Jump to content

Condit Brain Teaser


Guest regulation
 Share

This topic is 7417 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

Guest regulation

For those of you who fancy yourselves amateur detectives (Poirot? Miss Marple?) and who are not yet surfeited with the Condit / Chandra Levy scandal, here is a little puzzle that may interest you.

 

My own conclusion from news reports I have read is that Condit is not responsible for Chandra's disappearance. It's based on the reputation of his attorney, Abbe Lowell, who is one of the more competent criminal defense lawyers in Washington. Lowell wouldn't take on such a high-profile case unless he believed he knew all the facts, and he is someone who knows how to question a client so as to get the facts. Therefore, he knows what Condit knows about the matter. The fact that he has offered and provided the police with a substantial amount of cooperation, including a DNA sample, a search of Condit's home, and several conversations with Condit, shows that he believes Condit is innocent. No competent defense attorney would provide such cooperation if he thought there was any chance it would lead the police to evidence that would incriminate his client. Lowell's actions are the actions an attorney would take if he thought his client was innocent and was trying to persuade the police to look elsewhere.

 

There is one false note here, however. Although he spoke of allowing Condit to take a polygraph test in his press conference on the subject of cooperation with the police, Lowell has refused to allow such a test conducted by a police expert and has only permitted a test conducted by his own expert. Why? Clearly because it is only by having his own expert do the test that he can control the questions that are asked of Condit. If Condit is innocent of the disappearance, why is it important to control the questions that are asked? The obvious explanation is that there is something else about Condit's relationship with Chandra that he wants to conceal. That's the puzzle: what is the fact that he is trying to conceal? It isn't murder or kidnapping, but it is something that Lowell and Condit don't want known. What?

 

I have a couple of assumptions about the nature of the fact that they are trying to conceal that I think are reasonable, but I will keep them to myself for now. Members are invited to supply their answers to this question, along with the reasoning behind them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm not so sure there's anything mysterious about Lowell's unwillingness to let Condit do that second test. Quite apart from the defense lawyer's customary opposition to such a dicey (if not loopy) procedure, Condit has nothing to gain by doing a polygraph set up by the local authorities and/or the FBI. Consider this: even if he PASSES, it will only spawn a week or two's worth of talking heads explaining to Geraldo & Greta and Larry how sociopaths and mythomaniacs invariably 'pass' with the greatest of ease: in other words, it would just fan further suspicions about the poor schmuck.

 

Moreover, if you really think that the DC police (or even the poor, bedraggled FBI) could possibly know (or even suspect) something about the Condit/Levy relationship than hasn't crossed Lowell's mind, or could frame cunning questions Lowell didn't think to include in the original polygraph, maybe you should start your analysis of the whole case all over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest regulation

>I'm not so sure there's anything

>mysterious about Lowell's unwillingness to

>let Condit do that second

>test. Quite apart from

>the defense lawyer's customary opposition

>to such a dicey (if

>not loopy) procedure,

 

But Lowell didn't oppose it. During his press conference he stated that if the police wanted a polygraph to be conducted he would try to make it happen.

 

Condit has

>nothing to gain by doing

>a polygraph set up by

>the local authorities and/or the

>FBI.

 

One thing he has to gain is support for his position that he is doing all he can to help solve the disappearance. That was the whole point of Lowell's press conference. Everything that is being told to the press on Condit's behalf is designed to make that very same point, and it is in Condit's interest to do whatever he can do to get people to believe it.

 

Consider this: even if

>he PASSES, it will only

>spawn a week or two's

>worth of talking heads explaining

>to Geraldo & Greta and

>Larry how sociopaths and mythomaniacs

>invariably 'pass' with the greatest

>of ease: in other words,

>it would just fan further

>suspicions about the poor schmuck.

 

Evidently he and Lowell don't agree with that, otherwise they would not have made the offer.

 

>Moreover, if you really think that

>the DC police (or even

>the poor, bedraggled FBI) could

>possibly know (or even suspect)

> something about the Condit/Levy

>relationship than hasn't crossed Lowell's

>mind, or could frame cunning

>questions Lowell didn't think to

>include in the original polygraph,

>maybe you should start your

>analysis of the whole case

>all over again.

 

No, that isn't what I said at all. I said I think it's a safe assumption that Lowell knows all that Condit knows about the matter. He wouldn't take the case unless he was quite sure of that. What I am proposing is that Condit and Lowell know something about the relationship that does NOT implicate Condit in the woman's disappearance but that would cause Condit an even bigger problem than he currently has if it became public knowledge. That is the obvious explanation for Lowell's insistence that he control the questions asked of Condit on any polygraph test. He thinks there is something that the cops might well ask that he doesn't want revealed. What is it? He knows what it is. Condit knows what it is. Whether the police know about it or suspect it I don't know. But there is unquestionably something there. What?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as a "betting man", i would take a guess that ms levy was "with child" as they say here in the bible belt. as she told her aunt, she had an exciting "supprise" to share; a "love child" is my guess.

 

as for letting the police search the apartment over two months later, give me a break; anything that would point a finger at their relationship would have been long removed (still have a question about condit's ditching that watch box at the last minute; was it overlooked earlier? how much else got thrown away).

 

i find it interesting how the left wing women's groups have fallen silent on this. just shows the result of the bill/monica affair. a while back, these groups (rightfully) drove senator packwood out of town for such behavior (despite his profeminist voting record). when these groups fell on their swords for bill clinton, it was clear that they lost the right to complain the next time one of our great leaders could not keep his zipper up and take advantage of these young girls. the lack of outrage over the treatment of these young girls as nothing more than red meat for these older men is sad. it will take years to again bulid up to the point that these guys know to leave the young women alone. just one example how bill clinton lowered the bar of what is acceptable behavior. it will be interesting to see what happens when the man is a republican (and it will happen).

 

while these girls should know better, the position of a man in power saying the right thing can be overwhelming to these young girls. it is easy to see why they can fall for these guys. however, there should be rules of behavior for these men that establish lines they should not cross (as in the case of senator packwood). in my office, there are plenty of young hot guys (not all straight); however, i know enough to look elsewhere for sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest regulation

>as a "betting man", i would

>take a guess that ms

>levy was "with child" as

>they say here in the

>bible belt. as she told

>her aunt, she had an

>exciting "supprise" to share; a

>"love child" is my guess.

>

 

That's an interesting idea, but given that everyone already knows Condit had sex with her do you really think he would consider the revelation of a pregnancy so much more damaging that he would open himself up to attack for refusing to take the police polygraph in order to conceal it? I doubt it. I think it must be something worse. Much worse.

 

 

>as for letting the police search

>the apartment over two months

>later, give me a break;

>anything that would point a

>finger at their relationship would

>have been long removed (still

>have a question about condit's

>ditching that watch box at

>the last minute; was it

>overlooked earlier? how much else

>got thrown away).

>

 

He had already admitted the relationship BEFORE he consented to the search, so there was no reason for him to worry about anything in the apartment that merely confirmed she was present there on many occasions. He could only have been concerned about evidence of something else. What?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Reg, you've got me thoroughly confused. Here's what you wrote in your opening post:

 

>Although he spoke of allowing Condit

>to take a polygraph test in

>his press conference on the subject

>of cooperation with the police,

>Lowell has refused to allow such a test

>conducted by a police expert and has only

>permitted a test conducted by his own expert.

 

Then, in your second post, you wrote:

 

>But Lowell didn't oppose it.

>During his press conference he

>stated that if the police

>wanted a polygraph to be

>conducted he would try to

>make it happen.

 

Yes, and then, within a day, & without prior announcement, he had a test done (as you say) by his own expert. And now, although the police have clearly stated their dissatisfaction with that unilateral move, he clearly isn't going to allow the police/FBI to do a second test. So what's the difference? That he hasn't EXPLICITLY stated his opposition?

 

Countering my claim that Condit had nothing to gain by

submitting to the police polygraph, you write:

 

>One thing he has to gain

>is support for his position

>that he is doing all

>he can to help solve

>the disappearance. That was

>the whole point of Lowell's

>press conference. Everything that

>is being told to the

>press on Condit's behalf is

>designed to make that very

>same point, and it is

>in Condit's interest to do

>whatever he can do to

>get people to believe it.

 

Maybe, but my point was that NOTHING he does will get the press and the public off his back, not even the technically plausible claim that he'd done everything he could to cooperate, and that's because (and here I deliberately repeat myself) even if he PASSES, it will only spawn a week or two's worth of talking heads explaining to Geraldo & Greta and Larry how sociopaths and mythomaniacs invariably 'pass' with the greatest of ease.

 

To which point you'd already replied with

 

>Evidently he and Lowell don't agree

>with that, otherwise they would

>not have made the offer.

 

Huh?

 

Anyway, you go on to clarify your basic point by saying that

 

>what I am proposing is

>that Condit and Lowell know

>something about the relationship that

>does NOT implicate Condit in

>the woman's disappearance but that

>would cause Condit an even

>bigger problem than he currently

>has if it became public

>knowledge. That is the

>obvious explanation for Lowell's insistence

>that he control the questions

>asked of Condit on any

>polygraph test. He thinks

>there is something that the

>cops might well ask that

>he doesn't want revealed.

 

But the cops don't need to give Condit a polygraph test to ask him an embarrassing question, do they? And since, as you yourself say, Condit isn't in any legal danger, wouldn't embarrassment (even if it IS of the career-ending sort) be much more likely to occur (via a police or FBI leak) if Lowell insists on remaining uncooperative?

 

Maybe if you'd finally tell us your theory, your whole point would be a lot clearer (to me, anyway.)

 

BTW I really can't buy BigJoey's pregnancy theory. Already aired weeks & weeks ago, it went nowhere despite the media's fervent wish to the contrary, and besides--what young woman (even a ditzy one) would think that getting pregnant by a married man

is an exciting surprise to share with her aunt (or anybody else)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest regulation

>Yes, and then, within a day,

>& without prior announcement, he

>had a test done (as

>you say) by his own

>expert. And now, although the

>police have clearly stated their

>dissatisfaction with that unilateral move,

>he clearly isn't going to

>allow the police/FBI to do

>a second test. So

>what's the difference? That

>he hasn't EXPLICITLY stated his

>opposition?

>

 

I see no inconsistency in my remarks or in Lowell's. During his press conference Lowell was asked by a reporter whether he would comply with a request from the police for a polygraph of Condit. Lowell replied that if such a request was made he would try to work it out, or words to that effect. As we know, such a request was indeed made, and Lowell's method of "working it out" was to have a polygraph done, but by his expert rather than the police's expert, and then to make the results available to the police.

 

>Maybe, but my point was that

>NOTHING he does will get

>the press and the public

>off his back, not even

>the technically plausible claim that

>he'd done everything he could

>to cooperate, and that's because

>(and here I deliberately repeat

>myself) even if he PASSES,

>it will only spawn a

>week or two's worth of

>talking heads explaining to Geraldo

>& Greta and Larry how

>sociopaths and mythomaniacs invariably 'pass'

>with the greatest of ease.

>

>

>To which point you'd already replied

>with

>

>>Evidently he and Lowell don't agree

>>with that, otherwise they would

>>not have made the offer.

>

>Huh?

>

 

 

Sorry if I was unclear. It should be obvious that Lowell and Condit don't agree with the notion that passing a polygraph is of no value to Condit, since (a) Lowell told the press that he would try to arrange a polygraph if the police requested it and (b) he then did arrange such a test and then trumpeted to the press that Condit had passed it.

 

>Anyway, you go on to clarify

>your basic point by saying

>that

>

>>what I am proposing is

>>that Condit and Lowell know

>>something about the relationship that

>>does NOT implicate Condit in

>>the woman's disappearance but that

>>would cause Condit an even

>>bigger problem than he currently

>>has if it became public

>>knowledge. That is the

>>obvious explanation for Lowell's insistence

>>that he control the questions

>>asked of Condit on any

>>polygraph test. He thinks

>>there is something that the

>>cops might well ask that

>>he doesn't want revealed.

>

>But the cops don't need to

>give Condit a polygraph test

>to ask him an embarrassing

>question, do they?

 

 

That is quite right. But if they ask him such a question and the machine shows that his answer is a lie, you know very well that that information will soon make its way to the media. That is clearly what he and Lowell are trying to avoid.

 

 

>And

>since, as you yourself say,

>Condit isn't in any legal

>danger, wouldn't embarrassment (even if

>it IS of the career-ending

>sort) be much more likely

>to occur (via a police

>or FBI leak) if Lowell

>insists on remaining uncooperative?

>

 

In fact, I didn't say that Condit is in no legal danger. I merely said that he is almost certainly innocent of kidnapping and murder. There are lots of other crimes.

 

As for embarrassment, you make an excellent point. But there is no need for a leak. Everyone already knows that Lowell has refused a police polygraph, and that fact alone is embarrassing to Condit since it tells everyone that he still has something to hide. But he made the decision to endure that additional damage in order to hide it. So it must be something even worse than what we know already, right? The question is, what?

 

>Maybe if you'd finally tell us

>your theory, your whole point

>would be a lot clearer

>(to me, anyway.)

 

I don't have a "theory." I can think of one or two additional assumptions about the nature of the fact that Condit is concealing and will disclose them if you wish.

 

>BTW I really can't buy BigJoey's

>pregnancy theory. Already aired

>weeks & weeks ago, it

>went nowhere despite the media's

>fervent wish to the contrary,

>and besides--what young woman (even

>a ditzy one) would think

>that getting pregnant by a

>married man

>is an exciting surprise to share

>with her aunt (or anybody

>else)?

 

Good question. I tend to agree with you about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>and besides--what young woman (even a ditzy one) would think

>>that getting pregnant by a married man is an exciting surprise to share with her aunt (or anybody else)?

>

>Good question. I tend to agree with you about that.

 

Okay. First let me say I have studiously avoided the early trash surrounding this case, but now am getting interested. Mostly, then, initially, I have questions, if you don't mind.

 

What *would* a young woman think was an exciting surprise to share with her aunt? Well, something to SHOW (e.g. an engagement ring, a tattoo, or some other object that would require "back story"). Or something to TELL (e.g. a new relationship, an outcome or consequence that, again, needs more background or context than Levy would want to provide on the phone or by e-mail).

 

Second, I look at what else has been happening in WDC (that I've bothered to notice). Mrs. Carolyn Condit was in Washington the day Chandra Levy disappeared. It's tempting to posit that she eradicated Levy in an OxyContin frenzy, or whatever, but, as of today (7-30), the police rule her out as a suspect. So, again, what else has been happening in Washington.

 

Here is where I momentarily reach for a paranoid conclusion: could there be any connection between the Chandra Levy case and the disappearance of umpteen FBI laptop computers? Oh, Lord. If there's a connection there, then we have the makings for a real soap opera. (Where is Oedipa Maas when you need her.)

 

It would be tempting to try, at this point, to link Mr. Mentor himself, Bill Clinton, to the case. Clinton remains, to date, the alpha male of the Democratic Party. But that, it seems to me, is way too easy.

 

So, in the end, I dunno.

 

Reg?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest regulation

>What *would* a young woman think

>was an exciting surprise to

>share with her aunt? Well,

>something to SHOW (e.g. an

>engagement ring, a tattoo, or

>some other object that would

>require "back story"). Or something

>to TELL (e.g. a new

>relationship, an outcome or consequence

>that, again, needs more background

>or context than Levy would

>want to provide on the

>phone or by e-mail).

>

 

I agree with you that Chandra's remark to her aunt is a rather tantalizing clue. But where does it lead us? It could mean that she thought the relationship she had described to her aunt was about to be legitimized by her marriage to Condit. Or it could mean that she had decided to end a relationship of which her aunt probably disapproved because she had met someone of whom the aunt would approve. Like CZ, I doubt she would use such words to describe the fact that she was pregnant by a married man who had no intention of marrying her. She must have known that her aunt would regard such news as appalling rather than wonderful.

 

I also don't think that Mrs. Condit is involved, mainly because if she was Lowell would know about it and would insist on separate counsel for her, which so far as I know he has not done. That is not to say that she does not know something that is not known to the authorities and which may be protected from disclosure by spousal privilege.

 

 

>It would be tempting to try,

>at this point, to link

>Mr. Mentor himself, Bill Clinton,

>to the case. Clinton remains,

>to date, the alpha male

>of the Democratic Party. But

>that, it seems to me,

> is way too easy.

 

I think linking Clinton or the FBI laptops to this matter is a bit of a stretch.

 

It's not a stretch, however, to conclude that Condit is still hiding something about the relationship, something that would do him even more harm than the disclosures already made have done. So, if it's not murder or kidnapping, what would the folks back in Modesto consider even worse than adultery?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>So, if it's not murder or kidnapping,

>what would the folks back in Modesto

>consider even worse than adultery?

 

 

You might as well tell us what you think it is, Reg: it looks as if I'm the only one here who's dying to know. (And I sure hope you're not going to opine that Condit is a closet case!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pickwick

As a longtime Nero Wolfe fan I'd like to weigh in with my opinion (no pun intended). :-)

 

I accept the argument that Abbe Lowell's actions show Condit is not involved in the girl's disappearance. If he thought Condit was guilty he would say nothing to the media and would say nothing to the cops except, "Be sure and let me know if you ever get probable cause to support a search warrant." Also I accept that Lowell's refusal of a police polygraph shows there are some other questions Condit doesn't want to answer.

 

Those questions have to fit certain parameters. They have to be related to the girl or Condit's relationship with the girl or Condit could legitimately refuse to answer on the ground that they have nothing to do with finding her. They have to be such that a truthful answer would put Condit in even more hot water than he is now in or he wouldn't object to answering them.

 

I can think of a couple that fit. One is, "Did she ever tell you she was pregnant by you and would get or had gotten an abortion?"

 

Another one is, "Did you and she ever use drugs together?" or possibly "Did you ever see her use drugs?"

 

Another one is, "Did you ever strike or choke her as part of a sexual encounter?"

 

Those are the most likely in my opinion. How am I doing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As one who has absolutely not been following all of this, I find myself quite taken with this thread. Please, Reg, do tell us at least one more angle you have picked up on. So far the back of my mind keeps thinking that you are about to intimate that they were selling drugs together or perhaps had started a female escort agency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest regulation

B, the point of this exercise is to employ your powers of ratiocination to form reasonable assumptions based on the facts available. And this is an excellent case for it. There is no physical or testimonial evidence that tells us what happened. The police have admitted as much. In the absence of such evidence there is nothing we or the police can do other than what we are doing -- reason on the basis of the facts available.

 

I think it would be difficult to put it much better than Mr. Pickwick has put it. The one fault I can find with his remarks is that I would put more emphasis on the second of his two parameters: whatever Condit is hiding must be signficantly worse than what is known already, because if it is not there is no reason for Condit to refuse a police polygraph and endure the resulting criticism in order to hide it.

 

Of the three questions he raised I think the first, about pregnancy and abortion, is probably the weakest. I think it is very unlikely that the young woman would be pregnant without telling anyone and even more unlikely that she could arrange an abortion without anyone else knowing it, don't you agree? And if the secret Condit is keeping is something that is likely to be known to someone other than he and the young woman, he must assume that it will come out at some point and so has less of an incentive to hide it at the cost of some additional damage to himself. I think it is more reasonable to assume that it is something that only he and she would know. Which makes Pick's other two questions better. Of those two, which do you prefer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>I think it is more reasonable to

>assume that it is something

>that only he and she

>would know. Which makes

>Pick's other two questions better.

> Of those two, which

>do you prefer?

 

Of the two, I would pick (joint) cocaine use. Call me old fashioned, but Chandra Levy into sexual asphyxiation? I don't think so. Cocaine, on the other hand, is so much more widely used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest regulation

>Of the two, I would pick

>(joint) cocaine use. Call me

>old fashioned, but Chandra Levy

>into sexual asphyxiation? I don't

>think so. Cocaine, on the

>other hand, is so much

>more widely used.

 

I think both of Pick's questions are very good ones because they are both questions that (a) relate to Condit's relationship with Chandra, (b) would get Condit in even bigger trouble if the true answer is affirmative, and © would likely be asked by the police in a polygraph test because they could be relevant to the disappearance.

 

Of the two I also prefer the question about drugs simply because I have a notion that drug use is more common than autoerotic asphyxiation. Of course, if the young woman had been killed either by drugs or asphyxiation that would not make her body vanish. One would have to assume that someone else was involved in the deadly episode and that that person disposed of the body to avoid exposure of his involvement.

 

I can think of one other question that fits all of (a), (b), and ©. Can you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pickwick

>Of the two I also prefer

>the question about drugs simply

>because I have a notion

>that drug use is more

>common than autoerotic asphyxiation.

>Of course, if the young

>woman had been killed either

>by drugs or asphyxiation that

>would not make her body

>vanish. One would have

>to assume that someone else

>was involved in the deadly

>episode and that that person

>disposed of the body to

>avoid exposure of his involvement.

>

 

Okay, but you are not suggesting that Condit is the "someone else" involved, right? That certainly wouldn't fit with your analysis of the case so far, or with mine.

 

 

>I can think of one other

>question that fits all of

>(a), (b), and ©.

>Can you?

 

I can think of lots of them, but none that are plausible. For example, asking Condit whether Chandra during one of their meetings saw something that implicated him in a crime unrelated to their affair, such as bribery, would be one. But I don't consider that plausible. Since he took elaborate precautions regarding the security of their meetings I doubt that he would leave incriminating documents lying around for her to read. What's your take?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pickwick

>when these groups

>fell on their swords for

>bill clinton, it was clear

>that they lost the right

>to complain the next time

>one of our great leaders

>could not keep his zipper

>up and take advantage of

>these young girls. the lack

>of outrage over the treatment

>of these young girls as

>nothing more than red meat

>for these older men is

>sad. it will take years

>to again bulid up to

>the point that these guys

>know to leave the young

>women alone.

 

Perhaps they failed to express outrage because they knew something we didn't. According to CNN, an article in an upcoming issue of Talk magazine states that through interviews of Chandra's friends the author learned that Condit is merely the most recent in a series of affairs she had with older, married men. If so, it becomes difficult to continue portraying her as an innocent young thing who was beguiled by a smooth-talking politician. The plot thickens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest delhi

>>I can think of one other

>>question that fits all of

>>(a), (b), and ©.

>>Can you?

>

>I can think of lots of

>them, but none that are

>plausible.

 

 

Thanks for this thread, which is more interesting than seeing the twenty-fifth thread about coming out or the thirty-seventh thread about getting stood up by an escort. A lot of the time this message board is like CNN, where they keep repeating the same "news" over and over for the benefit of people who just tuned in.

 

Anyway, I can think of a question that fits, which is, "Were there ever other people present or other people participating during any of your sex sessions with Chandra?" What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pickwick

>Anyway, I can think of a

>question that fits, which is,

>"Were there ever other people

>present or other people participating

>during any of your sex

>sessions with Chandra?" What

>do you think?

 

Excellent, Archie! :-) In addition to explaining Condit's refusal to take the police test, it also provides a motive for someone else to do away with the girl. First rate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest regulation

>

>>Anyway, I can think of a

>>question that fits, which is,

>>"Were there ever other people

>>present or other people participating

>>during any of your sex

>>sessions with Chandra?" What

>>do you think?

>

>Excellent, Archie! :-) In

>addition to explaining Condit's refusal

>to take the police test,

>it also provides a motive

>for someone else to do

>away with the girl.

>First rate!

 

 

I think that question is a very good one and opens up a whole series of intriguing possibilities about the explanation of the young woman's disappearance. I would be willing to bet, however, that the true explanation is nowhere near as interesting as the question suggests it could be. If I were writing a novel about this scandal, delhi's is the explanation I would use. If I wanted to stick close to the truth, however, I would focus on the drug or kinky sex issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest WetDream

RE: Ted Kennedy's driving skills

 

How quickly yesterday's scandals are forgotten. Ted Kennedy drove his car off the Dike Bridge (I'm not making this up) comming from Chappaquidik Island. He escaped, but a young woman (Mary Jo Koepeckni?) was drowned. There was a feeling at the time that he could have saved her; there was a great big hint that the two were involved sexually. This incident probably put the kibosh on Teddie's chances of running for president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...