DC DC - Chandra Levy, 24, Washington DC, 1 May 2001 *found deceased in 2002*

[Texana]

Good point about conspiracies; even a game show conspiracy can't be kept quiet for long. However, there are enough "disappeared and presumed dead" people who have never surfaced that at least some people are capable of keeping a secret. Jimmy Hoffa is probably the most famous example of that.

I agree also Condit would never actually be indicted or convicted of anything even close to soliciting murder. But he knows who he talked to...and what he said. He could have pointed to the actual killer (if indeed this scenario is true) immediately.

I believe once he realized she was missing/presumably dead, he panicked. He can't talk now, not ever, without risking in his own life.

And he may very well have convinced himself that his words had nothing to do with her disappearance, no matter who he spoke to--Just coincidence.

 

[i.b.nora]

Correcting the link to Chapter Eight:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/specials/chandra/ch8_1.html

CHAPTER EIGHT:
A Singular Focus

By Sari Horwitz, Scott Higham and Sylvia Moreno
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, July 21, 2008

 

[Medea]

It doesn't seem like he was hounded by police but by the media and prosecutors, according to the quotes from the detectives, none of them thought he was involved.

I can't see someone of Condit's stature [a nobody Congressman from CA] being able to offhandedly say something that results in a conspriracy to commit murder. He wasn't that powerful or important. If he had been he would never have been disposing of gifts from a previous mistress himself...his handlers wold have done it...and no political conspiracy murder for hire would have been done this incompetantly...in such a way as to INSURE that Condit was a prime suspect, the exact opposite of the alleged goal of killing Chandra.

But, to me I still can't get beyond there being no motive. There is is no evidence that Chandra had become any kind of a problem or a threat, I find it highly unlikely that there was a significant change in their relationship within 2 days of such magnitude that he would want her dead. To make the leap of logic that basically just because everything she said about Condit was positive and she was leaving DC with the belief their relationship would survive and nobody has found any information, conversation that indicates otherwise and there is no history of violence or threats on Condit's part 'doesn't mean he didn't do it' is the worst kind of backwards logic...starting with the result you want: guilty and working backward to create a motive that isn't there.

At one time I thought Anna Anderson was the princess Anastasia, and I was disappointed when DNA tests ruled her out...there are some who subscribed to a conspiracy theory that the DNA was switched...but to me that is trying too hard to hold into your previous view...sometimes you have to let it go.

Most adult missing persons are found alive and well, but not all. Most women murder victims are killed by someone close to them, but not all. Most times the prime suspect is guilty, but not always. People have affairs and people who are having affairs can be victims of random crime.

 

[reportertype]

That was what really struck me--it just reverses the usual pattern so thoroughly. A rapist who kills a woman and then in the next attack runs away within a minute when his next victim fights back?

This is what really bothers me about the immigrant. Not just once, but twice, a woman struggled, screamed and he took off. When the woman in the home he was burgling saw him, he took off.

 

[Vegas Bride]

This is what really bothers me about the immigrant. Not just once, but twice, a woman struggled, screamed and he took off. When the woman in the home he was burgling saw him, he took off.

Both the other women he attacked were taller than Chandra, I'm wondering if they were able to put up a better defense because of that, or could it be that if he did attack Chandra something happened right away and Chandra never had the chance to scream, something as simple as her hitting her head that killed her and then he dragged her body into the woods. Were they ever able to determin cause of death?

VB

 

[tuppence]

Both the other women he attacked were taller than Chandra, I'm wondering if they were able to put up a better defense because of that, or could it be that if he did attack Chandra something happened right away and Chandra never had the chance to scream, something as simple as her hitting her head that killed her and then he dragged her body into the woods. Were they ever able to determin cause of death?

VB

good points. If she fell and hit her head and/or he subdued her quickly in another way he may have been unprepared when the other girls fought back so aggressively.

A guy attacking women alone right around the same time Chandra goes missing in exactly the same area....too much of a coincidence. I think this solution is a strong one.

Does anyone know what the Levys think? Have they presented an opinion recently?

 

[Texana]

No cause of death could be ascertained for Chandra due to the condition of the remains. Her pants were found knotted and a distance away from the body.

Her parents feel Condit withheld information and still does to this day, I believe.

Too much evidence was lost to clear Condit of that accusation, I think.

She specifically googled a location in the park, the mansion, and went there. That was not solely for exercise but obviously, to meet someone.

No matter what Condit's involvement, the fact remains she was going to meet someone, and that someone has never surfaced.

 

[Texana]

Other questions and answers from Wash. Post readers:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/wash...s/2008/07/who_killed_chandra_levy_the_re.html

 

[Grainne Dhu]

Good point about conspiracies; even a game show conspiracy can't be kept quiet for long. However, there are enough "disappeared and presumed dead" people who have never surfaced that at least some people are capable of keeping a secret. Jimmy Hoffa is probably the most famous example of that.

Except that it's pretty well known what happened to Jimmy Hoffa; the problem is in coming up with actual evidence. And the fact that the most likely perpetrator died something like ten years ago.

Most people who disappear and are presumed dead are victims of accidents. The comparatively few that are crime victims are most likely attacked, killed and body disposed of by a single person. One person can keep a secret, it's two or more people where it becomes quite a problem.

I agree also Condit would never actually be indicted or convicted of anything even close to soliciting murder. But he knows who he talked to...and what he said. He could have pointed to the actual killer (if indeed this scenario is true) immediately.

It's clear that this was not a professional hit. If it had been, either her body would never have been found or it would have been found with a single gunshot wound to the head. Pros don't use the victim's running pants to strangle them, they don't kill people for their own fun, it's just a business to them.

So if Condit said something to someone, it had to have been someone not professional. And that would be someone who would have to be incredibly devoted and loyal to Condit, so much so that they did murder for him (with a little fun on the side). So much so that they would seem to be almost pathologically devoted.

That just doesn't make sense. I mean, sure, Chandra was in love with the guy. But she also thought he looked like Harrison Ford! She was clearly suffering from a distortion of reality caused by naivete and new love (hey, I've been there too). I just don't see anyone else around Condit who had that kind of devotion.

 

[Texana]

Today: Condit tries to still the firestorm of press attention, but only succeeds in raising it; fBI agent interviews Condit and feels he's not the guy; the botched communication between park police and DC police

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/specials/chandra/ch9_1.html?hpid=topnews

 

[Medea]

FYI The Wash Post series says that when they looked at the records of her computer search it was clear to them she was NOT going to the mansion but based on everything she clicked on she was going to one of the paths that led toward the stables...exactly where her body was found. They considered the idea she was going to the mansion to have been a mistake made by LE and the media because the mansion comes up at the top of the page but it didn't appear to be the destination...if I am remembering right.

It is a good point about the immigrant having been easy to fight off for the other girls, but I still feel its too big a coincidence when someone who is committing similar crimes in the exact spot where a victim is found....much more coincidental than a woman being randomly killed whose having an affair with a married man.

 

[reportertype]

Both the other women he attacked were taller than Chandra, I'm wondering if they were able to put up a better defense because of that, or could it be that if he did attack Chandra something happened right away and Chandra never had the chance to scream, something as simple as her hitting her head that killed her and then he dragged her body into the woods. Were they ever able to determin cause of death?

VB

Maybe so. However, if Chandra was in really good shape and a gym rat, she probably would have struggled. If he subdued her before she had a chance to scream, it was likely luck on his part since he was so inept the next two times. I do agree, the timing is suspicious and he should have been looked at hard by the police.

 

[Texana]

Obvious that the police completely botched anything to do with Guandique, the immigrant assailant, in the end not charging him with anything related to Chandra, but not clearing him either:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/specials/chandra/ch10_1.html

Currently serving a ten year sentence in federal prison for the attacks on the other women.

 

[Grainne Dhu]

It is a good point about the immigrant having been easy to fight off for the other girls, but I still feel its too big a coincidence when someone who/ is committing similar crimes in the exact spot where a victim is found....much more coincidental than a woman being randomly killed whose having an affair with a married man.

Something to keep in mind is that DC is a pretty high crime city and that park is in some ways very secluded due to terrain. The ravine system tends to isolate sounds and in late spring, the vegetation makes anything taken a few feet off the paths nearly impossible to see.

I can think of a whole bunch of serial killers who hunted exactly such places.

I used to live in a university town and there is one particularly lovely area that is a long greenbelt that is really beautiful during the day, full of trees, outdoor sculpture, benches, etc. It serves as sort of a corridor between two main areas of campus and during the day it's quite busy.

Over the years, it has been the location of a whole succession of stranger rapes. They weren't committed by a single serial rapist; many different men have been caught, charged and convicted of rape there.

Why? At night, the place has too many trees to be well lit. Crossing it can be disorienting because you can walk out of relatively bright streetlights into near complete darkness in just a few yards. The trees and sculpture give predators a place to hide and wait for victims. The way the greenbelt twists, it's impossible to see from one end to the other when the trees are in leaf.

And while students are warned about the place each year, inevitably some poor woman is caught there walking alone. She may have been with a group and got left behind, she may have crossed the area so many times she had a misleading sense of security, she may have been drunk and lost her usual inhibitions about safety.

I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that there were two predators hunting roughly the same territory that year. One was experienced, fast, and very violent. The other was inexperienced, fast, not as brutal and easily fought off.

 

[reportertype]

I agree that two attackers in that park would be completely plausible.

I do think the informant's story, as told to him, is complete rubbish. I don't believe one word of it.

 

[Texana]

I'm going to go with the "other assailant" theory as plausible. The informant sounded awfully bogus, didn't he?

At the same time, I'm not entirely letting go my Condit theory, either. The fact that the police botched so much, including the initial computer search, means that anything that might have tied him, would have been overlooked just like her body was in the park.

As well, throwing away the watch box? One could argue he was too stupid to ever be involved in anything like murder.

 

[Texana]

Next in series: Chandra's remains are found. More botched efforts even here--three tries to locate all of the bones. One detective feels strongly it is Guandique's MO:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/specials/chandra/ch11_1.html?hpid=topnews

 

[reportertype]

I'm going to go with the "other assailant" theory as plausible. The informant sounded awfully bogus, didn't he?

At the same time, I'm not entirely letting go my Condit theory, either. The fact that the police botched so much, including the initial computer search, means that anything that might have tied him, would have been overlooked just like her body was in the park.

As well, throwing away the watch box? One could argue he was too stupid to ever be involved in anything like murder.

I agree completely, Texana. The watch caper just makes me shake my head.

 

[twinkiesmom]

Next in series: Chandra's remains are found. More botched efforts even here--three tries to locate all of the bones. One detective feels strongly it is Guandique's MO:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/specials/chandra/ch11_1.html?hpid=topnews

If it was Guandique, he would have taken the Walkman and the jewelry.....real down and outer as he was.

 

[Texana]

If it was Guandique, he would have taken the Walkman and the jewelry.....real down and outer as he was.

I have to remind myself that the detective who immediately saw this as Guandique's work was part of the same organization that botched every single step of the investigation, right down to finding ALL of the body. (I think one of the quotes was, "We were so close, she was just a few feet away." As if this was a game of horseshoes--"We were so close!")

It was just not that convincing that it was Guandique, based on the terrain and the fact that most joggers/walkers in those days had walkmans--this was pre-ipod days!

The police made some comment that they were not "forensically oriented." That has to be the worst excuse and line ever.

Let's say this for the CSI television series: they raised the bar for public expectations for law enforcement. Sure, they are completely unreasonable on time tables and amount of evidence and ease of solving the crime, but I believe most people have come to expect police to actually be "forensically oriented."