David Cox murder case was on Fox25 news

[Kane]

For those of you who live in or near the Boston area, the murder of David Cox was presented on Fox25's news program last night. The case was part of that show's weekly's New England's Unsolved segment.

In 1994, David Cox was found shot to death in a wooded area in Medfield, Massachusetts. As mentioned on Fox25 (as well as on UM), Cox was involved in a military hazing incident that inspired the movie A Few Good Men. There was speculation that his murder had something to do with his stint in the military.

When the incident was used as the plot for A Few Good Men, Cox felt so exploited by Hollywood that he considered suing those involved. The feeling was, evidently, based on the many differences between the actual incident and the fictional one. This includes the fact that the real-life hazing victim survived, while the fictional one died.

The Fox25 news segment mentioned the fact that Cox was waiting to hear from the United Parcel Service concerning a potential job offer. Unlike UM however, Fox 25 doesn't explore the theory that Cox's murder was connected to his workplace.

Regrettably, when I heard about Fox25's plan to present this case, I found this out on short notice. However, a transcript of the segment will likely be available at some point. In fact, the Fox 25 website has an archive of New England's Unsolved segments.

[crystaldawn]

Thanks for the info. Its too bad you didn't get a chance to watch it, I would be interested to know if there were any suspects in the case. Of course I can't imagine it was a random act of violence but was it someone involved in the military and he was killed to silence his speaking out about the "Code Red" incident or someone connected to UPS if David knew of illegal activities going on there? Anyone have any theories on this one?

[Kane]

Originally Posted by crystaldawn

Thanks for the info. Its too bad you didn't get a chance to watch it, I would be interested to know if there were any suspects in the case. Of course I can't imagine it was a random act of violence but was it someone involved in the military and he was killed to silence his speaking out about the "Code Red" incident or someone connected to UPS if David knew of illegal activities going on there? Anyone have any theories on this one?

Actually, I did see it. It's just that I learned about it on short notice, so I wasn't able to give anyone a sufficient heads-up. Well, I could have posted it here with the small amount of time that I had, but it would have been read too late anyway.

No suspects were named. It's possible that the cops are focusing on some people, but lack the evidence to publicly reveal any names. But I have no doubt that David Cox was killed by someone he knew.

[mozartpc27]

Originally Posted by Kane

Actually, I did see it. It's just that I learned about it on short notice, so I wasn't able to give anyone a sufficient heads-up. Well, I could have posted it here with the small amount of time that I had, but it would have been read too late anyway.

No suspects were named. It's possible that the cops are focusing on some people, but lack the evidence to publicly reveal any names. But I have no doubt that David Cox was killed by someone he knew.

Hmmm. I just watched this segment for the first time on CD's volume 12, and I repeated it a few times to make sure I had all the details correct. Of course, I know that the police never make ALL of their information public - which means they know stuff I don't that might assist them in drawing some of the conclusions they do. But I disagree with the police theory presented in UM - that David went willingly with someone he knew to the place where he was eventually murdered - and with the basic idea that David knew his assailant.

There are three pieces of information that lead me to a different conclusion:

1) The pet rabbit, according to the girlfriend, was wandering around the house freely. When she and David normally left for the day, the last one out would put it in the kitchen. This was not done.

2) The key to his truck was in the ignition.

3) An uncashed paycheck was on the dashboard.

These details are slightly contradictory, even when examined in relation to one another. It would appear that David was in the process of leaving his house to go cash his paycheck when someone surprised him, on his driveway outside his home, and led him away. If David's intention was to go cash a check, however, why didn't he put the rabbit away, like he normally would have? The best way I can answer this is by theorizing that David was planning on depositing the check, then coming right back home, so didn't bother to put the rabbit away for what might have been a 15 or 20 minute trip away from home.

In any event, however, ALL three of these details suggest someone who got interrupted by someone with nefarious intentions in the middle of an otherwise routine day. More importantly, it would seem this person insisted that David drop whatever he was doing and join him instead. How else does one explain that David left his keys in the ignition of his car with an uncashed paycheck on the dashboard? Who would do that, except if they were unexpectedly called away by something or someone that allowed no time for even common sense precautions?

My guess is someone brandishing a gun appeared at the driver's side door of David's car and ordered him out of it. That would explain why so much of the scene seemed to have an "in media res" quality about it. Now, this person might have known David, but --- if he knew David, why give up that advantage by immediately brandishing a weapon? It seems to me, if it were someone David knew, the killer could have convinced David in some other fashion to come with him (i.e, without a show of force), and that much of what the scene of David's disappearance looked like would have looked different. Suppose an acquaintance or an old marine friend or a work buddy or whoever of David's showed up on his driveway an started to talk to him, and convinced David to go with him wihtout use of any weapon. David more than likely would have at LEAST taken his keys out of the ignition of his car, and perhaps left the house in a state more in line with the notion that he was anticipating he might be gone for awhile...

I don't know if it makes much difference if David knew his assailant or not, except that I think this is almost certainly a murder-for-hire situation. David's killer probably didn't have direct access to David's house, and in any event wanted to wait until David came outside to get him, so David would be away from his house and away from most of his possible defenses. David had a gun in the glove compartment of his car, but if he was surprised by someone who had already pulled a gun, he really wouldn't have been able to go for it without risking being shot.

The killer then took him out into the woods, sufficiently deeply so that he would not be found by any old passing motorist (i.e., someone would really have to be going into the woods to find him), and shot him. The one thing I would suggest here is that, since we know that David was shot four times - three times in the side and once in the back of the neck, perhaps David ended up further in the woods than the killer intended, because he made an attempt to run for it at his only real opportunity in my scenario - once they arrived at the wooded area where he was ultimately killed. The pattern of wounds mentioned in the segment - 3 shots in the side and 1 in the back of the neck - suggests to me that the killer started shooting to stop David from escaping. Why else shoot him in the "left side of the abdomen," as the coroner interviewed in the segment tells us? It's an odd place to shoot someone for an execution - which this pretty clearly was - unless you're far away and you're just hoping to hit anything to get the person to stop. Then, when David was downed by the first three bullets, the killer came up closer and finished the job. Hence the one shot to the back of the neck.

Anyway, none of this sheds light on who could have done it, but when you talk murder-for-hire, you always start with the partner/spouse. Hard to see what Emily, his girlfriend (importantly, not his wife), would have had to gain in having him killed, but she should have been checked out anyway. I would think that executives from the studio he was suing might also need to be checked out, even though the UM segment never mentioned that as a serious possibility. The military, of course, is the third option, and, sadly, one that is all too real a possibility. I would suggest that a distinct possibility is that another since-discharged marine took matters into his own hands with David (i.e., perhaps without being “ordered” to by any military personnel), because he was for, whatever reason, offended by what David was saying.

If that was the case, David might well have known the person who killed him.

[mozartpc27]

You know, this case doesn't get nearly as much attention as it should.

[Kane]

Originally Posted by mozartpc27

You know, this case doesn't get nearly as much attention as it should.

No argument here, especially since the murder victim was involved in a hazing incident inspired the movie A Few Good Men.

[Hambone2421]

I figured I would bump this one up as it is an old favorite of mine.

A few things:

1. I'm not so sure David was killed by someone he knew. I say this because of a few things. Mainly, he and his girlfriend had a pet rabbit that his girlfriend stated they would put in a cage before they left. I personally think that David was going to deposit/cash his check and went to warm up his vehicle (it was cold outside and sometimes I do the same thing in warming up my car before I leave). He was probably intending to go back into the house to lock up the rabbit in the cage but was abducted/taken by force by the killer.

2. I also think that once in the woods, he tried to escape which would explain being shot in the side instead of one bullet in the head. He was probably running when the killer shot him in the side three times, then he fell to the ground and the killer came and put one in his neck to finish him off.

3. I'm not sure about the hitman theory. Yes, someone that knew him and was involved in the hazing inspired by "A Few Good Men" could have been pissed by David taking his story public and doing interviews about it and killed him/had him killed to prevent his name from ever being mentioned.

[dks64]

I just watched this segment. I don't remember seeing it before. I'm also surprised it didn't get more attention. I don't think his murder had anything to do with his UPS job, I think it was more likely related to the military.

[TheCars1986]

The killer of David Cox could have been someone who knew he had (or was going to get cash after depositing his check) cash on him who had the intention of robbing him. I agree with Hambone2421, about David going out to warm his car up and he was probably accosted there. That would explain why their rabbit was left out of his cage. I don't think his murder has anything to do with his military career, why would anyone feel the need to silence him over a story that was being distributed and released worldwide in the form of "A Few Good Men"? The story was already out there, it wasn't some deep rooted secret. I think the possibility is stronger that it was someone who knew David was going to be depositing his check that day. Was it stated whether or not his check was cashed/deposited in the segment?

[Hambone2421]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

The killer of David Cox could have been someone who knew he had (or was going to get cash after depositing his check) cash on him who had the intention of robbing him. I agree with Hambone2421, about David going out to warm his car up and he was probably accosted there. That would explain why their rabbit was left out of his cage. I don't think his murder has anything to do with his military career, why would anyone feel the need to silence him over a story that was being distributed and released worldwide in the form of "A Few Good Men"? The story was already out there, it wasn't some deep rooted secret. I think the possibility is stronger that it was someone who knew David was going to be depositing his check that day. Was it stated whether or not his check was cashed/deposited in the segment?

Agreed. No it didn't mentioned whether it had been cash or deposited. I was under the impression that the check was found still in the car. Maybe I'm wrong though.

[RobinW]

Re-watched this case recently. It hasn't got a lot of discussion around here, but I've always found it fascinating. I don't think Cox's murder was some sort of conspiracy to silence him for publicly talking about the hazing incident, but I do think it was connected somehow to his stint in the Marines. One line that stood out for me in this segment is when Cox's attorney said he was found wearing his Marine Corps jacket, which "he never wore". I'm no expert on this, but are Marine Corps jackets the type of things former Marines just do not wear when they become civilians again? If so, I can't see Cox putting on this jacket for a routine trip to deposit his paycheck. It's almost like someone forced him to put on the jacket at gunpoint before he was abducted, possibly as some sort of symbolic gesture.

I've always wondered if the killer was one of the Marines who was involved in the original hazing. After they were brought up on charges, all the Marines were offered plea deals where they could avoid prison time by accepting "other than honorable discharges". It says here that 7 out of the 10 Marines accepted the plea deal and that Cox was one of the few who decided to take his chances and go to court-martial:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/199...gung-ho-marine

I have to wonder if one of the Marines who accepted the plea deal had their life go to hell after they were discharged from the service. Then, years later, they see David Cox talking about the hazing incident in the media. They find out that Cox successfully beat the charges, got an honorable discharge and was now living a successful civilian life where he had the chance to make a great deal of money on a lawsuit against the movie studio. This former Marine cannot stand the thought of Cox potentially profiting from the incident which screwed up his own life, so he decides to take out his rage by murdering Cox.

That article also said that Cox and five other Marines joined in the lawsuit. I have to wonder if all the former Marines involved in the hazing incident who DIDN'T join the lawsuit were checked out.

[Hambone2421]

Originally Posted by RobinW

Re-watched this case recently. It hasn't got a lot of discussion around here, but I've always found it fascinating. I don't think Cox's murder was some sort of conspiracy to silence him for publicly talking about the hazing incident, but I do think it was connected somehow to his stint in the Marines. One line that stood out for me in this segment is when Cox's attorney said he was found wearing his Marine Corps jacket, which "he never wore". I'm no expert on this, but are Marine Corps jackets the type of things former Marines just do not wear when they become civilians again? If so, I can't see Cox putting on this jacket for a routine trip to deposit his paycheck. It's almost like someone forced him to put on the jacket at gunpoint before he was abducted, possibly as some sort of symbolic gesture.

I've always wondered if the killer was one of the Marines who was involved in the original hazing. After they were brought up on charges, all the Marines were offered plea deals where they could avoid prison time by accepting "other than honorable discharges". It says here that 7 out of the 10 Marines accepted the plea deal and that Cox was one of the few who decided to take his chances and go to court-martial:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/199...gung-ho-marine

I have to wonder if one of the Marines who accepted the plea deal had their life go to hell after they were discharged from the service. Then, years later, they see David Cox talking about the hazing incident in the media. They find out that Cox successfully beat the charges, got an honorable discharge and was now living a successful civilian life where he had the chance to make a great deal of money on a lawsuit against the movie studio. This former Marine cannot stand the thought of Cox potentially profiting from the incident which screwed up his own life, so he decides to take out his rage by murdering Cox.

That article also said that Cox and five other Marines joined in the lawsuit. I have to wonder if all the former Marines involved in the hazing incident who DIDN'T join the lawsuit were checked out.

Robin, that is an excellent theory. I didn't know most of what you uncovered there so you could very possibly be onto something.


What does everyone else think? Robin is right that this segment does not get enough exposure around here.

[LooksLikeCRicci]

It's a hell of a theory.

I'm mad I didn't think of it myself. Nice sleuthing, Robin!

[WishfulDreamer]

Originally Posted by RobinW

Re-watched this case recently. It hasn't got a lot of discussion around here, but I've always found it fascinating. I don't think Cox's murder was some sort of conspiracy to silence him for publicly talking about the hazing incident, but I do think it was connected somehow to his stint in the Marines. One line that stood out for me in this segment is when Cox's attorney said he was found wearing his Marine Corps jacket, which "he never wore". I'm no expert on this, but are Marine Corps jackets the type of things former Marines just do not wear when they become civilians again? If so, I can't see Cox putting on this jacket for a routine trip to deposit his paycheck. It's almost like someone forced him to put on the jacket at gunpoint before he was abducted, possibly as some sort of symbolic gesture.

I've always wondered if the killer was one of the Marines who was involved in the original hazing. After they were brought up on charges, all the Marines were offered plea deals where they could avoid prison time by accepting "other than honorable discharges". It says here that 7 out of the 10 Marines accepted the plea deal and that Cox was one of the few who decided to take his chances and go to court-martial:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/199...gung-ho-marine

I have to wonder if one of the Marines who accepted the plea deal had their life go to hell after they were discharged from the service. Then, years later, they see David Cox talking about the hazing incident in the media. They find out that Cox successfully beat the charges, got an honorable discharge and was now living a successful civilian life where he had the chance to make a great deal of money on a lawsuit against the movie studio. This former Marine cannot stand the thought of Cox potentially profiting from the incident which screwed up his own life, so he decides to take out his rage by murdering Cox.

That article also said that Cox and five other Marines joined in the lawsuit. I have to wonder if all the former Marines involved in the hazing incident who DIDN'T join the lawsuit were checked out.

RobinW, I've always enjoyed your analyses and this is one again an excellent theory. That's an angle I'd never considered.

Random question, but do you write for Listverse? I notice that someone with your name writes a lot about missing persons cases and usually includes lots of UM cases. I always figured that author is probably a member of this board.

[RobinW]

Originally Posted by WishfulDreamer

RobinW, I've always enjoyed your analyses and this is one again an excellent theory. That's an angle I'd never considered.

Random question, but do you write for Listverse? I notice that someone with your name writes a lot about missing persons cases and usually includes lots of UM cases. I always figured that author is probably a member of this board.

Thank you . And, yes, I am the same Robin Warder who does freelance writing for Listverse. Mysteries are the most popular subject among their readership, so I've been able to publish a lot of articles with them, many of which include UM cases.

I've also published a lot of articles for Cracked. In fact, I actually wrote about the David Cox-"Few Good Men" connection in this article, which is one of the reasons I became so fascinated by the case:
http://www.cracked.com/article_20627...tories_p2.html