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: Janice Shell who wrote (237)	1/10/2000 11:49:00 PM
From: Harry Simpson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1397

I have been following this thread and would like to commend everyone for their comments. It's nice to see intelligent people discuss this mystery. Two comments: I think she wore a "polar-fleece" pullover. It's synthetic. No fur. Nor thick leather. I had the terrible luck of having a young woman die in front of our house a few years back after being stabbed in a robbery attempt (I live in a very nice neighborhood in North Oakland.) She escaped from her assailant and ran approximately 100 yards and expired from excessive bleeding, having been stabbed twice in the heart. This, of course, is quite dissimilar to this case, but they were both young college women who were brutal-stabbing victims. I often think of her when I read about this case. My opinion: She was killed by someone (two or three assailants) in a bungled robbery attempt. They pushed her into a car, she struggled, was stabbed, and then tossed out where they found her. Sadly, her murderers won't be found soon, but may turn up years from now when someone reports them talking about the murder. Just my two cents. Harry

To: Janice Shell who wrote (237)	1/11/2000 11:14:00 AM
From: MNI	Respond to of 1397

Janice, it seems positive that SJ wore a synthetic fleece. Still I think I might comment that nowadays it should be possible to make DNA sample tests from any mammal's hair, thus identifying the individual animal the hair originated from. It may be that the margin of error in that identification is higher than for humans, and that the tests are costlier than for humans, depending on the species. Also we might take into consideration that it happens to be much more likely to find several genetically similar individuals in most mammals than in humans (how many kittens from one year and cat mom, and what do we do with breeding and genetical engineering in the case of cows?). To actually determine with 100% security from which species a hair comes, should take no more than a good conventional microscope and a specialised handbook. So while the cat's hair evidence may be scientifically rock-solid, it is most unlikely insignificant to prove anything with respect to the crime, as has been said earlier. Regards MNI.