After a heated argument with her husband, Shirley Andronowich left home in the middle of the night. It was the last time her husband saw her alive. The police investigation afterward encountered quite a few difficulties.
Naked body found in the schoolyard
Ed and Shirley Andronowich had been married for 20 years. Ed was a construction worker, while Shirley was a stay-at-home mother taking care of their three teenage daughters. The family lived in Winnipeg, Canada.
The couple occasionally went together to a bar a few blocks from their apartment. On the night of May 20, 1990, they went to the bar again. As usual, they were both in good spirits. However, not long after, Ed suddenly felt tired and didn’t want to leave. He decided to go home earlier than usual, but Shirley wanted to stay longer with their friends. They had a small argument at the bar. In the end, Ed went home alone, leaving his wife behind.
The 42-year-old woman left the bar around midnight and walked home. At this point, she and her husband continued to argue, and things escalated. Shirley, furious, stormed out of the house even though it was midnight. That was the last time Ed saw his wife alive.
The next morning, staff at a nearby high school saw a horrifying scene. It was Shirley’s naked body in the schoolyard. A nearby concrete block was believed to be the murder weapon.
The police arrived at Ed’s house shortly after and informed his family about Shirley’s death. Ed was devastated.
Strange confession
The autopsy results showed that the victim had been sexually assaulted, beaten, and had bite marks on her body. She had been strangled. Then, the perpetrator used the concrete block to bludgeon Shirley.
In his statement, Ed admitted to arguing with his wife that night but insisted he didn’t know where she went or what happened to her after she left the house. At that time, he only thought she went out for a walk to calm down.
But then, during a second round of questioning by the police, Ed suddenly confessed to killing his wife. However, the couple’s three daughters as well as their relatives and acquaintances did not believe Ed had done it.
Even though Ed confessed, the investigative team still had to verify. And soon they found out that Ed’s confession did not match the crime scene.
Because the perpetrator had bitten the victim, detectives sent Ed’s dental samples to a famous dentist in Vancouver, Canada, for comparison. The dentist confirmed that the bite marks on the victim’s body did not match Ed’s.
Furthermore, forensic experts analyzed the saliva around the bite marks to determine the blood group of the biter. The result showed that the person who bit Shirley had blood type B, while Ed had blood type A.
Ed was determined not to be the murderer and was released after two months of detention. Many people couldn’t understand why he confessed to a crime he didn’t commit.
The alcoholic husband
Ed had a heavy alcohol addiction. Therefore, experts suggested that his nervous system was disordered, leading to a lack of memory about what had happened. It’s common for alcoholics to feel remorse, express feelings of guilt, and even imagine that they have done something terrible while under the influence, so it’s very possible that Ed believed he had killed Shirley.
Ed claimed to have been drinking on the night of the murder, and his memory was not entirely clear. When questioned by the police and asked if he had hit his wife during their argument, Ed replied, “possibly.”
With Ed being proven innocent, the police had to reinvestigate the murder case from scratch without any valuable leads.
One investigator decided to visit the crime scene for examination. He went there at midnight, similar to the time when the murder occurred, to assess the scene and better understand the behavior and mindset of the perpetrator. He wondered what might have happened if the victim had been choked unconscious. The murder weapon was a 24kg concrete block found near the body. So, where did that concrete block come from?
Observing the surroundings, the investigator noticed a well-lit area about 150m away from the victim’s location. Then, in the darkness, he saw a concrete block. About 4m away from it was another block. Comparing the concrete block near Shirley’s body with these two blocks revealed that they had once been a single unit. The position of the gap between the three blocks and other features was identical.
Clues from the crime scene
The investigative team speculated that the perpetrator likely left fingerprints on the concrete block near the victim’s body. However, finding fingerprints on the rough surface of concrete is very difficult. Nevertheless, the technicians decided to try using the super glue fuming method.
They placed cyanoacrylate ester superglue in a vacuum metal box and placed the concrete block inside. Then they sealed the box and raised the temperature inside the cabinet to allow the glue to vaporize completely over 6 hours. If fingerprints existed on the concrete block, the vaporized glue would interact with the chemicals released by the fingers, leaving a mark that could be observed under laser light.
The police found what they were looking for. There was the fingerprint of the killer on the concrete block, but it was very faint, so they couldn’t match it to the criminal fingerprint database.
Although the fingerprint couldn’t help the investigative team break the deadlock, it led them to conclude that this was a random murder, as the perpetrator used an object found at the crime scene.
Unable to find any more leads, the authorities announced the murder case in the media in the hope that someone might provide them with additional information. However, the police didn’t receive any valuable information until over a year later.
The suspicious construction worker
More than a year after Shirley’s brutal murder, suddenly a man called the Police Department providing information he believed was related to the murder case.
The man stated that on the early morning of May 20, 1990, around the time Shirley was murdered, his roommate named Mark Jarman returned home late at night. Mark’s behavior seemed odd, his face looked scared, and he had stains on his pants and shoes that looked like blood. They lived in an apartment building across from the crime scene.
Mark Jarman, a 29-year-old construction worker, was unemployed at the time.
The caller mentioned that the next morning, Mark continued to exhibit abnormal behavior by hurriedly burning the clothes he wore the night before.
Considering this man named Mark quite suspicious, the police went to meet him, requesting samples of Mark’s saliva and blood to send to the laboratory for analysis.
The truth revealed
The analysis results later showed that he had blood type B, matching the blood type of the perpetrator identified by experts beforehand. Next, Mark’s dental samples were also sent to an expert. The result matched the dental impression that caused the bite marks on the victim’s body.
The police had previously found a piece of paper listing purchases made at the schoolyard on the morning of May 20, 1990, but at that time, they didn’t know if the paper was related to the perpetrator. And when Mark became the prime suspect, they examined the paper and found Mark’s fingerprints. That meant he was at the schoolyard on the night of the murder. Mark was immediately arrested.
During interrogation with the police, Mark initially denied all accusations. However, faced with undeniable evidence, he eventually confessed. Mark stated that early on the morning of May 20, while wandering around, he encountered Shirley at the schoolyard. Seeing a woman alone at this hour, Mark found it strange and approached her.
After a conversation, the two engaged in consensual sexual activity. However, afterward, Shirley suddenly said she would tell her husband what had happened. Fearing exposure, Mark argued with Shirley. In a fit of rage, he used a concrete slab to attack Shirley. To make the police believe the motive of the crime was robbery, he took everything from the victim’s wallet.
Charged with intentional homicide, Mark received a life sentence without parole.
