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 (261)	1/12/2000 10:16:00 AM
From: MNI	Respond to of 1397

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. So she has not been seen actually handing in the keys, their is no note taken for the time of the hading in of the key, and the parking lot is not blocked directly after 9:30, or at least we don't know so. P.S. might be considered 'a source near to the investigations' himself, depends n the carefulness of wording by reporters, or not? What you wrote about the time of publication of details on the victims' clothes and the second witness was well-researched, thanks. It may mean that actually more people came up with claims they had seen either Suzann in any place and at any times, who were all dismissed because they couldn't provide details on how she was dressed. However, with the witness knowing Suzanne it might well be she had seen her at another time of the day in another place with the same clothes, and seen somebody else in the spot at the time she reported. The importance of the issue et al. can change our memory. So it also works the other way round. MNI.

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (261)	1/12/2000 10:23:00 AM
From: MNI	Respond to of 1397

No sense stooping to their level (g). Sheer academic arrogance. I continue to be appalled, and doubt your motives even more. There is no grin here. MNI.

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (261)	1/12/2000 10:33:00 AM
From: MNI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1397

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. Now it is you who assume a perfect crime, and show it is unlikely. I didn't assume 'perfect crime', but quasi-spontaneous crime, which leads to passion (at least) afterwards. When Jim has spoken to the police long ago it surely has been noted whether or not he remebered certain programmes or not. Wouldn't it be dangerous to remember more after a year than after a week? Just as much as to present a totally new alibi ? Therefore your reasoning doesn't devalidate my objection to the interview's outcome. However I agree that you were asked to make the interview, and therefore had to report its' results. MNI.