NORRISTOWN >> A Lower Pottsgrove woman showed little emotion as a jury convicted her of charges she torched and destroyed the home of her neighbor, a Limerick detective, out of revenge after she blamed him for her son’s legal problems.
Donna Marie Krupp, 52, simply cupped her hand to her mouth as a Montgomery County jury convicted her of arson, causing a catastrophe, reckless burning, recklessly endangering another person, criminal mischief, failing to control or report a fire, possessing an instrument of crime and cruelty to animals in connection with the 2:26 a.m. Dec. 4, 2014, blaze that totally destroyed the Commons Drive home of Limerick Detective Ernie Morris and killed the family’s cat, “Bandit,” while the Morris family was on vacation to Disney World.
Morris and his wife, Christine, hugged after the verdict was announced and Christine wept, as her daughters, Katelyn and Carly sat next to her.
“I’m very happy for my family and I can’t thank everybody enough for all the hard work they put into getting us here today. I’m extremely happy, but I’m also sad there’s another family that’s going to now be ruined because of this,” Ernie Morris said as he emerged from the courtroom with his family, also showing compassion for Krupp’s family.
The jury deliberated about four hours before reaching the verdict after a five-day trial.
“I’m happy with the verdict and I hope it begins to provide some closure to the Morris family,” reacted Assistant District Attorney Christopher Daniels. “She targeted Detective Morris for doing his job and I’m happy the jury stood up and said, ‘You know, you can’t go after law enforcement officers for doing their jobs and you can’t go after moms and dads for living on their street.’
“It was misguided blame and revenge, that’s really what it was. She did one of the most horrific acts I’ve seen,” Daniels added.
Defense lawyer John J. Fioravanti Jr. was disappointed and surprised by the verdict. Krupp’s daughter, Jamie, and several other Krupp family members appeared distraught as the verdict was announced.
“I thought there was a reasonable doubt,” Fioravanti said. “Nobody’s prepared for verdicts.”
When she testified on Thursday, Krupp adamantly denied setting the blaze.
Daniels alleged Krupp intentionally set fire to the Morris home out of “revenge and misguided blame” because she blamed Morris for her son Joshua L. Beauseigneur’s June 2014 incarceration on charges he eluded state police on his motorcycle and violated a previous probationary sentence.
“She thought it was an injustice anytime Josh got into trouble and thought Josh was being targeted by police. She hated authority figures who were above her,” Daniels argued to the jury during his closing statement. “She set out to get rid of her problem, her enemy, Detective Ernie Morris.”
But Fioravanti argued to jurors that it was “a reasonable doubt case.”
“They have not proven that Miss Krupp has done this beyond a reasonable doubt,” Fioravanti argued, asking jurors to not place too much emphasis on Krupp’s dislike for Morris but to focus on what he claimed was a lack of physical evidence that Krupp committed the crime.
Daniels implied it wasn’t a coincidence that the blaze occurred a day after Krupp learned that her son wouldn’t be released from jail in time for Christmas. A letter from Krupp’s son was found setting on a table next to Krupp’s recliner in her home, a letter in which her son told Krupp that Morris “ruined my life.”
“She read that letter from her son. She ruminated and that anger built because she knew her son wasn’t coming home for Christmas for the second year in a row. The anger boiled over. She wanted revenge,” Daniels argued.
The prosecutorial evidence against Krupp included a surveillance system videotape, recovered from the Morris home, which recorded the arsonist, wearing a hooded sweatshirt, using a distinctive wand lighter and newspaper to set fire to a small Christmas tree on the outside porch of the Morris home. Daniels alleged the woman depicted in the videotape strongly resembled Krupp, citing her hair style, height and the way she walked.
“Donna’s big mistake was when she dropped that hood and showed us that hair and that distinctive, rocking gait,” Daniels argued as he showed jurors the eerie videotape depicting the arsonist’s conduct one more time before they began deliberations.
Daniels also compared the home surveillance footage to other video footage of Krupp arriving at the police station to be questioned and at her preliminary hearing.
“That distinctive, rocking gait,” Daniels repeated several times.
But Fioravanti implied the case was one of “mistaken identification” and pointed out the arsonist’s face is not visible on the surveillance videotape.
“A gait? There aren’t other people in the world who walk like that? Is it so unique?” Fioravanti said as he questioned investigators’ focus on Krupp’s walking characteristics. “This case started off bad from an investigative point of view.”
While Krupp admitted to disliking Morris and was overprotective of her son, Fioravanti argued that doesn’t make her an arsonist.
“The motive evidence in this case is a distraction but the identification is the key,” said Fioravanti, implying investigators targeted Krupp from the get-go. “They gather bias and they gather suspicion against Donna Krupp.”
Daniels contended the videotape depicted the arsonist walking from the direction of Krupp’s home and then heading towards Krupp’s home after lighting the fire. But Fioravanti suggested someone else could have approached the housing development from another road behind the homes and walked from the side of Krupp’s home to set the fire.
During a search of Krupp’s home, police seized gray sweatpants and a gray hooded sweatshirt, consistent with those worn by the arsonist depicted in the surveillance video, two grill lighters consistent with the one used by the arsonist and boots fitting the description of those observed being worn by the arsonist as the fire was set, Daniels alleged.
A microscopic examination of the gray hooded sweatshirt that was seized uncovered black particles located on the front of the sweatshirt and its sleeves, particles consistent with carbon, or soot, indicating they had recently been exposed to a high heat source, testimony revealed.
But Krupp testified she never wore the sweatshirt, which testimony revealed belonged to her son, who was in jail at the time.
