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.
More important than motive and opportunity may be the fact that Chandra apparently voluntarily accompanied her killer 100 yards from the jogging trail. I don't think that Salvadoran guy was man enough to carry her that distance or stupid enough to try. That means the killer was someone she knew, the same someone she appointed to meet in the park, and probably someone who didn't want her to carry any identification.
Now, who does that sound like?