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 (992)	10/31/2001 11:19:43 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Respond to of 1397

This whole ordeal has gone from the ridiculous to the sublime. Next thing you know they'll say they have a photo of the alleged killer but that they still can't rule out Professor Van de Velde because he might have been wearing elevator shoes, a wig, and makeup. Let's step back a minute and ponder the total incongruity of the above statement. How can we in the United States of America in this day and age allow a fellow citizen to be put in a position where he has to disprove police innuendo that he deserves to be a suspect, let alone the only named one, in a high profile murder? Why has the media fallen into the trap of asking the question "Is Van de Velde still a suspect?" No, the question should be "Why on earth was Van de Velde ever named a suspect in the first place?" To review: 1. No blood matches Van de Velde's blood 2. No hair samples match Van de Velde's hair 3. No fiber matches any of Van de Velde's 4. No bodily fluids match any of Van de Velde's 5. No fingerprints match any of Van de Velde's 6. DNA from Jovin's fingernail scrapings do not match Van de Velde's 7. No evidence was found to ever link Jovin to Van de Velde's car 8. Van de Velde allowed himself to be questioned for four hours without benefit of counsel 9. Van de Velde offered, immediately, to allow his car and house to be searched, to give blood, and to take a polygraph test 10. Van de Velde passed two polygraph tests 11. Not one of 150 people questioned said Van de Velde and Jovin had anything other than a normal professor-student relationship 12. No one has offered a single piece of evidence towards any possible motive that would involve Van de Velde 13. Van de Velde does not own a tan van which witnesses claim they saw at the time and place of the murder It now appears the State's Attorney's office has taken over the investigation. Note that the police: 1. Made Van de Velde their prime suspect a mere three days after the murder, well before any evidence was analyzed and witnesses were questioned. 2. Withheld news that cat hair taken from Jovin did not have anything to do with Van de Velde despite front page headline news that focused on Van de Velde 3. Withheld news that so-called "forensic evidence" found in front of Van de Velde's apartment was a drivers' manual looted from his car months before the crime, despite, again, front page headline news that implied it was a metal object 4. Refused to participate in an independent and impartial polygraph test of Van de Velde 5. Withheld for more than two years all information pertaining to witnesses having seen a tan or brown van at the time and place of the murder 6. Withheld that a soda bottle with Jovin's fingerprints was found at the crime scene, and thus have never asked for anyone who might have been at or near the store where she purchased it to come forward 7. Inexcusably withheld crucial DNA evidence from testing, not to mention denied repeatedly they had any such evidence in the first place 8. Have steadfastly refused to release any documents related to the case nor answer any related questions from the media I get the feeling certain high-ranking police officers might be going to jail when the true story comes to light... and, believe me, it will. - Jeff