Reasonable Doubt Abounds: Reexamining a Conviction

Book review: Convenient Suspect, by Tammy Mal (Amazon / Book Depository)

Rereading the synopsis before starting this book, it dawned on me that I’d heard of the case, although I hadn’t initially recognized it when I got the book. And I’d never realized it was as complicated as it is. I saw it covered on HBO’s Autopsy, an excellent docuseries (most of which is on YouTube) that explains forensics, medical examination, and how clues from the dead leads to solving the mysteries around their deaths.

Joann Katrinak and her infant son Alex disappeared in December 1994. Her husband, Andy Katrinak, reported them missing, later discovering what appeared to be forced entry in their basement.

The Autopsy segment covering this case was titled “A Fatal Attraction,” and that’s the narrative played up by police and prosecutors. They maintain that Patricia Rorrer, Andy’s ex-girlfriend, couldn’t let him go, and was so enraged by a phone call eight days prior that she’d driven from her home in North Carolina to Pennsylvania to murder a mother and infant whom she’d never met. (Joann, seemingly on edge from a fussy baby and with indications she might be experiencing marital strife, had told her not to call again and hung up when realizing it was Andy’s ex.)

Actually, Patty had been the one to leave him; in fact, she’d left him living in a home with a mortgage in her name. She’d made a good life for herself in North Carolina, and despite a tendency to pick the wrong men, she was beginning a relationship that would lead to a child of her own. She spoke with Andy by phone once or twice yearly, in addition to a brief (weeklong) reconcilation when he was doing contracting work in North Carolina. It seems that she’d moved on and they’d been able to remain friends.

In the Autopsy segment, it’s emphasized that there was weighty evidence to convict Rorrer. Hair was found in the car, alleged to be hers. Despite its natural darkness, they pointed out that it was bleached earlier in videos of the horse competition she’d been calling to tell Andy about. The hair found had a dark root and lighter shaft. That seems damning. It’s one element Mal explores here, and it’s far more complicated than Autopsy indicated.

Mal extensively shows how much evidence was left out, the poor job Patty’s defense did, and the major questions that were left unanswered. One that bothered me most was that the bodies were clearly kept somewhere for around two months before being dumped in the field where they were found. This is clear from weather conditions compared to the bodies’ states. Yet no one ever gives a plausible theory for where, how or why they were stored. How can something immense like that be ignored and someone jailed for life?

Mal’s writing is direct and to the point, but smoothly crafted and engaging. Some of the sections about the contaminated DNA analysis on the hair found in Joann’s vehicle were a little tough to understand, including related testimony and background about the state of DNA analysis in crime back then, but Mal summarizes the important information and highlights what appears to be a major miscarriage of justice.

I wasn’t crazy about her summarizing her own arguments for Rorrer’s innocence in the form of a defense attorney’s concluding statements to the jury. It was a weird construction, but the explanations she gives were convincing nonetheless.

The other drawback was that despite extensive interviews and documents provided by Rorrer, very few others were willing to speak about the case. That’s odd, because if they’re secure in their conviction then why not share the information in their favor? It leaves the book feeling one-sided. But with the bizarre trial transcript, mountains of mishandled evidence, and impartial witnesses who provide some very telling information and were not deposed, it’s absolutely enough to convince that Rorrer was, as the title indicates, railroaded.

Mal provides compelling evidence that seems to indicate Andy’s involvement, which statistically makes sense since most similar crimes are usually committed by a spouse. He had an alibi, albeit not an airtight one, and later remarried and moved to Colorado with a blonde “friend” who lived in the vicinity of where the bodies were found, and who he didn’t report to police when they drove him through that area asking what connections he had to it.

Mal also reports strange details that cast suspicion on his story, like that he gave police a detailed description of what Joann would’ve been wearing that day, indeed almost identical to what she was found in. As Mal points out, “It was quite a detailed description for someone who had claimed to have last seen his wife undressed and still in bed.”

Patty’s alleged motives didn’t make much sense.“If this was a “fatal attraction,” [defense attorney Jim Burke] asked, why didn’t Patty make a move for Andy after the murders? ‘Why didn’t she call him? Why didn’t she come up here?'”

In another case, one where decades later DNA would pinpoint a suspect in an unsolved homicide, the killer was exactly the “fatal attraction” type who couldn’t get over an ex she’d casually dated marrying someone else: Stephanie Lazarus, herself a police detective, drove to her ex-boyfriend’s home and shot and killed his wife, Sherri Rasmussen. The murder went unsolved until a cold case unit retested DNA from the scene.

But Lazarus had documented harassment: Rasmussen had confessed annoyance and concern over Lazarus frequently showing up at her home and work and contacting her husband for trivial reasons.

After the murder, Lazarus rekindled her romance with her newly widowed friend, at least briefly. Eliminating her rival wasn’t all she wanted. Considering how that confirmed narrative went, it casts doubt on this one. (She also gave a truly insane and uncomfortable interview before her arrest which I highly recommend.)

Mal points out that much of what they used against Patty as evidence of guilt applied to Andy too. My biggest question was why the police were so biased against him in favor of Patty, especially considering the partner statistics I mentioned.

Patty’s labeled convenient, but I don’t think so at all. It seems more like they got too deep into it, and had invested too much time, money and effort to refocus their investigation, so they started tampering with evidence to make it fit. Then they got lucky in court despite the prosecutor’s unlikely arguments, which I think the jury bought because of misunderstandings about DNA, still very much an emerging science at trial in 1997.

But, like Patty’s lack of motive for committing the murders, that’s still not really enough motive for me to understand why they zeroed in on her and not the husband. The whole thing is weird.

It seemed no one knew what happened to Joann and Alex on December 15, 1994. Like a child with a sticky ball, the prosecutor threw out one scenario after another, hoping something would stick. The entire case appeared to be based on speculation, yet they were asking a jury to sentence Patty to death on such.

Michael McIntyre, the prosecutor, said in his closing, “Either she’s guilty, or she’s the most unlucky person who ever walked this earth.” I remember the producer said that about Adnan in Serialtoo: if he’s not guilty, he’s incredibly unlucky.

This case should scare the hell out of you because it does me. If [Pennsylvania] can bring someone to trial on the flimsy evidence they paraded here, then any one of us could be sitting in that defendant’s chair.

That’s why I think understanding cases like this are so important and it’s excellent that Mal researched and wrote this, and that Keith Morrison likewise tried to debunk some theories about it in his Dateline special from early 2017, “Murder in the Lehigh Valley” (highly recommended to watch after reading, Mal is interviewed too).

This is one in a recent string of wrongfully convicted true crime stories, like two on my reading list, Ghost of the Innocent Man and Anatomy of Innocence: Testimonies of the Wrongfully Convicted. Plus other media, well-publicized cases like Syed’s in the Serial podcast, Netflix’s excellent Confession Tapes and Making a Murderer, among others. I’m glad reexamination of fishy cases is happening more, but it’s still frightening, sad, and frustrating to know all this is happening and often these cases can’t or won’t be reopened. I’m wondering what’s next for this one.

Compelling, page-turning read on a case that leaves you with more questions than answers.
My rating: 4/5

Convenient Suspect:
A Double Murder, A Flawed Investigation,
And The Railroading Of An Innocent Woman
by Tammy Mal
published November 1, 2017 by Chicago Review Press

I received an advance copy for unbiased review.

Amazon / Book Depository


12 thoughts on “Reasonable Doubt Abounds: Reexamining a Conviction

Add yours

  1. Hello to you,
    You are the only other person on WordPress that I’ve spoken with at any length. I appreciate your intelligent perspectives, and I’m sure I appreciate your sense of humor now that I know you love ‘Allo, Allo’ as much as I do. I thank you for being kind and indulging me on the couple of comments I made to your site. I wanted to tell you that I’m deleting my current blog ‘The Bald Librarian’ shortly. I gave out too much personal information in my bio. Even though I retired from law enforcement, putting that part of life behind me, apparently there are those who still hold animosity toward me, and it would be best if I took my leave.

    I intend on starting another blog with much less personal information this time. I simply wanted to tell you out of courtesy and ask you if you’d like my new URL when it’s up and operational. You may delete this comment after reading it. Have a lovely upcoming weekend.

    My best to you,

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I completely understand, writing on the internet can be a tricky thing. And of course I’m happy to connect with you at your new site – always great to have someone to share these particular similar interests with! 🙂 feel free to pass along the URL when it’s ready, or leave me a comment and let me know who it is 🙂 wish you a lovely upcoming weekend again too, thanks for your thoughtful comments and conversation!


  2. I’m no legal expert, but am curious to know why you thought Tammy Mal’s construction was a bit “weird”? I read her book and thought her concluding summation was excellent. I felt she covered it pretty comprehensively.


    1. It was that the closing comments, or whatever it was, was written as if it was the exact words of a defense attorney’s speech to a jury, complete with “ladies and gentlemen of the jury” or something like that (it’s years since I read it so I can’t remember the exact wording that irked me). But it felt gimmicky and out of place in what was otherwise a very well researched and convincing argument.


      1. I’m sure it was meant to be like that. In the book, as far as I can remember, I feel quite sure she stated, that if she were the defence attorney she would present her closing argument as if she was doing it in court. Your review makes excellent reading. Thank you.


      2. Yes, it was meant to be that way, it just rubbed me the wrong way. It felt out of place with the tone and style/structure of the rest of the book, and just kind of silly. I’m so happy to hear that you enjoyed reading the review, thank you so much!


  3. Hello,
    I don’t quite know to what extent your interest on the subject is, but am wondering if you are aware of recent developments in Patricia’s case?
    There has been a great deal of eye-opening shenanigans taking place, especially related to the Asst. DA McIntyre.
    I don’t wish to waste your time, or fill your comments column with details which may not be of interest to you, but if you are interested, please let me know.
    I can be contacted on Facebook Messenger.
    Kind regards
    I attempted to submit this comment a few moments ago, so please ignore if this appears a second time.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Well, actually any information I have about Patricia’s case is what I have discovered from Facebook. I do not know of any links which have anything you don’t already know. Please let me explain….

    Amazingly, the sister-in-law of the VICTIM, Joann, has paid (and continues to pay) for a site on Facebook, in which she reveals some startling information

    She’s been working unceasingly for some considerable time towards defending Patricia – with no reward expected, and at significant expense to herself – with information to which she has privy – FBI documents, court transcripts, investigation documents and other related material.

    She has been a long-standing and personal friend of Patricia and is in constant contact with her, although I understand the legal authorities seem to be making all sorts of moves to silence her. There are obviously people in high places working towards ensuring Patricia stays where she is.

    I got to know this lady personally after she saw some of my comments in her FB page – mostly aimed at a lot of extremely offensive and malicious busybodies who feel they have some sort of obligation to demonise Patsy – at which point she messaged me on Facebook’s Messenger facility expressing her thanks she had someone on her side.

    I’m not sure if you’re agreeable for me to pass on the information about McIntyre (you may know of it anyway). I don’t want to sully your comments’ page if it’s too controversial. Let me know how you feel about it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: