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: Mark_H who wrote (460)	3/2/2000 2:37:00 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1397

The show did mention that the witness that saw Suzanne at Phelps Gate also saw a well dressed blond man about 10 feet behind Suzanne. Was this new information or had you mentioned this before? This was first brought to light in the Vanity Fair article. Here is what was said on CNN's Burden of Proof show about it: Ron, there is an identification that was made by a witnessed who claimed the night of the murder that she saw a blond Caucasian wearing glasses, and then later saw this James Van de Velde on television, and said: You know, that's the guy. Is that a good identification? RONALD SULLIVAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It's a problematic identification because it's potentially suggestive. She didn't pick Mr. Van de Velde out of a lineup. She didn't pick him out independently. Rather, it was after she saw him on TV in the context of being called a suspect in the murder that she said that, well, this looks like the guy that I saw that night. Also, contrast that with another witness who said that she saw a small red car leaving the scene, not a big red jeep, like Professor Van de Velde had. And, when shown a picture of the professor, said that's absolutely not the person that was driving the car that apparently fled away from the scene of the crime. So it's a problematic ID at best. COSSACK: John, as a prosecutor, what do you do with an ID like that? BENZAN: Well, you have to test it. You have to put the witness to the test. You test her ability to perceive, the angle from which she saw the person, and what she went through that day to make sure that if you are going to use that at trial that it's something that is going to stand and it is going to be good evident. So you put the witness to the test. Message 12231709 In general, it's hard to believe, IMO, how anyone could have stalked Suzanne that night. The walk from her apartment to Phelps Gate is through locked gates, between buildings, and across streets. If someone had followed her from her apartment, wouldn't their car also be parked near it? How would the stalker then get Suzanne back to his car? - Jeff

To: Mark_H who wrote (460)	3/2/2000 4:29:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Respond to of 1397

Yes, it's been mentioned many times before. The witness in question is apparently a woman who had left the hockey game early and was walking down College Street on her way to a party. I find her testimony extremely suspect. 1. She said she saw Suzanne, but didn't say that they'd exchanged greetings. Why not? Didn't Witness know Suzanne all that well? Or was Witness too far away for an exchange to be practicable? In either case, how sure was she that the person she saw was Suzanne? 2. She described, in considerable detail, not only the blonde man she claimed was walking along behind Suzanne, but also a black guy walking ahead of her. Woooo. Let's get real. I walk to the store every day; a couple of blocks. Do I remember anyone I've seen? No, unless it's someone I know well. And in that case, would I remember who'd been ahead of the person in question, and behind? Would I be able to say, days later, what they were wearing, whether they wore glasses or not? Hell no, and I have a very good memory. 3. Witness apparently didn't tell her "story" until she saw a report of the murder, and an interview with Jim Van de Velde. Then, according to journalists' reports, she "began shaking uncontrollably" and called the cops at two in the morning. Sorry. Sounds like a load of crap to me.