Friday, October 22, 2010

On Land or on Water

by Pat Brown

Women in Crime Ink contributor Dr. Lillian Glass recently wrote a post concerning her belief that Tiffany Hartley, the wife of missing jet skier, David Hartley, has not been telling the truth concerning his disappearance on Falcon Lake on the Texas-Mexico border. Peter Hyatt, a statement analyst, also came out early on with his dissection of Hartley's comments and has said she is being deceptive. Many people have noted something seems wrong with Tiffany's "story," as she calls her version of the event. However, quite a few people, including the Texas authorities, believe she is telling the truth. I won't recount all the details and deceptions here; I want to focus on where I think the event occurred.

I believe she is telling the truth... sort of. She is describing the murder of her husband by drug dealers. She says she did not have any reason to want to kill her husband. I believe her. I just don't believe she is telling the truth about where the event went down. This could be why some of her story rings true and parts of it make no sense. This could also be why certain "facts" change. She may want us to believe her story, so she tries to make it as convincing as possible, fixing things a bit as time goes on without giving up the whole truth. If she is being deceptive, she may be trying to save herself from the inside of a jail cell.

Sometimes when people lie about a tragic crime, which they are guilty of committing or having some sort of involvement in, they change the time it happened or the location of where it happened to eliminate themselves. I think Tiffany may be doing this. I think the murder occurred and Tiffany escaped, but I think the whole thing may have gone down on the shore and not on the lake. I think no boats came after them, just men. Replace the "water" with "land," and "boats" with "men," and see if her story doesn't now seem to make a whole lot more sense.

I had problems with her story. but it all came together for me with Tiffany's recent emphatic statement that her husband's body would be found on land. Why would it be found on land if he were shot on the water? Why wouldn't the cartel just get the heck out of Dodge as soon as they committed the crime? On water, they would be out in the open where they could be seen if they wasted time retrieving his body and trying to trail his jet ski behind their boat or riding off on it. Most bodies are just left where they go down if time is limited to deal with. The only reason Tiffany should be so sure the body is on land is because that is where she saw it last and it makes sense for the killers to then go bury or burn the body, because they have it right there with them in Mexican territory. The jet ski would be right there on their shore, and it makes sense they would then hide it or paint it and sell it.

Tiffany doesn't seem to be very mad at her husband's murderers. She stated on "Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell" that "we just want David back. And maybe they can't provide a body, I don't know. But they can provide something of evidence... And then we'll go away." Really? You will just leave them alone and not seek justice even though they brutally killed your husband and destroyed your life? Tiffany keeps saying she just wants the body back so she can "move on" and they can "move on." She wants them to be able to go back to dealing drugs and murdering people? How generous! I guess as long as she gets proof he is dead, the insurance money will come in and she can "move on," even if only a couple of weeks have gone by. And why would anyone be so naive as to think a drug cartel would give up evidence that could lead to them, especially one that just sent the head of the lead investigator back in a suitcase? Out of the kindness of their hearts? Because they want Tiffany and David's family to have closure? Unlikely.

By the way, Tiffany and David don't look a bit Mexican, so mistaken identity is not a motive. I doubt the cartels would shoot just anyone, just in case, and bring unnecessary attention to themselves.

So, on to where the murder occurred. When they were leaving the "area," men waved at them. This happens when you are being friendly or saying good-bye, not when you are about to go gun down people. Tiffany also recounts having conversations with the killers, over the sounds of the jet skis and boats and gunshots. It sounds more like parties involved are toe to toe, not bouncing around on the water. Sometime in the scenario, David Hartley gets shot in the forehead, according to Tiffany's story, but that she did not know he was shot in the head until she turned over his body, which had been face down in the water (also, she used two fingers and pointed to her forehead on television when describing the shot that killed him). She commented on how the killers got so close to her she found herself looking down the barrel of a gun. All of these descriptions sound like an encounter one might experience during a drug transaction gone bad... on land.

After David gets shot, Tiffany tries to lift him "onto the jet ski," but he is too heavy. If she tried to get him to his feet on land, he would be too heavy as well. She asks him, "What should I do? What should I do?" I think he would tell her to run, and I would guess she would run to her jet ski and take off and not look back until she was far enough away to take a chance on checking to see if they were following her.

Another fascinating statement Tiffany makes is that she would take a bullet for David because he took one for her. How is that? If they were both simply trying to outrun shooters, wouldn't he just have been the unlucky schmuck who got hit? He wouldn't have done anything spectacular, like trying to save Tiffany. But, on land, maybe he did step in front of her to protect her and got shot. And maybe the reason Tiffany got away was that three men were not shooting at her with machine guns, just one man with a handgun whose clip ran out giving her time to flee.

Those three boats were more likely three men. If one takes the whole scenario and moves it from the water to the land, the way it went down starts to add up. Try it.

14 comments:

Peter Hyatt said...

This is a fascinating analysis of how Tiffany Hartley may have transferred facts from water to land. Most pointedly is that if they were venturing into drug territory on foot and were fired upon as intruders, it is plausible that hit by random fire, David told her to run; which she did, back to the jet ski and onward towards safety. Now she must invent a story in order to cover the real reason for being on the other side of the lake.

The struggle I have is with Tiffany's demeanor. She is quick to distance herself from David; appears to be not grieving, but relieved that David is "gone". She does not seek justice, and vowed to wear his ring "forever" or at least until she is "ready" to "move on", which she announced last week, she was now ready to do.

If we transport her account from water to land, is it possible that she arranged for this shooting with a Mexican connection, for insurance reasons? Her references to David's size may be an indication that she plans to call herself a victim of domestic violence.

In any case, that the FBI would have a two day marathon interview with her tells us that, like the Mexican prosecutor, they're not buying Tiffany's "story" either.

As Dr. Glass said as well, is it that David Hartley's family is now distancing themselves from Tiffany since they would likely discuss her changing account, among themselves, and begin to ask questions?

This is a fascinating analysis by Pat Brown and a seamless continuation of common sense rising to the surface.

Peter Hyatt

Pat Brown said...

The distancing issue is truly fascinating, Peter. Now she has moved back to Colorado after stating she would stay in Texas to put the pressure on finding David's body. After being interviewed for eight hours by the Mexican authorities, she packs up. Why the eight hour interview? She has already told her "story" which amounted to nothing more than an inability to identify the boats or the men. That leaves a big question as to why there was a need for eight hours more of questioning. My guess is they were trying to get more from her which means they believe there is more to get.

I considered the possibility that Tiffany brought a gun along and shot him on the lake herself but the scenario she describes seems too involved for that. If she had shot him, she would have most likely shot him in the back of the head, dumped the gun and raced back. The body would likely have been found, no boat would be following her, and she could have told a simple story because she would have had such a simple memory. "We were near the church, they started shooting at us, we raced off, I got away, he didn't/

As to a paid hit, possibly, but I still find her story matching more closely to a confusing scenario where something went wrong and she fled.

It will be interesting to see if we ever hear the Mexican detectives have questioned the veracity of her story.

Anonymous said...

I dont believe a word she has said.Drug deal gone bad or she had him shot one of the two.I have not seen a tear from her yet.And now she moves to Colorado,hmmmmmmmmmmmm how much money from life insurance will she get........
Something is rotten in Denmark Opps Texas..............

Anonymous said...

The lack of emotion tells me that she either wanted David dead, or he is not dead. You just don't get over the violent death of a loved one in a matter of days.

I think the land scenario is interesting, and could see that making sense, if she was in on it in some way. If he was shot accidentally (or intentionally) in the course of a drug deal, if she loved him, she would be feeling guilt, remorse, anger, fear, a whole treasure trove of emotions. She seems to be completely ambivalent and doesn't seem to have any emotion at all. She doesn't seem the slightest bit traumatized. This leads me to believe she was in on whatever happened, and the intention was for DH to not come out of it alive.

Anonymous said...

I believe David's mother is giving us clues. A wife may or may not be bereaved, but a mother should almost certainly be broken up by the recent death of her son. I don't perceive authenticity in the mother's display of emotion (and certainly not the sister either). But, I keep going back to what the mother says unprompted in a CBS Early Show interview, "he was trying to make his country better". Really? How so? He was an oil field manager of some sort. So what did mom mean by this?

Pat Brown said...

You have some good points as to the lack of emotion and being in on something. It would help to know what she was like prior to the incident which is what is so important in an investigation to do a behavioral history. Sometimes a person who is psychopathic doesn't respond normally, so even if they actually didn't commit any crime, they come off as very suspicious because of their attitude. So, Tiffany's "story" and present behavior gives off warning bells which should lead to further investigation of their relationships, her relationships, their finances, etc.

Pat Brown said...

Of course, she could have said, "Bring me back his wedding ring as proof..." and now wishes she had asked for something more substantial...

Pat Brown said...

Anonymous, that IS a strange comment by the mother. I tend to see more emotion in her, but I wonder if she thought her son might have been involved in something and she is trying to deny the possibility.

Anonymous said...

I started looking into Sigi Gonzalez, Sherriff Zapata County and found him to be an advisor to something called the Border Sherriff's Posse. Watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv0B4oOeNIA
Then I found a Border Sheriff's Posse invitation with guess who, a member of STRATFOR and Mr. Sigi Gonzalez as panelists. You remember STRATFOR, right...There's something very wrong here. I'm looking into further.

Anonymous said...

Oops, I forgot to give you the link to the Border Sheriff's Posse invitation:

http://www.unitelascruces.org/eventborder.htm

A work in progress said...

I believe her. And, the first thing I thought about the body not being found was that they took the body with them, along with the jet ski. Her mother-in-law stood with her and said point blank that she is more than a daughter in law. Close family. They just did something stupid and relied on the media, just like she said.

FleaStiff said...

I've not followed the case but did wonder how someone could be so incredibly stupid to be fooling around on a jet ski close to the border. I doubt there has been full honesty but I don't know what the story is really. Would a jet ski float? Would it be valuable to a finder? Would smugglers have shot it full of holes just for fun? I don't know. Would anyone be down there if they themselves were not doing a drug deal? I don't know.

Anonymous said...

This was posted to youtube today. Pls watch until the end. And why the palm trees; when was this filmed (she's in Colorado now). And the interviewer is Steve Nohrden who lost in the Republican primary, Nevada's 3rd district.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY50dLc90jc&feature=player_embedded

Anonymous said...

Oh thank God, we'll be able to donate money to Tiffany. bringdavidhome.com is being created for just such a purpose.