PDA

View Full Version : 10th Search Warrant Released 3/15/10


pip
03-15-2010, 01:47 PM
http://newhavenindependent.org/archives/upload/Search__Seizure_Warrant.pdf


http://www.registercitizen.com/articles/2010/03/15/news/doc4b9e4a7c5b67a856409162.txt

http://newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/warrant_lanyard_tested_from_alleged_annie_le_kille rs_fiancee/id_24514

Shlock Homes
03-15-2010, 10:48 PM
I browsed through the affidavit. It appears there are matching DNA profiles on the lanyard that Raymond Clark's fiancee had with her key card with the DNA found on the pen and the sock from the chase with Annie Le's body.

Here's one theory - the lanyard is possibly Annie Le's. Hromadka could have taken it off Annie's lifeless body; or she could have found it lying around after the killer discarded it; or it was given to her by someone, perhaps the killer. Perhaps the lanyard was used to strangle Annie Le, and the sock was used to keep her quiet (i.e. stuffed in her mouth), which would explain the similar DNA found in the blood, inside the sock, etc... But it's not clear if it's Ray's sock or Annie's sock. They didn't specify whether it was a male or female profile found in the DNA in the sock. But I don't see how the pen had either Annie's or Hromadka's DNA. I assumed it would have been all Raymond Clark's since he was supposed to be the keeper of the green pen.

I'm a little confused about the results of the DNA test when they refer to the statistic probabilities relating to race. They mention african american, caucasian, and hispanic. Doesn't asian figure in there, or are they lumped in with one of those groups? If not, then I guess that throws my theory out the window.

Still, I'm surprised that they didn't specify the DNA as being male or female.

Edit: I didn't realize there was another warrant relating to Raymond Clark dated Dec 1. I will browse through that and add my thoughts on that one later.

Chanler
03-15-2010, 11:24 PM
I browsed through the affidavit. It appears there are matching DNA profiles on the lanyard that Raymond Clark's fiancee had with her key card with the DNA found on the pen and the sock from the chase with Annie Le's body.

Here's one theory - the lanyard is possibly Annie Le's. Hromadka could have taken it off Annie's lifeless body; or she could have found it lying around after the killer discarded it; or it was given to her by someone, perhaps the killer. Perhaps the lanyard was used to strangle Annie Le, and the sock was used to keep her quiet (i.e. stuffed in her mouth), which would explain the similar DNA found in the blood, inside the sock, etc... But it's not clear if it's Ray's sock or Annie's sock. They didn't specify whether it was a male or female profile found in the DNA in the sock. But I don't see how the pen had either Annie's or Hromadka's DNA. I assumed it would have been all Raymond Clark's since he was supposed to be the keeper of the green pen.

I'm a little confused about the results of the DNA test when they refer to the statistic probabilities relating to race. They mention african american, caucasian, and hispanic. Doesn't asian figure in there, or are they lumped in with one of those groups? If not, then I guess that throws my theory out the window.

Still, I'm surprised that they didn't specify the DNA as being male or female.

Hi, Schlock. I think that the search warrant is aimed at clarifying forensic evidence in the case against Raymond Clark; not implicating Ms. Hromadka. That she has not been arrested or named as a suspect in the three months since the search warrant confirms that supposition. That the warrant explicitly states that she did not swipe into Amistad even once from September 8th thru 13th strengthens the rationale of that conclusion.

The warrant states that "sufficient evidence exists to believe that the lanyard seized from 40 Ferry Street apartment 1A Middletown Connecticut, the residence of Jennifer Hromadka, contains evidence in the form of her DNA." Thus, the lanyard is presented in the warrant as a preliminary control which they are attempting to verify and to connect with the DNA on the sock and on the pen.

If the DNA on the sock does prove to be Jennifer's, it strengthens your previously stated contention that the sock is Raymond's, not Annie Le's, but it could weaken his case. That a live-in girlfriend would handle her boyfriend's socks requires no great leap of faith. My girlfriend habitually folds and ties my socks.

As for the pen, it's reasonable to assume that Jennifer and Raymond sometimes traveled to and from work together; left to or returned from lunch or break together; or left together. It makes sense that at least on occasion, Jennifer would ask to borrow his pen rather than retrieve her own for sign-in or outs.

Shlock Homes
03-15-2010, 11:47 PM
Thanks for your insight Chanler. I guess one thing it proves, that if DNA from Clark's fiancee can show up anywhere, even on the pen and sock connected to the victim, then maybe there's more reason to believe evidence has been contaminated? Or that the DNA evidence overall is inconclusive in connecting Clark to Annie Le. The only thing they've totally concluded was that Annie's blood was on the box of wipes and on the XL lab coat that contained the DNA profile of an unknown male.

It's interesting to note that none of the affidavits discuss the card swipes in to G33, which was a room that also had hair and blood samples found within. They mention the sign-in sheet for that room was used to sign with a green pen, but that's it. I think swipes into that room are just as significant as swipes into G13 and G22, unless they've ruled out Annie's body being transported into that room.

The large, second affidavit mentioned searching Clark's phone records on pg 67. But nothing was mentioned about Annie Le. I think it's a little strange, considering that the media printed many times that Clark sent Annie Le an email about meeting her that morning, if I'm not mistaken. The affidavit seems to state that his phone was used several times between Sept 8 to Sep 12, which isn't much. And they were used to access websites. Nothing about text messages sent to anyone in particular.

Chanler
03-16-2010, 08:23 PM
Thanks for your insight Chanler. I guess one thing it proves, that if DNA from Clark's fiancee can show up anywhere, even on the pen and sock connected to the victim, then maybe there's more reason to believe evidence has been contaminated? Or that the DNA evidence overall is inconclusive in connecting Clark to Annie Le. The only thing they've totally concluded was that Annie's blood was on the box of wipes and on the XL lab coat that contained the DNA profile of an unknown male.

It's interesting to note that none of the affidavits discuss the card swipes in to G33, which was a room that also had hair and blood samples found within. They mention the sign-in sheet for that room was used to sign with a green pen, but that's it. I think swipes into that room are just as significant as swipes into G13 and G22, unless they've ruled out Annie's body being transported into that room.

The large, second affidavit mentioned searching Clark's phone records on pg 67. But nothing was mentioned about Annie Le. I think it's a little strange, considering that the media printed many times that Clark sent Annie Le an email about meeting her that morning, if I'm not mistaken. The affidavit seems to state that his phone was used several times between Sept 8 to Sep 12, which isn't much. And they were used to access websites. Nothing about text messages sent to anyone in particular.

Hi, Schlock, I think that with good intentions, you are attempting to make lemonade or something even sweeter out of lemons.

The appearance of DNA from Clark's fiancee on items already associated with him and Annie Le hardly qualifies legally as contamination. That Jennifer was not in the building during the relevant period of the crime indicates that she is not the primary carrier and the presence of her DNA strengthens the forensic validity of the DNA evidence against him, often a significant topic of defense dispute during a homicide trial.

You minimize the blood evidence. The concealed bloody sock contained both Annie Le's DNA and Raymond Clark's DNA. Its mate was found with Annie Le's body. You also ignore the blood-marked "Ray-C" work boots and Clark's pen found in Annie's death dungeon. The "unknown male" you mention might become known when the pending DNA tests mentioned in the affadavit are completed.

The card swipes into G33 are not as significant as those into G13 and G22. There are multiple indications that Annie Le was attacked in G13, her research lab and the last known place she entered. There are also indications that clean-up and concealment occurred there and immediately outside that room. G22, with its blood-stained wall and other evidence, is a singular crime scene site because only Clark entered it on the day of Annie's murder. Because Clark also entered G33 during the relevant period that day, it will figure in the evidence against him, but there is no logical reason why it should be mentioned in further detail for a search or arrest warrant.

The large affidavit to which you refer was previously released. The only warrant released this week was the call for Jennifer's DNA.

Why should Annie Le's emails (sent or received) be mentioned in warrants? No search warrant was required to obtain her computer files and phone records. I'm sure that the email (which was reported by local media that appear to have police sources) will surface at the trial.

Shlock Homes
03-31-2010, 11:05 PM
Thank you for your reply, Chanler.

We haven't been told anything about the evidence with blood on it. Was it under lock and key at all times when Clark wasn't wearing it? Or was it lying around, socks included. The warrant seems to indicate that the boots were not locked up. The pen's disappearance (and subsequent placement in the chase) has also not been explained from Clark's point of view.

If Jennifer H's DNA can be found all over the evidence, and yet she never scanned in that day to the lab (it's not clear if they checked for her on the surveillance tapes), then there might be something wrong with the evidence. It didn't help matters that individuals were allowed to come and go from that basement area for many days after Annie went missing. That's why there seems to be so much emphasis on the card swipes, because the DNA evidence is not without fault.

Chanler
04-01-2010, 02:48 PM
Thank you for your reply, Chanler.

We haven't been told anything about the evidence with blood on it. Was it under lock and key at all times when Clark wasn't wearing it? Or was it lying around, socks included. The warrant seems to indicate that the boots were not locked up. The pen's disappearance (and subsequent placement in the chase) has also not been explained from Clark's point of view.

If Jennifer H's DNA can be found all over the evidence, and yet she never scanned in that day to the lab (it's not clear if they checked for her on the surveillance tapes), then there might be something wrong with the evidence. It didn't help matters that individuals were allowed to come and go from that basement area for many days after Annie went missing. That's why there seems to be so much emphasis on the card swipes, because the DNA evidence is not without fault.

Hi, Schlock, nice to see your post.

You're arguing from an impossibility. How on earth could it be established that the evidence with Clark's DNA was "under lock and key at all times when he wasn't wearing it"? And you also implicitly arguing for the existence of a Disney-like elf who ran around shortly after this perfect murder gathering several items associated with Clark, including a pen brilliantly snatched just hours after the murder.

We don't yet know, of course, whether Jennifer's DNA is on evidence, but its said existence would not likely indicate that there is something wrong with evidence. Instead, it most likely would prove the obvious: That housemate fiancees frequently touch and fold their boyfriend's clothes. Police announcements that Jennifer is not a suspect would seem to indicate that her non-presence at the Amistad building was verified. DNA evidence combined that with indications of that absence would actually strengthen the forensic evidence against Clark.

The reasons that the card swipes are important should be clear: 1. They helped identify Clark as a suspect. 2. Like the video records, they provide us with a reliable timeline from which investigators can work. That their evidence intertwines with forensic evidence demonstrates the strength of the case.

Shlock Homes
04-02-2010, 04:03 PM
Hi, Schlock, nice to see your post.

Ditto!


You're arguing from an impossibility. How on earth could it be established that the evidence with Clark's DNA was "under lock and key at all times when he wasn't wearing it"? And you also implicitly arguing for the existence of a Disney-like elf who ran around shortly after this perfect murder gathering several items associated with Clark, including a pen brilliantly snatched just hours after the murder.


I still stand by my theory. The pen could have been snatched when Clark left the basement during the fire alarm. He was using it up until around that time. Then he switched to a different color pen after returning. So either he dropped it into the chase during the fire alarm when disposing of the body, or someone else did. Since Clark was seen on video leaving the building during the alarm, that rules him out.

Also, if the killer was able to grab the green pen, maybe he also used Clark's pass. We don't know if he told police if he had left it behind when exiting during the alarm, or if they detected card swipes under his name when he was seen on video having exited the basement.

That's why it's important to trace all of Clark's movements relating to card swipes and him being physically in the lab, and at the same time, tracing everyone else's steps via the scans. What kind of gap in time do you think Clark would have needed to commit the crime and then transport the body, without being seen? This would also have to include the time to clean the crime scene(s) and change his bloodied clothing.

The blood on the boot is hard to explain for my theory. If Clark was wearing his boots when he committed the murder, and blood got on it, then wouldn't he have been seen on camera having removed them when he exited the lab the many times before he finally left before the day? Also, this would mean that if someone else was trying to frame Clark, the boot was soiled by the killer AFTER Clark left for the day. The blood may have been transferred as the laces were being removed, or they were intentionally splashed to further place Clark under scrutiny.


We don't yet know, of course, whether Jennifer's DNA is on evidence, but its said existence would not likely indicate that there is something wrong with evidence. Instead, it most likely would prove the obvious: That housemate fiancees frequently touch and fold their boyfriend's clothes. Police announcements that Jennifer is not a suspect would seem to indicate that her non-presence at the Amistad building was verified. DNA evidence combined that with indications of that absence would actually strengthen the forensic evidence against Clark.


I agree that her non-presence is important. I don't believe she was personally involved in the act. But the presence of someone else's DNA (possibly not hers, but definitely not Clark's) just goes to show that there has been contamination or someone else was involved.


The reasons that the card swipes are important should be clear: 1. They helped identify Clark as a suspect. 2. Like the video records, they provide us with a reliable timeline from which investigators can work. That their evidence intertwines with forensic evidence demonstrates the strength of the case.

I agree Card swipes are important. They can also be used exonerate Clark. If Clark's Lawyers are really smart, they will argue down the smoking gun nature of the swipes by showing that other people were scanned in around the same time as Clark, or that the gaps in time between Clark being alone and people being around made it impossible for him to commit the murder, conceal the body and clean up the crime scenes.

Chanler
04-03-2010, 09:46 PM
Raymond Clark's own timeline argues against another person murdering Annie Le.

According to his confusing account, he last saw Annie alive between 12:30 and 12:45 or, he says, about fifteen minutes before he left the building and the fire alarm.

Thus, when you claim that he didn't have time to do the killing, the clean-up, and the transporting of the body, you must also admit that anyone else who killed her would have to perform said tasks in even shorter time plus still have time to plant evidence against Clark in several rooms.

Annie seems not to have entered any other room, nor was she seen by anyone between the time that Clark's alibi contends that she left the lab room where she was murdered. Was she just roaming the halls somehow invisible? And by all the evidence in this heavily investigated case, she did not leave the building when it was emptied. If she wasn't dead by then, where was she levitating? And yet in this very narrow time span, our killer is with apparently Annie, but not in the room where she seems to have been attacked, but he also finds the time and opportunity to somehow steal Raymond Clark's pen!

And now my friend Schlock Homes has added another activity to the killer's to-do list: He suggests that in addition to the green pen, this master criminal might have also stolen Raymond Clark's pass card. One would imagine that Clark might have regarded this as relevant and mentioned it to Yale police officer that he approached the day after Annie's disappearance. And,wasn't he using his pass card when he entered the room the following day with several officers present?