Re: 10/10/01 - Freedom of Information Commission declines to approve Hearing Officer’s report; additional Commission members to review New Haven police case files
Attorney Ralph Elliot presented a case entitled "In the Matter of a Complaint by Kevin Donovan and Greenwich Time, Complainants, against Greenwich Police Department and Chief, Greenwich Police Department (Docket #FIC 87-173; see: state.ct.us followed by state.ct.us. In that case, the Greenwich police were ordered to hand over a copy of an 18 page report which detailed an unsolved homicide. The police appealed to the Superior Court who then remanded it to the Commission to go over piece by piece. Elliot’s intent was to show the legal procedure for assessing sensitive documents for possible release.
Contrast this to what the New Haven police did with the Jovin case file: they lumped everything into four "files" of 1099, 675, 2702, and 494 pages and essentially forced the Hearing Officer to rule on the entire lot. The Commission didn’t seem much pleased by this and appeared to want to do things "by the book" (i.e. according to established legal precedent). The Commission was careful to say that while they respected the decision of the Hearing Officer, the case was too high-profile and sensitive to not have others on the Commission also review the files. Being all proponents of releasing information to the public where appropriate, they also felt uncomfortable that none of the nearly 4500 pages was able to be released.
The Commission did express reservations as to potentially having to make decisions on what documents may or may not be rendered useless by editing them to death but Attorney Elliot pointed out that that’s the problem of the recipient. He also explained that the law simply says what needs to be done and the end result is the end result.
Prior to the Commission stating their opinions, as just detailed, I was asked if I wanted to make a statement. I had ten minutes and thus had prepared a speech that I timed to be just under that. I realized after hearing the case discussed prior to ours, and after hearing Attorney Elliot, that my speech was not appropriate as it made no use of any case law. Nevertheless, I did submit it "for the record" and did read paragraphs 7-9 because we discussed at length at the original hearing the fact that Andrew Rosenzweig, who is technically a private citizen just like me (i.e. he was hired by Yale, not the police or state’s attorney’s office) appeared to be given access to the files yet the
Hearing Officer chose not to comment on it.
I then skipped down to my second to last paragraph in an attempt to show that I knew for a fact that at least one person, in James Van de Velde, had absolutely no objections to his associated documents being released. I was trying to show how ridiculous the assertion was that there was nothing in all those that could be released. I was told that what I knew was not a "fact", so I restated it as my "opinion"… and was then politely informed that I should have made that point at the original hearing. Of course at that point I was under the impression we’d be haggling over each individual document and I could present affidavits at that time, if necessary. What do I know. (g)
My intent was to supplement Attorney Elliot’s legal argument with an emotional appeal. In the event the Commission was not familiar with the case I was thinking perhaps I could get them up to speed on what I considered a few key points. Sure I anticipated that the New Haven police would not be too happy with my account, but, hey, my opinion is my opinion.
Strangely enough, neither the New Haven police or their counsel, nor the State’s Attorney, was present at the hearing. Perhaps they figured that the Commission rarely ever doesn’t unanimously accept the Hearing Officer’s report. Perhaps they figured that by not being there they could avoid a possible confrontation. Perhaps they just figured even if they "lost" that they had no intentions of handing over any documents anyhow. Nevertheless. it certainly took me by surprise.
In any event, for better or worse, herewith is my entire (intended) speech:
-----
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It's now approaching three years since the murder of Yale Senior Suzanne Jovin. In those three years the New Haven police have admitted they have no murder weapon and no blood, hair or fiber evidence that might be that of the killer's... not even a likely motive. Worse, the former head of the investigation is being prosecuted for withholding evidence in another murder case. Regardless of who has been in charge, make no mistake: the case is cold and growing colder by the day.
It is my opinion that the inability of the police to solve the Jovin murder is not a case of the right people not talking, but of the police not asking questions of the right people. The case has been centered since day one on an innocent person in Yale Professor James Van de Velde, and I firmly believe the police are embarrassed to call attention to certain evidence -- which I'll detail in a few minutes -- for fear it would expose their initial investigation for the sham it was. I also firmly believe, for similar reasons, the New Haven police are also too embarrassed to openly solicit the help of neighboring police departments regarding the probability Ms. Jovin was killed by a random act of violence.
The New Haven police would like us to believe that the idea that not releasing information to the public about an "ongoing murder investigation" is proper police procedure. A quick check on the Internet of other murder investigations reveals this view is *not* universally held, even by seasoned detectives. For example, according to Dr. Thomas Streed, a forensic psychologist and veteran homicide investigator from San Diego with extensive experience in investigating cold cases:
"The more eyeballs that are out there looking for somebody, then the quicker they get caught, but the police play this dumbass game of, 'We can't release that information'... Just once I'd like to have a six-month trial period where police are obligated to release every blessed thing that they know about a case to the news media. I'll bet the closure and successful prosecution rate would go up." [1]
Even Connecticut's own esteemed forensics expert, Dr. Henry Lee, is apparently a proponent of releasing key evidence in an attempt to generate more leads from the public. For example, at Lee's request, Boulder, Colorado police investigating the three-year old murder of a co-ed there released a timeline of the victim's activities in the days and hours before her death along with photos of the murder weapon [2]. Not only have the New Haven police not released a timeline of Suzanne Jovin's last hour or any details of the murder weapon, they haven't even made good on their offer to provide Dr. Lee with enough details of the case to allow him to even comment on it.
Late last year, finally relenting to pressure by the Jovin family and Professor Van de Velde to bring in outside help, Yale University hired Andrew Rosenzweig, a former chief investigator with the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, to investigate the murder. In a December 5th, 2000, New Haven Register article, New Haven Mayor John DeStefano, Jr. was quoted as saying "It was the consensus from the state's attorney and the New Haven Police Department that we certainly would make our files available... If someone looking at this with a fresh eye could see something else, I think that would be terrific." [3]
We know from Lieutenant Norwood's testimony at the initial hearing for this FOI case that "records that Mr. Gura has asked to see [have] been made available to the state's attorney's office." The state's attorney, James Clark, is on record as saying "There is nothing that says that if you hand us a record it becomes our record as opposed to the police department's record." It was also stated that Mr. Rosenzweig has been actively working on the case with both the New Haven police and the state's attorney's office. If Mr. Rosenzweig had been hired by either of those entities, any private police information relating to the Jovin investigation he had access to would be a non-issue. However, Mr. Rosenzweig was hired by Yale University and as such is acting as a private citizen, no different than me, Mr. Gura, or most people in the audience here... making this, in fact, a very key issue, and one discussed at length during the hearing yet totally ignored in the Hearing Officer's report. As an officer of the court, and sworn to uphold the laws of the State of Connecticut, I would think it incumbent on the Hearing Officer to at least address this glaring legal discrepancy.
I am not here asking for totally unedited copies of New Haven police records even if such indeed found their way to Mr. Rosenzweig. I am not here trying to do anything that would impair the relationship Mr. Rosenzweig has with the police or the state's attorney’s office, or to somehow supplant what he is doing. However, Mr. Rosenzweig is solely beholden to his employer, Yale University, and as such is not obligated to do anything they don't want done nor to release or even talk about the results of his investigation.
I can't stress enough that it's this total lack of details that has most likely hindered the solving of the Suzanne Jovin murder. Ask reporters why not much has been written on the case in the last few years and they'll tell you there is nothing "new" to report.
So let me now take a few minutes to talk about some crucial evidence that for some reason either has been covered-up or withheld by the New Haven police.
First, as regards the timeline, it was widely reported for the first two years that Suzanne Jovin was last seen "walking north on College Street." In April of this year, the Hartford Courant broke the story that a soda bottle with Jovin's fingerprints was found near her body-- a soda bottle that upon further investigation was most likely purchased at the former Krauszer's Market, several blocks away on York Street. How many people might have seen Ms. Jovin at Krauszer's or in the vicinity? How many people might have seen someone or something suspicious in the area between Krauszer's and Ms. Jovin's apartment that night? Why on earth did the New Haven police not make this information public in an attempt to find out?
Second, even more glaring, we have the case of the mysterious tan van. Buried in paragraph four of a March New Haven police press release was the line "Witnesses [*plural*] have reported seeing a tan or brown van in the roadway near where Suzanne Jovin was found." More than one person sees a mysterious van at the time and place of a murder and it takes the police more than two years to ask for information about it?! Yes, we know that as early as a couple days after the murder that the police were asking Yale staff if they knew if Professor Van de Velde ever drove a tan van. No, he did not. Might this be a main reason why they withheld this key information, even from the TV show 20/20?
As for the van itself, about the only thing we know about it is that it was tan or brown. Was it a mini-van, full-size, passenger, commercial; what year, make and/or model might it have been, etc.? Why not release a sketch of it and see if anyone remembers seeing such a vehicle in the vicinity of the old Krauszer's market? Heck, police routinely release sketches of people; how hard is a car to describe or draw? It's almost as if the New Haven police don't want the public's help in this regard. Sadly, have the police blown the case for good by withholding this key information for so long?
There are nearly 4500 pages of material, according to the New Haven police, in the Jovin murder case file. It stretches the imagination to argue that every single word, sentence, page, and document is so sensitive that releasing it would hinder the investigation. I know for a fact that many who gave testimony to the police, such as Professor Van de Velde, would welcome their associated documents to be made public-- unedited. They have nothing to hide so why should the New Haven police? By choosing to treat the entire case file as one entity and to eschew even the option of redacting names and other personally sensitive data, the Freedom of Information Commission will have chosen to be part of the problem and not the solution.
Therefore, I urge the Commission to either request that the Hearing Officer reevaluate her decision to not release a single document, or to avail themselves of the opportunity to personally review the Jovin case file and to form their own opinions on what should and should not be made public.
Thank you.
- Jeff Mitchell
[1] SHOULD PUBLIC BE TOLD OF SERIAL KILLERS? Police and Citizen Interests
Often Collide, Nov. 7, 1998, Kevin Heldman, apbnews.com:
groups.yahoo.com
[2] See: lovelandfyi.com and
thedailycamera.com
[3]
zwire.com |
