Raymond Clark III

[Rick Tigger]

How do you explain the rape of his ex-girlfriend? There are police reports to back it up.

If what happened between him & the high school GF was a rape then why would she withdraw the case. Rape is a serious crime, what kind of girl would acuse then withdraw. Why wouldn't the GF's parents make a charge? Just an opinion.:waitasec:

 

[Shlock Homes]

Research shows that one of the cardinal signs of becoming a psychopath is deprivation of emotion. Perhaps due to faulty wiring. Clark's ability to carry on routine duties and activities after murdering Annie is one more sign of his inability to form empathic, compassionate relationships. Makes you wonder, as so many have questioned, if he was ever going to get married and what the purpose of his engagement really was. I think the murder of Annie was planned in his mind, I call it rumination, - only this time he carried it out. I have no doubt Annie bruised his ago over and over, not intentionally, but because she was Annie - a brilliant, confident, beautiful, and dynamic female. All are my opinions only

He also might have been carrying on as usual because he didn't do it.

Psychopaths might not show emotion, but they also exhibit behaviour that some people can interpret as being disturbing. One thing they can't get away from is their eyes. But that still doesn't mean that someone with psychopathic personality will extend that to murder. For someone who is psychopathic, he showed way too much emotion at his hearing. Not crying, but looking very down and concerned. A true psychopath would be smug and reveling in the attention.

If he was sadistic to animals, then he wouldn't have stayed employed so long as an animal tech. Enough people would have complained that he was being cruel that would have raised alarm bells at the higher levels. As far as his employers were concerned, he wasn't a problem. And that speaks volumes for his reputation at his work place. They could have said, 'he had some difficulty with certain people, but overall, he was a good worker'. But that didn't happen.

We probably won't know more about him until the trial starts.

 

[Rick Tigger]

He also might have been carrying on as usual because he didn't do it.

Psychopaths might not show emotion, but they also exhibit behaviour that some people can interpret as being disturbing. One thing they can't get away from is their eyes. But that still doesn't mean that someone with psychopathic personality will extend that to murder. For someone who is psychopathic, he showed way too much emotion at his hearing. Not crying, but looking very down and concerned. A true psychopath would be smug and reveling in the attention.

If he was sadistic to animals, then he wouldn't have stayed employed so long as an animal tech. Enough people would have complained that he was being cruel that would have raised alarm bells at the higher levels. As far as his employers were concerned, he wasn't a problem. And that speaks volumes for his reputation at his work place. They could have said, 'he had some difficulty with certain people, but overall, he was a good worker'. But that didn't happen.

We probably won't know more about him until the trial starts.

I completely agree, The 1st time I saw his eyes in the police car, I saw someone afraid, confused. In court he kept biting his lip. I really wish we knew more about his GF. I can see him trying to cover-up for her because he loved her. Just my opinion:innocent:

 

[Shlock Homes]

I completely agree, The 1st time I saw his eyes in the police car, I saw someone afraid, confused. In court he kept biting his lip. I really wish we knew more about his GF. I can see him trying to cover-up for her because he loved her. Just my opinion:innocent:

Yes, he looked more bewildered by the attention, not quite sure what to make of all the attention. He's charged with murdering someone. He probably could have blurted out 'hey, I didn't do it!' but that wouldn't have changed people's minds one bit, so he was better off just staying silent.

 

[Noway]

It's the screaming DNA that is getting my attention. I don't think his GF's DNA was found in the lab, chase, on Annie, etc. Was it?

 

[Rick Tigger]

It's the screaming DNA that is getting my attention. I don't think his GF's DNA was found in the lab, chase, on Annie, etc. Was it?

His GF also worked at the lab as a tech & how difficult would it be for her to get some of his clothes or pen. Look at her eyes in the pictures of them together, Whom would you say is more appoachable that you'd say Hi passing on the street. There's not enough information out there to say. If I knew her birthday I would do her chart to see if there were personality traits in her.

 

[Chanler]

His GF also worked at the lab as a tech & how difficult would it be for her to get some of his clothes or pen. Look at her eyes in the pictures of them together, Whom would you say is more appoachable that you'd say Hi passing on the street. There's not enough information out there to say. If I knew her birthday I would do her chart to see if there were personality traits in her.

Hi, Rick Tigger, welcome to Websleuths. The moderators have the final word, but as I understand it, discussions of forensic astrology belong on a separate thread.

 

[Chanler]

Research shows that one of the cardinal signs of becoming a psychopath is deprivation of emotion. Perhaps due to faulty wiring. Clark's ability to carry on routine duties and activities after murdering Annie is one more sign of his inability to form empathic, compassionate relationships. Makes you wonder, as so many have questioned, if he was ever going to get married and what the purpose of his engagement really was. I think the murder of Annie was planned in his mind, I call it rumination, - only this time he carried it out. I have no doubt Annie bruised his ago over and over, not intentionally, but because she was Annie - a brilliant, confident, beautiful, and dynamic female. All are my opinions only

Hi, Eyes4crime. I honestly don't think that Clark carried on normally after the murder; in fact, I think that his odd behavior was one of the reasons that he first attracted suspicion. Apparently, he entered the lab building no fewer than ten times the day of her disappearance, to me a sign both of nervousness and going back to observe and clean-up.

I think that your comments about his relationship with his girlfriend are on target. To me, the unusually prolonged engagement seems unusual. And I think you're right about Annie's unintentional effect on him: He might well have been humiliated that a diminutive-looking woman would not yield to his directives.

 

[Chanler]

If what happened between him & the high school GF was a rape then why would she withdraw the case. Rape is a serious crime, what kind of girl would acuse then withdraw. Why wouldn't the GF's parents make a charge? Just an opinion.:waitasec:

Hi, Rick Tigger, she didn't withdraw the charge; the charge was never made. Most date rapes are not brought to trial: They are very hard to prove. In this case, she might have done what millions of other abuse victims have done; gone on living after the apologies.

Apparently, being forced to have sex was not the only crime to which she will testify. She said that she had been asked by police not to be more specific about other forms of abuse.

 

[Skigirl]

His GF also worked at the lab as a tech & how difficult would it be for her to get some of his clothes or pen. Look at her eyes in the pictures of them together, Whom would you say is more appoachable that you'd say Hi passing on the street. There's not enough information out there to say. If I knew her birthday I would do her chart to see if there were personality traits in her.

His girlfriend worked for the same university service in the same sort of position, but I have never read anything to suggest that they actually both worked in Le's advisor's lab.

 

[Shlock Homes]

Hi, Eyes4crime. I honestly don't think that Clark carried on normally after the murder; in fact, I think that his odd behavior was one of the reasons that he first attracted suspicion. Apparently, he entered the lab building no fewer than ten times the day of her disappearance, to me a sign both of nervousness and going back to observe and clean-up.

That could be one interpretation of his movements. Another could be that he was just carrying on his duties as usual, but in light of the circumstances (Annie Le's disappearance), in 20/20 hindsight, it might all look suspicious. If it was the beginning of the semester, his actions might have been normal. Relative to what are they basing his movements as being out of the ordinary? The police have tried to build a case saying he entered rooms he normally would not be in. According to whom? And this is based on previous years in the same job position, doing the same duties?

The alleged hiding of evidence may or may not be a faulty interpretation. Was he hiding this evidence in a place where it didn't belong? Or did he put it into storage where it properly belonged? Did they instruct people NOT to touch anything, and at that point he tried to hide the evidence that supposedly had Annie's blood on it? It's all circumstantial evidence, unless they have a smoking gun, like DNA of the perpetrator under Annie's fingernails. And what about that clothing with the blood? They never did say what clothing it was.

 

[eyes4crime]

Hi, Eyes4crime. I honestly don't think that Clark carried on normally after the murder; in fact, I think that his odd behavior was one of the reasons that he first attracted suspicion. Apparently, he entered the lab building no fewer than ten times the day of her disappearance, to me a sign both of nervousness and going back to observe and clean-up.

I think that your comments about his relationship with his girlfriend are on target. To me, the unusually prolonged engagement seems unusual. And I think you're right about Annie's unintentional effect on him: He might well have been humiliated that a diminutive-looking woman would not yield to his directives.

Hi Chanler: Somehow, I can't stop wondering how much of an effect the fire alarm had on Clark...if he set it off UNintentionally or if the cause of the alarm was unknown, my guess is that it disengaged him from the crime at hand, so much that he lost his train of thought. When outside, as many others have suggested, I think he was frantically trying to hide his face. We really don't know how Clark would have completed his murder if the alarm had not gone off. For instance, did he have a small case on wheels that could have been wheeled out with Annie in it? Psychopaths (murderers) don't do well with surprises such as an alarm going off in the middle of their work. mho

 

[eyes4crime]

Hi, Rick Tigger, she didn't withdraw the charge; the charge was never made. Most date rapes are not brought to trial: They are very hard to prove. In this case, she might have done what millions of other abuse victims have done; gone on living after the apologies.

Apparently, being forced to have sex was not the only crime to which she will testify. She said that she had been asked by police not to be more specific about other forms of abuse.

Hi again! As I understand it, charges weren't made because his girlfriend was afraid of retaliation from Clark; she was fearful of him. Recently, the file on the case was made public and the detective involved clarified. It's somewhere in one of these threads. mho

 

[Noway]

I was so confused about this ... did she press charges or didn't she ... was there a police report or wasn't there ... found this:
:waitasec:
"According to a 2003 police report obtained by the Independent earlier this week, she told police he forced her to have sex with him and he 'confronted' her, when against his wishes, she sought to end the relationship. However, she declined to press charges."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/17/crimesider/entry5317567.shtml


So there was a police report in which she says he raped her, but she did not press charges against him.

 

[Chanler]

That could be one interpretation of his movements. Another could be that he was just carrying on his duties as usual, but in light of the circumstances (Annie Le's disappearance), in 20/20 hindsight, it might all look suspicious. If it was the beginning of the semester, his actions might have been normal. Relative to what are they basing his movements as being out of the ordinary? The police have tried to build a case saying he entered rooms he normally would not be in. According to whom? And this is based on previous years in the same job position, doing the same duties?

The alleged hiding of evidence may or may not be a faulty interpretation. Was he hiding this evidence in a place where it didn't belong? Or did he put it into storage where it properly belonged? Did they instruct people NOT to touch anything, and at that point he tried to hide the evidence that supposedly had Annie's blood on it? It's all circumstantial evidence, unless they have a smoking gun, like DNA of the perpetrator under Annie's fingernails. And what about that clothing with the blood? They never did say what clothing it was.

Hi, Schlock Homes. Leaving a building ten times during a work day hardly qualifies as carrying on his job "as usual." The law enforcement present on the scene interviewed the staff extensively about laboratory procedures and workplaces. For several reasons, animal techs have very demarcated job descriptions and responsibilities. Clark was apparently cleaning lab areas that were not his responsibility that were later found to have DNA traces. His behavior and responses to questions were adjudged suspicious by LE at the scene; his interview responses were unsatisfactory; he had cuts and bruises which he attributed to multiple causes and declined to have photographed. The hidden clothing contained DNA from both Annie and Raymond. His DNA in the behind-the-wall crawl space might be difficult to explain too.

 

[Chanler]

I was so confused about this ... did she press charges or didn't she ... was there a police report or wasn't there ... found this:
:waitasec:
"According to a 2003 police report obtained by the Independent earlier this week, she told police he forced her to have sex with him and he 'confronted' her, when against his wishes, she sought to end the relationship. However, she declined to press charges."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/17/crimesider/entry5317567.shtml


So there was a police report in which she says he raped her, but she did not press charges against him.

Hi, NoWay, thanks for tracking this. Apparently, she did file a police report, but declined to press charges. She might have made the complaint spontaneously or wanted to put it on the record in case she later decided to file a restraining order or charges. I think that the poster was right about her fear of retribution. According to her account, she feared him enough to request an non-police escort for weeks afterwards.

 

[Harmony 2]

I was so confused about this ... did she press charges or didn't she ... was there a police report or wasn't there ... found this:
:waitasec:
"According to a 2003 police report obtained by the Independent earlier this week, she told police he forced her to have sex with him and he 'confronted' her, when against his wishes, she sought to end the relationship. However, she declined to press charges."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/17/crimesider/entry5317567.shtml


So there was a police report in which she says he raped her, but she did not press charges against him.

I had read about this reporter actually acquiring the 2003 police report but since the online news source is not well known I did not post it. FWIW here it is:

http://www.doublex.com/section/news-politics/girlfriends-raymond-clark?page=0,0

Within hours, our Branford reporter had the 2003 police report with the allegations by Clark’s ex-girlfriend. At the time, they were students at Branford High School and were in a long-term relationship.

She reported that Clark forced her to have sex with him, confronted her when she tried to break up with him, and wrote an unwanted message on her locker. Police told Clark to stay away from her, according to the report. She didn’t press charges. So police never checked out her allegations.

 

[Rick Tigger]

Hi, Schlock Homes. Leaving a building ten times during a work day hardly qualifies as carrying on his job "as usual." The law enforcement present on the scene interviewed the staff extensively about laboratory procedures and workplaces. For several reasons, animal techs have very demarcated job descriptions and responsibilities. Clark was apparently cleaning lab areas that were not his responsibility that were later found to have DNA traces. His behavior and responses to questions were adjudged suspicious by LE at the scene; his interview responses were unsatisfactory; he had cuts and bruises which he attributed to multiple causes and declined to have photographed. The hidden clothing contained DNA from both Annie and Raymond. His DNA in the behind-the-wall crawl space might be difficult to explain too.

What if he went to the basement;saw the body;thought his GF could have had a hand in it & tried to clean it up.That would explain the "traces of DNA". Then went from room to room or outside to try and find her. I would like to know if his movement from the rooms was at the time of the fire alarm, he could have been making sure everyone got out in case of a true fire. His actions can be interpreted in more than one way. Just my Opinion.

 

[Emily Booth]

When the police made their arrest, they said no one else was involved. The GF was ruled out. The GF passed her polygraph, BTW.

 

[Noway]

I can't get past the forensics that point to Ray. Nobody else.

And while failing a polygraph is not proof of guilt, and looking nervous when leaving a building because the fire alarm goes off is not proof of guilt, and moving from room to room and leaving your building 10 times in a day which is coincidentally the day a person in the building goes missing, law enforcement -- the ones who have the all evidence and the forensics -- think Ray did it.