TWO TRIALS, ONE MURDER, AND A FAMILY'S LO…
PART 3 — TWO TRIALS, ONE MURDER, AND A FAMILY’S LONG FIGHT FOR JUSTICE
When David Dooley was first convicted of murdering Michelle Mockbee, her family believed they had finally reached the end of an exhausting legal journey.
They had endured the shock of her death.
They had waited through months of investigation.
They had listened to painful testimony about her final moments.
And they had watched a jury find the former janitor guilty.
But the conviction did not end the case.
Instead, new questions about evidence disclosure and the conduct of officials involved in the investigation forced the family to confront the possibility of another trial.
Michelle’s loved ones would have to return to court.
They would have to hear the details again.
And they would have to face the man convicted of her murder while he continued to deny responsibility.
The original case against David had been largely circumstantial.
Prosecutors believed Michelle had interrupted him while he was attempting to gain access to her office or interfere with payroll records.
They argued that he attacked her, moved her body, and tried to remove evidence that could expose his conduct.
The theory rested on several important details.
David had been working at the facility when Michelle arrived.
His red truck left the parking lot during a critical period.
He initially failed to disclose that trip.
His explanation changed.
His wife’s account did not consistently match his.
Investigators had also uncovered suspected payroll fraud involving time cards.
And Michelle was responsible for payroll.
For prosecutors, those details formed a coherent explanation.
For the defense, they were insufficient to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
David’s attorneys repeatedly emphasized what investigators had not found.
There was no interior surveillance recording of the killing.
There was no eyewitness to the attack.
There was no definitive murder weapon.
And the forensic evidence did not establish a direct, uncomplicated link between David and Michelle’s injuries.
The defense argued that the investigation had become too focused on one suspect.
The first jury disagreed.
David was convicted.
He received a life sentence.
But his attorneys continued challenging the result.
Then came the discovery that changed the legal proceedings.
Surveillance footage existed showing an unidentified man near the facility hours before Michelle’s body was found.
The footage had not been made available to the defense during the first trial.
David’s lawyers argued that they should have received it and that it might have supported an alternative explanation for the crime.
The issue raised serious concerns about the fairness of the original proceedings.
In a criminal trial, prosecutors have obligations to disclose certain evidence to the defense.
That includes material that may be favorable to the accused.
When important evidence is withheld, the consequences can be significant.
In David’s case, the controversy contributed to his conviction being vacated.
A new trial was ordered.
The development was devastating for Michelle’s family.
They had already endured the first trial.
Now they faced the prospect of repeating the experience.
The controversy became even more complicated when information emerged about a personal relationship between prosecutor Linda Tally Smith and lead detective Bruce McVay.
Their relationship drew intense scrutiny.
Questions were raised about professional conduct, credibility, and what had been known about the surveillance footage.
During the proceedings, testimony and written communications exposed deep conflict between the two officials.
The prosecutor expressed anger over what she believed had not been disclosed to her.
The detective’s conduct was questioned.
And the courtroom became the setting for arguments that extended beyond the original murder evidence.
For the public, these developments created uncertainty.
If the first trial had been compromised, could the conviction be trusted?
Had investigators overlooked another suspect?
Had the defense been denied information that might have changed the jury’s decision?
Those were questions the legal system now had to confront.
But one fact remained unchanged.
Michelle Mockbee had been murdered.
She had arrived at work early on May 29, 2012.
She had intended to complete payroll and return home to her daughters.
Instead, she was attacked inside the building where she had worked for sixteen years.
Her family still needed answers.
And a new jury would now have to examine the case.
During the retrial, prosecutors again presented the evidence surrounding David’s movements.
The red truck remained central.
It had left the parking lot around 6:31 a.m.
It returned approximately thirty minutes later.
David had not initially told investigators about leaving.
And his explanations remained a major point of contention.
Prosecutors argued that the timing gave him an opportunity to dispose of evidence or change clothing.
They also emphasized the missing time cards.
David and Janet’s records for the relevant period could not be located.
Investigators believed those documents were important because of the suspected payroll irregularities.
The prosecution’s theory was that Michelle had discovered or interrupted something involving the records.
David, they argued, had a reason to prevent that discovery.
The defense challenged the theory.
Attorneys questioned whether the alleged fraud truly explained a violent murder.
They emphasized the absence of David’s DNA on important evidence.
They argued that investigators had not conclusively established the sequence of events.
And they questioned whether other people had been adequately considered.
The retrial also brought renewed attention to Michelle’s husband, Dan.
The defense examined the couple’s financial circumstances.
There had been significant credit card debt.
Attorneys also raised questions about benefits Dan received after Michelle’s death.
These issues were presented as part of an alternative theory.
But investigators had previously examined Dan and eliminated him as a suspect.
Evidence from the couple’s phones did not establish the marital conflict or other circumstances the defense suggested might be relevant.
Dan had cooperated with police.
He had offered to take a polygraph.
And his reaction to Michelle’s death had been described by investigators as profoundly genuine and painful.
The defense’s questions did not establish that Dan had participated in the crime.
Nevertheless, being publicly discussed as a possible suspect added another burden to his grief.
He had already lost his wife.
He had been left to raise their daughters without her.
And now, years later, he was again hearing suggestions that he might have been involved.
The second trial also examined Doug Tungate.
Doug had been present at the facility when Michelle arrived.
He had spoken with her that morning.
He had a prior criminal history.
And investigators had examined him during the original inquiry.
During testimony, he denied killing Michelle.
He denied moving her body.
He denied cleaning the crime scene.
He denied helping anyone else commit the murder.
The defense attempted to raise questions about his activities and whether he could have been involved.
But the prosecution maintained that the evidence pointed toward David.
Then came the surveillance footage that had helped overturn the original conviction.
The jury was shown the unidentified man near the building.
The defense argued that his presence deserved serious consideration.
The prosecution countered that the footage did not show him entering the facility.
According to testimony presented at the retrial, the man approached an exterior area briefly and appeared to discard something before leaving.
The incident occurred hours before Michelle was found.
Prosecutors argued that it did not establish any connection between the unidentified man and the murder.
The defense maintained that the footage mattered because it showed another person near the property and had not been disclosed during the first trial.
Both arguments addressed different questions.
One concerned whether the video actually implicated another person.
The other concerned whether the defense had been entitled to examine it.
