I vehemently disagree with
Gary Condit's politics, and in the Chandra Levy situation he has acted like
a sleazebag. He well deserves much of the criticism he is receiving.
Yet as a matter of intellectual curiosity, I can't help but wonder:
Much of the criticism of
Condit relates to his not admitting to the police at their first two
meetings that he was having a sexual relationship with Chandra Levy.
Had he admitted this right away, the pundits repeat ad nauseam, it
would have given the police a better shot at finding her alive.
How?
Only if Condit or an
accomplice had kidnapped Chandra Levy and she was being held alive
somewhere, might such information about his sexual relationship with Levy
have been relevant, in that it would have given the police more reason to
suspect his involvement.
But didn't the police already
know about the affair, from Levy's family? One assumes the police
would have been investigating whether Gary Condit was behind the
disappearance anyway. Indeed, Condit's lie certainly made the police
more suspicious of him, not less.
On the other hand, assume
Gary Condit was not behind Chandra Levy's disappearance, and that a third
party unrelated to Condit had abducted her. How would the knowledge
that Condit had a sexual relationship with Levy have helped the police in
tracking her down in that third party's custody?
None of this excuses Gary
Condit's lying, or absolves him if he has withheld any other pertinent
information from the police.
But it annoys me when
conclusions are asserted that make no sense.
I am certainly willing to be
corrected on this, so please tell me how I'm wrong!
