“Do not,” emphasized Thorpe, “attempt to determine what the law is on your own by reading about or researching the law in any manner. And because you must decide this case only on proper evidence admitted in the courtroom, you should never seek out any evidence on your own, nor inspect the scene of an event involved in a case, as conditions may not be the same.
“These instructions continue to apply to conduct throughout the trial and at every recess, until the matter is submitted to you for decision,” said the judge. “I will repeat or refer to these instructions again, not because I have any doubt in your integrity or your ability to understand, but just so that if any of you does something inappropriate, I'll be satisfied that if sanctions should be imposed, you will have been sufficiently warned.
“The attorneys have the right and the duty to make any objections that they deem appropriate. These objections should not influence you and you should make no assumptions because of objections by the attorneys.
“It is the judge's duty to rule on the admissibility of evidence,” he explained. “Please do not concern yourselves with the reasons for these rulings.
“You should disregard any evidence that is not admitted or that is stricken by the judge. The law does not permit a judge to comment on the evidence in any way.
“A judge comments on the evidence; the judge does not offer a personal opinion as to the weight or believability of the testimony of a witness or of other evidence. This is because you are the ones whose duty it is to make those decisions, not mine. Although I'll not intentionally do so, if it appears that I have made a comment on the evidence, you must disregard the apparent comment entirely. And if I lean back in my chair and stare at the ceiling, or close my eyes, it is not a comment on either the testimony of the witness or of the questions being asked by the attorneys.”
Judge Thorpe gave the jurors another important instruction regarding possible interpretations of his personal demeanor. “I have an active imagination and a strange sense of humor. If I am seen to be smiling up here, don't try to figure out what just happened in the courtroom that caused me to smile, because it may be something that had absolutely nothing to do with what is going on in the courtroom. That is not meant to be a comment on the evidence. The attorneys' remarks, statements, and arguments are to help you understand the evidence and apply the law. They are not evidence, however, and you should disregard any remarks, statements, or arguments that are not supported by the evidence or by the law as given to you by the court.
“The only evidence you are to consider consists of testimony of witnesses and exhibits admitted into evidence. Sometimes exhibits will be marked, will be carried around, will be talked about and that sort of thing, but unless they are admitted into evidence, they won' t go back to the jury room with you. So just because something is marked as an exhibit, don't figure you can turn off because you can see it again, you might not.
“It is important that you listen carefully to the witnesses' testimony during the trial. During your deliberations, you will not be provided with a written copy of the testimony, but will have to rely upon the collective recollection of the twelve of you.” A few jurors looked at each other with ill-concealed disappointment.
“For this reason,” continued Thorpe, “your ability to accurately recall the testimony is important. Any exhibits admitted into evidence will go to the jury room with you during your deliberations. You will be allowed to take notes during the taking of testimony, but not during opening statements or closing argument.
“Please pay attention to the testimony and don't let note taking so consume you that you miss important evidence. You may not take the notepads with you from the courtroom, so just leave them on your seats when you leave and they'll be on your seats when you return. Your notes will be confidential. No one else will read them, and after the case is concluded, they'll be destroyed again without having been read.
“And on the subject of note taking,” said Judge Thorpe, “I'll be taking notes up here on my computer. Don't be distracted by that. My notes are to record what is said so that I can make legal rulings on issues that come up. Your job is to decide credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded to the evidence. Since we are performing different functions, don't think that because I am taking notes, you should be also. You are the judges of the evidence. I have to make the legal rulings to make the evidence. I have to hear what is said, but I don't have to make any judgment with respect to credibility or weight and that sort of thing.
“And on the subject of evidence rulings,” Thorpe explained, “there will be times when we have to excuse you into the jury room while we discuss evidentiary issues. Although it has been a while since this matter was begun, it has not been rehearsed or polished like a TV show. A trial is more like a play being written.
“The court of appeals and supreme court are looking over my shoulder to make sure that I don't let in any evidence that should be excluded, or exclude any evidence that should be included,” said the judge. “Your being back there in the jury room not hearing testimony bothers me almost as much as it will you, so be sure I'll keep the interruptions as short and as infrequent as I can.
“You are to keep an open mind and not decide any issue in the case until it is submitted to you for your deliberation,” the judge reminded them. “You are officers of the court and must act judicially with an earnest desire to determine and declare a proper verdict. Throughout the trial, you should be impartial and permit neither sympathy nor prejudice to influence you. We will now have opening statement by counsel, first for the plaintiff, Mr. Doersch.”
Chapter 13
Deputy prosecutor Ronald Doersch stood from his table, collected his notes, and addressed the jury. First impressions are important, and Doersch was determined to make a strong impression indeed.
Describing Roxanne Doll's murder as an act of infinite cruelty, her victimization resulting from a combination of her vulnerability and availability, Doersch's opening statement mesmerized the jury. “Everyone was riveted,” recalled Roxanne's mother. “You could see the shock and dismay on their faces when he described the horrible things done to my little girl.”
The prosecutor detailed the multiple stabbings that plunged deeply into Roxanne's neck, nicked her spine, and finally transected the jugular vein on her left side. “She bled to death,” Doersch explained, and then told how the child was dumped beneath piles of grass clippings, yard waste and a tree on Everett's East Grand.
The prosecutor allowed respectful silence as the backdrop for jurors' personal mental images of the crime's horrific nature. “We expect the evidenceâphysical, forensic, scientific, direct, and circumstantial evidenceâwill show that there is no mystery as to who committed this crime, who did these things to Roxanne Doll. As I'll describe to you, the evidence will show that this man committed the crime, the man seated at counsel table in the striped shirt, Richard Clark.”
Jurors' eyes predictably shifted to Clark, then back again to Doersch, who related the story of nine-year-old Siobian Kubesh and her friend Sheena finding the body of Roxanne Doll. “Siobian does not know that the foot belongs to Roxanne Doll, a seven-year-old girl who has been missing for a week, that people have been looking for all over Everett, and all over Snohomish County, a girl who is two years her junior. All she knows,” said Doersch, “is that she sees this foot and that it belongs to a person. Siobian screams and Sheena takes hold of her and says, âLet's get out of here.'”
Uncomfortably enthralled, jurors listened as Doersch told them of the police arrival, Roxanne's body being taken for autopsy by the medical examiner, the damage inflicted upon her body, and the different types of tests performed by DNA forensic specialists.
“Roxanne is found on April eighth,” he explained. “It is the body of a young Caucasian female, showing early to moderate decomposition, an identification bracelet around her right wrist, and it has an inscription on both sides, and it includes the name Roxanne Doll. There are disposable training pants on the child,” continued Doersch, “that are torn at the left seam, an undershirt or training bra is also present. They secure the scene overnight. It's getting too dark, too late, and they rope off and tape off the scene. Guards are brought in to protect the integrity, as far as they are able, of the scene on East Grand. The next day, they commenced to picking up evidence and moving Roxanne out of there.
“They take her, put a sheet over her, and they roll her over and they take her out of there and transfer her to the medical examiner's office. They look at her in the van,” he said, “and they see that the animals have been at her and so there are bite marks and there is damage to her face and to some other parts of her body from animal activity. But this animal activity is distinguishable from other marks that will be found by the medical examinerâwounds, injuries, and effects.
“The examination is conducted the next day. And what they find,” said Doersch, and he prepared the jury for the unpleasantness of his following statements by saying, “I'll be as brief as I can about it.... There are multiple stab wounds to her neck. There is something called a transection of the left internal jugular vein. That injury or defect comes out of one wound that has two tracks, so that there is a wound track in one direction, and then in another direction, which severs the jugular vein. This, more likely than not, is the wound that actually killed her. There are a number of other stab wounds, eight in total around her neck.”
He emphatically detailed the prosecution's evidence linking Richard Clark to the murder of Roxanne Doll. “Blood samples taken from Roxanne at the autopsy, and samples taken from Mr. Clark pursuant to warrant, are tested. What they find is that Roxanne had a very rare blood type that only one out of one thousand Caucasians has. They find that blood not only on that shirt, but also on the sleeping bag. DNA typing is later done on the bloodstains from that sleeping bag, the socks, and the carpet. Roxanne's DNA is on the sleeping-bag bloodstain and on the bloodstained socks; the defendant' s DNA is on one of the socks. The defendant's shirt is examined,” continued Doersch. “Human protein tests are done on the blood stain. The bloodstain turns out to be human. Later DNA typing shows the DNA from the bloodstain is consistent with Roxanne's DNA.
“Testing was done on the sperm retrieved from the anal swab,” Doersch told the jury, “and it was found to be consistent with Richard Clark's genetic profile. DNA from the sperm on the vaginal wash was found consistent with Richard Clark's genetic profile. DNA from the sperm of the vaginal swab was consistent with Richard Clark's genetic profile. DNA from the bloodstained shirt was consistent with Roxanne's genetic profile, in addition to the standard blood typing and testing. DNA from the bloodstained sleeping bag and sock seized from the van is consistent with Roxanne's DNA. And DNA from that sock also indicated a mixture of blood, semen, and saliva were present, and the results show that those were consistent with Richard Clark being the source of the semen.
“Aside from the DNA results,” noted the prosecutor, “there are pieces of traditional evidence. Carpet fibers are found inside Roxanne's training braâfibers that are microscopically similar to the fibers from the light brown carpet seized from the defendant's van. And there is one more piece of traditional evidence,” he said. “It is seized, but not from the van, nor from Roxanne's body or the place that she wasâlet's face itâdumped, but from the window of Roxanne's room.
“Detective Kiser dusted for fingerprints,” Doersch told the jury, “and he found a fingerprint. And that fingerprint is of a certain individual. Examining and comparing leads to the inescapable conclusion that the fingerprint on the window belongs to the person whose known fingerprints have been examined, and that person is Richard Clark.”
By the time Roxanne's body was discovered, the prosecutor told the jury, the defendant was already in jail. “And he remains in jail and time passes and he is up with other individuals in the jail, including a fellow named Eugene Hillius. Eugene Hillius is what most of us would describe as a very bad man. He has multiple convictions for all kinds of stuff. And at the time I'm going to speak of, he is facing sentencing for a number of counts of first-degree child rape. Mr. Hillius is a scary-looking guy, as you will see when he testifies.
“In return for absolutely nothing,” said Ron Doersch, “Mr. Hillius agrees to testify. And what he will tell you is this: Sometime in late May and June 1996, Richard Clark tells him that he was kind of pissed off at his family, specifically at his brother Elza, because Elza wouldn't back up his story about the animal blood being in the van. He was upset because his brother wouldn't lie for him, wouldn't back up his story. Later on, June 22, '96, after Hillius has told the police about this and after he goes back to jail, he has another conversation with Richard Clark. He and some friends are standing around the television set and they are talking about DNA. Eugene Hillius walks by and the defendant asks Eugene if he's got a candy bar. He says, âYeah, I got one, but you have to come back to my room.' As they are going back there, the defendant says to Eugene Hillius unexpectedly, âThey took my DNA out of her butt.'”
Several jurors' expressions showed ill-concealed disgust at the defendent's remark. “Well, it is disgusting,” agreed Tim Iffrig. “It's more than that. That's my little girl he's talking aboutâmy little girl that he murdered.”
“Seven-thirty in the morning, Nicholas wakes up and he tells his mother that Roxanne is gone,” said Doersch, continuing his narrative. “That's about eight o'clock before he tells that to her. And what happens then is basically the nightmare that continues until Roxanne is found, and to this day, because Roxanne is gone. Kristena, at some point when the light is graying outside, awakens and Roxanne is not there; she can feel with her body that she's gone and goes back to sleep. So when did Roxanne disappear?
“What's interesting is this, about twelve forty-five to twelve-fifty
A.M.
on East Grand Avenue, right at the place where Sheena and her friend would play in another seven days, Janice Cliatt is driving home. She is thinking about the fact that it's April Fools' Day now, because it is early in the morning. She is thinking about the fact that she won't have to work the next Friday because she's had a scheduling change. She works for Safeco in Seattle. She leaves Safeco about twelve-fifteen
A.M.
, where she is working without fail. . . .”
The prosecution sequentially prepared jurors for the orderly appearance of witness after witness, each more damning than the next in producing seemingly irrefutable evidence that Richard Mathew Clark brutally raped and murdered Roxanne Doll.
The defense, despite the all-American presumption of innocence, had an uphill battle. Interestingly, Gail Doll and Tim Iffrig have the highest regard for Richard Clark's defense team.
“I respect them tremendously,” said Gail, “and some people are shocked to hear that. But this is important, because this is America. Everyone is entitled to the best defense and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Bill Jaquette and Mr. Scott had a rough job, and they did it well. They worked hard. I hold no animosity against them at all.”
“Yeah,” agreed Tim Iffrig. “I believed in my heart that Richard Clark killed my daughter. And I also believe that if you don't have fair trials, you make a mockery of everything this country stands for. Yeah, I wanted to kill that son of a bitch, but that wasn't my decisionâthat's up to the jury to decide, based on the evidence and the law as instructed by the judge. I don't know if the defense really thought that they could get a not guilty verdict, but I sure as hell know they worked their ass off to keep him alive.”
“Usually, the defense calls its witnesses after the prosecution completes their case,” began defense team attorney Errol Scott in his opening statement. “However, we provided the prosecution with a list of who we would call as our witnesses for the defense. In this case, we anticipate the prosecution will call most, if not all, the defense witnesses in the prosecution's case. That means that intermixed with the prosecution's case will be people who would otherwise customarily be called by the defense, and they will outline for you the facts of the defense case.
“The effect of that is, is that you are not going to know when a witness testifies whether technically that witness might otherwise have been called by the prosecution or called by the defense. But what that also means for you is that you obviously have to keep an open mind in listening to the evidence.”
Scott told the jury that they would hear, in Gail Doll's own words, that she “turned on their light, saw the two heads in bed, shut off the light, and closed the door. In another statement made May 1, 1995, she told Detective Herndon that what she had said in the earlier two statements that I quoted you [was] accurate. She declared that under penalty of perjury. We have a transcription of that statement. So,” reiterated Scott, “I have three statements by Gail Doll that she saw both children in bed at around midnight when she returned home.
“Richard's aunt Carol, who you heard about, will testify that Richard arrived at her house about twelve-ten
A.M.
, and saw a stain on his shirt,” continued Scott. “When asked about it, Richard said it was from a deer that his brother Elza had poached. Richard cleaned up there and left there about twelve forty-five
A.M.
, and apparently went to the Dog House in downtown Everett. Linda Hein and Cheryle Galloway will testify that they saw Richard twice that night, once around eight or nine
P.M.
, and again around one o'clock in the morning. Tim Iffrig will tell you that Richard arrived at their home again round one o'clock
A.M.
And the evidence will show that after that time, Richard was continually in the company of Tim and Gail, or Tim and Patrick Casey at the neighbor's from approximately one o'clock
A.M.
until six-thirty in the morning; I believe between midnight and around one o'clock, Mr. Iffrig and his wife were at home. Richard arrived at one o'clock.
“Tim and Richard went over to the neighbor's house, Mr. Casey's. They stayed there at Casey's home until around six-thirty
A.M.
They then went back to Mr. Iffrig's home and packed for the camping trip. They left the house about seven-thirty
A.M.
It was about eight-ten
A.M.
that Nicholas reported to his mother that he could not find Roxanne, and that was the start of the inquiry about where she was and eventually calling the police.
“With regard to the stain on Richard Clark's shirt and the claimed statement by Elza that Richard asked him to lie for him,” Scott explained, “testimony from Toni Clark and George Clark, Richard's parents, will show that there was in fact deer meat and deer blood in their home on the night this happened.
“George Clark the second, Richard's brother, will tell you that he heard a conversation between Richard and Elza that the bucket of deer blood had spilled in Richard's van. We are hopeful that Elza Clark will in fact tell you when he testifies that he did poach a deer and that some of its remains spilled in Richard's van.