Wednesday, November 4, 2015

The Death of David Hartley: Conclusion

"Just had three boats chasing us..."

                        What happened to David Hartley? 



In analyzing the interviews that Tiffany Hartley gave on national television, I have determined that:

Tiffany Hartley was deceptive about what happened to David;
Tiffany Hartley withheld the general identity of the shooters;
Tiffany Hartley was deceptive about why she and David went to Mexico, across Falcon Lake.  They did not risk life and limb over a polaroid. 

I know these things and with that knowledge in place, I can speculate on the specifics, but would only know them if I were able to interview her as well as the collateral interviews, which in this case, would include Mexican officials.  The interview is where most information is obtained, which is then confirmed by forensics and other evidence.  It is very difficult to solve a case when the suspect refuses to speak, but it is done and in those cases, the forensics must speak for themselves. 

 Over the years, I examined many suggestions sent to me as to what happened, based on Tiffany's need to lie, and I am comfortable for a variety of reasons coming to a general conclusion--an educated guess on what really happened. 

Please feel free to do the same. 

What happened to David Hartley?

I believe the following:

David and Tiffany Hartley went to Mexico to purchase drugs; likely cocaine and after giving money to the low level cartel associates, they reneged on the deal and just took the money, without giving the product. 

It is a story that fits. Here are some of my thoughts...

David's family listened to the outrageous lies told by Tiffany and did not respond in public with anger or resentment.  When Tiffany told the world that David told her she could be kidnapped or die, all for a polaroid, it was a terrible insult of him.

Why did Tiffany reveal this?

Simple.

When asked about it, she went into experiential memory and told the truth, and began to talk from it, not keeping track of the fact that this doesn't fit the floated false narrative of going after a photo.

This would have been terribly insulting to David's family, but they did not appear insulted.  In fact, his sister's comments, which are in the analysis, shed some light onto the family's thinking, with her "110%" support of Tiffany.

That they did not react suggests that they knew, likely with much shame, what the two of them had gotten themselves into.

This would also explain the lack of family protests and demands for justice and arrests. I think they are more comfortable letting the whole thing go; it will not bring back their son and they may have been deeply hurt by Tiffany's "cameo" like appearances on television, her publicized shopping spree, and whimsical "David would have wanted me to go joy riding across Europe" type of statements about travel, while his remains were left unclaimed and unburied.

This likely has left a terrible scar for them, yet it explains why no great noise was made through media on the recent anniversary of his "disappearance."

The scenario likely took place predominantly on water.  Here is the scenario I feel most comfortable with:

The two wanted to earn money and earn money fast, and be able to enjoy expensive trips, expensive toys and expensive life styles beyond what they could both earn, especially before it came time to have children.

He appeared to be hard working, and perhaps frustrated with stock market returns (especially the financial crisis of 2009) and got involved in seminars, and sought out some "get rich" schemes.  This is more common than realized.  Consider the owners of the New York Mets were taken in by the Bernie Madoff scam and lost millions. It happens.  Greed makes people take high risk investments or bets...sometimes even illegal and immoral.  

Frustrated, they knew that Colorado was less risk than other states to re-sell drugs (perhaps cocaine) to the rich jet set party crowd where, instead of making a 15% return, they could make a 1500% return, not in a year, but a week.

They took out cash, forgot about the real estate seminar stuff, and went for it.

They had met with drug cartel associates when they lived in Mexico, as Tiffany revealed:  the home they rented was connected.  They would take, perhaps $20,000 and shoot across Falcon Lake "to the Mexico side", as Tiffany said, show them the cash, get the drugs, and head back to the United States, divide up the product to smaller, easy to sell amounts, and make their "once in a life time killing."

When they crossed over, they either met on land, or, more to my thinking, met their contacts on a boat, where they were betrayed by low level associates, and David, big and strong, refused to back down.  The drug cartels are known for viciousness and for making headlines with the ostentatious acts of violence (like beheading) and shot and killed David while watching Tiffany jump on her Jet Ski and turn tail.

Since she did not have a truthful account, her deceptive account had to come from somewhere, so she chose the Hollywood movie, " Titanic", which, in my opinion, fits her personality and mentality level.

The "3 boats" triggered suspicion by the number alone, but the passivity was a thinly veiled attempt to avoid identifying them.  She may have saved her life by refusing to come close to identifying them, and perhaps, she appeared so terrified that they believed she would not identify them.

When asked motive, she said, "Who knows?", answering a question with a question, and then moved to the plural "we", further signaling knowledge.  But then she gave it away with the word, "just" regarding money:  they "just" wanted money with the word "just" used as a negative comparison to something else.

What "else" might it be compared to?

It sounds very much like "just" refers to breaking the deal; they
""just" wanted the money but didn't deliver their end of the bargain.

Tiffany would likely have not only lost her husband, but spent some time in prison for this and it is remarkable that some in media did not see this; in particular, Anderson Cooper's embarrassing miss, and Nancy Grace's "Lie to Me" like conclusion:  she could just look at her and know she was telling the truth!

Sheriff Ziggy Gonzalez did not polygraph her, likely because he wished to use her story to help his ambition to shut down the border from criminals.  This is pragmatism for a cause, and he might have thought to himself, 'this won't bring David back.' He, Tiffany and the Governor of Texas made a public appearance together, and when the Governor was asked about "those" calling for Tiffany to be polygraphed, he said that "anyone" who thinks she should be polygraphed is "an idiot."


Thus the mystery of the death of David Hartley.  With much of her account showing sentences that are reliable, it is likely that he was shot by drug cartel associates when he and his wife went to meet them on the "Mexico" side of Falcon Lake.  

49 comments:

Anonymous said...

OT - the remains of Kyrion Knox have been found.
http://abc7chicago.com/news/fbi-missing-rockford-boys-dna-matches-lagoon-remains-/1068695/
-KC

Anonymous said...

If this is the case, then i'm ok with her not getting any jail time. Yeah, it sucks that she's throwing her husband under the bus, but it's just two thieves and one didn't make it. I can't fault her for lying now. She and he already chose a life of crime.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, not thieves--two degenerates, bad people, etc, etc.

lynda said...

I agree with you Peter. Of course, it's easy to agree with you once you break down every word and give us the answer! I am still wondering why she was left alive tho. If David began balking about them not giving him the drugs I can easily see one of the cartel members just shooting him with no warning (in the FRONT of his head. She may have been just fast enough to elude them or they simply didn't care enough to kill her. They had their money.

John mcgowan said...

OT Update:

‘Babysitter wouldn’t let me collect him,’ Kyrian Knox confirmed to be missing Chicago lagoon toddler

Kyrian Knox has been identified as the two year old dismembered toddler found in a Chicago lagoon back in September after DNA confirmed that the toddler found matched the DNA of that of a missing two year old northern Illinois boy reported missing at the same time.

Since the confirmation of the body parts found at Garfield Park lagoon, Chicago police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi confirmed that police continue to investigate how and why the boy came to be killed. To date the man confirmed no arrests had been made.

Speaking of their heartbreak upon Wednesday’s positive match revelation, Kyrian’s grandmother, Cameshia Harris, told the Chicago Tribune:‘My heart is hurting right now,’

Adding: ‘We’re processing the information as a family that we were given today. The family is together and we are trying to wrap our minds over it.’

The woman’s grandson was reported missing on September 17 by the child’s mother, Lanisha Knox, who told of leaving her son with friends while she was moving to a new home when she was notified of her 2 year old son’s disappearance by police.

In a report with NBC. the heartbroken mother tells how she had made numerous attempts to pick up her son from the family that was watching him yet they always gave her an excuse as to why it was not a good time.

Told the mother: ‘At this point, I don’t trust anyone and I do feel like somebody knows something and they’re not saying anything,


Authorities believe Kyrian first went missing mid August and it wasn’t until mid September that Lanisha Knox reached out to authorities. A length of time that strikes this author too particularly long and not within the natural profile of a mother disconcerted with the whereabouts of her toddler child.

Kamel Harris, 40, of Rockford, who Lanisha Knox may be one of the last people to see Kyrian alive. His name was on a missing-person flyer distributed by the family who had ‘cared’ for the toddler as Lanisha Knox was in transit moving homes. A day or two after Kyrian was reported missing, Harris was arrested and jailed on a burglary charge.

Contacted at that time in the Winnebago County Jail, Harris told the Register Star that Lanisha Knox, a friend of his daughter, dropped Kyrian off at his Rockford home in August.

He said Lanisha dropped the child off with a pack of diapers and $30.

‘What the hell am I supposed to do with $30 and a pack of diapers? I didn’t even know her,‘ Harris said in a telephone interview from jail. ‘She just dropped him off and left.’

Continues the report from the Register Star which poses troubling question of parental accountability:

Harris was fuzzy on dates. He said Kyrian arrived in early August and was picked up later in the month when people he didn’t know arrived at his door.

“The little boy ran to him and was all happy,” Harris said.

Harris said he spoke to Lanisha Knox before releasing the child to the visitors.

Harris’ girlfriend, Danyelle Foggs, 34, said she was not present when Kyrian arrived and was not present when he left. However, she said she received a text message from Lanisha Knox on Sept. 17 saying she wanted to talk to her son.

“I said, ‘What? I’m lost. What do you mean?’”

Cont..

John mcgowan said...

It wouldn’t be until September 5 that the dismembered child was found by a park visitor after coming across what turned out to be a left foot floating in the lagoon.

Cops later found a decomposed right foot and a hand 25 yards away.

Over the next days, additional body parts were recovered which allowed cops to be able to launch an investigation as to the identity of the child after an artist’s portrait of what the child may have looked like prior to its murder came to be circulated.

From there, authorities began culling missing person reports as they sought to identify the 2 year old victim.

Guglielmi refused to say who investigators are questioning in the boy’s death, saying they have a long way to go in determining how he was killed. He said identifying the victim was a tremendous break in the case.


http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2015/11/kyrian-knox-confirmed-missing-chicago-lagoon-toddler/

lynda said...

John..This continuing saga of people just dumping their children off with who knows who, making half-hearted attempts, or none at all, of getting them back is just making me weary to my bones. No innocent mother would EVER let anyone tell her that it "wasn't a good time" to see or pick up her child. I would go batshit crazy if someone were to tell me that. There are probably so many charges with so many people involved, the police don't even know where to begin at this point. In the end, a baby is ripped apart and thrown out like trash. It boggles me that the mother is even out in public still giving interviews. She should be behind bars for the rest of her life along with quite a few others.

Matt Whan said...

That, or they tried the "half money now, half later" one was killed as only one was needed to collect the rest hense why she was left alive and made her "harried escape" on a jet ski of all things. Only to return home with a grand story to surround herself with adulation and a fan base furthering her narcissistic agenda, and protecting herself from the fallout of the drug cartel having her whacked for not living up on her end of the bargain.

It is suspect in and of itself that she is travelling so soon after. I would think aPTSD would set in, and the thought of travelling anywhere would be drought with fear and anxiety.

I watched her interview, her expressions were void of genuine guilt, or shame, only that she appeared to be enjoying the spotlight ;) that's for your lie to me comment, Peter lol

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

AMEN to ALL of this!!!
She should be behind bars!
Who leaves their child with someone they don't know???
And never comes back??

John mcgowan said...

OT:

AUDIO: 911 calls released in hot-car death of judge's son

After a court order, Hot Springs police released the audio tapes of 911 calls made by Garland County Circuit Judge Wade Naramore and his father-in-law in the hot-car death of the the judge's 18-month-old son.

Retired Circuit Judge Sam Bird rejected Hot Springs City Attorney Brian Albright's argument that the tapes are exempt from release under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act because they are part of an ongoing investigation.

Matt Campbell, a Little Rock attorney and blogger, had requested the tapes, and Hot Springs police had declined to release the recordings.

In the tapes, a clearly distressed Naramore pleads for "immediate" assistance after finding his son in the car, where Naramore says "he stayed for too long."

"It's too late, I think he's dead," Naramore tells the operator during the call.

In a second 911 call, Naramore's father-in-law, who was not at the scene, told operators "I don't know," when asked if the baby was breathing or awake, according to Bird's order.

No charges have been filed in the boy's death.

In his ruling, Bird said that Albright offered no compelling reason why the release of the tapes would "impede, prejudice, or have any effect on law enforcement's investigations."

SENSITIVE CONTENT: The audio file below is a recording of a 911 call placed by Garland County Circuit Judge Wade Naramore after Naramore found his 18-month-old son left in a car.

The call below is from Naramore's father-in-law after he received word of a medical issue involving Naramore's son.

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2015/nov/05/court-orders-release-judges-911-call/?f=news-arkansas

tania cadogan said...

off topic

John Ramsey is opening up about the difficult allegations he and his family faced after the murder of his daughter JonBenet Ramsey in a new interview.

Speaking with Barbara Walters for her new show, Barbara Walters Presents American Scandals, John said that he and his late-wife Patsy did everything they could to protect their son Burke from learning that he was being accused of murdering his sister.

No one in the family was ever charged in the death of the six-year-old, but for years tabloids and members of the public believed they were the culprits of this unspeakable crime.

'We tried to shield him from that,' John said of the tabloid reports about Burke.

'Friends would ask us, "What can we do to help?" We said, "Next time you go in the supermarket, call the manager over when you see our child’s photo on the front cover, and ask him to remove it." A lot of them did that.'

John also said that despite the fact that Jon Benet's body was found almost 19 years ago on December 26, 1996, he still believes the killer will be found.

'I think we will have two ways that will happen,' John tells Walters in their interview.

'It will either be a DNA match or someone who knows something will become angry or bitter against this person and will tell.'

Male DNA was found on the underwear of JonBenet when her body was discovered, but authorities have never been able to match it to a suspect.

There was also a bowl of pineapples found in the kitchen when the young girl was first reported missing but police on the scene allowed someone to clean the bowl.

This ended up being a crucial error as JonBenet was found with pineapple in her stomach when her body was examined by the coroner.

The house was also not sealed off by police and friends and family were allowed to come and go during the initial investigation, contaminating the crime scene.

The body of JonBenet, a child beauty queen, was found bludgeoned and strangled hours after she was reported missing and covered by a white blanket with a nylon cord around her neck, her wrists bound above her head and her mouth covered by duct tape.

John and Patsy had called police to report her kidnapping and said they found a note demanding a ransom of $118,000 for her safe return - and that they not contact the authorities.

Despite this, police arrived to their home shortly after in clearly marked vehicles.

John and Patsy would remain the primary suspects in their daughter's death for more than a decade, and it was not until 2008 that police finally cleared them of any wrongdoing.

tania cadogan said...

cont.

At that time, Patsy had been dead for two years after a lengthy battle with ovarian cancer.

She was initially suspected by many of being the murderer after reports emerged that handwriting on the ransom note was similar to her own, but after she willingly provided a sample to police it was determined she did not write the note.

Many also suspected someone in the family as they claimed there were no footprints in the snow around the house.

John - who remarried in 2011 to Jan Rousseaux - also discussed how he lost his millions after the death of JonBenet when he decided to move the family out of Boulder and back to Atlanta, not realizing the stigma that would be placed on him by the public and how difficult that would make it for him to obtain a job.

'I was told by a very experienced FBI person that most victims of violent crime end up broke,' said John.

'It's very expensive to deal with the justice system. You make bad decisions - you sell your home, you quit your job, you move, you change jobs.'

In addition to losing JonBenet, John had also lost his oldest daughter Elizabeth from a previous marriage in 1992 when she was 22-years-old after she was in a car accident.

As a result of what he has gone through, he now has advice for others who might face a similarly tragic situation.

'When something really tragic happens in your life, put your life in park. Give your checkbook to a trusted friend. Avoid making any big decisions,' said John.

'Because you're just not capable of making good decisions.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3305394/JonBenet-Ramsey-s-father-reveals-protected-young-son-allegations-committed-Christmas-day-murder-beauty-pageant-sister-says-believes-killer-found.html

Juliet said...

I noticed there was nothing sensory in her account/s, even later - all that noise, the jet skis, the speedboats, the multiple gunshots - it would have been quite deafening. Then the contrast, when the 'boats' stopped shooting and either slowed right down or turned off their motors as they drew near - it would have suddenly gone quiet, as it was quiet enough to hear their voices - all that, with the realisation that David was dead would/should have been terrifying, yet she doesn't say she was terrified. Even if it had happened on dry land, and they let her go - having witnessed his execution, surely the terror and trauma should have been reflected somewhere in her language - I can't hear it. Could it be that she is in such shock she is unable to bring herself to think or speak of the fearsome pirates in terms other than 'boats'?

'David was hit' - she doesn't say they, or even that the boats shot him, only that he was hit. I wonder if the reason she doesn't say one of them, or even that they shot him, is not so much to conceal their identity, but because there were no other people present when 'David was hit'. In the interview (linked):

Interviewer: And so, they shot your husband in the back of the head, you then tried
Tiffany (interrupts): As far as I know

Originally, Tiffany said David had been shot in the back of the head - if she saw no visible wound to the back of his head, it could make sense that she had seen an exit wound on his face or forehead when she turned him over - but if so, how could she determine if it was an entry or exit wound? He could have been shot in the face or forehead if he looked back to gauge the distance. If someone was shot execution style, and if there was ever a chance of the body being recovered, a cover story involving pursuit by pirates, with David being some distance behind her, and more likely to be shot in the back of the head, would be convenient. That she now says 'as far as I know' seems an attempt to backtrack on earlier certainty - I think she had been questioned as to how she could be so sure he was shot in the back of the head, when she also seemed not to realise this when he was supposedly lying face down in the water, only when she flipped him over (like a burger).

I think, from another odd response she gave in the video (linked) to the question about the Mexican authorities doubting the veracity of her account, that Tiffany was recalling her hours long interview, and the police asking if she had killed David. She's quite emotional, but not about David - she is upset when her story is called into question. She doesn't appear grief-stricken or traumatised about what has happened to her husband - she should be wrecked, but perhaps she is in shock, or their relationship was bad and she does not feel loss or grief - she does not behave like a grieving widow, but the reality of his death may not have set in at that early stage. Even so, it seems something vital is missing - like a word of sympathy for his sudden horrible death, his life senselessly cut short, regret about their risk-taking - anger at the murderous boats. There is no anger toward the claimed murderers - her concern is toward herself, and to her story being believed

Juliet said...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL97A2489450CE74BC&params=OAFIAVgF&v=EuDGxew9Rhs&mode=NORMAL

Interviewer: Let me ask you this, Tiffany: the Mexican authorities are claiming now that maybe this incident didn't even happen. How would you respond to them?
Tiffany: I can't imagine that - because I loved him so much - he was my rock, he was everything to me - and I loved him and there's no way I would do anything like that. I can understand since they say they can't find the body - but they're not looking - they're not looking for him. And that's what's frustrating because we can't go over there and look for him, we need them to do it. We need them to allow us to go over.
Interviewer: So what you're saying is that they will not allow US authorities to go and search for the body of your husband either?
Tiffany: Yes, that's what we understand.
Interviewer: uhhum
Tiffany: So we need the Mexican government, we need the President, we need all of them to just let us come and recover my husband's body so we can give him the proper burial.
Interviewer: So that's what you're asking, that's what you're asking today is for
Tiffany: Yes
Interviewer: the President of Mexico to allow American authorities to come across into
Tiffany: Yes
Interviewer: their border and help you.
Tiffany: Yes, and of course we're asking Mex - um - the President Obama, we're asking Hilary Clinton, we're asking all the governors and senators, whoever they need to call, to make this happen, we need to make it happen.
Interviewer: Alright, Tiffany
Tiffany: We just want his body back - that's all we want.
Interviewer: I understand and we can't imagine the pain you're going through as this has happened to your husband, but we appreciate you joining us today and sharing your story. Thank you, Tiffany.
Tiffany: And I want you guys to know that he just really loved your show - he watched it every day
Interviewer: Oh, well, thank you so much for letting us know that.
Tiffany: You're welcome.

T

Juliet said...

Tiffany probably thinks or knows that the interviewer is aware of what the police are suggesting - the 'that', which she denies, and which she would 'no way' do. (Is 'no way' similar to' never' - in that there's still a possibility of some way? I don't know.) She denigrates the Mexican police- 'they say they can't find the body'. It's at though she is suggesting the body should be easy enough to find, just floating on the water by now. David is just 'him' and 'the body' until the interviewer says
'the body of your husband'' after which Tiffany promotes 'the body' to 'my husband's body', taking her cue from the interviewer's more respectful description :

Tiffany: So we need the Mexican government, we need the President, we need all of them to just let us come and recover my husband's body so we can give him the proper burial.

'The' proper burial - as maybe opposed to the more temporary improper type of burial? I would expect her to have said 'a proper burial' - unless she intended to say 'the proper burial which he deserves, and the family needs' etc., yet it does not sound as if she was cut off mid sentence.

I think Tiffany knew her husband's killer/s and was either complicit in, or not opposed to his murder. David likely believed he was entering into a drug deal, and drugs may have been part of the real deal, but Tiffany did not get the drugs. Everyone involved has good reason not to talk as all are implicated and so assured of each other's silence. I think it was murder by agreement, and that Tiffany was safely escorted back to the US by her accomplices, who buried the body - Tiffany may even have been present as it sounds as if these pirate people/boats were also her friends. The independent eye witness saw one boat 'pursuing' Tiffany alone back into US waters - making sure she got back safely. They did not kill her because they had been friends, got the money, knew she would not name them and that she would be unlikely to return seeking revenge. If there even were any pirates - I think there was one person, at least, as she could not have disposed of his body alone, also pirates or drug dealers would have no respect or regard for the body of a random murder victim, or what became of it, yet it wasn't left in the water, or found elsewhere. I think David is buried in Mexico, and Tiffany is truthful in saying that all the family want is to have his body back - they are not interested in the truth coming out because the story is easier for them to accept.

Juliet said...

PS - it's not a complete transcript, just from the point I found interesting. From around mid-way.

C5H11ONO said...

TIFFANY HARTLEY: Two were in front of me quite a ways away. One actually came up to my boat, my jet ski, and they pointed the gun at me. They were talking amongst each other and pointed it back at me. Then they decided to leave. ...
It was a "jet ski" and then it was a "boat" and now it is a "ski": a change of language should reflect a change in reality. If it doesn't, deception is indicated.

--I don’t believe this was a change of language. I believe she was too comfortable speaking and stated “my boat” because she was on a boat. Then she realized her mistake and corrected herself to say “my jet ski”. Her story would make sense if the parts she omitted included getting taken on board different boats.

If it turns out that indeed they were doing a drug deal I would be surprised. I find it unlikely that her husband would take his wife on a drug run, exposing her to getting raped and murdered.

John mcgowan said...

C5H11ONO said...

"--I don’t believe this was a change of language. I believe she was too comfortable speaking and stated “my boat” because she was on a boat. Then she realized her mistake and corrected herself to say “my jet ski”. Her story would make sense if the parts she omitted included getting taken on board different boats.

Hi,

Yes, i wonder if she slipped into experiential memory?

Nick Speckman said...

Doesn't anyone entertain the idea that David is still alive in Mexico somewhere and they planned on her getting a
Death certificate sooner and this the insurance money? He could have taken off with his jet ski or gotten on to one of the "boats" and had someone else take his jet ski in trade for getting him out of Dodge

John mcgowan said...

OT:

BREAKING NEWS: Sir Cliff Richard is re-interviewed by police over historic sex claims
Singer met with officers from South Yorkshire Police voluntarily this week
He was interviewed under caution last year by detectives investigating a claim of a sex crime involving a young boy in the 1980s


Sir Cliff Richard has been re-interviewed by police over child sex claims, it has emerged.
The singer met with officers from South Yorkshire Police voluntarily this week, a spokesman for the star said.
The entertainer was interviewed under caution last year by detectives investigating a claim of a sex crime involving a young boy in the 1980s, but was not arrested or charged.

A spokesman said the singer spoke to officers this week.
He said: 'Sir Cliff Richard voluntarily met with and was interviewed by members of South Yorkshire Police. He was not arrested or charged, nor has he ever been.


'He co-operated fully with officers and answered the questions put to him.
'Other than restating that the allegations are completely false and that he will continue to co-operate fully with the police, it would not be appropriate for Sir Cliff to say anything further at this time.'



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3306227/Cliff-Richards-interviewed-police-child-sex-claims.html#ixzz3qfD5Xxl1

trustmeigetit said...

If it was a drug deal gone bad, she could have told a truthful account of the shooting by simply stating the Pirates came up to them.

And you would still seethe horror and sadness.

That's why I still struggle with the drug theory.

You say that most people will tell the truth as much as they can so then in this case, I would expect a lot of truth around the shooting. Just a lie about why they were there.

trustmeigetit said...

I agree with you that she wanted him killed.

Buying drugs would be a reason to lie about WHY they were there but she could then tell the truth about HOW he was killed.

Could still even be drug dealers but they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Would be much less stress only lying about one small part of the story and would allow the truth for the actual event.

And she would show true grief had her husband that she loved been killed.

Juliet said...

I just listened right through and Tiffany did say she was terrified - I had missed that. Terrified they would double-cross and shoot her, too, perhaps. She doesn't seem concerned that her husband is dead, though - and that 'no questions asked' remark is out of place - it's not as if David would have been asking her to help him - so is that an attempt to persuade anyone who might question her account, that she did, of course go back and try to help him? Incredibly brave, if so - or maybe she was just checking he was dead - she said she wasn't sure that he actually was, she was shouting and screaming - then there was the whispered chat on the boat with the two pirates who were pointing the gun at her, making eye contact, before they just 'left'. Well, poor David, if he did not die quite quickly enough for anyone's comfort.

I did wonder if she seemed not bothered because actually he is still alive, and it was an insurance scam - but if there were big insurance policies that would have come to light by now. So, I think, sadly, she was not sorry to lose him. It may not have involved drugs, but one would need to see David's collection of photo files to bear out how extreme a hobby it might actually have been - what madness to venture into such a dangerous area if really it just was to take pictures. I can't imagine he would also have taken Tiffany, unless say, she had a gun to keep guard over them while he took the photographs. What would one gun be against a horde of pirates though? Somewhere she said that maybe the pirates just wanted their jet skis - but if that was so, why would they be so ruthless as to murder for them rather than just take the skis and leave the couple in the water? Having killed one, why not both, leaving them with two jet skis and no eye-contact down the barrel of a gun witness who could later identify them? That would not make sense. Though she is cute and sort of pathetic - maybe they thought it would be like shooting a puppy, but worse.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/07/mexico.us.shooting/index.html

Juliet said...

The friendly wave - like they were friends; it seems possible that Tiffany, at least, knew them - perhaps they were off their guard and neither expected the encounter to turn nasty - but Tiffany's indifference towards David's demise suggests, at least to me, that she either expected it, or was not inconvenienced by his death. It's a great shame his death served a cause and that Tiffany is so photogenic - there's probably no chance of it being solved.

Anonymous said...

I've never trusted this woman from day one.
Thank you for bringing it into discussion again.
TH's story will never make sense to me.

Anonymous said...

Thinking back on it, I believe this case is what led me to Peter's blog in the first place.

Just two months after the Falcon Lake events, there was an article that's probably still available online somewhere (too lazy to search myself) about Tiffany going Black Friday shopping.

Pfft. What truly grieving widow would even be capable of doing that, much less giving a cheerful interview about it?

Also I remember seeing a picture of her posing with Gayle from the Oprah Winfrey show. She looked about as grief-stricken as Miss America does 10 seconds after being crowned.

There's something seriously rotten in the state of Tiffmark.

Juliet said...

Well, it's possible, perhaps even more than likely, they had guns with them - as Tiffany said, they had discussed kidnapping and pirates, so it seems logical that, as they are gun people, they would not go unarmed into a dangerous area. I found this old page, pre David Hartly murder, which has photos of Tiffany's sister Tia, posing with a rifle and a handgun, and Facebook posts she made thus:

Tia Young Im waiting for my brother in law to buy the AR 15 since he lives in Mexico I told him I would break it in for him til he comes back to a free country.
February 8 at 4:25pm

(Tia's brother-in-law: the late David Michael Hartley)

Ric Kucharyson What are you holding in your picture, looks like a Mouser action? Looks competitive...
February 8 at 4:45pm

Tia Young It's my brother in laws 228. (David's 228)
February 8 at 6:53pm

----

http://scaredmonkeys.net/index.php?topic=8715.40

Juliet said...

Maybe they were going to buy the said AR 15 when David was murdered.

Juliet said...

Logic fail there - Tia was going to sell him the AR 15 when he came back from Mexico, and was minding his 228? So when they returned to Texas after their two years living in Mexico, he would most likely have had those guns. So not going to buy the AR 15 as he already had it, I think. If they thought there was a risk of pirates, they probably would have taken at least one gun out with them.

LisaB said...

Could the Hartley's have had an ongoing business relationship with a particular drug dealer or group of dealers, to the extent that they considered them "friends" and were not concerned at all about the wisdom of going to "the Mexico side" unarmed to meet up.

If this scenario was true, and the Hartley's brought a camera as a cover for their trip, the camera might have made their "friends" anxious. If David refused to give them the camera (never imagining that he would be killed to get it) they might have shot him without a second thought because they did not see Tiffany and David as "friends".

Alternatively, Tiffany might have made a deal with their "friends" to do something other than provide drugs in exchange for the money they brought that day, arranging for them to kill David instead. They got the jet ski too, since she had no way to bring the second one back, and she may feel somehow "cheated" out of it, based on her remarks about them possibly wanting to steal thevjet ski.

Sus said...

I enjoyed reviewing this case. Peter, you did some nice analysis in it.

Like LisaB, I wonder if the Hartleys "knew" some Cartel members and felt safe going to the Mexico side. I also wonder if the camera played a part in David's death.

Tiffany made a comment on her Facebook months before the shooting that she felt safe from Mexican Cartels because David protected her from all that. To me that hints at knowing someone.

Then they were forced to move from their home because of the Cartels. This would have been at the time the Los Zetas split into their own Cartel.

Now, anyone else would think it was a dangerous time to go to the Mexico side of the lake with the recent Cartel split. But Tiffany Hartley either a malignant narcissist or a sociopath. She is arrogant and very likely thought the Cartel dare not touch them. She is a thrill-seeker and I believe this is where the story of David's warnings came from. She is devoid of true human emotion and compassion. I recently visited her blog. Besides realizing she is woefully undereducated, she is all show. On each anniversary entry she had to tell her readers why she is "sad" on an anniversary. Like we don't know. She doesn't know, so she believes others do not.

As LisaB says, the friendly wave is yelling...like they knew each other, or of each other. And as Peter pointed out, Tiffany goes out of her way to conceal the identity of the shooters.

Part I

Sus said...

It is obvious, as Peter says, that Tiffany's story is based off the movie Titantic. Even after, Tiffany is doing all sorts of exciting things in life with David's spirit with her...like Rose.

I don't believe she was anywhere near David and the Pirates when David was shot. I believe she observed it all from afar, probably on her jet ski. And the minute they pointed a gun at her she hightailed it out of there.

If you look at her story, where boats are positioned, where bullets hit the water, etc, and picture her back towards shore, it makes more sense. Leave out her turning him over. Maybe the pirates did and she saw them take him on their boat.

She's simply angry she didn't get a body and a jet ski back. No insurance. She obviously used every account of true Cartel violence to bolster her claim of how David died. Though none truly supported it. By the way, five years later...Tiffany is back on her jet ski - the very one she was riding David died, shooting guns with her dad again - because the Hartleys loved their cache of illegal guns, and has a boyfriend who wants to marry her "like yesterday" - if she could just get that darn death certificate.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Sus,

I totally agree with you. I got the same impression from her blog, particularly along the narcissism and sociopath lines. It really is all about her. I'm trying to discern if it's that or if she's just so spoiled, pampered, and immature that what she loved about David was that he "adored" her. Her posts are less about her love for David, and more about how much she was valued.
*Side note: I'm probably a little jaded in that respect though- we had some former friends and the wife was just like that. The marriage only worked because he carefully walked the line between parenting her and worshiping her. In our case, she became incensed when we didn't support her in an extended family dispute (she was wrong, making unfounded accusations against an innocent party and we knew it). We cut them off when her husband called from work to tell us off. Toxic.

In reality, anyone else would have sold that jet ski shortly after David's death. It would be quite normal for her to mentally associate the jet ski with the event and want to rid herself of the reminder. The person may ("may") have, in time (years later) bought a different jet ski and eventually resumed a hobby they enjoyed in baby steps. Shooting guns with Daddy is an entirely different matter though. She should have been having severe PTSD with that activity IF David's death occurred the way she said it did. It's not like she grew up in a violent crime area like El Salvador or even parts of Chicago/the Bronx. I'm not a practicing psychologist or licensed counselor here, but I'd expect her to experience ongoing PTSD triggered by any loud, unexpected noise even remotely suggestive of gunfire. I would expect her to avoid guns, gunfire, people sighting in weapons, etc. In the same way, I would expect Tiffany to be physically ill upon initially getting back on a her same jet ski (possibly accompanied by vomiting). Moreover, it would not be unusual for someone in those circumstances to begin avoiding lakes and large, open bodies of water either. After all, this was supposedly an extremely traumatic event, from the pursuing, shooting "boats" to turning her dead husband over in the water with a visible gunshot to the head,, to being shot at as she raced for the American side of Falcon Lake...that's an adrenaline overload, coupled with both sensory and emotional overload, shock, and grieving to process all at once.

Maybe I missed it, but I would have expected her to blog about seeing a counselor or psychologist to help her process what happened and her grief. No offense intended here, but she appears to be a very weak sort of person (linguistically playing the victim) and I think that's likely what attracted big, strong, "protective" David. In reality, she is likely manipulative (per her language) and uses people to achieve her goals (sociopath). Her language is very self-serving, as if David existed merely to adore, entertain, and protect her. I wonder if David wasn't getting a little tired of trying to keep the Princess happy. Perhaps the Princess realized she was losing her ability to charm, but she wasn't ready to give up a lifestyle.

Perhaps she didn't realize that Life Insurance companies like to have that pesky piece of paper known as a death certificate (Courts do too). Likewise, coroners like to have a body and determine a cause of death before they hand out that little piece of paper. She still seems angry that they won't take her word for it, laying the blame on both Mexico and the U.S. government when it was she who refused to return to Mexico to aid in the investigation. Her last few comments are merely a complaint that she can't marry this guy who "would have married her like yesterday", but no body=no death certificate=no divorce. She's inconvenienced, not getting what she wants. So she told this guy from the start she wasn't marriageable, so why date? Why continue to date him? She seems self-absorbed and self-serving.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

I found it disturbing that her grandparents have moved in because of declining mental health and how it's "sad" (attempting to display emotion), but then she goes on and on about how having them there impacts her and her life (marked lack of compassion and empathy).

Apparently she feels no remorse, regret, or empathy for this guy that she's been stringing along and can't legally marry. At the bare minimum, she should feel badly for having emotionally involved him, if in fact he wants so badly to marry her.

The irony is that she's in a Catch 22: No body= no death certificate= no Life Insurance money to finance a house/adventures. No body= no death certificate= no divorce= no new husband= no new adventurous lifestyle. I wonder if 2 part-time jobs can fund an apartment, much less an adventuring lifestyle.
**Another Side Note: We also had the displeasure of an extended family member plying knight in shining armor to a damsel in distress, who merely used long-term live-in boyfriends to fund her adventure-seeking lifestyle. It's nearly impossible to fund that lifestyle legally on a single income, unless you have a highly-skilled, well-paying job. She didn't and neither does Tiff.

Sus said...

Fools,
I know, right!? The entries on her grandparents were appalling. She could barely contain her disdain for them. Like how dare these elderly people encroach on my life? Her blog is like a car crash. I wanted to look away...but I couldn't. Lol.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Sus,

I know what you mean! LOL I felt compelled to read to the bitter end. It's like soap opera meets train wreck. When I finished reading, I put the computer down and walked away thinking, "Shallow."

Part of me thinks David did what he did to please/appease Tiffany- I'm pretty sure she called the shots. I'm not sure if that means going on the sight-seeing venture or a drug deal. I believe the trip was Tiffany's idea because she attributes a lot of warning words as coming from David to her- essentially, you can "hear" him trying to talk her out of a very stupid idea...unsuccessfully, if this story is true.

I'd like to know which one of them found the house, how they found it, and who exactly set up the rental. I suspect that David wasn't making enough money to fund Tiffany's expectations and she may have had a little business going on the side. I suspect that the trip was actually Tiffany making a buy and David realized that she was in way over her head and tried to opt out, if the story is true. That would explain David dying, but Tiffany being allowed to both overhear a convo and leave unharmed. It also guaranteed her silence and freedom or should I say her lack of cooperation with Mexican authorities? It would also explain the distancing language and behaviors following David's death.

Frankly, I'd be inclined to question his death because for me, she hasn't reliably established his presence at Falcon Lake in the first place. Unless I missed something (and I could have), she's the only witness and not a totally reliable one, at that. The sole reason I believe he is actually dead is that she's complaining that she can't legally get a divorce and remarry because there's no body...Poor Tiffany. Her sorrow is for herself and her situation alone. That tells me David is in fact dead.

This is going to sound awful, but I'd rather tell the world that my son died conducting a drug transaction (if that's true) and his wife left him to die and save herself...rather than let her tell the world what a hero wife she is and that my son was a jerk who selfishly and recklessly endangered his wife for a lousy picture. No, this little venture was not David's idea.

Foolsdfeedonfolly said...

OT- DeOrr Kunz New PI?

Deorr Kunz Jr's Voices at https://www.facebook.com/missingdeorr/

Allison Okenka "The silence is so heartbreaking. I can't even imagine what this family is going through. I hope this new PI will crack this case wide open and most importantly find DeOrr safe and sound. I just keep praying that day will come very soon."
3 · Yesterday at 8:37am · Edited Amanda Abell
Amanda Abell: "Poor little guy."
Yesterday at 10:37am Jenn Thiele
Jenn Thiele:" They just need some time to make the best decision. Things are happening! So much fundraising efforts going on behind the scenes we are always thinking of you lil man!"
3 · Yesterday at 12:11pm Allison Okenka
Allison Okenka: "I am so glad to hear things are happening Jenn!! I can't wait until the day I see he is brought home safe to his family."
2 · Yesterday at 1:44pm · Edited Kathy Kanrich
Kathy Kanrich: "??? I guess I am lost ??? Jenn, what is happening? Is baby found? Is he safe?"
Yesterday at 6:22pm Jenn Thiele
Jenn Thiele: "Oh gosh I wish, no we are about to launch a huge fundraising campaign in order to retain a private investigator. Details will be posted as soon as things are set."

Followed with this response November 4, 1:02 PM by Klein Investigations at https://www.facebook.com/KleinInvestigations/

"Media Release : We are receiving calls from the media and from individuals regarding the DeOrr Kuntz, Jr. child disappearance near Idaho Falls, Idaho. We can confirm that the family is in communication (s) with our firm. At this time we have not been retained to investigate the case - however - we are in discussions with the family regarding such. If KIC Texas is retained on the case we will make the approprate announcment at that time.

KIC Texas has solved and brought back over 700 missing and abducted children to their families. KIC Texas is based in Nederland Texas.

A reference to the case can be found here : http://idahostatejournal.com/…/article_10d44717-75dc-5601-a…

We will have no other comment at this time and thank the media and friends for their questions and comments."

LisaB said...

No body=no death certificate=no divorce?

With a death certificate there would be no need for a divorce. She would be a widow, not a divorcee. Did she SAY that? Would it constitute leakage that divorce is on her mind?

LisaB said...

If there was a body, she would be a WIDOW. Why would she think she would have to divorce a corpse?

Peter Hyatt said...

Fools, it is interesting that you think Tiffany called the shots, especially since we have not quotes from David!

Strangely enough, I think the same.

Peter

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Peter,

You're right, of course! LOL I think it's that she felt the need to tell us David's objections. She attributes him using solid, logical objections based on her safety, yet they went. That leads me to believe that she persuaded/manipulated him. Then, there's her blog...

Her personal blog posts paint a picture of a self-absorbed kind of gal consumed with her own interests(her lack of sympathy, empathy, and compassion for her declining grandparents; complaining about having to share living space with so many people, her willingness to begin and encourage an ongoing emotional relationship with a guy who wants to marry her when she can't, etc.). There's a grandiosity to it in that she writes the blog because, in her mind, the world wants to know what's been happening in her life and how she's doing.

In reality though, she's not notable for the courage exemplified in her story; she's notable for her inconsistencies and her total lack of cooperation. She was completely unwilling to return to Mexico to try to find her husband's remains or his "killers". So, she's willing to turn the jet ski around, flying directly into the face of danger and the line of fire to see if he's alright or dead, but she's not willing to go back at all with LE to see if his body resurfaced on the lake? She's unyielding in that she refuses to hop a plane or drive across the border to meet with a State Department rep and the Mexican Consulate to locate and retrieve his body or describe in detail the 3 boats or the people (people she had to have seen close enough to overhear their conversation and think "there may have been a third or fourth person"). Yet, she's more than willing to cite her story to bolster the argument for border control. The folly is that David's death occurred in Mexico, as Tiffany herself so carefully pointed out. Not to mention that it was her idea to "go take pictures of the sunken church" over David's strenuous objections.

I'm probably not explaining this very well, but I think it's the totality of what she's said and how she's said it that gives me that impression.

Peter Hyatt said...

Your answer is her blog.

My opinion wasn't based upon her blog, but had I seen it, I would likely have only had my opinion affirmed. I did see her on TV and was surprised at her wording, demeanor, etc, at the shopping mall, as well as her FB posts. I got the sense that he loved her and did whatever she wanted him to.

Here is where I got my opinion that she ruled the home:

It is hard to accept that a man took as much risk as he did WITH HER present.

I could see him, a big tough guy, ambitious, young, stupid, and full of confidence, going out on his jet ski to make the deal.

I don't see a man taking his tiny wife with him exposing her to "kidnapping" and "murder" (he knew) unless she not only bullied him into it, but was able to bully him into it by lots and lots of success PRIOR to this awful event.

It is an educated guess.

Interesting posts, Fools...you're thinking!

We may not agree but I appreciate the posting of your processing.

What I should say is that if you do not agree with me, you are filled with hatred for your fellow man and suffer from hyattphobia; the irrational fear of all things hyatt.

But, I won't. .

:)

It is interesting to see something things dominating news, while others quietly 'reported' 14 paragraphs down.


Peter

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Peter,

I wasn't disagreeing with you! LOL I didn't find her blog to be what I'd expect from someone in her situation, so I threw it out there to see if other people got the same impression. You actually said it far better what I was trying to put my finger on and struggling. I've got a lot to learn.

No worries, I doubt I'll ever suffer from hyattphobia! There's a vaccine for that you know, it's called Stick-to-the-Statement. LOL Now, if I can just learn to presume innocence and work from there, it would probably be a good thing. ;)

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

I'm sorry to be hogging the board here; Tiffany's statements are bugging me. So, I went looking for more info. I found this very informative Washington Post article from May 2010 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/29/AR2010052903707.html

"Dressed in black, the pirates brandish automatic weapons, carry radio cellphones and board the anglers' boats. They demand weapons or drugs from their captives, but finding neither, seem satisfied with taking $400 or $500 as booty, according to law enforcement officials and victims' accounts." - Tiffany made no mention of anyone's clothing, yet was close enough to hear conversation and see "the" gun pointed at her. She made no mention of the pirates demanding anything or taking anything from David/them before David was shot.

"The pirates claim to be "federales," or police, but instead are brigands -- with the letter "Z" tattooed on their necks and arms -- from the notorious drug cartel Los Zetas."- Again, Tiffany mentioned no tattooes or anything distinguishing in her descriptions at all. Did she even say "men" or was it strictly "they", "pirates", and "boats"?

"Last week, Border Patrol agents tried to follow a Mexican boat filled with men wearing ski masks, but it was too fast for the agents and entered Mexican waters, where U.S. law enforcement is forbidden."- Tiffany's jet ski outran guys that the Border Patrol Boats couldn't catch? Not a boater or a jet-skier here, so is this plausible?

"But, man, they are so good at counter-surveillance," Gonzalez said, describing the lake as kind of a Wild West on the water. "They watch us, they watch our boats, our cars, our homes. The smugglers, they know every move we make."

The traffickers cross day and night, driving boats with bales of marijuana right into the backyards of homes along the lake. They rent cabins at the lakeside state park and stash dope there. The border agents point to a three-story house built like a watchtower on the Mexican shore. The officers frequently see observers with binoculars on the roof. Up and down the lake, netting boats are idled. Nobody waves."- So, they just let Tiffany cross over into US waters unharmed? Remember Tiffany and David being waved at in the cove by the Church?

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Does Tiffany actually say they were robbed or it was an attempted robbery? Does her language specify being held up/the pirates asking for money,drugs, or their Sea-Do(s)? Does she say that David or she refused them money,drugs, or the Sea-Do(s)?

Or does she simply use words like boats, pirates, with guns, on the Mexican side, drug cartels, and relate Falcon Lake incidents preceding Oct. 10 and David's death?

foodiefoodnerd said...

Quoting Peter:
Fools, it is interesting that you think Tiffany called the shots, especially since we have no quotes from David!
~~~
The one who returned alive, unharmed and, from her own words and actions, completely unfazed by witnessing her supposedly beloved husband's brutal murder, called the shots, no pun intended?

Not a huge stretch to connect those dots!

I still think she may have shot him herself, to keep the drugs/money, and for the pathetic attention-whoring opportunities.

FFOF, nothing to feel ashamed of in your what-if scenario had it been your son!

Her lack of common sense, though, is boggling. If I thought I had a great story all cooked up, and someone pointed out it came from a blockbuster movie seen by tens of millions, I couldn't re-work it quickly enough.
According to all accounts she intentionally plagiarized an easily-recognized storyline!



foodiefoodnerd said...

Quoting FFOF:
"Yet, she's more than willing to cite her story to bolster the argument for border control..."
~~~~

This reads like classic SA guilty person wanting to publicly align herself with the good guys, and Tiffany manipulating and using the momentum of border control to support her weak excuses for not cooperating with authorities trying to solve David's murder.

Added to everything else she shows us about her character, why would an avid druggie want to close off her primary sources?

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

foodiefoodnerd-

Excellent point! I hadn't considered that, but that's exactly what she did to! She encouraged or allowed the Sheriff to make David the new poster child for Border Control, with her as the primary political lobbyist and "celebrity" hero spokesperson (cough-cough). Yep, manipulative. Good call!

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Update to my post on November 9, 2015 @

I said that Tiffany was unwilling to go back at all with LE to the lake to see if David's body would resurface. I have not found anything yet in researching various old news articles that disproves this.

However, in the interest of clarification, I did find that she returned to the lake with a full LE escort one week later (on October 6, 2015) to lay a wreath where David was allegedly was shot and killed.

There's more info here http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2010/1008/David-Hartley-and-Lake-Falcon-symbols-of-Mexico-s-ineffective-judiciary-police

"But Mexico says it is doing all it can do at this time.

"The Ministry [of Foreign Affairs] categorically rejects claims to the effect that Mexican authorities are not doing enough to find Mr. Hartley," according to a statement today from the Mexican Embassy in the United States. "The search and rescue for Mr. Hartley started the day of the incident, and intensified this week with additional officers from the Army, the Federal Police, and from state and municipal forces, which cover the area where the incident reportedly took place."

The governor of Tamaulipas – the Mexican state bordering the lake – stepped up the search for Hartley on Thursday by ordering more than 100 state authorities in boats and ATVs to scour the lake and surrounding territory. The Navy is also on the case.

Ruben Dario, spokesman for the prosecutor’s office in Tamaulipas, refused to comment on whether a search team of this size is usually employed in suspected murder cases in Tamaulipas. He said the state has a better-than-average track record of bringing criminals to justice.

A formal investigation into this killing was actually delayed by Tiffany Hartley herself, who waited five days before giving formal testimony to Mexican authorities on Tuesday at the Mexican consulate in McAllen, Texas, according to Ricardo Alday, the spokesman for the Mexican Embassy in the United States.

"It took her a good four or five days to go and present her statement, which was the only way we could actually jump-start the formal investigation," Mr. Alday. "The investigation started the day we were notified, but to be able to move it in a more official way...we needed some sort of statement."

"It is definitely a long time, and she went to the press way before she went to the authorities, the US authorities or our authorities."