<you've invented your own suspect!> My "take" on Jim Van de Veld:
Slightly OT from the purpose of this post, Jeff seems to be ignoring the facts which narrow the likely scope of what occurred on the night of Dec. 4th.
.
Why is Jim STILL a suspect? He may well-be as innocent as any of us; however, IMO, IF Suzanne was not a random victim, of all the people Suzanne knew, Jim IS the most likely suspect. Aside from the pizza party, working {most likely on her Thesis, since it was due in 4 days and she was very worried about it} was the ONLY activity we know of tht Suzanne planned for the night of Dec. 4th and during the weekend. IMO, if it wasn't somehow related to her Thesis, after returning the car keys, Suzanne wouldn't have gone anywhere that night {except to possibly buy some food, etc., on her way home}. Jim had her Draft and was commenting on and correcting it. For her to continue in part, she needed to have his comments and advice. With the Thesis due on Tuesday, it is inconceivable that they would have planned to wait until Monday to discuss it, and for Suzanne to then do any additional necessary research or data collection, make further revisions and finalize it. I am mindful of the scenarios in which the murderer {or the person who ordered the murder} was someone who knew that Suzanne knew "too much" about bin laden and terrorist activities. Although I am skeptical of that -- because: her data was from published material; presumably, her research was completed or near completion, any data she had was presumably in her notes and on her computer, and she likely told her Advisors what she knew -- I am still open to that possibility.
In looking at Jim as the lead suspect, because of my scenario, Jeff accuses me of inventing a suspect. I have not "invented" anyone.
As a group, we have closely "examined" Suzanne Jovin. We have not done so with respect to Jim. As a suspect, perhaps some will say it
isn't necessary; however, last month, as I was reading all of the articles, I began to get an uncomfortable feeling regarding a number of things about Jim Van de Veld.
As a preliminary statement, it is undisputed that Jim had an outstanding educational record; was highly regarded in his work within Federal Government, including his Military Service; and, until earlier in 1998 when he went to Stanford, his employment record appears not just favorably impressive, but also extremely satisfying to him. {There is nothing intended to indicate that his employment at Stanford wasn't completely honorable and trustworthy.} It would be very "out of character" for Jim to have committed this murder.
That said, the continuous "thread" of discomfort that I began feeling was because of the clear disparity between his mental development and his social and emotional development. I have never met Jim, and, other than from Jeff, have not heard anything about him. The "feeling" is COMPLETELY based on the quotes and statements in articles regarding Suzanne's murder [excluding little bracketed notes to myself].
I am in a time-bind at the moment; therefore, with my apology in advance for the informality, I will copy and paste my extremely informal NTF {= Notes to File}, that I prepared as I was trying to identify what was disturbing me:
.
Jim VdeV: .grows up conservative, in school/work/all, does everything precisely correct; proper, formal; meticulous, distinguished school and work; has a social development lag.. In '96 or '97, he is dean of one of the yale residential colleges; is very dedicated; spends all his time with the students; has them over for dinner; writes class excuses for them;
well-liked by most; but, very rigid and 'anal'; doesn't socialize with the faculty; has a big need for approval and recognition; tells a woman that it was hard for him [at 36] to be around all the young, pretty girls, & he couldn't help noticing them. [cj note: healthy like 'da boyz' or unhealthy 'object of his affections' ?]
Early or April '98, he leaves Yale, goes to Stanford to head a program. It doesn't work-out and he has to leave, and is down 'n depressed about it [= a failure ... his 'first failure' - couldn't handle it]; gets a lecturer job back at yale, comes back to NH. for the Fall '98 term = when suzanne was murdered. He's depressed; taking medication for it, wants a girlfriend; in Nov. '98 [cj = ck. this] starts "stalking" a former girlfriend; two former girlfriends [one =a tv newscaster] complained to the police - [[ need to check if that was during yale 1 or yale 2 ]] [ evidence = before he left NH, while he was dating one woman, sends flowers anonymously to her friend, etc. sneaky/childish]; disagreemt. in quotes re; his problems w/the one girlfriend, but a close friend of jim's = David, his lawyer's son, sez jim did call and follow, her ... and admits jim has a prob. [cj: = not good relationships with women]. time 2 at yale, not in gd. shape, does better w/male students = sports, etc. desperately wants a girlfriend, and approval.
Suzanne = bright 'n beautiful, initially his 'star' -- got along great; she = much admiration for him. right b/4 the murder, it deteriorated, bad; she was very upset with him, and he knew it [y/n]; threatenting to file a complaint [<=== jvdv may/may not have known, he sez no; family 'n friends say it's real strong = very diff. picture than after murder pix painted by jvdv]. {{ End of NTF}}
.
Does this make Jim Guilty? No, of course not; however in knowing these things about him, as also with Suzanne, IMO, it helps to predict and rule-out certain likely behavior. Also, and I am extremely reluctant in even mentioning this, there are many "heat of the moment" "temporary insanity" murders each year, by men - and women - similar to Jim. The reserved, silent, socially repressed, "least likely" types. Different than here, however, many, if not a majority, of those murders are committed by someone who has a closer relationship with the victim than Jim had with Suzanne.
.
.
Regards,
CJ |
