Gilgo Beach LISK Serial Killer, Rex Heuermann, charged with 4 murders, July 2023 #10

[CuriousCricket]

Tiny snippet of post:
A hair (if the root is intact) would provide nuclear DNA - the DNA that identifies specific individuals. Skin cells (epithelial cells) do the same thing. mtDNA, though, can at least put us in the ballpark of identifying a person (esp. regarding heritage on the mother's side).

mtDNA can get you into a ballpark, but it's a BIG ballpark that is quite confusing because of the naming pattern in our country, along the paternal line. It's a mother (and all her children, with descendants of daughters having different names and producing children); grandmother (ditto ALL her children and her daughters' descendants and new names as daughters change names and gift all their children with the exact same mtDNA), great-grandmother -- repeat all the dispersion back a dozen generations. Once you have a suspect, it's usable to confirm the possibility, but mtDNA is not a determining factor.

I have personally tested mtDNA attempting to learn about a second-great-grandmother. I share an unmutated match with a descendant of her oldest daughter. I have perhaps 20 other matches with a mutation or two with people I have absolutely no idea how we're related. It's a rare person who tests mtDNA for genealogy.

So, three strands of mtDNA of AE being with the bodies is telling but would not point you to her as mtDNA winds about in a very confusing, very non-specific path. It's easy to understand the defense attorney stressing that AE's mtDNA means next to nothing in terms of pointing to RH. HOWEVER, and here's a great big HOWEVER, mtDNA that matches Rex's has also shown up on a body. Now, if mtDNA is all they have from the three women placed in the burlap bags, the matching mtDNA from two people in the same household screams important to me. By itself, I don't think AE's mtDNA means much, but when added with RH's - yep, it's important. Then, you add in the cell phone results . . . . IMOO.

 

[Ruminations]

MOO,
I am not satisfied with the indictment, I want to see all of the evidence with my own eyes and ears, even though I am already convinced of his guilt.

The wife owes no one any explanation on why she will or will not be at a possible trial and there shouldn't be a judgment about whatever her motives are for attending.

Nobody is asking the wife for an explanation about what is on the indictment.

Further, I don't see anybody claiming the indictment is conviction or proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yet the parts of the indictment that seem extremely unlikely to be explained by other information brought by the defense, primarily the internet searches for to watch crimes, are disgusting.

Im not sure why anybody would be like, "hmmm. Let's see what he has to say about those searches" before saying they are sordid.

And that is not the same thing as saying, "he is guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt."

It seems to me that you are responding to the former as if the later were said.

MOO

 

[Izzylizzy]

He has the tease strategy down pat. Tune in next week to learn another hint about the marriage!

Macedonio: What a difficult man to conjure up respect for. The only positive thing I can say about his reality TV shenanigans is that they are a moral step up from bribery and money laundering, which are also on his resume.

MOO

You got all that right.
Curious how Macedonia got to her first.
She got herself caught between a rock and a hard place.
I've never suggested this before about anyone but Asa needs a powerful female lawyer who won't play her for their own advantage.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

Nobody is asking the wife for an explanation about what is on the indictment.

Further, I don't see anybody claiming the indictment is conviction or proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yet the parts of the indictment that seem extremely unlikely to be explained by other information brought by the defense, primarily the internet searches for to watch crimes, are disgusting.

Im not sure why anybody would be like, "hmmm. Let's see what he has to say about those searches" before saying they are sordid.

And that is not the same thing as saying, "he is guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt."

It seems to me that you are responding to the former as if the later were said.

MOO

This is what I responded to, below quote, nothing you said is irrelevant to this quote or what I said in response.

The wife "insisting" on attending the trial to "see for herself" is not something for anyone to critique. MOO The suggestion that Cuomo should ask her if she had not read the indictment implies that the answers to her wanting information, not just what was said in the media, was in the indictment.

I disagree and think lots of people want to see the evidence in person if possible, during a trial, no matter what they think of his guilt.

Quote "Cuomo missed a good opportunity to call Macedonio on why he insists that Asa is attending the trial because all she has is the media's version and wants to hear/see for herself.

Cuomo should have asked Macedonio "did she not read his indictment"? end quote

 

[StrangeOne]

It's gruesome but I was thinking "you and yours... me and mine" might refer to the victims instead of family.

Bless the memories of the victims and peace to their loved ones.

The same thought crossed my mind.

 

[Izzylizzy]

I frankly have no idea what LE is finding nor where it will lead. I've discovered I really don't have an opinion one way or the other on AE. Well, other than it's possible the public will never know one way or the other unless charges are brought. No charges can mean she knew NOTHING, saw NOTHING and suspected NOTHING. No charges can also mean a little or a lot might have been discovered, but not enough to a conviction nor even to spend the time and money bringing charges. So, LE will say NOTHING and the public will not know.

The mounds of "stuff" removed from the home, along with two storage sheds, two vehicles and who knows what else where else makes me think there will probably be many revelations. However, LE will always know things that were not important enough to include in the official case. The public will never get all the answers to all the questions.

So far, for me, the biggest thing I'm looking forward to learning is why the medical examiner was called to the storage shed. Another big mystery: will any well-known name(s) be revealed to have at least associated with RH in some way if not be directly involved in the murders enough for charges to be filed.

Was the Medical Examiner "called" to the storage unit or were they stationed there?
Medical Examiners were stationed at Heuermann's house as investigators searched for evidence.
Where any seen at his NYC office when that was being searched?

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

<modsnip: quoted post was removed> Still hoping that even with possible apparent ‘spousal privilege’ or the like as to what the wife might (or might not) be allowed to testify, that the accused’s estranged wife will appear on a witness list. Which could affect ability to sit in and watch testimony. MOO

 

[10ofRods]

Yes! Still hoping that even with possible apparent ‘spousal privilege’ or the like as to what the wife might (or might not) be allowed to testify, that the accused’s estranged wife will appear on a witness list. Which could affect ability to sit in and watch testimony. MOO

A wife can testify against her husband if she wants to is my understanding of the law. Being someone's spouse does not (as many murderers believe) guarantee they won't give up information to LE or testify in court. Being a spouse does not ever remove one's constitutional right to free speech.

If she's called to testify, she is the only person who can decide that, IMO. I don't think spousal privilege is "apparent," though - I think it's actual. She has the option not to testify against her spouse, IMO.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

A wife can testify against her husband if she wants to is my understanding of the law. Being someone's spouse does not (as many murderers believe) guarantee they won't give up information to LE or testify in court. Being a spouse does not ever remove one's constitutional right to free speech.

If she's called to testify, she is the only person who can decide that, IMO. I don't think spousal privilege is "apparent," though - I think it's actual. She has the option not to testify against her spouse, IMO.

I previously posted links to the NY rules on spouse testimony. Until they are divorced, the defendant does have a right of spouse not testifying against them. Everything can be challenged in court and if they are divorced at time of trial, it changes some of the circumstances. It will all come down to what the (ex)wife wants to do/or not do, and then the defendant challenging it as even after a divorce, some things are still protected. Also, the prosecution likely would not want to use a hostile spouse/ex spouse witness.

 

[Ruminations]

A wife can testify against her husband if she wants to is my understanding of the law. Being someone's spouse does not (as many murderers believe) guarantee they won't give up information to LE or testify in court. Being a spouse does not ever remove one's constitutional right to free speech.

If she's called to testify, she is the only person who can decide that, IMO. I don't think spousal privilege is "apparent," though - I think it's actual. She has the option not to testify against her spouse, IMO.

I was shocked to learn that in Idaho a spouse can suppress a spouse who wants to testify against them in many cases. For example, if a spouse saw a spouse rob someone else's house, the robber can disallow the willing witness to testify, or for that testimony to be allowed to trial.

But that is not so for every crime in Idaho.

In NY, it's more as I expected. It is the witness who can claim immunity. Not the criminal. There are exceptions, depending on the crime.

I do get how a spouse could refuse to testify or be a hostile witness. If my spouse rolled through a stop sign, I'd stay silent. If my spouse were accused of a heinous crime, things might change.

In every state and in every instance, of course, no one can be required to be a witness against themselves. But apparently in IDAHO, spouses have a mutual ownership/control. And the mutuality was probably a 14 amendment correction to the law which made it as if men owned their wives, or like wives were an extension of themselves. And a wife testifying against you is like testifying against yourself.

MOO

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

In NY, it's more as I expected. It is the witness who can claim immunity. Not the criminal.

From an attorney, but it is the same as the link I previously posted, rules of NY courts.

"The answer in New York is no. The privilege belongs to the spouse who the testimony is against."

https://www.doraziopeterson.com/what-is-the-marital-privilege

 

[Ruminations]

I previously posted links to the NY rules on spouse testimony. Until they are divorced, the defendant does have a right of spouse not testifying against them. Everything can be challenged in court and if they are divorced at time of trial, it changes some of the circumstances. It will all come down to what the (ex)wife wants to do/or not do, and then the defendant challenging it as even after a divorce, some things are still protected. Also, the prosecution likely would not want to use a hostile spouse/ex spouse witness.

You misunderstood.

The witness can testify in NY against her spouse if she so chooses. It's up to the prosecutors to use the testimony or not. If she does not wish to testify it gets dicier. The prosecution can see if she can be compelled to testify as a hostile witness. And if she can be so compelled, the prosecution can decide to use her as a hostile witness or not.

If the defense wants her to speak in Rex's defense, the prosecution absolutely can cross examine her. Since this is a criminal trial, the jury will not be permitted to infer guilt from her deciding not to testify in Rex's defense. But for us making judgments as non- jurors, it will be a wee bit sus if she won't defend him.

MOO

Edited to add: I take that back in part, but the privilege hardly covers anything that would come up. Rex could suppress Asa's testimony of many statements he made in confidence to Asa while no one else was around. Like if he murdered someone in his home, and said, "I'm going to murder her, you stay upstairs," while no one else hears, he could get the quote supressed. But AE could at his trial testify that she was there, or she knew of someone in her house. The only thing privileged is private conversation. That she heard something other than his communication to her, that Rex was home at certain times and out at others, etc. whatever she saw, heard, felt or observed in any way could not be suppressed by spousal privilege, unless it was private conversation.

MOO

 

[10ofRods]

I previously posted links to the NY rules on spouse testimony. Until they are divorced, the defendant does have a right of spouse not testifying against them. Everything can be challenged in court and if they are divorced at time of trial, it changes some of the circumstances. It will all come down to what the (ex)wife wants to do/or not do, and then the defendant challenging it as even after a divorce, some things are still protected. Also, the prosecution likely would not want to use a hostile spouse/ex spouse witness.

That was my main point - it comes down to what the wife wants to do. I will look for your previous posts, but I'm surprised that NY makes it so that the accused can prevent their spouse from testifying. All the case law I can find (Supreme Court cases) say that it is entirely up to the spouse.

The NY Statute is complex. It's not a blanket "you can't testify against your spouse if the defendant spouse says you can't." Instead, the Judge has to look at the situation. One situation given in case law is that if a spouse has knowledge that can lead to finding evidence hidden by the defendant or a body hidden by the defendant, they can testify because the action of hiding something from one's spouse and others is NOT protected under statute. It's only confidential communication. So, if your spouse and you are in a restaurant and your spouse says/does something publicly that's illegal, it's not protected. If you are at home and your spouse says, "Don't tell anyone" or the nature of the communication seems confidential, THEN it is protected. Oddly, in the same case, the fact that a husband brought home stolen goods and stored them in the house WAS protected and the wife could not testify. To me, that's bizarre, but that's case law in NY.

One big area of exception to one spouse being able to prohibit another spouse from testifying is, of course, a situation of domestic violence or where the spouse who wants to testify says they were in fear for their own life. NO exemption. Also doesn't apply if any other people were present when the communication happened (oral or written).

https://www.nycourts.gov/JUDGES/evidence/5-PRIVILEGES/ARTICLE_5_RULES.pdf

Fascinating differences between NY and some other states.

IMO. IANAL obviously.

 

[Ruminations]

That was my main point - it comes down to what the wife wants to do. I will look for your previous posts, but I'm surprised that NY makes it so that the accused can prevent their spouse from testifying. All the case law I can find (Supreme Court cases) say that it is entirely up to the spouse.

The NY Statute is complex. It's not a blanket "you can't testify against your spouse if the defendant spouse says you can't." Instead, the Judge has to look at the situation. One situation given in case law is that if a spouse has knowledge that can lead to finding evidence hidden by the defendant or a body hidden by the defendant, they can testify because the action of hiding something from one's spouse and others is NOT protected under statute. It's only confidential communication. So, if your spouse and you are in a restaurant and your spouse says/does something publicly that's illegal, it's not protected. If you are at home and your spouse says, "Don't tell anyone" or the nature of the communication seems confidential, THEN it is protected. Oddly, in the same case, the fact that a husband brought home stolen goods and stored them in the house WAS protected and the wife could not testify. To me, that's bizarre, but that's case law in NY.

One big area of exception to one spouse being able to prohibit another spouse from testifying is, of course, a situation of domestic violence or where the spouse who wants to testify says they were in fear for their own life. NO exemption. Also doesn't apply if any other people were present when the communication happened (oral or written).

https://www.nycourts.gov/JUDGES/evidence/5-PRIVILEGES/ARTICLE_5_RULES.pdf

Fascinating differences between NY and some other states.

IMO. IANAL obviously.

Exactly. And for my example, "I'm going to murder her, you stay upstairs." (And in this example, don't tell anyone was implied) the confidentiality exception could be nullified if AE was afraid of him because it was a DV situation.

There is nothing to stop AE from testifying for or against Rex. It is up to her. She's her own person.

MOO

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

That was my main point - it comes down to what the wife wants to do. I will look for your previous posts, but I'm surprised that NY makes it so that the accused can prevent their spouse from testifying. All the case law I can find (Supreme Court cases) say that it is entirely up to the spouse.

The NY Statute is complex. It's not a blanket "you can't testify against your spouse if the defendant spouse says you can't." Instead, the Judge has to look at the situation. One situation given in case law is that if a spouse has knowledge that can lead to finding evidence hidden by the defendant or a body hidden by the defendant, they can testify because the action of hiding something from one's spouse and others is NOT protected under statute. It's only confidential communication. So, if your spouse and you are in a restaurant and your spouse says/does something publicly that's illegal, it's not protected. If you are at home and your spouse says, "Don't tell anyone" or the nature of the communication seems confidential, THEN it is protected. Oddly, in the same case, the fact that a husband brought home stolen goods and stored them in the house WAS protected and the wife could not testify. To me, that's bizarre, but that's case law in NY.

One big area of exception to one spouse being able to prohibit another spouse from testifying is, of course, a situation of domestic violence or where the spouse who wants to testify says they were in fear for their own life. NO exemption. Also doesn't apply if any other people were present when the communication happened (oral or written).

https://www.nycourts.gov/JUDGES/evidence/5-PRIVILEGES/ARTICLE_5_RULES.pdf

Fascinating differences between NY and some other states.

IMO. IANAL obviously.

I previously posted links to the NY court rules noted that it could be complicated and complicated further by a pending divorce.
The only thing of importance is, RH can challenge and request that his spouse not testify, as I have said several times, it will all come down to court rulings on his challenge and what the specific testimony is, that is being proposed.
I realize that not everyone wants to read the previous posts.
Edit to add, This is not an argument over what the wife should or should not do, or her rights, or RH's rights. It's simply looking at NY court rules and the practical application, which is only relevant to this case if RH raises an objection IF the spouse elects to testify against him.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

There is nothing to stop AE from testifying for or against Rex.

As with anyone testifying, anything AE would have to offer on the witness stand is subject to court rules. A challenge from RH could potentially prevent some or all of the testimony due to state law.
No need to explore the endless variations and possibilities, the state law exists and the court will decide on its application, case by case.


Quote not working, Re your other post:

I don't think we know what Harrison has vetted, and we don't know if anyone has verified anything Ray has reported that someone told him, hearsay.
When it is said "We have witnesses", it sounds like it is being accepted as a fact. I didn't think even Ray was claiming it was a fact, he asked that it be investigated.
I'm not dismissing the statement, I haven't even seen it.

 

[Ruminations]

I previously posted links to the NY court rules noted that it could be complicated and complicated further by a pending divorce.
The only thing of importance is, RH can challenge and request that his spouse not testify, as I have said several times, it will all come down to court rulings on his challenge and what the specific testimony is, that is being proposed.
I realize that not everyone wants to read the previous posts.
Edit to add, This is not an argument over what the wife should or should not do, or her rights, or RH's rights. It's simply looking at NY court rules and the practical application, which is only relevant to this case if RH raises an objection IF the spouse elects to testify against him.

Asa is a witness who can testify in Rex's defense or against him as she pleases.
In NYS there are very narrow things that Rex can have supressed at trial, such as confidential conversation. And there are exceptions to that.

In NY what he could have suppressed is so narrow it is irrelevant.

In practicality, a hostile witness is a tricky tool for a prosecutor. I can agree to that. So if she does not cooperate, that could be an obstacle.

But you are making it seem like because of spousal privilege, AE can't possibly be a witness against Rex, and that is simply not true. Spousal privilege is not going to prevent her from testifying about Rex if she so chooses. (I still hold that she may not know what of what she has witnessed is truely "against" Rex. Thus I said "about.") Only AE can decide how much of what she has witnessed she is willing to share. Only she can be the obstacle if she wishes to be. No law or statute is forcing her to speak or not speak.

Spousal privilege is a red herring. It is a way of claiming that AE is not a witness. And that is impossible to believe, IMO.

MOO

IANAL, but I have read the statutes with excellent lay comprehensio, thank you very much.

Edited to add: I suppose AE could be compelled to testify about things that do not incriminate her, so that statement was not accurate. But it would still be very tricky to get her to testify against Rex if she did not want to. It would be hard to prove she was failing to give information. MOO

 

[Izzylizzy]

Why Macedonio insists Asa wants to see/hear the evidence presented in court because all she has is what the media is reporting is ridiculous.
NY State's indictment/bail document is online and explains what/why he's been charged with by a Grand Jury.
The media has reported from that document and as far as what the media reports from the Ray/Harrison presser those 2 signed affidavits are also available online,
She can read them herself or have her lawyer go over them with her.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/lti-bail-application-form-2023-7-14-23-final-1-redacted-1/6ffd72d59b87aa51/full.pdf

redacted_affidavit_2.pdf
redacted_affidavit_1.pdf

 

[10ofRods]

Exactly. And for my example, "I'm going to murder her, you stay upstairs." (And in this example, don't tell anyone was implied) the confidentiality exception could be nullified if AE was afraid of him because it was a DV situation.

There is nothing to stop AE from testifying for or against Rex. It is up to her. She's her own person.

MOO

Excellent and specific example. I think that if she heard him speak words - to her directly and in their home - in NY a Judge MIGHT exclude that testimony. It's far too complex (given that in one case, a spouse was allowed to say some things - but not others) for me to anticipate what Judge would say.

The DV exception gives the spouse a lot of leeway, frankly. I wonder what the laws are in Indiana (Delphi case).

I do think that a Judge could prevent AE from being asked certain questions - but I can't even hazard a guess that that decision might look like.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

But you are making it seem like because of spousal privilege, AE can't possibly be a witness against Rex, and that is simply not true. Spousal privilege is not going to prevent her from testifying about Rex if she so chooses. (I still hold that she may not know what of what she has witnessed is truely "against" Rex. Thus I said "about.") Only AE can decide how much of what she has witnessed she is willing to share. Only she can be the obstacle if she wishes to be. No law or statute is forcing her to speak or not speak.

Spousal privilege is a red herring. It is a way of claiming that AE is not a witness.

In no way was it used as "a way of claiming AE is not a witness". It has nothing to do with anything I, or anyone else, thinks AE knows or doesn't know. Personal feelings about this case aren't relevant to what I discussed.
I also said from the first conversation on this thread, that it was complicated when it could happen, and I never made it sound like one spouse could NEVER testify against another.
My comments have nothing to do with the specifics of this case, except that they are in the middle of a divorce.
I disagree with your opinion that the laws of privilege are not used in New York courts and could not be applied in this case. I see several precedence cases online. No one can state with certainty what would happen, it is not applied until there is a challenge.