Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Condit Won't Discuss Having Sex With Levy (Chandra Levy Murder Trial)
UPI ^ | Nov. 1, 2010

Posted on 11/01/2010 2:04:07 PM PDT by nickcarraway

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 last
To: nickcarraway
I didn't do anything wrong."

He said that just after he lamented that we had lost our feeling for common decency."

41 posted on 11/01/2010 3:06:30 PM PDT by OriginalIntent (undo all judicial activism and its results)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Condit was never a suspect.

Then the investigators are idiots. The world was closing fast around Condit. His story line (alibi) for that day was a lie, and it was being discovered by sleuths everywhere around 9/10/2001. Luckily for Condit and not for America, the focus on him dropped out of sight the next day.

Condit was more suspicious than any potential murderer I have ever heard of, even in the cheapest budget films.

He had motive, opportunity, and plenty of biker connections. She was definitely desperate to hang on to him, and wasn't leaving her internship without trying to get a commitment from him.

Condit made her wear NO ID of any kind when she was coming to meet with him. She called her aunt and left a happy message for her the day she disappeared, saying that she had the best news! Then she looked up how to get to a section of Rock Creek Park, and left her home with absolutely no ID. She was never seen alive again.

Condit has no actual alibi for those hours. His appointment with Cheney had ended. He claimed an appointment with a reporter, but that had been the previous or a different day.

There have been all kinds of jailhouse confessions that were BS. My money is on Condidit.

42 posted on 11/01/2010 3:10:05 PM PDT by Yaelle (The tide is very, very low. Looks like a TEA-nami is approaching.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork

I signed up September 10, 2001 because I had something to scream about in the Condit case. Definitely dropped right off the radar the next morning. He is still a total sleaze in my book.


43 posted on 11/01/2010 3:26:48 PM PDT by Rutabega (European 'intellectualism' has NOTHING on America's kick-a$$ism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MrB

It was also the summer of the shark attack. The MSM was trying to figure out why sharks were so mad at us. Seems very trivial in retrospect.


44 posted on 11/01/2010 3:33:45 PM PDT by stayathomemom (Beware of cat attacks while typing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BluH2o
his apartment was searched for evidence and he was questioned by the Washington, DC police

He's probably still a suspect.

45 posted on 11/01/2010 3:38:52 PM PDT by alrea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun

If I remember correctly, there was indeed a Mrs. Condit (as well as a couple of children) who didn’t “understand” Mr. Condit.


46 posted on 11/01/2010 3:41:23 PM PDT by miss marmelstein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Having Condit sit there giving evasive answers like that does far more for the defense's case than answering the question outright.

I think there's a decent chance the alleged killer gets acquitted on this one.

47 posted on 11/01/2010 3:50:47 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Agreed. That is quite possibly why she didn't ask the court to compel a response.

Also makes me wonder if the prosecution moved in limine to exclude these questions and the court ruled against it. Otherwise I can't understand why they would sit by and let this obviously irrelevant line of questioning continue without objection.

48 posted on 11/01/2010 4:02:33 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This post is not a statement of fact. It is merely a personal opinion -- or humor -- or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
I don't think the line of questioning was all that irrelevant at all. If the defense's objective was to paint him as a possible culprit, then his testimony on that matter was certainly relevant. For that matter . . . what other reason would there be for Condit to even be on the witness stand in this trial at all?
49 posted on 11/01/2010 4:07:14 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Which raises a question -— was he called by the defense? If so the prosecution could have objected to the very fact of him testifying. And if the prosecution called him for their reasons (presumably foundational testimony) then the questions would be beyond the scope of direct as well as irrelevant.

The prosecution must have not objected for tactical reasons. I can't see why a judge would allow the defense to put him on without some preliminary showing of his potential guilt. Just plain sloppy [or cowardly] in my opinion if it was done over objection.

50 posted on 11/01/2010 4:17:59 PM PDT by BenLurkin (uestion about his sex life would be beyond the scope fo the direct examination as well as)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

I haven’t read everything about it, but from what I’ve seen, the prosecution doesn’t have enough evidence for a conviction.


51 posted on 11/01/2010 4:30:52 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle
My money is on Condidit

Yep, I agree. Can't believe it's approaching 10 years. Ok, closer to 9, but still hard to believe.

52 posted on 11/01/2010 4:33:41 PM PDT by Balata
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

It is relevant as to a possible motive of Condit and a defendant has a constitutional right to present a complete defense. If the only evidence is an alleged prison confession, Condit’s relationship certainly is relevant.


53 posted on 11/01/2010 4:41:11 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Obviously, the court must have ruled that the questions put to Condit were appropriate.

The prosecution didn’t call Condit because there he nothing he could say that would helpt the prosecutions case against the accused.

I don’t recall; but was the local prosecutor up for re-election at the time of the murder? If so, it is not impossible that for political purposes, charges were filed so as to look like progress was being made of the case. Wouldn’t be the first time something like that was done.


54 posted on 11/01/2010 4:52:57 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Do you think that it would be that hard for them to show potential guilt? He had motive. (She was telling people they had an affair, and was apparently pressuring him to take the next step. The police investigated him. The police saw him throwing a gift for her in a dumpster far from where he lived or work.) He had no alibi. Frankly, I see more evidence that Condit did it. All the prosecution has is a jailhouse snitch.


55 posted on 11/01/2010 4:59:44 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

He must have been called for the defense! Why else would he even be there? But a hostile witness nonetheless.

I believe he lured her to the spot, and probably appeared there himself in some rural area, so that she would trust, and then someone else did the deed.


56 posted on 11/01/2010 7:30:39 PM PDT by Yaelle (The tide is very, very low. Looks like a TEA-nami is approaching.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

While I completely agree with you, the watch he threw away was from a different woman.


57 posted on 11/01/2010 7:32:07 PM PDT by Yaelle (The tide is very, very low. Looks like a TEA-nami is approaching.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan

It will be interesting to see how the judge handles this situation.

LLS


58 posted on 11/01/2010 8:32:41 PM PDT by LibLieSlayer (WOLVERINES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork

59 posted on 11/01/2010 8:50:16 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: stayathomemom
"The MSM was trying to figure out why sharks were so mad at us"

They later switched it up to muslims.

60 posted on 11/01/2010 10:41:00 PM PDT by Senator Goldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson