Jury convicts man in killing of Chandra Levy in 2001

Guandique was not convicted of Chandra
Levy’s murder due to DNA evidence, nor was he convicted by eye witness account.
DNA is now the most reliable way
of confirming the guilt or innocence of a prepetrator. Eye witness
accounts convict
thousands of offenders in the United States but more often than you
would think those convictions are in error.  In this case, Ingmar Guandique was convicted of neither
DNA nor eye witness accounts. Instead, he was convicted on the basis of
a cellmate’s testimony that Guandique
had told him he killed Chandra Levy.  The testimony of such so-called
prison “snitches” are often what
false convictions are made of.  It is even more likely to convict an
individual currently serving time for another offense.

Quandique was convicted of raping two
women in the same park where Chandra Levy’s body was found. In fact, he is
currently serving time for those offenses. Both women were called by the
prosecution to testify against Guandique during this trial. That
testimony did not claim that these women saw Guandique with Levy but it did
establish the fact that he was capable of an attack. But did he kill Chandra Levy?  Members of
the jury spoke of “getting it right” and looking at all “available evidence’
but the conviction of Guandique was based on the words of that cell mate as well
as past crimes committed by Quandique against the two women.  

I hope for the sake of the Levy
family that justice was served. Once sentenced Guandique will most likely
serve the rest of his life in prison without the possibility of parole. 
Let’s hope they got it right. The victim’s family deserve justice because
without knowing the right offender was apprehended and convicted there
will certainly be no healing or closure.  Restorative justice
would allow for questions to be asked of the offender by the victim or
victim’s family. Maybe some day if the family and the offender are willing there
could be a victim offender dialogue, a form of restorative justice, which is
currently being used more frequently with seriously violent offenses
including murder. However, no healing is possible and offender
accountabilty cannot be realised if the wrong offender is convicted. I hope
my sense about this case is wrong.

Note: On February 14, 2011, the Washington Post quoted Chandra Levy’s mother as saying she was not certain that Guandique is the person who killed her daughter.