In March 1993, Luthy was assigned to the missing and unidentified persons unit, where he assisted coroners and medical examiners in identifying the deceased. One year later, he was assigned to the Latent Print Unit. Latent means hidden.
“A latent fingerprint generally means a fingerprint left on an object when that object is touched,” explained Luthy. “It generally requires processing with powders or with chemicals or with alternative light sources before it can be seen. That doesn’t have to be done all the time, but that’s typically what needs to be done, and that’s why they call it latent.
“There are a variety of methods used in retrieving and comparing fingerprints,” said Luthy. “One way is to just photograph it, and then you have a permanent record of it. You can also process it with powders, lightly dusting it with powder and then lifting it, or putting a piece of tape over it, lifting the tape and placing that tape on a white card that would provide for you a permanent record of that impression. You may also develop it with chemicals so it can be enhanced, so you can photograph it and record it that way.”
Fingerprints are compared and identified, Luthy explained, “because the friction ridge skin that we have on the palms of our hands and also on the bottom of our feet is unique to each individual. The ridges that are formed there have unique characteristics—ridges that stop, or perhaps they will fork or divide into two. We call it bifurcation when they divide like that.
“We compare the ridge endings and the bifurcations of one print to the ridge endings and bifurcations of another. That’s basically what we do; we compare fingerprints looking for ones that match.”
Luthy received the fingerprint lifted from Roxanne Doll’s bedroom window. The results of his comparisons wouldn’t be known immediately, if at all. “If the person who made that print doesn’t have his or her fingerprints on file,” he said, “you’re not going to find a match.”
“The best we could hope,” said Herndon, “is that whoever left that print on the bedroom window was the perpetrator, and that the perpetrator either had a print on file, or we would find the person responsible and get a print from them at that time.”
Herndon and Kiser packed up all items of evidence, provided or recovered. Included were one roll of 35mm film containing photos of the exterior and interior of the house, two fingerprint cards of the latent prints lifted from the exterior bedroom window by Detective Kiser, one pink Barbie-type nightgown—the last-known item worn by Roxanne Doll found atop the victim’s dresser—and one second-grade class photograph of Roxanne and her classmates, plus one note to “Michael” from Roxanne. It simply said, “I need some fun.”
When the police drove away, the distraught parents sat outside on the front porch. “It’s Richard,” said Gail. “I just know it.”
Chapter 6
April 3, 1995
The day began with two important telephone calls: Detective Lloyd Herndon called Richard Clark and scheduled him for a polygraph test that afternoon. In turn, Clark placed a call to half brother Elza Clark. The topic of conversation: bloodstains in Richard Clark’s van.
Ask Elza Clark how Richard and he are related, and his reply will be as blunt as a bottle and equally reflective. “I dunno. He supposedly is my dad’s child. I’ve known him all my life, and he’s almost like a brother.” Elza saw Richard Clark on Friday, March 31, 1995, at about noon.
“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.