kraftdinner
|
posted on May 29, 2002 06:18:27 PM new
Do you still think he killed Chandra?
|
hepburn101
|
posted on May 29, 2002 06:32:17 PM new
I think he had something to do with it, if not actually doing it himself. Personally, I think MRS condit did it.
|
gravid
|
posted on May 29, 2002 06:33:21 PM new
That sort of man would never do the deed himself so I can't see that anything about her political connections generating a motive for murder have changed.
She was in the political circle deep enough to learn too much about a number of people any of whom could have seen her as a danger.
It comes with the territory.
|
hepburn101
|
posted on May 29, 2002 06:50:52 PM new
Although saddened at her demise, I also wonder about her "motives". Maybe you are right, Gravid. Maybe she knew something on someone else. Maybe she didnt. But you have to wonder about a gal that knows her lover is married and brags that she wants his children and that they will be married. What was she thinking? If she is too young to understand nasty politicians who want in panties, then she was too young to be an intern. Or, she wasnt too young at all and knew exactly what she wanted and went after it, not expecting the end results.
|
auroranorth
|
posted on May 29, 2002 07:21:15 PM new
come on Gary now is the time big the big marketing deal and you and Kennedy can have a new book all you have to do is change your name to gary Condom and Susie will marry Kennedy but only is she chnages her name to susie chappaquiddick.
|
Valleygirl
|
posted on May 29, 2002 07:22:26 PM new
Hepburn, I agree with you, but I'll take it a little farther.
She is just as much an adulterer as he is. However, I think she just went out for a jog, someone came from behind her, killed her, and maybe raped her. I suspect the guy who is already in prison for similiar crimes.
And smarmy Gary Condit is one unlucky adulterer to get caught fooling around this way.
I'm sorry for the parents, I'm sorry she died, but she's not little miss innocent.
Not my name on ebay.
|
KatyD
|
posted on May 29, 2002 07:31:35 PM new
Having an affair with a married man is not punishable by death last time I checked. I can empathize with her. She was young and immature. What may look like a good choice at a 24 year old, is really a stupid choice at age 45. But there's a few more years of "life experience" gained as we age. I can think of ALOT of bad choices I made at 24.
Talk about blaming the victim. Sheesh!
KatyD
|
hepburn101
|
posted on May 29, 2002 07:47:16 PM new
I dont see anyone here blaming the victim. I see a young girl that wasnt too young to be on her own, work in a place that is high profile and risky to say the least, at the mercy of nasty men who take advantage of that ignorance,that knew right from wrong and she went along with the wrong. She didnt deserve to die for it, but she is NOT innocent, either.
|
KatyD
|
posted on May 29, 2002 08:02:11 PM new
Well excuse me. I thought we were talking about a vibrant young woman who was murdered and is mourned by her family and many friends. How nice to point out that she wasn't INNOCENT. Why don't you write her parents and let them know Chandra isn't INNOCENT. I'm sure that might make them feel better. After all what you're insinuating is the age old "she brought it on herself" baloney.
NONE of us are "INNOCENT". If you're not blaming the victim, precisely what is Chandra NOT INNOCENT of? And whatever does it have to do with her being murdered?
KatyD
|
hepburn101
|
posted on May 29, 2002 08:05:09 PM new
I think you need to chill out. Relax. You are way too upset. Go watch the sunset. But before you go, you might want to reread the comments here and stop trying to make something what it is not.
|
KatyD
|
posted on May 29, 2002 08:10:20 PM new
I'm very relaxed. Thank you. 
This is what I'm seeing...
Although saddened at her demise, I also wonder about her "motives".
knew exactly what she wanted and went after it, not expecting the end results.
I'm sorry she died, but she's not little miss innocent.
She didnt deserve to die for it, but she is NOT innocent, either.
Everyone of those statement blame the victim. So I'll ask you again, what was she NOT innocent of?
KatyD
|
hepburn101
|
posted on May 29, 2002 08:15:05 PM new
I meant exactly what I said. She is not innocent of being innocent. In other words, she put herself in a situation that she didnt realize would backfire on her. However, being an intern, and being 24, and being raised by "decent parents" who taught her right from wrong, she is not innocent of knowing she was having an affair with a married man, a man who is in a powerful position, and not considering the consequences of those actions..the tearing up of a marriage, the hurt she may cause Mrs Condit and the children of the Condits by her actions, etc. I never once said she deserved to die. You tried to make it seem thats what I was getting at, and that wasnt my intention at all.
Im glad you are very relaxed. Being on the south end of me, I know the sunset is nice on this end,and figured it would be also on that end.
|
hepburn101
|
posted on May 29, 2002 08:19:33 PM new
Let me ask YOU a question. Just at what age is innocence lost? 18? 25? 30? When do people take responsibility and not fall back on "I was young and didnt understand"? Being in the position she was in...being deemed intelligent enough to do the job she was being trained for, having a license to drive a vehicle and be considered "adult", just when is she supposed to have enough common sense to know the results of her own actions? And I am speaking of the affair she had with Condit, not her demise.
|
hepburn101
|
posted on May 29, 2002 08:26:40 PM new
Well excuse me. I thought we were talking about a vibrant young woman who was murdered and is mourned by her family and many friends. How nice to point out that she wasn't INNOCENT. Why don't you write her parents and let them know Chandra isn't INNOCENT. I'm sure that might make them feel better. After all what you're insinuating is the age old "she brought it on herself" baloney.
We were talking about whether Condit was still thought guilty. I said what I said. You commented I should write her parents and say the same thing. Well, excuse me too, because if that is the case, then everyone spoken about here would fit in the same response then, wouldnt it? I never insinuated she brought it on herself. You did.
NONE of us are "INNOCENT". If you're not blaming the victim, precisely what is Chandra NOT INNOCENT of? And whatever does it have to do with her being murdered?
I never said anyone is perfectly innocent. And it doesnt have anything to do with her murder. I was refering to her actions while alive. I know nothing of her death except what the newspapers say.
I will have to return later, or tomorrow. Gotta get some things done, so Im outta here for awhile.
[ edited by hepburn101 on May 29, 2002 08:31 PM ]
|
Helenjw
|
posted on May 29, 2002 08:39:36 PM new
She simply loved a man and this doesn't usually "backfire" into death. There is a big difference between the possible emotional stress of Mrs Condit and death. Furthermore, Chandra didn't intend to cause Mrs. Condit and her children stress.
Your especially nasty remark, "If she is too young to understand nasty politicians who want in panties, then she was too young to be an intern" is sick in my opinion.
It doesn't surprise me that you blame the victim and only one day after the memorial service publish your nasty remark.
Helen
|
KatyD
|
posted on May 29, 2002 08:49:54 PM new
just when is she supposed to have enough common sense to know the results of her own actions?
What "results" are you talking about? Getting murdered? To my knowledge, other than her "murder", I don't know of any "results" that occured because of her "actions", assuming here you meant her affair with Condit. Mr and Mrs Condit are still married (happily so they say). Mr. Condit didn't get re-elected, but that was a result of HIS actions, which was lying and trying to cover up the affair.
knew exactly what she wanted and went after it, not expecting the end results.
What are these "end results" you refer to? Her murder? That statement (along with the others) is a perfect example of "blaming the victim".
to know the results of her own actions?
So. What were the "results" of Chandra's own actions? And again, which "actions" are you referring to?
KatyD
|
Valleygirl
|
posted on May 29, 2002 08:53:30 PM new
Neither Hepburn nor I are "blaming the victim" Chandra didn't deserve to die, and I grieve along with the parents for their pain.
I didn't equate her death with her being an adulterer. I felt it was totally a random thing, I don't think Condit is involved.
Its kinda like when my parolees tell me they were on drugs when they robbed the store. Well, last time I looked, using drugs was also a crime. Someone can dump a truckload of dope in my livingroom and it still isn't going up my nose.
And I still won't have an affair with a married man. It's wrong at 24, its wrong at 18 and its wrong at 45. If a 24 year old doesn't know its wrong to have an affair, then someone didn't teach her ethics and morality. What was it that was said on another thread? Sleep with dogs and you get fleas?
Not my name on ebay.
|
KatyD
|
posted on May 29, 2002 08:58:01 PM new
Sleep with dogs and you get fleas?
So what are you inferring that Chandra "got"? Fleas?
How nice that you have never made any mistakes in your life. Congratulations for leading a truly upstanding moral and ethical life all the years you've been alive. You never made a mistake in your whole life. That's swell.
KatyD
|
Valleygirl
|
posted on May 29, 2002 08:59:27 PM new
Helen:
She "loved" a man who should have been unatainable. She hurt a lot of people in the process, it has nothing to do with the fact she's been murdered. I separate the two incidents in my mind.
Not my name on ebay.
|
Valleygirl
|
posted on May 29, 2002 09:00:16 PM new
No Katy, I'm not perfect, just forgiven.
Not my name on ebay.
|
KatyD
|
posted on May 29, 2002 09:00:49 PM new
No you don't.
Sleep with dogs and you get fleas
KatyD
|
Helenjw
|
posted on May 29, 2002 09:10:26 PM new
Valleygirl, you and Hepburn speak for each other?
Why should a man be unatainable? He probably loved her also. Love is not nasty sex.
The death of a lovely girl is what hurt a lot of people.
Helen
|
Valleygirl
|
posted on May 29, 2002 09:12:29 PM new
A man SHOULD be unatainable because he's married. You know, morality and all that?
Not my name on ebay.
|
KatyD
|
posted on May 29, 2002 09:17:23 PM new
I'm sorry she died, but she's not little miss innocent.
So...do you always comment on a person's "morality" (or lack of) when you find out they are dead? Just trying to figure out why you needed to follow up the comment about Chandra not being "little miss innocent" AFTER you say you're sorry she died.
KatyD
|
Helenjw
|
posted on May 29, 2002 09:19:10 PM new
If that's your idea of morality then I suggest you follow it. Tell your husband that he is unatainable. LOL!!!
I wish you would stop saying what your name is not on Ebay. HaHa
|
stockticker
|
posted on May 29, 2002 09:28:26 PM new
If we are talking about morality, isn't the responsibility of to the married man to be unattainable? He's the one that made the marriage commitment She didn't.
Irene
|
kiara
|
posted on May 29, 2002 09:40:52 PM new
[ edited by kiara on May 30, 2002 11:23 PM ]
|
hepburn101
|
posted on May 29, 2002 10:23:11 PM new
My my. Seems nobody is allowed to post opinions in here unless it goes with the flow of the majority.
Again, I stand by what I said. Read into it what you will. Make of it what you will. Its my opinion, and only mine.
Helen, kiss my a$$. To quote you, "I wont take any of your BS either".
|
Linda_K
|
posted on May 30, 2002 03:52:11 AM new
Yes, Kraftdinner, I do believe he either did it himself or someone did it for him.
I don't believe she went jogging...reports said she wasn't wearing jogging shoes/clothes.
Other reports said she rarely jogged. Think they said she usually exercised at a local gym [she had just cancelled her gym membership the day before, I believe.]
Having looked up [online] the specific park she was eventually found in, also leads me to believe this wasn't a ramdom murder.
While there is a minute doubt in my mind Gary Condits actions, and coverup, lead me to believe he was somehow involved.
|
krs
|
posted on May 30, 2002 04:39:49 AM new
Chandra was not innocent. She entered into an illicit affair. While that can be termed to be a "silly and stupid thing all for the sake of love", it is still a violation of the mores unavoidably instilled into her by life amongst the rest of us.
Aside, isn't it a fine convenience that a woman such as katyd could lay claim to innocence born of ignorance and silliness while in youth and but a short time afterwards again make such claim now born of hormonal imbalance upon leaving youth behind.
|
