True Crime All The Time - Patricia Rorrer

Episode Date: April 13, 2026

Joann Katrinak and her infant son, Alex, went missing on the afternoon of December 15th, 1994. Joann’s vehicle with the carseat still inside was found early on December 16th in a parking lot a few hundred yards from her home. Months passed with no answers, but on April 9th, 1995, a farmer in Heidelberg Township found a body, and then investigators found a second body nearby. The bodies were identified as Joann and Alex Katrinak. Join Mike and Gibby as they discuss Patricia Rorrer. Patricia Rorrer was Joann's husband's ex-girlfriend. The authorities zeroed in on her, and the evidence mounted. The prosecution based its case on hair and DNA evidence from the crime scene. Patricia has spent almost 30 years appealing her conviction, arguing that the DNA evidence was not sufficient for a conviction.You can help support the show at patreon.com/truecrimeallthetimeVisit the show's website at truecrimeallthetime.com for contact, merchandise, and donation informationAn Emash Digital productionSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hello everyone and welcome to episode 488 of the True Crime All the Time podcast. I'm Mike Ferguson and with me as always is my partner in True Crime. Mike Gibson, how are you? Hey, I'm doing good. How about yourself? Excellent. Having a great week.

That's good. Let's go ahead and give our Patreon shoutouts. We had Sandra. Hey, what's going on, Sandra? Casey. Hey, Casey. Louise Brooking. What's going on, Brooklyn?

Jay Witch. Well, thanks, Wooch. Molly Burr. There's the Burr. Kim Samson. Samson and Goliath. No, it's David and Goliath. Samson and Delilah, or I don't know.

I'm trying to think of the music band. I wonder if Samson and Goliath or something. I have no idea what you're talking about. Jennifer Kale. What's going on, Kale? Let's just get past that, shall we? Nicole Sands. Crazy Sands.

And last but not least, Jim. She's J.I.M. And then if we go back into the vault. This week, we selected Emily Van Haren. Yes, a very. Very distant cousin to the Van Halen family. Very distant. Yes.

Yes. Like not related at all. But we appreciate all the support we get on Patreon. So right now we have a new episode out on True Crime All the Time Unsolved where we're headed to North Wales to talk about the disappearance of Travelling Evans. She was an antique shop owner who in 1990 one day left a note on her door. telling her customers that she'd be back in a few minutes, but she never returned. Yeah. And I'll use my best Wales accent that I can, you know, it's kind of like, I remember,

but random de bros, but don't know. Okay. That sounds more like the chef from the Muppets. Well, I think he's from Wells. I don't think so. I love our Wells listeners. I know you do. And then on Thursday's T-Cat, we're talking about Glenn Adur.

And it's a fascinating case of, a woman murdering her husband, not for financial gain, but to conceal debts and an impending foreclosure from him. But it's the way that the case was solved. I mean, there's a talking parrot. Yeah. Who witnessed the murder that becomes part of the investigation. I like that.

So make sure you check that out. All right, buddy, are you ready to get into this episode of true crime all the time? I am. We're talking about Petrie. Roer, Patricia was convicted of kidnapping and murdering her ex-boyfriend's wife, an infant's son, in December 1994. The prosecution based their case on hair and DNA evidence from the crime scene. Patricia has spent almost 30 years appealing her conviction, arguing that the DNA evidence was

not sufficient for a conviction. Joanne Marie Katrinak was born in the Bronx. on October 11th, 1968, she was the youngest of four children and grew up in Hackettstown, New Jersey. Joanne was close with her older sister Peggy Quarter. They enjoyed shopping together and swapping romance novels. They talked almost every day during Peggy's lunch break. Remember we used to swamp romance novels at work? No, but I remember when you used the model for the cover of romance.

novels. I had glorious hair back then. You and Fabio had a real kind of rivalry going on. Yeah. I try to take him down. Joanne wasn't sure what she wanted to do for a career. She tried college classes. She tried cosmetology school, but neither panned out. She dreamed about getting married and having children. She ended a rocky marriage after just five months in 1992. Around that time, she met Andrew Katrinak, a self-employed contractor from Catasqua, Pennsylvania. Joanne moved in with Andrew, and they got married in May 1993. Their son Alex was born on August 29, 1994. Joanne was working as a secretary at the time, but quit after she had the baby.

She often drove back to New Jersey to visit her family, and she enjoyed bringing Alex with her. Just two days before she went missing, Joanne and Alex drove to New Jersey to have lunch with friends. Everyone said that she seemed extremely happy. You ever been to New Jersey? To the shore? Just to New Jersey. I've been to the shore with Big Mike.

I went one time. And the only thing I remember of it is that back then you were not allowed to pump your own gas. That's true today, I still, I believe. Is it? I thought it was the strangest thing. thing. Yeah. It's the only place I've ever been to where you legally could not pump your own gas. That's my job. Get away from that. Joanne talked to her sister on the phone the next day, December 14th. They discussed plans for Christmas and close for Alex. Joanne and Alex went missing

on the afternoon of December 15th in 1994. According to Andrew, Joanne was in a good mood. They played with Alex for a while before he left for work. Joanne was supposed to be. He was supposed to to leave home around 1.15 to pick up her mother-in-law in Salisbury Township to go Christmas shopping. Andrew spent the day working on a friend's home with his father. Joanne wasn't home when he got back around 630, but he didn't become worried until he went to the basement. An hour later to check the oil tank and noticed the door was ajar. And the hinge on the lock was pried from the wood. That's when you start getting nervous. Yeah. And we talk about that and many cases, right, both solved and unsolved, where, you know, what is the moment where the

alarm bells start to ring? And I think, you know, Andrew is painting it as this point right here. He called friends and family and then called the police at 10.30 p.m. Joanne's vehicle with the car seat still inside was found early on December 16th in a parking lot a few hundred yards from her home. That morning, Andrew saw that one of their two phone lines had been cut. So things are starting to look pretty dire. Yeah. I mean, they would, if I was in that position, right, you have what appears to be a break-in.

Your wife and infant son is missing. And then you discover one of your phone lines has been cut. I mean, the level of concern has to be going up. Yeah, not to mention the fact that they found Joanne's car with the car. car seat still inside. Yeah. Andrew and Joanne's family believed she was abducted. Police did not initially classify her disappearance as an abduction.

Instead, treating it as a missing person's case with suspicious circumstances involved. Police believe she possibly left with someone else. Investigators talked to her ex-husband and confirmed he was at work on the afternoon of her disappearance. And obviously, they're going to have to do that, right? his ex-husband is going to be one of the first people, the husband and the ex-husband. Yeah, that's kind of standard. Andrew told a reporter, they suspected Joanne was abducted as she was leaving home.

He said, as quoted by the morning call, we think she got as far as putting the child seat down. And that's where they obviously came up behind her. And, you know, I did think it was kind of strange, right? the car is found just a few hundred yards from the home. He guessed that the abductor shoved Joanne into her car and then drove to the parking lot and switched vehicles. Speculating on motive, he said that someone may have been infatuated with Joanne, who he said was attractive and friendly.

And I get, you're trying to come up with a theory. Right. Right. If you're the husband and let's say you're not involved, you're worried, you're trying come up with any reason for what happened and why it happened. But I think for him, he's kind of thinking this was a guy, this was a male who was infatuated with Joanne and had targeted her. Yeah. So, you know, like you said, he said, you know, she was attractive, very friendly and it's not out of the realm of possibility. But that could be the reason why. Yeah. Yeah. I definitely

see why that was, you know, maybe entered his. mind. Andrew also said he knew people might suspect he was involved in his wife's disappearance. He noted that he and Joanne had a great marriage and they were talking about possibly moving out west to Colorado where they had vacation before. He explained that while he may appear calm and unaffected, that was because he wasn't used to showing his emotions. There's people like that. And we talk about it, right? How do people act? Let's say when they're, they're being interrogated or they're giving a maybe a press conference or they're talking to reporters sometimes people think they don't act the way they should and he's saying hey i'm not used to

showing my emotions he might be crying at home right but when he's in front of the cameras he's trying to be calm i get that but to some it's also going to make you look guilty oh yeah we know that On December 21st, the FBI joined the search because of the possibility of kidnapping, but months passed with no answers. Then on April 9, 1995, a farmer in Heidelberg Township found a body near the intersection of Sagersville Road and Best Station Avenue. In a sparsely populated rural area, investigators found a second body nearby. The bodies were identified as Joanne and Alex Katrinich. On April 10th, the Lehigh County Coroner's Office announced that Joanne was bludgeoned and shot in the head. Alex's cause of death was pending forensic tests.

Neighbors reported that Andrew had been in the neighborhood until a week and a half earlier. When he packed up a trailer and left, presumably to look for Joanne. Friends and family told the media that Andrew was frustrated by the search and traveled to Louisiana because a psychic told him. him, Joanne could be found there. This is where he was when the bodies were found. So I'm sure he was a little upset. He wasn't where he should have been. Well, yeah, but also you got to think of the optics, right? We just talked about people thinking that he probably may have looked guilty because of the way he was acting. All right, now you've got to take this into account. Sure. How does it make him look? I think it's going to vary depending on

you know, who's who's viewing this. In the spin that they put on it. Yeah. Andrew flew home after authorities called him. His mother told the media, he was devastated. And they had no idea who could have murdered Joanne and Alex. Later that month, the Lehigh County Coroner's Office announced that Alex was left to die from exposure or was suffocated. Both terrible things.

Yeah. And you have a. wife and mother and a young son who die or are killed, for sure in the case of Joanne, I mean, I can't imagine it Gibbs. If you're the husband and you had nothing to do with this, you are heartbroken. You're heartbroken and pissed because somebody let your child suffer. And killed your wife. And killed your wife on top of all that.

And then, you know, like we do. talk about a lot, you're dealing with that grief, but then you're also having to deal with people being suspicious of you and, you know, thinking that you did this. And if you didn't, wow, that's a tough one. That's, that's like a double blow. I'm sure he got the side eye a lot. Andrew was eventually cleared as a suspect. Investigators soon identified a person from Andrew's past as a person of interest. In September 1995, it was reported that investigators searched the home of Andrew's former girlfriend, 31-year-old Patricia Roarer, who was living in Lidwood, North Carolina with her mother.

Patricia was born in New Jersey, but moved with her family to North Carolina in 1978. She returned to the Lehigh Valley in 1984. She met Andrew that year. He was a regular at the restaurant she worked at. She and Andrew lived together in a house she purchased in Salisbury Township in the mid-Aid. 80s, they broke up in 1989, and Patricia defaulted on the mortgage the following year. In 1991, Patricia spent a few days at Andrew's home after she was assaulted by her boyfriend and had nowhere else to go. And she moved back to North Carolina in 1991. The phone listing for

Andrew's home remained in Patricia's name. That's a little bizarre. Yeah, I thought it was as well. The morning call also reported that Patricia called Andrew's home just three days before Joanne went missing. And it was this kind of unexpected call from her that prompted him to give her name to investigators when Joanne and Alex went missing. But, you know, investigators are going to go deep when they have to, right? They're going to look initially, okay, we're going to look at this person, that person. Well, that doesn't turn up anything. we're going to look at other relationships. And there go as deep as they need to until they feel comfortable that there's nothing there.

Yeah, it's that whole theory of, you know, kind of working from the inside out, which I think is a pretty regular thing that investigators do. Investigators later told Andrew that Patricia was distraught about something. And her call to him was one of several she made to current and former friends. In his interview, Andrew explained that his phone listing was still in Patricia's name, because when he first moved into the Catasauqua home, he hadn't yet connected phone service to the house because he didn't plan on living there long. He worried that his financial status would prevent him from getting service,

so Patricia let him establish an account in her name. He decided to stay in the house after he met Joanne in May 1992, for business reasons, he kept the phone number, but couldn't change the name under which the account was listed. Sometimes it's not easy to change things. Yeah, I mean, we said it sounded very strange, but, okay, here's an explanation for it. He said he hadn't heard from Patricia for about two years.

She called him in early 1994, and he told her he was married and had a baby on the way. He thought that would be the last time he ever heard from her. guess he was wrong. Oh, he was definitely wrong, but, you know, who hasn't, you know, heard from an old boyfriend, an old girlfriend. You know, sometimes it's just a, hey, how you're doing, how are you doing type of thing.

Just wanted to see how you're doing. Yeah, or hey, I've got a baby. Yeah, or sometimes it's maybe a little more than that. Yeah. Maybe trying to see what your status is because maybe they want to get back together or whatever. When she called on December 12, 1994, he told Joanne he didn't want to talk to her.

And that is the right answer. It is. I mean, obviously, depending on what the relationship was and all that. But if you're now married with a baby on the way, talking to ex-girlfriends probably not going to go over well in a lot of relationships. But sometimes that person on the other end of that call won't take it very well. Yeah. No, that's absolutely possible.

Over two years after Joanne and Alex's bodies were found, on June 24, 1997, Patricia was arrested and charged with two counts each of homicide and kidnapping. Lehigh County DA Robert Steinberg credited DNA testing was solving the case. the DNA testing involved eight strands of blonde hair. Six of those hairs were found on the headrest of Joanne's vehicle. Two more hairs were found near the bodies. One in a diaper bag and another among debris at the crime scene. Blood was found on some of the hairs that belonged to Joanne or Alex, but the hairs themselves were patricians.

Okay. I mean, seems like fairly solid evidence. It does. I think it's going to be hard to explain, right? Why your hairs were found in that vehicle. Yeah. I think even harder to explain is that some of the hairs had either Joanne or Alex's blood on them. Yeah. According to the arrest affidavit, state police traveled to North Carolina to interview Patricia weeks after the bodies were found. She denied being in the state around the time of Joanne's disappearance. investigators visited her in North Carolina eight or nine times over the next two years. That's pretty extensive.

It is. And I think if you're the person being interviewed, you've got to be extremely worried because this isn't just a one time and then, okay, we'll leave you alone type of deal. Eight or nine times, that means they are really interested in you as a, as a suspect. I mean, it seems like they're locked on you pretty good. Her home was searched in July 1995. Investigators confirmed she purchased a 22 caliber pistol that could have fired the bullet that killed Joanne.

Investigators received Patricia's hair and blood samples in November 1995, which were sent to the FBI for testing. Her pretrial hearing took place in November 1997. At the hearing, Sergeant Suzanne Suzanne Pan Pearson testified that she was instructed to sit with Patricia while she changed out of her pajamas on the morning of her arrest. She testified that Patricia picked up her daughter, sat on the edge of the bed, and said to her baby, why did I do this, Nicole? If I had known I would get caught, I would never have brought you into this world. That's fascinating. Yeah. I mean,

it's a very incriminating statement to make with a police sergeant sitting, you know, right with you. Yeah. Sergeant Pearson wrote this down on her hand and then later transferred it to a report. Patricia's attorneys wanted to suppress these statements. The court heard that Patricia was interviewed a week after Joanne and Alex went missing in December 1994. She expressed concern about their well-being.

and how Andrew was holding up. She said she talked to Andrew a few times a year, and the interview ended amicably. Several days before the bodies were found, police learned Patricia kept horses in a stable two miles away from the crime scene. So at that point, she was labeled a suspect. I think she has to be at that point.

In April 1995, she was asked to take a polygraph and provide information on alibis. she said she wanted to think about the polygraph. And then she didn't return phone calls. Okay. So that means to me you don't want to take a polygraph. Right. And I don't blame you for just that alone.

But if you're not going to call the people back, okay. You don't want to take a polygraph. You don't want to provide information on your alibi. You're doing nothing to remove yourself from police. radar. I mean, if anything, I would think you would hire an attorney to correspond for you. Yeah, I definitely get that. I understand, you know, getting an attorney, but doing nothing, right? Not calling back, not having an attorney, reach out. To me, you're not doing anything, but painting the target on your back even brighter. That's true. On April 27th, FBI agent Dwight Ayers went to

her house. She opened the door, but wouldn't allow him in. She said she still wanted to consult her lawyer about taking the polygraph. Police returned with a search warrant in July of that year. When handed a copy of the warrant, Patricia said she didn't own a gun. But police found boxes of 22 caliber cartridges in her bedroom and spent casings in the yard. Well, if you don't own a gun, do you have a gun? Well, if you don't have a gun, you don't own a gun, there's really no need for any type of bullets. I mean, people don't own bullets just to own bullets, right?

They own them because they have a gun to put them into. A former boyfriend who lived with Patricia from 1990 to November 1994 told police, he and Patricia fired a gun in the backyard. He also told police where she usually kept her gun in her house, and in her vehicles. He claimed Patricia once pointed a gun at him and threatened him. Okay, some useful information. It is.

It's also, you know, that kind of theory of what's what you do to your partners. Yeah. Because at some point, they might be ex-partners. And what you did to them may come to bite, may come back to bite you in the end. It sounds like this one might have just done that. Prosecutors had another witness who claimed he sold Patricia a 22 caliber Jennings handgun. The bullet taken from Joanne's body was consistent with one fired from a Jennings. Okay.

Again, not adding up good for her. It's not. Now, honestly, I've never heard of that brand. Yeah. Jennings. But there are a lot of makers of 22s, right? 22s are very common. A lot of different manufacturers make them.

Kind of a lower cost gun to buy too. Oh, yeah. They're 22s are usually cheaper. Prosecutors also noted that on the way to have her hair and blood samples taken, Patricia read the warrant and asked the detective, does my hair look blonde to you? Police were trying to match her to blonde hairs found at the crime scene. Patricia had medium brown hair at the time.

time of her arrest. But a photo of her taken around the time of the murders showed her with blonde hair. Well, one thing I know is women can change their hair color as much as they like. So can men. They can. I don't think that's that's strictly a woman thing. But I think more than men, women do like to change their hair color. I know you have tried really hard to keep your from going gray. It is gray underneath, but you've done a really good job of painting it or whatever you want to call it, coloring it. Sometimes I do an umbrae. What is an umbra?

I really don't know. I've seen the term out there before. I was just rolling with it. All right. Hopefully you're right. I have no idea. I don't have enough hair to do anything with it. Nor do I.

The court heard that the FBI compared hairs found at the scene. with Patricia's hairs and determined she could have been the person to leave the hairs behind. The testing was done for mitochondrial DNA, which couldn't determine for certain the hairs were Patricians. Nuclear DNA testing had been used in trials in Lehigh County, but testimony about mitochondrial DNA testing had only been given in six cases. Since 1996, mitochondrial DNA can explain. exclude a suspect if there's not a match.

But if there is a match, experts can't say for certain that the sample was from the suspect. And we've talked about, you know, hair testing quite a bit, right? And it's come a long ways. You know, back in the day,

they used to say it looks microscopically similar. Well, we now know that a lot of that was kind of junk science. I think mitochondrial DNA was a step. Yeah, but it was limited, as we just talked about. Right. I mean, it's not a for sure thing. Two prosecution experts testified about the difference between the two

and the process for testing hairs, bone, and teeth for genetic material. Dr. Mark Stone King, an anthropology professor, testified that mitochondrial DNA is more a test for exclusion. And that's kind of what we just talked to. about, right? It can exclude a suspect, but it can't say for sure whether a person's hair is an absolute match is the way that I understand it. The defense called on biology professor William Shields, who testified that mitochondrial DNA testing isn't as reliable as some belief. It's susceptible to contamination. And a person's mitochondrial DNA could change over the years. Okay. Can Contamination, I understand.

I think defense attorneys a lot of times try to combat various types of DNA testing with the contamination theory. Right. I was not aware that mitochondrial DNA could change over the years. Jury selection for Patricia's murder trial started on February 2nd, 1998. The prosecution argued that Patricia's motive was her anger after she called on December 12th, 1994 and Joanne told her not to call again and hung up on her. Patricia was furious and drove 500 miles from North Carolina to Pennsylvania to kill Joanne and Alex.

Joanne was shot in the right cheek and struck 19 times with a blunt object. Anger? Yeah. I mean, normally, that many blows would suggest rage. Now, could somebody be so upset about being told not to call again and being hung up on that they drive 500 miles and kill a woman and her infant son? Seems extreme. It seems very extreme, but it's possible. Now, the defense argued that the prosecution's motive made no sense.

And prosecutor Michael McIntyre acknowledged that the case was based largely. on circumstantial evidence. Prosecutors had evidence in eight areas. Motive, opportunity, means, science, gun, alibi, lies in statements, and no other suspects. Now, some of those I understand. The no other suspects one is a little tough for me. I don't know how that's evidence of anything other than the fact that you don't have any other suspect. I don't know how that really points towards someone's guilt. Yeah, I mean, I guess you

can say, well, there's nobody else that could be. But that's really not a true statement. No. And I don't even think that's what they're saying. They're just saying they don't know of anybody else that it could be. But I'm sure the defense attorney is going to say even those eight areas are pretty loose. Well, and that's circumstantial, right? We talk about circumstantial evidence all the time. Yeah. And I believe. a lot of cases are tried largely on circumstantial evidence and they're tough ones. I think they're a lot tougher for a jury, right? If you have an expert who gets on the stand and says the DNA matches to one in

245 trillion or quadrillion or I don't even know what numbers are using nowadays. Yeah. Okay, the jury can really sink their teeth into that. Sure. Yeah. They can get behind that as kind of scientific. proof. But all these other things, when it's that circumstantial, then it's just like you're having to put bricks on top of bricks, hoping that the structure is strong enough to convince the jury.

Witnesses would testify that Patricia had a 22 caliber gun, even though she claimed she never owned one, and that she was looking for people to help her with an alibi for December 15th, 1994. And let's just kind of paint that in the light of circumstantial evidence. Okay. Why is she saying she never owned a 22 when all these people are saying she did? Her ex-boyfriend even said, he shot it with her and she once pointed at him. Right. Now people are saying she tried to get them to help her with an alibi for the time of the murder.

Why do you need to do that? I think that's pretty damaging. It is, but it is still circumstantial. Right, right. The eight hairs and evidence could have come from Patricia. Some tests couldn't exclude her as a suspect, but they also couldn't say for sure if they were hers. Testing done on a root of one of the hairs pointed more directly at her.

There was a one in 37,000 chance that the DNA could belong to some. someone else. So this kind of goes to what you were just talking about with the numbers. If it came back like one in three trillion, then you'd feel pretty good. But one and 37,000, not so good. No, but this is also, you know, we're talking 1994. Trial happened in 1996, right? DNA was limited. Right. It had only been around really for a decade or so at that point. I think if this case were tried today, the technology would be much different. Oh, I agree. Defense attorney James Pfeiffer argued that police were obsessed with solving the crime and focused on Patricia.

Sightings of a woman and baby before the bodies were found and an examination of the bodies which show Joanne and Alex didn't die the day she was reported missing, but could have died two months later. Patricia's boyfriend and his friends would also testify she was with them in North Carolina on the day she went missing. Andrew Katranak got on the stand and recalled the day his wife and baby went missing. He said he first noticed that Joanne's car wasn't parked at their house and the back porch light wasn't on. Joanne and Alex weren't home. He thought she might be stuck in traffic. But when he went to the basement to check on the oil tank, he saw the door was open a few inches.

and the lock had been jimmied, he thought maybe someone broke in, but nothing was missing. In the hours that followed, he called family members who came to the house. He had a feeling something was wrong. He testified about his relationship with Patricia and how he met Joanne. After Patricia stayed at his house for a few days in 1991, he didn't hear from her again until she called him in April 1994. He told her he'd gotten married and his wife was expecting. He said he thought Patricia sounded depressed at the news. When Patricia called again in December,

he heard Joanne tell her, Andy's happily married. We have a beautiful baby boy and he doesn't want to talk to you. I don't want to talk to you. Please don't call here anymore. Nothing wrong with that. No. No, she didn't call her names.

She didn't berate her. Now, she's being direct. and to the point, but she really doesn't want her to call. Yeah. Because whatever you're fishing for, he's not biting. That's right. He's not available. Andrew testified that he began to suspect Patricia early on the morning of December 16th.

When he recalled this phone conversation, he called the two phone numbers he had for her and talked with her mother because he wanted to make sure she was in North Carolina. when her mother confirmed she was there, he breathed the sigh of relief. And I could see how that would be a relief because, you know, how guilty you would feel if your ex murdered your wife and your infant son? Oh, man. It's not his fault. No. But he's still going to feel guilty.

Yep. He's going to have that sense of responsibility. Thomas Jensen, a scientist from the state police regional crime lab, conceded there's a lot of subjective opinion that goes into making hair comparisons. And I talked about it earlier, but, you know, these hair comparisons over the years, they've been all over the place. And I think now, you know, a lot of what they called science when it came to hair comparisons in the past has just been totally debunked.

He testified that he spent hours looking at three hairs taken from Joanne's car, based on comparisons of those hairs and Patricia's hair, he concluded Patricia was a possible source of the three hairs and two hairs found at the crime scene. He couldn't tell whether Patricia was the possible source of two more hairs, one from the diaper bag and one from the baby blanket because there were some similarities but also some differences. I don't know if I feel good about saying someone's a possible source.

Yeah, I mean, it's basically, I think, going back to it could be hers. So if you're the jury, how much weight are you really putting into that? Now, if that's all it was, I'd have a hard time putting much weight at all. Absolutely. But you have all this other stuff, right? And I think you have to take it kind of as a complete set when you're evaluating the case. Patricia's mother, Patricia Chambers, admitted that she called the tanning salon to find out if there were records of Patricia's visit on December 15, 1994. She did this on her own and was not asked to do so.

It was noted that after the bodies were found, Chambers told agents that Patricia told her she wasn't familiar with the area. But other witnesses testified that she was renting a barn for her horses two miles from the spot. where the bodies were found. One witness said she rode horses with Patricia on a logging trail in Heidelberg Township. Prosecutors allege that she led Joanne down this path at gunpoint before killing her. I mean, I think it hurts when you say, I don't really know the area, but then again, you have horses and they run it stable within two miles. Yeah, I think this type of stuff hurts, just like it hurts when you say, I don't own a gun.

Yeah. But all these other people are pointing out that, yeah, you do. Anytime the jury thinks you're lying as a defendant, that's not good for you. No, it's not. Chambers denied saying that Patricia never owned a gun. She was asked about a time in 1995 when she allegedly took a gun to her other daughter's home and asked her to hide it. She said she gave the gun to her daughter to hold for her because she was. a school bus driver and couldn't have it with her.

She means she couldn't take it on the bus? I think that would probably be a big, uh, no, no. Yeah. Yeah, I don't really, you know, want my, uh, kids, uh, bus drivers armed to the teeth or armed at all. Maybe these kids today on the buses are really, uh, hard to manage. I'm sure they are. I think even more reason not to have a firearm.

Patricia's incriminating statements from the morning of, her arrest were admitted at trial. Lieutenant Christopher Cobol testified that Patricia was crying. In trying to comfort her child, she said, I'm sorry for doing this to you. She was told that her mother was on the way to take care of her daughter and she could get dressed. Patricia said, I'm not worried about my clothes. I'm never going to see my daughter again. She also said, I'm going to kill myself. I can't live like this as she was handcuffed. I mean, I think that is one of the more incriminating pieces of evidence in this. Yeah, that along with, you know, what the sergeant had to say.

We talked about it earlier, but she testified, right, that she was sitting in Patricia's bedroom when Patricia said to her daughter, why did I do this, Nicole? If I had known, I would get caught, I would have never brought you into this world. So, yeah, I'm right with you, right? all of those statements I think are very incriminating. Patricia also said, I never hurt that baby. I would never hurt a baby. So she's saying she never hurt the baby, but she didn't say, I didn't hurt the mom.

Yeah, and it kind of lines up with the possibility that, you know, this infant died from exposure. Right. I didn't hurt it. I just left it there. Patricia's ex-boyfriend Walter Blaylock, who lived with her until shortly before the murders, testified that Patricia bought a 22-caliber pistol, that she kept with her constantly. He also said she once pointed it at him. The defense argued that Blaylock, who had a criminal record,

had motive to lie because Patricia once had him committed to a mental hospital and cooperated with authorities when he was charged with horse theft. You know, they used to hang people for horse theft. They did. But all of this sounds, you know, very normal for a trial, right? Especially one that is very circumstantial. When you have witnesses testifying damaging your client as the defense, you have to come back and basically try to impeach the witness.

I mean, what other choice do you have? Several acquaintances testified that Patricia asked them to check records and receipts, To place her in North Carolina on the day of the murders, Patricia and her mother didn't directly ask anyone to lie, but to some witnesses, it was clear that they wanted them to. I mean, if I say, hey, Mike, I really need you to look at some receipts. You know, did you go out to eat? Did you do something on this day?

That maybe it adds up enough that it was me and you that went. Do you remember that? Yeah, because my thought on that is, is if you didn't have anything to do with this, why are you worried about it? Exactly. Why would you need to have this airtight alibi unless you were worried that police were going to come after you?

If that wasn't the case, then we'd all be asking our friends all the time for alibis. Well, that's true. We don't need alibis because we haven't done anything wrong. Well, I haven't anyway. I would need your alibi because you know I'm not using my money to do anything, right? You don't need my alibi, you just need my money. That's right.

I need some of your credit card receipts. Linda Jarrett testified that a week before Christmas, Patricia called her home and asked for her father, William. When she was told he wasn't home, Patricia said, tell him I called from Pennsylvania. This is important, and I will call back later. And prosecutors argued that this placed her in Pennsylvania at the time of the murderers. Yeah, I don't think it's a helpful piece of information. No, it's definitely not helpful. Now, is it a bombshell? Is it a smoking gun? No, absolutely not. But again, if you're the jury and things are stacking, stacking, stacking. I think that's what a lot of these circumstantial cases come down to. Yeah, I mean, it's starting to compound, right? Yeah. William Jarrett testified that when he later talked to Patricia, she wanted him to remember. She was at a club called Cowboys on a certain night.

Jared had memory problems due to brain damage. He couldn't say for certain if she was there on December 15th. The former manager of the club testified that Patricia's name was not on the registry for December 15th in 1994. But if you're asking people to remember, hey, remember, Mike, we went to that club that one night. It was, you know what, it was December 15th. Me and you went. So don't forget that. And someone might ask you, so December 15th, me, you, we were there.

If you started saying things like that to me, I am going to be extremely suspicious because thoughts are going to, you know, enter my head that you've done something really bad. And at some point, you're going to try to get me to cover for you. And that's not going to work out well for you. What happened to the ride and die thing? There's no ride and die when it comes to serious, serious. times. Joseph Mose, a friend of Patricia,

testified that his phone bill showed that she called him on the day of her arrest and asked about a package. She was looking for an old receipt for work done on her horse's shoes. She didn't specify what date she wanted on the receipt. Her mother also called him and asked him about the package, he discussed with Patricia. She told him that the date was either December 15th, 1994 or 1995.

So she is wanting a lot of stuff that has to do with December 15th. She is. Most testified that he had not done work for Patricia on that day. She didn't become his customer until 1995 or 1996. Salon owner Sherry Simerson testified that Patricia called her in the spring or summer of 1995 and asked if she could check her records to see if she was at the tanning booth on to 14th or 15, 1994,

Patricia's card was marked 1214 and 1215. But the five appeared to be written over with the six. Okay. Simerson also closed the salon on December 14th because it was her husband's birthday. Lisa Evans, a friend of Patricia's, testified that she asked her to check her phone bills to see if they talked on December 15th,

1994. They hadn't. Patricia also asked her if they were at the nightclub that evening and then asked not in so many words if Lisa would say that they were. Lisa never agreed to do that. I mean, none of this sounds great. It doesn't. I think if you're the jury again, one thing isn't sinking her, but it's all building. It's all adding up. Patricia's half sister, Sandra Ireland, testified that their mother Patricia Chastiff, Chambers came to her home in May 1995 and asked her to hold a gun. Her husband, Steve, buried it because he was uncomfortable having it in the house. Chambers retrieved it the next day.

Chambers claimed the gun was in her living room. At the time of trial, prosecutors could only infer it was the murder weapon. Other testimony centered on Patricia's relationships. Two ex-boyfriends testified that whenever they had fights, she would bring up Andrew's name. call him or look at old photos of him. Clearly she couldn't let go of him. Yeah, I think that's what the prosecution is trying to paint. You know, there was testimony about the mitochondrial DNA,

the one in 37,000 chance of a coincidental match, that microscopic analysis of Patricia's hairs could not exclude her as being the source of hairs found at the crime scene. Brian Ward, Patricia's fiance, and the father of her child, and his friend Eric Harding, testified that Patricia was with them at Cowboys Nightlife in North Carolina.

On the evening of December 15, 1994, Warden Harding's names were on the club's sign-in sheets. But Patricia's was not. It was said to be a private club with very strict rules. but the two men testified that they had gotten into the club in the past without signing in because the rules weren't strictly enforced. Not the best alibi.

No, not at all, especially, you know, when you look at who it's coming from, that person has a vested interest, right, in helping you stay out of jail. Towards the end of the trial, Patricia testified in her own defense, giving a summary of her life and relationship with Andrew Catchel. her neck, she testified that they remained friends after they broke up in 1989, writing letters and occasionally talking on the phone. She said she was happy for him. When he told her he was married and expecting his son, she confirmed that she came to Pennsylvania in October 1994 to try to sell four of her horses. She ran to barn in Washington Township, but she didn't ride on the trails and wasn't familiar with the area. She denied kidnapping and killing Joanne and Alex.

She also said she didn't believe it was her hair in Joanne's vehicle. Well, there's things that contradict what she just said, right? We know there's a woman that said she did ride the trails because she rode the trails with her. It was reported by the media that she had an answer for every question and an explanation for the circumstantial evidence against her and said the witnesses were either mistaken or heard things differently. For example, she said she didn't tell police she never owned a gun. She told them, I don't own that gun anymore. She also testified that she didn't recall making any of the incriminating statements on the morning of her arrest. She maintained her alibi that

she was at a club on the night of the disappearance. And I get it, you have to, again, tried to discredit the witnesses, I think it's pretty hard to say that all these different police officers heard things incorrectly. You know, things that they testified to. Right. One lady wrote it on her hand. Yes. She thought it was so important. That she needed to jot it down. The prosecutor noted that Patricia didn't tell police this alibi initially and didn't give them her fiancee Brian's name when asked who could verify her whereabouts. And why would that be, Gibbs?

Yeah, because she didn't have time to get their story put together. Right. That happened later. On March 6th, 1998, Patricia was found guilty of kidnapping and murder. On March 9th, she received two life sentences. And she spent over two decades appealing her conviction and fighting for a new trial. Most of her appeals have focused on the DNA evidence. In 2017, Keith Morrison investigates covered the case.

In an interview with people, Morrison noted that Patricia has never deviated from her story in more than two decades. He said, she is as effective at telling a story today as she was back then. She's utterly believable. It makes you crazy because you challenge her with every allegation and she acquits herself. The prosecutor in this case is so vealable. is so vehemently determined. She's guilty that at the end of the day, you're reeling.

For every fact that is presented, there are two interpretations to give. Which would be frustrating. It would be. And you and I like Keith, right? We have had some beers with Keith. Yeah. Throughout the years.

He's a fascinating guy. Has one of the best voices in the business. Second best. Second behind yours. No. But I get what he's saying. Right. You know, there are people who do have an answer for everything. Very true. Now, it may not be correct. And they may have had time to come up with those answers,

but they do have an answer. Patricia's fifth appeal was denied in June, 24. A team of volunteers is committed to helping Patricia and maintains a website featuring statements from her, professing her innocence. According to the website, Joanne was holding a hair in her right hand, and three pieces of fingernail were found on her body, which the courts will not allow to be tested. The website also notes that Patricia was convicted on the basis of a DNA match made to the root of one hair found in Joanne's car. In 2015, she found an FBI report stating that the hair had no roots attached. The website claims that she provided 39 hairs to a doctor for sampling, but only 35 of those hairs are accounted for.

In her statement published on the website, Patricia maintains that Joanne telling her not to call again didn't make her angry enough to drive 500 miles to kill Joanne whom she'd never met and her infant son. The site notes that flower petals were found in the souls of Joanne's shoes, even though she was killed in December when flowers are not in bloom. The site claims that Andrew failed at least two lie detector tests, and he moved far away without telling the police before she was arrested. Joanne's best friend also told documentary producers that Joanne was saving up and planning to leave Andrew after Christmas.

Patricia wrote, I know I didn't commit these murders, and they need to get justice for Joanne and Alex too. Everyone needs to wake up, because this could be you, your wife. your husband, your mother, your father, your children, no one is safe if the justice system is broken and they're putting innocent people in prison. I'm humbly asking for your help to hire a lawyer and procure a fair trial. I know that if I get a fair trial, I will win and be free. So, you know, as we wrap this one up, Gibbs, this remains a fairly divisive case. There are many people who believe Patricia was wrongfully convicted, the prosecution presented DNA evidence.

But like I said, right, DNA testing was still in its early stages in the 90s. Additionally, the defense insisted there was no motive for Patricia to drive hundreds of miles to kill her ex-boyfriend's wife and baby. Neither side presented an alternate suspect at trial leading to the question, if Patricia Roarer didn't kill Joanne and Alex, who did? I mean, it's a good question, right? If you believe it wasn't her, who did? You think about some of the things that, you know, Patricia mentions and people that support

her, and you can make a case for that. You really can. But I think what it hurts is those little things, right? the, she had horse stalls near the crime scene, two miles away, that she did own a gun. But lied about it. But lied about it. I think, you know, those two individuals that wrote down statements that they heard her say, I think those are pretty damaging.

Yeah. You know, I mean, you can debate it and say, I never said it. Then you have to get into the character of those individuals and say, why would they lie? Well, which is what the jury would have had to have done. Right. They have to kind of weigh who's telling the truth and who's not. Where do they put the weight? And obviously, they put weight on a lot of the circumstantial evidence that the prosecution presented.

Here's the thing that is troubling me. I understand that in the 90s, the DNA testing was limited. But are you telling me that we can't prove this now in 2006? I mean, that's a good point. Or do they not have the hairs left enough of the hairs, the root of the hairs? I don't know because I never saw anything about that. Or is it because her appeals have been denied so they just never got to that point? Because here's the thing, right?

The prosecution's probably not going to go back and do that on their own. No, no, it's probably up to her defense team to do that. I mean, she's definitely, she hasn't changed her story and all this time. So she's either being truthful or she is really a good actor. Well, but here's a question. What would be her reason to change her story? Or are you just saying it's a feat in and of itself to not slip up and deviate from the story? Because to me, there's no reason to change the story because you're not going to

make yourself look good. No. If anything, you're probably just going to incriminate yourself. Yeah, that's true. So if you're just saying she's really good at not deviating from the story, even if it's not true, okay, that I get. But at a certain point, if you've told yourself this story over and over. Do you yourself maybe even start to believe it? Oh, I think you can. Yeah. And you tell it enough times that, you know, unlike when somebody lies, when you ask him again and again, it kind of, the story kind of shifts, changes a little bit, right? But when you have told the story for 20-some years, if you're consistent, you know, it's going to become true in your own mind. I think it can be. I think these types of cases are interesting because they're not cut and dry.

There is not one piece of evidence that I think the jury can latch on to and say, okay, this alone, beyond a shadow of a doubt, convinces me that this person is guilty. It has to be a whole bunch of things put together that allowed them to say they had no reason I mean, look, if they can test the hair, if they have the hair from then, and they can test it today to get a better decision around that, then they should. I have to believe the technology is advanced to where they would be able to conclusively say whether or not that was her hair. I may be wrong about that, but it's come a long way. I know that. And I would think the defense would want that, unless there's a reason why they wouldn't want that. No, I think they do want it.

I'm just not sure that they've been allowed to do it because they keep being shot down on appeal. Yeah. And I don't know that they can just go in and get the hair, right? They have to have a court say, yes, you can have this retested. And I don't think there's been a court yet that's willing to do that. So it would be interesting if that ever happened, because if it came back not to be hers, I think, you know,

then you're looking at something completely different. Of course, yeah. To me, I think you should be allowed to test something like that after X amount of years with so many changes that it could get you out of prison. Well, I would agree. I would agree with that. At your own cost.

Yeah, I would agree with that. Because at the end of the day, the goal is to be correct. Yes. I would think. I would hope so. Now, if you're the prosecutor, you don't really want it tested because you're safe in your knowledge that you got the conviction that you believe is correct.

Yeah. But is it 100% conclusive? No, I don't think anybody could say that right now. But that's it for our episode on Patricia Rourer. it's an interesting episode because, you know, everything points to her. I think you'd have to say that. And I think the jury did say that. I did.

But there isn't that one thing that conclusively says 100% yes, she did it. And those are, those are always very interesting cases to me. There was no slam dunk. No, absolutely not. We got a voicemail. You want to check that out? Let's hear it. Hey guys, this is Derek, a longtime listener, big fan of the show.

Just wanted to call in. I'm listening to the Paul Burns episode right now, and I just wanted to say you guys had me dying with put that meatball down and your hands behind my back. Anyways, really enjoy the content. You guys get me through a lot of long drives on the road. Keep your own time ticking. Thanks a lot for what you do.

Well, that Fergie's funny, man. He pulls those out sometimes, so it was one-liners. Was it me who said that? Oh, absolutely. It was you. Okay. I don't remember. I really don't, to be honest with you.

But we appreciate the voicemail very much. You know, always like, you know, nice words, good kudos every now and then. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Keep on trucking. All right. The 1970s called, and they'd like that back.

You don't think they say that anymore? I don't think they do. along with Breaker 1-9, good buddy. Put the hammer down. Yeah, that's all, what is that? Cannonball Run or... What's that one with Bert Reynolds? Bert Reynolds, Smokey and the Bandit.

It's 1970s, man. Those good times. They were good for you. Jump in that... You were in your 20s. Jumping that fire bird, Tran-Zam, those teetops off. All right, buddy.

That is it for another episode of true crime all the time. So for Mike... And Gibby. Stay safe and keep your... own time ticking.