View Full Version : David Cox murder case was on Fox25 news


Kane
04-30-2006, 01:18 PM
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
04-30-2006, 09:55 PM
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
05-01-2006, 08:36 AM
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
12-18-2007, 04:56 PM
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
10-24-2010, 09:31 PM
You know, this case doesn't get nearly as much attention as it should.

Kane
10-28-2010, 08:56 AM
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
06-13-2011, 12:03 PM
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
11-06-2011, 07:54 PM
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
11-08-2011, 10:21 AM
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
05-02-2013, 12:28 PM
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
12-03-2014, 09:59 AM
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/1994-04-10/news/1994100064_1_marine-corps-david-cox-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
04-13-2015, 02:48 PM
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/1994-04-10/news/1994100064_1_marine-corps-david-cox-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
04-13-2015, 06:25 PM
It's a hell of a theory.

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

WishfulDreamer
04-13-2015, 11:15 PM
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/1994-04-10/news/1994100064_1_marine-corps-david-cox-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
04-14-2015, 06:59 AM
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_6-movies-you-wont-believe-are-based-insane-true-stories_p2.html

Hambone2421
04-14-2015, 08:23 AM
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_6-movies-you-wont-believe-are-based-insane-true-stories_p2.html

I'll have to start reading your stuff, Robin!

As far as the David Cox theory. I too always figured one of the other military guys involved in the hazing incident was somehow involved in it. That jacket theory is a nice angle to pursue. I wonder if the authorities ever considered this angle or at least something similar to it?

RobinW
04-14-2015, 12:15 PM
As far as the David Cox theory. I too always figured one of the other military guys involved in the hazing incident was somehow involved in it. That jacket theory is a nice angle to pursue. I wonder if the authorities ever considered this angle or at least something similar to it?

IIRC, the investigator interviewed in the segment mentioned the strangeness of Cox wearing his jacket and theorized that he was killed by someone he knew.

I've never been able to find any information about whether the lawsuit against the movie studio went anywhere after Cox's death. I'm guessing not, as they really didn't have much of a case. "A Few Good Men" never represented itself as a true story or used any real names and was only loosely inspired by the real hazing incident. It really wasn't any different than your typical "Law & Order" episode which is inspired by a real-life crime.

Hambone2421
04-14-2015, 12:54 PM
IIRC, the investigator interviewed in the segment mentioned the strangeness of Cox wearing his jacket and theorized that he was killed by someone he knew.

I've never been able to find any information about whether the lawsuit against the movie studio went anywhere after Cox's death. I'm guessing not, as they really didn't have much of a case. "A Few Good Men" never represented itself as a true story or used any real names and was only loosely inspired by the real hazing incident. It really wasn't any different than your typical "Law & Order" episode which is inspired by a real-life crime.

Very true but your theory that the perpetrators became upset and/or jealous of David's exposure discussing the real life story makes a ton of sense.

Very odd that there is nothing about this case anywhere online. Seems like something would pull up somewhere. Maybe it just needs more digging.

LooksLikeCRicci
04-14-2015, 02:28 PM
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_6-movies-you-wont-believe-are-based-insane-true-stories_p2.html


I love it. I've been sucked into Listverse A LOT recently... and I had noticed the parallel between the lists and UM episodes. :) Very cool! I also read your article for Cracked, but didn't put two and two together. You're a great writer!

EDIT: After pulling up a list of your articles on Cracked, I see I've read the majority of them. Which makes sense. You're writing about people that disappear for no apparent reason a lot. :)

RobinW
04-14-2015, 03:54 PM
I love it. I've been sucked into Listverse A LOT recently... and I had noticed the parallel between the lists and UM episodes. :) Very cool! I also read your article for Cracked, but didn't put two and two together. You're a great writer!

EDIT: After pulling up a list of your articles on Cracked, I see I've read the majority of them. Which makes sense. You're writing about people that disappear for no apparent reason a lot. :)

Thank you, LooksLikeCRicci :) . I've found a nice balancing act writing for both Cracked and Listverse. On Cracked, I do a lot of movie and pop culture-related articles because most of the stuff I write on Listverse is way too dark and depressing for a comedy website. However, I do like to sneak in some crime and mystery articles for Cracked every once in awhile, especially around Halloween. In fact, I just turned in an article to them featuring the Teresita Basa case which should be up on the site within the next month or so.

I should give this forum a ton of credit for the existence of a lot of these articles, however, since joining this place helped lead me down to the Internet rabbit hole of researching unsolved mysteries and I've never looked back ;) .

WishfulDreamer
04-15-2015, 10:10 PM
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_6-movies-you-wont-believe-are-based-insane-true-stories_p2.html
Awesome! I've been a fan for some time now. :) I've never read your Cracked material, so I'll definitely get on that. Missing persons cases both fascinate and bother me, so I think I can safely say I've read all of your Listverse articles.

Hops3098
04-17-2015, 02:07 PM
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?

Its a stretch to lump all former Marines' behavior into one category, but I'll give you my best guess.

But first, can you be more specific about the "jacket?" My answer to your question will vary considerably based on what kind of jacket it is, and I can think of many, many things that a civilian might just call a Marine's Jacket. Some pieces of gear I wear or pack with me virtually every time I head to the woods, but there are other items I've never worn and probably never would for various reasons.

RobinW
04-17-2015, 03:07 PM
But first, can you be more specific about the "jacket?" My answer to your question will vary considerably based on what kind of jacket it is, and I can think of many, many things that a civilian might just call a Marine's Jacket. Some pieces of gear I wear or pack with me virtually every time I head to the woods, but there are other items I've never worn and probably never would for various reasons.

In the UM re-enactment of Cox's murder, the actor is wearing what appears to be a camouflage Marine jacket, but of course, I can't be sure if that's an accurate representation of what he was wearing when his body was found. The UM profile page has a few stills from the re-enactment if that gives you a better idea about what kind of jacket Cox was wearing:
http://unsolved.com/archives/david-cox

I double-checked the segment and it was actually Don Marcari, Cox's JAG Corps lawyer, who pushed the idea of Cox being murdered by someone in the military and said the line: "He was wearing his Marine Corps, which he never wore". I assume he might have a better idea than your average civilian about how unusual it was for Cox to be wearing that particular jacket.

Hambone2421
04-17-2015, 03:52 PM
One thing that doesn't make sense to me about this case. The lead investigator mentioned that he believed David left with someone he knew. He theorized that by walking deeper in the woods, David likely knew the person. But why would you willingly leave with someone you knew without taking the keys out of the ignition in your vehicle and putting your check someone out of reach?

I wonder if someone used the ruse that his girlfriend had been involved in an accident and he was needed ASAP? That could explain why he literally dropped everything.

RobinW
04-17-2015, 06:20 PM
One thing that doesn't make sense to me about this case. The lead investigator mentioned that he believed David left with someone he knew. He theorized that by walking deeper in the woods, David likely knew the person. But why would you willingly leave with someone you knew without taking the keys out of the ignition in your vehicle and putting your check someone out of reach?

I wonder if someone used the ruse that his girlfriend had been involved in an accident and he was needed ASAP? That could explain why he literally dropped everything.

That accident theory would make sense. I always speculated that David's killer may have arrived at just the precise moment when he'd climbed into his vehicle and was ready to drive away. If it was someone David knew (or hadn't seen in years, if my theory about the former Marine is correct), I can see him becoming distracted and leaving his keys in the ignition while chatting with them before he was suddenly abducted or lured away.

Hops3098
04-20-2015, 01:44 PM
The UM profile page has a few stills from the re-enactment if that gives you a better idea about what kind of jacket Cox was wearing:
http://unsolved.com/archives/david-cox

I double-checked the segment and it was actually Don Marcari, Cox's JAG Corps lawyer, who pushed the idea of Cox being murdered by someone in the military and said the line: "He was wearing his Marine Corps, which he never wore". I assume he might have a better idea than your average civilian about how unusual it was for Cox to be wearing that particular jacket.

200550

Well I don't have the segment handy, but from this picture on the UM site, it appears they used what's commonly called a "Field Jacket" in the recreation. It was pretty standard issue until around 1998 in the Corps, so it fits the circumstances, and is probably one of the more common things that former Marines from that era would wear.

I only say that to explain that the jacket itself is commonly worn after service, not that it was usual or unusual for David specifically. I do accept the JAG lawyer's statement at face value. However, I just think it was unusual for him to wear anything Corps-related at that stage in his life because he wasn't the type of veteran to "show off" about his service. That was probably due to the circumstances he went through after the now-famous incident of hazing. Even though he was allowed to complete his enlistment and was discharged honorably, I don't believe that he would have had a very pleasant conclusion to his tour. Knowing the culture, I'd say it was very likely he was ostracized by his peers and marginalized by his superiors until his discharge date.

Another note about the jacket... One of the reasons they are popular after-service items is that they are really warm. After they were phased out of official use, I carried the jacket's liner in my gear for years. I think it can be as simple as it was colder outside than David thought so he went back in the house to grab a warmer jacket from the closet.

All in all, I think yes, it might have been unusual for David to wear the jacket, but that fact alone doesn't make me suspect a military connection to his murder, or even that his killer had prior military service.

Hambone2421
04-20-2015, 02:28 PM
200550

Well I don't have the segment handy, but from this picture on the UM site, it appears they used what's commonly called a "Field Jacket" in the recreation. It was pretty standard issue until around 1998 in the Corps, so it fits the circumstances, and is probably one of the more common things that former Marines from that era would wear.

I only say that to explain that the jacket itself is commonly worn after service, not that it was usual or unusual for David specifically. I do accept the JAG lawyer's statement at face value. However, I just think it was unusual for him to wear anything Corps-related at that stage in his life because he wasn't the type of veteran to "show off" about his service. That was probably due to the circumstances he went through after the now-famous incident of hazing. Even though he was allowed to complete his enlistment and was discharged honorably, I don't believe that he would have had a very pleasant conclusion to his tour. Knowing the culture, I'd say it was very likely he was ostracized by his peers and marginalized by his superiors until his discharge date.

Another note about the jacket... One of the reasons they are popular after-service items is that they are really warm. After they were phased out of official use, I carried the jacket's liner in my gear for years. I think it can be as simple as it was colder outside than David thought so he went back in the house to grab a warmer jacket from the closet.

All in all, I think yes, it might have been unusual for David to wear the jacket, but that fact alone doesn't make me suspect a military connection to his murder, or even that his killer had prior military service.

I think the reason we are all so quick to assume this was connected to his military background is because of the "A Few Good Men" part of his story. He was making waves everywhere about this film. I think its similar to what Robin said, some of his co-conspirators didn't like this being brought to the limelight. Maybe the killer(s) even contacted him and politely told him to STFU. Some people just want to leave past issues in the past. Maybe this was one of those cases. It's just seems too coincidental.

LooksLikeCRicci
04-20-2015, 03:53 PM
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

(Sorry. Had to do it.)

RobinW
04-20-2015, 04:13 PM
I only say that to explain that the jacket itself is commonly worn after service, not that it was usual or unusual for David specifically. I do accept the JAG lawyer's statement at face value. However, I just think it was unusual for him to wear anything Corps-related at that stage in his life because he wasn't the type of veteran to "show off" about his service. That was probably due to the circumstances he went through after the now-famous incident of hazing. Even though he was allowed to complete his enlistment and was discharged honorably, I don't believe that he would have had a very pleasant conclusion to his tour. Knowing the culture, I'd say it was very likely he was ostracized by his peers and marginalized by his superiors until his discharge date.

I definitely agree with this. The gist I got from the segment was that Cox not only talked about the hazing incident and "A Few Good Men" in his radio interviews, but was very outspoken about Marine life in general and how they operate in Guantanamo Bay. It seemed like he fought the charges against him to avoid the stigma of having a dishonourable discharge on his record, but was happy to get out of the Marines and did not look back on his experience with too much fondness. I guess it's not out of the question that Cox would decide wear his Marine jacket if it was really cold that day, but it seems he was just going out on a routine trip to cash his paycheck, so it's weird he would pull his jacket out of the closet for that.

Interestingly enough, there's a recent comment from someone on the UM page who says they were stationed at Guantanamo at the time the hazing incident take place and questions Cox's claims that he was the one who tried to stop the hazing when it got out of hand.
http://unsolved.com/archives/david-cox

Hambone2421
04-20-2015, 04:27 PM
Interestingly enough, there's a recent comment from someone on the UM page who says they were stationed at Guantanamo at the time the hazing incident take place and questions Cox's claims that he was the one who tried to stop the hazing when it got out of hand.
http://unsolved.com/archives/david-cox

Here is the text of that comment:

Cox didn't stop the hazing.

Submitted by Will (not verified) on Wed, 04/08/2015 - 05:26





Cox didn't stop the hazing. Cpl. Lewis did. He broke into the window. Alvarado was dead in the room. Humans can't ingest bleach and live. The Col and Sgt Maj were relieved and sent to LeJeune. Col. Jones took over. Boswell was portrayed as the idiot in the movie. I was in boot camp with him. We were in the room next to were it happened. When cpl lewis broke the window they ran like cowards. Alvarado was writing letters about the discrimination on the hill, to his Senator in Texas (where the Col was from). Viewing the room after Lewis broke the window, there was an empty bottle of bleach laying on the floor. He was still duct taped. Cox is a liar. And I don't remember him. I was a cook and knew most people on Gitmo. His story doesn't match the facts.Cpl Lewis was a cook and a big black guy. Not a puny white guy. Boswell and another went to prison for Alvarado's death. How is he alive?

1990 UM fan
05-19-2016, 06:39 PM
I too share the opinion that David Cox's murder was by someone in his military unit, likely related to the hazing incident. Whether it was the man they almost killed or someone who initiated the attack, I believe David was murdered by someone he knew. The only thing out of place at his apartment, as I remember, was the pet rabbit was out of its cage, and no outward signs of a struggle inside the apartment. He also had his military gear on when his body was found, so David had to have been familiar with his killer and thought that where he was going was military-related and wasn't suspicious of it.

TheCars1986
01-24-2017, 03:37 PM
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/1994-04-10/news/1994100064_1_marine-corps-david-cox-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.

How did I miss this comment? Been thinking about this case for days now, and this is the most plausible scenario I've seen put forward yet. But then again, didn't they all but rule this scenario out in the segment? Wasn't it hinted at that it was more likely that there was someone at the UPS job who murdered him?

RobinW
01-24-2017, 04:14 PM
How did I miss this comment? Been thinking about this case for days now, and this is the most plausible scenario I've seen put forward yet. But then again, didn't they all but rule this scenario out in the segment? Wasn't it hinted at that it was more likely that there was someone at the UPS job who murdered him?

It was pretty much David's brother who pushed forward the UPS theory since David had briefly mentioned some possible theft going on at his workplace, but I don't think they found any conclusive proof of any illegal activity at UPS. David's lawyer was the one who seemed most certain that his murder was connected to the military because he was found wearing his Marine Corps jacket which he apparently never wore during his civilian life.

Neither the military or the UPS theories have been ruled out, though everyone seems pretty certain that David knew his killer.

TheCars1986
01-24-2017, 04:22 PM
It was pretty much David's brother who pushed forward the UPS theory since David had briefly mentioned some possible theft going on at his workplace, but I don't think they found any conclusive proof of any illegal activity at UPS. David's lawyer was the one who seemed most certain that his murder was connected to the military because he was found wearing his Marine Corps jacket which he apparently never wore during his civilian life.

Neither the military or the UPS theories have been ruled out, though everyone seems pretty certain that David knew his killer.

I've always thought the UPS theory was flimsy, because he didn't even work their full time yet, so what exactly could he have uncovered? Definitely think someone from his military past was triggered by him going on the various radio stations and telling his story, making him the focal point, saying he was the one who stopped the hazing, etc., which pushed that person to murder him. I don't think it was to silence him per se, but more or less a revenge/rage murder.

Guitar
12-04-2018, 10:19 PM
I just rewatched this one for the first time in years. It's so chilling, and I'm surprised that conspiracy theorists don't discuss it nearly as much as they discuss other possible conspiracies that aren't nearly as compelling and just come across as completely batsh**.
Of course the police were never going to mark anyone who was in the military. The military is the most worshipped institution in this country.

Zorzman
03-29-2019, 10:24 PM
I think the jacket is the biggest clue. My theory is, the killer or killers posed as a journalist/photographer from a magazine or newspaper and approached him asking if they could do an interview with him. They probably tell him they want to take pictures of him in his milatary outfit outside for the story. He goes in and changes and forgets about the rabbit and his keys in the car. They tell him they’ll drive to the site where they want to take his picture. They arrive and tell him the spot they want to take the picture is a little walk out. They get there and shoot him. I don’t think they hold the gun on him the whole walk because if it’s during the day and it’s near a hunting ground, they’re not going to risk been seen holding a gun on a man. I think they get there and see there are no witnesses and kill him. But before they do, they tell him why and he runs which explains the four bullet wounds. Just a theory, but it’s the only explanation I can give for his attire. I wonder if he told his girlfriend earlier that someone wanted to interview him. The killers knew he was talking to the press and this was before the internet so he couldn’t look them up.

MegtheEgg86
03-30-2019, 09:11 AM
I too have always been perplexed about how anyone got that jacket on him. Relatively few people who have actually served will wear items considered part of a uniform even after they enter civilian life, because the prohibition against unauthorized or improper wear of uniforms is so ingrained--especially in Marines, well-known for their discipline. Moreover, many don't wish to publicize their veteran status in such a way for any number of reasons. I think the above theory is really quite good as any. It seems reasonable.

I've always gotten the feeling the person who picked him up was an old platoon buddy or two who dropped by unannounced, but I've never been able to explain the jacket. Moreover, said buddy or buddies would've had to have reconned ahead and known where to take David to kill and hide him out of sight, as they almost certainly weren't local.