Re: The profound implications of the soda bottle and the tan van
Perhaps lost in Sunday's Hartford Courant article by Les Gura was, to me, the important revelation that a soda bottle with Suzanne Jovin's fingerprints was found in the bushes near her body at the crime scene. According to Peter Stein, who had met and talked to Jovin on Yale's Old Campus at around 9:15 on her way to drop off the car keys at Phelps Gate, Jovin had no backpack on and was only carrying what looked like an 8 1/2 x 11" piece of white paper. Therefore, the first question we need to answer is where Jovin likely obtained that soda.
It seems to me the three most reasonable explanations for Jovin having a soda are a) she brought it from home, b) she bought it on her way to Phelps Gate, and c) she bought it on her way back from Phelps Gate. Since Stein was emphatic about what Jovin was carrying, and since it's very hard to not notice someone holding a bottle of soda, for scenarios "a" or "b" to be true it would mean Jovin had to have been carrying the soda in one of her pockets. Given the size of a bottle of soda (likely 20oz because it was a bottle, not a can), given that she was wearing jeans and a fleece pullover (as opposed to, for example, baggy pants and a roomy sweatshirt), given the fact that people just don't normally carry soda containers in general in their pockets, and given that Jovin began her trip from her apartment where she could easily have quenched her thirst before leaving, it seems very unlikely she had brought the soda from home nor had it concealed in a pocket. Scenario "b" is further unlikely because the time elapsed from when Jovin logged off her computer at home to when she met Stein leaves little to no time for her to have stopped in any store, let alone one where you could buy soda which would have been several blocks away. There are also no soda machines along the route she had to have taken, and the brand of soda (which Les didn't reveal so neither will I) is not one commonly found in stores let alone soda machines. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude scenario "c", that Jovin bought the soda on her way back from Phelps Gate.
The next question is where might Jovin have obtained a bottle of soda. Given she was reportedly seen walking north on College but had not yet crossed Elm Street, the closest three places that would have sold soda would have been Durfee's Sweet Shop a half block up on Elm, Krauszer's Market, two blocks up on the corner of York Street, and a convenience store (the name escapes me; it no longer exists) about three blocks up on Broadway. Since Durfee's used to close at 4:30pm on Fridays during '98 (it is now open until 1:30am) we can safely rule it out. The convenience store is possible but not directly on the route Jovin would have likely taken back home. This leaves Krauszer’s, which would have been directly on Jovin’s route home.
Furthermore, reportedly (according to Les), because the brand of soda was not very common, the police themselves concluded Jovin likely bought it at Krauszer's. I called the manager of Krauszer’s and confirmed that he indeed was visited – two years ago – by three New Haven police officers asking his employees (there were likely three people working that night) if they had seen Jovin or anything suspicious. None said they had. As the store is usually quite busy that time of night on a Friday they said they were too busy with customers to notice what was going on around them. That was the only time he said the police came around. Krauszer’s does have video surveillance but the tape resets itself every eight hours, and although the manager told me he doesn’t recall how much time had elapsed since the murder, he said it definitely wasn’t within eight hours.
At this point we need to pause and contemplate the significance of this revelation. What we and the police have reasonably concluded is that Suzanne Jovin had taken a left turn off College onto Elm, walked two blocks (traffic lights) up, took a left on York Street and a quick right into Krauszer's Market, picked a soda out of the refrigerator, stood in line and paid for it, and then walked outside-- all without being seen! Well, all without being *reportedly* seen. The obvious question here is why didn't the police ask the media to urge anyone who may have been walking on Elm Street or who had been in or around Krauszer's that night to come forward with any suspicious information they may have seen? As Les points out, why hadn't Yale or the police put up reward posters in that area? How many people might have seen something but figured since Jovin was last seen blocks away and since the police already apparently had a prime suspect in Professor Van de Velde, that whatever they saw was irrelevant and not worth reporting? What a travesty!
The next step is to contemplate the impact the soda bottle has on our various theories of who may have killed Suzanne Jovin. Here are a few reasonable conclusions:
1. No way Jovin went jogging or on a 1.9 mile walk with a soda can in her hand. Not a big deal since we already were all but certain a car had to have been used.
2. As she was walking west on Elm, a one-way street going east, it makes a "do you want a ride home" scenario much less likely.
3. As Jovin already had a drink in her hand, it makes a "lets go out for something to drink" scenario much less likely.
4. As parties have drinks, it makes it less likely Jovin was on her way to a party.
5. As one doesn't normally meet a professor or someone of stature holding a soda bottle, it makes it less likely Jovin was planning to do so.
6. As Jovin was well past halfway back to her apartment, it makes it less likely she was going to meet anyone at all.
In all, the soda bottle makes it much more likely Jovin was sincere when she told Peter Stein she was tired and had no plans that night. It seems likely Jovin was indeed taking an alternate route home, got thirsty from all her walking on that unusually warm night, and decided to buy a soda at Krauszer's. We know at some point Jovin ended up in a car. In past essays, I've detailed why I think other evidence indicates she was most likely forced into the car. So, does the soda bottle evidence reinforce or contradict this conclusion?
The first important clue is whether the bottle was found open or closed. Most people who buy single bottles of soda at convenience stores do so because they are thirsty at that moment and thus open them almost immediately after walking out the door. If the bottle was closed, it would likely indicate she likely entered a car almost immediately after exiting Krauszer's. If open, it would likely indicate Jovin at least sensed no immediate danger, either on the street or in the car (though not necessarily both). The degree to which the bottle was filled would potentially indicate how far she might have walked before being forced into a car, or it might indicate how long it took for her to sense danger if she got in a car willingly and began to drink it. As much as I'd like to be able to answer this question, the truth is I don't know. The only hint I got was that Les told me the evidence was always referred to him as a soda bottle, as opposed to a bottle of soda, indicating to me it was likely open.
If the soda bottle was indeed open, given the fact it was found in the bushes which would have been several feet away from Jovin's body, it's very unlikely we'll ever know how full it was before ending up there. As a test, I filled two different soda bottles with water and carefully laid each on their side on a level surface. I had thought the shape of the bottle would retain most of the soda. I was wrong. Only about a fourth of the water didn't leak out. For the sake of scientific accuracy, I did this test with water instead of soda, and used bottles from brands we have at home, neither of which was the brand reportedly found. I also didn't throw or drop the bottles nor did I take into consideration the angle at which the bottle was found (i.e. whether facing uphill or down). However, the point of the experiment was to show that if the bottle was open but totally full before ending up in the bushes, it's not very likely the police would have been able to determine this.
Next, let's explore the implications of the soda can being found near Jovin's body on the "she was killed in a car" vs. "she was killed where she was found" scenarios.
If she was killed in a car and deposited where she was found, obviously the killer(s) tossed the can out of the car to rid it of anything that belonged to her.
If she was not killed in a car, it means when she exited the car she took her soda can with her. Normally, when one is a guest in someone else's car you don't eat or drink in it. Even if you do, you don't likely drink while the car is moving. Most likely if you are a guest you sit in the front seat and put your drink in the cup holder normally in the center of the dashboard. If Jovin had the bottle with her it means she most likely removed it from the cup holder. This is not something one does in the heat of anger or in panic. For someone to get out of a car 1.9 miles from where they started implies, at the very least, some form of agitation. Add to that the fact, given her brutal stabbing, we know her killer was enraged, we can reasonably conclude even if Jovin had never let go of the soda bottle at all during the trip that when she exited the car she was feeling somewhere between disoriented/upset and panicked. Most people if still holding a soda bottle in such a state would drop it immediately, either upon exiting the car or perhaps even in the car.
Similarly, had Jovin bolted from a car temporarily stopped at a stop sign she'd likely either have left her drink in the car or, if still holding it, dropped it immediately so she could travel (run) faster. Therefore, we'll start off by assuming she convinced the driver to pull over and let her out. Perhaps after he pulled over he pleaded with her to reconsider and they talked a bit more, or perhaps she just got out immediately. In either case, getting out would reinforce the fact she was upset to the point of not being able to be placated enough to remain in the car and be driven the 1.9 miles back home. I think it's obvious that had she exited the car she would *not* have started to walk leisurely home, continuing to sip her soda... yet the fact she had no defensive wounds implies just that-- that she was taken by surprise. This makes no logical sense.
Therefore, to make an out-of-car scenario more likely, we really have to be inventive. We have to assume the air was (somehow) still somewhat calm. We have to postulate Jovin took her soda with her as she got out just to show she wasn't intimidated, that she could take care of herself and didn't need anyone's help to get back home. Next, we have to suppose her eventual killer left the car to talk her out of it and they strolled in the warm air trying to talk out their differences. Then, suddenly, he gets violent and kills her before she knows what was coming. Here's the *big* paradox: if things are so calm as to allow such a scenario, then one would assume Jovin would have calmly asked the driver to drive her back home! Sorry, you don't get out far from home in a strange neighborhood in the middle of the night after a long day unless you feel very threatened.
The next question is how the bottle likely got in the bushes, several feet uphill from Jovin, in the first place.
The key to me is the short distance of the bottle from Jovin. As we discussed earlier, it's most probable that Jovin had to have been under severe duress to have exited the car alive and on her own at that hour of the night that far away from home. If she were still holding the soda bottle when she got out she'd likely have ditched it immediately and started to run. The fact the bottle was so close by means in such a scenario she wouldn't have gotten more than a few steps, if any, away from where she exited the car. Considering the head start she'd have gotten on the driver, and considering the driver likely had to have had to circle around his car to get her, this doesn't make any sense. If we go so far as to assume Jovin was not under duress as she exited the car, then we'd likely have to assume she was taken by surprise, i.e. tackled/attacked from behind, the impact of which might have propelled the soda bottle forward and into the bushes. The problem with this scenario, which is already based on an iffy premise, is that there is no evidence of any such impact on the ground such as chewed up grass, grass stains on Jovin's clothes, indentations in the ground, etc. To make matters worse, as I've pointed out many a time before, the lack of blood at the scene makes all related outdoor scenarios very unlikely. Les points out that the angle of her body with her head uphill might account for a lack of a pool of blood, but it wouldn't explain the lack of blood spatter from 17 stab wounds (i.e. spurting, especially from the slash to the throat, or dripping from the knife as it is swung).
It seems more likely to me that after the killer(s) dragged Jovin's body out of the car they also quickly tossed out whatever of her possessions were left behind, such as the soda bottle. Speaking of other possessions, more than a year ago I wrote the following:
At some point in the interrogation the police tossed down in front of Jim a copy of the Yale publication called the "New Journal". They then said something along the lines of "this is why you did it." No, it wasn't Jim's paper and no, he hadn't seen it before. Therefore, unless tossing down red herrings is a police trick designed to get a "revealing" reaction, we can presume it had something to do with the crime. But what?
Recall Peter Stein said Suzanne was carrying 8 1/2 x 11" white paper(s) in her right hand. He said he is pretty sure had it been a campus publication he'd have recognized it as such, so presumably Suzanne wasn't carrying the New Journal, at least at that point. Did she pick one up after that, perhaps at Phelps Gate? If she did pick one up, where might she have put it? This is why we both thought perhaps she had a backpack. We now know from Peter Stein she didn't. Could she have stuffed it in her sweater? Might the police have found the publication on or near Suzanne at the crime scene?...
Message 12325077
The implication here is that perhaps Jovin had picked up a New Journal and a soda on her way home. It's very common to see people sitting on the stone wall in front of Davenport College, which is a few steps away from Krauszer's Market, relaxing. Might Jovin have been one of those people that night? It would help very much to know if the New Journal thrust in front of Jim was the actual one the police had found. If so, the lack of blood on it would be an important clue. Whether the soda bottle had blood on it would likewise also be an important clue. A lack of blood would indicate Jovin was not clutching either one during the attack and thus the likely way they'd have gotten out of the vehicle is if someone other than Jovin had tossed them out.
The last clue is the fingerprints found on the bottle, which Les reported matched Jovin's. I asked him if he was told whether they were from Jovin's right or left hand and he replied that his source didn't know, that they were partial prints. This doesn't make sense. In order for prints to be positively identified that have to match a unique part of someone's body. Therefore, by definition, if we have a match we must also have a positive source. I took that answer to mean Les' source didn't have the answer. As I confirmed the police did question employees at Krauszer's market, I *do* consider the source to be reliable because that makes perfect sense and is something only someone very knowledgeable of the case would even consider saying (Les did say his source was highly reliable or else he'd not have printed it).
The reason I go into such detail here is that the fingerprints on the soda bottle is one piece of crucial evidence that must be known by someone. It's crucial because it could be the nail in the coffin of the "she knew her killer" scenario and would likely indicate if there was more than one person in the car with her that night. My reasoning is that had Jovin known her killer or had she been the only other person in the car that night she'd likely have been sitting in the front passenger seat. For her to have exited the car on her own (i.e. alive and holding a soda), she'd have almost certainly used her right hand. Thus, she'd have most probably at some point held the soda bottle in her left hand. Yes, I suppose she could have put the drink between her legs, opened the door, and then picked up the drink again with her right hand, but that's very unwieldy and not at all likely; add to that a state of panic and I very much doubt that happened. In other words, no left hand fingerprint would make it very unlikely Jovin either was sitting in the passenger seat or had exited the car alive.
I also wonder if the police didn't also find another set of prints on the bottle. One would think if they had they'd have made that information known. However, it's also likely if there were other prints on the bottle they could have come from the clerk at Krauszer's that put the bottle on the refrigerator shelf (the manager of Krauszer’s told me none of his employees was ever contacted a second time about the crime, let alone asked to be fingerprinted). A lack of prints also doesn't necessarily mean no one else touched the bottle. Soda bottles usually have a lip around the top under the cap and perhaps someone grasped it there with the sides of their fingers. Likewise, it's possible to avoid getting prints on a paper or magazine by pinching the corner of it with mostly your fingernails. I’m not very encouraged I'll ever be able to definitively answer these questions, but if I do I'll most certainly pass them along here.
Lastly, I want to call attention to the press conference in which the New Haven Police asked for help in identifying the owner of a tan van, which the police described as follows in their own press release:
Other witnesses have said that as they approached the corner of East Rock and Edgehill Roads, they saw a tan or brown van stopped in the roadway facing east, immediately adjacent to where Suzanne was found.
Message 15580376
The first clue here is the word “witnesses” – plural. This implies more than one person saw this mysterious van. The second and most important clue is the location of the van. Since the van was not parked in front of any driveway, nor any house for that matter, it’s location is very unusual and extremely suspicious, not to mention it was seen adjacent to the spot where someone was found murdered that night! Might the people in the van have been waiting for the coast to be clear before opening their right side door and dragging Jovin out and onto the ground right there by the curb? It makes perfect sense to me. The only piece of missing information, which I’m trying to get, is the timeframe. However, I somehow doubt the police would call a press conference to ask for information on a vehicle not see around the time Jovin was likely murdered.
What is shocking to me is that given that we may be talking about the vehicle driven by Jovin’s killer(s), it took the police more than two years to ask for the public’s help on this. I know they knew about the van that long ago because I know they interviewed the head of Yale’s Political Science department about it that long ago—asking if Jim drove such a vehicle! Might the reason the New Haven police did not go public with this right away be because it would have raised serious questions from the start that they had rushed to judgment and were persecuting an innocent man? I’d say the likelihood of such is high.
So, in conclusion, I’m more convinced than ever that Suzanne Jovin was forced into a vehicle, such as a tan van, by people she did not know, killed in that vehicle when it became clear she didn’t have any money or credit cards, and then dragged out by the side of the road at the spot where she was later found. And I’m more convinced than ever that the New Haven police attempted to cover up what they knew in order to avoid the public humiliation and legal implications of persecuting an innocent man in a high-profile nationally followed murder case—all at the expense of a grieving family. You can’t go much lower.
- Jeff |
