Jill and Julie Hansen - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

Clockworkhigh · 02-12-2010, 05:01 PM

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?

xxxxmattxxxx69 · 02-12-2010, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clockworkhigh

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.

Clockworkhigh · 02-13-2010, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxxmattxxxx69

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.

xxxxmattxxxx69 · 02-13-2010, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clockworkhigh

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

bell83 · 02-13-2010, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxxmattxxxx69

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.

xxxxmattxxxx69 · 02-13-2010, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bell83

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?

kadrmas15 · 02-13-2010, 08:57 PM

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?

bell83 · 02-13-2010, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kadrmas15

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.

TheCars1986 · 01-17-2011, 04:08 PM

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.

SageSlowdive · 01-31-2011, 02:18 AM

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

TheCars1986 · 01-31-2011, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SageSlowdive

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.

browneyes106 · 01-31-2011, 12:01 PM

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.

TheCars1986 · 01-31-2011, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by browneyes106

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?

dynoguy88 · 01-31-2011, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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.

XCalibur · 01-31-2011, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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.

02-12-2010, 05:01 PM	#1
Clockworkhigh Member Forum Regular Join Date: Apr 29, 2009 Posts: 604	Jill and Julie Hansen 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?

02-13-2010, 08:57 PM	#7
kadrmas15 Retired from Board 03/03/11 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 11, 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,910	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?

01-17-2011, 04:08 PM	#9
TheCars1986 #VLSKMS Forum Fanatic Join Date: Nov 22, 2008 Location: Maryland Posts: 8,594	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.

01-31-2011, 02:18 AM	#10
SageSlowdive the real hank queen Forum Regular Join Date: Feb 10, 2010 Posts: 659	It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see Donnie clearly committed the crimes.

01-31-2011, 12:01 PM	#12
browneyes106 Member Forum Veteran Join Date: Apr 01, 2008 Posts: 6,097	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.