Raymond Clark III

[crocus]

The premeditation angle and the legalese that goes with it is kinda over my head. IF he had emailed/texted her, which has been reported, earlier in the day to get her to come over to the Amistad Bldg, in my mind that bespeaks premeditation of sorts.

So many questions and not enough answers.......

 

[Jersey*Girl]

I completely agree. Maybe this helps to explain it better. We don't know if he deliberated and planned this confrontation that led to murder, therefore defining your classic definition of "premeditation". It could have happened as the result of a spur of the moment action which resulted in a struggle, one in which Annie fought back. During the time Annie fought back, the perp obviously had to fight yet again back with Annie...therefore showing a prosecutor that they could "prove premeditation" for the simple fact he fought her back and she died. She didn't die right away when he was strangling her...no way...not saying it couldn't happen, but if all the reports are true, Annie suffered and she more than likely suffered greatly. The time it takes to do that shows premeditation. Again, only takes mere seconds. That's what I mean. It allows a prosecutor to "prove" premeditation, I guess I used a bad choice of words? Hugs...J

To further add to this: If the perp strangled Annie & she was fighting back b/c she couldn't breathe, then the perp knew she couldn't breathe. By the perp continuing to strangle Annie knowing full well she was trying to breathe, he is proving intent to strangle...and in turn, proving premeditation. Maybe not in the general sense of "premeditation", but defining it nonetheless. Hope this helps.

 

[Sola.N]

Oh, no, not at all, Jersey Girl. Not a bad choice of words at all. And you make an excellent point. I remember earlier from The Situation Room on CNN that their legal analyst was saying that it takes anywhere from two to five minutes for strangling to kill someone.

So let's say the two of them do get into some kind of struggle. She's scratching and maybe kicking at him, and he's got his hands around her neck. He would have to keep at it for an awfully long time to actually kill her, so I agree with you that he could have stopped at any time, so absolutely, there was that degree of intent in what he did.

If, on the other hand, they'd gotten into an argument, he slapped her around a bit, and she fell and broke her neck, that'd be a more convincing "I didn't mean to kill her" situation.

This here, though...he could have stopped, but didn't.

 

[Normcar21]

This is not meant to talk down to anyone...only inform...premeditation can be formed in as little as 3 seconds. If Annie was strangled like we're being told she was, then she didn't die immediately, right? The perp could have started strangling her but she probably didn't die right away, so the perp continued with Annie probably fighting & clawing back. This in and of itself is proof of premeditation of intent to murder. It doesn't matter if it was spur of the moment when it started or not. The fact that a fight ensued, which is obvious, shows premeditation. Might not have started out that way, but somewhere along the way it came up. This is without a doubt premeditation that any prosecutor will eat up and prove in a court of law.

Any law takers on here right now? This is how I learned it from my ex...who happens to be a Sgt Det, among other things...

I agree 100 percent.

Any degree of charges and defense will be completely up to LE and lawyers. I only disagree with your idea that This is without a doubt premeditation that any prosecutor will eat up and prove in a court of law.

Any prosecutor who works this case will probably sweat bullets waiting for a jury to determine if or if not, as regards pre-meditation.

I appreciate your comment, and just disagree with your opinion on a prosecutor who will "eat up and prove." :dance:

 

[Jersey*Girl]

completely agree...makes me sick...

 

[Sola.N]

To further add to this: If the perp strangled Annie & she was fighting back b/c she couldn't breathe, then the perp knew she couldn't breathe. By the perp continuing to strangle Annie knowing full well she was trying to breathe, he is proving intent to strangle...and in turn, proving premeditation. Maybe not in the general sense of "premeditation", but defining it nonetheless. Hope this helps.

Totally agree. It would've been obvious to him that he was killing her. Maybe once the struggle started he felt he had to finish the job or she'd file assault or attempted murder charges against him?

 

[crocus]

Does proving premeditation allow for a greater charge?

I'm not sure I am using the right words. Murder in the first degree versus a lesser charge?

 

[Emily Booth]

I hate to say this, but strangling Annie could've also provided a sexual release.

 

[Normcar21]

If I were a lawyer I might argue that they both got into a tussle about lab rats and the treatment of the animals in the lab, she insulted this client, began to claw him, he responded by grabbing her neck, in self defense, she continued to claw, he continued to react, then she fell to the ground, dead.

I mean nothing more here than to suggest a possible argument for self-defense, non-premeditation, and second degree murder or even manslaughter.

IMO only

I DO NOT believe that this is in any way approximate to the actual actions, but, I am suggesting that a defense lawyer could possibly follow such a defensive path.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

Totally agree. It would've been obvious to him that he was killing her. Maybe once the struggle started he felt he had to finish the job or she'd file assault or attempted murder charges against him?

If the dna can really be linked to the perp, and if the scratches bruises & etc are documented, and if other evidence of trauma to Annie can be linked with the situation - then without a doubt she fought back, which means that a fight started...right? The fight continued, even though she struggled. We know she struggled somewhat b/c she was asphyxiated. Sometime during that length of time the perp had to know she wanted to live...had to know...but he continued.

On a side note, I know somebody that fell off of a boat and was underwater for 8 minutes. It took a little bit of time, but he was brought back and is still intelligent, no signs of trauma. 8 minutes. Another example: My Nanny had a heart attack and was officially gone for almost 1/2 an hour - I WAS THERE. She survived (only to die a few years later). Annie was strangled but she fought back...which shows me, in my eyes, that she most certainly didn't die right away. The perp had to have continued...right? That could very well prove intent. Once intent is formed, it can be considered premeditation.

 

[Normcar21]

Does proving premeditation allow for a greater charge?

I'm not sure I am using the right words. Murder in the first degree versus a lesser charge?

Absolutely, it means a whole lot, difference between First Degree or other, and, depending on the state, it would determine whether or not the death penalty was possible.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

If I were a lawyer I might argue that they both got into a tussle about lab rats and the treatment of the animals in the lab, she insulted this client, began to claw him, he responded by grabbing her neck, in self defense, she continued to claw, he continued to react, then she fell to the ground, dead.

I mean nothing more here than to suggest a possible argument for self-defense, non-premeditation, and second degree murder or even manslaughter.

IMO only

I DO NOT believe that this is in any way approximate to the actual actions, but, I am suggesting that a defense lawyer could possibly follow such a defensive path.

I get what your saying, but don't forget the ME informed her actual COD is Asphyxiation by Strangulation.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

Absolutely, it means a whole lot, difference between First Degree or other, and, depending on the state, it would determine whether or not the death penalty was possible.

Yep. Without premeditation or intent, Manslaughter could come into play.

 

[crocus]

I wonder what the other animal techs (other than his relatives) have to say in regards to RC's temperament around work in relation to the students/researchers. Did he ***** about them a lot? Complain? Gripe a lot about them? Have disdain?

 

[Normcar21]

One other consideration, if you are alone with someone and you hit them for one reason or another, you are responsible for a physical crime against a human being unless you can make a defense relative to non-criminal motives for your action; if they return and hit you back then both of you are potentially responsible for a crime if neither of you can provide mitigating circumstances or legal some defense relative to your action.

Considerations:

-no audio exists related to any confrontation
-no video exist related to actions, sexual intentions, defensive actions, aggressive actions
-no eye witnesses within the lab or any other area of focus

This case relies, it seems, 100 percent on DNA evidence.

All of the above, it would seem to me, provides grist for the mill of either prosecution or defense, according to what is now available for us to work with here in WS.

IMO

 

[Normcar21]

I get what your saying, but don't forget the ME informed her actual COD is Asphyxiation by Strangulation.

I understand what you are saying, but a good defense lawyer could offer possible considerations for strangulation. Children die every year by self-strangulation by window cords. Adults fall and become strangled because their clothing got twisted up on their neck. A defense in this situation could be that he was "reacting" to a physical attack by L (friends have said that she was physically fit) after she was insulted about the treatment of his rats.

Weird, yes, but a possibility...and "reasonable doubt" is all that would be necessary in a defense situation.

IMO

 

[Normcar21]

It's getting late here, sorry for posting so much, I really don't know too much about this case and only became attracted to it over the past 24 hours. I'll shut up now for a bit and see what else comes up.

Man, what a shame, though, this seems to me to be such a "winner" being trounced on by a "loser" theme, and it makes me sick every time I hear of such a thing.

 

[crocus]

How many animal techs are on duty usually on any given or a usual normal day? Does anyone know? Do they usually monitor or stay within a given area for their shift?

 

[Jersey*Girl]

I understand what you are saying, but a good defense lawyer could offer possible considerations for strangulation. Children die every year by self-strangulation by window cords. Adults fall and become strangled because their clothing got twisted up on their neck. A defense in this situation could be that he was "reacting" to a physical attack by L (friends have said that she was physically fit) after she was insulted about the treatment of his rats.

Weird, yes, but a possibility...and "reasonable doubt" is all that would be necessary in a defense situation.

IMO

You're so right about this. Look up my necklace post from earlier...pretty scary. Either way, it makes for an incredibly interesting case. Personally, if he really is the perp, & while I may feel sorry for his family, I sure do hope he rots.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

Thank you for your posts, Normcar21. Goodnight.