| To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (864) | 12/16/2000 8:51:37 PM | | From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell | | | | Re: 12/16/00 - NH Register: Cop busted in murder probe
Cop busted in murder probe
Christa Lee Rock, Register Staff December 16, 2000
[picture]
Sullivan
NEW HAVEN — Police Capt. Brian Sullivan turned himself in to state police early Friday morning after the Chief State’s Attorney’s Office secured an arrest warrant charging him with hindering an investigation and tampering with evidence in connection with the 1996 murder of Philip Cusick.
Sullivan’s arrest came at almost the same hour that New Haven’s pension board approved his retirement on a $60,599 annual pension after 24 years on the force.
As a result of his retirement, which is effective Monday, the city will drop ethics charges against him.
Sullivan was expected to be fired at a hearing set for Dec. 27.
Both charges against Sullivan are Class D felonies and center on his alleged failure to hand over details on a possible suspect in the death of Cusick, who was shot in New Haven before his body was left across from his mother’s North Haven home.
The former chief of the Investigative Services Unit, Sullivan faces maximum penalties of 10 years in prison and $10,000 if convicted on both charges.
The decorated police captain appeared at 8 a.m. at the state police barracks in Bethany, where he stood calmly and was booked.
"He was processed, he was printed and he was photographed," attorney Hugh Keefe said Friday.
State police released Sullivan, 46, on a promise to appear in court Dec. 22. Keefe said his client would plead innocent on both charges. "Unless I’m terribly wrong, he will ultimately be acquitted and vindicated by a jury of these charges," Keefe said.
For Sullivan, the early morning arrest marks the close of a seven-month grand jury investigation, which concluded Monday with a recommendation that Sullivan be charged. The grand juror, New Britain Justice Carmen Elisa Espinosa, could not identify a motive for Sullivan’s alleged actions.
Sullivan’s arrest hinges on allegations that in 1998 he shut down the Cusick investigation "per order of the chief" shortly after his subordinates in February of that year said they had witnesses who identified a suspect in the homicide. Police Chief Melvin Wearing and former Police Chief Nicholas Pastore testified they did not give such an order.
Acting on Sullivan’s orders, Sgt. Edward Kendall, 46, then removed the statement of the witness from the police property room and deposited it, along with a tape of the interview, in his unlocked desk drawer, the warrant said.
Not until January of this year did North Haven police know the statement existed — despite that Sullivan had scheduled several meetings with investigators to discuss the Cusick case, according to the warrant.
The warrant also hints at early attempts by Sullivan to impede the investigation within days of Cusick’s Nov. 6, 1996, death, in which he was shot in what police believe was a botched drug deal in Fair Haven.
Just days after the murder, Sullivan allegedly told North Haven police he was unaware of drug activity in Fair Haven – despite extensive police knowledge of drug dealing there, the warrant states.
As early as March 1997, New Haven Officer Keith Wortz told Sullivan he had information on individuals who allegedly were involved in the homicide. Sullivan then told him to stop helping North Haven police and said Pastore did not want the murder probe coming back to New Haven, according to Wortz.
In March 1998, Sullivan told a North Haven officer that he might have information for him on the Cusick case. When pressed again in October 1998 about the information, Sullivan told North Haven Capt. Thomas Habib that the individual he thought could help was in jail at the time of the homicide.
According to the warrant, however, state investigators determined that the suspect named in the February 1998 statements taken by New Haven police was not imprisoned at the time of the Cusick murder.
"Sullivan aided and protected the person or persons responsible for the death of Philip Cusick by using his position and authority in the New Haven Police Department to delay the proper investigation of such homicide," concludes the warrant, requested by Assistant Chief State’s Attorney Christopher Morano and signed by a judge Wednesday.
Though Espinosa did not find sufficient evidence that Sullivan’s subordinates "shared criminal intent or unlawful purpose with him," the warrant suggests that other police officials might not be in the clear. It points to inconsistencies in Kendall’s grand jury testimony; for instance, in which he said he signed the witness’s audiotape out of the property room.
No records could be found to prove Kendall had signed them out legally, according to the warrant.
The warrant also specifically refers to a March 21 meeting in which Kendall, Sullivan’s second-in-command, allegedly told State’s Attorney Michael Dearington he thought the witness’s statement had been turned over to North Haven police.
He subsequently admitted, under oath, that he had lied, the warrant states.
In a statement Friday, Bailey said his office was forwarding evidence from the grand jury investigation to Dearington’s office "to assist … in any further investigation."
Dearington on Friday said he had "no comment" as to whether his office would request warrants for other officers. Hypothetically speaking, Dearington said, "the prosecutor can choose to accept the grand juror’s recommendation … or elect to apply for the arrest of people that the grand juror doesn’t recommend."
He would not discuss this investigation specifically.
Police Chief Melvin Wearing, who has denied telling Sullivan to halt the investigation, refused comment Friday. Mayor John DeStefano Jr., meanwhile, struck tones of reconciliation.
"We are now near the end of this issue," he said in a statement. "The more pressing issue at hand is for the North Haven and New Haven police departments to solve the killing of Phillip Cusick."
But Cusick’s brother, Matthew, did not share his sense of finality.
"If (Sullivan’s arrest) is what it takes to have justice be done for the murder of my brother, then so be it," he said Friday. "My brother’s murderer still walks the streets. Some people know who that was, but nothing’s been done for two years."
The city’s pension board Friday also approved Kendall’s retirement, effective Dec. 24. He will receive a $49,365 annual pension after 21 years of service, said John Cicarelli, deputy comptroller/risk manager for the city.
Cicarelli said Sullivan and Kendall had filed for pensions in March, and that both had cashed in on four years’ worth of accrued sick time.
Many officers file retirement papers early in the year to take advantage of the sick-time offer. If they don’t want to retire, they can withdraw the papers before the end of the year.
As for the ethics charges against Sullivan, City Corporation Counsel Thayer Baldwin said: "There isn’t any basis (to pursue the ethics charges), because they aren’t police anymore. You can’t discipline someone unless he’s an employee."
The city was set to also file administrative charges against Kendall, but he had filed his retirement papers by the time the police commission met this week to consider the issue.
©New Haven Register 2000
zwire.com |
| | Murder Mystery: Who Killed Yale Student Suzanne Jovin? | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2) |
|
| To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (865) | 12/16/2000 9:17:50 PM | | From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell | | | | Re: 12/15/00 - AP/Hartford Courant: New Haven Police Captain Arrested In Mishandling Of Investigation
New Haven Police Captain Arrested In Mishandling Of Investigation
The Associated Press
December 15, 2000
NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) Police Capt. Brian Sullivan, who helped solve many crimes in the Elm City, now must try to defend himself against charges of his own.
The state charged Sullivan Friday with hindering prosecution and tampering with evidence in a 1996 murder investigation.
Sullivan turned himself in to state police in Bethany. He is free on a written promise to appear in New Haven Superior Court on Dec. 22.
He also got approval to retire Friday after a 24-year career, with health benefits and an annual pension of $60,599, deputy city comptroller John Cicarella said.
The retirement means Sullivan will not be subject to a disciplinary hearing that was scheduled to begin next week.
A police internal affairs investigation also alleged Sullivan violated police department policies.
The criminal charges are Class D felonies and carry penalties of up to 5 years in prison each.
The charges follow a grand juror report that found probable cause to suspect Sullivan intentionally mishandled the investigation of the killing of Philip Cusick of North Haven.
Sullivan, 46, of Hamden, is accused of ordering a halt to the investigation despite a witness statement that could have led to an arrest. The grand juror also said Sullivan misled North Haven police about leads in the case.
His lawyer, Hugh Keefe, said the arrest was expected.
''He did nothing wrong, and though it sounds trite ... we are looking forward to trial,'' Keefe said.
Chief State's Attorney Jack Bailey said no other arrests are planned. The grand juror report alleged Sullivan acted alone, but she could find no motive.
''The judge filed her report with us, and that's what we were going on,'' Bailey said.
Bailey said he will try to get the judges who authorized the grand jury to allow New Haven prosecutors to see the transcript of the grand jury testimony.
New Haven State's Attorney Michael Dearington said he hopes the transcript will provide clues to help solve Cusick's killing.
Police believe Cusick was shot in New Haven and his body was dumped in front of his parents' North Haven home. Police from both municipalities worked to find the killer.
Two years after the shooting, New Haven officers found a witness to events just after the shooting and a possible suspect, but Sullivan told the officers to end their investigation ''per order of the chief,'' the officers told the grand juror.
Police Chief Melvin Wearing has denied ordering an end to the investigation. He was not commenting on the arrest Friday.
A transcript of the witness' statement was lost in the desk of another officer, Sgt. Edward Kendall.
North Haven police were not given the transcript, and Sullivan allegedly failed to tell North Haven investigators about the lead.
The grand juror exonerated Kendall.
Kendall, 45, also got approval Friday to retire after 21 years on the job with an annual pension of $49,365. He filed retirement papers this week; the city's attorney said Kendall would have faced administrative charges if he had not retired.
Mayor John DeStefano, who recommended the administrative charges against Sullivan, reiterated his support for the police department and his belief in their ability to solve the Cusick killing.
AP-ES-12-15-00 1653EST
Copyright © 2000 Myway Corp.
Portions © 2000 ctnow.com.
All rights reserved.
ctnow.com |
| | Murder Mystery: Who Killed Yale Student Suzanne Jovin? | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (866) | 12/16/2000 9:24:08 PM | | From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell | | | | Re: 12/16/00 - Hartford Courant: New Haven Officer Charged With Concealing Evidence
New Haven Officer Charged With Concealing Evidence
By DAVE ALTIMARI
The Hartford Courant
December 16, 2000
For the five years that Brian Sullivan ran the New Haven police detective division, it gained a reputation for solving homicides. On Friday, Sullivan was arrested and accused of helping someone get away with murder by concealing evidence.
Sullivan, 46, turned himself in at the state police barracks in Bethany, accompanied by his attorney, Hugh Keefe. He is charged with hindering prosecution and tampering with evidence, both felonies.
He was released on a written promise to appear in New Haven Superior Court on Dec. 22.
Keefe said that Sullivan will plead not guilty at that time and will not ask for the case to be moved out of New Haven.
"New Haven is the city that Brian has devoted the last 25 years of his life to serving, so we're comfortable keeping this here,'' Keefe said.
Investigators from the chief state's attorney's office got the arrest warrant signed on Wednesday but waited until Keefe returned from a trial in New York to serve it so Sullivan, a police captain, could turn himself in.
"It was sad because Brian is usually the one doing the fingerprinting,'' Keefe said.
The police chief who hired Sullivan to run the detective division called the arrest tragic.
"I watched his career blossom, and this is a tragic ending to a fine career. This is not the Brian Sullivan I knew, and I don't quite understand why this happened, if it did,'' former New Haven Chief Nicholas Pastore said.
The arrest comes only days after Judge Carmen Espinosa issued a report finding probable cause that Sullivan kept evidence from the North Haven Police Department during an investigation into the 1996 homicide of Philip Cusick. Espinosa served as a one-judge grand jury hearing testimony from 57 witnesses.
The arrest warrant alleges that Sullivan hindered the investigation by ordering his detectives off the case based on an order from the police chief that was never issued.
It also alleges that he concealed the witness's statement from North Haven police and deliberately misled the North Haven Police Department into thinking there was no new evidence in the homicide investigation.
Court documents in the case make no reference to a possible motive.
Although Cusick's body was found in North Haven, police have long suspected that he was killed in New Haven during a drug deal that went bad.
Two years after the killing, a witness came forward and gave a taped statement to New Haven police in which he identified the possible shooter, although he admits he didn't see the shots being fired.
The witness said he heard the suspect running up the street yelling, "I got him. I got him,'' the grand jury report says.
The detectives who interviewed the witness took the tape and a transcript to Sullivan and then-Sgt. Edward Kendall. Sullivan, witnesses told the grand jury, ordered the detectives to stop investigating "per order of the chief."
The detectives had wanted to get a search warrant for the suspect's house to see if they could find a gun to match with a bullet taken from Cusick's body. Investigators believe that a search at this point would be futile.
Sullivan then ordered Kendall to remove the original tape and transcript from the evidence room and hold onto them rather than place them in the case file. They were not turned over to North Haven police until after New Haven Officer Keith Wortz went to New Haven State's Attorney Michael Dearington to complain.
Kendall found the transcript in his drawer a year later. The tape has never been found. Kendall also was a target of the grand jury but was not indicted.
Both he and Sullivan submitted applications for retirement this week, just as the police commission took the first steps toward firing them.
New Haven and North Haven police are now working together on the Cusick homicide. Investigators want to get access to some of the sealed grand jury files that include testimony from potential witnesses to the killing.
Chief State's Attorney John Bailey said his office will work with Dearington to get access to the files through the three-member commission within the Judicial Department that assigns grand jury cases.
Copyright © 2000 Myway Corp.
Portions © 2000 ctnow.com.
All rights reserved.
ctnow.com |
| | Murder Mystery: Who Killed Yale Student Suzanne Jovin? | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (867) | 12/19/2000 11:11:09 PM | | From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell | | | | ** Re: The Suzanne Jovin Murder -- Part 1: The Facts of the Case **
Note: The following is a summary I have compiled in an attempt to inform new readers of the events surrounding the murder of Suzanne Jovin. I do not claim to be a news reporter nor do I claim to be totally objective, although I have tried to support my opinions with fact as often as possible. My opinions are also solely my own and not necessarily representative of those of anyone else posting messages here. If you are not a Silicon Investor member and wish to comment, either publicly or privately, please e-mail me at jmitchel@optonline.net.
- Jeff
=====
On Friday, December 4th, 1998, Yale senior Suzanne Jovin was savagely murdered. A lot has been written about the case since then, in publications as diverse as Vanity Fair, the New York Times Magazine, the Boston Globe, and the Yale Daily News. It was also the subject for an entire hour long prime-time, sweeps-week edition of the ABC show 20/20. We've been told lots about the victim and lots about her senior thesis advisor, the only person the police have ever named as a suspect. But what about the crime itself? Has not a single journalist thought it might make a good story to try to figure out what really happened that night? Is the lure and entertainment value of "professor kills student" so great that we don't really want to consider the actual evidence appears to point to a random senseless act of violence?
Before devising any theories of how the murder took place, let's first make sure we have our facts straight... as straight as we can, of course, given that the New Haven Police don't feel like sharing what they know, even if all they really know is apparently largely irrelevant to solving it.
The night of the murder, Yale senior Suzanne Jovin was at the Trinity Lutheran Church on 292 Orange St. cleaning up after a pizza-making party she had organized for the local chapter of Best Buddies, an international organization that brings together students and mentally disabled adults. Sean Glass, then a Yale freshman, who was present at the party, told me Jovin was in a good mood and that all he recalls her telling him was how she was looking forward to seeing her family soon. By 8:30pm she was driving another volunteer home in a borrowed university station wagon. At about 8:45 she returned the car to the Yale owned lot on the corner of Edgewood and Howe and proceeded to walk one block south on Edgewood before turning east for a half a block to reach her second floor apartment at 258 Park Street, upstairs from a Yale police substation.
Sometime prior to 8:50, a few friends passed by Jovin's window and asked her if she wanted to join them at the movies. Jovin said no-- that she was planning to work that night, but never specified on what. At 9:02, she logged onto her Yale e-mail account and told a friend to she was going to leave some books for her in her (Jovin’s) lobby. The text of the message to which she was responding is not known. At 9:10 she logged off. It is uncertain if she made or received any calls; calls within Yale's telephone system are supposedly not traceable. She wore the same soft, low-cut hiking boots, jeans, and maroon fleece pullover she had warn at the pizza party. It is not known what she dropped off or took with her but the police report her wallet was later found in her apartment although they would not reveal its contents.
Very shortly thereafter, Jovin headed out on foot to the Yale police communications center under the arch at Phelps Gate to return the keys to the car she had borrowed. She likely headed through the locked gate at Davenport College, across York Street, between a couple of buildings, across High Street, and finally across Yale's Old Campus. Shortly before reaching her destination, at about 9:17, Jovin encountered classmate Peter Stein who was out for a walk. Stein is quoted by the Yale Daily News as saying "She did not mention plans to go anywhere or do anything else afterward. She just said that she was very, very tired and that she was looking forward to getting a lot of sleep." Stein told me (as well as the police) that Jovin was holding a piece of white 8 ½ x 11 inch paper in her right hand. Stein also told me Jovin was walking at a "normal" pace and did not look nervous or excited.
An early New Haven Register article quotes Yale as saying Jovin did return the keys that night, somewhere around 9:30pm, although it's not clear if that is an estimate. Jovin was reportedly last seen alive at between 9:25-9:30pm walking northeast on College Street, but not yet past Elm Street, by another Yale student who was returning from a Yale hockey game. Vanity Fair reported that this witness "passed" Jovin, implying no words were spoken between them. The magazine goes on to say that upon reading of the murder in the Yale Daily News at 2am the next night she become nearly hysterical and called the police. It is not known if Jovin were still carrying the white paper. As the name of the witness has never been in print, I have been unable to locate and speak to her. However, I did confirm with the Yale Police that no paperwork is required when returning keys; you just drop them in the receptacle on the counter under the bullet-proof class. As neither the police nor any media source have ever disputed this was the last time Jovin was seen alive, I have no reason not to treat this very important piece of information as being credible.
At 9:55 someone dialed 911 and reported a woman bleeding at the corner of Edgehill and East Rock Rd. When police arrived at 9:58 they found Jovin fatally stabbed 17 times in the back of her head and neck and her throat slit. She was lying on her stomach, feet in the road, body on the grassy area between the road and the sidewalk. 20/20 reported Jovin was wearing a watch and earrings with a "crumpled up" dollar bill in her pocket, and her wallet was reportedly still in her room. (Suzanna Andrews of Vanity Fair told me she had heard a rumor Jovin also had a checkbook on her, and a local newspaper reporter said he heard the police had found a soda can with Jovin’s fingerprints nearby, but I should stress I’ve never heard either one confirmed by the police, Yale, or the Jovin family.) A witness at the scene told me no one was "working on her" and no one was in any hurry to rush her into a waiting ambulance, the inference being she was already dead. Jovin was officially pronounced dead at 10:26 at Yale New Haven Hospital.
No witnesses I talked to remember seeing much blood at all at the crime scene. None reported seeing any blood drops on the street or on the grass around Jovin. The police dug out the grass over which Jovin lay so presumably that is the one spot, other than on her clothes, that had some. One witness even thought at first glance Jovin had fainted. The medical examiner reported finding no evidence of a sexual assault, no defensive wounds, and said she hadn't even scraped her hands. The tip of the knife was found lodged in her skull. Perhaps most significant of all was that Jovin was approximately 1.95 miles from Phelps Gate.
Police ruled out Jovin's boyfriend, Roman Caudillo, as a suspect as he was on a train returning from New York City that night. They also ruled out Jovin's Best Buddies mentoring "buddy" who apparently had an alibi. On Monday, December 7th, police briefly interviewed Jovin's thesis advisor, Professor James Van de Velde, whom Jovin had met for "probably seconds" around 4pm the day she was murdered. Jovin had stopped by Van de Velde's office at 135 Prospect Street to drop off the penultimate draft of her senior thesis on the terrorist Osama Bin Laden. On it she wrote a note saying: "Feel free to e-mail me over the weekend if you have questions or run into any major problems," signed "Suzanne."
The next evening, December 8th, Van de Velde volunteered to be interviewed again by the police, this time for four hours. He chose not to have a lawyer present, offered the police the keys to his car, which they searched, and the keys to his apartment, which they chose not to search, although for some reason they claimed they did. He also offered to provide a blood sample and take a polygraph test, both of which the police also declined to do. Nevertheless, even before the meeting was concluded, New Haven and Yale University sources told reporters from the New Haven Register that a male Yale educator who had taught Jovin and who lived near the crime scene was the lead and prime suspect in the investigation. Police sources as well as the Chief and head of detectives subsequently publicly denied throughout the month of December that any Yale professor was a suspect in the crime.
On January 10, 1999, the day before he was to teach his first spring term class, Van de Velde was asked to visit Yale College Dean Richard Brodhead's office. At their late evening meeting, Brodhead informed Van de Velde that in response to repeated inquiries and after many conversations, Yale officials were finally told that Van de Velde was in a "pool of suspects" for the crime, and therefore Yale had decided to immediately suspend him from teaching. The next day, Yale University’s public affairs office issued a press statement formally announcing this ruling.
According to the New Haven Register, by late January, 1999, the police had interviewed more than 150 of Jovin's classmates, teachers, and friends, as well as four local television reporters. They also read her diary. It was apparent by their questions that their theory was Jovin and Van de Velde had had a secret romance. For example, the January 19, 1999 issue of the Yale Daily News quotes Michael Gordon ’00 as saying "They asked me 101 questions about dating, Suzanne, 'Did you hear him and Suzanne interact?' and so on…Even if I said, 'No, no I never saw him interact with Suzanne,' they continued with questions about him and Suzanne." Although the police found no evidence of such, either past, present, or planned, they still refused to remove the suspect label from Van de Velde.
On January 18, the Yale Daily News ran a headline "Jovin was upset with Van de Velde". The story focused on Yun Kim, an acquaintance of Jovin's, insinuating there was acrimony between the professor and his student. The story was repeated on television and in the local papers. What was not reported by these other sources was Yun Kim's scathing letter to the Yale Daily News the next day in which she stated: "My distaste with the article lies in its use of hearsay as truth and its inappropriate use of tangential information to link Van de Velde to the murder." Even the original article itself quoted another student of Van de Velde's as saying "He was great. I found him extremely helpful. He's the best professor I could have gone to." Nevertheless, the original flawed premise became the cornerstone of a new theory to try to link Van de Velde to the murder.
Jovin's parents are on record as saying Jovin had expressed extreme displeasure to them over Van de Velde’s handling of finding time to discuss the first draft of her senior essay. They say she was so upset she even complained to Dean Susan Hauser, although they admit that she instructed the Dean not to take any action. Even if we accept Jovin's unhappiness as fact, there is no evidence to support that Van de Velde actually was at all aware of it; Van de Velde himself describes his conversations with her as "cordial, polite and concerned with the academic issues at hand." It’s also important to note that Van de Velde was not required to comment on Jovin’s thesis, but extended her that courtesy, and that Jovin’s most vocal disappointment reportedly was after Van de Velde was one day late in handing back his voluntary comments to her.
Considering there is no tangible evidence -- blood, fiber, fingerprints, murder weapon, etc. -- to link Van de Velde to the murder, a fact the police have admitted to the press numerous times, we can only conclude their entire case against Van de Velde is and always has been based on pure speculation. Worse, although the police have abandoned their original wildly speculative motive of a secret romance, rather than remove the suspect label from Van de Velde they have instead tried to make him fit the crime by switching to an even more flawed and wildly speculative motive.
Nobody likes to think an unknown vicious killer may be roaming around their neighborhood. There is no denying that throwing Van de Velde to the wolves has taken pressure off the New Haven Police. It allows them to assure the community not to worry, that they have their man and it’s only a matter of time before they gather enough evidence to put him away.
Indeed the police have also been good at throwing bones to the press that make front page news and keep the media at bay. One such incident was on April 18, 1999 when the police solicited the help of treasure hunters to search the crime scene with metal detectors. Captain Brian Sullivan was quoted on the front page of the New Haven Register the next day as saying "I can confirm we found forensic evidence…" – in an area right in front of Van de Velde’s residence at the time. If not for one of the treasure hunters talking to the press the next day, we might never have known that the "evidence" was simply Van de Velde’s car manual that was tossed from his car when it was broken into in October of 1998. Two weeks later, Yale informed Van de Velde he would not be invited back to teach for the 1999-2000 academic year.
Another such bizarre incident began on March 1, 1999 when the Register first boldly proclaimed in a front page headline that "Fibers may nab Jovin killer". Sources are quoted as saying "The fibers will be compared to those taken from another location" and that "it is expected to take several weeks to analyze and match the fibers." Van de Velde was, as usual, the only person identified by name from a purported "pool of suspects". The public was left to ponder this seemingly potentially damning evidence until November 7, 1999, when, again, the Register ran a front page story "Cat hair could be key: Investigators test feline DNA in Jovin murder case." Apparently the only person with the common sense to question why it took eight months for the police to analyze the only piece of potential physical evidence they had was Thomas Jovin, Suzanne’s father. It would not be until nearly five months later, April 20, 2000, when an AP reporter called the investigating scientist, Dr. Stephen J. O'Brien (the director of the Laboratory of Genomic Diversity at the National Institutes of Health), that the public would finally learn no DNA could be extracted from the cat hair, rendering them useless—prompting Connecticut’s renowned forensic expert Henry Lee to abandon his planned analysis of the murder, saying "You cannot reconstruct the abstract. You have to have physical evidence."
Given the purported significance the New Haven police and the press seemed to attach to the cat hair, and how it was very much implied it might be the smoking gun they needed to finally tie their only suspect to the crime, it was imponderable enough to me why it took two thirds of a year to send it out for testing. But what struck me as downright sinister was that although the evidence was sent back to the police the very next month, it took almost another five months for the results to be reported. Wanting an explanation, I wrote Dr. O'Brien to ask why. Shockingly, he told me he had also sent his report back to the New Haven District Attorney's Office in December. It’s interesting to note that despite the AP story and despite my confirmation of it, the New Haven police have never confirmed or denied the reported results. Had the AP reporter not taken the initiative to call, the police might still be withholding the, for them, highly unfavorable and embarrassing results. If so, given the recent Grand Jury finding that the top cop assigned to the Jovin case, Captain Brian Sullivan, had withheld evidence in another high-profile murder -- a crime for which he was subsequently arrested -- it wouldn’t be the first time.
The problem with being the only named suspect in a high profile murder is that people are forced to ask the question "If not that guy, then who really did murder Suzanne Jovin?" There have been only three other local university students murdered in the past three decades (all in the ‘90s): Yale students Christian Prince and Gary Stein, and Southern CT State student Guy Young. In each case the killer was found, tried and convicted. And in each case the killer was a stranger to the victim. Might Suzanne Jovin also have been killed by a stranger? I think the evidence very much points in that direction. I’ll summarize my thoughts on this in Part 2.
- Jeff |
| | Murder Mystery: Who Killed Yale Student Suzanne Jovin? | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (868) | 12/19/2000 11:13:31 PM | | From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell | | | | ** Re: The Suzanne Jovin Murder -- Part 2: Analysis of the Evidence **
Note: The following is a summary I have compiled in an attempt to inform new readers of the events surrounding the murder of Suzanne Jovin. I do not claim to be a news reporter nor do I claim to be totally objective, although I have tried to support my opinions with fact as often as possible. My opinions are also solely my own and not necessarily representative of those of anyone else posting messages here. If you are not a Silicon Investor member and wish to comment, either publicly or privately, please e-mail me at jmitchel@optonline.net.
- Jeff
In part 1, we saw how the New Haven Police swiftly leaked Professor Van de Velde’s name to the press as a suspect despite not having any evidence whatsoever that linked him to the crime. Was this rush to judgment based on a calculated decision by the police to name someone, anyone, to keep Yale, the media, and the Jovins hopeful and pacified, or was it just horrible police work followed by a cover-up?
Before beginning, it is important to point out that any number of scenarios is possible. To discuss them all would take forever. Instead, the idea is to take key facts and from them make judgments about not what is possible, but probable. In part 2, we’ll use what little evidence we have to logically determine a probable scenario for what really might have happened to Jovin that fateful night.
First, we need to figure out how much time we need to account for in our scenario. Suzanne Jovin was last seen alive between 9:25-9:30, approximately 1.9 miles away from where she was found stabbed, which would have been sometime prior to the 911 call at 9:55. Thus, any murder scenario must, at most, be less than 30 minutes long.
Not knowing how long Jovin continued to walk unnoticed nor how long she lay at the spot where she was eventually found, the minimum time we must allow would be the time it must have taken at that hour to drive the entire route. In an attempt to determine an approximation of this, I was able to complete the ride in 8 minutes and 45 seconds (To be precise, I drove on Monday, December 13, 1999, between 3:30-4:00pm in moderate traffic. I began at Phelps Gate and traveled north on College Street, later called Prospect Street, all the way to East Rock Road where I took a right and went one block to the far corner of Edgewood.) Keeping in mind that I don’t know exactly what route the killers may have taken on that fateful night (so I am assuming the most direct one, which I took), nor what the traffic was like on that fateful night (my guess is moderate to heavy since the Yale-Princeton hockey game would have been letting out around 9:30pm onto Prospect Street), and considering there are ten stoplights along the way, my best estimate for the least time needed for any likely murder scenario would be 10 minutes.
Second, we need to determine how Jovin got from Phelps Gate to the crime scene, the corner of Edgehill and East Rock Road. At a brisk 3 miles per hour walking pace, 1.9 miles would be covered in 38 minutes. This is clearly outside the maximum 30 minutes in which Jovin had to have arrived at the crime scene and it doesn't even take into account stoppage time at the numerous downtown intersections. It's possible Jovin could have jogged there, but given 1) it was at least 9:25pm, 2) she was wearing hiking boots, jeans, and a fleece pullover, and 3) she had just told someone how tired she was, it’s most probable that Jovin arrived at her destination with the aid of a car.
Third, was Jovin murdered a) outside where she was found, b) outside elsewhere and transported by car to where she was found, or c) in a car and transported to where she was found. The key here is the blood, or lack thereof, found at the scene. One would assume 17 stab wounds to the head and neck would produce an abundance of blood. However, the two people I talked to who were at the crime scene that night said while there was much talk about the severity of the neck wound, they don’t recall seeing blood splashed about. One of them said she thought Jovin had fainted, not been savagely murdered. The New Haven Register wrote: "there reportedly were no traces of blood between where she lay and the street." This is not to say the entire crime scene was bloodless. Indeed, Jovin’s clothes were soaked with blood and there was blood underneath her. However, there are no reports of any blood spattering, which one would expect if she were stabbed outside where she was found.
Certainly if Jovin were fleeing from an attacker with all those stab wounds there would be blood spattering, if not a noticeable trail of blood. The only other possible scenario that might account for Jovin being killed outside is if she were felled exactly where she was found. As there were no reported defensive wounds and as all the blows apparently came from behind, at first glance it seems possible she could have been taken by surprise from behind. However, it does not seem probable someone who had, at best, extricated themselves from a bad situation or, at worst, just escaped from an abduction, would not only walk casually away but also be totally unaware they were being pursued to the point they couldn’t even put up a hand in defense, even instinctively.
Furthermore, if Jovin were knocked unconscious, either by a blow to the head (although there are no reports of a massive head wound) or the first or second stab, it’s hard to imagine another 15-17 (more) knife wounds being inflicted to a lifeless body. Had Jovin been tackled instead of felled by a knife wound, the likely result would have been scraped hands, grass stains, or bruises on her back, none of which have ever been reported; another likely result would have been an indentation in the ground from one or two bodies falling, something apparently never observed. And even if we are still willing to go this far, it’s also hard to believe that not a single stab would have produced any spatter given the probable amount of blood loss, the force needed to penetrate a skull, and even the blood that might have sprayed from the knife. Finally, where is there evidence a second person may have been there at all, i.e. bloody footprints, smeared blood, trampled or dug up grass, etc.? Given all the above, I find any sort of outdoor murder scenario at the site Jovin was found, scenario "a" above, quite improbable.
It’s possible Jovin were killed outside elsewhere and then transported to where she was found by car, but, again, I don’t find that probable. Common sense makes it hard to envision why a murderer would want to load a bloody victim into their car, thus contaminating it and forever linking them to the crime. The only remote rationale I can think of is that the killer might not want the body to ever be found. Obviously this does not apply here making scenario "b" above also quite improbable.
Therefore it appears logical to conclude Jovin was most probably killed in a car, scenario "c" above. Indeed her body position is consistent with someone who may have been pushed or pulled from a car: she was lying on her stomach, feet in the road, body on the grassy area between the road and the sidewalk. Taking it one step further, it’s as if someone had taken a right turn off Prospect Street onto East Rock Road on the way to the next major cross street, Whitney Avenue, and decided to pull over somewhere in the middle of that neighborhood, which was right after they passed the only other intersection, Edgehill. This location would also have shielded them from anyone walking along Edgehill, a wide and well-lit street, yet kept them on the side of two houses on either side which both faced Edgehill as opposed to being in front of two houses facing East Rock had they gone a bit further. Moreover, tall bushes shielded the side view of at least one of the corner houses.
If Jovin were indeed killed in a car, as appears probable, the next obvious question is how she ended up in a car. While the natural temptation here is to start speculating whether or not Jovin was forced into the car and thus whether she might have known her killer, I posit that at this point it’s much more relevant to discuss how someone might be murdered in a car and then work backwards. Was their likely a) only one person in the car, or b) more than one person in the car?
There are two elements to consider in any murdered in a car theory: psychological and physical. From a psychological point of view, as there were no defensive wounds on Jovin, is it more likely someone would be surprised and/or overwhelmed by a driver (indicating scenario "a" above would be more likely), or by another passenger (indicating scenario "b")? From a physical perspective, are the wounds consistent with those a driver might make (scenario "a"), or perhaps by someone sitting elsewhere (scenario "b")?
From a psychological point of view: imagine yourself sitting in the front passenger seat of a car. What circumstances might allow someone only a few feet to your left to be able to pull out a knife and either surprise or totally overwhelm you to the point you weren’t even able to so much as put up a hand in defense? Isn’t is highly likely that if you sensed real trouble (i.e. if you had been forced into the car by someone you didn’t know, or had gotten into a heated discussion with someone you did know) you would either have tried to flee when the car stopped, or at the very least been in a high state of mental alert for trouble? Now imagine yourself sitting in the back seat with one or more people, at least one of which you know has a knife at the ready. I would venture to say most people would feel much more helpless and thus less likely to resist an attacker if the attacker had friends in close proximity, not to mention the likelihood they might already be under physical restraint.
From a physical perspective: pretend you are in the driver’s seat of a car with a passenger in the seat beside you. Next, twist your body to the right try to stab someone in only the head and neck 17 times without missing at least once and hitting them elsewhere, such as the shoulder or arm. Be sure to take into consideration the steering wheel which would severely restrict your movement, and perhaps even seat belts. At the very least we can assume this would be quite challenging to do and near impossible to do while driving. Now imagine if either that person were sitting strapped into the seat in front of you or perhaps a friend of yours sitting with you in back was restraining them, say by pinning their arms behind their back while pushing them face down toward you on the seat or floor. I would venture to say the latter scenario is far more likely to produce the wounds found on Jovin. Therefore, given both psychological and physical considerations, it is much more probable the car in which Jovin were killed had more than one other person in it.
If there were indeed more than one other person in the car in which Jovin were killed, it is much more likely her death resulted from a random act of violence. More on this later. For now, let us still consider the single person theory since although it is much less probable it is still possible and thus merits further discussion, especially given that many people are under the illusion if forced at knife point to get into a car, even by a group of people, they would likely either scream or flee rather than freeze and go into a mild state of shock as most victims actually report. Since it’s very hard to envision an individual saying "I have a knife. Get in the car and don’t move while I run over to the driver’s side," I think it safe to conclude any single person theory most likely implies the victim knew the eventual attacker and thus got into the car willingly and unaware of any impending danger.
If we assume for sake of argument Jovin knew her killer, this raises three possibilities: a) he stalked her, b) she ran into him unexpectedly, or c) she planned to meet him that night. Regardless of whether someone had followed Jovin home to her Park Street apartment, or lay in wait in their car outside it, in order to have followed her through locked gates, between buildings, and across courtyards to Phelps Gate they'd have to have been on foot, thus leaving their car on or near Jovin's apartment on Park Street. Given our most probable scenario above that a car had to have been used, a stalking scenario not involving a car is quite unlikely. Sure, it's possible the stalker never budged from his car on Park Street, Jovin returned home, and then he lured her into his car, but there's no evidence Jovin made it back to her apartment, planned to go right back, or was even heading in that direction. It’s also possible the stalker decided to drive and lay in wait on College Street, but why not strike on Park Street? How would the killer not only know where Jovin were going, but also that she was not going to retrace her steps and therefore never be on College Street? Therefore, while theoretically possible, a stalking scenario, "a" above, does not appear probable.
As for scenario "b", that Jovin ran into her killer unexpectedly, what are the odds that a friend you meet by chance carries a knife? What are the odds you will willingly get in their car or even need to be driven somewhere in the first place? What are the odds that a chance meeting with a friend would blow up into murder in less than a half hour? Very low on all counts, and even lower when you consider all of these events would have had to occur.
Therefore, in order for the single person theory to still have any merit we need to determine the likelihood Jovin had planned to meet anyone at all the night she was murdered. Recall between 8:45pm and 9:20pm that night she was specifically asked by two individuals if she had plans, and in one instance she said she hoped to do some school work and in the other she said she was tired and looking forward to sleeping. As Jovin reportedly had no backpack nor was carrying any school books, whether she had planned to work or sleep one would expect that after dropping off the keys to the borrowed car she would have turned around and taken the same convenient and direct route back home. She didn’t. Instead, she continued through Phelps Gate and took a left, heading north on College Street, without crossing to the other side.
Had Jovin planned to be picked up by someone it is most likely she'd have gotten picked up at home or in front of Phelps Gate. Instead, she was last seen walking away from Phelps Gate, not standing around, somewhere prior to the next cross street, Elm Street. Had Jovin still planned to be picked up, the closest, most likely spot would have been near the corner of College and Elm. However, as Elm is a one-way flowing east, and as the westerly side of the intersection is prone to heavy traffic where there is no place to park or conveniently pull over within a few hundred feet prior to it, it’s much more likely Jovin would have been at any of the other three corners had she intended to meet someone for a ride. In addition, Jovin’s last known location also increases the likelihood she may have been taking a roundabout route home via a left, west, onto Elm.
However, in order to keep our "she knew her killer" theory alive we will conveniently ignore the above and speculate perhaps she was on her way to a secret rendezvous. This is certainly an intriguing thought, but who exactly does one meet secretly? A lover perhaps? As Jovin kept a diary, had a sister she trusted, had e-mail, had a steady boyfriend, and none of the 150 or so people the New Haven police claim to have questioned said they had any hint Jovin had a secret romantic relationship, the odds of this seem remote. So, if she wasn't "seeing" someone, who else might she have wanted to meet secretly? All I can think of is a drug dealer, but there is no evidence whatsoever she ever did drugs.
Lastly, let’s go all the way out on a limb and say regardless of all evidence that points directly to the contrary, Jovin somehow had indeed scheduled a secret meeting with someone the night she was killed. In fact, let’s just ignore everything above we’ve concluded as probable and assume her counterpart had planned the perfect murder. But, wait a second. How can the killer be absolutely assured Jovin kept their meeting secret? Even if Jovin says she didn't tell anyone, maybe she wrote his name down on a scrap of paper, wrote it in her diary, or just plain lied to him. After all, unless this was a routine request, it’s reasonable to assume Jovin would have been highly suspicious of such a meeting. Also, how can the killer be sure no one saw his car parked where she might have last been seen, or perhaps saw her get into it, or perhaps saw her riding in it or arguing, etc.? How can he be sure when he stops the car in a residential neighborhood no one is looking out the window or walking in the shadows, or about to drive by, etc.? Heaven forbid the killer himself actually lives in the area making him even more likely to be identified! These are all big "gotchas".
So if Jovin wasn’t retracing her steps back to her apartment, wasn’t carrying anything to indicate she planned to do schoolwork, and wasn’t planning on meeting anyone, where was she going? As Jovin was seen prior to the intersection of Elm and College, it’s hard to speculate. If I were told she was planning to take a left turn on Elm I might speculate she was either taking a roundabout route home or perhaps heading to Durfee’s Sweet Shop, a popular place for Yalies to grab a bite to eat. Although the shop is accessible from within the Old Campus (via Welch Hall) the fastest way there from Phelps would probably have been to go to the front entrance on Elm (I say "probably" because of distance and/or that I don’t think Jovin’s keycard would work on a Freshman doorway since she was a Senior). To go out on a limb again, let’s assume the rumors the two reporters told me they heard about Jovin are true, that she had a checkbook on her and a Coke can with her fingerprints was lying nearby. Let’s also toss in a copy of the New Journal, a Yale publication that Van de Velde told me the police waved at him during an interrogation. Might Jovin have actually wandered into Durfee’s, bought a can of Coke (which they do sell), and picked up a New Journal on the way in or out (although I’m not sure if Durfee’s would have been a drop-off point for the publication, although Phelps Gate surely would have)? Since she only had a crumpled up dollar bill in her pocket (no change was reported), might she have paid by check? It’s an intriguing thought but too highly speculative to be considered reasonable at this point. I would have to assume it would have been crowded inside on a warm night and therefore somewhat likely someone would have remembered seeing her there. Also, she had just been hosting a pizza dinner that ended around 8:30pm so I doubt she’d be hungry again less than an hour later, although it is conceivable she might have been thirsty.
Exploring other alternatives, in reviewing the Vanity Fair article on the subject I note this line that might be a big clue: "Most of Jovin's friends were partying that night…" Might Jovin have been going to one of those parties to see if any of her friends were there? After all, it was a Friday night and classes had just ended for the semester that day so there were numerous parties to celebrate it, and in that general direction. She was also seen carrying a single sheet of 8 ½ by 11 paper by fellow student Peter Stein just prior to returning the car keys at Phelps Gate. Might that piece of paper have been a party flier she had picked up on her journey? While there is no hard evidence to suggest such a scenario, it does conveniently explain many things. True, Jovin did tell people she had no plans that night and was tired, but perhaps she rationalized as such because rather than definitely knowing she was going to stay at a particular party she planned to simply pop in on one or more or them for a few minutes and take it from there… and really was tired, but physically not mentally, and was just looking to unwind after a long day. And, true, she had just come from a pizza party, but it’s perhaps relevant to note that even though she did stop back at her apartment before heading out again, she never did change out of her "party" clothes.
(continued...) |
| | Murder Mystery: Who Killed Yale Student Suzanne Jovin? | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (869) | 12/19/2000 11:16:06 PM | | From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell | | | | ** Re: The Suzanne Jovin Murder -- Part 2: Analysis of the Evidence (continued) **
Returning to the crime itself, it’s hard to imagine for even a moment someone who planned the "perfect crime" would concoct anything close to the Jovin murder. At the very top of your list you wouldn’t want the body to ever be found, least of all in or near your own neighborhood. A close second would be to have planned an airtight alibi. Common sense would dictate that whoever picked up Jovin, most likely in the center of Yale, and deposited her in an upscale neighborhood nearly two miles away, had little fear of being seen there or traced to her. So, even after bending over backwards to justify a "she knew her killer" theory the evidence and logic still point squarely against it.
Thus, whether we try to determine who killed Suzanne Jovin going forwards, i.e. from the events leading up to it, or backwards, i.e. what would account for the known evidence at the crime scene, we reach the same most probable scenario: Jovin was murdered in a car containing more than one other person none of whom she likely knew. If true, then what might have been their motive?
Four general motives for murder come to mind: a) a prior need to silence, b) sexual assault, c) robbery, and d) a desire to hurt or kill. Some have conjectured that perhaps Jovin was targeted by the terrorist Osama Bin Laden about whom she was writing her thesis. However, having seen her thesis and talked to her thesis advisor I can say with reasonable certainty that all of her information was from published, as opposed to live, sources, and her emphasis was in recounting events not uncovering new possible acts of terrorism. Furthermore, I would think a terrorist group killing would either be more blatant to prove a point, like murdering someone in full view or others, or the opposite extreme, making sure no one ever found the victim. There’s also no evidence to support that Jovin was in fear for her life either that night or any night prior relating to other murder mystery clichés such as a lover spurned, a debt unpaid to the wrong person, or revenge for a life ruined. While she may have been angry with one or more people shortly before her death, there is no reason at all to assume anyone was angry with her, let alone mad enough to commit murder. In fact, who is to say that anyone even knew Jovin was upset at them in the first place? Worse, once we start assigning sinister connotations to common events we head down a slippery slope where essentially everyone becomes equally a suspect, i.e. she didn’t take this person’s call, or made a joke about that one in front of friends. This line of thinking makes no sense, is a sign of desperation, and risks hurting innocent people in the process. We must always try our best to stick to the facts, and the facts here and prior do not remotely support scenario "a" above.
As for scenarios "b" and "c", sexual assault and robbery respectively, neither one seems apparent. Not only was Jovin fully clothed, she was also reportedly found wearing a watch and earrings with a "crumpled up" dollar bill in her pocket, and her wallet was reportedly still in her room. Therefore we need to shift the question to whether it seems likely one or the other was either desired or planned.
It’s reasonable to assume that since Jovin’s assailants were most likely male (based mainly on general violent crime statistics), were successfully able to get her in their car, and given we know they were willing to use deadly force, assaulting her would have probably been quite easy. Given Jovin was young and attractive, and given we know sexual assault is (sadly) an all too common event, at the very least we can reasonably conclude it was not the primary intent. As for whether a robbery was perhaps the main intent, it’s hard to say. On the one hand, the apparent lack of removed jewelry and dollar bill make it seem less likely. On the other hand, one could argue either the jewelry was not perceived as valuable and perhaps Jovin had forgotten about the dollar bill under duress, or, even more likely, the would be thieves just wanted cash, and lots of it. Perhaps when one of them learned Jovin didn’t have any significant amount on her, and her credit and bank cards were in her wallet at home, he got so enraged he killed her. After all, they took the extraordinary step of plucking someone off the street and had nothing to show for it.
The last possible motive, scenario "d", is some sort of act of sheer violence. It happens often enough that there’s even a term for when people who travel in a pack randomly choose to assault someone: wilding. There’s no evidence of a group assault on Jovin as one would expect if a group had decided to abduct and torment her. They also obviously didn’t take Jovin to some isolated area where no one would see or hear her, dead or alive, as one might expect in a planned abduction. Most importantly, the 17 localized stab wounds seemed not designed to inflict pain and suffering, but a quick and sure death.
Much has been speculated about the significance of the 17 stab wounds and the slit throat. Did this signify a crime of passion? Given that 1) we’ve pretty much quashed the "single person did it" theory, 2) despite Jovin’s boyfriend being out of town there’s no evidence Jovin was either involved in a secret affair or ever would have engaged in one, and 3) even if someone had such a secret burning passion for her and was able to get her into a car and not afraid to use deadly force, there’s no evidence of a sexual assault or even the removal of clothing, a crime of passion does not make any sense whatsoever given the circumstances.
Rather, it seems most logical death was brought on by rage, not passion. December 4th, 1998 was an abnormally warm night. People had the urge to get out of the house as was evidenced by the number of people reportedly out for air and walking their dogs in the neighborhood Jovin was found. If Jovin were indeed forced into a car containing a group of people, most likely these were teenagers out for a ride, if not because of the weather then because it was a Friday night. To go further out on a limb, I kind of doubt the kids intended to hurt anyone that night. If they did, I'd think they would have brought along a much bigger weapon, not a knife with a 4-5 inch carbon steel blade as has been reported. Given everything discussed above, the only explanation that makes reasonable sense to me is a robbery gone bad. At least someone in the group was probably desperate for cash, perhaps because they were on their way to East Rock Park to buy drugs. Recall Jovin’s feet were found touching the right side of East Rock Road as one travels toward East Rock Park, about a mile away. Perhaps they needed Jovin herself as insurance, i.e. to tell them the code on her ATM card if necessary.
At first perhaps the knife was used to scare and intimidate Jovin, but when she not only had no cash nor even her wallet the person wielding it may have become infuriated and killed her. The killer’s actions may have been an adrenaline rush or he may have already been high, and/or perhaps he was dared or ordered to do it. 17 stab wounds could easily have been delivered in about 30 seconds, and given the close proximity to the head and neck area they most probably were struck in rapid succession. Another reasonable, but not conflicting, explanation for the number of blows is that the killer wasn’t convinced Jovin was totally dead after the initial flurry. In this context, the slitting of her throat was done last to be absolutely "sure". Normally when one thinks of a slit throat one thinks of slasher movies where such is the one and only fatal wound delivered by a cold and calculated killer. This along with the difficulty of inflicting numerous head wounds to someone with a severely severed neck, not to mention the amount of blood that would have flowed from an initial throat wound, also make it most likely the head blows came first. The fact that Jovin’s body was found in a populated residential area is also consistent with the notion things happened very fast and panic had set in. Even though the assailants were most likely not from that neighborhood and not in danger of being recognized, and perhaps even driving a stolen car, it’s very likely had they been of a more rational mind they would have driven to an area where there was little chance of anyone spotting them at all and calling the police.
At this point, anyone who has followed news reports of the murder is probably wondering why they got the strong impression Jovin was killed by someone she knew, and killed at the location where she was found—a totally opposite conclusion. The quick answer, and perhaps even obvious one when one thinks a while about it, is that the police were desperately trying to fit the crime to the one person they labeled a suspect from the outset, just days after the crime. It’s very important to note, and quite incredulous, that at the time the police named their suspect they had absolutely no evidence whatsoever on him: no blood, fiber, hair, fingerprint, etc., and had even turned down an offer to search his apartment, take a blood sample, and/or administer a polygraph. They labeled it a crime of passion, a secret love affair gone wrong, which they were forced to abandon months later once they had actually interviewed Jovin’s friends and family. What followed, as is detailed in Part 1, were outright attempts to manipulate the media into thinking they were making great progress and had not tossed an innocent man to the wolves. As one policeman said to me about the New Haven Police: "Their #1 priority is to make the public feel safe," implying that the longer they made it appear they had their man, the safer the public would feel.
In keeping with this philosophy, police briefings from the very beginning always mentioned how people in the vicinity of the crime scene heard a man and a woman arguing proximate to the time Jovin was found there. For example, on December 9, 1998, based on public comments made by Captain Brian Sullivan, the Yale Daily News wrote: "Police are searching for a male suspect based on reports from an Edgehill Avenue resident who heard a loud argument between a man and a woman between 9:15 and 9:45 p.m. Friday night, he said." The very next day they quote Sullivan as saying the time was between "9:30 and 9:45 p.m." Contrast that to what the Hartford Courant wrote on December 7, 1998: "A police source said East Rock residents heard screams shortly after 9:30 p.m. Friday," followed two days later by "While interviewing people in the neighborhood, police learned that a couple of ‘angry voices’ -- including that of a man -- were heard about 9:48 p.m." The possible location of the arguing broadens on April 21, 1999 when the Yale Daily News quotes a newsletter sent out by the Ronan-Edgehill neighborhood association: "[Jovin] may have been walking on Edgehill or East Rock toward the intersection with a man, or alone, shortly before [9:45 p.m.]. She may have gotten out of a vehicle at or near the intersection of East Rock Road and Whitney Avenue, or some other place in the neighborhood between 9:30 and 9:45 p.m" (the words in brackets were added by the paper). The story goes on to say "A woman reportedly heard a male and female arguing near the corner of East Rock Road and Whitney Ave just minutes before the slaying, the Register reported Tuesday."
It is obvious that numerous folks heard a variety of things uttered in the vicinity of the corner of Edgehill and East Rock the night of December 4th—but despite so many people venturing out in the unusually warm air, no one actually saw anything. It's entirely possible someone were yelling at their dog for all we know. Regardless, more than a year later, on March 1, 2000, ABC ran a prime time version of their TV show 20/20 in which they described what the New Haven police were able to "piece together" for Jovin’s last moments this way: "At 9:45 a neighbor heard a man and woman arguing. At 9:50 another neighbor heard a woman scream five times. Just minutes before Suzanne’s body was found, a passerby heard what police believe were Suzanne Jovin’s last words. They were, "`I can’t believe you’re doing this.’" Therefore, let’s explore this scenario to determine just how likely it may actually be. In fact, let’s go one step further and instead of questioning if it’s reasonable these events are connected to the murder, let’s assume they all are.
First we have the arguing. For someone from within their house to hear two people arguing, most likely those two people would have to be outside, as opposed to in a car. So, if these two people were Jovin and her eventual killer, where is the killer's car that must have driven her there? Did he pull over and park? Did Jovin let herself out at a stop sign? If she got out of the car near the corner of East Rock and Whitney, wouldn’t she have most likely headed for Whitney, a large, well-lit, main road that directly leads to downtown New Haven? Regardless, as we’ve seen, once we place Jovin outside of a car the entire scenario becomes highly improbable. The only other possibility is the couple was still in the car but arguing with the windows rolled down. As also discussed before, given the lack of any trail of blood, it’s highly unlikely Jovin were dragged or carried anywhere, thus making it most probable that no matter where the car containing Jovin may have been parked, it had to have ended up at the spot where she was later found stabbed. Given the 9:30-9:45 time estimate for the arguing, we are faced with explaining how within the 10-25 minutes all this occurred, people inside their houses were able to hear arguing yet not a single passerby reported anything similar or even suspicious. But, once again, let’s just gloss over all this and continue on with the rest of the scenario.
Next, we have the five screams followed by words "I can't believe you're doing this." First off, obviously since neither event brought the person hearing it out of their house, nor prompted them to call the police, we can safely conclude they didn’t think it was coming from someone getting brutally murdered. Indeed people who have heard the screams of murder say they are unlike any you’ve ever heard before. Second, considering Jovin had no defensive wounds, one would expect the order of events to have been reversed. Are we to believe Jovin was screaming as she was being stabbed, caught her breath enough to be able to yell out those words, all the while not putting up a single hand in defense?! One might envision the killer on top of her keeping her immobilized but it’s hard to imagine how someone pinned to the ground after either being tackled or felled by a knife wound would still be able to scream loud enough to be heard, let alone utter words that might be audible to someone in their house. And, once again, considering the brutal nature of this scenario, where is the blood? Lastly, since 17 blows would have taken only half a minute, one would expect the same person to have heard both the screams and the words. Neither did, making it very likely they were two different (unconnected) events and thus not part of a murder scenario.
So we’ve examined the Jovin murder from all angles and still are left with the conclusion that the most likely scenario is that she was killed in a car containing more than one other person in a robbery gone bad. If I were writing a screenplay, it might go something like this: A car with four teens, a pair in back and front, pulls up near Suzanne Jovin. The driver rolls down his window and asks her directions somewhere. A few moments later, as she’s engaged in conversation, the back door opens and the two passengers slip out. One brandishes a knife and says "Say a word and you're dead. Get in the car." At that point, like most victims of muggings, Jovin is momentarily stunned. It doesn’t make sense at that instant to scream and risk death, so she gets into the back seat. The one with the knife gets in next to her as the other hurries to get in the other side. They order her to duck down so she is not seen, and start driving north on College/Prospect Street. They question Jovin about her money and wallet. She doesn't have either. The one wielding the knife flies into a rage and, while Jovin is still bent over, stabs her repeatedly. Jovin never sees it coming and never stands a chance of being able to defend herself. Being in such a confined space the killer keeps striking her in the same limited exposed area which is her head and back of neck. To make "sure" she is dead he slits her throat. With a dead victim in the back seat and blood everywhere the killers themselves start to panic. They want Jovin out of the car as soon as possible but not on a main road like Prospect where they might be noticed, so the driver takes a right on East Rock Rd which he recognizes as a cross street that would also quickly get him out of the area. One block down, just past the intersection of Edgehill and thus just out of view from any possible traffic on that road, they pull over to the curb. The passenger in the back seat on the right opens the door, gets out, leans over and grabs Jovin under her arms, pulls her straight out just enough to clear the car, and deposits her face down on the strip of grass there, her feet just touching the road. He gets back into the car, closes the door, and they drive away into the unknown.
The last important question to be asked is why, since most "gang" murders are solved so quickly and easily (since the likelihood of someone leaking information that makes the grapevine increases, as does the likelihood of someone outright ratting on the other upon a falling out), has this high-profile murder gone unsolved for two years with reportedly no evidence nor any leads? It is my contention given all that I’ve learned and observed that the Jovin murder investigation has been, at best, a sterling example of gross incompetence, or, at worst, a giant cover-up by the New Haven police. A year ago one wouldn’t dare speculate about something so sinister as a police cover-up, but given the recent Grand Jury finding that the top cop assigned to the Jovin case, Captain Brian Sullivan, had withheld evidence in another high-profile murder -- a crime for which he was subsequently arrested -- it almost seems obvious (not to mention that Sullivan and another cop active in the investigation, Detective Thomas Trocchio, have been accused by the New Haven Advocate newspaper of withholding evidence in yet another alleged murder).
I think the reason why the Jovin murder has not been solved to date is not because people are not willing to talk, but because the New Haven police have not wanted to listen for fear of looking like they’ve admitted they wasted the last two years desperately trying to make the crime fit someone they labeled a suspect to appease the press and the public. The fact that they have no evidence whatsoever is because all of it is in a car for which no one is looking.
If the police truly want to do the most they can to solve the Jovin murder they should 1) spray luminol on the floors of every stolen car recovered around the time period of the murder to detect the presence of blood, as well as check for the existence of any hair and skin residue, 2) publicize the promised $50,000 reward in local schools and in parts of New Haven and outer lying communities heretofore untouched, via handing out fliers, putting up posters, and running public service ads on radio and television, and 3) ask every arrested criminal or criminal informant if they know or have heard anything about the murder.
The good news is that I think the climate has finally changed. I think several people in the media are finally saying "fool me once…" to the New Haven police. I’m also very encouraged that Yale has hired their own private investigator who will have access to police files. Given all this I truly think Suzanne Jovin’s murder will soon be solved and the Jovin family will finally get the closure they deserve.
- Jeff |
| | Murder Mystery: Who Killed Yale Student Suzanne Jovin? | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (864) | 12/19/2000 11:34:28 PM | | From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell | | | | Re: 12/21/00 - NH Advocate: No Great Shakes
No Great Shakes
By Paul Bass
Published 12/21/00
As public handshakes go, it lacked the historic gravity of Arafat and Rabin in the Rose Garden. But it, too, seemed to promise a new era.
New Haven Police Chief Melvin Wearing shook city cop Keith Wortz's hand as Wortz received a promotion to detective. Just a week earlier Wearing was investigating Wortz for his role as a whistleblower in recent police scandals. The handshake seemed to offer hope that the scandals could lead to reform. So did the the arrest last Friday of Capt. Brian Sullivan for his role in a murder coverup. So did hints in Sullivan's arrest warrant affidavit that the state may look at other cops' roles in the coverup, too.
But as with the Arafat-Rabin handshake, aimed at ushering in a period of Mideast peace, the Wearing-Wortz handshake and Sullivan's arrest glossed over deeper problems plaguing New Haven's police department. The grand jury report that led to Sullivan's arrest exonerated all his colleagues. Sullivan and his chief deputy avoided internal police department charges. And there were few signs that Wearing has started taking seriously allegations of widespread corruption and ineffectiveness.
Wearing and Wortz shook hands at a promotion ceremony last week on the stage of Career High School. Like graduates dressed in their best in front of a hall full of relatives yelping their nicknames, 44 New Haven cops lined up on the evening of Dec. 13 to accept new sergeant and detective badges. They shook the Police Commission chairman's hand. They shook the mayor's hand. Then they shook the chief's hand, posing for official photographs.
It was the kind of evening, one cop noted, that the scandal-wracked department needed. The promotion ceremony came two days after the release of a grand jury report accusing a top city cop of covering up a murder. It came two weeks after the Advocate revealed a coverup of a second apparent killing.
Those promoted paraded in alphabetical order to pick up their badges. Wortz, a detective with a W, came last.
Just one week earlier, Chief Wearing had tried to punish Wortz with an internal investigation into his blowing the whistle on department corruption. The humbling intervention of Mayor John DeStefano quashed Wearing's witchhunt. The mayor announced Wortz would probably receive a commendation, not a punishment, for coming forward.
As Wortz's name was called Wednesday night, the Career High auditorium erupted in the loudest cheers of the night. And yes, Wortz and Wearing shook hands, albeit a bit stiffly.
The symbol was unmistakable: A then-patrolman came forward with evidence of corruption. He says colleagues threatened to beat him up. He earned the wrath of the chief--and emerged with a promotion.
But the grand jury report and the department's continued blasé reactions to allegations of corruption drowned out that symbol with a louder message: Most of the time, you can get away with it. Most of the time, the criminal justice system will make more of an effort to cover its behind than to dig for the truth and insist on consequences.
That message came loudest from the grand jury report. Written by Superior Court Judge Carmen Elisa Espinosa and released Dec. 4, it blasted New Haven chief of detectives Brian Sullivan for allegedly suppressing an interview with an eyewitness to a 1996 murder, then killing the investigation. (Sullivan's attorney insists that Sullivan, who turned himself in to state prosecutors on charges of hindering an investigation and tampering with evidence last Friday, is innocent.) But Espinosa's report takes at face value the excuses of all the other cops connected with the investigation of Philip Cusick's murder, in effect letting them off the hook.
And despite the testimony of 57 witnesses over seven months, she wrote merely an 11-page report. It makes no attempt at divining a motive for the coverup, a key question: Whatever prompted this coverup could have caused cops to mess around with other cases as well. And the report contains no discussion of management problems at the department that allowed the coverup to continue for three years.
New Haven's Board of Police Commissioners was set last week to dig deeper. It planned to bring departmental charges against both Sullivan and his deputy, Sgt. Edward Kendall. But both pre-empted the moves by retiring.
In its warrant application for Sullivan's arrest, though, Dearington's office took a tougher stand on Kendall than did the grand jury report, which exonerated him. Dearington's office's application alleges that Kendall "admitted under oath ... that he was not truthful" about events in original statements to state investigators. It also challenged Kendall's claim that he followed department rules when he retrieved a key tape recording from the property room; "no records could be located indicating the tape was signed out." The application also mentions, in passing, that the state's attorney's office had found "problems" with "300 sexual assault cases"--a stunning revelation that, if even half true, exposes dangerous problems in the police department's detective division.
City government sources say local officials were also considering action against two detectives who took the statement of the Cusick eyewitness, saying they didn't come forward with evidence of corruption. But New Haven State's Attorney Michael Dearington said last week that, "sure as shootin'," those two detectives did come to his office two years ago, after Sullivan stopped the investigation and ordered the tape and transcript of the eyewitness interview locked in a drawer. Dearington says a staff member didn't immediately tell him about the detectives' story. Even when he did learn about it, "we assumed there had to have been a legitimate reason for that order," he says.
Two years later, Wortz showed up at Dearington's office with the same story. By then, Dearington realized more was going on.
New Haven officials last week were looking at whether the two detectives mishandled evidence and therefore merited some punishment, and whether a third cop knew of Sullivan's order to hide the evidence and stop the investigation, but failed to report it to superiors. The idea: Punishing someone other than Sullivan, combined with commending Wortz, could send a message to the rank and file to have the courage to speak up.
The opposite message came a week earlier from Chief Wearing's short-lived internal investigation into whether Keith Wortz violated department rules by speaking publicly about corruption.
And an opposite message emerges from the chief's responses to a flurry of embarrassing revelations about the department.
* When the grand jury began its work, Wearing downplayed the case's significance. He didn't order an internal investigation until after the request for a grand jury and the intercession of Mayor DeStefano. And only when Sullivan personally accused the chief of having quashed the murder investigation did Wearing begin to express outrage and suspend Sullivan and Kendall.
* Wearing continues to downplay an FBI investigation into the arrests of two drug dealers in a 1990 double murder. The FBI concluded that a crooked ex-detective involved in the drug trade set the men up. Other reports have since emerged of cases compromised by the same ex-detective. But Wearing insists the right people went to jail in the double murder. He has resisted calls to reopen that case.
* Similarly, Wearing downplayed recent Advocate stories about two detectives (one of them also involved in the Cusick investigation) leading witnesses to identify suspects. In one case, a detective whispered in the ear of the witness the number of the suspect's photograph. In the other, the detective showed the witness a photo array, with the suspect's picture highlighted in yellow. (See "Numero Dos," "Who You Calling Yellow?" and other stories of recent cop scandals on our Web archive, <www.newhavenadvocate.com/articles/chaoslist.html>.) Rather than criticize the detectives, Wearing criticized the articles because, he maintained, cops caught the right suspects and got convictions in both cases.
* Wearing only reluctantly reopened the investigation of another 1996 death, initially classified as an "accident," that of Michael Tricaso. (See accompanying story.)
Last week, after the grand jury report, Wearing restarted the Cusick investigation. He says his department, working with North Haven detectives (the murder happened in New Haven, but Cusick's body was dumped at the North Haven home of his mother), will look for the man identified as the shooter in the eyewitness report.
Wearing has grown accustomed to the onslaught of criticism of his department--and sees in it a vindication of his performance.
"If the organization weren't as strong as it is, with good leadership, [the grand jury case and newspaper stories] would have torn this department apart," Wearing maintains. "I've got to listen to you guys every day. I've got to talk to my mayor. Then I have to come in and kick ass every day to make sure the job's getting done [on the streets] without beating up on people."
Speculation has grown in the ranks about whether the scandals will chase Wearing into retirement. However, the criticism of the chief's management has never extended to allegations that could push him out of office under the city charter. No one has suggested that Wearing ever broke any laws, sanctioned corruption or otherwise violated the integrity of his office.
The grand jury report may in the end lower, not raise, the heat. Take the reaction of an independent-minded police commissioner, Jonathan Einhorn, who's hardly gun-shy about criticizing other public officials. "After going over umpteen witnesses and the department in detail, [the judge] gave the department a clean bill of health," Einhorn said last week. "If you have a grand jury that went through all that gossip and all the statements, it's a positive statement for the department" that only one cop ended up having his reputation besmirched.
So Wearing says he's here to stay, leaning back in his office chair. He has three more years until he hits the 35-year mark on the job. He intends, he says, to reach it.
newmassmedia.com |
| | Murder Mystery: Who Killed Yale Student Suzanne Jovin? | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2) |
|
| To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (871) | 12/19/2000 11:46:47 PM | | From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell | | | | The mayor announced Wortz would probably receive a commendation, not a punishment, for coming forward.
Detective Keith Wortz is a true American hero. I applaud his promotion to Detective and urge not just New Haven but the state of Connecticut to recognize his courage in exposing police corruption.
- Jeff |
| | Murder Mystery: Who Killed Yale Student Suzanne Jovin? | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (872) | 12/21/2000 11:15:05 PM | | From: PatP | | | | | Detective Wortz is indeed a hero - he had the courage to do the right thing. But what I think what is being overlooked here is the fact that there are probably numerous conscientious New Haven (government) employees who are trying to diminish the public's liability here. A lot of "clean-up" can happen behind the scenes. Don't be harsh on long-termers who take early retirement. And for those officials who refuse to acknowledge the misdeeds, there's always the ballot box. (Hopefully New Haven has a fool-proof voting system.) |
| | Murder Mystery: Who Killed Yale Student Suzanne Jovin? | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (865) | 12/23/2000 11:19:17 PM | | From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell | | | | Re: 12/23/00 - NH Register: Ex-cop faces court in coverup
Ex-cop faces court in coverup
JoAnne Viviano, Register Staff December 23, 2000
NEW HAVEN — Standing in front of a Superior Court judge as a defendant was uncharted territory Friday for former city police Capt. Brian Sullivan.
For years, he worked with state prosecutors to put criminals behind bars. Now, he finds himself pitted against the state, facing his own jail term.
Sullivan, 46, who spent 24 years on the force, was arraigned in the Elm Street courthouse Friday before Judge Joan Alexander on charges he hindered an investigation and tampered with evidence in a 1996 murder case.
At the request of Assistant State’s Attorney John F. Blawie, the case was transferred to the Superior Court on Church Street where more serious matters are handled. Both charges against Sullivan are Class D felonies that each carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
Sullivan is accused of failing to give North Haven police details about a possible suspect in the murder of Philip Cusick.
Cusick was shot in New Haven and his body left across from his mother’s North Haven home, authorities said.
Sullivan declined comment, referring questions to his lawyer, Hugh F. Keefe of New Haven.
Keefe said Sullivan maintains his innocence and will take the case to trial unless charges are dismissed before that time which, Keefe maintains, they should be.
Keefe acknowledged the arraignment experience was an awkward one for Sullivan.
"Brian’s a very well known, highly respected and popular police officer," Keefe said. "He’s been in there many times on the other side."
But, he said, Sullivan is a "pro" who "understands the system and what you have to go through before justice is ultimately done."
Sullivan, the former chief of the department’s Investigative Services Unit, turned himself in on the criminal charges on Dec. 15, the same day his retirement, and a $60,600 annual pension, were approved.
In light of his retirement, which was effective Dec. 18, the city dropped ethics charges it had filed against him.
Sullivan’s arrest followed a seven-month grand jury investigation that recommended he be charged. The grand juror, Justice Carmen Elisa Espinosa, could not identify a motive.
Investigators claim Sullivan in 1998 shut down the Cusick investigation "per order of the chief’ shortly after his subordinates said witnesses had identified a suspect in the homicide. Police Chief Melvin Wearing and former Police Chief Nicholas Pastore both testified they did not give such an order.
Following Sullivan’s order, Sgt. Edward Kendall, 46, removed a witness’ statement, and a taped interview, from a police property room and placed it in his unlocked drawer, according to an arrest warrant affidavit.
North Haven police didn’t discover the existence of the statement until last January, despite several meetings with Sullivan about the case.
Kendall has not been charged.
His $49,000 retirement pension was also approved last Friday.
©New Haven Register 2000
zwire.com |
| | Murder Mystery: Who Killed Yale Student Suzanne Jovin? | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| |
