Who was Dustin Stanley?

This page will paint a very clear picture as to the state of mind, personality, and character of Dustin Stanley beginning February 7, 2008, to his death on July 25, 2008 beginning with the timeline outlined below. Included within the timeline are links to evidence both audio and visual helping to corroborate the events listed.

Below the timeline are Dustin Stanley’s mug shots from several arrests, arrest records, and violent incident complaints to assist you in creating your own opinion of this clearly violent, domineering, and controlling man.

The portrayal of Stanley at trial and in the media was not accurate and Hockman wants to set the record straight.  Hockman sympathizes with the reality that this page may have on Stanley’s mother and loved ones where wounds may be opened once again and apologizes for the new pain this may cause.  However, Hockman’s mother and children deserve the same right of stopping their pain by revealing the truth that should have been told from the start.  Both sides have a right to express their feelings. Stanley’s family was given that opportunity throughout Hockman awaiting trial, during the trial and after trial and now Hockman’s family’s opportunity has arrived.

God bless,
Donna Hockman

All materials displayed here are of public record and can be accessed by anyone. This crucial information had it been introduced at trial would have made an impact on the credibility of witnesses and would have corroborated the testimony of Hockman and her reasonable fear that her life and the life of her son was in danger on the day she shot Stanley in her home.

Exhibit 140 – Freedom of Information Act Letter/Response

Explanation: In 2011 I wrote the Sheriff in Shenandoah County, VA where I had grown up and Dustin Stanley had lived previously while we dated. I knew that Dustin had abused the two mothers of his children after speaking to them directly by phone, but hadn’t known to what extent. This document shows Dustin’s arrest record (12 times) consisting of property destruction, assault and battery, disorderly conduct, and annoying phone calls. The dates of arrest span over a 6-year time frame.

Criminal complaints are court public records and all are for review under this section.

Criminal records must be obtained through the Virginia State Police by court order only.

To see Dustin Stanley’s arrest photos and mug shots, see below.

Photos of Dustin Stanley’s victims were unable to be obtained due to mandatory non-disclosure.

No 911 calls from Dustin Stanley’s victims were obtained as too much time had passed and the calls had been purged from the system.

Police reports/notes including arrests could not be obtained due to mandatory non-disclosure.

Theory/Fact of Document: At no time at trial was Dustin’s criminal record introduced as evidence by Marsh Garst (in fact the next document is proof that Marsha Garst had knowledge of Dustin’s record but failed to disclose this crucial evidence to Hockman’s defense counsel) or uncovered by Hockman’s counsel or court-appointed investigator, Doc Chapman. Wouldn’t this appear to be evidence the jury was entitled to know and by Marsha Garst hiding it proves her fear of the jury knowing the facts?

Letter to and Response from Sheriff Timothy Carter

Def. Ex. #13 Trespass Notice dated June 21, 2008

Explanation: Hockman called 911 for help after she was brutally attacked on June 21, 2008 (one month before the shooting) where Stanley had held Hockman hostage in her own home, ripped her clothes, and tried strangling her with a phone cord. Stanley had been waiting for her when she returned the night before while out with friends. (911 calls to be placed on this page soon). Hockman filed a trespass notice after Officer Danner refused to arrest Stanley after seeing signs of a struggle, bruises all over Hockman’s body, and a red 5” abrasion around her neck.

Theory/Fact of Document: Had Officer Danner arrested Stanley he may not have been able to continue his reign of terror against Hockman and other women. But this piece of paper didn’t stop Stanley from stalking and repeatedly abusing Hockman. This paper only made his violence toward her more volatile.

Trespass Notice 06-21-08

Exhibit 167 – 1 undated letter and a September 10, 2011 letter showing payment of support by Agent Flagg

Explanation: Exhibit 167 depicts a letter written by Hockman dated August 4, 2011, sent to FBI/ATF Agent Eric Flagg requesting a copy of the confidential informant agreement dated February 7, 2008. The letter dated September 10, 2011, from Agent Flagg states where Hockman can find the information she seeks. The letter was sent to Marsha Garst before Hockman’s trial which clearly states that Stanley was a paid informant for the ATF in February 2008. The agreement dated February 7, 2008, shows Stanley was a confidential informant and Agent Flagg was his handler. At trial when Hockman was testifying Marsha Garst stated to Hockman, “Did you hear Mr. Flagg talk about Stanley being a confidential informant and signing him up in June of 2008?” Hockman responded, “The documentation I saw was February 7, 2008.” Hockman saw the signed CI agreement months before Stanley’s death when she tried ending the relationship. Marsha Garst stated to Hockman, “So the ATF person, you think he’s lying about the date, Mr. Flagg?” Hockman responds, “No, I did not, I did now say that he was lying. I’m telling you about the agreement I saw.” (TT 01/29/08 @ page 81 and page 82) Flagg paid $2,500 on Stanley’s behalf for his release from jail.

Theory/Fact of Document: Not only did Agent Flagg lie about the date he signed Stanley into an agreement, at trial he lied when he told Investigator Spitler that he paid Stanley $100 upon his release to be an informant, but the receipt clearly shows he paid $2,500 on his behalf. Hockman was portrayed as a liar throughout the trial, but black and white documents tell the real truth. The jury should have known about these documents so Hockman’s testimony would have corroborated the truth.

Response Letter from ATF Agent Eric Flagg 09-10-11

Dustin Stanley’s Confidential Informant Agreement 02-07-08

Document Freeing Stanley from Jail to become a C.I. 12-17-08

Exhibit 167 Whittington court letter

Explanation: Notice the date of this document; July 11, 2008, 15 days before the demise of Dustin Stanley. Megan Whittington, mother of Dustin’s two sons (who at the time were 4 and 6) typed and signed this letter to a judge about the abuse she was suffering stating, “I was in a very abusive relationship with Dustin and I had to leave him before he killed me.” It also shows in Megan’s own handwriting that she and Dustin had an upcoming court date on September 24, 2008. Two months after Dustin’s death.

Theory/Fact of Document: Marsha Garst had knowledge of this document but failed to disclose to Hockman’s defense, depriving the jury of crucial evidence corroborating Hockman’s testimony of Stanley’s abuse, harassment, and threats.

Letter to the Court by Megan Whittington 07-11-08

Exhibit 139 Notification of Recantation

Explanation: Three days before Hockman’s trial, Megan Whittington recants her grand jury testimony that was used to obtain an indictment against Hockman. She now admits she was physically abused by Stanley.

Theory/Fact of Document: Would Hockman have been indicted on first-degree murder charges if the grant jury heard Stanley’s past abuse?

Recant of Megan Whittington Complaint 01-22-09

Exhibit 68 Summons/Criminal Complaint – Heidi Keyt

Explanation: This complaint was filed on May 12, 2008, by another mother of Dustin’s twin girls. (Hockman had not known about these girls until months into her relationship with Stanley.) The date of this complaint is significant as it shows Dustin was harassing other women during the time he and Hockman were dating, unbeknownst to Hockman. The complaint outlines that Stanley was harassing Keyt by phone on numerous dates.

Theory/Fact of Document: Hockman’s jury never saw this complaint or heard from this woman which would have proven a pattern of harassing behavior and corroborated Hockman’s testimony that she was being harassed and threatened by phone. The court date was set for August 21, 2008, one month before Stanley’s death.

Heidi Keyt Complaint 05-12-08

Exhibit 69 Incident Report (Assault against Heidi Keyt)

Explanation: On August 1, 2007, Keyt, who has twin daughters with Stanley called police to say that she was being harassed along with her mother. She stated she took a warrant out on Stanley recently for the same offense and has a protective order in place.

Theory/Fact of Document: The jury never knew of this document or heard about this incident. It shows that Stanley couldn’t follow a protective order and stop harassing Keyt. This document would have corroborated Hockman’s testimony of being harassed by Stanley. Should a jury have known about this incident?

Heidi Keyt Incident Report 08-01-07

Exhibit 69 Warrant and Complaint – Heidi Keyt

Explanation: This complaint is dated July 23, 2007 (one year before Stanley’s death). The complaint outlines that Keyt and Stanley got into an argument over his son (from a previous relationship) that was sleeping in their bed. Stanley “slapped her and hit Keyt in the face with a phone.” “Her eye swollen and bleeding.” She further states that days before, she arrived home with their twin girls, and “Stanley was drunk and going crazy, held a knife to her throat and asked if she wanted to live to see her children grow up.”

Theory/Fact of Document: The jury never saw this document or heard from this woman. This would have corroborated Hockman’s testimony about Stanley using his knife to threaten her on the day she shot Stanley. Had this witness Keyt testified, it may have revealed that the same knife was used in both incidents.

Warrant of Arrest Heidi Keyt 07-23-07

Exhibit 71 Warrant and Complaint – Megan Whittington

Explanation: This complaint is dated March 14, 2003. The complaint outlines that Stanley assaulted Whittington numerous times on dates ranging from 2002 to 2008. He slammed her down onto the floor and punched her in the head. Stanley hit her while she drove with their young son in the car. He continued to punch her several more times, blackening her eyes.

Theory/Fact of Document: The jury never knew of this document or heard about this incident. This information would have corroborated Hockman’s testimony of being slammed to the floor and punched weeks before and on the day Hockman shot Stanley. Do you believe the jury had a right to know about this incident?

Warrant and Complaint Megan Whittington 03-14-03

Exhibit 70 and 76 Megan Whittington Warrant of Arrest, Detail Report, and Protective Order

Explanation: An arrest warrant dated April 14, 2004, was issued for an assault on Megan Whittington, mother of Stanley’s two sons.

An incident report for the offense states that Megan called her sister Jessica screaming and the phone was hung up. Stanley was destroying property and hit Megan in the head and smacked her in the face. The report further states that Stanley became upset with Megan because she was not watching food on the stove that Stanley was fixing. Stanley slapped her, pushed her onto the bed, and pulled her hair.

Stanley’s brother repeatedly told him to stop beating Megan. An Emergency Protective Order was issued.

Theory/Fact of Document: The jury never saw these documents or heard about this incident. Do you see the pattern of abusive behavior? Notice in Shenandoah County when a female calls the police about domestic abuse the man is arrested. In Rockingham County beating a female isn’t enough to make an arrest. Hockman never had a chance to be free of Stanley, because police refused to make an arrest on any of the 3 calls for help to police at her home. Stanley knew he wouldn’t be arrested due to his confidential informant status and repeatedly told Hockman the only way she would leave him was in a body bag. The police are supposed to serve and protect but chose to protect a violent repeat abuser. Can you understand the inner conflict Hockman must have been feeling after she shot Stanley in choosing not to call the police?

Megan Whittington Incident Report 04-14-04

Incident Report – Attack of Ethan Whittington January 23, 2004

Explanation: Incident report dated January 23, 2004, stemming from an assault and battery perpetrated by Stanley on Ethan Whittington, younger sibling of Megan Whittington, mother of Stanley’s two sons.

Theory/Fact of Document: Stanley didn’t care that he had assaulted the younger brother of the mother of his two sons. He would go to any length to assault anyone if he chose to do so. The jury should have heard from Ethan himself about what led to him being assaulted by Stanley. The jury was never shown these documents proving Stanley was a violent man.

Ethan Whittington Incident Report 01-23-04

Warrant of Arrest Against a Juvenile dated December 28, 2003

Explanation: A warrant of arrest with a criminal complaint from a 14-year-old juvenile who was assaulted by Stanley when Stanley was almost 19 years old.

Theory/Fact of Document: Yet another juvenile assaulted by Stanley. Arrest after arrest, but no prison time. Had he remained in jail in 2008, Hockman would never have met him and wouldn’t be sitting in a Virginia prison.

Warrant of Arrest Juvenile 12-28-03

Exhibit 75 Warrant of Arrest Aubrey Whetzel August 17, 2003

Explanation: On August 17, 2003, Stanley was loaned a vehicle by Aubrey Whetzel and after she requested that the vehicle be returned, Stanley became enraged and ripped her inspection sticker off of the windshield causing damage.

Theory/Fact of Document: The jury should have heard this evidence to weigh against the credibility of Hockman when she testified to the damage Stanley did to both of her vehicles and inside her home.

Warrant of Arrest Aubrey Whetzel 08-17-03

Exhibit 77 Warrant of Arrest for Assault and Battery, Disorderly Conduct – Timothy Miller

Explanation: Stanley fought Timothy Miller even after police tried to restrain Stanley and struck Miller in the face again. Both were highly intoxicated.

Theory/Fact of Document: These documents show how violent Stanley was and how even the police didn’t deter him from being combative. Yet another document the jury should have been made aware of.

Warrant of Arrest Timothy Miller 06-23-03

Exhibit 72 Warrant of Arrest Incident Report February 8, 2005

Explanation: Report called in by Darla Fabion which pertains to her juvenile son who was attacked by Stanley and had fled before police arrived.

Theory/Fact of Document: Stanley had no control over his temper and actions. He beat women, juveniles, siblings, and any person who got in his way. The jury should have heard this evidence.

Darla Fabion Incident Report 06-23-03

Exhibit 77 Warrant of Arrest for Assault and Battery, Disorderly Conduct – Timothy Miller

Explanation: Stanley fought Timothy Miller even after police tried to restrain Stanley and struck Miller in the face again. Both were highly intoxicated.

Theory/Fact of Document: These documents show how violent Stanley was and how even the police didn’t deter him from being combative. Yet another document the jury should have been made aware of.

Timothy Miller Incident Report 06-23-03

Exhibit 66 Motion in Limine

Explanation: This document shows a motion filed by Marsh Garst to prevent the jury from knowing that Stanley had a criminal record which Judge Lane found in her favor.

Theory/Fact of Document: As stated previously this shows Marsha Garst had knowledge of Stanley’s criminal past and failed to disclose it to the jury. Do you believe that if Hockman’s jury would have known Stanley had an extensive abusive criminal record that it would have played a vital role to substantiate Hockman’s testimony and may have changed the outcome?

Motion in Limine by Marsha Garst

Letter to Marsha Garst from ATF Agent Eric Flagg

Agent Eric Flagg Testimony

Statement and Trial Testimony by Lt. Thomas

Explanation: Statement of Lt. Thomas dated December 17, 2008, that states that Stanley “was arrested on a charge and was looking to help himself and information Stanley provided on a gun larceny would lead Lt. Thomas into another state.” It further states that Stanley came to see Lt. Thomas on Wednesday (two days before his death) wanting to speak with him.

The trial testimony of Lt. Thomas says that he met Stanley in June 2008 despite his statement that he met Stanley in January 2008. Lt. Thomas tells the jury that Stanley had no pending charges and that he wasn’t being paid for information yet when he contacted Lt. Thomas he testifies Stanley contacted him from jail.

Theory/Fact of Document: Either Lt. Thomas is being untruthful with his statement or lied under oath at trial. The jury should have known his statement did not coincide with his testimony.

Lt. Thomas Statement and Testimony 12-17-08

Exhibits 70 and 148 Letter to Weaver – Monthly Reports

Explanation: Hockman received a letter after being sent to prison stating that Stanley had been court-ordered to enroll in a “Batterer Intervention Program” after his assault on Megan Whittington dated April 14, 2008. Ms. Weaver was Stanley’s program director and responded to a letter Hockman wrote her (exhibit 148) in which she replied and enclosed several intake pages. The most important document shows that Stanley knows violence is wrong but doesn’t want the program. Stanley was rated for dangerous risk and lethality which he was rated high. His risk factors state that he would rather fight than make love to a woman. He experiences rage/blackouts and minimizes the true severity of his actions.

Exhibit 70 dated October 8, 2004 states that there is a specific concern to Megan and her children, and the potential for rage and outbursts remain. Exhibit 70 dated November 11, 2004, states his level of participation is minimal, very little progress and that his abusive behavior hasn’t stopped. Still, concern for Megan and her children has an explosive personality and a very defensive nature. Exhibit 70 dated December 28, 2004, states his abusive behavior hasn’t stopped and his rage and outbursts continue.

Theory/Fact of Document: Hockman’s jury never saw these documents or heard about his abusive nature from licensed professionals. Stanley was portrayed at trial to be a good father who would hurt no one. Don’t you believe the 12 people who decided to send Hockman to her impending death had a right to see all evidence that proved she was telling the truth about the abuse she endured?

Court Ordered Batterer Intervention Program Documents

Dustin Stanley’s mug shots from several arrests over the span of many years:

Dustin Stanley    10 (1)    9     7    6

Photos extracted from Dustin Stanley’s mobile phone show evidence of  drug use:

p_00076    p_00078



  1. Leonard Funkhouser says:

    Did Donna have a court appointed atty or a paid atty??? Can you send the the entire case if I am intrested in helping her.????? Thanks


  2. Dan Turman says:

    Typical public pretender not public defender


  3. Randdy says:

    Murder is murder you could of left


    1. No, she couldn’t. You clearly haven’t read the story. They didn’t live together, and she had ended the relationship. She had a ‘no trespass’ order against him that he ignored.


Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s