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 

Things that Paul LaCalsi needs to check for Dunne Defense
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  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
rd



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

PostPosted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NewsMax would rip Condit apart during a lawsuit and they don't have any pockets to make it worth it. Dunne he thinks he can bluff and shake down.

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 Feb 15, 2005 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't understand the complaint against NE too well.

>>>“He said Condit was a pig and was constantly harassing his daughter,
scaring her with lewd sexual comments about what he wanted to do to her
– rough sex and things like that.”<<<

This is just before #46 in the complaint. Obviously it is about Otis Thomas, but the complaint does not seem to give a hint of what was going on. I am wondering how much Lin Wood actually knows about what Condit did, or did not, do.

>>>Based on my scan of that suit, my question is why Condit didn't sue LeBoutillier instead of NE. Most are quotes from him.<<<

I don't think LeBoutillier would be nice and polite if he were sued. Also, he might know something about Condit that is true.

I saw most of the Greta show last night. Reading part of the complaint Lin Wood says that Condit said this, or said that, such as the last time that he talked to Chandra, but there never seems to be any evidence to backup much that Condit says. Maybe Dunne should go over Condit's May 1, 2001 timeline.

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



Joined: 10 Oct 2003
Posts: 567

PostPosted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

benn - I'm sure that Dunne is doing alot research on this case and probably knows it backwards and forwards. I hope it goes all the way to trial.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
benn



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

PostPosted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That will be about all we can hope for blondie, if it goes to trial. Condit was saying, before he lost his election to Cardoza that if elected he would help solve the Chandra Levy investigation, and maybe now Condit will get his chance, even though he was not elected. Chad said in the interview the other night that Gary would have solved the case.

I am just hoping now that Gary gets a second chance, to solve the case. :)

When does Gary get questioned again, in early March? Or maybe never.

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



Joined: 10 Oct 2003
Posts: 567

PostPosted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

On Greta lasr night, it sounded like Lin Wood was going to try and block alot of the questions asked by Dunne's side even though the judge said he had to answer all sex questions to include past relationships.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MrRich



Joined: 26 Aug 2003
Posts: 52
Location: Tulsa, Ok

PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

blondie wrote:
On Greta lasr night, it sounded like Lin Wood was going to try and block alot of the questions asked by Dunne's side even though the judge said he had to answer all sex questions to include past relationships.


That's not quite what the judge said. He said that Condit brought the lawsuit and therefore would be subject to questions about his sex life as long as they are deemed relevant. Lin Wood has stated that "Gary Condit is prepared to answer questions, and he's going to answer any and all questions that a magistrate deems relevant". In other words, Dunne's attorneys aren't going to be allowed to go on a fishing expedition. They will only be allowed to ask questions about Condit's sex life that are relevant to the facts involved in this case regarding Dunne's allegations about Condit's involvement in Chandra's death.

-Rich
_________________
All things being equal, the simplest answer is usually best.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
blondie



Joined: 10 Oct 2003
Posts: 567

PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The judge that made the original ruling said that he would have to answer guestions pertaining to sex life, if any, with Chandra as well as sexual questions about other past relationships. The judge ruled that you can't use a lawsuit as and shield and a sword.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
benn



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

PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 9:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is sort of long, but it brings up a lot of legal points.

http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/hilden/20021224.html

----
>>>WHY OUTGOING CONGRESSMAN GARY CONDIT IS VERY UNWISE TO SUE AUTHOR DOMINICK DUNNE FOR LIBEL
By JULIE HILDEN
julhil@aol.com
----
Tuesday, Dec. 24, 2002

Last Monday, Representative Gary Condit sued author and Vanity Fair columnist Dominick Dunne in federal court in Manhattan. Condit alleges in his complaint that Dunne libeled him in broadcast and newspaper interviews about the Chandra Levy case, as well as at a series of dinner parties with the rich and famous.

Condit is seeking $11 million in compensatory and punitive damages from Dunne. He claims both emotional distress, and damage to his ability to procure future employment.

Condit ought to immediately withdraw his suit - for it is likely to hurt him far more than help him. Even assuming that Condit had nothing at all to do with Levy's murder, his case is still a weak one. And discovery in the case could still prove very embarrassing for him, as well as hurtful to his wife and children. Moreover, even if Condit pursues his case to the bitter end, the damages he receives could be scant, at best.

The Specifics of Condit's Allegations Against Dunne

Among his allegations, Condit says that Dunne implicated him in Levy's murder, when Dunne reported a tip saying that Levy had been kidnapped, and her murdered body then thrown in the ocean.

The tipster, Dunne reported, had also claimed that that Levy's killers were members of a prostitution ring that served certain Arab countries' embassies where Condit, allegedly, had been a frequent guest.

In May, Levy's remains were found in Rock Creek Park - not in the ocean, as the tipster had claimed. Accordingly, Dunne later acknowledged that the tip had obviously been a hoax.

But while Dunne backed down, he did not back down entirely: "I don't think [Condit] killed [Levy]," Dunne said. But, he added, " I think he could have known it was going to happen."

Dunne also suggested on other occasions, as the complaint notes, that he had a "theory" that Condit might have conveyed the message to fellow motorcyclists that he wanted Levy out of his life. (Condit, a biker himself, had attended Hell's Angels rallies in the past.)

Dunne had also speculated, on several occasions, that that when a powerful man like Condit wants to get rid of a woman in his life, those around him get the message and take care of it for him - whether he asks for it or not.

While it is understandable that Condit was aggrieved and angry at these statements, it is doubtful that he will be able to base a successful libel case upon them.

Why Dunne Will Automatically Have An Advantage In the Case

Before looking at the law's requirements, it's worth noting that Condit is likely to have an uphill battle based simply on who he is, and who Dunne is.

Dunne is not only a respected journalist, but the father of a slain actress who went on, despite his grief, to seek justice for other families of murder victims. Obsessed with vindicating victims of violent crime, he is, on the whole, a very sympathetic defendant.

Meanwhile, Condit is hardly a sympathetic plaintiff. He is a disgraced politician who has lost his California Congressional seat - and certainly not solely as the result of Dunne's remarks.

To begin, it is clear that Condit was not entirely candid and open during the Levy investigation. And to a jury, that recalcitrance looks (and is) terrible. As someone close to Levy, Condit should have been ready and willing to provide any and all information immediately, in case it could help save her life or, at least, help her parents learn what happened to her.

Condit also displayed odd behavior during the investigation - disposing of a watch he'd kept in his office in an out-of-town dumpster, and releasing schedules of his whereabouts that later appeared to be inaccurate. Police sources reportedly have said that Condit eventually admitted to them that he had had an affair with Levy, but did not do so at first.

Meanwhile, Condit still refuses to acknowledge what appears to have been a sexual relationship to Levy's parents or the public. Yet at the same time, Condit's own libel lawyer, L. Lin Wood, seems to be suggesting that the former Congressman probably won't be disputing that affair in his suit against Dunne.

Wood says that Dunne broke the law when he "transformed an allegation of sexual misconduct into criminal accusations." Seemingly, then, Condit is not going to take issue with the allegation of sexual misconduct.

Condit's case, it appears from Wood's statements, will instead be based on the contention that he may have been a cad, but was not a culprit. That's a risky strategy: Many jurors still judge cads poorly, especially when there is a twenty-nine year age difference between the "cad" and his paramour.

Will a jury really want to give a perceived predator on a young woman who is now deceased millions to compensate his emotional trauma? In the end, most jurors will probably see Condit's downfall as far more his own fault than Dunne's.

Condit Will Have Trouble Proving A False Statement of Fact

Besides these problems relating to jury sympathy, Condit's case also has a number of more technical legal problems. A libel is defined as a false statement of fact, of and concerning the plaintiff, that tends to lower his reputation in the community, and that causes him damage. Does Condit's case fit the bill? Unlikely.

Certainly Dunne's comments were "of and concerning" Condit, and certainly they tended to lower his reputation. But whether Condit can prove the other elements of libel is far from certain. Falsity, damages, and even the "factual statement" requirement will be hard to prove.

Recall that when Dunne repeated the tipster's statement, he seemed, at most, to insinuate - rather than actually making a "statement" - that Condit might have been actively involved in Levy's murder. And Dunne seems to later have retracted even that insinuation, making clear he did not believe Condit was a murderer, and suggesting only that Condit "could," at most, have been aware of the murder beforehand and done nothing.

The word "could" arguably puts Dunne's comment in the realm of Constitutionally-protected speculation and opinion - which cannot form the basis for a libel case.

Similarly, Dunne often offered "theories" of what might have happened in Condit's case. And some of Dunne's theories arguably placed little, if any, blame on Condit; instead, they suggest that eager underlings helped out their boss by killing a woman who was aggravating him, without having been told to do so. So where, in the end, is the "false statement of fact" that libel law requires?

And what about the requirement of a false statement? Can Condit really prove that he did not kill Levy, without proving who did? Granted, Condit was never named by the police as a suspect, but there were reasonable grounds to think he should be one; the police questioned him repeatedly in connection with the crime, and they searched his apartment.

Moreover, it's not enough for Condit to prove that he is very unlikely to have been the one who killed Levy, or to have known about her death beforehand: He must prove that, in fact, he did not kill her or know about her death beforehand.

But it's extremely hard to prove a negative. And as many later-exculpated prisoners can attest, just because you're innocent, doesn't mean you can prove it.

Finally, Dunne may also be helped by the fact that he was commenting on an ongoing investigation. There is a strong public interest in - and in some jurisdictions, special protection for - opinions and even factual commentary on ongoing investigations and litigations. And obviously, free speech about what police and prosecutors are, and should be, doing is essential to our society.

Condit Will Have Trouble Proving Damages From Dunne's Statements

In addition, the fact that Dunne's initial statement was far from a direct murder accusation, and his subsequent statement muddied the waters even further, will hurt Condit's case for damages. After all, others in the media went farther than Dunne by strongly suggesting Condit actually did, in fact, kill Levy.

Given that atmosphere, can Condit's downfall really be attributed primarily to these equivocal and speculative statements by Dunne, as opposed to other, stronger accusations that were also in the mix? Even a verdict against the media as a whole would lead to only a comparatively small damage award against Dunne in particular.

Condit Will Also Have Trouble Proving Falsity and Actual Malice

Moreover, when a plaintiff is, like Condit, a public figure, it is not sufficient for him to only prove the elements of a libel case that I noted above. "Actual malice" is also required. Even if Condit can show a "false statement of fact," and show damages, he still may be in serious trouble with the "actual malice" requirement.

"Actual malice" is defined as a subjective awareness of probable falsity. Importantly, proving Dunne was careless or even reckless in what he said, or that Dunne should have known that what he was saying was probably false, is not enough. Instead, Condit must prove that Dunne said what he said even though in Dunne's own mind, he knew it was probably false.

And can Condit really prove that Dunne, in his own mind, knew he was saying something that was probably false? Dunne offered theories that he seemed to think, and probably did indeed think, were likely to be true. Simply because Dunne's tip turned out to be wrong, does not prove the crucial requirement that he knew at the time it would probably turn out to be wrong.

In contrast, if Condit were a private figure, Dunne could have been in far more trouble; the standard would be lower, and less subjective than "actual malice." As a result, arguments based on Dunne's possible failure to inquire as closely as he should have into the tip, could then be made.

Civil Discovery Could Be An Unmitigated Disaster for Condit

Not only could Condit fail to prevail in his suit against Dunne, but also, from a personal perspective, he could actually lose it spectacularly.

Although Condit's attorney is attempting to shift the focus away from his relationship with Chandra Levy, there is little doubt that discovery will encompass that relationship. And exposure of the details is likely only to hurt Condit and his family more.

Conceivably, even other women's claims - made in The National Enquirer, for instance - of extramarital dalliances with Condit might become relevant. Remember how Monica Lewinsky got dragged into discovery in the Paula Jones case, with historic consequences?

Of course, the claim in the Jones case (sex harassment) was very different, but the principle is the same: It's hard to predict, prior to discovery's beginning, just how far afield it might go.

Libel plaintiffs often are shocked to realize that they have opened themselves up to wide-ranging discovery into their personal lives, but when their personal life is what is at issue, such discovery is fair game. And in this case, even Wood, Condit's attorney, seems implicitly to admit Condit's personal life is at issue: If an allegation of sexual misconduct had been transformed into an allegation of criminal activity, as Wood claims, then isn't the jury entitled to know the truth about the allegation of sexual misconduct to see how Dunne's statements allegedly twisted the truth?

Condit may also have another serious problem in discovery: He may want to take the Fifth Amendment as to questions about, for instance, his whereabouts on the day of Levy's murder. But if he does, it may be hard for him to maintain his case.

It's not fair for a libel plaintiff to refuse to open himself to full discovery on the very issue he himself has raised: Was Condit, or one of his friends and associates, involved in any way, shape or form in Levy's murder, as Dunne may have suggested? And if not, how can we know he wasn't?

Condit should call his lawyer and withdraw his case - ideally, before the first discovery request is served upon him.<<<

>>>Julie Hilden, a FindLaw columnist, practiced First Amendment law at the D.C. law firm of Williams & Connolly from 1996-99; among clients she aiding in representing was the National Enquirer. Currently a freelance writer, she published a memoir, The Bad Daughter, in 1998. Her first novel, Three, will be published in the U.S. in summer 2003 by Plume; in the U.K. by Bantam; and in French translation by Actes Sud.<<<

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



Joined: 26 Aug 2003
Posts: 52
Location: Tulsa, Ok

PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 10:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's a bit more that the judge had to say.

Quote:
Leisure cautioned, however, that questioning can be resisted if irrelevant. During oral arguments last month, for example, Wood warned that Dunne's attorneys could ask questions like "How often do you have sexual intercourse with your wife?" and "Have you ever engaged in homosexual acts?"

Leisure has appointed a magistrate judge to oversee the deposition.

"To be perfectly clear and allay (Condit's) fears of overly salacious discovery, no fishing expeditions will be tolerated," Leisure warned.



-Rich
_________________
All things being equal, the simplest answer is usually best.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
benn



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

PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

>>"How often do you have sexual intercourse with your wife?" and "Have you ever engaged in homosexual acts?"<<

If Dunne's attorneys are focused in right they should be able to ask many questions that really don't have much to do at all about sex. Wood is pulling the big bluff.

Condit knew how to get elected, how to get votes. He also must have known that married Congressmen who have affairs don't attract as many voters. He knew not to let his constituents know that he was dating women other than his wife. He knew what the cost could be if his secret life was found out. He should not have been surprised at all that Chandra started exposing him by talking to her family. He played Russian roulette with his congressional career. He can not blame anyone for that except himself.

Dunne's attorneys might be able to ask Condit who the doctor was that Condit said that he visited on May 1, 2001, why the visit was made, and when the visit was scheduled. Also the rest of Condit's timeline for May 1, 2001 is a little vague.

Condit opened these subjects up with his lawsuit, so Dunne has a right to question him about them. Of course the Judge will decide what can actually be asked and what can't be asked.

If there is a trial it seems very possible that other witnesses might be called by Dunne to testify, and there should be planety of evidence one way or the other.

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



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

PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 8:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Dunne's attorneys might be able to ask Condit who the doctor was that Condit said that he visited on May 1, 2001, why the visit was made, and when the visit was scheduled. Also the rest of Condit's timeline for May 1, 2001 is a little vague



I agree that the doctor's visit should be a focus. In fact, that entire schedule that was released to the media by a Condit staffer should be questioned in this trial.

Rd pointed out the facts about the doctor's appointment a few days ago and I'm sure he addressed it in the book.

Thing is, Mike Dayton was Condit's scheduler. He kept the log of appointments. Additionally, he claimed that he was with Condit the entire day of May 1, 2001. That's a red flag in my mind. That, along with the errors in the schedule.

The schedule that was released contained quite a few errors. The reporter that Condit supposedly met that day for starters. Ironically, the
schedule brings to light yet another girlfriend.

How many do you think there really are out there?

Here is the article about Cooper:

By Jake Tapper

July 18, 2001 | WASHINGTON -- Washington police have yet to contact Rebecca Cooper, the off-air ABC News reporter whom staffers for Rep. Gary Condit, D-Calif., mistakenly identified as having met at a restaurant with the beleaguered congressman on May 1, the day that Chandra Levy was last heard from.

Cooper has confirmed to Salon that she was the reporter who met with Condit at Tryst, a restaurant/bar in the Adams Morgan neighborhood, in the late afternoon of May 2, to discuss the California energy crisis as well as Condit's three meetings at the White House that week. In a timeline drafted for the media, Condit staffers subsequently and erroneously reported that meeting as having taken place a day earlier, from 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. The error in the timeline certainly seems significant, since it purportedly creates an alibi for Condit on the day that Levy was last heard from.

On anything else having to do with the meeting, the erroneous report by Condit's office or the failure of the police to contact her, Cooper had no comment and referred questions to the ABC News public relations department. "She's not been contacted by any law enforcement authorities," confirms Su-Lin Nichols, a spokesperson for ABC News.

snip

Cooper, reports a source close to her, is "surprised" that she has yet to receive one phone call from the D.C. police to clear up this matter -- not to mention discuss with her Condit's behavior or state of mind the day after a woman with whom he was having an affair went missing.


Read more here:

http://www.justiceforchandra.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=172&highlight=schedule

**

Cooper was not questioned as of mid July of 2001, by the DC police. Amazing!

She was Condit's alibi, according to the above article and others as well, for the 6:30 to 7:30 time frame on May 1, 2001.

She stated she did not meet with Condit on May 1 but rather a day later.

So now we have a question about the doctor's appointment at 5ish and the 'error' for the 6:30- 7:30 time frame.

Wonder if DC police ever got around to talking with her?

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



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

PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is too bad that LaCalsi can not get some information from the DC police. All of those details do not have to be kept secret by the police.

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



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

PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From the sound of things, we have more info that the DC Police, Benn. With the only exception of the phone records and, of course, the info off of Chandra's hard drive.

I was re-reading an article and the thought struck me that Condit paid for airline tickets for Chandra.

Because everyone has to use their own name when flying , I have to believe that the gifted tickets could be traced to Condit easily.

One would not gift just anyone with airline tickets...

Another nail for Dunne.

ls


Another araticle about Rebecca Cooper:


http://www.justiceforchandra.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=172&highlight=schedule

MN 13
Police ignore Condit's faulty alibi

Falsely used as a Condit alibi -- and, she says, falsely smeared by the tabloids -- an ABC News reporter is surprised she still hasn't heard from D.C. police.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Jake Tapper

July 18, 2001 | WASHINGTON -- Washington police have yet to contact Rebecca Cooper, the off-air ABC News reporter whom staffers for Rep. Gary Condit, D-Calif., mistakenly identified as having met at a restaurant with the beleaguered congressman on May 1, the day that Chandra Levy was last heard from.


Cooper has confirmed to Salon that she was the reporter who met with Condit at Tryst, a restaurant/bar in the Adams Morgan neighborhood, in the late afternoon of May 2, to discuss the California energy crisis as well as Condit's three meetings at the White House that week. In a timeline drafted for the media, Condit staffers subsequently and erroneously reported that meeting as having taken place a day earlier, from 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. The error in the timeline certainly seems significant, since it purportedly creates an alibi for Condit on the day that Levy was last heard from. [/b]



On anything else having to do with the meeting, the erroneous report by Condit's office or the failure of the police to contact her, Cooper had no comment and referred questions to the ABC News public relations department. "She's not been contacted by any law enforcement authorities," confirms Su-Lin Nichols, a spokesperson for ABC News.

snip

Cooper, reports a source close to her, is "surprised" that she has yet to receive one phone call from the D.C. police to clear up this matter -- not to mention discuss with her Condit's behavior or state of mind the day after a woman with whom he was having an affair went missing.

This remark implies to me that his behavior was noticably different that day- May 2, 2001

The police's reaction? "First of all, I don't know if we know about that," said Sgt. Joseph Gentile, public information officer for the D.C. Police Department, when asked about the mess-up in Condit's schedule. "Second of all, why are you asking about Condit's state of mind? We're looking for Miss Levy, we want to know about Miss Levy's state of mind. Third of all, we don't identify the people we talk to."

Still, according to one former D.C. police sergeant, "Somebody should have interviewed her."

Among many at ABC News, at least, that has been the prevailing wisdom: Every day that passes without Cooper receiving a phone call from D.C. police raises eyebrows and questions among both Cooper and her colleagues about the thoroughness of the investigation. One week ago, on July 11, ABC News' Pierre Thomas reported on "Nightline" that "in the timeline, [Condit] says he meets with a reporter the evening of May 1 at a local coffee shop, from 6:30 until 7:30. That reporter, who works for ABC News, remembers the meeting taking place the next day. Condit's office immediately puts out a statement saying the timeline was only a draft. They still have not provided a corrected version."



"It's just basic 101 police work,"
says local community activist Dorothy Brizill, executive director of D.C. Watch, a local government watchdog group. "You wonder whether or not they get it. When it comes to MPD" -- the Metropolitan Police Department -- "they have been lacking in basic investigative skills for years.

Just the other day on Sunday's programs, you see [Police Chief] Ramsey talking about the Internet traffic on her computer and you say, 'Wait a minute! Did he just learn this?' and you just scratch your head," Brizill says. "Anyone who has any familiarity with D.C. police will tell you the lack of professionalism, the lack of skills."

Critics also wonder why it took D.C. police until their third interview with Condit, on July 6, to get him to admit the nature of his relationship with Levy when they had been told early on about the affair by Levy's aunt, Linda Zamsky. They wonder about the low-rent computer-generated composite photographs of Levy with different hairstyles that look like they were put together by a 10-year-old with a scissors, Elmer's glue and a stack of old People magazines from the 1970s.


They wonder about why it took D.C. police 10 weeks before asking Condit to submit to a voluntary search of his home.

"No, we hadn't asked for a voluntary search," Ramsey told "Nightline." "That issue had not come up."

On NBC's "Meet the Press" last Sunday, Tim Russert asked Ramsey about the timeline confusion: "Have you ever asked the congressman to establish exactly what he was doing on May 1?"

"Well, those are all the kinds of questions that we still need to have answered if we're going to have a polygraph examination," Ramsey replied. "Those are the kinds of issues that we need to kind of lock down. Certainly one could forget the exact date of something. It could just be a mistake, but it could be something more than that. Again, we're not focusing all of our attention on Congressman Condit. We are taking and exploring a lot of different avenues here."

"But did you ask him specifically what he was doing on May 1?" Russert pressed.

"We have tried to verify timelines, yes," Ramsey said.
snip

The thoroughness and competence of the D.C. police have been questioned throughout its investigation into the Levy disappearance. But it was also questioned just last fall. A December 2000 study by the Washington Post revealed that "(n)early two-thirds of the homicides that occurred in 1999 remained unsolved at that year's end, the poorest performance in the last 10 years." Homicide investigations in D.C. have, according to the Post, "an arrest rate that has fallen sharply lower than that of other cities."

Said the former D.C. police sergeant, "I don't have confidence in the homicide office as a whole. Certain homicide detectives are conscientious and proactive but they're the exception to the rule."

salon.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
laskipper



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

PostPosted: Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:57 am    Post subject: Disgruntled Condit staffer Reply with quote

Find this staffer for a witness:

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN JULY 08, 2001 16:09:28 ET XXXXX

Fair use

CONDIT STAFFER CHARGES: 'I WAS LIED TO!'; RESIGNATION TALK SWIRLS AROUND CONGRESSMAN

**Exclusive**

Resignation talk swirls around California Congressman Gary Condit on Sunday, just as his own staff begins to question the representative's truthfulness.

MORE

"Point blank, I was lied to!" a Condit staffer told the DRUDGE REPORT. "I was assured there was no love affair with Ms. Levy, I've put my reputation on the line defending him around here, and now this comes out!"

The Condit staffer reached out to the DRUDGE REPORT and spoke on strict condition of anonymity after Condit admitted to investigators that he did have an affair with missing intern Chandra Levy.

"I have one question, and I know this will very well would mean I would lose my job, 'Gary, when are you going to step down, resign?!'"

Hill talk has quickly turned to whether Condit can continue to represent his district with the deepening Levy developments.

Staff disillusionment centers on Condit's actions after the WASHINGTON POST last month first revealed Levy had slept at the congressman's apartment and that the two were romantically involved.

Condit hired San Francisco power attorney Joseph Cotchett, who rushed a letter to the POST and other outlets demanding a retraction or risk a libel suit.

No such libel suit was ever filed


During on and off the record conversations with reporters over the past 60 days, Condit's staff repeatedly denied the congressman had any romantic relationship with the former Bureau of Prisons intern.

According to insiders, Condit misled Mike Lynch, chief of staff in Condit's Modesto office, and Mike Dayton, a spokesman at the congressman's office on Capitol Hill.

Dayton was told to tell the press "there is nothing to hide" about Condit's relationship with Levy, say sources.

Condit's public deception also involved his wife.

In a brief telephone conversation with the ASSOCIATED PRESS in June, Carolyn Condit said her husband's relationship with the Levy family and Chandra was a "friendship."

"I hope for his sake, she got a full apology this weekend, I sure haven't," said the disgruntled Condit staffer.

Sitting calmly in the offices of his lawyer with investigators late Friday night, Condit admitted to being romantically involved with
Chandra.

Law enforcement sources tell NEWSWEEK in its July 16 issue that Condit was "apologetic" for not responding more completely in his first two encounters with police.

He told investigators that his previous answers were the natural reaction of a married man reluctant to admit an extramarital dalliance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blondie



Joined: 10 Oct 2003
Posts: 567

PostPosted: Fri Feb 25, 2005 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul Licalsi should know for Dunne's defense that condits district was redrawn prior to his final run for congress, which some think is the reason he ultimately lost. It included people who had never had him as their congressman before and therefore not loyal as some might be that had voted for him before.
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, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 
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