CJ, good points. With Condit one has to separate the stories about his affairs from the ones that suggest he is a murderer. It might well have been that Condit figured Levy would show up at some point soon so why risk his reputation by going on record with the police that he is an adulterer. At first, protecting one's privacy sounds like a reasonable excuse but then there's the old adage along the lines of don't do the crime if you can't afford to do the time. If you are a US Congressman, regardless of the circumstances that revealed your secret affairs, you had better be prepared to spend the time taking political and moral heat for your actions.
That being said, it's still a huge leap from adulterer to murderer (the 1990 Kinsey report found that "approximately two out of every three married men commit adultery"; see probe.org. Oh, sure, Congressman kills intern makes for great potential storylines (as does Ivy League professor kills student), but taking all sorts of journalistic liberties along those lines just to sell papers is reckless and just plain wrong.
I must admit I don't really follow the Condit case that closely. Oh sure I'm as curious as everyone else what happened to Ms. Levy, but I have a very low threshold for the salacious coverage. When and if it becomes clear Condit played no direct role in her disappearance, or perhaps murder, then I'll start really paying attention to see just who in the media gets held accountable for what. Along those same lines, I'm trying my best to follow Richard Jewell's libel suit against the Atlanta Journal Constitution (see law.com.
In the mean time, I'm just waiting patiently for the Freedom of Information Commission to rule on my request. Last time I called, which was sometime late last week, I was told to call back in two weeks. Tap tap tap... :)
- Jeff
P.S. BTW, Jim *did* offer to take a polygraph test at the time he was first interviewed by the NH Police! |
