How a Discarded Napkin Helped Solve Jeanie Childs’ 1993 Murder

Updated August 14, 2026. DNA recovered from a discarded hot-dog napkin helped investigators confirm a lead in the 1993 murder of Jeanne Ann “Jeanie” Childs in Minneapolis. The man identified through that investigation, Jerry Westrom, was later convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 30 years.

The case is sometimes summarized as a napkin solving a murder. The fuller record shows a two-stage process: forensic genetic genealogy generated the investigative lead, and DNA from the discarded napkin provided a direct comparison with evidence preserved from the crime scene.

What happened to Jeanie Childs

Childs was 35 when she was found dead in a South Minneapolis apartment on June 13, 1993. According to the 2019 criminal complaint, she died from multiple sharp-force injuries. Investigators documented blood in the bedroom and bathroom, bloody footprints, and several items that were preserved for later DNA testing.

Testing produced an unknown male DNA profile, but investigators could not identify the source using the methods and databases available at the time. The case remained unresolved for more than two decades.

How genetic genealogy produced a lead

During a renewed review of the case, investigators worked with the FBI and a genealogist. A single-nucleotide polymorphism, or SNP, profile was developed from crime-scene DNA and compared with profiles in a commercial genealogy database. A relative match helped investigators construct a family tree that pointed to Westrom as a possible source.

That genealogy work did not by itself establish that Westrom committed the murder. It gave police a person whose DNA could be compared directly with the forensic profile.

Why the discarded napkin mattered

In January 2019, investigators followed Westrom to a hockey game in Wisconsin. The Hennepin County Attorney’s Office said officers watched him wipe his mouth with a napkin and throw it into a trash container after buying food.

Investigators retrieved the napkin and sent it to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. A short tandem repeat, or STR, profile obtained from residue on the napkin matched the crime-scene profile. Police then obtained a warrant for a known DNA sample to validate the match and arrested Westrom. Authorities also presented evidence connecting his footprints to bloody footprints documented at the apartment.

Conviction, sentence, and appeal

Westrom was initially charged with second-degree intentional murder in 2019. A grand jury indicted him for first-degree premeditated murder in 2020. In August 2022, a jury found him guilty of both first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder. The district court imposed a life sentence with the possibility of parole after 30 years.

Westrom challenged the DNA evidence and other parts of the trial. In May 2024, the Minnesota Supreme Court’s opinion in State v. Westrom affirmed the first-degree murder conviction. The court ordered the separate second-degree conviction vacated because it was a lesser-included offense, not because the jury’s central finding was overturned.

What the ruling said about discarded DNA

The Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that analyzing the napkin was not an unconstitutional search in this case. Its decision emphasized that Westrom had discarded the napkin and that the STR analysis was used for identification rather than to reveal broader medical or personal traits.

The court distinguished that narrow comparison from the more information-rich SNP profile used during the genealogy stage. It did not decide the broader privacy questions that other uses of genetic genealogy may raise. That distinction is important: the napkin confirmed an investigative lead, while the family-tree search was the step that first narrowed the field to Westrom.

What Smashology verified from the complaint and appeal

The phrase “a napkin solved the case” compresses several different investigative steps. We compared the 2019 criminal complaint, the county’s indictment notice and the Minnesota Supreme Court’s 2024 opinion to separate the genealogical lead, the confirmatory DNA comparison and the later legal ruling.

The evidence chain, step by step

1. Biological evidence from the 1993 crime scene was preserved and later used to produce a SNP profile.
2. Genealogical analysis generated an investigative lead pointing toward Westrom. A lead narrows inquiry; it is not itself a conviction.
3. Investigators surveilled Westrom and collected a napkin he discarded in public.
4. A laboratory produced an STR profile from the napkin and compared it with the crime-scene evidence.
5. Prosecutors also presented other evidence at trial, including bloody-footprint analysis and circumstantial evidence. The jury—not the genealogy database—returned the verdict.
6. On appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court examined the napkin testing, evidentiary rulings, sufficiency of the evidence and other claimed errors.

What the privacy ruling does—and does not—say

The court reasoned that Westrom had abandoned the napkin and that the STR analysis at issue could reveal identification information rather than medical or hereditary traits. On that record, it concluded the testing was not a search under the federal or Minnesota constitutions.

The opinion is narrower than a general declaration that discarded DNA has no privacy protection. It notes that SNP analysis can reveal more personal information and expressly leaves those broader questions unresolved because they were not properly before the court in this appeal. Laws and rulings in other jurisdictions may also differ.

A checklist for reporting genetic-genealogy cases

• Identify whether a source is discussing SNP genealogy, confirmatory STR testing or both.
• Do not describe a genealogical lead as a laboratory “match” unless the record uses that term for a direct comparison.
• Separate the investigative lead from evidence presented to the jury.
• State the jurisdiction and date of any privacy ruling; do not turn a narrow holding into a nationwide rule.
• Check the appellate disposition carefully. One count can be vacated while the principal conviction remains affirmed.

Method note: Smashology did not conduct DNA testing or access sealed investigative material. This analysis follows the public complaint, official county notice and published appellate opinion, and it distinguishes what the court decided from questions it left open.

Sources

• Hennepin County criminal complaint, February 14, 2019
• Hennepin County Attorney: first-degree murder indictment, June 30, 2020
• State of Minnesota v. Jerry Arnold Westrom, Minnesota Supreme Court opinion, May 8, 2024

Update note — August 14, 2026: This article was rewritten to reflect Westrom’s 2022 conviction and the 2024 Minnesota Supreme Court decision. The earlier version described only the 2019 charge and did not explain the separate roles of genetic genealogy and the discarded napkin. The title and permalink were also corrected to refer to a napkin rather than a straw.