Detective's Chewing-Gum Sting Cracks Elusive Murder Case in Everett

Cold Cases Revived by DNA Evidence

Two murders that had remained unsolved for more than a decade finally found a break when a detective in Everett, Washington, turned to an unconventional method. The cases involved victims whose bodies were discovered in remote locations, and investigators had long lacked the biological material needed to match the crimes to a suspect. Advances in forensic science, especially the expansion of FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), made it possible to revisit old evidence, but fresh DNA was still required to secure a conviction.

Background of the Everett Predator

The suspect, a man with a documented history of violent offenses, had been on law‑enforcement radar for years. He was linked to a series of assaults in the early 2000s, but lack of DNA prevented prosecutors from charging him with the two murders that occurred in 2008 and 2011. The detective assigned to the cold‑case unit, Detective Laura Martinez, recognized a pattern in the victims’ lifestyles and the geographic proximity of the crime scenes. She concluded that the predator had likely left trace DNA on objects he handled during the crimes.

The Gum Sting Strategy

Detective Martinez consulted with forensic experts at the Washington State Patrol’s Forensic Services and the University of Washington forensic science program. Together they devised a plan that would appear innocuous to the suspect while allowing investigators to collect DNA without a warrant. The idea was simple: offer the suspect a free pack of chewing gum in exchange for a brief conversation about a community safety initiative.

How Chewing Gum Captured DNA

The gum itself acted as a passive collector. When a person chews, saliva and epithelial cells are deposited onto the gum surface. By providing the gum in a public setting and asking the suspect to chew for a few minutes, detectives could retrieve a sample that could be processed in a lab. The operation unfolded at a local coffee shop where the suspect was known to frequent. An undercover officer handed him a piece of sugar‑free gum, engaged in casual dialogue, and then discreetly retrieved the used gum for analysis.

• Undercover officer approaches suspect in a public venue.
• Officer offers gum as a friendly gesture.
• Suspect chews for a short period, leaving saliva on the gum.
• Officer collects gum, seals it in an evidence bag.
• Laboratory extracts DNA and runs a profile against CODIS.

The lab followed CDC guidelines on DNA collection to ensure the sample was uncontaminated. Within days, the DNA profile matched the suspect’s profile already stored in CODIS from earlier assault convictions. This match provided the missing link that had eluded investigators for years.

Legal and Investigative Impact

Armed with the new DNA evidence, prosecutors filed fresh charges against the suspect for the two cold‑case murders. The gum sting not only supplied the biological proof needed but also demonstrated a lawful method of obtaining evidence without infringing on the suspect’s constitutional rights. The case has sparked discussion among law‑enforcement agencies about the broader applicability of low‑tech, high‑impact tactics in solving cold cases.

Charges and Future Prosecutions

The suspect now faces multiple counts of first‑degree murder, each carrying life imprisonment without parole. Defense attorneys have filed motions challenging the admissibility of the gum‑derived DNA, arguing that the collection method was overly intrusive. However, courts have generally upheld similar covert collection techniques when conducted in public spaces and when the suspect’s consent, even if implied, is clear.

Legal scholars note that the gum sting aligns with precedents set in cases such as United States v. Karo, where the Supreme Court allowed warrant‑less collection of abandoned property. The gum, considered abandoned after the suspect chewed it, falls within that legal framework.

Broader Implications for Cold Case Work

The success of the gum sting has encouraged other jurisdictions to explore creative evidence‑gathering methods. In a recent article, The Seattle Times reported on similar tactics used to capture DNA from discarded coffee cups and cigarette butts. These low‑cost strategies provide a valuable supplement to traditional investigative techniques, especially when resources are limited.

Forensic experts stress that while gum stings are effective, they must be paired with rigorous chain‑of‑custody protocols and transparent documentation. The Everett case serves as a model for how collaboration between detectives, forensic laboratories, and academic researchers can revitalize stalled investigations.

As DNA databases continue to grow, the probability of matching old evidence to known offenders rises. The gum sting illustrates that even a simple piece of candy can become a decisive tool in the pursuit of justice, reminding the public that innovation often emerges from everyday objects.