Posted on 05/29/2002 5:25:09 AM PDT by Starmaker
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 .
Who knows? How about 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, ..."
Really? Maybe they were urged to resign so that the "scandal" wouldn't spill over and become an embarrassment for their favorite DemonRAT Governor of California.
Who let you out of your cage? Go back.
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.