Always found this segment interesting. I'll take you back to it.

Jill and Julie were 15 year old twins living with their parents when their half brother Donny came over to visit. Donny and the twins had the same mother. So Donny spends the night when a fire wakes everyone. Donny's step dad and mother are frantic and they realize that a big portion of the fire is coming from the twins' room. The twins aren't responding. The father runs outside and accidentally kicks a gas can over that he finds to be oddly out of place. The fire department is called.

Then one of the twins is found on the lawn with a shotgun wound in her stomach. The other twin dies in the fire. The living twin indulges to her parents that Donny is the one she saw pull the trigger on her. Unfortunately she dies of her wounds.

Not like its bad enough, Donny has some suspicious behaviour like trying to break into a tool shed to retrieve the shotgun and he admitted to buyig shotgun shells along with gasoline. Donny's parents believe that his intent was to "knock off" the whole family for some insurance money and that he had some accomplices enter the house and start the fire. The idea was when one of the sisters awoke she was shot.

Donny was acquitted but to this day his step dad and mother claim he had something to do with it. The stepdad going as far as saying "Donny is dead to me". Your thoughts?

Always found this segment interesting. I'll take you back to it.

Jill and Julie were 15 year old twins living with their parents when their half brother Donny came over to visit. Donny and the twins had the same mother. So Donny spends the night when a fire wakes everyone. Donny's step dad and mother are frantic and they realize that a big portion of the fire is coming from the twins' room. The twins aren't responding. The father runs outside and accidentally kicks a gas can over that he finds to be oddly out of place. The fire department is called.

Then one of the twins is found on the lawn with a shotgun wound in her stomach. The other twin dies in the fire. The living twin indulges to her parents that Donny is the one she saw pull the trigger on her. Unfortunately she dies of her wounds.

Not like its bad enough, Donny has some suspicious behaviour like trying to break into a tool shed to retrieve the shotgun and he admitted to buyig shotgun shells along with gasoline. Donny's parents believe that his intent was to "knock off" the whole family for some insurance money and that he had some accomplices enter the house and start the fire. The idea was when one of the sisters awoke she was shot.

Donny was acquitted but to this day his step dad and mother claim he had something to do with it. The stepdad going as far as saying "Donny is dead to me". Your thoughts?

Julie did not die from the wound. The doctor's ****ed up treatment for it. They say she died from a "freak medical accident" a month after being shot.
Donnie probably did commit the murder. He said he slept through a shotgun blast. That's bull****. But the motive of collecting life insurance from everyone he would have killed Hans and Betty and not help them put out the fire. When Julie died there was no concrete evidence linking him to their murders. The only circumstantial evidence was he had the weapon and the suspicious activity. He changed his name(his step dad said he was dead to him) did not want it released and had his voice altered and was interviewed in silhouette.

Julie did not die from the wound. The doctor's ****ed up treatment for it. They say she died from a "freak medical accident" a month after being shot.
Donnie probably did commit the murder. He said he slept through a shotgun blast. That's bull****. But the motive of collecting life insurance from everyone he would have killed Hans and Betty and not help them put out the fire. When Julie died there was no concrete evidence linking him to their murders. The only circumstantial evidence was he had the weapon and the suspicious activity. He changed his name(his step dad said he was dead to him) did not want it released and had his voice altered and was interviewed in silhouette.

And this is the action of an innocent man? I think he helped put out the fire because his plan went awry. He wouldn't stand there like a bump on a log, that would be suspicious.

But too much was weird about his actions. Remember when his mother saw him yelling at someone out of a window while the fire was happening? Makes you think he was yelling at his accomplices. Or the gun placement. Or the purchases of gasoline. It is either a fantastic coincidence or he's as guilty as sin. A jury had to acquit him since there was nothing but circumstantial evidence. And think about this for a second, what mother - biological mother - would finger her son with the crime? This is your own flesh and blood we're talking about. If she had a shred of doubt I'm sure she would still want him in their life.

And this is the action of an innocent man? I think he helped put out the fire because his plan went awry. He wouldn't stand there like a bump on a log, that would be suspicious.

But too much was weird about his actions. Remember when his mother saw him yelling at someone out of a window while the fire was happening? Makes you think he was yelling at his accomplices. Or the gun placement. Or the purchases of gasoline. It is either a fantastic coincidence or he's as guilty as sin. A jury had to acquit him since there was nothing but circumstantial evidence. And think about this for a second, what mother - biological mother - would finger her son with the crime? This is your own flesh and blood we're talking about. If she had a shred of doubt I'm sure she would still want him in their life.

Our society is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not saying I don't think Donnie did it. I'm just saying there is not enough concrete evidence to convict him

Our society is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not saying I don't think Donnie did it. I'm just saying there is not enough concrete evidence to convict him

While this is true, it's definitely concrete that he was lying, or at the very least hiding something. Anyone who thinks one can sleep through a 12 gauge shotgun being fired in the same room has obviously never fired a shotgun. Shotguns are loud enough outside, at a range, for instance. Put it in an enclosed space, like a trailer's living room? Much worse.

While this is true, it's definitely concrete that he was lying, or at the very least hiding something. Anyone who thinks one can sleep through a 12 gauge shotgun being fired in the same room has obviously never fired a shotgun. Shotguns are loud enough outside, at a range, for instance. Put it in an enclosed space, like a trailer's living room? Much worse.


He's the white OJ?

Hmm, well while I am pro defense, I will say, that Donnie did lie more than once and they were not about minor things they were about major points. My guess is, the defense in his case kept him off the stand although I do not know for sure whether they did or not. But they would have been smart to keep him off the stand. The reason is he probably would not come off as being credible, in fact he would probably get caught up in lie after lie so they kept him off of there which was smart. Plus, if he does not take the stand, than a bunch of far more damaging stuff is not allowed to come in.

Also, one must remember, this was a death penalty case. So you had a death qualified jury. It is kind of surprising to me that Donnie was acquitted but I think it was due to a few reasons. First, while the murders happened in Humboldt County, California the jury was not from there. They had a chance of venue. Now, I am not sure whether the trial was moved to Alameda County (Oakland) or if the jury was brought up to Eureka which is the county seat of Humboldt County and sequestered for trial, but either way the jury was from Alameda County, not Humboldt County.

Now Eurkea and Humboldt County is about 250 miles north of Alameda County. Humboldt County is a rural county, more conservative, 95 percent or more white. Whereas Alameda County, is an urban county, consisting of Oakland some of the east bay suburbs. The cities in Alameda County are Oakland, Alameda, San Leandro, San Lorenzo, Ashland, Castro Valley, Hayward, Union City, Fremont, Newark, Berkeley, Albany, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore. So Oakland and some other areas, much more urban, more minorities and much more liberal. Some of those east bay suburbs are liberal too, but are more wealthy. But I can guarantee, Donny's jury, since it came from Alameda County, while they were death qualified, they were much more liberal than a jury from Humboldt County would have been.

But the judge in this case really did not have a choice as everyone in northern California had heard of the case and no way could Donnie get a fair trial in Humboldt County as everyone there thought he was guilty. So the judge had no choice but to move the trial because had he not moved the trial and Donnie were convicted as I think he would have had a Humboldt County jury decided this case, he would have got a new trial because the trial was not moved. Population differences are huge too. Humboldt County has 126, 500 residents, Alameda County has 1, 440,000 residents.

But in Donnie's case, I personally think he did it or at least had some involvement in what happened. Whether he did this alone or not is something I have always wondered but I do not really have any doubt that he was involved. But it was a highly circumstantial case. There was not any physical evidence that he fired the gun. There was no physical evidence that he himself set the fire. However the gun was connected to him, it was in his car, and by his own admission he had borrowed the gun from a friend and he had also purchased shotgun shells for the gun a day or two before the murder. He had also purchased several gallons of gasoline and two gas cans at a local service station.

I mean that is the biggest thing with this case is that while there was no physical evidence that Donnie did it, everything points to him. I mean, by his own admission he had the murder weapon in his possession, he purchased shot gun shells for that murder weapon that were ultimately used to shoot his sisters, he also admitted that yes he had purchased the gas and put it in gas cans that was later used to set the trailer on fire. Yet he wants you to believe that despite all this, not only did he not do it but some random intruders came to the house to shoot Donnie's twin sisters and burn the place down and coming there without a gun or ammo or gas but just happening by coincidence to stumble upon all these things that he himself purchased?

I mean, okay, you can have a doubt and still convict. But if you have a 'reasonable doubt' than you must acquit. So while it is possible to have doubt as to whether Donnie was the one that actually pulled the trigger and actually poured the gas, it is not reasonable to think that he had nothing to do with it. I mean he purchased all the stuff!

Another big one, okay, assuming Donnie was telling the truth, why did he hide the gun? By his own admission he hid the gun. He took the gun out of his car and hid it in the machine shop. Then he was caught trying to sneak back into the machine shop claiming he was coming to feed the family dog, when he knew the dog had been taken to a neighbors and was not there. No, he was coming back to get the murder weapon so he could dispose of it because he was afraid it would be tied to him. He did not have time to get rid of it the night of the murder because cops and firefighters, EMT's, neighbors were all there within a few minutes so he did not have time to drive off and dispose of it.

Now, at trial, Donnie's defense was that he was awakened by the shot. However after trial, Donnie changed his story and claimed he never heard the shot and slept through it even though at trial his story was some unknown guy was standing next to him with a gun for some reason does not shoot Donnie. I mean if these random intruders are there to kill everyone in the house, Donnie was laying on a couch in the living room, closest to the door, so why was he not shot first? The twin sisters were shot, then Donnie or whoever fired the shots, poured gasoline all around the house and started the fire, basically hoping his parents who were asleep would succumb either to the flames or to smoke inhilation (sp?).

Remember, the parents slept through the shots. So, what I am wondering is, was something put in front of the gun to act as a homemade silencer to lessen the noise? It was after the shots were fired, in fact Hans Hansen woke up when he smelled a strong odor of smoke and opened the door and saw a strip of flame in the hallway.

My guess, Donnie wanted to murder his family for insurance money. If he kills his parents and his two sisters that were there, he had an older sister that was not at the trailer and evidently had no involvement in Donnie's plot. However, I think he wanted money, my guess is he was in debt, probably did not have a job, was desperate. So, if he kills his parents he gets their property, he gets Hans's business, and if he kills his twin sisters, then those are two less people he has to share the insurance proceeds with. Plus, and I could be wrong, but I think Donnie had always been resentful of his twin sisters. I think he felt like they took the attention off of him and cut in on his action.

The one sister, Jill who was shot, she actually did not die from the gun shot it was found but she died from a combination of flames and smoke. The other sister Julie, survived her gun shot wound, but 3 weeks after the shooting died in a 'freak medical accident' which I have always found suspicious, but supposedly an air bubble had entered her vein through an I.V. tube and stopped her heart or that is what the doctors want you to believe. Now, it was not Donnie that himself killed her as he was in jail at that time. I believe he had been arrested a week before Julie died. But yeah, I hope the Hansen's sued that hospital and got some money.

Now, her doctor, who I thought came off as kind of pompous in his interview, one of these know it all types, but anyway, he says 'oh no she never said that to me, because remember, Hans and Betty said that in the hospital, Julie had told them that she saw Donnie's face in the flash when the gun was fired and she was shot in the stomach. I am not sure if the doctor was allowed to testify she did not say that. My guess, neither the doctor nor Hans and Betty were allowed to testify because it was hearsay and what Julie allegedly said or did not say could not be cross-examined by defense attorney's because she was dead. Even now that would still be the ruling, because while some states (although these laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court because they violate the confrontation clause of the U.S. Constitution) but some states have tried to pass laws that allowed hearsay evidence in if the defendant was accused of killing the victim to prevent them from testifying. However since that could not be proven in this case as Donnie had the best alibi of them all, being in jail, at the time of death, even now, that hearsay would not be allowed in.

Another big one, Donnie had told Hans when they were running back and forth for fire extinguishers, oh no I do not know where Julie is, I did not see anything, blah, blah. But then when she was found across the road, Donnie was the first one to take credit for getting her out of the trailer even though just minutes earlier he had told Hans he did not see Julie. The eyewitnesses, I personally think they were mistaken in what they claimed they saw. Even if they saw people running from the Hansen trailer, I think it was Donnie's accomplices if they had any. But I think they were mistaken in the people they saw, in terms of who they thought they were.

Personally, I think the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California, should consider indicting Donnie Hansen for violating the civil rights of his sisters. Now granted, the most he could get for that is 20 years in federal prison if convicted, but it would be something. But I am not sure if the statute of limitations has run on such charges or not?

Remember, the parents slept through the shots. So, what I am wondering is, was something put in front of the gun to act as a homemade silencer to lessen the noise?

Firing a 12 gauge is nothing like the movies. One doesn't fire them one handed, which would be necessary to hold something in front. Not to mention you're not going to be able to lessen the sound of a shotgun by very much, if at all. And if the sister saw Danny in the muzzle flash, I'd have to say that's another clue pointing toward there being nothing on the muzzle, otherwise the resultant gasses and such that cause a muzzle flash would've been embedded in said object.

It's amazing that everyone slept through two twelve gauge shotgun blasts in a trailer. I think Donny Hansen was involved with the plot to kill his whole family to collect the insurance money that was out on Hans Hansen. I also think Donny had some accomplices (which may have been the two men spotted by the Hansen's neighbors). Here's what I think the plan was going to be, Donny gets the supplies that were going to be used in this crime (the gasoline, the shotgun, and the ammunition). I think Donny's plan was to let these "intruders" in to set the house on fire, and also supply them with the shotgun as a back up plan in case anyone awoke or attempted to flee the trailer. I also think that in Donny's mind he figured everyone would have died in the fire. So in the middle of the gas being set, Julie wakes up and stumbles in on the "intruders" and they in turn panic and shoot her. Shortly after that the house is set on fire (by Donny or one of his accomplices), and at this point Donny is also in a panic because he didn't expect anyone to be shot. Jill may have also awakened at this point, and she was shot as well. This is probably about the same time Betty and Hans wake up and realize there is a fire. Donny is in a real panic mode at this point, especially if he didn't intend on anyone being shot, and starts to yell at his accomplices to get out of there (which is what Betty witnessed). I think these "intruders" waited around (eyewitnesses places two men outside the trailer during the fire) to see if anyone else stumbled out of the trailer so they could "off" them as well, but their patience was overwhelmed by the need to get the hell out of Dodge. The fact that Donny assisted Hans and Betty in attempting to put out the fire was a ruse because his plan went awry. He never once mentioned helping Julie out of the trailer until she is found. And when it was determined that a shotgun had been used, that's when Donny decided to dispose of it (because his accomplices placed it right back in his car) which is why he was found snooping around the Hansen's warehouse after the murders. I think Donny was confident in the fact that he really wasn't the actual trigger man, nor was he the actual person that set fire to the house and there really wasn't anything other than circumstantial evidence suggesting otherwise which is why he was ultimately acquitted. But I think Donny was the mastermind of everything, and that he intended on splitting the money he inherited with his accomplices.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see Donnie clearly committed the crimes.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see Donnie clearly committed the crimes.

I wonder what evidence was presented in favor of Donnie at his trial. He had to have something to convince the jury he was not guilty.

I remember seeing this segment a couple of times. I don't remember all the details completely but I felt Donnie was the murderer and maybe there wasn't enough evidence to convince a jury that he was guilty.

I remember seeing this segment a couple of times. I don't remember all the details completely but I felt Donnie was the murderer and maybe there wasn't enough evidence to convince a jury that he was guilty.

I'm assuming since the testimony of Julie saying she saw Donny in the blast was witheld, this certainly helped Donny's case. Plus the doctor interviewed for the segment probabyl testified at his trial too, and he said Julie told him she didn't see anything. But that could have easily been refuted by the prosecution, isn't it fair to assume that Julie wouldn't want to outright accuse her brother of murder which is why she told her parents and not her doctor?

But I think Donny was the mastermind of everything, and that he intended on splitting the money he inherited with his accomplices.

Let's not forget that Donny also had an older sister who had already moved out long before the fire. (Her picture is shown at the beginning of the segment).

Donny would have also had to split the money with her.

I wonder what evidence was presented in favor of Donnie at his trial. He had to have something to convince the jury he was not guilty.

Possibly the testimony of neighbors saying they saw two unidentified men near the trailer.

Let's not forget that Donny also had an older sister who had already moved out long before the fire. (Her picture is shown at the beginning of the segment).

Donny would have also had to split the money with her.

Or he may have been left out of the will entirely. He certainly is NOW.

I wonder what evidence was presented in favor of Donnie at his trial. He had to have something to convince the jury he was not guilty.
Well, always remember the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Donnie did this and even though i think he did this, the evidence didnt show it beyond reasonable doubt (sadly). For some reason, i think he had help though with this crime, if he did it which i think he somehow did.

Ive been trying to find something on the death of sister who survived the attack but died a year later and cant find any details on how she actually expired,other than "a freak medical accident". Does anyone know how she actually died? that seems kind of fishy to me

Ive been trying to find something on the death of sister who survived the attack but died a year later and cant find any details on how she actually expired,other than "a freak medical accident". Does anyone know how she actually died? that seems kind of fishy to me

Its in the episode. A Air bubble got into her blood through the IV and her heart exploded.

This is one of the cases where I have not been able to see how this MF got away with murder. Let's see....he lied throughout the investigation, hid the gun, he bought shells the day OF the shooting, also bought 5 gals. of gasoline the day before, he later changed his name and went into hiding. Also, after the crime occurred he was seen at the house in the middle of the night claiming he came to "feed the dog" even though the dog was at a family friend's home, and he knew this fact.
Also, even though Julie's testimony was not allowed in court she said it was Donny. Somehow the jury did not see him as guilty? I have seen people found guilty on way more circumstantial evidence than this case presents. The dude got off easy, and the most ridiculous part is that he was so damn sloppy about it. He got off anyway though. I don't blame the step dad for disowning that POS. Good riddance. :mad:

Its in the episode. A Air bubble got into her blood through the IV and her heart exploded.

Her heart exploded? Is that possible? :eek: Thats scary

Its in the episode. A Air bubble got into her blood through the IV and her heart exploded.

The "air bubble in the IV" part is true, but her heart didn't explode. The air bubble disrupted the electrical impulses of her heart and stopped it cold, which is commonly known as cardiac dysrhythmia/arrhythmia (aka cardiac arrest).

This is one of the cases where I have not been able to see how this MF got away with murder. Let's see....he lied throughout the investigation, hid the gun, he bought shells the day OF the shooting, also bought 5 gals. of gasoline the day before, he later changed his name and went into hiding. Also, after the crime occurred he was seen at the house in the middle of the night claiming he came to "feed the dog" even though the dog was at a family friend's home, and he knew this fact.
Also, even though Julie's testimony was not allowed in court she said it was Donny. Somehow the jury did not see him as guilty?

Because there's the question of "Did Donny act alone?", that would cast doubt into juror's minds. Remember it was only Donny on trial, and the case was that Donny had done it alone. Had they spent more time investigating, and trying to figure out if Donny had accomplices, a guilty verdict would have been more likely.

From what I saw on Unsolved Mysteries, I don't think Donny acted alone.

The sad thing is people get off with MORE proof of their guilt (Casey Anthony).

it was donny.
and he didn't do it alone.
i grew up knowing him as "uncle donny" with no idea of this case. his daughters were like my cousins. my family kept him incredibly close for years before he, completely out of the blue, moved to happy camp, oregon.
when i was 10 i found a vhs recording of a segment about this case on the old show "hard copy." it was after that that i learned of a phone call made to my father by my grandmother in the early hours of the morning the night it happened claiming that "donny ****ed up" and that it "needs to be fixed."
i cannot attest to whether or not the shotgun was my fathers, but i believe that it was in some way connected to him and i believe that the murders are connected to my father's family in more ways than that.
to this day, every one in the town of willow creek, not just his parents, view him as guilty, 100%.
also, as for julie's "freak medical accident" in the hospital: that was no accident.

it was donny.
and he didn't do it alone.
i grew up knowing him as "uncle donny" with no idea of this case. his daughters were like my cousins. my family kept him incredibly close for years before he, completely out of the blue, moved to happy camp, oregon.
when i was 10 i found a vhs recording of a segment about this case on the old show "hard copy." it was after that that i learned of a phone call made to my father by my grandmother in the early hours of the morning the night it happened claiming that "donny ****ed up" and that it "needs to be fixed."
i cannot attest to whether or not the shotgun was my fathers, but i believe that it was in some way connected to him and i believe that the murders are connected to my father's family in more ways than that.
to this day, every one in the town of willow creek, not just his parents, view him as guilty, 100%.
also, as for julie's "freak medical accident" in the hospital: that was no accident.

There's a nice update. Got any idea what his name is these days?

it was donny.
and he didn't do it alone.
i grew up knowing him as "uncle donny" with no idea of this case. his daughters were like my cousins. my family kept him incredibly close for years before he, completely out of the blue, moved to happy camp, oregon.
when i was 10 i found a vhs recording of a segment about this case on the old show "hard copy." it was after that that i learned of a phone call made to my father by my grandmother in the early hours of the morning the night it happened claiming that "donny ****ed up" and that it "needs to be fixed."
i cannot attest to whether or not the shotgun was my fathers, but i believe that it was in some way connected to him and i believe that the murders are connected to my father's family in more ways than that.
to this day, every one in the town of willow creek, not just his parents, view him as guilty, 100%.
also, as for julie's "freak medical accident" in the hospital: that was no accident.

Thanks for sharing your perspective. It's always great to hear from someone who's personally connected to the case. So you're saying that Donny had daughters of his own? If so, that makes it even more messed up that someone with children could murder his own sisters in cold blood like that. I'm presuming he never sees his kids any more if he had to take off, change his name and start a new life.

When I saw the story originally I thought that Donny might have been jealous of his sisters i'm not sure what kind of life he had growing up but I presumed it was tougher than the girls and knowing their birthday was coming up he decided to get his own back on his mother or that he was abusing one or both of his sisters but hearing the insurance motive is interesting but why would he choose to do it on a night he was staying there and why didn't he shoot everyone before starting the fire? Whatever the motive was he did it.

Thanks for sharing your perspective. It's always great to hear from someone who's personally connected to the case. So you're saying that Donny had daughters of his own? If so, that makes it even more messed up that someone with children could murder his own sisters in cold blood like that. I'm presuming he never sees his kids any more if he had to take off, change his name and start a new life.
...actually, his daughters are younger than i am, and i was born over a year after this case. the last i knew of him, he still had his girls and took them with him to oregon.
i have no idea what his name is now, or if he still resides in happy camp. he could never be convicted anyway thanks to double jeopardy...though i would like to see some of my family members held responsible for their hand in these murders.
during the trial, it was stated under oath that the first person that donny called after the incident was his friend, my father, which actually was a lie. as i stated previously, it was my grandmother who called and alerted my father...donny called her first. to me that's strange, to call the mother (whom you're not close to) of your friend first thing and then lie about it in court?
also: my whole family knew the location of the murder weapon before the police did...actually the morning that donny tried to retrieve it from the workshop, it was my aunt (who he was staying with before he got arrested) who set the alarm clock for him. there was also a huge fight within my family regarding the gun, it's location and donny's desire to retrieve it.
this was all lied about in court, as well as the fact that my dad's family more or less hid my mom from the trial so she wouldn't testify (because it would create discrepancies in my father's family's testimonies).
AND i think it's also interesting that the night that donny stayed with his parents was right before a planned trip to set up drug connections in redding, ca.
although donny can no longer be held accountable for his actions in this case, i think that the other's involved should be. namely:
Jeffery Cyphers
and
Helen Cyphers.
i want to see them brought to justice.
i just wish i knew the extent of the hand that they played.

...actually, his daughters are younger than i am, and i was born over a year after this case. the last i knew of him, he still had his girls and took them with him to oregon.
i have no idea what his name is now, or if he still resides in happy camp. he could never be convicted anyway thanks to double jeopardy...though i would like to see some of my family members held responsible for their hand in these murders.
during the trial, it was stated under oath that the first person that donny called after the incident was his friend, my father, which actually was a lie. as i stated previously, it was my grandmother who called and alerted my father...donny called her first. to me that's strange, to call the mother (whom you're not close to) of your friend first thing and then lie about it in court?
also: my whole family knew the location of the murder weapon before the police did...actually the morning that donny tried to retrieve it from the workshop, it was my aunt (who he was staying with before he got arrested) who set the alarm clock for him. there was also a huge fight within my family regarding the gun, it's location and donny's desire to retrieve it.
this was all lied about in court, as well as the fact that my dad's family more or less hid my mom from the trial so she wouldn't testify (because it would create discrepancies in my father's family's testimonies).
AND i think it's also interesting that the night that donny stayed with his parents was right before a planned trip to set up drug connections in redding, ca.
although donny can no longer be held accountable for his actions in this case, i think that the other's involved should be. namely:
Jeffery Cyphers
and
Helen Cyphers.
i want to see them brought to justice.
i just wish i knew the extent of the hand that they played.

VERY interesting info! I almost wondered if showing this case on UM would have done any good since the suspected murderer had already been acquited and couldn't be charged again, but if Donny did indeed have accomplices, then they could at least be brought to justice and give the Hansens some closure.

VERY interesting info! I almost wondered if showing this case on UM would have done any good since the suspected murderer had already been acquited and couldn't be charged again, but if Donny did indeed have accomplices, then they could at least be brought to justice and give the Hansens some closure.

I wonder if the accomplices were brought to justice and if they implicated Donny in the murders, if he could be charged with something. I think they'd be able to charge him with a lesser charge, but then again I'm no legal expert.

I wonder if the accomplices were brought to justice and if they implicated Donny in the murders, if he could be charged with something. I think they'd be able to charge him with a lesser charge, but then again I'm no legal expert.

Yes, it's happened in cases where someone was tried and not convicted and then later absolute evidence surfaced. There was a very famous case of a man who killed a woman, photographed every stage of the murder, put the film under a carpet in his house, then like an idiot SOLD THE HOUSE WITHOUT REMOVING THE FILM, and I think there have been others. They were convicted of perjury for saying under oath they didn't know what happened to the person.

Yes, it's happened in cases where someone was tried and not convicted and then later absolute evidence surfaced. There was a very famous case of a man who killed a woman, photographed every stage of the murder, put the film under a carpet in his house, then like an idiot SOLD THE HOUSE WITHOUT REMOVING THE FILM, and I think there have been others. They were convicted of perjury for saying under oath they didn't know what happened to the person.

While I have my doubts that Donny's attorneys would have let him testify under oath, yes, they could theoretically convict him of perjury if it was officially proven that he committed the murders. It would much be a lighter sentence, but at least it would be something.

There has to have been other people involved in this, without a doubt. It's always troubled me that Donnie's stepmom remembers coming out to the living room and seeing Donnie standing in the doorway screaming at people to "get away". I doubt Donnie would be that poised (after shooting his sisters and setting his house on fire) to "act" like there were intruders. Now whether or not they were his accomplices (which I believe they were) is up for debate.

Didn't neighbors also claim to see people fleeing the Hanson home right before (or during) the fire?

Didn't neighbors also claim to see people fleeing the Hanson home right before (or during) the fire?

I think neighbors saw two unknown men standing outside the trailer as it was on fire. This testiomny about the two unknown men is probably what got Donnie off, IMO.

I think neighbors saw two unknown men standing outside the trailer as it was on fire. This testiomny about the two unknown men is probably what got Donnie off, IMO.

One thing thats always bothered me about this, is if the neighbors saw two unknown men, how did they know that one of them wasn't Donnie unless they got a good look at them?

And if they did get a good enough look at these guys to know that neither of them was Donnie then why was their no composite sketches?

I think probably just the fact that the neighbors saw two of them cast doubt with the jury that Donnie was involved and gave credence to the theory of a third party being responsible. But I do wonder how credible these eyewitness testimonies were.

I think probably just the fact that the neighbors saw two of them cast doubt with the jury that Donnie was involved and gave credence to the theory of a third party being responsible. But I do wonder how credible these eyewitness testimonies were.

I guess the neighbors testimony coupled with Donnie's stepmother testifying that she saw Donnie screaming at someone from the door put doubt in their minds. They may have gotten a good enough look to determine that neither of the men were Donnie, but not descriptive enough to draw a composite. Maybe all they saw of them was from behind?

I thought it was Donny as well. And you know what, I found Julie's doctor to be very annoying. "She never told ME that!!" about seeing Donny's face in the fire.

Sir, if you thought your brother might be responsible for shooting you who would you want to tell first? A doctor you vaguely know (if at all) or your own mother and father? Geez. His interview should have been omitted in my opinion. It was just plain silly.

I thought it was Donny as well. And you know what, I found Julie's doctor to be very annoying. "She never told ME that!!" about seeing Donny's face in the fire.

Sir, if you thought your brother might be responsible for shooting you who would you want to tell first? A doctor you vaguely know (if at all) or your own mother and father? Geez. His interview should have been omitted in my opinion. It was just plain silly.

I thought the doctor specifically stated that when he asked Julie if she saw anything in the blast from the gun, she said no. I've honestly never put much stock in Julie's statement about seeing Donnie in the blast, because I think it's a moot point either way. If he truely were innocent (very doubtful), she easily could have seen his face in the blast if he were mere feet away lying on the couch. But then you'd have to ask yourself why Donnie wasn't brutally shot while his sisters were gunned down in cold blood. That's the whole problem with Donnie's story. To believe he's innocent you must also accept the fact that two or more men broke into the Hansen's trailer (for some unknown reason), used several gas cans filled with gasoline that Donnie purchased days before, and then shot and killed Jill and Julie in cold blood, yet made no effot to shoot Donnie as well who was inches away from his sister when she was shot. And as soon as Donnie yells at these intruders (armed with a shotgun, mind you) they simply turn around and flee. That's asking a lot!

I thought the doctor specifically stated that when he asked Julie if she saw anything in the blast from the gun, she said no. I've honestly never put much stock in Julie's statement about seeing Donnie in the blast, because I think it's a moot point either way. If he truely were innocent (very doubtful), she easily could have seen his face in the blast if he were mere feet away lying on the couch. But then you'd have to ask yourself why Donnie wasn't brutally shot while his sisters were gunned down in cold blood. That's the whole problem with Donnie's story. To believe he's innocent you must also accept the fact that two or more men broke into the Hansen's trailer (for some unknown reason), used several gas cans filled with gasoline that Donnie purchased days before, and then shot and killed Jill and Julie in cold blood, yet made no effot to shoot Donnie as well who was inches away from his sister when she was shot. And as soon as Donnie yells at these intruders (armed with a shotgun, mind you) they simply turn around and flee. That's asking a lot!
I think the fact that she saw his face in the flash and that Donny claimed he was there when she was shot and dragged her to safety both solidify evidence of his guilt. Like the guy would shoot her but not him and he's right there. I can't believe I even considered him possibly innocent as a kid. But even without her claims, he still looks pretty guilty, I agree and her statement alone doesn't prove it all. But his subsequent behavior does.

I think the fact that she saw his face in the flash and that Donny claimed he was there when she was shot and dragged her to safety both solidify evidence of his guilt. Like the guy would shoot her but not him and he's right there. I can't believe I even considered him possibly innocent as a kid. But even without her claims, he still looks pretty guilty, I agree and her statement alone doesn't prove it all. But his subsequent behavior does.
really I think that was the only thing that was missing was the daughter's account. I agree that it shouldn't matter in this case because all of the evidence points at him before, during, and after the incident. I think having julie or jill testify against him in court would have swung the jury.

His interview on unsolved mysteries is even telling. He says that he moved the gun because he didn't want anyone to think that he shot anyone just in case someone was shot or that someone would think he was involved? I may have misheard that, but geez...if my house is on fire and my sisters are dying in front of me I don't think i would be concerned about getting framed into starting the fire at that particular moment unless there something more to the story.

really I think that was the only thing that was missing was the daughter's account. I agree that it shouldn't matter in this case because all of the evidence points at him before, during, and after the incident. I think having julie or jill testify against him in court would have swung the jury.

His interview on unsolved mysteries is even telling. He says that he moved the gun because he didn't want anyone to think that he shot anyone just in case someone was shot or that someone would think he was involved? I may have misheard that, but geez...if my house is on fire and my sisters are dying in front of me I don't think i would be concerned about getting framed into starting the fire at that particular moment unless there something more to the story.
I agree. If Julie hadn't died, I think her testimony would have convicted Donnie for sure. She was the key witness to survive and Jill probably was unable to move after being shot herself.
Also, didn't Julie say that she alone stumbled outside after being shot, thus contradicting Donnie's claim that he had gotten her out? And why didn't Donnie tell his parents that he'd gotten her out well before the neighbors and firemen rushed to the scene and discovered her on the side of the road? He certainly wouldn't have just forgotten she was laying there. So I think he blatantly lied right there, too.

And yes, his automatic fear of being "framed" points to serious issues as well.

I wonder if the accomplices were brought to justice and if they implicated Donny in the murders, if he could be charged with something. I think they'd be able to charge him with a lesser charge, but then again I'm no legal expert.
Well, he couldn't be tried for murder again, and it was so long ago, it seems like there would be statute of limitations that would apply for anything else.
In my opinion, this was such a confusing case for the investigators and family. Also, when the key witness died, that made it even harder to prove the case against Donny. Although in my mind, Donny seemed like such a twit, I can not imagine him not complaining or mentioning something to friends/girlfriend or whomever about something that was bothering him or angering him at home.
I used to think that maybe he was sexually abusing one or both of the sisters and maybe they were getting to a breaking point..... or maybe he just wanted to get rid of his family so he could get life insurance money, or just not to hear nagging anymore..... I've read that often in books about kids who kill....nagging or complaining compels them to murder.

have they looked in to Julie's death in the hospital more? was that truly a freak accident,or was there something more to it,I wonder?JAT.

I agree. If Julie hadn't died, I think her testimony would have convicted Donnie for sure. She was the key witness to survive and Jill probably was unable to move after being shot herself.
Also, didn't Julie say that she alone stumbled outside after being shot, thus contradicting Donnie's claim that he had gotten her out? And why didn't Donnie tell his parents that he'd gotten her out well before the neighbors and firemen rushed to the scene and discovered her on the side of the road? He certainly wouldn't have just forgotten she was laying there. So I think he blatantly lied right there, too.

And yes, his automatic fear of being "framed" points to serious issues as well.
I agree 100% with you. this is worse than the darlie routier case that is still being debated and i believe that she is guilty.

I don't see how this jury let him off...he told so many lies and his own parents wouldn't make this stuff up. I'm sorry if his parents say he's guilty...that's enough for me. I think that's something that bothers me in the routier case is the fact that the husband never dimed her out...but yeah donnie is guilty.

I agree 100% with you. this is worse than the darlie routier case that is still being debated and i believe that she is guilty.

I don't see how this jury let him off...he told so many lies and his own parents wouldn't make this stuff up. I'm sorry if his parents say he's guilty...that's enough for me. I think that's something that bothers me in the routier case is the fact that the husband never dimed her out...but yeah donnie is guilty.

Yes, but thats not quite enough for a jury, nor should it be. Families become estranged from one another and might accuse eachother of stuff, even parents and children.

Not saying Donnie is innocent, but like it or not there were a lot of things that didn't add up and thats probably why he got off.

Between Donnie shouting at someone to get out, and the eyewitness testimony of the neighbors, it seems highly likely that someone else was there.

But assuming there was another perp besides Donnie several things don't make sense:

1. If Donnie got someone to come commit the murders, why did he go and buy the shotgun and gasoline himself? Why not get the other perps to buy it so he'd be in the clear?

2. If two other men came to the trailer, why did Donnie take part in the actual crime at all? Assuming he did if he was indeed the one who shot Julie. Seems like if there was indeed two other men there he hired, he would let them do all of it so he wouldn't be implicated, and the hired thugs, not having any connection to the family other than Donnie wouldn't be suspected. If he was going to do the job himself why bother having two men come at all?

Now there is always the possibility that the eyewitnesses could have been mistaken. But lets just assume there were indeed two strangers at the trailer, I got three theories that IU haven't heard yet:

1. What if Donnie origanally planned to murder his family, but at the last minute had second thoughts? But it was to late to call it off because his accomplices were already on the way. It would explain why he bought all the supplies, but for some reason was yelling at someone to get out.

2. I've not heard this theory yet, but what if the two men seen at the trailer were not involved in the crime at all, but saw the fire and were there to try and help out? Of course, its pretty unlikely that someone would just be passing by in the middle of the night, but its not impossible, as people do go out late at night and do have jobs that run late at night as well. It would also explain why Donnie shot Julie himself, and started the fire himself, and the two men who came in were not involved in the crime and it was them he was telling to get out, what if they were misunderstood potential heroes who were there to help out rather than take part in the crime?

3. It could be that Donnie's accomplices set the fire, and when Julie woke up it threatened to mess up their plans and Donnie was forced to shoot her, then he yelled at his accomplices to get out when he realized everything was going wrong and the family was waking up. It could have been the original intention was to burn them all in their sleep.

I think these three theories make sense, what do you all think?

Yes, but thats not quite enough for a jury, nor should it be. Families become estranged from one another and might accuse eachother of stuff, even parents and children.

Not saying Donnie is innocent, but like it or not there were a lot of things that didn't add up and thats probably why he got off.

Between Donnie shouting at someone to get out, and the eyewitness testimony of the neighbors, it seems highly likely that someone else was there.

But assuming there was another perp besides Donnie several things don't make sense:

1. If Donnie got someone to come commit the murders, why did he go and buy the shotgun and gasoline himself? Why not get the other perps to buy it so he'd be in the clear?

2. If two other men came to the trailer, why did Donnie take part in the actual crime at all? Assuming he did if he was indeed the one who shot Julie. Seems like if there was indeed two other men there he hired, he would let them do all of it so he wouldn't be implicated, and the hired thugs, not having any connection to the family other than Donnie wouldn't be suspected. If he was going to do the job himself why bother having two men come at all?

Now there is always the possibility that the eyewitnesses could have been mistaken. But lets just assume there were indeed two strangers at the trailer, I got three theories that IU haven't heard yet:

1. What if Donnie origanally planned to murder his family, but at the last minute had second thoughts? But it was to late to call it off because his accomplices were already on the way. It would explain why he bought all the supplies, but for some reason was yelling at someone to get out.

2. I've not heard this theory yet, but what if the two men seen at the trailer were not involved in the crime at all, but saw the fire and were there to try and help out? Of course, its pretty unlikely that someone would just be passing by in the middle of the night, but its not impossible, as people do go out late at night and do have jobs that run late at night as well. It would also explain why Donnie shot Julie himself, and started the fire himself, and the two men who came in were not involved in the crime and it was them he was telling to get out, what if they were misunderstood potential heroes who were there to help out rather than take part in the crime?

3. It could be that Donnie's accomplices set the fire, and when Julie woke up it threatened to mess up their plans and Donnie was forced to shoot her, then he yelled at his accomplices to get out when he realized everything was going wrong and the family was waking up. It could have been the original intention was to burn them all in their sleep.

I think these three theories make sense, what do you all think?
I agree with you with the parents thing, I just meant that in this particular case it didn't appear that the parents had any reason to turn against their son if he wern't guilty of the crime. the way they told the story as well made it appear that they were completely oblivious to their son's actions until the daughter told them about what she saw which was later. i can't see why they would have made that up if it wern't true, but it doesn't prove him being guilty you are right.

I agree that all of your theories are very possible, if not probable, but they all point to him being guilty either way. his actions after the fact that are verified by law enforcement do not look good either.

i have felt this way for a while. i think Donnie did plan this, but i dont know if he himself did this, in other words, i think he had help, unfortunatly, they cant charge him with this specific crime anymore and that's sad because i do think he either 1) did it by telling the people he hired what to burn or 2) helped the guys who did do this or 3) knows more than he's telling.

But assuming there was another perp besides Donnie several things don't make sense:

1. If Donnie got someone to come commit the murders, why did he go and buy the shotgun and gasoline himself? Why not get the other perps to buy it so he'd be in the clear?

I think because Donnie was simply an idiot, who didn't take into account several factors that would have cast suspicion his way. I personally think the original plan was to have the family die in the fire and to only use the shotgun as a backup plan in case any of the family awoke and attempted to flee. I think Donnie figured any evidence that a shotgun was actually used would have been destroyed in the fire. Perhaps he tried to get his accomplices to buy the gas and the shotgun but they simply refused? Who knows?

2. If two other men came to the trailer, why did Donnie take part in the actual crime at all? Assuming he did if he was indeed the one who shot Julie. Seems like if there was indeed two other men there he hired, he would let them do all of it so he wouldn't be implicated, and the hired thugs, not having any connection to the family other than Donnie wouldn't be suspected. If he was going to do the job himself why bother having two men come at all?

I don't think Donnie was the one who shot Julie. I think he sat back and let his accomplices in and may have helped pouring the gasoline, but outside of that I don't believe Donnie was the one who pulled the trigger on Julie. I don't think anyone anticipated Julie coming out when she did, and when she did surprise the intruders, one of them panicked and shot her. I then think Jill was shot shortly after and that's when Donnie knew he was in too deep at this point, which is when Betty emerged from the room and witnessed Donnie yelling at someone from the end of the couch. I think he was yelling at his accomplices to get out of there.

1. What if Donnie origanally planned to murder his family, but at the last minute had second thoughts? But it was to late to call it off because his accomplices were already on the way. It would explain why he bought all the supplies, but for some reason was yelling at someone to get out.

2. I've not heard this theory yet, but what if the two men seen at the trailer were not involved in the crime at all, but saw the fire and were there to try and help out? Of course, its pretty unlikely that someone would just be passing by in the middle of the night, but its not impossible, as people do go out late at night and do have jobs that run late at night as well. It would also explain why Donnie shot Julie himself, and started the fire himself, and the two men who came in were not involved in the crime and it was them he was telling to get out, what if they were misunderstood potential heroes who were there to help out rather than take part in the crime?

3. It could be that Donnie's accomplices set the fire, and when Julie woke up it threatened to mess up their plans and Donnie was forced to shoot her, then he yelled at his accomplices to get out when he realized everything was going wrong and the family was waking up. It could have been the original intention was to burn them all in their sleep.

I think these three theories make sense, what do you all think?

I personally think it was a combination of #1 & #3. I also think it's odd that this attack occurred during a night in which Donnie just so happened to be visiting his father and sisters. In the UM segment they say that Donnie was visiting that night from a town 70 miles away (implying that he lived with his mother or on his own). How much of a coincidence would this have been then (if he's truely innocent) that on the one night he stays over at his fathers trailer is the same night two or more unknown men break in and shoot his sisters to death and set the trailer on fire for some unknown reason? And who else besides someone in the family would have a motive to kill two sixteen year old sisters in such a brutal fashion, and also try to kill Betty and Hans?

This was my first UM case I encountered of the Lifetime episodes when I was on vacation in Florida over a decade ago and it's always stuck with me. Now that I work in the criminological field, I wanted to jot down some insights.

Something that I have major issues with, if per chance this was a "random act" or "bungled robbery" is that the unknown perp(s) NOT ONLY undertook the task of shooting only two of the five people in the house(one survivor of which was sleeping in the main room) AND THEN, attempted to cover up their crimes by burning potential evidence. Here, one has to believe that these mysterious intruders came with both a shotgun AND gasoline?.... now that's an awful lot of premeditation without any offered alterior suspect. So then, who would have the malice of forethought to bring both shotgun AND gasoline? I find it quizzical that five inhabitants can live in a house/doublewide and yet only two are the focus of violence, with the other three miraculously without wound(especially with one sleeping in the main room....) and able to escape with great possibility to identify the intruders. Home invasion offenders are in general are not too picky over who is shot and as they say in the film, Heat, "why leave a living, breathing witness?".

I'd like to offer up that whoever was responsible for these murders maybe attempted to cover up forensic evidence through the use of fire? Fire is often utilized in cases of sexual assault, whereby offenders will attempt to hide their acts through burning evidence. As much as there's focus on the 'insurance money' motive, I'd hazard a closer look in this case with the involvement of a bungled sexual assault on the one sister who died in the fire and would suggest that the other sister could've been shot to keep quiet? Had this crime been purely for some form of insurance, I highly doubt the offender would leave ballistic evidence behind by shooting two of five(or four depending on stance) victims and then leave the rest of the family to perish by chance in the fire, seems difficult to reconnoiter for me.

Now, one of my favourite investigative tools is occam's razor(I referrence it alot in cases that seem like there's an obvious answer), which here, when compiled with just how many factors would have to correlate to accept the half-brother's story as is, I just can't swallow. As Robert Stack says in the segment about Donnie's story, it's "difficult to reconcile".

I would love to read the grand jury indictment transcript in this case and feel there probably were many errors on the prosecution's front.

I've always said this, you have to be a pretty big dirtbag to have your own mother disown you - the woman who gave birth to you. I know that reason alone can't convict Donnie but its obvious to me that his own parents think he did it. Honestly how much worse can it get?

i always thought Donnie was innocent

Donnie seems quite guilty. I also think he probably had an accomplice.

I can honestly say that this case might be the most obvious "Yeah this guy did it!" in all of Unsolved Mysteries' segments, and that list includes guys like Stephen Marfeo, Paul Pollis, Marc Nichols, & he's probably on par with Chad Noe.

First of all, I have to say that the Defense for Donnie is one of the flimsiest of flimsy theories I've ever heard. It assumes almost psychic powers for the attackers as they would have gone to the place without guns and gas and yet just so happen to know where Donnie kept his newly purchased gun & gas. And they shot both girls and yet left Donnie alone, even though he would have been the first one they came across given that he was sleeping on the couch. What?! Also, the defense says that one of the girls was shot while the fire was going on after Donnie & his parents got out. If that is so, why didn't she scream for help while the fire was going on, and I would think her killer being trapped in the trailer with her would have meant that signs of his escape would have been present, which as far as I know, there are none. I don't know how they could just assume alot of that stuff and present it as evidence for defense, but the Jury bought it, so there you go.

Let's go over what we do know:

Donnie bought the murder weapon and the gas close to the day of the attack.

He knew right where the murder weapon was located after the fire and went to go look for it, not to present it as evidence to the police, but rather to make sure they never find it.

Elements of Donnie's story have been changed or contradicted. Before she died, his sister made no mention of him dragging her to safety, and Donnie says that he slept through the gunshot, after it was presented at his trial that he heard it.

He failed two polygraph tests. Granted, those aren't sure fire conclusive examples of proof. However, I feel they are accurate enough to cast suspicion when you fail one. Now fail two, and I'm going to be looking at you funny.

And for the life of me, I just can not understand how random guys just walk up to a trailer with no weapons, conveniently find the weapons on their property, got out of their way to shoot both girls and then leave Donnie alone even though Donnie was sleeping on the couch and they would have seen him first.

At the very least, the very bare bones least, Donnie knows exactly what happened that night. Whether it was him, two guys looking to start a fire, or him with help, he knows exactly happened in that trailer. His behavior and stories just don't add up in anyway, and I believe the fact that he bought the weapons just prior to the murders taking place AND the fact that he went to go look for the gun before he knew the police were even looking for it should have been enough evidence to convict.

Wanted to bump this, I am a Find A Grave member and found this:


http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=65970588

I can honestly say that this case might be the most obvious "Yeah this guy did it!" in all of Unsolved Mysteries' segments, and that list includes guys like Stephen Marfeo, Paul Pollis, Marc Nichols, & he's probably on par with Chad Noe.

First of all, I have to say that the Defense for Donnie is one of the flimsiest of flimsy theories I've ever heard. It assumes almost psychic powers for the attackers as they would have gone to the place without guns and gas and yet just so happen to know where Donnie kept his newly purchased gun & gas. And they shot both girls and yet left Donnie alone, even though he would have been the first one they came across given that he was sleeping on the couch. What?! Also, the defense says that one of the girls was shot while the fire was going on after Donnie & his parents got out. If that is so, why didn't she scream for help while the fire was going on, and I would think her killer being trapped in the trailer with her would have meant that signs of his escape would have been present, which as far as I know, there are none. I don't know how they could just assume alot of that stuff and present it as evidence for defense, but the Jury bought it, so there you go.

Let's go over what we do know:

Donnie bought the murder weapon and the gas close to the day of the attack.

He knew right where the murder weapon was located after the fire and went to go look for it, not to present it as evidence to the police, but rather to make sure they never find it.

Elements of Donnie's story have been changed or contradicted. Before she died, his sister made no mention of him dragging her to safety, and Donnie says that he slept through the gunshot, after it was presented at his trial that he heard it.

He failed two polygraph tests. Granted, those aren't sure fire conclusive examples of proof. However, I feel they are accurate enough to cast suspicion when you fail one. Now fail two, and I'm going to be looking at you funny.

And for the life of me, I just can not understand how random guys just walk up to a trailer with no weapons, conveniently find the weapons on their property, got out of their way to shoot both girls and then leave Donnie alone even though Donnie was sleeping on the couch and they would have seen him first.

At the very least, the very bare bones least, Donnie knows exactly what happened that night. Whether it was him, two guys looking to start a fire, or him with help, he knows exactly happened in that trailer. His behavior and stories just don't add up in anyway, and I believe the fact that he bought the weapons just prior to the murders taking place AND the fact that he went to go look for the gun before he knew the police were even looking for it should have been enough evidence to convict.

I agree with you. People can defend anyone in court and use theories to defend a criminal.

There is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that says he is guilty. Other people have been convicted with less evidence. His family would not have lied about the events and turned on him if he were innocent. He would not have returned to the crime scene to recover evidence and lie to law enforcement if he were innocent. For me those facts combined with gas and gun would have been too much to overcome.

Sometimes the courts convict innocent people with less evidence and it is frustrating. in this case it is the opposite. the court let him walk with strong evidence against him.

This was my first UM case I encountered of the Lifetime episodes when I was on vacation in Florida over a decade ago and it's always stuck with me. Now that I work in the criminological field, I wanted to jot down some insights.

Something that I have major issues with, if per chance this was a "random act" or "bungled robbery" is that the unknown perp(s) NOT ONLY undertook the task of shooting only two of the five people in the house(one survivor of which was sleeping in the main room) AND THEN, attempted to cover up their crimes by burning potential evidence. Here, one has to believe that these mysterious intruders came with both a shotgun AND gasoline?.... now that's an awful lot of premeditation without any offered alterior suspect. So then, who would have the malice of forethought to bring both shotgun AND gasoline? I find it quizzical that five inhabitants can live in a house/doublewide and yet only two are the focus of violence, with the other three miraculously without wound(especially with one sleeping in the main room....) and able to escape with great possibility to identify the intruders. Home invasion offenders are in general are not too picky over who is shot and as they say in the film, Heat, "why leave a living, breathing witness?".

I'd like to offer up that whoever was responsible for these murders maybe attempted to cover up forensic evidence through the use of fire? Fire is often utilized in cases of sexual assault, whereby offenders will attempt to hide their acts through burning evidence. As much as there's focus on the 'insurance money' motive, I'd hazard a closer look in this case with the involvement of a bungled sexual assault on the one sister who died in the fire and would suggest that the other sister could've been shot to keep quiet? Had this crime been purely for some form of insurance, I highly doubt the offender would leave ballistic evidence behind by shooting two of five(or four depending on stance) victims and then leave the rest of the family to perish by chance in the fire, seems difficult to reconnoiter for me.

Now, one of my favourite investigative tools is occam's razor(I referrence it alot in cases that seem like there's an obvious answer), which here, when compiled with just how many factors would have to correlate to accept the half-brother's story as is, I just can't swallow. As Robert Stack says in the segment about Donnie's story, it's "difficult to reconcile".

I would love to read the grand jury indictment transcript in this case and feel there probably were many errors on the prosecution's front.


I don't know what the motive was (sexual or insurance or something else)but whatever it was it points to Donny.

I think because Donnie was simply an idiot, who didn't take into account several factors that would have cast suspicion his way. I personally think the original plan was to have the family die in the fire and to only use the shotgun as a backup plan in case any of the family awoke and attempted to flee. I think Donnie figured any evidence that a shotgun was actually used would have been destroyed in the fire. Perhaps he tried to get his accomplices to buy the gas and the shotgun but they simply refused? Who knows?



I don't think Donnie was the one who shot Julie. I think he sat back and let his accomplices in and may have helped pouring the gasoline, but outside of that I don't believe Donnie was the one who pulled the trigger on Julie. I don't think anyone anticipated Julie coming out when she did, and when she did surprise the intruders, one of them panicked and shot her. I then think Jill was shot shortly after and that's when Donnie knew he was in too deep at this point, which is when Betty emerged from the room and witnessed Donnie yelling at someone from the end of the couch. I think he was yelling at his accomplices to get out of there.



I personally think it was a combination of #1 & #3. I also think it's odd that this attack occurred during a night in which Donnie just so happened to be visiting his father and sisters. In the UM segment they say that Donnie was visiting that night from a town 70 miles away (implying that he lived with his mother or on his own). How much of a coincidence would this have been then (if he's truely innocent) that on the one night he stays over at his fathers trailer is the same night two or more unknown men break in and shoot his sisters to death and set the trailer on fire for some unknown reason? And who else besides someone in the family would have a motive to kill two sixteen year old sisters in such a brutal fashion, and also try to kill Betty and Hans?
Good points.

What was the motive anyways? Did he want his father and sisters dead to collect on life insurance money if he was one of the beneficiaries, or just to kill someone?

One of the silliest parts about this case is that the defense claims that Donnie was sleeping on the couch while Julie was shot and the reenactment even shows Donnie yelling, "Hey!", seeing the gunman and shooting, then helping his sister outside.
1) Julie herself said that she had wandered outside after being shot
2) Why would Donnie not have told his parents about the shooting he supposedly witnessed and a gunman while running back and forth with fire extinguishers with them?
3) Let's say Julie's memory was hazy about going out of the house by herself. If Donnie did help her out as he claimed, then he did it BEFORE the house was up in flames or as much on fire. Yet never said a peep to his parents about Julie being hurt or a gunman running around the property while "helping" his parents put out the fire.
4) The whole idea that a gunman would shoot your sister who wandered into the hall and not the guy sleeping on the couch who very clearly saw the gunman is positively ludicrous. Also, Jill was later shot as well. Wouldn't Donnie have expressed some concern for his other sister and his parents too if he knew some crazy gunman intruder was running about?

I agree with TheCars on this one. Donnie was involved in my opinion and he more than likely had accomplices.

Another thought: Could the girls' 50k college fun have been a possible motive for wanting them out of the way?

I always wondered if they were positive it was a medical accident that killed Julie. Seems an easy way to kill a witness.

Another thought: Could the girls' 50k college fun have been a possible motive for wanting them out of the way?

That's a good theory. I've always thought Donnie's main two motives were greed (some sort of life insurance policy payoff most likely) and jealousy over the attention his twin sisters got from his dad and step-mom.

That's a good theory. I've always thought Donnie's main two motives were greed (some sort of life insurance policy payoff most likely) and jealousy over the attention his twin sisters got from his dad and step-mom.
I agree with you there 100% and feel you are on the right track with the motive. We may never know the motive because it cannot be proven since he never confessed, but to commit such an action I think it has to be all of the above like you mentioned. someone else brought up a sexual assault gone wrong as a possibility, no evidence what so ever adds up to that theory.

My guess is that he must have had a strong passion for wanting his sisters out of the picture which is why he shot them and set the fire to try to cover the shootings. I don't know that he ever intended to shoot his dad and step mom because he probably could have if he really wanted to. At the very least we can assume that he was ok with the fact that they all could have died in the fire.

Based on the evidence, my theory is that he just wanted his sisters dead(for whatever reason because he only shot them) and thought that a fire would mask their murders. He almost succeeded, the fire was so intense and he did such a great job going into firefighting mode that in spite of his sister getting out no one knew that a shooting even took place until she went to the hospital. (the event speaks for itself there based on the way it unfolded)

some of us have said he is dumb and is lucky. I think that is the case, but the evidence shows that he was calculated in his approach and even returned to the crime scene after the fact.

One of the silliest parts about this case is that the defense claims that Donnie was sleeping on the couch while Julie was shot and the reenactment even shows Donnie yelling, "Hey!", seeing the gunman and shooting, then helping his sister outside.
1) Julie herself said that she had wandered outside after being shot
2) Why would Donnie not have told his parents about the shooting he supposedly witnessed and a gunman while running back and forth with fire extinguishers with them?
3) Let's say Julie's memory was hazy about going out of the house by herself. If Donnie did help her out as he claimed, then he did it BEFORE the house was up in flames or as much on fire. Yet never said a peep to his parents about Julie being hurt or a gunman running around the property while "helping" his parents put out the fire.
4) The whole idea that a gunman would shoot your sister who wandered into the hall and not the guy sleeping on the couch who very clearly saw the gunman is positively ludicrous. Also, Jill was later shot as well. Wouldn't Donnie have expressed some concern for his other sister and his parents too if he knew some crazy gunman intruder was running about?

I agree with TheCars on this one. Donnie was involved in my opinion and he more than likely had accomplices.

Another thought: Could the girls' 50k college fun have been a possible motive for wanting them out of the way?
those are some great points. you would think if the events happened as he claims that at some point one of the first reactions would have been to process the shootings. all he did was go into firefighting mode as if he didn't even know about a shooting. Why did he do that? Because he was hoping that no one would find out about a shooting. If he mentioned a shooting it would have been pointing the finger at himself.

If he were a victim and knew that people were being shot he would have acted in a completely different manner. His instincts would not have been to fight the fire, but to protect himself against the shooter and make it known to everyone at that moment that there was a shooter to alert them.

I tend to like taking the devil's advocate position, but in this case, Donnie is guilty. The single fact of taking the gun out of the car in the middle of the blaze convinced me.

Just saw this again recently. Thought he was guilty.

I really wonder what kind of defense attorney Donnie had. I mean, the guy or gal must be the type who can sell a muzzle to a dog, because OJ has a better chance of being innocent than Donnie.

I feel somewhat compelled to give Donny the benefit of the doubt. Remember the Texas teenager spree killers (Davy Lynn Crocket and William Glen Henry)? Their main MO, or modus operandi, included using weapons and tools they stole from their victims. The first witnesses who saw them before their spree (Ken Davis and Tom Matthews) said they just looked like teenagers getting into mischief, so they obviously didn't appear to be carrying any weapons on them.

They decapitated Deana Woodard with tools which they probably found in her garage and took her two guns and car with them for their next two victims. Then they took the Morrisons' truck and ditched Deana's car and guns along the way to their fourth and final victim.

Here's what I think could have happened, in case Donny wasn't the killer. Two night prowlers out at night saw Donny's shotgun either out on the porch or in his car (and the buckets of gasoline), saw it as a crime of opportunity, then set the house on fire and killed Jill and Julie.

I'm not saying Donny is not guilty, but there is the possibility.

I feel somewhat compelled to give Donny the benefit of the doubt. Remember the Texas teenager spree killers (Davy Lynn Crocket and William Glen Henry)? Their main MO, or modus operandi, included using weapons and tools they stole from their victims. The first witnesses who saw them before their spree (Ken Davis and Tom Matthews) said they just looked like teenagers getting into mischief, so they obviously didn't appear to be carrying any weapons on them.

They decapitated Deana Woodard with tools which they probably found in her garage and took her two guns and car with them for their next two victims. Then they took the Morrisons' truck and ditched Deana's car and guns along the way to their fourth and final victim.

Here's what I think could have happened, in case Donny wasn't the killer. Two night prowlers out at night saw Donny's shotgun either out on the porch or in his car (and the buckets of gasoline), saw it as a crime of opportunity, then set the house on fire and killed Jill and Julie.

I'm not saying Donny is not guilty, but there is the possibility.
This is an interesting angle, for sure. I don't think it's likely, but I can't entirely rule it out. I still think he's guilty (with at least an accomplice), but I could totally see new evidence popping up suggesting something like the Davy Lynn Crocket case.

Here's what I think could have happened, in case Donny wasn't the killer. Two night prowlers out at night saw Donny's shotgun either out on the porch or in his car (and the buckets of gasoline), saw it as a crime of opportunity, then set the house on fire and killed Jill and Julie.

I'm not saying Donny is not guilty, but there is the possibility.
That's an interesting theory, however there are two things that still bother me about this scenario:

1) Why not shoot Donnie, who was right there on the couch?
2) Why would Donnie not tell his mother and stepfather about the shooting while running back and forth between the house and area with fire extinguishers?

These two points really make me doubt him. If he was innocent, he would be worried about the shooters returning and hurting them, finishing off Julie, and finding and shooting Jill. Also, in his scenario, the shooters ran off after shooting Julie. But then after he helped Julie outside, they just had to go back into the house to shoot Jill? And why was he standing at the door when his mother came out of the bedroom screaming at someone to get out of there? Why did he go back in after allegedly helping Julie out? Why did he just leave her out there and not tell his parents, "Oh, by the way Julie was shot and some maniac has a gun?"

His story is completely full of holes. I think Julie got herself out of the house that night, just as she said. Donnie probably never counted on her being able to get out, never mind surviving the whole ordeal (at least for a time). I think he's guilty as sin. If he didn't act alone, he had accomplices.

The stepmother saw Donnie screaming at someone to "get out of here" shortly after waking up. That tells me that Donnie did not act alone, and that was him yelling at his accomplices to get out of the area since the plan had fallen through.

Just rewatched this one. While the home was ablaze, Donnie told his mom and dad that he hadn't seen Jill, Julie, or ANYONE. Only to of course later claim he saw the "random gunman" shoot Julie and help her outside before the fire started.

Guilty. Seriously, how the hell did he get acquitted?

The stepmother saw Donnie screaming at someone to "get out of here" shortly after waking up. That tells me that Donnie did not act alone, and that was him yelling at his accomplices to get out of the area since the plan had fallen through.
I think this is very likely. I will never buy that this was two random intruders who found the gun outside and used the family's gas cans. Nope. It's more probable that Donnie knowingly supplied the gun/gas.

I think if Julie hadn't died in the hospital, Donnie would probably have been convicted. She saw his face in the flash and her account completely differed from his, but these things couldn't be told to the jury because she wasn't there to be cross-examined.

Unsolved Mysteries has the dates wrong on their website: Jill and Julie Hansen (http://unsolved.com/archives/jill-and-julie-hansen)

For Betty and Hans, life was close to perfect, until the night of November 14, 1986.
On December 19, 1987, Julie suddenly died in a freak medical accident.

They're saying Julie died 13 months later. I checked a few other websites and they all say she died on December 19, 1986, one month after she was shot. Is there a way to ask them to correct the mistake? Also, I cast another "guilty" vote!

They're saying Julie died 13 months later. I checked a few other websites and they all say she died on December 19, 1986, one month after she was shot. Is there a way to ask them to correct the mistake? Also, I cast another "guilty" vote![/QUOTE]

Perhaps, just perhaps, through their Facebook page or Twitter account? I've viewed a lot of company's Facebook & Twitter pages over the years and seen customers ask about products the company sells, when its stores are open, and yes, correct them when they're wrong.

I wouldn't use the Tips link though -- that might be the equivalent of calling 911 to ask for directions to a local pizza shop.

I tend to like taking the devil's advocate position, but in this case, Donnie is guilty. The single fact of taking the gun out of the car in the middle of the blaze convinced me.

Exactly! Your house is on fire. You grab your gun?!!
Not likely....

You say you helped your sister and then you change your story?
Huh?

You BOUGHT the bullets and fuel that killed your half sisters!
OMG!!

You RETURN to the scene of the crime to grab your stashed gun later???
WHAT?

His theory: TWO PEOPLE DID THIS WITH THE TOOLS OF DESTRUCTION *YOU* BOUGHT AND *YOU* ARE NOT GUILTY?!!?!?!
WHAT?!?!?!

I believe in justice and I do agree with double jeopardy as well. I also believe it was a brilliant ruse to cover up his face and voice. He's really "selling" the 'it wasn't me' by claiming the killers are still out there and he's scared!

Donny Hansen, [or whatever your new name is], please understand that even though you were declared NOT GUILTY that doesn't mean the world will judge you the same.

HOW DID HIS PARENTS NOT HEAR SHOTGUN BLASTS?!?!

I just re-watched this segment, and there were brief shots of various clips of newspaper articles on this case. I wasn't able to make out much, but did happen to notice one of the articles said the jury believed Donnie was probably guilty, but couldn't get past the "reasonable doubt" part. Also, a big factor in that was the fingerprint testing (or lack thereof) on the gun, which was apparently bungled by authorities. Thought that was interesting.

I've been thinking about this case recently and a thought popped into my head: what exactly was Donnie planning to do? Was he planning on setting the house on fire, hoping that everyone would inside would die? Not very smart considering the investigators found the gas can inside the ruins, and he would presumably be the only survivor.

Did he intend to kill only his parents and "save" his sisters? Why didn't he just off the parents with the shotgun too? If Donnie wanted to kill everyone, why did he help try to put out the fire? Why not kill his parents during their attempts to put out the fire? Nothing makes sense about what happened that night. But I don't think Donnie was the actual triggerman. No one noticed him ditch the gun that night, which tells me he had at least one accomplice who ditched it (in the family warehouse of all places). That would also explain why Betty and Hans were not killed...the accomplice/s took off with the shotgun prior to them waking up.

I've always believed there was suspicion from the start that Donny had accomplices who were involved in the murders. I mean, by the time this aired on UM, Donny had already been acquitted and couldn't be prosecuted for the same crime again. If he acted alone, then technically there's nothing to "solve" any more, but airing the story on UM opens up the possibility of information coming in which might lead authorities to accomplices who could be charged.

Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if Donny's confused reaction was because he had arranged for his accomplices to murder the family and burn down the place at a different time, but they screwed up and showed up on the WRONG NIGHT when he was actually there! Since Donny lived an entirely different town and was just visiting, why not arrange for the murder when you're 70 miles away and can establish an alibi?

Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if Donny's confused reaction was because he had arranged for his accomplices to murder the family and burn down the place at a different time, but they screwed up and showed up on the WRONG NIGHT when he was actually there! Since Donny lived an entirely different town and was just visiting, why not arrange for the murder when you're 70 miles away and can establish an alibi?
Never thought of that theory and can't recall hearing of that one before. Have to admit it does make sense yet sadly we will never know.

I've always believed there was suspicion from the start that Donny had accomplices who were involved in the murders. I mean, by the time this aired on UM, Donny had already been acquitted and couldn't be prosecuted for the same crime again. If he acted alone, then technically there's nothing to "solve" any more, but airing the story on UM opens up the possibility of information coming in which might lead authorities to accomplices who could be charged.

Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if Donny's confused reaction was because he had arranged for his accomplices to murder the family and burn down the place at a different time, but they screwed up and showed up on the WRONG NIGHT when he was actually there! Since Donny lived an entirely different town and was just visiting, why not arrange for the murder when you're 70 miles away and can establish an alibi?

I would think Donnie would have had to have the accomplices. I mean, taking out 4 people and burning the place down would have required a lot of work and runs the risk of somebody waking up and foiling the plan. I get the impression Donnie let them in. If Donnie wasn't there, they would have to break in and considering that was a small trailer, the odds are that one of the four would have heard something.

I really wonder who the accomplices were. Donnie didn't live in the immediate area at the time, so did he bring people with him and they just hung out in the woods or something until the time came? Possible, but unlikely. Did Donnie grow up there and still have high school friends in the area?

I've always believed there was suspicion from the start that Donny had accomplices who were involved in the murders. I mean, by the time this aired on UM, Donny had already been acquitted and couldn't be prosecuted for the same crime again. If he acted alone, then technically there's nothing to "solve" any more, but airing the story on UM opens up the possibility of information coming in which might lead authorities to accomplices who could be charged.

Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if Donny's confused reaction was because he had arranged for his accomplices to murder the family and burn down the place at a different time, but they screwed up and showed up on the WRONG NIGHT when he was actually there! Since Donny lived an entirely different town and was just visiting, why not arrange for the murder when you're 70 miles away and can establish an alibi?

This is a great theory.

I'd like to think the police questioned the friend that loaned Donnie the shotgun.

I'd like to think the police questioned the friend that loaned Donnie the shotgun.

I'd hope so. If this friend was completely innocent, I just can't figure out how Donny thought his plan was going to work. If the plan had gone off without a hitch, was Donny just planning to return the gun to his friend? Borrowing a shotgun three days before your entire family is murdered with shotgun blasts (with Donny being the only survivor) is certainly going to raise quite a few eyebrows!

I really wonder who the accomplices were. Donnie didn't live in the immediate area at the time, so did he bring people with him and they just hung out in the woods or something until the time came? Possible, but unlikely. Did Donnie grow up there and still have high school friends in the area?

Yes, I've always been quite curious to know if Donny borrowed the shotgun from a friend in Willow Creek, where his family lived, or if it was someone from his hometown of Fortuna. If it was someone in Willow Creek, I'd find it more likely that Donny was in collusion with old friends from the area.

I'd hope so. If this friend was completely innocent, I just can't figure out how Donny thought his plan was going to work. If the plan had gone off without a hitch, was Donny just planning to return the gun to his friend? Borrowing a shotgun three days before your entire family is murdered with shotgun blasts (with Donny being the only survivor) is certainly going to raise quite a few eyebrows!

Unless the shotgun wasn't part of the original plan, I just can't see any reason why it would have been used in the first place. It implicates Donny in just about every single way.

...actually, his daughters are younger than i am, and i was born over a year after this case. the last i knew of him, he still had his girls and took them with him to oregon.
i have no idea what his name is now, or if he still resides in happy camp. he could never be convicted anyway thanks to double jeopardy...though i would like to see some of my family members held responsible for their hand in these murders.
during the trial, it was stated under oath that the first person that donny called after the incident was his friend, my father, which actually was a lie. as i stated previously, it was my grandmother who called and alerted my father...donny called her first. to me that's strange, to call the mother (whom you're not close to) of your friend first thing and then lie about it in court?
also: my whole family knew the location of the murder weapon before the police did...actually the morning that donny tried to retrieve it from the workshop, it was my aunt (who he was staying with before he got arrested) who set the alarm clock for him. there was also a huge fight within my family regarding the gun, it's location and donny's desire to retrieve it.
this was all lied about in court, as well as the fact that my dad's family more or less hid my mom from the trial so she wouldn't testify (because it would create discrepancies in my father's family's testimonies).
AND i think it's also interesting that the night that donny stayed with his parents was right before a planned trip to set up drug connections in redding, ca.
although donny can no longer be held accountable for his actions in this case, i think that the other's involved should be. namely:
Jeffery Cyphers
and
Helen Cyphers.
i want to see them brought to justice.
i just wish i knew the extent of the hand that they played.

I searched the name of Jeffery and Helen Cyphers and came across this obituary for Helen from two months ago..... http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/times-standard/obituary.aspx?pid=180337236 It mentions that she is survived by her son, Jeff.

If the poster above is correct, then I bet this is the mother/son combo they were alluding to that were involved in this.

HOW DID HIS PARENTS NOT HEAR SHOTGUN BLASTS?!?!

On the unsolved mysteries page someone claiming to be the mother said the shotgun blast is what woke them up.

This maybe the easiest he done it on any UM case. He may have had help and i think the theory that everyone was supposed to die for insurance money seems the most obvious explanation.

I am kind of surprised the parents think he did it. Families on UM tend to be so delusional no matter how overwhelming the evidence is to the opposite so respect for that.
Such a heartbreaking quote "“That was a pretty low point in my life to see my son arrested for the murder of my daughter." Yeah that definitely counts.

I am kind of surprised the parents think he did it. Families on UM tend to be so delusional no matter how overwhelming the evidence is to the opposite so respect for that.

Such a heartbreaking quote "“That was a pretty low point in my life to see my son arrested for the murder of my daughter." Yeah that definitely counts.

It's definitely a rare case where the parents do NOT believe their child. The father's quote was, "We have lost three of our four children over this."

Donnie killed the twins and wanted to collect the insurance money policy.

Which Season Five episode is it?

Which Season Five episode is it?

This is a Season 6 segment.

If Julie lived it would seem unlikely Donny would have been acquitted. Even with the eyewitness testimony about the other assailants, Julie's testimony would have nailed him. Despite that it's amazing the jury wasn't convinced by the absolute overwhelming evidence against him.

Wonder if any of the OJ Jurors also served on this jury.

It was Florida. Look at the Casey Anthony acquittal. i feel like some juries dont understand what "reasonable" means. Reasonable doesn't mean any remote possibility. I feel like when the crime involves a family member killing another,because it seems so heinous, some juries wont convict even on the best circumstantial cases. To me, if the case has great amount of circumstantial evidence that's just as good as a fingerprint. Use common sense. Donnie is guilty as hell. So a murderer comes to your house without the gun,ammunition,or gasoline.? He just got lucky?. I always doubted Donnie had help. i think Donnie's story would've looked better had he had help. Plus there was no sign of another person. His screaming "get out of here." Was an act. Once he realized he might not be able to pull off his plan, he put on an act.

Donny is 100% guilty of these crimes, or of conspiracy to commit these crimes. If he didn't do it himself, then he arranged for all of the materials and "hired" some others to do the deed. This is actually quite possible as I can seeing Donny thinking that by doing that, he gives himself an alibi. It would also explain the sightings of strangers in the area that night.

But there is no way he is innocent. You don't obtain a gun and ammunition and gas all in the days before the commission of murder and arson using those very things. It is beyond the scope of reasonable for him not to have been involved in some way.

I can't speak to what the motive may be, but there is zero doubt in my mind that he is the genesis of these crimes either by his hand or his mind.

If Julie lived it would seem unlikely Donny would have been acquitted. Even with the eyewitness testimony about the other assailants, Julie's testimony would have nailed him. Despite that it's amazing the jury wasn't convinced by the absolute overwhelming evidence against him.

I don't want to go too far into "black helicopters and tin foil hats" territory, but did they ever determine how the air bubble got in Julie's IV line? That is pretty rare, and you need a decent amount of air in the line for it to kill someone.

The reason I ask is that I once saw a movie where someone killed a patient in a hospital by shooting a syringe of air into the patient's IV line. Yeah, I realize that would be a little crazy, but Donnie was family so he would have had access to her room. He also wasn't a suspect at that time (at least I don't think).

Just a thought anyway...

it does look like he did it, unless there was more evidence that acquitted not presented in the segment


I wonder why he did it, if he did.

I don't want to go too far into "black helicopters and tin foil hats" territory, but did they ever determine how the air bubble got in Julie's IV line? That is pretty rare, and you need a decent amount of air in the line for it to kill someone.

The reason I ask is that I once saw a movie where someone killed a patient in a hospital by shooting a syringe of air into the patient's IV line. Yeah, I realize that would be a little crazy, but Donnie was family so he would have had access to her room. He also wasn't a suspect at that time (at least I don't think).

Just a thought anyway...

That is a very disturbing thought. But I don't think the timing works out. Donny was arrested before Julie's death in the hospital.

That is a very disturbing thought. But I don't think the timing works out. Donny was arrested before Julie's death in the hospital.

Ahh... thanks. I thought he was arrested after. Still, it is a very odd and rare way to die at a very inopportune time. Like somebody else mentioned, when she died a lot of the prosecution's case was lost. There's a motive for murder for someone...

It's extremely rare to die from an air bubble in the line. almost all of the tubing would have to have an air bubble injected into it. I'm not saying it couldn't happen without additional help, but it's really rare

It's extremely rare to die from an air bubble in the line. almost all of the tubing would have to have an air bubble injected into it. I'm not saying it couldn't happen without additional help, but it's really rare

That's why I feel it would have had to been a huge bungle (possibly) or an intentional act. The timing of her passing and with such a bizarre, obscure, and difficult to prove method makes me think it may have been Donny. If Donny was in custody and other people were involved, I'm sure one of them could have done it. Again, keeping her from testifying really hurt the prosecutions case so you have motive.

That's why I feel it would have had to been a huge bungle (possibly) or an intentional act. The timing of her passing and with such a bizarre, obscure, and difficult to prove method makes me think it may have been Donny. If Donny was in custody and other people were involved, I'm sure one of them could have done it. Again, keeping her from testifying really hurt the prosecutions case so you have motive.

But since she was a witness, she would have had a guard on her door at all times. So the only people allowed in would have been her parents, and approved hospital staff.

It was Florida. Look at the Casey Anthony acquittal. i feel like some juries dont understand what "reasonable" means. Reasonable doesn't mean any remote possibility. I feel like when the crime involves a family member killing another,because it seems so heinous, some juries wont convict even on the best circumstantial cases. To me, if the case has great amount of circumstantial evidence that's just as good as a fingerprint. Use common sense. Donnie is guilty as hell. So a murderer comes to your house without the gun,ammunition,or gasoline.? He just got lucky?. I always doubted Donnie had help. i think Donnie's story would've looked better had he had help. Plus there was no sign of another person. His screaming "get out of here." Was an act. Once he realized he might not be able to pull off his plan, he put on an act.


The Hansen case was in California.

But since she was a witness, she would have had a guard on her door at all times. So the only people allowed in would have been her parents, and approved hospital staff.

Do we know that for a fact? (Serious question -- not being a smart aleck.)

It stands to reason she might have a guard but that doesn't mean there was one there. Ever since I first saw that story I was bothered by the timing and nature of her death.

Too bad there wasn't a security camera in her hospital room. If someone had tampered with the IV line, it would've been caught on camera and something could've been done about it.

I haven't seen this segment in so many years, but I just watched it on Amazon Prime. There's no doubt in my mind that Donnie was involved somehow.

Just watched this one again. Reading through the whole thread, one of the early posts that suggested there was a deeper conspiracy, stands out and that brings me to the issue of motive.

If Donny masterminded this himself and got 2-3 of his numbskull friends to actually do the deed, you can argue for anything.........Donny was abusing one or both of his sisters, was jealous of the attention, wanted to collect on insurance........you name it.

If however, he was part of a larger plot, then motives like abuse or jealousy just don't fly in my mind - other potential parties don't have the kind of 'skin in the game' personally to make such motives likely.

That would leave money and for more than just 2-3 friends of Donny's to be involved, I would think the sum would have to be large. A larger plot would also lend credence to the possibility that Julie's 'accidental death' was no accident at all.

Always racked my brain trying to come up with a compelling argument for Donny's innocence, and I have always come up empty handed. Here are screenshots from the articles featured in the segment.

I love how in the article Donnie says that he doesn't know who killed Jill and Julie and....... that's it: speaks volumes to how much he cares about his stepsisters. There is a better chance that both David Dowaliby and Patti Stallings are guilty than he is of being innocent.

Interesting to read in that article that Donny's original defence attorney made a statement that he would step down if he felt his client wasn't innocent and then proceeded to step down. Even though he likely stepped down for other reasons, there was obvious concern that statement could influence the jury.

Would really love to see the trial transcripts for this one to try and figure out how the jury could have voted on an acquittal. Even though the defence leaned heavily on the eyewitness sighting of the two other men at the scene, I still don't see how the jury could get past all the other damning evidence, such as the shotgun shells and the gas can.

Would really love to see the trial transcripts for this one to try and figure out how the jury could have voted on an acquittal. Even though the defence leaned heavily on the eyewitness sighting of the two other men at the scene, I still don't see how the jury could get past all the other damning evidence, such as the shotgun shells and the gas can.

I don't either.

I guess, like the article says, Julie dying in that freak medical accident at the hospital is what saved Donnie. She couldn't testify. Even so, the rest of the evidence should probably have been enough. But Julie's death was the difference.

Would really love to see the trial transcripts for this one to try and figure out how the jury could have voted on an acquittal. Even though the defence leaned heavily on the eyewitness sighting of the two other men at the scene, I still don't see how the jury could get past all the other damning evidence, such as the shotgun shells and the gas can.

I totally agree. All I can think of is that maybe the jury didn't know what Donnie's exact role was (pulled trigger/lit fire or arranged for someone else to do it for him) and that is why they acquitted. But the amount of evidence against him is so damning. I still can believe one eyewitness sighting about possible other suspects would be enough to get him acquitted where there is so much pointing to his direct involvement in this case.

I guess the only other question is motive: why would he kill his sisters and set the whole home on fire? But again, who cares about the actual motive when there is so much evidence against him that clearly shows he had planned this out.

Would really love to see the trial transcripts for this one to try and figure out how the jury could have voted on an acquittal.

Might have been an example of jury selection and far superior lawyering on the defense side. Note the mention in the article that three of the jurors went out for dinner and drinks with Donnie and his attorneys after the verdict. That means they really made a connection in the court room. Very rare for a death penalty case. We don't really know how Donnie comes across in person because of the way he asked to be shown during the segment. Maybe he's smiling and charismatic, or knew to be when his life was at stake.

Jury selection is seemingly trickier upon change of venue, which this case featured. If you know what to look for it can be a massive advantage. O.J. never would have been acquitted if that case had been tried in the jurisdiction where the murders occurred.

Donnie Hansen needs one of those really horrible prolonged deaths, like when half of your body is being eaten by insects and the other half suspended in slow progressing acid.

Was a motive ever determined in the murders? I always felt that Donnie killed Julie and Jill out of some debt he owed for drugs, kind of like the Jordan family arson/murder case.

I can't believe that the fingerprinting of the gun is what saved Donnie. Was that, coupled with the neighbors sighting of the two men, really enough to drum up reasonable doubt? There has to be more to this case, although usually UM did a good job at tipping the scales in favor of the defendant in the segments of "did they or didn't they".

I can't believe that the fingerprinting of the gun is what saved Donnie. Was that, coupled with the neighbors sighting of the two men, really enough to drum up reasonable doubt? There has to be more to this case, although usually UM did a good job at tipping the scales in favor of the defendant in the segments of "did they or didn't they".


I agree - after my last viewing of the segment, I should've quoted these two posts (from page 2 of this thread). Donny could've hatched a plan to kill his family and collect on insurance, but these two posts make me think there might've been a slightly more sinister conspiracy/motive afoot

it was donny.
and he didn't do it alone.
i grew up knowing him as "uncle donny" with no idea of this case. his daughters were like my cousins. my family kept him incredibly close for years before he, completely out of the blue, moved to happy camp, oregon.
when i was 10 i found a vhs recording of a segment about this case on the old show "hard copy." it was after that that i learned of a phone call made to my father by my grandmother in the early hours of the morning the night it happened claiming that "donny ****ed up" and that it "needs to be fixed."
i cannot attest to whether or not the shotgun was my fathers, but i believe that it was in some way connected to him and i believe that the murders are connected to my father's family in more ways than that.
to this day, every one in the town of willow creek, not just his parents, view him as guilty, 100%.
also, as for julie's "freak medical accident" in the hospital: that was no accident.


...actually, his daughters are younger than i am, and i was born over a year after this case. the last i knew of him, he still had his girls and took them with him to oregon.
i have no idea what his name is now, or if he still resides in happy camp. he could never be convicted anyway thanks to double jeopardy...though i would like to see some of my family members held responsible for their hand in these murders.
during the trial, it was stated under oath that the first person that donny called after the incident was his friend, my father, which actually was a lie. as i stated previously, it was my grandmother who called and alerted my father...donny called her first. to me that's strange, to call the mother (whom you're not close to) of your friend first thing and then lie about it in court?
also: my whole family knew the location of the murder weapon before the police did...actually the morning that donny tried to retrieve it from the workshop, it was my aunt (who he was staying with before he got arrested) who set the alarm clock for him. there was also a huge fight within my family regarding the gun, it's location and donny's desire to retrieve it.
this was all lied about in court, as well as the fact that my dad's family more or less hid my mom from the trial so she wouldn't testify (because it would create discrepancies in my father's family's testimonies).
AND i think it's also interesting that the night that donny stayed with his parents was right before a planned trip to set up drug connections in redding, ca.
although donny can no longer be held accountable for his actions in this case, i think that the other's involved should be. namely:
Jeffery Cyphers
and
Helen Cyphers.
i want to see them brought to justice.
i just wish i knew the extent of the hand that they played.

Jury selection is seemingly trickier upon change of venue, which this case featured. If you know what to look for it can be a massive advantage. O.J. never would have been acquitted if that case had been tried in the jurisdiction where the murders occurred.

Agreed. In fact, the late Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi faulted the prosecution team for transferring the OJ Simpson case to Los Angeles, arguing that the jury was biased in Simpson's favor. He cited this transfer as one of the contributing factors in Simpson's acquittal.

This (http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showpost.php?p=5133475&postcount=73) post from 2 years ago is very insightful. I like the theory of Donnie having a drug debt, and this plan was concocted as a way to get money fast to pay off the debt. It would explain the 2 men seen standing outside the trailer when it was on fire and it would also explain why Donnie's mother saw him screaming outside at someone to get away from their trailer. Plus, his mother says she saw him (but he didn't see her) standing at the edge of the sofa yelling at someone and then chasing them, so where was the shotgun at this time? If Donnie was the triggerman (and was working alone), and he just got done shooting his sisters and dumping the gun, why pretend like he was yelling at someone who wasn't there?

The defense's theory was, in Donnie's words, "ludicrous". Although I do find it odd that UM went out of its way to show that theory in re-enactment form, considering how guilty Donnie came off. So here's my new theory:

The 2 guys seen outside the trailer show up to make sure Donnie goes through with his plan. They set the fire inside the trailer, and unbeknownst tp them, one of the sister's wake up. One of the guys gets trigger happy, and shoots her. The other sister wakes up and she too is shot. Donnie freaks out and starts yelling at them to get out of there (what his mom witnessed). I think the intention was for, at least, Betty and Hans to die in the fire so Donnie would collect on their life insurance. He would have had to have split it with his sisters, but he could've gotten enough money to pay off his debt. The only problem with this theory is the shotgun. If Donnie was going to burn the place down, why feel the need to use a shotgun as a backup plan?

This (http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showpost.php?p=5133475&postcount=73) post from 2 years ago is very insightful. I like the theory of Donnie having a drug debt, and this plan was concocted as a way to get money fast to pay off the debt.

That seems like the best explanation for what happened. I have been fascinated by the case and as best I can tell, the only reasonable doubt is whether he acted alone or with two accomplices who actually did the dirty work. The fact that he borrowed the gun and bought the ammo tells me how knew what was going to happen and had no problems committing quadruple homicide.

If I am ever falsely accused of a serious crime I know I'm calling his lawyer, that's for sure.

Almost zero doubt Donnie Hansen committed the crime.

Anyone know whatever happened to him or where he is today?

This (http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showpost.php?p=5133475&postcount=73) post from 2 years ago is very insightful. I like the theory of Donnie having a drug debt, and this plan was concocted as a way to get money fast to pay off the debt. It would explain the 2 men seen standing outside the trailer when it was on fire and it would also explain why Donnie's mother saw him screaming outside at someone to get away from their trailer. Plus, his mother says she saw him (but he didn't see her) standing at the edge of the sofa yelling at someone and then chasing them, so where was the shotgun at this time? If Donnie was the triggerman (and was working alone), and he just got done shooting his sisters and dumping the gun, why pretend like he was yelling at someone who wasn't there?

The defense's theory was, in Donnie's words, "ludicrous". Although I do find it odd that UM went out of its way to show that theory in re-enactment form, considering how guilty Donnie came off. So here's my new theory:

The 2 guys seen outside the trailer show up to make sure Donnie goes through with his plan. They set the fire inside the trailer, and unbeknownst tp them, one of the sister's wake up. One of the guys gets trigger happy, and shoots her. The other sister wakes up and she too is shot. Donnie freaks out and starts yelling at them to get out of there (what his mom witnessed). I think the intention was for, at least, Betty and Hans to die in the fire so Donnie would collect on their life insurance. He would have had to have split it with his sisters, but he could've gotten enough money to pay off his debt. The only problem with this theory is the shotgun. If Donnie was going to burn the place down, why feel the need to use a shotgun as a backup plan?

Thanks for bringing this up - always had a hunch there was more to this.

My take on the shotgun is that it wasn't Donnie's idea to use it, but one of the 2 guys/"debt collectors" wanted it on hand. If the fire didn't kill his sisters/parents or they otherwise tried to put it out, one of those two would step in and kill everyone there - thereby insulating Donnie, ensuring he would still get the life insurance payout and they would get paid whatever he owed them. Like you said though, one of them got trigger happy. That didn't necessarily trip them up - leaving the shotgun behind though did.

Almost zero doubt Donnie Hansen committed the crime.

Anyone know whatever happened to him or where he is today?

He became Nailz.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC9EvT1n2Jc

This is an interesting article about Jill and Julie's grandfather. Other googling led me to their grandfather's obituary which mentions Hans, Betty and the girls but perhaps not surprisingky, nothing about Donny

https://m.northcoastjournal.com/humboldt/empire-falters/Content?oid=2131586

There are quite a few cases in UM's history where you just know who did it and everyone with common sense knows who did it, but there is that crucial piece of evidence missing to make it a slam dunk case against the perp.

The Chad Noe/Ida and Beverly Prewitt case really comes to mind as being a super frustrating "Oh come on! We know they did it!" type of story. Fortunately, some level of justice was finally obtained in that case.

But then I look at this one, and there is just no way in hell I can come up with any possible scenario where Donnie is innocent. Now keep in mind, I'm the type of guy that watches 12 Angry Men and walks away thinking that the kid is guilty, but there is just way too many coincidences, way too much damning evidence, and too much of Donnie's suspicious behavior in general to convince me he didn't do it.

If Julie hadn't died, Donnie would have fried for sure, and even that situation is fishy as all get out. I don't want to accuse anybody of anything, but if there is nothing nefarious there, then that defense team got the luckiest break imaginable.

Ok here we go after watching this segment again,(gonna be in the vast minority here),but I don't think Ronnie did it.
Here's why I feel this way
1.If he did do it and wanted to get away with it,why leave all the evidence there,he would have to be the dumbest criminal ever,its like him just walking up to the police and saying hey I did it arrest me.He hid the gun yes,but why leave the gas cans in plain sight knowing they could be traced to him.
2.Shooting the girls in the stomach,don't you think if he was trying to kill them wouldn't he go for the chest(heart) or head,and there's no way after Julie I believe got shot he wouldn't see she was still alive.
3.on the um segment the prosecutor said if you were gonna do this wouldn't u bring the materials to do so,well yes unless you knew they were there and knew where.
4.according to the segment Ronnie burrowed the gun and was skeet shooting or whatever with it,ok I know with me when im with friends or whatever,ill talk with them bsing with them,ive mentioned to my brother about getting gas for my mower or whatever.
With all this being said yes donnie lied his ass off and looked guilty as sin,I do believe he heard the gunshot hence hiding the gun,I do believe he knows more than he's saying,but I also have serious problems with the motive.
Imo the girls were the target being shot where they were has to be a big factor(maybe one of them were pregnant?)also all someone had to do was overhear donnie about getting gas and more shells for the gun.
Someone doing this would basically get away with the perfect crime,knowing everything would be traced back to donnie.This is just my opinion

Ok here we go after watching this segment again,(gonna be in the vast minority here),but I don't think Ronnie did it.

I agree: it wasn't Ronnie it was his evil twin Donnie :lol:

Seriously though I should start a thread entitled "what are you 100% sure of. Not 99.99% (like David Dowaliby's innocence for example) but 100%-bet your-life-on-it." Without a doubt Donnie would be at the top of the list. Even if you ignore all the overwhelming circumstantial evidence and Donnie's lying, the bottom line is why wasn't Donnie shot? He was literally right there and what's the difference between two murder charges (with one witness) and three with no witnesses? I might be willing to conceed that Donnie was a victim of drug dealers except for the fact he bought the murder weapons.

There really is no mystery except as to how a jury could have acquitted him and how they failed to kill both girls right away. When your own family says on national TV you are a murderer, that's a pretty clear sign to me.

I maintain he is without a doubt if he isn't luckiest criminal in UM history he is a shoe-in for second.

With me I feel all the evidence left there,if he wanted to get away with it,its just too convenient.ok he hid the gun,but why not grab the gas cans and hide them too(at least the one on the porch.)He would have to be the dumbest criminal in history.Also yes the parents believe he's guilty,im sorry if I was presented with all this evidence I would too,I feel after hearing everything they were so focused on the fact it was donni,they never thought of how convenient everything was left the re pointing at him.Like I said if someone else did this,it would basically be the perfect crime everything points to donnie,the house is gone so no evidence and the police are gonna one hundred percent look at donnie because of the facts and not even attempt to look anywhere else.

With me I feel all the evidence left there,if he wanted to get away with it,its just too convenient.ok he hid the gun,but why not grab the gas cans and hide them too(at least the one on the porch.)

If I understand you correctly you are proposing that someone could have framed Donnie for the crime: maybe they asked him to buy ammo saying it was for a hunting trip and to grab some gas in exchange for forgiving a drug debt for example and he had no idea these were the weapons that were going to be used to kill his family? In other words, the reason he didn't cover his tracks was because he wasn't involved.

I considered that but always feel back on the idea that Donnie not only lied repeatedly, tried to destroy the evidence after the fact and after he was acquitted made no attempt to my knowledge to assist law enforcement in capturing the real killers. It's obvious why: he either killed them or played a large role in their deaths and could face very serious jail time on related charges (a judge and jury would probably throw the book at him a la OJ Simpson). It also begs the question as to why drug dealers would shoot his half-sisters and leave him without a scratch if HE, not them was the one who owed the $$$.

If I had to guess I would say the fire was supposed to do the job and once the gun was fired, everyone panicked and the plan fell apart, forcing him to be "the hero" rather than "struggle" to make it out alive of the fire. He is just one lucky dude that his idoicy didn't led directly to death row.

What im saying is 1.donnie knows more than he's saying, 2.He lied his ass off and looks guilty as sin because of it,3.yes it does seem fishy that he want shot,makes me again believe the girls were that target not the family. 4.Don't want to say framed(although yes that's how it sounds.).just WAY to convenient that all this evidence is left right there pointing at him,unless a person is incredibly stupid there not gonna leaveall this evidence for investigators to find, like I said it would belikehim walking put to LE and saying hi I did this you can arrest me now.I mean think about it if your trying to get away with a crime like this are your u gonna leave that **** there? I don't think it had anything to do with drugs or donnies life in general,the girls were killed no one else they were the target, I firmly believe it had to do with them somehow,being shot in the stomach of all places maybe one of them were pregnant? but who knows to me there's never been a motive that made any sence at all,the prosecutor said something to the effect of inheritance, now if this was fact why not shoot everyone not just the girls?what your gonna waithow long for this money its ridiculous.I believe donnie knows something but for some reason he want talk.

What im saying over all this is my opinion only.it just seems WAY to convenient.The fact he hides thegun,yet doesn't try to get rid of the gas can,or the shells makes no sense if he's completely guilty,the fact the girls were shot in the stomach of all places,another thing there's no way in hell he wouldn't have seen that one of the girls was still alive and just let her go so she could identify him,really.To me all this says something doesn't add up.

If this was some drug debt gone horribly wrong, why wouldn't Donnie just come right out and say this? If he had nothing to do with shooting his sisters, why not confess to knowing who did? Especially after he was charged with the murders.

Like I said, I don't think motive had anything to do with Donnie,people assume this believing he's guilty.I believe the motive for this sits with the girls,they were the target,not Hans and Betty or Donnie for that matter.
If money was the motive then why not shoot the parents as well,or just the parents?
The girls being shot and where they were shot sticks out to me,shooting both of them in the stomach of all places to kill them,not normal especially seeing the caliber and type of gun,a head shot would make more sence.

Like I said, I don't think motive had anything to do with Donnie,people assume this believing he's guilty.I believe the motive for this sits with the girls,they were the target,not Hans and Betty or Donnie for that matter.
If money was the motive then why not shoot the parents as well,or just the parents?
The girls being shot and where they were shot sticks out to me,shooting both of them in the stomach of all places to kill them,not normal especially seeing the caliber and type of gun,a head shot would make more sence.

The girls may have been shot (and not the parents) because they were woken by the gasoline spreading/beginning of the fire, and the parents did not wake until later. I'm guessing his plan was to set the fire and bail, with the shooting as a backup in case things didn't go according to plan. They didn't.

Donnie didn't shoot them in the head perhaps because he wasn't an expert shot. Stomach shot still lines up vertically with chest and head.

If the parents die in the fire and are NOT shot - it's easier to claim it was an accident. Arson isn't terribly hard to prove, but gunshots would immediately prove a crime. So if you're Donnie and trying to get money, the safer bet is to hope the fire wipes the people and evidence out.

Funny that he was allegedly fearful of retaliation from drug dealers but did not flee the scene - in fact stuck around, when, for all he knew, they were waiting outside to shoot him as he escaped the fire. THEN returns to the crime scene for the gun - again, they could have been waiting to finish the job.

Sorry, but every theory positing that he is innocent has massive flaws that cannot be overlooked. He either did it himself or was directly involved. The theories supporting this position are not perfect, but far, FAR more plausible and supported by evidence.

Defense caught HUGE breaks, and the prosecution was likely not aggressive enough, thinking it was a slam-dunk from the beginning.

PS: I don't think he would have been able to sneak into the hospital, let alone have the medical knowledge to cause that IV accident. That, I think, was just a freak accident. He's a dumb and lucky criminal, not sophisticated enough to pull that off in addition to the original crimes.

Ok first off only one of the girls woke up,not both.The perpetrator shot the other one while she was sleeping,for no reason,and taking the chance everyone would die in the fire,is IMO stretching it a little.
I do believe there's holes in both sides of this,in the theory Donnie is guilty,and also the theory he's not.
If both girls woke up I could believe the shooting was because the perpetrator or perpetrators were surprised but that wasn't the case,one(Julie I believe) was shot in her bed while she slept.Being surprised by Jill there's a reason to shoot her,but there was absolutely no reason to shoot Julie. Another thing that makes little sence to me no one(neighbors,Betty,hans and possibly Donnie heard a gunshot.walls in a mobile home are thin,and shooting a shotgun myself I can say is very loud,also I live near state gamelands,during hunting season I can hear shots ring out from 1/2 me away at least.All I can think is there was some kind of suppression device on it,and saying Donnie did this leaving all this evidence behind and being really insanely stupid IMO if this is fact wouldn't be smart enough to do this.
Agreed though too many holes,on both sides,Donnie knows more than he's saying.
I still believe the motive for this sits with the girls,the major fact for this other than where they were shot,is the fact that the perpetrator or perpetrators made it a point to shoot both girls one while she was sleeping for no reason.

If this was some drug debt gone horribly wrong, why wouldn't Donnie just come right out and say this? If he had nothing to do with shooting his sisters, why not confess to knowing who did? Especially after he was charged with the murders.

From a 2016 reply

"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."

Ok first off only one of the girls woke up,not both.The perpetrator shot the other one while she was sleeping,for no reason,and taking the chance everyone would die in the fire,is IMO stretching it a little.
I do believe there's holes in both sides of this,in the theory Donnie is guilty,and also the theory he's not.
If both girls woke up I could believe the shooting was because the perpetrator or perpetrators were surprised but that wasn't the case,one(Julie I believe) was shot in her bed while she slept.Being surprised by Jill there's a reason to shoot her,but there was absolutely no reason to shoot Julie. Another thing that makes little sence to me no one(neighbors,Betty,hans and possibly Donnie heard a gunshot.walls in a mobile home are thin,and shooting a shotgun myself I can say is very loud,also I live near state gamelands,during hunting season I can hear shots ring out from 1/2 me away at least.All I can think is there was some kind of suppression device on it,and saying Donnie did this leaving all this evidence behind and being really insanely stupid IMO if this is fact wouldn't be smart enough to do this.
Agreed though too many holes,on both sides,Donnie knows more than he's saying.
I still believe the motive for this sits with the girls,the major fact for this other than where they were shot,is the fact that the perpetrator or perpetrators made it a point to shoot both girls one while she was sleeping for no reason.

That nobody heard the shots makes no sense, I agree. I have not heard/read of any reasonable explanation, but everyone seems to agree that is how it happened.

In my mind, Donnie, motivated by money, would shoot the girls if necessary because if they escaped the fire alive, they would get part of the money. So, one wakes up and walks in on him spreading fuel to set the fire. He shoots to prevent her from alerting the others/escaping as a witness. He assumes the the shot was heard, goes into the bedroom and shoots the other. By then, the fire is set, is it not? So even if Hans and Betty have heard the shots, Donnie must escape then to survive, and stash the gun.

Doesn't matter re: life insurance if the girls die accidentally or not, so it was whatever the circumstances dictated. Had Hans and Betty died and all three kids survived, Donnie 1) has potential witnesses to deal with, and 2) has to share whatever money would come. It was more important for the parents to die in the fire, and for the girls not to survive regardless of method.

Thing is he would have needed the money ASAP if this was over a drug debt(which I seriously doubt)killing the girls would have gotten him nothing,killing the parents would have,he wouldn't have seen a penny for years maybe decades,and also anybody would realize setting a fire there's no gaurentee the parents would die.A money/drug motive makes no sence at all.
LE in this case felt Donnie was guilty,they had zero motive a I feel the money motive was the only thing they could say(anyone ever seen the fugitive).
If people would sit back and realize if it was paying a drug debt,hoping the parents die in the fire,knowing you would need the money quick.biggest fact even if the parents die your not gonna see or get anything for months,maybe more depending on everything.
Another thing that gets me there was credible witnesses,stating they saw 2 men walking toward the property that night,yet LE swears donnie and donnie alone did this,so I guess if witnesses sawthese guys leave covered with blood holding a gun,LE would still be like evidence points a donnie,he did it,these guys weren't involved it was paint and a cap gun,lol.LE IMO didn't do a complete investigation,even after everything pointed at donnie,I would have looked for these two just as guilty parties but also as possible witnesses.

IMO to find a motive that actually makes any sence what so ever,we need to leave our feelings of donnies guilt or innocence, and LEs whole fugitive type money motive,and look at the crime itself,the arson and the shootings.Looking at this with any kind of bias one way or the other isn't gonna help.
Look at it this way say donnies not guilty everybody thinks well can't figure this out or what not, and say donnie is people are going with LE and bringing up this ridiculous money motive(again watch the fugitive same difference.)
Unless I have proof other wise looking at the crime itself without blaming anyone for anything, I believe it absolutely has to do with the girls.They were shot,no-one else and the fire was set to cover things up.This is based on the crime itself without looking at suspects,because doing that gives you a bias toward it.
Take a minute to think about what im saying before saying anything yourselves

I think (aside from everything else lol) that it's very telling that they jury thinks he was responsible but didn't feel there was enough evidence or whatever it is that would make them say this. Someone earlier (maybe years ago) brought up reasonable doubt vs. any doubt. I'm just wondering if anyone works in the field or has been on a jury? Do they explain this to people? Is that even possible? Because in this case all I can imagine is that they just had some doubt, but IMO it was probably not beyond reasonable. I think the jury bungled the verdict just as the police seemed to have bungled parts of the case.

Heres something for reasonable doubt,not sure but I don't believe the LE fingerprinted the gas can,if they didn't how did they know it was the exact gas donnie bought,last I checked there's a lot of gas cans that look alike myself my brother and my next ghbor have the exact same ones.

I think (aside from everything else lol) that it's very telling that they jury thinks he was responsible but didn't feel there was enough evidence or whatever it is that would make them say this. Someone earlier (maybe years ago) brought up reasonable doubt vs. any doubt. I'm just wondering if anyone works in the field or has been on a jury? Do they explain this to people? Is that even possible? Because in this case all I can imagine is that they just had some doubt, but IMO it was probably not beyond reasonable. I think the jury bungled the verdict just as the police seemed to have bungled parts of the case.

You needn't look any further than the OJ Simpson case for proof of how someone who is 100% guilty can be found not guilty by a jury. It does happen. Whether Donnie's trial was a poor case by the prosecutor, an excellent case by the defense attorney, had jury members who weren't very bright, or some combination, it can happen.

As someone who was once on a criminal jury for an aggravated assault case, I did get a good look at this. On the surface, it seemed cut and dried. A black guy, with a previous criminal record, assaulted his girlfriend and she called the cops who showed up and took pictures right after it happened. The guy had a really poor public defender. I was part of an all-white jury. I remember how the prosecutor seemed so confident that it would be an easy conviction.

The problem is his star witness (the girlfriend) was crazy and she was a horrible witness. She contradicted herself several times and she sent the defendant a card in jail saying he did nothing wrong and it was her fault and she still loved him. On the stand, she said "Oh he did it. For sure. And he needs to go to jail." She explained the card as "confused, mixed feelings." It probably had more to do with the fact that he kicked her and her kids out of his house after the assault. Something happened that night and they definitely had a physical altercation, but who hit who (and when) was never clear. When they read us the charge and that it had to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" it really makes you think. At first, some others on the jury were like "Oh, yeah... He did it." But as we talked about it, not one person could honestly say he did it beyond a reasonable doubt. He was found not guilty (not to be confused with innocent). When the verdict was read in court, the prosecutor looked like his puppy died and the defendant was so relieved he almost fell down.

So back to Donnie Hanson... I think he is guilty AF. I'm not convinced he did it alone, but he was a major part of this if not the sole perp. With that said, I wasn't in that courtroom so maybe they put on a poor case or maybe his lawyer had the jury in circles. (Again, think of the OJ case.) I'm still shocked he wasn't found guilty but we have no idea why the jury did that without hearing from them.

PAGING CRicci! Paging CRicci! Our resident moderator is a lawyer and can explain this a lot better and more accurately than I can. :D

Thing is he would have needed the money ASAP if this was over a drug debt(which I seriously doubt)killing the girls would have gotten him nothing,killing the parents would have,he wouldn't have seen a penny for years maybe decades,and also anybody would realize setting a fire there's no gaurentee the parents would die.A money/drug motive makes no sence at all.
Then what is the motive for murdering the girls? They sounded like they didn't have an enemy in the world and they weren't sexually or physically assaulted (aside from the obvious gunshot).

By killing them, he doesn't have to share any of the spoils so instead of 33% he gets 100%. What's hard to understand about that? Why else would he need money except a debt to dangerous criminals for drugs or gambling? It ultimately doesn't matter if it would have took years for $$$ to come his way: he likely believed at the time it was quick and easy money and acted accordingly.

I still maintain that when his own mother and stepfather stated on national TV that he is dead to them that's about all the proof I need. If your own mother turns her back on you (and she is psychologically healthy), that means you are a monster.

From a 2016 reply

I meant that if Donnie didn't shoot anyone, and his drug lenders did, why not come right out and say this when he was charged with the murders? What would he have had to lose at that point? The only conceivable scenario I could see where Donnie was innocent and completely unconnected with the murderers is something along the lines of the Bible/Freeman murders. But even then, Donnie was the one who bought the gas days prior to the murders, he was the one who borrowed the shotgun just a day prior, and he was the one who bought the ammunition on the day of the murders. There really isn't any conceivable scenario where he wasn't involved somehow. If Donnie borrowed the gun for protection against his lenders, that doesn't explain the gas he bought.

IMO, he owed someone money. He assured he would get it to them (by killing his parents in a house fire) and these people showed up to make sure he went ahead with it (the 2 men seen standing outside the trailer by neighbors). They set the fire not expecting anyone to wake up, and then one of the accomplices shot the twins who had awoke. That's when Donnie was seen by his mother screaming at the people to get out. That's what I think happened.

Like I said look at just the crime and the victims here double homicide/arson,leave everything else out.What I see is 2 people get shot and 2 are basically left alone with hopes that a fire would kill them.If it were me I needed money or whatnot im gonna shoot everyone in the house and leave nothing to chance(not like it wasn't possible).The only reason if do something like this is if im specifically targeting someone.Ok Jill could have been because she surprised someone,bout there was no reason to shoot Julie.Looking at that it would be perfectly plausible to turn around open the parents door and shoot them too.
I agree by all accounts they were good girls,they weren't sexually or physically assaulted(other than the gunshot.) but in that spirit look at the Chaim Weiss case,by all accounts he was a smart well liked boy with no enemys,never assulted,but viciously murdered. The um segment didn't go into the girls background that much.
From what I see where the were shot is pretty telling,maybe one of them was pregnant(not far enough in to show),and since the were identical twins,not knowing which one was which shot them both to make sure.
See IMO if this was me and it was over money im shooting everyone in the house and leaving nothing to chance,then burn down the house,I wouldn't have bought the gas and shells with a credit card(paper trail) If I borrowed a gun im damn sure not gonna go skeet shooting with how many people around,and im gonna make damn sure I shoot someone there dead(Jill).If it was donnie its absolutely impossible that he didn't see that Jill want dead,he shoots her then Julie there's no way time wise that he didn't see Jill getting up and leaving the house none.

Rweiss, you are trying to rationally analyze this well after the fact as a reasonable person, not as a psychopath with shall we say limited intelligence. Drugs can make people do very stupid things and this is just another example of how poorly planned this murder was. Luckily most murders are not very bright. I just finished binge watching Forensic files and it is incredible how dumb murderers generally are: it's almost like they want to be arrested.

It's like people who believe they would have heroically tackled a mass shooter and saved the day when in reality unless you are highly trained you would be in so much shock you would be luckily to even duck for cover. Donny (or his accomplises) weren't smart enough to realize that the Hansen family will wake up and immediately flee a burning building and had the use the shotgun to "finish the job". The fact they didn't kill one of the girls just goes to show you how poorly planned it really was. I appreciate your differing views on this case but you aren't really giving me a clear alternative explanation for what happened that night at the Hansen household.

What I see is 2 people get shot and 2 are basically left alone with hopes that a fire would kill them.If it were me I needed money or whatnot im gonna shoot everyone in the house and leave nothing to chance(not like it wasn't possible).The only reason if do something like this is if im specifically targeting someone.Ok Jill could have been because she surprised someone,bout there was no reason to shoot Julie.Looking at that it would be perfectly plausible to turn around open the parents door and shoot them too.

But then you would be the sole survivor of a tragic house fire, and then after some autopsies and investigating, you would have been the sole survivor of a quadruple homicide. It wouldn't have been smart to shoot everyone with the shotgun.


I agree by all accounts they were good girls,they weren't sexually or physically assaulted(other than the gunshot.) but in that spirit look at the Chaim Weiss case,by all accounts he was a smart well liked boy with no enemys,never assulted,but viciously murdered. The um segment didn't go into the girls background that much.

They didn't delve into Donnie's background all that much either.


From what I see where the were shot is pretty telling,maybe one of them was pregnant(not far enough in to show),and since the were identical twins,not knowing which one was which shot them both to make sure.
See IMO if this was me and it was over money im shooting everyone in the house and leaving nothing to chance,then burn down the house,I wouldn't have bought the gas and shells with a credit card(paper trail) If I borrowed a gun im damn sure not gonna go skeet shooting with how many people around,and im gonna make damn sure I shoot someone there dead(Jill).If it was donnie its absolutely impossible that he didn't see that Jill want dead,he shoots her then Julie there's no way time wise that he didn't see Jill getting up and leaving the house none.

So whoever killed the twins didn't bring along their own weapons and just so happened to luck into the fact that Donnie not only left 5 gallons of gas at their disposal but also a shotgun and ammunition?

Ive stated this before,yea they would UNLESS they already knew it was there,I mean come on perfect crime,everything traced to the brother,and evidence in the house gone.Ok yes its a stretch but possible.
All the evidence that was left there is just WAY to convenient,Donnie would have had to be insanely stupid ok,why hide the gun and nothing else,why have a gun and not shoot everyone?
As I said before im looking at the case from an unbiased angle not blaming anyone or looking at anyone,(especially like LE did in this case with tunnel vision.)
There's loose ends in this case that need to be investigated 1.why were the 2 guys seen around the house that night, 2. why didn't anyone hear a shot.
IMO LE in this case overlooked the fact other people were spotted by witnesses there,knowing LE with there tunnel vision in this case,these 2 guys could have been seen coming out of the house gun in hand skipping away with a gas can yelling we did this,and LE would have been like they were just being kids joking around.
In my opinion in this case LE didn't do a thorough investigatuon,as soon as Donnie was spotted at the warehouse they said screw it he did it and did everything in there power to prove it.

As I said before im looking at the case from an unbiased angle not blaming anyone or looking at anyone,(especially like LE did in this case with tunnel vision.)

Before Donnie was ever even considered a suspect, the authorities retrieved 2 5-gallon gas cans from the ruins, and recovered 3 shotgun shells. They found the shotgun (which ballistics tests proved fired the fatal rounds) in the Hansen's warehouse. They started to look at him as a suspect after he tried gaining entry into the warehouse 2 days after the murder. Shells were found in his car which matched the ones used in the murders. I'm not sure I would classify this as LE having tunnel vision. Every single lead pointed them in Donnie's direction.

Couple things here,the outside casing of a shotgun shell is plastic,which would have melted in a fire,so they basically found 3 primers if u will,3 empty gas cans love to know how they 100 percent said they were the exact ones donnie had(my gas can,my brothers gas can n both my neighbors gas cans look exactly the same.) LE basically closed there eyes on the fact 2 people were near the house that night.ok donnie had A gun,he had gas,he had shells,he lied about stuff, because of this I agree he looks guilty as sin,but just focusing on him is insane,for one LE had to have some brains with this knowing as alot of people agree with he couldn't have done this himself,the evidence left there pointing at him is way to convenient if he's trying to get away with it,witnesses see people near the house that night,if he was gonna kill everyone in that house why shoot two and chance two non incapacitated people would die in the fire.That's the biggest thing for me in this case if your gonna kill your family for money and you have a weapon why are gonna shoot 2 and not the other 2,and not even try to at least incompassitate them so that they will die.Think about it seriously

Mike82 agreed,rationalizing is one thing but when it comes to psychopathic behavior there's no rationality.What I believe is donnie had something to do with it unwillingly hes not an innocent bystander here,but that he didn't kill the girls,its possible he set the fire.Just im not gonna sit here and say innocent or guilty when there's to many holes in both the prosecution and defencivw sides,im trying to be unbiased here.

If innocent why go in silhouette and alter your voice?

If innocent why go in silhouette and alter your voice?

I assume he did that in order to avoid harassment from the residents who lived wherever he moved to and would learn of the saga from watching the UM segment. Locals who know you're guilty as sin will have no problem making your life miserable.

Changing your name and hiding your identity on UM would probably help him avoid that. Not a dumb move on his part.

I am completely confused as to why the police didn't get a statement from Julie. That surely would have been admissable in court. From what I understand, she lived for like a year after the crime so there was lots of time.

I don't believe that there were accomplices. I think Donnie knew his mother was listening and pretended to be shouting at someone to make it seem like someone else did the crime and he scared them away.

HOW DID HIS PARENTS NOT HEAR SHOTGUN BLASTS?!?!


The mother responded on the UM Wiki and said that she did hear the gunshot and that is what woke her up.

I know someone else already clarified this but people still keep saying ot over and over again.

I am completely confused as to why the police didn't get a statement from Julie. That surely would have been admissable in court. From what I understand, she lived for like a year after the crime so there was lots of time.

That's incorrect. Julie died on December 19, 1986, one month after the crime.

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/65970588/julie-ann-hansen

That's incorrect. Julie died on December 19, 1986, one month after the crime.

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/65970588/julie-ann-hansen

Ok. Sorry. However, why could they not get a statement in a month?

Ok. Sorry. However, why could they not get a statement in a month?

I don't know the details on the matter, or even whether or not they got or tried to get a statement from her. Unless someone involved in the investigation can explain it, that question will probably remain unanswered.

I don't know the details on the matter, or even whether or not they got or tried to get a statement from her. Unless someone involved in the investigation can explain it, that question will probably remain unanswered.

It could have been that she was on heavy medication, unwilling and/or unable to make a statement until she made progress. Maybe undergoing multiple surgeries or procedures to repair the gunshot wound damage. Maybe the time had not yet arrived when she could make a statement that could be relied upon as a memory she would also recall when not on tons of meds, come time to testify.

You put enough opiates in me after a near-fatal gunshot wound, I might easily recall the days I played center for the Sacramento Kings.

But anyway, her death was eventually due to the accident in the hospital, which could not have been predicted. I'm guessing there was no pressure in that month to get a statement. They could have been focusing otherwise on the investigation, giving her time to heal, and may have later pressed for a statement. Only she died unpredictably before that could happen.

Hindsight is 20/20 as they say.

^^^

What you said. Plus, I'm sure they talked to her (they show this in the reenactment) but they were probably waiting to do a formal statement until she was out of the hospital.

CRicci can correct me, but I'm pretty sure anything she said would have been inadmissible at trial because she couldn't be cross examined by the defense. Maybe it would have been different had she done a formal, taped, or authorized statement to police.

It's for this reason that I am very suspicious of how Julie died. Those type of accidents are extremely rare and you almost have to intentionally introduce enough air in an IV to make it fatal. It's totally fishy that she died in such a rare fashion before she could be released from the hospital to make her official statement. Awfully convenient for the killer. *cough* Donnie

^^^

What you said. Plus, I'm sure they talked to her (they show this in the reenactment) but they were probably waiting to do a formal statement until she was out of the hospital.

CRicci can correct me, but I'm pretty sure anything she said would have been inadmissible at trial because she couldn't be cross examined by the defense. Maybe it would have been different had she done a formal, taped, or authorized statement to police.

It's for this reason that I am very suspicious of how Julie died. Those type of accidents are extremely rare and you almost have to intentionally introduce enough air in an IV to make it fatal. It's totally fishy that she died in such a rare fashion before she could be released from the hospital to make her official statement. Awfully convenient for the killer. *cough* Donnie

The only point of disagreement would be that her death was anything but a freak accident and maybe one of the luckiest defense breaks of all time. I don't think Donnie had the brains nor criminal skill to pull it off. Even if he somehow knew the effect the air would have (pre-Internet, mind you), to sneak into the hospital and do it, then leave, completely undetected? After so stupidly showing up to a guarded site to retrieve the murder weapon?

Nahhh. Maybe he had a smarter friend suggest it but I think the most probable scenario is the freak accident. That lucky SOB. 99.9% of the time otherwise, he's getting the chair, instead of a new identity.

It could have been that she was on heavy medication, unwilling and/or unable to make a statement until she made progress. Maybe undergoing multiple surgeries or procedures to repair the gunshot wound damage. Maybe the time had not yet arrived when she could make a statement that could be relied upon as a memory she would also recall when not on tons of meds, come time to testify.

You put enough opiates in me after a near-fatal gunshot wound, I might easily recall the days I played center for the Sacramento Kings.

But anyway, her death was eventually due to the accident in the hospital, which could not have been predicted. I'm guessing there was no pressure in that month to get a statement. They could have been focusing otherwise on the investigation, giving her time to heal, and may have later pressed for a statement. Only she died unpredictably before that could happen.

Hindsight is 20/20 as they say.

I am not sure I buy it. She apparently was questioned by her doctor who thought she was lucid and stood by things she said. Her parents also re-tell the detailed story she told them. There have been cases where the police are taking statements from victims during the ambulance ride to the hospital! By all accounts, she was recovering well. So to say in three months nobody got anything written down from her? Either that's pretty shoddy and unusual police work or there is a statement somewhere. Now what or bot it is admissable is another question.

I am not sure I buy it. She apparently was questioned by her doctor who thought she was lucid and stood by things she said. Her parents also re-tell the detailed story she told them. There have been cases where the police are taking statements from victims during the ambulance ride to the hospital! By all accounts, she was recovering well. So to say in three months nobody got anything written down from her? Either that's pretty shoddy and unusual police work or there is a statement somewhere. Now what or bot it is admissable is another question.

1) I think there's a lot of variability in the statement veracity. For one, she may not have fully trusted her doctor with the truth (many minors do not fully understand medical confidentiality, and no HIPAA at the time). So, maybe she wasn't sure she could name Donnie to the doctor without the risk of Donnie finding out. But she could to her parents; presumably she trusted them. That takes physical condition and meds out of the equation but still explains it plausibly.

2) I think my point holds about the unpredictability of the accident explaining in part why they didn't get an official statement. Why rush a hospitalized patient recovering from a massive gunshot wound (not to mention the arson property losses and death of her twin sister) if the defendant is already in custody on what was thought to be very strong evidence? Just wait until she's a bit better, can give consistent statements (perhaps even with more detail), and add to your case. Don't risk causing/exacerbating psychological disorders and fully discrediting her as a witness by premature pressure when you shouldn't have needed that evidence anyway. Guilty persons are convicted on far less all the time. Right or wrong. But that might be the prosecutor perspective before Julie's death.

3) You are right about ambulance information, but it is not always as reliable as in the "Carol" case, or even one of the Zodiac cases. FWIW, in both of those examples, the information could never be fully verified (just the odd truck behavior, nothing about the shooting itself), nor was a suspect apprehended - or even identified based on that specific information. For instance,
Joan Porco implicated her son Chris in her attempted murder and the murder of her husband while being attended to medically, but later steadfastly retracted. Maybe with her husband gone she couldn't handle losing Chris, maybe the "nod" wasn't reliable, or, maybe it was, but the post-hoc reversal is what was not reliable. Helped the prosecution in this case FWIW - but shows why you might not take an early ID and run with it until the witness is in a better position to confirm.

https://dailygazette.com/article/2011/10/18/1018_trial

Come on, nobody's going to prove this so we have to play probabilities. And the greatest probability has to be that Donnie at least orchestrated the murder, attempted murders, and arson, if he didn't pull it off himself.

I just don't think he was responsible for the air bubble accident for reasons mentioned already.

But he sure loved gas, a gas can, a gun, and ammo all used in the crimes, then took steps to cover this up (hiding the gun that night, trying to get the gun in warehouse; never mentioning the gas to investigators, lying about most of these things). He never claimed to tell anyone he had these before the crimes, so how would anyone know? Yes it's possible criminals or stalker types showed up without tools of the crime and pulled it off, but that has to be the far less likely probability.

It's also technically possible OJ didn't do it - just so extremely unlikely that it may as well be impossible.

1) I think there's a lot of variability in the statement veracity. For one, she may not have fully trusted her doctor with the truth (many minors do not fully understand medical confidentiality, and no HIPAA at the time). So, maybe she wasn't sure she could name Donnie to the doctor without the risk of Donnie finding out. But she could to her parents; presumably she trusted them. That takes physical condition and meds out of the equation but still explains it plausibly.

2) I think my point holds about the unpredictability of the accident explaining in part why they didn't get an official statement. Why rush a hospitalized patient recovering from a massive gunshot wound (not to mention the arson property losses and death of her twin sister) if the defendant is already in custody on what was thought to be very strong evidence? Just wait until she's a bit better, can give consistent statements (perhaps even with more detail), and add to your case. Don't risk causing/exacerbating psychological disorders and fully discrediting her as a witness by premature pressure when you shouldn't have needed that evidence anyway. Guilty persons are convicted on far less all the time. Right or wrong. But that might be the prosecutor perspective before Julie's death.

3) You are right about ambulance information, but it is not always as reliable as in the "Carol" case, or even one of the Zodiac cases. FWIW, in both of those examples, the information could never be fully verified (just the odd truck behavior, nothing about the shooting itself), nor was a suspect apprehended - or even identified based on that specific information. For instance,
Joan Porco implicated her son Chris in her attempted murder and the murder of her husband while being attended to medically, but later steadfastly retracted. Maybe with her husband gone she couldn't handle losing Chris, maybe the "nod" wasn't reliable, or, maybe it was, but the post-hoc reversal is what was not reliable. Helped the prosecution in this case FWIW - but shows why you might not take an early ID and run with it until the witness is in a better position to confirm.

https://dailygazette.com/article/2011/10/18/1018_trial

Come on, nobody's going to prove this so we have to play probabilities. And the greatest probability has to be that Donnie at least orchestrated the murder, attempted murders, and arson, if he didn't pull it off himself.

I just don't think he was responsible for the air bubble accident for reasons mentioned already.

But he sure loved gas, a gas can, a gun, and ammo all used in the crimes, then took steps to cover this up (hiding the gun that night, trying to get the gun in warehouse; never mentioning the gas to investigators, lying about most of these things). He never claimed to tell anyone he had these before the crimes, so how would anyone know? Yes it's possible criminals or stalker types showed up without tools of the crime and pulled it off, but that has to be the far less likely probability.

It's also technically possible OJ didn't do it - just so extremely unlikely that it may as well be impossible.

I never suggested Donnie didn't do it. I said I was sure he did and without accomplishes.

I was just saying that there was probably a statement out there somewhere because it would have been standard police work to get one. Police don't wait until people recover to take them and here we are why.

Is it possible that the police did get a statement of sorts from her where she told them the same thing she told her doctor that she couldn't remember seeing anyone and that UM left that tidbit out of the segment?

Sorry to bump this thread—wanted to say I’ve always found it fascinating that UM included the very brief interview with Julie’s doctor where he says “Julie definitely didn’t tell me she saw Donnie in the gun flash.” It’s interesting because for the entire segment it’s evidence on top of evidence on top of evidence that Donnie is guilty and UM plays that angle hard. There is the preposterous “alternate version of events” proposed by Donnie’s lawyer, but it’s just absurd to me. The doctor’s interview on the other hand, seems like UM included it to say “Donnie’s guilty as hell, but if there’s one thing we really don’t understand, it’s this”

just feels out of place, funny to me that it was included

Sorry to bump this thread—wanted to say I’ve always found it fascinating that UM included the very brief interview with Julie’s doctor where he says “Julie definitely didn’t tell me she saw Donnie in the gun flash.” It’s interesting because for the entire segment it’s evidence on top of evidence on top of evidence that Donnie is guilty and UM plays that angle hard. There is the preposterous “alternate version of events” proposed by Donnie’s lawyer, but it’s just absurd to me. The doctor’s interview on the other hand, seems like UM included it to say “Donnie’s guilty as hell, but if there’s one thing we really don’t understand, it’s this”

just feels out of place, funny to me that it was included

It’s probably editing more than anything. It all depends on how the question about Julie was asked. Maybe the interviewer was trying grill him because the narrative had been that Julie was consistent about seeing Donnie in the flash. Yet the doctor was insistent about setting the record straight. Especially since he wanted to defend how he took the effort to get critical info out of Julie when it was a fresh event.

It’s probably editing more than anything. It all depends on how the question about Julie was asked. Maybe the interviewer was trying grill him because the narrative had been that Julie was consistent about seeing Donnie in the flash. Yet the doctor was insistent about setting the record straight. Especially since he wanted to defend how he took the effort to get critical info out of Julie when it was a fresh event.

Amazing how a Doctor of all people would defend how he took the effort to get critical info out of a girl that just went through Hell when he should have put more of an effort into saving the girl's life.

I also find that element of the segment silly because to me, of course Julie would have told her parents rather than her doctor. She probably was scared and wanted to confide in them rather than having someone she'd never met before run and tell the authorities this without discussing it with her parents first. Julie was also probably on heavy medication considering the extent of her injuries. So to me, the doctor's account is pretty much meaningless.

I also find that element of the segment silly because to me, of course Julie would have told her parents rather than her doctor. She probably was scared and wanted to confide in them rather than having someone she'd never met before run and tell the authorities this without discussing it with her parents first. Julie was also probably on heavy medication considering the extent of her injuries. So to me, the doctor's account is pretty much meaningless.

Good point. Ain’t no small thing to implicate your brother in a crime of that magnitude.

Amazing how a Doctor of all people would defend how he took the effort to get critical info out of a girl that just went through Hell when he should have put more of an effort into saving the girl's life.


Um, how do you know there was any negligence whatsoever on the doctor's part? She dies from an air bubble in an IV. The IV was very likely not put in by the doctor. Also, it's very possible (actually probable) that this wasn't due to any "lack of effort" to save her.

Um, how do you know there was any negligence whatsoever on the doctor's part? She dies from an air bubble in an IV. The IV was very likely not put in by the doctor. Also, it's very possible (actually probable) that this wasn't due to any "lack of effort" to save her.

It was also part of the job of her doctor to assess what happened. Doctors question patients on events that caused their injury because it could turn out to be relevant to their treatment. Even Tom Hughes was depicted to be questioned by the doctor who was treating his leg wound.

sorry I was under the impression she died from medical neglect but I just read the update on the wiki

This case I always felt that Donnie knew more. I can’t answer if he was guilty or not, but I think he was part of it.

This case I always felt that Donnie knew more. I can’t answer if he was guilty or not, but I think he was part of it.

I've racked my brain over this case over the years. And I still can't fathom any scenario Donnie was not somehow involved in this. He bought the gasoline and shotgun used shortly before the murders, this just happens to occur when he is visiting, he gets caught trying to steal the shotgun, he apparently hid the shotgun before anyone even knew there was a shooting, I mean it just doesn't get much more damning than that.

still many unanswered questions and things that didn't add up though, like the two men seen at the trailer. I'd have to say the neighbors seeing them is the only reason he got off. On the whole people would rather believe that unknown bad guys will come in and set fire to a house and kill two girls than believe a family member did it.

Unless Donnie or one of his accomplices assuming they exist someday confesses what happened, we probably will never know the whole truth. I guess its always possible, seems like I read somewhere Donnie is basically an alcoholic today and those who've been near him say he's a shell of his former self with guilt over something. No idea if its true. But I'm skeptical cause he'd have to be massively evil to do something like that assuming the intention was to burn the whole family up. Of course its possible that wasn't the intention and this happened as a result of something else getting out of hand. But either way, Donnie was involved to some extent. I see no way around that.

It would be nice if friends or people close to Donnie would come on the board someday and shed some light on this. I'd be curious to know if he was involved in drugs or gambling or some such thing. Or needed money badly.

I've racked my brain over this case over the years. And I still can't fathom any scenario Donnie was not somehow involved in this. He bought the gasoline and shotgun used shortly before the murders, this just happens to occur when he is visiting, he gets caught trying to steal the shotgun, he apparently hid the shotgun before anyone even knew there was a shooting, I mean it just doesn't get much more damning than that.

still many unanswered questions and things that didn't add up though, like the two men seen at the trailer. I'd have to say the neighbors seeing them is the only reason he got off. On the whole people would rather believe that unknown bad guys will come in and set fire to a house and kill two girls than believe a family member did it.

Unless Donnie or one of his accomplices assuming they exist someday confesses what happened, we probably will never know the whole truth. I guess its always possible, seems like I read somewhere Donnie is basically an alcoholic today and those who've been near him say he's a shell of his former self with guilt over something. No idea if its true. But I'm skeptical cause he'd have to be massively evil to do something like that assuming the intention was to burn the whole family up. Of course its possible that wasn't the intention and this happened as a result of something else getting out of hand. But either way, Donnie was involved to some extent. I see no way around that.

It would be nice if friends or people close to Donnie would come on the board someday and shed some light on this. I'd be curious to know if he was involved in drugs or gambling or some such thing. Or needed money badly.
That’s what I believe happened, I think this had something to do with drugs or gambling and Donnie was involved with this and maybe one of the girls woke up at the wrong time or something

Um, how do you know there was any negligence whatsoever on the doctor's part? She dies from an air bubble in an IV. The IV was very likely not put in by the doctor. Also, it's very possible (actually probable) that this wasn't due to any "lack of effort" to save her.

I am totally on Team Donnie Is Guilty As Sin because there are just too many coincidences on top of coincidences for me to believe otherwise, the idea some stranger just happened to shoot his sisters with the shotgun Donnie owned and burn down the house with gasoline Donnie had purchased earlier...I suppose it’s conceivably possible that someone else did it, but it seems extraordinarily unlikely; there are probably more coinjoined twins who have been born than that happening.

Still, sometimes I wonder if OJ’s Dream Team isn’t a little impressed by whoever defended Donnie. Because even they would have a difficult time winning this one.

But I agree with StackTime in that the air bubble in the IV was probably a stupid accident, serving as a source of good luck for one of the worst people around. Given the number of amateurish mistakes Donnie made, I have a hard time believing that he’d be smart enough to come up with something like this. It sucks when bad things happen to good people, but it sucks even worse when bad people receive a stroke of look.

I am totally on Team Donnie Is Guilty As Sin because there are just too many coincidences on top of coincidences for me to believe otherwise, the idea some stranger just happened to shoot his sisters with the shotgun Donnie owned and burn down the house with gasoline Donnie had purchased earlier...I suppose it’s conceivably possible that someone else did it, but it seems extraordinarily unlikely; there are probably more coinjoined twins who have been born than that happening.

Still, sometimes I wonder if OJ’s Dream Team isn’t a little impressed by whoever defended Donnie. Because even they would have a difficult time winning this one.

But I agree with StackTime in that the air bubble in the IV was probably a stupid accident, serving as a source of good luck for one of the worst people around. Given the number of amateurish mistakes Donnie made, I have a hard time believing that he’d be smart enough to come up with something like this. It sucks when bad things happen to good people, but it sucks even worse when bad people receive a stroke of look.



I am sorry if I am misunderstanding your post. Are you implying that I mean Donnie was responsible for the air bubble in the IV? By no means at all do I think that. Actually, that thought never crossed my mind until I saw your post. I meant the air bubble was an accident completely. I agree it helped Donnie's case immensely that his sister could not testify at the trial.

There were a ton of cases on UM that made me go "What's the mystery?! You did it, you liar".

Stephen Marfeo, Paul Pollis, and the dang Noe famly...all obvious "YOU DID IT!" types.

This might be the biggest "YOU DID IT!!" stories. I can't imagine any scenario where Donnie wasn't involved.

1) Bought the gas, the gun, and the ammo right before the night of the fire/murders
2) Tried to steal the gun from the crime scene and hide the gun after the fact and lied about it to investigators
3) Failed two polygraphs. Yes I know that can't be accepted as evidence, but in the courtroom of my mind, its a small factor that adds onto Donny's guilt, on top of everything else.
4) His sister claimed she saw his face in the gun shot blast. Again, her testimony couldn't be used in court and the Doc said she saw no one...but I doubt pointing the finger at your own brother is an easy thing to do. That's not something to throw around lightly, and the defense's explanation for it is downright silly. Oh speaking of that:
6) The Defense's story makes absolutely no sense. You expect me to believe that these murderers just came to the sight and just happened to find the gas and the gun on their own, and while they are shooting the girls, they just happened to leave Donny all alone, even though he would have been the closest to them?
7) Donny changed his story AFTER the trial (Defense said he was awakened by the shotgun shots, and then after the trial, he said he never heard them...ok then)
8) He couldn't answer basic question like "Why would he pull the gun out of the car before anyone even knew it was a crime scene?". I mean UM gave him an opportunity to tell his side of the story and he didn't do that very well.
9) His own Mother believed he did it. Again, that's not proof, but I've seen so many mothers (On UM even) defend their children to the ends of the Earth. For her to say she thought Donny was involved and that he has the answers, that doesn't speak to Donny's credibility.

At the very least, I believe Donny knows what happened that night and was some how connected to putting the events into motion. I would love to see transcripts of the actual trial because the way UM presents it, their verdict just baffles me. Again, its a show, and they could be skewing things one way or even just cut out details due to time, but there are just too many coincidences and too many incongruities with the defense and Donny's account for me to even consider ignoring.

To be fair, I've been wrong before. As it turns out, I thought for sure that Charles Donovan's story about the hitchhiker was a flimsy alibi to cover up his own wrong doings, and it turned out I was completely wrong and he was telling the truth. However, Charles provided a full account and a full story. Its outlandish and over the top, which is why I didn't believe it, but he had his story, he stuck to it, and it turned out that wild story was the truth. Donny's story just doesn't add up and keeps changing.

The defense's scenario (which is reenacted in the segment) is just so laughable to me that I can't believe that Donnie was acquitted.

We are supposed to believe that Donnie is sleeping on the couch, Julie walks in, an intruder shoots her and then runs away when Donnie yells at him...instead of turning the gun on the bigger threat between the two. What? Then Donnie claims he helped Julie outside after that (by her own account, she stumbled out herself). Then when did the gunman come back in and shoot Jill if he "ran away" after shooting Julie? Or are we supposed to believe an accomplice ran in and did that while Donnie was distracted?

Let's ignore the implausibility of the above and call it a fluke. Even then, keep in mind that Donnie's mother saw him yelling at someone to get out off the property and then he met both his parents to go grab fire extinguishers. Not once in all the time talking to his parents did he mention Julie being shot. Not once did he tell them there was at least one gunman running around while this fire was raging.

They exchanged words while running back and forth for the fire extinguishers. If Donnie was innocent, wouldn't he have told his parents they needed to be careful because a lunatic with a gun was running around? Wouldn't he have told them Julie was shot but he'd gotten her to safety? Conveniently he didn't say anything until Julie was found across the road by someone else, at which point he claimed, "I got her out."

To be clear, I do think he could have had accomplices, but I just can't believe he was innocent.

There were a ton of cases on UM that made me go "What's the mystery?! You did it, you liar".

Stephen Marfeo, Paul Pollis, and the dang Noe famly...all obvious "YOU DID IT!" types.

This might be the biggest "YOU DID IT!!" stories. I can't imagine any scenario where Donnie wasn't involved.

1) Bought the gas, the gun, and the ammo right before the night of the fire/murders
2) Tried to steal the gun from the crime scene and hide the gun after the fact and lied about it to investigators
3) Failed two polygraphs. Yes I know that can't be accepted as evidence, but in the courtroom of my mind, its a small factor that adds onto Donny's guilt, on top of everything else.
4) His sister claimed she saw his face in the gun shot blast. Again, her testimony couldn't be used in court and the Doc said she saw no one...but I doubt pointing the finger at your own brother is an easy thing to do. That's not something to throw around lightly, and the defense's explanation for it is downright silly. Oh speaking of that:
6) The Defense's story makes absolutely no sense. You expect me to believe that these murderers just came to the sight and just happened to find the gas and the gun on their own, and while they are shooting the girls, they just happened to leave Donny all alone, even though he would have been the closest to them?
7) Donny changed his story AFTER the trial (Defense said he was awakened by the shotgun shots, and then after the trial, he said he never heard them...ok then)
8) He couldn't answer basic question like "Why would he pull the gun out of the car before anyone even knew it was a crime scene?". I mean UM gave him an opportunity to tell his side of the story and he didn't do that very well.
9) His own Mother believed he did it. Again, that's not proof, but I've seen so many mothers (On UM even) defend their children to the ends of the Earth. For her to say she thought Donny was involved and that he has the answers, that doesn't speak to Donny's credibility.

At the very least, I believe Donny knows what happened that night and was some how connected to putting the events into motion. I would love to see transcripts of the actual trial because the way UM presents it, their verdict just baffles me. Again, its a show, and they could be skewing things one way or even just cut out details due to time, but there are just too many coincidences and too many incongruities with the defense and Donny's account for me to even consider ignoring.

To be fair, I've been wrong before. As it turns out, I thought for sure that Charles Donovan's story about the hitchhiker was a flimsy alibi to cover up his own wrong doings, and it turned out I was completely wrong and he was telling the truth. However, Charles provided a full account and a full story. Its outlandish and over the top, which is why I didn't believe it, but he had his story, he stuck to it, and it turned out that wild story was the truth. Donny's story just doesn't add up and keeps changing.

I agree 100%. Donny having something to do with this and the Noes being guilty are the tried and true quintessential THEY DID IT moments on this show, ever.

I wonder what Donnie's name was changed to after the acquittal?

I wonder what Donnie's name was changed to after the acquittal?

Mr. John I. Diditson.

Mr. John I. Diditson.

Actually he changed it to;
DonnieJule You-Noe-I-did-it-and-I'll-give you-two-Nichols-if-you-can-Pruit-so-take-a-Page-from-Gibson-and-fool-the-Pollis-and-get-Marfeo-money-when-you-Whacker-for-the-Hecker-of-it-but-I'll-never-Patel
Sr.


:violin:

I wonder what Donnie's name was changed to after the acquittal?

Paul Pollis

In all seriousness, I do wonder what his name is now, what he looks like and the kind of life he leads. Unsolved Mysteries showed a picture of him and his three sisters when they were kids, so I imagine he looks somewhat the same.

In all seriousness, I do wonder what his name is now, what he looks like and the kind of life he leads. Unsolved Mysteries showed a picture of him and his three sisters when they were kids, so I imagine he looks somewhat the same.

Seems like I read somewhere he is basically an alcoholic now, and those who've been near him say he seems guilt ridden. Whether or not its true I don't know, I'm not sure where I saw it, it seems like it was some kind of obscure message board that comes up in google searches about various cases. Maybe for a newspaper article. it was years ago. As far as I know Hans and Betty still have nothing to do with him, its unclear if they are still alive though. They looked like they were middle aged during the segment so they have to be at least in their 70's now, and Donnie in his 50's.

This is definitely another one of those it would be great if someone close to the family would show up and shed some light on it. I'd be interested to know if Donnie had friends in school who think he was involved or not involved. If young guys are into nefarious things, their close friends are often more likely to know than the family.

Seems like I read somewhere he is basically an alcoholic now, and those who've been near him say he seems guilt ridden. Whether or not its true I don't know, I'm not sure where I saw it, it seems like it was some kind of obscure message board that comes up in google searches about various cases. Maybe for a newspaper article. it was years ago. As far as I know Hans and Betty still have nothing to do with him, its unclear if they are still alive though. They looked like they were middle aged during the segment so they have to be at least in their 70's now, and Donnie in his 50's.

This is definitely another one of those it would be great if someone close to the family would show up and shed some light on it. I'd be interested to know if Donnie had friends in school who think he was involved or not involved. If young guys are into nefarious things, their close friends are often more likely to know than the family.

I found an obit for what seems to be Hans' brother and Hans and Betty are listed as surviving him, although it was 2013. No mention of Donny or a nephew's name that did not match up with other survivors. The twins are listed as preceeding him. Guess the whole family wrote out Donny?

I was never sure

Hans said Donny was dead to him during the segment, and I'm inclined to think that Betty agrees with him. It's got to take a helluva lot (which there seems to be in this case) for parents to disown their own child. Hell, Bart Whitaker killed his mother, his brother, and tried to kill his father, and his father still hasn't written him off, which I really don't understand.

In all seriousness, I do wonder what his name is now, what he looks like and the kind of life he leads. Unsolved Mysteries showed a picture of him and his three sisters when they were kids, so I imagine he looks somewhat the same.
Eh, honestly whatever happened to him just shows how sad it is that he got away with a crime. I always felt that he was involved in burning the house, though I don’t think he shot his sisters, but knows the guys involved.

This is a terrible case that definitely tore this family apart. It was especially sad that those innocent twin girls died as a result of this crime.

I definitely feel that DH knows a lot about what happened that night at the trailer, and was probably involved in much/most of this. I don't necessarily think he worked alone, but may have hired/recruited someone to help him. His multiple & sometimes conflicting accounts are suspicious, as is the purchase of the shotgun, his going out to the car to move the gun, going back to the location later (where the police caught him) to find & remove the gun, etc. It does sound like insurance money may have been the motive here - re: the father's statement(s) near the end of the segment.

I am unfortunately not too surprised that DH was found innocent. There have been multiple criminal cases through the years of people that should have been convicted being found innocent, and even more cases of innocent people being found guilty.

Guilty people can be acquitted. I think there were indeed two strange men who came to the house that night but I believe Donnie knows who they are and asked them to come over and kill his family so it would look like he wasn't involved. If that was the case and he was smart, he would have had them bring their own weapons and gas so it couldn't be traced to him. There is no way these were random men that just happened to be on the property for no particular reason and just happened to see his gun and his gas can and spontaneously decided to burn the place down and shoot his sisters. I don't buy that for a second. Too bad the jury did. He literally got away with murder.

I've felt that Donnie's acquittal had less to do with the jury believing he didn't do it than believing the prosecution didn't conclusively prove Donnie was guilty. They didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I may be wrong on this, but I've always wondered if it was lazy/poor prosecution rather than a gullible jury. At one time, I leaned towards Donnie's innocence. I now believe the whole crime was botched due to Donnie and his partners' incompetence and inexperience partners. It's tragic about Jill and Julie and could have been a whole lot more tragic if Hans and Betty had also perished.

I've felt that Donnie's acquittal had less to do with the jury believing he didn't do it than believing the prosecution didn't conclusively prove Donnie was guilty. They didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think you're probably on the mark there. Plus, I think the defence probably did a good job in planting a seed of doubt in the juror's mind with things like the neighbors who saw unidentified men near the property before the fire.

My personal opinion is that he almost certainly is guilty. I think there are too many holes and flaws in the unknown intruder theory for it to be a realistic possibility. I'm not sure whether he acted alone or whether he had accomplices (actually perhaps I lean toward the latter) but I think he was definitely involved.

My heart goes out to the parents. I can't even imagine what it must feel like to live in the aftermath of such a horrific situation and how you go on surviving on a daily basis

I think you're probably on the mark there. Plus, I think the defence probably did a good job in planting a seed of doubt in the juror's mind with things like the neighbors who saw unidentified men near the property before the fire.

My personal opinion is that he almost certainly is guilty. I think there are too many holes and flaws in the unknown intruder theory for it to be a realistic possibility. I'm not sure whether he acted alone or whether he had accomplices (actually perhaps I lean toward the latter) but I think he was definitely involved.

My heart goes out to the parents. I can't even imagine what it must feel like to live in the aftermath of such a horrific situation and how you go on surviving on a daily basis

The death of a child is about the worst thing one can go through in this world. I imagine losing a spouse at a young age would hurt just as bad. I think having a child kidnapped and not knowing if they are alive, dead, etc. would be greater pain. My wife and I have talked about this before (we lost a child 15 years ago this July).

Hans said Donny was dead to him during the segment, and I'm inclined to think that Betty agrees with him. It's got to take a helluva lot (which there seems to be in this case) for parents to disown their own child. Hell, Bart Whitaker killed his mother, his brother, and tried to kill his father, and his father still hasn't written him off, which I really don't understand.

Bart's dad was able to get a judge to reverse the death sentence to life in prison which I still can't believe happened. I am not sure I could support my kid like that. Then again, Casey Anthony's mom still talks to her but Dad is nope, not gonna talk to her. Then again Casey's mom thinks someone broke into the house, looked up how to drown a child, etc on their computer as well. It is really amazing what the brain will do to avoid pain, no?

...actually, his daughters are younger than i am, and i was born over a year after this case. the last i knew of him, he still had his girls and took them with him to oregon.
i have no idea what his name is now, or if he still resides in happy camp. he could never be convicted anyway thanks to double jeopardy...though i would like to see some of my family members held responsible for their hand in these murders.
during the trial, it was stated under oath that the first person that donny called after the incident was his friend, my father, which actually was a lie. as i stated previously, it was my grandmother who called and alerted my father...donny called her first. to me that's strange, to call the mother (whom you're not close to) of your friend first thing and then lie about it in court?
also: my whole family knew the location of the murder weapon before the police did...actually the morning that donny tried to retrieve it from the workshop, it was my aunt (who he was staying with before he got arrested) who set the alarm clock for him. there was also a huge fight within my family regarding the gun, it's location and donny's desire to retrieve it.
this was all lied about in court, as well as the fact that my dad's family more or less hid my mom from the trial so she wouldn't testify (because it would create discrepancies in my father's family's testimonies).
AND i think it's also interesting that the night that donny stayed with his parents was right before a planned trip to set up drug connections in redding, ca.
although donny can no longer be held accountable for his actions in this case, i think that the other's involved should be. namely:
Jeffery Cyphers
and
Helen Cyphers.
i want to see them brought to justice.
i just wish i knew the extent of the hand that they played.
I just saw this segment in unsolved mysteries, and I'm obsessed. This message from years ago on this board is the only information I can find about Donny after the murders. Is there any more information you can provide?

Outside of the Wendy Camp case, this is the most obvious case profiled on UM. Donny Hansen is absolutely guilty. I have no idea how he was acquitted. You almost have to wonder if he knew someone on the jury, as far fetched as that may seem.

beyond a reasonable doubt means you have to be 99% certain they are guilty, I'm sorry but I'm a law student and people on this thread don't seem to understand how much evidence is required for a guilty verdict.

If Donnie had gotten convicted, would he have received a Final Appeal segment?

The answer to that says all you need to know about his innocence/guilt.

If Donnie had gotten convicted, would he have received a Final Appeal segment?

The answer to that says all you need to know about his innocence/guilt.

Probably. The overwhelming majority of those segments were of clearly guilty people who UM slanted their segments in favor of.

beyond a reasonable doubt means you have to be 99% certain they are guilty, I'm sorry but I'm a law student and people on this thread don't seem to understand how much evidence is required for a guilty verdict.
That’s exactly why he got off, those words scare a jury and when the defense brings up 2 guys seen running away from the scene, that puts that word “doubt” in their mind. Don’t get me wrong, I feel Donny did this and I think the 2 men running away were 2 accomplices, but without concrete evidence that doubt word scares a jury

I would love to see the Hard Copy segment on this case. I wonder if it reveals any info that UM left out. I am sure finding that segment would be like finding a needle in a haystack, though.

This case is one that I am sure really irritates cops and prosecutors and sends many of them packing. Because this is an obvious case of Donny being guilty but someone messed up along the way. I would like to see how they bungled it at the trial. Or was the jury scared or were they concerned there wasn't enough evidence? To me I don't understand it. People have been convicted on far less evidence than this.

He has the shotgun that was used to kill his sister's. He was staying the night a supposed burglary happens and they only shoot the twins and not Donny or the parents and then they set the house on fire? Hmmm, okay. Donny bought gas before this happened in a gas can. He actually comes back looking for the gun. He is named by his own sister as someone she saw in the flash of the gun going off. Why wasn't he shot right then and there if he wasn't part of it?

To top it off, his parents denounced him. We usually see UM segments where they are like "Oh no, my son could never do this." How often do you see segments where they call him out over it? Not many.

N/A

I don't i think that his it is him. None of the names match up. And I believe in real life.He changed his name from hansen

I don't i think that his it is him. None of the names match up. And I believe in real life.He changed his name from hansen

He did. I may have asked prior, but I wonder if anyone has ascertained his current identity and what he looks like now. Only thing I have is Donnie's birth date, but who knows if he uses it.

What's never made any sense to me is that law enforcement is doing nothing to find the other two people witnesses saw hanging around after the fire. IMO, those were Hansen's accomplices, or at the very least simply curious bystanders. But if they were accomplices, they still could be criminally charged.

What's never made any sense to me is that law enforcement is doing nothing to find the other two people witnesses saw hanging around after the fire. IMO, those were Hansen's accomplices, or at the very least simply curious bystanders. But if they were accomplices, they still could be criminally charged.

If I had to take a guess on that one, I'd say the authorities believe Donnie acted alone and there has been no active investigation. Same thing with the OJ case even though he was found not guilty everyone pretty well knows he did it and there hasn't been any investigation to try to find the 'real killers'

They may not even believe there were two men there at all. We don't know anything about the neighbors, maybe they were not regarded as credible witnesses even though the jury apparently thought they were.

beyond a reasonable doubt means you have to be 99% certain they are guilty, I'm sorry but I'm a law student and people on this thread don't seem to understand how much evidence is required for a guilty verdict.

Yet clearly innocent people like David Dowaliby, Johnny Lee Wilson, and Luis Diaz all got convicted. I've done deep dives into all three at one point and the evidence is downright weak at best, bordering on laughable yet they would probably all still be locked up if not for UM or similar media attention.

Yet clearly innocent people like David Dowaliby, Johnny Lee Wilson, and Luis Diaz all got convicted. I've done deep dives into all three at one point and the evidence is downright weak at best, bordering on laughable yet they would probably all still be locked up if not for UM or similar media attention.

Right. I think we all know deep down the guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt standard is rarely met and people get convicted anyway.

In some cases it works for the good, because I think we all know there are guilty people who would get off if it truly took that standard. But it also puts innocent people in jail sometimes. I've heard it said that its better for a thousand guilty to get off than one innocent person go to jail. But you could argue if those thousand guilty hurt a thousand more innocent people that argument becomes dubious too.

The brutal truth is, the system just isn't perfect and it never will be. Fortunately, we have fairly robust appeals processes so innocent people convicted do have options.

Some things bother me here. If the re-enactment is correct, no gasoline was poured in the father's room, only one twin.

The feeling I get here is that Donnie is a narcissist and maybe envy played a part in him killing a twin sister. He may have realized he killed the wrong one, then killed the other.

I don't think the father is correct he was trying to kill him for insurance.

If he had accomplices, from what I've learned observing narcissists is that they befriend people they assume are lesser than they. The only time they make friends with people whom they perceive as better, is to get something from them. If he had accomplices, they were gutter trash in my opinion so they would have bungled any crime. Maybe he yelled get out of here to the dog, or faked yelling at someone because he knew the mother was there and he could claim he saw someone.

I think he shot both sisters and the neighbors might have been mistaken, or it could have been two people who walked by seeing the place on fire and were mistaken for accomplices.

I think the parents know more than what they are admitting. He might have been molesting one of his sisters and got caught and looked at himself as the victim and did her in because he was going to be punished or he was yelled at and he got angry and got even. If he had accomplices, he likely came up with some BS story to trick them into helping him. I don't believe the father for insurance was the plan. There would have been gasoline in his room first.

Also, gasoline really stinks. Why didn't the twin who initially survived mention this? She also had just awakened, so maybe she was groggy. I don't know if she would have made it out of cross-examination if the lawyer questioned her properly and asked questions that would have sewn doubt. I think the other twin was the target. We obviously are hearing what Unsolved Mysteries wanted us to hear, so we don't know how much any of the story is true or false. From what I see, I think one of the twins was the target. I'm sure Donnie sees himself as the victim being the outsider in that house.

Of all craziness, this could have been done on a dare or an initiation. Maybe it was mafia involved and when they saw the sister could implicate Donnie, they had her killed so he would walk and could pay them what he owed them.

In reality, only Donnie knows what happened, and that canary won't sing.

How do we know the father is not involved in some criminal activity, and things happened because of that? We don't have access to the family laundry, and it appears a lot of their laundry is very dirty.

It wasn't mentioned on the UM segment, but at Hansen's trial, there was testimony from neighbors that within minutes of hearing the gunshots, they heard a car squealing away from the area. Hansen's prints on the murder weapon were coated with white dust, which at his trial it was conceded that he handled the weapon after using the fire extinguisher. The two teenagers who were mentioned on the UM segment seen lurking around the house were identified and one of them testified at Hansen's trial that he and his friend were hiding from sawmill workers on the night of the murders, but the sawmill owner testified that the mill was closed that night. One of the teenagers had ashes on his coat.

Just read Donny died May of last year. I bet he sadly didn’t even leave a confession or anything on who helped him commit his crime before he died!! What a real class act as a human ����

My guess is that Donny is such a psychopath or sociopath that he was able to convince himself he did nothing wrong and it was the two accomplices (assuming they existed) who went rogue and set the fire & killed the sisters while he heroically pulled one sister out and tried in vain to put the fire out. The vomit inducing obituary to him and his "pious" lifestyle is exhibit A. Then again, a lot of people with bad skeletons in their closet tend to become super religious so who knows?

I remember a few years back I dug into this case because it seemed like they unfairly treated Donny based on the arrest and made him out to be a total monster. Turns out, the show was pretty spot on (if anything they downplayed how guilty he was) and Donny is more obviously the culprit than both Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson.

My guess is that Donny is such a psychopath or sociopath that he was able to convince himself he did nothing wrong and it was the two accomplices (assuming they existed) who went rogue and set the fire & killed the sisters while he heroically pulled one sister out and tried in vain to put the fire out. The vomit inducing obituary to him and his "pious" lifestyle is exhibit A. Then again, a lot of people with bad skeletons in their closet tend to become super religious so who knows?

I remember a few years back I dug into this case because it seemed like they unfairly treated Donny based on the arrest and made him out to be a total monster. Turns out, the show was pretty spot on (if anything they downplayed how guilty he was) and Donny is more obviously the culprit than both Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson.
Honestly I feel Donny DID have accomplices. That’s who I think he was yelling to “get out of here” to. My guess is the plan was the shoot the sisters (but one surprised him and he got the other then burn the house and killed the rest of the family.
Agree, I think he likely has convinced himself he’s done nothing wrong

This has to be one of the most unanimous "he did it" cases discussed on this board, right up there with Mark Nichols. We all agree.

I think you are on the money, that he had help.