I would love to know how this man was found guilty.  Granted, he is scum of the earth, but how was he found guilty of Chandra's murder?  There was no evidence of any kind, forensic or otherwise, linking him to the crime scene, no muder weapon was found, there were no eyewitnesses, and no definitive ruling from the ME on exactly how Chandra Levy died. 

DNA was found on her body, but it didn't belong to the man convicted of her murder.  Two different DNA strands were found on Chandra, one belonging to former congressman Gary Condit, and the other to an "unidentified male."  How are you going to brutally attack someone (as the police and prosecution claim this man did), without leaving behind any physical or forensic evidence on the victim or at the crime scene?

The only peice of evidence that the prosecution had was an inmate, who claimed that the suspect had bragged to him about killing Chandra.  That's a flimsy peice of evidence.

One juror described the evidence as "lots of eidence, you know how much evidence there was, and there was all kinds of evidence, and we went thru it every day in a small room n a very deliberate manner."  I'd love to know what "all of this evidence" is that she's referring too, since there was no forensice evidence, no murder weapon, no cause of death, and no eyewitnesses.

I have no doubt this man does deserve to be locked up for the crimes he did commit.  But I do not think Chandra Levy received the justice she deserved, and I don't think she ever will.  I have no doubt that the wrong man was convicted, on purpose, of a crime he didn't commit, in order to protect Gary Condit and his inner circle.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/22/AR2010112203633.html