This story begins with a tragedy that cannot be undone. Andrew Cairns and Deborah Silva recognize their roles in the events of that night and carry lasting regret for the death of their friend and neighbor, Ms. Marie Zienkewicz, the true victim in this case. But regret alone is not enough. This narrative exists to explain what happened, why the official account is disputed, and why accountability is still being sought.

Background

On February 19, 2013, a tragedy unfolded in Warminster Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. According to this account, Andrew Cairns had been caught in a long-running domestic conflict with his fiancée, Deborah Silva, centered on what is described here as her aggressive behavior when binge drinking. In a state of emotional collapse, Cairns threatened suicide if the drinking did not stop. Sober, crying, and distraught, he then began firing his revolver out a second-story bedroom window about once per minute, with no intent, this narrative says, to harm anyone. Even the use-of-force expert cited in this document describes that conduct as foolish. But foolishness is not the same as murder, and the events that followed are at the heart of this petition.

What Happened on February 19, 2013

Outside, Silva went to the well-lit downstairs apartment of Ms. Marie Zienkewicz after locking herself out and needing to call Cairns to let her back in. She remained on the phone with the 911 operator the entire time and, according to this account, gave Cairns’ location eleven times. Ms. Zienkewicz, then 89 years old, came outside and spoke with Silva for nearly three minutes while Warminster police officers watched. Her voice was captured on the 911 call. By this account, both women were plainly unarmed, visible, and in no position to threaten officers.

The narrative further notes that two responding officers, Chris O’Neill and Ron Szymborski, were the same officers who had been inside Cairns’ apartment three hours earlier. It states that they refused Cairns’ earlier requests to remove Silva from the premises and that Officer O’Neill later pointed out Cairns’ location to Officer Sean Harold long before Harold fired his weapon. As Cairns continued firing into the air while Silva and Ms. Zienkewicz stood outside, this account alleges that Officer Harold fired from about 100 yards away at night without identifying his target or confirming where the shots were coming from. That shot struck an unarmed 89-year-old woman as she was returning inside, killing her with what this narrative describes as a gunshot to the back. If that account is true, then this was not a justified split-second act of self-defense, but a fatal failure of judgment with irreversible consequences.

Why the Shooting Is Disputed

This narrative argues that the shooting was unjustified. It states that Officer Harold later testified he did not know where the shots were coming from, yet also said that after the shooting he could see Ms. Silva’s dog walking around Ms. Zienkewicz’s body inside the apartment. The document presents that statement as evidence that visibility was better than claimed. It also states that these facts appear on pages 57 and 60 of the preliminary hearing transcript and that Officer Harold testified he fired at “half a silhouette.” Those details matter because they cut directly against the claim that deadly force was reasonably used under uncertain conditions.

The document further alleges that Officer Harold testified under oath that he saw a person emerge from behind a door and reach toward Ms. Silva, but argues that this was false because Ms. Zienkewicz was actually going back inside her apartment. It also argues that the state’s own evidence, including the autopsy report and photographs, contradicts that testimony. According to this narrative, prosecutors David Heckler and Nathaniel Spang could not prove that Cairns ever saw or fired at police officers, and because Officer Harold allegedly had no justification for shooting Ms. Zienkewicz, the prosecution, detectives, and police instead constructed a false “shootout” narrative and supporting evidence. If true, that would mean this case was shaped not by facts, but by the need to protect official misconduct from scrutiny.

Concerns About the Prosecution and Defense

Attorneys Michael Lacson and Alicia Baatz were assigned to the case. This account states that Cairns knew he had not fired toward the ground, had not seen any officers because they were allegedly about 100 yards away and concealed in the woods at night, and had not shot at police. It also says he did not know anyone had been hurt because, after about twenty minutes of sporadic gunfire into the air, he went to sleep. According to this narrative, while Cairns was held without bail, the prosecution falsely claimed it had recovered a bullet matching his weapon when the item was actually an old piece of machinery, and both the prosecution and defense allowed false statements and fabricated evidence into the record. The document alleges that Cairns was then pressured into pleading guilty to a crime he did not commit.

The document also alleges that defense counsel stopped acting as advocates and instead functioned as co-prosecutors to shield the county from embarrassment and potential lawsuits. It states that favorable evidence, including crime scene photographs, autopsy materials, police reports, ballistics materials, and expert reports, was withheld from Cairns. It further argues that he should have received a county sentence or a fine, while Officer Harold should have been prosecuted. In addition, the narrative states that county records show Cairns was suffering from delirium caused by three powerful psychotropic medications when he entered his guilty plea, and that neither counsel nor the court ordered a psychological evaluation. It argues that, frightened, confused, and uninformed, he accepted a third-degree murder plea under a theory of transferred intent and ultimately received a total sentence of forty years. If that is so, then this was not a fair resolution, but a profound failure of the justice system.

Evidence and Expert Support

The document states that two years after the plea, Cairns finally received part of the state court record. Based on that limited record, it says three respected crime scene forensic experts concluded that he had been framed for a crime of which he is innocent. It further states that two additional individuals, including a fellow Warminster police officer, concluded that the shooting of Ms. Zienkewicz was unjustified. According to this narrative, five expert opinions support the conclusion that an innocent woman was killed without justification. That is why this petition is not simply about revisiting the past. It is about demanding an honest review of a case that, according to this account, was built on grave errors and official misconduct.

Why This Petition Was Created

As stated at the beginning of this narrative, both Cairns and Silva have expressed deep regret for the tragedy that occurred that evening. They say they have acknowledged their roles and accepted responsibility for their actions, and that they will live with those decisions for the rest of their lives. According to the document, this petition exists because others involved have still not admitted fault for their own decisions. Its purpose is simple: accountability must not stop with the most vulnerable people in the case if the greater injustice remains unaddressed.

How to Help

If this account raises concerns for you, please sign and share the petition. The document also states that the authors are seeking an attorney or investigative journalist willing to examine the full story, including details they say are not fully covered here. Public attention and independent review may be the only path to meaningful accountability.

Thank you for reading, for considering this request, and for helping bring greater scrutiny to a case that still demands answers.

Contact Information

Mr. Cairns can be reached at:

anddeb9111@gmail.com
FreeAndrewCairns on IG