The Chandra Levy case had all the makings of a sensational Greek tragedy – a Representative who apparently was a womanizer and was suspected by many of being a cold-blooded murderer; a pretty, young, naïve woman from a well-to-do background, who had been having an affair with the United States Representative, and was now missing; incessant leaks from the police force; rumors of Chandras pregnancy, which supposedly gave Condit “motive” for killing her; and a sensational sit-down interview with Connie Chung that garnered enormous ratings and made Condit look guiltier than ever, due to his evasive answers and arrogant demeanor. The media went wild, and the general public, fueled by the media and prosecutors in the case, “knew” that Condit was guilty.
In the end, there were two casualties – Chandra Levy and Condits career. Both were dead. This was the shameful result of an out-of-control media and prosecutors who were focused on Condit to the expense of all other theories and suspects. As it turned out, an El Salvadoran immigrant is highly suspected of Chandras murder, an immigrant that had been attacking women in the very park where Chandra went before the disappeared, allegedly to meet Condit for a romantic rendezvous that ended with her murder. This last piece of information proved to be inaccurate, or, at the very least, the product of lurid speculation. Condit may have been a lot of things – a womanizer and phony are two pejoratives that come to mind – but he was not a murderer, despite what the media sought to portray.
These are the facts of the case. There is no question that the focus of the investigation, in the eyes of the media, prosecutors and public, was on Condit. The question that has not been answered is why? Why didnt the media and prosecutors seize on the possibility that a man who had been attacking women in the park, during the period of time that Chandra went missing, could have been the