{"id":3097,"date":"2001-07-19T15:00:39","date_gmt":"2001-07-19T20:00:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/?p=3097"},"modified":"2021-02-20T06:24:22","modified_gmt":"2021-02-20T11:24:22","slug":"d-c-police-reject-condits-polygraph","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/2001\/07\/19\/d-c-police-reject-condits-polygraph\/","title":{"rendered":"“D.C. Police Reject Condit’s Polygraph”"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\n\n

Washington Post<\/em> staff writers Allan Lengel and Petula Dvorak report<\/a>. Excerpt:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

D.C. police yesterday escalated their dispute with Rep. Gary A. Condit and his attorney, dismissing the results of a privately administered polygraph as having “no investigative value” and suggesting that they still may need to talk to the congressman about his relationship with missing intern Chandra Levy.<\/p>

The FBI has reviewed the results of Condit’s polygraph but was unable to match specific questions to the graphs that show the congressman’s reaction, Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey said in an interview. The results were presented in such a fashion that analysts had “no way of telling with certainty the results of each question,” Ramsey said.<\/p>

Condit’s attorney, Abbe D. Lowell, surprised police last week when he announced that the Democrat from California had taken and passed a privately administered polygraph. Police questioned the validity of the test, saying its usefulness was compromised because, among other things, the examiner did not know all the facts in the case.<\/p>

“He may have tried to sell it to us,” Ramsey said of the polygraph, “but we’re not buying it.”<\/p>

Neither Lowell nor Marina Ein, a publicist representing Condit, returned telephone calls yesterday. The polygraph was administered by former FBI agent Barry D. Colvert, who also did not return telephone calls yesterday.<\/p>

Tension between D.C. police and Condit’s camp has been mounting for several weeks, with both sides maneuvering for position in the high-profile inquiry. Lowell has repeatedly said that Condit has cooperated fully with investigators, but police have been increasingly vocal in challenging that assessment.<\/p>

Ramsey said yesterday that police have not ruled out a fourth interview with Condit to clarify matters, including the timeline he provided to investigators on his whereabouts in the days before and after Levy’s disappearance April 30. Ramsey said investigators are also interested in knowing whether Condit introduced Levy to anyone.<\/p>

“We’re not taking any cards off the table,” Ramsey said. “We’re certainly not saying it’s all over and done with and let’s move on. We can’t say that with anybody right now.”<\/p>

Terrance W. Gainer, the executive assistant police chief, said investigators still would like Condit to take a lie detector test — something he is not obligated to do. “We’re forever the optimists,” Gainer said yesterday.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Washington Post staff writers Allan Lengel and Petula Dvorak report. Excerpt: D.C. police yesterday escalated their dispute with Rep. Gary A. Condit and his attorney, dismissing the results of a privately administered polygraph as having “no investigative value” and suggesting that they still may need to talk to the congressman about his relationship with missing …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[343,342],"class_list":{"0":"post-3097","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-polygraph","7":"tag-chandra-levy","8":"tag-gary-condit","9":"anons"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3097","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3097"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3097\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3098,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3097\/revisions\/3098"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3097"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3097"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3097"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}