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 

Chapter 21. Grand Jury

 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index -> Murder on a Horse Trail
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9218
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:40 am    Post subject: Chapter 21. Grand Jury Reply with quote



available from Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com


Murder On A Horse Trail: The Disappearance of Chandra Levy
by Ralph Daugherty
iUniverse
ISBN: 0-595-31847-9


Murder on a Horse Trail: The Disappearance of Chandra Levy also available free to read online here on www.justiceforchandra.com




Grand Jury


With the search of Rock Creek Park coming up empty, the FBI went to a crack cold-case team to solve Chandra Levy's disappearance. Susan Schmidt and Bill Miller of the Washington Post report on the new agents taking over:

FBI officials shifted the investigation to the D.C.
field office's major case squad, a signal that they
were in for the long haul. The squad that initially
worked on the case is intended to be reactive; the
major case squad is set up for long-term
investigations. The agent in charge of the case now
is Melissa Thomas, a longtime investigator who
consulted on the movie "Hannibal," a thriller about
a female FBI agent who hunts a serial killer.

Thomas is working with FBI agent Brad Garrett, whose
biggest success came in 1997, when he helped capture
a man who killed two federal employees four years
earlier outside CIA headquarters in Virginia. In
recent years, Garrett helped build the case that led
to the conviction of Carl Derek Cooper in the 1997
slayings of three employees at a Starbucks coffee
shop in Northwest Washington. Thomas and Garrett,
who have training in profiling, are being aided by
up to 12 members of their squad. [1]

Melissa Thomas was a specialist in profiling, and the FBI and D.C. police asked Condit for a fourth interview to build a profile on Chandra with what he could tell them. Niles Lathem of the New York Post described how investigators learned nothing new:

During his last interview with investigators, Rep.
Gary Condit was unable to recall all of his
activities on the day Chandra Levy disappeared, The
Post has learned.

Law-enforcement officials said the congressman's
fourth grilling by police and the FBI on Thursday
failed to clear up a few lingering questions about
his whereabouts on May 1, the last day police have
been able to track the 24-year-old Bureau of Prisons
intern.

The officials told The Post that, in the 90-minute
session in Condit lawyer Abbe Lowell's office, the
California Democrat was pressed for more details of
his movements that day.

The sources wouldn't reveal what specific questions
were asked, but they said Condit was sometimes
stumped and couldn't remember specifics of his
activities.

There have been signs that investigators aren't
totally satisfied with Condit's alibi for May 1,
including the fact that police last Thursday
interviewed a female ABC News reporter. [2]


Chief Charles Ramsey appeared on "Meet the Press" with Tim Russert and said that the police had not yet confirmed Condit's alibi nor checked his phone records for May 1. Steve Dunleavy of the New York Post talked to a veteran New York defense attorney about how this could be:

One of the most enduring presences in criminal and
trial law for the past 25 years, Barry Slotnick,
told me yesterday: "I wish I could have got the same
deal for some of my clients in the past, but a
lawyer in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles or any
other city can't pull that act.

"Here a grand jury would have been impaneled ages
ago, and even if Condit didn't appear or took the
Fifth, a grand jury has wide powers of subpoena.

"All telephone records, all credit-card records,
even his laundry records would have been firmly in
hand of the police and investigators a long time
ago."

Slotnick added: "You don't need Columbo on this case
to do a basic investigation, but something has
caused the D.C. cops to act with kid gloves, in a
manner that couldn't happen anywhere else in the
country.

"I would assume he has concerns, far beyond
relations with his family, that he wants to hide."
[3]


But the FBI didn't have anything to work with. Michael Isikoff of Newsweek quotes them: "The real issue is the body," says one law-enforcement source. "We have no clues. This case may not break until someday, somebody will be out walking in the woods or out fishing, and they'll find what we're looking for."

Sven Jones was asked to take a lie detector test, and after first agreeing refused to take it, a tell tale sign of talking to a lawyer. It's a travesty that lawyers as an industry advise everyone not to take lie detector tests so that the first thing you have to do to do the right thing is have the courage to ignore their industry pap advice.

Sure you could fail the test and raise suspicion, or you could refuse to take it and raise suspicion. Nice choice, with the lawyers no help to the victim in their blinders view of looking out for your interest. You have to care more about the victim than yourself to ignore them. Those who do do exactly that.

Not only does a person suffer the loss of a friend or loved one when someone they know disappears and is found murdered, but they must also suffer the scrutiny of police and public. Their offer to add insight into the tragedy by agreeing to fully answer questions and taking lie detector tests from the police to help solve the case should be recognized by all as admirable.

The logistics of Sven's situation was that he arrived back in D.C. the same day Chandra disappeared, and one of the last messages she left was asking to meet him in Georgetown for lunch. Certainly it is unfortunate but appropriate that the police looked at his whereabouts hard and asked him to take a lie detector test. Sven did the right thing. He took the test and passed it.

But it's sad that those who knew Chandra are necessarily pointed to with suspicion, at least in the beginning, and sad that even when they cooperate and try to help, some people remain suspicious. The words in their interviews should strike people as from the heart or not and should answer questions about any involvement. Sven's words were from the heart. That's all anyone can ask.

Another valuable lesson for us all was provided by an artist, Terry Aley of Overland Park, Kansas. Declan McCullagh in his Politech site provides this important reporting of a citizen fighting back for his rights and winning. Condit had requested eBay to end the auction of an artwork, "NEW ABSTRACT ART-CHANDRA LEVY & GARY CONDIT", under eBay's Verified Rights Owner (VeRO) Program, giving the reason that it violated Condit's "copyright, trademark or other rights."

The Los Angeles Times quoted eBay as reporting the basis of the complaint as the artwork being 'a violation of the congressman's right of publicity, based upon the use of his name or image' under California's "Right of Publicity" statute. Terry Aley responded with a vigor of intellect that would make our founders proud. He wrote Rep. Condit:

Mr. Condit's name and likeness were not "directly
connected with ... commercial sponsorship or with
... paid advertising" in my painting. I believe that
California Civil Code Section 3344 does not apply in
this case, and is not sufficient cause for Mr.
Condit's action.

I believe Mr. Condit violated my rights in a number
of ways, and unless he publicly apologizes and
retracts his attempt to suppress the sale of my
painting, it is my intention to file suit under one
or more statutes (see 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242),
and to release to the press information concerning
the filing of that suit. Please let me hear from you
by August 8, 2001. [4]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9218
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The statutes are explained further:

The two Federal Laws are both designed to protect
Americans from being denied their rights.

The first makes it a crime for anyone acting as a
public official, such as a US Congressman, to deny
Constitutional and other rights to a US citizen. The
Statute (18 USC 242 -- Deprivation of rights under
color of law) provides specific penalties for
violators: "...shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than one year, or both...."

The second Federal Law (18 USC 241 -- Conspiracy
against rights) makes it a crime when "two or more
persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
intimidate..." any person from "...free exercise or
enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him
by the Constitution or laws of the United States."

This statute also provides specific penalties for
violators, "...shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

The action of Rep. Condit alone could be subject to
Section 242, while the collective action of his
staff could be considered a "conspiracy" under
Section 241. [5]

A deadline to respond was given for August 8, and on August 7 Condit's office secretly had eBay restore the artwork auction. Terry Aley sums up the results of his action:

This announcement to the press is intended to show
publicly that Rep. Condit recognizes that California
Law does not protect him from being the subject of
an artwork, and that the attempt to suppress or
censor artwork is a potential violation of Federal
Laws. [6]

The artwork suit was not the only setback for Condit. He had decided to break his silence after nearly four months, come out of seclusion, and give an interview. It was impossible for him to campaign in public and have fundraisers until he cleared the air. The two year re-election cycle of a member of the House of Representatives had forced his hand. Imagine if he had been early on in the six year cycle of Senator. It may have been years before anyone heard from him.

Connie Chung of ABC News got the highly sought after interview. Barbara Olson, as Larry King described her, former prosecutor and best-selling author, eloquently tells what she was looking for in Condit breaking his silence:

...It seems as though Gary Condit feels that things
around him have gone on long enough, and -- you
know, it's interesting before you were talking about
the political PR side.

If you look back at people like Gary Hart, who
refused to admit and refused to apologize, and look
what happened to his career.

And then you see people, I mean the famous, as
obviously the checker speech with Nixon, or even
Senator Kennedy, after what happened at
Chappaquiddick, he went on television and he
apologized and said that would live with him the
rest of his life. Those kinds of things allow us to
forgive.

And if his talk tonight with Connie Chung, he says
-- we had a close friendship, and doesn't admit the
relationship, doesn't answer whether he loved her,
whether -- if he denies that indeed he told her he
would marry her, or that they would have children,
then we've got this picture of Chandra must have
been delusional. Anne Marie Smith is a liar and
someone after money, and I guess Joeleen McKay whom
he paid on his staff when he was having an affair
must also be delusional. It's not a pretty picture.
[7]


The interview was watched by 24 million people, about 30 percent of the U.S. television audience. His constituents were stunned at his responses. Petula Dvorak captured the essence of their reaction for the Washington Post:

All summer long, the Hawaiian Days promotion at
Perko's Cafe in Condit's home town of Ceres has
dressed the waitresses in hula shirts and silk leis
and has served waffles with paper umbrellas stuck in
the pat of butter. The conversation there has been
just as colorful throughout the summer -- until
yesterday.

"I just don't know what to think anymore," said
Charbonnie Blunt, 35, a waitress. "You want to
believe Gary. Every day, we hold out a little hope
that today, he'll clear it all up and explain
everything. But he still hasn't done that. He didn't
do it last night, and I stayed up late to watch
it." [8]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9218
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Geraldo Rivera and his panel gave the most illuminating analysis of Condit's attempts to explain away his actions to Connie Chung:

(Excerpt from "Meet The Press")

RUSSERT: Two women, who've gone to the FBI, who've
gone on national television, and said the pres--
the--the congressman had an affair with them;
concerned about their safety. Why would Congressman
Condit lie about that?

Mr. LOWELL: Well, again, I realize that it's easy
for you, as the interviewer, to say, 'Why did he lie
about it?' I don't think the congressman lied about
it. One of the things he's criticized for--and
it's--could be a proper criticism. You know, when--
when--when this woman named Joleen or Anne Marie
Smith say that they had a relationship or they had a
certain kind of relationship, I guess I understand
that they're defining it the way they're defining
it. I realize it drives people insane if the
congressman says, 'I didn't deem that to be a
relationship. Whatever we shared together, whatever
we were, I don't think that's a relationship.'

(End of excerpt)

RIVERA: Oh, no, it's--it is--that is Clintonesque there.

Mr. ED ROLLINS (Republican Strategist): It's very
Clintonesque.

RIVERA: I mean, 'Oral sex isn't a relationship,' but
at least with oral sex, there was a survey that said
many young people did not consider oral sex a
relationship. What's he doing? I mean, try--is he
trying to do a Clinton, trying to parse it this
badly. How do you feel about it?

Mr. ROLLINS: Well--well, I--I feel this guy is the--
is about the stupidest guy I've ever seen in--in
American politics.

RIVERA: Oh, that--that good, huh?...

RIVERA: I want to go to Julian Epstein and Wendy
Murphy. Julian, you first. I--I don't know--you--you
obviously saw and heard Vince Flammini just now,
the...

Mr. JULIAN EPSTEIN (Former House Democratic
Counsel): Sure.

RIVERA: You heard a witness, who's standing in the
wings ready to go in and weigh in: 25 rendezvous
with Joleen McKay that Vince was present for, the--
the initial meeting with Anne Marie Smith, the con--
conversations with Gary Condit that--that followed.
Isn't this exactly what--what was predicted and
predictable after he said he had no relationship
with these women...

Mr. EPSTEIN: Yeah. I...

RIVERA: ...that they would come forward with proof
to prove him a liar?

Mr. EPSTEIN: Of course. I--I was surprised, Geraldo,
you actually spent as much time as you did with them
as--attempting to establish the case. I don't think
there's anybody in the world that believes Gary
Condit when he denies that there was a relationship,
and I think this dancing on the head of a pin about
defining what a relationship is is pathetic. I
associate myself entirely with everything Ed Rollins
said. I think it was the worst performance I've ever
seen in American politics on Thursday night...

RIVERA: Putting aside the--the political just for a
second, let me go to Wendy on the legal. Do--don't
you think Flammini sounds convincing? Don't you
think Gary Condit, were he under oath, committed
perjury?

Ms. WENDY MURPHY (Attorney/Former Prosecutor): Well,
Geraldo, how many times did he commit perjury is the
question, I mean, assuming he was under oath. That
was just pathetic. And it wasn't just that he lied
about both women that he had relationships with... I
think that he lied about so many things, including,
you know, that Mrs. Levy was mistaken; that Chief
Ramsey was causing confusion.

I mean, it was always everybody else's fault and he
was telling the truth and this whole list of other
folks, with, really, no motive to lie--they were all
lying. I mean, that--I'm not sure who was advising
him, but it was really, I think, a preposterous
effort to--to expect anybody to believe, number one.
I mean--and--and, really, so many of us thought that
what he was going to do is say, 'I'm terribly sorry
I did all these extramarital things. It was terribly
humiliating. I couldn't admit it. And I'm sorry for
the Levys that I didn't tell the truth.' And he
didn't do it. I don't understand it....

RIVERA: Candice DeLong, we go to you now, the
retired FBI profiler, the author of "Special
Agent." You're the one who--who suggested that he
shot himself in the foot, reloaded, then shot
himself in the head. Why do you say that?

Ms. CANDICE DeLONG (Retired FBI Special Agent):
Well, shooting himself in the foot, I think, was all
the ducking and dodging on Connie's initial
questions about the affair, and then sh--reloading
and shooting himself in the head was when he called
these two women that he's known to have
relationships with liars. I think the Titanic took
longer to go down than Mr. Condit did as a result of
that interview.

RIVERA: What is it, Candice, in your experience,
that allows people to make mistakes that are easily
provable to be--you know, make statement that are
easily provable to be lies?

Ms. DeLONG: Well, Geraldo, one of the things that it
reminded me of, in my 20 years of--of interviewing--
working violent crimes and interviewing criminals--
what kept going through my head, as I was watching
Thursday night, was that this man seemed to be like
so many sociopaths I've interviewed. And what--and
what I mean by that, this is a clinical term, and
these are people that do not feel guilt, as normal
people do. They have an inability to empathize. I
saw no empathy on--for the Levys. And then the next
day, he essentially said they were confused...

As a result of his performance Thursday and
subsequently on Friday, my level of suspicion regard
hi--regarding his involvement in Chandra's
disappearance is way up.

RIVERA: Do you think he believes she's alive or
dead?

Ms. DeLONG: I thought he was acting like a man who
believes there's no way in the world she's going to
be found or walk into a police station and refute
anything he said. I found it interesting that he
volunteered to Connie, 'We never had a cross word.
We never ha'--he said it three times. Yet according
to the interview with Sven Jones, there certainly
was a lot of far...

RIVERA: A pal of Chandra's from DC.

Ms. DeLONG: Yes, right. The--her confidante. There
was a lot of fighting going on there. He know--Gary
Condit, I thought, showed consciousness--in my
opinion, showed consciousness of guilt by the things
he said about Chandra. I thinks he--he knows she's
not going to show up....

Mr. ROLLINS: The thing that bothers me, for four
months this man has shown absolutely no caring for
this young girl that he obviously got involved with.
He showed the other night no caring for these other
women that he's been involved with, and--and I don't
th--I don't see how--I mean, we've all been around
political people who--who cast people away, but
nowhere in that interview--and this was his--he set
this interview up. Nowhere did he say, you know, 'My
heart goes out to the family, but equally as
important, I've lost a very dear friend. I d--I
don't know where she is. I'm worried about it.' He
doesn't feel that.

Ms. DeLONG: Another characteristic of a psychopath.

Mr. ROLLINS: And I think that tells you more than
anything else about him.

Ms. MURPHY: It doesn't necessarily elevate the case
to a prosecutable homicide or--at all...

Mr. EPSTEIN: Right, exactly.

Ms. MURPHY: ...but it certainly will keep the police
focused. They won't be looking at parallel
investigations. They'll really see him as the key.
And one of the things I think he said that I'd love
to have an answer to is what's with this train trip
thing? I mean, he said, basically, that he didn't
call Chandra after May 1st for about four days...

RIVERA: Oh, just absurd. Just absurd. That's just--
that's so lame. It's so lame.

Ms. MURPHY: ...no, he didn't call her and--but--
but--but, Geraldo, what's interesting...

RIVERA: He calls her on May 1st, and then he only
realizes on May 6th, when Dad calls, that he hasn't
heard from the woman he's been sleeping with two or
three times a week.

Ms. MURPHY: But--but...

RIVERA: I mean, that's--that's too lame. That's too
lame. I'm sorry.

Ms. MURPHY: But I want to know what he said to the
police about that. What did he say to the police
about his awareness of what her travel trai--her--
her travel plans were? Because if he didn't tell
them he thought she was going to take a train, if he
didn't tell them he expected her to leave town on
May 1st, that's a very new, very compelling, very
self-serving statement. [9]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9218
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chief Ramsey used the Connie Chung interview to describe to WUSA what it was like trying to get information from Condit about Chandra's disappearance:

"I think that people pretty much got a glimpse of
what we've been going through over the last four
interviews we've had with the congressman -- a lot
of conversation, but not a lot of substance," Ramsey
said. [10]

And Chief Gainer added:

"He answered every question that Connie Chung put to
him, and did you feel more informed after that?"
Gainer asked. "Did he answer all her questions?
Yeah. Did he answer all her questions to her
satisfaction or the public's satisfaction? No."
[11]


Clint Van Zandt told the Washington Post the next step that was required:

Clinton R. Van Zandt, a former FBI profiler and
president of Van Zandt and Associates, a behavior-
oriented threat and crisis management company, said
it may be time for police to ask the U.S. attorney
to employ the kind of legal muscle often used in
stalled investigations: a grand jury.

"It's the most pressure at this point law
enforcement can exert," Van Zandt said.

Gainer doesn't dismiss the possibility but said it's
more difficult to ask for a grand jury without
physical evidence of a crime.

"It's frustrating because you just can't quite find
the smoking gun," Gainer said. [12]


The next step would have to wait. The Washington Post describes what happened through Chandra's mother's eyes:

On Sept. 11, Susan Levy was preparing to fly to
Chicago for the "Oprah" show, then to New York for
the "Today" show. She never made it to the airport.
A friend from the East Coast called. She flipped on
the television. The World Trade Center and the
Pentagon were in flames.

That was the last time the Levys were courted by
media celebrities.

For Susan Levy, "September 11 made all this much
worse. I'm thinking about the grief that these
families are going through. I know what they're
going through." [13]


Barbara Olson was one of the brightest of shining stars that were added to heaven's skies that day. She had provided some of the most insightful analysis of the Chandra Levy case as a panelist on Larry King Live. And yet, with loss so incomprehensible as occurred on September 11, what was one intern who couldn't be found? Thousands could not be found now.

The coverage of Chandra Levy was panned as a mere sex scandal titillatingly irresistable to the press, a trivial pursuit when more important things should have been covered. But it wasn't just a sex scandal, it was a murder, and either a member of Congress being able to suppress an investigation of murder or the disappearance of women without a trail of blood leaving police baffled and confused until all potential evidence has deteriorated along with the body should have been the focus of coverage, with sex merely establishing an intimate to investigate. That seemed too difficult a concept for the media to espouse, though.

In their attempt to undo excesses, Chandra was no longer even mentioned by name. She was now simply a Modesto woman who disappeared from Washington in May. Just one of many people who disappeared in 2001. This was true before September 11, and true after, but few under so mysterious conditions. There was greater loss elswhere, but the mystery of Chandra's disappearance remained unsolved.

In November a D.C. Superior Court grand jury issued a subpoena to Condit. Normally secret, it became known because House rules require members of Congress to notify the Speaker when receiving a subpoena. Michael Doyle of the Modesto Bee reports on the grand jury action against Condit:

As Rep. Gary Condit mulls a month-old grand jury
subpoena, San Joaquin Valley law enforcement
officials are lining up against him.

So far, Condit hasn't given federal investigators
what they demanded in a subpoena issued around Nov.
13. His new lawyer, Mark Geragos, says Condit's
compliance is still being worked out with federal
investigators.

Condit told the Los Angeles Times Monday that the
subpoena covered items such as phone message pads,
newspaper articles and other things he already was
prepared to turn over.

Grand jury subpoenas can be sensitive for members of
Congress, in part because of separation-of-powers
concerns, and some legal experts say Condit's
response time may not be unusual....

In a Nov. 14 letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert,
required under House rules, Condit said he will
determine whether the subpoena issued by the
District of Columbia Superior Court is consistent
with congressional rules. Many members of Congress
make this response. [14]


While clearly members of Congress are victims of numerous nuisance suits, it is shameful that House rules allow members of Congress to delay or avoid responding to Federal court grand jury subpoenas as urgently as the citizens they represent. Justice was not served while Condit and Geragos studied a grand jury subpoena related to a missing woman to see if it was consistent with congressional rules.

How can Congress possibly justify using the Constitution to shelter members of Congress from criminal inquiries? It is exactly this attitude which is in question throughout the alleged investigation of a member of Congress in the disappearance of Chandra Levy.

It is not in the interests of the grand jury for someone who doesn't want to respond to decide if they should. If they can't decide as fast as a citizen would be required to, then make the decision for them, as fast as a citizen would be required to. Justice should not be delayed because a member of Congress is involved. A citizen would hope justice would be better served by Congress, not less.

Michael Doyle of the Modesto Bee reports on the grand jury process:

The District of Columbia Superior Court grand jury
investigating the Levy case and its aftermath
convenes on the second floor of a building five
blocks from the Capitol. Sixteen to 24 grand jurors
sit in what looks much like a terraced classroom,
save for a witness box.

Defense attorneys are not in the room during grand
jury questioning, but they can be consulted outside.
Typically, three grand juries are meeting in
Washington at any one time. [15]


Jim Keary of the Washington Times expands upon it, establishing that the grand jury changes every month requiring the sitting panel to come up to speed on action to date:

The records were subpoenaed by a D.C. Superior Court
grand jury that meets for a month at a time. Because
the investigation of the disappearance of Miss Levy
has been ongoing since May, at least five different
panels could have heard evidence.

Normally, before a grand jury would issue an
indictment, the sitting panel would read the
transcripts of past grand jury panels that
investigated the case. [16]

This defies imagination of how a group of people could come up to speed in such a complex case and then question more witnesses within a month, much less hear additional cases as well. At least, it should have been a complex case by then.

In January, 2002, it looked like the grand jury would act as Allan Lengel of the Washington Post reports:

A D.C. grand jury probing the Chandra Levy case is
reviewing documents that it subpoenaed from Rep.
Gary A. Condit and soon plans to call witnesses, a
law enforcement source said.

The development comes as investigators continue to
look for clues in Levy's disappearance and probe
allegations of obstruction of justice involving
Condit (D-Calif.). Levy vanished May 1.

WUSA-TV (Channel 9) reported last night that the
grand jury plans to call Condit, members of his
staff, Levy's former co-workers from the U.S. Bureau
of Prisons, residents of her D.C. apartment
building, acquaintances from her health club and a
flight attendant who contends that she had a 10-
month affair with Condit.

In November, the grand jury subpoenaed telephone
message slips, calendars and constituent mail from
Condit's office. [17]


Condit continued his re-election efforts to win the Democratic primary. Helen Kennedy of the New York Daily News laid out how far Condit had fallen:

Condit's run has been full of indignities:

He couldn't get enough signatures to get on the
ballot without paying a fee.

The House subcommittee on homeland security cropped
him out of online photos showing members touring
Ground Zero.

A local folk band penned a song called "Dear
Congressman Condit," which features the refrain: "I
wish it was you that was missin'."

The Washington Post toured his D.C. condo and
reported on his mirrored closets, numerous bedside
candles and the "elaborate set of wooden foot
massagers."

The loyal supporter who lent the use of his living
room for the Chung interview endorsed Cardoza, and
local papers in Condit's district favor dumping him.

When Condit hit the streets to talk with voters, he
mistakenly spent time chatting up people in the
wrong district. One voter, in earshot of trailing
reporters, asked point-blank, "Where'd you bury the
body?"

Still, Condit soldiered on. [18]


Condit lost the March primary to his former key aide Dennis Cardoza. He no longer had to answer questions to try to win re-election, and he didn't.

Probably for political reasons, Condit had not been scheduled to appear before the grand jury until the primary elections were over. Now that they were, Condit was scheduled to appear in early April. He postponed it. Given the secrecy of grand juries, only the most minimal of information was available concerning grand jury actions. On April 12 it was known that Condit appeared at the federal courthouse for a short while, but unknown if he had postponed again, briefly testified, or declined to testify by invoking his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

The following month, May 2002, Randy Groves, Condit's former legislative aide and press secretary, was called before the grand jury and testified.

A source close to Condit later said that Condit invoked his Fifth amendment rights in mid-April. [19] He would not be answering any questions about what happened to Chandra Levy. He had pretended to until he lost re-election. Now he no longer even pretended.

In April Geragos told Condit that Chandra would probably be found in May. Joyce Chiang had washed up out of the Potomac River in April, 1999, so it couldn't have been based on Joyce Chiang. Whatever it was based on, Geragos was right. Chandra was found just as he predicted.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9218
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Next chapter - Found
http://www.justiceforchandra.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2539

Murder on a Horse Trail - Table of Contents
http://www.justiceforchandra.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2562


Grand Jury
1. Schmidt, Susan and Bill Miller. “Closer Look at Roles of Condit, Aides
Debated: Discussion of Possible Obstruction of Justice, Witness Tampering as
Leads Dwindle.” Washington Post 6 Aug. 2001.

2. Lathem, Niles. “Condit Finds Crucial Day Forgettable.” New York Post 2
Aug. 2001.

3. Dunleavy, Steve. “NYPD Would Crack Condit.” New York Post 30 July
2001.

4. Aley, Terry. “Condit Retracts Action On EBay Art Auction.” aleydesign. 8
Aug. 2001. <www>

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

7. Larry King Live. “Panelists Discuss Gary Condit’s Interview With ‘Vanity
Fair’.” 23 August 2001. Transcript.

8. Dvorak, Petula and Allan Lengel. “Condit Met by Avalanche of Criticism:
Democratic Colleagues Rebuke Congressman.” Washington Post 25 Aug. 2001.

9. Flammini, Vince, George Lewis, Ed Rollins, Julian Epstein, Wendy Murphy,
Candice DeLong, Don Vance, Dominick Dunne. “Backfiring of Congressman
Gary Condit’s media blitz.” Rivera Live. CNBC. 27 Aug. 2001.

10. “D.C. police chief says Condit ‘difficult’.” CNN 30 Aug. 2001.

11. Dvorak, Petula and Allan Lengel. “Absent evidence, Levy probe stalls.”
Washington Post 9 Sept. 2001.

12. Ibid.

13. Dvorak, Petula and Lengel, Allan. “Levy Family Reflects on How ‘World
Changed’.” Washington Post. 29 Oct. 2001.

14. Doyle, Michael. “Condit mulls month old subpoena.” Modesto Bee 11 Dec.
2001.

15. Doyle, Michael. “Levy case still puzzles police.” Modesto Bee 28 Apr. 2002.

16. Keary, Jim and Matthew Cella. “Grand Jury subpoena for Condit records.”
Washington Times 16 Dec. 2001.

17. Lengel, Allan. “Grand Jury Looks at Condit Material.” Washington Post 19
Jan. 2002.

18. Kennedy, Helen. “Redemption or Final Bow: Voters to decide fate of Condit
in primary.” New York Daily News 4 Mar. 2002.

19. Sager, Mike. “The Final Days of Gary Condit.” Esquire 1 Sep. 2002.
“April grand jury subpoenaes Condit.” Washington Post 26 Mar. 2002.
Blomquist, Brian and Devlin Barrett. “Condit Dumped Item Before Search.”
New York Post 20 July 2001.

“Condit delays grand jury appearance in Washington.” Sacremento Bee 5 Apr.
2002.

“Condit gets GJ subpoena.” Reuters Washington 16 Nov. 2001.

“Condit’s lawyer, Mark Garagos, lashed out at cops.” New York Daily News 23
May 2002.

Isikoff, Michael; Klaidman, Daniel; Clift, Eleanor; Murr, Andrew. “An Affair to
Remember.” Newsweek 16 July 2001: 20.

Kennedy, Helen. “Levy pushed for Condit to divorce, friend says.” New York
Daily News 4 Aug. 2001.

Lengel, Allan. “Condit Had Appointment With Grand Jury: Data Was Kept
Secret To Minimize Leaks.” Washington Post 13 Apr. 2002.

Moraes, Lisa de. “‘PrimeTime Prize’: Connie Chung Gets Condit Interview.”
Washington Post 21 Aug. 2001.

Sherman, Mark. “A year later, no breaks in Chandra Levy’s disappearance.” Associated
Press 27 Apr. 2002.

Squitieri, Tom and Kevin Johnson. “Lawyer starts investigation of intern’s disappearance.”
USA Today 21 June 2001.

Wiegand, Steve. “Facts are few in Levy mystery.” Sacramento Bee 3 Sept. 2001.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index -> Murder on a Horse Trail 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