The Crime Scene - To Serve and Inform

Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 3:55 PM ET, 11/16/2010

Condit acted guilty, Sonenberg says

By Henri E. Cauvin

The defense in the trial of Ingmar Guandique wrapped up its closing arguments Tuesday afternoon with an attack on Gary Condit, the man who was once the government's prime suspect in the 2001 death of Chandra Levy.

"He did things like a guilty man," Santha Sonenberg said of former U.S. Congressman Condit, referring to his decision to be represented by a lawyer and to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights before a 2002 grand jury.

When he testified during the trial of Guandique, Condit was similarly hostile to questioning, Sonenberg said.

She also noted his demeanor.

"Did Mr. Condit act remorseful?" Sonenberg asked. "Or does he really act like someone who's really concerned about himself?"

By Henri E. Cauvin  | November 16, 2010; 3:55 PM ET
Categories:  Chandra Levy, From the Courthouse, Homicide, The District, Updates  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Jail for former nonprofit CFO Perry
Next: Jury gets case in Chandra Levy's death

Comments

al Qaeda killed Chandra.

They attacked Condit, but Chandra lunged for the pistol and was killed. Condit swore to the CIA that he didn't kill her. The CIA said they believed him and he would not be tried or found guilty of killing her.

Relieved, Gary retrieved the watch Chandra had given him from the office trash can and put it back on his wrist.

Posted by: blasmaic | November 16, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Ah, who knows what's what from the outside -- I've learned to be skeptical about what the press publishes (the Wone murder case, for example, heavily biased and unexamined in its reporting). But to take the comment on Condit at face value, one can imagine a professional politician who knows more than a thing or two about damage control and image-making might put his self-promoting and self-protecting skills to use right away after being identified as a person of interest in this case. Due to his own stupidity and selfishness in pursuing the affair to start with, he had a lot to lose with its exposure, not to mention being a suspect in murder: his family, his constituancy, and his future.

But "acting guilty" (and being an azzhole) do not implicate anyone, of course.

Posted by: Magoo1 | November 16, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

I wasn't aware that Gary Condit was on trial in this case.

Posted by: mbrumble | November 16, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

So Gary Condit, an actual POLITICIAN, accused of having an affair with a woman other than his wife, a woman with whom he was in fact having an affair, acted guilty when confronted publicly with evidence his dalliance?

And he acted guilty? What a surprise!

I believe most people caught with their little generals' nosees under the wrong tents would act guilty, but very, VERY few engage in murder.

And none, as far as I know, ever had their case tried every single day and night for months in the news as not just the top story, but the ONLY story, even as a defeated but nevertheless inaugurated president was tearing our economy apart, taking our budget surplus into deficit, stripping bare our anti-terrorist defenses, and ending the longest era of peace the world had ever known.

While the news was all Condit, all the time.

Posted by: FergusonFoont | November 16, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

**I wasn't aware that Gary Condit was on trial in this case.**

Whether Condit was involved in the murder was of course at issue in the trial.

What a silly, albeit common, misunderstanding of the trial process, that it is the defendant who is "on trial." In fact, the defendant is presumed innocent. And what is "on trial" is the prosecution, namely whether the government has presented evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what it has alleged, which necessarily includes excluding the guilt of someone like Condit.

Posted by: ooyah32 | November 16, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

He sounded so cold in the voice mail recordings, as if he really didn't care where she was. He didn't even call her by name when he started the message. I think they sound suspicious, especially when he speculated that she might be out of the country, as if to just get it in the recording that she was and could be gone for a while (but not because of him, of course).

Posted by: SusanMarie2 | November 16, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

This attorney should face charges for this outrageous comment.

Unfortunately it was this TV detective thinking that focused on Condit and allowed the evidence to disappear and the real killer to get away.

Posted by: JohnAdams1 | November 16, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse


SusanMarie2, i thought so, too. when i listened to those voice mail messages posted on the wapo website, it seemed like they were left to establish a time line, so that gary condit could appear nonchalant and knowing nothing of any foul play that might have taken place. his messages were very specific about day and time of day and it was like he was trying to distance himself from her somehow.

i found it very, very odd.

my money will always be on gary condit.

Posted by: potomacfever00 | November 16, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

fortunately, there is no statute of limitations on murder.

and this prosecution offered nothing that would convince a jury to convict guandique.

this ain't over yet.

Posted by: potomacfever00 | November 16, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

potomacfever00, yes, exactly!

Posted by: SusanMarie2 | November 16, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

he was guilty, just not of murder.

his actions, now that we have context, were entirely "appropriate"

how is this relevant to the trial?

bad prosecutor, bad judge, bad judicial system.

Posted by: docwhocuts | November 16, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

more truly fine reporting by the Washington Post, rushing to its demise.

Posted by: axolotl | November 16, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

"Did Mr. Condit act remorseful ?" For what?

With Sonenberg as his lawyer, this defendant should have copped a plea.

Posted by: stratman1 | November 16, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

George Bush did it.

Posted by: rickahyatt | November 16, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

JohnAdams1: The real John Adams would be ashamed of your argument that the lawyer should face sanctions. The Supreme Court requires that prosecutors establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In defending their clients, defense lawyers can raise doubt by raising evidence to support the theory that some other person committed the crime. Condit took the stand; his DNA was found on her clothing; and he refused to answer questions. This will not convict Condit (he has not been charged). But this evidence could raise reasonable doubt for the jurors. If you were charged with a crime, you would expect the same zealous advocacy.

Posted by: darrren12000 | November 16, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Furthermore, this article only presents a small slice of the defense's closing argument. Undoubtedly, most of the closing statement focused on the lack of evidence linking the defendant to the crime and the sloppy evidence collection by the police. The WaPo, of course, only goes for the more sensational aspect of the closing argument -- something involving Condit.

Posted by: darrren12000 | November 16, 2010 9:38 PM | Report abuse

As I recall, while we were all glued to the news about Gary Condit Dumpster-Diving...we took our eyes off the ball.
We got hit at the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon.

Posted by: NY2VA2010 | November 16, 2010 10:01 PM | Report abuse

FergusonFoont has the logic backwards, just because only a very small percentage of cheating husbands kill their mistresses, that doesn't mean that a high percentage of mistresses killed aren't killed by their lovers.

mbrumble, in fact Condit is on trial. The standard is guilt beyond a resaonable doubt. If there is ANY reason to believe that Condit killed her, then there is reasonable doubt the prosecution put him on the stand.

Posted by: tianyisun | November 16, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

If Guandique can be hauled before the bar of justice based on what I see as very flimsy evidence, then why can't Condit also? Let us have a full-fledged trial and let a jury decide guilt or innocence. I doubt we will ever seen any conclusion of this case, based on the incredible screwups by the police. The police said they searched the area where Chandra's body was found, and yet she turned up there a year later. How is this possible? We don't know how she died, or why she died. I feel the police never wanted to find out anything involving this case, and I fear that when the jury returns its verdict, they are just going to drop it as another of D.C. unsolved crimes, rather than bringing justice.

Posted by: edwardallen54 | November 16, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

Okay, let's not quickly settle for the "obvious" here. Let's take a less obvious approach instead. What if the congressman did kill Levy because perhaps she threatened to tell the golden little secret....which was their affair. Of course this would ruin his image and lets not forget about the perfect little wife. You see a man that has a history of these type of charges and think that it will be easy to just pin the blame on him. I'm sorry my friends, but I don't think evil will triumph in this case....and that's why it's such a hot topic. It would've been the perfect crime if Condit got away with this and we all know my friends....in this world, nothing's perfect!

Posted by: shereyh18 | November 17, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Okay, let's not quickly settle for the "obvious" here. Let's take a less obvious approach instead. What if the congressman did kill Levy because perhaps she threatened to tell the golden little secret....which was their affair. Of course this would ruin his image and lets not forget about the perfect little wife. You see a man that has a history of these type of charges and think that it will be easy to just pin the blame on him. I'm sorry my friends, but I don't think evil will triumph in this case....and that's why it's such a hot topic. It would've been the perfect crime if Condit got away with this and we all know my friends....in this world, nothing's perfect!

Posted by: shereyh18 | November 17, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

let's suppose that the crime was committed by someone who paid off everyone including the current defendant to appear to be the suspect instead of himself as he did not want to go to jail for killing her and interviewed her for a job with the underlying intent to kill her and set up making her appear to be the victim of a gang instead of the victim of the Condit concept of being, that no matter what happened his marriage was going to be okay as his wife was extremely wealthy and had financed his campaign and would never have divorced him so he would have to wait out his term of office and perform his duties as a husband until she died of chronic illness, which has not happened, so that his affairs would not ever be the cause of his remarriage, per a nuptial agreement which he had to sign and waive his rights to parental contact with the children he conceived and fathered in and out of wedlock in order to preserve his wife's estate for their sole use, so most of his check and his personal assets were tied up in child support obligations, which is why he did not live in luxurious apartment in DC but modest home, and the intern the same. So if she had become a mother of his child due to not using birth control, she would have been an unaffordable expense and hard to control as older than his other children's mothers and less likely to stay behind the scenes and hide. So if he set up to have her disappeared, he did so out of concern that his wife might decide that she had had enough as the last out of wedlock pregnancy cost him several hundreds of thousands of dollars as he had to pay for the funeral costs of the mother and the child as they were hit by a car and killed by accident by a man who went to prison for it and died in prison . So one should look for a paper trail of checks to pay off the participants in the murder , to Ingmar Guandique from the DEA and DofD persons Ms. Levy interviewed with for a job before she disappeared, as one of them is the unknown DNA sample on her clothing that is not in the database as part of the investigation team as a serial killer working on contract for the DEA and FBI and the D of Defense to stop gang warfare as well as investigate drug related activity as well as create situations to lure in drug dealers onto property they own to set them up to be arrested as persons on deferred prosecution and their advocates as well as their supervisors from the Bureau of Federal Prisons in California, as the medical advocacy network for prisoners, and prisoners let out of prison to identify and help arrest their Peruvian and Venezuelan and Columbian contacts for cocaine trafficking. Let's suppose that this network has a checking account that they pay their assassins out of that belongs to the victim and that before she died she had to make out several checks to creditors as well as the management of the apartment building where she lived that were stolen and cashed by the perpetrator crew to pay themselves for her death.

Posted by: carol_olden | November 18, 2010 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Why I offered this theory is that my former husband works for the same group, and in all his efforts to convince his dealers he was on the up and up and that I and my family , as one of his many victims, were supporting him financially to be a drug dealer, by helping him buy land in Baja California so that he could lure in his contacts and appear to be in the business still,caused us to lose our elderly father due to being murdered and the murder covered up to make him appear to be a meth dealer who committed suicide rather than turn in his meth contacts, owing money to a prostitute who was actually one of my former husband's many cocaine user clients , who stole from my parents by misusing the mental health system and their operatives stationed in many locations to intercept their victims incoming and outgoing mail as well as their checks and financial information and get their biological information as well so that they could make the most of their victims' deaths and be financially solvent as a crew on deferred prosecution/probation for drug use or possession who had to turn in so many contacts and have so many arrests and interdictions per year otherwise would be returned to prison.

So how is that for a theory? The evidence is in the lockers of the agent who did not make it into the FBI as they had a locker assigned to her and a morgue toe tag as well as she could never have been able to deal with the amount of deceit they went through to make cases as in some instances they became drug dealers as agents themselves working with the Russian Federal Service agents who trafficked cocaine as well as hashish to be able to travel overseas and see their loved ones, as here they had the identities of illegal aliens , while overseas they were respected members of an elite crew of people so had perks for them all the time, such as homes and places of business given to them to use to interdict illegal activity as fronts, but never were they allowed to visit Indian reservations without being in trouble as they were not known there as tribal members so found their system almost impossible to infiltrate and become a dealer there to bring down their contacts until they met the Kuwaitis who were willing to let their hair grow long and pretend to be traditionalists of our reservations so as to fool the public as well as their dealers that they were there to smuggle drugs just like everyone else on reservation for Native American religious purposes or for tax-free status.
With that in mind, the position of Ingmar Guandique becomes less a question of whether or not he was a participant, but at what level, and how the Congressman planned to extricate himself from the situaton that the prime operative was not happy being asked to kill people and donate their bodies to harvesters as action not ethical but forced to otherwise would have been killed by the Congressman's crew of people with the DEA as families were too difficult to protect in this line of work.

Posted by: carol_olden | November 18, 2010 10:15 PM | Report abuse

The middle comment seems to have been left out which really would help as to how the deceased died and where as she was attacked it appears in the Congressman's apartment by the person wearing his hat, then drilled with a drill that he used to puncture her chest, head, pelvis and legs to extract her body fluids as well as her bone marrow to sell and then transported her back to her apartment and was trying to make it appear she had miscarried to cover up the blood loss issue. He used the drill to drill out the lock to her apartment and rerented it to an unsuspecting party without being the landlord by telling him he could do whatever he wanted to do with the results of scene analysis until it had been established that a crime had occurred and he needed the money as deeply in debt due to gaming and other things he did as a front to appear to be a bad man mixed up with thugs instead of the undercover agent that he was until his cover was blown before this case so no one trusted him anymore as mean and ruthless in terms of using anyone and thing to get at the source of drug trafficking to stop it, as he had lost his spouse due to illegal drug activity years ago so did not feel the general public understood or cared about what his family had gone through and as such, they did not deserve the peace and tranquility of their lives and should be exposed daily to the brutality of what it is like to being living in a drug cartel as the sole means of support for one's family to be able to grasp what poverty really means as well as entrapment of being not able to leave and be free due to being the victim of trafficking. So that was his reason for being rude and demanding the deaths of people who had the typical nice families so that they would suffer, too as his had.
The victim's bones tell the story if an autopsy is done to determine the real cause of death, and the person involved want people to know that they are sorry that she died as she would have been a good person and a fairly decent Federal agent except too honest and would not have appreciated the amount of deceit that goes on in the agency to misled the public that they are solving a case or that their investigations are on track and a solution will be forthcoming. IF they as agents were mathematicians, they would drag on finding a solution for several generations until the parties involved died or the evidence disappeared or the statue of limitations had expired as they had no intention of doing anything but terrorizing the people and keeping them in fear that they would be the next victim of their cult everytime they applied for a job or went to court or did anything to try to assert themselves so that they could have honesty in the government. So that is how the DEA worked in this situation as it is not Diogenes with the lamp when it interviews people for jobs with them, but judging their character for shady deals that they can fit into to trick shady characters with their own traps.

Posted by: carol_olden | November 18, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

I noticed that my last comment is missing again as to what to look for on the victim's corpse as identifying marks to determine the cause of death, so I will explain why I added what I did, as this is not the first time this group have killed someone, and not to cover up a crime. In 1998 when I moved to their county in SW Washington state, they as a group of persons working with the County sheriff's department kidnapped and murdered a high school student named Todd Denny. Todd thought he was going to be helping the County Sheriff's department arrest the suppliers of drugs to a young man named Tony Stefan who trafficked drugs at their high school, but that was not the case. He was kidnapped and murdered by the suppliers ,who held him hostage for days and tortured him, then left his body in his car for someone to find on a logging road in their community. The county sheriff's department refused to investigate the homicide, labeling it a suicide, so the distraught parents had to hire a private investigator to discover what the cause of death was , and found out that he had been murdered as three different calibers of guns had been used at the scene of the crime. I talked to the mother who told me she had found out from the private investigator that the county was involved in body parts harvesting as a source of income, as they asked for permission to have her son's body parts for use for transplants, and since he was an athlete and good student ,was an ideal candidate. The parents and children left eventually moved to Montana as were not safe and felt unsafe before they left, as the father had been targeted as someone thought he was a Federal narcotics agent, which they did not have in that county.

I had to deal with my neighbors who were exposing their children to underage drinking and illegal drug use and file a report that year on their behalf that they were not safe only to have them still be left in the hands of their parents as no one could deal with their drug dealers and survive. The local churches went along with the lie that the young man had committed suicide, when he hadn;t and challenged me when I wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper that we should have a big public meeting to air the issues , to which I responded that there children involved so it would not be safe unless there were some assurances that the children knowledgeable about what had happened would be protected. The pastor of the Lutheran church in the area in question then moved to Wisconsin. Two other students in the area in their high school class died that year of "suicide", one who was chairwoman of their clean and sober committee to stop drug and alcohol abuse in her school.

The persons who killed Todd that year published a poem in the local newspaper about how they were going to betray someone, like Quisling, into the hands of drug traffickers who would interrogate them for hours. Quisling was the Norwegian who betrayed his people to the Nazis.

Posted by: carol_olden | November 18, 2010 11:27 PM | Report abuse

Of course he "acted guilty", he had an affair with her. Duh. That doesn't mean he killed her.

Posted by: thomasmc1957 | November 22, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Of course he "acted guilty", he had an affair with her. Duh. That doesn't mean he killed her.

Posted by: thomasmc1957 | November 22, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Gary Condit, Dick Cheney, Chandra Levy, ENRON, Arnold, Gray Davis, MTBE, ethanol & Alex Farrell

“Rep. Gary A. Condit (D-Calif.) has introduced legislation, in the opening days of the 107th Congress, to help drive gasoline prices down while protecting the environment. HR 52 seeks to relieve California from federally mandated year-round gasoline oxygenate requirements while preserving the full benefits of California's reformulated gasoline program. Condit introduced the bipartisan legislation with another member of the California delegation, Rep. Chris Cox. ‘California already meets Environmental Protection Agency requirements for reducing emissions of toxic air pollutants and ozone-forming compounds,’ Condit said. ‘When a state meets these requirements, under this legislation, they would not be required to add oxygenates to gasoline’.”

”Unlike MTBE, little is known about the impacts of ethanol releases into groundwater or the environment. However, because ethanol is the primary ingredient of beverage alcohol, which is classified by the California Proposition 65 Committee and other cancer experts as a human carcinogen, many are concerned about the possibility that ethanol may pose a cancer risk. Additionally, independent researchers have determined that ethanol in groundwater can extend plumes of other more potent gasoline carcinogens (benzene, toluene, etc.) up to 25%. In addition, ethanol is less effective than MTBE at fighting air pollution, and due to transportation and supply problems, will likely increase gasoline prices.”

Stella Sez, Hemmings Motor News, July 2000

Posted by: cappcharlie | November 23, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company