Premeditation?

[miafedup]

I just posted this in the motive thread (btw, apologies if I am not supposed to post twice, I'll delete one). Anyway, I'm leaning towards premeditation based on his behavior after the murder....

The working theory seems to be he is a control freak that just snapped. Annie was also on edge for her upcoming wedding and so, his controlling behavior coupled with her fiestiness made for the perfect storm for muder.

But here's my problem.

Number one, a student who saw Raymond in the lab on the Friday after Annie had gone missing is quoted:


"He appeared very relaxed, very normal," the woman told Pinkston. "I didn't sense any anything different in his behavior from what I'd observed previously."

This concerns me. If this really was some sudden rage attack, why would he be "very relaxed and normal" knowing Annie's body was on the same floor, maybe even just feet away for where they were? I would think someone who had snapped, would be far too concerned of being caught then to go back to the place of the murder. Ever.

Second, the day her body was found, he was playing softball. Again, his behavior is described as being unemotional, unconcerned:

Raymond Clark betrayed no emotion as he played shortstop for his team, the Wild Hogs, in a playoff loss Sunday.

The Yale lab tech even impressed the plainclothes cops tailing him.

"We had detectives in the crowd," Lt. John Velleca, head of the New Haven police department's narcotics unit, told the New Haven Independent. "He's actually pretty good."

He called Clark "nondescript" and noted that he didn't interact much with his teammates.

So this makes me wonder if he wasn't a sociopath, with all the detached arrogance that goes along with it.

For reasons only a sociopath can understand, perhaps he deliberately lured Annie to the lab via that text message. Maybe there was no exchange at all, no angry words, which might explain why no one heard anything amiss. When he saw the right moment, say her head was turned, he attacked. He then set off the alarm, again preplanned, left the building with the others and tried to conceal his identity from the camera's by holding his head in his hands.

He was so confident of his crime, that he went back to the scene of the crime appearing without a care in the world, played softball days later and just went on with his life, thinking Annie's body would never be found.

Maybe Ramond Clark concluded he was too smart to get caught.

 

[CBTampa]

I can't amagine how he thought that she would never be found. We have clothes up above the ceiling tiles and a body behind the wall. Did he not think of DNA or the smell of decomp? Sometimes it hard to get into someone's head and this case is no different. IMO

 

[maggieo]

I'm not sure if this counts as premeditated or not -- and there's no way to prove it in court anyway -- but I bet he fantasized about killing her before he actually did it. He had to have really hated her (for work-related reasons, and maybe unrequited love reasons, too) and when the moment came, he couldn't stop himself from fulfilling his fantasy. He obviously didn't put *too* much planning into it, but I doubt it came as a huge surprise to him when it happened.

That seems more likely than just suddenly murdering someone out of nowhere, over an argument he's probably had a hundred times with other grad students.

 

[Emily Booth]

With very angry people, who knows what sends them over the edge? You see it all the time with road rage. There was a case a couple of years ago where a middle-aged man shot and killed a boy for walking across his lawn. There are people who are incapable of de-escalating their anger. They feel justified in whatever grievances they have with the world. It'll be interesting to see if RC presents himself as the victim when he finally tells his side of the story.

Years ago, I got very angry at a difficult coworker who complained about some cookies I bought and passed around. I wanted to strangle him, he made me that angry, over a cookie!

But, to literally strangle someone at work? You've got to have some serious anger management issues.

Premeditation? Possibly. We haven't seen the actual evidence yet.

 

[Skigirl]

Years ago, I got very angry at a difficult coworker who complained about some cookies I bought and passed around. I wanted to strangle him, he made me that angry, over a cookie!

But, to literally strangle someone at work? You've got to have some serious anger management issues.

I am glad to hear I'm not the only one who can relate to wanting to strangle a co-worker, I was starting to wonder about myself :waitasec:

One time when I was a kid, we were in a terrible traffic jam getting onto a bridge. It was hot and everyones' windows were open. A guy drove up the shoulder and tried to cut in front of our car, yelling at my father that he was going to hit our car if my dad didn't let him in. My dad didn't, and the guy accelerated to try to get in front of us but instead drove into a bridge abutment. If he'd had a gun, he could have shot us. People get enraged sometimes and when they are enraged, they do stupid and unpredictable things. (And my father probably should have just let him in front of us instead of engaging in a game of chicken, but he was also angry and wasn't being entirely rational).

Most human behavior/motivation is on a continuum. I think we all have the types of impulses that can lead to murder; the difference is one of degree, not of kind. I like to think I have enough control over myself that even if furious I would not attack (it also helps that I'm pretty small and would be hard pressed to win a physical confrontation), but there are people all over the impulse/anger management control continuum.

 

[eyes4crime]

I just posted this in the motive thread (btw, apologies if I am not supposed to post twice, I'll delete one). Anyway, I'm leaning towards premeditation based on his behavior after the murder....

The working theory seems to be he is a control freak that just snapped. Annie was also on edge for her upcoming wedding and so, his controlling behavior coupled with her fiestiness made for the perfect storm for muder.

But here's my problem.

Number one, a student who saw Raymond in the lab on the Friday after Annie had gone missing is quoted:


"He appeared very relaxed, very normal," the woman told Pinkston. "I didn't sense any anything different in his behavior from what I'd observed previously."

This concerns me. If this really was some sudden rage attack, why would he be "very relaxed and normal" knowing Annie's body was on the same floor, maybe even just feet away for where they were? I would think someone who had snapped, would be far too concerned of being caught then to go back to the place of the murder. Ever.

Second, the day her body was found, he was playing softball. Again, his behavior is described as being unemotional, unconcerned:

Raymond Clark betrayed no emotion as he played shortstop for his team, the Wild Hogs, in a playoff loss Sunday.

The Yale lab tech even impressed the plainclothes cops tailing him.

"We had detectives in the crowd," Lt. John Velleca, head of the New Haven police department's narcotics unit, told the New Haven Independent. "He's actually pretty good."

He called Clark "nondescript" and noted that he didn't interact much with his teammates.

So this makes me wonder if he wasn't a sociopath, with all the detached arrogance that goes along with it.

For reasons only a sociopath can understand, perhaps he deliberately lured Annie to the lab via that text message. Maybe there was no exchange at all, no angry words, which might explain why no one heard anything amiss. When he saw the right moment, say her head was turned, he attacked. He then set off the alarm, again preplanned, left the building with the others and tried to conceal his identity from the camera's by holding his head in his hands.

He was so confident of his crime, that he went back to the scene of the crime appearing without a care in the world, played softball days later and just went on with his life, thinking Annie's body would never be found.

Maybe Ramond Clark concluded he was too smart to get caught.

[bolded by me]
Important hallmarks of the psychopath - arrogant, confident, narcissistic, and somewhat distant socially. I agree with you completely miafedup...I find your post to be excellent. Let's not forget he also took the lie detector test...did he think he would pass?

 

[miafedup]

[bolded by me]
Important hallmarks of the psychopath - arrogant, confident, narcissistic, and somewhat distant socially. I agree with you completely miafedup...I find your post to be excellent. Let's not forget he also took the lie detector test...did he think he would pass?

And the lie detector, forgot that one, thank you!

I'm willing to bet he believed he would pass just from the sheer arrogance.

Thanks for pointing that out!

 

[eyes4crime]

And the lie detector, forgot that one, thank you!

I'm willing to bet he believed he would pass just from the sheer arrogance.

Thanks for pointing that out!

Oh, miafedup - let's not forget his 16yo girlfriend who charged rape and didn't pursue the charges because she feared retaliation.

 

[Labrat]

You might take a different set of clothes to work if you were cleaning up mouse cages. For example, if you were going to meet friends after work for a drink or a ball game, you probably would not want to smell of mouse urine.

Animal techs do not wear street clothes inside the facility. They wear scrubs, rubber boots, and paper gowning. They are provided with a shower/locker room.

 

[Shlock Homes]

It depends on who you think is the suspect. If Clark is proven to have been the killer, beyond a reason of a doubt, then no, it wasn't premeditated based on the card swipes. However, if he asked Annie to come at a time when nobody would be around, then they could argue it was premeditated. But we're talking about 10am, not 6am. There HAD to be people around.

If, however, someone else did it, and decided to frame Clark, maybe because they didn't like the guy, and maybe they didn't like Annie, then it was premeditated. Also, if we find that she was given any sedatives, that could also show premeditation.

 

[Shlock Homes]

Animal techs do not wear street clothes inside the facility. They wear scrubs, rubber boots, and paper gowning. They are provided with a shower/locker room.

Someone posted a link in one of the threads with a slide show of Raymond Clark. One or two of them show him wearing what look like blue scrubs, kind of like what you'd see in a hospital. If he killed her, then her blood would be on that clothing. However, if the killer wanted to frame Clark, if he left that uniform in an easily accessible area in the lab, they could take that and speckle it with her blood.

When the alarm went off, did he change out of the scrubs back into his clothes? Or was he seen wearing them as he exited the building?

 

[PatientOne]

Animal techs do not wear street clothes inside the facility. They wear scrubs, rubber boots, and paper gowning. They are provided with a shower/locker room.

It was reported that Annie was found wearing the same clothes as seen in the final photo of her when she entered the bldg. -- a green top (a scrub top?) and a skirt. Is it possible to know yet if the basement room where she and RC held their appointed meeting would've required her to wear something different? If her attire didn't meet regulations, is this a type of infraction that techs may complain about?

 

[joypath]

It was reported that Annie was found wearing the same clothes as seen in the final photo of her when she entered the bldg. -- a green top (a scrub top?) and a skirt. Is it possible to know yet if the basement room where she and RC held their appointed meeting would've required her to wear something different? If her attire didn't meet regulations, is this a type of infraction that techs may complain about?

Annie Le was murdered while wearing her street clothes, researchers routinely throw on white lab coats when working with their study animals or performing analysis of biological materials. If one were scheduled to perform a vivisection on a number of animals, then one might change into scrubs, usually before walking over to the research laboratory.

Complaints about perceived improprieties by either staff or researchers can be made fact to fact IF that is the relationship developed, otherwise one would/should address MAJOR complaints from either side to the supervising staff.

From experience: reminders to wear booties were delivered to me frequently, often staff met me at the door with the booties in hand! Following protocol is exactly what all members of a research facility are obligated to do, changes or "oopses" can destroy many hours of research/study.

 

[Labrat]

It was reported that Annie was found wearing the same clothes as seen in the final photo of her when she entered the bldg. -- a green top (a scrub top?) and a skirt. Is it possible to know yet if the basement room where she and RC held their appointed meeting would've required her to wear something different? If her attire didn't meet regulations, is this a type of infraction that techs may complain about?

Generally lab coats are not allowed inside animal facilities- if you are wearing one you are required to remove it before you go in. You would put on a disposable paper gown, booties, bonnet, mask, and gloves before entering. Mine requires double gowning, so you go to your animal room and put on a second set before entering that room.

 

[Labrat]

From experience: reminders to wear booties were delivered to me frequently, often staff met me at the door with the booties in hand! Following protocol is exactly what all members of a research facility are obligated to do, changes or "oopses" can destroy many hours of research/study.

Exactly! This is why all the "control freak" and "policemen of the lab" comments in the press annoy me.

 

[joypath]

HI Joy!

I posted a video about traumatic asphyxia on another thread. In the video it is mentioned that craniocervical cyanosis may appear in such a case. It was also mentioned that the victim may look dead when they are actually still alive and can be resusitated. Posters wondered why LE had to ID Annie after discovering her body. IF cyanosis did occur it would have cast a very different coloring to Annie's appearance not to mention the five days of decomp. My question is how soon does craniocervical cyanosis appear during an act resulting in oxygen deprivation?

Why LE had to id Annie's body after discovery is part of the protocol of investigating a homicide, absolute CONFIRMED identity is mandatory to meet the legal requirements. As lay persons, it seemed "silly" since she was the only missing person who met the general body description but confirmaton by scientific methods was still required.

Visual examination of the body would NOT be a completely satisfactory identification, the cyanotic tinge and developed decomposition of 5 days would not preclude a preliminary assessment that the discovered decedent was Ms Le and therefore her family could be notified.

Craniocervical cyanosis will occur gradually as the oxygen level is dropping, exact time is difficult to present (consider minutes vs hours) but consider that the cyanosis is occurring because the O2 within the hemoglobin complex of the erythrocytes is not being replaced since the blood flow is ended.

 

[Harmony 2]

Why LE had to id Annie's body after discovery is part of the protocol of investigating a homicide, absolute CONFIRMED identity is mandatory to meet the legal requirements. As lay persons, it seemed "silly" since she was the only missing person who met the general body description but confirmaton by scientific methods was still required.

Visual examination of the body would NOT be a completely satisfactory identification, the cyanotic tinge and developed decomposition of 5 days would not preclude a preliminary assessment that the discovered decedent was Ms Le and therefore her family could be notified.

Craniocervical cyanosis will occur gradually as the oxygen level is dropping, exact time is difficult to present (consider minutes vs hours) but consider that the cyanosis is occurring because the O2 within the hemoglobin complex of the erythrocytes is not being replaced since the blood flow is ended.

Thanks so much for your reply! Your presence here is invaluable. In speaking to premeditation, the killer watched up close and personal as Annie's life slipped away from her. He saw the terrified expressions and actions as she struggled to breathe, he saw her lose consciousness, and he saw the cyanosis setting in and yet he chose to continue his rage.

Annie's last moments were horrific... :cry:

 

[JL50ish]

If LE decides to go with the "jealousy motive" - that lowly cage cleaner Clark was jealous that these Ivy doctoral students go on to fancy jobs with huge paychecks - then the prosecution may decide that he pre-meditated the murder when he contacted her and requested the meeting. It seems like he targetted Le for his jealous rage because she was likely smaller than the other doctoral students and she was supposedly on the "fast track" to success. Her impending marriage may have also played in some way - either jealous that she would be marrying another Ivy leaguer or that he was attracted to her and knew he didn't stand a chance with her.

 

[gxm]

IMO, Annie was not rendered unconscious within 8 seconds. She was fighting for her life and she managed to draw blood on RC's chest, enough that his clothing was stained with his own blood, leaving behind the DNA evidence that will help convict him.

The fact that RC is the one who initiated the meeting, RC is the one with the smoldering rage and RC is the one who chose to choke the life out of a young woman after punching her. He moved from an assault (punching her) to a murder (choking her) and that required premeditation. And even as Annie fought for her life, he did not turn back from this purpose.

 

[eyes4crime]

IMO, Annie was not rendered unconscious within 8 seconds. She was fighting for her life and she managed to draw blood on RC's chest, enough that his clothing was stained with his own blood, leaving behind the DNA evidence that will help convict him.

The fact that RC is the one who initiated the meeting, RC is the one with the smoldering rage and RC is the one who chose to choke the life out of a young woman after punching her. He moved from an assault (punching her) to a murder (choking her) and that required premeditation. And even as Annie fought for her life, he did not turn back from this purpose.

Clark knew exactly what he was doing - he's nothing but a cowardly piece of carp. A bully to the nth degree. :furious: