Arrest Warrant For Roy Clark Released 2009.11.13

[MHamby]

In most cases, there are a number of 'loop-holes' in an investigation. You have to admit that RC is the most likely candidate for doing this.

My question is, why the mutilation off the bat? If I was looking for a place to hide a body, one which I had just strangled, I wouldn't mutilate it right there. Once finding the 'hiding place' and realizing that I couldn't squeeze the body in intact, that is when I would have to cut it up.

However, that would not leave blood everywhere.

Based on this evidence, I believe the RC is the murderer, but I also don't think that he acted alone. I believe someone helped him.

I am assuming that once you swipe into a room, someone could walk right behind you into it, and therefore not show up as being 'in the room'. Perhaps that is the reason for the multiple swipes, as someone went to one room to clean it, and the other(s) used the card and prepared the room to house the body.

This could also be a reason for the 'sock' to be left there. It was someone elses responsibility to get rid of the evidence.

Just throwing things out there. I'm sure someone will find sufficient evidence to refute all that I have just said :crazy:

 

[PatientOne]

Evidence of "medium velocity" blood spatter in room G13 suggests Annie was cut or bludgeoned while she was alive. From what I understand, blood doesn't spatter if there's no pulse to propel it.

So, when I wrote earlier that I was reminded of news leaks about mutilation, I misspoke. The NY Post story talked about mutilating (crushing?) Annie's body in order to fit it into the small chase. The blood evidence in room G13 points to another form of violence besides strangulation, while Annie was still alive.

BTW, I can't find the quote or source now, but I recall someone -- I think another student who works in the Amistad building -- told a reporter that the basement labs were a perfect place for an undetected crime to be committed. There was mention that one could work alone for many hours without being disturbed or seen. Maybe someone else remembers and can come up with the quote -- I tried to find it but couldn't. Anyway, I think this type of scenario, if true, would allow a murderer much more latitude when it comes to covering up/cleaning up evidence. Still, it's obvious RC wasn't perfectly fastidious when it came to disposing of and cleaning up evidence. As far as one sock being in the chase and the other being above a ceiling tile, it may be that he used his foot to tamp down insulation in the chase and that's when his sock came off. I doubt he was perfectly calm and clear-headed as he was trying to cover up his murderous behavior, so mistakes were made and this was one of them.

 

[ohiogirl]

I don't believe LE has to list all the evidence they have on the arrest warrant. Just enough to get the arrest. IMO there will be more to come.

 

[Shlock Homes]

Evidence of "medium velocity" blood spatter in room G13 suggests Annie was cut or bludgeoned while she was alive. From what I understand, blood doesn't spatter if there's no pulse to propel it.

So, when I wrote earlier that I was reminded of news leaks about mutilation, I misspoke. The NY Post story talked about mutilating (crushing?) Annie's body in order to fit it into the small chase. The blood evidence in room G13 points to another form of violence besides strangulation, while Annie was still alive.

BTW, I can't find the quote or source now, but I recall someone -- I think another student who works in the Amistad building -- told a reporter that the basement labs were a perfect place for an undetected crime to be committed. There was mention that one could work alone for many hours without being disturbed or seen. Maybe someone else remembers and can come up with the quote -- I tried to find it but couldn't. Anyway, I think this type of scenario, if true, would allow a murderer much more latitude when it comes to covering up/cleaning up evidence. Still, it's obvious RC wasn't perfectly fastidious when it came to disposing of and cleaning up evidence. As far as one sock being in the chase and the other being above a ceiling tile, it may be that he used his foot to tamp down insulation in the chase and that's when his sock came off. I doubt he was perfectly calm and clear-headed as he was trying to cover up his murderous behavior, so mistakes were made and this was one of them.

Blood will spatter as long as something is hurling it. For example, if someone was using a hammer to bludgeon another person or even a cadaver, as long as blood gets on the hammer, as it's brought up then down, the blood will continue onto any nearby surface (Newton's first law of motion). So the crushing of her body could still be the cause of the spatter if they were using heavy tools to pulverize her cadaver.

That quote you are referring to was actually made by the reporter. The student said something to the effect that it's very quiet down there that you could go a long time without seeing anyone, and it was the reporter who added the part about it being the perfect place for a crime. The problem with that conclusion is that what time of day was the student being interviewed referring to? And were they there early Tuesday morning to see how many people were around? Volumes and habits of people change depending on time of day, time of year, etc... Since more than just Annie Le's and Raymond Clark's card swipes were registered, there were more people there.

The sock still sounds to me like evidence planting. Ray could have used other things, like parts of Annie's clothing, or the many latex gloves they have at their disposal in a lab. What we don't know is if his socks were items he usually left at the lab along with the boots, his lab coat, and his scrubs. Those were items found there with blood on them. If he was meticulous enough to hide a body and move it around without being seen by other students, then he would have also been meticulous enough about removing incriminating evidence like blood on his clothes. They said the insulation was removed, not pat down, so they still need to find out where that went.

Cleaning the drain was not a valid observation of suspicious behavior by the police. They aren't animal techs, nor are they there on a daily basis, so they couldn't say if his cleaning was any different from any other time. If you really want to see him as behaving suspicious, what about him spending too much time in the room with the clothing in the ceiling? Now that would have been suspicious. But that didn't happen, as far as they're saying.

Why would Ray Clark say he saw Annie Le around lunch. Well, we are all assuming that she died soon after he entered room G13. Perhaps he saw her grab that stuff, she walked out, and went to another part of the lab where the violence occurred? Maybe her death occurred just before the autoclave set off the alarm? It's interesting he mentioned her carrying 2 bags of mouse food when she was leaving. Wasn't that what she was carrying in that surveillance video image they gave us?

I should add that the part where they said Ray Clark scanned into G13 but didn't scan anywhere else for 46 minutes may on the surface sound strange, but it might also mean he was in other rooms or parts of the lab that didn't require scanning. Since no one needs to scan out, then you can't say for sure how long he was in there. He admitted that Annie was in the room when he entered it around 10:30am, so for a guy who is trying to hide a murder, he sure was acting like someone who didn't know there had been one. He could have just said 'nope, I didn't see her at all'.

 

[PatientOne]

That quote you are referring to was actually made by the reporter. The student said something to the effect that it's very quiet down there that you could go a long time without seeing anyone, and it was the reporter who added the part about it being the perfect place for a crime.

Thank you Shlock for refreshing my memory about this.

 

[PatientOne]

A definition of Medium Velocity Blood Spatter:

Medium Velocity

Medium blood spatter is produced by an external force of greater than 5 fps and less than 25 fps.2 The stains generally measure 1-3mm in size. They are often caused by blunt or sharp force trauma That is, knives, hatchets, clubs, fists, arterial spurts, and sometimes cast-off.

Weapon Cast-Off

Weapon cast-off, or just plain cast-off blood is often found at crime scenes where blunt or sharp instruments were used as the weapons of attack. It is sometimes confused with arterial spurts. Cast-off blood is flung off the weapon — an axe, knife, club — as a result of centrifugal force as the weapon is swung back over the attacker’s head. Cast-off spatter tends to be oval or elliptical in shape as the weapon is being swung through an arc, but becomes more round as it strikes at a 90-degree angle at top dead center over the attacker’s head. It may be classified as low or medium velocity depending on the drop size.

So, I was wrong about a pulse being required to create the spatter found in G13 (a pulse is required for arterial spatter). Annie could've been dead, yet her blood could've spattered as long as the assault continued.

 

[MHamby]

I just hope that RC has a good Defense team. If he didn't do this, but his team make one mistake, then the jury will still see enough evidence to convict him.

It doesn't help that he still has not entered a plea. Most people who are not guilty of a crime, automatically enter a 'not guilty' plea. Basically a, "Who cares about the evidence. I know that I didn't not kill this women."

If anything, this is extremely damning evidence against him. Whether or not he is doing this because of his lawyer's advice.

 

[Chanler]

The evidence is compelling. What exactly is the positive evidence that he was framed? And by whom? Conspiracy thinking is easy. You just point at evidence that is too good (whatever that means) so it must be planted, hypothesize new conspirators and expand the plot.

 

[PatientOne]

Ditto Chanler!

An accused person who's framed would surely speak to LE and offer info to help refute evidence against him.

The elaborate conspiracy required to frame him in such a manner by stealing his clothes, boots and pen and putting Annie's blood all over them PLUS stealing and using his key card -- all without his detection as well as that of LE -- defies not only common sense but logic.

RC's continued silence speaks volumes.

 

[Harmony 2]

I just hope that RC has a good Defense team. If he didn't do this, but his team make one mistake, then the jury will still see enough evidence to convict him.

It doesn't help that he still has not entered a plea. Most people who are not guilty of a crime, automatically enter a 'not guilty' plea. Basically a, "Who cares about the evidence. I know that I didn't not kill this women."

If anything, this is extremely damning evidence against him. Whether or not he is doing this because of his lawyer's advice.

Welcome to Websleuths MHamby!! I too hope he has an excellent defense team.. I don't want any chance of an appeal down the line.

 

[Harmony 2]

Ditto Chanler!

An accused person who's framed would surely speak to LE and offer info to help refute evidence against him.

The elaborate conspiracy required to frame him in such a manner by stealing his clothes, boots and pen and putting Annie's blood all over them PLUS stealing and using his key card -- all without his detection as well as that of LE -- defies not only common sense but logic.

RC's continued silence speaks volumes.

Welcome PatientOne!!
My sentiments exactly!!

 

[Shlock Homes]

The frame-up in my view is due to the contradiction in the perfect way the crime was carried out. The only 'flaw' was that she decomposed and became detectable. But the killer or killers were meticulous enough to kill her, perhaps mutilate her body and move her throughout the basement, all without being seen. Yet, if Ray Clark was the killer, and the sole person doing this, how did he accomplish all of this without being seen, as well as cleaning up all those areas of most of the detectable blood? But he was clumsy to leave his clothing lying around where it could be found by the police? It doesn't take a CSI trained person to know that leaving your sock with the body of a person you killed is incriminating evidence. The green pen I could see, or maybe a glove of his coming off, but the sock is suspicious. Did he walk around the basement barefoot? The police didn't say what the circumstances were of finding his boots. Where they hidden, or were they in their regular spot?

The only way I can see it being him, is if he had a combination lock on a locker where he kept his clothing, and no one knew the combination.

I'm probably not going to be popular with my theory, but I can easily demonstrate that there are enough holes in the evidence that can cast doubt on Ray Clark's guilt. The evidence is purely circumstantial, unless they found his hair fibers on her body, or the murder weapon or object used to mutilate her body (if that was done) has his fingerprints.

 

[Chanler]

The frame-up in my view is due to the contradiction in the perfect way the crime was carried out. The only 'flaw' was that she decomposed and became detectable. But the killer or killers were meticulous enough to kill her, perhaps mutilate her body and move her throughout the basement, all without being seen. Yet, if Ray Clark was the killer, and the sole person doing this, how did he accomplish all of this without being seen, as well as cleaning up all those areas of most of the detectable blood? But he was clumsy to leave his clothing lying around where it could be found by the police? It doesn't take a CSI trained person to know that leaving your sock with the body of a person you killed is incriminating evidence. The green pen I could see, or maybe a glove of his coming off, but the sock is suspicious. Did he walk around the basement barefoot? The police didn't say what the circumstances were of finding his boots. Where they hidden, or were they in their regular spot?

The only way I can see it being him, is if he had a combination lock on a locker where he kept his clothing, and no one knew the combination.

I'm probably not going to be popular with my theory, but I can easily demonstrate that there are enough holes in the evidence that can cast doubt on Ray Clark's guilt. The evidence is purely circumstantial, unless they found his hair fibers on her body, or the murder weapon or object used to mutilate her body (if that was done) has his fingerprints.

Your argument seems to be that the crime is both too perfect and too imperfect. Within a relatively short period, the phantom murderer(s) not only killed (and, according to you, perhaps mutiliated), transported, and concealed Annie; they cleaned and otherwise concealed evidence; and, most masterfully of all, stole numerous things associated with Raymond Clark and hid them too in several places. And all without being seen by anyone--even by Raymond Clark whose active movement patterns (and completely coincidental clean-ups) in those areas aroused police suspicion!

On the hand, you seem to be saying, how could alleged newbie killer Clark not be more rational and meticulous after he had just committed what seems to have been a sudden violent emotional act?

There is no assertion that the socks were his. They are low athletic socks, most often associated in my experience with women.

Defense lawyers love to shout "only circumstantial evidence", but since murderers seldom invite witnesses to the slaughter, it's often decisive in homicide cases. In this instance, the interlocking forensics, timelines, and police observations build a tight prosecution case.

I doubt that the defense lawyers agree with you that proving reasonable doubt is "easy".

 

[Shlock Homes]

Your argument seems to be that the crime is both too perfect and too imperfect. Within a relatively short period, the phantom murderer(s) not only murdered, transported, and concealed Annie; they concealed evidence; and, most masterfully of all, stole numerous things associated with Raymond Clark and hid them too in several places. And all without being seen by anyone--even by Raymond Clark whose active movement patterns in those areas aroused police suspicion!

On the hand, you seem to be saying, how could alleged newbie killer Clark not be more rational and meticulous after he had just committed what seems to have been sudden violent emotional act?

There is no assertion that the socks were his. They are low athletic socks, most often associated in my experience with women.

You could be right about the sock, although a quick search on the internet yielded these:

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/adidas-Mens-Athletic-Sock-6-Pack/dp/B000M28FKS"]Amazon.com: adidas Men's 6-Pack Low Cut Sock, White/Black: Sports & Outdoors[/ame]

So men do buy low cuts. They also said the socks had hair on them, so that probably rules out a woman, unless she forgot to shave. And they couldn't be Annie's because the surveillance image of her shows her with socks going above her ankle.

I think the murder was perfect in every way. Whoever did it was able to murder Annie without anyone hearing, move and mutilate and then store her body without anyone seeing, and they were able to use whatever materials were available to frame another person. As I've stated before, if Ray Clark left his work clothing lying around, and didn't lock them up, then his stuff could have easily been used to frame him, right down to the pen.

I'm not sure exactly what the time frame is for him murdering and disposing of the body, but I'm assuming since his green pen disappeared around the time of the fire alarm, it would have to have been sometime after the alarm went off. The problem is, Clark was seen leaving 'a building' in his scrubs at that time, so he wasn't around to conceal the body while the alarm sounded. Also, the green pen was used to sign in G33 in green, one of the rooms where blood evidence was found. If he moved her body into that room, why would he sign in?! That really doesn't make sense.

It doesn't help that the police won't say what time other people accessed G13 after Ray and Annie did. If they published all of the times the rooms were scanned in, isolating Ray's and Annie's swipes, it would paint a clearer picture of who was going into the rooms. G22 was the one room he was scanning into that no one scanned into, but was that just for the employees to access, and not the students?

It's interesting that the police said they submitted the sock for analysis, but nothing was mentioned about the blue scrub with the blood-like stain being sent for analysis.

Annie's last card swipe may have been at G13, but that doesn't mean should couldn't have entered other areas of the lab without swiping. Her last card swipe, and Ray Clark's swipe at 10:40am doesn't prove that she was killed soon after.

The key card swipes are a little odd in the affidavit. They say he swiped 55 times between 10:40am and 3:45pm. But then they said on Sept 8th, he swiped into G13 5 times and G22 11 times. That totals 16, not 55. Where did they get the two sets of numbers? Also, they say he swiped into G13 at 10:40am then 11:04am and nowhere else for 46 minutes. They don't say if he swiped into G22 between those times (looking for cleaning supplies? Moving a body?). Nor do they say if those other three people who swiped in after 10:11am swiped into the room during that 46 minutes (i.e. they don't say he was alone in the room, they just say he didn't swipe anywhere else).

So there are many questions. What time do they think he killed Annie? When did they think he moved her body between three rooms, to the washroom, then into the chase? During that time, he would have had blood all over him, so when did he change? I doubt he would have changed each time he moved the body. And he wouldn't have signed into G33 if that's where he was storing her body. Since he left the building for the fire alarm, and he next signed using a black pen at 3:48pm, then her murder, mutilation, body concealment, and his change of clothes would have had to happen before 1:55pm.

 

[Indianagirl]

You could be right about the sock, although a quick search on the internet yielded these:

Amazon.com: adidas Men's 6-Pack Low Cut Sock, White/Black: Sports & Outdoors

So men do buy low cuts. They also said the socks had hair on them, so that probably rules out a woman, unless she forgot to shave. And they couldn't be Annie's because the surveillance image of her shows her with socks going above her ankle.

I think the murder was perfect in every way. Whoever did it was able to murder Annie without anyone hearing, move and mutilate and then store her body without anyone seeing, and they were able to use whatever materials were available to frame another person. As I've stated before, if Ray Clark left his work clothing lying around, and didn't lock them up, then his stuff could have easily been used to frame him, right down to the pen.

I'm not sure exactly what the time frame is for him murdering and disposing of the body, but I'm assuming since his green pen disappeared around the time of the fire alarm, it would have to have been sometime after the alarm went off. The problem is, Clark was seen leaving 'a building' in his scrubs at that time, so he wasn't around to conceal the body while the alarm sounded. Also, the green pen was used to sign in G33 in green, one of the rooms where blood evidence was found. If he moved her body into that room, why would he sign in?! That really doesn't make sense.

It doesn't help that the police won't say what time other people accessed G13 after Ray and Annie did. If they published all of the times the rooms were scanned in, isolating Ray's and Annie's swipes, it would paint a clearer picture of who was going into the rooms. G22 was the one room he was scanning into that no one scanned into, but was that just for the employees to access, and not the students?

It's interesting that the police said they submitted the sock for analysis, but nothing was mentioned about the blue scrub with the blood-like stain being sent for analysis.

Annie's last card swipe may have been at G13, but that doesn't mean should couldn't have entered other areas of the lab without swiping. Her last card swipe, and Ray Clark's swipe at 10:40am doesn't prove that she was killed soon after.

The key card swipes are a little odd in the affidavit. They say he swiped 55 times between 10:40am and 3:45pm. But then they said on Sept 8th, he swiped into G13 5 times and G22 11 times. That totals 16, not 55. Where did they get the two sets of numbers? Also, they say he swiped into G13 at 10:40am then 11:04am and nowhere else for 46 minutes. They don't say if he swiped into G22 between those times (looking for cleaning supplies? Moving a body?). Nor do they say if those other three people who swiped in after 10:11am swiped into the room during that 46 minutes (i.e. they don't say he was alone in the room, they just say he didn't swipe anywhere else).

So there are many questions. What time do they think he killed Annie? When did they think he moved her body between three rooms, to the washroom, then into the chase? During that time, he would have had blood all over him, so when did he change? I doubt he would have changed each time he moved the body. And he wouldn't have signed into G33 if that's where he was storing her body. Since he left the building for the fire alarm, and he next signed using a black pen at 3:48pm, then her murder, mutilation, body concealment, and his change of clothes would have had to happen before 1:55pm.

Why can't this person be Clark?

 

[Shlock Homes]

Why can't this person be Clark?

I'm not saying it 100% can't be him. The prosecution will need to show that Clark had the means to carry it out the way it went down, without anyone being around to see what transpired. At this point, since the window seems to be 10:40 until 1:55 when the alarm went off, during which time he also took a lunch break, that's not much time to do what he did, especially if there were people walking around down there the whole time.

 

[PatientOne]

I don't believe LE has to list all the evidence they have on the arrest warrant. Just enough to get the arrest.

Some here may need to be more mindful of this.

Key card traffic at the crime scene has surely been analyzed and it's my suspicion that since there were no eye witnesses, it will be revealed that there weren't that many staff and students in the area at the time. However, I wish some of our lab members would chime in -- I'm wondering if, for example, it would necessarily be odd to see an animal tech with blood on his scrubs or lab coat? Since mouse tissue is (I presume) examined by researchers like Annie, could it be that animal techs, as part of their duties, handle bloody mice? There's a drain in the floor of G13 (and I presume G33 since it similarly houses mice). This suggests that some messy work may be performed in these rooms.

 

[Sloof]

I think some folks on this forum are confusing an Arrest Warrant with prosecutable evidence. An Arrest Warrant only needs to show probable cause which in this case shows the suspect and the victim in the same room at the time of murder, the suspect's DNA all over the crime scene and victim's body, the act of hiding and concealing evidence (suspect's shoes, lab coat, socks all having both suspect's and victim's blood), attempted cleaning of blood from crime scene, and most glaring is the investigators observing suspect attempting to clean (conceal/hiding evidence) at the crime scene.

The redacted sentences in the AW were redacted because they are prejudicially incriminating to RC and jeopardizes his chance at a fair trial.

There will be 8 affadavits released on 12/1 which will go in to far more investigative detail.

Then there is close to 2,000 pages of evidence that will be presented at trial.

 

[Chanler]

You could be right about the sock, although a quick search on the internet yielded these:

Amazon.com: adidas Men's 6-Pack Low Cut Sock, White/Black: Sports & Outdoors

So men do buy low cuts. They also said the socks had hair on them, so that probably rules out a woman, unless she forgot to shave. And they couldn't be Annie's because the surveillance image of her shows her with socks going above her ankle.

I think the murder was perfect in every way. Whoever did it was able to murder Annie without anyone hearing, move and mutilate and then store her body without anyone seeing, and they were able to use whatever materials were available to frame another person. As I've stated before, if Ray Clark left his work clothing lying around, and didn't lock them up, then his stuff could have easily been used to frame him, right down to the pen.

I'm not sure exactly what the time frame is for him murdering and disposing of the body, but I'm assuming since his green pen disappeared around the time of the fire alarm, it would have to have been sometime after the alarm went off. The problem is, Clark was seen leaving 'a building' in his scrubs at that time, so he wasn't around to conceal the body while the alarm sounded. Also, the green pen was used to sign in G33 in green, one of the rooms where blood evidence was found. If he moved her body into that room, why would he sign in?! That really doesn't make sense.

It doesn't help that the police won't say what time other people accessed G13 after Ray and Annie did. If they published all of the times the rooms were scanned in, isolating Ray's and Annie's swipes, it would paint a clearer picture of who was going into the rooms. G22 was the one room he was scanning into that no one scanned into, but was that just for the employees to access, and not the students?

It's interesting that the police said they submitted the sock for analysis, but nothing was mentioned about the blue scrub with the blood-like stain being sent for analysis.

Annie's last card swipe may have been at G13, but that doesn't mean should couldn't have entered other areas of the lab without swiping. Her last card swipe, and Ray Clark's swipe at 10:40am doesn't prove that she was killed soon after.

The key card swipes are a little odd in the affidavit. They say he swiped 55 times between 10:40am and 3:45pm. But then they said on Sept 8th, he swiped into G13 5 times and G22 11 times. That totals 16, not 55. Where did they get the two sets of numbers? Also, they say he swiped into G13 at 10:40am then 11:04am and nowhere else for 46 minutes. They don't say if he swiped into G22 between those times (looking for cleaning supplies? Moving a body?). Nor do they say if those other three people who swiped in after 10:11am swiped into the room during that 46 minutes (i.e. they don't say he was alone in the room, they just say he didn't swipe anywhere else).

So there are many questions. What time do they think he killed Annie? When did they think he moved her body between three rooms, to the washroom, then into the chase? During that time, he would have had blood all over him, so when did he change? I doubt he would have changed each time he moved the body. And he wouldn't have signed into G33 if that's where he was storing her body. Since he left the building for the fire alarm, and he next signed using a black pen at 3:48pm, then her murder, mutilation, body concealment, and his change of clothes would have had to happen before 1:55pm.

Women have hair; look around.

Of all the photographs that I have seen of Annie entering, not one indicates clearly that she was wearing socks higher than those described. In fact, one with the relatively high resolution indicates a horizontal white line consistent with low socks. In addition, a Yale Daily New article which seems to draw on police information identifies the sock found in the ceiling as Annie Le's. In any case, changing into lab gear, including socks, is not extraordinary in a smelly animal lab. I've witnessed that several times myself.

But whose socks they are is at best a minor issue. We know that at least one of the socks was blood stained. Whether Clark removed his socks because one or both of them were blood-stained or whether they are Anni's, there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone planted these or any of the other disparate items associated with Clark and/or his DNA.

The arrest warrant does note that the blue scrubs were sent for analysis. It states "Some items have tested positive for the presence of blood utilizing presumptive chemical test" and a list beginning "Particularly" follows, including the blue scrubs.

You sign into a building; you swipe into buildings and rooms. Clark's numerous card swipes are consistent with police descriptions of him coming into rooms repeatedly, perhaps to nervously look for or conceal blood and other possible evidence or perhaps gain knowledge of the present state of the investigation.

I have seen no indication that Annie was "mutilated." The blood and injuries were more likely to have occurred in the struggle before her strangling death.

You attempt to question Clark's ability to commit the murder and conceal Le's body in such a short time, but his admitted presence with her in G13 would give your phantom conspirators even less time. And not only would they be obliged to do everything he did ever so quickly; they would have to gather and plant evidence incriminating him at the same time.

A crime is not perfect if ample creditable evidence is found after the act.

As numerous jurists have noted, reasonable doubt does not mean that we can conjure up a hypothetical alternative.

 

[Chanler]

I think some folks on this forum are confusing an Arrest Warrant with prosecutable evidence. An Arrest Warrant only needs to show probable cause which in this case shows the suspect and the victim in the same room at the time of murder, the suspect's DNA all over the crime scene and victim's body, the act of hiding and concealing evidence (suspect's shoes, lab coat, socks all having both suspect's and victim's blood), attempted cleaning of blood from crime scene, and most glaring is the investigators observing suspect attempting to clean (conceal/hiding evidence) at the crime scene.

The redacted sentences in the AW were redacted because they are prejudicially incriminating to RC and jeopardizes his chance at a fair trial.

There will be 8 affadavits released on 12/1 which will go in to far more investigative detail.

Then there is close to 2,000 pages of evidence that will be presented at trial.

Amen.