Discussion in 'Annie Le' started by Sloof, Dec 2, 2009.
New thread for the new Search Warrant affidavits released today.
For reference here is the link to today's search warrant's released:
PDF: Search Warrants
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/upload/2009/12/Search Warrants Raymond Clark.pdf
Read Clark's search warrants (1 of 2)
Read Clark's search warrants (2 of 2)
There are several new pieces of information that made it past the redaction censor in the 73 page Search Warrant affidavits:
-Two days before police arrested Ray Clark for murder, they found blood “in plain view” on the kitchen floor of his Middletown apartment.
-Police later found blood stains inside a red Ford Taurus in which Clark was seen riding right away from the scene where Yale grad student Annie Le was killed.
-A fishing bait and tackle box and shoes with reddish-brown stains were found in Clark's car.
-Hairs and fibers from Clark's car were "rolled and tagged".
-A blood stained "Wipe-All" medical scrub was found with boots appearing to belong to Ray.
Can't change who's DNA they found everywhere....RC's & just maybe Jennifer Hramadka's too!...I still have to read the docs....comment only from what I caught from the news articles!
I wonder if RC's girlfriend was involved before, during & after the murder of Annie. If they find her DNA she needs to get the same charges no matter what her involvement was at any time. She never came in for questioning though she agreed & now the SA are asking for her DNA! She had to have known what happened...my hinky meter tells me that she is just as gulity as RC! IMO
Added link to article for reference here!
Attorney says DNA sought from Yale suspect fiancee
December 2, 2009
An attorney for the fiancee of a Yale lab technician charged with killing a graduate student said Wednesday he's been told authorities are seeking a sample of her DNA.
Robert Berke, attorney for Jennifer Hramadka, told The Associated Press that it's unclear why authorities want her DNA. He says he was told in September after Annie Le was killed that she is not a suspect.
"I've been advised that they're seeking a sample of her DNA," Berke said.
Hramadka's boyfriend, Raymond Clark III, is charged with killing the 24-year-old Le five days before Le's wedding in September.
Berke said investigators wanted to interview Hramadka shortly after the crime, but the interview did not take place.
more new findings:
+ "Documents show that throughout the investigation, several key pieces of evidence proved elusive: A brown leather computation notebook belonging to Annie Le. The clothes Clark was wearing when he entered the building. The laces on his workboots, which were found hidden in a ceiling. The brown mule shoes she was wearing when she entered the building. And several missing beads from a necklace she was wearing. "
+ "Clark was seen walking north on Cedar Street at 4 p.m. on Sept. 8. At 4:01 p.m., he stepped into a coffee shop at Congress Avenue and Cedar Street. He left four minutes later with his fiancee and another adult woman. All three got into a red Ford Taurus. The woman drove the car. Clark sat in the passenger’s seat and his fiancee sat in the back. They went to Clark and his fiancee’s apartment. Cops later searched that getaway car and found numerous bloodstains on the carpet and door panel, according to the affidavit. The affidavit doesn’t say who owns the car. That part is blacked out. But an FBI agent testified that Clark was later seen traveling “quite frequently” in the car."
+ "Even after Ray Clark’s arrest on Thursday Sept. 17, cops returned to remove evidence from 10 Amistad, the lab building where he and Le worked. On two different occasions, police found potential evidence suspiciously stuffed into drain pipes in the building. According to the affidavits:
On Sept. 20, the building’s night sanitation crew discovered a clogged drain in the Animal Research Center. The crew reported it to detectives, who recovered medical scrubs stuffed into the drain pipe.
On Sept. 22, the detectives were again called to the building on reports that there was potential evidence in a drain pipe in the lab auto-clave room. They found a large plastic bag, a white rag, tweezers, a pair of scissors, and several plastic centrifuge tubes. A screwdriver was also found in the drain pipe."
I'm surprised no one is posting about the docs!!! Not to offend anyone...it's sad there are so many missing cases added at WS's everyday. I am still so upset about what happened to Annie that I will be around until there is Justice for her!
When is this going to stop....the laws need to be changed on repeat offenders. In this case RC had no record, but in the case of Lily Burk's murder he had numerous run in's w/LE....yet he was still left on the streets. He even had passed the 3 strike rule long before he murdered Lily. :furious:
I hope RC & if JH is involved they both get what they deserve! IMO :behindbar
I think the crime was disgusting & Annie's family & loved ones will always be in my thoughts & prayers. rayer:
LE has him in an interview saying he never spoke with Annie outside of the work enviroment. He sure lied about that one....he WAS e-mailing her! :furious:
She's the biggest reason I think someone else was involved in assisting in cleanup or something. Plus, Angel, don't forget they used to share a/c's together. If they shared a MySpace, chances are they shared email. I happen to think she may have even helped to implicate Clark to the police. Well, what about if it started with her but finished with Clark? Maybe b/c of her jealous tendencies, she sent some of those emails...maybe she started stuff about Annie at school (rumors or whatever)...maybe just maybe she's a little bit guilty, too. Everytime I read about the insinuations this chick made about Annie and then viewing her pictures with those teeth (omg the teeth), to think she talked about Annie who was so darn cute and smart, it was just flat out wierd. I still never found out if she actually had a ring showing their engagement or if it was just a verbal agreement. I know she used that site to talk about her wedding plans, registry or whatever, but usually people have pics when they get engaged. I mean, as far as I know, she never expressed sympathy or concern after Annie went missing. Did she even comment or show concern after Annie was discovered murdered? My suspiscions are still with her being involved somewhat. I guess only time will tell, right?
Here is where I read about the e-mails (along with several other articles!) & it's in the documents too!
Annie Le Search Warrants: Cops Found Blood on Yale Lab Tech Raymond Clark's Floor
December 2, 2009 4:32 PM
The affidavits also state that Clark sent emails to 24-year-old Annie Le "in the recent past," and that her email address was found in a laboratory locker labeled "Ray,".
Hi, Jersey Girl. I still tend to think that Jennifer didn't help in the cover-up and was indeed kept in the dark. I've always thought, however, that her MySpace rant about an another woman might have emanated from tech gossip or teasing about Raymond's ogling of Annie. As you say, Le was very cute and engaging.
Does anyone know on what floor she worked? If she didn't work in the basement (and thus didn't even have pass privileges), her presence there might have attracted attention, making her, in my view at least, a less than ideal cover-up partner. But we will see.
I haven't looked over the new warrants yet, I'm just looking at the comments you have all made about the evidence.
The blood evidence is compelling, but not proof of guilt. I have to see if the affidavits mention if it was human or fish blood (you guys mentioned fishing gear).
The screwdriver could be the murder weapon. They said she was killed due to traumatic asphyxiation. I also recall the first warrant mentioned that Ray's boots were missing laces. Perhaps a strangulation device was put together using the laces and the screwdriver to increase the pressure?
The fact that a number of suspicious items were found in the drain in the autoclave room is even more reason to suspect that the fire alarm was tripped on purpose and served as cover for the crime. Since Ray was seen leaving the building at the time of the alarm, I think that works in his favor.
I'm going to review the new pages of information and see if anything stands out.
I will comment on some of the questions brought up in the other thread.
I've just quickly read through the new affidavits. A lot of it seems to be repetitive, like multiple copies were scanned, and the wording seems to be similar to what was in the other affidavit released a few weeks ago. Interestingly, there are some parts redacted in this new release that weren't redacted in the first release, and there might be stuff that didn't get redacted in this one that was redacted in the first (maybe a sentence, nothing earth shattering).
Important things I've gleaned from this new paperwork:
The affidavit states two different times for when Annie entered 10 Amistad. At the beginning, it says she was seen entering around 8:59am, but later it says she was seen on camera at 10:09am
VERY INTERESTING: Annie's notebook, which she carries with her at all times, was never found. Whatever data she kept in that notebook was probably important to her research. And that's why I've wondered if her death was professional jealousy in nature, as opposed to spontaneous work-related rage.
Ray's boots and scrubs are easily accessible in the lab. They're clearly marked, so anyone could have taken them and put blood evidence on them. If they were under lock and key, and they still had blood on them, it would be harder to argue evidence tampering.
ALSO INTERESTING: Early in the affidavit, it states that Annie's shoes were located in her office when they searched it and found her other items (purse, cellphone, etc...). The white sweater that someone said they saw her wearing that morning wasn't mentioned. But the shoes are important, because they said her body didn't have shoes.
It's mentioned that the insulation wasn't removed from the chase, as it sounded from the earlier affidavit release. Instead, the body was placed inside, and the insulation was placed over top to conceal the body.
This release unfortunately didn't give more detail into the card swipes that I was looking for. I guess those will have to wait until the trial.
The part about the email address in his locker isn't unusual. The failed to mention if email addresses of other researchers were also in his locker. If he's the animal tech, he needs to be able to reach Annie or the other PhD researchers.
The blood like stains at the apartment could be anything from cut fish to cut meat. If Ray had completely changed his clothing from the time he allegedly murdered Annie to when he left, he would have also showered, so how could blood stains (from dried blood?) show up at his house. Not possible, unless he brought a beaker full of her blood there and poured it, or brought her body back there.
Ray had access to a car. If he committed the murder, he could have stuck all of the bloodied clothing into a bag, then driven it all off far away and dumped it. There's no reason to have left it lying around the lab like a scavenger hunt for two days until the police arrived.
It's strange they said they were looking for her necklace later in the affidavit, even though the earlier release said they found it on her body, and the beads in various rooms. Do they mean the string is missing?
It's interesting that plumbing problems were first noticed by a maintenance man on Sept. 11 but plumbers and police weren't dispatched until Sept. 20. That reinforces my feeling that the crime scene isn't necessarily always a beehive of activity. Those type of objects (screw drivers, plastic tubes, scrubs, etc.) could've caused serious blockages and therefore fairly immediate overflows of the sinks, etc. that the particular drain pipes serve, if used often. It makes me think RC may have indeed been able to move around, even with blood-stained clothing, Annie's body, etc., without being witnessed. It also makes me think whoever placed those objects in the pipes isn't a property owner, for surely anyone who owns a house would know the havoc that stuffing such objects into drains could quickly cause, and that they'd be discovered by any plumber dispatched to deal with it.
It's also interesting that apparel in ladies' sizes (shoes, scrubs) were removed from RC's residence. This may be simply in order to distinguish/eliminate the fiancee's DNA while examining evidence, like the blood seen on their kitchen floor. But the apparently-recent request for her DNA makes me wonder more, like others already have, if she's somehow complicit in the crime.
Like Shlock, I wonder if RC had other email addresses in his locker. If not, it seems significant that he had only Annie's.
I also wonder if it was routine for RC to ride home with the other woman, who I'm only guessing at this point is his sister since she also works at Amistad. If it's not routine, it may be significant that his sister (or whoever it was) drove him home on the fateful day.
I have to remind myself when reading about this crime that mention of blood evidence on shoes, clothing, floors, etc. and other items doesn't necessarily mean LOTS of blood in each and every instance. It may sometimes be little, barely-noticeable smears, drops or spatters here and there that only a person looking closely would notice. As it is, I have a tendency to imagine more blood than may be the actual case because the word blood itself conjures up graphic images in my mind. I'm only mentioning this because someone like Shlock (!) may opine that the real killer would surely cover his tracks better and not be stupid enough to, for example, leave a bloody white athletic shoe in the backseat of his own car.
I'm a bit confused about statements in the search warrant affidavits regarding elusive objects like Annie's notebook, the black and white jacket RC wore when entering the bldg. on the fateful day, etc. Mentioned among those items are PCs and laptops. Does this mean they can't find computers to which RC had access? Or is the list of items presumptive and in fact some have been obtained while others are still missing?
Oh, and one more thing. Shlock mentioned Annie's shoes. The shoes found in Annie's office obviously aren't the shoes she wore to the Amistad bldg. Those are still missing. It's not uncommon for women to remove fashionable, higher-heeled shoes and don a more-comfortable pair to wear while walking any distance, or while working. So I don't see much significance of the shoes found in her office.
Hi, PatientOne; a wonderful post. I think that your note about the possibly small amount of blood on individual sites is pertinent. Also, blood splatter, which seems to have occurred, is unusually unmanageable.
I'm guessing, but I imagine that Clark's clean-up efforts and evidence hiding were intermittent. His first concern was to get rid of the most visible blood; then move the body to a safe place and figure out how to dispose of it. During this period, he also had to be thinking of establishing a personal alibi, partly by going through the motions at least of finishing his work assignments and, perhaps, meeting Jennifer and his sister. The arrival of the police the next day, of course, added a whole new dimension to his problems. His approach of the Yale police woman might have been a hapless attempt to get them to move the search beyond the building. By this time, looking suspicious, cleaning up unusual areas, or taking things out of the building might have attracted attention, which already seems to have been drifting his way.
I'm so glad you mentioned the shoes. At my office, I sit near a woman who keeps both sneakers and fancy shows in her office.
As for the computers, I think that you're right. They're interested in any digital machines Clark might use.
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.
Even so, I think it is odd that the killer took Annie's shoes. Someone with a weird foot fetish? Maybe kept as a souvenir? That part doesn't make sense.
I don't know about the significance of the jacket Ray was seen wearing in the morning entering the building. Since it was still summer, it's not unusual for someone to leave their jacket if the afternoon is warm. He probably left it at work Sept 8th, and then took it home Sept 9th.
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.
I don't think they were looking for actual computers. From my understanding of the affidavit, they were looking for permission to dig into the data files of the electronic transmissions between Annie and Ray. In other words, subpoena the emails that weren't archived on either person's electronic devices.
I think there was quite significant blood release, but not a drenching of blood. The fact there was blood smeared inside of the chase means that either Annie's body was put in there pretty soon after she was killed, or there was a gaping wound somewhere on her body where blood continued to trickle out. If she was just punched in the head by Ray in an argument, I highly doubt that amount of blood would have been released. Even strangulation would have caused little or no blood from the mouth.
When I looked over the affidavit last night, I missed this interesting piece of information: G-22 had aspirated blood evidence. The very definition of aspirated means breathed, so I take it to mean coughed up blood. If Annie was murdered in G-13, she could not have aspirated blood in G-22. Maybe she was knocked out in G-13, and then strangled in G-22?
One thing I noticed about the new affidavits - they've omitted almost all references to G-33. No more blood or bead evidence. And they removed it from the list of rooms Ray had signed into with the green pen. I think that G33 was pretty significant because it showed the killer either moved the body to that room, or at least had access to that room. It's crucial to know who had card access to all three rooms blood evidence was found in. If Ray was the only person who had access to all three rooms, then I could see it difficult to argue that one down. But if other people, including professors and other administrative people, had full access to all the labs, then they should be seeing if anyone other than Ray scanned into all three rooms. So why would they suddenly do that? Did they make a mistake when they included G33 as a place of evidence? What other mistakes have they made, then?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Separate names with a comma.