NOTE: If there is a thread about this already I missed it and please ignore this. The StraightDopers must certainly be aware of the current situation. COndit has retained high priced legal representation (I don’t want to risk trying to spell attorney) If he had nothing to with it (The Intern’s dissappearence) he has nothing to worry about. I know justice isn’t totally blind and some people get framed but for Chrissakes; Wait until you recharged with something!
Here is how I think it went:
Scenario 1: He accidentally snapped her neck when they fell from the bed, table, desk, sink, ceiling fan or whatever else they were scrogging their brains out on.
Scenario 2: She had a heart attack or some other catastrophic cardio-pulmanary event attributable to massive drug ingestion.
In either case he is not responsible for the death but would have most likely lost significant earning power. Most plain, normal people ( like you and me) would call 911 immediately but not him. He’s 54 yrs old and a senator (or something eqvivalent) He probably makes at least 130K or more a year. Most people making that kind of money could call it quits at that age and live off saved funds/retirement income quite comfortably. I think he is in debt or has some other severe obligation that requires his current salary level. I think he dumped her dead body out of greed. I think he freaked out a’la Gene Hackman in that movie with Clint Eastwood. Poor bastard. Either way, his career is gone. He threw away evidence that he feared would scandalize him but in reality would have exonerated him of murder.
Because we can usually expect the worst. Money and power corrupt quite quickly, strongly, and easily. Answer me this, andros; how many extremely rich and powerful people have been so closely associated with the disappearance of one of their underlings or romantic involvements, and it turned out they weren’t responsible or involved somehow? ::cough:: Chappaquidick ::cough:: Lewinsky ::cough::
on the OP, there’s a thread on this topic in GD here I posted my speculation there.
However, on your thought ‘why else would he hire a lawyer?’ well, since people like you have publically attempted to smear his name (including a coast to coast news cast interview with her parents begging him to ‘tell all he knows’ - yes, I have sympathy for the parents of a missing person), yea, I can see why having a lawyer to help represent your interests would seem like a good idea
I’m not denying that some people are scum, Tim. Nor am I denying that power corrupts.
I’m just wondering why we are so eager to believe the worst, that’s all. But then, I like to see evidence of wrongdoing before I assume someone is guilty.
In this country, we require facts before making accusations, something the OP did not take into account. The police have said that Rep. Condit is not a criminal suspect, and there is no evidence of wrongdoing on his part. The wild scenario
of death during sex and hiding the evidence must be dismised as wild fantasy until hard evidence is found.
There are some disturbing aspects to the case, however. It’s obvious (although not proven) that Condit was screwing Chandra Levy. When a 53-year-old man with a disabled wife who lives back in California calls a 24-year- old intern “a good friend”, it’s usually a euphemism for “mistress.” While it is Condit’s right to remain silent, it looks like he has something to hide. It seems to me that a truly innocent man would have told the police and Ms. Levy’s family all he knows about her. That Condit saw fit to hire a high-powered criminal attorney also makes it look like he’s going on the defensive.
However, Rep. Condit has not even been charged with anything illegal, so the above is only speculation.
So even if she was his mistress, if he didn’t have anything to do with her disappearance, why should he make that public knowledge? To embarrass himself, his wife, to muddy Chandra Levy’s name and reputation? It seems to me that to admit to such a thing (if it is indeed true) would only make the court of public opinion find him guilty of having something to do with her disappearance and perhaps to turn the full focus of the investigation towards himself.
I must admit that I have not been following the case closely, but from what I’ve heard in the news and read here, I think it is perfectly logical for someone who has been the focus of so much negative publicity in such a high profile case to higher a lawyer to make certain (if he is innocent) that he doesn’t wind up charged with some crime he didn’t commit. I can imagine that the people who are in jail innocently now wish they had/could have done the same thing.
All that is beside the point. The important thing is to help the police find out what happened to Chandra Levy. Hiding unpleasant facts is tantamount to obstructing justice.
A. Of course, it makes sense to hire a lawyer to protects one’s interests; hiring a criminal defense lawyer just looks, well, proactive. Again, Rep. Condit is not a suspect, according to the DC plice.
Sorry for not including links (thanks WRING) this issue is all anybody talks about in my neck of the woods. And Yes, Goboy, I was making wild assed guesses about the whole thing. I probably should have posted in the MPSIMS or IMHO + I was already pretty smashed by 7:00PM (Rumpleminze on the rocks has a tendency to do that!
I guess I just basically wanted to see if anyone agreed with my logic. (my Mom thinks my theory is plausible but she could have been just humoring me.)
It’s also quite possible that Rep. Condit does not have the foggiest notion of what might have happened to Levy and knows that his affair is unconnected to her disappearance. The police don’t know this and must investigate it, but from his perspective his only goal is to cover up for the affair.
Of course, he would be hindering a bit by allowing the police to expend energy exploring a dead end. It’s an interesting moral dilemma - is obstruction justified in such a case?
I haven’t been following this story too closely, but so far as I understand it, not only is Condit not a suspect, there are NO suspects at all. It’s a missing-persons case, which is not a criminal case. Until there’s some evidence of a crime, NO ONE is a suspect – there can be no suspects if there’s no crime, and there’s no evidence that any crime was committed. There’s no evidence of wrongdoing on anyone’s part – not just on Condit’s part.
Right now, investigators officially do not consider Condit a suspect. However, according to Newsweek, some investigators do feel that Condit and the woman were more than just “friends”, based one several clues, being among others:
-She kept talking about her non-drinking “boyfriend” (Condit is dry), but refused to divulge who it was. Why wouldn’t you tell anyone unless it was someone that would get either of you in trouble if revealed?
-She had several calls on her phone records to him.
HOWEVER, the same investigators who obviously had to kept ananymous theorize that the woman’s behavior patterns indicate she may have been distraught about the relationship, and may have offed herself.
I admit it doesn’t put Condit in the best light. One more reson why it is best to just keep it in your knickers!
You might ask Richard Jewell about this situation. I’m sure he could give you a lot of reasons an innocent person might want to have an attorney.
Police can be lazy, sad to say. If they have no leads, they can tend to focus on anyone close at hand and try to “build” a case against them from scant evidence. Even more unfortunately, they often enlist the news media in such ventures (as in the Jewell case) leaking information to the press which might have nothing to do with the crime at hand but which is embarrassing to the suspect, in an effort to get the suspect to “crack.”
I think the Jon Benet Ramsey case is another example of this phenomenon.
My own view is that Condit was likely having an affair with the young lady (which he understandably wants to hide), but likely had nothing to do with her disappearance.