Big Chew Leads To Big House: Seattle Police Arrest Man in Cold Case Based On DNA Evidence Obtained Through Fake Chewing Gun Survey

Gary Raub, 63, can claim that he was arrested by a true “gum shoe” detective by the homeless man was tricked to give up his DNA in a fake chewing gum survey. Raub was arrested in Seattle in the death of Blanche Kimball, a 70-year-old retired dental technician in 1976.

Kimball’s body was found stabbed 23 times inside her Augusta home. Raub had done work at the house and was a long suspect when he was known as Gary Wilson. He rented a room from Kimball and had been painting her steps before the murder.

The 1976 case was the oldest unsolved case on the state books and came down to a fake gum survey. A DNA profile had been worked up earlier this year in the case from blood evidence found in the kitchen and that prompted them to seek out Raub.

While blood in a house where he worked might be subject to a defense argument, it would depend on the amount and the location. DNA evidence usually holds a powerful influence on a jury and Raub is likely to face quite a challenge.

Source: KJON

17 thoughts on “Big Chew Leads To Big House: Seattle Police Arrest Man in Cold Case Based On DNA Evidence Obtained Through Fake Chewing Gun Survey”

  1. I know some are against guns, but using a fake chewing gun to catch people– Genius.

    If real guns go away, the fake chewing gun industry will collapse.

  2. Anonymously Yours:

    You are correct about the DNA envelope sample. It was also Seattle Police that used this method. It was upheld by the Washington Supreme Court in State v. Athan

  3. This has been upheld in a case involving saliva on an envelope fake sweepstakes contest….. But as nick has stated…. He at one time had a right to be there…. I think the prosecutor has an evidentiary issue….

  4. pete,

    Wait until you hit “Law & Order: Title Searches”. I suggest coffee. Lots and lots of coffee. Oh, and you’ll want to record the episode “The Bloody Rule Against Perpetuities”. Most students have to watch that one a couple of times to figure out what really was going on.

  5. Frankly

    i’m getting my wallpaper on the “law and order” plan. only 27,493 hrs to go.

  6. Frankly,

    The difference was entry into a domicile. The articles wasn’t clear, but it sounded like the cops approached this guy on the street.

  7. sorry for trying to get a free JD here 8-{D but how would posing as the FUller Brush man be wrong but posing as a gum survey be OK?

    Laws is tuff! Maybe I am not ready to be appointed to the USSC?

  8. It is peculiar to suggest that his DNA in the house where he rented and worked could convict him of murder. Did he have a motive to kill? The “chewing gum survey” seems a bit television-y, doesn’t it? There was a case in Washington, DC where a rapist was convicted on DNA he did not consent to giving although it was collected while he was in custody for a crime he had actually committed. A brilliant constitutional lawyer who had gone to high school with him got his conviction overturned because of that, even though he did not (and did not have to) deny the rape. That was because the only evidence against him was DNA evidence; the woman he raped could not see him because he came up behind her and incapacitated her somehow. This made the front cover of WASHINGTONIAN. I rather thought some “good work” that ended up exonerating an INNOCENT person would have been more worthy of the coverage but hey…

  9. Frankly,

    No that wouldn’t be admissible evidence. That kind of pretense would be a direct violation of your 4th Amendment rights and such evidence would be considered falling under the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine first established in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S.. Evidence illegally seized is inadmissible, but also any evidence or testimony obtained later as a result of the illegally seized evidence is inadmissible. The Fuller Brush scenario is a warrantless entry under false pretenses. No evidence discovered in that search would be admissible. There are two exceptions to this doctrine: the Good Faith exception and the Purged Taint exception. The Good Faith exception is where secondary, incriminating facts or leads discovered later in a case from an earlier, illegal seizure are inadmissible. The Purged Taint exception is where the defendant themselves break the chain of evidence by coming forward with new evidence and/or a confession.

    Now if the cops were there legitimately? Say by knowing invitation or in the normal course of responding to a DV call or the like? That’s a different story.

  10. So, if a cop dressed up as the Fuller Brush man and you let him into the house could he claim he saw something & use that in court? It seems that should be wrong but I feel the courts have OK’ed it. Where are the boundaries?

  11. Frankly,

    Tricks are fine as long as they don’t cross the line into enticing someone to do something that they normally would not do, i.e. entrapment. For example, I remember reading a case once long ago (the name escapes me) where the police hounded this guy trying to get him to buy child pornography. I mean it went on for months and months on a sometimes daily basis. The guy kept saying no for like a year and half, until one day, he just snapped and said yes. He got arrested, convicted and then had the conviction overturned because it was found to be entrapment when the constant badgering of the police led him to do something he had no prior history of doing and would not have done under normal circumstances and of his own volition.

  12. Frankly, I’ll let the barristers opine but I believe it’s not. Somewhat akin to garbology..the taking of garbage on the curb.

  13. Not sure why he was asked to chew a gun ;-{D

    I have wanted to on more than one occasion and I would guess there are some folks who would be happy if I did chew a gun but it ain’t happening’ yet.

    But on topic – How do you law type folks feel about tricking a suspect into giving up evidence? Seems like it could be a slippery slope sort of thing. Couldn’t this be considered an unwarranted search? Perhaps a violation of the right to not self-incriminate?

  14. Gee…he doesn’t look a day over 90! You’re correct, of course, the DNA only puts him a house where he had reason to be. They’ll need more to convict.

Comments are closed.