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 (763)	5/19/2000 10:26:00 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Respond to of 1397

Re: 5/16/00 - Yale, Quinnipiac wronged Van de Velde Yale, Quinnipiac wronged Van de Velde Letter to the Editor May 17, 2000 I am a Yale alumnus, a friend of Jim Van de Velde, and I write regarding the conduct of Yale University and Quinnipiac College during these years of focus on him as in the "pool of suspects" in the murder of Suzanne Jovin. After 17 months of never even being charged, there is a decent possibility ? I'd think quite a bit more than 50 percent ? that Van de Velde will never be charged in the murder of Jovin. By now, the presumption of innocence should be applied when considering his previous conduct. Conduct such as having lunch with his students, giving a televised tribute to Jovin at the media's request, placing flowers on Jovin's chair during a few minutes of silence in her memory, and spending almost four hours speaking to the police in an effort to assist, may equally be seen as the actions of an innocent, concerned, and duty bound faculty member and citizen. Yale chooses its curriculum, and Van de Velde's teaching was anything but an unknown quantity. Yale knew about his good record at Stanford and it hired him because of his proven substantive knowledge and expertise. Indeed, it hired a former dean and lecturer who had taught nine courses at Yale and been well liked by students. Yet Yale nevertheless declines to defend its hiring of Van de Velde, nor endorse the curriculum topics taught by him and approved by the institution. It leaves him alone to explain his background, his hiring, his approved course materials. The tabloid sensationalism first practiced by the media, and the press leaks by Yale and others, also spilled over quickly to another important New Haven institution. The day after the police and Yale labeled Van de Velde as the "lead" suspect, Quinnipiac College's School of Journalism suspended Van de Velde as a student in its masters program. It later announced publicly that it did so because Van de Velde had failed to complete an internship. Besides having fabricated a problem with his internship, Quinnipiac refuses to this day to even hear Van de Velde's appeal for reinstatement. And in my day, I don't remember too many students tossed out of school because they had a B average. Is this academia's best response to media scrutiny and a pressured situation? What is being taught here? Yale College Dean Richard Brodhead and President Richard C. Levin should affirmatively praise Van de Velde's teaching record, praise his record of service as a former dean, praise his efforts to teach world peace in a practical way to tomorrow's leaders, and at least recognize that his acts in honoring Jovin's memory may well be praiseworthy. Then Yale should offer Van de Velde an appointment as a lecturer, beginning in September. At least then Van de Velde could parlay that into a teaching offer somewhere else. That seems a minimum that Yale should do ? and Quinnipiac should join in reversing its action. Their scapegoating and silence to date only weaken their institutions. Michael Ranis Brooklyn, N.Y. ¸New Haven Register 2000 zwire.com

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (763)	5/22/2000 4:31:00 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1397

Re: 5/18/00 - New Haven Police Chief Mel Wearing refuses to play the patsy New Haven Police Chief Mel Wearing refuses to play the patsy Published 05/18/00 As a murder coverup scandal continued growing this week, New Haven Police Chief Melvin Wearing refused to play the patsy. Wearing angrily denies a charge reportedly leveled by his chief of detectives: that Wearing called off a murder investigation for budgetary reasons. "I would never tell anybody to stop an investigation. That's ridiculous," Wearing asserted in an interview. "I'm a professional law enforcement official. I've arrested my cousins. My record speaks for itself. Everything will come out at the grand jury." A state grand jury is investigating whether top New Haven cops covered up crucial evidence in a 1996 murder case. In that case, police believe North Havener Philip Cusick was shot to death in New Haven's Fair Haven neighborhood, allegedly by a drug dealer. Police say they have no reason to believe Cusick was involved in a drug transaction. In 1998, New Haven detectives taped an interview of a Fair Haven gang member who said he witnessed the murder--and identified a fellow drug dealer as the murderer. A supervisor kept a transcript of the interview in his desk drawer. The tape has disappeared. The department apparently never notified North Haven police, who were also investigating the case, about the interview. The alleged killer was never interviewed or pursued. In addition to the state grand jury, New Haven police have launched their own belated internal investigation. Last week, two cops at the center of the controversy--Capt. Brian Sullivan, the department's chief of detectives, and his deputy, Ed Kendall--gave statements to the department's internal affairs unit. According to a report in Tuesday's New Haven Register, Sullivan claimed that Chief Wearing told him to stop the investigation because of budgetary constraints. Kendall reportedly claimed to internal affairs that Sullivan told him to close out the Cusick investigation and hand all material over to North Haven police--but that Kendall "forgot" for at least a year that the transcript lay in his desk. Sullivan wouldn't comment for this story. Kendall couldn't be reached. To an outsider, it may seem beyond belief that police expect the public to believe a) that they could "forget" about an eyewitness account of an unsolved murder; or b) that they would close a murder investigation for budgetary reasons. But it's hard to prove that someone didn't "forget" something. Forgetting isn't a crime. Intentionally covering up evidence is. It's butt-covering and scapegoating season at 1 Union Ave. Coming next: Capt. Sullivan's dog ate his homework? --Paul Bass newmassmedia.com