<p>Like I said in an earlier post, there is no reason why researchers and cleaning staffs should EVER interact with each other. His Job Description probably read as: Insure instruments are available, clean animal cages, etc… NOT supervised researchers, and make sure they clean the cages. So this guy’s control of the lab increased as time when by. Like the rest of the researchers, she probably put him back in his place when he tried to boss her around that day. This can be construed as work violence, however, I believe the fact that she was a woman, Asian, small, and happy triggered the murder. The news said she died of strangulation, but one newspaper wrote: “the lab where the slaying happened.” Strangulation does not equated slaying. It is my opinion that slaying implies rage, hatre.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are mistaken. I suggest that you read this article, which outlines the complex professional relationship between animal technicians and lab researchers. <a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/nyregion/18yale.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=demanding%20job%20in%20a%20murder&st=cse[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/nyregion/18yale.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=demanding%20job%20in%20a%20murder&st=cse</a></p>
<p>An excerpt:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If he is really a “control freak” as some media said he is, I wonder whether his supervisor might know about it to some extent. Although it is true that this could happen at any work place, I wonder whether now his direct supervisor has some thoughts about whether s/he can do something to decrease the probability that this would happen. For example, he establish a policy that the meeting between a technician and a researcher should be held in a more open meeting room =, e.g., a meeting room with some window facing the hall way. </p>
<p>It is also reported many of his relatives also work there. Maybe it is just my own prejudice because of my past experience which was not so pleasant; I do not like this. At a company I used to work for, one worker introduces almost all of his friends and relatives to work there over the years. After a while, that group of workers dominate most critical tasks in the company. If a manager picks on one of them, he runs the risk of making a lot of enemies. They actually managed to “kick out” one of a manager who they did not like even though none of them was a manager, and the senior manager of that manager let it happen.</p>
<p>I heard that some company has the policy that they will never let a person and his spouse work in any closely related departments within the company.</p>
<p>Let’s assume Clark is a “control freak,” or, as reported in the NYT article, that he was officious in enforcing work rules. And let’s further assume his supervisor knew he was rude. Does that mean his supervisor should have identified him as a potential murderer? Come on. There are lots and lots of overbearing people in the work force. Virtually none of them have homicidal tendencies.</p>
<p>^^^This is what I gather from the article.
2004 -
Received HS Diploma
Hired in the Washing Center based on his sister’s recommendation,
No previous experience, but lied on application,
Was bypassed by hiring authority for educational and employment credentials verification
JOB DESCRIPTION - Scraping dirty cages, lifting, etc…</p>
<p>2007 -
Promoted to FT Animal Tech
JOB DESCRIPTION - Serves as caretaker for the ANIMALS: Moving them into clean cages; checking to make sure they are not dehydrated, sick or dead. Watchdogs with regards to insuring all documents have been filed and all ethical standards obeyed.</p>
<p>According to the article, because Clark’s supervisor did not have the time to get involved in the day-to-day operations, he gave Clark more authority. </p>
<p>So, in reality, Clark was NEVER supposed to interact at the level he did with those using the lab. His supervisor was suppose to do that. Unfortunately, the supervisor was too busy.</p>
<p>As far as sending her e-mails and text messages, if the computer and cell phone belong to the lab/school, it is required. However, if both were her personal items, there was no reasons he should have had this info. She was young and naive, and open the door to him having control over her, at all time.</p>
<p>It was reported that Clark sent an email to Annie Le and she replied his email right before that deadly meeting. If they did meet in a semi-private meeting room, which we may find at many working places, I would guess there is a slight chance that he may be able to control his rage in such a way that he might not kill her during the meeting, or somebody may happen to walk by the meeting room and report or intervene it.</p>
<p>Here I assume that at the beginning of the meeting, Clark really did not have any intention to kill Annie Le. If I am allowed to make a guess, he himself did not believe he would commit such a crime; he was just “out of control” at that moment. A change of environment (e.g., to meet at the cafeteria in that building, if such a meeting place exists) may cool him down a little bit. – I know I am like a Monday quarterback here.</p>
<p>Mcat2 - Sorry to disagree with you, but I believe he lured her to the lab. Why else would he have a change of clothes?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If what you said is true, the manager who is the boss of Clark’s supervisor should have the responsibility to prevent this (i.e., giving Clark more authority) from happening. This is no execuse if this did happen.</p>
<p>It is often said at many workplaces that are not very well managed, behind an official manager, there is an “underground manager” who may be a different person and who has more autority than the official manager. This would happen most likely because the “underground manager” does more actual work and/or makes more day-to-day decision. There is no lack of managers in the world that plainly delegate most work he himself should do to his staff, because he is too busy to get involved with day-to-day operations by himself. If he is really too busy, the organization/company should hire more people/managers.</p>
<p>It was reported that Annie is going to get married and is going to have a honeymoon in Greek. Also, Clark plans to get married at the end of 2011. I speculate that he could not have afford a marriage and a fancy honeymoon trip any time soon. He and his fiance have been working for 5 years or so and still could not afford to get married but Annie could as a student. I may have my imagination run away here: Is there any “jealous” factor here?</p>
<p>mcat2 - The quote below was taken from wjb’s post with the link to the NY Time article:</p>
<p>“Mr. Russell and other technicians said Mr. Clark had significant authority in his position… He estimated there were about 200 employees in two dozen animal labs at Yale, and that supervisors, particularly Mr. Clarks, DID NOT HAVE TIME to get involved in the day-to-day operations of the labs.”</p>
<p>The supervisor entrusted Clark with more responsibilities probably due to the fact that he was CLEAN, ORGANIZED, and RELIABLE. However, those responsibilities were not originally part of his job description. You know how often this happen in workplace.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha! Well, if that were truly the case, then one would then expect scientists to be paid better than they are. Many newly minted science PhD’s from top schools - the best science minds of our generation - do not take jobs in science, but instead opt for jobs in consulting or finance because they pay so much better. A scientist with 30 years experience may make less than half of what a starting investment banker makes.</p>
<p>
I have worked in similar settings where I kept an extra set of clothes. I would bet many of the staff in that lab keep a replacement (extra) set of clothes available. A lab coat can only provide limited protection.</p>
<p>TutuTaxi - I agree with you.</p>
<p>If Clark really planned it beforehand, he would not leave so many evidences against himself. It appears to me that after the crime, he was struggling to find ways to cover it up. A well-planned crime should not be like this.</p>
<p>I thought the forensics might be difficult if the murder was planned, but it clearly was in hot blood and that should make the case much easier to prove.</p>
<p>Anyone who works around animals and/or staining stuff is likely to have extra clothes.</p>
<p>99% sure that clark and annie had an affair at one time</p>
<p>Why on earth would you revive this thread to make that baseless claim?</p>
<p>just saying. it’s like duh right there.</p>
<p>guy kills pretty girl
pretty girl is about to get married</p>
<p>LOL: and pigs at sea is an SCEA applicant. You’re really gonna wow the admissions committee with your reasoning skills.</p>
<p>i see annie as a reflection of myself. there, that’s how i know</p>
<p>You’re on a roll this evening, pigsatsea.</p>
<p>it’s because i can’t roll in mud because i’m in a desert and it never rains in the desert so the dirt is always dry</p>