Inset: Donna Jo Franklin (Door County Jail). Background: The area near where Franklin allegedly set a barn on fire in Sturgeon Bay, Wis. (Google Maps).
A Wisconsin woman has been arrested after authorities say she set fire to her ex-boyfriend’s barn in Door County.
Donna Jo Franklin, 59, is charged with one count of arson of a building without the owner’s consent. Court records reviewed by Law&Crime show the charge carries an enhanced penalty because the alleged victim is elderly.
The fire was reported June 10 on North 8th Avenue in Sturgeon Bay, a community about 45 miles northeast of Green Bay.
Police and firefighters were called to the property shortly before 9 p.m. Investigators later determined the blaze was suspicious, according to a press release from the Sturgeon Bay Police Department.
Authorities said the barn was fully engulfed when emergency crews arrived. No animals were inside, and no one was on the property at the time of the fire, police said.
Franklin was arrested Monday and formally charged, according to a criminal complaint cited by Green Bay television station WFRV.
Investigators say the defendant confessed — but only after offering several other narratives about what happened that day.
On the night of the fire, the barn owner was asked who might have been responsible, police said. He explained how he had electrical work done last winter — before mentioning that he and his girlfriend had recently broken up, according to the complaint.
The barn owner allegedly said Franklin originally planned to move out on June 14, but she left on June 6 after removing nearly all of the supplies and food. The man said he had told her to take whatever she wanted because most of it belonged to her anyway, police said.
When first interviewed by law enforcement, Franklin feigned ignorance, police claim. Instead, she said she enjoyed spending time at the barn while looking at nature, according to the complaint.
When quizzed about her movements that particular day, she allegedly said she worked there the first half of the day, went home, then went to a bingo night, and ended the night at Culver’s restaurant — a Midwestern chain known for burgers and frozen custard.
Later, law enforcement met with fire investigators and learned the fire started on the north side of the barn. This raised red flags because that side of the barn had no electrical boxes, police said.
On June 15, Franklin met with investigators again. This time, she allegedly began by saying, “I wanna know what you have already.”
Then came the second version of her story, according to the complaint. This time, the defendant allegedly said she only visited the property on the day of the inferno so she could borrow an extension cord and estimated she was only there for about five minutes.
The woman allegedly went on to insist she would never intentionally damage the property because she invested her own “blood and sweat” in it. Franklin said she and the victim had, at one point, intended to turn the property into their residence, police said.
After those alleged protestations, an investigator asked Franklin about something she threw away at Culver’s, the complaint says.
The defendant first said she had simply thrown away a napkin and tissue — but this version of events did not last long, police claim.
“You can charge me now, because you know what it was,” Franklin allegedly said after being repeatedly questioned on the issue. At one point, the defendant allegedly added: “Just arrest me.”
Finally, the full confession came out, police said.
Franklin admittedly threw away a red “flicker” she had used to set insulation paper alight while she was at the barn that day, according to the complaint. And, she allegedly said, once the fire spread, she went to Culver’s, where she threw the flicker away.
The defendant went on to explain that she only moved out and broke up with the victim after she found text messages to another woman on his cellphone, police said. This revelation destroyed the “dream” of the barn, Franklin allegedly told investigators.
Once the pair broke up, the defendant said, she realized the dream was no longer hers, that she did not want the owner to share the dream with another woman, and that if she could not have the dream, then another woman was not going to get the dream either.
