Posted on 02/27/2002 7:55:44 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Vince Flammini, the former driver for Gary Condit who claims a thirty year friendship with the embattled congressman, said Wednesday that Condit once told him his friends would help him bury a body if needed.
Flammini offered the bizarre revelation during an exchange on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes":
SEAN HANNITY: Is he capable of being responsible for (Chandra Levy's murder)?
FLAMMINI: It would have to be an accident. But he's capable of covering it up if it was an accident.
HANNITY: What do you mean? That doesn't make sense, Vince. Would she slip and fall and hit or head? You know....
FLAMMINI: Or maybe, who knows? Maybe a sex drug? Maybe something like that. But Gary Condit would not murder anybody.
ALAN COLMES: But you're saying, Vince, you believe that he knows more than he's saying and that there's more to this story that he is aware of that he refuses to share with anybody.
FLAMMINI: That's true. That's exactly what I'm saying. He would say it no matter what.
COLMES: Did he ever talk to you about what he would do if he ever got caught with a woman? How to act in a situation like that?
FLAMMINI: No, he never - we never talked about that. The only thing he ever said to me that was strange was, he said something years ago. He said, "No matter what I do my friends - if something happened - if I killed somebody they'd help me bury the body."
COLMES: He said that to you?
FLAMMINI: He said that to me once, yeah.
COLMES: What made him say that? What was the context of that statement?
FLAMMINI: We were just talking. It was just conversation between two guys.
COLMES: And his friends are so.....
FLAMMINI: ...how much he wants you to be close to him and be able - but he did say them words to me. He says, ah - I says, "What about this and what about that?" And he says, "Oh, if I killed somebody she'd help me bury the body." And I said, "What a thing to say."
Also, did anybody catch what Carolyn is filing a lawsuit over? The tabloid story regarding her having a blow-up conversation with Chandra on the telephone. I've always believed that when somebody says for example, "It's not about the money", you can bet it is about the money. By this I mean, with ALL of the stories that were out there about Carolyn, (not the least being the rumor that she didn't have thumbs), why zero in on this particular story to sue over. I have always believed that this story was absolutely true. So, file a lawsuit just to show EVERYBODY how wronged you've been by this horrible "lie", and maybe somebody will believe it. And, where are the phone records? I honestly believe Carolyn Condit is up her dreary little brain-washed eyeballs in this. Carolyn could easily be the "she" that would help get rid of a body. Gary's not talking, period, because he knows he could slip and implicate Carolyn. The kids are defensive of "Gary" because he's protecting "Carolyn", and Carolyn's got enough dirt on Gary to put him away for a long time.
This whole freaking brain-washed, brain-dead family gives me the willies!
As far as Carolyn's $10 Million dollar law suite, it will probably settle out of court if it hasn't already. The article about the Grand Jury putting Gary and his staff under oath conveniently left out Carolyn. You're right she is in it up to her eyeballs and they have all circled the wagons around her. She just happened to be in DC at the time of Chandra's dissapearance when she only goes there a couple times a year. Yea, right. I think she found out Chandra was living with Gary and she felt threatened because of it, unlike the other affairs Gary had. So that's why she went out to DC to put a stop to it.
Did you see the latest picture of Carolyn? She looked like a skeleton. I think she is his weakest link and they all know it. Gosh, wouldn't it stretch the imagination and believability if something happened to her?
Actually, with as sickly as she looks, and as emotionally abused as she obviously has been, who would question a suicide? Condit's only slightly less scary than Hitlery.
Thank you for coming out and saying this. Now I finally know where you stand: You do not care if there is proof or not. You will remain convinced he is responsible.
This is why you will never be allowed to sit on a jury.
So you are saying she could not have left her apartment for any other reason? Someone could have called from the lobby and asked her to come downstairs to pick up a package. I used to work at a hotel (the DoubleTree Guest Suites in Houston) where people had to come down to pick up any mail they had including packages. It is not unreasonable to assume the same goes in apartment hi-rises.
Those that know him intimately, AMS, Flamingo, both say he's capable of being involved in her disappearance, albeit with different perconditions from both of those.
But would they be able to state, for the record, that he did? I am capable of hurting people very badly if I get really mad. But you are not going to see me actually intentionally hurt someone.
He said he had a Doctor's appointment but has never revealed what Doctor.
Who asked him this? The cops? If so, then please cite. If not, then whomever asked should know it is really none of his business.
Word is, Gar don't go to doctors.
Whose word is that? Please cite.
His various statements about when he was last in touch with her don't make sense. His statement to AMS "I may have to disappear for a while."
Not only is this indeed hearsay (and something prosecutors would have a whole lot of fun trying to get declared admissable), but he did not exactly "disappear", did he?
You are obviously not familiar with the term "totality of circumstances."
As you seem to be unfamiliar with the term "reasonable doubt."
The law has already searched his home, and found nothing (Sure, he had time to clean his home, but you forget, his wife lived there, too. While she may have been privy to Condit's adultery, I find it hard to believe she would be a party to a cover-up of kidnapping and quite possibly murder. And even if she was, they still found a blood spatter on a window blind. It was not Chandra's.). You had a journalist follow Condit to an out of town dumpster where he threw away a watchbox. Guess what? That was not Chandra's either.
Any prosecutor that tried to get so much as an arrest warrant, let alone an indictment based on the current "evidence" you have cited would be laughed right out of court.
There is nothing there to hold on to. You may have a hard time with this, but it is true. I think it is high time you and your "Condidit" pals gave it a rest.
Listen Pali, that was your assertion not mine. Proof is determined in a court of Law it's the evidence that is accumulating now and at some point it may cross a threshold and Condit will hear the words "You have a right to remain silent...."
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.