To: termination who wrote (1331 ) 10/2/2014 11:22:42 PM From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell Respond to ...you, Carter, and Rosner have always intimated just a bit too strongly that Billy did it, and boom, case closed. Quite the opposite. In fact, like with many high profile murder cases, people had actually confessed to this murder. We figured Billy likely fit that category given his insistence the police were shortly going to arrest him for it. We looked for every possible reason to rule him out. But the more we checked, the more he answered the "gotchas" that had plagued all our other theories. I assume his autopsy evidence was meaningful enough for them to reach this decision When Billy killed himself, he was just another misguided soul at that point, not a murder suspect. I have seen nothing to indicate anything has ever been done to match his autopsy results with any crime evidence, let alone can be used to rule him out. I also have yet to read that he was known to be violent. Not only was he prone to be violent, but prone to sudden violence. We have first-hand accounts of this as well as a police report filed against him for stalking by a woman fearful for her safety. I read somewhere that the murder weapon was more likely a hunting/buck knife, and not an x-acto architect student's blade 20/20 said the murder weapon was presumed to be a 4-6 inch carbon steel knife. However, such a huge blade would inflict massive head wounds and blood. Oddly, Jovin was found alive after 17 head/neck wounds and a slit throat. Even odder, some of the wounds were said to resemble blunt force from a screwdriver. That's exactly what an xacto wound would look like if the tip had broken off. We know the FBI did tests on the knife tip for the NHPD. We requested those results in an effort to prove -- or disprove -- the blade was indeed a match for an xacto. We were denied. many other people have green jackets and bear some resemblance to the sketch This is a common logic error. If you start with a random population, yes, the odds of large numbers of people matching various criteria are quite low. However, when you focus on a singular person, the odds of said person matching the same exacting criteria are quite high. For example, say the police cruise a murder scene and question some guy nearby wearing a Yankees cap, Nike sneakers, and Levi jeans. A witness describes someone with that exact description seen fleeing the scene. Well, there are lots and lots of people who have Yankees caps, Nike sneakers, and Levi jeans (including me). But the odds of that one person of interest having all three are ridiculously high and thus way above random chance. Do you have any idea as to whether Billy was at the Carter pre-game party on 12/4/98? He was not. We all wish we knew where he was that day!
