Replies

Well this certainly elevates the possibility of someone other than Condit doing it and that maybe it was a random killing but still i think that possibility remains small. For one thing, this particular predator (and there is no evidence that he is even a killer) doesn't strike me as competent enough to have killed someone and then hidden the body in such a way that it wouldn't be discovered for over a year. Especially if the body had indeed been buried. I mean, what, did he walk around with a shovel or something? I guess it's possible he could have returned later with a shovel and then buried her but if he goes through all the trouble to cover up the evidence and protect himself then why would he return only a week or two later to assault another woman and not even bother killing her, but instead leave her alive and able to later identify him? Plus there is the little problem of Chandra's trail apparently ending at the curb outside her apartment. So who picked her up? And why wouldn't that person have gone to the police with this information? Unless of course that person is the guilty party. And further why hasn't Condit ever come up with a precise accounting of what he was doing that day? If i remember correctly his people initially put out incorrect info and to this day it is still vague. And besides everything he has done since the time of her death has struck me and many others as being exactly what a guilty man would do (ie, lie and throw away potential evidence) instead of of what a normal person would do in order to help find out what happened to a friend/lover.

So to me Condit remains very much the prime suspect.

Why? 'cause Condit probably talked with or met with Chandra that day and didn't want anyone to find out. The setting, park woods with rugged terrain and lush growth in May - Aug make the failure to discover the body nothing remarkable, except for the fact that the DC police KNEW about these assaults in the park and didn't send cadaver dogs into the ravines around the trail.

You underestimate the effectiveness of the natural cover and overestimate the DC police's search effort.

Eventually a trail-wanderer brings a dog in the area who finds the remains. The only reason he didn't kill the first victim seems to be that he thought someone was coming. The only reason he didn't kill the first one after he got her off the trail with a hand over her mouth, is that she got away.

She felt him relax (he's subdued her with a knife and gotten her to shut up) for a moment, and bolted away. She was in good shape and lucky - he didn't catch her.

Chandra was a tiny girl. He might have hit hard in the head her to make her shut up. If he dragged her down a ravine, too, she might have been injured and less able to resist.

So who picked her up? And why wouldn't that person have gone to the police with this information?

Good question. Friend would have come forward and spoken up. Taxi driver, one would hope would come forward, it's not like her picture hasn't been everywhere. Even a bus driver one would hope would come forward. Whoever picker her up is involved.... one way or another.

And further why hasn't Condit ever come up with a precise accounting of what he was doing that day? If i remember correctly his people initially put out incorrect info and to this day it is still vague.

You are correct, heard someone yesterday address this, but I can't remember who, perhaps Rita Crosby.

And besides everything he has done since the time of her death has struck me and many others as being exactly what a guilty man would do (ie, lie and throw away potential evidence) instead of of what a normal person would do in order to help find out what happened to a friend/lover. So to me Condit remains very much the prime suspect.

I agree. But just to throw cold water on the theory that THIS guy had anything to do with Chandra's death...heh, the DC police are now warning reporters not to put to much stock in this theory.

I mean, come on, if the cops are outright now saying to pay this no mind than I go with the cops.