A Metal Worker’s Foray into Murder Is Not So Bright
(‘Elemental Clue,’ Forensic Files)
During an appearance on Forensic Files, a Washington state prosecutor noted that Gary Ackley was “not a very intelligent fellow.”
I’ll say.
He killed two women and left both of their murder scenes littered with incriminating evidence.
Not only was he careless but also oddly inconsistent. On one hand, he lived out a common fantasy by silencing his mother-in-law forever. On the other, he did something that no one aspires to — killing his own best friend.
Fancy stuff. Gary, who was also memorable for sporting a mullet with a salon-fresh look, maintained his innocence and went to trial despite forensics that pointed directly to him. For this post, I got some details on his double murder trial.
So let’s get going on the recap of “Elemental Clue,” along with extra information from internet research:
The story opens with footage of a uniformed server delivering stemmed glassware to passengers on the Spirit of Washington Dinner Train, which looks like a nice ride.
Sew troubling. When the train made an unexpected stop in Woodinville on June 21, 1997, passengers gazing out a window spotted what looked like a body partly covered by some brush and sticks in a creek.
Police found a dead woman wearing a blue nightgown and bedroom slippers. An empty pack of Basic cigarettes lay near her.
Authorities identified the victim as Arlene Jensen, a 53-year-old commercial seamstress missing since May 26, 1997. Her employer had called her son, David, when she didn’t show up for work. The next day, David notified police.
Shiny, shiny. When investigators visited Arlene’s condominium in the Kingsgate building in Bellevue, they saw cigarette ashes littering a table and two Basic brand cigarettes thrown in the toilet — unflushed, so it was pretty clear a woman didn’t do this. Plus, Arlene smoked Marlboros.
Arlene’s blue and white floral bed sheets had bloodstains on them.
The bedding also held tiny metal fragments, similar to ones found with her body in the creek.
No one had stolen anything from the condo.
Out of another era. Suspicion soon fell upon Arlene’s son-in-law, Gary Ackley, 28. He and her daughter Julie, also 28, had two children and had been together for more than a decade. They were common-law husband and wife.
Arlene’s mother, Alice Vermillion, who appeared on Forensic Files, noted that Arlene and Gary didn’t particularly get along. Alice, a proper-looking woman notable for dressing like a 19th-century First Lady, said that in fact, no one in the family liked Gary.
Apparently, Arlene didn’t approve of the way Gary treated her grandchildren and let him know it. (Not to blame the murder victim, but criticizing the way people bring up their kids is not a pathway to a cordial relationship.)
Iron man. According to an AP account, Arlene made some child care arrangements without Gary’s consent and he complained to a co-worker that his “old lady’s mom” was “sticking her nose into my business.” He reportedly called Arlene a bitch and possibly even the C-word.
“Arlene had previously threatened to report Ackley to Child Protective Services,” according to court papers, “and in response, Ackley had threatened to kill her.”
Gary smoked Basic cigarettes, and he worked as a machinist at Pacific Tool Inc., where he used lathes and sanders on metals.
Another victim. Scientists identified the metal shavings and fragments from the murder scene as coming from the same source as metal particles found at Gary’s home. In other words, he must have carried those things with him wherever he went. Plus, beige fibers found near Arlene’s body matched the fabric in the backseat of one of Gary’s cars.
Soon, a second homicide in the Seattle area would make headlines.
On Aug. 10, 1997, campers discovered a woman’s body in a shallow grave along Miller River Road near Skykomish. Police identified her as Stephanie Dittrick, 29 years old and missing since July 5, 1997. She worked as an administrative assistant or a circuit board tester (media reports vary).
Childhood pals. Small fragments made of steel and brass lay on Stephanie’s body.
Friends remembered seeing Stephanie talking to Gary at a Fourth of July party at her residence in Redmond. One guest recalled that Gary mentioned he played drums in a rock band (hence the extra-long statement mullet).
Stephanie had known Gary since childhood, when both of their families lived in Union Hill, and they were best buddies. Her brother, Todd, was also close to Gary.
Utter disbelief. Neighbors had seen Gary and Stephanie leaving her mother’s house together on July 5.
On August 15, 1997, Gary Ackley was arrested and taken to King County Jail for investigation of two counts of homicide.
“This is not the little boy I remember,” Stephanie’s mother, Diana Russell, told the Associated Press. “My heart is broken.”
Incriminating himself. At the September 1998 trial (an earlier one had quickly ended in a mistrial), prosecutors made a case that Gary worried that Arlene’s interference would end up getting his kids taken away from him.
He crept into Arlene’s apartment while she was sleeping and killed her —medical examiners never determined the cause of death, noting only “homicidal violence” — and then he put her body in a car and hastily buried it in the wooded area, prosecutors contended.
They believed Gary blurted out his secret that he’d murdered Arlene to Stephanie, then panicked and killed Stephanie to silence her. (Stephanie’s manner of death, like Arlene’s, was attributed to nonspecific homicidal violence.) A shopping bag near Stephanie’s murder scene bore Gary’s fingerprint.
Bad trip. Stephanie’s friend John Johnson testified that Stephanie told him she knew of a secret that might come back to hurt her.
Earlier, Judge Norma Huggins had forbidden him from bringing up something in court that he told prosecutors pretrial: Stephanie asked John, “Do you think Gary Ackley would hurt me?” according to Seattle Times reporting. The judge had also stopped Stephanie’s friend Dan Monise from testifying that Stephanie told him that Gary confessed to Arlene Jensen’s murder; it was hearsay.
But the prosecution won the right to take jury members to visit the locations where the murder victims were found. Gary, who sported short bangs and no more party in the back at the trial, was not happy about that decision.
Budding florist? Defense lawyer Jeff Ellis argued that it would prejudice jury members to see Gary wearing shackles and handcuffs while accompanying them to the two sites. Captain Manning of Kings County Jail suggested a concession — putting the hand restraints to the front of Gary’s body and covering them with a jacket or towel. Gary ultimately decided to sit out the field trip.
Meanwhile, Deputy Prosecutor James Konat had circumstantial evidence tying Gary to the murder. For one, the day Arlene went missing, Gary had called in sick to work, saying he’d been vomiting all night. But one witness reported seeing Gary driving his Trans Am and another spotted him in his red Toyota around the time he was supposed to be convulsed in nausea at home.
Despite the particles of metal sprinkled all over both murder scenes, defense lawyer Jeff Ellis argued that no direct evidence linked Gary to the homicides. He maintained that his client was at home playing with his dogs and watering flowers when Arlene disappeared. Ellis rebutted the prosecution’s contention that because Gary had no one to corroborate his alibis, they must be false. Spending time by oneself didn’t add up to guilt, he noted.
Gary claimed he was at the Evergreen Speedway when Stephanie vanished, but it’s not clear whether anyone saw him there.
Tears and drama. After deliberating for two days, the jury convicted Gary of first degree murder in Arlene Jensen’s death and aggravated murder in Stephanie Dittrick’s. The “aggravated” condition applied because he murdered Stephanie to cover up Arlene’s homicide.
“His face red, [Gary] shook his head and held a tissue to his eyes as King County Superior Court Judge Norma Huggins read the verdict,” the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported. “Others in the courtroom on both sides of the case wept as well.”
Before the sentencing hearing took place, there was a wedding.
Open bar celebration. On Oct. 23, 1998, Julie Jensen married Gary Ackley in jail. By this time, they’d had a third child, conceived after Arlene’s death.
“I love him. I care for him. I believe in him,” Julie said at the sentencing hearing.
But most of those who spoke out at the hearing didn’t feel too kindly toward Gary. Julie’s brother, David, said that Gary had manipulated his sister. James Konat noted that Julie once landed in the hospital after a beating from Gary, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported.
Buh, bye. Stephanie’s friend Lee Pereira had no fond words for Gary either. “You’ve got control over nothing,” Lee said to him at the hearing. “Someday, you’ll get out — in a box.”
Gary received life without the possibility of parole plus 26½ years.
He lost an appeal in 2001.
Today, Gary Ackley is better known as prisoner #946217 at the Monroe Correctional Complex in Monroe City just north of Seattle. The Washington Department of Corrections website doesn’t supply an updated picture so there’s no way of knowing whether or not Gary’s hairdo lives on.
The inmate’s disapproving grandmother-in-law, Alice Vermillion, died at the age of 90 in 2006. “I know that you are with Aunt Arelene & you both are watching over all of us,” wrote one of her grandchildren on her obituary page.
In another development relating to a figure in the case, James Konat resigned from his $147,500-a-year prosecutor job in 2012 amid accusations of racism. At a trial in 2007, he had stated that “black folk don’t testify against black folk.” Yikes.
And speaking of career derailments, the Spirit of Washington Dinner Train went out of business in 2007 because of highway construction and a decline in ridership. But it goes down in history as not only a wholesome tourist attraction but also a factor in finding a missing woman and helping to put a double murderer behind razor wire forever.
That’s all for this post. Until next time, cheers. — RR
Watch the Forensic Files episode on YouTube
Unbelievable that Julie married her mother’s killer! I had to go back and reread it just to be sure. What benefit could she possibly have gained?
But then again stranger things have happened in the Forensic Files world.
Thanks again for another great follow-up to the story.
So glad you enjoyed the follow-up! It is strange she stuck with him after he went to prison. That’s usually when the couple splits for good.
Thanks for yet another stellar read! Congrats on the book too. The daughter Julie appears to have some mental issues. I may be wronging the poor girl but marrying the guy who murdered your own mother isn’t something many sane people would do. Ackley doesn’t come across as being too bright either. He did all but leave a calling card at the murder scene of his mother in law. I assume you didn’t find any info on Julie. I wonder what happened to her?
Thanks, Joe! No word on Julie, and I’m not sure whether or not the photo shown on FF was actually her.
If he kept that haircut in prison I’d bet it would make him a very popular date. It would be interesting to see how those three children will or have turned out with such fine examples of human beings as their parents are for role models.
Hope those kids beat the odds.
I actually knew Gary and Stephanie quite well. Gary wasn’t very smart but I would have never thought him a killer.
Stephanie always had the misfortune of making the wrong friends, but she was a sweet girl. She didn’t deserve that kind ending.
Thanks for writing in! It really is crazy that someone like him would suddenly turn into a double murderer.
“Black folk don’t testify against black folk.” Yikes.
What do you mean yikes? They don’t. Remember the footage of blacks erupting in applause when OJ got off?
Different situation there. The people clapping for O.J. weren’t witnesses to the crime and believed he was innocent. And it’s not fair to make generalizations. I’ve been on jury duty and worked for the Civil Rights Division and have seen Black people testifying against other Black people a number of times.
The evidence regarding the impact of jury racial composition on conviction rates is straightforward and striking: the presence of even one or two blacks in the jury pool results in significantly higher conviction rates for white defendants and lower conviction rates for black defendants. In one research project, in cases with no blacks in the jury pool black defendants are convicted at an 81 percent rate and white defendants at a 66 percent rate. When the jury pool includes at least one black potential juror, conviction rates are almost identical: 71 percent for black defendants and 73 percent for white defendants. The estimated impact of the racial composition of the jury pool on trial outcomes is statistically significant and leads to three main conclusions: (i) there is a significant gap in conviction rates for black versus white defendants when there are no blacks in the jury pool; (ii) the gap in conviction rates for black versus white defendants is eliminated when there is at least one black member of the jury pool; and (iii) conviction rates for white defendants are significantly higher when there is at least one black member of the jury pool (versus all white jury pools).
Note that it is not (of course) claimed that blacks are less fair than whites but that *both* are effectively biased to their own race. Thus, that blacks may favour their own race, other things being equal, so do whites. Both Rarprag and Rebecca, above, are right – and wrong: blacks and whites convict the other race more and their own less, other things being equal. This is hardly surprising and is one of the reasons such angst is expressed over the racial composition of juries and why both defence and prosecution use peremptory challenge to strike jurors. If it wasn’t thought potentially, even likely, to affect the outcome, why have the ability to challenge and why use it? Of course the challenge can’t be used on race ground per se; rather the challenge will be via questions that act as proxies for notional race-based prejudices.
The obvious and considerable sensitivity is where race itself presents as in issue around the defendant – the obv recent example being Chauvin/Floyd and in previous decades Klansmen trials. The defence would of course have liked to strike racial minorities; the prosecution to have them exclusively.
If it’s the case that ‘black’ juries have been kinder to black defendants than a ‘white’ would have been, the same is so in reverse. Hopefully this unfortunate fact is less likely today than ever – but racism (and its opposite, favouratism), both anti-white as well as -black sadly seems to exist in the jury room. Of course racial bias is just one of a number of biases, such as sex-based (men are less likely to vote for capital punishment of a female than male) and ‘class’/ education/wealth (poor defendants treated more harshly not just because they may have less able/ expensive legal representation but because they are seen as less accomplished/’worthy’). Today racial ‘privilege’ in jury outcomes is probably less about defendants’ race than money.
I can attest to the prosecutor’s statement that Gary wasn’t very intelligent. I knew Gary when he was a young kid and there wasn’t much going on upstairs.
Thanks much for writing in with your first-hand experience with Gary Ackley — he’s definitely where he belongs now.