OH OH - Beverly Jarosz, 16, Garfield Heights, 28 Dec 1964

[BigBangCombo]

In James Renner's book The Serial Killer's Apprentice, there is a chapter about Beverly Jarosz. It was such a provocative story that it left me with lots of questions:

--- Why would Bev, as well as her mother, feel a dark foreboding of death and danger coming at them in the weeks before Bev was murdered? Had the family had some kind of trauma that we don't know about? That made them feel "what next?" (We all have had that kind of PTSD when we suffer several great losses in a row...)

--- Was the gift box or the anonymous gifts (of the silver bracelet and ring) available for forensic testing?

--- Why did the apparently nice young man, James M, living next door to Bev's grandmother go home and change his clothes after his stated 15-minute trip driving Bev home? He said he did that and then had something for lunch.

--- Bev made a habit of locking all the doors all the time, so... who did she let in between her 1:00-ish phone call to her mom and the 1:20 arrival of her friend Barb? The window of opportunity might have been smaller, depending on how long she spoke with her mom. Was the murderer already in the house? If so, how?

--- Was there some stress between Bev and Barb, with Bev hurrying to be ready for Barb's 1PM arrival, and Barb stating she thought Bev might not be answering the doorbell because Bev was irritated Barb was late? It just didn't sound like an easygoing relationship.

--- Same as above.... why did Barb leave when there was no answer at the door, yet she heard loud music and a crashing like a dresser drawer closing inside? Did she really think Bev was angry at her? Wouldn't she have have gone to a house next door and called Bev? It sounded like there was tension in that relationship. Or, they were more casual friends where you give the other person "more space"?

--- It didn't seem like Bev recognized the voice of the man, "Stephen Stackowicz" (who called maybe to find out if Bev was home alone)? If she recognized the voice as a boyfriend or a guy she knew, she wouldn't have left her father that written message.

--- Bev was strangled with a rope tied in a square knot. Who typically uses that kind of knot? Per Wiki, it's used for sailing, tying bandages, macrame, sashes, obis, and belts, as well as in Boy (or Girl) Scouts.

--- What happened to the 19-year-old boy, John P who was home the day of the murder and admitted to watching Bev sunbathe previously?

--- Bev's current boyfriend, Roger M didn't have a good alibi, just that he was home sick... Detective Horrigan felt there were questionable things in his story, even though Roger passed a lie detector test. Remember that forensics showed that Bev had never had sex... a current boyfriend might be a likely guy to put the pressure on for that and then get enraged at a refusal.

--- Besides James Renner's book, I've read posters' comments about the middle-aged, on-strike/off-from-work neighbor, James k, who often stood at his window and looked at Bev's house. At first he said he saw the killer running away, but later changed his story to say that he lied to get attention. Posters wondered if he was paid off by the murderer's family....

I'd love to hear comments or corrections!

Roger's polygraph results were inconclusive. That's not quite the same as passing. His alibi of being home sick was contingent on his own word. First, an inconclusive polygraph result isn't enough to prove guilt. He was the 22-year old boyfriend, so after learning of Beverly's death, one could assume he was upset. Being upset can throw off a polygraph's result. And there's a thin line between passing the test, and getting an inconclusive result that leans towards a passing result. Still... Why was Horrigan convinced Roger was the guilty party? Did he have any tell tale signs, like cuts on his hands, often the case when you've stabbed someone 42 frigging times, rope burns on his fingers, from strangling Beverly? Signs of scratches on his face, from the obvious fight Beverly put up before dying? Much of the evidence, as in any homicide case, has been withheld from the public, so the answers to those three questions remain a mystery. Has Roger made his DNA available to test against the DNA examined in 2017? Apparently not. While that doesn't provide proof of guilt, one would think he would be interested in clearing his name even at this late date. Horrigan was convinced, within 24-hours of the crime, that Roger was the guilty party. True, cops aren't always right, but this guy's behavior over the years give even more reason to pause when looking at him. Unless it was a complete stranger who somehow got into the house, destroying the assumption that Beverly let her killer inside... In theory, someone could have been lurking upstairs, even though there was no sign of a forced entry... Then the number of male suspects an already paranoid Beverly would have willingly let inside the house, can be counted on less than one hand! Tick-tock on this one folks. Horrigan was probably right! Current investigators should be sweating old Rog. If he's innocent, s-o-r-r-y! If not...

 

[BigBangCombo]

In James Renner's book The Serial Killer's Apprentice, there is a chapter about Beverly Jarosz. It was such a provocative story that it left me with lots of questions:

--- Why would Bev, as well as her mother, feel a dark foreboding of death and danger coming at them in the weeks before Bev was murdered? Had the family had some kind of trauma that we don't know about? That made them feel "what next?" (We all have had that kind of PTSD when we suffer several great losses in a row...)

--- Was the gift box or the anonymous gifts (of the silver bracelet and ring) available for forensic testing?

--- Why did the apparently nice young man, James M, living next door to Bev's grandmother go home and change his clothes after his stated 15-minute trip driving Bev home? He said he did that and then had something for lunch.

--- Bev made a habit of locking all the doors all the time, so... who did she let in between her 1:00-ish phone call to her mom and the 1:20 arrival of her friend Barb? The window of opportunity might have been smaller, depending on how long she spoke with her mom. Was the murderer already in the house? If so, how?

--- Was there some stress between Bev and Barb, with Bev hurrying to be ready for Barb's 1PM arrival, and Barb stating she thought Bev might not be answering the doorbell because Bev was irritated Barb was late? It just didn't sound like an easygoing relationship.

--- Same as above.... why did Barb leave when there was no answer at the door, yet she heard loud music and a crashing like a dresser drawer closing inside? Did she really think Bev was angry at her? Wouldn't she have have gone to a house next door and called Bev? It sounded like there was tension in that relationship. Or, they were more casual friends where you give the other person "more space"?

--- It didn't seem like Bev recognized the voice of the man, "Stephen Stackowicz" (who called maybe to find out if Bev was home alone)? If she recognized the voice as a boyfriend or a guy she knew, she wouldn't have left her father that written message.

--- Bev was strangled with a rope tied in a square knot. Who typically uses that kind of knot? Per Wiki, it's used for sailing, tying bandages, macrame, sashes, obis, and belts, as well as in Boy (or Girl) Scouts.

--- What happened to the 19-year-old boy, John P who was home the day of the murder and admitted to watching Bev sunbathe previously?

--- Bev's current boyfriend, Roger M didn't have a good alibi, just that he was home sick... Detective Horrigan felt there were questionable things in his story, even though Roger passed a lie detector test. Remember that forensics showed that Bev had never had sex... a current boyfriend might be a likely guy to put the pressure on for that and then get enraged at a refusal.

--- Besides James Renner's book, I've read posters' comments about the middle-aged, on-strike/off-from-work neighbor, James k, who often stood at his window and looked at Bev's house. At first he said he saw the killer running away, but later changed his story to say that he lied to get attention. Posters wondered if he was paid off by the murderer's family....

I'd love to hear comments or corrections!

Roger's polygraph results were inconclusive. That's not quite the same as passing. His alibi of being home sick was contingent on his own word. First, an inconclusive polygraph result isn't enough to prove guilt. He was the 22-year old boyfriend, so after learning of Beverly's death, one would assume he was upset. Being upset can throw off a polygraph's result. And there's a thin line between passing the test, and getting an inconclusive result that leans towards a passing result! Still... Why was Horrigan convinced Roger was the guilty party? Did he have any tell tale signs, like cuts on his hands, often the case when you've stabbed someone 42 frigging times, rope burns on his fingers, from strangling Beverly? Signs of scratches on his face, from the obvious fight Beverly put up before dying? Much of the evidence, as in any homicide case, has been withheld from the public, so the answers to those three questions remain a mystery. Has Roger made his DNA available to test against the DNA examined in 2017? Apparently not. While that doesn't provide proof of guilt either, one would think he would be interested in clearing his name even at this late date! Horrigan was convinced, within 24-hours of the crime, that Roger was the guilty party. True, cops aren't always right, but this guy's behavior over the years give more reasons to pause when looking at him as the most likely suspect. Unless it was a complete stranger who somehow got into the house, destroying the assumption that Beverly let her killer inside... In theory, someone could have been lurking upstairs, even though there was no signs of a forced entry... Then the number of male suspects an already paranoid Beverly would have willingly let inside the house, can be counted on less than one hand! Tick-tock on this one folks. Horrigan was probably right! Current investigators should be sweating old Rog. If he's innocent, s-o-r-r-y! If not...

 

[Waller]

the years roll on. why why why can't this be solved?.The criminalist Paul Holes in CA spent years on the Golden State Killer case and finally he was caught thru an excruciating process.. can't another team be called in outside of city and state ? obviously keep doing the same old same old and going nowhere. who were the priests in the diocese at that time ? what is their record? the fury of the murder was extremely personal, something really bad was going on that she was keeping secret.

Why this case can't be solved? To me there's a simple answer.
The local LE agency don't care at all about this murder...plain and simple

 

[Betty P]

Roger's polygraph results were inconclusive. That's not quite the same as passing. His alibi of being home sick was contingent on his own word. First, an inconclusive polygraph result isn't enough to prove guilt. He was the 22-year old boyfriend, so after learning of Beverly's death, one would assume he was upset. Being upset can throw off a polygraph's result. And there's a thin line between passing the test, and getting an inconclusive result that leans towards a passing result! Still... Why was Horrigan convinced Roger was the guilty party? Did he have any tell tale signs, like cuts on his hands, often the case when you've stabbed someone 42 frigging times, rope burns on his fingers, from strangling Beverly? Signs of scratches on his face, from the obvious fight Beverly put up before dying? Much of the evidence, as in any homicide case, has been withheld from the public, so the answers to those three questions remain a mystery. Has Roger made his DNA available to test against the DNA examined in 2017? Apparently not. While that doesn't provide proof of guilt either, one would think he would be interested in clearing his name even at this late date! Horrigan was convinced, within 24-hours of the crime, that Roger was the guilty party. True, cops aren't always right, but this guy's behavior over the years give more reasons to pause when looking at him as the most likely suspect. Unless it was a complete stranger who somehow got into the house, destroying the assumption that Beverly let her killer inside... In theory, someone could have been lurking upstairs, even though there was no signs of a forced entry... Then the number of male suspects an already paranoid Beverly would have willingly let inside the house, can be counted on less than one hand! Tick-tock on this one folks. Horrigan was probably right! Current investigators should be sweating old Rog. If he's innocent, s-o-r-r-y! If not...

Welcome to Websleuths, BigBangCombo! Thanks for your input on this case, it sounds like you've researched it quite a bit.

Of all the members here who have discussed this case over the years, I would say Beverly's boyfriend is still on the list of quite a few. I think some discussion of it came up recently when the murder made news again when DNA tests were done on old evidence.

Agree, its a frustrating case and the number of people who could be logically considered suspects is small, JMO. She wouldn't have let a stranger in the home, it really had to be someone she knew. If Horrigan was convinced it was Beverly's boyfriend, why couldn't they get the prosecutor to pursue the case? The inconclusive poly results is a red flag. Normally, in that kind of situation, the suspect is re-tested.

 

[BigBangCombo]

Actually, I think that was the case. First result inconclusive, second result a pass. Still, I'm not personally satisfied with polygraphs, whatever the results turn out being. Their results can be fudged, towards guilt or innocence, for a variety of reasons. However, they can prove useful during the investigation phase I suppose. (Just my opinion. That doesn't mean I'm right.)

I know Detective Horrigan used to call the 22-year old boyfriend at the time, every year on the anniversary of Beverly's death. That is, until he started calling Horrigan first! (Sorry, but feeling put upon or not, why would an innocent suspect do that? Wouldn't it be more natural to just get an unlisted number and try to forget about it? I'm not an expert in psychological affairs, but that just strikes me as... Odd!) Also, the ex-boyfriend had an airtight alibi, having been at work with a multitude of witnesses. The current boyfriend was supposedly at home sick, with nobody to confirm that but himself. Now of course, suspicious behavior doesn't in and of itself make him guilty of murder, but I know a little about policemen, and the vicious murder of a high school girl in her own home in broad daylight, just rubs them the wrong way. What I'm saying is, and I don't mean to sound insulting, but this wasn't the type of case to just round up the usual suspects. They worked HARD at solving this murder! That it remains unsolved, especially after finding crime scene DNA to test in 2017, is just hard to believe.

Beverly was highly paranoid because of the mysterious gifts left at her back door, the stranger outside the house her father chased but failed to catch one night, and the many hang up calls the household was receiving. IF she let the suspect in, as investigators believed, there must have been only one or two people she would have trusted. HOW can it be THAT difficult to make an arrest?

I was seven when this happened, but my grandmother knew Beverly Jarosz. I remember how sad she was at the time. Unless this was a total stranger, someone lurking in the house, a rape gone wrong, who's managed to keep their DNA out of the system, or died before DNA was available for testing, it seems to me this case is still solvable. I'm not in law enforcement, and probably that's a good thing, because if I were, I'd be leaning on that boyfriend of hers that Detective Horrigan was convinced was the killer!

 

[SAMS]

Following

 

[Betty P]

Police have suspects in murder of teen in 1964, but need your help

I'm still trying to figure out the officer's statement - that they have DNA and there are two prime suspects, but they STILL don't have enough evidence.

What do they mean by that? Were there two samples of DNA at the crime scene, from two suspects? One DNA match can only implicate one perp. It would be a stretch to claim one perp left DNA at the crime scene, but his partner didn't, but they know he was there anyway? Is there some other solid non-DNA evidence, like fingerprints

If the DNA came from sexual assault evidence, JMO, that means there was one killer, and it would be the person who sexually attacked Beverly. A perp couldn't argue that his DNA was there from a casual sex encounter, not if she was assaulted. Sixteen year old girls didn't go around having sex with men in 1964 in their parents home. Those were different times.

If the DNA came from blood, if the killer was wounded in the attack, then that's also sufficient for arrest and prosecution. Even if it was someone Beverly knew, it would be impossible for him to explain he just happened to leave blood at the crime scene from a previous innocent, friendly visit.

LE says they need some other factual evidence, first hand knowledge from someone who has known for years. Are they expecting the killer to turn himself in or are they implying there was someone else at the crime scene?

Again, if they have DNA from a sexual assault, blood, etc., that should be enough for an arrest. Beverly was killed in her bedroom. There are very few innocent people who could routinely leave DNA in her bedroom. Her parents, her sister, her friend. None of those people are suspects.

What is Det. Biegacki trying to tell us? One DNA sample, but 2 prime suspects? Is he looking to rule one of them out? The DNA should do that.

ETA: The fact they are offering a reward for info leading to arrest or indictment means the killer is still living, and assume the second prime suspect is still living as well?

 

[CastlesBurning]

Unidentified: More than 50 people’s identities still a mystery in Cuyahoga County, decades later

 

[SAMS]

Following

 

[Stella]

Time for genetic genealogy testing on the killer(s) DNA? I'm not having luck with pasting quotes anymore; read the article above on comment #88 which mentions the new strides this testing is making. Here's hoping for you, Bev.

 

[swedeheart]

Live now, but discussion will start about 2 hours in, if you are catching this later.

 

[mrspeele]

In James Renner's book The Serial Killer's Apprentice, there is a chapter about Beverly Jarosz. It was such a provocative story that it left me with lots of questions:

--- Why would Bev, as well as her mother, feel a dark foreboding of death and danger coming at them in the weeks before Bev was murdered? Had the family had some kind of trauma that we don't know about? That made them feel "what next?" (We all have had that kind of PTSD when we suffer several great losses in a row...)

--- Was the gift box or the anonymous gifts (of the silver bracelet and ring) available for forensic testing?

--- Why did the apparently nice young man, James M, living next door to Bev's grandmother go home and change his clothes after his stated 15-minute trip driving Bev home? He said he did that and then had something for lunch.

--- Bev made a habit of locking all the doors all the time, so... who did she let in between her 1:00-ish phone call to her mom and the 1:20 arrival of her friend Barb? The window of opportunity might have been smaller, depending on how long she spoke with her mom. Was the murderer already in the house? If so, how?

--- Was there some stress between Bev and Barb, with Bev hurrying to be ready for Barb's 1PM arrival, and Barb stating she thought Bev might not be answering the doorbell because Bev was irritated Barb was late? It just didn't sound like an easygoing relationship.

--- Same as above.... why did Barb leave when there was no answer at the door, yet she heard loud music and a crashing like a dresser drawer closing inside? Did she really think Bev was angry at her? Wouldn't she have have gone to a house next door and called Bev? It sounded like there was tension in that relationship. Or, they were more casual friends where you give the other person "more space"?

--- It didn't seem like Bev recognized the voice of the man, "Stephen Stackowicz" (who called maybe to find out if Bev was home alone)? If she recognized the voice as a boyfriend or a guy she knew, she wouldn't have left her father that written message.

--- Bev was strangled with a rope tied in a square knot. Who typically uses that kind of knot? Per Wiki, it's used for sailing, tying bandages, macrame, sashes, obis, and belts, as well as in Boy (or Girl) Scouts.

--- What happened to the 19-year-old boy, John P who was home the day of the murder and admitted to watching Bev sunbathe previously?

--- Bev's current boyfriend, Roger M didn't have a good alibi, just that he was home sick... Detective Horrigan felt there were questionable things in his story, even though Roger passed a lie detector test. Remember that forensics showed that Bev had never had sex... a current boyfriend might be a likely guy to put the pressure on for that and then get enraged at a refusal.

--- Besides James Renner's book, I've read posters' comments about the middle-aged, on-strike/off-from-work neighbor, James k, who often stood at his window and looked at Bev's house. At first he said he saw the killer running away, but later changed his story to say that he lied to get attention. Posters wondered if he was paid off by the murderer's family....

I'd love to hear comments or corrections!

 

[mrspeele]

Priest. A priest. Many many kids were subjected to catholic priests. The priest would have lots of opportunities to befriend a young girl, hear her confessions. Beverly and family immersed in the faith. Could very well have been some kind of friendship/relationship that she did not know how to handle, or who to confide. You did not ever talk about a priest at all ever! you would not be believed. This relationship bothered her and it would make her feel very nervous. She was hiding something and nothing has ever come to fruition in 57 years now..think in another direction!!! who were the priests around her day in and day out.? Priests would visit homes also. Perfect way to get in the door. Priests were well known and welcomed into neighborhoods and homes..they were above any suspicion. They are probably all long gone by now anyway but the same list of suspects for almost 60 years is really not working..duh! COME ON!!!! THINK IN NEW WAYS. Golden state killer they ran DNA that was 40 plus yrs old there is hope.

 

[mrspeele]

This case is new to me, so I'm still gathering the facts. This is what I've found so far from the articles I posted.

Cause of death was strangulation
Stabbed 40 times, in "a series of three", with a 4-5 inch knife.
A dozen defensive cuts on victim's hands
Beaten
No sexual assault
Nude below the waist
66" length of rope tied at the neck and ankles, "trussed up" (12/29/64 article)
A shorter piece of the same rope lay between the fingers of one hand.
A hole had been punched or kicked through the low plaster ceiling.
Lying face down on the floor of her second story bedroom
Ripped clothes littered the floor. Blood splattered everywhere.
Police found two smudged fingerprints (2008 article says 3 sets of un-ID'd prints recovered.)
Strands of Bev's hair are found near the back door.
LE believe Bev knew her killer as she was known to always keep doors locked, and there was no sign of forced entry.



Summer 1964 -- a Higbee's department store gift box with "To Bev" written on it was left at the back door. Inside are a silver ring and bracelet.

Monday, December 28, 1964
Thornton Avenue
Garfield Heights, Cuyahoga County, OH

Noon-12:15 -- An 18-year-old male friend drops off Bev at her home. She had been at her grandmother's house, and the young man was her grandmother's neighbor who agreed to give her a ride.

12:45 -- Bev writes a note for her dad that a man named Steven Stackowicz called him. No one knows if the call was related to the murder or not, but Mr. Jarozs said he did not recognize the name.

1:00-1:15 -- Bev talks to her mother on the phone twice. The second time she tells her mother she has to hang up because she is expecting her friend Barb to arrive very soon. The two have plans to go to a third friend's house.

1:25 -- Barb's mother drops her off. When no answer at front door, she goes around to the side door. Finds it ajar, but storm door locked. Loud music coming from inside. She hears a noise "like furniture falling" (or "a dresser being knocked over"). Rings the bell and knocks for five minutes or so, then goes home.

1:28-2:15 -- time of death determined by coroner.

The third friend calls Barb to see why she and Bev hadn't shown up at her house. The two are concerned, and the third friend calls Bev's grandmother. Grandmother calls father, who leaves work to go home and check on Bev.

4:10 -- Father arrives home. Both side doors are open. Loud music blaring from inside. He finds Bev in her second floor bedroom. (One report states 3:00 P.M.)

 

[mrspeele]

57 yrs now .the same same same. every person feels they have just processed the info and lo and behold they crack the case with the same o!d regergitated names and scenarios. YOU ARE NOT HELPING. It is a waste of time to have every single person redo the entire day 50,000 times..that produces nothing. 1. the mother did not kill her, 2. the father did not kill her. 3 her sister did not kill her. 4 gramma vanek did not kill her. 5. the boy who drove her home did not do it..6. BARBARA DID NOT DO IT!!! N.F.W.! N.F.W. and 7. another girl killed her...come on!!! get real.!! a girl could not have possibly inflicted all those stab wounds, then what? walk home bloody from head to toe? and go home and say, hi mom, i am all bloody my period started..what's for dinner? So after 57 yrs stop counting the aforementioned because it is just stupid and a waste of time does not advance any theory. Damn.I swear. no wonder nothing ever comes out of this case and never will. 57 yrs same info over and over over. and not one shred of anything comes of it. but keep rehashing the list of same things the next 57 yrs.

 

[Betty P]

57 yrs now .the same same same. every person feels they have just processed the info and lo and behold they crack the case with the same o!d regergitated names and scenarios. YOU ARE NOT HELPING. It is a waste of time to have every single person redo the entire day 50,000 times..that produces nothing. 1. the mother did not kill her, 2. the father did not kill her. 3 her sister did not kill her. 4 gramma vanek did not kill her. 5. the boy who drove her home did not do it..6. BARBARA DID NOT DO IT!!! N.F.W.! N.F.W. and 7. another girl killed her...come on!!! get real.!! a girl could not have possibly inflicted all those stab wounds, then what? walk home bloody from head to toe? and go home and say, hi mom, i am all bloody my period started..what's for dinner? So after 57 yrs stop counting the aforementioned because it is just stupid and a waste of time does not advance any theory. Damn.I swear. no wonder nothing ever comes out of this case and never will. 57 yrs same info over and over over. and not one shred of anything comes of it. but keep rehashing the list of same things the next 57 yrs.

What is your theory? Who do you think killed her?

 

[bev1228]

I have researched Beverly's case for some 11 years now. mrspeele is right, in regards to the following people who are not and were not suspects. Mrs. Vanek (Bev's grandmother) nor her husband for that matter. Barb Klonowski, not a suspect. The girl has suffered endured so much ridicule over the past 57 years. She was a person at the wrong place at the wrong time. She would have been victim #2, had she pursued entering the Jarosz home that afternoon. Carol, Bev's younger sister, innocent. Mr. Jarosz, another poor soul who has been ridiculed over the years. Jimmy M, the Vanek neighbor who drove Beverly home that afternoon, innocent. There are two myths out there that need to be put to rest..... Myth #1...... The note Beverly Jarosz left by the phone, did NOT mention her father's name. It was a generic note.... Stephen Stackowicz called, will call back. Myth #2..... There are two versions to Mrs. Vanek's recollection of her last conversation with Beverly.... Before Bev's funeral and news getting out that Barb Klonowski was indeed at the door that afternoon, Mrs. Vanek stated that Bev had said she had to go Grandma, she was beginning to run late.......... AFTER Bev's funeral, Mrs. Vanek was again interviewed and in this conversation with the media, Mrs. Vanek said, Beverly had to go because Barb was at the door. After all these years of looking into Beverly's case, I will always hang my hat on the phone call made about 10 to 15 minutes before Beverly was ravaged. The Garfield Hts Police would revisit locating a Stephen Stackowicz, time and again, only to come up empty handed..... In my research, I found there were in 1964, four men known at Steve or Stephen Stackowicz (Stackwicz). NONE of them were living anywhere near Cleveland, Garfield Hts at the time. There was ONLY on Stackowicz (Stackawicz) Raymond. Raymond was an insurance agent in GH and at the same year as being an insurance agent, he had just became a local attorney. Raymond Stackowicz will say there was a relative, Stephen, but he returned to Poland years prior to 1964. Is Stephen Stackowicz the killer calling to make sure Beverly is alone? If he is, then the person who killed Beverly, is someone Beverly either barely knew, or did not know.

 

[bev1228]

I have researched Beverly's case for some 11 years now. mrspeele is right, in regards to the following people who are not and were not suspects. Mrs. Vanek (Bev's grandmother) nor her husband for that matter. Barb Klonowski, not a suspect. The girl has suffered endured so much ridicule over the past 57 years. She was a person at the wrong place at the wrong time. She would have been victim #2, had she pursued entering the Jarosz home that afternoon. Carol, Bev's younger sister, innocent. Mr. Jarosz, another poor soul who has been ridiculed over the years. Jimmy M, the Vanek neighbor who drove Beverly home that afternoon, innocent. There are two myths out there that need to be put to rest..... Myth #1...... The note Beverly Jarosz left by the phone, did NOT mention her father's name. It was a generic note.... Stephen Stackowicz called, will call back. Myth #2..... There are two versions to Mrs. Vanek's recollection of her last conversation with Beverly.... Before Bev's funeral and news getting out that Barb Klonowski was indeed at the door that afternoon, Mrs. Vanek stated that Bev had said she had to go Grandma, she was beginning to run late.......... AFTER Bev's funeral, Mrs. Vanek was again interviewed and in this conversation with the media, Mrs. Vanek said, Beverly had to go because Barb was at the door. After all these years of looking into Beverly's case, I will always hang my hat on the phone call made about 10 to 15 minutes before Beverly was ravaged. The Garfield Hts Police would revisit locating a Stephen Stackowicz, time and again, only to come up empty handed..... In my research, I found there were in 1964, four men known at Steve or Stephen Stackowicz (Stackwicz). NONE of them were living anywhere near Cleveland, Garfield Hts at the time. There was ONLY on Stackowicz (Stackawicz) Raymond. Raymond was an insurance agent in GH and at the same year as being an insurance agent, he had just became a local attorney. Raymond Stackowicz will say there was a relative, Stephen, but he returned to Poland years prior to 1964. Is Stephen Stackowicz the killer calling to make sure Beverly is alone? If he is, then the person who killed Beverly, is someone Beverly either barely knew, or did not know.

 

[Betty P]

I have researched Beverly's case for some 11 years now. mrspeele is right, in regards to the following people who are not and were not suspects. Mrs. Vanek (Bev's grandmother) nor her husband for that matter. Barb Klonowski, not a suspect. The girl has suffered endured so much ridicule over the past 57 years. She was a person at the wrong place at the wrong time. She would have been victim #2, had she pursued entering the Jarosz home that afternoon. Carol, Bev's younger sister, innocent. Mr. Jarosz, another poor soul who has been ridiculed over the years. Jimmy M, the Vanek neighbor who drove Beverly home that afternoon, innocent. There are two myths out there that need to be put to rest..... Myth #1...... The note Beverly Jarosz left by the phone, did NOT mention her father's name. It was a generic note.... Stephen Stackowicz called, will call back. Myth #2..... There are two versions to Mrs. Vanek's recollection of her last conversation with Beverly.... Before Bev's funeral and news getting out that Barb Klonowski was indeed at the door that afternoon, Mrs. Vanek stated that Bev had said she had to go Grandma, she was beginning to run late.......... AFTER Bev's funeral, Mrs. Vanek was again interviewed and in this conversation with the media, Mrs. Vanek said, Beverly had to go because Barb was at the door. After all these years of looking into Beverly's case, I will always hang my hat on the phone call made about 10 to 15 minutes before Beverly was ravaged. The Garfield Hts Police would revisit locating a Stephen Stackowicz, time and again, only to come up empty handed..... In my research, I found there were in 1964, four men known at Steve or Stephen Stackowicz (Stackwicz). NONE of them were living anywhere near Cleveland, Garfield Hts at the time. There was ONLY on Stackowicz (Stackawicz) Raymond. Raymond was an insurance agent in GH and at the same year as being an insurance agent, he had just became a local attorney. Raymond Stackowicz will say there was a relative, Stephen, but he returned to Poland years prior to 1964. Is Stephen Stackowicz the killer calling to make sure Beverly is alone? If he is, then the person who killed Beverly, is someone Beverly either barely knew, or did not know.

I agree with all these points. This sometimes happens in social media when people are discussing old cold cases. It's unfair to the family and friends. I wanted to ask @mrspeele to clarify and let us know if she (or you for that matter) have any theories about who might have been the killer. I agree, its possible the killer was someone not well known to Beverly, but who was stalking her. The other concern seems to be the gift of jewelry Beverly had received months before that seemed to upset her.

Websleuths is a victim-friendly forum. I encourage anyone here to report to Moderators any comments you see that are hostile or harmful to surviving family and friends. We also can't accuse anyone who hasn't been named a suspect by LE.

 

[Richard]

Beverly Ann Jarosz, 16 years old (1948-1964)

LINK:

Beverly Ann Jarosz (1948-1964) - Defrosting Cold Cases