Broken Doll (25 page)

The state supreme court ruled in favor of the Snohomish County prosecutor. “As we have found no errors with respect to the guilt phase, we find no cumulative error to have denied Clark of a fair trial.”

There was nothing fair, however, about Clark being shackled when the verdict was read, and also throughout the special sentencing proceeding. The appeal insisted that this violated both the United States Constitution and the Washington State Constitution.

“A trial judge must exercise discretion in determining the extent to which courtroom security measures are necessary to maintain order and prevent injury. That discretion must be founded upon a factual basis set forth in the record. A broad general policy of imposing physical restraints upon prison inmates charged with new offenses because they may be ‘potentially dangerous' is a failure to exercise discretion.

“This court and courts of other jurisdictions have universally held that restraints should ‘be used only when necessary to prevent injury to those in the courtroom, to prevent disorderly conduct at trial, or to prevent an escape.'”

Clark was shackled when entering the jury auditorium on the first day of jury selection, in front of the entire jury venire. Despite defense counsel's objection, the trial court found the jury venire would not be able to see Clark actually in shackles. However, the jury could infer shackling from Clark's stilted and restrained movement.

“The state concedes the trial court went through no individualized assessment of the need for shackling,” noted the court. “The state directs us to no evidence in the record, nor do we find any, that would imply Clark posed a threat of violence, escape, or disruption. Nor was there evidence of anything other than decorous behavior during pretrial hearings. Therefore Clark's shackling at points during the guilt phase was constitutional error and therefore presumptively prejudicial. With respect to the shackling on the day the verdict was returned, and throughout the special sentencing proceeding, Clark was shackled throughout the sentencing phase.”

Unlike prison clothes, physical restraints may create the impression in the minds of the jury that the court believes the defendant is a particularly dangerous and violent person. Therefore, in the absence of a compelling need to shackle the defendant during his sentencing hearing, such a practice is inherently prejudicial. “The crucial thing,” states the court, “is the impact of the thing done wrong on the minds of other men.”

First, Clark was not shackled throughout the two-and-a-half week trial. Second, the jury had already arrived at its verdict of guilt or innocence prior to the second time they saw Clark shackled. Because the impact of shackling on the presumption of innocence is the overarching constitutional concern, it would logically follow that in the minds of the jurors Clark's shackling on the first day of voir dire was more than logically offset by over two weeks of observing Clark in the courtroom without shackles.

Furthermore, the presumption of innocence was not at stake on the day the verdict was read because the jury had already judged Clark guilty. “Clark's shackling on the first day of voir dire and the day of the verdict was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt,” ruled the state supreme court.

The trial court made sure Clark was not moved in or out of the room in the presence of the jury, the shackles were taped to eliminate any noise, and the jury never saw Clark in motion during the guilt phase. A protective skirt concealed the shackles at counsel table, and Clark never moved from his seat during the penalty phase except to stand for the entry of the judge and jury.

“Although Clark's shackling during both the guilt and penalty phases was constitutional error because no appropriate individualized assessment took place,” ruled the state supreme court, “we find he was not prejudiced and hold the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”

One by one, Seth Fine's command of law, logic, and application convinced the Washington State Supreme Court that the objections of the defense were rightfully overruled, but the biggest battle yet remained. The battle best summed up in two words: Feather Rahier.

Judge Thorpe ruled that the facts surrounding Clark's 1988 conviction for unlawful imprisonment were inadmissible in the guilt phase. In the penalty phase, however, the state was allowed to present full details of the abduction and unlawful imprisonment of little Feather Rahier. They heard all about the dark garage, the age of Feather, and that she was Clark's neighbor. The defense argued that it should not be allowed because it was unfairly prejudicial to Clark.

Countering that allegation, Seth Fine argued that the state only sought to evince a “few basic facts” surrounding the matter, and that such information was perfectly admissible.

In deciding whether leniency is merited, the jury may consider whether the defendant has or does not have a significant history, either as a juvenile or an adult, of prior criminal activity.

“Since the death penalty is the ultimate punishment,” wrote the court, “due process under this state's constitution requires stringent procedural safeguards so that a fundamentally fair proceeding is provided. Where the trial which results in imposition of the death penalty lacks fundamental fairness, the punishment violates article 1, section 14 of the state constitution.”

The law does not prohibit the introduction of additional information, that simply states the particular elements of the crime that was the basis for the conviction. What happened in the case of Richard Mathew Clark was quite different. Not only was a certified copy of the judgment and sentence for the conviction entered, but a police officer from the Everett Police Department was permitted to testify from a police statement that the victim of the unlawful imprisonment was a four-year-old girl who was a neighbor to Clark. Testimony was offered to prove more than the fact of a conviction and more than the elements of the offense.

“The trial court erred by admitting this testimony for two reasons,” read the court's opinion. “First, it was inadmissible on its face because it went beyond the scope of the statute we have construed to allow introduction of only the record of conviction. If we allow narrative testimony of this kind there would be no foreseeable end to these trials within a trial. Second, it should have been excluded from evidence even if otherwise admissible because it was unduly prejudicial. Evidence of the unlawful imprisonment victim's tender age and relationship to Clark did not go to the elements of unlawful imprisonment—the knowing restraint of another person. One need not imprison a child, or be an acquaintance of the victim, in order to commit the crime of unlawful imprisonment.

“The prejudice is apparent when one recalls the offense for which Clark was sentenced to death. On the face of it, this may have been the most prejudicial evidence entered in the sentencing phase against Clark, a bit of evidence that the jury could not have possibly disregarded. Perhaps that is why the trial court did not allow the evidence to come out during the guilt phase, before paradoxically changing its position in the penalty phase. The prejudice of its admission became clear in the state's closing argument during the penalty phase that ‘this defendant preys on the vulnerable and the weak and the small.'”

The Washington State Supreme Court feared such evidence was too likely to short-circuit the jurors' reasoning and inflame their passions. “We therefore hold the admission of the police statement concerning the previous false imprisonment conviction, over and above the mere judgment and sentence for that crime, was unfairly prejudicial, and requires vacating Clark's death sentence and remanding for a new special sentencing proceeding.

“We affirm Clark's conviction for aggravated first-degree murder, first-degree kidnapping, and first-degree rape. However . . . we reverse his death sentence and remand to the trial court where, if the state desires, a new special sentencing proceeding may take place.”

Richard Mathew Clark was still guilty of all charges, and he still possibly faced the death penalty. The entire sentencing phase, deciding life in prison or the death penalty, must be conducted anew. “And with a new jury,” said Gail Doll with a sigh. “It's amazing how long this has been dragging on.” Doll's frustration was revealed in her latest victim impact statement.

“It has been over six years now since Richard Mathew Clark stole a very valuable piece of my life. Time has been marching on and changing everything except for the one photograph on my wall of the beautiful little girl who once loved us and trusted us to keep her from harm's way.

“It was on that one night, in a moment of comfort, that our guard was let down and this man who pretended to be a friend stole a part of me and my family that we can never get back.

“In the first victims statement I wrote of who Roxy was: a beautiful little girl with a heart of gold, an animal charmer, lover of books, movies and songs. How she worked hard to learn to ride a bike, [a] person with such potential and inner strength that you couldn't help but love her. But in this statement I would like to tell you what it has been like going on without her.

“Each day I see my children growing moody and I can't help but think if only she were here. Her brother is now in high school; her older sister in college. Her youngest sister, who's [
sic
] has now had to live over half her life without her sister, is beginning to blossom into the young woman Roxy was never allowed to be.

“I have had to watch with aching heart as my nieces, who are only months older than Roxy, grow and become [the] wonderful young people they were meant to be.

“It is hard to believe that it has been six years since Roxy has been gone. This trial and the Oklahoma Bombing trial started at the same time. The only difference is Oklahoma is going to receive closure soon and the lawyers here will still be fighting to make sure that Mr. Clark receives a fair sentence.

“Mr. Clark is the one who brought this action upon himself the moment he took my daughter from us. He used her like she was nothing and discarded her like trash. He took no more thought in how truly special she was than he did a piece of waste. He took something from my family we can never replace. Roxanne Christine Doll. And for this crime, he should die. He has lived on this earth longer than he should have. We have waited longer than we should have for the justice we deserve. We the loved ones should have the closure we deserve, and that this man be made accountable for the vicious acts he did to my daughter. That he [be] made to pay the price that he chose when he brutally raped and murdered Roxanne, and dumped her like she was nothing. Roxanne deserves justice; she deserves to have her killer's fate be finalized.”

The finalized fate of Richard M. Clark was most likely sealed the day his mother died on Highway 9, or perhaps it was the day Carol Clark told him that she couldn't be his mother, the first time he was beat with a fireplace poker, or the evening meal where he choked down that cigar. Jaquette made a point that not everyone experiences or responds to hardship the same way. None of the other kids became child molesters or murderers, but none of the other kids was Richard Mathew Clark.

Clark was in Snohomish County Superior Court on December 18, 2002, for the setting of a time to start the new sentencing phase. Ron Doersch asked for a quick start, preferably the third week in January. Bill Jaquette, head of the Snohomish County Public Defender Unit, agreed that “the third week in January would be fine, as long as it is in 2003.”

“It's apparent the defense tactic is to set this so far in the future that I'll be retired or die of old age,” Doersch said. “Justice deferred in this case is justice denied. None of the facts will change, so there's no reason for so much extra time.”

“The extra time is needed to develop a case that might convince a jury to not impose the death penalty,” explained Jaquette. “The defense will hire an expert to do that, and the expert needs about a year. The defense won't be content with the same information that was presented in the first trial,” Jaquette said. “That obviously wasn't enough to turn a jury to spare Clark's life.” Clark's life-or-death judicial proceeding—an entirely new penalty phase—has been scheduled, but not for 2003. The new date is 2004.

The reason for the extensive delay is that William Jaquette, for whatever reason, opted not to represent Richard Clark again. New lawyers must review everything. There is no question of guilt or innocence. Clark is guilty. It is the mitigation, or sentencing phase, that must be held anew.

“Once again a jury will have to decide if he should live or die,” said Gail Doll. “Of course, you already know how I feel about it. Life in prison is too good for him, and death isn't bad enough.”

 

Gail Doll and Tim Iffrig, although divorced, remained close. Tim worked for the same employer, now located in Mukilteo, Washington. Both he and his mother have stopped drinking.

Gail Doll continued to live in the same little house in Everett from which Roxanne was kidnapped. Carol Clark remained on Lombard Street in the same house where she washed Richard Clark's bloodstained shirt.

Lloyd Herndon was no longer senior detective for the Everett Police Department. For reasons both personal and professional, he returned to patrol duty in Everett's South Precinct.

Feather Rahier, violated at age two by her father, groped in the garage at age four, and vanished from the Gelo residence at age thirteen, returned home alive and well following Clark's conviction and imprisonment. She will not be called to testify, nor will her name be mentioned, at the 2004 penalty phase of Richard Mathew Clark.

In this author's analysis, Richard Clark ineffectually attempted to prevent himself from committing the initial kidnapping of Roxanne Doll. Even though Neila D'alexander made it perfectly clear that she intended to spend the night in town, Richard Clark asked her to return with him to the Doll-Iffrig residence. He also urged Vicki Smith to accompany him after returning Jimmy Miller to the reservation. Had either accepted his invitation, the kidnapping, rape, and murder would have been at least forestalled, if not prevented.

It is also highly probable that the coffee-drinking, glasses-wearing Richard Clark, who reappeared at the Dog House Tavern between 10:00 and 10:30
P.M.
, and asked about selling his van—a van he had only recently acquired—was a Richard Clark who was already past the act of rape, and into the mental act of “undoing.”

This scenario, if valid, puts Jimmy Miller, unconscious in an alcoholic blackout, in the front passenger seat of Clark's van when Richard Clark kidnapped Roxanne Doll between 9:15 and 10:00
P.M.
It also means Roxanne Doll was alive in the back of the van until just prior to midnight. Jimmy Miller was asked point-blank if this was possible, and he acknowledged that in his condition that night he would have never known.

None of these various interpretations of time lines and behavioral indicators alters the fact that Richard Clark kidnapped, restrained, raped, and murdered an innocent seven-year-old child named Roxanne Doll.

Each child—Roxanne Doll and Richard Clark included—is potentially the light of the world. Had Richard Clark's life been different, his basic at-birth biology balanced, his upbringing healthy, his emotions matured, the odds of him ever committing such a heinous act rapidly diminish.

If there is nothing learned from this nightmare beyond the unquestioned guilt of Richard Clark in the death of Roxanne Doll, her death does not rise to the level of sacrifice. If, however, her death compels a closer examination of the facts and factors that contributed to the creation of the mind-set and motivations of Richard Clark—an examination that saves future lives—then her death is not in vain.

Richard Clark appears to fit the profile of a “situational” child molester. “This type of individual doesn't really have a sexual preference for children,” explains Dr. Stephen Rubin, “and the motivation is really more one of power or control over someone more weak than they are.”

Quite often, abuse in the offender's own life sets the stage for his or her sexual abuse of young people. “These individuals usually have low self-esteem, lax standards of morality, and even though this type of offender doesn't have a primary sexual desire for children, they may react to a built-up sexual impulse or anger that, to them, is irresistible.”

Childhood beatings, for example, interfere with the proper development of the hypothalamus, which regulates the body's emotional and hormonal systems. An excess of the hormone noradrenaline, or low levels of the brain chemical serotonin, may cause violent responses to various stimuli.

The main criterion for the victims is “availability.” Unlike the pedophile who has a compulsive sexual desire for children, and thus pursues them fairly constantly, the situational molester may have many years between episodes, or only one sexually inappropriate act in his entire life.

Incarceration, devoid of comprehensive treatment, has no effect on altering their postrelease behavior. Comprehensive treatment, however, is of significant value. “Sex offenders are not as hopelessly fated to a life of deviant behavior as is widely believed,” says Dr. Rubin.

Canadian psychologists R. Karl Hanson, Ph.D., and Monique T. Bussiere, Ph.D., recently reviewed 61 studies covering more than 23,300 cases of sex offenses and found that only 13 percent of the individuals identified in the studies went on to commit another sex crime. According to their study, published in the
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
(Vol. 66, No. 2, pp. 348–362), those who did re-offend had committed more diverse sexual offenses and more deviant sexual interests, and did not complete their rehabilitative treatment programs.

“The findings contradict the wide-held notion that most sex offenders inevitably repeat their deviant behavior,” noted the researchers, who are corrections researchers at the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.

“Treatment programs can contribute to community safety,” they write. “We now have reliable evidence that those who attend and cooperate with treatment programs are less likely to re-offend than those who reject intervention.”

“Child molestation, because of its large numbers of victims and because of the extent of its damage to the health of its victims, is a national public health problem,” state Gene G. Abel, M.D., and Nora Harlow, authors of
The Stop Child Molestation Book
(Xlibris 2001). “To combat this public health problem we must focus on the cause. People with pedophilia molest 88 percent of child sexual abuse victims. Early diagnosis of this disorder, followed by effective medicines and therapies, has the potential to save children from being molested.”

The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) is a nonprofit, interdisciplinary organization founded in 1984 to foster research, facilitate information exchange, further professional education, and provide for the advancement of professional standards and practices in the field of sex offender evaluation and treatment. ATSA is specifically focused on the prevention of sexual abuse through effective management of sex offenders, and the protection of our communities through responsible and ethical treatment of sex offenders.

For further information on publications, seminars, and state chapters, contact:

This author has found no confirming evidence that Richard Clark received any comprehensive ongoing treatment for his inappropriate behavior toward Feather Rahier other than being locked up in a cell. That behavior aligns symptomatically with those of children born of alcoholic mothers—children born with either fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) or fetal alcohol effect (FAE).

“Children with FAS,” stated Inez Serrano, information specialist for the Cowlitz County Health Department in Washington State, “often develop behavior problems that increase their risk of becoming involved with the criminal justice system. The most serious characteristics of FAS/ FAE include a high probability of sexually inappropriate behavior, including the molestation of children. At least sixty-five percent of adult males with FAE manifest sexual behaviors that are repeatedly problematic, or for which the individual is incarcerated or treated.”

It is thought that the actual incidence of inappropriate sexual behavior is much higher, and not always reported by the individual or the family due to embarrassment or fear of being reported to authorities. In addition to child molestation, problem sexual behaviors most common for those with FAS/FAE include indecent exposure, various sexual compulsions, voyeurism, masturbation in public, incest, sex with animals, and obscene phone calls.

Other symptoms of FAS/FAE include:

 

During childhood, 60 percent of children with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders have ADHD. During adulthood, most adults with FASD have clinical depression. Twenty-three percent of the adults had attempted suicide, and 43 percent had threatened to commit suicide. Richard Clark attempted suicide three times in a twelve-month period.

 

• Disrupted School Experience
(suspension or expulsion or drop out)

By the time students with FAE reach adulthood, the rate of disrupted school experience peaks at 70 percent. Common school problems include: not paying attention, incomplete homework, can't get along with peers, disruptive in class, disobeying school rules, talking back to the teacher, fighting, and truancy. Following his mother's death, Richard Clark didn't return to school.

 

• Trouble with the Law
(involvement with police, charged or convicted of crime)

Sixty percent of those age twelve and over develop criminal records. The most common first criminal behavior reported was shoplifting, followed by property damage, possession/selling, sexual assault, and vehicular crimes. The criminal record of Richard Clark includes virtually all of the above crimes.

 

Inpatient treatment for mental health, alcohol/drug problems, or incarceration for crime is experienced by 60 percent of those ages twelve and over. Over 40 percent of adults with FASD had been incarcerated, about 30 percent of adults with FASD were confined to a mental institution, and about 20 percent had been confined for substance-abuse treatment. Richard Clark served time for criminal behavior, but never received comprehensive treatment for his alcoholism or drug usage.

 

Of the adults with FAE, 53 percent of males and 70 percent of females experience substance-abuse problems. This is more than five times that of the general population. Richard Clark's continual consumption of alcohol, the drug most linked to violent behavior, and other lesser drugs, is well documented. The massive amounts of alcohol consumed by Richard Clark following his mother's death certainly did him no good. Research at the University of North Carolina tested the sensitivity of the adolescent brain to binge drinking. The results, published in the November 2000 issue of
Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research,
advanced the hypothesis that this damage is a component of alcoholism.

 

Eighty percent of adults with FAS/FAE have significant difficulty in securing and maintaining employment. Richard Clark never had his feet firmly on any career path other than petty criminality.

 

• Exposure to Violence
(sexual and/or physical abuse)

Seventy-two percent of individuals with FAS/FAE have experienced abuse. Those exposed to violence are four times as likely to exhibit inappropriate sexual behavior. There is no doubt that the violence inflicted upon young Richard Clark left an indelible mark on his psyche and his future behavior.

Craig Harris at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center in Worcester has asserted that adolescent experiences can determine how a person will behave for the rest of his or her life. Bullies, for example, are easily created. According to Harris, if you place an adolescent hamster in a cage for one hour a day with an aggressive adult hamster, it will grow up to become a bully who picks on smaller hamsters. When faced with a hamster its own size, it will cower in fear. Once again, research confirms that fear is the underlying component of aggression.

 

 

In the United States of America, over three percent of the population is currently in prison. In Canada, it is estimated that at least fifty percent of the prison population was possibly exposed to excessive amounts of alcohol prebirth. As of yet, no comprehensive studies have determined the percentage of FAS/FAE-afflicted population in America's rapidly expanding prison system. In the previous decade, the population of Washington State increased twelve percent while the Washington State prison population increased ninety percent.

The Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Family Resource Institute is an excellent source of further information. The mission of the FAS Family Resource Institute, a nonprofit organization, is to identify, understand, and care for individuals disabled by prenatal alcohol exposure and their families, and to prevent future generations from having to live with this disability. For more information, contact:

Life, including death, appears incomprehensibly unfair. Time heals all wounds except the fatal. Scars of the heart seldom fade, and comforting the bereaved is a temporary social obligation.

A natural desire for simplicity and certitude tempts us to sanctify the innocent and demonize the guilty, burying the depth of our pain in the shallow “It was God's will.” No religion on earth includes rape and murder as praiseworthy acts. Indeed, mercy and compassion are the hallmarks of all faiths.

“Crime victims, their families and friends, deal with more than pain, grief, and anger,” Gail Doll has said. “We must also cope with the complicated and often impersonal criminal justice system. Families and Friends of Missing Persons and Violent Crime Victims provided us with ongoing support in our time of grief, information and referrals in time of confusion, and advocacy by volunteers that made all the difference in the world to us.”

Families and Friends is the oldest victim advocacy and support group in Washington State, and one of the first such groups in the nation. They offer services to crime victims, their loved ones, and the public throughout Washington twenty-four hours a day, at no cost. Peer support groups provide comfort, understanding, compassion, and coping skills.

Among the valuable services provided by Families and Friends are educational programs to increase public awareness of the impacts of violent crime, and abduction prevention information. They have fingerprinted thousands of children and adults, and developed “Personal ID Packets” with dental charts, fingerprints, and safety tips. Families and Friends also offers a complete resource center with updated information on topics ranging from the criminal justice system to victim experiences. A newsletter,
The White Rose
, offers important insights into victim issues, pending legislation, and personal stories of victims and survivors.