Redacted Search Warrants For Roy Clark Released 2009.12.02

[Shlock Homes]

BTW I suspect the tweezers, scissors and screw driver mentioned were used in attempts by RC to remove his green pen from the chase. But why not just wash off any blood on them rather than putting them in a drain pipe??? I also thought it was interesting that LE's evidence gathering included apparently-recent Walmart receipts for fishing gear. It makes me suspect that, since the tweezers, scissors and screw driver didn't prove to be useful, fish hooks were purchased for the specific purpose of removing the pen (or maybe even some other evidence we haven't yet heard about), if they were purchased right after Annie disappeared.

Ray was also found with a tacklebox, if I'm not mistaken. He wouldn't have needed that if he was trying to get items lost in the chase. Fish hooks would also be useless. He'd have better luck using something that was sticky, like duct tape, at the end of any kind of string.

The items that were shoved down the drain pipe might not have been used in the murder. And maybe they were. It didn't see mention of blood anywhere. I would assume those items would be ones you would use in an autoclave to sterilize them for use in a lab setting? The screw driver could have been part of the murder weapon (used with the missing laces), or it could have just been used to pry open the access panel to the chase.

Maybe I'm wrong but unlike Shlock, I just don't suspect the screw driver was used to facilitate strangulation. For lack of a better word, it would seem like overkill since Annie was so small compared to RC. He's a strong, athletic guy, after all. Would he really need a screwdriver for this purpose?

If Annie was still alive after the initial blow, then the killer may have been sadistic and killed her using the lace and screwdriver to turn it, causing the traumatic asphyxiation described in the autopsy, not just strangulation, which is usually just bare-handed.

As I've mentioned on other threads, I'm very curious to know if any forensic searches of computers to which RC had access have/will reveal any uncommon interest in Annie. The fact that he'd emailed her recently doesn't necessarily seem damning per se if they were only correspondences to set up a meeting or to discuss rodent care. But if he was pestering her or unfairly singling her out it's a different matter and may of course indicate an obsession. I guess we're just going to have to wait and see what comes out in the trial, if there is one.

I think if Ray had been bugging Annie, we'd know by now, because Annie's friends or co-researchers would have said something. I doubt Annie would have kept that a huge secret. Usually when people vent, they talk about who's bugging them. But we haven't heard of anything. As far as we know, Annie and Ray were no different than a customer at a wal-mart cashing out with the same cashier every now and then. Maybe they had some interaction, but nothing beyond work-related. Just like many people, who may talk about stuff at work, even about their personal lives (to a degree), but after work, there isn't any socialization.

 

[Shlock Homes]

IMO aspirated blood evidence found in G-22 may indicate that something like a wet vac in the room was found to have blood in it. If it's a maintenance-type room there could be other types of lab cleaning devices that I'm not aware of that suction/aspirate fluids. For instance I've wondered if the autoclave is in that room since it's near the perimeter and therefore would allow for easier exhaust of steam.

As far as I know, aspirated blood is a pretty specific term, referring to the human body and the act of breathing. I think it would also be something found on walls or the floor, as opposed to being found inside of a device like a wet vac.

 

[Harmony 2]

As far as I know, aspirated blood is a pretty specific term, referring to the human body and the act of breathing. I think it would also be something found on walls or the floor, as opposed to being found inside of a device like a wet vac.

BBM I agree! IIRC Dr. Henry Lee has demonstrated aspiration of blood a few times in court with ketchup. I believe he demonstrated it when he testified in the Michael Peterson case to show how the victim may have aspirated blood on the wall after falling down the stairs.

 

[PatientOne]

Harmony 2, I don't understand how aspirated blood could be found anywhere other than a victim's lungs, etc. Could you explain Dr. Lee's explanation a little more?

Also, I've been under the impression that Annie died in G13 -- how could she have breathed in her own blood in G22? Does this imply a struggle that started in G13 continued in G22?

ETA: Okay, I just read an account of Dr. Lee's explanation that Harmony referred to. While it was a controversial (and apparently unconvincing) theory in that particular case, I gather that if blood and saliva are present together, it may indicate that a victim coughed up some blood they'd breathed into their lungs or trachea. In Annie's case, I wonder if a mixture of blood and saliva simply leaked from her mouth in G22? In any case, if Annie's aspirated blood was found in G22 it seems to prove she -- whether dead or alive -- was in that room after suffering the trauma that caused her to breath in her own blood in the first place.

 

[Chanler]

Schlock Homes: "I think the shoes might still be significant. They didn't say anything about the shoes NOT being the ones she was seen wearing on video. They just said shoes, no detailed description. We could assume that she changed them, but without details, it's only a guess. I don't know if she would bother changing shoes just to go to the lab if she was returning to her office and/or going to the class (which was in the same building) before noon."

Hi, Schlock, just a quick response on a busy work day.
1. The shoes found at Bennett were not worn to Amistad. They might have been stored there for some time. She might keep them for classes or graduate school get-togethers. (Both PatientOne and I know women who keep a spare pair at work for one reason or another.) Obviously, if she was planning to wear them to class, she didn't live to do it.
2. The shoes were given a description.
3. I assume that Annie's female research partners or roommates would be able to provide a description of Annie's lab footwear from a combination of the video, personal observations, and absences in her storage places.

Why are the shoes missing? They were successfully hidden or thrown away for two reasons: They were bloody and they might be tied to the crime.
The disposal of crime scene evidence, here as elsewhere, was not done by sensible checklist. In the violent struggle that seems to have occurred, it's quite possible that slip on shoes might fall off.

As for the notebook:
Schlock: "The Notebook is an extremely significant clue. If it had no value to a killer like Clark, then it would have been tossed aside. Also, had he killed her in G-13, why would he bother removing items she took into that room? He admitted to seeing her in there and leaving. In all likelihood, if he killed her, and decided to hide the items, I doubt he would have admitted to having seen her. The notebook was taken for its data."


Annie was involved in collaborative research; she was not in charge of the project; nor was she the lead researcher. To date, we have heard nothing about any professional rivalries among the Ph.Ds and Ph.D candidates. Taking her notebook would accomplish nothing. The computations in her notebook were almost certainly transferred onto secure laboratory computer files. Major research cannot depend on notebooks that can be mislaid or damaged. On the other hand, Raymond had ripe cause for professional jealousy: Having spent five years in the laboratory, he would know its researcher graduates could anticipate advancement to lucrative pharmaceutical and medical jobs, while he continued to labor at his entry level job.

The notebook probably disappeared because it contained blood evidence. Removing blood splotches or other stains from a notebook or other book can be virtually impossible. If Annie got up to leave with the notebook, as Clark claimed, it might have abruptly ended a verbal confrontation that escalated into a physical struggle. In that scenario, the notebook would have been very near the center of the gory storm and suddenly become a prime candidate for disposal. It is quite possible that the shoes and notebooks were among the first items to be bagged, dumped, or taken off the scene.

 

[Shlock Homes]

Harmony 2, I don't understand how aspirated blood could be found anywhere other than a victim's lungs, etc. Could you explain Dr. Lee's explanation a little more?

Also, I've been under the impression that Annie died in G13 -- how could she have breathed in her own blood in G22? Does this imply a struggle that started in G13 continued in G22?

ETA: Okay, I just read an account of Dr. Lee's explanation that Harmony referred to. While it was a controversial (and apparently unconvincing) theory in that particular case, I gather that if blood and saliva are present together, it may indicate that a victim coughed up some blood they'd breathed into their lungs or trachea. In Annie's case, I wonder if a mixture of blood and saliva simply leaked from her mouth in G22? In any case, if Annie's aspirated blood was found in G22 it seems to prove she -- whether dead or alive -- was in that room after suffering the trauma that caused her to breath in her own blood in the first place.

I think the presence of blood might just prove her body was in G22 at some point. I'm not totally sure that the victim needs to be alive, or if the results appeared to be a victim who was alive. In other words, if she was dead, and her chest was compressed or even if she was dropped on the floor, maybe some fluid could have been pushed out by residual air in the lungs, giving the appearance of someone coughing up blood. I would imagine they tested the sample and found blood mixed with mucous and saliva, hence their conclusion it was aspirated, as opposed to oozed out of a cut.

Where did that blood come from is even more important. Did it flow into her chest from her throat? Or were her lungs punctured? Maybe the carotid artery was severed within her throat causing blood to flow into her lungs?

 

[Shlock Homes]

Schlock Homes: "I think the shoes might still be significant. They didn't say anything about the shoes NOT being the ones she was seen wearing on video. They just said shoes, no detailed description. We could assume that she changed them, but without details, it's only a guess. I don't know if she would bother changing shoes just to go to the lab if she was returning to her office and/or going to the class (which was in the same building) before noon."

Hi, Schlock, just a quick response on a busy work day.
1. The shoes found at Bennett were not worn to Amistad. They might have been stored there for some time. She might keep them for classes or graduate school get-togethers. (Both PatientOne and I know women who keep a spare pair at work for one reason or another.) Obviously, if she was planning to wear them to class, she didn't live to do it.
2. The shoes were given a description.
3. I assume that Annie's female research partners or roommates would be able to provide a description of Annie's lab footwear from a combination of the video, personal observations, and absences in her storage places.

Why are the shoes missing? They were successfully hid or thrown away for two reasons: They were bloody and they might be tied to the crime. The disposal of crime scene evidence, here as elsewhere, was not done by sensible checklist. In the violent struggle that seems to have occurred, it's quite possible that slip on shoes might fall off.

Was the description of the shoes at her office in the warrant or in an online article. I'd like to check it out.

I think that if they felt the shoes were not the same ones Annie wore that day to the lab in 10 Amistad, they would have made that distinction in the warrant. I didn't see it in the 73 page scan. I know of women who have more than just a couple of spare pairs of shoes at work, but Annie lived not too far from campus, didn't she? So she could easily run home and change her clothes and shoes. Unlike those workmates I know who'd have to travel an hour on transit or by car just to get a change of shoes.

 

[Chanler]

Was the description of the shoes at her office in the warrant or in an online article. I'd like to check it out.

I think that if they felt the shoes were not the same ones Annie wore that day to the lab in 10 Amistad, they would have made that distinction in the warrant. I didn't see it in the 73 page scan. I know of women who have more than just a couple of spare pairs of shoes at work, but Annie lived not too far from campus, didn't she? So she could easily run home and change her clothes and shoes. Unlike those workmates I know who'd have to travel an hour on transit or by car just to get a change of shoes.

Hi, Shlock. It was in the search warrants, which unfortunately I don't have time to reference; sorry. If you mean that missing shoes are the ones that she wore to Amistad, think that you're right. At least one search warrant notes that her corpse was found with no shoes.

I'm no women's shoe expert, but I think that it's possible that, like a couple of my co-workers, Annie kept a pair of more dressy shoes for meetings and more comfortable shoes for work. Why waste time running home and back for a routine shoe change?

P.S. The description of her shoes concerned the missing shoes, not the shoes found at Bennett. Sorry for raising confusion. The missing shoes, by the way, are described in one of the search warrants specifically as the shoes that Le wore to Amistad Street that morning.

 

[PatientOne]

Shlock's got me thinking about RC using something besides his hands to strangle Annie. While I can't imagine he'd feel he could afford the time and trouble it could take to unlace a boot, the affidavit mentions something about his missing employee ID tag lanyard. The fact that LE is even interested in this item, coupled with the aspirated blood issue, makes me wonder if there may be evidence that some sort of ligature was used.

 

[Chanler]

Shlock's got me thinking about RC using something besides his hands to strangle Annie. While I can't imagine he'd feel he could afford the time and trouble it could take to unlace a boot, the affidavit mentions something about his missing employee ID tag lanyard. The fact that LE is even interested in this item, coupled with the aspirated blood issue, makes me wonder if there may be evidence that some sort of ligature was used.

Hi, PatientOne; I hadn't thought of that, but it seems like a real possibility. That's it's missing is also fascinating. Obviously, Clark apparently had it and was using it for the remainder of his Amistad job; at least, we have not heard of him reporting it missing.

Strangling, I'm told, is not easy. If Clark tried to kill her as a last resort (it might have even happened in G22 if he found her still breathing, even if unconscious or semi-conscious, after carrying her there), he might well have resorted to anything at hand. Obviously, this is also mostly blind speculation; we'll have to see if the trial confirms this grim scenario.

 

[Harmony 2]

Harmony 2, I don't understand how aspirated blood could be found anywhere other than a victim's lungs, etc. Could you explain Dr. Lee's explanation a little more?

Also, I've been under the impression that Annie died in G13 -- how could she have breathed in her own blood in G22? Does this imply a struggle that started in G13 continued in G22?

ETA: Okay, I just read an account of Dr. Lee's explanation that Harmony referred to. While it was a controversial (and apparently unconvincing) theory in that particular case, I gather that if blood and saliva are present together, it may indicate that a victim coughed up some blood they'd breathed into their lungs or trachea. In Annie's case, I wonder if a mixture of blood and saliva simply leaked from her mouth in G22? In any case, if Annie's aspirated blood was found in G22 it seems to prove she -- whether dead or alive -- was in that room after suffering the trauma that caused her to breath in her own blood in the first place.

Your description that I bolded and underscored is correct. In that case Chief Medical Examiner, John Butts stated there was not enough blood in the lungs to be aspirated. That was why Dr. Lee's premise was rejected.

Butts also disputed earlier claims by defense witness Dr. Henry Lee that blood found in the stairwell of the Petersons' home could have been coughed up by Kathleen Peterson as she fell, instead of being spatter from a beating. Butts said there was not enough blood in her lungs at the time of the autopsy to indicate that.

Butts said there was only one small portion of Peterson's lungs in which blood was present. He held up a slide to point out what he called "pin-head sized" specks in that one portion. Jurors passed the slide around, looking at it through a magnifying glass Butts had supplied.

"In my opinion, there's no evidence of any significant aspiration of blood," Butts said. http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/107086/

The point I was trying to make is that, in this case, the spatter found could have been due to Annie coughing it up onto a nearby wall.

It is described that way on page 25 of part one of the redacted search warrant:

 

[PatientOne]

Somewhat like the scenario Chanler depicted, I just read of a 10-yr. old Indiana boy whose 17-yr. old brother confessed to his murder, saying he strangled his younger brother, then moved his body into the kitchen to strangle him for 20 minutes more to make sure he was dead.