“The DNA proves the defendant's semen was in the victim's vaginal area, and trickled down into the anal area. And it proves her blood was on a sleeping bag in the defendant's van. How did it get on the defendant?” he asked rhetorically. “When he was stabbing her, she bled on him. Kiesel talked about there being some spatter, expecting to find blood somewhere. Well, that is exactly where you would expect to find it. Someone stabbing a little girl, it's on the front of the person stabbing her, that's how it got there, not by some bizarre transfer mechanism, the sleeping bag to the defendant.”
The forensic evidence, Doersch asserted, was as good as or better than a fingerprint. “Scientific tests don't lie, they don't have an agenda, and all the scientific evidence points to the defendant. They tell us for certain Roxanne was raped by the defendant and they point overwhelmingly, with the other evidence in the case, to the defendant having killed Roxanne as well.” Having recapped the forensic evidence, Doersch turned the jury's attention to Richard Clark's erratic behavior.
“Look at Richard Clark scrambling that night, that following week, trying to set up an alibi, trying to cover. He's everywhere on that night, and yet there are still times that are unaccountable. You recall who we are getting these times from. Look at what he does, the scrambling that he does, trying to get his alibi together, covering himself, conceal evidence. It starts, I submit to you, when he takes herâwhen he takes Roxanne. He knows, I submit to you, that he is never going to bring her back.”
At this point, deputy prosecutor Doersch did everything in his power to convince the jury that the murder of Roxanne Doll was premeditated. “Why is he never going to bring her back? Because she is seven years old, and a seven-year-old talks. They speak.”
Knowing that sexually violated children are often frightened into silence, threatened never to reveal the identity of their violator, one would question the imperative nature of murdering the victim. Doersch, curious as to the answer, consulted the FBI and shared the explanation with the jury.
“Even if the victim was too scared to tell who did exactly what to her, the one responsible knows that if she even pointed her finger at him in any way, even indirectly, detectives and FBI agents would be after him in a heartbeat.
“Recall too,” continued the prosecution, “that after he does these things, other witnesses remark upon his change of appearance, because they notice that he's shaved off his mustache. And suddenly we have the black-rimmed glasses that, according to some witnesses, have never been seen before.
“I submit that he goes as many places he can, running around here and there. And then there is the Jimmy factor,” said Doersch with a note of sarcasm. “He picks up Jimmy. Jimmy is leaning on a lamppost, as one witness said. Is he hitchhiking? All we know for certain is that Jimmy was at the Dog House earlier in the evening and that he was on the reservation sometime at eleven o'clock that night, and whenever the defendant brought him there.
“When did Richard Clark really pick him up?” Doersch asked. “We don't knowâand the reason we don't know is because the defendant is the only one who tells us, or anybody else.”
Richard Clark's eroded credibility took further hits as Doersch continued in the same vein. “He tries to get Elza to cover for him, the deer blood again. What's it come down to really? âThe detectives call you and ask you about blood in the van, tell them it's deer blood.' Let's forget this story about deer guts spilled in the van. It's nonsense. When tests are done on the inside of the van, it's not deer blood at all. Nobody else is scrambling for an alibi either, only Richard Clark.”
Addressing the contradiction between the recollections of Dog House customer Linda Hein and bartender Cheryle Galloway, he said, “Are you going to believe the bartender or the person drinking? The two people that address that issue, and I submit to you that Cheryle Galloway is far more believable in terms of when Richard Clark reappears at the Dog House.
“Scientific tests don't lie, they don't have an agenda, and all the scientific evidence points to the defendant. Except for the Urnesses and Gail and Janice Cliatt, all these people have been drinking. They are not clock-watchers. The testimony that we have as to the time line outside of Cheryle Galloway, Gail, Janice Cliatt, and the Urnesses,” he insisted, “is largely that of people who are drunk, partyers, and barfliesâpeople whose credibility is very much at issue.
“So the net is closing around him,” stated Doersch dramatically. “The cops are starting to ask questions. They seize his van, and he is out there trying to secure his alibi. He goes out to Vicki, and she asked him point-blank: âDid you do anything to that little girl?' What is the indicated response? The response is the same as you hear right now, silence. He picks up his dog, without a word, gets in the car and goes away.
“What does he tell to Toni Clark after he is in jail? Well, the first thing he says to Toni is, âIf I get the death penalty, don't mourn for me, don't grieve for me.' Okay. âDid you kill her?' âI don't know.' âDid you rape her?' âDon't know, might have.' âDid you kill her?' âDon't know, can't remember.'”
“Where in the statements to FBI agent Lauer and to Kiser is there any mention about blacking out? What does he tell Lauer? Clark tells him, âI didn't hurt her, I didn't hurt her, I didn't hurt her,' vain repetition, as it turns out. And to Hillius, he said, âThey got my DNA out of her butt.'
“When the defense speaks, you are undoubtedly going to hear about a time line,” said Ron Doersch. “You are undoubtedly going to see, pointing to the time line, that Clark couldn't have been here, couldn't have done this, couldn't have done that. Okay. Perhaps Mr. Clark was then the victim of some huge frame-up; perhaps Mr. Clark was the victim of tremendous circumstance; perhaps in the turning of the earth, everything lined up just right to put her DNA on his clothes and the sleeping bag, with his DNA in her body. Don't you believe it. Instead, think about the people who have testified as to that time line. I submit to you the only really reliable testimony that we have, with regard to that,
is
probably Janice Cliatt. Working, not drinking, not carrying on, who sees Richard Clark's van at the site where Roxanne's body is found.
“Let's talk about something else. Remember Tim Iffrig telling us that in essence the defendant never had any reason to be behind the house; that when they road motorcycles, Tim brought the motorcycle around the front of the house. No evidence that the defendant ever worked on the house in any way, yet his fingerprint is on the outside window to Roxanne Doll's bedroom. Oh,” he suddenly added as if it just popped into his mind, “look whose fingerprint is on the girl's window on the outside. Recall one of the panes is not secure. It's open far enough to get your fingertips into. The other may or may not be locked, but we know for sure it's got the defendant's fingerprint on it in a place where he should not have been, where no one ever saw him, where he had no reason to be, unless he was trying to open a window. It's clear that he could have opened the other pane, tested the one that has his fingerprint on it, or if it wasn't locked, open that one as well, or closed it on his way out.”
He then turned the jury's attention back to DNA. “DNA is used for a lot of things. In this case,” he explained, “you are looking for the source of evidentiary items; you are looking for or trying to find out where saliva or spit comes from, or blood comes from, or semen comes from. You are testing it against known samples. What do we find? The DNA testing can accurately disclose patterns, reflect DNA difference among humans. The testing that is used to free the innocent and identify the guilty. In this case, it points straight as an arrow toward Richard Clark.
“As for that shirt that Richard had Carol washâthere is no deer blood on that shirt. That's Roxanne's blood on that shirt; it's human blood; it's hers. Deer blood, my left eye! DNA typing shows the DNA from the bloodstain is consistent with Roxanne's DNA despite the attempts to destroy the evidence, I submit to you. The diaper, training bra, hair clips, bracelet, anal and vaginal samples from Roxanne's body, are sent to Greg Frank. Blood is detected on the hair clip, the diaper, and the training bra.”
The primary issue Doersch repeatedly stressed was premeditation. “When you take this case and tear it down, pare it down to what the issues really are; the issue in this case is premeditation. So, let's talk about premeditation.”
He referred jurors to instruction number eleven containing the word's definition. “Premeditation must involve more than a moment in time, it requires some time, long or short, in which the design to kill is deliberately formed. I submit to you that he knew he was going to kill her when he took her out of there.
“He knows when he takes her out of that house that he's got to take some steps to assure that she doesn't identify him,” reiterated Doersch. “And I submit that he knows when he takes her out of that house, that he is going to kill her. So when he takes her, he is starting, he knows he is going to conceal it. He is covering even then. Not very well, as it turns out. Maybe the amount he had to drink has something to do with that. Maybe he's just not very smart. The evidence would point to both of those things, and in his actions during the rest of the week. When he kills her, he does that to conceal the foul things that he has done. Why does he kill her? I'm sure the defense can construct some scenario where this somehow becomes accidental wherein the heat of the moment. Don't you believe it.
“When he buries her in the dark on East Grand, concealment again. When he visits his aunt Carol, whenever he does that, to change, to shower, to shave, to have his blood-soaked shirt laundered, isn't that why he gives that to her? Aunt Carol, who, of course, is not mentioned to either the FBI agent or the detectives.”
Then, taking a different tact, the prosecutor said, “But suppose I'm wrong, suppose he didn't know he was going to kill her when he took her out of there?” Doersch then approached the definition of premeditation within the context of the fatal stabbing.
“He has got to make a choice in there somewhere to keep on stabbing her, and that's just what he does. And that is premeditation. Whether that is some sort of conscious decision, verbally assembled in his headââI have stabbed her and she must die, and so I must stab her some more'âor whether it's just some âI've got to keep going, I've got to finish this.' Whatever the analysis is, it involves the taking of a human life and we have more than just a moment in time, we have premeditation.
“Look at her hands,” pleaded Doersch. “Not only will blood tell, Roxanne's blood, but Roxanne's wounds speak to you. And what they will tell you is they took time to kill her, time in which a mind could be changed, and a time in which a choice was made to keep going. This is not a case where, in the heat of events, strong hands break her neck or crush her neck bone, and she dies. This is not
Of Mice and Men,
where Lenny squeezes just a little too hard without intent and someone dies. This is premeditation.”
After the prosecutor engraved his perspective of premeditation on the jury's collective conscience, he turned to the concept of “aggravating factors.”
“Those three aggravating factors are here for your consideration. You may find none. You may find one, two, or all three. I think we know, and I submit to you that you do know, that the reason Roxanne was killed was to conceal the commission of this crime. And that doesn't mean forever, that means for whatever time, in this case, a week, or to conceal the identity of any person committing the crime, to wit, Richard Clark.
“He killed her because she can talk, and that's what he does. Premeditation for this reason, for this motive, in this case.
“I want to briefly cover the elements, not because I think these things aren't important,” said Doersch, “but because they are largely self-evident. Let's start with this, rape in the first degree. Regardless of whether penetration is achieved in the vaginal area or the anus or both, we have rape in the first degree.
“It is clearly forcible,” he said, and a few jurors perceptibly winced. “The pants show thatâthe disruption of the hymen. Recall the doctor going back and checking, checked the sample, it was ruptured, it wasn't just absent. The damage to her inside, you heard that in length. I am not going to show that to you again. You can look at it, take it in the jury room and look at it. You heard what kidnap in the first degree [is]. Instruction fourteen, the defendant abducts Roxanne Doll with the intent to inflict bodily injury on her, with the intent to rape her. He sure did.
“He took her out,” the prosecutor stated flatly. “She is a seven-year-old. She is a small child. He has to know what will happen, no matter what he does, if he rapes her. And that's if you ignore the fact that he took her out of there to kill her eventually. You know that, from the evidence, the intent to inflict bodily injury on her. What's that mean? Physical pain or injury, illness or impairment of physical condition.”
Doersch dealt with abduction, clearly defining the word in the context of this horrid crime. “Abducting means restraining a person by secreting or holding that person in a place where that person is not likely to be found, in a van, or some other place, on a hillside in Everett.
“And now,” he continued, “murder in the first degree. On or about the thirty-first day of March 1995, or the first day of April 1995, the defendant stabbed Roxanne Doll. How do we know that? She has been stabbed to death. His blood is on her shirt. He lies by omission; he lies by affirmation to the cops, to the FBI. The intent to cause the death is premeditated. I think we talked about that enough. How could it be anything but, unless a fantastic scenario was created?”