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 (1102)	12/4/2002 2:48:11 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1397

Re: 12/3-4/02 - Comments on "Four Years Later" editorial Van de Velde: The killer Posted at: 12/3/02 1:08:21 PM Posted by: alum (as entered by poster) Van de Velde probably did it. We all know that. Those of us at Yale at the time of the murder know this to be true. Just because there wasn't enough evidence to bring him to trial doesn't mean he isn't guilty. Mr. Van de Velde is a stealthy person (former? naval intelligence officer). What was he doing at the time of the murder? At home, eating a microwave burrito and watching a tape of "Friends". How convenient. He can't say he was at home watching a regularly scheduled tv broadcast because that would make it essential that he be able to know about whatever show he was watching. He has failed a few lie detector tests because he was "too emotionally distraught" "to allow for a valid test. Now he refuses to take any more tests. Sounds like the work of a guilty man to me. I will say this, though. He did cover it up very nicely. I guess they teach that sort of stuff in the Intelligence community. ===== Stop the Smears Posted at: 12/3/02 2:20:09 PM Posted by: 1996 Alum (as entered by poster) In response to the asinine post below: 1. We _don't_ know Van de Velde did it. There is _no evidence_ linking him to the murder. None. 2. Van de Velde was in naval intelligence. This does not mean that he is a ninja, able to kill without leaving any trace. 3. Van de Velde says he was watching a taped show. Would he be equally "guilty" if he was reading a book or listening to a CD? 4. Van de Velde _passed_ a lie detector test. See: yaledailynews.com . 5. The DNA under Jovin's fingernails was _not_ Van de Velde's. 6. The van linked to the killing has been in the custody of the NHPD for months. It has nothing to do with Van de Velde. Keep up the baseless smears, alum. Somewhere, Jovin's real killer is laughing it up. ===== question Posted at: 12/3/02 2:55:06 PM Posted by: grad 07 (as entered by poster) what was the murder weapon found in Jovin's body? Did the DNA tests return any information about ethnicity? Does the DNA still exist in cold storage somewhere? ===== hey grad '07 Posted at: 12/3/02 4:24:19 PM Posted by: yale dad (as entered by poster) The part of the murder weapon referenced is likely a portion of the knife blade. Over the years the YDN has written quite extensively about this tragic event. You might want to go to archives at the YDN website and run a search under keyword "Jovin". ===== Beside the point... Posted at: 12/3/02 7:09:07 PM Posted by: Alum '00 (as entered by poster) All of this is beside the point. We will likely never know who killed Suzanne Jovin. It could have been Van de Velde, but maybe not. The point is, it doesn't matter. What we should be reflecting on at this four year mark is what a loss we and anyone who knew Suzanne suffered the day someone senselessly took her life. Let us not forget that this is the real tragedy here. ===== Probably guilty Posted at: 12/3/02 10:13:44 PM Posted by: Clintonfan (as entered by poster) This guy had pro-military, Republican-leaning connections, too. ===== the point Posted at: 12/3/02 11:04:20 PM Posted by: alum (as entered by poster) Of course her murder was an awful tragedy. That's not the point. the point is that Van de Velde was a suspect in this case. The police are not stupid. Give them a little credit. There had to have been some reason to consider him a suspect. And it wasn't just because he was her thesis advisor. So to play it off like he was some innocent little lamb is not the entire truth either. Innocent until proven guilty, yes. But suspicious, you bet your ass. ===== Republican + "Suspect" = Guilty? Posted at: 12/3/02 11:35:26 PM Posted by: 1996 Alum (as entered by poster) Once and for all, Van de Velde was never a "suspect" in the Jovin murder. He was one of several "persons of interest." He was a person of interest because he was Jovin's senior essay advisor, and because he lived a half-mile away from where Jovin's body was found (as did many professors). Unluckily for Van de Velde, his name was leaked to the press by a crooked cop, and the press jumped all over him. The NHPD has sealed the Jovin file, so nobody but the investigators knows who was in the pool of "persons of interest" in Jovin's murder. Van de Velde has asked that the case be referred to the cold case division of the Connecticut state police; he volunteered blood samples and DNA samples; he passed a lie detector test. But this is not enough for the "guilty if suspicious" crowd. Was/is Van de Velde a Republican? I think so. Does it follow that he is a murderer? If so, after Election Day, America is full of potential killers. "Innocent until proven guilty" arose in the law because of idiots like "alum," who would dispense with the jury and judge and find guilty anybody the police looked at closely. Was Amadou Diallo guilty? Was Gerry Conlon? Shame on those who would condemn a man with no evidence.

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (1102)	1/13/2003 5:55:36 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1397

Re: 1/13/02 - Yale Daily News: Reviving a "cold case" we must not forget Published Monday, January 13, 2003 Reviving a "cold case" we must not forget To the Editor: In its June 30 issue, the Yale Daily News listed the investigation of the 1998 murder of Yale senior Suzanne Jovin among its top "issues to watch" during the year. On the fourth anniversary of the crime, Yale professor David Cameron's insightful editorial ("Four years later, reflecting on Jovin's murder," 12/3) suggests that it's time for Yale to stop watching and start doing something: light a fire under the investigation and ensure a safer New Haven. As Cameron notes and Yale Daily News readers have learned, the New Haven Police Department's murder investigation went off-course virtually from the start. James Van de Velde, Jovin's instructor and senior thesis adviser, has filed suit against the NHPD for naming him "among the suspects." A four-year investigation discovered nothing that links him to the crime. DNA evidence collected from the victim does not match his. An investigator hired by Yale found nothing suggesting his involvement. Just as they rejected an offer of assistance from forensics expert Dr. Henry Lee, New Haven police have refused to call in Connecticut's very successful "cold case" investigators. According to the New Haven Register, New Haven Police Chief Melvin H. Wearing claims the current investigators are "on track," but allows that outside help might be welcome after another year has passed. Another year? What will police do in the next 12 months that they couldn't accomplish in the previous 48? Equally alarming, the remarks of the New Haven state's attorney and acting chief state's attorney demonstrate even less of a sense of urgency. As Yale Daily News readers know, Suzanne Jovin is remembered with much love and respect by all who knew her, and Van de Velde's many friends are frustrated and angry about the failed investigation's collateral damage to him. Both groups should insist that the NHPD allow "cold case" experts to contribute to the investigation of this horrible crime. Kudos to Professor Cameron for keeping the investigation on Yale's radar screen. Yale officials should follow his example, examine the investigation of the Jovin murder, and ask why the NHPD rejects expert help. Naming a suspect is an unacceptable substitute for catching a killer. B. Thomas Parkman December 10, 2002 Copyright © 2002 Yale Daily News Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved. yaledailynews.com