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 (415)	2/15/2000 10:50:00 AM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1397

What BS! How many polygraphs do they expect him to take before they're satisfied? IMO, the police are trying to protect their reputation by smearing someone against whom they've never had any evidence at all. If they know something that would lend credence to what appears to be their persecution of Van de Velde, they should make it public. If not, they should announce that they made a mistake. At the very least.

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (415)	2/15/2000 11:45:00 AM
From: IEarnedIt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1397

Have Jim's attornies ever considered sueing the NHP? IMO Sounds like he just might have a great case against them. Maybe in Defamation of Character and blocking their own investigation. Just a thought but could be interesting. JD

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (415)	2/15/2000 1:02:00 PM
From: VivB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1397

Jeff, This article certainly explains why Jim would not want to take ANOTHER polygraph. Even if he passed one administered by the police as they are asking him to do, they are not going to "eliminate" him from "the suspect pool!" <<When asked Monday whether passing a lie detector test given by local police would eliminate Van de Velde from the "pool of suspects," Wearing replied: "The case is not based on one component of investigation. There are several aspects that reveal a person is a suspect in the case. >>

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (415)	2/19/2000 7:11:00 PM
From: James R. Barrett	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1397

Chief Wearing is a genius. He "solved" the Jovin murder without making an arrest. Here's how he did it. In Dec. of 98 Chief Wearing had a major problem on his hands. A female Yale student was murdered in his city and he didn't have a clue as to who killed her. His detectives worked around the clock for weeks trying to find a motive, a piece of physical evidence, an eyewitness, a license plate number, anything at all. But alas they found nothing. By now Chief Wearing was feeling the intense heat from the Yale community and the local politicians to find the murderer. The public was outraged and wanted to feel safe on New Haven streets again. The Chief had to do something fast. Then the idea hit him like a freight train. NAME A SUSPECT. Fantastic, everybody knows that a suspect is usually guilty. It couldn't be just anybody though. It had be someone who knew the victim, lived in New Haven, was single, lived alone and most importantly had NO ALIBI for the night Suzanne was killed. Bingo, James Van de Velde was the perfect suspect. The Chief knew that most of the political pressure to make an arrest would go away if he named a suspect. All he had to do now was call a press conference and announce he had a "list" of suspects. The reporters would pressure him to name the suspects and that's when he would name Van de Velde. His scheme worked perfectly. Yale believed he found the murderer and promptly fired Jim. The politicians congratulated the Chief on a job well done. The Chief convinced the people of New Haven that an arrest was imminent as soon as they find that last piece of evidence that will get them a conviction in court. Even Jim did the "right thing" by moving to California. Now the good people of New Haven could stroll in the park again without the fear of having their throat cut. Ten years from now the Chief will still be "looking" for that one piece of evidence that will convict James Van de Velde of Suzanne's murder. He will still be saying that Jim is a suspect. If he didn't say that it would mean there is an unidentified killer running loose in New Haven. Everybody knows we can't have that, can we? As far as Chief Wearing is concerned this murder case is solved because James Van de Velde decided to stay home that night and watch the Discovery channel.