A set of bloody bare footprints became a critical clue in the 1993 murder of 35-year-old Jeanie Childs at a Minneapolis apartment complex. Investigators found the prints after Childs was stabbed more than 60 times and determined they had been left by her killer. More than two decades later, DNA testing and investigative genetic genealogy led authorities to businessman and hockey parent Jerry Westrom. Westrom was arrested in February 2019, while forensic specialists separately examined whether his feet matched the prints.
| 1) The 1993 Minneapolis crime scene |
| 2) Why the barefoot prints mattered |
| 3) Early scrutiny of Arthur Gray |
| 4) DNA and genetic genealogy reopen the case |
| 5) Footprint analysis after Westrom’s arrest |
The 1993 Minneapolis crime scene
Police arrived at a Minneapolis apartment complex on June 13, 1993, after Jeanie Childs was found dead in her bedroom. Her body was partially beneath the bed, the room was in disarray, and blood spatter covered walls and flooring. Childs had suffered more than 60 stab wounds. Investigators documented the scene in an effort to establish what happened and identify the person responsible.
The unusual discovery was a series of bloody footprints across the bedroom. Childs was wearing socks when she died, so investigators concluded the bare prints were made by another person who had stepped into her wet blood after the stabbing. The location and condition of the prints made them potentially valuable evidence.
Why the barefoot prints mattered
Retired forensic scientist Bart Epstein described the prints as rare because bare feet that have stepped in blood are not commonly preserved at crime scenes. Investigators photographed and recorded the impressions for later comparison. The evidence could both implicate a suspect and exclude people who had drawn attention during the investigation.
“You don’t see this at crime scenes in general, bare feet that have stepped in blood.”
Retired FBI agent Chris Boeckers said the prints were important beyond their apparent connection to guilt. Comparing them with the feet of people under suspicion offered a way to determine whether those individuals had been present during the attack.
Early scrutiny of Arthur Gray
Investigators compared the footprints with several people, including Arthur Gray, who lived with Childs at the time of her death. Police reports also noted hairs recovered from Childs’ left hand, including one that matched Gray. That finding initially made Gray relevant to the inquiry.
The case against Gray weakened after authorities confirmed he had a strong alibi. Gray, who rode motorcycles, said he had been in Milwaukee that weekend, and other people corroborated his account. Forensic scientists also determined that Gray’s feet did not make the bloody impressions at the apartment, helping clear him from responsibility for the footprints.
DNA and genetic genealogy reopen the case
The investigation remained unresolved for years. In 2015, forensic scientist Andrea Feia tested items collected at the apartment and found an unknown DNA profile recurring on a comforter, towel, washcloth, T-shirt and bathroom sink. Because the same profile appeared on multiple objects, investigators pursued additional methods to identify its source.
A forensic genealogist submitted the unknown profile to genealogy websites and reported a potential connection to two brothers in Minnesota. The inquiry focused on Jerry Westrom. In January 2019, investigators followed Westrom to his daughter’s college hockey game in Wisconsin and obtained a napkin and food container he had used. Laboratory testing found that the DNA on those items matched the crime-scene profile.
Footprint analysis after Westrom’s arrest
Westrom was arrested in February 2019 and denied being at the apartment or knowing Childs during a police interview. The next day, authorities collected his footprints for comparison. The step was considered necessary because other male DNA found at the apartment did not belong to Westrom, meaning DNA alone did not resolve every evidentiary question.
Forensic Division supervisor Mark Ulrick examined the impressions using friction ridge skin, the pattern of ridges and furrows found on fingers, palms and the soles of the feet. He compared the unknown prints with Westrom’s impressions and with those of alternate suspects. Westrom’s defense retained forensic scientist Alicia McCarthy to review Ulrick’s work. The supplied account describes the examination but does not state the experts’ final footprint conclusion.
| Number | Key Point |
|---|---|
| 1 | Childs was killed in Minneapolis on June 13, 1993. |
| 2 | Bloody bare footprints were found after the stabbing. |
| 3 | Gray was excluded by his alibi and footprint comparison. |
| 4 | Recurring DNA led investigators to Westrom in 2019. |
| 5 | Experts compared Westrom’s sole prints with the crime-scene impressions. |
Summary
The investigation into Jeanie Childs‘ death shows how physical evidence preserved at a crime scene can remain significant decades later. Bloody bare footprints helped investigators assess early suspects, while repeated DNA findings and genetic genealogy eventually directed attention to Jerry Westrom. After his arrest, footprint analysis became an additional focus because investigators needed to assess the relationship between Westrom and the distinctive impressions.
Frequently Asked Questions
When was Jeanie Childs killed?
Childs was killed on June 13, 1993, at a Minneapolis apartment complex.
What made the footprints unusual?
They were bare footprints left in Childs’ wet blood. Investigators considered them unusual and potentially useful because Childs had been wearing socks.
How did investigators connect Jerry Westrom to the case?
A recurring unknown DNA profile was found on several items from the apartment. Investigative genetic genealogy pointed to two Minnesota brothers, and a napkin and food container obtained from Westrom later produced a matching DNA result.
Was the final footprint finding provided?
The supplied account says experts compared the prints and that Westrom’s defense commissioned an independent review, but it does not provide the experts’ final conclusion.
