I'm actually having doubts about Donnie Hansen's gult. Bear with me...

1) There were 2 unidentified people spotted running away from the trailer the night of the crimes. These people remain unidentified to this day. I want to know what attempts, if any, LE made to find these people. These people may very well be guilty, or at least probably have information, and we know pretty much nothing on them.

2) Donnie's taken a lot of flack for his claim of helping his sister Julie immediately following her shooting, as opposed to trying to disarm the attacker (and it's also been speculated why the attacker didn't shoot him. it's a fair question). However, I can totally buy this. He sees his sister has been hurt. It becomes more important to help her than trying to go after the attacker. It's a natural reaction. He sees she was obviously hurt, he tried to help. There some discrepancy as to whether he assisted her out of the trailer or whether she got out on her own accord. I think a combo might be possible, he helped her as far as getting outside, and she made it down the steps on her own accord and/or memory might be hazy.

3) If the plan was to kill Jill, Julie, Hans and Betty, then why didn't he just do it? Just because Hans, Betty and Julie (well initially) woke up doesn't mean he still couldn't just kill them if he wanted to. I don't see how them waking up would ultimately made that much difference.

4) It would be incredibly risky for Donnie to risk his own life in order to pull this off. Regarding the theory he planned to kill the other 4 people in the house that night, he would have to do all of that all while the house is blazing with fire (an accelerant, gasoline, was used, which means the fire is spreading faster than normal.), then get himself and his accomplices out in time. He also runs the risk of the accomplices possibly turning on him. Perhaps Donnie did have some stake in this initially, but backed out at the last second, the accomplices didn't want to change their plans.

5) Tying this in to point #2, it has been said the attacker shot Julie while standing next to Donnie, and didn't shoot him. But Hans and Betty were also not shot. I get the impression the girls were the target, not Hans, Betty and Donnie. If he/she is masked, it's not necessary to kill Donnie because he can't identify them. Plus, he wasn't the target.

6) Stack says "Donnie moved the gun even before he knew a crime had been committed." Yet, how can that be? Both Julie and Donnie stated that he was present when she was shot, so he obviously knew a crime HAD been committed! And a lot has been made of the fact that Donnie hid the gun. I can think of one good reason to hide it: not let it fall back in the hands of the killer.

7) The prosecution brings up a fair point: if you're going to commit crimes, don't you bring the instruments with you? Good point, but I can think of one person that knows Donnie had the shotgun: the person that lent it to him. It would be crafty since this person could use the gun and since Donny had it at the time, suspicion would naturally fall on him. Question is, who owns this gun?

I won't go as far as to say I'm switching my opinion on this case, more like I have nagging doubts about some unanswered questions.

I'm actually having doubts about Donnie Hansen's gult. Bear with me...

1) There were 2 unidentified people spotted running away from the trailer the night of the crimes. These people remain unidentified to this day. I want to know what attempts, if any, LE made to find these people. These people may very well be guilty, or at least probably have information, and we know pretty much nothing on them.

2) Donnie's taken a lot of flack for his claim of helping his sister Julie immediately following her shooting, as opposed to trying to disarm the attacker (and it's also been speculated why the attacker didn't shoot him. it's a fair question). However, I can totally buy this. He sees his sister has been hurt. It becomes more important to help her than trying to go after the attacker. It's a natural reaction. He sees she was obviously hurt, he tried to help. There some discrepancy as to whether he assisted her out of the trailer or whether she got out on her own accord. I think a combo might be possible, he helped her as far as getting outside, and she made it down the steps on her own accord and/or memory might be hazy.

3) If the plan was to kill Jill, Julie, Hans and Betty, then why didn't he just do it? Just because Hans, Betty and Julie (well initially) woke up doesn't mean he still couldn't just kill them if he wanted to. I don't see how them waking up would ultimately made that much difference.

4) It would be incredibly risky for Donnie to risk his own life in order to pull this off. Regarding the theory he planned to kill the other 4 people in the house that night, he would have to do all of that all while the house is blazing with fire (an accelerant, gasoline, was used, which means the fire is spreading faster than normal.), then get himself and his accomplices out in time. He also runs the risk of the accomplices possibly turning on him. Perhaps Donnie did have some stake in this initially, but backed out at the last second, the accomplices didn't want to change their plans.

5) Tying this in to point #2, it has been said the attacker shot Julie while standing next to Donnie, and didn't shoot him. But Hans and Betty were also not shot. I get the impression the girls were the target, not Hans, Betty and Donnie. If he/she is masked, it's not necessary to kill Donnie because he can't identify them. Plus, he wasn't the target.

6) Stack says "Donnie moved the gun even before he knew a crime had been committed." Yet, how can that be? Both Julie and Donnie stated that he was present when she was shot, so he obviously knew a crime HAD been committed! And a lot has been made of the fact that Donnie hid the gun. I can think of one good reason to hide it: not let it fall back in the hands of the killer.

7) The prosecution brings up a fair point: if you're going to commit crimes, don't you bring the instruments with you? Good point, but I can think of one person that knows Donnie had the shotgun: the person that lent it to him. It would be crafty since this person could use the gun and since Donny had it at the time, suspicion would naturally fall on him. Question is, who owns this gun?

I won't go as far as to say I'm switching my opinion on this case, more like I have nagging doubts about some unanswered questions.

These are some very interesting points. I've long sat on the fence about his guilt, teetering back and forth. I really don't know what I believe, at this point.

thank you, a few more things:

8) If Donny is guilty, once he realized the police were heavily suspecting him, why did he not rat out his accomplices? He could say he recognized one of their voices or something. If the police can place the accomplices there and prove it, then that possibly could have gotten Donny off the hook. Now, the accomplices can subsequently turn on him, but where would the proof be? Hans said "Who could hate us this much to make this attack on our house"? How likely is it that Donny wipe out his entire family, yet put his own life on the line to save the accomplices?

9) Julie told her doctor, who has no horse in this race, that she didn't see anyone during the shot. She didn't say she didn't remember, she said she saw nobody. Then this changes to her seeing Donny. I'm not quite sure how we went from seeing nobody to seeing Donny, but even if her statement of seeing Donny during the shooting is correct, it doesn't necessarily mean Donny is the one that shot her. Remember that the shooter was standing next to Donny while the shot was fired. I think it's entirely possible Julie walked down the hall, was obviously surprised by the shot, saw Donny in the background and later made the connection. Interestingly, it seems to be this item that changes her parents feelings on the matter, as they went from believing Donny was innocent to thinking he was guilty.

10) This is a bunch of things really, but I'm not seeing an apparent motive. Outside of Dana Ewell, I don't think there's a lot of people in the 21 year old age group that try to wipe out entire family. If the goal was to take out the other 4 people in the house, he or whoever certainly did a LOUSY job. I'm still scratching my head wondering how everyone did not actually hear the shots, and there were multiple ones.

I also think it's possible that Donny maybe did have some nefarious intentions that night (burning down the house for whatever reason), but maybe things just went horribly wrong and not according to his plans, or he changed his mind but the accomplices went through with it. That doesn't make him totally innocent, but he doesn't look quite the monster as before. If Donny is guilty, I think it's safe to say the prosecution bungled things. A smart move then would be to charge Donny with just Julie's or just Jill's murder, and if he gets off, learn from mistakes, then try him for the other's murder. There's also the point that the prosecution was confident enough to ask for the death penalty. Some would say that's the very thing that got Casey Anthony off. And I also think the hospital was responsible for Julie's death. It's very frustrating that Julie survived arson and being shot, only to die because of an air bubble.

11) Donny actually volunteered and came in for further questioning on his own accord. For the record, I have never, ever heard of a guilty person doing that. Guilty people usually lay low, say as little as possible, and just hope that suspicion eventually fades with time. Donny did lie, that's something everyone can agree to, even Donny himself. But he made a point that after telling one lie, it became necessary to tell another another lie to keep the original one, and things just snowballed. And really, doesn't that happen all the time IRL? Heck, Donnie's volunteering for questioning ended up getting him arrested and charged. It seems like an extremely weird move for a guilty person to do.

I've always thought Donnie was guilty, but had an unnamed accomplice, hence why the witness saw two people running from the scene (Donnie and said accomplice). Wiseguy, you do raise some interesting points. It's neat to see this case from another angle. I wanna the segment again with those points in mind.

However, I have one nagging question: if it truly wasn't Donnie, who was it and why? Why would they set fire to the place and murder the girls for no reason? Maybe Jill and Julie had a high school stalker we know nothing about?

I want to start by saying that you bring up some very interesting points.

However, here's my big, nagging question about Donny: If his side of the story is true and he saw Julie shot, then helped her outside, why did he not mention this to his parents when running back and forth to get fire extinguishers? I would think that he would say, ''Mom and Dad, hey, some guy with a gun is running around!'' He claimed that the incident with the shooter and Julie happened while he was still on the couch, having woken up from sleeping, so when he was running with the parents back and forth, it was supposed to have already happened. Yet he didn't say one word. I think that if he was innocent, he would have warned his parents that a maniac with a gun was running around and he would have been fearful for his own life. Also, his mom saw him yelling at someone in a ''horrible voice'' to ''get out of here!'' Was it the shooter? Wasn't he already supposed to have gotten Julie out of the house at this point? You can claim that the fire and chaos caused it to slip his mind, but I think in any chaos you would still be extremely worried that an unknown stranger was running around your property shooting people. His story just doesn't add up to me, even if you take the pandemonium and chaos of the night into account.

To answer a couple of your later points.

thank you, a few more things:

8) If Donny is guilty, once he realized the police were heavily suspecting him, why did he not rat out his accomplices?

.

Because he would then be confessing (at the very least) to being an accessory to murder. That's serious prison time, even with remorse and an early plea of guilty.



10) This is a bunch of things really, but I'm not seeing an apparent motive


.

When it comes to murders within families, you don't really need a classic motive (see for instance Ronald DeFeo). Unhappy families (particularly blended families) can be hotbeds of jealousy, resentment and long standing petty greivances - if one of the members is inclined to violence, it might not take much to spark them off.




Donny actually volunteered and came in for further questioning on his own accord. For the record, I have never, ever heard of a guilty person doing that


.

Jeffrey MacDonald did - co-operating with army investigators. The above mentioned Ronald DeFeo also agreed to an extensive interview. These people know that they are the prime suspect, and that if they shut up, cops will immediately harden their suspicions (if you are innocent, you should be breaking your neck trying to assist LE).


I'm not saying the jury necessarily got this wrong. We will never know what happened that night - it is up to the prosecution to convince a jury that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt - which they failed to do.

I want to start by saying that you bring up some very interesting points.

However, here's my big, nagging question about Donny: If his side of the story is true and he saw Julie shot, then helped her outside, why did he not mention this to his parents when running back and forth to get fire extinguishers? I would think that he would say, ''Mom and Dad, hey, some guy with a gun is running around!'' He claimed that the incident with the shooter and Julie happened while he was still on the couch, having woken up from sleeping, so when he was running with the parents back and forth, it was supposed to have already happened. Yet he didn't say one word. I think that if he was innocent, he would have warned his parents that a maniac with a gun was running around and he would have been fearful for his own life. Also, his mom saw him yelling at someone in a ''horrible voice'' to ''get out of here!'' Was it the shooter? Wasn't he already supposed to have gotten Julie out of the house at this point? You can claim that the fire and chaos caused it to slip his mind, but I think in any chaos you would still be extremely worried that an unknown stranger was running around your property shooting people. His story just doesn't add up to me, even if you take the pandemonium and chaos of the night into account.

I would say one possible explanation is that the parents already knew there was somebody running around trying to kill them by torching the house. The gun is an extra component added to the equation. I get the feeling it might have been a backup in case things went wrong for whoever planned it. Another point is that we see somebody pouring gasoline in the girls rooms (and not the parents), which reinforces my belief they were the target. Or perhaps just one of them was and the other was "in the way."

Donnie yelling at the uknown people to get away is a bit of an oddity. It doesn't prove his guilt or innocence. Perhaps they were coming back to the house to do more damage and that was his attempt to stop them.

1) There were 2 unidentified people spotted running away from the trailer the night of the crimes. These people remain unidentified to this day. I want to know what attempts, if any, LE made to find these people. These people may very well be guilty, or at least probably have information, and we know pretty much nothing on them.

I believe they were Donnie's accomplices. I think the intention was to burn the trailer down, and kill everyone inside (save Donnie). Something happened in the middle of the fire that disrrupted the plan...Julie woke up. She came out and one of the accomplices got trigger happy and shot her. Then they went to the bedroom and shot Jill. Donnie now knows that the shots will wake up the others in the trailer, so he then screams at them to get out of there (witnessed by his stepmother).

2) Donnie's taken a lot of flack for his claim of helping his sister Julie immediately following her shooting, as opposed to trying to disarm the attacker (and it's also been speculated why the attacker didn't shoot him. it's a fair question). However, I can totally buy this. He sees his sister has been hurt. It becomes more important to help her than trying to go after the attacker. It's a natural reaction. He sees she was obviously hurt, he tried to help. There some discrepancy as to whether he assisted her out of the trailer or whether she got out on her own accord. I think a combo might be possible, he helped her as far as getting outside, and she made it down the steps on her own accord and/or memory might be hazy.

I think this is a non issue. If he did help her out, it was obviously trying to cover up the fact that he planned their murders.

3) If the plan was to kill Jill, Julie, Hans and Betty, then why didn't he just do it? Just because Hans, Betty and Julie (well initially) woke up doesn't mean he still couldn't just kill them if he wanted to. I don't see how them waking up would ultimately made that much difference.

Well if four out of five people in the trailer died, and four of them had died from shotgun wounds, woudn't that make the survivor look that much more guilty? And these attacks just so happened to have occurred on a day that Donnie was visiting for the weekend?

4) It would be incredibly risky for Donnie to risk his own life in order to pull this off. Regarding the theory he planned to kill the other 4 people in the house that night, he would have to do all of that all while the house is blazing with fire (an accelerant, gasoline, was used, which means the fire is spreading faster than normal.), then get himself and his accomplices out in time. He also runs the risk of the accomplices possibly turning on him. Perhaps Donnie did have some stake in this initially, but backed out at the last second, the accomplices didn't want to change their plans.

Not if the plan was to simply set the house on fire and somehow trap the others inside so they would die from the flames. I don't see how or why if Donnie changed his mind, why his accomplices wouldn't have complied. He was the only one with a motive to kill anyone in that trailer.

5) Tying this in to point #2, it has been said the attacker shot Julie while standing next to Donnie, and didn't shoot him. But Hans and Betty were also not shot. I get the impression the girls were the target, not Hans, Betty and Donnie. If he/she is masked, it's not necessary to kill Donnie because he can't identify them. Plus, he wasn't the target.

But Betty and Hans were still in their bedroom when Julie was shot. Donnie was standing right next to her. I highly doubt that the person who just blasted Julie is going to get cold feet and run away because Donnie yelled at them. It would have taken less than 5 seconds to turn the gun on Donnie and shoot him to, which is what would have happened if he was completely innocent.

6) Stack says "Donnie moved the gun even before he knew a crime had been committed." Yet, how can that be? Both Julie and Donnie stated that he was present when she was shot, so he obviously knew a crime HAD been committed! And a lot has been made of the fact that Donnie hid the gun. I can think of one good reason to hide it: not let it fall back in the hands of the killer.

Donnie borrowed the gun from a friend 3 days before the attack, he was the one who bought the ammunition, and he also was the one who purchased the gasoline and the containers found in the trailer. These are three undisputed facts. Hiding the gun so the real killers wouldn't get it is absurd. Why hide it at all? All he had to do was call the authorities and say, "hey I borrowed this gun from my friend 3 days ago and I think it may have been used in the attack". I know it sounds stupid for him to do that, but if he were truely innocent he would want to explain the gun as soon as possible to cast suspicion away from him. Hiding it makes him look even more guilty, IMO.

7) The prosecution brings up a fair point: if you're going to commit crimes, don't you bring the instruments with you? Good point, but I can think of one person that knows Donnie had the shotgun: the person that lent it to him. It would be crafty since this person could use the gun and since Donny had it at the time, suspicion would naturally fall on him. Question is, who owns this gun?

Donnie's friend lent him the gun. I'm sure he was questioned being that he was the owner of the murder weapon. In all probability, he was ruled out or else Donnie's defense would have introduced him as a possible suspect instead of Donnie.

8) If Donny is guilty, once he realized the police were heavily suspecting him, why did he not rat out his accomplices? He could say he recognized one of their voices or something. If the police can place the accomplices there and prove it, then that possibly could have gotten Donny off the hook. Now, the accomplices can subsequently turn on him, but where would the proof be? Hans said "Who could hate us this much to make this attack on our house"? How likely is it that Donny wipe out his entire family, yet put his own life on the line to save the accomplices?

Well obviously if both accomplices were to turn on Donnie and say he was the mastermind in all of it, it wouldn't be very good for Donnie. He didn't save any accomplice because they weren't mentioned or brought up, nor ever identified. The only person Donnie had to save at that point was himself, and naming his accomplices would have definitely done more harm than good.


9) Julie told her doctor, who has no horse in this race, that she didn't see anyone during the shot. She didn't say she didn't remember, she said she saw nobody. Then this changes to her seeing Donny. I'm not quite sure how we went from seeing nobody to seeing Donny, but even if her statement of seeing Donny during the shooting is correct, it doesn't necessarily mean Donny is the one that shot her. Remember that the shooter was standing next to Donny while the shot was fired. I think it's entirely possible Julie walked down the hall, was obviously surprised by the shot, saw Donny in the background and later made the connection. Interestingly, it seems to be this item that changes her parents feelings on the matter, as they went from believing Donny was innocent to thinking he was guilty.

Again I think this is a non issue. Like you said, even if Donnie wasn't the triggerman, his close proximity to where the shot was fired could have caused her to see him in the blast.


10) This is a bunch of things really, but I'm not seeing an apparent motive. Outside of Dana Ewell, I don't think there's a lot of people in the 21 year old age group that try to wipe out entire family. If the goal was to take out the other 4 people in the house, he or whoever certainly did a LOUSY job. I'm still scratching my head wondering how everyone did not actually hear the shots, and there were multiple ones.

If all four had died in the fire, that leaves Donnie to inherit life insurance. I believe that was the motive presented in the segment. But it could have been something else, known only to Donnie.

1) There were 2 unidentified people spotted running away from the trailer the night of the crimes. These people remain unidentified to this day. I want to know what attempts, if any, LE made to find these people. These people may very well be guilty, or at least probably have information, and we know pretty much nothing on them.

Anyone else ever wondered if the neighbors actually saw Donny and Hans running around outside the trailer that night and from a distance, mistakenly thought it was two other people? I could almost see Donny's attorney manipulating the witnesses into believing they saw two strangers since that was the entire lynchpin of Donny's defense.

Don't get me wrong, I've always believed the two men were likely Donny's accomplices and involved in the murders somehow, but I also do find it strange that LE never found out who those guys were. Considering how incompetent Donny seemed to be at planning this crime and covering his tracks, it's kinda surprising he didn't leave some incriminating evidence implicating his accomplices.

Considering how incompetent Donny seemed to be at planning this crime and covering his tracks, it's kinda surprising he didn't leave some incriminating evidence implicating his accomplices.

That's a very good point. Although if LE focused on Donnie, and thought he was the sole perpetrator, I could see how they didn't actively seek out other leads/suspects because the evidence against him was pretty damning.

Just to add to the ''Donnie helped Julie outside'' point, we don't know that he actually did. He claimed that he got her out after the fact (before helping with the fire extinguisher run) but Julie claimed while in the hospital that she bent down and her belly felt like jell-o and she stumbled outside on her own. And I seriously cannot believe that if Donnie was innocent he wouldn't have said, ''Hey, Julie was shot and I got her out, but haven't seen Jill yet!'' Yeah, it would have been chaotic while running back and forth to put out the fire, but I still believe he would have mentioned it.

I never really cared much for the doctor's testimony. She didn't tell him about Donnie's face in the flash, but she told her parents. To me, this is 100% understandable. Would you tell a complete stranger if you thought it was possible that your brother shot you and killed your twin...or would you want to confide in your parents first? I would go with the latter.

Considering how incompetent Donny seemed to be at planning this crime and covering his tracks, it's kinda surprising he didn't leave some incriminating evidence implicating his accomplices.

The proof of his incompetence lies in the fact that he was left to be the prime suspect.

Also, if it isn't Donnie then there's really no motive for this crime. These two people busted into one trailer to kill people and burn it down and never strike again?

That isn't serial killer behavior, it isn't arsonist behavior, nor does it bear the marks of a random attack for being too well-planned. The only thing that makes sense is that it was planned. But what would it be planned for? What would strangers gain from this sort of attack?

This case only really makes sense if Donnie is the one behind it, in my opinion. He's the only one that gains anything.

Anyone else ever wondered if the neighbors actually saw Donny and Hans running around outside the trailer that night and from a distance, mistakenly thought it was two other people? I could almost see Donny's attorney manipulating the witnesses into believing they saw two strangers since that was the entire lynchpin of Donny's defense.

Don't get me wrong, I've always believed the two men were likely Donny's accomplices and involved in the murders somehow, but I also do find it strange that LE never found out who those guys were. Considering how incompetent Donny seemed to be at planning this crime and covering his tracks, it's kinda surprising he didn't leave some incriminating evidence implicating his accomplices.

Donny apparently shouted at them, so I think that's the confirmation they exist. FWIW, Stack says they saw them "running away from the trailer."

I never really cared much for the doctor's testimony. She didn't tell him about Donnie's face in the flash, but she told her parents. To me, this is 100% understandable. Would you tell a complete stranger if you thought it was possible that your brother shot you and killed your twin...or would you want to confide in your parents first? I would go with the latter.

Julie had no idea how long she would be alive. If she knew who shot her, I could see her telling her doctor if she didn't know for certain she would ever see her parents again. I didn't have a problem with his testimony. He presumably helped save her life, so I don't see a reason why she wouldn't trust him.

Also, if it isn't Donnie then there's really no motive for this crime. These two people busted into one trailer to kill people and burn it down and never strike again?

That isn't serial killer behavior, it isn't arsonist behavior, nor does it bear the marks of a random attack for being too well-planned. The only thing that makes sense is that it was planned. But what would it be planned for? What would strangers gain from this sort of attack?

This case only really makes sense if Donnie is the one behind it, in my opinion. He's the only one that gains anything.

What does Donny gain?

Donny shouted at someone(s) to get away, and the neighbors reported seeing two unidentified people, so it can be reasonably concluded they exist. I have no idea what they would gain out of it, but they were apparently there.

What does Donny gain?

Insurance money, satisfaction that he killed his family and got away with it, happy that he killed his sisters who were receiving too much attention from his father, jealousy over his father's new family, etc. There are a number of possible motives. He could have coaxed the accomplices to help with the lure of a payout from the life insurance.

Insurance money, satisfaction that he killed his family and got away with it, happy that he killed his sisters who were receiving too much attention from his father, jealousy over his father's new family, etc. There are a number of possible motives. He could have coaxed the accomplices to help with the lure of a payout from the life insurance.Yes, this is basically what I believe happened.

Well it should be noted that Donny actually makes sveral pleas to find the 'real killers', something TIM MCCLURE never did.

Well it should be noted that Donny actually makes sveral pleas to find the 'real killers', something TIM MCCLURE never did.

Outside of a passing remark about letting someone get away with what happened to Jill and Julie, I don't remember any pleas he made.

Well it should be noted that Donny actually makes sveral pleas to find the 'real killers'.


So did OJ Simpson

I'm not afraid to give Donnie the benefit of the doubt either. The investigator claimed a perp usually brings the tools of the crime with them when planning out a crime. But maybe Jill and Julie were simply the victims of a random act, crime of opportunity.

The Texas teenagers murder spree (Davy Crocket and William Glen Henry) come to mind. They picked their victims at random and even used tools from their victims when committing them i.e. Deana Woodard's rifles, Cecil Morrison's truck, Kenneth Olden's car. We know from the segment that Deana Woodard was nearly decapitated but we don't know what tools were used to do so nor where they came from; it's possible the tools came from her own garage, making them in effect, "tools of opportunity".

I might be spitballing here, but tools of opportunity could also have been the case here with Jill and Julie. The perps are walking around the neighborhood in search of a victim, see the shotgun and gallons of gasoline just laying outside the Hansens' home, and commit this horrendous act. Perhaps Donnie noticed the perps enter and tried to protect his sisters but everything happened so fast that after the gun was ditched, he stumbled upon it before fire and/or police arrived and was afraid he'd be liable for his sisters' wounds (for leaving the gun outside) that he tried to hide the evidence.

This is just a theory, but it makes sense to me, if Donnie is indeed not guilty.

As for the insurance money. I doubt it is this reason. One the parents were not harmed and two Donny has an older sister. So the money would not just go to him even if the parents had died too. And above all insurance companies will not just give out money with out the proper paper work and cause of death. And especially if the cause of death is homicide or murder they will hold out till the investigation is over. There is a bit of red tape to it.


Has anyone giving any thought as to when the other twin was shot? Donny is seen yelling out the door to leave. Witch means he got one of the twins out before he was yelling and left her across the street. And before the fire was started? The other twin was found in the hall or doorway of her room also shot in belly. So when did she get shot? The parents did not stumble over her going out of the trailer. And she could not have been shot after they got out because Donny already scared them off. I find it hard to believe Donny slept through two gun shots going off. He was closer to the situation than the parents. And can you put a silencer on a shot gun?

As for the insurance money. I doubt it is this reason. One the parents were not harmed and two Donny has an older sister. So the money would not just go to him even if the parents had died too. And above all insurance companies will not just give out money with out the proper paper work and cause of death. And especially if the cause of death is homicide or murder they will hold out till the investigation is over. There is a bit of red tape to it.

Considering that Donnie bought the gas and cans used to start the fire, borrowed the gun used in the homicides, and purchased the ammunition for the gun I think it's likely that he's not exactly an intelligent person. So he probably didn't even bother to think about the insurance investigation, his older sister getting a chunk, etc.

Donny never did give a good reason why he bought those things did he? The story did not add up for me on Unsolved Mysteries with Donny. To many open spaces of time. If he got one twin out, when did the other wake up and get shot? I wonder if the cops could have constructed a time line? We don't really know enough about Donny to know why he would be involved in something like this. Who were his friends at this time? What groups was he part of if any? I wonder how much the cops investigated him. I bet he talked to someone about the situation. Friends probably. We know so little about the investigation.

Donny never did give a good reason why he bought those things did he? The story did not add up for me on Unsolved Mysteries with Donny. To many open spaces of time. If he got one twin out, when did the other wake up and get shot? I wonder if the cops could have constructed a time line? We don't really know enough about Donny to know why he would be involved in something like this. Who were his friends at this time? What groups was he part of if any? I wonder how much the cops investigated him. I bet he talked to someone about the situation. Friends probably. We know so little about the investigation.

Donny didn't live at the trailer, he was just visiting that week. Coincidentally that week is when the fire and the murders happened. He also coincidentally borrowed the gun used in the murders that week. He never once offered an explanation as to why.

I never thought if it this way, but what if we never saw evidence that leaned towards Donnie's innocence? I mean, if I were on the jury, i'd need a lot more than just the testimony of the neighbors to convince me he was not guilty. There had to have been more.

I never thought if it this way, but what if we never saw evidence that leaned towards Donnie's innocence? I mean, if I were on the jury, i'd need a lot more than just the testimony of the neighbors to convince me he was not guilty. There had to have been more.


Meh, juries. Maybe they simply thought it was impossible that a brother could plan to kill his sisters. Or he was too good looking to be a murderer. Or they didn't want to ruin a young man's life by sending him to prison. (I've heard all those excuses before in different cases.) You never know what foolishness goes on with some juries.

The one in Florida let Casey Anthony walk free. Comments they made afterwards made it sound like they wouldn't convict unless they were shown actual video footage of all major aspects of the crime as it happened.

The jury in TN convicted Mary Winkler of only voluntary manslaughter in the premeditated murder of her husband, partly because the extremely conservative jurors were scandalized at her claims that he wanted her to wear high heels and a mousy brown short wig for sex. I forgot how long she served. I think it was a few months in a mental health facility because she was so emotionally traumatized over the high heels thing.

And if you really wanna get angry, check out the Mel Ignatow case. In 1988, he and his accomplice ex-girlfriend soundproofed a house and dug a grave behind it, lured his "frigid" girlfriend Brenda Schaefer there, repeatedly raped and tortured her while the other girlfriend photographed it, murdered her, wrapped her in a tarp and buried her.

Among other evidence, they wired the ex-girlfriend and presented audio of the two of them discussing the murder. The jury let him off because his trial was during the Christmas season, they were inconvenienced, and wanted to hurry up and get home to plan for the holidays.

I am not kidding! The judge was so appalled he wrote a letter of apology to the victim's family over the way the jury acted. And because of double jeopardy, Ignatow could not be tried again. He later confessed to the murder in court, knowing he couldn't be tried again, and served 5 years for perjury. He died in 2008.

Apparently they cops did not come up with enough evidence to convict Donny. Seems like it they would have investigated Donny more thoroughly they may have found the other fellas. I wonder if they did talk to people who knew him? Course it is hard to make a judgement when we do not know everything that went on in the investigation.

Meh, juries. Maybe they simply thought it was impossible that a brother could plan to kill his sisters. Or he was too good looking to be a murderer. Or they didn't want to ruin a young man's life by sending him to prison. (I've heard all those excuses before in different cases.) You never know what foolishness goes on with some juries.

The one in Florida let Casey Anthony walk free. Comments they made afterwards made it sound like they wouldn't convict unless they were shown actual video footage of all major aspects of the crime as it happened.

The jury in TN convicted Mary Winkler of only voluntary manslaughter in the premeditated murder of her husband, partly because the extremely conservative jurors were scandalized at her claims that he wanted her to wear high heels and a mousy brown short wig for sex. I forgot how long she served. I think it was a few months in a mental health facility because she was so emotionally traumatized over the high heels thing.

And if you really wanna get angry, check out the Mel Ignatow case. In 1988, he and his accomplice ex-girlfriend soundproofed a house and dug a grave behind it, lured his "frigid" girlfriend Brenda Schaefer there, repeatedly raped and tortured her while the other girlfriend photographed it, murdered her, wrapped her in a tarp and buried her.

Among other evidence, they wired the ex-girlfriend and presented audio of the two of them discussing the murder. The jury let him off because his trial was during the Christmas season, they were inconvenienced, and wanted to hurry up and get home to plan for the holidays.

I am not kidding! The judge was so appalled he wrote a letter of apology to the victim's family over the way the jury acted. And because of double jeopardy, Ignatow could not be tried again. He later confessed to the murder in court, knowing he couldn't be tried again, and served 5 years for perjury. He died in 2008.

YIKES, that last one is really bad. I saw it on American Justice a while ago (along with the photos :eek:), but it escaped my mind I guess. They couldn't just all agree to convict him!?!!?? Did they want him to have a happy holidays, too? :rolleyes:

I think the main reason Donnie got off was because jurors probably thought the death penalty was too harsh in a case with so many unanswered questions. I've always thought he was guilty but had an unnamed accomplice, but now i'm starting to have doubts. I love this site.

The two men seen standing outside the trailer while it was on fire was probably what helped Donnie get off.