By Hank Russell
In a win for the prosecution, a judge ruled that all charges against alleged serial killer Rex Heuermann will be tried together. The defense had argued for separate trials, claiming that the modus operandi of the last four murders differed from the first six.
In his decision, Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Timothy P. Mazzei said that, despite “minor inconsistencies” in the way Heuermann allegedly carried out the last four murders, there will be no separate trials.
As previously reported in Long Island Life & Politics, Heuermann, of Massapequa Park, is facing 10 charges for the alleged murders of seven women — Melissa Barthelemy, Megan Waterman, Amber Costello, Maureen Brainard-Barnes, Jessica Taylor, Sandra Costilla and Valerie Mack. The latter’s body was found at two separate locations.
In a copy of the decision obtained by LILP, Mazzei noted that the defense argued that the conditions of the victims’ bodies were different; some “had indications of mutilation” or were “dismembered” while others were “intact.”
“[S]ome were wrapped .in burlap and others were not, and some were deposited in Gilgo Beach and others were deposited in Manorville and North Sea,” Mazzei wrote. “As a result, the defendant argues that the offenses charged in counts seven through ten cannot be properly joined with counts one through six.” Further, the defense called for a separate trial for counts one through six and four separate trials for counts seven through ten.
While they noted “minor differences” in each of the seven murders, the pattern used by Heuermann in each murder “was distinctive to establish a specific modus operandi thereby making the evidence of the other murders probative of the defendant’s identity” The prosecution also argued that the victims were “inextricably interwoven by geographic proximity (where they were found), victimology (their gender, age, physical characteristics and socioeconomic standing), digital and physical evidence (hairs, mementos retention of publications specific to each crime, etc.), forensic analysis, the defendant’s own planning document found on his computer (his blueprint of the murders he used to plan each one) and his internet searches for violent acts of rape and the sexualization of mutilation.”
Mazzei denied the defendant’s motion and sided with the prosecution. “[W]hile counts seven through ten represent separate criminal transactions, proof of each charged offense is admissible and material to the proof of the other offenses,” he wrote in his decision. “Here, the common overlapping evidence including the defendant’s pattern and modus operandi among each offense not only establishes the defendant’s identity as the perpetrator of the murders, but his intent and motive to commit each murder.”