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
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 ve 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 cracks like a duck, it s probably a dark. but you re saying it s a turkey. the burden is on them to prove it s a duck. in this case, they did not. no, the defense argued that the prosecution had absolutely no evidence that dave even left his house the night that debris was abducted. and presumably murdered. in fact, his daughter chelsa insisted that he could not have left the house without her having heard him. that just does not seem at all possible. and even though investigators were tell the court that the kids slept so soundly it was hard to wake them up when they went to see them one morning. that offense claims that the pros
ones to. pretty much from what i can remember, fighting and are were pretty much 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, the water was about to boil over. the kids were nine, eight, and, for when the device was divorce was finalized in 2000. and young conrad, chelsa, and savannah learned how to never gave the choppy waters known all too well by divorce. they just couldn t talk to each other, really, so i tried to start in and help resolve that. you are kind of a mediator. in a way. that s a tough ball for a kid to play? it was better than having them yell at each other on the
conrad had no doubt that his dad killed his mom. a death 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 be now. but chelsa, has been, and it, is her father s staunchest defender. why do you think that your siblings have chose the other path? i think that they are just very upset about 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. chelsa says that dave was asked-ing perfectly normal. after whatever happened, it happened. no odd behavior. nothing to suggest that he was up all night committing a terrible crime. so the things that convinced me of his innocence, aren t there to convince them. i think that they are defending