Dark Downeast - The Murder of Joan Wertkin (Connecticut)

Episode Date: March 19, 2026

On a rainy night in late May 1989, a fire was spotted in a Westport, Connecticut parking lot. Within minutes, first responders realized the impossible: a body was burning in the open. Not long after and just a few miles away, a husband called police to report his wife missing. Her name was Joan Wertkin. From the outside, she was living an enviable life in one of Connecticut’s most idyllic towns. But as investigators traced her final hours, the case turned into something far more complicated – a tight timeline, a fraying relationship, a car left where it shouldn’t have been, and questions that still echo for her family. If you have information about Joan Wertkin’s case, please contact the Westport Police Department Cold Case Unit at [phone]. You can also email tips to [e-mail]. View source material and photos for this episode at: darkdowneast.com/joanwertkin Dark Downeast is an Audiochuck and Kylie Media production hosted by Kylie Low. Follow @darkdowneast on Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok To suggest a case visit darkdowneast.com/submit-case Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

On a rainy night in late May, 1989, a fire was spotted in a Westport, Connecticut parking lot. Within minutes, first responders realized the impossible. A body was burning in the open. Not long after, and just a few miles away, a husband called police to report his wife missing. Her name was Joan Workin. From the outside, she was living an enviable life in one of Connecticut's most idyllic towns. But as investigators trace her final hours, the case turned into. to something far more complicated, a tight timeline, a fraying relationship, a car left where it shouldn't

have been, and questions that still echo for her family. I'm Kylie Lowe and this is the case of Joan Workin on Dark Down East. It was 11.7 p.m. on Wednesday, May 24, 1989, when a man stepped out the back door of Stone's Throw Restaurant on Main Street in Westport, Connecticut. Directly across the street from the restaurant's rear entrance sat a small main street shopping plaza, home to the Merritt Country Store, often referred to by locals as the Merritt Suprette, along with a laundromat and several other local businesses. Behind those storefronts stretched a rear parking lot bordered in part by a wooded area. As the man walked towards his car, he noticed something unusual at the far end of the shopping plaza's parking lot. At first it registered simply as fire,

But as he moved toward an open area near some shrubs and two pine trees at the rear of the lot, the shape in the flames began to take form. It did not look like discarded trash. It did not look accidental. It looked like a human body on fire. The man turned and ran back inside the restaurant to report what he had seen. Two other men followed him back out to the spot. The three stood there together long enough to confirm what none of them wanted to believe.

It was a body. They went back inside and called 911. According to Westport Police Department's records for case number 89-89272, at 11.09 p.m., police and fire units were dispatched to the rear parking lot of the Merritt Superette. At 11.11 p.m., officer David Casay arrived and saw what was unmistakably a fire on the west side of the buildings, and within it the body of a female. branches and pieces of wood beneath and beside her were also burning. The body had not been concealed in any way.

When first responders reached her, she was laying on her back and her left leg and right foot were actively burning. Flames were also visible beneath her shoulders and along her right side. She lay exposed in the open, despite the presence of other nearby locations that could have provided significantly more cover for a scene like this. The fire department arrived moments later. As firefighters extinguished the last of the flames,

officers began securing the scene and documenting what they were seeing. They did not yet know the woman's identity. They did not know how she arrived there. But within minutes, another call was coming in, one that would connect the parking lot to a quiet home just a few miles away. At 1118 p.m. and 2.4 miles away from the devastating scene, in that parking lot, another set of officers pulled up to a home at 60 Coley Town Road in Westport. Craig Workkin told officers that his wife, 38-year-old Joan Workkin, had left the house around 9.15 p.m.

to go grocery shopping and had not returned. According to Craig, it was normal for Joan to shop at night. She preferred to wait until her children were in bed before leaving the house, but he noted that she was usually gone for only about an hour. Now more than two hours had passed. He said she was driving a white BMW and that she likely had gone to either Grand Union or Food Emporium in town or possibly to Stu Leonard's in Norwalk. Craig told officers that Joan did not take her purse or wallet with her, but before leaving, she removed cash from her wallet to pay for groceries. He said she was wearing a black warm-up suit and possibly sneakers.

He provided police with a photograph of Joan and was instructed to contact headquarters immediately if she returned home. The officer who spoke with Craig made additional observations in the incident report. He noted that Craig appeared to be wearing a fresh set of clothes. The officer observed a bead of sweat forming on Craig's forehead and described him as seeming somewhat nervous. Meanwhile, at the scene of the fire, a Westport police sergeant was notified that headquarters had received a report of an overdue female. The narrative supplement states that the overdue female was expected to be driving a black

Mercedes. Investigators checked all the cars in the parking lot. It wasn't a black Mercedes that caught their attention, but a white BMW in front of the laundromat. The car was parked in the very last spot on the west side of the lot, and the wheels were turned northwest with the car facing north. The front driver side and passenger side windows were partially rolled down, a little unusual since it was raining outside. The plates came back registered to Craig Worker. At 6.30 a.m. on May 25, 1989, less than eight hours after flames were discovered in a Westport parking lot, two detectives arrived at the Workkin residence to speak with Craig. When they knocked, Craig wasn't home. His mother answered the door and told officers that Craig had just stepped out

to drive his father to the train station for work. She explained that Craig had called them the night before to say Joan was missing, and they had come in from New York to be with him in the children. When Craig returned home that morning and was greeted by detectives, his first question was direct, quote, did you find the car or her, end quote. Throughout the night, Craig had called the police station repeatedly, asking whether officers had found Joan or the car. He consistently asked about the car. Craig reiterated to the detectives that Joan had left around 9.15 p.m. the night before to go grocery shopping. He believed she had taken approximately $200 dollars in cash with her.

Detectives asked whether he and Joan had argued before she left. Craig responded that not really, though he acknowledged they had been experiencing what he described as typical marital tensions. That night, however, he said they had a nice conversation before she went out. He explained that after Joan left, he spent a quiet evening at home, spoke with a few friends on the phone, and then dozed off until approximately 11.10 p.m. When he woke up and realized Joan was not in bed, he checked downstairs. She wasn't there either.

The garage bay where her car should have been was empty, and that was when he called police to report her missing. Craig volunteered that there had been a time when he believed Joan might be seeing someone else. There were occasions, he said, when she could not account for blocks of time, and their intimacy had recently declined. He even told detectives that he had reviewed their phone bills looking for unfamiliar numbers that might indicate an affair, but he did not find anything suspicious. Even still, that morning Craig returned to the possibility that Joan was involved with another

man and suggested that perhaps she had gone to see someone the night before instead of going grocery shopping. Craig said he had considered going out to look for Joan or her car himself, but decided to allow police to handle it. Because he believed she might be with another man, he said he was unsure what he would do if he located the car other than wait for her to return. It was then that detectives informed Craig a body had been located and that Joan's car had been found not far from it. The victim, however, had not yet been positively identified. Craig responded that he had already provided a photograph of Joan and asked why it could not be used for identification. officers only told him that identification from a photograph was not possible.

Detectives asked whether there had been any physical violence in the home the night before. Craig said there was never any physical violence in their home. The detectives asked Craig if they could just take a look around the house. Craig stated that he believed a lawyer should review any written consent to search forms and declined to sign one at that time, but he still granted verbal permission for officers to check the place out. The portion of the police narrative supplement describing what detectives observed inside the working home that morning is largely redacted. The report reads, quote, While looking around the house, nothing appeared to be out of place.

However, I did notice that, and at that point the redactions begin. When the report resumes, the detective describes noticing a purse hanging from the inside front doorknob. The door was located at the foot of the stairs. leading to the bedrooms a door Joan would have passed on her way out of the house to the basement and garage. The detective specifically noted that she would have walked by the purse when she left to go shopping. Officers eventually left the workkin home, but later that day at 2.15 p.m., Westport Police Sergeant Alfred Fiore called to inform Craig that the medical examiner had used dental charts to positively identify the body as his wife, Joan Workkin. Craig said he needed some time

to himself. He agreed to go to the police station later that day when he was ready. Joan's brother and sister-in-law, Mark and Nancy Hollif Center, were at home in Maryland when the phone rang with a call from Mark's father. All they were told was that Joan was dead. And then in the days and weeks to follow, details started to come out that were really, really, really shocking, really shocking. According to reporting by Katie M. Laos and Elizabeth Barbera for the Connecticut Post, the state medical examiner's report indicated that Joan died of ligature strangulation, and her death was ruled a homicide.

Reporting by Todd C. Duncan and Denise Buffa for the Stanford Advocate noted that police would not disclose what was used in the strangulation or whether that item was found around Joan's neck. However, later reporting by Gilbert Seldes claimed, that fragments of a rope used to strangle Joan were sent for testing. Investigators declined to specify whether Joan had any other injuries or whether she was found clothed. But a quote-unquote trusted source told KDM Laos for the Bridgeport Telegram that Joan was found nude from the waist up.

Authorities also would not say at the time whether an accelerant had been used in the fire, yet later reporting claims that a police source said state forensic expert Dr. Hendry Marie Lee found traces of petroleum on Jones' clothing. Many specifics regarding the condition of Joan's body and the nature of her injuries remain redacted in the police records released by the Westport Police Department. But Jones' brother Mark has seen the autopsy report. He says her genitals were lit on fire. It's really a lot.

It was disgusting. And I don't know how anyone could do that to another human being. But it did happen. As far as Joan and I, we weren't super close. We weren't really close into right at the end. But just for somebody to die in such a horrific, graphic manner, it's just appalling. Appalling and completely incongruous with the version of Joan that Mark and many others saw from the outside. Joan had studied early childhood development at Ithaca College.

It was there that she met Craig Workin, who was attending nearby Cornell University. By the spring of 1989, Joan and Craig were approaching what would have been their 17th wedding anniversary on June 10th. They had two children together, a son and a daughter. From the outside, their life was picture perfect, enviable. They lived across the street from Paul Newman's estate. They'd just done a bunch of renovations on the house. But Mark and Nancy say the reality on the inside was far different. Before ever notifying Craig Workkin that the,

body they'd found was positively identified as Joan, investigators had already interviewed those closest to her. Westport Police did not release transcripts for any of the interviews conducted in this case. However, I do have narrative supplements summarizing the substance of the interviews. According to a Westport PD narrative supplement, a friend of Jones told police, she last spoke with Joan at approximately 1240 p.m. on May 24th. Joan had invited her over for tea. but the friend was unable to go. Instead, they spoke on the phone for about 20 minutes. The friend said she sensed something was bothering Joan during that call. An invitation for tea in the middle of the day was out of character.

She told police that Joan and Craig were seeing a marriage counselor to address challenges in their relationship. She also said Joan was involved with someone else, possibly a contractor who had worked on the work in home. The friend did not know the contractor's name but believed he was about 12 years older than Joan, divorced with older children, and engaged to be married. According to the friend, Joan had confided that the man didn't treat her well and that she believed he was using her. During their conversation on May 24th, Joan reportedly said that the affair had nearly run its course. Police also interviewed the Workkin family therapist. The therapist told detectives that Craig had asked her to cooperate if investigators reached.

out with questions. The therapist disclosed that Joan was having an affair and that Craig was also involved with someone else. She said Joan's affair was with a contractor who had worked on the house and that Craig was seeing a woman from New York. On May 24th, the very day of her murder, Joan had called the therapist and left a message requesting a session that same day. Craig had also called the therapist on May 24th, leaving a message requesting a session for that same day. He asked the therapist to call him between 6 and 7 p.m. on his car phone while he would be driving home from work. The therapist said she attempted to reach him between 6.30 and 7.m. but was unable to make contact. At 7.15 p.m., the therapist called the work can home and spoke with Joan.

She was unable to accommodate a same-day session but scheduled a 9.30 a.m. appointment the following morning. Since Craig had also requested a session, the therapist suggested that they attend together, but Joan said she did not want Craig present at that session. Joan then handed the phone to Craig, who also spoke briefly with the therapist. The content of the phone conversation with Craig is not described in the reports I have. The therapist told police that it was unusual, for both Joan and Craig to request independent sessions so abruptly. In her view, something was happening in their personal lives that prompted the requests. When Craig Workkin arrived at headquarters on the evening of May 25th, Sergeant Fiore informed him that Joan's death had been ruled a homicide

and they were investigating it as such. According to Westport police records, Craig said early in the interview that he could not understand why Jones' car had been found at the Suprette, because that was not where she typically shopped. He said her usual stores were Grand Union, Stu Leonard's, or the Food Emporium, but mostly Grand Union. However, he acknowledged that Joan drove past the Superette often and that they did occasionally stop there together for the coffee shop or to visit the store.

Regarding his movements, the night before, Craig said he arrived home from work around 7.15 p.m. The children and Joan had already eaten supper, so he ate alone. He reiterated that they had a nice conversation that evening, general discussion about children and routine matters, and that there had been no argument whatsoever. Craig said the children went to bed between 8.30 and 9 p.m. Joan left for the store sometime after that,

but he did not actually see her leave because he was upstairs in their bedroom watching television. Craig said again that Joan liked to shop at night because there were no lines. At the same time, he stated that she usually, did everyday household shopping during the day, and that nighttime shopping tended to happen only for special occasions. And this shopping trip apparently fit his definition of a special occasion. Joan had said she was going to stock up for Memorial Day weekend, hot dogs, hamburgers, chips, other barbecue essentials, enough for approximately 13 people. He explained they were planning to host friends that Sunday and Monday. According to the report, Craig appeared to

oscillate between those explanations regarding her shopping habits. Craig asked whether officers had found any groceries in the car. The sergeant said they had not. Craig responded that she was obviously intercepted before going inside the store. The next several lines of the report are redacted. Craig told the investigators that before dozing off that night, he made several phone calls, one to a friend in Westport, another call around 10 p.m. and two calls. to a female friend, one at approximately 9.30 p.m. and another around 10.15 p.m. He said he woke up around 11 p.m., noticed Joan was not beside him, checked downstairs, and saw that both she and her car were gone. He then immediately called police.

Craig suggested that perhaps Joan had gone out with someone when she left the house. The possibility had crossed his mind that night. He acknowledged that their marriage had not been easy. He suspected at one point that Joan had been having an affair with their general contractor but said he could never prove anything and believe that if anything had occurred, it was over by then. He felt their relationship was moving in the right direction, particularly after beginning family and marriage counseling. He circled back to the affair topic, though. Craig said Joan used to wear what he described as suggestive clothing around the contractor,

which he disliked. He suspected she may have tried to come on to the contractor. contractor but believed she was rejected, he went back and forth on whether an affair had ever occurred, whether it was ongoing or whether it had ended. When questioned further about possible affairs, Craig said Joan had admitted about a year or two earlier to an affair with an old friend from Maryland and also with a man she met in New York City. He added that he was not certain whether those affairs actually happened or whether Joan may have fabricated them to provoke jealousy. Craig told detectives that around Valentine's Day that same year,

he found a pair of heart-shaped earrings among Joan's belongings that he did not recognize. When he later confronted her, she said she did not mention them because she didn't want him to get upset about her spending money. Craig doubted that explanation, noting the earrings were worth about $29. Sergeant Fiore asked about Craig's route to the train station that same morning when his mother told officers he was dropping off his father at the train station. Craig stated he drove from Easton Road to cross highway to North Campo, over the post road to South Campo, then across the middle bridge on Bridge Street, and returned home the same way.

When asked whether he had driven past the crime scene that morning, Craig denied doing so and commented that the Route 33 area which he would have had to travel if passing the crime scene on Main Street was always a disaster with morning traffic. Now, the narrative states that another detective previously reported seeing Craig driving north on Route 33 just north of Post road that morning, which would have taken him past the crime scene. However, Craig maintained that he used the Bridge Street route. The sergeant asked whether Craig would provide a written statement regarding the previous night's events. Craig first asked if he needed an attorney and he was told that was an option. Craig said it would not be a problem and that he would provide a written statement

But according to the reports available to me at this time, no written statement was ever submitted. Before the interview concluded, Craig asked how badly Joan's body had been burned. Officers told him they were unsure and that he could speak with the funeral director for more information. As the May 25th interview concluded, detectives had Craig's account of the evening. He described an uneventful night before Joan left with pleasant conversation and no argument. or violence. The only other people who might have information about that night at the Workkin home were the children. Officers interviewed both Workkin children with their father present on June 2nd. Their son told police he went to bed at 9 p.m. He believed he heard the cartel

system around 9.30 p.m. a device that alerted the household when a car reached the end of the driveway. He assumed that sound meant his mother was leaving the house. He also said he sleepwalked into his parents' bedroom around 10 or 10.30 that night, and complained he had an upset stomach. He stated that his father gave him Pepto-Bismol. From the Westport PD narrative supplement prepared by Sergeant Alfred Fiore verbatim, when he finished, he turned to his father and said, Right, Dad?

When we questioned him on this, he told us that he wasn't sure about everything right away, that his father had told him about the sleepwalking and giving him something, for his stomach. The report continues, during the interview, he constantly looked to his father for approval. It seemed that he was telling us what his father had related to him that night. His statement, verbal, to us, seemed rehearsed and not spontaneous. End quote. The couple's daughter told police, she did not remember anything about that night and was described as very withdrawn during the interview. Simultaneous to the interviews with Jones' friend and therapist and children, investigators began systematically retracing her possible movements and

examining physical evidence. Police spoke with several employees who were working at the Stones Throw restaurant on the night of May 24th. None recalled seeing Joan there. Investigators also located and interviewed customers who had been at the restaurant that evening, and no one reported seeing Joan. Officers contacted two employees at the Food Emporium in Westport, where Craig said she routinely shopped. Neither remembered seeing Joan on May 24th. The same was true for employees at yet another of Jones regular stores, the Grand Union Supermarket. No one recalled seeing Joan in the store. Meanwhile, investigators obtained a search and seizure warrant for Jones' 1988 white BMW 325 four-door sedan, which was registered to Craig Workin. Several unspecified items were collected from the vehicle.

According to case file documents obtained from the Westport Police Department, Jones BMW was missing a specific part when it was recovered. The identity of that part is redacted from the documents. Detectives attempted to locate the same make, model, and year vehicle for comparison purposes of this missing part. While the exact year of the BMW was not available, a local dealership told investigators that the 1987 and 1989, models use the same part with the same, quote, fiber content, end quote. My mind goes to two parts that would have fiber content in a car, the carpets and the seatbelts,

maybe any fabric seats or panels. At a second dealership, a manager informed police that he had a wrecked 1987 BMW 325 on the property and offered the corresponding part. Investigators collected that part and brought it back to headquarters. There, officers placed the part from the 1987 vehicle into Jones BMW. According to the report, it appeared to match exactly. Case file documents also indicate that undisclosed evidentiary items were sent to the FBI for processing on September 12, 1989. Specific details about those items and portions of the supplemental narrative are redacted. There is no further public information available regarding any results.

Weeks later, an individual who had been at the Stones throw restaurant on the night of May 24th came forward. He told police that he parked across the street from the Merritt Superette around 7 p.m. and noticed a man standing on the west side of the building acting suspiciously and carrying what was described as a knapsack or duffel bag. The witness also recalled seeing a light-colored BMW, possibly a 6- or 7-series, and a light tan or yellow BMW or Mercedes parked in front of the dry cleaners. In separate reporting, an employee at the Merritt Suprette told Denise Buffa of the Stanford Advocate that he saw a white BMW parked near the store approximately two hours before the body was

discovered, sometime around 9 or 9.10 p.m. when he left work. He said that no one was inside the vehicle. He also said a dark blue car owned by a store patron was parked next to. He was parked next to the BMW? That patron reportedly told police the BMW was gone as of 10.30 p.m. Just as a disclaimer, these statements are unverified and are not contained in the case file documents available for review. Investigators were working outward from the scene, retacing Jones possible movements, speaking with restaurant employees and grocery store workers, examining the positioning of cars in the parking lot, and processing her BMW piece-by-peas. But the physical evidence was only one part of the picture.

Interviews with Jones' friend and the family therapist had introduced an extramarital relationship with a contractor who had worked on the work in home. Craig himself had raised suspicions about that same man. So, detectives shifted their focus to the person at the center of those allegations. The contractor straight up denied having anything other than any professional relationship with her. However, he acknowledged they were friendly and said they had spoken recently about potential work Joan wanted done on a cabana.

He expressed concern that rumors of an affair could damage both his business and his relationship. He provided an account of his whereabouts on the day of Joan's death. He said he was at the Danbury Courthouse until approximately 2.30 p.m. had dinner with his girlfriend at 6 p.m., met with a client at 8 p.m., and returned home around 9 or 930 p.m. where he remained for the rest of the night. During a second interview on June 2nd, he gave police essentially the same timeline. He added that he had called Joan when he left the courthouse and spoke with her briefly. As detectives worked through the contractor's statements, investigators continued examining every avenue. Scrutiny would soon turn back

toward the Workkin home itself. Craig Workin had agreed to what was described as an extensive search by local and state officials in late August of 1989. According to Craig, investigators did not find anything. He told the advocate newspaper, quote, I am confident that within a very short period of time that I will be completely out of the picture. I am extremely confident that the investigation will be focused away, end quote. That summer, Craig Workkin hired high-profile defense attorney Barry Slotnick. According to Slotnik, he retained a polygraph examiner and Craig passed the examination with flying colors.

Slotnick also said his team was assembling, quote, some of the best investigators and scientists in the country to assist in nabbing the real culprit, end quote. Meanwhile, Connecticut Governor William A. O'Neill authorized a $20,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of the person or persons responsible for Jones' death. By then, police publicly stated that the investigation had narrowed and that they felt confident the case was moving in the proper direction with a list of recently developed suspects. Also around this time, the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, a behavioral research unit of the FBI, generated a profile of Joan's killer.

According to the profile, the killer was male and had more than a passing familiarity with Joan. The murder may have resulted from a spontaneous loss of control. From the profile verbatim, behavioral evidence points to emotion and anger. However, the person responsible did not totally obliterate the victim, leading us to believe the suspect was not a stranger. The profile suggested the killer may have been experiencing upheaval and emotional discord in his personal life,

particularly in relationships with those close to him. Those feelings may have led to frequent or, constant contact with women. It further stated that the killer would likely be cooperative with investigators as long as the inquiry was not directed at him. If questioning shifted specifically toward him, cooperation would likely cease. The FBI profile did not name anyone. It offered characteristics, patterns, behavioral tendencies.

Detectives still had to measure those generalizations against the real people in Jones' life. The contractor remained part of that equation. By the time police interviewed the contractor who was rumored to be involved with Joan for a third time, his account shifted. On September 25th, he admitted that Joan had approached him about having an affair, but he claimed he rejected her. Officers told him they did not believe that version and gave him an opportunity to reconsider his statements. He then admitted that he and Joan had been had. having an affair. After some hesitation, he acknowledged that it had been sexual in nature. He said the affair was over, but also claimed that Joan had made comments during the relationship

suggesting that they one day might be together. He said he told her that would not happen because they came from different backgrounds. When asked whether Joan had spoken about leaving her husband or ending her marriage, he said he didn't know anything about that. The contractor agreed to take a polygraph examination and insisted it would show he was being truthful and that he had no knowledge of Joan's death. On September 28, he submitted to the polygraph. Among the questions asked were, did he know who killed Joan Workin? Did he kill Joan Workin? Did he know she was dead before 1115 p.m. on May 24, 1989? Did he set Joan's body on fire? He answered no to all questions. According to the report, investigators were satisfied with the results and eliminated him as a suspect.

As investigators continued to develop leads, outside theories began to surface, some from the public, some from individuals close to the case. One theory involved a movie. Gilbert Saldes reports for the Stanford advocate that Craig Workin approached police about a Connection suggested to him between Jones' murder and a film called Criminal Law. Craig said he was told that the movie's plot included two women who were strangled and then set on fire during a rainstorm, which drew obvious comparisons to Jones' case. Criminal Law is a legal thriller about a brilliant but arrogant defense attorney played by Kevin Bacon, who defends a wealthy man accused of murder.

After winning an acquittal, the lawyer begins to suspect that his client is guilty, and manipulating the justice system. Police did not comment on the film or whether it factored into the investigation. At the same time, authorities were examining violent crimes in nearby communities. Police planned to question 28-year-old Michael Franzis in connection with Jones case.

Franzis had been charged with first-degree sexual assault, attempted murder, and first-degree kidnapping stemming from a May 31st, 1989 attack at Cranbury Park in Norwalk. He was accused of handcuffing a woman and restraining her with a rope around her neck. An off-duty police officer interrupted the attack and arrested Franzis. The attempted murder charge was later dropped, but the other charges remained. The same suspect was also wanted for questioning in connection with another sexual assault reported in the park on May 20th. According to reporting by Gilbert Seldes for the Stanford Advocate,

a man driving a maroon Mercedes, the same type of car Michael Franzis owned, was involved in a separate incident in South Norwalk. After crashing into a 27-year-old woman's vehicle, the driver offered her a ride to a gas station. Once she was inside his car, he placed a rope around her neck and handcuffed her, drove her to Cranberry Park, sexually assaulted her, and later drove her home.

He was eventually charged with first-degree kidney, and first-degree sexual assault in that case. Franzis later pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree sexual assault and two counts of first-degree kidnapping in connection with the Cranberry Park incidents as part of a plea agreement. If convicted at trial, he could have faced up to 100 years in prison. Instead, his sentence under the agreement was capped at 20 years. As of early June 1989, Franzis refused to speak with Westport Police for Jones' case,

And later that month, an anonymous source told Gilbert Saldez of the Stanford Advocate that police were no longer viewing Franzis as a prime suspect in Jones case. He has never been charged with any crimes as it relates to the murder of Joan Workkin. By late summer of 1989, the case had drawn statewide attention. The governor authorized a substantial reward. Police had publicly stated the investigation was narrowing and that they were confident. it was moving in the right direction. Physical evidence had been sent to the FBI.

Detectives had pursued suspects, and yet no arrests were made. It appears the investigation slowed significantly around September of 1989. That was also the time Detective Wayne Dillinsky, one of the lead investigators on the case, died of a heart attack. After that, there were no public announcements of major breakthroughs. Craig Workin eventually moved with the children to Florida, According to Florida court records I reviewed, he remarried, but his second wife filed for divorce in February of 1996. The divorce was finalized in June of 1998.

Police have never officially identified Craig as a suspect in Jones' murder. He has been questioned, but never charged. My attempts to reach Craig for comment or an interview were unsuccessful. I was also unable to reach Jones' son. However, I connected with Joan's daughter, and while she expressed support for renewed coverage of her mother's case and hoped that it would help the investigation, she declined to participate. According to reporting by Kayla Muchler for the Connecticut Post, Jones case was considered active in 2008 and formally reopened again in 2010. The renewed investigation was led by Lieutenant Gillian Cabana and Detective Philip Restieri of the Westport Police Department. Court records from 2011 indicate that police had identified a suspect through DNA profiling,

contemporary forensic techniques, and witness statements. However, that development did not result in an arrest. More than a decade later, in 2023, Westport Police sought public assistance in Jones case and shared a piece of new public information. From a news release posted to Facebook, quote, Investigators do not believe she drove herself to the main street location, end quote. Police have not publicly explained what evidence led them to this theory. That detail is a really big deal.

For decades, the general understanding of the case followed a straightforward narrative. Joan left her home around 9.15 p.m. to go grocery shopping and possibly encountered violence near the plaza where her body was ultimately found. That version of events stemmed largely from the timeline provided the night she was reported missing. But if investigators now believe Joan did not drive herself to that location, it changes the framework. If she did not drive her white BMW to the parking lot, then someone else may have. That suggests the encounter leading to her death may have occurred before the vehicle arrived on Main Street. It raises the possibility that the plaza was not the initial site of violence, but rather a secondary location,

whether for abandonment of the vehicle, concealment, staging, or some other purpose. Those are all investigative possibilities. I'm eager to know what forensic analysis can tell us about the car and who was in it. An unknown profile or fingerprint inside the car would be pretty illuminating. Investigators have not named the suspect identified through DNA testing and 2011, or what was tested and where it came from. But even without that information, the 2023 statement signals that investigators believe that timeline of Joan's final movements is more complex than originally assumed. The timeline is everything. On May 24, 1989,

Joan was home with her husband and children. According to Craig Workin's statements to police, she left around 9.15 p.m. By 11.07 p.m., her body was discovered burning. At 11.18 p.m., Craig reported her missing. According to official police reports, the discovery and the missing persons report occurred within 11 minutes of each other. If investigators now believe Joan did not drive herself to Main Street,

then the sequence between 915 and 11.07 p.m. becomes even more critical. When did she encounter? the person responsible? Where did that interaction begin? How much time elapsed between her leaving home and her arrival at the plaza? And who had access to her vehicle during that window? Those questions remain unanswered publicly. Solving Joan worked in homicide depends not only on who had motive, but on reconstructing minute by minute how she traveled from home to the parking lot and whether she did so alone or alive. Mark is six years older than his sister Joan.

They didn't have a close relationship growing up. Life pulled them in different directions. It wasn't until a few months before her murder that something shifted for him. The only time I ever actually really talked to her was at a Thanksgiving dinner prior Thanksgiving before she died. And it was the first time that I realized that Joan was a pretty cool person

and that we had very similar outlooks on things and we had a wonderful conversation and I really look forward to talking with her more like, wow, I got a sister who's pretty cool. This is great. I didn't realize that I had that. Mark will never get to grow that relationship

with his sister now. He was shorted the opportunity to build a meaningful connection with her. In lieu of that, he is committed to the pursuit of justice for Joan. Even though Joan and I weren't besties, I mean, I still love my sister. I don't have any other siblings. It was my only sister.

I believe in justice, whether it's for my sister or anybody's sister or anybody's friend or anybody. I mean, people should just not be allowed to murder somebody and set their body on fire and get away with it. I mean, that's not the kind of world I want to live in. Mark has his own opinions of the case and potential suspects based on everything he's learned over the years. And as time goes on, it gets more frustrating. It's like, it's so obvious. But yet, you just have to be able to take that one step of going from a theory to be able to say, now we have evidence that this is what happened.

But I think it's going to have to take somebody who knows something. So it's just a tough situation. It's very frustrating. I'm frustrated. I think the universe is just. and I think that justice will be meted out at the appropriate time, whether it's in this life or the next life. But I think it will always happen.

And I have 100% faith that justice in this particular case will be meted out that he will pay in some way for what he did, in my opinion. He has a message for those who may be sitting on information all these years later. I think people need to reach deep things. down inside themselves and just be brave and do the right thing. And if you know something, say something. The end. If you have information about Joan Workin's case, please contact the Westport Police Department Cold Case Unit at 203-5203831. You can also email tips to coldcase tips at westportc.gov.

Thank you for listening to Dark Down East. You can find all source material for this case at darkdowneast.com. Be sure to follow the show on Instagram at Darkdowneast. This platform is for the families and friends who have lost their loved ones and for those who are still searching for answers. I'm not about to let those names or their stories get lost with time. I'm Kylie Lowe, and this is Dark Down East. Dark Down East is a production of Kylie Media and Audio Check.

I think Chuck would approve.