The issue came up repeatedly throughout the cross-examination, with Ms. Hawilo asking at one point: “Are you refusing to respond because you think the answer will incriminate you?”
At another point, Ms. Hawilo suggested that Mr. Condit failed to give police the whole truth about his relationship. Police asked him in one interview, “What was the nature of your relationship with Miss Levy?” Mr. Condit responded that he was friends with her. He insisted he gave the full truth to police but declined to answer whether he equated a sexual relationship with friendship.
Throughout his testimony, Mr. Condit referred to police investigators whom he said were hounding him unfairly and refusing to believe legitimate alibis he provided to them. He constantly referred to the media attention as a “circus” and said investigators were “out of line” when they demanded to interview his wife.
Mr. Condit also became emotional when he described how the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks wiped his name from the headlines. He said 100 reporters were staking out his apartment that morning. After the planes hit, they were all gone.
At the end of his direct testimony, Ms. Haines asked Mr. Condit directly: “Did you murder Chandra Levy?” He responded, “No.” He also responded “No, ma’am” to the question of whether he had anything to do with her disappearance.
Mr. Condit testified that he last saw Levy a week before she disappeared and they discussed whether he could help her make some contacts with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies where she hoped to work. Mr. Condit told her he would help.
“We never had a fight. We never had any cross words,” he said.
Mr. Condit was dressed in a blue oxford shirt and a sport coat, his hair now completely gray.
In the courtroom, taking careful notes on his testimony, was Levy’s mother, Susan Levy, who has been in the courtroom throughout the trial and was fiercely critical of Mr. Condit throughout the investigation.
During Monday’s cross-examination, Ms. Hawilo questioned Mr. Condit’s assertion that he had been fully cooperative. She asked why he invoked the Fifth Amendment in a grand jury interview in April 2002 and suggested that he was worried about incriminating himself.
Mr. Condit testified that he was despondent because he had just lost his primary re-election campaign and he thought the prosecutor “was there to do what he could to try to trick me or cause me pain.”
• This story is based in part on wire service reports.
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Ben Conery is a member of the investigative team covering the Supreme Court and legal affairs. Prior to coming to The Washington Times in 2008, Mr. Conery covered criminal justice and legal affairs for daily newspapers in Connecticut and Massachusetts. He was a 2006 recipient of the New England Newspaper Association’s Publick Occurrences Award for a series of articles about ...
By John Solomon
How the government's punishing of the exposure of official wrongdoing can linger for years
Independent voices from the TWT Communities
“Right Angles” explores serious subjects, such as the Islamization of the Middle East and delegitimization of Israel, with humor, candor and a twist.
What does the middle-class conservative think about everything? Find out here.
A carefully guided tour through the confusing world of modern bookselling and publishing.
Columns from Voices around the World talking about the events, people, politics and social issues that concern us wherever, and whoever, we are.
Benghazi: The anatomy of a scandal
Vietnam Memorial adds four names
Cinco de Mayo on the Mall
NRA kicks off annual convention