Possible Murder Motives#2

[JBean]

Please discuss possible murder motives here and please stay on topic. thanks :)

Thread #1

[JL50ish]

Quote:
After all, Tuba told us that Annie was not in harmony with her marriage.

What does this mean? Did someone say that Annie had some doubts about her upcoming wedding? Annie was Catholic and her fiance (I believe) is Jewish. Perhaps there were some concerns about that. Does anyone know?

[Very Interesting]

What does this mean? Did someone say that Annie had some doubts about her upcoming wedding? Annie was Catholic and her fiance (I believe) is Jewish. Perhaps there were some concerns about that. Does anyone know?

I saw that also, and Tuba has been very close to accurate so far.

I still think there is alot they are not saying about all of it. Another case of WorkPlace Violence scenario just doesnt fly

[JL50ish]

dr dona quote...

I have been a physician for 30 years. And, let me tell you there can be huge control freaks in this field. Some men are OK if another guy is involved but are nuts when the authority figure/MD /reseacher is a woman. I was a Dept. Chair and had to discuss remediation activities with another MD. His face became red/he clinched his fists and came after me.
I RAN for MY LIFE!!! He really wanted to hurt me!!! This individual had major control issue and poor interpersonal relationships with women. Strong women scared the H--- out of him. Anc, I'm not quiet. I don't thing Annie provoked him verbally- it doesn't seem to be her nature. I really agree with the distracted theory- Um- OK- but, I'm in a hurry- got a class to teach.--His interpretation- You think you're better then me you b------- you've have a hot shot class to teach!! Explosion- but, he could have stopped. That's what maturity and true control is about. You can't just get mad and kill people.



I have noticed that some (not all or most) male co-workers, bosses, and subordinates have NO PROBLEM "correcting" women employees about mundane or "non issues" that they would NEVER confront another male employee about. These guys are too imtimidated to confront a male employee (even if warrranted!) out of fear of "I-don't-know-what"....but, they won't think twice about calling some woman "on the carpet" over the most trivial or non-issue. And when the woman points out that issue is a "non-issue" - the guy gets even more angry and verbally abusive.

So, I think that is some of the basis here...but not all. I just don't think a lab tech kills someone over a dirty cage...unless he's absolutely nuts. Maybe she threatened to report his harassing behavior and he had already been warned to stop.

BTW...I don't think that HIS engagement was very legit. He got engaged 18 months ago, and the wedding wasn't going to be until the end of 2011. That just sounds like a phony engagement to get his girlfriend "off his back". Since they weren't in college, there wouldn't really be a good reason to wait that long.

[MLE]

What does this mean? Did someone say that Annie had some doubts about her upcoming wedding? Annie was Catholic and her fiance (I believe) is Jewish. Perhaps there were some concerns about that. Does anyone know?

I think I read somewhere that she had either converted to Judaism or was going to.

By the way, who is Tuba?

[JL50ish]

Another angle...

She's getting married very soon....the wedding is going to be a very expensive affair...his wedding is a long way away and won't be nearly as nice...his fiancee works there, too...perhaps she's heard about Annie's plans and is very jealous of Annie's wedding, Annie's future career, and Annie's fiance's future career....so, she continues to bad mouth Annie to anyone and everyone (hence the bad rumors about Annie)....perhaps she even sabotages Annie on occasions. It wouldn't surprise me since she may have suspected that her fiance thought that Annie was cute or a "good catch" or whatever.

Also...all of Clark's fiancee's talk about "how nice Annie's wedding is going to be" would be annoying the heck out of him...making him feel more inadequate and cheated out what he thinks should be his, too.

[Jersey*Girl]

Video at 4:52 informs us that New Have Police Chief said Annie Le & Raymond Clark never had a romantic relationship. That's a pretty firm statement, so I'm ruling out affair altogether...which I didn't think anyway. I guess anything could change, but I'm sticking with my gut on this.

http://www.comcast.net/video/annie_le_a_break_in_the_case/1267553881

Also, from the article:
Quote
Le's work at the university involved experiments on mice that were part of research into enzymes that could have implications for treatment of cancer, diabetes and muscular dystrophy, while Clark's technician job involved cleaning floors and mouse cages.

New Haven Police Chief James Lewis has called Le's death a case of workplace violence. He would not elaborate except to say reports that the two had a romantic relationship were untrue.
Unquote

[lawlady84]

From the NY Daily News Article:

"Investigators speculate that he criticized her for some additional lapse in protocol. His concern was likely less the animals' welfare than his need to be in charge, if only when it came to mice.

Everything everybody knows about Le suggests she would not seek to put him in his place or somehow demean him.

More likely, she was simply distracted. Her wedding was just five days away. Her mind was no doubt filled with thoughts about her hair, her dress, the guest list. And she was trying to get all her pressing lab work done.

Investigators believe she may have responded to Clark with something like, "Yeah, I'll get to it, thanks. I'm busy now."

A guy such as Clark could have mistaken distracted for dismissive.

And what he took for dismissive may have been harder for him to take from a young, smart, diminutive woman.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/09/18/2009-09-18_murder_ink_a_pen_may_put_creep_in_prison_for_ke eps.html#ixzz0RUmogIWN"


... That is EXACTLY what I was thinking. I could see it happening. Especially given they are the same age -

[gxm]

I've never thought they had a romantic relationship, but I do think that RC was fixated on Annie. Whatever the reason I believe he had singled her out. Strangulation is just too personal. She was fighting back and clawing his chest, he had plenty of time to snap out of it but he made the decision to choke the life out of her.

And, remember, he initiated the meeting that ended in Annie's murder. He was the one who put the wheels in motion for her tragic death.

ETA: In my gut, I believe that the fact that she was pretty and out of his league had a lot to do with the anger he directed at Annie, and he used the mice as an excuse to lash out at her.

[JL50ish]

Yes...who is Tuba? Is that his screenname? I can't find him. I'd like to go and read his posts but can't find him thru advanced search.

[Chanler]

I think I read somewhere that she had either converted to Judaism or was going to.

By the way, who is Tuba?

She converted and, according to friends, was happy in her new faith, and enthusiastic about the wedding.

All the rustlings about secret affairs are based entirely on projections and speculations about what would spark a reasonable person to commit murder. Of course, reasonable people don't strangle their co-workers. Any police investigator would relish having any additional motive in even an unpremeditated murder: They have access to home and work emails, text messages, and computer files; friends' testimony; and phone records. So far, there are no indications that anything romantic or sexual went on between the two in real life and whether something went on in Clark's head is a moot question.

[JL50ish]

I hope he cops a plea, because if so, he'll have to "tell all". I'm sure that his attys are going to tell him that "he's toast". Famous defense lawyer Mickey Sherman recently said that if his DNA is under his fingernails than "it's over...he's guilty." Therefore, it's likely that his attys are going to tell him that no jury is going to acquit him with such evidence against him. And, no one is going to accept some "insanity" defense since he tried to "clean up" the scene and hide the body.

So...if he wants to have any hope to get out of prison before he dies, then he'd better plea and tell all. And, LE will require that he tell all...and no B.S. that she somehow "caused" this.

BTW..... he must be in his cell just tearing his hair out....one day he's a lab tech living a "normal existance" and the next day he flips out and kills a doctoral student and his life is forever changed.

[reeseeva]

Yes...who is Tuba? Is that his screenname? I can't find him. I'd like to go and read his posts but can't find him thru advanced search.

JL50is, Please go to the Forensic Astrology forum, and there you can read back on the threads about what these wonderful Astros do in that forum. Tuba, as well as others are brilliantly accurate.

[JL50ish]

She converted and, according to friends, was happy in her new faith, and enthusiastic about the wedding.

All the rustlings about secret affairs are based entirely on projections and speculations about what would spark a reasonable person to commit murder. Of course, reasonable people don't strangle their co-workers. Any police investigator would relish having any additional motive in even an unpremeditated murder: They have access to home and work emails, text messages, and computer files; friends' testimony; and phone records. So far, there are no indications that anything romantic or sexual went on between the two in real life and whether something went on in Clark's head is a moot question.


According to the synagogue...Annie had not converted. She was studying the religion (likely at the behest of fiance's parents). However, since she would not have converted prior to her wedding, it could be construed that she was going thru the "motions to learn about the religion and be open to conversion - if moved to do so" to silence her in-laws until the wedding was past. I say this because as someone who is very close to the Vietnamese Catholic community, it is very unlikely that such a person would actually go thru the conversion. Vietnamese CAtholics are very strong in their faith because their people have had such tremendous martyrs for the faith...

Annie's family had a Catholic memorial service for her yesterday. Technically, the fiance has no right to go thru with his memorial service or decide her burial since he is not "next of kin." Sure, he can have some kind of service for him and his family, but he can't require that her body/coffin be there. Her parents will decide her final funeral and burial.

But, back to topic....

[puffster]

=Jersey*Girl;4175156]Video at 4:52 informs us that New Have Police Chief said Annie Le & Raymond Clark never had a romantic relationship. That's a pretty firm statement, so I'm ruling out affair altogether...which I didn't think anyway. I guess anything could change, but I'm sticking with my gut on this.

All that really remains for me is whether or not she was sexually assalted, or if there was even an attempt at sexual contact. My feeling is no. Which would mean this is simpler than we all can believe: he got angry and killed her over an argument, at least on the surface, about work. I think it's hard for us to put our arms around this. If there was evidence of sexual assault we would all be familiar with it. It seems to me that whenever a guy kills a woman, the vast majority of the time, it turns out to be preceded by a sex crime. This kind of thing just doesn't happen that often. I think we are BEFUDDLED that there WAS NOT A SEXUAL ASPECT.

[Unconvinced]

Test.

[Waddles]

All that really remains for me is whether or not she was sexually assalted, or if there was even an attempt at sexual contact. My feeling is no. Which would mean this is simpler than we all can believe: he got angry and killed her over an argument, at least on the surface, about work. I think it's hard for us to put our arms around this. If there was evidence of sexual assault we would all be familiar with it. It seems to me that whenever a guy kills a woman, the vast majority of the time, it turns out to be preceded by a sex crime. This kind of thing just doesn't happen that often. I think we are BEFUDDLED that there WAS NOT A SEXUAL ASPECT.

Like you, my feeling is no too but I'm not having a hard time coming to grips with the "simplicity" of it-I've seen or heard of this kind of rage before and especially added the entire set of circumstances surrounding this case, plus he probably also being misogynistic. Still it is a set of complex factors interacting- so not a "simple" thing but clear cut yes I think so.

[Waddles]

Test.


Welcome Unconvinced :)

[Chanler]

According to the synagogue...Annie had not converted. She was studying the religion (likely at the behest of fiance's parents). However, since she would not have converted prior to her wedding, it could be construed that she was going thru the "motions to learn about the religion and be open to conversion - if moved to do so" to silence her in-laws until the wedding was past. I say this because as someone who is very close to the Vietnamese Catholic community, it is very unlikely that such a person would actually go thru the conversion. Vietnamese CAtholics are very strong in their faith because their people have had such tremendous martyrs for the faith...

Annie's family had a Catholic memorial service for her yesterday. Technically, the fiance has no right to go thru with his memorial service or decide her burial since he is not "next of kin." Sure, he can have some kind of service for him and his family, but he can't require that her body/coffin be there. Her parents will decide her final funeral and burial.

But, back to topic....

Thanks, L50ish for your temperate post. I don't know if it's fair to hypothesize that Annie would not complete conversion; she was getting married in a synagogue, something not all Catholic brides would do. They were not also having a Catholic wedding, which I have known to be done. I'm not a Jew (or, for that matter, a Catholic), but I have a few non-Jewish friends who gone through the process (which often isn't completed until after marriage) and, from their descriptions, the process seems more complicated than other "crossovers." One would expect that the parents would hold a Catholic memorial for her; this is their faith. The synagogue will apparently host a memorial service too.

You are certainly right about Vietnamese Catholics suffering greatly for their religion.

[puffster]

And we think we're going to figure out the motive...

NEW HAVEN, Conn. – A Connecticut police chief says authorities may never know the motive for the killing of a Yale University graduate student whose body was found hidden behind a wall.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/ap_on_re_us/us_yale_killing_195 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/ap_on_re_us/us_yale_killing_195)

[Jersey*Girl]

All that really remains for me is whether or not she was sexually assalted, or if there was even an attempt at sexual contact. My feeling is no. Which would mean this is simpler than we all can believe: he got angry and killed her over an argument, at least on the surface, about work. I think it's hard for us to put our arms around this. If there was evidence of sexual assault we would all be familiar with it. It seems to me that whenever a guy kills a woman, the vast majority of the time, it turns out to be preceded by a sex crime. This kind of thing just doesn't happen that often. I think we are BEFUDDLED that there WAS NOT A SEXUAL ASPECT.

I know...seems crazy, huh? Still, though, his statement doesn't say she wasn't sexually assaulted - he only says they never had a romantic affair. For some reason, I keep thinking it was over a colony of mice/pregnant mice and how dirty their habitat was. If it was very dirty, the ammonia would be off the hook I would think, and make them more prone to disease and or death, etc. ... especially when being "test" mice / engineered mice.

[JBean]

Please leave the forensic astrology in the forensic astrology forum.
This is not the place for that discussion nor is it the place to discuss forensic astrologers themselves.

[Jersey*Girl]

With all due respect, I seriously can't see how Annie wouldn't have gone through with her conversion to Judaism. Everything about her pattern in life is worked through. She starts, she conquers, she finishes. If she starts something, it seems to me as though she finishes it. She sets a goal and conquers it. I believe she set out to convert & was bound & determined to convert. She grew up in America, therefore more than likely was used to Americanized ways. I don't think anything about her Vietnamese heritage regarding Catholicism holds 100% true in her situation. She grew up in California, which is the reason I think this. Still, I understand why it may be hard to fathom she'd consider a conversion, but I find it quite normal considering the fact she was immensely in love with her soon to be husband. Everything that I've learned about Annie shows hard work and dedication. I find it hard to believe she'd work so hard to learn something she knew nothing about and have it all be in vain.

[Chanler]

I know...seems crazy, huh? Still, though, his statement doesn't say she wasn't sexually assaulted - he only says they never had a romantic affair. For some reason, I keep thinking it was over a colony of mice/pregnant mice and how dirty their habitat was. If it was very dirty, the ammonia would be off the hook I would think, and make them more prone to disease and or death, etc. ... especially when being "test" mice / engineered mice.

He, Jersey Girl. I think that the police have said that there were no indications of sexual assault; certainly there are no such charges. I think that you're right: Resentment could have been sparked by recurring problems in the lab: It could have either or both ways: Clark and Le could have been felt that the other was not doing something properly. (I work in an office where an executive assistant, now mercifully gone, actually attempted to have a night-time cleanup crew member suspended or fired for not cleaning her coffee equipment every night to specifications.)

From observations of several brides-to-be, I would imagine that Annie Le might have had no patience that day for anything that Raymond Clark had to say.

[JBean]

reminder the topic is:
Possible Murder motives
The topic is not other posters. Discussing other posters is not ok.
thank you.

[Skigirl]

I posted this elsewhere, but it relates to her conversion:

* Her friends have said in comments on YDN that she was converting. Doesn't sound like something she was dabbling with or doing just to temporarily placate his parents.
* There are hints that her family was not pleased with the marriage. Her uncle is quoted in the YDN article "Ten hour days and still smiling" as saying "she seemed hell-bent on getting married."
* Yale's police called in the FBI because they felt there was a chance of inter-state abduction because her family wasn't pleased about the wedding and they theorized it might have been an abduction by a member of her family (this was a side-comment in one of the articles I read today, but I can't remember which one, unfortunately... will edit with link when I refind it). I had been wondering on what grounds they had called in the FBI. That also explains why the FBI bowed out when it ceased to be a missing person case.

All that said, I don't think her conversion/non-conversion or her family's feelings about same are related to her murder, but people here seem interested, so...

[Waddles]

snipped
All that said, I don't think her conversion/non-conversion or her family's feelings about same are related to her murder snipped .

fully agree

[Jersey*Girl]

I posted this elsewhere, but it relates to her conversion:

* Her friends have said in comments on YDN that she was converting. Doesn't sound like something she was dabbling with or doing just to temporarily placate his parents.
* There are hints that her family was not pleased with the marriage. Her uncle is quoted in the YDN article "Ten hour days and still smiling" as saying "she seemed hell-bent on getting married."
* Yale's police called in the FBI because they felt there was a chance of inter-state abduction because her family wasn't pleased about the wedding and they theorized it might have been an abduction by a member of her family (this was a side-comment in one of the articles I read today, but I can't remember which one, unfortunately... will edit with link when I refind it). I had been wondering on what grounds they had called in the FBI. That also explains why the FBI bowed out when it ceased to be a missing person case.

All that said, I don't think her conversion/non-conversion or her family's feelings about same are related to her murder, but people here seem interested, so...

fully agree

Ditto!

[Track292008]

Thanks to all who responded to my post on the earlier thread! I read the first ones, then was gone for the day, so still want to go back over the subsequent pages there.

Couple of thoughts:

I expect Annie was impatient with much that was going on at Yale that day as she was planning on leaving for her wedding soon and her thoughts were undoubtedly on the future. One thing she probably felt she didn't need was an unexpected, unscheduled trip to the animal facility; she may have thought she had everything wrapped up there to be taken care of during her absence. But she was so dutiful and responsible that she went there at the requested time. Very sad, indeed.

I would also like to add that these mice in question were not field mice or mice that might be found in the cellar/basement of a home. Yale had a lot invested in these mice -- in terms of protocols, treatments, medicines, investigators. I expect that the mice had to be analyzed (perhaps dissected) at certain times to determine if these protocols, medicines, treatments, etc., were having their desired effect. Given that, it could be construed as demeaning to say that Raymond Clark "cleaned mice cages" for a living. Not to defend what he is accused of doing to Annie, in any way. But just to encourage a thought or two about the language used in reference to his job which, after all, he had held for four years.

MOO.

[MWright]

Another angle...

She's getting married very soon....the wedding is going to be a very expensive affair...his wedding is a long way away and won't be nearly as nice...his fiancee works there, too...perhaps she's heard about Annie's plans and is very jealous of Annie's wedding, Annie's future career, and Annie's fiance's future career....so, she continues to bad mouth Annie to anyone and everyone (hence the bad rumors about Annie)....perhaps she even sabotages Annie on occasions. It wouldn't surprise me since she may have suspected that her fiance thought that Annie was cute or a "good catch" or whatever.

Also...all of Clark's fiancee's talk about "how nice Annie's wedding is going to be" would be annoying the heck out of him...making him feel more inadequate and cheated out what he thinks should be his, too.


Hmmm...I like this thought angle. I think this murder still boils down to power and rage as many have us have been speculating, but I think it is possible that the jealousy issue, which you're introducing, could partly be the fuel.

We have to remember that JH may have known (or known of) Annie, too. Also she had previously ranted about who Ray doesn't like in the YARC. So there was possibly a lot of cross-talk about work stuff between JH and RC (and the other fam members) at home, and perhaps that included Annie who is more educated, having this dream wedding, etc.... all this stuff that sets Annie apart (higher) than RC and his fam.

[MWright]

I posted this elsewhere, but it relates to her conversion:

* Her friends have said in comments on YDN that she was converting. Doesn't sound like something she was dabbling with or doing just to temporarily placate his parents.
* There are hints that her family was not pleased with the marriage. Her uncle is quoted in the YDN article "Ten hour days and still smiling" as saying "she seemed hell-bent on getting married."
* Yale's police called in the FBI because they felt there was a chance of inter-state abduction because her family wasn't pleased about the wedding and they theorized it might have been an abduction by a member of her family (this was a side-comment in one of the articles I read today, but I can't remember which one, unfortunately... will edit with link when I refind it). I had been wondering on what grounds they had called in the FBI. That also explains why the FBI bowed out when it ceased to be a missing person case.

All that said, I don't think her conversion/non-conversion or her family's feelings about same are related to her murder, but people here seem interested, so...

Re: the FBI (see bolded). Really? I thought they were still involved? One of the news reports said they were at the arrest scene, and I remember them being at the post-arrest conference.

[Skigirl]

Re: the FBI (see bolded). Really? I thought they were still involved? One of the news reports said they were at the arrest scene, and I remember them being at the post-arrest conference.

No - right after her body was found, it was announced that the New Haven Police were taking over the investigation in its entirety because they had jurisdiction.

[Sola.N]

We have to remember that JH may have known (or known of) Annie, too. Also she had previously ranted about who Ray doesn't like in the YARC. So there was possibly a lot of cross-talk about work stuff between JH and RC (and the other fam members) at home, and perhaps that included Annie who is more educated, having this dream wedding, etc.... all this stuff that sets Annie apart (higher) than RC and his fam.

Her department head, Joseph Schlessinger, was quoted in the YDN as saying she was always talking about the wedding. Those of us who've worked with brides-to-be can probably relate. I've worked with women who were about to get married, and yes, as the day gets closer, they are pretty much single-minded about the big day. And we, their co-workers, cut them slack because we know how it is.

http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/university-news/2009/09/11/ten-hours-days-and-still-smiling/

If JH and RC, who are the same age as Le, were having to scrimp and save for a not-as-lavish wedding more than a year away, there could have been some resentment, particularly if she talked about it all the time, as brides-to-be commonly do. People who are already envious often can't see past that to realize it's just because she's excited about her wedding. They may see it as the bride rubbing it in that she has something they don't.

[Labrat]

Her department head, Joseph Schlessinger, was quoted in the YDN as saying she was always talking about the wedding. Those of us who've worked with brides-to-be can probably relate. I've worked with women who were about to get married, and yes, as the day gets closer, they are pretty much single-minded about the big day. And we, their co-workers, cut them slack because we know how it is.

http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/university-news/2009/09/11/ten-hours-days-and-still-smiling/

If JH and RC, who are the same age as Le, were having to scrimp and save for a not-as-lavish wedding more than a year away, there could have been some resentment, particularly if she talked about it all the time, as brides-to-be commonly do. People who are already envious often can't see past that to realize it's just because she's excited about her wedding. They may see it as the bride rubbing it in that she has something they don't.


The thing is, I'm sure the people in her lab knew all about it, but I really think it's unlikely she'd be talking about it inside the animal facility.

[Track292008]

Perhaps Ray Clark's girlfriend/"fiancee" told him she wouldnt move in with him unless/until they were "engaged," so he decided to get "engaged" to her with a wedding date years in the future. The rent on an apartment is surely more manageable if two people are sharing it! Just an idea....

MOO.

[Kat]

I posted this elsewhere, but it relates to her conversion:

* Her friends have said in comments on YDN that she was converting. Doesn't sound like something she was dabbling with or doing just to temporarily placate his parents.
* There are hints that her family was not pleased with the marriage. Her uncle is quoted in the YDN article "Ten hour days and still smiling" as saying "she seemed hell-bent on getting married."
* Yale's police called in the FBI because they felt there was a chance of inter-state abduction because her family wasn't pleased about the wedding and they theorized it might have been an abduction by a member of her family (this was a side-comment in one of the articles I read today, but I can't remember which one, unfortunately... will edit with link when I refind it). I had been wondering on what grounds they had called in the FBI. That also explains why the FBI bowed out when it ceased to be a missing person case.

All that said, I don't think her conversion/non-conversion or her family's feelings about same are related to her murder, but people here seem interested, so...

I agree it's not related to her murder. There is a thread here for the personal side of Annie. I think that that information would be wonderful to post and discuss there because it gives us a rich full picture of who this victim was...in all her glory. RIP Annie.

[Sola.N]

The thing is, I'm sure the people in her lab knew all about it, but I really think it's unlikely she'd be talking about it inside the animal facility.

Is it common for a grad student to have the same one or two animal techs assigned to her project, or would pretty much anyone on the animal tech staff handle her particular mice? I'm wondering if RC was her designated animal tech, in which case she'd have more reason to talk to him. And if she had to make arrangements with someone about what to do with her mice when she was out of town, would it be just one tech or their supervisor or another grad student?

[Labrat]

I know...seems crazy, huh? Still, though, his statement doesn't say she wasn't sexually assaulted - he only says they never had a romantic affair. For some reason, I keep thinking it was over a colony of mice/pregnant mice and how dirty their habitat was. If it was very dirty, the ammonia would be off the hook I would think, and make them more prone to disease and or death, etc. ... especially when being "test" mice / engineered mice.

Extremely dirty cages become very humid inside, the bedding gets wet and the food molds. It is not a pretty sight.

Pups (baby mice) will die of hypothermia if the cage floods. If a cage is without food or water for too long, mice will cannibilize any pups in the cage.

Mice will sometimes fight, especially the males and they can wound each other very badly.

If you do not wean a litter at the correct time, within a week or two all the females will be pregnant. If you are really negligent, you could end up with a LOT of mice in one cage.

Husbandry SOP is 5 adult mice per cage, or one mating pair plus litter per cage. If you do harem mating, you have to take the pregnant females out of the cage before they give birth, because you can't have multiple litters in one cage.

It is sometimes very difficult for the animal techs, because ultimately they are responsible for the mice in the room, but the mice belong to the PI, not the technician, so there can be some tension there.

Good technicians really do have a hard time if students and techs are sloppy in the room. Alternately, it can be maddening to a PI to be assigned a careless animal tech.

I would suspect it was not a regular cage or a food/water issue because he would be responsible for that. It was more likley something to do with specially flagged cages or overcrowding since she would be responsible for that. Animal techs are not expected to do any weaning, that's the responsibility of the lab.

[MLE]

Perhaps Ray Clark's girlfriend/"fiancee" told him she wouldnt move in with him unless/until they were "engaged," so he decided to get "engaged" to her with a wedding date years in the future. The rent on an apartment is surely more manageable if two people are sharing it! Just an idea....

MOO.

Could be. Or even to appease her parents or his parents.

['Ailina]

Forgive me if this question has been asked before and I missed it.

Would Clark keep any kinds of records to show if Le's mice overpopulated, or a similar problem that would hamper Clark doing his job?

My thought is, Le would not have been slack -- she had a flawless reputation in her research.

But since her wedding was only a week away, it seems possible her mice got put on the back burner. Clark was trying to keep his "domain" under control, and Le was "making a mess." Possible?

[Jersey*Girl]

Thank you Labrat...you are invaluable!

[Jersey*Girl]

Extremely dirty cages become very humid inside, the bedding gets wet and the food molds. It is not a pretty sight.

Pups (baby mice) will die of hypothermia if the cage floods. If a cage is without food or water for too long, mice will cannibilize any pups in the cage.

Mice will sometimes fight, especially the males and they can wound each other very badly.

If you do not wean a litter at the correct time, within a week or two all the females will be pregnant. If you are really negligent, you could end up with a LOT of mice in one cage.

Husbandry SOP is 5 adult mice per cage, or one mating pair plus litter per cage. If you do harem mating, you have to take the pregnant females out of the cage before they give birth, because you can't have multiple litters in one cage.

It is sometimes very difficult for the animal techs, because ultimately they are responsible for the mice in the room, but the mice belong to the PI, not the technician, so there can be some tension there.

Good technicians really do have a hard time if students and techs are sloppy in the room. Alternately, it can be maddening to a PI to be assigned a careless animal tech.

I would suspect it was not a regular cage or a food/water issue because he would be responsible for that. It was more likley something to do with specially flagged cages or overcrowding since she would be responsible for that. Animal techs are not expected to do any weaning, that's the responsibility of the lab.

That's exactly what I think. Now, could you kindly explain what happens when the mice are overcrowded and the level of ammonia rises?

[Sola.N]

Thank you Labrat...you are invaluable!

Ain't that the truth! There are several people contributing to these threads who have been a real goldmine of information about how labs work.

[Jersey*Girl]

Ain't that the truth! There are several people contributing to these threads who have been a real goldmine of information about how labs work.

Yep! Tons of intelligent info has been added to these threads thanks to the multitude of scientists, cops, lawyers, and psychiatrists. That's a fact, Jack!

[jjenny]

Thanks to all who responded to my post on the earlier thread! I read the first ones, then was gone for the day, so still want to go back over the subsequent pages there.

Couple of thoughts:

I expect Annie was impatient with much that was going on at Yale that day as she was planning on leaving for her wedding soon and her thoughts were undoubtedly on the future. One thing she probably felt she didn't need was an unexpected, unscheduled trip to the animal facility; she may have thought she had everything wrapped up there to be taken care of during her absence. But she was so dutiful and responsible that she went there at the requested time. Very sad, indeed.

I would also like to add that these mice in question were not field mice or mice that might be found in the cellar/basement of a home. Yale had a lot invested in these mice -- in terms of protocols, treatments, medicines, investigators. I expect that the mice had to be analyzed (perhaps dissected) at certain times to determine if these protocols, medicines, treatments, etc., were having their desired effect. Given that, it could be construed as demeaning to say that Raymond Clark "cleaned mice cages" for a living. Not to defend what he is accused of doing to Annie, in any way. But just to encourage a thought or two about the language used in reference to his job which, after all, he had held for four years.

MOO.

He wouldn't be analyzing the mice to see if treatments had effects. That is the job of people like Annie. His job was to take care of the mice, feed them and clean their cages.

[Labrat]

Is it common for a grad student to have the same one or two animal techs assigned to her project, or would pretty much anyone on the animal tech staff handle her particular mice? I'm wondering if RC was her designated animal tech, in which case she'd have more reason to talk to him. And if she had to make arrangements with someone about what to do with her mice when she was out of town, would it be just one tech or their supervisor or another grad student?

The animal tech would be assigned to the room, not her project specifically. Many times there are multiple PIs with animals in a single room, sometimes just one. I do not share my mouse rooms, but a large room could have 10 or more PI's mice in it. An extremely large room might have 2 animal techs.

He was the tech in her room, but it is entirely possible they had very little contact except when there was a problem.
If the tech is working in my room I don't go in- we'd just get in each other's way. She does the AM room checks and then has other duties in the rest of the facility- transports, autoclaving, etc. The day she does change out, I stay out of the mouse room all day. It's full of dirty cages going out, clean cages going in, etc. If I absolutely have to- I run in during her lunch break.

There are two things going on with research mice. One is husbandry. This is the responsibility of the animal room tech. It includes changing cages, food and water, keeping adequate supplies in the room, sanitizing, flagging sick or injured mice, housing new mouse deliveries, etc. This happens automatically 24/7/365. She would not make arrangements of any sort with the animal room tech for this.

The second thing is her research project itself. This would be breeding to keep the colony going, any genotyping needed, any experiments, medicated water or special diets. This is not the responsibility of the animal room technician. If anything like this needed to be done while she was away, it would be someone from her research lab who would do this.

Animal room techs handle the mice only in their assigned room- they will not go into another room. Some facilities rotate techs so that they have a different room every week. In others the tech can have the same room for a long time.

[Jersey*Girl]

Guess what Labrat, Yale offers this service as part of their Rodent Services department! They handle the weaning, colonization and everything! It's done as a service to assist investigators and researchers! Holy cow! Could I have been on the right track all along?

[Jersey*Girl]

Labrat, look:

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:ede4si7kNl0J:www.med.yale.edu/yarc/vcs/rodent.htm+Yale+rodent+services&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Quote
The Rodent Service provides comprehensive breeding and colony management services to assist investigators with rodent-based research. The benefits are as follows:
Reduces time and costs for colony management
Provides complete colony records including documentation of lineage
Ensures regulatory compliance
The following services are available at an hourly rate of $77. Total breeding colony management packages or individual services are provided. Individual consultation is provided at no charge.

Weekly (minimum) monitoring of breeding pairs
Twice weekly (minimum) monitoring of harem breeding pairs
Daily monitoring of pregnant females and females with litters
Separation of pregnant females (harem pens)
Weaning
Setup and retirement of breeders
Timed matings
Identification of individual animals
Record keeping and monthly reports
Biopsy for DNA analysis
Euthanasia
The Rodent Service can also provide technical assistance with chronic drug administration, sample collection, minor surgical procedures and other experimental procedures in rodents.
Unquote

[Labrat]

That's exactly what I think. Now, could you kindly explain what happens when the mice are overcrowded and the level of ammonia rises?

It stinks to high heaven for one- it means there are so many mice in the cage the bedding becomes urine soaked- the humidity gets so high that you can see water on the sides of the cage, the mice all have wet fur and will stand up on their hind legs trying to stay dry. The air quality will be bad. Research mice are usually kept in a cage that looks like a plastic shoebox. It has a wire top that holds the food and water bottle, unless there's an automatic watering system. Then there is a filter top over the cage to keep any possible pathogens from getting into the cage. The filter top will keep that humidity inside the cage. I think the temperature can rise, too. Mice need to be kept at a certain humidity and temperature and that cage is not it.

[adnoid]

Please leave the forensic astrology in the forensic astrology forum.
This is not the place for that discussion nor is it the place to discuss forensic astrologers themselves.

There is NO PLACE on WS where it is acceptable to attack other members. Period.

[MLE]

And we think we're going to figure out the motive...

NEW HAVEN, Conn. – A Connecticut police chief says authorities may never know the motive for the killing of a Yale University graduate student whose body was found hidden behind a wall.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/ap_on_re_us/us_yale_killing_195 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/ap_on_re_us/us_yale_killing_195)

Sadly, that's probably true. Even if Clark gives an explanation, even an accurate one, we'll never know for sure if he's being honest.

[Jersey*Girl]

Thank you. Now, did you see my last post? Wow! I'm wondering if, just assuming here, Raymond actually was an animal lover. Maybe he saw a colony that was rapidly enlarging and the habitat was dirty, etc. Maybe he didn't mind the ethics with working with research animals b/c he knows most are genetically engineered but he still "needed" to follow protocol simply b/c he thought they shoud be treated humane. Just say that maybe he confronted Annie (among other investigators or researchers) about keeping the cages clean & stuff wasn't his job with regarding the pregnant mice (or whatever) but he did it anyway b/c he thought it was the right thing to do. Maybe, just for the sake of saying maybe, he got really angry after coming back from his weekend and seeing that somebody may have disregarded his warnings yet again. Maybe he did this stuff pro bono and was tired of not getting his "dues". This is all hypothetical. If he was so anal, if he was so obsessive, if he held solid symptoms of ocd, then I can definitely see how he'd obsess over this. Of course I may think it's trivial b/c I'm not a scientist. I have been in the medical field, though. I have visited the Body Farm before it was even popular. I do know how valuable these techs can be to a research student. You should see how crazed some of the techs get that deal with larvae! And that ain't no joke! I wonder if this is his reason for confronting her?

All in all, it really doesn't matter b/c he still did something horrible and she's no longer alive b/c of his actions...allegedly.

[Jersey*Girl]

There is NO PLACE on WS where it is acceptable to attack other members. Period.

side note...Hi Adnoid! Haven't run into you in awhile. Glad to have some time on WS this past week or 2. Really missed it here, was very busy over the summer. You and JBean are doing a FANTASTIC job! Hugs & smooches...haha!

[Sola.N]

I'm leaning toward a motive just like you described, Jersey*Girl. Maybe RC was unhappy about a LOT of things in his life, some of which he couldn't directly confront or maybe even consciously acknowledge, but this one thing -- IF it happened that way, and we don't yet know -- is something he could point to and say, "Hey, this is wrong and I'm really mad about it!"

And I know this because I see it in myself and in people around me. If I'm really angry about something that's NOT a humanitarian crisis or huge moral issue, I make myself stop and think what's *really* bugging me. Of course, I'm not gonna kill anybody over it or probably even raise my voice, 'cause that's not how I work, but being angry over the "wrong" thing because I'm not able to look at the true source of the problem is just crazy counterproductive.

In a seriously unstable person, this level of misdirected anger can result in all sorts of bad stuff.

[Labrat]

Forgive me if this question has been asked before and I missed it.

Would Clark keep any kinds of records to show if Le's mice overpopulated, or a similar problem that would hamper Clark doing his job?

My thought is, Le would not have been slack -- she had a flawless reputation in her research.

But since her wedding was only a week away, it seems possible her mice got put on the back burner. Clark was trying to keep his "domain" under control, and Le was "making a mess." Possible?


Yes the cages are flagged and a copy goes to the husbandry supervisor. They document everything.

Techs, students and PI's are ALL flawless in their research, but you would be surprised how often they need to be called about overcrowding.

A mouse pregnancy takes only 18-21 days. That's only 3 weeks. If you do pair mating, the female will mate immediately after giving birth. So in another 3 weeks the first litter is ready for weaning, the mom is having the second litter and all her daughters will be knocked up in a week. The average litter is around 8 pups, generally 50/50 M/F. So now you have 5 males, 5 pregnant females and a new litter in the cage. In just 3 more weeks, you will have 9 adult males, 9 pregnant females, and 40 newborn pups. In a shoebox. Just six weeks after you failed to wean that first litter. And that's just one breeding cage. You can have a colossal mess in short order. A good animal tech will step in before it gets this bad.

Now students are very busy. Busy, busy, busy. Exhausted. They have classes, lab meetings, journal club, experiments to do- it goes on and on. Then the animal room is sometimes on the other side of campus- out of sight, out of mind. It is very easy to have time slip away from you. It is not deliberate neglect at all, just too much to do and not enough time.

Larger labs will sometimes have a lab technician who handles all of the breeding, weaning, genotyping for all the PI's mice, but in smaller labs the students take care of their own mice.

['Ailina]

Yes the cages are flagged and a copy goes to the husbandry supervisor. They document everything.

Techs, students and PI's are ALL flawless in their research, but you would be surprised how often they need to be called about overcrowding.

A mouse pregnancy takes only 18-21 days. That's only 3 weeks. If you do pair mating, the female will mate immediately after giving birth. So in another 3 weeks the first litter is ready for weaning, the mom is having the second litter and all her daughters will be knocked up in a week. The average litter is around 8 pups, generally 50/50 M/F. So now you have 5 males, 5 pregnant females and a new litter in the cage. In just 3 more weeks, you will have 9 adult males, 9 pregnant females, and 40 newborn pups. In a shoebox. Just six weeks after you failed to wean that first litter. And that's just one breeding cage. You can have a colossal mess in short order. A good animal tech will step in before it gets this bad.

Now students are very busy. Busy, busy, busy. Exhausted. They have classes, lab meetings, journal club, experiments to do- it goes on and on. Then the animal room is sometimes on the other side of campus- out of sight, out of mind. It is very easy to have time slip away from you. It is not deliberate neglect at all, just too much to do and not enough time.

Larger labs will sometimes have a lab technician who handles all of the breeding, weaning, genotyping for all the PI's mice, but in smaller labs the students take care of their own mice.

Sounds like Clark's job wasn't exactly stress-free?

[Jersey*Girl]

Sounds like Clark's job wasn't exactly stress-free?

bingo

[Labrat]

Guess what Labrat, Yale offers this service as part of their Rodent Services department! They handle the weaning, colonization and everything! It's done as a service to assist investigators and researchers! Holy cow! Could I have been on the right track all along?

Do they charge for it? I believe we have that too, but it's a "special service" and is on the expensive side.

I think Yale may have closed the site to the public.

[Labrat]

Sounds like Clark's job wasn't exactly stress-free?


It would not be for a conscientous tech.

[Sola.N]

http://newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/09/cops_arrest_lab.php

I read earlier today that the arrest warrant will be kept sealed for 14 days, so we may know the answers to some of these questions by the week after next. The cops interviewed a LOT of people, and I'm wondering if details about any conflicts about the mice will be in the warrant.

[Jersey*Girl]

Do they charge for it? I believe we have that too, but it's a "special service" and is on the expensive side.

Yes, $77 an hour. I'm suggesting Raymond did some of this pro bono b/c he felt obligated to, maybe just maybe. Maybe the mice Annie was dealing with were "his" mice/responsibility. She was at Yale seeking 2 higher degrees and getting married in a week. I can easily see how she could have been a day late getting to the mice...not that she ignored them altogether, just maybe slipped her mind for a few. Maybe it was Raymond's responsibility to document some of this and he threatened her with something or other...idk. Maybe she said something back to him and an argument ensued. I mean, think about it Labrat. I always thought if certain protocol wasn;t followed, a person could get fined or something, possibly lose something (grant maybe or something). If a researcher doesn't follow protocol to the "t", aren't they taken off for awhile? idk. All I'm suggesting is hypothetically this could have been the triggering factor for his motive. Even though alot of us think it's trivial, nobody truly knows the environment he worked in with the exception of the very people that worked in his department. His supervisor could have been riding his "arse" about certain things and maybe Raymond was sick of it so started making everyone else adhere to protocol. If he was this nice guy like his friends said on Larry King last night, the type that would give the shirt off his back to somebody, then maybe he did alot of things that simply weren't in his job description. Maybe he was taken advantage of...not by Annie in specific but maybe a multitude of people. Maybe he was sick of it and it helped to become the triggering factor in Annie's demise. Poor Annie probably had no idea what she was walking into. He was probably stewing and stewing and stewing.

[Jersey*Girl]

Do they charge for it? I believe we have that too, but it's a "special service" and is on the expensive side.

I think Yale may have closed the site to the public.

They did close the site to the public. I took snapshots last week, anyway. The link I just supplied is the cached link...did it not work for you? It should work.

See post #49.

[missyjane77]

Sounds like Clark's job wasn't exactly stress-free?

I totally agree. Our animal techs work very hard and aren't paid very much. Politics, being what they are, our techs are 1 hour short of being fulltime, so they don't get benefits.

Perhaps Clark was extremely stressed, feeling under appreciated and Annie was just the straw that broke the camels back.

[MLE]

I doubt this was the motive, but given that Clark clearly has some mental health issues and wore religious jewelry, perhaps a motive such as the one in the case in the link below is possible. It also involved murder and dismemberment.

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_59715.asp

[Jersey*Girl]

I doubt this was the motive, but given that Clark clearly has some mental health issues and wore religious jewelry, perhaps a motive such as the one in the case in the link below is possible. It also involved murder and dismemberment.

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_59715.asp

I don't know whether to thank you or slap you for that link. I started reading it so of course I had to finish reading it. Now I'm afraid to go to bed b/c I just grounded my son for the weekend - I no doubt think he's planning my demise as I type this...:biggrin:

[missyjane77]

I doubt this was the motive, but given that Clark clearly has some mental health issues and wore religious jewelry, perhaps a motive such as the one in the case in the link below is possible. It also involved murder and dismemberment.

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_59715.asp

I actually lived in Chattanooga when that happened. Very sad. It was a shock to most people.

At this point, I think anything is possible and am not ruling out anything as a motive. There may not even be a real motive. He may have just snapped. We may never know, though I hope we do soon.

[MLE]

I don't know whether to thank you or slap you for that link. I started reading it so of course I had to finish reading it. Now I'm afraid to go to bed b/c I just grounded my son for the weekend - I no doubt think he's planning my demise as I type this...:biggrin:

:-)

Trust me. He'll be fine as long as you don't check under his mattress and find his deck of cards, bottle of whiskey, Playboy magazine, box of cookies, and the other goodies guys stash under there for the days they're grounded. ;-) :dance:

[MLE]

I actually lived in Chattanooga when that happened. Very sad. It was a shock to most people.

At this point, I think anything is possible and am not ruling out anything as a motive. There may not even be a real motive. He may have just snapped. We may never know, though I hope we do soon.

Yeah. He probably just snapped. Man, what a waste of two lives over a sudden snap, if that's what happened. In addition to her parents, I really feel badly for his too.

[Very Interesting]

Why did he target and snap on Annie though? Sure a sad situation. Sure havent heard much at all about her Fiance (did I spell that right?) He is probably so devistated and probably wants to personnally take matters in his own hands regarding the suspect

[Jersey*Girl]

Why did he target and snap on Annie though? Sure a sad situation. Sure havent heard much at all about her Fiance (did I spell that right?) He is probably so devistated and probably wants to personnally take matters in his own hands regarding the suspect

Didn't he go to Columbia Law? I thought I read he was going to be a lawyer. Hopefully he'll work for the prosecutors office and help keep criminals like this off the streets.

['Ailina]

Didn't he go to Columbia Law? I thought I read he was going to be a lawyer. Hopefully he'll work for the prosecutors office and help keep criminals like this off the streets.

That would be THE most ironic thing in the whole world....

[PatientOne]

Very interesting info and theorizing from Labrat and Jersey*Girl! It's easy to imagine a clash between two very overworked and stressed people reaching a flashpoint.

Another slightly different way to look at it is if RC was part of Rodent Services, and the arrangement was executed as it's spelled out in the Rodent Services job description Jersey*Girl provided, then wouldn't RC have fewer reasons to find Annie negligent? It seems to me that his responsibilities would've been more extensive than they've been characterized thus far, and hers less. Thus less justification for him to find fault with her.


Some random thoughts -- not sure what they indicate:

Tonight on TV I heard someone suggest the types of scratches (particularly the chest and back scratches) on RC's body may indicate he was straddling her.

Someone here on WS provided a description of the process/consequences of strangulation and in it, it was said that if enough pressure was applied to the neck that not only air but blood flow would be impaired and a victim could begin to lose consciousness in 10 seconds. Annie obviously put up a fierce fight that lasted much longer so I wonder if RC was holding her by the neck, for some of the time at least, merely to help control her movements (just as straddling would do)?

Gruesome to imagine.

[PatientOne]

Annie's fiance is studying physics.

[Very Interesting]

That would be THE most ironic thing in the whole world....

That would be ironic

[Very Interesting]

Annie's fiance is studying physics.


Cant even imagine what he is going through

[Jersey*Girl]

Annie's fiance is studying physics.

Thanks for this. I thought it was law, sorry for the misinfo. I never really gave it much consideration b/c I always considered him a victim, also.

[Tonto]

I'm leaning toward a motive just like you described, Jersey*Girl. Maybe RC was unhappy about a LOT of things in his life, some of which he couldn't directly confront or maybe even consciously acknowledge, but this one thing -- IF it happened that way, and we don't yet know -- is something he could point to and say, "Hey, this is wrong and I'm really mad about it!"

In a seriously unstable person, this level of misdirected anger can result in all sorts of bad stuff.

Click on the Wiki link as an addendum to the quoted paragraph above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection


Also, I think the fact that he went back to work while Annie was dead and hidden just feet away says a great deal about his state of mind. My bet is that this was all about the mice to him. He "saved" them from her. In his view, she didn't care about them but he did. They were only specimen to her, but to him - the "true" animal lover - they were his friends and companions, and she was killing them with every injection. For this reason, I could see him blocking out the act itself and justifying it rather easily in his own warped way. Going to work was simply him doing his duty - maintaining and protecting his mice.

It's quite amazing what the mind can rationalize to protect itself.

[eyes4crime]

Click on the Wiki link as an addendum to the quoted paragraph above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection


Also, I think the fact that he went back to work while Annie was dead and hidden just feet away says a great deal about his state of mind. My bet is that this was all about the mice to him. He "saved" them from her. In his view, she didn't care about them but he did. They were only specimen to her, but to him - the "true" animal lover - they were his friends and companions, and she was killing them with every injection. For this reason, I could see him blocking out the act itself and justifying it rather easily in his own warped way. Going to work was simply him doing his duty - maintaining and protecting his mice.

It's quite amazing what the mind can rationalize to protect itself.

Great comment - projection is certainly a possibility. Here's what I was thinking. Clark strangled Annie - that's a very personal way of ending a person's life. Clark literally controlled Annie's last few minutes of breathing; he alone, decided if she could take one more breath. If Clark placed Annie within the wall and pipes - she was completely blockaded...no more movement for spunky Annie; more control. Seeing that Clark went back to the basement where her body was placed and showed no obvious distress, to me, that is a display of pathology of the worst kind. Some say it would be an extreme manifestation of projection, and others say it's a blurring of reality and fantasy. IMO Clark could very well have lived his controlled life by relying on fantasy such as porn, violent porn - only this time he acted on the fantasy. just a thought and the assumption is he put Annie's body in half within the wall and pipes.

[adnoid]

side note...Hi Adnoid! Haven't run into you in awhile. Glad to have some time on WS this past week or 2. Really missed it here, was very busy over the summer. You and JBean are doing a FANTASTIC job! Hugs & smooches...haha!

I've been around. Truthfully, I wish that people in this world would start treating each other with love and respect, then we'd have nothing to talk about here! Until then, we'll be here.

[MWright]

Great comment - projection is certainly a possibility. Here's what I was thinking. Clark strangled Annie - that's a very personal way of ending a person's life. Clark literally controlled Annie's last few minutes of breathing; he alone, decided if she could take one more breath. If Clark placed Annie within the wall and pipes - she was completely blockaded...no more movement for spunky Annie; more control. Seeing that Clark went back to the basement where her body was placed and showed no obvious distress, to me, that is a display of pathology of the worst kind. Some say it would be an extreme manifestation of projection, and others say it's a blurring of reality and fantasy. IMO Clark could very well have lived his controlled life by relying on fantasy such as porn, violent porn - only this time he acted on the fantasy. just a thought and the assumption is he put Annie's body in half within the wall and pipes.

Hmmm interesting. I was thinking more that his actions (hiding her, going back to work, cleaning up the crime scene) were more about his denial. I think he was trying to block what he did from his mind. He was obviously distraught about it (according to the video surveillance he held his hands in his hands as he walked out of the building after the fire alarm). I wonder if his going on through life as if nothing happened (e.g., the sunday baseball game) was about putting all this behind him, not necessarily the M.O. of an accomplished or planful murderer.

[Labrat]

Yes, $77 an hour. I'm suggesting Raymond did some of this pro bono b/c he felt obligated to, maybe just maybe. Maybe the mice Annie was dealing with were "his" mice/responsibility. She was at Yale seeking 2 higher degrees and getting married in a week. I can easily see how she could have been a day late getting to the mice...not that she ignored them altogether, just maybe slipped her mind for a few. Maybe it was Raymond's responsibility to document some of this and he threatened her with something or other...idk. Maybe she said something back to him and an argument ensued. I mean, think about it Labrat. I always thought if certain protocol wasn;t followed, a person could get fined or something, possibly lose something (grant maybe or something). If a researcher doesn't follow protocol to the "t", aren't they taken off for awhile? idk. All I'm suggesting is hypothetically this could have been the triggering factor for his motive. Even though alot of us think it's trivial, nobody truly knows the environment he worked in with the exception of the very people that worked in his department. His supervisor could have been riding his "arse" about certain things and maybe Raymond was sick of it so started making everyone else adhere to protocol. If he was this nice guy like his friends said on Larry King last night, the type that would give the shirt off his back to somebody, then maybe he did alot of things that simply weren't in his job description. Maybe he was taken advantage of...not by Annie in specific but maybe a multitude of people. Maybe he was sick of it and it helped to become the triggering factor in Annie's demise. Poor Annie probably had no idea what she was walking into. He was probably stewing and stewing and stewing.

I am relieved to hear it's $77 an hour. I was thinking about it all the way home and if I found out it was included in regular cage charges, I would be consumed with envy right now- LOL. He would not do it "pro bono" - he would do it and her lab would be billed for the service, but I could see where it could lead to resentment on his part, especially if it happened often. It would be in addition to his regular workload which from what I've seen was probably pretty heavy. I suspect if you pay for the service it is a different person altogether who does only that. A room tech would only do it on an emergency basis. I vaguely remember something like $50 per cage.
I don't think overcrowding alone would get you taken off a protocol. What would happen is if you kept it up- your PI would get phone calls about you and extra bills and probably tell you to knock it off and you'd be embarrassed (or scared, depending on the PI- LOL)

Room techs are always getting ridden by their supervisors- it's a lot of work to be accomplished in a day. There are all sorts of things that crop up, like disposal of empty cages- people working in a room are usually expected to take their empty cages to the dirty room. Sometimes a student will just leave them in big pile on the floor of the room, and the room tech has to clean it up. That used to infuriate me when I was in a shared room and I didn't even have to clean it up. I'd just be mad I had to look at it!

I think what makes it difficult for room techs is that they have a lot of responsibility, but no control.

It's really annoying me that the press is belittling his work. It's not an easy job and is actually extremely important to the success of the research.
I can't help but think of all the animal techs out there seeing their jobs talked about that way. It really is too bad.

[Emma Peel]

quick FYI - WS-ers: If you've been following Haleigh's case you might want to check out the Haleigh threads tonight. Misty's brother in custody. Draining ponds in Satsuma.

['Ailina]

I think what makes it difficult for room techs is that they have a lot of responsibility, but no control.

Ray was in the WRONG JOB, then.

It's really annoying me that the press is belittling his work. It's not an easy job and is actually extremely important to the success of the research.
I can't help but think of all the animal techs out there seeing their jobs talked about that way. It really is too bad.

Yes, I would be offended, too, if this were my line of work and the press were running with a negative description of it.

As far as the Chief was concerned, I'm certain he was only speaking in a condescending way about it to rile Clark. Naturally, the press would repeat and elaborate on this. A disservice to lab techs that sprung from a more specific intent.

[Labrat]

Thank you. Now, did you see my last post? Wow! I'm wondering if, just assuming here, Raymond actually was an animal lover. Maybe he saw a colony that was rapidly enlarging and the habitat was dirty, etc. Maybe he didn't mind the ethics with working with research animals b/c he knows most are genetically engineered but he still "needed" to follow protocol simply b/c he thought they shoud be treated humane. Just say that maybe he confronted Annie (among other investigators or researchers) about keeping the cages clean & stuff wasn't his job with regarding the pregnant mice (or whatever) but he did it anyway b/c he thought it was the right thing to do. Maybe, just for the sake of saying maybe, he got really angry after coming back from his weekend and seeing that somebody may have disregarded his warnings yet again. Maybe he did this stuff pro bono and was tired of not getting his "dues". This is all hypothetical. If he was so anal, if he was so obsessive, if he held solid symptoms of ocd, then I can definitely see how he'd obsess over this. Of course I may think it's trivial b/c I'm not a scientist. I have been in the medical field, though. I have visited the Body Farm before it was even popular. I do know how valuable these techs can be to a research student. You should see how crazed some of the techs get that deal with larvae! And that ain't no joke! I wonder if this is his reason for confronting her?

All in all, it really doesn't matter b/c he still did something horrible and she's no longer alive b/c of his actions...allegedly.

Most of the people who work in this area are animal lovers, they just don't suffer from Bambi complex. It was his job to make sure the proper care was taken of the animals. I flip my wig when I see something I don't like in my rooms!
I don't think it was about the mice, in the sense that he was defending them or anything like that. I think it was about him. I think maybe the problem wasn't that he reprimanded people about things- they are supposed to do that- I think the problem might have been his tone of voice and demeanor. I think he was stressed, she was stressed- it's just all so tragic.

[Labrat]

Ray was in the WRONG JOB, then.




Yes, some personality types would have a lot more trouble with it than others.

[Emma Peel]

quick FYI - WS-ers: If you've been following Haleigh's case you might want to check out the Haleigh threads tonight. Misty's brother in custody. Draining ponds in Satsuma.

ETA, sorry all.

Also check out Haleigh's rumors thread:

Private Forums, then - "The Parking Lot"


(parital directions are only partially helpful)

[MWright]

Apologies in advance for the long post.... I know there has been speculation about what may have set RC off down the deep end. We now know from the autopsy that the ME indicated she was struck first before strangled (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/09/18/2009-09-18_murder_ink_a_pen_may_put_creep_in_prison_for_ke eps.html).

Here's a possibility. Just think if you were Annie, and you're in an isolated room with a guy who is taller, bigger, stronger and heavier than you. You're having a debate about cage cleanliness, and this bigger person is clearly becoming more angry and intimidating and needing to prove his point as "Lord of the Lab" (term, courtesy of tv's JVM).

So what would you do? You'd turn around and.... leave.

I know it has been reported that Annie was feisty, but we also know she was also very smart. It probably became clear to her that this debate was getting her nowhere. No matter the angle she approached this issue, it was clear he was just NOT going to acquiesce or compromise on the issue.

I would bet that at that at some point she recognized this and turned around to leave and THIS was the action that set RC off. He could no longer press his case with her, and be right; it was interpreted by him as a sign of rejection towards him (his ideas, possible fixations, job status etc), and probably made him feel lower than low. So when she turned around to leave, this action blew his top off like hot lava in a volcano.

So then what did he do?? He lashed out and struck her. And once he struck her, there was no turning back. After all, she could call the police, file a complaint, and then his job would probably be done for.

(He may have been unionized (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/nyregion/19yale.html.). In some unionized jobs, there typically has to be a series of mishaps before someone can be dismissed. However, striking another employee is one thing that cuts through all the red tape. From my experience as an employer, even an unionized employee can lose their job in an instant for striking a fellow employee.)

So then he was enraged, and seeing red, and all this was directed towards her. And then he couldn't let her go, because his livelihood--the only job he knew since high school--would be kaput.

If the strike didn't disable her, then she probably kept trying to get away. And so he kept strangling her until he killed her. In his crazed mind, there was no other choice.

Again, so sorry for the long post. All this to say that I'm betting Annie attempted to leave the escalating situation, and wondering if this was the slight (in RC's mind) that set him off.

[Sola.N]

That's an interesting theory, MWright, and things may have played out that way. I definitely don't think he planned to kill her. Confront her, yes, but not kill her. Her dismissal of him or appearing to scorn him may be the very thing that set him off. Once the physical interaction started, I bet the situation spun out of control very quickly. Her life was brought to a sudden, violent end, and with that, his life as he knew it was over as well.

I agree with something Jersey*Girl was saying on another thread about how this guy looks in his booking photo and at the arraignment: utterly spent. He looks like there's not one bit of life left in him. There's so little left that I don't even know if he would have the wherewithal to kill himself.

['Ailina]

I have envisioned her turning to leave, too, and him grabbing her arm or maybe her hair. Hair was found (what was it...on his clothing? At the scene?).

If he gripped her, she would've struggled to get free, which would've made him tighten his grip, at which point I can see her trying to strike him to get him to let go. One thing leads to another....

[Kat]

(He may have been unionized (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/nyregion/19yale.html.).

Snipped for space and clarity of my answer to this sentence in MWright's post.

I think he was in a Union.

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/09/yale_union_chie_1.php

...Laura Smith, president of UNITE HERE Local 34, spoke on Yale’s campus Thursday afternoon, hours after her union member Raymond Clark III was charged with strangling Yale grad student Annie Le to death and stashing her body in a basement wall...

[QAQC-x]

OK – I finally had to register. As a former QA/QC/compliance sort with a whole lot of IACUC and regulatory agency liaison experience, may I offer a few observations?

First and foremost, LabRat is an incredible source of responsible info. Kudos!

It’s entirely feasible that RC got the job 4+ yrs ago based on his high school grades and a claim that he had worked on a farm. That’s qualification enough for an entry-level animal husbandry position. However, that would only allow entry-level responsibility. To work at Yale or most any other legitimate animal facility, he would have necessarily been placed on a career track.

As a high school graduate it would have taken him a minimum one year of lab animal experience to even qualify to take the AALAS (American Association of Laboratory Animal Science) test for ALAT (1st level) certification. Another ½ year to reach LAT (Lab Animal Technician) level. And at least another ½ year to reach the highest level (LATG). That’s very fast track. Theoretically a HS graduate can achieve the top level in 2 years, but in my experience reality is more like 3-5+ years.

These certification tests require extensive study. No animal husbandry/tech job I know of gives allowance for “book-study” on the job. It must be done outside the 40+ hr work week. Often a “benefit” of having an animal husbandry/tech job in a reputable academic or contract lab is that they will reimburse your educational expenses once you have passed each level of certification. But you are required to fund yourself and do the study on your own. Sure, you get reimbursed, but only after you have proven yourself and can present documentation (which is often delayed for various weird administrative reasons.). Oh – and you will also typically get a decent pay raise when you have new credentials at each level.

My thoroughly unsubstantiated timeline guesstimate is that RC was quite possibly studiously in the midst of achieving the highest level of certification. Or perhaps he had just recently qualified and passed his LATG certification. At that level, a lab animal tech is compelled to learn every single quirk and applicable mandate of the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), NIH OLAW (Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare) Guidelines, USDA requirements AND the overlaying DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) licensing requirements.

Remarkably, nearly every dedicated lab animal guy/gal I’ve known gets through this process eventually and ends up making a very decent income as a highly qualified technician. It’s a close-knit community: they really must have a savvy supervisor and/or mentors who help them keep balance and pace themselves. During the process, the supervisor/mentor knows the student needs to exercise their increasing knowledge of rules and liabilities. At this stage of their career, lab animal techs find themselves on the Safety Committee where they get a lot of say-so and actual physical work to ensure systems are in compliance. They get put in charge of mandatory fire extinguisher checks and learn how to deal cooperatively with the outside vendors who provide the testing. They get grunt work like making sure the stacked cages have wheels that work. They are charged with drawing appropriately randomized samples of lab animal food and learn how to label, document and send it to independent labs to verify the label claimed nutritional value matches real values. They are taught how to report (and follow up) any and every discrepancy.

This diatribe should in no way be considered apologetic for RC. Rather, I hope to introduce a broader outlook and possible preview of his defense. I am appalled and horrified by this crime. If he killed Annie Le in a fit of uncontrolled anger, that action is anathema to every code by which lab animal technicians live their lives…. And practice their profession.

[Waddles]

Hmmm interesting. I was thinking more that his actions (hiding her, going back to work, cleaning up the crime scene) were more about his denial. I think he was trying to block what he did from his mind. He was obviously distraught about it (according to the video surveillance he held his hands in his hands as he walked out of the building after the fire alarm). I wonder if his going on through life as if nothing happened (e.g., the sunday baseball game) was about putting all this behind him, not necessarily the M.O. of an accomplished or planful murderer.

My thoughts exactly-plus he still thought there could be a chance he would get away with it if he acted normal

[rdm64]

Great comment - projection is certainly a possibility. Here's what I was thinking. Clark strangled Annie - that's a very personal way of ending a person's life. Clark literally controlled Annie's last few minutes of breathing; he alone, decided if she could take one more breath. If Clark placed Annie within the wall and pipes - she was completely blockaded...no more movement for spunky Annie; more control. Seeing that Clark went back to the basement where her body was placed and showed no obvious distress, to me, that is a display of pathology of the worst kind. Some say it would be an extreme manifestation of projection, and others say it's a blurring of reality and fantasy. IMO Clark could very well have lived his controlled life by relying on fantasy such as porn, violent porn - only this time he acted on the fantasy. just a thought and the assumption is he put Annie's body in half within the wall and pipes.

wow! you are taking things that all derived from circumstance -- what was at hand, what was available -- and ascribing motive and reason to them. that is causally backwards!

How about the choked or strangled her because that is the simplest, cleanest, easiest quietest and perhaps only method if you are a athletic powerful man in a semi public space with a 90 lb woman committing an unplanned murder.

How about he stuck her in an access opening because that was the only place where her body could be hidden considering the idiocy of already killing her in a moderately trafficked laboratory with security cameras at the entrances!

Really my goodness, it is not as if this guy had her trust and driven her to a remote place and had the choice of stabbing, beheading, choking, shooting or poisoning her! Then you could speculate or ascribe meaning to the mechanism of killing.

[rdm64]

Hmmm interesting. I was thinking more that his actions (hiding her, going back to work, cleaning up the crime scene) were more about his denial. I think he was trying to block what he did from his mind. He was obviously distraught about it (according to the video surveillance he held his hands in his hands as he walked out of the building after the fire alarm). I wonder if his going on through life as if nothing happened (e.g., the sunday baseball game) was about putting all this behind him, not necessarily the M.O. of an accomplished or planful murderer.
Denial? how about the simple rational instinct to cover a crime?

His actions after the crime were like every unprofessional killer -- a mix of rational and irrational acts. hiding the body was one of the more rational acts.

If he had a passport and lots and lots cash it would be rational to flee. but perhaps he read a runaway bride speculation in the papers, and irrationally hoped that investigators might think she had skipped town.

hope in hopeless situations does strange things.

[Gene]

perhaps he read a runaway bride speculation in the papers, and irrationally hoped that investigators might think she had skipped town.

hope in hopeless situations does strange things.

Probably this combined with the fact that he hoped that his attempts to cover his trail (cleaning up, hiding the body) would allow him to get away with it long enough for intense search to blow over, so he could find a more permanent solution.

[Gene]

OK – I finally had to register. As a former QA/QC/compliance sort with a whole lot of IACUC and regulatory agency liaison experience, may I offer a few observations?

First and foremost, LabRat is an incredible source of responsible info. Kudos!

It’s entirely feasible that RC got the job 4+ yrs ago based on his high school grades and a claim that he had worked on a farm. That’s qualification enough for an entry-level animal husbandry position. However, that would only allow entry-level responsibility. To work at Yale or most any other legitimate animal facility, he would have necessarily been placed on a career track.

As a high school graduate it would have taken him a minimum one year of lab animal experience to even qualify to take the AALAS (American Association of Laboratory Animal Science) test for ALAT (1st level) certification. Another ½ year to reach LAT (Lab Animal Technician) level. And at least another ½ year to reach the highest level (LATG). That’s very fast track. Theoretically a HS graduate can achieve the top level in 2 years, but in my experience reality is more like 3-5+ years.

These certification tests require extensive study. No animal husbandry/tech job I know of gives allowance for “book-study” on the job. It must be done outside the 40+ hr work week. Often a “benefit” of having an animal husbandry/tech job in a reputable academic or contract lab is that they will reimburse your educational expenses once you have passed each level of certification. But you are required to fund yourself and do the study on your own. Sure, you get reimbursed, but only after you have proven yourself and can present documentation (which is often delayed for various weird administrative reasons.). Oh – and you will also typically get a decent pay raise when you have new credentials at each level.

My thoroughly unsubstantiated timeline guesstimate is that RC was quite possibly studiously in the midst of achieving the highest level of certification. Or perhaps he had just recently qualified and passed his LATG certification. At that level, a lab animal tech is compelled to learn every single quirk and applicable mandate of the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), NIH OLAW (Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare) Guidelines, USDA requirements AND the overlaying DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) licensing requirements.

Remarkably, nearly every dedicated lab animal guy/gal I’ve known gets through this process eventually and ends up making a very decent income as a highly qualified technician. It’s a close-knit community: they really must have a savvy supervisor and/or mentors who help them keep balance and pace themselves. During the process, the supervisor/mentor knows the student needs to exercise their increasing knowledge of rules and liabilities. At this stage of their career, lab animal techs find themselves on the Safety Committee where they get a lot of say-so and actual physical work to ensure systems are in compliance. They get put in charge of mandatory fire extinguisher checks and learn how to deal cooperatively with the outside vendors who provide the testing. They get grunt work like making sure the stacked cages have wheels that work. They are charged with drawing appropriately randomized samples of lab animal food and learn how to label, document and send it to independent labs to verify the label claimed nutritional value matches real values. They are taught how to report (and follow up) any and every discrepancy.

This diatribe should in no way be considered apologetic for RC. Rather, I hope to introduce a broader outlook and possible preview of his defense. I am appalled and horrified by this crime. If he killed Annie Le in a fit of uncontrolled anger, that action is anathema to every code by which lab animal technicians live their lives…. And practice their profession.


QAQC:

I think that your input is important. Some think (and the police chief stated) that a lab animal tech does custodial work. I think that this misinterpretation is the grounds for the conflict between academics (grad-students, post-docs, faculty) and the animal caretakers.

The academics think that the animal caretakers are glorified cage cleaners. The animal caretakers actually have important responsibility and a certain amount of stress. I believe that this conflict is alive and well at Yale and causes a great deal of conflict between these two groups of people.

One article I read correctly describes the animal caretakers as "Police of the Research Labs". I think that Clark saw himself as a policeman and behaved very much as a new recuit who let the authority of his position go to his head. He felt all powerful, and Annie at the same time may have been very focused on her upcoming wedding. Her thoughts were probably more about getting out of there and less about how to placate an over-zealous lab cop. She may have said something that led Clark to erupt. He may have pushed her and she might have threatened to have him fired. The threat of losing everything he had worked for in an instant may have been enough for him to lose control.

Nevertheless, my guess is that as his defense he will use his love for animals and her "cruel animal abuse". (Note, I do not believe she did anything wrong. I just think she will be painted as an animal abuser in order to garner some support for his crime)

[missyjane77]

Not to be argumentative, but we have animal techs who are not certified. So we shouldn't assume he was or wasn't.

[Jersey*Girl]

Most of the people who work in this area are animal lovers, they just don't suffer from Bambi complex. It was his job to make sure the proper care was taken of the animals. I flip my wig when I see something I don't like in my rooms!
I don't think it was about the mice, in the sense that he was defending them or anything like that. I think it was about him. I think maybe the problem wasn't that he reprimanded people about things- they are supposed to do that- I think the problem might have been his tone of voice and demeanor. I think he was stressed, she was stressed- it's just all so tragic.

This is exactly what I think, have thought since the beginning. See why I kept focussing on Rodent Services now? The only thing I'm trying to get through now is if somebody helped in the cleanup, or helped in the aftermath...ie: change of clothes...or did he really just go home & change, or go buy some new clothes & change on his way back to work. Something just isn't sitting right with me. How does the mess of a murder get cleaned up in only a metter of hours? To further that, how does it go undetected for several days, especially knowing other people are in and out of that area? As I'm aware I'm probably wrong in this sense, it's just an idea that I haven't been able to get by yet.

Labrat, thank you. Hope you have a nice day!

[Jersey*Girl]

QAQC:

I think that your input is important. Some think (and the police chief stated) that a lab animal tech does custodial work. I think that this misinterpretation is the grounds for the conflict between academics (grad-students, post-docs, faculty) and the animal caretakers.

The academics think that the animal caretakers are glorified cage cleaners. The animal caretakers actually have important responsibility and a certain amount of stress. I believe that this conflict is alive and well at Yale and causes a great deal of conflict between these two groups of people.

One article I read correctly describes the animal caretakers as "Police of the Research Labs". I think that Clark saw himself as a policeman and behaved very much as a new recuit who let the authority of his position go to his head. He felt all powerful, and Annie at the same time may have been very focused on her upcoming wedding. Her thoughts were probably more about getting out of there and less about how to placate an over-zealous lab cop. She may have said something that led Clark to erupt. He may have pushed her and she might have threatened to have him fired. The threat of losing everything he had worked for in an instant may have been enough for him to lose control.

Nevertheless, my guess is that as his defense he will use his love for animals and her "cruel animal abuse". (Note, I do not believe she did anything wrong. I just think she will be painted as an animal abuser in order to garner some support for his crime)

Re: bold above - Excellent analogy!

[Jersey*Girl]

wow! you are taking things that all derived from circumstance -- what was at hand, what was available -- and ascribing motive and reason to them. that is causally backwards!

How about the choked or strangled her because that is the simplest, cleanest, easiest quietest and perhaps only method if you are a athletic powerful man in a semi public space with a 90 lb woman committing an unplanned murder.

How about he stuck her in an access opening because that was the only place where her body could be hidden considering the idiocy of already killing her in a moderately trafficked laboratory with security cameras at the entrances!

Really my goodness, it is not as if this guy had her trust and driven her to a remote place and had the choice of stabbing, beheading, choking, shooting or poisoning her! Then you could speculate or ascribe meaning to the mechanism of killing.

My bold above. This is what I believe also. It explains why he was wandering around aimlessly, going into rooms he wasn't normally in before, etc. He probably stashed her in the best place possible for the area they worked in, which brings me to my next question: where was she hidden before she was placed in the wall? I know sometimes a lab may only be utilized by one person, but wouldn't it be brazen to keep her out in the open? As for motive, I'm going with an argument that started over the mice (clean cages or whatever) and it got out of hand...and that's putting it mildly but not meant to be taken as trivial.

[Labrat]

This is exactly what I think, have thought since the beginning. See why I kept focussing on Rodent Services now? The only thing I'm trying to get through now is if somebody helped in the cleanup, or helped in the aftermath...ie: change of clothes...or did he really just go home & change, or go buy some new clothes & change on his way back to work. Something just isn't sitting right with me. How does the mess of a murder get cleaned up in only a metter of hours? To further that, how does it go undetected for several days, especially knowing other people are in and out of that area? As I'm aware I'm probably wrong in this sense, it's just an idea that I haven't been able to get by yet.

Labrat, thank you. Hope you have a nice day!

Thank you- you too! I'm so glad it's Saturday.

The change of clothes doesn't bother me. There would be a locker/shower room for the animal techs. If he kept extra clothes in the locker- for going to the gym for example, he would have no need to go home.

The card swipes did show he was moving around a lot. Every animal room I've ever been in has it's own broom, mop, and mop bucket that permanently stays in the room. I don't think Yale would be different. It's a way to try to prevent the spread of disease- this way if something did break out, it would be contained in that room. Everything the animal tech needs to maintain the room is permanently in the room, including cleaning supplies.

Didn't the card swipe show he was in that room for an hour?

[Jersey*Girl]

OK – I finally had to register. As a former QA/QC/compliance sort with a whole lot of IACUC and regulatory agency liaison experience, may I offer a few observations?

First and foremost, LabRat is an incredible source of responsible info. Kudos!

It’s entirely feasible that RC got the job 4+ yrs ago based on his high school grades and a claim that he had worked on a farm. That’s qualification enough for an entry-level animal husbandry position. However, that would only allow entry-level responsibility. To work at Yale or most any other legitimate animal facility, he would have necessarily been placed on a career track.

As a high school graduate it would have taken him a minimum one year of lab animal experience to even qualify to take the AALAS (American Association of Laboratory Animal Science) test for ALAT (1st level) certification. Another ½ year to reach LAT (Lab Animal Technician) level. And at least another ½ year to reach the highest level (LATG). That’s very fast track. Theoretically a HS graduate can achieve the top level in 2 years, but in my experience reality is more like 3-5+ years.

These certification tests require extensive study. No animal husbandry/tech job I know of gives allowance for “book-study” on the job. It must be done outside the 40+ hr work week. Often a “benefit” of having an animal husbandry/tech job in a reputable academic or contract lab is that they will reimburse your educational expenses once you have passed each level of certification. But you are required to fund yourself and do the study on your own. Sure, you get reimbursed, but only after you have proven yourself and can present documentation (which is often delayed for various weird administrative reasons.). Oh – and you will also typically get a decent pay raise when you have new credentials at each level.

My thoroughly unsubstantiated timeline guesstimate is that RC was quite possibly studiously in the midst of achieving the highest level of certification. Or perhaps he had just recently qualified and passed his LATG certification. At that level, a lab animal tech is compelled to learn every single quirk and applicable mandate of the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), NIH OLAW (Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare) Guidelines, USDA requirements AND the overlaying DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) licensing requirements.

Remarkably, nearly every dedicated lab animal guy/gal I’ve known gets through this process eventually and ends up making a very decent income as a highly qualified technician. It’s a close-knit community: they really must have a savvy supervisor and/or mentors who help them keep balance and pace themselves. During the process, the supervisor/mentor knows the student needs to exercise their increasing knowledge of rules and liabilities. At this stage of their career, lab animal techs find themselves on the Safety Committee where they get a lot of say-so and actual physical work to ensure systems are in compliance. They get put in charge of mandatory fire extinguisher checks and learn how to deal cooperatively with the outside vendors who provide the testing. They get grunt work like making sure the stacked cages have wheels that work. They are charged with drawing appropriately randomized samples of lab animal food and learn how to label, document and send it to independent labs to verify the label claimed nutritional value matches real values. They are taught how to report (and follow up) any and every discrepancy.

This diatribe should in no way be considered apologetic for RC. Rather, I hope to introduce a broader outlook and possible preview of his defense. I am appalled and horrified by this crime. If he killed Annie Le in a fit of uncontrolled anger, that action is anathema to every code by which lab animal technicians live their lives…. And practice their profession.

Absolutely amazing! Welcome to Websleuths, QAQC-x, I'm sure glad you finally joined! To further add to this, I found the "union" payscale for Yale Animal Services. I didn't post it b/c I didn't feel it was important, don't think it was about his pay. I absolutely agree with you on Labrat..would like to add that the other people working in this field have provided much valuable info also. In regards to the belittling of "animal tech" on national television, I myself felt a pang of anger b/c I though that was kind of bunching everyone else that does that job as deemed menial. That's just simply not true. There's another poster on here named Joe that said the chief was only saying that b/c he probably feels hate or anger towards Raymond...the chief saw the dead body and all the evidence, therefore probably despises Raymond and that's why he was putting him down. He probably didn't mean it about everyone in the general sense. B/c I am so analytical, I may have looked too far into the chiefs choice of words. I just think he shouldn't have said that knowing full well Raymond has other members of his family that work there, in the same position, as well as the pther techs at Yale that he's obviously come in contact with during investigative questioning. It didn't sit well with me. I've been in contact with techs at several levels and never once did I feel above them...quite the contrary, I feel as though they were some of my best teachers! That's probably why I can't let go what the chief said.

[Labrat]

Annie's fiance is studying physics.

He's a graduate student in Physics at Columbia University. They were a phenomenally bright pair. Every one who has commented on him to the press has said he's a wonderful guy.

I can't even begin to imagine what he's going through.

[Labrat]

Absolutely amazing! Welcome to Websleuths, QAQC-x, I'm sure glad you finally joined! To further add to this, I found the "union" payscale for Yale Animal Services. I didn't post it b/c I didn't feel it was important, don't think it was about his pay. I absolutely agree with you on Labrat..would like to add that the other people working in this field have provided much valuable info also. In regards to the belittling of "animal tech" on national television, I myself felt a pang of anger b/c I though that was kind of bunching everyone else that does that job as deemed menial. That's just simply not true. There's another poster on here named Joe that said the chief was only saying that b/c he probably feels hate or anger towards Raymond...the chief saw the dead body and all the evidence, therefore probably despises Raymond and that's why he was putting him down. He probably didn't mean it about everyone in the general sense. B/c I am so analytical, I may have looked too far into the chiefs choice of words. I just think he shouldn't have said that knowing full well Raymond has other members of his family that work there, in the same position, as well as the pther techs at Yale that he's obviously come in contact with during investigative questioning. It didn't sit well with me. I've been in contact with techs at several levels and never once did I feel above them...quite the contrary, I feel as though they were some of my best teachers! That's probably why I can't let go what the chief said.

The unfortunate thing is that the press picked up on it and keeps repeating it.

[Jersey*Girl]

Thank you- you too! I'm so glad it's Saturday.

The change of clothes doesn't bother me. There would be a locker/shower room for the animal techs. If he kept extra clothes in the locker- for going to the gym for example, he would have no need to go home.

The card swipes did show he was moving around a lot. Every animal room I've ever been in has it's own broom, mop, and mop bucket that permanently stays in the room. I don't think Yale would be different. It's a way to try to prevent the spread of disease- this way if something did break out, it would be contained in that room. Everything the animal tech needs to maintain the room is permanently in the room, including cleaning supplies.

Didn't the card swipe show he was in that room for an hour?

That brings me to something else that I never posted and now realize I should have. I'll be curious to find if Yale actually does have a regular broom, mop, and bucket used for cleanup. I "accidentally" found that they do not use those old fashioned rag mops that we might see large establishments use. They said it holds disease and since disease is what they research, they don't use them. I just let it go and didn't save it...at least I don't think so. It made me wonder how they actually did their cleanup. For all I know, they still used those big mops even though they say they didn't. What else would they use? A wet-dry vac? A steamer? Wouldn't it be crazy if they used a Swiffer? There's no way they'd use a Swiffer...right?

[Jersey*Girl]

The unfortunate thing is that the press picked up on it and keeps repeating it.

which makes me mad

[Labrat]

wow! you are taking things that all derived from circumstance -- what was at hand, what was available -- and ascribing motive and reason to them. that is causally backwards!

How about the choked or strangled her because that is the simplest, cleanest, easiest quietest and perhaps only method if you are a athletic powerful man in a semi public space with a 90 lb woman committing an unplanned murder.

How about he stuck her in an access opening because that was the only place where her body could be hidden considering the idiocy of already killing her in a moderately trafficked laboratory with security cameras at the entrances!

Really my goodness, it is not as if this guy had her trust and driven her to a remote place and had the choice of stabbing, beheading, choking, shooting or poisoning her! Then you could speculate or ascribe meaning to the mechanism of killing.

I have to agree with you on this- I can't think of a single thing in my mouse rooms that could be used as a weapon.

He wouldn't have been able to take her out of the facility, not even if he went back at night because of the card readers and cameras. There would not be a single place in the facility were she could remain concealed for long, except inside the wall.

[Jersey*Girl]

Apologies in advance for the long post.... I know there has been speculation about what may have set RC off down the deep end. We now know from the autopsy that the ME indicated she was struck first before strangled (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/09/18/2009-09-18_murder_ink_a_pen_may_put_creep_in_prison_for_ke eps.html).

Here's a possibility. Just think if you were Annie, and you're in an isolated room with a guy who is taller, bigger, stronger and heavier than you. You're having a debate about cage cleanliness, and this bigger person is clearly becoming more angry and intimidating and needing to prove his point as "Lord of the Lab" (term, courtesy of tv's JVM).

So what would you do? You'd turn around and.... leave.

I know it has been reported that Annie was feisty, but we also know she was also very smart. It probably became clear to her that this debate was getting her nowhere. No matter the angle she approached this issue, it was clear he was just NOT going to acquiesce or compromise on the issue.

I would bet that at that at some point she recognized this and turned around to leave and THIS was the action that set RC off. He could no longer press his case with her, and be right; it was interpreted by him as a sign of rejection towards him (his ideas, possible fixations, job status etc), and probably made him feel lower than low. So when she turned around to leave, this action blew his top off like hot lava in a volcano.

So then what did he do?? He lashed out and struck her. And once he struck her, there was no turning back. After all, she could call the police, file a complaint, and then his job would probably be done for.

(He may have been unionized (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/nyregion/19yale.html.). In some unionized jobs, there typically has to be a series of mishaps before someone can be dismissed. However, striking another employee is one thing that cuts through all the red tape. From my experience as an employer, even an unionized employee can lose their job in an instant for striking a fellow employee.)

So then he was enraged, and seeing red, and all this was directed towards her. And then he couldn't let her go, because his livelihood--the only job he knew since high school--would be kaput.

If the strike didn't disable her, then she probably kept trying to get away. And so he kept strangling her until he killed her. In his crazed mind, there was no other choice.

Again, so sorry for the long post. All this to say that I'm betting Annie attempted to leave the escalating situation, and wondering if this was the slight (in RC's mind) that set him off.

I can't believe you said this! His job was unionized! Does that automatically mean he was unionized? I'm not sure of the technicalities there. I never posted the payscale...didn't think it was important. Maybe I was wrong. Should I look through my tem files for it?

I have to take my son to football. I'll check back later. If anyone wants it, I'll post it...just have to find it again! Have a nice day everyone!

[Jersey*Girl]

I have to agree with you on this- I can't think of a single thing in my mouse rooms that could be used as a weapon.

He wouldn't have been able to take her out of the facility, not even if he went back at night because of the card readers and cameras. There would not be a single place in the facility were she could remain concealed for long, except inside the wall.

I think they got into a fight that stemmed from an argument. He strangled her. If there was blood, maybe it's b/c he pushed her down and busted her head open...or something like that. I was thrown off b/c puffster said his sources informed she was cut up pretty badly. Then the media mentioned something about dismemberment. I guess we'll never know until it all comes out...if it ever does.

Have to go for real now. Have a ncie day!

[Labrat]

That brings me to something else that I never posted and now realize I should have. I'll be curious to find if Yale actually does have a regular broom, mop, and bucket used for cleanup. I "accidentally" found that they do not use those old fashioned rag mops that we might see large establishments use. They said it holds disease and since disease is what they research, they don't use them. I just let it go and didn't save it...at least I don't think so. It made me wonder how they actually did their cleanup. For all I know, they still used those big mops even though they say they didn't. What else would they use? A wet-dry vac? A steamer? Wouldn't it be crazy if they used a Swiffer? There's no way they'd use a Swiffer...right?

We've got those ratty rag mops, but the floors are mopped with either bleach or quatricide, so I guess we'll be OK. Whatever they have, there'll be one in each room. There are companies that supply animal room equipment- maybe they sell something with a disposable head so you use a new one each time.

[f_stills]

I think they got into a fight that stemmed from an argument. He strangled her. If there was blood, maybe it's b/c he pushed her down and busted her head open...or something like that. I was thrown off b/c puffster said his sources informed she was cut up pretty badly. Then the media mentioned something about dismemberment. I guess we'll never know until it all comes out...if it ever does.

Have to go for real now. Have a ncie day!

News media did say yesterday that she was first hit and then strangled. The blood could have come simply from that first hit and there was no more blood-causing injury done to her after that.

I am still interested in the Fox 61 news report that Clark "took apart her body" and puffster's sources, for the latter I think the exact words used were "mutilation" and "cutting."

You know, details of this case have been leaking left and right. I would think that something as major as dismemberment or other mutilation would have leaked by more than two known sources by now. But who among us could know for sure.

[masscph]

I think they got into a fight that stemmed from an argument. He strangled her. If there was blood, maybe it's b/c he pushed her down and busted her head open...or something like that.

I think that too.

One one side i think that it started with a push/blow that caused her injury, and then he panicked and to avoid the consequences of that, he killed her so she couldnt report him.

I also mostly tend to the belief that it was accidental, that he didnt plan to do it, but something just sparked a snap in him.

On the other hand - the way he has handled the case still wonders me. He looked like he was in serious mental trouble in court, his eyes were moving around like he was watching an internal movie all the time.

But he refuses to speak, and he has handled the case up to the arrest pretty stupid.

If it was all an accident, and things just went terrible wrong, wouldnt a guy like this crack up when he realises the game is over, and spill it out ? i would think so.

If he has absolutely no remorse then they it makes more sense the way he deals with the case now, not saying anything and try to fight his way through the case.

So that worries me abit, that it could that there has been alot more to it from his side, i dont believe there has been anything from Annie's side, but something suggest to me that she had a special place in his world one way or the other.

[masscph]

know i dont come up with anything new or something like that. Im just really wondering about whats going on with this guy Ray and the way he handles this, it makes no sense to me...

[Gene]

Comment #10 at the bottom of this article by Gerald is similar to those expressed here, but gives a slightly different spin saying that the system in general promotes conflict between animal resource departments and scientists. Gerald said:

"Mice that take years to generate, on which scientists careers depend can be killed at the mercy of the animal caretakers who can order them to be killed. "

Can you imagine how Annie may have reacted if Clark threated to kill her mice? Her entire project could have been jeapardized.....how might a highly driven, sleep deprived, about to get married, fiesty person react? How might an highly regimented, known to be violent, control freek respond to that?...like two express trains running head on into each other??..... BAM!!!!!

http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/university-news/2009/09/18/ground-medical-students-react-news-arrest/comments/

[puffster]

I think he's going to plead self-defense, panicked and hid the body. Otherwise he's going to either plead guilty or mental defect, insanity. The evidence seems to be too damning to try to say he had nothing at all to do with her death.

[Labrat]

Comment #10 at the bottom of this article by Gerald is similar to those expressed here, but gives a slightly different spin saying that the system in general promotes conflict between animal resource departments and scientists. Gerald said:

"Mice that take years to generate, on which scientists careers depend can be killed at the mercy of the animal caretakers who can order them to be killed. "

Can you imagine how Annie may have reacted if Clark threated to kill her mice? Her entire project could have been jeapardized.....how might a highly driven, sleep deprived, about to get married, fiesty person react? How might an highly regimented, known to be violent, control freek respond to that?...like two express trains running head on into each other??..... BAM!!!!!





http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/university-news/2009/09/18/ground-medical-students-react-news-arrest/comments/

Eh, sounds like Gerald has an axe to grind. That is patently untrue. My animal tech can do no such thing. There is friction because the animal care department has to enforce the rules, and often the researchers feel the rules are getting in their way. In reality, the animal care staff and the IACUC bend over backwards to accomodate the researchers, but some things are just non-negotiable. We don't make up the rules to annoy people, we are there to enforce federal, state, and institutional guidelines. I constantly have researchers ask me to bend or break the rules to help them out. I will not do it. Some of them get mad- but I am not going to risk my job so they can get something done 2 days sooner than if they did it the correct way.

"As a scientist I can say it is quite stressful to have every single procedure second guessed by a person who has no ability to understand what is being done and the purpose and rationale of the work."

This would not be the animal techs- this would be the IACUC and the Veterinarians. You see here- this attitude of Gerald's is part of the very problem he's talking about. Pot, meet kettle.

I am sure most Researchers would love it if there was no oversight of their animal use. Everything is so much easier when there are no rules;)

[PatientOne]

Not important, but it occurs to me that with all the talk about RC cleaning up blood evidence, I wonder if during the struggle, other items in the lab could've been damaged that leaked their contents, thus proving a struggle took place in the room which could help to paint a picture of the final encounter?

I wonder if any mice cages were present, since the meeting's intent was to discuss cleanliness issues? Perhaps some cages were knocked about.

I've also wondered if there's a floor drain in the lab room where the murder took place, especially since it's in the basement.

[songline]

I think he's going to plead self-defense, panicked and hid the body. Otherwise he's going to either plead guilty or mental defect, insanity. The evidence seems to be too damning to try to say he had nothing at all to do with her death.
I really do not know what I myself am thinking with this case.
I am baffled by it...
My sense is that she provoked and he handled something very badly.
But I wonder what the real story is, If there is any temporary insanity ??
I have a feeling she was no walk in the park, that she lite this fire,
a feeling that he snapped for a reason.
Maybe I am just naive...But I do not think so.

[Gene]

Eh, sounds like Gerald has an axe to grind. That is patently untrue. My animal tech can do no such thing. There is friction because the animal care department has to enforce the rules, and often the researchers feel the rules are getting in their way. In reality, the animal care staff and the IACUC bend over backwards to accomodate the researchers, but some things are just non-negotiable. We don't make up the rules to annoy people, we are there to enforce federal, state, and institutional guidelines. I constantly have researchers ask me to bend or break the rules to help them out. I will not do it. Some of them get mad- but I am not going to risk my job so they can get something done 2 days sooner than if they did it the correct way.

"As a scientist I can say it is quite stressful to have every single procedure second guessed by a person who has no ability to understand what is being done and the purpose and rationale of the work."

This would not be the animal techs- this would be the IACUC and the Veterinarians. You see here- this attitude of Gerald's is part of the very problem he's talking about. Pot, meet kettle.

I am sure most Researchers would love it if there was no oversight of their animal use. Everything is so much easier when there are no rules;)

Labrat: I am not in a position to disagree, because I have been out of the area for a while.



But as far as I understand, animal techs report to the the Attending Veterinarian.

Policy The Attending Veterinarian is fully authorized to provide medical care and/or euthanasia to research animals. The Attending Veterinarian is not required to obtain approval from the Principal Investigator or other parties prior to providing treatment or euthanasia to research animals.

This policy pertains to the Attending Veterinarian and any person(s) acting as designee(s) under the authority and/or direction of the Attending Veterinarian.

http://www.bu.edu/research/compliance/oversight-committee/iacuc/policies/authority-of-the-attending-veterinarian.shtml

Now, this is the Policy of BU. Gerald is from Yale and has make a statement which is consistant with this policy. We have heard that Animal Techs are lab police with a great deal of authority over the animals.

[jjenny]

I think he's going to plead self-defense, panicked and hid the body. Otherwise he's going to either plead guilty or mental defect, insanity. The evidence seems to be too damning to try to say he had nothing at all to do with her death.

She was a tiny little girl, all of 90 pound.
What is he, almost six feet tall?
I would like to see him plead self-defense. Somehow I don't think people are going to buy it.

[Skigirl]

On the other hand - the way he has handled the case still wonders me. He looked like he was in serious mental trouble in court, his eyes were moving around like he was watching an internal movie all the time.

But he refuses to speak, and he has handled the case up to the arrest pretty stupid.

If it was all an accident, and things just went terrible wrong, wouldnt a guy like this crack up when he realises the game is over, and spill it out ? i would think so.

I have to respectfully disagree.

I don't think it's crazy for him to stay silent. A public defender friend of mine often says that if her clients would just keep their mouths shut and stay off the internet, it would be near-to-impossible to convict them. In this case, there's a lot of physical evidence (we've been told), so that probably isn't true here, but he can really only make things worse by not following his defense attorneys' advice to keep quiet. And anyone who's watched crime shows on TV knows that when the investigators start interrogating, it doesn't do you any good to continue to speak with them without a lawyer.

Even if he were going to try to work out a plea deal, it's to his advantage to remain silent to leave the investigators with information to want. If he gives them everything they want, he won't have any leverage in a negotiation.

[Labrat]

Labrat: I am not in a position to disagree, because I have been out of the area for a while.



But as far as I understand, animal techs report to the the Attending Veterinarian.

Policy The Attending Veterinarian is fully authorized to provide medical care and/or euthanasia to research animals. The Attending Veterinarian is not required to obtain approval from the Principal Investigator or other parties prior to providing treatment or euthanasia to research animals.

This policy pertains to the Attending Veterinarian and any person(s) acting as designee(s) under the authority and/or direction of the Attending Veterinarian.

http://www.bu.edu/research/compliance/oversight-committee/iacuc/policies/authority-of-the-attending-veterinarian.shtml

Now, this is the Policy of BU. Gerald is from Yale and has make a statement which is consistant with this policy. We have heard that Animal Techs are lab police with a great deal of authority over the animals.

Well, sure that's the policy, it's the policy where I am too, but you have to understand how it works in reality. It would not be the animal tech who made the decision- it would be the Veterinarian in consultation with the PI, although the Vet would have the last word. And it would be a single animal that was in extreme distress. We go to great lengths not to euthanize animals. I would greatly doubt this would happen with mice, it is probably far more likely to happen in large animal.

Gerald makes it sound as though an animal room tech could kill all his mice for no reason at all- that is what I am saying is simply not true.

Yes the animal techs could be seen as lab police- "wear your shoe covers, please take your empty cages to the dirty room, please put a water bottle in the SAC cage, please only open cages in the hood." This is their JOB! Violations like this put every investigator with animals in the facility at risk. They are trained to contain that risk.

You would be simply amazed how many research people think they are above these rules.

My lab tech was an animal room tech for many years. He's told me he was cursed out on a nearly daily basis often times with incredibly foul language and personal insults for making requests such as those above. He had to be asked to be taken out of certain PI's rooms because of the abuse, when he was only doing what his position required of him.

Animal room techs report to their facility supervisor who reports to the veterinarian. They simply would not ever have the authority to make that decision on their own. If a mouse is sick, they flag the cage and a Veterinary
Technician comes to examine it. If the condition is treatable, they treat it. If not they call to tell me that they believe mouse #x should be euthanized, and will I please come look at the mouse and make the decision. The idea is to prevent suffering. No animal care employee would take it into their head to euthanize healthy mice for no good reason.

The only time that would even be a possibility is if the Researcher let their protocol expire and refused to renew it, or transfer the mice to another protocol. Even then, my facility will put the animals on one of their own holding protocols while things are worked out.

I can understand both sides here. I was in research for 18 years before I switched to a position closely related to the animal facility. I will confess that I, too, felt the animal techs were a huge PITA back then. " I just want to get my experiments DONE, for Pete's sake! Why are these fools interfering in my WORK!?" Oh, yes, I have absolutely been there. Now that I have a much better understanding of what they do and why they do it, I am embarrassed by and somewhat ashamed of all the eyerolls and exasperated sighs I was guilty of.

[Sola.N]

I think he's going to plead self-defense, panicked and hid the body. Otherwise he's going to either plead guilty or mental defect, insanity. The evidence seems to be too damning to try to say he had nothing at all to do with her death.

I agree. I think he'll say that they had a verbal confrontation that got physical and then went horribly wrong. And then he freaked out and hid the body.

[Sola.N]

I have to respectfully disagree.

I don't think it's crazy for him to stay silent. A public defender friend of mine often says that if her clients would just keep their mouths shut and stay off the internet, it would be near-to-impossible to convict them. In this case, there's a lot of physical evidence (we've been told), so that probably isn't true here, but he can really only make things worse by not following his defense attorneys' advice to keep quiet. And anyone who's watched crime shows on TV knows that when the investigators start interrogating, it doesn't do you any good to continue to speak with them without a lawyer.

Even if he were going to try to work out a plea deal, it's to his advantage to remain silent to leave the investigators with information to want. If he gives them everything they want, he won't have any leverage in a negotiation.

I totally agree. He's got information they want, and if things played out the way I suspect they did, he wants to make sure he gets manslaughter or murder two instead of being turned into the Hannibal Lecter of Yale. If he's got good counsel, he'll keep his mouth shut until the prosecution lays out their cards.

[Jersey*Girl]

I have to respectfully disagree.

I don't think it's crazy for him to stay silent. A public defender friend of mine often says that if her clients would just keep their mouths shut and stay off the internet, it would be near-to-impossible to convict them. In this case, there's a lot of physical evidence (we've been told), so that probably isn't true here, but he can really only make things worse by not following his defense attorneys' advice to keep quiet. And anyone who's watched crime shows on TV knows that when the investigators start interrogating, it doesn't do you any good to continue to speak with them without a lawyer.

Even if he were going to try to work out a plea deal, it's to his advantage to remain silent to leave the investigators with information to want. If he gives them everything they want, he won't have any leverage in a negotiation.


I totally agree. He's got information they want, and if things played out the way I suspect they did, he wants to make sure he gets manslaughter or murder two instead of being turned into the Hannibal Lecter of Yale. If he's got good counsel, he'll keep his mouth shut until the prosecution lays out their cards.


I agree. I'm hoping, though, that he tells all so that people may learn from him. No matter what he thinks the prosecution will suggest, no matter what he may think the world or the public will say about him, and no matter that he's now compromised his life from what he hoped it could be, I do hope that he tells all so that people can learn from him...parents, police, profilers, coworkers, doctors, employers, etc. (not to be taken out of context...learn from him meaning his case, not him being the teacher). Hopefully he'll just do the right thing and tell the truth. If he tells the truth, and he gets a life sentence, he could still walk in 40 years. Unfortunately, I could never work for a defense team...too many cops in my background. I'd dig as much as I could for the prosecution, just for some reason I don't think this guy's circumstances warrant the dp. People still can't even put together a concrete motive, and we all know that without motive, intent is unproven. I don't think he'll walk, but I'm just about positive he won't get the dp. I personally don't even think he qualifies...even though I want him to.

[debirlfan]

I have envisioned her turning to leave, too, and him grabbing her arm or maybe her hair. Hair was found (what was it...on his clothing? At the scene?).

If he gripped her, she would've struggled to get free, which would've made him tighten his grip, at which point I can see her trying to strike him to get him to let go. One thing leads to another....

More or less what I'm thinking. He got in her face regarding care of the animals or her not following procedures, she was busy, trying to get stuff done before the wedding, felt she didn't have time or just wasn't in the mood for his attitude. Either turned to leave, or possibly pushed past him. Shoving match ensued, (if she shoved him back, then I can see him getting very upset) and it escalated from there.

[miafedup]

Noob here, hello everyone!

I've read many comments that Raymond looked "distraught" leaving the building after the fire alarm was pulled. What is this based on?? His hands on his head?

IMO, this doesn't sound distraught.

It sounds like someone trying to conceal their identity. Which, if he had just commited a murder, he clearly would have every reason to want to do.

[panthera]

I think he's going to plead self-defense, panicked and hid the body. Otherwise he's going to either plead guilty or mental defect, insanity. The evidence seems to be too damning to try to say he had nothing at all to do with her death.
Self-defense when the victim was half his size? And what did she attack him with? It wouldn't surprise me though ~ I've already seen something similar in another trial I followed. :banghead: MOO

[panthera]

Noob here, hello everyone!

I've read many comments that Raymond looked "distraught" leaving the building after the fire alarm was pulled. What is this based on?? His hands on his head?

IMO, this doesn't sound distraught.

It sounds like someone trying to conceal their identity. Which, if he had just commited a murder, he clearly would have every reason to want to do.
Welcome! :seeya: The video isn't clear enough for me to see any emotion. In court though, he looks more worried about his own fate than anything else. MOO

[miafedup]

Welcome! :seeya: The video isn't clear enough for me to see any emotion. In court though, he looks more worried about his own fate than anything else. MOO

Thanks for the welcome!

I agree about his behavior in court. He seemed nervous, not remorseful.

I haven't seen the video of him leaving the building but, if it isn't clear, it's so odd that some are saying he is distraught. I think they are reading too much into it and, again, I can't help but wonder if he is just hiding his identity (not his supposed shame/regret).

[Waddles]

Thanks for the welcome!

I agree about his behavior in court. He seemed nervous, not remorseful.

I haven't seen the video of him leaving the building but, if it isn't clear, it's so odd that some are saying he is distraught. I think they are reading too much into it and, again, I can't help but wonder if he is just hiding his identity (not his supposed shame/regret).

Hi miafedup- Press seemed to infer LE had viewed it and saw him looking distressed/agitated/distraught like something extremely serious had happened -I don't think "distraught" and holding his head etc means he was experiencing shame or regret but rather extreme shock, fear etc and wondering what the hell to do next which I think is perfectly normal for any human being, good or bad

[Waddles]

A surveillance camera captured Clark leaving the building following a fire alarm that he may have set off to give himself an excuse for leaving in the middle of a workday.

The footage is said to show him holding his head in his hands, clearly distraught.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/09/18/2009-09-18_murder_ink_a_pen_may_put_creep_in_prison_for_ke eps.html#ixzz0RaXAbYT5

[JL50ish]

Originally Posted by panthera
In court though, he looks more worried about his own fate than anything else. MOO


I agree! If I was a mind-reader I would say that he was thinking..."What the heck did I do? I killed someone over nothing and now my life is over! What I'd give for a do-over. One minute I had my whole life in front of me and with one quick senseless act, it's now over."

[panthera]

Thanks for the welcome!

I agree about his behavior in court. He seemed nervous, not remorseful.

I haven't seen the video of him leaving the building but, if it isn't clear, it's so odd that some are saying he is distraught. I think they are reading too much into it and, again, I can't help but wonder if he is just hiding his identity (not his supposed shame/regret).
It's from the same type of camera, imo, that captured Annie entering and that wasn't even clear enough to tell for sure what she was carrying. I think by him being able to carry out daily routines, going back to the building to try to retrieve his pen and so forth, then playing his softball game on the day her body was found (knowing LE was closing in), he's not showing much remorse at all. MOO

[panthera]

A surveillance camera captured Clark leaving the building following a fire alarm that he may have set off to give himself an excuse for leaving in the middle of a workday.

The footage is said to show him holding his head in his hands, clearly distraught.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/09/18/2009-09-18_murder_ink_a_pen_may_put_creep_in_prison_for_ke eps.html#ixzz0RaXAbYT5
Well, that's their interpretation. :waitasec: MOO

[Sola.N]

In this picture, he looks like he knows he's doomed:

http://www.yaledailynews.com/media/2009/09/18/clark-arraignment/

[JL50ish]

From observations of several brides-to-be, I would imagine that Annie Le might have had no patience that day for anything that Raymond Clark had to say.

This may be a lot of it...He may have been demanding that she immediately do some time-consuming task and she may have said that she didn't have time....and things began to escalate. Does anyone know if that Tuesday was her last "work day" before the wedding. I had heard somewhere that her family was arriving for the wedding the next day - which suggests that perhaps Tuesday was going to be her last day for awhile (until she returned from honeymoon.)

[miafedup]

Hi miafedup- Press seemed to infer LE had viewed it and saw him looking distressed/agitated/distraught like something extremely serious had happened -I don't think "distraught" and holding his head etc means he was experiencing shame or regret but rather extreme shock, fear etc and wondering what the hell to do next which I think is perfectly normal for any human being, good or bad

And hello to you. :) It's nice to converse with civil people. My experience with message boards has been anything but civil so it truly is nice to meet you all.

Thanks for your link. But Panthera just wrote exactly what I was going to.

What I'm trying to say (not very well) is there might be other explanations for why he was holding his head in his hands other than he was distraught.

A very plausible explanation to me is that he was simply trying to hide his identity from the camera's, especially if he was the one that caused the alarm to go off and was making his escape.

So I would love to know how they are determining he was distraught.

[Waddles]

And hello to you. :) It's nice to converse with civil people. My experience with message boards has been anything but civil so it truly is nice to meet you all.

Thanks for your link. But Panthera just wrote exactly what I was going to.

What I'm trying to say (not very well) is there might be other explanations for why he was holding his head in his hands other than he was distraught.

A very plausible explanation to me is that he was simply trying to hide his identity from the camera's, especially if he was the one that caused the alarm to go off and was making his escape.

So I would love to know how they are determining he was distraught.

Sure, yeah I did understand-I too think it's quite possible he was hiding his face from view but also I can believe anyone would be showing some kind of emotion -even if just that he's realising he stuffed up majorly as regards himself so I imagine he quite possibly looked very distressed or shocked and wondering what to do next to save his own skin. So I don't think by using the word "distraught" they meant he was regretful and remorseful to her but rather distraught he was in major trouble

[Waddles]

so despite the fact that he went around acting normal and cheery like nothing happened in the days after, even knowing all the while her body was down there which I can't even fathom and makes me very sick, I still think it quite likely shock and panic at the situation he had put himself in would have been visible on his face an hour after the murder if cameras were clear enough

[miafedup]

Sure, yeah I did understand-I too think it's quite possible he was hiding his face from view but also I can believe anyone would be showing some kind of emotion -even if just that he's realising he stuffed up majorly as regards himself so I imagine he quite possibly looked very distressed or shocked and wondering what to do next to save his own skin. So I don't think by using the word "distraught" they meant he was regretful and remorseful to her but rather distraught he was in major trouble

Good, we are on the same page! They haven't released that video, right??? I've been googling all day and have had zero luck.

Would love to see what they are interpreting as "distraught". Sobbing, crying, looking nervous, shocked?? Hmmm.

[panthera]

In this picture, he looks like he knows he's doomed:

http://www.yaledailynews.com/media/2009/09/18/clark-arraignment/
I agree.

[panthera]

And hello to you. :) It's nice to converse with civil people. My experience with message boards has been anything but civil so it truly is nice to meet you all.

Thanks for your link. But Panthera just wrote exactly what I was going to.

What I'm trying to say (not very well) is there might be other explanations for why he was holding his head in his hands other than he was distraught.

A very plausible explanation to me is that he was simply trying to hide his identity from the camera's, especially if he was the one that caused the alarm to go off and was making his escape.

So I would love to know how they are determining he was distraught.
What if ~ and this is just a thought ~ he didn't set off the fire alarm, or at least not purposely, and had to exit the building before he'd completed the clean up and wasn't sure if her body was securely hidden? I could see him being very worried, maybe distraught, but more along the lines he could get caught if he didn't get back into the building soon. MOO

[miafedup]

What if ~ and this is just a thought ~ he didn't set off the fire alarm, or at least not purposely, and had to exit the building before he'd completed the clean up and wasn't sure if her body was securely hidden? I could see him being very worried, maybe distraught, but more along the lines he could get caught if he didn't get back into the building soon. MOO

Now that's an intriguing theory!

[Normcar21]

This may be a lot of it...He may have been demanding that she immediately do some time-consuming task and she may have said that she didn't have time....and things began to escalate. Does anyone know if that Tuesday was her last "work day" before the wedding. I had heard somewhere that her family was arriving for the wedding the next day - which suggests that perhaps Tuesday was going to be her last day for awhile (until she returned from honeymoon.)

I am personally leaning towards something of that sort, some confrontation related to RC's "control freak" attitude about lab ediquitte, clean-up, procedure (perhaps intensified by a childish hidden love/hate feeling towards Annie). She was apparently not averse to boldly informing others about her disapproval to various actions that did not please her (i.e.: post #3 in the Annie Le, the Person thread - when rejected from Princeton, her first choice, sent a picture of her butt to the admissions director) PS - I have no personal verification of that action, just the WS post from Skigirl. And all that it suggests to me is that she was not the sort who would remain quiet and walk away in silence if someone tossed a verbal dart or an insult at her. especially the likes of this apparent control freak who probably barked out orders on a regular basis (if reports about his nature are valid, that is).

I'm sure that she was uptight about the very approximate wedding date (according to relatives she was extremely excited about it and it was a continuous priority...a not uncommon thing, of course) and it would not be difficult for me to perceive that some verbal altercation between the two occurred, perhaps RC barking a cleanliness order and Annie responding to the rudeness with a response that may well of set RC off.

IMO only

[Shlock Homes]

It's from the same type of camera, imo, that captured Annie entering and that wasn't even clear enough to tell for sure what she was carrying. I think by him being able to carry out daily routines, going back to the building to try to retrieve his pen and so forth, then playing his softball game on the day her body was found (knowing LE was closing in), he's not showing much remorse at all. MOO

It could also mean he didn't do it.

The video footage of Annie looks like she's carrying a couple of boxes, maybe cages with mice? It doesn't look like she has any text books in her hands.

I'd like to know if there were other people in the basement areas besides Clark and Le. They make it sound like they were the only two down there between the time she last swiped and the time he left for the fire drill. If the place was crawling with students and lab techs, I can't see how he managed to kill a person, clean up the crime scene, and move the body into it's final place without being seen.

When I first heard about the fire alarm, I thought that might have been used as a form of cover, to clear out the building of witnesses to Annie (dead or alive) being moved around. That's how I would interpret that action. Did they say the fire alarm originated from the lab area? Was Clark's card swiped in the area where it was pulled?

When they say he's holding his head as he's seen exiting, does that mean he's covering his ears? I guess whether he looks distraught or not is a matter of interpretation. If he had a hangover from to much drinking the night before, or if he came to work with a bad headache or migraine, I could also see that as a reason for him to be holding his head with the alarm.

[Chanler]

I am personally leaning towards something of that sort, some confrontation related to RC's "control freak" attitude about lab ediquitte, clean-up, procedure (perhaps intensified by a childish hidden love/hate feeling towards Annie). She was apparently not averse to boldly informing others about her disapproval to various actions that did not please her (i.e.: post #3 in the Annie Le, the Person thread - when rejected from Princeton, her first choice, sent a picture of her butt to the admissions director) PS - I have no personal verification of that action, just the WS post from Skigirl. And all that it suggests to me is that she was not the sort who would remain quiet and walk away in silence if someone tossed a verbal dart or an insult at her. especially the likes of this apparent control freak who probably barked out orders on a regular basis (if reports about his nature are valid, that is).

I'm sure that she was uptight about the very approximate wedding date (according to relatives she was extremely excited about it and it was a continuous priority...a not uncommon thing, of course) and it would not be difficult for me to perceive that some verbal altercation between the two occurred, perhaps RC barking a cleanliness order and Annie responding to the rudeness with a response that may well of set RC off.

IMO only

Hi, Normcar21, a great post. I think that you're right on several counts. By numerous account, Annie Le was tenacious and feisty; and heaven knows that bright small-statured women don't like to be bullied. To me, it was a very combustible situation: Raymond Clark was already tightly wound; Annie was thinking about other things, namely the most important day of her. Both had mental deadlines of sorts and clocks were ticking. If he physically blocked her way, I can imagine that she would try to get past him.

[Sola.N]

Here's another theory. Maybe RC was in that posture on the tape as a result of the wounds he'd just received in the struggle. He probably was in some pain, I'm sure he was completely freaked out, and he may have been trying to cover up some of the wounds or blood stains. Here's a quote:

"When he was questioned by the FBI, agents took note of numerous injuries on his body, the source said, including what appeared to be bruises and abrasions on his arms, a mark under his eye, a scratch on his right ear, and a bruise or deep scratch to his chest."

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2009/09/16/news/new_haven/doc4ab0f8c64f569632844012.txt

Maybe he was trying to avoid being around other people until he could get a chance to change clothes (into something clean and possibly more concealing) and to tidy himself up a bit. I don't know if the security cameras are high enough resolution that you could pick out a scratch on someone's ear from the picture, but what I do know about fire drills at large facilities is that people are supposed to gather in the same area so that security can take a headcount. If he looked all messed up after that fight -- and I'm virtually certain he would have -- I bet he was trying to keep anyone from seeing that.

[Kat]

What if ~ and this is just a thought ~ he didn't set off the fire alarm, or at least not purposely, and had to exit the building before he'd completed the clean up and wasn't sure if her body was securely hidden? I could see him being very worried, maybe distraught, but more along the lines he could get caught if he didn't get back into the building soon. MOO

This is what my Husband suggested as well panthera. It is a possibility. :yes:

[Normcar21]

Here's another theory. Maybe RC was in that posture on the tape as a result of the wounds he'd just received in the struggle. He probably was in some pain, I'm sure he was completely freaked out, and he may have been trying to cover up some of the wounds or blood stains. Here's a quote:

"When he was questioned by the FBI, agents took note of numerous injuries on his body, the source said, including what appeared to be bruises and abrasions on his arms, a mark under his eye, a scratch on his right ear, and a bruise or deep scratch to his chest."

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2009/09/16/news/new_haven/doc4ab0f8c64f569632844012.txt

Maybe he was trying to avoid being around other people until he could get a chance to change clothes (into something clean and possibly more concealing) and to tidy himself up a bit. I don't know if the security cameras are high enough resolution that you could pick out a scratch on someone's ear from the picture, but what I do know about fire drills at large facilities is that people are supposed to gather in the same area so that security can take a headcount. If he looked all messed up after that fight -- and I'm virtually certain he would have -- I bet he was trying to keep anyone from seeing that.

I can accept your suggestion more than an idea of "anguish" because this guy seems to have had the internal ability to play baseball with the fellas after the fact and seemingly had no trouble extending the lab control freak idea to hours and days after the crime.

I think that your idea is a distinct possibility, excepting the idea that he was "completely freaked out." I'm sure he was freaked out initially following, but I'd guess that the freak out nature turned into a logical attempt to cover things up, which would have calmed him down a touch, I'd say. It makes sense to me considering what appears to be his controlling nature. He rushed about swiping his card here and there for quite awhile which may indicate an individual who, yes, is somewhat in panic mode, but is also in "think" mode, trying to track and erase any semblance of evidence. An hour or more of this "mode" would surely erase any idea of "anguish" or panic. He had already fully accepted the crime and was now being as "controlled" and "logical" as he could be. Look at this, check out that, deal with this, deal with that, sort of thing.

Hiding a wound would also be a logical, after the fact, thing to do, so I agree with you.

[YellowDog]

I still am inclined to think there is something sexual about this crime. He had scratches on his neck, chest, back, etc. It sounds like he had his shirt off when this happened. Did he have this secret crush on Annie and felt like he must act upon it before the wedding or she would never know how he felt about her. I think he made sexual advances toward her, they got into a struggle and maybe her nose started to bleed on his shirt, he pulled off the shirt and continued his advances and she started clawing at him. He was afraid someone was going to hear them and he was so angry at this point that he lost self control.

[MWright]

It could also mean he didn't do it.

<<snip>>
I'd like to know if there were other people in the basement areas besides Clark and Le. They make it sound like they were the only two down there between the time she last swiped and the time he left for the fire drill. If the place was crawling with students and lab techs, I can't see how he managed to kill a person, clean up the crime scene, and move the body into it's final place without being seen.
<<snip>>


The swipe card evidence show that Clark and Annie were in the same room together. See: http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/yale-annie-le/hc-annie-le-raymond-clark-yale-slaying,0,857789.story

What if ~ and this is just a thought ~ he didn't set off the fire alarm, or at least not purposely, and had to exit the building before he'd completed the clean up and wasn't sure if her body was securely hidden? I could see him being very worried, maybe distraught, but more along the lines he could get caught if he didn't get back into the building soon. MOO

I've been in an office building when the fire alarm has gone off and because I had so much to do, I stayed.

I'm thinking that if he wanted to stay, he probably would have.

Noob here, hello everyone!

I've read many comments that Raymond looked "distraught" leaving the building after the fire alarm was pulled. What is this based on?? His hands on his head?

IMO, this doesn't sound distraught.

It sounds like someone trying to conceal their identity. Which, if he had just commited a murder, he clearly would have every reason to want to do.

An excellent point! I thought about this too!

[missyjane77]

I'd like to know if there were other people in the basement areas besides Clark and Le. They make it sound like they were the only two down there between the time she last swiped and the time he left for the fire drill. If the place was crawling with students and lab techs, I can't see how he managed to kill a person, clean up the crime scene, and move the body into it's final place without being seen.


I think it's very likely he could have killed her and hid her without anyone seeing/hearing anything. Like I've mentioned before, our animal facility has lots of separate rooms that hold the animals. You have to swipe to get into each room. It's not a huge space with animals lined up in rows. Most days when I go check on my animals, I'm the only one in the entire suite (yes, we have suites with 6 animal rooms). So even if there were other people in the animal facility, they still could have been the only ones in that particular room.

[PatientOne]

It's no surprise to anyone that many media outlets do their best to sensationalize crime. In this case, it's not only been sensationalized but romanticized from the start due to the possible Runaway Bride scenario. One of the first articles I read once Annie's body was found was in the New Haven Independent, which stated LE had a suspect and it was a case of "unrequited love". The article has since been updated, with the remark that LE has ruled this out as a motive:

http://newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/09/serious_suspect.php

IMO the newer motive of workplace violence may be an attempt to stem prurient interest in the case -- sex sells, after all. No doubt Yale doesn't like this kind of attention. But if no evidence ends up being found to support a sexual motive, then it must be that RC was the proverbial ticking time bomb employee and Annie was his unfortunate victim.

Still, I think it's beyond noteworthy that RC's only other known involvement in violent behavior is when his HS gf broke up with him.

It could be that since Annie's fiance was out of town (albeit only a couple of hours drive-time away, at most) and she and her fiance were ambitious scientists who may have put career first in many ways (i.e., not spending as much time together as some other couples do), it was easier for RC -- as a young man who's only lived and worked near where he was born, who worked with his gf and other family members, etc. -- to misinterpret or fail to appreciate the personal dynamics of a couple like Annie and her fiance. Their relative distance could've fueled his imagination and hope for something beyond a professional relationship with Annie. If so, I can imagine him being emotionally gutted on the fateful day especially if it was his last contact with her before her marriage, when confronted with the undeniable reality of her committment to someone else.

So, even though I admittedly may be influenced by media who still try to infer a sexual motive (whether overtly or just by illustrating their dryer stories with photos of Annie in cleavage-baring camisoles), I'm still inclined to believe the "unrequited love" motive, regardless of what Yale or the NHPD say.

[miafedup]

It could also mean he didn't do it.

I'd like to know if there were other people in the basement areas besides Clark and Le. They make it sound like they were the only two down there between the time she last swiped and the time he left for the fire drill. If the place was crawling with students and lab techs, I can't see how he managed to kill a person, clean up the crime scene, and move the body into it's final place without being seen.



I thought about this too. A busy Tuesday morning and no one heard/saw anything while a violent murder took place?

However, I did run across this article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/17/earlyshow/main5317185.shtml

A student who worked in the same lab as Annie and Raymond is quoted:
The med student observed to Pinkston that it is "so secluded down there, soundproof, and nobody is ever looking for you, nobody questions when you go into a room for several hours and don't come out."

The "perfect place," Pinkston noted, for a murder.

[miafedup]

I'm starting to lean towards premeditation. I know I'm probably alone in this (!) but his behavior after the alleged murder is raising major flags for me.

The working theory seems to be he is a control freak that just snapped. Annie was also on edge for her upcoming wedding and so, his controlling behavior coupled with her fiestiness made for the perfect storm for muder.

But here's my problem.

Number one, a student who saw Raymond in the lab on the Friday after Annie had gone missing is quoted:

"He appeared very relaxed, very normal," the woman told Pinkston. "I didn't sense any anything different in his behavior from what I'd observed previously."

This concerns me. If this really was some sudden rage attack, why would he be "very relaxed and normal" knowing Annie's body was on the same floor, maybe even just feet away for where they were? I would think someone who had snapped, would be far too concerned of being caught then to go back to the place of the murder. Ever.

Second, the day her body was found he was playing softball. Again, his behavior is descirbed as being unemotional and unconcerned:

Raymond Clark betrayed no emotion as he played shortstop for his team, the Wild Hogs, in a playoff loss Sunday.

The Yale lab tech even impressed the plainclothes cops tailing him.

"We had detectives in the crowd," Lt. John Velleca, head of the New Haven police department's narcotics unit, told the New Haven Independent. "He's actually pretty good."

He called Clark "nondescript" and noted that he didn't interact much with his teammates.

So this makes me wonder if he wasn't a sociopath, with all the detached arrogance that goes along with it.

For reasons only a sociopath can understand, perhaps he deliberately lured Annie to the lab via that text message. Maybe there was no exchange at all, no angry words. When he saw the right moment, say she had her head turned, he attacked. He then set off the alarm, again preplanned, left the building with the others and tried to conceal his identity from the camera's by holding his head in his hands.

He was so confident of his crime, that he went back to the scene of the crime appearing without a care in the world, played softball days later and just went on with his life, thinking Annie's body would never be found.

Maybe Ramond Clark concluded he was too smart to get caught.

[Sola.N]

<snipped>

I've been in an office building when the fire alarm has gone off and because I had so much to do, I stayed.

I'm thinking that if he wanted to stay, he probably would have.

<snipped>



The laws in Connecticut may be different from where I live in Georgia, but around here, if a fire alarm has gone off and anyone is caught staying in the building, the employer gets fined. We've been told in no uncertain terms by our CIO that we're in major trouble if we don't leave the building when we're supposed to. While we're all outside, a crew of people headed by corporate security goes from floor to floor to make sure no one is still in the building.

The more I hear about this lab facility and how you could be murdered in a basement room with nobody hearing a thing, the more grateful I am for the ungodly aggressive security where I work.

[eyes4crime]

It's no surprise to anyone that many media outlets do their best to sensationalize crime. In this case, it's not only been sensationalized but romanticized from the start due to the possible Runaway Bride scenario. One of the first articles I read once Annie's body was found was in the New Haven Independent, which stated LE had a suspect and it was a case of "unrequited love". The article has since been updated, with the remark that LE has ruled this out as a motive:

http://newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/09/serious_suspect.php

IMO the newer motive of workplace violence may be an attempt to stem prurient interest in the case -- sex sells, after all. No doubt Yale doesn't like this kind of attention. But if no evidence ends up being found to support a sexual motive, then it must be that RC was the proverbial ticking time bomb employee and Annie was his unfortunate victim.

Still, I think it's beyond noteworthy that RC's only other known involvement in violent behavior is when his HS gf broke up with him.

It could be that since Annie's fiance was out of town (albeit only a couple of hours drive-time away, at most) and she and her fiance were ambitious scientists who may have put career first in many ways (i.e., not spending as much time together as some other couples do), it was easier for RC -- as a young man who's only lived and worked near where he was born, who worked with his gf and other family members, etc. -- to misinterpret or fail to appreciate the personal dynamics of a couple like Annie and her fiance. Their relative distance could've fueled his imagination and hope for something beyond a professional relationship with Annie. If so, I can imagine him being emotionally gutted on the fateful day especially if it was his last contact with her before her marriage, when confronted with the undeniable reality of her committment to someone else.

So, even though I admittedly may be influenced by media who still try to infer a sexual motive (whether overtly or just by illustrating their dryer stories with photos of Annie in cleavage-baring camisoles), I'm still inclined to believe the "unrequited love" motive, regardless of what Yale or the NHPD say.

Sex sells - brutal violence against women does not! If Annie had been walking through the woods enjoying the beauty of a fall day, brutally murdered, dragged and placed under a fallen branch, the act would have been called what? A sex crime because she was walking alone? Or a brutal, nonsensical murder of a beautiful, self-motivated, and brilliant student/woman? Placing the senseless, brutal murder of Annie in the category of workplace violence is disparaging and serves one purpose...to shift the cognitive senses to a place where the norms of the bell shaped curve prevails, a work environment. Never mind that Annie was a student! Placing it in a category of simmering covert sex, not only places her senseless murder under the bell shaped curve, but adds the ingredients necessary for front page tabloid headlines....and that sells!!! mho

[Columbo]

I still am inclined to think there is something sexual about this crime. He had scratches on his neck, chest, back, etc. It sounds like he had his shirt off when this happened. Did he have this secret crush on Annie and felt like he must act upon it before the wedding or she would never know how he felt about her. I think he made sexual advances toward her, they got into a struggle and maybe her nose started to bleed on his shirt, he pulled off the shirt and continued his advances and she started clawing at him. He was afraid someone was going to hear them and he was so angry at this point that he lost self control.

bolded by me.

Good point, it seems like his shirt would have to be off for him to have scratches on his chest. Unless she managed to reach up under the shirt--would it have been a scrubs suit he was wearing?

[Sola.N]

Good point, it seems like his shirt would have to be off for him to have scratches on his chest. Unless she managed to reach up under the shirt--would it have been a scrubs suit he was wearing?

Maybe joypath can answer this, but it certainly seems like it would be hard to get the "deep scratch" on his chest mentioned in so many news articles through a layer (or two) of clothing. My cats can scratch through clothing, but they have sharp claws that can pierce cloth. A normal person's nails won't do that, as far as I know.

[Skigirl]

The laws in Connecticut may be different from where I live in Georgia, but around here, if a fire alarm has gone off and anyone is caught staying in the building, the employer gets fined. We've been told in no uncertain terms by our CIO that we're in major trouble if we don't leave the building when we're supposed to. While we're all outside, a crew of people headed by corporate security goes from floor to floor to make sure no one is still in the building.

The more I hear about this lab facility and how you could be murdered in a basement room with nobody hearing a thing, the more grateful I am for the ungodly aggressive security where I work.

I don't know about the laws in CT, but in the building where I worked, they put in a new system not very long ago and the siren was ear-piercing -- unbearable -- this horrible high pitched chirping noise. AND a voice recording that said over and over to vacate the building. Since that building was new, I would imagine it had something similar. When our alarm went off, it would look bizarre if you were in the building cleaning or whatever when people started to filter back in after all that noise.

On the other hand, I think only someone with a lot of self control would not behave in an anxious and agitated way under the (alleged) circumstances, so it seems natural to me that he would look restless just a couple hours after the murder. The crime does not imply that the killer was someone who had a lot of self-control.

[Waddles]

Maybe joypath can answer this, but it certainly seems like it would be hard to get the "deep scratch" on his chest mentioned in so many news articles through a layer (or two) of clothing. My cats can scratch through clothing, but they have sharp claws that can pierce cloth. A normal person's nails won't do that, as far as I know.

had scratches and scrapes-with enough force you can leave serious scrapes through a shirt, also in a struggle a shirt lifts up or there are v-necks etc and also he had scratches on his arm, eye and ear etc -I really doubt he had his shirt off

[georgiagirl]

I wonder could she have torn his shirt during the struggle, therefore exposing his bare chest......

Another scenario I have thought about is that there may be been a situation in the past where she did have consensual sex with him like maybe at a workplace event where there may have been alcohol involved and they may have hooked up. RC is certainly not an unattractive guy and if her judgement could have been impaired I think it is plausible....maybe the next day she is freaking out thinking "What have I done? This was a huge mistake!" and decides to act like nothing happened and go out of her way to be very professional with him and hope he does the same. All the while, maybe he wanted something more with her and this built up with him and her strictly professional behavior was a sign of rejection or maybe the meeting was just a chance for him to try and profess his feelings for her and it obviously went terribly wrong.

Either way, I don't believe this was a pre-meditated thing at all. I think something went terribly wrong..

My heart goes out to both of the families involved.

[JL50ish]

I'm still inclined to believe the "unrequited love" motive, regardless of what Yale or the NHPD say.


I agree...just because he may never have disclosed to anyone else his crush on her, doesn't mean that it didn't exist. It is very likely that he would have feared disclosing to ANYONE about his crush on her because his fiancee worked there also.

He may have tried to sexually assault her but she fought him so much and he feared a rape charge, so he killed her before any real DNA type of sex activity could occur. I don't believe that he had sex with her after she was dead. I think once she was dead, his first concern was ....what do I do now, and how do I hide the body and evidence.

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 428

I wonder could she have torn his shirt during the struggle, therefore exposing his bare chest......




I do think this is possible...another reason why he might have needed to hide his clothes. I do think that it's hard for a human to scratch thru a shirt AND get DNA under one's nails thru a shirt...so, I do think his skin was exposed. He may have "some" cat scratches, but some/most/all are from her.

[Sola.N]

Another scenario I have thought about is that there may be been a situation in the past where she did have consensual sex with him like maybe at a workplace event where there may have been alcohol involved and they may have hooked up. RC is certainly not an unattractive guy and if her judgement could have been impaired I think it is plausible....maybe the next day she is freaking out thinking "What have I done? This was a huge mistake!" and decides to act like nothing happened and go out of her way to be very professional with him and hope he does the same. All the while, maybe he wanted something more with her and this built up with him and her strictly professional behavior was a sign of rejection or maybe the meeting was just a chance for him to try and profess his feelings for her and it obviously went terribly wrong.

One of the more explosive workplace situations I've witnessed didn't involve any kind of physical intimacy, even kissing, but a lot of sexual teasing and constant (like a dozen or more a day) racy emails between two of my coworkers. Both were married. When the woman's husband's best friend was hired to work in the same department, she abruptly started pretending like she barely knew the guy she'd been flirting with. Even though he had never been an angry, explosive type before then, her "work boyfriend" completely freaked out, to the point that he had to quit his job or else he knew his conduct would eventually lead to his being fired. Being around her all the time with her pretending that nothing had happened, that they barely knew each other, was more than he could take and stay normal.

A person with less self control and presence of mind than my former coworker might well snap under the same conditions.

[jjenny]

The two were not like co-workers working in the same department, having to spend a lot of time together. Most likely their contact was minimal. Anne's lab was in a different building, and the animal technician would be spending all of his time in the basement. So they were not around each other all the time, far from it.
The two would have minimal contact and only when she would come in to pick her mice.

[kaybee]

The laws in Connecticut may be different from where I live in Georgia, but around here, if a fire alarm has gone off and anyone is caught staying in the building, the employer gets fined. We've been told in no uncertain terms by our CIO that we're in major trouble if we don't leave the building when we're supposed to. While we're all outside, a crew of people headed by corporate security goes from floor to floor to make sure no one is still in the building.

The more I hear about this lab facility and how you could be murdered in a basement room with nobody hearing a thing, the more grateful I am for the ungodly aggressive security where I work.


I agree with you--I worked in pharmaceutical labs in California and Washington State, and if there was an unplanned fire alarm, we were required to exit the building immediately and go to our pre-planned stations and roll call was taken. One time a female employee went back to her office to grab her purse, and a big deal (company wide email) was made that we were to leave the building IMMEDIATELY--NOT to return to offices to collect belongings. There were several employees on the safety committee who were in charge of going through the labs, restrooms and break areas to make sure they were empty. You did not have a choice to stay. However, if there was a planned drill, it was possible to request to stay in the lab, but it had to be approved by your supervisor and safety coordinator. This sounds like an unplanned fire alarm, so my guess is that EVERYONE would have been required to exit the building.

[jjenny]

Maybe alarm was a coincidence that had nothing to do with this. It might be going off frequently, because of all the equipment in the labs, that might trigger it.

[kaybee]

had scratches and scrapes-with enough force you can leave serious scrapes through a shirt, also in a struggle a shirt lifts up or there are v-necks etc and also he had scratches on his arm, eye and ear etc -I really doubt he had his shirt off

This is definitely true--in the car today, my husband had to slam on the brakes, and our dog flew forward from the back seat and hit my arm really hard . When I pulled up my sleeve (because it hurt pretty badly), I had two scratches/bruises on my skin that were weeping/bleeding in a few spots. So it is definitely possible to scratch the skin through clothing!!!

[Sola.N]

This is definitely true--in the car today, my husband had to slam on the brakes, and our dog flew forward from the back seat and hit my arm really hard . When I pulled up my sleeve (because it hurt pretty badly), I had two scratches/bruises on my skin that were weeping/bleeding in a few spots. So it is definitely possible to scratch the skin through clothing!!!

I've had something like that happen with dogs, too. But their claws are more pointed and dense than a human's fingernails, so I'm not sure the same thing would happen from a human.

I guess I could try it on myself, but it would hurt! :chicken:

[kaybee]

Maybe alarm was a coincidence that had nothing to do with this. It might be going off frequently, because of all the equipment in the labs, that might trigger it.


It's possible--in my workplace we did have the fire alarm go off for silly things--like someone using the toaster oven and burning their food, or over microwaving a bag of microwave popcorn. However, the fire department would always arrive for unplanned alarms, and this cost the company thousands and thousands of dollars, so eventually they decided to throw out the toaster and tell people to watch the microwave closely if they were making popcorn. Only one time do I recall the alarm going off for a real lab problem--a chemical reaction had gotten out of control and started burning.

[kaybee]

I've had something like that happen with dogs, too. But their claws are more pointed and dense than a human's fingernails, so I'm not sure the same thing would happen from a human.

I guess I could try it on myself, but it would hurt! :chicken:
LOL, I see what you're saying but agree with you not wanting trying it out on yourself!!!

[jjenny]

It's possible--in my workplace we did have the fire alarm go off for silly things--like someone using the toaster oven and burning their food, or over microwaving a bag of microwave popcorn. However, the fire department would always arrive for unplanned alarms, and this cost the company thousands and thousands of dollars, so eventually they decided to throw out the toaster and tell people to watch the microwave closely if they were making popcorn. Only one time do I recall the alarm going off for a real lab problem--a chemical reaction had gotten out of control and started burning.

Last week the alarm went off for no apparent reason at my job. It's gone off for no apparent reason before. People concentrate on alarm but it could have been a freaky coincidence.

[panthera]

I still am inclined to think there is something sexual about this crime. He had scratches on his neck, chest, back, etc. It sounds like he had his shirt off when this happened. Did he have this secret crush on Annie and felt like he must act upon it before the wedding or she would never know how he felt about her. I think he made sexual advances toward her, they got into a struggle and maybe her nose started to bleed on his shirt, he pulled off the shirt and continued his advances and she started clawing at him. He was afraid someone was going to hear them and he was so angry at this point that he lost self control.
I haven't figured out how he got stratched in areas his shirt should've covered, but the problems I have with an attempted sexual assault are 1) how wouldn't he know someone else could walk in and catch him and 2) how could he take a chance she'd scream and be heard? I'm thinking he'd want to get the crime over with and her body hidden as quickly as possible. MOO

[panthera]

I've had something like that happen with dogs, too. But their claws are more pointed and dense than a human's fingernails, so I'm not sure the same thing would happen from a human.

I guess I could try it on myself, but it would hurt! :chicken:
Did Annie have an engagement ring? Could the diamond have scratched him if she'd turned the ring so the stone was inward? That would be a lot sharper than any fingernails! :) MOO

[panthera]

I thought about this too. A busy Tuesday morning and no one heard/saw anything while a violent murder took place?

However, I did run across this article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/17/earlyshow/main5317185.shtml

A student who worked in the same lab as Annie and Raymond is quoted:
The med student observed to Pinkston that it is "so secluded down there, soundproof, and nobody is ever looking for you, nobody questions when you go into a room for several hours and don't come out."

The "perfect place," Pinkston noted, for a murder.
But still there's a chance someone could walk into any of the rooms, at any time, imo.

[jjenny]

But still there's a chance someone could walk into any of the rooms, at any time, imo.

Well, there is a chance someone could walk in on any crime. There are people committing crimes in broad daylight, in front of witnesses. You can't base anything on that.

[JL50ish]

I agree...but it makes me think that the actual room where the murder took place must have been a room that Clark was very confident no one would come in. From recent reports, it sounds like there are rooms within the lab (maybe a supply room that only he tends to go in or something like that).

Also, the other researchers probably kept regular hours, so he may have been confident that none of those doctoral students would likely come by. And, if this was premeditated, he may have known the others' schedules which would have furthered his confidence that no one would enter.

Also, is it possible to lock any of the door in some of those "inner rooms" from the inside...to prevent others from entering? If one of the rooms was a supply room or even his own "office" or "work room", it's possible that he would be able to lock those rooms when inside.

[YellowDog]

Couldn't he have locked the door after they were both in the same room?

[Sola.N]

I agree...but it makes me think that the actual room where the murder took place must have been a room that Clark was very confident no one would come in. From recent reports, it sounds like there are rooms within the lab (maybe a supply room that only he tends to go in or something like that).

Also, the other researchers probably kept regular hours, so he may have been confident that none of those doctoral students would likely come by. And, if this was premeditated, he may have known the others' schedules which would have furthered his confidence that no one would enter.

Also, is it possible to lock any of the door in some of those "inner rooms" from the inside...to prevent others from entering? If one of the rooms was a supply room or even his own "office" or "work room", it's possible that he would be able to lock those rooms when inside.

I was wondering about this earlier, JL50ish. Have they said exactly what kind of room the crime was supposed to have taken place in? Was it a lab with a bunch of mice cages around? Was it a room she normally went to, that she'd have a reason to visit? If it was a supply room or something like that, what was she doing there?

[Labrat]

But still there's a chance someone could walk into any of the rooms, at any time, imo.

Researchers are only supposed to go into their own mouse rooms. Traffic is contained to prevent disease outbreaks. From the news reports of his movements being tracked by swipe card, it sounds like every room in that facility might have been key card entry only. Those cards can be programmed to permit access to only your room, no others. If that's the case there, it would cut down on the chance of discovery, especially if there were very few people with mice in that room.

[ges79]

Did Annie have an engagement ring? Could the diamond have scratched him if she'd turned the ring so the stone was inward? That would be a lot sharper than any fingernails! :) MOO

I'm wondering if maybe she wore her engagement ring infrequently, especially in the lab because of having to wear gloves during experiments. Maybe one of our "experts" can speak to this. :waitasec:

[Shlock Homes]

The swipe card evidence show that Clark and Annie were in the same room together.

That's what I've understood. But the fact they don't mention other people swipes doesn't prove they were alone. They're building a case (in the media) so that it appears Ray Clark is guilty as charged. I just want to find out if he really did it or didn't. If there's doubt then, he shouldn't be hanged before his trial. They don't even say if other people were seen entering the basement area before the time Annie arrived, and if they all left during the fire alarm.

[Shlock Homes]

I was wondering about this earlier, JL50ish. Have they said exactly what kind of room the crime was supposed to have taken place in? Was it a lab with a bunch of mice cages around? Was it a room she normally went to, that she'd have a reason to visit? If it was a supply room or something like that, what was she doing there?

Have they said what was the last room her card swipe was made? And what time that was?

[Labrat]

That's what I've understood. But the fact they don't mention other people swipes doesn't prove they were alone. They're building a case (in the media) so that it appears Ray Clark is guilty as charged. I just want to find out if he really did it or didn't. If there's doubt then, he shouldn't be hanged before his trial. They don't even say if other people were seen entering the basement area before the time Annie arrived, and if they all left during the fire alarm.

I saw a news report where the police chief said they had interviewed everyone who entered the facility that morning and had gotten voluntary DNA samples.
Of course other people entered before her- all the other animal facility staff would have already been in there. No one had to be seen- it'll all be in the key card records. Because of that, I think there's very little doubt, considering the DNA on the body and the clothes in the ceiling, the green pen, the lie detector test he failed, the fact everyone else gave DNA voluntarily and he waited for a search warrant, that he told police he never saw her that morning when the swipes say differently- that police observed him cleaning up and discovered blood on the cleaning tools. I think this case has the absolute least room for doubt I've ever seen.

[Shlock Homes]

I saw a news report where the police chief said they had interviewed everyone who entered the facility that morning and had gotten voluntary DNA samples.
Of course other people entered before her- all the other animal facility staff would have already been in there. No one had to be seen- it'll all be in the key card records. Because of that, I think there's very little doubt, considering the DNA on the body and the clothes in the ceiling, the green pen, the lie detector test he failed, the fact everyone else gave DNA voluntarily and he waited for a search warrant, that he told police he never saw her that morning when the swipes say differently- that police observed him cleaning up and discovered blood on the cleaning tools. I think this case has the absolute least room for doubt I've ever seen.

It's still really strange with so many people there, nobody witnessed a thing. And he was able to move her body from area to another without being detected. When would he have had time alone down there to move that body from one area to the next if it's crawling with lab researchers?

[MWright]

I saw a news report where the police chief said they had interviewed everyone who entered the facility that morning and had gotten voluntary DNA samples.
Of course other people entered before her- all the other animal facility staff would have already been in there. No one had to be seen- it'll all be in the key card records. Because of that, I think there's very little doubt, considering the DNA on the body and the clothes in the ceiling, the green pen, the lie detector test he failed, the fact everyone else gave DNA voluntarily and he waited for a search warrant, that he told police he never saw her that morning when the swipes say differently- that police observed him cleaning up and discovered blood on the cleaning tools. I think this case has the absolute least room for doubt I've ever seen.

... and her blood (verified by DNA) on RC's shoes, RCs irregular swipe card pattern, RC texting her that morning to come over to meet with him (RC), the "deep" scratches on RC's body, the emails between RC and Le, and oh yeah, another person who works in the building ran into RC with blood on his shirt....

I think on any one point, someone could try to argue for another explanation, but on ALL these points (including Labrat's), taken altogether??? Otherwise known as converging evidence against RC.

[MWright]

A news article talking about possible motive. Similar theory to what many in this thread have proffered... (apologies if this has already been posted)

http://abcnews.go.com/US/annie-le-success-suspect-ray-clark-cleaned-cages/story?id=8618934

Excerpt:
"If Clark committed the crime he is accused of, a criminologist told ABCNews.com his actions might be explained by what sociologists call "relative deprivation."

That psychological mind set can be triggered "when you are measuring your own self worth against others and you come out on the bottom," according to Northeastern University criminologist Jack Levin, who has been following press accounts of the case.

"[Ray Clark] worked in an Ivy League school where most of his co-workers were potentially successful and had advanced degrees and were looking forward to a fulfilling and happy life," said Levin. "He was cleaning cages." ... The psychological need for control is often "underestimated as a motive for murder," according to Levin. ... "We think of control as obsessive compulsion, but another control is regaining a sense of power by squeezing the life out of a happy, successful co-worker," said Levin. "

[JBean]

Have they said what was the last room her card swipe was made? And what time that was?This may help:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Timeline - Updated 9/18/09



Sept. 8th (10:00a) - Annie on video being let into building on Amistad.

- moments later passed through basement lab area
- Annie swipes her way into a separate room of lab (last card swipe for Annie)
- CLARK enters same room short time later
- Clark moves around laboratory entering rooms he normally would not be in.
- Clark swipes into another area -- the place where Le's body eventually found after five days, stuffed into a 2-foot crawl space behind a wall.
- Clark swiped a total of 10 times including after hours
THE ABOVE INFORMATION FROM COMPUTERIZED CARD SWIPES

[JL50ish]

So it does sound like jealousy was the motive...jealous that all these "white coats" would soon be moving on to fabulously paid jobs, while he would be still stuck as some lowly-paid cage cleaner. I would suggest that he targetted her (instead of another doctoral student) because she was small, his age, and perhaps he was attracted sexually to her and there was some annoyance that he knew someone like her would never be interested in somone like him - hence the murder before the wedding.

And, it seems like Nancy Grace was on the right track when she repeatedly questioned experts how Clark fit Le in such a small space. Clark broke her bones in order to fit her in...that's probably why there was more blood than should have been with a strangling.

And, it is believed that Clark set up the (steam?) alarm...probably because the alarm that was activated was in the area that he had recently card swiped.

[YellowDog]

The thing that keeps coming back in my mind is the texting. This would indicate to me that they knew each other on a friendship basis of some kind. The murder seems to have happened not too long after she entered the area in the basement so I'm wondering if it was a pre-planned meeting. Could she have been so enraged over his messages that she immediately started confronting him and perhaps hitting him and he retaliated with full force?

[masscph]

The thing that keeps coming back in my mind is the texting. This would indicate to me that they knew each other on a friendship basis of some kind. The murder seems to have happened not too long after she entered the area in the basement so I'm wondering if it was a pre-planned meeting. Could she have been so enraged over his messages that she immediately started confronting him and perhaps hitting him and he retaliated with full force?

We might never know, but nothing in my world suggest that Annie should have been the confronting part, nor can i imagine her hitting anyone.

The description of how she was fitted into that hole, and the description of how Ray was obsessed by keeping cleanliness in his area, i could see annie coming into the building, maybe not going direct to the mice, then maybe a conversation about the importance of it, and then Ray exploding in rage. He was already up to his neck with rage over not being taken serious after maybe several warnings to her - when he entered the lab that day he was a bomb.

And from his behavior after the murder, the way he handled the body and the way he behaved the days after, i have a feeling that this guy doesnt regret what he has done, maybe except from the perspective that he has been caught.

I think racism/jelousy/hate from Ray is more likely than anything sexual towards Annie.

[concentric]

[QUOTE=JL50ish;4185530]So it does sound like jealousy was the motive...jealous that all these "white coats" would soon be moving on to fabulously paid jobs, while he would be still stuck as some lowly-paid cage cleaner. I would suggest that he targetted her (instead of another doctoral student) because she was small, his age, and perhaps he was attracted sexually to her and there was some annoyance that he knew someone like her would never be interested in somone like him - hence the murder before the wedding.
QUOTE]

My post on 9/17

She's a superior to him. He resents that this petite woman is bossing him around, so to speak. He also could be the type of person who stereotypes any Asian woman as a sexual object and has a sick obsession to dominate them.

IMO, he probably was trying to rape her, but she fought him off. In a rage then, he strangled her to death.

[concentric]

A news article talking about possible motive. Similar theory to what many in this thread have proffered... (apologies if this has already been posted)

http://abcnews.go.com/US/annie-le-success-suspect-ray-clark-cleaned-cages/story?id=8618934

Excerpt:
"If Clark committed the crime he is accused of, a criminologist told ABCNews.com his actions might be explained by what sociologists call "relative deprivation."

That psychological mind set can be triggered "when you are measuring your own self worth against others and you come out on the bottom," according to Northeastern University criminologist Jack Levin, who has been following press accounts of the case.

"[Ray Clark] worked in an Ivy League school where most of his co-workers were potentially successful and had advanced degrees and were looking forward to a fulfilling and happy life," said Levin. "He was cleaning cages." ... The psychological need for control is often "underestimated as a motive for murder," according to Levin. ... "We think of control as obsessive compulsion, but another control is regaining a sense of power by squeezing the life out of a happy, successful co-worker," said Levin. "

Agree. I have been thinking about Clark. He is so young. Why did he think that the measure of his life was contained in that small space of years? Why couldn't he see that he wasn't going to be there forever? He destroyed her and him and he has made a shambles of many other lives. I just don't know how he couldn't see beyond this phase in his life.

[YellowDog]

She could also have had a bit of a Napoleon Complex.

[PatientOne]

In the Premeditation thread, I asked the question that since Annie's body was found wearing the same clothes she was seen wearing in the security photo of her entering the bldg., does it indicate she may have been in violation of regulations regarding proper lab apparel? Both labrat and joypath seemed to answer that yes, street clothes would've been an infraction.

Articles about Annie have stated that she was very interested in fashion, which makes me wonder if she may have failed to conform to lab apparel regulations on other occasions. If so, maybe it was another point of contention between her and RC.

[jjenny]

In the Premeditation thread, I asked the question that since Annie's body was found wearing the same clothes she was seen wearing in the security photo of her entering the bldg., does it indicate she may have been in violation of regulations regarding proper lab apparel? Both labrat and joypath seemed to answer that yes, street clothes would've been an infraction.

Articles about Annie have stated that she was very interested in fashion, which makes me wonder if she may have failed to conform to lab apparel regulations on other occasions. If so, maybe it was another point of contention between her and RC.

What do you think she was supposed to do with her street clothes?
A person is not going to undress when going into an animal facility.
Maybe she was supposed to have put a disposable gown over her clothes, but certainly not take them off.

[eyes4crime]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/videobeta/watch/?watch=3c8b51b8-be17-4367-ab53-864f6c0357c5&cat=empty&src=front&title=9/21%20Prosceutor%20Concerned%20About%20Leaks

This is the 3rd video I've seen this am indicating an impending arrest of a 2nd person...not surprising at all.

[concentric]

[QUOTE=JL50ish;4185530]

And, it seems like Nancy Grace was on the right track when she repeatedly questioned experts how Clark fit Le in such a small space. Clark broke her bones in order to fit her in...that's probably why there was more blood than should have been with a strangling.

UOTE]

I speculated over a week ago, that by the way the body was found, Clark was "belittling" Annie further, by stuffing her body into a 2ft. crevice.

[eyes4crime]

I'm sick of discussing labs and lab protocol! There isn't a shred of evidence indicating Annie violated protocol of any kind. Not in high school where she worked with animals, not in undergrad, and not now. I don't believe for one minute that Annie violated lab protocol. She did, however, take his text serious enough to respond and that misjudgement cost Annie her life. This isn't about lab protocol! It's about trying to lure Annie to an isolated place under the auspice of a concern. In my mind, the big question continues to be WHY? MHO

[PatientOne]

What do you think she was supposed to do with her street clothes?
A person is not going to undress when going into an animal facility.
Maybe she was supposed to have put a disposable gown over her clothes, but certainly not take them off.

I have no way of knowing actual lab rules and regulations (other than what I've read here on WS), or to what degree rules may or may not be tolerably bent. I have no way of knowing if researchers are provided with areas in the Amistad bldg. where they can change their apparel in order to conform to regulations. It's been said here that Animal techs have locker rooms in which to prepare themselves for entering labs. I wonder if researchers are likewise accomodated?

Since we're contemplating an as-yet-to-be-established motive for this horrible crime, and there've been accusations by other researchers that RC was "officious" about regulations, I'm just wondering if proper apparel may have been an issue.

[jjenny]

I have no way of knowing actual lab rules and regulations (other than what I've read here on WS), or to what degree rules may or may not be tolerably bent. I have no way of knowing if researchers are provided with areas in the Amistad bldg. where they can change their apparel in order to conform to regulations. It's been said here that Animal techs have locker rooms in which to prepare themselves for entering labs. I wonder if researchers are likewise accomodated?

Since we're contemplating an as-yet-to-be-established motive for this horrible crime, and there've been accusations by other researchers that RC was "officious" about regulations, I'm just wondering if proper apparel may have been an issue.
I personally very much doubt researchers were asked to undress and put on whole different set of clothes. The only thing I heard is that RC was demanding everybody wore shoe covers.

[Very Interesting]

They havent arrested a second person yet, though would this be part of the motive, or why it was so violent?

[JL50ish]

They havent arrested a second person yet, though would this be part of the motive, or why it was so violent?

Unless I'm wrong, I don't think that LE thinks that another person helped commit the crime....I think LE is trying to figure out if anyone (such as his father) helped him AFTER the crime...to clean up...dispose of evidence...or whatever. So, if that's the case, a second person wouldn't have anything to do with the motive.

[Labrat]

I have no way of knowing actual lab rules and regulations (other than what I've read here on WS), or to what degree rules may or may not be tolerably bent. I have no way of knowing if researchers are provided with areas in the Amistad bldg. where they can change their apparel in order to conform to regulations. It's been said here that Animal techs have locker rooms in which to prepare themselves for entering labs. I wonder if researchers are likewise accomodated?

Since we're contemplating an as-yet-to-be-established motive for this horrible crime, and there've been accusations by other researchers that RC was "officious" about regulations, I'm just wondering if proper apparel may have been an issue.

There is usually a small anteroom with hooks for labcoats and shelves or bins for the PPE (disposable paper gowns, bonnets, masks, booties and gloves) Researchers are allowed in in their street clothes {usually lab coats have to be left on the hooks} but they must gown up.

[Labrat]

In the Premeditation thread, I asked the question that since Annie's body was found wearing the same clothes she was seen wearing in the security photo of her entering the bldg., does it indicate she may have been in violation of regulations regarding proper lab apparel? Both labrat and joypath seemed to answer that yes, street clothes would've been an infraction.

Articles about Annie have stated that she was very interested in fashion, which makes me wonder if she may have failed to conform to lab apparel regulations on other occasions. If so, maybe it was another point of contention between her and RC.

Researchers like Annie would wear street clothes covered by disposable paper gowns, etc. It is the animal facility technicians that wear scrubs/ rubber boots, etc.

[Labrat]

I'm sick of discussing labs and lab protocol! There isn't a shred of evidence indicating Annie violated protocol of any kind. Not in high school where she worked with animals, not in undergrad, and not now. I don't believe for one minute that Annie violated lab protocol. She did, however, take his text serious enough to respond and that misjudgement cost Annie her life. This isn't about lab protocol! It's about trying to lure Annie to an isolated place under the auspice of a concern. In my mind, the big question continues to be WHY? MHO

I think you may be right. It is impossible to know whether his text was legitimate. I can only say that, yes, there would be situations in which it would be appropriate for him to request that she come to the animal room right away. Whether there was a legitimate concern that day, or whether it was pretext to get her there for some other reason, we can't know now. There is just not enough information. It may come out at trial.

[Shlock Homes]

... and her blood (verified by DNA) on RC's shoes, RCs irregular swipe card pattern, RC texting her that morning to come over to meet with him (RC), the "deep" scratches on RC's body, the emails between RC and Le, and oh yeah, another person who works in the building ran into RC with blood on his shirt....

I think on any one point, someone could try to argue for another explanation, but on ALL these points (including Labrat's), taken altogether??? Otherwise known as converging evidence against RC.

If he had deep scratches on him, then they should be able to obtain DNA from under her nails.

That person you say ran into RC with blood on his shirt. When was that?

[joypath]

In the Premeditation thread, I asked the question that since Annie's body was found wearing the same clothes she was seen wearing in the security photo of her entering the bldg., does it indicate she may have been in violation of regulations regarding proper lab apparel? Both labrat and joypath seemed to answer that yes, street clothes would've been an infraction.

Articles about Annie have stated that she was very interested in fashion, which makes me wonder if she may have failed to conform to lab apparel regulations on other occasions. If so, maybe it was another point of contention between her and RC.


Just a small addition: street clothes ARE permitted in the research labs BUT have to be covered!....Most facilities have disposable PPE and mandate that they are worn as ANY foreign materials introduced into the experiments makes the research results suspect at best, usless more often. Protocols are the mainstay of laboratory scientific research, your eventual results (published usually in peer-reviewed journals) MUST be factual, and most importantly, able to be replicated by other scientists.

[Chanler]

Unless I'm wrong, I don't think that LE thinks that another person helped commit the crime....I think LE is trying to figure out if anyone (such as his father) helped him AFTER the crime...to clean up...dispose of evidence...or whatever. So, if that's the case, a second person wouldn't have anything to do with the motive.

Hi, JL50ish, I believe that you're right. And today, I think that the police said that they did not expect to arrest anyone else for involvement in the crime. I think that the police were probably just acting logically: Doing detailed interviews with Clark's relatives who worked in the lab to discover if they knew anything or helped in any way.

[PatientOne]

I think you may be right. It is impossible to know whether his text was legitimate. I can only say that, yes, there would be situations in which it would be appropriate for him to request that she come to the animal room right away. Whether there was a legitimate concern that day, or whether it was pretext to get her there for some other reason, we can't know now. There is just not enough information. It may come out at trial.

If RC's message was a pretext, it would reveal much about motive. I hope it can be determined if it was. It seems to me there would at least be a possibility to tell if the mouse cages in question were a justifiable concern.

While some here may not want to dwell on protocol issues, I respectfully disagree. LE claims to have enough evidence to prove their case and have said they don't need to establish motive. Maybe so. Probably so. However, I can envision a scenario where RC's lawyers paint a picture of a world-renown research facility that has some dirty little secrets to hide. They may attempt to create an image of their client as a witness to practices that could compromise life-saving research, and that he appreciated the importance of abiding by the rules more so than did some researchers. They may suggest a last-straw scenario that caused their client, who was merely trying to abide by the very important rules, to temporarily snap. While I don't think they'd succeed in prevailing with an insanity plea, they may try.

It continues to be my belief that the motive was much more personal. In any case, Annie's gone and for no good reason. But I believe it's worthwhile to contemplate whether or not she may have been vulnerable regarding protocol because I'm hoping RC has absolutely no chance whatsoever of getting a lighter sentence than he deserves.

[eyes4crime]

If RC's message was a pretext, it would reveal much about motive. I hope it can be determined if it was. It seems to me there would at least be a possibility to tell if the mouse cages in question were a justifiable concern.

While some here may not want to dwell on protocol issues, I respectfully disagree. LE claims to have enough evidence to prove their case and have said they don't need to establish motive. Maybe so. Probably so. However, I can envision a scenario where RC's lawyers paint a picture of a world-renown research facility that has some dirty little secrets to hide. They may attempt to create an image of their client as a witness to practices that could compromise life-saving research, and that he appreciated the importance of abiding by the rules more so than did some researchers. They may suggest a last-straw scenario that caused their client, who was merely trying to abide by the very important rules, to temporarily snap. While I don't think they'd succeed in prevailing with an insanity plea, they may try.

It continues to be my belief that the motive was much more personal. In any case, Annie's gone and for no good reason. But I believe it's worthwhile to contemplate whether or not she may have been vulnerable regarding protocol because I'm hoping RC has absolutely no chance whatsoever of getting a lighter sentence than he deserves.

Good point! You're so right PatientOne - I'm sure the defense will paint Clark as a dedicated, knowledgeable, and concerned animal tech - one who has helped many a student, both doctoral and postdoc. I am one of those who feel that Annie's care of her mice and cleanliness have nothing to do with her murder, but again, you are so right in that the defense will paint him all pastel colors. They will make sure pics of he and his dog nuzzling in bed and face to face are all over for everyone to see...labrat, and more recently Joypath, have kept us WS's informed as to what happens in most animal labs and during the autopsy, but I'm sure the defense will paint this particular lab as 'different and special'. I will not complain again regarding the discussion of the lab and how Annie is said to have left conditions that Clark couldn't stand. That discussion will be crucial to this case.

[KeenEyes]

The thing that keeps coming back in my mind is the texting. This would indicate to me that they knew each other on a friendship basis of some kind...

Labrat and possibly others explained previously that it would not be unusual for a lab tech to have access to a researcher's contact data for business communication purposes; therefore, the texting does NOT indicate there was anything more than a perfunctory relationship between Annie and the evil, warped coward who murdered her.

...In any case, Annie's gone and for no good reason...

[eyes4crime]

One more comment about the text - If Clark sent Annie a text on Monday evening or early Tuesday AM, prior to leaving her apartment, and she knew there was going to be a meeting between the two in the lab - that might explain her dowdy look, dressing in a brown skirt and green top. If that's the case, Annie did NOT want to look sexy, inviting, or fashionable for a very good reason. I'm sure Annie was as perceptive as she was brilliant. just another thought and another reason to know the timing of his text message. Yes, I believe this crime to be pre-meditated not for the death penalty, but for the truth of what happened. mho

[JL50ish]

I'm sure the defense will paint Clark as a dedicated, knowledgeable, and concerned animal tech - one who has helped many a student, both doctoral and postdoc. I am one of those who feel that Annie's care of her mice and cleanliness have nothing to do with her murder,

That is a defense that wouldn't work...that would be like a defense atty trying to defend a husband who killed his wife because he lovingly took care of her car and she left a bag of old McDonald fries in it. No jury would buy that as a reason to acquit.

All it would do would convince a jury that this person is guilty and not stable enough to ever be in the public again.

[JL50ish]

Labrat and possibly others explained previously that it would not be unusual for a lab tech to have access to a researcher's contact data for business communication purposes;

Absolutely...the fact that they had each others cell phone info and exchanged texts/emails does not suggest a familiarity beyond professional...it is standard procedure in such cases.

The exchanging of contact info is somewhat similar to when a parent gives her contact info to her child's babysitter - so that she can be contacted in case of emergency, question, or concern. This guy - in a way - is babysitting the lab animals - he would need the grad students' contact info in case he had a concern about someone's animals.

[Very Interesting]

I sure dont know why he targeted Annie for such a violent death. Am sure over the years he worked there, he saw literally hundereds of very pretty girls doing research like Annie did, and maybe even texted them to?

Did Annie's Fiance know of this guy that killed her before it happened?

[eyes4crime]

That is a defense that wouldn't work...that would be like a defense atty trying to defend a husband who killed his wife because he lovingly took care of her car and she left a bag of old McDonald fries in it. No jury would buy that as a reason to acquit.

All it would do would convince a jury that this person is guilty and not stable enough to ever be in the public again.

IMO, If Clark pleads 'not guilty' prompting a trial, the only one thing the defense can do is build his character around the years he has worked at Yale and attack Annie's..look at the evidence, DNA and otherwise. Building a case around pre-meditation is not out of the question. If not character, what do you propose the defense use to defend their client? TIA

[PatientOne]

It doesn't help that RC's former neighbor who's been all over the media is saying he's a psycho, weirdo, crazy, etc. While she wouldn't be an expert witness, I suspect there's some psychiatrist who could be called upon to support an insanity plea, which may be RC's only hope of dodging the heaviest sentence.

[MWright]

If he had deep scratches on him, then they should be able to obtain DNA from under her nails.

That person you say ran into RC with blood on his shirt. When was that?

Here it is:

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/09/was_that_annie.php

(from Raymond Clark III - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community post #13)

[joypath]

Absolutely...the fact that they had each others cell phone info and exchanged texts/emails does not suggest a familiarity beyond professional...it is standard procedure in such cases.

The exchanging of contact info is somewhat similar to when a parent gives her contact info to her child's babysitter - so that she can be contacted in case of emergency, question, or concern. This guy - in a way - is babysitting the lab animals - he would need the grad students' contact info in case he had a concern about someone's animals.

This is a phenomenal post for more than a few reasons! 1. great analogy of the parent-babysitter scenario, a perfect description for the lay person; the animal laboratory technican is for all purposes the "foster parent" of the animals. 2. demonstrates the advocacy level of the tech toward the animals to the researchers (albeit usually this level of "advocacy" is limited to the students vs the PI). 3. as an "off-shoot" to demonstrate the presumed contact that Ms Le had with RC, he functioned as a care-giver to HER experimental animals. 4. communication from HER animal tech MIGHT have caused her to hurry across the street well before she anticipated attending to the laboratory. 5. whatever was communicated, it APPEARS that she was carrying laboratory notebooks (probably HER research notes and observations, perhaps to "counter" his cage notes).

When I was working on my degree, we were fortunate to have animal TECHNOLOGISTS who had BS degrees, were more than capable of carrying on scientific evaluations and assist in procedures and certain techs would gravitate and "adopt" researchers, additionally there were others in the facility who provided more of the "scut" work but everybody pitched in, the "high and mighty" included!

[YellowDog]

Labrat and possibly others explained previously that it would not be unusual for a lab tech to have access to a researcher's contact data for business communication purposes; therefore, the texting does NOT indicate there was anything more than a perfunctory relationship between Annie and the evil, warped coward who murdered her.


It also does NOT indicate that there was not a friendship.

[Shlock Homes]

That is a defense that wouldn't work...that would be like a defense atty trying to defend a husband who killed his wife because he lovingly took care of her car and she left a bag of old McDonald fries in it. No jury would buy that as a reason to acquit.

All it would do would convince a jury that this person is guilty and not stable enough to ever be in the public again.

I'm not sure about that. People in the media have painted him as some 'control freak' and have tried to dig up dirt on him. The true test of his character is how well did he behave in the work place, because they're trying to label this as workplace violence. If he had a history of blowing up at people and throwing things in anger, then you could argue he was a time bomb just waiting to go off. I haven't heard any of that in the media at all. I'm not even convinced that the two of them crossed paths that morning, and if they did, we're not sure exactly when she disappeared, only that she didn't appear on camera as leaving that day. I haven't heard any witnesses say they even saw her that day in the lab. Card swipes aren't password controlled, so anyone can use a card and their identity would not be known, whether it's the real one, or a forged one.

[Shlock Homes]

Here it is:

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/09/was_that_annie.php

(from Raymond Clark III - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community (http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89026) post #13)

I haven't seen any pictures of Ray Clark wearing glasses, and I wouldn't describe his hair as reddish brown.

[Shlock Homes]

It doesn't help that RC's former neighbor who's been all over the media is saying he's a psycho, weirdo, crazy, etc. While she wouldn't be an expert witness, I suspect there's some psychiatrist who could be called upon to support an insanity plea, which may be RC's only hope of dodging the heaviest sentence.

She could be a publicity hound as well. And it's one person who was a neighbour who says this. What about the other neighbours?

[MWright]

I haven't seen any pictures of Ray Clark wearing glasses, and I wouldn't describe his hair as reddish brown.

Good point regarding the hair color :)

As for glasses, many of his high school pictures are of him in glasses.

[Harmony2]

I haven't seen any pictures of Ray Clark wearing glasses, and I wouldn't describe his hair as reddish brown.

I have alot of natural reddish highlights in my hair, especially out in the daylight, and people sometimes describe it as reddish brown. However, it is not apparent or obvious in photos of me indoors. If it is in fact RC the same may or may not hold true.

[JL50ish]

IMO, If Clark pleads 'not guilty' prompting a trial, the only one thing the defense can do is build his character around the years he has worked at Yale and attack Annie's..look at the evidence, DNA and otherwise. Building a case around pre-meditation is not out of the question. If not character, what do you propose the defense use to defend their client? TIA

The defense really only has one choice...and that is to suggest that any evidence that was gathered is likely "contaminated" because the lab was not "locked down" right after Annie was reported missing. Of course, Yale will say that they can't lock down a building everytime a student is thought to be missing.

[Shlock Homes]

Good point regarding the hair color :)

As for glasses, many of his high school pictures are of him in glasses.

But did he wear glasses around Yale? Was he seen wearing them on the security videos?

[YellowDog]

He could have had lasik surgery to correct his vision since high school. Millions of people have had that done.

[mitzi]

It doesn't help that RC's former neighbor who's been all over the media is saying he's a psycho, weirdo, crazy, etc. While she wouldn't be an expert witness, I suspect there's some psychiatrist who could be called upon to support an insanity plea, which may be RC's only hope of dodging the heaviest sentence.

Yeah, and with each time she appears, she embellishes her story. This neighbor needs to get herself back to her apartment and take care of her children. What she knows about Clark would fit in a thimble. :furious: I hate people, who have little to do with the perp or the victim, who insert themselves into the media.

[JL50ish]

I don't have a problem with the neighbor telling what she's seen. Neighbors often get to see tidbits of a person's real personality (as the neighbors of Garrido have disclosed.). And, it isn't strange at all that she has more info each time...as time goes by, she is remembering other odd things that she's observed.

I like the fact that she's disclosed that he wasn't "fastidious" about how his own pets were kept. Believe me, if the defense tries to claim that Clark was soooo bothered by how Annie kept her mice, the prosecution will bring forth this neighbor to testify that Clark wasn't so caring about his own pets (neighbor insists that you could smell dog urine and feces outside their apt.)

And, the stories about his interactions with his girlfriend - yelling at her in public, etc (the story about how she would have to scrape the ice off their car and get the car warm each morning before he would come out was very insightful - what MAN does that????

[Shlock Homes]

Since I don't believe the evidence doesn't point to Ray Clark as being the killer, or at least I'm not convinced, what other motive could there be for Annie's murder?

How about this? Jealousy? Her work, her intelligence? Perhaps her being out of the picture meant someone else would take over her work mid-stream and get the accolades? She wasn't some D average student. Maybe she was close to a break through in her research, and somebody didn't like it?

That would be another angle as to why she was killed. I don't think the motive was related to the state of her mouse cages.

[Kat]

Since I don't believe the evidence doesn't point to Ray Clark as being the killer, or at least I'm not convinced, what other motive could there be for Annie's murder?

How about this? Jealousy? Her work, her intelligence? Perhaps her being out of the picture meant someone else would take over her work mid-stream and get the accolades? She wasn't some D average student. Maybe she was close to a break through in her research, and somebody didn't like it?

That would be another angle as to why she was killed. I don't think the motive was related to the state of her mouse cages.

I agree shlock, it's probaby not about the state of her cages.

OT~

Your name reminds me of a porn star. Sorry. I don't watch them but what can I say....:blushing: :D

[Sloof]

Since I don't believe the evidence doesn't point to Ray Clark as being the killer, or at least I'm not convinced...

Which evidence are you referring to?

[eyes4crime]

Since I don't believe the evidence doesn't point to Ray Clark as being the killer, or at least I'm not convinced, what other motive could there be for Annie's murder?

How about this? Jealousy? Her work, her intelligence? Perhaps her being out of the picture meant someone else would take over her work mid-stream and get the accolades? She wasn't some D average student. Maybe she was close to a break through in her research, and somebody didn't like it?

That would be another angle as to why she was killed. I don't think the motive was related to the state of her mouse cages.

Way back when - many of us speculated Annie was murdered by a fellow student or a professor because of the importance of her research and/or for the reasons you mention. They all were a strong possibility. I believe the evidence does point to Clark and continue to think it isn't over mouse hygiene. I also think this murder was pre-meditated in the sense Clark set this whole scenario up. mho

[Shlock Homes]

Which evidence are you referring to?

I used a double negative. I meant to say I don't believe the evidence points conclusively as Ray Clark the killer, or at least the sole person involved in this case. The card swipes sound significant, but they're easy to debunk because the use of them doesn't require the person using them to be the same.

If Ryan had this thing all planned out, then he would have used someone else's card, instead of his own. And he wouldn't have left the bloody clothing in a ceiling area where it would be found. The police haven't even said if it was male or female clothing, just that it had Annie's and his DNA.

Whoever killed her had the hiding of her body all planned out to avoid it being seen by people when they moved it from one room to its final resting place. But since the police didn't seal off that area, we can't be sure that her body was in there from Sept 8th onward. The autopsy hasn't even revealed a time of death or if there were any sedatives in her system.

[Skigirl]

Every once in a while, things aren't what they appear to be. However, most of the time, things are exactly what they appear to be: A man who dumped his wife's body when he said that he'd gone fishing alone on a holiday, a narcissistic mother who claims improbably that her daughter has been kidnapped over a month prior, a set of terrorists who fly planes into buildings because of ideology, a man who kills the wife he's been beating for years.

We cannot know for sure right now. RC is certainly innocent in they eyes of the law and should be until he confesses or is proven guilty. However, I believe pretty strongly in Occam's razor, and Occam's razor says this story is as simple as it is incomprehensible.

[JL50ish]

I do believe that the evidence points to Clark.. This is just one (of many) reasons why: assume he didn't do it...then likely he would have witnessed some odd thing or person around the lab. Since only he was around there with her, he would have likely witnessed some odd behavior or happening or heard a scream. The cameras show that she never left the building.. So, if he DIDN'T do it, how come he didn't witness anything odd?

[Sloof]

I meant to say I don't believe the evidence points conclusively as Ray Clark the killer, or at least the sole person involved in this case. The card swipes sound significant, but they're easy to debunk because the use of them doesn't require the person using them to be the same.

There are over 300 items (including DNA) and over 1,000 pages of documented evidence, of which a fraction has been leaked to the media. Your opinion and speculation that the "evidence" doesn't "conclusively point" a killer is, frankly, rather moot because the affidavit, warrant and admissable evidence will be sealed for at least another 3 weeks.