by Burl Barer
“I was living with my folks. I lived with them for twenty-one years. I had just got up,” recalled Elza. “I wasn’t feeling good because I had a hangover, and I had been sick for about three days. Richard wanted me to go out with him, but I didn’t want to go because I just got paid. I figured he just wanted to go out drinking on my money. Anyway, on Monday, April third, Richard calls on the telephone and said if anybody like the detectives or anybody called, to lie about bloodstains in the van and say that they came from a poached deer.”
Poaching deer was illegal. Were Elza to tell police, “Oh, I poached a deer and got blood on the inside of Richard’s van,” he would be confessing to a criminal act. Elza refused his half brother’s request.
“I told Richard I wasn’t gonna lie for nobody,” said Elza, although he acknowledged that Richard and he had poached numerous deer over the years, and that he had poached one only a few days earlier.
“That day, April third, Richard Clark came to the police department right on time, as promised,” confirmed Herndon, “and he gave a further statement to Detective Kiser in addition to the one he gave at his aunt Carol’s house.”
“I have known Tim Iffrig and his wife, Gail, for about two and a half years,” Clark stated to the detective. “About a week ago, Tim and I planned a camping trip. It was the kind of deal where whoever wanted to go could. On March 31, 1995, Friday, I was over at Tim’s house putting together our supplies. I left about six-thirty P.M., after being there about two hours. I gave Tim’s mom, Neila D’alexander, a ride into north Everett. My half brother, Jim Miller, was with me.”
In complete contradiction of known facts, Richard Clark told detectives that Jimmy Miller and he “went back out to Tim’s place, arriving at about nine P.M. We picked Tim up and went to the Amber Light Tavern, where we drank some beer and shot some pool. We were gone about an hour. We went back to Tim’s and dropped him off. I took Jim out to his girlfriend Lisa’s house on the reservation.
“I then met up with Neila at the Dog House Tavern in Everett,” stated Clark. “I got back out to Tim’s place about quarter to one. At about one A.M., I was talking to Tim and Gail, and I told her who all was going on the camping trip, including my aunt Vicki. Vicki and Tim had an affair in the past and Gail knew it. She told Tim that he had better buy some rubbers. She didn’t seem upset and I didn’t see them arguing.
“He and I went to his neighbors’ house, Pat and Shawn, where we stayed partying until about six A.M. We went back to Tim’s house, picked up his camping gear. I remember his son coming out of his bedroom and Tim going into his own bedroom. We left and went looking for Neila, but couldn’t find her. We went out to the reservation and picked up Jim Miller, his girlfriend, Lisa, and my aunt Vicki. We made it out to the campsite about two-thirty P.M. About two and a half hours later, Gail and Kim and Bill showed up and told us about the missing girl.”
Keep in mind: No one is ever obligated to answer questions by the police, the FBI, or any law enforcement officer. No one is obligated to consent to a search of his or her person or property.
It makes no difference if one is under arrest or not—no American is obligated to even show identification unless they are operating a motor vehicle, or in an establishment that serves alcoholic beverages. The Everett Police Department was not serving alcohol, and Richard Clark was not driving during his interview.
It was at about 10:30 A.M. that Special Agent Ray Lauer of the FBI interviewed Clark in preparation for the polygraph test. The interview took place on the third floor of the Everett Police Department in a little room about ten square feet. The door to the room was unlocked during the interview, and Agent Lauer was not wearing any type of uniform and did not display a weapon.
Clark was told that he was not under arrest and that he was free to leave anytime. Agent Lauer went through a “consent to interview with polygraph form” with Clark, and he also advised him of his Miranda rights using a preprinted form. Clark read the rights form aloud.
The form indicated that Clark had the following rights: he had the right to remain silent; anything he said could be used against him in court; he had the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before questioning and that to have a lawyer with him during questioning and that if he could not afford a lawyer, one would be appointed for him before questioning, if he wished; and that he had the right to stop answering questions anytime.
“During the interview,” recalled Special Agent Lauer, “it was pretty much of a question/answer arrangement. There came a point when I challenged Mr. Clark’s story. I told him that he wasn’t being truthful with me and that he needed to clarify some points and be honest. I talked to him for about an hour from that point on.
“I would like to think that I was friendly toward him,” said Lauer, “but at the same time, I was telling him that he wasn’t being honest with me, and that he needed to be truthful.”
It was the exceptionally muddled middle of Clark’s narrative summary of activities, whereabouts, and companions that triggered distrust by Agent Lauer. “He kept saying that he was uncertain about several things,” explained the FBI agent. “He was uncertain that he was with Jim Miller and Vicki Smith up to certain points. And then he was certain he was with Neila at the Dog House Tavern, and he was certain that he was with Tim at the Amber Light between nine and ten P.M.”
When he dropped off his brother, Richard Clark “wasn’t certain” which grandparent was baby-sitting the kids at the Doll-Iffrig house, how many times he ran into Neila that night, or whether it was just Jim Miller who accompanied him March 31 to the Doll-Iffrig residence, or if Vicki Smith was there also.
“He told me that at about four P.M. he went to the Iffrigs’ with Jim Miller and Vicki Smith,” recalled Agent Lauer, “and that he stayed there until about six P.M., and then went to Marysville to visit Mr. Clark, described as his father. Stayed there for about a half hour, and then went about a block away to see a friend named Andy,” said Lauer. “He never mentioned that he went to Pat Casey and Shawn Angilley’s house.”
“I urged Mr. Clark to tell me the truth,” said Agent Lauer. “During the last hour that we were together, the only thing he said, other than ‘I want an attorney,’ was ‘I didn’t hurt her,’ or words to that effect. He said it two or four times during that hour.”
Lauer performed three polygraph tests on Richard Clark. All three came back as deceptive. “I wasn’t surprised that the tests showed deception,” said Herndon years later, “but I was pretty surprised to hear Clark’s new version of where he was and who was with him on March thirty-first.
“That stuff about Vicki Smith and the Amber Light was completely inconsistent with all the other information we had from other witnesses,” said Herndon, “and it completely contradicted Clark’s previous statements as well. I mean, it was just totally out of left field. What possible reason could he have for so drastically altering his story? Why suddenly invent the presence of Vicki Smith?”
A possible explanation is that if Vicki Smith had been present that night, he would be eliminated as a suspect. This impromptu addition, wildly divergent from his version of events related that same day, would only stand if Vicki Smith confirmed it. “More than that,” said Herndon, “everyone from Tim and Gail to Neila, Shawn, and Pat would have to place Vicki Smith there, and they don’t.
“Richard Clark had been at the victim’s residence prior to Gail Doll leaving for the movie, and had been with Tim prior to him passing out on the couch,” reasoned Herndon. “It was obvious to me that Clark had the opportunity to remove Roxanne Doll from the residence. Besides that, his previous statements provided to investigating officers regarding time and place were not consistent with the times provided by the victim’s parents and other witnesses. I knew that he’d been with Tim over at Pat Casey’s, that he was at their residence prior to Gail Doll leaving for the movie at approximately nine P.M. Clark did not tell us that when he gave his statement.”
Knowing the polygraph results, Herndon
placed Richard Clark in an interview room and questioned him again. “The first thing I asked him,” said the detective, “was to provide me with the names and any other pertinent information regarding witnesses that had been with him on the camping trip the day of Roxanne’s disappearance. Clark told me that his aunt’s name was Vicki Smith, and her age and her pager number. Then he told me that his stepbrother was Jimmy Miller, twenty-seven, who lived next door to Vicki Smith on the Indian reservation. Jimmy Miller was apparently living with his girlfriend, Lisa. According to Richard,” reported Herndon, “he, Jimmy, and Vicki had gone to the victim’s residence at four P.M. on March 31, 1995, to see if Tim was still going camping the following day. He told me that Tim and Gail were not home, but Neila was there with the kids, including Roxanne. Neila told Richard that she wanted to go camping too.”
Richard Clark then told Herndon the same new version of events he related to the FBI agent. When the detective admonished Clark for his blatant deviations from previous statements, Richard Clark again asked for an attorney. Herndon left the room, and the next man to enter was not an attorney, but another FBI agent.
Agent Vanderberry attempted to trick Clark into believing that he was Clark’s attorney. He told Clark that he was “counsel” and that the police thought Clark knew something about Roxanne’s disappearance. If Roxanne were still alive, said Vanderberry, this information could benefit Clark with the police. Clark told Vanderberry that he did not know where she was; Agent Vanderberry then left the interview room and Detective Herndon returned. After speaking briefly with Herndon again, Richard Clark left the police department. “Vanderberry attempted to deceive Clark for the limited purpose of determining if Roxanne Doll were still alive,” stated the Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Office, “and, if she were, where she was located.”
Prior to this act of deception, investigators sought the advice of Snohomish County chief deputy prosecutor Jim Townsend. He told them that he was troubled by their proposed ruse and advised them that any information they got from Clark could not be used against him.
“I can only advise. I can’t order,” he said of the police. “But the truth is, I said, ‘Go for it.’ I felt it was worth the risk. Generally, I think people are pretty much in favor of trying to save people if they can.”
Bob Stiles, Everett deputy police chief, said his investigators’ decision to try to trick Clark into revealing Roxanne’s whereabouts was based on a belief that the child still could be found alive. “The tactic hasn’t been repeated since, nor is it likely to be soon. It was highly unusual in a highly unusual case,” he said. “Police make their own decisions on investigative tactics and rely on prosecutors for advice only.”
The rationale for not honoring Clark’s request to speak to an attorney, later advanced by deputy prosecutor Ronald Doersch, was that since Clark was not under arrest, the police were not obligated to honor his request for a lawyer. “A suspect who is in custody and is to be questioned has that right, but Clark was not in custody and was free to go at any time.”
“What Doersch said about them not being obligated,” explained assistant chief criminal deputy prosecutor Seth Fine in 2003, “is actually the law, as strange as it may sound on the face of it.”
“Based on the polygraph results, and his previous criminal history,” recounted Herndon, “it was decided that Clark’s van should be seized pursuant to a search warrant, which I was to obtain through Everett District Court. When we seized the van, Clark called me on the telephone and asked why we did that. I explained to him that I was obtaining a search warrant for his van, and that it would be returned as soon as our investigation was completed. He was at the point of anger, so I referred him to my supervisor, Deputy Chief Pat Slack. Clark seemed very angry about it.”
Detective Herndon completed a telephonic search warrant and was granted approval by Everett District Court judge Roger Fisher at 6:04 P.M. “Sergeant Stillman and I determined that the van would be processed by crime scene team members of the FBI, and the search was to be directed by Detectives Evers and Burgess of the Everett Police Department’s Crimes Against Children unit.”
“I was provided with the license plate, and discovered it on the twenty-five hundred block of Lombard Avenue,” John Burgess said. “I took photographs of the van, I sealed the doors with evidence tape to indicate that no entry should be made, and also to show that with this tape that seals it, that if the seal isn’t broken, then nobody has entered after it was sealed. I impounded the vehicle and requested that a tow truck come to the scene. The van was towed to our vehicle service area for the city of Everett.”
Special Agent John Reikes of the FBI, based in Seattle, was part of the evidence response team. “At the onset of a missing or potentially abducted individual case, we will respond to assist the local police departments,” he explained. “In my experience as an investigator for twenty-eight years and working with missing children cases, in many instances, unfortunately, we find that they have either been sexually assaulted or killed, and we look for hairs; we look for fibers; we look for blood residue; we look for other particular matter. And all this is done microscopically and beyond the capacity of the naked eye.”
In the processing of Clark’s van, Agent Reikes’s naked eye did notice items of significant interest. “There were actually a number of items that were visibly stained,” recalled Reikes. “There were stains in the sleeping bag, and discolorations on the sleeping bag, and we discussed having those analyzed.”
There was also a pillow and pillowcase, numerous blankets, and other items in the van that were wrapped and sealed in evidence bags, and initialed by Agent Reikes. “We do that for two reasons,” he explained. “The first is to preserve the integrity of the evidence. If any hairs or fibers fall off, they’ll be contained in the wrapper. And the second is to protect the chain of custody so I can come back and identify the particular item.”
Also on the evidence response team was Agent Mark Meinecke of the FBI. “My specific assignment on April third was the taking of photographs and assisting in the search of the vehicle. We took various samples of carpet and drapes and insulation from the van, and we typically obtain samples of this nature for hair and fiber examination later on.
“Typically,” said Meinecke, “these samples contain various fibers for hair and materials, and those items would be sent in for examination in the laboratory to match any fibers or hairs that were recovered later.”
When Meinecke took drape, carpet, and insulation samples, he had no idea which of them, if any, would be of evidentiary value. “None of the samples taken from the van were selected because we could specifically identify them as being valuable evidence. We took the samples to test for hairs and fibers that might possibly be of evidence.”
In addition to FBI agents and Everett police, Michael Paul Croteau of the Washington State Patrol Crime Laboratory contributed his experience as a forensic scientist to the investigation. Trained in biochemistry, Croteau is knowledgeable in blood spatter patterns, and received on-the-job training at numerous crime scenes.
“I examined Richard Clark’s van with Ingrid Dearmore, a forensic scientist from our laboratory. We brought two different types of chemical tests for blood. One of them is used for taking a little swab of a suspected bloodstain and testing it, and the other one that you spray—the end product is a bright green color that shows up against lots of surfaces.
“When we go to a crime scene and we are conducting a presumptive test, we are trying to figure out if a stain that looks like blood is really blood. The lab technicians back at the lab will do the actual determination of whether it’s human blood or animal blood.”
Croteau and Dearmore conducted such presumptive tests on Richard Clark’s van. “We removed all manner of items so that the entire inside of the van could be sprayed,” recalled Croteau.
While the FBI was processing Clark’s van, Herndon returned to the Doll residence. “My purpose was to collect any comparison evidence, such as
hair, saliva, et cetera, which could be compared to any physical evidence removed from the van,” said Herndon. “I met with Gail Doll at approximately eight P.M. and she provided me with a fingerprint card that had been completed on Roxanne at her elementary school.”
Gail also provided an elastic hair tie that contained strands of the victim’s hair and Roxanne’s toothbrush. Also present was Gail’s brother-in-law, William D’alexander, who told the detective that Richard Clark called him that afternoon complaining about his van being impounded.
“He said how screwed it was that he wasn’t able to have his van,” said D’alexander. “Richard also asked how come everyone thinks that he’s involved in everything. He told me that Tim’s tent was still in the van. He said that one of the cops told him that he was a definite suspect.”
If the cops were suspicious of Richard Clark, he was equally suspicious of them. A man with something to hide needs a place to hide it, and when that something is the truth, the best place to hide is behind a lie. Richard Clark’s truth needed more than one lie, and more than one friend or relative willing to manufacture excuses and explanations.
That following day, and for the above-mentioned purpose, Richard Clark paid a personal visit to half brother Elza. “I was outside working on a lawn mower with my dad,” said Elza. “Richard and Carol and Jesse and Grandpa all pulled up in Carol’s car. Richard again asked me to say that there was deer blood in his van from a poached deer, but I refused. I told him not to talk to me about it anymore. I’m not going to lie. I told him that if anyone came to talk to me about it, I would tell them that I didn’t have no deer in that van.”
According to Elza, Carol Clark asked him to grant Richard’s request and verify the poached-deer story. “I told her the same thing that I told him,” said Elza. “I told her that I wasn’t gonna say nothing about no deer blood in Richard’s van.”
Detectives knew nothing of these conversations until four o’clock that afternoon when Jimmy Miller contacted Lloyd Herndon of the Everett Police Department. “Elza told Jimmy and Jimmy told us,” recalled Herndon.