DNA: ID – Audrey Hoellein, Part 2 of 2 AbJack Entertainment | March 9, 2026 | Host: Jessica Bettencourt

Episode Overview

This gripping episode is the conclusion to the two-part series on the murder of Audrey Hoellein (also known as Audrey Frazier), a 1994 Vancouver, WA homicide recently revisited through investigative genetic genealogy (IGG). Host Jessica Bettencourt takes listeners through the intricate web of forensic evidence, police work, suspect interviews, and judicial proceedings that followed genetic identification of Richard K. as a suspect—culminating in his arrest, the collapse of the prosecution’s murder case, and his ongoing lawsuits. The episode explores the strengths and inherent challenges of “solving” cold cases using DNA, as well as the emotional toll on victims’ families.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Breakthrough via IGG & Initial Investigation (01:30-11:00)

• Detective Goudtschall was assigned post-Parabon Nanolabs’ report identifying Richard K. as a person of interest matching the phenotype and living near Audrey’s 1994 residence; he also had a prior rape conviction from 1986.
• Repeated undercover and surveillance attempts failed to obtain Richard’s abandoned DNA—until “Operation Fishnet” succeeded by retrieving cigarette butts with a literal fishnet.
• Memorable Moment: “They literally used a fishnet... once Richard had left for the day, Corporal Martin used an aquarium style fishnet to skim five butts out of the can.” (08:57)
• The lab matched the DNA from the cigarette to the unknown male DNA in Audrey’s case.

2. Interviewing the Suspect: Contradictions and Denials (12:00-29:00)

• In-home Pre-Arrest Interview: Richard K. denied ever knowing Audrey or anyone at her apartments, stating “I don’t have anything to hide. I’d tell you it straight up.” (22:45)
• Both Richard and his wife, Michelle, insisted on open honesty and that he had been faithful since their partnership began in Dec 1993.
• Detectives probed, noting the resurgence of cold case testing and his prior rape (which Richard denied having committed).
• Notable Quote: “I feel like if you have to say you’re not a weirdo and a creep, you probably are.” – Host’s aside (24:18)

3. Confrontation with the DNA Evidence (Post-Arrest Interview) (31:00-46:00)

• In custody and read his rights, Richard was told directly: “Your DNA is inside that woman. Okay?” (33:18)
• At first, Richard speculated maybe he had sex with Audrey but didn’t remember: “I slept with a lot of women I don’t remember... 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.” (35:20)
• Admitted heavy drinking, drug use, and regular marijuana sales in that era.
• On being accused of violent sex: “My wife will vouch for that. I’m not that way at all.” (38:15)
• When told he was being arrested for murder, Richard expressed disbelief: “I want an attorney... But I don’t remember this person. I’m being honest with you.” (45:59)

4. Forensic Breakdowns and the Problem of “Who vs. How/Why” (47:00-65:00)

• Multiple DNA matches to Richard K.: vaginal swabs, comforter stain, fingernail clippings.
  • “The estimated probability of selecting an unrelated individual at random from the US population with a matching profile is 1 in 10 quadrillion.” (50:29)
• Mixture of male DNA from a gauze swab on Audrey’s knee did not match Richard.
• Family’s emotional statement expressing gratitude but also lingering grief and lack of closure.

5. Richard K’s Criminal History and Pattern (67:20-76:00)

• Details of Richard’s turbulent marriages and drug/alcohol-fueled lifestyle.
• 1986 rape of Barbara: She describes (later, to police in 2019-2020) how Richard strangled her until she was dizzy. (75:40)
  • “He just put his hand on my throat and pulled... A few times I had problems breathing and I got dizzy and stuff. But he loosened up.” – Barbara (76:09)
• Past sample DNA was NOT uploaded to state databases, meaning his link to Audrey’s case was not made in the 90s.

6. The Prosecution Falters: Complications Before Trial (77:00-96:00)

• The defense undercuts the DNA case: injuries could be from consensual sex, timing of sexual activity ambiguous.
• Pathologist Dr. Martha Burt testifies injuries are consistent with both consensual and non-consensual sex; can’t definitively tie timing.
• New evidence: Former OG suspect Scott H. reverses his 25-year-old account, admits under oath to having sex with Audrey the night she died—saying a condom came off (92:26).
  • “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...” (92:51)
• Scott’s DNA (semen) also found on the comforter, further muddying the timeline.
• Key Point: The state worried reasonable doubt was too great. Just days before trial, all charges against Richard K. were dropped “without prejudice.”

7. The Aftermath: Legal and Personal Fallout (97:00-129:00)

• Richard spent 1,312 days in jail, lost his home, job, and wife Michelle (request for deathbed visit denied).
  • Notable Quote: “‘We either released a killer back into the public or... an innocent person who’s been sitting in jail for three years. ... And the problem is I don’t know which one...’” – Prosecutor Jeff McCarty (109:20)
• Richard sues Detective Gottschall, claiming “judicial deception”—that investigators cherry-picked/omitted facts in the probable cause affidavit.
• Civil case: The judge finds that—even if all of Richard’s claims were true—the DNA evidence alone provided sufficient probable cause. Suit is dismissed.
• Richard appeals; as of the episode’s recording, the matter is unresolved, and DA has not refiled criminal charges.

8. Revisiting the Evidence: Expert Interpretation (129:00-139:00)

• Dr. Fink, expert for the state, opined the amount and location of semen in Audrey suggests she never got up after sex (supporting that sex and murder were contemporaneous), and that subsequent sex (with Scott H.) would’ve likely displaced DNA.
• DNA under Audrey’s fingernails also matches only Richard.
• Host’s analysis: “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… Audrey had no such concerns, and she did fight back, scratching Richard and possibly injuring his ear.” (137:48)

9. Open Questions & Reflections (139:00-End)

• Why host declines to name the suspect: out of concern for potential litigation and safety, but reiterates: “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.”
• Case remains open—the limits of genetic genealogy when “who” is clear, but “how/why” and prosecutorial certainty remain out of reach.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “They literally used a fishnet...” — Operation Fishnet, retrieving the DNA sample. (08:57)
• “I feel like if you have to say you’re not a weirdo and a creep, you probably are.” — Host, on Richard’s defensive protestations. (24:18)
• Richard: “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.” (35:20)
• Barbara (rape survivor): “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...” (76:09)
• Prosecutor Jeff McCarty: “We either released a killer back into the public or we released an innocent person... I don’t know which one and we as an office don’t know which of those things we did.” (109:20)
• Host, on the case’s confusion: “Geez, what an absolute mess.” (120:00)

Critical Timestamps

• Operation Fishnet & DNA Retrieval: 08:45–09:45
• In-home Interview (Pre-Arrest): 17:00–30:00
• Custodial Interview (Miranda): 31:00–46:00
• Forensic Results Overview: 47:00–55:00
• Discussion of 1986 Rape Case: 76:00–79:00
• Scott H. Deposition Bombshell: 92:00–97:00
• State Dismisses Charges: 109:00–113:00
• Prosecutor’s Dilemma Quote: 109:20
• Civil Lawsuit Summary Judgement: 120:00–129:00
• Expert Review (Dr. Fink): 130:00–135:00
• Host’s Conclusion on Guilt: 137:48–139:00

Conclusion

This episode exemplifies the power and limits of DNA and IGG in solving cold cases: while genetic evidence can point starkly to a “who,” a case’s legal resolution still turns on the “how” and “why”—and the complex, sometimes contradictory, behaviors of those involved. Listeners are left with empathy for the Hoellein family’s pain and for the dogged efforts of detectives, but also with sobering doubt about closure, justice, and the complications of forensic certainty. As the host says, “all signs point to Audrey having a violent confrontation with someone while she was upright... but is it impossible [someone else killed her]? I don’t know. And I don’t know that a jury would know either.”

For true crime fans and students of forensic justice, this episode is a deeply engaging, tangled, and ultimately unresolved meditation on what it means to seek answers after decades of silence.