Raymond Clark III

Rick Tigger said:

What if he went to the basement;saw the body;thought his GF could have had a hand in it & tried to clean it up.That would explain the "traces of DNA". Then went from room to room or outside to try and find her. I would like to know if his movement from the rooms was at the time of the fire alarm, he could have been making sure everyone got out in case of a true fire. His actions can be interpreted in more than one way. Just my Opinion.

Click to expand...

Hi, Rick Tigger. His girlfriend did not work with Annie Le; had no apparent relationship with her; and there is no evidence that Annie Le and Raymond or the girlfriend were romantically involved, friendly or even socialized. Nor was the girlfriend's presence in the lab indicated by card swipes or in any other way.

We can all create alternate scenarios. The question is why we are adding hypothetical details that simply explain away known movements. Why is there this compulsion to turn Clark from an accused murderer into a romantic fall-guy and would-be fire hero?

Chanler said:

Hi, Schlock Homes. Leaving a building ten times during a work day hardly qualifies as carrying on his job "as usual." The law enforcement present on the scene interviewed the staff extensively about laboratory procedures and workplaces. For several reasons, animal techs have very demarcated job descriptions and responsibilities. Clark was apparently cleaning lab areas that were not his responsibility that were later found to have DNA traces. His behavior and responses to questions were adjudged suspicious by LE at the scene; his interview responses were unsatisfactory; he had cuts and bruises which he attributed to multiple causes and declined to have photographed. The hidden clothing contained DNA from both Annie and Raymond. His DNA in the behind-the-wall crawl space might be difficult to explain too.

Click to expand...

Hi Chanler,

You're saying that he was cleaning areas that later found his DNA or Annie's? Wouldn't their DNA be in those areas if they were in and out of those areas anyway? DNA can be easily transferred from one person to another, so who's to say his DNA didn't get on his, let's say, co-worker, and then that co-worker went in that room and dropped Ray's DNA in there. DNA can come from skin cells and hair.

If he wasn't supposed to be cleaning some area, then who's job was he doing?

If the police were suspecting Ray, and they wanted to hear something come from him, I imagine they would find his answers unsatisfactory. But we don't know those questions that were ask, so we're depending on their word, or the word of an unnamed source, that the questions were answered poorly.

Bruises and scratches were attributed to his cat (maybe even dog) and baseball. I've seen pictures of him, and there are no marks on his exposed skin areas. Unless he was shirtless when he allegedly attacked and killed Annie. Otherwise, he should have visible scratches on his lower arms and face. It would be very obvious if he was in a struggle.

We haven't been told what that clothing was that was found with their DNA. Again, someone could have just deposited hair fibers from Annie and Ray onto that article of clothing.

Also, the nature of his DNA that was found in the crawlspace has not been made clear. It could have been deposited by someone trying to frame him.

The police or unnamed sources haven't made it clear how Ray was able to kill someone and transport the body to that area without being seen.

Shlock Homes said:

Hi Chanler,

You're saying that he was cleaning areas that later found his DNA or Annie's? Wouldn't their DNA be in those areas if they were in and out of those areas anyway? DNA can be easily transferred from one person to another, so who's to say his DNA didn't get on his, let's say, co-worker, and then that co-worker went in that room and dropped Ray's DNA in there. DNA can come from skin cells and hair.

If he wasn't supposed to be cleaning some area, then who's job was he doing?

If the police were suspecting Ray, and they wanted to hear something come from him, I imagine they would find his answers unsatisfactory. But we don't know those questions that were ask, so we're depending on their word, or the word of an unnamed source, that the questions were answered poorly.

Bruises and scratches were attributed to his cat (maybe even dog) and baseball. I've seen pictures of him, and there are no marks on his exposed skin areas. Unless he was shirtless when he allegedly attacked and killed Annie. Otherwise, he should have visible scratches on his lower arms and face. It would be very obvious if he was in a struggle.

We haven't been told what that clothing was that was found with their DNA. Again, someone could have just deposited hair fibers from Annie and Ray onto that article of clothing.

Also, the nature of his DNA that was found in the crawlspace has not been made clear. It could have been deposited by someone trying to frame him.

The police or unnamed sources haven't made it clear how Ray was able to kill someone and transport the body to that area without being seen.

Click to expand...

Hi, Shlock Holmes. According to LE sources, he was cleaning in areas where he had no cleaning responsibilities and he tried to hide Annie's blood-splattered equipment. Animal techs have very specific jobs and Clark was known in the laboratory as a stickler on job descriptions.

The DNA evidence is, by every indication, extensive, and some of it appears in ceiling and crawlspace hiding places not generally accessible. The level of forensic evidence on the scene was sufficient to convince the LE and FBI specialists on the scene that charges were justified. Even from the limited statements that we have seen, it is much more persuasive than merely positing a conspirator from the sky.

Cuts and bruises can certainly be received by someone wearing clothing. The police didn't just look at internet photographs taken after days of healing, they examined Clark's cut arms and back at close range soon after the strangling. Apparently what they saw convinced them that it should be photographed as possible future evidence. And apparently, Clark realized that his cat paws explanation would not stand up under much scrutiny because that's when he shut down his police interviews.

Explaining how a large strong man could transport a very small body a relatively short distance in a basement area to which few people had access shouldn't be too difficult. To explain away the incriminating evidence, however, requires the creation of unnamed conspirators.

Chanler said:

Hi, Shlock Holmes. According to LE sources, he was cleaning in areas where he had no cleaning responsibilities and he tried to hide Annie's blood-splattered equipment. Animal techs have very specific jobs and Clark was known in the laboratory as a stickler on job descriptions.

The DNA evidence is, by every indication, extensive, and some of it appears in ceiling and crawlspace hiding places not generally accessible. The level of forensic evidence on the scene was sufficient to convince the LE and FBI specialists on the scene that charges were justified. Even from the limited statements that we have seen, it is much more persuasive than merely positing a conspirator from the sky.

Cuts and bruises can certainly be received by someone wearing clothing. The police didn't just look at internet photographs taken after days of healing, they examined Clark's cut arms and back at close range soon after the strangling. Apparently what they saw convinced them that it should be photographed as possible future evidence. And apparently, Clark realized that his cat paws explanation would not stand up under much scrutiny because that's when he shut down his police interviews.

Explaining how a large strong man could transport a very small body a relatively short distance in a basement area to which few people had access shouldn't be too difficult. To explain away the incriminating evidence, however, requires the creation of unnamed conspirators.

Click to expand...

The investigators said they saw Clark 'hiding' items that later was found to have Annie Le's blood on them. What they see as hiding could be interpreted as someone just cleaning up. Did he hide them in a strange location, like in his bag? Or did he put them where they belonged? They didn't say anything about him touching things after they specifically said nobody should touch anything. Saying that he was hiding is purely a subjective interpretation on the part of the investigators, because they're goal is to convict Clark. They haven't said anything about other techs behaving in a similar manner.

I can't comment on how extensive the DNA evidence is, because they haven't said that either. They just said his DNA was found on the clothing in the ceiling and in the place where Annie Le's body was found. We don't know anything about the nature of the DNA. We also haven't been told where the boots with her blood was found. Is it something that could easily be found in the lab area? Or did he hide them at his residence? I would have expected him to have taken all of the bloody evidence and tossed them in a dumpster or buried them out in the woods the same day? How is it easier to go up into a ceiling versus just shoving it into a back pack?

I wasn't commenting on Annie Le's weight as to how her body was transported from one area to another. What I'm wondering is how was all of that done (the murdering, the moving, the hiding of the body) without anyone seeing it? This wasn't a holiday nor was it the middle of the night. It was 10am, so there would have been others around. Also, he would have needed time to decide to put her body into that chase. It wouldn't have just suddenly come to him, unless he has a habit of measuring the size of chases around the lab.

Shlock Homes said:

The investigators said they saw Clark 'hiding' items that later was found to have Annie Le's blood on them. What they see as hiding could be interpreted as someone just cleaning up. Did he hide them in a strange location, like in his bag? Or did he put them where they belonged? They didn't say anything about him touching things after they specifically said nobody should touch anything. Saying that he was hiding is purely a subjective interpretation on the part of the investigators, because they're goal is to convict Clark. They haven't said anything about other techs behaving in a similar manner.

I can't comment on how extensive the DNA evidence is, because they haven't said that either. They just said his DNA was found on the clothing in the ceiling and in the place where Annie Le's body was found. We don't know anything about the nature of the DNA. We also haven't been told where the boots with her blood was found. Is it something that could easily be found in the lab area? Or did he hide them at his residence? I would have expected him to have taken all of the bloody evidence and tossed them in a dumpster or buried them out in the woods the same day? How is it easier to go up into a ceiling versus just shoving it into a back pack?

I wasn't commenting on Annie Le's weight as to how her body was transported from one area to another. What I'm wondering is how was all of that done (the murdering, the moving, the hiding of the body) without anyone seeing it? This wasn't a holiday nor was it the middle of the night. It was 10am, so there would have been others around. Also, he would have needed time to decide to put her body into that chase. It wouldn't have just suddenly come to him, unless he has a habit of measuring the size of chases around the lab.

Click to expand...

Sounds to me like he had every intention of going back in and taking the items from the ceiling out...and perhaps Annie's body and evidence. Clark didn't show up to work the next day and was questioned by the police, making it difficult to go back and remove his messes. just a thought

Shlock Homes said:

The investigators said they saw Clark 'hiding' items that later was found to have Annie Le's blood on them. What they see as hiding could be interpreted as someone just cleaning up. Did he hide them in a strange location, like in his bag? Or did he put them where they belonged? They didn't say anything about him touching things after they specifically said nobody should touch anything. Saying that he was hiding is purely a subjective interpretation on the part of the investigators, because they're goal is to convict Clark. They haven't said anything about other techs behaving in a similar manner.

Click to expand...

Shlock Homes said:

I can't comment on how extensive the DNA evidence is, because they haven't said that either. They just said his DNA was found on the clothing in the ceiling and in the place where Annie Le's body was found. We don't know anything about the nature of the DNA. We also haven't been told where the boots with her blood was found. Is it something that could easily be found in the lab area? Or did he hide them at his residence? I would have expected him to have taken all of the bloody evidence and tossed them in a dumpster or buried them out in the woods the same day? How is it easier to go up into a ceiling versus just shoving it into a back pack?

I wasn't commenting on Annie Le's weight as to how her body was transported from one area to another. What I'm wondering is how was all of that done (the murdering, the moving, the hiding of the body) without anyone seeing it? This wasn't a holiday nor was it the middle of the night. It was 10am, so there would have been others around. Also, he would have needed time to decide to put her body into that chase. It wouldn't have just suddenly come to him, unless he has a habit of measuring the size of chases around the lab.

Click to expand...

Hi, Schlock Homes. First you dismiss evidence as circumstantial, then you belittle eyewitness testimony as well. To say that their goal is to convict Clark is to put the proverbial cart before the horse: It was Clark's responses, actions, and behavior that put him under suspicion. As I said before, stickler Clark was performing tasks that were not his responsibility. I would not imagine, for example, that he was responsible for cleaning the equipment of Le's that the blood was found on.

The DNA evidence is extensive. As has been noted on another thread, it encompasses several hundred specimens. It is quite possible that Clark did take potentially incriminating evidence with him when he left the building no fewer than ten times that day. Of course, there was law enforcement on the scene, so that whould have entailed more immediate risks. In any case, he did not commit a perfect crime: Adrenaline driven murderers seldom do.

Asking how Annie was murdered, moved, and hidden without anyone witnessing it begs the real question: How could Raymond Clark, the last person with Annie Le near the time of the killing and the person who card swiped into the room where her body was hidden, have missed all this evil action? Obviously, no one stole his card; he used it repeatedly to swipe into the building and rooms thereafter. And I have read nothing that indicates that the lab or the basement animal room were bustling with activity that morning. These are closed rooms with restricted access.

eyes4crime said:

Sounds to me like he had every intention of going back in and taking the items from the ceiling out...and perhaps Annie's body and evidence. Clark didn't show up to work the next day and was questioned by the police, making it difficult to go back and remove his messes. just a thought

Click to expand...

I thought it was said somewhere that the next day he was found to have wire, bubble gun and fishing hooks in his bag?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_..._a_pen_may_put_creep_in_prison_for_keeps.html

He apparently hoped to fish it out when he showed up at the lab the day after the killing with a backpack containing wire, fishing hooks and bubble gum.

Chanler said:

Hi, Schlock Homes. First you dismiss evidence as circumstantial, then you belittle eyewitness testimony as well. To say that their goal is to convict Clark is to put the proverbial cart before the horse: It was Clark's responses, actions, and behavior that put him under suspicion. As I said before, stickler Clark was performing tasks that were not his responsibility. I would not imagine, for example, that he was responsible for cleaning the equipment of Le's that the blood was found on.

Click to expand...

I was under the impression they focused on him because he stopped the polygraph test, refused to submit DNA and they said he entered the lab area and a room Annie Le entered "soon after", whatever that means. If they think he's a suspect early on then any suspicious movements by other people in the lab will probably not be noticed, whereas movements by Ray would be scrutinized. They haven't said what tasks he was doing that weren't his, nor did they say if he put that equipment with her blood in a place that was not where it belonged. Nor did they say he moved stuff when they told everyone NOT to touch anything.

The DNA evidence is extensive. As has been noted on another thread, it encompasses several hundred specimens. It is quite possible that Clark did take potentially incriminating evidence with him when he left the building no fewer than ten times that day. Of course, there was law enforcement on the scene, so that whould have entailed more immediate risks. In any case, he did not commit a perfect crime: Adrenaline driven murderers seldom do.

Click to expand...

Why would law enforcement have been on the scene? The missing persons wasn't reported by her roommate until Tuesday evening. He had more than ample time to take incriminating evidence with him. Instead, we find out there's a whole lot of items left lying around for the police to find with his and/or Annie's DNA. I'm still not even sure how his pen would have fallen in that chase. If there was a struggle between him and Annie, and that pen was in his shirt pocket, it would have fallen out for sure. We haven't heard anything more about that green pen, like if there was any DNA or his fingerprints on it. Only that he liked using a green pen. We don't even know if that's totally true.

Asking how Annie was murdered, moved, and hidden without anyone witnessing it begs the real question: How could Raymond Clark, the last person with Annie Le near the time of the killing and the person who card swiped into the room where her body was hidden, have missed all this evil action? Obviously, no one stole his card; he used it repeatedly to swipe into the building and rooms thereafter. And I have read nothing that indicates that the lab or the basement animal room were bustling with activity that morning. These are closed rooms with restricted access.

Click to expand...

The problem with the card swipes is anyone can use a card. There's no password needed, nor is there a camera to show who's using it. Also, people can swipe to enter a room, but they don't need to swipe to leave. Whatever room Clark entered that Annie had entered earlier could have been empty. When he entered those other rooms he wasn't supposed to be in, was that within the space of 10 minutes? Or over the course of an hour? If the scanning into those other rooms was fairly quick, then I can see how suspicious that might be. Again, we don't know the nature of those rooms, or why they would say he wouldn't be going there during his 'normal' routine. If he was looking for missing equipment, for example, he might look in places he might not normally go into if he suspected someone put it there.

Card swipes alone aren't always a 100% reliable indicator of who was in a room. I work in a secure facility, and although we are strongly discouraged from holding the door open for other employees, you see it happen all the time. We have several layers of security, though, so it's possible to find out if someone was in a particular area, even if he or she didn't swipe a badge to get in.

Law enforcement knows all this, I'm sure, and that's why they've been watching all those hours of video.

I do hope they catch the right person and bring him or her to justice. Based on the bits and pieces of info that have come out in the last few weeks, it *looks* like RC is the culprit, but I also want to see the state lay out a thorough, compelling case to prove his guilt.

Shlock Homes said:

I thought it was said somewhere that the next day he was found to have wire, bubble gun and fishing hooks in his bag?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_..._a_pen_may_put_creep_in_prison_for_keeps.html

He apparently hoped to fish it out when he showed up at the lab the day after the killing with a backpack containing wire, fishing hooks and bubble gum.

Click to expand...

Shlock Homes, none of us know how long those small items were in his backpack and what they could possibly prove about his innocence or guilt. [Perhaps he wanted to place himself as far away from the scene as possible.] Clutching for fishing hooks, one might say.....

Sola.N said:

Card swipes alone aren't always a 100% reliable indicator of who was in a room. I work in a secure facility, and although we are strongly discouraged from holding the door open for other employees, you see it happen all the time. We have several layers of security, though, so it's possible to find out if someone was in a particular area, even if he or she didn't swipe a badge to get in.

Law enforcement knows all this, I'm sure, and that's why they've been watching all those hours of video.

I do hope they catch the right person and bring him or her to justice. Based on the bits and pieces of info that have come out in the last few weeks, it *looks* like RC is the culprit, but I also want to see the state lay out a thorough, compelling case to prove his guilt.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Sola N, thanks for your note. Clark apparently had and used his card all day: It could be verified by checking the card swipes with his ten entrances into the video-covered entrance.

Shlock Homes said:

I was under the impression they focused on him because he stopped the polygraph test, refused to submit DNA and they said he entered the lab area and a room Annie Le entered "soon after", whatever that means. If they think he's a suspect early on then any suspicious movements by other people in the lab will probably not be noticed, whereas movements by Ray would be scrutinized. They haven't said what tasks he was doing that weren't his, nor did they say if he put that equipment with her blood in a place that was not where it belonged. Nor did they say he moved stuff when they told everyone NOT to touch anything.

Why would law enforcement have been on the scene? The missing persons wasn't reported by her roommate until Tuesday evening. He had more than ample time to take incriminating evidence with him. Instead, we find out there's a whole lot of items left lying around for the police to find with his and/or Annie's DNA. I'm still not even sure how his pen would have fallen in that chase. If there was a struggle between him and Annie, and that pen was in his shirt pocket, it would have fallen out for sure. We haven't heard anything more about that green pen, like if there was any DNA or his fingerprints on it. Only that he liked using a green pen. We don't even know if that's totally true.

The problem with the card swipes is anyone can use a card. There's no password needed, nor is there a camera to show who's using it. Also, people can swipe to enter a room, but they don't need to swipe to leave. Whatever room Clark entered that Annie had entered earlier could have been empty. When he entered those other rooms he wasn't supposed to be in, was that within the space of 10 minutes? Or over the course of an hour? If the scanning into those other rooms was fairly quick, then I can see how suspicious that might be. Again, we don't know the nature of those rooms, or why they would say he wouldn't be going there during his 'normal' routine. If he was looking for missing equipment, for example, he might look in places he might not normally go into if he suspected someone put it there.

Click to expand...

Hi, Schlock Homes, Clark's interview responses and behavior aroused suspicion before any of the events you mention. There were dozens of trained professional law enforcement from the New Haven Police, the Connecticut State Police, and the FBI on the scene, interviewing and investigating. If anyone can be accused of jumping to intuitive conclusions about Raymond Clark's innocence or guilt or innocence, I think that most of us here can agree that it's not them.

Your complaints seem twofold: First, you're faulting the police for not laying out their case before the trial. And second, paradoxically, you seem to be arguing that this probable first-time murderer couldn't be guilty because he didn't commit the perfect crime when he had time to.

Only a restricted number of people had swipe card privileges for or business in either or both rooms involved. Apparently, only Clark was unable to provide an adequate account of his movements that morning.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/17/earlyshow/main5317185.shtml
"Only essential personnel could access the basement lab, by swiping key cards at multiple access points, Pinkston points out. The area was highly secured. And researchers typically worked alone.

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." [FONT=&quot]The "perfect place," Pinkston noted, for a murder."[/FONT]


We can all concoct complete hypotheticals that match our preconceptions: Perhaps Lee Harvey Oswald was penning a fan letter to Fidel Castro while JFK was being shot or perhaps Annie had a jealous lesbian lover who not only killed her, but was able to cover her tracks and plant multiple pieces of evidence against Raymond Clark. Conspiracies are easy; you just add another participant.

Chanler said:

Hi, Shlock Holmes, I think that your orderly analogy is right on target.

I don't think that it's cost-cutting; I think that it's true of animal techs at colleges generally.

By the way, I don't mean to demean animal techs. Most of them are good people who work hard and provide essential, if rudimentary assistance to keep experiments rolling smoothly along. As someone noted in a newspaper post, a good animal tech is worth their weight in gold. (Some of them, by the way, do get promoted to other jobs, and some of them use their jobs to take college courses for free or at greatly reduced prices; this apparently wasn't the case here.)

I mentioned the low salary and low status because I think that Raymond Clark might have resented the disparity in their jobs, their hours, and their workplace leverage. One of the articles mentioned that he wasn't "a straight arrow" at work, perhaps indicating that his performance hadn't always been up to snuff. It's possible that Clark's email was prompted by Annie Le's voicing worry that her experiment animals might be mishandled in her absence, a reasonable enough worry. Clark may have been fuming that he was being singled out unjustly for criticism and wanted to confront her.

(Clark's criticism of researchers reminded me of an employee I supervised many years ago whose annual reviews generally consisted of him voicing detailed complaints about fellow office co-workers. Hardly a way to become popular in an office.)

Click to expand...

There seems to be much misunderstanding about the amount of education needed to work in a lab. It is usually quite a bit. And people often use animal tech and veterinary tech interchangeably when in fact there needs to be Registered Veterinary Technicians (2 or 4 year degree) in these labs who are also certified by AALAS an organization that certifies techs in labs. You have to be well educated and experienced to work as a Registered Vet tech in lab or in many veterinary hospitals. We should probably find out what type of techs exactly are hired there to be accurate about titles and job descriptions.

kylie said:

There seems to be much misunderstanding about the amount of education needed to work in a lab. It is usually quite a bit. And people often use animal tech and veterinary tech interchangeably when in fact there needs to be Registered Veterinary Technicians (2 or 4 year degree) in these labs who are also certified by AALAS an organization that certifies techs in labs. You have to be well educated and experienced to work as a Registered Vet tech in lab or in many veterinary hospitals. We should probably find out what type of techs exactly are hired there to be accurate about titles and job descriptions.

Click to expand...

You do not need to be a vet tech to work in a lab. Universities have veterinary services with vet techs, yes, but that is a separate group from the animal techs. The animal techs do feeding and cleaning and keep track of whether regulatory agency rules and policies are being followed with regard to the day-to-day care of the animals. You do not need to be highly-educated for such a job. If you look back through the older posts, there are some very excellent posts that explain the ins and outs of what animal techs do as well as links to Yale's website which has listings for similar positions that include necessary qualifications. You can find very thorough and accurate descriptions of the workings of animal labs by searching for posts by Labrat.