1267 users online (261 members and 1006 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7 15 16 17
Results 241 to 249 of 249
  1. #241
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Shlock Homes View Post
    I disagree on your point that there is enough evidence to convict by a 'blind and deaf jury'. You don't have any witnesses to the crime, and you don't have any video evidence. The evidence is all circumstantial, and it's not beyond a reason of a doubt, because you have to prove that Clark had the means to commit the murder and cover up the crime without any witnesses.

    If he really did have anger building towards Annie, then it would have come out already that Annie felt threatened. We haven't heard anything of the sort. We've heard some stories about how Clark might be a control freak, but that could be words coming from people who had personal issues with Clark. His job may very well have been to be a 'control freak', or at least keep things running smoothly.



    But why did Clark even need to hide the evidence? As far as I know, he didn't have to worry about bags being checked on his way out. He could have just stuck that stuff in a gym bag and walked out, rather than playing hide and go seek in various locations, which would have been much more risky. A person who does that is someone with a lot of time alone.

    The affidavit never did say if there was blood found on the ceiling tiles where they found the sock and I think glove. If the killer was hiding those items right after murdering Annie, there would have been blood transfer onto the tiles. If there wasn't, that means those items must have been dry and hidden much later after her body had been hidden.
    What does a child do when they feel like they did something wrong and don't want their parants to find out? They hide things in random places out of panic. All of this random evidence hiding is a result of panic. So what was he doing when all of this happened? He never said his swipe card was missing or stolen which means he was down there when this all happened. This would mean someone would have to of stolen his card from him without him knowing, swiped it like CRAZY down there, then returned his card. Oh and this was all after this other person was done hiding evidence. He would have to of been not down there at all for all of this to have happened and he not see a thing. Not to mention it was stated he left the building after the alarm was pulled with a look that they said appeared like he had done something recently he wasn't very proud of.

    As far as the blood transfer thing goes you talk about that is pure assumption. Maybe the parts with blood never touched anything but air? I'm sorry but all of the evidence can be argued much more believable that they have the right person in custody than it can be believed that they don't.

  2. #242
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    15
    Its very difficult for me to think that anyone else could be involved in this. Why? Because everytime I read of a way he could not have been involved there is always a piece of evidence that rules out that possibility. Reading over all of the evidence that has been given to the public is to me enough for anyone to believe that he did it.

  3. #243
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    503
    Quote Originally Posted by septc View Post
    What does a child do when they feel like they did something wrong and don't want their parants to find out? They hide things in random places out of panic. All of this random evidence hiding is a result of panic. So what was he doing when all of this happened? He never said his swipe card was missing or stolen which means he was down there when this all happened. This would mean someone would have to of stolen his card from him without him knowing, swiped it like CRAZY down there, then returned his card. Oh and this was all after this other person was done hiding evidence. He would have to of been not down there at all for all of this to have happened and he not see a thing. Not to mention it was stated he left the building after the alarm was pulled with a look that they said appeared like he had done something recently he wasn't very proud of.
    You're right about the card swipes, he probably did it. Now whether they were out of the ordinary is impossible to tell. They only compared it to a few weeks prior, during the summer session. They didn't compare it to, say, September of the previous year.

    But what they haven't told us was when those many swipes were occurring. They did say that he swiped in once, about a half hour after Annie Le's swipe. Then he swiped a couple of times, first to another room, then back to the lab. Then he didn't swipe again until an hour or so later (close to noon). For a guy who was panicking, he didn't swipe all that much around the time they think he killed her.

    They also haven't revealed the card swipes of all the other people who had access to the basement during that time. Are we to believe he was totally alone in all those rooms? Or were there others in those rooms, including the room where the murder took place? I seem to recall that the warrant did mention swipes by other people in that room, but they never revealed what time those occurred.

    As far as the blood transfer thing goes you talk about that is pure assumption. Maybe the parts with blood never touched anything but air? I'm sorry but all of the evidence can be argued much more believable that they have the right person in custody than it can be believed that they don't.
    The warrant said there was blood in three different rooms, or at least traces of it. So there was plenty of blood to go around. Plus there was blood smeared on the inside panel door of the chase where her body was found. If the blood dried so quickly that it didn't transfer onto the ceiling panel, why did the claim there was blood stains in the car and Raymond Clark's apartment, even though he didn't have contact with either until after 4pm?

  4. #244
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    503
    Quote Originally Posted by septc View Post
    Its very difficult for me to think that anyone else could be involved in this. Why? Because everytime I read of a way he could not have been involved there is always a piece of evidence that rules out that possibility. Reading over all of the evidence that has been given to the public is to me enough for anyone to believe that he did it.
    I have to believe he possibly didn't do it because no one saw him do it. That's more than enough to give reason of a doubt. Plus, he works down there, so of course he would be present down there that whole time. So how does someone murder a person during the middle of the day in a workplace/school lab, hide the body, hide evidence of the crime (blood in the rooms, blood on the clothing), and nobody saw a single thing? And he still kept going to work every day after that, because as far as he knew, as well as everyone else, Annie Le was just missing.

    You don't commit a murder in a workplace, then stick around until the end of your shift. That doesn't make sense.

    I wish this trial would get underway fast. If they have so much compelling evidence against Raymond Clark, why don't they start the process? Does anyone know when the actual trial starts?

  5. #245
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    new england
    Posts
    1,605
    Quote Originally Posted by Shlock Homes View Post
    I have to believe he possibly didn't do it because no one saw him do it. That's more than enough to give reason of a doubt. Plus, he works down there, so of course he would be present down there that whole time. So how does someone murder a person during the middle of the day in a workplace/school lab, hide the body, hide evidence of the crime (blood in the rooms, blood on the clothing), and nobody saw a single thing? And he still kept going to work every day after that, because as far as he knew, as well as everyone else, Annie Le was just missing.

    You don't commit a murder in a workplace, then stick around until the end of your shift. That doesn't make sense.

    I wish this trial would get underway fast. If they have so much compelling evidence against Raymond Clark, why don't they start the process? Does anyone know when the actual trial starts?
    Hi! Just thought I'd respond based on being at the scene and from experience: #1. MOST murders ARE NOT committed with an audience as a response to your "nobody saw him do it" for a reason of a doubt. #2. The laboratory staffing was in transition, it was the academic semester beginning for the undergrads and the "rush" to the publish results time for the grad students, aka known as S T R E S S. #3. Hiding "stuff" including a body of a petite woman, not that difficult wen one has access to the very large and easily maneuverable carts, the exact piece of equipment that RC was EXPECTED to be using as part of his work function AND the carts are intended to be COVERED when transporting contaminated materials so, gee that totally fits within his work activity and action. #4. Anxiety was rising exponentially as the days passed, NOT showing up to work would make him stick out like a sore thumb. (then again, he was under observation as a "person of interest" due to his "unique" interview responses). #5. What does an individual who believes that his/her actions were "right" and the party that was murdered was the "bad vector" do after the fact?....they live his/her life because he or she "fixed" the problem by getting rid of the "bad vector" so of course he finished out his work day, so he could get PAID!

    Ct. murder trials have a tendency to reach the courts within 2-2.5 years after the incident (longer if a DP), this one is still in the psychological stage. The forensic evidence that has been released shows that the "ducks are in a row", the unreleased "stuff" shores it up.
    Last edited by JBean; 10-09-2010 at 09:56 PM. Reason: fix broken quote
    “Hic locus est ubi mors gaudet succure vitae”– Giovanni Margagni

    "This is the place where death rejoices to teach those who live."-
    Giovanni Margagni

  6. #246
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    425
    I think there is very little doubt that he killed her. I just think that this wasn't premeditated, it was a heat of passion type thing that sprang up from an argument. I think that he was giving her the same stuff over the animal and she got tired of it and they got into a heated argument. She said something or did something to him that sent him over the edge and he lost it and hit her. One punch kills happen.

    This wasn't about her research or an affair, it was just an argument over the same thing he had been nagging her over for the longest. If this was preplanned he wouldn't have killed her in a secure building with a log that would place him in the same room as her at the time of the murder.

  7. #247
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    503
    Quote Originally Posted by joypath View Post
    Hi! Just thought I'd respond based on being at the scene and from experience: #1. MOST murders ARE NOT committed with an audience as a response to your "nobody saw him do it" for a reason of a doubt.
    Thanks for your response. For #1, I agree that murders are not done with audiences, especially ones that are pre-meditated. The murderers prefer no witnesses. However, he was in a place that did have people coming and going throughout the day. How many people actually traveled through there, and accessed the same rooms he was accessing is something the police have not made clear. If this had occurred in the middle of the night, I'd be more inclined to believe it. Since it had to have occurred during the course of an hour or so in the middle of the day, then it's a little harder to believe that no one saw anything at all suspicious during that same time period. That's why I'm also leaning on the theory that she may not have died that morning, especially since blood evidence wasn't found until the police showed up the next day or so.


    #2. The laboratory staffing was in transition, it was the academic semester beginning for the undergrads and the "rush" to the publish results time for the grad students, aka known as S T R E S S.
    That's where I believe the alleged excessive card scans come into play. Raymond Clark may have been moving around from room to room helping people out, hence the card scans. If this is the case, then, again, when did he have time alone long enough to commit murder, move the bloodied corpse between two or three rooms, transport it down a hallway and then hide it in a locker room?

    #3. Hiding "stuff" including a body of a petite woman, not that difficult wen one has access to the very large and easily maneuverable carts, the exact piece of equipment that RC was EXPECTED to be using as part of his work function AND the carts are intended to be COVERED when transporting contaminated materials so, gee that totally fits within his work activity and action.
    That is one way I believe the killer could have transported the body. The problem is, the police never mentioned in the warrants any cart having any trace blood evidence. I think the only time a cart was mentioned was a box of gloves having blood on it that was on top of a cart in the room where they believed the murder occurred.

    #4. Anxiety was rising exponentially as the days passed, NOT showing up to work would make him stick out like a sore thumb. (then again, he was under observation as a "person of interest" due to his "unique" interview responses).
    I'm not sure how his response was unique, other than the fact that he says he saw her, and nobody else ever admitted to seeing her. I think that's where they started suspecting him.

    If he had spent a little too much time hanging out in the locker room while the police were probing the place, I could see that as being a clue to his guilt. This was not a career murderer, so I doubt he would have kept his composure the way it sounds, while the police were probing the place.

    #5. What does an individual who believes that his/her actions were "right" and the party that was murdered was the "bad vector" do after the fact?....they live his/her life because he or she "fixed" the problem by getting rid of the "bad vector" so of course he finished out his work day, so he could get PAID!
    This is assuming that he had an axe to grind with Annie Le. We have not heard of any such conflict between the two. The alleged text message was only quoted in the media, not mentioned in the warrants as far as I recall, so we all know how the media can alter the 'facts' in a case like this.

    The sooner the trial gets underway, the sooner we can find out what the nature of the relationship, if there was even any, between Annie and Raymond. As far as I can tell, it was just two people going about their business.


    Ct. murder trials have a tendency to reach the courts within 2-2.5 years after the incident (longer if a DP), this one is still in the psychological stage. The forensic evidence that has been released shows that the "ducks are in a row", the unreleased "stuff" shores it up.
    That's still way too long. They really need to get this to trial soon, regardless of whether it's procedure, protocol, or a formality. If Raymond is found to be innocent, then they've lost a lot of time to retrace the memories of people and the evidence so that it points to the real culprit.

    At this point, they should have enough forensic evidence to go to trial, since the alleged killer left a trail of evidence hiding in various places around the basement.

  8. #248
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    503
    Quote Originally Posted by porkchop View Post
    This wasn't about her research or an affair, it was just an argument over the same thing he had been nagging her over for the longest. If this was preplanned he wouldn't have killed her in a secure building with a log that would place him in the same room as her at the time of the murder.
    But I haven't heard of any previous incidents or mention of Annie and him having disagreements. She would have told her friends. This literally came out of nowhere. It seems more like he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and since his clothing was left lying around and not under lock and key, he was the easiest person to pin the murder on. Just take his clothes, smear it in her blood, and then hide them around the lab so they could be found later. His pen in the chase with her body just comes across as an obvious plant.

  9. #249
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    new england
    Posts
    1,605
    Quote Originally Posted by Shlock Homes View Post
    But I haven't heard of any previous incidents or mention of Annie and him having disagreements. She would have told her friends. This literally came out of nowhere. It seems more like he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and since his clothing was left lying around and not under lock and key, he was the easiest person to pin the murder on. Just take his clothes, smear it in her blood, and then hide them around the lab so they could be found later. His pen in the chase with her body just comes across as an obvious plant.

    It had been an issue regarding RC's ability to function within the parameters of HIS job description rather than that of the role he had assumed for himself, other post-D & grad students had encounters with him. The general atmosphere was to regard him as "harmless", rather as the bothersome fly that one flicks off a shoulder. For what it's worth, changing lockers available do have keys for security, the trace evidence of "smearing blood" appears SIGNIFICANTLY different from that of contact blood (the smeared blood would have "tails and depending upon the amount of time passage, possible agglutination (clots)&/or serum separation). The "planting of the pen in the chase with her body" will be demonstrated as an impossible theory by the forensic data.
    On a side issue....the timing of bring cases to trial is frequently masterminded by the defense, delays usually mean deceased witnesses, poor memories and the ever possibility of lost evidence....all friends of the defense team.
    “Hic locus est ubi mors gaudet succure vitae”– Giovanni Margagni

    "This is the place where death rejoices to teach those who live."-
    Giovanni Margagni

Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7 15 16 17


Similar Threads

  1. Motives for Murder
    By Kimster in forum General Information & Discussion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 05-27-2013, 10:38 AM
  2. Was murder one of the primary motives?
    By Chemaster in forum Byrd and Melanie Billings
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 08-17-2009, 10:03 PM

Tags for this Thread