The Burden: Death & Deceit in Alliance

Episode 5 – The Wife

Host: Maggie Freeling, Orbit Media
Date: December 9, 2025

Episode Overview

In this pivotal episode, Maggie Freeling dives deep into the ongoing investigation of David Thorne’s conviction for the murder of Yvonne Layne. The spotlight is on Sue—David's wife and tireless advocate—whose relentless digging raises critical questions about the prosecution’s case, the alternate suspects, and the possibility of mishandled or suppressed evidence. Listeners are led, through Sue’s eyes, across a labyrinth of false confessions, questionable motives, hidden reports, and overlooked suspects. This is the episode where alternate suspects emerge, evidence is re-examined, and the presumed narrative is set on its head.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. David Thorne’s Incarceration and Advocacy Efforts

• David's Reality: Now 48, David has spent nearly a third of his life in prison for a crime he claims he did not commit.
  • "This is a life that's inside of a life... this is only existing. It's not really living." (David, 03:02)
• Sue’s Role: Sue, his wife, has championed his innocence for over two decades and knows more about the case than anyone else.
  • As soon as she got involved, she felt, “Something’s missing. I can’t… there’s got to be more.” (Sue, 04:10)

2. Sue’s Investigation: Interviewing the Alleged Hitman, Joe Wilkes

• Sue first contacted Joe Wilkes (the alleged hitman who confessed, then recanted) with caution—“if this guy’s a good killer, I don’t want him to know where I live.”
  • After repeated attempts, Joe finally called Sue on New Year's Eve 2000.
• Joe recanted to Sue, insisting both he and David were innocent of Yvonne’s murder.
  • "You're changing your statement– that you did not do this and David did not. He had nothing to do with it?" (Sue, 07:59)
  • Joe: “Pretty much what they say – try to stay fine. But they had nothing on you if you didn’t do it, did they?” (09:09)
  • Joe describes coercive tactics by police and legal pressure: chained to a wall, spit on, threatened with the electric chair, told falsely that David was implicating him.

3. Problems with the Evidence

• No blood found on Joe’s pants or knife, which did not fit the narrative of a violent, bloody murder. The forensic expert (Brent Turvey) confirmed this would be highly unlikely.
  • “He said there was no blood evidence on them, and he would expect to find blood even if they’d been in the elements for a period of time.” (Sue, 11:34)
• The original defense failed to present this evidence.
• Brent Turvey’s independent analysis:
  • The scene’s blood spatter contradicted Joe’s confession.
  • “There’s blood spatter all over the skirt of the couch. There is no way anybody was sitting in that spot.” (Sue/Brent, 12:57)
  • Turvey theorized Yvonne was killed near the sliding glass door, not the couch—matching the pattern of evidence and drag marks.

4. Questionable Motive

• The prosecution’s contention: David hired a hitman to avoid $351/month child support.
• Maggie and Sue find this motive weak:
  • David made good money, including under-the-table cash from car work. “That motive... seems so weak to me.” (Maggie, 14:11)

5. Exploring Other Suspects

• Eric Cameron & Linda McLaughlin:

  • Eric is the father of three of Yvonne's children; his mother Linda cared for Yvonne’s special needs son, Vinny, who Yvonne had recently reclaimed, causing tension.
  • Linda denied any homicidal intent (“no, no, no... I understood why she was doing what she was doing.” — Linda, 19:05)

• Linda's boyfriend, Jeremy:

  • Jeremy was violent toward Linda, and Vinny reportedly said a "Jimmy, Josh, or Jeremy" killed his mother.
  • “I don’t see Jeremy doing anything like that. ...He did. He beat me up a few times there.” (Linda, 20:03)
  • Despite this, police records show little to no substantive follow-up.

• Clues from the Crime Scene (Vinny’s Clothing):

  • Vinny was out of his crib, dressed—something only someone familiar would attempt.
  • “If she didn’t know you, he would freak out. You couldn’t just pick him up as a total stranger.” (Sue, 21:22)

6. Other Overlooked Suspects: The Neighbor “Jim”

• Jim, who lived behind Yvonne, was the last confirmed person to see her alive (~5:30pm, murder estimated ~7:00pm).
• Neighbor saw him talking to Yvonne on the night of her death.
  • "He was seen by a neighbor standing at her front door... She never finished smashing [cans]. They were still laying there when they found her body." (Sue, 22:59)
• Police seemed to stop following up once Jim gave an alibi (he biked, worked at 10pm), and he never formally testified.
• A withheld report also surfaced: a neighbor saw someone leaving Yvonne’s house that morning; crucially, this was not disclosed to the defense.
  • Maggie: "When I read the report in the George Hale story, it's like, no, something’s missing here.” (25:29)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Prison Life:

  • “This is a life that’s inside of a life... this is only existing. It’s not really living.” — David (03:02)

• On the Prosecution’s Motive:

  • “That motive to me is a bit off… paying $300 for a teenage hitman, it just seems so weak to me.” — Maggie (14:11)

• On Police Coercion:

  • “They chained him to the wall by his arm and they spit on him. And they told him that they wanted him to confess because David was in the next room implicating him, and they were going to put him in the electric chair…” — Sue relaying Joe Wilkes’ story (09:18)

• On Unused Evidence:

  • “There is no evidence at all of any blood on either of these items.” — Sue, on Joe’s pants and knife (11:34)

• On Neighbor Suspect (Jim):

  • “Jim, the neighbor, was the last person to see Yvonne alive... Jim told the officers that that night... he worked from 10pm to 6am. This would have given him plenty of time to commit the crime, get to work by 10pm.” — Maggie (24:09)

Important Timestamps

• [03:02] — David describes the existential reality of life in prison
• [04:15] — Sue explains her initial skepticism and investigative instincts
• [07:59] — Sue’s early recorded conversation with Joe Wilkes: a key recantation
• [09:18] — Details emerge about Joe’s alleged police mistreatment and coercion
• [11:34] — Sue brings up physical evidence that contradicts the confession
• [12:57] — Forensic expert Brent Turvey’s analysis of the blood evidence
• [14:11] — Maggie problematizes the child support motive
• [19:05] — Linda McLaughlin on the emotional dynamics with Yvonne and Vinny
• [22:59] — Sue details Jim’s proximity to the crime scene and timeline
• [25:29] — Discovery of undisclosed police report and questions about prosecution

Conclusion & Next Episode Preview

This episode interrogates the foundations of the state’s case against David Thorne and reopens the file on overlooked suspects, questionable motives, and missing evidence. Thanks to Sue’s determined groundwork, fresh doubts are cast on the investigation’s integrity and the validity of David’s conviction. The closing preview teases bombshells to come—including an alleged police connection in withheld witness testimony—signaling that new revelations may further upend what listeners think they know about the case.

Key Question: Is David Thorne serving life for a crime that neither he nor Joe Wilkes committed—and has a combination of tunnel vision, police mishandling, and prosecutorial omissions led justice astray in Alliance, Ohio?