S03.E16: The Good Life (West Palm Beach, FL)

[cooksdelight]

The team must tackle the baffling, high-profile case of a former dancer who was cornered and shot in her West Palm Beach apartment.

[Lizzing]

I'm glad the Cold Justice team got some good circumstantial evidence, especially in the way of interviews with people who knew Gwen, and that could go to prosecuting her husband.  But this is another case where I'm left thinking that if the detectives were focused back when the crime happened, the same evidence could have turned up, for the most part.  The especially damning circumstantial evidence that Gwen told her to be business partner the night before she was murdered, that she told her husband she was going to a divorce attorney the next day, would have been there in 2003 as much as it was in 2015.  The title company person had no reason to hold back info either in '03.  The only testimony that I saw (and, please, remind me if I am incorrect) that couldn't have been adduced at the time was the husband's subsequent ex girlfriend's.  Maybe West Palm Beach is busy with murders?

[attica]

It's amazing to me that abusive husbands (boyfriends, etc) follow the same pattern: the minute the woman moves to get out, that's the trigger for the explosion of violence. It's like they all read the same Douchebag Handbook. And it's just as amazing (although much sadder) to me that women who are in those situations think they're the only ones.

 

I don't understand fishing tournaments. I can't figure out the skill factor of catching bigger fish than your competitor -- isn't it just a question of chance, what size fish swims by your line? Or am I overthinking this, and it's just another dudes' pastime  that has been morphed into Manly Competition in order to justify the expense of fancier equipment and travel away from home?

 

Detective Sam is handsome.

[andromeda331]

I wanted to ask and this is probably a stupid question, assuming Richard was delivering pizzas around the time wouldn't he remember delivering pizzas to place that the next day there was a murder? I know the recites are gone but it seems like something that the pizza place would have been buzzing about. You know 'hey you know that place where you just delivered a pizza? I just heard someone was murdered there'.

[imjagain]

I know it's probably the husband, but all I could think was if they ever charge the husband his lawyers will field day with the other man and his cigarette smoldering outside her apartment.

The husband has all the motive and only one else to gain but random acts of violence happen and the stranger could be used for the benefit of the husband if a trial ever occurred. I'm not sure why this episode really made feel like this more than any other.

[KHenry14]

While obviously the cigarette is interesting information, the defense isn't going to get any further blaming the other guy other than to say he was there and he's a bad guy. The prosecution is going to be able to counter that in the way Kelly said, there just isn't any connection to the victim.

 

But the prosecution of the husband will have a lot of damning circumstantial evidence, particulary the business partner. Funny though, I don't remember a word being said about the gun that was used. As a juror, i'd be curious about that. But i'd also be aware about how many men have killed their wives in this way, so the prosecution theory of the crime would be very believeable.

[marina707]

Didn't the friend that she was on the phone with at the time of the murder say she heard the dog barking, and that it always barked at people other than Gwen and her husband? To me that implied someone other than the husband was the killer, but then later on Kelly mentioned that the dog DIDN'T bark as evidence pointing to the husband.

 

And I thought the Richard guy acted kind of suspicious. He just kept saying "I don't know anything, I can't help you" and when they asked how his cigarette got there he said he had no idea how it could've gotten there, and Yolanda made some comment about how if it were her, she would've had no idea, either, like that was perfectly reasonable. You'd think he would've given the same explanation that they came up with later on, that he must've delivered a pizza to her building and sat it down. I get that it was a long time ago and people's memories aren't always great, but they talked to him after it happened, didn't they? Surely back then he would've given more of an answer than "I don't know", and I would think that what he'd said to the police about a murder would've been more memorable. Unless maybe he was there for some other illegal reason (drugs?) and was on probation or something at the time (I know they said he had a past criminal record) and was afraid he'd get in trouble if he admitted that he was there and somehow the cops found out why?

 

Plus the connection with the house, and the fact that the previous owner had the same last name as his mom. They just took the women's word for it that they didn't know each other and dropped it. In this situation there would've been reason to lie. Maybe they looked into it further and found out it really WAS a coincidence that they had the same name, but that part didn't make it into the episode?

 

I don't know, maybe I'm putting too much thought into it, but I thought this one was weird.

[attica]

but they talked to him after it happened, didn't they?

 

No, they didn't talk to him until they got the dna 'hit' notice when he went to jail, I think they said 2009? So already 8 years after the crime.

 

As for the dog barking, yeah, that was a contradiction.

[cooksdelight]

This whole case didn't make much sense to me, in regard to the possible suspects and the physical evidence.

Pizza guy's DNA found on a cigarette. He "doesn't remember" anything, but as someone else pointed out, if I'd been delivering pizza to a home and found out the next day that the person I delivered the pizza to had been murdered....I'd remember that. If he had time to hang out and smoke a cigarette....why? Why was he taking time to smoke when he should be hustling to deliver pizzas?

Dog barking -- this is huge, to me. He barked at strangers. Pizza guy delivering pizza would be a stranger.

Husband had the most motive. The only motive. Maybe he hired pizza guy to kill his wife?

[marina707]

No, they didn't talk to him until they got the dna 'hit' notice when he went to jail, I think they said 2009? So already 8 years after the crime.

 

Ah, ok. I knew they'd talked to him previously but wasn't positive about the timeline.

 

I suppose it's possible that he never heard about the murder at the time it happened and by the time they questioned him years later he couldn't say for sure. But if the cops tell him that a cigarette with his DNA on it was found there, it would seem like he'd at least TRY to remember/explain how it could've gotten there. "That was a long time ago, maybe I had a friend that lived there? Oh, yeah, I was delivering pizzas back then, I bet that's how it got there." Something. Not "I have no idea!" So it seemed weird, at least to me.

 

Dog barking -- this is huge, to me. He barked at strangers. Pizza guy delivering pizza would be a stranger.

Husband had the most motive. The only motive. Maybe he hired pizza guy to kill his wife?

 

That's what I was thinking. I thought they gave up on that idea too quickly just because they couldn't find an obvious connection. They asked people if the guy's name sounded familiar and everyone said no so they were like "Oh, well! Guess he's not connected!" If pizza dude was involved, who knows how they could've met. The husband's friends/acquaintances/exes that they talked to wouldn't necessarily have recognized the name, not to mention that any one of those people could've been lying for who knows what reason. Maybe they investigated it all more thoroughly offscreen and were genuinely able to rule him out, and that part didn't make it into the episode.

 

Now that I think about it, if he was definitely ruled out, why was he in the episode at all? I'm sure there are tons of things that come up in the course of their various investigations that aren't relevant to the case and therefore never make it on air. Why not just focus on the husband from the beginning if he's the only person that really has any motive or credible evidence pointing towards him? Or did they think there needed to be more than one suspect to make the episode more "exciting"/suspenseful?

[walnutqueen]

Much as I lurve Kelly, she never met a circumstance she didn't lurve.  She might have been able to sway some "hang 'em high" Texan juries back in her day, but I'm afraid her ability to convince us of probable guilt translates into shaming DAs to prosecute cases that are just not a slam dunk by a long shot (i.e. court of public opinion does not a court make).  The presence of two DNA sample ciggies at the scene ALONE raises reasonable doubt.  Many of Kelly's "cases" wouldn't hold water against a decent defense attorney.  I give her props for persuasive arguments, though  :-)

[attica]

The presence of two DNA sample ciggies at the scene ALONE raises reasonable doubt.

 

Doubt, maybe. Reasonable doubt? Maybe not, when you factor in the hubby's widely divergent on-record statements about his alibi, the state of his marriage, etc. If I were prosecuting and the defense raised the 'smoking butt' defense, I'd counter with no alibi during the murder hour. I'd dig up pizza guy's financial statements to show no spending in the time period after the murder --presuming there wasn't any -- if there was, I'd lean on pizza guy to flip. All the stuff that convinced the investigators that Pizza guy wasn't involved, or dispatched their own Reasonable Doubts, is what you have to show the jury.

[walnutqueen]

If I were a defense attorney, I'd point the finger at the psycho killer pizza boy in an effort to muddy the waters.   His story wasn't exactly holding any water, either.  :-)

[andromeda331]

I also thought that ruling out a connection between the pizza guy and the hubs based on those onscreen conversations, was hasty. I hope they did more digging than that, and we just didn't see it. I mean, there were two people on that deed with the same last name but IIRC in the phone call they only asked if the person knew ONE of them. They didn't ask about the other name. I know I'd certainly ask about both names, and I'm not a detective.

 

 

It really did seem hasty. Not only do they have his cigarette they also have his mother's name coming up with the house owned by the victim and her husband. That's now two odd coincidences about the pizza man and they just rule him out after the phone calls. It would have been nice if they showed them looking through records or even just said they looked through them and found nothing.

[KHenry14]

I just don't see the pizza guy as a credible alternative suspect. All they have is the cigarette. The mother's name is likely a coincidence, but a good PI could easily trace the name to see if they were lying about the connection. But I suspect there is no connection whatsoever that the pizza guy has other than the cigarette, and if that's the case, he's not much of an alternative.

 

But the hubby had MOTIVE all over the place, a history of abuse, opportunity, and a bad reputation. He HAS to be involved even if he didn't pull the trigger.  

[walnutqueen]

A smoldering DNA ciggie butt when he swears he was not there?  WTF, alibi, much?  So many questions, not enough answers.

[andromeda331]

But the hubby had MOTIVE all over the place, a history of abuse, opportunity, and a bad reputation. He HAS to be involved even if he didn't pull the trigger.

 

He does and he probably is. Its just for once they didn't do a good job of ruling out the other suspect. The cigarette was still burning and they found another connect to him and the victim through his mother. As others have said they left a lot of unanswered questions for the pizza man. 

[attica]

they found another connect to him and the victim through his mother.

 

But they didn't. There were two different people named Hauck: one was pizzadude's mother and the other the previous owner of the house. The investigators could not find a link between them; they aren't likely related. Just coincidence, as far as they could establish. We saw the cops asking (without giving any context to tip either side away) whether they knew or knew of each other, and they were both "nope".  Now, I'm sure they did digging not shown to us to see if either was lying -- there's no reason to assume they just gave up after two phone calls. But they all admitted that they couldn't find a link.

Edited June 9, 2015 by attica

[Soobs]

As an ex smoker I can easily imagine the pizza guy smoking in the car but then not wanting to be smoking when the person answered the door as it might offend someone and effect his tip. Also, as someone mentioned, he might have been high. That's kind of a thing with some of the people I've known who deliver food. Part of a motivation for taking a job like that is that you get to mostly do what you want without the prying eyes of a manager. So, he leaves the cigarette on a ledge, delivers the pizza, forgets the cigarette and then doesn't want to admit being there to the cops because he's worried he'll be a suspect even though he's just a stoner with a bad memory.

 

That being said, he could have done it for one of two reasons: he's a rapist or he's hired by the husband. But there was no attempt at sexual assault and no connection to the husband. If I was a juror, I'd rule him out. It was the husband. He was mad about the money (complaining about the amount to the new girlfriend) and he gained from her death. End of story. I hope they get him.

 

Edited to add: The dog probably barked as a response to the chaos in the moment of attack.

Edited June 9, 2015 by Soobs

[TribbleTrouble]

Re ExCon Pizza Boy, I have no problem believing that he had no idea there was a murder and/or made no connection to the specific apartment complex where it took place as it's likely just one of many big apartment complexes where they delivered. This is West Palm Beach, Florida, not Tiny Town USA where everybody knows everybody and their business. It probably would have made the local news briefly but I wonder if it garnered a lot of attention beyond that. Also, bear in mind that we weren't being read a transcript of Pizza Boy's interview with police. All we heard was the cop boiling it down to its two basic points: that he was working as a pizza delivery guy in the area at the time and he had no memory of being in that particular apartment complex on that particular day with a cigarette 8(?) years after the fact. He undoubtedly did say a lot more during the actual interview. With this show I always assume there's a lot more boring detail work behind the scenes that never makes it on air. I have no problem accepting that they crossed the T's and dotted the I's to rule out pizza boy as a viable suspect to the extent possible.

Regarding the barking/not barking dog, I thought they made it clear that they believed the killer was waiting inside the apartment to ambush her....someone who had a key most likely since there was no evidence of forced entry. The friend on the phone said she didn't hear the dog start barking until the victim entered her apartment and the commotion exploded, the implication being that the dog knew whoever was in the apartment or that person had been there long enough for the dog to calm down and therefore he wasn't barking until she opened the door and was attacked.

This obviously was a straight up murder, not a rape or robbery attempt etc. The poor woman was executed. That certainly implies that the killer was most likely someone she knew or someone hired by someone she knew. Based on the evidence presented to us the husband is obviously the primary suspect with the most to gain and a reputation for being an all around pretty despicable guy.

Something that comes up for me a lot on this show is why some of the investigating that they do wasn't done during the original investigation before the case went cold and what exactly the show brings to some of these investigations that the local police didn't already have or should have already known. For example, did I understand correctly that the business partner was never interviewed the first time around so the divorce information was completely new? That seems like a pretty big miss that someone that close to the victim wasn't interviewed at the time. It makes me wonder why she wasn't interviewed or why she didn't come forward herself with that info at the time. It just seems a little convenient that she suddenly popped up out of nowhere with that divorce talk all these years later. Am I crazy or does that seem a little odd?

[SandyToes]

 

For example, did I understand correctly that the business partner was never interviewed the first time around so the divorce information was completely new? That seems like a pretty big miss that someone that close to the victim wasn't interviewed at the time. It makes me wonder why she wasn't interviewed or why she didn't come forward herself with that info at the time

 

I wonder about this all the time. For the really, really old cases, yeah, there are new techniques, etc. But for those cases in the past 10 years, it often seems like there are BIG holes, or big witnesses who'd you think would have surely come forward if not at the time of the crime, certainly within the intervening years. (Like this case, or the one with the notary public who didn't witness signatures).

 

It also seems like this season not only have there been more "the DA is reviewing the case" cases, but also a lot more questions left for us, the viewers. I wonder if that is a direct result of the few cases that have gone to trial after episodes air, and problems arise, therefore, less info is being shown on air.  Hmmmm...

Very frustrating to not see resolutions to some of these cases.