Talk:Killing of Chandra Levy

last internet search by Chandra
This statement is incorrect based on testimony given by FBI in Guandique trial: "The last search at 12:24 p.m. was for the location of the Pierce-Klingle Mansion,[7] a historic house in Rock Creek Park that is used as the park's administrative office."

I pulled up two news articles from my 2001 archives that states she signed off internet about 1 p.m. This was widely reported and I document in my book Murder on a Horse Trail.

Then in 2010 Guandique trial, it was specified in more detail: McClatchy October 28, 2010

....FBI supervisory special agent Jane Dombowski traced Levy’s last virtual steps.... At 12:59 p.m. May 1, with a final, unexplained search for information on the French province of Alsace-Lorraine, the user of Levy’s computer signed off the Internet. “That was the last Internet file I was able to find,” Dombowski testified....

end quote

Generally when incorrect information is posted in this article, it's to further an agenda of Chandra being a jogger in Rock Creek Park. This also for some reason a time given which is supposed to bolster Condit not being involved because he had a meeting with Cheney at 12:30.

In any event this information posted in the article has no basis whatsoever and is in direct conflict with testimony given by FBI. I'm not comfortable just editing the article but if moderators could consider who entered this info and based on what this incorrect information could be replaced with the FBI testimony I quoted above. Note the [7] and [8] references are to generic information about the Rock Creek Park building. The last search at 12:24 on Rock Creek Park implies that she was off the internet a half hour earlier, is meant to coincide with Condit's meeting, and implies as last thing she did that she then went there. This of course is all false and has an agenda behind it.

I will post this on my site and at least alert who I can of this scam. It came to my attention tonight because a cable host of a crime show is citing this information in documentaries on Chandra for said agenda.

Thanks for your consideration.--Ralphdaugherty (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The addition of 12:24 pm as the timing of the last internet search was introduced to the article with this edit in December 2010, the edit performed by, a veteran editor who was very much interested in a wide variety of crime topics on Wikipedia. The text added by KimChee is partly supported by the cited source, the Washington Post piece by Sari Horwitz published in July 2008. All of that makes me conclude there was no agenda-driven Wikipedia editor trying to mislead the reader.
 * I think the next thing to do here is to take out the contradictory "last search" statement being 12:24 pm and add the 12:59 last search supported by the McClatchy news piece from October 2010. Binksternet (talk) 07:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chandra Levy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120913073013/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/09/24/v-print/101122/lawyers-prepare-for-center-stage.html to http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/09/24/v-print/101122/lawyers-prepare-for-center-stage.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed rename
I formally propose renaming to "Murder of Chandra Levy", as the article overwhelmingly focuses on the murder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volvlogia (talk • contribs)
 * You are IMO absolutely 100% correct. However, look through the archives ... you'll see that in 2013 and 2016 formal proposals to rename the article appropriately were sufficiently opposed by dubious arguments to fail. If you want to start another one, especially now that it's been more than 20 years since the disappearance and death of a non-notable young woman became a notable event (as you have noticed), go ahead, but be forewarned. Daniel Case (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

In popular culture section
Hello, Any thoughts on adding a section titled "In popular culture", there are many television episodes reporting on the Chandra Levy case. Thank you, Vwanweb (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Clarification?
Hello, all. Perhaps it's just me, but I really feel that the following sentence requires clarification:

"Police commanders ordered the search perimeters to 100 yards of each road and trail but a miscommunication had the officers only searching within 100 yards of every road."

I'm quite confused about what this means as phrased. Can someone perhaps clarify it? It's an important point vis-a-vis the mishandling of the search for Levy, so it seems to me it warrants correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.242.175 (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Not sure if adding Italics does enough to emphasize that they didn't search 100 yards from trails, but that's what I've done. Rivselis (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 19 January 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Move to Killing of Chandra Levy as per nominated. There is a consensus that the article satisfy WP:BIO1E, thus the request to move from the current title, Chandra Levy, is not disputed. Pertinent to the request is the new naming of the article. There are alternatives proposed to the nominated title: 'Death/Murder of' with contention between 'Killing of' and 'Death of'. The reasoning for both are persuasive, however having going through the arguments, I lean slightly more towards 'Killing of', particularly due to the homicide ruling. There is also a rough consensus to move to Killing of Chandra Levy among the participants. The discussion has run for long enough, with the start being 1 month and 8 days ago from now, and the last message here being 18 days ago. I am closing this discussion with the option to bring this up to WP:MRV as allowed under WP:NOGOODOPTIONS if anyone feels strongly against the move. – robertsky (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Chandra Levy → Killing of Chandra Levy – Three years ago, it was noted above, here on this page, that the article seemed to really be about her death and the fallout from it, not her. I responded that there had been two previous RM discussions on exactly this premise, both of which did not succeed. A 2013 discussion was closed as no consensus; its 2016 sequel, prompted by my own move (which I believed would be uncontroversial) was closed as no move on the basis of "no coherent arguments supporting the move that would provide substantial benefit to WP readers." An issue in those previous discussions was the lack of clear naming policy behind the move. That is no longer the case. Since then, further discussions of the issue have led to WP:NCDEATH, the flowchart for which leads us to the more appropriate title of Killing of Chandra Levy: the medical examiner ruled her death a homicide. A suspect was convicted, but after that verdict was overturned on appeal the prosecution decided against a retrial, dropping the charges and having the suspect deported to his native El Salvador instead. So homicide - conviction="Killing of ..." Beyond that is the question, doggedly answered as "yes" by so many opponents of the move in the previous discussions, of whether Levy was notable enough apart from her disappearance and death to justify her name alone as the article title. Sentimentality prevailed, or was allowed to prevail, in 2016, even though no one arguing from that premise could really say what we might have known about her but for her demise. Similarly, in 2013, we had less of these articles about a notable event centered around a non-notable, usually dead or missing, person, and those that we had were often still titled after the person, rather than the event. There were so few of those latterly-titled articles that one participant in that debate could somewhat credibly claim at the time that this attempt to rename the article was a symptom of institutional sexism and that no article about a similarly situated straight white man would even get considered for such a rename (even though evidence to the contrary had already been introduced). Again, that no longer holds. Due to the work of myself and others, we have today many more articles about the dead and missing, regardless of gender, all of which are generally titled "Death/Murder/Disappearance of ..." without objection, save for those notable for something else during their lives that would be notable by our standards even if they had not met such an ignoble end. It is 2022. It has been more than two decades since Ms. Levy's disappearance and the intrigues it revealed captured the idle fancies of America over that last good summer before 9/11 (and made some history, I think, as the first major missing persons case where the disappeared person's Internet search results were a possible clue). It is almost that much time since her remains were found. A whole generation of Americans has grown up and reached college since then. I cannot imagine that they, looking upon this article, would not ask the same question that the 2018 poster whose remarks that I belatedly discovered last month did. And even for those of us well graced with the years to remember this affair, it is "a distant ship, smoke on the horizon". While no one would want it so, the dark clouds that hover still are her fate, not her life, and it is so that this article should be retitled. Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 08:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please see my previous comments about the unknown manner of her death in the previous discussion at Talk:Chandra Levy/Archive 3. That might justify "Death of" rather than "Killing of", although I agree with the basic WP:BIO1E rationale here. As noted, the murder conviction was overturned, and the medical examiner said that "It's possible we will never know specifically how she died." —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But he nevertheless officially found it a homicide. That's what matters. Daniel Case (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely don't keep it at the current title; prefer move to "Death of" or "Disappearance and death of": That may be enough for you to reach a conclusion for "Killing of", but not for me. The remains did not really provide evidence of the manner of her death, and the medical examiner also stated that. "Death of" would be accurate and conservative, and the further detail can be provided in the article. If we were on a jury together, we would have lengthy discussions about the question, but we are not a jury. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you wanna give reason for your vote, Rreagan007? --George Ho (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support move as proposed (only if there's no commonly used name) or move to "death of Chandra Levy" (only if commonly used more than any other title) – According to flowchart, there should've been a common name for her death investigation. WaPo article uses "killing". Reuters and SFGate use "death". NBC Washington and CNN use "disappearance" and "death". ABC News uses "murder" and "death". Christian Science Monitor uses "murder". BTW, agreeing that Levy hasn't been notable as much as her disappearance and then death has been. Also, I started those RMs years back. --George Ho (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC); amended, 05:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's "killing" because that is what NCDEATHS now says we call articles about officially unsolved homicides. What the media calls it really has no bearing. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What the media calls it really has no bearing. Only when there's no commonly used name describing the event per WP:NCDEATHS and WP:NCDEATHS (image). Have you found a commonly used name yet? George Ho (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem from the examples you've quoted that the media really agree. They are understandably not calling it a murder since Guandique's conviction was overturned and the charges dropped. "Death" doesn't fit with our conventions because the medical examiner ruled it a homicide after looking over her remains. He wasn't sure exactly how, but he signed his name to "homicide". Honestly I think the "common name" thing was meant to cover situations like, say, the Good Hart murders, where the crime gains a briefly popular sobriquet based on some aspect other than its victim or victims (note that that link now redirects to the article named for the slain family). The only single-victim homicide I can think of whose popular name persists at the expense of the victim's name would be Black Dahlia, which if that name ever faded from use we'd rename to Killing of Elizabeth Short. Daniel Case (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Another WaPo article uses "disappearance", "slaying", "death", and "killing". A San Francisco Chronicle article and National Post  uses "death". Commentary  referred Levy as "murdered". More can be found via The Wikipedia Library. I don't know what conventions you were referring to, but I hope you were referring to an official policy or guideline. Seems that the Flowchart is supposed to be the last resort if a common name isn't yet found. However, one discussion raised concerns about misusing the flowchart. George Ho (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Like I said, no clear media consensus on how to refer to it. And there are some constraints on what terms of theirs we can adopt, due to our own policies. We can't use "murder" because the conviction was overturned and the charge dropped instead of a retrial (and IMO it was recent enough that the BLP/NPOV/OR reason not to use that in the absence of a conviction applies to any actual perpetrator, unidentified and unknown though they may be). There was an official finding of homicide from the medical examiner, which has not been changed, so I think "Death of" is overly generalized and inaccurate (Also, most media coverage refers to her "death" only in the context of Guandique having been charged and convicted of causing it in the past, or a sense that clearly implies she was killed. I would consider it only if there is ever some credible, reliably sourced speculation that she was not murdered). Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I also do not find that linked discussion helpful. I agree that the move in question was incorrect and would have opposed it due to the officer in the case not being convicted of murder even if he was convicted of a lesser homicide charge, but it seems to me that the user in question misapplied that flowchart. Also, that discussion concerned a police shooting, around which we have had naming issues that do not come into play here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Move to Death of Chandra Levy. BarrelProof makes a convincing case above, that we don't have conclusive evidence backed up by our reliable sources, that the death was a killing. It is currently regarded as unexplained, with homicide probable but not certain. Furthermore, George Ho makes a good point about common usage, and it seems from the articles provided that many do indeed prefer "death", e.g. . &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Certainly that's preferable to the current title, but only in a relative way. The lede of our cited source is unambiguous: "Chandra Levy was murdered, by means unknown, the Washington D.C. medical examiner said Tuesday in a disclosure that deepened the mystery behind the demise of the 24-year-old intern who disappeared more than a year ago." His later remarks may seem to contradict that, but that's an exercise for the reader. To flinch from calling this case a homicide ourselves is to reflect our own subjective and unverifiable, rather OR-ish, POV perhaps even, opinion of the medical examiner's remarks. This is where we do not substitute our judgement for the reader's. What he put on the death certificate is all that matters, as far as we should be concerned. Note that within last year, the Washington Post called her death a killing (paywalled) without qualifying that language in any way. I contrast this with two articles I've worked on extensively about contentious deaths, both of which interestingly have a connection to Middlesex County, New Jersey, near where I grew up. I renamed, without controversy, Death of Timothy Wiltsey from "Murder of Timothy Wiltsey" a month ago after the New Jersey Supreme Court vacated his mother's conviction. As in that case, we had only bones to work from, bones found exposed after months in (presumably) open air, bones which led to a murder conviction which also no longer stands. So why not "Killing of ..."? Certainly the Middlesex County prosecutor's office still sees the case that way, but ... the only official finding of the cause of death came from the medical examiner who looked at the bones when they were originally discovered and said that there was not enough evidence to make a finding, therefore the death was of undetermined cause. Yes, at his mother's 2016 trial another pathologist who'd worked for the county (she was retired by then and testified because the medical examiner who made the earlier finding had died) said the death was a homicide. But her opinion, though given under oath, does not displace the original finding because they didn't reissue the death certificate as far as I've been able to tell. (And it was largely, she admitted, because she eliminated other possible causes, like accident or suicide, as unlikely, and because of the other aspects of the prosecution case). So I am comfortable with that article staying "Death of ...". Likewise, Killing of Geetha Angara is so named because that's still what the county prosecutor's office considers it, even if its investigation produced no arrests or suspects. A pathologist who is one of the leading international experts on drowning deaths, when sent the records from her case, has expressed the possibility that the signs of apparent strangulation that have led to "homicide" as the official finding may in fact be the results of drowning in cold water. And while that's certainly notable and is indeed discussed at some length in the article, it still hasn't changed the official finding and therefore the name. Again, this is the same logic that here leads me to make the distinction in how we name the article. Daniel Case (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. The reliable sources presented in this thread sometimes use the word "death" instead of "murder" or "killing", but none of them seriously question the conclusion that Levy was murdered. Rublov (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, no preference between Death/Murder/Killing. There are at least 20 paragraphs about her death and the investigations/trials afterwards, and only 2 that are about her life. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 23:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support move, "Killing of" would be my first choice, given that this was ruled a homocide' "Death of" would be my second choice. BD2412  T 04:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, this is a WP:BIO1E. 162 etc. (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For clarity, what article title do you want it to be? George Ho (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Killing of", per nom. 162 etc. (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)