Speaker 1: You're listening to Facing Evil, a production of iHeartRadio and
Speaker 1: Tenderfoot TV. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast
Speaker 1: are solely those of the individuals participating in the show
Speaker 1: and do not represent those of iHeartRadio or Tenderfoot TV.
Speaker 1: This podcast contains subject matter which may not be suitable
Speaker 1: for everyone. Listener discretion is advised.
Speaker 2: Hi everyone, welcome back to Facing Evil from Tenderfoot TV
Speaker 2: and iHeartRadio. We are your host.
Speaker 3: I'm Yvette Gentiela.
Speaker 4: And I'm Roschia Paquerero, and as always, our fabulous producer,
Speaker 4: mister Trevor Young is with us.
Speaker 1: Hey there, Happy November.
Speaker 3: Happy No November. Trevor. I can't believe the years almost over.
Speaker 2: I know, I've had this on my mind for you know,
Speaker 2: probably the last couple of weeks. You know, we talked about,
Speaker 2: you know, Kenny Genove's right, a couple of weeks Togo,
Speaker 2: and it just stuck with me, like how she kind
Speaker 2: of got lost, you know, back then in that era,
Speaker 2: because you know, they were so focused on the thirty
Speaker 2: eight bystanders that we really lost focus of who Kitty
Speaker 2: was and what her story was about, you know, And
Speaker 2: today we're going to be talking about Schandra Levy and again,
Speaker 2: you know, another young woman taken too soon, and again
Speaker 2: the media loses focus because they they get so fixated
Speaker 2: on you know, the Gary condit, the political candidate.
Speaker 3: The sensationalism of it all.
Speaker 2: Right, I feel so proud, you know what we're doing
Speaker 2: here on Facing Evil, because we really want to highlight
Speaker 2: you know, who these women were, you know, at the
Speaker 2: peak of their career, just about to get started, and
Speaker 2: then something horrible happens to them, and again their story
Speaker 2: gets lost.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I think that's definitely a thing we
Speaker 1: try and do on Facing Evil, right, is strip away
Speaker 1: all the fluff and try and get down to the
Speaker 1: stories of these victims, right, and talk about it from
Speaker 1: an angle that maybe not everybody else talks about. Yes,
Speaker 1: and that is the person, right that's getting to the
Speaker 1: real empathy of any of these cases as talking about
Speaker 1: the victims. So, you know, I think that's great and
Speaker 1: I think this case today's probably a great example of.
Speaker 3: That, absolutely, Trevor.
Speaker 2: And with that being said, will you please take us
Speaker 2: through today's case.
Speaker 3: The search is on in the district for a missing woman.
Speaker 1: Her name is Chandra Ann Levy. She is twenty four
Speaker 1: years old and hasn't been seen since April thirtieth. Susan
Speaker 1: Leevy came to our city with the mission she wanted
Speaker 1: to know where her daughter was.
Speaker 2: What happened.
Speaker 3: A staffer for the congressman says there was no romantic
Speaker 3: relationship between the congressman and miss Levy.
Speaker 1: Chandra Levy was a twenty four year old woman who
Speaker 1: disappeared in May of two thousand and one. At the time,
Speaker 1: she had just wrapped up an internship in Washington, d C.
Speaker 1: And was getting ready to go back home to California.
Speaker 1: But Chandra never made it home. On May sixth Chondra's
Speaker 1: parents contacted DC police, saying they hadn't heard from her
Speaker 1: in days, and so a search began, but they didn't
Speaker 1: find her. Months later, her remains were discovered by a
Speaker 1: hiker in Rock Creek Park. The story of Chondra Levy's
Speaker 1: disappearance and death became a national obsession when it came
Speaker 1: to light that Levy had a romantic relationship with a
Speaker 1: married congressman leading up to her death. The investigation and
Speaker 1: eventual prosecution were marred by ineptitude, and to this day,
Speaker 1: it's unclear who killed Chondra Levy, and so who was
Speaker 1: Schondra Levy? Who was actually responsible for her murder? And
Speaker 1: what does this story tell us about how police handle
Speaker 1: homicide investigations when a high profile politician is involved.
Speaker 2: So Russia, I remember that this was one of those
Speaker 2: cases that was literally all over the media, and again,
Speaker 2: people couldn't stop talking about it. And I remember living
Speaker 2: in LA because this was in two thousand and one, right, yeah,
Speaker 2: together with mom, and I remember being somewhat fixated on
Speaker 2: it because you know, again we're talking about a young woman,
Speaker 2: a young intern, right and going back years ago to
Speaker 2: the Bill Clinton error with Monica Lewinsky. So I definitely
Speaker 2: was captivated by this particular case.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think we all were.
Speaker 4: And I remember, you know, her face on every magaz on,
Speaker 4: every you know, news story, every headline, and Trevor, like
Speaker 4: you said in the top of the episode, you know,
Speaker 4: there was this young, smart, you know, student, just on
Speaker 4: the cusp of what seemed like such a bright and
Speaker 4: sparkling future, and she likely had this high profile affair
Speaker 4: with this lawmaker, and people were talking about whether or
Speaker 4: not that had been a cover up, if he was
Speaker 4: involved somehow it, you know, I mean again, like you said,
Speaker 4: you met Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton, Like, all these things
Speaker 4: go through all of our heads, and I'll admit that's
Speaker 4: I think why I was captivated at first.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, absolutely, I do think that unlike the Bill
Speaker 1: Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal, this case had a relatively
Speaker 1: shorter lifespan. You know, there was definitely a period in
Speaker 1: the media where this case was obsessed over because of
Speaker 1: the you know, quote unquote scandalous relationship with a politician.
Speaker 1: But you know, those leads connecting the politics to her
Speaker 1: murder eventually did go try and it became very clear
Speaker 1: that the authorities had just kind of botched this investigation.
Speaker 1: And that is kind of when the public's attention started
Speaker 1: looking away from it, it wasn't as interesting anymore, right,
Speaker 1: And that's kind of a big tragedy in this case.
Speaker 1: So I think there are many moments where the police
Speaker 1: mishandled their job. They mishandled this investigation. They try and
Speaker 1: pin it on someone else, and I think you can't
Speaker 1: really like help, but wonder, like, had more of the
Speaker 1: public eye state on them, would they have done a
Speaker 1: better job? Right? Would this have gotten solved eventually? Right? True? True. True.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, let's just begin with our classic question.
Speaker 2: Who was Chandra Levy?
Speaker 4: Chandra Levy was twenty four years old. She was born
Speaker 4: in Ohio, but the family moved to California, and actually
Speaker 4: it was Modesto where she went to high school. She
Speaker 4: ended up graduating from San Francisco State Universe with a
Speaker 4: degree in journalism, and she briefly worked in the office
Speaker 4: of the Los Angeles Mayor. She then enrolled in graduate
Speaker 4: school at the University of Southern California for a master's
Speaker 4: in public administration. In September of two thousand. She ended
Speaker 4: up moving to Washington, d C. And it was there
Speaker 4: that she worked as an intern with the Federal Bureau
Speaker 4: of Prisons.
Speaker 3: And this is.
Speaker 2: Where she met Gary Kandit Condent was a Democratic congressman
Speaker 2: from California. He was also fifty two years old and married,
Speaker 2: and he took a liking to Chandra.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, obviously, this is something we see a lot, right,
Speaker 1: is that older politicians men almost always, right, almost always
Speaker 1: find themselves in a position of power where they can
Speaker 1: potentially take advantage of a young intern. Right. You heard
Speaker 1: about this a lot in the nineties and two thousand.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's right.
Speaker 2: And apparently on a visit Duram Thanksgiving, Chandra tells her
Speaker 2: aunt that she's seen someone, but she refuses to name
Speaker 2: any names. However, she did reportedly tell her aunt that
Speaker 2: her boyfriend was in his fifties and he looked like
Speaker 2: Harrison Ford, which he didn't.
Speaker 3: I'm just saying I.
Speaker 4: Think he did a little bit. I think he looked
Speaker 4: a little bit like Harrison Ford.
Speaker 2: I mean, just because he's older, with salt and pepper hair. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but she did reveal that her boyfriend was in fact
Speaker 2: a congressman, So she's leaving a lot of hints, but
Speaker 2: never said the name.
Speaker 4: Yeah, she never said the name specifically to anyone that
Speaker 4: we know of, right right.
Speaker 2: Anyway, the next month, over winter break, she emails a
Speaker 2: friend and says, and this is her quote, my man
Speaker 2: will be coming back here when Congress starts up again,
Speaker 2: and I'm looking forward to seeing him again. She's not
Speaker 2: naming it the names, She's not being specific, right, right.
Speaker 2: So in January, Chandra tells her landlord that she won't
Speaker 2: be renewing her lease because she'll be moving in with
Speaker 2: her boyfriend. But by February she changed plans and tells
Speaker 2: her landlord that it hadn't worked out.
Speaker 4: Okay, so I guess that's that and the relationship was over. Anyway,
Speaker 4: we do know that April twenty third is the last
Speaker 4: day of Chandra's internship, and we also know that on
Speaker 4: April twenty ninth, Gary Condit actually called Chandra, and on
Speaker 4: the same day, Chondra called her Auntie in Marylyn and
Speaker 4: left her a message saying she has quote some big news.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but we just don't know what was said on
Speaker 2: that phone call, right.
Speaker 3: Nobody knows what the big news was, right, Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean I don't think we ever really do. We
Speaker 1: do know she's set to go back to California for
Speaker 1: her graduation from USC which is scheduled for May eleventh
Speaker 1: that year, and in an April twenty eighth email to
Speaker 1: her landlord, she wrote, quote, I'm moving back to California
Speaker 1: for my graduation and I'm moving back there for good
Speaker 1: end quote. And then on May first, she emailed her
Speaker 1: parents with her travel plans, but again doesn't mention specific
Speaker 1: times or how she'll be getting home. That email was
Speaker 1: sent at ten forty five am Eastern time that day
Speaker 1: May first, and that is actually the last known communication
Speaker 1: from Chandra Levy, and we'll talk about what happened after
Speaker 1: we take a quick break.
Speaker 4: Five days pass and Chandra Levy's parents haven't heard anything
Speaker 4: from her, so of course they're getting worried.
Speaker 3: They end up calling the police. That's right, rash.
Speaker 2: And of course this is in the days before everyone
Speaker 2: necessarily had a cell phone. And I'm thinking of her
Speaker 2: traveling across the country right without the ability to get
Speaker 2: in touch with her parents or you know, anybody whenever
Speaker 2: she wanted. It just seems a bit strange, right. We
Speaker 2: used to do things like that. I mean, I take
Speaker 2: that back. We really didn't do things like that because
Speaker 2: we always had a cell phone when the cell phones
Speaker 2: came out. But the thing is, did Chondra actually have
Speaker 2: a cell phone?
Speaker 3: Trevor, Do we know?
Speaker 1: Yeah? I mean, as you're alluding to, not everybody had
Speaker 1: cell phones back then, but Chondra did have one that
Speaker 1: we know of, and it is one of the items
Speaker 1: that police find when they search her DC apartment after
Speaker 1: she goes missing. So a couple other things they find.
Speaker 1: They find two partially packed bags, a couple clothes. In
Speaker 1: the closet, they find her running shoes, her driver's license,
Speaker 1: a few other things like receipts and credit cards. However,
Speaker 1: most notably, her apartment keys are missing.
Speaker 2: Okay, so her keys were missing, but her driver's license,
Speaker 2: her credit cards, and her cell phone were still in
Speaker 2: the apartment, right, seems a bit off right. It feels
Speaker 2: like if you're leaving the house, like you would definitely
Speaker 2: take your driver's license at the very least. It just
Speaker 2: makes you think, like, was she abducted from her apartment?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 3: Possibly?
Speaker 4: I mean, or you know, like we've been seeing this
Speaker 4: entire time again in two thousand and one, not everyone
Speaker 4: you know had a cell phone. They wouldn't necessarily carry
Speaker 4: them everywhere that they went, of course, you know, you
Speaker 4: and I did. It's but it's nothing like today, right,
Speaker 4: so we are always attached to our phones. There's location
Speaker 4: services on it, all the things. But she could have
Speaker 4: left her apartment without all of those things.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I guess we'll never really know. And the
Speaker 1: sad truth there is the reason for that is that
Speaker 1: the police failed to obtain the surveillance camera footage from
Speaker 1: the apartment building, even though it was in fact readily
Speaker 1: available at least for a short period. So there was
Speaker 1: a surveillance camera recording everyone who came and left the building.
Speaker 1: Had police actually secured that footage, then presumably they could
Speaker 1: have seen Chandra when she left the apartment and that
Speaker 1: would have told them if she was with anyone, what
Speaker 1: she was wearing, et cetera, et cetera. But they did
Speaker 1: not secure that footage and it was recorded over after
Speaker 1: a few days. So if you remember back then, any
Speaker 1: sort of videotape recording, and this include security footage was
Speaker 1: all analog. It was on you know, tapes, and so
Speaker 1: they couldn't just digitally save it to the cloud, you know,
Speaker 1: days and days worth of it. They would have to
Speaker 1: re record over the tape, you know, every week or
Speaker 1: month or whatever it is, to save on tape. So
Speaker 1: because they didn't get it soon enough, they lost it
Speaker 1: and therefore we don't know what happened when she left
Speaker 1: the apartment.
Speaker 2: Gosh, I mean, that's just like when you think about it,
Speaker 2: it's just you know, failed police.
Speaker 3: Work one oh one, you know.
Speaker 2: To secure the footage like that would be the first
Speaker 2: thing you would want to see is you know, what
Speaker 2: time did she leave the apartment and who possibly came
Speaker 2: into the apartment, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean I guess there's maybe an excuse there
Speaker 1: that CCTV and things of that sort were much newer
Speaker 1: back in the nineties and early two thousands, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: investigators maybe didn't have any uniform way to check for
Speaker 1: that sort of thing at the time. But to me,
Speaker 1: it's just incompetence, like if you know that exists, like
Speaker 1: do something about it.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So I think it's just the first of many things
Speaker 1: we see in this case that is very disappointing, right.
Speaker 4: Yeah, very disappointing for sure. Okay, So around this time,
Speaker 4: Chandra's mother calls Gary Condit herself and asks him for
Speaker 4: help in finding Chandra. And it's during this call that
Speaker 4: she also asks him if he was having an affair
Speaker 4: with her daughter, and he says, quote unquote no. H.
Speaker 2: He also donates ten thousand dollars of his campaign money
Speaker 2: towards the reward to find Chandra, and he releases a
Speaker 2: news statement calling her, and this is a quote from him,
Speaker 2: a great person and a good friend.
Speaker 4: Okay, So, whether or not he actually had an affair
Speaker 4: with Chandra, I believe, in my humble opinion that this
Speaker 4: is definitely Cyowa cover your own ass language for trying
Speaker 4: to save his marriage if there was a relationship going
Speaker 4: on more than just a friendship, and he's trying to
Speaker 4: save his political career because you know, I mean, I'm
Speaker 4: sure he saw what happened with Clinton and other people,
Speaker 4: but I don't know. It just feels just feels fishy
Speaker 4: to me.
Speaker 3: I totally agree with you, Russia. But there's more.
Speaker 2: The next month, in June, a Washington Post story is
Speaker 2: published and according to the story, law enforcement sources say
Speaker 2: that Chandra Levy spent the night at Condit's house. The
Speaker 2: report doesn't say which night, and you know what. Condent's
Speaker 2: office also denied any romantic involvement, and his lawyers demanded
Speaker 2: a retraction, but the paper wouldn't retract it.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I mean, I can see why the press is obsessed
Speaker 4: with this scary content a fair angle.
Speaker 3: It's fishy again, fishy, fishy, fishy.
Speaker 4: I can see the obsession and why they were leaning
Speaker 4: this way like that does not look good for him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, going back again to the kind of
Speaker 1: obsession that the media has with political scandals. You know,
Speaker 1: anytime a young woman like this is killed, obviously that's horrible,
Speaker 1: that's terrible. But when there's some sort of high profile
Speaker 1: person involved. You can almost guarantee that's going to make
Speaker 1: like front page news for days, weeks, even months. So
Speaker 1: you know, Condit's in the spotlight here and he's kind
Speaker 1: of thinking like, I have to, you know, play this right,
Speaker 1: or it's going to ruin my career. And so during
Speaker 1: this time Condit agrees to kind of play ball with
Speaker 1: the investigators. So he submitted a DNA sample to police,
Speaker 1: and then he takes and passes a light detector test.
Speaker 4: Well, that is very telling for sure. And meanwhile, the
Speaker 4: result from search data on Schandra's laptop from a first
Speaker 4: are finally revealed. They show that she used the Internet
Speaker 4: until one pm that day and that she visited the
Speaker 4: site for USA Today, the Drudge Report, and the Washington Post,
Speaker 4: all of which you know you would expect considering what
Speaker 4: she was interested in. But it also reveals a map
Speaker 4: quest search for a place called Klingle Mansion in Rock
Speaker 4: Creek Park. So Rock Creek Park is Washington, DC's big
Speaker 4: urban park, and Klingle Mansion is apparently this historic house
Speaker 4: from the eighteen hundreds which is located in a very
Speaker 4: secluded part of the park, and at that time, in
Speaker 4: two thousand and one, the trail to get to Klingle
Speaker 4: Mansion was actually closed, so you'd have to know your
Speaker 4: way around to know where it was and that it
Speaker 4: was even there or how to find it.
Speaker 2: So maybe that's where she went, right without her cell phone.
Speaker 2: I mean, maybe she went on a run. Right, it's
Speaker 2: a trail, it's like an offbeaten trail, So possibly she
Speaker 2: was just going for a run, didn't take her things.
Speaker 3: Yeah, possibly, possibly.
Speaker 4: You know, police end up searching the park, but not
Speaker 4: until after nearly a full month after they saw this
Speaker 4: search data from her computer. So they searched the park
Speaker 4: on July sixteenth, and these are United States Park Police
Speaker 4: on horseback. They're joined by Police Academy cadets, and throughout
Speaker 4: their search they end up finding zilch nothing. So months
Speaker 4: end up going by. July becomes August, August becomes September,
Speaker 4: and then I think a huge factor in the Chandra
Speaker 4: Leeby case is September eleventh, two thousand and one happened
Speaker 4: to the United States, And I think that is exactly when, sadly,
Speaker 4: the public's obsession with Shondra Levy went away. The whole
Speaker 4: world was fixated on this horrible, tragic event and Chandra
Speaker 4: got lost in the shuffle.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and not just the public, by the way, but
Speaker 1: you know, law enforcement we're now on high alert and
Speaker 1: directing all of their attention to anything that might be considered,
Speaker 1: you know, a terrorist or international threat, right right, And
Speaker 1: so it's really not until the following year that there's
Speaker 1: any movement on this case whatsoever. So on May twenty
Speaker 1: second of two thousand and two, a man is at
Speaker 1: walking his dog in Rock Creek Park when he noticed
Speaker 1: that his dog is very intensely sniffing this little spot
Speaker 1: on the side of a bluff. So he goes up
Speaker 1: to the spot where his dog is scratching and digging,
Speaker 1: and he starts rubbing the dirt way and that is
Speaker 1: when he discovers a human skull in the ground.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's well, I can't even imagine what he was thinking.
Speaker 4: He ends up calling the police, and investigators quickly found
Speaker 4: other bones in the area, and they also found a
Speaker 4: jogging bra, panties, tennis shoes, sweatpants, and a walkman or
Speaker 4: a portable radio for those of you who don't know
Speaker 4: what a walkman is, And sadly, dental records end up
Speaker 4: confirming that it is indeed Chandra Levy's remains. So, Trevor,
Speaker 4: why did it take this long for them to find Chandra?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean that's a big question in this case,
Speaker 1: right Yeah. Yeah, Like supposedly they searched the park pretty well,
Speaker 1: but you know, at the end of the day, they
Speaker 1: found nothing, and it's just kind of a random stranger
Speaker 1: who happens to stumble upon this with his dog. You know,
Speaker 1: I wonder if they used any canine units and searching
Speaker 1: the park. I mean, clearly a dog would have been
Speaker 1: able to smell even fresher remains a year earlier, but
Speaker 1: you know, who knows. So it sounds like they just
Speaker 1: didn't do a very good job of searching, right Like
Speaker 1: it was right there in the woods.
Speaker 2: It was right there, and you know, I just have
Speaker 2: to say, like, to me, it just seems like common sense,
Speaker 2: right because it seems like they're just searching the roads,
Speaker 2: but in fact there are you know, trails where people
Speaker 2: are running on these off trails, and why they didn't
Speaker 2: go a little further to these trails just baffles me
Speaker 2: because it was right there.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, they'll probably tell you as a resource thing, right,
Speaker 1: like they could only dispatch a certain number of men
Speaker 1: for a certain period of time before they had to
Speaker 1: call off their search and move on to something else. Right,
Speaker 1: That's a very common answer you hear from law enforcement,
Speaker 1: and it's an unfortunate reality and why a lot of
Speaker 1: cases don't get solved the way they should. So, you know,
Speaker 1: who knows. But the reality is is that had they
Speaker 1: discovered her sooner, they would have gotten a lot more
Speaker 1: forensic evidence that they could have used when investigating her case.
Speaker 1: You know, they might have been able to determine if
Speaker 1: she had been raped, if there was any blood semen,
Speaker 1: you know, anything under her fingernails that they could have
Speaker 1: used as DNA evidence. But you know, at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, all they really got was a few bones,
Speaker 1: some clothing. All of this has been weathered away by
Speaker 1: months and months and months of erosion and you know,
Speaker 1: decay and all these things. Yeah, so they don't really
Speaker 1: have a lot. I guess the only thing we really
Speaker 1: do get is that we now know that Chandra Levy
Speaker 1: is in fact dead, and that at least provides a
Speaker 1: little bit of closure for the family.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, I mean you do have to feel thankful
Speaker 4: for that, at least for her her mother and her
Speaker 4: father and her family they can now finally, you know,
Speaker 4: bury their little girl.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 4: But that's not the end of the sty This is
Speaker 4: where things get kind of weird for me, you know.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's just a few months later after they
Speaker 4: found Chandra's remains that a five time felon and a
Speaker 4: former gang member ends up coming forward to tell authorities
Speaker 4: that he actually knows who Chandra's killer is.
Speaker 1: Yes, and we will learn about who that five time
Speaker 1: felon is after we take a quick break.
Speaker 4: So, just a few months after Chandra's remains were found
Speaker 4: in September of two thousand and two, an incarcerated man
Speaker 4: named Armando Morales ended up coming forward. So Armando said
Speaker 4: that his cellmate, Ingmar Guandique, had confessed to him that
Speaker 4: he'd killed Chandra Levy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so here's just a little pull from the Washington
Speaker 1: Post article that reported this quote. Guandique had been walking
Speaker 1: in the Adams Morgan neighborhood when a car pulled through
Speaker 1: the curb. He claims Condit offered him money twenty five
Speaker 1: thousand dollars to kill a woman. So what Morales's testimony
Speaker 1: is suggesting here is that Gary Condit is involved and
Speaker 1: somehow responsible for the murder of Chandra Levi by having
Speaker 1: hired an assassin. So Morales said, quote, the congressman provided
Speaker 1: Guandik with Chandra Levy's picture and a location where he
Speaker 1: could find her.
Speaker 2: So he claims that Guandik was just out for a
Speaker 2: stroll one day when all of a sudden, Gary condit
Speaker 2: stops him just randomly, right and offers him twenty five
Speaker 2: thousand dollars to murder his intern Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean it leaves a lot up to chance. Right,
Speaker 1: he just happened to stumble upon somebody who is willing
Speaker 1: to kill somebody for a twenty five grand right?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Did he look like a killer?
Speaker 4: Like?
Speaker 1: What's that? Like?
Speaker 2: I don't even that doesn't make any sense. I mean
Speaker 2: he's just, you know, randomly driving through the streets of
Speaker 2: DC looking for someone who looks like they.
Speaker 4: Look like a killer and that they take money to
Speaker 4: kill her. Yeah, that's super far fetched. I just have
Speaker 4: to say, hmmmm, I don't buy it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And the more you read into it, the more
Speaker 1: weird it becomes. So I'll read the rest of the
Speaker 1: quote here. The informant said, guandi K told him he
Speaker 1: took drugs and drank alcohol to steel himself for the attack.
Speaker 1: He went to the location cond it gave him and
Speaker 1: saw Chandra running on a path. Guandik hid in the bushes,
Speaker 1: and when Chondra circled back, he jumped out and attacked her,
Speaker 1: stabbing her in the neck and the stomach. She fell
Speaker 1: to the ground and Guandik carried her body far into
Speaker 1: the woods. He dug a hole with his hands and
Speaker 1: covered Schondra with dirt, leaves and sticks. He left the
Speaker 1: knife in her body and later considered retrieving it, but
Speaker 1: never did. He sent the twenty five thousand dollars to
Speaker 1: his family in El Salvador quote.
Speaker 4: So, according to Morality's account, there should have been a
Speaker 4: knife found at the scene, and was a knife ever found?
Speaker 1: Trevor, No, Yeah, there was no knife. So I mean,
Speaker 1: this is making all of what Morales is saying here
Speaker 1: to be really fishy. So what happens then is that
Speaker 1: Morales agreed to tell this story on the witness stand
Speaker 1: in return for better conditions in prison. And I think
Speaker 1: that's when the full picture of what's probably really going
Speaker 1: on here comes into view, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, totally, But do we know who Guandique is like,
Speaker 2: is this the guy that killed Chandra Levy? I mean,
Speaker 2: I don't think we're sold on that, or are we
Speaker 2: I'm not quite yet.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean we know that he's an immigrant from
Speaker 1: El Salvador, we know he doesn't speak English. That summer,
Speaker 1: he had actually been arrested earlier for attacking to women
Speaker 1: in Rock Creek Park. So all of this is going
Speaker 1: on in two thousand and two, the year after Chandra
Speaker 1: Lee he was killed, and Guandi Ku went on to
Speaker 1: be sentenced to ten years for said crimes, but he
Speaker 1: did deny killing Schandra Levy and there was still no
Speaker 1: physical evidence connecting him to the murder. So there was
Speaker 1: a bit of a pattern here that maybe connected him,
Speaker 1: but that's entirely circumstantial.
Speaker 3: In the same part the year after she was killed.
Speaker 1: Sure, I mean, I see how you can maybe draw
Speaker 1: those conclusions or how that might set him up to
Speaker 1: look guilty, but again, no physical evidence. That knife was
Speaker 1: never found, right right right?
Speaker 2: I got another question though, what about I wonder if
Speaker 2: they ever traced to see if there was ever any
Speaker 2: money exchange, Like was the twenty five thousand dollars ever
Speaker 2: sent to his family?
Speaker 1: Yeah? I mean the other thing you can check is
Speaker 1: whether or not Gary Condit, you withdrew any large sums
Speaker 1: of money close to twenty five grand on the days
Speaker 1: leading up to her murder, which would also you know,
Speaker 1: back that account up. I don't think that looked into that.
Speaker 1: If they did, I don't know about it. Well. So
Speaker 1: then in two thousand and nine, a new DC Police
Speaker 1: chief decided to reopen the case, and investigators in DC
Speaker 1: Police announce that they are charging Guandi Kay for the
Speaker 1: assault and murder of Chandra Levy. So his trial begins
Speaker 1: in October of two thousand and nine. The two women
Speaker 1: Guandique was convicted of attacking in the park both testify
Speaker 1: at this time, and they describe how he attacked them
Speaker 1: as they jogged alone in the park, so sounding a
Speaker 1: little familiar perhaps same emo. One woman says he dragged
Speaker 1: her down a ravine and attacked her with a knife.
Speaker 1: Chandra Levi's father also takes the stand and says he
Speaker 1: believes Gary Khannit is still the most likely suspect, and
Speaker 1: he reveals that Chandra and Condit had concocted a quote
Speaker 1: five year plan prior to her death, in which he
Speaker 1: would divorce his current wife and Mary Chandra. So it
Speaker 1: sounds like maybe they were planning on running away together
Speaker 1: and maybe something went wrong, at least according to the.
Speaker 3: Father, right right, right.
Speaker 1: So then a condut himself takes the stand and testifies,
Speaker 1: and when asked whether he and Chondra had a sexual relationship,
Speaker 1: he refused to answer flat out, and he said he
Speaker 1: did this out of respect for Chandra. So an FBI
Speaker 1: biologist also revealed that semen found on a pair of
Speaker 1: Sandra's underwear match that of condits found in her apartment.
Speaker 2: That is so fishy and I just I just have
Speaker 2: to throw my two cents in here, like he in
Speaker 2: that he says out of respect for Chandra. No respect
Speaker 2: for Chandra would be telling the truth by saying, yes,
Speaker 2: we had a sexual relationship, that is respect.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, we know he's full of shit.
Speaker 4: Yeah, he'd been married since I think nineteen sixty seven,
Speaker 4: so he was trying to save everything from burning down.
Speaker 3: I think that.
Speaker 1: Said, I mean, regardless of whether or not he was
Speaker 1: having an affair, which it sounds like he was, right,
Speaker 1: he doesn't necessarily mean he killed her. I mean the
Speaker 1: fact that they find semen on the panties in her
Speaker 1: apartment suggests they were having a sexual relationship, and frankly,
Speaker 1: nothing more, right, I mean, the fact that they were
Speaker 1: having an affair near the time that she was killed
Speaker 1: is certainly suspicious and fishy, but that's not physical evidence
Speaker 1: tying him to her murder, right.
Speaker 3: Right, It is a potential motive, but it's not.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, potentially. So Anyways, the jury finds guandi Ka
Speaker 1: guilty of two counts of first degree murder, so a
Speaker 1: juror later claimed that their decision was mostly based on
Speaker 1: Morales's testimony that he gave, and guandi k was then
Speaker 1: sentenced to sixty years in prison.
Speaker 4: I watched a show about Chandra Levy this past week.
Speaker 4: I believe it was on Oxygen, and they interviewed Chandra's
Speaker 4: mom and dad, and when that verdict came down, you know,
Speaker 4: like they had to have an interpreter for guandi Kie
Speaker 4: because again he didn't speak English, and they asked him
Speaker 4: if he killed you know, Schandra Levy, And you know,
Speaker 4: they were saying in this documentary that they didn't even
Speaker 4: need an interpreter because he was like, I am he
Speaker 4: said it in Spanish, but he's like, I'm something along
Speaker 4: the lines of I'm so sorry for your loss, But
Speaker 4: I did not kill Schandra Levy. And like mom, dad,
Speaker 4: you know, like they had they stated in this documentary
Speaker 4: that they had doubt. And it's just I don't even
Speaker 4: know how they convicted him on his cellmate's testimony when
Speaker 4: there's no other evidence. But you know, Gwandique ends up
Speaker 4: writing a letter to a reporter at the Washington Post
Speaker 4: after that verdict, and after he said all that in
Speaker 4: the courtroom, he says, of course that everything was false,
Speaker 4: the evidence presented by the government and Monals his testimony
Speaker 4: was false, and of course his attorney files on appeal
Speaker 4: and in May twenty fifteen, prosecutors agreed to hold a
Speaker 4: new trial after the defense argued that informant Morales had
Speaker 4: perjured himself on the stand.
Speaker 2: Dang, and this is two thousand and fifty, this is
Speaker 2: now a full fourteen years after Chandra Levy was murdered.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, wrongful conviction puts people in prison for
Speaker 1: decades and decades sometimes, you know, that said he was
Speaker 1: convicted of probably rightfully attacking other women for which he
Speaker 1: should have been in prison, So you know, maybe he
Speaker 1: was going to be there anyways, but you know, at
Speaker 1: least in this case, it seems like, at least from
Speaker 1: my perspective, Guandi Kay is correct in the fact that
Speaker 1: all of this was false and that he was not
Speaker 1: actually guilty of murdering Chandra Levy. So there's a pretty
Speaker 1: good quote from the AP that sums us all up
Speaker 1: that I'll read very quickly. Quote. Authorities acknowledged that they
Speaker 1: had no DNA evidence or witnesses linking gue d Ka
Speaker 1: to the crime, building their prosecution instead around a jail
Speaker 1: house informant who said Guandika had confessed behind bars that
Speaker 1: he was responsible for Levi's death. They also said the
Speaker 1: attack on Levy fit a pattern of assaults by Guandi
Speaker 1: Kay on other female joggers in the same where she
Speaker 1: went missing and during the same timeframe. So Guandique, who
Speaker 1: was already in prison for those attacks when he was
Speaker 1: accused in Levy's death in two thousand and nine, professed
Speaker 1: innocence at his sentencing hearing. His lawyers said police and
Speaker 1: prosecutors made him escapegoat for a botched investigation. And I
Speaker 1: do think that sums up what we know about this
Speaker 1: investigation so far.
Speaker 3: Absolutely what a freaking miss hot mess.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So what this appears to be then is that
Speaker 1: Morale is the person who gave this testimony, was looking
Speaker 1: for a lighter sentence and saw an opportunity to rat
Speaker 1: out somebody else to get that. And then some things
Speaker 1: happened that back this up. So when prosecutors and the
Speaker 1: judge agreed to hold a new trial, it comes to
Speaker 1: light that Armando Morales had actually testified in federal cases before,
Speaker 1: and that the prosecution knew this but failed to disclose it.
Speaker 1: The defense argued that this misconduct warranted the charges against
Speaker 1: Guandigae be completely dropped. So this is something he had
Speaker 1: been doing frequently along with investigators, to nail people who
Speaker 1: may not have been responsible so that they could close
Speaker 1: their cases and Morales could get shorter sentences.
Speaker 4: Pooh, yeah, well it's horrible, totally horrible, And you know, meanwhile,
Speaker 4: and this is this is a little crazy. But Armando
Speaker 4: Morales's neighbor ends up coming forward and she's made a
Speaker 4: bunch of secret recordings of her conversations with Morales in
Speaker 4: which he talked about being the key witness in the
Speaker 4: Chandra Levy case and flat out says that he lied
Speaker 4: about Guandique's confession to improve his prison conditions, just like
Speaker 4: you said, Trevor, And so in light of you know
Speaker 4: this development, all charges against Guandique are indeed dropped again
Speaker 4: no physical evidence against him, and without the testimony of Morales,
Speaker 4: they have not nothing.
Speaker 3: So basically they're back to square one, sadly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, And where the story essentially ends is that
Speaker 1: in May of twenty seventeen, Guandi Ku was deported back
Speaker 1: to El Salvador. Gary Condit's career was essentially destroyed by this.
Speaker 1: As you would imagine, he was voted out of office
Speaker 1: in two thousand and two, very likely from all the
Speaker 1: negative press he was receiving. He then moved to Phoenix,
Speaker 1: where he and his wife attempted and failed at a
Speaker 1: couple of Baskin Robbins franchises that they briefly owned. And
Speaker 1: so yeah, nobody walked away from this unscathed.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, And I you know, again, the sad thing
Speaker 2: about all this is like we still don't know who
Speaker 2: the real murderer is, Like we still.
Speaker 3: Have no clue.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean again, because police were so hyper fixated
Speaker 1: on Gary Condit's involvement and the testimony, the false testimony
Speaker 1: that they had from Morales, right that they really failed
Speaker 1: to dedicate the time and resources to looking at a
Speaker 1: wise range of suspects and looking at all of the
Speaker 1: evidence in front of them. And so now it's years
Speaker 1: decades later almost, and you know, we have nothing really
Speaker 1: left to work with. There's essentially no way to solve
Speaker 1: this space on where we're at now, right.
Speaker 3: And that's what I think so tragic, right.
Speaker 4: And you know, when I was listening to Chandra's mom
Speaker 4: and dad speak in that Oxygen documentary, her mom said,
Speaker 4: she's like, you know, even if we find out who
Speaker 4: killed my daughter, it's not going to bring her back.
Speaker 4: And that was like, oh, like, it just broke my
Speaker 4: heart even more, you know. And I will say one
Speaker 4: thing with like Gary Condent being, you know, such a
Speaker 4: big headline, and this is something her mom, you know,
Speaker 4: chimed in about as well. She doesn't think that she
Speaker 4: would have gotten as much media coverage if her daughter
Speaker 4: hadn't been involved with him, because it was such a
Speaker 4: sensationalized media story that you know, she was going, her
Speaker 4: and her husband were going on different news programs to
Speaker 4: talk about their missing daughter because she hadn't been found
Speaker 4: for that entire year.
Speaker 3: But through all of that.
Speaker 4: And with nine to eleven happening. You know, we no
Speaker 4: one really got to see who Chandra Levy was as
Speaker 4: a human being. She was more of just a headline.
Speaker 4: And that's what's so heartbreaking.
Speaker 2: Absolutely I think what you said is absolutely true, you know,
Speaker 2: And what we have to remember is that, you know,
Speaker 2: she was more than a headline. She was a human
Speaker 2: being just at the start of her life.
Speaker 4: So that brings us to this week's emua, our final
Speaker 4: message of hope and healing. Our EMUA goes to Chandra Levy.
Speaker 4: If those in charge of finding justice for her murder
Speaker 4: had paid more attention to Chandra's actual actions in the
Speaker 4: final hours of her life, then maybe her family might
Speaker 4: have some measure of justice today. Instead, the police and
Speaker 4: the justice system focused on innuendo, scandal headlines, and when
Speaker 4: all of that failed, they ended up finding a scapegoat
Speaker 4: on which to pin her.
Speaker 2: Death, and few bothered to know her in the weeks
Speaker 2: and months when doing so might have made a difference.
Speaker 2: And so we'll take a moment now to honor her life.
Speaker 2: Chandra Ann Levy was more than the worst thing that
Speaker 2: ever happened to her. She was a fun, loving and
Speaker 2: playful sister. She was prone to being an occasional big
Speaker 2: sister BOSSI. She played Little League and she loved the
Speaker 2: San Francisco Giants. And she was a bright, brilliant young woman,
Speaker 2: you know, doing her thing working in DC.
Speaker 4: Yes, and she was an individual who didn't like being
Speaker 4: told what to do. She was a very independent and
Speaker 4: vibrant young woman with a bright future that should have
Speaker 4: been hers to claim today and always we honor you, Chandra,
Speaker 4: Onward and upward, Emua, emua.
Speaker 3: Well, that is our show for today.
Speaker 2: We'd love to hear what you thought about today's discussion
Speaker 2: and if there was a case that you'd like us
Speaker 2: to cover, please find us on social media or email
Speaker 2: us at facinevil pod at tenderfoot dot tv.
Speaker 4: And one request, if you haven't already, please find us
Speaker 4: on iTunes and give us a good review and a
Speaker 4: good rating. If you like what we do, your support
Speaker 4: is always cherished.
Speaker 2: Until next time, ah Looha.
Speaker 1: Facing Evil is a production of iHeartRadio and Tenderfoot TV.
Speaker 1: The show is hosted by Russia Peccuerero and Avet Gentile.
Speaker 1: Matt Frederick and Alex Williams our executive producers on behalf
Speaker 1: of iHeartRadio, with producers Trevor Young, and Jesse Funk, Donald
Speaker 1: Albright in Payne Lindsay our executive producers on behalf of
Speaker 1: Tenderfoot TV, alongside producer Tracy Kaplan. Our researcher is Claudia Dafrico.
Speaker 1: Original music by Makeup and Vanity Set. Find us on
Speaker 1: social media or email us at facingevilpod at tenderfoot dot tv.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from iHeartRadio or Tenderfoot TV, visit the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
Speaker 1: favorite shows