BODE technology - Chandra Levy case
candy

East Lansing, MI

#184 Nov 22, 2010
Now comes the Condit book, and the ONLY two journalists I can think of that will come away UNSCATHED are 1) Dan Rather, who refused to cover the Condit story for the longest time, saying it was long on gossip, short on facts, and 2) Larry King, who was fair to Condit and his staff on Larry King Live. The rest, ESPECIALLY, Furhman, Geraldo, RITA COSBY, Greta, will all be talked about in the worst terms in Condit's book GUARANTEED.

BrotherMoon

“Sandy Stranger killed JonBenet”

Since: Jan 08

Not Boulder, Co.

#185 Nov 22, 2010
Too bad Boulder only takes note of what happens in Tibet and San Francisco.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#186 Nov 22, 2010
As I recall, Condit put a watch or something that Chandra had given him in a fast food bag and drove across town to throw it away. A passer-by saw him acting suspiciously and retrieved the bag. That's the story as I remember it. Haven't checked it.
Patricia Fox

Hogansville, GA

#187 Nov 22, 2010
Eva wrote:
<quoted text>
Good thinking! I still feel he could have played a role in her disappearance because she had to look up that spot in the park on line, and his wife was coming to town and Chandra was turning into a nightmare for him. Just my opinion.
I always thought that a little suspicious myself. You wouldn't think she would pick an unfamiliar area to go jogging just a couple of hours before she was supposed to leave town. As a matter of fact, I can't imagine her going jogging anywhere right before she was supposed to leave. Doesn't make any sense. He is probably very much the scapegoat in this case.
Patricia Fox

Hogansville, GA

#188 Nov 22, 2010
The scapegoat being the guy who was convicted. Sorry, I was not very clear on who I was referring to.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#189 Nov 23, 2010
Uh, this CONVICTED MURDERER was threatening to kill off the witnesses against him, hardly anything an innocent man would do, including his ex-girlfriend, who came down with FLEET WHITE AMNESIA about everything she had told the grand jury about him.
Eva

AOL

#190 Nov 23, 2010
candy wrote:
Uh, this CONVICTED MURDERER was threatening to kill off the witnesses against him, hardly anything an innocent man would do, including his ex-girlfriend, who came down with FLEET WHITE AMNESIA about everything she had told the grand jury about him.
Really Candy? Did the convicted murderer testify on his own behalf? What witnesses were threatened? If there were witnesses, why wasn't this murder solved back then?
This guy sounds out of his mind and does he speak English? I'm sure he's a no good creep but it doesn't mean he killed Chandra. Like I asked you before, do you think he folded her clothes neatly and she sat there on the stump willingly while he tied her up? None of his DNA was found on her clothing and wouldn't her clothing be ripped if it was "a mugging gone bad"? This story stinks, but I'm glad you're happy that Gary Condit may have gotten away with murder. In that case, well done.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#191 Nov 23, 2010
Eva wrote:
<quoted text>
Really Candy? Did the convicted murderer testify on his own behalf? What witnesses were threatened? If there were witnesses, why wasn't this murder solved back then?
This guy sounds out of his mind and does he speak English? I'm sure he's a no good creep but it doesn't mean he killed Chandra. Like I asked you before, do you think he folded her clothes neatly and she sat there on the stump willingly while he tied her up? None of his DNA was found on her clothing and wouldn't her clothing be ripped if it was "a mugging gone bad"? This story stinks, but I'm glad you're happy that Gary Condit may have gotten away with murder. In that case, well done.
No, the convicted murderer INGMAR GUANDIQUE, did not testify on his own behalf, and if you bothered to read the superseding indictment I posted, you would have seen he was charged with Obstruction of Justice for trying to kill off witnesses:

1. Between on or about May 1, 2009, and on or about September 9, 2009, Ingmar Guandique, also known as Inmar Guandique, also known as "Chucky,", also known as "Chacky," wrote or caused to be written a note threatening to kill or have killed a witness, hereafter referred to as "J.G." and/or to kill or have killed the witness's family if the witness "J.G. assisted law enforcement in the investigation and prosecution of Ingmar Guandique for the May 1, 2001 murder of Chandra Levy.

Eighth Count:

Between on or about May 1, 2009, and on or about September 9, 2009, Ingmar Guandique, also known as Inmar Guandique, also known as "Chucky", also known as "Chacky," willfully and knowingly, corruptly persuaded and endeavored to influence, intimidate and impede "J.G.," a witness in an official proceeding, to wit, the case Of United States v. Ingmar Guandique 2009 CF1 009230, then pending in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, with the intent to influence, delay and prevent or cause to withhold, the truthful testimony of "J.G." in that proceeding (Obstructing Justice) in violation of 22 DC Code Sections 722 a...
Eva

AOL

#192 Nov 23, 2010
candy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the convicted murderer INGMAR GUANDIQUE, did not testify on his own behalf, and if you bothered to read the superseding indictment I posted, you would have seen he was charged with Obstruction of Justice for trying to kill off witnesses:
1. Between on or about May 1, 2009, and on or about September 9, 2009, Ingmar Guandique, also known as Inmar Guandique, also known as "Chucky,", also known as "Chacky," wrote or caused to be written a note threatening to kill or have killed a witness, hereafter referred to as "J.G." and/or to kill or have killed the witness's family if the witness "J.G. assisted law enforcement in the investigation and prosecution of Ingmar Guandique for the May 1, 2001 murder of Chandra Levy.
Eighth Count:
Between on or about May 1, 2009, and on or about September 9, 2009, Ingmar Guandique, also known as Inmar Guandique, also known as "Chucky", also known as "Chacky," willfully and knowingly, corruptly persuaded and endeavored to influence, intimidate and impede "J.G.," a witness in an official proceeding, to wit, the case Of United States v. Ingmar Guandique 2009 CF1 009230, then pending in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, with the intent to influence, delay and prevent or cause to withhold, the truthful testimony of "J.G." in that proceeding (Obstructing Justice) in violation of 22 DC Code Sections 722 a...
Who's JG? A jailhouse snitch?
rider

Prairie Du Sac, WI

#193 Oct 21, 2011
9-11 widow questions why MSNBC host silenced herwww.tomflocco.com/fs/911WidowQuestions.htm... - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Dec 8, 2005 The strange death of Lori Klausutis received only a few short stories in ... performing the Klausutis autopsy, had recently relocated to Florida; ...
rider

Prairie Du Sac, WI

#194 Oct 21, 2011
Lori Klausutis!
candy

East Lansing, MI

#196 Jul 10, 2012
Re: Bode Technology and the contamination in the testing of crime scene evidence. I posted this at the time, on this thread, that Bode contaimnated a key piece of crime scene evidence during it's testing process in the Chandra Levy case:


I've been checking into this Bode Levy case situation today. I am going to type a synopsis here, and hopefully, will have time to type more this weekend. THIS IS ALL RELEVANT TO THE RAMSEY CASE.

From a court motion in the United States of America v Ingmar Guandique:

"During theri analysis back in the 2002-2004 time frame, the FBI Labratory was not able to recover any DNA from the items of evidence recovered at the crime scene, and therefore, there was no DNA that could be compared against the defendant or anyone else in this case. Indeed, government counsel is not aware of any available "biological material" that is available now for testing from the items of evidence recovered from the crime scene.(More next post)
candy
East Lansing, MI
Reply
|Report Abuse
|Judge it!
|#23
Oct 22, 2009 "Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution, last year the government submitted certain items of evidence from the crime scene to BODE Technology in an attempt to determine whether it was possible with new technologies to attempt to recover any incidental DNA. What undersigned counsel have learned since then is that in light of the condition of the items of evidence when they were recovered, and the handling of the items since their recovery, it is essentially impossible to recover now any DNA that may have existed or been deposited on the items of evidence at the time of the murder. This fact was demonstrated when BODE, using what is sometimes referred to as "touch" DNA technology (to locate skin cells, or "incidental DNA") in an attempt to recover DNA from certain items of evidence, found some female DNA on Ms. Levy's sports bra and a mixture of DNA, THE MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR OF WHICH WAS A MALE, IN MS. LEVY'S TIGHTS.(Not Guandique's DNA) As it turned out, the female DNA recovered from Ms. Levy's sports bra was the DNA of the BODE examiner conducting the test. Similary the government has reason to believe that the mixture of DNA found in Ms. Levy's tights DID NOT COME FROM THE CRIME SCENE, BUT IS RATHER PRESENT IN THIS ITEM OF EVIDENCE NOW AS A RESULT OF CONTAMINATION THAT TOOK PLACE AFTER THE ITEMS WERE RECOVERED.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#197 Jul 10, 2012
Bumping Candy's notes for those holding onto the elusive fantasy of Lacy's "touch" DNA being from an intruder: the locations of the DNA samples from the clothing in the JBRamsey case are consistent with them being contaminated while being handled during the autopsy and/or for forensic testing. Lack of proof as to when the DNA was deposited and the low number of markers developed in the fingernail samples--rendering them useless--is evidence it is nothing more than contaminant or artifact.

It is also not semen and not blood from any intruder.

Factor in that the there is NO crime scene EVIDENCE which has led to ANYONE OTHER THAN A RAMSEY AND THE RAMSEY HOME in 15 years, plus all the clear evidence the Ramseys were involved, and a reasonable person can only conclude there was no intruder.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#198 Jul 10, 2012
koldkase wrote:
Bumping Candy's notes for those holding onto the elusive fantasy of Lacy's "touch" DNA being from an intruder: the locations of the DNA samples from the clothing in the JBRamsey case are consistent with them being contaminated while being handled during the autopsy and/or for forensic testing. Lack of proof as to when the DNA was deposited and the low number of markers developed in the fingernail samples--rendering them useless--is evidence it is nothing more than contaminant or artifact.
It is also not semen and not blood from any intruder.
Factor in that the there is NO crime scene EVIDENCE which has led to ANYONE OTHER THAN A RAMSEY AND THE RAMSEY HOME in 15 years, plus all the clear evidence the Ramseys were involved, and a reasonable person can only conclude there was no intruder.
Explain with expert sources how the DNA samples from the clothing in the JBR case are sonsistent with them being contaminated while being handled during the autopsy and/or for forensic testing. Also make up your mind if was during the autopsy or the forensic testing. NO foreign male DNA should be in a murdered childs panties mixed with her blood and found on the waistband of her her longjohns. That alone is CRIMESCENE EVIDENCE! Tell us where the the cord and tape was sourced to! Sourced to the Ramseys? NO What about the fibers and animal hair that were not sourced to the Ramseys? Explain those with EVIDENCE.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#199 Jul 11, 2012
wilsonshehan wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain with expert sources how the DNA samples from the clothing in the JBR case are sonsistent with them being contaminated while being handled during the autopsy and/or for forensic testing. Also make up your mind if was during the autopsy or the forensic testing. NO foreign male DNA should be in a murdered childs panties mixed with her blood and found on the waistband of her her longjohns. That alone is CRIMESCENE EVIDENCE! Tell us where the the cord and tape was sourced to! Sourced to the Ramseys? NO What about the fibers and animal hair that were not sourced to the Ramseys? Explain those with EVIDENCE.
If you don't know the answers to those questions by now, nothing I can say will be worth the time it takes me to type this.

The sources, answers, and debate arguments are everywhere. Try google. Read and learn.

Judged:

10

10

7

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
candy

East Lansing, MI

#200 Jul 11, 2012
Here's another article on that contaminated DNA testing from BODE in the Chandra Levy case. Despite having a MINUTE amount another man's DNA on her clothing, that could not be sourced, the jury did convict Guandique. Since even BODE believes the result is from contamination, that says a lot about their procedures to ensure no contamination:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-200218...

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#201 Jul 11, 2012
koldkase wrote:
<quoted text>If you don't know the answers to those questions by now, nothing I can say will be worth the time it takes me to type this.

The sources, answers, and debate arguments are everywhere. Try google. Read and learn.
Yes, but all that is available in the form of "answers" is speculation. An abundance of unsourced evidence exists in the JBR case; hair, fibers, DNA, prints, cord, tape, etc.

The evidentiary DNA in the Chandra Levy case and that of the JBR case are absolutely incomparable.

Since: Sep 11

South Africa

#202 Jul 12, 2012
wilsonshehan wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain with expert sources how the DNA samples from the clothing in the JBR case are sonsistent with them being contaminated while being handled during the autopsy and/or for forensic testing. Also make up your mind if was during the autopsy or the forensic testing. NO foreign male DNA should be in a murdered childs panties mixed with her blood and found on the waistband of her her longjohns. That alone is CRIMESCENE EVIDENCE! Tell us where the the cord and tape was sourced to! Sourced to the Ramseys? NO What about the fibers and animal hair that were not sourced to the Ramseys? Explain those with EVIDENCE.
Excellent post, Wilson! Regarding the "contaminated" DNA, are we now expected to be so gullible as to believe that two separate labs in two separate states tested two separate items of her clothing years apart and that one or both labs just happened to contaminate the DNA sample/s and that despite this contamination, the profiles nevertheless just happened to match?

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#203 Jul 12, 2012
It's scary that you people are so dumb.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#204 Jul 13, 2012
candy wrote:
Here's another article on that contaminated DNA testing from BODE in the Chandra Levy case. Despite having a MINUTE amount another man's DNA on her clothing, that could not be sourced, the jury did convict Guandique. Since even BODE believes the result is from contamination, that says a lot about their procedures to ensure no contamination:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-200218...
Just the other day on our local news there was a story that I caught only some of, but the basic story was that there was DNA in a case for many years that matched someone from the Occupy Wall Street group on a few markers, connected to a murder of a young woman and they have been trying to tie him to the crime.

As it turns out, all this time later, the DNA turned out to belong to one of the officers handling the evidence.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Judge Allows $750 Million Lawsuit from JonBenet... 8 min Let It Snow 1
News Boulder still vexed by Ramsey mystery a year af... 49 min Let It Snow 10
Immaculate (Jul '17) 1 hr Let It Snow 9
Stan Garnett resigning effective late Feb. 1 hr robert 2
Censorship re: Ramsey Case? (Nov '16) 1 hr robert 73
All I Want For Christmas 2 hr Let It Snow 12
Ramsey's Saved Themselves (Sep '16) 2 hr Let It Snow 23
More from around the web