Re: 12/7/01 - Complaint: James Van de Velde vs. Melvin Wearing et al. (part 2 of 2)
F. 1999 to the Present - Defendants Continue To Brand Plaintiff A "Suspect", And To Identify Only Him As A Suspect, Even When Faced With Exculpatory Forensic Evidence
79. From 1999 to the present, defendants have continued to label plaintiff, and only the plaintiff, as a "suspect" in the Jovin murder case, and have continued to preserve the confidentiality of other members of the "pool of suspects."
80. Defendants have never identified another suspect in the Jovin murder case, even though they have admitted that such suspects exist.
81. For instance, in a June 29, 1999 article in the New Haven Register, defendant Wearing stated that Van de Velde "has not been ruled out" of the pool of suspects. He stated further that "[n]obody has been ruled out in the pool of suspects," but refused to identify any other suspects. See Exhibit 5.
82. Likewise, in an August 12, 1999 article in the New Haven Register, defendant Sullivan stated that plaintiff remained in the "pool of suspects." As in January, no other members of that pool were identified. See Exhibit 6.
83. On December 3, 1999, defendant Wearing convened a press conference on the occasion of the one-year anniversary of Ms. Jovin's murder. Numerous representatives of the print and electronic media attended this press conference.
84. At the conference, Wearing admitted that "ten people remain in the 'pool of suspects'". He reaffirmed that Van de Velde remained a suspect, but did not state what evidence, if any, supported that label. Defendant Wearing again refused to identify any of the other individuals in the "suspect" pool with the plaintiff.
85. Defendant Wearing admitted that the police "[had] a long way to go" before solving the case. After acknowledging the difficulty of the investigation, defendant Wearing reaffirmed his department's resolve to find Ms. Jovin's killer, stating "If we have to ruffle feathers, disrupt some people's careers to do that, we will." See Exhibit 7.
86. The "ruffle feathers" comment was clearly directed at the plaintiff, and was consistent with the defendants' pattern of publicly targeting the plaintiff, and only the plaintiff, as a suspect in the case. Plaintiff's career had already been significantly disrupted by the defendants' conduct.
87. Defendant Wearing also issued a written statement noting the world-wide media attention devoted to the Jovin murder investigation, and describing it as a high profile case. See Exhibit 8.
88. In March 2001, Yale and the police convened a joint press conference to announce an increased reward for information solving the Jovin murder investigation, and to solicit the public's assistance with respect to a previously-unidentified brown van that was spotted at the scene where Ms. Jovin was found stabbed.
89. At this press conference, defendant Wearing reiterated yet again the plaintiff was a suspect in the Jovin homicide. He acknowledged that other unnamed suspects ["a pool of suspects of several people"] "could have had the opportunity" to commit the murder, but refused to identify any of those individuals.
90. Defendant Wearing also declined to state what evidence supported plaintiff's continued status as a "suspect," and the only named suspect, in the Jovin case.
91. On April 25, 2001, in a front-page article in the New Haven Register, defendant Wearing stated again that "on the basis of everything we have been able to develop, [Van de Velde] is a legitimate, bona fide suspect." Defendant Wearing again did not identify any other suspects.
92. Between 1998 and the present, the defendants have steadfastly refused to remove the suspect label from the plaintiff, or to identify any evidence that justifies this destructive label.
93. During this same period of time, the defendants have stated that the investigation has "exhausted all avenues," that they have few if any leads, and little if any evidence identifying Ms. Jovin's killer.
94. In October 2001, the Office of the State's Attorney for the Judicial District of New Haven announced that unidentified male DNA had been recovered from the fingernails of Ms. Jovin. According to the State's Attorney's statement, the male DNA was commingled with Ms. Jovin's blood.
95. The existence of this DNA sample had not previously been revealed. Prior to this revelation, in April 2001, plaintiff voluntarily provided a DNA sample, when requested to do so.
96. The October 2001 statement confirmed that the unidentified male DNA commingled with the blood from Ms. Jovin's fingernails did not match the plaintiff's DNA, and was not his.
97. Even in the face of this forensic evidence excluding the plaintiff as the source of critical DNA material, the defendants have refused to retract the "suspect" label from the plaintiff, or to clear him of involvement in the Jovin murder.
98. As a result of defendants' December 1998 leak and repeated statements confirming his "suspect" status, plaintiff has been irretrievably linked with the Jovin murder. Virtually every article about the Jovin murder identifies Van de Velde by name, as "the suspect" in the case.
G. Other Conduct Designed To Establish Plaintiff's Guilt In The Public Eye
99. Between December 1998 and the present, defendants have engaged in a continuing course of conduct designed to insinuate, and which did insinuate, plaintiff's guilt in the public eye.
100. The defendants' conduct was not limited to the repeated naming of plaintiff, and only the plaintiff, as the "suspect" in the "pool of suspects."
101. The defendants attempted to manipulate the media coverage of the Jovin murder investigation to increase the pressure on the plaintiff, and further the public perception that he was guilty of murdering Ms. Jovin.
102. For instance, in April 1999, the defendants enlisted the assistance of an amateur "treasure hunters" club -- a group of metal detector enthusiasts -- to help in the search for physical evidence connected to the Jovin murder.
103. The defendants notified members of the media in advance of this orchestrated search. Television film crews were present, having been alerted by the defendants.
104. The defendants led the search, beginning in the vicinity of Edgehill and East Rock roads, where Ms. Jovin's body had been found. The search continued toward 305 St. Ronan Street -- where plaintiff resided. See Exhibit 9.
105. The next day, the media reported that during the search an item was recovered on the '300' block of St. Ronan Street, approximately 100 feet from plaintiff's residence. Defendant Sullivan described the discovery as "forensic evidence." Anonymous "sources" said the recovered item was not the murder weapon.
106. In a subsequent newspaper article, similar anonymous "sources" reported that the item recovered was an automobile owner's manual, and "described the finding as potentially important." For the record, Defendant Sullivan declined comment. See Exhibit 9.
107. The conduct of the metal detector search -- in the presence of invited media -- was intended to, and did, further emphasize plaintiff's status as "the suspect" in the Jovin murder, and further the public perception that plaintiff was responsible for the murder. The defendants' conduct, and comments about the location and supposed significance of the recovered evidence, created a public perception that the investigative "net" was closing in on the plaintiff.
108. On information and belief, the item recovered was the owner's manual from plaintiff's Jeep Wrangler, which had been broken into in October 1998. Plaintiff's owner's manual had been missing since that theft -- before the Jovin murder -- and therefore had no "forensic" significance.
109. Plaintiff informed the defendants of these facts, immediately after learning that the mystery "forensic evidence" was supposedly an automobile manual. The defendants did not issue any subsequent statement disputing the potential significance of the alleged "forensic evidence" recovered near plaintiff's home, or correcting the public perception they had created that significant evidence relevant to the Jovin homicide investigation had been recovered near plaintiff's home.
H. Conclusion and Damages
110. As described above, beginning in December 1998 and continuing to the present day, the defendants have repeatedly branded plaintiff as a "suspect," and the only named suspect, in the brutal murder of Suzanne Jovin, and have engaged in other conduct which created and furthered a public perception that plaintiff committed that murder.
111. As described above, the plaintiff has consistently maintained his innocence, and has never been charged with the Jovin murder.
112. The actions of the defendants were reckless or intentional, and violated the plaintiff's constitutional and civil rights.
113. The actions of the defendants were willful or wanton, and were undertaken without regard for plaintiff's rights.
114. As a result of the defendants' actions, plaintiff received a great amount of unfavorable publicity, irreparably damaging his reputation and causing him to experience humiliation, disgrace, mental anguish, psychological trauma, and severe emotional distress.
115. As a further result of defendants' actions, plaintiff lost employment opportunities, suffered damage to his earning capacity, and was forced to incur legal and other expenses.
116. As a further result of defendants' actions, plaintiff's job status at Yale University, and with the United States Navy Reserves, was altered.
117. As a further result of defendants' actions, plaintiff's standing within the Quinnipiac College Masters in Broadcast Journalism Program was damaged, and plaintiff was suspended from that program.
118. The devastating impact of defendants' actions on plaintiff's reputation and livelihood is illustrated by the comments of several students after plaintiff was first officially identified as a suspect, and after his classes were cancelled. One student stated, "[a]lthough I believe a person is innocent until proven guilty, I would not register for a course with a professor who's been named a suspect in a murder." Another student was quoted as saying: "I had registered for one of his seminars, and I redid my schedule. It's not worth the risk." Yet another student stated, "There is this, like, maybe general sense in people's minds that maybe he is guilty even though they haven't really proven anything yet."
119. Yet another student stated in January 1999: "By now it would be almost impossible for him [Van de Velde] to find another teaching job, no matter what he has to offer to students. Even if the case is never solved, there will always be suspicion surrounding him wherever he goes."
120. Because no amount of money damages would be sufficient to remedy fully the damage plaintiff has suffered, plaintiff lacks an adequate remedy at law, and therefore seeks, in addition to money damages, declaratory and injunctive relief from the Court.
FIRST COUNT (42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all defendants)
121. Paragraphs 1 through 118 are hereby incorporated by reference and re-alleged as though fully set forth herein.
122. The individual, collective, and concerted actions of the defendants described above violated rights guaranteed to the plaintiff under the United States Constitution, as follows:
a. plaintiff's right to equal protection of the laws, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
b. plaintiff's right to privacy under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, i.e., the right to be free from governmental intrusion, and to be "left alone";
c. plaintiff's right to procedural and substantive due process, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, including but not limited to his "liberty" and "property" interests thereunder;
d. plaintiff's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
123. The defendants' conduct also violated plaintiff's rights under the Constitution of the State of Connecticut.
SECOND COUNT (Invasion of Privacy - False Light Against All Defendants)
124. Paragraphs 1 through 118 are hereby incorporated by reference and re-alleged as though fully set forth herein.
125. The individual, collective and concerted actions of the defendants described above, beginning in December 1998 and continuing to the present day, caused plaintiff to be placed in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
126. In undertaking these actions, the defendants acted with knowledge of the falsity of the matters published, or with reckless disregard to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which plaintiff as a result would be placed.
THIRD COUNT (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Against All Defendants)
127. Paragraphs 1 through 118 are hereby incorporated by reference and re-alleged as though fully set forth herein.
128. In engaging in the course of conduct described above between December 1998 and the present with respect to the plaintiff, defendants intended to inflict upon him severe emotional distress.
129. Defendants knew, or should have known, that plaintiff would suffer severe emotional distress as the likely result of their actions.
130. The actions of the defendants with respect to the plaintiff in connection with the Jovin murder investigation were extreme and outrageous.
131. As a direct result of defendants' conduct, in addition to the damages already specified above, plaintiff suffered, and will suffer in the future, extreme mental anguish, nervousness, anxiety and illness, and emotional distress.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays that this Court:
1. Assume pendent party and pendent claim jurisdiction, if necessary;
2. Award compensatory damages to the plaintiff;
3. Award punitive damages to the plaintiff;
4. Order appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief;
5. Award costs of this action, plus attorney's fees; and
6. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate and just.
THE PLAINTIFF
JAMES VAN DE VELDE
By____________________________________
David T. Grudberg, ct01186
JACOBS, GRUDBERG, BELT & DOW, P.C.
350 Orange St.
P.O. Box 606
New Haven, CT 06503
Ph.:(203) 772-3100
Fax:(203) 772-1691
Email: dgrudberg@jacobslaw.com
James I. Meyerson
396 Broadway - Suite 601
New York, New York 10013
Ph.:(212) 226-3310
His Attorneys |
