What I Noticed About The Murder of Jaclyn Dowaliby Segment

[infinityluxe]

I revisited this segment and watched it twice just so I could digest everything that happened. For years I always wanted to believe that the Dowaliby's were innocent. It always reminded me of the JonBenet case and I have watched plenty of the many specials on that case and I still am not convinced one way or another.

However, with Jaclyn Dowaliby looking at this segment twice I definitely feel that David Dowaliby killed his daughter. He sounded very sincere at times, but his eyes tell a different story. There was a moment where his wife is looking into his eyes as he explains that he had nothing to do with Jaclyn's murder almost like she was searching for the truth. She was looking directly at him the entire time he spoke about it and she seemed conflicted.

At the end of the segment you see her explaining how the family will never be the same and the impact of Jaclyn's loss and he can't look at her or at the camera so he is just gazing off looking unsure of how to feel trying his best to look sad but his eyes are steadily moving around.

I think this was one time that the police got it absolutely right from jump and dumb luck and lack of evidence helped this guy to get away with murder after only doing 18 months.

I wonder if he had abused Jaclyn in some way and was afraid she was going to tell?

Never did you once see anything in his face that seemed sincere he was so focused on sounding wounded he forgot to actually look wounded. Something about him gives me the creeps. I honestly believe the mother had nothing to do with what happened.

Does anyone know if they are still married today if they are both still with us?


How did you feel about the segment and were you leaning one way or another?

The mother reminded me of Annabella Sciorra (The Hand That Rocks The Cradle).

[cordwainer1453]

I would be hesitant to accuse someone just based on the way they look or whatever,

That said, something never sat right with me about the guy either, like he seemed like a jerk. But anyone would be a jerk if they were falsely accused of murder. So who knows if he was always that way??

[ghosthouse]

Say you are trying to convince me that David did it - what is your number 1 piece of evidence you would present to try to sway me?

[TheCars1986]

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a second.

First, let's discuss the two alternate suspects who have been bandied around by supporters of the Dowaliby's: Perry Hernandez and the "mentally ill" Dowaliby relative.

Perry Hernandez committed a very similar crime a year after Jaclyn's abduction and murder. However, Hernandez knew his victim as he was a neighbor, let the victim live, and left behind cigarettes at the scene of the abduction. He wouldn't have known the layout of the Dowaliby home, wouldn't have known that the grandmother was out for the night (which was the entry point for the intruder if the Dowaliby's are to be believed), nor did they know if she was returning, and had no connection to Jacilyn or the Dowaliby's.

The "mentally ill" relative would have known the layout of the home, but would not have known about the grandmother going out and spending the night elsewhere. This relative had an alibi...corroborated by three people on the night of Jaclyn's abduction. And nothing has come out since Jaclyn's murder that could or would have implicated this relative.

Which brings us back to the Dowaliby's. Did you know that the rope found around her neck was matched to rope found in the garage of the Dowaliby home (the grandmother told the police that the rope found looked similar to rope they kept in the garage)? What intruder wouldn't bring their own materials if they planned on abducting Jaclyn? And why would an intruder risk opening a garage door (which could have been fairly loud) in the middle of the night (Jaclyn's mother said she went to bed at 11:30 p.m. that night)? Another oddity, a suitcase filled with clothes was found on Jaclyn's bed when the first officer arrived on the scene. He said that Jaclyn's mother, Cynthia, had told him it was "one of Jaclyn's playthings". No dust was disturbed on the broken window ledge to the grandmother's bedroom. The curtains covering the broken window were still closed when the police arrived on scene. But when the crime scene technician arrived to photograph the scene, the curtains were open. This was because the original officer on the scene moved them to observe the dust. The crime scene technician testified that he observed two undisturbed cobwebs in the corners of the window. The only piece of forensic evidence which could have been construed as evidence against the Dowaliby's was two hairs found in one of their vans of which Jaclyn could not have been excluded.

A neighbor testified that she woke up around 2:00 a.m. that morning to go to the bathroom, and noticed that one of the Dowaliby's vans (the one with the hair that could not rule out Jaclyn as the contributor) was missing, which she found odd. Cynthia was the primary driver of this vehicle, not David. This van was also described by the witness who said he could see David Dowaliby's nose from 75 feet away (this description of the vehicle was not mentioned on UM). This same witness testified that he wasn't sure if the driver of the vehicle was white or black (UM left this out as well).

That is all of the evidence against the Dowaliby's. What I find interesting is that the appellate court ruled that David and Cynthia weren't the only ones who had the opportunity to kill Jaclyn, but the grandmother did as well, because from 10:30 p.m. to midnight she had "unaccounted for" time. To be clear, I do not think David Dowaliby should have ever been convicted of Jaclyn's murder. However, I agree that there are circumstances about this case that has never sat right with me. And David could totally be 100% innocent and still have someone from inside that house be responsible. Sadly, I think this case is going to always remain unsolved because most of the forensic testing done was inconclusive, and key pieces of evidence were never swabbed for DNA or fingerprints.

[TheCars1986]

Another thought that I had:

If the Dowaliby's were never charged and the case still remained open would there be much support for them? Take a look at Jon Benet Ramsey or Sabrina Aisenberg. Most people to this day suspect someone inside the home had something to do with their murder/disappearance.

[Pelham Bay]

For what it's worth, I've never had the impression that either parent is guilty of the girl's death. Maybe I'm missing it, but my feeling has been that they have come off as two of the more credible potential suspects to appear on the show.

Plus, doesnt the most recent update in the case say that David has been exonerated?

[PingAnser3]

Originally Posted by infinityluxe

I revisited this segment and watched it twice just so I could digest everything that happened. For years I always wanted to believe that the Dowaliby's were innocent. It always reminded me of the JonBenet case and I have watched plenty of the many specials on that case and I still am not convinced one way or another.

However, with Jaclyn Dowaliby looking at this segment twice I definitely feel that David Dowaliby killed his daughter. He sounded very sincere at times, but his eyes tell a different story. There was a moment where his wife is looking into his eyes as he explains that he had nothing to do with Jaclyn's murder almost like she was searching for the truth. She was looking directly at him the entire time he spoke about it and she seemed conflicted.

At the end of the segment you see her explaining how the family will never be the same and the impact of Jaclyn's loss and he can't look at her or at the camera so he is just gazing off looking unsure of how to feel trying his best to look sad but his eyes are steadily moving around.

I think this was one time that the police got it absolutely right from jump and dumb luck and lack of evidence helped this guy to get away with murder after only doing 18 months.

I wonder if he had abused Jaclyn in some way and was afraid she was going to tell?

Never did you once see anything in his face that seemed sincere he was so focused on sounding wounded he forgot to actually look wounded. Something about him gives me the creeps. I honestly believe the mother had nothing to do with what happened.

Does anyone know if they are still married today if they are both still with us?


How did you feel about the segment and were you leaning one way or another?

The mother reminded me of Annabella Sciorra (The Hand That Rocks The Cradle).

I think her eyes tell the story of a parent stricken with grief at the loss of their child, not suspicion. Anybody who has lost a child knows the feeling. You move on but never truly get over it. The pain remains. Also, the timing of this segment was not too far removed from Jaclyn's death. Those emotions would still be raw. As far as David, I think that is just his general look. Some people just always look creepy. Former Knicks coach Jeff Van Gundy had a similar look with the dark circles around his eyes. In recent photos, David looks like Groucho Marx. I think he was a man jaded at the loss of his child and for being falsely convicted of the crime (I understand why he was a suspect).

[Hambone2421]

I agree with the investigator interviewed in the UM segment when he said that someone in that house was responsible for Jacqueline's death. David, Cynthia or the grandmother, but I believe it was one of them.

[Clockwork]

I am going to rattle a lot of people here, but one thing I never liked was that Jaclyn was David's step daughter. I know, I know, I can hear it now, a step-father can love a child as much if not more as a biological father can and that bond can be just as good. I get it, I do. But that was something that made me start to think about the whole potential of an abused child at the hands of a step father. Yeah I know, no hard evidence and such, and all just a feeling, but I am just sharing my thought on it.

Secondly, I never did get a good feeling from the Dowaliby's. David especially. I know the cops were on his tail and that alone would make you act angry, but he did not pass the polygraph and he just had weird reactions to things. When the cops told him Jaclyn was dead he claims he thought they were lying and stormed out of the police station. That just bugged me. And I know his excuse for the polygraph not being passed was that he was told to lie and refused to do it and that led to an argument. I can understand that, I wouldn't lie either in a polygraph, I feel the person can do their job just by hearing me tell the truth and judging from that.

Another thing, this has to be the most perfect home invasion in the history of the world if it happened. Knowing the grandma isn't home, then making very little noise knowing there are three other people in the home. Then not having a little girl make any noise. The way the abductor apparently entered the home, I just never got how or why that would be done. I do feel the cops probably had it right in the first place nailing David. This is a rare case where he actually managed to overturn it. I think there may have been sloppy police work that led to his prosecution, maybe feeling they had a conviction without bringing out their best work or crossing their t's, but it happened that way. I think David got lucky.

Lastly, what leads have happened since? And even in the segment there seemed to be more concern from them to exonerate themselves than find the actual killer. I never like that sort of thing. I do agree with the cop that someone in the home is responsible. This is normally the case with home invasions of abducted children with no leads. Sabrina Aisenberg, Tommy Gibson, JonBenet Ramsay. When nothing comes up to point to proof of someone else it just makes it seem like the parents are the ones behind it.

[DALLASTEXAN!!]

Originally Posted by Clockwork

I am going to rattle a lot of people here, but one thing I never liked was that Jaclyn was David's step daughter. I know, I know, I can hear it now, a step-father can love a child as much if not more as a biological father can and that bond can be just as good. I get it, I do. But that was something that made me start to think about the whole potential of an abused child at the hands of a step father. Yeah I know, no hard evidence and such, and all just a feeling, but I am just sharing my thought on it.

Secondly, I never did get a good feeling from the Dowaliby's. David especially. I know the cops were on his tail and that alone would make you act angry, but he did not pass the polygraph and he just had weird reactions to things. When the cops told him Jaclyn was dead he claims he thought they were lying and stormed out of the police station. That just bugged me. And I know his excuse for the polygraph not being passed was that he was told to lie and refused to do it and that led to an argument. I can understand that, I wouldn't lie either in a polygraph, I feel the person can do their job just by hearing me tell the truth and judging from that.

Another thing, this has to be the most perfect home invasion in the history of the world if it happened. Knowing the grandma isn't home, then making very little noise knowing there are three other people in the home. Then not having a little girl make any noise. The way the abductor apparently entered the home, I just never got how or why that would be done. I do feel the cops probably had it right in the first place nailing David. This is a rare case where he actually managed to overturn it. I think there may have been sloppy police work that led to his prosecution, maybe feeling they had a conviction without bringing out their best work or crossing their t's, but it happened that way. I think David got lucky.

Lastly, what leads have happened since? And even in the segment there seemed to be more concern from them to exonerate themselves than find the actual killer. I never like that sort of thing. I do agree with the cop that someone in the home is responsible. This is normally the case with home invasions of abducted children with no leads. Sabrina Aisenberg, Tommy Gibson, JonBenet Ramsay. When nothing comes up to point to proof of someone else it just makes it seem like the parents are the ones behind it.

I am a step dad and my step son and I have a great relationship just as we were bio. I don't understand how any parent could murder their child. With that said it does happen and I don't find it odd that David was initially a suspect. I also don't find anything that David or Cynthia did in the segment to be odd either. I thought David seemed like a normal dad talking about his accounts of what happened. the investigation deteriorated as it went on so it is only natural that David would not trust the investigators and would get frustrated in the manner that he did. David and Cynthia should have never been charged and IMHO the investigators failed Jaclyn by not doing more to find her(early on) or her perpetrator. David and Cynthia mentioned it in the segment as well and I think that is an obvious thing for an innocent person to bring up(why are you wasting your time with me instead of helping us find our child). I look to another UM case in a neighboring Illinois county. Jeanine Nicarico was abducted from her house and was murdered by a random stranger. IIRC she was left home alone and her parents must have been eliminated early on based on the evidence not linking to them. two people were wrongfully convicted as well in that case. UM did a lot of good by showcasing the wrongfully convicted.

I don't trust polygraphs.

[Clockwork]

Originally Posted by DALLASTEXAN!!

I am a step dad and my step son and I have a great relationship just as we were bio. I don't understand how any parent could murder their child. With that said it does happen and I don't find it odd that David was initially a suspect. I also don't find anything that David or Cynthia did in the segment to be odd either. I thought David seemed like a normal dad talking about his accounts of what happened. the investigation deteriorated as it went on so it is only natural that David would not trust the investigators and would get frustrated in the manner that he did. David and Cynthia should have never been charged and IMHO the investigators failed Jaclyn by not doing more to find her(early on) or her perpetrator. David and Cynthia mentioned it in the segment as well and I think that is an obvious thing for an innocent person to bring up(why are you wasting your time with me instead of helping us find our child). I look to another UM case in a neighboring Illinois county. Jeanine Nicarico was abducted from her house and was murdered by a random stranger. IIRC she was left home alone and her parents must have been eliminated early on based on the evidence not linking to them. two people were wrongfully convicted as well in that case. UM did a lot of good by showcasing the wrongfully convicted.

I don't trust polygraphs.

I get it. The problem I have with these cases is if not them, then who? And how? It screams of Marlene Aisenberg to me in that it had to be the ultimate perfect home invasion that didn't leave a trace of anything in order for it to be anyone else but someone in the home. I always find that these cases often are that the parent struck the kid a little too hard and killed them, by accident, and it ends up being a cover up. That is the big question here, if the parents didn't do it then who did? And when there is a dead end to this question is when I have a problem with it.

[DALLASTEXAN!!]

Originally Posted by Clockwork

I get it. The problem I have with these cases is if not them, then who? And how? It screams of Marlene Aisenberg to me in that it had to be the ultimate perfect home invasion that didn't leave a trace of anything in order for it to be anyone else but someone in the home. I always find that these cases often are that the parent struck the kid a little too hard and killed them, by accident, and it ends up being a cover up. That is the big question here, if the parents didn't do it then who did? And when there is a dead end to this question is when I have a problem with it.

sometimes there's no rhyme or reason other than there are bad people out there looking to harm others at random. and those crimes are very difficult and often impossible to solve. that is why investigators sometimes wrongfully lock on to family members and go after any emerging suspect to the point to where someone can be wrongfully convicted. UM has a plethora of examples where this happens. I brought up Jeanine Nicarico because it was in a neighboring county and was also a home invasion. the perpetrator had no relationship to the family and had no idea that Jeanine was home alone. he struck at random and an innocent man was almost executed for the crime because when he emerged as a suspect the state wrongfully charged and convicted him.

[Clockwork]

Originally Posted by DALLASTEXAN!!

sometimes there's no rhyme or reason other than there are bad people out there looking to harm others at random. and those crimes are very difficult and often impossible to solve. that is why investigators sometimes wrongfully lock on to family members and go after any emerging suspect to the point to where someone can be wrongfully convicted. UM has a plethora of examples where this happens. I brought up Jeanine Nicarico because it was in a neighboring county and was also a home invasion. the perpetrator had no relationship to the family and had no idea that Jeanine was home alone. he struck at random and an innocent man was almost executed for the crime because when he emerged as a suspect the state wrongfully charged and convicted him.

I will never say never, because we all know about Elizabeth Smart and how she got taken from her home. It happens, but like I said it had to be the perfect crime. No paper trail, no one wakes up, no suspects outside of the home, knowing the set up of the home and knowing the grandmother was gone, sneaking into a very tiny window, etc.

I will say this, and it is purely circumstantial, but there is a distinct difference between people that are interviewed that grieve for their kids on UM. There are those that may not be crying per se, but they look devastated, like someone shot them and tore their heart out. The Dowalibys don't have that look, and a lot of others that we often consider suspects don't either. I am not saying it ought to convict them, but it is just the Susan Smith-vibe that gets me sometimes.

[DALLASTEXAN!!]

Originally Posted by Clockwork

I will never say never, because we all know about Elizabeth Smart and how she got taken from her home. It happens, but like I said it had to be the perfect crime. No paper trail, no one wakes up, no suspects outside of the home, knowing the set up of the home and knowing the grandmother was gone, sneaking into a very tiny window, etc.

I will say this, and it is purely circumstantial, but there is a distinct difference between people that are interviewed that grieve for their kids on UM. There are those that may not be crying per se, but they look devastated, like someone shot them and tore their heart out. The Dowalibys don't have that look, and a lot of others that we often consider suspects don't either. I am not saying it ought to convict them, but it is just the Susan Smith-vibe that gets me sometimes.

I think I understand what you are saying here. And it is not impossible to solve this case, but random acts of violence are very difficult to solve when there is nothing to go by. Perhaps you can just call it luck that the person didn't encounter the grandmother or leave forensic evidence behind that could be traced back to someone.

[Clockwork]

Originally Posted by DALLASTEXAN!!

I think I understand what you are saying here. And it is not impossible to solve this case, but random acts of violence are very difficult to solve when there is nothing to go by. Perhaps you can just call it luck that the person didn't encounter the grandmother or leave forensic evidence behind that could be traced back to someone.

That's the thing that always bothers me with this case. Because let's face it, who do we point at and look to first when a horrible crime has been committed? The spouse, or in this case the parents. If things don't gel we start looking at the parents. And so often when there is smoke there is fire. That's the feeling I get with this case. And I will still admit there is a chance that David is the unluckiest man in the world and he initially got busted for his daughter's murder. But when there are no leads after 30+ years, is it not most often the simplest explanation? Larry Gibson perhaps.