Introduction

It should not be lost on any researcher or reader, (or content creator and their subscribers), that Rita Tangredi and Colleen McNamee were brutally murdered, their lives and any aspirations they’ve had were taken from them- brutally. These were young women with a future, despite the circumstances of their deaths.

The question presented by the Bittrolff case presently is not that Rita and Colleen were murdered, they were. Their deaths were horrific and their families have lived with the consequences for decades. They have had to live through public opinion, alternative suspects, and allegations of County corruption all while trying to live their lives without their lost loved one.

However, the accountability for those murders remains in question and is the objective of this paper.

To this point, the more difficult question is whether the evidence used to convict John Bittrolff in 2017 is sufficiently reliable to justify continuing to deprive him of his liberty for two consecutive terms of 25 years to life.

It is my opinion that the record presented in the totality of Bittrolff’s appeals, particularly the most current appeal, raises serious reasons to say that it is not.

Bittrolff was convicted after a prosecution in which the People’s central physical evidence was his DNA on “intimate samples” associated with Rita and Colleen. There were no eyewitnesses who ever mentioned Bittrolff, let alone ever saw him with either Rita or Colleen. There were no fingerprints or hair evidence connecting him to either crime scene, or killing. The prosecution only had the DNA found within the victims and leveraged that in order to show sexual contact as evidence of murder.

Background

John Bittrolff grew up in Mastic Beach and also lived in Shirley. He lived in Center Moriches prior to moving to Manorville in 1997. He graduated from William Floyd High School, Class of 1985. John worked as a carpenter and it was reported that he operated two contracting companies out of his home: Coastal Construction Co. & My 2 Boyz Construction.

On July 22, 2014, he was charged with the murders of Rita Tangredi & Colleen McNamee as a result of a DNA match to semen found in both victims. Investigators initially matched DNA to his brother who was arrested for assault. They had to trail John, his brother and his family members to retrieve DNA to determine which brother was the actual killer.

Rita Tangredi was last seen hitchhiking on Montauk Highway in East Patchogue. Her body was found on November 2nd, 1993. Rita had been strangled and brutally beaten, skull almost cracked in two. Visible blood stains found. Covered with leaves & brush. Posed naked with legs apart and both hands above her head.

Colleen McNamee was last seen at a diner in Islandia. On January 30th, 1994, her body was found strangled and brutally beaten, partially crushed skull, every bone in her face broken except for her nose and jaw. No visible blood stains found. Clothes scattered about. Posed naked with legs apart and one hand above her head, other hand clutching her sweatshirt.

Both Rita and Colleen were found with one shoe nearby and one shoe missing. Both worked as survival workers.

John Bittrolff also remained a suspect in the murder of Sandra Castilla, who was found on November 20th, 1993. Sandra was from Queens (found in North Sea, near Southampton), was 5’2”, 145 lbs. The condition of her body position was similar to Rita and Colleen, according to law enforcement. Also missing a shoe. One notable difference: “unlike the other two victims, the body was found mutilated after death”.

Rex Heuermann has since been charged, pleaded guilty and convicted of Sandra’s and murder and the killings of Karen Vergata, Valerie Mack, Jessica Taylor, Maureen Brainard-Barnes, Melissa Barthelemy, Megan Waterman and Amber Lynn Costello.

On July 5th, 2017, after jurors were deadlocked three times, he was convicted of both murders. On September 12th, 2017, he was sentenced to two 25 years to life consecutive sentences.

After the trial, Suffolk County Assistant District Attorney Robert Biancavilla released a statement noting that Bittrolff was likely responsible for the deaths of other women, and that, “there are remains of the victims at Gilgo that may be attributed to the handiwork of Mr. Bittrolff, and that investigation is continuing”. No further charges were ever issued on Bittrolff. Some speculated that the DA’s office was planning to scapegoat Bittrolff or they were using that as a publicity stunt to garner votes for Spota’s upcoming election. It is also important to note that immediately following Bittrolff’s arrest, District Attorney Thomas Spota shot down the notion of any relation to the LISK case.

Alternatively, there is some doubt of his guilt. In 2018, it came out that the lab where Bittrolff’s DNA was certified had “falsified a certification document associated with a high-profile case going to trial”. The allegation was made by a former employee and he was referring to the Bittrolff trial. The lab later went on to say, “the Division is unaware of any instances in which an incorrect DNA identification has resulted in a wrongful arrest or prosecution”.

His defense attorney, William Keahon, was entangled in the Suffolk County corruption during the tenure of former SC DA Patrick Henry. Considering all the corruption in Suffolk, this has raised concerns.

There were several other men’s DNA found on Colleen and Rita as well as physical evidence, including hair, at both crime scenes. None of the other men have been identified. This may have raised reasonable doubts for the jurors as they were initially deadlocked three times before the judge instructed them to use the Allen charge. It was reported they were deadlocked 10-2 for guilty before reaching a verdict.

Beginning in November 2022, The Legal Aid Society of Suffolk County picked up John’s case.

Sperm Density - Junk Science

As mentioned above, the People’s central physical evidence was the presence of DNA on “intimate samples” associated with Rita and Colleen and they needed to transform contact into murder.

The mechanism used to accomplish that transformation was Dr. Michael Caplan’s “sperm density analysis.”

That evidence presents a profound problem.

According to the defense’s post-conviction expert, Dr. Karl Reich, there is no generally accepted scientific methodology by which the number of sperm observed on a slide can establish the amount of time between intercourse and death. The technique has never been validated by an accredited forensic laboratory. The foundational variables required to perform such an analysis: the original number of sperm deposited and the rate at which sperm are lost, were unknown. Moreover, the studies relied upon by Dr. Caplan did not establish the proposition for which they were being used in this case, particularly in deceased victims.

And then came the evidence that could not have been presented to the jury in 2017 because it did not exist yet in that form.

In 2024, Cybergenetics reanalyzed previously inconclusive DNA evidence using TrueAllele. The analysis produced three additional male profiles. Most significantly, it identified Unknown Male A as the same male contributor across Colleen McNamee’s vaginal swab, her stretch pants, and the male dungarees recovered at her crime scene.

John Bittrolff was excluded from the newly resolved samples.
That matters enormously.

The original jury was asked to evaluate a prosecution theory in which Bittrolff’s DNA was presented as the critical forensic bridge between sexual contact and murder. Today, the evidentiary picture is materially different: there is a male profile, distinct from Bittrolff, that appears both on Colleen’s body and on physical evidence located at the scene where her body was found.

That is not simply “more DNA.”

It completely changes the questions the jury would have been asked to answer.

Let’s examine further….

I. The Conviction Was Far More Dependant Upon DNA Than The Verdict Suggests

There was no other physical evidence linking John Bittrolff to either crime:

• no hair

• no blood

• no fingerprints

• no witnesses

• no demonstrated match between the tire impressions found with Bittrolff’s truck

• no demonstrated match between boot prints and Bittrolff’s shoes (Bittrolff wore a size 9, boot prints estimated by prosecution to be 9-12, which is an absurdly wide range).

These differences are notable.

DNA can only place people together at a single moment, it cannot prove murder and the prosecution needed something more.

They landed at “Sperm Density”.

II. The Sperm Density “Evidence” Was The Bridge Between Sex and Murder.

Dr. Caplan testified that sperm can be counted and categorized on a 0 - 4+ scale and that the amount of sperm could be used to estimate how long before death intercourse happened.

For Colleen, Dr. Caplan characterized the anal sample sample as 4+, which he associated with intercourse within 24 hours of death.

For Rita, he characterized the vaginal sample as 3+, which he associated with intercourse within 45 hours of death.

The significance of his testimony was obvious, it showed contact in a relatively close period of time, thereby making him their killer.

The defense’s post-conviction expert, Dr. Karl Reich, challenged the scientific foundation of the methodology in extraordinarily direct terms. Dr. Reich concluded that there was no generally accepted method for estimating time since intercourse through sperm counting, there was no accredited scientific lab that has validated that methodology- at all. Dr. Reich identified fundamental variables that could not be known “after the fact”, including the original amount of sperm deposited and the rate at which sperm deteriorated or disappeared. This problem is even more acutely apparent since there is no methodology applicable to deceased victims because decomposition and post mortem conditions add even more variables to the mix.

What is instantly troubling to me is that Dr. Caplan acknowledged- at trial- that he had not only, never previously testified concerning sperm density analysis, he had never conducted research or experiments on the subject, and that he relied indirectly on decades old literature.

This presents a fundamental constitutional question:

Should a defendant spend the rest of their life in prison because a jury was permitted to hear and unvalidated scientific methodology as though it could reliably establish a timeline between sexual intercourse and death?

This question alone warrants serious appellate scrutiny.

III. Defense Counsel’s Failure to Challenge the Science Is Not a Minor Technical Error.

The ineffective counsel argument becomes particularly powerful because the alleged deficiency was not failure to challenge some collateral piece of evidence.

It concerned the prosecution’s most important inferential evidence.

The 440 Motions, including the July 31, 2026 Appellate Brief states that post-conviction counsel obtained Dr. Reich’s expert opinion and that trial counsel, (Jon Manley), subsequently acknowledged that requesting an expert or Frye hearing “did not occur” to him, rather than it being a deliberate strategic decision.

This distinction matters…here’s why:

A failure to investigate because counsel deliberately chose another reasonable strategy is one thing….

A failure to investigate because the issue simply never occured to counsel is fundamentally different.

Under New York’s ineffective assistance jurisprudence, the inquiry is not limited to the federal constitutional floor. The New York Court of Appeals has recognized that a single error may be sufficiently serious to deprive a defendant of meaningful representation when the error compromises the fairness of the proceeding.

People vs. Caban

In the Bittrolff case the alleged failure was compounded:

• no Frye hearing

• no defense expert

• no meaningful scientific challenge to sperm density analysis

• no adequate attack on the methodology underlying the prosecution’s timeline

• no effective counterweight to the prosecution’s use of that evidence.

The consequence was not theoretical.

The jury specifically requested the sperm density evidence during deliberations. The prosecution repeatedly emphasized it during summation.

The very evidence that may have been scientifically weakest appears to have been among the evidence the jury found most important.

IV. The New Cybergenetics Evidence Changes the Evidentiary Landscape.

Here is arguably the strongest reason for relief.

The Suffolk County Crime Lab had previously characterized several DNA mixtures as “inconclusive”. That was the scientific limitation at the time and that was the evidentiary state presented to the jury.

Cybergenetics later obtained the underlying raw data and reanalyzed selected samples using TrueAllele, (also used in their prosecution of Rex Heuermann).

The result was not simply a different scientific interpretation of the same conclusion, the analysis produced additional male profiles that had not been available to the jury.

Specifically, Cybergenetics identified Unknown Males A, B and C and determined that John Bittrolff was excluded from several samples previously reported as inconclusive.

The most significant finding concerns Unknown Male A.

Unknown Male A was identified in:

• the sperm component of Colleen’s vaginal swab

• the sperm component of her stretch-pants

• the non-sperm component of her strech-pants

• the sperm component of the male dungarees

• the non-sperm component of the male dungarees

The male dungarees were found close to Colleen’s body and contained her blood

Thus, according to the Cybergenetics analysis, the same unknown male profile appears not merely in biological material associated with Colleen but across items associated with the location where her body was discovered.

This distinction is so utterly critical.

The original jury knew that other male DNA existed. But it did not know that a single unknown male profile could be resolved across multiple pieces of evidence and associated with both Colleen and the crime scene.

Instead, the jury was told that several samples were inconclusive.

V. “The Jury Already Knew About Other DNA” Does Not Answer The Problem.

The trial court basically characterized the Cybergenetics findings as essentially a nuanced variation of evidence already known to the jury.

The reasoning is difficult to reconcile with the actual evidentiary development.

At trial, the jury knew that some samples contained male DNA that could not be resolved. After the TrueAllele analysis, the jury could have been told something much more specific:

A particular male profile, other than Bittrolff, could be identified across multiple items associated with Colleen and her crime scene, and John Bittrolff was excluded from those newly resolved samples.

Those two propositions are equivalent.

There is a profound difference between:

“There may be another male somewhere in these mixtures.”

and:

“The same unknown male is present on the victim and on multiple items at the location where her body was found".”

The latter creates an evidentiary pathway toward an alternative perpetrator.

That is precisely why the appellate brief relies upon The People vs. Lorenzo, where post-conviction DNA evidence was recognized as significant because unidentified DNA can demonstrate the possibility that another unidentified person committed the crime can create reasonable doubt.

VI. The Jury Was Already Struggling With The Case.

Perhaps the most compelling contextual fact is what happened inside the jury room.

The jury did not quickly return guilty verdicts.

The jury deliberated for 5 days.

They issued more than 20 notes.

They repeatedly requested evidence and instructions concerning:

• DNA

• Sperm Density

• Reasonable Doubt

• Circumstantial evidence

• Crime scene photographs

• Physical evidence

• Medical evidence

• Shoe evidence

• Wood particle evidence

• Autopsy evidence

Perhaps most importantly, the jury declared itself deadlocked three times.

On June 28, it stated:

“We’re unable to reach a unanimous decision”

On June 29, it stated it was:

“deadlocked after numerous discussions and votes”

And on July 5th, it sent a note in large block letters:

“WE ARE DEADLOCKED”

The Court denied the defense request for a mistrial and gave a second Allen charge without first conducting an inquiry into whether the deadlock was genuinely hopeless. After the 2nd Allen charge, the jury returned guilty verdicts that afternoon.

That chronology is extraordinarily important when assessing the significance of newly discovered DNA.

The question under CPL § 440.10 is not whether the new evidence guarantees acquittal.

The question is whether there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been. ore favorable.

A jury that was already unable to reach a unanimous verdict, despite having the advantage of hearing the original evidence, cannot reasonably be treated as though it were an overwhelmingly convinced jury when evaluating powerful new exculpatory evidence.

The appellate brief specifically relies on People vs. Robinson, where the Second Department recognized the significance of post-conviction DNA evidence in evaluating whether there was a reasonable probability of a different verdict, particularly in the context of a jury requiring Allen charges.

That comparison deserves serious consideration.

VII. The Rex Heuermann Development Does Not Prove Bittrolff Innocent- But Makes Further Investigation More Important.

I want to ensure I handle this point carefully.

Rex Heuermann’s identification as the perpetrator of Sandra Costilla’s murder does not, by itself, prove that Heuermann killed Rita or Colleen.

Likewise, the fact that Heuermann was excluded as Unknown Male A does not identify Unknown Male A. But the Heuermann development fundamentally changes the historical context surrounding the Bittrolff prosecution.

Sandra Rajcoomar Costilla was another 1993 homicide.

The prosecution had previously publicly described similarities among the murders of Sandra, Rita and Colleen and had identified John Bittrolff as a suspect in Sandra’s death despite acknowledging that DNA did not link him to her murder.

The subsequent prosecution of Heuermann for Sandra’s murder and his April 8, 2026 guilty plea to her murder, means that the State’s earlier suggestion of a common perpetrator between Sandra and Rita and Colleen had effectively collapsed.

That does not establish that Heuermann killed Rita or Colleen.

It does however, establishes something much narrower but enormously important:

The State was previously willing to use similarities between these crimes to suggest Bittrolff might be responsible for Sandra’s death, while the State is now responsible for proving Sandra’s murder against a different perpetratotr.

That history strengthens the argument that every available piece of biological evidence from these cases should be subjected to modern testing rather than selectively preserved or interpreted through assumptions made decades ago.

VIII. The Untested Hairs Are A Missed Opportunity For Modern Identification.

The case also contains another important unanswered question: unidentified hairs recovered from the victims.

The trial record reportedly established that unknown hairs were recovered from Rita and Colleen and that mitochondrial DNA testing was available but not performed.

The defense obviously sought mitochondrial testing. REQUEST DENIED.

The significance of this evidence is now impossible to ignore.

The identification of Rex Heuermann was itself assisted by hair evidence and mitochondrial DNA analysis.

That doesn’t mean the hairs in the Bittrolff case belong to Heuermann, or to anyone else connected to the murders.

It means the technology capable or potentially identifying an unknown contributor exists, the evidence apparently exists, and the State has an interest in discovering rather than avoiding the answer.

The proper question is not:

“Can we guarantee that testing will produce a result?”

The proper question is:

Why should potentially probative biological evidence remain untested when the defendant is serving two consecutive life sentences and the central question is whether the correct person was convicted?

IX. The Investigation Contained Other Significant Weaknesses.

The problems do not stop with DNA.

Tire Evidence

The prosecution presented testimony that tire impressions at Rita’s crime scene were consistent with tires used on a 1993 GMC truck.

But no actual tire from Bittrolff’s truck was compared with the crime scene impression.

The defense subsequently obtained information indicating that Bittrolff’s GMC had dual rear tires, while the relevant crime scene impressions did not correspond to that configuration. Consel apparently did not adequately investigate or present this information.

Shoe Evidence

Work-boot style impressions were found at Rita’s crime scene.

But the People did not establish that Bittrolff owned boots bearing the same tread.

The documented shoes, examined years later were size 9 and 9½ and were not described as work boots.

The crime scene impressions were estimated broadly at sizes 9 through 12.

Even a crime lab employee’s own work-boots and that of a law enforcement officer present at the crime scene were never compared with the impressions.

These were therefore not individualized identifications. They were class-level observations presented in a case where the jury was searching for a connection to Bittrolff.

This distinction also matters.

X. Evidence Was Destroyed.

The record raises an additional institutional concern: evidence was destroyed before trial.

Again: Evidence was destroyed before trial.

The alleged wood chips were destroyed by the Suffolk County Property Bureau.

Photographs of the actual wood chips apparently did not exist.

Items taken from the vehicle of Detective Michael Murphy, who had previously been considered a suspect, were also destroyed.

The defense requested access to the Murphy investigation file. REQUEST DENIED.

The destruction of evidence does not automatically establish misconduct. But when a defendant’s conviction is later questioned because modern testing reveals previously unresolved DNA and because the original investigation contained alternative suspects, destruction becomes much more consequential.

A criminal justice system cannot confidently say “the evidence proves the defendant” while simultaneously being unable to produce or examine significant portions of the original evidence.

XI. The Alternative Suspect Evidence Deserved More Serious Treatment.

The original investigation reportedly contained numerous tips concerning other individuals:

• members of the Pagan motorcycle gang

• “Tony the Wig”

• Individuals allegedly involved in prostitution and drug activity surrounding Colleen

• a man reportedly associated with a gray van

• Steven/Steve

• other persons identified through investigative tips.

There were also the allegations concerning local law enforcement personnel:

• Michael Murphy

• Teddy Hart

Michael “Bad Lieutenant” Murphy was a suspect.

Teddy hart was a Suffolk County police officer who had been investigated for allegations involving threats against women and was known to frequent sex workers. A photograph recovered from his home reportedly depicted a bound woman with blood on her face.

Those facts do not establish that any of these people committed the murders.

But that is not the standard.

The defense sought to introduce third-party culpability evidence to demonstrate shortcomings in the police investigation.

The Court restricted that evidence.

The result was a trial in which the defense was attempting to explain the existence of unidentified male DNA while being constrained in its ability to develop the investigative history surrounding alternative suspects.

In hindsight, that becomes substantially more significant.

XII. The Sandra Costilla Case File Should Have Been Examined.

This may be one of the most consequential discovery issues.

The people had represented, rather dramatically and publicly, that John Bittrolff was a suspect in Sandra Costilla’s murder because of similarities between the cases.

The defense obviously requested access to Sandra’s case file. The Court initially ordered production of the file.

The following day, it reversed itself and declined to “order the wholesale production”, while reminding the People of their Brady obligations.

Defense counsel asked the Court to review the file itself fo rpotentially exculpatory material. REQUEST DENIED.

The defense received only a document indicating that a hair tested from Sandra’s crime scene did not belong to John Bittrolff.

The later prosecution of Rex Heuermann for Sandra’s murder makes this issue substantially more important.

Again, it does not prove Bittrolff innocent. But it demonstrates what the Sandra Costilla investigation should never have been treated as irrelevant to a prosecution in which the People themselves had asserted similarities among the cases.

XIII. The Prosecutors Summation Raises An Independant Fair-Trial Problem.

The previous 440 Motions and the instant appellate brief identifies a series of prosecutorial errors during summation.

Arguably the most serious were alleged misrepresentations concerning DNA.

The prosecutor reportedly told the jury, in substance, that John Bittrolff’s DNA was the only male DNA found on the victims and repeatedly argued that there was no reasonable explanation for Bittrolff’s DNA being present unless he had killed them.

But in truth, the record contained additional unidentified male DNA

The prosecutor also reportedly argued that the absence of Bittrolff’s DNA from Colleen’s stretch-pants demonstrated that intercourse with Bittrolff must have been the final sexual encounter because she never dressed again.

The defense argues that this was factually false and unsupported by the evidence.

The prosecutor allegedly:

• overstated the DNA evidence

• misstated physical evidence

• described Bittrolff as wearing work boots without evidence supporting that as fact

• suggested he hunted or rode ATV’s without supporting testimony

• Inaccurately suggested he had not denied killing the women

• attacked defense counsel

• shifted the burden by emphasizing what defense counsel supposedly failed to investigate

• vouched for witnesses

• vouched for the District Attorney’s Office

• told the jury the prosecution had essentially “solved” the case through outstanding investigative work.

Any one statement may be disputed as harmless, but the cumulative effect is staggering.

When the prosecution’s case is circumstantial, heavily dependent on forensic evidence, and ultimately produces a jury that repeatedly declares itself deadlocked, the cumulative effect of repeated misstatements becomes much harder to dismiss as harmless.

XIV. The CODIS Evidence Raises a Confrontation Issue.

The investigation began in part because a forensic DNA profile produced a partial match to John Bittrolff’s brother Timothy.

But the person who actually conducted the relevant CODIS search and made the decision to use the moderate-stringency search parameters was a person who did not testify. Instead, another person testified, despite not personally conducting the search.

The defense rightly argued that this violated Bittrolff’s Sixth Amendment right to confront one’s accuser because the jury was presented with testimonial forensic information through a witness who lacked knowledge of the critical search.

This is not merely procedural trivia.

The partial CODIS match was the investigative bridge that brought police to John Bittrolff.

The chain was:

1. Unknown crime scene

2. partial match to Timothy Bittrolff

3. Investigation of Timothy’s relatives

4. Surveillance of John Bittrolff

5. DNA collection via abandonment sample

6. Arrest

When the initial investigative bridge is itself challenged in constitutional grounds, the integrity of the entire prosecution deserves scrutiny.

XV. The Jury’s Deadlock Is More Than A Footnote.

The deadlock issue deserves keen attention because it provides a rare window into how uncertain the jury actually was.

The jury did not simply take a long time. It repeatedly said it could not agree. The Court responded with Allen charges rather than terminating the deliberations.

The second Allen charge contained language directing a dissenting juror to consider whether his or her doubt was reasonable because the majority did not share it.

The jury then returned guilty verdicts the same day.

That is notable.

The appellate brief analogizes this to People vs. Sheldon, where repeated declarations of deadlock followed by continuous deliberations were held to have a coercive effect on the verdict.

A critical point is this:

A guilty verdict reached only after a jury has repeatedly announced it cannot reach one is not necessarily equivalent, analytically, to a verdict reached after a confident and uninterrupted deliberation.

And when the same case later acquires new DNA evidence that materially strengthens the alternative suspect theory, the historical deadlock becomes extraordinarily relevant.

XVI. The Case Has Reached A Point Where “Beyond A Reasonable Doubt” Must Be Reexamined Through Modern Evidence.

The original conviction may be summarized in the simplest possible way:

Bittrolff’s DNA was found on the victims.

But that summary omits the central question:

What did the DNA actually prove?

It may prove sexual contact.

It does not automatically prove murder.

The prosecution’s answer to that was sperm density.

If that analysis is scientifically unreliable, then a critical bridge in the prosecution’s theory utterly disappears.

Now add the modern DNA findings.

The picture becomes:

Bittrolff DNA on certain intimate samples, PLUS, unknown male DNA on Colleen, PLUS, a newly resolved male profile associated with both Colleen and multiple crime scene items, PLUS, Bittrolff excluded from several previously inconclusive samples, PLUS, unknown hairs never subjected to mitochondrial DNA testing, PLUS, no eyewitness placing Bittrolff with either victims immediately before death, PLUS, no individualized tire identification, PLUS, no individual footwear identification, PLUS, destroyed evidence, PLUS, restricted alternative suspect evidence, PLUS, a disputed scientific timeline, PLUS, a jury that repeatedly declared itself deadlocked.

That cumulative picture is fundamentally different from the case presented to the jury in 2017.

XVII. CPL § 440.10 Does Not Require Certainty of Acquittal.

This is perhaps the most important legal point.

The appellate brief relies on CPL § 440.10(1)(g-1), which permits relief where post-conviction forensic DNA testing creates a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been more favorable to a defendant convicted after trial.

The defense cites People v. Robinson for the proposition that the defendant does not have to establish virtual certainty that the jury would have acquitted him. Rather, the question is whether there exists a reasonable probability of a more favorable result.

That standard is critically important here.

The Court does not have to decide:

“Has Cybergenetics proven who killed Rita and Colleen?”

It needs to ask:

“Would a properly instructed jury, knowing what we know now, have had a reasonable probability of reaching a more favorable verdict?”

Given the new male profile, the exclusions, the jury’s original deadlock, and the centrality of the DNA evidence, the answer is at a minimum sufficiently plausible that continued incarceration without a new trial warrants serious reconsideration.

XVIII. Why Vacatur Is Justified.

There are two separate pathways to relief:

Vacatur based upon the new DNA evidence.

The new Cybergenetics findings fundamentally alter the evidentiary record. They do not merely add another unknown contributor. They identify a previously unresolved male profile across multiple pieces of evidence and exclude John Bittrolff from additional samples.

The Second Department has recognized that post-conviction DNA evidence can warrant relief when it creates a reasonable probability of a more favorable verdict. The defense’s reliance upon People v. Robinson and People v. Lorenzo therefore gives this argument a meaningful legal foundation.

Vacatur based upon cumulative constitutional and trial errors.

Even apart from the DNA motion, the case presents cumulative concerns:

• Ineffective assistance of counsel

• Failure to challenge potentially unreliable scientific evidence

• failure to obtain expert assistance

• failure to adequately investigate physical evidence

• failure to investigate alternative witnesses

• destruction of potentially relevant evidence

• restrictions on 3rd party culpability evidence

• alleged prosecutorial misconduct

• alleged burden-shifting

• alleged misrepresentation of DNA evidence

• confrontation concerns regarding CODIS

• refusal to provide or independently review Sandra Costilla file

• repeated jury deadlocks followed by continued deliberation

Viewed individually, the State may argue that each error was harmless, but when viewed together, that argument becomes significantly weaker. The constitutional guarantee is not merely a trial in which evidence was technically admitted.

XIX. If Vacatur Is Considered Too Broad, A New Trial Is the Minimum Appropriate Remedy.

There is a legitimate distinction between saying:

“John Bittrolff is factually innocent”.

and saying:

“John Bittrolff’s conviction can no longer be regarded as sufficiently reliable to stand without a new trial”

The second proposition requires a much lower evidentiary commitment.

A new trial would allow the State to present its evidence again. It would also allow the defense to present modern DNA findings. It would allow experts to debate sperm density methodology- should the People remain committed to that theory.

A new trial would permit the jury to hear that Bittrolff is excluded from additional samples. It would permit the jury to hear about Unknown Male A. It would permit modern forensic experts to address the untested hairs. It would permit the parties to the relevance of the Sandra Costilla investigation.

And most importantly, it would permit a new jury, not the same jury that struggled for five days and repeatedly declared itself deadlocked, to decide whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the State’s evidence remains sufficient after that process, it can obtain another conviction.

If it does not, justice will have been served.

XX. The Most Important Principle: The System Should Want the Answer.

Justice for Rita Tangredi and Colleen McNamee requires identifying the person who killed them.

If John Bittrolff is that person, the strongest possible evidence should establish it.

If he is not, then continuing to incarcerate him does nothing for Rita or Colleen.

The discovery of Unknown Male A does not identify a killer- (I admittedly struggle accepting this, but am making every attempt to be objective).

The exclusion of Bittrolff from additional samples does not itself establish innocence.

The Heuermann development does not prove Bittrolff was innocent.

But collectively, these facts establish something profoundly important:

There are now questions about the physical evidence that the 2017 jury never had the opportunity to consider.

And those questions concern exactly the evidence upon which the conviction depended.

XXI. What Should Happen Now.

At minimum, the following should occur:

1. A new trial should be granted, or the convictions should be vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

2. All remaining biological evidence should be subjected to modern testing where scientifically appropriate- regardless of the cost.

3. The unidentified hairs from Rita and Colleen should receive mitochondrial DNA analysis if the evidence remains suitable.

4. Unknown Male A, B and C should be searched against appropriate DNA databases consistent with applicable law and forensic protocols.

5. All known alternative-suspect DNA standards should be compared against the newly resolved profiles, where legally and scientifically appropriate.

6. The complete Sandra Costilla investigative file should be independently reviewed for Brady material.

7. The destruction of evidence should be fully documented, including the circumstances surrounding the destruction of the wood-chip evidence and the Michael Murphy vehicle evidence.

8. The scientific validity of sperm-density analysis should be litigated in a proper evidentiary hearing, with qualified experts on both sides.

9. The CODIS partial-match process should be subjected to full adversarial examination, including the testimony of the person who actually performed the search and altered the search parameters.

10. The Court should evaluate the cumulative effect of the alleged prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance, evidentiary restrictions and jury-deadlock issues rather than viewing each problem in isolation.

Conclusion

The strongest case for relief in John Bittrolff’s case is not built on speculation.

It is built on the evolution of the evidence.

In 2017, the jury was asked to interpret Bittrolff’s DNA in a case where other male DNA existed but could not be resolved, and where the prosecution used sperm-density analysis to establish that his sexual contact with the victims occurred close enough to their deaths to support the inference that he was their killer.

Today, the jury’s evidentiary picture would be materially different.

Modern probabilistic DNA analysis has identified a male profile other than Bittrolff across multiple items associated with Colleen McNamee and her crime scene. Bittrolff has been excluded from additional samples that were inconclusive at trial. These are Colleen’s stretch-pants and the male jeans, both which had Unknown Male A DNA and the male pants having Colleen’s blood,

At the same time, the scientific foundation of the principal evidence used to establish the timing of Bittrolff’s alleged sexual contact has been seriously challenged by a qualified forensic expert, and the defense maintains that trial counsel never sought a Frye hearing or retained an appropriate expert to challenge it.

The original jury was not a jury that returned an immediate or overwhelming verdict. It deliberated for days, repeatedly requested DNA and sperm-density evidence, and declared itself deadlocked three times before returning guilty verdicts after two Allen charges.

And the case now exists in a legal environment where the Second Department has granted leave to review the denial of the DNA-based CPL § 440.10 motion and has consolidated that appeal with Bittrolff’s existing appeals.

That does not mean the court has found John Bittrolff innocent.

It means the courts have recognized that the issues presented are worthy of appellate review.

And that is precisely where the justice system should be.

The proper question is not whether the State can still construct a theory of guilt around the original conviction.

The proper question is whether, after considering everything that is now known, a fair and properly informed jury could reasonably reach a different conclusion.

There is more than enough here to require that question to be answered.

At minimum, John Bittrolff deserves a new trial.

And given the cumulative nature of the problems—the newly discovered DNA, the exclusions, the disputed scientific methodology, the ineffective-assistance allegations, the destroyed evidence, the restricted alternative-suspect evidence, the Costilla-file issue, the prosecutorial-misconduct allegations, the confrontation issue, and the extraordinary jury deadlock—the stronger argument is that the convictions themselves have become sufficiently unreliable that vacatur is the more appropriate remedy.

Justice for Rita Tangredi and Colleen McNamee does not require preserving a conviction at all costs.

Justice requires finding the truth.

And when modern forensic science produces evidence that the original jury never saw, the justice system should not be afraid of what that evidence might say.

It should insist upon hearing it.

The online blogger known as Murder Inc. had been a staple in the LISK communities for several years. They have provided immeasurable and voluminous information and given citizen researchers paths to investigate.

But, how are they perceived now? After several ‘jabs” at me, I’ve decided to look deeper into Murder Inc, their process, the research, the strengths and the weaknesses. Most researchers in this space may “shrink” from pursuing this, but I had once genuinely admired them, now I question their motives and efficacy.

Murder Inc. is an “anonymous” online blogger who doesn’t have a conventional biography listed on their site, but has a claim that “Founders of Murder, Inc. had the pleasure of residing in Massapequa, NY and pushing shopping carts at the local supermarket during the Gilgo Beach Murders.”.

They go on to claim they’ve been researching the LISK case for “5610+ Days”- roughly over 15 years, and counting.

Their mission statement, listed on The Early LISK tab states:

The purpose of this page is to identify any possible murders that could be connected to the Long Island Serial Killer case going back to the early 1980s. Murder, Inc. exposes murder and corruption, and how police coverup unsolved murders by obstructing the public from accessing information about the murders they are too corrupt and derelict to investigate. Many of these murders have (or at least had before Murder, Inc.) “internet silence”, or no mention of the murders anywhere on the internet. Source

The site, and its author are simultaneously, one of the more substantial hubs of obscure LISK era material, (unless they’ve locked a tab), write-ups and an ever-increasingly controversial source because their later work moves far beyond archival research and into highly speculative allegations against law enforcement, prosecutors, the FBI, other individuals, (myself included), and alleged conspiracies. This duality is important.

Murder Inc. remains anonymous by choice and anonymity is important when considering the evolution of their motives but it doesn’t invalidate their research.

LISK “Ecosystem”

Murder Inc., has claimed to be the creator of the LISKiller Reddit Community, and that they were conspired against and removed and subsequently and repeatedly banned from the community.

Arguably Murder Inc.’s greatest contribution has been their highlighting of cases that have had only a brief mention in local media outlets, but have no traceable follow-up stories; cases that have gone cold and under-investigated.

Their research encompasses the collection of newspaper articles from varied sources, rarely found on the internet today- at least not without a concerted and timely effort.

In doing this, Murder Inc., has inspired many others- myself included, to scour Newspapers.com using numerous keyword iterations in order to locate an article, follow a trail, and develop a history. Developing proficiency with that website also enlightens a researcher who is seeking leads to see who else might have “clipped” an article and “observe” that person’s “research flow”.

Under the LISK umbrella of attributed and possible victims, Murder Inc., had provided countless missing and murdered persons supported by clippings and a relatively thorough write-up. This has been especially enlightening when it comes to unresolved murdered persons cases. While they would often support a write-up with an image pulled from his Google Map, their map helped motivate me to enhance my own and make mine publicly accessible while theirs remains private.

The website doesn’t just list each potential victim, it tries to establish a connection between them related to Rex Heuermann using victim profiling, locations last seen, disposal sites, methodology, geographic proximity and possible behavioral similarities.

These are legitimate research parameters. In essence, Murder Inc. approaches each possible victim asking the question: why shouldn’t this case be compared against the LISK case?

Murder Inc. never seemed to be particularly interested in limiting their research to just the attributed victims: Maureen Brainard-Barnes, Melissa Barthelemy, Megan Waterman, and Amber Lynn Costello. There were also dismembered victims widely believed to be victims of the same killer- Karen Vergata 1996, Valerie Mack 2000 and Jessica Taylor 2003.

Their theories were much more broader. They, rightly so, asked whether LISK could’ve been active before 1996 and not just on Long Island.

The danger however is the reverse: If the suspect could theoretically have killed before the known crimes, almost any earlier unsolved crime can become a candidate.

The problems arise when Murder Inc.’s inferences become stronger- in their mind- than the underlying evidence or available information.

1997

Murder Inc. focused extensively on a cluster of dismemberments in the New York City / Long Island area that occurred around the time of the murder and dismemberment of a woman dubbed Peaches, who would be finally identified as Tanya Denise Jackson in 2025.

• Nancy Flores

• Sara Lepkofker

• Jennifer Gaine

• Unidentified dismembered victims

• Other NY area cases

They examined these cases and asked whether they could represent a broader pattern. This is important because 1997 is independently significant in the LISK timeline.

Peaches’ remains were discovered in Hempstead Lake State Park in 1997, while additional remains including those of her child, Tatiana Marie Dykes, were later discovered near Ocean Parkway.

Murder, Inc. therefore asks whether other dismemberments during the same period deserve examination.

Again: Good research question.

But: not proof of a common offender.

Some overlapping traits may be present across all the referenced cases but that alone is inconclusive.

A huge component of Murder Inc.’s reasoning is their reliance on proximity inference:

LISK lived here, victim found here…

LISK worked here, victim found here…

LISK relative lived here,

Building permit here…

The reasoning is useful, forms the basis of my own research and of anyone geo-profiling, but proximity is only a lead generating variable, not definitive.

Murder Inc. begins with solid research, develops confirmation bias and apparently self-affirms his conclusions with a cumulative effect of multiple crimes based on time frame and proximity. Whereas each individual fact may be true, their conclusion may remain factually unsupported; classic example of associative accumulation.

The Christine Belusko The Girl With The Scorpion Tattoo article illustrates this technique particularly clearly.

Murder Inc. reports that Christine Belusko was found murdered on Staten Island in 1991 after being strangled, beaten and burned, with her hands restrained. Her daughter disappeared at approximately the same time.

The site then places alongside that:

• Heuermann’s 1991 marriage in New Jersey

• a building permit bearing his name

• a Staten Island location

• the proximity between that location and Belusko’s body

• a reportedly recovered handcuff key

• Heuermann’s interest in tools

• the hammer associated with the crime.

They list facts up to this point and then deviate from those facts to a presumption of guilt. It is critical for the objective researcher to separate fact from inference from hypothesis.

Murder Inc. rarely makes those distinctions sufficiently explicit.

The arrest and ultimate conviction of Rex Heuermann changed the Murder Inc. blog.

Prior to the arrest Murder Inc. presented us with the valid statement: here are forgotten murders with little to no media exposure or public awareness that could be LISK victims.

After the arrest the entire blog direction pivoted towards: here are forgotten murders that have to be LISK victims.

Furthermore, anyone who challenged that presumption was met with comments from Murder Inc. accusing them of being willing co-conspirators working in tandem with law enforcement to obfuscate the truths (his), and deny genuine justice for a victim, aka, part of the conspiracy.

Murder Inc. and The Heuermann Family

One particularly well researched yet controversial blog post was their investigation into Reverend Kenneth Heuermann: Reverend Heuermann, who Murder Inc. describes as Rex’s cousin and whom it connects to allegations of child sex abuse and a purported child abuse network.

What Murder Inc. researched well were the allegations from an alleged victim and legal and historical materials.

Where Murder Inc. blurs the lines are linking through inference, that Rex was possibly a party to this.

Murder Inc. dove obsessively deeper into the Heuermann family with posts:

Early LISK , Upstate New York , The Priest of Babylon , each post attempting to correlate missing and murdered persons attached to locations approximately aligned with that of Heuermann family members.

Shannan Gilbert and the Harrowing 911 Call.

Where the blog and its author have devolved most dramatically, to its own detriment, has been their obstinate position regarding the 911 call.

The April Fool’s Day 2024 article You Better Hide Too , marks a watershed moment for the Murder Inc. blog and it’s author, where their belief that there was a second woman in Joseph Brewer’s house the morning Shannan made the 911 call and subsequently disappeared.

This ideation has become rooted, so deeply imbedded in Murder Inc.’s belief of institutionalized concealment- “conspiracy”, that their entire platform and reputation has been compromised because of it.

There is no evidence of a second woman present that early morning. But there is enough there for Murder Inc. to incorporate this as the centerpiece of his overarching narrative of police cover-up and conspiracy.

This “enhanced audio” provided to Murder Inc. by “Phil” is not definitive. There is no mention of what methods or technology was used to “enhance” the audio, but it certainly wasn’t law enforcement.

There is no “2nd person” mentioned in the original transcripts from the team hired by John Ray. There has never been any mention of a “2nd person” from John Ray- that alone is notable. The Gilbert family has never mentioned it and perhaps most notable, is that law enforcement has never mentioned. There are two reason for this- it doesn’t exist, or there is a conspiracy. Murder Inc defaults to the latter, as they are habitually prone to do.

The all-inclusive conspiracy theory is now the central component of Murder Inc.’s identity.

The current homepage now matter-of-factly describes itself as exposing “police conspiracy”.

Another critical misstep is Murder Inc.’s allegation that Nassau County is framing Andrew Dykes for the murder of Tanya Denise Jackson and prioritizes the racial motivations for it.

While I personally do not believe Andrew Dykes is guilty, I base my opinion on what empirical data there is, and if there is a possible racial component it is likely happenstance.

Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary evidence- Murder Inc., provides none. In comparison, my theory is based on established and documented historical evidence of corruption, crime lab mis-management and faulty DNA evidence:

CatchLISK

Nassau County Law Enforcement

Confirmation bias in law enforcement occurs when investigators form an early theory about a suspect, victim, or case and then unconsciously interpret evidence in ways that support that belief while minimizing or overlooking contradictory information. It is one of the most dangerous cognitive biases in criminal investigations because it can shape every s…

Read more

3 months ago · 2 likes · 2 comments · CatchLISK

CatchLISK

Nassau County- A Crime Lab in Distress

In February 2011, amid controversy and mismanagement, the Nassau County Crime Laboratory lost its accreditation- it was restored 2 years later in 2013.. Exploring the root causes led me to compose this article.This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber…

Read more

a month ago · CatchLISK

Murder Inc. moves from investigative research and advocacy to accusation and conspiracy, all unsupported hyperbole. For Murder Inc., he’s convinced only himself of self-sealing conclusions and that contradictory evidence can itself, must be interpreted as proof of the conspiracy.

To simplify: evidence supporting the theory equals proof. Evidence contradicting the theory equals the cover up.

“Linkage Blindness”

It is my opinion that Murder Inc., has developed linkage blindness.

One 2024 article examines multiple deaths around the Calverton and Riverhead areas of Long Island and rightly asks if law enforcement might’ve failed to recognize that some of these cases might be related.

Here, linkage blindness is a valid and real question and a concept that law enforcement agencies train to avoid, but much like confirmation bias, linkage blindness happens frequently especially when confronted with crimes committed in multiple or neighboring jurisdictions. This is conversely applicable to Murder Inc.’s insistence on innumerable murders being attributed to one individual while one systemically flawed county’s struggle with corruption becomes the pro forma for all agencies.

Murder Inc. does a service and disservice simultaneously, affecting his reliability to be taken seriously.

A Community Divided?

Opinions on Murder Inc. vary greatly and canvas three general areas:

1- Believers.

They see Murder Inc. as one of the few researchers to explore forgotten cases. I fell into this camp for several years. I was fascinated by their skill at scraping the entire web for archived information. I stood by Murder Inc. when he first started receiving backlash for a post- when they said they had a source I trust them that they indeed had that source.

2- The Cautious Researchers.

As the blog began its leaning towards deeper and deeper conspiracy theories, I and many others began to question the leaps in their reasonings and judgements.

3- The Detractors

Detractors see clearly how far from objective and conspiratorial Murder Inc. has truly become; filing in evidentiary gaps with unfounded conspiracy theories, stretching his credibility beyond repair at this point. Here, I land somewhat still in the cautious group while mostly existing in the detractors category.

The criticism Murder Inc. now receives is worth taking seriously, while his concepts ought to be taken with every grain of salt.

Murder Inc.’s Current Direction

Murder Inc. has maintained his posting structure: a deep researched write-up, supported with clippings and map locations, however the topics have become more reflective of their “obsessions”:

• Zodiac

• The Golden State Killer

• MK Ultra

• Donald Trump

• Police corruption

• Missing persons that, in his mind, can be linked to LISK.

The blog has become an overarching conspiracy-oriented true-crime research platform.

The Scarface article demonstrates, rather abjectly, Murder Inc.’s current methodology.

The July 2026 article examines the disappearance of Tammy Lynn Leppert in Florida and connects her geographically to Rex Heuermann and a Heuermann relative. The article notes Heuermann had traveled often to Cocoa Beach and that his cousin reportedly lived nearby.

The Murder Inc. Method:

A victim + a geographic connection + a LISK connection = a definitive victim.

However, there’s no evidence to support the claim other than on a superficial surface level. Lacking independent evidence, a geographical connection is just not enough, why a possible relative living in proximity just isn’t enough, and even when combined, as is their tendency, it still isn’t enough to move beyond coincidence.

Murder Inc. brought value into the LISK space. I make no attempt to take that away from them. I will continue to stand by that statement.

They brought many “forgotten” cases to the attention of an ever-growing community of “armchair detectives”, “internet sleuths”, and deep dive researchers like myself. Their contribution is significant.

Where and who they have become now is a far cry from all of that though.

Murder Inc. is much better at finding dots than proving the dots are all connected.

I was inspired by Murder Inc.; by the depth of the research, the archival scraping skill, by images of his private map.

I aspired to contribute at that level and worked endlessly to learn, enhance proficiency and create a map that would share only one thing in common with their map- it would have a lot on it.

My Map is fundamentally different and singularly unique with more robust and rigorous capabilities- and results.

Murder Inc.:

My more structured investigative map:

I was also disillusioned by Murder Inc.

I believe they became insecure over mutual friendships. They became petty, in words and in actions- to this day- which is part of the reasons for writing this, and if I ever publish this then the reader should know that he has gone too far for me to continue to ignore, however, I do not want to be the bridge to their relevance- so I hesitate.

The biggest irony about Murder Inc. is that they don’t need their theories to be correct. The clippings are still valuable, the missing are still missing, the murdered remain unresolved, the locations and dates are still informative.

Even if Murder Inc. is wrong about who killed who, their underlying research is still useful. That’s why I wouldn’t discount the blog or its author.

I would disaggregate it.

Murder Inc. is a source. The documents become the evidence trail. The theory is just a theory.

That’s a very powerful distinction.

It protects the victims from becoming pieces in somebody else’s story.

Murder Inc.’s greatest contribution is that they forced attention back onto to cases that all but time has forgotten.

Their greatest weakness is that they see and expound on a pattern that has not been independently established. This is where archival investigation becomes confirmation bias.

There is no middle ground for Murder Inc. They are clearly of the belief that:

Absence of evidence is evidence of suppression.

The danger here is the development of baseline paranoia and absolute distrust.

Murder Inc.’s writing increasingly positions research opinions and determinations into moral terms.

If you do not agree with them, then you are protecting the “system”.

This is exactly what Murder Inc. accuses me of. They are in the habit of occasionally replying to a comment I made on one of their posts from several years ago exclaiming I should be charged with accessory to murder after the fact in the death of Shannan Gilbert- all because I do not hear a second voice on the 911 call.

They never leave their reply up for long on their blog. They know the reply alone generates an email to the person they’re replying to.

Tacky and immature- I’m always willing to have an intelligent conversation, always opened to opinions and insight and thought reasoning, but pettiness is just unwarranted.

I am not attempting to compete with Murder Inc.

I simply take his research and I excavate it. Then I rebuild the potential evidence picture independently. Where their research deserves credit, I recognize that. Where my own, or other researchers have enhanced their original research, I no longer apply credit to them.

Part 2 will contain a case by case analysis of Murder Inc.’s theories weighted against current facts of each case.

In June of 2026, the Center for Community Alternatives, CCA, in response to an open invitation for public comment, wrote to the New York State Court Administrative Board, urging the panel to refuse to recertify State Supreme Court Judge, The Honorable Timothy Mazzei, among others. Under NY law, reaching the age of 70, requires mandatory retirement from the bench, however, Judges may seek recertification for three, two-year terms. Judge Mazzei is 72 years old as of this writing.

The CCA is steadfastly over-broad in its assessment of Judge Mazzei and fails to mention that all of the 15 examples they cite as reasons to prevent certification were all decided before Judge Mazzei reached the mandatory retirement age of 70.

(Article VI, Section 25(b) of the New York State Constitution and supplemented by Section 23 of the New York Judiciary Law.)

Examining the portion of their statement, Public-Comment-about-Justices-Mattei-Mazzei-Moran-Ward-2026-06-26.pdf , and a comment posted on social media, requires us to rebuke at a more substantive level.

Response to Appendix B Regarding Justice Timothy P. Mazzei

It is our position that the appendix presents an appearance of objectivity by listing appellate decisions, but ultimately attempts to advance an “advocacy” position rather than a balanced judicial evaluation. The CCA compiled adverse appellate outcomes while omitting critical context about the appellate process, judicial discretion, and the overall breadth of Judge Mazzei’s ruling’s.

1- Their report mistakes appellate review for judicial failure.

The appellate process exists because reasonable judges may differ on difficult legal questions. Judge Mazzei, in the Gilgo Beach murder hearings against Rex A. Heuermann, made two key rulings:

• Denied defense motion to separate the cases

• Determined that DNA evidence passed the Frye standard

Every experienced trial judge who presides over serious felony cases will have decisions modified or even reversed over the course of a lengthy judicial career. Judge Mazzei is not exempt from this and the measurement of any modified decision should be examined in totality of his tenure instead of highlighting a little more than a dozen instances.

The CCA report never identifies Judge Mazzei’s total criminal caseload, total felony sentencings, or the percentage of his decisions that were affirmed. Without these denominators, citing adverse appellate outcomes is statistically incomplete and potentially misleading. If those decisions arose from thousands of criminal cases over his many years as a trial judge, then they in fact represent a very small percentage of his judicial work.

No meaningful evaluation can be based on isolated appellate outcomes without placing them in the context of his entire record.

2- The report conflates disagreement with misconduct.

The appendix repeatedly implies that appellate disagreement reflects judicial unfitness.

It does not.

An appellate court’s modification of a sentence or correction of a legal error is part of the ordinary operation of New York’s judicial system.

What’s notable is that the appendix identified no findings of judicial misconduct, ethical violations, corruption, bias, dishonesty, or abuse of office by the NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct. In fact, attorneys on both sides respect and enjoy practicing before him. Source

That distinction matters.

Legal error is not synonymous with judicial misconduct.

3- The “different judge” argument is overstated.

The report characterizes the reassignment in People v. Jeffriesel as evidence of a possible judicial impropriety.

That overstates what the appellate court actually held.

The Appellate Division determined that Judge Mazzei improperly considered speculation during sentencing and therefore ordered resentencing by another judge.

That remedy reflects the appellate court’s concern about ensuring the appearance of fairness during resentencing, not a finding that Judge Mazzei acted dishonestly, maliciously, or unethically.

Indeed, if the appellate court believed judicial discipline was warranted, separate disciplinary mechanisms exist for that purpose.

The report invites readers to infer misconduct from a procedural remedy without identifying any formal finding or misconduct.

4- Excessive sentence modifications do not prove improper sentencing.

The report repeatedly states that appellate courts found certain sentences “excessive”.

However, NY appellate courts possess broad authority under CPL 470.15(6)(b), to reduce otherwise lawful sentences “as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice.”

That authority allows appellate judges to substitute their own judgement regarding “proportionality”, even where the original sentence was legal and within guidelines.

Consequently, an “excessive sentence” reduction does not necessarily mean the trial judge abused discretion or violated the law.

It means the appellate exercised its own independent discretionary authority.

This important distinction is largely absent from the report.

5- The report fails to distinguish legal errors from administrative corrections.

Several cited cases involved corrections of sentencing procedures or ministerial issues rather than substantive judicial failures.

Examples include:

• correcting an unlawful post-release supervision term,

• vacating lesser-included offenses to prevent duplicate convictions,

• correcting predicate felony procedures,

• requiring additional findings in a SORA Proceeding

These are precisely the types of issues appellate courts routinely correct across all of NY.

The appendix presents them collectively as evidence of systematic incompetence while failing to acknowledge that appellate correction of technical errors is an ordinary feature of criminal practice.

6- Percentile rankings are “advocacy” metrics, not judicial standards.

The report relies heavily on rankings generated by Scrutinize

Those rankings are not judicial performance standards adopted by the New York Unified Court System.

Nor are they statutory criteria for judicial (re)certification.

Like any privately developed metric, they depend entirely on methodological choices:

• which cases are included

• how variables are weighted

• What constitutes and “error”

• Whether affirmances are counted

• Whether case complexity is considered.

Without independent validation, percentile rankings should not be mistaken for objective measures of judicial fitness.

7- The report ignores the nature of Judge Mazzei’s docket.

Trial judges who regularly preside over violent felonies, homicide prosecutions, sexual assault cases, persistent felony offender, or a serial killer’s court proceedings necessarily face more difficult sentencing questions than judges handling lower level offenses.

More difficult cases generate more appeals. More appeals naturally generate more reversals and modifications.

The report makes no attempt to compare Judge Mazzei to judges with comparable criminal calendars.

Without such a comparison, raw appellate numbers provide an incomplete picture.

8- The report omits every indicator supporting continued service.

The appendix presents only adverse appellate decisions.

It omits:

• decades of judicial experience,

• thousands of successfully resolved criminal cases,

• affirmed convictions

• courtroom management

• evaluations from attorneys,

• ethical record

• disciplinary record,

• public service

• administrative leadership.

A fair evaluation requires considering both strengths and weaknesses.

Instead, the report adopts a litigation style approach highlighting only evidence supporting their predetermined conclusion.

Conclusion

Judicial accountability is essential, so is judicial independence.

Judge Mazzei’s appellate record reflects that appellate courts have, at times, disagreed with his sentencing decisions or corrected legal errors. That is an expected feature of appellate review.

What the appendix does not establish is that Judge Mazzei engaged in any misconduct, lacked integrity, was ethically unfit, or should therefore be denied recertification.

Recertification decisions should rest upon a comprehensive and total evaluation of a judge’s complete record, not isolated appellate decisions viewed without context.

A judiciary committed to fairness should resist replacing balanced evaluation with “selective advocacy”.

In closing…

As mentioned above, Judge Mazzei decided on two critical landmark decisions: severance and Frye. Of the two, the Frye decision is a singular landmark decision, with lasting ramifications for New York cases and for cases on a national level. One can expect future challenges to this decision but it will be upheld since the science is far ahead of the judicial system.

Surpassing the Frye standard in NY means that heretofore unknown assailants may be uncovered and be held accountable for their crimes, which means more incarcerations with stricter sentences to match the severity of the crimes perpetrated against innocent victims. This is the core, and understated issue that the CCA seems to have against Judge Mazzei.

Justice Timothy P. Mazzei is a Justice of the New York State Supreme Court for the Tenth Judicial District (Suffolk County), where he presides over complex criminal matters. Before joining the bench, he built a career in public service and criminal law, serving as an Assistant District Attorney in Suffolk County—including in the Homicide Bureau—before entering private practice as a partner at the law firm of Mazzei & Blair. He also served for more than a decade as a member of the Brookhaven Town Board, giving him experience in both the legal and legislative arenas. He was first elected as a Suffolk County Court Judge in 2014 and later became a Justice of the Supreme Court in 2021. A graduate of the University of Tampa and Pace University Elisabeth Haub School of Law, Justice Mazzei has spent more than four decades in the legal profession, with a career centered on criminal justice, public service, and the administration of the courts.

The Center for Community Alternatives (CCA) is a New York-based nonprofit organization founded in 1981. Its mission is to reduce reliance on incarceration and promote civil and human rights through a combination of direct services, public policy advocacy, community organizing, and alternatives to incarceration. It works with people affected by the criminal legal system, including those currently or formerly incarcerated, crime survivors, people in recovery, and their families.

In February 2011, amid controversy and mismanagement, the Nassau County Crime Laboratory lost its accreditation- it was restored 2 years later in 2013.. Exploring the root causes led me to compose this article.

1. Operational & Management Failures Leading to the Shutdown

For years, the Nassau County Police Department Crime Laboratory operated with systemic oversight, quality control, and management issues:

Lack of Equipment Calibration:

• Scales used to weigh illicit substances were not consistently zeroed or cleared between tests, leaving drug residue that compromised measurements. Gas chromatography and equipment used to test blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in DWI cases went uncalibrated for years.

  Source and Source

Failed Audits and Repeated Warnings:

• 2006/2007: The national accrediting body (ASCLD/LAB) placed the lab on probation following quality compliance issues.

  Source and Nassau lab alarmed accreditors in 2005

• August 2010: The lab was placed back on probation after failing over 20 critical national standards.

  Source

Cover-Ups and Failure to Disclose:

• Internal police supervisory staff learned of testing errors as early as September 2010 but concealed the findings from outside oversight, district attorneys, and defense counsel until late 2010. Lab troubles were known but unreported

The Final Straw (February 2011):

• After six out of nine re-tested drug samples returned inaccurate results, Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice ordered the closure of the drug testing section. Days later, following revelations of the cover-up, the DA requested the complete, permanent shutdown of the entire police crime lab.

  Source and Nassau lab's closing detailed in court and Nassau crime lab shut indefinitely

Inspector General Report Findings:

• A 2011 report by NY State Inspector General Ellen Biben cited “profound failures,” weak leadership, inadequate analyst training, and lack of protocol compliance.

  Source and IG to monitor review of Nassau crime lab and Investigation into the Nassau County Police Department Forensic Evidence Bureau

  ---

2. Aftermath & Reinstatement Under New Oversight

Re-testing & Overturned Cases:

• Thousands of past criminal convictions—primarily drug and DWI cases—had to be reviewed, resulting in reduced charges, dismissed indictments, and overturned convictions.

  Source and DA: Crime lab's drug tests were flawed and Judge nixes DWI, cites unreliable lab test

Restructuring under the Medical Examiner:

• To remove the lab from police department jurisdiction and political influence, operations were restructured. Forensic operations were gradually reinstated under the authority and oversight of the Nassau County Medical Examiner’s Office with stricter protocols and independent civilian management.

  Source

Following the 2011 shutdown of the police-managed crime lab, Nassau County completely restructured its forensic operations to sever ties with law enforcement jurisdiction and supposedly eliminate conflicts of interest.

Parent Department:

• Forensic operations now sit under the

  Nassau County Office of the Medical Examiner (NCOME), transferring oversight to an independent civilian agency.

  Source

Division of Forensic Services (DFS):

• This division serves as the primary crime laboratory for testing physical evidence submitted by law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and the Medical Examiner’s Office.

Accreditation Reinstated: 2013

Accreditation Bodies:

• The lab’s management and technical operations now operate under standards set by the ANSI National Accreditation Board (ANAB), the New York State Commission of Forensic Science, and the FBI Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories.

Divisions & Specialized Sections

The crime lab infrastructure is split across two core operational divisions:

Division of Forensic Services

(NCOME Crime Laboratory):

1. Biology Section: Performs DNA testing, serology, and forensic genetics analysis.

2. Chemistry Section: Analyzes seized controlled substances and fire debris.

3. Latent Print Section: Conducts latent fingerprint processing and comparisons.

4. Firearms Section: Examines ballistics, firearms, and toolmarks.

Division of Forensic Toxicology:

1. Postmortem Section: Conducts drug and chemical testing on autopsy specimens.

2. Human Performance Section: Tests specimens related to Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) and Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUID) cases.

Current Executive Leadership

• Chief Medical Examiner: Dr. Tamara Bloom, M.D. (Oversees the entirety of NCOME, including all forensic labs), and has been in her role since being appointed by then County Executive Thomas Gullota in 2001.

• Crime Laboratory Director / Director of Forensic Genetics: Dr. Pasquale Buffolino, Ph.D. (Appointed during the restructuring phase to manage forensic testing operations).

• Assistant Director & Quality Manager: Karen E. Dooling, M.S. (Directly oversees the Quality Assurance program and compliance across all testing sections).

• Chief Forensic Toxicologist: Dr. Joseph Avella, Ph.D. (Heads the Division of Forensic Toxicology).

3. Lawsuits

Fishkin and Spagnuolo vs. Nassau County

Despite efforts to reform the lab, internal management controversies resurfaced through federal whistleblower and retaliation lawsuits filed by former forensic scientists and DNA specialists:

Robyn Fishkin v. County of Nassau et al.

• Background: Robyn Fishkin, a former senior forensic scientist/analyst, participated in internal investigations led by the Nassau County Inspector General (NCIG) and New York State Inspector General (NYSIG) starting in 2021.

• Allegations: Fishkin cooperated with inspectors regarding allegations of improper/unlawful revisions of scientific findings to align with political agendas, data security issues, and misuse of government funds.

• Retaliation & Termination: Fishkin claimed lab management retaliated against her by stripping her of casework duties, subjecting her to harassment (including investigators visiting her home), demoting her, and eventually terminating her in April 2024 under the pretext of a disability.

• Lawsuit Details: Filed in November 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the suit alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), First Amendment free speech violations, and New York State whistleblower protection laws.

• Robyn Fishkin v Nassau County.pdf

Dana Spagnuolo v. County of Nassau et al.

• Background: Dana Spagnuolo, a DNA specialist in the Nassau County Medical Examiner’s Office, also cooperated with state and county Inspectors General auditing lab operations.

• Allegations & Termination: Similar to Fishkin, court filings detail a pattern of workplace intimidation, harassment, and stripping of job duties after her participation in the investigations. Spagnuolo was terminated from her position in November 2024.

• Lawsuit Details: Spagnuolo filed a wrongful termination and whistleblower retaliation lawsuit against Nassau County and the Medical Examiner’s Office, alleging she was targeted specifically for cooperating with oversight bodies probing ongoing irregularities inside the lab.

• Pacer 7.15.2026

Andrew Dykes

On December 18, 2025, Andrew Dykes was indicted in Nassau County on a murder in the 2nd degree charge for the 1997 death and dismemberment of Tanya Denise Jackson.

Andrew and Tanya had an extra-marital affair that resulted in the birth of Tatiana Marie Dykes in 1995.

Tanya’s partial remains were found in Hempstead Lake State Park on June 28th, 1997, her extremities sans head, would be found in April 2011. Tatiana’s remains would be found also in April 2011. Both have been long believed to be victims of the Long Island Serial Killer.

Nassau County homicide detectives surveilled and collected an abandonment sample from a discarded cup. The sample allegedly matched preserved forensic evidence from the 1997 crime scene.

Taken in the context of the Crime Lab, we must wonder about the efficacy of the results, political pressure and the intense public scrutiny, especially in relation to the arrest of Rex Heuermann. According to her bio, Dr. Tamara Bloom was already the Deputy Chief Medical Examiner for Nassau County at this time- however I have been unable to ascertain who conducted Tanya’s autopsy at this time.

The case against Andrew Dykes is still progressing in hearings through the courts- no trial date has been set.

Richard Bilodeau

In October 2025, Richard Bilodeau was arrested and charged with second-degree murder for the “rape and murder” of 16-year-old Theresa Fusco.

Bilodeau is not the first person to be charged in Theresa’s murder. In fact, Bilodeau is the fourth.

In 1996, John Kogurt, Dennis Halstead and John Restivo were convicted of Theresa’s murder. They served nearly 20 years in jail before DNA testing exonerated them in 2003.

The DNA at that time, hair found in the van, would face exceptional scrutiny as the strands had “banding”. Banding on the hair of a deceased person, or “postmortem root band” is a dark opaque microscopic band that forms near the root of the hair during body decomposition…meaning the hairs appear to have been planted- although few will make that statement and fewer still will admit this.

During the retrial of John Kogurt, the prosecution attempted to put forth the narrative that Theresa had “consensual sex” prior to her murder- which was a lackluster attempt to explain how the DNA did not match any of the three wrongly convicted.

So how does that equate with what the DA’s office is claiming now- that Bilodeau raped and then murdered Theresa?

Similar to Andrew Dykes, a smoothie cup and straw were collected as an abandonment sample.

Nassau County’s prosecution of Bilodeau in the 1984 murder of Theresa Fusco puts all of Nassau County’s dirty laundry under the microscope- pun intended.

In order for prosecutors to stand firmly on the DNA evidence they must first acknowledge their past, irrefutable confirmation bias.

I am left wondering if the systemic failures, probations, eventual closure and reinstatement of the Nassau County Police Crime Laboratory creates significant legal and evidentiary challenges for cases like those of Richard Bilodeau and Andrew Dykes, where any evidence might have been processed or analyzed by the lab. What, if anything, has changed under the leadership of Dr. Bloom?

I’ve previously published an article on Confirmation Bias in Nassau County, now I am left pondering if there is a narrative originating from the Nassau County Police Department, endorsed by the Nassau County District Attorney’s Office and supported by the Crime Lab. The reader can draw their own conclusions.

1. Compromised Evidentiary Integrity

Because the lab was cited for failing to comply with national standards, overlooking basic requirements, and concealing testing errors (particularly in drug chemistry and evidence handling), any forensic evidence tested at the lab is rendered fundamentally suspect.

• Flawed Results: Forensic reports used to secure indictments or convictions such as chemical analysis of controlled substances or physical evidence handling, calls into question the reliability and scientific validity of results.

• Inadmissibility: Defense counsel can argue that evidence analyzed by the lab during the compromised periods is completely inadmissible due to a broken chain of custody and lack of quality assurance, and leadership loyalties.

2. Grounds to Vacate Convictions (CPL 440 Motions)

For defendants who have already been tried or convicted, the revelations surrounding the lab provide strong legal grounds for post-conviction relief under New York Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) § 440.10:

• Newly Discovered Evidence: The widespread, systemic misconduct and failure of oversight at the lab constitute newly discovered evidence that was unavailable to the defense at the time of trial.

• Overturning Judgments: Defendants can petition the court to set aside their verdicts or guilty pleas on the basis that their convictions were based on corrupted forensic evidence. The State even assisted inmates who contested their convictions- State funds to help contest lab evidence

3. Brady Violations (Withholding Exculpatory Evidence)

Court filings revealed that police supervisory staff and lab personnel knew about errors in evidence analysis as early as September 2010 but failed to disclose them to defense attorneys or external oversight bodies.

• Due Process Claims: Suppressing known lab defects and testing errors from the defense violates the prosecution’s constitutional duty under Brady v. Maryland to disclose exculpatory and impeachment material.

• Prosecutorial Impact: Proving a Brady violation severely undermines the legitimacy of the prosecution and often leads directly to vacated convictions or dismissed charges.

• See the entire trial of Kogurt, Restivo, Halstead and the retrial attempt of John Kogurt. I will have a future report on that in the coming months.

4. Requirement for Independent Retesting or Case Dismissal

• Re-Analysis of Evidence: To maintain charges or defend a conviction on appeal, prosecutors must have surviving physical evidence re-tested by an independent, accredited external laboratory.

• Case Dismissals: If the original physical evidence was mishandled, contaminated, degraded, or destroyed, independent retesting is impossible. In such instances, prosecutors are often forced to drop the charges or dismiss the cases entirely due to a lack of admissible evidence.

The responsibility here does not lie with the scientists and specialists who work tirelessly and according to long-established regulations. It takes enormous bravery to stand up and fight a powerful system that holds sway over one’s career; the allegations from Fishkin and Spagnuolo should be read in earnest, the cases against Bilodeau and Dykes should be examined with skepticism and concern.

The fault must lie with the leadership of the lab, Dr. Tamara Bloom and her long-tenured team. The credibility of Dr. Bloom and any and all cases she’s overseen should be doubly examined. We must also look at the influence of the Nassau County Police Department and the Nassau County District Attorney in concert with these cases.

This several-part series on Nassau County is the latest installment. See previous reports:

Defining The Blueprint For Wrongful Conviction?

How Confirmation Bias Leads To Wrongful Prosecutions and Convictions

Confirmation bias in law enforcement occurs when investigators form an early theory about a suspect, victim, or case and then unconsciously interpret evidence in ways that support that belief while minimizing or overlooking contradictory information. It is one of the most dangerous cognitive biases in criminal investigations because it can shape every stage of a case: interviews, evidence collection, forensic interpretation, prosecutions, and even media narratives.

In practice, confirmation bias can look like:

• Focusing heavily on one suspect while ignoring viable alternatives

• Interpreting ambiguous evidence as incriminating

• Discounting witness statements that conflict with the preferred theory

• Using leading interview techniques that reinforce assumptions

• Treating victims differently based on lifestyle, race, addiction, homelessness, or sex work

• Failing to revisit earlier assumptions when new evidence emerges

Historically, confirmation bias has contributed to numerous wrongful convictions and investigative failures, especially in Nassau County. Cases later overturned by DNA evidence often revealed investigators had locked onto a suspect early and built the case around that conclusion rather than objectively testing competing theories. Most notorious are the three men charged, prosecuted, twice and convicted in the Theresa Fusco murder. The work of organizations like the The Innocence Project has repeatedly highlighted how tunnel vision and confirmation bias intersect with false confessions, flawed eyewitness testimony, and prosecutorial misconduct.

In missing persons and serial crime investigations, confirmation bias can also influence victimology. Victims involved in addiction, survival sex work, or unstable housing are sometimes prematurely categorized as “runaways,” “voluntary missing,” or “high-risk lifestyle” cases, reducing urgency and investigative resources. That dynamic has been criticized in cases connected to the Long Island serial killings and many other investigations nationwide.

There are several methods designed to reduce confirmation bias in policing:

• Blind or double-blind forensic testing

• Independent case reviews

• Evidence disclosure requirements

• Multiple-investigator review structures

• Cognitive bias training

• Recording interrogations in full

• Revisiting cold cases with fresh investigative teams

• Separating intelligence gathering from theory formation

Modern investigative standards increasingly recognize that confirmation bias is not usually intentional corruption, it is often a human cognitive tendency amplified by pressure, media attention, departmental culture, and the desire to solve cases quickly. But regardless of intent, the consequences can be devastating for victims, families, suspects, and public trust.

A central principle of ethical investigation is that evidence should shape the theory, not the theory shaping the evidence.

Confirmation bias becomes especially dangerous when it evolves into what many wrongful-conviction scholars call “tunnel vision”- the point where investigators, prosecutors, and sometimes even judges become institutionally invested in a single narrative. Once that happens, the system often stops asking “What happened?” and instead begins asking “How do we prove what we already believe?”

That distinction is critical when examining the history of investigations and prosecutions tied to the Nassau County Police Department and the Nassau County District Attorney’s Office.

Several Nassau County wrongful conviction cases illustrate recurring themes seen nationally:

• coercive interrogations, often lasting hours and hours uninterrupted,

• unreliable or incentivized witness testimony,

• suppression of exculpatory evidence, or even the alleged planting of evidence,

• over reliance on confessions,

• and resistance to revisiting convictions even after serious doubts emerged.

The most infamous example is the murder case involving John Restivo, John Kogut, and Dennis Halstead in the killing of Theresa Fusco. Investigators focused heavily on the three young men early in the case. The prosecution theory relied substantially on confessions and statements later challenged as coerced or unreliable. DNA evidence eventually excluded them, and the convictions were overturned after they collectively spent decades imprisoned. The case later resulted in major civil settlements against Nassau County.

What makes cases like Theresa Fusco’s particularly important in discussions of confirmation bias is not merely that errors occurred, errors happen in all systems, but that contradictory evidence often failed to meaningfully disrupt the existing theory. Once investigators committed to a narrative, evidence was interpreted through that lens.

This is one of the defining characteristics of confirmation bias:

• ambiguous evidence becomes incriminating,

• inconsistencies are rationalized away,

• alternative suspects receive less scrutiny,

• political and public pressure for a resolution,

• and exculpatory information is viewed as an obstacle rather than a corrective safeguard.

The case of Gary Lawrence and Christopher Ellis raised similar concerns. For Christopher, his conviction was vacated after previously undisclosed police notes reportedly revealed leads involving other suspects that had not been turned over to the defense.

The wrongful convictions of Christopher Ellis and Gary Lawrence (alongside co-defendant David Liles) for the 1990 murder of Hofstra University assistant football coach Joseph Healy serve as a textbook study in how confirmation bias develops into institutional tunnel vision.

In the Ellis and Lawrence cases, this cognitive bias manifested through several critical systemic failures:

1. The Coercion of Evidence to Fit the Narrative

Confirmation bias often drives investigators to use aggressive, high-pressure tactics to extract the “proof” they already believe exists.

• The Interrogations: Both Christopher Ellis and Gary Lawrence were subjected to grueling, sleep-deprived interrogations (lasting 18 and 19 hours, respectively) without food or water until they signed confessions.

• The Mismatch: In a neutral investigation, discrepancies between a confession and the physical facts of a crime scene prompt detectives to re-evaluate their theory. In this case, even though the facts laid out in Lawrence’s coerced statement did not match the actual details of the murder, the narrative was prioritized over the reality. The confession was accepted simply because it yielded the desired outcome: confirming their suspects’ guilt.

2. Tunnel Vision and the Suppression of Alternative Leads

Once confirmation bias takes hold, information pointing to other suspects is viewed not as a vital lead, but as an inconvenient distraction or an obstacle.

• The “Unnamed” File: Decades after their 1993 convictions, a review by the Nassau County District Attorney’s Office Conviction Integrity Division uncovered over 200 pages of undisclosed police notes and an entire file labeled the “Unnamed Homicide Squad Investigation File.”

• Ignoring 11 Suspects: Detectives had actually developed at least 11 alternative leads and suspects early in the case, complete with detailed interview notes and polygraph results. Because investigators had already locked onto Ellis and Lawrence, this massive trove of exculpatory evidence was entirely suppressed and kept secret from the defense (a severe Brady violation). The system insulated its preferred theory by burying the alternatives.

3. Amplification of Ambiguous or Weak Evidence

Under the lens of confirmation bias, weak or highly unreliable evidence is artificially elevated to “bulletproof” status if it supports the prosecution’s theory.

• The Single Eyewitness: With no forensic or physical evidence tying the men to the scene, the state’s case relied heavily on a single eyewitness. This witness later admitted to having consumed six or seven alcoholic drinks prior to the incident. In an unbiased framework, such testimony would be treated with extreme skepticism. Under a biased framework, it was treated as foundational truth because it aligned with the established target.

4. Institutional Defensiveness (The Bias Cascade)

Confirmation bias doesn’t stop with the initial detectives; it cascades through the entire legal structure. When the system becomes emotionally and professionally invested in a conviction, it fiercely resists admitting error.

• Even when the Nassau County DA’s Conviction Integrity Unit began reviewing the case in 2019 and conceded the substantial Brady violations, there was still an institutional pushback. When Ellis’s conviction was vacated, prosecutors remarkably still insisted they “had the right defendant” and chose to push the case to a retrial. They have also maintained the same stance regarding John Kogurt.

• It was not until January 2025—after spending more than 30 years in prison—that a second Nassau County jury looked at the actual evidence objectively and acquitted Christopher Ellis in less than an hour of deliberation. Gary Lawrence’s conviction was similarly vacated in 2023.

The Takeaway: The tragedy of the Ellis and Lawrence cases underscores that confirmation bias in law enforcement is rarely about overt, mustache-twirling corruption. Rather, it is a psychological trap. When pressure to solve a high-profile murder combines with an aggressive policing culture, investigators stop asking “What happened?” and begin asking “How do we prove what we already believe?” The evidence is forced to shape the theory, rather than the theory being shaped by the evidence.

That dynamic connects directly to what The National Registry of Exonerations has identified as one of the most common forms of official misconduct: concealing exculpatory evidence. Their research found official misconduct contributed to 54% of known exonerations, with concealment of favorable evidence occurring in 44% of cases.

Nassau County’s history also reflects another systemic issue: institutional defensiveness.

Departments and prosecutors’ offices are often structurally resistant to admitting investigative error because doing so threatens:

• prior convictions,

• reputations,

• civil liability,

• public trust,

• and professional advancement.

That resistance can reinforce confirmation bias long after a conviction occurs. Even when new forensic evidence, recantations, or Brady violations emerge, the system may continue defending the original theory because reversing course carries institutional consequences.

Scholars studying wrongful convictions frequently describe this as “bias cascade”:

1. Investigators form an early assumption.

2. Prosecutors inherit and strengthen that assumption.

3. Courts defer to the prosecution narrative.

4. Appeals courts prioritize procedural finality.

5. Institutions collectively defend the original outcome.

By that stage, the case is no longer just about guilt or innocence- it becomes about preserving legitimacy.

There have also been broader concerns about accountability culture within Nassau County policing. Investigative reporting found Nassau County deadly-force investigations almost never concluded officers acted improperly, despite civil findings and settlements suggesting otherwise. That pattern matters because organizations that rarely identify internal wrongdoing can develop cultures where skepticism toward internal narratives is weakened.

More recently, Nassau detectives were investigated after a federal judge reportedly found officers conducted an unconstitutional strip search and lied under oath. Allegations of dishonesty are particularly important in wrongful-conviction discussions because courts, juries, and prosecutors rely heavily on officer credibility. Once investigative narratives are treated as presumptively trustworthy, confirmation bias becomes easier to institutionalize.

Another major issue is socioeconomic and victim-status bias. In many New York investigations historically involving marginalized victims — including sex workers, addicts, unhoused persons, and minorities — investigative urgency and credibility assessments have often varied dramatically depending on who the victim or suspect was perceived to be. That can distort investigative priorities from the outset.

Nassau County isn't alone.

An undeniably fundamental book on confirmation bias and the doubling-down against a victim is exemplified in the true story of a rape victim and the abuse she suffered not only by her recidivist attacker, but by the legal, political and mainstream media system. The essential narrative of Brooklyn’s Jane Doe: The Mishandling of a Sexual Assault Investigation explains how not only initial investigators and upper echelon law enforcement officials, but media personalities whose egos refuse capitulation go on to systematically and consciously attempt to destroy a victim’s life.

Research on wrongful convictions consistently shows that confirmation bias is amplified by:

• public pressure,

• media scrutiny,

• political ambition,

• fear of unsolved crimes,

• and “clearance rate” culture.

Long Island during the 1980s and 1990s existed within precisely that environment: rising violent crime fears, aggressive policing culture, and intense pressure to solve high-profile cases quickly.

Importantly, confirmation bias does not require overt corruption. Many investigators likely believe sincerely they are pursuing justice. The danger is that human beings naturally seek coherence and certainty. Once a theory emotionally “fits,” contradictory information becomes psychologically harder to accept.

As legal scholar Richard Leo noted, wrongful convictions are often not isolated mistakes but institutional failures involving dozens of actors reinforcing the same assumptions.

That is why modern reform efforts increasingly focus on structural protections rather than simply identifying “bad apples.” These reforms include:

• Conviction Integrity Units,

• mandatory evidence disclosure,

• electronic recording of interrogations,

• blind lineup procedures,

• forensic independence,

• and external review of police misconduct.

The existence of a Conviction Integrity Unit in Nassau County itself reflects recognition that wrongful convictions and investigative failures are not hypothetical concerns, but documented realities.

The late-2025 indictment of Andrew Dykes for the 1997 murders of Tanya Denise Jackson (known for decades as “Peaches”) and her 2-year-old daughter, Tatiana, provides an entirely different, yet equally powerful, perspective on confirmation bias.

While the cases of John Kogurt, Dennis Halstead, John Restivo, Christopher Ellis and Gary Lawrence represent the dangers of confirmation bias leading to wrongful convictions, the Andrew Dykes case illustrates how confirmation bias can result in decades-long investigative blind spots and cold case delays.

The intersection of confirmation bias and institutional “tunnel vision” applies to the Dykes case through several key dynamics:

1. The Proximity Trap and the “Serial Killer” Narrative

Confirmation bias heavily influences how investigators categorize unidentifiable remains based on where they are found.

• The Bias: When the dismembered remains of Tanya and Tatiana were found on Long Island, and later heavily associated with areas along Ocean Parkway, the case became psychologically anchored to the infamous Gilgo Beach serial killer investigations (later tied to Rex Heuermann).

• The Blind Spot: Because the case was viewed through the lens of a serial predator targeting vulnerable or marginalized victims, investigators naturally focused their energy and assumptions on a specific type of perpetrator. This collective macro-narrative made it harder to look at the case through a standard domestic or personal-relationship lens. That was until Suffolk County made an arrest, then Nassau County ramped up identification efforts of Peaches and Toddler until they were identified.

2. Disregarding Alternative Solitary Hypotheses

Once a high-profile narrative (like a serial killer on the loose) dominates a geographic area, alternative data points are easily minimized.

• According to prosecutors, Andrew Dykes, a former Tennessee state trooper and operating room technician, had been having an extramarital affair with Tanya and was the biological father of the toddler.

• By filtering the discovery of the bodies through the sweeping “Gilgo Beach macro-case,” the individual history of Tanya Jackson as an independent victim with her own domestic circle was overshadowed. It took the removal of human bias, via objective genetic genealogy and DNA extracted from a discarded cup in late 2025, to completely break the institutional tunnel vision and realign the focus onto a single, close-proximity suspect. But, was it replaced with an equally myopic view on Andrew Dykes' guilt?

3. Socioeconomic and Victim-Status Bias

As noted in broader analyses of Long Island law enforcement culture, victimology plays a massive role in early investigative urgency and assumptions.

• When victims are unidentified for decades (as “Peaches” and “Toddler Jane Doe” were) or come from complex background situations, institutional bias can cause investigators to prematurely categorize them or assume their disappearances were tied to a transient, high-risk lifestyle.

• This cognitive deprioritization reduces the localized, deep-dive shoe-leather investigation into the victim’s immediate personal life, the exact arena where a suspect like Dykes would have been discovered much sooner- (if this were true). It appears, as of this writing, that little is still known about Tanya’s life, particularly her time in New York.

But is this accurate or is confirmation bias dictating Nassau County’s hyper-aggressive stance regarding Andrew?

The Contrast in Systemic Failure

Case Dynamics

Andrew Dykes Case

The Trigger

Intense pressure to clear a high-profile murder of a prominent figure quickly, instead of “in-conjunction with” Suffolk County, it clearly became “in contrast of” Suffolk County. (I will save the rivalry story for another time- but it exists).

Categorization of remains within a massive, sensationalized serial killer narrative.

The Consequence

Aggressive Tunnel Vision: Andrew being an operating room technician who basically sterilized medical instruments, and a instructor of anatomy and physiology, in Nassau County’s opinion is “means”. Additionally, the presence of Andrew’s DNA within Tanya, in the County’s eyes, is proof of murder. But it does not in fact prove murder.

Ultimately, whether confirmation bias causes police to aggressively lock onto the wrong men (John Kogurt, Dennis Halstead, John Restivo, Christopher Ellis and Gary Lawrence) or causes them to contextually miscategorize Andrew Dykes, the root failure is identical: allowing a preconceived theory to dictate the evidence, rather than letting the evidence dictate the theory.

While Nassau County treats Andrew Dykes as the definitive closure to a horrific 29-year-old mystery, Andrew’s son and chief advocate, Aundrey Dykes and the defense view the county’s stance as an over-reached narrative, setting up a heavily contested trial as the defense pushes back against the state’s forensic and circumstantial claims.

The Case Against Richard Bilodeau

The late 2025 prosecution of Richard Bilodeau for the 1984 murder of 16-year-old Theresa Fusco acts as the ultimate architectural anchor for this entire discussion. If the cases of John Kogurt, Dennis Halstead, John Restivo, Christopher Ellis and Gary Lawrence represent the systemic breakdown caused by confirmation bias, and Andrew Dykes represents how macro-narratives create decades-long blind spots, the Richard Bilodeau indictment represents the direct fallout and systemic reckoning of Nassau County’s history with tunnel vision.

The prosecution of Bilodeau factors into this framework through several interconnected dynamics:

1. The Definitive Proof of the “Original” Confirmation Bias

For decades, critics of the Nassau County Police Department and District Attorney’s Office pointed to the Theresa Fusco case as an egregious example of institutional tunnel vision. In 1986, investigators aggressively locked onto three young men: John Restivo, John Kogut, and Dennis Halstead, extracting a heavily challenged confession and securing convictions that cost the men nearly 20 years in prison before DNA exonerated them in 2003.

When Nassau County arrested and indicted Richard Bilodeau in October 2025, it served as the definitive, irrefutable proof of how profoundly wrong the original, bias-driven investigation had been. The state’s current case relies on direct forensic evidence: semen DNA taken from the 1984 crime scene that matches DNA covertly harvested from Bilodeau’s discarded smoothie straw. By prosecuting Bilodeau, Nassau County is forced to publicly litigate the exact crime scene where their historic confirmation bias originally destroyed three innocent lives.

2. The Defense’s Strategic Use of Institutional History

The shadow of the historic wrongful convictions heavily shapes how Bilodeau’s current defense team is fighting the state. Bilodeau’s defense attorney wasted no time reminding the media and the public that Nassau County investigators have been aggressively wrong about this exact case before.

Because the county previously claimed to have the “bulletproof” narrative regarding Restivo, Kogut, and Halstead, the defense can naturally weaponize the county’s track record of confirmation bias to plant seeds of doubt in a modern jury. The defense narrative essentially argues: Nassau County rushed to a convenient, high-profile conclusion in 1986 because of public pressure, and they are doing the exact same thing now with hyper-modern genetic genealogy.

3. Overcorrecting with Hyper-Aggressive “Closure” Rhetoric

The intense, almost defensive public rhetoric used by Nassau County leadership against both Andrew Dykes and Richard Bilodeau cannot be separated from the county’s history of embarrassing exonerations. When an institution hashad to take loans to pay out tens of millions in civil settlements for past tunnel vision, the pressure to prove that “the modern system works” is immense.

This institutional anxiety manifests as hyper-aggressive messaging to project absolute certainty:

• In the Dykes case, leadership quickly labeled him an “animal” and leaned into his background as an anatomy instructor to establish “means.”

• In the Bilodeau case, District Attorney Anne Donnelly heavily publicized a flippant comment Bilodeau allegedly made to detectives during initial questioning—that “people got away with murder back then”—using it to publicly declare, “It’s 2025, and I got you now.” This swaggering rhetoric can be viewed as an institutional overcorrection. The county isn’t just prosecuting two men; they are actively trying to rehabilitate a reputation damaged by decades of documented tunnel vision.

4. The Scientific Disruption of Human Bias

The most profound link connecting Kogurt, Halstead, Restivo, Ellis, Lawrence, Dykes, and Bilodeau is the way modern forensic science acts as the ultimate antidote to human bias.

• In the 1980s and 1990s, investigations relied heavily on human elements prone to confirmation bias: coerced confessions, late-night interrogations, and shaky eyewitnesses who had been drinking (as seen in the Ellis/Lawrence trial).

• In late 2025, both the Dykes case and the Bilodeau case were “cracked open” entirely by removing the human narrative from the initial discovery phase. Investigators utilized abandoned DNA (a Styrofoam cup for Dykes and a smoothie straw for Bilodeau) analyzed through modern genetic genealogy.

• But again, is an interpretive approach of the DNA evidence being present, representative of actual murder?

The Great DNA Debate

DNA advancements have been fundamental to solving long unresolved cases. DNA can identify and victim and a perpetrator, but it is limited to only that.

The argument that the mere presence of a suspect's DNA is enough, or not enough to prove intentional murder is a central pillar of criminal prosecution and criminal defense. While DNA can establish physical contact or proximity, it cannot determine the context of that contact, the intent of the individuals, or a definitive timeline of the crime.

I will present two opposing cases here that the reader can further explore:

John Bittrolff- Rita Tangredi and Colleen McNamee

Fernando Romualdo- Sarah Strobel

John Bittrolff was convicted of the brutal murders of Rita and Colleen based on his DNA being present on both victims. Appeals are still in process.

Fernando Romualdo was convicted of the murder of Sarah Strobel. His conviction was subsequently overturned on the argument that the mere presence of DNA does not indicate murder.

How will history determine Andrew Dykes and Richard Bilodeau’s innocent or guilt? In these two cases, with what we know publicly, the presence of DNA is just not enough to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” guilt.

How can the people of Nassau County trust leadership to be ethical and exist within the boundaries of the law?

Scientist at Nassau County crime lab says she was fired for exposing unethical, improper practices, lawsuit contends...

“A forensic scientist at the Nassau County crime lab is alleging she was fired for exposing unethical and improper practices by other crime lab employees, including a claim that crime lab workers inaccurately revised scientific findings for political purposes, a lawsuit alleges”.

Here is the filed complaint:

Robyn Fishkin vs Nassau County

More from Newsday:

“The Nassau County crime lab has a history of dysfunction. The lab was placed on probation in 2006 after inspectors found multiple serious violations, including improper drug labeling procedures and technicians who were insufficiently trained.

The lab was closed in 2011 amid reports of drug testing inaccuracies that led to dozens of defendants facing higher-level charges than warranted. It regained its accreditation in 2013”.

Robyn Fishkin’s case is still pending, and active and very much worth following. Readers can find it on PACER.

We will see how this plays out in the cases against Andrew Dykes and Richard Bilodeau.

Sources:

https://www.reddit.com/r/u_CatchLISK/comments/1qvxq6g/nassau_county/

https://www.liherald.com/stories/christopher-ellis-conviction-vacated-by-nassau-countyjudge,134981#:~:text=Ellis%20was%20arrested%20in%201991,he%20confessed%20to%20the%20murder

https://ecbawm.com/news/gary-lawrence-murder-conviction-tossed-brady-violations/#:~:text=Lawrence%20was%20questioned%20for%20approximately,the%20facts%20of%20the%20murder

https://www.newsday.com/long-island/crime/christopher-ellis-nassau-acquitted-murder-conviction-retrial-wrongful-conviction-ohhp2njx#:~:text=%22Nassau%20County%20had%20a%20policy,that%20must%20be%20disclosed%2C%22%20the

https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2023/2023-ny-slip-op-30432-u.html#:~:text=It%20consisted%20of%20an%20identification,tied%20him%20to%20the%20murder

https://www.newsday.com/long-island/crime/hofstra-killing-christopher-ellis-mxlrtew2#:~:text=Less%20than%20an%20hour%20later,Attorney%20spokeswoman%20Nicole%20Turso%20said

https://www.newsday.com/long-island/crime/gary-lawrence-murder-retrial-hofstra-killing-jds74rce#:~:text=Investigators%20developed%20at%20least%2011,Sturim%2C%20which%20cleared%20Lawrence’s%20conviction

https://www.wshu.org/long-island-news/2023-04-19/2-nassau-county-detectives-are-being-investigated-for-misconduct

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/24/an-ex-cops-remorse?

https://legalaidnyc.org/news/wrongful-conviction-when-prosecutors-rely-on-false-testimony/

https://www.newsday.com/long-island/crime/gilgo-beach-killings/gilgo-beach-victim-peaches-andrew-dykes-murder-charges-cd7xfu1p#:~:text=He%20was%20in%20a%20relationship,that%20his%20father%20is%20innocent

http://nassauda.org/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/1902#:~:text=%E2%80%9CFor%20more%20than%20two%20decades,Dykes%2C%E2%80%9D%20said%20DA%20Donnelly

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/andrew-dykes-tanya-jackson-peaches-murdergilgobeach/#:~:text=%22I’m%20sorry%20that%20this,of%20the%20Gilgo%20Beach%20killings

https://www.liherald.com/malverne/stories/dykes-peaches-second,219891#:~:text=25%20for%20the%20next%20hearing,was%20present%20for%20the%20proceedings

https://exonerationregistry.org/cases/10795

https://www.josephgiacalone.com/

https://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/forensic/dnacasehighlights.htm#:~:text=On%20June%204%2C%201997%2C%20Terry,vertebrae%20bone%20in%20her%20neck.

https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-second-department/2020/2017-11195.html

To: The New York State Legislature, Advocates for Victims’ Rights, and the Public

Introduction: The Distortion of Justice

A foundational principle of civilized law is that no one should be permitted to profit from their own crimes. Yet, across the United States and within New York State, an underground economy actively mocks this moral absolute. The trade of “murderabilia”—tangible items, artwork, personal belongings, or media rights connected to violent serial killers and mass murderers—has grown into a lucrative, highly exploitative industry.

While New York pioneered the original “Son of Sam” law in 1977 to prevent criminals from financially exploiting their notoriety, contemporary high-profile cases have exposed devastating legal loopholes. Violent offenders, their legal designees, and third-party family members continue to circumvent the law, pocketing hundreds of thousands of dollars off the trauma of victims.

Passing New York State Assembly Bill A6730 (and its Senate companion, S5470) is vital to closing these loopholes, expanding victim protections, and ensuring that notoriety can never again be leveraged for personal fortune.

The Dangers of Murderabilia

The commercialization of violent crime is not a victimless enterprise; it is a direct, active form of secondary victimization that actively harms public safety.

• The Re-Traumatization of Victims’ Families: For the families of those taken by violent crime, healing is an ongoing struggle. Seeing a killer’s personal belongings, prison artwork, or licensed “life rights” turned into high-priced commodities completely strips survivors of their dignity. It transforms their private agony into a public spectacle for the highest bidder.

• Incentivizing and Cultivating Notoriety: The market for murderabilia rewards the absolute worst behaviors in society. When items tied to perpetrators—ranging from historic killers like Ted Bundy to contemporary defendants like the accused Gilgo Beach serial killer—are monetized, it creates a perverse financial incentive. It encourages criminals and their representatives to actively gatekeep information, market their personal effects, or drag out legal proceedings to drive up the value of their “brand.”

• The Glorification of Violence: By allowing an open market for these items, society implicitly condones the romanticization of serial killers. It elevates brutal victimizers to the status of cult celebrities, providing a dangerous blueprint for copycats who crave the same dark immortality.

The Critical Flaw in the Current “Son of Sam” Law

Following a 1991 Supreme Court ruling (Simon & Schuster v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Board) that struck down the original statute on overbroad First Amendment grounds, New York reworked its approach under Executive Law § 632-a. The current framework relies on a system where victims are notified if a convicted or accused individual receives substantial funds (typically $10,000 or more) from media deals, permitting victims to sue for those civil damages.

However, the modern market has aggressively adapted, exposing a massive blind spot: The Third-Party Loophole.

Under the current law, if a third party—such as a family member, a defense lawyer, or an outside dealer—sells a perpetrator’s belongings, licenses documentary rights, or flips real estate heavily tied to the notoriety of the crimes, the funds often sit entirely outside the reach of the law. Because the revenue stream does not go directly into the hands of the perpetrator, the “Son of Sam” law is completely bypassed.

We see this played out vividly when media companies shell out massive payouts for exclusive documentary rights to families of the accused, or when cars and safes belonging to serial killers are quietly valued for hundreds of thousands of dollars. The spirit of the law is utterly hollowed out while the profits flow uninterrupted.

How Assembly Bill A6730 Closes the Loophole

New York State Assembly Bill A6730 is designed to fundamentally repair this broken mechanism. By modernizing Executive Law § 632-a, the bill shifts the focus from the strict identity of the recipient to the source and nature of the profit.

1. Expanding the Definition of “Profits from a Crime”

A6730 expands the legal net to include money generated by “designees,” family members, or third-party representatives when those profits are directly derived from the unique notoriety of the crime. If an item or a story holds value exclusively because of the horrific actions committed against the victims, those profits belong to the victims’ families—not the killer’s estate.

2. Targeting Indirect Exploitation

The bill ensures that massive media licensing payouts, true-crime memorabilia sales, and the monetization of crime scenes cannot be hidden behind shell entities or relatives. It brings transparency to the financial arrangements surrounding high-profile defense strategies, ensuring that any money generated by the fame of the tragedy is legally flagged.

3. Restoring the Balance of Justice

By expanding the springing statute of limitations and forcing third-party profits into escrow accounts for victim compensation, A6730 restores the primary intent of the justice system: prioritizing the needs, restitution, and fundamental peace of the survivors over the economic opportunism of the exploiter.

Conclusion: A Call to Action

“To allow anyone to enrich themselves—directly or indirectly—off the stolen lives of our loved ones is an insult to justice. Lawmakers must act to ensure that pain is never again commodified.”— United Statement from Advocacy Groups and Victims’ Families

The trade of murderabilia and the exploitation of legal loopholes represent a profound failure of societal empathy. We must draw a firm line in the sand: Crime must not pay, and notoriety must not enrich. We urgently call on the New York State Assembly and Senate to advance Assembly Bill A6730 and Senate Bill S5470 out of committee and pass them into law. Closing the Son of Sam loophole is not a partisan issue; it is a declaration of human dignity, a defense of victims’ rights, and a vital step toward ensuring our legal system protects the broken-hearted rather than rewarding the brutal.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Dawn Michelle Holt was only 20 years old when she disappeared from Waldorf, Maryland on April 25, 1996. But to understand Dawn’s disappearance, you first have to understand the life she lived long before she vanished — a life shaped by trauma, instability, addiction, survival, and the people who loved her deeply despite the chaos surrounding her final months.

Born in the mid-1970s to Phyllis and Michael Shelton, Dawn grew up in a large blended family with five siblings: her older sister Sherri, stepbrother David, stepsister Jolene, half-sister Angela, and younger half-brother Will. According to Dawn’s daughter Samantha, the family endured extraordinary loss over the years. David died by suicide in 1999, just three years after Dawn disappeared. Angela died young as well, at only 35 years old in 2014. At the center of the family was their mother, Phyllis, whom Samantha describes as “one of the strongest women” she has ever known — a woman who endured the deaths and disappearances of multiple children and grandchildren while continuing to fight for answers.

Dawn’s early life was marked by trauma. Her father, Michael Shelton, died in 1989 at just 36 years old during an arrest involving five police officers. Officially, authorities claimed drugs and alcohol contributed to his death, but the death certificate also documented “compression asphyxia,” indicating he had been restrained so severely that oxygen was cut off to his body and brain. Dawn was only 13 years old. According to family members, she overheard discussions about his crushed windpipe and the circumstances surrounding his death — a devastating event that appears to have deeply impacted her during her formative years.

In the years that followed, Dawn struggled. Family members describe a difficult relationship with her stepfather and increasing behavioral issues that eventually led to her being placed in a group home, which she later ran away from. Around that time, she met the father of her children. Though Samantha was only three years old when her mother disappeared, she still carries fragmented but vivid memories of Dawn: the color of her nail polish, music playing loudly in the house, her mother singing along to TLC’s “Waterfalls,” and moments spent together watching Barney in bed. They are small memories, but precious ones — pieces of a mother preserved through the eyes of a child.

By the mid-1990s, Dawn had become entangled in drug addiction and the dangerous world surrounding it. Samantha says family members believed Dawn initially began using cocaine to lose weight before addiction took hold more seriously after the birth of her second child. Alongside addiction came criminal charges, unstable relationships, and increasing involvement with known drug dealers in Southern Maryland. One of those men was Anthony Maurice “Mo” Thomas, Dawn’s boyfriend at the time of her disappearance. The two were living together on Baptist Church Road when violence erupted around them.

In late March 1996, Mo Thomas was shot four times during what was described as an ambush outside the home he shared with Dawn. According to reports, armed men forced Dawn and Mo to the ground before opening fire. Police later questioned the accuracy of some accounts surrounding the shooting, but investigators believed the attack, a prior pistol-whipping incident involving Dawn at a Waldorf motel, and her later disappearance were all connected. Dawn herself reportedly told family members she believed the violence stemmed from accusations that she owed money connected to drug activity.

After the shooting, police raided the home Dawn and Mo were staying in and discovered drugs and firearms. According to Samantha, Dawn took responsibility for items that allegedly belonged to Mo in an effort to protect him from jail time. Around this same period, she began cooperating with Maryland State Police as a confidential informant. Court documents reportedly describe a confidential informant purchasing crack cocaine from local dealer Timothy Hall in early April 1996, helping authorities build a case against him. Hall was arrested on April 17, 1996 — and released on a $100,000 bond a few days before Dawn vanished.

By then, Dawn was terrified. According to her family, Maryland State Police investigator Linda Lozier warned her there was a $10,000 bounty on her head. Fearing for her safety, her family sent her to Florida to stay with her sister Sherri. But Dawn returned to Maryland after only two weeks. Family members believe addiction, pressure from people connected to her drug activity, and her desire to see her children all played a role in her decision to come back.

Her return would become the beginning of the end.

Police later confirmed that Cecil Somerville — brother of Mo Thomas and another alleged drug dealer connected to Dawn — paid for her bus ticket back to Maryland and rented the room at the Waldorf Econolodge where she stayed on the night she disappeared. That evening, Dawn made a series of phone calls, including one to the father of her children. She sounded frightened. She reportedly told him people had been banging on her motel room door throughout the night and repeated that there was a bounty on her head. She also contacted a Maryland State Police officer connected to her informant work. According to later reporting, the officer offered to send someone to pick her up, but Dawn declined, saying someone else was coming for her.

She was never seen again.

In the days after her disappearance, family members initially believed Dawn may have relapsed or temporarily disappeared on her own, something not entirely uncommon during periods of addiction. But as days turned into weeks without contact, panic set in. Her mother reported her missing in May 1996, despite later databases incorrectly claiming she was not reported missing until June. Over the years, conflicting information, lost records, and unanswered questions have complicated efforts to uncover the truth.

For Samantha, Dawn’s story has always existed in two forms at once: the frightened young woman caught in an increasingly dangerous world, and the mother she still remembers in flashes of tenderness and music. As an adult, Samantha has spent years piecing together court records, police statements, newspaper archives, and family memories in an attempt to understand not only what happened to her mother, but who her mother truly was beneath the addiction and chaos.

Thirty years later, Dawn Michelle Holt remains missing. Her case is still unsolved. But to her family, she is far more than a cold case file or a cautionary tale. She was a daughter shaped by early trauma, a mother struggling with addiction, a young woman trying to survive circumstances that often swallowed people whole — and someone whose life still matters deeply to the people who continue searching for answers.

A Daughter’s Perspective- by Samantha Holt

I was only four years old when my mother disappeared, so most of what I know about her has been gathered over time through fragments—memories, stories, records, and photographs. For years, I was left with a version of my mother that other people defined for me: an addict, a victim, a missing person, a cautionary tale whispered about in pieces. But none of those labels capture the full person she was, and as I’ve gotten older, I’ve realized how much of her humanity was lost beneath the circumstances surrounding her disappearance.

The hardest thing about losing someone at four years old is that your memories don’t come back in full scenes. They come back in flashes—not in big dramatic moments, but in small pieces that somehow survived all these years. For me, my mother exists in fragments like that. The sound of music playing through the house. Her joking around with my dad in the kitchen. The feeling of being near her. Those fragments may seem small, but when someone disappears, you learn that small memories become sacred.

As an adult, I began to understand that my mother’s life was shaped by trauma long before she vanished. She lost her father as a teenager and struggled with instability, addiction, and violent people around her while trying to survive dangerous, unforgiving circumstances. It’s something people often miss when they hear a story like hers. It’s easier to reduce someone to the worst chapter of their life than to wonder what led them there. But my mother was never just the hardest parts of her story.

My mother made mistakes; I don’t deny that, but I don’t need to sanitize her life to believe she deserved better. Addiction does not erase someone’s humanity. Trauma does not make someone disposable. She was young, only 20 years old. When I think about that now, especially being older than she ever got the chance to become, it changes everything. She should have had time to grow, heal, recover, and become more than the circumstances that were swallowing her at the time.

Instead, she disappeared while terrified and asking for help.

That is one of the hardest parts for me to live with. She told people she was scared. She said there was a bounty on her head. She had already survived violence before she vanished. There were warning signs everywhere. Yet somehow, thirty years later, there are still more questions than answers. Records conflict, important details were lost or buried over time, and some information was reported incorrectly from the beginning. Through it all, my family has had to carry not only grief, but the exhausting weight of proving her life mattered enough to keep investigating.

For a long time, I think people saw my mother through the circumstances of her disappearance rather than who she was. But the older I get, the more I understand how complicated survival can look when someone is carrying unhealed trauma, addiction, fear, and violence all at once. My mother was not a perfect victim. Perfect victims do not exist.

Living without her has affected every part of my life. There is no clean way to grow up with this kind of loss. There is grief, but there is also confusion, anger, and a constant sense that something is unfinished. I do not just grieve the mother I lost, I grieve the version of her that may have existed if she’d been given enough time and safety to rebuild her life.

At the same time, I want people to know my mother mattered. Her life deserves dignity, even with all its complexity and pain. She was failed in many ways, but she still mattered deeply. I speak about her now because I do not want her to disappear a second time—not from memory, not from history, and not from the people who may one day help bring us closer to the truth.

Everything we’ve done over the past few years—advocacy, research, public awareness, and conversations—has been about restoring humanity to her story. I never wanted my mother reduced to a missing poster or the worst period of her life. I wanted people to see her the way her family sees her: complicated, flawed, vulnerable, funny, loved, and deeply missed.

I still believe someone knows what happened to her, and that the truth exists somewhere beyond the rumors, fear, and silence surrounding her disappearance—and that belief is what keeps me going. I will continue speaking her name, no matter how much time passes, because she deserves to be remembered as more than a cold case.

Advocacy Efforts To Date

Since early in 2024, we have strategized several ways to launch an effective advocacy program.

One of the very first initiatives was to replace grainy and blurry images of Dawn with more respectful and vibrant pictures of happier moments in her life. We had official sites like The National Missing and Unidentified Persons System update their page to add these photos. This is a critical step towards building awareness.

We needed a forum to center information about Dawn and created the Facebook page: Justice For Dawn Michelle Holt. The group, and interest, continues to grow as more people who knew Dawn join the group to learn updates, see new photos of Dawn, share memories and to also hear from Dawn’s sister Sherri and Dawn’s daughter Samantha through comments and posts.

We collaborated with Light The Way Missing Persons Advocacy Project to create a webpage for Dawn and her first updated flyer in nearly 30 years:

Collectively, we, filed a Public Information Act request (Maryland’s version of Freedom of Information Act), for case files and information about the state of the investigation. Naturally, we were denied. We went through an appeals mediation process, but Maryland’s Ombudsman cannot force the State Police to abide by any recommendation. As of today, we are seeking more specific information that would not effect the investigation in any way. Prior to launching our action plan, there was no one assigned to Dawn’s Missing Persons case. Since then, we have a Sergeant with the Maryland State Police assigned to the case- he invested the time to speak with us, he listened and he took notes- copious notes. He acted on several tips we provided him from our research and we are grateful for the relationship. He is, however, limited in resources and what he can do.

Through social media advocacy, public awareness campaigns, interviews with victims’ families, and long-form discussions surrounding unresolved disappearances, we have worked to amplify Dawn’s story for a new generation of people who may have never heard her name before. Our advocacy has focused not only on the mystery surrounding her disappearance, but on restoring Dawn’s humanity, emphasizing that she was more than addiction, more than police files, and more than the dangerous circumstances she became trapped within during the final months of her life.

These efforts have also helped elevate the voice of Dawn’s daughter, Samantha, whose willingness to publicly speak about her mother has provided some of the clearest and most emotionally raw insight into the case in decades. Through these conversations, the public has gained a fuller understanding of Dawn’s upbringing, the trauma she endured, the violence surrounding her disappearance, and the devastating impact her absence left behind. Rather than sensationalizing the case, the advocacy surrounding Dawn has increasingly centered on compassion, accountability, and the importance of remembering victims as complete human beings.

Resources and Links:

NamUs

The DOE Network

The Charley Project

NCMEC

Michael Shelton

The Evening Sun 2/28/1989

The Baltimore Sun 3/1/1989

Podcasts

The Silver Linings Playbook- Part 1

The Silver Linings Playbook- Part 2

Unfound

Inquiries: Justicefordawnmichelleholt@gmail.com

Subscribe now

Share

Ending Exploitation: Legislative Solutions and How You Can Help

You can help in many ways:

There are two Bills sitting in Assembly and Senate Committees that seek to address the loopholes with the current law:

Assembly Bill A67301

Senate Bill 2025-S54702

Contact the Bill sponsors- use our sample email and telephone script and contact Assemblywoman Judy Griffin and Senator Leroy Comrie:

Judy Griffin

Email:

griffinj@nyassembly.gov

Albany Office Phone: 518-455-5801

District Office Phone: 516-561-8216

Office Locations: LOB 452, Albany, NY 12248; or 74 N. Village Ave, Rockville Centre, NY 11570

Leroy Comrie

Email:

comrie@nysenate.gov

(Official) or

info@leroycomrie.org

(Constituent Services)

Phone (District Office): (718) 765-6359

Phone (Capitol Office): (518) 455-2701

Office Address: 113-43 Farmers Blvd., St. Albans, NY 11412

We encourage everyone to use our scripts and made it easy and accessible to copy and paste:

Sample Scripts

Murderabilia

“Murderabilia”, things tied to perpetrators like Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy and more recently Rex Heuermann, raises serious ethical concerns. For many people, it looks like a form of glorification that centers the offender instead of the victims, sometimes even putting money into the hands of criminals or those connected to them.

When items are sold that represent a violent criminal’s life, such as hunting gear, bullet-making machines, ski masks and autographed pictures, the public absorbs the sensationalism but fails to see the implicit exploitation.

There’s also the impact on victims’ families. Seeing items linked to a loved one’s murder being bought and sold can reopen wounds and feel dehumanizing. That’s one of the reasons laws like “Son of Sam” laws were created- to prevent criminals from profiting off notoriety tied to their crimes.

That said, some collectors argue they’re preserving history, similar to how museums document difficult or dark parts of the past, or even existing within a free, capitalist society. But the line between historical documentation and exploitation can get blurry fast, especially when the focus shifts from education to morbid fascination.

Under the current New York State law, Executive Law § 632-a3, it is legal, (yet controversial) that third parties (family members, collectors) can sell items connected to crimes and make a profit. “Murderabilia” markets often operate in gray areas, but when they are intentionally supported by lawyers representing family members of accused and convicted, the waters become much more muddied in an ethical conundrum.

The intersection with the Long Island Serial Killer case is a really sharp example of how these laws actually work in practice, especially in New York State, where the legal framework is one of the more developed versions of “Son of Sam” type statutes.

After the Supreme Court struck down the original law, New York enacted a narrower version, often referred to as Executive Law § 632-a.

Instead of banning profits from crime stories outright, it does three key things:

It casts a wide net over “profits”. If someone accused or convicted of a crime (like Rex Heuermann) receives “substantial money”, typically defined as $10,000 or more, then the law can be triggered.

Importantly, that money does not have to come from a book or movie deal. It could include:

• Media interviews

• Documentary participation. Rex Heuermann did seem to be aware of filming when he called his family. This is arguably “participation”

• Licensing life rights (This is what Asa Heuermann did with the Peacock documentary)

• Even certain asset transfers tied to notoriety, such as the Massapequa Park home where seven of the eight murders occurred.

The income reportedly generated from the Peacock documentary was said to be in the neighborhood of a million dollars. The Jeep, safe door and other morbid and awkwardly random belongings appear to have a value of close to 300K. These totals should trigger the existing Son of Sam Law. Said funds should then be frozen for victim families to consider litigation.

Here is where it becomes more complicated.

Since 3rd party profits are mostly exempt, someone else writing a book, a scripted show, a documentary or a Murderabilia outlet selling belongings is currently able to circumvent the law, because the money isn’t going “directly” to LISK.

This is why the proposed Bills, A6730 in the State Assembly Committee, and 2025-S5470 in the State Senate Committee are critical and fundamental to closing the loopholes.

Families of the victims are united and are fully supportive of these Bills advancing from committees and ultimately to the desk of the Governor.

Please unite with us and help with our outreach initiatives.

It is time for Actionable Advocacy.

In the coverage of the Long Island Serial Killer case, there has been a persistent and troubling pattern in how victims are visually represented. Again and again, news outlets have chosen to accompany stories with mugshots—often the most vulnerable, dehumanizing images available—rather than photographs that reflect the fullness of these women’s lives. Additionally, debasing descriptors are repeatedly used, usually in the same sentence as the introduction of their name.

This is not a neutral editorial choice. It is a decision that shapes public perception, reinforces stigma, and quietly influences whose lives are seen as worthy of empathy.

A mugshot is not a portrait. It is a moment captured at a person’s lowest point, often tied to poverty, addiction, or survival-driven circumstances. It strips context and reduces an individual to a single interaction with the criminal justice system. When media organizations repeatedly select these images to represent victims of violent crime, they are not simply reporting facts—they are curating a narrative. And too often, that narrative implies that these women were defined by their struggles rather than their humanity.

The women connected to the Long Island Serial Killer case were daughters, mothers, friends, and individuals with histories that extended far beyond a single photograph taken under fluorescent lights. Many had families who have spent years—decades—fighting to ensure they are remembered with dignity. To default to mugshots is to ignore those efforts. It is to flatten lives into stereotypes that the public can too easily dismiss.

There is also a deeper, more uncomfortable truth embedded in these editorial decisions: whose stories are told with care, and whose are not. In cases involving victims who fit more socially accepted narratives—those perceived as “ideal victims”—media outlets tend to use graduation photos, family portraits, or images that emphasize innocence and relatability. But when victims have histories involving sex work, substance use, or prior arrests, the tone shifts. The imagery becomes harsher, less forgiving. The implicit message is that some lives require explanation before they deserve compassion.

This is not just about optics; it has real consequences. Public empathy is not an unlimited resource—it is shaped by what people see. When audiences are presented with mugshots, they are subtly encouraged to view victims through a lens of judgment rather than grief. This can affect everything from the urgency of public pressure on law enforcement to the broader cultural understanding of violence against marginalized women.

Journalism carries an ethical obligation not only to inform but to do so with fairness and humanity. The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics urges reporters to “minimize harm” and to show compassion for those affected by tragedy. Using mugshots as default imagery fails that standard. It prioritizes convenience or sensationalism over dignity. It tells families that the most painful, reductive image of their loved one is the one that will live on in public memory.

There are alternatives. Many families have provided photographs that capture their loved ones as they wish to be remembered—smiling, alive, human. Even when such images are not readily available, media outlets can choose neutral visuals or invest the time to seek out better representations. These choices require more effort, but ethical journalism often does.

Criticism of this practice is not about erasing the complexities of victims’ lives. It is about refusing to let those complexities be weaponized against them in death. A person’s past does not diminish the violence committed against them, nor does it justify a lack of care in how their story is told.

If the role of the media is to bear witness, then it must do so responsibly. That means recognizing that every image, every descriptor, carries weight, and that the final impression left on the public should not be one of judgment, but of recognition. These women were more than the worst moments of their lives. The coverage should reflect that truth.

Raul

#BeBetter

The modern New York Son of Sam framework is triggered when:

• A person convicted of a crime

• Receives substantial funds tied to notoriety

In a LISK context:

The moment of legal significance is conviction, not arrest or indictment.

Practical implication:

• Right now (pre-conviction), media activity is largely unrestricted.

• Post-conviction, any monetization tied to the crimes becomes legally sensitive.

2. The True Crime Economy Around LISK

The Gilgo Beach case is uniquely positioned because:

• It spans over decades of public attention

• It involves multiple victims and unresolved questions

• It has already generated Documentaries
  Podcasts

• Investigative journalism

• Content Creators seeking monetization and new subscribers
  
  

Key reality:

Most of this content is legally unaffected by Son of Sam laws because:

• It is created by third parties

• It does not involve direct payment to the accused

This is why the LISK story can be widely told—even commercially.

3. What Would Trigger Son of Sam in This Case?

If Rex Heuermann were convicted, the following scenarios would likely trigger the law:

A. Direct Deals

• Book contract (memoir, confession, or “inside story”)

• Paid interviews (TV, streaming platforms)

• Consulting fees for films or series

B. Indirect or Structured Deals

Payments routed through:

• Agents

• Attorneys

• Production intermediaries
  
  

C. Asset Windfalls Linked to Notoriety

• Sale of property or materials whose value increased due to the case

• Paid access to personal archives, letters, or recordings

Once payments cross the statutory threshold, reporting is triggered.

4. What Happens After Money Is Identified?

When qualifying funds are detected:

1. The paying entity must notify the state

2. The New York State Office of Victim Services is alerted

3. Victims’ families are notified

Then the critical phase begins:

Civil Litigation Window Opens

Families of victims—including those connected to:

• Sandra Costilla

• Valerie Mack

• Jessica Taylor

• Melissa Barthelemy

• Megan Waterman

• Amber Lynn Costello

• Maureen Brainard-Barnes

• Admission of any other victim not yet charged

…could pursue civil lawsuits to recover:

• Wrongful death damages

• Pain and suffering

• Emotional distress

The Son of Sam law doesn’t award money automatically—it enables these lawsuits to target newly revealed funds.

5. Why This Matters in LISK Specifically

The LISK case presents unusual legal dynamics:

A. Time Gap

• Crimes date back to the early 1990’s

• Many civil statutes of limitation would normally be expired

Son of Sam–triggered funds can reopen legal pathways that otherwise wouldn’t exist.

B. Multiple Victims, Multiple Claims

• Unlike a single-victim case, Gilgo involves multiple families

This creates potential:

• Competing claims

• Allocation disputes over limited funds

C. Scale of Media Interest

• LISK is one of the most high-profile serial cases since David Berkowitz (ironically the origin of the law), and O.J. Simpson
  
  

The higher the media demand:

• The greater the potential financial stakes

• The more aggressively the law may be invoked

6. Strategic Behavior by Media Companies

Because of Son of Sam exposure:

Most studios/publishers will:

• Avoid paying the offender directly

Work through:

• Journalists

• Law enforcement sources

• Public records
  
  

In a LISK adaptation:

The story would likely center on:

• Victims Investigation

• System failures
  
  

Not the offender’s paid narrative- although here, the Peacock documentary focusing on LISK’s family would be the first consideration of a challenge

7. Potential Loopholes in a LISK Context

Even with the law, gray areas remain:

Family monetization

If a relative of Rex Heuermann sells a story:

• Is the money truly independent?

• Or derived from his notoriety?
  
  

This becomes a fact-specific legal battle

Pre-existing assets

If assets were acquired before conviction:

• They may be harder to attach
  
  

• But notoriety-driven value increases could be argued

Intellectual contributions

If the offender provides:

• “Insight” without formal payment

• Background through intermediaries
  
  

Proving compensation becomes complex

8. The Bigger Picture: Justice vs. Narrative Control

The LISK case sits at a powerful intersection:

Victims’ rights:

• Families deserve access to any profits tied to the crimes

Public interest:

Society has a strong interest in:

• Understanding what happened

• Examining investigative failures

• Society should also have an interest In the overall morality vs. True Crime consumption
  
  

Constitutional limits:

The state cannot:

• Silence the offender

• Ban storytelling
  
  

Bottom Line (LISK-Specific)

If a conviction occurs:

• The story will absolutely be told (books, documentaries, series)

But:

• Direct profit by the offender becomes legally risky and traceable

• Victims’ families gain a renewed path to civil recovery
  
  

In a case as high-profile as LISK, the Son of Sam law is less about stopping media—and more about redirecting the financial consequences of notoriety toward those who suffered most.

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Sam_law

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/son-of-sam-laws/#:~:text=The%20Son%20of%20Sam%20law%2C%20also%20known,withheld%20and%20made%20available%20to%20the%20victims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_%26_Schuster_v._Crime_Victims_Board

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2007/may/15/florida-son-of-sam-law-upheld/#:~:text=The%20state%20argued%20that%20under,this%20and%20other%20premium%20content.

https://www.rcfp.org/high-court-strikes-down-state-son-sam-law/#:~:text=In%20California%2C%20the%20trial%20court,%2Dof%2DSam%E2%80%9D%20law.

https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1855&context=lawreview

On January 12th, 2026 the Heuermann defense filed an Omnibus Motion seeking relief on the following 9 points:

1- For the Court’s inspection of the Grand Jury Minutes

2- An Order dismissing Count 10, (which the charge for the murder of Sandra Costilla).

3- All Discovery related to the prosecution of John Bittrolff

4- Suppression of 20 Sealed Search Warrants

5- Suppression of Search and Seizure Warrants (Abandonment Samples, Digital and Physical)

6- Suppression of Self-Serving Statements made by the Defendant

7- Suppression of the Identification of Defendant

8- Asks the Court to order the DA to articulate Molineux Evidence.

9- Brady Material

On March 3rd, 2026, the DA submitted their Affirmation and Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Defendant’s Omnibus Motion, where the People challenge the Defense.

Let’s explore the argument and counter-argument line-by-line:

1- Grand Jury Minutes

The #LISK defense has asked the Honorable Judge Mazzei to review the Grand Jury minutes to determine whether the evidence before the Grand Jury was legally sufficient to support the charges- to dismiss any evidence that isn’t sufficient- and if the evidence is deemed to support a lesser charge, that the Court reduce to the lesser charge.

The People consent to a Judicial review of the Grand Jury minutes.

2- Motion to Dismiss Indictment for the Murder of Sandra Costilla

According to the Defense, the entire charge of Murder in the Second Degree rests “entirely on a single hair recovered from a tape lift of Ms. Costilla’s striped shirt, not her body..”. The defense also introduces here, the “cumulative effect” stance- that the Grand Jury could not possibly reach any independent determination because they were inundated with all of the previous evidence from the earlier “unrelated” charges, (it is important to note here that the “unrelated charges”, is essentially attempting to relitigate the decision to not severe the cases as the defense had hoped for.

The People, citing that the Grand Jury’s integrity was not compromised, proceed, first, to challenge the defense’s claim of only one hair. There were in fact two hairs found with Sandra and that:

• the male hair found on Sandra’s “mutilated remains” excludes 99.96% of the entire North American population except Rex Heuermann. To be more precise the male hair is 4.347 x 10 to the 332 power, or 4.346 x10 with 332 zeros.

• the female hair recovered from the arm of Sandra Costilla is 4.578 x 10 to the 1040 power, that of Heuermann’s first wife, who had moved out of their shared home in Massapequa Park in September of 1993, after only 3 years of marriage, two months before Sandra was found in North Sea.

The People also reiterated that once the first wife moved out of the home, Heuermann had “unfettered access” to the house.

On Point 14 of the DA’s Opposition filing, the people note that the defendant collected “momentos” related to each of the 7 charged homicides.

Specifically related to Sandra Costilla, “the Grand Jury also heard evidence that on 5/21/2024, while executing a search warrant at defendant’s residence, the 11/22/1993 edition of Newsday was recovered from defendant’s basement.

Actual Newsday paper collected during search warrant execution.

When this Newsday newspaper was recovered, it was the original publication which was 31 years old at that time and in “pristine condition”.

3- Order for the Production of Discovery Pertaining to the Bittrolff Prosecution and Related Investigations

The Heuermann Defense is asking the Court to direct the District Attorney’s office to provide all manner of Discovery related to investigation and prosecution of John Bittrolff. They further seek all information related to the investigation of Bittrolff in relation to any and all of the 7 victims charged to their client.

The defense is relying on statements made by then ADA Robert Biancavilla implying Bittrolff may be responsible for some of the Gilgo Beach victims.

John Bittrolff

The People request this Motion be denied on the grounds that the defendant’s “offer of proof”, “relies almost entirely on the extrajudicial and speculative statements by former prosecutor Robert Biancavilla and perceived “parallels between the (Rita) Tangredi and (Colleen) McNamee crime scenes and that of Sandra Costilla”.

First, The People make note that John Bittrolff’s DNA was compared to the male hair found on Sandra in 2014 and excluded as a match. Second, Rex Heuermann’s own DNA was excluded as “unknown male contributor” on both Rita and Colleen’s samples. Third, two independent labs confirmed that hairs found on 6 of the 7 victims are confirmed to be either the defendant or family known to have been living with him at the time or just prior to each of those respective murders.

For these reasons, The People feel that case files related to the investigation of Bittrolff prosecution is not Discoverable and is overly broad.

However, in good faith, The People are “amenable to disclosing relevant materials regarding the John Bittrolff case, provided, however, the defendant particularizes the discovery demand to identifiable, specific and relevant categories of materials that are proportionate to the needs of the case”. The DA asks the Court to require a revised and particularized demand- once received, the DA is asking for 60 days to comply- if sooner, then the People will endeavor to do so. The People also reserve the right for a conference to resolve any potential defendant objections” .

“Additionally, The People submit the phrase (used by the defense), murders of any of the victims of the person colloquially referred to as the Long Island Serial Killer” is overbroad as there are dozens of victims, in various jurisdictions- including outside of Suffolk County- that have been the subject of speculation as so-called victims of “LISK”. Defendant’s demand for such materials, absent a clear and defined identification of the alleged victims at issue, is therefore vague, overbroad, and incapable of meaningful compliance”.

4- Rex Heuermann’s Constitutionally Guaranteed Rights To Be Free From Unreasonable Searches and Seizures.

“Rex Heuermann’s Constitutionally guaranteed rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was violated by the improper issuance of twenty search warrants and the evidence acquired through the execution of these improper warrants must be suppressed”.

Here, the defense is challenging 20 search warrants ranging from amended warrant requests, the now infamous pizza crust, to the searches at the defendant’s home, storage facilities, and digital (phone and email) footprints.

At issue, in particular:

1. Search warrants issued on October 3, 2022 seeking the historical geographic location information, call detail records, and other account identifying information pertaining to cell telephone number (917) 681-2476;

2. Search warrants issued January 31, 2023 seeking the acquisition records relating to Google account RB4570@gmail.com

3. Search warrants issued on February 14, 2023 seeking acquisition of historical geographic location information, call detail records, and other account identifying information pertaining to T-Mobile (347) 885-1697

4. Search warrants issued on February 27, 2023 seeking acquisition of historical geographical location information, call detail records, and other account identifying information pertaining to T-Mobile (347) 304-2671 and Verizon Wireless phone number (917) 681-2476

5. Search warrants issued on March 23, 2023 seeking records related to Google account thawk080672@gmail.com

6. Search warrants issued on April 18, 2023 seeking records related to AOL/Yahoo account springfieldman9@aol.com between 1/14/2011 to the present.

7. Search warrants issued on April 18, 2023 seeking acquisition of historical geographical location information, call detail records, and other account identifying information pertaining to T-Mobile (347) 304-2671 and Verizon Wireless phone number (917) 681-2476

8. Search warrants issued May 8, 2023 seeking acquisition of records related to Google account hunter1903a3@gmail.com

9. Search warrants issued May 11, 2023 seeking the acquisition of records for AOL account rahapc@aol.com, rahapc@aim.com, and Google account rahapc@aol.com

10. Search warrants issued on June 6, 2023 seeking the records related to Google thawk080672@gmail.com from the period April 10, 2023 through the present

11. Search warrants issued June 15, 2023 seeking acquisition of records related to Apple iCloud account associated with Apple ID rahapc@aol.com

12. Search warrants issued July 13, 2023 seeking authorization for the search of two storage units located at Omega Storage of NYC LLC in Amityville the seizure and search of 4 vehicles, the search of premises at 105 1st Street Massapequa Park, the search of the premises of RH Consultants & Associates PC, located at 385 Fifth Avenue NY, the search of Webster Bank safety deposit box #13A, and the seizure of electronic devices possessed by Rex A. Heuermann at the time of his arrest

13. Amended search warrant ordered July 14, 2023, to correct the address given fo rone of the storage units

14. Amended search warrant ordered July 21, 2023, expanding the authorized methods of search of the residences identified in the warrant of July 13, 2023, to include the use of x-ray and scanning devices

15. Amended search warrant ordered May 19, 2024, expanding the warrant of July 13, 2023 to permit the seizure of documents and physical records

16. Amended search warrant ordered May 24, 2024, expanding the warrant of July 13, 2023, to permit the removal of walls, panelling, and the use of chemical agents

17. Amended search warrant ordered June 26, 2024, expanding the warrant of July 13, 2023, to permit the seizure and search of computer hard drives

18. Search warrants issued on August 1, 2023 seeking records related to Google account sandbagger303@gmail.com

19. Search warrants issued on August 1, 2023 seeking records related to the Snapchat account bearing the username tom_hawk22986

20. Search warrants issued on October 17, 2023 seeking records related to Dropbox accounts rhcon@outlook.com, and rex@rhcon.com

The People, respond, in part:

“With respect to the Defendant’s criticisms of the initial search warrant affidavit, those arguments rest on fundamental mischaracterizations of the facts before the Court and an ignorance of critical context”.

In the Opposition filing, The People go to great and detailed lengths to articulate refutation of each of the 20 defendant issues, using laser-focus case law to essentially breakdown the Defense attempt to suppres sand/or dismiss huge facets of probative evidence.

It is within these refutations that we learn, heretofore, unknown details related to Melissa, Megan and Amber.

A more nuanced timeline for Melissa is generated from the filings:

• July 2, 2009 - approximately 4:38pm Heuermann purchases burner phone for Melissa.

• July 3, 2009 - burner phone had its first communication- linking to a Melville cell site while Heuermann was in Melville at Dicks Sporting Goods- here he used his AMEX card for a purchase. It should be noted that Dick’s Sporting Goods does carry an assortment of Duck Hunting coverings (burlap).

• July 8, 2009 - August 18, 2009- Asa Ellerup and Family are in Iceland. It is during and after this time that there are 19 separate communication events.

• July 10, 2009 - Geolocation data of Heuermann’s burner phone and his own “RH” phone align as he is in Manhattan and it appears, based on Melissa’s phone data that her phone also aligns with the Defendant’s

Details also emerge about the horrific and truly sadistic taunting calls made to Melissa’s sister, Amanda:

• July 17, 2009- the first call to Amanda originates in Manhattan

• August 5, 2009- the second call to Amanda between 6:50-7:11pm

• August 10-August 18, 2009- Heuermann joins his family in Iceland- there are no calls

• August 19, 2009- third call to Amanda between 7:20-7:31pm

• August 26, 2009- final call to Amanda between 11:29-11:34pm

Megan Waterman

Analysis of Billing Records for RH Phone regarding the disappearance of Megan Waterman:

• June 4 - June 8, 2010- Asa Ellerup and Family out of New York State

• June 5, 2010- burner phone activated and used to contact Megan. There are only 5 communication events.

• June 6, 2010- between 1:12am - 1:31am Megan and RH Phone active in Hauppauge.

• Megan leaves hotel at 1:31am

• Both Megan’s cell phone and Burner phone attach to cell towers located at the same hotel

• 3:11am- last cell site location in Massapequa Park

Amber Lynn Costello

Analysis of Billing Records for RH Phone regarding the disappearance of Amber Costello:

• July 3, 2010- burner phone activated and used between 8:14pm - 9:33pm

• August 28, 2010- September 5, 2010- Asa Ellerup and family out of New York State

• July 4, 2010- 9:05pm activity in Massapequa Park

• July 19, 2010- 9:05pm-9:19pm activity in NYC and Elmhurst, Queens

• August 27, 2010- 9:05pm activity in NYC. Heuermann also used his AMEX card at a restaurant on Madison Avenue, near his office

• August 30, 2010- North Hills at 11:52am (The Long Island Expressway runs through here), Queens at 11:59am, and NYC at 4:03pm and 9:56pm

• September 1, 2010- 11:33pm- Burner phone contacts Amber’s phone, 4 minutes later, RH phone made a call- both calls originating from Massapequa Park and travelling towards Babylon, where Amber lived.

• September 2, 2010- 12:05am burner phone contact with Amber’s phone. Ensuing “ruse” plays out- RH: “I am just a friend”, then “tell her I’ll give her a call”.

• 1:18am- burner phone send a text message to Amber’s phone: “that was not so nice, do I (sic) credit for next time”.

• 6:58pm and 9:32pm- burner phone contacts Amber’s phone from midtown Manhattan

• 10:16pm- Wantagh

• 10:39pm- Massapequa Park

• 11:05pm- Amityville

• 11:17pm- West Babylon

• Note: RH personal phone used in Massapequa Park at 10:41pm

“Shortly after 11:17 pm, on September 2, 2010, Ms. Costello walked out of her residence for that “date”, never to be seen again”.

There was never simultaneous phone usage between RH phone and burner phones- ever, yet, always traveling in apparent tandem and overlap with victim’s phones.

We now know that, while the “ruse” may have been utilized previously, when it came to executing the ruse against the Defendant, this was in fact, undeniably done the day before Amber was taken.

It also seems apparent that Heuermann met up with Melissa in Manhattan and took her back, with him, to Massapequa Park. If definitive, this shows that Heuermann had personally picked up Maureen, Melissa, Megan and Amber.

There are two other burner phones listed in the document- both activated in 2019 and 2021 respectively that are of interest to me at the moment. I am currently reviewing missing persons cases on my Map relative to these time periods and have built a list of possibles that will be submitted to the authorities.

These two burner phone lines were used to contact “at least 60 sex workers more than 500 times in the four years leading up to his 2023 arrest”:

Suspected Gilgo Beach killer Rex Heuermann contacted sex workers hundreds of times, viewed sadistic killings of women online, DA says

5- Suppression of Search and Seizure (Abandonment Samples)

On the issue of Abandonment, the filing states:

“The arguments raised by Defendant with respect to his abandoned garbage are not novel and have routinely been rejected by Courts. In any event, Defendant forfeited any standing to assert Fourth Amendment challenge when he discarded the pizza box and its contents in a public receptacle.

“Since the seminal decision regarding abandonment items, i.e., California v Greenwood, the Supreme Court of the United States established that the “Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage”.

Despite the clear articulation of the Fourth Amendment and its applications on collected and tested abandonment samples, and despite the defense’s own admission of the discarded pizza crust and napkin, defense counsels apparently acknowledge that they are asking the Court to expand the Fourth Amendment protections “beyond their presently recognized limits on what they characterized was a “novel” issue”.

6- Suppression of Self-Serving Statements made by the Defendant

“The People are not seeking to introduce evidence of statements made by the defendant and move to preclude the defendant from eliciting or introducing such statements as they constitute inadmissible self-serving hearsay.

7- Suppression of the Identification of Defendant- Wade Hearing

Screenshot of text messages between Witness 1 and a Civilian

Here, The People move the Court to reject the Defendant’s motion to suppress his pre-trial identification , or in the alternative for a pretrial Wade Hearing as this identification was not police-arranged.

Since United States v. Wade, local and federal courts have reiterated that identification procedures arranged by private citizens, without law enforcement involvement, are not subject to a pre-trial Wade hearing.

“On July 14, 2023 Witness 1 received a text message with a picture of the defendant from another civilian. The photo accompanying the text had been published in the news media.

8- Asks the Court to order the DA to articulate Molineux Evidence

The eighth issue raised by the defense is a demand “for an order directing the prosecution to disclose a list of all Molineaux evidence they intend to introduce at trial within 30 days of the Order of this Court directing disclosure”.

9- Brady Material (Quid Pro Quo)

Point 9 of the Defendant’s Omnibus Motion demands that The People be required to deliver to the attorney for Mr. Heuermann all evidence favorable to Mr. Heuermann, pursuant to the holdings United States Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland

The People have already provided all known Brady material to the Defendant

And furthermore, The People Demand Reciprocal Discovery.

“To Date, the People have provided more than 120 terabytes of electronic data and over 715,000 pages of discovery. On September 17, 2025, the People filed our initial Order of Compliance. Annexed to that filing, the People included a 723 page “Master Inventory” indicating, for all parties, what discovery had been provided through that date. Moreover, the Certificate of Compliance was accompanied by a 99-page list of potential civilian witnesses, and a 5-poage list of potential expert witnesses.

To date, the People have not received ANY trial discovery from the defense counsels. Based on the foregoing, the People seek and Order which requires the defendant to produce reciprocal discovery...within 60 days of the Court’s Order.

When most people think of criminal justice “closure,” they imagine an arrest, a trial, and a conviction. In reality, law enforcement agencies classify some cases as closed even when no arrest is ever made. This status, known in police data reporting as exceptional clearance or exceptional closure, reflects a legally recognized but often misunderstood category that plays a major role in crime statistics and public perceptions of police effectiveness.

What Is Exceptional Clearance?

Under the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program—the long-standing national standard for crime data in the United States—law enforcement agencies can “clear” a case in one of two ways:

1. By arrest, or

2. By exceptional means (also called exceptional clearance).

A case can be exceptionally cleared only when all of the following are true:

• The offender has been identified.

• There is sufficient evidence to support arrest, charging, and prosecution.

• The offender’s exact location is known.

• Circumstances outside law enforcement’s control prevent arrest or prosecution.

In these situations, police are acknowledging that they have done the investigative work and identified who they believe committed the crime—yet they cannot take the usual legal steps to bring that person into custody or push the case forward. A commonly cited example is when the suspect dies (through suicide or being killed), making arrest and prosecution impossible. Other scenarios might include a victim’s refusal to cooperate or a refusal of extradition by another jurisdiction.

You can read a formal explanation of the criteria from the FBI’s UCR program here: FBI: Cleared by Exceptional Means. FBI: Cleared by Exceptional Means (detailed definition)

How Exceptional Clearance Shows Up in Data

Crime statistics frequently report the total number of offenses “cleared” during a given period. These clearance rates combine arrests and exceptional closures alike, which can sometimes obscure what’s really happening on the ground.

For example, 2023 FBI data shows that for categories like murder and manslaughter, more than half of reported cases were closed—either through arrest or exceptional means. In other crime types, the overall closure rates are much lower.

When agencies rely heavily on exceptional clearances, the impression created by raw clearance figures can be misleading. A community might see a high closure rate and assume most offenders were arrested and prosecuted, when in fact many were cleared under exceptional criteria.

Examples of Exceptional Clearance in Practice

Consider some real-world applications of exceptional clearance:

• In Chicago, investigative data showed that over a third of fatal shooting cases were closed without prosecution—either because the suspect died or because prosecutors declined charges. These were nonetheless logged as “cleared.”

• In other jurisdictions, victim non-cooperation accounts for many exceptional clearances. When victims refuse to participate in prosecution, police may technically meet the criteria for exceptional closure even though no formal charges proceed.

• Variation across agencies is significant. Some departments use exceptional clearance sparingly, while others report a much higher proportion of cases closed this way. Research shows that victim refusal to cooperate and prosecutors declining to pursue charges are among the most common exceptional clearance codes.

On Long Island, we have seen several cases closed with exceptional clearance, while others languish in indecision.

In 2022 Richard Cottingham confessed to the 1968 murder of Diane Cusick and part of this plea deal was to also take responsibility for the 1972 murders of Mary Beth Heinz, 21, of Mineola, and Laverne Moye, 23, of St. Albans, Queens. He also admitted, under the deal, to carrying out the 1973 murders of Sheila Heiman, 33, of North Woodmere, and Maria Emerita Rosado Nieves, 18, of Manhattan. 1

As of 2026, the 1966 case of murdered Mom Marilyn Simons sits on the desk of Suffolk County District Attorney Ray Tierney as he and his team equivocate on exceptional clearance that would bring some measure of Justice to Marilyn’s daughter Linda Greco. 2

Granted, District Attorneys seek to prosecute and stand strong on crime and justice but if a confession, with undeniable proof can be extracted from an already incarcerated and dying serial killer- even if that killer leverages his information in order to have an occasional cigar, or more comfortable environment, or his favorite snack- with the support of the families of the victim, shouldn’t more consideration be merited? How many families are forever denied a measure of Justice if law enforcement refuses to consider exceptional clearance?

This would not be the first time Exceptional Clearance was leveraged as a tool of Justice from Suffolk County.

Eve Wilkowitz was last seen alive on March 22, 1980. She had been employed as a secretary for a publishing company in Manhattan and was reported to have boarded the 12:39 a.m. Long Island Railroad train at Penn Station for purposes of returning to her home in Bay Shore.

Wilkowitz, who was 20 years-old at the time, never made it home. Her live-in boyfriend reported her missing that same day. Her body was recovered on March 25 on the lawn of a property located at 26 Center Avenue in Bay Shore. When she was discovered, she was missing her coat, blouse, shoes and pocketbook. There were ligature marks on her wrists and there were signs that she had been raped. The cause of her death was later determined to be manual strangulation. Samples of fluids that did not belong to Wilkowitz were obtained from her body and stored in evidence for years.3

A DNA profile was generated and Eve’s murderer was ultimately identified- although he had already died by the time of his identification, the case was closed as solved.

Why Exceptional Closure Matters

1. It Affects Public Perception of Police Effectiveness

Crime clearance rates are often used as shorthand for police performance. A high clearance percentage is typically interpreted as evidence that an agency is effectively solving crime. But exceptional clearances—where no arrest or prosecution occurs—can inflate these figures without corresponding to what the public might consider real results.

Critics argue that this can mislead policymakers, media, and communities into believing more crimes are “solved” than really are, obscuring underlying challenges in investigations.

2. It Impacts Families and Victims

For victims and their families, an exceptional closure designation may provide little actual closure. A case marked as “closed” in uniform crime data often means no prosecution and no conviction, leaving many without a sense of justice or resolution.

Lawmakers in states such as Illinois have even proposed legislation requiring more transparent reporting that distinguishes between clearances that result in arrests and those that don’t.

3. It Shapes Crime Trends and Policy Discussions

When crime clearance statistics include exceptional means, analysts and policymakers must interpret trends carefully. A rise or fall in clearance rates could be due to changes in investigation capacity, victim cooperation levels, interdiction efforts, or purely statistical artifacts due to exceptional clearances being counted.

Controversy and Criticism

Exceptional clearance isn’t free of controversy. In some cases, agencies have been accused of using the category inappropriately, closing investigations without sufficient investigation or evidence—essentially treating cases as solved for reporting convenience rather than justice. A notable example comes from allegations against the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office in Arizona, where some cases were reportedly closed without meeting the FBI’s criteria.

Scholars also warn that research on crime outcomes must disentangle exceptional clearances from traditional arrests to truly understand investigative effectiveness. Cases cleared alternatively may have more in common with unsolved cases, especially when no legal accountability follows.

To revisit Long Island once again, we have an Unidentified Asian Doe thought to be a victim of accused Long Island Serial Killer Rex Heuermann. This Doe’s identity seems to be very challenging to secure and while the circumstances of their murder- in time and proximity to other attributed LISK victims- may point to Heuermann, their case may never be closed, regardless of any probative evidence.

Will we be revisiting Exceptional Clearance in 20 years when Heuermann will be nearing 90 years of age, (should he live that long)- will we then be able to get answers on cases that may have evidence but lack prosecutable foundations?

Toward Better Understanding and Transparency

Efforts to improve transparency around exceptional closures include:

• Better public reporting that clearly distinguishes between clearance types.

• Policy discussions aimed at refining how law enforcement and prosecutors communicate case outcomes.

• Data reforms that integrate victim and community perspectives into clearance reporting.

The goal is not to diminish the legitimate use of exceptional closure but to ensure the public and policymakers understand what crime statistics truly represent—and what they don’t.

Further Reading & Resources

• FBI’s official description of clearance criteria: FBI: Cleared by Exceptional Means

• Statista on U.S. crime clearance rates: U.S. Crime Clearance Rate by Type (2023)

• Analysis of why clearance rates can be misleading: Why ‘Clearance Rates’ Don’t Tell the Whole Story

Exceptional clearance is a nuanced but essential part of how law enforcement measures investigative outcomes. Understanding it helps citizens, advocates, and officials interpret crime data more accurately and work toward justice that’s both accountable and transparent.

Major Exoneration Cases
•The “Theresa Fusco” Case (Restivo, Kogut, and Halstead): In 1986, John Kogut, John Restivo, and Dennis Halstead were convicted for the rape and murder of 16-year-old Theresa Fusco. DNA evidence eventually cleared all three men in 2005 after they had served roughly 16–17 years in prison

•Christopher Ellis: Convicted in 1993 for a 1990 murder and attempted robbery, Ellis spent decades in prison. In 2021, the Nassau County District Attorney’s office vacated his conviction after discovering that police memo pads containing leads on other suspects were never turned over to the defense, a violation of the Brady rule

•Josiah Galloway: Convicted of attempted murder in 2009, Galloway served 10 years of a 25-year sentence before his conviction was vacated in 2018.

•Leonard Mack: Though the crime occurred in 1975, Mack was officially exonerated in 2023—nearly 47 years later—after advanced DNA testing proved his innocence in a Westchester/Long Island-area rape case.

Systemic Responses & Statistics
•Conviction Integrity Unit (CIU): The Nassau County District Attorney operates a specialized Conviction Integrity Unit to investigate post-conviction claims of actual innocence and review past cases for forensic or procedural errors.

•Common Factors: Consistent with broader New York trends, these wrongful convictions often involved eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, and the withholding of evidence by law enforcement.

•Financial Impact: These errors have resulted in significant liability for the county; for example, a 2014 federal jury awarded John Restivo and Dennis Halstead $36 million for their wrongful imprisonment.

Police misconduct allegations in Nassau County wrongful conviction cases from the 1980s and 90s center on coercive interrogations, evidence fabrication, and the withholding of exculpatory leads.

Key Misconduct Allegations by Case
•The “Theresa Fusco” Case (Restivo, Halstead, and Kogut):
◦Evidence Fabrication: Lead detective Joseph Volpe was accused of planting hairs from the victim’s head in John Restivo’s van to provide physical “proof” for a case that lacked forensic links.
◦Coerced Confessions: John Kogut was interrogated for 18 hours and claimed he was coerced into signing a pre-written confession after being falsely told he had failed multiple polygraphs.
◦Withholding Evidence: Detectives were accused of burying leads that pointed to other suspects and lying to prosecutors and judges to secure the convictions.

•The Christopher Ellis Case (1990):
◦Brady Violations: In 2021, it was revealed that Nassau detectives had failed to disclose hundreds of pages of notes containing 11 different leads on other potential suspects, a direct violation of Brady v. Maryland.
◦Interrogation Tactics: Ellis, then 20, recanted a confession he claimed was signed under duress after an 18-hour interrogation where he was denied food, water, and sleep.

•The “Friedmans” Case (1980s):
◦Controversial Investigations: The high-profile child abuse case against Arnold and Jesse Friedman in Great Neck involved allegations of highly suggestive and coercive questioning of child witnesses by Nassau County investigators.

Systemic Issues & Financial Liability
•Civil Rights Litigation: Federal juries and courts have consistently found Nassau County liable for “intentional misconduct,” resulting in massive payouts, including $36 million for Restivo and Halstead.
•Lack of Internal Oversight: Critics and former prosecutors have noted a “culture of secrecy,” highlighting that for decades, Nassau’s Internal Affairs Unit rarely found civilian complaints of misconduct to be founded, even when the county paid millions to settle those same claims.
•Transparency Battles: Since the repeal of New York’s Civil Rights Law Section 50-a, the Nassau County Police Department has faced numerous lawsuits from groups like the NYCLU for allegedly continuing to shield misconduct records dating back to 2000.

So from all of this, we should look at how the

u/NassauDA

is approaching the case against #AndrewDykes

The case is weak, chock full of -#reasonabledoubt

The jury pool will be hyper sensitive to wrongful convictions because they ultimately cost them more in property taxes as Nassau County is rimming bankruptcy with each wrongful conviction or coerced confession.

Jurors will also be observant of the political abrasive relationship between Nassau and Suffolk going back just as far as #LISK arrest…where was Nassau?…besides crossing guards at First Ave….where was Nassau at the #KarenVergata ID presser?

Nassau County was obviously pissed..so they tried to usurp attention away from Suffolk by charging Andrew Dykes with Tanya’s murder…

Who wins in this? Certainly not Tanya.

If LISK killed Tanya and Andrew is convicted, Tanya doesn’t get her Justice.

If Andrew is guilty (and I don’t believe he is guilty), and the case is so obnoxiously weak and he gets acquitted, there’s still no Justice for Tanya…

.

The National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs), was created in 20051 to address the need for a more unified and comprehensive, structured database to better support law enforcement agencies and medical examiners to manage the ever-increasing issue of missing and unidentified persons in the United States.

Prior to NamUs, information was scattered across local databases, medical examiner offices, law enforcement systems, and advocacy-run lists. The Department of Justice, working with the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), began developing a centralized solution.
NamUs launched publicly in 2007 as an online repository, initially focused on unidentified remains.

Expansion and Integration2

In 2008, NamUs incorporated a missing persons database which allowed users to cross-match comparisons between the missing and the unidentified.

By 2009–2011, NamUs introduced additional tools:
• forensic odontology and anthropology case-support services
• a biometric data program (fingerprints, dental charts, DNA)
• regional program specialists to assist agencies and families
• a secure law-enforcement interface

The use of NamUs, from a law enforcement perspective increased as more agencies began to willingly contribute to it. NamUs is unique in that it allows a measure of public access while maintaining privacy and investigative resources accessible only to law enforcement.

The public access component has spawned an untold amount of private researchers- often, family members themselves and advocates who make every effort to champion a cause, a person, with hopes of offering resolutions to families missing their loved ones, and giving names back to the unknown. Entire communities, (Websleuths, Reddit and Facebook groups), have been created for the sharing of information, discussions about potential comparisons and comprehensive write-up’s on both the missing person’s life and the details related to the discovery of a Jane/John Doe.

An Unquantifiable Impact- Todd Matthews

I felt it more appropriate, when sharing who Todd Matthews was and what he means to “us”, that it is shared by someone who knew Todd personally: Dana Poll.

“Todd Matthews was more than a colleague and friend – he was a trailblazer in the world of missing and unidentified person investigations. It all started in 1987, when Todd felt called to investigate the case of a young woman found in Kentucky, who had been unidentified for 20 years. Over the next decade, Todd spent thousands of hours researching Tent Girl’s case. In 1998, he solved it. Her name was Barbara Ann “Bobbie” Hackmann Taylor. The family, who had been missing her for 30 years, finally had answers. In the process of giving Barbara back her name, Todd became nationally known as “The First Internet Sleuth”. This recognition opened doors and enabled him to fulfill his life’s mission —‌ to give John and Jane Does back their names.

In the early 2000s, Todd joined the NamUs Advisory Board, where he played a crucial role in the design and implementation of the NamUs database. His dedication and vision later led him to serve as the organization’s Director of Case Management and Communications. In 2017, Todd was instrumental in the passing of HB0044/Help Find the Missing Act, in his home state of Tennessee.

Before joining NamUs, Todd collaborated with dedicated volunteers to create The Doe Network and Project EDAN.

As an expert in his field, it wasn’t long before the media tapped Todd to consult on two scripted television shows; Jerry Bruckheimer’s The Forgotten and Dick Wolf’s Lost and Found. Through all of his accomplishments, Todd remained humble, always crediting the families and volunteers who shared his vision.

In 2024, Todd achieved a personal dream, a podcast deal. In Hello, John Doe, Todd tells the story of a family torn apart by tragedy and his quest to bring them back together. But on January 3, 2024, just a few weeks before its release, 53-year-old Todd Matthews unexpectedly passed away.

Todd often said, “We can’t bring the Does back to life, but we can bring them back home.” That belief defined him. No one can fill the void he left behind, but his legacy will continue to guide and inspire all who work to identify the unidentified and to bring the missing home”. - Dana Poll3

Operational Move and Modernization (2019–present)
In 2019, management of NamUs transitioned from the University of North Texas Health Science Center to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) and then to RTI International under NIJ oversight.
Upgrades followed:
• redesigned platform launched in 2021 with enhanced security and search capabilities
• expanded technical assistance
• improved case matching algorithms
• streamlined verification for law enforcement agencies

NamUs Positive Impact

NamUs public access has been instrumental in allowing “armchair detectives, cyber sleuths” and especially family members to do some of the heavy lifting for LE, particularly when official resources are spread thin or when a case has gone “cold”.

Social media forums are replete with groups and threads that focus on unresolved unidentified and missing person cases. The community of advocates and researchers has and continues to grow, and for the most part, the communities are respectful, inquisitive and determined.

There are also private researchers that create invaluable resources such as The Charley Project as one example.

As mentioned earlier, Todd Matthews went on to create The Doe Network, a nonprofit organization that will work with law enforcement and the public to crowd source funding for highlighted cases, bringing resolution to 113 cases as of this writing.

NamUs Opportunities

Despite all of the benefits of NamUs there are plenty of opportunities for further enhancement and effectiveness. Granted, much of the data entered on a case page is done so by law enforcement or medical examiners, regardless, there are flaws.

• Often there are no images for a missing person. This could obstruct paths towards comparisons. When I created my map, Missing, Murdered, Unidentified, Unresolved Cold Cases and was developing New York, I noticed 10 missing teens, aged 12-17 from the NYC area between 1990-1993 where only one of them had an image on file. No school or family photos, only scant descriptions of them. To make matters worse, most of the 10 had no exact location of where they were last seen. I’ve dubbed these missing 10 girls #BGx104, and have repeatedly shared their missing poster flyers, created a Facebook Group for them and even published a website.

  • This to me is an utter failure of the system and inexcusable. Compounding this even further, was abject and arrogant resistance by the NYPD Missing Persons Squad commander Det. Acosta, when I began inquiring for missing persons flyers, images and case files. My numerous FOIL requests, delayed and ignored for three years were ultimately returned with “unable to locate any files” on these missing girls. I offered to do “the heavy lifting”, by posting flyers directly in the communities and was met with a flippant response.

  • Acosta may not have been the original investigator on any of these cases, but as Squad Commander, he could get pictures of these girls, he could have collaborated with me, if only to grant me the opportunity to get the word out about these missing girls….if he truly wanted to, or cared enough.

• Non-congruent Modifications:

  • The Map has given me unique insight into flawed processes, one such insight is that lack of uniformity pertaining to exclusions.

  • I noticed that if an Unidentified Person is excluded for a Missing Person, it is sometimes not noted on the Missing Person’s NamUs page. This responsibility appears to lie at the hands of the Investigator. This has happened in the #Gilgo case. One reason for this, as I’ve been told, is to “protect the investigation”, apparently because Investigators are aware that I routinely cross-reference modifications.

  • In a high profile case like #Gilgo, I can almost understand- almost, but it isn’t exclusive to Gilgo. I have noticed this in other lesser known cases, to which I can only surmise is a lack of diligent follow-through.

• Not all states are required to contribute to NamUs although all 50 do so voluntarily- but not comprehensively.5

  • The states that do contribute have no accountability for not adhering to their own laws to contribute.

Billy’s Law

Laws need to change to extract accountability. This change needs to originate at the State level and ratified by Federal decree. Enforcement could be the withholding of federal funds for any project or subsidy, such as Highway Maintenance (as opined by Jayson Blair (add link). The Federal government allows for and encourages states to apply for grants to offset the costs of DNA testing, it would be more effective to leverage the withholding of funds for important State infrastructure initiatives: highways as one example (credit to Jayson Blair for this idea)- this would have a catalyzing and motivational effect on local and state agencies to apply more priority to resolving cases.

“Billy's Law” refers to a U.S. law that aims to improve the handling of missing and unidentified persons cases by increasing accessibility to the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs). The act mandates the sharing of data between NamUs and the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database, and provides grants to law enforcement agencies to help them report cases to both systems. The legislation was passed to create a more consolidated public database to help families find missing loved ones.

Named for Billy Smolinski, who went missing in 2004, his family experienced significant difficulties in the search process due to issues with information sharing between agencies. Another family encountered similar obstacles in the search for their missing daughter. The parents of Gabby Petito, who was allegedly killed by her fiancé on a cross country trip last year, joined the Smolinskis in pushing for this bill.

“The Smolinskis have yet to find their son Billy. As a mom, that’s, that’s heartbreaking,” Nicole Schmidt, Gabby Petito’s mother, said. “Yet look at them. They still want to help other families. And that’s what we want to do too.”6 7

….and yet, it is still not enough….

Susan Mann

The entire system failed Susan Mann for 45 years.

Susan “Susie” Mann, was a 15 year-old girl from Hollis Queens who disappeared on May 17th 1980. She received some media (print) coverage at the time of her disappearance, however her case went “cold”. She was last seen wearing a yellow and brown striped sweater and a heart-shaped gold pendant with the initial “K” in it.

On November 4th, 1982, remains of a teenage girl were recovered from a dumpster in Freeport, New York. She was found with a brown and yellow striped sweater and a gold heart pendant with an “initial” within it.

It would take well over 4 decades for Freeport Jane Doe to be identified as Susan Mann.

The problem here is that Susie was never entered into NamUs.

Had she been entered in NamUs, she most-certainly would have been matched years earlier.

There is no doubt in my mind that Susie’s case was re-examined because of the #LISK case. Since LISK had connections to Freeport, had noted in his horrifying planning document “dumpster”, that once he was arrested both Suffolk and Nassau Counties began revisiting their unresolved cases and Freeport Jane Doe was an important case to look at. What troubled me most is that there was enough information available to the public since 1980 to make a qualified comparison, but searching newspaper clippings with a broad search query such as “missing girl”, “missing teen”, will bring up hundreds of thousands of clippings- a maddening rabbit-hole that one can get lost in for months on end.

Again, had she’d been entered in NamUs, she would have been matched years earlier, bringing an already long-awaited path forward for her Family.

Riverhead Jane Doe

There are Unidentified that are not in NamUs. And this should be unacceptable. It saddens and frustrates me so much when I see a Doe added to NamUs years and decades after discovery- it simply means no one cared enough about a Doe to do anything about it.

On March 12th, 1990, the remains of an Asian female, 25-40 years-old, was found in a wooded area in Riverhead, Long Island. She had been killed by blunt force trauma, her face badly beaten. She was found clothed in a silk blouse, leather miniskirt and black panyhose. Her shoes were missing.

She was never entered into NamUs and is still not in NamUs.

Online blogger Murder Inc., first reported on Riverhead Jane Doe and filed several Freedom of Information Requests (FOIL in NY), for information on her. The responses he received stated that no such case even existed, however, after Rex Heuermann’s arrest, I also submitted a FOIL request for information and received acknowledgement that her case was part of an “open investigation with SCPD”.

Overall NamUs is an invaluable resource, one I use extensively every single day. My hope is that it will layer in compliance and accountability making this unique database indispensable.

Proactively enter Missing and Unidentified into the NamUs database and allow the public to assist. People make the time to connect to a “case” and will utilize their time, energy, skills and platforms to gather information, garner attention and generate potential leads. Law enforcement should assess collaboration and follow-through using training and experience to investigate and deliver Justice. Ignoring or downplaying public contributions is not an answer.

NamUs has been “shut-down” for 43 days as of today, 11/12/2025. This means that no Missing or Unidentified persons have been added since October 1st, 2025. This in-itself, is a failure of Justice.

Missing, Murdered, Unidentified, Unresolved Cold Cases- Map

I created this map on May 24, 2022.

A researcher I deeply admire had long wanted to create one but was unable to dedicate the necessary time, so I decided to build it as a resource — both for her and for others seeking clarity in the complex Ocean Parkway murders.

The map’s initial focus was to geographically profile the locations of the known and attributed victims of the Long Island Serial Killer (LISK). I began by plotting confirmed and possible LISK victims, along with key related locations, to create a visual framework of the case.

Shannan Gilbert was the first person placed on the map, followed by Sandra Costilla, Karen Vergata, Tanya Denise Jackson, Tatiana Marie Dykes, Valerie Mack, Jessica Taylor, Asian Doe, Maureen Brainard-Barnes, Melissa Barthelemy, Megan Waterman and Amber Lynn Costello.

As I worked, the map quickly expanded. The patterns demanded a broader view, leading me to include additional possible victims — and soon, I found myself drawn into the world of the unidentified. I began incorporating every unidentified person listed in the NamUs database for New York State. NamUs, the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System, serves as the national clearinghouse for Missing, Unidentified, and Unclaimed Persons.

From that point forward, the map seemed to take on a life of its own.

To the best of my knowledge, it remains the only map of its kind organized in chronological order — an idea suggested by Dr. Peter Vronsky, whose insight and friendship I am profoundly grateful for.

Gail Katz

In 2023, I was asked to assist and participate in a podcast called The Girlfriends . This exceptionally moving podcast centered around Gail Katz’s disappearance and murder, by her husband. Gail’s remains were believed to have been recovered and for more than a decade her devoted sister, Alayne mourned her loss. However, the remains thought to have been Gail were disinterred and determined that they did not belong to Gail. 1

It is because of Gail that I focused on adding all of the unidentified and undetermined gender Does2 along the eastern seaboard to the map, hoping to draw some comparisons for Gail. This attention made me realize the value of the Map and from there I was fully committed to compiling ALL of the Unidentified across the United States onto the map.

The Unidentified

For me, The Unidentified hold an especially important place in my heart. They are among the most marginalized members of our society — their invisibility only surpassed by society’s apathy toward The Unclaimed: those whose names are known, yet no one has come forward to claim them.

Each unidentified person on the map once lived a life. They had families, dreams, hopes, and aspirations — all of which were denied to them. The longer they remain unnamed, the more deeply they imprint themselves upon me. I find myself inextricably drawn to who they were, imagining what their lives might have been like. The few items found with their remains tell only fragments of their stories, leaving so much untold.

The unidentified who were murdered carry an especially heavy weight, most of all the children. Their cases linger with me. There are far too many to single out just one — though perhaps, in time, I may share some of their stories, so they may not remain voiceless forever.

The Missing

Missing persons cases are a growing issue in the United States — an epidemic rooted in a complex mix of socio-economic hardship, mental health challenges, family dynamics, abuse, and foul play. While some individuals may choose to leave their lives behind voluntarily, the overwhelming majority do not.

Too often, law enforcement simply lacks the resources to sustain long-term investigations. The burden of advocacy then falls upon the families — mothers, fathers, siblings, and friends — who refuse to let their loved one’s name fade from memory.

I firmly believe that everyday people can be advocates for the Missing.

Advocacy doesn’t always require a platform or position — it begins with genuine empathy. Sharing a missing person’s flyer, speaking their name, or taking a few moments to learn their story can extend their reach farther than we may ever realize, especially in the digital age.

I am currently more than halfway through adding all of the Missing persons listed on NamUs across the United States to my map — a daunting and emotional task. I am often sidetracked when one particular case captures my heart, but those moments are reminders of why this work matters.

There remain an untold number of Missing Persons who are not listed in any database, and that is a fundamental failure of the system. Many cases might be resolved sooner if they were entered into NamUs promptly. The laws requiring these entries already exist — but accountability is lacking.

Perhaps if federal funding were tied to state infrastructure, and specifically allocated for the purpose of ensuring all local and state missing person cases are entered into NamUs, agencies would dedicate the necessary time and resources. Until then, too many names will remain unrecorded, and too many families without answers.

LISK

The victims were the impetus for the Map.

Admittedly, I began this interest in this case based on a serial killer. I wanted to learn all I could about it. As I was reading and learning, it became almost instantly aware to me that the Victims were not only being terribly misrepresented in the media and in online Facebook groups, the facts were distorted to fit narratives or persons of interest and conspiracy theories. “Facts” were even made up by people for their own agendas: being “popular”, seeking clout or attention, even subscribers and followers. Victims and their families were denigrated by people who had no true knowledge of them whatsoever.

My first “evolution” was to see each victim for the person they were, for the love they had for their families and their family’s love in return. This led me to restate the true facts of any of the victims or circumstances- something that I continue to do to this day.

I have amassed a large amount of information on this case, built upon the work of many before me and for the most part, I share this information via various outlets.

With the arrest of Rex Andrew Heuermann and the ensuing court hearings, my second evolution began. I became ever more focused on the young lives that were taken, of honoring them and supporting the Families in any way I could and elevating my friendships with those that mattered most to me. I have begun to pull away in small parts, from a public stance and while I will remain in the “space” for all important moments, I have begun to strategize an evolution that will focus more energies towards the Missing and Unidentified…more to come on that.

Using The Map

Because the map is organized chronologically, it can be used dynamically — beginning with a missing person’s date of last contact and location as a starting point. Each marker includes the full NamUs case report, detailing physical descriptors and, whenever possible, additional background information sourced from The Charley Project or other verified links.

From this origin point, a user can scroll upward through time, pausing at unidentified-person markers to review cases that might share similarities. Conversely, one can begin with an unidentified person and scroll downward to explore missing-person cases that may align.

Of course, not every missing or unidentified person is listed in the NamUs database — and therefore, not every case appears on the map. These absences can create gaps, leading to deeper searches beyond the database. In one such instance, a particular New York City Jane Doe led me down a months-long search through Newspapers.com archives across the country, hoping to find a trace of a missing fifteen-year-old girl.

I have used the map to provide law enforcement agencies a list of “possibles” for their missing person case. With only a little background information, such as locations across the country they may have had an affinity for, I can develop a list of possibles that can be compared against their case. This has proven beneficial for Detectives and Investigators who often, do not have the time or resources for a broader view.

The Solves

There have been many solves as a result of the Map. Over time, I’ve chosen not to speak publicly about them. Once an unidentified person has their name restored, they belong again to their families — and their privacy deserves to be protected.

I’ll admit, I’ve struggled with that decision. There’s a part of me that wants to share each identification, to celebrate the resolve and the work that went into it. But I’m always brought back to a deeper sense of respect and empathy — for the person, and for those who loved them. I’ve come to understand that I don’t need to announce a solve for it to have meaning.

The first identification affected me profoundly. Despite kind words and congratulations, I fell into a deep melancholy. I lost sleep. I felt the weight of it all — the gravity of the work, the reality behind the “data points”. It made me question whether I could carry that weight and for how long.

Another solve came from someone else using my Map, in another state. I felt deeply honored — and humbled. It was then that I began to understand the map’s true reach, and how its impact might extend far beyond anything I could have imagined.

My Map Process

Each morning I log onto the NamUs system.

I “track”, (an option to highlight your cases), every case as I place them on the map.

I select “my tracked cases and then select the “Date Modified” tab and filter to today’s date or most recent modifications.3 This allows me to see what cases have had some sort of modification. For the cases I track more attentively I will examine what modifications may have occurred, such as an added exclusion or case note change. When nothing discernible seems to have been added, I’ve called that a “Hidden Modification”. I will make a notation on the person’s location on the map, and on my own Submitted Comparisons Database that I’ve created for those highlighted cases I’m much closer to.

If a Missing Person’s case was modified I will often cross-reference the modified Unidentified cases for some sort of correlation or insight into what might have precipitated the modification.

In tandem with the Map and the Submitted Comparisons Database, I also created a Tattoo Database for Missing, Unidentified and I’ve added a tab for Missing/Unidentified with only a description of the tattoo.