Missing Person: Debbie Hawk
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.
