Arrest Warrant For Roy Clark Released 2009.11.13

Hi! I am brand new to this but have been reading all the posts for quite some time. I have found most of the posts quite interesting and thoughtful. However, I am puzzled by the posts from Shlock Homes. They are so filled with holes, inaccuracies and pure fiction it is amazing the person who wrote them knows how to use a computer! Here a man has blood and DNA all over him and this poster still cannot see that Raymond Clark committed this atrocious crime! Someone must have put the blood and DNA on him! He had no idea what was going on! He didn't come up to the police! Quite amazing!
Also Jersey Girl, some interesting observations. But I think it is quite possible Clark made all the mistakes he did. After all, far as we know, he never killed anyone before! Since I don't think he set out to do this, I could see how he could be as frantic as possible, making one mistake after another. Even an anal person, under those circumstances, would 'lose it.'
Thanks for the time and keep up the great posts

jimmiesax said:

Hi! I am brand new to this but have been reading all the posts for quite some time. I have found most of the posts quite interesting and thoughtful. However, I am puzzled by the posts from Shlock Homes. They are so filled with holes, inaccuracies and pure fiction it is amazing the person who wrote them knows how to use a computer! Here a man has blood and DNA all over him and this poster still cannot see that Raymond Clark committed this atrocious crime! Someone must have put the blood and DNA on him! He had no idea what was going on! He didn't come up to the police! Quite amazing!
Also Jersey Girl, some interesting observations. But I think it is quite possible Clark made all the mistakes he did. After all, far as we know, he never killed anyone before! Since I don't think he set out to do this, I could see how he could be as frantic as possible, making one mistake after another. Even an anal person, under those circumstances, would 'lose it.'
Thanks for the time and keep up the great posts

Click to expand...

Welcome to WS, Jimmie!

Re: My Bold - I agree, but still can't let go of the thought somebody helped him in cleanup...or something. I mean, this guy wasn't a professional, he was in a job in which he was completely anal about certain procedures & regulations being followed. I'd think that once you're used to living a certain way on a daily basis, it sort of becomes part of your nature. Forgive me for this comparison, but, think about this - I'm a female. I like taking baths. I've given birth to children. I am fit and excercise on a daily basis. Having said that, alot of times I hear the water running & I have to run to tinkle. I do this before I get in the tub, and wipe b/c I'm clean. Some people don't do that. They'd either go in the tub or shower, or on the toilet but not wipe since they're getting right in the tub. I know it's a sick comparison, but please think about it as it makes sense. There's nothing wrong with any of my muscles or nerves but it's become 2nd nature to me to have to tinkle before entering the bathtub or shower. I'd think Clark would be the same way with his ethic, if what we hear of him is true. That's why I think somebody else could have helped with something...not the killing, maybe, but maybe cleanup or change of clothes, or transportation...etc. Then again, maybe somebody did help with the concealment, also. IDK. It just doesn't sit well with me to think he handled everything all on his own. He was in his element in that lab (basement of Amistad). His gf, sister, & bil all worked there. It just seems off to me to think he was the only one cleaning up. I mean, it would take time to stuff Annie in that crevice, more time than just 10 minutes. So, I guess luckily nobody had to use that room for that span of time that it took for him to do that...kwim? What...did he lock the door to keep unbeknownst people out? It just doesn't make sense. While I agree with you that he very well could have done it all on his own, I'm just not seeing it.

Glad you joined WS! Alot of people just lurk until finally something hits home with them and then they finally join to post. Hope you're around for awhile to lend your perspective. You'll love it here. Alot of good opinions are shared at this site. It's moderated, so you may not get as overly po'd as you could on other sites lending posters free reign. Hugs to you & hope to see you around again!

Jersey

jimmiesax said:

Hi! I am brand new to this but have been reading all the posts for quite some time. I have found most of the posts quite interesting and thoughtful. However, I am puzzled by the posts from Shlock Homes. They are so filled with holes, inaccuracies and pure fiction it is amazing the person who wrote them knows how to use a computer! Here a man has blood and DNA all over him and this poster still cannot see that Raymond Clark committed this atrocious crime! Someone must have put the blood and DNA on him! He had no idea what was going on! He didn't come up to the police! Quite amazing!
Also Jersey Girl, some interesting observations. But I think it is quite possible Clark made all the mistakes he did. After all, far as we know, he never killed anyone before! Since I don't think he set out to do this, I could see how he could be as frantic as possible, making one mistake after another. Even an anal person, under those circumstances, would 'lose it.'
Thanks for the time and keep up the great posts

Click to expand...

Hi and welcome to Websleuths. I too disagree with much of what Schlock Homes writes, but I must say that I'm really happy that he or she is here and continues to wrestle with evidence with a winning feistiness.

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

jimmiesax said:

Hi! I am brand new to this but have been reading all the posts for quite some time. I have found most of the posts quite interesting and thoughtful. However, I am puzzled by the posts from Shlock Homes. They are so filled with holes, inaccuracies and pure fiction it is amazing the person who wrote them knows how to use a computer! Here a man has blood and DNA all over him and this poster still cannot see that Raymond Clark committed this atrocious crime! Someone must have put the blood and DNA on him! He had no idea what was going on! He didn't come up to the police! Quite amazing!
Also Jersey Girl, some interesting observations. But I think it is quite possible Clark made all the mistakes he did. After all, far as we know, he never killed anyone before! Since I don't think he set out to do this, I could see how he could be as frantic as possible, making one mistake after another. Even an anal person, under those circumstances, would 'lose it.'
Thanks for the time and keep up the great posts

Click to expand...

Hi Jimmiesax,

I don't know if you will bother replying to this, so I'll just clarify something that you said. You said Raymond Clark had blood and DNA all over him. Where did you read that? No where has anyone written or said that they found that unless you mean his own DNA and blood.

I'm not prone to fantasy. I'm just analyzing the data, and not jumping to any conclusions I haven't thought out thoroughly. There are too many variables that don't work in this case, unknowns that cannot be proven at this time, to point 100% to Clark as a killer. We don't know when she was killed; we don't know when her body was stored in the chase. And we haven't been told if the bloodied clothing found (planted?) that allegedly belonged to Ray Clark could have been easily obtained by anyone. If those items were under lock and key, then it would be a lot harder to deny. If Ray just stuck them in a corner in the lab, then anyone could have used them, maybe not during the murder, but after when disposing of the body.

You might want to take time to re-read the affidavit. It will clearly show that they did not find any blood or DNA of Annie's ON Ray. The affidavit doesn't even clarify whether the X-Large lab coat was Ray's. He looks more like someone who would wear a medium. And they haven't said if other DNA was found on the clothing other than Ray's.

jimmiesax said:

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,

Click to expand...

He swiped in 1/2 hour after her. The affidavit also stated that 3 other people swiped into the lab after her, but it doesn't state when. Keep in mind that if he killed her soon after swiping, he'd have to find a way to hide the body within a short span of time in order for that blood to have smeared inside the chase. Once the heart stops, unless the victim had huge gashes, the blood on her skin and clothing would have been fully dry within an hour. If her body was placed in the chase after or during the fire alarm, blood couldn't have smeared on parts of the chase, and with rigor mortis setting in, it would have been difficult to cram her in that area.

he has her blood and DNA on him, (how did that happen?),
[/quote

Not correct. This was found on clothing he may or may not have worn. They didn't identify the wearer of the blue scrubs and lab coat that had blood. They did say a sock and boot with his name had Annie's blood, but if he left that lying around the lab area, anyone could have used those. Same with his pen. If he left that lying around somewhere, anyone could have tossed that into the chase.

he moved evidence, he tried to sidetrack investigators.

Click to expand...

If it was evidence, why didn't the investigators have it put away immediately? They left it out there to be contaminated, touched, etc... Since Ray is an employee there, he may have been straightening the box. If he had snuck it inside of his jacket when the officer wasn't looking, that would be different. He just moved it from one side of a cart to another, not a crime.

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.

Click to expand...

People already assume he's guilty. It wouldn't matter whether he said he didn't do it, they'd say he was lying. He's better off just keeping his mouth shut. It's his constitutional right.

Click to expand...

Hi Shlock Homes! Good to hear from you. But I must ask was it not a 'mix' of their blood and DNA on a sock? How did that happen? Who else could have 'obtained' the bloody clothing? And how would they have done that? And why? Why would he have turned the wipe-alls away from the police? He obviously knew they had blood on them! He did in fact tell a police officer he had seen her leave the lab. He was not asked this. He offered it! This was obviously false information. If he was so innocent 'couldn't have done it,' in your view, why would he supply the police with false information? Why has he entered no plea? Could it possibly be that his lawyers are working out a deal with prosecutors? That's not something an innocent man would do. But then again, Raymond Clark is not innocent! I have read the arrest warrent. Even if it leaves questions unanswered, it does not leave unanswered the biggest question of all: Raymond Clark was the last person to swipe in after Annie! He was the last person to see her alive. His DNA is in fact on her! You need to read the warrent again! Why you insist this man 'couldn't have done it' is puzzling, in light of all of the evidence. Perhaps you enjoy being contrary! That's fine, as long as you have some facts to back you up. But the fact is, you don't have any

Jersey*Girl said:

The questions that I still have at this point are:

1) Is there any surveillance in the hallway outside of the room Annie was working in?

Click to expand...

They haven't said anything about surveillance cameras inside of the secured lab area. I'd like to know, for example, if there was any cameras along the path the killer would have taken the body from G13 to possibly G22, G33 and finally into the locker area and into the (men's or women's?) washroom.

2) If there's no security camera pointing at that room that Annie was last working in, how do we know somebody else didn't enter that room with her, under Annie's card swipe?

Click to expand...

By the same token, how do we know if Annie didn't re-enter the room with someone else some time after 12:24pm when Ray said he last saw her? As I indicated before, since blood was found inside the chase, and Ray's green pen disappeared after 1:30pm, if he was the killer, and that occurred soon after he entered at 10:40am, there's no way blood smears would have appeared if the body was put into the chase after 1:30pm (with the pen falling in). The blood would have dried by then, unless her body was mutilated at some point after.

Also, the distance the body would have to be carried could have potentially been within eyesight of anyone exiting the rooms or coming around the corners. If the body was stored in three separate scanning rooms, then down a hallway into a locker room, they would have to run up and down that hallway first making sure no one was in the locker or washrooms, then making sure no one was coming around the corner, then run down the hallway with the body without being seen. Too many variables and chances of being seen, unless there was more than one person, or she was killed in the middle of the night.

Since G33 also had blood and a bead from Annie's necklace, it would be interesting to know who had access to that room. That room belonged to another professor's lab, not Annie's professor. Would researchers with access to G13 part of Bennett's lab also be able to access G33, or would you need a higher access card to get into both rooms?

Card swipe records for everyone would be good to see. But I doubt they will be releasing that information soon. Who else other than Ray could have accessed G13, G22 and G33? Or was he the ONLY person in that area of the lab who could access all three rooms?

3) Going on the theory that Clark didn't act alone (whether in clean-up or the murder itself), who else had access to his personal belongings? I'm thinking he locked up his locker, considering he's so anal about proper protocol (as anyone working in that environment should be).

Click to expand...

I agree. I'd like to know if his clothing was easily accessible. Seeing that he probably wouldn't have taken off his scrubs until the end of the day, I'd like to know if they confirmed if the scrubs and lab coat they found were his or not. The affidavit said it was an X-Large. They also said an unknown male profile was found on it with DNA testing, even though they were able to identify Ray Clark's DNA on the sock. This might be a clue that the coat belonged to someone else.

4) Could Clark have walked in on an argument between Annie & someone else? Could this person be an acquaintance (or more) of Clark's? If so, could this be a mitigating factor that pushed Clark over the edge? Hmmm...wonder if jealously is involved, but not in the way we originally thought.

Click to expand...

That is possible, but again, did Ray have the means to move the body around over such a large area without being seen or heard by anyone?

5) How...Could...Clark...Have...Handled...This...Alone...??? Surely, at the minimum, he had to have some sort of help with cleanup.

Click to expand...

If there was a lot of blood, the killer would have needed to do it before anyone saw it. Three different rooms had blood, and I'm guessing that the toilet stall that housed the chase would also have had blood smearing or drippings, unless she was placed in there from another opening. So the killer would have needed to move the body, and clean up the previous storage location, without anyone seeing the body or the blood. They'd have to make their way down a long hallway into a locker area making sure no one was coming around the corner, or lurking in the locker room, or in either washroom. Like I said, it could only be possible if it happened in the middle of the night when there was almost total guarantee no one would be around, or there would have to be more than one person involved.

6) Considering this happened at Yale, considering the surrounding police departments (including Yale's onsite pd), and considering the fact that somebody else that worked/works for Yale has been questioned in regards to another missing student years ago - then I'd think it's in Yale's best interest to find a suspect & nail him as soon as they could. So, could some other pertinent info have been swept under the rug?

Click to expand...

I'd like to think they are keeping an open mind for other suspects. Sometimes the desire to get a clean, swift judgment makes the investigators get tunnel vision. We have to keep in mind that we haven't had access to the autopsy report or the forensics information that would have put together a time line of Annie's body and movements. Police investigator's theories might not match up with the autopsy results, so that can be a problem. We haven't heard about this difference. The leaks from the police department regarding the evidence makes me wonder if someone inside doesn't want Ray to get a fair trial, especially if the evidence isn't compelling.

7) Knowing that Clark worked at this place for awhile, I find it highly suspicious that he'd make sooo many mistakes in concealing Annie's murder knowing he'd have to go back to work there - if he did everything on his own. Knowing he's completely anal about proper protocol being followed, it apparently became part of his nature to follow those same rules. If he acted alone, how could he have made so many mistakes regarding clean-up & concealment if he's so anal about protocol?

Click to expand...

Not thoroughly getting rid of the blood evidence before the police arrived, leaving bloody clothing to be found, acting 'suspiciously' in front of the police by cleaning. It doesn't add up. As a first time killer, if this was a heat of the moment fight that resulted in a death, he would not be Mr Cool around the police. He would have been avoiding them like the plague. I highly doubt he would have been in the mood to play baseball on Sunday if the news was saturated on Saturday with stories about how (his?) bloody clothing was found in a ceiling. Clark would have to have been a pro to keep on working there, and acting fairly normally, after not only committing such a heinous act, but also working in the basement area near the body as the police snooped around.

As erroneous as this may sound, and knowing the police say Clark acted alone, I have said from the beginning and I still think the same thing - that somebody else is also involved in one way or another...no matter what they say in their reports.

Please don't bash me, it took forever for me to come back to this thread.

:blowkiss:
Jersey[/COLOR][/FONT]

Click to expand...

Thank you for your questions! I'm not trying to be a party pooper or anything here. Like everyone else, I'd like to see justice served. We may find out that Clark really did it, who knows. At this point, based on the fact no-one saw or heard anything between the murder and the storage of the body, and Clark was able to maintain his composure for that whole week as police prowled around the lab, I think it's unlikely he knew that she was even dead, let alone committed the murder. Whoever did it probably wore the XL lab coat. If there are unknown DNA profiles found on the lab coat, scrubs, and Annie's body, and they are all the same, then that's the killer.

Jersey*Girl said:

Also, many people tend to look too far into the term "chase". When we heard of Annie being stuffed into a chase, some of us (most of us) automatically assumed that somebody would have had to have some kind of inside knowledge with regards to the placement of the chase. This is in fact not true. Think about this for a sec...people that hire plumbers or electricians may not know what a chase is BUT people that do their own home remodelling might in fact know what a chase is. As a matter of fact, they'd better know b/c there's certain code that needs to be followed in order for an inspection to pass. Certain bathrooms or lavatories would have certain "code" to adhere to. A home chase behind a toilet could maybe be a minimum of 6.5 inches, depending on the pipes & electrical wires going through that chase. In most homes, there's a chase behind the bathtub. In my home, my son's bathroom chase is located in his closet in his bedroom, b/c the inside closet wall is directly opposite the back of the bathtub...most homes are set up this way. I think it's safe to say that a chase in a major university would be a little larger than a regular house chase. It's also safe to say that anybody would have to know there's space in a wall behind a toilet, and that space would have to have some kind of access to it incase work on the pipes ever had to be performed. It's erroneous to say, or even suggest, that only the murderer would have had this knowledge. I myself am guilty of this suggestion, now I know better.

FYI - I had no idea this space was an actual chase. I thought it was just called the place for the pipes & wires to go.

Click to expand...

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.

jimmiesax said:

Hi Shlock Homes! Good to hear from you. But I must ask was it not a 'mix' of their blood and DNA on a sock? How did that happen? Who else could have 'obtained' the bloody clothing? And how would they have done that? And why?

Click to expand...

I can only guess, because the affidavit doesn't state where Ray kept his clothing. As far as I know, he didn't leave the lab in his scrubs, unless he was going for some break in the middle of the day. They said he was seen entering the building with a jacket and jeans, and leaving in a t-shirt and jeans. So his clothing is left in the lab. I'm also guessing that his work boots were left in the lab area, hence the need to mark them with his name.

At first I thought it might just be a coincidence that the killer found his socks and shoes, but then they also tossed his green pen with the body, so it could have been someone with an axe to grind with Ray, or just someone who wanted to steer attention away from themselves.

Chanler and I disagree on who the sock belongs to. Chanler believes it's Annie's, I think it's Ray's. If the killer had access to Ray's boots, perhaps Ray kept his change of socks inside the boot? We will need to wait until trial to find out about that.

Why would he have turned the wipe-alls away from the police? He obviously knew they had blood on them!

Click to expand...

That depends: Did the wipe have an opening on one side of the box? Was the side of the box with the opening facing away, and he was just straightening it up so that anyone needing to use it would not need to turn it around? Did the police ever tell Ray or anyone coming and going into the lab to NOT touch anything? If Ray was carrying out his duties per usual, then we have also assume that the arranging of the box (not hiding the box) and the cleaning was part of his duties to keep things organized. If he did this against police instructions, then that would be suspicious. Also, if he tried to walk out with the box, making excuses about why it needed to leave the room, that would have also been suspicious.

He did in fact tell a police officer he had seen her leave the lab. He was not asked this. He offered it! This was obviously false information.

Click to expand...

The officer indicated that Ray approached. We aren't told in the affidavit if they made an announcement asking for anyone who saw anything or the victim to come forward. He volunteered that information. If he had killed her, then he could have easily just said he never saw her.

If he was so innocent 'couldn't have done it,' in your view, why would he supply the police with false information? Why has he entered no plea? Could it possibly be that his lawyers are working out a deal with prosecutors? That's not something an innocent man would do. But then again, Raymond Clark is not innocent! I have read the arrest warrent.

Click to expand...

We don't know if it was false. Annie never scanned back into G13, but does that mean she didn't re-enter it at a later time? Scanning needs to only be done by one person, and anyone else can enter. If it was a revolving door requiring a scan each time someone went through, then that would be different.

Whoever is defending Ray made the call for him not to enter a plea, I doubt Ray made that decision himself. I think it's because his lawyers needed time to analyze the data so they could fight it. Ray could say a dozen things that showed he didn't kill her, but if his DNA is found on her body, they need to find out if there are reasons why that could have happened outside of him killing her. Also, they probably want to find out if other DNA that wasn't Ray's was found on any of the clothing evidence or Annie's body.

Even if it leaves questions unanswered, it does not leave unanswered the biggest question of all: Raymond Clark was the last person to swipe in after Annie! He was the last person to see her alive.

Click to expand...

Actually, he's the person who admitted to seeing her last. If the killer was someone else, then they would not claim to have seen her, unless they were in the company of others and Annie at that time. We don't know if Ray was the last person to swipe in after Annie. The affidavit stated others swiped into the room after 10:11am. I think that's important, because it means they were in the room around the time that Ray and Annie were in there, otherwise they wouldn't be mentioned, just like other names are mentioned as having scanned into G22 or G33 where blood evidence was found.

His DNA is in fact on her! You need to read the warrent again! Why you insist this man 'couldn't have done it' is puzzling, in light of all of the evidence. Perhaps you enjoy being contrary! That's fine, as long as you have some facts to back you up. But the fact is, you don't have any

Click to expand...

I didn't see it mentioned anywhere on the affidavit. Could you point out what page it said his DNA was on her? Unfortunately, if someone took his clothing and rubbed it on her lifeless body, that could also be a source of DNA from Ray. DNA evidence can be fabricated, so it can't make or break a case if it can be argued that the DNA could be transferred without the alleged killer being present.

I'm not enjoying anything. I'm just trying to find answers to the questions that pop up in this case. Since nobody saw a thing, and no cameras recorded the crime or the moving of the body, the evidence is all circumstantial. If they found Annie's blood on Ray's clothing in his home, then that would be different. As it stands now, the clothing with her blood may or may not have been Ray's clothing, and what clothing was Ray's, might have been easily obtained from the lab area.

Please see P 12 of the warrent. It clearly states a mix

Shlock Homes said:

I didn't see it mentioned anywhere on the affidavit. Could you point out what page it said his DNA was on her? Unfortunately, if someone took his clothing and rubbed it on her lifeless body, that could also be a source of DNA from Ray. DNA evidence can be fabricated, so it can't make or break a case if it can be argued that the DNA could be transferred without the alleged killer being present.

I'm not enjoying anything. I'm just trying to find answers to the questions that pop up in this case. Since nobody saw a thing, and no cameras recorded the crime or the moving of the body, the evidence is all circumstantial. If they found Annie's blood on Ray's clothing in his home, then that would be different. As it stands now, the clothing with her blood may or may not have been Ray's clothing, and what clothing was Ray's, might have been easily obtained from the lab area.

Click to expand...

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.

jimmiesax said:

Please see P 12 of the warrent. It clearly states a mix

Click to expand...

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.

Sloof said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Shlock Homes said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Chanler said:

Given the age, relatively small size of the Amistad building and the limited key swipe access to the basement, it’s quite possible that the basement didn’t have separate male and female bathrooms. In any case, you’re hypothesizing a male who strangles a small woman, but is too squeamish to search for hiding places while others are gone.

Click to expand...

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?

jimmiesax said:

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

Click to expand...

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.