www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index www.justiceforchandra.com
Justice for Chandra Levy and missing women
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Condit does not have an alibi, was with VP Cheney earlier

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index -> Chandra Levy and missing women
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9232
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:06 pm    Post subject: Condit does not have an alibi, was with VP Cheney earlier Reply with quote

There were three shows on Chandra Levy case recently, I have a lot to comment on. But two of the shows misinformed on Condit's alibi so egregiously that I need to create a thread just on that misinformation.

And that probably won't be enough. They can misinform millions much more effectively than I can inform. Such is the power of broadcasts.

The two shows were A&E shows, back to back, First 48 with Marcia Clark and Grace vs. Abrams. These are all veteran true crime journalists. They all are well intended. They had knowledgeable guests who either agreed, didn't have wherewithall to correct the misinformation, or were sources of the misinformation, such as Jim Trainum and Jack Barrett.

The statement made on both shows, made multiple times by multiple people including all the hosts, was that Condit had a rock solid alibi with VP Cheney, and then Cheney's picture would be shown.

But Condit only met with Cheney for 20 minutes, which ended 10 minutes before Chandra logged off the internet.

To say that Condit was with Cheney and has an alibi while Chandra was still at home on her computer is like something out of Russia, or Animal Farm, or any dystopian future of your choice. It would be funny if it weren't so serious.

In fact, is it just a coincidence that Chandra logged off the internet a few minutes after Condit's meeting with Cheney ended? Considering she spent all morning and the previous night doing internet searches on Condit, the answer is probably not.

rd

click to read the online true crime mystery novel Murder on a Horse Trail: The Disappearance of Chandra Levy

www.justiceforchandra.com home page
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9232
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But writing a chapter Alibi on this wasn't enough. Writing thousands of words on what happened Tuesday afternoon when Chandra disappeared wasn't enough. And this thread won't be enough.

Here are the facts short and sweet. Pay attention crime show hosts. If there's anyone that needs to get this right, it's you.

Cheney's press secretary, Juleanna Glover Weisss, said the meeting happened between 12:30 p.m. and 12:50 p.m., "at Condit's request."
“Police to return to parks in Levy case; Experts: Condit damaged own reputation.” CNN 22 July 2001.

Condit was meeting with Cheney while Levy surfed the Web In a Web exclusive article, the magazine said Condit met with Cheney from 12:30 p.m. ET to just before 1 p.m. to discuss the California energy crisis. Police have said that Levy logged off her computer at around 1 p.m.
"Missing Intern." CNN. 21 July 2001.

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. "Levy searched Internet about park, Condit, FBI agent testifies ." McClatchy. 28 October 2010.

This should be crystal clear and unambiguous. Condit walked out of Cheney's office 10 minutes before Chandra logged off the internet. There is no Condit was with Cheney when Chandra disappeared. There is no rock solid alibi with VP Cheney.

Here's the way the hosts actually said it. "Condit was with VP Cheney all afternoon. Rock solid alibi." (show full screen picture of VP Cheney)

Now I'm goiing to pivot away from the hosts because although they should have been able to read the details and know better, they haven't. But who is it telling them this?

In both shows, it was Jim Trainum, a DC Police detective who is still getting it wrong. Overall he seemed a reasonable guy, most of the rest of what he said was reasonable, but he's one of those DC Police sources that said Condit is cleared, he has an alibi. And either Trainum doesn't know that Condit left Cheney's office before Chandra even logged off her computer or... well let's just say he doesn't know.

Barrett was also on Grace's show and of course he should know this same as Trainum. And again he apparently doesn't know.

Now I could go on here about the rest of the afternoon, other aspects of alibi for later in ther afternoon, but I wanted to focus this thread just on this wildly false claim by trusted people who should know better that Condit was with Cheney when Chandra disappeared and has an alibi.

And I don't want to lose focus on that.

And I don't want anyone who has enough clout to host their own crime show to lose focus of that.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9232
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let's look closer at this effort from the very beginning to establish VP Cheney as Condit's alibi for when Chandra disappeared.

We can start with Newsweek, which doesn't even pretend to understand that Condit and Cheney's meeting ending and Chandra's logging off the internet about the same time has nothing to do with an alibi for anything that follows.

They don't mince words. Title is Condit Has an Alibi.

Condit Has an Alibi

Dick Cheney has emerged as a surprise witness for the beleaguered
congressman, NEWSWEEK has learned

By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE
July 20, 2001

Vice President Dick Cheney has emerged as a surprise alibi witness for Rep. Gary Condit in the investigation into the disappearance of missing Washington intern Chandra Levy, NEWSWEEK has learned.

CONDIT HAD A PRIVATE MEETING with Cheney on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, May 1, to discuss the California energy crisis, according to White House and law-enforcement sources. The meeting began at 12:30 p.m. EDT and lasted for about 20 to 25 minutes, the sources said.

It was at that very moment that, according to police, Levy was in her Dupont Circle apartment wrapping up a three-hour-plus session on her laptop computer in which she sent out e-mails and surfed the Internet.


end quote

We all know Isikoff as a reporter. He's an excellent reporter, I quoted a lot of information from him in Murder on a Horse Trail, and he's still at it and doing a great job.

But... is there any one, in any case, who would say with victim logging off her computer and person of interest ending a meeting 10 minutes earlier a mile or so away about same time, that person of interest has an alibi for victim's disappearance sometime after that?

Any one, any case? Of course not. You'd be laughed out of the room. Why is the person of interest walking out after a meeting 10 minutes before victim signs off the internet give him an alibi in any way, shape, or form for her disappearance?

It doesn't, in a normal world. But if person of interest was a powerful congressman, and the meeting was with the Vice President of the United States, and the victim was a Washington intern, then you have this, really desperate pandering for the powerful.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9232
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

By the way, I should probably explain to younger people what logging off the internet was.

At that time, connecting to the internet by dialing up a phone number and logging in was common for anyone not in a place with a permanent always on internet connection, such as over cable. As a temporary resident as she worked on her degree, dial up internet from wherever she was would be the normal way of using the internet.

Calling a dial up ISP, connecting, and logging in also established a starting time for an internet session, and logging off and disconnecting an unambiguous ending time. Nowadays ISP's can look in logs for activity from an assigned IP address for that kind of answer for law enforcement but not nearly as unambiguous as logging in and out of a dial up internet session.

So we have the time she logged off as 12:59 pm Tuesday afternoon, May 1, and she never logged in again.

End of ancient history lesson.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9232
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

But it didn't start out as Condit leaving meeting about same time as Chandra logged off internet, far from it. It was forced there, bit by bit, by press pushback. That was never intended.

In the beginning, Condit gave DC Police a timeline of his activities the week Chandra disappeared, especially including the crucial Tuesday afternoon. We would never have known what he gave the police except for a curious ABC reporter friend who was involved in his timeline. And a helpful Condit aide who didn't get the memo that he shouldn't have been helpful.

We will go into what Condit gave the police, the pushback, and how it ended up Newsweek still calling Condit having a meeting with VP Cheney while Chandra was on the internet an alibi for her disappearance.

You'll understand, but it doesn't matter. No one else does. Just you and me, and that isn't enough.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9232
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is a portion of a statement Condit gave police, his "timeline" which is an alibi.

Tuesday, May 1
Condit rides with staff to the office in the
morning. At 12:30 p.m. ET, he meets with Vice
President Cheney. He returns at 3:30 p.m. for
meetings and phone conversations with constituents.


Now we need to put our politician parsing hats on. In this world, words are literal, anything you assume is intended but your problem, not his.

At 12:30 pm he meets with Vice President Cheney. This is correct. It goes downhill from here.

He returns at 3:30 pm. Normal reading comprehension interprets that as returns from meeting with VP Cheney. This is the source of "all afternoon" with VP Cheney. Now use your parsing hat. It doesn't actually say he was with Cheney the while time, just that he returned to his office 3 hours later.

Sneaky, but standard fare for weasely trick wording.

Now let's assume you're of a mindset like DC Police at a high level, a Jim Trainum or Chief Ramsey. Well, you're almost giddy over this stuff. Press is hounding you about Condit and here he was with VP Cheney all afternoon. Press, go away. Condit is cleared. Just go away and leave us alone.

Did these DC police detectives ask VP Cheney about this meeting? Of course not. This is a congressman. That is a VP. These people fund DC. Nope, not poking my nose into their business. We're just lowly police that need enough to make pesky reporters go away.

Mission accomplished.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9232
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The DC police certainly wasn't going to investigate Condit's timeline - "His time is accounted for" they said - and reporters weren't able to do their job for them because DC police didn't divulge this information.

But an ABC reporter friend, Rebecca Cooper, who Condit asked to meet him the day after, on Wednesday, heard about the timeline and asked Condit's aide for it. He gave it to her.

And guess what? Condit told police he met with Cooper the day Chandra disappeared. She was part of his alibi, same as Cheney. Both Cooper and Cheney were asked to meet Condit just before Chandra disappeared, for dubious reasons.

Cheney granted a last minute meeting obvious from being granted during lunch hour for a non-lunch meeting in Cheney's office in Capitol. Condit probably requested this meeting day before when he was at White House. Then he requested a meeting with Cooper, a close friend and producer at ABC, for a non-reporting update of his meeting with Cheney.

Then he portrayed both of them prominently as activities when Chandra disappeared.

Except Cheney's meeting ended before Chandra disappeared, and he didn't actually meet with Cooper until the next day, Wednesday. Would the DC police have questioned either Cheney or Cooper? Of course not. Cooper said she was never contacted.

But Condit's time was accounted for. That's all you need to know.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9232
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now how did Condit's meeting ending get pushed back from 3:30 pm to 12:50 pm? It certainly wasn't what Condit intended.

Rebecca Cooper, being helpful, posted Condit's timeline on the ABC news server, and corrected his timeline from Tuesday, the day Chandra disappeared, to Wednesday, the day they actually met.

All hell broke loose.

That was for police eyes only, bureaucrats who didn't ask questions. It was not for anyone else. Then all of us could see what lies Condit was telling police and how the DC police just didn't care.

That would never do.

So Condit "camp", essentially his lawyer Abbe Lowell, currently in news as he always is when politicians are in trouble, tried to walk back the "3:30 pm" implied ending with Cheney.

They said the meeting lasted 45 minutes. "This would put Mr Condit away from Ms Levy's apartment at the time the police believe she went missing."

No lie, pun intended. They really said that.

Then the actual time of the meeting ending was given by Cheney's office. 12:50 pm. Yes, you read that right. The truth didn't come from Condit.

So we could go on here about the fallback to "taking calls" and "may have gone to the gym" but that isn't the focus of this thread. I want this short enough and straight forward emough that any crime show host can pretty much follow along and get it in their heads, No, Condit was not with Cheney and doesn't have any alibi, much less a rock solid alibi with VP of United States when Chandra disappeared.

At least this is my best shot at it. Will anyone except us get it?

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index -> Chandra Levy and missing women All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group