It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


New Questions in Chandra Levy Murder Case

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 10:24 AM

New questions are being raised surrounding the murder of Chandra Levy, the case that rocked official Washington and much of the nation in the summer of 2001 because of allegations she had been having an affair with then-Rep. Gary Condit (D-Calif.). Closed hearings have been held to review information that may impeach the credibility of a witness who testified at the trial of Ingmar Guandique. In 2010, nearly a decade after Levy disappeared, Guandique was convicted of murdering her. He was already in prison for other crimes, and was sentenced to 60 years in prison in Levy's death. Now a case largely built on circumstantial evidence and witness testimony appears to be facing serious questions.

Because there was little to no physical evidence in Levy's death, the case against Ingmar Guandique was largely built on the testimony of witnesses, including that of an inmate, Armando Morales, who claimed Guandique told him he killed Levy. If Morales' testimony is untrue, the whole case could fall apart. But at this time it is unclear if Morales is the witness in question. The Justice Department is required to notify the court about any information raising questions about the credibility of its witnesses.

story here

They convicted and sentenced this guy for 60 years on heresay on this, I hope the truth comes out. I still think Condit had something to do with this

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 11:05 AM
If anyone in the world could benefit from 9/11 it was U.S. House of Representatives, Gary Condit. The hijacking tragedy took the Sandra Levy tragedy out of the spotlight and soon after the Levy mystery was rarely mentioned in the media. As the story fizzled out, Condit was exonerated and Sandra was still dead without justice.

I too suspect Condit got away with it. Hearsay from another prison inmate isn't enough evidence. Tough talk while being incarcerated just so you can seem scary and a badarse isn't far fetched in prison. It doesn't make it true even if Guandique did say it. We don't know the mental state of Guandique or Morales, the one who accused him of confessing it.

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 11:08 AM
reply to post by HomerinNC

I always thought Condit was the Perp

I hope they get him

edit on 1/25/2013 by darkangel831 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 11:50 AM
Thanks OP for finding this and sharing it.

From the beginning, I felt that Condit was the killer. And this guy they locked up took a bribe.

Some criminals can't survive in the real world, so living in prison is a lifestyle for most.

He had everything to gain by admitting to a murder he did not commit.

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 11:59 AM
Condit was able to clean up his house, pretty much STERILIZE it before the search warrant was executed, which came WEEKS LATER, so there would be NO EVIDENCE left behind

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:25 PM
I remember that being the ONLY story all summer - that and Bush was back at his at his ranch. I have my suspicions about Condit too but only because we know how slimy congressmen can be.
I'd like to think Chandra Levy's murder was solved but perhaps they did get the wrong man. Thanks for the update on the case Homer.

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:41 PM
Thanks for the update on this! The Chandra Levy murder stood in such stark contrast to what had happened just two years prior: the Clinton impeachment hearings. If Monica Lewinsky, still alive today, was permitted - and I don't use that term loosely - to give her testimony at those hearings without a successful attempt on her life, then what the fluff did Chandra know about? That 9/11 had been planned?

She had to know something aside from some of Condit's more personal statistics.
edit on 1/25/2013 by chasingbrahman because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 10:43 PM
It's all is bubbling back to the surface.
edit on 28-7-2016 by XKrossX because: poor spelling/grammar

new topics

top topics


log in