Replies

Can anyone explain why a man with so much to lose --- a man who's as familiar, or more familiar, with the methods of law enforcement and the American judicial system as any other American --- would leave crucial evidence of a crime lying on public ground for months and months on end?

The kind of evidence left available to the police at this crime scene will be invaluable in the hands of a skilled analyst. Condit surely qualifies as someone who knows that. Why --- if he bludgeoned her there and then fled --- didn't he find a way to clean up the scene in the intervening months? Why --- if he had a goon kill her --- didn't he ascertain from the goon the location of the body and have the scene cleaned?

The risks of not cleaning up that scene --- of having hard evidence found that can be used in court --- far outweigh the risks of being spotted in the area in the middle of night while cleaning it.

Condit would not have left that evidence lying out there --- it doesn't make sense. It's the kind of mistake a typical, lowlife, which-way-did-he-go-George criminal with a history of violent crimes against women might make. But Condit?

I don't buy it.

Condit's no different from any other upscale murderer -- OJ, Einhorn, Capano, Blake, Skakel, etc. except that he appears to have been more effective at hiding the evidence of his crime than they were. It's unlikely the cops will ever be able to tie him to the crime on a forensic basis, both because of state of the body and crime scene, and because there are plenty of reasons for his hair, skin, semen, etc. to be found on her clothes, her body or in her apartment. Killing her and dumping her in the park was a no-brainer. Actually, doing something elaborate would have been the risky option -- because if you make one error, or have one bad break (think of Capano), it's gonna come straight back to you.

What is this silly thing people have about folks who wear a suit and tie commiting murder, anyway? It happens all the time. Get over it.

"The kind of evidence left available to the police at this crime scene will be invaluable in the hands of a skilled analyst. Condit surely qualifies as someone who knows that. Why --- if he bludgeoned her there and then fled --- didn't he find a way to clean up the scene in the intervening months? Why --- if he had a goon kill her --- didn't he ascertain from the goon the location of the body and have the scene cleaned?
The risks of not cleaning up that scene --- of having hard evidence found that can be used in court --- far outweigh the risks of being spotted in the area in the middle of night while cleaning it.
Condit would not have left that evidence lying out there --- it doesn't make sense. It's the kind of mistake a typical, lowlife, which-way-did-he-go-George criminal with a history of violent crimes against women might make. But Condit?

I don't buy it.

Buy it. As member of the Intelligence Committee, COndit would be familiar with portable GPS surveillance equipment as you are apparently not. For the naive, it means that once you are suspected, the police know your every move within 20 feet and how long you are at that spot. There was a recent forensic show on a murder suspect caught in just this way--he returned to the crime scene to clean up.

The police had a GPS on him and knew exactly where he had gone. (BTW, GPS watches are available so that you can know where your child/friend/mate is at all times).