Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 140
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmiesax View Post
    Please see P 12 of the warrent. It clearly states a mix
    I still don't see what you are referring to when you state that his DNA was on her. They only say there were items of clothing found that had some of his and some of her DNA, but they don't attribute the clothing to either him or her.


  2. #77
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by Sloof View Post
    Again, you're treating an arrest warrant as prosecutable evidence. You seem to ask a lot of tedious questions most of which will be answered when the seven affidavits are released on 12/01/09. These affidavits will contain much deeper investigative techniques and analysis of evidence then a 12 page arrest warrant (again, which only needs to show suspicion, proximity and probable cause). There will also be what is hinted at over 2,000 pages of documented admissible evidence when this case goes to trial.

    While I admire those who have the time and energy to take your posts to task. I am reduced to very quickly skimming them... I apologize for that but within the week much more information will be made available that will render most of your conjecture and questions irrelevant.
    I don't mind if you don't want to debate the points, that's fine. I have taken the time to address points raised by people who make arguments that Ray is guilty. I do hope you are right and the remaining affidavits will be more detailed, and will give more proof to either side of the argument of Ray's guilt. As it stands now, I don't feel that the information in the affidavit is damning enough, and I'm taking the time to point out where one could argue this in Ray's defense. The fact of the matter is, no one saw anything, no one heard anything, card swipes aren't indicators of guilt (as I've pointed out from the beginning), and not all of the clothing found with blood indicated they belonged to Ray, even though they did positively ID his DNA on the sock. There is an unknown male DNA on the lab coat, indicating that someone else most likely was involved.


  3. #78
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Shlock Homes View Post
    This is a difficult one to rationalize. Did the killer have to have knowledge of the chase in the toilet? I still don't know if her body was located in the men's or women's washroom. Initially some reports suggested her body was crushed to fit in there. I could see that happening. Maybe the killer knew about the chase, but didn't realize how small it was, so they may have used force to stuff the body inside, maybe breaking bones in the process and causing blood to be released within the chase. But that would have been very loud as well, and could have aroused suspicions from people nearby.

    I have to say for my part, I've never been aware of chases. Most places I've worked don't have access panels behind toilets, just tiling or plain walls. I don't recall ever using a public washroom where a door or panel that could be accessed was located in a toilet stall.
    Good morning Re my bold...Let me try to explain. A chase can be any shape or size, as long as minimum dimensions are met so that it meets code for inspection. Ok, having said that, sometimes there won't be access right behind the toilet. Sometimes a chase can only have electrical wires in it, etc. Chases are made so that there's easy or easier access to certain parts (wires or pipes) that may need to be repaired or replaced in the future...plus could lend "breathing" room for some major parts that may meet together & produce heat. I'm no expert, so please don't take this out of context. My husband explained this to me as he is a contractor in NJ, PA, DE, & MD. He's licensed in Plumbing, HVAC, & Electric - he subs out the carpentry b/c he doesn't have the patience for the detail involved in custom woodworking...however he helps to lay the groundwork for framing houses. He's explained to me, b/c of Annie's case, exactly what a chase is. I really feel silly that I didn't know there was an actual term for this area. Some people take the term more literal than others. OK, well...when you go to a mall & use the restroom, chances are the wall behind the toilets or sinks will be completely flat or tiled. Most of the time, in that type of surrounding, there would be a men's room directly opposite the women's room, with a "work closet" or utility closet inbetween them. This "work closet" would not only be used to store cleaning materials, it would more than likely house access panels to the restrooms. In Disney World, they don't show any access panels in their restrooms either (not that I've noticed anyhow)), but in their hotel rooms, usually they're under the sink or down low by a bed. I had breakfast at Cracker Barrel this morning...there wasn't an access panel in my stall but sure enough there was an access panel in the handicap stall (I looked b/c this was bugging me about the chase & panels conversation). At my house, my son's bathroom access panel is in his bedroom closet b/c of the placement of his tub...but in my main downstairs bathroom, since we own a bi-level house, it was easier to build a chase underneath the stairs - since the bathroom is adjacent to the steps going downstairs...kwim? In a major university, I pretty much think it's fair to say these "chases" would be larger than one in my home. It's still small, don't get me wrong, but common sense tells me that every major structure that has people utilizing it on a daily basis (such as this washroom/restroom), would have to have some kind of access panel or chase in case a pipe burst or there was a short in a wire. I know it's more complicated than this, I'm only trying to explain so everyone understands better just how common a chase really is. In most large structures they are a necessity, a must have in order to pass code. In Yale's Amistad Building, and considering the delicate work & research that is performed there, I'd guess there's several in that building...not just in a washroom.

    Hope I didn't bore you.

    OK, the other thing about her body. If her bones were mutilated to fit into that space, surely there would be more blood than just a knock on her head. If that's the case, then why didn't blood seep through the crevices...or did it? Was she in a large plastic bag or something? That's not an insinuation, just really wondering.

    I know how you feel, Shlock, but I still believe Clarke to be guilty of this crime. So far, the evidence points to him. For me, my mind is so analytical that I haven't been able to conclude he did everything on his own. Maybe I'm just being bullheaded. I simply can't help it. He simply doesn't remind me of an intelligent cat that's smart enough to accomplish everything on his own. I mean, right down to his pen, his green pen. He used that pen every single day, had for years, he was ridiculously anal about his green ink...yet he didn't have a spare green ink pen to sign out with when he realized he lost his other green pen? If he's as anal as they say he is/was, then surely he had a backup pen. No matter how much I look at it, for every piece of evidence that shows up, something else jumps out at me.

    I do believe they have the right perp in custody, but I can't escape the feeling that somebody else is involved somehow. Guess that's why I'm not a cop. I'll leave that profession to my family. I like research, diseases, cultures, genetics, etc. I went to college many years ago, wanted to work in surgery with terminally ill children. I wanted to work for the WHO...then thought I'd settle for the CDC. When I saw how they were basically manipulated by the government, I changed my mind to work personally with people. Been a volunteer for many years. I settled down way too early & didn't finish but continued research as an aide. I wasn't smart enough to get into Harvard or Yale, although now I could probably hold my own! I did however go to FSU. I've also been to the Body Farm before it was actually made "famous" (amazing the work that's done there)...completely cutting edge research & technology, compared to nothing else in this world imo. I will be back in work fulltime next year when my children are settled. My youngest is in 2nd grade. 3rd grade is when his habits and ethics are settled, according to data I've learned, so that's when I'll hit the market again. I'd like to work for AI DuPont with Cancer & AIDS children...which is one place I volunteer right now. This isn't anout me, though...it's about Annie...

    This happening to Annie hits home with me. Research labs across our world are set up like this. Basement labs, heck even Medical Examiner Labs, are in basements in universities & hospitals...and it's desolate - not to be taken out of context. There should be better security...no ifs ands or buts about it. Also, better background checks should be done on people working in universities & other learning facilities.


  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jersey*Girl For This Useful Post:


  5. #79
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Chanler View Post
    Given the age, relatively small size of the Amistad building and the limited key swipe access to the basement, itís quite possible that the basement didnít have separate male and female bathrooms. In any case, youíre hypothesizing a male who strangles a small woman, but is too squeamish to search for hiding places while others are gone.
    Respectfully snipped to save size. Good morning, Chanler!

    I thought I read that this washroom was shared as coed...am I mistaken? Does anyone know? I thought it was set up like this due to Yale being so proud of this building b/c not only is it cutting edge research & technology, but it's completely Green...built completely Green using Green materials from the ground up. The drainage & water systems have their own filtering & recycling set in place. I read they utilize rainwater, etc. Again, anyone know, b/c I thought something about this wash area was utilized in going Green?


  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jersey*Girl For This Useful Post:


  7. #80
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,080
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmiesax View Post
    Hi everybody! I sent a message but maybe didn't get through! I'd like to apologize for any offense to anybody. Didn't mean that. I guess I am not totally familar with all of the rules here. But this poster drives me a little crazy! This is not a very complicated case. He swiped in after her, he has her blood and DNA on him, (how did that happen?), he moved evidence, he tried to sidetrack investigators. He never denied doing it. When he was questioned by LE, he asked for a lawyer. If this was me, and I didn't do it, I would be screaming from the rafters that I didn't do it.
    Jerseygirl thanks so much for the warm welcome. I appreciate it much. I think in fact Raymond Clark could have cleaned up by himself. All of his relatives who worked there were questioned. If LE thought they were involved in any way, they would have been arrested. They would be under intense pressure by police. These are not professional killers or criminals.
    Jerserygirl, I understand what you're saying about habits. But after murdering someone, as Raymond Clark most certainly did, those go out the window, even for the most anal person. It is simply not the same as toiet habits.
    Thanks again for the welcome. I hope to be better behaved and to hear from you all again.
    Also, I don't think there will be a trial. I think Clark will plead to something, which is what he should do
    Good morning Jimmiesax! Yep, I pretty much agree with you on everything...just can't get the feeling out of my gut that he had help somehow. I know my toilet comparison was lousy, just trying to attempt an example...albeit an embarassing one! Since I know you can't convict someone based on "gut" or "feeling", by common denomination it leaves Clark standing.

    Side note, I wonder if Henry Lee will get involved, since he's anti-dp. Guess we'll have to wait to see what prosecutors go after. I do wonder if he won't get involved, since New Haven University houses his lab, and he does work with the NHPD. I'd think they'd put alot of pressure on him if he did get involved.


  8. #81
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Sloof View Post
    Again, you're treating an arrest warrant as prosecutable evidence. You seem to ask a lot of tedious questions most of which will be answered when the seven affidavits are released on 12/01/09. These affidavits will contain much deeper investigative techniques and analysis of evidence then a 12 page arrest warrant (again, which only needs to show suspicion, proximity and probable cause). There will also be what is hinted at over 2,000 pages of documented admissible evidence when this case goes to trial.

    While I admire those who have the time and energy to take your posts to task. I am reduced to very quickly skimming them... I apologize for that but within the week much more information will be made available that will render most of your conjecture and questions irrelevant.
    Mornin' Sloof! Just wanted to say thanks. You haven't let me down with a single one of your posts. I suspect you are correct! Nothing like cuttin' to the chase, huh?

    What's your take on an additional person? Do you personally feel it's not plausible? I probably need to let it go, huh?


  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jersey*Girl For This Useful Post:


  10. #82
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6
    Hi Jersey*Girl and Sloof! I'm sorry but this Shlock Homes keeps raising issues that are not only tedious but entirely beside the point and filled with suppositions that lead nowhere! If you point out to him that there is blood and DNA on clothing, he says it is not stated whose clothing it is. Well, whose clothing could it be? Maybe it belongs to the president of Yale? Where was he when this happened? I think you guys also need to let go of the 'someone else was involved' issue! Raymond Clark was very familiar with this building and did in fact act alone and in the time frame given by LE. His 'sloppiness' is not an indication that he didn't do it, or that someone else did, as Shlock Homes suggests, but that he was overwhelmed by tension and nerves and kept making mistakes. Every single thing he did after the murder points to his guilt, including his almost immediate request for a lawyer and the fact that he has not yet entered a plea, which tells me his lawyers are trying to work out a deal with prosecutors, not that he is innocent!


  11. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to jimmiesax For This Useful Post:


  12. #83
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,080
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmiesax View Post
    Hi Jersey*Girl and Sloof! I'm sorry but this Shlock Homes keeps raising issues that are not only tedious but entirely beside the point and filled with suppositions that lead nowhere! If you point out to him that there is blood and DNA on clothing, he says it is not stated whose clothing it is. Well, whose clothing could it be? Maybe it belongs to the president of Yale? Where was he when this happened? I think you guys also need to let go of the 'someone else was involved' issue! Raymond Clark was very familiar with this building and did in fact act alone and in the time frame given by LE. His 'sloppiness' is not an indication that he didn't do it, or that someone else did, as Shlock Homes suggests, but that he was overwhelmed by tension and nerves and kept making mistakes. Every single thing he did after the murder points to his guilt, including his almost immediate request for a lawyer and the fact that he has not yet entered a plea, which tells me his lawyers are trying to work out a deal with prosecutors, not that he is innocent!
    Totally agree.


  13. #84
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Jersey*Girl View Post
    Respectfully snipped to save size. Good morning, Chanler!

    I thought I read that this washroom was shared as coed...am I mistaken? Does anyone know? I thought it was set up like this due to Yale being so proud of this building b/c not only is it cutting edge research & technology, but it's completely Green...built completely Green using Green materials from the ground up. The drainage & water systems have their own filtering & recycling set in place. I read they utilize rainwater, etc. Again, anyone know, b/c I thought something about this wash area was utilized in going Green?
    Hi, Jersey*Girl; I' don't remember any specific reference to the room being gender specific or shared, but I know that "green" buildings do often have shared facilities. Yale has shared facilities at other locations.

    In fact, there is no reference in the affivadit to a bathroom, much less a woman's bathroom. Mention is made of a locker room and a toilet.

    I work in a ten-story, block-long corporate office in NYC that has been repeatedly and extensively renovated over several decades. All of the toilets in the basement are coed.

    My architect friend tells me that removable chases to piping units are environmentally-friendly and can also be money-saving.
    Last edited by Chanler; 11-25-2009 at 02:15 PM.


  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Chanler For This Useful Post:


  15. #85
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Chanler View Post
    Hi, Jersey*Girl; I' don't remember any specific reference to the room being gender specific or shared, but I know that "green" buildings do often have shared facilities. Yale has shared facilities at other locations.

    In fact, there is no reference in the affivadit to a bathroom, much less a woman's bathroom. Mention is made of a locker room and a toilet.

    I work in a ten-story, block-long corporate office in NYC that has been repeatedly and extensively renovated over several decades. All of the toilets in the basement are coed.

    My architect friend tells me that removable chases to piping units is environmentally-friendly and can also be money-saving.
    Right...BTW, when I refer to the locker room as a bathroom, it's b/c of a toilet being in there. It's been said that it's also a washroom, so my mind automatically goes to the YMCA I used to frequent as a young child. The locker room had showers, sinks, toilets, & lockers (of course). I agree with you, also think it's a coed "room". Had to hurry & check to see if anyone responded. I may not be on for a few days - going to the beach for Thanksgiving.

    Wishing everyone a beautiful Thanksgiving holiday.


  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jersey*Girl For This Useful Post:


  17. #86
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Jersey*Girl View Post
    Right...BTW, when I refer to the locker room as a bathroom, it's b/c of a toilet being in there. It's been said that it's also a washroom, so my mind automatically goes to the YMCA I used to frequent as a young child. The locker room had showers, sinks, toilets, & lockers (of course). I agree with you, also think it's a coed "room". Had to hurry & check to see if anyone responded. I may not be on for a few days - going to the beach for Thanksgiving.

    Wishing everyone a beautiful Thanksgiving holiday.
    Have a great holiday!

    I notice one article described the location as "a utility closet of sorts"!


  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Chanler For This Useful Post:


  19. #87
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Shlock Homes View Post
    I don't mind if you don't want to debate the points, that's fine. I have taken the time to address points raised by people who make arguments that Ray is guilty. I do hope you are right and the remaining affidavits will be more detailed, and will give more proof to either side of the argument of Ray's guilt. As it stands now, I don't feel that the information in the affidavit is damning enough, and I'm taking the time to point out where one could argue this in Ray's defense. The fact of the matter is, no one saw anything, no one heard anything, card swipes aren't indicators of guilt (as I've pointed out from the beginning), and not all of the clothing found with blood indicated they belonged to Ray, even though they did positively ID his DNA on the sock. There is an unknown male DNA on the lab coat, indicating that someone else most likely was involved.
    Hi, Shlock Homes. I'll concentrate on the bold faced remarks:
    "no one saw anything, no one heard anything": On the contrary, trained officers from the three police agencies present saw Clark do things and heard him say things that brought him into suspicion. To many of us and certainly to those present on the scene, those actions and statements are compelling. The Yale officer wasn't possibly entrapping him as you suggested in an earlier post; she was following standard police procedure; preventing the theft or contamination of a piece of evidence until a law officer arrives to bag and secure the evidence. (At last report, the Yale police are not empowered to prosecute homicide cases.) In NYC, police routinely freeze a possible crime scene until the homicide and forensic teams arrive. Even you suggested that Clark might be lying in his statement about seeing Annie Le between 12:30-12:45.

    "card swipes are not indicators of guilt". They can certainly indicate guilt if we have access to those card swipe records and those who made them.

    "not all of the clothing found with blood indicated they belonged to Ray, even though they did positively ID his DNA on the sock" Even the O.J. defense could have said the equivalent of this. Nor do you mention the pen which Clark would carry as habitually as he carried his scan card.

    "There is an unknown male DNA on the lab coat, indicating that someone else most likely was involved." And then, after dismissing all the physical evidence and ignoring all the testimony, you take a presumptous leap into the unknown. Can we somehow imagine that unlike the phantoms in the case, accused killer Clark would observe a code of honor not to appropriate others' possessions?
    Last edited by Chanler; 11-25-2009 at 06:09 PM.


  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Chanler For This Useful Post:


  21. #88
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Jersey*Girl View Post
    What's your take on an additional person? Do you personally feel it's not plausible? I probably need to let it go, huh?
    my take is that the prosecution is operating using all the evidence obtained thus far. all ~we~ know is what has been leaked to the media and most of what the arrest warrant contained save for three statements that the presiding SC judge ordered redacted because, if published, they would present difficulty in Clark receiving a fair trial ("prejudicial to the defendant")

    that is all WE know. we can speculate on thread after thread about whether each board poster has ever seen a chase in a bathroom before or whether lab mice take summer vacations with the undergraduate students in some vain debate whether this proves Clark's innocence or guilt.

    i guess i'll see y'all on 12/1... thanks for reading.


  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sloof For This Useful Post:


  23. #89
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    20,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Shlock Homes View Post
    Thanks for linking the warrant and the diagram. Unfortunately, whoever the Hartford Courant got it from didn't include the other alleged crime scene/location of evidence on the diagram, which was room G33, as indicated in the warrant.

    This information doesn't convince me of Ray's guilt. In fact, it makes me even more suspicious of the official story.

    Clark's DNA was found on a sock that was found in that ceiling tile, but also in the hole where Annie Le's body was found??!!! That right there smacks of a frame-up. Why would a killer go to great lengths to conceal a body, but then toss two pieces of evidence (the sock and the pen) with his DNA into the same place as the body? Sorry, but that doesn't add up.

    Even more interesting, they talk about other people entering the room AFTER Annie's last swipe. What does that mean? Contrary to what the media has been telling us, Ray Clark was not the only person to be in G13.

    Also, they tried to indicate in the warrant that Ray Clark had suspicious scratches on his arm and face. We've been discussing and debating the validity of Ray Clark's statement about his cats causing the scratches, and the different ways Annie Le could have been protecting herself or fighting back. Well, the fact that she still had gloves on shoots down that theory. She couldn't have scratched him through those latex gloves.

    They say that Ray Clark stopped using his green pen around 1:30pm. But then around 3:48 he signs with a black pen. But they also indicated that the fire alarm cleared the building some time after 1:30pm. That would have been enough time for someone to snatch Ray's pen, if he left it lying around. Also, clearing the building would have been the perfect cover for moving the body from one room to another.

    The amount of blood they indicate in various places, including on the panel in the chase, seems to indicate that her body was mutilated in some way that caused quite a bit of blood to be released. Unfortunately, they've redacted a lot of that information on the warrant, so we can't see for sure what condition her body was in.

    They have been able to find her blood evidence on clothing that ties to Ray Clark. The only problem is, his clothing was readily available in the lab. Anyone could have just picked it up and put blood on it. His movements weren't any more suspicious. They indicate a doubling or tripling of his scanning into rooms versus an earlier date. They don't say anything about whether those dates they compared the scans were typical school days, or if the real lab work started after Labor Day hence his increased activity. And the fact he moved a box of wipes around is not suspicious. If he was meticulous, and noticed one of the items was put out of place that he normally had it in a particular way, you'd expect him to have moved it back to where it belonged. The investigator didn't indicate if the Wipe Alls was normally kept where Ray 'hid it'. There doesn't appear to be any hiding going on at all.

    I'm not sure what more needs to be said about the evidence. The 55 card swipes may sound unusual when taken out of context, but was it really that strange if it was a day when the intensive lab work started? The warrant also doesn't indicate what other people were swiping into the other areas that had blood, nor does it indicate if other people were swiping into G13 after 10:40am. They only say that he was the only one swiping in G22, but they don't say why he shouldn't have been in there or what was in there.

    At this point, I'm still not convinced that Clark did it. And if he did, he didn't act alone. I also think the alarm trigger was probably intentional to remove witnesses from the area.
    Sherlock: You are always very impressive .
    Women are Angels.
    And when someone breaks our wings,
    we simply continue to fly... on a broomstick.

    We're flexible like that.


  24. #90
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,080
    Ummm, wow! I just read the link in the media docs thread that Angel Who Cares posted. Incredible. Clark's goose is cooked!


  25. The Following User Says Thank You to Jersey*Girl For This Useful Post:


Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. New warrant released today
    By whitywendy in forum Michelle Young
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 05-19-2009, 03:54 AM
  2. Arrest Warrant for Courtney Love
    By Newswolf in forum Crimes in the News
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 08-31-2004, 09:24 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •