www.justiceforchandra.com

[blondie]

And lets not forget that Geragos said she would be found 'in may' if this was the work of a 'serial killer'.

[rd]

Right. He said he and Condit knew she would be found in May. I think that should raise a lot of questions for anybody that actually wants to ask questions.

rd

[blondie]

Geragos probably heard it from someone since he is not from the DC area. He was probably repeating something he had been told.

[rd]

He said he had been talking to Condit about it.

rd

[scott20037]

Hi all

I'm a new member. You guys have done a great job carrying the torch on this investigation. I followed the case pretty closely for a while but some world and life events intervened. But with Condit's recent "just friends" testimony, I got motivated to start scratching around again, found your site, and have just joined. I've ordered Ralph's book but haven't received it yet. In the meantime, I hope you'll forgive me for setting out some possibly half-informed comments and questions.

After Chandra's body was found, one of my friends who had followed the case said "see, Condit didn't do it." I had doubts too, and still do, given the assaults that occured in the same general area at about the same time. But now, having read your posts, and having concluded that Chandra's body (skeleton, really) was probably dumped in the park long after she was killed, the strong possibility emerges that the dumping ground was chosen in part because those other assaults occured there. At least two of the assaults occured after Chandra was killed but, arguably, before the dumping, so news of those post-murder assaults could have informed the selection of the dumping site. (I recall that news of those post-May 1 assaults was in the Post, although I'm not sure about the one which I think happened in April.) Assuming that Condit did this, and that he planned to dump the body in the park all along, after setting up Chandra by arranging to meet her in the park, or by fixing her computer to make it look like she was going to go there -- he certainly would have been following the news about any assaults, and where they occured, so that he could dump the body in the right place to make it look like someone else did it.)

Coming now to the present, it appears that all the talk about Condit's not being a suspect is just a smokescreen, since it would make no sense to talk with Condit's former driver (I think this means only Flammini) about the new suspect (the Maryland man) if he were not tied to Condit. (The NE, of course, because of the fear of another lawsuit, is going out of its way to toe the official line, which has always been the case, that Condit is not a suspect, but it also appears from my reading the NE article from September 2004 that their FBI or law enforcement source is also emphasizing, a bit too much to sound sincere, that Condit is not a suspect.)

(I agree with RD that the Maryland contractor could not be someone Condit introduced Chandra to, since Condit didn't take Chandra out in public. And I don't believe lawyer Robinson's theory of a Congresssional sex club, so that is out for me as a place to introduce Chandra around.)

Anyway, despite the official line that Condit is not a suspect, perhaps part of the reason the Levys are so quiet is that in exchange for the police, now FBI, keeping them abreast (including letting them in on the fact that they are really still pursuing Condit), they have agreed not to comment publicly. Perhaps they simply took to heart an admonition I assume Chief Ramsey or someone probably gave them long ago -- public comments can impede the investigation, so don't make them. [This view on the part of law enforcement is the same view that often keeps law enforcement agencies from sharing info, and that would have prevented the capture of the Washington snipers if Chief Moose of Montgomery Country, MD, had not decided to publish the license plate numbers of the suspects' car.] I have a feeling if the police were really truly laying off Condit, the Levys would not be so quiet, at least not the aunt and uncle. (Witness the aunt's comment in reaction to the "just friends" testimony -- "he lied" -- she for one is not inclined to let Condit off the hook.)

Note also regarding the new suspect that a law enforcement source is deliberately talking to the press -- notwithstanding that, according to Fox on August 28 2004, the pursuit of the new suspect came from a tip. From looking at the Globe/ National Enquirer story that came out in Sept, I would guess that a prime suspect for the leak is the new US Attorney for DC, Kenneth Wainstein, who has publicly said he is trying to reinvigorate the prosecution of murders in the District:

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1004/177432.html

I suspect Wainstein and the FBI guy Garrett understand how badly this investigation has been handled to date and are trying to make amends. But the exact source is really beside the point. The point is that, because the info was deliberately leaked, we have to assume it was leaked for a tactical purpose, including to give Condit false confidence, or possibly to scare Condit.

Or, admittedly, this could be a smokescreen to hide the fact that the FBI really hasn't gotten anywhere.

Now, who is this new suspect and where does he fit in? Lisa Cosby on Fox said a tipster led the FBI to re-interview people and show the photo. Somewhere in the previous posts, and somewhere in the press or internet, I've read that the tip about the Maryland man came from someone in Michigan. Is it possible that the Romulus, Michigan web investigator quoted in discussion 12 of the "FBI Revisits" forum, who thinks Garrett at FBI has been brought in to do a coverup, gave enough info to the FBI to intrigue them into investigating? A sort of dare by the Michigan guy who says if you guys are really seriously investigating, you have to look at these great leads I have.

One idea that occured to me is that the CIA employee whose fingerprints were found at the scene, Alejandro Martinez, fingered one or more people as part of a plausible but concocted story to deflect blame from Condit, who, let us suppose, hired this CIA guy as his hit man. But this assumes Martinez was detained and interrogated. According to the following conspiracy theorist, Martinez has fled to someplace unknown:

http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/LEVY.html

(Anybody know anything more about Martinez?)

Or perhaps Martinez identified the man who put Condit in touch with him. Condit presumably had CIA contacts as part of his intelligence oversight work, but it might not have been operatives and potential hit men. But more likely Condit avoided middleman hitman procurers.

Or perhaps Condit's lawyer, Geregos, found a likely suspect working with the author of the northstarzone site just cited, who believes that Condit is the fall guy and that Chandra was killed by a big C conspriracy involving the CIA because as a Mossad agent she was about to spill the beans and prevent 9/11. Frankly, I don't believe the FBI would believe such tipsters.

Or perhaps the Maryland party guy did nothing more than agree to let Condit use a country house or property. If Condit killed Chandra, he would have preferred to do it somewhere other than in a motel or outdoors, where screams could be heard. But I doubt Condit would risk being ratted on just to borrow a cushy pad to have a last go at Chandra.

Did anyone notice in the NE article that the NE found the Maryland man, they said, and he was not the guy in the photo shown to Flammini, because the NE took a photo of the Maryland man (who denied knowing Condit or Chandra) and showed the photo to Flammini, who said the latter photo was not of the same man the FBI showed him a photo of (the Tommy Lee Jones lookalike).

Talking about the Maryland man and the CIA guy leads to the general subject of accomplices.

Conspiracies don't usually work except among gangs with a real structure and intiation rites and enforcement of gang rules. Accomplices have to be chosen very carefully, with a long term view of whether the accomplice will squawk.

Suspending judgment for the moment about the Maryland man and the CIA guy, there is first the question of whether Condit needed an accomplice at all.

If Chandra was picked up by or met Condit the afternoon of May 1, no accomplice was needed. Condit could have killed her -- e.g. by strangling her with a necktie during sex or mock sex at a motel in Luray or anyplace nearby -- could have left the body somewhere and gone back to DC that night. Later, he could have taken the (much lighter) decomposed body or skeleton to Rock Creek Park by himself. He's fit, rides his bike. (I gather people use neckties or ropes not only to tie sex partners up, but also to partially asphixiate them to somehow heighten the rush of sex. If Condit killed her this way, then if, by chance, someone linked him to Chandra's death, at least he could argue it had been accidental and he is at most guilty of a coverup of an accidental homicide. The damage to the hyoid bone would be consistent with death this way.)

If Chandra was taken the night of April 30 (the scream), and if Condit then set up her computer to make it seem that she was going to Rock Creek Park, then he would have needed an accomplice to work on her computer the morning of May 1, unless by fiddling with the computer clock he could have made it seem that the activity on her computer seemed to have been done the late morning of May 1, when in fact it was done by Condit at some other time, such as earlier that morning. (When exactly was the email with the airfares sent, and was it definitely received in Cal. that morning? Do we know what email service and how their server time stamps messages?)

There is an argument that Condit could not "comfortably" kill Chandra without checking her computer first. Despite Chandra's questions about the Jennifer Thomas affair, Condit presumably still believed that Chandra had not told her parents or anyone else about their affair. But he would have felt much better if he could check the computer before doing the final deed. So he may have taken Chandra or had her taken the night of April 30 but not killed her until after checking the computer (or having it checked) May 1.

Do we know whether Condit himself has good computer skills. And do we know whether Chandra's computer was password protected?

If there was an accomplice, you have to ask, as we did in the Washington sniper case, what could establish the bond of trust between Condit and the accomplice suffient to join in killing someone? Condit did trust certain people, notably Flammini, who drove him to rendezvous with Anne Marie, although Flammini later talked. Presumably the accomplice would have trusted Condit to keep his mouth shut to stay out of the slammer, but who could Condit trust? And what would motivate an accomplice? If the accomplice was a government contractor, possibly help getting the accomplice a government contract, although unlikely in the absence of an independent motivation to get rid of Chandra. (While it is not out of the question that Chandra was a Mossad agent in training, it seems to me that Condit's need to act quickly, for his own reasons, precluded him striking a bargain with someone who might have had an independent motive to get rid of Chandra, and who at a minium would have to deliberate for a while about whether to take so drastic a step and risk exposure.)(Courts and prosecutors might be compelled by statute to go after spies for Israel such as Pollard, but I would be shocked if anyone in the CIA or elsewhere has a program of assassinating Mossad agents.) Anyway, regarding the DOD contractor, one area for exploration would be any correspondence by Condit with DOD to push any DOD contracts, although as I've said I doubt there would be a payoff there.

I had always thought that the accomplice, if there was one, was either Condit's brother or some Hells Angels or CIA roughneck who would kill for kicks and money, and are not the type to get cold feet. Condit told Flammini that he had Hells Angels buddies who would dispose of a body. The brother I discount quite a bit because I'm not sure Gary would trust his drifter alcoholic brother to keep his mouth shut over time. I don't know how bad a guy the aide Dayton is, other than that he has apparently been willing to lie repeated to protect his boss, but I doubt he would have helped kill someone just to make sure Condit got re-elected. Still, sometimes people who start out decent can get sucked in gradually, deeper and deeper, until they find themselves so deeply implicated that it is too late to bail out, unless and until it appears the plot is in imminent danger of unraveling. Also, remember Condit gave big raises to his staff right after the Chandra thing happened. Plainly he was out to keep his staff loyal, and I'm sure he worked overtime to keep Dayton's fealty.

It seems pretty clear that when Condit decided to act, he had to act fast, after the conversation with Chandra about Jennifer Thomas. If he needed an accomplice, he had to turn to someone he already knew. Most people who come to Washington, especially public figures, learn that you can't trust much of anyone in Washington. That's part of the reason I figure Condit must have turned to Darrell or a CIA acquaintance or Hell's Angels acquaintance. So I credit the report of fingerprints of a long time CIA employee at the crime scene.

Does anyone have any insight into Condit's relationship and level of trust with his brother? Has Darrell ever been hooked up to a polygraph, or questioned by a grand jury, as far as we know? Is he on the deposition list in the Dunne case?

One big question that goes to whether Chandra was on her computer May 1 is Chandra's email behavior. Would she just forward air fares without a word of comment? Did her aunt or uncle get emails or just phone calls? Personally, sending as many emails as I do, it would be very bizarre to be about to make a major life transition, coming back to California, without emailing all sorts of people about it, especially if I had the morning of May 1 to kill. If Chandra ordinarily used email a lot, then I would tip towards the view that it was not her on the computer on May 1. But then, there would have to be an accomplice on the computer May 1, since Condit was with the VP, unless the computer clock was tampered with. And a former CIA guy might have the skills to know how to log onto a computer and do what was done.

New subject -- Chandra's remains and what they show about how long she was in RCP.

I've read in another thread in this site that the Levy's experts did have a chance to examine the bones with magnifying glasses. Do we know what if anything they said about animal bite marks were on the bones? I sure would like to see what kind of animal teeth marks, if any, there were on those bones. I am not an expert on this, but if there were no animal teeth marks, I assume that would suggest strongly that the body was not out in the open anywhere. Small bites only might suggest rats or other rodents in a cave. Big ones might indicate being in the open for a while. I assume if the body had been in RCP for more than a few days with any flesh on it, some unleashed dog or fox or coyote would be likely to take a few bites, and you could probably get someone familiar with such things to opine on same. As a test, if we could enlist somebody who is knowledgeable about forensics or animal behavior to approve this experimental design, one could set out ten legs of lamb at ten places around the dumping site, and see how long its takes them to be carried off. Or better yet, ten legs of lamb, with various degrees of flesh on them, connected to logs or cinder blocks weighing what a human skeleton weighs. Then you could see how many had how many bite marks, and what kind of bite marks.


Scott

[scott20037]

One key fact that I haven't run across in these postings yet, but which I'm sure is covered in Ralph's book, is why Chandra suddenly lost her internship. This would certainly inform whether there were any powers arrayed against her other than the fury of a Congressman on the verge of exposure and ruin.

I'm happy to wait and read the book, but in the meantime can anyone help me on this?

[rd]

Welcome, Scott. One heck of a first post. Many issues raised, much for us to comment on. I've decided to consolidate Latest Discussion into Chandra, Laci, and missing women to simplify things, so I'm going to be doing some admin work while everybody gets a chance to read and respond. There's a lot in your post I want to address with quotes from Murder on a Horse Trail.

For site members, the FBI Revisits Case thread is also stillavailable to add to the comments there on that news of the recent FBI activity and what to make of it.

Thanks for a great first post, Scott. I think you'll be pleased at some of the comprehensive details that Murder on a Horse Trail presents, but making sense of it is another thing altogether. You have made a good start.

rd

[benn]

Hello Scott, and rd too. It is good to see some new serious comments here. I look at the newsgroups often, and a lot of the comments there, on anything, are a lot of nonsense.

I still think that Condit is the best witness here. He knows what he did, or did not do. Maybe we will begin to see some moments of truth as the Condit v. Dunne trial, or pre-trial, continues. There are so many aspects of this case that have not really been investigated thoroughly, or have been and it was decided to do nothing because of whatever results were found.

We, the public, do not even know if the FBI ever asked Condit if he knew Jennifer Thomas. Also, no one has interviewed Jennifer Thomas. Certainly anything said by Jennifer would point in one direction or another, and the FBI might be expected to be silent as to what she said, but there is not even a hint that the FBI ever talked to Jennifer. Condit does know people in high places, and some of them were saying rather unknowledgeable statements about Condit when the investigation first started. Could any of Condit's acquaintances sort of lead the FBI off in the wrong direction?

Of course the best line of defence, or offence, for Condit would seem to be the truth, unless the truth would lead him off in a direction that he does not want to go. I would like to see a psychiatrist, or psychologist, writing a few comments here. Also Condit had staffs in Washington and Modesto. It would seem very proper for law enforcement to question the former staff members more. Law enforcement, in Washington at least, seems to be sitting on its hands. This appears to be a case that many do not seem anxious to solve.

benn

[rd]

Every question in Murder on a Horse Trail is directed at everyone but Condit. Condit has already taken the Fifth before a grand jury and refused to take a police liie detector test. There will be no answers from Condit except denials of what everyone else has to say.

That means he has answers that he cannot tell.

rd

[rd]

After Chandra's body was found, one of my friends who had followed the case said "see, Condit didn't do it." I had doubts too, and still do, given the assaults that occured in the same general area at about the same time. But now, having read your posts, and having concluded that Chandra's body (skeleton, really) was probably dumped in the park long after she was killed, the strong possibility emerges that the dumping ground was chosen in part because those other assaults occured there. At least two of the assaults occured after Chandra was killed but, arguably, before the dumping, so news of those post-murder assaults could have informed the selection of the dumping site. (I recall that news of those post-May 1 assaults was in the Post, although I'm not sure about the one which I think happened in April.)


Very importantly, all three of Guandique's assaults occurred after Chandra disappeared, otherwise if even one had occurred before her disappearance an escalating pattern could and would have eagerly been shown by Condit and his lawyer Geragos.

Instead, an improbable de-escalating pattern occurred in considering Guandique as a suspect. Just a week after Chandra disappeared and later found bound and murdered, Guandique was chased out of an apartment by a woman arriving home and screaming, and then found by police with a stolen ring and burglary tools on him.

He had gone from ruthless bound murderer to scared burglar within a week. And Chandra's ring was never pawned as if stolen by him anyway. Whoever murdered her and took her ring never pawned it. Guandique was looking for jewelry to pawn for his drug habit.

The police brought out Guandique's landlady to tell the grand jury that Guandique had facial injuries when he was arrested for breaking into that apartment to steal the ring. This is used to make Guandique a suspect in Chandra's disappearance a week earlier, as if she had fought him off.

I write in Murder on a Horse Trail, in chapter Guandique:

Chandra disappeared May 1, and Guandique was arrested May 7 for burglary. His landlady pinpointed his arrest as when he had facial injuries. This was a few days after Chandra disappeared and is used to make Guandique a suspect. If this is true, such memorable facial injuries should appear in Guandique's May 7 mugshot.

True, Guandique is a predator, but a predator who didn't know Chandra. Whoever took her jewelry didn't pawn it, and they hid her body. That sounds like a predator all right, but a predator who knew Chandra.

end quote


The police have never seen fit to release that mugshot taken at his arrest to show those facial injuries the landlady used to date his injuries to just after Chandra's disappearance. The police act like they would just as soon let the case go away with maybe Guandique the murderer, maybe some other predator the murderer, but just go away.

As I wrote, it was a predator all right, but a predator who knew Chandra.

rd

[rd]

I don't know how bad a guy the aide Dayton is, other than that he has apparently been willing to lie repeated to protect his boss, but I doubt he would have helped kill someone just to make sure Condit got re-elected. Still, sometimes people who start out decent can get sucked in gradually, deeper and deeper, until they find themselves so deeply implicated that it is too late to bail out, unless and until it appears the plot is in imminent danger of unraveling. Also, remember Condit gave big raises to his staff right after the Chandra thing happened. Plainly he was out to keep his staff loyal, and I'm sure he worked overtime to keep Dayton's fealty.


Condit appeared to have a driver in Dayton, but that was only after the media started chasing Condit around. Before that they biked (bicycle) separately to work or Condit took a taxi. Dayton is a triathlete and riding his bike to work was part of his training. He normally wouldn't even have a vehicle at work to give Condit a ride.

Yet he is said by Condit, the second time he gave a timeline to police, to have given Condit a ride home the day Chandra disappeared. The rest of the week he never gave Condit a ride home.

The first timeline given to police Condit said he was with a reporter at the Tryst, but when ABC's Rebecca Cooper got a hold of Condit's timeline by asking for it and chief of staff Mike Lynch gave it to her, then later chewed out for it, Cooper saw that her own meeting with Condit at the Tryst the next day wasn't even in Condit's timeline. She called Condit's office and the police to try to straighten it out, but got no answers. The timeline was changed and given to the police again, whom Condit thought would be the only ones seeing it, and now Dayton is giving Condit a ride home that day instead.

Had Dayton given him a ride and Condit was trying to hide it, or was a ride from Dayton a last resort to hide what he really did? Many questions need to be asked of Dayton under penalty of perjury about the afternoon Chandra disappeared. Dayton is the only person who claims to have seen Condit that afternoon after a meeting with VP Cheney. In Murder on a Horse Trail chapter Alibi you will see a whole chapter of questions including who called the meeting with VP Cheney and when.

I do discount drivers, pending many answers from Dayton that are believable, but I do not discount Condit's other brother Darrell. Darrell was working a temp construction job in Ft. Lauderdale at the time. The Star, located locally in Boca Raton, reported that other workers said he was gone for a couple of weeks around May 1, and that he came back walking with the aid of a cane.

Made up by the Star or not, Darrell was a six year fugitive from both Florida and Condit's and Chandra's home district in California at the time, and Condit had bailed him out of a Florida jail about the same time he started dating Chandra, with no one in law enforcement for some reason catching that Darrell was a fugitive from two states, including their state of Florida. When the heat was on from the press and Darrell was found, someone hired a former Watergate lawyer for him, bailed him out for $50,000,, and then lost their $50,000 as Darrell skipped bail yet again. It is a certainty that the $50,000 bail was cash. No bail bondsman would have covered that one.

Who wanted Darrell out of jail so bad, and why? Any reasonable investigation into Chandra's murder would determine whether Darrell had pay records for May 1 and the days surrounding it for his temp job or not. Ruling him out as involved would go a long way to help rule out Condit. Instead, no alibi for Darrell, along with no alibi for Gary, means that investigators would be a long way from ruling Condit out as a suspect.

An important point concerning Darrell as drug user fugitive from justice, with a 30 page rap sheet and time spent in federal prisons in five states, is that of plausible denial. Darrell is a hardened criminal. He knows not to incriminate himself. Even if he were to somehow have been incriminated, Condit has plausible denial. His brother may have done something stupid, perhaps somehow involving the missing expensive Tag Heurer watch that could be pawned for drug money, but it is plausibly deniable that Condit would have anything to do with the lifelong criminal acts of his brother. A hardened criminal who has everything to lose by talking is important, and so is plausible denial.

rd

[rd]

If Chandra was picked up by or met Condit the afternoon of May 1, no accomplice was needed. Condit could have killed her -- e.g. by strangling her with a necktie during sex or mock sex at a motel in Luray or anyplace nearby -- could have left the body somewhere and gone back to DC that night.


Chapter Alibi in Murder on a Horse Trail delves into all the questions concerning Condit's whereabouts on the afternoon of May 1, 2001, when Chandra disappeared. There is nothing more important when a woman disappears than her intimate's alibi to help clear them, told during an intensive police polygraph interrogation.

Anything less is failure to help the police clear the de facto prime suspect and let them move on to other avenues to explore as quickly as possible. Condit did none of this.

Among the many fascinating tidbits in an examination of the timelines Condit gave police is that Condit was unaccounted for from 10 minutes before Chandra logged off the internet till early evening, five and a half hours later at the soonest. Chandra's apartment at the Newport just happened to be 10 minutes from the Capitol where Condit had his meeting with VP Cheney, a meeting requested by Condit, just when requested being an important question to get answered. From Chapter Alibi:


So no verifiable alibi for the whole afternoon when Chandra disappeared. He didn't vote until 6:30 pm. That is five and a half hours from when Condit left the meeting with Cheney until he voted, with only Dayton vowing to have been with him, except when Condit "may have gone to the gym". Five and a half hours is extreme, but given that Dayton told Joleen McKay that talking about the past "will ruin you", essentially unalibied.



The votes at 6:25 and 6:35 pm (CNN) were described as "resolutions involving autism and supporting National Charter Schools Week" (Newsweek), "symbolic measures concerning autism awareness and charter school awareness" (Doyle).

Michael Doyle of the Modesto Bee also reports that:


The Congressional Record for that day's activities also show Condit submitting a prepared statement praising the retiring sheriff-coroner of Merced County, Tom Sawyer.

"He is a respected member of the law enforcement community and is known for his dedication to the community," Condit's statement averred. "Since becoming sheriff he has overseen a department that has grown by leaps and bounds."

Getting such statements into the Congressional Record is a routine matter that's typically handled by staff. By about 7 p.m, the new schedule shows, a staffer had driven Condit back to his condo.


Doyle, Michael. " Condit's schedule checks out. " Modesto Bee 22 July 2001.


A staffer normally handles inserting such statements into the Congressional Record. Did a staffer submit that statement and make the symbolic votes in the evening hours of the day Chandra disappeared? Did Condit submit the statement to the Congressional Record himself, highly unusual in itself, and if so, at what time and why the day Chandra disappeared of all days to act out of character, with character being loosely defined here?

rd

[benn]

There it also the un-named doctor, or chiropractor, that Condit is supposed to have visited on May 1. Seeing a doctor, or saying that he had seen a doctor could have been a planned excuse for Condit, as part of his timeline. It could be argued that seeing a doctor is a private matter and therefore need not be discussed, or explained.

Did Condit see a doctor on May 1, 2001? He said he talked to an ABC reporter on May 1, and that turned out to be not true.

One part of Condit's behavior that can not be overlooked is that by dating women and keeping them secret, he was following a line of conduct that looks as if it would eventually get him voted out of office, if his voter base discovered at any time what he was doing. He was playing a high stakes game in dating many women. There was his own career as a Congressman at stake, and also at stake were the jobs of Cadee and Chad who were working for Governor Davis. How many fairly young men, such as Chad, are being paid $150,000 a year? Condit had a lot to lose if his women friends were discovered, found out, or talked to. Any one of the women could have began talking to her friends or relatives and put Condit's job, and the jobs of his children, in instant danger.

Chandra had began talking about Condit, to her relatives. Did Chandra then really ask Condit about Jennifer Thomas? The FBI could not even talk to Jennifer, and this in a murder case. Could any high politician, or politicians, have swayed the FBI? Many Democrats were unwilling to see that Condit had did any wrong, or that he had anything to do with Chandra's disappearance, until he started pulling fiascos, such as the Connie Chung interview.

So as it stands now the public has to wait for private attorneys in private practice to possibly obtain more information from former Congressman Condit. Very possibly they will obtain more information also, and even Condit himself is very apt to unknowingly, or unwillingly, give our more information. Something like that occurred when his attorney Cotchett told the news that Carolyn had been in Washington when Chandra disappeared. Even attorneys tell more truth than they want to sometimes. Good for them.

benn

[rd]

Good point about the unintentional slips, benn. Another critical one was Lynch handing out the timeline to ABC reporter Rebecca Cooper when she asked for it. Condit went berserk when he found out what Lynch had done. He hadn't instructed Lynch to stonewall, since Lynch was out there everyday telling reporters what a good guy Condit was in helping the police and that would have made it obvious he wasn't.

Only the police, the DC police, yeah, those guys who don't ask congressmen questions, only they were supposed to see that timeline, not a reporter who knew it was a lie and called the police, even though that one reporter he chose as a lying alibi was someone he had formerly dated and may have felt he could use for some reason without being uncovered by her.

If so, she and ABC didn't hesitate to call the police. But the DC police couldn't be bothered to even talk to her. It's a congressman, don't you know. We don't investigate congressmen whose mistresses happen to disappear.

rd

[benn]

This is sort of like a chess game, rd. There are always new moves to be made, as long as we don't get checkmated. I think there are always new moves that we can make, no matter where we are on the chess board. The rules are a little different here than in chess.

benn