To whom this may concern,
Before you read any further, I need to tell you who I am, or rather, who I am not. I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I’m not some keyboard warrior reading through parody articles or opinion pieces trying to make sense of things. I am, or rather, we are, a legitimate team of investigators. And we examine cold cases.
Our backgrounds vary; some of us military, some of us retired police, some mere enthusiasts with skills in computers and research. But we are legitimate. We take these cases seriously, and I would never write this is we didn’t have credibility to back up our investigation.
I know this doesn’t give you much, but I hope it avoids this letter being discarded amongst the complaints or ‘suggestions’ you receive on a normal basis. Normally, I’d give you more detailed accounts of who we are, even our contact information, but what I’m about to share with you must remain anonymous. All of us are very worried about our well-being. That is, if your team follows through on what we’re about to share.
This is in regard to Case #006954, the infamous double homicide of Mr. and Mrs. Andrew Shirling on 405 Pivetta Lane. You’ll no doubt remember it, and yes, we’re aware the actual case number is classified. I hope this adds to our credibility.
We began our investigation last month on the one-year anniversary of the killing. Our local new stations broadcasted a reminder, asking for those with information to come forward. We saw there’d still been no arrests. We’ve learned the case is still active, but all of us know how little progress has been made. We decided to lend a hand.
What struck us about the case, both initially and when we began our research, was the uncharacteristic actions of those involved. It’s true you never really know someone, but a look behind the curtain of Mr. and Mrs. Shirling’s life showed nothing amiss. There was not a shred of evidence that either person was having an affair, or had made any enemies, or had mistreated their children. There’d never been a single complaint by the neighbors, no drug or alcohol abuse, or any serious allegations against them. Most important: Andrew and Martha were in love. They renewed their vows every five years, had date nights often, and per testimonies from their children, never had any big disagreements.
Then why, on Saturday, October 8th, 2023, did Andrew Shirling shoot his wife Martha with a stolen revolver before turning the gun on himself?
Unfortunately for their two kids, Bobby and Nadine, the ‘why’ becomes irrelevant after a while. I’m sure every psychiatrist they meet gives them the same spiel: it wasn’t your fault, and you’ll never know why, so move on. Eventually, they may, to only have it brought back to life in a Netflix documentary for the entertainment of thousands.
But why is exactly the kind of question we should ask. As we’ve established, this is something that Andrew would never do. He loved his wife, so why did he kill her?
In our investigation, we dug through all the information. Autopsies, fingerprints, footprints, blood splatter, interviews, testimonies, rumors, allegations, phone records, shop lists. Everything. All the same information the police acquired. And as we combed through, we couldn’t find a single piece of information that seemed out of place.
Except for one.
Martha Shirling was a cleaner, perhaps even an aggressive one. Several friends and family members say they’d never been over the house when it was dirty. Bobby and Nadine, too, say she cleaned every Saturday morning, just as she had that morning. This made much of the physical evidence found on the crime scene helpful, since anything new would be easily discovered. Except there was nothing new. The only people who’d been in the house that day were Andrew, Martha, Bobby, and Nadine, and not one fingerprint or hair was found belonging to anyone else.
However, amongst the police photographs were small, faint shoeprints in the kitchen. These were discovered, obviously, and determined to be those of Nadine’s favorite shoes. They appeared to be coming in from the backdoor which led through the kitchen. These footprints were headed towards the living room, disappeared on the living room rug, then reappeared in the kitchen, heading back out through the back door. Peculiar. As we know, the living room was the scene of the crime.
It is understandable why this detail had been overlooked by police. Nadine lived in the house and wore those shoes often. She’d stated, in her brief interview, that she’d played outside earlier that day, after her mother had cleaned. She was over the neighbors for a sleepover that night. Most importantly, Nadine did not shoot her mother.
And yet, it is out of place. No one was ever allowed to wear shoes in the house and Nadine, at 15, is certainly old enough to know this. There would’ve been nothing worse she could’ve done than wearing dirty shoes on the floor her mother had just cleaned. And if she had, even in defiance or anger towards her mother, Martha would’ve cleaned the footprints as soon as she saw them. So, why were they there?
Nadine, as we said, was at the neighbor’s house. This was the home of Amanda Johnson and her daughter Emilia. They’d moved in two years prior. Amanda was a recently divorced mother in her mid-forties and Emilia the same age as Nadine. The pair were said to have become friends rather quickly, and both were considered by neighbors to be well-behaved children. Police spoke with both Amanda and Emilia. Neither were under any suspicion, and both corroborated a similar telling of what was happening in Amanda’s home at the time. That story, as was documented by police, was that Nadine and Emilia were upstairs watching movies around 9 p.m., during the time the murder would’ve occurred. Amanda said she went to check on them and found them both asleep. She then went on the computer, and while it wasn’t initially explored, this fact was confirmed by data analysts a few days later. All appeared normal.
But all cannot be normal. We know that between 9:10 and 9:15, two gunshots must have gone off in the Shirling household. Was it, by chance, that Ms. Johnson was wearing headphones at the time, or that the movie in the girl’s room was loud enough that neither would hear? Possible, yes, but perhaps too coincidental? Too coincidental, as well, the detail of Nadine’s shoeprint; a piece of evidence too out of place to ignore.
Did she return home, perhaps in the middle of the night when Amanda and Emilia were asleep? Did she discovered her parents murder and, in shock, head back to where she was and allow her brother to discover the bodies around 1 a.m.? Very unlikely, nearly impossible. Once again, we come back to one very simple fact: Andrew Shirling shot his wife and then himself. So, what does the shoeprint mean?
There was one other piece of evidence that gave us pause. It is regarding the murder weapon: a stolen pistol. The gun had a scratched off serial number and could not be identified. Such weapons are purchasable, quite easily as some law enforcement would argue, if someone knows who to talk to or where to look. Since the payment would’ve been made in cash, someone who wanted to be careful, like Mr. Shirling, could gather cash quietly for a couple months before making the exchange. Most police agree that they’re surprised Mr. Shirling would find a reputable contact for purchasing the pistol. Nothing on his computer or within his contacts would give any indication that he had found anyone, and there was nothing in his banking history, which he shared with his wife, that could indicate he was squirreling cash. Yet, the police decided that it was theoretically possible he made the purchase, and because no known vendors would cooperate or say they sold Andrew the weapon, getting an accurate answer was found to be too difficult.
As we’ve examined, if it was out of character for Andrew, and something he would never do, then why is it acceptable that he did do it? Isn’t it just as likely, if not more likely, that Andrew didn’t purchase the pistol at all? If we trust Andrew’s character, we can determine that he never, and would never, purchase an illegal pistol, nor contact anyone who could sell him one. So why did he have one?
These questions in the air, a hypothesis forms within our group.
If Andrew would never purchase a stolen pistol, then where would he get it? He must have been given the pistol, purchased or stolen by someone else.
If Andrew would never hurt his wife, then why would he need one? Maybe he didn’t want to hurt her at all. Could whomever had given Andrew the pistol forced him to use it on his wife and then himself?
Possibly, but how could someone give a man a gun, then force them to use it how they wish? Wouldn’t the weapon be the ultimate bargaining tool?
Our hypothesis could’ve ended here. We’ve created doubt but have no evidence to prove our theories.
But we returned to the shoes. They were an ordinary size 5, worn by Nadine almost every day. She wore them that day and that evening, all the way over to the neighbor’s house. There, Amanda Johnson claims the girls were upstairs sleeping. But was Nadine actually asleep? Was Amanda Johnson fooled, or did she lie?
We’ve come to the twist in our investigation where all we’ve known turns on its head. Only from examining the case as we have could we have reached this point, and from here on out, we hope that the capable arm of the law can explore further what we’re about to share.
It didn’t take long to uncover that Amanda Johnson is not who she said she is. There are no formal documents that ever indicate an Amanda Johnson lived, gave birth, or divorced in the state of Montana. When inspected clearly, all documents related to the purchasing and registry of her car are forgeries. Additionally, there is no documentation that the home was ever sold to Amanda Johnson, and as far as the bank is concerned, the home still belongs and is being paid by the previous owner. It appears, for over two years, Amanda and Emilia Johnson are effectively squatters who’ve pretended to have moved in.
So where is the previous owner? Henry Killinger, a traveling salesman with next to no family, was known to have gone out on a business trip somewhere down in the southern part of the United States, perhaps Georgia or Florida. At some point, he abruptly quit his job and hasn’t been heard from by any of his coworkers since. A few weeks later, the Johnson’s were said to have moved into his home, telling their new neighbors it was a quick and private sale. If it feels too perfect, that’s because it is. We cannot say exactly what occurred to Mr. Killinger, or why no one has ever come forward seeking his whereabouts, but to assume that the Johnson’s just so happened to have chosen the home of a traveling salesman with no family is too coincidental. All our investigate prowess assumes that he was targeted.
What’s even more interesting is in regard to Emilia Johnson. As expected, we were unable to uncover any documentation of her birth, social security, vaccinations, or any schooling records under this name, although she was registered at Nadine’s school of Bridgeport High. This would suggest that Amanda Johnson had given Emilia a fake name as well and cleverly convinced her daughter to play along with the ruse for as long as possible. Where things get wild, however, is an examination of photographs taken of both Amanda and Emilia, coming from a fake driver’s license as well as Emilia’s school photos. A preliminary examination into their facial features including hair, eyes, ears, nose, etc. shows that both mother and daughter appear wholly different, so much so, that it’s possible to suggest that Emilia is actually not Amanda’s daughter at all.
Three months after the death of Andrew and Martha Shirling, Amanda Johnson and her supposed daughter ‘sold’ the house and moved away. Again, documentation of the sale appears to be limited and, in some cases, potentially fraudulent. There is a new family living at the home. We believe they’re unaware they don’t truly own the property.
Upon leaving, Amanda Johnson provided police with a telephone number to reach her as well as a new address should any further questioning be necessary. To our knowledge, no one in the police department ever found cause to reach out. If they had, they’d find that the number provided has now been disconnected, and the address provided nothing more than an abandoned home.
You’ll be asking how all of this information pertains to the case of Andrew and Martha Shirling. As was constantly reiterated, fingerprints, blood splatter and residue all but confirm that Andrew pulled the trigger on his wife and then on himself. Data from Amanda’s computer confirms that she was home during the killing. So how could she be involved at all, or how does any of this present an alternative theory?
Suppose for a moment that Amanda is not really Emilia’s mother. We’ve been led to believe, by Amanda, neighbors, and the school records that Emilia Johnson is a 15-year-old student. But what if this isn’t true? Her school photos certainly help her look the part, but could she in fact be older? 20? 25, maybe? Perhaps Amanda is not her mother but is simply her friend and Emilia is fully aware of the role they’re playing.
We ask why someone like Andrew, who we know was a good man and a better husband, would act as he did. Why would he stray so far from his character?
Perhaps he never did. What if it was his character that cause the act? Is it possible that, given enough motivation, Andrew could be forced into this unspeakable act? What would mean enough to him, what leverage could be used, that could make him go this far?
Love for his daughter?
Suppose the gun was presented to him by his neighbor, the same neighbor who had and could fit into Nadine’s shoes, the same neighbor where his only daughter lay unaware. He was told that if he didn’t act as instructed, she would be killed. Or worse. Presented with such a choice, maybe even Martha begged him to do it. A proud, strong man like Andrew, a sacrifice for the ones he loved would be within his character. And maybe Emilia knew that.
We stated at the beginning that we wished to remain anonymous. Our reason for this is due to this same question we continually ask – why? If we are right, and this murder/suicide is a pure act of love to save one’s daughter, we still fail to find any reason why it was forced upon both Andrew and Martha. Nothing was stolen, nothing was gained financial from their death. Is there an envy not shared, a misdeed unpunished, or was this some act of sadistic pleasure? It doesn’t seem right. There must be more at play, a deeper reason we cannot understand.
But we’re at a loss.
If this is something you find interesting enough to explore, you’ll find all our evidence enclosed. Please do not try to find us. Instead, do search for these missing persons known as Amanda and Emilia Johnson. We fear that this may not have been their first time. Or their last.