A Woman And Her Baby Walk into a Trap
(“Shopping Spree,” Forensic Files)
Last week’s post told of two nice people with the bad luck to cross paths with a personable married couple who were thrill killers looking for prey.
The circumstances of Lisa Manderach’s murder, the subject of today’s post, seem even more improbable.
Random misfortune. She walked into a kids clothing store where a young man working the cash register just happened to be a fantasy-game superfan seething with thoughts of criminal perversion.
Lisa Agostinelli Manderach lost her life because the aforementioned Dungeons and Dragons enthusiast, one Caleb Fairley, age 21, reportedly considered her the embodiment of beauty he’d been wanting to seize.
Fairley also killed Devon, the baby daughter Lisa shared with husband James Manderach. The murders initially made James, called Jimmy, a suspect because, as we know from countless other Forensic Files, the spouse did it.
Lenient system? Jimmy had reported Lisa missing when she failed to return home from shopping by dinner time. Fortunately, investigators found glaring evidence of Fairley’s guilt within days of the murder and built a case so solid that the attacker ended up sentenced to two consecutive life terms for two counts of second-degree murder.
Still, “Shopping Spree,” the Forensic Files episode about the murders, left me curious about an epilogue for Fairley.
He came from an affluent family, is white, and was young when he committed his crimes — all factors that can favorably tip the scales of justice.
On the other hand, the judicial system rarely takes kindly to anyone who kills a mother or child, or both.
Before getting into the most recent information on Fairley, here’s a recap of the episode along with some additional facts culled from internet sources:
Quick jaunt. Lisa Manderach, two weeks shy of her 30th birthday, worked full time as a fork-lift operator in a food warehouse and also had an entrepreneurial streak.
Amazon
Barnes & Noble
Books-a-Million
Target
Walmart
Indie Bound
The Manderachs ran a janitorial service on the side. She also did volunteer work for Meals on Wheels.
The couple had known each other since Lisa was 10 and Jimmy was friends with her brothers. They married in 1992.
Devon, 19 months, was their only child.
The trio were all dark and striking. Lisa had long flowing hair, pale skin, and a pretty face.
On September 15, 1995, she and Devon headed to Your Kidz & Mine, a new clothing store in the Collegeville Shopping Center, 10 minutes from her house in Limerick, Pennsylvania.
Jimmy stayed home to watch football.
Lisa left her diaper bag at home because she planned to stay out for only an hour, which makes “Shopping Spree” an odd choice for the title of the Forensic Files episode. (To me, it’s not a “spree” unless it starts in the morning and doesn’t end until it’s too dark to find your car.)
Fantasy. As soon as she stepped into Your Kidz & Mine, Fairley, who had a passion for vampire lore, reportedly recognized her as having the idealized look of the women portrayed in vampire-related literature.
Fairley, a blond, heavy, powerful-looking fire hydrant of a man who lived with his parents, was described by a friend as a devotee of Dungeons and Dragons, a role-playing game that allows people to act out story lines involving medieval warrior heroes, dragons, wicked monarchs, you name it.
It’s not clear whether Fairley’s interest in vampires was part of D&D or a separate pastime.
The mullet-wearing Fairley killed both Devon and Lisa via strangulation and most likely sexually assaulted Lisa. He disposed of the little girl’s body in Valley Forge National Park, where hikers soon discovered it.
Fairley took Lisa’s body to a wooded spot in an industrial area near his health club.
Cover-up. Police found her 1988 Firebird in the shopping plaza’s parking lot and located a witness who remembered seeing Lisa in Your Kidz & Mine.
Then, in what has to be everyone’s favorite part of the episode, police noticed Fairley was wearing beige makeup on his face when they brought him in for questioning.
He washed off the foundation at their request, uncovering scratch marks that looked as though they came from someone’s fingernails.
During questioning, he claimed he got them while mosh-pit dancing, although it later came out that he had told friends he got scratched up while rescuing a guy who was being beaten up outside the clothing store.
He allegedly pressured one of those friends, Christopher Lefler, to perjure himself by corroborating the dance alibi in court; Lefler refused.
Police got a search warrant for Fairley’s home and discovered a great deal of pornography.
Hasty assumption. “We found out that he was a real pervert, all kinds of sexual devices and various perverted stuff,” District Attorney Bruce L. Castor Jr. told Forensic Files rather triumphantly.
In general, I wouldn’t be so hasty to assume a link between perverted, well, whatever it was he had in his possession, and criminality.
But fortunately the murder created plenty of forensic evidence that made for a stronger case against Fairley.
Police found Lisa’s body after Fairley agreed to disclose its location in exchange for a promise that they wouldn’t pursue the death penalty. That decision drew public anger, as can be seen in Philadelphia Daily News letters to the editor published on September 29, 1995.
Investigators discovered his DNA under Lisa’s fingernails, some strands of long dark hair with the roots attached (suggesting a struggle) in the vacuum cleaner bag at the store, and the baby’s DNA on the carpet.
All this culminated in Caleb Fairley’s April 1996 conviction for two counts of murder, aggravated assault, theft, and abuse of a corpse.
I’m real immature. Fairley has not found prison life agreeable. As of at least 2012, he was trying to have his convictions vacated and get a new trial following a Supreme Court decision that deemed life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders unconstitutional.
Fairley’s argument: The court should have rendered him a minor for sentencing purposes. Even though he committed the double murder at age 21, “a person’s biological process is typically incomplete until the person reaches his or her mid-twenties.”
That ploy hasn’t worked out, and today, Fairley lives in SCI Fayette, a moderately overcrowded maximum-security prison in Labelle, Pennsylvania. It houses 2,114 inmates but has bed capacity for just 1,826.
As for an update on Lisa’s widower, Jimmy Manderach, it appears he still lives in the same part of Pennsylvania. I make it a practice not to look too hard for up-to-date information about victims’ family members because, unless they show up on Dr. Phil or Dateline, they’re probably not looking for media attention.
(Jimmy Manderach did not appear on the Forensic Files episode.)
Dedication. In 1998, Caleb Fairley’s parents settled a lawsuit filed by Lisa’s mother and Jimmy Manderach for $1.6 million. According to legal documents reported on in the Philadelphia Inquirer in 1998, the Fairleys contended:
“While the circumstances were indeed horrific, the deaths . . . were relatively and mercifully swift, mitigating their conscious pain and suffering.”
That same year, police arrested Caleb’s father, James Fairley, who owned a pharmacy in Phoenixville, for allegedly providing a customer with the painkiller Darvon illegally. Court papers allege he asked the customer for sex in return for the drug.
On a happier note, in 1998, the Limerick Township Park System built the Manderach Memorial Playground in honor of Lisa and Devon.
The township invested an additional $50,000 for new equipment for the playground in 2012. From the looks of its Facebook page, the place is still going strong.
That’s all for this post. For next week, I’m researching a bit about Dungeons and Dragons and whether any game aficionado — or the nature of the pastime itself — has been linked to other major crimes.
Until then, cheers. — RR
Update: Read Part 2.
Book in stores and online!
No disagreements, but maybe D and D and health club membership aren’t so far apart. Unicorns and getting really buff can be equally fantastical. Freudian shrinks may agree there’s a flotilla of repressed libido in both. Next thing you know, a muscle bound nerd does something dreadful. The fixation with a goth ideal is a nice touch. I used to have a crush on Lucy Lawless, from Xena the Warrior Princess. Unlike Mr. Fairly, I can keep things like that to myself and act normal.
Love your phrases: seething with thoughts of criminal perversion. And fire hydrant of a man.
I think one can’t read anything into Fairley’s pastimes/hobbies: he’s just evil. “We found out that he was a real pervert, all kinds of sexual devices and various perverted stuff,” District Attorney Bruce L. Castor Jr. told Forensic Files rather triumphantly. I agree with Rebecca, and am surprised this was reported: if it was legal, what does it matter? Possession/viewing of porn and ‘sexual devices’ would condemn millions on the basis this is meant to! Of course, if this matter was related to the inflicting of (non-consensual) pain or worse, and/or minors, that’s a different matter – but that’s not the impression given.
I wish someone would look into the possibility that Caleb Fairley may have murdered Joann Katrinak and her infant son Alex in Catasauqua, PA, in December of 1994. Joann bore a strong resemblance to Lisa Manderach. Catasauqua is only about 54 minutes away from where Fairley lived in Gulph Mills. And there were dirty blond hairs, approximately 8 inches long, found at the scene. Although there was a conviction in that case, there are many troubling aspects and questions surrounding the conviction, and the state’s theory was probably the silliest thing I ever heard. What if Lisa and Devon were not his first victims?
Thanks for writing in — it’s the first I’ve heard about another mother and child murdered in that area.
Please research the Katrinak case a little when you have some time. My theory on Fairley is nothing more than a hunch; it could have just as easily been another random sicko who targeted her. But considering that Joann was found with her jeans unzipped and unbuttoned, it stands to reason that her death was sexually motivated. Yet, Joann’s husband’s ex girlfriend, who lived 500 miles away and had never met the victims, was convicted of the crime on a flimsy theory and highly questionable hair evidence.
The Murders of Joann and Alex Katrinak: FF ep “A Woman Scorned.” In Dec ’94 in Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania, Joann Katrinak and her three-month-old son, Alex, disappeared. Suspicion initially fell on Joann’s husband, Andy, when their bodies were found in woods in Apr ’95. But some insects found on the bodies revealed a vital clue, as did a long blonde hair found on the victims – which has something uniquely in common with the brunette hair of the husband’s former love interest, Patricia Rorrer.
Marcus, don’t you find it interesting that a hair inconsistent with both the victim and the accused was found clutched in the dead woman’s HAND, and was never tested? I watched both the prosecutor and the lead investigator on that case squirm when Dateline’s Keith Morrison posed some pretty tough questions, and their answers were less than satisfactory.
Jaime: A single hair in a murder victim’s hand is likely to be from someone she’s been in contact with, but not necessarily. If she’s been in a public place, such as a shop, a shed hair from someone else could be picked up on one’s clothing and stick to a sweaty palm, etc. A CLUMP of hair would be more significant – as if pulled out. But a hair in the hand from a third-party doesn’t preclude the accused from guilt of itself, as though it must be from the perp.
Of course Fairley could have committed other murders – but there was no sexual assault in the Katrinak case, which appeared motiveless except in attributing Rorrer’s jealousy. She appears a rather better fit than Fairley, particularly when we remember that in the great majority of murders, victim and perp are known to each-other, per Katrinak-Rorrer. Entirely random ‘thrill-kills,’ as this would have to be for Fairley, are relatively rare. But were it not for Rorrer, yes, I’d look at Fairley…
Thanks for responding, Marcus. The thing about Katrinak is that she was actually found with her jeans unzipped and unbuttoned, suggesting a possible sexual assault. Since 4 months elapsed between her disappearance and the discovery of the bodies, the medical examiner could not verify whether or not a sexual assault took place.
Rorrer had never actually met Katrinak. The prosecution insists that Rorrer called the Katrinak household on Dec 13, 1994, two days before Katrinak went missing, and that Joann rudely told her not to call again and hung up on her. However, the only record of any call made from Rorrer to the Katrinak household was on Dec 7th. Are we to believe that Rorrer was still in such a rage 8 days later that she hopped into her van (with a bad universal joint), drove 500+ miles and killed a woman and baby she had never met, without anyone either seeing her in PA or missing her from NC? That does not ring true to me.
The state’s theory was that this was a “fatal attraction/can’t let go” motivated killing. But by all accounts, Rorrer only spoke to Andrew Katrinak once or twice a year. There were no love letters, cards, gifts, or any other indication that she still had a romantic interest in him. In fact, she had moved 500 miles away and was in a new relationship herself. After his wife disappeared, she made no attempt to be with him or to see him.
I don’t have any reason to believe that Fairley might have been in the Catasauqua area in December of 1994. But it’s not implausible that Joann Katrinak may have been in Fairley’s area during that time period. Christmas was right around the corner, and the biggest shopping center in that tri-county area is the King of Prussia Mall, which is about 54 minutes away from Catasauqua and a stone’s throw from Fairley’s home in Gulph Mills.
Jaime: Hello and thanks.
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4438028/com-v-rorrer-p/
Having read this recent appeal document (worth a perusal – it’s not too long), which seems to address the fundamental issues at stake, I see no merit in the claim of wrongful conviction, but rather a clutching at straws in the hope that some (spurious) claim may just cast sufficient doubt on the conviction. We’re asked to accept that she was framed viz hair DNA – not just that error was made – and that the cigarette butt at the bodies’ location with her DNA on its filter is either of no significance, is another error, or was planted to frame her (notwithstanding that this is a location she knew well per horse-rides). I find these claims incredible.
Perusing the claims made by her supporters, I find many are Aunt Sallies: points that claimants suggest are probative of innocence but are no such thing. Whatever observers claim about the circumstances surrounding the crime – why would she do this/surely she’d be seen/she’s unlikely to have thought that… – they are speculative, whereas the hard science, beyond REASONABLE doubt, says she did it. Even her defence counsel is desperate: having accepted that if mounted hair (see the doc) DNA was hers, she did it, it then moved to avering that she was framed when said hairs proved to be hers.
While very far from conclusive, she also made some startling remarks at arrest, such as her not killing Alex (and only Alex). That may be true, in that Alex may have died of exposure, not intentional killing.
Frankly, I’m astonished anyone would question her guilt (except those who can make money by writing books doing so)!
Yes Marcus, I’ve read all that. Frankly, I’m neither surprised nor impressed by their decision. It’s about what I’d expect from Pennsylvania.
If those hairs taken from Joann’s car had had a root attached, there would have been no reason for this case to be the first one in the commonwealth to use mitochondrial DNA testing. Why do mitochondrial testing when you have a root, a valid source of nuclear testing? It wasn’t until post-conviction DNA testing that those hairs suddenly, inexplicably had roots. I find THAT to be incredible.
There are myriad issues surrounding this case and conviction. Let’s consider these statements Rorrer is alleged to have made in the presence of a police officer. To her infant daughter, she supposedly said, “If I had known I would get caught, I would never have brought you into this world.” To me, those words sound overly dramatic. They’d fit well in a made-for-TV movie, wouldn’t they? I also take into consideration the fact that Rorrer simply doesn’t speak that way. She’s far from dumb, but she’s not exactly educated, either. Everything about that statement rings false, but it sure worked out for Officer Suzanne Pearson; she was promoted to Sergeant after sharing this “bombshell confession” with her superiors.
If I were to challenge all the so-called evidence in the comments, it would make for a very long read. I do not just blindly accept whatever the courts decide. There are more questions than answers in this case. Oddly, the test results on the DNA from the cigarette butt was the deciding factor for me: that’s when I KNEW the evidence had been compromised. By all accounts, Rorrer has never been a smoker. But let’s say for arguments sake that she was a closet smoker and no one knew. So after a stressful afternoon of kidnapping and murder, she decides to relax with a nice soothing cigarette right there at the crime scene. Then, not only is she foolish enough to leave the evidence right there with the bodies, she’s also kind enough to insist the butt is tested for DNA evidence post-conviction. If she’s the killer, then she would know full well that the cigarette butt was hers and the DNA would match. Finally, the evidence had been exposed to the elements for who knows how many months. Try sending something like that to a lab for paternity testing and see how far you get.
Marcus, I respect your opinion and understand why you and others feel the way you do. But, I’d like to offer you a challenge. Try to do some REAL digging into this case. Submit an open records request to the Catasauqua Police Department, the Pennsylvania State police, and the FBI. Catasauqua and the PSP will tell you in no uncertain terms that they don’t intend to give you squat, and that they don’t want anyone “digging into this case.” Call the court house in Allentown and tell them you’d like to request trial transcripts. The voice on the phone will be warm and friendly right up until you tell her which transcripts you want. Then her tone will change to icy and you will be informed that since it’s an old case, someone will have to take the time to search through the archives. You will also be advised that the transcripts consist of 6500 pages and the cost of copying it runs between $3.00 to $5.00 per page–meaning you will have to fork over between $19,000 and $32,000 just to see the transcripts. In short, I can guarantee you will encounter nothing but resistance.
One final thought about those hairs: they were described as “dirty blond” and approximately 8 inches in length. There’s been some debate with regard to a picture of Rorrer shortly before the murders and the color of her hair. One thing is for certain though: regardless of what color one would describe her hair, it was unequivocally a lot longer than 8 inches. Also, Rorrer was interviewed by police within a week of Joann and Alex going missing. In the warm NC climate, Rorrer was dressed in shorts and a short sleeved T-shirt and had absolutely sign of injury. The autopsy indicated that Joann fought hard for her life. If Rorrer beat her to death with a .22 caliber pistol like the prosecution claimed, she would have to have been up close and personal, but yet she came away without so much as a scratch? Of course anything is possible, but I have studied this case in great detail, and my gut instinct is that Patricia Rorrer never left North Carolina, just as she’s always maintained.
Jaime: Thanks for your thoughts. Of course, I have no answer to the claim that this was a corruptly prosecuted case, but I would ask that if it’s as obviously flawed as you suggest, why have appeals failed? Is the system THAT rotten?
Just a few points (not rhetorical): do we KNOW Rorrer suggested examining the butt (not that it’s significant anyway ‘cos of course police would)?;
“So after a stressful afternoon of kidnapping and murder, she decides to relax with a nice soothing cigarette right there at the crime scene.” Overly cynical: you must know that more than a few perps have been caught this way – stupid as it is. But that she’d never been known to smoke, I grant you (unless she placed it to suggest the perp was a smoker and knew she could claim she wasn’t, and simply didn’t know DNA could be extracted?);
Your last point is hardly conclusive: as she used a weapon I wouldn’t necessarily expect her to be injured, merely that she MIGHT. But it’s small argument on her side.
What you suggest is that law enforcement officers had to lie (about what she allegedly said, for example), AND that DNA was not just poorly/mistakenly administered but corruptly. I can’t agree on the evidence I’m aware of that this is more likely than her guilt. Seven leaky buckets hold no more water than one: that several stratums of the evidence against her MIGHT be interpreted otherwise doesn’t add up to ‘sufficient doubt’ (that works the other way too, of course!) Nothing I’ve read by her supporters goes to the heart of the case against her – unless perjury. That is to say, I see nothing contradictory in the evidence against her that must entail perjury.
I’m certainly aware police lie – but this would require a conspiracy. Why?
Hi Marcus,
I agree with you that in most cases claiming law enforcement conspiracy is a bit of stretch and mostly unfounded. Having said that, to simply answer your question “why?” Police and FBI being under pressure to solve this highly publicized case, it had already been two years before they arrested Rorrer and case had gone cold. Rorrer was an easy target due to all the circumstantial evidence. Scorned ex lover etc. Also according to other reports, husband had connections inside police (speculation). Finally, maybe not a conspiracy but rather a botched investigation and forensic analysis of the hair sample. Apparently it is universally agreed by courts that any hair testing before 2000 might had yieled an incorrect reading. Anyhow, all together this rather is not a cut and dry trial and a convinction. My two cents, just as the heavily stretched circumstantial evidence convicted Rorrer, new uncovered circumstantial and direct evidence should give Rorrer benefit of a doubt and allowed for a new hearing and trial.
To answer your question re the testing of the cigarette butt: it was never tested prior to the trial, and one can only speculate as to why it wasn’t. When Rorrer was initially granted the right to do post conviction testing, the first thing she wanted tested was the butt. Her attorney persuaded her to have the hair re-tested. The first round of testing done on the hair (pre-trial) indicated only that Rorrer was a potential source of the hair (odds of 1 in 37,000–not exactly proof positive). The second round of testing came back as a 100% match, raising the question of a mistake. It was after that round of testing that Rorrer insisted the cigarette butt be tested for DNA, as she was convinced it would exonerate her.
I also forgot to mention the fingernail evidence. There was a piece of a fingernail found attached to Joann’s chest. The nail was not consistent with Joann or Rorrer with regard to size and grooming. The forensic reports indicate that there was a significant amount of blood and tissue clinging to this fingernail, which would have been an excellent source of nuclear DNA testing. Again, this vital piece of evidence was never tested prior to trial. When Rorrer was granted the right to do post conviction DNA testing on the nail, it was discovered that the nail had been cleaned of the blood and tissue, rendering it essentially useless for further testing. WHY?
Last but not least, Patricia Rorrer was not the only person in Andrew Katrinak’s life who had a connection to the spot where the bodies were found. Andrew had a lady friend who lived less than 4 miles from those woods. While there’s no evidence to suggest he was unfaithful to Joann, within 6 months of her death Andrew and this woman were openly seeing each other. Today, they are married and live in Colorado. I’m not trying to “throw shade” at either one of them, but I do find it odd that when police asked Andy if he knew of anyone who lived in the area, he thought of an ex-girlfriend he hadn’t been with in over 5 years, but failed to mention his “friend,” with whom he had much more frequent contact.
Jaime: Thanks. Some issues there, but I aver nothing that seems to undercut/override evidence against her. “… as she was convinced it would exonerate her.” Without wishing to be pedantic, it can’t be said what was in her mind, as though you can see ‘her truth.’ All one can say is she thought/hoped it might (without there being any realistic basis implied that it would or should). Someone with a life sentence has nothing to lose throwing any spanner in the works that might, as they see it, cast doubt – even if the spanner has the opposite effect! Nothing probative of innocence should be read into anything she offers viz DNA. She’s a desperate woman – we’d all be desperate – and should be expected to say anything, even if it backfires.
Viz Andrew’s newer wife, he likely, to me, believed absolutely that she could not possibly be the perp, as endorsed by the fact that he married her. Had a father the slightest inkling that a g/friend he would marry had murdered his child, unless a psycho he couldn’t possibly be with her. I see not significance in the point you make here. As to Andrew being the killer, I thought the police acknowledged his cast-iron alibi (but correct me if I’m wrong).
MAC: Thanks. I would say that it’s only since the advent of ‘forensic porn’ that wholly circumstantial cases are disparaged. It was, and is, perfectly reasonable to convict without forensic evidence. Of course, it’s not if such forensic evidence that is or may have been exculpatory has been maladministered by accident or design. If it could reasonably have affected the outcome a retrial is necessary. New evidence doesn’t, and shouldn’t, entail retrial: only if there’s a reasonable possibility it could make a difference.
Juries are imperfect: what is ‘stretched’ circumstantial evidence for you (or me) was evidently not so for that jury.
I absolutely accept that in some cases there has been proven prosecutorial misconduct to secure conviction; ditto junk science/incompetence. It’s appalling where deliberate. I’m not persuaded in this case it applies – but then what do I know other than what I read?
I do rejoice when I learn of someone – particularly on death row – exonerated. My guiding principle if I were administering criminal law is what is it reasonable to do to establish probative fact and what is it reasonable to believe of those facts (a matter for the jury)? Ideally we would achieve certainty; practically we must settle for ‘the exclusion of all reasonable doubt’: problematic ‘cos it’s circular. What IS reasonable doubt and what is it to be at or beyond that threshold? Should ‘reasonable doubt’ be defined for the jury – or is that to nudge them some unintended direction by lawmakers?
Here in UK juries are now being instructed to be “satisfied that they are sure” of guilt, with surety not being as ‘high’ as certainty.
I lived in this area at the time of the sadly disgusting Murder in Collegeville. I used to shop at Redners. That day I was at the Dunkin’ Donuts too. I have the same profile but had no children. Not sure if i shopped here ever. But I remember them finding that poor baby in Valley Forge Park. That same year Limerick was hit by a night tornado which killed a mother, father and baby. I think often of this case and hope Caleb Fairly rots in hell! I hope her spouse and family find peace. (Easy for me to say) but I hope they have. So tragic. Prayers to the family.
I’m sure all readers agree…