Witness Frank Perkins describes who he saw with the elderly couple after seeing a picture of John Gregory Riffe in the news.
Updated at 7:23 p.m.
By Sharyn L. Decker
Lewis County Sirens news reporter
CHEHALIS – An individual who told police in 1985 he saw a man with the Maurins inside their car but wouldn’t be able to identify him contacted the prosecutor this week to say he recognized a photo of the now-deceased John Gregory Riffe shown on television news last week.
Frank Perkins, a retired truck stop manager, was one of 10 people who took the witness stand yesterday in the murder trial of Riffe’s brother, Ricky A. Riffe.
Prosecutors contend the Riffe brothers abducted Ed and Minnie Maurin from their Ethel home, and forced them to drive to their bank to withdraw cash before shooting them in the backs with a shotgun. The bodies of Ed, 81, and Minnie, 83, were discovered dumped on a logging road five days later, on Dec. 24, 1985.
Perkins spoke to an investigator that same week, and told him he couldn’t put the people to faces and wasn’t shown any montages of suspects, he testified yesterday. He said he was about 60 feet away from the car.
Back then, he got his news of the case from the radio, he said, but was surprised when he watched a KOMO TV story last week.
“It shocked me because it was like going back 30 years ago,” Perkins said. “I recognized the person I saw in the car on the TV.”
Perkins told the court that the morning of Dec. 19, 1985, the couple pulled up to a gas pump, sat there for a couple of minutes and then drove away.
It was at the truck stop off Interstate 5 exit 72, next to the Rib Eye restaurant, he said. In the back seat of the Chrysler was a light-bearded man in his 20s, wearing an Army jacket, according to Perkins.
“To be honest, I don’t remember, but it must have been around 8:30,” he told Lewis County Senior Deputy Prosecutor Will Halstead.
It caught his attention, because the automobile went to the pumps farthest from the building, and he always was watching for someone who might leave without paying, he said.
“I saw an older lady and a gentleman driver, and a younger fellow sitting between them in the backseat,” he said.
Perkins testified he normally ran to the bank in Centralia around 10:30 a.m. and he thought it was the usual time that day when he did so, and spotted what he thought was the same bearded man standing off National Avenue by Yard Birds holding a rifle or a shotgun. That person was wearing a dark knit cap, he said.
He knew there were ducks in the nearby swamp, but thought it somewhat brazen to hunt in town, he said. Perkins told defense attorney John Crowley there was no question he saw one person in the backseat of the Maurin’s car.
The Seattle-based attorney told jurors in opening statements last week that out of numerous witnesses, only one claims to have seen his client in the Maurin’s car, someone who was a teenager at the time and didn’t come forward for years.
Riffe, 55, is charged with murder, kidnapping, robbery and burglary. He is charged as a principal and / or as an accomplice to another person.
Lewis County Prosecutor Jonathan Meyer told the jury last week in his opening, he would be calling a witness who heard the Riffes planning the crime.
Marty Smeltzer took the witness stand, since after the Maurin’s deaths he told police he overheard the brothers speak of it before it occurred.
Smeltzer testified he and his cousin were at a party on a logging road near Winston Creek back in 1985 and the Riffe brothers were about as far away as the width of the courtroom.
He was questioned by Prosecutor Meyer.
“We were all drinking,” he said. “Me and Matt, we overheard a conversation, gonna kill somebody. And take ’em to the bank, and they was leaving.”
“We didn’t know if it was kill or what,” he said. “But it was kinda obvious, because a week or two …” Smeltzer said, but was cut off by an objection which was sustained.
The lawyers and the judge conversed, in an attempt to phrase questions and get answers specific as to what Ricky Riffe said and what John Gregory Riffe said.
“Was there any conversation from Rick about a bank?” he was asked.
“No,” Smeltzer said.
“What did you hear Rick say about getting money?”
“They was going somewhere. I don’t know. I heard him say, going somewhere to get money,” Smeltzer said.
Under questioning from Crowley, Smeltzer said he told his story to a police officer in Mossyrock, he told it again when an officer visited him at the jail, he told it again to a detective in about 1992 and then last year to sheriff’s detective Bruce Kimsey.
“Are you sure that even happened?” Crowley asked.
“Yes,” came the reply.
Smeltzer told the court he’s slow on remembering, it takes him time, because of a head injury in 1980 when he fell off the roof of a barn.
Under further questioning from Meyer, he didn’t recall where the Riffes said they were going afterward, or what weapon they planned to use.
After borrowing Meyer’s reading glasses, and reviewing a transcript of his statement to Kimsey, his memory was much clearer.
“Alaska,” he said. “They was going to take two elderly people to the bank and get money.
“Yes, they wanted to kill ’em, dispose of the bodies
“It was a shotgun. Sawed off.”
Crowley had him read a passage, his response after Kimsey asked if he swore everything he said was true.
“I’m pretty sure it’s the truth,” Smeltzer read.
•••
Meanwhile, for previous coverage of the trial, if you are on the home page, scroll down
Tags: By Sharyn L. Decker, news reporter
Someone posted on here “Innocent until proven guilty”. Thank you for reminding me of that.
I don’t know ANYONE related to this case, but I know that personally I am pretty quick to read these articles and judge “Guilty” before that day of court. I need to be slower to judge and remember that it should be “Innocent until proven guilty”, even when/if all the facts point to the accused. It is a good lesson in patience!!
Who said he’s innocent?
Not even 10% of the witness’ have testified yet. You arm chair Attorneys are laughable! He is guilty as sin. Just wait a few more days and the ball will be knocked out of the park. You people didn’t live here and have no clue.
Hello People?????????? (1)Smeltzer has trouble remembering things after receiving a head injury in 1980. (2) He gives a statement to a detective in 1992 (after the head injury affecting his memory). (3) Gives another statement to Det. Kimsey last year (again, after the head injury that affects his memory), and (4) AFTER reading A TRANSCRIPT OF his statement to Kimsey, his memory was much clearer!!!!!??????? Is anyone having the same thoughts I am? I personally read a statement that was to be used in Lewis County Superior Court given by a “possible witness”, and written by Detective Kimsey. Said statement is not what was actually said, but yet was how Detective Kimsey interpreted said interview. Signed by Det. Kimsey, not the “possible witness”. My assumption is this: It was prepared by Det. Kimsey because he can testify that was HIS INTERPRETATION of said interview/statement, not by the witness nor signed by the witness, alleviating allegations/charges or perjury. Don’t get me wrong, I have no opinion as to guillty or not guilty in this case, but something is REALLY STARTING TO STINK about the witnesses the prosecution is using. The dude had a head injury and testifies he has problems with memory. Trusting statements made after said injury, or a detective’s interpretation of said statement, would be a horrible case of injustice in my opinion. At least give the Maurin’s the respect of nothing but the truth from Lewis County Justice Center, their employees, including their Detectives……..
Wow, this might not have been the best choice in witnesses. Mr. Perkins testimony provides reasonable doubt as to who was actually involved. If there were only one man in the backseat of the Maurin’s car (as identified), it very well could have been the deceased brother. Maybe I’m missing something…
Okay, someone help me on this:
Glade Austin’s testimony draws a motion for mistrial because the now-deceased sibling he says told him where certain items were buried is considered “hearsay” due to the inability to bring the dead back to life to cross-examine; yet we have a witness who refers to yet another now-deceased sibling who presumably can’t be resurrected for verification, but that testimony stands because it isn’t considered “hearsay.”
What’s the difference? And if Perkins was a prosecution witness (and I’m assuming he is, since he contacted investigators and it appears Crowley questioned him after Halstead did), how in the world did they think his testimony that he didn’t see the man they’re trying to convict in the back seat going to help them?
What am I missing here?
Wow if the jury gives weight to this testimony that is as close to an eyewitness they will get.