Patricia Rorrer
Going into this case doing the research I thought this was a pretty cut and dry case to blog about. As soon as I started researching I learned that may not be the case and although the crime was committed in 1994 and Patricia Rorrer was convicted in 1998, as late as 2015 her lawyer were continuing to argue about possibly tampered evidence. So, I dug a little deeper than I had really planned to in the beginning and found myself with more questions than answers.
On December 15, 1994 Joanne Katrinak and her three month old son Alex, of Lehigh Valley Pennsylvania, were supposed to meet her mother in law to go shopping for the day. She never showed and never answered the phone. When Joanne's husband, Andrew, returned home they were not there either. He found the basement door open and removed from the hinges and the phone lines cut. He called the police. Joanne's car would be found in a parking lot near the couple's home but neither Joanne or Alex were inside. A massive search took place but still no one was found. That is until April of 1995 when a farmer saw a blanket on the ground in the distance of his land in the woods and went over to investigate. Joanne and her infant son had finally been found.
Autopsy results showed that Joanne had been shot in the face as well as beaten about the head. The cause of death for Alex was left undetermined because due to the time they could not tell if he had been strangled or simply left out in the Pennsylvania elements and had succumbed to them. He had been found in his mothers arms.
Almost immediately it seems that Patricia Rorrer was being looked at. Patricia and Andrew had met about 1984 and dated for four or five years. It seems that they lived with each for at least two years prior to them breaking up in 1989. Patricia had family in the Lehigh area and had originally been from there but when she was young her family had moved to North Carolina. Over the course of her life it seems that she lived back and forth between the two states. By 1994 she was back living in North Carolina but as late as October of that year she still had horses she owned and stabled in the Lehigh area so it seems she was back and forth often despite it being about 500 miles and nearly 8 hours to drive one way.
According to Patricia, over the years she and Andrew had remained friends. It was claimed, and as far as I could tell not disputed, that in 1991 she had sought refuge with Andrew after a break up with an abusive man and lived with him for a short period of time again. It appears that Andrew did little talking to the media as I could gather and so much of what was known about the nature of their relationship over the years seems to have come from Patricia. Again, according to her they would speak from time to time on the phone. The problem with this is that I could not determine from this or my research just what "time to time" meant. I found nothing that really indicated that any phone records were gathered to determined if she was calling more often than she claimed or if Andrew was possibly calling her. She stated that she called sometime in late 1993 and learned that Andrew had gotten married and they were expecting a child. She claims that she was happy for her "friend." I cannot say how many more time she called until she called again on December 12, 1994, three days before Joanne and Alex would go missing. Some reports of that call state that Andrew refused to speak to her while other say regardless if he would have Joanne refused to allow him. It was said that Joanne, in a not so nice way, told Patricia to never call the home again and hung up on her. This act is what put Patricia on police radar.
Apparently Joanne's car was processed for forensics, but to be honest I heard nothing about the home. Inside the car they found six blonde hairs that did not belong to her or Alex. A few of these same hairs were said to have been found near or with the bodies. Patricia had dark hair and apparently, at least for some time she was not asked to give a hair sample, although it seems for the next two years police were keeping an eye on her. She of course was questioned and had claimed that on the night Joanne disappeared she was at a bar in North Carolina... remember, eight hours away from Lehigh Valley. Police kept watching her though and checking her out. Apparently the only people they could get to confirm seeing her at the said bar that night was her boyfriend and a friend of hers. In the meantime Patricia moved on with her life. She continued to sell, trade and apparently professionally ride horses. She would go on to have a child of her own (reports seem to differ on the sex of the child). Police had already determined that Patricia had once stabled horses that she owned near where the bodies had been found and a friend of hers claimed that they would ride the trails that were around where the bodies were left. Patricia would claim to police to not know the area. Authorities were convinced that Patricia was responsible for the deaths but they apparently had nothing. They knew Joanne had been shot with a .22 caliber revolver. This gets a little sketchy. Some reports say that the gun was never found while others say that a gun that Patricia owned was "similar" to the murder weapon but could not be said to be the weapon for certain.
By June of 1997 police determined that they had enough to arrest her. They claimed to found a picture of Patricia taken near around the time of the murders at a horse show. In the picture Patricia had blonde hair, something she apparently had denied sporting. Prosecutors would go on to say that the hairs found in the car and near the body were compared now to Patricia and they matched. She was charged with two counts of kidnapping and two counts of 1st degree murder. The prosecutors would seek the death penalty.
Patricia Rorrer would go on trial in Lehigh County Pennsylvania in March of 1998. Forensically it seems all they really had were the reports of the hair. Circumstantially it seems they had just a bit more. Patricia was claiming to not know the area in which the bodies were found but a friend had testified differently. Patricia's alibi did not seem to hold up very well either since only two people (ones close to her) claimed to see her at the bar. After a month long trial she was found guilty after six hours of jury deliberation. She was sentence to two life sentences without parole, plus 10-20 years for the kidnapping.
Over the course of the years Patricia, through her attorney's have filed several appeals and made several claims. Almost immediately after trial there was a hearing about the DNA. While at that point the defense was arguing they had not been able to test it themselves, the bigger argument was to see that the hair samples were preserved in case DNA were to evolve later. No new testing was ordered at that time. In a December 2015 article her attorney's were quoted as saying that he had recently received the original FBI reports on the hair and that it stated there was no root on the hairs found in the car, yet he claims these were the hairs that convicted her. He also claimed, as many do, although it could be true, that the particular lab in which these hairs had been tested had come under scrutiny for contamination and possibly intentional false positive results. This may or may not have merit as I found nothing else to substantiate these claims. Time may only tell.
As I did this case I was hoping that I could find some reports of other things to help me decide just what I thought of this case. Prosecutors would claim that this was all over Joanne hanging up on Patricia three days earlier and cutting off her friendship with Andrew. They apparently were able to show that she was a rather "hot headed" woman but I am not sure just how much. I would have liked to have heard about some fingerprints on the door, or some proof that she had made a 1000+ plus mile trip around that time. I would have liked to have seen more evidence linked to the gun. Defense attorney's would argue at one point that they had been prevented from presenting the background, possibly criminal, of some of the witnesses, but I was unable to determine the extent of that.
I did find an article that talked about Patricia's life over the years. She herself had a few run ins with the law. I saw a report of shoplifting and an animal cruelty report but it seems both of those happened after the murder and either dropped or minor. A good defense attorney could have argued the stress of being a suspect in the murders could have caused those things. There was a report of a breaking and entering charge but I saw nothing about circumstances or even when that occurred. The one thing that I did find interesting though involved a situation before she had dated Andrew Katrinak. Apparently she had married rather young and in November of 1982, when she was 18, her 3 1/2 month old son had died. Reports say that it was of natural causes which may have pointed to SIDS or a birth defect. Some point soon after this she had divorced her husband and within a year or two she and Andrew were dating. It appears that she did not have her next child until around early summer of 1996 as reports say her child was a year old at the time of her arrest, and that the father was unknown. I find it interesting that she had lost a son in 1982 and here in 1994 a man she had dated (but proclaims was still friends with, just could not be romantic) had just had a son, who just so happened to be 3 months old when he died with his mother, supposedly at Patricia's hands. Was the timing coincidence? I think if I were the prosecutor, although I would have pressed the issue of the phone call that happened a few days before I would have also brought this issue up as in my opinion I would think it would have played just as much significance as the call.
As we all know lie detectors are not allowed in courts, or at least in most of them. But, it does not stop investigators, or even defense attorney's from using them. Apparently in 2002 Patricia's lawyers contacted a man named Michael Martin. For many years it seems he was the "go to guy" for lie detectors, especially in high profile cases. In fact he was nicknamed "THE Lie Detector Guy." He conducted a test on Patricia per request and indicated that "deception was indicated" when it pertained to the questions involving the murders.
So did Patricia Rorrer murder Joanna and Alex Katrinak? A jury believed so and I have to believe that they heard more, and had more information than I do. I read through several of Patricia's more than 4 appeals and in all cases the issues brought up were denied. Admittedly there were some weird filings in them that even the courts had to say that cases in which they had noted in the appeal in no way applied to this case so I have to wonder if some of them were not pro-se. I would have liked to have found more about the going ons of the trial and exactly what people had to say and what exact evidence was presented because I think comments from defense attorney's and filings that have been made have kind of muddied the waters over the years as to what was really determined. Is it possible that the investigators had tunnel vision from the beginning and focused on Patricia? Absolutely... we have seen it time and time again. Do I think that is the case here? I do not know for sure.
On December 15, 1994 Joanne Katrinak and her three month old son Alex, of Lehigh Valley Pennsylvania, were supposed to meet her mother in law to go shopping for the day. She never showed and never answered the phone. When Joanne's husband, Andrew, returned home they were not there either. He found the basement door open and removed from the hinges and the phone lines cut. He called the police. Joanne's car would be found in a parking lot near the couple's home but neither Joanne or Alex were inside. A massive search took place but still no one was found. That is until April of 1995 when a farmer saw a blanket on the ground in the distance of his land in the woods and went over to investigate. Joanne and her infant son had finally been found.
Autopsy results showed that Joanne had been shot in the face as well as beaten about the head. The cause of death for Alex was left undetermined because due to the time they could not tell if he had been strangled or simply left out in the Pennsylvania elements and had succumbed to them. He had been found in his mothers arms.
Almost immediately it seems that Patricia Rorrer was being looked at. Patricia and Andrew had met about 1984 and dated for four or five years. It seems that they lived with each for at least two years prior to them breaking up in 1989. Patricia had family in the Lehigh area and had originally been from there but when she was young her family had moved to North Carolina. Over the course of her life it seems that she lived back and forth between the two states. By 1994 she was back living in North Carolina but as late as October of that year she still had horses she owned and stabled in the Lehigh area so it seems she was back and forth often despite it being about 500 miles and nearly 8 hours to drive one way.
According to Patricia, over the years she and Andrew had remained friends. It was claimed, and as far as I could tell not disputed, that in 1991 she had sought refuge with Andrew after a break up with an abusive man and lived with him for a short period of time again. It appears that Andrew did little talking to the media as I could gather and so much of what was known about the nature of their relationship over the years seems to have come from Patricia. Again, according to her they would speak from time to time on the phone. The problem with this is that I could not determine from this or my research just what "time to time" meant. I found nothing that really indicated that any phone records were gathered to determined if she was calling more often than she claimed or if Andrew was possibly calling her. She stated that she called sometime in late 1993 and learned that Andrew had gotten married and they were expecting a child. She claims that she was happy for her "friend." I cannot say how many more time she called until she called again on December 12, 1994, three days before Joanne and Alex would go missing. Some reports of that call state that Andrew refused to speak to her while other say regardless if he would have Joanne refused to allow him. It was said that Joanne, in a not so nice way, told Patricia to never call the home again and hung up on her. This act is what put Patricia on police radar.
Apparently Joanne's car was processed for forensics, but to be honest I heard nothing about the home. Inside the car they found six blonde hairs that did not belong to her or Alex. A few of these same hairs were said to have been found near or with the bodies. Patricia had dark hair and apparently, at least for some time she was not asked to give a hair sample, although it seems for the next two years police were keeping an eye on her. She of course was questioned and had claimed that on the night Joanne disappeared she was at a bar in North Carolina... remember, eight hours away from Lehigh Valley. Police kept watching her though and checking her out. Apparently the only people they could get to confirm seeing her at the said bar that night was her boyfriend and a friend of hers. In the meantime Patricia moved on with her life. She continued to sell, trade and apparently professionally ride horses. She would go on to have a child of her own (reports seem to differ on the sex of the child). Police had already determined that Patricia had once stabled horses that she owned near where the bodies had been found and a friend of hers claimed that they would ride the trails that were around where the bodies were left. Patricia would claim to police to not know the area. Authorities were convinced that Patricia was responsible for the deaths but they apparently had nothing. They knew Joanne had been shot with a .22 caliber revolver. This gets a little sketchy. Some reports say that the gun was never found while others say that a gun that Patricia owned was "similar" to the murder weapon but could not be said to be the weapon for certain.
By June of 1997 police determined that they had enough to arrest her. They claimed to found a picture of Patricia taken near around the time of the murders at a horse show. In the picture Patricia had blonde hair, something she apparently had denied sporting. Prosecutors would go on to say that the hairs found in the car and near the body were compared now to Patricia and they matched. She was charged with two counts of kidnapping and two counts of 1st degree murder. The prosecutors would seek the death penalty.
Patricia Rorrer would go on trial in Lehigh County Pennsylvania in March of 1998. Forensically it seems all they really had were the reports of the hair. Circumstantially it seems they had just a bit more. Patricia was claiming to not know the area in which the bodies were found but a friend had testified differently. Patricia's alibi did not seem to hold up very well either since only two people (ones close to her) claimed to see her at the bar. After a month long trial she was found guilty after six hours of jury deliberation. She was sentence to two life sentences without parole, plus 10-20 years for the kidnapping.
Over the course of the years Patricia, through her attorney's have filed several appeals and made several claims. Almost immediately after trial there was a hearing about the DNA. While at that point the defense was arguing they had not been able to test it themselves, the bigger argument was to see that the hair samples were preserved in case DNA were to evolve later. No new testing was ordered at that time. In a December 2015 article her attorney's were quoted as saying that he had recently received the original FBI reports on the hair and that it stated there was no root on the hairs found in the car, yet he claims these were the hairs that convicted her. He also claimed, as many do, although it could be true, that the particular lab in which these hairs had been tested had come under scrutiny for contamination and possibly intentional false positive results. This may or may not have merit as I found nothing else to substantiate these claims. Time may only tell.
As I did this case I was hoping that I could find some reports of other things to help me decide just what I thought of this case. Prosecutors would claim that this was all over Joanne hanging up on Patricia three days earlier and cutting off her friendship with Andrew. They apparently were able to show that she was a rather "hot headed" woman but I am not sure just how much. I would have liked to have heard about some fingerprints on the door, or some proof that she had made a 1000+ plus mile trip around that time. I would have liked to have seen more evidence linked to the gun. Defense attorney's would argue at one point that they had been prevented from presenting the background, possibly criminal, of some of the witnesses, but I was unable to determine the extent of that.
I did find an article that talked about Patricia's life over the years. She herself had a few run ins with the law. I saw a report of shoplifting and an animal cruelty report but it seems both of those happened after the murder and either dropped or minor. A good defense attorney could have argued the stress of being a suspect in the murders could have caused those things. There was a report of a breaking and entering charge but I saw nothing about circumstances or even when that occurred. The one thing that I did find interesting though involved a situation before she had dated Andrew Katrinak. Apparently she had married rather young and in November of 1982, when she was 18, her 3 1/2 month old son had died. Reports say that it was of natural causes which may have pointed to SIDS or a birth defect. Some point soon after this she had divorced her husband and within a year or two she and Andrew were dating. It appears that she did not have her next child until around early summer of 1996 as reports say her child was a year old at the time of her arrest, and that the father was unknown. I find it interesting that she had lost a son in 1982 and here in 1994 a man she had dated (but proclaims was still friends with, just could not be romantic) had just had a son, who just so happened to be 3 months old when he died with his mother, supposedly at Patricia's hands. Was the timing coincidence? I think if I were the prosecutor, although I would have pressed the issue of the phone call that happened a few days before I would have also brought this issue up as in my opinion I would think it would have played just as much significance as the call.
As we all know lie detectors are not allowed in courts, or at least in most of them. But, it does not stop investigators, or even defense attorney's from using them. Apparently in 2002 Patricia's lawyers contacted a man named Michael Martin. For many years it seems he was the "go to guy" for lie detectors, especially in high profile cases. In fact he was nicknamed "THE Lie Detector Guy." He conducted a test on Patricia per request and indicated that "deception was indicated" when it pertained to the questions involving the murders.
So did Patricia Rorrer murder Joanna and Alex Katrinak? A jury believed so and I have to believe that they heard more, and had more information than I do. I read through several of Patricia's more than 4 appeals and in all cases the issues brought up were denied. Admittedly there were some weird filings in them that even the courts had to say that cases in which they had noted in the appeal in no way applied to this case so I have to wonder if some of them were not pro-se. I would have liked to have found more about the going ons of the trial and exactly what people had to say and what exact evidence was presented because I think comments from defense attorney's and filings that have been made have kind of muddied the waters over the years as to what was really determined. Is it possible that the investigators had tunnel vision from the beginning and focused on Patricia? Absolutely... we have seen it time and time again. Do I think that is the case here? I do not know for sure.
Thanks for this neutral story. There is a new documentary being made right now about this case showing both sides of the story and the many problems with this case that were never made public. There is also a book coming out (probably in early 2017) written by an author who was convinced of Patricia's guilt, but upon investigating the case to the fullest extent now believes she was most likely wrongfully convicted.
ReplyDeleteI am very excited about the book my friend wrote regarding this case. She did very extensive research.
DeleteWhat is the book called? Author? Been looking to no avail
DeleteIt's not out yet. Looks like Harper Collins may have the publication rights. On ID's "Murder in Lehigh Valley: Keith Morrison Investigates," they were listing the title (repeatedly, under interview snippets with Tammy Mal) as "Convenient Suspect," but apparently the working title was "Reasonable Doubt." Not sure what it really is at this point, but I want to read it, too!
DeleteI just finished the 2 episodes on ID. So much to consider. Sounds like Patricia is the one who ended the relationship with Andrew 5 years prior and was in another one herself when this happened. So why would she be jealous of Joann ? And jealous enough to drive 500 miles to harm her and an innocent baby ? Most bothersome to me is that there was another hair in Joann's hand that was never tested. To me that hair is more critical than the others as it is indicative of physical contact. And the DA sounded ridiculous as he defended his reason to not test it. Everything should have been tested and looked at. What if there was a 2nd killer ? The roots/no roots theory does lead one to think there could have been a cover up. People do unbelievable things to preserve their reputations and credibility. And how about the handling of Troutman or however you truly spell his name. Was he really off kilter ? There is no evidence of his statements or interviews so who is to say ? But assuming he was correct, that would surely point to Andrew as a possible killer. There needs to be more investigating for sure
DeleteFYI, the book is called 'Convenient Suspect' by Tammy Mal and it's on sale November 1, 2017.
DeleteI've read the book and it completely vindicates my always-held opinion of her innocence.
DeleteThis story is also told in the documentary series "Autopsy: Secrets of the Dead." It's in season 6 at about the 20 minute mark.
ReplyDeleteShe did it. Case closed.
ReplyDeleteI know this story very well. I don't believe for one minute that Patricia committed this crime. Try educating yourself. Watch Investigation Discovery March 5th from 8-10 pm. I think you will be very surprised with the facts of this case. Case open.
Deleteshe is innocent. husband and police set her up. Andrew guilty. Her name is Rorrer. Not guilty!!
DeleteThe end.
She is guilty. You cannot discount the hair with DNA that was hers. Plus, she was stalking Andrew and his wife! SHE IS GUILTY. END OF STORY.
DeleteOf course I do not know if she did it or not. However I would like to know if she didn't do it then who did, and why? Was the victim robbed, sexually assaulted? If not, then who and why?
DeleteTo Anonymous- maybe you should try educating yourself. Just because someone doesn't agree with YOUR opinion doesn't mean they need to be "educated". I know this story inside and out, too. This woman is guilty. The husband broke it off with the muderess and she couldn't handle. She was stalking him. Why would any woman with any class and breeding continue to call this man when she KNOWS he's married with a baby. Let's also talk about the hair the cops found with her DNA on it....? I believe the other hairs were hers, too, but the one that was DNA tested did have a root. It was hers. The woman is a psycho and deserves to be right where she is.
DeleteThe Keith Morrison piece also told of an eyewitness, last name Traupmann, that claimed to have heard Andrew and Joann arguing about the paternity of the child. That is motive.
DeleteI can't help but think of all the innocent people who were put in prison with faulty, falsified evidence, perjured testimony and shotty, sloppy police work. Also, the evidence showed that call in when Joann hung up on Patricia was made on December 7, not December 12th. They showed the phone company records and it verified the call was made a full 8 days before the disappearance. I think Patricia deserves a new trial.
The Keith Morrison piece brought forward a previously unknown eyewitness, a man last name Traupmann, that said he saw Joann and Andrew arguing over the paternity of the child. He said Joann was in the car with the doors locked and Andrew was beating on the doors and windshield saying something about "not my child". That is motive.
DeleteAlso, the Keith Morrison pieced showed evidence that the phone call in which Joann hung up on Patricia was made on December 7th (not Dec. 12). A full 8 days before the disappearance. The phone company records were available at trial but the DA McIntyre did not show them to the jury.
I can't help but think of all the innocent people who has been convicted with faulty, falsified evidence, perjured testimony and shotty, sloppy police work. Patricia deserved a new trial and it needs to be outside of Lehigh County, which a more neutral jury can be selected.
She Did It and I watch the whole story on Patricia, she is guilty for 2 murders.......she is evil
DeleteSo funny that you people consider watching the Discovery channel educational....
DeleteRight?
DeleteAs I started reading this I thought it sounded familiar. I saw this case in an episode of Forensic Files. As I understand it, they only show cases where every appeal has already been exhausted. So she and her lawyer may still be arguing about this or that, but I'm not sure how much good it will do her.
DeleteIn recent years with all the publicity given cases by podcasts and shows like Serial, Making a Murderer, etc. I feel like we as consumers have felt even more justified in fancying ourselves the jury. But it's good to remember that those courts and the actual juries were privy to more information than the (often one-sided, or just lacking certain information for legal reasons) reports and productions or books we are seeing or reading. We may feel "educated" but the truth is we almost never have all the facts at our disposal.
You say the jury had privy to more information than any viewer or reader in this case. That, in itself, may well be true but having privy to more information and then arriving at the guilty verdict doesn't necessarily make that verdict correct. For those viewers/readers who've been following this case, all the salient information is there for anyone willing to look at the case objectively. I don't think those who disagree with the final verdict would be interested in reading all about the "yes" and "no" answers in the trial, along with other trivial details which have no real relevance to the case. The facts have been bared in all these programmes -- albeit, some of them grossly exaggerated and some with scenes fabricated to suit their agenda -- for all to see, especially in Tammy Mal's detailed and well-researched book, A Convenient Suspect. Having watched Keith Morrison's Dateline programme of this case, which featured a jury member who said the reason for arriving at the guilty verdict was because "there were too many coincidences"!!!, one has to wonder if a simpleton like that can conclude she was guilty based on coincidence, were the rest of them of similar mind? Coincidence is not a criterion for arriving at any verdict, and certainly not one that would result in a person having to spend a lifetime in prison.
DeleteThe author of the above comment is cfreeman106. I have registered myself with this website but for whatever reason it identifies the author of this comment as "Unknown"! I'm not too clever with IT issues so perhaps I've not done it correctly.
DeleteAs we have seen here, Patricia Rorrer has used the same old issue in every(4)appeal in order to win release. After reading transcripts from the trial she nothing to disprove the prosecution case. Unless her attorneys can bring up new evidence that proves her innocent Patricia Rorrer is in for what they say "THE LONG HAUL!"
ReplyDeleteHow can authorities be so utterly cavalier about convicting the accused based on such flimsy circumstantial evidence? Most likely because humans as a whole have the need to place blame.... regardless. Case open.
ReplyDeleteShe is guilty as hell! I don't need the confusion the defense attorney will try and present or the author of a book he wants to sell. I remember this case well and Rotter is no Girl Scout!
ReplyDeleteRorrer not Rotter
DeleteGuilty because she was a domestic abuse survivor and displayed the typical obsessive and emotional behavior of one?
DeleteWhich Andy, the clever sociopath with a successful business and police connections USED AGAINST HER?
And of course the police believed the successful white man's story. And the "crazy ex gf" suffers the consequences of a system that allows violent white men to go free.
I wonder if Andrew set her up and if her kid is his? Hm...
ReplyDeleteThat is exactly what I think happened.
DeleteHe was the one that pointed out all the supposed evidence of an intruder AND led Joann's sister to Joann's missing car.
And somehow there is more evidence that Patricia did this horrific crime?
And I forgot to add that Andrew was "allowed to play detective" in Joann's car after it was found.
DeleteAnd who does the baby that died belong to?
DeleteTo me was the husband,they never explained the motive as to why she would do something like that. Especially when they said she was mad because the victim hung up on her more than a week before the killing. I get mad when I get cut off on my car and I could say I could kill the S.O.B at that moment, but once I cool off, I let it go or forget about it.
DeleteI think Andrew did it.
ReplyDeleteIf he did it, I cannot imagine how he can live with himself while an innocent rots in prison for his crime.
DeleteDo some digging and you will find that husband is a sociopath and he is the one who murdered his wife and left his child to die.
DeleteAndrew will burn in hell for this.
Andrew, the husband, pulled the job. Was it his habit to go home early in the afternoon? For what purpose did he go downstairs? Why didn't he notice until much later that phone lines to a bedroom phone had been cut? What mother with a very young baby take it Christmas shopping? Didn't the cops who investigated the supposed break-in notice the cut phone lines? Andrew's is the same BS story every man who whacks his wife thinks up. He did it; he murdered his wife and son.
ReplyDeleteHe's guilty as hell..PSP did a piss poor job in this investigation. That's sad.
ReplyDeletePSP and the prosecution team should be in the dock. Corruption at its worst.
DeleteWhen will the book be released
ReplyDeleteI didnt hear anything about them testing the baby Andy's DNA to see if his fathercwas really his father. There was a witness who said hed heard and argument between two people and paternity
ReplyDeleteThat's what I was thinking. I feel like there is definitely a cover up going on. Why didn't they dust for prints?
DeleteI heard but cannot confirm that Andrew had the bodies cremated. Could they still do DNA testing to see if the child belonged to him?
DeleteShe's innocent their is no there evidence besides HAIR that they didn't even test so get you facts straight before thou say anything
ReplyDeleteI would like to know why the husbands hair was never tested against the one found in his dead wife's hand and why the state police worked off contaminated scenes sounds like a screw up all the way around
ReplyDeleteI think she definitely deserves a new trial with ALL the evidence being tested including the cigarette butt found by the body and the hair that was found in her right hand but never tested.
ReplyDeleteJust finished watching the story on the ID channel and it's clear Andrew did it and set up Patricia....very lousy police work
ReplyDeleteReally lousy police work. Someone had to be held accountable and how this ever got to trial is beyond me. I think the husband had a lot more to do with it then we will ever know.
DeleteI'm talking on my iPhone right now so pardon any grammar errors. Yup, just saw the show a few minutes ago on ID. Very intriguing story indeed. I highly suspect that Andrew may be guilty, not only because of his hair color, and the fact or the possibility of there not being any root hairs at the time of the investigation, but what if he really did have an argument with his wife about the paternity ot their child and why hasn't anyone mentioned the outcome of that ? Also the prosecuting attorney is a total douche, he acts like a complete idiot ...
DeleteThe DA (McIntyre?) is so sketchy. Laughing about a witness and calling them crazy. Morrison called him out but he continued to act ignorant. I think Andrew did it.
DeleteInteresting show, I watched the whole thing tonight. Does certainly raise some questions and doubt I never saw before. If the Innocence Project gets involved, there might be something to it.
ReplyDeleteIt just seems to me that there was never enough real evidence.The hairs are suspicious. No one ever proved she was anywhere near there;where was the weapon? Smacks of a set up
ReplyDeleteI think Andrew did it..I find it rather weird that the police allowed him to wander around his home after reporting his wife and child missing..I'm not sure why it wouldn't have become a crime scene immediately. It looks like this police department doesn't know how to investigate a kiddnapping/murder..
ReplyDeleteI remember watching a show years ago about this case. At the time I felt suspicious about the husband, but TV being TV, by the time the show ended they had the ex-girlfriend tried and convicted. End of story. So I thought. I watched the ID Investigation tonight. Within minutes I remembered the case.
ReplyDeleteA lot of things in the program made me say...hmmmm... Top of the list is that the husband, Andrew, did NOT participate in the program. If you're reading this Andrew - it don't look good for you buddy. Why didn't he participate? Something to hide?
Of course my heart goes out to Joanne and Alex's family members, but I'm sure they must believe Patricia is guilty. Although I don't know any of them, I'm sure this must be very painful. I have no doubt they want the guilty party/parties punished and from their point of view that would be Patricia.
Innocent people are locked up every day. Some intentially, others not. Let me share a case that happened in my town. A man was accused of murdering his 7 children in the 60's by poisoning their food. Their ages were 8,7, 6,5,4,3 and 2. He was found guilty and sentenced to DEATH! The death penalty was overturned and he was sentenced to life, no parole. Turns out he was innocent. He spent 20 years in prison. There was prosecutoral misconduct. Evidence was withheld by the sheriff and prosecutors. A person I happen to know broke into an attorneys office and got the hidden files to free this man. Turns out the kids babysitter did it and the sheriff at the time had an illegitimate child with that babysitter! Remember, this was in the 60's, before kids born out of wedlock were acceptable. And to put another spin on it - the sheriff was white. The babysitter, the man convicted and all the murdered children were black. Plus, its in the deep south. That poor man had everything working against him.
The point I'm making is HELL YES police and prosecutors do and have lied! And they have put innocent people in jail and on death row for a multitude of reasons. Sometimes they do it just because they can!
Right now I'm leaning towards Patricia being innocent and Andrew being guilty. Im not 100% there yet, but I will be watching for updates. I'm also looking for word from the husband. I know that if Patricia is innocent, there is NOTHING that could be said or done for what has been done to her. I will be watching and waiting!
Wow! This could happen to ANYONE! Frightening!Shady police investigation, husband had way too much sway in naming accused. Seems like they never looked at anyone else. How could she be in TWO places, SO far apart at same time. Did they test baby's DNA? Cigarette butt? No! FRIGHTENING!
ReplyDeleteI've never seen a more open and shut case of total innocence than this one.
ReplyDeleteWhat we have are corrupt police and DA's office, along with a suspicious husband who very likely had some "connections" around town that kept the heat off of him.
Thank you for this blog. I will be in touch. I'm going to make sure that s***-eating grin is wiped off that Asst. DA.
AMEN! There is something mentally wrong with that man.
DeleteI could be way off base on this, but I still think Caleb Fairley could be good for this murder
The husband found out the baby wasn't his. This, according to eye-witness Troutmann, enraged him. They went from a happy family to a very unhappy one, quickly. Over a few days he hatched a plan to pin the murders on the "crazy" ex gf (admittedly she was a little obsessive, so she was an easy target). Then he took his wife and baby out for a "picnic". No struggle or blood found in the car. They willingly walked into the woods where he shot them. Then he went home and cooked up the "break in". There was about an hour or hour and a half he had no alibi.
ReplyDeleteAs for the DNA "evidence", there are two possibilities. Either the husband planted it, as we know he was in the car after the murders sitting in it and messing around in it (had some old hairbrush from the ex) or the cops just flubbed it up, and when finally pressed to do the "nuclear" DNA test they just switched out the old hairs with the sample Rorrer gave them (corruption).
Then the husband left for Colorado two months later with the insurance money, to start a new life.
Rorrer is probably innocent. She has behaved like an innocent person from day one, never wavering. Behaved like an innocent person at trial, as well. The DA is a cocky SOB. The husband is the prime suspect. Another possible suspect would be the real father of the child, but this was never investigated.
The issue about a person, who was deliberately omitted by the prosecution from giving evidence at the trial, who witnessed a heated argument in public between the two parents over the paternity of the expected child is pretty well-documented in various programmes and websites. I don't know where the information of the paternity of the child was revealed, but in several websites there are a lot of comments stating that the baby's DNA WAS tested and the result was that Mr Katrinak indeed was the father. Whether these claims are accurate, or not, it proves nothing anyway. Simply because Mr Katrinak would not have known about any DNA testing AT THE TIME OF THE MURDER... the DNA test was not performed until AFTER THE MURDER. So at the time of the murder he would have strongly suspected his wife was carrying someone else's child and thus cheated on him, which gave him a very credible motive.
DeleteAndrew Katriak INSISTED he not drive the backed-in car home because he didn't want to "destroy evidence" (his words). Folks, he planted Patricia Rorrer's hair in the car.
ReplyDeleteThe prosecuter interviewed in the TV show seems as stupid as Barney Fife. He sometimes makes fun of witnesses he didn't like.
ReplyDeleteThe investigation was botched from the start. Authorities gave a lie detector to the victim's husband and it indicated deception. Also he did not seem very upset. More like had a grinning smirk. So why count the lie detector results given years later against the alleged perp when you don't count the one given close to the murder date against the husband?
The alleged perp's alibis were all family, so dismissed, but the same held for the husband's alibis, yet not dismissed.
A witness (Traupman) who said he saw the husband pounding on the victim's windshied screaming "What do you mean it's not my kid?" was ignored and the police told him never to come back to the station.
Also the husband suggested the alleged perp to police as a suspect. That ought to tell you something right there.
Authorities told him to take the victim's car back home but he left it in the lot, saying it might have evidence in it. That ought to tell you something right there. He thinks he is smarter than the police. Turns out he was!
Surprisingly there was no blood in the car, even though the alleged perp would have had blood all over her from the violent crime. No mud, no brush, nothing from the woods or the murder scene. Just a few hairs, but there are mysterious contamination and lack of the right kind of testing (they did mitochondrial DNA testing when they should have done nuclear DNA testing - they could give no explanation of that).
And then the husband himself sat in the car later, playing "detective" on his own, thus contaminating it further.
All too convenient. Sounds like he planted the hairs, could have saved them from the earlier romance somewhere and never threw them out.
The police and DA made their mind up early about this case and refused to consider alternatives.
Prosecutor says this witness who is now deceased was mentally unstable.
DeleteApparently so. He allegedly gave accounts that described the "angry husband" as looking like a Spanish or Hispanic person, as wearing an obviously false mustache and beard, and then identified the husband - who doesn't look Spanish or Hispanic. And if you find out your baby isn't yours - would you put on a fake wig and mustache? Please...
DeleteThe policy also assaulted Traupman and the attorney said Traupman was not crazy or mentally unstable.
DeleteAlso, the Keith Morrison police said the husband took 2 polygraph's and deception was indicated in BOTH of them. He is hiding something and it's a shame that a possibly innocent person is sitting in jail because this police department is so "Keystone Kop" like that they let the husband and family wander around the home and mess with the car.
Deletewhere andrew got the hairs,,,,have you ever dated a girl who didnt leave a hairbrush or some personal items in your house or car
DeleteAndrew Katriak is the killer. Andrew and Patricia lived together and therefor it is a definite possibility that he would have had access to her hair. She could have left a hairbrush at the home after she moved out ... and the husband used that hair to frame Patricia. My God, don't the prosecutors in the case care whether or not they have the real killer in jail? Shame on them for being so blind to what everyone else can see. A person's life is being ruined because they don't want to admit they made a mistake. Andrew Katriak is guilty as sin.
ReplyDeleteWhat gets me is that they were able to produce phone records of when Patricia called Andy's house on 12/7 days before Joann disappeared, so how about the record of the night that Andy supposedly called Patricia's mom then she called Patricia to ask if she was home? It was said that her mother then called Andy back. That would be a reasonable alibi. Most of me believes Patricia was set up, but a part of me can't get past the hair. Unless Andy kept a hairbrush of Patricia's for Years...Then there's the cackling DA who said why bother testing the other hair; that didn't make sense. Why Wouldn't you look for a second perp? Then the fact that Andy contaminated the car 'playing detective' should make anything in the car inadmissible. So where's all the evidence that would be at and around the bodies?
ReplyDeleteThere is so much reasonable doubt in this case. They should have moved the trial out of Lehigh and got a more neutral jury. Patricia deserved an new trail.
ReplyDeleteThe husband is innocent, DNA was done on the infant and Katrinak was the father. The husband was a kinda quiet fellow with a calm exterior, he did not have anything to do with the murders. That Rorrer woman is a psycho who was insulted by being dismissed from Andrew's life by his wife, she premeditated this whole crime, she is guilty folks, time to accept the evidence and let her stay in prison.
ReplyDeleteWhen was the DNA test done? When were the results released? Why did the wife have to "dismiss" her from their life? Why didn't Andrew do that? Maybe Andrew was still physically involved with Rorrer and enjoyed their little chats.
DeleteJust remember that if they can convict Rorrer through manufactured evidence and shotty police work, they could do that to any of us.
There are still so many questions around this case. A new trial could put it to rest. A neutral jury in a different county and all the evidence. I don't think Andrew is as innocent as some think. The DA McIntyre said the he took 2 polygraphs and deception was indicated in both. If he is innocent, why was deception detected?
Guilty people have passed polygraph. It doesn't prove guilt or innocents. I don't understand why none of her Alibis check out. I can only think that they were both in on it and the husband turned on her. Possibly, but again if I'm in NC during the crime I'm looking for anything and everything to prove I was in NC. A gas receipt, a camera from a gas station, atm, lodging. There should have been some paper trail. The fact her legal team couldn't is very surprising to me if she was trully hundreds of miles away. Just my thought.
DeleteThe thing about her alibi was that she claimed she did some shopping etc and then went to a nightclub - the nightclub had a sign in book and yes, her name wasn't in it, but it was also admitted that many people frequented the nightclub and didn't sign the book, that it was never enforced. Also, police didn't check the alibi she gave until months later, as they DIDN'T BELIEVE SHE WAS A SUSPECT. By the time they checked the places she'd been shopping etc, they simply said they couldn't remember as too much time had passed.
DeleteEveryone seems to forget or ignore the ton of circumstantial evidence they had on this woman. Research it. And just because the wife hung the phone up on her 7 days before the murder only means that she premeditated the murder 7 days in advance. She couldn't exactly jump in her car and start driving hundreds of miles at that instant. When she finalized the murder plan, she then drove and did the deed. She had it planned out to a T.
ReplyDeleteNo one saw Rorrer in the PA area around the time this happened. Not one single person saw her. How does she abduct a woman and child, force them in the victim's car, drive out to murder site, shoot the victim in the face, beat her about the head and chest, get back in the victim's car, drive the car to a bar adjacent to the victim's home, retrieve her own car and drive back to NC without anyone seeing her? The only "evidence" is hair found in the car. One minute the hair has no root so they couldn't not do nuclear DNA. The next minute it has roots so they can? That's BS. The mitochondrial DNA test only proves that 37,000 people have the type of hair and Rorrer cannot be excluded because of how many people have that hair. How many people live in the Lehigh Valley area?
DeleteThe DA said several times that the hair found in Joann's hand was never tested. Keith Morrison asked him why? He said he didn't know. Why have they not tested the cigarette butt found near the bodies?
Joanna and Alex will not receive true justice until this case is thoroughly re-investigated, which is doubtful because it's 23 years old.
Many people who were convicted on circumstantial evidence were proven to be innocent many, many times. The justice system in our country is broken. Your innocence is dependent upon how much money you have, which correlates to how good of an attorney you can hire. If you are poor, you are going to jail. Ask Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley.
This ludicrous assertion given by the prosecution and police about the gun which was used for the crime, has all sorts of flaws, given the facts. There was absolutely no evidence SHE used the gun (or any other gun) which was given to her by an old boyfriend. This old boyfriend attested the gun he gave her was defective, in that it jammed occasionally. Evidence which then fits very conveniently into a "jammed gun" scenario for the police, claiming she fired the shot, the gun jammed and she had to "finish" the job by battering the victim with an unknown blunt instrument. However, if one considers that the killer did the murder the other way round.... battered the victim first and then used just one round from a perfectly working gun (the "coup de gras", as it were) -- like most killers do -- that would ruin their fanciful theory. Another consideration is.... if she was intent on committing a murder, travelling five hundred miles (and then returning), would she really have taken a weapon, which was known to be defective, to do the job?
DeleteI honestly don't know, but certain elements come to mind. Why did none of her alibis check out. Why was she so quick to point out that she was a brunette when she had dyed her hair blonde. More importantly why couldn't the hair be tested for dye. If the hair was blond then it wasn't her, but if it was dyed blonde then she could not be ruled out. I have no idea, but if I was innocent of would have been pushing for my alibis to prove it. She said she was in North Carolina. Any gas receipts, hotel lodging, eye witnesses, atm, gas station camera? That's the biggest part I don't understand. Why couldn't she get her alibis confirmed. Why did she give so many alibis that put her in NC, but none checked out. That to me seems to be the easiest way to prove innocents.
ReplyDeleteHer alibis were confirmed. The police simply refused to believe them. As Tammy Mal points out in Convenient Suspect, Rorrer was under surveillance in NC the whole time she was supposed to be in PA. The surveillance notes were given to the police who never gave them to Rorrer's defense. This whole case stinks.
DeleteI honestly don't know, but certain elements come to mind. Why did none of her alibis check out. Why was she so quick to point out that she was a brunette when she had dyed her hair blonde. More importantly why couldn't the hair be tested for dye. If the hair was blond then it wasn't her, but if it was dyed blonde then she could not be ruled out. I have no idea, but if I was innocent of would have been pushing for my alibis to prove it. She said she was in North Carolina. Any gas receipts, hotel lodging, eye witnesses, atm, gas station camera? That's the biggest part I don't understand. Why couldn't she get her alibis confirmed. Why did she give so many alibis that put her in NC, but none checked out. That to me seems to be the easiest way to prove innocents.
ReplyDeletePatricia Rorrer deserves a new trial. So many questions have been presented.
ReplyDeleteRemember now ... a lot of men are dogs ... they try to keep contact with the ex just for satisfaction of sexual satisfaction ( talking dirty to each other--- or secretly seeing each other ) or just knowing she still will talk to him is a turn on!!! He is the one who had a wife and child ... who else wAs he talking to ... or who else did he want ... the girl he's huggin out side the court room ... ??? Hummmm ... I wouldn't be smilin and grinning like a possium if some one was acuss d and convicted of murderi g my wife and baby ... I would be bawling and thanking god for justice ... who looked like some one who got away with murder ....
ReplyDeleteThis author needs a new editor.
ReplyDeleteWas the childs DNA ever check to verify the father. ? The witness said that's what they couple was fighting about he seen.
ReplyDelete. . . Was any DNA taken of baby Alex? If so where is that recorded? New evidence for new trial hearing? . . .
ReplyDeleteI think a lot of questions are unanswered about the husband?? Seriously, a lot!! Also, I don't see any evidence that Patricia was "loony" or "stalking" anyone. I'm confused...how can a person be sentenced to life in prison based on single hair DNA? I understand that DNA evidence is solid and scientific, but when absolutely nothing else ties a person to the crime...NOTHING...no blood, no eye witness, no fingerprints, no previous threatening behavior, no weapon and no real motive...there is REASONABLE DOUBT that an error (accidental or purposeful) occurred with that single hair. Juries do get things wrong sometimes...and prosecutors can sometimes be more interested in preserving their reputation than in justice...this case in unreal and sad. She may have done it...but I would NEVER have voted guilty based on what was presented in the documentary and what I've read on line. CASE OPEN is my vote.
ReplyDeleteYou make a very valid case refuting the guilty verdict against Rorrer and I agree with you 100%. The one point you seem to be in disagreement with which supports the guilty verdict is the (single) hair with a DNA match to Rorrer. But that really was extremely questionable and stunk of some sort of chicanery having taken place.... because in the first instance, a set of six hairs -- none of which had any root material and therefore only allowed a mitochondrial examination. That test revealed a match with Rorrer, but not conclusively... it could also be matched with scores of other donors. These "same" six hairs then underwent a further test at a later date and amazingly one of the hairs had mysteriously developed a root! At this point, it should be noted Ms Rorrer had specimen hairs forcibly removed by the investigating authorities BEFORE the second test was performed! Needless to say nuclear DNA testing on that particular hair revealed a match with Rorrer. Suspicious??? For some my entries are listed as UNKNOWN. I have no problem in disclosing my name. It's Cliff Freeman.
DeleteI really believe the husband committed this crime!!! First there were no signs of a break in, but later there were? He immediately suggests his ex girlfriend from nine years earlier, who was actually happy at the time? He made that bizarre phone call to her mother and asked if she was at home but didn't want to talk to her and asked the mother to call him back? He was deceptive on both lie detector tests.
ReplyDeleteThe victim is dead with the suspect's hair in her hand. The match was 100% accurate. What more do you need? Zero.
ReplyDeleteYour information source should be checked. The hair on the victim was NEVER tested. Get your facts right before you make ridiculous comments.
DeleteThe DA had a horrible crime going cold & the public wanted results.He waited til 97 to arrest Ms. Rorrer right on the cusp of the 98 election. It wasn't about serving justice.It was about 'job security'. And why was the victim's car so clean? Shoot someone point blank in the face & beat them with a pistol & you'll leave all kinds of blood transfer. Plus,take a little rice burner out in the boonies & there'll be grass & dirt all over it. Didn't the cops say the car was 'immaculate'? And that ain't even the tip of the iceberg!There's alot more evidence to prove her innocent than guilty. Sounds like another Pennsyl-tucky Kangaroo Court to me!The whole case against her is BS!! I hope she is vindicated,properly compensated for the 20 years they robbed her of & that pompous asshole McIntyre ceremoniously disbarred!
ReplyDeleteThe car was "immaculate" according to the cops! No blood, no soil evidence, no fingerprints.... but there invitingly waiting to be discovered were six hairs! Miraculous, when one considers Andrew was the last one to be sitting in it "playing detective" before it was taken into custody.
DeleteThe DA had a horrible crime going cold & the public wanted results.He waited til 97 to arrest Ms. Rorrer right on the cusp of the 98 election. It wasn't about serving justice.It was about 'job security'. And why was the victim's car so clean? Shoot someone point blank in the face & beat them with a pistol & you'll leave all kinds of blood transfer. Plus,take a little rice burner out in the boonies & there'll be grass & dirt all over it. Didn't the cops say the car was 'immaculate'? And that ain't even the tip of the iceberg!There's alot more evidence to prove her innocent than guilty. Sounds like another Pennsyl-tucky Kangaroo Court to me!The whole case against her is BS!! I hope she is vindicated,properly compensated for the 20 years they robbed her of & that pompous asshole McIntyre ceremoniously disbarred!
ReplyDeleteShe's guilty!
ReplyDeleteWhy is this story not attributed to any person? Who is the author? While trying to appear unbiased there nevertheless seems to be a lot of finger-pointing at Ms Rorrer's guilt. If it's Tammy Mal who wrote the above article, then I have to say it leaves me gob-smacked.... especially after reading her book which makes a compelling case for her innocence.
ReplyDeleteIf prizes were awarded for deceiving readers in these columns, your blog above would have to qualify for top honours.
ReplyDeleteThis is probably the most disingenuous piece of junk I have read for a considerable time.
The opening statement, first of all, states you have “researched” this case and from that you appear to conclude there are uncertainties possibly casting doubt on Rorrer’s guilt.
And thereafter, nearly all the text is nothing but speculation, lies, misinformation and devious assertions seemingly to point the finger of suspicion squarely at Rorrer.... which leaves one to wonder where you acquired all this so-called “research”.
Listed below in CAPITALS is my understanding of the truth, with further information which either seems to have eluded you or you conveniently omitted in order to cast further suspicion on Rorrer.
I quote your statements (verbatim). I too have researched this case in detail and so feel obliged to refute most of what you allege.
1) “When Joanne's husband, Andrew, returned home they were not there either. He found the basement door open and removed from the hinges and the phone lines cut”.
YOU CONVENIENTLY FAIL TO MENTION THE POLICE WERE SUMMONED TO THE HOUSE BY THE HUSBAND ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS AFTER HE FOUND HIS WIFE AND BABY MISSING. ON THE FIRST OCCASION NO MENTION WAS MADE OF BASEMENT DOOR OPEN OR DAMAGED NOR PHONE LINES CUT. ALL THESE MYSTERIOUS HAPPENINGS WERE POINTED OUT TO THE POLICE ON THEIR SECOND VISIT!
2) “Apparently Joanne's car was processed for forensics, but to be honest I heard nothing about the home. Inside the car they found six blonde hairs that did not belong to her or Alex.”
YOU MAKE NO MENTION OF THE FACT THE HUSBAND WAS ACTUALLY SITTING IN THE CAR WHEN THE POLICE ARRIVED! STRANGELY, THE POLICE THEN TOLD HIM TO TAKE THE CAR AWAY, TO WHICH HE REFUSED, SAYING HE DIDN’T WANT TO SPOIL ANY EVIDENCE! YOU MAKE NO MENTION THAT WHEN FORENSICALLY EXAMINED, THE CAR WAS TOTALLY FREE OF FINGERPRINTS AND SOIL EVIDENCE.... ONLY SIX HAIRS INVITINGLY WAITING TO BE FOUND!
3) “Police had already determined that Patricia had once stabled horses that she owned near where the bodies had been found and a friend of hers claimed that they would ride the trails that were around where the bodies were left. Patricia would claim to police to not know the area.”
I HAVE READ NOTHING TO THE EFFECT THAT SHE CLAIMED SHE DID NOT KNOW THE AREA. THIS SEEMS TO BE A FIGMENT OF YOUR IMAGINATION. AGAIN, YOU MAKE NO MENTION THAT ANDREW WAS ALL TOO FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA, GOING BACK TO THE DAYS WHEN HE AND RORRER WERE AN ITEM.
4) “Patricia's alibi did not seem to hold up very well either since only two people (ones close to her) claimed to see her at the bar.”
WHAT SIGNIFICANCE DOES THAT HAVE BY SAYING “ONES CLOSE TO HER”? A WITNESS IS A WITNESS REGARDLESS. JUST HOW DISTANT DO WITNESSES HAVE TO BE TO MAKE THEM CREDIBLE? ANDREW’S ALIBI WAS GIVEN BY HIS PARENTS, FOR GOODNESS SAKE.
5) “After a month long trial she was found guilty after six hours of jury deliberation.”
SAYING THE GUILTY VERDICT WAS RETURNED AFTER SIX HOURS DELIBERATION.... IS THAT AN ATTEMPT TO BEND THE TRUTH A BIT IN ORDER TO MAKE IT APPEAR THEY TOOK A RESPECTABLE AMOUNT OF TIME TO ARRIVE AT THEIR VERDICT? GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT.... IT TOOK JUST UNDER TWO HOURS FOR THEM TO DELIVER THEIR VERDICT..... A TRIAL WHICH TOOK A MONTH AND THEY ARRIVE AT A GUILTY VERDICT IN UNDER TWO HOURS!
YOU MENTION ALLEGATIONS OF HER “CRIMINAL” BACKGROUND AT LENGTH AND FINISH OFF WITH....
“There was a report of a breaking and entering charge but I saw nothing about circumstances or even when that occurred.”
NEVERTHELESS YOU CHOSE TO MENTION THAT! WHY? BECAUSE THERE WAS A REPORT? WHERE AND BY WHO? WHAT SORT OF SOURCE IS THAT?