we need to virtualize ourselves into that situation and talk about what happened just before she disappeared.

I'll be on the road quite bit coming up so will only be able to post more occasionally than now. I hope we get some more new members and discussion like this continues. It's great to help find justice for Chandra.

rd

[benn]

I have a problem with a decomposed body being moved that is just a skeleton. Of course I don't have any experience in those things. I can see moving a body when it was still fairly intact and had not decomposed into just bones.

It is hard to say, it could be either way, moved or not moved. All the trash around the crime scene I can understand having lived in and around San Francisco. A lot of strange people can hang around in a park like that.

Good luck rd.

benn

[rd]

Thanks, benn.

As James can attest to, there is no one hanging around that hillside. If I do not do it justice in my writeup in the Found and Horse Trail chapters, I will have to make amends here. That is a desolate, deserted, quiet, rarely accessed slope of a hillside. If you've seen tv shows or movies of those hillsides in California that run down to the beach from the highway, think that with tress. These are steep, slippery slopes. There is no hanging out. There is no one.

Yet those items were left there on the hillside. Where exactly I don't know. There is a gradual decline where a dinly wore down foot trail descends to the creek and road below, separated from Chandra's body by a steep ravine cutting down the hillside. If the items were across the ravine and along that footpath, that makes more sense, but if on that same steep slope as Chandra it makes no sense at all. You cannot stand upright. You must bend forward to walk up the hill it is so steep. The gravel and shale makes for treacherously loose footing.

At the top of the hill is a dirt Western Ridge Trail barred to horses. You can walk back that from the picnic area and on to Grant Road, but it is on an incline and very narrow. I could not sit down on any log or rock and type anywhere along it without sliding downwardl.

My speculation has always been that she was in a bodybag in being transported by vehicle and moved, until she was dumped on that hillside. That is why I believe there is no forensic evidence of her being moved.

Many more points have been raised in these last few days so I have more to post.

rd

[Kortnie]

Okay, so I'm even more intrigued. Why, why, let me repeat why, move the body at all? That seems to be a lot of trouble when one can just leave it where it was originally and apparently no one could find it. There are no vultures in RCP and it was May, very hot, and people, for the most most part did not venture into that neck of the woods. There is a reason C looked up RCP that morning of May 1 and it's because she was going there. There is no other reason. There was a purpose to everything she browsed on her computer that morning. I'm still intrigued.

Ockham's Razor says that the simplest of competing theories is to be preferred as the fastest way to reach the truth. Also called the Law of Parsimony or Law of Simplicity. That's mine. She went there, she was killed there, and she was found there. Similar to Julius Caesar saying, "I came, I saw, I conquered," which indeed is what happened.

William of Ockham (1285-1349) English theologian and philosopher. His thinking and writing are considered to have laid the groundwork for modern scientific inquiry.

[rd]

Because Condit was placed in Luray when he didn't know he would be.

I agree, someone mentioned Rock Creek Park to her and I believe she was taken there that afternoon.

I don't believe she was on the side of that hill from May 1 on undetected that close to the horse trail. Someone at some point pulled up to picnic area 18 and unloaded her and dragged her down the side of the hill, much later, in my opinion.

rd

[Kortnie]

C and I have close birthdays. Hers is April 14 and mine is April 27. It hurts when I think of what she was going through during that time, and then to get murdered. But, as I've said before I was almost murdered at the age of 22. C had just turned 24. I can relate, even though our circumstances were completely different. Kortnie