Gilgo Beach LISK Serial Killer, Rex Heuermann, charged with 3 murders, July 2023

[Ruminations]

I could be thinking of someone different but is John Ray the attorney who has had some conflict with the victim families and also claims the daughter who was a little child was involved? If so I don't give much credence. That being said she does seem off and I have no idea what their bedroom behavior (yuck) was like nor do I want to think about that other then she probably sought to make him happy as she seems quite blindly devoted.

John Ray is one of a few people that kept at Suffolk County to make sure this case was investigated.

He has a great deal of credibility; there are no facts he has brought to light that are not true.

There are witnesses that were ignored by the tip line that he has platformed.

His opinions have offended-but his investigations have saved the day. I think without John Ray, there would be no Rex Heuermann arrest.

MOO

 

[snooptroop88]

Such an interesting thought. These people don’t clean much, if Melissa used her savvy mind to hide from him she may have touched unusual areas in the bathroom.

IMHOO

Bathroom door has me thinking as I start wading back into the nuts and bolts of his murders, what happened to all the discussions about him potentially using his building sites in connection with concealing remains? If he were doing so, why were remains left at Gilgo at all? If he wasn't doing so... why not? It would seem like it could have been a convenient possibility for him. Was he one of these true "collector" type SKs that wanted to revisit the victims at his whim? Did he fear being detected as he was doing it, surveillance at the sites, too many eyes at the sites, too many protocals? Did he have "associates" that were too integral to the crimes where... he didn't want to risk one of them turning on him at some point, and divulging whereabouts of remains?

If he were a solo actor and did actually decide to use work sites to hide remains, would anyone ever have known? Possibly, but I think (?) it would have been less likely. (??) And he had so much control over those sites. When I think about that aspect, it's very strange to me with him being an established architect, but jmo.

 

[hot cawfeee]

His daughter was in elementary school for some of this....And his wife appears to not be all there cognitively imo, with a history of being in abusive relationship that he basically swooped in and saved her/her disabled son from. Imo I believe in giving the wife/kids the benefit of the doubt, especially the children, who weren't even 10 when some of this was happening. What is normal to us individually, is often formulated by our lived experiences. He married someone who appeared to have her own cognitive issues (imo) and her own "off" lived experiences, and then his daughter was raised in the home where this is what she knew....a messy home in disrepair, parents with poor dental hygiene, a disabled brother, and a locked room in the basement with guns...who in even their off mind is going to leap to their father is a serial killer? By the looks of the home on the outside (disrepair) and their mannerisms if I was acquainted with them (ie neighbor), I wouldn't find them appealing people to socialize with but I wouldn't jump to he is a serial killer, nor would I think his kid should have know, when this is her only normal, even if they are all a bit off/weird.

Good points !!! I wonder what the house was like when Rex and his siblings were small ?? It was probably a "kid neighborhood" lots of kids, always a game of tag, bike riding, basketball hoops etc.....was Rex and siblings part of the crowd ? has the exterior of the home changed at all ??

 

[hot cawfeee]

Bathroom door has me thinking as I start wading back into the nuts and bolts of his murders, what happened to all the discussions about him potentially using his building sites in connection with concealing remains? If he were doing so, why were remains left at Gilgo at all? If he wasn't doing so... why not? It would seem like it could have been a convenient possibility for him. Was he one of these true "collector" type SKs that wanted to revisit the victims at his whim? Did he fear being detected as he was doing it, surveillance at the sites, too many eyes at the sites, too many protocals? Did he have "associates" that were too integral to the crimes where... he didn't want to risk one of them turning on him at some point, and divulging whereabouts of remains?

If he were a solo actor and did actually decide to use work sites to hide remains, would anyone ever have known? Possibly, but I think (?) it would have been less likely. (??) And he had so much control over those sites. When I think about that aspect, it's very strange to me with him being an established architect, but jmo.

on building sites too many eyes....security cameras and sometimes there are guards to make sure there's no theft, criminal mischief destroying walls tagging with graffiti, vagrants sleeping on the site...........I guess Gilgo Beach bc he knew it best

 

[Izzylizzy]

I mean I would be ok if his current living conditions are deficient enough that he had something to gain by pleading guilty in exchange for discussing which wing of the penitentiary he will be able to potentially have access to for the rest of his life.

Buzz is that Tierney guaranteed him a life time supply.

 

[Izzylizzy]

One of the defense attorneys in the Newsday article linked above said Tierny will probably make him confess to every murder he's charged with. Perhaps he's willing to confess to others. There doesnt seem to be much the prosecution is willing to do for him.

From John Ray

'No Contest Pleas, Conditional Pleas, and Alford Pleas in Criminal Law Cases'​

No Contest Pleas, Conditional Pleas, and Alford Pleas in Criminal Law Cases

A no contest plea may avoid collateral civil consequences, a conditional plea preserves an issue for appeal, and an Alford plea maintains the defendant's innocence.

www.justia.com

 

[Izzylizzy]

Supposedly/looks like RH just changed his not guilty plea to guilty and there is no plea deal?

 

[Izzylizzy]

Today @ 2pm
I'll look for the video on YT and if it was uploaded I'll post it.
This will be live on "The Sarge" site

2pm

Joseph L. Giacalone | True Crime with the Sarge

Explore the official website of Joseph L. Giacalone, retired NYPD Sergeant, cold case expert, and author. Tune into his podcast True Crime with the Sarge and discover his insights on criminal investigations, cold cases, and law enforcement.

www.josephgiacalone.com

 

[PCHS]

Buzz is that Tierney guaranteed him a life time supply.

View attachment 655519

I don't have a laugh emoji....but

 

[snooptroop88]

Good points !!! I wonder what the house was like when Rex and his siblings were small ?? It was probably a "kid neighborhood" lots of kids, always a game of tag, bike riding, basketball hoops etc.....was Rex and siblings part of the crowd ? has the exterior of the home changed at all ??

(respectfully bolded) It had to have, honestly. It was only built in 1956. Look at this image of it in 2001, it doesn't look nearly as bad as it did later:

Here's I think 2011, it still jmo looks nowhere near as bad as it did when he was arrested:

Very strange, it still looked fairly good at that point, too. Got a little shabbier, but nothing like it was later. Hmm, new garage door?
And then...

Why were those front porch posts replaced? And why didn't he properly replace them?
Am I seeing things, or was that front porch once enclosed with doors/glass panels on the side (and front, too, by the looks of it, so fully enclosed)/2001?

And then the glass is gone (or screening panels?) by the final/most current image, but a lot of that enclosed area appears to still be there in 2011, they've removed that inner hedge that was right outside that enclosure at some point between 2001 and 2011. And then, it's just pretty much all gone with just unfinished posts. What went on with that? And I think that was glass, too. So that used to be an enclosed area along the lines of a little vestibule. Did a victim shatter the glass? Did he have something (or someone) heavy on a floor just above that formerly enclosed area? I can't see him "wanting" an open-air porch instead of the enclosed one that was previously there. And removing that is what makes that house truly look a mess. Right, "new windows," yes, I know they got those, but the change I'm seeing (now that I look close) isn't the result of "new windows," I mean that's radically changed & jmo looked better before. He had those four vehicular lawsuits, the first of which was 2014. While that might explain the lack of repairs (maybe/don't trust anything he does)... it doesn't explain wiping that whole area out completely, which would probably have required more effort than the repair itself. And the whole facade of the house has been changed for the worse, jmo.

What is behind the removal of that inner hedge and that small enclosed porch area? LE spent an awful lot of time in that area as I remember. So it's creeping me out considerably that it appears (??) to have been pretty much an enclosure for a critical portion of time.

 

[PCHS]

John Ray is one of a few people that kept at Suffolk County to make sure this case was investigated.

He has a great deal of credibility; there are no facts he has brought to light that are not true.

There are witnesses that were ignored by the tip line that he has platformed.

His opinions have offended-but his investigations have saved the day. I think without John Ray, there would be no Rex Heuermann arrest.

MOO

Ok I guess agree to disagree - I have heard that he was/is good at being on camera likely to keep attention. And I wouldn't be surprised if he knowingly made inflammatory or incendiary statements that were clearly not true and very harmful with the thought that it would be for the greater good - e.g. keeping the attention on this. I can accept that point of view (maybe not fully agree but get it), but now? No - there is zero excuse for accusing someone of being party to serial killing when they were child. And LE has been very clear that is not true and it also isn't sensical. So given that he clearly presents things that aren't always true , I can't accept what he presents as being automatically true at face value, even if the untrue implications are spread possibly for a reason that he believes is a greater good. With the swinger/threesome status for RH and AH - no idea if that is true or not - it could be true but I don't believe that would be a smoking gun to indicate she was involved or complicit in him being a serial killer especially when LE cleared her with zero motive or sensical reason to do so if she was involved, although it would likely be extremely embarrassing. Obviously the daughter had no involvement. Possibly the reason they haven't sued him is that would turn into providing depositions on their bedroom activities which could be humiliating esp. if they were involved in swinging. Bottom line - b/c it is clear , verified and sensical that he has pushed false narratives (regardless of reason) it means his statements - esp. more outrageous can't be accepted imo at face value.

 

[PCHS]

That’s a bit unfair to Ray. He wanted to ”out” the family’s macabre aesthetic tastes. He didn’t mean the toddler did it. You can say what you want about him but he is not a stupid man.

IMHOO

I didn't say he was stupid - I said he spreads rumors/statements that imply a certain narrative that isn't true, maybe for what he perceives to be a greater good, including misrepresenting his relationship IIRC with a victim's family. It means that if he presents something I don't always take the implication at face value b/c that is not how his presentations work, they are not always straightforward or accurate.

 

[PCHS]

Good points !!! I wonder what the house was like when Rex and his siblings were small ?? It was probably a "kid neighborhood" lots of kids, always a game of tag, bike riding, basketball hoops etc.....was Rex and siblings part of the crowd ? has the exterior of the home changed at all ??

ETA I apologize - I was thinking of when he was grown married and with kids....I am curious what the neighborhood was like - he had siblings and clearly him doing these activities it appears in his bedroom as a kid has some significance.. Original stattement: .I thought I heard at the time the family kept to themselves basically? I mean it is a very nice area I believe and their house on the outside looked to be in disrepair and the family seemed off. If I was a neighbor with kids, I likely would have let their child come to my house but would have looked to more limit visits to their house.

 

[PCHS]

(respectfully bolded) It had to have, honestly. It was only built in 1956. Look at this image of it in 2001, it doesn't look nearly as bad as it did later:
View attachment 655527
Here's I think 2011, it still jmo looks nowhere near as bad as it did when he was arrested:
View attachment 655526
Very strange, it still looked fairly good at that point, too. Got a little shabbier, but nothing like it was later. Hmm, new garage door?
And then...
View attachment 655525
Why were those front porch posts replaced? And why didn't he properly replace them?
Am I seeing things, or was that front porch once enclosed with doors/glass panels on the side (and front, too, by the looks of it, so fully enclosed)/2001?
View attachment 655534
And then the glass is gone (or screening panels?) by the final/most current image, but a lot of that enclosed area appears to still be there in 2011, they've removed that inner hedge that was right outside that enclosure at some point between 2001 and 2011. And then, it's just pretty much all gone with just unfinished posts. What went on with that? And I think that was glass, too. So that used to be an enclosed area along the lines of a little vestibule. Did a victim shatter the glass? Did he have something (or someone) heavy on a floor just above that formerly enclosed area? I can't see him "wanting" an open-air porch instead of the enclosed one that was previously there. And removing that is what makes that house truly look a mess. Right, "new windows," yes, I know they got those, but the change I'm seeing (now that I look close) isn't the result of "new windows," I mean that's radically changed & jmo looked better before. He had those four vehicular lawsuits, the first of which was 2014. While that might explain the lack of repairs (maybe/don't trust anything he does)... it doesn't explain wiping that whole area out completely, which would probably have required more effort than the repair itself. And the whole facade of the house has been changed for the worse, jmo.

What is behind the removal of that inner hedge and that small enclosed porch area? LE spent an awful lot of time in that area as I remember. So it's creeping me out considerably that it appears (??) to have been pretty much an enclosure for a critical portion of time.

It looks so horrible.. the hedge originally there was creepy to be honest..of course I am looking back with advantage of hindsight.

 

[Ruminations]

Ok I guess agree to disagree - I have heard that he was/is good at being on camera likely to keep attention. And I wouldn't be surprised if he knowingly made inflammatory or incendiary statements that were clearly not true and very harmful with the thought that it would be for the greater good - e.g. keeping the attention on this. I can accept that point of view (maybe not fully agree but get it), but now? No - there is zero excuse for accusing someone of being party to serial killing when they were child. And LE has been very clear that is not true and it also isn't sensical. So given that he clearly presents things that aren't always true , I can't accept what he presents as being automatically true at face value, even if the untrue implications are spread possibly for a reason that he believes is a greater good. With the swinger/threesome status for RH and AH - no idea if that is true or not - it could be true but I don't believe that would be a smoking gun to indicate she was involved or complicit in him being a serial killer especially when LE cleared her with zero motive or sensical reason to do so if she was involved, although it would likely be extremely embarrassing. Obviously the daughter had no involvement. Possibly the reason they haven't sued him is that would turn into providing depositions on their bedroom activities which could be humiliating esp. if they were involved in swinging. Bottom line - b/c it is clear , verified and sensical that he has pushed false narratives (regardless of reason) it means his statements - esp. more outrageous can't be accepted imo at face value.

Well, you can't believe everything you hear.

John Ray kept this case alive.

As you may recall, LE was very much its own obstacle in solving the case, mostly by cutting out the FBI and ignoring tips and failing to interview sex workers until a very effective police commissioner was appointed.

MOO

 

[PCHS]

Well, you can't believe everything you hear.

John Ray kept this case alive.

MOO

Correct which is basically what I said I understand how he may have been good at keeping the focus on this case, however I don't consider all of is narratives to be reliable on their face as there have been instances as described where they were either demonstrably not sensical or false, perhaps in his mind for the greater good of keeping the focus on the case..That means when something more setaceous is proffered as coming from him as a the source - I am hesitant to take it at face value as true as he has a history of not always pushing truthful or sensical narratives, even if it was for the purpose of what he considered to be the greater good

 

[Forest_Wood]

Ok I guess agree to disagree - I have heard that he was/is good at being on camera likely to keep attention. And I wouldn't be surprised if he knowingly made inflammatory or incendiary statements that were clearly not true and very harmful with the thought that it would be for the greater good - e.g. keeping the attention on this. I can accept that point of view (maybe not fully agree but get it), but now? No - there is zero excuse for accusing someone of being party to serial killing when they were child. And LE has been very clear that is not true and it also isn't sensical. So given that he clearly presents things that aren't always true , I can't accept what he presents as being automatically true at face value, even if the untrue implications are spread possibly for a reason that he believes is a greater good. With the swinger/threesome status for RH and AH - no idea if that is true or not - it could be true but I don't believe that would be a smoking gun to indicate she was involved or complicit in him being a serial killer especially when LE cleared her with zero motive or sensical reason to do so if she was involved, although it would likely be extremely embarrassing. Obviously the daughter had no involvement. Possibly the reason they haven't sued him is that would turn into providing depositions on their bedroom activities which could be humiliating esp. if they were involved in swinging. Bottom line - b/c it is clear , verified and sensical that he has pushed false narratives (regardless of reason) it means his statements - esp. more outrageous can't be accepted imo at face value.

I see you have a new profile but I think you've been around here a long while. You must know that you are required to post sources for your statements. Can you post your sources for your accusations above please?

 

[Serononin]

(respectfully bolded) It had to have, honestly. It was only built in 1956. Look at this image of it in 2001, it doesn't look nearly as bad as it did later:
View attachment 655527
Here's I think 2011, it still jmo looks nowhere near as bad as it did when he was arrested:
View attachment 655526
Very strange, it still looked fairly good at that point, too. Got a little shabbier, but nothing like it was later. Hmm, new garage door?
And then...
View attachment 655525
Why were those front porch posts replaced? And why didn't he properly replace them?
Am I seeing things, or was that front porch once enclosed with doors/glass panels on the side (and front, too, by the looks of it, so fully enclosed)/2001?
View attachment 655534
And then the glass is gone (or screening panels?) by the final/most current image, but a lot of that enclosed area appears to still be there in 2011, they've removed that inner hedge that was right outside that enclosure at some point between 2001 and 2011. And then, it's just pretty much all gone with just unfinished posts. What went on with that? And I think that was glass, too. So that used to be an enclosed area along the lines of a little vestibule. Did a victim shatter the glass? Did he have something (or someone) heavy on a floor just above that formerly enclosed area? I can't see him "wanting" an open-air porch instead of the enclosed one that was previously there. And removing that is what makes that house truly look a mess. Right, "new windows," yes, I know they got those, but the change I'm seeing (now that I look close) isn't the result of "new windows," I mean that's radically changed & jmo looked better before. He had those four vehicular lawsuits, the first of which was 2014. While that might explain the lack of repairs (maybe/don't trust anything he does)... it doesn't explain wiping that whole area out completely, which would probably have required more effort than the repair itself. And the whole facade of the house has been changed for the worse, jmo.

What is behind the removal of that inner hedge and that small enclosed porch area? LE spent an awful lot of time in that area as I remember. So it's creeping me out considerably that it appears (??) to have been pretty much an enclosure for a critical portion of time.

I won't be at all surprised if this house is torn down before the end of this year

 

[Forest_Wood]

I am summarizing what has been posted on this thread and not introducing new information - so why would a link be needed from me when I am not saying anything new here? I am simply saying that information already posted as fact on this thread does not then make me feel his information can be accepted at face value. Do I need to post links to what is already accepted and repeated throughout which leads me to feel I can't accept something at face value? The facts that I have referenced already posted 1. he has made innuendos that the daughter can't be cleared or the wife in a public fashion - this has been stated previously on this thread and also accepted to potentially be true - I say that is problematic imo and not sensical and is my personal opinion. 2. he also said he was representing a family of one victim who had to come out and say that is not true. I don't think this is new info or needs a link again but will google if required 3. LE has said the family was not involved. - this has been long established but will google again if we need to re-review this? This had been discussed throughout and is not new information. Do I need to google search to reprove what has been accepted throughout as baseline true? Are you saying these 3 items need links again even if already discussed previously as true?

If it's been posted before, you can source that post and link it so we all can follow along to what you're referring to. If it hasn't been posted before, then an approved outside source can be linked. We need to know where you're getting your information so we know it's not rumor or opinion. Thank you.

 

[PCHS]

I won't be at all surprised if this house is torn down before the end of this year

Likely she/they already have a line to developers who have reached out and will look to purchase/knock down and build a new house to flip for a good profit.