<Re: 12/8/99 - Police chief reports little progress>; Plus, some thoughts and questions:
1. Jeff: Thanks for quickly posting today's article. It doesn't appear to have anything new; but it does call to mind something I was going to ask based on a previous recent article. Specifically, why is Jim Van de Veld {"Jim"] now refusing to take a polygraph examination ? If that his what he wanted "from day one;" and, with the agreement of all law enforcement agencies, it could exculpate [clear] him as a suspect, isn't that exactly what he has wanted?
While Jim's lawyer is clearly very competent, and a man held in high esteem, I do not follow, nor agree with, it being a matter of "trust." What is there to trust ? If it is the issue of who is to administer the polygraph test to Jim, certainly his attorney and the NHPD can agree on a proper, impartial examiner. I don't know if the related quotes attributed to Mr. Grudberg strike anyone else this way; but, IMO, and no offense intended, they seem rather analogous to the "distraction" justification for canceling Jim's classes. If there is a stronger reason for now refusing to take a polygraph examination, it would come across better if it was used.
Lastly regarding today's article, if the final sentence is directed toward Jim, it is cold and callous, and should not be permitted to stand without responsive comment.
2. What is the true location on Suzanne's body of where she was lacerated and stabbed? There is much inconsistency in the articles. If we assume she was lacerated and stabbed in the head, back and throat, it does not comport with the following: The Yale daily News ["YDN"], 12/9/98: "Police investigators said yesterday they had no suspects, no strong leads, no weapon, and no witnesses in the homicide of Suzanne Jovin '99, but added that police are rapidly acquiring more information about the night of her death. News reports that Jovin knew her assailant are premature, said Captain Brian Sullivan, head of the New Haven Police Department's detective bureau. Sullivan said he has not ruled out the possibility of a random act of violence. ............ [] "She was stabbed in the back -- and only in the back -- with a knife," Sullivan said. He added that reports of wounds to the neck and chest are incorrect.
Was she stabbed in the back only? Was she also stabbed/lacerated in the head and/or throat, in a manner "only the murderer(s) would know" and, therefore, "hushed-up" five days after the murder?
This may be a ludicrous thought; but, could some of the "17 stab wounds" have been inflicted by Suzanne sitting in the passenger front seat of a vehicle, the (or one of the) murderer(s) sitting in the passenger back seat, and stabbing through the back of the front seat into her body? If so, fibers from the seat should have been collected from her clothes, and possibly her body. If so, could the M/F argument {and scream?} be totally unrelated to Suzanne's murder?
3. Re: The Vanity Fare ["VF"] article: If anyone reading this had the same problem I did accessing the article (Post No. 15), and you are using SI Classic, switch to SI New and you will be able to read it.
Parts of the VF article are not very complimentary to Jim. I note there are several discrepancies between that article and articles in the YDN. An example is the quote attributed to Jim during his TV interview on Dec. 9, l998. In VF, " The fallout from that interview was damaging for Van de Velde. Many people who saw the news that night say it made him look guilty. He seemed tired and looked down at the ground when he spoke. His words-' I never hurt her ' -struck people as odd." Whereas, in the YDN, 7/31/99, " When asked by a WFSB television reporter whether he killed Jovin, he responded, ' I could never hurt her. ' " To me, there is a material difference.
4. The Good Morning America appearance by Jim: Apparently, his statements in that forum caused some people to believe Jim is guilty. Did any of you happen to see it? Do any of you have a video copy of the segment, or a transcript?
5. Did Jim see Suzanne on the night she was murdered? Jim says, "No." A witness who saw Suzanne walking, and two men nearby, identified Jim as one of them while she watched the Dec. 9th news [above]. Based on the witness' ID, several articles stated that he saw her that night. Do we accept Jim's word, or do we leave that as unresolved? { One article: YDN, 1/12/99, [ ] " Van De Velde was Jovins senior thesis advisor and saw her the night of her death a mile from campus on Dec. 4, 1998. "}
6. Jim is most fortunate to have Jeff as a friend and supporter. All of you are doing a terrific job. If Jim is truly innocent, he deserves our efforts, and every stone to be unturned, until it is conclusively proved that he did not commit the murder, nor have anything to do with it, and is so stated by the NHPD, and any other applicable law enforcement agencies... |
