Jim, I understand what you are trying to do and in the next post I'll try to help you, but I think the way you have started the process is flawed.
Let's start with a paradox. What is the difference between an innocent person with no alibi and someone who has committed the "perfect crime"? Nothing! The point is the only way for an innocent person to "prove" they didn't do it is to have some evidence they were somewhere else when the crime occurred. Barring that, you can always concoct some scenario to explain why they may have been the murderer.
For example, if it's a man, you can posit he had a secret romantic relationship with the deceased. If that seems unlikely, you can posit it was one-sided and suppressed. If you don't think the two liked each other at all, simply surmise they hated each other. As for lack of evidence, simply say there was top secret meeting and the killer disposed of anything incriminating, or perhaps even there really is evidence but the police have kept it secret. How can an innocent person possibly "prove" they are really innocent?
Normally when a suspect is named there is some sort of real evidence that at least can be disputed. For example, was Suzanne's blood or hair found in Jim's car? No. In his apartment? No. Did Suzanne tell anyone they were going to meet? No. Was any of Jim's blood, hair, or footprints found at the crime scene? Was his car seen near there? No. So what is there to dispute?
Sure the police were right to thoroughly question Jim. Sure the police, like you, had a perfect right to think long and hard about whether he might be the killer and to gather as much information in this regard. But they had no right to name him in public as a suspect without any evidence which Jim could attempt to dispute. The reason why should now be obvious.
Let's assume we do have a "perfect murder" here. What I've tried to do on this thread is examine the events of that fateful night and see if we can at least narrow down the type of person who might have done this. Was it someone Suzanne knew? Was it someone who wanted to rob her? Assault her? If this leads us to Jim then so be it. I contend the lack of any evidence Suzanne was ever in his car (and Jim didn't rent or steal a car) pretty much absolves him given I contend a car must have been used. You may feel differently or perhaps you may feel the evidence points to a professor although not necessarily Jim. That's the sort of thing I personally think would be most valuable to discuss.
Alas, the cat is out of the bag and people think that the police wouldn't have named Jim as a suspect unless they know something we don't. Yes, I admit it is human nature for people to try to figure out how he might have done it. After all, we are a nation raised on Agatha Christie, Murder She Wrote, Clue etc. where the murderer is always someone we've run across in the story. So, with the solace we've already spent a great deal of time not talking about Jim, in the next post I'll see if I can help you out. :)
- Jeff |
