Dateline NBC - The Disappearance of Debbie Hawk

Episode Date: September 7, 2021

In this Dateline classic, friends and family of Debbie Hawk are left searching for answers when she vanishes. Investigators discover Debbie had planned to reveal secrets and wondered if silencing her was a motive for murder. Keith Morrison reports. Originally aired on NBC on July 19, 2010.

She was there. She'd walk into the room and it just kind of brightened. And then she wasn't. My initial reaction was, oh my God, what has happened? The mother they adored, missing. In her place, a trail of blood. My biggest fear was that we were going to find her. What police found instead was a puzzle.

In my 28 years, I've never seen that before. A missing woman, a mystery with few clues. Did you find any fingerprints? No. Hairs, anything? No. But did one man have a motive? You steal $300,000 and you're about to be exposed for it.

Except without proof, how could anyone convince a jury? So you don't think they had any useful evidence against you at all? Can anybody name anything? Could anyone solve the mystery? We, the jury, find the defendant, David Martin Hawk. I'm Lester Holt and this is Dateline. here's keith morrison with the disappearance of debbie hawk hmm the key was waiting for them under the mat that evening in june 2006 outside their mom's house

silence no one home where was she she was always on time to pick them, outside their mom's house. Silence. No one home. Where was she? She was always on time to pick them up from their dad's place. But tonight, he had to drive them. This just wasn't like her. Where was she? Conrad, the eldest, put the key in the lock, opened the door. Chelsea, in the middle, crossed the threshold.

Stopped. What was this? Once we took a few more steps in, then we realized there was something wrong. This was the moment, the defining one. Nothing the same after this. And there was a lot of blood everywhere. Then the adrenaline kicked in. Instinct took over.

We just dropped our stuff and split throughout the house. Panic rising now. Conrad was 15 then, his little sisters Chelsea, 14, and Savannah, 10. Three kids trying to make sense of a horribly frightening scene. My mom normally keeps it completely spic and span. There's hardly ever any dust anywhere, let alone anything out of order. And now things were anything but.

Where the desk was, you could see that there were papers scattered around, drawers were, you know, ripped open. And you went into the bedroom? I think that was the first place my sister ran into. And then so she quickly called us in and then we followed her. What did you see there? There's blood on the ground. A lot? Yeah. Her mom's bed. It was made, but... It was kind of haphazardly thrown together, you know, not quite smoothed out. And she would have done it a different way. Right. At that point, you were pretty upset, I imagine.

Yeah. My biggest fear was that we were going to find her. That's what scared me most, is that we'd find her somewhere in the house. But they did not. No Debbie Hawk, not anywhere. There was some drag marks, some kind of smear marks leading out to the garage where they stopped. And Debbie's van was gone too. My initial reaction was, oh my God, what has happened? Who could have done this?

Sure, I mean, the girls ran to a neighbor's house. Conrad called 911. We went in our mom's room and her bathroom and there's blood on the carpet. After the initial shock of it, I kind of start to be reasonable and think, whoa, wait a minute, let's not overreact here. Clearly she cut her hand with a knife or something and she was bleeding and she raced out to the car to go to the emergency room. This is all just a big misunderstanding. But it wasn't,

though there were plenty of misunderstandings to come and questions that stubbornly refused to be answered, like where was Debbie Hawk? What happened to her? And what happened to the sacred bond that once held three children together? Back at the beginning, even the police were confused.

This case seemed very unusual from the start. Aside to the case at the time, a Hanford, California police investigator, Darren Madison, along with a Kings County DA investigator, Aaron Lebleu, both had worked other cases here in Hanford. And out among the suburbs and the almond orchards and the giant, odorous dairy farms that splay across the miles of flat valley floor. But this one did not smell right at all, thought Madison. It appeared that she was drug out of the house, obviously against her will. In my 28 years, I've never seen that before.

Whatever happened must have been planned, thought out. It looked like a staged crime scene. Her jewelry in her bedroom neatly laid out just where she had put it. Nothing was missing but her and her van. Had somebody been trying to make it look like Debbie Hawk had been kidnapped? Or was the intention a failed intention perhaps to show that that she'd just left home. I believe it was designed to look like a missing persons case. The bed was made. Yeah. Most of your crooks don't do that.

And had the perpetrator been looking for something? There were paperwork that normally would have been put away, at least stacked up. It wasn't. It was scattered and this financial document was on top. Significant? Maybe, but certainly significant were the sounds neighbors reported hearing in the middle of the night, the night before Debbie's kids arrived at her doorstep and discovered she was missing. Several neighbors actually heard a loud scream. It was a blood-curdling type. Why did nobody call 911? That is not the type of neighborhood that bad things happen in.

No, and not the type of person to whom bad things happen. Debbie was an accomplished woman, a sales rep for a pharmaceutical firm, and with a wide circle of friends, was immensely popular. She was very regal, and to us, royalty. She definitely fits the bill as the princess. She should have been a Kennedy. Which is why the ribbons that suddenly bloomed everywhere around Hanford were royal purple.

And the people who put the ribbons on, and up, also joined a search to find her. They walked the riverbanks. They peered among the trees. Not a trace. By then, as you can imagine, the whole town knew about the disappearance of Debbie Hawk. And they knew something else, too. Two days after she vanished, there was a find, and it wasn't good.

But it wasn't Debbie. Instead, police found her van. It was parked on the street in a high crime district of Fresno, 40 miles from home. The drug samples Debbie had kept in the van, medications for nasal allergies and asthma, were missing. And this was weird. The windows were down, the keys in the ignition, the license plate had been replaced with a stolen one.

It appears that whoever left it there wanted somebody to get in and drive off. Oh, and one more thing. The van's back seat was covered with blood. At that point, whoever was driving the van would immediately become a suspect in Debbie Hawk's disappearance. Police were pretty sure that was exactly what the killer wanted. It was a ruse, an attempt to plant blame somewhere else. But around town,

some people had already begun directing blame. At one individual, they thought they knew who did it. She had said to me, you know, if anything ever happens to me, you know where to look. But suspicion runs fast. The truth dawdles along. Has it arrived even now?

Coming up. Things like she needs a taste of her own medicine. She's going to get hers. She's going to get what she has coming to her. When Dateline continues. You couldn't go anywhere that summer of 2006 without seeing those purple ribbons, a vivid reminder of Debbie Hawk, the mother of three who vanished from her home in Hanford, California, leaving only traces of blood. Before long, in her absence,

Debbie was famous, as if everybody in town had known the woman her children so loved. She'd walk into the room and it just kind of brightened. There was never a dull moment. She was all for her family, her children. These are her parents, Angie and Bud Triantis. Hard worker. She was just, to me, she was perfect.

She was a perfect daughter. And I dearly love her and miss her. There's a lot of lives that have been shattered because of her demise. Demise, yes. No getting around it now. In July of 2006, the case was reclassified from missing person to homicide. A formality, really. They knew from the moment they arrived at the house, said DA investigator Aaron Lebleu, somebody killed Debbie.

We kept up hopes, obviously, for the family's sake, but it was clear that she was not alive based on the crime scene. Investigators poked around Debbie's life history, looking for clues. She was very talkative, friendly, likable. Always was kind of the life of the party. This is Debbie's sister, Diane, who recalled how friends set her up on that blind date years ago. Firecracker. He was the date, Dave Hawk.

She was short and attractive and a lot of fun and pretty good sense of humor. You know, you'd say something and man, she'd pop back with something that you didn't quite expect. They were married within a year. They built a home among his family's almond groves. I think they both wanted to have family, and I think that was like the impetus for the acceleration, I guess you'd say, of the relationship. Though Debbie's big sister wasn't sure what she saw in him. He seemed very quiet, very opposite of my sister. Then, before long, Conrad arrived, and Chelsea, and Savannah. I still remember Christmases, where my brother and I would run around and deliver all the

gifts to everybody, and everybody was getting along. Definitely some happy memories there. But sadly, a lot of unhappy ones, too. I mean, pretty much from when I can remember, fighting and arguing were pretty routine. And after nearly nine years, this marriage, like so many others, fell apart. We might have been a little bit more different than we were willing to admit early on.

Even at that age, I could definitely see, yeah, the water was about to boil over. The kids were nine, eight, and four when the divorce was finalized in 2000. And young Conrad, Chelsea, and Savannah learned how to navigate the choppy waters known all too well by children of divorce. They just couldn't talk to each other, really.

So I tried to step in and help resolve that. You were kind of a mediator in a way. It's a tough role for a kid to play, isn't it? I think it was easier to be the mediator than to have them yelling at each other on the phone. And living apart, said Conrad. My mom was happier than ever. I think all of our lives improved. Debbie did well enough as a pharmaceutical representative

that she was able to buy her own home. She could finally start living her life the way that she wanted to. Except there were issues. Once after they separated during the squabbles over divorce, she claimed he tried to choke her. She said he just looked like a crazed animal and I thought he was going to kill me. And not too long after that, she had said to me, you know, if anything ever happens to me, you know where to look. Dave said that choking thing

just never happened, that he was never violent with her. I've never choked anybody. Things settled down eventually, though there was always some dispute. And the things Conrad says he heard his dad say about his mom? Awful. Things like, she needs a taste of her own medicine, she's going to get hers, she's going to get what she has coming to her. In fact, the very night he discovered Debbie had vanished, Conrad told police his dad might have done this. I don't see anything that would, you know, disqualify him from being able to carry that out.

Which is why, just hours after the kids discovered Debbie was missing, it was 2.20 a.m. by then, police called Dave, woke him up, asked him to drive down to police headquarters for a talk. And the phone call was curious, thought investigator Madison, because Dave didn't ask why. I've received calls in the middle of the night. My first thought, for me, is family. What's going on, especially if it's the police department. He didn't. And when he arrived in the interview room, Dave didn't seem to have much of a reaction at all to learning his ex-wife, the mother of his

three kids, was missing. At this point, I have no clue as to where she might be. Well, I'll tell you what's been going on last week. What did you expect? More surprise. Any surprise. I didn't see that at all. Of course, people do react in different ways to traumatic news. Besides, Dave told them he was at home asleep in the early morning hours when police believed Debbie must have been killed. And his kids said they didn't hear him leave the house. They were there too at the time. And there was no evidence that Dave was ever at the crime scene. Did you find any DNA? No. Did you find any even fingerprints? No. Hairs? No. But then they just begun to uncover the troubling secrets of Dave and Debbie Hawk.

Coming up, a family divided. I don't believe that he'd even be capable of doing something like this. My suspicion was growing stronger and stronger. When Dateline continues. It was a frustrating summer back in 2006 in the farmlands of California's Central Valley. Those purple ribbon search teams came up empty, though they looked everywhere, for weeks. Police named Dave Hawk a person of interest. But he seemed to have an alibi. All three kids were with him in his house

the night Debbie vanished. And besides, there wasn't a shred of physical evidence to tie Dave to the scene of an apparently violent abduction. His own daughter, who spent the day after the abduction with Dave, told the police it couldn't have been him. I don't believe that he'd even be capable of doing something like this. But then they started poking around in the relationship between Debbie and her ex-husband,

and there some curious things began to emerge. For example, in the months before Debbie disappeared, Dave took Debbie to court and she was fighting back. Kim Aguirre was Debbie's attorney. The issues that she was dealing with were custody and support. Dave had asked the court for a reduction in his $553 a month child support payment. Why? Because he claimed he only earned $6,000 a year. His salary came from his dad,

who paid him $500 a month to work on his almond farm. His only income, apparently, though Debbie's attorney found that a little hard to believe. He lived in what I understood to be a very nice home. He drove a late model Suburban. That's hard to do on $6,000 a year. So Debbie asked the court for more time with the children. His response was to ask for half custody.

The percentages were something like 65 with Debbie and 35 with Dave, and he wanted to make it an even 50-50. And that's when the battle moved to trust funds set up for the children's futures. The money came from Dave's father. But Dave controlled the funds, and Debbie was sure Dave was stealing from them to support his own lifestyle. Why would she think that? Well, this was actually the second set of trusts established for the children.

Several years before, a judge caught Dave's hand in the cookie jar of the first trust, which listed both Dave and Debbie as trustees. Dave was removed as trustee of those funds. But during the divorce, Dave's father gave him sole control of a second quite generous trust fund. But when investigators ran the numbers on that second fund, administered only by Dave... Basically, there were supposed to be several hundred thousand dollars in each account, and instead there was just a couple hundred or a thousand dollars in each of the kids. He'd been living off of it for up to about five years at

that point. Something like $300,000 was missing. Though Dave cried poverty, he bought his girlfriend, Mary Royer, a $27,000 Lexus, took her on vacation to Hawaii, and used $60,000 to pay off divorce costs and the $1,500 he owed to his kids from the first set of trusts. But here, believed the detectives, was the heart of the motive for murder. Debbie, if she hadn't disappeared, was about to expose all that in court. You steal $300,000 and you're about to be exposed for it. By a woman you despise.

Exactly. Certainly one more piece of the puzzle. And there was yet another strange piece to this puzzle. Remember that mess around Debbie's desk? Documents scattered everywhere? Well, sitting right on top of the pile were the records from the children's first set of trusts, the one only Debbie controlled.

There was $166,000 in those accounts. The investigators in Hanford now focused hard on Dave. Searched his home several times, carted off lots of stuff, including a stun gun, which it turned out he bought a month before Debbie disappeared. He told investigators it was for home protection

for his daughter's girlfriend, Mary. However, he had never discussed it with Mary. He had never discussed it with the children at all. They did not know it existed. They couldn't find anything to connect the stun gun to the crime, but it was odd. They also took his computers, of course, and since Dave did volunteer work at a local church,

they seized the church computer, too. They even cuffed him outside his house in full view of local television cameras, which were now buzzing around endlessly, asking, did you do it? For the last time, no. I'm getting tired of answering that question. No means no, but the fools at the Hanford Police Department don't seem to understand that. They're on a witch hunt is what's going on. They're on a witch hunt. Whatever they were on, they couldn't find the evidence to arrest him. Dave remained a free man, something that made his own son, Conrad, very nervous.

My suspicion was growing stronger and stronger. Conrad had already told police about the night after he discovered his mom was missing when he saw his dad sharing a bottle of wine with his girlfriend. They opened it and toasted and had wine out on the patio with cheese and crackers. I didn't want to jump to conclusions, but at the time I thought my father and his girlfriend had really poor taste. Conrad and Dave spent that summer on the outs. It was after quite some time of not getting along terribly well.

And in August 2006, two months after his mother's disappearance, Child Protective Services took 16-year-old Conrad to a foster home. There were just a few altercations that we'd had, kind of like what my mom

had gone through. Investigators talked many times to Dave's girlfriend, Mary. And eventually, this exchange occurred. Have we ever verbalized to you at all how much you hated the woman? Absolutely. What did he say exactly? It's not going to stop until that ****** is dead.

When did this happen? Numerous times. An aha moment? Well, maybe not quite. So it all seemed quite suspicious. In fact, most people in town seemed to have made up their minds about Dave Hawk. But one of them was not the DA. They kept pushing and pushing. And we kept sitting back.

Did the cops have it wrong? Dave Hawk's longtime pastor thought so. Coming up... This person who was betrayed as such a monster just simply isn't. Another side of an accused killer when Dateline continues. I kept pushing and pushing, and we kept setting back. The prosecutor at the time, Larry Crouch, told his investigators he would not charge Dave Hawk with the murder of his ex-wife, Debbie,

even after it was obvious this popular single mother had been murdered. Even after months of searching around Hanford, California, turned up no sign of her anywhere. And after police had convinced themselves that Dave was responsible, Prosecutor Crouch would not budge. Not yet, anyway. We're going to wait until we find the body or give the body more time to come up. Instead, a year after Debbie vanished, Dave was charged with embezzling,

stealing more than $300,000 from his own children's trust funds. He pleaded not guilty, was released on bail, and waited for the other shoe to drop. Now, imagine this. The police, not to mention most of the town, believed their father killed their mother, leaving three children caught in the middle. Conrad had no doubt his dad killed his mom, a dad he began referring to as Dave. I tried to cut all ties that I had with him as much as I could. He was nothing to me now. But Chelsea has been and is her father's staunchest defender. Why do you think your siblings have chosen the other path? I think they're just very upset by what happened,

and their relationship was not as close to my dad. They were either not home or not awake when I was awake, and they were not around him the next day like I was around him. Chelsea says Dave was acting perfectly normal the day after whatever happened happened. No odd behavior, nothing whatever to suggest he'd been up all night committing a terrible crime. So the things that convince me about his innocence aren't there to convince them. I think they are defending my mom so much so that it's like they're going to point to the most obvious suspect. But Chelsea wasn't the only one in this small town who believed Dave Hawk was innocent.

I believe what he says, that he had nothing to do with her disappearance and presumed death. Sandy Brown is Dave's longtime pastor and friend. This person who was betrayed as such a monster just simply isn't. He's a man who has worked hard in the church. He's a good father. As their son prepared to face serious financial charges, Dave's parents, Stan and Lois Hawk, took over custody of Chelsea and Savannah. Not the way they expected to spend their 80s. Any more than they expected to have to defend their son. Well, he's made some mistakes, but nothing of the scope that is generally accepted in the community.

Stan established those trusts for his grandchildren and says Dave had the right to use the money how he saw fit to benefit the children. Were you surprised to discover how it was used? Yes. Apparently his financial situation was worse than I knew. A year passed in this gossipy limbo. Now it was May 2008, nearly two years after Debbie's disappearance, her body still hadn't been found. And there was no new evidence tying Dave to her murder. But Prosecutor Larry Crouch heard disquieting reports from his investigators.

Dave starts surveilling our office, the police offices. Eventually starts driving by an investigator's home. It was getting pretty concerning out there. Time to move. On May 29, 2008, Dave Hawk was arrested and charged with first-degree murder and a special circumstance, murder for financial gain. He pleaded not guilty. When the trial finally began more than a year later,

Dave faced murder and the earlier embezzlement charges together. Prosecutor Larry Crouch offered the jury this theory, that Dave snuck out of his house in the middle of the night without waking his sleeping children, maybe even used a ladder to get out of the window, and got someone to give him a ride to Debbie's house and entered her bedroom. I think he tried the stun gun on her

and she screamed very loudly. And he struck her with something more than once. And at that point, I assume he suffocated her. Then, said the prosecutor, he must have dragged Debbie's body to the garage, put her into her own van, disposed of her somewhere, Then, said the prosecutor, he must have dragged Debbie's body to the garage, put her into her own van, disposed of her somewhere, then drove the van to Fresno and left it in a high crime zone.

How did he get back home? That accomplice, said the prosecutor, must have picked him up and driven him the 40 miles back to his farm. But really, there was no body, there was no DNA, no forensic evidence to show Dave had even been at the murder scene. Everybody in town seemed to have a theory. Apparently the prosecutor did too. But was that proof?

So the state tried to build a bridge from Dave's alleged financial crimes to the murder, painting him as an evil man who decided to eliminate his ex-wife when he knew his misuse of the trust funds was about to be exposed. Enough? Well, we shall see. There's a number of other explanations for what could have happened other than Dave.

Dave was the Confinion ex-husband. Coming up, one of his children is convinced he's not guilty. But could Dave Hawk convince a jury? I told them that I wanted to testify. When Dateline continues. The alignment of the stars in this case was just stacked against us, stacked against Dave Hawk. At least in the harsh court of public opinion, it looked bad for Dave Hawk as his murder trial approached in Hanford, California. Dennis Peterson and Mark Coleman were Dave's attorneys. We had this guy allegedly stealing from his kids, saying bad things about this sympathetic victim,

and all of these things being widely played in the press. If there ever was a case for change of venue, this must be it, said the defense. After all, almost everybody seemed to have heard the accusations about Dave, and every time he had a court appearance, purple-clad Friends of Debbie crowded into the public gallery. In fact, during jury selection, said Attorney Coleman, he actually heard some jurors tell the judge they had already decided Dave Hawk was guilty. The judge asked him, well, if I order you to set those opinions aside, can you do it? Well, I guess so.

Still, the defense application for a change of venue was denied, as was a defense request to separate the financial charges from the murder charge. Defense had argued the embezzlement accusations were unfairly prejudicial. They wanted to make him look like a bad person. A person who would take money from his kids would be likely to murder his ex-wife. In fact, the prosecution would say Dave's fear that Debbie was about to reveal in open court

his theft of the kids' trust funds was a powerful motive for murder. But the fact of the matter was that was already exposed. It had already been filed in open declarations in court. You mean he would have gained nothing by getting rid of her at that stage? No. We also have that great old American saying, if it walks like a duck and if it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

But you're saying it's a turkey. The burden is on them to prove it's a duck. In this case, they didn't. No, the defense argued that the prosecution had absolutely no evidence that Dave even left his house the night Debbie was abducted and presumably murdered. In fact, his daughter Chelsea insisted he could not have left the house without her having heard him. That just doesn't seem at all possible. And even though investigators would tell the court that the kids slept so soundly it was hard to wake them up when they went to see them one morning, the defense claimed that

the prosecution's theory of what happened just didn't add up. That's just beyond belief that somebody would take that kind of a risk. That he would sneak down the hallway, open the door, drive the 10 or 12 miles over to Debbie Hawk's house, subdue her, bludgeon her, load her into the van, drive it to Fresno,

and then get back to his house without getting any blood on him, without being discovered. So what did happen to Debbie Hawk? The defense floated this theory. Debbie worked in pharmaceutical sales. Perhaps a drug addict had gone after the sample she kept in her van. All of the pharmaceuticals in her van were missing. Somebody took them.

But that was a ludicrous idea, countered the prosecution. Debbie carried very few samples. And anyway, if drug theft was behind it, why didn't the thief take any jewelry or electronics? No, it all seemed to come down to Dave. His behavior, his character, his own words. Like the conversation with a friend police recorded, in which Dave speculated on what might have happened to Debbie.

The defense played it in court as an unguarded indication that Dave had no idea what happened. He basically offered that, you know, I don't think she's ever going to be found. Did it work? Listen to prosecutor Larry Crouch. You're going, oh no, why are they putting that in? I thought it was harmful. Though what the jury thought, no one could say. Then there was inevitably a conversation about whether or not Dave would testify. I told them that I wanted to testify.

And an idea that Dave's attorneys did not like one bit. Dave is a combative individual. He's very prideful. He's offended easily. He thinks he's smart, and he hates for anybody to think he's not smart. I mean, he'd be just perfect fodder for a trained prosecutor. And so Dave held his tongue in court. He saved his story for us. So you don't think they had any useful evidence against you at all?

Can anybody name anything? Coming up, Dave Hawk speaks out, and so does the jury. We, the jury, find the defendant, David Martin Hawk. When Dateline continues. Dave Hawk, on trial for the murder of his ex-wife, Debbie, did not testify. Didn't tell the members of his ex-wife Debbie, did not testify, didn't tell the members of the jury what he was thinking. But he had a sinking feeling he knew what they were thinking. Always blame the ex-husband first. It was an awful problem as he saw it. Had been from the day his

ex-wife Debbie disappeared through a trail of her own blood, the number one suspect was him. That's what the police had been saying all along. And that's apparently what a great many people thought in Hanford, California, even as he sat as a defendant in a murder case. Even though... I didn't have the motive and I didn't have the capacity. You know how it could be, said Dave. Once people get it in their heads you did something,

they'll tend to misinterpret everything to make you look guilty. I was home with my children in another town all night. But I'm being accused of being in another place, committing a terrible crime based on financial shenanigans that didn't exist in the first place. Shenanigans like, for example, that trust fund for his kids. His father made the terms very broad, said Dave, so he could spend the money as he saw fit,

any way that would benefit the children. The money is to be used for the health, education, support, and maintenance of the children. And that's exactly what it was used for. And I acted legally in that respect. And then, since they didn't have any evidence against him, said Dave, prosecutors made a case based on misinterpreting things he said. Like the time he said to a friend, if I was a bad guy, I'd throw somebody off a bridge.

My point was, they haven't looked for her. If someone had thrown her off the bridge, it would have floated downstream. They didn't look anywhere. So did you throw her off the bridge? No, I didn't throw anybody off a bridge. They also made a huge deal about something he supposedly said to his girlfriend about Debbie. Dave said, you know, we won't be rid of that until she's dead. I might have, but I don't remember that. And that certainly does not mean that I'm going to go kill somebody. And then there was his own son, Conrad, who, after all, believed he was guilty and told police he saw Dave and girlfriend

Mary share a celebratory toast after Debbie's disappearance. Conrad said Dave just didn't get it. Whenever we open a bottle of wine, we always raise our glasses and say cheers. It's just a tradition. We were not toasting anybody's anything. Why have you never been able to persuade Conrad of your innocence? I don't know. He knows that I was at home the whole time, never left, didn't have any involvement in anything illegal, but he's perhaps angry and needs to fill in the blanks with something. Well, maybe he's angry at his dad because his dad killed his mom. His dad didn't kill his mom.

He thinks so, though. He could be wrong. So, who did kill Debbie? Dave has an opinion about that, too. Who else wanted her dead? Maybe the boyfriend that was stalking her. Stalking her? This is somebody who was reported to the

police and the police swept it under the rug, apparently. It was an ex-boyfriend. Of course, investigators say they did look into that and other leads too, but they all came back to Dave and one primary motive. So, some cross-examination. Prosecutor said you killed your ex-wife because she was going to expose your embezzlement of the children's trust funds. Weren't you, for example, afraid your father was going to find out what you were doing with that money from the trust fund? Your father who lovingly put the money into the trust fund before you kind of siphoned it out? I really don't like the way you're characterizing these out? I really don't like the way you're characterizing these things. I really don't like the way the prosecutor has accused me of these concocted

stories. Whether you like it or not, those are the accusations. Yeah, and they're not right. They're wrong. They're false. Which part did you not understand? What part did I not understand? What I understand is you bought a $27,000 car using trust fund money. You took a trip to Hawaii with your girlfriend. You paid off your divorce attorney's fees and money you took from the first set of trusts by taking $60,000 out of the kid's second trust fund. The money was used for the children. Which child drove the Lexus? All three children were driven in the Lexus. Which child went to Hawaii on vacation? Perhaps that money was my own money.

Prosecutor never bothered to figure out what dollar went where, did they? Well, you made it kind of hard for them because you were mixing up the trust fund money and your money all the time. And frankly, that's what scam artists do. I'm not a scam artist. Why didn't you go get a job? I had a job. I'm talking about a job that actually paid enough to support your family, which is what a dad does. You're reading from a script that the prosecutor's given you apparently because none of these things are true a guilty man or not the jury did not take very long to decide we the jury find the defendant david martin hawk guilty of the murder of debbie hawk guilty of murder and nine financial crimes dave hawk was sentenced to spend the murder of Debbie Hawk. Guilty of murder and nine financial crimes.

Dave Hawk was sentenced to spend the rest of his life behind bars. But was that the end of this story? Not in the least. His defense attorney appealed the case as high as he could, even trying the Supreme Court, which declined review. Then in March 2016, ten years after Debbie Hawk disappeared, a farmhand found her remains in a field in the neighboring town where Dave grew up. Debbie's father, Bud Triantis, had a dying wish that she be found before he passed away.

He left this earth just a week after that discovery. And the children, who held opposing views about their father's innocence? It's complicated, huh? Yeah. Has this created a rift between the two of you? Yes. Surely not easy going

for the children of Dave and Debbie Hawk. Well, we do the best we can. That's all for now. I'm Lester Holt. Thanks for joining us.