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: CJ who wrote (276)	1/12/2000 5:49:00 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1397

Your irrational outburst appears as If I am touching "too close to home." The problem here is that you are assuming things like phone calls, conversations, personality traits, etc. that you've admittedly made up to fit Jim to the crime. Essentially you've invented your own suspect! -- It's one thing to speculate whether a call was made or not; it's quite another to state a call as a given and then speculate about what might have been said. -- It's one thing to speculate whether it's consistent with someone's character to act a certain way; it's another to assume they would and then speculate accordingly. -- It's one thing to speculate about the relationship between two people; it's another to assume a certain relationship and speculate accordingly. What you've done is set up a series of straw horse arguments. For example, you enter into evidence a phone conversation between Jim and Suzanne somewhere between 8:45 and 9pm. You do this despite 1) No phone records exist to prove this, 2) Jim denies this, and 3) there is no evidence to suggest Suzanne told anyone about a meeting with her professor despite being asked about her plans subsequent to that time. In order for your premise to be true 1) Jim would have to be lying, 2) for fear of being caught in a lie Jim would somehow have to a) be absolutely certain there were no phone records to contradict him, b) be absolutely certain Suzanne didn't already have plans that she had to cancel which she may have attributed to him, and c) if she had no plans, be sure she didn't tell anyone along the way where she was headed, like Peter Stein, and 3) that Suzanne didn't think meeting with her professor late on a Friday night was suspicious, especially if in order to account for the above you surmise that Jim told Suzanne not to tell a soul about their meeting. If you want to say their plans to meet happened earlier that night, say when Suzanne dropped off her thesis, then you only add more opportunities for Suzanne to have told someone and more reasons for Jim to be worried she told someone if indeed he planned to commit the perfect crime. What strikes me as bizarre is that you appear to contradict your own premise: There was nothing for her friends to tell; even if there was, there is not any way for us to know what her friends may have told anyone. Exactly... if there is no way for us to know what she may or may not have told her friends, how might Jim?! If her friends thought she was lying or hiding something, surely they would have told the police. In other words, the fact that Suzanne said she was going to stay home and work didn't at all strike her friends as being unusual. Jim didn't tell Suzanne to not to tell anyone; and, the third sub-question is Not Applicable. It's easy to in retrospect say this is no big deal. But think about whether someone who a) is planning to commit a murder and b) doesn't want to be caught would dare kill someone who may have told countless people where she was going that night. Does this really make any sense? Lastly, I truly believe I am making a rational argument that would apply to anyone in this situation, not just someone I know personally. If that were not the case I'd simply say "Jim said that's not true. End of discussion." If I did, you and everyone else would say "but Jim might have an incentive to lie." I realize there's not much I could say to change societal norms. I think the same when accused criminals are questioned on TV. The big difference I beg people to understand here is that not only is Jim not charged with a crime, there's not even any real evidence to suggest he should even be a suspect. And, worst of all, the less evidence you have on someone, the more wildly you can speculate about how they might have done something! All I'm trying to do is keep things in perspective. I hope people understand that. :) - Jeff