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: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (143)	1/4/2000 7:46:00 AM
From: CJ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1397

<Jim,... the way you have started the process is flawed.> Jeff; Jim can speak for himself; but, IMO, you were and are completely out of line -- on that entire post. It rather annoys me that you: agreed to assist in pursuing the approach of "proving that Jim Van de Veld is Guilty," which can be extremely beneficial in excluding him; have attempted to totally divert the agreed approach to a philosophical discussion/argument; and, clearly, cannot control yourself, or are not making a genuine effort to detach yourself, from "defending" Jim; about which I point-out now that, from all I have read by and regarding Jim, he would be of far greater detached/objective assistance than you are at frequent times. This is meant to neither personally attack you, nor to embarrass you; but, rather, to hopefully, get it across to you [and through your hard head <g>] that, by forcing and disciplining yourself to detach from your emotions and "beliefs," thereby exercising objectivity, you will be of much greater help to Jim and to your pursuit of solving the case. . Lastly on this post, in the post to which I am replying, IMO, you are incorrect in your assertion that the way Jim started the process is "flawed." To the contrary, in case anyone else also noticed it, IMO, your paradox is flawed. I only mention that in passing, as I want to pursue the approach that Jim is Guilty, to see what fits, and what doesn't. Hopefully, in our doing so, you will see that there are possible ways for someone in Jim's position, if innocent, to possibly "prove" he didn't commit the crime. ====> ==========>