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.
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.