Millionaire Manhunt

Wanted For Murder, A Man Evades Authorities For Nearly Two Decades

(CBS)  The first problem is that his version of the payoff differs from Belinda’s: he says he got the cash in the men’s room.

"Mr. Sullivan and I went into the restroom and he handed me the money. The other half of the $25,000," he testifies.

He said it was on a moving job in 1986, that Sullivan asked him to “take care of Lita.” Harwood says he assumed that meant to kill her.

And how, exactly, had Sullivan put it?

"'You know I've got this wife o' mine up in Atlanta and she is just tryin' to take everything I've got. And I don't know what to do about it. I need someone to take care o' my problem. Do you know anybody that possibly take care of my problem for me 'cause I need some help here?' That's about the best I can do from what I remember," Harwood testifies.

More than his testimony adds to the impression that Harwood is an odd duck —
inexplicably, he returns from one break with his hair parted on the opposite side. First it was parted left, then to the right, after the break.

But prosecutors have bigger problems with Harwood than his hair — they have to acknowledge that he may be lying when he says he doesn’t know who actually shot Lita.

On the stand, Harwood says he did not murder Lita, but prosecutors want the jury to believe him when he insists Sullivan was behind it all.

"First of all, I didn't agree to kill his wife. What I agreed to do was to find someone to do it," Harwood testifies.

Defense lawyers emphasize their contempt for Harwood by not to even bothering with a cross examination, rolling the dice that the jury will find this “star witness” simply not believable.

In closing arguments, prosecutor Clint Rucker pulls out all the stops.

"The doorbell rings loud. It rings clearly. And in this case, it rings true," Rucker tells jurors.

He reminds the jury that this case is about a young woman who opened her door simply for a box of roses. "It’s the last thing she touched. And she used it as a shield to try to block the path of the bullet," Rucker says.

But defense lawyers insist there’s no proof Sullivan had anything to do with it. Garland mocks Belinda’s story, saying that was one big payoff for one small envelope — that the amount of cash wouldn't have fit inside.

Sullivan never takes the stand. The jury is left with reams of circumstantial evidence and two very unusual witnesses: Tony Harwood and Belinda Trahan.

Will the words of a convicted felon and his remorseful ex-girlfriend be enough to convict?

At long last, a jury has Jim Sullivan’s fate in its hands and the prosecutors, too, are more than ready for a verdict.

"This is the reason why there is no statue of limitations on murder. Murder will always go punished," says Ross.

But defense attorney Samuel thinks he’s poked major holes in the prosecution’s case. "I firmly believe the state doesn't have sufficient evidence to find him guilty. There is plenty of evidence out there that we can't explain. And it certainly seems suspicious. But I don't believe the evidence is sufficient to warrant a conviction," he explains.