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: paul ross who wrote (554)	3/5/2000 7:03:00 PM
From: James R. Barrett	Respond to of 1397

Yes, these so called "stalking" cases concern me as well. There are so many things we don't know about them. For example: When did the stalking start? How many times was each woman stalked? How long did it last? When did it end? What was Jim's relationship with these women? Why would they accuse him if it wasn't true? Why would Jim want to stalk them in the first place? Questions, questions and more questions. Jim

To: paul ross who wrote (554)	3/5/2000 10:18:00 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1397

This stalker accusation is one of the main reasons the NHP considers Jim a suspect, and Jim said so in the interview. Recall from the interview that Jim had dated a local television reporter. The thinking is that as soon as Jim's name surfaced as a suspect she might have gone to one of her friends at the police department to offer her assistance if needed. Somehow there surfaces this rumor of him having had a problem with a past relationship. My thinking is that the police took liberties with her words as one of their so-called standard interrogation tricks. For example, they'd go up to past girlfriends and say something like "don't be afraid to tell us how horrible he was to you; we already know." As we all know, rumors often have a life of their own. Soon it wasn't just past problems it was stalking. Then it wasn't just one old girlfriend it was two then three. Then it wasn't just a routine stalking, it was so bad they all filed police reports on him. Totally crazy. Then John Miller while tape is rolling asks him how he got a "reputation" as being a stalker. How in the hell does one respond to such a question? He should make every attempt at finding exactly why these women have reported this and attempt to dispel any suspicion. He has. If 20/20 had actually done any research they'd have known no such police report involving Jim and stalking exists and, one presumes, told this to the audience. Somewhere on this thread is the Q&A John Miller did at 2pm the day of the broadcast. You'll see my name pops up (as "Jeff" and "Jeff M") several times. One of the questions I asked was about rumors and whether Miller had actually seen a verifiable police report accusing Jim of stalking. He answered that he had. Well, guess what. He hadn't. That's why 20/20's lawyers quickly edited out that part. As for the show itself. Too late. However, to sort of smooth things over, right at the end of the broadcast, Dianne Sawyer mentions that Jim passed a lie detector test specifically designed to refute the vicious rumors. 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. You are misinterpreting the word "inconclusive". All it means is that the tester couldn't get a good read on the subject. It's not like a battery tester where a needle points to "good" or "recharge". Each person is unique. The whole first part of the test is a series of "obvious" questions to determine that person's indicators for telling the truth or not. Not everyone consistently shows a wide difference on the chart. If the tester can't get a good read and thus confidently draw a conclusion, he just deems the test inconclusive. Simple as that. All the tests that were able to be "graded", Jim passed. 20/20 should have explained all this as well, IMO. As for not directly answering whether he killed Suzanne, that's semantics. Jim signed an affidavit saying he didn't do it. The tester asked him if he told the truth in that affidavit. That's not Jim's fault. I'm sure if he ever feels compelled to take another one he'll make sure he's asked that question a number of different ways. ----- As an aside, if Jim really were "creepy" and obsessed with Suzanne as the NH police would have you believe, wouldn't you expect he'd have found excuses to meet with her more frequently rather than cancel one that apparently Suzanne herself thought was important? - Jeff