www.justiceforchandra.com

[rd]

benn, unless the police released closeup pictures of the knotted leggings there would be niothing to analyze. Of course the police would consider that crucial information to keep secret. If they were investigating it I would understand. Since they are not, it is just another word for coverup.

Any discussion of the Occult or whatever would go in another forum. Peiople get tied up and beaten or raped or murdered, or all of the above, everyday. Thst isn't an occult thing, it's a crime thing.

If I had any standing in the case I woiuld sue the DC police to release all information they have to allow real investigators to pursue Chandra's case.

rd

[benn]

>>>Any discussion of the Occult or whatever would go in another forum. Peiople get tied up and beaten or raped or murdered, or all of the above, everyday. Thst isn't an occult thing, it's a crime thing<<<

The Occult is how some people define it, or think of it, not necessarily what it really is. I might try starting a forum on it, but I do not have enough material right now. Ties knotted together under a bed? That could be an Occult thing, or it might have started somewhere else in the mind of the person who tied the ties. Knots in the leggings? That might take someone who specializes in that field to try to make something out of it.

>>>If I had any standing in the case I woiuld sue the DC police to release all information they have to allow real investigators to pursue Chandra's case.<<<

There might be some citizens group that does things like that. The problem is to find one, and then to interest them in the information that we are looking at. Standing in the case? A group with standing could probably hire attorneys for less money than the average citizen, but enough money would probably be able to obtain a standing in the case. Someone has to take a legal paper into the County Clerk's office, or wherever it would go, and sit it down on the counter, and then let the legal authorities attempt to respond. That takes a lot of money, probably.

benn

[rd]

Having neckties tied to your bedposts is not the Occult. They are used as restraints during sex. Condit had more than one sex partner who willingly were restrained during sex. He may have wanted to be restrained himself. It's not that uncommon.

I think the only people who would have standing in the case is the family. It's a delicate subject, obviously the family is in a terrible situation to consider having to sue the only people who can investigate their daughter's murder. But at some point one has to decide they won't investigate so you aren't losing anything.

I wouldn't want to have to make that decision. They have been let down terribly by people far away more concerned about the reputation of the Congress that funds them than some family in California who lost a daughter in DC.

rd

[Pepper]

This is my first post, though this case has interested me from the beginning. Chandra, like Laci, both from Modesto, my home town.

I really wish someone would put together a Chandra time line from before her disappearance forward. I have many questions, and since some time has passed, my memory is probably flawed.

BTW, I'm reading your book now, and it has renewed my interest in this case. Good read, though I'm only on chapter 4 - so maybe your book answers my questions, and if so, I apologize in advance.

1. If she disappeared about May 1, why did it take so long for the DC police to begin to investigate? Wasn't it over a week?

2. If she left behind her purse/wallet, ID, credit cards, cell phone, and all she took were her keys, wouldn't that have signaled a potential crime and therefore immediate response from LE?

3. Why did it take so long before Rock Creek Park was searched the first time? Wasn't that in July 2001?

4. Didn't LE know what was on her computer regarding the Rock Creek Park websurfing info long before the search in July?

5. Were cadaver dogs used in that first search of the park? If not, why not?

6. When the body was discovered, why didn't LE pick clean the entire area looking for clues? I remember seeing Greta VS & Dr. Michael Baden visiting the scene a short while after the discovery, and they found food wrappers, used condoms, etc. And some days later, wasn't another bone or two found after the recovery of her remains? Doesn't this seem incredibly sloppy?

6. Why do I get the feeling that the investigation was intentionally blundered? Could it be because the DC police, and virtually everything that runs the city of DC is dependent upon Congress for funding and accountability?

7. Why is it that Condit and family have profited greatly from this case in the way of lawsuit settlements, and the Levy family has only had expense and pain following this tragedy? I thought a different standard of libel and slander existed to "public" figures that makes publishing information about them or speculating not subject to the stricter standards for non-public figures?

OK, rd and others, those are my questions for now, but I'm sure I'll have more. And if someone can put together a good timeline, that would be wonderful!!

[rd]

Some great questions, Pepper. Welcome. I don't have answers for all the questions, but I examine every one of them in Murder on a Horse Trail.

I attribute all the delay to the several stories Condit told the police as circumstances changed. The blunders I attribute to an inept DC police force considerably cowed by powerful politicians to whom they owed their very existence.

I think your questions are a good guideline for any reader embarking on Murder on a Horse Trail. The answers are inevitably that of shoddy and cowed DC police detectives who all along just wanted Chandra to go away, just like her murderer.

I had originally started this project as an annotated timeline but as I got into it it evolved into a book. Murder on a Horse Trail is the time line of Chandra's disappearance and discovered murder. Anything less loses the context in which to understand the events that did, and didn't, take place.

I look forward to more comments as you get into chapters that deal with your questions, Pepper.

rd

[Pepper]

Thank you rd........

One final question. Why did Dunn settle the suit? I was really hoping that it would go to trial and that Dunn would prevail. A trial would have forced Condit to testify and answer some very sensitive questions that he dodged in his so-called interviews. If Dunn had shown there was sufficient probable cause for his views, wouldn't he have won in court?

[rd]

Here are links to our coverage of Condit's lawsuit against Dunne. The short answer is that Condit always settles when he is forced to answer questions. It is my opinion that he has collected little more than apologies once he is dragged kicking and grimacing into a deposition hearing.

He is deathly afraid of answering questions about Chandra's disappearance under oath for some reason.

When one is offered a token settlement offer, Dunne's lawyers have little choice but to take it. It's the DC US Attorney and possibly the Stanislaus County prosecutor's responsibility to pursue the truth about Condit. Certainly it will not come from Condit under oath.

But I agree, Condit would have lost against Dunne. See the following links for our suggestions to Dunne and his attorneys. Hopefully they helped.

I know that I stopped waiting to hear from publishers and published my book right away when the lawsuit against Dunne was allowed to go forward to get the facts out there to counter Condit's assertions of an innocent man slandered. Condit may or may not be innocent, but he clearly provided reasonable justification for Dunne repeating assertions he had been told.

rd


Condit sues Dunne for Slander - Newsday 12/16/02
http://www.justiceforchandra.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=904

In Defense of Dominick Dunne: For His Legal Counsel
http://www.justiceforchandra.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2334

Things that Paul LaCalsi needs to check for Dunne Defense
http://www.justiceforchandra.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2403

condit v. dunne just settled!!!
http://www.justiceforchandra.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2487

[benn]

Greetings Pepper. Keep writing. You live in Modesto, I live in Sacramento, right now--for six years. I don't think I have ever been in Modesto. We drove near to there years ago when the land values were going down then, but I don't remember seeing one City Limits sign.

I am going to reply to one of your questions: >>>I really wish someone would put together a Chandra time line from before her disappearance forward. I have many questions, and since some time has passed, my memory is probably flawed.<<<

Chandra's timeline from before her disappearance up until May 1 could be one of the key bits of evidence in bringing this case into focus again. This has been discussed time and time again here, at various times and in various ways. It has to do with the Otis Thomas story.
As far as I know the Otis Thomas story is never discussed now in the media as being part of Chandra's timeline leading up to her disappearance.

The story is in Murder on a Horse Trail, and I have not looked at the discussion lately, but any discussion is mute, because law enforcement is not going to do anything. If I lived closer to the Modesto I might try talking to Otis Thomas. Of course for Thomas the whole event, of whether his story was true or false, is nothing but a detriment for him. He has nothing to win, and a lot to lose. Publicity would not do him any good.
That does not answer the question of whether his story was true, or false. If true the story, or the history of the story, might have had a great influence upon what happened to Chandra. Did Condit have an affair with Jennifer Thomas or not? The FBI said that Thomas fabricated a story, but it was never really demonstrated that Thomas fabricated a story. Thomas said that he lied, but if he lied when did he lie? When he told his story to Susan Levy, or when he told the media that he had lied.

Was Thomas lying when he told the media that he had lied?
Even if the supposed affair between Jennifer Thomas and Condit was completely false that does not set it aside as not being evidence, because Susan Levy said that she asked Chandra to question Condit about the story. In hindsight that was a very foolish thing for Chandra's mother to do. Chandra, according to her mother, phoned back and said that "He explained it all." Just what that would mean I do not know. What we do know is that Chandra disappeared soon afterwards the "He explained it all, conversation. We don't know what Condit did or did not explain because Chandra is dead and can not testify, and Condit can not testify himself under oath. Thomas's story might have been true, or false, but Susan Levy is here to testify that Chandra asked Condit about the story. That is the part of Chandra's timeline that is left out by the media.

Condit had an attorney with him at all times when he was being questioned by the FBI and the police, but there is nothing to indicate that Otis Thomas had an attorney when he was being questioned by the FBI. Timewise also it seems that Thomas was questioned by the FBI for a much longer period of time than Condit. After the Otis Thomas story was more or less a thing of the past I emailed the NAACP. in Modesto and told them that I thought that Thomas should have had an attorney when he was being questioned. I did not get any reply, but that does mean that the NAACP did not read what I wrote. At that point in time it was better for Thomas that his story be completely forgotten. That seems to be the case. But because law enforcement, or the FBI, did not fully want to look into the Otis Thomas story does not make his story false.

I think rd's book covers more clearly what evidence was not looked at by the FBI, or Stanislaus County Law Enforcement concerning the Otis Thomas Story. The FBI was questioning Thomas when maybe local law enfocement should have been questioning him. I read in an article somewhere, not here, that the FBI put themselves into the case. From what I read once in a news interview of DC Police Chief Ramsey the FBI went out to California to question Thomas because they were asked to do so by the DC Police. The DC Police evidently did not want Stanislaus County, or the State of California, involved; and the DC Police could not go out to California themselves, so the DC Police requested the FBI to go and question Thomas. That is a small bit of news that has probably never been noised around very much.

Well, Pepper, I have answered in a small way one of the questions that you asked. In the Thomas Story there is definite evidence that could be looked at but has not been looked at. That might be to protect the Thomases who are in a lose lose situration. Still that does not bring Chandra Levy back to life, not looking at evidence does not present any vote of confidence for the Levy family who has suffered so much.

That is something that might be investigated more, if possible, the questioning of Thomas by the FBI.

benn

[gozgals]

This is my first post on "Murder on a Horse Trail." I do not live in Ca but I was interested in the case from the start. I felt it was handled poorly from the get go. This case and the age of Chandra, everything about her life has touched me in a personal way.

I've only finished Chapter 3 and I'm listing questions for discussion. The timeline question has been asked and answered. Other information, ?'s. may be answered and brought up in the future, or will be covered in the book. As told to rd in private, "reading and absorbing is tedious for me!" Thank you rd for the format that makes it easy for me to follow.

It hurts to know this case lost luster and was poorly investigated. I had questions as to D.D's case but rd has already posted those links. Other information I needed I have found on this forum or elsewhere. Of course, most of what I am concerned with has to do with Washington Politics and the Police but I'm sure the book will cover this. I'd also like to know more about the other women missing in the area but as I read more, this to will be answered. Hopefully, one day this crime will be solved!

Thanks, and I will follow up.

Thoughts for the Levy's always

Blessed are those that Thrist for Righteousness, for they will be filled.
Mathew 5:6

[rd]

benn points out perfectly what traditional timelines never pointed out. There are many complex events leading up to Chandra's disappearance which were just left out of timelines altogether. I do have a project in mind to summarize questions from the case and it probably will be listed in a timeline type format, so that will probably be helpful. It's on my list of things to do.

thanks,
rd

[benn]

Something just occurred to me rd. I remember sending an email once to a magazine about the Chandra Levy case, and the woman editor got sort of mad at me. I don't think she was much interested in the case, but what she did say was "why don't you write an article?"

I did not feel like writing an article, but I think she had something there. Of course there is not a good chance of getting an article about Chandra's case published, but there is always a possibility. There are so many online and offline magazines that they take a lot of articles to keep them going.

I guess if I am telling you, rd to write an article about Chandra's case that I should tell myself the same thing; but I don't really know if I want to do an article, and then there is the flack that might fly if the article was really published.

Chandra's timeline around the time of the Otis Thomas story would be a good place to start. Writing about the timeline, and why parts of it are omitted, would also give the author a chance to throw in some of the odds and ends of the case, the dna paternity test, etc. The FBI seems to have botched this part of the case, or at least they give the appearance of having botched it, because they did not prove anything one way or the other about the Otis Thomas story. While bringing up the story might bring trouble for Thomas, it is the responsibility of Law Enforcement to protect him and to keep him from being harassed. Who was threatening him and his daughter? Who would have a motive to threaten him? By not doing all of their work the FBI has left everyone in a bad position, some maybe in dangerous positions, and the killer(s) have not been located either. It might be a challenge to write an article that would sort of put all of those pieces together. Would anyone want to sue? And what would they sue for?

Well I will write a title for the article anyway. Maybe we could have a contest here, the best title for the article about the Chandra case that explores some of the left out parts of the timeline. Here is my title: "Parts Of The Chandra Levy Cold Case Timeline That Have Been Left Out."

benn

[rd]

Those are pretty good thoughts, benn. I wish I had the time to list all the publications I tried to have print an excerpt from Murder on a Horse Trail. It won't take me long to list the ones that replied. Zero.

I am not the least bit concerned about being sued. I don't make unfounded accusations for moral reasons, not legal reasons, but either way, I don't make unfounded accusations. There's nothing illegal about seeking the truth, and that's all we're doing. No one will get anywhere suing us for that.

I ask many questions about OC Thomas' role in Chandra's disappearance. There are no answers.

OC Thomas owes it to Chandra and her family to answer those questions I ask about him and his daughter throughout the book. "I dug a hole I couldn't get out of" doesn't cut it. Only an in depth explanation from him will.

rd

[Pepper]

Now that I've read the book I'm ready to discuss. Since I haven't seen any TOS here, I'll ask before I post. Can we post theories?

Now that Condit is out of office, I can see no reason why there hasn't been more heat on him. He can't hide in the hallowed halls of Congress any longer. I wonder if he still has girlfriends? There will always be women intoxicated by power, drawn to people like Condit when he was a Congressman, but how about now?

Kinda makes you wonder how many murders have been committed (directly or indirectly) by powerful politicians in Washington, and gone unsolved. I'll bet we would all be astounded if we really knew the truth.

ETA: I wish OC Thomas & his daughter would have the courage to come forward with the truth. If her child is the product of a relationship with Condit, then why doesn't she file a paternity suit? Even if she is still afraid of him, she should follow AnnMarie's lead and go public. That's the best way she could protect herself and her child.

[rd]

Sure, what are your thoughts, Pepper? I stopped short of proposing theories in Murder on a Horse Trail in the hope that even one of the many questions I ask would bring an answer that would lead to a better understanding of what happened. Not one question was answered however, nor does it seem any ever will now.

The questions I posed were answerable, but someone with a subpeona has to ask them.

rd

[benn]

Rd and pepper, I am not ignoring these messages, but I am trying to do too many things at once. I too think that Otis Thomas should have a platform to speak from, but what should that platform be?

Thomas needs an attorney, and some privacy when he talks, to whomever he talks to, maybe just the attorney at first. But why should he stick his nose out when no one is defending him, or if they are defending him it is by saying or implying that his story was a lie?

I think that Thomas as a preacher and a gardener is a man who is available, but why should he thow himself to the wolves? We need a group, or someone, who can get that dna test. The test, if not tampered with, would show a lot of things fast. It could prove that Condit is not the father of Jennifer's son, or it could prove almost conclusively that he is the father of Jennifer's son.

Think of the poor son though if it is shown that he is Condit's son. We don't know that he is, but Jennifer's poor son would be instantly thrown into the limelight. Of course I think that is a problem that Thomas and Jennifer and the son could sidestep if it was shown that Condit is the father. On the other hand Condit would be off of the hook at least a little bit if the dna test showed that he is not the father. A test is what is needed, and some diplomacy, and some truth, not just legaleze.

A newspaper might do the work, if it had the inclination, or an individual with money might provide the funds for the test to be taken. The test itself would not cost much money. Perhaps Jennifer could be given some money for allowing a test, regardless of what the results were, and the money would let her avoid the limelight.

It is not an impossible task, like Condit's polygraph test. Well, he did not take a recognized test, period.

benn