Tag Archive for: Missing Person

Dave Hawk Charged with Murder

/in /by

It’s been two years on June 13, 2006 since Dave Hawk’s wife, Debbie, disappeared, and has never been seen again. This past Thursday, however, Dave was arrested and charged with her murder. Dave’s plea? Not guilty.

Dave was on Dateline NBC last May, and the man I saw was arrogant, manipulative and controlling yet in an odd twist he left his under age children at their mother’s house when mom wasn’t there after a weekend with the children.

Dave’s story just doesn’t add up. Read why I believe that here in my post from May 2007.

Christine Francisco

/in /by

Back on February 13th, Christine Francisco waited for her husband to come home from work to make Valentine’s Day cookies with their children, but Christine’s husband, Nicholas, never came home.

It has now been several months since Nicholas just walked out of work never to be seen again, but there are still no leads for police to follow. While his car was found in a condo parking lot that has no previous known connection for the Franciscos, there was also no sign of foul play discovered by police.

Christine, however, has maintained from the beginning that something sinister had to have happened to Nicholas because he was not the type of guy to just walk out of their lives. She says he was not a coward.

Read moreI watched several videos of Christine talk about Nicholas’ disappearance, and I find Christine’s behavior peculiar.

The first video where Christine spoke to the news is dated February 16, 2008. In this video, Christine appears to be crying, yet I do not see any tears. She says:

“I am begging everybody, everybody to please, please help find my husband because I can’t live my life without him.”

The first notable thing I see is a lack of tears falling from Christine’s eyes, yet Christine acts like she is crying, and even wipes her face as if there were tears.

The second notable point for me here is Christine’s tone-of-voice. It doesn’t sound distressed, upset, or concerned. Instead, it sounds whiny–like she is complaining. It also sounds notably different that in her video interviews with Nancy Grace and Greta Van Susteren. Usually when people are distraught and upset, they sound consistent.

I also found it odd how she says the following:

“If you can’t find him, these kids don’t have a daddy, then this unborn baby won’t have a daddy.”

Notice she says if you can’t find him. Where is her connection to the search? I find the word you an odd word choice. Most people would say if we can’t find him. “We” have to find him.

The second video I looked at was Christine talking to Greta Van Susteren.

Greta says, “Did you get the sense that anything unusual was going on in his life?” Listen to Christine’s response. She holds back laughter when she replies, “Not at all.” When she continues, notice how normal she acts, like she is talking about a PTA meeting or something. “He sounded so excited to come home, and he was ready to go with the cookies.”

As she continues her conversation with Greta, she shows absolutely no emotion, and no concern.

Greta asks Christine if Nicholas was having any personal problems at work, and Christine holds back laughter again. She smirks, lets out a sigh and replies “Not that I’m aware of.”

Why does Christine feel the need to laugh? Is it nerves, or something more sinister?

Greta then questions Christine about financial problems. Watch Christine when she says “We are not in poverty…we’re just in the middle”. Watch how animated she is…she teeters her head from side-to-side to gesture when she says “in the middle”. This shows she is relaxed. There is no hint of sadness, or concern whatsoever. If you didn’t know what Christine was talking about here, you’d think she was just having a casual conversation about gardening or something.

When people are worried or concerned, they are usually subdued in their reactions, and are less likely to gesture like this–especially about unimportant things like financial status when someone could be in danger. That’s because their one and only focus is to bring back their loved one.

Greta then questions Christine about when she first got suspicious something wasn’t right. Christine says she was concerned when Nicholas wasn’t home to make cookies–about eight o’clock which is the children’s bedtime, but she figured she was just overreacting and ignored it. I thought that was a little strange.

If Nicholas was going to make cookies with the children, wouldn’t she be expecting him earlier than the children’s bedtime? By bedtime, wouldn’t you feel justifiably alarmed?

When Christine talks about Nicholas not being home by 10 pm, she also says she was “absolutely petrified”, yet when she recollects this, she strangely shows no emotion again.

When people recollect a terrifying time, they display the fear of that moment on their faces, if only for a second. Our emotions are closely tied to our memories. Yet for Christine, this doesn’t seem to be true. She just chats as if nothing were wrong. It’s very strange.

Christine smiles again when she says it was very peculiar for him to be at the condominium complex. Why does she smile like this over and over again? Her emotions aren’t adding up with a woman who is fearful her husband is in trouble. Where is the fear??

When Greta says “What do you think happened to him? Where do you think he is?”, watch Christine. First she grins. Then she looks up before speaking which is an indication that she is thinking, not talking from her heart about how she feels. Then she speaks about herself in third person which is odd.

Instead of saying “My intuition tells me…” She says “Ummm…ah…a wife’s intuition, it’s foul play.” This is weird. It’s another red flag. Why the sudden change of tense? It’s as if she is repeating what she has heard someone else say before. It sure makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

When most people face a crisis, normal behavior is for them to hold on to every shred of hope that the worst case scenario didn’t happen. They don’t want to believe that something horrible is wrong. Instead, they cling to “safe potentials” because it is comforting, but Christine does not. She doesn’t plea to her husband to come home, or worry that perhaps that something else happened. She just accepts foul play without question–which is unusual.

Look at her lack of emotions as well. Here she is telling us she thinks her husband was potentially harmed, or coerced into leaving, and yet she doesn’t seem to show any concern whatsoever when she first talks about it. Then in the middle of it, she expresses some emotion, but it dissipates quickly.

Greta then asks if there were any peculiar phone calls to the house to which Christine replies as calm and collected as one can be “No, not at all.”

Christine’s emotions almost turn on and off like a faucet, don’t they?

And last, on one of Christine Francisco’s profiles at JPG Magazine, Christine Francisco is listing herself as single!

You read that right. Single.

It’s not even four months since this happened, and she is content listing herself as single? I can’t imagine the courts have declared her husband dead without a body. What is Christine thinking?

If that doesn’t turn your head, I don’t know what will. It’s like she is resigned to the fact he is gone forever. Hmmm….

I’m wondering what Christine knows that we don’t.

FindNicolasFrancisco.com

* Thanks to Cheri’s Corner forum for sharing the many video links.

One Year Ago: Madeleine McCann

/in /by

It’s hard to believe it has been a year since little Madeleine McCann disappeared. With that, I want to ask:


To read what I think about this case, click on the labels below, or you can click here to read my first post on the case last May.

Hans Reiser Trial Goes to Jury

/in /by

Today the jury is deliberating on the Hans Reiser case.

What do you think?

To read what I think about Hans Reiser, click here, or click on any of the labels below.

Our poll results are dramatically different than this poll, but the questions are not parallel.

DP Talks to LK Live

/in /by
Thanks for all the votes requesting a review of the Drew Peterson interview.
I was rather surprised by the results of the poll.

The overall interview by Drew Peterson was quite lackluster compared to his previous interviews. Two words kept coming to mind through the entire interview: stone-faced. Drew was a blank slate emotionally through much of the interview this time. This time he held his grimaces and smirks in check a whole lot better. That’s not to say that we didn’t see some classic arrogance from Drew, or a few odd smirks, but he has dramatically tamed his responses.

Read moreClearly Drew is working hard to change his image, and wants us to believe he is the good guy despite the fact that everyone from Drew’s past who has come forward doesn’t have a nice thing to say about him except his friend Steve. The odds are clearly stacked against him.

Listen to how Drew responds…

KING: Drew, you’re a bright guy. Do you begin to think that the public might say that if it looks like a duck and it acts like a duck, it might be a duck?

PETERSON: Right, but they’re not getting all the duck’s information. So when they get all the information, then maybe we can re-examine that.

KING: All right, let’s straighten it out. The third wife.

PETERSON: OK.

Do you think Drew will be satisfied this time that he gave us the real story? Hasn’t he had ample opportunity in front of the camera to tell us his side of the story?

The media even gave him a video camera to give us a day in the life of Drew, and that didn’t satisfy him either? I found his answer to this question ridiculous. Drew’s had plenty of opportunity to tell us his version of events.

Furthermore, Drew tells us that media only wants to portray him as sinister because sinister sells. He goes on to say that anything that is said that is positive about him is “washed under blankets”.

With that, I have to ask why he isn’t using the funds he raised, and the website he has, DefendDrew.com (which is now inactive), to tell his side of the story, and to post all the positives about which he speaks? He has all the freedom in the world to post his version of events. Why isn’t he? Instead, he only complains.

I also found it odd when Drew said the following statement to King about Kathleen Savio:

KING: What happened?

PETERSON: I don’t know. I don’t know. She…we got information that she drowned in the bathtub.

Drew talks like he wasn’t there. I found this choice of words odd. Drew often lack affirmative answers when he should feel definitive which is red flag.

Below King asks Drew about his marriage when Stacy disappeared:

PETERSON: We were living together and we talked that morning. And what happened…

KING: Was it — was the marriage going through problems?

PETERSON: The marriage had been going through problems since her sister died. And her sister died maybe several months prior of cancer. And it was a very rough death on the family. And it was very rough on Stacy. Stacy was very close to her sister, Tina. And when Tina died, it was…

(Drew got stuck for words here, and then King saved him! I wish he didn’t do that!)

KING: She changed?

Drew’s answer here is a complete contradiction to his first responses to the media after Stacy disappeared. Drew was quoted by the Chicago Sun-Times as saying within days of Stacy’s disappearance “I believed our marriage was good, but maybe she didn’t.” Then when he went on the Today show with Matt Lauer, Drew gave us the whole new story that Stacy changed after her sister died. That wasn’t his original story.

I found Drew’s volunteer information about being a police officer below really eerie. He was talking to King about Stacy, and King had asked if he was ever physical with her. Drew answers the questions completely stone-faced, but what lead him to the following train of thought below? Often times people’s mind wonders to familiar places…

PETERSON: And I don’t work for the phone company or the power company. And as a police officer, we don’t have the same ability to do things as the common person. If I get involved in a domestic situation where I’m physical with a wife, I’ll lose my job. And I would never even care to even come close to risking that. And I kind of challenge anybody out there to find anybody that has ever even seen me mad. So…

In a situation like this where Drew was about to retire, if he did in fact lose his temper, and lash out at Stacy, and she threatened to go forward with charges, wouldn’t this be a potential motive for why he might do something to Stacy? If Stacy spoke about abuse and could substantiate it, she could have destroyed his retirement, and generous pension!

I also found the words “kind of” telling in the paragraph spoken by Drew above. He kind of challenges anybody out there to find anybody that has ever seen him mad. Drew clearly knows there are people speaking out about this now, but he doesn’t want to hear it. Instead he just badmouths them, too.

Furthermore, I found Drew’s statement and word choices odd when he says that the police “don’t have the same ability to do things as the common person.” Is it an ability to strike a spouse? Or is that abuse? Notice Drew’s choice of words here. It’s quite unique. It tells us of his mindset. Most police officers wouldn’t find this a lack of an “ability”.

I got quite annoyed with Drew when he says he didn’t want to badmouth his step-brother*, and yet he does just that. He also goes after his ex-finance* Piry, and his neighbor too, trying to paint everyone black as black, and yet he wants us to continue thinking he is a rose. Does he not see his thorns? I don’t believe a word he says about these people.

I also don’t believe that Drew has no temper, doesn’t get angry or that he was never physical with Stacy. It’s nonsense, pure and simple.

King also asked Drew why he thought Stacy might leave and Drew responded “Stacy loves male attention.”

I’ve learned over the years that people who are less than honest will often project their own feelings, emotions, beliefs and actions onto other people. And ironically, a little while in the interview, Drew says the following about himself:

KING: You said in the past you have cheated on your wives, except for Stacy, right?

PETERSON: Everybody says I cheated, but I went out and sought female attention elsewhere after the marriages were over. But we were still legally married. So technically I cheated.

(…)

KING: Would it shock you that she was involved with someone else?

PETERSON: (long pause, thinking)…Not really. Like I say, Stacy loves male attention.

And anytime we would be anywhere, she would have to be the center of attention for the males on the scene — older, younger, anyone.

Isn’t Drew talking about himself here? I do not believe this definition would fit Stacy’s character.

When King gets into the details about how Stacy left, I find Drew’s answer lacking. Most people when they recall the last time they spoke to a loved one usually give us details and descriptions. They share words exchanged, etc. Notice how Drew doesn’t do this, nor has he ever.

KING: Who called you?

PETERSON: Stacy called me.

KING: And?

PETERSON: She told me she found somebody else and she was leaving.

KING: She left under those circumstances, good-bye, Drew.

PETERSON: Right. Correct.

KING: What about the children?

PETERSON: Didn’t say much about them.

KING: Didn’t say much about them? She was taking them? Not taking them?

PETERSON: Didn’t say. There were at home with me, and she didn’t say anything about them during the phone call.

I find the word choice “much” interesting here. She either did or did not speak about the kids, if she even talked. When people are dishonest they often throw in hedge words like “much”, “sort of”, or “kind of”. I don’t believe they even do it consciously.

I found the following quite interesting as well. It was the only place that Drew Peterson got choked up with his emotions.

KING: We have an e-mail question from Fay in Rocky Mountain, North Carolina: “How do you sleep at night?” Do you sleep well, or are you bothered by at least some aspect of this?

PETERSON: I’m bothered by the fact that she left. And I’m bothered by the fact that my children don’t have a mom. I’m raising a little girl who needs female attention. And, yes, sometimes I have trouble sleeping with it.

This is where Drew grabbed his ear with his hand and tugged it slightly. He grabs it at the end of the statement. Some people would tell you that touching one’s face or ear is a sign of deception. I can’t think of one instance where this has proven true for me.

On the contrary, Drew really believed what he said here. I think he is truly bothered that his children don’t have a mom, and that he is raising a girl who needs a mom. I believe that is his truth. In the pain of it, he became overwhelmed, and that overwhelming feeling I suspect made him self-conscious, and hence that is why I believe he touched his ear at the end. It was a sign of vulnerability from showing his true emotions. He quickly shook it off.

If one were to suspect that Drew killed Stacy, it would not be out of line that now in hindsight that he may regret that his children don’t have a mom, and that he is now left to do her job. It’s completely logical…especially if this was a crime of passion.

I was quite surprised that Drew took the kids and went to Disneyland. Did that surprise anyone else?

As many of you know, I do not critique attorneys because I believe everyone deserves the right to a legal defense, and with that, Drew is no exception.

Do I trust Drew Peterson? I do not, and have not since Drew first said “I believe she’s not missing” within hours of when Stacy disappeared. Those five words were my first big red flag that something wasn’t right.

(*Corrections made 4-16-2008)