Dark Downeast - The Murder of David Pickett (New Hampshire)

Episode Date: October 3, 2024

Over 30 years have gone by without answers for the violent death of David Pickett on a quiet New England beach. When an investigation by police failed to get justice, David’s sister decided to seek justice on her own terms… Even if the suspect was her own blood.If you have information regarding the unsolved homicide of David Pickett, please contact the New Hampshire Cold Case Unit. You can do so via the tip form. View source material and photos for this episode at: darkdowneast.com/davidpickett Dark Downeast is an audiochuck and Kylie Media production hosted by Kylie Low.Follow @darkdowneast on Instagram, Facebook, and TikTokTo suggest a case visit darkdowneast.com/submit-case  

Over 30 years have gone by without answers for the violent death of David Pickett on a quiet New England beach. When an investigation by police failed to get justice, David's sister decided to seek justice on her own terms, even if the suspect was her own blood. I'm Kylie Lowe, and this is the case of David Pickett on Dark Down East. February 4th, 1993 was a cold, cold morning in Newcastle, New Hampshire. The temperature wouldn't break freezing all day, but for New Englanders who know how to dress for the occasion, there are few rituals more precious than a beach walk in the winter. It's calm and quiet.

Everything takes on muted tones of gray and dark slate and white. Footsteps leave the distinct, chain-like impressions of L.L. Bean boot tread in the sand. That morning was different, though. Around 6.15 a.m., as the briny Atlantic waters gently washed over the rocks and sand of Newcastle Beach, what should have been a peaceful stroll for two residents and their dog, was interrupted by something that didn't belong. According to reporting by Robert Cook for Foster's Daily Democrat, laying there in the sand was the body of a man caked in snow and blood. He was wearing beige clothing and a reflective jacket, but he didn't have any shoes on.

Rather, a pair of boots were placed neatly beside his body. Part-time Newcastle police officer Dan Barrett was among the first of dozens of police officers to arrive at the scene. He found the man to have a wound to his neck, so severe that the man's head was nearly severed from his body. The next day, when the chief medical examiner released his findings, the identity of the victim was also announced, to the shock of the tiny island community. The man found dead on Newcastle Beach was 59-year-old David Pickett. The resounding shock over David Pickett's death, his murder, just about bowled over the town of Newcastle. Many of the less than 900 residents had deep roots and extensive family history in the area, including David's family, the Picketts.

For a man who had lived in town since he was a young boy, who was known as a quiet, friendly, and kind man who enjoyed his solo walks through town, to then turn up dead under such violent circumstances, it was difficult for everyone to reconcile. According to his death certificate, David Pickett died as a result of an incised wound to the neck. New Hampshire State Police also say now that David sustained a stab wound to his back.

Although the manner and circumstances of his death were still under investigation, state police were treating the death as a homicide and had sealed off the beach location as a crime scene. Investigators searched the sand for clues, while the U.S. Coast Guard assisted in a search of the water just offshore. A search was also underway at David's apartment, located across the street from Town Hall. His vehicle was still parked in the Town Hall lot, where he was known to leave it after work. Although there was a flurry of activity in the tiny seaside town during those first few days of the investigation, police weren't able to say if they'd found anything and did not disclose if

a murder weapon had been recovered. Meanwhile, police were also reaching out to anyone and everyone who knew David and his habits. They spoke with his co-workers, friends, acquaintances, and his family members, including his sister, Mary Hopwood, and his brother, Robert Pickett. And as police soon learned, this was not one big happy family. Mary Hopwood knew that her brothers didn't get along. And as police soon learned, this was not one big happy family.

Mary Hopwood knew that her brothers didn't get along. Ever since their mother Gertrude passed away in 1984, things had soured between the siblings. At the center of their disagreements was often money and the ancestral home at 11 Seabreeze Lane in Newcastle. According to reporting by Karen Dan Durant for the Portsmouth Herald, after their mother's passing, the cottage was left to David, Robert, and Mary equally. The brothers had lived there together while their mother was still alive and decided to continue living in the house together. But as Mary knew, it was David who carried the bulk of the financial responsibility to keep the house afloat. Oceanfront taxes aren't exactly cheap, and the cottage was at least a century old. It required repairs and maintenance. The disputes over costs were never ending,

and Mary said that the wedge between David and Robert was driven deeper and deeper over the years. It became so bad that even though they were living under the same roof, the brothers would mail things to each other rather than have a face-to-face interaction. But maybe that was for the best, because as Mary claimed, one such interaction turned violent. Their fights had always been a war of words, the hurling of insults and harsh words at the top of their lungs, loud enough for neighbors to hear. But things came to a head in March of 1990 when David allegedly threatened Robert with a fireplace poker, and Robert responded with a kitchen knife, slashing David in the arm. After that incident, David moved out of the Seabreeze home and into an apartment across

from Town Hall, leaving Robert the place to himself. They didn't see or speak to each other after that, except for one interaction where David brought a contractor over to the house to see about converting it into a duplex so each brother could have his own space, but that renovation never happened. They occasionally saw each other in passing around town as David kept up with his daily walks. Even though he had moved out, David still helped pay for the expenses, but he thought he shouldn't be responsible for an equal amount of the costs since he didn't live there. He wanted his brother to cover a greater share, but that wasn't an easy

subject to broach. In the past, when they were living together, David would pay the bills in full and then ask Robert for his portion. But now David wanted Robert to pay the bill directly, so when the 1992 property taxes came due, David mailed the bill to Robert. A few days later, David got the tax bill back, unpaid. It was the final straw for David. According to court records, on January 24th, 1993, David called his sister Mary and told her he was going to force the sale of the house with a petition for partition. It's a last resort legal action when property owners can't decide what to do and asks a court to force the sale of the house and distribute the proceeds according to each party's percentage of ownership. So basically, if Robert couldn't contribute his

share, David would see to it that the house would cease to belong to any of the Pickett family members. Mary wanted to go with David to talk to Robert about it, but David insisted that he could handle it himself. Just 10 days after that declaration to Mary, David was murdered and left for dead on the sand less than 300 yards from the family home. On the morning of February 4th, 1993, Robert Pickett woke to a flurry of activity in his otherwise quiet neighborhood. From the second floor window of the cottage, he could see that there were state and local police cruisers and emergency vehicles everywhere. But despite the unusual scene, Robert said he wasn't curious at all. He just went about his morning, which began with finishing up some errands

he'd started the night before. According to court records, on February 3rd, Robert had written four checks from his checkbook and then drove to the post office in the town of Rye, about 15 minutes away from Newcastle. He used two of the checks to purchase money orders

made out to his brother, David. One for $132 to reimburse him for a portion of the property taxes, and another for $162.72, noted as cash for oil in his check register. The other two personal checks were for a cable bill and a credit card bill. After purchasing the money orders for David, Robert said he decided to just go home because he wasn't feeling well and he turned in early for the night. The next morning, the 4th, he decided to drive back to the post office in Rye to mail the check he'd written the day before to pay the cable bill, but he said he

decided not to mail the money orders to David. From there, he said he stopped to grab some groceries and then went for a visit with an old friend in Portsmouth before heading back to Newcastle. When Robert pulled up to Seabreeze Lane late morning, he was greeted by a police officer who asked him to go down to Town Hall to be interviewed about a murder that happened the night before. When he arrived around 11.30 a.m., that's when an officer informed Robert

that the murder victim was his own brother, and he was found not far from Robert's home on the beach. Robert told police that the last time he saw his brother was months ago, when David was on one of his walks through town and Robert was driving on the same road. Although he lived so close to the location of the body, Robert said he hadn't heard anything strange or concerning the night before, and he didn't have any idea what happened to David. Now, Mary found out about David's murder the same day as Robert. She called him when she got the news, and she was instantly put on edge by Robert's response. Mary said Robert's words weren't ones of grief or mourning.

They were out of concern for his own fate now that David was dead. She claimed that Robert asked, quote, Are you going to throw me out on the street? End quote. To Mary, this question seemed like Robert was aware of David's pending plans to force the sale of the house, which would have had him metaphorically out on the street.

So she assumed that David had that conversation with their brother alone, just as he said he was going to do. Knowing the volatile history between her brothers, Mary feared that Robert might have something to do with David's murder, that the conversation about selling the house turned violent, and now David was dead. Robert later claimed that it wasn't David who told him about the legal action to force the sale of the house. It was someone else,

though he couldn't confidently identify the person. And that's why he asked Mary if he was getting thrown out. He maintained that he and David never had that conversation, and Robert didn't see his brother on February 3rd. Mary was in touch with Robert in the days following David's murder, and during a conversation they had on February 6th, Robert spontaneously began recounting his movements on the day David was found dead. He told her about visiting a friend and buying groceries, and then how heiled two money orders on the morning of February 4th, wasn't fully realized until an envelope arrived in David's post office box after he died. It wasn't necessarily the contents that sounded alarm bells for Mary, but the address and the postmark. To the estate of David Pickett, it said, dated February 4th, 1993, the very same day he was found dead. And it came from their brother, Robert.

In the days following David's murder, a parcel arrived in Box 6 at the Newcastle Post Office, the box shared by Robert and David Pickett. The envelope was addressed to the estate of David Pickett, and the postmark read February 4th, 1993, p.m., Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Inside the envelope were two money orders from Robert for expenses related to the Pickett family cottage on Seabreeze Lane, one for $165.72 and the other for $132. You can see copies of the letter and the money orders at darkdowneast.com. The attorneys handling David's estate notified Mary of the envelope.

That's when she thought back to what Robert said about how he spent the morning of February 4th. Groceries, visiting a friend, mailing money orders. If he mailed these money orders in an envelope addressed to the estate of David Pickett in the morning before he was informed of David's murder, the implication was serious. State police sat down for another interview with Robert on February 14th, and they discussed the money orders Robert purchased to reimburse his brother for household expenses. He showed the lead investigators the receipts dated February 3rd, 1993. He later claimed that he mailed the money orders on the afternoon of February 4th because he'd asked the officers he spoke with during his interview that day what to do with them, and one of the officers told him to mail them to his brother's last known address

and make the envelope them to his brother's last known address and make the envelope out to his estate. So, he says that's what he did, and he dropped them off in a mailbox on the afternoon of February 4th. Police knew about the tumultuous relationship between the two brothers, including the violent interaction with a knife that caused David to move out. Robert didn't deny that the incident happened, but he said it was self-defense and the knife he used was dull and barely nicked his brother's arm. But whichever version is true, there was an undisputed history of animosity between Robert and David. Add that to the fact that David's body was just 800 feet from the home where Robert was

living, and the circumstances of the murder pointing more towards a crime of passion than a random act, plus the confusing money order envelope situation, Robert was emerging as a suspect. But it was a pile of circumstantial evidence, not enough for an arrest. Several months passed without any answers. Then on August 10th of that year, Mary's daughter was visiting her uncle Robert when he again brought up his whereabouts on the morning David's body was found on the beach. He stated once again that he mailed money orders at the Rye Post Office on the morning of February 4th. Robert's niece reported this conversation to investigators, and that's when a plan was hatched to get Robert talking on tape.

Mary's daughter agreed to wear a wire and speak with her uncle over the course of a few months. On three separate occasions, she talked to Robert about David and the circumstances of his death, and eventually their chats turned to the envelope and money orders. During the final recorded conversation on January 31st, 1994, Robert allegedly stated again that he mailed money orders from the Rye Post Office on the morning of February 4th, 1993. Court documents show that Robert's niece then presented him with the letter and asked how he could have known to address the envelope to the estate of David Pickett if he hadn't been informed of his death yet. After a few moments of what the niece described as incomprehension, shock, and worry,

Robert replied, quote, so what you're telling me, niece, is that if I tell you I mailed this envelope after the police told me he was dead, then everything's okay with you? End quote. The conversations between the niece and Robert didn't prove anything, except that Robert's story about the money orders was inconsistent. There was an argument to be made that he may have known David was dead before police told him so at town hall that morning. Mary waited to hear if these recorded conversations and any other evidence would lead to an arrest, but it didn't happen. On the one-year anniversary of David's death, which was just a few days after Mary's daughter confronted Robert with the envelope,

New Hampshire State Police announced a $10,000 reward for information in hopes of generating new conversation about David's case. Around the 18-month mark, when the reward hadn't shaken out enough new information for an arrest of Robert or anyone else, Mary decided to take matters into her own hands. In July of 1994, Mary Hopwood filed a petition in Rockingham County Probate Court. Her brother David had died without a will, and so, according to New Hampshire law,

his estate would be distributed to the heirs at law, which included Mary and Robert. However, with the suspicions she held, Mary didn't want Robert to receive a dime of David's estate. She alleged that Robert killed David, and therefore he shouldn't be able to benefit from his death. And so began an almost decade-long battle by Mary in civil court, not criminal court, to prove that Robert killed David. Her case was hinged on the brothers' long past of turmoil and disputes, at least one turning into physical violence, and the suspect envelope mailed to David's estate on the same day he was found dead. Mary didn't have to meet the same criminal trial standard for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In a case like this, the evidence standard is typically a preponderance

of evidence. Without getting too far in the weeds here, these terms are important. In legal proceedings, different levels of certainty are required to prove a case. The preponderance of evidence standard is used in most civil cases and means that the evidence must show that one side's version of the facts is more likely true than not. On the other hand, clear and convincing evidence is a higher standard, requiring that the evidence must be highly probable or reasonably certain to be true. This means the evidence must be clear and leave no serious or substantial doubt. It is sometimes used in civil cases, including family law, or where certain rights might be revoked.

Then, of course, there is beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard of proof used in criminal cases. This does not mean absolute certainty, but it does mean that the level of doubt must be insignificant to the point where a reasonable person would have no hesitation in finding the defendant guilty based on the evidence. Okay, mini law lesson over. Mary insisted that her brother David

was a peace-loving man who had no known enemies other than Robert. She hoped a judge would see that the evidence she presented was enough to show it was more likely than not Robert killed David, and so he shouldn't be able to benefit from his death. Robert Pickett denied any involvement in David's murder. He believed that Mary waging this war in civil court was an act of greed, that she wanted his portion of David's sizable estate for herself. Although the burden of proof was on Mary, Robert claimed to have a theory of what really happened, and he would present witnesses who could speak to that theory at trial. The civil trial played out at Rockingham County Superior Court in late September into October of 1996, after getting tied up and delayed in pre-trial motions and hearings regarding what

evidence would be allowed at trial. Mary wanted the tapes, or at least the transcripts, of those recorded conversations between her daughter and Robert to be included as evidence in the civil case because she believed that they were the best piece of proof that Robert was responsible for David's murder. But the judge ruled that the Attorney General's investigative file on the case, including the recordings of the taped conversations between Robert and his niece, would not be included as evidence at trial. Nevertheless, Mary presented her case, mainly the envelope addressed to the estate of David Pickett and testimony about when it was allegedly mailed. Although the taped conversations were not admitted as evidence, Mary's daughter and Robert himself were able to testify to the nature and content

of those conversations. Robert testified that the original envelope in question was made out to just David Pickett, not the estate of David Pickett, and he changed the address and mailed it on the afternoon of February 4th, only after a state trooper told him where to send it. However, three state troopers testified that they had no memory of advising Robert how to address and mail the envelope. When challenged on why he told his niece he mailed money orders in the morning of February 4th, Robert explained that he was confused because he actually mailed something else that morning. He said he mailed two bills, one for cable and one for a credit card, but not the money orders to David. But again, David's explanation was refuted when a witness from the cable company was called to testify.

The cable company employee said that they received a check for payment from Robert Pickett on February 3rd. He couldn't have mailed it on the morning of the 4th if the company had already received the check the day before. Even though there were conflicting versions of when the envelope with the money orders was mailed, Robert argued that the postmarked stamp was proof that he sent it on the afternoon of February 4th. Along with the date and location, it said PM. That distinction on the postmark, he argued, meant it was mailed in the afternoon, after Robert was notified that David died. Robert also stated that even if he wanted to kill David, he was physically incapable of doing so.

A doctor testified to the state of Robert's health at the time his brother was killed and Robert reportedly had a heart condition, he couldn't breathe well in cold air, and David was bigger and stronger than him. So it was unlikely that Robert could have pulled off a murder, let alone a vicious knife attack that would require a close physical altercation with someone who might be able to overpower an attacker in Robert's condition.

But Robert didn't stop defending himself there. He suggested an alternate theory, and even presented a witness to testify that perhaps a double-crossing hitman had slashed his brother's throat. During the civil trial, Robert Pickett's attorney called a witness, a friend of both Robert and David's, to share what they believed could be the truth about what happened to David. The friend said that one day as he and David were walking down the beach in front of the family home on Seabreeze Lane, David allegedly said to him that he would read about a murder in Newcastle someday. The friend asked David to clarify what exactly he meant by that,

but David didn't elaborate. When the friend later learned that David had been murdered, his mind went back to that cryptic conversation. He wondered if David had been planning something. The friend theorized that maybe David hired a hitman to kill his brother Robert, but something went awry and instead, the hitman killed David when he went to pick up payment that February night in 1994. The friend suggested that David kept money in his boot and that's why his boots were off when his body was discovered on the beach. For the record, investigators have never disclosed if any money or other valuables

were missing from David's pockets, or if he did in fact keep money in his boots, or if robbery appeared to be a motive in David's death. As for Mary, she simply thought that the hitman theory was absurd. The story that the witness told was just that, a story built on speculation and absolutely no basis in fact. At the end of it all, Robert said that he lost someone too. He loved David, and he even kept a photo of his brother at his house and had placed flowers on his grave. He was sure his sister, in an act of greed, was trying to bring him down for their

brother's murder, and he hoped the judge would see it his way. In November of 1996, a probate judge ruled in favor of Robert Pickett. The judge decided that the evidence presented by Mary needed to meet the clear and convincing standard, not the preponderance of evidence standard typically used in civil cases, and she failed to do so. The judge found that there was, quote, no actual evidence that Robert and David met about forcing the sale of the house, and that the postmarked details, February 4th, 1993, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, PM, would not have been used on an envelope if Robert, in fact, mailed the envelope in the morning. With that, Robert was allowed to inherit his portion of David's estate, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Mary filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied in December of that year. A month later, Mary took the issue all the way to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, a slow and steady process. By the summer of 2000, it had been more than seven years since David was killed, and seven long years of Mary fighting to prevent who she believed was responsible for his murder from clawing into his estate. But Mary eventually got some version of a win. On August 23rd, 2000, the state Supreme Court ruled that the lower court used the wrong standard of proof when it decided if Robert Pickett should get his share of his slain brother's estate. The lower court was seeking clear and convincing evidence that Robert was responsible for David's death, but the standard should have been preponderance of the evidence, according to the high court. The high court also found that the lower court abused its discretion

when it refused to admit a sealed transcript of the taped conversation between Robert and his niece. The state actually hadn't objected to those transcripts being included in the civil trial, so then they could have been considered as part of the probate case, and the lower court shouldn't have excluded them. So, the state Supreme Court sent the case back to probate court for a new trial. It was a second chance for Mary to get what she felt was justice for her brother David. In absence of an arrest and criminal proceedings, this civil action against Robert to prevent him from benefiting from David's murder,

a murder that Mary maintained Robert was responsible for, was the best she felt she could do with the current circumstances. Back where they had started, Robert's suspected involvement in David's death was about to be scrutinized in civil court for a second time, but he had since obtained new counsel and they filed a motion for the Attorney General's Office to release the entire file on the murder investigation, not just the tapes that were beneficial to Mary's case. Having the entire file released for review, Robert believed, would exonerate him. Release of the entire case file wasn't about to fly, though. You know the phrase all too well. Release of documents pertaining to an open and active

homicide investigation could jeopardize the integrity of the well. Release of documents pertaining to an open and active homicide investigation could jeopardize the integrity of the case. But the second trial began in September of 2001, and at least the recorded conversations were allowed, as evidenced this time. They were reviewed in camera, meaning they were sealed and would not be publicly disclosed. Also different this time around, Mary challenged Robert's claim that the PM distinction in the postmark

meant he could have only mailed it from Portsmouth in the afternoon. The distribution supervisor at the Portsmouth, New Hampshire Mail Distribution Center prepared an affidavit which states that it is not possible to state precisely the date, time, or place a particular envelope was deposited for mailing, even if the postmark includes a date, location, and a.m. p.m. distinction. The distribution supervisor goes on to state that the envelope

mailed to the estate of David Pickett could have been mailed after the last pickup of the previous day, February 3rd, or early in the morning of February 4th, and it would bear the same postmark regardless of when it was actually dropped in a mailbox. A postmark only proves that a parcel passed through a distribution center, and the postmark in question did not necessarily support Robert's claim that it was proof he mailed it in the afternoon of February 4th. In October 2001, Rockingham County Superior Court Judge Christina O'Neill

ruled on the second attempt by Mary to get Robert excluded from David's estate. And for a second time, the judge ruled that the evidence presented still did not support a finding that Robert murdered David. Is it any surprise that Mary wasn't finished yet? Despite the hope by Robert

that his sister would drop the matter, Mary kept going. She filed a motion for reconsideration. That motion was denied, and so just as she had done before, Mary asked the New Hampshire Supreme Court to weigh in on the matters at hand. Robert wouldn't see the end of that state Supreme Court appeal, though. He died in January 2002 at the age of 71 following a battle with lung cancer. As Mary said to Herb Perry for the Portsmouth Herald,

I don't have any feelings of sadness from his death. I feel sadness that the judge didn't follow through with justice and she allowed him to lie, and that bothers me. In the wake of her second brother's death, Mary intended to continue the fight to prevent the estate of Robert from benefiting from the estate of David. She officially filed the appeal 10 days later. But a little less than two months after Robert died, the New Hampshire Supreme Court declined to hear her appeal of the second probate

court ruling. So she filed a motion to reconsider. Interestingly, the state Supreme Court reversed its decision and decided to hear the case in 2003. Based on all the same evidence and arguments Mary had been making since the very first civil trial, the high court ruled, for a second time, that the case should return to probate court, now for a third trial. Around and around and around, Mary had gone in pursuit of one thing, justice. It was never about the money. She wanted justice for David, and if it wasn't coming from an arrest and criminal trial of the person she was sure killed him, Mary could only take every single step available to her to prevent David's money landing in Robert's hands.

New Hampshire judicial branch records show that David's estate was closed in December of 2004. It seems the saga finally ended and Mary was on some level satisfied with how the estate was handled because she didn't fight it any further. To dissipate any lingering fog over the entire probate process and Mary's duo of appeals to the state Supreme Court, the proceedings were a civil matter, not a criminal one.

A ruling in Mary's favor at any point along the line would not have meant jail time for Robert, but perhaps a financial hit for him and then his estate after his death. In regards to any criminal matters, during the nearly decade-long span that the suit was in progress, New Hampshire State Police and the Attorney General's Office refused to comment on the status of the investigation and the evidence they had or didn't have against Robert Pickett or any other suspect or if an arrest was imminent.

But there was one thing they could say and confidently confirm about the case, that Robert Pickett was, in fact, a suspect in his brother's murder. However, to this day, the case remains unsolved. There was never enough evidence to charge Robert with his brother's murder. Not back in 1993, not during the long probate battle, and not before the suspect passed away.

After Robert's death, New Hampshire State Police informed Mary that they planned to search a safety deposit box for Robert's will and anything else that could develop into possible new clues or leads in David's case. If that went anywhere, it is not public information. For the years that Mary spent fighting in civil court to prove Robert killed David, she felt alienated by the community that was once so important to her and her family. Mary's daughter told a reporter for the Portsmouth Herald that when her mother went back to Newcastle during that time, nobody would talk to her and her family. Mary's daughter told a reporter for the Portsmouth Herald that when her mother went back to Newcastle during that time, nobody would talk to her for reasons unknown. Maybe they didn't know what to say, or maybe they feared speaking out against Robert or David,

or the situation as a whole. Whatever it was, the friendly conversations she came to expect and enjoy in her small New England town ceased to exist, while the lack of closure ate away at her each and every day. All Mary's daughter wanted for her mother was that, closure. She hoped someday someone would come forward and unburden themselves of the information that could put their family tragedy to rest. Mary's daughter said in 2000, I have to believe that somewhere out there is a person who knows something. Maybe they noticed something a little odd,

something they didn't think was relevant, but could make all the difference. I have to hope that they will get past any fear and come forward, even if they think their information is inconsequential. Mary said that an officer working on David's case once told her, it's just like Cain and Abel.

The comparison refers to the biblical story of the first two sons of Adam and Eve found in the book of Genesis in the Bible. Cain and Abel were brothers, but their relationship ended in tragedy. Cain, the elder brother, became envious of Abel because God favored Abel's

sacrifice over his own. In a fit of jealousy and anger, Cain murdered Abel, making it the first recorded act of violence between siblings in biblical history. Was David's murder a Cain and Abel case of jealousy, rivalry, and betrayal that ended in violence and tragedy? Maybe. Could it have been something else? Some other scenario with an unknown assailant who faded away unscathed by it all while a family was torn apart? Maybe. Was there any evidence of a double-crossing hitman, as witness testimony suggested? Until the case is solved, the questions remain unanswered. Mary Hopwood passed away in 2023. Her obituary published in the Concord Monitor

mentions the family home in Newcastle. And how as a little girl, she and her brothers and their parents moved into the recently winterized cottage where they would spend their childhoods. Mary appreciated the privilege that it was to grow up on an island surrounded by the sea. That historic family home on Seabreeze Lane, which became the subject of many disputes between the Pickett brothers,

was sold in 1994, and then it was torn down and rebuilt anew sometime in the late 2010s. The massive ocean-facing windows of the new multi-million dollar house create a picture frame around uninterrupted views of the same waters that David Pickett once walked along during his ritual strolls on the beach, where generations of Picketts had walked before him, and where his life one cold day ended, still without any answers as to why. If you have information regarding the unsolved homicide of David Pickett, please contact the New Hampshire Cold Case Unit.

You can do so via the tip form linked in the show description of this episode. Thank you for listening to Dark Down East. You can find all source material for this case at darkdowneast.com. Be sure to follow the show on Instagram at darkdowneast. This platform is for the families and friends who have lost their loved ones and for those who are still searching for answers. I'm not about to let those names or their stories get lost with time. I'm Kylie Lowe, and this is Dark Down East.

Dark Down East is a production of Kylie Media and Audiocheck. So, what do you think, Chuck? Do you approve?