Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Murder Mystery: Who Killed Yale Student Suzanne Jovin? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CJ who wrote (32)	12/8/1999 11:39:00 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1397

Re: Timeline, Polygraph test, etc. Here is the timeline as reported in the New Haven Register: ===== She left the Best Buddies party at 8:30 p.m., dropped off a classmate and went to her apartment at 256 Park St. She was next seen on Old Campus, and, at 9:25 p.m., was spotted by a classmate walking north on College Street toward Elm Street. At 9:40 p.m., East Rock Road was disrupted, and witnesses would later tell police they heard a man and a woman arguing. At 9:45 p.m., the witnesses would say, they heard a woman screaming and, 10 minutes later, an emergency 911 call was made to police. At 9:58 p.m. Dec. 4, 1998, police arrived at the intersection of East Rock and Edgehill and found Jovin covered in blood. She died at Yale-New Haven Hospital of 17 stab wounds to the back and neck. She was 21 years old. Message 12191389 ===== The walk from Phelps Gate to where she was found is about 2 miles-- uphill. That's about 30-40 minutes non-stop. As 10-20 minutes later arguing and screams were heard at the murder scene, in order for them to be related to the murder one would have to assume Suzanne was driven there. Even if she was last seen 5-10 minutes further up College Street it still doesn't allow her to make it to the murder scene unless not only did she pick up the pace, but she was joined by the murderer who kept on walking with her. The point here being that a car most likely was used, in which case you'd have to assume Suzanne and the murderer parked and got out. The police did indeed check Jim's car and found nothing, nor any evidence he scrubbed it clean for that matter. As someone here also pointed out, once you conclude Suzanne at some point had to have been in a car, you pretty much have to cross Jim off your list of suspects. Recall that police didn't have the timeline set nor any hard theories in place when they first talked to Jim. At that point -- I'm guessing -- you volunteer to do whatever it takes to get yourself eliminated as a suspect in order to move the case forward. You're not really worried about the results because you figure even if they are inconclusive there will doubtlessly be others called in for questioning and perhaps the real killer(s) will be found shortly. Now, a year later, you conclude the police have nothing and the whole world is looking at you simply because no one has given them any other place to look. At that point you have to wonder a) what if the test is inconclusive; i.e. you don't think you'll fail but these things aren't 100% accurate and you never know, b) if you pass, will that really help you or will the police spin the test as "flawed" and still refuse to exonerate you, and c) shouldn't you force the police to explain why they think you are a suspect in the first place and why even suggesting you take one isn't harassment? I have not talked to Jim about this. If it were me, I'd be damn sure I knew what I was getting myself into. I'd probably have demands like control over who administered the test, and, when I pass, that I expect the chief of police to admit his department spent a year pursuing the wrong person, botched the investigation, will call in the FBI, and then resign. How about you? I have a lunch appointment now but will be back to address the other important points you raised a bit later. - Jeff

To: CJ who wrote (32)	12/8/1999 2:18:00 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1397

What is the true location on Suzanne's body of where she was lacerated and stabbed? Another important question and one impossible to answer without benefit of the autopsy report. I did, however, speak to someone who lived a few doors down from the crime scene. She said the talk was not on the head wounds but of the way her throat was very badly slashed. From news reports, I get the impression all the other wounds were localized to the back of her head and neck. It was also widely reported that the tip of the blade broke off in her skull, and that there were no self-defense wounds. As to why police chief Sullivan said "She was stabbed in the back -- and only in the back -- with a knife," and later added that "reports of wounds to the neck and chest are incorrect", I can't speculate other than that it is common for police to withhold key information that "only the killer would know" to help verify they have the right guy. There are two scenarios for the stabbing: inside a car and outside a car. Try sitting in a drivers seat, twisting your body to the right, and simulating leaning over and stabbing someone through the skull. Not easy at all. Hard to get leverage, a good chance you'll miss your mark at least once, a reasonable chance if the first blow is not totally unexpected and incapacitating that the intended victim will be able to at least put up their hands in self defense, etc. In other words, if the attack was in a car, it had to have been by someone sitting in the rear. She never would have seen it coming. The front seat of the car could account for why the wounds were localized to her head. If the attack came outdoors, you would expect someone in a wild rage to be stabbing wildly (i.e. hitting various parts of the body). If the first blow was not incapacitating, you might expect self defense wounds. If the first blow was incapacitating, you'd expect the victim to have fallen down. Surely she would have fallen down prior to 17 stab wounds! This means either she was stabbed while on the ground (there were no signs of breaks or bruises in any of the accounts I've read), or the killer continued the localized attack while she was on the ground. Again, while all of the above scenarios may have happened, I think the stabbed from the back seat theory is most likely but I'm open to other suggestions. - Jeff

To: CJ who wrote (32)	3/13/2000 11:43:00 PM
From: Zeuspaul	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1397

He seemed tired and looked down at the ground when he spoke. His words-' I never hurt her ' -struck people as odd." Whereas, in the YDN, 7/31/99, " When asked by a WFSB television reporter whether he killed Jovin, he responded, ' I could never hurt her. ' " To me, there is a material difference. And yet a third report significantly different than the two other reports. Ref New York Times Magazine...post 42 Message 12231664 With the camera rolling, Van de Velde looked down, shook his head and said no when asked if he would 'ever harm her.'