Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

The Search for Chandra: Still No Evidence of Foul Play

Aired July 09, 2001 - 10:01   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.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: We're going to begin this hour once again with the Chandra Levy case, a story that intrigues not so much because of what it is, which is a missing person's case, but for what it lacks.

Police still say they have no evidence of foul play, no tangible evidence of the congressman's involvement and no clear answers about what happened or why. Law enforcement sources tell CNN that Congressman Gary Condit has told police that he did, indeed, have an affair with Chandra Levy. That would contradict earlier denials issued through his office.

Meanwhile, a spokesman for Chandra Levy's parents believe there still is more that the law maker knows and they will likely ask that Condit be given a polygraph or a lie detector test.

For the latest on this developing story, let's turn to our national correspondent Bob Franken -- Bob, good morning again.

BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Daryn. And if you will permit me, I will be point out that the denials were denials to the press. We have no knowledge, no indication from police that he ever directly denied to them in the three interviews that he'd had the romantic relationship.

We've been told by law enforcement sources that he would not specifically address the question until, according to those sources, Congressman Condit met with the police last Friday night for the third time and when they asked he directly said yes, there was a romantic relationship. Well, that is not enough for the family of Chandra Levy, the 24-year-old intern who disappeared nearly 10 weeks ago. The family has been, of course, pushing this and now they say through a spokesman that the family feels that the investigation has been hindered because the congressman took so long to tell the truth. They want the congressman to be administered a polygraph test, a lie detector test. They're going to ask the police, although they say they may also make the request by somebody else doing it. The family now feels, according to the spokesman, we need to be assured that the Congressman is telling the truth.

Well, as much as the family, through its P.R. people, is keeping the pressure on Congressman Condit, the pressure is also on by the forces in support of Condit, specifically the lawyer, Abbe Lowell, who made rounds of the talk shows yesterday and was repeatedly asked why hasn't the Congressman, in fact, answered these questions.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ABBE LOWELL, CONDIT ATTORNEY: You are not drawing the difference between Congressman Condit and his family being extraordinarily helpful to the police and not being extraordinarily helpful to the thousand media people that are dogging him and his kids and his wife and are asking for details of their private lives that they are not going to accommodate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FRANKEN: And, of course, the investigation goes on. We are told by the police that at some point this week they will take cadaver sniffing dogs to local landfills. They're, of course, hoping that they do not find evidence of foul play but they want to try and check out every possibility -- Daryn.

KAGAN: Bob, can you tell us anything more about this potential request by the Levy family to have the congressman take a lie detector test?

FRANKEN: Well, we can tell you that the police have not asked for one. The police believe, at least they say publicly, that he has answered every question that they had at the moment and they believe that he was forthcoming and they believe at the moment that Congressman Condit is not a suspect. They said that repeatedly.

KAGAN: Bob Franken in Washington, thank you -- Kyra.

KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: Well, let's get a look at this case through a legal perspective. For that, let's check in with our CNN legal analyst Roger Cossack. He joins us now from Washington -- hi, Roger.

ROGER COSSACK, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hi, Kyra.

PHILLIPS: All right, so these contradictions that have taken place in the interviews with Condit, do you think that this changes the way police view him now?

COSSACK: Well, apparently not, and I think you have to start with the chapter heading which says so far there is no suspicion of anything other than a missing person. But right under that then you hear, you find out that they're using cadaver dogs to look for a body and that makes one think that perhaps they have greater suspicions than, in fact, that she's just missing. But the public statement it is right now is that he is not a suspect.

Look, we've -- there's two reasons why he didn't tell the truth initially. One is is he was, perhaps, had something more to say or the other is he just wanted to protect his family. I suppose if what we know now the police are accepting the fact that he didn't tell all about his relationship with Chandra Levy because he wanted to protect his family.

PHILLIPS: Now, the term obstruction of justice has been brought up but this really isn't an issue yet, is it?

COSSACK: Well, it really isn't because, in fact, there is no crime that is being investigated. Obstruction of justice would be if he knowingly misled the police in an investigation, that he knew and was, and what was happening. In fact, the police time and time again keep saying look, this really isn't a criminal investigation. What the difference is I suppose is a very slight one, but the police keep saying this isn't a criminal investigation. I think it would be premature to be talking about obstruction of justice.

PHILLIPS: So the question here is, is Condit trying to mislead authorities? Is that fair to say, to ask that question?

COSSACK: No, it's -- I think that is a legitimate question and I think that what one can conclude is this. At the beginning he obviously was not as candid as he is right now. Where does that place him in terms of the investigation? Well, clearly I think it's not unfair to say that his activity initially was suspicious. He didn't tell the truth. And the question, as I've said, becomes well, why was, why didn't he tell the truth? And I suppose there's two answers, as I said. You know, one would be because he really was involved in some kind of nefarious activity and he's trying to protect himself. And the other would be because he didn't want his family to find out he was having a sexual relationship with this young woman.

Apparently right now the police are satisfied with the second explanation. As more facts are found perhaps they will change their opinion. But from what we know apparently he is still not a suspect and neither is anybody else.

PHILLIPS: OK, all these attorneys are now involved, public relations folks. Knowing you and knowing your background, I'm curious to know if you were Condit's attorney, how would you be advising him right now? How would you have advised him from the very beginning?

COSSACK: Well, I think, you know, 20-20 hindsight is always the best, but I like to think that if we learned anything from previous events here in Washington we learned that the cover-up is what eventually gets you.

So I would like to think that I would have advised him to come clean right at the beginning then go home and start making peace with his constituents. However, since that didn't happen, I think that probably he is being advised, and correctly so right now, to come clean and starting making piece with his constituents.

As far as this lie detector test business, you know, lie detector tests are not admissible in almost every state and certainly not in federal court, because they're not considered reliable enough in terms of what evidence to be go in front of the jury. Now, do police use them because it helps them sometimes with the cases? Yes, they do. But know that it's never going to be admitted into court. I would suspect that, without knowing all of the facts, of course, and without ever having spoken to Congressman Condit, I probably would be advising him to stay away from a lie detector test just because of the fact that they cannot be reliable. However, I can tell you this, that if he was going to take one, I would make sure that he had taken one that I had prepared for him through my experts maybe four or five times and made sure he could pass them.

PHILLIPS: Our legal analyst, Roger Cossack. Thanks so much, Roger.

And tune in tonight for CNN's Larry King and an exclusive interview with Levy family attorney Billy Martin. That's tonight, 9:00 Eastern, 6:00 Pacific.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com