missing. in her place, her trail of blood. my biggest fear was that we were going to find her. police found instead was a puzzle. and then in my 28 years i have not seen that before. a missing woman. a mystery with few clues. did you find any parting the prints? hairs? anything? but that one men have a motive? he steals $300, 000, and you re about to be exposed for it. with except without proof, how could anyone trust the jury? do you think that they had any evidence against you at all? did they have anything? could anyone solve the mystery? we the jury, find the defendant, david ok. hello, and welcome to dateline. when someone goes missing, one of the hardest things for those left behind is not knowing the truth. was it voluntary, or foul play? the three children in this story arrived home one evening to discover that their mother was missing, but for them, the truth about what really happened may have been the hardest thing of all. here is ke
work on his almond farm. his only income, apparently, though derbies attorney found that hard to believe. he lived and what i understood to be a very nice home. he drove a late model suburban. that s hard to do an 6000 a year. so debbie asked the court for more time with the children. his response was to ask for half custody. the percentages where something like 65 with debbie and 35 with dave. and he wanted to make it an even 50/50. that s when the battle moved to these trust funds set up for the children s futures. the money came from dave s father. but dave control 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 davis hand in the cookie
more time with children. his response was forced to ask for half custody. the percentages were something like 65 with debbie and 35 with dave, and he wanted to make it and even 50/50. and that s when the battle move to these, trust funds set up for the kids future. the money came from dave s father. but they ve controlled the funds. debbie was sure dave was stealing from it to supporters a lifestyle. why would you think that? this was actually the second set of trust established for the children. several years before a judge caught days hand in the cookie jar of the first drugs. dave was removed as trustee of those funds, but during the force his father gave him sole control of a second, quite generous, trust fund. but when investigators ran the
court and she was fighting back. the issue she was dealing with was custody and support. reporter: dave asked the court for a reduction of his $553 child a month support came up. he claims he only earns $6,000 a year. his salary and from his dad who pays him 500 a month to work on his farm. his only income apparently, debbie found it hard to believe. he lives in a nice home and drove a late model suburban. that s hard to do on $6,000 a year. reporter: debbie asked the court for more time with the children. his response was to ask for half custody. the percentages were 65% and 35% with dave. he wanted to make it an even 50/50. reporter: that s when the battle moves through trust funds
kim was debbie s attorney. the issues she was dealing with were custody and support. dave asked the court for a reduction in $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, but debbie s attorney found that hard to believe. he lived in what i understood to be a nice home, drove a late model suburban. that is hard to do on $6,000 a year. debbie asked the court for more time with the children. his response was to ask for half custody. the percentages were 65 with debbie and 35 with dave. he wanted to make it an even 50-50. and that is when the battle moved to these, trust funds set up for the childrens futures