Yeah, harpgirl, as a forensic psychiatrist listening to the interview last night it did seem a lot like just another day at the office.

As such, however, it was mildly interesting to see what appeared to me to be an example of one of the key features of narcissism and psychopathy: the utterly immutable determination to remain in control of the interview, the solar system and the cosmos. He wouldn't let Chung be the one to formulate the questions, (kept answering questions she had NOT asked and steadfastly refused to ask the ones she did); indicated he had sought to direct and control how the Levy's investigators conducted their investigation (wouldn't meet with them except to "clarify" documents he had offered to provide for them, saying that was all they should need); was adamant that he had told the police agencies what, (in HIS opinion) they "needed" to know.

This disregard of and contempt for how others may see fit to conduct their own professional and personal affairs is actually a form of grandiosity that is sometimes a little harder to put one's finger on, because the one exhibiting it is not overtly claiming an elevated status for himself. Nevertheless it is clearly grandiose not even to consider that others may deserve to have some sovereignty over the conduct of matters within their own authority, ownership or expertise.

I have no idea what has happened in this particular case, but I do know that it can be very dangerous for a woman to leave a man with this kind of need to control, because he will often see any leaving as an abandonnment and betrayal and may have as little regard for the innate value of her life itself as he does for her right to determine its course.

I find it ominous that she was reported, even by Condit, to be happy and "up-beat" about leaving her job, leaving Washington, leaving him and moving on, which sounds to me as if the decision to end the relationship had been hers, not his.

However grandiosity sets its own traps. Condit may have been confident that he could control the course of an interview on national television and thereby fulfill his desperate desire to control what the public and his constituents will think of him at the next election, whereas his very evasiveness, manipulativeness and obvious contempt for the common sense of the interviewer and viewing public, and NOT his cutely worded but transparent responses, were what would more likely establish the viewers' lasting impressions of him.

If you're going to be grandiose it pays to be a bit brighter than Condit appeared to be last night. But of course being grandiose means that no matter how smart you are you always think you're smarter.

There is indication that Ms Levy favors a bit of excitement, melodrama and intrigue in her life. First she took a job as a govenment intern, a handmaiden at the seat of power, engaging in an affair with a married congressman. Moreover, she is reported to have sought to work for the FBI, the CIA or the NSA, certainly more swashbuckling and romantic ambitions than average.

If this were a mystery story I was writing I would say that if both apartments were clean as a whistle, and given the two people involved, they probably would have carried on their sexual affair at a third, secret, location. If there was a final fatal confrontation on the day of her planned departure it would have happened there, and THAT is where the evidence of foul play and hints as to where the body might lie would be found.

If that were the case, the LOCATION of the trysts, not their existance, would be what Condit would have been trying to conceal in last night's interview, by evading details of the relationship, including the number of meetings. (For if they met several times a week and witnesses say she visited his apartment only a few times, the question of where else they met will arise. And if there was an unplanned, fatal outburst of rage at the point of separation, the crime scene would likely be replete with information.)

Of course you understand that I have merely been exercising the "storytelling" part of my brain. It is that part which, when confronted by any set of facts, perceptions or observations, makes up a story to connect all the dots.

Mr. Condit has revealed himself to be who he is, regardless of where Ms Levy may be. As does everyone I hope that she is safe, but when my daughters were not much younger than she is it came home to me that the world is fairly bursting with predators who would victimize any young girls or women not under the obvious and immediate protection of a truly formidable family. That mantle of protection is difficult to extend very far from home. I was not actually thinking of Condit in this category, as his more passive demeanor and tendency to verbal trickery suggest that his affairs with women may have been more slyly opportunistic than aggressive.

Young women themselves, however, hardly feel the weight of that protective mantle, so accustomed they are to wearing it, and so think little of casting it off, having developed a general impression of safety and security and being unaware that it has derived in subtantial part from the fact that from their birth their parents would, without a moment's hesitation, LITTERALLY have given their own lives to protect their children.

It puts me in mind of why people leave bear or lion cubs alone: because somewhere close by there is almost certainly a mother who will kill you in an instant despite any cost to herself, if you even give the appearance of threatening them.

However despite the best efforts of parents, sometimes our children come to harm.

Doc