Killingly, CT — A 39-year-old Killingly man was arrested Tuesday after admitting to police he came into hard times and staged a 2025 burglary in order to file a nearly $40,000 insurance claim.
According to the Connecticut State Police, on Tuesday, January 6, 2026, the suspect residing on Elmwood Lane turned himself in on an active warrant for his arrest stemming from a staged burglary at his residence in June of 2025. He is currently being held on a $50,000 cash bond for the following charges:
- Larceny 3rd Degree – Exceeding $2,000 (C.G.S. 53a-124(a)(1))
- Tampering With or Fabricating Physical Evidence (C.G.S. 53a-155(a)(1))
- 2x False Statement (C.G.S. 53a-157b)
- Interfering with an Officer (C.G.S. 53a-167a)
- False Incident Report 2nd Degree (C.G.S. 53a-180c)
- Misuse of Emergency 911 – False Alarm (C.G.S. 53a-180d(a)(1))
- Insurance Fraud (C.G.S. 53a-215)
According to an arrest warrant obtained by Quiet Corner Alerts, at approximately 3:15 PM on June 30, 2025, Killingly Police Officers and State Troopers were dispatched to an Elmwood Lane, Killingly residence for reports someone had entered a home through the second-floor bedroom doorway earlier that afternoon.
In a sworn written statement, the resident indicated that several pieces of jewelry, handbags, and collectible sports cards were stolen, valued at approximately $43,500. When officers arrived, they observed that the second-story bedroom door was unlocked with no signs of forced entry. A plastic display case believed to have been touched by the perpetrator was seized as evidence for fingerprinting, and security camera footage from the residence and another residence on the road was obtained.
A review of the security footage revealed officers arriving, but no signs of any perpetrator arriving or departing the residence. None of the motion-activated cameras on the residence detected anyone on the property before the officers’ arrival. The suspect was able to show investigators what he believed was the likely path for the suspects to have eluded the cameras, where officers noted the use of such a route would have left clear signs of disturbance in the dry brush and footprints, which were not present in their observations.
On July 1, 2025, the suspect filed an insurance claim with Progressive Insurance Company for a break-in resulting in a loss valued over $40,000. During his claim, he indicated the police had said “jammers” were used to disable security devices. Police disputed this claim as there were no signs of jamming devices used; the only person to indicate the use of jammers during the investigation was the resident.
On July 11, 2025, the man submitted a second sworn statement to Troopers reporting that an additional $400 worth of items had been determined to be stolen, but some of the previous items had been located.
On July 30, 2025, the state forensic lab concluded their fingerprinting of the objects recovered from the scene. A latent print was obtained and determined to belong to a Plainfield pawn shop owner. When troopers interviewed the owner, he recalled handling the plastic display case when the suspect attempted to pawn a football in early 2025. The pawn shop owner also recalled and was able to provide records of legally purchasing several of the items in May of 2025, which the man later reported stolen. The seller was identified as the suspect based on documents collected during the transaction, such as a copy of the seller’s driver’s license, cell phone number, and checks made out to the suspect for the sale.
When confronted about the discrepancies, the suspect admitted to police he had run into money issues and “staged” the burglary. He was able to produce many of the items that had been reported stolen from a bag stashed inside a cellar wall. The items that had previously been sold to the pawn shop had been done without the female resident’s permission, but she decided not to press theft charges.
Earlier in 2025, the Killingly man had two civil cases opened regarding unpaid debt. Two cases accused him of failing to pay a total of $34,780.07 to the defendants, a tree removal company and credit card company, respectively.
Quiet Corner Alerts maintains a policy of not revealing the names of victims or suspects unless they are actively being sought by law enforcement or pose a perceived threat to the public.