I know this case has probably been discussed several times in the past, but I would like to bring it up again. Everytime I watch the case, it always "intrigues" me.
What are your opinons on the case of the Hansen twins?

I personally think that Donny was guilty, or at least had a degree of involvement in the case. There is just too much pointing against him. And then the theory about it being a random burglary attempt...how would the burglars know they would find all of that stuff in the Hansen house? Like one of the attorney's said: "how convenient." There are just too many things that make it hard to overlook Donny's involvement.

What do you guys think?

And have there been any updates? I know that Donny was acquitted, and at the end he said that after his acquittal, there have been no further investigations into the case...but still, just wondering.

Yes this case was disturbing. I think Donnie actually had planned on killing the entire family but his parents woke up. Donnie Hansen stuck out like a sore thumb and I think that if his sister hadnt passed away unexpectedly a month after the fire that he would have been sent to prison. Donnie got away with murder and he knows it. Not only that but the signs all point to him at least being involved in it. I dont think Donnie acted alone in this but I do think he was the one that came up with it. The fact that he got off though despite being the one that was trying to sneak back to get the gun and that he was the one who just so happened to have bought ammunition just hours before the fire and two days before the fire he had bought five gallons of gasoline as well as a gas can. His parents know he had something to do with it at least and I wouldnt speak to him either. The coward had to change his name and stuff and hide in the shadows even on his UM apperance.

It is my belief that he did it. However, why did he get charged with Julie's murder? I mean, is it because he was accused of causing events which led to her death, even though she died from a freak medical accident?

I mean, Julie was the case. The two neighbors who saw the unidentified people may have just seen some others trying to help. She was the only one. Some people may say that the doctor having a different story may just be a case of her thinking of more just like the parents said she did.

Oh well. :\ I mean, double jeopardy prevents anything from happening...

Well he couldnt get tried for murder again. They could charge him with a lesser charge of manslaughter.

It is my belief that he did it. However, why did he get charged with Julie's murder? I mean, is it because he was accused of causing events which led to her death, even though she died from a freak medical accident?


I think it's just that...he was charged with Julie's murder because he was accused of casuing the events which led to her death, even though she did die because of a medical accident.

I agree with everyone else in that Donny is guilty and that he didn't act alone. I also agree with kadmras15 that he probably intended to kill the whole family, but the parents woke up (smell of fire.) I have absolutely no idea what would possess Donny to want to kill his entire family. Too many of Donny's actions are unexplained, which include the following.

-Donny whispering to the two unidentified persons, most likely his accomplices, "Get out of here". If he thought he was in jeopardy, he would have shouted it.
-Donny's purchasing of gas cans, etc. hours before the incident.
-Donny going back for the gun, claiming he wanted to feed the dog, even though he knew the dog wasn't in the barn.
-Donny changing his story multiple times
-Donny said that the murderer was standing right next to him when they shot one of the twins. Why didn't the shooter then shoot him? Standard logic would have the shooter offing the supposed witness Donny.
-there are probably other things. So many reasons why I think he's guilty, I might not be able to remember them all.

also, here is something interesting I thought of that I don't think has been discussed here:

-How convenient for Donny that all of the rest of the members of his family were in rooms sleeping with the doors closed, and Donny was on the couch (in the living room or family room most likely.) This would give Donny easy access to let his accomplices in when they arrived, without the rest of the family finding out, at least not initially.

-Donny whispering to the two unidentified persons, most likely his accomplices, "Get out of here". If he thought he was in jeopardy, he would have shouted it.
-Donny's purchasing of gas cans, etc. hours before the incident.
-Donny going back for the gun, claiming he wanted to feed the dog, even though he knew the dog wasn't in the barn.
-Donny changing his story multiple times
-Donny said that the murderer was standing right next to him when they shot one of the twins. Why didn't the shooter then shoot him? Standard logic would have the shooter offing the supposed witness Donny.
-there are probably other things. So many reasons why I think he's guilty, I might not be able to remember them all.

also, here is something interesting I thought of that I don't think has been discussed here:

-How convenient for Donny that all of the rest of the members of his family were in rooms sleeping with the doors closed, and Donny was on the couch (in the living room or family room most likely.) This would give Donny easy access to let his accomplices in when they arrived, without the rest of the family finding out, at least not initially.

You make very good points, Wiseguy, and your last point had me really thinking!! I've seen this case 5-6 times but have never thought about that point! I always assumed since he was a guest, he would've been sleeping on the couch, and never gave more thought to it. But that's the good part of discussing cases here, you get so many different viewpoints, and start to think of things you never thought before!

Too many of Donny's actions are unexplained, which include the following.

-Donny whispering to the two unidentified persons, most likely his accomplices, "Get out of here". If he thought he was in jeopardy, he would have shouted it.
-Donny's purchasing of gas cans, etc. hours before the incident.
-Donny going back for the gun, claiming he wanted to feed the dog, even though he knew the dog wasn't in the barn.
-Donny changing his story multiple times
-Donny said that the murderer was standing right next to him when they shot one of the twins. Why didn't the shooter then shoot him? Standard logic would have the shooter offing the supposed witness Donny.
-there are probably other things. So many reasons why I think he's guilty, I might not be able to remember them all.

also, here is something interesting I thought of that I don't think has been discussed here:

-How convenient for Donny that all of the rest of the members of his family were in rooms sleeping with the doors closed, and Donny was on the couch (in the living room or family room most likely.) This would give Donny easy access to let his accomplices in when they arrived, without the rest of the family finding out, at least not initially.

I believe Donny is guilty as sin. There are just numerous undeniable facts that point to him.

Apart from what Wiseguy182 noted, there is another suspicious action that Donny made: he was seen hiding a shotgun before it was even discovered that a shotgun was involved, or that a crime had taken place.

Also, considering the accounts where he was heard telling someone to "get out", and that two unknown people were seen fleeing the area, I believe Donny had some accomplices in the crime.

I also don't think he could've pulled it off alone, obviously, since he was supposedly "sleeping" on the couch.

I know I've posted this same response before, but:

As soon as he said the idea that he was involved was "ludicrous," I believed he was lying. There's something about that word. It seems like people using it are digging so deep for a word to say how ridiculous something is, it's as if they're trying to really cover something up.

That jury should have their heads examined. That was as clear a case of guilt as I've ever seen.

I don't know what they were thinking either.

Well, it is quite obvious Donnie Hansen is guilty. I agree with you when someone says the word ludicrous that usually implies they are guilty. I honestly dont know what it is about that word but it is such a fancy word and I just get the feeling whenever anyone uses it to deny guilt that they are in fact guilty. Donnie is probably thanking his lucky stars and I bet he had his heart in his throat when they found him not guilty. I think the reason he was found not guilty was because there was reasonable doubt. I dont think there wasm but the jury must have because I cant think of any other reason why they would let him off. I do know of cases where people have been convicted with less evidence than there was on Donnie Hansen. He truly got off lucky. Gets to live life as a free man, not bad for someone who murdered two of his sisters and burnt down their house. I am sure he meant to kill the whole family as I said earlier but his parents woke up and foiled his plan.

I think the motivation for Donnie wanting to kill his family was money. I know Donnie's dad said there was a 500,000 dollar life insurance policy out on him. Had he died Donnie would have got that money. I honestly cant believe the jury acquitted him. Dont know if the prosecution was bad in this case or what. I mean according to Donnie it was all coincidence that he bought ammunition the night of the murder and two days before bought a gas can and 5 gallons worth of gasoline. Also if Donnie wasnt guilty why would he go out of his way to try to break into the shed to get the rifle? Just too many things adding up and Donnie's story doesnt. I am surprised they never asked him why he had that gasoline. He put it into a gas can and not his car so what was he planning on doing with it? Now is the DJ law that you cant be tried for the same case twice or for the same crime? Donnie was acquitted of murder but I wonder if they could take him back to court and charge him with manslaughter? It is one of those cases where if that case occurred now instead of back in the 80's he would not have got away with it. I think he did it and I think he is a coward. Everyone knows he did it that is why he had to move to a new area and change his name and wouldnt allow his face to be shown or h is voice to be heard.

I am very concerned that he got away with murder, also I am sure there was help and someone in the hospital made sure his sister died also so she wouldnt get the money, not so much she could identify because she probably didnt see anything. No one has mentioned that theory, of the hospitalized sister being knocked off.

I think the reason he was found not guilty was because there was reasonable doubt. I dont think there wasm but the jury must have because I cant think of any other reason why they would let him off.

Since the actual physcial evidence was obviously outweighed by Donny's suspicious actions, it seems to me that his defense attorney took advantage of that, and skillfully created enough reasonable doubt to warrant an acquittal. The way I see it, the case wasn't really a question of whether Donny was guilty or not guilty. It was really a question of whether it was possible for him to be innocent. While I don't think the jury was dumb (or at least not as dumb as the jury that acquitted O.J. Simpson), I do believe that some of them (if not all of them) have second-guessed their decision to acquit Donny Hansen.

A detective interviewed in the segment mentioned that Donny had failed a polygraph test twice. However, I would doubt that it was mentioned at the trial, since polygraph tests are too unreliable to be admissible as evidence.

That must have been an inept prosecutor or a stupid jury. Or a combo. You had points in all the major categories pointing to Donnie, as detailed early in this thread. Seems hard to believe it couldn't be devastating evidence as a whole, mostly circumstantial but all screaming guilt. I'd love to see a transcript or a summary of the trial.

I can't help but imagine the defense used a closing argument that went something like this:

"There is a difference between circumstancial evidence and factual evidence. The evidence shown by the prosecutor is, for the most part, circumstancial. There is no proof that my client was involved in this murder. My client has given the story as he remembers it, and it explains Ms. Hansen's, God bless her soul, story.

To be guilty is to have committed a crime and to be sentenced by a jury of your peers or a judge in good standing beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt? It means that there is no evidence that points to the fact that my client is innocent. Well, the evidence we have here is circumstancial...is it doing anything at all? My client has explained the circumstancial evidence, and after you take those away, what do you have?

A killer. That's what you have. A killer and an arsonist who is still out there, waiting for his/her's next victim or victims. Are you willing to send an innocent man to jail (Objection! --- Sustained.) Are you willing to send a man to jail on circumstancial evidence? Reasonable doubt is here, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. I just hope you can recognize it."

Or something. It's terrible.

That must have been an inept prosecutor or a stupid jury. Or a combo.

Although I don't have all the facts, it's obvious that the prosecutor didn't present a sufficiently strong case. And that was why the case was lost. Of course, one doesn't lose a case for no reason.

Someone should write a book about this case (if they haven't already). Perhaps it could help shed some light on the case, and disclose details that weren't previously known. It could also provide details on why Donny Hansen was acquitted.

Of course, because of double jeopardy laws, Donny can never be retried in the case. But as you know, hindsight is always 20/20. So one can only look back in retrospect, and consider how there could have been a different verdict.

Well since I don't get UM on LMN, and had the need to satisfy my UM craving, I decided to rewatch some of the segments in my collection last night, and this was one of them.

Here are a couple of things I don't think have been mentioned before:

-Did anyone else find it strange that Donnie went to feed his dog in the middle of the night? I've never heard of anyone doing that.

-In the midst of all the chaos, Donnie conveiently found time to take the shotgun from out of his car, and put it in the shed. Why did he do that? I mean, here his house is burning down and his sisters hadn't been rescued yet, and Donnie thinks the most important thing he could be doing is not rescuing his sisters or saving his house, but putting his shotgun away? Sounds pretty suspicious to me.

Plus, as somebody mentioned in the segment, if it was somebody other than Donnie (which I highly doubt), how convenient that there was a shotgun and gasoline at the house. Person or Persons doing this as a random act would have to risk that these instruments were already at the house: a pretty huge risk.

Poor Betty and Hans Hansen. As they mentioned, they have lost three of their four kids out of this, as Jill and Julie are dead, and Donnie may as well be dead to them. Given how horriby botched these crimes seem to be, I think it's safe to say that it didn't go off as planned for whoever is responsible (Donnie).

Well since I don't get UM on LMN, and had the need to satisfy my UM craving, I decided to rewatch some of the segments in my collection last night, and this was one of them.

Here are a couple of things I don't think have been mentioned before:

-Did anyone else find it strange that Donnie went to feed his dog in the middle of the night? I've never heard of anyone doing that.

-In the midst of all the chaos, Donnie conveiently found time to take the shotgun from out of his car, and put it in the shed. Why did he do that? I mean, here his house is burning down and his sisters hadn't been rescued yet, and Donnie thinks the most important thing he could be doing is not rescuing his sisters or saving his house, but putting his shotgun away? Sounds pretty suspicious to me.

Plus, as somebody mentioned in the segment, if it was somebody other than Donnie (which I highly doubt), how convenient that there was a shotgun and gasoline at the house. Person or Persons doing this as a random act would have to risk that these instruments were already at the house: a pretty huge risk.

Poor Betty and Hans Hansen. As they mentioned, they have lost three of their four kids out of this, as Jill and Julie are dead, and Donnie may as well be dead to them. Given how horriby botched these crimes seem to be, I think it's safe to say that it didn't go off as planned for whoever is responsible (Donnie).

I would LOVE to hear some real answers to all these questions by Donnie himself and not the BS he speaks on the camera :angryfire Whilst it can't obviously be easy for his mother and stepfather I'm relieved to hear they want nothing to do with him.

What I also have a hard time diegesting about this case is that the surviving twin died when an air bubble entered the drip and stopped her heart... that's gotta be the first thing you are taught as a nurse, flick the syringe first to get rid of any air bubbles!!! I shake my head..

I would LOVE to hear some real answers to all these questions by Donnie himself and not the BS he speaks on the camera :angryfire

Yeah, I agree, Space Invaderz. Donnie had an opportunity to answer some of the many nagging questions, and he decided to fritter it away by doing absolutely nothing except say the accusations against him were ludicrous (as was mentioned by some other posters above.) Hmm, well let's see Donnie, you did about 8 or 9 things at least that seem very fishy, yet these accusations are "ludicrous." Yeah, right.

I watched this story last night and i couldnt believe how Donnie got away with murdering his sisters. That story made me feel angry thinking of Donnie being a free man all these years.

I wonder about one thing: Why the surviving sister didnt get interviewed by the police?, i dont know but maybe her testimony could have been valid in a trial even after her death. They could have get her on video or something.

And if it were a fiction story and not a real case i would say that her doctor testimony and her accidental death at the hospital are very suspicious...

I watched this story last night and i couldnt believe how Donnie got away with murdering his sisters. That story made me feel angry thinking of Donnie being a free man all these years.

I wonder about one thing: Why the surviving sister didnt get interviewed by the police?, i dont know but maybe her testimony could have been valid in a trial even after her death. They could have get her on video or something.

And if it were a fiction story and not a real case i would say that her doctor testimony and her accidental death at the hospital are very suspicious...
Im not sure if you are still checking this thread but I can shead a little light on that. Julie was recorded stating "Donny shot me", however as she passed away prior to the trial that was concidered to be hear say and the jury never heard that tape. This story also made it to Hard Copy.... I believe that is the tv program they actually played the voice recording on. Im not sure if anyone remembers that show, but I do. I am a family member of the twins and I watched it when I was a small child. My exact recolection of the show is faint because I was soooo young, however I remember hearing Julie's voice and what she said.

Well, what stinks here, is that while Julie was recorded, the statements by her were not allowed into evidence because she had passed away before defense attorney's had a chance to cross examine her. So because her statements couldnt be challenged by defense attorney's they were excluded as evidence, a blow to the prosecution and a boost to the defense.

Without Julie's statements, you have all the pieces of puzzle, but you dont have the clincher, do I think Donny did it or was responsible for what happened? Yes. Whether or not he was the only one involved is another story, but I do think he intended to not only murder his twin sisters but murder his parents as well, but his plan went south. His parents woke up.

The shot gun blasts had already happened and the house was on fire when Hans woke up somehow, Betty actually slept through all of it, Hans woke up and smelled the smoke and realized the trailer was on fire, so he woke Betty up, Donny is heard screaming "get out of here" which means that either he is screaming at his twin sister Julie to get out of there or he is screaming at the potential mysterious, unknown intruder to "get out of here" or he is screaming at his accomplice or accomplices to "get out of here".

Donny was caught in lies on more than on a couple of items, he was caught trying to remove the gun from the shed where he had hid it and then lied claiming he was coming to feed the dog. Donny was caught in a lie about the shot gun blast, first he claimed he woke up right as this mysterious intruder was about to shoot Julie, then after the acquittal, now Donny has changed his story and claimed he never heard the shot.

Donny also was the one that purchased the gasoline and the shot gun shells used in the murder, I mean that is pretty convinent that these unknown intruders would show up, shoot two teenager girls, not shoot Donny, and have a gun, ammunition and gasoline all waiting for them to use.

It is my belief personally that Donny was not the only one involved, this would explain the mysterious individuals seen running from the Hansen trailer, by the neighbors after it was on fire but before the fire department arrived. It actually still kind of amazes me that Donny was acquitted, I have seen people convicted of first degree murder, off much, much, much less than what they had on Donny. It must have been one of those situations where the jury thought he did it, but they just werent comfortable convicting because there wasnt the smoking gun (no pun intended) in this case.

I also think the prosecutor and the cops, while they had the right person for the crime, I think they were arrogant and overestimated what they had and underestimated the defense and didnt do the research into the case that they should have to get the smoking gun that would remove any form of doubt.

The shot gun blasts had already happened and the house was on fire when Hans woke up somehow, Betty actually slept through all of it, Hans woke up and smelled the smoke and realized the trailer was on fire, so he woke Betty up, Donny is heard screaming "get out of here" which means that either he is screaming at his twin sister Julie to get out of there or he is screaming at the potential mysterious, unknown intruder to "get out of here" or he is screaming at his accomplice or accomplices to "get out of here".

I always thought when he screamed "get out of here' he was saying it to the accomplices so that they could avoid detection. If Donny was innocent and tellilng the perpetrators to get out of here, that prevents Donny from getting a look at them so he could identify them.

Which brings me too...

Donny apparently sees the perpetrators, but we never learn of any physical descrptions of them. why is that? If Donny was innocent, wouldn't he do his darndest to try and remember what they looked like?

Yes, how could neighbors have described the accomplices and Donny couldn't when he was much closer?

Was he tried ONLY for Julie's murder, or that of both girls? Could he still be tried for the murder of Jill, or arson? Some guy--Thomas somebody, famous case, who got an accomplice to "scream test" the house before the murder--found to have committed murder after being acquitted due to pictures he took and LEFT IN THE HOUSE WHEN HE MOVED, was found guilty of perjury. Those double jeopardy laws were written with no thought of photography, recordings, hair and fiber, or DNA evidence.

That particular killer was Mel Ignatow. His former girlfriend (Mary Ann Shore) helped him "scream test" his house, and dig a grave in the backyard before he lured Brenda Sue Schaefer there. Mary Ann photographed the sexual torture and murder of Brenda Sue, being careful not to show Ignatow's face. I believe she also helped him bury the body though I'm not sure.She testified to all of this and led the police to the grave, but Shore was not considered a credible witness and Ignatow was acquitted. In order to pay for his defense, Ignatow sold his house and when the new owners had the carpet replaced, workers discovered Brenda's jewelry and 3 rolls of undeveloped film documenting her death. Ignatow then confessed but could not be retried for murder. He did serve two terms for perjury (one State and one Federal, I believe) but is now a free man, living here in Louisville--about 4 miles from where he committed murder. Sigh!
I agree. "Double jeopardy" was never about letting the guilty walk free but about preventing the continued persecution of the innocent.

That's just wrong. :mad:

That particular killer was Mel Ignatow. His former girlfriend (Mary Ann Shore) helped him "scream test" his house, and dig a grave in the backyard before he lured Brenda Sue Schaefer there. Mary Ann photographed the sexual torture and murder of Brenda Sue, being careful not to show Ignatow's face. I believe she also helped him bury the body though I'm not sure.She testified to all of this and led the police to the grave, but Shore was not considered a credible witness and Ignatow was acquitted. In order to pay for his defense, Ignatow sold his house and when the new owners had the carpet replaced, workers discovered Brenda's jewelry and 3 rolls of undeveloped film documenting her death. Ignatow then confessed but could not be retried for murder. He did serve two terms for perjury (one State and one Federal, I believe) but is now a free man, living here in Louisville--about 4 miles from where he committed murder. Sigh!
I agree. "Double jeopardy" was never about letting the guilty walk free but about preventing the continued persecution of the innocent.

Discusting!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

I was so very glad to come across this site, most especially this thread. The Hansen case has been racking my brain for years and I have never, ever been able to find anything about it online, nor on any other UM sites. I don't understand at all how he slipped through. It's good to know that there's still interest and that the injustice is not forgotten.

Yeah, Ignatow was bad. Personally, I didnt care how the prosecutors and particularly the family of the victim and the cops were ripping on the jury. The jury thought that Ignatow probably did it but they said they had to make a decision based on what evidence was presented. To be honest, their case really wasnt that good before the photos were discovered. Obviously with the photos discovered that made it a slamdunk but it was too late. Ignatow I believe later served 6 or 7 years in federal prison for perjury and then when he was about to be released from there was indicted at the state level for perjury and later pled guilty and was sentenced to another 8 years and was released in 2006 after serving half his term.

As for Donny Hansen, yes he was tried for both murders plus arson and was acquitted of everything. It is sad, but it simply isnt worth changing the rules and making it so you can re-try people after acquittal. While you might on occassion get someone like Hansen or Ignatow that would deserve to be thrown in prison for life more often than not you would have prosecutors abusing the system and re-trying people over and over until they got the verdict they wanted.

Anybody know what Donny Hansen is doing today?? It makes me sick to think he's a free man....

Anybody know what Donny Hansen is doing today??

They said he changed his name to get away from the attention of the case. I doubt there would be any way to find out what he is doing unless he wanted it known.

It makes me sick to think he's a free man....

My thoughts exactly. :mad:

Through some weird circumstance, this woman http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25317346/ was tried twice for murder, with two different verdicts!

Link (http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=8932145&nav=menu31_3)

LOUISVILLE, KY (WAVE) - Mel Ignatow, the man who admitted to killing his girlfriend, Brenda Sue Schaefer in September of 1988 after being acquitted of the crime, was found dead in his home on Carrier Court Monday morning. WAVE 3's Caton Bredar reports.

Although Ignatow was acquitted of murdering Schaefer, pictures showing her being tortured and killed surfaced six months later, and Ignatow served time in state and federal prison for perjury.

To his Anthony Allen, an upstairs neighbor who discovered Ignatow's body, Ignatow was a sick and elderly man, alone and struggling for help when he apparently stumbled to his death. "I used to hear him all night, asking for Jesus to come get him, because he was in a lot of pain."

"It just looked like he had fell and hit his head on the table," Allen said. "And he tried to go to the kitchen, and there was a blood trail that way, and then it looked like he tried to make it to his room, before he made it to his room, that's where they found his body at."

Regardless of whatever pain Ignatow may have suffered in his final moments, many, like Kim Bennett, a friend of the Schaefer family, can think only of the pain he caused others. "He was just a big monster in a family. God forgive me, but I'm so glad he's where he needs to be."

In 1991, Ignatow was found not guilty on charges of sexual abuse, torture and murdering his former fiancee, Brenda Sue Schaefer.

But months later, contractors laying carpet in the home Ignatow where lived when Schaefer was killed found undeveloped film. The film contained pictures of Ignatow and another girlfriend, Mary Ann Shore, torturing and killing Schaefer.

After the pictures surfaced, Ignatow admitted he was guilty, but because of double jeopardy laws, he couldn't be tried again on the same charges.

Ignatow spent nearly 11 years behind bars on perjury charges - for lying under oath when he said he didn't kill Schaefer. He was also convicted of lying in another case involving Schaefer's employer.

Even though Ignatow spent time behind bars, Ignatow's son, Michael Ignatow says that, in the public's eye, "to be acquitted in that first trial, and then to have the evidence actually show up 11 months later, you know, it's like a slap in the face to the community."

Michael Ignatow admits that his father's sins may never be forgiven. "He will probably go down as one of the most hated men in Louisville."

Michael believes his father's death was an accident. "Apparently, he fell and hit a glass coffee table and, from what I can tell, he cut his arm."

Now he hopes his father's death will help people forget some of his transgressions.

"Maybe it'll just put it to rest, that we all don't have to keep dealing with this over and over. That's what I hope."

Thanks for the link. The fact that he was in so much pain before he died was very much deserved considering the horrible way he tortured his ex before killing her. Good riddance!!!!

Thanks for the link. The fact that he was in so much pain before he died was very much deserved considering the horrible way he tortured his ex before killing her. Good riddance!!!!

Can't feel sorry for anyone but the people left behind. It would be so awful to be the child of anybody like that.

Well, I disagree that anyone deserves physical pain regardless of what they have done. I dont really feel pity for Mr. Ignatow although I do feel bad for his children. Ignatow, if he didnt repent for what he did, well he is in a very hot place right now.

Well, I disagree that anyone deserves physical pain regardless of what they have done. I dont really feel pity for Mr. Ignatow although I do feel bad for his children. Ignatow, if he didnt repent for what he did, well he is in a very hot place right now.

Well said kadrmas, well said.

When it comes to Donny Hanson, or whoever the hell he is now, he's not free. He changed his name, but he lost his family and friends, and his life. He may be living among the general public now, but when he kicks the bucket, he'll face judgement for what he did. No doubt about it.

:wizard:

When it comes to Donny Hanson, or whoever the hell he is now, he's not free. He changed his name, but he lost his family and friends, and his life. He may be living among the general public now, but when he kicks the bucket, he'll face judgement for what he did. No doubt about it.

:wizard:

Absolutely. Easily the most guilty individual in UM history.

Hey I hate to ask and I'm new so I don't know yet, but here goes. Does anyone have the epsode on tape or something I would love to have a copy. The donny hanson case. My email is alterdimension@gmail.com, Thanks in advance.

As for Donny Hansen, yes he was tried for both murders plus arson and was acquitted of everything. It is sad, but it simply isnt worth changing the rules and making it so you can re-try people after acquittal. While you might on occassion get someone like Hansen or Ignatow that would deserve to be thrown in prison for life more often than not you would have prosecutors abusing the system and re-trying people over and over until they got the verdict they wanted.
I agree. If you give a prosecutor enough chances, they will most likely eventually find a jury who will convict the person, and that is simply unfair. When the jury says "not guilty," the person should be able to move on with his or her life. Of course, that means sometimes the guilty go free, but our system is designed to err on the side of setting the guilty free rather than convicting the innocent, and I think that is the correct approach.

What are your opinions on the case of the Hansen twins?

I have two opinions on this case:

1. Listening to Donny's defense attorney give his "theory" on what "really" happened, and the whole time with a straight face and with conviction as though he really believed that is what in fact did happen, is a good example of why I generally have little to no respect for defense lawyers. I did like how the Prosecutor pointed out the absurdities of it, and the way UM edited it.

2. I would like to find out the names and contact information for all the jurors on this case, because I have some snake oil I would like to sell. I hope and pray to dear God I never get charged with a serious crime, because if people from the general populace are gullible enough to buy the yarn spun by that lawyer, who knows what they will fall for when some unscrupulous and cunning prosecutor comes up with a fable like that in an attempt to put me away. I might be okay if I can recruit Donny's lawyer - he might not be able to put together a very believable scenario, but he sure knows how to get a jury selected that he can dupe.

After re-watching this segment, I must say that although I have little faith in defense lawyers, I have even less in the intelligence, good judgment, and common sense of the average American - the pool from which we draw to form our juries. Scary.

Whoa, take it easy on the hating. Also, especially take it easy on the defense lawyers. First off, the defense lawyers were doing their jobs, how is that a defense attorney's fault that A. the prosecutor was arrogant and thought the case was a slam dunk and thus did not try as hard and B. that a jury was stupid enough to buy this theory?

I mean, I am a guy that aspires to be a defense attorney, but even I, in my pro defense mind set am pretty amazed Donnie Hansen got acquitted. However one must remember, first off, the trial was moved out of Humboldt County or at least the jury was not from there. It is unclear to me whether the trial was moved to Alameda County or if the jury was brought in there, but either way, the jury came from Alameda County which is Oakland and the east San Francisco bay area, considerably more liberal and about 200 miles south of Humboldt County. It is especially amazing about Donnie's acquittal considering that this was a death qualified jury as the state was seeking the death penalty.

However when you start mudslinging and alleging 'duping' that simply is not true. You do realize that it is the prosecutors burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? While it is my opinion that this WAS done in this case, quit blaming and hating on the defense attorney. How is that his fault that a jury would overlook the fact that let's see, the shot gun shells, the murder weapon, the gasoline and the gas can, all of it, had either been purchased by Donnie himself or in his possession on the night of the murder? I mean, like I said, I am pretty astounded Donnie was acquitted myself. Looking at him and this case, he would be a defense attorney's nightmare in terms of that evidence. For whatever reason it ended in an acquittal. However instead of having little faith in defense attorney's, in fact you should have a lot of faith in them, they got a guy acquitted when I have seen people convicted off of MUCH less than what they had on Donnie.

I think you should have little faith in the prosecutor and your cop buddies. They basically threw the case. They were arrogant and let little things pass by because they thought the case was a slam dunk so they did not try nearly as hard. I mean, all they had to do was discredit a couple eyewitnesses and that was that. Plus, even though Donnie's one sister that initially survived said she saw his face in the flash, her testimony was not allowed because she was dead and could not be cross examined. That would be a violation of the confrontation clause of the constitution.

Nothing scary at all about the jury acquitting Donnie. They were just not convinced. I am surprised but I would not say it is scary, for whatever reason they were not convinced. I do not think it is because they are stupid as so many pro prosecution hacks like to smear jurors when jurors do not hang the defendant all the time.

I agree with most on this board, I think Donnie did this, however, i think his plan was to burn the house down and kill his family with a fire, making it look like an accident and had two people helping him, one had the gun, one of the twins woke up, shot her. While the other one died as planned and his parents woke up. I don't know why he wanted to do this, but i feel he did do this.

Yes, that is the only thing that makes me think Donnie had an accomplice. I mean, all of this stuff, I just have a hard time believing he did it all on his own but who knows? My own personal opinion is he wanted to do this for the insurance money. While his older sister was not there, so he would have had to share it with her but if he kills his younger twin sisters those are two less people he has to share the money with. But yeah, I mean Donnie, while he and his older sister were not Hans's biological kids, Hans adopted them and I think considered Donnie his son before this happened.

But yeah, Donnie, I am not sure what he was into. However, like I said, my guess for the motive behind this was money. I think he wanted the life insurance money since I imagine Hans and Betty had life insurance and their kids were beneficiaries in the event both of them died, so yeah, I think it was partly that. My guess too is that Donnie would have got the property and would have got control of Hans's business.

Looking at this thing and how it went down, yeah, I mean, regardless of Donnie had accomplices or not, whoever it was could have shot Hans and Betty too but did not. So that is what leads me to believe that while someone had a gun that it was more as a precaution and that originally Donnie and his accomplices if he had any were not planning on shooting anyone but were planning on dousing the trailer with gasoline and then setting it on fire and hoping that the twins and Hans and Betty would sleep through it.

I think when the perpetrator, whether it was Donnie or someone else, when they went into the twins room to douse it with gasoline, probably after they shut the door, one of the twins or perhaps both woke up. Julie went out to investigate and then she was shot. Now, evidently, Hans and Betty slept through the gun shot which I find pretty incredible, I am not alleging they had any involvement, but I mean, clearly for them not to hear the shot in a close quarter like that, I mean, wouldn't something have to be put in front of the gun to muffle the sound?

I mean, wouldn't something have to be put in front of the gun to muffle the sound?

As I stated in another thread, this is most likely not possible, unless one person is holding the shotgun and firing, and another is holding this mystery object in front of it, tight to the muzzle. A shotgun is not a pistol. Contrary to what you see in the movies, this doesn't work quite the way you seem to think it does, nor does it work as well as most people seem to think. Not to mention they'd have to use two different things, as after the first shot, the first one would be destroyed. And if the one sister saw a muzzle flash, that points to there being nothing at the muzzle. Otherwise, the escaping gases that cause a muzzle flash would've been trapped in said mystery object. The whole point of something to "muffle" the sound of the shot is to trap these gases. If she saw a flash, there was nothing at the muzzle.

Yes bell I remember you said it, hence why I was asking, or trying to ask, could Donnie or someone else fired the gun while Donnie or someone else depending on who was firing the gun held something in front of the gun to muffle the sound?

Well, I still do not get how you could fire a 12 gauge shotgun inside of a small trailer yet have no one hear the shot? Of course, at trial, Donnie's story (I am not sure if he testified or if his lawyers used this in their opening/closing arguments) was that he was awoke by the shot. He claimed he heard the shot, woke up. However after trial, Donnie's story changed and he claimed he never heard the shot. I guess it is because despite his acquittal, he could not explain why he was awoke by the shot but his parents and evidently his sisters were not?

Well, I still do not get how you could fire a 12 gauge shotgun inside of a small trailer yet have no one hear the shot? Of course, at trial, Donnie's story (I am not sure if he testified or if his lawyers used this in their opening/closing arguments) was that he was awoke by the shot. He claimed he heard the shot, woke up. However after trial, Donnie's story changed and he claimed he never heard the shot. I guess it is because despite his acquittal, he could not explain why he was awoke by the shot but his parents and evidently his sisters were not?

They could be heavy sleepers. I know that sounds trite, but some people can sleep through loud noises without a problem. I, and many others, once slept through a fire alarm in the dorm back in college, and that was a siren blaring for 20+ minutes right outside my door.

Personally, I think at a minimum, Donnie knows more than he is saying about the murders; at the same time, I could see how a jury could find reasonable doubt, especially if the case was poorly presented.

Yes bell I remember you said it, hence why I was asking, or trying to ask, could Donnie or someone else fired the gun while Donnie or someone else depending on who was firing the gun held something in front of the gun to muffle the sound?

As I said above, it's incredibly unlikely. For there to be a muzzle flash, it means that the gases travel unimpeded from the muzzle to the outside air. Also, the buckshot rounds for a shotgun do not have the penetration properties of a rifle or pistol. So whatever it would've been fired through would've taken a large percentage of its muzzle velocity away, and, quite possibly, completely scattered the shot (as opposed to having it go together, straight forward and then spread outward, as shotgun rounds generally work), because the sabot would've wound up tumbling through said object.

Whoa, take it easy on the hating. Also, especially take it easy on the defense lawyers. First off, the defense lawyers were doing their jobs, how is that a defense attorney's fault that A. the prosecutor was arrogant and thought the case was a slam dunk and thus did not try as hard and B. that a jury was stupid enough to buy this theory?

I mean, I am a guy that aspires to be a defense attorney, but even I, in my pro defense mind set am pretty amazed Donnie Hansen got acquitted. However one must remember, first off, the trial was moved out of Humboldt County or at least the jury was not from there. It is unclear to me whether the trial was moved to Alameda County or if the jury was brought in there, but either way, the jury came from Alameda County which is Oakland and the east San Francisco bay area, considerably more liberal and about 200 miles south of Humboldt County. It is especially amazing about Donnie's acquittal considering that this was a death qualified jury as the state was seeking the death penalty.

However when you start mudslinging and alleging 'duping' that simply is not true. You do realize that it is the prosecutors burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? While it is my opinion that this WAS done in this case, quit blaming and hating on the defense attorney. How is that his fault that a jury would overlook the fact that let's see, the shot gun shells, the murder weapon, the gasoline and the gas can, all of it, had either been purchased by Donnie himself or in his possession on the night of the murder? I mean, like I said, I am pretty astounded Donnie was acquitted myself. Looking at him and this case, he would be a defense attorney's nightmare in terms of that evidence. For whatever reason it ended in an acquittal. However instead of having little faith in defense attorney's, in fact you should have a lot of faith in them, they got a guy acquitted when I have seen people convicted off of MUCH less than what they had on Donnie.

I think you should have little faith in the prosecutor and your cop buddies. They basically threw the case. They were arrogant and let little things pass by because they thought the case was a slam dunk so they did not try nearly as hard. I mean, all they had to do was discredit a couple eyewitnesses and that was that. Plus, even though Donnie's one sister that initially survived said she saw his face in the flash, her testimony was not allowed because she was dead and could not be cross examined. That would be a violation of the confrontation clause of the constitution.

Nothing scary at all about the jury acquitting Donnie. They were just not convinced. I am surprised but I would not say it is scary, for whatever reason they were not convinced. I do not think it is because they are stupid as so many pro prosecution hacks like to smear jurors when jurors do not hang the defendant all the time.

Two things:

1. When I say I have "little faith" in defense lawyers, I mean to say I do not trust them. I have great "faith" in their ability to get a guilty man off, but I would not trust most of them as far as I could throw them, because you have to be somewhat devoid of morals to defend someone as sincerely as many of them do. I don't mind a lawyer saying, "It is entirely possible that ...", or "according to my client, what happened was ...". What I get upset with is when a lawyer says "what really happened was ..." and goes on to defend the scenario as though he believes it with every fiber in his being and makes any prosecutor who argues against it out to be an idiot. They are acting. They are professing something they really do not believe (or have convinced themselves of something they know to be false so they can "win their case"). They are professing personal belief in one thing when they do not really believe it. If you watch enough crime shows, and see enough interviews with defense lawyers, you get pretty sick of seeing them get all agitated and emotional when they put forth their points and insult those who believe the evidence points to the guilt of their clients. // It is like they have developed a certain affinity for their clients, despite how many people they may have killed, raped, or molested.

2. I am not defending the cops or the prosecution either. I believe the way it should be is that even the most heinous of criminals should get the best possible defense (though I do not think this necessitates the defense lawyer be fake and contrived like I outlined above), because as long as the prosecution does its job and the cops do their jobs, the right decision will almost always be made. When a guilty man gets off because the prosecution or the cops screwed up, I do not blame the defense team one bit for that (I only blame them for being fake and phony and morally bankrupt because of their duplicitousness in showing such conviction for their client's "innocence" - which they will proclaim loudly and vociferously to the bitter and to their dying breath). Rather, I blame the prosecution and/or the police. The defense did it's job, the prosecution did not do it's.

Well, I am just as moral as you are, so you can take that point and stuff it. It has nothing to do with morals, that is the point you seem to miss. It is a job! Okay, it is your job, to get a person 'off the hook' just like if you are a prosecutor it is your job to get a conviction. The difference is, it is not unethical for a defense attorney to get a guilty person off the hook as our legal system is around the presumption of innocence. However it is unethical for a prosecutor to prosecute someone they are not convinced is guilty.

I mean, believe me, I certainly do not aspire to be a defense attorney due to all the popularity I would get. There is none in the field. A majority of the general public feels the same way you do for some reason and I am not really sure why? A couple of high profile acquittals and so many of you get bent out of shape.

I will say, it takes a lot of guts to be a defense attorney, yes there are the big dollar makers like the late Johnnie Cochran, F. Lee Bailey, Mark Geragos, Joe Tacopina, Yale Galenter, Mickey Sherman, Roy Black, etc. However the majority of defense attorneys are either public defenders or people that have small private practices. There is not a lot of money, no glory, not even much of a chance of winning, over 90 percent of cases end in convictions.

However in your assumption, where you screw up is you assume (wrongly) that the defense attorney is lying. I will tell you, most of these defense attorney's believe their clients or force themselves to believe them. I mean, how could you properly defend a person otherwise? However I do take issue with you calling defense attorney's 'immoral' interesting how they are immoral yet the prosecutors and cops that have KNOWINGLY lied to get an innocent person convicted are not immoral. Hmm.

All the talk of lawyers, lol, kind of funny. Look, defense lawyers are the only people that are less popular than a used car salesman. They make that money because no one else will do that job. If it were me I would shoot my brains out literally knowing I got murderers of the hook based on technicalities. From the start a defence lawyer is a different breed of a person. They need to value money. First and foremost they are not problem solvers like us on here but rather people that would rather just win an argument regardless of how. Defence lawyers lacking ethics is nothing new. The only thing is that there are juries and judges that can buy this stuff and to me they are just as bad at times.

Another thing, I saw a post mentioning if Hans and Betty were involved. They most certainly were not. These were their twin girls. They loved them. There was no motive for them to do this or be witholding information.

Lastly it is highly possible to sleep through a gunshot. I too slept through a fire alarm at a hotel room when I was 12, and I assume I would do the same. I can never recollect when my wife kisses me goodbye every morning if she leaves before me. It is very possible that they didn't hear a gunshot. Plus while a fire isn't so much noisy, it might have muffled the gunshot a bit

All the talk of lawyers, lol, kind of funny. Look, defense lawyers are the only people that are less popular than a used car salesman. They make that money because no one else will do that job. If it were me I would shoot my brains out literally knowing I got murderers of the hook based on technicalities. From the start a defence lawyer is a different breed of a person. They need to value money. First and foremost they are not problem solvers like us on here but rather people that would rather just win an argument regardless of how. Defence lawyers lacking ethics is nothing new. The only thing is that there are juries and judges that can buy this stuff and to me they are just as bad at times.

Most criminal defense attorneys don't make much money (30-50K, which is nothing with 100-150K in student loan debt to pay back) since most criminal defendants don't have any money to pay them with. White-collar criminal defense attorneys (those who defend people like Bernie Madoff and Rod Blagojevich) at BigLaw can make a ton, but they don't do murder cases.

Most of the crim defense attorneys I know, actually, are idealists, in that not only do they believe in the constitutional rights we all have (which, i would hope, we all do), they are willing to see those rights through to their natural conclusion, regardless of the consequences. It's easy to defend the bill of rights when it's abstract concepts, it's much harder when life and liberty are actually on the line. Certainly, some aspects of life would be easier if we could just summarily execute those are "guilty" of crimes; of course, how long would it be before you get a bullet in the head? Given the track record of totalitarian regimes and the loose definition of "crime," not long.

Yes I agree, I am so SICK of the argument that defense attorneys do it for the money or do it because they lack morals or that they only care about how winning an argument. How absurd! Interesting how everyone that alleges this gives a pass to their cop and prosecutor buddies on the latter argument about winning arguments. Most defense attorney are public defenders who make about the same as prosecutors and cops do.

Well, I am just as moral as you are, so you can take that point and stuff it. It has nothing to do with morals, that is the point you seem to miss. It is a job! Okay, it is your job, to get a person 'off the hook' just like if you are a prosecutor it is your job to get a conviction. The difference is, it is not unethical for a defense attorney to get a guilty person off the hook as our legal system is around the presumption of innocence. However it is unethical for a prosecutor to prosecute someone they are not convinced is guilty.

I mean, believe me, I certainly do not aspire to be a defense attorney due to all the popularity I would get. There is none in the field. A majority of the general public feels the same way you do for some reason and I am not really sure why? A couple of high profile acquittals and so many of you get bent out of shape.

I will say, it takes a lot of guts to be a defense attorney, yes there are the big dollar makers like the late Johnnie Cochran, F. Lee Bailey, Mark Geragos, Joe Tacopina, Yale Galenter, Mickey Sherman, Roy Black, etc. However the majority of defense attorneys are either public defenders or people that have small private practices. There is not a lot of money, no glory, not even much of a chance of winning, over 90 percent of cases end in convictions.

However in your assumption, where you screw up is you assume (wrongly) that the defense attorney is lying. I will tell you, most of these defense attorney's believe their clients or force themselves to believe them. I mean, how could you properly defend a person otherwise? However I do take issue with you calling defense attorney's 'immoral' interesting how they are immoral yet the prosecutors and cops that have KNOWINGLY lied to get an innocent person convicted are not immoral. Hmm.

I did not say it was immoral for a defense lawyer to get a person "off the hook" - in fact, I did say it was "his job". Obviously, you did not read my post too closely. It was as though you decided quite early on that I was disagreeing with you, and you got immediately defensive in your mind and read the remainder from the sole paradigm of "proving this guy wrong" - something you habitually do on this forum. Proof of this is the use of emotionally-loaded language like "take that point and stuff it" and "where you screw up". This, besides being unnecessary and a turn-off (are you trying to convince me or just browbeat me?) is usually evidence that one is not really listening openly to what the other has to say, but is knee-jerking in response to a perceived slight. If I was to copy and paste the many insults and similar remarks you have made as found in your past posts and put them all together in one view, I think you would be a bit embarrased. We are sharing opinions here - is there really a need to get so worked up?

Please re-read my post. For the most part, you are objecting to a straw man.

Another thing, I saw a post mentioning if Hans and Betty were involved. They most certainly were not. These were their twin girls. They loved them. There was no motive for them to do this or be witholding information.

I agree with your conclusion, but not your reasons for so believing. I do not think Hans and Betty were involved, but not because "these were their twin girls [and] they loved them". Obviously, I think they did, but on the other hand, parents have killed their children before. I can think of some cases from "Cold Case Files" where this was the case. For instance, one guy had his son, son-in-law, and granddaughter killed for insurance money.

You did not say it but you implied it. You implied that defense attorneys were not moral. I mean yes I am sure there are some that are not moral, there are some people in every career field that are not moral. However you specifically singled out defense attorney's. I did read your post, just because I did not agree with what you had to say and confronted you on wild accusations does not mean I did not read it. Again, I was not picking a fight with you. I was merely telling you how it was. When you imply that defense attorney's are not moral because they defend people you feel are criminals well, I mean, what is one to say that? I mean, yes you are damn right I got defensive. I mean when someone tries to imply that I am not moral because I support a cause they do not agree with, yeah that tends to tick me off. Again, you did not say the words per se but that is what you were implying in my opinion.

Yes, you said it is their job, however it is quite clear that you hate defense attorney's. Like me, I do not hate cops or prosecutors, but I feel there is a double standard. The majority of the general public trusts every word cops and prosecutors say and shift the burden to a defendant to prove that they did not do something. I mean it is like we are in the Soviet Union or something. I mean, people get all bent out of shape over a defense attorney arguing his or her case but yet a prosecutor can do the same thing without any real evidence and uses emotion to make people more likely to convict and no one seems to care. That is where my frustration comes from. There is a double standard. Prosecutors have quite often prosecuted cases where by their own admission (off the record usually) that they were not sure of a defendants guilt. Of course for the most part they would not admit that on the record, certainly not while they were active prosecutors because it would be unethical.

Also, I am not sure where you get this idea that all these defense attorney's argue cases they do not believe in? Sure there are cases where defense attorney's do not believe their clients. However I can guarantee you a majority of the time, the defense attorney if nothing else forces themselves to believe their client. I mean, how could you adequately defend a person if you believed them to be guilty? Plus there are different degrees of culpability. Say a person kills someone else in a fight, the state of course will go after murder 1, especially if the victim if more desirable to the media, such as a minority or a woman, however if it was a fight with say no intent to kill or no premeditation, than I do not see anything wrong with a defense lawyer admitting his client did it but arguing for a lesser charge of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter.

I mean, I have seen defense attorneys who did not believe in their clients. You know what, it is pretty sad when that is the case. You know why? It is because if you believe your client is guilty all the way, naturally you will not be able to provide a proper defense because you already believe your client is guilty. I mean there was a guy that was executed in Texas back in 04, proven innocent several years later. His own defense attorney continues to believe in his client's guilt! I was just astounded reading what this dirtbag said about his client.

Basically this defense attorney who was a police officer before he became a lawyer, basically, he is in it for the money and that is it. He kind of came off as the type that, most of his career is plea bargaining. He pretty much believes all of his clients are guilty and whenever possible tries to get them plea deals. In fact, the death row guy was offered a plea bargain, if he would plead guilty, he would get 3 life sentences all to run concurrently and be eligible for parole under Texas law at at that time, in 15 years. This lawyer thought for sure his client would take it, he was guilty after all right? Well, the client refused to take it, and the lawyer was ticked off because the guy would not take it and basically this lawyer threw the case, did not argue much, did not object much, did not call any witnesses during the guilt phase. Basically, all the jury heard was the state's version of events. I mean this dirtbag lawyer defended an innocent guy all the way to death row and ultimately his execution. Even now, after the guy was proven innocent, he continues to believe in his client's guilt.

The above story is what I was getting at when I got defensive about your posts. You are right in that 95 percent of cases would not involve an innocent guy getting sent to death row or to prison but it does happen more than is being admitted to. Part of it is misconduct and corruption by prosecutors and/or police. However another big part of that puzzle in a lot of the cases where guys have been proven innocent, their lawyers were to blame for a lot of it. Their lawyers presented little to no case, sometimes obviously throwing the case because they believed in their clients guilt, other times because the lawyer was incompetent, inexperienced, or a drunk or even drug addict.

what a jerk Donny is. Having a shotgun ready just in case the fire wasn't enough to kill his sisters.

And I don't think it's just a coincidence that this tragedy happened on a night that he just happened to be visiting the house (he didn't live there).

Well, okay, looking at this case again, I am trying to determine what exactly it was that led to the acquittal. Now, I am pro defense as everyone knows but even I am kind of thrown for a loop as to why this case ended in an acquittal. Prosecution has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt but not behind any and all doubt.

The only thing I can really think of, well a couple of things. First, my guess is, they felt they could not put the gun in Donnie's hands. Second, I think those so called 'eyewitnesses' that claimed they saw unidentified people running from the Hansen trailer threw the focus off of Donnie. It seems that the prosecution did not argue that Donnie had accomplices but rather that he acted alone. I am sure the prosecution was not allowed to insinuate that Donnie had accomplices without more evidence, thus it was never brought up.

I do think it is possible that Donnie had accomplices. However Donnie would not finger them because he knew that would seal his fate and his accomplices of course would not go out of their way to mention anything about it. If he did have accomplices, I say he had at least one and possibly two of them.

I mean I can buy coincidence, I can buy bad luck and the like, to a degree. However Donnie's case, it is up there in terms of having a ton of evidence, albeit for the most part circumstantial and yet it results in a total acquittal. I mean okay, the murder weapon was in Donnie's possession, well he would tell it that it was in his car. The gasoline used to burn down the house and the gas cans the gas was in, all were purchased by Donnie. The shotgun shells used to kill his one sister and wound another were purchased by Donnie.

He (Donnie) wants you to believe that the murder weapon (whom he was 'borrowing' from a friend) and left in his car, along with the shells and the gas were all outside and that some mysterious, unknown, unseen, intruders for reasons and motive unknown stumbled across the Hansen trailer and even though they are hell bent on allegedly shooting up the place and burning it down, yet do not bring their own gun and their own gas? Yet Donnie wants you to believe that while all this stuff was either purchased by him or in his possession that it was some mysterious people that looked in his car, took the gun out, loaded it and then took the full gas cans (why would Donnie Hansen purchase the gas cans and fill them full for?) and went inside the house.

However besides this, the question remains, if these mysterious intruders were hell bent on killing everyone in the home, why not kill Donnie too? He was laying on the couch in the living room so whoever came in that trailer, the first person they would have seen is Donnie. Yet they did not shoot him. Plus if you buy his story, he said he woke up just as the mysterious person was going to fire a shot at his sister. Interesting how after that shot was fired that the killer did not also shoot Donnie or not even hit Donnie or hurt him in any other way even though he was standing right next to him.

Basically, I agree with Wiseguy on the point about the gun. I think that Donnie intended on burning down the place and he was hoping his family would sleep through it and die in the fire. However he brought the shotgun into the house as a precaution in case someone woke up. I think when he decided that he was going to go through with this, that was it, he committed to it and that was the end of it as far as he was concerned.

But I am guessing either before he started pouring the gas or when he started pouring it, at some point at least one of his sisters woke up because she could hear him rummaging around. Now, also, for Donnie to move this stuff into the trailer, clearly he was not going to do that when his family members were awake. So he must have brought the gun and the gas into the trailer sometime after his parents and sisters went to bed.

Plus some other stuff to consider. Donnie, he, hid the gun. He hid the gun in the machine shop behind some boxes. Hence why he was caught breaking into the shed, no doubt trying to get back the murder weapon so he could dispose of it. The night of the murder he did not have time to dispose of it because of the cops and paramedics and firefighters and neighbors being around.

Plus when Hans and Betty woke up, Hans was calling all three of their names and got no reaction. I say that is because Donnie after he set the fire, was outside of the trailer hiding the murder weapon in the shop. Then Donnie claiming that he 'did not see anything' then later on when Julie was found across the road, Donnie who had denied seeing her, then turned around and took credit for getting her out of the trailer.

But getting back to the gun, Donnie was caught trying to break into the machine shop and then lied about why he was there, saying he was there to feed the family dog even though he knew the dog had been taken to a neighbors and was not in the shop. When asked if the gun was his or if he knew whose gun it was he denied it and then eventually admitted it that it was a friends gun and he had been borrowing it. In fact he also lied I think at first about purchasing the gun or the shells too but eventually admitted that he had purchased them after he was confronted with credit card receipts. Yes, this guy paid for this stuff with credit cards when if he had paid for it with cash it would be basically impossible to trace, at least at that time anyway when most businesses did not have security cameras.

Another thing that bugged me was that his sisters were dying and the house was ablaze, and Donnie decides that the most important thing he needs to do in this circumstance was hide his gun.

Donny Hansen = scum of the Earth

Also, another interesting point about the trial, this was a death penalty case! This was not like Robert Blake or even O.J. where it was not a death penalty case. Acquittals as in outright acquittals in any murder trial are uncommon, however an acquittal in a death penalty case is even more rare.

I mean in Donnie's case, since the death penalty was being sought, you need a 'death qualified' jury. Since people that believe in the death penalty, especially strongly, are not always but more often than not tend to be much more conservative thus they also tend to be much more likely to convict.

Now, I get that these folks by national standards on this jury were liberal, however by California standards, the majority of them would have been conservative. Like I said, in order to make it onto a death qualified jury, you have to be able to be willing to at least consider imposing the death penalty should the case end in a conviction. If you are not willing to do that and you are truthful and admit it, you will be struck from the panel. I think had Robert Blake and especially O.J. had the death penalty sought on them, the results in their cases probably would have been different, especially in O.J.'s case.

The only way you could find who the jurors were. Well, while the jury came from Alameda County, it is unclear whether the trial was held in Humboldt County and the jurors from Alameda County were sequestered up there? The trial took about 6 weeks if I remember right from what I read, so that would be pretty expensive to house 12 jurors, plus I imagine there were 3 or 4 alternates too, it would be expensive to house all of them up in a hotel for 6 weeks. So I would guess the trial was held in Alameda County. As then you would only have to get motel rooms for the prosecutors, the judge and the court reporters. But the only way you could get the juror's names would be to contact the clerk of courts in Humboldt County and order the transcripts from Voir Dire.

Donnie's trial, in terms of deliberations, went pretty fast by California standards. Deliberations I believe only went about 6 hours before the jury returned with a verdict. So clearly for whatever reason they were not convinced. But I am just surprised how short the deliberation was, that tells me they really thought the case was weak. It is like with O.J.s trial where that trial lasted for what, 8 or 9 months? The jury was out for what 3 or 4 hours before acquitting him? But I think in Donnie's case, like in O.J., I think the prosecutors were arrogant, they thought the case was a slam dunk, basically they saw no way how a jury could not convict, and thus maybe they missed little things or did not put the case together as well as they could have and should have?

I could see why there would be an acquittal, depending on what was charged, what was excluded, etc. I couldn't really state the causes of the same without seeing the transcripts, however.

Julie's statement didn't come in, of course; Donny probably didn't take the stand; his attorney presented eyewitnesses and an alternative theory that had just as much evidence. The other problem for the state is that there is a strong case that Donny knew more about the crime, but additional knowledge is not the same as committing it himself.

One of the newspaper articles shown in the segment stated that jurors felt Donny was responsible, but not beyond a reasonable doubt because of the unanswered questions. One of the key points (and not discussed in the segment) was that the fingerprinting of the gun was not done throughly.

The evidence against Donnie is that he purchased the gasoline, ammunition, borrowed the murder weapon from a friend, and hid the murder weapon after the crime. That's certainly strong circumstantial evidence, but not slam-dunk.

If Donny was there "to wipe out the family," the facts don't make alot of sense. Why shoot just Jill and Julie? Why shoot Jill in her bed? Why not shoot Betty and Hans? Why pour gasoline down the hall, but not Hans and Betty's room? If money/insurance was the motive, who was the beneficiary? Donny was Hans' step-son, so he would not be an heir unless Hans made him so. If Donny did do it, why help put out the fire? He could have just as easily shot Betty and Hans and let the place burn. Who were the people seen running from the trailer? Who was Donny yelling at? Whose fingerprints were on the gun? The gas cans?

Don't get me wrong; I do think Donny knows more about the crime then he claims, and it's absolutely possible (indeed, probable) that he had a role in the crime, but I think it's a little disingenuous to state it's a slam-dunk, open and shut case.

The fact that Betty and Hans originally supported Donnie, but changed their minds once all of the facts started surfacing, I think that says alot right there.

I remember watching this and the video cut out and the part where it was said they originally set up a college fund for the girl ls. What was in the rest of the segment?

I remember watching this and the video cut out and the part where it was said they originally set up a college fund for the girl ls. What was in the rest of the segment?
That's the end. (I have the same copy with it cut out but I remember the original). They freeze frame a shot of the twins sitting together, mention that the college fund will now be the reward fund for finding answers and I'm pretty sure that's it.

found this article from this January. Most of the information is the exact same from the UM segment but there are couple new tidbits


http://umbrellaofsuspicion.com/2016/01/the-jill-and-julie-hansen-story/



Not long after the trial, Donny found that it was impossible for him to continue to live in Humboldt County. Too many people were sure he did it, the umbrella of suspicion that surrounded him was just to great to over come. He eventually changed his name and moved away from Willow Creek and all he knew in Humboldt County. He has never gone back and for all practical purposes has complete dropped off the grid. However, rumors swirling around about him, place him living in Happy Camp, California with three daughters of his own.



’s been been 30 years since Jill and Julie Hansen were ripped from their family and from the world. Their parents and sister have done their best to go on with her lives… Hans and Betty retired from their Logging Supply Business and have moved away from Humboldt County. They now enjoy a home filled with furry canine children and one large tortuous named, Claws.

Betty has recently battled cancer but it appears that she is in remission and doing well. She will continue to be a beautiful and shinning light in the lives of those who know and love her, just as she has always been.

Hans and Betty have been blessed with two beautiful Grandchildren, a boy and a girl. Their Grandchildren are teens now. And their granddaughter is approximately the same age as the twins when they were taken away…

DONNY HANSEN is guilty guilty guilty. He was our class president and Canyonville Bible Academy in Canyonville Oregon. Not a stupid boy who was second in class, and class president. But he was not nice... he and a few other boys would torture cats, very mean pranks an extremely narcissistic. He was given the best of everything cool car great clothes the world revolved around Donny. A lot of theories are out there I just believe he was Raving jealous of his beautiful half sisters. The boy that should have achieved everything at age 21 had failed at everything he had peaked in high school. There are theories that he did it for life insurance I just think it was utter hatred and jealousy with a side benefit of perhaps sharing life insurance if everyone died but him and his older " whole sister" who was not in the home at the time. I'm met these girls in their home Donny had driven me home from Canyonville with a couple other kids who lived in the area. Very normal household with one crazy young man. He did not get away with anything I'm sure he trolls these Pages many many times with amazing regret. Donny if you are reading this you should give peace to your parents and confess and let the world know what you did... the only that way out of this mess you created all those years ago. I get angry every time I drive through Willow Creek and think about the deep loss at the hands of a selfish man!

DONNY HANSEN is guilty guilty guilty. He was our class president and Canyonville Bible Academy in Canyonville Oregon. Not a stupid boy who was second in class, and class president. But he was not nice... he and a few other boys would torture cats, very mean pranks an extremely narcissistic. He was given the best of everything cool car great clothes the world revolved around Donny. A lot of theories are out there I just believe he was Raving jealous of his beautiful half sisters. The boy that should have achieved everything at age 21 had failed at everything he had peaked in high school. There are theories that he did it for life insurance I just think it was utter hatred and jealousy with a side benefit of perhaps sharing life insurance if everyone died but him and his older " whole sister" who was not in the home at the time. I'm met these girls in their home Donny had driven me home from Canyonville with a couple other kids who lived in the area. Very normal household with one crazy young man. He did not get away with anything I'm sure he trolls these Pages many many times with amazing regret. Donny if you are reading this you should give peace to your parents and confess and let the world know what you did... the only that way out of this mess you created all those years ago. I get angry every time I drive through Willow Creek and think about the deep loss at the hands of a selfish man!

Wow, welcome to the forum, and thank you for sharing that.

Do you have any idea where Donny is today and whether or not he's kept his nose clean?

Do you have a theory or any information with regards to the two men seen lurking outside the Hansen's trailer shortly after the fire broke out?

The last I heard and this is going back 10+ years is that he was in Phoenix Arizona area.

I read on one thread that he was living in Happy Camp California... there's no way that's way too close to Willow Creek... these River communities are very tight-knit he would never get away with it. Donny had brilliant blue eyes and this is primarily a Native American community (Happy Camp) he just wouldnt blend in...and he's somewhat tall. Happy Camp is only about 2 hours away. I have a sister that still lives there, his name is still very known in the area.

The only collaboration I have on Phoenix theory is that a very good friend of his in high school also lived in Phoenix (he was also from a family with considerable money). I looked this friend up on Facebook and confirmed he indeed lived in Phoenix (this was years ago). Evidently this friend was one of the only ones left in his life that would help during &after after the trial. Just looked him up tonight and there no public access to his FB account now, so I don't know where his high school friend is now living. This friend of his & I are from the same little town near Willow Creek. All that said, Phoenix is plausible. So if name change records are open in Maricopa County Arizona someone might be able to find his new alias.

The local theory on the two men seen was that Donny had a large drug debt and that these men were there to make sure he carried out the plot to collect life insurance, not there to commit the crime. I have no facts or evidence from this but that is what people were saying at the time. He was known to have a pretty serious drug addiction, not quite sure what. Probably at least once a year ago looking to see if I can figure out what happened to him I've never had any luck.

The thing is we need to remember is drug addicts don't necessarily behave rationally. I have a brother who died of a heroin overdose. The things he did was way beyond reason. So you mix the paranoia of a drug addict with the possibility of getting hurt if he didn't repay a debt, things might make a little more sense. Being a sociopath that I believe he was even prior to his drug addiction, it is not far fetched for me to see Donnie trying to kill everyone in that trailer. He just wasn't a well-practiced murderer at the time, and botched it.I really think that's why the whole thing is confusing it is so far-fetched and unbelievable...but that is the world of a drug addict.

http://i63.tinypic.com/zwg9yo.jpg


Donny, back row, 4th from right.Class of '83, Canyonville Bible Academy, Canyonville OR. About 3-4 hours from Willow Creek, CA

http://i67.tinypic.com/33jh1c0.jpg

I have Twin boys that are now 14... makes me incredibly sad to look on the Graves of these young ladies. I pray justice will yet be served for this unconvicted crime (not unsolved mystery)

^ Thank you for the responses.

The grave site of Jill and Julie is exceptionally sad.