Find Post Investigations On:
Facebook Scribd Twitter
Friendfeed RSS Google Reader
» About This Blog | Meet the Investigative Team | Subscribe
Ongoing Investigation

Top Secret America

The Post explores the top secret world the government created in response to the attacks of Sept. 11.

Ongoing Investigation

The Hidden Life of Guns

How guns move through American society, from store counter to crime scene.

Have a Tip?

Talk to Us

If you have solid tips, news or documents on potential ethical violations or abuses of power, we want to know. Send us your suggestions.
• E-mail Us

Categories

Post Investigations
In-depth investigative news
and multimedia from The Washington Post.
• Special Reports
• The Blog

Reporters' Notebook
An insider's guide to investigative news: reporters offer insights on their stories.

The Daily Read
A daily look at investigative news of note across the Web.

Top Picks
A weekly review of the best
in-depth and investigative reports from across the nation.

Hot Documents
Court filings, letters, audits and other documents of interest.

D.C. Region
Post coverage of investigative news in Maryland, Virginia and the District.

Washington Watchdogs
A periodic look into official government investigations.

Help! What Is RSS?
Find out how to follow Post Investigations in your favorite RSS reader.

Hot Comments

Unfortunately I believe that we are limited in what we can focus on. I think that if we proceed with the partisan sideshow of prosecuting Bush admin. officials, healthcare will get lost in the brouhaha.
— Posted by denamom, Obama's Quandary...

Recent Posts
Bob Woodward

The Washington Post's permanent investigative unit was set up in 1982 under Bob Woodward.


Archives
See what you missed, find what you're looking for.
Blog Archive »
Investigations Archive »

Have a Tip?
Send us information on ethics violations or abuses of power.
E-Mail Us »

Other
Investigations
Notable investigative projects from other news outlets.
On the Web »
Top Picks »

Who Killed Chandra Levy: Reporters' Notebook

POSTED: 10:40 PM ET, 07/12/2008 by The Editors

As our serial investigation of the Chandra Levy case unfolds from July 13 through July 27, reporters Sari Horwitz, Scott Higham and Sylvia Moreno are posting daily updates and a preview of the coming chapters here on the Post Investigations Blog. Read the latest installment in the story or catch up on what you've missed on the Chandra Levy home page.

Update #13: The Findings
Sunday, July 27, 10 a.m.

We began this investigation of Chandra Levy's murder with an open mind about the case and who the prime suspect might be. We conducted a year of interviews - with many people who never have spoken publicly before - and an analysis of thousands of pages of documents. The evidence strongly suggests Chandra was attacked in Rock Creek Park by a stranger. As former Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey told us, there is no evidence that then-Congressman Gary Condit knew anything or had anything to do with Chandra's disappearance. Most law enforcement officials who worked on the case still focus on Ingmar Guandique, the Salvadoran immigrant who had attacked two other women in the park early that summer of 2001.

We chose to publish our findings in the form of a narrative, without stopping the story to highlight each of the many new things we discovered in our reporting. Still, some readers have asked us to specify those findings and we are doing so now.

We wrote the serial to show how mistakes in the police investigation let a killer go free and left many people around the world with a serious misunderstanding of a celebrated case. Polls at the time of Chandra's disappearance showed that most Americans believed the congressman was involved. The news media mentioned fleetingly in 2002 that there might be an alternate scenario involving an attacker in the park, but that news was quickly overwhelmed by coverage of the D.C. sniper attacks. Condit lost his House seat and moved to Arizona, the question of his guilt or innocence unresolved for the past seven years.

With unprecedented details about this still-open murder case, we've explained how and why the official investigation came to be so focused on the congressman. We unraveled the chain of circumstances that caused the Guandique lead to be missed at first, and why this delay made the case so hard to resolve.

Separate from the question of Chandra's disappearance, Condit has never said publicly if he had an affair with her. We discovered that Condit voluntarily submitted to a DNA test late at night in the parking lot of a Giant supermarket on Wisconsin Avenue. The results of that DNA test, which matched Condit's DNA to a semen stain on Chandra's underwear found in her apartment, had never been reported before.

And we also gave readers a detailed inside look at how the machinery of law enforcement in the nation's capital can be undermined by the presence of politicians, the media spotlight, the failings of detectives and their tools, miscommunication among police agencies and, yes, pack journalism at its worst.

Here are some of the more important disclosures in the series:

1. Because of a police mistake during a search of Chandra Levy's computer, investigators did not learn for a month that she was looking for information about Rock Creek Park on the day she disappeared.
2. Police misread Chandra's computer searches and thought she had looked up the address for the Klingle Mansion, the headquarters for Rock Creek Park, and they spent significant time searching the area. Instead, Chandra called up an entertainment page on washingtonpost.com that contained an address for Klingle Mansion at the top of the page, but had a list of places to go in the park, including the Nature Center and Planetarium. She also clicked on a map of the park.
3. Congressman Gary Condit left two messages on Chandra's answering machine on May 3, 2001, two days after she disappeared, looking for her and asking her to call him.
4. A miscommunicated search order caused police teams to look for Chandra 100 yards off of the roads in Rock Creek Park instead of 100 yards off the trails. During one particular search on July 25, 2001, they missed finding her remains, which were 79 yards below the Western Ridge Trail.
5. Three days days before she disappeared, Chandra confided in a friend, Robert Kurkjian, that she was in love with a congressman who was going to resign from Congress, become a lobbyist and marry her. Despite subsequent news accounts to the contrary, she was not angry or disappointed with Condit, Kurkjian told police.
6. Condit acknowledged to the police in his first interview with them that Chandra occasionally spent the night at his apartment. The congressman told the detective interviewing him that he could "infer what you want with that."
7. On May 18, 2001, police drew up a list of "suspect areas," including one they called "C.M." for "congressman."
8. Details of a private meeting between Susan Levy and Condit at the Jefferson Hotel, where she asked Condit if he knew what happened to her daughter.
9. Details of Condit's second interview with police at a private residence in Georgetown, during which he told police his whereabouts around the time that Chandra disappeared.
10. Details of the U.S. Park Police interrogation of Ingmar Guandique, including his alleged statement to Detective Joe Green that he saw Chandra in Rock Creek Park.
11. On the day that Chandra disappeared, May 1, 2001, Guandique did not show up for work, investigators discovered.
12. To this day, the D.C. police and the prosecutors working on the Chandra Levy case have never interviewed the two women who were attacked in the park by Guandique --Halle Shilling and Christy Wiegand.
13. Details of the police interview with Condit's wife, Carolyn, and the contents of Condit's third interview with police.
14. One of the prosecutors in the case asked that she be removed from the investigation because she was frustrated by the persistent police leaks and thought they were compromising the case.
15. The chief of D.C. police detectives in the case asked that the prosecutors be removed because he thought they were too focused on Condit to the exclusion of other investigative paths.
16. New details of the "watch box" incident and the first-hand account of the man who said he saw Condit dispose of the box in Alexandria.
17. D.C. police said they learned about Guandique and his attacks in the park on July 20, 2001 (nearly three weeks after his arrest by Park Police) and it then took them nearly two months before they and prosecutors interviewed him.
18. Details of the fourth and final police interview of Condit conducted by the FBI and police, in which he provided an extensive description of Chandra.
19. The contents of Guandique's confidential pre-sentencing report that included the statement: "When I'm about to commit an offense, I tell myself to go ahead and do it, but afterwards I feel bad about it... Sometimes, I cannot control myself when I see someone alone in a secluded area with something of value."
20. The details of a jailhouse informant's account of how Guandique allegedly said that Condit paid him $25,000 to kill Chandra. The informant later failed a polygraph exam.
21. The details of Guandique's polygraph exam.
22. The identity of the man who found Chandra's skeletal remains and the circumstances of the discovery.
23. The items found at the crime scene, their location and what investigators gleaned from that information.
24. The observations of the first U.S. Park Police official on the Chandra Levy crime scene, who said it reminded him of the scene where Guandique attacked Christy Wiegand on July 1, 2001.
25. The observations of criminal profiler Kim Rossmo, who said after examining the Guandique attacks and the Chandra crime scene that Guandique "stands out like a neon sign."
26. Police investigating the Chandra case did not visit one of the Guandique attack scenes until more than a year after Guandique's arrest.
27. From the time of Guandique's arrest, it took police 13 months to interview Guandique's ex-girlfriend and her mother. The two said Guandique had violent tendencies and he was asked to leave their home in the spring of 2001.
28. From the time of Guandique's arrest, it took police 14 months to interview Guandique's landlady, who said he looked as if he had been in a bad fight around the time of Chandra's disappearance on May 1, 2001. She also said she had thrown out two bags of Guandique's belongings that summer.
29. It took the police 14 months to assign bilingual detectives to the Chandra case, and only at the urging of a new federal prosecutor assigned to the case.
30. Finally, we obtained the first newspaper interview with Gary Condit in seven years and the only press interviews with Guandique. We also obtained statements from some of the key law enforcement officials in the investigation saying Guandique remains of prime interest in the case.

Once again we'd like to thank you all for reading this series and for the comments, insights and questions you've posted on this blog. We've read every one of them and will keep reading.

-- Sari Horwitz, Scott Higham, Sylvia Moreno

Update #12: The Gold Bracelet
Friday, July 25, 12:30 p.m.

There are many myths associated with the Chandra Levy case. One of them is the "missing" gold bracelet.

Congressman Gary Condit gave the bracelet to Chandra in 2001 and she showed it to her aunt, Linda Zamsky, during Passover at Zamsky's house in Chesapeake City, Md. After Chandra disappeared, rumors circulated that the gold bracelet was gone and it could be a critical clue to solving the case. News organizations, including The Washington Post, quoted unnamed law enforcement sources as saying they were searching for the bracelet.

But it turned out to be another false lead. Last summer, the D.C. police returned most of Chandra's belongings to Robert and Susan Levy. The gold bracelet was among the items.

The Levys lent the bracelet to me and Sari and we showed it to Zamsky earlier this year. She said she is certain that it's the same one Chandra showed her seven years ago. So the bracelet was never missing -- police had it in their evidence locker the entire time.

There are, however, two pieces of physical evidence that police have never found. A set of keys to Chandra's apartment, and one of her favorite pieces of jewelry: a 14-karat gold pinkie ring. It's inscribed with Chandra's initials, "CL," and framed by two diamond chips. Either one of the items could tie a killer to the crime.

We're nearing the end of the series. Sunday we'll publish the epilogue and we'll also have more to say here in this blog. Thanks for reading and for posting your excellent comments and suggestions.

-- Scott Higham

Update #11.5: A Photograph Removed
Thursday, July 24, 6:50 p.m.
Hello everyone. Just a note to clear up some confusion. For a time last night, a photo of one of the bones discovered in Rock Creek Park was displayed on our Web site. We decided to remove it for reasons of taste. Some readers noticed the photo and wondered why it had been taken down.

Update #11: The Bones in the Park
Thursday, July 24, 2:40 p.m.

Today we wrote about how two private eyes working for the Levy family found evidence in the woods that the D.C. police had missed. I had a first-hand account of that discovery because I was with the two detectives, Joe McCann and Dwayne Stanton, that day. It was June 6, 2002, and the D.C. police had finished working the Chandra Levy crime scene. Mobile crime technicians and officers had been processing the crime scene in the woods for a week.

When the police left, they took down their yellow tape and opened the area back up to the public. I knew both McCann and Stanton from years before when they were detectives in the D.C. police department's homicide squad. They had been hired by attorney Billy Martin to work for the Levy family.

The two detectives wanted to see if any evidence had been missed in the woods, and I asked them if I could join them to observe. They arrived about 11 a.m. and used rakes to search through the piles of leaves in the woods. They looked in holes. About 90 minutes into the search, McCann tapped his rake against a bone. He was about 50 feet from a cleared section of the park where police had looked for Chandra's skeletal remains the week before. The 12-14 inch tibia had been under a thin pile of leaves and embedded in the ground.

I was surprised by the response of the police department. First, police officials said that the bone could not have belonged to Chandra Levy. When the D.C. medical examiner said that it was in fact Chandra's missing left tibia, detectives questioned the veracity of McCann's story and asked the private investigator if he would submit to a lie-detector test. He was insulted and declined. Next, police asked Philip Palmer, the man who had originally stumbled upon the Chandra crime scene, if he had anything to do with the tibia. He said no and provided a videotaped statement denying that he tampered with the bone.

Finally, the department released a press statement that the bone had not been there during their original crime scene search. A police official said he believed that an animal had dragged the bone to its den and dragged it back to the site after officers left. After this incident, the police returned to the crime scene to sift through the leaves and dirt once again - and found many more of Chandra's bones.

--Sari Horwitz

Update #10: The Jailhouse Interview
Wednesday, July 23, 3:15 p.m.

Good afternoon and thank you everyone not only for following the series, but also for taking the time to respond to this blog. Apologies for posting a little late today.

Today's chapter described the extraordinary tale of a jailhouse informant who claimed to authorities that a repentant Ingmar Guandique confessed to him that he killed Chandra Levy and that then-congressman Gary Condit paid him to commit the crime.

My colleague, Sari Horwitz, and I learned in 2002, when we last focused on the Levy story, that a jailhouse informant brought Guandique to the attention of federal authorities. But attempts to find the name of that person were unsuccessful. Fast forward to 2007: we uncovered the name of the informant, and I contacted him late last summer to see if he would tell me his story.

I found that inmate in a federal prison. Following an exchange of letters and telephone calls, the inmate -- whose name The Washington Post agreed to withhold to protect him against reprisals from other prisoners -- said he would see me. It took more than an hour and a half of warm-up conversation in a prison visiting room, but the inmate recounted the story to me as we sat side-by-side. He told me the same story he told authorities: that Guandique told him he was walking in the Adams Morgan neighborhood one day; was approached by a man who pulled up to the curb in a black car and who offered him the "job" of killing a woman for $25,000. The man would supply a picture of the woman and information on her whereabouts. He would pay half the money upfront and the rest upon completion of the "job." Guandique said he did not realize who the man was and who the victim was until the story hit the media. The rest of the tale is recounted in today's chapter.

The inmate said he believed Guandique and he called his lawyer, who then informed law enforcement authorities in early fall 2001 -- nine months before Chandra's remains were found in Rock Creek Park.

The informant said he too had followed the media coverage in Spanish-language newspapers and television about the disappearance of Chandra Levy and the focus on Condit. The informant said he felt sorry for the anguished Levys, who were then making public appeals for information about their daughter. He wanted to help them find the body of Chandra so they could give her a proper funeral, he said. "I wanted to be a hero to that family," he told me in the interview.

His story made its way to the police, FBI and prosecutors, but the informant ultimately failed a polygraph. The informant told me he was told he would be polygraphed again by a Spanish-language agent, but nothing ever came of that. A few months later, Guandique took a polygraph in which he denied that he had anything to do with Chandra Levy's disappearance. Investigators dismissed the informant's tale as a fantasy and effectively dropped Guandique as a suspect.

The informant told me he was not then -- or now -- seeking favorable treatment for his information. He remains in federal prison, serving a life sentence for armed sexual abuse of a woman in Washington.

-- Sylvia Moreno

Update #9: Dogs in the Park
Tuesday, July 22, 2 p.m.

Hello everyone. Several readers continue to have questions about the initial search for Chandra. They have asked if cadaver dogs or blood hounds were used by police during their search in the summer of 2001.

Here's what we know: Police officials told us that cadaver dogs were used in some areas. We know from our reporting that cadaver dogs were used during a search in Annapolis, a search in the Glover-Archbold Park area near the U.S. Naval Observatory and a search of an impoundment lot in Southwest Washington. Seven cadaver dog teams were used during a search of the C&O Canal tow path area. Cadaver dogs also were used by police searching an area west of 17th Street on the Mall near the reflecting pool, as well as in wooded areas along the Baltimore-Washington Parkway. Dogs also were brought along to search an area near Georgetown University's football field and wooded areas around the Calvert Street and Connecticut Avenue bridges. In Rock Creek Park, police used cadaver dogs to search the woods near a picnic area known as Grove 10 along Beach Drive.

But dogs were not used when three police sergeants and 28 recruits searched the area around Grove 17 off Glover Road in Rock Creek Park on July 25, 2001. Our reporting shows that the searches for Chandra were inconsistent and not performed in a systematic way. Had police used dogs to search the Grove 17 area, which includes the Western Ridge Trail, it's likely they would have found Chandra's body. Her remains rested 79 yards below the trail for nearly three months, and between the site where her bones would eventually be found 10 months later were other personal items the dogs could have located, including her Walkman, sunglasses, one of her Reebok sneakers and other items.

A few of you also have asked where you could find the interactive parts of our project. You can see a 360-degree view of the site where Chandra's body was eventually found. You can also view panoramic images in Rock Creek Park of important areas related to the investigation. And you can watch a video of Robert and Susan Levy speaking about their daughter's disappearance.

Finally, one reader -- Judy in Beaumont, Texas -- asked for a link to yesterday's online Q-and-A. You can find it here. Thanks to all for your continued interest in the story.

Update #8: One More Question
Monday, July 21, 2 p.m.

Good afternoon everyone. We had a really terrific give-and-take during our on-line chat today. We were swamped by the response and want to thank you for taking such a keen interest in the project.

Unfortunately, we didn't have time to get to all of your questions, so here's one more. A reader from Burke, Va.., asked something that has been on the minds of investigators and others who have been following the case for years: "Was the body always where it was found or was it dumped there later?"

The investigators we interviewed believe that Chandra was attacked while she was on the Western Ridge Trail in Rock Creek Park. There are no witnesses or evidence to support the theory that she was murdered in her apartment or elsewhere and then dumped in the park.

Later this week, you'll read more details about the Rock Creek crime scene and the evidence that was found there. Thanks again for reading.

Update #7: Your Questions, Our Answers
Sunday, July 20, 10 a.m.

Hello everyone. We're halfway through the series, and we thought we'd take this opportunity today to respond directly to some questions you've posted on this board.

Q - The new examples of police mistakes are very interesting. I just wonder what prompted this review over the last year, as opposed to two years ago or in the future on the 10th anniversary of her death. Did the Post reporters first get tips of more police mistakes? Were enough new mistakes pointed out to your staff that you felt a new investigation/overview was needed? Did a friend or former staffer of Rep. Condit leak you new info?
Posted by: Richard | July 16, 2008 2:54 PM

A - This case has perplexed investigators for years, and over time we have been hearing bits and pieces of what took place behind the scenes of the police investigation. Many times, investigating an event as it unfolds can be difficult. Going back after the publicity has died down can often yield revelatory information and provide readers with a far more accurate account of what happened. We heard enough details about problems with the official investigation to know that an investigation of our own would be worthwhile.

Q - A real shame about the foul-up regarding the security cameras at Ms. Levy's building. Her cell phone is in her apartment. Her ID is in her apartment. I think security tapes would have shown she never left the building. Someone inside that condo complex killed her. It's the most logical explanation.
Posted by: RC | July 16, 2008 2:14 PM

A - Investigators have long lamented this misstep. The tape could have revealed when Chandra left her apartment building and whether she was accompanied by anyone. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that Chandra was murdered in her building and her body was later dumped in Rock Creek Park. All the evidence indicates that Chandra was attacked along the Western Ridge Trail in the park.

Q - Was everyone in her building vetted?
Posted by: RC | July 17, 2008 9:43 AM

A - Yes, police eventually canvassed Chandra's entire building, interviewing the occupants of each unit. Chandra did not socialize with anyone in the building and largely kept to herself. Most people did not know who she was and police were not able to cultivate much information from the interviews.

Q - Condit left messages on her voicemail. I'm guessing it would not be allowed as court evidence, but could those messages be voice analyzed? How good is voice analysis. Could you pick up stress levels in Condit's voice that might indicate he knew Chandra wouldn't pick up because he was already dead?
Posted by: DCer | July 14, 2008 12:25 AM

A - We're not aware that any voice analysis was performed on the messages. Usually, such analysis is used during direct conversations between a subject and a law enforcement official, similar to a polygraph examination. But investigators who heard the messages said Condit did not seem stressed. His first message asked that Chandra give him a call. His second sounded concerned because Chandra had not called back. It was out of character for her not to return calls.

Q- If Chandra Levy loved the out of doors so much, and she had been living in D.C. for more than a year, wouldn't she already have had some basic knowledge of Rock Creek Park and its trails -- if she truly went there just to talk a walk?
Posted by: pb | July 15, 2008 11:02 AM

A - We're not sure how familiar Chandra was with the park. To the best of our knowledge, she had not spent much, if any, time there. What we do know is this: She had lost her internship; she canceled her gym membership; she didn't have a lot of friends in Washington; one of her friends was out of the country; and Gary Condit's wife was in town the day she disappeared, May 1, 2001. It was a beautiful spring day and her last Web searches show that she checked the weather before clicking on a map of Rock Creek Park that detailed hiking trails and places to visit, like the nature center and the planetarium.

Q- One important issue that this series could bring to light is this: Is the park (still) a dangerous place for a woman to go walking or jogging alone, even in the middle of the day? Do the police in that jurisdiction lack adequate training and resources to do their jobs, and how can that be corrected, so that the park can be safely enjoyed?
Posted by: Michele | July 15, 2008 2:40 PM

A - At the time of Chandra's disappearance, violent crimes in Rock Creek Park were rare. More typical were car break-ins, flashers and petty thieves. Still, urban parks like Rock Creek can be dangerous places at any time of the day, particularly for women walking or jogging alone and wearing iPods and similar devices. U.S. Park Police can't be everywhere, and Rock Creek park is nearly twice the size of New York's Central Park. So police advise anyone walking or running in isolated section of the park to never wear headphones, stay out of remote areas without taking a friend or a dog along, and be constantly aware of your surroundings.

Q - I see that Condit opened a Baskin-Robbins franchise in Arizona with his wife after he left Washington. One of the last Web sites Chandra looked at before she went to Rock Creek Park was the Baskin-Robbins site. Coincidence? It seems to me that Condit was discussing his post-DC plans with Chandra - obviously she thought this was a life-long relationship for her. If she was this serious, but he was not, how could he not have a connection to her murder?
Posted by: Sillybrit | July 16, 2008 7:45 AM

A- Condit opened two franchises after losing his congressional seat. There is no evidence that Condit was contemplating opening ice cream parlors before Chandra disappeared and while he was a sitting member of Congress.

Q - Chandra made a call that was picked up by a cell phone tower near the Columbia Hospital for Women in Foggy Bottom. Detectives checked with the hospital to find out whether it performed abortions. It didn't. In reference to the above statement made in Chapter 5, if the Secret Services picked up a call made to Columbia Hospital for Women in Foggy Bottom to find our whether it performed abortions or not, why wasn't the question asked as to whether or not she made an appointment regarding pregnancy?
Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 17, 2008 2:24 AM

A - The Secret Service was called into the case to perform several technical analyses. One of them was to examine Chandra's cell phone activity and determine where she was when she made her final calls. The Secret Service can determine which cell phone towers picked up her calls and the agency's analysis found that one of those calls was transmitted from a tower near the hospital. Police visited the hospital and asked if they had any records of a visit by Chandra and whether the hospital performed abortions. It was one of many leads police would follow -- only to come up empty-handed.

Q- This is a very well-done series. as they say, hindsight is always 20/20. I was turned off by the sensationalism of the case while the glare of the camera was fixed on it, but seeing the full picture in retrospect is fascinating. And for those who are talking about merits-- the journalistic value of the piece is more recounting and discovering errors the police made in their investigation, and the problems of backtracking someone's life. not to be Kafkaesque here, but if you vanished one day, would police be able to quickly come up with a coherent narrative about your life and where you might be? (Think about the partial truths and selective information we give to the myriad of people in our lives).
One question I do have though: Did Chandra have any close friends, like girlfriends? It seems that the guys she visited during the pizza party were more acquaintance friends, and I would think that she--like any normal 20-something woman--would probably have at least one close female friend who knew the in-depth details of her life/routine and relationship with Condit.
Posted by: mel | July 17, 2008 11:16 AM

A - Chandra was new to Washington and didn't have many close friends, female or male. One of her female friends was Jennifer Baker, another USC grad student. The two met Condit in the fall of 2000 during a visit to congressional offices on Capitol Hill and Baker worked for the congressman as an intern. But Baker said Chandra never fully confided in her because she knew Baker was a socially conservative person. At one point, Chandra told Baker she was dating an FBI agent. She never told Baker about Condit. Baker also only spent a few months in Washington in the fall of 2000. Chandra had some friends at The Bureau of Prisons, where she interned, and she kept in touch with friends on the West Coast. But mostly, Chandra was a loner during her brief time in Washington.

Q - A question for the reporters: What is Chandra's brother doing now? In viewing the poignant 7-minute Post video of her parents (beautiful job!), it struck me how they talked about suicide as an option if things got too bad and when a patient asked the dad how he was, he said something about "same life, unfortunately." I feel for these people, but I also feel for her brother, having to always live in the shadow of Chandra's death. Sad, sad, sad.
Posted by: Mel | July 16, 2008 2:52 PM

A - Adam Levy is a college student and has stayed away from the press throughout the entire ordeal. Each member of the family has chosen a different way to deal with the loss of Chandra. In Adam's case, he has stayed close to his parents but has never felt comfortable being around the press and the public events that have been held over the years.

Q: Ok, so where is [Guandique] now? What happened with him in the other assaults? Why isn't he being investigated/charged/ prosecuted for Levy now? I hope there will be more information coming up, because [Chapter 6] was very unsatisfying.
Posted by: whatelse | July 18, 2008 11:06 AM

A: Good question. Please stay tuned. And keep those comments coming.

-- Sari Horwitz, Scott Higham, Sylvia Moreno


Update #6: A Visit to El Salvador
Friday, July 18, 2 p.m.

When Ingmar Guandique's name surfaced in the Levy investigation in 2002, I traveled to El Salvador to try to learn more about this immigrant, who like many before him had made his way to Washington in search of jobs to provide a better life for relatives back home.

I found Guandique's impoverished family living in a sparsely populated rural area outside the city of San Miguel. Seven people slept in a one-room mud or adobe house, with no running water and an open-air fire pit out back for cooking. Guandique's sickly grandfather and teenage siblings toiled as field hands, growing corn to feed the family or working as sharecroppers when they could get hired. Guandique came to Washington in early 2000 -- his half-brother, Huber, a year or so before that -- to find work. Both represented the family's best hope for survival.

Since 1980, the Washington area has been a magnet for hundreds of thousands of Salvadorans who initially fled the civil war in their country. The war ended in 1991, yet Salvadorans still emigrate to this area, leaving rural areas whose economy was shattered by the military conflict. Many immigrants -- some who came here legally and others, like Guandique, illegally -- endured violence, lost family members in the conflict and barely eked out a living back home.

Guandique's father was kidnapped during the civil war when Guandique's mother was pregnant and his body was found three years later along a roadside, the reported victim of a military execution. The land around the Guandique home once yielded cotton, rice and corn, which landowners used to sell for their livelihood. But the war destroyed the fields and many people left the community, never to return.

You will learn more about Guandique in subsequent chapters. The series is taking Saturdays off. In Sunday's installment, Chapter 7, you will read what Rep. Gary Condit says about his last conversation with Chandra.

-- Sylvia Moreno

Update #5: The Story So Far
Thursday, July 17, 2 p.m.

Hello everyone. For those of you who may be just starting to read the serial, we thought we'd bring you up to date by reviewing the highlights of the new things we've reported so far about the investigation:

We reported that police botched the initial search for Chandra in Rock Creek Park. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey wanted his officers and recruits to search 100 yards from trails, but his chief of detectives, Jack Barrett, directed them to search 100 yards from the park's roads. It turned out that Chandra's body lay 79 yards from the Western Ridge Trail, and her remains wouldn't be found for another year. By missing her body that day in July 2001, police lost critical forensic evidence that could have identified a killer.

We also reported that police accidentally altered the Web search history on Chandra's laptop during their sweep of her Dupont Circle apartment. That mistake set the investigation back a month because detectives did not retrieve information about Web sites Chandra visited on May 1, 2001, the day she disappeared, until June 8, 2001. When detectives examined her Web visits, they incorrectly focused on the Klingle Mansion in Rock Creek Park, a site they thought she had looked up. We found that Chandra went to a site on washingtonpost.com that had the address of Klingle Mansion, the park's headquarters, at the top of the page. But that page also listed places in the park to visit, including the nature center and the planetarium, both near where her skeletal remains were eventually recovered. Chandra also clicked on a link for a map of the park. For weeks, police focused their investigative efforts on what turned out to be a red herring and theorized that Chandra may have met someone in the park when it appears she was simply looking for a place to take a walk.

We also recounted one of Chandra's last-known conversations. Days before she disappeared, she told a friend she met at the gym, Robert Kurkjian, that she was disappointed to be losing her internship. But she was upbeat and happy about her future with her congressman boyfriend and said he promised to marry her in five years. The account contradicts persistent rumors seven years ago that Chandra was angry at her boyfriend and that her anger might have led to a confrontation and her disappearance.

In other disclosures, we recounted for the first time confidential conversations and interviews Rep. Gary Condit had with the D.C. police, along with a private meeting Condit had with Chandra's mother, Susan Levy. Levy was angry because she believed Condit wasn't cooperating with the D.C. police. But our reporting shows that Condit tried to cooperate with police behind the scenes. By early June 2001, Condit had spoken to detectives twice and told them he had a relationship with Chandra and that she spent the night at his apartment. Details of his interviews were leaked to the news media and Condit grew increasingly angry and reluctant to talk. Still, he continued to cooperate.

Many more disclosures to come. In tomorrow's chapter, you will read about an important investigative lead that D.C. detectives were slow to recognize.

Update #4: Getting It On Tape
Wednesday, July 16, 2 p.m.

When we set out to go behind the scenes of the Chandra Levy investigation, we wanted to blend narrative story telling in the newspaper with a revelatory reading and viewing experience on our Web site. One of the wonderful things about being part of this experiment in journalism has been the ability to work with some extraordinarily talented people at the newspaper's Web site.

The talent of one of those people, videojournalist Pierre Kattar, is on display today. Pierre spent a week with Robert and Susan Levy last March in Modesto, Calif., to produce his seven-minute mini-documentary, "Remembering Chandra." It's an exquisite piece of filmmaking, providing readers of The Washington Post and the Web site with an emotional journey through unimaginable loss. Pierre's film and other elements of The Post's multi-media presentation of "Who Killed Chandra Levy?" are here and here.

Tomorrow, Chapter 5 will recount for the first time a secret meeting between the congressman and the missing girl's mother. And for the reader who posted "Where are the psychics?" -- you'll hear about them, too.

Thanks. We'll post here again tomorrow at 2.

Update #3: What the Women Told Police
Tuesday, July 15, 2 p.m.

We're back. Thanks for all your comments and ideas about the series so far.

A few points about today's chapter. In any case of a missing person, police want to immediately talk to the people closest to that person. Chandra Levy didn't have many friends in Washington. She had only been here for six months, working as an intern for the federal Bureau of Prisons. Detectives began to hear that the person Chandra spent most of her free time with was Congressman Gary Condit, the Democrat who represented her district. They heard this from her aunt, who lived in Maryland, and from one of her acquaintances, Robert Kurkjian, the young man we wrote about in Chapter 2. Chandra told him that she was dating a congressman. So the detectives began focusing from the beginning on Gary Condit.

Once the investigation began, the FBI and police received a phone call from one of Condit's former staffers who said she had a romantic relationship with Condit for about three years. She told investigators that she was calling because she was concerned about Chandra. Detectives then began contacting other women who were working for Condit or had been on his staff. The FBI -- and eventually the DC police -- interviewed Anne Marie Smith, a flight attendant, who said that in the spring of 2001 she had a romantic relationship with the congressman. These early police and FBI interviews set the focus of the Chandra Levy investigation for months to come.

Condit continues to deny that he had romantic relationships with any of the women interviewed by investigators. He also has denied that he ever had a romantic relationship with Chandra.

In tomorrow's chapter, you will read about a confidential list of "suspect areas" that police developed early in the investigation, and Condit's frustration and anger over leaks to the news media.

Update #2: Chandra's Final Plans
Monday, July 14, 2 p.m.
Hello everyone and thanks for coming back today. We've heard from a number of readers asking us about one of the new discoveries we wrote about in Chapter One. We found that Chandra went to a washingtonpost.com Web site shortly before she signed off her computer for the last time on May 1, 2001. Here's the site (click on the image to go to it for yourself):

rockcreek_archive.GIF
This park guide was one of the last Web pages visited by Chandra Levy (Internet Archive)

Police initially thought Chandra went to Klingle Mansion, the park headquarters, possibly to meet someone she knew and that the meeting could have had something to do with her disappearance. But by analyzing Chandra's last movements on the Internet, we found that she did not search for the mansion itself. The address of the mansion is simply listed at the top of the page. More importantly, what's on this page is a list of places to visit in the park: the Planetarium, the Nature Center, the Peirce Mill and the horse stables. A year and three weeks later, her skeletal remains were found in the woods off the Western Ridge Trail, one of the main walking trails in the park. The trail leads to the Planetarium, the Nature Center and the horse stables. At 11:34 am., after Chandra visited the page we show above, she clicked on the park map and directions. We've interviewed people close to Chandra who said she loved the outdoors and sometimes liked to take long walks. Could she have just been going for a walk in the park that day?

To speak to another point that some readers have raised: After Chandra vanished on May 1, 2001, many people, including investigators, theorized she was disappointed and angry at her boyfriend, and that her anger somehow factored into her disappearance. The theory was dispelled by Robert Kurkjian, an accountant who spent time with Chandra days before she disappeared and was one of the last people to see her alive. Chandra told him she was in love and upbeat about her future. Sure, she was upset that she'd lost her internship and she didn't want to leave Washington. But her state of mind was generally positive and she believed that everything was going to work out with her boyfriend. To read about Kurkjian's encounter with Chandra, see Chapter 2, "The Gentleman From California."

In Chapter 3 tomorrow, you'll hear more about why the detectives focused on the congressman and his lifestyle. See you back here Tuesday at 2.
-- Sari Horwitz, Scott Higham and Sylvia Moreno

Update #1: A Haunting Case
Sunday, July 13
Thanks for reading "Who Killed Chandra Levy?" Like many of the investigators on the case, I, too, remain haunted by the disappearance of the 24-year-old intern who walked out of her Dupont Circle apartment and simply vanished. What really happened to Chandra on that isolated hiking trail in Rock Creek Park? As a reporter who has covered the police and the FBI off and on for nearly 20 years, I know that the deeper understanding of a big police investigation often only comes years later, when the pack of reporters and the glare of the television cameras have gone away.

We felt fortunate to be assigned to spend months looking into this fascinating case. It was sometimes difficult to keep our work to ourselves -- we couldn't discuss it with friends or colleagues because we wanted to collect as much information as possible while staying under the public radar.

Instead of writing this as a traditional news story, we decided to tell it as a serial. We believe that readers will get a better understanding of the story by reliving it -- through the eyes of the investigators, Chandra's family and the people who were investigated.

What struck me is how many of the details that were originally reported about this case were wrong. The Post and other media organizations wrote that Chandra looked up Klingle Mansion, the headquarters for Rock Creek Park, on her computer before she disappeared. We now know that is wrong. From our analysis of Chandra's last computer searches, it is clear she never looked up Klingle Mansion. She clicked on washingtonpost.com and was sent to a page about Rock Creek Park that simply listed the address of the mansion. The other items on that page should have been a more important clue to investigators: the Nature Center and the Planetarium, both located near the site where her body was eventually found.

One of the last things Chandra did was click on a map of the park's hiking trails. It was a beautiful day in Washington and she had just cancelled her gym membership. If the police had focused right away on the idea that Chandra, who loved to exercise, may have simply wanted to go on a long walk in Rock Creek Park, would that have changed the entire tenor of the investigation?
-- Sari Horwitz

Hi everyone. We've done many investigations at The Washington Post over the years, but examining an open homicide may be a first. Working on this case has a special resonance for me; my father was a New York City homicide detective. Like any good detective, he would have found this case intriguing because it has so many twists and turns, false leads and promising paths to pursue. It also involves some amazing people, including Robert and Susan Levy, whose strength in the face of such incredible loss has been an inspiration to us.

During the course of our investigation we have developed information that shed new light on the Levy case. One of today's major findings came about after interviewing numerous people and repeatedly visiting and measuring the crime scene in Rock Creek Park. If the initial police orders for searching the park had been properly executed, cadets would have found Chandra on July 25, 2001. Instead, a man walking his dog found her nearly 10 months later. If Chandra was found that first summer, how would police have viewed the case? Would they have conducted their investigation differently? And how would the press have treated the case? The case showcases everything that is wrong with pack journalism and 24-7 cable news stations. What do you all think?

In Chapter 2 tomorrow, you're going to learn how Chandra got tickets to the 2001 Presidential Inaugural Ball, who she invited along and what she said during a pizza party just before she disappeared.
-- Scott Higham

I was involved in reporting on the Chandra Levy case in 2001, several months after her disappearance, and in 2002 when her remains were found in Rock Creek Park. In 2004, I moved to Texas and from there traveled throughout the Southwest, covering national stories for The Washington Post. Back on The Post's Metro Desk last summer, I learned that the story behind a murdered intern remained a mystery and the line between fact and fiction was even more blurred. During this project, my first foray into a long-term investigation, I interviewed key people who never had been contacted by some of the top investigators in this case. Stay tuned!
-- Sylvia Moreno

Thanks to all for reading and giving us your thoughts. From now on, we'll do these updates at 2 p.m. EDT every day. See you back here tomorrow.

By The Editors |  July 12, 2008; 10:40 PM ET Chandra Levy , D.C. Region , Reporter's Notebook
Previous: National Geographic Looks For Gorilla Killers | Next: Cancer-Causing Chemical Reappears

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Several thoughts: Always remember this is not just a case, but involves a real person. Also most situations will be made clear by non-stop incredible attention to detail and follow-up.
I've done a lot of searching for people and information and I wish the Post reportage well.
kretchet@comcast.net

Posted by: Trudy Christopher | July 13, 2008 1:26 AM

The story of Chandra's murder is more than an investigation involving a romantic relationship with a powerful politician. It is a flashback to a near-innocent pre-9/11 world when relationships with interns could be ubiquitous frontpage news.
I lived as a single guy in DC during that time; since then I have wondered if I ever was at the same bar as her, or saw walking around town, or running at the towpath. Her story is one that could have happened to my female housemates, who also worked on the Hill.

Posted by: Me | July 13, 2008 2:09 AM

Sari, Chandra was not able to cancel her membership the previous evening. She had to give a 30 day notice.

Yes, it was a beautiful day, as are many in DC, and she still had a membership and had never been known by her friends to do anything like this.

Chief Ramsey made the same mistake in an interview. It is critical details like this that make all the difference in understanding what happened, and more importantly, letting your readers understand what happened.

I wish I had been given the opportunity to factcheck this series. It won't do anyone any good if fundamental misunderstandings like this are presented. Clearly the reader is left with the impression that Chandra went to the park for exercise after looking it up on her PC. In every regard, that is the wrong impression for anyone to come away with.

regards,
Ralph Daugherty
author, Murder on a Horse Trail: The Disappearance of Chandra Levy
(book is posted for public to read on www.justiceforchandra.com)

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 13, 2008 2:47 AM

Ralph: I just read the piece and that's not the impression I get at all. This is the first article in a long series. The reporters are laying out possibilities, not drawing conclusions. Perhaps now that you've self-promoted you can wait to reserve judgment.

Posted by: jumping the gun | July 13, 2008 3:48 AM

>>>>The case showcases everything that is wrong with pack journalism and 24-7 cable news stations. What do you all think?

Bingo! the corporate media sets narratives - whether they are true or false.

Much of the public believes the Clintons stole items from the White House when they departed. Totally false!

Much of the public believes the Clintons made racist remarks during the past year.
Totally false! But Obama was silent as his supporters and Obamedia made ridiculous charges of racism against the Clintons - WHILE Obama was attending a race-baiting hatemongering church.
Yet another reason - we'll never vote for Obama.

Posted by: Carla | July 13, 2008 6:36 AM

well first of all, jumping, I was referring to the text above on this page for the comment, not the first chapter.

secondly, there is no other way to take it when they say the membership was cancelled and it was a nice day. If they said it was a nice day and she gave a 30 day notice to cancel her membership, I wouldn't have said anything. That would have been acurrate reporting.

thirdly, posting my bonafides of having written a book on it, free to the public without even advertising income, constitutes where I come from on this. If you want to call it promotion fine, we can also call anyone who uses a university degree title promoting themselves as well, whatever you wish. It's your game.

lastly, I just read the first chapter and there are several interesting new pieces of information, and some I'm having a problem with. I comment on it my site.

just for the record, I also made no assumptions in Murder on a Horse Trail. But I got the facts right, which makes all the difference in the evaluation.

and, after all, that's what is important here. Informing the public.

Ralph Daugherty

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 13, 2008 6:43 AM

A nagging question has always been why did she pick a set location in Rock Creek Park when it could be entered in many places, and did she really go there to exercise or to meet someone who did her in or accidentally encountered somebody else?

My gut feel is that she was purposely done in to silence her for something and we need to take another look at the Condit connection while he may not have done it, he might have arranged it.

Posted by: Jonathan Rees | July 13, 2008 6:55 AM

One troubling thing about this case is that some of the top search and rescue teams east of the Mississippi are in Virginia and Maryland. They offered on more than one occasion to help train MPD on how to search effectively. There had been flubbed searches in the past. If a trained search manager (and perhaps trained searchers) had been involved in that original search, the whole thing would have likely turned out quite differently.

Posted by: lherrou | July 13, 2008 8:02 AM

The case showcases everything that is wrong with pack journalism and 24-7 cable news stations. What do you all think?
Bingo! We see that in how the Post repeats the McCain "hero" narrative over and over without examining the facts. They refuse to investigate McCain's womanizing, his lies about his first divorce -- and the fact that he got a marriage license while he was still married to his first wife! They refuse to investigate his 3 years of making propaganda for the Communists and have withheld the video and audio from the public. They refused to even mention that his medical records show he tried to kill himself when Eagleton was driven from the race simply for getting treatment for depression! They refuse to tell us that his records show he may have a stage 2 cancer, deadly. And now the Post, instead of spending money and time investigating the myths of McCain's immagination, simply ape Black's bs and give us a 12 -- 12!! part series on a dead intern! Where is the series on the unsolved anthrax attack on our Congress by elements of the Bush Mafia?

Posted by: Joshua Gen for a New GOP | July 13, 2008 8:19 AM

Tragic case.A bright and pretty young woman at the start of life brutally murdered .

Very human too, although young Chandra was no REBECCA OF SUNNYBROOK FARM with a history of older married men leading up to Condit . In talks with a aunt you could tell she had NO second thoughts about being a homewrecker .

Am wondering to if we wud have ever heard of this case if her name was Chandra Smith ........

Posted by: me | July 13, 2008 8:39 AM

I look forward to the series. I routinely dog walk in that area of Rock Creek Park, and am very familiar with the area and the trails above where her body was found. Its an especially remote place, almost ideal for this purpose, and I have always thought whoever committed the murder had to have a detailed knowledge of the specific location, whether it was a random action or part of a larger plan.

On the matter of fact checking noted above, one of the most prevalent misconceptions involves the horse trail. Indeed, both the north and south entrances to the portion of the Ridge Trail above the location where her body was found have signs expressly prohibiting horses from that section. The horse trail proper is a separate trail east of the Ridge Trail.

Posted by: Murphie | July 13, 2008 9:47 AM

Wow! I hope the Washington Post keeps doing this. This kind of work makes a difference.

Posted by: Andrew Miller | July 13, 2008 9:52 AM

I fwe are going to hijack this precious murdered girl's space to try to slime Obama and promote the Clintons, let's point out that Bob Herbert wrote a fact-checked opinion piece for teh New York Times about the Clinton White house exit. i invite you to read it

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/opinion/10herbert.html

and then make up your mind as to whether taking national historical items from the White House when you leave that are returned only under duress is borrowing or stealing.

i wish the Post the best in helping to shed light on this case.

I do think a writer who wrote a reasearched book should have been canbassed for this series.It weakens the Post's coverage.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2008 10:15 AM

I was just speaking with a friend about this unsolved case. It's sad that so many mistakes were made which may have hampered bringing her killer to justice.

I look forward to reading the rest of the series and thank the editors and reporters of The Washington Post for following up on this case.

Posted by: Carmen | July 13, 2008 12:23 PM

I wish the Post would spend this kind of effort on documenting the impeachable offenses of the Bush administration rather than on a single white womans death. I feel for her family but the only thing sensational about the case was that the media went crazy over the disappearance. Most of us did not read the coverage. Why is it only when a young, wealthy white woman disappears that it makes the news?

Posted by: datdamwuf | July 13, 2008 12:38 PM

I wish people like Joshua Gen would keep on topic rather than going off on the 2008 political race. We all can read about that stuff elsewhere. Stay on topic here!

Posted by: Joe | July 13, 2008 2:01 PM

Murphie, it's great to read a comment from someone that knows that area well. It's important for people to be able to understand and visualize how remote that place is up there where Chandra was found to try to figure out how Chandra ended up there.

You of course know what I'm about to say here, but for clarification for the readers, I want to clarify given I titled my book Murder on a Horse Trail.

If the site were at a bullseye, the crosshair coming up from the bottom is the Western Ridge horse trail coming up a steep hill beside Ridge Road, the horse trail being off to the side in woods above a steep wooded drop to Broad Branch Road below, off a ways but within sight through the trees.

The crosshair coming from the right is a steep partially gravelled hiking/horse trail coming up from Beach Road, below and quite a distance away.

As the crosshair crosses the center and to the left, that becomes a "No Horses Allowed" walking path around the peak and back to the horse trail as it continues on along Ridge Road.

The key is that Chandra was found off this crossroads, of horse trail extending back down the hill and along a busy Beach Drive back to Klingle Mansion atop another steep hill, of Ridge Road running alongside the horse trail, and a walking path diversion from and back to the horse trail.

Chandra was found a few yards off this crossroads, downhill from the walking path. It is directly behind grove 18, a picnic table with a spot to pull a vehicle back and unload a horse... or a body.

It is indeed a Murder on a Horse Trail, although the body was found pulled off to the side and downhill, similar to a person pulled off the street into an alley, if one believes that a person was walking that street versus being dumped in the alley from a car.

regards,
rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 13, 2008 2:39 PM

datdawuf wrote: "Why is it only when a young, wealthy white woman disappears that it makes the news?"

LaToya Taylor, an IRS employee, made the news in a similar situation (governemt employee or recent intern if you will disappearing.) I assure you the same hysteria would have ensued had she not been found and was linked to a congressman.

On my site www.justiceforchandra.com, we have a large percentage of the missng women in similar circumstances to Chanda are black. They are covered by the local news, but it takes a more extraodinary set of exotic circumstances and a continued disappearance to really get traction in national news coverage.

Not something we wish for anyone.

regards,
rd

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2008 2:46 PM

did the police ever interview condit himself?

was it the first time that chandra went to the creek park? if so, she would have been meeting w/ somebody over there, as in a tryst, becoz the park was so huge it afforded
privacy & anonymity. vanish the thought that chandra was hypnotized by the beautiful day that day. for a young girl, for a young gullible girl, meeting w/ a man who considered her his paramour is a far more hypnotic reason to go a little hking.

zero in on condit, shake him up--& down. if he's clean, then, there's only one other explanation to chew on: chandra must have been waylaid by rapist/killers who malingered at the park & knew the place like the palms of their hands.

test my theory.

Posted by: ron_espi_65@yahoo.com | July 13, 2008 2:50 PM

Young,not too attractive, Jewish girl with Ciao suitcases, Dupont circle address and penchant for married men disappears and is found murdered. Is it worthy of this much attention? May involve a congressman! Nothing really unusual when considering those people. Please try journalism as a vehicle for freedom of the press rather than Murdoch-like forays into sensationalism.

Posted by: bona fide | July 13, 2008 3:44 PM

While insightful, what of the unfinished investigations of other disappeared persons in the Washington DC area like Joyce Chiang, who washed up on the banks of the Potomac River after disappearing around Anacostia Park in early 1999. Any mention of her in this series or another series on her?

Posted by: dafu | July 13, 2008 3:47 PM

Am wondering to if we wud have ever heard of this case if her name was Chandra Smith ........
Posted by: me | July 13, 2008 8:39 AM

I am curious about the above remark. It reads to me as if this comment suggests that this case is notorious and attention is being paid because Chandra Levy's name might be Jewish. And that sounds to me like a bit of anti-Semitism.

Also, I find it annoying that people keep referring to Chandra Levy as a young girl; she was not. She was 24 years old, a young woman. Calling her a "girl" robs her of her dignity as a woman.

Finally, hello Sari.

Posted by: Peter Albertson | July 13, 2008 3:49 PM

"If Chandra was found that first summer, how would police have viewed the case?"

I'm sorry; I'm trying to stay on point but it's difficult when a reader has to read a sentence twice just to figure out the meaning because a journalist's grammer is so poor.

"If Chandra was found ..." We know she wasn't. What you are actually wondering about is the case. Therefore: "If Chandra had been found that first summer, how would police have viewed the case."

Basic English.

Posted by: Vic | July 13, 2008 4:39 PM

It is very sad that this woman died. But why do people care so much about her and not about so many other people who die sad, mysterious deaths? I see many mentions about her serial adultery, and wonder if this adultery is part of what interests people. -If you look at her picture, she really does not appear to be as callous as she apparently was - at least to the poor families of the men she dated.

Posted by: e.t. | July 13, 2008 5:26 PM

Ralph,

Thanks for your clarification. I think there is some confusion about the location where the body was found and horse trail manifested by equestrians commenting elsewhere that horses would have noted decomp smell, etc. This is trivial.

What I do think is important is that people realize how difficult it is to find this specific section of the Ridge Trail. You of course know where the body was found is below what is essentially a western bypass to the horse trail. The horse trail is more obvious, broad and well graveled, runs over a hill in a north south direction; this section of the Ridge trail follows the western contours of the same hill.

On the south side starting near Picnic Area 19 for about 150 yards the two trails run parallel, separated by some trees/brush and about 25 feet or so. Many times I have been on the Ridge portion when someone hiked by on the horse trail without appearing to notice me at all.

If one parked at area 18 with nefarious business at hand wanting to head off out of public view, going north on the horse trail is obvious. Going south the horse trail is in the open and provided no cover.

Only someone with a real knowledge of the trail system would know that a second more remote trail heading north lies but a few yards to the west.

Access to this portion of the Ridge Trail is also possible from the north side, the two trails rejoin near Picnic Area 16. Here the Ridge Trail splits off to the right as one heads south and is more obvious than heading north; it immediately starts a steep downhill and is more eroded. I have a hard time imagining carrying a body any distance as the trail heads to the area where the body was discovered, its also about twice as far as from Area 17/18.

One other thought about how I do not see the final location being selected by pure dumb luck. If you look at other Picnic Areas along Ross and Glover Roads, none provide access to trails this remote, particularly if you are heading downhill. No one heads uphill with a burden, dead or alive.

That western loop of the Ridge Trail is the only mapped trail in Rock Creek Park where I have never encountered other hikers, dogwalkers or trail runners.

Posted by: Murphie | July 13, 2008 5:47 PM

Is this the random killer vs Condit idea? My guess is the series is moving to the random killer thing.

I'd like to know if her cellphone had calls made to it by Condit between May 1 and May 3. He apparently left two calls on May 3rd at her home phone.

1. Yet, we've been told she was obsessed with him; so why is he calling her? Didn't he know she was leaving town?

2. If he tried phoning her on her cellphone, then left messages at her home, then he sounds unimplicated. But if he left calls just at her home, then he must have known she wouldn't answer her cellphone. He was merely creating an alibi.

3. The reporters haven't answered RD's point that Levy still could exercise at her club. She had to give 30-days notice, which means if she gave notice on April 30, she still had 30 days to exercise at the club.

So she wasn't just taking a nice walk to the park on May 1 for exercise, because her club membership was gone, like he reporters are suggesting.

The thing is, the DC police were so poor and they're still hiding all information.

Posted by: eeave | July 13, 2008 5:48 PM

It is erroneous to attribute Chandra as a serial adulterer. That was Condit's role. Chandra, like all of Condit's gilfriends/mistresses, was told that his wife was terminally ill and wouldn't last long. Everyone in Washington believed this and understood that to be why Condit ran around like a single guy in DC, albeit extremely discreetly.

There was one report of Chandra telling her friends she was dating a married doctor in Sacramento just before she came to DC to finish her USC Master Degree in Public Administration, but there is a substantial indication that was Condit. In DC she told her friends he was with the FBI or the government, eventually even mentioned Congress, but all along she had a cover story for who she was dating that hid that he was a congressman.

She indeed was not callous. Again, that role was Condit's.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 13, 2008 5:52 PM

Am I just stupid, or is this tabloid journalism masquerading as investigative journalism?

Posted by: steve clark | July 13, 2008 5:56 PM

Murphie wrote: "That western loop of the Ridge Trail is the only mapped trail in Rock Creek Park where I have never encountered other hikers, dogwalkers or trail runners."

That's an excellent analysis, Murphie. I would have quoted you on this in Murder on a Horse Trail if I were just writing it now. I tried to say much the same thing in Chapter Horse Trail, but I'm sure not as well.

Your point cannot be overstated. This was an ideal location for someone extremely familiar with the park to hide a body which when found could be attributed to a stalker, and indeed, her clothing indicated sexual assault and her jewelry and apartment key were missing, all which would be done to stage an assault up in that desolate forest.

I can tell you that not many women would walk into that forest with a shotgun, much less with nothing, not even a cell phone, her pepper spray keyring she left at her apartment, or any id or cards whatsoever. And wearing a 14k bracelet given to her by Condit.

Not to mention how ludicrous it is to suggest she hiked from DuPont Circle to the top of that hill into that forest. Horwitz et al write in this series that the old Pierce Mill, (along Rock Creek about midway between Klingke Mansion and the top of the hill on Ridge Road), is "not far" from where Chandra was found, which is at least better than the reporters who write that Chandra was found "not far" from her DuPont Circle apartment.

Not to be too dramatic, that's about te same as saying the Washington Post building is "not far" from the top of the Washington Monument.

A pretty good analogy, actually.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 13, 2008 6:23 PM

From what I have gathered from this, it appears she was going to meet someone she knew.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2008 6:39 PM

Thank you Ralph and Murphie for your insightful thoughts on Chandra Levy's disappearance and the details of the Rock Creek Park. My husband and I lived in Dupont Circle and were very disturbed over Joyce Chiang and then Chandra's disappearance. Living only blocks from both of them in Dupont Circle, and myself being a young woman and a jogger in Rock Creek, I found the details highly disturbing, having run in Rock Creek in the day of and days prior to her murder. I have to agree, that I never felt safe running in Rock Creek park, at any time of the day, including the more active times like weekends and after work, when more people frequent the park. There were areas that were more remote, and when I entered these areas even on the open jog trail, I sprinted to get through them to a more populus spot. I just wanted to agree with your idea that a woman living in Washington would have this same instinct, and would not choose to hike in a less populated area of the park, unless she were with a friend, and therefore felt more safe. I would also like for people to revisit the Joyce Chiang connection. The INS and the Bureau of Prisons are in teh same building in Washington, and interestingly, Gary Condit's office, and Congressman Berman's office were right next to each other. They could have colleagues in common, in addition to living in the same Dupont Circle neighborhood and frequenting the same Starbucks on Connecticut Ave.

Posted by: Rebecca | July 13, 2008 7:11 PM

I agree, Rebecca, Joyce Chiang's murder is a similar, and maybe related, mystery that needs a followup cold case investigation like Chandra's. Just as with the BOP in Chandra's case, there are corridors of power involved in these mysteries that a Woodward led team needs to crack open to get at the truth behind events that occurred at work just before Joyce and Chandra disappeared.

I would like to say we have done a lot of research on Joyce's disappearance, but all that we have is what you point out in your post. There are a lot of questions remaining to be answered.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 13, 2008 8:29 PM

The local Hamilton, Ontario newspaper has done several similar multi part stories on a number of subjects. I look forward to the next portion of your report.

Posted by: Ernest Payne | July 13, 2008 8:54 PM

RD,

You said: Horwitz et al write in this series that the old Pierce Mill, (along Rock Creek about midway between Klingke Mansion and the top of the hill on Ridge Road), is "not far" from where Chandra was found, which is at least better than the reporters who write that Chandra was found "not far" from her DuPont Circle apartment.

Pierce Mill to the spot where the remains were found is about a mile via the Ridge Trail, albeit with a significant uphill component. So I'm siding with the Post on the fact that its "not far", perhaps a half an hour hike at a comfortable pace if - and its a very big if- you know where you are going.

I agree with you that walking up to the general area from Dupont Circle seems completely out of character.

I am looking forward to seeing what news the Post comes up with tomorrow.

Posted by: Murphie | July 13, 2008 10:45 PM

Condit left messages on her voicemail. I'm guessing it would not be allowed as court evidence, but could those messages be voice analyzed? How good is voice analysis. Could you pick up stress levels in Condit's voice that might indicate he knew Chandra wouldn't pick up because he was already dead?

Posted by: DCer | July 14, 2008 12:25 AM

Now that you all have completed your investigation into the JonBenet Ramsey case you are restarting on the Chandra Levy case.

Nice work on the first one. Hope you are ready to apologize before opening your mouths on this one.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Most especially the authors of this article. How do you sleep at night knowing you have already killed one woman?

b.

Posted by: Boont | July 14, 2008 1:56 AM

hi Murphie, that's the problem, "not far" is technically correct, and has no relevance. Yes, I passed it on the way from Klingle Mansion to grove 18 when I re-enacted this alleged "walk in the park", and yes it's a historical point of interest, but geting a victim from Pierce Mill to grove 18 is ludicrous. You'd have to do a broad daylight kidnapping and drive up there.

So what's the point of "not far". It's just simply misleading so that reporters can suggest she might have wanted to visit historical sights and ended up a mile away on the side of a mountain.

Plus there's some considerable DC oriented assumptions here no one else in the country has, as in oh yeah, I want to see Pierce Mill. Please. This is simply dreaming up a reason for Chandra to be on the side of that mountain that is not someone she knew placing her there.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 14, 2008 2:05 AM

Thanks for bringing up Joyce Chiang. I remember her disappearance in the news at that time too. I hope the series does investigate the possible connections between Levy and Chiang, seems relevant.

Posted by: Me | July 14, 2008 2:51 AM

Having a daughter living in DC, I appreciate the Post revisiting this case. I have been concerned about my daughter's safety since I saw a cable tv program about a year ago that reviewed the murders of Chandra Levy, Joyce Chiang, and another woman, whose name I am sorry that I do not recall. The third woman was a science researcher who disappeared walking home from a going-away party for the students who had worked in her lab that year. Her husband had just finished graduate school in California and was going to join her in DC within a few days. She also lived off of Dupont Circle and frequented the Starbuck's there. The conclusion of the program was that the fact that all three women lived in the same area pointed to a serial killer as the culprit. Have the DC police ever explored a possible connection between these three murders?

Posted by: Worried Mom | July 14, 2008 5:49 AM

This feels like an episode of the Wire where the reporters chase a nonstory in search of a Pulitzer while the real news in the city goes unreported. I guess the corporate puppet masters wanted to break last year's record. You cannot justify this amount of resources on the death of one person, under the guise that you're looking at the investigation. A broader examination of the high number of unsolved murders in the city or region, or the recent rise in murders would have made more sense. I'm glad that the reporters had an opportunity to indulge their personal interests but you have done a disservice to the residents of this region.

Posted by: Tina | July 14, 2008 8:28 AM

Er, it is on target when we have a Post run by Neo-Cons and this "investigative" unit run by the Bush Family pal Woodward wasting enormous space and money and reporters' time to write about a minor unsolved murder case. Where are the 12-part investigative pieces on the fake stories of McCain? on the anthrax attack -- unsolved -- on our Congress? It is very on target to ask that our remaining journalists with half their integrity still intact be assigned to investigate serious stories that impact millions -- billions -- of people. We do not want to have to constantly turn to the European press -- which has been documenting McCain's disgusting private life and his lies about what he did in Vietnam -- yet again to get facts about our own great country!

Posted by: Joshua Gen for a New GOP | July 14, 2008 10:33 AM

Ummm...Who is Chandra Levy?

Actually, more importantly, who the heck cares about Chandra Levy? (besides his/her friends/family, of course)

Why would anyone care about some random dead person?

Oh, cuz its sensational and may sell a few extra papers and its a cheap and easy way to eat up column inches. Instead of actually reporting real news or doing a real investigative report.

Posted by: jerry | July 14, 2008 10:37 AM

I look to the Washington Post for current vital news coverage. Although an interesting read, making this story front page on Sunday was a tacky ploy to sell papers. Leave sensationalism and mystery to the "rags".

Posted by: Linda S. | July 14, 2008 10:57 AM

anyone know where the interactives of this story are located? The initial article says go to the post web page but I cannot find maps, interivews, etc. Is it b/c i have blocked pop-ups?

Posted by: DC gal | July 14, 2008 11:09 AM

Well, I gotta say that it sounds like Gary Condit is a real slime-ball, with his picture of Newt on his office wall... Whatta maroon, as Bugs might say, but then again that was a time when we elected a whole slate of American Taliban, including Dumbya and Cheney. It takes me back to the early days of this tough tough decade for America....not a pleasant experience...

Posted by: Gene in Dallas | July 14, 2008 12:01 PM

Many people who have posted comments here are callous and shameful. This girl was somebody's daughter, somebody's sister, somebody's friend. And for those of us other "young" women who live and work in DC, this terrified many of us for years. I, for one, am interested in the retrospective and also a better understanding of the incompetency of the DC police, who are supposed to protect us.

Those of you who claim the case has only garnered attention because of the name "Levy" should be ashamed of yourself. That smacks of blatant anti-semitism and is disgusting. Other cases involving women of different backgrounds have garnered much attention too -- remember Natalee Holloway? Lacy Peterson? Yvette Cade (the woman burned alive by her husband)?

Get over yourselves and remember that these are real people -- and all of them deserved a proper investigation and justice.

Posted by: Deb | July 14, 2008 12:24 PM


What about the incomplete investigations of others in DC, Joyce Chiang or the single Mom of 2 who disappeared on the C&O canal near her home in Bethesda, MD? She worked for the Post online. Why no mentions of these two ladies? The Mom was never found, if my memory is correct. They have no idea what happened to her, was a reliable person who would not take off. I feel for Chandra and her family, the case is disturbing, but what about all the other ladies who vanish and are killed/presumed dead? They have families too.

Posted by: Mom of 2 | July 14, 2008 12:24 PM

THANK GOODNESS the Post is concentrating on the years-old murder of lovely Chandra Levy -- rather than wasting newspaper space on Obama and McCain's positions on health care, how they would accomplish those things they've proposed, and whether people want those things accomplished.

Chandra Levy's murder makes so much more difference to our lives.

Presidents come and go. But Chandra Levy will always be in our hearts.

Posted by: MS | July 14, 2008 12:34 PM

I could have sworn I read somewhere that it was later determined that Joyce Chiang committed suicide but I can't find anything to back that up. Does anyone remember a similar missing person's case in DC that turned out that way from around that time?

Posted by: Laura | July 14, 2008 1:14 PM

Along with Joyce Chiang, don't forget that summer grad student at Georgetown (I'm sorry, but I can't remember her name) who left a party at around 10 and was found strangled in Glover Park.

Posted by: Karen | July 14, 2008 1:16 PM

Laura,

The police did say that Joyce Chiang committed suicide (problems at work), but no one in her family -- or who knows her -- believes that.

Posted by: Karen | July 14, 2008 1:17 PM

Allison Thresher was the name of the Bethesda jogger who disappeared. The Post has never done more than short stories inside the Metro section. Her case always haunted me as someone who frequently biked and ran on these trails in isolated spots. Especially since the Montgomery County police originally dismissed it as a suicide and then 6 months later had to release an oops.

And the Chang case was dismissed by DC cops as a suicide though for the life of me I don't understand why a single woman who lived in Dupont Circle would venture to Anacostia to commit suicide.

Why doesn't the Post look into these cases?

Posted by: lou | July 14, 2008 1:21 PM

Must concur...why waste the huge effort on this poor kid? This deserves a two day effort at the most. Sorry she died but Chandra is not that significant to deserve the effort the Post is putting into this. Condit was a cheat, if not Chandra then he would have hit up some other young lady. Like most in politics, he has an inflated ego that needs continual gratification. I think Chandra went there, met some someone who decided to rape/murder her in a deserted area. Unfortunate, but this series or her death will have no impact but to her own family.

Posted by: alcw | July 14, 2008 1:28 PM

Maybe the Post should look into the Chiang, Thresher, and other similar cases, as a sequel.

If you're unhappy with this series, then read the dozens of other articles in the Post about subjects that meet your approval.

Better yet, please pressure your congressmen and senators to do their jobs in Congress instead of rubberstamping Cheney/Bush.

That might not just offer stories for the Post to cover but also help deal with problems in this country.

As for this series, it's about abuse of power and investigational incompetence and stonewalling -- both things that impact your lives.

If you don't want to read about it in this form, a kind of metaphor, then read some other article.

Posted by: eeave | July 14, 2008 1:28 PM

I'm intrigued by this series that was undertaken to unravel the facts behind the murder of Chandra Levy.

I have a question I hope someone at the Post can answer for me. In the paper, there's a paragraph that directs me to washingtonpost.com "to take a virtual tour of the Chandra Levy crime scene, listen to excerpts of interviews..., examine documents from the case, see photos & view videos." It also directs me to click on an "interactive map of Rock Creek Park." I haven't been able to find any of the above on the washingtonpost.com website.

Please help & clarify how to access the above. Thanks in advance.

Posted by: Jennifer | July 14, 2008 1:30 PM

Barbara Olson wrote the book on Hillary Clinton, HELL TO PAY. Barbara was hot on the trail of bad boy Congressman Gary Condit (D-Calif.), who was under suspicion in the disappearance of his intern & love interest, Chandra Levy. Two months after Chandra vanished, Condit was interdicted while depositing a zippered Tag Heuer wristwatch container in an Old Town, Alexandria, VA, Safeway store dumpster. A fifteen-foot brick wall surrounds that trash receptacle. The Safeway at 500 S. Royal St. is also located about six miles one-way from Condit's then Washington, DC, address; but only three blocks from James Carville's residence. Barbara Olson was Los Angeles bound, aboard American Airlines Flight 77, as a guest on Bill Maher's popular TV show, Politically Incorrect. Flight 77 was hijacked and flown into the Pentagon. Date: September 11, 2001. Chandra Levy's remains were found May 22, 2002 in Rock Creek Park. Gary Condit kept his seat on the Intelligence Committee, but lost his subsequent bid for re-election.

Dead Drop: Prearranged hidden location for depositing and picking up messages and money in a clandestine manner, without the parties involved being present at the same time. According to Gary Condit, a female admirer gave him the Tag timepiece. Gary crossed the Potomac River from DC to Virginia to dispose of the leather case - but kept the watch. Summer 2008, James Carville and wife Mary Matalin move to New Orleans.

"The Clinton years might seem like a long national nightmare of scandal, sleaze, and ruthless acquisition of power. Hillary herself is the link from the excesses of the Watergate staff, to the Whitewater fiasco, to the abuses of executive power, to the defense of her husband's perjury and obstruction of justice. But now it is Hillary's turn. The Clinton era is far from over and Hillary's ambitions far from satisfied," wrote Barbara Olson. This is but a smattering of the political climate in which Chandra Levy lived. Ms. Levy's criminal justice background may also have predisposed her to trusting someone with a similar background. Hillary has typically had more than a few of these on her payroll, and the Dems could scarce afford to lose Condit's congressional seat. To borrow a phrase from Bill Clinton, "It ought to make the bells go off in your head:" http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by: Peggy McGilligan | July 14, 2008 2:44 PM

To Jennifer^^:

You can find the interactive material such as the video links right in the text of the stories online, such as here in Chapter 1: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/specials/chandra/ch1_1.html

And here's a direct link to the Rock Creek Park interactive map:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/specials/chandra/map.html

Thanks for reading the series.

Posted by: The Reporters | July 14, 2008 3:05 PM

I wouldn't call the Washington Post's, Chandra Levy series, swash buckling or awe inspiring journalism. At best, it's an attempt to take off where the DC Police Cold Case Unit should have done years ago. Let's put Chandra's ethnicity and social back aside, and concentrate on the matter at hand. A woman was murdered by someone; It makes no difference if she was a young or an old woman, a black or a white woman, a Jewish or a Muslim woman. Simply put, I honestly, think that she was going to meet Condit for an afternoon lover's walk, but her fate was sealed by a serial killer who preys on white women. It's an unfortunate outcome for Chandra's parents to have to lay to rest their daughter. If anything, this should shed some light on how piss poor the DC Police Department has handled this investigation from the start. In closing, I would have to agree that this story smacks dab center on tabloid reporting. I mean, you have a weathered and seasoned politician, the Washington power structure, and a young white woman who became intoxicated with Washington's political power structure. Ultimately, Chandra got played by this elder statesman. Hence instead of concentrating on the salaciousness of a steamy and lurid affair, the emphasis needs to be placed on the facts (not speculation) of finding the people who are responsible for this heinous crime. Who knows, the DC Police can then apply this method to all of it's other crimes that happen outside of "political Washington (beyond the Dupont Circle) and concentrating across the Anacostia River where a heavy population of African Americans reside. With much due respect, this series is not Pulitzer Prize worthy.

Posted by: Ben | July 14, 2008 3:13 PM

It's not about Chandra Levy, it is about the DC Police Departments failure to solve a murder case. Should be noteworthy to DC tax payers!

Posted by: Dan | July 14, 2008 3:34 PM

Chandra's case is interesting but why not report on something a little more current like the brutal, racially charged murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom in Tennessee?

Posted by: WarEagle | July 14, 2008 3:47 PM

Gee, give me a break. This case gets coverage out the ying yang and yet the case of the hate crime slaying of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom who were both robbed, raped, beaten, tortured and slain gets what from the WP. NADA. What a farce MSM media is when it comes to a racial crime against whites.

Posted by: Rory | July 14, 2008 4:32 PM

I have read the posts and like many on the message boards linked directly to the articles, I find it odd that this is here. I also find it odd the way the reports are romanticizing her relationship.

This was a waste of space and I really hate to play the race card, but I find it really hard to believe that if we were speaking of a Latino, Asian or Black woman that had an AFFAIR with someone then turned up missing then murdered this "Oh poor Chandra," mentality would not be in effect. The reporters need to call it what it was and stop acting like they had this wonderful May-December romance. She was a mistress and he is a Cad.

If a reporter is truly interested in finding justice and truth, why her? There are thousands of missing people and hundreds linked to well known people. Why her? What are the journalists REAL motivation?

Posted by: GLT79 | July 14, 2008 4:55 PM

Hey people, remember the adage, "If you don't have anything nice to say...?" :^)

As a longtime Dupont Circle resident and a young woman, I'm excited to see that the WaPo has taken up this story again. It was as obvious then as it is now that because of the sharp glare of sensationalist 24/7 cable news that this case was being bungled.

As frustrating as it is, I don't find total fault with the MPD or the FBI. They were under tremendous amounts of pressure, and the media circus didn't help them do their jobs.

The sad fact is that years later we're still trying to find the truth.

I hope her killer/s are found and brought to justice, and if the Post can help shed some light on the case, there's everything to gain. If nothing else, maybe this separation and new perspective will help heal and reveal.

Thank you for this interesting series. I look forward to reading more.


P.S. Movable Type sucks. I can't preview my comment. Waaah!

Posted by: lynn | July 14, 2008 4:59 PM

I think the WaPo is doing a great job with this story. When the story first came out I didn't pay it much attention. Now I am, thanks to the way its written and presented. I agree with lynn--I hope this serves to "heal and reveal." Thanks to the Washington Post for making this case matter.

For that matter, last week's two part series on the Appalachian trail murderer did the same thing.

Posted by: Holly | July 14, 2008 5:15 PM

This struck a responsive chord in readers who need to realize that news stories and cases like this are about people like you and me. We need to feel more empathy and the presentation of this 12 part series is helping us do just that.

Posted by: hrqn | July 14, 2008 5:18 PM

This story is being covered instead of the one from Tennessee because it is the WASHINGTON Post. Washington is an area with many transient residents. While many readers remember this incident and story, there are likely many readers who are not that familiar with it because they are younger or recent arrivals to the area. Lastly, what amazes me is not that Chandra Levy was eventually found in a remote area of Rock Creek Park (and by the way, there is nothing in Washington that somes close to passing for a "mountain" and not much that could be "desolate"), but that no other remains were found while looking for her.

Posted by: didnik | July 14, 2008 5:37 PM

I am hoping that the WaPo can run a sidebar during this series mentioning other women missing from the area.

Dawn Holt, missing from Waldorf since 1996
Tiffany Goines, missing from Frederick since 1987
Christine Jarrett, missing from Elkridge since 1991
Elda Vazquez, missing from Columbia since January
Zita Gutierrez, missing from Rockville since 1980
Felicia Aiemsakul, missing from Gaithersburg since 2002
April Jacobwitz, missing from Germantown since 2002
Cynthia Braga, missing from Wheaton since 2003
Kim Mileo, missing from Croom since 1983 (last article the Post wrote on this case was in 1984)
Leanne Faulk, missing from Hyattsville since 1985
Marilyn Chamberlain, missing from Landover since 1998
Winifred Matronia, missing from Laurel since 2002

Posted by: MarylandMissing | July 14, 2008 5:57 PM

I am looking forward to the entire series, and I appreciate the review of all the evidence.
Sometimes, I'm sure I missed some articles as the investigation proceeded.
This is a real murder mystery.
Thanks also to Ralph for the heads-up to the book and on-line blog of Ralph Daugherty, which I will read, as well, with interest.
This case has been cold for so long; I sincerely hope that your efforts can stir up some interest and possibly some new leads.
Also, after this is over, would you be willing to review the mystery of your employee who also disappeared some years ago in an allied article?
I'm certain the Levy family, while this must be painful for them, appreciate your efforts to give the case some renewed attention, in case there are some leads out there which have not come to light.
If she were my sister or daughter, I know I would certainly appreciate your hard work.
Thanks for this series.
I look forward to reading your articles each day.

Posted by: Judy-in-TX | July 14, 2008 6:33 PM

I always thought Condit's brother may have been involved. He was something of a loser as I remember it who had nothing else to lose. Romeo Condit could have set up the lure (although someone should apologize to Harrison Ford) and his brother the murderer.

Posted by: RTGreenwood | July 14, 2008 7:15 PM

Great work so far. I can't wait to read the next 10 stories.

Posted by: Kate | July 14, 2008 7:33 PM

Is anyone aware of missing persons or remains found in the Rock Creek Park area? Just wondering....

Posted by: danielthree | July 14, 2008 8:29 PM

I remember thinking this case was metaphor for the Bush administration, and I remember thinking things didn't look good. During bush's early months, they were unable to solve this case, yet it should have been fairly basic. Contrast that to the Clinton administration where things were solved relatively quickly before they flared up or festered. The Oklahoma bombing and first World Trade Center Tower bombing was resolved inside of a week. The terrorist in 2000, at the Canadian border. The nabbing of the Unibomber. Something was not coming down from the top, some basic competency.

Posted by: eeave | July 14, 2008 8:57 PM

My theory: it was a taxi driver that killed both Chandara Levy and Joyce Chiang. I was unaware of a 3rd victim until mentioned by a poster upstream. But I would add her because she was walking around Dupont at night.

In the Chaing case she was on a sidewalk in Dupont circle with many people around.

There is nothing unusual about hailing a taxi; but if the driver is also a serial killer, the victims can be removed to a remote place without notice by anyone.

Cabs can have door and window locking systems under the control of the driver, so the victims could not open the window and shout out.

It is possible that the victims were kidnapped and killed someplace other than where they were found. The reason I say that is that Chandra went missing during midday sometime so it would seem risky to murder someone in daylight in the open.

My guess is:

that it is a white male because the victims are white ( assuming the science teacher is white). It is not all that common for a cross racial murder like these.

That He could own his own gypsy cab so he could modify it.

What seems Unusual is his use of different nature settings, the park the river.

Another poster mentioned the jogger in Bethesda but I would not put that in this group, first off, because her disappearance was a snatching.

Although I can understand the poster's
comparison of the jogging trail with the rock creek park setting.

I would concentrate on the taxi driver theory and if there are other victims contemporaneous with this timeline or similar in victim I would add them too.

I dunno it seemed clear to me that the victims were transported from where they were to their death so they were in a car.

Posted by: JohnAdams1 | July 14, 2008 8:58 PM

I hope this series actually sheds light on what happened -- and therefore allude to what can happen in cases like this, or not happen -- rather than be just a walk down memory lane.

Posted by: eeave | July 14, 2008 9:00 PM

There is some fine reporting and writing in this series. Thank you for that. But for me, it begs a larger question: If we in the media had spent the considerable time and energy that was invested in the Chandra Levy case in 2001 on Osama bin Laden instead, mightn't the world have been better off?

Posted by: Fred Knapp | July 14, 2008 9:04 PM

Could these outstanding reporters please brief us on the actual statements made to the press by the then Chief Ramsey of MPD regarding the discovery of the body and then "later" discovering more body parts (bones) at a later date, and his absurd comment that perhaps an animal had returned the other bones that hey had missed on the first discovery/search. This was a man (of great authority) responsible for the search of the body. No wonder it took them over a year to find the poor soul, . . . .

Posted by: William Jennings | July 14, 2008 10:05 PM

I lived in Chandra's neighborhood at the time and remember becoming almost obsessed with the idea that someone there could just disappear without a trace. Throw in the fact that a Congressman was involved and the mystery around his relationship with Chandra and other women continued to unfold and amaze. Many of us were convinced he did something to her and was covering up. After all, what were the odds that a man of such position could mistakenly be tied to this tragic occurrence?

Sadly, it captured people's imagination and became grist for the media---especially 24 hour cable "news" outlets. I was struck at the time about how Mr. and Mrs. Levy did everything they could to keep this case in front of the media. They seemed to turn up everywhere. Who could blame them? But could everyone command the coverage they received?

Was Chandra's story good for ratings or was the media attention good for the investigation? What about all of the missing kids who were poor, black invisible or without media savvy parents? The fact that they received little or no attention was almost as a repulsive as the presumed crime (later confirmed) that befell Chandra.

Sadly It took the tragic events of September 11 to rip this story from the headlines and the story nver really returned. Was it that America was so pre-occupied with the aftermath of 911? Perhaps. Or maybe we had a new story to fill our imagination.

Along with reflecting on this young girl's tragic end, we should also examine the basis for why the media exhausts certain tragic events and ignores others.

Nice job on this series and thanks for reminding us!


Peter Knockstead
Washington DC

Posted by: Peter knockstead | July 14, 2008 10:29 PM

Were there any other calls from Cong. Condit to either Chandra or her family after his May 3 calls? he never heard back from her. One assumes he knew when she was planning to return home. So what other efforts did he make to locate her, assuming he cared for her at all. Or was he just covering for himself on May 3 and dropped the pretense after that?

Posted by: siren | July 14, 2008 10:59 PM

The "D.C. Intern Killer" theory was promoted by John Walsh, of "America's Most Wanted". It was patently ludicrous, as I myself pointed out to Paula Zahn, seven years ago this very day, in an e-mail responding to Mr. Walsh's appearance on Ms. Zahn's then-current show on the Fox News Channel. Anyone who believes that Chandra Levy, et al., were killed by a serial killer who targeted former government interns is hereby invited to request a copy of my own logical deconstruction of John Walsh's made-for-tv theory: DKH@NewYork.com.

D.K.H., M.S., M.B.A., J.D.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 14, 2008 11:20 PM

Peter Knockstead's comment that 9/11 overtook this story is actually grist for what I was hoping would come out of this series -- which, by the way, so far has not given me much more than a reminiscence. I was mesmerized by the coverage as it unfolded live (and by a forerunner of what we now call a blog that developed at the time), and receive much of the series so far as a rehash with few new details.

Can't wait for the part about the minister in Modesto who wasted the FBI's time with a tale about his daughter being afraid of "Scary Gary" and going into hiding. He later admitted he made the whole thing up to -- putting words in his mouth here -- make Mrs. Levy feel better, and, I would guess, to feed the attention the case would get the more that Condit could be "connected" to it.

But the subtext of that whole story of Chandra Levy (may she rest in peace) is what we might have known about 9/11 before it happened: how Condit was on the powerful House Select Committee on Intelligence that would have gotten the briefing of the Gary Hart commission on the knowledge that attacks with airliners were known to be in the planning stages, based on intercepted communications; how Condit's relationship with the flight attendant who "got scared" and went into hiding after hearing about Chandra going missing led her to actually be gone from her job about 6 months, just in time to NOT be on a transcontinental flight (for United Airlines) that might have been hijacked for a terror attack; how Condit supposedly counseled Chandra to take a train, stay away from flying, when she returned to California; how Condit himself, when he returned to Washington from a trip home to his district over the Labor Day break in 2001, eluded Washington Post reporters looking for him at airports on either end of the journey because HE (it was reported) got a lift in an 18-wheeler with a long-haul trucker -- meaning he was not in an airplane, either, in the run-up to 9/11. Just makes you wonder what all was going on during those months, during those conversations between Condit and Chandra Levy.

It was a strange summer in Washington, with that whole missing intern story swirling. And 9/11 dawned as gorgeous a day as you will ever see in late summer in the District of Columbia...

Posted by: Anonymous | July 14, 2008 11:28 PM

I am a resident of Williamsburg Lane in Rock Creek Park (Klingle Mansion neighborhood) and remember that a friend and I had called the police in June of that year to get rid of a car that had been abandoned in front of our house for some time. The red car, which had plates from a southern state (i think it was kentucky), had mapquest directions to Klingle Mansion on the passenger seat and dried flowers on the floor in the back. We thought it was weird that anyone even knew about the old place up the street and wondered why someone would have directions to the place. We called it in because the car had been there for a long time and was clearly just left there. The next day the car was gone.

Posted by: Nick | July 15, 2008 1:26 AM


The additional info on the archived washingtonpost.com Entertainment Guide Rock Creek Park page is very helpful. Unfortunately the map & directions link wasn't archived along with it and doesn't work, but it probably was the Rock Creek Park map with major trails, points of interest, etc.

This is an insightful development from the Washington Post investigation. I hope the reporters will have a chance to also address the vicinity.com and MapQuest references and where that came in the use of the computer that morning.

I don't know why the police referred to a MapQuest map of Rock Creek Park if it was the park's own map that Chandra looked at, or whether she looked at both and they didn't know about this. Seems it would have come from another site like the Rock Creek Park site which wasn't in the list released by police, unless washingtonpost.com was archiving it for that link.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 15, 2008 4:13 AM

A serial adultress is murdered and her family presses to keep her immoral life style in the media??

I don't understand the family's or the media's obsession with this one young woman, when so many other you woman never get a fraction of this media attention.

I'm feel for their loss. But I also feel more for the loss other families have experienced, yet don't any attention at all.

Posted by: whatever | July 15, 2008 9:20 AM

If Ms. Levy loved the out of doors so much, and she had been living in DC for more than a year, wouldn't she already have had some basic knowledge of Rock Creek Park and its trails -- if she truly went there just to talk a walk?

Posted by: pb | July 15, 2008 11:02 AM

So...what's the point? Is the Post actually attempting to hold the District's law enforcement feet to the fire, and hold this case up as a glaring (if tawdry) morality tale of shoddy investigative work with an eye toward some constructive change? Or is this just another cynical attempt to up the reader stats?

Posted by: Benjamin Haag | July 15, 2008 11:25 AM

So...what's the point? Is the Post actually attempting to hold the District's law enforcement feet to the fire, and hold this case up as a glaring (if tawdry) morality tale of shoddy investigative work with an eye toward some constructive change? Or is this just another cynical attempt to up the reader stats?

Posted by: Benjamin Haag | July 15, 2008 11:25 AM

"A serial adultress is murdered and her family presses to keep her immoral life style in the media??"

1) If this refers to Chandra Levy, she was not married, and not an "adulteress."

2) This may escape the small minds of the simplistically judgemental, but I'm pretty sure that Ms. Levy's family wants her story in the media because their twenty-four-year-old daughter's bones were found by a dog, in a public park, under a pile of leaves, and neither they nor an entire urban police department know why.

Posted by: Benjamin Haag | July 15, 2008 11:30 AM

Why are so many people commenting here trying to make this about race or ethnicity or religion? Ridiculous. Stop agenda-pushing. This is about accountability and not letting a murderer off scot free - and that standard should apply to all cases, regardless of the victims' varying demographic characteristics. Every victim deserves justice, and every criminal should have to accept responsibility for their misdeeds.

Posted by: Nicole | July 15, 2008 12:10 PM

Ben - I agree with "Ben"'s post about the usefulness of this type of analysis in any type of investigation. I have no idea how police put together narratives, but this kind of puzzle solving makes something awfully messy (and, awfully tragic. Let's face it, murder is awful, if it involves an intern, wife, husband, congressman or serial killer, it's all bad) look as if it can actually be solved.

So if Levy's can be put together, than the other cases can be, also. I think the cold case squads can be amazing resources that can really solve the cases. So if it can be done for the Levy family, I think it would be great to do it for other families also, black, white, asian, woman, man - if it's effective, it's the way to go).

Posted by: Andrew Miller | July 15, 2008 12:58 PM

Ralph - would suspect the "Mapquest" map was integrated into the map C Levy was looking at. For example, nowadays a lot of libraries use "google" as their own search engine to locate library materials (on a library web site, it would say search powered by google, or something like that). It's conceivable that the Rock Creek Park web site was powered by Mapquest in 2001. They also might have looked at the Map and assumed it looked so similar to a Mapquest map that they referred to any electronic map as "Mapquest".

Posted by: Andrew Miller | July 15, 2008 1:07 PM

The first article says an officer in Levy's apartment "accidentally corrupted the search history on the computer" - but that's not possible. You can delete the web history completely, but doing it by accident is impossible.

Are the police feeding bogus lines to the reporters, or can someone explain this? Otherwise it sounds like an officer deliberately deleted the web history, which makes no sense because there would be no clear motivation at that early stage for an officer to do it.

Posted by: Matt | July 15, 2008 2:09 PM

Did anyone look at Dayton's(Condit's aide) cell phone records and his bank statements? What might he know? Were there sign in sheets for VP Cheney and Condit's meeting, which Condit requested, such as secret service logs?

Posted by: siren | July 15, 2008 2:26 PM

One important issue that this series could bring to light is this: is the park (still) a dangerous place for a woman to go walking or jogging alone, even in the middle of the day? Do the police in that jurisdiction lack adequate training and resources to do their jobs, and how can that be corrected, so that the park can be safely enjoyed?

Posted by: Michele | July 15, 2008 2:40 PM

Matt, you're right. They should be more clear about what "corrupting" the history files means. It may not refer to deleting the history files and cookies, but rather, the police may have been pursuing their own searches on Levy's computer, thus adding search files that were not Levy's.

I agree that someone, a sharp-detective type, should go over all the files and details, to really try resolving it, and yes, if they could, it would help other victims.

Posted by: eeave | July 15, 2008 2:46 PM

Hi Sari, you will figure out who this is and you know my reputation as a homicide expert. Yes, all deaths should be investigated as a homicide until your investigation proves otherwise. That said, how does the medical examiner, Dr. Jonathan Arden, prove that this is in fact a murder? Did he not remove the head from the location of where Ms. Levy was found before the rest of her remains could be recovered in his haste to get involved? I personally believe that it may be a suicide. If you have not done so, the full post mortem examination including the manner in which the body was recovered should be a part of your review for this series. Remember the public statement that Chief Ramsey made while directing the recovery of the remains at the scene promising the Levy family that the case would be closed and then to have one of her bones found in close proximity by former homicide detectives McCann and Stanton?

Posted by: Murder? Are you sure? | July 15, 2008 2:47 PM

Who reported her to the Bureau of Prisons that she was not eligible for the internship? I read that she had actually completed her coursework in December of 2000.

Posted by: GiGi | July 15, 2008 2:47 PM

The reporters didn't quite put this together, but if Ramsay told police cadets three months after Levy disappeared to check within 100 yards of all trails, why did they miss Levy, who was 70 yards away from the Horse Trail?

They missed her ...

Posted by: eeave | July 15, 2008 2:48 PM

Michele, I agree. Another lesson from this story is maybe beefing up security in Rock Creek Park. Do they have adequate emergency phones? Can they run police through their on bikes, horses, and golf-carts, to make sure that trails are safe for men and women to walk on?

I can't tell if this region of the park is remote. In many stories, they claim it's remote. In others, they point out this area is full of major trails. Nearby were destination points, like the nature center and planetarium, which'd draw me, for sure. It sounds like an interesting area. But why was it unpoliced? Somewhere else noticed that it was a holiday, Memorial Day. Still, what made this area "remote" and left unpatrolled?

Posted by: eeave | July 15, 2008 2:57 PM

RE: Carla & PUMA Alert!
Carla- newsflash-
Everything is not 'All About Hillary' It's easy to assume that, being her follower, but it's not.
This is a great series. I remember following it and then noticing the story disappeared after 9-11.
Chandra deserves this attention. It's her story, not Hillary's.

Posted by: Marie McD | July 15, 2008 3:04 PM

i wish you would spend more time talking about the ridiculous amount of resources that the MPD spent in looking for her.

doesn't race and class have something to do with this? would the washington post be running such a glorified tale of a poor black woman from dc vanishing? would the MPD spend the same amount of resources looking for that poor black girl. any statistics on the number of unsolved homicides and rapes that took place in DC during that time that nobody bothers with>

doubt it.

Posted by: Fahd | July 15, 2008 4:10 PM

adulter is defined as voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse. So Chandra was definitely an adulteress, since she participated in adultery. She was an adult and she was shagging a married man knowingly.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 15, 2008 4:10 PM

Michelle and Eeave, the park is a nice natural area in the middle of the city; the fact that it's remote and there are no emergency phones on the trails, or police on bikes around everywhere is part of the attraction. The park doesn't get as much use or as much violent crime to make it worth spending time and money in more police... my humble opinion. I run there by my self often - I feel less safe crossing the streets of downtown DC than running in the park; the chances of being killed by a car or of being attacked by gang members in SW DC are probably much higher than of anything happening in Rock Creek...

Posted by: Lucy | July 15, 2008 4:24 PM

My belief is that someone else utilized Chandra's laptop knowing that the police would take the laptop for evidence, and knowing this planted that website as a throw off and so the police can focus on that website as the person or persons have time to do away with Chandra's body to then later take her remains to horse trail. I also believe that Condit had someone (professionally) to do his dirty work, and I believe this because either Chandra knew too much of something or of someone, she was pregnant, or either both. The person or persons that killed Chandra Levy set up the going to Rock Creek Park because they knew it was a big place and the police would have to figure out what purpose did she go to Rock Creek for, and then making it puzzling for the police as to why would she go to the park without her cellphone, ID, or another friend. And it was also puzzling because very few people had any contact with her the day before she went missing. And I also find it strange that she would confide in a person in the gym to tell he/she about her boyfriend. I believe that this was a professional hit/job, and that someone knows something, but to afraid to speak out.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 15, 2008 4:34 PM

WarEagle, Rory ... Your comments make no sense. This is the Washington Post, not the Tennessee Post.

Posted by: gonatsgo | July 15, 2008 4:37 PM

Matt, you don't know who Condit knows personally as a friend. So your comment referring to why would a police delete the history files from Chandra's computer. As stated, you don't know who's a close friend of Condit, and money controls people also. And people will do anything for money. Question, should the police when he entered into her apartment search her computer, or should that been a job for a specialist?

And in my opinion..Ramsy didn't act on this investigation the way he should have from day one. I remember him coming on air (TV) stating that this is not about Condit and Chandra having sex, but about her disappearance and it clearly states that she spent her spare time with him. Condit should have been questioned from day one and Condit should NOT have been allowed to take his own personal lie detector test.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 15, 2008 4:50 PM

Posted by: Murphie | July 13, 2008 5:47 PM
Murphie-
Your comment as to why wouldn't the horses smelled the body there in Rock Creek. The reason why a horse didn't is because her body wasn't in that park at that time. I believe that her remains was brought back to that area as a part of the set up, so the public would look at the police for not doing their job, and thus still keeping the focus off the real killer..and thus keeping the focus on "why didn't the police see her body there" the killer or killers are professinal, and Condit knows who they are.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 15, 2008 5:05 PM

Bekyndhearted,

Then why aren't the rest of Condit's girlfriends dead?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 15, 2008 5:13 PM

Eeave,

I'd guess that the portion of the Ridge Trail where the remains were found is about half a mile from the nature center, and maybe only a quarter mile from the park maintenance yard.

Still, that statement gives you no feeling for the isolated nature of this portion of the trail. It is deep woods, and runs along the west side of a hill perhaps 100 feet below the horse trail and nearby Glover Rd. The trail itself is severely eroded coming in from the north, looking more like a gully than a footpath, this might also discourage visitors.

As I noted above, I walk my dog several times a week along the forest trails in Rock Creek Park between the DC line and Pierce Mill; many other people use these trails routinely. Other portions of the trail network are more remote in the sense of being further from roads, but I see plenty of people: hikers, trailrunners (probably a newish phenomenon since 2001) and dog walkers.

It might be random chance, but this little loop of trail where the body was found is one of the two sections of trail in the park where I have never encountered another person.

Maybe people should go out and take a look to really understand the scene. Maybe I will see you there!

Posted by: Murphie | July 15, 2008 5:18 PM

murphie and ralph: i have to disagree. I go trail running through that area all time -- also on that loop as best as you describe it -- and I've seen other trail runner (and single women) there.

I agree it is highly unlikely that someone like Levy would stumble into that area on an afternoon walk.

There are also camps of homeless men in the park that I've run into as well.

It is possible that I'm wrong about the loop, but based on your description I have gone through there. perhaps a link to google maps -- with exact coordinates?

Posted by: charlie | July 15, 2008 6:24 PM

Handsome men, imbued with power, are magnets to young, impressionable women.
What an aphrodisiac it is to be "courted" by an older, "wiser" man. I think Condit is implicated, & will be found out eventually.
---Interestingly, this Washington Post series reminds me of another unsolved D.C.
mystery death. It is the death of Vincent Foster; was it suicide -- or just made to look like a suicide? There was a hint that
Hillary Clinton may have been involved somehow.

Posted by: Jean Eleanor | July 15, 2008 8:29 PM

charlie, it is a path the juts into the woods at picnic table 18, goes around the hill toward Grant Road and parallel to Broad Branch Road below, then circles around back to Ridge Road and meets up with the horse trail going along Ridge Road again, a little down the road from the stables.

It is intensely dark and quiet in there, like entering a jungle with the canopy but without the chattering birds. You're still on the edge of all that in the trees coming up the horse trail from the equestrian field, but turning off on an even narrower and eroded path would only be done by someone who was wanting that kind of experience.

As murphie said, I was there most of a Friday and I wrote in chapter Horse Trail in my book Murder on a Horse Trail (posted on my site to read, just google it) that I only saw two separate couples come through with their dog that entire time.

It is inconceivable to me that a woman would walk back in there, the only purpose being to go cross country. That's assuming they even know where it goes. I can't imagine too many people do.

There are no vagrants in that section, you can barely stand up without starting to slide downhill. Sure there are going to be some people that wander back in there a little from the picnic area to get out of sight of the road to drink some beer or something, but they would be parked there and picnicing.

People just have to walk this themselves to see how steep and remote it is, and how ridiculous it is to suggest that Chandra hiked forever to be out in the middle of nowhere, or that a stalker would think there would ever be someone to stalk. That being after he caught his breath getting up here sticking out like a sore thumb to the occasional horse riders along Ridge Road.

I'm not even sure a video documentary re-enacting the hike from Klingle Mansion (not to mention how hard it is to get to Klingle Mansion by foot) to this remote spot on top of a desolate (yes, desolate) steep hill, the highest point in DC, and back into the forest could capture where Chandra was found, down the side of that hill a couple of hundred feet through a thickly forested side of this monster hill.

On the other hand, drive there and see what a perfect spot it is to hide a body for one of those few people that know the terrain back in there. There is a person of interest in this case that knows the park very well, he rode it all the time and lived "not far" away, as they say.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 15, 2008 8:38 PM

Since dawn of time - stupid women and crotch grabbing self impressed men have found each other. Monica n Bill - Chandra & Gary. And most avoid justice. Even dear slippery OJ Simpson. Knock yerself out - a big Duh if it isn't obvious.

Posted by: Yawn ! | July 15, 2008 8:50 PM


"Then why aren't the rest of Condit's girlfriends dead?"

They weren't asking about an affair with an 18 year old black girl back in Modesto a few years earlier. Chandra did, at her mother's insistence. Records of daily phone calls immediately ceased, Chandra was told to clear out her desk at work the next week, and she disappeared a few days later.

Not to mention also vowing to confront Condit about leaving his "terminally ill" wife as he had promised. Carolyn in fact did fly in, for the first time in anyone's memory, and Chandra disappeared while she was there.

However, Anne Marie Smith was also in town and had asked to see Condit, who told her it was not a good time; Condit's brother Darrell is said to have not shown up at his day labor job in Florida for a couple of weeks during that time; Sven had just arrived back from an overseas trip that day, with a message from Chandra asking to talk to him; a close confidant, chief of staff Mike Dayton, drove Condit home the day Chandra disappeared, the only time he was alleged by Condit to have driven Condit home in all the time surrounding her disappearance; Chandra had asked Condit about an affair with a young woman who happened to have a child with "Name Withheld" on the birth certificate for father during the time of the alleged affair, and who is someone may not have wanted that secret jeapordized, so this is like one of those murder mysteries where everyone shows up and the lights go out.

But iIn this parlor called DC, the lights stayed out for Chandra.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 15, 2008 9:05 PM

fahd wrote: "i wish you would spend more time talking about the ridiculous amount of resources that the MPD spent in looking for her."

The DC police spent very little time working this case. They probably spent more time answering reporter's questions than anything else.

From the beginning they got heat from people like you, public heat, and yes, they did the minimal evidence gathering from her apartment and where her body was found as they do for any case, but as far as say looking for her they had cadets out doing that a couple of times. They questioned Condit three times in three months, then turned the case over to the FBI.

You have absolutely nothing to complain about as far as overreaching on the DC police's part in investigating this murder.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 15, 2008 9:19 PM

eave wrote: "The reporters didn't quite put this together, but if Ramsay told police cadets three months after Levy disappeared to check within 100 yards of all trails, why did they miss Levy, who was 70 yards away from the Horse Trail?"

eave, the reporters specifically wrote that there was a miscommunication of some kind because the police only searched 100 yards from roads, not trails. Maybe it was in part 1 they write that.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 15, 2008 9:25 PM

siren wrote: "Were there sign in sheets for VP Cheney and Condit's meeting, which Condit requested, such as secret service logs?"

Cheney's office said that there was only one participant meeting with Cheney and his aides, that being Condit. Dayton drove him to the meeting, in Cheney's office in the House, was introduced, and then went on. Condit was free in 20 minutes, at 12:50, 10 minutes before Chandra logged off her computer at 1.

I examine all these issues closely in chapter Alibi in Murder on a Horse Trail. There is next to nothing that makes sense or is believable in what Condit and Dayton revealed about that day that Chandra disappeared.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 15, 2008 9:33 PM

Charlie,

Not sure if this system will allow me to include a link, but here is a gmaps pedometer where I have highlighted the trail above where the body was found.

www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=2082775

This is based on a 1984 topo - the most recent, but it does not give a good indication of where the neighboring horse trail runs. You can go to this pdf,
zoom in on the area near Picnic Grove 17 and you will see the loop directly to the right of the words "Western Ridge Trail".

www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/national_parks/rock_creek_park97.pdf

Posted by: Murphie | July 15, 2008 10:18 PM

As an initial matter, as a life-long male DC resident (who has many female friends, as well as relatives, living in the city), I consider this story a valuable piece.

Admittedly, it does have a tabloid overtone to it, but it also could (as the serial chapters progress) shed some light on a serious issue - violence against women inside Washington DC

For those readers who remember 1998 through 2000, in the period immediately preceding the Levy disappearance and murder, the Joyce Chiang story - which had logistical similarities - captivated the local news. Although Chiang's disappearance was investigated by the FBI due to her federal employment status, the conclusions in that case have yet to satisfy most residents.

I was working for the feds at the time and every young attorney of any ethnic background was scared by Ms. Chiang's disappearance. It was where she disappeared that confused people - the Starbucks at Conn and R is not an isolated area or one in which an attorney who attended law school in the town (she went to Georgetown and worked on Capitol Hill) would "get lost" or not know her way around, or would not be able to figure out whether to enter a vehicle.

Levy's disappearance only a few blocks to the southeast only heightened the concern among women at the time.

Some stories regarding Chiang connected her disappearance with work at INS - and whether it connected with stories of human trafficking/ female sex slave trading that was being reported on the East Coast in cities such as New York and Baltimore.

What was also disturbing at the time was that, in the period between the Chiang disapperance and Levy's vanishing, there were stories and reports coming out of the Southeast, primarily African-American, quadrant of the city regarding the disappearances of young African-American women - and these were being written off as drug killings.

This was not a widely reported story, but local residents will remember. For many community members, that "write-off" re: drugs never sounded right - most drug killings are b/w drug dealers - young men - on street corners , not women out on the town club-hopping (as many of the women who police discovered were dressed for a night of dancing or partying).

The point is - that time in DC was a scary period for many a woman, or people who cared about women's safety, in the city.

The city was just starting to recover from years of neglect, the economy was good, and young people were moving back into the city from the suburbs.

The fact that these murders have yet to be solved concerns me and it should concern readers. Who knows who committed these murders?

But, the Post staff should write a follow-up story on whether police tactics have changed to conduct better investigations of all crime victims, regardless of the relationships they may maintain.

Posted by: LngTimeDC Resident | July 15, 2008 11:22 PM

Ugh...i read rd bk...clears all of my suspicions up! Paying close attention to language is key. Here I was disputing case with my mom and turns out she's way more right than I am.

Don't want to ruin it for everyone but this series is going to be a real stunner.

Posted by: Andrew Miller | July 15, 2008 11:22 PM

LngTimeDCresident is right on regarding whether tactics shift following demographic shifts/shifts in behaviors. Am reading a book about how stereotypes get in the way of accurate diagnoses and I think it may apply to everything...if I have a bias against people who wear blue ties, there's a great chance my bias is going to block me from serving the blue tie people well. Same goes for the bias against women that lngtime mentioned.

good stuff.

btw does having femme police chief in dc, has that made a difference as of the period she's been in command? is she better than ramsey, or are the forces she deals with way beyond the capacities of the dc police force? i am so amazed by the work of nypd and seems lapd is following in those footsteps. here's hoping dc can too.

Posted by: Andrew Miller | July 15, 2008 11:28 PM

to everyone asking about why this case and not others--have you noticed that it involves a member of Congress? not to mention some inexplicable omissions by the DC (LOCAL) police.

lots of things don't add up: Condit's evasiveness on more than just his infidelity, the timeline, the body that wasn't found for a year but was magically found by a dog making a beeline for it--what, were all the other dogs olfactorily impaired?

i am glad this case is finally being looked into again. right after Condit's slander suit was dismissed--coincidence?

Posted by: green | July 15, 2008 11:30 PM

In regards to the comments referencing "why didn't Condit kill any of his other girlfriends"

The rest of Condit's girlfriends aren't dead because they are not Chandra Levy. As I stated in one of my comments earlier. I believe that she knew of some information that she wasn't suppose to know and she may wanted to tell it, and/or she became pregnant by him and she didn't want to get rid of the baby but he did. Now the that is what would seperate her from the other girlfriends. If you read the article, I can't remember if it's the first, second, or third chapter when the flight attendent stated that Condit told her that they could continue to see each other if she didn't tell anyone. Everybody is different. One girlfriend might go along with his controling ways and another may not.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 16, 2008 12:05 AM


Andrew, the problem with MapQuest is that it only showed a green blob for Rock Creek Park. Literally.

It showed no details of Rock Creek Park whatsoever. Klingle Mansion and even the road to it are not shown, no indication of where any trails are, no points of interest shown. And the only way it was/is obtained is mapping the address of Klingle Mansion (park headquarters), the same address displayed at the top of the Entertainment Guide page on Rock Creek Park.

Yes, the Entertainment Guide page listed some points of interest and said there was 11 miles of horse trails, but there is nothing a person could do with the MapQuest map in finding where they were.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 16, 2008 4:44 AM

Hi,

I just wanted to say nice job. The story is very compelling and the video of the Levy's is real and poignant. Thanks for doing this.

Kate

Posted by: Kate | July 16, 2008 7:25 AM

I see that Condit opened a Baskin Robbins franchise in Arizona with his wife after he left Washington. One of the last web sites Chandra looked at before she went to Rock Creek Park was the Baskin Robbins site. Coincedence? It seems to me that Condit was discussing his post-DC plans with Chandra - obviously she thought this was a life-long relationship for her. If she was this serious, but he was not, how could he not have a connection to her murder?

Posted by: Sillybrit | July 16, 2008 7:45 AM

Loving this series of articles. I was an intern the same time as Chandra, strangely on capitol hill in a CMs office. The day I went home from DC was the day she went missing. It really makes you think.... All the same my compliments to the people at the post for this engaging series.

Posted by: BA | July 16, 2008 9:53 AM

My mother knows a guy who is kinda a "rent an FBI agent" who is retired in another state. This FBI guy seemed to think during the investigation that she wasn't in the park the entire time. He thought she was kept in a freezer or something to remain preserved and then dumped in the park when it was "time." Has that theory ever been looked into?

Posted by: kerry | July 16, 2008 10:37 AM

I think the focus should be intensified on the former Congressman. The man is STILL denying the fact that he had an affair with Chandra Levy -- not to mention the other women who claim to have had affairs with him as well. If he's still lying about his affair with Chandra after all these years, what else is he continuing to lie about? I'll always believe he had something to do with her disappearance ...

Posted by: tootsumi523 | July 16, 2008 10:55 AM

Where are the psychics in all this? Call me crazy (don't answer that) but if my daughter, sister, friend went missing, I'd be knocking on the psychic network doors so fast your head would spin.

Posted by: cork | July 16, 2008 11:25 AM

Does anyone other than voyeurs and local residents care about this? Does this affect or shape the national scene in ANY way? Isn't his just trivial garbage?

Have they ever done this for a woman of color? Just asking, but this is typical MSM - obsessed with missing white women. Like anyone really cares? Like this is NATIONAL news? No, this should be in the local section, not the page cover of the Web site . Idiots and sycophants - my god can we get a real press in this country not some print version of Faux News?

Posted by: Jon Chinn | July 16, 2008 11:42 AM

To anyone who knows forensics: Can scientists tell whether a person died at the same place her remains were found? If bones were moved, can you tell whether they were moved by a person or by animals? Can you tell by bones whether the dead woman was pregnant? Do most dogs recognize and/or alert to human remains, or is it only trained cadaver dogs that do this?

Posted by: amoarta | July 16, 2008 11:59 AM

we all know where this is going to lead.

Posted by: ubidubi | July 16, 2008 12:24 PM

For those complaining about this series as being a waste of time, at the very least there is a glaring light shown on incompetent DC police work. If nothing else the DC police will feel the pain. When reading this and the book written about the murder, I find it repulsive that Condit got away with as much as he did. His alibi, a window of opportunity about 5 hours wide and his three question polygraph that he arranged himself in lieu of a detailed and much tougher police polygraph. There were so many missed opportunities to gain more information and get closer to catching the killer. One thing I was not surprised by was the obfuscation and interference by a powerful politician able to avoid and intimidate the DC police to the extent he probably got away with murder.

Posted by: siren | July 16, 2008 12:26 PM

On September 27, 2004 in Condit vs. Dunne, Condit testified under oath as follows:

Q: You answered that it was not a, quote, romantic relationship.When you answered that question, what was your understanding of the phrase, romantic relationship?

A: It wasn't a romantic relationship.

Q: Well, what do you understand the words, romantic relationship, to mean?

A: One of unusual affection, where you pay attention to people, so on and so forth.

Q:When you pay attention to people, what do you mean by that?

A: I don't know. I think romantic is a very dnondescriptive term. Some people think some things are romantic, some people think they're not romantic. But I saw no romance in our friendship.

Q: You saw no romance?

A: No.

Q: Was there any physical intimacy of any kind in your relationship?

Mr Wood [Condit's lawyer] : I instruct Mr. Condit not to answer the question....

Q: Did the relationship, would you describe the relationship at any time during this period as being emotionally intense for either you or Ms. Levy?

A: No , not at all.

Q:Did she ever indicate to you that she had feelings of affection for you?

A; No.

Q: Did she ever indicate to you that she wanted to live with you?

A: No.

Q: Did you ever discuss having a realtionship that was more than friends at some future date?

A: No.

Q: Did you and Chandra Levy ever discuss your marriage?

A: No.

Q: Did you ever discuss your wife with Ms Levy?

A: No.

Q:Ever discuss the possibility of having children with Ms Levy?

A: No.

Q:Did Chandra Levy ever tell you that she wanted to get married?

A: No.

Q; To anyone, not just you?

A: No....

Q: Did Ms Levy ever spend the night in your apartment?

[he is instructed by his counsel not to answer.]

Q: Did you typically speak with Ms Levy throughout the period that you knew her on the telephone every week?

A: Probably while she was there we spoke at least once a week, yes.

Q:Sometimes more that once a week?

A: Maybe. I mean, I didn't count.

Q: Did she visit you at your apartment?

A: She came by my apartment, yes.

Q: How many times did she visit you in your apartment?

A: I don't rcall more than once.

Q: Do you recall that she did visit your apartment sometime around May 24th, just before -- I'm sorry, April 24th, a few days prior before she went --

A:Yes.

Q: Other than that visit, did Ms Levy visit your apartment?

A: I don't recall her visiting any other time. She might have come by and I wasn't there.

Q: No, while you were there, do you recall her being in your apartment?

A: No. No.

Posted by: dogen | July 16, 2008 12:47 PM

interesting how Condit made every attempt to avoid the grand jury subpoena with the help of his attorney. Its said he took the fifth when he finally did show up at the court house after he lost reelection.

He has denied all the affairs he has had.

Posted by: siren | July 16, 2008 1:25 PM

She went out without her cellphone? No woman in love goes anywhere without her cellphone unless she is going to meet the one she loves. And if she was so ignorant of the area that she had to check the internet to find it, she would have taken her cellphone in case she got lost. Therefore, she was going to meet her lover, and she was going to meet him in a place where she thought she wouldn't get lost, not in some remote area. Which means she would have met him on the street or in some other easy to find place. She might have wanted to see the horses with him before she went home. Maybe they roamed a bit and got lost, since she wouldn't have known the area. Maybe they purposely roamed a bit to find a private place to make love. Maybe he told her it was all off and then left and someone else happened upon her. Maybe the someone was his wife. Or his aide. Maybe he left her alone and she got lost trying to get out of the park and someone bad found her.

Posted by: Cordy | July 16, 2008 1:29 PM

Posted by: Lucy | July 15, 2008 4:24 PM

Lucy -- I'm not suggesting the place be overrun with law enforcement but an occasional drive-by, by someone in uniform, would help people feel safe in that park.

I'm a longtime park jogger myself; mostly Central Park in NYC from the 1980s on, and now Cortlandt Park. I was also born in Washington, DC and grew up in northern Virginia. So I relate a lot to this story, a woman who loves the outdoors and gets occasional exercise. But in Central Park and Van Cortlandt, there is a feeling the place is somewhat watched by police. They ride through there on horses a few times a day. It helps keep people intent on committing crime at bay, or at least an area becoming a cesspool of it, without taking away natural beauty or people's enjoyment of it.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2008 1:40 PM

Posted by: Peggy McGilligan | July 14, 2008 2:44 PM

Oh, please, one reason I'm reading this series is to get away from these ridiculous paranoid statements by nutwings about the Clintons.

This is a true crime story, nothing more. Hopefully, one whose mystery will be solved for the family and for others in a similar situation, who need good police practices in their court, for them to find closure.

Posted by: eeave | July 16, 2008 1:45 PM

ralph and murphy: thanks for the links. The gmaps things confirms that is where I have done some trail running. And again, I have to disagree -- by 2003/2004 there are people back in there doing running. I've come across single women, and indeed I stumped on one single woman runner taking a natural on the side of the trail. And yes, in that particular area I've not seen a homeless camp.

I do agree that it is unlikely that Levy would have stumbled on that trail by herself. Stranger things have happened, though.

Posted by: charlie | July 16, 2008 2:08 PM

A real shame about the foul-up regarding the security cameras at Ms. Levy's building. Her cell phone is in her apartment. Her ID is in her apartment. I think security tapes would have shown she never left the building. Someone inside that condo complex killed her. It's the most logical explanation.

Posted by: RC | July 16, 2008 2:14 PM

Condit was a roommate of Steve Peace, a fellow assemblyman, when first elected to the state legislature in California. Peace later served in the State Senate. When asked about Gary Condit and the rumors of infidelity, Peace said Condit always had girlfriends and had cheated on his wife since the day he was married, this says a lot. Did any of the writers speak to Steve Peace?

Posted by: A.D. | July 16, 2008 2:26 PM

Can someone clarify a point for me about Condit's involvement? I see the (very helpful) testimony transcript and I see the statement from the reporters that Condit "has denied that he ever had a romantic relationship with Chandra."

Does this mean also that he did *not* tell the police that he had a romantic relationship and/or a physical relationship with her?

I had always understood that no matter what he said publicly, he had privately admitted the affair to police, and then it leaked out.

Posted by: Fritz Holznagel | July 16, 2008 2:27 PM

For those of you dismissing the importance of this story, I echo those who agree that it shows the DC cops' incompetence. They searched the wrong area. They didn't bother asking the apt. building for the security tape until it had already been taped over. And some moron messed around with her computer and screwed up her webpage history, and then the detectives focused solely on the Klingle Mansion mention, not that she was searching Rock Creek trails or anything else. Idiots.

Posted by: Mel | July 16, 2008 2:50 PM

A question for the reporters = what is Chandra's brother doing now? In viewing the poignant 7-minute Post video of her parents (beautiful job!), it struck me how they talked about suicide as an option if things got too bad and when a patient asked the dad how he was, he said something about "same life, unfortunately." I feel for these people, but I also feel for her brother, having to always live in the shadow of Chandra's death. Sad, sad, sad.

Posted by: Mel | July 16, 2008 2:52 PM

The new examples of police mistakes are very interesting. I just wonder what prompted this review over the last year, as opposed to two years ago or in the future on the 10th anniversary of her death. Did the Post reporters first get tips of more police mistakes? Were enough new mistakes pointed out to your staff that you felt a new investigation/overview was needed? Did a friend or former staffer of Rep. Condit leak you new info?

Posted by: Richard | July 16, 2008 2:54 PM

Thanks Joshua Gen for posting repeatedly about items not related to this story. You need a real hobby.

Posted by: Yawn | July 16, 2008 3:54 PM

Later in the series, you'll be able to put together some interesting tidbits -- I am not the reporter on the series, but I followed this story in the Post and the coverage by the Washington bureau reporter for the Modesto Bee.

The reason the park was scoured by cadets/recruits weeks after Chandra was reported missing is that there was a new lead in the case at that time!!

A woman was running in Rock Creek Park in roughly the same area, and a man attacked her and nearly choked her to death (or she felt that way) and almost rolled her down a hill off the path she was on. If I recall details, she ran past him going the other way, and he turned around and ran back after her.

She also was robbed of jewelry.

After this was reported to police, MPD had a clue, and they JUST MISSED finding Chandra's body. It was a great clue.

Once her body was found, MPD released a drawing of a ring that Chandra owned and must have been wearing, as it was not among her belongings in her apartment. The thought was that if she'd been robbed in the course of the attack, the ring might have shown up in pawn shops.

This was standard police procedure to withhold certain bits of information until the proper time.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2008 3:59 PM

I always am fascinated when people talk about the tragedy, or problem, or issue, of violence against women-- almost always as if it should go without saying that it is more tragic than the exact same violence visited upon men. As every American ought to know, men are far more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than are women. American men, for instance, are three times as likely to be murdered than are American women. There seems to be some tacit understanding in our society-- but especially among self-styled sexual egalitarians-- that since most men are slain by other men, they are not truly victims in the same way, or to the same degree, as are women slain by men; as if, being men, they should be able to defend themselves better than women-- against an armed attacker?-- and held at least somewhat responsible themselves for having failed to do so.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 16, 2008 4:10 PM

Daniel Kevin Hand,

Interesting that you are assuming that Chandra Levy was slain by a man, being that the whole thing is unsolved.

Unless, of course, you are not commenting on this case at all.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2008 4:17 PM

Posted by: Fritz Holznagel | July 16, 2008 2:27 PM

Fritz,
According to Ralph Daughtry's book here http://www.justiceforchandra.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2543
and yoiu will have to scroll down just a bit to rread it, Chandra'a aunt went against advice and made a 15 page public statement concerning the relationship Chandra had described to her with Condit and it included that Chandra had shared some detail of their intimate relationship. At this point Condit had denied a romantic relationship in two police interviews. However, after the 15 page public statement by her aunt, condit finall acknoledged a long term romantic(sexual)relationship to Chandra. Micheal Isikoff is quoted "Newsweek reports that Condit told investigators in the interview following Zamsky's public statement that he "had a long-term sexual relationship with Chandra Levy". Michael Isikoff of Newsweek also added that Condit told the police there was no break in their relationship and that he had a final, routine phone call with her on Sunday, April 29.

So it wasn't until the third interview Condit finally acknowledged what he told Chandra she had to keep secret. In my opinion Condit tried very hard to keep his affairs secret with any woman he was seeing.I don't think he cared if his wife knew, she had asked him for a divorce in 1996 I believe. I think he would have done anything to protect his political career and power on the House Intelligence committee.

Posted by: siren | July 16, 2008 4:32 PM

I think he would have done anything to protect his political career and power on the House Intelligence committee.

Posted by: siren | July 16, 2008 4:32 PM

__________________________________

Probably was trying to protect the potential for future relationships with interns, too, assuming any of this stuff is true about his alleged affairs.

The Modesto Bee, and the Washington Post, I believe, consistently (at least at first) characterized Condit's stance as "not denying" a relationship.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2008 4:53 PM

This is one of the best pieces of journalism I have seen in years. Thank you for your work and for shedding light on a story that has left many unanswered questions.

Posted by: M | July 16, 2008 5:13 PM

Fascinating story and well written. But where does one go for the interactive map of rock creek park and virtual tour of the crime scene etc. mentioned in the print edition?

Posted by: tony | July 16, 2008 5:25 PM

Daniel Kevin Hand,

Interesting that you are assuming that Chandra Levy was slain by a man, being that the whole thing is unsolved.

Unless, of course, you are not commenting on this case at all.

Posted by: | July 16, 2008 4:17 PM

***

I do happen to assume that Chandra Levy was (a) murdered, and (b) murdered by a man. I even have more than a passing suspicion as to who that man is, just as I did before her remains were recovered in Rock Creek Park. I also am fairly sanguine that I know who the respective killers were in both the Jack the Ripper (1888) and Black Dahlia (1947) sexual murders, and that they were both men, too; but, alas, I digress....

That is all beside the point of my comment, however, which resulted from reading several comments [supra] about violence against women that seem to assume that such violence were some wholly separate species from violence against men. I am able and willing to distinguish between wholly innocent victims and those who were less than wholly innocent. I cannot abide, however, the premise or conclusion that men qua victims are less deserving per se than are women qua victims, under otherwise identical circumstances.

I find it odd-- which, of course, is merely an euphemistic way of saying hypocritical-- for self-styled sexual egalitarians, be they female or male, to presume or assume the moral superiority of one gender of victim as against the other. Fourteenth Amendment, and all that rot....

D.K.H., J.D. [inter alia]

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 16, 2008 5:31 PM

Dead young white women. They're the raison d'etre of infotainment news.

How many more days of this? Seven? Eight?

This a 12 part series. In that time, there's an average of about 5 murders in DC. Might be interesting for the Post to follow up on those.

Posted by: HeavyJ | July 16, 2008 5:45 PM

It's all about money,ain't a damn thing funny, you got to have a job in this land of milk and honey....cha ching! is exactly what the editors of the post were thinking of when the idea for this series was flashboarded to them by someone in the advertising department.It got me hook, line,and sinker.Can you imagine the meeting?The bottom line of the post has been declining for years..what can we do,people,to increase revenue immediately?How about a story about a story about a young,white,ample breasted(and jewish!)woman who was murdered and it probably has a congressman involved....?Do you think,people,that the public will eat it up and save our jobs for at least the time being?(Can you imagine the editors actually,physically, drooling?.....)Let's run with it,people,or,I'll end up back at the car lot!I do think if it didn't involve someone who fit the description given earlier,it wouldn't have seen the light of day.The National Enquirer lives!

Posted by: kevinm | July 16, 2008 6:08 PM

People must not have paid much attention to this case after the Condit excitement and questioning. I know exactly where this series is going and its not going Condit's way. There are people who spend hours and hours watching these dramatic police shows where cases are solved in an hour or these documenteries on closed cases where forensics solved the case. This case has nothing to do with conspiracies or mysterious people wanting to silence Levy. It was a simple robbery gone bad that happens every day in most major U.S. cities.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2008 6:29 PM

Does anyone know how many solved and/or unsolved murders have taken place in Rock Creek Park in recent years?

Posted by: Mike | July 16, 2008 6:29 PM

It seems the Condit angle was a red herring, obviously of interest, but just one of many possible avenues to follow up on. In a mystery story, he would be the obvious suspect, but probably not the real killer. His evasiveness was understandable, if despicable. Were police sent down the wrong path simply because he was such a jerk? Is there any way to gauge how much attention they paid to him versus other possible suspects, known or unknown?

Posted by: ra wilson | July 16, 2008 7:01 PM

It certainly seems it was the Levys who insisted on keeping the focus on Condit.

It seemed at one point in this case, early on, that Mrs. Levy even had a co-conspirator back in Modesto, a minister who did her landscaping, to create a back story on Chandra and Condit.

The man claimed to have had a conversation with Mrs. Levy about Chandra being involved with Condit a month before she even went missing -- yet such an involvement was apparently not even claimed to have been known to the Levys when they contacted police about Chandra when they hadn't heard from her. He said he understood the woman's frustration, because his own daughter had had an affair with Condit years earlier. He claimed he overheard Mrs. Levy get on the phone and tell Chandra about the conversation he just had with Mrs. Levy.

The minister recanted his story -- told to the FBI as part of the investigation. Claims his daughter never was involved with Condit.

Makes you wonder -- hmmmm? -- if the other part of the recanted story -- that he talked to Mrs. Levy about Condit/Chandra at all, was also made up.

It seems even Mrs. Levy was not entirely forthright in the way she brought the Condit angle into the investigation. She initially claimed to have called Condit because he was their representative in Congress and was in Washington and thought his influence might help in getting the police to take some action.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2008 7:20 PM

I feel compelled to read about Chandra because I had a dream so vivid, it woke me up. I called a friend of mine the morning after, to tell her what it was about, because I felt like I needed a witness for if and when Chandra was found. I knew that Chandra was in Rock Creek Park. I had seen the arched bridge made of stone. (Reporters, do you pass it to get near her murder site?) I had then seen the woods all around her...although in my dream it wasn't me it was her. Now that I've seen the TV show, "Medium," I understand the concept of this whole weird situation. I've had some weird coincidences in my life, but this was the first time I had an "in my face" experience. I'm not a crackpot...I live an ordinary life...I don't drink or use drugs.
No doubt some of you will think I'm ready for a padded cell anyway. Couldn't agree with you more!

In regards to WHY this series is being printed: On one hand, after all this time, I agree, "what's the point?" On the otherhand, this unsolved murder, if due to law enforcement negligence for even the most BASIC of tasks, as it seems to be -- then there needs to be a shaking up, a heads up and/or heads rolling, intense training with investigators that have their heads up their -- well, you know where. Heck, even people who watch a season of CSI would know to grab a videotape! This is shameful. AND, I don't care what color a person is, what nationality, what religion...if a crime is committed then informed care needs to be taken. To the people think there's attention given because she's white or Jewish...well...the police screwed up! She didn't get helped...so except for the media attention, mainly because her family was the "squeeky wheel," she would have been another missing person we would never had known about. Let her murder be used for good...to fix what is so broken within the investigative system. And for goodness sake, PLEASE stop using the race card with everything. If you turn us all inside out, we're the same -- that's what my mom used to say.

Posted by: Dawn | July 16, 2008 7:27 PM

It was not clear at the outset that a crime had been committed, Chandra Levy was an adult, she might have been on a train back to California -- a lot of reasons a security tape was not checked out before it expired or was overwritten. It's harsh to call this ineptness on the part of police -- if only because THIS WAS PRE-9/11. It was BEFORE there was a video camera on every street corner, before Google satellite images on the Internet. It was before blogs. It was before Facebook. It was before match.com took off. If was before everyone had a cellphone. It was before iPods. I think Chandra probably had a Walkman on -- seems that was found nearby her bones (another reason she could have been surprised by an attacker coming up behind her).

You have to be grateful it happened post DNA forensic evidence or we might not even know if the bones were hers.

This story took on a life of its own, in its own time period.

That should be taken into account when calling out people for bungling things.

There had just been a made-for-TV movie on that people thought had similarities, and she was going to wash up in the Chesapeake Bay somewhere in an ice chest. Stuff like that.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2008 7:38 PM

Others have probably posted this, but why was the "serial killer" theory never pursued? (Joyce Chiang and one other) That actually made the most sense and fits in with the Post Reporter's musing that Chandra may have just been going for a nice walk in Rock Creek Park.

We all just got so caught up with this Gary Condit connection, it distracted the entire city from a perhaps much more frightening scenario.

So I'd like to ask the reporters now: What about the serial killer theory? Does it have any legs? Thank you.

Posted by: Dramaticlookcat | July 16, 2008 8:05 PM

***

This case has nothing to do with conspiracies or mysterious people wanting to silence Levy. It was a simple robbery gone bad that happens every day in most major U.S. cities.

Posted by: | July 16, 2008 6:29 PM

****

Really? A young woman is walking or jogging through the park on a beautiful May Day afternoon, in shorts, shoes and a t-shirt, with no purse and no cell phone visible, so someone decides that she would make an ideal victim for a forcible robbery? Have the police and the media been holding back the key fact that she was wearing the Hope diamond at the time of her demise? Or, was the robber so mortified at his own stupidity for picking such a poor mark that he killed her to keep from being publicly embarrassed if she reported the crime? A random rapist would make at least a facially plausible theory for the crime; a robbery does not.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 16, 2008 8:48 PM

Dramaticlookcat, please refer to my original post here: July 14, 2008 11:20 PM

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 16, 2008 8:55 PM

On January 23, 2001, Sue Wen Stottsmeister was brutally assaulted and murdered in Rock Creek Park. Her attacker, Albert Cooke Jr., victimized Sue on a sunny, brisk weekday afternoon approximately one mile north of Aspen Hill Park. The path that she was using is the same path hundreds of people utilize every year.
http://www.mcrrc.org/archive/rundown_features/hs_phones.php

Detectives in the Chandra Levy murder case are focusing on a man convicted of assaulting two women jogging in Rock Creek Park last year[2001] -- a suspect who was initially discounted after he passed a polygraph test that investigators now believe was flawed.

Ingmar A. Guandique, 21, has been in prison for the assaults on the joggers since July 2001, two months after Levy disappeared.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/10/AR2008071000969.html

This is all from spending two minutes on Google. Unfortunately many women walking and jogging alone are attacked every year. It's happened to two women I've known, who fortunately have fought off the attackers. Whatever the exact motive and whoever the exact perpetrator, rational people can easily see what happened to Chandra, in the area she was headed to and where her body was found, which had a track record of random attacks. Randomly, this particular victim was also having an affair with a congressman, which made for some lasting media attention and unfortunately distracted from making the parks safer.

Posted by: Huggie the Bear | July 17, 2008 1:49 AM

Chandra made a call that was picked up by a cellphone tower near the Columbia Hospital for Women in Foggy Bottom. Detectives checked with the hospital to find out whether it performed abortions. It didn't.

In reference to the above statement made in chapter 5, if the Secret Services picked up a call made to Columbia Hospital for Women in Foggy Bottom to find our whether it performed abortions or not, why wasn't the question asked as to whether or not she made an appointment regarding pregnancy?

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 17, 2008 2:24 AM

Disgusted by many of the comments here. If it was one of your family, would you be saying that the case doesn't deserve this kind of coverage?

Liberty and Justice for All, remember.

Posted by: Dave B | July 17, 2008 2:39 AM

For those of you dismissing the importance of this story, I echo those who agree that it shows the DC cops' incompetence. They searched the wrong area. They didn't bother asking the apt. building for the security tape until it had already been taped over. And some moron messed around with her computer and screwed up her webpage history, and then the detectives focused solely on the Klingle Mansion mention, not that she was searching Rock Creek trails or anything else. Idiots.

Posted by: Mel | July 16, 2008 2:50 PM

From the words stated in the above comments is exactly why the way the police had handled the case which is puzzling, because as Mel stated the tape from her apartment complex should have been one of the first things looked into beside having a professional/specialist look into her laptop, and what about fingerprinting her apartment and items such as the laptop, cellphone, etc.? I never heard anything about fingerprinting of anything of Chandra's. Very puzzling..very, very puzzling..

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 17, 2008 2:49 AM

Did the police thoroughly investigate Condits' brothers?
By what I have read about them they would seem to me to be prime suspects.

Posted by: Nick | July 17, 2008 4:49 AM

Why on earth would the police waste resources and taxpayer money investigating delusional psychics' claims? I hope the psychics were charged for giving false police reports.

Posted by: Ted | July 17, 2008 7:43 AM

Why not use the Post's limited resources for a ten-part series on something of real import like the moribund Anthrax investigation?

Posted by: Drew | July 17, 2008 8:49 AM

Was everyone in her building vetted?

Posted by: RC | July 17, 2008 9:43 AM

The DC Police had the assistance of the FBI and the prosecuting authority in Washington from the very begining, (Google previous articles on chandra Levy). This kind of law enforcement partnership brought every resource available to investigate the case. If the DC Police were incompetent as some here have suggested, then our FBI and prosecutors are just as incompetent. I don't believe that to be the case. In fact I believe that we have some of the best law enforcement talent in the country working every day in Washington. There are tragic cases everywhere in this country where the police just dont have the clues or evidence available to bring justice for victims. It's a fact of life plain and simple, unfortunate as it may be. I don't think that anyone not having first hand knowledge of any criminal case should criticize law enforcement as being incompetent unless they have definitive proof to back it up!

Posted by: Withheld | July 17, 2008 10:19 AM

this is a very well-done series. as they say, hindsight is always 20/20- i was turned off by the sensationalism of the case while the 'glare of the camera' was fixed on it, but seeing the full picture in retrospect is fascinating.

and for those who are talking about merits-- the journalistic value of the piece is more recounting and discovering errors the police made in their investigation, and the problems of backtracking someone's life. not to be kafkaesque here, but if you vanished one day, would police be able to quickly come up with a coherent narrative about your life and where you might be? (think about the partial truths and selective information we give to the myriad of people in our lives).

one question i do have though- did chandra have any close friends, like girlfriends? it seems that the guys she visited during the pizza party were more acquaintance friends, and i would think that she- like any normal 20-something woman- would probably have at least one close female friend who knew the in-depth details of her life/routine and relationship with condit.

Posted by: mel | July 17, 2008 11:16 AM

Ralph,

I was a member of the Washington Sports Club and I cancelled my membership when I moved out of state, effective that day without a 30 day notice. Especially for people leaving the state, like Chandra returning to California, WSC was very accomodating and willing to break even their own guidelines. So she very well may have cancelled her gym membership the day before she planned to leave.

Ryan

Posted by: Ryan | July 17, 2008 11:25 AM

I've been reading these postings and the daily articles and one thing escapes me....has it been determined exactly how she died? I haven't seen a single thing that says how she was "murdered" so how do we know she was actually murdered and not just the victim of an accident. What was the coroner's determination?? It's plausible that she was just walking or jogging on the trail and fell. I know there were only skeletal remains but were there any broken bones that would hint that she fell and was incapacitated?

Another thought, have you looked at any of the missing persons web sites that have been mentioned? I was shocked at the number of young women, black, white, Asian, etc. that have gone missing. The first thing that comes to my mind is do we have a serial killer in the area? I can believe that the police would want us to believe anything but a serial killer running around loose. Think about the consequences of that story on the local economy. School trips would cancel. No parent would allow their child to come here to intern. University admissions would fall off and most of all tourist would avoid us like the plague. The economic impact would be devastating so I can believe that a congressman would be a good alternative for a serial kill in Chief Ramsey's mind.

Posted by: SJO | July 17, 2008 11:36 AM

SJO,

I was thinking the same thing!!! How exactly did she die?

Can anyone answer this questions???

Thanks in advance,

Girly33

Posted by: Girly33 | July 17, 2008 12:11 PM

Medical examiner Jonathan Alden (if memory serves, and I'm too lazy to Google right now) determined that a particular bone was broken that likely would only have been broken by an assailant. I think it was in the neck area -- a tiny bone. Anyway, I believe it indicated asphyxiation. They did find a pair of stretchy running pants thought to be hers nearby, inside out, with the bottoms of the legs knotted.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 17, 2008 12:23 PM

SJO, there are probably a couple of dozen active (i.e., still alive, not incarcerated, and not otherwise incapacitated) serial killers afoot at any given time in America. Some of these killers are infamous for quite a period of time during their murderous careers, whether or not they ever are apprehended. Others, especially the less-prolific or less-invariant in their m.o., are not well known to the public.

Even in the cases of truly infamous serial killers, including those who taunt the police and news media, such as the Son of Sam, David Berkowitz, or the Zodiac, their cities do not grind to a stop until they are apprehended. Whatever fear there is in such a case, most people believe that they can avoid the danger. I lived in Seattle during most of the Green River Killers' reign, for instance; and, despite the publicity, the city at large was not stricken with fear, nor did outsiders avoid visiting the city for business or pleasure.

The D.C. snipers case, in 2002, was one case where people generally feared for their safety, over a wide metropolitan area, as people were seemingly being gunned down at random in the course of strictly pedestrian activities, like pumping gasoline. That is a very rare type of serial killing spree.

A new report has just been issued this month by the F.B.I. on serial killers, which you may find here: http://www.fbi.gov/page2/july08/serialmurder_070708.html

Here is just a snippet from its introduction:

***

The report contains the collective insights of a group of experts from the law enforcement, academic, and mental health professions who took part in a symposium on serial murder. The symposium's focus was actually two-fold: to bridge the gap between fact and fiction and to build up our collective body of knowledge to generate a more effective investigative response.

Here's why that is so important: Serial killings are rare, probably less than one percent of all murders. They do, however, receive a lot of attention in the news and on screen--and much of the information out there is wrong. Yet, the public, the media, and even sometimes law enforcement professionals who have limited experience with serial murder, often believe what they read and hear. And this misinformation can hinder investigations.

According to the experts, there is no common thread tying serial killers together--no single cause, no single motive, no single profile. But there are some common "best practices" that they recommend for investigations:

***

As for serial killer myths, our group of experts had this to say about a few of them:

1) Serial killers are not all dysfunctional loners: some have had wives and kids and full-time jobs and have been very active in their community or church or both.

2) Serial killers are not all white males: the racial diversification of serial killers generally mirrors the overall U.S. population.

3) Serial killers do not want to get caught: over time, as they kill without being discovered, they get careless during their crimes.

So much for the stereotypes!

****

F.W.I.W.

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 17, 2008 1:10 PM

House Intelligence Committee member Condit met with Cheney, the day she goes missing...four months before 9/11 around the time of foreign intelligence warnings...maybe he told her something he shouldn't have...like Condi telling former SF mayor not to fly the night before...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/12/MN229389.DTL

Posted by: Net | July 17, 2008 1:30 PM

This series has so many pop-up ads that the only way I can read it is in the "print version" pages. Does anyone there know that all the "print version" pages are dated June instead of July?

Posted by: FMJohnson | July 17, 2008 1:38 PM

To answer a question I've seen asked at least twice above -- The "interactive map" and the "virtual tour of the crime scene"
are on the web page for the first installment in this series. I also had that question, then finally figured it out.

Posted by: Jennifer | July 17, 2008 2:33 PM

She may have cancelled her gym memebership the day before returning back home, but I don't believe that she went for a walk in Rock Creek Park.

And in regards to her body laying their for the period of time stated someone would smell the body. A police on his horse, someone else walking their dog (because if the dog can sniff out her bones, I'm positive a dog, horse, or a human person could smell her body)

That is a good point brought up regarding the cause of death. Did the police fingerprint her apartment and belongs?

And also regarding the statement that Chief Ramsey didn't want the information about a serial killer to get out instead he would want it to be the congressman. I don't agree with that because of Ramsey actions, statements, and lack of/poor investigation.

He (Chief Ramsey) acted as if the investigation was suppose to be conducted differently because it was a congressman. And that is why the investigation was conducted poorly, not in order. Because if it was a everyday man in place of Condit, the investigation would have been conducted altogether differently.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 17, 2008 3:01 PM

Net,

I believe that Chandra knew something or something about someone that she wasn't suppose to know. And/or she was pregnant or both.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 17, 2008 3:07 PM

This may be the most important series the Post has ever done. I salute you!

Posted by: Don Rankland | July 17, 2008 3:13 PM

Did the police thoroughly investigate Condits' brothers?
By what I have read about them they would seem to me to be prime suspects.

Posted by: Nick | July 17, 2008 4:49 AM

Nick,
What have you read about Condits' brothers?

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 17, 2008 3:15 PM

from poster at 12:23pm Medical examiner Jonathan Alden (if memory serves, and I'm too lazy to Google right now) determined that a particular bone was broken that likely-----

The hyoid bone may be the one you are thinking of. Wikipedia has this statement:"Due to its position, the hyoid bone is not usually easy to fracture in most situations. In cases of suspicious death, a fractured hyoid is a strong sign of strangulation."

Posted by: siren | July 17, 2008 3:31 PM

What about this theory? http://www.zoneoftruth.com/LEVY.html

Posted by: Mona | July 17, 2008 3:40 PM

The still-unsolved death of actress Karyn Kupcinet, the daughter of the longtime Chicago media-maven Irv Kupcinet, was ruled a homicide, in November 1963, specifically because her hyoid bone was broken. (She was found naked on her living-room couch.)

Writer James Ellroy ("The Black Dahlia", "L.A. Confidential") makes the case for an accidental death in Kupcinet's case (which has been ludicrously tied by some to the Kennedy assassination the week before); but, in the case of Chandra Levy, it seems almost certain that she was deliberately killed, rather than having had some truly bizarre fall or other accident that could have caused such a breakage and asphyxiation.

It seems virtually certain that the running togs, strangely knotted, were the instrument of death. The issue is, was she killed as a random and opportunistic victim of someone, presumably a rapist; or, was she lured there and killed by someone that she knew, someone with a strong motive to kill her? Either theory strikes me as facially plausible. A botched or escalated forced robbery does not....

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 17, 2008 3:55 PM

***

What about this theory? http://www.zoneoftruth.com/LEVY.html

Posted by: Mona | July 17, 2008 3:40 PM

***

Mona, you might wish to consult the late William of Occam...!?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Occam

F.W.I.W.

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 17, 2008 4:10 PM

re knotted slacks:

it seems to me that people are overlooking the possibility that the knotted slacks were simply used as an ad-hock sling for dragging a body through thick underbrush. The knots in the legs were for hand holds, the upper body being & arms being placed in the crotch of the pants, the pants going through and under the armpits

Posted by: robert somerville | July 17, 2008 4:20 PM

Excellent work, Washington Post.

For a long time I thought G. had done her in - even meeting with Cheney I thought was probably an agreement to step down if Dick would ok it with the job with the CIA, contractors, whatever.

Now, I really wonder. Gary had so many special friends that he surely knew how to handle this type situation - a hysterical lover with threats, etc.

I'm currently favoring the senerio that the body was placed there. That is why someone knew how to misdirect the search by 50 meters or so. (Gosh lads, wouldn't some have noticed imprints in the grass/brush) Someone it seems knew how to misdirect the canines involved, too, perhaps by giving them the wrong scent to be aware of - if dogs were there at all??

Many of us who walk the park, almost every day, for years, have seen nothing mysterious. I have a 2 yo Golden Retriver who has sensed a few wierd people, and directed me away from them, but 99.4% of the people there are just good/great people!

We Need Closure On this Crime. Rock Creek Park is a place where we can escape, and think. It is a selling point for employers in this area, as well. However, Websites around the world cast dispersions on the saftey of this area. The local people want closure on this.

Thank you.

Posted by: interesting1 | July 17, 2008 4:27 PM

Interesting theory that the knotted jogging shorts could have been used to drag the body. Also possible that the jogging shorts were removed to make it look like rape was the motive.

Posted by: Jennifer | July 17, 2008 4:32 PM

My name is Richard Wheeler. "Interesting1" is a spam protection name. I hope the post will accept this correction. After all, I just ordered a 6 month home delivery contract!

Posted by: Richard Wheeler | July 17, 2008 4:33 PM

thanks Jennefer;

if my theory about knotted pants is correct, that raises the question: would an office worker have been capable of imagining/conceiving this ad-hock sling in a moment of stress , or would a outdoor/farm laborer have been more likely to conceive it ... I would vote for a field(farm) laborer, such as that suspect from San Salvador .. F.W.I.W.

Posted by: robert somerville | July 17, 2008 4:41 PM

Any chance the next installment can be more than 100 words? Thanks.

Posted by: themantoyou | July 17, 2008 5:18 PM

A travois is the term describing an adhock sling. The knots may also have had sticks or polls in the knots either side to pull or drag something. A travois is something not only used by North American Indians, but taught to boy scouts. Someone with a lot of camping or outdoor enthusiasts would also likely know how to put this together.

Posted by: Siren | July 17, 2008 5:29 PM

It seems that this case is something of a Rorschach test, in that everyone sees in it their own experiences and biases. That being said, here are mine.

What has always struck me has been how her parents who let their grief be turned into a sickening kind of rage against Gary Condit. Condit is a sleaze-ball for having an affair behind his wife's back, so Chandra Levy participated in that mess just as much too. Somehow her parents turned the sin of adultery into the crime of murder. Their actions seemed back then to me and still today to be made from a spirit of misguided vengeance against a man who's most likely innocent of this this crime.

One point is often made that needs refuting here, and that is the party line about the "powerful men" who prey on "weak women." This is referring to the times when young women have sex with older, rich and powerful men. We're told that the women in these cases are victims and the men predators. To me it seems to be the opposite. Setting aside the whole question of whether Condit kiled Ms. Levy, which I don't believe he did, who benefits most from these sorts of sordid relationships?

What benefit does a young woman get from a relationship with a rich and powerful older man? She'll get money, presents, jewelry, perhaps an apartment, job offers, and connections. What does she risk? Her reputation. What does the older man get from such a relationship? Sex. What does he risk losing? His money, job, wife, family, career, status, and perhaps his freedom. Look at the current divorce of Christie Brinkley. Her sleazy husband has an affair with a much younger girl who he was paying something like tens of thousands of dollars to in order to silence her. These women are far from victims. In fact, they seem to have the most to gain and the least to lose in such relationships.

Another thing is that the Post said that the Levy's had a "deep spirituality" that seems to be a mish-mash of Judaism, Buddhism and whatever other eastern nonsense that they happened by. If their spirituality truly was strongly rooted, and not some sort of New Age nonsense, they would not have raised a daughter who slept around with older, powerful men, nor would they have let their sadness be turned into revenge against a man they knew so little about.

Posted by: JustAReader | July 17, 2008 5:38 PM

***

Update #5: The Story So Far
Thursday, July 17, 2 p.m.

***

"By missing her body that day in July 2001, police lost critical forensic evidence that could have identified a killer."

*

A more apropos word choice could have been "might," as you do not know that there was any such evidence available in July 2001 that "could have identified a killer." ("Could have" implies a past ability, rather than merely a past possibility.)

***

"For weeks, police focused their investigative efforts on what turned out to be a red herring and theorized that Chandra may have met someone in the park when it appears she was simply looking for a place to take a walk."

*

This is simply a post-hoc assumption on your own part. If someone arranged to meet with Ms. Levy at a specific landmark in Rock Creek Park, at a place that she never before had been, then her looking that place up on the Internet, with the intent of walking there to get some exercise en route to such a rendezvous, rather than her taking a cab or whatever else, would have left the very same forensic evidence on her computer as would have your own supposition here.

***

"We also recounted one of Chandra's last-known conversations. Days before she disappeared, she told a friend she met at the gym, Robert Kurkjian, that she was disappointed to be losing her internship. But she was upbeat and happy about her future with her congressman boyfriend and said he promised to marry her in five years. The account contradicts persistent rumors seven years ago that Chandra was angry at her boyfriend and that her anger might have led to a confrontation and her disappearance."

*

Based upon my own distant recollections of romantic relationships, and of my lifelong observations of applied female psychology, both personally and semi-professionally [M.S.], I am quite sanguine that the three and one-half days between that last visit with Mr. Kurkjian and Ms. Levy's signing off of the Internet on her laptop computer for the final time, just prior to (presumably) leaving her apartment for the final time on May Day afternoon, was plenty of time for Ms. Levy's beliefs, attitudes, expectations and moods about her Congressman-boyfriend to change markedly one or more times-- as they may well have done in the previous three and a half days. People are that way; women are people. Indeed, Mr. Kurkjian's explicit questioning of Ms. Levy's naivete as to the Congressman's romantic promises well might have been sufficient cause for Ms. Levy to make further inquiry, or even demands, upon Mr. Condit when next they spoke.

Regardless of her own mental state vis-a-vis the Congressman, there is the very salient issue of his own mental state vis-a-vis Ms. Levy. He spoke to her again, at least by cell phone, after Mr. Kurkjian did. Not only could he have arranged then to meet her at some subsequent time and place; that last conversation via cell phone also might have caused either or both of them to have a decided change in mental state. Ms. Levy is no longer alive to allow us to inquire about that possibility; and, if one thing is now crystal clear, all of these years later, it is that Gary Condit's word is not worth the air that carries it to his listeners' ears!

***

"But our reporting shows that Condit tried to cooperate with police behind the scenes. By early June 2001, Condit had spoken to detectives twice and told them he had a relationship with Chandra and that she spent the night at his apartment. Details of his interviews were leaked to the news media and Condit grew increasingly angry and reluctant to talk. Still, he continued to cooperate."

*

Many people-- including formal or even prime suspects-- cooperate with the police. Some do so simply because they know that they are innocent and have nothing to hide. Others do so because they think that the circumstances require it of them; it becomes an acceptable risk. Others do so simply because they think that they are untouchable, either because of their position and status, because the fix is otherwise in, or simply because their egos assure them that they are far too clever to be tripped up or found out by a bunch of flatheaded flatfoots! I personally suspect that Gary Condit's ego greatly outstrips his cleverness....

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 17, 2008 6:00 PM

"This series has so many pop-up ads that the only way I can read it is in the "print version" pages. Does anyone there know that all the "print version" pages are dated June instead of July?"

Posted by: FMJohnson | July 17, 2008 1:38 PM

I just checked all print-versions, and they have a July timestamp. Anyone else seeing this bug??

Posted by: Amanda | July 17, 2008 6:11 PM

I wonder if the readers posting comments attributing Chandra's death to a random encounter with an unknown assailant have looked at the map of Rock Creek Park that has been made part of the series. It is between four and five miles from her apartment to the site where her remains were found. If she had been "out for a walk" why did she choose a portion of the park so far from her home when there are sections much closer? Runners can and do cover such distances when working out, but none of her associates indicated that she was a runner. Could she have wanted to walk a circuit that covered 8 to 10 miles? Again, highly unlikely. No one indicated that she was a dedicated walker and the distance she would have had to cover is far more than most any walker will cover in a single outing. Without even addressing the question of her lack of knowledge of the park and the secluded nature of the area where she was found, it strains credulity to believe that she would have gone to that site for no other purpose than exercise.
If you want to believe in the random crime theory, here's another scenario almost as plausible: Chandra was the victim of an alien abduction "gone bad." After the aliens had taken her aboard their ship, they started probing her with their instruments, she went into shock and died. They then beamed her body down to a little used section of Rock Creek Park. Her ring and keys haven't been found because they are still aboard the spaceship.

Posted by: Dr. Watson | July 17, 2008 8:36 PM

The teases for this series explicitly promised "sex." I'm still waiting.

Posted by: Bill | July 17, 2008 9:40 PM

I noticed that all 3 women who were found dead were from CA - Chandra, Joyce and Christine. Also, the Congressman who Joyce worked for had his office next to Condit's. Interesting.

Posted by: Joyce | July 17, 2008 9:45 PM

Did Shandra have a car? or a bicycle?

Posted by: hmmm | July 17, 2008 9:57 PM


WaPo investigative reporters:

From the series, part 5: "On May 1, the day Chandra disappeared, Condit said, he left his apartment at 11 in the

morning and worked until 6:30, when he went out to dinner at Tryst in Adams Morgan. ... On May 2, Condit worked on

Capitol Hill, then went shopping and had dinner at an Adams Morgan restaurant with his wife."

While this series has proved to be easy and enjoyable reading, not cluttered up with too much detail, it seems to me

that it leaves questions that should be answered all along. In this particular paragraph, it is acknowledged that on May 2

Condit had dinner at the restaurant with his wife. But just before that, it is said that "he had dinner at the Tryst in Adams

Morgan". ummm, with whom did he have dinner that evening?

In part 1 of this series, it says: "On the day she disappeared, May 1, Chandra signed on to the Internet at 10:27 a.m."

This is suspected to be the very day of Chandra's disappearance, correct?

Note to readers: google "Rebecca Cooper Condit" for a list of hits. The first to pop up on my search is from Salon

archives. There's a story there that may stir up memories.

So, with whom did he have dinner that evening? (The series may very well explain this later, I understand...that's the

way mystery series might be written. But, to me, it doesn't come across that way. It doesn't make the reader pause

and wonder. This detail is glossed over within the text of the paragraph and, from my experience reading this series so

far, I don't anticipate finding an answer to the question within the text itself.)

I'm not one who believes that a congressman would just go and sit by himself at such a restaurant. Was he not asked?

Would you comment, please?

Posted by: stevdart | July 17, 2008 10:54 PM


I'm not sure way people make such a big deal about the remoteness of body-site. Looking at the satellite photo from google

http://tinyurl.com/5uvfkd

the riding trail is right beside Ridge Road n.w. , at some points no more than 30 Meters away .. It also looks like I can see a pedestrian or two and perhaps a bus-stop on that road .. Could not she have been walking down Ridge Road to the Planetarium, et. al, and then been attacked/ambushed from a bushy area alongside the road

Posted by: robert somerville | July 17, 2008 10:56 PM


WaPo investigative reporters:

From the series, part 5: "On May 1, the day Chandra disappeared, Condit said, he left his apartment at 11 in the morning and worked until 6:30, when he went out to dinner at Tryst in Adams Morgan. ... On May 2, Condit worked on Capitol Hill, then went shopping and had dinner at an Adams Morgan restaurant with his wife."

While this series has proved to be easy and enjoyable reading, not cluttered up with too much detail, it seems to me that it leaves questions that should be answered all along. In this particular paragraph, it is acknowledged that on May 2 Condit had dinner at the restaurant with his wife. But just before that, it is said that "he had dinner at the Tryst in Adams Morgan". ummm, with whom did he have dinner that evening?

In part 1 of this series, it says: "On the day she disappeared, May 1, Chandra signed on to the Internet at 10:27 a.m." This is suspected to be the very day of Chandra's disappearance, correct?

Note to readers: google "Rebecca Cooper Condit" for a list of hits. The first to pop up on my search is from Salon archives. There's a story there that may stir up memories. http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/07/18/condit/index.html

So, with whom did he have dinner that evening? (The series may very well explain this later, I understand...that's the way mystery series might be written. But, to me, it doesn't come across that way. It doesn't make the reader pause and wonder. This detail is glossed over within the text of the paragraph and, from my experience reading this series so far, I don't anticipate finding an answer to the question within the text itself.)

I'm not one who believes that a congressman would just go and sit by himself at such a restaurant. Was he not asked?

Would you comment, please?

Posted by: stevdart | July 17, 2008 11:09 PM

"On May 1, the day Chandra disappeared, Condit said, he left his apartment at 11 in the morning and worked until 6:30, when he went out to dinner at Tryst in Adams Morgan. He would later tell the detectives that he met with Vice President Cheney early that afternoon. On May 2, Condit worked on Capitol Hill, then went shopping and had dinner at an Adams Morgan restaurant with his wife. On May 3, Condit said, his wife returned to California."

Important detail not noted in the article is that while Condit told investigators the time line above, he actually left his meeting with Cheney May 1 at 20 minutes after it started and 10 minutes before Chandra signed off on her computer. so from 12:30 to 12:50 he can account for his whereabouts, but from 12:50 on he cannot and I think someone on his staff may have offered up a haphazard excuse for it. Later trying to change the time line they provided ABC that he might have gone to the gym. About 5 hours time gap I think. A large enough gap to raise serious doubts about him.

I am beginning to get fed up with the way the WAPO is writing this series. It lacks details that are available and offers very little to read on a day to day basis. Its a shame they are doing it this way.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 17, 2008 11:15 PM

Mona,

From your linked article I read, what is Mossad?

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 18, 2008 12:06 AM

Mona,

From your linked article I read, what is Mossad?

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 18, 2008 12:06 AM

This is from Ralph Daugherty's book. Its the time line with the discrepancy involving Rebecca Coopers meeting with Condit.

Tuesday, May 1
Condit rides with staff to the office in the
morning. At 12:30 p.m. ET, he meets with Vice
President Cheney. He returns at 3:30 p.m. for
meetings and phone conversations with constituents.
At 5 p.m., Condit has a doctor's appointment. At
6:30 p.m., he votes on the House floor. From 6:30 to
7:30 p.m., he meets with a reporter at the Tryst
restaurant in Adams Morgan. Later, he and the wife
stay home and eat dinner.


Wednesday, May 2
Condit rides into work with staff and attends
Agriculture Committee and Select Intelligence
Committee meetings. At 11:30 a.m., Condit casts
votes on the House floor. At noon, he participates
in a meeting with the California congressional
delegation. From 12:30 p.m. to 2 p.m., he
participated in a bipartisan meeting at the White
House. At 2:30 p.m., he returns to the Intelligence
Committee. Later, he casts votes on the House floor,
meets with congressional leaders and heads home for
dinner with his wife at 5:30 p.m. After dinner, they
go shopping at an "Off The Wall" store. [4]

On May 1 Chandra disappears, Condit offers a timeline that includes saying he met a reporter at the Tryst at 6:30 that same day. We don't know if he kept his doctors appointment or when he scheduled it for May 1 at 5 pm. The meeting with Cooper actually occurred the next day. So he mislead the police about his time with the VP, making it seem longer than it was trying to say he came back at 3:30. Then he claims a meeting for an hour that actually occurred the next day, well after Chandra disappeared. And apparently he asked Cooper for the meeting, not the other way around. It apparently was Cooper who got this initial timeline for ABC and first saw the error, Condit would claim the meeting occurred the day Chandra disappeared, instead of May 2.

Thats one way of finding an alibi, call an ex girlfriend to talk about politics, then claim it occurred the day she may have been murdered then call in for a doctors appointment when privacy lasw would prevent anyone from knowing if the appt was kept or what medical issue was involved, make it appear to the police your meeting with the VP, one Condit requested himself that did not include the usual staffers presence, went on for hours more than it did. So there it is a half baked alibi.

Posted by: Siren | July 18, 2008 12:07 AM

correction:Thats one way of finding an alibi, call an ex girlfriend to talk about politics, then claim it occurred the day *she* may have been murdered then call in for a


the *she* I am referring to should have said Chandra, I did not mean to refer to Cooper.

Posted by: Siren | July 18, 2008 12:11 AM

I know that Chandra has at least one girlfriend that she talked to (and when you have that one gf to talk with you tell them everything especially about a guy/man you're involved with and planning to marry in five years), and what about the other intern that was also in the photo with Condit and Chandra?

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 18, 2008 12:46 AM

There is so little substance in your series. I keep wanting it to be 'more'.
Sorry but I'm disappointed.
I always thought the wife did it.

Posted by: Janet Bleck | July 18, 2008 12:47 AM

***

"Green did not include any comment by Guandique about Chandra in his report, and he does not remember telling any other officers at the time. Back then, it didn't seem important. He said he was focused on the assaults on Wiegand and Shilling."

***

This claim strikes me as incredible. There is a world-wide search going on for Chandra Levy by the time of this arrest interview, and Officer Green goes to the trouble of asking Ingmar Guandique about Chandra Levy-- and yet, Officer Green now claims, he did not include in his report, nor mention to any other police personnel, as best he can recall, the fact that Senor Guandique had admitted to seeing Ms. Levy in the park, and finding her attractive, no less!?!

I would have to ask, in response to this incredible claim, did the Washington Post, in the course of this exhaustive new crime investigation, bother to find out who the translator was when Ingmar Guandique was arrested in Rock Creek Park, and interview that translator about these allegations, without tipping him or her off as to what is now claimed was asked and admitted to that night? Under the circumstances, I think that that is the least that you could have done-- and should have done-- before using Officer Green's testimony to divert suspicion from Mr. Condit to Senor Guandique.

It is surely no proof of Ingmar Guandique's innocence in the apparent murder of Chandra Levy-- but it is nonetheless notable-- that his two known victims, Shilling and Wiegand, were both tall and blonde, not petite and dark like Ms. Levy. Also, if Guandique used a large knife as an integral part of his known m.o., one would expect that, were he to kill one of his assault victims, he would have stabbed her to death, not taken her clothing and used it to strangle her, as was apparently done to Ms. Levy by her killer.

Although Guandique makes a plausible suspect in light of the testimony given here, that testimony should not be taken at face value. Even if his admission did go as now claimed, there is the fact that you had a young man who was in this country illegally, already in legal jeopardy for the immediate attack on Ms. Wiegand that led to his arrest, as well as his earlier arrest for burglary, and essentially unable to comprehend the English language during his interrogation. He had also displayed in both of his known assaults on female joggers a cravenness and a lack of perseverance in his chosen task that makes it harder still to believe that he would have completed the task of dragging Chandra Levy seventy yards from a trail, and then disrobed her and maintained control over her long enough to complete a strangulation unto death.

I would love to see a video tape of that interrogation!

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 18, 2008 2:02 AM

I don't believe that Ingmar Guandique had anything to with Chandra Levy's death. Nothing at all! The two women he attempted to rape, once they fought with him he ran off and the victims got away. (the two females he raped were tall blondes) They were never robbed or killed.

I believe that Chandra Levy's death was plotted and planned out, her death did not occur in Rock Creek Park. Her remains (bones) was brought back to Rock Creek Park and staged as if she was there in the park from the start. condit has something to do with her death. He may not actually killed her himself, but he know who did because I believe he had her killed. Why did he have her killed? I believe it was because either Chandra knew something that someone didn't want her to know, she knew something on someone, or she was pregnant.

What was the "big news" that she had to tell her aunt? I don't believe it was that her internship had ended, or that she was leaving from Washington, DC to return home. What could be big about that?

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 18, 2008 3:30 AM

I'm glad that someone has finally named names: Reebok, Pro Spirit, Ciao, Reese's, Williams-Sonoma, Sony Vaio, HBO... these product placements definitely shed new light on the case.

The chapter 4 video left a few questions unanswered, like: What brands of ski accessories were worn by the Levys? That dog...what's its name? Does it wait in vain for Chandra's return? But, hey, these are minor nitpicks in a story that has finally satisfied my curiosity regarding Detective Durant's hairstyle.

Some folks will criticize misstatements, such as the intimation that Ms. Levy no longer had access to her health club. Some will wonder why 'investigators' can't determine whether Chief Ramsey miscommunicated or Cmdr. Barrett misunderstood, or why detective Green cut short his interrogation and didn't fully report it. And some will be disappointed if they don't learn whose contact lens was found near the bones, or why Mr. Condit plead the fifth to the Grand Jury, or whether Sheila Cruz vouched for Ingmar Guandique's whereabouts on May 1, or whether independent forensic experts ever got access to the bones and what they concluded. Not me. I know that so long as I continue to view succeeding chapters, this story serves its purpose. To those seeking answers I say: "Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."

Nevertheless, I can't help thinking to myself: "What a pathetic crock o'crap. I shall trust WaPo reporting no more forever."

Posted by: Daibhidh | July 18, 2008 3:40 AM

comments on A Predator in the Park:

Halle Schilling's statement was that she was running north on Beach Drive, passed Guandique sitting on a curb, and he began running after her and caught her. She tried to scream to cars on Beach Drive but was hidden by trees and they couldn't see her.

How in the world does that translate to followed her for a mile deeper into the park? That is precisely what would need to be said about Chandra, although "deeper into the park" is an understatement.

So to try to make it sound like a replay of Chandra's murder two weeks earlier, we are told that Halle saw Guandique sitting on a curb and chased her (her statement) and that the chase was for a mile (WashPo statement) and that running north on Beach Drive (her statement) is "deeper" into the park (WashPo statement)?

The other point is that we have this sequence:
1. Chandra disappears Tuesday May 1

2. Guandique breaks into neighbors apartment Monday May 7 and flees with a stolen ring when she returns home early

3. Guandique assaults Halle Schilling on Beach Drive jogging trail on Monday May 14

4. Landlady testifies to grand jury a year later that Guandique had cut up and bruised face around time Guandique was arrested on May 7 for breaking into neighbors apartment.

From this, we are to believe that Chandra hiked miles from her apartment and eventually up a huge hill into a dark forest with nothing but a Walkman and her 14k bracelet and signet ring, and keys to get back in her apartment.

That Guandique followed her for a mile or so up this narrow and steep horse trail where he methodically tied her up with her own clothes and murdered her and stole her ring and bracelet and keys, and according to the landlady, got cut and bruised in the process. Yet he never pawned that very nice signet ring engraved with initials CL or gave it to his girlfriend.

But six days later he demolishes a door to steal another ring and flees when the woman enters. Perhaps Chandra didn't scream and that was a new experience for him? And he wants another ring so bad to pawn but threw away Chandra's ring, not to mention no record of him pawning the bracelet either. And no one else pawned them either.

The most interesting thing I find though, is the cut and bruised face story. He was arrested and booked, there must be a mug shot then, and I'll guarantee you there's no cut and bruised face in that mug shot.

Because the landlady remembered it for a grand jury, but being a harborer of illegals I think she said whatever she thought the police wanted to hear.

Th arresting officer made no mention of him being scraped up when he found him and arrested him, and they most certainly will ask about it if he actually looked like the landlady described.

Guandique passed a lie detector test, and so did everyone else except Condit. Let's take a look at that mug shot and see if the landlady would pass one too.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 18, 2008 4:34 AM

So last night I talked about Ingmar Guandique, effectively predicting this predictable series. Since many of you (DKH etc) are reacting to this stuff like it's news to you, (you know the archives are there to read, why wait for these stupid chapters) perhaps I should repeat the feat and point you to what will obviously be a future chapter:

"An inmate at the D.C. jail has said Guandique told him that he killed Levy, according to law enforcement sources. Guandique denied any connection to the Levy case and passed a polygraph test, which has recently been called into question because it was conducted using a Spanish interpreter rather than a bilingual polygraph technician"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/01/AR2008070100799_4.html

This series is interesting in that it's not trying to do much journalism, just create a mystery story. It's like a reality TV show that's edited to show you what they want you to see when they want you to see it. I can't believe these two points (inmate confidante and the IG polygraph) were left out in the "Predator in the Park" section.

Posted by: huggie the bear | July 18, 2008 5:37 AM

Here's another cool story from the archives re: what Susan Levy knew that isn't being discussed here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/08/AR2008070801658.html

Posted by: huggie | July 18, 2008 5:42 AM

Read that story I just linked to above. It basically says that Susan Levy knew about Chandra's affair with Condit weeks before she disappeared. The source and timing are credible, in that the minister couldn't have known about the Chandra/Condit connection from public information when he first spoke to the Post about his story, so the guy is no kook, in fact Susan Levy referred him first to the FBI.

So the Mom came to Washington knowing full well about Condit, and was playing a somewhat cagey game trying to out all the information. But the minister reports that she and Chandra had it out over Condit... so does she think that led to a breakup and some sinister action by Condit? I think Mrs. Levy came to town with a mind made up, and the Levys may have contributed to the police messing this investigation up by pressuring them to focus on the red herring of Condit.

Posted by: huggie | July 18, 2008 5:59 AM

More fun in the free world:

Two blondes don't make a pattern. I also don't assume if I flip a new coin twice and get two heads that it's a coin with no tails side.

"Guandique also sent a sexually explicit letter to a woman he had never met. The letter, obtained by The Post, was sent from prison in May to a woman whose photo Guandique saw in an insurance agency advertisement in El Tiempo Latino, a Washington area Spanish-language newspaper. It had sexually explicit language and pornographic drawings.

The woman said she gave the letter to the police in August after she read that investigators had partly discounted Guandique in the Levy case because the women he attacked in the park were tall and blond, while Levy was a petite brunet. The woman who received the letter has dark hair. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/08/AR2008070801658.html

Please note that the other women were more importantly TALL than blonde, i.e. they had the size and strength to fight this guy off... and that a walkman was found not far from Chandra's remains, creating another link to the two we know he attacked. Perhaps he saw impaired awareness due to headphones blocking out other noise as an opportunity.

Posted by: hugsalot | July 18, 2008 6:41 AM

huggie,

I don't believe that the minister's daughter would come forward and speak about her and Condit's relationship because Condit has probably threatened her in some way. Because it appears to be fear as to why she would not come forward to speak. When she was asked questions regarding their relationship.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 18, 2008 7:26 AM

In regards to Christy's statement made in the below link about her attack.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/specials/chandra/documents/witnessstatement.pdf

She stated on page 1 that he spoke fluent english to her, but I read in the chapter that he spoke very little english.

And I didn't know that immediately after you're attached that the park police drive you around the park area to identify your attacker.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 18, 2008 7:50 AM

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 18, 2008 8:14 AM

I'm trying to picture a male attacking a female in a bear hug and then while the attacker have the female in a bear hug, he then holds knife to her chin. I guess after he uses the bear hug to get her down, I guess he would then hold the knife to her chin. Me myself I would be terrified to fight someone attacking me who has a knife to my chin.

It's also interesting that Christy asked the person whom she stopped for help to drive her to her boyfriends house first and then she was driven back to provide the report of her attack to the park police.

If I were attacked I would want to go straight to the park police and then my husband or boyfriend could be called from the police office to come to my destination

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 18, 2008 8:24 AM

Robert Sommerville:

The image you posted is the area south of where the remains were found, and indeed at this point the walking trail, horse trail and road are all running parallel and quite close together, and your theory of an attack is certainly plausible.

However just north of your google image the three courses diverge as the engineers deal with a prominent hill. The road turns right, the horse trail more or less goes straight, and the walking trail turns left around the west side of the hill. That is where it gets remote. If you scroll up on your image you can see what I am talking about, and amid the woods see portions of the Western Ridge Trail loop, the remains were found about 250 feet west of that trail, and I think you can see that the area is very isolated.

Which brings me to concur with RD's point above about the reporters description today of the Shilling attack. This part of the reportage allows the casual reader to believe that Shilling, too, was headed up the hills, "deep into the park" and the Western Ridge Trail.

If you read the police report, however, it seems clear that she was running along Beach Drive, especially noting the mention of Grove 4, which is right alongside the road. The report does not mention a hill, either, indeed the trail along Beach Drive is flat.

I am puzzled by the panoramic photo that is included online that is supposed to be the attack area. Its just a trail in the woods, and not by Grove 4 or Beach Drive. I think the Post should clarify exactly where the attack occurred and where the photo was taken.


Basically, the two attacks both occurred right alongside Beach Drive. This is a totally different environment than the heavily forested hills in the early where the remains were found.

Posted by: Murphie | July 18, 2008 9:30 AM

So detective Joe Green didn't think it relevant when the suspect he was questionning was linked to the attempted rape with a knife of two women, and then admitted that he had seen Chandra in Rock Creek Park, and said he thought she was pretty. After all, the case was not being handled by the Park Police!

How can we get better cops? Police advocates, like teacher advocates, would say we need to pay them more. I wonder.

Posted by: Charles Stansfield | July 18, 2008 10:14 AM

Murphie;
You are correct the satellite photo was slightly to the south-east of the body site. I was trying to highlight that open area around the road and where the forest pinches up to the road on the North and South. If you go to the "contour/elevation" display in google you'll see that the body site was almost at the same elevation as where the trees pinch the north end of the clearing, which would make for somewhat/alot easier dragging (especially if the assailant used an impromptu sling as I suggested in my first post) . I seriously don't think a male in his prime would a great deal of trouble moving a body that distance (i wouldn't), especially with a dragging sling.

I would also suggest ,if I was the assailant (I'm Canadian, and never been to eastern US ,BTW )) I would move my base of operations away from an undiscovered body at the very least ....

Posted by: robert somerville | July 18, 2008 10:22 AM

re my previous post:

2 more ideas:

1) have the police tried using metal detectors in an attempt to find the bracelet (it may still be there) . it may have fallen off or been broken off her wrist by a fallen tree or branch as she was being dragged to the body dumping site ??

2) be interesting to know if there were unusual signs of abrasion on the knotted slacks , consistent with them being used as a sling ...

Posted by: robert somerville | July 18, 2008 10:32 AM

bekynd: there are plenty of reasons not to come forward other than fear of violence. Fear of ridicule, fear that people will know you had an affair with a married man, shame on family, involvement with a long trial, etc.

I would not say that the victim's statement that IG spoke fluent english can be a very qualifed statement after a couple minutes of struggle and a couple sentences spoken.

I love that the police discounted IG on the basis that the women he attacked were different physically, like they had watched too many movies about profiling criminals. This guy was at a low point in his life and was lashing out generally, he was not a psychopathic serial killer to be profiled over months.

Posted by: huggie | July 18, 2008 10:41 AM

Ok, so where is Guantique now? What happened with him in the other assaults? Why isn't he being investigated/charged/ prosecuted for Levy now? I hope there will be more information coming up, because this part was very unsatisfying.

Posted by: whatelse | July 18, 2008 11:06 AM

Would love to know where this Guandique character is now? I don't have time to search the archives, but I hope the WP will tell us he's either been locked up forever or deported. As a young woman who likes to job outside (in NoVa, not DC), this is important!

Posted by: Keri | July 18, 2008 11:20 AM

Does anyone know if Condit was ever given a polygraph? And does anyone actually trust anything the police say? They are stooges! Does anyone actually believe the death of Caity Mahoney was a 'botched robbery'? Why has the Post not investigated that one? The people really running things will stop at nothing to get their way, and the mass media is simply a cog in that wheel.
An aside: interesting that Chandra visited Baskin Robbins' website the day she was murdered; and that Condit ended up opening two of those franchises out west after he left Congress.

Posted by: june | July 18, 2008 11:20 AM

I mean "jog." (ref my post above - typo)

Posted by: Keri | July 18, 2008 11:22 AM

This is a great discussion! So much better than the actual Post article that I've given up reading that. Very disappointing. And it's full of logical fallacies, cliché writing and no new info.

So keep debunking the Post's reporting folks. Maybe this is an experiment in the new, new, new journalism - where you report half-baked theories and repost old news just to get web traffic and advertising dollars. The Post no longer needs to investigate or research anything. They can write pure fiction and the public will fix it with real facts on a blog.

I'm looking forward to your comments on the next installments.

Posted by: Kristin | July 18, 2008 12:41 PM

Condit arranged for his own 3 question polygraph and then handed that to the police. They had asked him if he would take one, he said yes, then arranged it himself with a retired FBI guy asking him only 3 prearranged questions.

Posted by: Siren | July 18, 2008 12:41 PM

june; a blasphemous theory: perhaps Condit had told Chandra that he was going to leave his wife, and marry her.. that would explain the Baskin-Robbins coincidence ( a future career for one/both of them ). And it would explain her "Big News" . I read somewhere that Condit's wife had asked for a divorce in 96,, so it obviously wasn't a happy marriage, etc etc etc

Posted by: redspot | July 18, 2008 1:24 PM

Read that story I just linked to above. It basically says that Susan Levy knew about Chandra's affair with Condit weeks before she disappeared. The source and timing are credible, in that the minister couldn't have known about the Chandra/Condit connection from public information when he first spoke to the Post about his story, so the guy is no kook, in fact Susan Levy referred him first to the FBI.

So the Mom came to Washington knowing full well about Condit, and was playing a somewhat cagey game trying to out all the information. But the minister reports that she and Chandra had it out over Condit... so does she think that led to a breakup and some sinister action by Condit? I think Mrs. Levy came to town with a mind made up, and the Levys may have contributed to the police messing this investigation up by pressuring them to focus on the red herring of Condit.

Posted by: huggie | July 18, 2008 5:59 AM
____________________________

Very interesting observation.

But please note that two weeks after the minister told the FBI his story, he recanted the whole thing, and the FBI said it appeared he, in fact, made it all up -- at least the part about his daughter having been involved with Condit.

I don't think charges were ever filed against the minister for obstruction of justice. But it seems clear he was used to advance someone's agenda.....

Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2008 1:25 PM

There needs to be a full timeline presented on this whole case.

I believe Chandra's parents had been to the DC area just a couple of weeks before she disappeared, staying with friends who, apparently, have remained nameless. There is a video of Chandra mugging in the kitchen at this house during that visit. It played on the 24/7 networks back in the day.

Wonder where they lived, and if Chandra was on her way there when cutting through Rock Creek Park?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2008 1:40 PM

I believe that Condit had nothing to do with Chandra's disappearance. The first thing I thought after reading today's article was that Guandique is GUILTY!

Detective Green was a moron for not linking Guandique's statement to Levy's disappearance.

As well, the first thing I thought was an El Salvadorian farmer/laborer who had lived in a remote village would probably know how to jerry rig a device to carry heavy loads. It is called a travois, as the gentleman above pointed out above.Or it is called a hoist sling.

It is far more conceivable that Guandique stalked Chandry while she was in the park, hit her on the head or suffocated her until she was unconscious or dead, raped her while she was unconscious or dead (yes it happens)used her stretch jogging pants as a hoist line sling/travois, dragged her body and dumped it than it is for Condit to kill her in the park or outside the park.

Guandique admitted to Green that he saw Chandra in the park two weeks later after he attacked two women.

Sure Condit is lecher and has a history of only sleeping with women, but he does not have a proven record of sitting in a park stalking women with a knife.

Posted by: MJM | July 18, 2008 2:16 PM

Guandique admitted to Green that he saw Chandra in the park two weeks later after he attacked two women.


Posted by: MJM | July 18, 2008 2:16 PM
_______________________

And that guy in Bangkok admitted he "was with JonBenet" Ramsey when she died.

Sometimes people like to attach themselves to the lovely victims in the news.

Which reminds me of a pet peeve I've had about this case for a long time: Why did the family use a glamour shot of Chandra in all the missing person flyers? I would not have recognized her on the street from that image.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2008 2:34 PM

What is this obsession with a travois?

Chandra Levy weighed about 108 pounds; she was hardly some "big game" catch that needed to be dragged away with the help of some improvised contraption.

Do you really suppose that Senor Guandique attacked Ms. Levy on the path, subdued her, raped her, killed her, then took the time to strip her clothing off and turn it into your travois, and, only then, slowly dragged her dead body seventy-or-so yards into the park wilderness?

This is a young miscreant who was scared away three times that we know of-- two of those times despite holding his surprised victims at knifepoint! Yet, you have him doing all of this assaulting and raping and murdering and stripping and travois-making on a path in a public park in broad daylight on a beautiful May Day afternoon, as if there were no fear that anyone else might happen along at any moment!?! What turned him into a scaredycat just six days later? How did this scaredycat nonetheless control his vital signs and pass a police polygraph examination that seemed to clear him in the case of Ms. Levy's disappearance and death?

Just curious....

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 18, 2008 2:50 PM

Daniel, travois or no travois, you are right she weighed 108 pounds and was very petite. She was probably easier to subdue than an a 5.11 woman. She may not have fought back. Who knows? One of the other woman was schooled in self-defense. So may maybe Chandra did not put up such a struggle and therefore G-man was not scared off as with the other woman. My point is that it is more conceivable that G-man did rather than C-man. I am tired of speculating any further as there is no point. It could of been the poster Murphie whom seems to know an awful lot about the park for all we know. I am not serious, but the bottom line is that the police messed up and it will be difficult to prove who killed Chandra. Sorry about typos in this message. I am in a hurry and tired of speculating.

Posted by: MJM | July 18, 2008 3:03 PM

If you want to believe in the random crime theory, here's another scenario almost as plausible: Chandra was the victim of an alien abduction "gone bad." After the aliens had taken her aboard their ship, they started probing her with their instruments, she went into shock and died. They then beamed her body down to a little used section of Rock Creek Park. Her ring and keys haven't been found because they are still aboard the spaceship.

Posted by: Dr. Watson | July 17, 2008 8:36 PM
_________________

The alien abduction was staged to place her in the CIA. Sometime after the November election, Dick Cheney will out her to the media.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2008 3:11 PM

***

"It's also interesting that Christy asked the person whom she stopped for help to drive her to her boyfriends house first and then she was driven back to provide the report of her attack to the park police.

"If I were attacked I would want to go straight to the park police and then my husband or boyfriend could be called from the police office to come to my destination"

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 18, 2008 8:24 AM

***

For the record, she did not ask to be taken to her boyfriend's home, bekyndhearted; she asked to go pick him up first, further down the jogging path, where he had been jogging out in front of her at the time that she was attacked by Ingmar Guandique! F.Y.I.

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 18, 2008 3:42 PM

I think it's great that you have a synopsis of the first four or five installments to tell us all of the new and neat stuff you've uncovered. But that's still too much to read. Could you Post set up a special section of this great site to give me a synopsis of the synopses?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2008 4:22 PM

So detective Joe Green didn't think it relevant when the suspect he was questionning was linked to the attempted rape with a knife of two women, and then admitted that he had seen Chandra in Rock Creek Park, and said he thought she was pretty. After all, the case was not being handled by the Park Police!

How can we get better cops? Police advocates, like teacher advocates, would say we need to pay them more. I wonder.

Posted by: Charles Stansfield | July 18, 2008 10:14 AM

______________________________

In regards to the cited comment above. I wonder why he held a knife on the two women, but never killed them, nor raped them. And also when he robbed the lady's house his weapons were a large and two small screwdrivers

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 18, 2008 5:25 PM

I just read most of the comments on this page, after having spent my code red July afternoon basking in the AC.

I feel sorry for the Post journalists who have to contend with you lot, and I want them to know that many of us actually appreciate their efforts here very much. I hope they're reading these comments with a grain of salt, since it's not a shock that when you open such touchy subject matter up to the general population, this is the "enlightened response" you get.

The cast of characters who has been pontificating Nancy Drew style, and arguing with each other in mean spirit in the comments here, is laughable at best, but generally just pathetic.


Now you can all go and blame the MPD, the FBI, the MSM, and my dog. The fact of the matter is that this girl was killed. The circumstances suck. In fact, it's devastating. And if you've ever been a victim of, or a party to, violent crime, then you know just how traumatic it is. Unless someone confesses, there's probably no evidence that can help her parents gain closure on this and move on.

What a total f'ing travesty.

The Post is trying to, IMHO, shed light on this case so that maybe it won't happen again. Maybe one of the other thousands of kids who come to DC to gain a foot hold in the non-profit world or the government and make a difference can do so without their parents fearing the absolute worst when their kid didn't show up when they were supposed to.

You all might try being a little less critical and a little more praiseworthy -- at least for that reason alone.


Thanks for reading this.

Posted by: Dang | July 18, 2008 5:38 PM

bekynd: there are plenty of reasons not to come forward other than fear of violence. Fear of ridicule, fear that people will know you had an affair with a married man, shame on family, involvement with a long trial, etc.

_______________________________

huggie,

In regards to the above statement, what are you referring to?

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 18, 2008 5:40 PM

Does anyone know if Condit was ever given a polygraph?

An aside: interesting that Chandra visited Baskin Robbins' website the day she was murdered; and that Condit ended up opening two of those franchises out west after he left Congress.

Posted by: june | July 18, 2008 11:20 AM

_________________________________

june,

It was said that Condit had taken his own private personal polygraph test administered in the presence of his lawyer. This information was provided through the media as well as the WaPo.

And the reason Chandra visited Baskin Robbins webiste was because she knew as she he was her man's business deals along with other proprietary information. That is one of the reasons why I believe she was killed.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 18, 2008 5:52 PM

this El Salvadoran boy is a great example
of why we need to seal our southern border.

also, is he still in jail? Hope so.
I could not tell from today's article.

Posted by: John | July 18, 2008 6:04 PM

Sure Condit is lecher and has a history of only sleeping with women, but he does not have a proven record of sitting in a park stalking women with a knife.


Posted by: MJM | July 18, 2008 2:16 PM

MJM,

Who said that he really had a knife? I didn't see anything in the police report about them recovering a knife. They did report them recovering a large and two small screwdrivers, but nothing indicating a recovery of a knife.

And..why would he kill Chandra and not the other two females whom seemed to get away after a little tuggling with him, and it was also described that he attacked the women with bear hugs. I believe that Chandra would have fought him also.

Does anyone know anything about the two females that were attacked. Where do they work? Has anyone archived their names for any information about them?

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 18, 2008 6:06 PM

It was also stated that one of the ladies attacked dug her nails on the inside of his mouth. Once he was caught by the police I wonder if they examined his mouth because the mouth takes a while to heal.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 18, 2008 6:12 PM

bekyndhearted & june;

perhaps Condit was going to set Chandra up with a Baskin franchise so she could stay in D.C. ????

Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2008 6:12 PM

bekyndhearted & june;

perhaps Condit was going to set Chandra up with a Baskin franchise so she could stay in D.C. ????
___________________________

Or maybe she wanted to walk to the nearest Baskin Robbins for ice cream on a warm day.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2008 6:14 PM

For the record, she did not ask to be taken to her boyfriend's home, bekyndhearted; she asked to go pick him up first, further down the jogging path, where he had been jogging out in front of her at the time that she was attacked by Ingmar Guandique! F.Y.I.

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 18, 2008 3:42 PM

_________________________

DKH,

Thank you.

Now my question is why would a woman that is in the a wooded park jogging with a man go seperate ways? If I were jogging in a heavy wooded area such as Rock Creek Park and my male companion is with me, were jogging together. And if he was further up the trail wouldn't he hear her screaming. ( I know it's a possiblity that he has on headphones to just as she did, but she heard footsteps approaching her quickly)

Just wondering....

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 18, 2008 6:23 PM

This is a part of the article from the WaPo
cited below
__________________________________________
At the top of the hill, Shilling sensed that someone was behind her. She thought it was another runner, and she slowed to let him pass. Instead, the Hispanic man jumped on her back and grabbed her around the throat. They fell to the ground and tussled on the trail. The hum of the rush-hour traffic below drowned out her screams.

She saw his knife.
"No! No! No!" she shouted.
"Shhh," the man ordered.

Shilling jammed her fingers into her attacker's mouth, digging her nails beneath his tongue, as she had been taught in a self-defense class years earlier. The man bit her fingers, but released her and ran off. Shilling made her way to a U.S. Park Police station. She reported the crime and said she didn't believe her assailant was trying to rob her. He didn't take her Walkman or her large diamond engagement ring. She thought he was trying to rape or kill her.

________________________________________

The two women that were attacked must not have been to afraid of IG (the attacker) because if this guy had a knife as both females stated. I sure would not fight a strong male who is attacking me with a knife because I would fear that he would kill me.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 18, 2008 6:56 PM

"[Guandique] was booked on burglary charges and released [7 May] on a promise to return to court May 29."

We need to eliminate the catch and release policy for people who are in this country illegally. It should be catch and ship.

BTW, our southern friend is a federal pen in KY till 2011. Costing taxpayer $20K a year, on average.

Posted by: BPS | July 18, 2008 7:03 PM

Of all people, why wouldn't Chandra Levy, who was interning with the U.S. prison system, realize that she could be a target for a criminal while jogging in Rock Creek Park? Was she that naive to take off on a long walk/jog into the wilderness by herself?

Also, it's unbelievable that Detective Joe Green with the Park Police would not have reported the Guandique comment about Chandra to the DC Police. He said "It wasn't mine to pursue." Everyone in the DC area knew about the Chandra Levy case, and Green said nothing!! Who hired this irresponsible detective?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2008 7:20 PM

bekynhearted, please live up your name. Your comments about victims Halle and Christie are hurtful.

To the poster that asked what happened to Gaundique, he was sentenced to ten years in federal prison for these two assaults, both of which should be considered attempted murder. The legalese is probably not right but that's what it is.

To all who toss off Chnadra's murder as a walk in the park gone bad, please take a walk from DuPont Circle to grove 18 at the top of Ridge Road and then on out the No Horse path off of the horse trail, starting at 1 pm and with nothing but a walkman, 14k bracelet, ring, and a key, and then come back and tell us about it, including how you got there, what time you got there, your thoughts on walking back, and your recommmendations to women on this "walk in the park".

We will wait with bated breath.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 18, 2008 8:34 PM

RD - i'm having a hard time picturing the geography, and no, i have no intention of taking the walk myself. Someone should film the walk to explain it. Aside from that, there is a plausible case to make that she was harmed near the planetarium/nature center/horse stables, and then dragged to the remote area. That's plausible.

Also, what is your theory about the knotted leggings?

Posted by: eeave | July 18, 2008 8:42 PM

Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants in the United States.

After conducting a 12 month in-depth study of illegal immigrants who committed sex crimes and murders for the time period of January 1999 through April 2006 , it is clear that the U.S. public faces a dangerous threat from sex predators who cross the U.S. borders illegally.

Read more: http://www.drdsk.com/articles.html#Illegals

Posted by: Ann | July 18, 2008 8:54 PM

Oh, and the only prep you get is a MapQuest map of Rock Creek Park which is obtained with the address of Klingle Mansion, as shown in the Entertainment Guide in the Washington Post at the time. No peeking until just before you leave.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 18, 2008 9:04 PM

eeave, until you're willing to experience it, you won't undestand how implausible it is. I guarantee you not one of you suggesting it, including these reporters, have come close to trying it. No one would be nonchalant about it again after that.

As for visualizing, the WashPo has a picture at the top of the page on their story summaries page, where the day's chapter summaries is dropped down from the list of chapters.

That picture is of looking out at trees from the No Horses path, looking in the direction of Broad Brach Road. Well, it's really the only direction you can look, that or straight down.

Those trees you see in the picture are the upper portions of very tall trees coming out of the side of that huge hill. The base of it starts with a 70 foot cliff coming up from Broad Brach Road. Chandra was well above that evem, and still 240 feet down that tree covered enbankment, hidden in a washout below a tree.

Oh, but the nonchalant ones will get plenty of time to take a look on their walk from DuPont Circle. No need for me to dwell on it here.

As for the knotted leggings, for one they have to be taken completely off to knot them like that. I haven't seen them, but they would have a knot tied with the bottom of the pants on each leg.

Purpose? Well, the carrying stuff as handles is pretty silly. It's not hard to drag a body down that hill, you can barely keep from sliding yourself, until you run into a tree, which unfortunately was the only way I could stop myself several times.

The purpose is to stage a robbery and sex assault. Problem is that hill is too steep for it to have really happened, and it's just off the picnic table 18 on Ridge Road, extremely close to the road because, well I hate to repeat myself, because the hill is steep. They could barely get a small two lane in at the top of the ridge. Picnic tables are on steep inclines next to the road.

But no sex assault took place on that steep hill, the jewelry wasn't pawned, and the body was hidden hundreds of feet downhill.

That folks is a classic staged murder scene. That isn't the way a real sexual assault would have taken place with a petty thief like Guandique, not up there, not without pawning the jewelry, and not going to the effort of someone who knows the victim in hiding the body.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 18, 2008 9:30 PM

Woman's body found near Cary
A man walking his dog Monday night found a body in an undeveloped area that police think may be that of missing Cary jogger, Nancy Cooper. Wake County Sheriff Donnie Harrison said the man discovered the body about 7:30 p.m.

Updated: Jul. 15, 2008 4:48 AM | Full story from the Raleigh News and Observer (N.C.)
__________

Why is it always a dog-walker who finds the body?

Ralph, have you looked up anything about the dog-walker who was "looking for turtles" and found Chandra's bones? What possessed that person to go there?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2008 9:36 PM

I don't know, I start Murder on a Horse Trail with chapter Hunting Turtles asking a lot of questions like that.

The technical answer is because his dog was pawing on some leaves a few hundred feet up the hill, and when he reached down where the dog wa spawing he saw a skull. That's what he reported. For some strange reason no one will identify him.

I describe going up the hill as he said he did from Broad Branch Road later in the book, and that's something none of you will report as the way you got there, I guarantee it.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 18, 2008 9:46 PM

Condit was a serial sex offender as was Bill Clinton. Usually these types have no intention of physically harming anyone so I doubt that he is directly involved in her murder. But to be sure the one person that could shed more light on this is Mrs. Condit! She knows of his pandering and also knows if he is capable of murder. As far as I know she has never spoken publically about this case?

Posted by: dlg358 | July 18, 2008 11:19 PM


Problem with that is your focus on the sexual affair of the woman murdered versus the sexual affair she asked Condit about just before she disappeared.

There's a difference.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 18, 2008 11:32 PM

Problem with that is your focus on the sexual affair of the woman murdered versus the sexual affair she asked Condit about just before she disappeared.

There's a difference.

rd
______________________

Are you referring to the fabricated affair she asked Condit about before she disappeared?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2008 11:36 PM


I analyze it closely. The minister could no more fabricate a story that didn't have one catchable flaw in six WashPo interviews, a ModBee interview, and an FBI interview over a six week period than you could. You can't do it. You're not good enough, and I know he wasn't.

For those reading, skip the "fabicated" generics of this guy's claim and cut to the chase, look at the detailed story that he recounts to the Washington Post, who reported it.

Not one verifiable flaw in it. This particular poster I know claims the Levys put him up to it rather than he told Susan Levy the story when he was gardening her yard, but for the rest of you the entire Levy family also talked to OC Thomas twice to determine if he was telling the truth, and again, they could find nothing deceptive in what the retired minister was telling them, crying the whole time.

Decide for yourself. Don't let someone with an agenda decide for you.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 19, 2008 12:01 AM

The teases for this series explicitly promised "sex." I'm still waiting.

Posted by: Bill | July 17, 2008 9:40 PM

Bill, whoever you are, I had to say thanks for making me laugh with your dry sense of humor.

And thanks to the Post for this compelling series. I am not a fan of tabloid journalism, and I disagree with readers who think it is. It's not about sensationalism, or sex, or even about Chandra -- it's about shining a light on the critical missteps (aka negligence) of those in charge of the investigation.

Park Police Detective Green's excuse for not mentioning Chandra in his report, or sharing Guandique's confession with officers on Chandra's case -- "It wasn't mine to pursue" -- is outrageous and unforgivable, especially from a 30-year veteran. Reminds me of 9/11, and how the FBI & CIA missed important clues because they were more intent on protecting their turf than sharing critical information.

I find this series worthwhile, but I agree with some previous posters -- I would like to see a 35-part series on each one of Dennis Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment. Plenty of intrigue, murder, and deception, with some torture and spying thrown in. How about it?

http://kucinich.us/impeachment/articles.pdf.

Posted by: dc denizen | July 19, 2008 2:07 AM

rd,

In regards to your comment cited below I live up to my name. I'm only making comments of my opinion and not making the comments toward anyone in a hurtful or mean way except for Condit. The comment you're referring to was not commented in the way you're taking it. I'm stating that if it were me and a strong male attacked me with a knife to my chin, there is no way I would fight him. And I don't think to any other females would either.

_____________________________________

bekynhearted, please live up your name. Your comments about victims Halle and Christie are hurtful.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 19, 2008 3:20 AM

rd,

In regards to your comment cited below I live up to my name. I'm only making comments of my opinion and not making the comments toward anyone in a hurtful or mean way except for Condit. The comment you're referring to was not commented in the way you're taking it. I'm stating that if it were me and a strong male attacked me with a knife to my chin, there is no way I would fight him. And I don't think to any other females would either.

_____________________________________

bekynhearted, please live up your name. Your comments about victims Halle and Christie are hurtful.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 19, 2008 3:20 AM

What a bunch of kooks and nuts on this website! Who the hell is "rd" and is he being paid to clog up the works? This is just another example of all the bs that police have to contend with in addition to solving a crime.

Posted by: dlg358 | July 19, 2008 8:26 AM

"What a bunch of kooks and nuts on this website! Who the hell is "rd" and is he being paid to clog up the works? This is just another example of all the bs that police have to contend with in addition to solving a crime."
Posted by: dlg358 | July 19, 2008 8:26 AM

You are apparently browsing the wrong section of the site. The "works" appears elsewhere; a series written in very easy to read articles, doesn't make you have to think, you can just go along for the ride. Each day's report takes only a few minutes to get through. This is a comment section, where you are invited to think, opine and share relevant analysis. This is where people who are interested in finding truth gravitate.
If you were at all this type, you would quickly find the answer to your question.

Posted by: stevdart | July 19, 2008 10:21 AM

dlg358, my name is Ralph Daugherty. Just google me, all my particulars are out there.

The Washington Post nor any other reporters have ever contacted me, they certainly don't need to solicit opinions, everyone has one, and because of that, opinions aren't rare and I work a day job for pay.

bekyndhearted, I don't know what to make of your point. Halle and Christy fought off Guandiqie in the two attacks and lived to testify about it in victim statements. You may not choose to try to fight off someone who grabs you and puts something metal up to your neck, but by saying you don't know of any woman who would you basically question these two women's actions and accounts and any other woman who fights for her life.

But as long as you're kind hearted about it. :)

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 19, 2008 10:50 AM

stevdart "where people interested in finding the truth gravitate" You can't handle the truth! And now Denizen wants us to study the Kucinich impeachement papers? As I said before bunch of kooks and nuts!Like Condit or not he had nothing to do with this murder! He ruined a lot of other lives but did not kill Chandra.

Posted by: dlg358 | July 19, 2008 3:13 PM

what do you base your strong feelings on about Condit ruining a lot of lives but did not kill Chandra, and what is the truth we can't handle?

I believe in laying the details out there and letting people draw their own conclusion.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 19, 2008 3:35 PM

Hey, RD,

I recall you from chandralevy.com, and I admire how you copped all that great info and turned it into a book. If I haven't confused you with someone else on that site, didn't you think she was buried under a sidewalk under construction at a fastfood site in West Virginia? But I digress, even if I'm not confused.

Still baffled how people who actually talked to OC -- as FBI agents did (and you, presumably, did not) -- said the story was recanted by OC, and that they believed the "recantation." I am baffled how you think his story still has legs -- except, perhaps, you think so because it is crucial to your pet theory (and I am not dismissing your theory, just not buying into it).

A lot of attention has been trained on making Condit appear to have been obfuscating or diverting attention or obstructing the investigation by somehow not cooperating -- and I don't deny that people whose theories these sorts of behaviors feed don't have reason to latch onto them -- but there has not been an equal amount of attention trained on how the Levys were party to plenty of sideshows in this saga -- the minister's weird confession-turned-recantation merely one of them.

In a purely objective sense -- and knowing it will appall some people reading this -- I don't see how it can be overlooked that the Levy side of the story could have been trying to divert attention away from themselves by creating noise about someone else.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 19, 2008 3:44 PM

yes, regards from those days. The recant was done when the news leaked and the press camped outside his apartment, he was threatened with being kicked out of his apartment because of it, and his family was furious wit him and his daughter ran away from having to face the press, because as he had told the Washington Post, she feared for her life. Rightly so, after Chandra disappeared. So did several other Condit mistresses.

But let's let the readers look at the details and decide. I lay out what OC Thomas said and the circumstances surrounding it during six weeks of questioning by the Washington Post, Modesto Bee, the FBI, and the Levy family, up until the news leaked.

The details are in chapters Friendships and Exposed in Murder on a Horse Trail, readers can google and read them. Yes, I ask many questions about it in Exposed, and just as you brush if off with recanted, OC cannot brush it off with "I dug a hole I couldn't get out of."

Any answer to Chandra's murder must include answers from OC, because Chandra disappeared when her mother pressed Chandra for answers to OC's story about his daughter.

Time is not standing still, but this investigation is.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 19, 2008 4:24 PM

I believe in laying the details out there and letting people draw their own conclusion.

rd


Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 19, 2008 3:35 PM

Followed by....

Any answer to Chandra's murder must include answers from OC, because Chandra disappeared when her mother pressed Chandra for answers to OC's story about his daughter.


rd


Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 19, 2008 4:24 PM
_________________________

I get it. People are free to draw their own conclusions, so long as they conclude the same thing you conclude.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 19, 2008 4:37 PM

rd..........before we go any further "do you think OJ Simpson did it"? And, I mean murdered Nicole not Chandra? Just wanted to establish some sort of level of degree to whom I am speaking. Just plain common sense tells me that Condit did not do this. Just as I new with certainty that JonBenet's family did not kill her. It's people logic.

Posted by: dlg358 | July 19, 2008 5:11 PM

Not to add to the "nuts & kooks" on this blog or take away from the journalistic work but what about psychic information. This sounds crazy but I think I've seen or sensed (whatever you call it) some information that may or may not be helpful.
Of course, I originally dismissed it because, well, I'm not a kook but I keep thinking, what if it could help.

Posted by: lynn | July 19, 2008 5:28 PM

I haven't researched those cases, and no, I lay out the details of Chandra's case for people to draw their own conclusion. OC could give answers that explain his elaborate story with detals no one could find a falsification in. But I'm waiting for that explanation, at least as detailed as his story.

And whether falsified or not, and for those who look, that's a complex story to make up and defend for six weeks without anyone being able to find anything wrong with it, Chandra still asked Condit about it and he still "explained it all". What did he explain, and why did her daily cell phone calls to his message line end that day?

All I ask is that anyone dismissing Chandra's murder as a walk in the park, is to take the Chandra Levy Walk in the Park Challenge and walk from DuPont Circle to grove 18 on the top of Ridge Road starting at 1 pm and tell us when you got there, how you got there, and just when you think you'll make it back to DuPont Circle.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 19, 2008 6:20 PM

after first going crosscountry out the No Horses path from grove 18 of course.

And the only thing you can bring with you is a Walkman radio and a key, wearing a 14k bracelet and diamond studded ring.

Engraved with intertwined CL optional.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 19, 2008 6:28 PM

Chandra did not have a car in Washington, she'd been dismissed from her internship, so she wasn't working, it was already daylight savings time, so it wouldn't get dark until about 7 pm, even if she wasn't an avid runner, she could walk on any steep hills ... why does it seem so impossible that she'd be there? If she'd been working at the internship the whole time she was in Washington, perhaps there had been no time and no great weather to allow her to take a walk or see a site she'd always wanted to see. She can't have her savvy questioned if she had no idea what she was walking into.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 19, 2008 6:49 PM

i grew up in the d.c. area. a female, i would never, ever go deep into Rock Creek Park alone. that's just nuts.

Posted by: anon | July 19, 2008 7:19 PM

Shoddy police work all around, clouded by media attention on the victims ties to a congressman. The illegal who sits in jail may never be tied tied to the killing because the evidence rotted for so long. But it was likely him considering his known acts. Hillary had nothing to do with the murder, and thankfully will have nothing to do with the upcoming presidential race either. And why was Conduit so cagey with investigators and the press? Duh, think about it. Or maybe consult your psychic. lol.

Posted by: bubbleman | July 19, 2008 8:30 PM

I agree rd, this was no walk in the park. Chandra had a incredible willingness to submit to Condit's insistence to keep things quiet-- until-- he had "explained it all." When and if she found out that: A. she was played (as many women have been by Condit), B. Condit's wife wasn't "sickly" (ie, he wasn't leaving her), and C. he had no intention of helping her find a job in DC, she rightly felt betrayed and maybe wanted to make noise (this girl did not take breakups well). Condit--and let's not forget this was shortly after the Monica fiasco-- would never let a 24 year-old intern destroy the career (and apparent bachelor lifestyle) he had built.

Posted by: BPS | July 19, 2008 8:35 PM

A man in uniform.

Posted by: lynn | July 19, 2008 8:56 PM

Once and for all, can someone tell me if the Levys knew about the affair before the disappearance? This series makes it seem like they didn't, as the mother called the congressman for help. But a previous archived story says Mrs Levy asked Chandra to break it off... Thanx

Posted by: Curious | July 20, 2008 1:58 AM

Lynn would you care to elaborate on a man in uniform? Are you suggesting it was a man in uniform who killed her?

Posted by: siren | July 20, 2008 2:00 AM

***

Just plain common sense tells me that Condit did not do this. Just as I new with certainty that JonBenet's family did not kill her. It's people logic.

Posted by: dlg358 | July 19, 2008 5:11 PM

***

"Plain common sense" told you that JonBenet was killed by an intruder? Was that because so few children that age who are murdered in their homes are murdered by family members? Was it because chronic bed-wetting is so infrequently a cause of violence in the home against young children? Was it because such a large portion of murdered children her age killed in the home are killed by an intruder from a "small foreign faction" seeking an oddly derived ransom amount for a child that has already been killed and is subsequently left there in the home to be discovered?

I am still waiting to hear the current Boulder D.A.'s brilliant theory of the case, concentrating on the multiple drafts of the ransom note that were written within the victim's home, using materials taken from within it, with the final draft's then being left on the stairs, despite the dead child's then being left in the house too.

As for Ms. Levy's case, it still comes down to means, motive and opportunity. Ingmar Guandique is a facially plausible suspect; but, there is no physical evidence tying him to the case. He passed an official polygraph examination, while his jailbird accuser (surprise! surprise!) failed his. The fact that Senor Guandique attacked his two known subsequent assault victims-- who were vastly different from Chandra Levy in height and coloration-- with a knife, while Ms. Levy was apparently asphyxiated with her own clothing, augurs against Ingmar Guandique, as well. So does the fact that he fled from each of his three known crime scenes before completing his intended tasks-- scared away, in each case, solely by an unarmed woman.

I am unaware of Ingmar Guandique's either murdering or sexually assaulting anyone, whether in D.C. or back home in El Salvador. The notion that mailing a sexually explicit letter to a model seen in a periodical, by a young man expecting to be behind bars for the next decade or so, is a proverbial 'smoking gun' that proves a known murder and a suspected rape is patently absurd.

As for Mr. Condit, the means are plausible. Either by force or subterfuge-- e.g., making love in the park-- he easily could have gotten Ms. Levy out of her clothing, and then used some of it to strangle her to death. It would have been not only effective per se, but also would have made the crime look just as many people view it: a random rapist, lurking in the park, who killed his unlucky victim to silence the only witness against him. Q.E.D.

Did Congressman Condit have a motive to kill Chandra Levy? No one other than Mr. Condit now knows that for certain; but, he is such an inveterate liar that it is simply beyond believing any self-serving claim he might make on the issue. We do know, despite his perjurious denials, that he had an affair with Chandra Levy, and that she believed, at least up until a few days before her death, that he was planning to leave his wife-- or just waiting for her to drop dead, in short order-- and then to marry Ms. Levy, in about five years.

Any married man having an affair has some motive for murder, whether of the wife or of the mistress. That increases along with the number of mistresses. When the mistress in question is quite adamant about marrying the adulterer in question, his motive is clear, even absent a specific falling out, as might well also have happened in the final days of Ms. Levy's life, especially after her friend let her know how naive he thought that she was being simply to believe what her powerful married paramour was promising her.

Did Mr. Condit have the opportunity to kill Chandra Levy on the afternoon of May Day 2001? It certainly appears so. He attended a brief meeting with the Vice President, and then was apparently free for several hours, beginning shortly before Chandra Levy last signed off her computer, before he finally returned to his office. Mr. Condit lived quite near Rock Creek Park, and very well could have asked Ms. Levy to meet him at some specific location there, perhaps during their last cell-phone conversation on April 29th. He could have suggested, for instance, that they go jogging together, and that she come dressed accordingly, after which he would give her a ride back to her apartment.

Mr. Condit had brought most of the suspicion that he faced in 2001-- and which he still faces now-- upon himself. His dishonesty has been breathtaking. While it well might be understandable that a man does not wish to be found out to be an adulterer-- let alone a serial adulterer, juggling more than one mistress at a time-- many of his attempts to create an alibi for himself for the time of Chandra Levy's presumed demise on May Day go far beyond an attempt merely to avoid being tied to her romantically. He has abused his wife, his mistresses, his staff, the system, and the public at large, especially with his dishonest attempts to create the illusion that he could not possibly have met with Ms. Levy in Rock Creek Park on May Day 2001, when it appears quite clear that he well could have done so.

Absent forensic evidence from the killing, I do not see how a provable case could ever be made against Mr. Condit for the murder of Chandra Levy, unless some direct evidence-- eye-witness testimony or a confession-- put him in the park with her on that May Day afternoon. That is quite a different thing, however, from claiming that it is "plain common sense" that Mr. Condit could not, would not and/or did not commit this crime.

We do not have to posit any fact not already in evidence-- e.g., an assault, be it sexual or otherwise-- to assume a motive for Gary Condit's intending to murder Chandra Levy; yet, precisely such an assumption of a fact not in evidence needs to be made in order to create a plausible motive for the stranger Ingmar Guandique to have intended to murder Chandra Levy that May Day afternoon in 2001.

D.K.H., M.S. [Soc. Psych.], J.D. [inter alia]

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 20, 2008 3:01 AM

dlg358, my name is Ralph Daugherty. Just google me, all my particulars are out there.

The Washington Post nor any other reporters have ever contacted me, they certainly don't need to solicit opinions, everyone has one, and because of that, opinions aren't rare and I work a day job for pay.

bekyndhearted, I don't know what to make of your point. Halle and Christy fought off Guandiqie in the two attacks and lived to testify about it in victim statements. You may not choose to try to fight off someone who grabs you and puts something metal up to your neck, but by saying you don't know of any woman who would you basically question these two women's actions and accounts and any other woman who fights for her life.

But as long as you're kind hearted about it. :)

rd


Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 19, 2008 10:50 AM

__________________________________

rd,

And if that is what the two females chose to do that's them, and as I stated before as my opinion, I will again. There is no way I would fight a strong male with a 5' knife in my chin, and I don't think to many other females would either. And you can take my opinion however you want to take it. But it's not going to change. And I really don't care what you make of my comment. There are comments that you have given your opinion on and I didn't know what your point was, but as I know, you are entitled to your opinion.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 20, 2008 7:38 AM


i grew up in the d.c. area. a female, i would never, ever go deep into Rock Creek Park alone. that's just nuts.

Posted by: anon | July 19, 2008 7:19 PM
__________________________________________

Thank you anon! My point exactly! There is no way. And I defintely would not go there with my boyfriend to jog and then go seperate ways either. (Let alone deep into Rock Creek Park)

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 20, 2008 7:50 AM

"Any married man having an affair has some motive for murder..." D.K.H. So if almost half of the married men in this country and 30% of the married women (I do assume it is the same for married women?") are having affairs there should be a whole lot of bodies out there! Especially in D.C.! I would think that the man or women instead of turning to murder would get out of the relationship by using the same charm, wit, and attractiveness that got them there. Murder takes it to a far different level of missing chromosomes, etc. I'm not saying that Condit is not capable of murder it's just that it was too "public" of a place and you allude that maybe it was premediated on his part. I would like to see a FBI profile on this case and maybe we will later in the series? As to the JonBenet murder it was the DNA from the beginning! The unknown semen on her underpants. And, now with the findings of last week of additional unk. DNA on her pajamas I think that pretty well exonerates the Ramsey family. You never did say if O.J. was guilty?

Posted by: dlg358 | July 20, 2008 9:42 AM

From what I've read here there are some plain common sense things that leap out:

1) Few women venture out without their cell phones, especially if going to a new place alone;
2) A woman who has worked in criminal justice knows of the creeps and miscreants that are out there and is, therefore, generally more careful;
3) Gary Condit seemed more interested in his ____ than he did, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, in protecting our safety;
4) I hope that the woman whose fiance ran ahead of her on a lonely trail did not marry him;
5) Never trust a minister or the son of such;
6) The simpliest solution is generally the correct one.

Posted by: Elizabeth | July 20, 2008 10:05 AM

It is depressing to see how, when a police investigation starts, the initial path of the investigation is so dependent on the personal biases, hunches, opinions of the investigating officer, rather than a cold examination of facts. In your examination of this case, did you come across any guidelines or training that the police have for those crucial first few hours after they start an investigation? Or is it pretty much up the competence (or lack thereof) of the officer who is the first investigator? Also, based on this case, do the law enforcement agencies now a system whereby if a predator is attacking women, all the police jurisdictions in the surrounding areas are notified?

Posted by: deemess1968 | July 20, 2008 10:47 AM

***

"Any married man having an affair has some motive for murder..." D.K.H. So if almost half of the married men in this country and 30% of the married women (I do assume it is the same for married women?") are having affairs there should be a whole lot of bodies out there! Especially in D.C.! I would think that the man or women instead of turning to murder would get out of the relationship by using the same charm, wit, and attractiveness that got them there. Murder takes it to a far different level of missing chromosomes, etc. I'm not saying that Condit is not capable of murder it's just that it was too "public" of a place and you allude that maybe it was premediated on his part. I would like to see a FBI profile on this case and maybe we will later in the series? As to the JonBenet murder it was the DNA from the beginning! The unknown semen on her underpants. And, now with the findings of last week of additional unk. DNA on her pajamas I think that pretty well exonerates the Ramsey family. You never did say if O.J. was guilty?

Posted by: dlg358 | July 20, 2008 9:42 AM

***

You really ought to try a tad harder to keep your facts straight, DLG358. To begin at the end, it was Mr. Daugherty, not me, whom you asked about O.J. Simpson-- which might well explain my silence on the matter, might it not? At any rate, the question per se is so ambiguous that, were I still practicing law, I would certainly advise Mr. Daugherty not to answer your question.

[If someone asks you whether you believe in UFOs, what does a simple "yes" or "no" answer reveal? Does a "yes" mean that you believe that you are an alien abductee on a nightly basis; or, merely that you believe that there are objects, or what appear to be objects, that are flying, or that appear to be flying, that are unidentifiable, or are simply as of yet unidentified? Does a "no" answer simply mean that you do not believe the latter contention; or, does it mean that you are claiming as a scientific fact that there is not, and cannot be, life elsewhere in the vast universe in which we reside? An ambiguous yes-or-no question, such as yours about O.J. Simpson, cannot elicit a simple and unambiguous "yes" or "no" answer.]

I will go on record here, regardless, to unambiguously state my own opinion-- which I, as someone trained in History (B.A.), as well as the several aforementioned academic subjects, consider to be an unimpeachable historical fact-- that Orenthal James Simpson, in fact, did knife to death both his ex-wife, Nicole Simpson (nee Brown), and her acquaintance, Ronald Goldman, on the Sunday evening of June 12, 1994, in the City of Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. (Mr. Simpson is welcome to attempt to sue me for defamation based on this oft-stated belief; but, as I understand it, he might have more pressing concerns right about now....)

*

"So if almost half of the married men in this country and 30% of the married women (I do assume it is the same for married women?") are having affairs there should be a whole lot of bodies out there! Especially in D.C.!"

*

I claimed that "[a]ny married man having an affair has some motive for murder, whether of the wife or of the mistress." Merely having "some motive" to kill a wife or a mistress is unlikely to cause such a murder to actually take place, since people also tend to have other qualms, whether they be moral or practical. A genuine misanthrope has a motive to murder literally everyone else in the world; but, one rarely murders anyone at all. I will admit to having a motive to kill an awful lot of people, if not quite the whole 6.7+ billion others of you. Having a motive, or even an explicit desire, to murder someone is not a crime.

For the record, however, there are a lot of dead spouses and mistresses that have popped up over the course of human existence. In D.C., however, the number may be expected to be appreciably lower, not higher, than it is elsewhere, despite the capital's very high per capita murder rate, because of the simple demographic fact that most of the murderers in D.C. are males who have never bothered as of yet to marry anyone at all.

*

"I would think that the man or women instead of turning to murder would get out of the relationship by using the same charm, wit, and attractiveness that got them there."

*

One would both think and hope so; but, alas, the criminal annals of this and every other land known to man and woman demonstrate, beyond peradventure, that there is no end to the number of folks who are willing to risk murder rather than a spouse's or mistress' rath, or whatever else, over a marital or romantic break-up. C'est la vie? C'est la morte, mon ami!

*

"Murder takes it to a far different level of missing chromosomes, etc."

*

FROM DR. BARRY STARR OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY:

...

"The only case where a missing chromosome is tolerated is when an X or a Y chromosome is missing. This condition, called Turner syndrome or XO, affects about 1 out of every 2,500 females. XO is one of the most common chromosomal abnormalities."

...

I am a layman, not formally trained in the hard sciences; but, as someone trained in both Law and Personality & Social Psychology (inter alia), and who obviously has some avocational interest in the subject of murder, I am unaware of any case in which such a woman has committed murder. I would expect, as a matter of probability, that it likely has happened throughout the course of human history; but, I certainly am unaware of any such murder case that has received publicity in which such a genetic defect has been used as a criminal defense!?!

*

"I'm not saying that Condit is not capable of murder it's just that it was too "public" of a place and you allude that maybe it was premediated on his part."

*

In the first place, premeditation as a legal construct requires a mere fraction of a second of malice aforethought, not intricate advanced planning. In the second place, the position of Ms. Levy's remains was hardly a terribly public place, or it would not have taken a year and three weeks to accidentally uncover them. Virtually any murder requires the murderer to take on some degree of risk that he or she will be found out as such.

The criminal annals are filled with people who misjudged just how clever-- and lucky-- they could be. This is especially true when a murder is based upon romantic motivations, which are contrived under an abnormal brain chemistry and psychology. No one said that life would be easy-- and that goes double, at least, for homicide!

While Congressman Condit might conceivably have killed Chandra Levy on the spur of the moment in Rock Creek Park while engaged in a romantic tryst, the overall circumstances certainly seem to me to augur for a planned act, whether it was his, for motives already discussed at length, or of some "predator in the park," as you and Ms. Horwitz, et al., seem to believe.

*

"I would like to see a FBI profile on this case and maybe we will later in the series?"

*

Again, as someone trained in both Law and Personality & Social Psychology, I do not give an exceptional amount of credence to profilers. Like psychotherapists, they tend to bask in the false notion that they as a group possess both arcane knowledge and some preternatural empathic capabilities that are beyond the ken of us mere mortals. Most of their public pronouncements are post hoc, and only include those of their assumptions that turned out to be true-- with many such assumptions being ones that any relatively intelligent, well-educated and well-informed layman might also have drawn independently. A good computer program can make predictions about likely traits in unknown cases, based upon known traits in historical cases.

The longest and most expensive F.B.I. case ever, at least up until that time (1996), was the Unabomber case. It was solved not by the F.B.I. (although they have the chutzpah to credit themselves!), but by the brother of Dr. Ted Kaczinski, the Unabomber, upon noting the similarity between his brother's published manifesto and some writing samples known to the Kaczinski family.

Of all of the suspects on the F.B.I. persons-of-interest list in that case, prior to the heads-up from Mr. Kaczinski about his older brother, Dr. Kaczinski was not among them. The suspect profile that the collective wisdom of all of the F.B.I.'s vaunted team of psychological profilers had concocted was utterly unlike the traits of Ted Kaczinski. Caveat emptor!

*

"As to the JonBenet murder it was the DNA from the beginning! The unknown semen on her underpants. And, now with the findings of last week of additional unk. DNA on her pajamas I think that pretty well exonerates the Ramsey family."

*

I do not want to hijack the Chandra Levy site to rail against the official case in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey; but, since you do raise the issue again....

Again, you need to get your facts straight. There has been no semen stain discovered in the JonBenet Ramsey case! In fact, it was concluded early on that Miss Ramsey had been sexually abused with digital or instrumental penetration, not raped per se. There was a small blood stain found early on in the criminal investigation, which was said to be an admixture of JonBenet Ramsey's blood and that of an unknown male. The male DNA that was supposedly extracted from this admixture supposedly matches new DNA that was found in a few different spots on JonBenet Ramsey's underwear-- and that is the basis for the current D.A.'s recent letter claiming to exonerate Mr. and (the late) Mrs. Ramsey in the death of their young daughter, JonBenet.

One problem with the use of DNA is that the proclaimed probabilities can blind people, including investigators and jurors, to the problems of whether those astronomically large probabilities are based, in fact, on valid and reliable samples and analyses. This was a strong part of O.J. Simpson's successful defense in his criminal trial, where sympathetic jurors seemingly chose to overlook the probabilities and clung to some downright conspiratorial conclusions of how the blood samples came to be where and as they were.

In the JonBenet Ramsey case, even if one grants certain assumptions, arguendo, based upon the asserted DNA results from the past nearly dozen years, they do not logically clear the parents, nor remove the many facts that augur against them, such as their odd and defensive behavior, and the ludicrous nature of the supposed ransom note, in all its uniquely loquacious detail.

If we grant, arguendo, that JonBenet Ramsey was sexually molested while wearing the underwear in which she was allegedly murdered on the night of December 25-26, 1996, that does not mean that the sexual molestation which left that evidence was committed that night. JonBenet might have been repeatedly molested by one or more people with access to her, over an extended period of time, for all we know.

Even if we grant, arguendo, that she was molested that evening, while wearing that pair of underwear (which I actually doubt, since she is reputed to have wet her bed that evening after returning home), it does not follow that the molestation took place at the hands of an intruder after the family returned home that Christmas evening.

Even if we grant, arguendo, that it was such an intruder who molested her that evening, after the family had returned home (and despite the issue of the home's security system supposedly being left off at all of the requisite times, as the supposed home intruder supposedly came and went), that does not logically require that the supposed molester also killed JonBenet Ramsey.

If such an intruder came and went, JonBenet could have belatedly erupted in distress after the debilitating shock loosened its grip, and such an outburst could have led to the results that are theorized about Patsy Ramsey's criminal behavior, including both the accidental killing of JonBenet and the staging of the kidnapping scenario. Or, if the intruder was actually someone known and otherwise liked and trusted by JonBenet Ramsey, she might have had no adverse reaction at all to the molestation, and only reacted to her own bed-wetting later still that evening, causing, again, the speculated behavior by the Ramseys, especially Patsy.

Personally, I do not believe in the intruder theory, and I believe that one or both of the parents, but most likely Patsy, killed their daughter accidentally in response to a bed-wetting, and whatever else might have occurred that evening, which then led to the staging of the bizarre kidnapping scenario. The evidence being used by the current D.A. to supposedly exonerate the couple (in Patsy Ramsey's case, posthumously) is insufficient to do so, even if it is valid and reliable per se.

D.K.H., EXQ.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 20, 2008 3:03 PM

Once the police thought they were looking for a body in Rock Creek park, and had an area of interest, did they ever use blood hounds or cadaver dogs? Her body might have been found soon enough to obtain forensic evidence if they had.

Posted by: Mike | July 20, 2008 3:07 PM

Excellent research. I love the Post again, as to many others. Those of us who walk the park to relax, however, question if: 1) There has ever been a better explaination of why the chief of dectectives did not immediately relate this information on similiar attacts to investigators ( it makes the poor man look foolish, in retrospect); 2) What happened to, and where is, this Salivorian predator now, 3) Was the focus of the case on Conduit because of personal and political aspirations of the prosecutors.????

Aside: would you like to know more about the natural dangers of the park? There are several recent incidents, involving drowned dogs, and savior type heroic efforts by owners. Also, their have been many reports of male sexual harrassment, by other males, in the area. Problem being, poeple interested in spontaneous sex, or spontaneous murder, are difficult to differentiate, even for a trained dog.

Anyhow, great investigation!! Reminds me of the old Woodward and Bernstien stuff.

Bless you

Interesting1

Posted by: Interesting1 | July 20, 2008 3:22 PM

Fascinating story. Well researched and well written. Do you have any statistics on the missing persons situation in the Capital area. Am I correct in assuming this investigation involved more police resources than the average case?

Posted by: Ernest Payne | July 20, 2008 3:31 PM

Google maps is very helpful in picturing the scene. At their site, http://maps.google.com/, you can type in chandra levy, washington, dc, and the resulting map as the "a" pinpoint to let you zoom in and out. You can do the same for Klingle Mansion and Condit's condo. It's also easier to see everything in relation to Beach Drive and Ridge Road. The predator attacked north near Wise, and south, along Beach Drive.

Where Beach and Ridge do cross is north of Klingle Mansion. If Chandra was heading to the nature center, that's where she would have been seen and stalked.

Unfortunately for Condit, his condo is on the road to Klingle Mansion and the park, where she was heading, and he still lacks an alibi for those hours.

Posted by: eeave | July 20, 2008 6:03 PM

Am I the only one who finds it strange that Chandra, a couple of days before a cross-country move, would have gone from New Hampshire Avenue to the Klingle Mansion, just to go running? There are portions of Rock Creek Park much closer to her apartment, and the fact thazt she had to look up the Klingle Mansion seems to indicate that she had never been there. What other explanation could there be than that she was meeting someone?

Posted by: Jan | July 20, 2008 6:07 PM

I find is interesting that people are negatively referencing Ms. Levy due to her relationships with married men. I guess it's OK that Mr. Condit was repeatedly cheating on his wife and that Ms. Levy was one of his many conquests. I am disgraced by Condit's behavior in that valuable time was lost waiting for him to admit the truth, and by the bumbling of the case by police forces. Closure for the Levy family was too long in coming and I hope and pray that bringing cold cases such as this one again to the attention of the public helps solve it. And, I'm frankly sick and tired of the race and religious insinuations as to why this young woman's case was featured above others. Anytime we can solve the case of the death of another young woman is a victory for all of us. It's time this killer was brought to justice.

Posted by: Time For Justice | July 20, 2008 6:13 PM

by the way, the Reporters Notebook update #7 answering some reader's questions I thought was very well done.

The statement that it appears from the crime scene that Chandra was attacked along Western Ridge Trail (on the No Horses path going off the trail at grove 18) is unquestionably true. The series reported earlier on that a pair of sunglasses (presumably identified as hers) was found in bushes along the trail above, leading one to believe they were knocked off as she was attacked and taken downhill.

While undoubtedly it appears that way, the only issue is whether it was staged or not. I argue that it also was undoubtedly a staged crime scene.

How hard is it to throw a pair of sunglasses into the bushes as you take a body downhill to hide it? And then of course there are those who also suggest that they fell accidentally as she was toted down the path and downhill.

The problem with that is that the sunglasses were found some distance further away from grove 18 and Ridge Road, suggesting that Chandra had turned around and was returning, albeit in a circuitous crosscountry route around the peak of the hill and toward Grant Road and then back around to Ridge Road again. Lots of time to kill, heh?

But tossing those sunglasses in the opposite direction from where she was brought in would be what someone would do to stage the crime scene. They bring Chandra in from pulling off next to grove 18 picnic table, a small spot you can back into to unload a horse if you want to, and walk a few yards down the path into a deep forest and then drop downhill a couple of hundred feet to a spot well above a cliff below. The remains were placed in a little washout downhill below a tree, protected on the flanks by 10 to 12 foot deep ravines.

So in staging a scene, the murderer comes back up and continues on down the path away from where he came from for several more yards and tosses the sunglasses. This is a diversion one should not be surprised to find in a staged scene.

As to bloodhounds/cadaver dogs, Chief Ramsey said there aren't enough cadaver dogs in the country to search Rock Creek Park, so he didn't. That's just a typical example of how this went. They turned away all volunteers, including several East coast and even Maryland local trained volunteer units and told them don't call us, we'll (never) call you.

Just heartwarming, I have to say. Google it.

So that leads us to the neverending complaining about the resources the DC police used for this investigation. Hello, you moaners and groaners were moaning and groaning then as well, quite vocally, and the DC police did not devote any extraordinarily appreciable resources to this case. I know because I document each action they took, and it wasn't much.

That includes the so called "focus" that the police had on Condit, as posters like to complain about. I would say three interviews in a total of three months, for less than three hours, and a search of his apartment with his permission two and a half months after Chandra disappeared is not extraordinary at all. In fact, the DC police did everything they could to perform the necessary PR for the news media to "clear" Condit and move on.

It was then handed to the FBI in August, and essentially whitewashed, and that's where it sits to this day.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 20, 2008 6:32 PM

The NYPD would never have allowed this to fester. They're fairly thorough and quick and would have quashed rumors, unfounded or not, to keep the community calm and comfortable that things get handled.

I wonder if the DC police took the time to look for DNA in the leggings (from sweat). Did they fingerprint the glasses and other items found scattered at the scene, and did they check tapes of other establishments along a theoretical route Levy might have taken up Connecticut Avenue. There would be all kinds of cameras with commercial buildings and apartments where her image might have been captured. They didn't have to rely just on the apartment buildings security tapes.

Posted by: eeave | July 20, 2008 7:17 PM

Has anyone considered whether there was any connection between Condit & Guandique???

Posted by: H Klein | July 20, 2008 7:43 PM

WHO CARES!!!!!!!!! (besides the family)

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2008 8:15 PM

lots of people. There's a huge interest in this case, right up there with Laci Peterson until the conviction as far as missing women cases go.

Why does it bother you for people to be looking into this?

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 20, 2008 8:33 PM

"Daniel Kevin Hand" Let's be clear on this issue I never did engage you in the first place! You just entered into my comments directed toward "rd" and chose to answer some of my questions to him. You decided not to address the OJ Simpson question and that's ok except it's kind of my barometer or gauge as to whom I'm talking. I left a five year relationship with a women who did not believe that OJ was guilty and refuse to waste my time with others of the same opinion. What I state here are my opinions not facts. But I do still believe that I read semen was found in JonBenet's underware (not blood as you state). The problem with this case, Chandra Levy, is that it most likely will never be solved. I think that someone with the same DNA will eventually be arrested in the Ramsey case. And again it's my opinion that Condit did not kill Chandra. But what the hell do I know I'm just a retired country boy kicking back in Florida.

Posted by: dlg358 | July 20, 2008 8:52 PM

Excellent series. I have always prayed for a resolution in this case and maybe this will stir something up. I also appreciate the thoughtful commentary by Misters. RD and KH. I hope someone will expose Dominick Dunne and his preposterous theory that he printed in Vanity Fair. How this deceitful man keeps his job is beyond me. Perhaps he is senile, but he is not a careful reporter. I say that with the full belief that Gary Condit knows more than he has told, but Dunne is just as shady.

Posted by: Jan | July 20, 2008 9:40 PM

***

"Daniel Kevin Hand" Let's be clear on this issue I never did engage you in the first place! You just entered into my comments directed toward "rd" and chose to answer some of my questions to him. You decided not to address the OJ Simpson question and that's ok except it's kind of my barometer or gauge as to whom I'm talking. I left a five year relationship with a women who did not believe that OJ was guilty and refuse to waste my time with others of the same opinion. What I state here are my opinions not facts. But I do still believe that I read semen was found in JonBenet's underware (not blood as you state). The problem with this case, Chandra Levy, is that it most likely will never be solved. I think that someone with the same DNA will eventually be arrested in the Ramsey case. And again it's my opinion that Condit did not kill Chandra. But what the hell do I know I'm just a retired country boy kicking back in Florida.

Posted by: dlg358 | July 20, 2008 8:52 PM

***

There is a saying that we are each entitled to our own opinion-- but not to our own set of facts! We all are speculating as to who might or might not have killed whom. It is not an opinion in the sense of a subjective evaluation of a fact-- like whether or not one likes Popeye's better than KFC. Whatever we here may speculate as to the killers and motives cannot and will not change the facts of who actually did kill Chandra Levy and JonBenet Ramsey, respectively.

It helps, however, to speculate using the available facts to deduce the unavailable ones, rather than to speculate based upon rank misinformation-- like the claim that semen was discovered on JonBenet's clothing. It was blood, not semen; and, if you did read somewhere that it was semen, not blood, you might consider not reading there again.

You also appeared to be specifically writing to me when you wrote: "You never did say if O.J. was guilty?"-- which is obviously a statement, oddly punctuated as a question-- as if you had addressed that question to me earlier and I had refused to answer it. If nothing else, I do believe that my comments here have been excrutiatingly thorough in addressing virtually every salient issue posed throughout the past several days on this forum-- for which I heartily apologize to any of those readers here who are better acclimated to writing of the "USA Today" variety!

As for your statement "that someone with the same DNA will eventually be arrested in the Ramsey case," I have to ask: The same DNA as which...? If you mean that they would arrest the person whose DNA was allegedly found on JonBenet Ramsey's underwear, if they ever identified him, I am sure that they would, as well they probably should, based on the circumstantial evidence (which is the type of evidence that DNA is, by the way). As I explained at length in my previous post, however, tying that person to JonBenet's underwear and proving that he was also the one who killed her and left her body in the Ramsey home are two quite separate issues-- even though the implication of the one would doubtless prejudice both the authorities and a criminal jury, and quite likely lead to a convenient conviction for murder, as well.

If and when that day comes in the Ramsey case, we shall presumably see whether his handwriting matches the multiple drafts of the alleged ransom note-- and whether he had the requisite knowledge of the Ramseys even to have drafted its contents in the first place. If so, maybe he will be able finally to explain for us why he would leave both ransom notes and the dead body of the supposed kidnap victim inside of the family home; and, why he failed to bring a ransom note with him, instead hanging around the Ramsey house collecting a pad and pen, and drafting multiple versions of a uniquely verbose ransom note that evinced intimate knowledge of the Ramsey family and its history, as if he had not the faintest concern with being caught inside of the home along with a little girl that was presumably already lying around dead somewhere within it, nor of being eventually tied to the crime by the surfeit of evidence that he was leaving behind for the authorities to go to town with, as it were.

I only hope that I have inferred too much, as you seem perhaps to be implying that you actually ended your five-year relationship with a woman simply because she believed O.J. Simpson to be not guilty (innocent?), by which I assume that you are referring to the crimes of a double homicide on June 12, 1994, as discussed earlier!?! If I have inferred properly, I, for once, shall likely fall speechless....

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 20, 2008 10:55 PM

People keep claiming the minister recanted his story. Please provide a link to a verifiable source for that information, as I'd love to learn about it if true. Thanks.

Posted by: huggie | July 20, 2008 11:21 PM

It's true that the FBI released a statement that OC Thomas had "backed off" his story, according to the Washington Post among others:

Lengel, Allan and Petula Dvorak. "Minister recants story about Condit, daughter" Washington Post 21 July 2001.

I discuss it thoroughly, including conditions he was under when he backed off his story, in chapter Exposed in Murder on a Horse Trail.

A complete bibliography of links is at the end of the chapter. You can google it and read it.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 20, 2008 11:42 PM

OK, so Ralph, how do you feel knowing my Monday's story that DNA evidence proved Condit had sex with Chandra? Sort of makes the minister story a non-issue in terms of Condit, but makes the Levys look less than pure for putting the minister up to fabricating a story to "prove" the Levys were right about Chandra and Condit.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2008 11:49 PM

I'll just quote from one of my earlier posts above:

Any answer to Chandra's murder must include answers from OC, because Chandra disappeared when her mother pressed Chandra for answers to OC's story about his daughter.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 21, 2008 12:19 AM

Seems to me a staged crime scene is meant to be discovered.

To announce to all who would want to find such a scene (perhaps not knowing that what they would find would be "staged"), you'd think that there would be solid clues to send one there.

I think that hoping someone would try to forensically discover where Chandra was headed that day by also staging a computer search, to bolster the staged crime scene, leaves too much to chance that the staged scene will be discovered.

Sadly, as much as everyone who follows this case wants closure, it doesn't seem that will happen, due to the RANDOMNESS of this apparent crime (let's assume Chandra didn't somehow trip and run headlong into a tree and accidentally kill herself, like RD claims he almost did in researching his Horse With No Name book).

The freakin' FBI was all over Condit on this thing, and I have to believe that if they had anything at all on him, he'd at least be a person of interest if not an outright suspect, and he's neither.

To save his marriage or his career, the last thing he needed was to be associated with a dead or missing girl -- as we can see what it did to him -- so it is highly improbable that he arranged for her to disappear.

If it WAS staged, then the only plausible explanation, I think, would be that she got hired as some supersecret FBI or CIA agent that required that she become an entirely new person as an adult, thus she had to "disapper" in her to-then known form. That's about as out there as I think any of this possibly could be.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 21, 2008 12:28 AM

Those are good points that need addressed.

First and foremost, it may seem to you that staging is for someone to discover the crime scene, but that isn't the intent. The intent is to hide the body, and if and when it is discovered, that it look like a sexual assault and robbery, and hence [a tribute to Patsy, DKH] not a dumped body, which anyone who takes the Chandra Levy Walk in the Park Challenge will immediately recognize as such.

Also, the activity on the computer is not part of a staged crime scene, or placed there to point investigators to the crime scene. Chandra clearly had been told she would be going to Rock Creek Park with someone she knew, a boyfriend who she told her parents had rules of secrecy that forbid her to carry id.

I'm not sure how a parent responds to something like that, but that's what she told them.

Condit had an afternoon to kill between a last minute requested meeting with Cheney at 12:30pm and a vote at 6:30pm. He was out of the meeting at 12:50pm, Chandra logged off at 1pm, and left with a walkman radio and key wearing her boyfriend's 14k gold bracelet.

I won't go into investigators being all over Condit too much. The nation saw his answers to Connie Chung, and Ramsey said that's what they experienced questioning him, a lot of talk and no substance. He lawyered up multiple times, refused to take their lie detector test, took the Fifth for the grand jury, and basically said the same thing he is still saying to the Washington Post, everyone else but him is making everything up.

So they can be over him all they want, but that's all they will ever get from him.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 21, 2008 1:19 AM

Pierce-Klingle Mansion

Pierce-Klingle Mansion is a mansion located in District of Columbia County, in the city of Washington. This mansion was listed as a historic place according to the laws of the state of District Of Columbia on the Tenth day of October 1973.

Some tips when visiting mansions:

1) These mansions are often private places that belong to private citizens. Do not disturb the occupants or guests of these historic residences.

2) Be sure you have permission to go into these facilities. Trespassing is a crime.

3) Do not try to go through closed or locked doors, gates, or windows.

4) Do not disturb anything, and do not move things about. Leave everything as you found it, and take only photos.

Street Address: 3545 Williamsburg Lane, NW, Washington, DC

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Pierce-Klingle%20Mansion
______________________________________

Cited above is some information I researched while on google's map searching for Klingle Mansion. Information provided in tip #2 is interesting. I believe that someone Chandra trusted and confided in (G. Condit) set up Klingle Mansion as a meeting place. I do not believe that Chandra, someone from out of town, don't know very much about the city, would go into Rock Creek Park alone without someone going there with her.

I also believe that her body was not meant to be found because the of evidence. And thus leads me to believe that she may have been pregnant and/or she knew something on someone, or she knew something that she was not suppose to know.

I wonder if the police spoke with any of the other interns or workers, and if she hung out with any of them after work, communicated with any of them other then work related conversation, etc. (because I was thinking if she communicated with the guy from the gym, maybe she also communicated with other interns or employees)

Also does anyone know if Chandra went to Israel before or after she arrived to Washington, DC for her internship?

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 21, 2008 3:37 AM

Were investigators able to pick up any useful DNA evidence from the place where Chandra's remains were found? It seems like DNA research has come so far in recent years that police should have been able to extract at least some clues from the scene. Granted, the crime scene was far from ideal, but investigators still found Chandra's knotted stretch pants and a sneaker. Wouldn't these items carry trace amounts of DNA, or would that evidence be too unreliable after sitting outside for a year?

Posted by: jennifer | July 21, 2008 9:02 AM

This series is so compelling. It angers me to hear what a botched job this seemed to be, from a police investigation standpoint. Has anyone in the DC police department (etc) been held accountable?

Posted by: Woman in DC | July 21, 2008 9:47 AM

the chief of police did such a good job that he got promoted to chief of police in Phila, this country's 4th largest police force.

hilarious, except for the people of Phila.

Posted by: jose | July 21, 2008 10:56 AM

I did not pay much attention when this originally happened, but now I wonder why I hadn't.
I was born in the old Providence Hospital on North Capital Street in Washington, DC. My mother and father both grew up and went to high school in the District.
Shortly after I was born the family moved to Takoma Park, close enough that we could walk to the Takoma movie Theater from home and often did to watch Tarzan and other movies.
Before I became a teenage we moved to within a block of the District line in an order section of Takoma Park.
My father had a business located in Silver Spring with most of his customers on the other side of Rock Creek Park. My older brother and I worked in the business as teenagers.
We rode horses from a stable north of East-West Highway, the access to which was just west of 16th Street. Often we rode into Rock Creek Park. After the area was converted into apartments, we rode from stables in Howard County. But occasionally we rode out the the stables in Rock Creek Park just south of Military Road.
So we were familiar with the horse trails from the view point of riders.
It has been decades since that time but reading the description of what is known brings back memories and brings up question on what really happened.
I am also reading "Murder on a Horse Trail" by Ralph Daughtery. He questions the man walking the dog. From what I remember of the area it is not implausible.
Broad Branch Road is the Western Edge of the Park. As it travels Southeastward, it goes downhill. Houses of well-to-do people are on the Western side of the Road and many have dogs.
But I question what Chandra was doing in that part of the Park. Its not that easy to get to it from Metro. Buses would not be much better. There is plenty of places to walk privately closer to her apartment and Adams Morgan.
The scenario with a Salvadoran illegal immigrant doesn't work either. We are to believe he attacked her and killed her and then on two other occasions after that attacked two other women with a knife and they both escaped. Gimme a break.
I suspect the killer left something behind that may eventually identify him.
Thanks for all that you have done so far and please keep up your investigating.

Posted by: BlackGumTree | July 21, 2008 12:28 PM

Hi Ralph

I've been trying to access your online writings about Chandra at justiceforChandra.com, but all I get is a message saying I am banned from the forums? Could you post a link to another site with your book or something? Thanks.

Posted by: Sara | July 21, 2008 12:36 PM

DKH, Evidence in JonBenet Ramsey case

JonBenet Ramsey's body was found in the basement of her parent's Boulder home on Dec. 26, 1996. She had been sexually assaulted, her skull was fractured and she died of asphyxiation. Traces of blood and semen were found at the murder site and on the child's body and clothing, and footprints were analyzed in the basement and outside the home. In addition, a ransom note was found, giving investigators a handwriting sample.

I don't want to beat a dead horse but the above was taken today from Google and the Rocky Mountain News 7/9/08

Posted by: dlg358 | July 21, 2008 1:12 PM

***

"Pierce-Klingle Mansion is a mansion located in District of Columbia County, in the city of Washington. This mansion was listed as a historic place according to the laws of the state of District Of Columbia on the Tenth day of October 1973."

***

The very day that led a then-House Minority Leader to become the 38th President of the United States, in lieu of a convicted felon! I abjure any connection of this fact to the former Congressman from the 18th District of California....

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 21, 2008 1:22 PM

From Chapter 7:
--------------
In his recent Post interview, Condit denied that he told Chandra he wanted to start a new life with her.

"I don't believe the aunt knows anything about me," he said. "I had no interest in starting a family and leaving my wife. Those conversations never occurred. It's just made up."
---------------

This needs more explanation. Is Condit claiming that the aunt is lying about her conversations with Chandra, or is he claiming that Chandra was lying about her own conversations with him?

The "five-year plan" conversation the aunt describes is almost identical to the one that Robert Kurkjian described in Chapter 2. We can assume that the aunt and Kurkjian don't know each other, so each conversation would seem to independently confirm the other. (And Susan Levy also told the police about a phone call in which Chandra wouldn't name her boyfriend and only cryptically said "You'll understand in five years.")

So what is Condit claiming? Are we really supposed to believe that Chandra invented this five-year plan all by herself and never discussed it with him, even while she was eagerly describing it to her aunt and to casual friends?

It's not entirely impossible that Chandra Levy was a compulsive liar living a fantasy life of imaginary future plans, but that picture certainly doesn't mesh with anything else in her known biography. If Condit is really going to base his defense on the Chandra-was-a-nutcase approach, the Post should call him on it and make him say so explicitly.

Posted by: Oregonian | July 21, 2008 1:46 PM

***

DKH, Evidence in JonBenet Ramsey case

JonBenet Ramsey's body was found in the basement of her parent's Boulder home on Dec. 26, 1996. She had been sexually assaulted, her skull was fractured and she died of asphyxiation. Traces of blood and semen were found at the murder site and on the child's body and clothing, and footprints were analyzed in the basement and outside the home. In addition, a ransom note was found, giving investigators a handwriting sample.

I don't want to beat a dead horse but the above was taken today from Google and the Rocky Mountain News 7/9/08

Posted by: dlg358 | July 21, 2008 1:12 PM

***

FROM THE "NANCY GRACE" (CNN HEADLINE NEWS) TRANSCRIPT THAT SAME DAY:

GRACE: Straight out to the lines. Tonight a bombshell. Due to a highly sensitive new DNA technique called touch DNA, we now learn of more DNA discovered on the leggings beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey wore the night she went to bed, the night that she was killed. That DNA, a male DNA, matches DNA found in her underwear.

Straight back out to Angela Williamson, the lead scientist who worked with Bode Technology on the Ramsey case. Was the DNA sperm?

WILLIAMSON: The DNA profile we obtained was not from spermatozoa.

GRACE: That only leaves hair, skin, nails. Do we know what substance it was?

WILLIAMSON: The area that we sampled from, there was no visible staining. We believe it to be touch DNA, most likely skin cells from maybe someone`s hand.

GRACE: Skin cells, OK. Angela, Ms. Williamson, the DNA found inside the 6-year-old`s underwear, the inside crotch of her underwear, mingled with her blood -- was that DNA sperm?

WILLIAMSON: We actually did not do that testing. It is my belief that it was not from sperm, though. However, that testing was done by the Denver PD.

GRACE: Thank you. Back to Nia Bender with 710 KNUS. The DNA found in JonBenet`s underwear, was it sperm? Do we know what it was?

BENDER: We do not know what was in the underwear. They have never really clarified whether there was sperm in the underwear or not.

GRACE: OK, let`s ask Ollie Gray. Ollie, you and John San Agustin say that you have had inside information, that you`ve been able to review the files. Was the DNA in her underwear sperm?

GRAY: As far as I know, it was not sperm.

GRACE: What was it?

GRAY: It was a liquid, and it could have been either from the mouth, or it could have been from an insertion into the vagina area of part of the paintbrush that caused the fluid. As you remember, it was also mixed with blood.

[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/09/ng.01.html]

***

N.B. The two private investigators mentioned toward the end, one of whom is quoted, have been working for the Ramseys under their attorney, Lin Wood, for the past decade-- pro bono, no less!

May I suggest a good glue factory...?

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 21, 2008 1:50 PM

***

Were investigators able to pick up any useful DNA evidence from the place where Chandra's remains were found? It seems like DNA research has come so far in recent years that police should have been able to extract at least some clues from the scene. Granted, the crime scene was far from ideal, but investigators still found Chandra's knotted stretch pants and a sneaker. Wouldn't these items carry trace amounts of DNA, or would that evidence be too unreliable after sitting outside for a year?

Posted by: jennifer | July 21, 2008 9:02 AM

***

Jennifer, it would seem to me that the same DNA-touch technology recently used in the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation to absolve her parents (albeit prematurely and illogically, as explained at length above!) would be in order with the clothing remnants discovered on May 22, 2002, in Rock Creek Park-- especially the knotted pair of stretch pants that were very likely used to strangle her to death (as suggested by her broken hyoid bone)!

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 21, 2008 2:15 PM

As I see it, WAPO has clearly established that, at the time of Chandra's disappearance, the following facts were in play: 1) Mrs. Condit was in town; 2) Chandra was about to leave DC; 3) Chandra could not visit Condit at his apartment because his wife was there, and he never came to her apartment, and so would not, presumably, visit her there; 4) Chandra and Condit did not go to restaurants together, nor were they ever out in public together with the exception of one dinner at tryst - they saw each other three to four times a week, but only in private; 5) Chandra believed that her relationship with Condit was still strong and that they would, presumably, see each other before she left; 6) they had a two minute phone call two days before she left - a call not really long enough to say goodbye, chat about interviews, or discuss travel plans, but, rather, just long enough to say I can see you at such and such place at such and such time; 7) Chandra was planning on leaving DC in the immediate future, before Mrs. Condit was scheduled to leave. Given these facts, I think it is safe to draw a reasonable conclusion - that Chandra planned to meet Condit somewhere, other than his or her apartment, before she left. This private yet public place could have been a hotel, a friend's apartment, or, just as likely, the park. (one misgiving here - when I am meeting someone at a big location, such as a trail, etc. I always have my cell phone - how the heck else are you going to find them? but, as a possible fix for this, I have seen it noted that Condit did not have a pager or a cell, rather some weird number Chandra and his other ladies had to call to leave messages, and he would call back). Condit has no alibi for the time we believe Chandra was walking in the park. Who knows, maybe he went there, and she never showed up because someone random person killed her - I think both theories have merit, and may be intertwined. If that were the case, he could legitimately have passed that very circumscibed lie detector he gave himself. Regardless, however, even if he simply was to meet her there and never did because she failed to show up, his failure to disclose that would have been pretty dang horrible.

Posted by: jmr | July 21, 2008 3:31 PM

also strangling with leggings - no fingerprints...

Posted by: jmr | July 21, 2008 3:39 PM

RD - quick question - in your book, you state that Chandra called the guy she knew from the B.O.P. and told him she was planning to leave because there was nothing for her in DC after she had the "pizza party," but before she called her aunt and said there was big news. So, the final phone call was the big news one. Is that correct?

Posted by: jmr | July 21, 2008 3:52 PM

DKH Let's see who do we believe Nancy Grace or Rocky Mountain News. That's really a tough call and only one step above Jerry Springer. As to the private investigators you do know how to tell if they are lying...their lips are moving! If in fact it was semen don't you think that they would not want to release that to the public? And,since your theory is based on "no semen" of course you are going to offer this testimony. My daddy told me never to argue with a lawyer that has three names but I don't listen well. Hold on to the glue I'll get back to you.

Posted by: dlg358 | July 21, 2008 4:03 PM

You don't have to be a genius to see that The Post reporters are leading up to the fact that this Ingmar Guandique kid did the murder.

That chapter is the most compelling, suffice for the omission that he applied for and was granted TPS status in the US shortly before all this went down. He's now in federal prison in KY, but after the (botched) poly he took, has since lawyered up and won't talk.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/11/AR2008071102405.html


Since forensics at the scene apparently gave them diddly, my .02 is that the Levy's, or The Post on their behalf, should contact psychic Lisa Williams and have Chandra Levy tell us what really went down in those woods.

Posted by: Gimme a Break | July 21, 2008 5:37 PM

***

DKH Let's see who do we believe Nancy Grace or Rocky Mountain News. That's really a tough call and only one step above Jerry Springer. As to the private investigators you do know how to tell if they are lying...their lips are moving! If in fact it was semen don't you think that they would not want to release that to the public? And,since your theory is based on "no semen" of course you are going to offer this testimony. My daddy told me never to argue with a lawyer that has three names but I don't listen well. Hold on to the glue I'll get back to you.

Posted by: dlg358 | July 21, 2008 4:03 PM

***

If the information is being held secret from the public, DLG358, how did your friends at the "Rocky Mountain News" come to know it? If they uncovered it some years ago, why is it still unknown to the people most familiar with the case, such as the defense team for the Ramseys, which would love nothing more than to prove that there was semen left on JonBenet Ramsey and/or her clothing that night, and that that semen came from someone other than her father, John Ramsey?

Nancy Grace was not making any claim about semen stains; she was asking the question. The woman who did the touch-DNA test said that she did not believe that it was sperm; the local news anchor said that she did not believe that it was sperm; the private investigator for the Ramseys, who is privy to inside information, said that he did not believe that it was sperm. Other than the "Rocky Mountain News" editor who wrote that summary, which was appended after the actual news story about the new DNA findings, which did not mention semen at all, what bona fide news organizations are reporting that semen was found-- and why are not all other bona fide news organization picking up on that "fact" and following suit in their coverage?

Regardless, my theory of the Ramsey case is not at all dependent upon whether there was or was not semen present-- as anyone with a three-digit IQ and a grade-school education should have been able to grasp from my earlier posts here-- since what I am saying is that the sexual abuse that JonBenet quite evidently had suffered, for an indeterminate length of time, is in no way logically determinative of who killed her, contrary to the assumption of the current Boulder D.A.-- who was the same incompetent woman who had fantasist John Mark Karr shipped to Colorado and charged in the JonBenet Ramsey case, at a cost to the taxpayers of $13,000-$30,000, without waiting for a DNA test, which-- surprise! surprise!-- cleared him in the case. (The facts that there was no evidence beyond his fantastic confession that he had ever been in Boulder, Colorado, and that his family knew him to be at home in Alabama on Christmas Day 1996 were not sufficient for D.A. Mary Lacy to wait at least until a DNA analysis could be done before having Mr. Karr charged and extradited.)

The man who advised you not to argue with a lawyer was doing you a favor-- although the length of the lawyer's name is quite beside the point. (You probably have a middle name, too, DLH358, even if it is only Bob, or the like.) Were I still practicing law, I would strongly advise "daddy" to insist upon a DNA test of his own!

D.K.H., EXQ.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 21, 2008 5:41 PM

***

You don't have to be a genius to see that The Post reporters are leading up to the fact that this Ingmar Guandique kid did the murder.

That chapter is the most compelling, suffice for the omission that he applied for and was granted TPS status in the US shortly before all this went down. He's now in federal prison in KY, but after the (botched) poly he took, has since lawyered up and won't talk.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/11/AR2008071102405.html


Since forensics at the scene apparently gave them diddly, my .02 is that the Levy's, or The Post on their behalf, should contact psychic Lisa Williams and have Chandra Levy tell us what really went down in those woods.

Posted by: Gimme a Break | July 21, 2008 5:37 PM

***

[FROM THE CITED "WASHINGTON POST" ARTICLE:]

Ronald Sullivan Jr., the director of the Public Defender Service, which represents Guandique, said there is not "a single shred of evidence" linking Guandique to the Levy case.

"Mr. Ingmar Guandique has been ruled out twice as a suspect in the Chandra Levy case," Sullivan said in a statement, adding that there "seems to be a positive relationship between the police department's interest in Mr. Guandique and lulls in their own investigation."

As for the polygraph, Sullivan said, "it is hard to believe that investigators were not aware of the relationship between Spanish-speaking interpreters, bilingual polygraph technicians and the possible effects upon lie-detector tests, given the fact that it was the United States attorney's office who administered the test to Mr. Guandique."

He compared the lie-detector test given to Guandique with the one given to Condit, noting that Guandique's "was not privately administered." Condit refused to submit to a polygraph given by law enforcement officials and instead took a private test administered by a former FBI agent hired by his attorney.

D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey has repeatedly said he is satisfied with the way the FBI polygraph of Guandique was conducted, noting that a certified interpreter was used. However, according to law enforcement sources, investigators fear that the results may have been skewed because the questions were filtered through the interpreter.

***

The term "botched" strongly implies that the Guandique polygraph results were invalid and unreliable. Polygraph tests are by no means infallible, but they are everyday tools for investigators and others. There is no real evidence here that this particular polygraph test was "botched" by the person chosen to administer it, thus causing the results to be inherently invalid and unreliable, merely because it was not done as some polygraph experts would prefer in an otherwise-perfect world.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 21, 2008 6:07 PM

Did the police look at taxi records?

I see the Post series going for Guandique, and it will take a smoking gun to convince me; numerous problems with that theory have been brought up here that will have to be addressed, but the primary one is that it seems so unlikely that either of them would be likely to be wandering in the area of the No Horses loop.

In my mind the dumping body by car scenario is much more likely, but here is another one:

This weekend I walked (with my dog) from the visitor/nature center to the scene. It took less than fifteen minutes and was very easy going, unlike RD's big hike challenge, or even walking up hill from Pierce Mill.

The nature center is pretty prominent, a perfect place for her to meet someone. She could have met the murderer, they went for a walk, and she met her fate.

Is there any evidence which would contradict this theory?

Posted by: Murphie | July 21, 2008 8:18 PM

DKH O.K., Let's put the JonBenet case to bed. It does appear that you are right (so was my dad) and that there was no semen. If you remember I only said that I remembered reading that there was semen. If you google it you can find as many stories that include as exclude the semen factor. Because you are right it does not allow you to cast such aspersions on me and my dear old dad. I have to admit that it was very funny but when I stopped laughing it really hit me. You have to use the 3 initials D.K.H. because without the K you would just be another DH!

Posted by: dlg358 | July 21, 2008 8:23 PM

Sara, unfortunately I have blocked non-North American internet traffic from the site due to it being nearly 100% attacks. If you are in the US, please email me at admin @ justiceforchandra.com and I will check on it.

You may be able to google Murder on a Horse Trail Chapter 1 and read it by clicking on Cached, then onward through Chapter 25, but I don't know if that will work.

I apologize to our troops and families and US personnel overseas for this, but to open it back up would be like taking down a mosquito net in a tropical swamp.

My thanks to this blog for allowing us to communicate.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 21, 2008 8:23 PM

hi BlackGumTree, I agree 100% with your thoughts, except I need to clarify about questioning about the man walking the dog.

No doubt about walking along Broad Branch Road, as long as you stay on the creek side of the road and your dog is extremely well trained. Any deviation from a narrow berm puts you either in the path of a speeding car on down a ten foot bank into a rocky creek, no pun intended.

The question is about how that whole finding a turtle hundreds of feet up the side of a hill, with a huge gully of a creekbed to cross, from walking on the road was all about. Stand there and take a look across the creek and straight up and you'll see what I mean.

Definitely some details left out of that story, like who this turtle hunter was.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 21, 2008 8:37 PM

jmr wrote: "RD - quick question - in your book, you state that Chandra called the guy she knew from the B.O.P. and told him she was planning to leave because there was nothing for her in DC after she had the "pizza party," but before she called her aunt and said there was big news. So, the final phone call was the big news one. Is that correct?"

wow, this will take some clarification. I'll clarify in chronological order. Chandra disappered on Tuesday, this is the previous weekend.

Friday night pizza get together with Kurkjan, a guy she met at her sports club who was also a USC alum. Wanted to talk about her boyfriend. [This is newly reported info out of this WashPo investigation].

Saturday, called her friend and workmate Sven Jones and left a message asking to meet for lunch to talk. Sen described as plaintive, very unusual. Reported in series that Condit told police in third interview (three months later) that he broke off with Chandra that day. His wife was flying in.

Saturday evening, emailed her landlord in California that she was moving out, nothing to stay for.

Sunday, landlord was calling and she wasn't answering. Eventually they emailed/talked and she now wasn't sure about the moveout, would know something to tell him on Wednesday.

Sunday, according to reports including this series, left a message with her aunt whom she confided in that she had big news.

Details in chapter Big News. Hope that helps.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 21, 2008 9:08 PM

Ralph, just a couple of thoughts on turtles and trails:

The Eastern Box Turtle is found in Rock Creek Park, and it is considered to be a "land" turtle, i.e. it's habitat is not near or in water. I googled them and found quite a bit about how they live, and it seems that a leaf covered forest floor with lots of gullies would provide an excellent natural home. My take is that if someone was looking for these turtles, the area below the No Horses trail would be appropriate.

There is an extensive network of old trails in the park that go beyond what is on the "regular" trail map. Many are clearly marked on the 1984 topo of the area, but more are not. Not only is there the trail coming up to the No Horse loop from Broad Branch, there is also a trail heading northwest toward Grant Rd, starting off to the right about two thirds of the way down the No Horse loop as you walk in from the north by picnic area 16.

My point here is simply that there is a substantial network of secondary trails in the park and that they appear to get regular use; so I don't find it strange that someone would be wandering around on the old trail at the side of the hill.

I am with you on wondering why the turtle hunter was never identified. As you have pointed out, its hard to access the area from below except on foot - there is no place to park a car. It may have been someone who lived in the neighborhood on the other side of Broad Branch, perhaps with diplomatic immunity that managed to keep themselves out of the spotlight.

Posted by: Murphie | July 21, 2008 9:17 PM

Murphie, that 15 minute easy walk from the nature center to the area where Chandra was eventually found is very intriguing. If Chandra did have 'big news' to tell her aunt, that being her last call possibly, then she is plaintive in her msg to Sven, Condit says in the third police interview he broke it off with her, it seems more likely she met with Condit for one last try to fix the relationship and it back fired. Condit might have been shaken up, or needed to clean up and looked for ways to cover the time he took to deal with his emotions, clothing, etc., and with his wife. One thing I have often wondered about is why his wife showed up for an event this week? She seems to have had little interest in events that may have had far greater relevance to her husbands standing in the GOP and the House. Is there any time line for her comings and goings?

Posted by: Siren | July 21, 2008 9:25 PM

murphie wrote: "The nature center is pretty prominent, a perfect place for her to meet someone. She could have met the murderer, they went for a walk, and she met her fate.

Is there any evidence which would contradict this theory?"


There are many problems with that, murphie. First and foremost would be walking from DuPont Circle to the Nature Center on Ridge Road, 15 minutes beyond grove 18 even, to meet someone who was driving. How is it conceivable that he didn't pick her up and drive there? Well, let's wait and get an answer from someone who completes the Chandra Levy Walk in the Park Challenge.

Secondly is the 15 minute walk back to grove 18. Along with another 15 minute walk to return to the Nature Center, that's a lot of hoofing it down the road to be seen when no one was seen. Of course the Nature Center was closed, bringing up the question why it was a perfect place to meet.

Thirdly, Chandra's broken sunglasses were found further away from Ridge Road than she was found. That would have her entering the No Horses path from below the stables, around crosscountry toward Grant Road and around the peak, then along above Broad Branch Raod where she is presumably ambushed to knock her sunglasses off and break them.

I should add that to the Challenge. It's what investigators believe, after all. Should be a cinch.

rd

Posted by: Anonymous | July 21, 2008 9:37 PM

Problem with that murphie is that he said he was walking on Broad Branch Road and his dog bounded up the hill attracted to something. If he said he was walking high up the hillside searching for turtles then that wouldn't be a question.

I agree, probably someone that lives in the neighorhood over the hill across Broad Branch Road, and that's a ritzy area. Lots of strings being pulled for someone. All I know is that Chandra was found when the grand jury started trying to question Condit and his staff under oath, and bingo, someone without a name is walking his dog down Broad Branch and the dog bounds across a huge creek gully and 300 feet up a nearly vertical hill, traverses down into and back up a twelve foot ravine, and starts pawing at something that hadn't attracted anyone else's dog in a year.

yeah, I believe that.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 21, 2008 9:51 PM

D.K.H., EXQ.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 21, 2008 5:41 PM
________

Don't you mean "Esq."?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 21, 2008 9:54 PM

hi Siren, Carolyn was escorted around, had no car as Condit secretly did, and was with other wives Tuesday afternoon when Chandra disappeared helping do place settings for the luncheon the next day, so she has an alibi, unlike Condit...

or Guandique for that matter since the WashPo investigation reported he was not at work that day. I find that interesting since his other two attacks two and six weeks later were in the evening. Sort of like the "bruised and cut" face his landlady remembers but his girlfriend doesn't, and you can betcha doesn't show up in his May 7 mug shot. Not that anyone has made it available.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 21, 2008 10:06 PM

***

DKH O.K., Let's put the JonBenet case to bed. It does appear that you are right (so was my dad) and that there was no semen. If you remember I only said that I remembered reading that there was semen. If you google it you can find as many stories that include as exclude the semen factor. Because you are right it does not allow you to cast such aspersions on me and my dear old dad. I have to admit that it was very funny but when I stopped laughing it really hit me. You have to use the 3 initials D.K.H. because without the K you would just be another DH!

Posted by: dlg358 | July 21, 2008 8:23 PM

***

I am, as always and forever, against the DH! I use three initials because my poor parents chose to give me three names. Besides, when I just say that I am Dan Hand, people tend to giggle and say, "Hey, that almost rhymes!" I am sure that your dear father is a gentleman and a scholar, as well as a sage. "Veritas supra omnia!"

D.K.H., EXQ. [N.L. fan, generally; Cubs fan, specifically]

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 21, 2008 10:45 PM

***

D.K.H., EXQ.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 21, 2008 5:41 PM
________

Don't you mean "Esq."?

Posted by: | July 21, 2008 9:54 PM

***

"EXQ." is a personal affectation of mine; a tongue-in-cheek way of stating that I am a 'reformed' lawyer. "Mea culpa! Mea culpa!! Mea maxima culpa!!!"

D.K.H. ['reformed' altar boy]

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 21, 2008 10:52 PM

Esq. sine qua non EXQ.

inter alia, and maps and such as.

Drivel.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 21, 2008 10:59 PM

If I'm not wrong, but I think that I also remember statements about Condit being into wild and kinky sex. (Sadism and Masochism)

In my opinion, I do not believe that Guandique had anything to do with Chandra Levy's murder.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 21, 2008 11:09 PM

***

Murphie, that 15 minute easy walk from the nature center to the area where Chandra was eventually found is very intriguing. If Chandra did have 'big news' to tell her aunt, that being her last call possibly, then she is plaintive in her msg to Sven, Condit says in the third police interview he broke it off with her, it seems more likely she met with Condit for one last try to fix the relationship and it back fired. Condit might have been shaken up, or needed to clean up and looked for ways to cover the time he took to deal with his emotions, clothing, etc., and with his wife. One thing I have often wondered about is why his wife showed up for an event this week? She seems to have had little interest in events that may have had far greater relevance to her husbands standing in the GOP and the House. Is there any time line for her comings and goings?

Posted by: Siren | July 21, 2008 9:25 PM

***

Representative Condit was (and presumably still is now, as a private citizen) a Democrat, albeit of the blue-dog variety, not a member in standing, good or otherwise, of the G.O.P. F.W.I.W.

D.K.H. [registered independent]

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 21, 2008 11:18 PM

***

Esq. sine qua non EXQ.

inter alia, and maps and such as.

Drivel.

Posted by: | July 21, 2008 10:59 PM

***

How Dickensian, Mr. Drivel!

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 21, 2008 11:25 PM

If I'm not wrong, but I think that I also remember statements about Condit being into wild and kinky sex. (Sadism and Masochism)

In my opinion, I do not believe that Guandique had anything to do with Chandra Levy's murder.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 21, 2008 11:09 PM
____________________________________

And my reason for bringing my comment cited above is because if he was into that type of sexual behavior, and the bone in her neck was broken as stated in prior comments posted...

And my question still remains..
1. Did the police every fingerprint Chandra's apartment
2. Why would Chandra visit klingle Mansion if you have to be sure you have permission to go into the facility as stated below as a tip before making your visit to Klingle Mansion.
______________________________________
Pierce-Klingle Mansion

Pierce-Klingle Mansion is a mansion located in District of Columbia County, in the city of Washington. This mansion was listed as a historic place according to the laws of the state of District Of Columbia on the Tenth day of October 1973.

Some tips when visiting mansions:

1) These mansions are often private places that belong to private citizens. Do not disturb the occupants or guests of these historic residences.

2) Be sure you have permission to go into these facilities. Trespassing is a crime.

3) Do not try to go through closed or locked doors, gates, or windows.

4) Do not disturb anything, and do not move things about. Leave everything as you found it, and take only photos.

Street Address: 3545 Williamsburg Lane, NW, Washington, DC

_____________________________________

And why wouldn't Condit cooperate with the FBI and Police if he knew he wasn't gulity of anything. If he wasn't guilty, he would cooperate with the FBI and the Police, not prolong the investigation and if he know he didn't do anything, then he would be done with as far as the authorities was concerned with the investigation.

I believe that Chandra was meeting someone in Rock Creek Park that she knew and trusted. I do not believe that she decided to take a walk in the deep wooded Rock Creek Park as her exercise for the day.

As for Guandique, why didn't he kill any of the other females, and why is it that the other two females fought with him and got away, I believe that Chandra would have fought him off also. (one of the females fought him off of her with a 5' knife to her chin, and got away.

Why did Condit? Because as always Condit has something to hide, and I believe that Chandra knew something or something on someone, or something that she wasn't suppose to know about. And/or she was pregnant and if he wanted to hide everything else and didn't care about prolonging the case, he sure wouldn't want her pregnancy to surface. And I believe that Chandra wouldn't agree to get rid of the pregnancy as he wanted.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 22, 2008 12:00 AM

So I think I now see the problem with the detectives on this case originally: they had deductive skills about equal to those posting on this site.

A number of you will post how you just can't believe x would do z or would bother going along route y... when you really have no information to base it on other than your own narrow viewpoints. You all need a big dose of "stranger things have happened" added to your thinking. If you make up your minds based on conjecture instead of facts, you'll leave the case as cold as the incompetent detectives did.

Posted by: huggie | July 22, 2008 12:08 AM

As Chandra's disappearance turned into a round-the-clock news story in mid-July, Mosley grew frustrated by the intense coverage of Condit.

"It was making me crazy," she recalled. "The entire focus was on this guy. I kept saying to my friends, 'They're not focusing on this guy in the woods.'"

Detectives in the Levy case would not pursue the information about Ingmar Guandique for another two months.

Mosley said she wasn't interviewed by D.C. police until the first week of September, more than three months after the incident. By then, she was unable to identify the suspect.

___________________________________

If Mosley was so frustrated as she has indicated to the reporters, why didn't she approach the police, FBI, or someone who was on the case to provide the information she felt they were overlooking. And why didn't she identify the spanish man she saw in Rock Creek Park with the authorities of the park and those designated on the Chandra Levy case.

And once again, which no one will answer...Did the police, or FBI fingerprint Chandra Levy's apartment? If they found panties in her apartment with semen in them and the semen DNA did match Condits, did the authorities fingerprint her apartment?

Another question, were panties recovered at the crime scene where Chandra Levy's bones were found?

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 22, 2008 12:13 AM

I'd like to know where the sunglasses were exactly -- RD, you keep saying it wasn't nearby but aren't more specific than that. Where exactly? Right off Broad Branch? Near Ridge, Grant?

Also why isn't it conceivable she was on Ridge Road, not Broad Branch. So instead of going up, she went down the hill from Ridge.

It you're suggesting the sunglasses were found at the base of the hill, then that could be because the killer tossed them aside as he fled the scene. The glasses didn't have to get jarred loose in a tussle at the base of the hill, then stay put to be found a year later. They could have been tossed there at some point.

Posted by: eeave | July 22, 2008 12:46 AM

I still can't believe that Vanity Fair writer Dominick Dunne blew it so bad and got hoaxed. Has he ever apologized? Did he lose his job over that?

Posted by: Feeney | July 22, 2008 1:27 AM

As I remember Condit had friends in motorcycle gangs. Were they checked out?

Posted by: Lee | July 22, 2008 1:51 AM

DKH said:
Representative Condit was (and presumably still is now, as a private citizen) a Democrat, albeit of the blue-dog variety, not a member in standing, good or otherwise, of the G.O.P. F.W.I.W.

D.K.H. [registered independent]

Ugh! your so right! I forget sometimes that conservative democrats are still democrats, even if just in name. I live in a great and very liberal town and so Condit's affiliation seems very GOP.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 22, 2008 2:17 AM

At 11:33, Chandra clicked on a washingtonpost.com "Entertainment Guide" to Rock Creek Park. At the top of the page was the administrative address of the park: 3545 Williamsburg Ln. NW - the address of the Klingle Mansion, a three-story stone farmhouse that serves as park headquarters. A minute later, she clicked on a link for a map of the park. Her last search was at 12:24 p.m.

The detectives would later theorize that Chandra may have planned to meet someone at Klingle Mansion. Was it one of her friends from the Bureau of Prisons? More intriguing: Was it Condit, who didn't live far from Rock Creek Park? The Klingle Mansion theory quickly gained currency, and police would spend days searching the site.

She liked to exercise and she loved the outdoors, and she had just canceled her gym membership.
__________________________________

Chapter 1
In reference to the above statement that she like to exercise and she loved the outdoors, and she had just canceled her gym memebership. She could have canceled her membership the next day, or she could have canceled it after she worked out in the gym that day. Why would she perfer to take a deep walk into the wooded area of Rock Creek Park. Didn't she work out in the gym all the other times, instead of walking deep into the wooded area of Rock Creek Park for her exercise.

_____________________________________
And there was another piece of potential evidence the police missed.

Chandra's apartment building had multiple security cameras, which fed a tape that was recorded over every seven days. By the time police obtained the tape, it was too late. Gone were answers to several key questions: What time did she leave? Was she alone? The front desk clerk didn't know. And the detectives didn't have a clue.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Chapter 1
Was everyone who worked at the conciege desk in Chandra's apartment building questioned? Is the lobby of this apartment building extremely busy, and how many entrances does this apartment have, and where was her apartment in location to the exit doors of her apartment, also did anyone working at the front desk see Chandra April 30th as well as May 1st? I'm thinking if it's work day Tuesday, May 1, 2001 and everyone has gone to work by the time she logged off her computer. It would seem as though the heavier traffic of residents leaving for work had passed, thus making it possibly easier to see her in the lobby, and also as she was friendly with the gentleman at the gym, was she not friendly with any of the front desk clerks at her apartment location?

Also the Pierce Mill and Old Stone House requires a fee in the choice of payment method being cash, check, money order, and travelers checks. And they stated that Chandra didn't have her purse with her as she headed out for her walk.

Information provided from the website that Chandra Levy searched on her computer
PAYMENT
TYPES Cash, Check, Money Orders, Travelers Checks

WEEKEND TOURS Saturday and Sunday 11 a.m.

METRO Van Ness/UDC

PARKING On-street

HOURS Daily 9:00am- 5:00pm
1998 Wed -Sun 9:00am- 5:00pm


Rock Creek Nature and Planetarium has events schedule during that current year. And the hours of operation are as follows
~~~~~
The Nature Center and Planetarium
5200 Glover Road, NW
Open Wednesday through Sunday, 9:00 am. - 5.00 pm.
Closed on New Years Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day.

http://www.nps.gov/archive/rocr/naturecenter/index.html

May 1, 2001 was a Tuesday, which means the Rock Creek Nature Center and Planetarium was closed.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 22, 2008 2:25 AM

What is the link to the transcript of the on-line discussion you held yesterday (which I missed at the time).
Thanks.
I'm one avid reader enjoying this series.
Judy in Beaumont, TX

Posted by: Judy-in-TX | July 22, 2008 4:05 AM

***

On July 20, one of the detectives would later note, they got a tip that a Hispanic man had exposed himself to a woman named Karen Mosley nine weeks earlier in Rock Creek Park. The case had been investigated by the Park Police.

Toward the end of May, Mosley, 29, was walking with her dog along a path in the park that began at the old Peirce Mill when she saw a young Hispanic man exposing himself. He ran off when her dog snarled at him. Mosley ran back to the mill and called police from a pay phone. A Park Police officer told her she was lucky: There was a predator in the park who had attacked a woman jogging on a nearby trail.

On July 24, when D.C. detectives contacted the Park Police for additional details about Mosley, they said, they learned for the first time about an attack in the park. Ingmar Guandique, the Salvadoran, was being held for assaulting Christy Wiegand on July 1.

Detectives later noted that police called Mosley the day they received the tip, July 20, but Mosley said no one from the D.C. police contacted her that summer.

"That didn't happen," she later recalled. "I would have remembered that."

As Chandra's disappearance turned into a round-the-clock news story in mid-July, Mosley grew frustrated by the intense coverage of Condit.

"It was making me crazy," she recalled. "The entire focus was on this guy. I kept saying to my friends, 'They're not focusing on this guy in the woods.'"

Detectives in the Levy case would not pursue the information about Ingmar Guandique for another two months.

Mosley said she wasn't interviewed by D.C. police until the first week of September, more than three months after the incident. By then, she was unable to identify the suspect.

***

This Hispanic flasher-- apparently (as one would expect) unarmed, since there is no mention of a weapon here, as there doubtless would be if one had been noted by Ms. Mosley the day of the flashing incident, or in her subsequent interviews with the authorities and the paper-- made such a deep impression on Ms. Mosley that she was convinced then and there, and ever since, apparently, that he should be the prime suspect in Chandra Levy's disappearance; yet, she later could not even identify Ingmar Guandique as the man that had flashed her in late May.

We are supposed to believe that that was merely a function of a few months' having passed, rather than the rather-more-obvious possibility that it was because the flasher was a different Hispanic man. We also are supposed to believe that the police are, at best, mistaken when they say that they had contacted Ms. Mosley earlier that summer-- because, after all, the whole point of this series is to make Mr. Condit the scapegoat, and the various police authorities involved in the Chandra Levy case the guilty parties.

There is no evidence here that the flasher was Ingmar Guandique, and Ms. Mosley's failure to identify him augurs against his having been the culprit in that incident from late-May 2001. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Post series has put forth to date that even suggests any previous or future occasions of Senor Guandique's being a flasher. The two assaults which we know that he did commit, at knifepoint, did not involve his exposing himself at all. The only thing that ties the three occasions together, aside from their all taking place in Rock Creek Park, is that the Hispanic flasher, like the Salvadoran miscreant Ingmar Guandique, ran away like a scared jackrabbit!

Even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that it was Ingmar Guandique in the park exposing himself to Ms. Mosley in late-May 2001, all that we then have is a not-uncommon non-violent sexual offense by an unarmed deviant. Flashers as a phenomenon are well known; but, they are not known for violence, let alone for premeditated murder.

Despite the Post's truly desperate attempts to refurbish the rightly ruined reputation of Congressman Gary Condit, and to frame the small-time miscreant Ingmar Guandique as an infamous murderer (and presumed rapist), it cannot demonstrate that Senor Guandique had either the motive, the opportunity, or the intestinal wherewithal and fortitude to have assaulted, raped, and asphyxiated Chandra Levy by strangulation with her own jogging togs on May Day afternoon in 2001.

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 22, 2008 6:00 AM

I agree the flasher is not necessarily Ingmar G. So there could be two predators in the park. It's even possible there may be more than two predators, and for whatever reasons, their victims have not come forward. My theories...The Big News she had was that she was moving back to Calif. Maybe she cancelled her gym membership effective the first of the month (May 1)? She wanted exercise, to get outdoors on a nice day, maybe an ice cream cone too (she googled Baskins). She walked to the park, and was on a main trail when she was ambushed and forced into a more remote location (off the trail, on the hillside), tied up or tied to a tree with her knotted pants, raped, and then strangled. The pants were untied and she was moved to the spot where she would be most hidden, and covered with forest debris. Her killer could have been Igmar or the flasher or someone else. Condit looked suspicious because he was covering up...his affair(s).

Posted by: SJ | July 22, 2008 7:07 AM

eeave, the exact location wasn't made very clear, but it was on the path above her remains and further away from Ridge Road and the horse trail. The path is a little crosscountry loop from the horse trail and Ridge Road at grove 18 around the peak of the hill toward Grant Road and then back to the horse trail and Ridge Road below the stables.

No one has suggested she was on Broad Branch instead of the path at the top of the hill off Ridge Road. Only the turtle hunter said he got to the site from Broad Branch below.

The remains are out the path several yards from Ridge Road/horse trail, then straight down 240 some feet. The sunglasses were on out the patha few more yards. This was to indicate that Chandra was walking from very deep in the woods back toward Ridge Road to pick up the horse trail again and presumably start heading downhill on the trail toward the equestrian field.

I just wish you guys could walk that loop and tell me that Chandra was back i n there like the police claim to believe. That's after you walk from DuPont Circle of course.

Of course, original news articles quoted the police as saying they believed Chandra's body was dumped there, that it was far from any jogging path. But that wa sbefore they tried to pin this on Guandique instead of disturbing the halls of powers.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 22, 2008 8:02 AM

The Levys' attorney Billy Martin hired private investigators to look at the area where Chandra's remains were found.

They did not come up with anything more conclusive than the police did.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 22, 2008 8:37 AM

I have an open mind in this matter and would be happy if the Post demonstrated that IG and CL could have crossed paths.

The way the Mosley incident is reported makes it sound dubious. The individual is determined to be Hispanic, but we are told nothing about why Mosley came to that conclusion. Did the person just "look" Hispanic? I think it is also significant that she was not able to identify IG as the perp, even though some time had gone by.

Again the Post does not provide real detail about where this took place. On the trails on the valley floor, or up half a mile on the Ridge Trail? The latter would be much more relevant. If not, its the third report of an incident along Beach Drive, which does nothing for me in terms of connecting with foul play up on the Ridge Trail.

Finally, I could use a little reporting on psychology and/or profiling here. Do people that expose themselves "move up" to attacking women? This would be important to know. The story implies these two behaviours are linked. Is that true?

Thanks

Posted by: Murphie | July 22, 2008 9:27 AM

To Ralph Daugherty:

I agree with you that the walk from Dupont Circle theory is ridiculous. But what if Chandra had a Metro farecard with her and took the Redline from Dupont to Van Ness? She then could have walked up a few blocks to Brandywine Street and down the hill to Broad Branch. She then could have started out on this loop: Down Broad Branch, left up Ridge Road to Grant Rd., left on Grant back to Broad Branch, then back to Connecticut Avenue (and the Metro), either on Davenport Street or Brandywine. I do a similar loop all the time by bicycle, and see tons of walkers/joggers/hikers going up Ridge Road. A hefty, vigorous walk/jog to be sure, but definitely something that could be done by a young and healthy person. Perhaps she did not always stay on Ridge Road, but ventured off onto the paths that follow along Ridge Road. And if Chandra was following a flat map, when she started out she may not have appreciated the steepness of Ridge Road. Granted, it is very steep even where it starts at Broad Branch, but perhaps she figured it would flatten out.

Once Chandra was up by Grove 18, anything could have happened. She could have been dragged off by a random killer, as one theory holds. Perhaps she realized she was tired (since Ridge Rd. turned out to be more challenging than expected) and tried to take a shortcut back to Broadbranch down the hill, and ended up tumbling into a tree, as you said you did when you tried it. She could have been seriously injured in this way. Perhaps she was with her killer on the hike (Condit or someone else she knew), who dragged her off into the woods. I still think the most likely explanation is that she was killed elsewhere and dumped where her remains were found, but I do not think the above scenarios can be ruled out, do you?

I agree with you that the turtle hunter thing raises a lot of questions.

chevy chase 10

Posted by: chevychase10 | July 22, 2008 9:41 AM

***

Finally, I could use a little reporting on psychology and/or profiling here. Do people that expose themselves "move up" to attacking women? This would be important to know. The story implies these two behaviours are linked. Is that true?

Thanks

Posted by: Murphie | July 22, 2008 9:27 AM

***

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17390000

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 22, 2008 9:52 AM

If a man is exposing himself to a woman, do you think she's looking at his face before she runs away?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 22, 2008 11:25 AM

To The Reporters:

Condit's question re: Connie Chung ("How stupid is she to ask that question?") was shocking to me. He was, after all, the central figure in a sensational murder investigation. Did you follow up with the obvious question: "What did you think she was going to ask you about?"

Fair or not, Condit's evasiveness in that interview certainly condemned him in the public mind. Was he so deluded, so self-involved that he believed that his private affair made him the "get" of the year for journalists? If so, there's something to be learned here -- namely, what 20 years in power in Washington will do to one's ego.

Posted by: Sean Coffee | July 22, 2008 11:33 AM

1) The Post is heading toward Guandique because he allegedly implicated himself in his initial lawyer-less interview. I would like to know if the translator has been contacted and verifies this story (someone else mentioned this 1st). I would also like the interviewer to take a lie detector test. Otherwise, I'm skeptical. Especially with a future chapter entitled "jailhouse confession" (or something like that).

2) Chandra could easily have taken a taxi, the metro etc to get closer to where she was in the park. There's no reason that the exercise theory is ludicrous just because someone thinks her supposed walk was too difficult for her. Also, I'm very good at cancelling memberships effective immediately if I want to. If Chandra was thrifty, she would not want to pay for 30 days of gym membership that she wasn't going to use. It's not that difficult to be get a 30 day lead in waived.
Also, if my boyfriend's wife was in town for the first time, I'd be so wound up I could pop. I lot of vigorous exercise is exactly what I would need to clear my head.
She might not have known that the walk she started was, indeed, so very vigorous.

3) Gary Condit may well have had a lot to hide; ie, he may well have met her in the park, and said goodbye to her in the park, only to discover she was missing. A lot of high powered respectable police people (that Death guy) felt Condit was the wrong guy. However, if I was (egocentric) Condit and I knew I had seen her in the park right before she disappeared, I would probably jump through amazing amounts of hoops to avoid answering the following question on a lie detector test: When was the last time you saw Chandra Levy alive?? Look at the 3 carefully worded questions he was willing to risk in a lie detector test. He was willing to answer that he had nothing to do with her death, but not anything about when he had seen her. He was hoping this would be seen as the "real thing" for a lie detector test. He did get an ex-FBI person to do it.

4) Guandique. If I remember the dates correctly, **if** Guandique is guilty, Chandra would have been the first known incident. What if he didn't intend to kill her and did so accidentally? What if he was scared to death? He would hide the body. But, what if he still had the urge to go back to the park, naturally he would run at the first sign of a struggle. (The guy is in jail because he has such urges!!) A sample size of 2 (tall blondes) is certainly not enough to say he only attacked tall blondes. And if he had accidentally killed Chandra, mightn't he then avoid attacking someone who looked like her?? I agree, there's no reason that the guy who exposed himself has anything to do with Guandique. But it is very remiss of the police that this lady wasn't even interviewed, given that they felt that Chandra's last known location was in the park. It substantiates the statement by the initial interviewer of Guandique that he didn't tell the police about Guandique's statement about Chandra because it wasn't their case.

Posted by: 42 | July 22, 2008 12:17 PM

Flashers as a phenomenon are well known; but, they are not known for violence, let alone for premeditated murder.

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 22, 2008 6:00 AM

That's an interesting observation that's been the premise of many a poster here -- that people "graduate" from one crime to another.

Watch much Law & Order people? Dick Wolf would be proud.

Suspending this idea, and adding to it that IG had been starting to abuse drugs and alcohol with more frequency, is a possible scenario that he was wasted when he attacked CL and it spun out of control and ended up in murder? Seems likely to me.

So, here's my proposed scenario:

IG was wasted on his day off from work, and hanging around the park. CL comes along and heads out on this trail. Like the other victims, he stalks her and then attacks at a remote location. They struggle, he is so f'd up, he winds up stabbing her.

He may not have intended to kill her, and just left her there thinking she'd get away. But as a first-time sexual assaulter, he really messed it up.

As for the other two joggers he attacked, they were both much larger than CL and one of them was trained in self-defense. Add to this, that we don't know if there were other victims who never came forward and/or reported being assaulted by this guy.

Seems plausible to me that someone would be pretty damn skittish on their next outing, rather than more confident since his intended goal was sexual not violent.

Regardless, in hindsight, the real failure here is that the MPD were so focused on Condit and dealing with all the media hype that they weren't sufficiently looking at the park or talking to the Park Police -- despite the fact that they knew she was heading for the park in the first place.


I totally understand Ms. Mosley's frustration, as well as I can sort of understand how the DC Park Police didn't go running at the DC PD when IG said he had seen CL in the park and thought she was "pretty". I'm sure the Park Police guy thought that MPD had their investigation under control (obviously a false assumption as we know now) and that the veracity of much of what IG was saying under questioning was suspect any way.

An unfortunate circumstance. As The Post is going to lead us to, IG killed her something similar to the manner I described above.

Posted by: || | July 22, 2008 12:23 PM

Three questions:

1. How could the police not have found Chandra's body when they searched the park? Rock Creek is only twice the size of Central Park... they should have been able to comb the entire park in a week with dogs and rescue teams. Start at the central point where they think she was and fan out.

2. How do police conclusively know Chandra's body was not dumped in the park long after the murder?

3. Why didn't Chandra's aunt advise her to stop having an affair with a sleezy married man?? Both Condit and Chandra are equally at fault for the affair, but if only her aunt would have told her get out that bad situation, move on, and find someone more respectable, then Chandra would have moved back to CA after her internship ended in December, graduated in May, and been alive today.

Posted by: Kate | July 22, 2008 12:44 PM

from an anonymous post: "The Levys' attorney Billy Martin hired private investigators to look at the area where Chandra's remains were found.

They did not come up with anything more conclusive than the police did."
*********
The found a large leg bone the police left behind for starters, plus a long list of what else the police overlooked there. Greta and Ted Williams went to the site and discussed. They were disgusted.

Given you don't know that or choose to mislead people about it, not sure what your agenda is but you definitely have one.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 22, 2008 1:11 PM

Mr. Daugherty:

Why would VP Cheney have an office "in the House" since he's President of the Senate? Did you mean "White House"? Also, I looked around just to be sure, and there are still no mountains around here.

Posted by: Chupacabra | July 22, 2008 1:11 PM

hi chevy chase 10,

Chandra used the Metro extensively to get around. Receipts were still in her apartment for some items she bought in Alexandria and Bethesda. The Metrorail card was not specifically mentioned as still in her purse or missing. If it had been missing, it certainly would be significant. But not being mentioned, it should be in the purse wih her other cards.

Can anyone really picture picking a Metrorail card out of her purse and leaving everything else to go make a trip somewhere? I can't.

The only reasonable conclusion is that Chandra, taking a key that was not on her pepper spray key ring, went outside to meet someone, and based on what she had told her parents before, that someone was Condit who had told her not to carry id with him.

Also, there is no map I'm aware of that Chandra could have brought up with those links with the kind of detail you're talking about, such as to show anything much in Rock Creek Park like Ridge Road, unless the WP comes up with the map that is shown in clicking from Entertainment Guide and it has that detail. Right now all that has ever been mentioned by police is MapQuest, and it is just a green blob without detail.

Any kind of accidental death where Chandra dies alone is ruled out due to the knotted leggings.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 22, 2008 1:28 PM

"rd: Can anyone really picture picking a Metrorail card out of her purse and leaving everything else to go make a trip somewhere? I can't."

I can. When I'm planning to walk somewhere, I often throw a few dollars and the essentials in a back pocket, so that I don't have to carry a purse.

So, I come to a different conclusion, which by your logic, must be "unreasonable."

Posted by: 42 | July 22, 2008 1:34 PM

Cheney keeps an office in the House of Representatives and that's where they met. It was unclear at first, perhaps deliberately so from information provided by Condit, but that was determined with reporters folowing up with Cheney's ofice.

Ok, you don't like mountain, let's replace with a verteran bike riders description:

...this MASSIVE uphill switchback road. It really blows when you are biking. You cross the creek and then peddle uphill until you are a third of the way up and then turn around 180 and peddle up some more and then turn 90 and peddle up some more until you get up this monster. It's pretty rough (as far as DC hills go).

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 22, 2008 1:37 PM

unfortunately have to go back to work. Will look forward to what everybody has written tonight.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 22, 2008 1:40 PM

If a man is exposing himself to a woman, do you think she's looking at his face before she runs away?

Posted by: | July 22, 2008 11:25 AM

_________________________________

Well then how can she say that he is a hispanic male then. And if she was so frustrated about Condit being questioned about Chandra Levy, why didn't she go forward to tell the authorities about the male she had the encounter with while it was still fresh on her mind.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 22, 2008 1:49 PM

rd writes,
"Ok, you don't like mountain, let's replace with a verteran bike riders description:

...this MASSIVE uphill switchback road. It really blows when you are biking. You cross the creek and then peddle uphill until you are a third of the way up and then turn around 180 and peddle up some more and then turn 90 and peddle up some more until you get up this monster. It's pretty rough (as far as DC hills go)."

1) Wasn't Chandra from Modesto? Aren't there real mountains out there? Wouldn't she know how to hike up one?
2) For steep hills, biking is often harder than hiking, since you're carrying the extra weight. I don't like biking up such a hill and frequently walk my bike up one like that.

I guess I don't see your point.

Posted by: 42 | July 22, 2008 1:55 PM

The mystery of the Chandra Levy case is very interesting. I find the most intriguing case, in the Washington D.C. area, is the disappearance of the Lyons sisters in 1976. I would like to know what, if any, information or data has surfaced since their disapperance of those two young girls.

Posted by: Jack Hosley | July 22, 2008 1:58 PM

RD-

Chandra could have taken a few dollars with her and purchased a farecard. If you think a "missing" farecard would be significant, I do not see why the fact that a farecard was not "mentioned" (by whom, the police?) as missing rules out the possibility that she took the Metro. I can also see someone taking a farecard from her purse to go somewhere, if she doesn't want to carry much with her.

Could not the notted leggings have been used as a tourniquet by Chandra? Assuming they had no blood on them I concede that makes it less likely, but since a tourniquet is usually applied above the wound, the lack of blood would not be conclusive. I have not, of course seen how the leggings were knotted, so it is hard to say.

In any event, I appreciate much of the information you have provided here, as the Post story is so woefully inadequate.

chevy chase 10

Posted by: chevychase10 | July 22, 2008 1:58 PM

RD-

One other point, unrelated to Chandra Levy:

I LOVE biking up hills like Ridge Road. For some the rush in cycling is speed. For me the rush is in conquering steep hills like Ridge Road. No, I don't think it "blows." But I get your point.

chevy chase 10

Posted by: chevychase10 | July 22, 2008 2:06 PM

Kate,

1. This series says police missed the body because of miscommunication. Instead of searching 100 yards from the trail as desired by the brass, they searched 100 yards from the road. The body was not within 100 yards of a road.
2. BODY WAS NOT DUMPED>how could the body be dumped in the middle of steep woods, off a dirt trail? wouldn't someone notice -removing the body from trunk of car, carrying body into the woods? she was killed in the park.
3. The Aunt is not the Parent. Who knows if she tried to talk CL into breaking it off? But that's really the job of mom or dad.

Is IG guilty? He's either STUPID, LUCKY, or NOT GUILTY...why would he identify CL's pic as someone he saw in park if he killed her??? Why would he go back to the park and assault other women if he killed her in the same place?

Posted by: SJ | July 22, 2008 2:29 PM

Kate,

2. BODY WAS NOT DUMPED>how could the body be dumped in the middle of steep woods, off a dirt trail? wouldn't someone notice -removing the body from trunk of car, carrying body into the woods? she was killed in the park.

Is IG guilty? He's either STUPID, LUCKY, or NOT GUILTY...why would he identify CL's pic as someone he saw in park if he killed her??? Why would he go back to the park and assault other women if he killed her in the same place?

Posted by: SJ | July 22, 2008 2:29 PM

___________________________________

The person didn't have to bring back her body to the park, but they bring her bones back to the park.

I agree with IG either being Stupid, lucky, or Not Guilty!

I don't believe he killed her myself.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 22, 2008 2:46 PM

To many of us, this is the most curious mistake ( see following quote ), if indeed they could devote these resources to Area 17. Humm..... what make them want to do a cursury search in that particular area???? And of course, especially without trained dogs?
"But dogs were not used when three police sergeants and 28 recruits searched the area around Grove 17 off Glover Road in Rock Creek Park on July 25, 2001. Our reporting shows that the searches for Chandra were inconsistent and not performed in a systematic way. Had police used dogs to search the Grove 17 area, which includes the Western Ridge Trail, it's likely they would have found Chandra's body. Her remains rested 79 yards below the trail for nearly three months, and between the site where her bones would eventually be found 10 months later were other personal items the dogs could have located, including her Walkman, sunglasses, one of her Reebok sneakers and other items"

Posted by: interesting1 | July 22, 2008 2:48 PM

Maybe this has been addressed already, but how much of this "mystery" can be chalked up to the lack of cooperation and coordination between the patchwork of law enforcement authorities with jurisidction over parts of DC?

For example, why didn't MPD contact Park Police if they thought she may have gone to Rock Creek? And, as important -- why didn't Park Police speak up? If the Park Police knew of other attacks in the park, and yet didn't volunteer any info to MPD, that's every bit as unforgivable.

Sad, but not a surprise, that turf battles or lack of communication between agencies may have delayed law enforcement efforts. I hope the Post looking into this question, as an answer would actually add something relevant to this story.

Posted by: I don't get it | July 22, 2008 3:27 PM

Theres been a long history of DC police blunders well beyond this case - handcuffing of a traffic violator, the DC sniper case, missing evidence, inability to solve murders, ... Series confirms for me that the DC police are incompetent as they are overpaid and numerous. Has anyone wondered whether they are up to the task - are they really meet professional standards - are the really trained? Has any heads rolled because of these blunders?

Posted by: DCIsFortheBirds | July 22, 2008 4:04 PM

Is the Western Ridge Trail just below Ridge Road? There are some maps suggesting that it's a trail used by joggers, but the map is unreadable.

I was skeptical at first, but IG sounds suspicious to me. The attack on Chandra matches his MO. He stalked female joggers around Beach Drive, where he lived, and when feeling safe, attacked. Beach Drive intersects Ridge Road in the south. One of the women attacked, was at Pierce Mills, which is very south but near Beach Drive. Another was north at Wise Drive. Both were in untrafficked areas.

IG tried throttling his girlfriend at least once, one of the reasons he was kicked out of the house by her mother. And wouldn't she have been a brunette and short? He wasn't just drawn to tall blondes.

So Chandra would have been jogging above the valley, but below Ridge Road. If police had focused on IG from the start, having learned about him, they might have built a case. For instance he had clothes that a brother later threw out but which might have had DNA evidence. Also the searches might have been more thorough, resulting in finding the sunglasses with fingerprints, etc.

Posted by: eeave | July 22, 2008 4:04 PM

The stupid Washington Post reporters can't even get the names of the important locations correct, causing many people to remain confused about the actual location of Chandra's remains. For example, in the most recent Update 9, above, they refer to Grove 17 as being "off Glover Road." Actually, Grove 17 is off Ridge Road; Glover Road splits off from Ridge Road, but not until significantly further north than Grove 17. Granted, various maps out there make the same mistake, but the Post reporters should still be able to get it right.

Posted by: chevychase10 | July 22, 2008 4:18 PM

A neighbor noticed that IG was getting "strange" around January 2001, and started drinking as well. When he was captured for one of the assaults, it was around the Golf Course to the north, off Beach Drive. His neighborhood was Somerset Place, which is to the east of the park (i may have my coordinates off about what's n/s/e/w), so Beach Drive was crucial as a kind of central artery for him.

You have to wonder if there were other predators causing problems in the park at that time, since the police hardly seem aware of IG even to this day.

Posted by: eeave | July 22, 2008 4:22 PM

It would be nice to have a map with pins showing sites, like attacks, the exposure site, Condit's condo, Somerset Place, the golf course where Guandique was later captured. The 360 graphic they use is amazing, but not helpful for orientation. It looks like a remote woodsy area but you can't really see much.

Posted by: eeave | July 22, 2008 4:28 PM

I was skeptical at first, but IG sounds suspicious to me. The attack on Chandra matches his MO. He stalked female joggers around Beach Drive, where he lived, and when feeling safe, attacked. Beach Drive intersects Ridge Road in the south. One of the women attacked, was at Pierce Mills, which is very south but near Beach Drive. Another was north at Wise Drive. Both were in untrafficked areas.

Posted by: eeave | July 22, 2008 4:04 PM

________________________________

In regards to the comment that "both were in untrafficker areas", why was it stated that one of the two blonde females that were supposedly attacked stated that the rush hour traffic drowned out her yelling for help.

I don't believe that IG killed Chandra Levy because he could have killed the other two also, and one stated in her report that he had his 5' knife on her chin, he could have easily killed her and the other female that stated in her report that he approached her with his 5' knife. But instead of killing them both, he ran because they both screamed for help and fought him off, and then he ran, but yet he had a 5' knife. A weapon controls the victim for the assailant.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 22, 2008 4:40 PM

***

Is the Western Ridge Trail just below Ridge Road? There are some maps suggesting that it's a trail used by joggers, but the map is unreadable.

I was skeptical at first, but IG sounds suspicious to me. The attack on Chandra matches his MO. He stalked female joggers around Beach Drive, where he lived, and when feeling safe, attacked. Beach Drive intersects Ridge Road in the south. One of the women attacked, was at Pierce Mills, which is very south but near Beach Drive. Another was north at Wise Drive. Both were in untrafficked areas.

IG tried throttling his girlfriend at least once, one of the reasons he was kicked out of the house by her mother. And wouldn't she have been a brunette and short? He wasn't just drawn to tall blondes.

So Chandra would have been jogging above the valley, but below Ridge Road. If police had focused on IG from the start, having learned about him, they might have built a case. For instance he had clothes that a brother later threw out but which might have had DNA evidence. Also the searches might have been more thorough, resulting in finding the sunglasses with fingerprints, etc.

Posted by: eeave | July 22, 2008 4:04 PM

***

Ingmar Guandique's m.o. was to use a knife, and then run away when his tall, blonde victims screamed and fought back with their bare hands. (Previously, he had used a few screwdrivers to burgle a residence, and then ran away when the owner returned home and surprised him-- but, in that case, as in the second assault case, weeks later, he did not bother even to run away far and fast enough to avoid being picked up by the police.)

He is not known to have sexually assaulted anyone. He is not known to have killed anyone. He is not known to have strangled anyone, whether manually or with knotted clothing. He is not known to have stabbed or slit anyone with his knife. He passed an F.B.I.-administered polygraph examination, while the jailbird who had claimed that Senor Guandique had confessed in jail to Ms. Levy's murder failed one of those himself.

There is no evidence, by the way, that Chandra Levy was stalked before she was assaulted and killed. That is purely a conjecture that may conveniently be claimed to be part of Ingmar Guandique's m.o. Nor is there any evidence that Chandra Levy was assaulted with a knife-- and the fact that her hyoid bone was broken suggests that she was not, since an assailant with a knife could have used it to stab her to death or to slit her throat, rather than going to the trouble to undress her, at least partially, and then strangle her with her own knotted clothing, as appears to be the cause of Ms. Levy's death at the hands of her assailant.

Aside from that incredible claim of a jailhouse confession, the only evidence tying Ingmar Guandique to Chandra Levy in any way is Detective Green's unsubstantiated claim that Senor Guandique had admitted to seeing Ms. Levy in the park on some earlier date and thinking that she was attractive-- which is incredible inasmuch as Detective Green neither put that claim in his official report nor told anyone else, as far as he himself can recall now-- and, presumably, no one else that he might have told back then has reported, since, having been told by him back then, when it might have counted. The woman was by then the most famous missing person in the world; yet, Detective Green felt the information that she had been seen in the park by an apprehended serial-assault suspect was not within his purview to pass along to those in charge of finding out what had happened to her two months earlier!?!

There is also a deafening silence from the Post on the issue raised by me and another earlier: Does the translator used during Ingmar Guandique's interrogation after his July 1 arrest confirm or deny that Senor Guandique made the admissions about Chandra Levy that Detective Green now claims were made? Was Guandique himself asked during his F.B.I.-administered polygraph examination whether he had ever seen Chandra Levy in the park at any time, or was he merely asked questions as to whether he had killed her or otherwise assaulted her?

As for the girlfriend, yes, she was shorter and darker than the two blonde Amazons that Senor Guandique mugged in the park. She also happened to be one of his own kind, and that kind of ethnically assortative mating is the norm rather than the exception in human dating, the sheer joys of multiculturalism notwithstanding. As for his beating her, a man that beats his significant other tends to do so for very different reasons from those that cause a man to assault strangers in the park at knifepoint. Or, does someone suppose that he mugged the Amazons simply because his short, dark, Hispanic girlfriend was not around on May 14 and July 1, 2001, to beat the hell out of...?

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 22, 2008 6:10 PM

"The very day that led a then-House Minority Leader to become the 38th President of the United States, in lieu of a convicted felon! I abjure any connection of this fact to the former Congressman from the 18th District of California....

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 21, 2008 1:22 PM " Who was this "then-House Minority Leader" who became President? I always thought it was then-Vice President Gerald Ford who was sworn in.

You know what chaps my ass? Nancy Graces's insatiable thirst for semen. Every other word out of her mouth in the interview quoted was "semen." Someone please help this poor disagreable woman out!

Posted by: Assless Chaps | July 22, 2008 6:39 PM

Greetings people. I'm new to the site and wanted to say hi.


[url=http://www.bigsiteofamazingfacts.com]Interesting Facts[/url]

Posted by: annesky | July 22, 2008 6:54 PM

Thank you, editors, for the on-line transcript link.
You are very responsive to us readers and most of us do appreciate your hard work.
I do have another question which I can't find addressed, so far (I haven't had time to read the transcript text yet.)
I recognize Chandra's remains were months old.
Was a forensic autopsy done?
Did they find any evidence whatsoever which might lead to a suspicion about how she died?
Did they do a real DNA search of her clothing found at the scene?
Any chances there was any evidence that would lead to further investigation?
While trying to find the online transcript late last night, I found several other articles about the case online.
Had a good time doing it, too. :-)
The solution to the 1982 case using DNA was fascinating, which triggered my curiosity expressed in the questions above.
DNA evidence gathering and analysis is getting pretty sophisticated.
I understand exposure to the elements erodes the quality of DNA that can be developed, but I wondered again ...
And -- this is off-subject, but I can't find a report on what happened to the Chinese man who was still sitting on the 7-story ledge in the Hart SOB at 1AM?
(I found this story while perusing your site last night.)
Nothing on the TV news down in Texas this morning, either.
Even The Hill's reporter gave up at 1AM.
Thank you again for all your hard work.

Posted by: Judy-in-TX | July 22, 2008 7:04 PM

I'm amazed that so many here do not take seriously the danger level that IG posed. He brutally attacked two women in the park. He beat his girlfriend. He bit her above her breast to the extent it left a scar. He had been "turned out" of his girlfriend's life by her mother. He had been stopped in a robbery by another woman. He went around carrying a long knife. And who knows what other things occured to him to help make him a predator who wanted to hurt women.

I doubt that the women he attacked, or their families, would so come to his defense as so many of the commenters here do.

Posted by: Elizabeth | July 22, 2008 7:30 PM

No one's coming to his defense, Elizabeth. He got ten years for those two attacks and I hope when he gete out they air drop him back to El Salvador sans parachute.

What is being said is that credibility is being strained and history rewritten to pin Chandra's murder on him when no reasonable person would be able to even place Chandra up on that hill in a deep forest, much less Guandique up there as well.

Some of the straining strains comprehension. Guandique is fearful because he just stalked, tied up, and strangled a woman in the park so six days later and two weeks later he runs after hearing a scream or someone trying to fight him off because of his bad experience murdering Chandra.

I mean that's posted above. That's the kind of straining of credibility that hits new lows.

Some, not very many, maybe one person, with a couple of others with legitimate alternatives suggested to consider, knowing that Chandra couldn't possibly have done what the police want her to have done so they can pin this on Guandique and walk away happy, knowing the Chandra Levy Walk in the Park Challenge would not leave one person saying oh yeah, Chandra did this, are straining for some way to place Chandra on top of that hill and Guandique up there with her.

Like, oh she left her Metrocard at home with everything else but a key to get back in, so she must have bought a farecard and taken the Metro somewhere based on nothing more than how can we get Chandra there on her own power in the middle of nowhere to be murdered by someone who runs when someone screams.

I mean, it can be done, but it isn't pretty. It's eye popping in fact.

I'll just go a step further with this Guandique thing. Now what the strainers, including the hapless DC police, would have us believe is that Guandique either:

1) hung around grove 18 out of sight, even though the number of people that come through there are hours apart, and the number of women alone is maybe never.

or 2) followed Chandra up a massive hill for 30 minutes or more that it takes to trek up the horse trail or Ridge Road, which run alongside each other, not the horse trail lower in the valley, yet somehow stay out of sight and yet somehow at some point running her down like a cheetah for who knows what reason place he chose.

But wait, the police also believe that Chandra was walking through the deeply forested trail back to the horse trail at grove 18, which means that she had to have gone further up the horse trail earlier, at least to the stables if not to the revered closed Nature Center which so many are enamored with, then say, oh shoot, I walked all this way and the dang place is closed, ok, I'm a trooper, I'll complete the Chandra Levy Walk in the Park Challenge that no one else will and walk back home now, but first I'm going cross country through a dark forest with nothing but my Walkman and my key, just in case I make it through the forest alive.

But unknown to Chandra, Guandique had followed at a distance all the way up from Beach Road and stopped at grove 18, either because he wasn't as crazy as Chandra or because he knew she would have to return, of course who would drive up there and drive her away, doesn't everybody walk!, and I'll ambush her when she gets back.

But wait. I also know that she, being crazy, will go crosscountry and around the peak and through the forest and I'll wait deep in the forest on the No Horses path for her to come back this way, just because, and knock her down and slide down the hill and tie her up with her tights even though I have to hang on to something to keep from sliding over the cliff!

yeah, I believe that.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 22, 2008 9:07 PM

Or, does someone suppose that he mugged the Amazons simply because his short, dark, Hispanic girlfriend was not around on May 14 and July 1, 2001, to beat the hell out of...?

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 22, 2008 6:10 PM

Hey d...h..., IG was a predeator on women of a color other than his girlfriend. Tall, short blond or redhead it did not matter. He killed Chandra because the circumstances were more favorable at the time. You have to remember that she was probably at the lowest point in her life and about to confront Condit. She was in the wrong place wrong time. He may also have felt that he already killed someone and had got away with it so why kill again? Since most people do not carry valuables with them while jogging he wanted sex. Certainly makes more sense than a US Congressman dragging his girlfriend through the woods and strangling her with her stockings! That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

Posted by: dlg358 | July 22, 2008 9:21 PM

To Michele, who asked the reporters in #7 if it was safe to jog alone in Rock Creek Park. NO! I grew up in Washington, please trust me on this. Jogging with another person during the day is fine. But not alone. And I'd stay clear from the park at night. Be careful but most importantly, have fun.

Posted by: Dramaticlookcat | July 22, 2008 9:21 PM

Or, does someone suppose that he mugged the Amazons simply because his short, dark, Hispanic girlfriend was not around on May 14 and July 1, 2001, to beat the hell out of...?

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 22, 2008 6:10 PM

Hey d...h..., IG was a predeator on women of a color other than his girlfriend. Tall, short blond or redhead it did not matter. He killed Chandra because the circumstances were more favorable at the time. You have to remember that she was probably at the lowest point in her life and about to confront Condit. She was in the wrong place wrong time. He may also have felt that he already killed someone and had got away with it so why kill again? Since most people do not carry valuables with them while jogging he wanted sex. Certainly makes more sense than a US Congressman dragging his girlfriend through the woods and strangling her with her stockings! That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

Posted by: dlg358 | July 22, 2008 9:21 PM

__________________________

Who said that the US Congressman dragged her through the woods and strangled her with her stocking?

Who said that what happened to Chandra really happened to her in Rock Creek Park?

Once again I don't believe that IG would attack one female with a knife to her chin and not kill her because she screams, but kills Chandra. I believe Chandra would scream also.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 22, 2008 9:53 PM

RD-

When I suggested that Chandra may have taken the Metro to Van Ness, it was not for the purpose of putting her at Grove 18 to fit with the Guandique theory. I have no view on Guandique's guilt or innocence and, as I said before, my real feeling is that she was murdered elsewhere and her body/remains were dumped in Rock Creek Park. I was merely trying to point out that it is also feasible that she could have gotten to the top of Ridge Road, where she met her fate, by whoever's hand, be it Condit, Guandique, some random murderer/serial killer, or even by accidental death. Sorry that possibility doesn't fit with your apparent theory that Condit arranged to meet her somewhere and then killed her. But there are other reasonable possibilities, some of which involve her getting to the top of Ridge Road on her own accord, without completing the Chandra Levy Walk in the Park Challenge. You may recall that I previously agreed with you that walking all the way from Dupont Circle to the top of Ridge Road is a ridiculous theory. I just don't think you have conclusively excluded either the random killer theory or the "she was killed up on Ridge Road/Trail" theory, although I, myself, do not subscribe to the latter.

Posted by: chevychase10 | July 22, 2008 10:25 PM

dlg358 wrote: "Certainly makes more sense than a US Congressman dragging his girlfriend through the woods and strangling her with her stockings! That's my story and I'm sticking to it!"
*******
Of course she was not strangled there with her tights there, if ever.

I want to add part 2 to the Challenge, but only for those who have completed the Chandra Levy Walk in the Park Challenge so they have a full appreciation for part 2.

Part 2 is the Chandra Levy Find a Better Place to Dump a Body in the Park Challenge. Drive up Ridge Road from Beach and Broad Branch, back into grove 18 next to the picnic table, using the marker set up there to guide you, take something out of your trunk, preferably not someone, and walk staright on back from your vehicle and picnic table into the dark No Horses path, walk out a few yards, carefully as the path is narrow and eroded and roots sticking up, to a place where it looks pretty smooth to go downhill, drop down 240 feet or so, staying between the two ravines on your right and left, and taking care not to build up speed lest you go over the cliff below, then come back uo and toss a pair of broken sunglasses further on down the path into leaves and underbrush. Return to your vehicle and drive away.

Now try to find a better place to do that within five miles of Chandra's or Condit's apartment.

Oh, by the way, Guandique wasn't driving, hence the straining to place him up there. Almost every body ever found in Rock Creek Park was dumped there, Chandra was found at the best place to hide a body a person knowledgeable about Rock Creek Park could find, Condit lived a mile and half away on the Rock Creek Park trail running along Adams Morgan, and Condit was a prolific cyclist. Condit was a person knowledgeable about Rock Creek Park, including that all facilities were closed on Tuesday.

Chandra wasn't. She had to look it up.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 22, 2008 10:38 PM

Thank you, editors, for the on-line transcript link.
You are very responsive to us readers and most of us do appreciate your hard work.
I do have another question which I can't find addressed, so far (I haven't had time to read the transcript text yet.)
I recognize Chandra's remains were months old.
Was a forensic autopsy done?
Did they find any evidence whatsoever which might lead to a suspicion about how she died?
Did they do a real DNA search of her clothing found at the scene?
Any chances there was any evidence that would lead to further investigation?
While trying to find the online transcript late last night, I found several other articles about the case online.
Had a good time doing it, too. :-)
The solution to the 1982 case using DNA was fascinating, which triggered my curiosity expressed in the questions above.
DNA evidence gathering and analysis is getting pretty sophisticated.
I understand exposure to the elements erodes the quality of DNA that can be developed, but I wondered again ...
And -- this is off-subject, but I can't find a report on what happened to the Chinese man who was still sitting on the 7-story ledge in the Hart SOB at 1AM?
(I found this story while perusing your site last night.)
Nothing on the TV news down in Texas this morning, either.
Even The Hill's reporter gave up at 1AM.
Thank you again for all your hard work.

Posted by: Judy-in-TX | July 22, 2008 10:40 PM

***

"The very day that led a then-House Minority Leader to become the 38th President of the United States, in lieu of a convicted felon! I abjure any connection of this fact to the former Congressman from the 18th District of California....

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 21, 2008 1:22 PM " Who was this "then-House Minority Leader" who became President? I always thought it was then-Vice President Gerald Ford who was sworn in.

You know what chaps my ass? Nancy Graces's insatiable thirst for semen. Every other word out of her mouth in the interview quoted was "semen." Someone please help this poor disagreable woman out!

Posted by: Assless Chaps | July 22, 2008 6:39 PM

***

Vice President Spiro T. Agnew ['Ted' to his pals, like Frank and Sammy] copped to a plea bargain and resigned the Vice Presidency on Wednesday, October 10, 1973. Had he not been forced to do so, he would have become the 38th President of these United States within ten months [Noon E.D.T. on Friday, August 9, 1974, to be exact], upon Dick Nixon's own resignation as # 37. Instead, then-Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford, Jr. [ne Leslie Lynch King, Jr.] was nominated by Nixon and then approved by overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress to replace Agnew. (Nelson Rockefeller would follow suit the following year, once Ford moved up the food chain upon Nixon's resignation.) If ninety percent of life is just showing up, it seems that the other ten percent is not taking kickbacks!?! Or, at least, not getting caught.... Perhaps Nancy Grace is (in the words of the old New Wave spiritual) "turning Japanese?" ("I really think so!") [Kinda gives one the Vapors, no?]

D.K.H. [paleo-kyma]

"Every wave is new until it breaks!" --Neil Young

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 22, 2008 11:06 PM

well, I certainly agree chevy chase that those kinds of things need to be considered as you are doing, and mentioned some suggesting those alternatives, such as yourself.

But there comes a point where one has to figure out that improbabilities are becoming improbably improbable. She had a Metrorail card, you have to to travel by Metro according to the site, and so without her card one is reduced to saying, oh, she must have bought a farecard, which is just another way of saying anything to place her and Guandique on top of that hill because we don't want to deal with the obvious, that she was dumped and hidden below grove 18, and in my opinion, well after the searches, probably after 9/11 when reporters quit following people around.

So good to consider, but also consider why people are trying so hard to place her there on her own, even though there is zero indication how she would know to get there and where "there" is. For example, how one gets to grove 18 if they approached the Nature Center from the north.

Also, even more important than this police whitewash nonsense, is what a real detective would consider of the facts known, or at least the facts as finally put together.

Chandra still didn't have any indication of how she was going to get to her graduation in LA in 10 days, still didn't have any indication of whether she was coming back to DC or not, still had yet to "know something on Wednesday" for her landlord, still hadn't packed or cleaned her apartment for moveout if she was leaving, still was in constant attmpst to check for messages from Condit.

That alone shows how silly this all is. Not one person talking about this walk on the park business gets into her mind and says, you know what, she is either by a phone or has her cellphone or is with Condit, because she checked her messages constantly!

But no, she must have gone off to whatever the heck a Nature Center is because well, she gave 30 days notice to cancel her gym membership and that's close enough for a romp in the park because it was a nice day from someone who had *never* jogged. No one making those suggestions even comes close to trying to understand what this person Chandra did in her life.

And lastly, for that person who keeps coming up with he can cancel his membership immediately if he huffs and puffs, Chandra's paperwork for giving her 30 day notice was in her apartment, so it's not a matter for speculation and she could if I could statements.

But really, I would expect all women to understand those two things about being in touch with Condit and the gym membership versus out on the street where she never was, the guy(s) defending Condit I have less hope for.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 22, 2008 11:09 PM

RD-

When you say she had a "Metrorail card," do you mean a Smartpass, that can be reloaded? I don't think they even existed in 2001. If they did, how do we know she had one? And if you are talking about a regular Farecard, how do we know that she had one, and how do we know that she didn't take it with her on May Day? Is it only that the police did not report a farecard or Smartpass (if there was such a thing in 2001) as missing? And, if it was a regular farecard, the police would have no way of knowing she had one, so why would they report it as missing?

Posted by: chevychase10 | July 22, 2008 11:20 PM

RD - I've known plenty of women who leave cell phones and ID behind and go out for a walk. I've known plenty of people who show an uncanny ability to walk 3.5 miles or even more. You're not really helping by pronouncing your opinions as incontrovertible and obvious truths.

Posted by: huggie | July 23, 2008 12:04 AM

The site today says you have to have a card to travel by Metro, don't know about 2001. But she was a commuter and travelled widely by Metro to go shopping, went back and forth between next stop north at Calvert to go to Condit's, so she certainly would be carrying a card.

I didn't suggest she bought a farecard, someone else did to figure out some way to get her on the Metro even if her Metrorail card was still in her purse.

There are different card names on the Metro site, I used the Metrorail name as a descriptive one. Locals would know what the more likely one she would be using, for example the Smartpass or whichever.

I would expect the card would be one you can recharge up for fees, and that it should be in her purse. As I say, if it isn't, that would be significant.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 23, 2008 12:06 AM

Like I say, huggie, I lay the details out there and let people decide for themselves with real information.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 23, 2008 12:14 AM

A few observations.
1) There is no Ridge Road in Rock Creek Park. The road you all are referring to is Glover Road.
2) There is quite a lot of over-dramatization among these comments. Mountains in DC? Wild, desolate woods in Rock Creek Park? Hardly. The hill that the bicyclist refers to is a challenge for the cyclist on Glover Rd, but the walker needs only to follow the nearby sign to the Western Ridge Trail and walk up a slope to Glover Rd, cross the road and re-enter the trail. This is no mountain and is not an obstacle for the reasonably fit.
3)The Western Ridge Trail south of Military Road is lightly used, but it is rarely very far from a road.
4)Public transport to the park isn't great, but it exists. One can take MetroBus to a stop on Military Rd very near the Nature Center or one can take MetroRail to one of a few stops along the Red line and walk either the Soapstone Valley Trail or the Melvin Hazen Trail to the Western Ridge Trail near Peirce Mill.
5)It should be pointed out that it is not unusual for users of MetroRail to buy a low value paper card. God knows where such a card might end up after weeks or months in the "deep woods" (folks from Maine, Alaska or the West may laugh now) in Rock Creek Park.
You all may now return to your regularly scheduled programming.

Posted by: dc | July 23, 2008 12:35 AM

The overdramazitization is me only.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 23, 2008 12:46 AM

RD-

I am a local here in the dc area; I did not realize that you are not familiar with the DC Metro system. If you think there is any significance to the presence or absence of a "card" in her purse, you need to understand the Metro card system.

Yes, you need a card to travel on the Metrorail. But that can be either (1) a paper farecard that you can purchase for a small or larger amount (for one trip or many); once the card runs out of money the turnstile system will eat it the last time you use it, or you can trade it in before it runs out of money at the farecard machine for a new paper card by inserting the card into the farecard machine along with some money. The paper card is totally anonymous, if you lose it, a stranger who finds it can use it; or (2) a plastic Smartpass, that is issued to you, and which you can register with Metro on-line so that you can report it as lost or stolen if that occurs, and Metro can deactivate the Smartpass. It is the size of a credit card and can be reloaded at the Farecard machines in the Metro stations. If you do that, you keep the same card (which many people register with Metro to protect against loss or theft of the card), unlike the paper cards which can only be traded in for a new card. My sense is that the latter, the Smartpass, has been around 5 years at most, I really don't think they existed in 2001, but if anyone has better information on that, I will defer to them. If I am correct that the Smartpass did not exist in 2001, then the only option then available would have been the paper farecard, and nobody, not Metro or the police, would have any way of knowing whether any individual had one or not, or if one was missing from a dead person's wallet. Some people would put a lot of money on one farecard and use it for a long time (but had to be careful not to lose it), while others would put just enough on it to make one trip.

Regardless of whether there was a paper farecard (or even a Smartpass) in her wallet, Chandra Levy could have purchased a paper farecard at a machine at any Metro station. Why would she have done this even if she had a card in her wallet? Because the card in her wallet may have been loaded with, say, $30, and she might not have wanted to carry that around and possibly lose it.

You are right, you did not raise the Metro issue, I did. And I did not do it in order to support any particular theory of what happened, only to point out that there are reasonable scenarios other than the Chandra Levy Walk in the Park Challenge that could have gotten her to the top of Ridge Rd., if in fact she was alive when she got there. So, if you want to consider all of the reasonable scenarios, and if you think her possession of a farecard is significant, you need to understand how the Metro system works.

Yes, my opinion is somewhat in line with yours in that I do not believe Chandra did, in fact, find her way to the top of Ridge Road, partially by Metro or otherwise, at least not while she was alive. But I don't think it can be ruled out, and I don't think her computer is the only way that she could have come into possession of a map of Rock Creek Park with enough detail to get her to the top of Ridge Road, where anything might have happened to her. As I've said before, my personal opinion is that she was killed somewhere else and dumped in the park. I just think that all reasonable theories have to be considered.

Posted by: chevychase10 | July 23, 2008 12:50 AM

Yeah rd here's a quote from you laying out the "facts"

"we don't want to deal with the obvious, that she was dumped and hidden below grove 18, and in my opinion, well after the searches, probably after 9/11 when reporters quit following people around."

Nice touch there including a small piece of opinion in the "facts", adding weight to them. I'm at least glad you wrote that as you expose yourself as somewhat like the Bush administration: convinced of the rightness of your path, just needing the facts to support it.

Posted by: huggie | July 23, 2008 1:06 AM

yes, I agree wholeheartedly, but not to the degree of figuring ou a way to place Chandra and Guandique up there instead of Chandra being dumped as everything but a need to pin it on Guandique would leave any objective investigator.

Although not local, I read all that on the Metro site. I don't know what was in place in 2001, but I know commuters buy pass tickets. You're not a daily commuter and a frequent after hours traveller and buying a ticket for every time you get on the train, for an amount to be determined each trip, many would be one hops between DuPont Circle and Calvert.

So she would have some Metro pass in her purse, and if not there, then that should have been part of the we're trying to figure out where Chandra went, we checked trains, buses, flights, taxis, etc. investigation.

I just love the placing of Chandra on a train with a key and her Walkman and nothing else so she can go somewhere to be in a position to walk to Ridge Road (above poster didn't read the post to the reporters about the Glover split off I guess) to be in a position to be in a desolate forest (I welcome anyone to accompany above poster into said desolate forest on the No Horses path and tell me it isn't desolate, regardless of what he says) to be murdered by Guandique, who likewise must soomehow be placed up there. (Looks close on the map. Yup.)

Mapwise, she clicked on a map for Rock Creek Park that morning. If she had a detailed map then she would have been carrying that around, because she didn't have anything like that at home. So again, we can bring together any combination of what it would take for her to get there reasonably, and I appreciate that the Walk in the Park Challenge at least made that clear, but one would normally expect the most likely, being dumped in the park, to be considered ahead of these strange work arounds for Chandra to do something that no sane woman would do.

But that's the whole point. Condit's first story to the police was that Chandra was so obsessed with him that he had to refuse to take her calls, and if she vanished, well, who knows what a crazy woman will do. Suicide, revenge, running around in a Rock Creek Park forest with nothing but a key to get back home, who knows.

And that's what the police worked on, and to this day, it works for them.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 23, 2008 1:27 AM

This statement is from Chapter 2 cited below

We've interviewed people close to Chandra who said she loved the outdoors and sometimes liked to take long walks. Could she have just been going for a walk in the park that day?
________________________________________

The people that were interviewed close to Chandra located in Washington, DC or in Modesto, CA? (her hometown)And if from her hometown, were those chosen asked if she would always walk alone, with someone, or both?

I still can not imagine a male and female jogging together in Rock Creek Park going their seperate ways. And she did marry him according to her letter to the judge. This I find strange...

Has anyone read if the five inch knife that IG had was apprehended by the police or FBI? Because I read in the police report that they found in IG possession a large and two small screwdrivers during the robbery of his neighbors house.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 23, 2008 2:04 AM

THIS IS IT! Chapter 10, wherein the runaway train that is the Washington Post's attempt to railroad Ingmar Guandique for the murder of Chandra Levy comes flying off of the tracks altogether. In this chapter, at last, we can separate the pathologically dishonest and unethical from the mere pathologically gullible.

***

On Sept. 21, Guandique was removed from his jail cell and brought to the U.S. attorney's office in Washington for questioning by prosecutors and D.C. detectives. He was accompanied by a public defender.

Guandique was shown a picture of Chandra. He said the only place he had ever seen her was on television.

That contradicted what a former Park Police detective later told The Washington Post. Joe Green, who interrogated Guandique on July 2, said that at that time he showed Chandra's picture to Guandique and the Salvadoran said he had seen her in the park.

Green was present at the meeting in the U.S. attorney's office. To this day, Green does not remember that meeting or whether he passed on to D.C. police or prosecutors the information he said he got from Guandique. "I should have said something," Green would later comment.

***

Let me be blatantly pedantic for a moment: That which precedes does not contradict that which follows; it is the other way around! In other words, it is the woefully belated Detective Green who has the need to explain himself-- and, as you may see for yourself above, he is just as woeful now as he was in 2001.

The Avenging Angel may wish to cut him all of the slack that she thinks he might need-- "Like many of the investigators on the case, I, too, remain haunted by the disappearance of the 24-year-old intern who walked out of her Dupont Circle apartment and simply vanished..."-- but those of us dedicated to truth, justice and intellectual honesty need not cut Mr. Green any slack at the expense of Senor Guandique's right to due process.

The former Detective Green of the United States Park Police, now safely retired to the public dole, is built up in Chapter 6, following the arrest of Ingmar Guandique for assault, as being a real paragon of public detection, who can seduce the truth from any miscreant, even Ingmar Guandique. This is necessary on the part of the Avenging Angel and her staff, for they need to attempt to build up Joe Green's credibility for the following:

***

Green later told The Washington Post that he posed one more question to Guandique.

He showed him a D.C. police flier with a photograph of Chandra Levy, the missing intern.

Have you ever seen this woman in Rock Creek Park? Green asked.

Guandique said he had.

He saw her one day when he was hanging around the parking lot near the Peirce Mill. Green then asked Guandique if he thought she was attractive. Yes, he said, but he never saw her again.

Green did not include any comment by Guandique about Chandra in his report, and he does not remember telling any other officers at the time. Back then, it didn't seem important. He said he was focused on the assaults on Wiegand and Shilling.

Chandra could be anywhere. Her disappearance was not a Park Police case.

"It wasn't mine to pursue," he said recently.

***

Note how the article glides past that time element, "later"-- and five days and four chapters later, the Avenging Angel has still not informed her readers just how much later Mr. Green first laid claim to causing the admission from Senor Guandique that he had personally seen Ms. Levy in the park prior to his July 1 arrest, and also had found her notably attractive.

Regardless, from today's installment it is perfectly clear by now that the now-retired Detective Joe Green, formerly of the United States Park Police, was either guilty of gross malfeasance in that office in 2001, by never reporting Senor Guandique's alleged statements about Ms. Levy to other officials charged with bringing her justice; or else, he is guilty of lying to the Washington Post about Senor Guandique's seeing Ms. Levy when Mr. Green claimed later that Senor Guandique had made such an admission on July 2.

As I and and at least one other person have asked before, has the Washington Post found out who the interpreter was on July 2, 2001, and has he or she been questioned by you in order either to confirm or to contradict Joe Green's belated claims? On Sunday morning, the series' three reporters answered several questions from their readers; this seemingly crucial one was not among them. After today's installment, it seems clear: Joe Green has no corroboration for his claim that Ingmar Guandique admitted to seeing Chandra Levy in Rock Creek Park sometime prior to his arrest for assault, let alone that he had found her notably attractive.

I believe that Joe Green is lying, trying to position himself as holding the key to solving the Chandra Levy murder mystery after all of these years, giving the Avenging Angel just what she wants, as she attempts to railroad Ingmar Guandique into a life sentence for murder. Alas! It gets even worse:

***

On Oct. 19, D.C. police and federal prosecutors went to the D.C. jail to interview the informant, whose name is being withheld by The Post to protect him against reprisals from other prisoners.

The informant said that he had befriended Guandique during strolls around the jail's exercise yard. Guandique was awaiting trial on charges in the attacks in the park on May 14 and July 1. The informant said that one day in August Guandique looked depressed and said something was weighing on him.

Guandique, the informant said, confessed to murdering a woman in the park named Chandra Levy, the intern whose picture had been splashed all over television. There was more: Guandique said Rep. Gary Condit paid him to do it. He didn't realize who Condit was until he later saw his picture on TV. Guandique had been walking in the Adams Morgan neighborhood when a car pulled to the curb. Condit offered him money - $25,000 to kill a woman. The congressman provided him with her picture and a location where he could find her.

The informant said Guandique told him he took drugs and drank alcohol to steel himself for the attack. He went to the location Condit gave him and saw Chandra running on a path. Guandique hid in the bushes. When Chandra circled back, he jumped out and attacked her, stabbing her in the neck and the stomach. She fell to the ground, and Guandique carried her body far into the woods. He dug a hole with his hands and covered Chandra with dirt, leaves and sticks. He left the knife in her body and later considered retrieving it but never did. He sent the $25,000 to his family in El Salvador.

The informant called his lawyer and said that he wanted to come forward because he felt badly for Chandra's parents after seeing them on TV. The informant recently repeated his story to The Post.

***

There are only five known categories of humans-- not mutually exclusive ones-- who would give this inane tale a single iota of credence: (1) police; (2) prosecutors; (3) journalists; (4) lunatics; (5) retardates. I will give you one of the most robust rules of thumb in all of the forensic sciences: "If an inmate tells you that another inmate confessed guilt to a serious crime, the first inmate is lying and the second inmate is innocent of the crime."

Not only is what this unnamed felon did the moral equivalent of murder, by bearing false witness to a homicide; but, in many American jurisdictions, the inmate bearing such false witness could be sentenced later to death for capital murder if that false witness caused an innocent person to be executed for a crime that that person did not commit!

This is the unconscionable game that the Washington Post is playing, along with Joe Green and the unnamed felon who told this horrific lie about Ingmar Guandique. The Post is willing-- even anxious, it seems-- to railroad Ingmar Guandique for the murder of Chandra Levy, based on these patent and pathetic lies, and not a single, solitary shred of credible evidence; yet, it grants anonymity to a felon who is willing to send an innocent young man to his possible death (I suspect that there is a federal death penalty waiting in the wings here...) for a crime that he did not commit!

D.K.H., B.A., M.S., M.B.A., J.D.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 23, 2008 3:00 AM

Daniel Kevin Hand in regards to your comment below

This is the unconscionable game that the Washington Post is playing, along with Joe Green and the unnamed felon who told this horrific lie about Ingmar Guandique. The Post is willing-- even anxious, it seems-- to railroad Ingmar Guandique for the murder of Chandra Levy, based on these patent and pathetic lies, and not a single, solitary shred of credible evidence; yet, it grants anonymity to a felon who is willing to send an innocent young man to his possible death (I suspect that there is a federal death penalty waiting in the wings here...) for a crime that he did not commit!

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 23, 2008 3:00 AM

______________________________________

From Chapter 10 cited below, might give you some clarity to your above comment.


The prosecutor, Kristina Ament, told the judge that Guandique was a cooperative defendant. She said that he spoke to prosecutors and police about the Chandra case as part of his plea agreement and that he passed a polygraph exam that asked if he knew anything about her disappearance.

Ament said Guandique cleared his name by taking the polygraph.

"In other words, there's no suggestion that he is involved in the Chandra Levy case?" asked D.C. Superior Court Judge Noel Anketell Kramer.

"There is no suggestion at this point now that he is involved," Ament said. "And his polygraph went a long way in diffusing the suggestion."

The judge said she never believed that Guandique had anything to do with Chandra's disappearance. "This is such a satellite issue," Kramer said. "I never for a moment thought that . . . he had anything to do with Chandra Levy."

~~~~~~
I agree, I do not believe that IG had anything to do with Chandra Levy's death, but I do believe that certain sources would like to suggest that he did. And the reason why I don't believe that IG had anything to do with Chandra Levy's murder is because I do not believe that she was murder in Rock Creek Park. I believe that her remains (her bones and belongings) were brought to Rock Creek Park.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 23, 2008 4:08 AM

The prosecutor, Kristina Ament, told the judge that Guandique was a cooperative defendant. She said that he spoke to prosecutors and police about the Chandra case as part of his plea agreement and that he passed a polygraph exam that asked if he knew anything about her disappearance.
_____________________________

Why couldn't Condit be as cooperative as Guandique with the police and FBI? Guandique doesn't know Chandra, and Condit was having an affair with her, you'd think he would be just if not more cooperative as Guandique.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 23, 2008 4:11 AM

Questions for Post Reporters...

The 7/22 Preview says her remains rested in one spot for three months, and were discovered 10 months later in another (nearby?) site. How far away? Who moved the remains other than coyotes, etc?

If the jailhouse informant says IG left the knife in the body, where's the knife? Why wasn't it found with the remains?

What happened to the 5-inch knife used by IG in other attacks?

Obviously, the DCPD needs more Spanish speaking officers and Polygraph experts. Has this happened?

Where can you get a map that includes the numbered Groves?

----------------------------------------------

Questions on Body Dumping Theory...

Where was she killed, if not in the park? To answer you have to know where she was going and when she left her apt. she was dressed and carried only enough to go for a walk or jog. If she was headed anyplace else, she would have at least a purse, ID, CCs and money. Where was the body stored? If any place other than a freezer, there would be a telltale odor. Even if she were buried someplace, dug up, then brought to the park, how could killer inconspicuously take it (or even a bag of bones) out of his car in a public park, and carry it up a trail unnoticed?

My theory is unchanged...She was killed in the park by another predator, possibly IG or the flasher, but probably someone who's not surfaced as a suspect. This series has reinforced my view of the police in dc. Never have I seen so many police depts in one city, all at cross purposes. And the level of incompetence in Metro PD is the same high level as every other Govt agency employing people who get penalized for working hard, and rewarded for being lazy. DCPD has been this way since I can remember first moving to the city in 1969...from the way they handled the riots, the demonstrations, especially the round-up of protesters on the mall, illegal captivity at DC armory, all the strong arm robberies, murders, prostitution (police allowed hundreds to operate night and day everyday before they advertised on the internet), gangs and drugs. It's too bad because it can be a great city, but having moved away, I don't miss the crime.

Posted by: SJ | July 23, 2008 6:33 AM

There was no blood on Chandra's clothes, and the informaant who claimed Guandique confessed to him failed his lie detector test, while Guandique passed his.

Same issues involved in translators for the test, given by a federal agency that does this routinely. What, do these Guandique strainers think Guandique is the first Spanish speaking suspect ever given a lie detector tes? Has this "question" about lie detetector tests using Spanish translators been raised over and over before everytime a Spanish speaking person is given the test?

Sure, by defense lawyers. That's the level we're dealing with here, but from people who want to pin it on Guandique, who have the logic of defense lawyers instead of public servants.

I was going to add seeking the truth, but you know, show me someone seeking the truth and I'll add it.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 23, 2008 7:50 AM

SJ wrote: "Where can you get a map that includes the numbered Groves?"

There are two different maps showing the groves in chapters Found and Horse Trail in the online Murder on a Horse Trail I've posted on my site www.justiceforchandra.com.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 23, 2008 7:59 AM

According to a search of the Washington Post Archives, Smartrip cards first became available in April 1999. However--speaking as a local who is familiar with the metro system--it's unlikely that Chandra would have had either a Smartrip card or a regular Farecard in her possession. First, for quite some time, Smartrip cards were only available for purchase at limited locations. As I recall, there was only one station in the entire Metro system where you could purchase one--Metro Center, in downtown DC. Metro Center was not the closest stop to either Chandra's apartment (Dupont Circle), her work (Union Station), or Condit's apartment (Woodley Park). Second, a regular Farecard could be loaded with up to $20 of fare, which would have been plenty for a week's worth of trips from Dupont Circle. Smartrip cards were (and are)primarily for suburbanites who have longer and more expensive trips. Parking fees can also be added to Smarttrip cards, which Chandra would have had no need for. Most young people living in DC would use a Farecard for their trips, and would not necessarily keep one in their possession--they would buy one trip-by-trip as necessary. Chandra was planning to leave for California (at least temporarily) and was not working (so she wouldn't want to tie up her money on metro fares, and wouldn't have to worry about long rush hour lines if she needed to buy one), would not need to have a loaded Farecard (or a Smartrip) in her possession. As noted before, the machine eats your Farecard once the value is used up, so it would be expected that she would not have either a Farecard or a Smartrip in her apartment.

Posted by: noname | July 23, 2008 10:02 AM

rd said:
"I just love the placing of Chandra on a train with a key and her Walkman...."

The problem with this statement is that I am not trying to place Chandra anywhere. Some folks here are very good at giving facts, and then stating things like "the only reasonable conclusion is "

What some of us are trying to do is show that there are other logical conclusions from the facts!!

Facts:
Chandra left her purse/id at home.
Chandra did this when meeting Condit.
She was found in that park.
She had her walkman.
There was a violent stalker active in the park at that time attacking walking/jogging women wearing walkmen.
It's a hefty walk from Chandra's apartment to where she was found.
Chandra was known to like long walks.
Chandra had the entire DC mass transit system at her disposal (taxi, metro etc)
Chandra's boyfriend's wife was in town for the 1st time.
Chandra had cancelled her gym membership, and might have had another 30 days.
There was no evidence of a struggle in Chandra's apt (as far as I can conclude from facts presented).
One park policeman claims that Guandique implicated himself in Chandra's death.

Other facts:
The 7 day tape in Chandra's apt was not pursued soon enough.
The only follow up to Guandique was a lie detector test, not under ideal conditions according to some, where his answers were in the "gray area," and that was several months later than it should have been.
The police botched the search for Chandra's body.

As far as I can tell, there is no proof that the body was moved, of course, there's so little proof that there is also no 100% certain proof that the body *wasn't* moved. So anyone can say "the body was moved, prove otherwise" and noone can refute the claim.

There is also no proof that Guandique is the killer, barring corroborating testimony by the translator from the time Green interviewed him. There is also no proof that Guandique is not the killer. The opportunity for obtaining such proof was dependent upon finding the body soon after she died or obtaining forensic evidence from Guandique's apartment, clothing, etc. The opportunity for directly questioning Guandique and his friend/etc about his whereabouts and/or obtaining forensic evidence has long since passed.

I'm respecting the Post more and more on this.

I'm guessing their conclusion is going to be:
It is *likely* that Guandique is the killer, but the many opportunities to obtain proof about this were ignored or botched. It is *unlikely* that Condit is the killer, but there is no way to prove this for certain. Again, the opportunities to obtain proof for this were ignored or botched.


I *personally* think it *likely* that she was meeting Condit in the park, but that Condit had nothing to do with the actual murder. This would explain Condit's cageyness. I base this conclusion on the fact that Condit *did* pass a lie detector test administered by an ex FBI agent answering relevant questions as to his involvement in Chandra's death, and the fact that "Dr Death," who is not an incompetent, questioned him thoroughly and felt the same way.

Is there proof for my hypothesis? No. Is there proof the other way? No. It's my logical conclusion from the facts presented, and there is no evidence (so far) to refute this logical conclusion that I know of.

On the other hand, because of the woeful lack of facts in this case, there are a multitude of other logical conclusions that also do not refute the facts (she was killed in her apt, Condit's wife arranged it, etc etc).

I think the most egregious mistakes so far by the police were:
1) the videotape from chandra's apt
2) not following up more thoroughly on Guandique as a suspect; if he was innocent, they should have been able to determine that from friends etc, not from a "gray area" lie detector test (Not to bring up Jon Bonet again, but that weirdo who confessed was refuted by interviewing friends and family, not by a lie detector test!!)

Posted by: 42 | July 23, 2008 10:20 AM

Today's "Jailhouse Confession" chapter is hilarious. Of course the inmate failed his polygraph. As any criminal knows:

1) If you're gonna hire a hitman, it's best to pick a random stranger on the street

2) If you're gonna kill someone, make sure you leave the murder weapon on the body

Posted by: huh uh | July 23, 2008 10:53 AM

Why would Condit even consider meeting Chandra on the day his wife was in town? It wasn't like he was planning on breaking up with her. He had already had conversations with Chandra about waiting for five years and then they could be together.

Posted by: JC | July 23, 2008 11:34 AM

JC said:
"Why would Condit even consider meeting Chandra on the day his wife was in town? It wasn't like he was planning on breaking up with her. He had already had conversations with Chandra about waiting for five years and then they could be together"


Precisely my point. You've given an argument that depends on your version of "logical behavior." The *facts* do not refute my hypothesis, nor do they refute your idea that it wouldn't be logical for Condit to meet Chandra with his wife in town. There is no proof that Chandra and Condit met that day, there's no proof that they didn't. The reason *I* think it likely is that Chandra left her apartment without her phone/purse, as she did whenever she went to meet Condit, per his specifications (and Condit has always been very very cagey). However, there's no proof that Chandra didn't leave her purse behind for other reasons, or that Chandra actually left her apartment at all, or.....

There's just so little proof!!

Posted by: 42 | July 23, 2008 12:08 PM

Why would Condit even consider meeting Chandra on the day his wife was in town? It wasn't like he was planning on breaking up with her. He had already had conversations with Chandra about waiting for five years and then they could be together.

Posted by: JC | July 23, 2008 11:34 AM

_____________________________________

Because he felt that would be a good time to do what ever his little mind had thought of doing as he did state that he was with his wife in his alibi. And why would he be with Chandra period when he's a married man?

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 23, 2008 12:20 PM

Is there a marker/memorial at the Chandra Levy scene?

Posted by: jake | July 23, 2008 12:24 PM

Jake asked an interesting question:

"Is there a marker/memorial at the Chandra Levy scene?"

Not that I have seen. I'll bet doing something formal runs into the bureaucracy and regulations of the National Parks.

Posted by: Murphie | July 23, 2008 12:40 PM

I jogged without ID throughout my 20s and 30s. So it's not as unusual as you'd think.

But I agree with poster above; would never jog on trails alone, with a walkman. My local park has famous jogging trails, or cross-country trails, and I refuse to use them.

As for the attacks, most of them reported (there may have been earlier ones we haven't heard about) occurred after Chandra disappeared on May 1.

He broke into the apartment May 7.
He attacked joggers May 14th and July 1.

Then there's the flasher incident, I can't find that date.

So, Chandra would have been an early victim. We know the girlfriend had some problems the previous year, resulting in IG getting kicked out of the house.

IG is the type to stalk several women, and find the one most isolated before moving in. There's no reason to think he followed Chandra from Beach Drive all the up toward Glover. She might have been part of a chain of them, as he looked for bracelets, or whatever. And then Chandra was the one most isolated at some point in time.

He apparently has a history of stealing things, from the liquor missing at a previous job that resulted in people getting fired, to his mentioning that that's what he looked for in victims, bracelets and other items. He had no money yet was able to give his girlfriend the previous year, bracelets and jewelry. He seems to have a history of mugging.

IG also mentions wearing a bracelet himself, when talking to police, about one of the attacks.

Also if he was drinking at that time, how would that effect lie detector tests? His own results were considered murky yet investigators gave him the benefit of the doubt.

Also another discrepancy in the various stories floating around the case. He mentioned in his jailhouse confession leaving a knife at the scene, yet he used a knife at later attacks May 14 and July. Of course, he could have gotten another knife for those.

So facts still weigh against him, or someone like him.

Posted by: eeave | July 23, 2008 12:51 PM

My take on today's installment is that police should definitely re-polygraph suspect while he is in prison, using a Spanish speaking polygraph administrator.

Leave no stone unturned for poor Chandra's parents!

Posted by: a reader | July 23, 2008 1:10 PM

Did anyone follow up to see if IG had ever transferred a large sum of money to his family in El Salvador after the attack? It seems that it would be pretty easy to find this out -- it would be a big wire transfer, and money-laundering rules make it hard to hide these things.

Posted by: Jessy | July 23, 2008 1:14 PM

Also another discrepancy in the various stories floating around the case. He mentioned in his jailhouse confession leaving a knife at the scene, yet he used a knife at later attacks May 14 and July. Of course, he could have gotten another knife for those.

So facts still weigh against him, or someone like him.

Posted by: eeave | July 23, 2008 12:51 PM

__________________________________

He stated that he left the knife in Chandra Levy, but as asked earlier in someone else's comment,(if you scroll up and review comments) why wasn't there any blood found on her shirt.

What facts are there that weighs against IG, because I read any? Did I miss the facts you're referring to? I speaking on facts and not assumptions or opinions which we're all entitled to.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 23, 2008 1:59 PM

***

Facts:

...

There was a violent stalker active in the park at that time attacking walking/jogging women wearing walkmen.

...

One park policeman claims that Guandique implicated himself in Chandra's death.

Other facts:

...

The only follow up to Guandique was a lie detector test, not under ideal conditions according to some, where his answers were in the "gray area," and that was several months later than it should have been.

...

There is also no proof that Guandique is the killer, barring corroborating testimony by the translator from the time Green interviewed him. There is also no proof that Guandique is not the killer. The opportunity for obtaining such proof was dependent upon finding the body soon after she died or obtaining forensic evidence from Guandique's apartment, clothing, etc. The opportunity for directly questioning Guandique and his friend/etc about his whereabouts and/or obtaining forensic evidence has long since passed.

I'm respecting the Post more and more on this.

I'm guessing their conclusion is going to be:
It is *likely* that Guandique is the killer, but the many opportunities to obtain proof about this were ignored or botched. It is *unlikely* that Condit is the killer, but there is no way to prove this for certain. Again, the opportunities to obtain proof for this were ignored or botched.

...

I think the most egregious mistakes so far by the police were:

...

2) not following up more thoroughly on Guandique as a suspect; if he was innocent, they should have been able to determine that from friends etc, not from a "gray area" lie detector test (Not to bring up Jon Bonet again, but that weirdo who confessed was refuted by interviewing friends and family, not by a lie detector test!!)


Posted by: 42 | July 23, 2008 10:20 AM

***

***

"There was a violent stalker active in the park at that time attacking walking/jogging women wearing walkmen."

*

There is no evidence that there was any "violent stalker active in the park at that time attacking walking/jogging women wearing" Walkman units!

Senor Guandique's first known attack was on May 14, 2001. There were no other reports of such an attack prior to that date; nor have their been any subsequent claims of such an attack prior to that date, despite all of the attendant publicity, unless you credit the jaihouse informant. (If you do, please go back to my previous post and pick your category!). No women walking, rather than jogging, through the park are known to have been attacked by Ingmar Guandique; only two joggers, both wearing Walkman units, are known ever to have been attacked by him in the park.

On May 7, 2001, Senor Guandique committed a burglary; he fled when the home's resident returned and surprised him in the act, but he was apprehended and arrested. From the only three known crimes associated with Ingmar Guandique, a burglary followed by two similar muggings, the most reasonable assumption to me, as a former lawyer with a background (M.S.) in psychology, is that, after failing to pull off successfully his only known burglary attempt, on May 7, 2001, Senor Guandique decided that he would have a better chance at succeeding to steal various trinkets, like rings or Walkman units, if he did so as armed muggings in the park, rather than as unarmed burglaries in strangers' homes. Thus, no muggings in the park by Ingmar Guandique prior to May 14, 2001; no burglaries of homes by Senor Guandique after May 7, 2001. His entire criminal career as a thief, as far as we can tell, ranged from May 7 through July 1, 2001.

**

"One park policeman claims that Guandique implicated himself in Chandra's death."

*

Wrong again! One former park policeman claimed, apparently several years after the fact, that Ingmar Guandique had readily admitted to seeing-- once and only once-- Chandra Levy, whom he did not know, in the park. This claim is probably a lie to begin with, as explained in my earlier posts here.

Even if one accepts it as true for the sake of argument, it most arguably augurs against Senor Guandique's culpability in the Chandra Levy case, because, had he actually been the murderer, he would have had no reason to have admitted to having ever seen Ms. Levy before in his life, and every reason not to have admitted it. He was not, after all, hooked up to a polygraph device at the time of the (belatedly) alleged admission.

Even if Ingmar Guandique unequivocally had admitted to seeing Chandra Levy, and having done so on the very day that she died, that would not implicate him in her murder. She was found in a public park located near his home. A lot of people see a lot of people in public parks, and even the people who see someone prior to a murder or disappearance are not thereby implicated in the murder or disappearance.

**

"The only follow up to Guandique was a lie detector test, not under ideal conditions according to some, where his answers were in the "gray area," and that was several months later than it should have been."

*

Senor Guandique was administered a polygraph examination by the F.B.I.-- not by the Keystone Kops nor by his own public defender in the case!-- and he passed. His accuser, who told an abjectly inane tale of a murder-for-hire of a total and random stranger, unable to speak English to speak of, walking aimlessly down a public street, by a sitting congressman-- who, as far as I know, does not speak Spanish (or, one would suspect, speaks only basic tourists' Spanish, which does not take in niceties like the hiring of hitmen), flunked his F.B.I.-administered polygraph examination, given under the same bilingual circumstances as Senor Guandique's examination, with dead-man-spiraling colors.

There was no cause to follow up on Ingmar Guandique, at any rate, until there was at least one single piece of credible evidence against him related to Chandra Levy's disappearance-- and there has never been any such piece, to this day! The lying felon's claim came only several months after the fact. The lying detective's claim came only several years after the fact. There was no cause to have followed up on Senor Guandique in the Chandra Levy case before either of those lies was entered into the public record, officially through the police authorities' malfeasance, or unofficially through the Washington Post's journalistic malfeasance.

**

"There is also no proof that Guandique is the killer, barring corroborating testimony by the translator from the time Green interviewed him. There is also no proof that Guandique is not the killer. The opportunity for obtaining such proof was dependent upon finding the body soon after she died or obtaining forensic evidence from Guandique's apartment, clothing, etc. The opportunity for directly questioning Guandique and his friend/etc about his whereabouts and/or obtaining forensic evidence has long since passed."

*

In America, alleged criminals do not have to prove their innocence; the authorities have to prove an accused person's guilt! Can you prove your innocence in every murder that has been committed in the world since your birth? Do you have an air-tight alibi for every moment of your life from birth to now? I thought not.

At any rate, when one sets aside the wholly incredible claims of the anonymous jailhouse snitch, who flunked his polygraph, and of the retired Detective Green of the United States Park Police, whose extremely belated claim has not been corroborated in any way, shape or form, neither from any official or unofficial source cited by the Washington Post nor anyone else, there is no evidence whatsoever against Ingmar Guandique related to the Chandra Levy murder case. The known facts of his brief criminal career as a thief-- May 7-July 1, 2001-- also augur against his involvement in Ms. Levy's murder circumstantially. Nothing but mindless and unintelligent speculation has tied Senor Guandique to Ms. Levy, once the jailhouse snitch and retired policeman are properly disposed of by reasonable investigators and observers.

**

"I'm respecting the Post more and more on this."

*

This speaks volumes about you and your moral and intellectual judgment in such matters!

**

"I'm guessing their conclusion is going to be: It is *likely* that Guandique is the killer, but the many opportunities to obtain proof about this were ignored or botched. It is *unlikely* that Condit is the killer, but there is no way to prove this for certain. Again, the opportunities to obtain proof for this were ignored or botched."

*

In the words of the late George Carlin: "You don't have to be Fellini to figure that one out!"

**

"I think the most egregious mistakes so far by the police were:

...

"2) not following up more thoroughly on Guandique as a suspect; if he was innocent, they should have been able to determine that from friends etc, not from a "gray area" lie detector test (Not to bring up Jon Bonet again, but that weirdo who confessed was refuted by interviewing friends and family, not by a lie detector test!!)"

*

So, if the illegal alien Ingmar Guandique cannot line up respectable alibi witnesses for himself for the exact time of a killing that took place at an indefinite time on an indefinite, albeit likely, date-- you know, unlike Congressman Gary Condit, who had several hours to kill just about the time that his mistress went missing, and who positively tried to create false alibi witnesses to cover this gap in his daily
schedule!-- then Senor Guandique should not be allowed to be considered cleared in the murder of Chandra Levy just because he passed an F.B.I.-administered polygraph examination and there is not a single shred of credible evidence against him in the crime-- only two incredible post hoc and hearsay witnesses, each with his own ulterior motive to have told the belated tale which he told? Beautiful...!

***

D.K.H., B.A., M.S., M.B.A., J.D.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 23, 2008 2:30 PM

DKH said:
"In America, alleged criminals do not have to prove their innocence; the authorities have to prove an accused person's guilt!"

Guandique is *not* an alleged criminal. He *is* a criminal. The issue is whether he committed an additional crime. In the same interview where he said he "recognized" his two victims, he allegedly said he recognized Chandra, thus implicating himself (if this conversation did, indeed, take place)

Fact: Guandique committed violent crimes against women in May 2001 in Rock Creek Park, the same month and place Chandra went missing. Why wouldn't he be a suspect??
Why would a "gray area" polygraph eliminate him without backup interviews etc? *No* forensic evidence was collected.

42: "I'm respecting the Post more and more on this."
DKH: This speaks volumes about you and your moral and intellectual judgment in such matters!

and this reply speaks volumes about your ability to debate and discuss

Posted by: 42 | July 23, 2008 3:01 PM

D.K.H., B.A., M.S., M.B.A., J.D
I think you are pompous bore. And, find it hard to believe you have nothing better to do with your time than post your theories and attack people's opinions on a daily basis, especially given that you hold all these degrees B.A., M.S., M.B.A., J.D. Are we supposed to be impressed by this or give more weight to your opinions? Please don't bother responding as I would prefer not to be bored to death by your pseudo intelligence.

Posted by: 123 | July 23, 2008 3:50 PM

DKH......Hey Danny boy you seem to be taking some heat from the street! And well deserved I would say. You have already "lawyered up" for the criminal Guandique with no respect or consideration for the victim (Levy's). There is a reason Shakespere said "kill all the lawyers". And is that an Obama sticker I see on that BMW?

Posted by: dlg358 | July 23, 2008 4:05 PM

I don't think I ever heard of such incompetence in my life. I think even Andy Griffin could have done a better job.

Posted by: scoobydue | July 23, 2008 4:24 PM

Okay, everyone, take a breath and remember why this message board exists.

It's clear that people like DKH have taken considerable time to analyze the known facts and consider the case. Let's avoid attacking people because they are educated, make reasonable deductions and write well.

While I don't agree with every contribution here, most of them have been thought-provoking and have raised useful questions.

So let's respect each other and keep the discussion going!

Here's the question that has been bothering me for 7 years [when I still lived in DC, near Rock Creek Park]: was the lipstick found at the site ever definitively tied to Chandra?

Posted by: Interested from a distance | July 23, 2008 4:32 PM

"interestedfromadistance" For seven years you've been thinking about lipstick! That is really going to keep the discussion going!

Posted by: dlg358 | July 23, 2008 5:53 PM

With respect to several comments asserting Levy's hyoid bone was "broken" -- please be aware DC medical examiner Jonathan Arden did *not* find Levy's hyoid to be "broken" though he did confirm "damage."

Lede from the WaPo article, "Focus Shifts to Park in Levy Slaying," by Sari Horwitz and Allan Lengel, dated July 14, 2002:

[begin excerpt]

D.C. Chief Medical Examiner Jonathan L. Arden said he believes that Chandra Levy might have been strangled, though he does not have conclusive evidence to rule that as the cause of death.

Levy's skeletal remains, discovered May 22 in Rock Creek Park, showed damage to her hyoid, a small U-shaped bone in the upper neck, but it was not broken, [Arden] said.

"A young person could be strangled and not have it show on the bones," said Arden, who ruled Levy's death a homicide but said the cause was undetermined.

[end excerpt]

Posted by: verax | July 23, 2008 7:47 PM

There was this touching passage in an article written by Petula Dvorak of the WP:

...When Susan Levy learned from a reporter last week that a tube of lipstick was found with her daughter's remains -- a red shade of Lancome, according to the FBI -- she began rummaging through the bathroom drawers to see whether her daughter used that brand.

"Mom, she kept her makeup in here," Adam said, leading his mother into his sister's bedroom.

Susan Levy opened a plastic storage box. "Cover Girl. Max Factor. No, no Lancome," she said, after opening each tube and twirling it up to see the dark, earthy colors her daughter preferred.

Chandra Levy, known by her friends as a thrifty, coupon-cutting bargain hunter, used only drugstore brands of makeup.

Susan Levy took out a blush brush and stroked it over her fingers, quiet for a full minute, thinking, smiling. "We should really throw this stuff away," she said. "I don't know if we should keep it all."...

Grief-Stricken Parents Still Awaiting Closure
Justice for Chandra Now Their Campaign
By Petula Dvorak
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 20, 2002

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 23, 2008 7:50 PM

right you are, verax, in addition there was so much damage to the skeleton that Arden had no idea whether the damage was from the murder or later. I'll withhold further comment on Arden overall as to what he is capable of determining.

Strangulation in this case is really the lack of any other indications of death, further bolsterd by the hyoid not being found intact, although if it were they would still have to say strangulation, refer to verax's quote about a young person's hyoid possibility of remaining intact during strangulation.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 23, 2008 8:01 PM

eeave wrote: "Also if he was drinking at that time, how would that effect lie detector tests? His own results were considered murky yet investigators gave him the benefit of the doubt."
******
I agree with your points, eeave, but just to clarify, Guandique was in jail when given the lie detector test. He had been jailed after being caught after the second jogger attack, not to mention he was already out on bond from the burglary attempt in his neighborhood, and he went on from there to federal prison when he was convicted.

Now as to this murky stuff that people's minds are propagandized by defense lawyers, in this case for Condit. They whisper, Guanadique's test results were murky, can't trust them, pin it on him, and the police and reporters pick up the innuendo and spread it. There's more examples which I'll get to in another post.

The technical specific basis of the whisper campaign, which isn't spelled out nearly as clearly as "murky" and "less than ideal", is that a Spanish translator was used instead of a native level Spanish speaker administering the lie detector test. This is standard procedure by the US Attorney's office, and only people that don't like the results, such as defense lawyers for the suspects who fail the test, and defense lawyers for someone like Condit when the suspect passes the test.

Now contrast this with Condit, who refused to take the lie detector test, and instead paid a consultant $1,000 to answer three pre-arranged questions and "pass" his own lie detector test. This is now standard operating procedure for silent ex's when a woman disappears.

That actually is what a "murky" lie detector test is. Everyone but Condit and the jailhouse informant passed a real lie detector test.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 23, 2008 8:37 PM

A number of comments have questioned why Chandra would go so deep in the woods or so-called out of the way.

If it is true that she was there that day and killed there as opposed to Rock Creek being a dumping ground, I can understand why she would go far in.

I lived in DC for 5 years. And I always found Rock Creek to be an interesting place. It is so "wild and wonderful". You can't believe it is smack in the middle of DC. (the paths, the creeks, the density of woods, the privacy)

There were several times, with and without friends, that I wondered into the park and spent WAY more time in there than I intended. There is a lot to discover. And there are so many access points that it always feels different.

People you work with in DC or friends you meet in DC talk about Rock Creek--whether it be that they went for a hike or used one of the picnic sites or saw the Mill for the first time.

I would think Chandra would have Rock Creek on her list of must-dos before leaving DC.

Posted by: Meg | July 23, 2008 8:42 PM

huh uh wrote: "Today's "Jailhouse Confession" chapter is hilarious. Of course the inmate failed his polygraph. As any criminal knows:

1) If you're gonna hire a hitman, it's best to pick a random stranger on the street

2) If you're gonna kill someone, make sure you leave the murder weapon on the body"
******
3) Pick someone who only speaks Spanish so when they claim it was you who put you up to it no one will believe it.

I haven't braced myself to go see the gory details yet about this jailhouse informant/Guandique thing. I hope it's as obvious in the reporting as it should be to everyone else that Guandique didn't speak English, and Condit did.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 23, 2008 8:50 PM

Meg opined: "I would think Chandra would have Rock Creek on her list of must-dos before leaving DC."

yeah, that's why she told her friends, friends with names, that she didn't go there because it was dangerous.

But then that's Chandra.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 23, 2008 8:54 PM

from 42's post:
"Chandra was known to like long walks."

and

"Chandra had cancelled her gym membership, and might have had another 30 days."
******

Chandra not only did not like long walks, she didn't take them. Not one person who knows Chandra other than Condit has ever said Chandra liked long walks or took long walks, or walks outside of any kind for that matter.

The source of that statement are reporters who were currying favor with Congress who reported "friends" say Chandra loved to walk in Rock Creek Park. Only problem is, they weren't Chandra's friends, they were Condit's friends.

That she had 30 days remaining on her gym membership is not a maybe. The club manager spent 30 minutes talking to her and giving her a list of participating clubs back in California where she could use the remainder of her membership when she left.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 23, 2008 9:08 PM

SJ wrote: "Where was the body stored? If any place other than a freezer, there would be a telltale odor. Even if she were buried someplace, dug up, then brought to the park, how could killer inconspicuously take it (or even a bag of bones) out of his car in a public park, and carry it up a trail unnoticed?"
******

Condit made a midnight call from a payphone to his other mistress, the one who hadn't disappeared, from the little town of Luray, Virginia two weeks after Chandra disappeared. Condit ended up there that night after leaving the House floor that morning when police started searching around his condo building.

What was he doing there? I don't know, but it's smack dab in the middle of cave country.

What else might be in one of those caves? Condit, on his way to getting his condo searched, threw away a cardboard watchbox that had held a $1500 [new info from WP series] TagHeur watch given to him seven years earlier by a previous mistress.

Problem is, where's the watch? It must have been in the watchbox at some point before Chandra disappeared, how much earlier? And where did it go?

As to difficulty of carrying a bodybag from a vehicle backed into grove 18 and toted a few yards down the No Horses path, then dragged downhill 240 feet, consider part 2 of the Chandra Levy Walk in the Park Challenge.

After gaining a full appreciation of that "walk" police believe Chandra made, take the Chandra Levy Find a Better Place to Dump a Body in the Park Challenge.

After backing into grove 18, walk straight on back from your vehicle and picnic table into the dark No Horses path, walk out a few yards to a place where it looks pretty smooth to go downhill, drop down 240 feet or so, staying between the two ravines on your right and left, then come back up and toss a pair of broken sunglasses further on down the path into leaves and underbrush. Return to your vehicle and drive away.

Now try to find a better place to do that within five miles of Chandra's or Condit's apartment.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 23, 2008 10:01 PM

RD and DKH, I know this new info. is contrary to what you believe but this is not rocket science. IG killed Chandra and only escaped conviction due to shoddy police work. It may not be too late to bring in a top notch Spanish speaking police team and re-interview IG. He is not an intelligent man and I think would not be that difficult to get a confession from. And if they really get lucky he may provide them with some type of incriminating evicence. It's is the only way that this crime will ever be solved.

Posted by: dlg358 | July 23, 2008 10:44 PM

RD-

Maybe I am being dense, but what is your point about the Luray caves? If Condit had stashed the body there, why did he not just leave it there, rather than bring it back to Rock Creek Park, which is much closer to his home/base of operations, and, therefore, more likely to add to suspicions of his guilt? And even if Grove 18 was the absolutely best place in DC to dump a body, surely it entailed at least some risk of him being seen, so why not leave the body out in Luray?

Posted by: chevychase10 | July 23, 2008 10:46 PM

***

DKH said:
"In America, alleged criminals do not have to prove their innocence; the authorities have to prove an accused person's guilt!"

Guandique is *not* an alleged criminal. He *is* a criminal. The issue is whether he committed an additional crime. In the same interview where he said he "recognized" his two victims, he allegedly said he recognized Chandra, thus implicating himself (if this conversation did, indeed, take place)

Fact: Guandique committed violent crimes against women in May 2001 in Rock Creek Park, the same month and place Chandra went missing. Why wouldn't he be a suspect??
Why would a "gray area" polygraph eliminate him without backup interviews etc? *No* forensic evidence was collected.

42: "I'm respecting the Post more and more on this."
DKH: This speaks volumes about you and your moral and intellectual judgment in such matters!

and this reply speaks volumes about your ability to debate and discuss

Posted by: 42 | July 23, 2008 3:01 PM

***

***

"Guandique is *not* an alleged criminal. He *is* a criminal. The issue is whether he committed an additional crime. In the same interview where he said he "recognized" his two victims, he allegedly said he recognized Chandra, thus implicating himself (if this conversation did, indeed, take place)"

*

Being a previously convicted criminal does not vitiate one's Constitutional rights when one is arrested for a separate crime. At the time of Chandra Levy's disappearance, and of her presumed murder, on May Day 2001, at any rate, Ingmar Guandique not only was not a convicted criminal, he had not committed any act for which he has been convicted or even charged in the more than seven years since.

He has been convicted of three crimes-- all of which took place between May 7 and July 1, 2001-- which netted him exactly one used ring. He did not kill, nor attempt to kill, anyone in any of those three crimes; nor did he inflict any serious bodily damage-- twice choosing to flee rather than to use the knife that he was carrying to injure his victims. To attempt to use those two failed robbery attempts as "proof" of his ability and willingness to murder Chandra Levy is both logically and legally absurd.

The government may not avoid having to prove a murder case against someone like Ingmar Guandique by saying that he subsequently, between the murder and the murder trial, was convicted of a burglary or a mugging. Even a twice-convicted murderer would have the right to force the government to prove each and every element of its criminal case against him, each beyond a reasonable doubt, whether he were being tried for a third murder or merely for loitering in a public place.

I believe that O.J. Simpson murdered two people and got away with it; but, if I were still practicing law, I still would agree to represent him against the ludicrous criminal overcharging that he is facing in Las Vegas. Sir Thomas More stood ready to defend the Devil himself rather than to lay low the laws of England to get after him. That is the duty of a lawyer under Anglo-American jurisprudence. The duty of Justice in the Anglo-American tradition is to be blind as to the nature and status of the defendants brought before it, judging each case on its individual factual and legal merits alone.

For the umpteenth time, there has been no corroboration whatsoever for Detective Joe Green's extremely belated claim that Ingmar Guandique admitted to seeing Chandra Levy in the park prior to his arrest on July 1. Even if it were on videotape, however, it would not legally implicate him in her murder. Such an admission by itself would not place Ingmar Guandique with Chandra Levy at the time of her murder, let alone give him the means and motive then and there for having committed that murder.

**

"Fact: Guandique committed violent crimes against women in May 2001 in Rock Creek Park, the same month and place Chandra went missing. Why wouldn't he be a suspect??
Why would a "gray area" polygraph eliminate him without backup interviews etc? *No* forensic evidence was collected."

*

You do not know where Chandra Levy went missing; you only know where her remains were found. You do not know for sure how she was killed; and, there is no evidence whatsoever, as far as I know, that she was killed by a knife, which was the weapon used by Ingmar Guandique in his two subsequent assaults. Again for the umpteenth time, you and your ilk try to make a pattern out of Senor Guandique's two assaults; yet, you do not want to follow that pattern through to its completion: in both known cases, Ingmar Guandique fled rather than use his knife to silence and subdue his female victims. He never stabbed either one of them, let alone tried to kill either one of them. Had Ingmar Guandique already killed Chandra Levy in a similar assault, he would not have hesitated to kill either of those two women!

Nothing known about the Chandra Levy case is known to match the two assaults by Ingmar Guandique. You do not know that Chandra Levy was stalked. You do not know that Chandra Levy was held at knifepoint. You do not know that Chandra Levy was assaulted and killed by a stranger. You do not know that Chandra Levy was assaulted in the park, where her remains were discovered more than a year later. Chandra Levy was not tall and blonde, either. All you know is that two women were assaulted in the park, but that they were otherwise neither harmed nor robbed, because their common attacker chose to flee instead of to persist or to escalate the incident in both cases. That is why Ingmar Guandique should not be considered a suspect by anyone not foolish enough to credit the felonious snitch-- who "remains in federal prison, serving a life sentence for armed sexual abuse of a woman in Washington," as we belatedly learn at the end of today's notes! Why is he not on your list of suspects, 42?

Ingmar Guandique took and passed a polygraph examination instigated and administered by the F.B.I. The only reason he was subjected to it was because of the patently false story told by the sexual abuser just alluded to above. At that time, and apparently for several years afterward, mean Joe Green had not claimed a thing about Ingmar Guandique's having seen Chandra Levy ever in his life. The sexual abuser was the lone connection between Senor Guandique and Ms. Levy then.

Now, your ilk claims that since the means that the F.B.I. chose to use in doing the polygraph examination might not, according to some experts, have been optimal, in an otherwise-perfect world, that supposed shortcoming ought to be held against Senor Guandique rather than the F.B.I.; and, we ought to assume that he might have flunked his polygraph examination if only it had it been optimally administered!?!

Likewise, you act as if since any supposed evidence that might have been collected about Chandra Levy's death related to Ingmar Guandique was not collected, we all should assume that incriminating evidence against him indeed might have been found-- when, again, this whole interest in him comes from one thing and one thing only: the patently absurd story told by a convicted felon who is serving a life sentence in a federal penitentiary for the armed sexual abuse of another Washington woman! Garbage in, garbage out....

**

"42: 'I'm respecting the Post more and more on this.'
"DKH: This speaks volumes about you and your moral and intellectual judgment in such matters!

"and this reply speaks volumes about your ability to debate and discuss"

*

For once, 42, you are indubitably right: I am, in fact, brutally honest. This character flaw is what prevents me from using the lies of convicted sexual abusers, for instance, in debates and discussions. As for the debating and discussing on your side of the table, why not have your team huddle up and try to concoct a plausible defense of the armed sexual abuser's hearsay testimony?

Then, after you get all of that straightened out, your team can work on rationalizing why Detective Joe Green never said a word to anyone about Ingmar Guandique's supposed admissions, on July 2, 2001, about Chandra Levy, until the Washington Post came calling several years after the fact. Maybe you can figure out why he cannot recall being in an interrogation room that even his Washington Post supporters now put him in, when Ingmar Guandique denied just what Joe Green claims, yet Joe Green sat there like a potted plant, and did not attempt to correct or challenge Senor Guandique.

If you cannot credibly rehabilitate your two lone witnesses that tie Ingmar Guandique to Chandra Levy-- one in only the most casual of ways, with a mere visual sighting on an unspecified day-- then you have bupkis, 42! Detective Joe Green's belated claims do not pass the metaphorical smell test; and, your convicted armed sexual abuser's ludicrous hearsay claims do not pass even the literal laugh test.

D.K.H., B.A., M.S., M.B.A., J.D.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 23, 2008 11:22 PM

I would think that putting her body in the park, after it had been in Luray, would help make Ig look like the more obvious killer. Since they know Condit was in Luray if it had stayed there Condit would be the more likely killer. Still to many problems with IG, too many incosistancies. And those that think Condit would not have met Chandra that day with his wife in town, take a closer look at what Pease said about Condits adulterous behavior from day one of his marriage to Carolyn Condit. He had little to know respect for her feelings.

Posted by: siren | July 23, 2008 11:28 PM

The key to that is Anne Marie seeing this strange number on her cellphone caller id when Condit called her at midnight, unable to explain to her why she is seeing him all over the news when she flew in. Yet he had to chance calling her to try to keep her from contacting him again. She gave the number to the police when she went talk to them, out of fear for her life.

This information has been suppressed very well. Rita Cosby aired it in one segment on Fox and it was pulled, never to be heard of again. We on the onternet knew it because a few sharp eyes heard Rita talk about it and passed it on, but for all intents and purposes it officially never happened. Washington covered up for their own.

Finally it was documented when Ann Marie filed suit against Condit in California due to what he and his lawyers were saying about her, but no one wants to touch this with a ten foot pole.

However, once Condit was identified as being in Luray that night, anyone finding Chandra out there would link him inextricably to her being there. Without that unexpected id of a phone call from a payphone, Chandra found out there would be, well she was kidnapped and that's what happened to Chandra, poor young woman, devastated by her obsession with a congressman, who knows what she did.

That was the other surprise that Condit got, that he was linked to Chandra initimately with info from Linda Zamsky [and now we know from the WP series from a DNA match on semen on clothes in her apartment], and he had to change that story of suicidal obsession as soon as he was.

Her search of Rock Creek park on the computer was big news however, with the park roads trompled by cadets and that's where she ended up being found when he and his staff were being called in front of a grand jury.

Granted, the bones had not just been placed there, but she sure as heck didn't decompose that summer with her bones spread all over that hill and no one's dog noticed until a year later, from 300 yards away down on Broad Branch Road, of all places. I'd say after 9/11 when no one was looking anymore.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 23, 2008 11:33 PM

Ralphdaugherty, where do you get the information that, "there was so much damage to the skeleton that Arden (medical examiner) had no idea whether the damage was from the murder or later"?

Posted by: NDvege | July 23, 2008 11:59 PM

Has anyone ever followed up - I know two detectives did - with Lysa Mateu, the psychic who did a session in DC and with the Levy family? Her accuracy was astounding, and she made mention of things your informant did, without knowing there was an informant. Her book Psychic Diaries relays the specifics and there is also video here:
http://www.channelingspirits.com/Channeling_Spirits/Video/Video.html

Posted by: labradors | July 24, 2008 12:00 AM

***

DKH......Hey Danny boy you seem to be taking some heat from the street! And well deserved I would say. You have already "lawyered up" for the criminal Guandique with no respect or consideration for the victim (Levy's). There is a reason Shakespere said "kill all the lawyers". And is that an Obama sticker I see on that BMW?

Posted by: dlg358 | July 23, 2008 4:05 PM

***

Neither murder victims, their surviving family and friends, nor society at large are served by having innocent people convicted of murders that they did not commit. That should go without saying; but, in large swaths of America, does not, and doubtless never will.

DLG358, should anyone be surprised that your grasp of the Bard is on a par with your grasp of Psychology, Law or Criminology? No, I suppose not.... The fault, DLG358, lies not in your stars but in your deoxyribonucleic acid.

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 24, 2008 12:10 AM

RD-

You say the dogwalker who found the remains came up from Broad Branch Rd. The Post article says he came down from the Western Ridge trail. Which is correct and what accounts for the discrepancy? In other words, what is the original source for how the remains were found? Note that the Post is now saying the guy was looking for animal bones, like antlers, not turtles. What gives?

Posted by: chevychase10 | July 24, 2008 12:20 AM

from WP:

Police found "less of the body than more," they said, possibly because of
animals.

...police search teams recovered a skull and other skeletal remains scattered over an area of about 30 yards...

The bones were very deteriorated and had no tissue or hair, the sources said. The skull, which was not complete, was cracked, although the cause was unclear.

Levy's skeletal remains showed damage to her hyoid, a small U-shaped bone in the upper neck, but it was not broken, Arden said.

from Modesto Bee:

"There is a little irregularity," Arden said. "There is some damage, but it is not conclusive."

Arden ruled Levy's death a homicide, but was not able to pinpoint the cause of death. He said there was not sufficient evidence -- for instance, staining of the bone that would indicate bleeding -- to conclusively show whether the hyoid bone fracture occurred before or after Levy's death.

from CBS:

Medical examiner Dr. Jonathan Arden ruled Levy's death a homicide Tuesday but said there was not enough evidence to say conclusively how she died, or whether she was killed in the park where the remains were found last week.

Other medical examiners said the lack of those telltale signs makes strangulation a more likely cause of death. Arden said strangulation is difficult to diagnose when examining only bones.

from AP:

"There's less to work with here than I would like," Arden told reporters who peppered him with questions. "It's possible we will never know specifically how she died."

"There's nothing else that can be done," as part of his work, he said.

from Fox:

The skull Arden is examining is not a complete skull.


rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 24, 2008 12:56 AM


Here's the original source:

Medical examiner can't tell how ex-intern was killed
May 29, 2002
Posted: 06:45:08 AM PDT
By MICHAEL DOYLE
Modesto BEE WASHINGTON BUREAU

Levy's remains were discovered by a man and his dog looking for turtles that abound in the park. The man was walking at the side of Broad Branch Road, a curving and shaded street on the park's western border next to a well-landscaped neighborhood of $750,000 homes.

The dog crossed Broad Branch and sniffed out the remains later identified as Levy's.

The remains were about 125 yards across the creek and away from the road, beyond the 100-yard range that police searched in July. They were beneath brush and leaves at the base of what Ramsey previously called a "cliff."

The nearest footpath is the rugged Western Ridge Trail, about 100 feet higher than where Levy's remains were found.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

end quote

This was the only explicit description of the find, and it is what I referred to. However, the WP consistently used the phrase "noticed his dog sniffing at a spot" and "walked out to Broad Branch Road to get help", once saying his dog "veered from a path", without saying where he came from.

So the inconsistency was there from the beginning, and in the WP's efforts to hide the identity of this man they gave minimal information.

However, out of that, the dog wasn't claimed to have been drawn from the road it looks like, but was drawn from a path. The No Horses path 238 feet above? I don't know. I'll check what the text you're referring to says.

I do know this. There is no path down through where Chandra was found. so either drawn from above or drawn across and down into and back up a twelve foot ravine. We'll have to see what we can make of "veered from a path".

I also haven't had a chance to read articles since they got into the Guandique thing so heavy, my stomach can't take it, so I wasn't aware the whole turtle hunter history has been rewritten.

You gotta love it.

Thanks for pointing that out, chevychase10.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 24, 2008 1:42 AM

NDvege, I forgot to put your name in the post two above with quotes on the condition of skeleton and hyoid and determination that they have no idea if damage "occurred before or after Levy's death", but I trust that answers your question.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 24, 2008 1:48 AM

Ralph, go away. You use words like "suppressed" and phrases such as "cover their own." Are you saying there's some conspiracy to cover up what really happened to Levy and it involves Condit, the MPD, Park Police, the Post and everyone else in DC at that time? Man, go to bed or get in line for the X-Files movie. You probably believe 9/11 was an inside job and the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile, that Hillary Clinton shot Vince Foster, that Jackie shot John Kennedy, that the moon landing was faked, that flouridation is a communist plot and soylent green is made out of people.

You don't care about Chandra Levy, or her family and friends. She's just an object to you, as are the people involved in the case. Don't lie and pretend you feel for the family and whatnot. You're just trying to sell books. Go away.

Posted by: pete | July 24, 2008 2:50 AM

RD--Why do you assume the WP knew and thus hid of the man who found Levy's remains? I'm not aware of any other media outlet reporting his name--did they all participate in the conspiracy as well (including the Modesto Bee, which ultimately called for Condit to resign)? Or did the police just share his identity with the Washington Post and not any other media?

If I were to report finding a body to the police, I would hope they would not release my name to a media horde. I don't think it's unusual to withhold someone's identity in those circumstances.

Also, you might want to read the WP's stories. You said earlier that "The technical specific basis of the whisper campaign, which isn't spelled out nearly as clearly as "murky" and "less than ideal", is that a Spanish translator was used instead of a native level Spanish speaker administering the lie detector test."

Well, as the WP reported, that's not the only issue: When asked whether he was involved in Chandra's disappearance and whether he caused her disappearance, he answered no. The readings were inconclusive, falling into a gray area between truth and deception. But the official result, a judgment call of the polygraph examiner, was "not deceptive."

Is it possible the polygraph examiner's judgment call was flawed? I'm not arguing that it was flawed, just that it's possible that it was.

I don't believe for a minute that Guandique confessed to his cellmate that Gary Condit randomly approached him on the street in Adams Morgan and offered him money to knock off his girlfriend. But I don't find the theory that Guandique killed her completely ludicrous either. You keep insisting that no woman would ever walk up there alone on that trail, but another poster stated that she herself has done so and has seen other female walkers/joggers. Is that poster also part of the conspiracy?

You argue that he would have had to "run her down like a cheetah," and imply that's just crazy. But he ran down at least one of his other victims. And if she were walking, instead of running, and wearing a Walkman, one of which was found near her remains, he wouldn't have had to run her down or be particularly quiet. Is it not at least possible that he pulled her off a trail, just as did with Christy Weigand, and that Levy hit her head and was knocked unconscious? Guandique ran from screaming or thrashing victims, but what if he had one who was unconscious? It's not possible that he dragged her into the woods, tied her up and assaulted her and then strangled her?

I have no idea if that's what happened. I have no idea if Guandique is innocent and Condit killed her, as you believe. But the Guandique theory is just not as ludicrous as you seem to think it is.

Please don't respond with a post about the Chandra Levy Walk in the Park Challenge--I've read those, I get your point. But the reality is that we have no idea how Chandra got to the park that day, if she went there, and how or where she entered the trail, if she did so. You've made assumptions, based on where the remains were found, but those assumptions might be wrong.

Posted by: Chris92 | July 24, 2008 7:46 AM

First sentence should say, "Why do you assume the WP knew and thus hid THE IDENTITY of the man who found Levy's remains?

Posted by: Chris92 | July 24, 2008 7:49 AM

pete wrote: "You're just trying to sell books. Go away."

I posted Murder on a Horse Trail online for the public to read, so nope not trying to sell books or make money.

Looks like somebody doesn't like this pin it on Guandique party crasher.

Can't say I blame you. It was going pretty well.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 24, 2008 7:54 AM

chris92 wrote: "RD--Why do you assume the WP knew and thus hid of the man who found Levy's remains? I'm not aware of any other media outlet reporting his name--did they all participate in the conspiracy as well (including the Modesto Bee, which ultimately called for Condit to resign)? Or did the police just share his identity with the Washington Post and not any other media?

If I were to report finding a body to the police, I would hope they would not release my name to a media horde. I don't think it's unusual to withhold someone's identity in those circumstances."

The suppressing information I was referring to was Anne Marie Smith and the call from Condir from Luray at midnight. He had been in session that morning, and was back in DC the next day. It was a trip there for something, but not covered by the press.

I went into some detail about Rita Cosby discussing once and then it was pulled, never to be heard of again, so not sure how you got the turtle hunter involved in that.

You answered your own question with your last statement concerning the turtle hunter.

I have to read the rest of your post later and respond. Have to go make some money. :)

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 24, 2008 8:04 AM

Please give us the specific location where the Shilling attack occurred. You try to make the point that it is very similar to the Levy scene, but there is no real information about the spot, which I think is critical to the argument the Post is making. Reading the original police report, looking at the panoramic photograph and the Post maps it is unclear.

The blue "X" in the map in today's Post seems to indicate that the attack occurred on the Valley Trail, that is adjacent to Beach drive, just to the east. Grove 4, referenced in the report, is also right along Beach Drive, most importantly to the east of Rock Creek.

On the other hand, the bird's eye graphic and the panoramic photo of the Shilling scene look much more like the area of the trail that runs well above Rock Creek on the west side, identified on my maps as the "Black Horse Trail". The portion of the trail I am thinking of here starts heading northeast, up a hill and into the woods from the flat open area north of the intersection of Broad Branch and Beach Drive.

The Black Horse Trail climbs until it comes to the top of a ridge, or hill, where it crosses Connecting Trail #9. From there it turns northwest and north along the side of a steep ridge the runs down to the creek. Finally, it descends toward the level of the creek where it meets CT#8.

I have been very skeptical about this series, but I have to admit that much of the Black Horse Trail has some real topographic similarities to the No Horses loop where Chaundra Levy was found. If this is where the Shillling attack happened it means that IG was not just hanging around near Beach Drive, but was comfortable in the hilly forest above the valley floor. That puts a totally different perspective on the case.

As an aside, while I never have seen a woman on the No Horses loop, I see women running alone all the time on the Black Horse trail.

Dear reporters, in today's update please clarify exactly where Shilling was attacked. I have a feeling this will strengthen your case.

Thanks

Posted by: Murphie | July 24, 2008 8:05 AM

Did investigators review Chandra's telephone records? Did they review Mr. Condit's telephone records, emails, and mail correspondence?

Posted by: Marty | July 24, 2008 8:23 AM

I'm sure this is a dumb question, but did the bracelet Ingmar Guadelupe wore during the attacks (the glint from which he said the women could have mistaken for a weapon) have any similarities to the one Condit gave Chandra? Maybe Guadelupe took it off of her when he murdered her?

Posted by: Reader | July 24, 2008 9:38 AM

If I were police, i'd polygraph the informer in federal prison again using a spanish-speaking polygrapher. I'd check to see if Gandique sent family $12,500 around that time, as corroboration of supposedly getting hired as a `hit-man' for Condit.

Someone asked what the facts were against IG. The Post reporters highlight them up today. There were three crime reports involving a Hispanic-looking man around Rock Creek Park summer 2001. Also the Post reporters note that an investigator arriving on the Chandra-scene, immediately saw an MO, or modus operendi, involving remote hillsides, walkmen, etc., and Gandique.

On polygraphs. Someone who commits a crime in a drugged/drunken state, where they're almost another person, extremely disassocated from their emotions, might be able to slip by a polygraph months later, when they're sober. (As Guandique barely did, though the polygraphers bent over backwards in reading results, it seems.)

Some people have commented that Gandique ran awfully quickly when his other victims fought back, yet he had a knife. They remarked that was odd. Maybe he was jumpy because he knew of another incident he didn't want to be tied to...

That's sheer speculation.

Very interesting articles ... and comments.

Posted by: eeave | July 24, 2008 9:50 AM

No, I was referring specifically to your post at 1:42 a.m., when you wrote: "However, the WP consistently used the phrase "noticed his dog sniffing at a spot" and "walked out to Broad Branch Road to get help", once saying his dog "veered from a path", without saying where he came from.

So the inconsistency was there from the beginning, and in the WP's efforts to hide the identity of this man they gave minimal information."

You clearly state that the WP hid this man's identity, and it's not the first comment you've made at least suggesting that there was something nefarious in not naming the person who found Levy's remains. Please explain the basis for your apparent belief that the WP (but not other media) knew this man's identity and chose to hide it.

By the way, he is identified in today's chapter. I'm not sure what his name has to do with anything, but now you have it.

Posted by: Chris92 | July 24, 2008 9:54 AM

I'd like to know, was Levy "buried" in a shallow way?

I can't tell from the descriptions, but that fits the informer's description of what Gandique said. That he buried her in a shallow grave and put leaves over the spot. The informer says he was told that months before Chandra was actually found that way. That could just be a coincidence, or something more that could be followed up.

Posted by: eeave | July 24, 2008 10:12 AM

RD, thanks for getting me to the map with the grove numbers!

Questions...

What was Condit doing in Luray?

Burying the body? Retrieving the Tag Hauer watch from her wrist?

Why did Condit tell Chandra to not bring along ID (and purse? money?) when she met him for les rendezvous?

This makes no sense except to a total paranoid. Who's going to check her ID except a doorman at a bar or liquor store, or a police officer? Are you saying that Condit thinks that if their names get in the papers, someone will recognize her as an affiliate of some sinister or secret group? Or does he want the flexibility to make up anything about who she is - with no contradictory ID on her?

DKH, you make a strong case against IG as the killer. I thought the jailhouse confession was weak to begin with. Keep up your erudition...I enjoy it!

Posted by: SJ | July 24, 2008 10:15 AM

Chapter 11

The new scene was near an area of the park called Grove 17, where police had searched nearly a year earlier for Chandra's body. Bosak saw a red Aero sports bra, a pair of Victoria's Secret panties and a pair of Pro Spirit black stretch pants, turned inside out. Oddly, each leg was knotted.
_____________________________________

Regarding the Aero Sports bra, a pair of Victoria's Secret panties and a pair of Pro Spirit black stretch pants. Has DNA been preformed on the items? And were the legs of the black stretch pants knotted mid-way of each leg or at the end of the pant leg?

And yes, why was Condit in Luray at midnight?

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 24, 2008 11:11 AM

A portion of the article from Chapter 11

Bosak spotted a dirty gray T-shirt, size small, also turned inside out; printed on it in red letters was "Property of USC Athletics." Also at the scene was an Aiwa AM/FM cassette player, model TX-377; a white Reebok jogging shoe trimmed in blue; and bone fragments scattered about. Most of it was strewn down the side of the ravine in a 10-yard radius from the base of a tree.
__________________________

It was stated that they only found one reebok jogging shoe trimmed in blue, where is the other shoe? (when you're moving remains around, you could tend to lose something) Is the foam-rubber shoe lining also found around the area of Chandra remains is it the shoe size of the Reebok jogging shoe? Or is the shoe lining similar to the Reebok jogging shoe?

And it's strange to find a silver-colored lipstick case with lipstick in tact when Chandra didn't have a purse with her. I find it strange that lipstick was recovered at the scene. Very interesting...

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 24, 2008 11:30 AM

Two questions: (1) Have the detectives tried to see if that Guadlique guy wired 25000 dollars to his family back home? If he did it through a bank or western union it should be traceable, right? (2)It seems that the reporters feel, though they do not state it, that the Guadalique guy was the murderer. Does anyone else share this point of view?

Posted by: Daniel Hughes | July 24, 2008 11:49 AM

What kind of lipstick does Carolyn Condit wear? Lancome perhaps?

Also, why is she stil with her husband?

And.. I think it's still odd that Chandra looked up Baskin Robbins, especially considering she weighed 108 lbs. and worked out regularly. Was there even a Baskin Robbins located in Dupont in 2001?

Posted by: questions | July 24, 2008 12:29 PM

In visiting Guandique's family in El Salvador, did you ever see any evidence that they received the $25,000 his cellmate alleges he received for Chandra's murder? This seems to me an excellent way to verify whether the tale is true. And based on their one-room adobe house, it sounds as if they probably did not.

Posted by: eldinero | July 24, 2008 12:34 PM

The most compelling part of today's story is the thoughts of the first crime scene investigator on the scene. He immediately thought that this was the work of Guandique. I would imagine that after doing this work for a while you would get use to a criminal's method of operation. For this investigator to feel that and say that later on speaks volumns. I certainly don't buy into the jailhouse snitch and his claim that Condit gave Guandique money to do this. I am sure that this claim has been checked over very throughly by the police and found to be untrue. When you throw out all of the b...s... offered by RD(can you imagine why the Wash.Post did not contact him for his thoughts on this case) and DKH it becomes very likely that Guandique is involved. I have felt from the beginning that Condit was not involved in Chandra's death. I am more convinced today that is true.

Posted by: dlg358 | July 24, 2008 12:49 PM

In my opinion, I still do not believe that Guandique did it, I believe that Condit did it, and/or either Condit had someone else to kill Chandra. And I do not believe that Chandra was killed at Rock Creek Park.
___________________________________

What kind of lipstick does Carolyn Condit wear? Lancome perhaps?

Also, why is she stil with her husband?

And.. I think it's still odd that Chandra looked up Baskin Robbins, especially considering she weighed 108 lbs. and worked out regularly. Was there even a Baskin Robbins located in Dupont in 2001?

Posted by: questions | July 24, 2008 12:29 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I find it odd too that Chandra looked up Baskin Robbins also, and I wonder what type of lipstick she wears also.

And where is that other Reebok jogging shoe?

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 24, 2008 1:01 PM

rd, I think not the international viewer attempts were attack 100 %, there must be some incompatible bugs that made the encounterings fearful for you/your site, actually, you should be relaxed about that, co's nothing is attacking your site, I believe, for same thing happened to me as well as the other oversea viewer, so, just free it up, the viewer-flow there is already quite slim, don't you think so?

concerning the turtle-finding person, actually, the FBI overheard from my telephone call about how & when & roughly how to identify where that Chandra will be found in that park months ahead of 5/22/02; then it all happened as what I described in that call to my friend. of course, in that call, FBI also learned who the killer/mastermind of that murder was.

the authority since then started learning a lot from/because of this case about the God that was left aside in the crime-investigating business in US.

i believe, that after years of keeping watching, overhearing, and eavedropping on what i disclosed to my acquaintances globally around, they finally felt the needs to stop the profiteering business of the prime suspect, then, the US learned the so called 'defaming suit' against innocent commentator/news carrier were thus thrown out of courts, for now the information-sharing betwn. departments involved made available, what they could be sure of an implication, even without substantiated evidences, the convicting informations from the glorious oracles of the Living God, the Almighty Host of Hosts, without controversy.

can they use spiritual evidences to bring that gang of murders to court? apparently there's work to be done before this step can be taken forward, i think, otherwise, they'd already be in jail for years, in spirit, they're (the FBI etc.) convicted without doubt that who the mastermind was, just that they're not sure about the 'dead zone johnny' type seer of God will be accepted in court simply on his words today yet.

i don't like to be identified as a psychic, for it is God in the working, if people pull me into the psychic part of any blog, i'll pull my post from that blog & never post again on it.

Posted by: liuda | July 24, 2008 1:16 PM

liuda, I don't understand the rest of your post, a little too touchy feely for me to get a handle on, but I'll tell you what. I've got six years of experience of what attacks come from the worldwide cybercrime gangs out there, so I know what's coming, but I'll unblock worldwide just because there's some very good people out there I've heard from overseas, like you, that care about Chandra's case.

Consider it done.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 24, 2008 1:27 PM

that's very king of you, rd, thanks.

touchy feely, about other part of the post?

Posted by: liuda | July 24, 2008 1:40 PM

***

DKH, you make a strong case against IG as the killer. I thought the jailhouse confession was weak to begin with. Keep up your erudition...I enjoy it!


Posted by: SJ | July 24, 2008 10:15 AM

***

Thank you very much for the compliment, SJ!

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 24, 2008 1:58 PM

I hope, that in the end, the idiocy of using an inconclusive polygraph result to exclude a suspect will be exposed as an unforgivable error.

Posted by: Dave | July 24, 2008 2:01 PM

The Baskin Robbins detail is quite interesting, I think -- according to her aunt, Chandra was a fan of Ben & Jerry's cookie dough -- but not the low fat stuff that Condit favoured. So she wasn't likely to search BR to stop by for a cone. Did Chandra do a quick search because someone had suggested something regarding opening a BR shop together?? And then Condit opened two of them??

As for the lipstick -- might seem silly to focus any attention on it, but if it WAS Chandra's [and maybe she went up-scale in terms of brand to match the 'Harrison Ford' boyfriend - as a women, I can assure you we do some uncharacteristic things when we think we're in love], I can pretty much guarantee from over 20 years of jogging [even in Rock Creek Park!] that no woman out for a run or a walk in the woods would bother taking lipstick with her.... unless she thought she was meeting her lover... maybe to finalize the 5 year plan to open a Baskin Robbins???

Too many niggling little details to have it tied up in a neat little package and dropped at IG's feet.

Posted by: Intrigued in Europe | July 24, 2008 3:01 PM

"Finally, the department released a press statement that the bone had not been there during their original crime scene search. A police official said he believed that an animal had dragged the bone to its den and dragged it back to the site after officers left. After this incident, the police returned to the crime scene to sift through the leaves and dirt once again - and found many more of Chandra's bones."

WOW. That's all that can be said. The MPD sucks.


And fyi, there's a Baskin Robbins in Woodley Park. Not such a stretch to walk from there to Van Ness... or down Woodley Road right into the park and pick up a running trail.

Posted by: o.m.g | July 24, 2008 3:51 PM

***

I hope, that in the end, the idiocy of using an inconclusive polygraph result to exclude a suspect will be exposed as an unforgivable error.

Posted by: Dave | July 24, 2008 2:01 PM

***

The F.B.I. itself arranged for the polygraph examination of Ingmar Guandique in February 2002. The F.B.I. polygrapher himself ruled that Senor Guandique had passed the exam; it was not ruled to be an inconclusive result.

There would have been no polygraph exam if the jailhouse snitch had not concocted his patently ludicrous tale of a murder-for-hire scenario. Ingmar Guandique had not been a suspect in the Chandra Levy disappearance until that hearsay claim of a confession by Senor Guandique was given to the authorities.

Neither Detective Joe Green nor the other two United States Park Police officers-- one a Spanish-language interpreter-- who were with him at the time of Ingmar Guandique's interrogation in the early hours of July 2, 2001, ever had raised Senor Guandique as a potential suspect in the Chandra Levy case, even during and after the massive search of Rock Creek Park in July 2001.

(Neither of the other two officers has been cited by the Washington Post in this series as confirming Detective Green's current-- very belated-- claim that Ingmar Guandique admitted to him that he saw Chandra Levy in Rock Creek Park that spring and had been attracted to her, either.)

Any notion that the authorities, including the F.B.I. and the Department of Justice, willy-nilly threw away a serious suspect in Chandra Levy's disappearance on the basis of a fatally flawed and inconclusive polygraph result is mistaken. There was no credible basis for Ingmar Guandique to be considered a suspect in the first place.

The judge that sentenced Senor Guandique to a quite stiff ten-year sentence in a federal penitentiary for his two failed assaults with attempt to rob in Rock Creek Park stated that she herself never believed that he had anything to do with the disappearance of Chandra Levy!

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 24, 2008 4:06 PM

***

I hope, that in the end, the idiocy of using an inconclusive polygraph result to exclude a suspect will be exposed as an unforgivable error.

Posted by: Dave | July 24, 2008 2:01 PM

***

The F.B.I. itself arranged for the polygraph examination of Ingmar Guandique in February 2002. The F.B.I. polygrapher himself ruled that Senor Guandique had passed the exam; it was not ruled to be an inconclusive result.

There would have been no polygraph exam if the jailhouse snitch had not concocted his patently ludicrous tale of a murder-for-hire scenario. Ingmar Guandique had not been a suspect in the Chandra Levy disappearance until that hearsay claim of a confession by Senor Guandique was given to the authorities.

Neither Detective Joe Green nor the other two United States Park Police officers-- one a Spanish-language interpreter-- who were with him at the time of Ingmar Guandique's interrogation in the early hours of July 2, 2001, ever had raised Senor Guandique as a potential suspect in the Chandra Levy case, even during and after the massive search of Rock Creek Park in July 2001.

(Neither of the other two officers has been cited by the Washington Post in this series as confirming Detective Green's current-- very belated-- claim that Ingmar Guandique admitted to him that he saw Chandra Levy in Rock Creek Park that spring and had been attracted to her, either.)

Any notion that the authorities, including the F.B.I. and the Department of Justice, willy-nilly threw away a serious suspect in Chandra Levy's disappearance on the basis of a fatally flawed and inconclusive polygraph result is mistaken. There was no credible basis for Ingmar Guandique to be considered a suspect in the first place.

The judge that sentenced Senor Guandique to a quite stiff ten-year sentence in a federal penitentiary for his two failed assaults with attempt to rob in Rock Creek Park stated that she herself never believed that he had anything to do with the disappearance of Chandra Levy!

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 24, 2008 4:10 PM

Apologies for the accidental retransmission!

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 24, 2008 4:12 PM

"There was no credible basis for Ingmar Guandique to be considered a suspect in the first place."
---------

None? Really? The guy was convicted of sneaking up behind two women wearing headphones and attacking them in the same park along similar trails. That alone makes him a legit suspect. I don't buy the crazy murder-for-hire story. I agree the Chandra Levy Walk in the Park Challenge theory is a lot to swallow. But it's conceivable to me that she took public transportation to the park (maybe to meet Condit, maybe to go for a walk on a nice day) and got jumped by Guandique. If he did it, it's conceivable he talked about it in prison -- and that either he or the guy he talked to exaggerated the story.

If she came to the park to meet Condit, that would explain why he was so cagey about the whole thing... of course, he could have simply been nervous about his affair being exposed. I really doubt the Congressman killed her himself (or dumped her body there later).

This has been an interesting read. I'm not sure why it got so much time and space in the paper. And, after poking around in the archives a bit, I don't find a whole lot that's new. But I've been drawn to the site every day to read the next chapter. I guess I just answered my own question about the format...

Posted by: A reader | July 24, 2008 4:44 PM

Was there any investigation into the $25,000 that supposedly came from Condit and then was sent to El Salvador by Guandique? Can Bank transactions be traced or Western Union? Maybe a friend of Condits gave it to Condit?

Posted by: Rob | July 24, 2008 4:47 PM

First, thank you so much for doing this series. It would be great if this crime could ultimately be solved - Chandra and her family deserve the truth. It seems blatantly clear that Guandique intended to physically harm (at the very least) the two women he attacked and he stated that he sometimes became overcome with feelings to do that type of thing. He will be out of prison within the next few years and will be free to resume these terrifying activities. It seems very likely that he killed Chandra, whether it was because he was hired to do so or because of his penchant for this type of crime. It seems that he should be given a lie detector test with a bi-lingual technician and he should be questioned in depth as well...


I

Posted by: Pat Baker | July 24, 2008 4:53 PM

There is no such thing as a lie detector test. It'd make investigators jobs a lot easier if there was, however!

Posted by: NoDice | July 24, 2008 5:07 PM

First, thank you so much for doing this series. It would be great if this crime could ultimately be solved - Chandra and her family deserve the truth. It seems blatantly clear that Guandique intended to physically harm (at the very least) the two women he attacked and he stated that he sometimes became overcome with feelings to do that type of thing. He will be out of prison within the next few years and will be free to resume these terrifying activities. It seems very likely that he killed Chandra, whether it was because he was hired to do so or because of his penchant for this type of crime. It seems that he should be given a lie detector test with a bi-lingual technician and he should be questioned in depth as well...

Posted by: Pat Baker | July 24, 2008 4:53 PM

________________________________

The two women that he attacked, if Guandique wanted to kill the two women, he sure could have, but he didn't. Once the women he attacked he had the five inch knife to her chin. If he was a killer, he would have killed those two women.

And where did you read that he said "he stated that he sometimes became overcome with feelings to do that type of thing?"
because I haven't read that he made that statement anywhere, not even in the WaPo Archives that I've read about him saying anything like that.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 24, 2008 6:48 PM

The Baskin Robbins detail is quite interesting, I think -- according to her aunt, Chandra was a fan of Ben & Jerry's cookie dough -- but not the low fat stuff that Condit favoured. So she wasn't likely to search BR to stop by for a cone. Did Chandra do a quick search because someone had suggested something regarding opening a BR shop together?? And then Condit opened two of them??

As for the lipstick -- might seem silly to focus any attention on it, but if it WAS Chandra's [and maybe she went up-scale in terms of brand to match the 'Harrison Ford' boyfriend - as a women, I can assure you we do some uncharacteristic things when we think we're in love], I can pretty much guarantee from over 20 years of jogging [even in Rock Creek Park!] that no woman out for a run or a walk in the woods would bother taking lipstick with her.... unless she thought she was meeting her lover... maybe to finalize the 5 year plan to open a Baskin Robbins???

Too many niggling little details to have it tied up in a neat little package and dropped at IG's feet.

Posted by: Intrigued in Europe | July 24, 2008 3:01 PM
_________________________________

Chandra's aunt did not say what you quoted above. Chandra's aunt said that Chandra told her that Condit's favorite ice cream was Ben and Jerry's chocolate chip cookie dough.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 24, 2008 6:55 PM

Condit's Apathy For Levy Sends Chilling Message
The Washington Post - Washington, D.C.
Author: Courtland Milloy
Date: Aug 26, 2001
Start Page: C.01


According to [Chandra Levy]'s aunt, to whom Chandra Levy confided the relationship, she was not allowed to telephone [Gary A. Condit] except on his private line. She was told to avoid letting anyone know that she was visiting him at his Adams Morgan apartment.

If she and Condit went out, he'd wear a baseball cap to cover his recognizable blow-dried hair. And before he'd even step outside, Levy was to have already hailed a cab -- so that Condit would not be seen waiting with her.

Condit suggested to the Sun-Star that Levy might have fallen prey to a serial killer. He then went on to declare, "We ought to hold someone accountable for the crime rate in Washington, D.C., for the unsolved homicides and the unsolved missing persons."
__________________________________

I thought that this article from WaPo was rather interesting...especially the last paragraph.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 24, 2008 7:07 PM

Chapter 10

During the three-hour interview, Carolyn was asked to account for her whereabouts around the time Chandra went missing. She said she flew to Washington on April 28 for a luncheon event for first lady Laura Bush at the Washington Hilton. While she was in town, she stayed with her husband at his Adams Morgan apartment and met him for brunch and dinner. One day, they shopped together in the neighborhood. After the May 3 luncheon, she flew home to Ceres.
__________________________________

Carolyn Condit's where about's aren't really detailed and nor has she specified any time frames of her where about's. According to the information above, In my opinion, she had quite a bit of time.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 24, 2008 7:14 PM

pardon me, the above information provided about Carolyn Condit was from
WaPo Chapter 7

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 24, 2008 7:24 PM

Bekyndhearted, Guandique supposedly said he was overcome to steal things from people when they were alone in parks according to the jailhouse informer. It's in one of the recent chapters.

The lipstick detail is the one that is most inexplicable of all. It wasn't Chandra's brand (too upscale?) and why would Chandra have carried it to the park to walk or run? It was found near the body and still had lipstick in it, so it doesn't sound like it was discarded long ago by someone else on the path, but could have been discarded or dropped at the time of the murder.

I wonder if the police ever asked Condit's wife what brand she uses. I hate to even ask that as I don't see any piece of evidence that ties either one of the Condit's to the murder. But it should have been checked up on.

Posted by: NDvege | July 24, 2008 7:42 PM

Thank you NDvege

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 24, 2008 7:57 PM

What is rally amazing about this story is how badly it is reported.

1. was the guy looking for turtles or "antlers"?
2. did the lipstick match?
3. lie detector tests bilingual or not?

and so on.

No wonder why people suspect something funny.

Posted by: charlie | July 24, 2008 8:09 PM

comments to some comments:

Newsweek reported: ""She also had downloaded discount ice-cream coupons that were found in her apartment....""

The Baskin-Robbins at Calvert and Connecticut is just down the street from Condit's condo apartment.

Baskin-Robbins had a "Free Scoop Night" Wednesday special from 6:00pm-10:00pm that Chandra might have been looking at to plan to visit the next day.

Chandra told her landlord she would have a definite moveout date on Wednesday, May 2, and ice cream was her and Condit's favorite food to eat together.

But Carolyn's luncheon was also on May 2, during the day, and she didn't fly back to California until the following day, Thursday, May 3.

I personally doubt that Chandra knew Carolyn's schedule. Condit, keeping his sickly wife schtick going, told Anne Marie that his wife was coming in to see a doctor, therefore he almost assuredly told Chandra the same thing. He had a history of that.

Carolyn was with some congressional wives Tuesday afternoon when Chandra disappeared. She has an alibi, unlike Condit.

In addition to Chandra not jogging, not taking long walks as someone told the police, the only one who could tell them that being Condit, no one else who knew her told them that, Chandra was checking her answering machine for messages by cellphone constantly. It is inconceivable that she was not able to be in contact with Condit unless she was with him.

Yes, the phone records were subpoenaed and Chandra's billing reviewed by some reporter's. I analyze the reporting carefully to arrive at what happened, as the reporting is so jumbled you can't believe it.

Oh wait, maybe you can.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 24, 2008 9:29 PM


I'm going to go read Grisly Find now and see what the WP has turned up. Did I see someone mention Chandra was wearing Victoria's Secret panties? And people still think she was on a hike to nowhere? Holy cow.

What does it take? If we had a video of Condit and Chandra at grove 18 you'd say that Condit left her there and Guandique hiked to the outback and murdered her, the Joran spin.

All that to keep from saying someone who knew her drove up to grove 18 and dumped her body. Lord knows if Guandique had a car you'd be saying it.

And by the way, at least Guandique was willing to take a lie detector test.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 24, 2008 9:43 PM

Jessy, eldinero and Rob are following the same line of thinking I was. One of the most obvious ways to verify the unamed informant's story is to trace the $25,000 IG was supposed to have sent back to El Salvador. Surely, both the police and your reporters checked this out. Why no explanation in your piece?...

BB

Posted by: bill_bruton | July 24, 2008 10:54 PM

Ralph, this why you're so amusing. Every fact, regardless of how meaningless and backed of course by your weird assumptions, validates your theory.

She was wearing Victoria's Secret underwear?! Well of course Gary Condit killed her!

You apparently assume that one cannot possibly exercise in Victoria's Secret underwear. This definitely falls into the category of things I never thought I'd discuss on washingtonpost.com, but Victoria's Secret sells cotton underwear. Completely appropriate for a walk in the park.

Posted by: Chris92 | July 24, 2008 10:59 PM

then, the FBI learned from the message of God that the prime suspect in this case was the mastermind of at least three other murderous crimes against other women.

Believe it, for God was mad that spiritual evidences were not taken full weight as they should have been. And God said, this 2008 will be a year to regret if US is not serving the justice upon the culprits/gang-leader of these horrendous crimes.

And the time ticking on, then, you have the tornadoes, the 500-year-flood, and the 8000 dry shots of tinder-burning thunderbolts in CA.

So, again, here is an almost rehash of the unfinished business against the implicated, for God demanded this be throughly investigated again, if not, this year is far from over yet.

It's good to be fearful before God, for that is how all learn from God in these first steps of getting close to Him.

Semen of Condit on Chandra's yet-washed underwear serve to reveal how sneaky he had been with all those who confronted him about the type of relationship he had with Chandra. Timing of that semen stain can be tied with the 'big news' that eventually hoodwinked Chandra into a trap of a callous-beast-in-disguise. This crime, together with the previously committed ones, were team work, with cruel hearts behind the veil, no wonder another poster reminded the readers to: avoid a minister/or son of such........

The bees are 2/3 missing in some parts of US, and humankind simply can't live without these hardworking ones, God said, ' US, make these things right immediately, less there'd be no bee flying over all the buds across this land called by my name in the first place.'

These series were like intelligent bricks to elicit the all-seeing jades out of the heart of the earth, and thank goodness, the jades are coming in.

May God have mercy upon US, and strengthen her in avenging the cries of Chandra in good speed. Heads up, necks stretching, eyes fixating for all the sincere hope of a matured judgment into this already made bare case, and only after an execution compatible to that truth, then the whole world will chorus, ' indeed justice is served rightly as we have surmised since its beginning.' US, listen to that, I hope in advance, you're not to late to act now for Chandra/US well-being altogether.

Posted by: liuda | July 24, 2008 11:18 PM

not too late.

Posted by: liuda | July 24, 2008 11:36 PM

It's sad that Chandra's killer seems as though he/she/or how every many may be involved will not get caught. My opinion of what I believe is that Guandique did not kill Chandra. I don't believe that Chandra was killed at Rock Creek Park. I understand what the two ladies went through was horrific, but I didn't see to much of Wieland's story, any further statements from her as I still review continuing comments and statements from Hillings I believe the other female's last name was. My thought was because her boyfriend was with her and I couldn't understand myself how could a couple go to Rock Creek Park together to jog and the male and female seperate as she jogs deep into Rock Creek Park woods.

And I still say that I believe that Chandra would fight and scream for help if Guandique attacked her too. And if he fled away for the other two, he would flee away for her also.

Condit prolonged this case and prolonged this case, he did not cooperate with the Police or FBI, he had his own polygraph test administered, he can't really provide solid proof of his where abouts during the time of Chandra missing, he rides all the way out to Virginia to throw away a watch box, he insist that another female that he is having an affair with to lie signing a false affidavit, he doesn't tell the truth about their affair. (Chandra and himself)

And I don't understand why there was never any information as to whether or not Chandra's apartment was fingerprinted, what else was in her apartment besides the laptop, the dirty clothing, and the pasta and reese cup left in her refidgerator. What phone calls had been made outgoing and incoming on her home phone and cell phone.

Who does the lipstick belongs to? Where is her other tennis shoe?

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 24, 2008 11:44 PM

One big beneficiary of the series is the D.C. police department. They can be reminded of how friends and families of crime victims suffer when they don't perform their jobs with the requisite skill. Hopefully their shame at dropping the ball in this case can motivate them to do better in other cases.

Posted by: Stuart Jasper | July 24, 2008 11:57 PM

I agree with above posters who say that there aren't really enough facts to prove or disprove either of the parties that are being implicated in this crime. After reading rd's book and the articles in the WaPo, my information has surely gotten intertwined. I think that there is a hint that Levy knew Condit before she got to DC. There is also a question about when Levy parents knew that Condit was the b/f. 1 thing I haven't noticed mentioned is the fact that decomposing bodies have an odor. DC in early May would surely be prime time for decomposing a body and I would have thought that an odor would have been noticed. I also think that animals would have scattered CL's bones much quicker that over a year later. As a farmer, I compost dead animals and know what that smells like and I follow all government regulations to minimize the odor. I doubt covering with sticks and dirt would nullify much odor especially if this were in particularly rocky terrain. I know that raccoons, buzzards, rats, coyotes, etc all quickly descend on decomposing flesh. I also question the significance of GC's trip to Luray. I don't want to throw this out as a theory but is it possible that 1 of GC's employees, friends, etc knew that he was having trouble with CL and an off-hand comment lead to a murder or maybe an accidental death. I don't believe that GC really cared if his wife knew about his affairs. As a matter of fact, I believe that she probably already knew and for whatever reason chose to remain with him. I believe that his concern of the exposure of the affair lay in what might happen to his re-election if the facts were to come out rather than statehouse innuendo. I would lean to a death elsewhere and then the planting of the remains in the park. By whom, I think it would have to be someone in the GC camp. If IG had done it, the death would have occurred in the park and the body left there. Not to defend the MPD but they should have been very busy at the time. They may have known that they didn't have enough evidence to bring charges so just did minimal work and then after GC's defeat just pushed it into the cold case file.

Posted by: midwesterner | July 25, 2008 12:52 AM

RD, you are going down on the Titanic that is Murder on a Horse Trail.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 25, 2008 1:00 AM

What is rally amazing about this story is how badly it is reported.

1. was the guy looking for turtles or "antlers"?
2. did the lipstick match?
3. lie detector tests bilingual or not?

and so on.

No wonder why people suspect something funny.

Posted by: charlie | July 24, 2008 8:09 PM
_________________________________

Charlie,

In regards to number two, you're asking the if the lipstick match? Did it match what?

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 25, 2008 1:15 AM

***

"There was no credible basis for Ingmar Guandique to be considered a suspect in the first place."
---------

None? Really? The guy was convicted of sneaking up behind two women wearing headphones and attacking them in the same park along similar trails. That alone makes him a legit suspect. I don't buy the crazy murder-for-hire story. I agree the Chandra Levy Walk in the Park Challenge theory is a lot to swallow. But it's conceivable to me that she took public transportation to the park (maybe to meet Condit, maybe to go for a walk on a nice day) and got jumped by Guandique. If he did it, it's conceivable he talked about it in prison -- and that either he or the guy he talked to exaggerated the story.

If she came to the park to meet Condit, that would explain why he was so cagey about the whole thing... of course, he could have simply been nervous about his affair being exposed. I really doubt the Congressman killed her himself (or dumped her body there later).

This has been an interesting read. I'm not sure why it got so much time and space in the paper. And, after poking around in the archives a bit, I don't find a whole lot that's new. But I've been drawn to the site every day to read the next chapter. I guess I just answered my own question about the format...

Posted by: A reader | July 24, 2008 4:44 PM

***

It was no secret that Ingmar Guandique had mugged two women in the park-- on May 14 and July 1, 2001, respectively. Yet, no one in the criminal justice system-- including the United States Park Police's then-Detective Joe Green-- had raised Senor Guandique as a potential suspect, serious or otherwise, in the disappearance of Chandra Levy, not even during or after the massive search in the park on July 25, 2001, more than three weeks after the arrest and confessions of Ingmar Guandique. (Happy anniversary, cadets!)

A jailhouse snitch eventually comes forward with an utterly preposterous tale of murder-for-hire, and suddenly we are supposed to believe that Ingmar Guandique is a veritable made-for-tv suspect. The fact that there were rewards totaling more than $200,000 at the time that the snitch came forward with his tale is utterly disregarded as a motive by the Avenging Angel contingent, as is the fact that the snitch himself is now serving a life term in the federal penitentiary on an armed-sexual-abuse conviction.

This and many other readers here think much like the police themselves (especially when the police have come up empty-handed and are looking inept and hopeless to the public): "Sure, not a single detail of the hearsay confession can be substantiated, and most can be disproved on the face of it; but, hey, let's just admit that the details are all wrong but claim that the spirit of the thing is genuine. The man confessed, after all, and that is all that really matters!" Of course, there is likewise no evidence that the man, Ingmar Guandique, confessed anything at all to the convicted sex fiend, other than the convicted sex fiend's own polygraph-flunking claims that it happened.

Tell me, reader: if you were in jail for two mere assaults with attempt to rob, and you had an undiscovered murder in your recent past, would you be so overcome with an urge to confess to a fellow inmate; or, might you be able to control your guilt long enough to tell it to the prison chaplain at confession the next weekend instead? Just curious....

With people like these in our jury pools, is anyone really surprised that DNA evidence is overturning jury convictions in this country on practically a weekly basis? (HINT: I'm not!)

By the way, Judge Noel Kramer ("I never for a moment thought that...he had anything to do with Chandra Levy") was not alone in her thinking about Ingmar Guandique. His abused ex-girlfriend, Iris Portillo, who has been used here as evidence of his fitness for a murder suspect, said around the time of the grand jury hearings, in the early autumn of 2002: "He hit me a lot, and I was scared of him. But I don't believe he killed anyone."

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 25, 2008 1:15 AM

Its ironic that the WaPo details the errors/incompetence/laziness and jumping to conclusions by the police, while simultaneously buying the theory Detectives Barrett, Green, etc. seem to now have jumped to -- that it must've been Guandique.

I find it interesting that in Chapter 12, they highlight the fact that his landlady claimed he had scratches and a swollen lip and that he "got really strange" around April/May 2002. Meanwhile, in the Post's article from Oct 2, 2002, his girlfriend said she not only didn't cause the scratches and swollen lip, but that "she never saw the scratches and swollen lip." And she said, "He hit me a lot, and I was scared of him," Portillo said. "But I don't believe he killed anyone." I'd say the landlady's statements are flimsy at best, yet the WaPo seems to want to attach a fair amount of weight to it.

Did anything ever come of this (from the article on Oct 2, 2002):
"Authorities also are taking a second look at Albert W. Cook Jr., 26, who is serving a life sentence in the Jan. 24, 2001, killing of jogger Sue Wen Stottmeister in the Montgomery County section of Rock Creek Park, sources said."

All in all, I think this was a highly disappointing series. The archived articles actually seem to to give much better detail than the work that was done now...Also, I don't understand and am bothered that the Post seems to be attempting to shift public opinion away from Condit to Guandique. Sure Guandique is a viable suspect, but so is Condit. He potentially had miles more motive than anyone else and no alibi.

Posted by: anon7 | July 25, 2008 1:33 AM

I have some questions for reporters Sari Horwitz, Scott Higham, and Sylvia Moreno. First I would like to say to you all good job!

1. What happens after this? ( I noticed that you're going to provide a epilogue on Sunday, but after that what happens?)
2. Was Carolyn Condit questioned more than once?
3. Who's Lipstick was found near Chandra's remains, and was it used?
4. What ever happened between the police and the cab company provding information regarding trips made during the time Chandra went missing?
5. Will Gary Condit be questioned again?
6. Did the police ,FBI, and private investigaters ever find out why Condit was in Luray?
7. Was the man that was searching Rock Creek Park for turtles ever questioned?

Thank you!

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 25, 2008 1:47 AM

Police Search Near Trail Intern Used; Officers Examine Woods Under Calvert Street Bridge; No Trace of Woman Found
The Washington Post - Washington, D.C.
Author: Arthur Santana
Date: May 25, 2001

[Charles H. Ramsey] said police learned that [Chandra Ann Levy] often walked along or near the asphalt trail, which is flanked by heavy woods on the west and Rock Creek Parkway on the east. That was the sole reason for yesterday's search, Ramsey said.

He said the proximity of the jogging trail to the apartment of Rep. Gary A. Condit (D-Calif.) -- several blocks away -- had no bearing on the search. "It's just a coincidence that he lives there and that he knows her," he said. Condit has described himself as a good friend of Levy's, and his spokespeople have said the two had no romantic involvement.
______________________________________

Who provided Charles Ramsey the information that Chandra often walked along or near asphalt trail?

In the ending of the last paragraph Condit is at that time providing false information.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 25, 2008 2:00 AM

When this series introduced Ingmar Guandique as its bete noir-- in the unbiased and unemotionally entitled chapter "The Predator in the Park"-- it stated for us, without qualification: "The day Chandra disappeared, May 1, 2001, Ingmar A. Guandique, a 19-year-old illegal Salvadoran immigrant, did not show up for his construction job."

Now, in today's unbiased and unemotionally entitled chapter "Pursuit of the Predator" [note especially the use of the definite rather than an indefinite article in both chapter titles-- implying that only this alleged "predator" and no other could be involved in the story of Chandra Levy's demise], Ms. Horwitz and her confederates, in contrast, state: "Poteat made an intriguing discovery during the interviews: It appeared that Guandique had not been at work the day Chandra disappeared. He lost his job that same day."

It appeared so? How did it appear so? To whom all did it appear so? He lost his job the same day? Did he lose it for not showing up that day? Did he get fired during the course of the work day? Did he call in and quit? Did he come in and quit? Is there an actual record of the exact date, time and circumstances for it-- or, is this, like the landlady's testimony about Senor Guandique's face, another case of "well, it was sometime around then, so it must have been on May Day 2001!?!"

Ms. Horwitz and her confederates are not interested in providing their readers with such integral details. They seem only to be interested in painting Ingmar Guandique, in broad strokes, as being "THE PREDATOR IN THE PARK," the only plausible candidate for the role of the murderer of Chandra Levy-- about whom Ms. Horwitz remains downright "haunted!"

This entire series should be considered as essentially a literary version of an amicus brief in support of the criminal prosecution of Ingmar Guandique for the murder of Chandra Levy, presented by the "haunted" Ms. Horwitz and her confederates, with the full institutional support of the Washington Post.

One wonders exactly what guidelines, if any, the Washington Post uses in throwing around an epithet like "predator" in lieu of an actual descriptive term, like "assailant." I personally think that the term should be banned altogether from journalism and law, since it is an inherently emotional and stigmatizing metaphor; but, even while it remains in use, should it really apply to any personal criminal offense, like assault with attempt to rob, or just to killers who stalk and murder their victims, much like a predator does its prey in the animal kingdom at large?

I believe that the casual and repeated use of the term "predator" by Ms. Horwitz and her confederates in this series to apply to a convicted criminal who is not known to have killed or attempted to kill any of his known victims, despite having the means and opportunity to do so, is symptomatic of the personal cause that Chandra Levy has become to the "haunted" Ms. Horwitz, who needs to learn how to take out her personal, if vicarious, vendettas elsewhere than in the paper of record for our nation's capital.

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 25, 2008 2:55 AM

12 ounces of intelligent yeast together with a dough of a blog, then here you have a new dough of internationally brainwaved information as a result. I'd say this is the success of this series, not in the yeast, but behold, the precious new dough that bears the conscience of the nation in mirror image, in part for good or for bad, justice'll prevail, as time'll tell, when the right choices are made from the new encouragements among these posts out of hardworking concerned people in this world to testify for the truth in the judgment-day to come.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 25, 2008 3:24 AM

above post by liuda.

WaPo, 12 series can only be a taste of this case only, the bulk part is still beyond reach, unless another 12 series-follow-up coming up immediately after this, I think.

Posted by: liuda | July 25, 2008 5:01 AM

Re: the allegation that Condit may have paid $25,000 to have Levy killed - do you know if investigators have subpoenaed Condit's financial records to see if he made any kind of large cash withdrawals or money transfers around the time of Levy's disapperance?

Posted by: Matt D | July 25, 2008 6:14 AM

I've always been curious about the knotted, inside out pair of pants. So curious, in fact, that I actually took a pair of pants and did the same thing and came to the following conclusion: When pants are taken off in a struggle when the victim is laying on their back, they will be taken off quickly, rendering them inside out. Also, the knots in the pants are big knots and would give an attacker some added grip if used as a ligature from behind. I believe Chandra was strangled in this way - or - at the very least put into unconsciousness and then perhaps stabbed at a later time. Also, do not ever under-estimate the power of politics -although if Condit had anything to do with this, i.e., paying someone to kill Chandra, you would think that the killer would be blackmailing him in some way - or - can't because the killer is already in jail. Remember, Condit originally lied to the authorities about his true relationship with Chandra - and if the rumors are true that she may have been pregnant, that would be a motive for murder. Also, political figures rarely get their own hands dirty - they find someone else to do their dirty work for them. I would not rule out Guandique, but he is certainly not the only person who could have done this. I also find it odd that Chandra took nothing with her on her "jog". I would at least have taken my ID and some money to buy water, which leads me to believe that she was called out of the house under false pretenses, perhaps a car waiting for her on the street to take her somewhere or perhaps a quick meeting with someone in the park. She was packed and ready to go home. I do not believe that there was no contact with Condit prior to her leaving for California, either by phone or in person.

Posted by: DJ | July 25, 2008 7:28 AM

Chandra was not packed and ready to go home. That was a major league error by the DC police. Reporters appear uninterested in correcting that misperception foisted on the public.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 25, 2008 7:57 AM

So basically, don't get murdered in the District b/c the cops are lousy at finding the culprit(s). I feel so much safer now.

Posted by: Tracey | July 25, 2008 9:43 AM

Poteat is a hero. So are Wiegand and Shilling, who got Guandique off the streets.

If the police had just followed the facts, they'd have been led to Guandique's belongings in time to find physical evidence.

Clearly as well a smart prosecutor like Poteat would have immediately assigned bilingual detectives to the case.

Great series by WAPO helping investigate this case.

I hope there's something prosecutors can do to go after Guandique who is the likeliest culprit in this case. He was offhandedly pursued from the start.

Just follow the facts ...

Posted by: eeave | July 25, 2008 10:45 AM

These Post reports are obviously biased and don't think Condit did it. In fact, it almost seems as if they are writing to make us think it was IG, or at the very least definitely not Condit.

Does anyone have an hour by hour schedule of Condit's whereabouts from the end of April through the first week of May? I would assume the police could have easily compiled this information shortly after Chandra's disappearance.

When they found the lipstick, was there any DNA left on it or any way to determine if it was Chandra's? Why would she have brought lipstick with her if she went to exercise?

Did the police ever check to seek if IG wired $12,500 or $25,000 to his family? That should be really easy to find out, right?

Posted by: Kate | July 25, 2008 10:47 AM

bekyndhearted: "Chandra's aunt did not say what you quoted above. Chandra's aunt said that Chandra told her that Condit's favorite ice cream was Ben and Jerry's chocolate chip cookie dough."

From RD's book, Chapter called "Explanation":

"When they [Chandra and the aunt] went out for pizza and ice cream, she [the aunt] told the Washington Post:

We bought Ben & Jerry's chocolate chip cookie dough. We didn't buy the low fat. She said that's what they eat. She didn't use his name. She said her 'boyfriend, my guy.' Most of the time she referred
to him as 'my guy.'"

Posted by: Intrigued in Europe | July 25, 2008 10:50 AM

Why haven't the Levy's sued the Washington Metropolitan Police Department for gross negligence?

Posted by: IJR | July 25, 2008 11:06 AM

***

Tell me, reader: if you were in jail for two mere assaults with attempt to rob, and you had an undiscovered murder in your recent past, would you be so overcome with an urge to confess to a fellow inmate; or, might you be able to control your guilt long enough to tell it to the prison chaplain at confession the next weekend instead? Just curious....

With people like these in our jury pools, is anyone really surprised that DNA evidence is overturning jury convictions in this country on practically a weekly basis? (HINT: I'm not!)

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 25, 2008 1:15 AM

***

D.K.H.:

If I were in jail on assault charges with a recent murder in my past, the wheels would certainly be coming off my life. But I wouldn't be in that position because I live a happy, healthy life. A sexual predator is not right in the head, so let's not try applying logic to his thinking.

All I'm saying is that you said there was "NO CREDIBLE BASIS for Ingmar Guandique to be considered a suspect in the first place." (emphasis added) I think that's terribly short-sighted. So, yeah, I'd be happy to have someone like me in the jury pool. Why? Because I'm open minded. Does that mean I'm ready to convict based on the circumstantial evidence we've been provided in a series of true-crime-novel-style newspaper stories? Certainly not. But I wouldn't completely dismiss him from the list of possibilities as readily as you seem prepared to do.

Here's how I see the list of possibilities shaping up:

1) Chandra Levy (who coincidentally was having a secret affair with a Congressman) went to the park on a nice day to go for a walk and fell victim to random violence, PERHAPS at the hands of Guandique, who had been known to use an M.O. that matches up well with the circumstances in which she was discovered.

2) Chandra went to the park to meet her secret lover and, coincidentally, fell victim to random violence while she was there. Condit is first shocked, then can't believe his "luck" that his "problem" is solved, then reacts poorly to all the suspicion pointed his way.

3) Chandra went to the park to meet her lover and he killed her there. I find this unlikely because, as another post said, politicians always hire someone to do their dirty work. But, because I'm open minded, it's on the list.

4) Chandra was killed elsewhere and dumped in the park, possibly after the cadets had searched the area.

If it's Door Number Four, Condit seems the prime suspect. Doors One or Two -- Guandique is someone worth investigating. Door Number Three, mystery solved.

All in all, the Post series didn't answer much in my mind. I sped through the last chapter just waiting to read that the reporters had found Chandra's missing ring among Guandique's belongings. Alas, there was no such Perry Mason moment. The series is primarily a compelling rewrite of the archives.

Posted by: A reader | July 25, 2008 11:26 AM

In reading the series, the one fact that surprised and jumped out at me was that it sounds like no dogs were used to search for Chandra's body. If the detectives who missed the body while searching Rock Creek park were as close as they say, I believe a dog (cadaver or search) would have picked up the scent.

Posted by: nyc | July 25, 2008 12:18 PM

In God, there's only left or right, left, you're to be dismissed into eternal doom; right, you're in the world to come with prize deposited there already for you to enjoy forever, so, are you with the Condit side or the other side? that's your choice, there's almost no return from that, for the Judgment date is close at hand.

God said that Condit is doomed in this case from the beginning, at that moment, some were arguing that no body were found, how could there be a murder for sure? but then, the body surfaced as predated perfectly months/years ahead of time, for this party and/or for that party;

confounded there or not? not your choice, since God had condemned the disbelief from the get-going, & what was in your heart there & then?

Don't wait until situation demand a faster than spin-the-neck speed to consult a psychic, for God is right around the corner, closer than you think, for you to take His Advice than your own devices.

Other things like the no-conscience/preposterous reactions of Condit to that situation, and the sudden foolishness of his staffs to mess the public with fake/ or no-follow-up at all itinerary of Condit during those crucial dates and hours, needless for me to list all those fuzzy sloppiness involved around Condit during those frenzy days/months without giving deference to God and His Messages that Condit was the mastermind behind this murder.

For they thought, no way can I take that at your Word solely for life/death situation like this; well, some took My Word before 911, and they survived the twin-tower falls at that very date, not life/death situation here, you think? there're agents overheard My Words and put the options on those Airlines stocks, windfalls scored for them thereon, not my suggestion, though.

NASA contractors dismissed FBI's secretly obtained Message of Mine that Columbia Shuttle left wing front-near-tube panel shall doom that flight over reentry Californian sky, and what do you think they learned from that arrogance to the Face of God?

Now you know that many many more things like that happened in these past 7 years of Revelations from the Almighty God of Hosts, in all those Prophecies, do you think that they were faced with the same arrogance as the first few ones?

Not exactly, right?

People learn to comply with God, albeit some were quicker, some slower; what about Condit? did he learn it yet? I do hope so.

FBI/CIA/DHS, they learned faster each day gone by, that's why they knew in their spirit that Condit was the murderer; and thus the Newspaper and the TV commentator were helped out, for no judge will ever favorably support a 'defamation' lawsuit from the Condit party from then on.

Not only that, if Condit is not brought to justice for his crimes, there's consequence to come upon this land of God, thus said the Lord of Hosts, swiftly and overwhelmingly.

Make your choice now, says God the Almighty, Condit? of the well-being of US in general?

And God told them years ahead of time about the 512 China Sichuan Earthquake to the date/hour/minute exactly, and the Richter Scale, of course; so, guess now what will happen next, US?

The ball is in your court, US, says God

Posted by: liuda | July 25, 2008 12:56 PM

Kate wrote: "Does anyone have an hour by hour schedule of Condit's whereabouts from the end of April through the first week of May? I would assume the police could have easily compiled this information shortly after Chandra's disappearance."
******

Kate, It's in chapter Alibi in Murder on a Horse Trail. You can google it to read it.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 25, 2008 1:00 PM

A Reader,
You have done a nice job laying out the 4 most likely scenarios.
A 5th remote possibility is that she died in an accidental manner, in contradiction with the ME's conclusion of homicide. I believe she died as a result of random violence, probably strangled with her own pants. IG may be the killer, but I doubt it. He rates plenty of suspicion, but there's no evidence to convict him. Perhaps the series will spur someone with evidence to come forward.

Posted by: SJ | July 25, 2008 1:12 PM

.

Posted by: liuda | July 25, 2008 1:15 PM

It's bad enough that we have had to put up with the obvious bias of RD and DKH and now we have this other fruitcake "Liuda"! The WP did an outstanding job of presenting the facts in this case and should be commended. I would love to believe that Condit was responsible for Chandra's murder but there is no evidence to show that. I do think that because of his holier than thou attitude about himself that he impeded the investigation. If the Wash PD could have eliminated him as a suspect earlier then they could have concentrated more on suspects like Guandique. On the other hand the evidence against Guandique is substantial. I would not be surprised if they find Chandra'a pinkie ring in the future and trace it back to him. As for RD and DKH it is o.k. for them to offer their opinions on this case but they do not accept opposing views very well. We all have opinions and should be allowed to express them in this format. Hopefully when this series is over Rd will go back to writing fiction and DKH will continue to chase ambulances!

Posted by: dlg358 | July 25, 2008 1:30 PM

The most important thing a newspaper has is credibility. So reporters must get the facts right. Reporters in this series repeatedly refer to the location of IG's attack on Shilling as an isolated trail. This is false. That trail is one of the most popular and well-graded, unpaved trails in Rock Creek Park. I have been running this trail every other day since 2001. There has never been a day when I didn't meet another walker/jogger on the trail, just as Shilling did when two other joggers stopped to help her get to the Park Police station. It's like saying Beach Drive is isolated. Scenic, yes. Isolated, no. Not believable. My main problem with this series is that I don't trust the reporters. They are not presenting unbiased facts. They have broken the most basic don'ts of journalism 101 by using assumptions that lead to logical fallacies, such as this non sequitur: It's a beautiful sunny day, so Chandra went for a walk in the park. Reporters- no one can substantiate that Chandra ever walked in Rock Creek Park prior to May 1. Stop presenting fallacies as truth. You can report an assumption, but qualify it as an assumption! This is sloppy reporting. Therefore, your conclusion is unbelievable.

Posted by: K | July 25, 2008 1:31 PM

I couldn't agree more, and couldn't have said it as well.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 25, 2008 1:35 PM

Thanks for the kind words, SJ. Good call on the fifth possibility. There are probably other scenarios, as well. Sadly, we may never know the truth about what happend that day or how Chandra died. I finally watched the Post's video of the Levy family last night. I feel so bad for them.

I think everyone can agree this was a tragedy.

Posted by: A reader | July 25, 2008 1:52 PM

***

Poteat is a hero. So are Wiegand and Shilling, who got Guandique off the streets.

If the police had just followed the facts, they'd have been led to Guandique's belongings in time to find physical evidence.

Clearly as well a smart prosecutor like Poteat would have immediately assigned bilingual detectives to the case.

Great series by WAPO helping investigate this case.

I hope there's something prosecutors can do to go after Guandique who is the likeliest culprit in this case. He was offhandedly pursued from the start.

Just follow the facts ...

Posted by: eeave | July 25, 2008 10:45 AM

***

What facts do you have? Assuming facts not in evidence-- like your Fantasyland forensic evidence from Ingmar Guandique's belongings (which were simply left behind by him, by the way), or your Fantasyland testimony from Spanish-speaking witnesses-- do not count in a court of law.

Do you have any evidence to corroborate Joe Green's claim? If Ingmar Guandique actually did confess, on July 2, 2001, to having seen Chandra Levy in the park on one occasion in the spring of 2001 (as her real murderer surely would not have done!), and of having found her attractive, no less, do you have any rational explanation why Detective Green committed malfeasance by not stating so to anyone until several years later, after he was retired, when the Washington Post came calling on him? Without corroboration and a rational explanation, this is not admissible evidence; it is hearsay-- and not even very good or credible hearsay, at that.

Do you have any corroboration for the sexual deviant's claim that Ingmar Guandique confessed to him in jail to the killing of Chandra Levy? Did Senor Guandique ever confess this to anyone else, before or since? Did the sexual deviant ever tell anyone else in the jail that Senor Guandique had confessed to a murder, before the sexual deviant went to the authorities-- thus making himself the potential beneficiary of over $200,000 in rewards? Do you have any corroboration at all for even a single detail of the alleged confession? No, all that you have is your baseless supposition that the sexual deviant might have not flunked his F.B.I. polygraph examination, as he very predictably did, if only he had had a bilingual polygrapher rather than an English-speaking polygrapher and a bilingual translator.

What else have you got for us? For instance:

Do you have any eyewitness testimony to Ingmar Guandique's being with Chandra Levy on May Day 2001-- or ever, come to that?

Do you have any eyewitness testimony to Senor Guandique's hanging around Rock Creek Park on that May Day afternoon?

Do you have any forensic evidence tying Senor Guandique to the actual site where Ms. Levy's remains were discovered over a year later?

Do you have either forensic or eyewitness evidence to prove that Ms. Levy was actually murdered in the park, over a year before her remains turned up there, as opposed to her remains' simply being dumped or planted there at some point in the interim?

Do you have any explanation for why no one ever smelled Chandra Levy's decomposing body-- including the contingent of cadets that came quite close to the site where Ms. Levy's remains were finally discovered, a mere twelve weeks after her disappearance?

Do you have any eyewitnesses to Chandra Levy's being in Rock Creek Park on May Day 2001-- or ever, come to that?

Do you have any eyewitnesses who saw Chandra Levy on her way to Rock Creek Park that May Day afternoon-- a taxi driver, a bus driver, fellow passengers on the Metro train, other pedestrians on the sidewalk, anyone at all, anywhere?

Do you have anyone who was told by Chandra Levy that she was planning to go to the park that day-- or any other day-- to run, or to take a walk, or to do whatever else?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever linking Ingmar Guandique to Chandra Levy's missing items-- her apartment key, her gold pinky ring with her initials on it, her gold bracelet from Gary Condit?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Ingmar Guandique has ever killed anyone-- anywhere, by any means, for any reason-- other than the aforementioned claim of the sexual deviant, who now is serving a life sentence in a federal penitentiary for armed sexual abuse of another Washington woman?

You have very little evidence at all-- just a polygraph-flunking sexual deviant and a retired United States Park Police detective with an extraordinarily bad and selective memory, to go along with his mindlessly bad judgment and sense of duty-- and no credible evidence whatsoever.

If you really want to make a case against Ingmar Guandique, try to get the F.B.I. to run touch-DNA testing on Chandra Levy's running togs and Aiwa cassette player. If the F.B.I. can credibly claim that Senor Guandique's DNA is all over those items-- especially the running shoe and the stretch pants, which the killer presumably pulled off, utilizing the latter to strangle and fatally asphyxiate Ms. Levy-- then the petty, incompetent and scaredycat thief, Ingmar Guandique, will have some 'splainin' to do!?!

Chandra Levy's Avenging Angel, the "haunted" Sari Horwitz, can manufacture and manipulate whatever "expert" opinion she wishes in her attempt to portray Ingmar Guandique as a would-be serial killer operating in Rock Creek Park-- leaving out all of the facts, details, theories, explanations and opinions that run contrary to her vicarious vendetta on behalf of the Levy family. What she and her confederates have amassed in this series would be either thrown out or simply laughed out of court at the preliminary-hearing stage.

As for you and your ilk, you really should go back to watching "Law & Order" and "C.S.I.: Wherever" reruns-- because, when it comes to the real world of crime and law enforcement, you do not have a bloody clue! Come to think of it, neither do the police: no blood stains and no knife holes on and in, respectively, Chandra Levy's final wardrobe selections!?! Now, how the heck do you and your sexual deviant explain that inconvenient little anomaly?

D.K.H., B.A., M.S., M.B.A., J.D.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 25, 2008 1:55 PM

Chandra may have carried lipstick on her trip to the park to use as sunscreen/lip balm. My wife uses lipstick that way all the time.

Posted by: LarryH | July 25, 2008 1:57 PM

One telling item: Ingmar did state to police that he had seen Chandra in the park, but had nothing to do with her... this statement was made in the context of his stories about the other women he is known to have attacked. "She bumped into me while running, and then we fell off the path". He may have been trying to set up some defense. I'd prefer if they showed him some pictures of randoms and he had said he never saw them (sort of a reverse line up), but for him to say that he saw Chandra means something for sure.

Also DKH if you're looking for an eyewitness to Chandra being in the park there you go.

Posted by: huggie | July 25, 2008 3:03 PM

***

Tell me, reader: if you were in jail for two mere assaults with attempt to rob, and you had an undiscovered murder in your recent past, would you be so overcome with an urge to confess to a fellow inmate; or, might you be able to control your guilt long enough to tell it to the prison chaplain at confession the next weekend instead? Just curious....

With people like these in our jury pools, is anyone really surprised that DNA evidence is overturning jury convictions in this country on practically a weekly basis? (HINT: I'm not!)

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 25, 2008 1:15 AM

***

D.K.H.:

If I were in jail on assault charges with a recent murder in my past, the wheels would certainly be coming off my life. But I wouldn't be in that position because I live a happy, healthy life. A sexual predator is not right in the head, so let's not try applying logic to his thinking.

All I'm saying is that you said there was "NO CREDIBLE BASIS for Ingmar Guandique to be considered a suspect in the first place." (emphasis added) I think that's terribly short-sighted. So, yeah, I'd be happy to have someone like me in the jury pool. Why? Because I'm open minded. Does that mean I'm ready to convict based on the circumstantial evidence we've been provided in a series of true-crime-novel-style newspaper stories? Certainly not. But I wouldn't completely dismiss him from the list of possibilities as readily as you seem prepared to do.

***

Posted by: A reader | July 25, 2008 11:26 AM

***

***

How priceless! You are a happy and healthy person, but a sexual predator is not right in his head; so, a happy and healthy person such as you need not bother to construct a rational theory of his irrational behavior.

It is a nifty little try at an evasion, but it happens to be patently untrue. There is no evidence that so-called sexual predators as a category of felons are irrational, let alone insane. If they were, they would be a lot easier to catch, a lot more quickly and more often, than they are.

As for your top choice for sexual predator, Ingmar Guandique, no one has presented any proof that I am aware of that he has ever committed a sexual offense, let alone that he is a sexual predator (however loosely you and Sari Horwitz might choose to define that ill-defined epithet-- which is now on a par with "terrorist" in replacing "communist" as the thing-not-to-be in contemporary America).

He did not rape, sexually assault, sexually abuse, fondle, kiss, nor whatever else, the two women that he mugged. Their subjective fears of what he might have been about to do to them are beside the point. Those fears do not make him a rapist, any more than their reasonable fears for their lives under those harrowing circumstances make Senor Guandique a murderer or attempted murderer. He is neither. He mugged them both, and then he fled from both, empty-handed, save for his own knife-- and not even because he was being pursued, but merely because they were being resistant and noisy. He is in prison now for two failed assaults with intent to rob, not for any sexual offenses.

If you believe that Chandra Levy was slain by a sexual predator, then you ought to go out and find yourself one, instead of just labeling someone like Ingmar Guandique, who has no history of sexual assault, a sexual predator, merely because he presents a very convenient scapegoat for the zealous Sari Horwitz and her confederates.

I have not dismissed Ingmar Guandique as a potential suspect; I have dismissed all of the supposed evidence so far adduced against him! His living near Rock Creek Park is not evidence of his killing Chandra Levy. His having mugged two women later on, neither of whom he sexually assaulted nor murdered, is not evidence of his killing Chandra Levy. The fact that he once bit and punched his then-girlfriend, Iris Portillo (who, as I had mentioned earlier, although this series has not, does not believe Senor Guandique to be guilty of killing anyone), is not evidence that he killed Chandra Levy.

The only evidence tying Ingmar Guandique to Chandra Levy is that of the convicted armed sexual abuser and the exceedingly derelict former Detective Joe Green. Neither's claim is credible, for reasons that I have already carefully, logically, and fulsomely explicated upon several occasions-- leaving ZERO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE [emphasis mine, in the here and now] against Senor Guandique, to date, that would tie him to Chandra Levy.

Bring me Senor Guandique's touch DNA on Ms. Levy's running togs, and then I will be happy to talk to you again about credible evidence. In the meantime, do not presume that your hunches that Ingmar Guandique is the type of bad man who would do bad things to good women like Chandra Levy is credible evidence creating probable cause against him in her presumed slaying.

(DNA, by the way, is "mere" circumstantial evidence, while the convicted armed sexual abuser's claim-- like the confession of John Mark Karr in the JonBenet Ramsey case-- is direct evidence! The criminal law makes no inherent distinction as to the nature of the evidence, be it direct or circumstantial; it is the quality of the evidence that triers of fact, be they judges or juries, are to consider and evaluate in reaching their judgments and verdicts as to whether a case has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution, not the nature of the evidence as either direct or circumstantial.)

D.K.H., B.A., M.S., M.B.A., J.D.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 25, 2008 3:30 PM

I am astonished that you removed the photo of Chandra Levy's bone for "reasons of taste" when your site has photos of the dead bodies of Chinese earthquake victims and undoubtedly countless other similar pictures. Is Ms. Levy's single bone less tasteful than the body of a Chinese boy? Is it because she is an American? Or because we feel as if we know her, while the dead in other countries seem anonymous to us? I'm curious to hear more about your thinking behind the removal of the photo.

Posted by: Lori | July 25, 2008 3:43 PM

I read the whole comments section, and it was a good read (except for the totally off topic posts like the ones about Hillary, Obama, and God).

Strange how many people object to the WP doing this story.

This was always an fascinating, inside the Beltway, crime. Too bad the police totally botched it. Too bad Condit was such a conniving, concieted, blowhard. Condit should spend time in prison for LYING to the authorities just like Martha Stewart.

Posted by: Mike in Portland | July 25, 2008 4:24 PM

Thanks for the kind words, SJ. Good call on the fifth possibility. There are probably other scenarios, as well. Sadly, we may never know the truth about what happend that day or how Chandra died. I finally watched the Post's video of the Levy family last night. I feel so bad for them.

I think everyone can agree this was a tragedy.

Posted by: A reader | July 25, 2008 1:52 PM
____________________________

A reader,
I agree with you, my heart goes out to the Levy family, and it's sad because it seems as though they may never find the killer to give this family some closure of their daughter's killer being brought to justice.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 25, 2008 4:29 PM

***

One telling item: Ingmar did state to police that he had seen Chandra in the park, but had nothing to do with her... this statement was made in the context of his stories about the other women he is known to have attacked. "She bumped into me while running, and then we fell off the path". He may have been trying to set up some defense. I'd prefer if they showed him some pictures of randoms and he had said he never saw them (sort of a reverse line up), but for him to say that he saw Chandra means something for sure.

Also DKH if you're looking for an eyewitness to Chandra being in the park there you go.

Posted by: huggie | July 25, 2008 3:03 PM

***

Where do I go, huggie? Ingmar Guandique has consistently denied that he ever saw Chandra Levy anywhere-- other than on television, after her story broke. The claim by former United States Park Police Detective Joe Green apparently materialized relatively recently, when the Washington Post started to re-research the Chandra Levy case for this series.

It has presented no evidence that Joe Green ever made this claim in the wake of Ingmar Guandique's arrest and interrogation at the beginning of July 2001, not even during the search of Rock Creek Park seven years ago today, nor during the federal interrogation on which Detective Joe Green sat in, during which Senor Guandique denied that he had ever seen Ms. Levy other than on television, subsequent to her disappearance. Detective Green just sat there and neither corrected nor challenged Ingmar Guandique's claim. I have harangued on this point here several times already, huggie. It is why I do not credit Joe Green's current account, and do not consider it credible evidence of Ingmar Guandique's involvement in Chandra Levy's disappearance and death.

Detective Joe Green's claim is used by the Washington Post to attempt circumstantially to incriminate Ingmar Guandique-- although, even the former detective does not claim that Senor Guandique admitted to having seen Chandra Levy on May Day 2001, nor to have approached her or had any contact with her whatsoever, other than eye contact-- yet, tellingly, the series cites no corroboration whatsoever for Detective Green's exceedingly belated and convenient claim.

There were supposedly two fellow United States Park Police officers with him when he interviewed Ingmar Guandique, including a translator. Neither is cited to corroborate the account of Senor Guandique's admission as to Ms. Levy. This question was explicitly posed by me to the reporters before their question-and-answer installment here in the Reporters' Notebook section-- and that very crucial question of whether the translator had been questioned about this crucial claim went unanswered. Neither of those two other officers was named, nor apparently quoted in this series on any topic whatsoever; of the three, only the retired Joe Green has been featured in this series. You may draw your own inferences....

Tell me, though, huggie: If you were picked up for a failed mugging in the park, and you had murdered someone in that park exactly two months earlier, but the body had never been discovered, even though the victim's disappearance had since become a national sensation, and then you were shown a picture of the missing victim and asked if you had ever seen her before, would you admit to it, knowing that she had been a random stranger, and that there was no one and nothing that could possibly tie you to her, unless they eventually discovered her decomposing body, deep in the woods, and somehow came up with DNA or other forensic evidence to tie you to the corpse? I certainly would not. Or, do you suppose, like a reader above, that you would be irrational by definition if you ever assaulted and murdered a woman, and thus beyond any logical self-preservation?

If you believe that Ingmar Guandique would have been crafting a defense by admitting to having seen a total stranger that he had chosen to mug and kill, I cannot begin to follow the logic of where that leads...!?!?!

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 25, 2008 4:30 PM

I read the whole comments section, and it was a good read (except for the totally off topic posts like the ones about Hillary, Obama, and God).

Strange how many people object to the WP doing this story.

This was always an fascinating, inside the Beltway, crime. Too bad the police totally botched it. Too bad Condit was such a conniving, concieted, blowhard. Condit should spend time in prison for LYING to the authorities just like Martha Stewart.

Posted by: Mike in Portland | July 25, 2008 4:24 PM
____________________________

Mike in Portland,

I agree with you on the comment you made abut Condit should serve time in jail for all of the lies that he has told, and for also asking someone else to lie by signing a affadavit to help cover his lies.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 25, 2008 4:32 PM

Can God have a say in this case?

if He does, what do you expect Him to say about what He knew about Condit and his criminal backgrounds?

off topic? think again.

Posted by: liuda | July 25, 2008 4:36 PM

Chandra was not packed and ready to go home. That was a major league error by the DC police. Reporters appear uninterested in correcting that misperception foisted on the public.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 25, 2008 7:57 AM
_______________________

rd,

How do you know that Chandra was not packed and ready to return home? Can you share this information?

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 25, 2008 4:50 PM

This story finds a lot of things pointing toward Guandique, but the one thing that throws some dirt over that is that Guandique passed, and the informant failed, polygraph tests. That translators were needed for the tests is mentioned.

Has the Post given or considered giving the informant a polygraph test in Spanish?

Posted by: Chris | July 25, 2008 4:56 PM

Re: the allegation that Condit may have paid $25,000 to have Levy killed - do you know if investigators have subpoenaed Condit's financial records to see if he made any kind of large cash withdrawals or money transfers around the time of Levy's disapperance?

Posted by: Matt D | July 25, 2008 6:14 AM
__________________________

Matt D,

Maybe the article cited below can somewhat answer your question about Condit's monies.

Discovery May Alter Questions For Condit; Police Await Results Of Forensic Tests
The Washington Post - Washington, D.C.
Author: Allan Lengel
Date: May 24, 2002

The site where [Chandra Levy]'s remains were found -- in an area of Rock Creek Park near the Klingle Mansion, a park landmark that Levy looked up on her computer the day she vanished -- gives investigators a new list of questions for [Gary Condit], several legal analysts said.

The grand jury has been looking into allegations that Condit obstructed justice by trying to persuade flight attendant Anne Marie Smith to lie to investigators about an alleged affair between the two and by trying to discard a watch box in Alexandria several hours before investigators searched his apartment. Condit was given the watch by a former girlfriend, according to law enforcement sources.

In addition to searching Condit's Adams Morgan apartment, authorities subpoenaed his phone, bank and credit card records early in the probe. In November, the grand jury subpoenaed records from Condit's congressional office, including telephone message slips, calendars and constituent mail.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But I didn't find any other articles following up with the outcome of what was found after his belongings were subpoenaed.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 25, 2008 4:57 PM

Week 12 Update

There are, however, two pieces of physical evidence that police have never found. A set of keys to Chandra's apartment, and one of her favorite pieces of jewelry: a 14-karat gold pinkie ring. It's inscribed with Chandra's initials, "CL," and framed by two diamond chips. Either one of the items could tie a killer to the crime.
___________________________________

I wonder what ever happened in regards to Chandra getting a key made, and what information if any did the police follow up with John Woodfolk in regards to the key purchase. I thought I would share the article cited below referencing Chandra's purchase of a key.
_________________________________

Recruits Finish Search Of D.C. Woods for Levy; Clerk Says He Sold Intern Keys After April 30
The Washington Post - Washington, D.C.
Author: Allan Lengel and Arthur Santana
Date: Aug 1, 2001

John Woodfolk, who works at W.J. Candey Hardware Inc. in the 1200 block of 18th Street NW, said a woman came into the shop one morning in early May. Woodfolk, 60, said he came to think the woman was [Chandra Levy] after he later saw fliers posted in the neighborhood that bore her picture.

The disappearance of Levy, 24, has attracted worldwide attention, in large part because of her connection to Rep. Gary A. Condit. The California Democrat, who represents Levy's home town of Modesto, acknowledged in the third of his four interviews with police investigating the case that he had a romantic relationship with Levy, sources familiar with the meeting said.

Officials at the store, which is close to Levy's health club, said yesterday that they were still trying to discern how the woman paid for the keys. Police have said Levy's credit cards have not been used since April 30.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 25, 2008 5:04 PM

Was it not relevant to mention that Elisa Poteat is married to former FBI agent Brad Garrett? Seems like an interesting coincidence ...

Posted by: SMK | July 25, 2008 5:09 PM

Does anybody know what day and possibly the time that Chandra cancelled her gym memebership?

ThankU!

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 25, 2008 5:16 PM

***

"The Levys lent the bracelet to me and Sari and we showed it to Zamsky earlier this year. She said she is certain that it's the same one Chandra showed her seven years ago. So the bracelet was never missing -- police had it in their evidence locker the entire time.

"There are, however, two pieces of physical evidence that police have never found. A set of keys to Chandra's apartment, and one of her favorite pieces of jewelry: a 14-karat gold pinkie ring. It's inscribed with Chandra's initials, "CL," and framed by two diamond chips. Either one of the items could tie a killer to the crime.

"We're nearing the end of the series. Sunday we'll publish the epilogue and we'll also have more to say here in this blog. Thanks for reading and for posting your excellent comments and suggestions."

-- Scott Higham

***

A young woman is apparently assaulted and murdered in a public park. She was either out jogging or simply walking; but, either way, she had chosen to leave behind all of her identification. It turns out that only two things are eventually believed to have been taken from the victim, presumably by her killer: her set of keys and a gold, diamond-encrusted, initialed pinkie ring.

Question: Why would someone, under those circumstances, steal the victim's keys?

There is no identification to point that someone to either a dwelling or a car which could be burgled or, in the latter case, stolen outright. Yet, possessing the keys themselves would be highly incriminating evidence, seemingly connecting the person possessing the keys to the victim's murder-- a highly unnecessary risk to endure for no conceivable gain, but merely as a memento of the occasion.

That is, of course, if the killer did not know the victim. If the killer did know the victim, the killer might have reasons of his or her own to take the keys from the victim, whether that was also as a mere memento, or whether there was a desire to possess the keys for some more practical reason. It is also conceivable that the victim possessed a key that the killer wished not merely to possess, but to repossess!?! Hmmmm....

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 25, 2008 5:30 PM

And it appeared as if Ann Marie Smith was afraid of Gary Condit. I wonder why...what about him was she afraid of.

Was there any information regarding the other woman he had that he rode all the way to Virginia to dispose a watch box of the watch she gave him?

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 25, 2008 5:45 PM

could the missing ring have been taken as a personal memento by the killer? Another thing is the initials on the ring are slightly identifying. Two things: she wasn't to bring id with her when out with Condit. The ring is a slight thing but could it have been a problem for Condit? Would he have ever asked her not to wear it? And the theory of taking the keys to "repossess" another key as DKH said seems very plausible. Too bad the tapes were not viewed in a timely manner.

Posted by: Siren | July 25, 2008 5:46 PM

If I recall correctly Chandra had partially packed, or unpacked, bags in her apartment. Since Condit's wife was coming to town, Chandra might likely have moved her clothes out of Condit's bedroom closet and moved them back to hers. so when the police saw her bags in the apartment they may incorrectly have assumed she was packing to leave as opposed to unpacking a few things brought over from Condit's apartment.

Posted by: siren | July 25, 2008 5:59 PM

I left off another thought about the key she may have had made April 30. Is it possible she had a duplicate key for Condits apartment made after moving her things out. I guess i may be assuming he broke things off with her and asked for his key back, perhaps she wanted a copy just in case. Its a stretch.

Posted by: Siren | July 25, 2008 6:02 PM

K posted that the reporters wrote, "It's a beautiful sunny day, so Chandra went for a walk in the park". He says that no one can substantiate that Chandra ever walked in Rock Creek Park prior to May 1. Her computer also revealed that someone had looked up the weather conditions and information about the park on a page that included the nature center, trails, etc.

Why do we need to think this part of her regular habits? This was an unusual day for her. She was just about to fly back home to California. She suddenly no longer had a job. Her lover, who she had spent so much time with to the exclusion of having friends, was with his wife for a few days. It's not unbelievable that she would look for something to do that she hadn't had time to do before (e.g. visit a museum, go for a run or walk in the park, etc.). Her remains were found with running shoes, a running bra, a walkman, and pants (running pants?). Her family said she loved nature. On her computer was evidence of checking the weather and things to do at Rock Creek Park.

Chris posted that Guandique passed, but that the informant failed, polygraph tests. No, the informant failed only two questions in the whole story about what he claimed Guandique had confessed to (Guandique leaving a knife in the body, and Condit paying Guandique $25,000 to kill Chandra). Guandique passed the lie detector, which is inexplicable if you trust that the lie detector worked right on the informant - but apparently suspects should never be excluded based ONLY on lie detector results.

Posted by: NDvege | July 25, 2008 6:15 PM

***

Chris posted that Guandique passed, but that the informant failed, polygraph tests. No, the informant failed only two questions in the whole story about what he claimed Guandique had confessed to (Guandique leaving a knife in the body, and Condit paying Guandique $25,000 to kill Chandra). Guandique passed the lie detector, which is inexplicable if you trust that the lie detector worked right on the informant - but apparently suspects should never be excluded based ONLY on lie detector results.

Posted by: NDvege | July 25, 2008 6:15 PM

***

What polygraph questions do you think that the convicted armed sexual abuser answered truthfully, aside from the irrelevant ones? What is your source for those questions and for his having passed them as truthful?

A polygraph examiner limits the number of questions that he asks a subject during an examination, and most of the questions that are asked are irrelevant to what is being investigated; those questions simply are used to determine the subject's baseline autonomic responses to the stress of just being asked questions in the setting at all. The results on the relevant questions are then compared to those on the baseline questions.

It is true that someone generally should not be dismissed as a suspect based simply upon the result of a polygraph exam, since the polygraph machine is far from an infallible device in terms of translating autonomic responses into judgments of veracity. In the instant case, however, you have to keep one fact in mind: the only reason that Ingmar Guandique was asked to take a polygraph examination-- the only reason that he had suddenly become a suspect at all in the Chandra Levy disappearance-- was because of the ludicrous "confession" that the convicted armed sexual abuser came forward with late that summer of 2001!

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 25, 2008 6:55 PM

Great job on this. Love the daily serial format, I've looked forward to reading each installment. Pulitzer-worthy.

Posted by: mvoc | July 25, 2008 7:10 PM

To SJ and A Reader
How about the senario of an accidental death as a result of an argument followed by a cover-up by at least two and maybe more people?
Follow the timeline for Levy's final seven days, as is detailed in the chapter "Big News" in rd's book. Levy's mood swings, especially about her condo and the future with the boyfriend as well as her indecision about travel plans are well cited. Add in the mystery telephone call from Cedes to GC's condo.
Now suppose that on May 29, Levy gets a call from GC for a meeting in the afternoon of May 1st. Now, she is unsure about her move-out date and has "big news" to tell her aunt.
On May 1, Levy arrives at the location of the meeting (GC's condo, RC Park, who knows where), but is met by a different Condit than she expected. An argument follows and somehow, at the end, Levy is dead.
Everything that follows, from a trip to Luray to the evasions by GC to the disasterous Connie Chung interview falls into line. A coverup was begun and unraveled just as we have witnessed others.
PS: One can't rule out Guandique entirely - after all the iceberg did find the TITANIC.

Posted by: Big T | July 25, 2008 7:16 PM

Well, Guandique was said to have confessed mid-September to the jailhouse informer. Why didn't prosecutors or DC police suspect him before that? Guandique hadn't even confessed (to a PARK Police detective) to having seen Chandra in the park until July 2. The Park Police detective then did not tell anyone, nor did he even put this information in his report. So why is it so significant that neither the prosecutors nor the DC police had suspected him until the jailhouse informant incident in September?

What "source" do I have for the informant only failing two questions? I am not a reporter or detective. I'm just a reader. I don't have sources. But, in 'Chapter 10, A Jailhouse Informant' it says, "On Nov. 28, the informant, who spoke little English, took a polygraph exam at the U.S. attorney's office. He failed it. The results of the FBI-administered test showed that the informant was 'deceptive' when he answered yes to two questions: Did Guandique tell you he stabbed Chandra Levy? And did Guandique tell you he received $25,000 from a congressman for stabbing Chandra Levy?" The reporters don't give us any indication that these were the only two questions the informant was asked concerning Guandique.

Posted by: NDvege | July 25, 2008 7:32 PM

Big T, it seems like the "big news" that Chandra said on the voicemail that she had for her aunt was that Condit had finally said that he would divorce his wife, marry Chandra, and start new family. Isn't that what Chandra told a friend at the same time?

Posted by: NDvege | July 25, 2008 7:39 PM

Correction: should be April 29...

Posted by: Big T | July 25, 2008 8:59 PM

***

Well, Guandique was said to have confessed mid-September to the jailhouse informer. Why didn't prosecutors or DC police suspect him before that? Guandique hadn't even confessed (to a PARK Police detective) to having seen Chandra in the park until July 2. The Park Police detective then did not tell anyone, nor did he even put this information in his report. So why is it so significant that neither the prosecutors nor the DC police had suspected him until the jailhouse informant incident in September?

What "source" do I have for the informant only failing two questions? I am not a reporter or detective. I'm just a reader. I don't have sources. But, in 'Chapter 10, A Jailhouse Informant' it says, "On Nov. 28, the informant, who spoke little English, took a polygraph exam at the U.S. attorney's office. He failed it. The results of the FBI-administered test showed that the informant was 'deceptive' when he answered yes to two questions: Did Guandique tell you he stabbed Chandra Levy? And did Guandique tell you he received $25,000 from a congressman for stabbing Chandra Levy?" The reporters don't give us any indication that these were the only two questions the informant was asked concerning Guandique.

Posted by: NDvege | July 25, 2008 7:32 PM

***

The federal government was in charge of prosecuting Ingmar Guandique for his two muggings in Rock Creek Park, which is why he is serving a ten-year sentence in a federal penitentiary. The facts of his two muggings in the park were not some tightly held secret among the Park Police. It was public record as of July 2, 2001. The D.C. police were aware of Ingmar Guandique's assaults long before the convicted armed sexual abuser concocted his story. Neither the D.C. police, nor the United States Park Police, nor the Department of Justice prosecutors considered Ingmar Guandique to be a suspect in the disappearance of Chandra Levy until that preposterous jailhouse confession came to light.

Many people here are arguing that Ingmar Guandique was the obvious suspect simply based on his two assaults-- that those two later assaults were per se evidence of his involvement with the disappearance of Chandra Levy, because she was believed to be heading for the park on May Day afternoon. Yet, none of the several agencies involved considered him to be a suspect prior to mid-September, and they were all aware of his assaults in the park of May 14 and July 1, 2001, for two and a half months by then.

The information that did not go in Detective Joe Green's report was merely the claim that Ingmar Guandique had admitted to having seen Chandra Levy in Rock Creek Park, and having found her attractive, on one undated occasion in the spring of 2001. It does not appear that Joe Green ever made that claim until recently recontacted by the Washington Post; nor has it been stated as corroborated by the other two police officers present at Ingmar Guandique's interrogation on July 2, 2001, nor by anyone else since.

The argument being thrown at me here has been that, even if one discredits both the belated account of Joe Green and the absurd "confession" passed along by the convicted armed sexual abuser, as I discredit them, Ingmar Guandique is still an obvious suspect based simply on the mere facts of his two assaults in Rock Creek Park on May 14 and July 1, 2001. Yet, the various police and prosecutors involved in the Chandra Levy investigation all knew about those assaults since early July, and never considered Senor Guandique to be a suspect in Ms. Levy's disappearance as a result. Only the bogus confession claim in September caused Ingmar Guandique to become a suspect in the Chandra Levy disappearance.

Do you really suppose that if there were some relevant questions posed during the convicted armed sexual abuser's polygraph examination that he answered truthfully about Ingmar Guandique's being involved in killing Chandra Levy that (a) the federal authorities still would have cleared Senor Guandique as they did, simply because he did not knife Chandra Levy, or did not collect $25,000 from Gary Condit; and (b) that Sari Horwitz and her confederates would not have made those truthful answers to relevant questions about Senor Guandique's confession an explicit part of their latter-day "J'accuse!" against him?

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 25, 2008 11:05 PM

It is easy for us to look at this and say that the police blew it. But, I am also wondering what other things they were dealing with at the time that drew the attention of the detectives assigned to the case. Terrorism? The DC Sniper? Antrax? I can't remember all the dates on those things and have no clue if these detectives were overworked, misused, or what bureaucratic stupidity or protocols led them to miss things that we (with hindsight) say were obvious.

Life is not a straight line, especially for "public servants" who are overworked, underpaid, and who are frequently led by people who either started out as idiots or were forced to assume that mantle by elected officials. It all comes down to getting what you pay for.

Posted by: Elizabeth | July 25, 2008 11:39 PM

Question: Why would someone, under those circumstances, steal the victim's keys?

There is no identification to point that someone to either a dwelling or a car which could be burgled or, in the latter case, stolen outright. Yet, possessing the keys themselves would be highly incriminating evidence, seemingly connecting the person possessing the keys to the victim's murder-- a highly unnecessary risk to endure for no conceivable gain, but merely as a memento of the occasion.

That is, of course, if the killer did not know the victim. If the killer did know the victim, the killer might have reasons of his or her own to take the keys from the victim, whether that was also as a mere memento, or whether there was a desire to possess the keys for some more practical reason. It is also conceivable that the victim possessed a key that the killer wished not merely to possess, but to repossess!?! Hmmmm....

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 25, 2008 5:30 PM

ANSWER: Because Guandique is not an intelligent person and does not think like you do. He has stated that he attacked women for their valuables that they were carrying. So if he took their Walkman why would he not take their keys? Would the Walkman not connect him to the murder? And as to Condit (who you do not directly name)taking the keys because maybe one of them is to his apartment or office?Not likely because Condit is somewhat more intelligent that Guandique and would not want to be in possession of anything that connected him to a dead body. It would be a whole lot easier for him to explain why Chandra as a friend and acquaintance had his keys then to be caught with physical evidence. The fact that repeat offenders are on the street to continually prey on innocent people is due to over the top liberal lawyers like DKH.

Posted by: dlg358 | July 25, 2008 11:44 PM

Elizabeth, you speak of the police and other investigators involved as "'public servants' who are overworked, underpaid..." I've rarely met any police officer, or any government worker for that matter, who actually thinks of themselves as a public servant. The notion that they work for us is just not even ever considered.

Police wield incredible power. In addition, the benefits and pension are good and there is excellent job security. They also have very powerful unions that negotiate all sorts of extras, special rights, etc from the government. They get a union lawyer sent to the scene of any shooting, while the rest of us have to struggle to get a lawyer. They get many perks, from the use of squad cars while not at work, to paid vacation each time they are involved in a shooting. Most of their work is just routine and quiet - doing things such as routine patrolling, paperwork, etc. - punctuated with a few moments of danger and excitement. If a rare member of the public is brave enough to ask an officer for his or her name and badge number, or to complain about something, it's not too difficult for the officer to just arrest that person for "disorderly conduct".

Read here about other perks of the profession:

http://www.policeemployment.com/resources/articles/five-best-things

Posted by: NDvege | July 26, 2008 12:47 AM

Just because the the police nor anyone has found Chandra's keys, doesn't mean that they were stolen by the killer. Her gold ring however, is a whole other story. It was taken by the killer.

I agree that Guandique was/is not "an intelligent person. But, he did attack two women. He controlled them, and brought them to the ground. I would like to know if those women thought he was aroused. He didn't steal from them. It would have been very easy for him to rob these women without touching them, without bringing them to the ground, and without them even seeing his face. He choose to jump on them.

However, Guandique was arrested for stealing a ring when he broke into a neighbors house. And Chandra's ring is WAS stolen.

If someone attacks another person, and tries to bring them to the ground, with an open knife in their hand there is no telling what will happen. He may have wounded or killed Chandra in the first few seconds... if he is the murderer.

But the story of Condit trying to buy a hitman off the street and choosing Guandique... is a totally absurd notion. But, I can imagine a fool in jail boasting that. A rapist isn't going to brag about a rape... but a fool in jail might brag that he was a DC hitman, and just doing what he has to do to help his poor family back home.

Why would Guandique pass a lie detector and the snitch fail? It happens. If lie detectors worked they would be in courtrooms.

I don't think that Chandra walked or jogged all her way up to where her body was found. That is a long one way trip through town. Did she take a cab to Klingle Mansion? Did she meet someone for a walk or jog somewhere in the park?

The lipstick is curious? Someone in the thread suggested that it could have been used for sunscreen... but the park is very shady, and blocking the sun isn't an issue... maybe the leaves arent out entirely on May 1st, but unless she walked up Conn Ave she wasn't in the sun that much. I infer from the lipstick that Chandra was going to meet a man. If she was just going to exercise she wouldn't need lipstick... although I know that some gals get hooked on it.

Posted by: 2 + 2 | July 26, 2008 1:25 AM

***

Question: Why would someone, under those circumstances, steal the victim's keys?

There is no identification to point that someone to either a dwelling or a car which could be burgled or, in the latter case, stolen outright. Yet, possessing the keys themselves would be highly incriminating evidence, seemingly connecting the person possessing the keys to the victim's murder-- a highly unnecessary risk to endure for no conceivable gain, but merely as a memento of the occasion.

That is, of course, if the killer did not know the victim. If the killer did know the victim, the killer might have reasons of his or her own to take the keys from the victim, whether that was also as a mere memento, or whether there was a desire to possess the keys for some more practical reason. It is also conceivable that the victim possessed a key that the killer wished not merely to possess, but to repossess!?! Hmmmm....

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 25, 2008 5:30 PM

ANSWER: Because Guandique is not an intelligent person and does not think like you do. He has stated that he attacked women for their valuables that they were carrying. So if he took their Walkman why would he not take their keys? Would the Walkman not connect him to the murder? And as to Condit (who you do not directly name)taking the keys because maybe one of them is to his apartment or office?Not likely because Condit is somewhat more intelligent that Guandique and would not want to be in possession of anything that connected him to a dead body. It would be a whole lot easier for him to explain why Chandra as a friend and acquaintance had his keys then to be caught with physical evidence. The fact that repeat offenders are on the street to continually prey on innocent people is due to over the top liberal lawyers like DKH.

Posted by: dlg358 | July 25, 2008 11:44 PM

***

Neither are you and neither do you, so what is your point?

Chandra Levy did not carry a Walkman; she carried an Aiwa cassette player. The cassette player was not taken; only her keys and pinkie ring were taken.

Do you really suppose that eagle-eyed Ingmar Guandique chose to mug Chandra Levy because he spotted her wearing a pinkie ring-- and then killed her for it? Why did he not kill the later two, one of whom was wearing a much more valuable diamond engagement ring, which was not taken? (He did not take their Walkman units, either; nor anything else.)

If someone took Chandra Levy's keys for a reason, there is very little chance of their being recognized as hers. A key looks like a key to the vast majority of people who might see it, and only someone under suspicion would need to worry about the key giving him or her away as a possible killer.

If someone like Gary Condit retrieved a key to his apartment, how would possessing a spare key to his own apartment incriminate him, in any case? How would anyone know if it had been taken off of a fresh corpse?

We know that Gary Condit tried his damndest to see to it that no one knew about his relationship with Chandra Levy-- both before and after her disappearance. If he were her killer, he would hardly leave a key to his own apartment, or anything else that could tie her to him, on the corpse to be found by the authorities.

Taking the keys, at any rate, does not mean that the keys need to be possessed for more than a matter of minutes, when they can be safely disposed of at some distance, if the person merely does not wish them to be found with the body. (O.J. Simpson, for instance, managed to dispose of the knife that he used to kill two people, somewhere between Gretna Green and Rockingham, and it has never been recovered.)

A stranger has neither a use for the keys nor a need to remove them from the corpse; they are worthless trinkets to the stranger, useful merely as a memento. That, however, would tend to suggest that it was a serial killer; and, there is no credible evidence of a serial killer's involvement in the death of Chandra Levy-- John Walsh's lunatic theory notwithstanding.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 26, 2008 1:25 AM

@DKH
"Do you really suppose that eagle-eyed Ingmar Guandique chose to mug Chandra Levy because he spotted her wearing a pinkie ring-- and then killed her for it? Why did he not kill the later two, one of whom was wearing a much more valuable diamond engagement ring, which was not taken? (He did not take their Walkman units, either; nor anything else.)"

No I believe that it is possible that he attacked Chandra for some perverse sexual reason. Sometime during his attack he killed her. He hid her body, but he took her ring. He may have thrown away the ring before he got out of the woods... just like he could have disposed of the keys.

Posted by: 2 + 2 | July 26, 2008 2:04 AM

@DKH
"Do you really suppose that eagle-eyed Ingmar Guandique chose to mug Chandra Levy because he spotted her wearing a pinkie ring-- and then killed her for it? Why did he not kill the later two, one of whom was wearing a much more valuable diamond engagement ring, which was not taken? (He did not take their Walkman units, either; nor anything else.)"

No I believe that it is possible that he attacked Chandra for some perverse sexual reason. Sometime during his attack he killed her. He hid her body, but he took her ring. He may have thrown away the ring before he got out of the woods... just like he could have disposed of the keys.

Posted by: 2 + 2 | July 26, 2008 2:04 AM
____________________________

DKH,

I wouldn't keep going back and forth with 2 + 2. He/she is entitled to his/her own opinion and you are entitiled to yours. Because even if you knew for sure who did what, people are going to have their opinion regardless.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 26, 2008 2:38 AM

If I recall correctly Chandra had partially packed, or unpacked, bags in her apartment. Since Condit's wife was coming to town, Chandra might likely have moved her clothes out of Condit's bedroom closet and moved them back to hers. so when the police saw her bags in the apartment they may incorrectly have assumed she was packing to leave as opposed to unpacking a few things brought over from Condit's apartment.

Posted by: siren | July 25, 2008 5:59 PM
___________________________________

Which would also explain the possibility of the dirty clothing in the bag on the counter top. She may have been unpacking after leaving from Condit's apartment.

Also, I keep reading about a cab she had taken, is that a theory or did someone read about her taking a cab?

And I too agree that if Guandique was going to rob someone, he definitely would have taken the expensive engagement ring before or after killing one of the females he attacked.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 26, 2008 2:49 AM

Big T,
What do you mean a 'different Condit' may have met her at the rendezvous point?

Rape or Robbery?
I infer from his MO that IG intended to rape the two women joggers, because he jumped them and tried to subdue them. If it was merely robbery, he would have threatened them with the knife, told them to hand over their valuables, and run like hell. I think the women would have complied. A robber doesn't want to waste time wrestling. Also, he did not try to hide his identity with bandana, hood, or hat, as most muggers would do.

What happened to the keys?
It's possible Chandra used the keys to defend herself. Put them between your fingers and swipe at someone and you can do more damage than a bare fisted punch. Maybe she had pepper spray on her key ring. If the keys were used as a defensive weapon, the killer might have wrestled them away from Chandra. If he did, then he could have thrown them away, possibly in the waters of the creek itself.

Posted by: SJ | July 26, 2008 5:53 AM

Hey, DKH:

I see you've shifted your position from "no credible basis" for ever suspecting Guandique in the first place to now saying "I have not dismissed Ingmar Guandique as a potential suspect." I'm pleased to see you're now keeping an open mind.

SJ:
I believe Big T suspects Mrs. Condit was involved in Chandra's murder. That's not my favorite theory, but sure, put it on the list.

Posted by: A Reader | July 26, 2008 8:03 AM

Great series, despite what some of the lunatics posting here have been saying (a guy who wrote a book he couldn't sell and a long-winded nutjob who feels the need to list his non-impressive educational pedigree? Good lord people....).

I'm anxious to read the epilogue merely to contain my total outrage regarding this case.

- IG obviously talked to the WaPo reporters, but is he (ie, his lawyer) willing to take another polygraph based on the speculation coming from this newspaper account?

- What about the circumstances about the other inmate's polygraph? We're simply told he was never contacted again.

- Given the introduction of the new and enthusiastic spanish-speaking lawyer Poteat (sic?), is something being done on these accounts?

- Note that on this point, one can only assume that it would be near-impossible to get a judge to agree to issue a subpoena(s) for new polys. I do believe that under questioning by a highly trained specialist, and despite given time to "get his story straight", IG's probably not smart enough to outwit anyone.

- Was the person who destroyed/discarded IG's bags of belongings charged with obstruction of justice? If evidence was to be had, surely it would have been in there.

- Lastly, barring an out and out confession or the above mentioned evidence, we're not bound to find the murderer.


Thanks WaPo

Posted by: anonymouse | July 26, 2008 9:24 AM

I would be interested in the perspective of a specialist regarding the likelihood that IG killed (at least) CL, and then weeks later assaulted (but did not kill) two other victims. Seems as if he would be more successful (or motivated) in his later attempts.

Posted by: DD | July 26, 2008 9:35 AM

I just want to add that out of complete curiosity, and to maybe give him the benefit of the doubt, I just visited RD's "book website".

Let this "book" and its "website" stand as incontrovertible proof that this guy is a complete and utter whacko.

I also Googled DKH, who seems to follow the same theme of posting long-winded nonsense on websites regarding murder investigation and pumping his educational creds.

It all makes sense now. It all. makes. sense.

Posted by: anonymouse | July 26, 2008 9:50 AM

THANK YOU ANONYMOUSE! My sentiments exactly on these two nutjobs!

Posted by: dlg358 | July 26, 2008 10:42 AM

Bekyndhearted wrote, "if Guandique was going to rob someone, he definitely would have taken the expensive engagement ring before or after killing one of the females he attacked".

No he wouldn't because the big diamond ring was on Halle Shilling (tall, athletic) who had jammed her fingers into Guandique's mouth, digging her nails beneath his tongue. In addition, I don't think he intended to rob them. Chandra was murdered. That's not necessary for a robbery. Plus, she only had a pinky ring.

I think that Guandique, emboldened after killing Chandra, then bit off more than he could chew with the other two women, who were bigger and taller than Chandra (remember, Christy Wiegand was 5'11"). It's somewhat inexplicable that he would not have been able to subdue the two women even with a knife, but maybe the knife was just there for intimidation. And conversely, these two women, after seeing the knife, were fighting for their lives. It seems that Chandra was most likely bound (knots in her pants) and killed by strangulation (no knife marks on her bones and no blood on her clothes), perhaps after being sexually assaulted, so perhaps Guandique was intending to rape and strangle these two other women as well. If so, that would explain why he ran away when he realized he could not subdue these other women. After all, how could he tie up and sexually assault someone if he could not even subdue them?

Posted by: NDvege | July 26, 2008 10:47 AM

Let's all be mindful that just because a house key(s) isn't found doesn't mean it was stolen. When I used to exercise (and I'm not saying that Chandra was even exercising) I would just stick one key in my sock or tuck it in my laces - because I didn't have any pockets. Her key(s) could be anywhere.
On the other hand, if someone did know her and where she lived they could use her key to go into her apartment and type away at her computer for 3 hours or sure "reclaim" their own key.

Posted by: wk | July 26, 2008 12:04 PM

without rd, this blog will feel like a universe short for the investigation in sub-God lever.

DKH is on the same par with rd, leader type for investigative efforts herein.

Some other are like them too; still others though, are more commoner than specialist type in this blog case.

Now you have here: Prophet + specialists + commoners = Chandra Case Investigation;

so, you can tell why this blog is strong, others don't have a Prophet with them, and still, here you have two very hard-working specialists contributing to this content.

Not easy to be a soul of a blog, i.e., the specialists of a blog; commoners are like the body of the blog;

therefore you have the interactions in place, body will fail, but the soul & the Spirit stay forever.

Search the heart & soul of Chandra will be the right path to fill the blanks unto the day of disclosure, as far as sub-God lever is concerned. For that matter, this blog is doing a good job, I think.

Posted by: liuda | July 26, 2008 12:26 PM

Posted by: Elizabeth | July 25, 2008 11:39 PM

These events occurred in May to August 2001, before 9/11 and "terrorism." The anthrax attacks occurred after 9/11 as well.

Posted by: eeave | July 26, 2008 1:15 PM

***

@DKH
"Do you really suppose that eagle-eyed Ingmar Guandique chose to mug Chandra Levy because he spotted her wearing a pinkie ring-- and then killed her for it? Why did he not kill the later two, one of whom was wearing a much more valuable diamond engagement ring, which was not taken? (He did not take their Walkman units, either; nor anything else.)"

No I believe that it is possible that he attacked Chandra for some perverse sexual reason. Sometime during his attack he killed her. He hid her body, but he took her ring. He may have thrown away the ring before he got out of the woods... just like he could have disposed of the keys.

Posted by: 2 + 2 | July 26, 2008 2:04 AM

***

What perverse sexual reason might that be? What is your evidence? You people are very fond of making up grand assumptions with no factual bases whatsoever. Ingmar Guandique has no known history of sexual assault. He had no known criminal history on May Day, 2001. His known criminal history consists of one burglary and two muggings, all committed subsequent to May Day, 2001.

In each case, he fled, despite being armed with a knife or screwdrivers, in the case of his burglary, that could have been used like knives. He is known to be a petty thief. He has no known history of sexual assault, let alone of murder. Biting his girlfriend above her breast is the single most violent act that he has been known to commit.

Why, pray tell, would he have taken her ring and thrown it away? To keep the authorities from positively IDing her body? They were able to do that tout de suite over a year later, just from her bones and clothes. It would be helpful if you folks would stop proposing your supposed possibilities and actually start applying the known evidence-- although, I fully realize, it is above your pay grade, and likely beyond your ken-- instead of just claiming that Ingmar Guandique is stupid and irrational, and therefore you may be too!

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 26, 2008 1:16 PM

***

Hey, DKH:

I see you've shifted your position from "no credible basis" for ever suspecting Guandique in the first place to now saying "I have not dismissed Ingmar Guandique as a potential suspect." I'm pleased to see you're now keeping an open mind.

SJ:
I believe Big T suspects Mrs. Condit was involved in Chandra's murder. That's not my favorite theory, but sure, put it on the list.

Posted by: A Reader | July 26, 2008 8:03 AM

***

My statement, reader, does not represent a change at all. Unless someone has presented an airtight alibi, he or she cannot be ruled out as a potential suspect. That includes Ingmar Guandique. It also includes me. As far as I know, it also includes you. I am also a potential murderer, as are you. That does not make me or you a suspect in the presumed murder of Chandra Levy.

I believe that I have disposed of all of the supposed evidence adduced to date against Senor Guandique-- i.e., the ludicrous "confession" and the belated and totally unsubstantiated claim of former-Detective Joe Green. As I have explained before, people's hunches about Senor Guandique's being the type of person who might have committed such a crime is not evidence.

The facts of Senor Guandique's two previous muggings, one previous burglary, and short history of slapping around Iris Portillo are not evidence. If that sort of history were evidence in the murder of Chandra Levy, you could say that O.J. Simpson's known history of violence were evidence-- indeed, better evidence, since he has actually slaughtered two people, as was fully demonstrated at his trial (the civil one, even for those who were somehow unconvinced during the criminal trial)!

If you wish to take Ingmar Guandique from being a mere potential suspect, or a former suspect, to a plausible suspect in the death of Chandra Levy, bring me his touch DNA from her clothes or her Aiwa cassette player. Is that not a simple enough request for you all?

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 26, 2008 1:40 PM

Ingmar Guandique has no known history of sexual assault. He had no known criminal history on May Day, 2001. His known criminal history consists of one burglary and two muggings, all committed subsequent to May Day, 2001.
D.K.H.

He had no known history of sexual assault because he was just starting his criminal career in this country. And I still say that the two muggings would have been sexual assaults if the girls did not fight him off. So when the police try to be proactive and arrest a criminal before he can kill someone people like you cry foul. And when the police become reactive and make the arrest after the killings then people like me cry foul.

Posted by: dlg358 | July 26, 2008 1:48 PM

A poster above posited that Condit (in a scenario) might have realized his "luck" that Chandra disappeared at a time when he needed her out of his life (paraphrase, here).

I'd like to suggest that the same "luck" could possibly be tied to Guandique, and "explain" some things about his behavior.

Unlike RD (grin here), I have not -- that is a NOT -- interviewed primary sources, and rely ONLY on printed accounts -- all this in UNLIKE RD (wink, wink), who has done all the primary research for his book, he would have us belive.

Anyway, here's a scenario -- Guandique's first Rock Creek Park victim is Chandra Levy. He has premeditated ONLY the part about attacking a woman. What he doesn't ANTICIPATE, however, is that he'll kill her. Attack proceeds, tussle ensues, bam! Chandra is either out cold or obviously dead. Dang! he thinks, I got to hide this body. Well, let's shove it down the hill. And get the hell out of here. I am lucky nobody saw me!

Depending on how he deals with this incident (his impairment due to alcohol a consideration), he may be feeling more and more "lucky" that he's getting away with it. Meanwhile -- if he watches the news at all -- he may become aware that a woman with dark curly hair is missing and an important person in Washington politics is connected to it. I am thinking that due to his English limitations, what he knows or thinks he knows or understands about the case is reduced to these fairly simple facts, to be gleaned from visuals only, not reading the paper, not having to comprehend what English-speaking talking heads are saying. Then he can have any other information about it derived from what his acquaintances might be saying about it.

THERE IS A REWARD OFFERED BY CONDIT (important person) in an amount at one time that was $25,000.

A limited understanding of this -- for someone in dire financial straits -- could start seeming like a way to make some money. (This for the informant, too.)

I don't think he could have pulled a pinky ring off someone's limp body, but I won't rule out the possibility.

He's clear. He's cool.

He decides to attack again, but having learned on the first one what not to do to end up with another dead girl, he determines to run off rather than risk getting beat up like he did the first time or have the complication of trying to dispose of yet another body (or conceal it).

He gets caught.

He is asked about Chandra -- as detailed in this series -- and his reply, as recounted by the Park Police investigator who didn't report the information to MPD, sounds like a language-limited: "yeah, I am familiar with that case." Does he KNOW it was Chandra he attacked and pushed down the hill -- probably not.

If he gets more details about the case of missing Chandra -- even thru discussions with his court-appointed attorneys -- he may start thinking perhaps it WAS her he attacked, or somehow come to believe it was Chandra.

A confession to the informant? Perhaps.

Perhaps both were trying to -- not very intelligently -- get the reward money.

Not very intelligently, I say, because if they were trying to pin it on Condit to deflect attention from themselves, then that was a dead end.

I am with anyone who says that Connie Chung interview with Condit was a disaster. It was a shameless piece of so-called journalism, and I have NEVER, ever seen Connie Chung get a "get" again after that. It was appalling. Condit did not look good -- but that sorry excuse for a reporter was even worse. It was a live, unrehearsed interview, as terms of the deal. "Did you kill Chandra Levy?" Um, way to warm up your interview subject, Connie.

At any rate, with all the resources spent on pursuing the Condit angle, that also should be a "bungle" on the part of authorities. Way too much spent on pursuing that.

I'd like to see a total price tag on the whole expenditure on this case -- ongoing, too. As soon as the MPD police chief was sworn in under Mayor Fenty, the Levys got an audience with her. No doubt this contributed to the family's willingness to open up to WashPo for this series.

But I think the whole thing is summarized for me in the quote from Terry Gainor in which he said the homicide unit was not "forensically oriented." Most of the murders in DC do not include missing bodies. The victims are shot dead in the street.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 26, 2008 2:30 PM

***

Great series, despite what some of the lunatics posting here have been saying (a guy who wrote a book he couldn't sell and a long-winded nutjob who feels the need to list his non-impressive educational pedigree? Good lord people....).

I'm anxious to read the epilogue merely to contain my total outrage regarding this case.

- IG obviously talked to the WaPo reporters, but is he (ie, his lawyer) willing to take another polygraph based on the speculation coming from this newspaper account?

- What about the circumstances about the other inmate's polygraph? We're simply told he was never contacted again.

- Given the introduction of the new and enthusiastic spanish-speaking lawyer Poteat (sic?), is something being done on these accounts?

- Note that on this point, one can only assume that it would be near-impossible to get a judge to agree to issue a subpoena(s) for new polys. I do believe that under questioning by a highly trained specialist, and despite given time to "get his story straight", IG's probably not smart enough to outwit anyone.

- Was the person who destroyed/discarded IG's bags of belongings charged with obstruction of justice? If evidence was to be had, surely it would have been in there.

- Lastly, barring an out and out confession or the above mentioned evidence, we're not bound to find the murderer.


Thanks WaPo

Posted by: anonymouse | July 26, 2008 9:24 AM

***

***

"Great series, despite what some of the lunatics posting here have been saying (a guy who wrote a book he couldn't sell and a long-winded nutjob who feels the need to list his non-impressive educational pedigree? Good lord people....)."

*

Shall we compare MMPI scores, or just IQs?

**

"- IG obviously talked to the WaPo reporters, but is he (ie, his lawyer) willing to take another polygraph based on the speculation coming from this newspaper account?"

*

As best as I can recall, this series never states that they talked to Ingmar Guandique. Those tapes of his speaking could have come from some other source.

Why should Senor Guandique take another polygraph examination just because of the one-sided speculation of Sari Horwitz and her confederates? They have failed to deliver a single piece of credible new evidence tying Senor Guandique to Ms. Levy-- merely the incredible and belated claim of former-Detective Joe Green, and a bunch of idle speculation by "experts" that Senor Guandique should be a prime suspect because of the location where the remains were discovered. Those "experts" held those same opinions back during the grand jury hearings that began in the autumn of 2002.

**

"- What about the circumstances about the other inmate's polygraph? We're simply told he was never contacted again."

*

Which circumstances would those be? Why should he be contacted again? He flunked! Should Dominick Dunne's source be contacted again?

Why do you folks who are longing for it to be the illegal immigrant find it so hard to understand why the "informant"-- who might well be an illegal immigrant also, since he too speaks next to no English-- would make up a story to try to capture over $200,000 in reward money (which, of course, goes wholly unmentioned in this series; we are supposed to believe his stated reason of feeling sorry for the Levys-- because, if nothing else, men who are sentenced to life sentences in a federal penitentiary for the armed sexual abuse of women are known for their soft hearts!)? You all want to believe that there was a confession-- as lunatic as that supposed confession is on the very face of it-- yet you want to dismiss every detail of the confession besides Ingmar Guandique's having been the killer; and, you especially want to dismiss the crux of the confession: that Gary Condit suborned, arranged and paid for it all!

**

"- Given the introduction of the new and enthusiastic spanish-speaking lawyer Poteat (sic?), is something being done on these accounts?"

*

New? Ms. Poteat took over the case six years ago! She is the one who was in charge of the grand jury during that autumn of 2002. Do you suppose that what that grand jury could not dredge up in terms of evidence is going to be there now, based on this series? What new evidence is there since the grand jury was dismissed? It appears that there is one thing and one thing only: former-Detective Joe Green's very belated and uncorroborated claim that Ingmar Guandique had admitted to seeing Chandra Levy in Rock Creek Park once in the spring of 2001, and having found her attractive. Good luck, kids!

**

"- Note that on this point, one can only assume that it would be near-impossible to get a judge to agree to issue a subpoena(s) for new polys. I do believe that under questioning by a highly trained specialist, and despite given time to "get his story straight", IG's probably not smart enough to outwit anyone."

*

Judges do not issue subpoenas; prosecutors do. Judges merely sign to approve them. At any rate, no one can be subpoenaed to take a polygraph examination. Check your pocket copy of the United States Constitution, genius. Polygraph examinations are not battles of wits; straightforward, relevant questions are asked to check for changes to various autonomic responses, and compared to irrelevant baseline questions. Psychopaths, not geniuses, have the advantage in beating polygraph exams. Have not you people been arguing that Ingmar Guandique is a stupid psychopath? Seems like a prime contender to beat another polygraph examination at its own game!

**

"- Was the person who destroyed/discarded IG's bags of belongings charged with obstruction of justice? If evidence was to be had, surely it would have been in there."

*

Gary Condit was not charged with obstruction of justice for throwing out a gift box from one of his many mistresses hours before a scheduled examination of his apartment, and you think that some friends of friends of the half-brother of Ingmar Guandique should be charged with obstruction of justice for their throwing out some bags of discarded, hand-me-down clothes? What law school did you graduate from, again?

**

"- Lastly, barring an out and out confession or the above mentioned evidence, we're not bound to find the murderer."

*

No, no one is "bound to find the murderer;" but, as I have noted several times already, touch DNA of the killer might be available on Chandra Levy's clothes and Aiwa cassette player, just as touch DNA was found recently on JonBenet Ramsey's leggings, and matched the more readily obtained DNA found shortly after her death on her underwear.

**

I can fully appreciate why it is that you choose to post your ignorant and illogical comments only anonymously, anonymouse.

D.K.H., B,A,, M.S., M.B.A., J.D.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 26, 2008 3:00 PM

***

I just want to add that out of complete curiosity, and to maybe give him the benefit of the doubt, I just visited RD's "book website".

Let this "book" and its "website" stand as incontrovertible proof that this guy is a complete and utter whacko.

I also Googled DKH, who seems to follow the same theme of posting long-winded nonsense on websites regarding murder investigation and pumping his educational creds.

It all makes sense now. It all. makes. sense.

Posted by: anonymouse | July 26, 2008 9:50 AM


THANK YOU ANONYMOUSE! My sentiments exactly on these two nutjobs!

Posted by: dlg358 | July 26, 2008 10:42 AM

***

...MADE FOR EACH OTHER!

D.K.H.

P.S. Would you like to compare scores too, DLG358?

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 26, 2008 3:30 PM

The most important thing a newspaper has is credibility. So reporters must get the facts right. Reporters in this series repeatedly refer to the location of IG's attack on Shilling as an isolated trail. This is false. That trail is one of the most popular and well-graded, unpaved trails in Rock Creek Park. I have been running this trail every other day since 2001. There has never been a day when I didn't meet another walker/jogger on the trail, just as Shilling did when two other joggers stopped to help her get to the Park Police station. It's like saying Beach Drive is isolated. Scenic, yes. Isolated, no. Not believable. My main problem with this series is that I don't trust the reporters. They are not presenting unbiased facts. They have broken the most basic don'ts of journalism 101 by using assumptions that lead to logical fallacies, such as this non sequitur: It's a beautiful sunny day, so Chandra went for a walk in the park. Reporters- no one can substantiate that Chandra ever walked in Rock Creek Park prior to May 1. Stop presenting fallacies as truth. You can report an assumption, but qualify it as an assumption! This is sloppy reporting. Therefore, your conclusion is unbelievable.

Posted by: K | July 25, 2008 1:31 PM
__________________________________

Why would an attacker pick an area that is not isolated to commit a crime? And let alone take the time to take off clothing and tie the person up, and no, there is no actual proof of rape, but if she was raped, also rape and then kill too in an area that is not isolated and others are due to come through the area?

When he attacked the other two females, they fought him off yes, but he also didn't have enough time to do what he intended to do because they fought him off and he knew that he could get caught by someone else coming along.

Does anyone know if Chandra Levy took up self defense classes? Because I would think that with the line of work that she took an interest to, and also the type of intern work she had that she would too know self defense tactics.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 26, 2008 3:33 PM

No, no one is "bound to find the murderer;" but, as I have noted several times already, touch DNA of the killer might be available on Chandra Levy's clothes and Aiwa cassette player, just as touch DNA was found recently on JonBenet Ramsey's leggings, and matched the more readily obtained DNA found shortly after her death on her underwear.D.K.H., B,A,, M.S., M.B.A., J.D.

So let's suppose that they do find "touch DNA" and it belongs to IG. Are you then going to say that he only meant to mug her and if she had not resisted she would be alive today? Or maybe something more fitting to your thinking..Condit planted the DNA on the unsuspecting IG!

Posted by: dlg358 | July 26, 2008 3:43 PM

***

Bekyndhearted wrote, "if Guandique was going to rob someone, he definitely would have taken the expensive engagement ring before or after killing one of the females he attacked".

No he wouldn't because the big diamond ring was on Halle Shilling (tall, athletic) who had jammed her fingers into Guandique's mouth, digging her nails beneath his tongue. In addition, I don't think he intended to rob them. Chandra was murdered. That's not necessary for a robbery. Plus, she only had a pinky ring.

I think that Guandique, emboldened after killing Chandra, then bit off more than he could chew with the other two women, who were bigger and taller than Chandra (remember, Christy Wiegand was 5'11"). It's somewhat inexplicable that he would not have been able to subdue the two women even with a knife, but maybe the knife was just there for intimidation. And conversely, these two women, after seeing the knife, were fighting for their lives. It seems that Chandra was most likely bound (knots in her pants) and killed by strangulation (no knife marks on her bones and no blood on her clothes), perhaps after being sexually assaulted, so perhaps Guandique was intending to rape and strangle these two other women as well. If so, that would explain why he ran away when he realized he could not subdue these other women. After all, how could he tie up and sexually assault someone if he could not even subdue them?

Posted by: NDvege | July 26, 2008 10:47 AM

***

So, Chandra Levy simply did not fight back? She remained still for Ingmar Giandique while he pulled off her shoes and running tights-- with one hand he pulled off her running tights? really?!?-- then bound her, raped her, and killed her? That all sounds perfectly plausible to you, does it?

He held a knife to the two mugging victims, but he could not bring himself to stab them in their hearts or slit their throats? He was going to rape and strangle them, but he decided that, if he could not keep them still, like Ms. Levy, he just would skip not only raping them but killing them? And, that sounds perfectly plausible to you too, huh?

Was he worried that he might get three death penalties instead of just one-- more worried than he was about leaving alive two close-up eyewitnesses to who he was, in the same park where he had recently left a murder victim's corpse, which was still decomposing near by on May 14 and July 1, 2001? Wow, that is one stupid and irrational illegal alien, isn't it?!?

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 26, 2008 3:49 PM

***

Ingmar Guandique has no known history of sexual assault. He had no known criminal history on May Day, 2001. His known criminal history consists of one burglary and two muggings, all committed subsequent to May Day, 2001.
D.K.H.

He had no known history of sexual assault because he was just starting his criminal career in this country. And I still say that the two muggings would have been sexual assaults if the girls did not fight him off. So when the police try to be proactive and arrest a criminal before he can kill someone people like you cry foul. And when the police become reactive and make the arrest after the killings then people like me cry foul.

Posted by: dlg358 | July 26, 2008 1:48 PM

***

So, the fact that Ingmar Guandique had no history of sexual assaults on May Day 2001-- and still does not, by the way-- much less of murder (ditto), is evidence to you that he must be the guilty party in the killing of Chandra Levy, because he was obviously just beginning his career as a rapist and murderer on that very day? Who in the world could argue with ironclad logic like that, DLG358?

Of course, you did not have a history as a rapist or a murderer back on May Day 2001, did you, DLG358? Hmmm.... It might be about time for you to lawyer-up with some over-the-top liberal, don't you think?

D.K.H., EXQ.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 26, 2008 4:00 PM

What is interesting to me about the attacks that Guandique was arrested for is that although he claims they were failed robberies, robbers just don't throw themselves onto their victims. He could have clubbed them and robbed them. He could have threated them and robbed them. He could have just pushed them hard, shown his knife, and then taken their stuff... not that joggers usually carry wallets and money.

But he didn't do that. Guandique jumped on his victims while holding a knife. Why do you think he took this clumsy approach? What advantage would that give him?

Posted by: 2 + 2 | July 26, 2008 4:19 PM

I am very glad the Washington Post did this serial as it always bothered me that 911 took scrutiny off of this case. What the series did for me is to make me go look at archived news articles from the time. From all I have read, I believe that IG is the most likely culprit here. As the poster above pointed out, none of us have any idea how many women he may have raped and/or murdered in his native country. Just because he had never been caught here is no reason to believe he couldn't have done it to Ms. Levy.

Another thing the reading I have done over the past few days has done is make me a little more sympathetic to Condit (ducking the tomatoes being tossed my way). Yes, he is/was a serial adulterer, but I think he may have felt much more deeply for Ms. Levy than appearances might otherwise suggest. Might the reason he was always so evasive and stone-walling about their relationship is because he truly cared for her and did not want to "kiss and tell." Also, he might have been just as mystified as to her whereabouts as the rest of us.

What if the five-year plan was a real goal for both of them? What if the partially packed suitcases found in Ms. Levy's apartment were not from her moving OUT of Condit's apartment, but because she was moving INTO his apartment? Maybe he had already told Mrs. Condit he was leaving her for Ms. Levy and that is what prompted Mrs. Condit's uncharacteristic visit to D.C.

If this was the case, it would be even more difficult for Condit and Ms. Levy to meet, as his apartment would be temporarily off-limits. Maybe Condit arranged a meeting with Ms. Levy in Rock Creek Park because it gave them the seclusion they needed. This might be why Ms. Levy was wearing a jogging bra, etc. It might also explain her looking up the map on the computer. Why did they need to meet? Maybe because they were in love and missed each other. Maybe Condit needed to get away from Mrs. Condit and her (possible) negativity (if she were trying to talk him into staying in the marriage), and he just needed the refreshment of seeing his young, vivacious lover who practically worshiped him. Imagine if he went to such a meeting and Ms. Levy never showed up (because IG or some other thug jumped her on the way to the meeting)? Can you imagine the thoughts going through his head under those conditions? He might have waited as long as he could thinking a hundred different thoughts.

The next thing he knew, Dr. Levy was calling him reporting his daughter missing and then all hell broke loose. What if at that point, with microphones shoved in his face, demands for full disclosure, etc., he did not know any more than you or I where Ms. Levy was. What could he say?

I think the gym clothes in the bag in Ms. Levy's apartment are intriguing. I think those clothes, with the semen stained panties were Ms. Levy's "ace in the hole" (pardon the gross pun). This was after the Clinton/Lewinski episode, and I think Ms. Levy might have been holding on to those clothes in case she ever needed them. I am not saying she had some nefarious plot in mind, but I think she was as astute and intelligent a young woman as her parents believed her to be, and she protected herself. Why were they in the bag and on the table? I think she decided that things were working out, and she no longer needed that kind of protection.

Posted by: geliot | July 26, 2008 4:23 PM

***

No, no one is "bound to find the murderer;" but, as I have noted several times already, touch DNA of the killer might be available on Chandra Levy's clothes and Aiwa cassette player, just as touch DNA was found recently on JonBenet Ramsey's leggings, and matched the more readily obtained DNA found shortly after her death on her underwear.D.K.H., B,A,, M.S., M.B.A., J.D.

So let's suppose that they do find "touch DNA" and it belongs to IG. Are you then going to say that he only meant to mug her and if she had not resisted she would be alive today? Or maybe something more fitting to your thinking..Condit planted the DNA on the unsuspecting IG!

Posted by: dlg358 | July 26, 2008 3:43 PM

***

If they found Ingmar Guandique's touch DNA all over Chandra Levy's clothes or Aiwa cassette player, I would have to assume that he were guilty of killing her. I would see no readily obvious and innocent alternative explanation for his DNA's being there.

That is why we have criminal trials, though, so that defendants' defense attorneys have the opportunity to zealously represent their clients, rather than jurors' simply taking the unchallenged word of prosecutors. (Perhaps mean Joe Green has had unauthorized access to the evidence lately...!?!)

If Gary Condit's touch DNA is all over those clothes and that Aiwa cassette player, there might be an innocent explanation; but, it still would tend to be very incriminating to me, especially if Mr. Condit still had no good alibi for May Day afternoon in 2001!?!

If the touch DNA turned out to be from neither Senor Guandique nor from Mr. Condit, I would have to assume that it were either from you, DLG358, or from your confederate, anonymouse. You both seem to me to be the type....

D.K.H., EXQ.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 26, 2008 4:25 PM

***

What is interesting to me about the attacks that Guandique was arrested for is that although he claims they were failed robberies, robbers just don't throw themselves onto their victims. He could have clubbed them and robbed them. He could have threated them and robbed them. He could have just pushed them hard, shown his knife, and then taken their stuff... not that joggers usually carry wallets and money.

But he didn't do that. Guandique jumped on his victims while holding a knife. Why do you think he took this clumsy approach? What advantage would that give him?

Posted by: 2 + 2 | July 26, 2008 4:19 PM

***

Most of the folks here arguing that Ingmar Guandique is obviously guilty of killing Chandra Levy refuse to answer questions that are based upon a would-be perpetrator's logic, claiming that Senor Guandique is just an illegal-alien sexual predator, too stupid and too irrational to have logic be allowed to rule anything out against him. You cannot have it both ways, boys and girls!

At any rate, I would think that being on top of someone who is on the ground, with a knife pointed at the underdog's throat would give the overdog some slight advantage, would it not? It would be hard for a person in such an underdog configuration to simply turn away and run in that situation, with the ground to one's back, rather than open air and a jogging trail.

I am pretty sanguine, regardless, that if I were that overdog, and I had recently left another woman's corpse nearby to rot, this underdog would not be going anywhere on her own volition ever again!

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 26, 2008 4:40 PM

I don't know the authors of the WaPo series, so I have no opinions other than the series itself. But I can feel their pain at having to read the entire comments section!

Some of the commenters here seem grounded in reality and seem to want to challenge the series. Good for them. Even if wrong, right, or half right. This is something the internet is good for. Separating wheat from chaff, maybe the 'net is not so good.

One thing I have noticed here is some obvious male inability to completely appreciate the female perspective of things. Just sayin'.

In life, I've noticed that urban cops just don't like being in wooded areas. (I do, but I'm a small town boy.) It's kind of stupid and even wimpy, but it's something I've noticed.

As yet, I have not read here any complete expositions of what the more hardworking researcher/commenters here DO think happened, only what they do not. I could come up with lots of hypotheses, although coming up with a hypothesis would not mean I "believed" the hypothesis. For example, here's one: the Condit/Levy relationship is extremely ordinary in this world, and a prominent man's reputation being trashed can make him nervous to the point of appearing guilty. (this one I neither believe nor disbelieve: I don't know the man). Here's a wacky hypothesis: the entire affair was orchestrated; Levy is alive under a new identity, complete and total absorption by the news media was demanded at the time to keep attention off some other upcoming "big news." Now that's the hypothesis of a conspiracy theorist. That one goes along with the one about her helping spirit away the secretly not-executed Timothy McVeigh, who was really an inside man for the plot to smear all domestic "patriot" and constitutionalist groups. That one's pretty wacky, too.

My own question is, again, did Chandra ever own a bicycle? Long ago there was a report she visited a bike shop. After that, nothing.

Posted by: hmm | July 26, 2008 4:54 PM

Eeave: The issue I was trying to raise is what occured in DC after the murder and Condit-frenzy that would have caused law enforcement and prosecutors not to give 100% to the case. And what were the shortcomings in the Police Dept in terms of equipment, training, funding, morale, leadership, etc.

I believe the series authors said that, at one point, that the lead detectives were pulled off to handle demonstrations related to the World Bank (or it may have been another institution.) I'd like to know what % of their time was devoted to this case and what % went to other high-profile developments that terrified DC in late 2001 and early 2002. For me the most interesting story is the inside workings of government agencies, and the power struggles inside of them, that lead to our vulnerablity as citizens.

Posted by: Elizabeth | July 26, 2008 6:40 PM

If the touch DNA turned out to be from neither Senor Guandique nor from Mr. Condit, I would have to assume that it were either from you, DLG358, or from your confederate, anonymouse. You both seem to me to be the type....

D.K.H., EXQ.

Now that is funny! At least you have a good sense of humor. What you don't have is any common sense. I still say it's a good thing your parents gave you a middle name of Kevin. Otherwise your initials would just be d...h... which seems to be appropriate!

Posted by: dlg358 | July 26, 2008 8:35 PM

I'm still holding out hope that the epilogue will detail some of her dealings with Mossad. I seem to recall some reports at the time about this on World Net Daily but it was never really picked up by the mainstream media, big surprise. She had to have gained a lot of knowledge that would have proven detrimental to Condit's plotting with Cheney that took place on the day she disappeared. Halliburton and Baskin Robbins shares have been trading through the roof ever since then.

And let's not forget Levy wasn't the only thing to disappear that year. Whatever happened to the gas station security video that showed the PATRIOT missile hitting the Pentagon on 9/11? Once again, I hope The Post and company will shed some light on this.

Graham Hamilton Williams III, J.D., M.B.A, B.A., B.S., M.D., R.N., Ph.D., M.F.A

Posted by: GHW70 | July 26, 2008 8:38 PM

I seem to recall some reports at the time about this on World Net Daily but it was never really picked up by the mainstream media, big surprise. She had to have gained a lot of knowledge that would have proven detrimental to Condit's plotting with Cheney that took place on the day she disappeared. Halliburton and Baskin Robbins shares have been trading through the roof ever since then.
Graham Hamilton Williams III, J.D., M.B.A, B.A., B.S., M.D., R.N., Ph.D., M.F.A

I knew that it would be only a matter of time before someone blamed this on Bush! That's what this new whako is trying to do. And look DKH he has a few more degrees than you do!

Posted by: dlg358 | July 26, 2008 10:19 PM

That Epilogue sure was disappointing - a photo of Condit, a photo of Guandique and the rest just drivel. Silly me for expecting something more.

Posted by: wk | July 26, 2008 10:33 PM

***

I seem to recall some reports at the time about this on World Net Daily but it was never really picked up by the mainstream media, big surprise. She had to have gained a lot of knowledge that would have proven detrimental to Condit's plotting with Cheney that took place on the day she disappeared. Halliburton and Baskin Robbins shares have been trading through the roof ever since then.
Graham Hamilton Williams III, J.D., M.B.A, B.A., B.S., M.D., R.N., Ph.D., M.F.A

I knew that it would be only a matter of time before someone blamed this on Bush! That's what this new whako is trying to do. And look DKH he has a few more degrees than you do!

Posted by: dlg358 | July 26, 2008 10:19 PM"

***

Lacking any common sense, DLG358, I merely assumed that that was part of the joke!?!?!

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 26, 2008 11:00 PM

***

CHAPTER SIX: "THE PREDATOR IN THE PARK"

***

Green later told The Washington Post that he posed one more question to Guandique.

He showed him a D.C. police flier with a photograph of Chandra Levy, the missing intern.

Have you ever seen this woman in Rock Creek Park? Green asked.

Guandique said he had.

He saw her one day when he was hanging around the parking lot near the Peirce Mill. Green then asked Guandique if he thought she was attractive. Yes, he said, but he never saw her again.

Green did not include any comment by Guandique about Chandra in his report, and he does not remember telling any other officers at the time. Back then, it didn't seem important. He said he was focused on the assaults on Wiegand and Shilling.

Chandra could be anywhere. Her disappearance was not a Park Police case.

"It wasn't mine to pursue," he said recently.

***

CHAPTER TEN: "A JAILHOUSE INFORMANT"

***

On Sept. 21, Guandique was removed from his jail cell and brought to the U.S. attorney's office in Washington for questioning by prosecutors and D.C. detectives. He was accompanied by a public defender.

Guandique was shown a picture of Chandra. He said the only place he had ever seen her was on television.

That contradicted what a former Park Police detective later told The Washington Post. Joe Green, who interrogated Guandique on July 2, said that at that time he showed Chandra's picture to Guandique and the Salvadoran said he had seen her in the park.

Green was present at the meeting in the U.S. attorney's office. To this day, Green does not remember that meeting or whether he passed on to D.C. police or prosecutors the information he said he got from Guandique. "I should have said something," Green would later comment.

****

***

EPILOGUE

***

Joe Green, the U.S. Park Police detective who interrogated Guandique after the Rock Creek Park attacks, remains troubled by the handling of the Chandra investigation. "I can't let it go," he said. "It was a solvable case." Retired now and working as a victim and witness coordinator for the Park Police, Green thinks that Guandique is the key suspect. He agrees that investigators were too focused on Condit. By the time they started to seriously look at Guandique, he said, it was too late.

***

***

Joe Green, you are a pathetic joke!

Sari Horwitz, you are in the wrong line of work....

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 26, 2008 11:45 PM

My own question is, again, did Chandra ever own a bicycle? Long ago there was a report she visited a bike shop. After that, nothing.

Posted by: hmm | July 26, 2008 4:54 PM
_______________________

To hmm:

Just curious ... are your initials, or have they ever been, RR?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 27, 2008 1:42 AM

It's a sad PATHETIC shame that the reporters are trying to pin Chandra Levy's murder on a person that they have no soild evidence to convict Guandique of Chandra's murder. They took two assaults and also trying to search for other negative behavior against him to suggest that he is the killer. My heart goes out to the Levy family. I know that the Levy family wants closure of their daughter's murder and this is what they get?

In regards to the statements that Condit made in the ending of the Epilogue stating that he was raped with scars and trying to prey on the public's sympathy. He has some nerve. If he would have cooperated in the begining and told the TRUTH, he wouldn't be in the predicament that he feel he's in now. He palced HIMSELF in the predicament that he was in and still is in as far as I am concerned. He doesn't gain not a bit, not a tiny bit of sympathy from me.

I agree that the reporters on this series need to research other employment options.

To the Levy Family my heart goes out to you and I hope and pray that one day you'll find some closure as I know that your hearts will always hurt, but I pray that you are comforted during the hurt.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 27, 2008 2:59 AM

correction: "He placed HIMSELF"

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 27, 2008 3:01 AM

I'm still holding out hope that the epilogue will detail some of her dealings with Mossad. I seem to recall some reports at the time about this on World Net Daily but it was never really picked up by the mainstream media, big surprise. She had to have gained a lot of knowledge that would have proven detrimental to Condit's plotting with Cheney that took place on the day she disappeared. Halliburton and Baskin Robbins shares have been trading through the roof ever since then.

And let's not forget Levy wasn't the only thing to disappear that year. Whatever happened to the gas station security video that showed the PATRIOT missile hitting the Pentagon on 9/11? Once again, I hope The Post and company will shed some light on this.

Graham Hamilton Williams III, J.D., M.B.A, B.A., B.S., M.D., R.N., Ph.D., M.F.A

Posted by: GHW70 | July 26, 2008 8:38 PM
____________________________________

GHW70,

What is mossad?

Thanks!

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 27, 2008 3:07 AM

I'm still holding out hope that the epilogue will detail some of her dealings with Mossad. I seem to recall some reports at the time about this on World Net Daily but it was never really picked up by the mainstream media, big surprise. She had to have gained a lot of knowledge that would have proven detrimental to Condit's plotting with Cheney that took place on the day she disappeared. Halliburton and Baskin Robbins shares have been trading through the roof ever since then.

And let's not forget Levy wasn't the only thing to disappear that year. Whatever happened to the gas station security video that showed the PATRIOT missile hitting the Pentagon on 9/11? Once again, I hope The Post and company will shed some light on this.

Graham Hamilton Williams III, J.D., M.B.A, B.A., B.S., M.D., R.N., Ph.D., M.F.A

Posted by: GHW70 | July 26, 2008 8:38 PM
____________________________________

GHW70,

What is mossad?

Thanks!

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 27, 2008 3:11 AM

Thank you for this series.

When it started I thought "Oh no. It's summer and they're doing a sensational piece to perk up readership. Like before September in 2001 when people were focusing on the wrong things." I pretty much ignored the case back then and was going to ignore this series. But I was bored and read the article.

At first I was baffled because it was short. It was too concise. And that, within itself, said that much care had gone into the series. It foretold a frightening simplicity of the fragility of our lives. There are many stories here, all human.

Well done.

Posted by: Elizabeth | July 27, 2008 6:08 AM

A Reader,
Thanks for cluing me in on Big T's point. I was thinking, "different Condit," hmmm? Honest Condit? Smart Condit? Dumb me, I had no idea the reference was to Mrs. Condit. Shows you how far off my radar screen of suspects she is.

GHW70,
Mossad is Israel's spy agency, like our CIA - only competent.

My Humble Conclusion...
It's been fun blogging with you all. The series has held my attention, and has revealed a few new threads, but there were large holes in the entire cloth. I worry that implicating Guandique is repeating the mistake of accusing the wrong man without real evidence. In the end I expected more on issues such as recruiting more Spanish speaking officers, use of bloodhounds, police procedures for when a person goes missing, computer evidence handling, training police in searching for forensic evidence, patrols, security and warning signs in Rock Creek Park, better communication between Park, DCPD and other police depts inside the District, and an answer to the question, 'what happens next time a woman goes missing?'

Also, the cosmic-level media coverage of this story begs for more about the major players, like Fox, MSNBC, CNN, local TV, and newspapers who seemed to drive parts of the investigation. Even though Condit is a bad guy, the media made him look guilty of murder. Questions editors and news directors need to answer...was there ever discussion that Condit was wrong man and the ethics of how he was covered? Why wall-to-wall coverage on this vs other stories? Discuss your view of ratings/circulation vs. responsible journalism. Should you have more editorial control over all the 'experts' and 'analysts' whose speculation and opinions begin to sound like facts after a while? How much do you care about getting the truth vs. getting viewers/readers?

These questions unanswered, my advice is to watch and read everything in the media with a critical eye.

Posted by: SJ | July 27, 2008 6:29 AM

DKH said: Judges do not issue subpoenas; prosecutors do. Judges merely sign to approve them.

And with that you make it clear that you do not know what you are talking about.

Posted by: chris92 | July 27, 2008 10:06 AM

Thanks for doing this series.

I am very familiar with Rock Creek Park, the trails and the three crime scenes you discussed. I had my "aha" moment at the Shilling scene a couple of days ago. While the similarities with the Levy site are striking, the most important thing in my mind is that it was only until Shilling reached this point that Guandique chose to attack.

That point has two alternate escape routes for an assailant, including one -east on the Connector Trail #9 - that could have led back toward his apartment building. It was then that I realized how very well Guandique knows the details of the part trail system...well enough to understand the intricacies of the trails were Chandra Levy's remains were found.

What the series did not do for me was convince me how she reached that point...what were her habits, how she might have gotten there. I did go to the Nature Center/Planetarium where, even when it is closed you can get a free map of the trail network (In English or Spanish, BTW). That map makes the Western Ridge Trail look like the main trail even though the nearby horse trail is wider and more frequently used. The maps also makes it clear that the ridge trail is marked with green blazes.

If she somehow got to the nature center and decided to take a walk, she could have followed the green blazes right onto the isolated loop where she was found. Yesterday it took me just nine minutes to walk from the Center to the point on the trail overlooking the Levy crime scene.

I don't know how this case can ever really be closed, but I hope it will. I regret that the Post could not uncover more information about her habits and movements.

My thoughts and prayers go out to the Levy family.

Posted by: Murphie | July 27, 2008 11:26 AM

I just wanted to say thank you for this series. I was not living in this area when the case unfolded, and the story was quickly buried, nationally at least, by 9/11. For all the naysayers about why this series was written, I think the point was to shed light on the failings of the "system", and just how frequently various law enforcement and other government agencies fail to effectively communicate with one another.

Posted by: PK | July 27, 2008 1:52 PM

Same, Murphy, about prayers to the Levy family.

I hope prosecutors are able to do something about Guandique because he could turn around and end up back in this country.

At this point, he's already low on the totem pole in a federal prison and probably will do anything to keep going lower by getting tied to Levy's disappearance.

But still, maybe something can be done.

I still think Gainer and Ramsey were very frustrating to watch during those days after it occurred. Their attitude and manner was defeatest and unhelpful. Ramsey to this day makes excuses saying "we couldn't send the entire police department to search Rock Creek Park," which sounds absurd. There are ways to cover large areas, including getting civic groups involved, or small teams, over a period of time, to do a grid search with dogs.

Great investigative work by reporters, and some of the people involved in the case.

Posted by: eeave | July 27, 2008 1:59 PM

What do the Levys think of your investigative report, and the fact that you did it? Does it help provide some relief to them since the story disappeared, understandably, rather abruptly after 9/11 and the series thus allows for some "full circle" grieving?

Posted by: caprita | July 27, 2008 2:53 PM

**

6. Condit acknowledged to the police in his first interview with them that Chandra occasionally spent the night at his apartment. The congressman told the detective interviewing him that he could "infer what you want with that."

*

Compare this with his sworn deposition in his civil suit against Dominick Dunne-- which someone posted here on July 16-- taken on September 27, 2004.

**

9. Details of Condit's second interview with police at a private residence in Georgetown, during which he told police his whereabouts around the time that Chandra disappeared.

*

So, where were his whereabouts between about 12:50 p.m., when his brief meeting with the Vice President ended, and about 3:30 p.m., when he returned to his office? Does Mr. Condit have a substantiated alibi for his whereabouts during the most likely time frame for Chandra Levy's presumed murder in Rock Creek Park?

**

10. Details of the U.S. Park Police interrogation of Ingmar Guandique, including his alleged statement to Detective Joe Green that he saw Chandra in Rock Creek Park.

*

This is new information because Detective Joe Green apparently never made the claim of Ingmar Guandique's alleged statement until recently contacted by the Washington Post-- which has failed to present a single shred of corroboration or other substantiation of the very belated, and very convenient, claim.

**

11. On the day that Chandra disappeared, May 1, 2001, Guandique did not show up for work, investigators discovered.

*

In the words of Jake Gittes: "Are you sure about that?"

**

17. D.C. police said they learned about Guandique and his attacks in the park on July 20, 2001 (nearly three weeks after his arrest by Park Police) and it then took them nearly two months before they and prosecutors interviewed him.

*

The reason for that was that they did not consider those two attacks to be evidence of what might have happened to the then-missing Chandra Levy. The only reason that they eventually interviewed Ingmar Guandique two months later is because of the ludicrous "confession" alleged by the now-convicted armed sexual abuser, whom you refuse to name.

**

19. The contents of Guandique's confidential pre-sentencing report that included the statement: "When I'm about to commit an offense, I tell myself to go ahead and do it, but afterwards I feel bad about it... Sometimes, I cannot control myself when I see someone alone in a secluded area with something of value."

*

It is clear from this interview with Ingmar Guandique that he was referring merely to his urge to steal things from people, not to rape them or kill them. The operative theory is that Ms. Levy was raped and murdered, and not merely mugged for her pinkie ring, which then somehow escalated into murder, is that not so?

**

24. The observations of the first U.S. Park Police official on the Chandra Levy crime scene, who said it reminded him of the scene where Guandique attacked Christy Wiegand on July 1, 2001.
25. The observations of criminal profiler Kim Rossmo, who said after examining the Guandique attacks and the Chandra crime scene that Guandique "stands out like a neon sign."

*

That first policeman was a sergeant, not a detective. Mr. Rossmo made his statement based on the relatively low crime rate in Rock Creek Park (presumably compared to D.C. as a whole)-- which emphasizes an already pregnant question: How much experience did the sergeant have with murder scenes, much less from a forensic standpoint of comparing one to another, let alone comparing a murder scene to scenes of two mere muggings?

**

27. From the time of Guandique's arrest, it took police 13 months to interview Guandique's ex-girlfriend and her mother. The two said Guandique had violent tendencies and he was asked to leave their home in the spring of 2001.

*

His ex-girlfriend, Iris Portillo, also said of Ingmar Guandique: "He hit me a lot, and I was scared of him. But I don't believe he killed anyone." Thirteen installments did not provide enough space, however, for the Washington Post to include that exculpatory character testimony on Senor Guandique's behalf.

**

28. From the time of Guandique's arrest, it took police 14 months to interview Guandique's landlady, who said he looked as if he had been in a bad fight around the time of Chandra's disappearance on May 1, 2001. She also said she had thrown out two bags of Guandique's belongings that summer.

*

Of course, when the landlady finally made this statement, around the time of the grand jury hearings held by Ms. Poteat, she could not possibly have been remembering something from May 14, 2001, when Ingmar Guandique was confronted with a mugging victim larger than himself who was trained in self-defense, and who attacked Senor Guandique's face with her right hand in self-defense, rather than from May Day 2001, when Chandra Levy disappeared.

The landlady, of course, had thrown away the clothes merely because Senor Guandique had left them behind, as if he did not care what would happen to them; and, there is no evidence that there was any evidence related to Chandra Levy on those abandoned clothes, either.

**

30. Finally, we obtained the first newspaper interview with Gary Condit in seven years and the only press interviews with Guandique. We also obtained statements from some of the key law enforcement officials in the investigation saying Guandique remains of prime interest in the case.

*

Did Gary Condit provide a substantiated alibi for early afternoon on May Day 2001? Did he explain all of his and his staff's lying about Chandra Levy? Did he explain all of the false alibis that they contrived in attempting to cover the entirety of that May Day afternoon and evening? Did he explain his sworn testimony in his deposition by Dominick Dunne's lawyers versus the stained panties found in Ms. Levy's apartment and the DNA results obtained from them?

Did Ingmar Guandique admit to anything in regard to Chandra Levy? Did you figure out why he would agree to talk to you if he were guilty? What did he have to gain by it? Were you able to trip him up with any of the new information that your reinvestigation had uncovered? Did you ask him about Joe Green's very belated and convenient claim about an admission by Senor Guandique to having seen and been attracted to Ms. Levy? Did you interview Senor Guandique's lawyers, or did you assume that Joe Green could tell you all that you really needed to know, as you seem to have assumed in regard to the other two policemen present during Senor Guandique's interrogation on July 2, 2001, including the only one of the three policeman present who was fluent in Spanish and could actually know exactly what Senor Guandique was saying?

Does it really surprise you that many public officials who have an infamous unsolved murder on their resumes would just as soon put it off on a convenient suspect, however belatedly or dubiously, and place the blame on their superiors and on outside influences rather than on their own shortcomings? The series goes out of its way to denigrate the authorities; yet, when you want to point the finger of blame at Ingmar Guandique, suddenly those authorities' word is gospel.

**

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 27, 2008 4:00 PM

Nice to see this story brought back. It was like seeing the information for the first time. The story did fade away after 9/11, and I always wondered what, if anything had happened to the many questions that surrounded the case. Thanks for the interesting read.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 27, 2008 4:22 PM

Did the WashPo interview the aunt for this piece? What did she think the "big news" was that Chandra was going to spill? Great job on putting this together and refreshing our collective memory on all the details. To Gary Condit, using your rape analogy, you got what you deserved. If you had been more forthcoming in the beginning, you could have saved yourself and been painted as the hero or the helper and not the bad guy. Shame on you. To the Levy family, God bless!

Posted by: cml | July 27, 2008 4:32 PM

There was very little new information in this series. When I saw the first installment claiming that the investigation took a year I thought there would be a bombshell. There wasn't. I knew just about everything in the series except for the fabricated conversations between the participants.

Posted by: Jay | July 27, 2008 8:22 PM

Scott Higham wrote: "There are many myths associated with the Chandra Levy case. One of them is the "missing" gold bracelet."

"Myth". "Rumors circulated". "False lead".

Here's the story on that.

It's true that UPI, Roll Call, and the Washington Times reported that the only things missing were Chandra's keys and a small gold ring.

Others said only her keys were missing, at least until the police released a sketch of the gold signet ring engraved with CL.

The source of this "myth" is DePaulo in her Talk Magazine article, who says the only other thing unaccounted for is Chandra's gold bracelet, and the police won't say whether they have it or not.

So no, Washington Post, not a rumor, the police just waited seven years to let you know they have it.

If they even knew it.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 27, 2008 8:24 PM

bekyndhearted wrote: "rd, how do you know that Chandra was not packed and ready to return home? Can you share this information?"

I go over this in detail in chapter The Newport in Murder on a Horse Trail, in addition to us now knowing the new WP information of Chandra having a duffel bag of dirty clothes including panties with Condit's semen on it, which confirms my contention in The Newport that Chandra had just cleared her stuff out of Condit's condo apartment three days earlier when Condit's wife flew in and Chandra emailed her landlord saying she no longer had a reason to stay in DC.

That all changed the next day, however, with Chandra telling her landlord she would know something on Wednesday and leaving her aunt a message that she had big news. Condit must have got a lot of talking in in his "one minute" phone call with her.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 27, 2008 8:27 PM

dlg58 wrote: "He has stated that he attacked women for their valuables that they were carrying. So if he took their Walkman why would he not take their keys?"

But Guandique didn't take the Walkman. But we're supposed to believe he instead took keys to someplace he knew not what, because Chandra had no identification of who she was or where she lived.

And we're supposed to believe he took a diamond encrusted gold ring, but didn't pawn it, yet was caught breaking into a neighbor's apartment six days later (by prying out the lock) and fled with a ring he was stealing when a woman entered and screamed.

This is the same guy we're supposed to believe tied up Chandra six days earlier and methodically murdered her.

No, I'd say certainly Washngton wants to whitewash a congressman and pin this on an illegal, but you can't get Chandra there in the middle of nowhere and you can't legitimize the apparent sexual assault and robbery with what actually happened.

Facts have a way of messing with staged scenes.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 27, 2008 8:42 PM

After reading the book and the series, I think there are just as many unanswered questions as there were before. I doubt if anything is ever resolved short of a confession by someone. I agree that there was some shoddy police work in this case but I also remember that it was merely a missing persons case until CL's body was found. I do doubt that GC or someone real close did it. I also have doubts about IG also. I wouldn't eliminate a mugging went bad or something. I seriously doubt if it was a premeditated crime.
My heart also goes out to the Levys and hope that their grief someday fades away. Condit probably got what he had coming. I think total open honesty may have lead to a discovery of what happened. He was too busy trying to cover his tracks to retain his congressional seat to really help.

Posted by: midwesterner | July 27, 2008 9:03 PM

bekynhearted wrote: "Also, I keep reading about a cab she had taken, is that a theory or did someone read about her taking a cab?"

No, you have just seen some people questioning, or suggesting, she took a cab. There is no indication she did so, she travelled by Metrorail and had only been known to travel in a cab with Condit, and taxi drivers and dispatchers were canvassed in a very publicized effort to determine if Chandra had caught a cab that afternoon, with no one having seen her and no one dispatched for her.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 27, 2008 10:12 PM

DKH wrote: "So, where were his whereabouts between about 12:50 p.m., when his brief meeting with the Vice President ended, and about 3:30 p.m., when he returned to his office? Does Mr. Condit have a substantiated alibi for his whereabouts during the most likely time frame for Chandra Levy's presumed murder in Rock Creek Park?"

DKH, just to clarify, there is no substantiation that Condit returned to his office at 3:30. The next place Condit was presumably at was voting in the House at 6:30 on a couple of sense of the House measures.

No one was ever quoted as saying they saw him there, but reporters don't seem to ask fundamental questions like that.

Condit's secret timeline given to police and accidentally released by his office to his longtime friend ABC producer Rebecca Cooper had him meeting a reporter at the Tryst that evening. He had asked to meet her the next day and they went to the Tryst, but that wasn't in his timeline.

When she tried to correct it, all of a sudden Condit was driven home by Dayton that evening instead. Dayton never drove him home any other day that week, only when Chandra disappeared, and it wasn't Condit's first choice to tell police.

Unsure whether it really happened and he didn't want the police to know for some reason, or whether it really happened.

No one's talking.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 27, 2008 10:45 PM

DKH wrote: "11. On the day that Chandra disappeared, May 1, 2001, Guandique did not show up for work, investigators discovered."

Even more compelling were the questions asked by one poster on the details and timing of Guandique also alleged to be fired that day. Awful busy day, if you know what I mean.

A real investigation would inquire about and divulge those details, because that's where inconsistencies or validations take place.

Guandique passed a lie detector test. I wonder if Green the park ranger whose case it wasn't his to pursue but dagnab it it it was so solvable, the landlady renting to illegals who said Guandique looked like he was in a fight just before arrested on May 7 (but whose girlfriend doesn't remember it, and his May 7 mug shot unrevealed), and the employer hiring illegals who says he fired him that day, would also pass one.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 27, 2008 10:54 PM

Reporters, Thank you for all the years of work and the care with which you put this series together.
Great job!
This ending is immensely depressing, but the results are clear, even without resolution.
Ralph Dautherty, Thanks for the link. See you on your blog after I've finished reading your book.
And thank you so very much for sharing your book with us.
Chandra Levy will not be forgotten.
She will be forever young.
May she rest in peace and may God give her parents some sense of resolution.
The rest they will learn when they are all reunited one day.
Judy in the Big Thicket of Texas

Posted by: Judy-in-TX | July 28, 2008 1:18 AM

I hope it is not disrespecting the dead, but Chandra Levy also was a liar.

Justify that, any of you.

She lied to a good friend that she was dating an FBI agent.

It's also possible she lied to Condit that she had NOT told anyone they were involved with each other.

I think that scenario probably explains Condit's behavior early on.

If she, as her aunt Linda claims, was not supposed to tell anyone about the relationship, then how did the aunt know?

If Condit believed that Chandra had told no one, and then all of a sudden her parents are calling him and asking him if he knows where she is -- how is he going to feel?

Set aside, a moment, the fact that an affair was going on (or presumably was going on). It was two adults, complicit. Both of them were lying to important people in their lives.

If Chandra had not allowed herself to be in a situation in which she could not be honest with people, if she had made more freinds in her own peer group in Washington, if she had been part of a network of friends and acquaintances and colleagues -- they "mystery" might have been solved much earlier. Just telling someone where you're headed or having someone know your schedule is a great way to track someone down when they go missing.

It takes a village, and all that.

But even so, nothing can prepare you for the random act of violence. Because it IS random.

And I think that is where I come to rest on this. There is a lot of angst about this case, as evidenced in the series, and perhaps it comes down to an underlying sentiment that somehow this particular victim didn't deserve to be on the receiving end of the random act of violence.

I wonder if the Levys would consider setting up a program that would foster more of that "village" mentality among young women who come to Washington for internships. Give them a support group so they don't feel they must lean on older, married men in power. It might be a way to keep Chandra's memory alive by helping keep others who come to town after her alive, too.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 28, 2008 1:58 AM

Judy-in-TX wrote: "And thank you so very much for sharing your book with us."

You're more than welcome. I hope it filled in some background behind Chandra's disappearance.

And I look forward to your comments later.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 28, 2008 2:36 AM

anonymous wrote:
"I hope it is not disrespecting the dead, but Chandra Levy also was a liar.
Justify that, any of you."

As are our spies and government employees ordered to work under cover. Condit gave her such orders.

"If she, as her aunt Linda claims, was not supposed to tell anyone about the relationship, then how did the aunt know?"

She let slip, one time, in describing how she routinely contacted him, a person answering the phone and saying "Congressman Condit's office".

She said "oops, you didn't hear, did you?"

One slip, and you condemn her to a fate she deserves because she lied to keep Condit's secret, a demand he made of all his mistresses, none who knew of each other, all told his wife was fatally ill and not long for this world.
Yet you condemn Chandra.

Got to hand it to you, Condit and his people really worked it in this blog.

Your last post was the piece de resistance.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 28, 2008 2:50 AM

7 years can overturn lots of frustrated situations into amazing victories; Chandra case can rightful be later remembered as one of these cases still yet.

God has said: Condit was the mastermind to murder Chandra. Let me ask any now, ' how can that be false? ' Since God has uttered this condemnation, and provided so many proofs for the utterer and the listeners, i.e., CIA/FBI/DHS etc., can it be possible that God'll fumble on the last move to indict Condit / culprits; not possible, right? right, I think.

The strong & mighty hands of God are on the move to catch the gangs of Condit, it will not fail in this endeavor, for His Glory is on the balance, and His Truth is to make bare what was hidden in Chandra's case.

Bad luck for Condict / culprits, he reaped and shall again be reaping what he sowed for his own consequences; no no no, he's not the victim, for God was out to get him from the beginning of his evil deeds, and God is going to finish the job, period.

People, listen, this cold case is soon to become a hot case again, just wait & see, thus says the Almighty God the Mashiach of Israelis and the Levites, the Savior of All His Holy People. Amen & Amen

Posted by: liuda | July 28, 2008 3:29 AM

Thank you RD for answering my questions.
:o)

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 28, 2008 6:27 AM

Same, Murphy, about prayers to the Levy family.

I hope prosecutors are able to do something about Guandique because he could turn around and end up back in this country.

At this point, he's already low on the totem pole in a federal prison and probably will do anything to keep going lower by getting tied to Levy's disappearance.

But still, maybe something can be done.

I still think Gainer and Ramsey were very frustrating to watch during those days after it occurred. Their attitude and manner was defeatest and unhelpful. Ramsey to this day makes excuses saying "we couldn't send the entire police department to search Rock Creek Park," which sounds absurd. There are ways to cover large areas, including getting civic groups involved, or small teams, over a period of time, to do a grid search with dogs.

Great investigative work by reporters, and some of the people involved in the case.

Posted by: eeave | July 27, 2008 1:59 PM
_______________________________

If you're showing so much concern over Guandique, why aren't you sharing your concern about the serial rapist that is in the city as we speak?

Your concerns should also be focused on your congressional seats being held of people with just as crimialized and twisted minds as the one you're condemning. And don't have any concrete evidence to do so.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 28, 2008 6:34 AM

What was Condit's alibi for May 1st from the time frame of 12:50 pm - 3:30 pm? Because if Chandra logged off her computer at 12:24, you would have to account for the time that she would have to walk to Rock Creek Park since that's what some people believes she did. And then also not knowing if she left immediately once she logged off her computer. What edvidence do the police, FBI, and private investigaters have stating that she left immediately or a short time after. And what time frame would it take for Chandra to walk to Rock Creek Park. Because I don't see any documentation stating any alibi for Condit during the time frame of 12:50 pm - 3:30 pm.

And I noticed as I read others comments stating that there was not any information providing about Chandra's normal day to day activities I'll say. And I would say that in my opinion is that they could not provide that information because it was stated that she spent all of her spare time with Condit flagging down cabs, traveling to Virginia to eat out, wearing baseball caps and shades when he is out with her. And his identy is defintely different when he wears a baseball cap and dark shades as he appeared in the picture of Chapter 12. Pathetic!

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 28, 2008 6:52 AM

Does it really surprise you that many public officials who have an infamous unsolved murder on their resumes would just as soon put it off on a convenient suspect, however belatedly or dubiously, and place the blame on their superiors and on outside influences rather than on their own shortcomings? The series goes out of its way to denigrate the authorities; yet, when you want to point the finger of blame at Ingmar Guandique, suddenly those authorities' word is gospel.

**

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 27, 2008 4:00 PM
________________________________

I totally agree!! and it's pathetic!!

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 28, 2008 7:04 AM

RD-

If you are still reading these posts, I will tell you that I biked up to Grove 18 this weekend and surveyed the area. A few observations.

First, it has been by at least one poster here, and you seem to give significance to the fact that the No Horses trail just west of the Horse Trail is virtually untraveled. I believe one poster said it was the only mapped trail in the park on which she has NEVER seen any hikers or joggers. I was there for maybe ten minutes Sunday afternoon, and two hikers came through that trail, heading south, and clearly not on the Horse Trail but rather on the smaller hikers only trail slightly to the west of the Horse Trail.

You seen to think that an important fact implicating Condit is that he likely had intricate knowledge of the Rock Creek Park trails, and particularly the little-traveled No Horses Trail. Apart from my short observation that the trail is, in fact, used more than you and other posters have suggested, I don't see why such intimate knowledge of the trails, or even the existence of the No Horses Trail west of the Horse trail, is relevant. If the body was dumped, all the murderer needed to know was that there was a steep, heavily wooded, drop to the west of Ridge Road heading towards Broad Branch Road. He/she may not even have noticed whether one or two trails were crossed in dragging the body from Grove 18 or somewhere in that vicinity, it wouldn't have mattered. And the same applies if the murders actually occurred up there. On either trail there was some risk of being seen (if it was done in daylight), but neither trail is so heavily traveled that the deed could not have been done quickly (and the body dragged down the hill towards Broad Branch Road), without anyone seeing it. Of course there is always some risk of being seen, but criminals take such risks all of the time. That is why so many crimes are actually solved, although many, like this one, are not.

I will also note that the pulloff parking area by Grove 18 is on the opposite side of Ridge Road from where Chandra's body was found. Although one could have backed a car/truck onto the grass around the picnic table at Grove 18, that would have aroused much more suspicion to any passersby or park police patrols. And I simply will not believe that the killer dragged the body across Ridge Road.

Posted by: chevychase10 | July 28, 2008 10:09 AM

Guandique did not show up for work on May 1,2001. Did he have a good attendance record prior to that or was it not unusual for him to miss work?
His landlady said it looked like he had been in a "bad" fight on May 1,2001. If I remember correctly he explained that by saying his girlfriend did it? Which I think she denied?
The criminal profiler, Kim Rossmo, said the Chandra crime scene and the previous attacks by Guandique made him stand out like a neon sign! Which jurisdiction was Kim Rossmo working for MPDC or Park Police? I think that more time should have been taken to talk in detail with Kim Rossmo and the two victims of Guandique. If she is employed by the MPDC then it just seems that more investigation should have been directed toward Guandique? They need to find the "pinkie" ring of Chandra's. I would suggest making a duplicate of the ring and showing it to all of the persons living in the area where Guandique lived. Even to the extent of going to his homeland and showing it there. I think I read where this case is now with the "Cold Case" squad but it should be on the front burner! The reporter's for the WP have done a great job of explaining this case and I think reviving it for further investigation. There is still a lot of work to do and leads to follow. It takes boots on the street. The police anywhere are only as good as the information that they gather!

Posted by: dlg358 | July 28, 2008 1:15 PM

Jeffrey Leen today said, "A media frenzy helped derail the investigation." I don't see how it did that. The DC Chief of Police Ramsey said he and the second in command spoke to the media many times to let them know what was going on, but also to prevent the media from besieging his police detectives assigned to Chandra's case. The police should be following logical leads in an orderly fashion irrespective and any media speculation or over-excitement. If the police let the media distract them then they aren't doing an adequate job.

Posted by: NDvege | July 28, 2008 3:57 PM

what a fantastic story. thanks for all of your hard work. it's unbelievable that so much about the case went undiscovered for so long. i'm glad you took the time to put the situation into context for those of us who followed the story so closely in 2001 and 2002.
from a fellow journalist in new orleans

Posted by: christine | July 28, 2008 5:38 PM

Chevychase10:

I'm the one who could not recall ever seeing anyone on the loop where the remains were found. I should have clarified that I usually walk there during the week, midday.Chandra Levy disappeared on a Tuesday.

Since the story started I have been over there on the weekend, and I have encountered other people, a woman with her dog this Sunday and a man a week from Saturday. Certainly the part gets more traffic weekends. The little lot where I often park sometimes has one other car during the week, Saturday and Sundays it is always overflowing, with more cars than the six or so spaces it offers.

There is nothing like seeing the scenes. Like you, I see no way that anyone would want to drag a body across the road, even in the middle of the night.

Posted by: Murphie | July 28, 2008 10:02 PM

hi chevychase10, great to hear the latest from the site. Thanks for sharing.

First things first.

******
"I will also note that the pulloff parking area by Grove 18 is on the opposite side of Ridge Road from where Chandra's body was found. Although one could have backed a car/truck onto the grass around the picnic table at Grove 18, that would have aroused much more suspicion to any passersby or park police patrols. And I simply will not believe that the killer dragged the body across Ridge Road."
******

I'm not sure if you are saying here that Chandra was found on the opposite side of Ridge Road from grove 18, or that the pulloff for grove 18 is on the opposite side, but neither is true.

Now, it's been 4 years since I've been there, and things change, but grove 18 is on the west side of Ridge Road, towards Broad Branch and Grant Roads. Chandra was found back in the woods from the picnic table at grove 18 several yards back and 240 or so feet down the hill to the left as you walk back there. That is above Broad Branch Road below.

There was a pulloff next to the picnic table where you could back up to park, but it also would handle a horse trailer as well, so you could unload a horse, based on my recollection of the scene and research. There was a marker to guide you on how far you could back up.

Dealing quickly with across the small two lane Ridge Road for a moment, grove 17 is there, down the slope along the trail to Beach Road. The grass is kept mowed and the picnic table is a few yards downhill and tilted pretty well on the side of the hill.

This is the "easy walk" that DC police "realized" that Guandique could take from Beach Road up to Ridge Road at grove 17 on the Beach Road side he was coming up, and grove 18 a feet away across Ridge Road. I walked that trail from grove 17 to Beach Road, and it's a hike.

Now granted, no way someone is going to park on that side of the road in a totally open area and carry a body across the road (although we're talking what, two narrow lanes is 20 feet at most), but I will tell you that I talked to a park law enforcement personnel that day I was there, a Friday, when they drove by in a truck, and they just stopped in the middle of the road and turned the truck off and we talked for 10 minutes or so in the middle of the road. There wasn't the slightest concern of someone coming by because if someone was coming you'd have time to start the truck up and leave or pull the truck over to the side or whatever, it's just real quiet up there.

But it's not even an issue, because there was a cozy little place to pull into the trees next to the picnic table at grove 18 and haul a body from the trunk without anyone seeing you whatsoever, just the front of the vehicle would be able to be seen.

******
"You seen to think that an important fact implicating Condit is that he likely had intricate knowledge of the Rock Creek Park trails, and particularly the little-traveled No Horses Trail."
******

This is a very mistaken notion. I did a search of Murder on a Horse Trail and I mention the No Horses path three times, all in describing where she was found, in that she was found below that path.

However, I also point out in great detail that it is only a few yards back in the woods from grove 18, that this area is isolated and the easiest place to drive up and hide a body real well you could ever imagine, but also a place impossible for a sane woman to be hiking with nothing but the keys to her apartment should she survive.

I submit that not one person even dared attempt the Chandra Levy Walk in the Park Challenge, and they are now reduced to figuring out other ways that Chandra could get to a spot where she was found, anything but that she was dunped there from a car pulled into grove 18, which any veteran investigator from another city, one not funded by Congress, would quickly tell you is the only realistic way for a body to end up there. Washington police don't want to go there because Condit had a car and Guandique didn't.

So you are very mistaken about the No Horses path having anything to do with it, other than one must explain that the murderer walked out a few yards away from the road on this path and dragged Chandra 240 feet downhill to a place very inaccessible, which shows an intimate knowledge of this area. Any less or further would not be between the two deep ravines which aren't obvious from above and farther on down the trail and downhill would in an area where people walked up the hill occasionally from Broad Branch and Grant, so the murderer knew that terrain.

There is one very important aspect of the No Horses path that we discussed in this Reporters Noebook blog, and that is that the police say they believe that Chandra was attacked while walking on that path. However, her knocked off and broken sunglasses were found further away from Ridge Road which has her walking all the way around the No Horses path from Ridge Road starting below the stables and as she circles around and approaches Ridge Road again at grove 18, the police say they believe she was attacked.

It is with that absolutely idiotic contention that I discuss the nature of the No Horses path. If you think no one will take me up on the Walk in the Park Challenge, try getting a woman to not only do that, with only her keys mind you, but then turn around at the stables and go off a dark horse trail into the much deeper and darker No Horse path into the forest, by their lonesome.

I've done what I can to shed some light into that darkness.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 28, 2008 10:50 PM

and your insight as well, murphie. cheers.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 28, 2008 10:53 PM

rd
Thank you very much for your insightful, logical, and fact filled posts both here and on your site. A world away from the biased and mostly illogical information that was in the series. I suspect that you wrote in to the open discussion that was at noon today but didn't get posted. Small wonder. Keep up the wonderful work on behalf of the Levy family and for everyone out there looking for justice in this world.

Posted by: wk | July 28, 2008 11:18 PM

thank you, wk, I will, and I hope I see more of your comments from such a caring and thoughtful person.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 28, 2008 11:57 PM

Chandra Levy's body (remains) was placed in Rock Creek Park to be found. I do not believe that she was murdered in Rock Creek Park. And I do not believe that Guandique murder Chandra.

RD, your book is very interesting, fact filled and informative. Keep up the good work! I'm sure the Levy Family appreciates what you're doing.

Posted by: bekyndhearted | July 29, 2008 2:25 AM

Could someone please tell me how to access the Q&A that was held yesterday, Monday, July 28? I wasn't able to attend it live. TIA.

Posted by: Jennifer | July 29, 2008 9:07 AM

RD-

No, I understand that Chandra's body was found west of Ridge Road (and into the woods and down the hill/ravine towards Broad Brancy Rd.), and that Grove 18 is also west of Ridge Rd. I am saying that there is no parking pulloff on the west side of Ridge Road by Grove 18; it is on the east side of Ridge Road. It is always possible that, if it is close enough to the woods, I didn't notice it, but that seems unlikely, since I was on a bike, not in a car. It is also possible, as you point out, that things change over time and they might have changed the location of the parking area since you were up there. In any event, I'll have to go back up there again and look more closely.

Thanks for all of your interesting information.

Posted by: chevychase10 | July 29, 2008 9:30 AM

The whole flaw with RD's theory is that Condit could not have gotten a body into a cave in Luray, Va., and gotten himself back to dinner in Washington in the amount of time he claims Condit was "unaccounted for" on May 1.

Besides that, Condit was never officially called a suspect in the investigation, and he's not one now.

So, if Chandra was killed elsewhere, or killed there and then returned there after being somewhere else for a time -- it seems there would have to be a different suspect, and a motive.

Maybe a more productive use of time thinking about the Luray, Va., angle would be to try to dig up archived articles to find out if anything leaked about a "shadow Congress" doing a dry run in May. There sure was a "shadow Congress" spirited to some nearby, but undisclosed, location (one would expect a hardened facility, perhaps in a cavelike area, in a mountain) fairly close to Washington. They went there 9-11-01 once terrorists began to attack NYC and word was a plane was on its way to Washington to crash into the Capitol. That might explain Condit's trip there, if, in fact, that happened.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 29, 2008 2:03 PM

we have lots of unsolved murders in this country ,what makes this case more important then others maybe the last name was Levi and not Smith

Posted by: Anonymous | July 29, 2008 3:31 PM

***

The whole flaw with RD's theory is that Condit could not have gotten a body into a cave in Luray, Va., and gotten himself back to dinner in Washington in the amount of time he claims Condit was "unaccounted for" on May 1.

Besides that, Condit was never officially called a suspect in the investigation, and he's not one now.

So, if Chandra was killed elsewhere, or killed there and then returned there after being somewhere else for a time -- it seems there would have to be a different suspect, and a motive.

Maybe a more productive use of time thinking about the Luray, Va., angle would be to try to dig up archived articles to find out if anything leaked about a "shadow Congress" doing a dry run in May. There sure was a "shadow Congress" spirited to some nearby, but undisclosed, location (one would expect a hardened facility, perhaps in a cavelike area, in a mountain) fairly close to Washington. They went there 9-11-01 once terrorists began to attack NYC and word was a plane was on its way to Washington to crash into the Capitol. That might explain Condit's trip there, if, in fact, that happened.

Posted by: | July 29, 2008 2:03 PM

***

Ralph Daugherty can explicate and defend his own theory, of course; I have barely glanced at his Web site, to date. The salient issue, however, is not whether Gary Condit has ever been an official suspect-- he was certainly under a helluva lot of scrutiny for someone who was not even a suspect!?!-- but simply whether or not he had the means, motive and opportunity to have killed Chandra Levy.

Means: Could Gary Condit have killed Chandra Levy, based on what we know as to how she died? We are not certain how she died, but it seems most likely that she was strangled, as the hyoid bone was damaged, if not fully broken, and there are no signs of her having been wounded by either a knife or a gun (i.e., neither blood stains nor suitable holes on or in her recovered running togs). I do not believe that anyone-- even Gary Condit-- could deny that he possessed the requisite strength and agility to have strangled the petite Chandra Levy, whether doing so with his bare hands or with some instrumentality, such as her knotted stretch pants, which were recovered with her remains on May 22, 2002.

Motive: Did Gary Condit have some plausible motivation to have killed Chandra Levy on or about May Day 2001? As I stated here long ago, only Gary Condit knows that answer for certain; but, we can hardly take his word for his not having any such motivation, for obvious reasons-- with obvious examples of his dishonesty to back it up, also! From the perspective of a reasonable person looking at all of the known circumstances of the relationship between Gary Condit and Chandra Levy, could that reasonable person conclude that Gary Condit had a plausible reason to have wanted Chandra Levy dead back at the time of her disappearance? I think it is a fairly reasonable assumption to guess that Gary Condit did have such a motive, because he was a married man, whose wife was making a rare visit to his Washington home-away-from-home, who was carrying on multiple adulterous affairs under exceedingly secretive conditions, which he imposed upon his various mistresses; and, we know that Chandra Levy was intent upon his ending his marriage, one way or another, and making her his next wife. That presented a married cad with a decided problem-- especially when the wife came calling in D.C. that week!

Opportunity: Did Gary Condit have the opportunity to have killed Chandra Levy in the way that she was killed? Again, we are not certain how she was killed. Likewise, we are not certain exactly when she was killed. In fact, we are not certain even where she was killed-- but merely where her remains were finally recovered over a year after her disappearance. It is most likely, however, that she was assaulted and died during the earlier half of May Day afternoon, 2001. She likely was killed in Rock Creek Park, but might well have been killed elsewhere and her body merely dumped in Rock Creek Park sometime afterward, since her body was not discovered there for over a year. If she was killed and later dumped in the park, it would suggest to me that she was killed by someone that she knew, rather than a random stranger. Be that as it may, Gary Condit apparently had a few to several hours on the afternoon of May Day 2001 during which his time remains either unaccounted for or, at best, uncorroborated. Thus, he would appear to have had the opportunity to have killed Chandra Levy that afternoon, whether in the park, after arranging to meet with her there, or elsewhere, with his arranging to dump her body in the park at some later point during the following 55 weeks.

I do not know if Gary Condit is the killer of Chandra Levy who has escaped justice for all of these years now; but, with what is publicly known to date, including what this series has claimed about Mr. Condit, I am quite sanguine that he at least had the means, the motive and the opportunity to have killed his mistress Chandra Levy on May Day afternoon, 2001.

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 29, 2008 4:25 PM


*********
Could someone please tell me how to access the Q&A that was held yesterday, Monday, July 28? I wasn't able to attend it live. TIA.

Posted by: Jennifer | July 29, 2008 9:07 AM
*********

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/07/25/DI2008072501404.html?nav=hcmodule

Posted by: stevdart | July 29, 2008 6:57 PM

RD-

I just went by Grove 18 again and, as I observed yesterday, there is no parking area on the west side of Ridge Rd. at Grove 18; there is one directly across from the Grove 18 picnic tables, but that is across Ridge Road, on the east side. Thus, either you made were mistaken about what you observed when you visited, there has been a change in the park, or else Grove 18 is not as perfect a dumping ground as you have portrayed it. There still may be other great spots for dumping a body where Chandra's remains were found, but not at Grove 18, which means the body would have to have been dragged a longer distance than you have assumed. Perhaps from Grove 16 (which does have parking on the west of Ridge Rd., but as you or someone else has pointed out, that would have required the body to be dragged a much longer distance.

Posted by: chevychase10 | July 29, 2008 7:20 PM


hi chevychase10,

First of all, are you telling me that when people use the picnic area at grove 18 that they can't pull up by the picnic table? They must park across the road and carry everything back and forth? I think your definition of a place to pulloff for the picnic spot is a bit more formal than mine. :)

Yes, the spots across the road are marked in some manner and paved as I recall, and then the hillside descends quickly from there, including the picnic table or two for grove 17 down below.

But more importantly, back over here on grove 18, the spot for unloading horses goes all the way back to the horse trail beyond the tree line. No, it isn't paved and such, but it's a place where at the end there is a little clearing in the tree line. As I recall it's close to where the clearing to enter at the No Horses path is.

I stood there and saw it, heck I typed a good long section of chapter Horse Trail sitting at the picnic table at grove 18, including about being able to back up and unload a horse, because there was a little marker for backing up in the trees there at the trail that had something about unloading horses on it.

I didn't go further north than that so I never saw grove 16, so I don't know about another place to back up to the trail up there.

The point is, if you wanted to dump a body, you just pull in next to grove 18 picnic table and walk out the No Horses path a few yards completely hidden by trees.

I hope the marker is still there though, or someone knows what happened to it. I did a search first before responding to see if there was anything about bringing your own horse, but all there is about that is being able to park your trailer at the Horse Center.

Thanks for checking again, chevychase. This is very interesting. I should have taken pictures while I was there to have a picture of that backup marker.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 29, 2008 9:03 PM

RD-

Okay. I thought you were saying that there was a paved pulloff parking area at Grove 18, which we apparently agree there is not. As to how often people pull their cars/horse trailers onto the grass by the picnic tables at Grove 18, I really cannot say, since I never spend any time there, I usually just bike past it (today I drove on my way home from work). You might be right that that would not draw much attention, I just don't know. I appreciate your rechecking your notes and things. This is all very interesting, but, unfortunately, it can neither bring Chandra Levy back nor give us a definitive answer as to who the actual killer is, or even tell us for sure if it is one of the two main suspects.

Posted by: chevychase10 | July 29, 2008 9:28 PM

anonymous anklebiter wrote:

"The whole flaw with RD's theory is that Condit could not have gotten a body into a cave in Luray, Va., and gotten himself back to dinner in Washington in the amount of time he claims Condit was "unaccounted for" on May 1."

So very clueless. Condit was in Luray at midnight two weeks after Chandra disappeared. And my theory is asking what the heck was Condit doing in the middle of cave country at midnight two weeks after Chandra disappeared when the police starting searching around his condo that morning, at which time he left the House floor in the middle of a session.

But he was back in DC the next day, so mission in Luray was apparently accomplished.

What we know is that Condit was there, the watch is missing, and Chandra is believed by police to have decomposed and have her bones spread over a hillside down below a path used by people and dogs, a few yards from a horse trail to the east, and above Braod Branch Road, without anyone noticing anything until a dog "veered from the path" a year later.

So my theory includes Chandra not being there on that hillside that summer, and in a cave in Luray country is as good a place as any to have hidden her.

My guess is the missing $1500 TagHeuer watch has something to do with it.

As far as theories go. However, I did not present theories in Murder on a Horse Trail, just questions, and that midnight call from Luray is one of them.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 29, 2008 9:30 PM

***

Odenton, MD: You didn't answer my questions:

What was the point of these articles? What was I supposed to walk away with?

Jeffrey Leen: Police mistakes allowed a killer to go free.

An innocent man has been unfairly convicted in the public mind.

A media frenzy helped derail the investigation.

Everyone thought they knew this story, but they really didn't.

***

Jeffrey Leen and his Avenging Angels assert that they can vouchsafe for Gary Condit's innocence!?! They have not even reported what the man's alibi is for the afternoon of May Day 2001, nor dealt with the lies that he told in denying his relationship with Chandra Levy, and in trying to concoct false alibis for the afternoon and evening of that May Day!

Did they ever ask Mr. Condit about his sworn testimony in the Dominick Dunne case, posted here by someone back on July 16? Does such blatant perjury not raise any red flags in the too-narrow minds of Jeffrey Leen, Sari Horwitz, Scott Higham and Sylvia Moreno?

They readily admit that there is no physical evidence against Ingmar Guandique-- in fact, there is not a single shred of credible evidence against Senor Guandique at all, as has been discussed here umpteen times during this series!-- yet, they cite the same lack of physical evidence against Gary Condit as virtual exoneration of him, despite his own apparent lack of any corroboration or other form of substantiation for any alibi for his whereabouts on May Day afternoon, 2001!?!

***

***

?: Hello,

Were there any more attacks in Rock Creek Park after Guandique was arrested? If not, it is interesting that they stopped.

Jeffrey Leen: There were no other attacks on runners in the park following Guandique's arrest. Investigators, including well-known criminal profiler Kim Rossmo, consider that fact to be very interesting.

***

Ingmar Guandique mugged two female runners-- neither of whom was raped or murdered-- and was apprehended the evening of the second mugging. It is hardly surprising, then, that his muggings in the park stopped just then.

Chandra Levy might or might not have been attacked in the park. Ms. Levy might or might not have been jogging. Ms. Levy might or might not have been stalked. Ms. Levy might or might not have been attacked by a stranger. Ms. Levy might or might not have been raped.

It is not as if Ms. Levy were the umpteenth known victim of a serial killer, and those serial killings then ended with the arrest of Ingmar Guandique. If Senor Guandique did not kill (and presumably rape) Chandra Levy as the first in a series of attacks-- which would have then very oddly found him neither sexually assaulting nor killing his second and third victims, despite holding both of those two surprised and unarmed women at knifepoint-- then Chandra Levy was merely a lone murder victim in the park, whether at random or arranged, and there was no series of attacks that ended with Senor Guandique's arrest, other than his own unrelated pair of assaults with intent to rob!

***

Why cannot the Washington Post afford to hire employees with intelligence, wisdom, and intellectual honesty, instead of merely hiring those who believe that the role of a journalist is to be an advocate for people that a reporter feels have been abused in some way, as Dr. and Mrs. Levy supposedly have been so abused by the authorities in Washington, D.C., all essentially because they did not discover Chandra Levy's remains in the middle of a huge park that no one was sure that she had ever visited, including on the day of her disappearance, in a timely manner?

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 29, 2008 9:35 PM


But it does address the very important viability of pulling up to hide Chandra's body, something generally only a person who knows the victim does.

As well as taking valuables to stage a robbery and not pawning them, and leaving an undressed woman with her clothes in knots at a site that you can barely stand up on, hence the other piece of an obvious staged murder.

Without this info, the public has only the Washington police and their Walk in the Park belief in this staged murder scene. They surely deserve more than that.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 29, 2008 9:42 PM

my post above answering chevychase10's last post, not attempting to answer DKH's question, which surely deserves an answer, but which I cannot answer.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 29, 2008 9:52 PM

someone asked "Were there any more attacks in Rock Creek Park after Guandique was arrested? If not, it is interesting that they stopped."

This question is only pertinent if one believes that Chandra was the victim of a the serial assaulter Guandique. Another question just as relevant could be:

Almost all bodies found in Rock Creek Park have been dumped there. Have any more bodies been dumped in Rock Creek Park since Chandra was found?

If no, what does that mean?

The problem the DC Police have in blurring Chandra's murder in with Guandique's assaults is that they must blur Beach Road with Ridge Road, an "easy walk" the police say, nothing compared to the Chandra Levy Walk in the Park of course, but still, took me half an hour to walk down from Ridge Road at grove 18/17 to Beach Road.

So the police must also blur Guandique following Chandra for half an hour up a steep winding trail, or they must blur Guandique hanging out at grove 18, apparently ducking into the trees when horse riders come by, because they would report his sorry butt as soon as they got back to the stables.

And they must blur Chandra from her gym to the middle of nowhere, a place where her body was found, thus she must have walked there and Guandique must have been hanging out there, not on a busy Beach Drive but on a lonely top of the highest hill in DC.

And then they must blur Chandra into walking through the woods toward Guandique hanging out on the loneliest path that anyone could ever imagine, at least on a Tuesday afternoon with all the park facilities closed, on a path so narrow that one could not pass by, nor would they, they would call 911 if such a person was "hanging out" on the path in which they could not even get by.

Oh wait, silly me, that would require a single woman without even a dog to accompany her on this lonely trail to be carrying a cell phone. Well, of course not. She just dies because she's an idiot.

Murder solved. Thank you, DC police.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | July 29, 2008 10:21 PM

Why cannot the Washington Post afford to hire employees with intelligence, wisdom, and intellectual honesty, instead of merely hiring those who believe that the role of a journalist is to be an advocate for people that a reporter feels have been abused in some way, as Dr. and Mrs. Levy supposedly have been so abused by the authorities in Washington, D.C., all essentially because they did not discover Chandra Levy's remains in the middle of a huge park that no one was sure that she had ever visited, including on the day of her disappearance, in a timely manner?

D.K.H.

Posted by: Daniel Kevin Hand | July 29, 2008 9:35 PM

To the contrary I think the Wash. Post reporters did an excellent job with this story. Any reasonable person understands that they have to report the truth that is sustained by the facts. I'm sure we all would like to connect Congressman Condit with this murder and call him a suspect but the facts did not support that theory. I think that someday soon they (reporters) will be vindicated when Guandique is arrested and charged with this crime. Only then will the fruitcakes like Rd and DKH be exposed for the nuts that they are!

Posted by: DLG358 | July 30, 2008 4:03 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/31/AR2008073101540.html?hpid=topnews

______________________

Crikey!

Maybe that guy looking for turtles back in 2002 was part of this kind of experiment. Maybe Chandra wandered into a part of the park where people didn't want her to find something.....

Not saying this was going on in 2001, it's just interesting to think about how she might have stumbled onto something totally unwittingly, OR, wittingly, following her FBI instincts. Who knows what she might have heard "on the street"....

Posted by: Anonymous | July 31, 2008 6:52 PM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 

© 2010 The Washington Post Company