Post User Polls

Do you agree with the verdict in the Chandra Levy death trial?

A D.C. Superior Court jury on Monday found Ingmar Guandique guilty of first-degree murder in the slaying of former federal intern Chandra Levy.

The jury of nine women and three men reached its verdict after 3 1/2 days of deliberations.

By Abha Bhattarai  |  November 17, 2010; 3:57 PM ET  | Category:  Local Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Should states be able to develop their own versions of health-care reform? | Next: Will you shop at D.C.'s first Wal-Mart?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



We can have the over educated blowhards go on and on about the faulty investigation, witness discrediting, and the inevitable "the jury is reacting to the anti-illegal sentiment" nonsense. the fact is if he hadn't gotten on the phone and had the audacity to BRAG about this murder he would not have been convicted. If anyone within earshot of anyone with intelligence AND common sense and decency hears some elitist blowhard whining about how this scum was railroaded, I hope they speak up and tell him to let this guy come live in their house with them. When will the "let them eat cake" mentality stop with these people who live in their gated communities and compounds (Ted Kennedy anyone?) and who send their kids to private schools stop defending every illegal scum like their nanny is on trial?

Posted by: stopthemadness | November 22, 2010 2:54 PM

This time the system worked like it should, and I praise the jury for their verdict. Would that we had this guy on trial in Virginia, where the death penalty could ensure that we not only get him off our streets and paths, but off our planet. It's unfortunate that taxpayer monies may feed this hardened criminal 3 times a day and keep a roof over his head for years to come. In this respect we show him more mercy than he deserves, and certainly more mercy than he bestowed on his victims.

Posted by: ingodwetrust4 | November 22, 2010 3:35 PM

I agree with the verdict, but the whole Chandra Levy murder case annoys me. Would this have been news if she were not a rich, white, Jewish woman with political connections? How many other women, primarily Black or minority disappear and are found dead without a single two line blurb in the Washington Post.

I feel for her family as they have sustained a loss. But I truthfully resented the time spent by the media on Ms. Levy's disappearance, and her connections to political Washington.

When ALL women who are murdered are treated with the same respect and reporting as the Levy family, then maybe I will care more than I do now.

Posted by: NRUSS5550 | November 22, 2010 3:46 PM

The MPD and the defense lawyer owe Condit apologies.

Posted by: jckdoors | November 22, 2010 3:56 PM

47 percent in poll don't agree with the verdict? Who are these people? The DC area seems to be full of morons and PC libtards.

Posted by: jm125 | November 22, 2010 4:32 PM

NRUSS5550 - Perhaps you have forgotten that Chandra's disappearance occurred during a slow news period back in 2001, one that was abruptly ended on 9/11/01. Today, an intern's disappearance would be buried in the Metro section with maybe a follow-up or two over the ensuing months. Of course, Levy having a affair with her congressman boss also made this case a tabloid sensation.

It is nice that this case is finally coming to closure. On the other hand, I stopped wanting to hear much about it back in 2001.

Posted by: ems57fcva | November 22, 2010 4:58 PM

We "morons" are people who only were allowed to hear a certain amount of evidence - all pointing to only vaguely circumstantial - and heard the jurors say that there was a lot of evidence and they would not disclose how they reached the verdict.
I would like to hear about all this evidence and how it actually ties to this guy.
I do not care at this point if he is guilty - he deserves a fair trial and fair verdict.

And if you do not think this affects your so called Constitutional rights you are the moron.

Posted by: blueridgegirl | November 22, 2010 5:05 PM

Another politician literally gets away with murder. That's American Justice.

Posted by: WallyWutMD | November 22, 2010 5:26 PM

Having been on a few juries, I refuse to take a poll like this. No one except for the people on the jury, and perhaps the judge and lawyers, have any right to pass judgement on a verdict because they weren't sitting in the jury box. Somehow we have gotten the idea that public majority rules in the case of a verdict. The idea that if enough people believe a defendant is guilty, then he should be found guilty is exactly what the legal system is set up to avoid.

And to the person who thinks Gary Condit got away with murder, I think you are insane and need to get your head out of whatever hole it is in.

Posted by: David90 | November 22, 2010 5:49 PM

The usual stupid comments from the right wing..let's see,the "suspect" is already in custody, probably speaks a limited amount of English, there's no physical evidence linking him to the murder, the only testimony against him comes from another convicted felon..how do you convict someone in these circumstances? It's not that Guandique is an angel but simply because you are serving time for another crime doesn't automatically mean you're guilty of this one.
So now the cops can close the file on the Levy case..which was the whole point of this farcial trial to begin with.

Posted by: markappraiser1 | November 22, 2010 5:53 PM

The usual stupid comments from the right wing..let's see,the "suspect" is already in custody, probably speaks a limited amount of English, there's no physical evidence linking him to the murder, the only testimony against him comes from another convicted felon..how do you convict someone in these circumstances? It's not that Guandique is an angel but simply because you are serving time for another crime doesn't automatically mean you're guilty of this one.
So now the cops can close the file on the Levy case..which was the whole point of this farcial trial to begin with.

Posted by: markappraiser1 | November 22, 2010 5:53 PM

In a statement released in response to questions from Human Events, the Eastern Region Office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service said: "Our records indicate that Mr. Guandique entered the United States illegally but was eligible for an immigration benefit because of the designation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for nationals of El Salvador. He filed for that benefit and received work authorization while that application was pending. The application has subsequently been denied because Guandique failed to submit fingerprints."

Bottom line, he entered illegally and we knew he was here illegally and we did nothing to deport him. Now Levy is dead, two other women were assaulted and the U.S. taxpayer will be paying for his room, board, and medical care until he dies.

This is the price Americans pay for pandering to the illegal immigrant lobby such as La Raza and Casa Maryland,

Posted by: TRex3 | November 22, 2010 5:54 PM

There was simply not enough evidence provided per the report and I honestly do not understand why any one would ask for a poll of agreement or disagreeing unless this was another preplanned scam or Is everybody crazy, limited, dismal insane or does every body think everybody is crazy lol. Just want to know the meaning of this without more information? gee whiz!

Posted by: minnieh6 | November 22, 2010 6:55 PM

the issue is not whether he is guilty....it is whether the prosecution proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt... lets see: no eye witness, no DNA, no murder weapon, no cause of death....

so what planet does the jury live on? planet you are probably guilty even though there is
no proof....

any thinking person (40 % of the population?) can see there is more than areasonable doubt as to his guilt.

It is no accident that a large part of the constitution deals with criminal procedure. The public needs protection from prosecutors and the criminal "justice" system.

This case should be headed for appeal ....it is a miscarriage of justice. If the prosecution wants to convict him, they need to find some real evidence....or at least fabricate some....

Posted by: barney5 | November 22, 2010 7:11 PM

Quote from an above PC libtard, "the "suspect" is already in custody, probably speaks a limited amount of English".
Now there is an excuse for letting serial rapists and murderers get off. These animals from the sewers of the planet are literally ethnicly cleansing this pathetic PC excuse for a country. PC libtards like the one I quoted are extremely dangerous and are lower than the ethnic cleansers that make the news in places like the Balkans.

Posted by: jm125 | November 22, 2010 7:36 PM

Barney5, were you on the jury? Did you sit in the courtroom for every bit of evidence, all of the judge's instructions? If not, then you have no idea if the case was or wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I theorize that you were so wedded to the narrative of a politician murdering his young lover that you are now unable to let go of that theory.

Posted by: David90 | November 22, 2010 8:37 PM

There should have been some evidence against this guy besides an inmate snitch who wanted favors. This case needs to be retried. Guandique did not get a fair trial. The jurors should be ashamed.

Posted by: EssDo | November 22, 2010 10:39 PM

There should have been some evidence against this guy besides an inmate snitch who wanted favors. This case needs to be retried. Guandique did not get a fair trial. The jurors should be ashamed.

Posted by: EssDo | November 22, 2010 10:42 PM

Execution is the only deserved option for illegal alien, MS-13 gang members, in addition he has numerous other crimes on his record. Bring the marshmallows time for a bonfire.

Posted by: zcxnissan | November 23, 2010 12:43 AM

What hard evidence is there to link the defendant? None. Jury convicted him guilty which doesn't make any sense.

Posted by: deathmuzeta | November 23, 2010 7:54 AM

So NRUSS5550, you care less about Chandra Levy because she is Jewish and you justify this because "other" women's families somehow did not get the same "respect?" While you talk the language of enlightenment and equality, your attitudes are from the dark ages. Go crawl back under your rock.

Posted by: chgobluesguy | November 23, 2010 8:06 AM

This has to be the most stupid piece I have ever seen in the Post. You are asking readers who were not at the trial, have probably read/heard none of the evidence, in short who know absolutely nothing about the matter to comment upon it. Why not conduct a poll about some arcane aspect of quantum mechanics or neurosurgery. When eliciting the views of the masses, better stick to Bristol's dancing skills or Obama's birthplace.

Posted by: captainmarvel | November 23, 2010 8:08 AM

Not having attended the trial, I can't know if it was fair.

But this verdict can't be as much fun to report as attempting to blame a Congressman was.

Posted by: WmarkW | November 23, 2010 8:12 AM

I have no sympathy for this man, he is obviously a violent criminal who deserves to be locked up for life. That being said the standard for a murder conviction is supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt. There is not a shred of reasonable evidence to convict him of this crime even though he probably did it. This standard is what keeps ALL of us safe and allows us to practice things like freedom of speech freedom of religion etc. My heart goes out to the Levy family it trully does but this man scumbag though he may be should not have been convicted.

Posted by: pezbb | November 23, 2010 8:24 AM

Stopthemadness wrote:
"... if he hadn't gotten on the phone and had the audacity to BRAG about this murder..."

Gee, at least read about the trial before you make comments like this. His girlfriend at the time ask him if he killed the woman and he DIDN'T SAY HE DIDN'T DO IT. That's not bragging. The prosecutor make his NOT DENYING the murder an ADMISSION OF GUILT.

Posted by: Jimof1913 | November 23, 2010 8:48 AM

jm125 asked who are the people that did not agree with the verdict! Perhaps some of them are people that think that the burden of "Beyond a reasonable doubt" was not met. Perhaps they are people that think that the police department should be competent and investigate properly and not screw up potential evidence. The clothes had DNA on them that may have belonged to a police officer handling the evidence. The computer of the victim was mishandled by the police. The jail house witness was questionable. It was a miracle that a jury returned a guilty verdict. It was similar to jury nullification but in reverse! I do not think this guy is any angel, but we do have a judicial system, and we do have rules for how we handle evidence and how we find people guilty, and none of that was followed in this case. If you do not believe in our court system then that should be changed, but until then, we need to follow the rules and apply the strict burden of proof!

Posted by: HotelGuest | November 23, 2010 9:06 AM


Well-said "blueridgegirl."

For some funddies, asking for a fair trial is blasphemy when it comes to a rich white Jewish intern having a love affair with a Politician, versus a latino.

Some good samaritans like "ingodwetrust4" salivate at the idea of having him strung or fried. These bible thmpers are so full of so-called Christian values suck.

They'd fight among themselves to be first to hand the Lord if he ever had the bad idea to make a come back in Verginia, in the shape of a Latino, an AA or a white hobo.

Posted by: clause-michelle | November 23, 2010 9:10 AM

I couldn't care less about this gangbanger scum, I would execute him on that fact alone but the thought that there is no evidence, no witnesses, no nothing has me worried that the real killer is walking around here about to strike again

Posted by: devilsadvoc8 | November 23, 2010 9:17 AM

Jury of your peers huh, I wonder how many hispanic men were on that jury. Sounds like a bunch scared white women convicted him because of their personal fears.

Posted by: devilsadvoc8 | November 23, 2010 9:21 AM

As a former homicide commander, I respect the decision making process of the judicial system. Personally, I believe there exist reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. It is troubling when the medical examiner cannot give cause and manner of death, no eyewitnesses, no physical or forensic evidence. Jailhouse confessions are historically unreliable and should be corroborated in some fashion. What deal did the jailhouse witness get from the government to get him to testify? While the polygraph is inadmissible in criminal cases (Frye 1928) this defendant reportedly passed two test. Ask yourself how many people get a job after failing a mandatory polygraph exam with the FBI, CIA, NSA or Secret Service? I anticipate the court of appeals will void the conviction on the bases that insufficient evidence exist the support the conviction.

Posted by: hypnos123 | November 23, 2010 9:27 AM

How can anyone here make a decision on whether they agree with the verdict? We didn't see/hear all the evidence and testimony. Answering such a question here is about the same as flipping a coin.

Posted by: Latnikaf | November 23, 2010 9:48 AM

Any fool with half a brain should know that Guandique is the fall-guy. He is illegal, illiterate, cannot speak English, was already in jail, cannot afford a decent lawyer; cards are stacked against him. As for the jury, I have sat on a jury for capital murder for 6 months and I know the deliberation process. Totally unfair and unjust.

Posted by: daughterofold | November 23, 2010 9:53 AM

Given considerable doubt, I think the jury went with the verdict that would satisfy most of the people.

Posted by: LifeBeforePrinciple | November 23, 2010 9:56 AM

"Having been on a few juries, I refuse to take a poll like this. No one except for the people on the jury, and perhaps the judge and lawyers, have any right to pass judgement on a verdict because they weren't sitting in the jury box."

THAT AND OTHER SIMILAR OBSERVATIONS ARE EXCELLENT TAKES!

No one who was not in the jury box and sworn to deliberate the defendant's guilt to a reasonable doubt has any experiential reality upon which to substitute their "verdict" for the jury's.

If they didn't see enough evidence it is perhaps because of the limitations inherent in media coverage or perhaps because they have been watching too much CSI and think it's real.

Posted by: samscram | November 23, 2010 10:16 AM

Oh. come on, the WAPO is fishing for SOMEONE who has "reasonable doubt." There must be someone out there who insists on hard evidence.

Posted by: waltonr1 | November 23, 2010 10:19 AM

The accused is scum but not the person who killed Levy.

Condit is culpable.

The appeals in this case will go on for years. The trial judge made enough mistakes that this conviction will be overturned.

Posted by: googlesmoogle | November 23, 2010 10:24 AM

if the issue is "beyond a reasonable doubt" then it simply depends on what your personal threshold for reasonable doubt is.

In this case you can argue it both ways.
What breaks the deal for me?

The guy supposedly confessed, numerous times, to the murder. He's already in jail for two assaults on women in the same area plus numerous other crap. So why would he not just plead guilty and take a reduced sentence vs forcing a long drawn-out trial and face life in prison?

This whole trial could have been avoided, and there wouldn't be any doubt as to his guilt, if he had just pled guilty. So why didn't he do that?

Was he that-obviously guilty of the crime? If so then what did he have to lose by not going to trial? If he was not that-obviously guilty of the crime then how can you not have reasonable doubt? This just speaks to the simple issue of having a convenient target for your rage & frustration, wanting to see someone put away for the crime against this young white Jewish girl, and putting 1 and 1 together to get 3. He may very well have done it but the evidence simply isn't overwhelming. The DA pursued a standard path: put an "undesirable" on the hook, throw him in the water and just wait and let the sharks tear him apart.

They do this to young men through out this country on a daily basis. I'm not surprised that it happened here, again. And this verdict will never be truly accepted for that reason. And sorry but I can't really blame a guy in prison for bragging to his cellmates that he's killed someone. Probably the only way he can keep his anus intact. If you were in his position, what *wouldn't* you say to do that.

Posted by: chucklebuck | November 23, 2010 10:34 AM

I would just be very leery of convicting someone of a crime based on what they supposedly say in prison. It's a simple question of how eager you are to convict them. You either take the hearsay as concrete proof, or you dismiss it for a number of reasons, cellmates with a grudge for a start.

What's the difference between someone saying that they heard him say it themselves, and someone saying that someone told them that he said it? I don't see much difference when in the end that's exactly what happens in court. But the latter is called "hearsay evidence" and would not be admissible in court. So if I come to the police and say that you told me that you killed someone that would be perfectly-legitimate evidence and you should be locked up for murder?

Again, if he actually had killed someone and he found it necessary to brag about it while he was in prison, give him a chance to admit it officially and if he doesn't, if he responds with a not-guilty plea, where is he then? All that talk is just going to work against him, isn't it? Or are we supposed to assume that anyone would plead not-guilty just for the hell of it, even if they know that by doing that they run the chance of not only getting convicted but serving an extremely-long sentence. But by that logic why shouldn't we just convict every defendant knowing that either they probably got away with some crime in the past or they would commit a crime in the future and possibly get away with that? Just find them guilty every time they come before a jury, you'll catch them all eventually. If not in this trial then in some other one. Yeah, and maybe they'll confess in jail, sure.

Posted by: chucklebuck | November 23, 2010 10:44 AM

Insufficient evidence.

I served on a DC murder trial where the jury initially was inclined to vote guilty, based mostly on "sounds like he's the type to do it" and a convincing prosecutor. When we discovered the physical evidence completely contradicted the prosecution's argument, most of us reversed, due to reasonable doubt. Still, it took days to get a holdout juror to understand that the "reasonable" in reasonable doubt did not mean "I think it's reasonable to think he did it, therefore guilty."

We might have let a guilty man walk, but the case was flimsy. It still had more evidence than against this guy in the Levy case.

Posted by: hitpoints | November 23, 2010 11:06 AM

I find it astounding that a prominent publication like the Washington Post would ask its readers, "Do you agree with the Chandra Levy verdict?" The question presumes that readers of the Post have the same information as the jurors who heard all of the evidence and observed the demeanor of all of the witnesses during their testimony. What a foolish presumption! Of course, it is equally foolish for readers to respond with an opinion, for the same reason.

Posted by: ripcord1965 | November 23, 2010 12:58 PM

What a stupid poll! Everybody except the jurors will vote, and even if the latter did, they'd be hopelessly outnumbered. Yet, it was the jury that heard all the evidence! So, what the Post is asking for is uninformed, gut emotional and even frivolous opinions. Doesn't the Post have anything better to poll people on! My gosh, are you a newspaper or the National Enquirer?!

Posted by: hypocritebuster | November 23, 2010 1:04 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company