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 (1007)	11/20/2001 7:33:28 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1397

Re: 11/11/01 - NH Register: 'False assumptions' concern comes late LETTER 'False assumptions' concern comes late Letter to the Editor November 11, 2001 On Oct. 26, prosecutors announced that DNA evidence has been recovered from under the fingernails of Suzanne Jovin's left hand. They also said the recovered genetic material did not match a DNA sample provided by the only named suspect, James R. Van de Velde. But police and prosecutors said that still does not eliminate him as a suspect. The experts explain that the DNA may not have come from the killer. Police and prosecutors did not say how long they have had the DNA information. But when asked why it is just coming to light now, State's Attorney Michael Dearington said the statement was released to prevent "misunderstandings" that might arise and "we don't want members of the media to make any false assumptions." How righteous of Dearington! Where was Dearington's concern when New Haven Police Chief Melvin Wearing said, "If we have to ruffle feathers, disrupt some people's careers to do that, we will." "That" meant finding the killer by any means, which included leaking Van de Velde's name. Law enforcement officials needed to ruffle Van de Velde's feathers because they had botched their investigation early when they declined his initial offer to cooperate; an offer that included inspection of his car. When they realized the inspection was not thorough enough, it was too late. So the police and the prosecutor create a "misunderstanding" that allows "members of the media to make false assumptions" that cause a man to lose, among other things, his job. The police and the media have violated a man's basic right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Now the police won't tell us how long they have had the DNA and a prosecutor is suddenly concerned about misunderstandings and false assumptions. How many ways are they going to have it? Giacomo Mordente III Branford zwire.com