Timothy McEnany Talks About the Katherine Bishop Murder Investigation (Part One)

Over the previous couple weeks, we’ve covered the police account of the events leading up to Timothy McEnany’s arrest and subsequent charges in the murder of Katherine Bishop. And while painfully obvious already that the police account has a number of curious and alarming red flags, which point to a murder scene that was not properly investigated, and the possibility, in my opinion, that the real perpetrator was being protected by a corrupt police force, I felt the most important thing to do next, was to have the accused — Timothy McEnany — tell us what actually happened during that period of time.

While what is discussed with clergy is protected by the Clergy Privilege (pastoral confidentiality), I have Mr. McEnany’s permission to share this account with you, which is written in his own words:

Timothy McEnany

Timothy McEnany

Before I begin my account of what has happened to me, I think something I told Archbishop Salvato bears repeating.

I feel it is necessary to point out that I am not an eloquent writer, and hope my feeble attempt to relate things to you will be acceptable. Also, I feel that I need to warn you that I don’t think about the past, or what has happened to me much, if at all. Perhaps I should also point out that I do not think about the future. I believe it is a defense mechanism of mine to help me cope with living my daily life.

I will do my best to relate to you what has happened to me.

My background

Perhaps first I should give you a little background on me, at the time these events occurred. I was twenty-six years old, married, with two children. I owned a chimney sweeping and repair business. I am not now, nor was I then, an angel or saint. I have made mistakes in life, and am not perfect. While I’ve made mistakes, I did not commit the crime that I have been convicted of.

My account of what happened

The day before I actually worked on Mrs. Bishop’s house, which would have been March 2, 1993, I was at her home to give her a free inspection of her chimney. Mrs. Bishop was a very nice lady, and very personable. After the inspection, I determined that her chimney could use a cleaning, and some minor repairs. We made an appointment for me to come back the next day. The exact time escapes me, but I believe it was in the afternoon, possibly around 3 PM.

On March 3, 1993, as my cousin, Andrew Reischman, who was working for me at the time, prepared to make our service call, we discovered that the work truck was having trouble holding a charge in the battery, causing us to get started a little later than planned.

We made several service calls before we arrived at Mrs. Bishop’s house that day, as I said, around 3 PM. I knocked on the door, and was greeted by Mrs. Bishop, with whom I exchanged some pleasantries and then Andrew and I got to work.

We swept the chimney clean and were also contracted to repair the crown of the chimney and install a new chimney cap. At some point, while I was repairing the crown, Andrew let me know Mrs. Bishop’s daughter was there, and wanted to talk to me.

I came down from the roof and spoke to Mrs. Seitz, who was Mrs. Bishop’s daughter. She asked exactly what we were doing, and I explained everything to her. I got the feeling that she was less-than-enthused that we were there working. However, she thanked me, and I resumed working.

Some time later, a man, whom I would later learn was Mrs. Seitz husband, hollered up from the yard, greeting me with a friendly hello. I had just finished, and was sending some tools down off the roof via a rope and bucket. I asked Mr. Seitz if he saw another worker down there, and he said he did not. He asked if he could be of any help, and I replied that if he could unhook the bucket from the rope, it would be of great help.

Shortly thereafter, I lowered the rest of the things down from the roof, and came down the ladder myself. I proceeded to have a nice conversation witgh Mr. Seitz, explaining the work I had done that day. He told me he worked in some sort of construction, and I asked him if he would like to go up on the roof to inspect our work before we took the ladder down. Mr. Seitz politely declined, so I grabbed my Polaroid camera (yes, the ancient Polaroid, as we didn’t have cellphone cameras back then!) and went back on the roof to take a photo of the work we had done, so he could have a look.

After showing Mr. Seitz the photo, he said something to the effect that it looked like I had done a good job. Andrew and I finished cleaning up, completed the paperwork, and received a check for payment for our services.

As I recall, we were waiting for the Seitz’s to back down the driveway before we could leave, Mrs. Bishop was kind enough to bring us a couple of cookies, or perhaps some fudge, which we gladly accepted and thanked her for. We then left for another job.

I believe we only had one more job that day, where we gave the customer a free inspection. After that service call, our workday was done.

On the way home, we decided to stop off for a couple of beers at a bar, and maybe shoot some pool. You would think that after a long day, especially after having had trouble with the truck, I would want to go straight home, but this was not the case. As I told you, I was no angel, but I now consider this to be one of the worst mistakes of my life (and I’ve made my share of mistakes!).

The first bar we stopped at had a large sign posted that it did not serve anyone under the age of 21, and that prosecution would be forthcoming. Andrew was not quite 21, so we decided to go home. On the way home, we passed a bar called Shane’s Flight Deck and decided to stop there. Neither of us had ever been there before.

We were served without a problem, staying for a couple rounds of beers, talking with some of the people at the bar, before heading into the game room. We played some video games, air hockey and shot some pool, both against each other, and against other patrons in the bar. Stopping for “a couple of beers” turned into an all night affair, and we left the bar at approximately 1 AM.

March 5th, 1993

Two days later, on March 5, 1993, two state troopers came to my home and asked me to accompany them to the local State Police barracks in Elizabethville, PA. I asked what it was about, and they wouldn’t tell me anything other than the fact that they wanted to ask me some questions. It made me nervous, not knowing what it was about, but I agreed and went with them.

We arrived at the State Police barracks after a short drive, and upon arriving, the troopers began asking me where I was and what I was doing on March 3rd. I responded to the best of my ability. My concern was that this was about someone complaining about the work I did on their home. I’d never had any complaints about my work before, but having worked in the service industry, I knew that even when everything was perfect, people could still complain. Still, I couldn’t imagine why else they were asking me these questions.

Then the troopers began to specifically ask me about the job I did at Mrs. Bishop’s home. It was at that point that they told me Mrs. Bishop had died. I was shocked. And although I hate to admit it, was a little relieved that it wasn’t about someone complaining about my work. In my mind, that meant I wasn’t the focus of the problem. If I had only known what was going to happen, I wouldn’t have felt any relief whatsoever.

The troopers wanted to know if I’d seen anything suspicious, or out of the ordinary. I told them what I could about that day, and that nothing seemed out of the ordinary in any way, and that I was sorry I couldn’t be of more help.

The troopers thanked me for my time, and asked me to call them if I could think of anything more. They said they might contact me again to give a formal statement. I asked what that entailed and they said it would be a written or taped account of what I just told them. I said that would be fine, and they drove me home.

As off-putting as the situation was at times, I didn’t feel like the police were accusing me of anything to do with the crime, so I spent some more time thinking to try to be sure there was nothing out of the ordinary that day. I couldn’t think of anything, and more or less gave it no more thought.

End of part one — in our next segment, we’ll pick up two days later, on March 7th, when Mr. McEnany is visited again by the state troopers. 



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Police Allegations in the Timothy McEnany Case (cont’d)

This wouldn't be the first time law officials in Hummelstown were suspected of less-than-ethical behaviour.

This wouldn’t be the first time law officials in Hummelstown were suspected of less-than-ethical behaviour.

Last week, we began to look at the police allegations in the Timothy McEnany case, in which an innocent man was arrested, tried and incredibly found guilty of murder, based on what any reasonable jury, judge and public would seriously question, when presented with a tampered-with and sanitised “crime scene”, “evidence” and some seriously eyebrow-raising events, surrounding this case.

This week, we’ll continue to recap the police report, following the investigation of the crime scene and subsequent arrest of Tim McEnany.

Shortly after 5 PM on March 10th, the police report claims that McEnany was administered a polygraph by a Trooper Terry McElheny. Forty minutes later, McEnany allegedly stated that he wished to make a statement, but asked that his wife and children be present.

Assistant District Attorney, Todd Narvol was contacted, and Public Defender, Scott Evans was assigned to McEnany’s case.

Arrangements were then made thru Scott Evans to have public defender Colin Kelly Lydon appear at PSP Harrisburg.

Attorney Lydon appeared at PSP Harrisburg and some circumstances of the investigation were furnished to Attorney Lydon. He was then allowed to consult with the accused in private.

At this time the accused desired not to make any further statements. Cpl. Freehling was in contact with ADA Todd Narvol, and he advised that during the post polygraph examination he proposed the following scenario to the accused: that he and Reischman were drinking and that Reischman had observed a large sum of money and that the idea came forth to return to the house and steal the money.

The officer further suggest that the accused and Reischman drove to the house, and Reischman went to the house and committed the burglary. Reischman returned to the vehicle and showed the accused the money. The officer then suggested that the accused learned of the death of the victim thru Tprs. Stansfield and Lotwick.

Cpl. Freehling said to the accused that this was pretty close to the actual truth and McEnany allegedly answered “yeah”.

Yet once an attorney was secured, when attempts to have the accused (McEnany) make a statement to that effect, he refused to do so. (Keep in mind that the police claim that McEnany agreed with their “theoretical” explanation of how the crime went down, yet it was McEnany, and not Reischman who was being detained, and called “the accused”. This makes no sense whatsoever.)

Tim McEnany was transported by the reporting office and Tpr. Lotwick to the Dauphin County Night Court, and the accused was formally charged before Night Court Magistrate Edward
R. Williams.

He was charged with criminal homicide, burglary, robbery & conspiracy to commit burglary/robbery. McEnany was arraigned, and committed to Dauphin county Prison without bail.

Accused was processed under OCA H-31252 by Tpr. Timothy Shannon, Troop H, ID officer. refer to OTN – E 691030-4 (report).

Additional Offenses:
burglary CC/3502 UCR 051; Criminal conspiracy CC/903 UCR/034, 051; Robbery CC/3701 UCR 034

Now follow me in this next paragraph, where you will see the police account begin to unravel a bit. Keep in mind that McEnany was “suspected” and later “accused” by the officer’s own admission, of having conspired to commit a crime, and waited in the car, while the officer claimed his cousin (who remained unarrested) committed the crime.

On page 12 of the police report, the next entry we see states:

“After the accused decided not to give any further information to these officers, upon consultation with ADA Narvol it was decided at this time, there was insufficient evidence to arrest Reischman. The detail at the Reischman home was then instructed to return to PSP Harrisburg. However, due to the circumstances of the investigation at this time, the subject, Reischman will be considered a suspect.”

Why wasn’t Reischman detained? Where was the compelling evidence to consider McEnany enough of a suspect to have him arrested and charged, and yet, not his cousin?

If McEnany “lied” on his polygraph, what was it he supposedly lied about? Remember, the cops claim he agreed to their scenario, so if he said it didn’t happen during the polygraph, and that was the lie, they would have been compelled to arrest Reischman for the same reason.

Now we find another disturbing piece of REAL evidence, that should have immediately dismissed both McEnany and Resichman as suspects:

(Police report, page 17)

On March 4, 1993, the reporting officers began interviewing neighbours of the deceased to see if anyone noticed anything suspicious the night in question.

When they interviewed Gloria and Dawn Rogers, Dawn Rogers stated that between 10 PM and 10:30 PM on March 3rd, she was out walking her dog, when she heard a crashing sound.

“After she heard this sound she heard someone running down the road. Turning, she saw a person running down Grandview Road toward Hummelstown. The person appeared to be coming from up the hill and across the road. Stated that the person appeared to have long hair and was wearing a long coat. This person appeared to be carrying an unknown object about the size of a manila envelope. Ms. Rogers stated that she saw this person for a short time while looking between her house and 34 Grandview Rd. She could not provide any additional detail to describe this person other than to say he or she appeared thin.”

Now it is interesting to note that neither McEnany nor Reischman had long hair (they didn’t even have “medium length hair”) at that time, nor were either found to be in possession of the alleged “long coat”.

It should be noted here that there was someone with access to the victim’s home on that night, who DID have long hair — a fact that was clearly known to the police by that time as well — the victim’s GRANDSON.

Keep in mind too that burgalars do not generally run around carrying manilla envelopes to put the money in that they steal, nor was Mrs. Bishop’s money kept in manila envelopes (remember the “roll of bills” and wicker basket story from earlier in the report?)

Consider too for a moment that the victim’s grandson had recently celebrated a birthday.

What struck me was that this crime scene showed this to very clearly be a crime of passion. Thieves don’t stomp a senile old woman to death, to make off with a couple hundred dollars. What’s more, if the two wanted to steal that money from a senile woman, they would have done so before the woman’s daughter arrived, or even after she “left to get the checkbook”.

Now, ask yourself, if the daughter knew the mother had rolls of bills in the house, in this fabled “wicker basket”, and if she was SO CONCERNED about her mother’s safety around these unknown men, WHY would she drive to her house, wait for her husband to come home and return with a “checkbook” to pay a $49.95 bill? If there were hundreds of dollars on-hand, wouldn’t any logical and genuinely “concerned” person have paid with the cash, and then cashed a cheque later to reimburse her mother for the money she used?


Any legitimate and experienced crime scene investigator would also tell you that crimes of passion are often committed by someone close to the victim.

So just hypothetically..

What if Mrs. Bishop’s grandson, who had long hair, expected something from his grandmother for his birthday… maybe something she promised him, before becoming senile? What if it angered him so much that she didn’t give it to him that he went on a rampage and stomped her to death, and then, seeking whatever it was that was in that manilla envelope, he fled the scene?

Curious that the blood found on the door of the crime scene was neither a match to Bishop, McEnany nor Reichman… Oh, but that’s right… the crime scene investigators “lost” that evidence, along with anything else that might have incriminated the grandson.

We’ll talk more about this, and about the kinds of unethical behaviour that Hummelstown is known for, in a future installment.

[Next week, Tim McEnany’s version of what happened that day.]



Posted in Kathryn Bishop Murder | Leave a comment

What the State Alleges to have Occurred

This post will cover what the State alleges to have occurred between March 4th and 5th, 1993, when Katherine Bishop was found murdered in her home, in Hummelstown, Pennsylvania. Keep in mind, that we realise the reader is likely to notice glaring holes in this story, which we will address in futures post. The purpose this article is to put “their version” of events out there, so that you can begin to understand why I find their claims implausible.

On March 4th, Katherine Bishop contracted to have Timothy McEnany and Andrew Reischman, who operated a chimney sweeping and repair company, clean her chimney in her home on Grandview Avenue in Hummelstown, PA.

Some time between when they left her house late that afternoon, and the following morning, Katherine Bishop was found by her next door neighbour, Pauline Broadwater, lying face-down in her dining room.

The reporting officer proceeded to the rear of the residence, and noted a tear in the screen on the storm door, and a broken window pane.

It was determined that apparently the screen and broken window was discovered by Susan McClain & Cheryl Smith, who are employed by the Dauphin Consolidated Water Company, and function as water meter readers, who had arrived at the home to read the water meter.

Upon noticing the door at the victims home, they proceeded south to the Broadwater residence and summoned a neighbor. They returned to the rear of the home and noted that the main wood door was slightly ajar. Mrs. Broadwater then entered the home, and observed the victim lying on the floor of the dining room face-down.

At this time it was noted that there appeared to be a pen clutched in the right hand of the victim. Also noted was some type of blood mark on the left rear of the victim’s blouse.

Observations of the rooms in the home revealed a home that was found to be extremely cluttered and in disarray, with the exception of the victim’s living and dining room areas, which appeared to have been cleaned and sanitised posthumously.

Upon examination of the victim’s bedroom, it was noted that the large locked chest, where valuables would obviously be kept, was untouched, despite there being a large handled screw driver within easy reach on a nearby dresser.

The victim’s daughter, Janet Seitz claimed to have seen her mother just after 5 PM on Wednesday March 3rd. When a neighbour called her the following day to state that some men were working on her mother’s house, she came to her mother’s home again, a short time after 3 PM, and found McEnany and Reischman working on the chimney, one in the yard and another in the basement, whom she spoke with about the chimney cleaning. She spoke with her mother and then left for a short time to return home to get her mother’s checkbook to pay the cleaning bill.

She waited at home for a few minutes, and returned to her mothers home with her husband, Terry Seitz. She thought she returned around 4:00 pm, stating that she takes care of all of her mother’s financial matters, and claiming she and her mother were at the dining room table discussing finances, and getting some coins ready for the bank, and that the workmen were outside and inside the home.

Seitz stated that since it was the third of the month, Mrs. Bishop had got her social security check, and they were discussing banking, and that her mother went into one of the bedrooms and obtained a basket with a handle, and brought it to the dining room table. In the basket was an envelope with coins that her mother wanted deposited, and also there were three rolls of bills secured by rubber bands. Seitz related that her mother was becoming senile, and not always have full control of her facilities. Seitz related that her mother had money in the house but she did not know any amounts. She stated that her mother usually kept the money in a basket, and kept the basket in the bedroom area. Seitz related that during the time that the money was out on the table the younger chimney cleaner passed through the area a few times, and would have had opportunity to see the money.

Dauphin county Coroner Graham Hetrick arrived on the scene, along with Cpl. Eugene Smith and Tpr. Garret Rain, PSP Harrisburg, who were detailed to begin interviewing neighbors. Shortly afterwards, Cpl. Les Freehling, Tpr. John Lotwick, and Tpr. Jeffrey Stansfield, arrived at the scene and assisted in the investigation. Prior to the arrival of these officers, members of the Troop H Identification Unit: Tpr, Joseph Hoover, Tpr. George Kegerreis and Tpr. Timothy Shannon arrived at the scene. They began to take initial scene photographs at this time. [Note: No explanation for extraordinary number of State Troupers who were deployed to the scene has ever been offered.]

It was noted that the victim suffered trauma to the face, and a major portion of the victim’s face appeared to have been pushed or compressed to the right. Cursory examination of the face revealed no obvious open wounds at this time. The face of the victim was lying in a small pool of blood, which soaked into the carpet where she had lay. Coroner Hetrick related at this time that further examination of the victim will be made at the Dauphin county Morgue and that an autopsy woul be ordered. Hetrick also advised that the skull of the victim would be x-rayed.

At the conclusion of the autopsy, Dr. Ross indicated that the cause of death was listed as asphyxiation, caused by chest compression and multiple trauma. Dr Ross indicated that the victim had multiple contusions on her arms, and contusions on the back of her head. The victim also suffered from several broken ribs, and a broken scapula. The pathologist related that this was consistent with a person standing on the back of the victim, while she was on the floor, and that she suffocated in conjunction with the trauma to the face.

The county coroner related that he would rule this death a homicide.

On 3/6/93 reporting officer, and Tpr. Lotwick proceeded to the residence of Andrew Reischman, of Mandata, PA and encountered him at his residence. He was asked if he would voluntarily accompany these officers to make a taped statement with regard to this investigation. Reischman agreed to accompany these officers, and he was transported to PSP Harrisburg, and a stop for coffee was made along Front St, Harrisburg.

Arrival at PSP was approximately 11:30 a.m.

Also at this time, Timothy McEnany was approached by Cpl. Freehling and Tpr. Stansfield at 136 West Main St. Elizabethville, PA, and the same request was made to voluntarily accompany these officers to make a taped statement with regard to this investigation. McEnany agreed to the request, and came to PSP Harrisburg with those officers.

Reporting officer and Tpr. Lotwick then advised Reischman that it was requested that he make a taped
statement of his activities with regard to this investigation, and he agreed.

It was explained that he was not under arrest, and that he was free to leave at any time and that he would be transported home whenever he requested.

The tape was started by Tpr. Lotwick and Reischman was asked to relate his activities. He was allegedly uneasy in being able to tell the story, and felt more comfortable in being asked questions.

At approximately 12:22 pm the tape of Reischman was concluded. At this point the subject was engaged in general conversation for a brief time period.

Also at this time the Accused [sic] McEnany was being interviewed by Cpl. Freehling and Tpr. Stansfield.

After the interview with Reischman, a request was made of him to obtain the clothing that he was wearing that day, and also to have his fingerprints taken, due to the fact that the identification officers may uncover unknown prints in the home of the victim, and it may be one of his prints since he was in the residence.

The subject [sic] Reischman complied with this request and upon arrival of Tpr. Shannon, the fingerprints of were obtained. After this action, a request was made of Reischman to submit to an examination by a polygraph, and Reischman replied that he would submit to a polygraph. Also at this time Cpl Freehling requested the Accused [sic] McEnany submit to a polygraph and the Accused [sic] McEnany agreed to this action.

Tpr. Terry McElheny was then contacted and the procedures for the polygraph examination of Accused [sic] McEnany were initiated.

The subject Reischman was then advised that it would be sometime before the test and he requested to remain at PSP for the test.

At this time, Reischman was advised by this officer that there were certain inconsistencies in his story, and Reischman indicated that he wanted to return home to watch some type of auto race, and that his sister was returning to New York and that he wanted to see her.

Reischman stated that he did not want to take the polygraph on this date, and he would take the examination on the next day. He expressed a desire to be returned home and he was taken home by Tpr. Lotwick and Tpr. Garret Rain.

When Tpr. Lotwick arrived at the residence of subject Reischman, a request for a consent to search form was completed, and the clothes that Reischman was allegedly wearing on the day of the incident were furnished to Tpr. Lotwick.

[Next week we will continue with the State’s version of events, and the charges being made.]



Posted in Kathryn Bishop Murder | Leave a comment

Timothy McEnany case – One of the Worst Miscarriages of Justice in PA History

How is it possible that an innocent man was convicted for a crime he didn't commit, while the victim's grandson appears to have gotten away with murder?

How is it possible that an innocent man was convicted for a crime he didn’t commit, while the victim’s grandson appears, according to many, to have gotten away with murder?

It has been about a year now, since I began to research and review the facts in the Timothy McEnany case — one of the worst miscarriages of justice in PA history, in my opinion. McEnany was accused of murdering a Hummelstown woman in March, 1993; and despite mishandling and tampering at the crime scene by the victim’s family, gross errors and misrepresentations of so-called “expert witnesses”, and a litany of inconsistencies longer than your arm, McEnany was tried and found guilty of the crime he didn’t commit.

Under normal circumstances, I might concede that it’s best not to interfere with the justice system — after all, if McEnany was found by a jury of his peers to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then the justice system would have functioned as it was meant to function. But that is not what happened in this case.

By attempting to cover-up the misdeeds that have plagued this investigation from the start, former District Attorney Chardo put his spin on the case in an episode of television’s Forensic Files (A Case of the Flue) saying, “Over the course of eight years, McEnany has had the benefit of a thorough review of his case. After two jury trials and appeals, twenty four jurors and each court that has reviewed the matter has been convinced that the evidence proves Timothy McEnany’s guilt in the murder of Kathryn Bishop.”

That would wash nicely, if the jurors weren’t being transported back and forth from the courthouse by the former State Trouper, now Sheriff involved in the case!

It would wash nicely if it weren’t for this author having heard the victim’s grandson respond in a state of PANIC, asking “How do you know… who are you?” to an “anonymous phone call”, in which he was told, “We know what you did to your grandmother… you won’t get away with this.”

Over the coming months, we will begin to piece together this story, as I pour through hundreds of pages of testimony, court records, apparently doctored-up police documents, and explore the possibility that there was everything from jury tampering to a crime scene that appears to have been sanitised by the real perpetrator’s family.



Posted in Kathryn Bishop Murder | Tagged , , , | 7 Comments

The Pennsylvania Justice Project

PAJusticeProjectLogoThe Pennsylvania Justice Project was started by a retired Franciscan and Buddhist contemplative priest, whose 32 years of social justice work, including work with Amnesty International, with Cesar Chavez, Archbishop Oscar Romero and Fr. Mychal Judge compels him to work tirelessly to exonerate a Pennsylvania man, Timothy McEnany, who was wrongfully convicted of a crime he did not commit.

It is his hope that by presenting the facts, and raising the awareness of the political machinations and other highly inordinate circumstances surrounding the case, not only will McEnany one day be freed, but that the public outcry will result in powerful reforms in the criminal justice system in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

It is our hope to partner with other innocence projects, social justice advocates and grassroots efforts to secure the exoneration, release from imprisonment and restoration to society of persons who have been wrongly convicted; to strengthen and improve the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and to expose those whose actions, inaction and abuse resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice in the Timothy McEnany case and others.



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment