To: MNI who wrote (256 ) 1/11/2000 3:26:00 PM From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1397
Jeffrey, a request. Are we definitely positive that it was Suzanne, personally, who dropped the keys? What evidence is there to tell us? Yes. Positive. Suzanne told Peter Stein this, and was only a few yards away from the police substation (the door being inside the Phelps Gate archway) at the time. Why don't you just team up to accuse the police not only for imperfectness of investigations, but insinuate that an officer from the substation might have developed a secret passion for the victim, or any other reason to commit the crime - thereby constituting a great motive for a collective police cover-up? The first part, yes, the second part, no. No sense stooping to their level (g).As for your interview of Jeff, I think it not worth anything - after a whole year one should expect your friend, whether or not he committed the crime, to have a consistent story up and running, checked and rechecked. Therefore your interview is simply not conclusive. I told CJ I'd get answers to her questions so I got answers. Although I didn't intend our discussion to be anything resembling a formal interview to help "prove" Jim innocent, I was aware that it might come off that way. I made jokes about others making jokes about him "returning" to the scene of the crime the next morning or about how he seemed too preoccupied with the murder. The simple truth is that if someone were murdered within a mile of one's house, assuming this were not a routine event (g), I think not taking a great interest would be more unusual. He said that was what he did and he has nothing to hide so there you go. On a related note, I did ask him what TV show(s) he was watching between 9 and 10pm. He said he was flipping the channels as he often does and absolutely doesn't remember any of the shows he saw then as he didn't stay too long on any channel. Speaking of getting one's story straight, if he had planned the "perfect crime" you'd have thought his #1 priority would be to establish an alibi. Even if he had "forgotten" to plan an alibi beforehand, he still had plenty of time to memorize a couple of shows he could claim to have watched. The point is that's not what happened and that's that. It is therefore well conceivable that the actual killer, whoever that may be, perceives of the most likely story for your questions before even you asked him/her. This works both ways. Someone may lie profusely and be perceived as innocent, and an innocent person may tell the truth only to be perceived as lying. That's why I keep saying we should be focusing on the evidence and see where it leads us rather than focus on a person and see if the evidence fits them since barring an airtight alibi we can almost always make it fit. - Jeff