Overview of Undisclosed Addendum: “S8 Ep12: The State v. Patricia Rorrer - Addendum 6”
This addendum focuses on Episode 6, “Target Acquired,” in the Patricia Rorrer case and uses it to revisit key investigative issues: questionable forensic science, conflicting eyewitness reports, and the way police appeared to narrow in on Patty while giving less serious attention to other leads. The hosts also preview how Episode 7 will dig deeper into the murder-for-hire theory and the construction of the case against Patty.
Key Topics Discussed
Flawed forensic evidence: bite marks vs. hair analysis
- The hosts discuss recent court decisions rejecting bite mark evidence as junk science, including a Louisiana Supreme Court ruling that freed Jimmy Duncan from death row.
- They compare that with hair comparison evidence, noting:
- Bite mark analysis has led to many exonerations.
- Hair comparison is also deeply flawed, especially when used without DNA or root testing.
- Colin argues bite mark evidence often appeared more “exact” and definitive in court than hair evidence, which may explain why courts treat the two differently.
Comparing the FBI profile with Dr. Reed’s profile
- The episode contrasts a 1995 FBI profile by Stephen Etter with Dr. Reed’s more recent profile.
- A major issue: the original FBI profile is unavailable, and the hosts only have a secondhand recollection of it.
- Rabia is skeptical of the FBI summary because:
- It is incomplete.
- The agent recounting it years later made other factual mistakes.
- Still, both profiles point toward the idea that the killer likely knew Joanne and/or knew the area well.
The Walter Trotman Bombshell and Other Witnesses
Walter Trotman’s statement
- Trotman reported seeing:
- A man banging on a car and yelling, “What do you mean, it’s not my kid?”
- He made the report the same day he saw it, before the public knew anything had happened.
- The hosts stress this matters because Trotman’s account did not arise after media coverage or hindsight.
- The police treatment of Trotman appears highly suspicious:
- His name was misspelled/misrecorded.
- The file appears to lack documentation of his multiple visits.
- The hosts question why there is no recording, transcript, or proper record of his initial call.
Sandra Fulper’s earlier sighting
- Trotman’s report somewhat revives interest in Sandra Fulper, who said she saw Joe putting Alex into a car around 12:30 p.m.
- However, Fulper’s credibility remains shaky because:
- She did not mention it in her first police interview.
- Her account surfaced later and may be contaminated by hindsight.
Maureen McKenna’s statement
- A second witness, Maureen Ann McKenna, reported seeing Andy and Joanne arguing over a baby on Broad Street in Bethlehem around 2 p.m.
- The hosts note:
- Her report came shortly after the bodies were found.
- She had no apparent way to know about the case beforehand.
- Her account is different from Trotman’s in details like the vehicle descriptions.
- Rabia and Jen both view the McKenna report as important, though not perfectly clean.
Why these witness statements matter
- The hosts emphasize that if police had wanted to seriously pursue Andy as a suspect, these statements could have supported that theory in court.
- Instead, the investigation seems to have moved quickly away from Andy and toward Patty.
Alibis and Investigation Problems
Delayed verification of Patty’s alibi
- The hosts revisit how Patty gave her alibi early, within about a week of the disappearance.
- She described her routine and specific actions on the day in question.
- Problem: police did not promptly verify all of it.
- By the time they checked later, memories had faded, and Patty was criticized for continuing to follow up with people herself.
Why the police missed or ignored leads
- The episode reinforces a recurring theme in the case:
- Investigators appeared to ignore or minimize evidence that pointed away from their preferred theory.
- They seemed to “acquire a target” and then build around it.
Listener Questions and Theories
Could Alex have been suffocated?
- A listener with medical/pathology knowledge raised the possibility that Alex may have died by suffocation rather than exposure.
- Jen notes the diaper bag contained a formula container, which appeared nearly full and had a broken seal.
- Rabia says the medical examiner did not rule out suffocation; the cause of death remained uncertain between exposure and suffocation.
The Christmas tree theory
- Another listener suggested the possibility that Andy may have used a Christmas tree run as a cover story.
- Rabia says there is no evidence in the record tying the couple to picking out Christmas trees in prior years.
- She also notes that in a rural area, a “tree run” could have been used as a general pretext to drive somewhere isolated.
Main Takeaways
- The episode strengthens the case that the investigation was badly skewed and that potentially exculpatory or alternative-suspect evidence was not handled carefully.
- Walter Trotman’s account stands out as especially important because it was reported immediately and seems to have been mishandled.
- Maureen McKenna’s report adds another eyewitness account that could have supported a different investigative path.
- The hosts continue to frame this season as a case where the police appear to have focused on Patty while underdeveloping or ignoring evidence involving Andy.
- The addendum also sets up the next episode’s focus on how the state built a murder-for-hire theory against Patty.
What to Expect Next
- Episode 7 will reportedly dig into:
- How police began treating Patty as a suspect.
- The narrative they constructed around her character and alleged capability.
- How that theory evolved into the formal case against her.