Why Did Washington Police And Media Lie About Chandra And Condit?

With the dawn to dark media hype and daily pronouncements from the Washington Police Department last summer over Chandra Levy´s disappearance and her supposed relationship with Congressman Gary Condit, why, do you suppose, everyone sort of "forgot" to mention that two women were attacked while jogging in Rock Creek Park?

And, why, do you suppose, it took the Washington Police Department TEN WEEKS to decide to search Rock Creek Park, when they had in their possession all that time Chandra´s computer showing her last action on it was accessing the Rock Creek Park Web site's home page?

Even after finally searching Rock Creek Park, which, we find now, took place only after the second girl was attacked at knife point by Ingmar Guandeque, who was arrested in July 2001 and convicted of assault on the two women and sentenced to 10 years in prison on February 8, 2002. Guandeque assaulted the two women on May 14, 2001 and July 1, 2001. The Washington Times reported after Chandra´s remains were found: "Both women were assaulted near Broad Branch Road, which is where Miss Levy's remains were found."

So, why did the Washington Police finally, in mid-July 2001 decide out of the blue to do a perfunctory search of Rock Creek Park? Could it POSSIBLY have been connected to the arrest of Guandeque and his admission that he attacked two women at knife point in the Park? At exactly that point in time DC Police Chief Charles Ramsey told CNN: "Right now we just don't have any clues that bring us any closer to finding Chandra,…"

The admission of a man who attacked two women at knife point in the same area Chandra Levy´s computer indicated she was researching the day of her disappearance is not a clue? What is Chief Ramsey´s definition of "clue?"

By July 2001 the media, and the D.C. police, were in full pursuit of Gary Condit, and Levy´s parents were demanding that he be given a lie detector test. The Police had leaked a claim that Condit "admitted" to a romantic affair with Chandra Levy, making him, at least in the eyes of the public, the prime suspect in the case. In spite of that, Condit TOOK a lie detector test and easily passed it.

ABC News reported on July 14, 2001 that the test was administered by Barry Colvert, a former FBI special agent who had conducted 3,000 polygraph exams and (taught other agents how to do it. At that point in time, Guandeque was in custody. No mention was made to the public about his arrest. Did Chief Ramsey and the Levys demand a lie detector test be given to Guandeque? Somehow, I doubt he would have taken it, under the circumstances.

In spite of all the clues leading the police to a thorough search of the Broad Branch Road area, until her body was found accidentally, the D.C. Police, according to their own admission, DID NOT SEARCH the steep slope below Broad Branch Road where Levy´s remains were found.

Does this strike anyone else besides me as incredibly inept? On July 7, 2001, CNN reported that "Rep. Gary Condit told Washington police he had a romantic relationship with 24-year-old former intern Chandra Levy, police sources who requested anonymity told CNN." This was six days after the police had Guandeque in their sights as a person who randomly attacked women in Rock Creek Point.

Was the "leak" intended to take pressure off the Washington Police? CNN´s report of a "romantic relationship" has since been adopted by the media, and much of the public, as an actual admission of adultery by Condit. Yet, all we have is a self-serving rumor out of the Washington police department. In an interview with Connie Chung of ABC, I reported on last August, Condit said he and Levy had a "close relationship" and he stoutly denied having any romantic relationship with Ann Marie Smith, the stewardess who claimed she had a "year long affair" with Condit.

What really happened between Chandra Levy and Gary Condit? Who knows? And, why is the same media that told us private lives are none of our business when it was President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky now so uptight over what kind of "close relationship" Condit and Levy had?

As a woman, the situation has all the earmarks of a one-sided romantic interest – with Chandra chasing Gary Condit, a married man. Chandra´s aunt, Linda Zamsky, said that Levy told her "she and Condit sometimes spent entire weekends at his apartment. She described conversations between the two of marriage and having a baby together after Condit left politics in five years."

Condit is 54 years old and has two grown children. Chandra was 24 and obviously looking for a husband and thinking about having a family. This sounds to me like a totally one-sided pipe dream of Chandra´s. In her scenario, Condit would be 60 years old when he broke up his 40 year old marriage, wrecked HIS family, to marry Chandra and have a baby.

How many 54-year-old busy, successful men who have been married to the same woman for thirty-six years and have grown children are talking about having babies with some chick younger than their children when they are over sixty and retired? None, in my acquaintance.

The combination has, of course, destroyed the career of Gary Condit and has attempted to destroy his family. It is to his credit, and to the credit of his very supportive wife and children that the Condit family has resisted public pressure to turn on Gary Condit. Special credit should go to Condit´s children, Chad and Cadee Condit, who worked for Governor Gray Davis.

Chad, 34, worked as an assistant to Davis on agricultural and legislative issues related to California's Central Valley. The job paid $110,000 a year. Cadee Condit, 25, was a special assistant overseeing day-to-day operations at Davis's private office. She was paid $52,000 a year Both of the younger Condits quit their high paying jobs in protest over Governor Davis´ snide remarks about their father. In their letter of resignation they wrote: "You may remember our father's strong public support, endorsement and organizational effort for you during the bleakest moments of your 1998 primary campaign. ... It is that kind of loyalty to friends that has been the hallmark of his career and is a standard we strive to live up to. Continued employment with the governor's office after your public statement regarding our father would undercut that standard."

I think Gray Davis is wrong on just about every count, and I am not a political supporter of Gary Condit. However, any man who has grown children with enough character to resign high paying jobs in support of their father, has a father who has earned their support, a point universally overlooked by a contemptuous media.

I believe Gary Condit – not the Washington police rumors, not the media, not the women trying to ruin Condit. I believe Gary Condit because his family, especially his children, believe in him.

To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Mary at mmostert@bannerofliberty.com .

Sorry people;
I think Condit has enough dirty laundry to have looked and acted differently than most would have guessed he might.
I think he probably deserves censure in the same manner I think 99% of democrat office holders deserve censure (because they are prone to acting against my interests).
And, I think I won't miss his presence in government.

I also think that the Levy's mishandled their loss by playing to the media, by doing the whole thing long range from California, and by being basically too weird to take seriously.
No matter who may eventually be convicted, no matter who actually did the crime, media and the police blew this thing big time and from the start.
The popular rush to indict Condit also has a ring of nastiness to it that does not befit or do justice to anyone involved - particularly the populace represented here on FR.

None of the responses in this thread so far have addressed the main points of the article - why did the police not admit to another potential suspect? Why did the police not actually search the area fully as they were so eager to make the public balieve they had? Why must it take so long for fundamental elements of the case to become public knowledge when the probably trivial details of Condit's sex life have been speculated on until the idea of a 'gay haitian biker (from outer space)" has been accepted as common knowledge and fact?

Maybe of most interest to me would be why was the democrat establishment so totally willing to toss the boy overboard?

"These losers need to get a life."

Hey...Mr. wku man....our President said we should go about living our lives, otherwise the terrorists win......and what the heck are you doing reading threads under "Why Did Washington Police and Media Lie About Chandra And Condit?" anyway....sounds like you should be hangin' at the "Breaking News" ONLY! ;>) LOL!

"...why, do you suppose, everyone sort of "forgot" to mention that two women were attacked while jogging in Rock Creek Park?"

First of all, they didn't know where Chandra Levy went? I recall a report about the use of a bloodhound, who lost the sent on the street, implying that she was picked up in a car. Second of all, that guy attacked two women jogging, but didn't kill them. Usually, these creeps start of with assaults and build up to murder, not the other way around. Third of all, for a non- or occassional jogger to suddenly go off on a minimum 8 mile jog is to me, not credible. In reports from her friends, they say she was very security conscious and would not likely go off jogging thru the park like that.

"Maybe of most interest to me would be why was the democrat establishment so totally willing to toss the boy overboard?

Because he is only a Congressman and he was hurting them by generating bad PR plus the bad PR could, and probably will now, go on for a long time with no end in sight.

Clinton was hurting them with bad PR, too, but also was President with huge abilities to help them out in countless ways, as well. Condit didn't have that benefit.

A single Congressman is rarely that important to any party unless he/she is Speaker of the House or from a district that's really crucial for some reason. Most Congressmen by far are just not that high on the DC totem pole.

One thing I would point out ... Mary Mostert is a 50ish to 60ish woman who for many years edited the Web Site for Michael Reagan. She has written many insightful articles on a wide variety of issues. She tends to be extremely conservative. She cut Clinton NO slack.

If you check Reagan's web site (not kept current since she left), you might find a variety of articles that she wrote. And if you are conservative ... you probably would like the tone of the majority of her articles.

I too disagree with her writing her ... but have read enough of her articles to give her a fair hearing, and given her "track record", I won't "dis" her, because I think that she is calling it as she sees it, and isn't going to give it a different flavor because the "perp" is a scum-bag Democrat.

Just my opinion. One article (this one) - won't cause me to dump reading Mary Mostert.

Mike

I emailed Mary reminding her that the entire Clinton cabinet announced to the world that they too belived Bill Clinton when he said he did not have sex with THAT woman.

She immediately emailed me back asking for any circumstantial proof of my opinion that he was guilty. She also mentioned that she was a republican.

I suggest that republican on the coasts is far left to most of us.

If anyone can point to any aspect of innocence in Condit's behaviour since the knowledge that he had been involved with Chandra, I'd like to hear of it.

What is Chief Ramsey´s definition of "clue?"

Whatever the definition, it is most probably glazed.

Hey Mary... my buddy has a motorcycle and he'll be by to pick you up.

He's got a black patch over his left eye and only 3 teeth... trust him.

Don't worry about ID or a wallet... you won't need it where you're going.

I'll meet you in his basement by the airtight door to the cold-storage.

Help him carry those bags of lime into the cellar.

Are they in such a great shape you have time to worry about one of the 15,000 or more people who are murdered in this country every year?

How about all those that may have been murder by a political leader with a lot of clout, in order to cover up corruption. I personally have very little interest in the issue other than the fact that I don't like people in power abusing that power. Is is wrong to worry (a little bit?) about that?

I never believed Condit did it. He might have had an affair with the woman (not young girl) but I really doubt he would kill her. After Clinton, what Democrat could give a damn or even make a peep of noise about a Democratic Congressman caught in an affair. Chandra worked in the Bureaui of Prisons as an intern. There are a lot of bad people she might have had contact with in that branch of government. Nobody has really seemed to go after that angle. Lots of liberal women fall for bad men.

The media and the Democrats going full force after Condit was nothing more than making up for its attitude towards Clinton. Granted Gray really did win folks over with his TV interview. Being an awful interview subject doesn't make you a murderer.

The only thing that bothers me in this case is that Condit supposively discarded a watch gift box in a trashcan where he didn't live.

Sadly, Mary forgot to mention that Condit has an alter-ego who likes to ride motorcyles with Hell's Angels bikers, professed he had a disabled wife who appears perfectly healthy, wears disguises when meeting his other mistresses, and is into kinky sex (presumably tying people up and grooving on ladies' underwear). He has no alibi for the day Chandra disappeared and his interview with Connie Chung was a study in dancing with legalese, which (being not quite as bright as the Clinton's) he was unable to master. He never leveled with Chandra's parents until he was forced to, has yet to give a concise interview to the police, and had the stupidity to offer a $10,000 reward about a disappearance and crime he claimed to have no knowledge about, prior to the discovery that something had happened. He's one messed up guy, probably socio-pathetic--but she failed to mention that, too.

What a Lame-Brain girl writer.....the Condit's are the most Dysfunctional family since the Clinton's...actually almost identical

Indeed. And it apperars that writer Mary Mostert agrees with you on that, per her article on the subject *here*.

-archy-/-

I can't answer for the cops, but the media lie because they are incapable of telling the truth.
They are communist scum. They hate America.
They and the liberals [communists and the political correctness crowd] have destroyed the ntion.

All generalities are untrue.

The media, like the cops, largely do the bidding of their masters, whether it's for the good of the country or not. They, like most of us, are far more interested in their current paychecks and future retirement than any nearly-forgotten guiding principles of a declining once-great nation.

But they do have an instinctive sense of what they need to do if they are to survive in their rat-eat-rat world. And they have seen what has happened to their fellows who have stepped out of line.

-archy-/-

It's my opinion that Chandra's father WILL see justice done for his daughter. He will use all his resources to do it.

Are you seeing the same Mr. Levy that I'm seeing? That guy looks like a complete washout. The Mother looks like the strong one. Anyway, what kind of upbringing makes a young woman like Chandra seek such an abusive "romantic" relationship?

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.