Posted on 11/01/2010 2:04:07 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Well I would certainly HOPE they weren't intimate during that time.
Indeed, the author’s participle is dangling...
I assert that there was no American congressman more relieved about 9/11 than Gary Condit. Up until that day, he was #1 on the political news headlines.
It is no ones business but hers and his... and she is dead by the hands of someone else... and this man’s life was ruined because of it. Whether he slept with her or not, is not relevant in any way.
LLS
While I have absolutely no sympathy for Condit & his attentions to Levy, probing into his intimate relations with her isn’t a part of the murder trial.
He is not on trial.
The other creep is.
While there are 2 creeps in the courtroom at one time, this is out of bounds for the prosecutor to be asking, IMO. I would not have been nearly as polite as Condit.
I agree.
What if he did have something to do with it? No big deal, right?
While it may or may not have been relevant, he was there under oath and it should have been up to the judge to decide what he has to answer and to compel him if he refused.
I assume the defense wanted to imply he could have had a motive to be the killer? In any event, in effect he answered the question. It wouldn’t be difficult to say “no”.
No, Condit is not on trial. But, the defense attorney for "the other creep" is trying to create reasonable doubt that her client committed the crime.
With no physical evidence and a dubious confession, all she has to do is plant the seed of of doubt in the jury -- that maybe Condit really did it and her client is the fall guy.
If we assume that Condit is innocent of this crime and the other creep is guilty: Condit just made it more difficult to convict the other creep. Condit is acting like he is hiding something -- even admitting a relationship with Levy wouldn't have done as much damage to the prosecution.
You make not like the U.S. justice system, but it has a little thing called presumption of innocence. The accused has the right to present alternate theories of the crime. In this crime, per Occam’s Razor, Condit murdering her is a pretty good alternate theory, since he had a very strong motive to want her dead. If you don’t believe accused criminals should have this right, I suggest you form some kind of organization to change the laws.
Whether or not you would be as polite as Condit, he wasn’t sitting at a lunch counter having a casual conversation with the prosecutor and defense counsel.
He was called to testify at a murder trial and the judge obviously permitted him to be called in, and permitted these questions to be asked.
Therefore, unless there was a valid objection to the question upheld by the judge, Mr. Condit should have been instructed to answer. Or at least if either attorney insisted.
I might add, I can’t have as much sympathy for his privacy being invaded, since he was having this affair on our dime. And perhaps, in Levy would have lived, the lawsuit she filed would have been paid by taxpayers.
Last I heard witnesses cannot make objections -- why wasn't the prosecuting raising relevancy?
remember the other congressman, a collegue of Gary’s, that decided to leave office and go into the media right after Condit’s problems arose?
If he did have relations with her, he just committed perjury (if that was stated in court).
Joe Scarborough?
And the judge let him get away with that????????? Me or you would be sitting in a jail cited for contempt if we tried to pull a stunt like this.
Refusing to answer means yes. Everyone on the jury will see it that way. If the answer was no, he would have said no.
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.