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: Ken D who wrote (468)	3/2/2000 4:00:00 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1397

Ken, what I've posted is every e-mail I've found that is related in any way to last night's show. Here is the URL to the complete list: boards.go.com Re: Body language I'm reminded of an old game show called "To Tell the Truth". Do you remember it? A panel of celebrities would be told that one of the three "contestants" really did something or other and it was each their job to choose one at random and ask a question to try and discern who was really telling the truth. The whole reason the show lasted so many years was precisely because it's darn near impossible to figure out through body language which stranger is lying and which one is telling the truth. I emphasize "stranger" because once you know someone well, like a sibling or child, then the odds vastly improve, IMO. Granted that may be because he's trying to react spontaneously to questions that he's answered over and over, thought about for over a year, etc. You might think so, but that's not really the case here. After the interview Jim and I spoke briefly about what he was asked. Me being me, I of course couldn't help but give my two cents about how I would have answered the questions... differently. Of course his lawyer had one opinion and other friends had other opinions, etc. The point is that I can assure you that Jim responded to John Miller as Jim. In other words, no matter how his words, intonation, body language, etc., may have been interpreted by the audience, what you saw was sincerity. But, for example, I didn't see any indication of the over emotionalism that ruined his first two polygraphs. He seemed under tight emotional control, perhaps too tight. Again, what you saw was Jim. You'd have seen the same thing a year prior to the murder as you saw on TV. Also, could be that "emotionalism" means heart rate and perspiration rather than how jumpy you are in your chair. This brings to mind the question of how should someone react to being questioned about a murder they didn't commit? Should they sit and answer calmly, or should they answer loudly and defiantly? Recall that there is speculation that the police originally fingered Jim because he actually sat through four hours of questioning without demanding a lawyer nor demanding they arrest him or let him go. My brother had a great way to express this point. He cited the following from Monty Python's Life of Brian where Brian was vehemently trying to deny he was the Messiah: ----- ARTHUR: Hail Messiah! BRIAN: I'm not the Messiah! ARTHUR: I say You are, Lord, and I should know. I've followed a few. FOLLOWERS: Hail Messiah! BRIAN: I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand?! Honestly! GIRL: Only the true Messiah denies His divinity. BRIAN: What?! Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah! FOLLOWERS: He is! He is the Messiah! BRIAN: Now, fuck off! [silence] ARTHUR: How shall we fuck off, O Lord? etc. ----- kinofil.cz Of course it's funnier if said with a British accent (gg). - Jeff

To: Ken D who wrote (468)	3/5/2000 5:47:00 PM
From: paul ross	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1397

ÿÿ I think the most frustrating thing to me is that Jim really didn't advance the case for his innonence by the answers he gave to several of the questions. (John Miller) "Police accused Van de Velde of stalking 3 women. Phoning them, following them, watching them. Police said the women had all told them the same thing. Van de Velde was creepy." (Miller) "Why did you have this reputation of being a stalker?" (Van de Velde) "I have no idea. I have no idea. But let me be very clear, there was no misunderstandings or minor incident blown out of proportion. This incident, these incidents never happened. I have no idea what they're talking about...Well, I know of only probably one person and my suspicion is probably because she worked with them and she wanted to protect herself, perhaps, from the fact that the relationship didn't work and I moved on." This stalker accusation is one of the main reasons the NHP considers Jim a suspect, and Jim said so in the interview. He answers this question very awkwardly, like he has something to hide, and to say he has no idea why these 3 women reported this to the police just adds to the suspicion,IMHO. And saying that one of the women would report this because the relationship didn't work and "he moved on" (dumped her) doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And he doesn't know the other two? Come on. He should make every attempt at finding exactly why these women have reported this and attempt to dispel any suspicion. And (from a post on this thread) there is Anna Ramirez a friend who although still feels Jim is innocent does harbor some new doubts as the result of Jim's description to her of a failed relationship. From the Time article "But as the spring wore on, she (Ramirez) began to wonder. She was troubled by a conversation in January with Van de Velde about a recent failed relationship he'd had. She wondered why he wanted to discuss the subject and why he seemed so upset... She said she still believed him to be innocent, but her doubts continually bobbed to the surface." In another part of the program John Miller asks Van de Velde about Suzanne's dad's contention that she was very upset about Jim's handling of her thesis. "She was crying and she didn't cry very easily," said Mr. Jovin. "Tears over what?" is Jim's response."That would surprise me... My name may be kind of caught up in the anxiety." Suzanne's friends also reinforced the claim that she was very upset."Can you believe he wouldn't even read my essay till (last) Wednesday," she had told them. I find it hard to believe that Jim didn't sense that all was not well with Suzanne. After all he was her senior thesis advisor and she had stopped going to the class field trips(not discussed in the 20/20 interview). Jim was described as being very attentive to all his students and to neglect Suzanne in this way would be a great departure for him. Suzanne had also talked over this problem with a student advisor though she never made a formal complaint. Surely this fact must have made its way back to Jim. Jim took 3 lie detector tests, 2 were inconclusive and the final one he passed, but in that one he didn't have to answer a direct question about if he had killed Suzanne. The inconclusive tests, one wonders did he pass some questions and not others that were more sensitve. Was he too emotional during the questioning? Why, did he have something to hide? Just adds to the overall suspicion I feel.