I smell a conspiracy! All of the "testimony" I've heard about from all the newsfaces involves information that is not evidence of a crime, and should not have been admitted. Not one shred of information relating either to the alleged crime or identifying the defendant as the perpetrator. Nothing. Two days of what happened in other crimes and what the deceased woman's parents thought about it. It made me wonder, does that guy have a lawyer? Or, as I know happens from time to time (but I have sense enough to know not to talk about how, specifically I know, so don't bother to ask), he has a court-appointed "tame" lawyer whose purpose is to provide the illusion of due process while actually making sure the defendant comes out as the guilty party. Didn't anyone object to all that crap as inadmissible? Is the judge just a bump on a log? What's going on? Then I heard one thing that cleared it up for me. The cop investigating the murder was in Levy's house and found her computer was still on. He looked at it briefly and then it "occured to him that he needed a search warrant to investigate the computer further", so he simply turned the computer off without shutting down the operating system. He came back the next day with a search warrant and other cops and turned on the computer, but the operating system was totally and irreparably fried, purportedly due to his "mistake" in shutting the power off without having first shut down the o/s. What a load of crap! First, no search warrant would have been required, and the cop ought to have known that, because the Constitutional provision only applies to "persons". A corpse is not a "person" and has no rights to protect. Secondly, shutting off the power no longer fries operating systems. If she was using an early (like twenty to twenty-five years ago) version of Windows 3.1 or OS/2, ok, I'd buy that story. But the worst that could have happened is that the operating system would come up with a message that says it has to clean up a bit because it wasn't properly shut down before. The browser history showing that the woman had been interested in Rock Creek Park would probably have been intact. And, besides, if the system had been totally and irreparably fried, how'd they ever find out about that? They're using this story to say that she'd been investigating R.C.Pk., and if they'd only have known, they've have investigated in the right place. If they were going to lie about it, they should have just kept quiet about the computer, or said that they had no way of knowing. An elaborate lie is the hardest to make out and this one really falls flat. Then, there was that investigation of the congressman the woman had worked for. There never had been any evidence that he was involved, and the cops were relentless in pursuing him, to the exclusion of all other investigatory directions. Why is that? It seems pretty clear to me that this defendant is a patsy. The woman was killed by either a cop or someone working for "An Agency of the United States". Either her boss was close to something they didn't want him to know, or she was, or either of them was already on to something. Maybe they were working on some kind of investigation together, and she'd found out too much. Either way, they got rid of both of 'em pretty effectively, and now they're conducting what has all the earmarks of a bogus trial. By the way, before you get the idea that I'm a total flake, I'll point out that I am a licensed and practicing trial lawyer and a former software engineer. I may be a flake, but at least I have an idea what I'm talking about.