<murder mysteries>? R is for Random, S is for Scapegoat, V is for Van de Veld :
.
Thanks to a friend's mother keeping me informed of important current events, Sue Grafton is now up to " O is for Outlaw." Following the {unintended ? :) } idea implanted by Leader Jeff, I submit that a simple statement of our mission is: To determine, by facts and evidence, whether Suzanne Jovin's murder was the result of : a Random act, and by whom; Jim Van de Veld has been made the unfortunate Scapegoat for the murderous acts of another person who knew Suzanne, and who; or, that Van de Veld is the perpetrator..
1. To put it to rest: I was responding to Jeff's prior comments about visible evidence (blood, hair, etc.) not being in Jim's vehicle, when I speculated that he could have driven both of them, if all violent acts occurred outside of the vehicle. Given Jim's background, if he is the perpetrator, IMO, between the time of the murder and the time his vehicle was searched, Jim was perfectly capable of removing fingerprints and other trace evidence, without the Jeep appearing that it had been cleaned.
2. Now, let's move forward to what is more likely. I completely agree with Jeff in terms of approaches to solve a crime. His Option 1: Make a list of all relevant people you can find and try to fit them to the crime. appears to be exactly what the NH Police Dept. did.
A suspect was necessary to ally the fears of the Yale and New haven communities. Not quickly finding a good "fit," Jim had the least verifiable alibi, Suzanne was upset with him and was possibly on the verge of lodging a complaint against him [as her thesis adviser], he had some prior problems in relationships, a witness identified him as walking behind Suzanne on the night she was murdered [which he denies]; and, thus, he became the scapegoat, or what I have termed, the "default suspect," apparently, without a shred of direct, or even circumstantial, evidence linking him to the crime.
If another suspect was found, Jim would likely be moved to the shallow end of the pool, but cannot be permitted to leave ; if that suspect didn't pan-out, the "program" would default, and Jim would be back in the deep water. Obviously, this is not the proper way to investigate a homicide.
3. Jeff's Option 2 you figure out the most likely scenario, i.e. where all the clues likely lead. Then you search for people who fit that description. makes sense. If all of you agree, let's proceed in that manner, leaving the "who" until a more concrete likely scenario is established.
ALL of you who are posting various ideas are extremely helpful. |
