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 

A Georgetown Voice Editorial.

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



Joined: 19 Sep 2002
Posts: 2136
Location: Sacramento, CA

PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2003 8:16 am    Post subject: A Georgetown Voice Editorial. Reply with quote

While most of you here are debating Laci Peterson, and other subjects, I spend some of my time trying to do imaginative investigating, not much of it productive, about the Chandra Levy investigation.

Here I have joined the Georgetown Voice, hopefully a sanctuary for some productive discussion. The only reason I am making a prologue here is that the date given on the printer friendly edition of this editorial is a little uncertain. Perhaps in the 04/24/03 edition of the Voice this article was repeated, but the original date of the article that I clicked on is:

"Leave Condit alone, already by: 8/30/2001"

They have certainly not went wild about discussing this subject, because this is the last message, or editorial, that I see posted. Maybe they will post mine, if I write one, or post another message about Chandra, from someone.

>>>>> Georgetown Voice - Editorials
>>>>>Issue: 04/24/03

Leave Condit alone, already

U.S. Rep. Gary Condit's (D-Ca) Prime Time Live interview last Thursday typified for viewers how the media has handled the Chandra Levy saga. While the impassive Condit was less than cooperative with his programmed answers, his interrogator, Connie Chung, refused to focus on the real crux of the story: the missing intern. Chung did not relent in her attempts to get Condit to admit to a sexual relationship with Levy. Viewers certainly understood Condit's oft-repeated response, "I haven't been a perfect man," but the media continues to uncover that one magical word: sex.

When Chandra Levy first disappeared in May, the story appeared in the middle pages of the Washington Post Metro section without much fanfare. But as she became linked to her hometown congressman, Condit, the media dug deeper to find any similarities to the more public intern scandal of 1998 involving former President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Under enormous media pressure to contribute information to the case, Condit finally admitted in July that he had a relationship with Levy.

Soon after, the floodgates opened. Newspapers and television stations clamored to uncover whatever they could about Condit's past. In fact, there were several scandalous leads. Among other things, he was linked to affairs with several women and was accused of obstructing the D.C. police's investigation.

What was unique and frightening about all of this was that the media seemed to be the guiding force in the investigation. MSNBC, Fox News and CNN covered the Levy case throughout the slow summer days, often working arm-in-arm with the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department in their search of parks, houses and trash cans. News broke on-air even before the police could create a press release. Assumptions and theories were mixed with murder and sex during the media’s feeding frenzy, but still the major question remains unanswered: Where is the missing intern?

In short, all we can really say is that Condit has suffered politically, but it appears equally obvious that he has had nothing to do with Levy's disappearance. One might ask, did they have sex? But it really doesn't matter. Granted, the tale is undeniably interesting and creates great ratings, but it solves nothing. Connie Chung's interview serves as an obvious example of this failure. Gary Condit seems to be in worse shape than ever before, but Chandra Levy is still nowhere to be found.<<<<<

benn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2003 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Connie didn't make the case very well that an intimate is the first person to clear when a woman is missing, and Condit's only alibi is Dayton, who says that in a way that I don't think he could repeat under oath or pass with a lie detector test.

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



Joined: 19 Sep 2002
Posts: 2136
Location: Sacramento, CA

PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2003 1:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rd

I think this is very important here, but we don't see it printed much. Instead of Connie Chung asking Condit about an affair, she could have just asked him about a key.

He would have had to say something, probably lie.

>>>http://www.justiceforchandra.com/forums/viewtopic.
php?t=1282&highlight=key+condits+apartment

>>>KATZ: Oh, yes. We know and the police know that Chandra had keys to the congressman's apartment, and isn't it interesting is that the only thing that is missing from Chandra's apartment besides Chandra is her keys.

KING: What do we read into that, Cynthia? -- hold on, Julian.

ALKSNE: What we read into it is that when she left her apartment, she was going somewhere with somebody she was comfortable with, and she took her keys with her. I don't think you can make the next leap, but it is interesting, if you think about it in terms of the timeline.

Here she has this relationship with the congressman. They speak all of the time and they are at the point that she has the keys to his apartment. She disappears on April 30th, and it's her family who reports her missing to the police. I don't know if the congressman tried to reach her during that time. It's sort of a question that's kind of out there. Did the congressman try to reach her? And if he didn't, why didn't he try to reach her?<<<<

I would like to be able to write to Connie Chung, or Jodi Hernandez, who gave the tv interviews and ask them why they did not mention the key. I doubt if Connie has a public email address, but maybe Jodi does. She is working for NBC !! now in San Jose. She sure gets around. She has a restaurant in the Mission District of San Francisco, she works out of San Jose, and she spends time doing interviews in Modesto.

Also, there were newspaper interviews that Condit did, I think on the same day. I have forgotten which paper, or papers, interviewed him. Newspapers usually give the email addresses of their reporters.

Another article that I have posted on the topic of The Key says that Condit told the police that Chandra did not have a key to his apartment. That had to come from a police leak. This is not about an affair, this is about who, and why, someone would have wanted to do harm to Chandra.

If anyone has the email addresses of any reporters who interviewed Condit on the day he was interviewing I would appreciate them. Or just the names of the papers, maybe only one, who interviewed him would be enough.

Can we post messages like this on Newsgroups, or does that get everything mixed up? If the case gets enough exposure maybe something will break.

benn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fallout



Joined: 19 Sep 2002
Posts: 566
Location: The Great NorthEast

PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2003 4:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Benn,

Thanks as always for bringing up something new. I'd never heard of this Georgetown paper (The town of George! I know its not named for our current fearless and feckless leader but its hard not to think of D.C. as George's Town!).

Just thinking that the real problem is politicians who can't tell the truth because they need to get re-elected. And journalists who can't tell the truth because they need their miserable jobs and can't offend the editors who need their jobs and can't offend the publishers who need their source of revenue and can't offend the advertisers.

Anyway, in August of 2001 I was firmly convinced that Condit had done Chandra in a fit of rage. But then 9/11 and Anthrax and Iraq happened and I started to wonder what really happened to this brilliant vital young woman in D.C. who was applying for work with the FBI and CIA and who had an inside track on the McVeigh scandal.

Did I mention before that I ran into a special forces guy guarding the woods under area 17 when I went there on June 4, 2002 just after the DC police opened the park a few days before? That's one of the things that bothers me. He knows who I am and I know what he looks like. That's a start. I still wish I'd gotten a better picture of him but give me a line-up of tree climbing special ops guys and I'll give you somebody who knows someone who knows what happened to Chandra.

Do you have a url for the Georgetown paper? Hadn't heard of it before and I'm wondering why they are killing themselves to defend the slacker Condit. Especially during the quiet August of 2001!!

Thanks again for your investigative work!

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



Joined: 19 Sep 2002
Posts: 2136
Location: Sacramento, CA

PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2003 4:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for your comments, James. I have the url here. I did not write it down, but I had it bookmarked. http://www.georgetownvoice.com/main.cfm?logoff=1

I found the paper by searching for Washington DC papers. It was just one of the papers. I don't really think they are very interested in Condit. I haven't read enough of the paper to find out what they are really interested in.

I am a little hesitant about thinking up complex scenarios. To me the simplest seems the most likely. I did have one idea. Condit knows too much, and the only way they can keep him silent is to not arrest him or prosecute him. I think that is a little too far out.

What I do sometimes is try to find something a little different. Maybe a sound mind in the wrong place might utter some words of wisdom that will lead to something.

What follows below is a followup on the Chandra had a key story that precedes this one. This is a Chandra did not have a key story, which is supposed to be what Condit told the police.

I also read somewhere that Abbe Lowell said that Chandra did not have a key to Condit's apartment. How would Lowell know? He doesn't know that. All he can know is what Condit told him.

http://newsminute.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/forums.cgi?forum=1&topic=77)
(this url seems to have timed out. The article is on the site here at The Key to Condit's Apartment.)

Posted by NewzFox on 7:31 am on Aug. 23, 2001

>>>Family members told investigators Miss Levy was in love with the married congressman and expected a long-term relationship.

Police also are said to no longer credit a report by Miss Levy's aunt, Linda Zamsky, that Mr. Condit told Miss Levy not to carry identification when she was with him.<<<

(I am surprised, James, how ready the police are, and the FBI, to discredit stories that seem reasonably true. The FBI of course discredited the Otis Thomas story. They must think that everyone else except them is stupid.)

>>>One source familiar with the probe said police believe Miss Levy made a practice of visiting Mr. Condit's apartment straight from her job or night school, bringing her gym bag, backpack and purse. The source said Mr. Condit told police she never was in his apartment alone and was admitted each time through a security system.

"Condit told them she did not have a key to his apartment," the source said.

The Levy family has moved from a positive view of D.C. police to one described as neutral by spokeswoman Lorraine Volz, who last week said Miss Levy's parents haven't been critical and don't intend to change that stance.<<<

Did Condit give Chandra a key to his apartment, or didn't he? I vote yes.

benn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2003 5:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also, benn, we know that Chandra was at his apartment alone on a Saturday waiting for him to come back, and out of boredom called her aunt Linda Katz. That is when Linda suggested to her that she arrange his shirts in his closet. We don't know if Condit had given Chandra a directive to not open his closet as he had given to Anne Marie Smith, his other mistress, but Chandra seemed to know the contents of his closet.

We have read Linda's account of this, and we have read what little Condit will say. It is obvious who a jury will believe. But a jury will never hear this unless a smoking gun with Condit's fingerprints on it, or some other indisputable forensic evidence of Condit's involvement in her murder is found. This is the legacy of our forensic brilliance when it comes to the disappearance of an intimate. No forensic proof of murder means getting away with murder. Even if some forensic traces are found, it must be discounted as being from an intimate. And although reporters tried, they could not get Condit to establish he was an intimate of Chandra's. The police finally did weeks and months later, but only after the public had indisputable proof from Linda Katz, proof the DC police and FBI had all along but did nothing about it.

That is not how the same police acted when a black government employee was reported missing a year or two later. Chandra was no longer a government employee, having lost her internship to her disbelief a week before she disappeared. There is a reason for that. We saw what happens when the missing person is reported missing by the Federal government instead of her anguished parents who could get no one to look for her. The personnel of the Bureau of Prisons, her employer, should be questioned under oath and under a cloud of being prosecuted to get to the bottom of this travesty of justice.

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



Joined: 19 Sep 2002
Posts: 2136
Location: Sacramento, CA

PostPosted: Sat Aug 16, 2003 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is sort of the wrong place at the wrong time for my message here, but I guess it will show up as a new message, or a message not viewed.

I thought it was against the law to lie to the police. It seems that Condit did lie to the police about Chandra not having keys to his apartment. Of course the story on that said key not keys.

I know I could make a little noise if I wrote to Senator Feinstein two or three times. Someone in her office would say, "Who the heck is that guy, get rid of him." But a politician has to respond a little to personal requests from a constituent.

The politicians always say to phone them if you have a problem, but I am not certain that phoning is the best way to go. I guess it depends on the type of problem. Mark Twain was probably right when he said that the only criminal class in the U.S. is the Congress.

I read an article just a few days ago that showed that the House has the poorest rules on policing itself. According to the article it is much easier to bring a complaint in the Senate sgainst a fellow Senator than it is in the House to bring a complaint against a fellow Congressman.

benn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sat Aug 16, 2003 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If she had a key to Condit's apartment, it was never found. That's why it is critical to know if she did or not, and critical to know why her family thinks that she did and why it not an issue to the FBI and DC police.

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



Joined: 22 Sep 2002
Posts: 3225

PostPosted: Sat Aug 16, 2003 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chandra's neighbour, whose door was adjacent to Chandra's, was under the impression Chandra lived elsewhere and mainly used her apartment as an address. We know from Chandra's email correspondence with the landlord that she was considering moving in with her boyfriend for a time. Putting those two pieces of info together, it sounds as though she was unofficially living with him for at least a few weeks and was thinking of making it official. It's unimaginable that she wouldn't have had a key.

Condit could have demanded it back, but that would have been a big deal for Chandra. Just before she disappeared, her emotions seemed to be in roller coaster mode (sounded down in her last message to Sven Jones and up in her last message to Aunt Linda). Maybe Condit asked for his key back just before she disappeared, but that hardly makes him less of a suspect, does it?
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
benn



Joined: 19 Sep 2002
Posts: 2136
Location: Sacramento, CA

PostPosted: Sat Aug 16, 2003 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rd wrote:
If she had a key to Condit's apartment, it was never found. That's why it is critical to know if she did or not, and critical to know why her family thinks that she did and why it not an issue to the FBI and DC police.

rd


As I read more about the key, and we discuss it here, I am getting to the point where I am thinking about emailing the Metropolitan Police Department. They want a break, or a tip, and I think that showing both sides of the coin will call their bluff.

At alt.true-crime I received a reply from Kris. I don't know who Kris is, and even if Kris is a he, or a she, but Kris answred my key post and gave both sides of the coin, Chandra with a key, and Chandra without a key, so the two versions are well known. I do not see how Chandra could be inside the apartment alone without a key.

One other thing that Kris brought up was he/she did not know if keys were actually required where Condit lived. I am hoping someone here knows about that. Was there a doorman to let them in, and was there perhaps a keycode to get into the apartment? Even so, if Chandra was inside she had to know the combination.

jane wrote: >>Maybe Condit asked for his key back just before she disappeared, but that hardly makes him less of a suspect, does it?<<

My thought on Condit maybe getting the key back before Chandra disappeared is that he did not mention that to the police, or to the public, and he would have been therefore lying again by not telling anyone about the key.

My scenario, my own opinion, is that the "good news" was something to lure Chandra out of her apartment. She could have been murdered anywhere, it would not have to have been in Rock Creek Park. The "good news" would have gotten her out of her apartment, and when she was dead someone took the keys and gave them back to Condit, or he took them back himself.

Sort of harsh language, but Condit won't talk. If I was being accused I would be talking--unless I was guilty.

benn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sat Aug 16, 2003 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

According to Condit, the day after he returned from Easter recess is the last time he saw Chandra, when she visited him at his apartment. He obviously did not refer to her giving him back his key. Yet we know Chandra did not spend much time at her own apartment and made calls to her aunt from Condit's apartment. Where is the key she had to Condit's apartment, and why is it not significant to the police that the key to his apartment was not found?

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



Joined: 19 Sep 2002
Posts: 2136
Location: Sacramento, CA

PostPosted: Sat Aug 16, 2003 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

>>>Where is the key she had to Condit's apartment, and why is it not significant to the police that the key to his apartment was not found?<<<

That is the problem, all of the secrecy that the police are maintaining. I don't know if that secrecy is needed for this investigation or not, or if perhaps only some secrecy is needed.

Condit was using the police investigation as a coverup. He could talk to the police and give them the run around, then he could talk to reporters and tell the reporters that he had cooperated fully with the police, without telling anyone what he had said.

It is something like the police secrecy that I might write to Senator Feinstein about. I am reluctant to write to anyone, but as the evidence we have becomes more apparent, and as the police do nothing, I think we have to speak out.

That might take the police off the hook. The police are probably afraid of politics in Washington.

benn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
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