www.justiceforchandra.com

rd · Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 9277 Location: Jacksonville, FL

Some reactions I have on this guilty verdict.

The jurors thought it was easy, the evidence overwhelming. I attribute this directly to having no clue, even now. They will never care or know the information that makes them wrong, totally without any comprehension of what they affirm happened.

They, like the prosecutors and the Levys and the Washington Post reporters, just place Chandra on Grove 18 without any regard to her entire life, and more importantly, the life preceding her death. They could never recreate it in good conscience.

The Levys wanted this, specifically Guandique now that Condit evaded them. I could feel happy for them, but I don't. I think they prefer this to knowing why Chandra wasn't communicating with them much before she died. Chandra was in a difficult place, and so were her parents. The fact that they triggered this with the call to Chandra about OC Thomas and his daughter Jennifer can't be too comforting.

Still, they have no qualms placing Chandra on that hill knowing full well that Chandra didn't galavant for miles through DC streets and roads to get there, didn't hike / jog or whatever the premise needed is, for miles on a horse trail in a forest, out a No Horses path to nowhere, to meet a waiting Guandique in a place no sane lone woman would be.

No, no qualms. For that I have no happiness for them.

The public defender defense lawyers counted on no evidence being enough. The jury thought there was overwhelming evidence. They were actually bored I believe. The defense lawyers never gave them anything to think about. Details. Details. Details. No woman juror would be bored if they knew and understood the details, and relived it.

Guandique didn't fight it. He was disgusted at the end, after the verdict, assuming I guess that no evidence means not guilty. There were many, many things that he needed to help explain to the jury. Things that lawyers don't do because they're lawyers.

Things like explaining his life around that time, explaining that six days after this he was chased out of a neighbor's apartment, six days after this gruesome bondage murder.

Another week later, he is chased away by the first jogger. He needed to explain that, to explain he pled guilty, to explain he had served ten years, explain he was sorry, and explain that hadn't said those things to Morales. He needed to be real to the jurors, and the defense lawyers needed to take him through this gruesome death of bondage at a place he never was.

Jurors need to understand that. Without it, it is easy. They are bored. They know nothing, understand nothing. And that's fine with them. They deal with insinuations from one side, and predictable insinuations from the other. Predictable insinuations mean nothing. Details. Details. Details. The prosecutors overwhelmed them with insinuation. The defense lawyers didn't respond with hard details.

I warned from the beginning that the jury must understand Chandra, must understand what she was doing, must understand why she would never be out of contact with Condit, in fact was assuredly with him at some point during those five and a half hours. Otherwise he really would have had an alibi.

But no, instead the prosecutors actually made the argument that Chandra had nothing to do because Condit's wife was in town. That is unforgiveable.

I attribute it to people thinking this is conspiracy stuff and just closing their minds. I don't think the defense lawyers looked at those details in Murder on a Horse Trail, certainly didn't explain them to the jury.

So sure, it was easy for the jury, even boring. They knew nothing.

And I'm pretty sure never will. Details are not easy, not boring. It takes effort. And while the effort to examine the police evidence was admirable, the defense lawyers bring several points to light, they did not put it into the context of a woman fighting for the hand of a married man, bound to confront the wife who had just flown in to Washington for the first time in anyone's memory.

And considering the reality of it, surely the Levys are much happier with this result.

Maybe Guandique is such a bad person that it is best he stay in prison for life, I don't know. I wrote in chapter Guandique that I hoped we dropped him back in El Salvador sans parachute.

Well, that won't happen. He is one illegal immigrant that doesn't have to worry about being deported.

But justice for Chandra was not done with this guilty verdict. This is merely a convenience for everyone involved, except for Guandique. And he's just an illegal immigrant who did as he was told and said nothing.

We'll call this expendable justice. But not justice for Chandra.

rd

gozgals · Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:03 am Post subject:

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree with them and was moved. It is heartbreaking if one believe Guandique is an innocent man as I do, you do and many here do.
There is no justice for Chandra.

Goz

sigsky · Joined: 31 Oct 2005 Posts: 209 Location: South Carolina

http://www.tbd.com/blogs/tbd-justice/2010/11/chandra-levy-verdict-guandique-attorneys-file-motion-for-more-time-5056.html

We shall see. I have a feeling that the defense probably doesn't have the stomach for another trial. No death penalty so no automatic appeal. Anyone know if that is correct?

Sadly, I think this closes the book on Chandra. Anybody think Condit will run for Congress in 2012?

jane · Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 3227

Sigsky, I don't think Condit will ever run for congress again.
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

laskipper · Joined: 17 Sep 2002 Posts: 1232 Location: Northern Ohio

He was being groomed to run for President prior to the scandal- maybe he will go that route?

He sure has the nerve to do it- and now I see various articles stating that he is due an apology... lol
_________________
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves
~
French philosopher Bertrand de Jouvenel (1903-1987)

jane · Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 3227

Well, I do think he could have been president if not for this scandal and how he handled it. Knowing as much as we have learned about what he put his wife through and what he put his girlfriends through, we have a very low opinion of him. (That's without even including anything about murder).

When you read the articles written about him before the scandal, he seems just great. And Carolyn still loves him - nobody else has pulled that off - not Spitzer or Gore. Hillary's still with Bill, but I don't know about any love there.

So I have to think the guy has a lot of magnetism, but he just couldn't handle the kind of questions the scandal brought out. The magnetism disappears big time. I have never seen the magnetism, but it sure wasn't there in the interviews or on the witness stand.

He will never be a public figure again.

Well, if it happens, I'll eat my hat.
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

gozgals · Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 12:33 pm Post subject:

I don't think Gary will ever be a public figure again. First off, many will not forgive him for what they feel he has done, and that is not including the murder. I can't see it in our lifetime.

G

jane · Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 3227

Hi Goz - thanks for the links. Of course, no one can blame Susan Levy for not wanting images of the remains to be seen by the public. If we could trust the police and prosecutors to do a careful and objective job, I wouldn't want them shown, either. But I appreciate access to any information about the recovery site because what is already known to anyone who has read carefully about the case, doesn't fit with Guandique's conviction. So I want to see as much evidence as possible. However, of course I can understand how Susan Levy feels.
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

laskipper · Joined: 17 Sep 2002 Posts: 1232 Location: Northern Ohio

Strange news:

http://www.modbee.com/2010/11/24/1443022/chandra-levys-mother-fighting.html

Chandra Levy's mother fighting media request for some trial photos

Read more: http://www.modbee.com/2010/11/24/1443022/chandra-levys-mother-fighting.html#ixzz16DRFptbH

Excerpt:

"Specifically, Mrs. Levy objects to the release of photographs that contain Chandra Levy's skeletal remains and trial exhibit photographs of Chandra Levy's clothes and shoes," attorney Jani Tillery stated in a court filing. "For Mrs. Levy, these photographs only stir up emotional anguish and retraumatization."

end excerpt
_________________
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves
~
French philosopher Bertrand de Jouvenel (1903-1987)

jane · Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 3227

While it is true that the media mainly want the photos to promote their publications and TV shows, the fact is that the right to a public trial is a very important one. The reason for this is to lessen the likelihood of being framed and convicted in secret. There was already a gag order during the trial. Sometimes such gag orders are to help the defendant receive a fair trial. I don't think this is true in this case - anyway, the trial is over.

Chandra, being a very private person, wouldn't be happy with so many people knowing so much about intimate details of her life, much less viewing photos of her skeleton - but it's possible she would rather that than the wrong person being held accountable for her death and the guilty going footloose and fancy free.
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

rd · Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 9277 Location: Jacksonville, FL

I'm sure Sonenberg and Hawila have the stomach for another trial, whether they would get a chance is a different story.

I know what they did wrong - not insisting on a jury reenactment of the last day of Chandra, and not putting Guandique on the stand, both of which I felt strongly was required - and they know what the jury didn't get, but what they could find for a retrial probably isn't in any of that.

I take it it would have to be some procedural thing, I don't know what all can be grounds for at least asking. Procedurally it seems to have been a well run trial. I would say not being granted move of the trial was the biggest issue and I think grounds for a retrial at a neutral location.

The government influence on government employee jurors and the seemingly but wrong familiarity with "Rock Creek Park" but not having any clue about the alleged crime scene by going there and examining the entire area, including out to where the prosecution claims Chandra came from to get there along with local pre-trial media saturation of Guandique as a monster are the three most egregious problems with holding the trial in DC.

The only benefit of holding it there was to closely examine and re-enact the alleged crime by Guandique, and that wasn't even attempted.

So yes, this was a mistrial. Whether in the eyes of the justice system it is or not may be a different matter.

rd

jane · Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 3227

When I was watching the WUSA coverage after the verdict, a defense attorney said that evidence the Guandique defense wanted entered was not allowed and that this could be grounds for an appeal. (They never specified what that evidence was - could it be the polygraph results?)
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

jane · Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 3227

I think that something nefarious happened during the jury deliberations.

OK - Guandique did attack two female joggers in Rock Creek Park and it was a terrifying experience for them. OK - Morales did a credible job witnessing against Guandique. Granted.

But can you imagine being in that deliberation room and NOT discussing, "What about the decomposed hair found in the tights?" "What about the shoes sitting there, untied, at the recovery site?" "Why didn't Guandique take any of the Walkman-type devices?" "Who moved the papers in Chandra's apartment?" "What is the significance of the cerebral hemorrhage note?" "Did someone go in and deliberately obliterate Chandra's hard drive between police visits to the apartment?"

I think there was a juror whom the others looked up to, who led them through the deliberations so that they never really explored the reasonable doubt. The jury was composed of people one would expect to consider such questions. Unless they were kept in line by an impressive leader. Such as, let me guess: A 51-year-old female government attorney, with law school.

If the other jurors considered her an expert, they could have trusted her to guide them through deliberations and may have been hesitant to persist if she pooh-poohed their questions.

I'm just saying...
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

jane · Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 3227

The nefarious aspect of this would be that the influencial juror would be determined to get a guilty verdict - possibly even planted there for that purpose.
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

jane · Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 3227

There could even be more than one plant - one to raise certain issues, so the jury as a whole would feel that they considered reasonable doubt, and another to give a smooth answer and move on resolutely to the guilty verdict.

But I feel if it was just a jury doing what it is supposed to do, ample reasonable doubt would have been found for an acquital - or a hung jury.
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ