Joann Katrinak’s Killer Still Has Innocence Advocates
(“A Woman Scorned,” Forensic Files)
Patricia Rorrer has been portrayed as a bully, petty thief, neglectful horse owner, and heartless killer — or a sweet, caring friend railroaded by authorities desperate to solve a double-murder case that snagged worldwide interest.
After Joann Katrinak, the wife of Patricia’s former flame, turned up dead along with her infant son, prosecutors suspected Patricia.
Highly charged case. Patricia’s accusers theorized that she resented Joann’s domestic bliss with the tall, athletic Andrew Katrinak. They allege that the North Carolina resident stealthily drove 500 miles to Pennsylvania and killed out of a sense of deadly indignation. Strands of the accused’s dyed-blond hair at two crime scenes proved it.
Or did they? Aside from the hair, there was almost zero forensic evidence. The state made a case fueled by circumstantial evidence and public outrage over the deaths of a modern-day madonna and child.
More than 20 years after her conviction, Patricia Rorrer still has advocates working to exonerate her.
Meticulous primping. For this week, I looked into the defenders’ reasoning as well as Patricia’s whereabouts today. And because some of Patricia’s advocates have suggested Andrew Katrinak had a motive for murder, I checked into whether he had a life insurance payout to gain upon Joann’s demise.
I also communicated with Patricia via email to get her input on some matters.
So let’s get going on the recap of the Forensic Files episode “A Woman Scorned,” along with extra information drawn from internet research:
Joann Marie O’Connor was born on Oct. 11, 1968, the youngest of Sarah and David O’Connor’s four children.
The Irish-Italian girl had full, fluffy dark hair, olive skin, and a pretty face. She made an effort to look perfectly groomed “even when she took out the trash,” according to her mother, who appeared on Forensic Files.
Great catch. Joann was “fun, likable, beautiful, always happy,” said her sister-in-law Cindy Wiard.
After a very early failed marriage, the 24-year-old Joann scored a new husband in Andrew Katrinak, 38, whom she met at a club. He had worked as a semi-pro boxer in Las Vegas in his youth and later settled into his own construction business.
The couple moved into Andrew’s sturdy brick house at 740 Front Street in Catasauqua, Pennsylvania. They had a son, Alex Martin, in August of 1994.
No show. On December 12, 1994, Joann answered a phone call from a woman she’d never met, Patricia Rorrer, her husband’s onetime girlfriend. She asked to speak with Andrew, who was home during the call; Joann refused.
Three days later, Joann had plans to pick up her mother-in-law, Veronica Katrinak, to go Christmas shopping.
Joann never showed up.
Combination locks. At 10:30 p.m., Andrew reported his wife missing. And yikes, he discovered someone had cut one of the house’s phone lines and pried the hinge on the basement door.
Family members found Joann’s tan Toyota sitting vacant in the parking lot of McCarty’s, a nearby bar. Inside the locked 1992 vehicle, police discovered some strands of blond hair stained with dried blood. DNA testing revealed the blood came from either Joann or her son.
Forensic Files didn’t mention it, but the hairs were actually brown at the top and the rest dyed blond, according to the show Autopsy Six: A Fatal Attraction.
At first, local police suspected Andrew.
Puny policy. Detective Barry Grube found it odd that Andrew fixed the severed phone line before police examined it — in essence tampering with evidence. And Andrew’s explanation of how the intruder got in through the basement door seemed contrived, according to Grube, who gave an interview to Wrong Man, a 2020 true-crime docuseries from the Starz network, which produced two episodes called “The Hang Up” about the Rorrer case.
But investigators conceded they had no solid evidence against Andrew. Plus, he had only a “minimal” life insurance policy on Joann and he passed polygraphs, according to The FBI Files: Family Secrets. His father confirmed his alibi that they were doing construction work together, putting an addition on the house of friends Tom and Kathy Holschwander, at the time of Joann’s disappearance.
Andrew described his existence with Joanne and Alex as a “little Camelot.”
Ex-spouse off list. “I can’t lose them,” he told the media. “That’s my life.”
The state police dropped him as a suspect.
Joann’s first husband, New Jersey construction worker Michael Jack, who had reportedly abused her during their marriage, also had a solid alibi.
Search is on. The police considered the possibility that Joann ran away, a theory disputed by her family. “She’s just extremely happy with Andy,” her brother, Michael O’Connor, told the media. “She’s extremely, extremely happy with the baby. In a million years, she wouldn’t do anything to harm that.”
No activity on her bank account or credit cards took place after the day she went missing, so investigators dismissed the theory that she took her child and bolted.
Meanwhile, the case of the missing mother and baby turned into colossal news across the U.S. and internationally. State police and the Philadelphia division of the FBI appealed to the public for leads. They released a poster of Joann and Alex, noting that the baby had “almond-shaped blue eyes,” weighed 18 pounds, and was circumcised.
Sad discovery. Still, no good leads materialized. “It’s definitely getting rougher every day,” Andrew told the Morning Call. “I don’t even know it’s Christmas.”
Four months after Joann’s disappearance, farmer Paul Kovalchik reported seeing what at first looked like a pile of clothes on his land in Heidelberg Township woods, about 15 miles from the Katrinaks’ house.
On closer inspection, he saw it was the body of a woman. An infant was lying face down on her stomach. Both were deceased.
More hairs there. Police identified the pair as Joann and Alex Katrinak. His favorite rattle, shaped like a phone, lay near the crime scene.
Someone had shot Joann in the face with a .22-caliber pistol, then beaten her about the head — hitting her 19 times in all — with a blunt object. Police couldn’t determine whether the baby died of exposure or suffocation.
On Alex’s diaper bag, police found strands of the same type of hair from the car.
Stable situation. In April 1995, the family buried Joann and Alex in a single bronze casket after a funeral mass at a Bethlehem church.
Andrew mentioned to police that his former live-in girlfriend Patricia Rorrer once managed a horse stable two miles from the bodies’ location and would have been familiar with the riding trails close to the murder scene. (Media sources vary as to whether she actually worked at the stable or just rented a stall there for her own horse.)
Patricia “seemed like the girl next door but all of a sudden, something snapped,” Katrinak later told Wrong Man investigators.
No charmed life. Patricia Lynne Rorrer made for a good suspect. Then 31 years old, she had lived a rocky existence.
She was born on Jan. 24, 1964, in eastern Pennsylvania and moved back and forth between there and Davidson County, North Carolina.
At 17, Patricia dropped out of high school and married landscaper Gary Gabard.
Later, they both worked 12-hour graveyard shifts at a textile factory. Her mother, Patricia Chambers, provided day care for their baby son, Charles.
Trash-talking ex. Patricia Rorrer “was a cold woman. She was always looking for a fight,” Gary Gabard told the Morning Call, which noted that he was “a head shorter” than Patricia.
Once, when a gun-wielding farmer and his buddy caught Patricia and Gary riding motorcycles on his field, Patricia walked up and “got in their faces” and argued, Gary recalled to the Morning Call.
“She is a tough one,” Sheriff Gerald Hege would later tell the Morning Call in a June 29, 1997 interview. “I don’t think she was ever scared until we put the cuffs on her.”
Walmart woe. Patricia’s professional life included short-lived gigs as a Century 21 real estate agent and an Oldsmobile salesperson. In North Carolina, she reportedly enjoyed some success as a horse trader, riding instructor, and rodeo competitor.
But her reputation wasn’t exactly sleek and shiny. She got 12 months of probation for shoplifting at a Walmart in Lexington, North Carolina.
She was also accused of breaking into barns, stealing horses, and underfeeding the ones she owned. But none of those charges ever stuck.
New state, new man. Tragedy also touched Patricia’s life. Charles Robert, the 3-month-old son she had with Gary Gabard, died of sudden infant death syndrome; Patricia found him blue in his crib.
Patricia and her husband broke up after the baby’s death.
After relocating to Pennsylvania, Patricia met the 6-foot-2-inch Andrew in a restaurant. They moved into her house in Salisbury County, staying together for about two years. They broke up in 1993.
Dial-a-problem. Patricia defaulted on her mortgage and then returned to North Carolina, where she eventually moved in with a boyfriend named Brian Ward. Together they had a baby girl, Nicole.
When police traveled to North Carolina to interview Patricia about the murders of Joann and Alex, she said that on the day of the homicides, she had visited a feed store, a tanning salon, and a country music club.
Andrew told investigators that the unpleasant phone call between Joann and Patricia happened just three days before his wife’s disappearance.
Conflicting versions. Patricia’s phone bill showed no record of a call to Catasauqua that day, but police noticed she didn’t make any calls at all from her house in North Carolina that day either — suggesting she could have been out of state and used a pay phone to dial up the Katrinaks.
time of her arrest. One theory says that she had the baby with him
to sanitize her image in the wake of the murders
As for the words exchanged on the call between the two big-haired women, Joann told Andrew that Patricia had used profanity; Patricia said it was the other way around. Both sides agree Joann hung up on Patricia.
Police slowly built a case against Patricia. Her alibi about going to the club, called Cowboy’s Nitelife, got fuzzy when investigators discovered she hadn’t signed the guest book on that day. And dance instructor William Jarrett couldn’t remember whether she attended his dance class at the club the night of Joann’s disappearance. On a secret recording, Patricia asked Jarrett to vouch for her attendance or she might go to the electric char.
“Why would somebody tell you, ‘they’re going to fry me,’ if they didn’t do it?” Jarrett told Wrong Man.
Hair we go. As for the murder weapon, police didn’t find a .22 caliber pistol on Patricia’s property, but an ex-boyfriend claimed that she owned one — and it would always jam after one shot.
They also found a photo of Patricia taken 11 days before the homicide. It showed her usually all-brown hair haphazardly highlighted blond. Forensic tests suggested the hair found in the car and at the murder scene came from Patricia.
According to court papers from Patricia 2017 appeal, “DNA on the cigarette butt found near the two bodies belonged to Appellant.” (Prosecutor Michael McIntyre, however, told ForensicFilesNow.com that that the cigarette butt was never actually tested).
Incriminating words. At 6 a.m. on June 24, 1997, police arrested Patricia at her modest house in Linwood, North Carolina, and took her back to Pennsylvania.
Lieutenant Christopher Coble and Sergeant Suzanne Pearson would later testify that Patricia cried and apologized to 18-month-old Nicole, telling the baby, “I’m sorry for doing this to you” and lamenting to the officers that she would never see little Nicole again.
“If I knew I was going to get caught, I never would have brought you into this world,” the arresting officers testified they heard her say to Nicole.
Deal refused. The authorities charged her with two counts of murder. After her arraignment, she had to walk past a crowd of dozens of locals screeching “hang her!” and “baby killer!” Patricia clung to a Polaroid picture showing her and her own little girl.
Prosecutors offered Patricia a plea deal that would take the death penalty off the table, but she declined. “How could I explain to my daughter years later that I took a plea for something I didn’t do?” she said.
At the trial, prosecutor Michael McIntyre alleged that Patricia remained obsessed with Andrew Katrinak long after their breakup — despite testimony that she’d had “many boyfriends and live-in lovers” to occupy her bandwidth.
Kidnapped and killed? Ex-boyfriend Walter Blalock said that Patricia wanted him to be more like Andrew. Another former boyfriend said she talked about Andrew frequently and liked to gaze at old photos of him.
The prosecution alleged that Patricia called the Katrinaks’ house from a pay phone in Pennsylvania. Angry that Joann hung up on her, she stalked her for three days, then broke into her basement and cut the phone line, put a gun to Joann’s head as she was placing Alex in the car, and forced her to drive to the rural area.
After one bullet didn’t kill Joann, the gun locked up, so Patricia had to beat her to death, according to the prosecution. The 5-foot-9-inch-tall Patricia was physically strong, no match for 5-foot-4-inch Joann.
Testimony from Walter Blalock contradicted Patricia’s claim that she never had a gun. He said she did own a firearm, with its serial numbers filed off.
Prosecutor pounds away. And in a piece of salacious testimony, Patricia Rorrer’s half sister, Sandra Ireland, said that in May 1995, about six months after the murder, their mother, Patricia Chambers, stopped by the house and asked her to hold onto or hide a gun, or both. Ireland’s husband buried it in the yard because he didn’t feel comfortable with a firearm inside, she said.
During Patricia’s hours-long turn in the witness chair, Michael McIntyre grilled her relentlessly. According to a Morning Call account from March 5, 1998:
“McIntyre leaned forward conspiratorially like someone trying to persuade another to tell a secret, lowered his voice and said: “Here’s what I want to know: After you killed Joann Katrinak, did you kill that baby or just leave it to die?”
“Sir I would not kill somebody and I definitely wouldn’t kill somebody I never met,” Rorrer said.
Dance defense. The prosecution alleged that after the murder, Patricia drove Joann’s car to McCarty’s parking lot and backed it into a parking space. Those who knew Joann pointed out that she didn’t like to drive in reverse and would have never parked that way.
Patricia Rorrer in prison
But defense lawyer Robert Pfeiffer said that plenty of evidence supported Patricia’s innocence. For one thing, her mother never asked Sandra Ireland to “hide” the gun, and she retrieved it on the way home the next day — she worked as a bus driver and couldn’t take it with her to school.
Plus, two men, her baby’s father and his friend, testified they saw Patricia at the line-dancing club the night of the homicide.
Pal stays true. Pfeiffer and Burke claimed that police Sgt. Suzanne Pearson fabricated quotes from Patricia — including her claim that Patricia said, “I’m going to the electric chair” upon her arrest — because a conviction would boost Pearson’s career.
And Patricia wasn’t all edges. She was bubbly and likable, not disgruntled, according to friend Kathy Barber, who visited her friend in jail.
Other loyal friends and associates attested to Patricia’s kindness toward horses and devotion to her daughter, whom she took along as she worked in stables.
Not gender neutral. A newspaper account described Patricia as a soft-spoken, demure woman who had a sweet Southern accent and wore feminine clothes in court.
It all gave jurors a lot to think about — but only for six hours. They returned with a guilty verdict and a sentence of two life terms.
Advocates for her innocence complain of hype surrounding the case. “Men who murder are conventional, women are sensational,” posits the Worldwide Women’s Criminal Justice Network. “The media love the femme fatale.”
FBI lab blunder. The organization purports that “if there were awards for distorted reporting, the Morning Call…would win high honors.”
The Worldwide Women’s Criminal Justice Network’s website also points to a bombshell: In 2015, the Justice Department acknowledged that most of the team members from an FBI microscopic hair comparison unit gave prosecutors flawed data from 1980 to 2000 that could have unjustly contributed to a number convictions — including Patricia Rorrer’s.
Some lawyers call microscopic hair analysis junk science that today wouldn’t qualify as evidence in a trial like Rorrer’s.
Book her. Further, an early FBI report said the hairs found in the car had no roots — which contain the DNA — suggesting an evidence switcheroo.
But that’s just some of the ammo on Team Patricia’s battleship. She’s attracted the help of writer Tammy Mal (full name Tammy Malinowski O’Reilly), author of Convenient Suspect, a book about the case. And James Pfeiffer and Jim Burke have remained on her side.
They theorize that Andrew Katrinak framed Patricia and that the hostile phone call between Patricia and Joann actually took place not on Dec. 12 as Andrew said but rather on Dec. 7. Phone records confirmed Patricia placed the earlier call from North Carolina, not Pennsylvania.
Great communicator. Patricia’s defenders also say Andrew Katrinak staged the scene at his house by prying the door and cutting the phone line. The phone wire was located at the opposite end of the basement, which was dark. How would an intruder find it?
And the fact that Patricia called Andrew even after he married someone else didn’t mean she was still carrying a torch for him, according to one of her friends. “She just stayed in touch with everybody,” Kathy Barber said in her interview on NBC’s Murder in Lehigh Valley: Keith Morrison Reports in 2017. “And she would just call out of the blue.”
According to the Free Patricia Rorrer page on Facebook:
“I called him to let him know that I was going to the USA finals for a horse show. I was so excited that I called everyone, and Joanne picked up the phone … and she said Andy is married, and I said I know, then she said we have a baby, and I said yea I know, then she said don’t ever call here again. … I was like OK, maybe she was tired, you know with a new baby. …. I really never thought of it again.“
Cop defends accused. The Free Patricia Rorrer page responds to comments from supporters (“How is this even possible that this woman is still in jail?!?!”) and detractors (“This is another bs attempt to free a psycho”).
Barry Grube, one of the few — if not only—police officers sympathetic to Patricia’s cause, noted that Andrew didn’t seem particularly frantic while authorities searched desperately for his wife and son. In TV clips, Andrew didn’t come off as anguished.
Mal told Keith Morrison that Patricia’s dance teacher originally confirmed her alibi that she was in class on the day of the murder, then changed his mind.
Unbloody vehicle. At the state’s request, the instructor wore a wire during a phone conversation with Patricia. Although the prosecution used it as evidence that she was trying to create a false alibi, it actually sounded more like Patricia was simply trying to nail down the facts he had already asserted to her.
And even prosecutor Michael McIntyre, who wrote the book Hair Trigger about the case, acknowledged to Keith Morrison that it was a little odd that the police found blood on the hairs in Joann’s car but nowhere else in the vehicle. If Patricia drove it back from the murder scene after she shot Joann and then beat her to death, luminal would have lit up the interior.
There’s also the matter of a woman who suddenly remembered she saw Joann with another man at a Food Mart store five days after the disappearance. (Disclaimer: I’m not a big fan of eyewitnesses who come forward years after the fact, but it’s possible).
Flaw in reasoning. Another witness, Walter Traupman, who never testified, had told state troopers that on the day of Joann’s disappearance, he saw a couple who looked like Joann and Andrew arguing about the paternity of a baby. Traupman claimed that when he reported the dispute, trooper Robert V. Egan III got mad and practically kicked him out of his office. The police report misspells his name (“Troutman”) and doesn’t include his address, suggesting authorities didn’t want anyone to track him down, according to Patricia’s side. (McIntyre said that Egan ignored Traupman because he was a nut who said that the man he saw arguing with the woman in a car was Hispanic but wearing a fake mustache and a toupee. Traupman died in 2016.)
The Wrong Man investigators Ira Todd and Joe Kennedy have some theories of their own. They noted houses near the murder scene would have heard a gunshot in December, when no farm equipment is making noise, and question why the murderer didn’t just kill Joann inside her house instead of risking being seen in public in her car. (A good point.)
And in another bombshell, Joann’s good friend Karen Devine said Joann planned to leave Andrew after the holidays. “She had a suitcase packed,” Devine said. “She had money put aside. He wanted to move to Colorado and she was against it.”
Nailed? The Free Patricia Rorrer page points to a sliver of a fingernail found at the murder site that didn’t come from either Patricia or Joann.
Despite the new evidence and hypotheses, the courts have rejected all of Patricia’s bids for a new trial.
The Innocence Project has declined to take her case.
Weak wages. Today, Patricia Lynne Rorrer resides in State Correctional Institute at Muncy, a medium and maximum security facility that has the highest rate of cancer of all prisons in Pennsylvania, according to a story from northcentralpa.com.
The article also notes that most inmates earn around 19 cent an hour at their jobs and must pay $5 each time they need medical attention or medicine.
I was able to email with Patricia via the PrisonConnect platform around Christmastime. She said that she’s no fan of Forensic Files and that the show had “many misrepresentations” about her case and that she’d heard ForensicFilesNow.com mixed up some facts as well. (We didn’t get into the specifics.)
One on one? Patricia also pointed out that when author Tammy Mal “started her research and speaking to me, she was not an advocate at all” — but she reversed and ended up advocating for Patricia’s innocence.
Most of all, Patricia said, she would like a rematch with prosecutor Michael McIntyre.
Now retired, he declined ForensicFilesNow.com’s invitation to spar directly with Patricia via a podcast.
“I most definitely will not personally afford Patricia a platform,” Michael said in an email to ForensicFilesNow.com “She had her chance to answer my questions and tell her story in court over 20 years ago. She failed miserably to convince me, or anyone else who mattered, of her innocence. “
Meanwhile, interest in Patricia’s plight continues on social media. In addition to the Facebook page, there are Reddit threads on her case. On Instagram, I found a post for a two-part Win at All Costs podcast featuring journalism professor Bill Moushey’s interviews with Patricia Rorrer from prison in December 2019.
Media galore. As for an epilogue on ex-flame Andrew Katrinak, he has moved to Colorado and kept a low profile since the trial ended. He gave an audio interview to the Wrong Man investigators when they made a surprise visit to his house, but he declined to appear on camera.
As for Joann’s parents, her father died a year after the murder. “My husband passed away of a broken heart,” Sarah O’Connor said on the Montel Williams Show in 2001. “He would be alive today if it were not for Patricia Rorrer.” The mild-mannered Sarah died in 2019 at the age of 83.
For more on the Katrinak murder case, you can watch Autopsy Six: A Fatal Attraction for free on YouTube.
Murder in Lehigh Valley: Keith Morrison Reports is also available on YouTube, but it costs $1.99 to view (Keith comes off as an advocate for Patricia’s innocence on the episode).
If you subscribe to Hulu and upgrade to Starz (there’s a free one-week trial offer), you can stream the Wrong Man episodes about Patricia Rorrer. The series was produced by Joe Berlinger, who made the Paradise Lost documentaries, which garnered actor Johnny Depp’s attention and ultimately helped free the West Memphis Three.
That’s all for this post. Until next time, cheers. — RR
Watch the Forensic Files episode on YouTube
Did they ever determine cause of death in the baby?
I don’t think so. Joann’s gun and beating wounds were obvious, but the baby died a less violent (but just as horrible) death with no clear signs. All the sources said the same thing — either exposure or suffocation, but no certainty about which one.
This is all BS….She did it. DNA tests proved the blonde hairs were hers. Stop defending her when she is guilty!!!!!
Keep her murdering ass locked up!!! Calling her ex because she just likes to stay in touch w people…LOL! (even though he’s married and has a baby) Who does that?!! Not normal folks… obsessed ones do.
She definitely did it. Not sure why anyone is defending her. Watching Reasonable Doubt right now – hope they also find that she did it.
I just watched Reasonable Don’t on this case. They retested hair from the car in 2008 — with updated new technology. It was Patricia’s hair – no question. Jealousy was the motive.
This was a horrible and brutal double murder and whoever did it needs to be locked up forever.
I don’t understand Partricia’s defenders pointing to Andrew with the dyed blond hair found at the car and murder scene. Am I missing something? Did Patricia have the dyed blond hair when they broke up in 1993? If not, how could Andrew have obtained samples of Patricia’s hair if they apparently didn’t meet up in person after Andrew’s marriage?
I think Patricia’s defenders are implying the hair came from some unknown person. True, Andrew would have no way to acquire and plant Patricia’s blond hair there because it wasn’t that color when she knew him.
Looking at the pictures of the scene, after 4 months of the bodies being there allegedly, they were untouched? If in the woods in a rural area, no animal, rodent or insect touched those bodies? Animals would have for sure. Especially mice! What did the ME report as to the age of the baby? Those bodies would have been manipulated by something around there. No way for 4 months, that deceased baby would still be resting across the mothers chest. Nope. No way they laid there for 4 months!!!!
You are correct the bodies were not there all that time, and it seems odd that they baby taken at 3 month, but when found he was 6 months according to Wrong Man. So where they alive somewhere, and if so how could of Patricia, who was questioned, with not one mark on her kill them? Also why if beaten with a gun or with whatever, why was there no blood on the clothing? And when Patricia was taken into custody where they removed 39 hairs with root, and then all of a sudden after the FBI report say that the hair tested had NO ROOT ATTACHED, the hair tested had a root? Keep in mind that 34 hairs are in custody of the state police, so where are the other 4 hairs? Joann would have fought for her life the person that did this would have had marks on them from a fight! Which Patricia did not, so who is the real killer?
This is the most ridiculous take ever! First it was winter, cold temperatures preserve bodies for significantly longer periods. Joanne wouldn’t have fought back as she was shot therefore almost immediately incapacitating her and was holding her son. If Patricia had injuries it would’ve only been to her hands and she wasn’t questioned right away which is also the reason she took Joanne elsewhere to kill her so her body wouldn’t be found for a while and she would have time to return home. The longer it took to find the bodies the easier it would be for her alibis to be believed as it would’ve been harder for people to remember if she was at a dance class etc that she regularly attended on that specific date. Fact is she wasn’t and all of her alibis were proven to be lies. DNA also doesn’t lie. Out of the two hairs found in the car only one had enough root to perform a DNA match which did match but police waited to arrest Patricia until a highly advanced and accurate match could be made, which took a year. Patricia had a violent past and was absolutely positively the killer. Andy passed not one but two polygraph tests and had a solid alibi. Patricia made daily phone calls every day but made no calls at all the day before, of and after Joanne’s murder as she was traveling and knew her phone could track her location. All 3 of her alibis were lies, DNA tied her to the murder, there was no sexual assault, she had a violent past, was obsessed with Andy, and was caught lying about owning a gun, which coincidentally jammed after firing once and shell cases were found on her property. Anyone who thinks this psycho isn’t guilty needs to take off their tin hat. Not everything is a conspiracy. Some people are just monsters. Patricia is a evil monster. I hope she rots in hell.
Omg so well put! Let her rot like she left Joan and that INNOCENT baby Alex
Agreed
Claps! Exactly
Why is this even a question, why people are trying to take out killers into society?
The missing hairs probably got destroyed in testing.. that’s how they test them.. and reports are wrong all the time. It might have said no root but could have been wrong. I didn’t read anything in this article that convinced me… I didn’t like that the lab had a bad rep and I do agree the police lie and frame people sometimes so I can’t say 100% she did it or not. But then again I haven’t actually SEEN the evidence. I have not SEEN this report that says no root found… is there a picture of it online somewhere?
The real killer is Rorrer! Proven in court and sentence awarded!!!
Nope. The person who killed Joann is currently serving a life sentence because 10 months after Joann and Alex died, he killed another woman (who bore a striking resemblance to Joann) and her baby. It’s his hair (dirty blond and roughly 8 inches in length) that was found in Joann’s hand. Don’t even think about arguing with me until they DNA test that hair and the broken fingernail found on her body; I’ll just laugh at you.
If you’re talking about Caleb Fairley, no. There would’ve been evidence of a sexual assault. You’re reaching too far.
Joann’s jeans were unbuttoned and unzipped when her body was found in April of 1995, almost five months after she disappeared: not ideal circumstances for preservation of evidence.
Fairley lived in the King of Prussia area. Catasauqua is less than an hour’s drive away. Christmas was around the corner and it’s very possible she had shopped at the KOP mall at some point recently. If Farley had a type, both women fit it to a T.
I must say that the Caleb Fairley theory is the most interesting alternative explanation.
Do you realize that Patricia was only found and arrested more than six months after the murder? Every type of cut, bruise etc would heal perfectly in that time. Those that think that Patricia is innocent are simply groping at straws. The first rule of a murder is motive. No other suspect has existed that would have a motive to kill Joann. She killed Joann, had a fair and impartial trial, so it’s time to get over it. Remember, killers have the advantage over investigators. Killers can plan all the details and alibis well ahead of the murder while cops must come up with hard evidence, even just to make an arrest.
They did this case on Reasonable Doubt last night. They retested the hair for DNA evidence with updated technology – definitely Patricia’s hair – case closed.
It was winter which are cold in PA and would slow down decomposition and minimize insect activity although you are correct about the rodents–why were there none?
Pat is locked in a cage because she’s an animal. I hope she suffers and goes insane from loneliness.
She should hang herself!
They were there in the winter months in which the bodies would have been frozen most of the time. I’m a hunter and in the spring I have found many dead deer that died from starvation or other reasons and the bodies are untouched. In summer, after thawing, there will be small animals eating the body and even turkey vultures, but not so much in the winter.
Interesting points — thanks for writing in (and, yikes, those poor deer that starve to death).
Nobody said bodies were intact. If you look at the crime scene picture, only parts of the mother seem preserved. Probably by the jeans and the boots. And remnants of what look like a baby rested on the mother. It’s barely visible in the picture.
I saw lots of her defenders saying that he got the hairs from a hairbrush of hers that he had somehow saved, which I thought was absolutely ridiculous. I think she’s guilty for sure. Plus a FB group that I was in included some people who grew up with her and they confirmed that she was indeed a horrible mean person who was easily enraged and always looking for a fight.
I live in Pennsylvania, not far from where this happened. This woman was motivated by an obsession with a man who no longer wanted her. He was happy. He had an attractive new wife and beautiful baby boy. This woman was obsessed and jealous. She took out the woman who replaced her. A man normally wouldn’t care about killing a child, but a woman normally would have some kind of abhorrence to harming an innocent child. Which explains why she made Joann kill the baby, or suffer from the environmental elements. She’s still guilty, with her hands did it or not, in regard to baby Alex. If you have ever met or been in a relationship with a narcissist, the former partner being with a more young and attractive-looking person would make them go off. Unfortunately for Joanne this psycho took it badly. Her jealousy and rage because Joann told her to not contact her husband set her off. Narcissistic and violent tendencies are very common. I believe this woman murdered Joann and Alex. And I have absolutely no sympathy. She is right where she belongs for now until she meets satan in the fury of hell. And she will have to answer eventually. Sorry not sorry.
“She made Joanne kill the baby…” PLEASE. If I rolled my eyes any harder they might fall out.
Where’s the evidence that Patty was “obsessed with” Andy? She only spoke on the phone with him a couple of times a year; when she called that last time, she didn’t even know if Andy’s child was a boy or a girl, and the baby was almost 4 months old. That phone call came in on December 7, 1994. Joanne didn’t go missing until December 15, an entire week and a day later. Am I supposed to believe that she was still so enraged a week later, that she drove almost 10 hours, in a conspicuous van with a bad U-joint, to kill this woman and her baby? And NOBODY saw her at all? Yeah, no.
Patty was soooo obsessed with Andy that she moved away to North Carolina some 5 years before this happened, right? She was so obsessed with Andy that she called him non-stop, multiple times a day, right? (Nope. Phone records don’t lie.) Oh, and she was so obsessed with him that she started dating and found herself a boyfriend that was not only younger, but much more attractive than Andy?
You know what’s interesting? The fact that shortly after Joann’s funeral, Andy “reconnected” with an old friend, a woman who happened to live about 4 miles from where the bodies were found. How do you know this woman wasn’t obsessed with him and wanted his wife out of the way? Andy did end up moving to Colorado with her and the last time I checked, they were still together. But I’m sure that was just a coincidence LOL.
‘Patty’ huh? Friend of hers are you, one of her little pals? Can’t admit she could do a bad thing, because that would make you a bad judge of character?
There are many cases where the people around a killer say ‘Oh no, he/she was the life and soul, lovely person, I’d trust them with my life.’ and then it’s all tears and what do you mean he he/she killed their entire family and buried them under the shed.
Hi Mr. McIntyre! Still trolling, I see. My introduction to this case was a great book titled “Convenient Suspect”; maybe you heard of it? Patricia is referred to as Patty throughout the book. And I think it’s very telling that you did not attempt to respond to any of the points I made in my above comment. Where’s the evidence of obsession? Why the lie about what day the call came in? I’ve never met PATRICIA (Patty, Patsy, Trish, Tricia, Tisha) before, but this case stunk from the very beginning. Try responding to the valid points that were made…if you can.
What a contrived case! There’s a similar air of confusion connected to the Scott Peterson debacle. Whether or not one believes said person has a motive, did investigators have an actual factual case or not?
I would like to tell you that there is many errors in this article, that I would love to send to you the proof of each one. But because there is no author of this page, I would like you to contact me on the Free Patricia Rorrer facebook page. You can PM me please, this way you can update your article with the correct information.
I noticed quite a few errors myself. It says that Andrew Katrinak passed his lie detector test. False. He took two tests and there was deception detected in BOTH. It says that Andrew reported the “cut” phone lines and broken pad lock was reported to the police at 10:30. False. They were not reported until 5:30 the next morning and he had already “spliced” the phone lines together. I finally had to stop reading this stupid article
You are absolutely right. This article seems to have a great many errors and omissions, more by design, I fancy, than a need to tell the story objectively.
Another inaccuracy in this is, they state the jury took SIX HOURS to return a verdict, when in fact it took less than TWO HOURS.
It then makes light of the fact that the car in which the (incriminating) hairs were found was absent of any blood. It fails to mention the car was totally clean of any other forensic residue…. no blood, no finger-prints and no soil evidence — “it was as if the car had been wiped clean” stated the attending investigating police officer!That itself has to be considered highly suspicious and cast doubt on the “hair evidence” which WAS found.
Another glaring omission is… Early in the investigation, the police in their zeal to add some substance to their fanciful theory about the gun used in the crime, did a thorough search of Rorrer’s back yard/garden (where they did target practice) looking for spent shells and bullets, in order to do a forensic comparison with the bullet recovered from the victim. They found several specimens but not a single one was a match. This information was never revealed to Rorrer’s defence.
The witness, Traupman, who on several occasions attempted to have his evidence recorded was severely manhandled out of the police station and so badly beaten, he had to be hospitalised. Prosecution leader McIntyre, when interviewed, laughingly dismissed him as a “nut” in an effort to trivialise Traupman’s input. This witness was never revealed to Rorrer’s defence.
Early in the investigation, the hairs found in the car were sent (in glass slides) to several laboratories – including the FBI’s. All of them returned without a DNA analysis because they contained no root material. The FBI even included a written report to that effect. This FBI report, of the hairs being unable to yield a DNA result because of the absent root material, was never revealed to Rorrer’s defence.
Some two years into the investigation of Rorrer, a court order was obtained to remove hair specimens from her. Under supervision of a doctor, 39 hair specimens were removed, recorded and logged. Very soon after, the “original” hairs (in glass slides) were sent to the FBI again. Why? It’s never been made clear. If they were unable to get a DNA reading the first time, why the need for a second examination? Had there been a switch? This time, not surprisingly, the FBI did achieve a match. One of the hairs had magically developed root material to enable that. Curiously after this latest test, the 39 hairs removed only 34 were accounted for… what became of the absent 4 hairs? No explanation given.
Lie detectors are pseudo science. They are total bs. Look into it. They are a joke. Any true crime fan should know the crazy history of these magic boxes.
I want to know why no one has answered this question: if there was no root found on the hair clutched in Joann’s hand how was the lab able to produce all those results that could not have been found without roots???
I believe the answer to your question is in my comment above.
Microconidia DNA, as long as the strand is one inch long they can pull the DNA from that. They were able to match 5 hairs all the same micro DNA which happened to match the DNA pulled from blood samples Pat gave.
Cindy
Stop. Go watch the Reasonable Doubt episode from last night – Patricia did it. If you want to help her – let her find peace by admitting her wrong and asking God for forgiveness.
Sorry ladies…her hair was in the car and at the scene….she murdered them. She had a history of violence over men, and she had access to the dump site from frequent visits. Andrew also stated that when Pat called and Joann answered she had instructed her not to call again because they were married and they were happy. Pat had a string of bad relationships in her past and was not happy. Women murder for all kinds of reasons, but the simple facts come down to this….there was physical evidence, the bullet wound matched that of the gun Pat owned, the hairs were Pat’s and at both scenes, and she had no alibi and she had lied to try and come up with one….and let’s not forget the damning words she spoke to her 18 month old daughter that the officer had the common sense to document. That is not just a circumstantial case, that is both circumstantial and forensic, and it is pretty air tight. As to blood splatter, at a far enough distance, a .22 isn’t going to leave much blood splatter, and there probably won’t be an exit wound, it will just bounce around the skull, and you don’t have to make someone bleed to beat them, and several months in the elements is plenty of time to wash away some evidence as well, although luckily not all. This woman was not innocent, but she is very good at manipulating people into feeling sorry for her. She killed a mother and child and now has all of you eating out of the palm of her hand about how mistreated she has been. She hasn’t, she didn’t get a hard enough sentence. She should have been treated exactly the way she treated that mother and baby, taken out into the woods, shot, beaten and then left to die.
Sorry, I must have missed your name on the witness list. Oh wait, sorry, you weren’t there. So we can just pretend that everyone is honest all of the time? How about the mix up with the hair and the fact that it was not forensically tested (outside of the one man who compared the hairs through naked eye). Or the fact the one of those officers heard her make this statement at the time of her arrest and not the other. How about the two eyewitnesses that identified her alive days after her disappearance. Or the ME and the entomologist that explained how impossible it would be for that baby and mother to be out there for four months, deceased at that, and still be as intact as they were, and the fact that the baby was double the size of a three month old child. We’re suppose to ignore the actual forensic evidence and forensic opinions because we were told that a cop overheard her claiming she confessed? I don’t think so. Let’s stop pretending we can definitively prove this woman murdered this woman and her child. Everyone lies. Cops under pressure will lie to close a case. There are innocent people in prison. Stop trying to prove that everyone who is prosecuted is rightfully prosecuted. It’s not logical to say we know the truth unless we seen it for ourselves.
Tiffany, it is amazing you have all the answers to these murders! You people are fighting a losing cause! Rorrer killed these two people in cold blood and the jury got it right! Too bad she got off with just a life sentence. I would have liked better her being put to death!
You were there?
THIS.
I would bet MONEY that the first baby born to Patricia didn’t die of SIDS. She likely SUFFOCATED him to get revenge on the baby’s father who was planning on leaving her. That woman has no soul.
I thought the same. It was just assumed to be crib death. It could be coincidence, but I really doubt it. Too many people testified as to the type of person she was. They were people that knew her, not Andrew. They would have no reason to protect Andrew and lie on her. They were telling the truth and revealing the type of person she was, a person that definitely would kill out of jealousy and revenge. She would also have no heart when it comes to children, not even her own. The fact that previous boyfriends noted her obsession with Andrew is very, very telling.
Your comment could not be farther than the truth! She never had anyone testify against her but an ex-boyfriend! She was the one that left Andy! 5 years prior to all this happening! Watch Wrong Man season 2, and then come back and make comment. Maybe then you will see the wrongful conviction!
I agree. I didn’t know about the supposed SIDS death of Rorrer’s first-born. The District Attorney got this one right. She’s where she belongs in prison for the rest of her life. It’s sad that some people just can’t move on and continue to feel that what they want is going to be THEIRS regardless. Women like Barbara Stager who killed her husband in Durham NC. I’ve heard she gets to go out to LUNCH and this broad is in prison for murdering her husband Russ Stager? They also think she killed her first hubby Larry Ford as well. Susan Wright is out of prison after killing her husband in TX. How is it that these women are paroled? Yet, you have a story like Darlie Rutier who supposedly stabbed herself seriously enough that was centimeters from her carotid artery, yet this woman is in prison still? I’ll always say that Tommy Lynn Sells murdered the Routier boys OR the father Darrin did it. Tommy Lynn Sells admitted to killing a 9-10 old boy in Indiana I think and the mom Julie (can’t remember her last name) was jailed mainly due to the ex-husband (father of her son) testified and said things that weren’t true. The author that wrote the book on the Rutier case donates all the funds from that book to freeing Darlie Routier because the jury wasn’t shown a lot of evidence of the medical issues Darlie suffered. She didn’t kill those two boys and TX knows, but they made too much noise about it, hence this is probably the real reason that Darlie hasn’t been put to death 24-25 yrs later.
Patricia Rorrer is as guilty as sin, and she needs to stay right where she’s at. Locked up.
Re Sells, the problem viz some serial killers is in exaggerating the number as a ‘badge of honour’. Police need evidence of perpetration in every claimed case, and Sells is regarded as lying about some claimed murders per inability or unwillingness to detail. Of course, if he had info that only the perp would know… Admission has long since been disregarded without corroborative evidence.
Re Routier, the claim that she inflicted a potentially fatal injury on herself by no means indicates another perp: she could have inflicted it in ignorance, as a suicide attempt, or in a semi-psychotic state. Her diary certainly indicates some disturbed thinking…
I’m inclined to think both Rorrer and Routier are guilty. There is pendency of DNA investigation for Routier. As to her duration on death row, no: inference cannot be made as to her guilt as there’s a woman with about the same time (Holberg) and another with almost as much. More likely it reflects a relative reluctance to execute females as well as the pendency of what will be the last episode of DNA investigation.
Patty is my cousin. Her mother was married to my uncle. We lived close to one another. I have all her mom’s and her jewelry that was given to me when my mom passed away. It has very bad energy. I want to keep the tons of old jewelry but I’m perplexed.
I’m sorry for the distress this awful business must have caused.
I wonder, did they ever perform a DNA test on the baby, to verify paternity? Wouldn’t that verify Troutman’s claim that the husband was arguing with the victim, in a rage?
Shame on your for defending a vicious killer. You should be ashamed of yourself. She will be in jail for the rest of her life and rightly so. The evidence is overwhelming of her guilt.
I believe in Patricia’s innocence and she deserves to be freed, at last!
I’m new to the case, but there seems to be a lot of reasonable doubt. Why not question some of this evidence? I mean the husband did do some shady things — maybe he was involved? And Patricia did live in another state. What evidence is there she actually left the state? None.
You’re absolutely right!! This woman killed and is where she belongs! She wanted all men to give her attention but she couldn’t have everyone’s attention, especially ANDREW’S!!!
I’m sorry Sally, I know you want someone to blame for the death of your daughter and grandson, but the person who actually killed her is serving a life sentence in another facility in Pennsylvania. Ten months after Joann died he murdered another woman (who looks just like her) and her baby, as well. His hair (back in 94-95) was dirty blonde and roughly 8 inches long. They need to test that hair from Joann’s hand and also that broken fingernail. There is no justice for your loved ones when the wrong person is paying for the crime.
They tested the hair last night on Reasonable Doubt – using updated technology – it is definitely Patricia’s. If you want to help her – tell her to ask God for forgiveness.
Wow. I thought the justice system in my state and the people were narrow-minded and corrupt. After reading this forum and hearing the details of this case, Iowa sure seems a lot fairer in my eyes. But I agree with a recent comment.. Why not do a paternity case so just that is done and out of the way. And the point the hair in her hand wasn’t tested was because they didn’t need it since they had the killer — shame on everyone who went along with that. Justice is about uncovering the truth. That poor child who grew up with no mom for absolutely no reason. It makes me sick.
WoW! The number of delusional people in this world both shocks and frightens me. Rorrer is as guilty as OJ Simpson…. and there are probably many people who still think he is innocent too. Rorrer’s defenders remind me of a case in my home town – There was a killer who confessed, was caught on video committing the murder and was seen committing the crime by an eye witness. His defenders claimed that the confession was coerced, the video was grainy/unclear or doctored and the witness was confused and/or unreliable. There was also forensic evidence, obviously planted by them “crooked cops”, according to defenders. Sadly, those who defend Rorrer do not want to be confused by the truth. Even if there were some minor flaws or discrepancies in the investigation, that’s normal. Just as there is no such thing as the perfect murder, there is also no such thing as the perfect murder investigation. There is a term in law called “balance of probabilities”, which basically means that guilt is assigned when there is a preponderance of evidence that would lead a rational person to conclude that the person “did it”. Clearly, there are a lot of “irrational” people out there.
The Common Sense Guy… you should put yourself on top of the list of deluded people. Perhaps that would lessen your fright. And while you’re on that list, you can be happy in the knowledge you’re not in rarefied company. I happen to be one of those “deluded people” you’re so freely attempting to insult. And I can back up that claim by the fact I have read, watched and listened to all there is to know about this case. Don’t know from where you’ve got your information about this case — my guess is you’ve been watching a lot of those documentaries which revel in showing the case in a disgracefully biased manner. You ought to acquaint yourself thoroughly with the case and not allow yourself to get any further elevated on your high horse…. you don’t want to fall off and hurt your oversized ego.
Clifford Freeman, since you are already at the top of the list of “deluded people” not much room left for anyone with an “oversized ego” such as you apparently have!! Rorrer killed two people…a young mother and her small child and thru the justice system got what the bitch deserved! Although I would have liked it to be death!
John — If you feel it so necessary to post a comment, please at least try to keep it original, because there’s nothing sensible with your juvenile attempt using my words. Your pathetic attempt to insult not only shows a not very original comment, but clearly displays a lack of intelligence. One more thing… acquire ALL the facts about this case… If you can read.
OK… my GUESS is Patricia did do it! However, my curiosity is piqued as to why Andrew’s mother didn’t report the missing daughter in law, Joanne and her own grandson Alex! After 30 minutes I’d be calling someone! After an hour I’d call anyone who’d listen to me including police! Another thing that stumps me is Joanne’s “supposed good friend” who said that Joanne told her she was leaving Andrew…. Why would she say that… maybe she wasn’t really a good friend, just someone trying to inject herself into a super sensational case. Whatever the truth is…. I guess the investigators in Pennsylvania managed a quick resolve to a huge case that had a nation’s eyes scrutinizing their every move! I’d wanna be done with that shite quick too.. meh what do I know!
WOW JUST WOW PEOPLE ARE SO BLIND BY ALL THIS. THESE COPS ARE WRONG AND THEY ALL SHOULD BE IN JAIL FOR WHAT THEY DID TO PATRICA, PUTTING HER AWAY FOR LIFE FOR SOMETHING SHE DID NOT DO. SHE IS NOT GUILTY OF THESE CRIMES. I THINK THEY SHOULD REOPEN THIS CASE AND LOOK AT THE HUSBAND JUST SAYING BUT IN MY HEART AND MIND FROM READING ALL THE NOTES AND STUFF PATRICA IS NOT GUILTY AND THEY NEED TO SET HER FREE.
THE COPS SET HER UP. SHAME ON THEM.
Bullshit!
Quote “if I had known I would get caught, I would never have brought you into this world.” Pat to Nicole her daughter. The evidence was all there. Keep up your delusions. Pat will spend the rest of her natural life in prison where people like her belong. She should have received the death penalty imo. Rest in peace Joann and Alex.
It’s perfectly understandable that one should feel sorry for the victims of this heinous crime. I do.
But to settle for just anyone being the offender offers no justice to the victims and certainly does no merit to those who are woefully lacking in ALL the details of this case, but nevertheless feel the need to vent their spleen on an innocent person.
And then in their zealous efforts to show their ire, feel the need to suggest anyone who supports her is deluded.
I’ve followed and made a study of this case for more than twenty years and have absolutely no doubt she was railroaded and wrongfully convicted.
I’ve found that in nearly every case, those who are firmly of the opinion she’s guilty have an extremely limited knowledge of the case… they’ve watched one (or perhaps more) of the documentaries which make absolutely no attempt to show anything that’s in Rorrer’s favour (there’s plenty, if one bothers to look), and worse, revel in exaggerated and speculative scenes, some of which were never even mentioned at her trial.
A lot of these documentaries feature most of the theories suggested by the cops and prosecution which were most damaging to her case, but not a single person to substantiate Rorrer’s side, or to challenge their versions.
BROADCASTING SPECULATIVE SCENES, SUCH AS MENTIONED ABOVE, CAN LEAVE A VERY INDELIBLE MEMORY ON THOSE WHO ARE HAPPY TO REMAIN GULLIBLE. ALL IT THEN BECOMES IS A SOURCE OF INACCURACIES AND SPECULATION, WHICH ONLY SERVES TO BOLSTER THOSE WITH THAT MENTALITY AND PERPETUATE THE LACK OF TRUTH.
The obvious, if moot, response to this is to observe that her conviction wasn’t based on inaccurate documentaries but on trial. Ironically it’s you who is basing your view on second-hand information, as you were not in court. Yes, documentaries probably do misrepresent evidence, and many may respond to that misrepresentation, but beneath that is jury judgment, and while courts can be wrong they are usually right. We should be skeptical of those, like you, who suggest it’s obvious a jury got it wrong – that you know better than 12 people presented with the evidence. That’s not ‘proof’ they’re right – but it’s more likely that you as one person are wrong. ‘I’m sure she’s innocent’ adds nothing other than to tell us your state of mind! If documentaries are, as you claim, biased against Rorrer, the obvious question is why. And the obvious answer is that the makers too think the evidence is against her. Presumably if they thought the evidence was against the state’s case, that’s how they’d present as there’s no obvious reason for them to be biased one way or the other. So what’s your point (other than many people are stupid and you aren’t)?
Catherine I’m in complete agreement with you!
Most of your comment absolutely astonishes me. So, let’s take your response one step at a time.
Why would it be an irony for a person to express his opinion? . It’s an opinion learnt from a well-researched book, from documentaries which show and mention a great deal of facts and evidence which was never brought up at her trial. Does it actually have to be an obligatory duty for anyone to be present at a trial before they are able to have an opinion? It seems so, according to you. Have you read the book? Have you watched any of the documentaries I’ve mentioned?
A person tried in a court of law and then found guilty is not the be-all and end-all to the case. Any subsequent proof emerging and then revealed in a book or documentary is surely something that should be taken seriously and investigated if necessary.
And your contention that “you (me) as ONE person are wrong”, let me say that while you seem to be determined in singling me out as someone who’s opinion is one against the rest, is hopelessly exaggerated. In fact it clearly shows how short you are on all the details surrounding this case. I would suggest you take the time to read the book or, at least watch the documentaries which STICK TO THE FACTS, and then comment.
And about the only thing from your comment with which I can agree, is you saying “that’s not proof they’re right” in reference to their verdict. Well, at least you managed some sense there when you say that, especially when you take into account the amount of evidence and witnesses which were withheld from the Defence and what appears to be a clear case of evidence-tampering. But I suppose you haven’t a clue about that.
So you see, MY STATE OF MIND is based on factual information.
And for you to even ask why documentaries are biased, makes me wonder if you have the ability to determine fact from fiction! They depict scenes which are pure speculation or exaggeration… or present scenes, which in fact were only theories mentioned at her trial.
And “the obvious answer” is not as you claim. Perhaps you’re not aware, there was a great deal of evidence of which these documentaries made no mention, as well as misdeeds and incidents of corruption perpetrated by the cops. Just one example…. There was a blood-stained fingernail and hair found on the victim’s body, and even though (in Keith Morrison’s Dateline documentary) the Asst. DA readily agreed they did not belong to Rorrer, was happy to admit they were never submitted for analysis. And this was never disclosed to Rorrer’s Defence.
And “the obvious answer” is I’ll tell you why (which really is common knowledge). They portray heavily slanted and biased shows…. because there’s money to be made from the commercials added into their show. They’re more than happy to exaggerate and speculate the details of the crime, which serves to attract more viewers… who (like you) seem to be happy to believe it all.
Opinion: “the ideas that a person or a group of people have about something or someone, which are based mainly on their feelings and beliefs, or a single idea of this type.”
You are not expressing an opinion but making an assertion or claim of fact: ‘[I] have absolutely no doubt she was railroaded and wrongfully convicted.’ You are claiming innocence as fact – there is ‘no doubt’ she’s innocent. Then you claim this is an opinion. Well of course it is, so you overstated your opinion as though you know it to be fact, thus the jury and others were wrong; ironic because you’re quick to complain that others are much to sure of *their* opinion she’s guilty.
Two problems, then: a failure to see your own position as you see others’ (failure to comprehend irony), and failure to understand the difference between fact and opinion.
Bully for you if you’ve ‘read a lot’ and ‘seen a lot’: it’s meaningless to other posters and adds nothing to your argument for innocence. It’s totally irrelevant.
“Any subsequent proof emerging and then revealed in a book or documentary is surely something that should be taken seriously and investigated if necessary.” And it’s argued that it has been – and dismissed as insignificant or irrelevant. Rorrer’s filed multiple appeals over issues you raise, the latest recently – and rejected. Yes, that doesn’t mean she’s unquestionably guilty, but it does mean her case has been relatively exhaustively examined (and it’s not over)… and it means that your assertion that you are right and the ‘guilty’ camp are wrong (and that this should be obvious) is absurdly overplayed.
“MY STATE OF MIND is based on factual information.” So would judge and jury say. Hardly an argument, more a figment of your overconfidence in your opinion.
Finally, another irony you fail to appreciate: you claim “there’s money to be made from the commercials added into their show. They’re more than happy to exaggerate and speculate the details of the crime, which serves to attract more viewers… who (like you) seem to be happy to believe it all.” And this doesn’t apply to your “opinion learnt from a well-researched book, from documentaries which show and mention a great deal of facts and evidence which was never brought up at her trial.” They don’t need to make money??? Hoist by your own petard.
PS “Speculative lies” is meaningless. There’s speculation and there’s lies – period.
Discuss and express opinion; stop short of asserting that those of the other view (that of judge and jury, at least) are ignorant of facts and wrong, and you’re right, because by definition it’s reasonable for lay people to accept the jury verdict. “And then in their zealous efforts to show their ire, feel the need to suggest anyone who supports her is deluded.”
There is so much in your comment with which I can take issue, but I’ll try to keep to the salient points.
Your somewhat convoluted explanation of “discuss and express opinion”, seems to ramble on and on without any logic or reason. One lengthy sentence which goes on and on – and concludes with one of my sentences from a previous comment! What has that to do with the point you’re trying to make?
And your attempt to draw a distinction between a fact and an opinion! I fail to see exactly why someone can’t have an opinion which he/she sees as fact. You’re clutching at straws I’m afraid. It’s nothing short of a feeble stab hoping to impress but really amounts to splitting hairs, or to put it another way, hot air with no substance. Let me simplify this for you… in religion, one is taught there is a God…. so then using your contention, one who is deeply religious and sees God as being a factual figure is wrong? I deduced my opinion to be fact because of what I’ve read and seen and is supported by evidence which was never disclosed at her trial.
And, why is it “reasonable” to believe lay people accept the jury verdict? You say … “by definition”! What definition? I don’t see any defining comment or wording that justifies that claim. Anyway, there are thousands of people who differ from that “belief”, that is why there is so much controversy surrounding this case, and that is why there have been numerous convicted people in the past who’ve been exonerated on appeal. There are judges, eminent lawyers and writers who are in support of her.
Hoist by my own petard! How so? I’m quite happy to accept that ANYONE who makes a TV documentary makes it for money. It wasn’t aimed at any one video producer…. of course they all do it to make money… only, some of them do it shamelessly, without the slightest attempt to be fair and honest.
And finally, your supercilious comment about “Speculative lies” … I’ve perused my previous comments and at no point do I see those words! If you so dearly feel the need to occupy the high ground in debate or an argument, have the decency to quote accurately.
Catherine are you sure your name’s not Karen?
There’s something very important to this case that needs to be mentioned more than anything else…… THE GUN. Sure there’s DNA, but if she truly is innocent then why not advocate to find the gun. I noticed that her defense lawyer and others advocating for her is not mentioning more about the gun. How do you explain her not telling the truth to the authorities about the gun and it’s flaw of only able to shoot once and then jamming up. If there was more talk about finding this .22 mm gun then that would solve all of this speculation. How do you explain the authorities finding .22mm shell casings at her home during the search warrant. All this talk about hairs and other DNA just seems to keep deflecting away from the gun itself. Just saying. ♀️
A correction to the comment above…. After researching this case more thoroughly, I stand corrected about the time it took the jury to return a verdict…. I am reliably informed they took SIX hours, not TWO as stated in my comment.
She is 100% guilty seen 2 programs on this awful murder and read about it as well. I expect she will admit it one day. This article is little more than fiction.
Most of your comment absolutely astonishes me. So, let’s take your response one step at a time.
Why would it be an irony for a person to express his opinion? It’s an opinion learnt from a well-researched book, from documentaries which show and mention a great deal of facts and evidence which was never brought up at her trial. Does it actually have to be an obligatory duty for anyone to be present at a trial before they are able to have an opinion? It seems so, according to you. Have you read the book? Have you watched any of the documentaries I’ve mentioned?
A person tried in a court of law and then found guilty is not the be-all and end-all to the case. Any subsequent proof emerging and then revealed in a book or documentary is surely something that should be taken seriously and investigated if necessary.
And your contention that “you (me) as ONE person are wrong,” let me say that while you seem to be determined in singling me out as someone who’s opinion is one against the rest, is hopelessly exaggerated. In fact it clearly shows how short you are on all the details surrounding this case. I would suggest you take the time to read the book or, at least watch the documentaries which STICK TO THE FACTS, and then comment.
And about the only thing from your comment with which I can agree, is you saying “that’s not proof they’re right” in reference to their verdict. Well, at least you managed some sense there when you say that, especially when you take into account the amount of evidence and witnesses which were withheld from the Defence and what appears to be a clear case of evidence-tampering. But I suppose you haven’t a clue about that.
So you see, MY STATE OF MIND is based on factual information.
And for you to even ask why documentaries are biased, makes me wonder if you have the ability to determine fact from fiction! They depict scenes which are pure speculation or exaggeration… or present scenes, which in fact were only theories mentioned at her trial.
And “the obvious answer” is not as you claim. Perhaps you’re not aware, there was a great deal of evidence of which these documentaries made no mention, as well as misdeeds and incidents of corruption perpetrated by the cops. Just one example…. There was a blood-stained fingernail and hair found on the victim’s body, and even though (in Keith Morrison’s Dateline documentary) the Asst. DA readily agreed they did not belong to Rorrer, was happy to admit they were never submitted for analysis. And this was never disclosed to Rorrer’s Defence.
And “the obvious answer” is I’ll tell you why (which really is common knowledge). They portray heavily slanted and biased shows…. because there’s money to be made from the commercials added into their show. They’re more than happy to exaggerate and speculate the details of the crime, which serves to attract more viewers… who (like you) seem to be happy to believe it all.
Clifford Freeman, were you a juror? Did you personally attend the trial? If the answer is no, enough said!
Saphira Wolf – forgive me, but I don’t have the time, or wish, to respond to idiotic comments. You’ll have to make do with what you see here.
Were you?
What a lame article. The fat cow is guilty as hell and I hope she continues to have the shit kicked out of her in prison every day of her useless life.
I find it weird that you’re going to kill a woman just because she hung up on you and maybe tell you some shitty world because you call like an ex. It’s true that women were more idiots than about men, they had the impression that if they caught a fool to take them as wives, they would settle for life, even today we see that but more diluted, still an exaggerated reason for murder. The investigation is a bit out of place, but the DNA test can be altered only if it’s made just from a pen, because otherwise it is not possible, only if they said they did it and didn’t actually do it, which would be quite difficult because it would mean complicity between many persons. As for him, yes, it looks like the first suspect, but if he had alibis, quite hard to accuse of actually doing it, and I understand it was a pretty solid one. Unless there’s a complicity between him and her, and the reason she didn’t divulge it is because she hopes to put all the blame on him, when she was the one to murder and he was a planner. I have worked for Interpol for years as a gun analyst, usually women who commit such crimes against their exes wife or mistress, lover etc are pushed from behind by a man and promises and lies. At one point Interpol had an extremely similar case in which an individual convinced a friend, who had been his sexual partner several times in the past, to kill the woman he had a baby with, on the grounds that the child is not his and he does not love her but cannot leave because everyone would accuse him of abandoning his child and his family name would be affected. The reason Interpol was involved is because all three had different European citizens, as a result of which it was very difficult to follow the thread of the event. The difference between the cases was that the child was not injured and the individual wrote down the details of the plan in a notebook, but otherwise it seems extremely similar to me. The criminal, a crazy with a psychotic crush on a man, the planner a individual with a lot of self esteem and narcissistic charm who can persuade women, was rich thought compared to the individual in this case, and the victim, a woman who saw her life only as a wife and mother and had no other pretensions, and that even if she had threatened the individual that she would leave a few times, she always stayed. From my point of view this is an extremely similar case, with less class and style, and without the luxurious details that Interpol’s case had, such as the involvement of an extremely expensive Alfa Romeo car, and a revolver bought at a lush auction in Paris, which had belonged to a duke before the incident. But otherwise, extremely similar, a single bullet fired into the head, the woman later beaten to make sure she died, the hair, which had remained in the bracelet of our victim in this case, the way it was executed outside the house in a wooded area, at the command of the “gentleman” who did not want to soil his house, and the child who in our case was abandoned in the car. Very similar. The difference was made by the investigation, Interpol has some good detectives who do not play with people’s freedom and who do not use American techniques such as pictures, let’s compare hair color after pictures… bullshit, not even with the performance of today’s cameras such a thing is not allowed, the issue of dismantling the alibi only with indirect evidence, like that her name was not in the notebook, a European court would withdrew it immediately, you can’t go with a thing like this, it’s called inconclusive proof, even the fact that one of the witnesses said that the business was not opened where she said it was that day, it’s inconclusive, the accused can say that he/she forgot, was there and left, and his alibi I don’t know how it was verified, but what should been verified first were the contacts between him and her, if he contacted her before that, if she had been contacted from public phone for example before the murder, how many times, when etc, if he was near the places where she was until the murder, things like that. From my point of view, the American police investigations are first hand, and often very poorly done, I’ve only seen worse in the British police, which is paradoxical given the laudatory talent of both nationalities, but it is a Scandinavian saying: bigger the mouth, smaller the facts.
Thank you, this is a very interesting comment.
However, while sticking solely to the Rorrer case, the issue of the husband’s alibi is very much open to doubt if one takes into consideration what the documentary, STARZ-The Wrong Man (in two parts) has revealed. That documentary points out that, despite the bodies of the two victims supposedly being exposed for several months, their condition remained relatively undisturbed by weather or animal activity. That, as well as measurements of the baby’s head (revealing the infant to be of a more advanced age) very much suggest they were killed some considerable time after what was believed at her trial. If that really is the case, the husband’s alibi – for a date months before – becomes irrelevant.
Another point is the theory developed by the cops that the victim (Joann) was shot just one time and then bludgeoned to death. Despite the fact it has never been proved that’s exactly how it happened, it seems to be accepted as fact – it could just as possibly have been the other way round, beaten and then shot. However, that first theory very neatly allows the cops to further theorise that the gun she once owned (which had a history of jamming after the first shot) was the one used at the murder.
What the prosecution failed to disclose to Rorrer’s defence team was that the cops, in their zeal to prove their gun theory, visited several addresses of which Rorrer was resident, dug up the gardens – in which she was known to do target practice — recovered several shell casings and bullets (more than 70), had them ballistically tested, but NOT ONE was found to be a match to the bullet recovered from the victim…. which makes a complete nonsense of their gun theory.
Interesting thought about the alibi timing.
If her husband was going to do that I’m sure he would’ve done it in a totally different way! From what I’ve seen it’s pretty obvious Patricia did do that to this poor woman and the baby. But unfortunately other than God only two people know exactly what really happened and one is not alive. Did Patricia ever take a lie detector test? I would think if she would have an passed they definitely would’ve started looking somewhere else but there was just too much evidence against her anyway so….. and with forensics the way they are today. To prove it 110% rather than just 99% I don’t know why they wouldn’t retest the hair fibers etc.
“which makes a complete nonsense of their gun theory.”
But it doesn’t make a nonsense of her being the shooter, regardless of their speculation. Perhaps she used more than one gun using another/others for the target shooting than the one she killed with (and others shot with her?) She didn’t need to have owned all the guns she ever used, nor to have owned the gun she in fact used. It is not necessary to the case against her that she owned the ‘killing’ gun (and it would be foolish to have used it). Police theorize she owned the gun, but it’s neither here nor there whether she used a particular gun to kill and would make sense (to a wise perp) that the gun couldn’t be linked to her by past activity.
This response of yours neatly sums up your dogmatic view of her guilt despite so much evidence to the contrary. Instead of presenting hard facts, all I see are words and phrases that are purely speculative.. such as “perhaps”…. “she didn’t need to” …. “neither her nor there” … “couldn’t be linked to her.” For goodness sake, it was never proved at her trial she used the gun the police so steadfastly offered as “evidence”… or for that matter, ANY OTHER GUN. Are you even aware there’s a strong suspicion that evidence of the hair, which was DNA matched to her, was tampered with? Which, for this very reason, is at present being investigated by a federal judge? I very much doubt you are. If you can tear yourself away from your obsessive mentality, you can see what virtually amounts to the tampering to which I referred. It’s a video on Utube “Judges For Justice” featuring her case. Search it out and check for yourself. It’s nine minutes into the video. You’re so fixated with her guilt, you’re unable to see other factors that show this case to be a disgraceful travesty. Check out ALL the facts if you feel the need to comment.
Whoever writes this amateurish swill should get a real life, and’sa real job.
As for the idiots who didn’t think Ms. Rorrer guilty of anything more sordid than having zero taste, the simple fact(s) are that: 1) what they claim about such testing (as was done to the hair) was…excuse me, IS wrong both due to the follow-up AFTER the mDNA test results were made only proved more concretely that Ms. Rorrer WAS the person the hair came from, 2) the inanity about thinking Andy had something to do with it (the simple fact that ALL investigations START by checking the closest, most immediate relative, i.e, a spouse), was — after his being thoroughly vouched, to NOT be — in ANY way involved, 3) since this case, forensic science has only improved by huge leaps, and that no one — including the courts or the Innocence Project — will get involved should make it VERY clear, this case is CLOSED.
The only thing that has changed since this case is the ability of people to access – and proclaim – crackpot ideas, conspiracies, and all the rest. Unfortunately, most people can’t distinguish reality from crackpot nonsense, and they’re only more unlikely to do so, given today’s social media.
Above, we have another who’s totally clueless, has little or no knowledge of this case, but is happy to display his/her ignorance with a rant based on limited knowledge learned from biased documentaries… who thinks that by using offensive and insulting language it’ll influence those who support Rorrer into changing their opinions.
Are you even aware there are judges, eminent writers, lawyers and TV personalities and countless other ordinary people – all of whom steadfastly support her as being innocent and wrongly convicted. You, however, consider your ill-informed opinion superior to them… not only that, you then go to great lengths to belittle them.
Your assertion that “most people can’t distinguish reality from crackpot nonsense” is in fact nonsense… the reality is that most people are easily fooled by these biased documentaries who then feel it’s okay to spout their tripe as if it’s the gospel. They’re just not willing to investigate/research as to the truth.
It’s patently clear you are another of those who knows too little about this case.
Mr Freeman, Why are you’re rude about others who disagree with your OPINION (including jury and appeal judges)? Your position – I’ve read a lot, I’m right; you disagree with me, I’ll say you’re a moron. Why bother with this site, which isn’t for professional criminalists/forensic scientists, if you’re going to get so tetchy and rude? Go somewhere else where your asserted expertise will be professionally tested and you won’t be so frustrated and insulting about those who disagree (with your ‘expertise’ and opinion). Just consider all your nasty posts about others’ opinions – and learn to attack the argument, not the arguer with insults. You started slinging insults, then got insulted when slung back. You seem to have a fragile ego.
Mr Steve J
Thank you and well said. But let me say in my defence, I have not attacked anyone on this particular site with outright rudeness, to which you allude, albeit some of them deserved a retort of some substance.
But hang on… You ask that I show care with my wording and show all the tolerance in the world, and by that you presumably mean I should simply ignore those who villify her in the most disgraceful way, probably in the opinion that all readers of their comments will agree, and no one is going to take offence! I attack only those who’ve considered themselves not only judges on this case, but go on to vent their spleen aimed at a person — who in my opinion is innocent of this crime, based on all I’ve read and watched –without fear of retaliation… If they so freely attack someone in the most vicious way, why should they be off limits?
There are those on this very site who express their disappointment she was not executed. She has no means to reply or rebut this outrageous slurs and these forums are the only way I know where people may become aware of the wrongful conviction of innocent person… and equally, those who happily believe all the adverse and damaging comments.
You’re right about my comments on other sites, but those seem to have an abundance of hate-mongers who feel no need to mince their words… hence my retorts to those. So, if you feel you have to be critical of me, you should also bear in mind those hate-mongers and perhaps have a word with them too.
Stevie J Further to my previous comment, I should add the following…
I’m trying to understand exactly your reasoning asking me staying away from this site because of my insulting remarks!
Let me ask you…Why do most of those who post adverse and hateful comments feel the need to? After all, justice has been served in the eyes of the law, so why go on demonising her? You know the answer to that, the same as I do, which is…. simply to create an atmosphere of hatred towards a person who, in all probability, has been wrongfully imprisoned. You, however seem to have no problem with these hurtful and damaging comments aimed at Rorrer. As I stated previously, if she cannot speak for herself, I’m happy to step up on her behalf.
I comment on these forums because they are the only places offering the opportunity to, hopefully, bring awareness to those who’re unfamiliar with this case and her unfair plight. If I see anything that offers a differing opinion or is inaccurate, I think it’s entirely fair I should say my piece. All my comments have been vetted and approved by this site’s organisers so how do you see yourself as the judge of what’s acceptable or not?
I’ve scanned through of all my remarks on this site and nowhere have a seen a single remark that confirms your assertion that I’ve been insulting. I accept there are a couple of remarks which can be seen that way but they are in direct response to those who’ve been offensive in the first place.
It would appear you are reading all sorts of interpretations into my comments… especially that I have a fragile ego, dented by others who’ve responded to me! That did amuse me I have to say, but you’re way off target there… I’m more than happy with my state of mind – before and after reading any of these comments. I can only suggest you read through my comments again, only more thoroughly.
Beautifully said Cliff! There is way too much doubt in this case for my comfort. My biggest issue is the day the phone call came in, and the fact that the prosecutor deliberately misrepresented the facts. The only record of a call from Patricia to the Katrinak household was on 12/7/94. Joanne and Alex didn’t disappear until 12/15. Yet they insisted in the trial that the call came in on the 13th. That’s because they knew it was a stretch to make anyone believe she would still be so enraged a week and a day later that she jumped into a van and drove 550 miles to kill a woman and baby she never met. The hair evidence is not compelling because there’s a very good possibility that the evidence was compromised. The fact that Joanne was found with a hair clutched in her hand that was inconsistent with both her and Patricia (that they conveniently didn’t bother to test). The fact that her jeans were unbuttoned and unzipped. The fact that there was a broken fingernail with skin attached to it found on her clothing…and wasn’t Patricia’s. The fact that there is LITERALLY NO EVIDENCE that Patricia was actually “obsessed” with Andy; they spoke as friends maybe twice a year. And last but not least, the fact that Michael McIntyre comes across as mentally unstable. A few fries short of a Happy Meal, that one.
Thank you Kerry. Agree with all you say but there’s so much more involving incompetence, corruption, evidence tampering and then witnesses, in Rorrer’s favour, who were not disclosed to her defence her trial (something they were legally obliged to do). So much of it, it would take all day to elaborate here. And your appraisal of McIntyre is 100% spot on. This case is not over yet… more to follow… only trouble is, law moves along at a pitiful pace.
Watching this case on tv again today, I returned to this site and noted:
“I most definitely will not personally afford Patricia a platform,” Michael said in an email to ForensicFilesNow.com “She had her chance to answer my questions and tell her story in court over 20 years ago. She failed miserably to convince me, or anyone else who mattered, of her innocence.”
While not a “guilt sceptic,” I suggest this was either ill-conceived expression or an expression of misguided mindset — for it’s not for the defendant (albeit now convict) to convince of innocence but for prosecution to convince of guilt (and per appeal, that guilt is ‘safe’ rather than innocence unproven). To be sure, an appellant does not have to *prove* (convince) of innocence to have been wrongfully convicted (even if they are in fact guilty — but I digress).
Were I a prosecutor I would consider the aforementioned characterisation technically false and failing in probity. I hope it was only sloppiness of language choice…
Marcus,
I refer to your comment of December 22, 2020 at 1:04 pm in which you state, I quote….“I’m inclined to think both Rorrer and Routier are guilty.”
Having read that and your most recent comment above, it’s clearly obvious you’re a person of high educational standing and legal knowledge, which I fully respect.
That said, I’m curious to know how you arrived at that decision about her guilt.
I have been following this case for a very long time, watching nearly all the available documentaries and have also read the book, Convenient Suspect, by Tammy Mal as well as acquiring a great deal of information which has emerged since the trial with regard to this case.
While most of the documentaries come out as reinforcing her guilt, albeit most of them giving differing accounts of the speculation which was presented at her trial, some going even further by showing scenes that were offered as theories at her trial, as FACT. And then there are documentaries (video and audio) which, by all accounts, stick to the facts and make a compelling case for her innocence.
Having watched and read all that has been available, I feel very strongly, that a grave error has been perpetrated by the law authorities. Several instances of malpractice, along with revelations have emerged since her incarceration… namely, failing to forensically examine significant items of evidence… items which would have seriously compromised their case had they been examined… and failing to advise Rorrer’s Defence of witnesses who were prepared to testify on her behalf. All this appears to leave a strong whiff of corruption emanating from the investigation authorities and DA’s office.
Most damning of all the evidence is the hair – which was DNA matched to Rorrer – which was instrumental in her conviction…. all other “evidence” was purely circumstantial. A documentary on Youtube “Judges for Justice” shows a clear case of evidence tampering with regard to the hair.
I would very much be interested in any comment you can offer in response to my input here.
Clifford: I can’t offer anything remotely novel or incisive. Rather, I’m ‘conservative’ when it comes to potential disagreement with the jury: I wasn’t there to see/hear evidence and to declare ‘they’re wrong! I’m aware of Rorrer’s various appeals, but also aware that the bases for those appeals is to some degree unknown to observers, who rely on third-party reporting which may distort. I therefore, perhaps naively, default to the judicial system’s eventually getting the decision right. Rorrer seems to have had relatively considerable appeals scrutiny of the convicting evidence, to no avail as yet. I have to assume it’s because her conviction is regarded as safe (which doesn’t mean it IS safe, I know…)
I certainly don’t consider it’s more likely the victim’s husband’s the perp than Rorrer, as has been suggested, leaving Rorrer or a ‘stranger.’ I agree that the putative motive is relatively weak (though motive is ultimately subjective and there’s no accounting for anger, bitterness, jealousy etc) and to convict on that substantially would be absurd.
If Rorrer is innocent, she is a victim of a terrible miscarriage (terrible relatively — because she is regarded as a child-killer and has been incarcerated for a many years) which I hope is corrected as soon as possible. It is of course good and desirable that third parties press the case for innocence because it maximises the chance that guilty verdicts are correct (given that it is worse for the innocent to be found guilty than the reverse).
I’m more sure of Routier’s guilt. The likelihood of a ‘mad slasher’ invading the home, engaging in infanticide, over against her own perpetration, is almost nil. There appears to be evidence of her disturbed thinking shortly prior to the event (inc her stating she knows who the perp was shortly after but would not identify… because it’s her?) in tandem with no evidence of home invasion. Her non-serious but potentially fatal (proximity to artery) injury could have been a half-hearted suicide attempt if not intentional other-incriminating. Thus I’m confident she’s the perp — probably mentally disturbed at the time (the thought of her rationally, coolly killing her babies is too horrible), though probably not to the standard for criminal mitigation.
Patricia is not guilty of this horrible crime — she was railroaded by her ex and the cops. They really need to set her free and open the case and look at the husband. He is the guilty one.
I hope and pray the cops and the husband will finally do the right thing.
Assuming Mr K didn’t have a cast-iron alibi, I imagine the resistance to his notional perpetration is his not only killing his baby but leaving him to suffer horribly (of exposure) first, when there was no evidence of his mental dysfunction nor motive of pecuniary gain (as far as I know). Had he for some reason been murderously angry with, or bitter towards, Mrs K, why kill his baby? Did he go on to have any other children is later relationship(s), do we know? Why risk an appalling crime just to ‘leave’ a marriage (though I know that people have and do kill the spouse in these situations, but killing one’s children is extremely rare, particularly when not in murder-suicide context). I do not think Mr K is guilty.
I will leave it to the court to decide and correct any errors if there were any. They have the best tools to address them, especially since the old DA has retired. It seems clear there were some mistakes, the question is are they sufficiently critical to affect the outcome by creating a reasonable doubt?
It is interesting that the Innocence Project did not take this case.
O: Do we know that the IP refused the case? The difficulty is that while one reasonable inference from refusal to take a case by such bodies is that they’re unconvinced, it could be merely a matter of degree: that they can only take so many cases and those they do are those which have the greatest merit (for innocence), despite other cases having some, lesser, merit. Or apart from merit, it could be about whether the convict is sufficiently co-operative (all have a strong motive to co-operate with assistance — sure — but some people could be too difficult in terms of trying to direct the assistance, insisting on certain lines of enquiry, expenditure, etc). Thus I don’t know that we can read much into advocates’ decline. Some defence lawyers aver that their clients are their own worst enemy (though I’m not suggesting Rorrer is, just speculating).
I agree with your point that the court must be best placed to weigh evidence, despite its inevitably sometimes flawed conclusion.
They never truly investigated the husband. He was not the nicest man. How many times in murder cases has a solid alibi been proven bull crap.
Wanda: It’s extremely rare that parents murder their biological children (and not in murder-suicide). Apart from his alibi (I don’t know how solid it was), I presume police found nothing that could be regarded as motive (and if they had it’s extremely unlikely he’d want his child dead, and he could certainly have murdered his wife without involving his child). I think we should default to the police’s having firmly established his alibi given he’s the prime suspect initially.
You tell us how ‘solid’ alibis have proven flawed – I’m interested to know. ‘Nice’ men have murdered their wives (and vice-versa)!
—
As a by-the-by, some people are moved by a convict’s insistence over decades of their innocence (like Rorrer) (I’m tired of the American judicial line that ‘s/he has always maintained his/her innocence’ as if it means anything and we should give a rat’s ass). Joan Bent RIP (Watervliet, Albany County, New York) was murdered by her husband in ’86. He did the grieving husband thing until convicted of murder, and like so many, protested his innocence until decades later when he confessed to his daughter at a prison visit (who until then was ‘unsure’ of guilt). At least he served 32 yrs, which is what premed murder should entail if not life:
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Another-high-profile-Capital-Region-killer-gets-13145094.php
Even when there’s no hope of exoneration murderers continue to lie as though the narrative’s inscribed in their brain, when confession might even help parole. This is regrettable for the wrongfully convicted…
Marcus, the question of the paternity of the baby, and the husband’s understanding of it is really open to question. Even though McIntyre claimed, that after testing, the baby’s father was revealed to be Andy… he conveniently failed to state that the paternity test was performed AFTER the murder of his wife. So, all the while his wife was alive the husband was constantly facing and being reminded of the possibility the child may have been fathered by someone else — thus providing him with a clear motive. I did read on one of the related websites, a close friend of the victim, Joann, attested the marriage of Andy/Joann was no bed of roses with frequent arguments, resulting in Joann making arrangements (packed a bag and hid significant amounts of money) to leave the house, just before the crime took place.
Clifford: Well, that could put a different complexion on it… IF Joann had had an affair, say, and baby was its result, that could explain anger/provide motive for Andrew (or the biological father at her???) – but I’ve never come across the paternity’s being in issue in the case (for what it’s worth) and Joann’s family were evidently unaware if so because they support A and would surely cite it as a potential motive if they were aware (of course, J may simply not’ve disclosed marital difficulty). Would Andrew commit this terrible act because he *might* not be the father and thus could be murdering his child? That’s extremely hard to believe…
Per Joann ‘arranging to leave’ just hours before the crime, that would seem to be contradicted by the ‘phone call with mom Veronica arranging to meet for shopping. Now, if there’d been the trouble you suggest, while J might well’ve wanted to meet mom for support (not shopping!), mom would, I imagine, have detected issues and advised police. Furthermore, if J was intending to leave (even temporarily) it’s reasonable to assume she’d’ve told her mom/family/close friend. Where would she go? A hotel with a young baby’s hardly ideal – thus I think it would’ve been likely to stay with family/friend. I would also have expected J’s friend reporting this to’ve asked J where she was staying: that’s an obv question to a friend in the circumstances. Equally, I presume this friend advised police and that it consolidated their approach to his alibi.
The fundamental question in this context is the solidity of his alibi. If unquestionable – I don’t know – then the foregoing is neither here nor there… unless we get into serious conspiracy stuff, that this was murder-for-hire. I seriously doubt police would’ve concentrated on Rorrer unless and until Andrew’s alibi was firmly established, and that a questionable alibi wouldn’t have been exploited by her defence (was it?).
Marcus: Thanks for your very prompt reply. My choice of words was poor, to say the least…. I should have said… She was planning to leave some time soon. The crime put paid to that intention however.
Of course, I do realise my suggestion about A’s alibi was pure speculation, but was merely commenting on the possibility of it being relevant. What gives this speculation some credence is the fact that a certain Mr Traupman on fifteen occasions attempted to report a scene to the police, claiming he had witnessed a person (he described as A) in broad daylight, engaged in a heated argument while banging on a car windscreen, questioning the occupant (he described as J) about the paternity of the baby. Mr Traupman was never taken seriously by the police (one has to wonder why, having taken the trouble to repeatedly get the police to record it). Each time they threw him out… the final time, physically manhandling him, to the extent he had to be hospitalised.
I’ve mentioned this before, that I believe there’s good reason to believe the police had their sights firmly fixed on Rorrer, and wanted nothing to divert their case from that agenda, possibly being the reason for Mr Traupman’s repeated and violent treatment.
Questions to ask in support of that are…
1) The police never, at any stage, recorded Mr Traupman’s address (why? Didn’t want the press or anyone else to contact him, is one guess), they even spelt his name wrongly (Mr Troutman) when recording his name (why? Ensure it would be difficult to identify him, another guess).
2) When being interviewed, McIntyre laughed it off and made no bones in belittling this witness, describing him as a nutter dressed in Mexican garb. Below, could explain why.
3) The existence of this witness didn’t need to be, and never was, disclosed to Rorrer’s Defence.
Sadly, Mr Traupman is now deceased. He features very prominently in a video – it appears in part 3 – (Judges for Justice, in three parts) on You Tube, which pretty much supports what I’ve always suspected.
Last, you may be interested to know that today 6th, 8th and 9th a hearing, ordered by Judge Douglas G Reichley, relating to various legal issues at her trial, and items of evidence discovered following her incarceration, is being conducted at LeHigh County Court. The judge responsible for the above-mentioned documentaries, Michael Heavey, will be attending.
Clifford: Thanks. Yes – Walter Traupman; I’m aware of that aspect. The strictly legal analysis of his potential testimony is this: “Assuming arguendo that all of Mr. Traupman’s contentions are true, they prove only that Andrew Katrinak had a heated argument with his wife on the day she disappeared with her son. His testimony does not undermine any of the inculpatory trial evidence [for Rorrer]. Because allowing Mr. Traupman to testify at the trial of the defendant would not have altered the outcome of that trial…”
It seems that the best T’s evidence could’ve done is cause even closer scrutiny of spouse, who is already usually first in line. But – back to our previous question – if A’s alibi was indeed solid, T’s evidence does no more that say they happened to have an argument on the day victim went missing/was murdered (per above). Again, I’d have expected police to bear this argument (if indeed it was as appeared to T or he wasn’t mistaken as to identity) in mind when investigating A’s alibi. As an aside, if T tried/reported argument 15 times I too would, as police seem to have, regard him as a ‘loon’ who was fixated and making himself a nuisance. It seems abnormal to try more than a few times… If indeed, there was a mental ill-health issue – pure speculation – that might cast doubt on the content of any testimony. Was there Brady violation in not disclosing his claim to defence? It seems to me quite possibly so. Did T come over well in the video you mention?
I, like you, expect police to account for how they treated T’s report. Did they question A about the alleged argument? One would certainly expect so! If they did nothing whatsoever with it I would want to know why. Did A deny having an argument? If he did, and no neighbours at home when T says it happened heard shouting, that could suggest T was either very mistaken or a fantasist. I would’ve investigated this alleged argument, to be sure, and not simply disregarded it – *except*, perhaps, if I’d already established A’s alibi as rock solid, in which case there would appear no point (unless murder-for-hire proposition).
Thanks for the ‘heads-up’ re the hearing: we’ll doubtless be adding to this thread on its outcome.
Best wishes.
Marcus: Thanks for your very prompt reply. My choice of words was poor, to say the least…. I should have said… She was planning to leave some time soon. The crime put paid to that intention however.
Of course, I do realise my suggestion about A’s alibi was pure speculation, but was merely commenting on the possibility of it being relevant.
What gives this speculation some credence is the fact that a certain Mr Traupman on fifteen occasions attempted to report a scene to the police, claiming he had witnessed a person (he described as A) in broad daylight, engaged in a heated argument while banging on a car windscreen, questioning the occupant (he described as J) about the paternity of the baby. This Mr Traupman was never taken seriously by the police (one has to wonder why, having taken the trouble to repeatedly get the police to record it). Each time they threw him out… the final time physically manhandling him, to the extent he had to be hospitalised.
I’ve mentioned this before, that I feel there’s good reason to believe the police had their sights firmly fixed on Rorrer, and wanted nothing that’d divert their case away from that agenda.
Questions to be asked in support of that are…
1) The police never, at any stage, recorded Mr Traupman’s address (why? Didn’t want the press or anyone else to contact him, is one guess), they even spelt his name wrongly (Mr Troutman) when recording his name (why? Ensure it would be difficult to identify him, another guess).
2) When being interviewed McIntyre (Prosecutor at her trial) was asked why Mr Traupman never featured at the trial. He simply laughed it off and proceeded to belittle this witness, describing him as a nutter dressed in Mexican garb, attempting to devalue him as a credible witness, no doubt. Below, could explain why.
3) The existence of this witness didn’t need to be, and never was, disclosed to Rorrer’s Defence.
Sadly, Mr Traupman is now deceased. He features very prominently in a video – it appears in part 3 – (Judges for Justice, in three parts) on You Tube, which pretty much supports what I’ve always suspected.
Lastly, you may be interested to know that today 6th, 8th and 9th a Habeas Corpus Hearing relating to various legal issues at her trial, and items of evidence following her incarceration, will be in session at LeHigh County Court ordered by Judge Douglas G Reichley. Retired Judge, Michael Heavey – the author of the videos, Judges for Justice – is expected to be in attendance, as a spectator.
Hello Marcus.
While I fully appreciate your opinions and thoughts on this particular case, there’s perhaps one point I should raise, of which I would like your opinion.
Of the many things I’ve observed and commented on in this and other sites, there’s one single incident, above all others, which clearly illustrates a glaring case of obvious evidence tampering. It’s the bloody fingernail, found on the body of Mrs K. I’ve seen a picture of that fingernail in the condition when it was firsts photographed, which clearly shows it was heavily stained with what can only be described as dried blood.
Strangely, along with a single hair also found on her body, it was never tested. When being interviewed on Keith Morrison’s dateline show, McIntyre was asked why they were not tested. His reply was “we didn’t need to, we already had the guilty person”! I can’t say those were the exact words and can’t refer back to that show for confirmation. Unfortunately it’s no longer available in the UK, but they were words to that effect, and the fact remains, neither was ever tested. It’s commonly believed the fingernail was that of belonging to a male.
That’s one issue… but even more shocking was what ensued after Rorrer was incarcerated.
After having been given permission to have that finger nail sent to a laboratory of her choice to be nuclear tested, it was swiftly returned with the message, “unable to do any test on it owing to the absence of any usable material.” It was wiped/washed completely clean. How and why that happened has never been explained and no-one was ever taken to task for such an outrageous incident of evidence tampering.
And one point in your last comment which caught my attention was, I quote ….
“ I too would, as police seem to have, regard him as a ‘loon’ who was fixated and making himself a nuisance” … with reference to Mr T, who was believed to have visited the police station on at least 15 times.
I can’t help but think this very thought for a great many commenters on this, and other sites, on which I have posted probably 100+ comments, most in Rorrer’s favour, could so easily apply to me
I do it in the hope it will bring awareness to those who are not familiar with this case… and another reason, if they are familiar and very much in agreement with her conviction, hopefully, let them know there is another side to this story.
So, if my constant and unwavering comments make me a “loon”, fair enough, I can take that, it doesn’t for one moment affect my wellbeing or state of mind. Although, I certainly don’t welcome a “beating up” for repeatedly trying to do what I consider trying to do the right thing.
Clifford: Thanks. I wasn’t, and you shouldn’t, analogise my speculation about the ‘persistence’ of alleged witness T to the argument and your ‘witnessing’ to Rorrer’s possible wrongful conviction. These are quite different! I was speculating that there may have been something about him – inc his persistence, assuming you’re correct about the great frequency of his visits (not ‘phone calls not letters?) – that suggested he was unreliable. That could’ve included that he was apparently (?) the only one who heard this noisy argument in the street. You’re doing something v different in combing the case for potential miscarriage: persistent but not odd! It’s important that people press convicting evidence especially given the horror of wrongful conviction (in this case for one of the most appalling crimes: murder of a child).
Now, as I said in prev post, I’d have expected police to follow this up despite any concern as to T’s ‘evidence’… but I’d also have expected neighbours proactively to contact police if they heard this argument – given that they would know of the murder soon enough. It may be that they were all out so heard nothing – or that there was nothing to hear if they were home. Regardless, legally it seems it would have had very little inculpatory value had it been admitted as evidence (see above) – so I don’t think we can concern ourselves with this much. But I’m content to ask the question why he was dismissed and whether police sought witness corroboration. I’d also be slightly troubled by why Mr K would think he could argue publicly and commit murder the same day, oblivious to whether there was indeed witness who would be expected to mention this to police. After all, the bodies weren’t obv hidden so as to prevent early discovery – more ‘dumped’. Would a rational killer do so on the day of a his quite possibly overheard row (the Katrinak house has immediate neighbours)? And I still don’t think the father would murder his child (even if paternity was unclear).
A bloodied male fingernail – if it was a man’s – seems like fundamental evidence. If it couldn’t be tested, though, how could it be regarded as a male’s? The only indication I can think of is size – but that’s not definitive. The argument you cite – no need to test as we already know – is, as you imply, absurd. Thus as you present, this was incompetently processed. Alas, that doesn’t detract from R’s guilt ipso facto. You may be suggesting that police knew if was potential exculpatory evidence (ie, it indicated another’s guilt) and so compromised it to frame R. I can’t go that far.
Hello Marcus.
Thank you again for your very prompt reply. First thing I should mention is that I am in no way irritated, upset, angry or anything of similar nature, as a result of your reference to Mr T and my reaction. I highly respect your opinions and comments and can only apologise if you got that impression.
That said, your last paragraph… about me suggesting that police knew if excuplatory evidence was compromised as a result of the finger-nail being thoroughly cleaned before it was submitted to the lab of R’s choice. You then say you cannot go that far. Nevertheless, that action remains a mystery as to why “anyone” would commit such a glaring misdeed? In fact, I can’t think of a single reason for this action…. other than the obvious, being, to conceal/eliminate evidence that would almost certainly have pointed to another person… who could/should have been investigated.
Hello Clifford: Well, I can certainly buy sloppy treatment of that evidence but would need more ‘evidence’ that there was conspiracy to frame Rorrer – so awful is it if true.
I’ve been checking to see if there’s any outcome to the latest chapter of her appeal(s) you mentioned. Nothing yet. As I said before, if it could be shown to be a male fingernail (despite being ill-advisedly cleaned), that’s a scintilla of evidence in R’s favour – but I take it that it the sex of the person it was part of was indeterminable.
It seems that when R was convicted, DNA was not v reliably obtainable from nails but that recent advances have improved this, albeit it’s still not a strong source and a number of samples may be required:
https://dnacenter.com/blog/do-nails-have-dna-how-does-a-nail-dna-test-work/
This of course doesn’t remotely excuse the poor treatment of such evidence in R’s case as it’s been decades’ practice that biological evidence in preserved in anticipation of improved future testing (which has in fact occurred in recent years per genetic genealogy, which has recently elicited convictions in decades’ old hitherto unsolved cases, such as:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11808825/The-notorious-cold-cases-cracked-DNA-genetic-genealogy.html
Great that these swines are convicted and incarcerated, albeit some are in their 70s, even 80s and largely escaped justice.