Re: 8/16/10 - New Haven Register: Van de Velde pushes lawsuit: Judge regrets delay in ex-Yale teacher’s battle over ‘branding’ in Jovin slaying
Van de Velde pushes lawsuit: Judge regrets delay in ex-Yale teacher’s battle over ‘branding’ in Jovin slaying
Published: Monday, August 16, 2010
By Randall Beach, Register Staff
rbeach@newhavenregister.com
NEW HAVEN — James Van de Velde, the only person ever publicly named as a suspect in the slaying of Yale student Suzanne Jovin, is persisting in his legal bid to hold university officials and members of the city Police Department accountable for “branding” him more than 10 years ago.
But Van de Velde, who long ago left Yale and moved to suburban Washington, D.C., for government security-related work and consulting, is frustrated by how long it has taken U.S. District Court Judge Robert N. Chatigny in Hartford to rule on his case.
“My lawsuit is the only tool I have to shed light on the cold case and pressure the authorities to try to solve the case,” Van de Velde said in an e-mail message to the Register.
As he ponders his decision, Chatigny is in a sensitive stage of his career. In February, President Barack Obama nominated him to serve on the influential 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But the nomination met strong opposition from Republicans, who charged he exceeded his authority when he postponed the execution of serial killer Michael B. Ross in 2005. Ross was later executed.
The Judiciary Committee approved Chatigny’s nomination and sent it to the full U.S. Senate, which did not vote on it by the summer recess. This means Obama will have to renominate him, but the Judiciary Committee probably won’t reconsider it until after the November election, when Republicans might have more votes.
Nothing seems to have moved quickly — except for the initial events surrounding Van de Velde’s name — since Jovin, 21, was found lying near the corner of East Rock and Edgehill roads the night of Dec. 4, 1998. She had been stabbed 17 times.
Van de Velde apparently came under police suspicion because he was Jovin’s teacher and adviser. He also lived about a half-mile from the crime scene.
Within a few days of the slaying, the Register and other media said city police had interviewed him about his possible involvement.
But police never charged him in the case, and Van de Velde, who has consistently maintained his innocence, has challenged authorities to present any evidence against him.
A month after Jovin’s death, Yale officials canceled Van de Velde’s spring semester classes, saying police had informed the school he was in “a pool of suspects” and that his presence would be “a major distraction for students.” Yale officials allowed him to remain on the faculty and do research, but he decided to leave town. He said his reputation had been ruined.
Van de Velde’s original complaint, written by attorney David Grudberg of New Haven, was filed April 16, 2003. Chatigny dismissed the federal portion of the lawsuit 11 months later, saying Van de Velde did not charge that Yale officials knew the names of other suspects.
Chatigny also said the claim against the police was not valid because there was no charge that police officials were asked to confirm the names of other suspects.
Grudberg quickly filed a motion for Chatigny to reconsider. Four years later, Chatigny agreed to do so.
Oral arguments were heard Jan. 13. According to a transcript, near the conclusion of that hearing, Chatigny said to representatives of both sides, “I want to take this opportunity to sincerely apologize to you and especially to you, Mr. Van de Velde, for allowing this case to sit for so long.”
Chatigny added the pace of the legal case was “a source of deep concern to me.” He also said, “I intend to have a decision for you soon.”
When Chatigny’s office was called last week to ask when he will rule, a representative checked with Chatigny and relayed this message: “He expects to issue his decision soon.”
Chatigny’s comments during the hearing indicate he is not indifferent to Van de Velde’s position.
“If you accept the plaintiff’s allegations,” Chatigny said, “we have a set of facts that are troubling, and we all acknowledge that they’re troubling, including the defendants. I mean, I gather that the defendants, if they had it to do over again, wouldn’t do it the same way. ... I gather that this would not be held out as a model of good practice.”
But in his arguments that day, Yale attorney Aaron Bayer said it was reasonable for Yale officials to cancel Van de Velde’s classes. He noted the officials publicly stated Van de Velde was presumed innocent.
Bayer added, “Suspects are identified publicly all the time.” He also said, “There is no recognized right not to be identified as a suspect in an ongoing investigation.”
But in his arguments, Grudberg said Van de Velde “was thrown to the wolves.” Grudberg charged the defendants labeled Van de Velde the prime suspect. Grudberg said, “The message conveyed at that time, which continues to this day to have profound and injurious impact on Mr. Van de Velde, was ‘We’ve got our man.’”
Contact Randall Beach at 203-789-5766
nhregister.com |
