S8 Ep18: S8, The State v. Patricia Rorrer - Addendum 9

Summary of S8 Ep18: S8, The State v. Patricia Rorrer - Addendum 9

by Undisclosed

47m•July 23, 2026
Listen to Episode

Overview of S8 Ep18: S8, The State v. Patricia Rorrer - Addendum 9

This addendum continues the Undisclosed team’s examination of the Patricia Rorrer case, with a focus on the episode’s major evidentiary issues: hair analysis and the gun evidence. Colin Miller, Rabia Chowdhury, and investigator Jennifer Leahy answer listener questions, unpack forensic problems in the case, and explain why they believe the prosecution’s physical evidence is deeply unreliable.

Key Topics Discussed

Hair evidence and alleged switching of samples

A large portion of the episode is devoted to the hair evidence, especially whether the hairs later matched to Patricia were actually the same hairs collected from the crime scene or whether they may have been switched.

Main points raised:

  • The FBI hair analysis report described certain hairs as not artificially treated.
  • The hosts argue this is inconsistent with Patricia’s hair in the relevant time period, which appears to have been permed and bleached.
  • They discuss the possibility that:
    • the original crime-scene hairs were switched with Patricia’s later-known hair sample, or
    • the evidence was otherwise mishandled in a way that made the later match unreliable.
  • Colin emphasizes that the hairs were handled in a way that compromised DNA testing, including contamination from improper handling.
  • The team argues the case reflects broader problems with hair microscopy and forensic protocols in that era, citing statistics that the FBI had a high rate of false positives in hair analysis cases.

FBI mitochondrial DNA testing timeline

The episode also clarifies the limits of DNA testing in the mid-1990s:

  • The FBI did not yet have mitochondrial DNA testing capability when the evidence was first collected.
  • Dr. Joseph DiZinno’s later interview is used to explain that mitochondrial testing on single hairs was still being developed in the early 1990s and only became usable in casework around 1996.
  • DiZinno also indicates that the prosecutor later resubmitted the hair evidence once testing became available.
  • Rabia argues this undercuts the idea that the FBI simply held the evidence for years waiting to test it.

Listener question: baby Alex’s age

One listener asked whether baby Alex may have been older than the prosecution claimed.

The hosts respond:

  • Alex was understood to be about 15 weeks old at the time, or nearly four months.
  • They acknowledge some medical-size estimates can be imperfect, especially for infants.
  • However, they do not find the “he was actually six months old” theory persuasive.
  • They note that baby size, family genetics, clothing, and feeding patterns do not support a strong contrary conclusion.

Listener question: Did Andy have other children?

Another listener asked whether Andy had other kids besides Alex.

The hosts say:

  • They found no evidence of any other children.
  • Jennifer Leahy notes that available records and local references did not suggest additional children in the household.
  • They stop short of ruling it out completely, but say there is no meaningful evidence supporting it.

Listener question: Christmas tree farms

The panel revisits the “Christmas tree farm” idea mentioned in the case.

Takeaways:

  • A listener from the area said they did not remember a permanent Christmas tree farm near where the body was found.
  • Rabia and Colin clarify that the important issue is not whether a farm existed, but that the “Christmas tree farm” may have been used as a pretense to get the victim into a remote rural area.
  • Jennifer notes that old ads suggest some Christmas tree operations did exist in the region, though that does not change the prosecution theory.

Gun evidence and lack of connection to Patricia

The hosts also criticize the prosecution’s gun evidence:

  • The state relied heavily on testimony describing a small black Jennings-style handgun.
  • They say the only real connection was indirect testimony about a gun being given to someone else to hold, not proof tying Patricia to the murder weapon.
  • No gun was recovered.
  • Colin argues this fails the basic requirement of conditional relevance: there was not enough evidence to connect that gun to Patricia herself.
  • They also note that police tried and failed to match shell casings from target practice to the murder weapon type.

Main Takeaways

  • The hosts believe the hair evidence is deeply compromised and may have been mishandled or switched.
  • They argue the FBI and state labs had severe forensic limitations, especially around hair comparison and mitochondrial DNA testing in the mid-1990s.
  • The gun evidence is described as weak and largely speculative.
  • The team sees both the hair and gun as the two major pillars of the state’s case, and both are attacked as unreliable.
  • They also emphasize broader problems in the trial, including:
    • a highly publicized and potentially biased venue,
    • issues with juror impartiality,
    • and questionable prosecution conduct.

What’s Next

Rabia previews Episode 10, which will cover:

  • what happened after Patricia’s conviction,
  • the post-conviction efforts to prove innocence,
  • the people who have worked on her behalf,
  • and why those efforts have struggled in court despite continued investigation.