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.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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
Last edited by miafedup; 09-20-2009 at 12:47 PM.
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.
Last edited by miafedup; 09-20-2009 at 01:09 PM.
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.
Please think long and hard before calling a child a 'run-a-way':
You might be giving a 'perk' to the 'perp'.
Democracy requires the occasional necessity of deferring to the opinions of other people. (Winston Churchill)
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.
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.
The above post is as always MY OPINION ONLY!
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.I'm still inclined to believe the "unrequited love" motive, regardless of what Yale or the NHPD say.
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
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.
A person with less self control and presence of mind than my former coworker might well snap under the same conditions.
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.
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.
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.
Rest in Peace
Joey, Summer, Gianni & Joseph Mateo