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 Previous  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
jane



Joined: 22 Sep 2002
Posts: 3225

PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've been looking for the video of the Connie Chung interview of Condit. Haven't been able to find the video, but while reading some of the articles about the interview, I get the sense that most people waited until they heard Condit speak out before making up their minds about him - it was his pathetic performance in that interview that did him in (his fault, not Chung's or Dunne's or anyone else's).

Here's a link to an article that expresses that view:

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArticle.asp?ID=8944&pid=740
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



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

PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

He only spoke because he had to run for re-election and his paid idiots couldn't arrange for election events as long as he refused to answer questions.

His attempt tp answer questions ever since have been met woth scorn and ridicule. In his case, the truth does not set him free.

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: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Condit seems to be caught in a no win situation. If he did not speak out and sue that would make him appear as if he were in some way involved with Chandra's disappearance. I am wondering how much he tells his lawyers.

Now that he is suing he still can't talk, and now the judge is saying that he has to talk. A lady lawyer at Laidlaw wrote a long time ago that Condit should not sue, because he would place himself open to questioning, or discovery.

John Dean, also at Laidlaw, took the opposite view and said that Condit should sue.

Now Condit is right where fate has led him. Which way can he go? How can he get out of this? He could get off easy and just drop his case, but would Lin Wood let him do that? :)

Another thought that has not entered much, but maybe Dunne was on the edge of it by saying some of the things he did. Is Condit silent because of some outside forces? There is no turning back here. :)

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



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

PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

He is suing to get money to live on nicely in his remaining days. He has been looking for someone easy to get money from, first the National Enquirer and now Dominick Dunne.

It does make him look righteous, until everyone sees that he still cannot answer questions. As Linda Katz says, I don't know what he's hiding, but he is lying.

The point is, he is the intimate of a missing and murdered woman. He needs to be investigated as one. They need to find out why Condit has no alibi for the afternoon Chandra disappeared, and unthaw this case that never should have got cold to start with.

rd
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: Thu Jan 13, 2005 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rd - remember we discussed whether he had a cell phone or not prior to Chandras disappearance. If you look at the transcript of 1-11-05 ( I can't find 1-12-05) towards the end he says 'she called me. I was having dinner at a restaurant......" To me this may indicate that he did carry a cell phone and his fec acct sure shows ALOT of phone bills being paid.

Also the restaurant he is referring to is most likely Pasta Mia on Columbia Rd, DC. Remember she had leftover pasta in her refrigerator? He has alot of fec expenditures to this restaurant also.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



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

PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2005 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What he said was about the most self-serving set of lies I think is possible to conjure up. He is referring to only seeing Chandra once outside of his Congress office in the entire six months that Chandra was in Washington, instead of the truth that Chandra practically lived in his apartment with him.

He may be differentiating between Condit the Congressman and Condit the spymaster wearing a baseball cap, I don't know. Who knows how his mind works?

I quote an article in Murder on a Horse Trail in which an office staffer says that Condot did not carry a cell phone and could not be reached. Chandra and Anne Marie only dialed his foo foo line or office, and Anne Marie describes the process clearly. Chandra's calls went to the foo foo line until April 13th, then they stop. This is about the same time she told her mother that Condit had explained it all to her when her mother warned her about a relationship gone bad with a young girl named Jennifer Thomas.

The office staff knew the foo foo line was Condit's personal office line, a random office staffer answering the phone told Bob Levy it was Condit's when he called and asked about it.

The leftover pasta in Chandra's refrigerator as far as I know was a container from Trader Joe's or the like. It would have been a big deal if it was a restaraunt carry out container. Reporters clearly describe the apartment and its contents, so we are not dependent on the police for that.

I know people want to believe he had a cell phone and computer because it's hard not to believe, but no one has ever stated they have contacted him by calling a cell phone number or emailing him.

The grand jury subpeonas obtained his phone records, both office and home in Adams Morgan. We know this from the phone call from his home to Ceres to his apartment when he wasn't home that was leaked by police.

The point is, Chandra didn't call a cell phone to reach him, and no one else on record has either. I realize many people are into conspiracies, but I believe Condit operated alone, and at the time Chandra disappeared pulled his wife and fugitive brother to DC to be with him.

As Scott Peterson found out, cell phones leave trails. Midnight calls from payphones are more the mark of a spymaster.

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: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, we are reaching readers of this website here, and maybe some searchers using google, but we are not really bringing up all of these details to the attention of many many readers. I tried a little yesterday to bring a few details to the attention of Mike Doyle at the Washington Bureau of the ModBee, and that may be one way to go, if we can stir up a few news reporters so that they too will be more interested in looking at all of the facts.

There is some sort of saying that any letter to a public figure always represents so many viewers, or listeners, or interested political party members, whatever type of support, or criticism, that the particular public figure is interested in. A letter to Condit when he was in office would have represented an X number of people in his district supporting or opposing some view of his but they themselves not writing to Condit.

That would not be any kind of conspiracy a politician receiving letters from his constituents, nor would our writing to a few possibly interested news reporters be any conspiracy.

How is Murder on a Horse Trail doing, rd? I imagine it is selling a little but not reaching as many people as it should.

It is interesting that more police leaks seem to be coming out now. That is a good sign. I don't think there were any conspiracies involved here but Condit was someone who could get an appointment with the Vice President. Not everyone can do that.

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



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

PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2005 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm glad Murder on a Horse Trail is out there, benn, for people that are interested in knowing what went on in Chandra's disappearance and for questions and the reasons for asking them to be packaged up and handed to them with a bowtie.

We will see if any get answered. Certainly not by Condit.

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 Jan 17, 2005 3:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am still setting up pieces of my computer programs, and I ran across this article in my mail at Yahoo.com. I don't think there is anything new in there, but it gives a different perspective from more of a lawyers angle. I have not read it all myself yet. benn


http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1104759369687

>>January 16, 2005

News & More:
Today's News

Dunne Loses Bid to Seal Video Deposition in Defamation Suit by Condit
Suit stems from Dunne's radio remarks on disappearance of Washington intern Chandra Levy


R. Robin McDonald
Fulton County Daily Report
01-10-2005


Atlanta attorney L. Lin Wood Jr.'s litigation generally doesn't do the media any favors.

A rough-and-tumble libel litigator, Wood usually represents individuals who feel wronged by the media and are seeking, through the courts, to compensate for alleged damage to their reputations.

But just days before Christmas, in a defamation case pitting two highly public figures -- former U.S. Rep. Gary Condit and true-crime author Dominick Dunne -- against each other, Wood secured a federal court order barring the writer's lawyers from sealing his videotaped deposition. Condit v. Dunne, No. 02CV9910 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2004).

Wood is representing Condit, who sued Dunne for remarks the writer made about him and Washington intern Chandra Levy in the national media several years ago.

In a 15-page Dec. 22 order, Judge Peter K. Leisure of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York determined that neither the potential threat of embarrassment to Dunne nor concerns that public circulation of the videotape might taint the jury pool were sufficient to justify "a bar on public dissemination."

Dunne's deposition is not part of the official court record.

Media experts call the ruling an example of what the courts ought to be doing with civil discovery, and they are applauding Leisure's assessment that the information should be available to the public.

"The judge seems to have embraced these principles I sometimes think are vanishing -- that there is something to be said for public access and public oversight," said Jane E. Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota School of Journalism and Mass Communication.

Dunne's attorney, Paul V. LiCalsi of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal in New York, did not return calls for comment about the order or his client's deposition, referring questions to Dunne's publicist, Lou Colasuonno, who declined to comment. Wood did not return numerous calls and did not respond to e-mail inquiries about the deposition and the order.

Because a consent protective order regarding discovery in the case already is in place, counsel for Dunne and Condit still could negotiate a deal that would shield the tape from public scrutiny.

Dunne's attorneys do have some leverage. On Dec. 8, Leisure ordered Condit, over his attorney's objections, to answer questions, with some restrictions, regarding the former congressman's sexual relationships. But Leisure noted that counsel could seal any of Condit's depositions by mutual consent.

RADIO INTERVIEW PROMPTED SUIT

Condit, a former Democratic U.S. representative from California's 18th district, sued Dunne in 2002, claiming that the writer had made slanderous statements implicating him in Levy's death. Levy, a 24-year-old intern with the Federal Bureau of Prisons from Condit's district, disappeared from her Washington apartment on May 1, 2001.

As Washington law enforcement investigated Levy's disappearance, "a media frenzy" ensued, Leisure noted in his order. That frenzy, he wrote, "focused in no small part on speculation about the relationship" between Condit and Levy. Condit was questioned by police but never faced charges in connection with Levy's disappearance and death. Nor did he ever publicly discuss details of any personal relationship that he and Levy might have had.

A year after she vanished, Levy's body was discovered in a remote section of Washington's Rock Creek Park. The case has never been solved.

But the discovery belied certain statements that Dunne had made before Levy's body was found. He made those statements while appearing as a commentator on national radio and TV talk shows and at dinner parties in Los Angeles and New York, according to court filings. Those statements, in part because of the notoriety of the Levy case and in part because of Dunne's prominence as a national commentator and Vanity Fair columnist, were widely circulated in the national media and form the crux of Condit's defamation claims.

According to Leisure's Dec. 8 order, while appearing on the Laura Ingraham Show, a nationally syndicated radio talk show, Dunne confided that a "horse whisperer" who traveled widely in the Middle East had called him about Levy's disappearance. That man claimed he, in turn, had met an Arab at a party, an alleged procurer of young women for sex with Middle Eastern diplomats, who claimed that he knew what happened to Levy.

Based on that third-hand hearsay, Dunne, on national radio, repeated what he had been told: that Condit had been involved personally with Levy, had broken off the relationship and then had complained to certain diplomatic acquaintances that he "couldn't get rid of her" and that she was threatening to go public, according to Leisure's order.

Dunne didn't accuse Condit of killing Levy, but during the interview he claimed that his telephone source accused Condit of prompting Levy's disappearance, the order says. According to portions of the radio broadcast transcript quoted in the order, Dunne claimed that the intern was forced into a limousine, then flown over the Atlantic Ocean where her body was dumped.

Even after Levy's remains were discovered, Dunne insisted publicly that although Condit probably didn't kill Levy, "I think he could have known it was going to happen," according to Leisure's order.

In Condit's suit, he claims that Dunne's statements led the public to believe that the former congressman was involved in Levy's disappearance and death. He is suing Dunne for $1 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages.

DEFENSE: LAWYER AIMS TO HUMILIATE

Last October, after Wood spent two days deposing Dunne, the writer's attorneys sought a protective order barring Wood from publicly releasing the deposition video.

Dunne's attorney, LiCalsi, argued in a written motion that Wood intended to release Dunne's video "as part of his continuing bid to try this case in the press, not the courtroom." LiCalsi also cited an Oct. 1 e-mail he received from Wood in which the Atlanta attorney had written, "When the public learns of Mr. Dunne's testimony, whatever reputation he enjoyed will be lost forever in my opinion."

LiCalsi did not object to a release of the transcript of his client's deposition. But he argued that the possible broadcast of "selective, out of context snippets" of the video subjected to endless replay on television was intended solely to humiliate Dunne and could poison potential jurors against him.

Wood insisted in court pleadings that he never threatened to disseminate the Dunne video, nor voiced any intention to embarrass the writer. "If any attorney has attempted to try this case in the press, that attorney is Paul V. LiCalsi," Wood wrote, "who has made a number of public comments about [Condit] and this case."

Specifically, Wood noted in court documents, Dunne's attorney told the New York Post, "Gary Condit murdered his own reputation before Dominick Dunne made any of the statements that are at issue in this lawsuit."

Wood also labeled Dunne a "rumormonger and gossiper who willingly and knowingly spreads lies about other people for his own self-glorification." The motion also said that, during the deposition, Dunne acknowledged that the "horse whisperer's" story was false.

Finally, Wood, in his pleading, claimed that LiCalsi and Dunne "should not be allowed to represent that Dunne's deposition testimony resulted from fatigue, confusion and Mr. Wood's allegedly bullying questioning style without the public being allowed access to the tape." Dunne had made those statements in an affidavit he submitted to the court.

'A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN'

Leisure came down squarely in Wood's favor, finding that the defamation litigation is "a matter of public concern."

"Dunne made public statements regarding a then-sitting public official," Leisure wrote. "Those statements directly addressed the propriety of Condit's services as a United States congressman. … [T]he underlying litigation directly addresses a matter of public interest regarding a congressman's performance of his official duties."

Leisure also rejected LiCalsi's protestations that Wood had intended to embarrass Dunne publicly and use the notoriety of the case to enhance his own reputation.

Since suing the Atlanta Journal-Constitution for libel in 1997 on behalf of a former security guard that the paper linked to the 1996 bombing at Centennial Olympic Park -- a case that is pending -- Wood has been retained in several highly publicized cases. He has represented the parents and older brother of 6-year-old murder victim JonBénét Ramsey in multiple libel suits, among them suits against several tabloids and two cable TV networks. Last summer, he was retained by a woman claiming Los Angeles Laker Kobe Bryant had raped her. Wood is representing her in her suit against the basketball star.

"The embarrassment cited here is only that Dunne's videotaped deposition might be misrepresented by the media through the use of sound bites," Leisure wrote. "The fact that the media may edit a tape that may or may not be released by the parties does not warrant a protective order barring all public dissemination of the videotape in this case."

Leisure noted that "the media frenzy" surrounding the Levy case has subsided. "While the court anticipates some initial media interest, it is also mindful of the notoriously short attention span of journalists with regard to the sometimes glacial speed of civil litigation, exacerbated by contentious discovery," he wrote.

Leisure also addressed the allegations in Dunne's affidavit. In a jab at the defense, the judge suggested that Dunne and his lawyers had attempted to manipulate the court system to their advantage. "There is also a public and judicial interest in full and free dissemination of information that would shed light on allegations of improper conduct waged against members of the bar," Leisure wrote.

He continued: "Moreover, there is a judicial interest in ensuring that court processes are not used to unjustly attack officers of the court. By swearing to, and filing his affidavit with the court, Dunne attempts to slay his opponent's counsel while simultaneously shielding himself with an order of protection. This manipulation of the court system cannot be tolerated as it creates a one-sided advantage on what the Court must maintain as an equal playing field. As such, it seems clear that Justice [Louis D.] Brandeis' famous phrase is as applicable now as it was when quoted in New York Times v. Sullivan: 'Sunlight is the most powerful of disinfectants.'"

DISTORTIONS ARE THE 'PRICE WE PAY'

"What a great ruling," Minnesota media law professor Kirtley said after reading Leisure's order this week. "We in the press can't complain about this. The judge went through, I thought, a fabulous analysis of the importance of public access to information like this."

Calling the ruling, "a model of its kind," Kirtley also cheered the judge's "pragmatic view" of the media's role. Leisure's order, she said, recognized that while there may be some distortions created in media court coverage, "that's the price we pay in a free society with a free media."

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Washington, also praised Leisure's order and agreed with his assessment that "this information should de facto be available to the public."

The reporters committee provides free legal assistance to journalists in the defense of First Amendment rights. But Dalglish suggested that even though a journalist is a defendant in Condit's defamation case and Wood, Condit's lawyer, "wants to give it to all sorts of media to trash Dominick Dunne before the trial … that doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to do that. It doesn't really matter what his motives are. There is great public interest in this case. It involves very public figures and a former official."

Dalglish also said that if Dunne's affidavit is accurate in saying that the 79-year-old was confused, exhausted and bullied during his deposition, "if the media and the public can have access to that tape, they should be able to see that. If Lin Wood was a bully, it should be pretty apparent."

Dalglish said she hopes the ruling in Condit will become a tool for the media in challenging orders to seal discovery.

"It's further evidence that there is a presumption that proceedings and documents in court cases are public, even in the civil courts," she said. "That's what all of this is based on -- the presumption that this is a public court and the public has the right to know what's going on."<<

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



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

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Because a consent protective order regarding discovery in the case already is in place, counsel for Dunne and Condit still could negotiate a deal that would shield the tape from public scrutiny.

Dunne's attorneys do have some leverage. On Dec. 8, Leisure ordered Condit, over his attorney's objections, to answer questions, with some restrictions, regarding the former congressman's sexual relationships. But Leisure noted that counsel could seal any of Condit's depositions by mutual consent.



This sequence has been reported several times, but then snippets of Condit's testimony was leaked to the Today Show. By whom, and why?

By Dunne's lawyers, because Condit's lawyers wouldn't agree to suppress video testimony?

By Condit's lawyers, because they want Condit's snippets compared to Dunne's?

By Dunne's lawyers, because they want Condit to think about what snippets from his second deposition will look like?

This is high stakes gambling over 11 million dollars. Out of it, however, may come something more precious, information about why the disappearance of a congressman's mistress has not been able to be investigated.

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: Tue Jan 18, 2005 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This may have been mentioned somewhere here before, but I will mention it anyway. I hope that Dunne's attorneys will have a psychologist, or psychiatrist, look at the video of Condit answereing questions, for the deposition. Someone from those two sciences might see something that an attorney would not catch, or be able to classify.

Shall I put my foot in my mouth? :)

This trial may never come to an end. It might get ended, if Condit decides he doesn't want to fully answer questions. That seems like a very likely possibility. Of course either side can then appeal the case to a higher court.

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



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

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 11:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

yes, I agree, benn, showing that Condit is still evading the truth leaves the suggestion that he is hiding something significant, which Dunne's lawyers should point out is the basis for Dunne believing what he was told about Condit to start with.

They have made this argument to the judge already, and Condit's testimony in the second deposition may well show their argument is still valid, and that no judgement should be made against Dominick Dunne.

His actions were reasonable when someone clearly is hiding something significant concerning Chandra'murder. What exactly isn't clear, but it leaves reasonable doubt to believe others.

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: Tue Jan 18, 2005 6:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rd, I put this one on the Paul LaCalsi thread, but I will also put it here. I also sent this to Mike Doyle.

Here is what I wrote: Well if Dunne's attorneys get to this one I don't know what Condit or his attorney can do. Maybe just not answer.

Mr. Condit, what did you think was going to happen to your congressional career if your constituents discovered that you were having sex with women other than your wife?

Mr. Condit, what were you prepared to do to keep your constituents from discovering that you were having sex with women other than your wife?<<<

Of course Condit is not going to want to answer, but will the judge let him do that?

These two questions are the basis for Condit's troubles, sex outside of marriage which he could not let his voter base know about, and what could he do to prevent his voters from learning about his extra marital sex life. Sex is not the problem here, Condit's congressional career was the problem.

There are different ways of showing it, but Condit's congressional career was his big problem.

rd, does Murder on a Horse Trail speak specifically to Condit's political career? I have my book, but it is sort of hard to thumb through. I lost my ebook version of your book when I had my computer troubles.

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



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

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

benn, I address his record of affairs in the beginning of the book. That is why most people don't see why Chandra would be any different than all the others he had an affair with. Something is clearly different, what isn't exactly clear.

Your questions are fine rhetorical questions to make in front of a jury to make a point.

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: Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Skipper, I think this is a very good idea and thought I'd post it in this thread. If all such polls could be plotted on a graph over time, it might show that Dunne had very little, if any, impact on Condit's reputation.

laskipper wrote:

Something just occurred to me about the Dunne case. Condit is saying that Dunne's info damaged him career-wise. We know that is not the case- that Condit was damaged prior to the December 2001 broadcast.
I've read where Pols have on-going polls (funny- Pols have polls) to keep an eye on voter confidence. Given that, couldn't Paul LaCalsi provide a chart that could prove that Condit's numbers were down prior to Dunne's statements?

Seems to me that given the statements that Condit has already made that are know to be false (I didn't have sex with that woman) and can be proven circumstantially and adding the chart that proves that Condit's voter confidence was already in the basement, they would win with no problem.

The crux of the matter is when Condit's reputation was ruined. Those charts, if they still exist, would prove that one way or the other.

I'm gonna Google.
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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 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