Premeditation?

[lawlady84]

Do we think this was a premeditated murder? Did RC plan to kill Annie when he allegedly texted her that morning?


I'm not sure what I think. The fact that he allegedly asked her to come to the lab could be premeditation, he was setting it up.

But I am leaning towards NOT premeditation because it seems to me he panicked after it happened. I keep wondering- why didn't he use Annie's key-card to move through rooms, so LE would think she left the building (and wouldn't focus in on the lab). If he planned this out, wouldn't he have tried to make it look like they left the building at different times?

[agent_scully]

i think "premeditation" and "planned" are 2 different concepts (at least legally).

I don't think he planned this.

[lawlady84]

i think "premeditation" and "planned" are 2 different concepts (at least legally).

I don't think he planned this.

You're absolutely right, one can legally "premeditate" in a minute. I think I am asking both questions.

[eyes4crime]

A possible scenario
Annie was spending 10-13 hours/day in the lab because of upcoming wedding, she was an excited, happy, female, and successful Doctoral student - perhaps the kind Clark can't stand

Maybe NOT perfect in lab procedures due to the time stress of wedding

What ever Annie did over the weekend and Monday sent Clark into an uproar

He ruminated about punishing Annie - maybe couldn't sleep Monday night - fantasized about laying into Annie and murdering her - he arrived at work on Tuesday am, angry

Tuesday early AM he text Annie to meet at the lab

Annie grabbed some documentation to show Clark she had not violated protocol in lab - went to Amistad bldg. and swiped in

Clark confronted Annie - she misread his anger (pre-occupied), showed him documentation

I believe Clark had every intention of laying into Annie for weekend or Monday mishaps -

When meeting with Annie (he was already furious) - he acted on those fantasies

Just a possible made up scenario...maybe in his fantasies he had a relationship with Annie, and when she unintentionally dismissed him - he murdered her (a reenactment of his fantasy)
I call this planned and rehearsed - but in his fantasies. Annie wasn't picked out in random; Clark knew Annie...and his topic...and had rehearsed. pre-meditated? Planned? imho

[JL50ish]

i think "premeditation" and "planned" are 2 different concepts (at least legally).

I don't think he planned this.

I agree...but...what moved him to the point of murder...that is such a huge leap from just being angry over some lab protocols.

I realize that he had that possible rape issue back in high school, but how likely is it that a person with that kind of inner violence can go that many years without more violence. Something more is going to come out.

[Skigirl]

Hasn't anyone here ever been absolutely enraged by a co-worker before? Whatever you're doing may seem small to someone else, but it's your life and it's big to you. If someone starts to get under your skin, in small or big ways, it's hard to keep from getting more and more annoyed, even when they do little things. I know the one time I lost my temper with a co-worker, over ten years ago, I was really out of control. Fortunately, I'm not prone to violence, so for me, being out of control means I shook and raised my voice and slammed a door, but I can remember feeling like the entire world had gone away and it was just me and this other grad student, yelling at one another over disk space on the lab workstation. It was important to both of our research, but in the scheme of things, it was totally idiotic for us to be yelling about it. I was stressed, he was stressed, I saw him as being a hog of limited resources, he saw me as being in the way of his research, we got on each others' nerves, and we both simultaneously snapped. I guess that's why I don't find it impossible to believe that the confrontation that lead to her strangling was just over things in the lab.

Not that that makes RC any less nuts. Strangling someone is nuts.

[Stephens]

The part that gets me is that he strangled her to death. That's not a flash of anger, but sustained rage, sadism, and determination in killing someone off--slowly. He most likely could have killed her quickly, bludgeoning her to death, but he chose strangulation. So I don't think he all of a sudden decided to kill her but has been thinking about killing her for a while, in general, and then panicked after he finally did it.

[rdm64]

The part that gets me is that he strangled her to death. That's not a flash of anger, but sustained rage, sadism, and determination in killing someone off--slowly. He most likely could have killed her quickly, bludgeoning her to death, but he chose strangulation. So I don't think he all of a sudden decided to kill her but has been thinking about killing her for a while, in general, and then panicked after he finally did it.

no. bludgeoning is messy in the extreme and difficult. Strangulating is simple quick and not inherently sadistic. a strong enough assailant renders the victim unconscious within a couple of seconds.

a 180 lb man strangling a 90 lb woman does the following:
1) renders the victim unconscious within 5 to 8 seconds by ending blood flow to brain
2) instantaneously damages windpipe so the unconscious victim will succumb to traumatic asphyxia without medical intervention within minutes (tracheotomy)

I don't know where you pull "sustained sadism" out of something that takes five seconds and is the absolute cleanest method of killing someone weaker

[rdm64]

A possible scenario
Annie was spending 10-13 hours/day in the lab because of upcoming wedding, she was an excited, happy, female, and successful Doctoral student - perhaps the kind Clark can't stand
Perhaps she was an annoying self centered person who was conflicted about being married (mood swings before marriage are the norm) who broke all the procedural rules and made his charged job harder.

Not to speak ill of the dead, or excuse the killing at all, but you are ascribing all kinds of states of mind to the victim and the killer that are not proven.

I think the way the crime was committed makes it almost certain that it was unpremeditated.

Perhaps he got to work on Tuesday finding that she had screwed something up created some kind of problem for him, he sends her a text saying why did you do this, or dome in so we can discuss proper procedures, and perhaps she arrived and dismissed his concerns or was condescending and he went berserk.

When someone dies EVERYONE says they are nice, for all we know she was very hard to get along with or the nicest person on earth. we simply don't know.

also random has nothing to do with premediation. we have zero evidence of premeditation on this one so fat and all the indications point to non premeditation. more likely scenario, she did something worn and he was sticker. he called her in to tell her not to do it again. they were both in bad moods they argued and were condescending to each other. she stuck him and he struck her or visa versa, he grabbed her throat and with seconds had intentionally (second degree) or accidentally (third degree) killed her.

this guy is going to plead on second degree and it will be accepted, I give that 99% odds unless we see evidence (not speculation) of him voicing hatred of this woman to witnesses or in wrign from before the crime.

[rabidstoat]

I'm with those who think that the way the crime was committed made it seem unplanned to me. That is, I don't think he woke up that morning thinking: "Today is the day I will lure Annie Le to the lab and murder her." It doesn't appear as if there was any planning done at all, no idea of what to do with the body, no thought as to a better place to commit the crime, no pre-establishing of an alibi, etc.

However, from everything I've heard about strangulation there was certainly time in there to stop the murder. It's not like a one-second 'pull the trigger and now the person is dead and no taking it back' moment. Or giving someone a shove off a cliff, and once that two-second act is done, they're done. He started violence against her, and then at some point early on I think he consciously decided (perhaps not in a clear state of mind, but a decision was nonetheless made) to continue the act to it murderous conclusion. So for those few minutes, yes, he had premeditated the tragic conclusion.

[joypath]

While NOT a "legal beagle", I've spent more minutes of my life in the company of them (both pros and def) and the convoluted logic of the law has rubbed off....but just a bit! The legal premeditation can occur within seconds, think: continuing the action of applying pressure vs stopping! while pre-planning a crime can take days (and some how the perps still make boo boos!).

IMHO, this crime meets the legal definition of premeditation and could aptly be demonstrated by the simple actions of taking a stopwatch and showing just how L O N G it takes to strangle another human being to DEATH!

I've done such demonstrations in court (yeah, it's dramatic but heck, sometimes show and tell is the best type of education); showing the effectiveness of occluding Simultaneously both major arteries, the sustained & significant! pressure needed to bring about unconsciousness and death. More likely is the scenario that RC applied pressure to the jugular veins, prolonged and constant, perhaps applying stronger force as she struggled then gradually fell unconscious, at which point he probably continued to apply pressure but now also against her trachea.

Any way one cuts it: NOT STOPPING HIS ACTIONS removes this from assault and battery to homicide, premeditated

[Gene]

IMHO, this crime meets the legal definition of premeditation and could aptly be demonstrated by the simple actions of taking a stopwatch and showing just how L O N G it takes to strangle another human being to DEATH!

I've done such demonstrations in court (yeah, it's dramatic but heck, sometimes show and tell is the best type of education); showing the effectiveness of occluding Simultaneously both major arteries, the sustained & significant! pressure needed to bring about unconsciousness and death.

(bolded by me)....
I can not visualize this. Did you do a strangling demo on a person? :sick: or a dummy?

You said you are not a lawyer...are you a strangulation expert??

[Gene]

Clark may not have had a steller career, but he was not stupid:

According to CNN: "Clark was an honor student at Branford High School in suburban New Haven"

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/17/raymond.clark.profile/

Had he thought the murder through, I am certain he would have done it differently than he did. He would not have killed her in a place that was so secure, where his every movement was traced by swipe cards and video cameras. Where it was impossible to effectively hide the body. He would not have sent her emails and text messages. He would have found a way not to leave his DNA all over her (gloves, hair net,etc).

It may have been premeditated in the legal sense (he strangled her and had time to stop but did not), but not in the practical sense. And it certainly was not planned. If he had planned it, he would have done a better job covering his tracks.

[Kat]

Clark may not have had a steller career, but he was not stupid:

According to CNN: "Clark was an honor student at Branford High School in suburban New Haven"

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/17/raymond.clark.profile/

Had he thought the murder through, I am certain he would have done it differently than he did. He would not have killed her in a place that was so secure, where his every movement was traced by swipe cards and video cameras. Where it was impossible to effectively hide the body. He would not have sent her emails and text messages. He would have found a way not to leave his DNA all over her (gloves, hair net,etc).

It may have been premeditated in the legal sense (he strangled her and had time to stop but did not), but not in the practical sense. And it certainly was not planned. If he had planned it, he would have done a better job covering his tracks.

IMHO just from what I've seen so far revealed in this case. My opinon is subject to change as facts that can be verified by LE come out...

I agree with your statement I bolded. The prosection could try to prove premeditation in the legal sense...yes.

And the defense could use choice of place in which he murdered Annie, his actions immediately after her murder to include actually hiding her body in the same bldg as she was murdered...to show it wasn't a premeditated murder. JMHO.

This will be interesting to see how this trial goes.

ETA: Since we haven't seen the actual autopsy report and we haven't had LE or the ME make statments to the media, we have no clue as to how she died and what injuries she sustained. That impedes us a lot IMHO.

[CBTampa]

There is so much media on this that I am not sure what is fact and what is not. But it regards to what I have read:

If he hid bloody clothes above the ceiling tiles and they have him leaving work with different clothes it makes me think...do you always take a different set of clothes to work with you on a normal work day...I don't. Wouldn't this prove premeditation?

[Gene]

There is so much media on this that I am not sure what is fact and what is not. But it regards to what I have read:

If he hid bloody clothes above the ceiling tiles and they have him leaving work with different clothes it makes me think...do you always take a different set of clothes to work with you on a normal work day...I don't. Wouldn't this prove premeditation?

You might take a different set of clothes to work if you were cleaning up mouse cages. For example, if you were going to meet friends after work for a drink or a ball game, you probably would not want to smell of mouse urine.

[joypath]

(bolded by me)....
I can not visualize this. Did you do a strangling demo on a person? :sick: or a dummy?

You said you are not a lawyer...are you a strangulation expert??



Gene: IF I had performed this demonstration to its ultimate conclusion on a living person, I'd be well housed in Niantic, Ct. for a very long time....either without parole or waiting for the injection! LOL

All kidding aside, I am fortunate to be able to "speak" for the deceased as a forensic pathologist.

[Stephens]

Strangulation is not quick.

[Kat]

Strangulation is not quick.

No it's not Stephens I agree. But we don't know at this point if she was strangled. We only know that she suffered traumatic asphyxia as a COD and that could be the result of several different actions and could be exclusive to the layman's definition of strangulation.

We just don't know. IMHO.

[Harmony2]

Gene: IF I had performed this demonstration to its ultimate conclusion on a living person, I'd be well housed in Niantic, Ct. for a very long time....either without parole or waiting for the injection! LOL

All kidding aside, I am fortunate to be able to "speak" for the deceased as a forensic pathologist.

HI Joy!

I posted a video about traumatic asphyxia on another thread. In the video it is mentioned that craniocervical cyanosis may appear in such a case. It was also mentioned that the victim may look dead when they are actually still alive and can be resusitated. Posters wondered why LE had to ID Annie after discovering her body. IF cyanosis did occur it would have cast a very different coloring to Annie's appearance not to mention the five days of decomp. My question is how soon does craniocervical cyanosis appear during an act resulting in oxygen deprivation?

[miafedup]

I just posted this in the motive thread (btw, apologies if I am not supposed to post twice, I'll delete one). Anyway, I'm leaning towards premeditation based on his behavior after the murder....

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 described as being unemotional, 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, which might explain why no one heard anything amiss. When he saw the right moment, say her head was 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.

[CBTampa]

I can't amagine how he thought that she would never be found. We have clothes up above the ceiling tiles and a body behind the wall. Did he not think of DNA or the smell of decomp? Sometimes it hard to get into someone's head and this case is no different. IMO

[maggieo]

I'm not sure if this counts as premeditated or not -- and there's no way to prove it in court anyway -- but I bet he fantasized about killing her before he actually did it. He had to have really hated her (for work-related reasons, and maybe unrequited love reasons, too) and when the moment came, he couldn't stop himself from fulfilling his fantasy. He obviously didn't put *too* much planning into it, but I doubt it came as a huge surprise to him when it happened.

That seems more likely than just suddenly murdering someone out of nowhere, over an argument he's probably had a hundred times with other grad students.

[Emily Booth]

With very angry people, who knows what sends them over the edge? You see it all the time with road rage. There was a case a couple of years ago where a middle-aged man shot and killed a boy for walking across his lawn. There are people who are incapable of de-escalating their anger. They feel justified in whatever grievances they have with the world. It'll be interesting to see if RC presents himself as the victim when he finally tells his side of the story.

Years ago, I got very angry at a difficult coworker who complained about some cookies I bought and passed around. I wanted to strangle him, he made me that angry, over a cookie!

But, to literally strangle someone at work? You've got to have some serious anger management issues.

Premeditation? Possibly. We haven't seen the actual evidence yet.

[Skigirl]

Years ago, I got very angry at a difficult coworker who complained about some cookies I bought and passed around. I wanted to strangle him, he made me that angry, over a cookie!

But, to literally strangle someone at work? You've got to have some serious anger management issues.

I am glad to hear I'm not the only one who can relate to wanting to strangle a co-worker, I was starting to wonder about myself :waitasec:

One time when I was a kid, we were in a terrible traffic jam getting onto a bridge. It was hot and everyones' windows were open. A guy drove up the shoulder and tried to cut in front of our car, yelling at my father that he was going to hit our car if my dad didn't let him in. My dad didn't, and the guy accelerated to try to get in front of us but instead drove into a bridge abutment. If he'd had a gun, he could have shot us. People get enraged sometimes and when they are enraged, they do stupid and unpredictable things. (And my father probably should have just let him in front of us instead of engaging in a game of chicken, but he was also angry and wasn't being entirely rational).

Most human behavior/motivation is on a continuum. I think we all have the types of impulses that can lead to murder; the difference is one of degree, not of kind. I like to think I have enough control over myself that even if furious I would not attack (it also helps that I'm pretty small and would be hard pressed to win a physical confrontation), but there are people all over the impulse/anger management control continuum.

[eyes4crime]

I just posted this in the motive thread (btw, apologies if I am not supposed to post twice, I'll delete one). Anyway, I'm leaning towards premeditation based on his behavior after the murder....

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 described as being unemotional, 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, which might explain why no one heard anything amiss. When he saw the right moment, say her head was 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.

[bolded by me]
Important hallmarks of the psychopath - arrogant, confident, narcissistic, and somewhat distant socially. I agree with you completely miafedup...I find your post to be excellent. Let's not forget he also took the lie detector test...did he think he would pass?

[miafedup]

[bolded by me]
Important hallmarks of the psychopath - arrogant, confident, narcissistic, and somewhat distant socially. I agree with you completely miafedup...I find your post to be excellent. Let's not forget he also took the lie detector test...did he think he would pass?


And the lie detector, forgot that one, thank you!

I'm willing to bet he believed he would pass just from the sheer arrogance.

Thanks for pointing that out! :)

[eyes4crime]

And the lie detector, forgot that one, thank you!

I'm willing to bet he believed he would pass just from the sheer arrogance.

Thanks for pointing that out! :)

Oh, miafedup - let's not forget his 16yo girlfriend who charged rape and didn't pursue the charges because she feared retaliation.

[Labrat]

You might take a different set of clothes to work if you were cleaning up mouse cages. For example, if you were going to meet friends after work for a drink or a ball game, you probably would not want to smell of mouse urine.

Animal techs do not wear street clothes inside the facility. They wear scrubs, rubber boots, and paper gowning. They are provided with a shower/locker room.

[Shlock Homes]

It depends on who you think is the suspect. If Clark is proven to have been the killer, beyond a reason of a doubt, then no, it wasn't premeditated based on the card swipes. However, if he asked Annie to come at a time when nobody would be around, then they could argue it was premeditated. But we're talking about 10am, not 6am. There HAD to be people around.

If, however, someone else did it, and decided to frame Clark, maybe because they didn't like the guy, and maybe they didn't like Annie, then it was premeditated. Also, if we find that she was given any sedatives, that could also show premeditation.

[Shlock Homes]

Animal techs do not wear street clothes inside the facility. They wear scrubs, rubber boots, and paper gowning. They are provided with a shower/locker room.

Someone posted a link in one of the threads with a slide show of Raymond Clark. One or two of them show him wearing what look like blue scrubs, kind of like what you'd see in a hospital. If he killed her, then her blood would be on that clothing. However, if the killer wanted to frame Clark, if he left that uniform in an easily accessible area in the lab, they could take that and speckle it with her blood.

When the alarm went off, did he change out of the scrubs back into his clothes? Or was he seen wearing them as he exited the building?

[PatientOne]

Animal techs do not wear street clothes inside the facility. They wear scrubs, rubber boots, and paper gowning. They are provided with a shower/locker room.

It was reported that Annie was found wearing the same clothes as seen in the final photo of her when she entered the bldg. -- a green top (a scrub top?) and a skirt. Is it possible to know yet if the basement room where she and RC held their appointed meeting would've required her to wear something different? If her attire didn't meet regulations, is this a type of infraction that techs may complain about?

[joypath]

It was reported that Annie was found wearing the same clothes as seen in the final photo of her when she entered the bldg. -- a green top (a scrub top?) and a skirt. Is it possible to know yet if the basement room where she and RC held their appointed meeting would've required her to wear something different? If her attire didn't meet regulations, is this a type of infraction that techs may complain about?



Annie Le was murdered while wearing her street clothes, researchers routinely throw on white lab coats when working with their study animals or performing analysis of biological materials. If one were scheduled to perform a vivisection on a number of animals, then one might change into scrubs, usually before walking over to the research laboratory.

Complaints about perceived improprieties by either staff or researchers can be made fact to fact IF that is the relationship developed, otherwise one would/should address MAJOR complaints from either side to the supervising staff.

From experience: reminders to wear booties were delivered to me frequently, often staff met me at the door with the booties in hand! Following protocol is exactly what all members of a research facility are obligated to do, changes or "oopses" can destroy many hours of research/study.

[Labrat]

It was reported that Annie was found wearing the same clothes as seen in the final photo of her when she entered the bldg. -- a green top (a scrub top?) and a skirt. Is it possible to know yet if the basement room where she and RC held their appointed meeting would've required her to wear something different? If her attire didn't meet regulations, is this a type of infraction that techs may complain about?

Generally lab coats are not allowed inside animal facilities- if you are wearing one you are required to remove it before you go in. You would put on a disposable paper gown, booties, bonnet, mask, and gloves before entering. Mine requires double gowning, so you go to your animal room and put on a second set before entering that room.

[Labrat]

From experience: reminders to wear booties were delivered to me frequently, often staff met me at the door with the booties in hand! Following protocol is exactly what all members of a research facility are obligated to do, changes or "oopses" can destroy many hours of research/study.

Exactly! This is why all the "control freak" and "policemen of the lab" comments in the press annoy me.

[joypath]

HI Joy!

I posted a video about traumatic asphyxia on another thread. In the video it is mentioned that craniocervical cyanosis may appear in such a case. It was also mentioned that the victim may look dead when they are actually still alive and can be resusitated. Posters wondered why LE had to ID Annie after discovering her body. IF cyanosis did occur it would have cast a very different coloring to Annie's appearance not to mention the five days of decomp. My question is how soon does craniocervical cyanosis appear during an act resulting in oxygen deprivation?


Why LE had to id Annie's body after discovery is part of the protocol of investigating a homicide, absolute CONFIRMED identity is mandatory to meet the legal requirements. As lay persons, it seemed "silly" since she was the only missing person who met the general body description but confirmaton by scientific methods was still required.

Visual examination of the body would NOT be a completely satisfactory identification, the cyanotic tinge and developed decomposition of 5 days would not preclude a preliminary assessment that the discovered decedent was Ms Le and therefore her family could be notified.

Craniocervical cyanosis will occur gradually as the oxygen level is dropping, exact time is difficult to present (consider minutes vs hours) but consider that the cyanosis is occurring because the O2 within the hemoglobin complex of the erythrocytes is not being replaced since the blood flow is ended.

[Harmony2]

Why LE had to id Annie's body after discovery is part of the protocol of investigating a homicide, absolute CONFIRMED identity is mandatory to meet the legal requirements. As lay persons, it seemed "silly" since she was the only missing person who met the general body description but confirmaton by scientific methods was still required.

Visual examination of the body would NOT be a completely satisfactory identification, the cyanotic tinge and developed decomposition of 5 days would not preclude a preliminary assessment that the discovered decedent was Ms Le and therefore her family could be notified.

Craniocervical cyanosis will occur gradually as the oxygen level is dropping, exact time is difficult to present (consider minutes vs hours) but consider that the cyanosis is occurring because the O2 within the hemoglobin complex of the erythrocytes is not being replaced since the blood flow is ended.

Thanks so much for your reply! Your presence here is invaluable. In speaking to premeditation, the killer watched up close and personal as Annie's life slipped away from her. He saw the terrified expressions and actions as she struggled to breathe, he saw her lose consciousness, and he saw the cyanosis setting in and yet he chose to continue his rage.

Annie's last moments were horrific... :cry:

[JL50ish]

If LE decides to go with the "jealousy motive" - that lowly cage cleaner Clark was jealous that these Ivy doctoral students go on to fancy jobs with huge paychecks - then the prosecution may decide that he pre-meditated the murder when he contacted her and requested the meeting. It seems like he targetted Le for his jealous rage because she was likely smaller than the other doctoral students and she was supposedly on the "fast track" to success. Her impending marriage may have also played in some way - either jealous that she would be marrying another Ivy leaguer or that he was attracted to her and knew he didn't stand a chance with her.

[gxm]

IMO, Annie was not rendered unconscious within 8 seconds. She was fighting for her life and she managed to draw blood on RC's chest, enough that his clothing was stained with his own blood, leaving behind the DNA evidence that will help convict him.

The fact that RC is the one who initiated the meeting, RC is the one with the smoldering rage and RC is the one who chose to choke the life out of a young woman after punching her. He moved from an assault (punching her) to a murder (choking her) and that required premeditation. And even as Annie fought for her life, he did not turn back from this purpose.

[eyes4crime]

IMO, Annie was not rendered unconscious within 8 seconds. She was fighting for her life and she managed to draw blood on RC's chest, enough that his clothing was stained with his own blood, leaving behind the DNA evidence that will help convict him.

The fact that RC is the one who initiated the meeting, RC is the one with the smoldering rage and RC is the one who chose to choke the life out of a young woman after punching her. He moved from an assault (punching her) to a murder (choking her) and that required premeditation. And even as Annie fought for her life, he did not turn back from this purpose.

Clark knew exactly what he was doing - he's nothing but a cowardly piece of carp. A bully to the nth degree. :furious:

[MWright]

Some discussion on JVM (9.17.09), on why Clark could face charges of murder in the first degree, even if this is a crime of rage and not (fully) premeditated.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0909/17/ijvm.01.html

"CARDOZA: It makes no sense. They could get a first-degree murder conviction for a different reason.

FRANCIS (?): We don`t know what the evidence is yet because the arrest warrants are sealed.

CARDOZA: We know she was strangled.

>>>snip, conversation digresses<<<<

VELEZ-MITCHELL: ... But could it have been like something spontaneous that she did that sparked his rage that had been bottled up?

GABA: Absolutely. That`s what I was saying earlier. I mean, it`s quite possible that he had it for her. She dissed him. He felt, you know, inferior to her. Here she is, a Yale college student and he`s a custodial person, and he just, you know, couldn`t take it anymore. And that was it.

I don`t know. I wasn`t there. But I do believe that there was a lot of rage. You don`t -- you don`t asphyxiate somebody the way he did if it wasn`t rage.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Right. It takes two to five minutes.

...

CARDOZA: That`s what I was going to point out. And that`s why they might, if they can prove he did it with the circumstantial evidence, the defensive wounds, get a first-degree murder conviction, because I remember when I prosecuted and you had strangulation. I would take a head of a mannequin and I would say, "You want to see how much time he had to think about this?"

You put your hands around the neck of the mannequin, and you stand there for four to five minutes and go, "That`s enough time to premeditate a murder, even though it might have started with rage." That`s why it could be first-degree murder."

[IWannaKnow]

ALL PURELY SPECULATION ON MY PART!

I think they argued about mice. They had argued before about similar subjects. It got out of hand this time - for whatever reason. She turned to walk out, RC hit her, fight ensues, RC strangles Annie. RC freaks out for period of time. Places Annie in laundry cart, covers with laundry. Begins cleaning immediate area. Begins scouting for spot to put body - hence all the swipes in different parts of building. Finally decides on utility chase, rolls laundry cart over to the room and stuffs Annie into the chase. RC puts his bloody clothes in the ceiling tiles, changes into clothes he had in his locker, and I think the alarm was triggered somewhere around this time. RC hadn't been able to clean everything up, hence the video of him leaving with his head in his hand. Has to come back to take care of all the details.....:twocents:

[Stephens]

So true, gxm.

I can't see Annie Le being so careless about protocol that it would require a meeting with anyone, let alone a lab technician. She came across as an incredibly diligent person, responsible. It seems more and more likely that he set her up to kill her. He was looking for an excuse to murder her and strangling someone to death is way too slow to be a "flash" of rage.

[Shlock Homes]

They said her death was due to traumatic asphyxiation due to neck compression. I'm not sure a choke hold from behind would have achieve that result because they're usually designed to just cut off the blood supply to the brain to knock someone out. Traumatic and neck compression implies some kind of crushing. If all of her bones were broken (we're not totally sure if that was bogus, or if they're just trying to say it was to plug a leak), then maybe the same device or method that did that also crushed her throat?

[joypath]

They said her death was due to traumatic asphyxiation due to neck compression. I'm not sure a choke hold from behind would have achieve that result because they're usually designed to just cut off the blood supply to the brain to knock someone out. Traumatic and neck compression implies some kind of crushing. If all of her bones were broken (we're not totally sure if that was bogus, or if they're just trying to say it was to plug a leak), then maybe the same device or method that did that also crushed her throat?



Picture standing behind somebody shorter than you, reach down and encircle the snaller neck with your large hands, both thumbs exerting pressure on the neck area below the chin and apply persistent pressure using your extra height as leverage: snap goes the hyoid bone.

PS: hyoid bone: the bone that is the only bone NOT connected to another, is the unique bone that in conjunction with the larynx permits us to talk!

[YellowDog]

I don't think this murder was premeditated. I think it came about because of some incident that happened between them in that room that day. Let's face it..........why would someone who planned to murder somone else pick a busy building at a University where people are in and out all the time when he could have followed her from the school or her apartment and forced her to go to a place where no one was around?

[Normcar21]

Hasn't anyone here ever been absolutely enraged by a co-worker before? Whatever you're doing may seem small to someone else, but it's your life and it's big to you. If someone starts to get under your skin, in small or big ways, it's hard to keep from getting more and more annoyed, even when they do little things. I know the one time I lost my temper with a co-worker, over ten years ago, I was really out of control. Fortunately, I'm not prone to violence, so for me, being out of control means I shook and raised my voice and slammed a door, but I can remember feeling like the entire world had gone away and it was just me and this other grad student, yelling at one another over disk space on the lab workstation. It was important to both of our research, but in the scheme of things, it was totally idiotic for us to be yelling about it. I was stressed, he was stressed, I saw him as being a hog of limited resources, he saw me as being in the way of his research, we got on each others' nerves, and we both simultaneously snapped. I guess that's why I don't find it impossible to believe that the confrontation that lead to her strangling was just over things in the lab.

Not that that makes RC any less nuts. Strangling someone is nuts.

I had a screaming match with a room mate about how the toilet paper roll should be placed on the roller, paper end in, or paper end out. We almost came to blows.

I agree, good point, I am very pleased that neither of us had a gun or a bat at that moment in my life. I honestly cannot guarantee that the result would not have been nasty in many ways.

As it turned out, we worked out a solution in due time...put the roll of toilet paper on the sink counter :croc::woohoo:

PS - had my roomy belted me with a bat I'm not sure if that could or would have been premeditation. I am not making a joke of the idea of premeditation in any way. The encounter actually happened and had it ended violently then the little encounter above may have been life changing for either one of the two of us. And that change of life may well have been permanent.

[Emily Booth]

They said her death was due to traumatic asphyxiation due to neck compression. I'm not sure a choke hold from behind would have achieve that result because they're usually designed to just cut off the blood supply to the brain to knock someone out. Traumatic and neck compression implies some kind of crushing. If all of her bones were broken (we're not totally sure if that was bogus, or if they're just trying to say it was to plug a leak), then maybe the same device or method that did that also crushed her throat?

I think we have discussions about strangulation going on at a couple of Annie Le threads.

Traumatic asphyxiation due to neck compression does not refer to crushing. It refers to strangulation. Strangulation can be from the front or behind, using hands or a ligature. A bead from Annie's necklace was found in the lab room. RC could've used her necklace as a ligature.

This was posted at one of the discussions on strangulation:

www.sog.unc.edu/programs/.../ (http://www.sog.unc.edu/programs/.../)Parker4DVStrangulation1-12-08.pdf

[Shlock Homes]

Picture standing behind somebody shorter than you, reach down and encircle the snaller neck with your large hands, both thumbs exerting pressure on the neck area below the chin and apply persistent pressure using your extra height as leverage: snap goes the hyoid bone.

PS: hyoid bone: the bone that is the only bone NOT connected to another, is the unique bone that in conjunction with the larynx permits us to talk!

Are you suggesting that Ray Clark had some kind of special training to do this? Is this method quick? If this had happened, I would expect them to have rule manual strangulation.

I'm not convinced her necklace was the tool of murder. If they found a bead from it, it must have broken. I'm assuming it was string, and probably not all that thick. Unless it was made out of fishing line with high pound threshold.

[JL50ish]

I don't think this murder was premeditated. I think it came about because of some incident that happened between them in that room that day. Let's face it..........why would someone who planned to murder somone else pick a busy building at a University where people are in and out all the time when he could have followed her from the school or her apartment and forced her to go to a place where no one was around?

While it may not make sense to us, people pre-meditate murders with witnesses around all the time (the Georgia prof who recently killed his wife and 2 friends is an example).

But, that said, I don't think the area where he killed her does have many people coming in and out. I'm guessing that he was so familiar with the few other grad students' schedules that use that lab, that he was very confident that he wouldn't be observed.

I'm not saying that he definitely did pre-meditate the murder, I'm just saying that this is not a busy lab with people coming in and out all the time. Plus, it sounds like this happened in a small room within the lab...maybe each grad student has his/her own small room for his/her animals (so Clark was even more certain that he wouldn't be observed), or perhaps this happened in a supply room or Clark's own desk/office area...a place where he was also certain that he would not be observed.

I'm looking forward to seeing a "floor plan" or layout of the entire ground floor where Clark and Annie went in and out. I think once we all see the layout - and learn who typically came in and out at various times, we'll see that he was rather confident that he wouldn't be seen murdering her.

[joypath]

I don't think this murder was premeditated. I think it came about because of some incident that happened between them in that room that day. Let's face it..........why would someone who planned to murder somone else pick a busy building at a University where people are in and out all the time when he could have followed her from the school or her apartment and forced her to go to a place where no one was around?



Here again as lay persons we are discussing PLANNED vs PREMEDITATED as in the vernacular whereas the courts will present it in legal terms. That brings one back to the fact that premeditation may occur "in the blink of an eye" and as such makes me feel/believe that premeditation DOES apply as he could have stopped the strangulation be it manual, manual & "assisted" or mechanical by object, prior to her demise. Often with traumatic asphixia, terminating the behavior prior to observable death by a lay person (aka no movement, no breath sounds) would still be too late; survivability deminishes invertly to the time of compression. Then and only then could the situation be declared a "passion of rage", not premeditated, but the small detail of getting her medical assistance immediately would be necessary, IMO!

[YellowDog]

I doubt if many killers who use strangulation as their method of killing have second thoughts in the middle of the act and seek medical help for their victims.

[Normcar21]

While it may not make sense to us, people pre-meditate murders with witnesses around all the time (the Georgia prof who recently killed his wife and 2 friends is an example).

But, that said, I don't think the area where he killed her does have many people coming in and out. I'm guessing that he was so familiar with the few other grad students' schedules that use that lab, that he was very confident that he wouldn't be observed.

I'm not saying that he definitely did pre-meditate the murder, I'm just saying that this is not a busy lab with people coming in and out all the time. Plus, it sounds like this happened in a small room within the lab...maybe each grad student has his/her own small room for his/her animals (so Clark was even more certain that he wouldn't be observed), or perhaps this happened in a supply room or Clark's own desk/office area...a place where he was also certain that he would not be observed.

I'm looking forward to seeing a "floor plan" or layout of the entire ground floor where Clark and Annie went in and out. I think once we all see the layout - and learn who typically came in and out at various times, we'll see that he was rather confident that he wouldn't be seen murdering her.

You said: But, that said, I don't think the area where he killed her does have many people coming in and out. I'm guessing that he was so familiar with the few other grad students' schedules that use that lab, that he was very confident that he wouldn't be observed.

I agree with you fully on that. I know this idea has been brought up in many threads before and I've always thought exactly the same thing. This lab was not like a Mall at the time, I'd agree with you.

As the color shows, I'm whispering agreement

[joypath]

I doubt if many killers who use strangulation as their method of killing have second thoughts in the middle of the act and seek medical help for their victims.


LOL! I have done the autopsies to concur with THAT statement!

[Normcar21]

Perhaps the completion of any act that lasts beyond one or two seconds suggests premeditation. If I fall off of a bike I cannot premeditate the reaction because it is too fast, I have no time to make a rational decision, so I fall and scrape my knees. Then I can make my decisions about riding abilities. No premeditation exists.

Now, if I want to hit someone smaller than myself because they have perhaps insulted me or my space, and they are standing directly in front of my face, I would have a brief moment to "decide" my response, right? Of course. This individual is small, petite, not threatening in a physical manner in any way.

This differs from the bike incident scenario because the individual is offered an extremely short time to react to the threat, but a definite mental time to react. Once the decision has been made, to react, then in a situation where strangulation exists, a whole lot of decision making and premeditation is not only possible, but probable. It takes a whole lotta seconds to strangle a human being. Every second of this time becomes decision/indecision on the part of the one who strangles.

That is definitely premeditation, and can be nothing less.

Annie was small

[YellowDog]

Sounds more like a "spur of the moment decision" to me.

[Very Interesting]

The way he tried to return to normal immediately after the murder, wonder if he had killed before from his anger and didnt get caught? As he plainly didnt have any guilt after Annie and went about things as normal.
Maybe this wasnt the first time he had murdered?

[Waddles]

The way he tried to return to normal immediately after the murder, wonder if he had killed before from his anger and didnt get caught? As he plainly didnt have any guilt after Annie and went about things as normal.
Maybe this wasnt the first time he had murdered?

Hi Very Interesting, someone else brought this up at the beginning-I really highly highly doubt it though myself MOO

I also would not agree that he plainly had no guilt. I would say he appeared to callously go about his way because he wanted to get away with it and/or he was in major denial and dissociated

[Very Interesting]

Hi Very Interesting, someone else brought this up at the beginning-I really highly highly doubt it though myself MOO

I also would not agree that he plainly had no guilt. I would say he appeared to callously go about his way because he wanted to get away with it and/or he was in major denial and dissociated


See I would think if he really felt guilt, he would have turned himself in and admitted he did it..just my opinion on when a person feels guilty about something..especially if they murdered somebody

[Waddles]

See I would think if he really felt guilt, he would have turned himself in and admitted he did it..just my opinion on when a person feels guilty about something..especially if they murdered somebody

yes, true- I guess covering his tracks overrode his guilt

[YellowDog]

I would say he went into "survival mode" with a faint hope that he might not get caught.
He had to know the body would begin to smell shortly. Do you suppose he had plans of trying to retreive the body and remove it from the building at some point after the crime?

[Skigirl]

I agree he could have been in survival mode. He may have just wanted to have as much time as possible to figure out what on earth to do. I would bet that he considered a lot of different things -- trying to hide the body in a different place within the building, trying to move her out of the building in some sort of container, who knows what else. He could have known that she would be found, but hoped that either she wouldn't, or that at least the defense wounds would be healed by then and he might have a ghost of a chance of getting away with it.

Maybe he thought there was a shade of a chance that the smell of the lab would cover the smell of her body and that people would believe that she had left the building during the alarm. He could have hoped that people would conclude that something horrible happened to her after she left (Amistad really is in a lousy neighborhood) or that she had been somehow carried out of the building in a suitcase or garbage can.

He may have figured he didn't have anything to lose by trying his level best to get away with it, and everything to gain.

We don't know how normal his behavior was in the days following the murder. We know that some who've seen the video footage outside the building thought he looked agitated. We know he missed two baseball games (the day of the murder and Thursday). We don't know if anyone very close to him knew anything was "off" (but not why). The only thing we know is that from a distance he seemed normal the day he was arrested, and that people on his baseball team, who didn't know him particularly well, didn't notice anything.

[Shlock Homes]

Was there any way he could have moved the body without anyone seeing him, or without it being seen on camera? That's something that hasn't been made clear. At 10am in the morning, I don't think the lab would have been completely empty.