Possible Murder Motives#2

[Very Interesting]

They havent arrested a second person yet, though would this be part of the motive, or why it was so violent?

 

[JL50ish]

They havent arrested a second person yet, though would this be part of the motive, or why it was so violent?

Unless I'm wrong, I don't think that LE thinks that another person helped commit the crime....I think LE is trying to figure out if anyone (such as his father) helped him AFTER the crime...to clean up...dispose of evidence...or whatever. So, if that's the case, a second person wouldn't have anything to do with the motive.

 

[Labrat]

I have no way of knowing actual lab rules and regulations (other than what I've read here on WS), or to what degree rules may or may not be tolerably bent. I have no way of knowing if researchers are provided with areas in the Amistad bldg. where they can change their apparel in order to conform to regulations. It's been said here that Animal techs have locker rooms in which to prepare themselves for entering labs. I wonder if researchers are likewise accomodated?

Since we're contemplating an as-yet-to-be-established motive for this horrible crime, and there've been accusations by other researchers that RC was "officious" about regulations, I'm just wondering if proper apparel may have been an issue.

There is usually a small anteroom with hooks for labcoats and shelves or bins for the PPE (disposable paper gowns, bonnets, masks, booties and gloves) Researchers are allowed in in their street clothes {usually lab coats have to be left on the hooks} but they must gown up.

 

[Labrat]

In the Premeditation thread, I asked the question that since Annie's body was found wearing the same clothes she was seen wearing in the security photo of her entering the bldg., does it indicate she may have been in violation of regulations regarding proper lab apparel? Both labrat and joypath seemed to answer that yes, street clothes would've been an infraction.

Articles about Annie have stated that she was very interested in fashion, which makes me wonder if she may have failed to conform to lab apparel regulations on other occasions. If so, maybe it was another point of contention between her and RC.

Researchers like Annie would wear street clothes covered by disposable paper gowns, etc. It is the animal facility technicians that wear scrubs/ rubber boots, etc.

 

[Labrat]

I'm sick of discussing labs and lab protocol! There isn't a shred of evidence indicating Annie violated protocol of any kind. Not in high school where she worked with animals, not in undergrad, and not now. I don't believe for one minute that Annie violated lab protocol. She did, however, take his text serious enough to respond and that misjudgement cost Annie her life. This isn't about lab protocol! It's about trying to lure Annie to an isolated place under the auspice of a concern. In my mind, the big question continues to be WHY? MHO

I think you may be right. It is impossible to know whether his text was legitimate. I can only say that, yes, there would be situations in which it would be appropriate for him to request that she come to the animal room right away. Whether there was a legitimate concern that day, or whether it was pretext to get her there for some other reason, we can't know now. There is just not enough information. It may come out at trial.

 

[Shlock Homes]

... and her blood (verified by DNA) on RC's shoes, RCs irregular swipe card pattern, RC texting her that morning to come over to meet with him (RC), the "deep" scratches on RC's body, the emails between RC and Le, and oh yeah, another person who works in the building ran into RC with blood on his shirt....

I think on any one point, someone could try to argue for another explanation, but on ALL these points (including Labrat's), taken altogether??? Otherwise known as converging evidence against RC.

If he had deep scratches on him, then they should be able to obtain DNA from under her nails.

That person you say ran into RC with blood on his shirt. When was that?

 

[joypath]

In the Premeditation thread, I asked the question that since Annie's body was found wearing the same clothes she was seen wearing in the security photo of her entering the bldg., does it indicate she may have been in violation of regulations regarding proper lab apparel? Both labrat and joypath seemed to answer that yes, street clothes would've been an infraction.

Articles about Annie have stated that she was very interested in fashion, which makes me wonder if she may have failed to conform to lab apparel regulations on other occasions. If so, maybe it was another point of contention between her and RC.

Just a small addition: street clothes ARE permitted in the research labs BUT have to be covered!....Most facilities have disposable PPE and mandate that they are worn as ANY foreign materials introduced into the experiments makes the research results suspect at best, usless more often. Protocols are the mainstay of laboratory scientific research, your eventual results (published usually in peer-reviewed journals) MUST be factual, and most importantly, able to be replicated by other scientists.

 

[Chanler]

Unless I'm wrong, I don't think that LE thinks that another person helped commit the crime....I think LE is trying to figure out if anyone (such as his father) helped him AFTER the crime...to clean up...dispose of evidence...or whatever. So, if that's the case, a second person wouldn't have anything to do with the motive.

Hi, JL50ish, I believe that you're right. And today, I think that the police said that they did not expect to arrest anyone else for involvement in the crime. I think that the police were probably just acting logically: Doing detailed interviews with Clark's relatives who worked in the lab to discover if they knew anything or helped in any way.

 

[PatientOne]

I think you may be right. It is impossible to know whether his text was legitimate. I can only say that, yes, there would be situations in which it would be appropriate for him to request that she come to the animal room right away. Whether there was a legitimate concern that day, or whether it was pretext to get her there for some other reason, we can't know now. There is just not enough information. It may come out at trial.

If RC's message was a pretext, it would reveal much about motive. I hope it can be determined if it was. It seems to me there would at least be a possibility to tell if the mouse cages in question were a justifiable concern.

While some here may not want to dwell on protocol issues, I respectfully disagree. LE claims to have enough evidence to prove their case and have said they don't need to establish motive. Maybe so. Probably so. However, I can envision a scenario where RC's lawyers paint a picture of a world-renown research facility that has some dirty little secrets to hide. They may attempt to create an image of their client as a witness to practices that could compromise life-saving research, and that he appreciated the importance of abiding by the rules more so than did some researchers. They may suggest a last-straw scenario that caused their client, who was merely trying to abide by the very important rules, to temporarily snap. While I don't think they'd succeed in prevailing with an insanity plea, they may try.

It continues to be my belief that the motive was much more personal. In any case, Annie's gone and for no good reason. But I believe it's worthwhile to contemplate whether or not she may have been vulnerable regarding protocol because I'm hoping RC has absolutely no chance whatsoever of getting a lighter sentence than he deserves.

 

[eyes4crime]

If RC's message was a pretext, it would reveal much about motive. I hope it can be determined if it was. It seems to me there would at least be a possibility to tell if the mouse cages in question were a justifiable concern.

While some here may not want to dwell on protocol issues, I respectfully disagree. LE claims to have enough evidence to prove their case and have said they don't need to establish motive. Maybe so. Probably so. However, I can envision a scenario where RC's lawyers paint a picture of a world-renown research facility that has some dirty little secrets to hide. They may attempt to create an image of their client as a witness to practices that could compromise life-saving research, and that he appreciated the importance of abiding by the rules more so than did some researchers. They may suggest a last-straw scenario that caused their client, who was merely trying to abide by the very important rules, to temporarily snap. While I don't think they'd succeed in prevailing with an insanity plea, they may try.

It continues to be my belief that the motive was much more personal. In any case, Annie's gone and for no good reason. But I believe it's worthwhile to contemplate whether or not she may have been vulnerable regarding protocol because I'm hoping RC has absolutely no chance whatsoever of getting a lighter sentence than he deserves.

Good point! You're so right PatientOne - I'm sure the defense will paint Clark as a dedicated, knowledgeable, and concerned animal tech - one who has helped many a student, both doctoral and postdoc. I am one of those who feel that Annie's care of her mice and cleanliness have nothing to do with her murder, but again, you are so right in that the defense will paint him all pastel colors. They will make sure pics of he and his dog nuzzling in bed and face to face are all over for everyone to see...labrat, and more recently Joypath, have kept us WS's informed as to what happens in most animal labs and during the autopsy, but I'm sure the defense will paint this particular lab as 'different and special'. I will not complain again regarding the discussion of the lab and how Annie is said to have left conditions that Clark couldn't stand. That discussion will be crucial to this case.

 

[KeenEyes]

The thing that keeps coming back in my mind is the texting. This would indicate to me that they knew each other on a friendship basis of some kind...

Labrat and possibly others explained previously that it would not be unusual for a lab tech to have access to a researcher's contact data for business communication purposes; therefore, the texting does NOT indicate there was anything more than a perfunctory relationship between Annie and the evil, warped coward who murdered her.

...In any case, Annie's gone and for no good reason...

 

[eyes4crime]

One more comment about the text - If Clark sent Annie a text on Monday evening or early Tuesday AM, prior to leaving her apartment, and she knew there was going to be a meeting between the two in the lab - that might explain her dowdy look, dressing in a brown skirt and green top. If that's the case, Annie did NOT want to look sexy, inviting, or fashionable for a very good reason. I'm sure Annie was as perceptive as she was brilliant. just another thought and another reason to know the timing of his text message. Yes, I believe this crime to be pre-meditated not for the death penalty, but for the truth of what happened. mho

 

[JL50ish]

I'm sure the defense will paint Clark as a dedicated, knowledgeable, and concerned animal tech - one who has helped many a student, both doctoral and postdoc. I am one of those who feel that Annie's care of her mice and cleanliness have nothing to do with her murder,

That is a defense that wouldn't work...that would be like a defense atty trying to defend a husband who killed his wife because he lovingly took care of her car and she left a bag of old McDonald fries in it. No jury would buy that as a reason to acquit.

All it would do would convince a jury that this person is guilty and not stable enough to ever be in the public again.

 

[JL50ish]

Labrat and possibly others explained previously that it would not be unusual for a lab tech to have access to a researcher's contact data for business communication purposes;

Absolutely...the fact that they had each others cell phone info and exchanged texts/emails does not suggest a familiarity beyond professional...it is standard procedure in such cases.

The exchanging of contact info is somewhat similar to when a parent gives her contact info to her child's babysitter - so that she can be contacted in case of emergency, question, or concern. This guy - in a way - is babysitting the lab animals - he would need the grad students' contact info in case he had a concern about someone's animals.

 

[Very Interesting]

I sure dont know why he targeted Annie for such a violent death. Am sure over the years he worked there, he saw literally hundereds of very pretty girls doing research like Annie did, and maybe even texted them to?

Did Annie's Fiance know of this guy that killed her before it happened?

 

[eyes4crime]

That is a defense that wouldn't work...that would be like a defense atty trying to defend a husband who killed his wife because he lovingly took care of her car and she left a bag of old McDonald fries in it. No jury would buy that as a reason to acquit.

All it would do would convince a jury that this person is guilty and not stable enough to ever be in the public again.

IMO, If Clark pleads 'not guilty' prompting a trial, the only one thing the defense can do is build his character around the years he has worked at Yale and attack Annie's..look at the evidence, DNA and otherwise. Building a case around pre-meditation is not out of the question. If not character, what do you propose the defense use to defend their client? TIA

 

[PatientOne]

It doesn't help that RC's former neighbor who's been all over the media is saying he's a psycho, weirdo, crazy, etc. While she wouldn't be an expert witness, I suspect there's some psychiatrist who could be called upon to support an insanity plea, which may be RC's only hope of dodging the heaviest sentence.

 

[MWright]

If he had deep scratches on him, then they should be able to obtain DNA from under her nails.

That person you say ran into RC with blood on his shirt. When was that?

Here it is:

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/09/was_that_annie.php

(from [ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89026"]Raymond Clark III - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame] post #13)

 

[joypath]

Absolutely...the fact that they had each others cell phone info and exchanged texts/emails does not suggest a familiarity beyond professional...it is standard procedure in such cases.

The exchanging of contact info is somewhat similar to when a parent gives her contact info to her child's babysitter - so that she can be contacted in case of emergency, question, or concern. This guy - in a way - is babysitting the lab animals - he would need the grad students' contact info in case he had a concern about someone's animals.

This is a phenomenal post for more than a few reasons! 1. great analogy of the parent-babysitter scenario, a perfect description for the lay person; the animal laboratory technican is for all purposes the "foster parent" of the animals. 2. demonstrates the advocacy level of the tech toward the animals to the researchers (albeit usually this level of "advocacy" is limited to the students vs the PI). 3. as an "off-shoot" to demonstrate the presumed contact that Ms Le had with RC, he functioned as a care-giver to HER experimental animals. 4. communication from HER animal tech MIGHT have caused her to hurry across the street well before she anticipated attending to the laboratory. 5. whatever was communicated, it APPEARS that she was carrying laboratory notebooks (probably HER research notes and observations, perhaps to "counter" his cage notes).

When I was working on my degree, we were fortunate to have animal TECHNOLOGISTS who had BS degrees, were more than capable of carrying on scientific evaluations and assist in procedures and certain techs would gravitate and "adopt" researchers, additionally there were others in the facility who provided more of the "scut" work but everybody pitched in, the "high and mighty" included!

 

[YellowDog]

Labrat and possibly others explained previously that it would not be unusual for a lab tech to have access to a researcher's contact data for business communication purposes; therefore, the texting does NOT indicate there was anything more than a perfunctory relationship between Annie and the evil, warped coward who murdered her.

It also does NOT indicate that there was not a friendship.