The ever-changing stories of Billy Martin

He's done a great job keeping Chandra Levy -- and Gary Condit -- in the headlines. But why are reporters ignoring the way the Levy attorney constantly twists the truth?

By Eric Boehlert

Sept. 7, 2001 | In the end, it was perhaps the most surprising moment of Rep. Gary Condit's now infamous sit-down with ABC's Connie Chung. Quizzed about his personal connection with missing intern Chandra Levy, Condit refused to answer, citing several times a "specific request" made by the Levy family not to talk about the now-infamous relationship.

That seemed odd, because for months Robert and Susan Levy had been publicly beseeching Condit to come forward and tell all he knew. Yet sure enough, two days before the ABC taping, attorney Billy Martin, representing Chandra's parents, had this exchange with CNN's Wolf Blitzer:

Blitzer: "What does the Levy family want to hear from Gary Condit Thursday night?"

Martin: "Wolf, the only thing the family wants to hear -- and I spoke with Dr. Levy and Mrs. Levy today -- they just want to hear information that could lead to information on Chandra's whereabouts or what happened to her. They don't really want to hear anything about the relationship."

Only Condit knows whether his team of counselors combed through a mountain of TV transcripts to find an excuse to avoid answering The Question, or whether he was sincerely trying to abide by the family's wishes. But based on the record, Condit seemed to have a point: The Levys' hired legal representative went on national television and said Chandra's family did not want to hear him discuss his relationship with their daughter.

Yet the ABC tape had barely stopped running on Thursday night when Martin was back on the air. Appearing on "Nightline," and attacking Condit for his tendency to "parse words and to interpret things in a way that will benefit him," Martin tried to explain away his comment to Blitzer by suggesting he had been asked, "what questions would the Levys have of Congressman Condit?" -- which is why, Martin said, he answered the way he did.

Despite the obvious discrepancy between what Martin had actually been asked and what he now claimed, Koppel let the explanation slide. The next morning, Martin was on "The Today Show," where host Matt Lauer asked about the same "specific request by the Levy family." Once again Martin simply recreated the CNN interview to his liking, telling NBC viewers, "I was asked on the Wolf Blitzer show, 'What would the Levys personally ask of the congressman if they could?'"

That was good enough for Lauer:

Lauer: So at the very least, he took what you said and used it out of context?

Martin: Absolutely.

Yet good luck finding the back-and-forth Martin described in any CNN transcript, because it simply never took place. Instead, Martin invented dialogue to cover up his obvious strategic error. Of course, mainstream journalists covering the story, the same ones who spent the entire summer chewing over endless Levy minutiae, were free to check Martin's version of events. To date, not one has pointed out Martin's obvious, and clumsy, deception.

On the contrary, the press, pretending to objectively cover a missing person's case, rewarded Martin's bold-face dissembling. Time magazine wrote that Martin "appeared on Nightline to shred Condit's claim that the Levys made a 'specific request' that he not discuss the details of the relationship."

"Shred"? The only thing Martin came close to shredding on "Nightline" was the truth.

It's hard to imagine that any player in the Levy/Condit saga, operating under the media's constant klieg lights, would play as fast and loose with the facts as Martin did in that instance. But he's done it consistently throughout this televised drama. And give the high-powered attorney credit. He recognizes a free pass from the press when he sees one, and he's taking full advantage of it. That's his job.

But the media's job on a story like this -- at least in theory -- is to accurately track news developments and ferret out answers when important discrepancies arise. So, what's the media's excuse for collectively ignoring Martin's growing list of whoppers and flip-flops?

Next page: Was Chandra pregnant or wasn't she?