[SarahW]

No, you don't get it. *He* was the one saying he was "only" going after the walkman (not actually taken in either instance, even though the walkman was knocked clear of one victim). He disputed his victims intimations that he had been after THEM, but it seems pretty clear he was. He "stalked" his prey, grabbed them (not their audio equipment) from behind, and knocked one of them off the trail, held a knife at her chin and a hand over her mouth, telling her to be quiet and to stop screaming. His sort of crazy denial that he wanted anything but their walkman is typical of sex offenders. Even when they get caught after murdering their rape victims, some of these twisted fellows will make up lame excuses and try to deny the assault.

He had all the more reason to deny if he knew he'd killed one of his victims.

[willyboyishere]

Oh, no, SarahW, I do get it, and you seem to be the primary "Condit-didn't-do-it" apologist on FR. Your scenario conveniently leaves out all the suspicious evidence, like the fact that the last thing on Levy's computer was a Mapquest map of the Rock Creek Park area, the fact that dogs lost her scent immediately outside her front door, (suggesting she was picked up by car or motorcycle), and the assumption that she just had to go jogging that particular night. Your scenario, from a later thread, that Guandeque went through a "learning curve" by killing Levy in the first assault, and going on to two unsuccessful assaults following hers, is ridiculous in the extreme. The local DC police, inept as they seem to be, probably got it right this one time, when they discounted him from being Levy's likely assailant prior to the assaults he was convicted of.