Arrest Warrant For Roy Clark Released 2009.11.13

[PatientOne]

Shlock said:

I think the space was described as being about 2 feet wide? Since it's located behind a toilet, then I'd image it would be an opening higher than waist level on the average size man, but the opening would not extend to far above the top of the toilet stall, or all the way to the ceiling, so standing on top of the toilet seat to maneuver anything or anyone into the chase would not be to one's advantage. Plus, you'd risk having your foot slip into the toilet. The killer probably straddled the back of the toilet, keeping both feet on the ground. So the pen could not have fallen out of a pant pocket, it's possible it could have fallen out of a shirt pocket, but I think that would have happened in the initial struggle with Annie.
The warrant doesn't state if Ray asked around that afternoon if anyone had seen his missing green pen. I hope that comes up during the trial. If he really was concerned about his green pen being in the chase, then he would have found another green pen as a replacement.

According to the affidavits, the chase access was in the abutting locker room, directly behind where the toilet was located in the room next door. It was when LE entered the locker room that they noticed the decomposition odor and used cadaver dogs to find the precise location of Annie's body.

 

[Chanler]

Thanks for the time line. I don't really see any inconsistencies with Ray's statement. Maybe he assumed Annie left the building when the fire alarm went off, since everyone else supposedly exited Amistad.

I think the time frame for the alarm is a little odd. They reported in various news media, including the Yale one, that it occurred at 12:40pm, but for some reason, the warrant states it occurred almost at 2pm. That's a significant difference. Was there multiple alarms? If the alarm occurred close to 12:40pm, it would explain when Annie could have been killed, and her body hidden, but then it throws a curve ball with the police theory about the green pen, because that would mean it was put into the chase after the body was placed in there. I hope the trial clears up the time of the fire alarm. I think that's a significant event in this case, even though the police have down played it. It would be interesting to know if other people were scanning into G13 or G22 during the alarm?

Hi, Schlock. Clark could not have seen Annie Le leave the building at 12:30-12:45 because [1] she was already dead and [2] by his account he remained in the room. He almost certainly approached the Yale police officer to place her as far away from G13 and himself as possible.

By around noon, the usually prompt and meticulous Annie Le had already been reported AWOL by Dr. Bennett. If she was still alive and well in G13 at 12:30, why hadn't she called?

Unlike any of the other sources you name, the police were able to use records from scores of video cameras to establish when people vacated the building. No one mentioned another fire alarm.

Moving and hiding during a brief fire drill can actually be more risky than at other times. It empties rooms of occupants, including stragglers and also dispatches monitors around to make certain that everyone is out.

There is no "police theory about the green pen."

Nobody scanned into G22 on September 8th except Clark.

 

[Chanler]

But we have to give Ray the benefit of the doubt that his actions were not out of line with what he was doing or the instructions given to him on what to touch or what not to touch. If he was a PhD researcher doing that, it would probably be more suspicious than an Animal Tech employed by Yale to keep that room running smoothly. Whether he regularly did cleaning on the sink area has not be told to us. Out of context, and with the suspicion of him being Annie's killer, it looks bad. But if the warrant went into such details about his work habits, then that would take the wind out of sails of the investigators. Unfortunately for him, he has to take the costly route of defending his work behavior in a court of law.
[Let's be clear: Clark was an animal tech, not a janitor or the person in charge of keeping the room running smoothly. By the reports we have seen, he was not known for being an exceptionally superlative worker; indeed, he had not received one promotion during his entire five year tenure. He was, however, known for being an authoritarian worker, someone who approached researchers to complain that they weren't performing their duties. Officer Wood's detailed description of him with the Wipe Alls indicates clear and particular deception, not a general clean-up of the area. Similarly, the cleaning of a drain area already adjudged clean by two trained police officers is suspicious. And one would expect that a stickler about job descriptions like Clark would recognize this assignment as a task for janitors or lab techs, not animal techs.]

Clark was the last person to admit to having seen Annie. He was the one person who was there almost all the time, except during the fire alarm. So he naturally became the prime suspect. If the killer was one of the PhDs or another lab worker, and they never admitted to seeing Annie, then naturally, it would look worse for Ray. That's the problem with murder investigations, when you take ownership of being the last person to see a victim alive, you become prime suspect when the police don't have any evidence to go after someone else. That's what leads to wrongful conviction, faulty deductions. If no one else admitted to seeing Annie after 12:30pm, even though she very well may have been alive, then Ray automatically becomes the target of the investigation. It's not even clear fully when Annie was killed or when the killer had the opportunity to move her body from room to room, and hide evidence in drains and ceiling tiles.
[Clark brought himself under suspicion by his behavior and his inconsistencies and, not least, by forensic evidence, not all of which we have yet seen. According to you, the killer not only had the opportunity to move her body from room to room, hide the corpse and other evidence at several locations, but also find someone to frame, plant evidence, and leave no incriminating evidence.]

The semantics of how the warrant is worded can be interpreted in your way, and it can be interpreted the way I see it. Putting September 8th at the end of that sentence may be poor English, but I don't take it to mean he was the only person to scan in that room the entire day. If that was a supply closet for the various rooms in that lab, then other Animal Techs or Lab Techs probably scanned in and out of there too. But my interpretation of how they say it is that he's the only one recorded scanning into G22 around the supposed time of her death (sometime after he scanned into G13).
[The police statement is unequivocal. "The only card used to access G22 after the victim swiped into the Amistad building on September 8th" doesn't leave a shadow of a shadow to indicate that it means "the only one recorded scanning into G22 around the supposed time of her death (sometime after he scanned into G13)," as you claim. This is somewhere between wish fulfillment and total denial.]

I think the space was described as being about 2 feet wide? Since it's located behind a toilet, then I'd image it would be an opening higher than waist level on the average size man, but the opening would not extend to far above the top of the toilet stall, or all the way to the ceiling, so standing on top of the toilet seat to maneuver anything or anyone into the chase would not be to one's advantage. Plus, you'd risk having your foot slip into the toilet. The killer probably straddled the back of the toilet, keeping both feet on the ground. So the pen could not have fallen out of a pant pocket, it's possible it could have fallen out of a shirt pocket, but I think that would have happened in the initial struggle with Annie.
The warrant doesn't state if Ray asked around that afternoon if anyone had seen his missing green pen. I hope that comes up during the trial. If he really was concerned about his green pen being in the chase, then he would have found another green pen as a replacement.
[I defer to PatientOne's response on this one. I would assume that on the day Clark committed his first murder, he would have worries more pressing than asking people to replace his green pen.]

The police claimed they looked in the Amistad building for the jacket he was seen wearing into the building September 8th, but not seen with when exiting that afternoon. They never talk about how he could have taken it home. I don't see why his street clothes would be missing, if he committed the murder in his scrubs and lab coat. If he was going to hide his street clothes or dispose of them where the police couldn't find them, then why not use the same approach with the scrubs or glove or other evidence he left lying around with blood?
[Unplanned killings often result in such spontaneous, unmethodical fix-it actions. As for the missing street clothes, it's possible that they somehow picked up some clean-up blood.]

 

[Shlock Homes]

According to the affidavits, the chase access was in the abutting locker room, directly behind where the toilet was located in the room next door. It was when LE entered the locker room that they noticed the decomposition odor and used cadaver dogs to find the precise location of Annie's body.

That would make sense. The affidavit is a little confusing, because they keep referring to the toilet or indicated the chase was behind a toilet, as if the toilet was significant. But they also said a 'systematic search of the room eventually revealed the lifeless body of a female'. By 'the room', I take it to mean the room they were already in when they detected the odor, and not the toilet area.

That also changes things in terms of the killer having total privacy when concealing the body. At least in a bathroom or toilet stall, they could lock it and conduct 'business' without anyone seeing. In a locker room, that's much more difficult. Even if Ray knew the schedules of his co-workers or other staff or researchers, there would still be the uncertainty of people popping into the locker room as the body was being concealed. And so this increases the likelihood that more people were involved, because a second person would be needed as a lookout.

 

[Shlock Homes]

By around noon, the usually prompt and meticulous Annie Le had already been reported AWOL by Dr. Bennett. If she was still alive and well in G13 at 12:30, why hadn't she called?

That's something we can't be totally sure about, that Annie would miss a class and not bother telling her professor. If she just did it the one time, why would the professor feel the need to bother the head of the department about such a trivial matter? For all Bennett knew, Annie could have come down with a cold.

Seeing that it was a first class, of the first week of the school, I wonder if it was even a full fledged class. Usually the first day of class is just an introduction, and the course syllabus is passed out, and other information is given, but the nitty gritty of the lecturing doesn't start until the next class. Annie might have known this, and didn't bother showing up at the class. It's not clear why Bennett would have needed her presence, unless she was supposed to bring course materials or she was being introduced by the professor to the class. Hardly reason to tattle on her or report her for some kind of violation.

Unlike any of the other sources you name, the police were able to use records from scores of video cameras to establish when people vacated the building. No one mentioned another fire alarm.

If the time stamps on the videos were wrong, then the police could be wrong. People would still remember what time a fire alarm occurred with reasonable accuracy when asked a day or two later. Had it been a week or more after, then I could see the huge difference.

Moving and hiding during a brief fire drill can actually be more risky than at other times. It empties rooms of occupants, including stragglers and also dispatches monitors around to make certain that everyone is out.

There is no "police theory about the green pen."

Nobody scanned into G22 on September 8th except Clark.

I still have to disagree with you on the interpretation of Clark and the scanning into G22. I think the court case will settle that one for sure. As far as I can tell, they mean around the time they suspect Annie was killed.

I can't speak to the fire drill and whether there are monitors at Amistad who would have checked to make sure everyone left. That might be the case, and it might not be the case. Either way, after a certain amount of time, even the monitors would have evacuated the building.

 

[Shlock Homes]

[Let's be clear: Clark was an animal tech, not a janitor or the person in charge of keeping the room running smoothly. By the reports we have seen, he was not known for being an exceptionally superlative worker; indeed, he had not received one promotion during his entire five year tenure. He was, however, known for being an authoritarian worker, someone who approached researchers to complain that they weren't performing their duties. Officer Wood's detailed description of him with the Wipe Alls indicates clear and particular deception, not a general clean-up of the area. Similarly, the cleaning of a drain area already adjudged clean by two trained police officers is suspicious. And one would expect that a stickler about job descriptions like Clark would recognize this assignment as a task for janitors or lab techs, not animal techs.]

If he had been there for a number of years, perhaps he felt a need to do the cleaning. I mean, would he be calling a janitor to come and do a little cleaning that he could just do himself? Why would they have cleaning products at their disposal if they weren't supposed to clean?

[Clark brought himself under suspicion by his behavior and his inconsistencies and, not least, by forensic evidence, not all of which we have yet seen. According to you, the killer not only had the opportunity to move her body from room to room, hide the corpse and other evidence at several locations, but also find someone to frame, plant evidence, and leave no incriminating evidence.]

Actually we don't know if they left incriminating evidence. The affidavits never mentioned that Clark's DNA was found on the bloody clothing they located within the building, with the exception of the socks. With regards to the socks, they don't mention if Clark kept his socks in his boots, which were easily obtainable in the lab, and not under lock and key. In this day and age, many of us have watched CSI or are familiar with forensics and DNA. So planting evidence to implicate someone else is pretty easy to do. Whoever did it, was familiar with Ray's habits (green pen) and the location of his clothing. I'm not sure if they had a bone to pick with him. Once the police sniff that trail, they tend to go for it. Do police investigations ever stop because they smell a frame-up? If they do, I've never heard of it.

[The police statement is unequivocal. "The only card used to access G22 after the victim swiped into the Amistad building on September 8th" doesn't leave a shadow of a shadow to indicate that it means "the only one recorded scanning into G22 around the supposed time of her death (sometime after he scanned into G13)," as you claim. This is somewhere between wish fulfillment and total denial.]

Again, because the wording is confusing, and somewhat misleading, in many parts of the affidavit, including the card swipes (they say he scanned 55 times that day into 'the rooms', meaning G13 and G22, yet they also say he scanned into G22 11 times and G13 5 times, which totals 16 not 55).

[Unplanned killings often result in such spontaneous, unmethodical fix-it actions. As for the missing street clothes, it's possible that they somehow picked up some clean-up blood.]

I believe the killer would have probably thoroughly washed up before going into their street clothes. Whoever committed the murder didn't have a bag or backpack handy, which would explain them hiding their scrubs and lab coat in various parts of the building. Ray came with a jacket in the morning. Even if he didn't bring a bag to work, if he was making an 'escape' from the crime scene, he would have (could have) carried the bloodied clothing under his coat.

I sense that if he had committed the murder, he would have called in sick at least the next day, if not the rest of the week. I doubt he'd be so willing and co-operative with law enforcement. In fact, he'd probably have said he didn't see Annie that morning. If he scanned in 10:40am and Annie was still there, then Annie intended to miss her class, which probably wasn't crucial for her to attend anyway. So it's within the realm of possibility that she was alive at 12:30pm.

If Ray's pen went missing after 1:30pm, then it would mean he moved the body around that time. Someone 3 hours dead would not bleed a lot, unless they had been stabbed or shot or otherwise had skin broken severely enough to smear even on the victims resting place. If Annie had just suffered a minor head wound, it would not still be bleeding out. It would probably have dried by 1:30pm if she was murdered 10:40am or so. And to move the body from room to room and down hallways was very risky, so unless Ray stuck her under a cart (they haven't mentioned finding a cart with blood evidence), the killer was probably carrying her body in their arms.

 

[Chanler]

That would make sense. The affidavit is a little confusing, because they keep referring to the toilet or indicated the chase was behind a toilet, as if the toilet was significant. But they also said a 'systematic search of the room eventually revealed the lifeless body of a female'. By 'the room', I take it to mean the room they were already in when they detected the odor, and not the toilet area.

That also changes things in terms of the killer having total privacy when concealing the body. At least in a bathroom or toilet stall, they could lock it and conduct 'business' without anyone seeing. In a locker room, that's much more difficult. Even if Ray knew the schedules of his co-workers or other staff or researchers, there would still be the uncertainty of people popping into the locker room as the body was being concealed. And so this increases the likelihood that more people were involved, because a second person would be needed as a lookout.

Hi, Shlock. Conspiracies are easy. If one imaginary person isn't enough; you can just create another.

Confederates don't grow on trees, especially in unplanned, messy murders like this one. Imagine the invitation from the killer: "Hi, Charlie, how ya doin'; yeah, what about those Celtics. I have a little favor to ask. Remember Annie, that little Asian girl? Well, I had an argument with her and, long story short, I had to kill her. I was wondering if in the next hour or so, you'd like to involve yourself in a felony murder. It won't take long. Great; you're a real bud."

A lookout would not be needed and, indeed, might attract suspicion. And if you're looking for confederates (which I see no evidence for), does anyone have more obvious choices than Clark, with a sister, a fiancee, and a brother-in-law working in the building? And the first two have already lawyered up.....

 

[Chanler]

Shlock Homes;4539905]That's something we can't be totally sure about, that Annie would miss a class and not bother telling her professor. If she just did it the one time, why would the professor feel the need to bother the head of the department about such a trivial matter? For all Bennett knew, Annie could have come down with a cold.

Seeing that it was a first class, of the first week of the school, I wonder if it was even a full fledged class. Usually the first day of class is just an introduction, and the course syllabus is passed out, and other information is given, but the nitty gritty of the lecturing doesn't start until the next class. Annie might have known this, and didn't bother showing up at the class. It's not clear why Bennett would have needed her presence, unless she was supposed to bring course materials or she was being introduced by the professor to the class. Hardly reason to tattle on her or report her for some kind of violation.
[By all accounts, Annie was meticulous and mature. As the assistant of a respected Yale professor, she would have known better to not "bother showing up at the class." As a former graduate student, I know this is just not done. Her absence was unusual enough for him to notify the department head, just as her absence was unusual enough for her roommate to contact the police that very night.]

If the time stamps on the videos were wrong, then the police could be wrong. People would still remember what time a fire alarm occurred with reasonable accuracy when asked a day or two later. Had it been a week or more after, then I could see the huge difference.
[The police, unlike your sources, could check not only the time stamps on the dozens of videos, but also the card swipes of the researchers and techs checking back into the building to synchronize the time. And as for your "reasonable accuracy", research shows that correctly remembering the time of nonregular events is often faulty. Even the supposedly accurate recollections of people at the time vary widely. Clark himself can't pin it closer than one to one thirty.]

I still have to disagree with you on the interpretation of Clark and the scanning into G22. I think the court case will settle that one for sure. As far as I can tell, they mean around the time they suspect Annie was killed.

I can't speak to the fire drill and whether there are monitors at Amistad who would have checked to make sure everyone left. That might be the case, and it might not be the case. Either way, after a certain amount of time, even the monitors would have evacuated the building.

[The arrest warrant statement about the G22 has no wiggle room, no matter how hard you try. I assume that the monitors would only leave the building after they had established to their satisfaction that the building was empty.]

 

[Chanler]

Hi, Shlock, again I apologize for sloppiness:

If he had been there for a number of years, perhaps he felt a need to do the cleaning. I mean, would he be calling a janitor to come and do a little cleaning that he could just do himself? Why would they have cleaning products at their disposal if they weren't supposed to clean?
[According to several accounts, Raymond Clark was a stickler for job descriptions. He complained that other people, including Annie Le, weren't performing their designated tasks. He's exactly the sort of person who would call for a janitor to perform janitorial tasks. And why, even if it were his job, would he be cleaning floor areas that multiple people present saw were already clean? As for cleaning products, they are generally available in workplaces, especially in laboratories. I work in an office and they rest on open counters nearby.]

Actually we don't know if they left incriminating evidence. The affidavits never mentioned that Clark's DNA was found on the bloody clothing they located within the building, with the exception of the socks. With regards to the socks, they don't mention if Clark kept his socks in his boots, which were easily obtainable in the lab, and not under lock and key. In this day and age, many of us have watched CSI or are familiar with forensics and DNA. So planting evidence to implicate someone else is pretty easy to do. Whoever did it, was familiar with Ray's habits (green pen) and the location of his clothing. I'm not sure if they had a bone to pick with him. Once the police sniff that trail, they tend to go for it. Do police investigations ever stop because they smell a frame-up? If they do, I've never heard of it.
[According to some reports, there were as many as 100 law enforcement from three agencies on the scene. They had ample opportunity to interview the researchers and staff at Amistad Street and elsewhere. That all these trained professional missed even an inkling of a conspiracy and you, who have never been on the scene, somehow picked it up boggles the mind.]

Again, because the wording is confusing, and somewhat misleading, in many parts of the affidavit, including the card swipes (they say he scanned 55 times that day into 'the rooms', meaning G13 and G22, yet they also say he scanned into G22 11 times and G13 5 times, which totals 16 not 55).
[The wording on Raymond Clark's G22 swipes is not confusing, unless you intensely will it to be confusing because it conflicts with your conclusions. As for the count of Clark's total swipes, it is also not misleading when you read the entire arrest warrant, as arrest warrants are meant to be read. On page six, Clark himself notes that "key card access is needed to enter the various rooms where the animals are housed in the basement of the Amistad building." We know also from the document that key card entries are required at other levels of admission. On page eight, they give the specific accounts of his key-card activity for two rooms. Then, shortly thereafter, they give a total count for his key card entries: "a total 55 of key card entries." (Presumably, these would include his card swipes into the building foyer, his card swipes into the basement space, and his card swipes into all other restricted locations.)

I believe the killer would have probably thoroughly washed up before going into their street clothes. Whoever committed the murder didn't have a bag or backpack handy, which would explain them hiding their scrubs and lab coat in various parts of the building. Ray came with a jacket in the morning. Even if he didn't bring a bag to work, if he was making an 'escape' from the crime scene, he would have (could have) carried the bloodied clothing under his coat.

I sense that if he had committed the murder, he would have called in sick at least the next day, if not the rest of the week. I doubt he'd be so willing and co-operative with law enforcement. In fact, he'd probably have said he didn't see Annie that morning. If he scanned in 10:40am and Annie was still there, then Annie intended to miss her class, which probably wasn't crucial for her to attend anyway. So it's within the realm of possibility that she was alive at 12:30pm.
[It would have been difficult and not especially sensible for Clark to stay home in the days following the murder. (Lee Harvey Oswald actually intensified interest in him by leaving the Book Depository.) Annie's body had not been found and Clark was obviously still trying to tie up some loose ends. His actions in the following days were nervous and attracted attention.

As for Annie, we still don't know if she was scheduled to go to the class. (It is possible that she had other work to do for Bennett or that she was carrying print-outs for him in that large pile of papers she carried into Amistad.) We do know that he thought her absence for some work noteworthy enough to send an email to the head of the department. Yale advanced graduate students don't just blow off professors.]

If Ray's pen went missing after 1:30pm, then it would mean he moved the body around that time. Someone 3 hours dead would not bleed a lot, unless they had been stabbed or shot or otherwise had skin broken severely enough to smear even on the victims resting place. If Annie had just suffered a minor head wound, it would not still be bleeding out. It would probably have dried by 1:30pm if she was murdered 10:40am or so. And to move the body from room to room and down hallways was very risky, so unless Ray stuck her under a cart (they haven't mentioned finding a cart with blood evidence), the killer was probably carrying her body in their arms.[/quote]
[It would not mean that he moved the body around that time. It could mean that like any other nervous first-time killer, he returned to his hiding place to make adjustments; perhaps cover her with insulation to mask the inevitable smell. The blood splatter on the G13 wall and the distribution of blood elsewhere seems to indicate that Annie did suffer a bloody wound. Moreover, we don't know exactly when she actually died; to contend that he murdered her shortly after he first entered the room seems unrealistic. The attack might have occurred after a verbal argument on his much more lengthy stay in the room from 11:04 to almost noon. It is possible that the last-ditch strangling took place after she was moved to G22. In any case, bodies seep watery blood, especially if they are moved or jostled around. This bloody substance can then be picked up on clothing and can be transferred.]

 

[Shlock Homes]

Hi, Shlock. Conspiracies are easy. If one imaginary person isn't enough; you can just create another.

Confederates don't grow on trees, especially in unplanned, messy murders like this one. Imagine the invitation from the killer: "Hi, Charlie, how ya doin'; yeah, what about those Celtics. I have a little favor to ask. Remember Annie, that little Asian girl? Well, I had an argument with her and, long story short, I had to kill her. I was wondering if in the next hour or so, you'd like to involve yourself in a felony murder. It won't take long. Great; you're a real bud."

A lookout would not be needed and, indeed, might attract suspicion. And if you're looking for confederates (which I see no evidence for), does anyone have more obvious choices than Clark, with a sister, a fiancee, and a brother-in-law working in the building? And the first two have already lawyered up.....

We've been told of the four workers who are related in some form or another. Are there others who work in that lab area who could be closely related, who would likely cover each other's back if something this spontaneous occurred? What about among the researchers? Could they also conspire. Remember, the notebook is missing, with Annie's valuable data. Someone is benefiting from her research. I considered it being his brother-in-law, but why would he frame a fellow family member by leaving evidence that traces back to Ray lying around?

Whoever did it probably has access to G33 as well, since the original affidavit stated the blood and bead evidence in that room. I still don't understand why that was omitted from the recently released affidavits.

[By all accounts, Annie was meticulous and mature. As the assistant of a respected Yale professor, she would have known better to not "bother showing up at the class." As a former graduate student, I know this is just not done. Her absence was unusual enough for him to notify the department head, just as her absence was unusual enough for her roommate to contact the police that very night.]

That is true, that she could be meticulous and mature, but then others have said she could be feisty, and I think some have wondered if she pushed back with Ray and the mouse cages, and that resulted in the confrontation. So it's difficult at this point to determine whether she was mature enough to not miss a class, but not mature enough to avoid a confrontation over the cleanliness of some cages, or as I think you might have postulated (or PatientOne), that she lost her temper over Ray being late for their meeting.

I can see how her absence was unusual for the roommate, but I still can't see how the professor wouldn't have just cut her some slack? She misses one class, the first class of the year, and like I said, it was most likely just an introduction. If she and the professor were on good terms, then I'd think he would have let it go, instead of reporting it to his boss? That could have gotten her into trouble. Perhaps that was the intention? Who knows.

[The police, unlike your sources, could check not only the time stamps on the dozens of videos, but also the card swipes of the researchers and techs checking back into the building to synchronize the time. And as for your "reasonable accuracy", research shows that correctly remembering the time of nonregular events is often faulty. Even the supposedly accurate recollections of people at the time vary widely. Clark himself can't pin it closer than one to one thirty.]

I'm going to wait until trial before fully committing to the 1:55pm time that was cited in the affidavit.

[The arrest warrant statement about the G22 has no wiggle room, no matter how hard you try. I assume that the monitors would only leave the building after they had established to their satisfaction that the building was empty.]

As long as it didn't say "Ray was the only person who entered that room the entire day" I think there is room for interpretation.

[According to several accounts, Raymond Clark was a stickler for job descriptions. He complained that other people, including Annie Le, weren't performing their designated tasks. He's exactly the sort of person who would call for a janitor to perform janitorial tasks. And why, even if it were his job, would he be cleaning floor areas that multiple people present saw were already clean? As for cleaning products, they are generally available in workplaces, especially in laboratories. I work in an office and they rest on open counters nearby.]

If he really was the stickler for cleanliness, I doubt he felt cleaning a drain was beneath him. They said he did it that day, but we haven't heard if he uses cleaning products on a regular basis. I guess the trial will clear that up.

[According to some reports, there were as many as 100 law enforcement from three agencies on the scene. They had ample opportunity to interview the researchers and staff at Amistad Street and elsewhere. That all these trained professional missed even an inkling of a conspiracy and you, who have never been on the scene, somehow picked it up boggles the mind.]

Will all those trained professionals on hand, they still assumed Annie was a missing person for a couple of days. For whatever reason, all that man power didn't think to seal off the basement as a potential crime scene, or to look in lockers and chases. What prevented them from looking into locked lockers? My point is these people are human with varying degrees of competency. They claim they didn't have tunnel vision, but they might have looked at Ray just because he was the only one to admit he saw Annie last. Because the basement wasn't sealed, we don't know if the pen was put into the chase the day Annie disappeared or some later date.

[The wording on Raymond Clark's G22 swipes is not confusing, unless you intensely will it to be confusing because it conflicts with your conclusions. As for the count of Clark's total swipes, it is also not misleading when you read the entire arrest warrant, as arrest warrants are meant to be read. On page six, Clark himself notes that "key card access is needed to enter the various rooms where the animals are housed in the basement of the Amistad building." We know also from the document that key card entries are required at other levels of admission. On page eight, they give the specific accounts of his key-card activity for two rooms. Then, shortly thereafter, they give a total count for his key card entries: "a total 55 of key card entries." (Presumably, these would include his card swipes into the building foyer, his card swipes into the basement space, and his card swipes into all other restricted locations.)

I'm looking at page 10 of this older affidavit. It goes into detail his specific entry into G13 and G22 in that paragraph. It makes no mention of all of the rooms he was responsible for. When it says Clark usage of his key to gain entry into THE rooms, "the rooms" are the ones being referred to in the preceding sentences, G13 and G22. It doesn't say he accessed all rooms under his watch a total of 55 times. That sentence is isolating just the two rooms they went into detail for most of that paragraph.

As for Annie, we still don't know if she was scheduled to go to the class. (It is possible that she had other work to do for Bennett or that she was carrying print-outs for him in that large pile of papers she carried into Amistad.) We do know that he thought her absence for some work noteworthy enough to send an email to the head of the department. Yale advanced graduate students don't just blow off professors.]

See my earlier response. If she was on good terms with her professors, then why tell on her to the department head?

[It would not mean that he moved the body around that time. It could mean that like any other nervous first-time killer, he returned to his hiding place to make adjustments; perhaps cover her with insulation to mask the inevitable smell. The blood splatter on the G13 wall and the distribution of blood elsewhere seems to indicate that Annie did suffer a bloody wound. Moreover, we don't know exactly when she actually died; to contend that he murdered her shortly after he first entered the room seems unrealistic. The attack might have occurred after a verbal argument on his much more lengthy stay in the room from 11:04 to almost noon. It is possible that the last-ditch strangling took place after she was moved to G22. In any case, bodies seep watery blood, especially if they are moved or jostled around. This bloody substance can then be picked up on clothing and can be transferred.]

They could seep, but it all depends on how the body was situated. Also, once the heart stops beating most blood stops flowing out of the site of the wound. And any blood that did seep out would start to dry. But that would be assuming her skull was cracked open or she suffered a deep wound. For all we know, she just was punched in the nose or face, or hit over the head with a blunt object, as opposed to be sliced with a sword, knife or axe.

 

[Chanler]

Hi, Shlock, my responses in italics:

"We've been told of the four workers who are related in some form or another. Are there others who work in that lab area who could be closely related, who would likely cover each other's back if something this spontaneous occurred? What about among the researchers? Could they also conspire. Remember, the notebook is missing, with Annie's valuable data. Someone is benefiting from her research. I considered it being his brother-in-law, but why would he frame a fellow family member by leaving evidence that traces back to Ray lying around?
[Only somebody very stupid would involve themselves in felony murder on such short notice. There is no indication beyond wishful thinking that anyone did. Clark's brother-in-law was an animal lab technician, not a researcher. As explained before, whatever information in Annie's notebook would be valuable would be transferred into digital form; her notes and computations would be essentially useful only to herself.]

"Whoever did it probably has access to G33 as well, since the original affidavit stated the blood and bead evidence in that room. I still don't understand why that was omitted from the recently released affidavits."
[They were omitted because they had no specific relevance to the specific search warrant requests.]

"That is true, that she could be meticulous and mature, but then others have said she could be feisty, and I think some have wondered if she pushed back with Ray and the mouse cages, and that resulted in the confrontation. So it's difficult at this point to determine whether she was mature enough to not miss a class, but not mature enough to avoid a confrontation over the cleanliness of some cages, or as I think you might have postulated (or PatientOne), that she lost her temper over Ray being late for their meeting."
[Attempting to leave a room to avoid a physical confrontation does not show immaturity; it is a sign of good sense. And Annie Le didn't just miss a class; she apparently failed to contact her advisor that she had done so. Obviously, Dr. Bennett thought this was worthy of inquiring about.]

"I can see how her absence was unusual for the roommate, but I still can't see how the professor wouldn't have just cut her some slack? She misses one class, the first class of the year, and like I said, it was most likely just an introduction. If she and the professor were on good terms, then I'd think he would have let it go, instead of reporting it to his boss? That could have gotten her into trouble. Perhaps that was the intention? Who knows."
[First of all, we don't know if it was a class. It might have been for some other scheduled meeting or assignment. Second, he didn't report her to the graduate school dean; he mentioned it in an email to the department head. Most likely he was concerned; it turns out, for very good reason.]

"I'm going to wait until trial before fully committing to the 1:55pm time that was cited in the affidavit."
[Be our guest. That time comes from a legal document derived from video and time swipes.]

"As long as it didn't say "Ray was the only person who entered that room the entire day" I think there is room for interpretation."
[No matter how inconvenient it is for your conspiracy theories, the arrest warrant statement states clearly that Clark was the only person to enter G22 after Annie Le entered the building that day: "The only card used to access G22 after the victim swiped into the Amistad building on September 8th."]

"If he really was the stickler for cleanliness, I doubt he felt cleaning a drain was beneath him. They said he did it that day, but we haven't heard if he uses cleaning products on a regular basis. I guess the trial will clear that up."
[He was a stickler for job descriptions. People described him as a control freak; not a neat freak.]

"Will all those trained professionals on hand, they still assumed Annie was a missing person for a couple of days. For whatever reason, all that man power didn't think to seal off the basement as a potential crime scene, or to look in lockers and chases. What prevented them from looking into locked lockers? My point is these people are human with varying degrees of competency. They claim they didn't have tunnel vision, but they might have looked at Ray just because he was the only one to admit he saw Annie last. Because the basement wasn't sealed, we don't know if the pen was put into the chase the day Annie disappeared or some later date."
[Annie was a missing person, not yet known to be murdered. Clark himself encouraged them to think that she had left. You accuse the FBI, the New Haven police and the Yale police of incompetence, but most of us think that they have solved the crime and seem to have sufficient evidence to get a conviction. As for the lockers, they needed search warrants, which they secured. As for the pen, the police couldn't have determined that the pen was put into chase on the day that Annie was murdered because they didn't even enter the building until the next day.]

"I'm looking at page 10 of this older affidavit. It goes into detail his specific entry into G13 and G22 in that paragraph. It makes no mention of all of the rooms he was responsible for. When it says Clark usage of his key to gain entry into THE rooms, "the rooms" are the ones being referred to in the preceding sentences, G13 and G22. It doesn't say he accessed all rooms under his watch a total of 55 times. That sentence is isolating just the two rooms they went into detail for most of that paragraph."
[The arrest warrant, which was accepted by a sitting judge, states quite specifically how many times Clark entered G13 and G22. Obviously, the reference of "total 55 key card entries" also includes swipes into other rooms. If A equals 5 and B equals 11, the total of 55 by very definition must include additional swipes at different locations. How would a greater number of swipes into G13 and/or G22 lessen Clark's culpability? Wouldn't it make his actions that day even more suspicious?]

See my earlier response. If she was on good terms with her professors, then why tell on her to the department head?
[See my earlier response. By all accounts, she was popular not only with her professors, but with her fellow researchers. Clark's reputation was less stellar.]

"They could seep, but it all depends on how the body was situated. Also, once the heart stops beating most blood stops flowing out of the site of the wound. And any blood that did seep out would start to dry. But that would be assuming her skull was cracked open or she suffered a deep wound. For all we know, she just was punched in the nose or face, or hit over the head with a blunt object, as opposed to be sliced with a sword, knife or axe."
[The blood splatter on the G13 would seem to indicate violent trauma force. The body was moved, jostled, and perhaps scraped again when placed inside the narrow hiding place with liquid and/or steam pipes. It was carried by a murderer who would probably be sweating. That blood was found at several locations would indicate that she was not just punched or knocked out. There is absolutely nothing in the timeline that indicates that Annie Le's blood would not be found in the hiding place or that Clark's pen was stolen and placed in that hiding place.]

 

[Shlock Homes]

I won't go back into debating the evidence until more is released. I still believe there isn't enough data to say that Clark is guilty, and more than enough reason to believe he wasn't even aware that a murder had been committed, like the rest of us, until they found Annie's body.

I'm just here to point out that Angel Who Cares posted links to articles where Ray Clark finally entered a plea of Not Guilty. I don't think that'll change people's minds about his guilt. The articles seemed focus on assuming he did it, but that they will argue he didn't mean to kill her or something to that effect. I guess we'll wait and see.

 

[Chanler]

I won't go back into debating the evidence until more is released. I still believe there isn't enough data to say that Clark is guilty, and more than enough reason to believe he wasn't even aware that a murder had been committed, like the rest of us, until they found Annie's body.

I'm just here to point out that Angel Who Cares posted links to articles where Ray Clark finally entered a plea of Not Guilty. I don't think that'll change people's minds about his guilt. The articles seemed focus on assuming he did it, but that they will argue he didn't mean to kill her or something to that effect. I guess we'll wait and see.

Hi, Shlock Homes; good to see you posting. The additional charge of felony murder doesn't mean that they will argue that "he didn't mean to kill her." It means that the exact circumstances of the act of him murdering her (in this case, bludgeoning and choking her) are not known. Thus, the prosecution might contend that it might have been either a direct confrontation, an escalating argument, or even the result of a sexual approach. The original charge remains in place; the prosecution is simply increasing the latitude of their attack.

 

[jimmiesax]

You continue to confound. You used to argue (and I'm sure still do) that Raymond Clark probably did not commit this horrendous murder. Okay. But you now go even further, despite all of the evidence, and say that there may be reason to believe he wasn't even aware a murder had been committed that day! My Lord! I guess someone removed Clark's sock (with his approval or at least without his knowledge) and mixed his DNA and blood with Annie's. Clark was of course in church or something when this was happening. Let's not even comment on the defensive wounds on his body, the blood in the car he got into that his girlfriend was driving right after the murder, the blood on his boots, the frenetic swiping of his card that day, the change of clothes, the moving of evidence, and the cleaning up of blood! No reason to think he would know a murder occured that day, is there!
Your statement makes about as much sense as saying the people in haiti did not know there was an earthquake!
I find your comments insensitive and an insult to any thinking person, and even to non-thinking people

 

[Shlock Homes]

You continue to confound. You used to argue (and I'm sure still do) that Raymond Clark probably did not commit this horrendous murder. Okay. But you now go even further, despite all of the evidence, and say that there may be reason to believe he wasn't even aware a murder had been committed that day! My Lord! I guess someone removed Clark's sock (with his approval or at least without his knowledge) and mixed his DNA and blood with Annie's. Clark was of course in church or something when this was happening. Let's not even comment on the defensive wounds on his body, the blood in the car he got into that his girlfriend was driving right after the murder, the blood on his boots, the frenetic swiping of his card that day, the change of clothes, the moving of evidence, and the cleaning up of blood! No reason to think he would know a murder occured that day, is there!
Your statement makes about as much sense as saying the people in haiti did not know there was an earthquake!
I find your comments insensitive and an insult to any thinking person, and even to non-thinking people

I've addressed the above evidence in previous postings. Defensive wounds were scratches on his body he attributed to his cat. According to the affidavits, Annie's hands were gloved, except for one thumb where the glove had ripped. That may have been from her trying to get it between her neck and the strangulation tool (the missing Clark laces?). Nothing was ever said of the traces of blood in the car or home as being human, let alone Annie's. Besides, if he had done a complete change of clothing, how would it have transferred, unless you're implying the body was brought there?

Since nobody saw anything (no blood in the rooms or on Raymond), and no video footage shows Raymond and Annie interacting, let along Raymond killing Annie, then the evidence needs to show that Raymond had the physical ability (i.e. he was alone, he had the time to do what he did, etc...) to do it. It's no different than someone being accused of murdering someone and everything seems to point to them except they were 5km away 5 minutes after the crime on foot. They might not be able to account for their whereabouts at the exact time of the murder (the police don't even say when Annie was killed) but their alibi might start 5 minutes later at that location 5km away. The prosecution would have to prove how it was physically possible for the crime to be committed, even though the accused was seen 5km away without any blood on them, or acting normal 5 minutes later. This is the kind of thing they need to prove with Raymond Clark. That he was actually alone in that basement area long enough to commit a murder, transport the body into various rooms, covered in blood, all within the time frame they suspect he committed the murder and put it into the chase.

There's that, and if they found her blood soaked in his clothing at his apartment, which they haven't said they found. The boots and other clothing could have been taken by someone from the lab area, since they weren't under lock and key. Same goes with his green pen. You'd think if he was so anal about his green pen, he'd have a whole set of them waiting to be used, in case the one he was using ran out. So if he lost it concealing the body, he'd just grab the back up green pen. This shows he wasn't strict about the pen colour, and he probably figured he misplaced the pen, not knowingly left it with the body.

Annie's missing notebook is more of a motive than anything else. And they still haven't said what happened to her shoes.

 

[Chanler]

I've addressed the above evidence in previous postings. Defensive wounds were scratches on his body he attributed to his cat. According to the affidavits, Annie's hands were gloved, except for one thumb where the glove had ripped. That may have been from her trying to get it between her neck and the strangulation tool (the missing Clark laces?). Nothing was ever said of the traces of blood in the car or home as being human, let alone Annie's. Besides, if he had done a complete change of clothing, how would it have transferred, unless you're implying the body was brought there?

Since nobody saw anything (no blood in the rooms or on Raymond), and no video footage shows Raymond and Annie interacting, let along Raymond killing Annie, then the evidence needs to show that Raymond had the physical ability (i.e. he was alone, he had the time to do what he did, etc...) to do it. It's no different than someone being accused of murdering someone and everything seems to point to them except they were 5km away 5 minutes after the crime on foot. They might not be able to account for their whereabouts at the exact time of the murder (the police don't even say when Annie was killed) but their alibi might start 5 minutes later at that location 5km away. The prosecution would have to prove how it was physically possible for the crime to be committed, even though the accused was seen 5km away without any blood on them, or acting normal 5 minutes later. This is the kind of thing they need to prove with Raymond Clark. That he was actually alone in that basement area long enough to commit a murder, transport the body into various rooms, covered in blood, all within the time frame they suspect he committed the murder and put it into the chase.

Hi, Schlock Homes, we have drawn different conclusions, but like you, I welcome the start of the trial to see how these things work out.

As I remember, Clark had multiple explanation for his scratches and his bruises. The murderer failed completely at destroying blood evidence, clothing changes or not. People did see blood in the rooms. To conclude that Annie and Clark interacted is no great leap: He acknowledged being in the room with her after they had an email appointment to meet that morning. His very frequent movement between rooms that day hardly qualifies as "normal behavior." Thanks to the swipe records and Clark's own statements, the time line is actually more circumscribed than in many successful homicide prosecutions and his presence in two of the blood evidence rooms appears to place him at the immediate scene then, not your hypothetical five kilometers away.

 

[jimmygoodman]

Odd how you say nothing at all about the sock that contained a mix of her blood and DNA and his! How did that happen? Someone removed his sock, got a sample of his blood and DNA, and put it on the sock? Or, I got it!
He was protecting somebody and deliberately put his blood and DNA on that sock so that he, and not some other person, would be arrested and spend the rest of his life in jail!
And of course his cat scratched him! In exactly the places someone he was strangling would scratch him!
The red spots in the car and in his home couldn't be blood. Paint! That's it! I'm sure they were paint!
And he wasn't moving evidence. He was trying to get the cop's attention so the cop would see the box of swipes. He wouldn't want the cop to miss that.
I have a theory: my theory is that you have a connection to Raymond Clark. No other way would you contrive the comments you have made. People have spent lots of time trying to reason with you and show you the poor reading you have done of the evidence, or in many cases, the non reading at all. I think you owe to the people reading your comments to disclose your relationship to this man!

 

[Shlock Homes]

Hi, Schlock Homes, we have drawn different conclusions, but like you, I welcome the start of the trial to see how these things work out.

As I remember, Clark had multiple explanation for his scratches and his bruises. The murderer failed completely at destroying blood evidence, clothing changes or not. People did see blood in the rooms. To conclude that Annie and Clark interacted is no great leap: He acknowledged being in the room with her after they had an email appointment to meet that morning. His very frequent movement between rooms that day hardly qualifies as "normal behavior." Thanks to the swipe records and Clark's own statements, the time line is actually more circumscribed than in many successful homicide prosecutions and his presence in two of the blood evidence rooms appears to place him at the immediate scene then, not your hypothetical five kilometers away.

The card swipes are still up for debate as to whether they show guilt of anything other than someone carrying out his usual business. They were compared to a possibly slower time period of a few weeks before, rather than a period of similar volume of activity. I'd like to know if the researchers' swipes, for instance, increased during the same period, or were they consistent? And of course, who swiped into the rooms that Ray Clark swiped into. They don't say he and Annie were the only ones to swipe into a particular room, their just building their case around an assumption that she died soon after he entered G13. This despite the fact that he said he saw her later (after noon), and there were other people recorded as going into G13, not just him and not just her.

The blood evidence was not significant in the rooms when investigators arrived because the killer was able to wipe up most of it before any researcher saw it. We can only guess at how much blood was really spilled at this point based on the blood evidence description on the clothing they found and blood smears found in the chase. I'm guessing that there was enough blood around that would have made it difficult to walk around that basement with a body in hand unless the killer had ESP knowing who was in what room, and that someone wasn't about to come around the corner and see the killer with body in arm or blood on their clothing.

 

[Shlock Homes]

Odd how you say nothing at all about the sock that contained a mix of her blood and DNA and his! How did that happen? Someone removed his sock, got a sample of his blood and DNA, and put it on the sock? Or, I got it!
He was protecting somebody and deliberately put his blood and DNA on that sock so that he, and not some other person, would be arrested and spend the rest of his life in jail!
And of course his cat scratched him! In exactly the places someone he was strangling would scratch him!
The red spots in the car and in his home couldn't be blood. Paint! That's it! I'm sure they were paint!
And he wasn't moving evidence. He was trying to get the cop's attention so the cop would see the box of swipes. He wouldn't want the cop to miss that.
I have a theory: my theory is that you have a connection to Raymond Clark. No other way would you contrive the comments you have made. People have spent lots of time trying to reason with you and show you the poor reading you have done of the evidence, or in many cases, the non reading at all. I think you owe to the people reading your comments to disclose your relationship to this man!

Are you Jimmysax too? Not trying to point a finger, I'm just wondering if you've changed your screen name from here on. I'm not sure why you would even go down that road about whether I have a connection to Clark or not. You forget about innocent until proven guilty? So if it turns out Clark was framed by someone else, can I assume you or your friend did it? Let's stick to the evidence.

We don't know much about the sock. They said it was a low cut. It could be Clark's, it could be Annie's. His DNA could have been on it if someone rubbed it on his clothing or the inside of his show. You see, he left his clothing lying around, so the killer could have taken his DNA from those sources. You have to also understand that there was clothing that had another person's DNA on it that had Annie's blood, but didn't have Clark's DNA. So you have some clothing with Clark's DNA and Annie's blood, but you have other clothing with Annie's blood and doesn't have Clark's DNA.

I don't know what the nature of the blood is, and the police again, did not say whether it was human or animal. If Clark was a fisherman, the blood could have been from gutted fish, it could have been leaked blood from a side of beef or chicken from groceries, we don't know. All I can definitely say is that unless Clark murdered Annie just before getting in the car, it would have been almost impossible for blood to transfer from him to the car. He completely changed his clothing. If he had blood on his skin, or hair, he would have washed that off before leaving. It's just something the police put into the affidavit to cast more suspicion on Clark, but it really doesn't prove anything. No different than them saying he had a DVD in his possession of Friday The 13th, and one of the ways Jason kills is similar to how Annie died. They try to build a case by making insinuations, but in the end, you gotta prove Clark had the means to do what he did, and that includes time alone in the basement.

 

[Chanler]

The card swipes are still up for debate as to whether they show guilt of anything other than someone carrying out his usual business. They were compared to a possibly slower time period of a few weeks before, rather than a period of similar volume of activity. I'd like to know if the researchers' swipes, for instance, increased during the same period, or were they consistent? And of course, who swiped into the rooms that Ray Clark swiped into. They don't say he and Annie were the only ones to swipe into a particular room, their just building their case around an assumption that she died soon after he entered G13. This despite the fact that he said he saw her later (after noon), and there were other people recorded as going into G13, not just him and not just her.

The blood evidence was not significant in the rooms when investigators arrived because the killer was able to wipe up most of it before any researcher saw it. We can only guess at how much blood was really spilled at this point based on the blood evidence description on the clothing they found and blood smears found in the chase. I'm guessing that there was enough blood around that would have made it difficult to walk around that basement with a body in hand unless the killer had ESP knowing who was in what room, and that someone wasn't about to come around the corner and see the killer with body in arm or blood on their clothing.

Hi, Schlock Homes, you contended that Clark displayed "normal behavior." The abnormal number of swipes would indicate that he did not. As has been noted before, rodents do not take vacations even when researchers do. Thus, the number of researchers' swipes lacks clear relevance.

G13 was not a populous place that day. No one except Clark entered the murder room after Annie arrived and before he said that Annie Le left it. (Certainly, any competent defense lawyer or Clark himself would have mentioned that there were others in the room to witness her safe departure.) The two researchers who entered the day at other times have been investigated and cleared by not one, but four police agencies (the Yale police, the New Haven police, the Connecticut State police, and the FBI). If you know something that they don't, we certainly haven't heard it yet.

Raymond Clark had worked for years in the basement lab and knew personnel and traffic patterns. He would certainly know how and when to stage the safe movement of the body from G22, where substantial forensic evidence was found, to a more final hiding place. As the lone occupant of that room that day, he had ample opportunity to strategize. Your hypothetical conspirators would not only have to do all the things that he did, but also plant forensic evidence incriminating him at multiple locations.