www.justiceforchandra.com

[rd]

[Rainbow]

This whole gag-order thing was weird, as well, especially in a case that the public is so interested in. I guess it was just another B and D manuever to cover up the feelings of impotency of the so-called "power-elite".

[MrRich]

Well it finally happened. Somebody was convicted of Chandra's murder.

On Monday she (Mrs. Levy) indicated that she believed the jury's verdict was correct.

"It makes a difference to find the right person who is responsible for my daughter's death," she said.

I wish the Levys comfort and some amount of closure with this conviction.

[jane]

Hi MrRich - I'm touched that you're touched. (But I don't agree with you!) (And I think the bolding is in bad taste.)
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

[jane]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/22/AR2010112207322.html
excerpt:

Jurors in the Chandra Levy murder trial could have rendered a verdict as early as Friday, after just two days of deliberations. In fact, all but one of the jurors were convinced that Ingmar Guandique had accidentally killed the young government intern during a robbery.

But one juror wasn't sure, according to Sharae Bacon [she is a young black woman], one of the jurors who spoke about the deliberations after the verdict was delivered. She declined to identify the juror but said the juror had not taken notes during the more than two weeks of the trial and wasn't convinced there was any proof that Guandique had tried to rob Levy.

"We had to share our notes [with the juror]. It was very frustrating. We said, 'Just think about it over the weekend and let us know what you think on Monday,' " Bacon said. By Monday morning, the holdout had reviewed the other jurors' notes and agreed with the majority, she said....

....Citing Morales's testimony, Bacon said she believed that Guandique tried to rob Levy but never meant to kill her. "He was just trying to survive," said Bacon, who, along with other jurors, thought that Guandique was homeless at one point and was living in the park....

Note: the first square-bracketed comment above is mine; the second is in the article proper
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

[Rainbow]

I can't wait to hear Rd's take on this article!

[Rainbow]

And, hello Mr. Rich and Jane!
As far as the simple answers being the best, the fact that Chandra was not a jogger (or even much of a walker) would lead us to the correct conclusion, about what happened to Chandra.

[lector]

Saw a snippet of news on the conviction. How frustrating & maddening.

[lector]

[Rainbow]

Yes, indeed, Lector.

[rd]

One of the many lies the DC prosecutors were foisting on the jury. So many I don't think the public defenders were able to deal with it.

They did remarkable work but just didn't communicate the situation to the jury at all. Too much standard lawyer behavior to deal with this as I explained it needed to be dealt with.

The DC prosecutors and police must be laughing their asses off at how they got away with this. Anyone could see the steamroller coming. You had to actually step in front of it and confront it with the truth to stop it. Wasn't done.

The jury had to be taken on this alleged journey the prosecutors claim Chandra made all the way to grove 18 and out the No Horses path, then show them what the prosecutors claim Guandique did, including recreating the stocking bondage as found on the side of that hill.

Obviously the few that read this know it couldn't be done. But the jury wasn't shown that. That is just absolutely inexcusable. We communicated how important that was to the defense and they at a minimum didn't acknowledge specifics as part of the gag order, or maybe they thought we were naive idiots. I don't know, but any lawyer who didn't do this themselves enough to understand how important what we were telling them, or for that matter didn't understand that on their own, has no business representing life and death matters.

The whole crock of them, judge, prosecutors, defenders, jury, dealt with life and death without having the slightest idea what they were doing. Perhaps that is America in a microcosm now. Failing system after failing system, this yet another one.

I explained that Guandique needed to be put on the stand. I explained that he needed to introduce himself to the jury, answer questions, explain what he did and didn't do, apologize for what he did, confirm with an explanation what he didn't do, and assure the jury that he was an innocent man willing to face them and answer questions.

Lawyers will say that would open him up to revealing his past. Well, wasn't his past on trial, on full display to the jury? Didn't his past need opened up and explained. Is it acceptable that the jury didn't know he just served ten years for those past assaults. Oh no, lawyers think this needs to be hidden.

Why? Because lawyers think they know best. Because lawyers don't strive for truth, they strive to hide truth. Because lawyers don't have the right stuff in their occupational DNA.

And America and all its failing systems are overrun with lawyers and legal mumbo jumbo. it is symptiomatic of what we have become, how far we have fallen.

So the jury is the blind led by the blind. They think Guandique is a homeless person who needs to rob to live when the prosecution oriiginally claimed in pre trial PR through the Washington Post that he got fired from his job that very day. Never heard about that again. Now he's a homeless robber.

This jury thinks Chandra is wandering around a park. Has no clue what Chandra was doing in those days leading up to her disappearance, the devotion she had checking for Condit's messages constantly even the day before, spending the morning searching on Condit and his family and other subjects related to her relationship with Condit.

Not only can no one recreate how Chandra got to Rock Creek Park, no one would be able to explain how she could change every aspect of her life and behavior leading up to that moment to do so.

And no one tried. Prosecutors lied, witnesses lied, defenders questioned credibility, and jurors remained clueless.

And so what should we expect from the clueless?

Clueless behavior, clueless answers, clueless results.

It may very well be a fitting microcosm of America.

rd

[jane]

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/11/23/1940293/for-chandra-levy-murder-trial.html
excerpt:

….One former Fresno-area gang member, speaking Friday on condition of anonymity because of concerns over safety, characterized Morales as "pretty resourceful" and as "a smart guy (who) knows how to manipulate people." Guandique's defense attorney, Santha Sonenberg, saw an even darker side to Morales' intelligence.

"Mr. Morales is a pretty smart guy," Sonenberg said, suggesting Morales tailored his testimony to win law enforcement's favor. "(He's) smart enough to know how to take batteries and make a fire in order to make a (prison) shank."…

_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

[rd]

AP reported:
In closing arguments Tuesday, prosecutor Amanda Haines acknowledged that they have no eyewitnesses and no DNA evidence linking Guandique to Levy. But she says Levy's death fits the pattern of assaults committed by Guandique in Rock Creek Park back in 2001. And she says Guandique's former cellmate testified to details that only Levy's killer would have known.

What would that be? That Chandra was wearing a waist pouch / fanny pack?

This would be testimony from the gym guy that wasn't made public if he told police back then. I've seen no other statement that Chandra wore a fanny pack, but it's not out of the question.

Since she didn't change at the gym, she wore this fanny pack throughout her workouts?

And we didn't see the original letter cellmate confession guy and his "do the right thing" mentor who already was a veteran at getting time off with this scheme wrote and sent the DC prosecutors.

Does it mention this waist pouch that he testified to?

And what would be in it to steal, if the Washington Post dingy reporter Horwitz is to be believed that she found Chandra's bracelet from Condit in Chandra's DC police holdings seven years after the DC police told reporters they couldn't find it.

The Levys never looked at Chandra's possessions the police retained?

I find none of this believeable. But if we immerse ourselves in the DC fantasy world, the bracelet was back at her apartment. The ring was on her finger. She didn't even have a keyring. The radio-tape player was not taken. And if there was a tape as said by some, it wasn't taken either.

So what was in this fanny pack to be stolen? Nothing was missing.

An empty fanny pack is felony robbery murder?

And if it's empty, why is she wearing it?

And who would believe she was doing all this anyway after trying it?

I am very suspicious of this fanny pack testimony that is used to convict Guandique as something only the killer knew.

Not that Chandra did this, but on top of everything else she takes nothing with her but is wearing an empty fanny pack that becomes felony robbery murder.

There was more than one staged murder here.

The staging the murderer did when he hid her body, and the staging the DC prosecutors did.

rd

[jane]

I seriously wonder whether one juror (none of the ones we saw on video stream) was a plant to guide the deliberations and their outcome.
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

[jane]

I kept thinking throughout the trial, whenever I saw photos or video of the prosecutors, they looked extremely carefree and smugly confidant.
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ