Very Interesting
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 0
They havent arrested a second person yet, though would this be part of the motive, or why it was so violent?
They havent arrested a second person yet, though would this be part of the motive, or why it was so violent?
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.
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.
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
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
...In any case, Annie's gone and for no good reason...
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,
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;
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.
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?
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.
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.