Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Larry King Live
What Happened to Chandra Levy?
Aired July 19, 2001 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, Gary Condit, still silent despite intense press security. Chandra Levy, still missing after 80 agonizing days. Where does this mystery stand and why is it so hard to solve?
Joining us form L.A., a man who has helped find missing people and bring criminals to justice, John Walsh, host of "America's Most Wanted." And then, another round of outspoken debate on the Levy case. Former federal prosecutor and best-selling author Barbara Olson, in Los Angeles, defense attorney Mark Geragos, here in Washington, former prosecutor Nancy Grace, now with Court TV. With her is former independent counsel, former federal prosecutor Michael Zeldin, and the former criminal defense attorney, host of her own syndicated radio talk show Laura Ingraham. They're all next on LARRY KING LIVE!
We begin with John Walsh, who did that incredible program last Saturday night with the Levys. How many calls, contacts were made from that show, John?
JOHN WALSH, HOST, "AMERICA'S MOST WANTED": We had 166 tips, Larry, two of which police think were very, very good tips. A woman who wanted to remain anonymous, a congressional intern, said that the day before Chandra Levy went missing, a couple of guys in a white van with no windows approached her and tried to get her to come into the van. She refused to get into the van, and they drove away.
The same day, we got a tip on Saturday night that the same day a woman coming out of a law firm who was trying to hail a cab was approached by a white van with no windows, two guys in it, who tried to get her in the van and said, "look, we'll take you anywhere," and she said, "no, absolutely not, I won't." And she got in the cab, and the cabdriver and her followed the van and saw this van approach two other women who didn't get in the van also.
So, police are following up and they're talking to the woman from the law firm, trying to get a better description of the van and these two guys.
KING: Your son Adam -- it's been 20 years since he went missing, right?
WALSH: Yes. This is the 20th anniversary of when our 6-year-old son Adam was kidnapped in Hollywood, Florida, and then two weeks later found murdered.
KING: And his killer was apprehended, right?
WALSH: Well, everyone believes that Otis Toole killed Adam. He was a serial killer who died on death row in Florida of AIDS and cirrhosis of the liver and made a deathbed confession. He was the prime suspect.
KING: If Chandra were your child, would you have grave doubts about the congressman, since he doesn't speak out, or doesn't go on television and ask people to please look for her?
WALSH: Well, I think it is a double-edged sword, Larry. You know, there are about 55,000 missing women in the FBI national crime information computer, and none of them have gotten the attention that Chandra Levy has, but she has gotten this attention because of her relationship with Gary Condit.
Now, I know 20 years ago, when Adam went missing, my wife and I were called to the police department. Day one, that afternoon, we took the lie detector test because that is part of cooperating with police, so that they can ask, is there a boyfriend, is there a girlfriend involved, the weird uncle.
By delaying this police investigation, I think he set it off track. He should have gone in day one and said: "You are going to find out I had sexual relationship with this woman. She was in my apartment. I was in her apartment. I will do anything I can to help you get her back." That is the right thing to do.
But by him not coming forth, I honestly think that he thought he was going to slide, that it was going go away, that she would be found or she had run away or that she had run off with somebody else. But it is a strange double-edged sword. By him not cooperating he has kept this woman's face in the forefront.
And Larry, you and I -- you spent a lot of time in Florida, remember Ted Bundy? He killed 29 women, and he said -- before he was executed, he said: "You know what? Women are easy to take because nobody cares them. Cops don't look for them. I knew the minute I grabbed a woman and once I crossed the county line, I was safe." And of those 29 women that he murdered, almost three-quarters of them were listed as runaways or voluntarily missing. That really is a terrible travesty. He murdered those 29 women. They weren't runaways.
KING: John, concerning the police -- I want to read a quote to you from former FBI official Robert Ressler and get your thoughts. He helped set up the violent criminal apprehension program at the FBI, and he says: "They lost time, they lost momentum. Poor police investigation at the outset leads to unsolved crimes." Questioning the wisdom as well of frequent interviews given by high-ranking members of the police and the perception that police carry out some investigative activities because of media pressure. What do you gather of growing amount of police criticism?
WALSH: Well, I think a lot of time was lost focusing on Gary Condit. I believe in parallel investigations. And I believe that, yes, they should be looking at Gary Condit, but there were two women that were murdered that were abducted in Dupont Circle in the previous two years. One was a Ph.D., a woman who was walking home, 28 years old, looked very much like Chandra Levy, lived about a mile from her. Her body was found bludgeoned in Georgetown.
The second woman, Joyce Chiang, was a very accomplished attorney for the INS. She was a former congressional intern. She went missing. Her brother actually had to bring a box of fliers down to the police department and say, "please look for my sister." They found her body badly decomposed in the Potomac river three months later.
Now, there are two unsolved murders of two women that lived about a mile from Chandra Levy. There should have been a parallel investigation. I believe that D.C. police should have been talking to registered sex offenders, convicted sex offenders, canvassing the neighborhood, and I believe that there is some connection to these two murders, these two unsolved murders, and Chandra's disappearance.
KING: Do you suspect the worst about Chandra?
WALSH: You know, Larry, the Levys are wonderful, brave, brave, people. They did an incredible interview with us. We asked a lot of tough questions, ruled out the possibility of suicide. We talked about pregnancy. Loving family.
They know and I think they are starting to feel like everybody else, that a lot of time has gone by, 80 days. They would have heard from her if she was alive. You know, I think that they are getting ready for the worst. That is the reality with women that have been missing this long of a period of time.
But you know what it is? They descended into the same hell that I went through, the not knowing is the worst, Larry, the not knowing. Not knowing what happened to your child, that is what are they going through right now. But I think that they are at the point right now where they may have given hope -- up hope to see her alive.
We never give up hope. I mean, we have caught people got missing children back after six years. But it is pretty tough to hide a 23- year-old woman, and I'm -- this is not the type of girl, from everybody that knows her and this loving family, that would run away to have a baby in Ecuador and not tell parents. That is absolutely not a possibility.
KING: We will take a break and be back with some more moments with John Walsh, and then our panel will assemble. We will ask them -- in fact, we will show you a little bit about what the police chief had to say concerning the serial killer question when we come back. Don't go away.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "AMERICA'S MOST WANTED")
SUSAN LEVY, CHANDRA LEVY'S MOTHER: She wouldn't give us a time exactly when she was coming home, as far as airplane time. And that I found kind of bothersome to me, because I would think she would tell me exactly when, what time she was coming home, like what reservation, or what plane she is going to come in.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: We are back with John Walsh. John, early, about an hour earlier, police chief Charles Ramsey appeared on Wolf Blitzer's show earlier tonight, and Wolf asked him about your theory that a serial killer may be on the loose, given the fact that other young women were killed in the area. Here is what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHIEF CHARLES RAMSEY, D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE: Well, I think he is making a huge leap and I have stated that before. Certainly we have other missing persons. We entered the information on Chandra into VICAP, which is the Violent Criminal Apprehension Program the FBI has about two months ago. We have not found anything. We have laid all these cases side by side as well as some other cases. And we have not found any connection between them as of yet. But obviously we are going to explore all possibilities.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Does that answer satisfy you, John?
WALSH: Well, I think it is a typical police answer, Larry. If you remember, years ago, in Atlanta when they had the Atlanta child murders, the Atlanta police, Whether they were afraid of losing you know, tourism whatever, they didn't say that there was a serial killer until 22 boys had been murdered and they put it all together, and it wound up 27 boys being murdered.
That is a typical response. I know Chief Ramsey. He is working hard on this case, and they don't want to create any hysteria, but I remember couple years ago, I went up to Rochester, New York, a quiet little college town and they had 17 women missing and they were very reluctant, the police, to say that the murders are related. But I think it is a possibility and I think that police have to be doing a parallel investigation. They can't rule out anything at this point.
KING: Are there are any, you would favor, I would gather, it is your business, media attention, on this, right?
WALSH: Absolutely. I know one thing, Larry: 70 percent of missing children are found because of pictures. America's most wanted has been so successful because of American public television. We have caught 676 fugitives as a result of Saturday night's show. We caught the guy that was the Carnegie Deli killer in New York City who shot three people.
I mean the media is crucial in these cases, and the media breaks these cases wide open, but it's a double-edged sword, but the media plays a very important role in these cases. KING: Should the congressman come forward?
WALSH: I absolutely think so. I think he made a fatal mistake. Didn't he learn anything from our former famous president who said on national television I did not have sex with this intern and then went in a deposition got in trouble and was almost impeached?
America is a very forgiving country, and I heard someone say the other day look at Newt Gingrich who had a mistress and condemned everybody. Henry Hyde who tried to impeach Clinton then they found out he had a mistress. If adultery was illegal, half of Congress probably would be in jail.
But America is a very forgiving country and if Gary Condit had come forward two months ago and assisted in this investigation instead of being so deceptive, I think people would have forgiven him by now. He might have even been eliminated by now.
I'll tell you what, I do not understand why this man if he cares so much about this former lover and her family, why he doesn't come forward and say "this is how I feel about it, I should have done the right thing, I will do anything you want now, even going for a lie detector test." Why cloud the investigation?
KING: Of course, when you take that attitude, people on the street are saying he had do be involved.
WALSH: The thing that even complicates it more now is his brother is a fugitive. I mean here is a brother with an incredible history. The media has gone off on that tack. Here's a brother that has an outstanding fugitive warrant, Darrell Condit, now all speculation is maybe Darrell helped Gary. He has got to be more forthcoming. He has got to be more cooperative, and you know, this is something I really believe he is getting some very bad advice.
KING: John, thank you very much as always.
WALSH: Thank you, Larry.
KING: Great work.
WALSH: Thank you.
KING: John Walsh the host of "America's Most Wanted." When we come back our panel will assemble. They will be with us the rest of the way and we will be including your phone calls. This is LARRY KING LIVE, stay right there.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SUSAN LEVY, CHANDRA LEVY'S MOTHER: And there's too many missing people in the United States. And they are all important people. And we have a society that needs to be changed and this has to be addressed.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) KING: Welcome back to LARRY KING LIVE. Let's meet our panel now. They will be with us the rest of the way. In Ellison Bay, Wisconsin, Barbara Olson, former federal prosecutor, and best-selling author, last night here, tonight in Wisconsin. Who knows where she will be tomorrow. In Los Angeles, Mark Geragos, defense attorney. His clients have included Roger Clinton and Susan McDougal.
Here in Washington with us finally together, Nancy Grace, former prosecutor, host of "Trial Heat" on Court TV. Michael Zeldin is here too, former independent counsel, former prosecutor and 6 years a defense attorney as well. And Laura Ingraham, former criminal defense attorney, former clerk for Judge Clarence Thomas, and Westwood One syndicated radio talk show host. I had the honor appearing on her show which aired tonight. So it is great to have them altogether.
I assume everyone heard what John Walsh said. Barbara, did you agree pretty much with everything John Walsh said?
BARBARA OLSON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well you know John Walsh has been so instrumental and so good at finding people, and when he was talking about the deli murders unfortunately that was the same night they did the Levy thing and everybody was hoping someone would have seen something.
But I think in a way, Larry, your show and others are "America's Most Wanted" times a hundred, which is terrific. I do think the police have checked out the serial murder theory. I know they looked into it. They checked to see if there was any similarities. Now, the answer is but they don't know enough about Chandra to rule it out. But John Walsh, I certainly agree, cities do not want to advertise serial murders, certainly not Washington, D.C.
KING: Laura, what's puzzling here is and we'll ask it as an obvious question, we keep seem to be asking it every night. At this point, the wife knows he had a relationship so there is nothing to confess to her. Why doesn't he appear, unless like -- swims like a duck acts like a duck walks like a duck?
LAURA INGRAHAM, FORMER CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I think only person across America who doesn't think Gary Condit is a suspect in this case is probably Dan Rather. And, I -- because, look, I mean.
KING: And he may be weakening.
INGRAHAM: He might be buckling on that. The police said they might want to interview him a fourth time. Why would the police want to interview someone for a fourth time if in fact he wasn't really in reality, push all this debris away, he is a suspect. Police did a couple things, Larry, that were puzzling. No. 1, they did not know that he had a car in Washington until Anne Marie Smith, the flight attendant revealed that.
They did not check out the fact that his alibi did not hold up. ABC News reporter had to come forward an say I didn't have lunch with him that day. In fact, until yesterday, at least up until yesterday she hadn't been interviewed by the police. Why is that? You know, why is that? Why are those questions unanswered?
KING: Mark Geragos, are you weakening in your defenses of Congressman Condit?
MARK GERAGOS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Hardly am I weakening. I don't want your viewers to miss the fact that it took both Ann Coulter and Ms. Alksne to replace Laura Ingraham. But she is back and welcome back.
INGRAHAM: Thank you.
KING: It took two to be on -- that's right, he counts people.
GERAGOS: Exactly, I'm counting how many blondes you've got on the other side. I keep count of that.
KING: Wait Nancy looks fantastic, too.
GERAGOS: She does, she does. I saw her in that bright outfit there, it's stunning. The -- my resolve has not weakened only because I think when you listen to John, you see that what he is talking about here with Miss Mirzayan and with Joyce Chiang are two people who both were within 4 or 5 years of Chandra Levy, both lived within one mile of where Chandra Levy was. Both had a -- at least in Miss Mirzayan's case -- a striking resemblance to Chandra Levy. And you have to wonder if maybe that isn't where the answer lies to this mystery.
KING: Wait, let me get everyone in first before we go around again. I like to get everyone established. Nancy, is that a good point?
NANCY GRACE, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Ii understand his point, but there is the big difference that he is missing and that is, their bodies were found. Your run of the mill, your typical killer or rapist, if there is such a thing, but speaking statistically, your run-of-the mill killer or rapist does not go to this great length, this detail to hide the body.
Both of those bodies were found in, dare I say, predictable spots for a killer or rapist. Not so with Chandra Levy.
GERAGOS: Except, Nancy, Christine was found, at least from what I remember, about 24 hours after. Joyce was found about three or four months after.
GRACE: Correct.
BLITZER: You're getting up to that point where, if there is some kind of an increasing stand or learning curve, then maybe the serial killer is there.
GRACE: The search wasn't the same. There was not this intensive search.
BLITZER: You're absolutely right about that.
KING: All right, Michael. Let's get Michael Zeldin in. Does this look curiouser and curiouser, vis-a-vis Condit?
MICHAEL ZELDIN, FORMER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: Today was a very bad day for Gary Condit. Two things: First, the police discounted his private lie detector test, thereby overcoming any public relations effort that his media advisers tried to gain initially. Second, they said, we want to question him about the time line, that is, the so- called alibi or where he was at the critical juncture.
So you've got two things going on simultaneously, lie detector and timeline, which say to me the police are not satisfied with the answers they have received. That's very bad news for him. Whether he did anything or not, it is bad news for him.
KING: We get a break. We'll come back, everybody will get into the act, including you. We'll take your phone calls as well. Don't go away.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHIEF CHARLES RAMSEY, D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE: We still don't have a hard lead. We still don't have anything that causes us now to focus our investigation on one of the main possibilities that are still open to us. So right now we're still wondering what happened to Chandra Levy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Barbara Olson, do you agree this was a bad day for the congressman?
OLSON: It was a very bad day because, you know, a few days ago we talked about some of the missing evidence, and one was his schedule and the time line, as Michael just said. And you know, originally, when his staff put out the schedule, they said that Gary Condit had been at a dinner with an ABC reporter and it was at a great restaurant called the Tryst.
KING: Lunch, right, Laura? Yeah, lunch.
OLSON: And come to find out, that -- I know, the Tryst. Can you imagine? You couldn't invent these names. Come to find out, the reporter said it wasn't May 1, it was May 2nd. So there was the hole.
Now, we know the police have had his schedule and I'm sure they are now checking it out. And if, to make that statement today, means that he hasn't filled all of those holes -- I have been told he was in his office making calls all day long, and that they were being verified. But it sounds like there certainly isn't a lot verification.
KING: Mark, I know you've been a staunch defender, but you have also agreed, and as an attorney, you've done it with other clients, that he should come forward, right? There's no plus for him.
GERAGOS: There isn't. I don't quite understand what's going on. If you traditionally are going to defend somebody and you're worried about a lot of these things -- he's been cooperative within the confines. Understand this, for a second. He's been cooperative within the confines of criminal defense posture. So if you're going to go that far, 50 percent, then you have to take the other 50 percent, which is the media. And you have to deal with that.
KING: So why isn't he?
GERAGOS: Well, I believe that the lawyers are giving him the advice not to. And I think, you know, that hasn't been advice that's well taken, I would encourage him, if he was a client of mine, to go out and talk. He needs to get out there.
KING: You're all saying no? You're saying the lawyers are not giving him that advice, Laura?
INGRAHAM: No, I think -- Abbe Lowell is a smart guy. The only thing Gary Condit gets out of not speaking at this point, cavalcade of public opinion against him, the media even ganging up on him, a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) pile on Gary. The only way this helps him is if he's guilty. He just wants to ride it out, hope the body isn't found. I'm just saying, if he's guilty it helps him not to speak
KING: So in other words, Michael, if he were your client and you knew he was involved, you would advise him not to speak?
ZELDIN: If he were my client I would not have gone public with a polygraph, I would not have kept him in the public as he's being kept in public eye.
KING: What would you have done?
ZELDIN: I think if he's guilty, then you go to the default position that Mark articulated a couple of shows ago, which is say nothing, do nothing, wrap yourself up in the bundle of the Fifth Amendment.
(CROSSTALK)
ZELDIN: He's doing it halfway, though. He's doing it halfway doing it halfway, and you can't be halfway pregnant.
(CROSSTALK)
KING: Nancy, which causes you to be suspicious.
ZELDIN: The thing is that -- to your question, though, I believe that he is not taking the advice of his counsel, with respect to the...
GRACE: You think set up that polygraph with Colvert all a on his own?
KING: One at a time, please. Mark, and then Nancy.
GERAGOS: Well, I was just going to tell you -- I do not believe that for a second. I think that what's happening here is that he is being advised to do it this way. I know it from people who know him. He is not the one who's driving what's going on. His legal team is driving what's going on, and that is, I think, as proved yesterday by the discussion we had yesterday with the publicist, is turning into a public relations disaster, which is separate and apart from the fact that I think he needs to at this point take some control.
KING: Now, Nancy, if that's true, you don't have to listen to your lawyers.
GRACE: Absolutely not. How many times in court during trial have I seen a defense attorney hunched over with his client, the client arguing furiously with the trial strategy? But we've got to remember, it's not just Abbe Lowell telling him to remain quiet. He's lived a whole life in a secretive manner -- secret from everyone, compartmentalized. I think it's pretty easy for him to remain quiet. And if you think cooperation is what Abbe Lowell has offered -- handing over those polygraph results was like handing you an EKG and asking you to read it!
KING: Given the other side, he's a politician, and politicians like to talk.
GRACE: Well, not about themselves.
INGRAHAM: They like to save their political skin as well as their legal skin though, Larry. And perhaps, it seemed after...
KING: What, he's saving his political skin?
GRACE: Maybe.
INGRAHAM: Perhaps it seemed at the time that offering up a little bit, by the way of a polygraph, might have worked for them. They might have thought this might put the kibosh on it. I -- for the life of me, I thought the first day we heard about that, it was a disaster.
(CROSSTALK)
KING: You would not have had him take it?
ZELDIN: I would not have revealed it. If I believed I had a good polygraph and that my client was innocent, I would have kept it in my pocket and then I would have gone to police. I would have had confidence that my client...
GERAGOS: Michael is absolutely right. That happens -- that happens -- ask Michael, it happens all the time. We do it with great frequency. That's what you do. You first pre-polygraph and then, the guy passes, boom, and you've got a credible polygrapher, send him in and let him do it, because in 99 times out of 100, he's going to pass the police as well.
KING: Barbara, you were going to say why haven't they done that, right? OLSON: Well, I was going say what you don't do, though, is tell the police that your client, which Abbe Lowell did, said Gary Condit's way too busy to do your polygraph because he is tending to his Congressional affairs, and then spring a polygraph on a Friday at 5:00 so you can get your news hour, and totally torque off the police and anger the prosecutor, because the lawyer has now lied to the police. So Gary Condit...
GERAGOS: Yes. At the risk of agreeing with Barbara, she's right in this instance, because -- I hate to say it, I mean, it was hard coming out, but you don't string -- if you're going to string the police along in order to take your own polygraph, the last thing do you is showboat it afterwards. What you do first is string them along and then pass it, and then just say OK, he'll take it.
KING: Let me get a break. We're only halfway through the program, and we're going to include your phone calls. This is "LARRY KING LIVE," don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: We are back.
We will tell you that our crew is out in Modesto, California and our producer there just spoke to the Levys in front of the house, we asked them to come on live with us at this minute, but they are going in to have dinner. They are watching the show. And they wanted to thank everybody involved for keeping the pressure on.
And here is the Levys in front of their house.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SUSAN LEVY, CHANDRA'S MOTHER: I don't know whether we can do that at this point. I have some (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that's going to be burning in a minute, and we just need to have dinner. And thank you, Mr. King, for your support and trying to help get this story out and answers being made.
OK. Thank you. Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: We thank them for that note. Picking up on that note, we will start with Laura. Do celebrities get slack from cops?
INGRAHAM: I think in Washington, we have a special relationship between the D.C. police and Congress. You know, you've got to remember Congress holds the purse strings for the D.C. government.
KING: So if Condit were "Sam Slick Habadasher."
INGRAHAM: I think if Condit were just an older man who happened to be a lover of hers, I have a feeling, probable cause would have been established a little sooner.
KING: You do. You think so, too?
GRACE: I always agreed probable cause was established, and Lowell keeps saying...
KING: Just because she was having an affair?
GRACE: Well, because...
(CROSSTALK)
GRACE: ...had the affair and they were one of the last people to see her.
KING: Michael?
ZELDIN: Don't think so. I just don't see what the evidence is, of a crime. If the crime is failure to cooperate or obstruction of justice, we talked about this before, maybe. With respect to the crime that they are speculating about, which is murder or some conspiracy to commit murder, I don't think there was probable cause.
GRACE: There's no doubt about...
(CROSSTALK)
ZELDIN: Of course you do, but the question is, what linkage is there to her? What linkage is there to her, Nancy to the congressman in that respect.
OLSON: Larry, this is so important, about the things that we have been talking about for the past few days about what Gary Condit said to the police in interview one and two. We have talked about whether he lied to the police or was just evasive, those kinds of things will go to probable cause.
I think with what we have publicly, I agree with Michael Zeldin right now, that we don't have -- we haven't established probable cause from what's public. We have established a lot of things about Gary Condit, a lot of things about his character, and the way he acts. But whether he committed a murder, absent some more evidence, and absent him actually lying to the police or being other evidence -- i.e., no alibi, we know he turned that over.
His phone records are going to be hugely important: who was he calling? And that is going to be very important, as to what calls he made at what time and how much of that he can cover and did he talk to her any during that period? Because we have all talked about perhaps on May 1 she was going to the Klingle Mansion in Rock Creek Park in Washington to meet him. There would have had to have been a phone call.
And he has not publicly, nor have his surrogates, said there was that phone call made. The police know that. So that would go to probable cause. And if he did make that phone call, then I agree with Nancy Grace and Laura: it is there.
KING: All right, now you want to say something, Mark, because Laura was shaking her head when Barbara was -- Mark? Go ahead.
GERAGOS: Well, it is interesting, when you are in criminal law field because, in actuality I could name you probably a thousand search warrants I have seen where there was absolutely no probable cause and a real objective standard. I mean, if they want to get a search warrant...
GRACE: But that is California.
GERAGOS: There is a designated....
(CROSSTALK)
GERAGOS: ...we call it. They can get a warrant from anybody for anything, any time of day. There is a judge waiting by the phone that is none too happy to sign it, that is the reality of the situation.
GRACE: Not in Washington, Mark.
(CROSSTALK)
GERAGOS: We have to assume...
(CROSSTALK)
KING: Hold it, hold it. Laura -- hold it Laura? OK?
INGRAHAM: We have to assume that the police know a lot more than we know, we have to assume that Abbe Lowell knows a lot more than we know, we have to assume his client is being honest with him in telling him all he knows: everything about the relationship, every contact he's ever had, the last time they were intimate, how often Chandra called him every day, and why Mr. Condit in a 4 or 5-day period went by and you didn't hear from Chandra Levy, why didn't that raise any red flags? They talked several times a day.
KING: The question we ask is, why isn't he, Michael, upset over his missing friend or appearing...
ZELDIN: Doesn't seem...
KING: Why isn't he here or anywhere tonight saying, please, help find her?
ZELDIN: I think he should have been here from day one, on the first show that we did together. I said, he had an obligation to come forward, morally. Whether he had an obligation to do so legally -- and Mark Geragos and I disagreed about that -- I thought that his responsibility would be as moral human being to come forward.
He offered the $10,000 reward and we have not heard from him since. I think it's irresponsible and unacceptable.
KING: Allentown, Pennsylvania, hello.
CALLER: Hello. KING: Hi.
CALLER: Hi.
KING: Go ahead.
CALLER: My question is, why hasn't Mrs. Condit, the spurned wife, been questioned?
KING: Where is she?
GRACE: I think she has been questioned, but the last time I heard, she was not answering the door when the police were knocking on it, but she finally flew to D.C. and did answer some questions.
INGRAHAM: They want to talk to her again.
GRACE: Definitely.
KING: Is she considered in the suspect vein?
INGRAHAM: She was there that weekend. She establishes the schedule of Mr. Condit and the days leading up to Chandra Levy's disappearance.
OLSON: But evidently, Mrs. Condit had RSVP'd for events for this trip way months in advance. I've been told that it wasn't a spur of the moment trip. It was something that she had planned and there were pre-RSVPs for her which would give her, certainly, take away from her having any intent to...
(CROSSTALK)
INGRAHAM: But she was with him, and she helps establish the agenda.
GRACE: No way was she involved. If you look statistically...
KING: "Presumed Innocent," Scott Turow's brilliant book.
GRACE: I know that is -- that is a fiction novel, but if you look at the statistics, this wife was not involved, she wouldn't even answer the door, OK? No.
KING: We will take a break and be right back and have more of your phone calls. "Curiouser"-- is that a word?
GRACE: Yes.
KING: Don't go away.
GRACE: It is now.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Let's get another call. Alamo, California, hello. CALLER: Hi, Larry, enjoy your show.
KING: Thank you.
CALLER: My question is, why is the Potomac river not being mentioned as the possible area where she could have been dumped, instead of all the other areas?
KING: Laura?
INGRAHAM: I think it's very difficult, and Barbara probably knows, it is very difficult to dredge the Potomac river. It's a very silty, thickly muddied water. It's very difficult, and it's vast.
KING: We'd probably find some bodies there from years ago.
INGRAHAM: Yeah, we'll probably find a lot of things in the Potomac. But it's huge, it's vast, and again they are not going to search the landfills in Washington. It would cost -- what -- $6 million and a lot of manpower.
GRACE: Well, there is another thing about the Potomac: at this particular time of the year, normally a body that has gone under water surfaces, unless it's caught on rocks down at the bottom. So, dredging it may not be productive. The body probably would have risen.
(CROSSTALK)
ZELDIN: It's a fast-moving river, it's not a dredging river. It is a river where bodies...
(CROSSTALK)
ZELDIN: No -- but, they go down at joins up with the Anacostia, and if it's going to show up, it will float there and land on the shore, which is just what happened to one of the missing girls that we talked about earlier.
KING: Barbara, you have input on the Potomac?
OLSON: I agree with Michael. I mean, that is the problem, it is a fast-moving river. And you know, don't forget, the Potomac is -- there are hundreds of thousands of acres up and down all around this area that are federal park land, and that includes the Potomac, so you have got so much area that -- dredging it, I mean, there is falls near my house in the Potomac, there is rocks -- that's just not the kind of thing that's easy to find a body.
KING: Mark, does it hit a point here where the police stop doing anything and just wait for clues to come to them?
GERAGOS: I don't -- normally would, normally in case like this we would have already hit that point. In this case, because of the media attention, you are getting -- this case has legs, obviously, and it's going to, and it's going to continue to have legs for a period of time. Until something breaks, this thing is not going to go on the back burner.
OLSON: Do you know something, Larry? I was thinking about that question, is we keep doing this, and is this is a good thing -- and Washington has a lot of visitors that come in and out of Washington, a lot of people that are just from out of the country. From all over the world, they come to Washington, D.C.
I cannot believe that somebody didn't see something. And hopefully with CNN, which is worldwide, somebody had to have seen something and they haven't come forward, and I hope with all of these shows and all of the media attention that someone would say, you know, I did see a girl, and maybe it means nothing, but she got in a car or something. So I do think we are going to get some more evidence.
There has been so much publicity -- and thanks to CNN, it is worldwide -- that we are going to have people come forward.
KING: Yeah. Nancy, the possibility of her having run away is remote at best?
GRACE: Practically nil.
KING: It's the prayer of everyone, though. We hope that she did a terrible thing and ran away and is just doing this deliberately to drive him nuts.
GRACE: And at the beginning, there were suggestions. She had logged on to Amtrak, logged on to airplane services. She had had a breakup with Condit, according to him, her job didn't work out. But if you take a hard look at it, this was not the type of person that could make it. There have been no credit card use, no tiller or ATM withdrawals.
She just totally disappeared, and you can't convince me -- common sense, human nature -- that she would not call her mother and say "I'm OK." She did not just disappear. She did not commit suicide.
INGRAHAM: The police said that today, that -- I think it was Assistant Chief Gainer said today that looking at her Web cites, the Web cites that she logged on to, that they are pretty sure that she was, you know, in a sense, tracking Gary Condit. You know, she was on the Web site, his official Web site, she was on the Drudge Report, she was on other sites that they think link her to sort of wanting to know what he is doing, where he was at, what -- does he have any plans.
And I think they are factoring all of that into, you know, their investigation now. They have to.
KING: What do the parents do in the hope area, Michael?
ZELDIN: They pray. Because what this is going to require from the police at this point is a tip, or something horrible happening, because they are at the end of their investigative leads. There is no forensic evidence left for them to analyze. They can polygraph Condit, they can ask for the time line, and that may make him more of a suspect than he is, but it is not come forward with anything that is going to help determine where she is. That's their problem.
KING: Barbara, if there is an evil individual involved, is it probably only one individual?
OLSON: You know, one would think with a missing person, but usually find a body, it is usually one individual. A young girl, she disappeared...
KING: No, I don't mean that, I mean with Ted Bundy it was one person doing it.
(CROSSTALK)
KING: ... one culprit, yeah.
OLSON: It seems like that, that is what it is. I mean, with more, you get people talk. I mean, you know, we were talking about Fahey the other night. He had his brother involved. It seems like it's one individual and only one individual involved. Otherwise, somebody comes forward. Rewards get offered, which have been, you get people that talk. They can't keep it to themselves, if someone is not directly responsible, so I tend to think it is just one person here.
KING: We will ask in a minute why he does not resign -- whether he did it or not, in view of all this, right after this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAMSEY: This has gone beyond anything that I think is really reasonable. This entire investigation coverage that has taken place, with all the different roads that this thing has gone down, with people -- all the speculation that has taken place. We have a missing persons investigation. We have a lot of things that we have done, we've got a lot of things yet to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Saturday night on LARRY KING WEEKEND, Catherine Zeta- Jones. And Sunday night on LARRY KING WEEKEND, a tribute to Katharine Graham.
Why does he not resign, Laura?
INGRAHAM: Well, I think if he is innocent, if he had nothing to do with this, other than having an affair and having some early missteps in the way this went, he feels like, look, I have gotten a raw deal. I made some mistakes, but other people in Congress, you know, have affairs outside of marriage, they are not persecuted like I have been persecuted, you know. I deserve to ride this out and I'm going to show the voters in California in my district that I'm still a person who cares about them. I make mistakes, but I care were them -- so, I think that is why.
(CROSSTALK) ZELDIN: The latest surveys shows 53 percent of his district want him to stay on, but not run again.
(CROSSTALK)
GERAGOS: The most compelling reason why he doesn't resign is because Trent Lott and Bob Barr want him to. Those are the -- those are exhibits A and B of why he shouldn't resign.
GRACE: There is another reason. There is another reason. Condit is a creature of habit. The same way he can't quit sleeping around, the same way he can't quit being secretive, the same way he can't do anything but be in Congress. What else would he do? Would you hire him?
GERAGOS: For what?
GRACE: Anything! Dogcatcher! Nothing!
GERAGOS: For what? What would I hire him for?
(CROSSTALK)
GERAGOS: Look, they like him in Modesto, they like him in his district.
(CROSSTALK)
ZELDIN: But all this presupposes that he has done something wrong, and that is not...
(CROSSTALK)
ZELDIN: Well, we don't know that. You are assuming facts, it is not...
(CROSSTALK)
KING: California, hello.
CALLER: Hello. My question is: where are Barbara Boxer and Kay Bailey Hutchison, coming out and publicly chastising our congressmen and telling them this is absolutely unacceptable behavior?
KING: By the way, is he...
CALLER: And why isn't there a policy that this type of behavior is just absolutely not OK, and why aren't these women having meetings ahead of time with these interns, and letting them know that this kind of stuff might happen.
KING: Ma'am, is Chico in the congressman's district?
CALLER: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
KING: OK. Barbara, why not do you think? OLSON: Well, you know, it is interesting, because I was remembering back, Bob Packwood. I mean, the women were very vocal, and as a matter of fact, drove him out of Congress, rightfully or not. But they're very quiet now.
I think there's two problems with it. First of all, the Democratic Party is very worried. They're doing redistricting in California. If he were to leave now and they had a special election, I think they'd lose it, and I think the House is close enough that's a problem.
And the Republican women figure, if I go and ask for him to resign, I'm going to be attacked as doing a political act. So they're staying quiet until this thing is over, until the evidence is out. I think both sides see a damage to their political career.
GERAGOS: Yeah, but Barbara, if somebody like Chris Shays came out and said that if all that's done here is an affair, that he shouldn't resign. And that's clearly the most logical, rational...
KING: Yeah, but the question -- the question, Mark, was why aren't more women...
GERAGOS: Well, I understand...
KING: ... in the House and Senate coming forward...
GERAGOS: I'm telling you that -- that she mentioned Barbara Boxer, the caller did, but Dianne Feinstein came out, didn't tell him to resign, but said that he should come out and make a comment or he should make some kind of a public statement. So Feinstein was out there and said that. So I don't...
(CROSSTALK)
INGRAHAM: Well, all these women in the Senate and Congress who say they're so pro-women, we're for women in the work force, equal educational opportunities, well, there comes a time where you have to step forward, in a time of crisis, in a time like this, and have your voice be counted. And you risk being called judgmental and you risk being called hypocritical, but this is not an adult love affair. This was an affair between a man who was much older than a very impressionable woman. And...
GERAGOS: Well, Laura, that's a -- Laura, that's a little much. I mean, this woman was almost old enough to be elected to Congress, so certainly she's old enough to sleep with a congressman.
I mean, this idea that somehow she's a -- she's a baby, she was a very highly intelligent 24-, almost 25-year-old. There's no reason in the world why this woman can't make -- can't changes -- can't make choices of what she wants to do with her life.
(CROSSTALK)
INGRAHAM: Obviously -- obviously that worked out well for her. KING: I've got to get one more break in, and then we'll get more comments from each of our panelists. Don't go away.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. SAM FARR (D), CALIFORNIA: Every member of Congress, certainly with the Chandra Levy case, the interest we think ought to be focused on missing persons where the interest here seems to be focused on a congressman. And I think, we were thinking that there's a need to get back on track.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Barbara Olson, how long do the legs on this story keep going?
OLSON: Well, I think they keep going as long as it's useful to trying to find her and trying to find out what happened to her. As we've talked before, the police have gone back over their evidence, and they have looked at it again. But it's going to keep going until we really know what Gary Condit was doing on May 1st, until we really know his schedule, his phone calls. And it's going to keep going until people have had a chance, as I said earlier, that visited Washington that may be elsewhere that might have seen something.
People don't disappear into thin air. Someone saw something somewhere, and they've just got to be reached. And I think the Levy family is going to keep that up until they believe that they've had the opportunity for everybody to hear about it.
KING: Mark, how long do you think it goes?
GERAGOS: Until something else eclipses it. I mean, there's going to be some other story that's going to come along and that's going to eclipse this story, and this thing is going into the cold letter file or the cold case file or whatever they want to call it.
KING: Do you think so?
GERAGOS: Yeah.
INGRAHAM: I think people are mesmerized by this case. I think Americans across the country put themselves in the positions of the Levys, who have been pretty brave throughout this ordeal. And I think a lot of people are thinking again whether or not we do pay enough attention to people who go missing, and whether we shouldn't be doing more as a public to bring this to light, not just with a famous case like this but with other kids.
KING: What do you think, Michael?
ZELDIN: It's not going away until Chandra Levy is returned or the case is solved and she's found.
KING: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) it's going to stay?
ZELDIN: I think it's going to stay. I think there's a pathos here that people have grabbed onto.
KING: We all associate with everything.
ZELDIN: Right, we're talking about things -- we're speculating. We have no hard facts about anything, and we're doing it night after night, and people are watching because their heart strings are being pulled by this. And it will stay that way until it's over.
KING: When media speculates, there's a danger in that, isn't there?
GRACE: There's a lot of danger, because...
KING: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) speculating on everything.
GRACE: ... one, we could be wrong, and two, if we are wrong, we're giving the real killer a perfect defense in court. Look, everybody thought it was Condit. It is Condit; it's not me. Perfect defense.
But I still say this story isn't going away until justice is sought, and two, until Condit comes clean. You guys say he didn't lie, but I say, do you think his staff made that all up and went out on the front steps and said he wasn't involved? He told them to say that.
ZELDIN: Well, if we're searching for the real killer then, we shouldn't make conclusions that he is the killer.
GRACE: I have common sense...
(CROSSTALK)
INGRAHAM: No, O.J. is searching for the real killer. He's on top of it.
KING: Would you bring in top detectives from other jurisdictions, or would that be not in the...
INGRAHAM: I think the D.C. police pride -- probably at this point they already have the FBI working on them -- with them on this case. They have a top cold case investigator working on this case with them. And I think the D.C. police have a lot at stake in this case. They want this case to be solved desperately.
ZELDIN: We talked about this a week ago, and we said, if nothing happens, what happens next, and we said it's JonBenet Ramsey. The police become the object of everybody's examination.
KING: Thank you all very much. More tomorrow. Barbara Olson, Mark Geragos, Nancy Grace, Michael Zeldin, and Laura Ingraham, and earlier John Walsh. Tomorrow night, more on this. Saturday night, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and on Sunday night, a tribute to Kay Graham, the late leader of "The Washington Post."
And by the way, her funeral will be Monday morning here in the National -- at the National Cathedral in Washington.
We thank you very much for joining us. I'm Larry King. Stay tuned for "CNN TONIGHT." It's next. Good night.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
