Posted on 06/17/2002 12:40:26 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
WASHINGTON – How Chandra Levy died is still a mystery, but one thing is for certain: Gary Condit and his biker buddies didn't dump her body in a cave or lime pit in Luray, Va.
Those who speculated as much last year are strangely silent now that her remains have been recovered from a park just a few miles from her apartment. Luray is about 80 miles west.
When Anne Marie Smith revealed one night on CNN that Condit called her around midnight, May 17, 2001, from a McDonald's pay phone in Luray, it was perfect grist for the Condit-did-it crowd. My e-mail box was crammed with "leads" from amateur cyber-sleuths across the country.
I had to investigate, they implored. Why, Luray is a popular biker hangout, and Condit hangs out with bikers! The town is also famous for its caverns – there are "lime operations" there. Do we have to draw you a picture, Sperry? "Lime operations," stressed someone who actually had motored out to the McDonald's to poke around. What better place to dump a body! Another sent photos of a mysterious shed.
But there was more.
That same day, noted yet another Luray lemming, Condit missed House votes, something he rarely did. Therefore, he obviously was up to no good way out there in the Shenandoah Valley!
And don't forget how Condit cryptically told Smith he couldn't see her because he "had some business to take care of." You know what that means!
Alas, no one at the time believed the simple explanation I offered for Condit's apparently unscheduled and admittedly odd day-trip.
Just two days earlier, D.C. police detectives had interviewed the congressman at his Adams Morgan apartment for about 45 minutes. They had information that he was seeing Levy, a Justice Department intern. If the cops knew about the affair, it was just a matter of time before the Washington press knew. Condit no doubt figured it would be a good idea to get out of town and make himself scarce. A married man with a Boy Scout image, he was hiding from a burgeoning sex scandal; he wasn't hiding a body. (I'm sure he had the same rationale for hiding evidence of a gift – the watch – from another woman.)
Of course, the Condit-did-it crowd thought the worst – that he felt a new urgency to hide Levy's body in a better spot, now that the cops had tied him romantically to her.
A guy who fancies himself an investigative reporter was so convinced he'd solved the case, he took the working press and cops to task for not following up on his "sleuth-work."
"The Luray connection to the Condit-Levy case, as detailed by this writer at EtherZone.com, continues to be underreported in the establishment media," Todd Brendan Fahey huffed.
"If nothing more than to rub the noses of D.C. police and FBI in their own pathetic investigation of Chandra Levy's disappearance and Gary Condit's role in it, I will continue to do the sleuth-work that others are being paid well to do," he puffed.
He went on to lay out his case on his "intelligent alternative" newssite that Levy's body was in the Luray area, and suggested that Condit, with the help of his aides, "relocated her corpse."
Even National Review Online bit on the Luray angle in a column by NRO Editor Jonah Goldberg's mother, who quizzed Condit accusatorially: "What is there to do in Luray, Va., after sundown?"
That's easy: Duck the Washington press.
Enough Luray lunacy. As I concluded last year, after wrestling with my own doubts about his innocence, Condit more than likely had nothing to do with Levy's death. The guy who may have some answers, though, is in a federal prison in North Carolina.
Yet you don't see Fox News cameras staked out there. Why? Because he's not a Democratic congressman – he's just a young Salvadoran immigrant. One who attacked a young woman in the same park two weeks after Levy disappeared, and who struck again some 45 days later. Both his victims, like Levy, were wearing Sony Walkman headphones when he jumped them from behind. Fortunately for them, they managed to escape (one of the women, a journalist, stands 5 feet, 10 inches, and is "real buff," a former colleague told me). Levy, at 5-3 and 110 pounds, wasn't so lucky.
In January 2001, roughly four months before Levy went to the park, a fourth woman was raped and murdered there.
Four attacks of female joggers in the same park in six months is a pattern. A man has confessed to two of the attacks. Hopefully, police are questioning him about the other two.
Levy may not have been a regular jogger, but she worked out on a regular basis. Recall that she had canceled her gym membership just before she disappeared (with only her apartment keys). In the few remaining days she had before returning home to California, perhaps she decided to take a jog at the big park up the street, and perhaps that's why she looked up a map of the park on the Internet that afternoon. Her sunglasses were found with her remains, so she likely left for the park right after she got directions.
C'mon, her body wasn't "dumped" there, either, nor did she meet anyone there (why take headphones if you expect conversation?). She went there alone, like the other women, to jog.
The Luray loons, for one, owe Condit an apology for their reckless speculation. There's no doubt now that they were wildly wrong.
Others among the Condit-did-it crowd also will be eating crow, I suspect, just as soon as the real suspect is arrested. Hint: They're the same ones – some of them big-name TV personalities, one of them a congressman-turned-columnist – who aren't covering the Levy case round-the-clock anymore, and are no longer giving as much currency to Smith and her live-in-lawyer's invectives.
Not because Levy's body was found, but because they know Condit didn't do it – or at least they know they can't get away with suggesting that he did any longer.
And therein lies the real scandal: For some media, it never was about finding a missing girl or solving a murder mystery. It was about ratings. And so long as there was room to speculate that a popular sitting congressman was involved in a young mistress' death, that was the story.
Getting to the truth, it's now plain to see, was secondary.
That was a spirited defense of Condidit.
And I have problems with the alleged prime suspect who was so inept at sneaking up on women that his last two got away. And why were no personal belongings removed from Chandra if the perp had a thing for Walkmen? I'm yet to be convinced.
The dodge that Condit was "trying to hide evidence of an affair" is just the tip of the iceberg. He misled Chandra's parents and stonewalled the press for months. It took three interviews before the police got him to fess up to the affair. And who can forgrt the "creepy" interview with Connie Chung?
I'm not sure the Luray angle had anything to do with Chandra's death but I'm less convinced some stalker-killer got worse at his M.O. as he gained more experience at it.
I'm not ready to let Condit off the hook. But Sperry is right about one thing - for the media it was all one big tittilating ratings-grabber to make up for the non-intern-abusing occupant in the White House. The media just can't keep their minds out of the gutter.
And if Todd Fahey is still lurking (I doubt it), nice job, loony tune!
The Salvadorean guy and the serial killer are red herrings, fed to the media by Geragos to distract attention from his client, just like the earlier "mystery stalker" from Chandra's gym, and the "four arrest" felon living in Chandra's apartment complex. Chief Ramsay has said as much -- and he has every incentive to clear Condit and pin the crime on someone who's already in the slammer, of course. Condit's various slimeball attornees have been shilling the serial killer line from the git-go -- long before Chandra's remains were found. Condit pushed the line subtly in his letter to constituents last year...
I pray that she has not met the same fate as the other young women who have disappeared from the same neighborhood.The folks who are closest to this case, the ones most familiar with the evidence, are the Levys' PIs. They are in no doubt who the prime suspect for the killing is: Chandra's significant other, Gary Condit. I'm inclined to think they know what they are talking about.
Sperry doesn't have Clinton's red face in his face in the Rose Garden to put him in the news. Sperry's a good guy, God knows why he wrote this drool!
Most likely because he no longer works for a credible news organization (he was with IBD, if I recall), he's hungry for an angle, an "in," and Geragos saw that weakness and exploited it. Actually, I believe it goes back to before Geragos -- I think I first noticed that he was being used as a conduit for condit back in the good old days when Abbe Lowell was running Condit's defense.
The big park up the street, was what, 4 miles away..? Young, well-to-do, good looking women dont walk DC streets alone, without money..!
Yeah, that was my sense too.
Second, the fate of the last two victims for which he is in jail is due only to luck plus resistance. If he tackled Chandra off the path like victim #2, she may never have had a chance to give effective resistance.
She was going to the press and tell all.
Walking into any media operation large or small and claiming that you can prove you had sex with a Congressman is worthless. Ninety percent of the media guys have had sex with female journalism interns. The other 10 percent of the media did not have sex with female interns because they are gay. They had sex with gay male interns. Media types consider themselves superior to regular society. Anyone who has spent more than 2 hours in the Washington Press Corp knows that is a fact and knows they tend to enjoy the physical pleasures using lesser or aspiring mortals. You couldn't get Dan Rather to look up from his desk. The only reason Chandra was a story was becaused she was killed. The only reaction to her vist to the media to expose condit would have been after she left. Some wag in the news room would say, "It must be a rule. In your mid fifties it does not matter if you are a congressman or president. All you can get are the fat and ugly ones." It would not make the news or the wire. It would have gotten a mild laugh. Anyone with washington media or political experience has to know that the only way Condit could get any media attention about his relationship with Chandra was if she was killed. So they believe when she threatened to go to the media he did the one and only thing that could get the story in the media. RIGHT!!!.2. Chandra threatened to tell Condit's wife.
So the situation is, Condit has been accused of having sex with an intern and then killing her. What did his wife do when this happend? She stood behind Condit 100 percent, is what happened. They motive geniuses are saying "His wife stood behind him when he only had sex with an intern and then killed her. Sure she would stand behind him for that. But if he hadn't of kllled Chandra and only had sex with her, his wife would have dropped him in a New York minute, and condemed him to the world. He had to kill her . How else could he guarantee his wifes support. Sure she stands behind a guy that cheats and kills. But a guy that only cheats... Hey No way!!!" Does that work for You?3. Condit was hung up on Chandra and killed her in a jealous rage.
That is wild. Everyone says Condit has has dozens if not
hundreds of woman.. very much like Clinton. To men like
Condit and Clinton having sex with a female is like having
a female fix him a sandwich. There is zero committment on
his part. Condit killing Chandra makes about as much sense
as Clinton killing the grill worker at a Mickey Dees
because she made a Big Mac for another guy.
Sexual Fidelity in marriage is applied by these men and the women who marry them in the same way we apply marriage fidelity to our relationship with the grill cook at McDonalds. Hillary and Mrs. Condit react to
infidelity the same way your wife would if the McDonalds
grill cook told her, "I fixed your hubby a Big Mac for
lunch. Not only that he wanted have fries with it and I
fixed them for him, too."
When that gets you in divorce court, having sex with
an intern will get Condit and Clinton there too.
It is plain to anyone who has been around people like
Clinton and Condit that either would be more likely to kill
the sandwich provider at a fast food joint than a sex
provider at the office. To such people marriage is no more
about sexual fidelity than it is about hamburger and fries fidelity.
What is truely frightening, especially for those in the media, is they have made it easier for the killer to get away with it. The Cops spend all their time playing games with Condit and the media, rather than trying to find the body or the killer. They searched Condit's appartment a lot better than they did the park. Those who have gone public with "Condit did it" are very ignorant of the thought processes of serial killers. Serial killers of females get great pleasure in getting away with it. But for some strange reason, they also are angry when others are given "credit" for their murders. Talk to the criminologists who specialize in serial killers and that is what you will be told.
One way their twisted minds react to those that "give the credit" to the wrong person, is to imagine killing the females close to those that don't give them credit. Would a serial killer act it out? I don't know. But I suspose they could.
A lot of the "Condit did it" people in the media and the public must be very brave... or very ignorant of how the minds of serial killers work.
Oh please. You do talk such a lot of gibberish. It is perfectly clear from Condit's lifestyle -- the secrecy, the separate cabs, the getting off at the wrong floor, the fake names, the strict rules, the bodyguards, the neckties under the bed, the gang bangs, the body shaving, etc. -- that Condit had ample motive to kill a wayward "bitch." Just look at the guy's face -- he's a white trash psycho, just like his brother, only with a manicure and a $100 haircut. His actions since Chandra's disappearance make it perfectly clear that he is the killer. It's perfectly bloody obvious to anyone with a lick of sense.
Was that you twigs? I remember your account of your visit quite well and thank you again for posting it last year.
Sperry seems quite cocky of his position that Condit didn't do it. I felt the same way until they found Chandra's remains in the same park that Condit used to ride his bike, etc.
I'm not certain that Condidit, but I'm leaning that way now, especially with his shady timeline that was twice corrected before he released it to the general public; once about the length of time spent with the Veep and the other about his dinner or drinks with the ABC news babe that actually occurred one night later. (I'm going from memory, pls feel free to correct my recollection if faulty)
Quite frankly, I don't know whether Condit did it or not. But I do believe he knows, or suspects, who did if he did not. I also believe that Chandra stumbled onto a story much larger than just she and Condit. He always seemed to me to be much more afraid of something else than he was being accused of murder. That really has to be something huge! I'm still bothered that he remains on the intelligence committee. And I still believe that all of this is somehow linked to Condit's presence in Luray that rainy night last May.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.