Re: Peter Stein questions
Was Peter Stein interviewed by several reporters? or was he interviewed by only one and repeatedly quoted by other reporters??
Peter told me early on that he talked to lots of reporters, and, of course, the police. After a while, though, he said he stopped granting interviews simply because he had said everything he had to say many times over. He says he still gets requests for interviews, such as recently by the show 20/20, but refuses because he isn't interested in seeing his face splashed across TV screens nationwide. He said he talked to me because I was a friend of Jim's and I truly wanted to help Jim out and perhaps even solve the murder-- not just to sell soap (my words not his, but I think it conveys the sentiment).
Is Peter sincere? IMO, absolutely. He is one of those rare kids who graduated Yale, likes New Haven, and has taken a low-paying job at an organization in the city that helps inner city kids. He's truly an idealistic individual and I wish him well.
Jeff and all. I am attempting to exhaust all possibilities here based on the limited data we have available to us.
I'd say given the order of events, the time line, Peter's alibi, etc. that he had nothing to do with Suzanne's murder. Again, as you've pointed out, it's possible, but not at all probable.
Recall that the police interviewed 150 of Suzanne's friends, classmates, teachers, etc.-- and that was just by the end of January 1998! Our "universe" of people is limited to just a handful. I would wager that we could find possible reasons and scenarios they all may have killed Suzanne: jealousy, passion, mean streak, pressure of finals, etc.
So, rather than focusing on individuals, I think it better to focus on general classes. For example, you might try to look at "Yale students", which would most likely be a subclass of "people she knew". I suppose it's possible Suzanne were killed by a Yale student she didn't know but then it a) makes it hard to find a motive for murder (as opposed to sexual assault), b) doesn't explain why Suzanne would trust this person enough to get in their car, and c) forces us to imagine an abduction in the heart of the Yale campus, a well-placed car, perhaps stalking, etc., all low probability events in and of themselves.
Personally, I find one student plotting to kill another (premeditation) remote. Since, by definition, we're now saying Suzanne knew this person (and thus got in her car willingly), it's likely Suzanne would have suspected something (hard to believe this would be this person's first attempt), or perhaps one of Suzanne's friends would have been aware someone had a crush on her. Regardless, it would be far more likely the motive would have been sexual assault, not murder. If you're going to sexually assault someone it's far more likely you'd choose a bedroom and not a car.
Another general class to consider would be one for a "single attacker", which would most likely encompass both scenarios above. It's just too easy, IMO, for someone to run from a car, and too hard to surprise someone with a knife attack to the point the victim doesn't even attempt to defend herself.
I hope it makes sense what I'm trying to say: if you can't find a reasonable chance a general class of people could have done something, and then a reasonable chance a subgrouping of that could have done something, then by the time you reach a single individual who fits the subclass you are talking very very remote.
In simple math terms, if two events must take place for something to happen, and there is a 50% chance for each, the odds both events happened is not 50%, it's 25%. Add a third event and we're talking 12.5%. String together a bunch of low priority events and the odds become almost prohibitive.
- Jeff |
