Gilgo Beach LISK Serial Killer, Rex Heuermann, charged with 7 murders, July 2023 #15

[wcasewatch]

What cover up? The refusal to investigate LISK. Excluding the FBI so forcefully Rodney Harrison had to really work to get them willing to work with Suffolk County again. Assigning LISK to one detective who also had other responsibilities in a well resourced agency. Mocking and ignoring important clues such as Alice Poe and the swinger witness. Misrepresenting Shannan's 911 call and refusing to release it because it is part of an on-going investigation. Yet, refusing to call Shannan's murder a murder making the claim to be investigating it absurd.

Stuff like that.

IMO, individuals and institutions that interfered with investigating LISK are responsible for an immeasurable amount of unnecessary pain and suffering to the surviving family members. Children were growing up without their mothers while Suffolk County was driving away the FBI.

MOO

They did investigate LISK, albeit poorly. The FBI was excluded from multiple task forces, not just LISK. Burke didn't want them nosing around in his backyard while he was under investigation. By that logic, we must presume that Burke was also an active member of MS-13.

There is a big difference between ineptitude/general corruption and an actual cover-up.

To be honest, I don't find Alice Poe's story very credible. Three of the biggest names in this case, and she just so happens to be the only person who can prove that they all knew each other? In addition, they were all smoking crack together? I'm not buying it, especially considering which corner this affidavit came from. "Burke, Bittrolff and Heuermann walk into a motel" sounds like the start of a tasteless joke.

There is also no evidence to indicate that Shannan Gilbert was murdered, unless I've missed a recent announcement?

 

[wcasewatch]

I appreciate all Tierney has done since Rodney Harrison assembled the awesome task force.

But it remains strange and forced when he blows off the biggest witnesses he has!

Just because Rex appears to have hidden his activities, that does not mean the family has no information. Maybe the notorious slob scrubbed the bathroom often when they went on vacation. That would be extremely helpful information to prosecutors. The family does not have to be involved to be witnesses. While it is probable they were not criminally involved it is not probable or even possible that they are not witnesses.

MOO

My guess is that they simply do not need her. The evidence in the bail docs alone is enough to blow him away. Imagine what else they have.

 

[Ruminations]

My guess is that they simply do not need her. The evidence in the bail docs alone is enough to blow him away. Imagine what else they have.

Then ignore her. Tierney is not simply not mentioning her. He is forcefully adding the information that the family was out of town when he mentions each charge.

Why wouldn't he just talk about the charges, let the press bring up the family, and then just say that they are not suspects or subjects at this time and are fully cooperating with the investigation?

That's SOP. For some reason. Tierney is not doing the usual.

He even delayed charging Maureen until he had the credit card receipt he dubiously claims shows Asa out of town. He didn't need that info to charge Rex. He needed that info so he could do his strange routine of mentioning that the family was out of town in the same breath as announcing the charges.

It is very unusual. LE doesn't generally have time to nor do they reap investigative benefit in "clearing" people. They just announce people are not subjects or suspects and move on.

MOO

 

[wcasewatch]

Then ignore her. Tierney is not simply not mentioning her. He is forcefully adding the information that the family was out of town when he mentions each charge.

Why wouldn't he just talk about the charges, let the press bring up the family, and then just say that they are not suspects or subjects at this time and are fully cooperating with the investigation?

That's SOP. For some reason. Tierney is not doing the usual.

He even delayed charging Maureen until he had the credit card receipt he dubiously claims shows Asa out of town. He didn't need that info to charge Rex. He needed that info so he could do his strange routine of mentioning that the family was out of town in the same breath as announcing the charges.

It is very unusual. LE doesn't generally have time to nor do they reap investigative benefit in "clearing" people. They just announce people are not subjects or suspects and move on.

MOO

He is forcefully adding it because certain people are forcefully trying to link them to the killings by any means necessary.

They wanted to prove that the family was out of town during Maureen's murder because that was the case with the previous three murders. They want to establish a pattern of behavior. Failing to do so would play into the hands of the defense. Remember that all of the murders are being tried in the same case. That means that patterns of behavior matter.

 

[Ruminations]

He is forcefully adding it because certain people are forcefully trying to link them to the killings by any means necessary.

They wanted to prove that the family was out of town during Maureen's murder because that was the case with the previous three murders. They want to establish a pattern of behavior. Failing to do so would play into the hands of the defense. Remember that all of the murders are being tried in the same case. That means that patterns of behavior matter.

What plays into the defense is pushing a narrative, hostility ejecting possible exculpatory evidence, failing to follow all leads, appearing married to a theory and forcing facts to fit them.

That is not good investigative practice to say, "my theory is that Rex only murders while his family is out of town, so therefore, he must not have murdered this person whose phone pinged in his hood, who is bound with a belt with a relatives initials on it and that traps a hair that comes from someone who lives in his house- oh, and he also is charged with three very similar murders with very similar dumps and fact patters EXCEPT the travel proof, so we can't charge Rex with this. Not until we force the facts into our theory for behavior patterns."

The prosecution should not be waiting to charge until the facts fit their theory. The facts should themselves support the charge, and indeed they did before that questionable credit card receipt about Atlantic City.

Also, you are mistaken; sympathy was strong for Asa in the beginning. Read threads and news articles. The general consensus was she was in a terrible situation.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

They did investigate LISK, albeit poorly. The FBI was excluded from multiple task forces, not just LISK. Burke didn't want them nosing around in his backyard while he was under investigation. By that logic, we must presume that Burke was also an active member of MS-13.

There is a big difference between ineptitude/general corruption and an actual cover-up.

To be honest, I don't find Alice Poe's story very credible. Three of the biggest names in this case, and she just so happens to be the only person who can prove that they all knew each other? In addition, they were all smoking crack together? I'm not buying it, especially considering which corner this affidavit came from. "Burke, Bittrolff and Heuermann walk into a motel" sounds like the start of a tasteless joke.

There is also no evidence to indicate that Shannan Gilbert was murdered, unless I've missed a recent announcement?

I find Alice Poe very credible because it was vetted by people in real life, which is far more convincing than the strident anonymous commenters who always seem anti-information and against solving LISK.

MS-13 is not analogous.

There is nothing new in the Gilbert case; it remains clear that she was murdered even though the official story is that she was not, yet LE can't talk about it because of the ongoing investigation.

That is nonsensical. No new information is needed for me to call it a murder. I'm looking forward to LE finally telling us what their investigation has found.

(I guess the night-cab driver witness is a newer piece of information about Gilbert. Aside from that- nothing is new.)

MOO

 

[CuriousCricket]

Then ignore her. Tierney is not simply not mentioning her. He is forcefully adding the information that the family was out of town when he mentions each charge.

Each charge is for a different crime. In the recent interview with Tierney, he plainly stated that with each case they start with the evidence in that case and work only the evidence in that crime.

From the bail docs, we know that when the family was in Vermont with a childhood friend of Veronica's, VH, the friend and her family were all interviewed as witnesses. My conclusion is that when the evidence suggests the family might have information valuable to the case being worked, then the family is questioned -- as witnesses.

This is a vast sprawling case and no one seems to know how far it will reach. With each case the taskforce has worked so far, the family has been out of town.
I sincerely believe that when or if a case is investigated when the family is not out of town, that fact will be mentioned as distinctly as the mention they were out of town has been.

Also, we have no idea that the Taskforce is not using the info gathered. Just because it has not been publicly aired does not mean it is not being investigated when the case it involves is investigated.

Tierney appears to have his way of doing things: very organized, one case at a time until he believes his office has enough for a conviction and all the loose ends are tied in neat bows. Working only from the evidence of each case is not forcing the evidence to suit a theory, but is the exact opposite - being certain the evidence speaks for itself.

I suspect some of the cases we believe belong to RH was not his and that perhaps some of his will not have provided the evidence necessary to bring charges -- now. Who knows about later.

 

[Ruminations]

Each charge is for a different crime. In the recent interview with Tierney, he plainly stated that with each case they start with the evidence in that case and work only the evidence in that crime.

From the bail docs, we know that when the family was in Vermont with a childhood friend of Veronica's, VH, the friend and her family were all interviewed as witnesses. My conclusion is that when the evidence suggests the family might have information valuable to the case being worked, then the family is questioned -- as witnesses.

This is a vast sprawling case and no one seems to know how far it will reach. With each case the taskforce has worked so far, the family has been out of town.
I sincerely believe that when or if a case is investigated when the family is not out of town, that fact will be mentioned as distinctly as the mention they were out of town has been.

Also, we have no idea that the Taskforce is not using the info gathered. Just because it has not been publicly aired does not mean it is not being investigated when the case it involves is investigated.

Tierney appears to have his way of doing things: very organized, one case at a time until he believes his office has enough for a conviction and all the loose ends are tied in neat bows. Working only from the evidence of each case is not forcing the evidence to suit a theory, but is the exact opposite - being certain the evidence speaks for itself.

I suspect some of the cases we believe belong to RH was not his and that perhaps some of his will not have provided the evidence necessary to bring charges -- now. Who knows about later.

There was no reason to "hold" indicting on Maureen except to add that irrelevant and unnecessary and very unusual sentence that the family was out of town.

That information does not make the charges stronger. That is not consistent with being certain the evidence speaks for itself. It is consistent with allowing the defense to claim the prosecution was blind to any information that did not fit their theory.

The strange behavior about the family is unique. It doesn't make sense. I mean, they didn't mention where Bittrolff was during the time Rex was doing what he was alleged to be doing, did they? Why mention what Asa was doing? Especially ahead of even being asked?

MOO

 

[wcasewatch]

I find Alice Poe very credible because it was vetted by people in real life, which is far more convincing than the strident anonymous commenters who always seem anti-information and against solving LISK.

MS-13 is not analogous.

There is nothing new in the Gilbert case; it remains clear that she was murdered even though the official story is that she was not, yet LE can't talk about it because of the ongoing investigation.

That is nonsensical. No new information is needed for me to call it a murder. I'm looking forward to LE finally telling us what their investigation has found.

(I guess the night-cab driver witness is a newer piece of information about Gilbert. Aside from that- nothing is new.)

MOO

Vetted by who? John Ray and his associates?

The story lacks credibility. There is no evidence that any of these men knew each other, yet this one person claims to have seen them smoking crack together in a motel over three decades ago.

The task force obviously feels the same way about this affidavit.

There is no evidence that Shannan Gilbert was murdered. People have their own beliefs based on how they've interpreted the phone call, but that isn't evidence. That's personal opinion.

 

[Ruminations]

Vetted by who? John Ray and his associates?

The story lacks credibility. There is no evidence that any of these men knew each other, yet this one person claims to have seen them smoking crack together in a motel over three decades ago.

The task force obviously feels the same way about this affidavit.

There is no evidence that Shannan Gilbert was murdered. People have their own beliefs based on how they've interpreted the phone call, but that isn't evidence. That's personal opinion.

Yes, vetted by John Ray and his associates. Plus Rodney Harrison.

Give me ONE example of a an untrue fact from John Ray and associates.

I know I will be waiting a very long time.

MOO

 

[Passeridae]

He is forcefully adding it because certain people are forcefully trying to link them to the killings by any means necessary.

They wanted to prove that the family was out of town during Maureen's murder because that was the case with the previous three murders. They want to establish a pattern of behavior. Failing to do so would play into the hands of the defense. Remember that all of the murders are being tried in the same case. That means that patterns of behavior matter.

This right here.

Him killing when his family is out of town (or when he has his home to himself for the first time ever in 1993) is part of his M.O. It's evidence. If they're presenting evidence at a press conference, why would they leave some out?

If they include it, then conspiracy theorists point to it as a sign that they're covering up his family's involvement. If they leave it out, conspiracy theorists will claim that his family must have been involved this time because it wasn't stated they were on vacation. If they don't say anything until asked by the press, conspiracy theorists will have some other hare-brained explanation for how that implicates his family somehow. They can't win against conspiracy theorists - no one can, they can twist literally anything to fit their fantasy - so why should they bother trying? I'd rather they keep on doing things as they're doing them and focus on solving more murders (LISK or unrelated) than try to appease conspiracy theorists who will never be satisfied anyway. That's a losing and extremely time-wasting game.

 

[Passeridae]

There was no reason to "hold" indicting on Maureen except to add that irrelevant and unnecessary and very unusual sentence that the family was out of town.

Did you not real the bail application when they added the charges for Maureen? They didn't yet have the DNA results when they charged him with Megan, Amber and Melissa's deaths. They got that DNA evidence, as well as additional evidence, between when they charged him with the first three murders and when they charged him with Maureen's murder. His family being out of town when Maureen was killed was part of that additional evidence (and yes, it is corroborating evidence; killing when his family is out of town appears to be a consistent part of his M.O.).

 

[Ruminations]

This right here.

Him killing when his family is out of town (or when he has his home to himself for the first time ever in 1993) is part of his M.O. It's evidence. If they're presenting evidence at a press conference, why would they leave some out?

If they include it, then conspiracy theorists point to it as a sign that they're covering up his family's involvement. If they leave it out, conspiracy theorists will claim that his family must have been involved this time because it wasn't stated they were on vacation. If they don't say anything until asked by the press, conspiracy theorists will have some other hare-brained explanation for how that implicates his family somehow. They can't win against conspiracy theorists - no one can, they can twist literally anything to fit their fantasy - so why should they bother trying? I'd rather they keep on doing things as they're doing them and focus on solving more murders (LISK or unrelated) than try to appease conspiracy theorists who will never be satisfied anyway. That's a losing and extremely time-wasting game.

I am not a conspiracy theorist.

I believe in following the evidence.

I see with my own eyes Tierney holding back on charges until there is a dicey credit card statement. I see with my own eyes that nobody ignores the contradicting evidence, yet nobody disputes it either! Nobody says, we know that hotel clerk was mistaken. The only arguments against it are attacks on the credibility of John Ray, who has not yet provided us with one disputed fact. Thus, if character attacks weren't on their face fallacious, these attacks are especially weak because John Ray's accuracy rate is 100%.

That dicey evidence has nothing to do with Rex Heuermann. The indictment did not have to be held back.

Tierney should never mention the family except when it's evidence against Rex.

MOO

Edited to add, and I hesitated because it's too pedantic, if they didn't need DNA back for the first 3, they didn't need it for Maureen. <modsnip: rude and unnecessary>

 

[snarast]

Did you not real the bail application when they added the charges for Maureen? They didn't yet have the DNA results when they charged him with Megan, Amber and Melissa's deaths. They got that DNA evidence, as well as additional evidence, between when they charged him with the first three murders and when they charged him with Maureen's murder. His family being out of town when Maureen was killed was part of that additional evidence (and yes, it is corroborating evidence; killing when his family is out of town appears to be a consistent part of his M.O.).

The family being out of town has always seemed irrelevant to me. Because there are ways to silence victims. And other locations to kill them.

It’s as if LE already knew details about all his murders - if they all happened at RH’s home and if they involved a lot of audible screaming the family needed to be away. Not otherwise.

Makes me wonder about the torture the informant (Chris in the Burke assault case) allegedly viewed.

 

[wcasewatch]

Yes, vetted by John Ray and his associates. Plus Rodney Harrison.

Give me ONE example of a an untrue fact from John Ray and associates.

I know I will be waiting a very long time.

MOO

Can you provide me with a link that shows Rodney Harrison vetted Alison Poe's story? Because from what I remember, he merely stood beside Ray during the press conference and then encouraged people to come forward. And I believe that was in relation to the Karen Vergata story.

Ray has made all kinds of dubious claims that have never been proven. Very easy to list.

 

[wcasewatch]

This right here.

Him killing when his family is out of town (or when he has his home to himself for the first time ever in 1993) is part of his M.O. It's evidence. If they're presenting evidence at a press conference, why would they leave some out?

If they include it, then conspiracy theorists point to it as a sign that they're covering up his family's involvement. If they leave it out, conspiracy theorists will claim that his family must have been involved this time because it wasn't stated they were on vacation. If they don't say anything until asked by the press, conspiracy theorists will have some other hare-brained explanation for how that implicates his family somehow. They can't win against conspiracy theorists - no one can, they can twist literally anything to fit their fantasy - so why should they bother trying? I'd rather they keep on doing things as they're doing them and focus on solving more murders (LISK or unrelated) than try to appease conspiracy theorists who will never be satisfied anyway. That's a losing and extremely time-wasting game.

I can't believe we've reached the point where people seem agitated that Tierney is publicly clearing the family. It smacks of, "Stop debunking us!"

 

[snarast]

I can't believe we've reached the point where people seem agitated that Tierney is publicly clearing the family. It smacks of, "Stop debunking us!"

Have you read accounts of BTK , Robert Hansen or Gary Ridgway having their families mentioned or declared innocent in early pressers?

 

[wcasewatch]

Have you read accounts of BTK , Robert Hansen or Gary Ridgway having their families mentioned or declared innocent in early pressers?

BTK broke into other people's homes. The vast majority of Ridgway's occurred while he was divorced.

Not really the same thing as Heuermann, who is believed to have killed his victims inside his home while he was married w/ kids.

Hansen kidnapped a surviving victim named Cindy Paulson and brought her back to his house while his family were out of town. This was made clear from the start.

Regardless of the above, I feel as though people are missing the point with this. Heuermann killing while his family were out of town is a pattern that will likely be highlighted in court. It is part of a larger puzzle. It is not just a case of "clearing" the family. They want to show that there were a number of similarities between this series of murders.

I also don't see a problem with a DA being forthcoming with the facts. I thought that everyone here liked clarity? Didn't this case suffer from a lack of public information? Are we suddenly against the truth being revealed now that it doesn't line up with our preconceptions?

 

[DS2021]

Just want to remind people how close baby doe and Valerie were together

https://assets3.cbsnewsstatic.com/hub/i/r/2020/12/13/f211e550-b6f0-41ac-9799-42d4ac8eebcf/thumbnail/640x435/c7f6d0544a63bfaf649fb4c76514a3d5/lisk-victims-map.jpg?v=2287029998c5246c93d6dd038eb30603

.04 miles is roughly 211 feet.

 

[Ruminations]

Can you provide me with a link that shows Rodney Harrison vetted Alison Poe's story? Because from what I remember, he merely stood beside Ray during the press conference and then encouraged people to come forward. And I believe that was in relation to the Karen Vergata story.

Ray has made all kinds of dubious claims that have never been proven. Very easy to list.

If it were easy to list untrue assertions by John Ray, you would have already done so, right?

MOO