Posted on 05/27/2002 2:09:57 AM PDT by kattracks
The flame-haired flight attendant who says she had an affair with California Rep. Gary Condit said yesterday she could have wound up like Chandra Levy — dead in a Washington park."It could have been me," said Anne Marie Smith, who plans to attend Levy's memorial service tomorrow.
Speaking for the first time since the missing 24-year-old intern's remains were discovered in Rock Creek Park last week, Smith told Fox News Channel she was "devastated."
Smith also said she feels sorry for Condit, who was ousted from office after the scandal over Levy's disappearance and their affair erupted.
Police have quizzed Condit about Levy's disappearance but say he is not a murder suspect.
"I really feel like he created bad karma for himself," Smith said. "If he wasn't involved, he should have been forthright and admitted 'I made a mistake'" by hiding his affair with Levy.
Condit has denied having an affair with Smith.
A grand jury has been looking into allegations Condit obstructed justice by asking Smith to lie about their alleged affair.
Smith has not been called before the grand jury.
"The bottom line is that there was a type of coverup going on as far as I was concerned," Smith said. "What else was he trying to cover up? How many other people did he ask to sign an affidavit?"
Condit, who was believed to be with his wife and grown children at their Modesto, Calif.-area home, did not respond to Smith's allegations and could not be reached for comment.
Smith's lawyer, Jim Robinson, said she will be among the thousands attending Levy's memorial service in Modesto.
He said Smith made the decision to go after consulting Levy's aunt, Linda Zamsky, and godmother, Fran Iseman, with whom she became close during the year-long search for Levy.
The search for Levy ended last week when her remains were found in Rock Creek Park in Washington. Levy, who vanished on May 1, 2001, will be memorialized at a community center in her hometown of Modesto that holds 2,000 people.
Condit has not said if he will attend Levy's memorial service.
He would get a chilly reception from Levy's parents, who have publicly criticized him for allegedly impeding the investigation — and for seducing their daughter.
"This is simply unbelievable."
Not really. They have no doubt put an agent in to relay her story. If they put her in they potentially create unnecessary impeachment evidence. (Very few witnesses testify exactly the same way twice.) As a general rule, the grand jury is used for officers and agents or witnesees who need to be "locked in" to their testimony by the prosecutor. Smith doesn't seem likely to change her hostile story about Condit.
BUMP!
The information she offered to law enforcement will, I hope, only seek to help in the case.
Oh, do you mean like Rebecca Cooper the ABC reporter who was rumored to have had an affair with Condit? Who was used as a false alibi for Condit on May 1st which was later withdrawn and changed to a three hour meeting on the day after Chandra disappeared. You mean witnesses like that?
Do you think she could give an accurate representation of Condit's state of mind and general demeanor on or about the time of Chandra's disappearance?
Or, do you mean witnesses like his staff who have gone to great lengths to cover for the Congressman? Gosh, there could be a long list here.
That's not the reason we think he did it. He had motive and opportunity. He had a 2 1/2 hour gap in his whereabouts at the time of Chandra's disappearance. He has been continually evasive about everything he knows connected to her, and he has changed his story about certain aspects. He initially pretended to help her parents in trying to find her, but he dragged his feet and in actuality refused to help by telling what he knew. He disposed of evidence in a bizarre and furtive manner. He tried to get the woman in this article to lie about their relationship. He has never taken an objective lie detector test. He made a complete, defensive fool of himself in the interview with C. Chung, and she even failed to ask several of the harder questions she could have asked (such as "Where is the WATCH?" after asking him about disposing of the watchbox--she never asked that one).
Chandra was exceptionally security concious due to her background connections with law enforcement. Serial killers get the naive and the unwary for victims. Chandra was neither. Chandra did not take her cell phone on her trip to RC Park despite being demonstrably very eager to hear from Condit.
I could go on and on, but my belief that "Condidit" is NOT based on his unfaithfulness to his wife.
What a pathetic take on people who stood up to the obvious obstruction and deceit this man engaged in when dealing with the family of Chandra, his fellow Congresspersons and police following her disappearance. I don't care about anyone's personal life, nor does anyone I know; we do care that witnesses (at the least) who have useful information in a now murder investigation, be candid and forthright with the investigators. For the record, Condit appears to have taken the fifth in front of the grand jury, and repeatedly lied to the police and the family and the public. So go stuff your accusations of hidden agendas in a trash bin out in the country somewhere.
I haven't followed the story that closely, but I know enough of the basics that I lean toward Condit being dirty on this in some way.
Having said that, can you explain "take it from someone who knows?"
Do you mean you? What do you know?
LOL! Maybe Rita Cosby could pry it out of Kasich.
Do you think she could give an accurate representation of Condit's state of mind and general demeanor on or about the time of Chandra's disappearance?"
Or, do you mean witnesses like his staff who have gone to great lengths to cover for the Congressman? Gosh, there could be a long list here."
I'm not sure that you get the point. I assume that Smith could give a very accurate picture of Condit's state of mind and general demeanor at the time of Chandra's disapperance. I assume she has done so for the authorities. It does not follow, however, that the prosecutors would want her in the grand jury. Under the Jencks Act, everything she testified to would automatically be turned over to Condit's lawyers if she were to become a witness at his trial. Most prosecutors do not want to unnecessarily create Jencks material. An agent can tell the grand jury what information Smith has provided to the authorities. She is not likely to change her story. As for the others you mentioned, they are precisely the type the prosecutors should bring in to the grand jury, either to: 1)lock them in; or 2)force them to tell the truth under oath. You "lock in" a witness when you fear he may change his testimony at a later date. Some other witnesses, who may lie in a police interview, will often tell the truth when forced to appear under oath and look the grand jurors in the eye.
You are so wrong, it's pathetic. How convenient for you to gloss over everything we know about this wretched man. You obviously know nothing about this case and have an agenda all your own.
But we all owe her a debt of gratitude for ending the career of a very crude, public trough swilling sleeze ball...
Semper Fi
Oh, I do get the point, maybe I should have used a sarcasm tag with my post.
I assume that Smith could give a very accurate picture of Condit's state of mind and general demeanor at the time of Chandra's disapperance. I assume she has done so for the authorities. It does not follow, however, that the prosecutors would want her in the grand jury. Under the Jencks Act, everything she testified to would automatically be turned over to Condit's lawyers if she were to become a witness at his trial. Most prosecutors do not want to unnecessarily create Jencks material. An agent can tell the grand jury what information Smith has provided to the authorities. She is not likely to change her story.
I fully understand this and agree with it, but my post had nothing to do with AMS, the stewardess. I was referring to Rebecca Cooper.
As for the others you mentioned, they are precisely the type the prosecutors should bring in to the grand jury...
Yes, that's my point. Now that this will apparently turn into a homocide investigation it is important to get these witnesses under oath and ask them the tough questions. I don't want witnesses such as Rebecca Cooper, who has been overlooked so far, to be overlooked by the GJ. The authorities apparently have not even interviewed some of the people who could shed the most light on Condit's timeline alibi for the day of and the day after Chandra's disappearance.
"No,there are a few of us,but we are definitely outnumbered by the "Condit was unfaithful to his wife,so he MUST be guilty of murder!" crowd. What it really amounts to is that most of these people want to see "cheating husbands" put in jail for life,and jump on any excuse they can find to justify it."
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Sneaky,...me thinks you've been drinking from the sheeple pond on this one. Condit didn't get the moniker ''Scary Conduct''..because he cheats on his wife & family. There's plenty of reported suspicious action by Scary..totally unrelated to the "unfaithful" issue.
FWIW-
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.