Clothing Found With Chandra's Body (Condit-Levy)

6-9-02 | crystalk

[crystalk]

When Chandra's body was found on May 22, we started getting a list of clothing items supposedly found with it: sweat shirt, sweat pants, who knows what all. When I and other posters pointed out that she could never have been wearing all this at one time, the official list condensed to say that what was found was: spandex tights, T-shirt, panties, tube-type exercise bra, and ordinary sneakers (not running or specialty shoes). This at least brought it down to what might be worn at the same time.

However, it raised other questions. This is what someone might wear while working out on the weight machines in a gym [and oddly enough she was last seen, by the official time line, at a gym 2 blks from her apt] but one would NEVER jog or go on a long walk in spandex tights, and this seems a little chilly for 4/30 in DC unless in the very warmest part of the day.

BTW none of these clothes were said to be "worn" or ON the body, but just thrown out near it in a random fashion, and now the Enquirer says the tights were found around a tree clear up on the flatter area near the (official, maintained) West Ridge Trail in RCP!

We have seen speculation all along that Chandra maintained clothing at Gary's apartment, or her own, but that was all neatly packed by someone, in bags ready to leave, when her apt was searched 5/6/01. Only a few things left in drawers or closet.

It is totally non-credible that Chandra would have gone out to meet Gary, or to lunch with friends, or even to a bank or shopping, in the attire found on the slope in Rock Creek Park.

Even AT the gym, would she not have showered and changed back into something more street-worthy before going home?

I am wondering if these items, assuming what was found is only what we are now told, were WHAT SHE HAD IN A LOCKER AT THE GYM, to use just there while working out and then changed out of.

For a year, we were told that on Monday evening 4/30/01 she checked out of the gym and terminated her membership, saying she would soon move back to California. Suddenly about a month ago I began to see it said that the 4/30 transaction as evidenced by a receipt found in her apartment [virtually the ONLY thing found there: the apt had been sanitized and wiped clean of fingerprints]--showed Chandra not as having terminated, but as having PAID FOR ANOTHER MONTH--ie May, and thus continued her membership. Which is it? We are being told two stories. If the new story is true, was she really even planning to leave DC at ALL?

It has struck me that, if someone who was throwing out her bones (body, corpse) in Rock Creek Park had only a nude body, whether fresh or decomposing, and wanted to set it up to look like she had been attacked there...and this was after May 16, when all of Chandra's clothes had been taken by her parents...Where on earth could the perp get anything of hers? Answer: How about the contents of her gym locker, this one outfit she wore there while working out. [It was said that Gary and Dayton were also members of this gym.]

That might also account for the fact her name was sewn into certain seams...

[dalebert]

Don't have lab tests back yet. Could be lyme is on the bones. Can Lyme be washed away?

[chemainus]

This is a moot question as it was not done because the effect is useless.... and you do not go to Luray for lime...go to your nearest Southern States or Lowes or garden center.... the 50# bags that sell for $1.86 is the same stuff the health food store or Pharmacy sells you in a little bottle of 30 tablets for $5.96 to eat....... leave the lime thing alone...it is a false trail...think freezer ( remote burial provides NO REASON to exhume).....

[chemainus]

HEY YOU GUUUUYS !! The Spain thing is intriguing...more info ? Also , someone was developing a TIMELINE for 1) Condit minute by minute 2) Lynch 3) Condit's other queer aide 4) Chandra minute by minute..... any news on this ?

[Plummz]

Okay, I'm backing off the lime thing.

( remote burial provides NO REASON to exhume).....

You're still assuming here the person who buried is the same as the person who exhumed. I propose that need not be the case -- see post #54.

[Plummz]

All that is known about the Chiang-Spain thing is what has been spelled out on this thread. Condit and Chiang were in Spain the same year, but no one knows when exactly Chiang was in Spain. Maybe you could riung up her brother Roger and ask.

[Plummz]

you do not go to Luray for lime

There are other kinds of mines in Luray, I beleive, but I forget the details.

[crystalk]

Believe me C., I DO have an idea. It is very outlandish in any crime to suggest that someone moved the body, much less divided it, possibly into two different custodies-- after its original disposition. I am well aware how risky that WHB, and how seemingly weird it wd be esp if the main part were then only going to put out where it WB found!

More dearly than you, even, I would like to use occam's r. and cut out some of this, but again as I told another poster, I am being mugged by facts. Facts I take as facts.

If at some point I learn the facts (incl saw marks) are not fact, I will be the first to post it to you.

[Plummz]

Again, I ask - where did you get the "fact" of the saw mark?

[crystalk]

Look, P, your theory and mine are virtually identical.

The only difference I know of, is that you would either have the body entire, or have fallen apart purely by chance, with the left leg purely by chance having been the missing part.

I am willing in my theory to go ahead and posit a sawing off of the leg, though not specifying just how long after death this may have been.

Where there is a saw there are saw marks.

Please leave it alone there until we have more complete data.

Om mani padme hum. Shalom aleykhem.

[Plummz]

If I read a report there are saw marks, I'll posit a sawing. Proceeding vice versa makes not much sense.

[crystalk]

And if I read a report that there was sawing, I will assume that there were saw marks, and further that that is probably why there was said to have been sawing.

[Plummz]

Where did you read there was sawing?

[crystalk]

I will not hit abuse, as long as that is your last post to me in this life.

[Plummz]

I'm still operating under the assumption this is a research site, and I can ask people to cite something they claim. I'm not looking to make enemies. The simple options in answering the straightforward question I asked are:

1. Cite the source of the report,
2. State that your source is confidential and you can't share it, or
3. Clarify that you're assuming something from the given facts (in this case, the largely-missing leg).

Any answer would be entirely reasonable, and so would telling me I was an idiot for not understanding which you meant, if indeed that was warranted. Your posts have read in such a way that I am not sure of which you're driving at. If there is a report I missed, I would like to read it. Threatening to click abuse does nothing to deepen the understanding of anyone.

[Crowcreek]

I've quartered deer over 200lbs, with a knife, in the dark, fool. Why would pretty boy condit, or any of his fussy friends want to do it , JUST TO REMOVE ONE LEG ?

[Crowcreek]

"If at some point I learn the facts (incl saw marks) are not fact, I will be the first to post it to you."

What - Saw - Marks ??

If I were you - I'd give up your saw-mark evidence, or shut up and crawl back to the 'idea asylum'.

[Crowcreek]

"And if I read a report that there was sawing, I will assume that there were saw marks, and further that that is probably why there was said to have been sawing."

Never mind, I finally found the 'evidence'.

Why don't you take up bingo?

[crystalk]

That wouldn't give you all these hours of entertainment. I am such an attractive nuisance to your type.

[Crowcreek]

So you're just a friendly troll . . .

[crystalk]

a lovely day for a troll in the park.