I disagree on your point that there is enough evidence to convict by a 'blind and deaf jury'. You don't have any witnesses to the crime, and you don't have any video evidence. The evidence is all circumstantial, and it's not beyond a reason of a doubt, because you have to prove that Clark had the means to commit the murder and cover up the crime without any witnesses.
If he really did have anger building towards Annie, then it would have come out already that Annie felt threatened. We haven't heard anything of the sort. We've heard some stories about how Clark might be a control freak, but that could be words coming from people who had personal issues with Clark. His job may very well have been to be a 'control freak', or at least keep things running smoothly.
But why did Clark even need to hide the evidence? As far as I know, he didn't have to worry about bags being checked on his way out. He could have just stuck that stuff in a gym bag and walked out, rather than playing hide and go seek in various locations, which would have been much more risky. A person who does that is someone with a lot of time alone.
The affidavit never did say if there was blood found on the ceiling tiles where they found the sock and I think glove. If the killer was hiding those items right after murdering Annie, there would have been blood transfer onto the tiles. If there wasn't, that means those items must have been dry and hidden much later after her body had been hidden.
What does a child do when they feel like they did something wrong and don't want their parants to find out? They hide things in random places out of panic. All of this random evidence hiding is a result of panic. So what was he doing when all of this happened? He never said his swipe card was missing or stolen which means he was down there when this all happened. This would mean someone would have to of stolen his card from him without him knowing, swiped it like CRAZY down there, then returned his card. Oh and this was all after this other person was done hiding evidence. He would have to of been not down there at all for all of this to have happened and he not see a thing. Not to mention it was stated he left the building after the alarm was pulled with a look that they said appeared like he had done something recently he wasn't very proud of.
As far as the blood transfer thing goes you talk about that is pure assumption. Maybe the parts with blood never touched anything but air? I'm sorry but all of the evidence can be argued much more believable that they have the right person in custody than it can be believed that they don't.