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 (952)	6/19/2001 11:10:47 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1397

Re: 6/19/01 - NY Times: A Suspect in Yale Murder With Top Pentagon Clearance June 19, 2001 A Suspect in Yale Murder With Top Pentagon Clearance By PAUL ZIELBAUER [picture; Linda Spillers for The New York Times] James Van de Velde, a former lecturer at Yale, is bitter that three years after being called a suspect in a student's murder, he has neither been charged nor exonerated. "My life has been ruined," he said. ----- ARLINGTON, Va. — The washed- out image on his Pentagon security badge is of a defeated-looking James Van de Velde, the former Yale University lecturer, college dean and still the only suspect the police have named in the unsolved killing of a popular Yale student three winters ago. Since December 1998, when Suzanne Jovin, a bright and pretty senior from Germany, was found stabbed 17 times in a prosperous neighborhood north of campus, Mr. Van de Velde, her thesis adviser, has carried the stigma, courtesy of the New Haven Police Department, as the man who may have killed her. "My life has been ruined," he said during a recent interview not far from the Pentagon office tower here where he inhabits an eighth-floor cubicle. Mr. Van de Velde, 41, may be the only murder suspect working in the highest, strictly classified realm of the Defense Department, which trusts him enough to have issued him a security clearance several levels above top secret. Back in New Haven, it is still not difficult to find people willing to voice an opinion of Mr. Van de Velde, an ultra-preppy, by-the-numbers former Navy intelligence officer, even though they have never met him. His name is still familiar on campus and around New Haven's town green. This makes him angry, as does his sense that his private life and career remain held hostage in a crime drama with no foreseeable end. Dressed in a dark suit and tie, elbows on a hotel lobby chair and hands folded at his chest, Mr. Van de Velde seemed calm, focused, at peace. Inside, he was seething. "I should have never been named a suspect," he said in his precise, broadcast-quality baritone. "I should have never been destroyed in the first place." At first, Mr. Van de Velde, who sometimes went to his political science classes wearing a sports jacket emblazoned with a Yale insignia, seemed as likely a suspect as anyone. He knew Miss Jovin well, and some of her friends said she had been unhappy with his cooperation on her thesis. He was a single man who had pursued, without much success, relationships with two local television reporters. And he had no incontrovertible alibi: he was home alone, he told detectives, at 9 p.m., around the time of the killing. But after 30 months, the New Haven police have almost nothing to show an anxious public and eager press about their efforts to solve the crime. Sensing an inert investigation, Mr. Van de Velde says he is now intent on moving away, emotionally and literally, from his life as a suspect. He has begun boldly accusing the New Haven police chief, Melvin H. Wearing, and the state's attorney investigating the murder of covering up their incompetence. "Chief Wearing is a coward, is a man of no integrity who refuses to do the right thing," Mr. Van de Velde said in a low voice. "There's nothing that prevents him today from saying: `We've investigated this. There's really no reason to suspect him.' It just would be a truthful statement and would allow me to go on with my life." Chief Wearing declined to talk about Mr. Van de Velde or explain why he alone was identified from a pool of about 10 suspects. The chief's spokeswoman responded to questions by saying only, "The case is open and ongoing." Miss Jovin's family members, through their lawyer, David Rosen, also declined to comment for this article, except to say they hoped that the police would find the killer. Yale officials, who canceled Mr. Van de Velde's classes in January 1999 and did not renew his contract, citing his status as a murder suspect, say that without any evidence to the contrary, they assume that he is innocent. There are legitimate questions about what, if any, evidence the police have against Mr. Van de Velde. Before he was hired in December 1999 by the Defense Declassification Referral Center at the Pentagon, where he reviews military documents and diplomatic cables eligible for declassification, he had to pass a rigorous background check. "Try an F.B.I. check times two — it's excruciatingly thorough," is how Lt. Cmdr. Stephen W. Pope, Mr. Van de Velde's former superior officer, described the reviews. "They go through the weeds to find anything derogatory. Obviously, they didn't find anything." Mr. Van de Velde grew up in Orange, Conn., and received a bachelor's degree in political science from Yale, where he graduated cum laude in 1982. While lecturing there, he was the dean of Saybrook College from 1993 to 1997. Nowadays he lives alone in an Arlington apartment tower; he would not say whether he was dating anyone, though he recently went on a European vacation with a companion. When he is not working, he said, he spends time with a core group of 10 close friends. He works out, he runs — he finished the San Diego Marathon in January in 4 hours, 10 minutes — and he plans his battle with the New Haven police. His $55,000-a-year job, though "several levels" below where he had been as a rising Navy intelligence star and State Department operative when he was in his 20's, has nonetheless brought him a modicum of public respectability. Mr. Van de Velde, a man who projects authority and uses phrases like "logic train" to describe his thought processes, described himself as "soft-spoken, reasonable, circumspect, Catholic, easy to get along with, precise, serious." But he is often quick to correct the slightest misstatement or factual error, making him seem like "an iceberg" to some colleagues, Commander Pope said. Mr. Van de Velde has sued The Hartford Courant for printing what he says were inaccuracies about him last year, and Quinnipiac University, where he took an evening journalism class, for barring him from campus for what officials there have said were academic reasons. He feels ganged up on by the media and the police. "They elicited a false profile of me, which elicited a false allegation," he said. "That is incredibly bitter. Incredibly." New job, city and career notwithstanding, he is still seeking vindication in New Haven. In that sense, he said, "I'm not sure I'm interested in moving on. I'm interested in fighting this fight. I want resolution." nytimes.com

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (952)	8/28/2001 4:45:57 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1397

Re: 8/28/01 - CT Freedom of Information Commission Ruling re FIC 2001-131 and 147 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT Report of Hearing Officer Docket #FIC 2001-131 August 28, 2001 In the Matter of a Complaint by Jeffrey Mitchell, Complainant against Chief, Police Department, City of New Haven Respondent The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 16, 2001, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. Docket #FIC 2001-147, Les Gura and The Hartford Courant v. Chief, Police Department, City of New Haven, was consolidated with the above captioned case for purposes of hearing. At the hearing, the Hearing Officer granted the office of the State's Attorney for the Judicial District of New Haven intervenor status. The records at issue were reviewed in camera. After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached: 1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S. 2. It is found that, on February 1, 2001, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with copies of: a. the 911 call made approximately at 9:55 p.m. on Friday December 4, 1998 in connection with the discovery of the body of Yale student Suzanne Jovin; and b. all information provided to Andrew Rosenzweig, a private investigator not in the employ of the New Haven Police Department. (hereinafter "requested records"). 3. It is found that by letter dated February 23, 2001 the respondent denied the request, claiming that there is an ongoing murder investigation, that the case is "open" and that release of the requested records would be prejudicial to future law enforcement action. 4. Having failed to receive the requested records, the complainant then appealed to the Commission on March 2, 2001, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying him a copy of the requested records. 5. Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides, in relevant part: Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right to inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212. (Emphasis added.] 6. It is found that the [1] records at issue are maintained or kept on file by the respondent, and such records are "public records" within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S. ----- [1] Although the complainant's records request includes a request for records provided to a private investigator, the term “records at issue" as used herein is limited to those records pertaining to the Jovin case found to be maintained by the respondent department, and does not mean records that were provided to a private investigator. ----- 7. The respondent contends that the records at issue are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §§1-210(b)(3)(A) and 1-210(b)(3)(C). G.S., which permit the nondisclosure of: Records of law enforcement agencies not otherwise available to the public which records were compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of crime, if the disclosure of said records would not be in the public interest because it would result in the disclosure of (A) the identity of informants not otherwise known or the identity of witnesses not otherwise known whose safety would be endangered or who would be subject to threat or intimidation if their identity was made known... (C) information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action if prejudicial to such action... 8. The records at issue were submitted to the Commission by the respondent and an in camera review was conducted. The in camera records have been marked for identification purposes as IC-I, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 1099; IC-II, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 675; IC-III, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 2702; IC-IV, pages 2001-131/l47-1 through 494; IC-V, 911 audio tape recording; and IC-VI, pages 2001-131/147-1 and 2. 9. The "Index" submitted to the Commission along with the in camera records indicate that the respondent does not claim an exemption with respect to IC-IV, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 494 which consist of newspaper and internet articles and IC VI, pages 2001-131/147-1 and 2, a May 10, 2001 memorandum. Consequently, IC-IV, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 494, and IC-VI, pages 2001-131/147-1 and 2 should have been disclosed to the complainant, and therefore, the respondent violated §1-210(a), G.S., by failing to disclose such records to the complainant, promptly. 10. Upon careful review of the remaining in camera records, it is found that IC-I, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 1099; IC-II, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 675; IC-IIII, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 2702; and IC-V, the 911 audio tape recording, constitute records of a law enforcement agency not otherwise available to the public, which records were compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of a crime, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3), G.S. 11. It is also found that disclosure of IC-I, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 1099; IC-II, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 675; IC III, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 2702; and IC- V, the 911 audio tape recording, would not be in the public interest because it would result in the disclosure of the identity of informants not otherwise known or the identity of witnesses not otherwise known whose safety would be endangered or who would be subject to threat or intimidation if their identity was made known, within the meaning of §1-.210(b)(3)(A), G.S. 12. It is also found that disclosure of IC-I, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 1099; IC-II, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 675; IC-III, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 2702; and IC- V, the 911 audio tape recording, would not be in the public interest because it would result in the disclosure of information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action and would be prejudicial to such action, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3)(C), G.S. 13. Consequently, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., by failing to disclose IC-I, pages 2001 131/147-1 through 1099; IC-II, pages 2001- 131/147-1 through 675; IC-III, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 2702; and IC-V, the 911 audio tape recording to the complainant. The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint: 1. The complaint is hereby dismissed with respect to IC-I, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 1099; IC-II, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 675; IC-III, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 2702; and IC-V, the 911 audio tape recording, 2. Forthwith, the respondent shall provide the complainant with access to inspect IC-IV, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 494, and IC-VI, pages 2001-131/147-1 and 2, and then to obtain a copy of such records if he desires. [signature] Attorney Barbara E. Housen as Hearing Officer ===== FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT Report of Hearing Officer Docket #FIC 2001-147 August 28, 2001 In the Matter of a Complaint by Jeffrey Mitchell, Complainant against Chief, Police Department, City of New Haven Respondent The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 16, 2001, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. Docket #FIC 2001-131, Jeffrey Mitchell v. Chief, Police Department, City of New Haven, was consolidated with the above captioned case for purposes of hearing. At the hearing, the Hearing Officer granted the office of the State's Attorney for the Judicial District of New Haven intervenor status. The records at issue were reviewed in camera. After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached: 1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S. 2. It is found that by letter dated March 2, 2001, the complainants requested that the respondent provide them with access to inspect the police documents relating to the December 4, 1998 homicide of Yale student Suzanne Jovin (hereinafter (“requested records"). 3. It is found that by letter dated March 7, 2001 the respondent denied the request, claiming that there is an ongoing murder investigation, that the case is "open" and that release of the requested records would be prejudicial to future law enforcement action and "could compromise the safety of individuals who have provided information to the police.” 4. Having failed to receive access to the requested records, the complainants, by letter dated March 13, 2001 and filed with the Commission on March 14, 2001, appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying them access to the requested records. 5. Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides, in relevant part: Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right to inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212. (Emphasis added.] 6. It is found that the records at issue are maintained or kept on file by the respondent, and such records are "public records" within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S. 7. The respondent contends that the records at issue are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §§1-210(b)(3)(A) and 1-210(b)(3)(C). G.S., which permit the nondisclosure of: Records of law enforcement agencies not otherwise available to the public which records were compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of crime, if the disclosure of said records would not be in the public interest because it would result in the disclosure of (A) the identity of informants not otherwise known or the identity of witnesses not otherwise known whose safety would be endangered or who would be subject to threat or intimidation if their identity was made known... (C) information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action if prejudicial to such action... 8. The records at issue were submitted to the Commission by the respondent and an in camera review was conducted. The in camera records have been marked for identification purposes as IC-I, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 1099; IC-II, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 675; IC-III, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 2702; IC-IV, pages 2001-131/l47-1 through 494; IC-V, 911 audio tape recording; and IC-VI, pages 2001-131/147-1 and 2. 9. The "Index" submitted to the Commission along with the in camera records indicate that the respondent does not claim an exemption with respect to IC-IV, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 494 which consist of newspaper and internet articles and IC VI, pages 2001-131/147-1 and 2, a May 10, 2001 memorandum. Consequently, IC-IV, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 494, and IC-VI, pages 2001-131/147-1 and 2 should have been disclosed to the complainant, and therefore, the respondent violated §1-210(a), G.S., by failing to disclose such records to the complainant, promptly. 10. Upon careful review of the remaining in camera records, it is found that IC-I, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 1099; IC-II, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 675; IC-IIII, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 2702; and IC-V, the 911 audio tape recording, constitute records of a law enforcement agency not otherwise available to the public, which records were compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of a crime, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3), G.S. 11. It is also found that disclosure of IC-I, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 1099; IC-II, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 675; IC III, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 2702; and IC- V, the 911 audio tape recording, would not be in the public interest because it would result in the disclosure of the identity of informants not otherwise known or the identity of witnesses not otherwise known whose safety would be endangered or who would be subject to threat or intimidation if their identity was made known, within the meaning of §1-.210(b)(3)(A), G.S. 12. It is also found that disclosure of IC-I, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 1099; IC-II, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 675; IC-III, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 2702; and IC- V, the 911 audio tape recording, would not be in the public interest because it would result in the disclosure of information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action and would be prejudicial to such action, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3)(C), G.S. 13. Consequently, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., by failing to disclose IC-I, pages 2001 131/147-1 through 1099; IC-II, pages 2001- 131/147-1 through 675; IC-III, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 2702; and IC-V, the 911 audio tape recording to the complainant. The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint: 1. The complaint is hereby dismissed with respect to IC-I, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 1099; IC-II, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 675; IC-III, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 2702; and IC-V, the 911 audio tape recording, 2. Forthwith, the respondent shall provide the complainants with access to inspect IC-IV, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 494, and IC-VI, pages 2001-131/147-1 and 2. [signature] Attorney Barbara E. Housen as Hearing Officer ===== Note: The above document was scanned and converted to text.