Annie Le stood all of 4 feet, 11 inches and weighed 90 pounds. She was a petite, Asian, twenty-four-year-old Yale University pharmacology doctoral student scheduled to be married last Sunday. On that same day, her lifeless body was found concealed behind a wall in the experimental laboratory in which she worked and was last seen. Who committed this atrocious crime? And why?
While it seemed likely at first that Ms. Le may have been the random victim of a possible sexual assault, there are now indications that she and alleged killer knew each other as co-workers, and that there may have been some bad blood between them--ostensibly regarding her improper treatment of lab animals. Statistically speaking, most murder victims have had some sort of previous contact with their killers. Some studies suggest that almost half of homicide victims were in an intimate relationship with their murderer, and another quarter were killed by friends or acquaintances. Less than ten percent of homicides involved total strangers.
Police have arrested Raymond Clark, also twenty-four, who worked as a "technician" cleaning cages in the lab where Le's body was eventually discovered five days after her mysterious disappearance. The suspect reportedly was sporting what could be defensive wounds on his face, arms, chest and back, and reportedly did not pass a polygraph. He is presently refusing to talk to police. Additional gruesome speculations that Le's diminutive body had to be dismembered in order to be secreted into such a tiny space behind a wall have been floated but definitely not confirmed. This could certainly explain all the blood at the scene, some of which was found on Clark's boots and reportedly identified as belonging to Le. But so could injuries resulting from a violent physical struggle between the two. Le may have been beaten up prior to being strangled and appears to have valiantly fought for her life. A bloody shirt found concealed on top of ceiling tiles reportedly belongs to the defendant, who apparently returned home in the evening to his live-in fiancee clothed differently than when he left in the morning.
If the police do have the real killer in custody (Clark is, of course, assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law), his motivation still remains a major mystery and subject of wild speculation. What many observers and commentators forget is that motive cannot always be understood objectively, but often depends at least partly if not entirely on the defendant's subjective state of mind prior to and during the commission of the alleged offense. This is why properly diagnosing the defendant is so crucially important in forensic criminal cases. Diagnosis can disclose motive. And in order to correctly diagnose defendants, knowing about their prior behavior patterns or psychological problems is essential. As a court-appointed forensic psychologist evaluating such a defendant, there would be a significant number of questions to consider. For example, did Clark have any psychiatric or mental health history of any kind? Was this a rage killing? Is Clark a profoundly frustrated, angry, bitter, resentful young man? One neighbor describes him as "negative," stating that he would sometimes yell angrily at her sixteen-year-old son, and verbally abuse his own fiancee. If so, what could have made him angry enough to commit such a heinous crime as charged? Untidy animal cages? Graduate students neglecting to wear protective booties in the lab? Probably not in and of themselves, though these could have been objective triggers. Was the defendant deeply frustrated and embittered about his life in general? Or, perhaps more specifically, about his work? Or might he have harbored some hostility toward Le for other reasons, either regarding her gender, race or possibly both?
Then there is the question of sexual motivation: Was he secretly infatuated or in love or lust with Le? Was this an attempted or completed rape? Had he been romantically or sexually rejected by her at some point? Did any sexual relationship ever actually exist between he and the victim? Or could such a defendant, behind his daily mask of sanity, be delusional? Erotomanic Delusional Disorder, a specific form of psychosis, typically consists of the unfounded and irrational belief that a person of higher status is secretly in love with the lower status, deluded individual. Otherwise, the person often appears to function normally. Could this break with reality be what drove the defendant to commit the alleged crime? His desperate hope and psychotic conviction that she would call off her impending marriage in order to be together with him? Despite the inconvenient fact that he himself was already engaged to another woman? Was there any correlation between Le's imminent wedding and this horrific crime? Or was the timing mere coincidence?
We may never know the answers to such questions unless Mr. Clark, whether guilty or innocent of this crime, agrees to talk to authorities and/or to a forensic psychologist or psychiatrist. In the event of an insanity defense--which, given the purported strength of the evidence against him may eventually be resorted to--this will be inevitable. And, if not, at least some of his motivation may become clear as the evidence is presented during trial. While I have no direct involvement in this particular case, and can ethically offer no formal diagnosis from afar, a defendant charged with such a violent offense under similar circumstances might conceivably be found, for instance, to meet diagnostic criteria for an anger or impulse disorder such as Intermittent Explosive Disorder. Or sometimes a Major Depressive or Bipolar Disorder. Substance use would also have to be carefully explored and ruled out as a potential contributing factor. And the presence of Antisocial Personality Disorder must always be carefully considered in alleged violent offenders like Clark.
Readers of my previous post may recall that one of the key diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder includes, from before the age of fifteen, evidence of marked aggression against people or animals, such as destroying or vandalizing property, forcing someone into sexual activity or sadistically torturing domestic pets or insects. Could Clark himself have engaged in cruel or inhumane treatment of the laboratory animals, and been confronted or criticized by Le? Or was it, as now appears to be the case, the other way around: Clark, who is reportedly described by acquaintances as highly controlling and compulsively neat, being angry with Le for how she cared for the rodents? Clark is said to have been capable of becoming irate at those who did not comport precisely and rigidly with the protocols for working in the laboratory.
Clark also is said to have been observed going to great lengths at extreme risk to try to retrieve his favorite green pen from the crime scene. Why? Was it merely to remove incriminating evidence? Or was it a manifestation of obsessive-compulsive behavior? Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder or perhaps some mixed personality disorder including traits of Narcissistic, Obsessive- Compulsive and Antisocial Personality might be other diagnostic possibilities in such cases. (See my previous post.)
