Donna Kay Thorngren

This is one of those tough cases for me where I am left wondering what to think about the verdict. This mainly comes from the fact that I am unsure just exactly what evidence the prosecutors had against Thorngren and just how reliable that evidence happened to be. Much of the media hype surrounded first the fact that Donna and her son, Austin were arrested in connection with the murder of Donna's husband, Curtis. Then it surrounded the issue that one of Austin's friends planned to testify that he had a conversation with Austin after Curtis' murder but before his body was found in which he allegedly implicated his mother. This became what investigators called the “shed statement.” This statement, whether true or not, was to play a huge role in this case. First it was the reason that Donna's defense asked, and was granted the right, to have her trial severed from her son's. It was of the believe that the statement could possibly be used against Austin, who was facing a charge of accessory, but not against Donna. To have one trial and this statement come out could have prejudiced a jury against Donna. However, just before her trial the judge ruled that the statement could be presented to her jury under the “hearsay” rule that it was considered to be a “excited utterance.”

Now, I am not going to give a full lesson in the hearsay rules because of all of the court rules the hearsay rules are the most confusing and the most talked about. What I will do is try to give a short version of understanding. The rule is that anything said literally outside a court room is hearsay and you will hear it said that “hearsay” is not allowed into courts as evidence. Well, that is not completely true. There are several exceptions to the hearsay rules and one of them allows a statement made to be entered when a court determines it is a “excited utterance.” Basically what this rule states is that when someone is upset or stressed they say things without thinking beforehand and it is believe that it is these statements that are most truthful. There are several other types of exceptions that allow statements made to enter the courtroom, but this is the one important here.

On Sunday January 12, 2003 Curtis Thorngren was shot dead in the bathroom of his home in Meridan Idaho. Curtis and Donna had three children, Austin and twin daughters, Ana Lisa and Amber. According to family members at the time of his murder the family had experienced several break-ins in their home, especially on Sundays. They allege that the belief was that son, Austin, who was involved in drugs and other crimes had brought these robberies onto the family due to some of his associations. The continue to allege that Curtis had decided that someone should be home at all times because it was when they were gone that the home was allegedly broken into. Now, whether law enforcement could confirm these robberies or break ins is not clear. They did confirm in some way that Austin did have legal issues involving drugs and “other crimes” as they seem to believe that Curtis had stated that when Austin turned eighteen he was to move out of the family home. Austin would have been eighteen two days after his father was murdered in the home. Surprisingly, despite this it seems that few believe that Austin was actually involved and his “accessory” charge, which would eventually be dropped alleged he knew only after his mother had murdered his father.

Prosecutors would allege that the motive behind the murders was life insurance. Curtis worked for Hewlett Packard and two months prior to his murder his insurance was increased from $128,000 to $320,000. The new policy went into effect on January 1, 2003. It seems that prosecutors allege that Donna had pushed Curtis to up his insurance. However, it has also been alleged that all employees of Hewlett Packard were given the same opportunity at the same time to increase their life insurance. The family also alleges that DNA was not gathered or tested under Curtis' nails among other things that may have pointed to other suspects in the case.

And then there was the “shed statement.” The statement in court was made by Austin's friend Adam Ketterling. Let me be clear in the fact that my understanding was that this “shed” was likely more in tune with a “man cave” of sorts and had furniture inside. According to Ketterling, Austin had a conversation with Donna inside in which he personally was not privy to. However he claimed that just after Donna left and he found Austin shaking and in what appeared to be shock. He claimed that when he asked Austin what was wrong he had stated “I think my mom did it” and he took that to mean that Donna had killed Curtis as he had allegedly heard this being an option at some point. Austin has stated that he did not make this statement and defense attorney's allege that by his own admission Adam was under the influence of drugs at the time he claims the statement was made. Donna's defense also allege that it was friends of Austin's that were suspect in the home break ins and that Adam had a motive behind claiming this statement to be true.

Donna was convicted in the first degree murder of her husband and in October of 2007 she was sentenced to life in prison. Her family, including her children, have adamantly disagreed with the verdict from the jury. Comments made by them can be found throughout the Internet. At some point they did apparently also have a website called donnathorngren.com to help prove her innocence but that website is no longer available. According to the Department of Corrections website in Idaho her first hearing for parole is to be in February of 2027 with an eligibility date in August of that year.

In November of 2007 Austin made a deal with prosecutors. The accessory charge was dropped and he pleaded guilty to two probation violations for using drugs and alcohol. He was sentenced to six months in jail and five years probation. Throughout some of the comments made on articles through the Internet he had allegedly pulled his life together. However, that did not seem to stick. Austin too is currently behind bars. The DOC site indicated that he was in for “eluding a peace officer” and while I could not find anything that stated when he went into prison he is eligible for parole in May of 2019 with an official end of sentence being in May of 2022. It appears that he may also have been charged with three counts of burglary, possessing drug paraphernalia and another probation violation. One comment made allegedly by a sister before he was sentenced indicated that he was looking at a “long” sentence but again I cannot say when this occurred or what happened.

As far as Donna goes though, I have to say I am a bit on the fence and I have to say it is because I just do not feel I found enough information to decide whether I believe she was in fact guilty in the murder of her husband or if an innocent woman sits in prison. Several things factor into this. One is something that I read in one of her appeals. While the prosecutors claim that the motive behind the murder was for financial gain through the life insurance it is indicated that she did not notify the insurance company of his death until some four months after his murder. Since she was the “sole” beneficiary and considered to be a suspect the insurance company did not pay out on the policy. It seems that Donna then sued them. In November of 2004 with the courts permission the insurance company placed the monies from the polices, along with the interest earned into an account under the courts holding. In June of 2005 they added more money saying the original interest calculated had been incorrect. It is unclear whatever came of this money. However, another thing I find interesting about the insurance is that one of the daughters claims that Curtis himself upped this insurance, adding his kids to the policy, and she claims to have been there to see it, indicating this was Curtis' sole idea. I honestly have to question this statement a bit considering that the insurance company claimed that Donna was the sole beneficiary and by the time she had contacted them about the monies at least Austin was eighteen years of age. Of course the policy could have read that the children did not have access until an older age and Donna in charge of it until then, but I still think that it was worth noting.

If the family is correct in the fact that there was a lot of things that could have been forensically tested, and yet was not, that also can lead to questions. I would like to know if these alleged break ins were reported to the police and how many there were. I understand that when someone is murdered in their home DNA becomes a tricky subject. When people live together their DNA can often be all over each other. Had they tested the DNA under Curtis' fingernails and it had pointed to Donna or possibly even Austin it would not have necessarily said they were the killer with absolute certainty. But, had the DNA belong to someone else, outside the home, then that could have and should have made a difference. If the DNA had matched someone in the home it would not have helped the defense but it would not have necessarily hurt the prosecution. However, if the DNA matched to someone outside the home it could have crushed the case for the prosecutors. That being said, I still believe that it should have been tests so that every T was crossed and I was dotted to show that there was no other suspects.

While the prosecution used the life insurance payout as a motive, they also indicated that in addition to that Donna had murdered Curtis because she disagreed with his stance on kicking Austin out of the home. The defense argued that Donna had already made plans on what she intended to do with Austin's room after he was out of the home so she had no qualms with him leaving the home. The fact that Austin's eighteenth birthday was just two days away left some with a bad taste in their mouths and two theories to throw around. One is that Donna is innocent and that it was Austin who committed the murder to prevent having to leave the home. The other theory that has been bounced around is that Donna is guilty of the crime but committed it when it was so that there would be suspicion thrown in Austin's direction. Both could be viable options in my opinion if more were known about the case and the evidence.

In order to keep faith in the justice system I have to believe that there was much more evidence than I was able to gather in my research and it was this evidence that led the jury to their decision. I am unsure that unless a juror comes out and speaks that we will know for sure. It appears that Curtis' family firmly believe in Donna's guilty while her children and her family believe in her innocence.