Posted on 05/29/2002 5:25:09 AM PDT by Starmaker
I also think that the Levy's mishandled their loss by playing to the media, by doing the whole thing long range from California, and by being basically too weird to take seriously.
No matter who may eventually be convicted, no matter who actually did the crime, media and the police blew this thing big time and from the start.
The popular rush to indict Condit also has a ring of nastiness to it that does not befit or do justice to anyone involved - particularly the populace represented here on FR.
None of the responses in this thread so far have addressed the main points of the article - why did the police not admit to another potential suspect? Why did the police not actually search the area fully as they were so eager to make the public balieve they had? Why must it take so long for fundamental elements of the case to become public knowledge when the probably trivial details of Condit's sex life have been speculated on until the idea of a 'gay haitian biker (from outer space)" has been accepted as common knowledge and fact?
Maybe of most interest to me would be why was the democrat establishment so totally willing to toss the boy overboard?
Hey...Mr. wku man....our President said we should go about living our lives, otherwise the terrorists win......and what the heck are you doing reading threads under "Why Did Washington Police and Media Lie About Chandra And Condit?" anyway....sounds like you should be hangin' at the "Breaking News" ONLY! ;>) LOL!
First of all, they didn't know where Chandra Levy went? I recall a report about the use of a bloodhound, who lost the sent on the street, implying that she was picked up in a car. Second of all, that guy attacked two women jogging, but didn't kill them. Usually, these creeps start of with assaults and build up to murder, not the other way around. Third of all, for a non- or occassional jogger to suddenly go off on a minimum 8 mile jog is to me, not credible. In reports from her friends, they say she was very security conscious and would not likely go off jogging thru the park like that.
Because he is only a Congressman and he was hurting them by generating bad PR plus the bad PR could, and probably will now, go on for a long time with no end in sight.
Clinton was hurting them with bad PR, too, but also was President with huge abilities to help them out in countless ways, as well. Condit didn't have that benefit.
A single Congressman is rarely that important to any party unless he/she is Speaker of the House or from a district that's really crucial for some reason. Most Congressmen by far are just not that high on the DC totem pole.
If you check Reagan's web site (not kept current since she left), you might find a variety of articles that she wrote. And if you are conservative ... you probably would like the tone of the majority of her articles.
I too disagree with her writing her ... but have read enough of her articles to give her a fair hearing, and given her "track record", I won't "dis" her, because I think that she is calling it as she sees it, and isn't going to give it a different flavor because the "perp" is a scum-bag Democrat.
Just my opinion. One article (this one) - won't cause me to dump reading Mary Mostert.
Mike
She immediately emailed me back asking for any circumstantial proof of my opinion that he was guilty. She also mentioned that she was a republican.
I suggest that republican on the coasts is far left to most of us.
If anyone can point to any aspect of innocence in Condit's behaviour since the knowledge that he had been involved with Chandra, I'd like to hear of it.
What is Chief Ramsey´s definition of "clue?"
Whatever the definition, it is most probably glazed.
He's got a black patch over his left eye and only 3 teeth... trust him.
Don't worry about ID or a wallet... you won't need it where you're going.
I'll meet you in his basement by the airtight door to the cold-storage.
Help him carry those bags of lime into the cellar.
How about all those that may have been murder by a political leader with a lot of clout, in order to cover up corruption. I personally have very little interest in the issue other than the fact that I don't like people in power abusing that power. Is is wrong to worry (a little bit?) about that?
We have a sample size of two. Far too small to draw any conclusions.
The media and the Democrats going full force after Condit was nothing more than making up for its attitude towards Clinton. Granted Gray really did win folks over with his TV interview. Being an awful interview subject doesn't make you a murderer.
The only thing that bothers me in this case is that Condit supposively discarded a watch gift box in a trashcan where he didn't live.
That's what Ted Bundy's friends said too.
Indeed. And it apperars that writer Mary Mostert agrees with you on that, per her article on the subject *here*.
-archy-/-
They are communist scum. They hate America.
They and the liberals [communists and the political correctness crowd] have destroyed the ntion.
All generalities are untrue.
The media, like the cops, largely do the bidding of their masters, whether it's for the good of the country or not. They, like most of us, are far more interested in their current paychecks and future retirement than any nearly-forgotten guiding principles of a declining once-great nation.
But they do have an instinctive sense of what they need to do if they are to survive in their rat-eat-rat world. And they have seen what has happened to their fellows who have stepped out of line.
-archy-/-
Are you seeing the same Mr. Levy that I'm seeing? That guy looks like a complete washout. The Mother looks like the strong one. Anyway, what kind of upbringing makes a young woman like Chandra seek such an abusive "romantic" relationship?
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.