<Am I at least barking up the right tree here? :)>
.
LOL! Congrats., you are closer to being in the right forest.
Only have a few minutes now, and I cannot "speak" for "IE"/JD. In brief - and informally written - reply:
<Yale's actions are not just posturing; the New Haven police have been whispering in their ear. If so, then, yes, I'd say that is quite accurate.>
Good -- you're entering Sherwood. <g>
<There is absolutely no doubt that -- to the outside world -- the New Haven police have always maintained that Jim did it... that while they didn't have a shred of evidence>
a shred of suspicion?
<nor a motive>
pretty much agreed
<that was based in anything but wishful thinking, their stellar police intuition would be proven correct, somehow and some way. >
good!
<When the Jovins published a letter urging the mother of the killer to do the right thing (blatantly aimed at Jim's mother),>
why did you take it that way? i am not 'fencing' with you; from the moment you first wrote that, i didn't agree ==> wouldn't the mother of the murderer, whoever he/she/it/them is/are, likely reside in the greater NH area ?
............
<When the New Haven police said they would recheck the murder scene, did they go 3/4 of a mile from that point in any of three directions that didn't lead directly to Jim's house? No.>
this is a real problem = if neither the NHPD, nor investigators for Jim, thoroughly checked the entire area of any possible paths along the +/- 1.7 mi. routes .
< They don't have a clue who really did this because they spent an entire year concentrating on one person, hoping and praying they guessed right .... >
agreed; AND, in doing so, I have to admit, you are under the shade of the right tree. <g>
<To use a analogy that longtime SIers can relate to, ....>
Good imagery, but, IMO, with no offense intended, it is a bit spurious, in terms of outcome; HOWEVER :
<This is precisely why I'm not here to defend Jim but to try and solve this darn thing!>
IF IT LED YOU TO THAT, I imagine that all the other participants here are as very pleased as I am. When a person knows a suspect, and has long known the suspect in a reputable context, it is extremely difficult to be objective; yet, that objectivity and detachment are absolutely necessary to be of any real assistance.
.
What led me to consider the theory that the murderer may be someone who had it "in" for Jim, and/or had something to gain by tarnishing his reputation, is the location of the wounds [back vs. front]; the possibility/likelihood that the murderer was not completely random; yet, not someone real close to Suzanne; the overwhelming opinion that she would not have voluntarily entered the vehicle of someone she didn't know at all; thusfar, no apparent motive directed toward Suzanne for wanting Suzanne murdered, and the like.
.
Thoughts? |
