2009: Crime In Review

 by Robin Sax 

It’s that time again — the very end of the year.  In addition to looking to the future (charting goals and resolutions), this is a chance for us to reflect upon 2009 and learn.  Blogs, TV shows, newspapers and magazines are looking at the year: the good and the bad, the trends and the hook-ups, the births and the deaths. From my perspective, this is an opportune time to examine the top crime stories of 2009.  After perusing dozens of media outlets, I’d like to remind you specifically of 12 crime stories -- one for every juror on a panel -- from 2009, in no particular order. Some represent justice, truth, and closure; others illustrate injustice, missed opportunities, and evil. These stories affected us all, directly or indirectly:

1.     Roman Polanski reignited: This case is about more than just the facts of Polanski’s offenses (which are indeed major). Polanski stole time, resources, and energy from the State of California for years, actually, decades. He accepted no responsibility for his actions, nor for the deal he chose to strike.  The best case would be for Polanski to come back and face a California judge, take his medicine, and receive the same sentence he bargained for in the first place (assuming the LA District Attorney). We're all fascinated by a man who lived freely for three decades, suffering no consequences for leaving the country to escape the law. So, man up Polanski!  Not just privately; teach your Hollywood buddies a lesson too!  Teach them not to blame the victim, not to minimize the damages caused by sexual assault; and not to deny the realities of the crime.  Tell Whoopi that you committed real rape, and you are finally going to take real responsibility! Once you do, we can all move on in 2010.

2.     Jaycee Duggard found:  Don’t get me wrong; this case represents one of the great outcomes in the criminal justice system!  And a big fat shout-out to Berkeley Events Manager Lisa Campbell and Berkeley Police Officer Ally Jacobs for not missing opportunities as the California Department of Corrections and the Contra Costa Police had done so many times before. This case may be the first time we heard law enforcement actually call it like it was -- a case of “missed opportunities.”  Missed opportunities no longer!  Nancy Garrido, wife of Phillip Garrido, may be the real monster in the 1991 abduction of 11-year-old Jaycee Duggard. True, her husband, Phillip Garrido, is a horrific figure who kidnapped Jaycee and held her captive for 18 years. Garrido, a registered sex offender, kept Jaycee (and her two kids, fathered by him) in a tent in the backyard. But Nancy Garrido knew and said nothing. Jaycee was returned to her family in September. What did we learn? We need to take a closer look at the way we use registered sex-offender lists and, perhaps more importantly, how we monitor sex offenders all the way around. 

3.     Balloon Boy takes off:  I hate to give this case any more attention, but it represents so much of the decade that I have to mention it. The balloon boy case illustrates the worst of media and the most pathetic things people will do to exploit it. I was shocked that so many news stations (almost all of them!) covered this loose-balloon chase with such intensity.  I mean, it was surreal -- a giant Chef Boyardee cap sweeping the skies and Wolf Blitzer in The Situation Room tracking trajectories of falling balloons.  Why was it so popular? Because TMZ rules the media these days, and our society can't get enough of this type of buzz. It looked like traditional news outlets were trying, for once, to trump TMZ. (Get over it, TMZ rules!) The silver lining: at least mom and dad Heene pled guilty and were sentenced expeditiously.  I have never seen justice take off so fast…. a lot faster than it would have taken to get a real television show made.  

4.     Two tragic massacres -- Fort Hood and The Tacoma police murders: Nidal Malik Hasan and Maurice Clemmons both committed terrible acts of violence when they carried out their (unrelated) massacres. One similarity: both Hasan and Clemmons targeted official personnel in their shooting rampages, Hasan on a military base and Clemmons at police officers. Hasan, a 39-year-old military psychiatrist, was never suspected as being capable of massacre. Similarly, Clemmons, a 37-year-old parolee, got a second chance to live out in society precisely because he wasn’t seen as a threat. Clemmons was granted clemency by then-Gov. Mike Huckabee – putting forth the case (successfully) that he was rehabilitated.  Obviously, those around both Hasan and Clemmons got it wrong; they didn't see that either man was a violent sociopath. What can we learn from these tragedies? I honestly don’t think there is an answer here. This type of senseless violence occurs more often than any of us care to review. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the victims. We also pray and hope that this type of crime doesn’t make the list in 2010. 

5.     Annie Le found dead: We were all horrified when Annie Le was found dead inside the wall of a research lab on the day she was supposed to be married. Lab technician Raymond Clark was arrested and charged with her murder. Investigators zeroed in on Clark early in the investigation after he failed a lie detector test and was found to have defensive wounds on his body, scratches on his arms and back and a bruised eye. In addition, his attempts to clean up the crime scene (where Le was last) and DNA evidence led to his arrest.  We were reminded, yet again, that even the guy-next-door-type can be capable of murder.

6.     Cherish Lewis still in jail: The case of Cherish hasn't made headline news. It stands for all such worthy cases that don't get national media attention. Cherish is the mother of five-year-old Jaelyn Rice. An Ohio judge ordered Cherish to hand her child over to an abusive father. When Cherish refused, she was jailed. Her child is in hiding with relatives, and the predator-father is free. This is a case of true injustice where the system got it totally wrong. I highlight these types of unknown important cases as a co-host on radio show "Justice Interrupted" (with Stacy Dittrich), which will be relaunching next month. Find out more at www.justiceinterrupted.com

7.     Amanda Knox convicted of murder: The conviction of this American student for the murder of her British roommate sent ripples of shock and scrutiny across the U.S. media waves. I can't say Amanda didn't do it, based on what I saw of the evidence presented; none of us can say for sure what happened that night. I can say this though: I don't think Amanda would have been convicted of murder if she were tried for the same crime in the United States. I believe this case raises a very important issue: American students traveling abroad for international education should be afforded some protections. There was clearly some questionable prosecutorial conduct in this case. But since the U.S. lacked jurisdiction, diplomats could do nothing once the sentence was handed down. I don't believe that's fair. We should learn from this case to help prevent further miscarriages of justice in future international trials. 

8.     Shaniya Davis sold for sex: Little Shaniya was sold by her mother and ended up dead. I applaud the prosecutors in the Davis case for calling this crime what it is: human trafficking, and not labeling it just another case of sexual assault and murder. There is true evil out there, unfortunately, and this case is an example of what an evil, desperate mother can do to her own child. We need to get the word out that human trafficking for sex is a problem not just in Thailand or Cambodia, but right here at home in North Carolina and other states. 

9.     Chris Brown’s attack: Rihanna’s battered face hitting TMZ was a huge moment this year. Many people in this country still believe that domestic violence isn’t prevalent anymore. Well, this case reminded us all that it's still around and can and does affect everyone. I believe that while Brown got special treatment as a rap-music superstar, he was forthright in taking responsibility for his crime and at least reminded us that we need to pay attention to domestic violence. Brown pled to a felony, and he suffered some public humiliation. I think Brown got a little better deal than what he would have if the case had gone to trial -- but that's the nature of a plea deal. The real big shocker was when Rihanna went back to him! She really let down thousands of female fans who counted on her to behave as a role model after the attack. While the crimes de jour may change from year to year, we must remember that we still have a long way to go to stem violence against our loved ones.  

10.  Michael Jackson’s death: Dr. Conrad Murray is the sideshow to this final Michael Jackson explosive controversy.  It seemed as though the world stopped for a bit when news of Jackson’s death hit the airwaves in June.  Jackson’s Facebook page jumped from 800,000 fans to 7 million the week following the self-proclaimed King of Pop’s passing.  But the controversy over Jackson's doctor still rages. I know we'll be hearing a lot more about this one in 2010. Murray probably will be charged early next year after prosecutors present their case to a grand jury. I don’t think L.A. wants to lose another celebrity trial. Dr. Murray will probably be charged with involuntary manslaughter. Right now Jackson's death is being treated as a homicide investigation (simply because homicide investigators handle cases in which the victim died in the presence of another person – in this case Conrad Murray).  Thousands of media outlets will continue to follow this case. Get ready L.A.!

11.   Anthony Sowell’s rampage: This Cleveland rapist, if convicted, is the perpetrator of one of the most gruesome series of crimes in recent history. He lived in a townhouse duplex filled with the rotting bodies of women he had raped and strangled to death. Police found bodies in upstairs bedrooms, the living room, a crawl space, a shallow grave in the backyard and another grave in the basement. There were at least 11 victims.  The real question in this unspeakable case: neighbors and officials who did nothing about the horrendous smell wafting from the home. Neighbors knew something was off about Sowell. Some said he reeked so terribly himself that their eyes would water. City officials who inspected the street blamed the smell on backed up sewers or Ray's Sausage Company, housed in an adjacent building. Had the signs been heeded earlier -- among them Sowell’s strange behavior and the stench coming from his house -- perhaps some of the women might have been saved and more deaths prevented. This is a cautionary tale (a gruesome one) for us all to pay attention to our surroundings, follow our instincts, and report and pursue strange things -- even odors -- that seem out-of-place.

12.  Bernie Madoff’s scheme exposed: Madoff ran the largest Ponzi scheme in U.S. history. He cheated thousands of investors of some $50 billion. The federal government exposed the scheme in December ’08. Madoff pled guilty to 11 felony counts in March of  ’09, making him the highest profile white-collar criminal in recent memory. Madoff's scheme wiped out dozens of charities and the life savings of entire families; he totally ruined many innocent lives. Madoff wants everyone to believe he was the only one who knew of the fraud. That's hard to believe, since his brother, two sons, niece, and other family members held high-level positions in the firm. Now the 70-year-old will spend the rest of his life in prison. The Madoff scandal seemed to be at the epicenter of the economic meltdown and will undoubtedly shake the financial community for years to come. 

Tweet

Did She "Ask for It"? Does it Matter?

By Pat Brown

A victim is a housewife, college student, go-go dancer, model, teacher, nun, virgin, slut, whore, churchgoer, caretaker, drug user, pervert, cop, criminal, social worker, thief.

She may be sweet. She may be a bitch. She may not have deserved it. Then, again, maybe she sorta did.

What a victim is, and what a victim does, doesn't matter. Or, what a victim is, and what a victim does, makes all the difference.

Over and over, we hear that the behavior of the victim is not the issue. No one deserves to be murdered. No one deserves to be raped. Even the suggestion that the victim might have in some way contributed to her unfortunate demise is considered blasphemy. When pushed, it might be admitted, in a politically correct manner, that the victim "may have lived a high-risk life-style that increased her chance of becoming a victim." This is a nice way of saying the victim's personal decisions and behavior got her in trouble. Her unfortunate choices range from opening the door without knowing who is on the other side, jogging at dusk, or working the streets as a prostitute.

The continued white-washing of the victim's character, and the refusal to examine her actions, can make it harder to find, profile and try attackers. We think we are doing women a favor when we refuse to acknowledge that their behavior helped make them victims. We are, in fact, clouding the thinking of investigators and jurors in their abilities to identify and convict the perpetrators of rape and sexual homicide.

Let's examine how this political viewpoint of women's responsibility has affected these areas.

The investigation of a sexual homicide depends heavily on accurate information about the victim. Victimology includes the past history of the victim, the personality and habits of the victim in the recent months prior to the crime, and the activities and relationships the victim was involved with in the minutes, hours, and days before the murder.

The desire to believe that a totally crazy bogeyman appeared out of nowhere and, for no reason, murdered this totally innocent person, keeps many relatives and friends from informing the police investigators of dangerous activities and habits that could have set up the victim as the target in the killer's crime. Since the victim didn't deserve to be killed, then nothing she could have done should be relevant to her death.

This belief wastes valuable time and leads that could have led them rapidly to the perpetrator. The longer it takes for truthful information to reach the police, the more time the offender has to move or eliminate evidence, create alibis and generally disappear under the radar. When investigators accept this bogeyman theory, they too can overlook important information.

Still, investigators mustn't carelessly attribute risky behaviors as factors leading to a rape or murder. A prostitute is not necessarily murdered by a john, nor is a drug dealer always killed over drugs. Hitchhikers aren't necessarily murdered by the people who pick them up. It's entirely possible that none of the victim's less-than-desirable behaviors contributed in any way to her death. A drug-using prostitute with a real mean streak could be hit over the head and dragged into the bushes on her way home from church. The perpetrator may have no clue to her personality or lifestyle. She was just there; a victim of opportunity.

Wonderful traits can make someone a target as well. Take the horrific case of Annie Le (left with her fiancé), Yale student killed by a worker in the lab. She was beautiful, brilliant, sweet and friendly ... maybe too sweet and too friendly. Maybe she was overly polite to someone she should have avoided or maybe she was just so perfect and successful that her killer resented her existence. Good traits can get you killed, too.

Investigators must analyze all elements of victimology before making any conclusions. Even after a theory is developed, room must be left for the other possibilities, regardless of how unlikely. Paying close attention to all aspects of the victim's life as quickly as possible increases investigative leads and brings to police attention suspects who might  otherwise have gone undiscovered. 

In the courtroom, the defense often focuses on the victim's character. In a strange twist of reasoning, the politically correct refusal to make the victim responsible in any way for her fate allows the defense to assassinate her character.  

Because no one deserves to be killed, and no one contributes to the killer's choice of victim or decision to kill, then the victim must be totally innocent and the perpetrator must be totally guilty -- a hard case to prove. 

When the issue is seen so black and white, the jury is emotionally prepared to love the victim and hate the perpetrator. Then the defense presents their well-dressed, humble, intelligent, well -loved family man defendant. And then it proceeds to chip away at the victim's character (Jasmine Fiore, right, the model killed by her quickie-Las Vegas-marriage hubby) by, say, noting that she had numerous sexual relationships over the recent months (one of the other boyfriends could have done it), she frequented bars (oh, yeah, she could have picked up a freak), she did drugs (a low-life drug dealer probably offed her), she was a real flirt and wore provocative clothing (she asked for it ... oops ... not politically correct, but, hey, maybe she was into freaky sex and s/m), and she was not very nice sometimes (geez, maybe she really upset this guy and he lost it). 

Now that the victim has been so degraded in the eyes of the jury, they feel guilty if they put Mr. Nice Guy Defendant away for a crime, well, gee, for a crime that seems like any of the victim's acquaintances could have committed or that the victim herself encouraged. 

The truth gets lost in the jury's emotional response -- disappointment that the victim wasn't perfect. Oddly enough, it is easier to convict a murderer who killed during a drug deal, because character isn't an issue for either the prosecution or defense. The killer and the victim are both criminals. The only issue is the fact that the victim was killed. The trial then focuses on the evidence, not personality. (I am not saying this is cut and dried. Certainly defense attorneys still play the-defendant-is-a-nice-guy game, but the jury is not so conflicted over what to focus on to reach its verdict.) 

The issue in court should not be whether the girl was "easy," but whether she was easy prey, a vulnerable target for the offender. It should be stressed to the courts that these easy catches are often practice runs an offender uses to hone his skills before he goes after more difficult game --people with less risky behavior. When the concept of "good versus evil" raises its head in a court of law, the jury loses the gray area in between. If the defendant is "evil," then the victim must be "good." If the victim is not "good," then the defendant is not "evil" -- and neither gets justice.

A good example of this was the OJ Simpson case. When Nicole Simpson's character was raked over the coals, she went from being the innocent party to being the guilty party. This in turn made OJ the innocent party, unjustly accused. Anyone less than totally evil could not have committed such a heinous act; therefore, OJ couldn't have done it because he is no longer totally evil (as Nicole Simpson is no longer totally innocent). 

The focus of the argument in court is skewed. We should not be concerned about innocence or guilt of the perpetrator in relation to the victim. Nor should we focus on the innocence or guilt of the victim in relation to the perpetrator. We should simply be convicting the defendant if he has committed the crime, regardless of the relationship between them, and in spite of any behavior of the victim that rendered her the status of victim.

Did he commit the crime?

 

Let's take two examples of rape occurring at the same location. Both victims claim they were raped at a party. Both victims are college students. Both victims are deaf. Everyone at the party was deaf (Gallaudet University, the only university for the deaf in the world, pictured left). The perpetrators were both deaf. Both victims and both perpetrators were drinking. Victim One said she entered a back bedroom willingly with the suspect. The suspect started kissing her, which she allowed. The suspect pulled her onto a bed and started removing her underpants from under her skirt. The room was dark, and though she signed "no" to him repeatedly, he continued and then attempted sexual intercourse. She tried to push him off, but as she was drunk, she had little success. The suspect ejaculated quickly, got up, pulled on his pants and staggered out of the room. Did he commit a rape? 

Victim Two was on her way to the bathroom when the suspect came up behind her and shoved her into a back room. He pushed her to the floor and started pulling off her clothes. She struggled, but as she was very inebriated had little strength. Each time she tried to push him off, he shoved her back on the floor. He had sexual intercourse with her, ejaculated, got up, spit on her and left the room. Did he rape her?

Both victims came to the hospital. Both had semen evidence in the vagina. Neither showed any other injuries. The district attorney refuses to take either case to court because he claims to have no proof of rape. While both cases fit the societal definition of rape (the male is supposed to have asked and received permission for the sexual act in question), the legal definition of rape is another matter, and proving it is another matter still. 

The offender must have committed an act in which the victim is forced or coerced into participating. Victim One entered the room willingly with the suspect. She made no effort to turn on the light which would have enhanced her ability to communicate with the male. The male pulled (not pushed) her onto the bed and although she claims she pushed on his chest to get him off, she did so ineffectively; the suspect did not receive a clear indication of her refusal to have intercourse. During intercourse she did not attempt to cause him any kind of pain such as biting or stabbing him with her fingernails. She says she did not want to hurt him. She claims she was not particularly scared. His actions, although not welcomed, were not threatening. 

Because she could have taken precautions upon entering the room to ensure communication and she could have inflicted some sort of pain as an indication of objection, this victim clearly did not take action to prevent the event from occurring. The suspect may well have had no clue he was committing a sexual act against her will.

Victim Two did not enter into the back room of her own free will. She gave no indication of a desire to have sexual relations with the suspect. By shoving her into the room and pushing her to the floor, his aggression put the victim in a state of fear. When she tried to push him off, she made it clear she didn't want to have sex with him. She said she was afraid to try to hurt him because he might react violently. At a party with no hearing guests, screaming would have brought no help. At the end of the sexual activity, the perpetrator spit on her, clearly indicating his contempt for her and his awareness that she had not been a willing partner. 

There is sufficient circumstantial evidence here to prove a forcible sexual act.

Suppose both these cases actual were tried in a court of law. The jury learns that Victim One is a virgin and rarely drinks. Victim Two is rather promiscuous and is on the pill. Victim Two also hits up a party every week. In this profiler's opinion, both of victims' characters and behaviors could have led the perpetrators to the choices they made. The victims' choices of response to each suspect's acts established or negated the legal definition of forcible sexual activity. 

When Victim One went willingly into the room, virgin or not, she negated that she was being forced. By not attempting to turn on the light, she negated her desire for clear communication. By not attempting to inflict any kind of injury to the suspect that would make him question her desire for the sexual act, she negated that he was forcing her.

Victim Two, however, was forced into the room. That clearly establishes that the activity was forced. If Victim Two at that point turned and signed "Hey, Big Boy, let's do it!" she would have established consent and negated any forcible issue. Instead, his actions showed he was forcing sexual activity on her. If, in court, the jury feels sorry for the virginal Victim One and doesn't think one more round of sex is a big deal to the more sexually experienced Victim Two, then no one receives justice. 

All victims of crime are indeed victims, but we mustn't ignore victim behaviors that can help us identify the offender; we mustn't over-focus on their behaviors and characters in court, and we should learn from those victims just how certain behaviors can make us victims as well.

Tweet

A Murderer Among Them: Random Act or Was Raymond Clark a Ticking Time Bomb?

by Robin Sax

Raymond Clark stands accused of strangling Annie Le to death in a Yale lab basement. Investigators charge that Clark flew into a rage because he thought Le was flouting the rules of the lab, where he oversaw the cleanliness of the cages and was charged with keeping order. Clark and Le had known each other through their respective work at the lab.

A study “Murder by Manual and Ligature Strangulation,” by Helina Hakkanen, tells us that research on homicidal strangulation has shown that “in a high percentage of cases, the offender and the victim have some kind of previous relationship (usually family or friends) and that as much as 75% of the victims are females and infants.” In the study, the most frequent motives for homicidal strangulation were rape, sexual jealousy, and personal rivalry.

While many call this a case of work place violence, we must not separate a defendant's past from the crime he's charged with. Analyzing a case, we all can look at signs and symptoms and try to see whether the writing was on the wall. Was this a random act, or was Raymond Clark a ticking time bomb just waiting to explode?

Let's take a look at his history. This isn't the first time Clark has shown aggressive jealousy. The first time that we know about is an alleged sex crime. If that incident had been prosecuted and he'd been found guilty, Clark would have had to register as a sex offender, putting him on the radar. Perhaps that would have been enough for the folks at Yale to be concerned about whom they were hiring…and maybe they would have passed on his application.

The New Haven Independent reported that Clark was accused of harassing a 16-year-old girlfriend in high school. Clark was an athlete at Branford High. During his 2003 senior year at Branford, his girlfriend claimed he once forced her to have sex with him. She said when she tried to break up, Clark confronted her at the school and defaced her locker. Although she talked to police, she refused to press charges. Yet she worried enough to ask police to warn Clark to stay away from her. Since the case was never prosecuted, Branford police have refused to release the paperwork on the case.

So how is Raymond Clark acting now that he has been charged with Le’s murder?

“He's just somber,” said Lt. John Bernard of the New Haven Community Correctional Center (reported by The NY Daily News on September 18th). “It's his first time in jail. This is all new to him. He hasn't cried. He hasn't said a word to anyone.”

Investigators zeroed in on Clark early in the investigation after he failed a lie detector test and was found to have defensive wounds on his body, scratches on his arms and back and a bruised eye. In addition his attempts to clean up the crime scene (where Le had been, before she was reported missing) and DNA evidence led to his arrest.

Clark's past relationship in high school suggests the signs for aggressive behavior were there, but could anyone have imagined he could commit such a murder?

Some say no. For instance, Lufeng Zhang worked with Clark in the Yale lab and thinks the police may have the wrong man. “He's a nice man, always,” Zhang said (CNN report, Sept. 18).

CNN also recorded some of Clark’s former friends thoughts:

High school friend Lisa Heselin remembers Clark “as a jokester, kind of a class clown. Everybody knew him. Everybody liked him.” She and others who knew Clark in high school are shocked that he was arrested in connection with Le’s murder. “They can’t believe it, and then, of course, you’re reminiscing, like, ‘Oh my God, remember when we went over to his house, and we all hung out?’ You don’t expect somebody you grew up with to be involved in something like this.”

Maurice Perry, a friend of Clark's since first grade, says he doesn’t believe his longtime pal is guilty: “This is not the Raymond Clark that I know. I’ve known him so long, I just can’t picture him doing something like this.” Asked if he ever knew Clark to be violent, Perry replied, “Not at all. I've known him to be outgoing, happy, athletic, and fun. Violent, not at all.”

Unfortunately, these reports from friends are pretty typical when it comes to cases like this. Those close to a defendant rarely think their loved one or friend is capable of a brutal crime. But we all know from history and experience that even the guy-next-door can be capable of murder. Shame on us for not seeing the writing on the wall.

Tweet

When Violence in the Workplace is not Workplace Violence

by Pat Brown

There has been an arrest in the gut-wrenching murder of Annie Le, the Yale grad student who was to be married the day her body was found. Raymond Clark, the lab tech who worked in the same building as Le, has been brought into custody, police stating that DNA linked him to the crime. I couldn't be happier that they got the guy who took the life of this most promising young woman.

I am concerned, terribly concerned, however, about a statement released by New Haven Police Chief James Lewis: “I think it’s important to note this is not about urban crime, not about university crime, not about domestic crime — but an issue of workplace violence, which is becoming a growing concern around the country.”

Let's define this label. Workplace violence is generally said to be “incidents where people are abused, threatened or assaulted in circumstances relating to their work, involving an explicit or implicit challenge to their safety, well-being or health.”

The issues that lead to rage are supposed to be connected specifically to the work environment: you aren't getting the job done, you are always late, you are teaming up with the boss against me, I didn't get a raise, everyone is gossiping about me, etc. Not included in this description is a male psychopath's ego problem: needing superiority over women and proving his manhood by attacking them. This kind of assault happens everywhere: on the street, in the park, in the victim's home, in school, and, sometimes, yes, in the workplace. But the motive has nothing to do with the workplace itself and, therefore, should not be considered workplace violence. It is not; it is violence that took place at work.

My phone started ringing early this morning as soon as the news media heard Chief Lewis's statement. They had also learned of text messages sent between Clark and Le on the day of Le's murder.

ABC News reported that detectives had found texts exchanged between Miss Le and Mr Clark arranging to meet on the day she disappeared. Mr Clark texted her early that morning to ask for a meeting to discuss the cleanliness of the cages of the research mice.

"Wow!" they said, "It comes as quite a surprise that this crime was not what many thought it was (including you)." The text messages seemed to prove to them that Annie Le was not targeted by a psychopath who had a thing for her, but by an employee who lost his cool because of his unhappiness with her work ethics.

So, now the motive for this brutal homicide, the strangulation of Annie Le, is supposed to be dissatisfaction with a co-worker's performance, a crime of workplace violence. I say no, it is not a matter of workplace violence and nothing else. True, there was an act of violence at the victim's place of employment (or research work), and the alleged killer was also an employee at that location, but the the issue was not about cleanliness of mice habitats nor a workplace disagreement that erupted into a violent rage. To claim this crime is workplace violence is absolutely untrue and terribly damaging to the awareness of what this crime was really about - a psychopath's rage against women, one of the most prevalent crimes in this country.

This malignant psychopathy, with females as targets is expressed in serial homicides, rapes, and domestic murder. "The bitch made me do it" is a common refrain among male psychopaths. The psychopath faults his victim for making him feel less of a man and decides she deserves punishment; or he feels society has disrespected him, and he decides to conveniently blame his failures on the women of that society. Why? Targeting someone smaller and physically weaker makes his assault easier to enact, ensures victory over the victim, and, through conquest, helps him regain his sense of importance and omnipotence.

Annie hurt Clark's ego, whether she knew it or not; "The bitch thinks she better than me, smarter than me, and she isn't even interested in me at all." Clark decided to teach Annie a lesson she would never forget (or survive). He would finally be the winner (in his own demented mind). This kind of murderer is very similar to mass murderers and serial killers in motive and psychology. They're motivated by rage, and the victim must be humbled (raped, terrified, lowered to a subservient position) and, sometimes, destroyed.

Raymond Clark was not upset over Annie's treatment of mice. He was upset over Annie Le's treatment of him. After all, if he was such an animal lover, he wouldn't choose to work in a lab that essentially harms and kills animals. It's also not reasonable that he would single out Annie Le as an "animal abuser" over all others who work in the lab. He may have texted Annie that he had an issue with her handling of the mice and requested to meet her in the lab, but this was a ruse and excuse to see her and confront her over her treatment of him.

Clark had issues with women, power and control, similar to psychopathic serial killers and rapists. He has been accused of rape by his girlfriend in high school. Neighbors says he was very controlling with his fiancée. Clark also joined an Asian club in high school. Since he is likely a psychopath, he wouldn't have joined to help the community but to find Asian women he thought would be easier to control and dominate than American-born women.

Clark likely obsessed over why (in his mind) Annie believed she was better than him just because she was a grad student and he was just a lab worker. He probably thought that was why she didn't want to date him, or talk to him, or flirt with him, or whatever. Psychopaths have ego problems and Annie likely did not feed his ego. He built a rage against her, and now that she was getting married, she really wouldn't have anything to do with him. Clark was also getting married and likely feeling pushed around by his fiancée as the wedding approached (as men usually do little of the wedding planning and women are all gung-ho in this area). This probably made him feel even more powerless (much like the Craig's List killer, Philip Markoff (pictured left), the med student who was attacking women just as he was about to walk down the aisle).

Both impending marriages may well have escalated Clark's rage at women, and he decided to go for a last-ditch attempt at proving himself with Annie. She objected to his advances or pressures, and he killed her.

This is male psychopathic violence against women that happened in the workplace, but it was not workplace violence. Raymond Clark was not upset about Annie's treatment of the mice in the lab, just the big rat (on right) in the lab that she unfortunately believed was a decent human being.

Tweet