The Only Named Suspect
First, what you can expect from Specter of Harvest.
Right now, the bulk of my contributions to Halloween 1981 are housed on The Case page. I’ve tried to pull key details from the police reports, newspaper clippings and other source materials to create a narrative that only includes information from the historical record. While I’ll continue to add documents to The Case page overtime, you can expect it to remain grounded in source materials and without my own commentary.
Specter of Harvest, the blog, is quite the opposite. I’ll use this space to share my interpretations of the historical record, the handling of the 1980s investigation, and other speculation related to the Karl Heikell case and the people and communities wrapped up in the mystery. I’m no journalist, but I know better than to share rumors or hearsay that could weave an inaccurate story about a person or place. In this space, I’ll look to source materials and information provided only by trusted sources to provide further context to the story, and draw connections that might help us fill out some of the missing pieces.
Alan Palovaara is the only individual that police specifically identify as a suspect, which they do in September of 1984, nearly three years after Karl’s disappearance, and almost two years after the discovery of his partial remains. At the same time, police change the file class of the case to indicate they now consider the boy’s death a homicide. You can find a shorter summary of what we know about Palovaara from the 1981-1985 police reports on The Case page, under the Persons of Note section.
In 1984, when given an ultimatum by his ex-wife, Palovaara chose to seek therapy for what he described as a personal problem. If he did not do so, his ex-wife was going to report him to the police. In the weeks that followed, Palovaara would admit to a Copper Country Mental Health social worker and Michigan State Police (MSP) detectives that he sexually abused his two sons when they were children. This information, coupled with the fact that Palovaara knew Karl and the Heikell family, aroused suspicion from his ex-wife, who speculated to the same social worker that maybe Palovaara was involved in Karl’s death.
Police interview several of Palovaara’s former partners, co-workers and friends. Based on the information received, they laid out a case for Palovaara as a suspect, and sat down with him for an interview and polygraph exam shortly thereafter. Palovaara would go on to pass the polygraph test, and his interview with police is the last report produced in the Karl Heikell case file.
There are two conflicting points that I want to make about Palovaara’s possible involvement and the brief police investigation into him. The MSP case against Palovaara was based only on circumstantial evidence, but I also believe that the investigation into his possible involvement should have continued after his only interview with police. Some of the evidence is compelling, but police rule him out as a suspect after using a widely discredited method for detecting guilt and then never speak with him again.
Polygraph exams were used broadly in this case to determine if individuals knew anything about Karl’s disappearance and death. In Michigan, polygraph exam results are not public record. When use of a polygraph is detailed in a police report, the exam results are usually redacted. This is exactly what we see happen in the 1981 - 1985 police reports. Dale Karvola, the Gronewald brothers, Alan Palovaara and others all agree to take exams, but their results are omitted from the reports. It’s simple enough to surmise that an individual passed their polygraph when police no longer seem to suspect them of a mistruth or a crime. I confirmed with a former Calumet Post MSP Detective Sergeant, who reviewed the unredacted reports in recent months, that Palovaara did in fact pass his polygraph.
But there’s been little consensus on the effectiveness of polygraphs to actually detect lies. The National Academy of Science, for example, issued a 2003 report that found any evidence of effectiveness to be “...scanty and scientifically weak”. Even back in 1965, when the very first empirical review of the polygraph was published, it found any evidence of real effectiveness to be totally lacking: “There is no lie detector; neither man nor machine. People have been deceived by the myth that a metal box in the hands of an investigator can detect truth or falsehood,” the report said. To this day, scientists have not discovered specific physiological reactions associated with lying, which is what believers purport the machines are capable of detecting.
Before Paolvaara is brought to Negaunee for his polygraph exam that evening, during the initial police interview, officers note in the report “...that he was able to discuss the matter without being overly nervous,” and that “...after getting into the conversation about Karl, Palovaara appeared to be relaxed and not overly concerned”. As an observation of their suspect, this is probably a meaningful bit of info to document in the report. But does it tell us anything about Palovaara’s guilt or innocence? No, and instead, it speaks to something not actually said in the reports, but probably on the minds of the detectives in that room: Maybe he’s not our guy.
Despite their hard work to identify circumstantial evidence that made for a somewhat convincing suspect, detectives drop their lead after the interview and polygraph exam. They did not search the several vehicles Palovaara was known to have driven around the time of Karl’s disappearance and death. Police reports note that they were able to identify and locate these vehicles, but it doesn’t appear there was further work done to acquire court ordered search warrants. In the years prior, there were two instances in which police met with the Houghton County Prosecutor to review case information. But there’s no mention of such a meeting to review Palovaara’s possible involvement.
Ahead of the interview and polygraph exam with Palovaara, police point to several facts while speculating that he may be responsible for Karl’s murder. This circumstantial evidence is the only information from the historical record that implicates anyone in the crime, and police do so by identifying a legitimate motive and opportunity. We know based on Palovaara’s own confessions that he was a sexual abuser of young boys in the same age range as Karl. His admitted disposition to pedophilia is motivation enough for Palovaara to want something from Karl. Likewise, the evidence against Palovaara is the only documented case information that provides for a possible crime of opportunity, as one of the last and most credible sightings of Karl places the boy and Palovaara on the same Calumet street around 6PM on the night he disappeared.
We also know that Karl Heikell knew Palovaara and had spoken to him on occasion, as Palovaara says as much during his police interview. Four different people confirm with police that Palovaara knew Karl, including Patricia Heikell, Karl’s mother, who states that Palovaara knew Karl “...very, very well”, and noted that Karl had visited the Palovaara home in Calumet. Others note that Karl spent time around Paul Heikkel Sr.'s garage, where Palovaara worked.
Many of these same individuals indicate that Palovvara was intimately familiar with the area in which Karl’s remains were found. Perhaps most notably, Palovvara’s ex-girlfriend, Judy Aho tells police that he took her to a forested area behind Centennial Heights to pick apples, and mentioned they were near the area where Karl’s remains were discovered. However, Judy did not believe that Palovaara was ever involved in any searches for the boy. Both Judy and John Hella also note that Palovaara knew the forested areas and trails behind Centennial Heights like the back of his hand, and Hella goes as far as to point out that he used to play with Palovaara in the same area the remains were discovered when they were children.
During her police interview, Palovaara’s ex-girlfriend mentions that the two usually had normal sexual relations, but during the 18-month period prior to their breakup in September, 1983, Palovaara seemed uninterested in sex, and the two had few sexual interactions during that time. The period of time in which Palovaara was uninterested in sex seemed to begin four months after Karl went missing. Police make a similar observation about the period of time in which Palovaara was abusing his sons: The abuse began about 4 years after he was married, and Karl disappeared about 4 years after Palovaara began seeing another woman.
It’s also worth noting that when Paloavaara was dating this woman, she lived with her son, who was about the same age as Karl. Palovaara denies any involvement with the boy, and it appears they likely questioned him about this during his polygraph exam, but again, there’s no indication police investigated this possibility any further. Which is notable, because if it was determined that this other boy had been abused, that means Palovaara was continuing to abuse young boys long after he assaulted his own children, and during the time in which Karl went missing.
Palovaara’s peers note that while he’s usually shy and reserved, he has a complete personality change when drinking, and can become mouthy and cocky. However, we also knew Palovaara often gave up drinking during hunting season, to heighten his senses, so it’s possible he was sober around the time of Karl’s disappearance.
So, was Palovaara responsible for Karl’s death? Probably only Palovaara knows the answer to that question. But I do feel strongly that the police uncovered enough circumstantial evidence pointing to Palovaara to warrant further investigative work. Unfortunately, we know he was not pursued after his interview and polygraph. In the scope of circumstances that point towards or away from Palovaara as the culprit, it’s also worth mentioning that he was named a suspect two years after Karl’s partial remains were discovered. Could police work have uncovered any substantial evidence so long after the fact? Maybe not, but we don’t know, because that work was not carried out at the time.
Alan Paloavaara is still alive today and living locally. It’s not too late for the Michigan State Police to have a conversation with Palovaara and actively research the possibility of his involvement. If he is responsible for Karl’s disappearance and death, maybe there is some small chance that, 40 years after the fact, he’s prepared to provide some semblance of closure to the Heikell family.