Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
For everyone who solves crime from their couch, knows more about forensics than their own job, and has trust issues with small town sheriffs. Amazon Music's millions of podcast episodes are calling. Just download the Amazon Music app and start listening to your favorite True Crime Podcasts ad free included with Prime Marketing is hard, but I'll tell you a little secret. It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out. You're listening to a podcast right now and it's great. You. You love the host. You seek it out and download it. You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even going to the bathroom. Podcasts are a pretty close companion. And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention? You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Libsyn Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements, or run a pre produced ad like this one across thousands of shows. To reach your target audience in their favorite podcasts with Libsyn ads, go to libsynads.com that's L I B S Y N ads.com today Detective Dustin Goudtschall was assigned the Haline case in October 2018, right after the Vancouver PD received the report from Parabon Nanolabs identifying Richard Kay as a person of interest. Detective Goudtschall reviewed the reports of former Major Crimes Unit Detective Barbara Noble and verified that the suspect's name was not in the case file. He noted that Richard Kay had three addresses of record in Vancouver in the 1990s, all that were very close to Audrey's apartment. He lived at 3207 124th Avenue, 3.4 miles away. He lived at 3411 Grant Street, 4.8 miles away, and he lived at 2011 Brant Road, 2 miles away. Furthermore, Richard's physical characteristics were consistent with the Parabon phenotype. With light brown hair, hazel eyes and fair skin, he stood 6 foot 3 and 200 pounds. Finally, Richard Kay had a rape 3 conviction in Clark county in 1986. It was time to get Richard's DNA. Detective Gaucho learned that Richard Kay was living in Fairview, Oregon and working the night shift at PDX Aerocheck Cargo Security on Air Cargo Road. They set up surveillance teams to start watching Richard. After checking out his DMV photo and his social media. They noted that he smoked continually and he was the only employee they ever saw smoking. However, he smoked mostly when he was sitting in his truck and he didn't throw the butts out the window. They watched him for months without Being able to obtain any abandoned DNA attempts to swab the door handle of his vehicle didn't yield workable DNA either. Finally, they implemented Operation Fishnet. The title was especially clever because not only were they of course attempting to snare Richard Kay in their net, but they literally used a fishnet. Here's what happened. Detective Gadshaw, watching Richard's workplace from an unmarked vehicle, saw him standing outside at the smoking door with three other employees taking a break. He was the only one smoking. He watched Richard from about 50ft away as Richard sucked down two cancer sticks and put both butts into a metal coffee can which was sitting on the stairway outside the building. The coffee can was filled with rainwater and several other cigarette butts were also floating inside. Once Richard had left for the day, Corporal Martin used an aquarium style fishnet to skim five butts out of the can. The detectives dried them out and then sent them in for testing at the Washington State Crime Lab. A crime Lab report dated February 13, 2019 indicated that testing on cigarette butt number one conclusively matched the DNA of individual A DNA results in hand On Sunday, April 28, 2019, Detectives Godshaw and Martin went to the home of Richard Kay on Northeast Sandy boulevard in Fairview, Oregon. Around 11:30am they knocked on the door and told him detective, they were looking into an old Vancouver case and they had some questions. Richard and his wife Michelle were very cooperative. Detective Gottschall said they were there trying to get some questions answered about a cold case and he had a questionnaire for Richard to fill out. In response to questions about whether he lived in Vancouver in the 90s, Richard said he'd lived in Vancouver most of his life. His brother, sister and mother still lived there. In 1994. He thought he and Michelle were living at her parents house on Hazeldale Avenue, but he could have been living with his ex, Candy. He couldn't remember the street name, but it was by the Minute Mart, the same Minute Mart where Audrey and Scott bought beer on the last day of Audrey's life. Trying to figure out where Richard might have met Audrey, the investigators next asked him around 1994, do you recall frequenting any bars named Omar's? City Zoo, the Brass Rail or the Spot Tavern? He said he went to City Zoo and he did tile work at Omar's. His dad knew Omar. Detective Gottshaw said, okay, have you ever been to and this is back in 94. Have you ever been to 8011 East Fourth Plain, known in 1994 as the Family Tree Apartments? Did you know anyone living there? Richard K. Said, what is it? Detective Gottschall said, the Family Tree Apartments. I think that's what it was called then. Richard said, not that I. Not that I remember. Detective Gottshaw said, that you recall. Richard said, I don't know. Family Tree Apartments. That's a long, long time ago. Michelle stepped in here and said, no, we don't know anybody. We didn't know anybody in those apartments. Next, detectives showed Richard some photographs and asked if he recognized the people in them. These were pictures of Scott H, Mike L, Ken K. And some female residents of the apartment complex, including Audrey. No, Richard said, none are familiar. Detective Gottshaw said, do you know or do you recognize the name Audrey or Audrey Frazier? Richard said, nope. Detective Gottshaw said, no. Richard said, no. They told him we're just casting a wide net and seeing if someone's memory pops up, some things. So that's really all. Well, Richard wanted to know what this was all about. Detective Martin said, okay, all right. Yeah. So, unfortunately, I can't. What I can't tell you is probably all the questions that you have, why I'm here and what's going on. Basically, we're investigating a cold case from 1994, obviously involving one of the females in the photographs that we showed you was alleged to have been sexually assaulted back in the day. That doesn't mean you folks have anything to do with that, but basically, we're in the me too generation. And so, you know, we're going back. There's. Right now there's a lot of federal money behind, you know, basically making sure that everybody has the opportunity to report stuff. Richard said, Mm. Martin continued, and so it doesn't mean that you were involved, necessarily, but I'm assuming probably through the Omar's connection or one of the bars, your name had come up as maybe having some information. And so that's why we came over here. So I'm sorry to do it on a Sunday. That's just we kind of work these cases in between our other cases. So out of all the females, and I won't tell you which one we showed, I just want to confirm that neither of you knew any of them at all. Michelle says no. Richard says no. Michelle said, I'd tell you if I did. Richard said, I would, too. I don't have anything to hide. I'd tell you it straight up, but I don't recognize anybody. Detective Martin said, okay, and so then I would. I would assume it would be safe to say that you wouldn't have had any sexual contact with any of these people. Michelle said, I'd kill him. Detective Martin says, which means you're not going to tell me if you would have anyway with her sitting here. Michelle said, yeah he would. And Richard said, yeah I would. Michelle said, we don't hide nothing. Richard agreed, no secrets from each other. And Michelle said we're open and have an open and honest relationship with each other for. And Richard finished her sentence since we'd been together. So then Detective Martin said, the reason I'm asking is because they're going back and testing a lot of the cold case sexual assault kits and I don't know if your DNA is on file or anything like that. Richard said, it is because I was convicted of a rape three charge back in the 80s and I fought it all the way. I complied with everything because straight up I am not a fucking animal. I'm not a weirdo, a creep, nothing. And I fought all the way because I didn't do it. That's all there is to it. I've lived with all these frickin years of my life and I come from a very good family and that happened back in the 80s. I feel like if you have to say you're not a weirdo and a creep, you probably are. So. Detective Martin said once again, I don't want to touch off any bad memories or anything but you didn't have sexual contact with any of these females then, is that what I understand? Richard said, no, no, not. I don't recognize any of them, no. Then he said, you know, I was sexually active back in the day. You, you know, you know, I'm not gonna lie about that. I was a guy, you know, but when I got with my wife, like I've said, all that shit stopped. I've been faithful to my wife. The spouses debated about when their relationship began. Michelle stated the two started their relationship in December 1993, saying it'll be 26 years this Christmas. That would have been roughly seven months before Audrey's homicide. With that, the interview wrapped up. There was a lot of chit chat at the end about Michelle and Richard having met in grade school and then meeting again at Omar's bar and ending up getting married and how they inherited the house they live in. Blah blah, nothing remotely interesting. So Richard dug a nice little hole for himself. In this initial interview. The detectives recorded the whole thing, locking him into his story that he didn't frequent the Family Tree apartments, he had never met anyone named Audrey Frazier, and he didn't have sex with anyone but Michelle. After December 1993, which was well before Audrey was killed in July of 94 and his DNA was found all over the crime scene, Detectives Godshaw and Martin left and went to brief their supervising sergeant Jeff Kip. Roughly five minutes later they were informed that Richard K. Had left his house and driven straight to a gas station to fill up on fuel. It was felt that there was a strong chance that he was going to split town. For everyone who solves crime from their couch, knows more about forensics than their own job and has trust issues with small town sheriffs. Amazon Music's millions of podcast episodes are calling. Just download the Amazon Music app and start listening to your favorite true crime podcasts ad free included with prime the new Gum Health Hero is here from Parodontax the experts in gum care. Parodontax Gum Strengthen and protect Strengthens the gum seal by killing plaque bacteria along the gum line for a stronger and tighter seal between the gums and teeth. Clinically proven to reduce bleeding and now with hyaluronic acid for foaming action. Brush and rinse twice daily to protect against plaque, keep gums tight and enjoy long lasting gum health Strong gums healthy smile. They decided to pull the trigger. They posted the arrest warrant for Richard K. On NCIC and Gresham police executed a traffic stop and and took Richard into custody. He was arrested and booked into the Multnomah County, Oregon jail on a fugitive warrant. At the police station, Richard was brought into the interview room with Detective Godshaw and Detective Martin. They gave him an ice cold Pepsi and told him that they would read him his rights and then he could decide how he wanted to approach the conversation. So they read him his Miranda warnings and he agreed to waive them. What is this about? He asked. Detective Gottschall said, all right. The person I showed you with that last picture, Audrey Frazier. Okay. Your DNA is inside that woman. Okay? Richard said, okay. Gottshaw continued. You were at those apartments in 1994, in July. Beyond a scientific doubt, you were there. Richard K. Said, what did I. What am I supposed to have done? Godshaw said. DNA puts you there. Richard said, I mean, I slept with different women. I told you that. So what? Godshaw says, okay, and Richard says, so if I slept with her, what's wrong with that? Is she saying I raped her or something? Because I didn't rape no one. Gottschall said. She's been dead for 25 years because she was dead that night. Richard says. You're saying this person's Dead. Detective Gottschall. Richard, not by me. Detective Godshaw said, sure. They showed him Audrey's picture again, and he said, I don't recognize her. I honestly don't recognize her. I don't. I mean, I used to party really heavy. I mean, I slept with a lot of different women. They asked Richard to tell him about the person he was back in 1994, and he said, I was in a really abusive relationship with my wife. They asked whether drugs and alcohol were a problem, and he said, yeah, I always have drank, and, yeah, I played with drugs, but I quit doing all that shit. He admitted that he smoked a lot of pot and continues to do so. They asked him whether he was selling weed back in 1994. And he said, quote, I gave it to people. I mean, there was some times I maybe would sell some pot or something, but that was very few. But I wasn't like a big drug lord, end quote. They asked him what kind of circles he was moving in, and he said he tended to keep to himself. He said, I've never hurt anybody in my life. Never been in a lot of fights. I'm not a bad person. Detective Godshaw says, I'm not saying you're a bad person. We're just trying to understand the full picture, you know? Richard K. Said, I'm not a killer, okay? I'm not a killer. I'm not a person to hurt somebody. I've been through enough of that. Godshaw said, so the picture that I showed you that's in front of you, the reason why you're sitting here is because your DNA matches the DNA that was collected from her, okay? And the issue is it's your DNA and she's dead. What we need to know is what else happened? Richard said, I have no idea. I never. I never heard of this woman. I don't honestly recognize her, and I don't. That's a lot of years ago, a lot of partying. Detective Gottshaw said, well, could you have had sex with her and just not remember? Richard Kay said, well, yeah, it's possible. It's possible. Like I said, I had sex with a lot of women that I don't remember a lot of them. I mean, it's a lot of years ago. So if you're saying my DNA is in her, then I obviously, I must have had sex with her. Did I hurt her or kill her? No. Detective Godshaw said, okay, but if you don't remember having sex with her, how would you be able to confirm 100% that other things maybe intentional or not happened or not. Do you understand what I'm saying? Richard said, I understand exactly what you're saying. Would I not remember I killed somebody or hurt somebody? Yeah, I would remember that. Godshaw said, okay, but you don't remember having sex with her? Richard said, no, I don't. I honestly don't. This went on for a while with Richard K. Saying, I swear to God, I don't remember sleeping with her, but I did sleep with a lot of women. I was very sexually active, et cetera. He admitted that he partied a lot and got pretty wasted when they kept pressing him. He said, what do you want me to tell you? It's the truth. You're asking me about a picture of a woman 25 years ago, if I slept with her, if I knew her, it's 25 years ago. They asked him once again if he drank to the point that he may be blacked out at times. Richard said, not if something bad would happen. No, I would remember that kind of shit. And if you're saying, like, kill somebody or hurt somebody, yeah, I would remember that. Like I said, I'm not a fighter. I'm not a person to hurt somebody. Never have been, never will be. And no, I don't get so fucked up that I had sex with her and that hurt her in any way. I'm not that kind of a person. I have never hurt anybody. Any woman you ever talked to that knew me, that slept with me would know that. Detective Martin said, but we have talked to a couple women. They said you like to choke them during sex. Do you like to choke women during sex? Richard said, do what? Martin said, do you like to choke women during sex? We have talked to some of your partners in the past. Richard said, okay. And Martin said, so I'm asking you, do you like to choke them? Richard said, well, sure, I mean, Martin said, during sex? Richard said, because I might have. Yes, sure. Martin said, okay. Then Richard K. Decided to do an about face and pretend that he didn't really hear the question. He said, I don't understand what you're saying. I don't hear well. And Detective Martin said, choking during sex, putting your hands around their throat so that they have a better orgasm. And he said, oh, no, I'm not into that shit at all. I heard there's people that do it, but not me. Detective Martin said, so why would they say that you did it? That's what I'm asking you. Richard said, I don't know who would say that. Never. Then Detective Gottshaw said, how about the gal that alleged you raped her way back in 86 because she says otherwise. Richard did a lot of stammering and then said, that was never brought up in court. There was never nothing said about that. It wasn't a forceful thing, supposedly, at all, other than her saying, no, supposedly. And I kept going. That's all it was. There was no physical part to it at all. There was no strangling, no nothing. No ropes, nothing. Detective Godshaw clarified that the survivor told them that he choked her during the incident. And Richard said, no, I've never choked anybody. Godshaw says, you've never choked anybody during sex. And Richard said, no. Godshaw said, it's not your thing. And he said, no, I'm not into that shit. My wife will vouch for that. I'm not that way at all. Godshaw said, anything bad that happened to this lady was not a result of you is what you're saying. And Richard said, no, it was not. Godshaw said, okay, and if you were to have sex with her, the way I'm understanding what you're saying is it would have been consensual. Richard said, obviously. And Godshaw said, not obviously, because one of you is alive and the other isn't. Richard said, you don't do it without consent. Otherwise it's considered rape, and that's force, and that's not right. I've never hurt or abused any fucking woman. I was never taught that way. I had very good, strict parents. I think people who do that shit should be fucking taken out of the world, okay? That's all there is to it. Put a bullet between the eyes. That's how I feel. Richard continued to say that other than the rape conviction, which he claimed even the judge said he had mixed feelings about because everything wasn't like it really should have been. He had never gotten in legal trouble. Detectives pointed out he had two DUIs on his record. Detective Gottschall got back to it. He said, what do you think happened to her after you guys had sex? Richard said, oh, I have no idea. He looked at her photo again and said, I don't recognize this person at all, to be honest with you. I would never do something like that. Never. Never. The detectives tried to appeal to Richard's sense of empathy, asking what they should tell her brother and father. That this guy doesn't even remember having sex with her, but we know he did. But he says he didn't kill her. He said, all I can tell you is that I did not hurt this woman. He started to get impatient. He said, so what am I under arrest for? He and Detective Godshaw said, you're under arrest for murder. He said, murder? And they said, yes. He repeated, I'm under arrest for murder. And they said, yes again. And that's where Richard said, I want an attorney. Detective Martin said, okay, you don't want to chat anymore? And Richard said, I don't know if I really should. I think that's where an attorney needs to be here. I haven't done anything. I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to drill me to see if I confess to something I didn't do. But I don't remember this person. I'm being honest with you. And with that, they terminated the interview. Afterwards, a buccal swab was collected from Richard pursuant to his search warrant. Laura Kelly, forensic scientist with the Washington State Patrol, Vancouver Crime Lab, issued her report in early June 2019 comparing Richard K's DNA to the STR and YSTR profiles obtained from the sperm fraction of the vaginal swabs collected at Audrey's autopsy. The DNA profile matched to Richard Kate. The estimated probability of selecting an unrelated individual at random from the US population with a matching profile is 1 in 10, quadrillion. The YSTR profile also matched to Richard K, with the report stating, therefore neither Richard nor any of his paternal male relatives can be excluded as the donor of the male DNA in this sample. The YSTR profile is not expected to occur more frequently than 1 in 3,500 male individuals in the US population. But the analysis didn't stop there. Ms. Kelly tested the unknown male DNA found in the form of skin cells under Audrey's right hand fingernail clippings against the DNA of Richard Kaye. Her report stated, the DNA profile obtained from the right fingernail clippings is a mixture consistent with originating from Audrey Fraser and Richard kaye. It is 210 trillion times more likely to observe this DNA profile if it originated from Audrey and Richard than it have originated from Audrey and one unrelated individual selected at random from the US population. Ms. Kelly was also requested to compare the partial DNA profile obtained from the sperm fraction of stain D on the center of the comforter to the DNA of Richard K. It's very important to understand that this stain D was the one found under Audrey's pelvis. Photographs from the scene show her body on the bed, legs slightly spread and one bent, and the stain is right in that spot. Ms. Kelly's report reads the partial DNA profile obtained from the sperm Fraction of stain D on the comforter matches the DNA profile of Richard K. The estimated probability of selecting an unrelated individual at random from the US population with a matching profile is 1 in 7 nonelian, which is 10 to the 30th power. I mean, I'm not a math person, but that seems like a pretty definitive result. However, one test did not go as expected. An unknown STR profile had been obtained from the gauze swab of the blood on Audrey's right knee. The report said the STR profile obtained from the right knee gauze is a mixture consistent with originating from at least three male individuals. The profile of the major component is from an unknown male source designated as individual B. Richard K is excluded as the source of the male DNA in the major component. No comparisons can be made to the minor components due to complexity. So DNA from another unknown male was on the gauze swab. No one knew who he was, but they knew he was not Richard Kay. Other male profiles on the gauze could not be interpreted. And while they could have been from Richard, there was no way to know that. Vancouver authorities held a press conference announcing the arrest of Richard Kay for the 1994 murder of Audrey Haline. Detective Godschall walked the assembled media through the case, how it had gone cold, and when it was reopened in the modern era, DNA was obtained from multiple potential suspects who were all ruled out. Then the case was contracted out to Parabon and here we are. Detective Godshaw stated that the investigation was still ongoing and quote, we welcome any contact from the public as we compile our case. He talked about when he got to notify Audrey's family of the break in the case. He reminded the public that Audrey left behind a small child who grew up without a mom and that her family grew up without a sister and a daughter for 25 years. When he learned that the DNA of Richard K matched that of their suspect, individual A, he called Audrey's brother in South Dakota, whom he said was emotional, adding his elderly father onto the call, who said he thought he would die without knowing who killed his daughter. Detective Godschall also personally contacted Audrey's son Alex, who still lived in the Vancouver area. He was very happy with the news, but said it opened old wounds. Audrey's brother Marty told Heavy.com's the love of her life was her son. She was just the best mom, the nicest, most caring person you could imagine. Afterwards, the Haline family issued a statement. It said, this crime not only took away a sister from her two brothers, it left a mother and father without a daughter and a young child without a mother. Since then, the family has grown, with nephews that will never meet their aunt and a grandchild that can only see grandma in pictures, only knowing her from shared memories. We as a family are grateful for the many detectives that have worked on this case, but we are extremely grateful for detectives Dustin Gottshall and Neil Martin. The loss of a loved one is something very tragic for her family. When this loss was at the hands of someone else, the grief is impossible to bear. Many losses had closure at the funeral. In this case, the funeral wasn't enough. Our family was left with so many unknowns, the biggest of these being who did this awful crime. As this case is starting to Unfold after almost 25 years, the wound is being reopened and our family is experiencing the pain all over again. But thanks to Detectives Dustin Gottshaw and Neil Martin, our family may finally have the opportunity to find closure to our biggest unknown. We hope that the use of this technology can be used to bring closure to more families who across the nation. Whether you're into unsolved mysteries, solved mysteries, or creating your own mysteries, Amazon Music's got millions of podcast episodes waiting. Just download the Amazon Music app and start listening to your favorite podcasts ad free included with Prime. We all prefer things a certain way, like groceries. If you want groceries just how you like them, you gotta try Instacart. They have a new preference picker that lets you pick how ripe or unripe you want your bananas. Shoppers can see your preferences up front, helping guide their choices. Because when it comes to groceries, the details matter. Instacart get groceries just how you like. Okay, let's talk about what we know about Richard K. He was born on April 5, 1962 in Washington state and grew up in the Vancouver area. I don't have details on his education or employment, but I do know that he married young and that first marriage did not work out. Then he married a woman I'm calling Candy on August 14, 1993. She was pregnant with their child in July of 1994 when Audrey was slain in her apartment. But according to Michelle, she and Richard started their relationship in late 93, so I can only assume he was married when they met and divorced soon thereafter. In April 2019, Detectives Godshaw and Deanna Watkins went to Candy's home to interview her. She told them her 11 year relationship with Richard was tumultuous. They lived in Vancouver and he was in and out of the house at all hours, frequenting the local bars he drank and did a lot of drugs. Detective Gottschall's report says Candie stated that he was abusive toward her and she knew that he was engaging in sexual relations with other women when they were married. Candy saw a woman's shirt and identification in her husband's work van. In fact, he met his current wife Michelle, while they were still married. Candy did not recall Richard being violent during sexual intercourse. She had not known about his previous conviction for rape before they married. When she found out about it, he told her he wasn't guilty and his sperm had jumped onto the victim. I'm trying not to picture how that would work. In an interesting twist, the detectives showed Candy a photo from Audrey's funeral showing some men who were unidentified. Candy said she couldn't be sure, but one of them might have been Richard because of his frame and how he was standing. And get this. Candy said that in the summer of 1994 when Audrey was killed, Richard came home one day with a sort of bite or laceration to his ear. He refused to tell her what happened or how he got the cut. Now you've heard me make a reference to a rape conviction on Richard's record. He was convicted of an assault on a young mother named Barbara in 1986. I'm going to talk now about what Richard did to Barbara. And so if discussion of sexual assault is distressing or triggering for you, you'll want to skip ahead about a minute or two. Clark County Sheriff's Deputy William Griffith was dispatched on April 13, 1986 to the call of a rape investigation, with the victim being Barbara. Barbara reported that she and her baby daughter had recently moved into an apartment at 10300 Northeast Stutts Road. Being a young single mom, Barbara enjoyed socializing with the other tenants in her new building. And on April 12th at 7pm she went to apartment 22 to attend a party hosted by a couple named John and Kathy. She brought her 14 month old baby with her at the party. Barbara, John, Kathy, a man named Troy, and Troy's roommate, whose name Barbara didn't know but later learned was Richard K. Began playing drinking games. Barbara didn't like beer, so she didn't really drink. But she enjoyed the fun and laughter that goes along with flip cup or quarters or whatever the game was. The party went pretty late and finally between 1:30 and 2:30, John and Kathy asked everyone to leave so they could go to bed. They asked Barbara and Richard to make sure that Troy got back to his apartment okay. As he was very drunk. Barbara and her baby. Troy and Richard went to apartment 30. Richard helped Troy to bed. Then Richard and Barbara spent 20 minutes talking. From the report, quote. At no time in the apartment did the suspect make any advances toward Barbara during this whole time, the victim had her daughter with her, end quote. When Barbara prepared to leave, Richard offered to walk her back to her apartment. But first he said he had to stop in the building's rec room to lock it up. Barbara stated, quote, as we were leaving the apartment, he said, oh, I forgot to have to lock up the room, the rec room for the apartments, because the manager is away on vacation. And I was like, okay. And he sent me across the rec room to make sure the window was locked and the heater and stuff was off. Now, this window and heater were located in the back of the room furthest from the door. While Barbara was over checking the window and turning off the heater, Richard locked the door from the inside. She started to walk toward the door to leave, but he told her to take off her shirt. From the report, quote. When the victim refused, the defendant grabbed a hold of her shirt on both sides of her waist and pulled it off over her head and pulled her bra off. During the entire time, the victim kept telling the suspect no and asking him to leave her alone and let her go home. The victim indicated that she did not physically resist because of her fear that the defendant might hurt her daughter, end quote. She put her daughter down and Richard pushed the child over. You can guess what happened next. Basically, Barbara told Richard to stop, and he said, I'm not going to hurt you. If I'm hurting you, tell me. He took off her pants and asked her to give him a blowjob, and she refused. She told him she was not interested and again asked him to leave her alone. He repeated this request for a BJ multiple times, and each time she refused. At one point, he said, what the f do I have to do to get you to give me some head? And she said she would not and please let her go home. Then he told her to get on the floor and he raped her on the floor for about five minutes. Before climaxing all that from the report, Barbara told Deputy Griffith, he started raping me. I did what he told me to do because I was scared he was going to hurt my daughter. And when he was done, he went still, but told me if I told anybody that he would hurt us. After it was over, Barbara went back to her apartment and told her roommate that she had been raped. Her roommate made her file a report unfortunately, because she was frightened that Richard would make good on his threat to come after her if she told anyone she made a bad decision to lie and say she'd been raped by a black male in a public park. However, at the Vancouver Police Department, she confessed that she'd been raped by a tenant in the building. Deputy Griffith went to the apartment where Richard K. Was living and interviewed him. He read him his Miranda rights and he agreed to waive them. He denied that he'd touched Barbara. From the report, quote, the defendant stated that he was married and because of that, he would not do such a thing. And besides, the victim was too fat. End quote. Richard said he was with his roommate Troy all evening, and Troy could verify that he was not alone with the victim at all. Well, of course that wasn't true. Deputy Griffith interviewed Troy, the roommate. He verified that he and Richard were at the party, and then he left the party with Barbara and Richard and came back to his apartment. He thought this was about 3am but he wasn't certain about the time. He said after they got to the apartment, he passed out on a chair and was put in bed by Richard. He didn't know what happened after he went to bed, but Richard had told him later that he walked Barbara and her child home. After putting Troy in bed, Barbara was taken to Vancouver Memorial Hospital where she was administered a rape kit by a Dr. Jones. The swabs collected seminal fluid that had been discovered in her vaginal vault. These swabs were preserved for ABO blood typing and for testing for the presence of certain enzyme groups. Samples were collected from Richard and. And they must have matched because charges were filed and he was arrested. Richard was 24 years old at this time. He initially decided to plead guilty, but then changed his mind and pleaded not guilty. The case went to trial and Richard was convicted of third degree rape. He was questioned about this 1986 rape convictions. In a recent deposition. Question. What's your recollection of how you were matched to that sexual encounter with Barbara? Richard said it's what she said. In other words, he's saying it was he said she said. And the jury believed her. Question. You recall there being in the trial evidence that your pubic hairs were found with Barbara? No question. Did you testify at your trial? Yes, I did. I told the officer at the time that I did not have sex with her. And I also, when I took the stand at my trial, I told the jury that I did not have sex with her. And I stand firm on that question. And the jury disagreed with you they went another way. Yes. So at sentencing for this rape 3e conviction, Richard was treated as a first time offender as he had no other convictions on his record. He was sentenced to 365 days in jail, plus 12 months community supervision upon release. But it's unclear how much time he actually served. Several reports I saw said it was just 60 days. His paperwork reflected that his sentence was would be reduced if he completed an alcohol treatment program. Okay, now be prepared to get mad. Because of his conviction, Richard was required to register as a sex offender and he was commanded by court order to submit a blood sample. I believe this must have been to submit to the Washington State convicted felon database. Initiated in 1990. Richard did submit a blood sample which was collected and stored away, but it was never uploaded into any database. And in 2000, it was destroyed. Yep. If his DNA had been retained and entered into the state's DNA database, it would have connected him to Audrey's case in 1994 when her unknown assailant's DNA was uploaded into the system. But that didn't happen. And Richard Kay lived free for years and years before IGG pointed investigators his way. Whether you're solving murders during breakfast, cracking cold cases on your commute, or playing amateur detective at bedtime, Amazon Music's got millions of podcast episodes waiting. Just download the Amazon music app and start listening to your favorite true crime podcasts ad free included with Prime. Can you grab one more thing? I'll come back up for you. At Amica Insurance, we know you'll always find ways to look out for the people you love. And with Amica Life Insurance, we'll help build a plan to make sure you always can. We're here to help protect the life you've built. Really, you gotta have another one. Amica empathy is our best policy. Visit ameca.com and get a quote. Today, In preparation for Richard Kay's trial for the murder of Audrey Haline, detectives Neil Martin and Detective Godshaw tracked down and interviewed Barbara, the 1986 survivor victimized by Richard Kay. She said, quote, I have ptsd and I still have nightmares and things from it, she said, referring to the rape. And in this interview, Barbara shared some interesting details. Knowing what we know about how Audrey was killed, Barbara described for the detectives how Richard K. Had manually strangled her during the rape. Detective Martin said, and. And can you describe that to me, what you recall about that? Barbara said, well, he just put his hand on my throat and pulled kind of on my shoulders and my throat to hold me down while he was having intercourse with me. Question when he was when he had his hand on your throat, did that? Were you able to breathe still? Answer A few times I had problems breathing and I got dizzy and stuff. But he loosened up, you know, he didn't do it to where I passed out and things like that. So question okay, but did he squeeze you so he squeezed you with enough force to get you to get dizzy? Answer yes, Barbara continued. He was drunk and I know that his wife had he made the comment about his wife had just had a baby, so he wasn't able. He basically was getting satisfied because he couldn't get satisfaction from his wife. Well, interesting that his next wife was pregnant when Audrey was killed too. The Vancouver investigators pulled out all the stops trying to find any connection between Richard Kay and either Audrey or the Family Tree Apartments. Unfortunately, no one in Audrey's family they showed Richard's photo recognized him. His name was not in the case file and it was not in Audrey's address books or any papers found in her apartment. Next, the Investigators showed Richard's 1995 DUI booking photo to a number of witnesses who lived in the Family Tree Apartments. This included Scott H. And others. They wanted to see if anyone remembered him at the Family Tree Apartments or with Audrey. The only former resident they talked to who may have recognized Richard was Vicki K. The statement of probable cause accompanying the arrest warrant for Richard states Vicki K. A resident of the same apartment complex during the time period of the homicide, was contacted and shown a 1995 photograph of Richard Kay, but she was not told his name or that he was a suspect. Vicki stated that she may have seen him around the apartments, that she did not directly know this person, but that her first thought was that she had seen him around the Family Tree Apartment complex. Well, it wasn't nothing, but it wasn't much either. Once Richard Kay was arrested, the legal processes initially moved quickly. On April 29, 2019, he was charged with murder one with sexual motivation and murder two with sexual motivation. On April 30, the search warrant for his buckle swab was obtained and executed. He was then extradited to Washington and transported to Clark County Jail in Washington. In his first court appearance in Clark County Superior Court on May 1, Richard was wearing what looks like a padded vest, but I learned is a suicide prevention smock made of heavy duty fabric that can't be ripped into strips, easily fashioned into nooses, and with no hardware that could be used as a weapon or tool for self harm. I don't know whether Richard exhibited signs of self harm or if it's just protocol in that jurisdiction to use the vests. Bail was initially denied, but later was set at $1 million. Richard couldn't post bail and remained in jail pending trial. At his May 24th arraignment, he pleaded not guilty to both charges. Richard K's attorneys vigorously defended his case. They filed many motions and participated in lots of hearings trying to get the charges against their client dismissed. Things did not go the defense's way initially. Motions to permit Richard to wear civilian clothing to court and to remain unshackled during court hearings were denied. There were delays and continuances as the initial lead defense attorney bowed out and new attorneys had to get up to speed. In one series of motions and hearings, Richard's attorneys sought permission for him to visit his dying wife, Michelle in hospice to say goodbye. Michelle totally stuck by her husband while he was in jail. She posted a lot of things on Facebook like I love you, Rick. I will wait for you as long as it takes. She posted on Facebook for their 15th anniversary in 2019. Today is our 15th anniversary. Thank you for being in my life. We have had our ups and downs, but somehow we have made it through all of it. Somehow our love is so strong for one another. To this, Richard, who must have had access to a computer in jail, wrote, I love you too. Always and forever. Michelle was 100% convinced of her husband's innocence. I struggled with my feelings about Richard's petition for visitation of his dying wife. Part of me was like, of course we're not going to let him out out of pity. He didn't take pity on his victims. But Richard had not been convicted of killing Audrey when this happened. If he'd been able to afford bail, which was very high because of the seriousness of the crime, he would have been by Michelle's side during her illness. It seems mean to deny Michelle one last visit with him on her deathbed. I'd be curious to hear what listeners think about this human conundrum. In the end, Richard's request was denied and Michelle died while Richard sat in a jail cell. As time marched on, there were plea negotiations between Richard's attorneys and the state, but the parties couldn't agree on the plea and or the punishment. The prosecutors were confident in their case and pressed forward to trial. The state estimated the trial would take five to seven days and submitted its witness list on November 18, 2022. All but two of the anticipated state's witnesses were affiliated with the Vancouver pd, the Washington State Patrol crime lab or the Clark county medical examiner. They all planned to testify about Audrey being found clearly murdered. The official ruling as to cause of death, the testing on the physical evidence and the results that linked Richard K. To the DNA from the semen in Audre's vaginal swabs, the semen on the comforter, and the skin cells found under the fingernails of her right hand. The two anticipated civilian witnesses were Scott H. And Barbara, the survivor of the 1986 rape perpetrated by Richard Kay. Barbara planned to testify about the rape, the State winning its argument that this prior bad act was not being introduced to show character or criminal propensity, but rather to to show similarity in MO Because Barbara would tell the jury that during the rape, Richard had choked her until she became dizzy. From a prosecutorial motion to admit this testimony, quote, the State contends that evidence of the defendant's prior Rape three conviction, including statements from that victim that he manually strangled her during the sexual assault, are admissible as signature or modus operandi evidence. In the prior sexual assault, the defendant used strangulation to gain compliance of the victim to submit to his sexual demands. This is consistent with the State's theory of the current case that the defendant used strangulation to gain compliance of the victim for his sexual demands and that strangulation resulted in her death. The prior conviction is evidence of the defendant's means of force used when motivated to gain compliance for his sexual activity. It is therefore relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. Well, the judge agreed. The State also planned to admit statements made by Richard Kay in his two interviews, his pre arrest interview and his custodial interview post Miranda to the effect of that he must have had sex with Audrey. In other words, by his own admission, it was his semen found on her. The State also moved that Richard K. Not be permitted to submit other suspect evidence. They did not want him telling the jury that OG Suspect Scott H. Had actually done it. Washington law requires that in order to present evidence suggesting another person committed the charged offense, the defendant has to establish a sufficient foundation, including, quote, a train of facts or circumstances as tend clearly to point out that someone besides the defendant is the guilty party. The State argued in their motion that mere suspicion or evidence of motive is insufficient. Absent an offer of proof, the defense is to be precluded from offering speculative other suspect evidence, they argued. The State also moved to exclude evidence of the victim's prior bad acts and character. Basically, here they were trying to prevent the defense from painting Audrey as a loose woman, someone who drank too Much did drugs and had sex with men, plural. It was a pretty standard request, and the judge agreed. The trial, scheduled for the end of November 2022, approached, but as it did, holes poked by the defense and the state's case grew larger and larger and. And undermined the prosecuting attorney's office confidence in its case. First, Richard Kay changed his story. When he was interviewed by the investigators both before and after his arrest, he claimed to have no idea who Audrey was and would admit only that he had sex with a lot of women back in the 90s. Now, in a deposition, he said he had sex with Audrey. He said he had no reason to dispute that his semen was found inside Audrey on the comforter where she was found and under her nails. He. He said he had no recollection of it because it was 31 years earlier, but obviously we had sex. But then he said, in response to a question about where he had sex with Audrey, quote, it probably would have been in my van. Question, why do you say that? Answer, because I had a nice van. I had a party van. I had a bed in the back of my van. It was a custom van. It was tricked out. Question. Okay. And this information about your van, you never provided any of those details to the police department at the time of your arrest, did you? No question. Why not? They never asked. Richard said, I never thought about it. I didn't know what was going on. Okay, then how do you explain how your semen was found on the comforter where Audrey Frazier's body was found? I can't explain. Second, the defense found a witness, pathologist Dr. Martha Burt, who planned to testify that the autopsy report's reference to Audrey's neck and pelvis injuries occurring in the same time frame, as it said, could theoretically be hours or days. She felt the OGEE autopsy report language about timing of the infliction of the acute injuries and whether or not they were simultaneous was very general. Also, the autopsy report did not opine that Audrey was sexually assaulted. It was the detectives who extrapolated that, having been at the scene and viewing the situation for themselves, Dr. Burt would testify that she could not tell from the description of Audrey's pelvis and vagina whether she had been sexually assaulted or had consensual sex. In a pretrial deposition, she testified that these injuries could be consistent with either sexual assault or consensual sex. If the prosecutors could not prove to the jury that the donor of the semen, Richard, had necessarily been the person who raped and killed her, that was a Big problem. And remember, the defense also knew about and planned to bring up a trial the fact that the right knee gauze contained DNA from a major male contributor who was not Richard. Third, the anticipated testimony of state witness Vicki K. Which was that she might have seen Richard around the apartment complex. The only thing the prosecution had putting him there at all was undermined by something the defense's investigators found. Richard K. And Vicki were basically neighbors. Years later, between 2010 and 2017, they had lived at 97 Cowlitz Gardens Lane and 151 Cowlitz Gardens Lane, respectively in Kelso, Washington. Their residences were 358ft apart. Since Vicki's testimony was already somewhat vague about recognizing Richard from the Family Tree apartment complex in Vancouver in the 90s, there was no way the state would be able to prove that she didn't instead recognize him from living a few doors down in the 2010s. The only other thing the prosecutors had that connected Richard to Audrey was his admission that he frequented bars she was known to go to. It wasn't enough. And then the bombshell. Scott H. Gave a deposition under oath on November 20, 2022, in which he was questioned by the defense attorneys. Question, so you said that your relationship with Audrey was a one time sexual relationship? Yeah. One time sexual, yeah. Question when did you have sex with her? Scott said, when? Mm. Scott said, that night. Question okay. On her bed? Scott said, yeah. Question okay. And you said you used a condom? Yeah. Yeah. What did you do with the condom? Scott said, I don't know. I remember she ended up pulling it out of her. I don't know what happened. Okay. Whoa, Whoa, whoa. For 25 years, Scott H. Had maintained that he did not have sex with Audrey on the night she was killed. Now he did a complete about face and stated he did have sex with her that night and the condom came off. And remember, Scott H's semen was found on Audrey's comforter. In a deposition, Richard's defense attorney got the DNA analyst Laura Kelly of the crime lab to admit that she was unable to tell when DNA was deposited. Further, she was questioned as to whether if there was ejaculate from individual A in the vaginal canal and. And a woman had sex with individual B who was wearing a condom. Was it possible that some of individual A's seminal fluid could be expelled from the woman through sex with individual B wearing the condom? Ms. Kelly said she was not qualified to answer that, but you can see why a jury would absolutely have been confused by all of this. It was A devastating blow to the state's case against Richard K. Since their only evidence that he murdered Audrey was his semen and his skin cells under her nails. On November 30, 2022, just days before the start of the trial, Deputy Prosecuting attorney Jeff McCarty submitted a motion for dismissal of the murder case against Richard Kay without prejudice. It read in part, quote, the state does not believe it can present sufficient admissible evidence to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. During the course of trial preparation, the prosecution and defense discovered new and credible evidence that was not known at the time of filing. Based on this new evidence, the state no longer feels it can bring forth sufficient evidence to prove these charges beyond a reasonable doubt at this time. Clark County Prosecuting attorney Tony Golick told Oregon Public Broadcasting about this decision to drop the case against Richard K. At least for the time being. Quote, we were no longer convinced beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence we have, as we understand it now that Richard could be convicted. We were ethically bound at that point to dismiss the prosecution, the Colombian reported. Quote, Jeff McCarty said Thursday he couldn't yet say whether he'd bring new charges for the death of 26 year old Audrey Haline, also known as Audrey Frazier. He said the new evidence did not completely rule out Richard Kay as a suspect, but it created enough doubt that McCarty said he couldn't prove his guilt to the legal standard. We either released a killer back into the public or we released an innocent person who's been sitting in jail for three years, McCarty said. And the problem is I don't know which one and we as an office don't know which of those things we did. It's a horrible decision to have to make. In an interview with Oregon Public Broadcasting, Richard's attorneys were smug and quick to blame law enforcement for what they considered to be unjust treatment of their client who was innocent. They said they believed the cold case detectives had good intentions, but failed to rule out other suspects and put blinders on in their eagerness to close the case. They described detectives as convinced the DNA evidence was a silver bullet. It's in my mind, a constant reminder that law enforcement can't forego good police work because they have a new toy or a new theory. Defense attorney Shawn Bogar told OPB he and his partner Jack Green, believe the investigators failed to look closely enough at Scott H. Who, lo and behold, had just admitted he had sex with Audrey on on the night she died. Defense attorney Bogart said in a prepared statement, quote, Richard spent 1,312 days in jail. He lost his home, his job, his life. His wife died in June 2021. She went to sleep knowing they were together. Although he was in jail, Richard has maintained his innocence since his arrest, and the decision today speaks for itself. So Richard Kay was released from jail, where he had languished for more than three and a half years. But he continued to live with a sword of Damocles hanging over his head, because the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney's Office had reserved the right to refile murder charges against him at any time. Although they had dropped the charges, they had absolutely not exonerated him. He didn't like that and decided to do something about it. On February 2, 2024, Richard Kay, plaintiff, filed a civil lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Tacoma, naming Detective Dustin Gottschall as an individual defendant. Gottschall had written the statement of probable cause that was the basis for Richard's arrest. So he was the target of the suit. Richard's complaint, the document levying the charges included three counts, two counts of judicial deception, one each for the arrest warrant and search warrant, and one count of false arrest. The complaint alleged that, quote, the evidence known and available to Godshaw as of the date of Richard's arrest, let alone on November 30, 2022, demonstrates Richard should never have been arrested in the first place. Godshaw and his partner arrested Richard without probable cause. In between the date of Richard's arrest on April 28, 2019, and his release on November 30, 2022, his life was destroyed and he suffered severe emotional distress and trauma. He lost everything that was important to him, his job, his friends, and his home. Richard mentioned his wife's death while he was in custody and the fact that his petition for leave to visit her on her deathbed was denied. And he said he continued to live under a cloud of suspicion despite the fact that the criminal charges were dismissed. As stated in the complaint, quote, he remains of pariah in the community as the cloud of Frazier's murder follows him wherever he goes, end quote. So what did all this mean? What is the judicial deception Richard was accusing Godshaw of engaging in? And why did he feel he had a case for damages because of it? As stated in the complaint, Richard alleged that Godshaw engaged in judicial deception by deliberately or recklessly making false statements or omissions in the probable cause affidavit that was the basis for the arrest and search warrants. These false statements and omissions were made in, quote, reckless disregard for the truth. And as a result, Richard Kay was injured, meaning substantially, negatively impacted, and therefore he deserved remuneration. I should explain here that a law enforcement affidavit issued by an investigator familiar with the case is a sworn statement of the facts supporting probable cause. Triers of fact rely on the affidavits in determining whether there is probable cause to arrest or for a search warrant. Detective Godshaw wrote the affidavits in this case laying out the facts that enabled the judge to find it more likely than not that Richard committed the murder. Here in a nutshell, Richard Kay argued that Detective Godshaw was mischaracterized evidence and left out a bunch of stuff in the probable cause affidavit that pointed to Scott H. Instead of to Richard K. As the murderer of Audrey Haline. He basically said the probable cause affidavit should have painted a more full picture of things. Let's take a look at some examples of things cited by Richard's complaint. He stated that the affidavit failed to state that Scott H's DNA had been found on Audrey's comforter. Well, of course, it's not customary for an affidavit of probable cause to cite every piece of evidence that points to every person in the case file. The purpose of the sworn statement is to convince the court that it is more likely than not that the subject of the affidavit here, Richard, committed the crime, establishing probable cause for arrest. According to case law, there just needs to exist a fair probability under the totality of the circumstances that the defendant did it for probable cause to attach. That's it. And by the way, both the probable cause declaration and the search warrant affidavit brought up Scott H. Stating the scientific fact that Scott was eliminated as a contributor of, quote, semen and fingernail scrapings taken from the victim, end quote. In another example, Richard claimed the detective deliberately misrepresented the strangulation of the 1986 rape survivor, Barbara. The affidavit states that during the assault, Richard Kay had strangled Barbara to the point of near unconsciousness. She never used the word strangulation in her statement, Richard contended. But Detective Godshall pointed out in his response that, quote, washington law defines strangulation as compressing a person's neck, thereby obstructing the person's blood flow or ability to breathe, which is exactly what Barbara said happened. So his use of the word in the probable cause affidavit was not deceptive or misleading, but was legally correct. In another example, Richard's complaint alleged that Detective Godshall deliberately omitted the information about witness Vicki K. Living in close proximity to Richard for several recent years. Of course, it's not required for the probable cause affidavit to point this out, just to state accurately what Vicki said in her interview, which was that she might have seen Richard K. Around the apartment complex. And in yet another example, the complaint complained that the probable cause affidavit failed to mention what it called Audrey's drug and alcohol addiction and, quote, that it was not uncommon for Frazier to engage in casual sexual encounters, end quote. Which, of course, was not relevant. You get the point. Basically, Richard and his attorneys did not like the way the probable cause affidavit framed him, and they decided to try to present that as deliberately misrepresenting the evidence against him. They stated in the complaint their contention that but for the detective's deliberately false statements and omissions or his reckless disregard of the truth, the judge would not have found probable cause to arrest Richard. The result was an arrest without probable cause, a violation of Richard's Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. As a direct and proximate cause of Detective Godshaw's violation of Richard's Fourth Amendment rights, he suffered damages, including emotional distress. Just as an aside, the way all this works is that a civil lawsuit is initiated by the filing of a complaint by the plaintiff staining his case and why it has basis in legality. Then the defense files a response stating its arguments as to why the complaint is erroneous or even deceptive. In his response, the defendant here, Detective Gottschall, stated, quote, defendant denies that he deliberately made false statements or omissions or recklessly disregarded the truth, denies all claims, and denies that he caused Richard any harm or damages. Defendant further denies that any material information was left out of the probable cause declaration or affidavit. In other words, Detective Godshaw did everything right. The PCA is accurate or complained only accidental or immaterial misstatements, and Richard could go pound sand. Okay, so the next steps in this civil suit were depositions and filings, with each side trying to prove their points and getting into the facts of the case to do so. Let's talk about some of the depositions. The defense again called on pathologist Dr. Martha Burt, who stated that the autopsy report was vague as to whether there was sexual assault and Audrey's injuries did not necessarily coincide with the sexual activity. Under cross from Detective Godshaw's defense attorneys, Dr. Burt admitted Audrey's Injuries could be consistent with rape and would cause mild abdominal discomfort at best and distinctive abdominal pain at worst. Of course, Detective Godshaw was questioned about this point in his deposition by Richard's attorneys. He admitted that nothing in the autopsy report mentioned rape, but stated that, quote, based on my training and experience, those types of injuries have been seen in sexual assaults. In other words, the assertion that Audrey was raped was based on his training and experience, which is considered legitimate grounds for inclusion in a probable cause affidavit. Eager to combat the allegations in the complaint that they should have arrested Scott H. Instead of Richard, Detective Godshaw's defense lawyers deposed the original lead, Detective Wally Stephan. Stephan testified under oath that there was no probable cause to arrest Scott H. His changing story and being deceptive did not amount to probable cause. Stephan pointed out that back in the OG Investigation, he sent biological samples from Scott H. To the lab to compare to the semen and Audrey's vaginal swabs because he was the last person to see her alive and admitted to. To being naked with her. It was just due diligence to make sure he wasn't a match, but he wasn't. He denied killing her, and he had no history of violence. Further, Detective Stephan stated that in his experience, Dr. Hamilton was a very experienced pathologist with a lot of autopsies under his belt. Dr. Hamilton had told him during the autopsy that he observed plentiful seminal fluid inside Audrey's vaginal vault, which he considered to be significant because it meant she. She had not likely been mobile or upright after it was deposited. On cross examination, Richard's lawyers got Detective Stephan to admit he could never prove scientifically that the sex was definitively linked to Audrey's murder. He admitted the sex could have been before or even after. In a smart move, Detective Gottschall's defense called James Smith, now a judge, who was the then prosecutor, who approved the probable cause statement written by Detective Gottschall. Investigators have to have their affidavits of probable cause reviewed and approved by the prosecutor's office before they could be used as a basis for an arrest or search warrant. Judge Smith remembered approving the probable cause affidavit and said there were no problems with it whatsoever. I'm not going to get into the immunity issue because it's complicated, but basically, Detective Godshaw argued in his response that he was entitled to qualified immunity because the affidavits were approved by both his supervisor and the prosecuting attorney. Immunity is pierced when judicial deception occurs. But here, the court explicitly ruled that it did not. So after all this evidence gathering. On June 4, 2025, Detective Godshaw's attorneys filed a motion for summary judgment with the court. Just by way of explanation, summary judgment is awarded to a defendant in a civil case. If the plaintiff has failed to state a case, it means the defendant automatically wins, essentially because the plaintiff failed to prove its case. Detective Godjal's attorneys filed a motion asking the judge to dismiss the case against their client because a, quote, statute 1983, plaintiff claiming judicial deception must demonstrate not only deliberate falsehoods in seeking a warrant, but also that the declaration's remainder falls short of probable cause. In other words, any falsehoods in the statement of probable cause or would have had to have been material. The motion pointed out that probable cause, which has a fairly low bar, existed simply from the declaration of probable cause statements that Richard's DNA was found inside a murder victim who had not moved on the comforter right under her pelvis and under her fingernails, implying a struggle. Even though the motion maintained that the remainder of the probable cause statements were indeed true, they were essentially just gravy. The DNA stuff was the meat and potatoes. The motion for summary judgment argued, Quote, precedent confirms that DNA evidence linking a suspect to a crime scene can, without more, sufficiently establish probable cause. Citing a whole bunch of cases, including United States v. Johns, decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991, which held that the government need not include all of the information in its possession to obtain a warrant. An affidavit need only show facts adequate to support a finding of probable cause. In other words, this precedent shot down Richard's allegation that omissions in the probable cause affidavit were fatal to its viability. The only statement in the probable cause declaration that Detective Godshaw's attorneys acquiesced was erroneous was that he had mistakenly written that Richard had taken a plea in the 1986 rape case involving Barbara. In fact, he had been adjudicated guilty by a jury. As the motion for summary judgment pointed out, that was almost worse. Richard testified on the stand and the jury did not believe him and found him guilty. The motion for summary judgment hammered home. Quote, richard K's semen stain on the comforter under Audrey's pelvis strongly suggests the sex occurred where Audrey died, placing Richard at the crime scene. Contrary to speculation that Richard and Audrey had sex several days before the murder, Audrey was in Seattle with Michael Lynn from July 11 until July 16, the day before the murder. The only scientific evidence in the record strongly suggests that Richard's ejaculation into Audrey occurred within 25 minutes of her death. Despite Mike L. Having unprotected sex less than 48 hours prior to Audrey's death, Mike L. Was excluded as a contributor of the semen found in Audrey's vagina. End quote. In summary, probable cause clearly exists here. Richard was identified as Audrey's killer because his DNA alone matched the semen collected from inside Frasier's vagina and underneath her fingernails. Richard even concedes the DNA match is accurate, supplementing the probable cause declaration with the comforter. DNA evidence bolsters probable cause. Audrey was found naked on her bed, strangled to death with Richard's semen in her vagina and a semen stain immediately below her pelvis. No other person's DNA was found in in those locations. Coupled with Richard's DNA under her nails. The foregoing permitted Detective Godshaw to make an entirely reasonable inference that Audrey unsuccessfully tried to scratch her way out of being raped, only to die where she laid after Richard deposited his semen and strangled her. When detectives met with Richard before arrest, he denied ever meeting Audrey, an assertion that DNA evidence proved to be scientifically and categorically false. No fact, Richard contends, was unconstitutionally admitted from Godshaw's statements, negates the patent probable cause established by these irrefutable facts. As a matter of law that renders Richard Kay's claims unsustainable, end quote. It was now up to the judge to let the civil case proceed or rule in favor of the defendant. I won't leave you in suspense. The U.S. district Court granted Detective Godshaw's motion for summary judgment. The judge addressed why he agreed with the defense. In order for his claims to withstand a motion for summary judgment, quote, plaintiff must make a substantial showing of the officer's deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth and establish that but for the dishonesty, the searches and arrests would not have occurred. Plaintiff's case must fail, because even if the probable cause affidavit were rewritten to include each of the omissions he complains of or to recast each of the statements he argues are misleading, there would still have been probable cause to arrest and search him. Probable cause is not a high bar. It requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity. Further, the judge wrote, plaintiff does not and cannot dispute that his DNA was found inside the victim's vagina and under her fingernails, and that indisputably provided probable cause, a relatively low burden for the search and arrest. Even if other evidence tended to inculpate Scott Hill, Scott H's post facto admission that he did have sex with Frazier the night of the murder does not vitiate the probable cause that existed at the time the affidavit was written. And indeed, it does not change the fact that it was Richard Kaye's DNA, not Scott H's, that was found on Audrey's body. As defendant notes, his probable cause affidavit does not mention that Richard's DNA was found on the comforter either, nor that Richard's stain was under Audrey's pelvis. It would be incongruous and illogical to hold that Detective Godshaw was under an obligation to disclose that forensic testing of the comforter tied Scott H to the scene without also disclosing that the report implicated Richard Kaye equally, if not more so. And if the information were added to the affidavit that both Scott H's and Richard Seaman was on the comforter, there would still have been probable cause to arrest Richard. Reviewing the evidence as a whole, omission of this detail did not demonstrate reckless disregard for the truth. That the state subsequently lost faith in its ability to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, whatever the merits of that decision does not negate the probable cause determination. The probable cause was supplied by the forensic evidence linking Richard K. To Audrey. Detective Godschall did not need to prove Richard's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in his affidavit. In sum, no evidence presented in this case has led the court to a different conclusion than the one reached by Clark county judges in 2019. There was probable cause to arrest Richard Kay for the murder of Audrey Frazier and to take a buccal swab from him for DNA analysis. The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted on August 11, 2025. Richard Kay wasn't done, though he filed an appeal. I think less because he didn't want to take no for an answer and more because he knew that by resuing Detective Godshaw and requiring the devotion of energy and resources to that lawsuit, the county was less likely to refile murder charges against him. He has also recently filed for bankruptcy. No doubt he's hoping to cash in on this Hail Mary lawsuit against Detective Godshaw. Whether you're into unsolved mysteries, solved mysteries, or creating your own mysteries, Amazon Music's got millions of podcast episodes waiting. Just download the Amazon Music app and start listening to your favorite podcasts ad free included with Prime. Can you grab one more thing? I'll come back up for you. At Amica Insurance, we know you'll always find ways to look out for the people you love. And with Amica Life Insurance, we'll help build a plan to make sure you always can. We're here to help protect the life you've built. Really? You're gonna have another one? Amica empathy is our best policy. Visit ameca.com and get a quote Today, Richard appealed the lower court's summary judgment ruling relating to the declaration of probable cause underlying the arrest warrant. He asked the court to reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment on his judicial deception claim and remand the case for trial. He restated his claim of judicial deception, laying out the same elements as in his lower court civil suit. But this time he added a new component of his claim. I'm not going to get into it because it's complicated and I don't think it has any merit, but basically he said that the crime lab report declaring a match between the DNA profile of Richard K and Individual A failed to include a statistical analysis of the findings, contrary to lab protocol. His brief stated, quote the February 13, 2019 report was insufficient to establish probable cause because it does not contain any statistical analysis whatsoever to estimate the probability that Richard K was indeed Individual A. Nor does the report include a definition of what is meant by the term match, end quote. Well, I'd argue that the probable cause affidavit stating a match and the probable cause affidavit stating some large numbers with lots of zeros accomplish the same thing, showing that Richard K was more likely than not the suspect. And I'll include this part because it's relevant to a podcast about igg. Richard charged that the probable cause affidavit also failed to disclose that law enforcement chose to investigate him based upon findings from Parabon NanoLabs. In an October 2018 report, Parabon determined individual a shared common genetics with two known DNA profiles from GEDmatch, Richard and his full brother Clayton fit within these parameters. The February 2019 report does not exclude Richard K as Individual A, but provides no information on how likely Richard K is Individual A. Because the report contained no statistical analysis, Gottschall had no way of knowing whether Richard Clayton or any of the unknown yet to be identified descendants from the two GEDmatch profiles were more likely, less likely, or just as likely to be Individual A. This statistical uncertainty destroys the particularity requirement necessary for an arrest. Richard is merely one of a number of similarly situated individuals who could be connected to the commission of a crime end Quote, so Richard doesn't seem to understand that once the investigators get the genealogical tip with the name of a suspect or suspects, law enforcement then vets the candidates and determines which one is their man. Richard was not arrested just because he was one of a bunch of people in a gene pool. That's not how IGG or IGG investigations work. Godschall's response brief says the absence of statistics does not negate the probative value of a declared match, nor does it transform the statement into a false or misleading representation. It was objectively reasonable for Godshall to rely on a test conducted by a qualified forensic scientist that found that the DNA on the cigarette butt discarded by Richard K. Matched the DNA from individual. A probable cause does not require the exclusion of all other suspects, nor does it demand that law enforcement resolve every scientific or genealogical possibility before seeking a warrant. Courts have rightly found that a suspect's DNA establishes probable cause when linked to the victim or crime scene. End quote. Detective Godshaw requested that the judgment of the district court finding in his favor be affirmed. And that is where we must leave things, because this lawsuit could take months or even years to resolve. Geez, what an absolute mess. Detective Godshaw has to contend with another lawsuit. And as of now, the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney's office has not refiled criminal charges against Richard Kay. While they have reserved the right to do so, the fact is that their victory in the lower court civil lawsuit has no impact on the fact that they felt the evidence against Richard was insufficient for a guaranteed finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial. Detective Gottschall was not permitted to speak with me about Audrey's case since he's already getting sued. But he stated in a court document filed in connection with the civil suit in June 2025, quote, I remain convinced that Richard Kay is the person who killed Audrey Frazier. And so let's review the evidence pointing to Richard Kay as the murderer of Audrey Haline, even though he changed his story after 30 years of telling the same one. I'm going to give Scott H. The benefit of the doubt and assume he's being honest about having sex with Audrey that night, even though I have serious doubts about that. But let's say he did. And in his statement, he said that the condom came off and Audrey had to pull it out. Perhaps that is when his semen got on the edge of the comforter. But remember that absolutely zero DNA from Scott H. Was found in Audrey's body or under her fingernails. Is it possible that as Richard Contended at his deposition he had sex with Audrey in his van, and then Scott came along and had sex with her on his bed with a condom, leaving no DNA behind, but causing the semen from Richard to trickle out onto the comforter. This sounds like an issue that would come down to a battle of the experts. While he was pulling together his defense for the civil case, Detective Godschall deposed an expert witness that had intended to testify for the state of the criminal trial. This was a Dr. Fink. Dr. Fink opined that it would only be possible to observe the quantity of semen present at the time of Audrey's autopsy if she never got up from a supine position after sex, meaning she was never upright after the semen was deposited. Remember, all the semen found inside Audrey was Richard's. Dr. Fink also opined that if there is recoverable sperm and DNA in the vagina and the posterior fornix, it is highly likely that would be evidence of the last episode of intercourse a person had, because otherwise the subsequent intercourse would have displaced the semen present. End quote. So does that answer our question, if Scott and Audrey had sex using a condom after she had sex with Richard, was would Richard's semen be still inside her in such quantities and be seen trickling from her at the scene? It doesn't sound likely to me. And indeed, Dr. Fink also opined that it would be extremely unlikely. And for me, the clincher is the DNA from skin cells found under Audrey's fingernails that belonged to Richard and only Richard. How likely is it that DNA would not have been displaced or at least supplemented by DNA from Scott H. In a subsequent interaction? I'd say not likely at all. And that DNA contained in skin is consistent with Audrey defending herself. For what it's worth, when Scott H. Met the detectives at the apartment, he didn't have a shirt on, and the detectives could see no scratches on him. So for me, the physical evidence points to Richard. So does the circumstantial evidence. His 1986 conviction for rape. In that horrific incident, he choked his victim until she started to feel woozy. But that survivor, Barbara, admitted to the police that she didn't fight back or resist his attack because she was too afraid he would harm her baby. Audrey had no such concerns, and she did fight back, scratching Richard and possibly injuring his ear. If what his wife saw in the summer of 1994 was from that interaction and that fight and Richard's fear of going back to prison is why this time the choking he inflicted on his rape victim culminated In a strangulation murder. So what do I think happened? Well, I think the Vancouver detective series are spot on. Audrey and Scott lay on her waterbed that night. They possibly had sex using a condom. Remember, a wrapper was found and not collected. While they were on the bed, someone knocked on Audrey's door, and she said, my pot's here. Richard Kay admitted that sometimes he sold pot to people he knew. He also named several bars he frequented in his Vancouver neighborhood in 1994. The same neighborhood and the same bars Audrey frequented. I think Audrey had met Richard at the bar, perhaps Omar's, from which a matchbook was found on her floor, and he promised to bring her some pot. He showed up. Scott hightailed it out the back door, wrapped in the blanket, and Audrey let Richard in. Perhaps he and Audrey shared the marijuana pipe that was found on the kitchen table. Then an altercation began with Audrey throwing a cup at Richard and cutting her leg and bleeding on the floor. She ended up raped and strangled on the bed with significant internal trauma and Richard's DNA under her nails. He had learned from the 1986 episode with Barbara not to leave his victims alive. When it was over, Richard perhaps rifled the chest that was found standing open. Scott H. Said it was closed that night when he was there, and then perhaps wiped down anything he had touched to obscure his prints. He could even have removed any pieces of paper with his phone number on them. He found the business card from the collision company and put it on the bed to throw police off. And then he left. Whether he remained in the apartment until morning and was seen by Kim and Chenoa in Audrey's doorway or. Or whether that was a false sighting is anyone's guess. As I struggled with this case, mulling the details over and over in my head, and second guessing the office of the prosecuting attorney's decision to dismiss the charges against Richard Kay, I had to admit I can understand it. First of all, the state only gets one bite of the apple. If they pressed ahead with the case against Richard and he was acquitted, they would never get another opportunity. Better to err on the side of caution and table things until more evidence can be amassed. Second, you can see how Richard K's defense could possibly sway a jury to his innocence. There is no concrete proof that he killed Audrey, just that he had sex with her and she scratched him. And some experts opine that she didn't get up afterwards. But what about this? What if Scott killed her? Here's how that could have worked. Scott and Audrey had sex using a condom. Then when the knock came on the door, he bailed. But he was jealous and watched everything through the window while standing on the patio. Audrey's bed was in clear sight of the window. As we know, Richard Kay and Audrey had rough sex. And then Richard left. Scott crept into the apartment and attacked Audrey asleep on the bed. He strangled her where she lay and walked out. Of course, it's super unlikely. All signs point to Audrey having a violent confrontation with someone while she was upright, the spilled liquid, the blood on her knee. But is the scenario I just laid out impossible? I don't know. And I don't know that a jury would know either. By now you've figured out why I'm not providing the full name of the man police arrested for Audrey's murder, Richard Kay. He was not found guilty of her murder and in fact was never even tried. In the eyes of the law, he's innocent and he's exhibited a tendency toward litigiousness that makes me concerned he'll sue me if I name him and spill all his secrets. Not to mention, my husband is concerned he'll come after me. If you're dying to know who he is, you can find his name very easily by googling Audrey's case. But let's be clear about this. My unwillingness to name him has nothing to do with my conviction that he is guilty. I am absolutely convinced of his guilt and believe that he truly got away with murder. For now, after 31 years, Audrey Haline's case remains open, even though IGG led police to a suspect many believe is guilty. And if you're one of the bad guys, they're coming for you. Let's hope they come for Richard K. Thanks for listening to this episode of dnaid. Before you leave, please let me tell you about some important things related to the if you'd like to support this podcast and in the process get access to early and ad free episodes as well as bonus content like crime scene photos, you can sign up for a Patreon subscription for only $5 a month by heading over to patreon.com dnaid of course, you're welcome to contribute more than $5 a month. We rely on Patreon funds to pay for the original source materials I use to research each episode. If Patreon isn't your thing, you can also show your support with an AbJack Insider subscription through Apple Podcasts. It costs just $4.99 a month or $49.99 a year. Your Abjak Insider subscription will give you the same benefits for not only dnaid, but for all of the shows on the ABJ Network like Killer Communications and Campus Killings. Head over to Apple Podcasts and find find the dnaid page or look for the ABJAC Network to get started. If you're on social media, we'd love to interact with you there. DNAID is on every major social media platform. Search your favorite platforms for DNAID podcasts to find us. We also have a YouTube channel and our website is DNAID podcast.com. you can find links to all of these anytime in our show notes. If you need to reach the show, contact. Contact us by emailing dnaidpodcastmail.com finally, if you want to pick up some fun DNAID merch and represent the show, visit the store at www.customizedgirl.coms DNAIDpodcast. DNAID is researched, written and hosted by me, Jessica Bettencourt. It's produced by me and Mike Morford of ABJAC Entertainment Music by Connor Bettencourt.