Teacher vs Detective: The Sex Crimes Interview that Led to LSSD’s Multi-Million Dollar Victim Settlement
LSPD Detective Kristin Parnell interviewed LSHS teacher Mark Hein Aug. 15, 2022 in the department's criminal interview room. This is the transcript.
Breaking: On April 6, 2026 Lake Stevens School District agreed to pay Mark Hein’s victim - Kalynn Taber, now 19 — several million dollars to settle a civil suit resulting from the district’s failure to protect her from Hein’s misconduct.
Note: This J425 exclusive publishes the transcript of an interview between Lake Stevens Police Detective Kristin Parnell and Lake Stevens High School teacher Mark Hein. The interview followed a district investigation of alleged misconduct that found Hein at fault, but judged his missteps to be of little consequence. Hein continued his actions after the girl’s complaint and eventually forced her off campus with his continued misconduct. A counselor working with the girl later reported Hein to the state, triggering a local police investigation. The police investigation looked at the exact same material as the previous district probe, but arrived at different conclusions, following a direct confrontation between detective and the teacher accused of misconduct. This article publishes the interview transcript in its entirety, after a brief review of the matters set to be discussed in the interview. In April of 2026, the district agreed to pay Hein’s victim multiple million dollars to settle a civil suit.
LAKE STEVENS — In February 2022, a 15-year-old female Lake Stevens High School sophomore (we refer to her as JANE) and her mother met with school administrators and reported teacher Mark Hein’s escalating misconduct and improper contact with the student occurring in Hein’s math class.
The girl’s mother asked for the girl to be transferred to a new class, and requested that Hein cease contacting her daughter.
You’re a human being, so you notice if people are attractive, you notice whatever characteristics they have as a human being. But it’s – I mean that’s something that I’ve tried to be really disciplined about is – in terms of letting it fester in the mind or anything like that.
- Mark Hein, asked whether he’s attracted to his students.
The district’s initial investigation into the complaint reviewed the following subject matter:
Inappropriate Grade Adjustments
Changing Jane’s grades without regard to her earned marks, even over her stated objection - a fireable offense under Washington Administrative Code
Boundary Violations
Repeatedly invited 15-year-old student on overnight non-school trips with him….Requiring JANE to meet him before school to pose for pictures with him…. Contacting other students to discuss Jane, including her boyfriends, with whom Hein discussed their dating relationship with Jane…. Pressing Jane for information about her non-school related activities, including date and location details – as well as pressing Jane for descriptions of what she wore at these events….Writing Jane notes during class and insisting she write back.
Pandering
Offering to procure any boy on the basketball team for her, even providing a roster for her to choose from.
Inappropriate Communication
Communicating with JANE over personal email and social media….inappropriate public communication ranging from an angry outburst after Jane transferred from his class, to telling other students that JANE was “a traitor” and continuing to communicate via written notes….Continually pushing the 15-year-old for intimate details about her relationships with boyfriends…..
Unwanted Touching
From previous J425 reporting: Hein subjected JANE to daily unwanted physical touching, during which Hein would run his hands over JANE’s thighs, shielded from plain view by the teachers desk he required her to sit at with him.
District Investigation Finds Fault, But No Need for Discipline
The district investigation found that Hein HAD violated student/teacher boundaries — and the district documented the finding in a “non-disciplinary letter of direction” provided to Hein on February 15, 2022.
The letter outlined several instances in which Hein violated district policy 4900 and warned Hein against further contact with two 15-year-old students who’d brought forward complaints of harassment and “groomer” behaviors.
As J425 previously reported, Hein apparently thought very little of the letter, later telling LSPD Detective Parnell that the letter was “unfair” to him.
At the time, Hein paid little heed to the administrative order, continuing to contact the victim on numerous occasions.
Hein’s failure to heed the written order barring him from contacting the 15-year-old girl led to a spiraling series of events that ultimately drove the victim off campus, suffering from debilitating psychogenic non-epileptic seizures and “very extreme PTSD.”
Seeking care for the damage caused by Hein, the victim’s parents enrolled the girl in counseling, and the counselor — after learning of the girl’s problems with Hein — filed a complaint with the state.
The counselor’s mandatory report to the state then triggered law enforcement notification, and LSPD was, in turn, informed of Hein’s misconduct at Lake Stevens High School.
LSPD assigned the case to Detective Kristin Parnell.
And that’s how, as we come full circle, an LSPD Detective specially-trained in investigating the abuse of children, conducted a criminal investigation into the very same material that the school district had evaluated four months prior.
The Criminal Investigation
Detective Parnell’s investigation grew from the licensed therapist’s report to Child Protective Services.
The therapist reported that her client, suffered serious non-epileptic seizures and severe post-traumatic stress as a result of a chain events that centered around the predatory actions of a Lake Stevens High School teacher.
The therapist’s report gave Parnell probable cause to serve Lake Stevens School District (LSSD) with a search warrant seeking Hein’s personnel file, plus all investigatory documents relating to the district’s look at Hein’s behavior (J425 published a report on the documents turned over as a result of Parnell’s warrant on March 18).
Over the next two months, Parnell interviewed multiple victims, numerous students, teachers, administrators and experts.
Detective Parnell’s investigation covered all of the material listed in the initial district probe, and later added additional instances of misconduct, including:
Stalking
Hein’s continued contact with Jane represented direct violations of an administrative order to cease contact documented in the February 15 letter of direction outlining Hein’s violation of policy 4900
Unwanted Touching After Student’s Stated Objection
Parnell’s investigation surfaced additional evidence of Hein’s physical misconduct. Parnell wrote that Hein touched JANE’s thighs “every day” and he ignored her direct order for him to stop unwanted touching. From Parnell’s report:
“Mark started rubbing JANE ’s thigh about two weeks into the school year….He touched her thigh at least one time each class…JANE was wearing pants every time he rubbed her thigh, but several times she was wearing a pair of jeans that are ripped on the thigh. When she wore those jeans, Mark would touch her bare skin when he rubbed her thigh. When Mark touched JANE’s thigh, she would pull her leg away from him. Immediately before he touched her thigh, Mark would look around the classroom at the students doing their classwork. JANE believes he was checking to make sure he would not be seen touching JANE. JANE only told him not to touch her one time. When she did, Mark responded, “Why? I’m not doing anything wrong.” She said his response made her feel like she was crazy, so she did not want to keep repeating it.”
Detective Parnell Interviews Mark Hein
After completing a two month investigation including over 50 recorded interviews with teachers, students and administrators — Parnell was ready to interview Hein. The basketball coach and math teacher agreed to the formal, recorded criminal interview.
The interview was conducted and recorded at Lake Stevens Police Department, and Hein and Parnell were the only participants. For Parnell’s purposes, as a criminal investigator, the goal of the interview was to obtain requisite probable cause that crimes had occurred, in order to move forward with a criminal case. However, from a wider perspective, the facts and evidence arising from her investigation of Hein are also directly relevant to the parallel school district inquiries into Hein’s alleged behavior. Parnell’s interview – and Hein’s direct responses – also provide the public with their clearest look yet into Hein’s direct response to these allegations. What follows is a transcript of the interview, provided from the perspective of Detective Kristin Parnell. Other than light edits for style, the transcript is published unedited, in its entirety.
Interview Transcript: Suspect Mark Hein, Questioned by Det. Kristin Parnell
Parnell writes: Mark was interviewed regarding this case on 08/15/22.
Mark Hein (Mark) told me he knew the school had investigated JANE’s complaint against him, which resulted in a Letter of Direction being issued to him due to “boundary-type invasions” that were uncovered by the school’s investigation.
He said the letter directed him to “not engage” with JANE at all and he described the situation as “really unfair toward [himself].”1
Mark brought up JANE’s complaint about him trying to talk her into going to an overnight camp for Young Life.
Mark explained he was in another conversation with a group of students after his class had ended and one of those students had asked him about the “Malibu camp”. JANE joined the group at that time and Mark told the group they should all go to the camp. JANE asked some questions about the camp, then Mark told her to “give it some thought.”
Following Mark’s interview, several of his students were interviewed, none of whom recalled Mark ever discussing Young Life outside of briefly mentioning it during his own “About Me” presentation to his classes.
Mark said the victim’s permanent seat (at the front of the class) was his solution to her complaint that she could not see from the back of the classroom, which he stated was where he’d original sat her in the class.
Mark claimed all communication with JANE about her boyfriend or boys she was interested in were initiated by the girl.
He similarly stated the handwritten notes were initiated by JANE I. One day when she turned in an assignment along with a note that said “I’m sad,” which Mark responded to in writing.
Another time, Mark and JANE exchanged notes about JANE transferring out of his class.
Mark said JANE wrote him a note stating her mom was making her transfer out of his class.
Mark wrote her back asking if everything was okay, and she responded telling him “It’s other kids.”
Mark later learned JANE had taken a picture of the note and used it as evidence against him.
Mark admitted to regret passing notes with the girl, saying he wished he had spoken with her directly so their conversations had not been documented.
He said there were four or five different occasions when the class was quiet and he and JANE passed notes back and forth to each other.
Mark denied ever asking JANE for information about her upcoming cheer competitions, stating she gave him a list of competition dates voluntarily and without prompting from him.
He did not deny asking her about cheerleading, but stated it is normal for him to take an interest in his students activities.
Mark stated he has a container of candy and gum he keeps in his desk. From time to time, JANE would ask him for gum and he occasionally gave her a piece.
Mark said the candy was there for “everyone” and he sometimes gave some out to students if they asked for it. He also sometimes gave candy to students for correctly answering certain questions.
In my interviews with some of Mark’s other students, I was told by all that it was either very rare for Mark to give out candy or that he did not give out candy at all to his students.
When asked if he has ever had any kind of physical contact with JANE, Mark told me when JANE sat next to him to get help, she would scoot her chair so close to him, their shins would touch.
He demonstrated this by scooting his chair close to mine and touching his leg to mine.
The proximity of his body to mine coupled with the physical contact made me very uncomfortable and, under any other circumstances, I would not have allowed someone with whom I did not have a close personal relationship with to sit that close to me or touch me in that manner.
Mark said he did not think anything of the contact because JANE appeared to be an affectionate person based on his observations of her interactions with one of his other students whom she would regularly hug at the beginning of class.
Mark denied any other physical contact with JANE.
He denied ever touching JANE’s leg with his hand.
Mark was asked if he ever touched any part of JANE ’s body with his hand, he said he may have touched her shoulder because that is something “that I might do.”
Mark admitted that JANE frequently sat next to him at a smaller desk he referred to as the “help desk”, but stated it was her choice to do so.
When I asked Mark about the picture JANE emailed him of him, JANE and another female student, Mark explained they had taken the picture to get spirit points.
He informed me the school awarded points to classes during spirit week when the students took a picture with a teacher while all dressed for the theme of the day.
It should be noted that I asked several of the people I interviewed in this case about spirit points including students from Mark’s class, students from other classes, and faculty members. Most had never heard of spirit points, those who did explained they were only awarded during certain classes (first period according to Scott Flanders) and a class was awarded points based on the number of students who dressed for the theme of the day.
No one interviewed knew anything about students being awarded points or even being encouraged to take pictures with teachers for spirit week.2
Toward the end of the interview, I asked Mark if he could think of anything I might learn from talking to other people that would support JANE’s version of event. After thinking about it for approximately 12 seconds, he said,
“The only thing –I’ll elaborate on one thing – is when JANE was getting help, sometimes she would put her foot like that [Mark demonstrated JANE pressing her shin against his on me again at that point] and I wouldn’t necessarily take it away right away.”
When I asked Mark why he “waited a minute” to move his leg away from the girl’s he responded,
“I don’t know, but it was unwise.”
I started to ask Mark to tell me about the time he spoke to JANE ’s boyfriend, but Mark cut me off saying
“I never talked to him.”
I then finished my question, asking Mark to tell me about when he talked to the victim’s boyfriend about her.
Mark told me he knew her boyfriend had tried out for basketball and said,
“I know she talked to me about it. If I mentioned it to him, I truly don’t remember what the conversation was.”
Mark said he never had her boyfriend in any of his classes, but JANE would bring him into Mark’s class with her and introduced Mark to him.
Mark denied any recollection of talking to anyone about JANE when JANE was not around.
It should be noted that several students stated Mark talked about JANE when she was not around, including her then boyfriend who did not have any classes with Mark and another male friend of JANE whom Mark saw walking to his car after school. Another female student recalled two occasions of Mark asking her to send text messages to JANE telling her he missed her on days she was absent from class.
Mark said he did not recall ever packing JANE I’s bag for her while she was in the restroom after class ended or putting candy in her bag, but admitted it was something he might have done.
Mark denied trying to convince her to stay after class with him or offering to write her a note excusing her from her next class so she could do so.
Hein’s Actions After Letter of Direction Ordered Him to Leave Victim Alone
One day, sometime after JANE transferred out if his class, Mark left his room to use a staff bathroom down the hall from him and saw the victim at the drinking fountain, which is located next to the staff bathroom.
Mark said he saw the victim and “instinctively” said “Hi,” then walked past her.
A couple of days later, Mark was heading to the same bathroom again, but it was already occupied by another staff member. While waiting to use the bathroom, JANE walked up and got in line at the student bathroom, which is located next to the staff bathroom.
Mark said he “barely made eye contact with her,” but JANE complained he was “staring her down.”
Mark said he was “trying to avoid her at all costs.”
Mark also addressed JANE ’s complaint of him waving to her at the baseball game.
Mark denied knowing she was at the game and claimed to be waving to a co-worker who was at the game watching his son play.
Asking Hein if He Makes Kids Uncomfortable
I asked Mark if he had ever been given any indication that he made any other student uncomfortable.
Mark responded, “No.” Mark was silent for approximately 8 seconds before he added,
“So, here was the weird thing with that.”
Mark then went on to tell me another student was also included in the school’s investigation after making complaints similar to the victim’s, and he said that he was also directed to not have contact with her.
Mark did not know what happened to change his previous positive relationship with JANE 2 and led her to file a complaint against him, but suggested she may have had “a crush” on Mark.
Does Hein Find His Students Attractive?
Mark admitted to finding some of his students attractive early on in his career as a high school teacher, but denied ever pursuing a romantic relationship with one.
In response to a question about fantasizing about his students, Mark said:
“I would say, just like, you’re a human being, so you notice if people are attractive, you notice whatever characteristics they have as a human being. But it’s – I mean that’s something that I’ve tried to be really disciplined about is – in terms of letting it fester in the mind or anything like that.”
Mark described JANE as “a striking girl,” but denied any sexual attraction to her.
Summary
At this time I hold probable cause to arrest Mark Hein for assault in the fourth degree with sexual motivation, sexual misconduct with a minor in the second degree, and communication with a minor for immoral purposes against both JANE and JANE2
Age Calculations
(Victims) were 15 years old at the time of the above-described incidents.
Mark Hein (DOB —/—/67) was 55 or 56 at the time of the above-described incidents.
Mark is 38 years, 6 months, and 26 days older than JANE
He is 38 years, 8 months, and 6 days older than JANE2
END TRANSCRIPT.
Analysis: The players remain the same, but the rules are different
Facts uncovered during the criminal investigation cast an unfavorable light on the district’s work…but the police investigation also gives the district a new range of well-substantiated evidence, produced by a detective with expertise in crimes against children, warrant power and the access and standing to interview scores of teachers and staff.
In short, Detective Parnell’s findings give the district documented evidence of Hein’s actions and thinking, which must be filtered through the prism of the district’s (non-criminal) administrative policies.
Meaning that even if Hein navigates the ongoing criminal investigation, he must still confront the factual discrepancies and numerous policy violations surfaced by comparing Parnell’s transcript with the transcript of the interview Hein gave the district in February of 2021.
Two public agencies investigated the actions of Hein. The district, operating at a much lower evidentiary threshold, looking through a non-criminal administrative prism in order to determine whether Hein violated district misconduct policy, found enough evidence to sustain the allegations of misconduct, but apparently not enough evidence to remove Hein from close contact with the victims.
The LSPD investigation looked at Hein’s actions with regard to the same victims over a longer range of time, through the prism of criminal sex crimes against minors.
Detective Parnell stated that she found probable cause that six such crimes occurred, and applied for a warrant for Hein’s arrest.
The evidence Parnell turned up provides material that can be evaluated by the district through its misconduct policy. And it will be interesting to see where behavior that Detective Parnell deemed worthy of charges serious enough for prison time and lifetime sex offender registry — well it will be interesting to see just what type of penalty this same behavior warrants under the district’s “boundary invasion” policy.
At issue in the LSPD investigation (and under discussion in this interview) are the actions of a 55-year-old teacher with regard to 15-year-old girls under his charge. The district is free to interpret the situation in any number of ways.
They could simply view the issue as a law enforcement matter, as the therapist and CPS apparently did. They could evaluate Hein’s behavior under the district’s sexual harassment policy, which certainly would’ve been appropriate given the unwanted touching and the repeated harassment/stalker behavior reported by the victim and her mother.
Or, alternatively, the district could choose to evaluate Hein’s behavior under the district “boundary invasion” policy. We know which tact the district took.
And because LSPD opened a criminal investigation into the same behaviors ruled on by the completed LSSD investigation, we now know that behavior the district deems a “boundary invasion” is equivalent to what a police detective calls sexual crimes against a child.
And that’s not all. Because Detective Kristin Parnell included a transcript of her suspect interview with Mark Hein in the probable cause packet filed at the time of his arrest, we are provided a preview of the information that the district must now evaluate in its ongoing administrative inquiry into the Hein matter.
To the district, Parnell’s appearance on the scene might’ve been viewed as a blessing and a curse.
On the plus side, a thorough criminal investigation conducted by an expert in her field would provide the district with a new set of findings to evaluate…findings arrived through the application of the powerful array of tools, strategies and techniques available to a detective investigating crimes against children.
Obviously, Detective Parnell stood ready to conduct a deeper and broader investigation than the one conducted by the district.
As a result, her probe was always likely to produce a different set of results than those turned up by a collegial internal probe conducted in the lowest-stakes environment. On the down side, the logical dissonance created when the same stuff the district calls “boundary invasions” transform into a spate of prison-worthy sexual crimes against minors when evaluated by law enforcement might cause some sleepless nights for those shepherding our community’s children.
The district had found that Hein’s behavior had amounted to “boundary invasions” - yielding a non-disciplinary “letter of direction” and a direct administrative order for Hein to stop contacting the victim, an order which Hein completely ignored.
Our interest, inescapably, is in understanding how the school district could look at the harm done to a child and view it as a “boundary invasion” worthy of less than a slap on the wrist, while the police evaluation of the same behavior led a sex crimes specialist to believe a series of minor-involved sex crimes had occurred - crimes that carry mandatory lifetime sex offender reporting requirements as well as significant prison time.