SI
SI
discoversearch

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: James R. Barrett who wrote (142)1/2/2000 9:58:00 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1397
 
Jim, I understand what you are trying to do and in the next post I'll try to help you, but I think the way you have started the process is flawed.

Let's start with a paradox. What is the difference between an innocent person with no alibi and someone who has committed the "perfect crime"? Nothing! The point is the only way for an innocent person to "prove" they didn't do it is to have some evidence they were somewhere else when the crime occurred. Barring that, you can always concoct some scenario to explain why they may have been the murderer.

For example, if it's a man, you can posit he had a secret romantic relationship with the deceased. If that seems unlikely, you can posit it was one-sided and suppressed. If you don't think the two liked each other at all, simply surmise they hated each other. As for lack of evidence, simply say there was top secret meeting and the killer disposed of anything incriminating, or perhaps even there really is evidence but the police have kept it secret. How can an innocent person possibly "prove" they are really innocent?

Normally when a suspect is named there is some sort of real evidence that at least can be disputed. For example, was Suzanne's blood or hair found in Jim's car? No. In his apartment? No. Did Suzanne tell anyone they were going to meet? No. Was any of Jim's blood, hair, or footprints found at the crime scene? Was his car seen near there? No. So what is there to dispute?

Sure the police were right to thoroughly question Jim. Sure the police, like you, had a perfect right to think long and hard about whether he might be the killer and to gather as much information in this regard. But they had no right to name him in public as a suspect without any evidence which Jim could attempt to dispute. The reason why should now be obvious.

Let's assume we do have a "perfect murder" here. What I've tried to do on this thread is examine the events of that fateful night and see if we can at least narrow down the type of person who might have done this. Was it someone Suzanne knew? Was it someone who wanted to rob her? Assault her? If this leads us to Jim then so be it. I contend the lack of any evidence Suzanne was ever in his car (and Jim didn't rent or steal a car) pretty much absolves him given I contend a car must have been used. You may feel differently or perhaps you may feel the evidence points to a professor although not necessarily Jim. That's the sort of thing I personally think would be most valuable to discuss.

Alas, the cat is out of the bag and people think that the police wouldn't have named Jim as a suspect unless they know something we don't. Yes, I admit it is human nature for people to try to figure out how he might have done it. After all, we are a nation raised on Agatha Christie, Murder She Wrote, Clue etc. where the murderer is always someone we've run across in the story. So, with the solace we've already spent a great deal of time not talking about Jim, in the next post I'll see if I can help you out. :)

- Jeff



To: James R. Barrett who wrote (142)1/3/2000 3:20:00 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell  Respond to of 1397
 
James,

First of all, again, thanks for taking an interest to help try to solve this case. I'll do my best to try and address your possible scenario involving Professor James Van de Velde. However, as I detailed in my prior post to you, it's impossible to disprove an innocent person with no alibi did something, but at least one can try to show the likelihood of something to be quite small.

Your premise is:

Unknown to anyone Jim was madly in love with Suzanne. He fantasized about her day and night. He asked her repeatedly to go out with him but was rejected every time.

First, Suzanne kept a diary. Suzanne had a close relationship with her family. She had a boyfriend. Her own family describes her as someone unafraid to speak her mind. Surely if any professor were hitting on her she'd have told someone, right? She didn't. Not even her diary. Second, recall that Jim had spent many years as a College Master where he actually lived with the students. No problems, no complaints. And third, recall that the reason Suzanne was purported to be mad at Jim was because he was not able to discuss Suzanne's thesis on the day they had planned. Wouldn't someone who fantasized about someone day and night want to see them every chance possible, i.e. find excuses to get together more often?

Next you write:

Finally in a stupid act of desperation, on 12/4/98, he told SJ that she would receive a much better grade on her thesis if she agreed to go out with him. Suzanne lost her temper and told Jim he was creep and wouldn't go out with him even if he was the last man on earth. Then she told Jim that she was going to see the dean on Monday and report what he said about giving her a better grade (sex for an "A").

First, in order for your story to hold up until this point, Suzanne would have had to have a) not told anyone anything about her situation, and probably b) been threatened not to tell anyone. I can't fathom a student keeping such a situation totally top secret unless they felt their life were in jeopardy. If so, the last thing they would do is tell the person who threatened them they planned to report them! Second, did all this transpire before or after she handed in her thesis? If before, why not confront her when she stopped by that day? If after, why tell her after she's left?

Your conclusion is:

Now Jim started to worry. What if his career was ruined permanently? He decided he must see SJ right away and try to reason with her. If she wouldn't listen to reason then he would have to kill her.

After all that's transpired, we'd still have to be talking about something kept top-secret here. Even if she swore on a bible to Jim she hadn't told a soul, how could Jim be absolutely sure she were telling the truth? If she indeed had told someone, what would be worse for his career: his word against hers on an internal complaint, or he being the #1 suspect in her murder based on whoever she told telling that to the police?

So, in conclusion, yes, your scenario is possible, but very very unlikely, IMO. Along the same lines, I'd also venture to say we could substitute any other professor, student, or townie and reach the same low probability explanation for the murder. This is one major reason I don't feel this was a crime of passion.

- Jeff



To: James R. Barrett who wrote (142)1/8/2000 4:31:00 PM
From: CJ  Read Replies (5) | Respond to of 1397
 
Catching -up:

I prepared two additional "brilliant" posts a few days ago; but, a lightning zap, and they were gone. {One disadvantage of not using NSCP!} Reality is that I won't be able to reconstruct them -- with all the superb reasoning and logic they contained.
So, I better just move ineptly on .....

{Jeff -- You have been "spared" -- One of them was responding to your posts -- pointing-out all of your false accusations, inaccuracies, etc. {{Much of it was "proving" that your " random 'n ride" theory just won't work.}} If they are significant to anything, I feel quite certain I will have another opportunity to do so. <g> }

Before presenting my "Jim did it, " there are a few things I don't think have been mentioned {please forgive me if otherwise}:

1. In summation re: According to Jim: On 12/4 {night of the murder} he arrived at his apt. at 8:20PM - 8:30PM; parked on the street, went up the stair to his apt., did not communicate with the outside world, learned about a neighborhood murder from watching the 11:00 PM News, and, the next contact he had with any person was at 9:00 AM on 12/05.

What is missing? IMO, This:
.

... A. Any witnesses' statements that they saw his car parked in the
....... same spot at various times on the night of 12/4;

... B. Any witnesses' statements that they were outside
....... near Jim's apt. and never saw anyone arrive/depart.

... C. Any witnesses' statements that they live/were visiting within
....... earshot of Jim's apt., and never heard anything.
.

2. IMO, the woman who saw SJ after SJ saw Peter Stein was incorrect in her estimate of what time it was, and that it was closer to 9:20PM-9:25PM [rather than, "around/close to 9:30PM"]. The reason for this is Jeff's add'l. info of where the woman saw her, and that if Suzanne basically stayed in one area very long, several other students who knew her would have seen her; and,

3. Based on the map Jeff provided, his previously telling us that it is a 10 min. walk from the Old Campus to the Rink, and my talking with several people who walk at a relaxed pace (& knowing myself being a brisk 4.3 mile walker 3 x weekly}, it should be agreed that Suzanne could have easily walked from where she was last seen to the crime scene in a maximum of 15 -20 mins. Jim's apt. was closer, and would have taken a max. of 15 mins.

Jim VdeV did it {With TY to Jim Barrett for one part of his scenario}:

Theory: Suzanne was on her way to meet someone she knew. She was walking the entire time. She planned on meeting the person at his residence. She arrived at her destination.

Scenario: The man she was meeting was Jim Van de Veld, per an arrangement they made: that afternoon or, preferably, by telephone between 8:40 PM and 9:00 PM., to review his comments on her most recent draft of her Senior Thesis. She grabbed the blank paper as a last-minute thought when she was leaving her apt.

She didn't tell anyone where she was going because of: when it was arranged; the concern of an appearance of impropriety; and/or because she was embarrassed due to having told several people that she was angry with him.

Suzanne arrived and he greeted her; they entered his kitchen area to get something to drink.

1) He made verbal and physical advances toward her, expressing - for the first time - his desire for her. She laughed at him, clearly rejecting him, and turned her back to him to leave. OR

2) An argument ensued over his neglect as her advisor. She berated him, and told Jim that she was going to see the dean on Monday and file an official complaint as her Senior Thesis Advisor, and, now, additionally report what he just proposed (sex). Jim started to worry. What if he lost his contract? What if he got fired? What if his career was ruined permanently? Jim's "world" was spinning. She could see it in his eyes and turned to leave.

He "snapped," grabbed a knife, slashed at her throat from behind, thus silencing her, and repeatedly stabbed her, on the back of her neck. His adrenaline dissipating, Suzanne finally broke away and ran out of his apt. He was too cautious - and horrified at what happened -- to follow her.
.

She walked and staggered as far as she could, then collapsed where she was found. {Appx. 3-4 minutes from Jim's apt.} Tragically, she expired as she was on the grass, a minute or two before the police and ambulance arrived. The blood that was taken from the grass the following day by the NHPD was a mixture of slight bleeding from her as she lay there, and blood from the front of her clothing.
.
Jim, still horrified at what happened, finally calmed-down. He immediately cleaned up his kitchen and the knife; he noticed it had broken at the tip, which was no where to be found . Because all of attack actions, except for the one slash, were non-artery/vein stabs, with a kitchen knife, rather than a gunshot or similar, most of the bleeding was internal, and almost all of external blood ran down her body and clothes. He convinced himself that he would be OK, and was sickened -- and relieved -- when he saw on the ll:00 PM News that she expired. When Jim met Ms. Ramirez to jog at 9:00 AM, he purposely asked her if she heard about the murder [with the identity of the victim still appearing unknown], and, intentionally to appear innocent, advised her to "be careful."

Jim was genuinely infatuated with Suzanne and extremely sad about her loss. His grief, as expressed at the Yale gathering -- and the flowers in his class -- was real and truly felt.

Jim did it.
.
The End.
.

I have one other ... {Just to make Jeff happy :)} :
.

Theory: Suzanne Jovin was on her way to meet someone she knew. at his/her residence; she received a call at 8:50-8:55 and made the plan. She was walking the entire time. She never arrived at her destination.

Scenario A: As she walked, she was diverted by someone she didn't know, coming-out of nowhere on foot {"nowhere," as in an alley, doorway, etc}, grabbed from behind, a non-fatal "surface" slash across her throat to show what would happen to her if she resisted, demanded money &/or drugs, stabbed repeatedly from behind, broke away/released, attacker did not follow for fear of being seen; she walked/staggered as far as she could, then collapsed where she was found.

Scenario B: Same as above; however, the argument and scream heard at approximately 9:45 PM from "one long block south" of the crime scene included SJ as a participant.
.

.
Please: As to "Jim did it" ===> Add to it, shoot holes in it, .......
.
Need to leave ...
Regards,
Carol



To: James R. Barrett who wrote (142)1/9/2000 1:22:00 PM
From: Janice Shell  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1397
 
Unknown to anyone Jim was madly in love with Suzanne. He fantasized about her day and night. He asked her repeatedly to go out with him but was rejected every time.

Not entirely implausible, except for the "unknown to anyone" part. I find it very hard to believe Suzanne would have kept quiet about this. If she told no one else, she'd have told her boyfriend.

Speaking of her boyfriend, why have we heard so little about him? Usually the person the police suspect first is the person closest to the victim. Jeff tells me he was on a train bound for New York at the time of the murder. I assume that's been confirmed, but I can think of several ways round it. He could have bought a ticket, boarded the train, got the ticket punched, got off at the next stop and returned to New Haven on the next train. Whom did he see in New York, if anyone? When did he first see them? Might they have been willing to lie for him?

Unlikely, perhaps, but it should be looked into.

btw, did Suzanne live alone, or did she share the apartment with boyfriend. That'd be logical; a little odd if she didn't, perhaps.