And? So what? During my senior year in high school, I missed ONE day. Does that mean I was out doing something criminal?
That Thurs would have been a great time to "get rid of the body" or to do whatever else he had to do to clean up.
Speculation. Not fact.
No one else has suggested a connection with other Congressmen because they missed a vote, except you.
I was merely illustrating how absurd your accusation is. What you are saying is: Condit missed a few votes, therefore, he is responsible for the disappearance of Chandra Levy. I do not care what you may want to call that, but I see it for what it is, a Grand Canyon-sized leap in logic.
Again, lets argue from the facts. The holes in Condidit's alibi timeline gives him ample opportunity to be at Chandra's apt or meet her somewhere.
FACT: A packed suitcase, among other items, were found in her apartment.
Again you are not arguing from the facts. The watchbox was not at his home, but in his office. All trash thrown out from the Congressmen's offices is disposed of in a secure way so there was no need for him to single this watchbox out and drive miles away to dispose of it. The watch from this watchbox was an expensive gift from a previous girlfriend who he was having an affair with.
And you just answered your own question.
My question is: Why have a journalist follow Condit in a way that suggests he was being kept under some kind of suveillance? Why make a big deal out of something that was nothing?
Now, if he had given this watch to Chandra and the watch was found on her if they found the body then it strengthens his connection with her.
And yet, it was not, making your point speculative, again, and moot.
You know, before you start accusing people of not arguing from facts I think you should give yourself a good, long look in the mirror, cowboy.
I don't know, you tell me.
I was merely illustrating how absurd your accusation is. What you are saying is: Condit missed a few votes, therefore, he is responsible for the disappearance of Chandra Levy. I do not care what you may want to call that, but I see it for what it is, a Grand Canyon-sized leap in logic.
Don't put words in my mouth. That's not what I said at all. That's your non-sequetor logic speaking not mine. When talking about motive and opportunity for a crime this certainly speaks to the opportunity.
FACT: A packed suitcase, among other items, were found in her apartment.
Good, that's the first fact I've seen you post.
My question is: Why have a journalist follow Condit in a way that suggests he was being kept under some kind of suveillance?
I don't know. Maybe because he is acting like a guilty man.
Why make a big deal out of something that was nothing?
What nothing are you talking about. I gave you a list of six nothings (gaps in alibi,etc.) when taken in their totality are very significant. You on the other hand don't want to look at the whole picture.
You know, before you start accusing people of not arguing from facts I think you should give yourself a good, long look in the mirror, cowboy.
LOL! Priceless.