Subscribe Now Mobile Site Place an Ad E-Edition Email Updates Obituaries Classifieds Find a Job Find a Car Real Estate Contact Us

Currently

52°

Cloudy

FREE ARCHIVE SEARCH

Breakingnews

CLASSIFIEDS

All Classifieds
Find a Home
Find a Car
Find a Job
Work Here
Find Merchandise
Today’s Print Ads

2 Weeks Free

Free Ad

Place an ad
in print and online, 24/7 for free, select the Clean Sweep option. Unable to submit Real Estate, Services, and Business Investements at this time.

Get a Subscription

Map the Valley

Restaurant Listing
School Listing
Open Houses
Garage Sales

Subscriber/
Reader Services

Subscribe Now
Contact Customer Service

Hawk case jury foreman speaks

Following the announcement of a guilty verdict on all counts in the Dave Hawk case this morning, Kenny Knutsen, jury foreman in the case, said the evidence they took into consideration during deliberation all ultimately pointed to one person: Hawk.

Speaking on behalf of all jurors, Knutsen said the financial issues were “straight forward.” The jury spent much of the two and a half days of deliberation analyzing evidence surrounding the murder of Dave Hawk’s ex-wife, Debbie, he said.

“The overwhelming factor was mostly the discussion that took place about how it could’ve happened. Every scenario that we could come up with and all the evidence we had to consider all pointed back to Mr. Hawk,” Knutsen said.

Knutsen said the jurors did not have a problem with the lack of physical evidence, although he said it a difficult and time-consuming process to arrive at a verdict.

The fact that Hawk showed little emotion during the trial proceedings was often discussed during the deliberation, Knutsen said. He said what convinced him of Hawk’s guilt was Hawk’s reaction to one of the witness’s testimony about a scream heard in the neighborhood during the night of Debbie’s disappearance, Knutsen said.

“His reaction to that was as if remembering ‘Yeah, that’s how it happened.’ That’s when I first started to think he had a part in it,” Knutsen said.

Email this story

Print this story

POST A COMMENT

Hanfordsentinel.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed, particularly if they are posted after normal office hours.

We reserve the right to remove comments in total that violate our code of conduct. If you want to report a violation, please e-mail editor@HanfordSentinel.com

For more information please read our Terms of use, and Rules of the Road.

Please log in to post comments

*Member ID:
*Password:
	Forgot Your Password?

If you don't have an account you can create one for free by clicking the link below.
CREATE ACCOUNT

The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the views of the Hanford Sentinel

Bobb wrote on Aug 28, 2009 4:46 PM:

" Because of his reaction to a witness testifying about a scream he gets convicted? After years of constant harassment I guess he would seem detached. If this is the only evidence needed to be convicted of murder in KC I can see why they wanted a change of venue. "

doormat wrote on Aug 28, 2009 7:04 PM:

" I cannot believe the way society is today. convicting a person of murder because of the way they look or the lack of a response ect....is so sad. If someone is different , Guilty! It's so high school.. The people of this county are sheep.
In Kings Co. , If your arrested , You must be guilty.. i suggest that all prosecutors come to Kings Co. for a positive guilty verdict. Also did anyone else catch the juror saying "I didn't know Debbie that Well" , and then cut off? Non bias? "

CitizenX wrote on Aug 28, 2009 7:23 PM:

" No physical evidence... No DNA evidence... I can only speculate since I didn't sit through the trial and hear all of the evidence; but I'd say that he had no chance being tried in KC. The whole verdict was based on speculation from what I've gathered. Presumed guilty and trying to prove himself innocent on the murder charge... "

what the wrote on Aug 28, 2009 7:39 PM:

" bobb you picked out what you wanted to read, the reaction was the convincing point, not the only reason and he was one of twelve who saw the evidence the same way guilty "

clark kent wrote on Aug 28, 2009 9:13 PM:

" Guilty, Great job HPD and DA's office.. "

Franks18 wrote on Aug 28, 2009 10:40 PM:

" On top of the no evidence and no body, the foreman was quoted as saying Hawk either did it or had it done does sit well with me. Gives me the impression not even the jury was 100% positive he committed the crime. And in an area our size with a case this big, most people already have an opinion before it goes to court. Should have been moved to another county. "

LETIGER wrote on Aug 29, 2009 1:27 PM:

" Jurors made their statement in the jury box and delivered their verdict. Now it is time to shut their mouths. They are making a mockery of the system. Let alone telling a child she help convict her father. Did lady juror really think before she opened her mouth. Not hardly..... Let the system of due justices run its course and all of you on the jury need think before you speak. Unless your trying for your 5-minutes of fame on T.V. "

ToldYouSo wrote on Aug 29, 2009 7:05 PM:

" Either he did it, had someone else do it for him, or a 3rd party or parties did it completely on their own.... I thought the prosecution had to prove he did it intead of the jury playing multiple choice and trying to "read" his face and emotions to force a decision. With all the financial information and data the prosecution failed to show any trail of significant money to anyone to even imply he had someone kill her so this jury member believing that was a viable option to convict him with is unfair. I doubt someone did it for him for free. Logistically you can't prove he did it by himself or at least not reasonably, no physical evidence, an unknown fingerprint on the last vehicle she rode in... I just don't get it absent a biased jury trying to make the prosecution happy. I've been on juries, I've been the foreman, and this is a mockery of justice. If he did it they should have proven it so everybody wouldn't continue to worry an innocent man just got life in prison. Did they expect him to smile all day? "

Carl.Spackler wrote on Aug 29, 2009 8:22 PM:

" I think they got the right guy. Debbie told most of here friends that if anything happened to her, it was Dave. "

what the wrote on Aug 29, 2009 10:19 PM:

" Yes how a defendant acts in court will have an effect on the jury. As to whether he did it or had it done, it is the same crime...murder. as to a fair trial, sour grapes to those who dont thinks so because he is guilty you say there should have been a change in venue. if he had been aquited{but he was not} your tune would be differant. none of you here were at the trial or sat on the jury. if you were, you found him guilty after hering the evidencce. Great jOB HPD AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE. Mr Coleman, im sure you will keep apealing as long as the hawks kids money keeps flowing. "

taxpayer wrote on Aug 30, 2009 9:52 AM:

" I think the Judge should review the case and throw out thr Guilty Verdict of murder and retry Mr Hawk elsewhere. He has the power to do so when it is obvious the verdict was given without merrit.
You can not convict on demeaner or a gut feeling, you have to prove the proponderance of the evidence and it was just not there, and if in fact a jurier did know Debbie Hawk then there may have been a tainted jury.
I am not a Dave Hawk fan but I am a beliver in the justice system, in this case it has failed and made a mockery of the system.
Every man-woman are due a fair trial, but looks like the jury had their minds made up long prior to deliberations because of Mr Hawks emotional expressions.. I saw pull in the juriers one by one and see what really went on.
Just a thought. "

G.S. wrote on Aug 30, 2009 2:54 PM:

" WOW !!! What a VERDICT ! How can u convict someone with NO BODY,and NO EVIDENCE that Mr.Hawk did commit the crime of murder. Hopefully Mr.Hawk will get another trial somewhere else out of Kings County. But I doubt it Kings County is very PREJUDICE when it comes to things like this.But Mr.Hawk keep your head up only god knows the TRUTH. I feel SORRY for the children who now have NO mother or father.Thanks to his face gestures while in court ! "

Alihandero wrote on Aug 30, 2009 5:42 PM:

" Wow!

what the wrote on Aug 28, 2009 7:39 PM:
"bobb you picked out what you wanted to read, the reaction was the convincing point..."

What possible reaction would have been correct for Hawk and not condemn him?

If he smirked, or smiled: well, he must be remembering his guilt;

If he cried, that would have shown his obvious guilt at killing someone;

If he sat stone cold-faced, he just had to show ice water in his veins at the terrible murder he surely had to have committed because he took money from his kids trust fund and was not a nice guy as the whole town's gossip has shown. Just like Scott Peterson if you recall.

Talk about someone who is 'damned if you do, damned if you don't...'

Fair and unbiased jury right? "

forever wrote on Aug 30, 2009 5:45 PM:

" So a person is considered a murderer if they emblezz money. Thats Kings County for you. They need to stop and investigate their own especially in the county jail and see who's doing their job by their supposed code ethics. What a joke our county is. "

ToldYouSo wrote on Aug 30, 2009 6:56 PM:

" To what the, it is not sour grapes if the whole trial proceeded like many of us expected.. as in biased and unfair. If he did it I'm glad he was found guilty, but doesn't change the fact that there was insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find him guilty of 1st degree murder. Even you "what the" would deserve a fair trial and not be convicted because of how people read your face while you are on trial. You are right I wasn't there, but I'm about positive the jury instructions didn't include instructions for determining guilt by reading his face or emotions. However, when you have no evidence I guess that is all the jury had to consider. "

watcher2 wrote on Aug 31, 2009 11:20 AM:

" Kinda wondering how many of you naysayers have ever sat on a jury or even have the slightest true knowledge of the law or justice system. You all speak from emotion and bias and opinion but does your knowledge serve you well? This jury did the job as they were instructed under the boundarries the law allowed. You do not need a body to find a person guilty of murder. The DA's office did a superb job and followed the intent of the law to the final period. There was already a motion denied for change of venue and the judge was meticulous in his procedures and instructions. Justice has been done. "

Pete wrote on Aug 31, 2009 11:36 AM:

" Now I've gotten two verdicts wrong. I thought OJ would be found guilty and he wasn't and I thought Hawk would be found innocence and he wasn't. "

Franks18 wrote on Aug 31, 2009 5:25 PM:

" I am sure the jury instructions did not include "convict him of charges the DA file, or others as you feel appropriate". As in he did it or had it done (2 different charges, one in the DA complaint, the other not). Yes, justice was done. Street Justice, not court justice. "

ToldYouSo wrote on Aug 31, 2009 7:59 PM:

" To watcher2, most of the naysayers as you call them have more knowledge and experience than you think. There were countless legal mistakes made in this case regardless of your ability to identify them. "

kb99 wrote on Aug 31, 2009 11:07 PM:

" Crazy little Kings County. I can't wait until the "90 days" are up before the Citizens on the Jury are allowed to speak to the Media. I listened to KMJ when the verdict was read and thought I heard the Judge say they must wait 90 days before speaking to the press or something like that. Correct me if I am wrong I was at work and just turned up the radio
My opinion and I have been on 1 jury a few years back we were instructed to "only use the evidence presented in this court" to make our decision. We bloggers were not in the courtroom "

franks18 wrote on Sep 1, 2009 10:57 AM:

" kb99 -
Actually, the judge stated they could talk to the media, but were not allowed to be approached for paid interviews, etc until 90 days after the trial. "

manuel wrote on Sep 1, 2009 11:05 AM:

" Congratulations to the jury, job well done "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Sep 1, 2009 2:31 PM:

" To: manuel wrote on Sep 1, 2009 11:05 AM:

" Congratulations to the jury, job well done "

I second that and the Judge in this case was awesome as well. Anyone who can't see the process worked as intended without finding Debbie, is clearly confused and not informed.

The other charges shine a light into the character of a man who, can cheat the IRS and his “Own Children is capable of almost any thing”.

That also was apparent to the jury who heard all of the evidence in this case not just sound bites, or prepared statements, by the Defense Attorney, of course he thinks the man was not guilty, he is paid to think that way.

The DA’s Office should receive extra credit and the Hanford Police, FBI and all agencies connected with the investigation on a thorough and complete inspection of evidence. I see the Appellate Court giving this one the O.K.. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Sep 1, 2009 2:34 PM:

" To: manuel wrote on Sep 1, 2009 11:05 AM:

" Congratulations to the jury, job well done "

As the Prosecutors stated there are no winner’s in this and the true victims are Debbie and her children. Also a big Job well done to Sandra Lackey and the other purple shirts for seeing this through and my best wishes for them and Debbie’s entire family. My congratulations to the Hanford Sentinel on its day to day coverage of the trial and events, we have some truly inspiring and gifted reporters in this area and working for this paper in particular.

A fair trial in a community that pulls together is possible and that was demonstrated in this case.

For those who think they are better informed than the Jury and the Judge, you clearly are not and you will bare witness to that fact in the appeal.
Perhaps you should take up the conspiracy trial of the JFK assassination, next? I know you probably don't believe he was shot either. "

ToldYouSo wrote on Sep 1, 2009 6:04 PM:

" To manuel and what the, your bias shows by being happy about a conviction without sufficient evidence to support it. However, I'm not shocked because your other posts don't really support being fans of the Constitution or civil rights. If either of you were on trial and were innocent, would you find this trial fair? I would have been satisfied if they had some real evidence beyond wild guesses of what could have happened and lame circumstantial evidence like they were divorced and fighting over their kids and his money like almost every divorced family in America. "

Paul wrote on Sep 2, 2009 5:57 PM:

" ToldYouSo wrote on Sep 1, 2009 6:04 PM:

" To manuel and what the, your bias shows by being happy about a conviction without sufficient evidence to support it. However, I'm not shocked because your other posts don't really support being fans of the Constitution or civil rights. If either of you were on trial and were innocent, would you find this trial fair? I would have been satisfied if they had some real evidence beyond wild guesses of what could have happened and lame circumstantial evidence like they were divorced and fighting over their kids and his money like almost every divorced family in America. "

I prefer he go to prison, jail or any place that takes CONVICTED people.

I have an idea.

Since you have a bleeding heart for this jerk, tell the taxpayers of California that you'll take care of his bill and let him live in your house and see how he pays you and your family back. "

manuel wrote on Sep 2, 2009 8:50 PM:

" Toldyouso He was judged by twelve of his peers, they found him guilty on all counts, the worst was murder, you are upset on the results, he could of walked away but decided not to. so again I say, congratulations to the jury, and all involved in the trail "

ToldYouSo wrote on Sep 2, 2009 9:45 PM:

" As far as him breaking tax laws, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. On the murder charge, I still can't agree with the verdict based on the lack of evidence, but if he really was involved he is getting the proper punishment. Just a note, with the use of DNA testing thousands of convicted people have been set free for crimes they didn't really commit so to assume judges and juries don't make mistakes is absurd. In fact it happens so often you have multi-level appeal courts to handle all the mistakes. I don't agree with all the praise of the DA or jury in this case. After all the years I expected evidence that would remove more of the doubts concerning his involvement and the statements from the jury afterwards don't support their judgments based on the evidence provided and what they are allowed to consider in their arriving at a verdict. If I was on this jury I don't think I'd ever get over the doubts and possibility that an innocent man was sent to prison on a best guess argument. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Sep 3, 2009 2:30 PM:

" To: Paul wrote on Sep 2, 2009 5:57 PM

In my humble opinion you don’t destroy evidence with murder, you don’t prevent the truth from being told, on the contrary you plead your case in a court of law. Mr. Hawk evidently chose the worst possible solution for his problem and now must suffer the consequences of his own actions. He and he alone must stand before his maker and explain why he couldn’t be mature and intelligent enough to let the court process take its normal course of action.

For those still yet to, naive to understand the motive of his actions and what he has cost his children, Debbie and her family, I feel disdain. For if you don’t see the motive and can’t understand 300,000 plus reasons he did not want Debbie to testify then your heads are buried in the terra firma, of life. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Sep 3, 2009 2:32 PM:

" To: Paul wrote on Sep 2, 2009 5:57 PM

As for the DA’s Office, I think they did an excellent job uncovering the disappearance of the funds. You see that is all that had to be done, where the funds were spent was of no consequence, the fact they were stolen was the crime.

The fact that Mr. Hawk received personal gain and didn’t report it to the IRS is criminal in and of itself. If you would add up the various counts of money theft and their Consequences, you’ll plainly see there is a lot of time involved when you do back to back sentences.

Five counts, times five years is twenty-five years the man is already fifty-one years of age, that would make him seventy-six years of age upon release.

So even if the murder, were not, included the other actions of Mr. Hawk up to and including absconding with a Trust Fund not belonging to him, lies to various authorities, and smugness and public arrogance that probably led to his being found guilty. "

Carl.Spackler wrote on Sep 3, 2009 5:24 PM:

" Told You So: There is a guy by the name of Charlie that resides in Corcoran who was also convicted of murder based on circumstantial evidence. He didn't actually kill anyone either. "

ToldYouSo wrote on Sep 3, 2009 8:36 PM:

" At least Charlie had a fair trial and even he is eligible for parole. For Paul, I'm not a bleeding heart at all, ask yourself why death row inmates never seem to die and I'm sure the people you voted for are the cause. "

Paul wrote on Sep 4, 2009 12:33 PM:

" ToldYouSo wrote on Sep 3, 2009 8:36 PM:

" At least Charlie had a fair trial and even he is eligible for parole. For Paul, I'm not a bleeding heart at all, ask yourself why death row inmates never seem to die and I'm sure the people you voted for are the cause. "

I have had the same conversation with others on the different blogs about ASSuming.

I don't need you to TRY and put words into my mouth.

I only wish they ran the death sentence in California like they do in Texas.

You seem to be the only one worried about Hawk and his problem. And like Charlie in Corcoran, Hawk had a fair trial also. Although you want to bring in the ACLU to help and assist this poor victim.

Maybe you can start having car washes to help with his appeal. "

rocketman wrote on Sep 4, 2009 12:51 PM:

" Well, I for one was not sure they could convict him for the murder. But after listening to Carl Faller on TV who said their was substantial evidence on the financial motive to convict him, I believe it. We did not see the evidence, or his actions in court and all you are doing is giving Mr Coleman more ammunition for an appeal. "

ToldYouSo wrote on Sep 4, 2009 6:49 PM:

" If you you remember, Paul, I said at the very beginning of the trial that it would be biased and he would not get a fair trial... and he didn't. I also said it would likely go on to an appeal and it will. There are plenty of grounds for appeal whether you can recognize them or not. You are ASSuming Hawk is guilty just like the jury. I'm not the only one writing here or living in this area that feels he did not receive a fair trial. I bet if there was a poll it would be very split especially out of Lemoore area. If you do support the death penality as you stated then why do you support politicians against it? You even brought up the ACLU when I don't consider them worth the letters they waste in their name. However, I'm sure Obama and other liberals worship them daily. "

Ms. MLC wrote on Sep 10, 2009 3:49 AM:

" To Watch Dog Fred, I usually agree with a lot of what you say but your statement: "The other charges shine a light into the character of a man who, can cheat the IRS and his “Own Children is capable of almost any thing.” is truely assinine. Do you even know how many cheats are out there everyday taking advantage of family and the IRS?? Sorry this does not make a murderer. Please, just look at the list of high society actors and actresses who are cheating the IRS each and every year, I guess now we should assume that they are very likely to murder in their lifetime. Hopefully next time you can come up with a better statement than something so totally lame as that one was. Let us not forget the DA's Office was going to lead us to believe that he shot Debbie's Attorney also, full well knowing someone else had already been convicted of the crime and is doing the time. Guilty or not I haven't a clue but from all that I have read I would have lots of doubts. "

Alihandero wrote on Sep 10, 2009 8:25 PM:

" Hey "Paul,"

You surprised me when you said:

"I only wish they ran the death sentence in California like they do in Texas."

Considering all of the statistics, are you REALLY 100% comfortable with making that statement? "

snoop dawg wrote on Sep 11, 2009 12:01 PM:

" I don't think he got a fair trial. Lots of corruption in our criminal justice system starting at the DA's office and working its way down. I happen to know a couple of folks that sent in complaints against a local law enforcement agency for discrimination, racism, nepotism and tokenism and the 2008-09 Grand Jury swept it under the rug after they told the local agency about the complaints. Nothing secret here. Cops harassing one complainant.They are resubmitting their complaints and I heard the Attorney General may have to get involved. And a lady name of Elias wrote a letter to editor about jury rigging. Interesting how that will pan out. Could cause mistrials of past cases. Too bad if it happens, but we need a wakeup call. Why is there no Internal Affairs division in KC? Cops policing themselves? Conflict of interest "

Paul wrote on Sep 11, 2009 1:25 PM:

" Alihandero wrote on Sep 10, 2009 8:25 PM:

" Hey "Paul,"

You surprised me when you said:

"I only wish they ran the death sentence in California like they do in Texas."

Considering all of the statistics, are you REALLY 100% comfortable with making that statement? "

Many years ago, when I was at the East Campus and taking an English class with Mr. Golden, he drilled into our heads (well at least mine) for you to "say what you mean and mean what you say."

I realize that is not some fancy Latin saying or British quote, but it worked for me.

So, "if" I write it, 99% of the time, I mean it.

Therein lies the problem with "some."

I can't read minds so I don't know "Considering all of the statistics," means.

What statistics? The decrease production of grapes? The decreasing number of republicans?
The increase number of republicans who have "affairs" and then don't want to quit their jobs.

What statistics?

ToldYouSo needs help at the car washes. "

ToldYouSo wrote on Sep 11, 2009 8:11 PM:

" Paul, this may shock you, but most (dare I say all) Republicans don't need "car washes" to pay for things they want or need. They actually have jobs, and financial plans, and yes higher educations. I must admit I do stop by these charitable type washes infrequently to see your political partners, but that is just my sensitive side coming out, plus my car is really dirty. "

HOT TOPICS

MORE LOCAL NEWS

Lemoore:

Selma:

Kingsburg:

PHOTO GALLERIES

More Photos

Sentinel Photos (134) Albums

: Hanford Luminaria; Friday, November, 20 2009; (6) Photos

: Hanford High vs Dinuba Waterpolo Final; Wednesday, November, 18 2009; (13) Photos

: Fire on Hawk Street; Wednesday, November, 18 2009; (11) Photos

Reader Submitted (7) Albums

: Vintage Hanford; Monday, December, 15 2008; (1) Photos

: Vacation Photos; Thursday, November, 20 2008; (37) Photos

: Events; Thursday, November, 20 2008; (38) Photos

EMAIL UPDATES

Sign up today to get all your local headlines delivered to your home or work e-mail address, so you don't miss the latest in breaking and local news.

E-Mail:
Daily News Updates
Breaking News Alerts