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: IEarnedIt who wrote (133)	12/30/1999 7:56:00 PM
From: James R. Barrett	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1397

I have an idea. Let's try to "prove" that Jim is guilty of the murder. Let's focus all of our attention on how he could have done it, how he got rid of the evidence and what his motive might have been. One question that must be answered is who was the last person to see Jim before the murder and what time was it. From that point we can try to fabricate a scenario on how he could have murdered SJ. Anybody game?

To: IEarnedIt who wrote (133)	12/30/1999 11:13:00 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1397

I definitely get the total impression that you are more interested in proving Jim's innocence than in solving the murder. My philosophy has always been the only way to prove Jim or anyone else on the suspect list as innocent is to find the real killer(s). Here's my logic on how to do this. I hope this helps you understand where I'm coming from. There are two possible broad scenarios: I. Suzanne knew her killers(s) A. She had a planned meeting that night 1. A love interest 2. A professor 3. Osama Bin Laden related informant 4. A friend from Best Buddies 5. A drug dealer B. She was stalked 1. All the way from her apartment 2. From Phelps Gate C. She ran into someone she knew (see A) II. Suzanne didn't know her killer(s) A. She was stalked 1. All the way from her apartment 2. From Phelps Gate B. She was a random victim 1. Motive was sexual assault 2. Motive was violence 3. Motive was robbery I. Suzanne knew her killer(s) I.A. She had a planned meeting that night I think we agree that Suzanne had plenty of chances to tell people she was headed to a "meeting"-- no names necessary. She didn't. This led us to conclude the meeting not only had to be "top secret", but must the person she might have been going to see. This theory led to the following problems: 1. How would the killer know Suzanne had indeed not told anyone, written something down on paper, etc.-- ever? 2. How would the killer know Suzanne wasn't seen on her way to the meeting place or getting into his car? 3. Why would someone arranging a top secret meeting leave someone for dead in a well-lit, active residential area? In my opinion, the above pretty much relegates a planned meeting to a status of low probability. But let's just carry on regardless and assume a meeting were planned. This leaves four reasonable possibilities which I list below with the gotchas for each: 1. A love interest. - Suzanne had a solid relationship with her boyfriend - Nothing in her diary and no mention to friends or relatives about another love interest - Friends say she wasn't "that type" 2. A professor - See problems with love interest above - If a thesis or academic meeting, why keep in secret? - Suzanne didn't have any notebooks or text books with her 3. An Osama Bin Laden informant - Her thesis bibliography showed she only used published sources - Not even her thesis advisor knew about any "live" source - No evidence she sent her thesis to any of Bin Laden's people 4. A friend from Best Buddies - Why keep such a meeting secret? - Can mentally retarded people drive? - Mentally retarded people who do violent things often don't understand what they did and thus don't keep such things quiet - Parents would have to be involved in any cover up 5. A drug dealer - No evidence on this one way or the other I.B. She was stalked Anyone stalking Suzanne from Best Buddies would have to have used a car. They'd have had to follow her when she dropped off her co-worker and then when she dropped off the car. At that point they'd have had to park their car to follow her on foot and then go through locked gates, across two streets, and across the old campus without her knowing it. Even if they had succeeded in doing this, since a car was used, how did they get Suzanne in their car? As Suzanne obviously did not retrace her steps after dropping off the keys at Phelps Gate then how could they have known beforehand where to stow the car and make their move? I rate this a very low probability. I.C. She ran into someone she knew For this to make sense, and assuming she wasn't stalked (see above) we'd have to assume: 1. The person whom she met was driving a car or standing by their parked car, 2. came up with a convincing reason for Suzanne to get in their car, 3. got mad enough to kill her within 25-30 minutes, 4. had a knife with them, and 5. Suzanne didn't sense she was in trouble and thus didn't attempt to defend herself, and 6. how would the killer be sure no one saw Suzanne get in his car? Again, I think this scenario is low probability. II. Suzanne didn't know her killer(s) and was stalked II.A. Suzanne was stalked See I.B. Low probability. II.B. She was a random victim By process of elimination, this is the only choice left. There are two big gotchas with this scenario: 1. A lack of defensive wounds 2. Abductions, even those related to a robbery, are quite rare One would certainly expect an abducted victim to be on their guard. On the other hand, it might be construed as further evidence the victim were overwhelmed and resistance was perceived as futile, and thus a possible reason they got in the car in the first place. I think it logical to assume most people who attempt an abduction do so in an area where they would not be recognized. I think it logical to assume most people who abandon an abducted victim do so in an area where they would not be recognized. I would presume most abducted female victims are done so with sexual assault in mind. There is no evidence of one in this case. There is no evidence one was even tried (i.e. clothing in disarray, buttons or zippers undone, etc.). As for violence, I'd think they'd have tormented her in some way and thus she'd have had no choice but to defend herself or risk severe injury. Again, she didn't do that. Even if she were restrained, the localization of the wounds does not point to torment but rather just plain murder. We know Suzanne's wallet was left in her room so it could be that the killer(s) after going to such lengths to abduct her just got extremely mad at her for not having an ATM card or much cash, and killed her. Yes, all scenarios have a low overall probability. But if this murder were "routine" it would have been solved by now. - Jeff

To: IEarnedIt who wrote (133)	12/31/1999 12:28:00 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1397

To directly address your questions, as best I can: 1. "statistics of knives vs guns" In general, knives are perceived as a much more "intimate" way to kill someone, which implies a knife would be far more likely in a crime of passion than a gun. The problem here is that we have no evidence of passion, at least on Suzanne's part, nor any evidence she had been "lured" by someone who might have had a "secret" passion for her. I can see someone keeping a meeting with a consensual lover secret, but not one with someone whom had never let their feelings be known. I suppose there might be knife vs. gun statistics somewhere on the web but without adding context, such as a theory you think makes logical sense, I'm not sure what exactly you think you need. 2. "people in attendance at the Pizza Party" So far I've been unsuccessful in locating these people. When Yale gets back in session I'll ask around again. 3. "your insistence for some reason that the statement made by the Jovins was as a result of what was said to them by the local police." Yes, I do have strong feelings about this. Recall the Jovins recently directly attacked Yale for hiring Jim in the first place. Why do this unless they had strong feelings he was the murderer? I can only think of two reasons why they think this way: a. the police told them from day one they thought they had the right guy, and b. to think the real killer might be still at large would be psychologically too hard to take (i.e. lack of closure). "It pains us terribly to imagine that she may have met her fate as a victim of her very positive, but critical outlook"...is a most BOLD and most UNUSUAL statement to make after hearing about the death of your daughter. It implies that she created more than one enemy due to her outspokenness. It implies that the field and scope of the investigation has been far far too narrow, it even implies that "random" is a totally incorrect theory to have as far as this case is concerned. Here we have a dichotomy. If Suzanne's parents really do think Suzanne had created "enemies" that may have murdered her, then why haven't they expressed their disgust that the police seem to be focused on one person? Remember, we're talking about someone who they themselves have publicly criticized! Yes, I think that quote is very telling. Let's assume Suzanne were quite critical of someone and her parents feel this led to her death. We have to assume that the person of whom she was critical not only found this out but murdered her because of it. Am I reading this wrong? Does this make sense? I'm not kidding; I honestly don't know. even your questioning of witnesses was done in a leading manner. First of all, I never published a transcript of my conversation so obviously you are reaching this conclusion from my written summary. For sake of argument, let's assume I did ask leading questions. The murder happened a year ago. The people with whom I spoke have had countless interviews since then. Their stories are not fresh but rote by now. I really doubt I influenced them to change their opinion. Besides, I was interested in facts, not opinions. If you have something specific in mind let me know. WHO is really trying to solve this murder Far as I know, just the local police. Jim has been clamoring to get the FBI involved and for Yale to hire their own private investigator but to no avail. Henry Lee, the esteemed Connecticut forensic scientist is supposed to do his own "reinaction" of the crime in a few weeks, so that should be quite revealing although he has been vocal about not being called in from day one. This leaves people like you and me. Despite what I say or do on this thread, despite whether I agree with you or you with me, your opinion carries just as much weight with everyone else and thus you can make a difference that could help solve this case. As I've said before, when I come on strong about something it's only because I want what I say to hold up to scrutiny, not because I want to quash "opposing" viewpoints. Yes, I do tend to get up on a soapbox when it comes to Jim and I'll try to be careful not to do that in the future. The fact you bothered to write what you wrote shows that you cared enough to do so and I very much appreciate it. :) - Jeff