Richard gave investigators a recorded explanation of the encounter at Sykes Park, the calls he was handling, his stop on Cleveland Avenue, his visit to the hospital, and the clothing investigators requested. As the interview plays, the relevant CAD entries appear beside his account with Unit 508 highlighted.
On August 20, 2018, Richard Gooddine was interviewed by GBI agents Merlin Hector and Jan Rowling. His explanations were recorded before the later trial proceedings.
When Richard discusses the dispatches, the corresponding recorded status will appear here.
Dispatch statuses document what the communications system recorded. They are not continuous GPS readings.
The highlighted status cards reproduce entries described in the original CAD materials. The record shows dispatch, arrival and clearance statuses; it cannot establish every physical movement between calls.
In his same-day GBI interview, Richard said he stopped at a convenience store he identified as “890 Cleveland”, checked on the clerk, and did not use the restroom because he considered it unclean. He explained that he then went to the hospital to use its restroom.
Hospital security witness James Lackman subsequently described permitting Richard to enter and seeing him emerge after using the restroom. Other hospital personnel described a later confrontation. The restroom account and the later argument are distinct portions of the hospital encounter.
GBI interview, pp. 4–5, around 7:00–8:30; first trial Vol. 5, pp. 840 and 861–865.
During the recorded GBI interview, Richard discussed the investigation, denied sexual misconduct, and agreed to provide clothing requested by investigators. He stated his uniform shirt was already in others' possession, told agents they could have his pants after he obtained a change of clothing, and said they could take his underwear. The recorded discussion also shows hesitation when the investigator initially proposed a DNA swab; a later signed waiver and collected buccal sample were documented in the case materials.
GBI recorded interview pp. 6, 8, 10–11, approximately 12:00–15:00 and 19:00–20:00; GBI evidence collection records.
Richard's position is that investigators should have examined the earlier dispositions and any independently corroborating evidence before using the old accusations to support an expanded theory of misconduct. He alleges that officials began constructing a prosecution narrative rather than fairly re-evaluating contrary evidence. The listed dispositions establish prior investigative outcomes; they do not establish deliberate fabrication by investigators.
Richard reports that one former young complainant described feeling personally attached to him and becoming upset after seeing him drive another student home from school. He says she described his attention as making her feel special, that she grew upset when she saw him driving another girl home from school, and that her allegation followed approximately two weeks later. Richard disputes having mentored girls in the way the allegation suggested and believes the timing and original interview should have been examined as possible credibility evidence.
Those reported motives, the two-week interval, and the precise original interview words have not yet been independently verified in the source records used to prepare this page. This section records Richard's position, not a court finding that the young woman knowingly made a false accusation.
Richard states that a witness had also accused her father of sexual contact, and that the father was allowed to testify in 2022 while the defense was not permitted to explore that separate allegation. Richard believes later legal developments changed what could be examined in 2026. He also reports that the witness did not want to testify again and was threatened with court sanctions, including jail, for refusing.
Those claimed rulings, the reported witness response, and the specific asserted change in law are presented as Richard's account; they have not been established here by a certified 2026 transcript, court order, or the relevant legal decision.
Contemporaneous Channel 2 reporting describes testimony about another teenager who was not named in the charges being tried in 2026. Richard disputes the allegation, states he never had contact with this additional witness, and challenges its relevance to the charged events. The witness account publicly reported from the retrial alleged an encounter, so the existence and nature of any contact remain disputed. This separate testimony should be evaluated according to its actual admissibility ruling and evidentiary basis, not presented as proof of the charged August 2018 acts simply because it was heard by the jury.
Richard maintains that he was handling police calls, transported a juvenile home, sought a restroom during a later patrol stop, and voluntarily engaged with investigators while denying sexual misconduct. His concerns about earlier allegations and the expanded prosecution are presented here as his account. The dispatch timestamps and referenced records are provided separately so readers can examine what each establishes.
