The death of Wanda Darling was featured on Dateline NBC last night. Did you see it by chance? Do you wonder what happened to Wanda, or do you believe she fell over the cliff by accident?
You can watch or read Dateline’s episode about the Darlings online here.
What do you think happened?
Case Summary: Dave and Debbie Hawk were divorced, but where in court battling over child care expenses, and Debbie was asking the court for more time with the kids. She also was accusing her husband of stealing money from the children’s trust funds.
After a weekend with the kids, Dave could not reach his wife, but decided to drop the kids off at Debbie’s home anyway — without verifying anyone was there. When the kids ran into the house, they found blood but their mother was gone. She has never been found.
* * *
Earlier this week, Dateline NBC profiled three cases where women have gone missing — and they profiled “persons of interest” for each case.
One of the cases was that of Debbie Hawk. Her husband, Dave Hawk, was interviewed on Dateline. Here is the link to the video of Dave Hawk.
I find Dave Hawk’s demeanor concerning. Here he is with the finger clearly pointed at him, and his reaction is squarely out of place. He should be angry, mad and/or upset about being unjustly accused. But he isn’t. Why?
Instead, we see incredible arrogance here. We see a man who can’t stop smiling. Why is he smiling? It doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t add up. It’s a red flag.
Is this man arrogant and smiling because he believes he has committed the perfect crime? It’s a question that has to be asked.
I find it disturbing that Dave Hawk dropped off his children without being sure that Debbie was home. After all, Debbie was supposed to come pick up the kids and she didn’t show up. Isn’t this odd behavior? When an ex-spouse doesn’t pick up the kids — it is not normal to just drop off the kids without first finding out when the other person will return.
Furthermore, Dave hits me as the type of person who is quite anal retentive. An anal retentive person usually wants all their ducks in a row. If Debbie was to pick up the kids, then she better pick up the kids — and if she doesn’t — these types usually attempt to track down the missing individual. They get mad because their “ducks” didn’t line up as expected. Normal people, too, would wonder if something happened to their ex-spouse. They might wonder if she fell or hurt herself– and so hence while they might drive the kids home — they would go in and check to make sure everything is okay. Why didn’t Dave? It’s another odd component to this story.
When you watch Dave answer questions in the interview– at times, he is controlling and manipulating what he is saying and how he is feeling. Why is he doing this? I do see anger in Dave at times when he talks, but he is working really hard to conceal it. It’s the tone or pitch of his voice, and the way he answers the questions that makes me feel that way.
Why is he concealing all of his emotions? He is trying to be super pleasant and oh-so-nice. My eyebrows are raised.
When he talks about the trust funds in his name, and about selling stock — notice how smooth his speech is. He is stating facts about what he can and cannot do as the executor of the trust. Then when he says, “Ah….I can do that” — his speech pattern starts to change. He starts controlling his response. He says, “I…can…do…that…and… as … far … as … the … way … the … Hawks … live … their … lives, … that’s…private.” This question also makes him angry but he is working exceptionally hard to control his emotions and to keep them contained.
Listen for the hesitations in his speech and watch how they come and go — at key times.
Most people’s words flow smoothly and naturally as they recollect their experience. But when…Dave…talks…like…this, we …. know … he … is … making … a … conscious … effort … to … control … his … speech … and/or … his … emotions. Why does Dave feel the need to manipulate and control himself, if he is honest?
Here are excerpts from the interview:
Stafford: Debbie accused you of grabbing her throat. And starting to choke her.
Dave Hawk: That’s what she claims.
Stafford: Did that happen?
Dave Hawk: No. It didn’t happen. (When he says this, he smirks. Why?!).
More of the interview:
Stafford: Where were you when Debbie’s attorney was shot?
Dave Hawk: I was at work.
Furthermore, Dave’s voice pitch is really strange. It’s light and soft, and weak when he says “I was at work”. Have you ever noticed when you don’t tell the truth, sometimes your voice gives out on you? It’s not said convincingly.
Yet notice below how strong and convincing Dave’s voice is here:
Dave Hawk: They need to find somebody and paint him bad and hammer him.
Dave goes on to say shortly thereafter that, that he is the first guy on the list. When he does, he smirks again! It makes no sense for an innocent man to do this.
Dave Hawk: Well, I’m the ex-husband. I’m the first guy on the list.
I also find it odd when Stafford asks Dave if he had anything to do with her disappearance, how Dave stares Stafford down. He is working exceptionally hard to keep his eyes locked on Stafford. He has a blank stare. He is not acting normal here. It’s the way he is locked on Stafford and emotionless. If you accused most people who were innocent and asked them this question — they would show emotion!! Also, the tone/pitch of his voice is not firm, angry or upset. It’s baseline. That’s abnormal. It’s controlled.
The interview goes on:
Dave maintains he has an alibi for the time Debbie disappeared.
Dave Hawk: I was either here with my children, or I was at work.
Stafford: You could have hired someone.
Dave Hawk: Could have hired—oh, like a hit man?
Stafford: Yeah.
Dave Hawk: Yeah. I don’t know any (notice the smirk) I don’t even know where to buy marijuana (smaller smirk, again). I’m pretty vanilla when you start looking at me.
I believe Dave Hawk knows a lot more than he is letting on.
________________________
MORE VIDEO FROM DATELINE:
“Analysis: Little hope that Debbie Hawk is alive May 8: Chris Whitcomb, who studied interrogation at the FBI academy, says he thinks Dave Hawk is telling the truth about not harming his ex-wife.
_________________________
UPDATE: Dave Hawk was found guilty of murder on August 28, 2009.
Britney Spears was on Dateline last night, and I tuned in a few minutes before setting it up to record. I haven’t watched the recorded segment yet, but what I saw the first few minutes was quite interesting!
Do I believe Britney?
Frankly, no. I don’t.
Here are portions of Matt Lauer’s interview of Britney.
Lauer: You said a couple of times to me already you believe in karma. And as someone who is now several months pregnant, do you ever stop and think, “You know, he left someone else when she was a couple of months pregnant.” Does that ever cross your mind?
Spears: No. Cause we’re very happy together right now.
It absolutely crossed Britney’s mind! I don’t believe it hasn’t. I also find the words “right now” interesting.
Later on, Matt Lauer continues with the topic of Kevin:
Matt Lauer, NBC News: So when the magazine screams on the cover: pregnant and divorcing, you want people to know…
Spears: Oh no. None of that’s true.
“In her song “Toxic,” Britney Spears talks about a poisonous relationship. But despite what the tabloids say, that’s nothing what her life is like with husband Kevin Federline.” (Source: Dateline NBC)
Lauer: Let’s talk about married life.
Spears: Okay.
Lauer: All right. How’s your marriage?
Spears: Awesome, thank you.
Awesome is not a word most people would use to describe their marriage. It’s a bit over-kill for even the best of marriages — especially with a child under the age of one in the house. And thank you? For what? Odd choice of words.
Lauer: Awesome.
Spears: Um-hmm. (Affirms).
I don’t believe Britney.
It continues:
Lauer: Let me show you some magazines. Okay?
Spears: Okay.
Lauer: These are all current. I don’t have to show you all of them all but we got one here. “Britney moves on without Kevin.” “Brit’s new man–“
Spears: Oh no. That’s my security guard.
Lauer: “The final days, fed up with Kevin’s lies, he’s sleeping in the basement.” We’ll get to these individually but basically this is the tone: that this marriage is over, that there are problems in paradise and it’s not gonna last.
Spears: You know what? I need to create my own magazine. These people like –I mean, they want stories to sell and they’re very good. I need to come up with my own magazine and say the real deal.
I find her stutter “These people like — I mean,” interesting and very telling. And her story is odd — that she should create her own magazine. It doesn’t make much sense. When people are less than honest, this is classic. Does she really want to set the record straight? She was in the middle of the best opportunity to do so at that very moment.
Lauer: We’ll set the record straight. I mean first of all, in an effort of full disclosure, when I came through the gate today the first person I saw was Kevin.
Spears: Yeah.
Lauer: So he’s living here.
Spears: Oh definitely. He’s working very hard.
Huh? He is working very hard?? What does this have to do with the topic at hand?
Lauer: Living on the ground, the main floor?
Spears: He’s — yes of course.
He’s what, Britney? Is she thinking ahead of him to make sure to say the “right things”.
Lauer: He’s not there in a basement somewhere?
Notice Britney’s response? She doesn’t answer Lauer’s question. She just talks positively about Kevin.
Spears: He helps me. He has to. I’m emotional wreck right now. So.
At one point during the questioning of her marriage, Britney acted really unusal. She bent her shoulders and chest over her knees, and turned her face and head away from the camera. This behavior is indicative of a woman who is very uncomfortable talking about her marriage. She lost eye contact and her body language showed a woman who wanted to crawl away from herself.
A woman who is in love and in a happy marriage would not respond this way. She would show pride, joy, happiness — anything but a slinky behavior!
Britney was also constantly rubbing her legs –which again is nervous energy. Why was she so nervous? Did she have something to hide?
I believe so…
Dateline NBC aired the story of Susan Polk on Friday night. Did you see it?
It was quite interesting because this case is in front of the jury right now as I write.
What is more fascinating is that MSNBC has an online poll asking viewers if they think Susan Polk murdered her husband or acted in self-defense.
Guess what?
69% of people believe Susan Polk acted in self-defense. Only 31% believe it was murder.
Quite surprising!!
I am certain Susan Polk acted out in murder. Count me in the minority.
I’ve only watched the first 1/2 of the show. I will be watching the 2nd half tonight on my DVR, but I have no doubt that my opinion will remain. I called out to my husband after seeing Susan speak for 30 seconds — “I don’t trust her. I don’t know why, but I don’t trust her.” And I haven’t swayed from that with all the information presented. In fact, the information has actually cemented my opinion even further.
Why am I so solid?? Because Susan was inconsistent in her speech. Her supposed actions didn’t match the character she is trying to portray.
According to Dateline, Susan Polk married Felix Polk — who was 25 years her senior when she was 25. They had three children. What Dateline hides from you early on is that Susan met Felix when she was in high school — when she was 15 and he was 40. She was introduced to Felix because he became her therapist. Susan was down, depressed and needed help — and according to Susan’s mother — Felix seemed to be the perfect antidote for her daughter — because she saw instant improvements in her daughter’s attitude and behavior after she visited with Dr. Polk. Susan’s mother firmly believed Dr. Polk was a great therapist.
Felix was married, but apparently made moves on Susan — and a relationship formed. When Susan was 25, TEN years after they met, he left his wife and family and married Susan.
Susan wants you to believe that she was “under Felix’s spell”, that she was unable to stand up to Felix — and hence she carried the burden around for years that she was molested and hence couldn’t handle it anymore. She says she wanted a divorce, but Felix refused. She says he wanted her forever and wouldn’t let her go — so he attacked her.
He attacked her — and hence she supposedly acted out in self-defense.
Susan wants you to believe that she was a mouse in their relationship, that she lived under the lies and control of Felix the entire marriage. And THAT is a lie.
Susan was once arrested for hitting her husband in front of police officers. Is that the behavior of a woman who “fears” her husband? Of a woman who lives under his control??
If Susan’s portrayal of herself was true and Felix controlled her as she says with a love-type potion, there wouldn’t have been the ‘War of the Polks’ as talked about by the children — a war that last years. It wouldn’t have been. When one partner is coerced, there isn’t war. Spats are small because the weak one always gives in, retreats and accepts things — maybe not happily — but there is NEVER A “WAR”.
Furthermore, others would have sensed that Susan was unhappy. Guess what? Her own mother didn’t have an INKLING that things were rough at home.
All of this is very inconsistent.
More than that, when Susan talks of the events, she is a blank slate emotionally. She doesn’t give the normal facial expressions, the reactions, the feelings that a “normal” and “honest” person would. She is devoid. She is devoid in this instance because she doesn’t feel the emotions behind her words. The words aren’t depicting her true emotions.
Susan also went away to college — she had plenty of time to “escape” Felix’s wrath — but instead she came back from college and went straight into his arms. It doesn’t add up no matter how you put it together.
One plus one should equal two and in this situation it never does. Susan is a patholigcal liar, and has been for years. She is warped, and mentally quite ill — if you ask me.
___________________________________
Edited 4-16-2007:
Susan Polk was convicted of second-degree murder in June of 2006.
