Broken Doll (11 page)

Herndon and Stillman were about to walk out the door when Gail Doll called out, “Detective Herndon, may I ask one last question?”

“Sure,” he replied, “what is it?”

“Do we get the reward money?”

Gail Doll's question, seemingly shocking and situationally incongruous, was not an expression of greed, or avarice, but resigned practicality.

“Roxanne had been missing for over a week,” said Gail. “By then, I felt in my heart that if they found her at all, she still wouldn't be coming home. I knew they were looking for her body—a precious, little body that we couldn't even afford to bury. We had severe financial problems. I had no idea how we could pay for her funeral,” she said. “The reward money, if ours, would allow Roxanne to be buried in a deserving manner. I thank God that many people, compassionate people, came forward and helped us out. Baxter's South, a local tavern, did a fund-raiser for us to help us cover expenses.

“In addition to the cost of the funeral itself,” said Gail, “the children had no formal clothes appropriate for a funeral. Kim, bless her heart, got me out of the house and down to the Bon Marche in the mall to pick out clothes for Nicholas and Kristena to wear to the funeral.”

Customers, recognizing Gail Doll from television news coverage, made disparaging remarks that she easily overheard. “They were saying things such as ‘Her daughter's been murdered and she's out shopping.' My God, what was I supposed to do?”

“It's true,” confirmed Herndon. “I got calls from customers at the Bon who told me that they thought Gail was involved in her daughter's death because they saw her shopping.”

“I was numb, not only from the horror and shock of my baby being kidnapped and murdered, but from the hate mail and phone calls we received,” stated Gail.

The insensitive and the unstable heaped abuse on Roxanne's family. “There is only one person responsible for my daughter's death, and that's Richard Clark,” said Gail. “The fact that I went to a movie that night, or that Tim fell asleep on the couch, had nothing to do with the acts and actions of Richard Clark. If he hadn't done it that night, he would have done it another night. He came in through the bedroom window, abducted her in her sleep, and took her away. Tim and I could have been in bed in the next room and it wouldn't have made any difference.

“We were criticized for not crying enough on TV,” recalled Gail sadly. “The worst hate mail we received,” she said, “was directed at my husband. Tim was devastated by what happened to Roxanne, and it really hurt him to get hate mail accusing him of raping and murdering his own little girl.”

The hate mail, hurtful and cruel, added emotional insult to the personal pain of child loss. Caring and compassionate, however, were the outpourings of support and sensitivity. Some of it was poetic.

“I received a lovely thank-you note from Gail Doll,” said the poetess, “after her daughter saw my poem on my Web site.” There were other poems as well and a song for Roxanne, featured on a CD popular in the Northwest.

 

 

 

The autopsy of Roxanne Doll revealed bruising and tearing in her vagina, with two lacerations measuring two and three centimeters long. These injuries, according to Dr. Eric Kiesel, examining pathologist, were caused by the insertion of something the size of an adult penis.

“These injuries alone were enough to cause her death,” he explained, noting the significant blood loss. “Roxanne Doll died, however, due to at least seven stab wounds to her neck, one of which severed her left internal jugular vein.

“Actually, all of the injuries in combination are potentially life threatening,” said Dr. Kiesel. “Clearly, the one that transected the left internal jugular vein was a life-threatening wound. The reason they are all potentially life threatening is because the head and neck area is very vascular, but the head in general has a very large blood supply relative to a child's size. It's a fairly large area. All of these wounds, even the superficial ones into the skin, will bleed.”

Blood loss, especially when you are dealing with this number of wounds, can be significant and life threatening. “The more superficial ones you don't generally think of as being life threatening,” Kiesel said, “but we start getting into the wounds that enter the muscle, those are going to bleed. But again, you may be able to stop that bleeding by putting pressure on it. But if nothing is done to stop the bleeding, there isn't much you can do to save her life. Theoretically, even the transected jugular vein, with proper and rapid-enough medical treatment, is potentially a survivable wound.”

Potential is one thing, action another. There was no treatment or medical aid summoned for Roxanne Doll by the person who stabbed her. “This person died,” stated Kiesel, “because no such treatment was provided. As far as telling you how long it took for Roxanne Doll to die, I believe there are too many variables because you can' t tell how rapidly these wounds were being caused, or which order they came in.

“If you cut the jugular first,” he explained, “death is going to be quicker than if you have so many subcutaneous wounds, because you are going to be bleeding faster. Clearly, I think from the blood loss, though, you are probably talking on the order of minutes, at most up to a half an hour.”

There was no indication that death was caused by any method other than multiple stab wounds—no strangulation or suffocation.

“There are a couple of things that we use to try to determine the nature of the weapon itself,” he commented. “One is to look at the nature of the wound. Does it have smooth edges or are the edges scalped? That could tell us if we have a straight edge knife or a scalloped knife, if we are dealing with a knife. You try to proximate the wounds; that is, pull the margins together and look at either corner to see if you got a sharp edge and a blunt edge. This might tell you if you are dealing with a double-edge knife or whether you are dealing with a sharp edge and a blunt edge on a knife.”

Part of Kiesel's examination was an attempt to discern as much about the wounds as possible, and thereby determine the nature of the weapon. “It is interesting in finding out where the wound track is, what did this wound hit, what was the direction of the wound—was it up, down, sideways, front to back, back to front? And the other thing we try to do,” he said, “is determine what the estimated depth is. And I say estimated depth as opposed to actual depth, because the depth that I measured can vary because of the skin flexibility, the body cavity flexibility, and because of that ability to compress. All we can do is estimate at the depth. What that does is help narrow down what type of weapon you might be looking for. It can't identify the weapon specifically, but it can help rule in, and out, various weapons.”

Kiesel was quick to explain that the depth of a wound did not tell you the minimum length of the blade, assuming a knife was used. “If you have a long knife, you can stick the knife in only a little bit, so you can have a relatively short weapon. If you got a wound, I'm going to exaggerate, twelve inches deep, you are probably not going to create that with a blade that's three inches long. That's not reasonable. But you may be able to create a wound that's four inches long, possibly even five inches long, with a three-inch blade. So, by itself, it's helpful in ruling certain weapons in or out, but you can't distinguish exactly what weapon did it, without—that would require other testing.

“The body appears that she had been dead clearly over a week. But we know she was alive somewhere on the thirty-first, so we know death had to occur after that point,” said Kiesel. The condition of decomposition begins at death, and as to the question whether she was dead someplace else for a considerable amount of time before being placed at the recovery site, Dr. Kiesel did not find that highly probable due to the body condition and body posture.

“I don't believe this was dramatically changed from where she was at the time of death. There is certain changes that occur after death, settling of the blood within the body. . . . [These things] are consistent with her body's position at the recovery site. Wherever she was prior, she was very likely laying on her back.”

The size and shape of the wounds, according to Dr. Kiesel, were consistent with a small, single-edged blade, such as a pocketknife. Roxanne's hands also displayed knife wounds, and it was unclear whether the wounds were defensive or intentionally inflicted.

“A number of knives were recovered during the course of the investigation,” reported Herndon. “Various knives were found by officers around the Everett area during the course of the week that Roxanne Doll was missing. One knife was found on Broadway, and there was another located by patrol approximately four blocks from the body recovery site, north on East Grand. And I believe there was maybe one removed from Clark's van during the search conducted under the search warrant. There were five knives taken from Clark's residence on Lombard Street under a search warrant served on April ninth. All knives were submitted to the crime lab for testing and analysis.”

 

While evidence recovered from the body's exterior, autopsy, and the body site itself was being cataloged and sent for analysis, Detective Herndon was checking another site for evidence—the body of Richard M. Clark.

“Detective Jim Phillips, Detective James Duvall, and I went to the Snohomish County Jail medical unit, where we met with Mr. Clark and served him with a search warrant,” reported Herndon. “The purpose of this search warrant was to collect blood, saliva, and hair to include pubic, head, facial, and body hair. We wanted to gather evidence to compare with trace evidence expected to be recovered from the victim.”

When Detective Kiser requested the warrant, he also asked for permission to photograph in detail the entire nude body of Richard Clark. This was to determine if any injuries existed, such as scratches, bruises, and lacerations that could have been sustained by Richard Clark during the assault on the victim or disposal and concealment of the body.

The investigating officers shot a roll of film, mostly of Clark's legs. “The reason we took pictures of his legs,” Herndon explained, “was that we were looking for any injuries. The place where the body was found had plenty of blackberry bushes that could have scratched him up pretty good.

“If you look at the photos,” commented Herndon, “you'll see numerous scratches of that nature from his knee area down to his ankles. There was also a scratch healing on his chin.

“I'm not an expert on injuries,” said the detective, “but what do you see when you look at the pictures of Richard Clark's legs? To me, it looks like he tangled with thick blackberry bushes and a feisty seven-year-old girl.”

 

 

 

“Did you kill that little girl?” It was Toni Clark asking her stepson the most direct of all possible questions.

“No, I didn't do it,” answered Richard. “I don't know who did.”

The conversation took place when Richard Clark called collect from Snohomish County Jail. He spoke with Toni while George Clark Sr. listened in on the extension phone.

“Did you rape her?”

“I don't know.”

“Did you kidnap her?”

“I don't think so.”

“What do you mean, you don't think so?” asked Toni. “Either you did or you didn't.”

“Well, I don't remember everything that night.”

When Toni asked him why he didn't remember, Richard Clark said it was because of all the alcohol and “crank” (methamphetamine) he'd used that night.

“Don't grieve for me if I get the death penalty,” said Richard Clark, “don't grieve for me.”

Richard Clark never lived with Toni and George Clark for any extended period of time, especially in his adult years. “He would stay here maybe one or two days at a time, but we didn't want him living with us,” acknowledged Toni Clark, “because of his drinking.”

The majority of time between the disappearance of Roxanne Doll and his arrest, Richard Mathew Clark primarily lived with his aunt Carol on Lombard Street—a residence searched numerous times with the same meticulous care with which forensic scientist George Johnston of the Washington Sate Crime Lab in Seattle treated the trace evidence recovered from the body of Roxanne Doll.

Johnston held a bachelor of science degree with his major course of study in science from the University of Mississippi. “After graduating from college,” he recalled, “I worked for one year in my hometown, a research facility, not a forensic lab, but a different type of laboratory. And I worked for three years in the Houston, Texas, Crime Lab Department.”

In November 1980, Johnston moved to Seattle and began work with the Washington system. His established area of expertise was trace evidence; he had testified in over one hundred cases, and carried a most impressive list of professional credentials.

“I attended the FBI Academy on three or four occasions,” he said, “once to study basic serology, other courses of examination of forensics, hair and fiber evidence, another time on paint evidence. I received training in microscopy and advanced microscopy, which is an institution that examines microscopic evidence, extensive on-the-job training in various courses and workshops from our professional organizations and associations. It is also part of my job to teach and train other forensic scientists in hair examination and fiber examinations.”

He also was a respected member of the Northwest Association of Forensic Scientists, the American Academy of Forensic Scientists, a diplomat and fellow of the American Board of Criminalistics, and also a laboratory inspector for the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors. “Part of that job,” explained Johnston, “is to go to other laboratories and to inspect and to do an audit basically on their operations to make sure that they are fulfilling the needs of forensic science.”

Ask Johnston what he does with a piece of evidence, and you'll get an understandable introduction into the art of forensic science. “A piece of trace evidence or piece of debris evidence is basically something that can be transferred very easily from person to person, or from thing to a person. Part of my job is to examine debris evidence or full pieces of evidence, collect that debris and then examine that microscopically either using a variety of visual methods, stereomicroscopic methods, or compound microscopic methods of comparison between those pieces of evidence.

“Trace evidence is not evidence that is used to identify a particular item,” explained Johnston. “It's not possible for us, for instance, to identify a fiber as coming from one specific piece of evidence. There are millions, I'm sure, of carpets or clothes made of those same fibers. So what we try to do is determine if there is a link between this piece of miscellaneous evidence and a controlled sample of the carpet or of a coat or something like that. We do a similar type of thing with hair evidence or paint evidence, for that matter. We take the unknown piece, the questioned piece of evidence, compare that using microscopic and instrumental methods and try to determine if it could have come from a particular source or if indeed it did not come from that source.”

According to Johnston, there is no way to say a paint chip came from one particular car, based on chemical examinations. Nor can you determine if a hair came from a certain individual, or if a fiber came from a particular piece of clothing.

“The strongest conclusion you can make on these examinations,” he said, “is that this questioned piece of evidence has the same microscopic instrumental characteristic as the control sample and could have come from that control sample, or another sample with those characteristics. And as I say, we employed microscopic methods. That's part of our microanalysis or trace evidence section. But we can use instrument evidence to compare or further examine evidence as we need to.

“When it came time for me to examine the evidence in this particular case, I went to our evidence vault, took the evidence, took it to my work area, and examined it.”

Included in that evidence, he said, was “trace debris from a training bra, a disposable diaper, several autopsy items that were submitted to me, head hair control samples from both Richard Clark and Roxanne Doll, and carpet control samples from several carpets, from a van, also an insulation control sample, and, I believe, the sample of drapery from a van.”

While scientists examined microscopic evidence, detectives pursued the macroscopic. The successful solving of a case may hinge on any manner of evidence, be it a drop of blood, a carpet fiber, or something much larger, such as the location of a big old Dodge van. Richard Mathew Clark covered a lot of physical territory on March 31, 1995, and Detective Herndon was determined to construct an accurate time line of Clark's whereabouts the night Roxanne Doll died.

Richard Clark's seemingly mindless meanderings between leaving the Casey home at approximately 9:30 to 9:45
P.M.
and his returning to the Doll-Iffrig residence at 1:00
A.M.
were detailed to detectives during his initial questioning. There existed a window of opportunity—a section of time during which he entered the home via the girls' bedroom window, abducted Roxanne, and raped her. Either then, or later, he killed her in his van. At 12:45
A.M.
, he dumped her body on that Everett hillside, then returned to her parents' home.

“He spent the balance of the evening socializing with the parents and friends of the girl he had just raped and murdered,” recalled Herndon, “and then went camping with the father.

“The only way to know where that window was created was to reconstruct Clark's exact whereabouts that night, and build a time line,” explained Herndon. “Was he really where he said he was, and at the times he claimed? We retraced his path on the night of March thirty-first, speaking with everyone who saw Richard Clark that night between nine at night and one-fifteen in the morning. We compared his statement with their statements, and that brought the truth to light.

“The first place Clark supposedly went after he brought Tim Iffrig back from playing pool,” said Detective Herndon, “was to the Dog House Tavern with, depending on the various versions of his story, Jimmy Miller, Neila D'alexander, and even Vicki Smith. No one else said anything about Vicki being with Clark on Friday night. In fact, he didn't include her when he gave his statement to us when we interviewed him at his aunt Carol's house, or when we spoke to him at the police station. For some reason, he added her when talking to the FBI agent. Vicki Smith, of course, was not with him that Friday night.”

“I left the house with Richard Clark and Jimmy Miller at about six-forty-five
P.M.
,” confirmed Neila D'alexander, making no mention of Vicki Smith, “and we went to the Dog House Tavern. The bartender wouldn't give Jimmy Miller a drink because he was too drunk. Richard and I had a beer that Richard only took one drink out of before he and Jimmy left at about seven-forty-five
P.M.
Richard came back in about an hour later without Jimmy and asked me if I wanted a ride back home—to Tim and Gail. I told him that I was going over to Randy Winders at Twenty-fourth and Colby.”

Neila walked over to Winders's, but he wasn't home. She returned to the Dog House, where she helped Dan Webster celebrate his birthday. “I visited with numerous people,” she said, “until I left with Dan Webster at twelve-thirty
A.M.
”

Neila D'alexander's lifelong friend Linda Hein was already sitting in the Dog House Tavern when Neila arrived. “I've known Neila D'alexander ever since we were in grade school. We pretty much grew up together,” said Hein. It was between 7:30 and 8:00
P.M.
, recalled Hein, when a man known as Animal came into the bar. Animal was the tavern nickname for Richard M. Clark.

“I don't remember him leaving, but I think he came back about half past midnight,” Hein recalled.

“When Richard left the Dog House, supposedly to take Jimmy Miller back to the reservation,” restated Neila D'alexander, “he didn't come back and talk to me after midnight. I left at twelve-thirty with Dan Webster and hadn't seen Richard Clark since earlier.”

Cheryle Galloway, the Dog House bartender, had recollections more in line with Neila D'alexander's. “I came on shift at four o'clock and worked until two,” she reported. “I remember Richard Clark and Jimmy Miller coming into the tavern just as Neila said. They ordered three schooners and I refused to serve Jimmy because he was on his lips. Richard and Neila had a schooner of beer, and then Neila went over and talked with one of her friends. Richard finished his beer and left with Jimmy. They were not there very long.”

She recalled Richard returning, but much earlier than the 12:30
A.M.
asserted by customer Hein. “It was only maybe three hours later, I imagine around ten-thirty,” she said. “I walked up to him and asked him if he needed anything, if he wanted another schooner. He said no. I offered him a cup of coffee, and he just sat quietly at the end of the bar and drank his cup of coffee. He was only there for about fifteen minutes. While he was there, he asked me if he could put his van up for sale in the tavern, and I told him that I couldn't authorize that without talking to the owner.”

The change in Clark's appearance and demeanor, coupled with his interest in selling his van, signaled that the abduction and rape of Roxanne Doll, and most likely her murder, were already completed by 10:30
P.M.
Jimmy Miller, passed out in the passenger seat, was certainly unaware that he was companion to a corpse.

Richard Clark was unaccounted for between 9:30 and 10:15
P.M.
when he showed up again at the Dog House wearing glasses, staying only long enough for a cup of coffee, and asking if he could sell his van. It was most likely that Roxanne Doll, dead or alive, was in Clark's van, bound and gagged with socks, when Clark was sipping coffee at the Dog House Tavern and when he showed up at the home of family friends, Wendy and Andy Urness, in Marysville at 10:45
P.M.
on March 31.

“I was on the couch,” recalled Wendy Urness, “when Richard Clark knocked on the front door. I was watching TV, watching a news program, probably something like
20/20
. We usually don't have people come over that late, so it was somewhat strange that someone was pulling into the driveway, so I kind of looked at the clock to see what time it was—it was ten forty-five
P.M.
”

“My wife watches
20/20
,” recalled Andy Urness. “That show starts at ten
P.M.
, and it was toward the end of the show, where they had like a flash that comes on and they ask you a dateline question, which is usually at the end of the program. I was washing dishes inside the kitchen and I looked at the microwave and the time was ten forty-five.”