Update after watching some videos
There is a strange 'FBI Files' episode that, like many other episodes of that show, focuses more on presenting FBI mistakes as if they were not mistakes.
The episode presents a lot of evidence that may point to the husband, as it says that it doesn't point to him, and looks at other evidence in what could only be called 'a stupid way'.
Here is a 'judges for justice' video. Starting a little after 9 minutes 15 seconds it discusses this case.
There is no real way to guess who the killer was.
The only thing that can be said for sure is that the FBI/police fabricated evidence in order to strengthen their opinions of who the killer might be
This is not some rare fluke in the FBI, and the police, in that case. If a person looks in depth at 3 random cases in the United States they will probably find 1 in which police and/or prosecutors fabricated evidence significantly, including, in many cases, DNA and other "unfakeable" evidence.
If a person wants to see how extensive the problem is they can try to research Sorenson and various incidents involving DNA which appears to have been altered deliberately.
You will find a brief mention of an example, if you are lucky.
Then you will find that the original article is gone. Caches are removed. Eventually the best you will do is to find caches 'once removed', in other words caches of articles that indirectly link to removed articles but make clear what happened.
A Forensic company like Sorenson, or others, could not do this unless it had assistance from heavyweights in government, and spent a lot of money on lawyers to remove these articles which mention forensic misconduct on a large scale.
Is Patricia Rorrer guilty?
The FBI and police had a mix of evidence that might point to her or the victim's husband, but nothing conclusive. So they faked some 'conclusive' evidence by asking her for some hair samples with roots then cycling those into older evidence, as described in the 'judges for justice' Youtube video.
Another point about the FBI's 'skill'. They claim that because the husband passed a lie detector he was excluded. But he was a former cage fighter, or mma fighter or something similar, and of all possible occupations that is probably the one type of person least likely to be caught in a lie detector test.
~Original page below~
This is another case that has a website.
The front page of the website has eerie similarities to FBI misconduct in the Esar Met case.
After looking at some of the material online, the overwhelming evidence points to the police being utterly incompetent. Beyond that there is no obvious evidence indicating who the killer might be. The general impression of the evidence is that the husband is guilty, but without any serious investigation having been done a person can only guess.
She appears to be in jail because police or prosecutors don't like her more than they don't like the other suspect, not because there is evidence against her. All of the evidence used against her is adequately discounted in articles online.
Here is a video that stretches facts to support the prosecution. Note the hair found was 8 inches with brown only at the roots, which is nothing like her hair in the photo or video, even though the video claims otherwise.
This is a common feature of criminal prosecution in the United States. People will make a claim against somebody, then show evidence supposedly backing that claim, but in fact the evidence is not what the prosecuting person claims. It's sort of a variation of snake oil sellers from a hundred years ago, except with criminal evidence, anybody is completely able to stop and think for a moment, and discredit the prosecutor.
This woman may be guilty, or somebody else may be, a person just does not know. It's sort of like the police started an investigation then said "We don't have any solid evidence, but its lunchtime, lets arrest this person and maybe we can get a jury to buy it if we present the evidence crookedly".
As mentioned elsewhere, the Supreme Court has ruled that crookedness by prosecutors is not illegal, and it is unheard of in the United States for prosecutors to be held accountable unless they run afoul of a powerful person.
- 1) "On December 12, 1994, Joann answered a phone call from a woman she’d never met, Patricia Rorrer, her husband’s onetime girlfriend. She asked to speak with Andrew, who was home during the call; Joann refused."
Points to possible marriage problems or insecurity in the marriage, but a proper response. Ms Rorrer does have a tendency towards attacking in situations like that so this item points to her as a suspect.
- 2) "Family members found Joann’s tan Toyota sitting vacant in the parking lot of McCarty’s, a nearby bar. Inside the locked 1992 vehicle, police discovered some strands of blond hair stained with dried blood. DNA testing revealed the blood came from either Joann or her son." "Forensic Files didn’t mention it, but the hairs were actually brown at the top and the rest dyed blond, according to the show Autopsy Six: A Fatal Attraction."
All of the people involved seem like they probably know a lot of people with dyed hair.
- 3) "But investigators conceded they had no solid evidence against Andrew. Plus, he had only a “minimal” life insurance policy on Joann and he passed polygraphs, according to The FBI Files: Family Secrets."
Any life insurance on a young wife should be suspicious. He had no income loss if she died so the only motive in such a policy would be 'gambling' profit. Points very strongly to him.
- 4) "Joann’s first husband, New Jersey construction worker Michael Jack, who had reportedly abused her during their marriage, also had a solid alibi"
So she is attracted to men who physically control her, or seeks situations where that dynamic is created.
- 5) "Four months after Joann’s disappearance, farmer Paul Kovalchik reported seeing what at first looked like a pile of clothes on his land in Heidelberg Township woods, about 15 miles from the Katrinaks’ house."
A person could research the suspects and try to figure out which would be more likely to dispose of the body 15 miles away, rather than nearby. Probably points to the husband.
- 6) "On closer inspection, he saw it was the body of a woman. An infant was lying face down on her stomach. Both were deceased."
A stretch for a guy to kill his own kid, but possible. Points to 'the other woman'.
- 7) "Police identified the pair as Joann and Alex Katrinak. His favorite rattle, shaped like a phone, lay near the crime scene."
Strongly points to husband.
- 8) "Someone had shot Joann in the face with a .22-caliber pistol, then beaten her about the head — hitting her 19 times in all — with a blunt object. Police couldn’t determine whether the baby died of exposure or suffocation."
Probably points to 'the other woman'. Note that FBI deductions involving the weapon were faulty.
- 9) "Andrew mentioned to police that his former live-in girlfriend Patricia Rorrer once managed a horse stable two miles from the bodies’ location and would have been familiar with the riding trails close to the murder scene. (Media sources vary as to whether she actually worked at the stable or just rented a stall there for her own horse.)"
Strongly points to husband.
- 10) "Patricia’s phone bill showed no record of a call to Catasauqua that day, but police noticed she didn’t make any calls at all from her house in North Carolina that day either — suggesting she could have been out of state and used a pay phone to dial up the Katrinaks."
Strongly points to 'the other woman' unless she has an explanation.
- 11) "Police slowly built a case against Patricia. Her alibi about going to the club, called Cowboy’s Nitelife, got fuzzy when investigators discovered she hadn’t signed the guest book on that day. And dance instructor William Jarrett couldn’t remember whether she attended his dance class at the club the night of Joann’s disappearance. On a secret recording, Patricia asked Jarrett to vouch for her attendance or she might go to the electric char."
Moderately points to her.
- 11) "As for the murder weapon, police didn’t find a .22 caliber pistol on Patricia’s property, but an ex-boyfriend claimed that she owned one — and it would always jam after one shot."
Strongly points to her.
- 12) "According to court papers from Patricia 2017 appeal, “DNA on the cigarette butt found near the two bodies belonged to Appellant.” (Prosecutor Michael McIntyre, however, told ForensicFilesNow.com that that the cigarette butt was never actually tested)."
The usual inaccuracies which cast doubt on all the other evidence too, regardless who it points to.
- 13) "“If I knew I was going to get caught, I never would have brought you into this world,” the arresting officers testified they heard her say to Nicole."
Generally police have very low credibility, in this case the 'arresting officers' credibility would have to be examined in other cases. If they are lying it's unlikely they only lied once. They may be telling the truth but it's more likely they are not. A person would have to research. It looks like that testimony by the arresting officer was easily modified to suit the prosecution.
- 14) "Prosecutors offered Patricia a plea deal that would take the death penalty off the table, but she declined. “How could I explain to my daughter years later that I took a plea for something I didn’t do?” she said."
Who did she say that to?
- 15) "At the trial, prosecutor Michael McIntyre alleged that Patricia remained obsessed with Andrew Katrinak long after their breakup — despite testimony that she’d had “many boyfriends and live-in lovers” to occupy her bandwidth."
Strongly points to a case having been fabricated by prosecutors.
- 16) "Ex-boyfriend Walter Blalock said that Patricia wanted him to be more like Andrew. Another former boyfriend said she talked about Andrew frequently and liked to gaze at old photos of him."
Sounds like material solicited deceptively by the prosecution to strengthen the appearance of their case.
- 17) "And in a piece of salacious testimony, Patricia Rorrer’s half sister, Sandra Ireland, said that in May 1995, about six months after the murder, their mother, Patricia Chambers, stopped by the house and asked her to hold onto or hide a gun, or both. Ireland’s husband buried it in the yard because he didn’t feel comfortable with a firearm inside, she said."
- 18) "Further, an early FBI report said the hairs found in the car had no roots — which contain the DNA — suggesting an evidence switcheroo"
Much more likely than most people suspect.
- 19) "They theorize that Andrew Katrinak framed Patricia and that the hostile phone call between Patricia and Joann actually took place not on Dec. 12 as Andrew said but rather on Dec. 7. Phone records confirmed Patricia placed the earlier call from North Carolina, not Pennsylvania."
If true then strongly points to the husband.
- 20) "At the state’s request, the instructor wore a wire during a phone conversation with Patricia. Although the prosecution used it as evidence that she was trying to create a false alibi, it actually sounded more like Patricia was simply trying to nail down the facts he had already asserted to her."
The vast majority of times police do things like that, it is because they are incompetent at doing things properly, and it is very common for police who do things like that to 'shape' or fabricate.
- 21) "And even prosecutor Michael McIntyre, who wrote the book Hair Trigger about the case, acknowledged to Keith Morrison that it was a little odd that the police found blood on the hairs in Joann’s car but nowhere else in the vehicle. If Patricia drove it back from the murder scene after she shot Joann and then beat her to death, luminal would have lit up the interior."
Points to police tidying up evidence to secure a conviction.
- 22) "Another witness, Walter Traupman, who never testified, had told state troopers that on the day of Joann’s disappearance, he saw a couple who looked like Joann and Andrew arguing about the paternity of a baby. Traupman claimed that when he reported the dispute, trooper Robert V. Egan III got mad and practically kicked him out of his office. The police report misspells his name (“Troutman”) and doesn’t include his address, suggesting authorities didn’t want anyone to track him down, according to Patricia’s side. (McIntyre said that Egan ignored Traupman because he was a nut who said that the man he saw arguing with the woman in a car was Hispanic but wearing a fake mustache and a toupee. Traupman died in 2016.)"
Again, points to police and prisecutors fabricating a case, but a person would have to research.
- 23) "And in another bombshell, Joann’s good friend Karen Devine said Joann planned to leave Andrew after the holidays. “She had a suitcase packed,” Devine said. “She had money put aside. He wanted to move to Colorado and she was against it.”"
If true then it is the strongest evidence against the husband.
- 24) "Most of all, Patricia said, she would like a rematch with prosecutor Michael McIntyre." "Now retired, he declined ForensicFilesNow.com’s invitation to spar directly with Patricia via a podcast." "“I most definitely will not personally afford Patricia a platform,” Michael said in an email to ForensicFilesNow.com “She had her chance to answer my questions and tell her story in court over 20 years ago. She failed miserably to convince me, or anyone else who mattered, of her innocence. “"
Wow. Like most people in the legal system he doesn't really have any interest in the truth he was heavily paid to defend.
- 25) From the comments below the article "Looking at the pictures of the scene, after 4 months of the bodies being there allegedly, they were untouched? If in the woods in a rural area, no animal, rodent or insect touched those bodies? Animals would have for sure. Especially mice! What did the ME report as to the age of the baby? Those bodies would have been manipulated by something around there. No way for 4 months, that deceased baby would still be resting across the mothers chest. Nope. No way they laid there for 4 months!!!!"
Strongly points to the husband or an unknown killer, but another commenter points out "First it was winter, cold temperatures preserve bodies for significantly longer periods". After four months there would have been some sign of animals interested in the body, or scavenging, though.