Jill and Julie Hansen

[Rweiss]

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.

[Rweiss]

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

[atomicfizz]

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.

[Rweiss]

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.

[Todd Mueller]

Originally Posted by atomicfizz

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.

[Mike82]

Originally Posted by Rweiss

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.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by Huskerz85

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.

[Rweiss]

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.

[Mike82]

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.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by Rweiss

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.

Originally Posted by Rweiss

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.

Originally Posted by Rweiss

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?

[Rweiss]

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.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by Rweiss

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.

[Rweiss]

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

[Rweiss]

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.

[DazzlerSparkler]

If innocent why go in silhouette and alter your voice?