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 

In Defense of Dominick Dunne: For His Legal Counsel
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index -> Chandra Levy and missing women
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
fallout



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

PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:57 am    Post subject: In Defense of Dominick Dunne: For His Legal Counsel Reply with quote

The suit against the author Dominick Dunne seems to be part of a broad campaign of reprisal against the media by former Congressman Gary Condit. Mr. Condit may have valid and sincere intentions in seeking to clear his name in the matter of the disappearance and murder of Chandra Levy. But this does not legitimize his civil action against Mr. Dunne.

Having followed the details of the case for the past three years I believe that all of the remarks made by Mr. Dunne in print and on the air are reasonable and could follow logically from the information provided by the Washington D.C. Police and the FBI as well as by statements made by Mr. Condit himself and his staff. Throughout the Summer of 2001 Mr. Condit's Iron Curtain of Silence led to speculation that he might be involved in the crime. Mr. Dunne is a noted author whose insight into the wayward behavior of the "Rich and Famous" is valuable and accredited. His access to these well-known figures and his analysis of information brought to him by first-hand witnesses has been helpful in the prosecution and understanding of several well known cases. It was in this spirit that Mr. Dunne received information from a "horse whisperer" and some Washington D.C. "insiders" and shared it with his readers and listeners. I understand that Mr. Dunne always predicated his remarks with a disclaimer such as "I've been told" or "I have heard". I also understand that Mr. Dunne shared any substantive information he received with the proper authorities.

The nuts and bolts of the case against Mr. Dunne are accusations that what he was told was so unbelievable that a reasonable person would reject the information without repeating it and that Mr. Dunne knowingly relayed this information to the public knowing it was false. I believe that each particular charge against Mr. Dunne can be refuted by witnesses who formerly worked for Congressman Condit or by those in a position to know the arrangements made between the Congressman and various members of the Diplomatic community and of the Federal Government and its contractors and suppliers and lobbyists.

The statements made by Mr. Dunne should be protected by the first amendment and should be available to the public so that some light can be shed on the murky circumstances of this tragedy. To silence him and punish him for his opinions, which were based on a reasonable evaluation of the information he received, would be the worst possible judgement.

James Forrester
New York
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
fallout



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

PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Suggested List of helpful witnesses:
(This list will be expanded)

Debra Astarte- Scheduler in Congressman Condit's office 2001
Chip Langman- Condit Staff 2001
Jennifer Baker- Friend of Chandra Levy and Condit Intern 2001
Sven Jones- Chandra Levy's supervisor at the Bureau of Prisons
Tony Coelho- DNC and lobbyist
Darrell Condit- Congressman's brother
Ingmar Guandique- Convicted of assault in Rock Creek Park 2001
Turtle Man- DC attorney who discovered the remains of Ms. Levy
Daniel Dunne- Bureau of Prisons chief
Judy Smith- Assistant to Levy attorney Billy Martin
Billy Martin- Attorney for the Levy family
Chip Dent- D.C. acquaintance of Congressman Condit


Last edited by fallout on Fri Feb 11, 2005 8:59 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
laskipper



Joined: 17 Sep 2002
Posts: 1232
Location: Northern Ohio

PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good list, fallout!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



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

PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In Murder on a Horse Trail: The Disappearance of Chandra Levy, I believe we have established that a secret relationship between Chandra Levy and Congressman Gary Condit ended when Chandra sought an explanation from him for her parents about a rumored affair with a young black minister's daughter back home in California and then confronted him to make their relationship permanent. The combination was devastatingly threatening to his political career.

Murder on a Horse Trail also establishes that Condit had no alibi for the Tuesday May 1 afternoon that Chandra disappeared. With motive and no alibi and his everchanging story to police investigators concerning the questions surrounding her disappearance, the means of collaborators who could benefit greatly from the saved career of a powerful Congressman is not beyond reasonable speculation. The stories of people who passed on that speculation were certainly enough to justify discussing it in the context that Dominick Dunne discussed it within the framework of our First Amendment rights.

Condit by his own actions and silence established an aura of suspicion which led to speculation passed on to an eminent true crime author. That aura of suspicion made discussing such speculation entirely plausible and echoed the thoughts of the nation, indeed, was subdued with prefaces of professional courtesy of acknowledging the uncertainty of the information while legions of ordinary common sense Americans spoke of that congressman acting like he had something to do with it unprefaced with any such professional uncertainty.

Condit's reputation was destroyed in the minds of mankind by his own actions, not by the speculation passed on as such by a man who had no reason to disbelieve these tips he was gven as a noted crime author.

By the same token, Condit can restore his own reputation in the minds of mankind, not by challenging the actions of others, but by his own actions. Until he does, such discussion of means and motive to Chandra Levy's disappearance is entirely plausible.

Ralph Daugherty
author, Murder on a Horse Trail: The Disappearance of Chandra Levy
_________________
ralph@ee.net
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
fallout



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

PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do you guys think that we might be representative of a wide section of beliefs and opinions here? If so, we might be able to help Dunne out with some documentation from the JFC site.

Here's my thought. When the Dunne article came out in Vanity Fair I think we showed initial interest in it but quickly put it in a certain category of speculative consideration. I don't think many of us believed the scenario but at the same time we considered that Dunne might have had part of the story right but that it didn't really help make a case against Condit.

If I remember correctly, after a short time, there wasn't much interest in the theory of the horse whisperer that Dunne recounted when we got to writing seriously about the case and its not an important point in RD's book.

I'm going to try to get some representative quotes from your posts in the early reaction to the story and put it together to try to argue the point that reasonable men and women of various political and religious beliefs could listen to what Dunne said or wrote and not change their opinion of Gary Condit at all.

If this works out I think it might be worth presenting to Licalsi and his staff. I don't know if they have any other basis on which to say that Dunne's comments were not harmful to Condit's reputation.

What do you think? I'm going out to get some excercise and will look forward to your comments. Then, with your help, we might try to put something together this evening.

see you in an hour,
James
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
blondie



Joined: 10 Oct 2003
Posts: 567

PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Go for it. I think it's a great idea! I know when it first came out, I sure paid attention to it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



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

PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think your premise is correct, James. I think that it was inline with other information we were seeing, in fact, we had already seen before many of the threads running through the info he was passing on, commenting on just that as our reaction.

Certainly is a good idea. Any communication along that line has to be considered helpful in my opinion.

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



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

PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi RD and Blondie,

I've started compiling a huge file on our analysis of the Dunne piece and Condit's lawsuit. All of it is coming from the files here and I think my theory is correct.

Actually, RD stated it beautifully way back in 2003 with a statement which I might use as the lead in to the presentation. I'm recalling now, after researching, that Jane wrote to one of Dunne's attorneys already and that is in the files too. All of this is public so there's no question about our fudging it. Although we seem a bit biased in our feelings about the lawsuit I think the writing shows clearly that Dunne's article and his TV statements had no influence on our individual opinions. Here we have devoted Christians, at least one Pre-Socratic Animist (that would be me), Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians, Midwesterners, Californians, a New Yorker, a Southerner and quite a few others all reasonably assessing the information on the case and taking Mr. Dunne's statements with a grain of salt and a perspective on the whole truth.

Here's RD's original statement which I just found and admire very much:

rd
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4827
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:05 pm    Post subject:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, jane. Now that she has answered I'll offer our services to her in an e-mail:

At www.justiceforchandra.com/forums (password protected) we have probably the most extensive repository of information and analysis on the Chandra Levy case outside of law enforcement. If there is any assistance we can lend Mr. Dunne and his lawyers in this case we would be glad to do so free of charge.

While we have no corroborating information concerning the tip given to Mr. Dunne, we will be glad to do anything we can to assist in providing a reasonable expectation that Mr. Condit was involved in Chandra Levy's disappearance. We believe a detailed review of the events surrounding Chandra's disappearance would lead a reasonable person to accept a tip involving Mr. Condit in her disappearance, and we hope that our research and analyis services can be used in a vigorous defense of Mr. Dunne.

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



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

PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, James. That is a good leadoff, if I don't say so myself. :)

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



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

PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 12:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow!

I'm up to 93 pages of relevant proof that normal interested people back in the Summer of Chandra and during the post 9/11 period would have known enough by watching cable news and reading popular magazines that the information Dominick Dunne was retelling was not as earth-shattering nor as damning as what had already been discussed by Geraldo, Greta, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, the Washington Post, NY Times etc.

Right after I posted the initial report of Condit's lawsuit that I found in the NY Times here is a typical response from our old friend Emma Peel. I think it proves that normal well-informed Americans in that time period could listen to reports and judge for themselves whether or not something was smoking-gun proof of Condit's guilt. Dunne's re-telling of something that a celebrity horse-whisperer told him bore almost no weight when compared to: A. Condit's own decision to clam up: B. The Preponderance of circumstantial evidence and: C. Forensic evidence (Our Standards).

Here is Emma's immediate response to the Times article and the mention of the horse whisperer as a source:

EmmaPeel
Joined: 20 Sep 2002
Posts: 529
Location: Texas
Posted: Tue Jan 28, 2003 6:00 pm    Post subject:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
They must be referring to Monty Roberts, the original Horse Whisperer on which the book/movie is based.

http://www.montyroberts.com/

Actually, I can now see why Dominick Dunne would listen to him. He travels the world showing his method of training horses and has been invited by Queen Elizabeth II to demonstrate his techniques. I'm sure he has been privy to meeting with royals in the Arab countries and knows what's going on. Obviously someone was spinning him (Monty) a tail for whatever reason.Back to top
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: Wed Nov 17, 2004 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello james. My thoughts here may not be right on. I have thought back on some of the media news coming out about Condit back after May 1, 2001, and even up to the present, some of the off beat comments, and some of those comments seem to fall into a category of that, hey we don't really know what exactly happened, but if we throw out some exploratory statements, maybe we will get some response from someone who knows more than we do. (How is that for a long long sentence--or maybe just a combination of phrases?)

What I am trying to say is that if someone posted a statement somewhere like, Why didn't Connie Chung ask Gary Condit if Chandra Levy had keys to his apartment? If various people keep asking various questions like that they are not necessarily saying that their statement is true or false, but maybe they are trying to get some response, especially if their statement is not true. For everyone really interested in what happened to Chandra Levy, being interested might have included trying to get some response from Gary Condit, since he really is the only one who knows everything that he did, or did not do, during the 2001 time period.

O.K., a lot of works by me and not much said. Maybe what I am trying to say is that Domminick Dunne, like many others interested in what happened to Chandra Levy, may have been trying to get some response from Congressman Gary Condit. Condit could have enlightened everyone, better than anyone, as to what might have happened to Chandra Levy. If I remember correctly, instead of enlightening everyone about what might have happened to Chandra, Condit kept fairly silent, and not even talking too readily to the police and the FBI during that time period, until he gave the Connie Chung interview, and the other series of interviews, after the Connie Chung interview.

Maybe a lot of people were trying to get some response from Condit as to what he actually did or did not do. Oh boy, a lot of words, I hope they make a little sense.

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



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

PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But I don't think that what Dominick was saying was unreasonable and obviously should have known it to be untrue. I think prior reports and Condit's behavior made the reports at least worth contemplating. I know we did, and commented upon it, and so did others.

How could Dominick Dunne think they were an obvious basis of slander if none of the rest of us who followed this case closely considered them to be? If anything, Dominick was persuaded by many people that these stories had merit, and rightfully so.

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: Wed Nov 17, 2004 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dunne certainly has a right to question Condit very carefully, in the discovery process. Condit had made a statement that the S.F. Chronicle quoted, and it is also in Murder on a Horse Trail , rd, that it was not appropriate for anyone to be discussing the case while the police were investigating it. Condit, himself, was not telling the Police and FBI very much, and about all the public knows about that is what was leaked out.

Dunne should have a right to know what Condit told the police and the FBI. It seems possibly that the public might also have a right to know what Condit told the police and the FBI, since the murderer(s) have not been found yet.

Dunne might also question law enforcement in California and see what they know about the Chandra Levy investigation.

A slightly different viewpoint about law enforcement, which I have obtained from starting to read a book about an old murder in California, "Shallow Grave In Trinity County," by Harry Farrell. The crime took place in California, but the girl victim was abducted in one County, and was found buried in another County. This sort of gave each County jurisdiction over the case. Not quite the same as Chandra Levy being murdered in Washington, and the case only being investigated by Washington, even though Chandra had ties to California and some of the leading players also had ties to California.

Another slightly different viewpoint gained from the same book. The District Attorney of Alameda County, the County where the girl was abducted, and where she lived, was very upset that a San Francisco Examiner reporter had found the body in Trinity County, far to the north of Alameda County. The FBI, including J. Edgar Hoover, was also upset about who found the body, because they had looked for the body and had not found it.

I don't think the public cares so much about who does what, as long as it is done. If parts of an investigation are not completed then that certainly gives the public cause for concern, especially in a murder case.

If Dunne is being sued he certainly has a right to investigate all that Condit did, or did not do, and what Condit said, or did not say. I don't think Condit is going to say anything, and the case should be thrown out of court.

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



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

PostPosted: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I hope to finish a short presentation on why it would be reasonable for Dunne to think that the Horse Whisperer's story was worth listening to in the next few days.

I also hope there's a hearing on Wednesday and Thursday this week as I'm off those days. Maybe I can present it to Licalsi after we talk it over.

Had another thought on this angle. Remember the picture of Condit at the Gold Cup? I know it doesn't make Condit a true "Horseman" but it might lead a reasonable person to speculate that Condit may have had a conversation with someone involved with horses about that race. I accept the premise that the picture is from 2000 and not 2001. That gives Condit a year to have such a conversation at one of the embassies a few blocks from his and Chandra's apartment (The Egyptian embassy is two blocks from Chandra's). Anyway, it would be interesting if Licalsi powerpointed that picture while inquiring about Condit's interest in thoroughbreds. And, you might figure that a motorcycle enthusiast would be able to ride horses as well. There's enough to this to lead someone to believe that a rich horsetrader might be close enough to Condit to want to help him out with his girlfriend problem.

Just a thought. I'll try to revise and post the presentation by tomorrow night.

James

PS - No proof on the turtleman yet. He's a person of interest. And a guy in his position would be one of the few not to try to claim the rewards that were out there. Taking money from the National Enquirer in this case might be considered damaging to his career and his reputation. If he is the guy the explanation about why he was looking for turtles might have something to do with the school that he runs near the area 17 section of Rock Creek Park. My other persons of interest would be the supervisor and staff at the Nature Center.
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: Mon Nov 29, 2004 1:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

About Condit and horses - we have seen lots of pictures of him in Western riding gear. It seems to me that he did ride horses at times.
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
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5

 
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