pip
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2010
- Messages
- 2,332
- Reaction score
- 9
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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.