Re: 4/17/00 - Open letter to the Yale Daily News (from James Van de Velde)
Open letter to the Yale Daily News
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published 4/17/00
To the Editor:
I too was appalled at the callous and indifferent statements issued by Yale for ABC's 20/20 investigation into the Suzanne Jovin murder. While attacking Yale, however, Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Jovin's open letter included some false information and innuendo. Such an indirect attack on me, though the result of unimaginable pain, suffering and misinformation, does the investigation a disservice.
Let me once again make sure the Yale community understands all issues well:
* First and foremost, I have never refused to cooperate with the New Haven Police. I have no idea how this rumor got started. After my interview on Dec. 8, 1998, the New Haven Police were advised to forward all questions and requests for subsequent interviews to my lawyer. They did so on only one occasion, and I complied without hesitation. There is not a single question I refuse or have refused to answer. In fact, I have written to the new State Attorney in charge of the case, pledging my cooperation.
* The New Haven Chief of Police and Mr. Jovin himself called publicly for me to take a polygraph exam to prove my innocence. I did so. I have passed two polygraph exams:
The first showed that I was being truthful when I denied stabbing Suzanne, denied having or attempting a relationship with Suzanne or any other student ever, denied ever having argued with Suzanne over anything or having seen Suzanne the evening of Dec. 4, 1998.
I also passed another test on the ludicrous, false and malicious so-called "stalking" allegation. The test showed that I was being truthful when I denied having ever "peered into the window" of Channel 3 Reporter Barbara Pinto's home or "stalked or harassed" her in any manner. It also showed I was being truthful when I denied the equally ludicrous, false and malicious allegation that I made "hang up" calls to Channel 8 news reader Anna Sava in September 1998.
Both exams were administered by one of the nation's leading experts, a former FBI polygrapher with 30 years experience.
It is true that I have refused to undergo a polygraph administered by the New Haven Police. During my interview with the police on Dec. 8, 1998, I repeatedly agreed to undergo a polygraph that very night. The police repeatedly asked me if I would take the exam right then and told me they were calling for a polygrapher. Every time they asked, I readily consented. I would have been happy to have taken the polygraph at that early stage because I knew I had absolutely nothing to hide and would have passed without problem. But the police never produced the polygrapher.
Then, as part of their "investigation," New Haven Police officers systematically slandered and maligned me throughout New Haven and the Yale community.
Without a shred of supporting evidence, they told colleagues, students, friends and acquaintances lies like I was a "Jekyll-Hyde character," that I was "a lunatic," and that they "knew" I had "an affair" with Suzanne. After this sort of treatment, I am now expected to trust the New Haven Police's integrity by submitting to one of their polygraphs? Unlikely.
Furthermore, the New Haven Chief of Police himself has made this entire issue moot. Although there is absolutely no evidence to link me to the crime and no coherent motive has been identified, the Chief has publicly stated that, even if I were to come in and pass his State-administered polygraph exam, he would continue to label me a "suspect."
* My teaching methods were investigated by the University in January 1999, and I addressed them in my October 1999 letter to the editor. The dean of Yale College, of course, found nothing bizarre or inappropriate whatsoever in his investigation. It pains me that neither the dean nor deputy dean, both of whom know me well and know of my experience, character and outstanding record, has defended my academic reputation against these misguided attacks.
* I was not inattentive in advising Suzanne on her senior essay in any manner. I explained our series of meetings in detail in my October 1999 letter to the Yale Daily News. Suzanne's senior essay draft was not neglected.
Much has been made about how disappointed Suzanne supposedly was with me. This surprises me, but obviously I am in no position to dispute what she may have told her friends and family. I can say, however, that neither Suzanne nor anyone else communicated this to me. As far as I was concerned, our conversations were always cordial, polite and concerned with the academic issues at hand. Her e-mail messages to me, her request that I write her a letter of recommendation, her outstanding mid-term average, her religious attendance record and her impressive senior essay outline all gave me the impression that overall she was happy with me and my course.
* My success as an instructor was well known. I had some of the highest, if not the highest, student evaluations in the department of political science at Yale. Eight of my 37 students wrote that mine was the best class they had taken at Yale, and I received not a single negative evaluation for either class.
* Since I hold a Top Secret clearance from the U.S. Government, the suggestion that "my background" should have been checked is sadly ironic. My background and character were, and continue to be, investigated and assessed more thoroughly no doubt than any Yale faculty member in the entire University. I was specifically cleared and remain cleared for sensitive duty because of my emotional stability, trustworthiness, integrity and background.
May I again suggest more useful avenues to address the widespread frustration with the quality and pace of the investigation:
First, the Yale administration should go to the Governor and demand that the FBI or state assume control of the investigation. The New Haven Police have not only uncovered no leads, they have made an absolute mess of the investigation by slandering me, leaking to the press, accruing no evidence, misleading the Yale and New Haven communities, sullying Yale's reputation and covering up the debacle. Why, for instance, is the city impeding Henry Lee's effort to assist the investigation and why did it take 12 months to elicit his expertise? Why did the police turn down his offer the evening of the crime to assist in the investigation?
Second, the administration could add $200,000 or more to the reward. Yale owns a $7 billion endowment. A quarter million dollar reward might shake leads that the New Haven Police could not uncover.
Third, the administration could hire several expert, former FBI homicide investigators to augment the investigation and bring expertise. Yale could hire, for instance, Sutton Associates, the firm of former FBI investigators that helped bring about an arrest in the Martha Moxley murder case in Greenwich, Con.
Fourth, the administration could take out full-page ads announcing the reward and eliciting cooperation in all Connecticut newspapers and television every day until the crime is solved. Other than posting flyers on Old Campus once in March 1999, I know of no other instance where the police or Yale have publicized the existence of the state's award money. Why?
Without any evidence to support such wild speculation, the New Haven Police insinuated my guilt to many in the Yale community last year and characterized my teaching methods darkly. The insanity of the situation is that people suspect me because I was named a suspect, despite the complete lack of evidence or motive. I wish the Jovin family peace and justice. I only wish I could somehow give it to them.
James Van de Velde '82 is a former lecturer in political science at Yale.
yaledailynews.com |
