0:00
This is Hidden Tillers Live with Tony Bruceke and Robin Dree.
0:07
Investigators pulled a deleted word document off Rex Hermann's hard drive, allegedly created
0:12
in around 2000, modified over several years with sections on supplies, problems, disposal
0:20
They matched this DNA to Harris found on and near multiple victims using a technology
0:25
never before admitted in a New York courtroom.
0:28
And they built the initial connection from a pizza crust, eat through in the trash while
0:34
When you lay down those pieces side by side, the question isn't whether the prosecution
0:39
had a case, it's whether the defense ever even had a chance.
0:43
Eric Fattis is with us to help break down where this case is at and where it's going.
0:50
Prosecutors, they recovered that word document from Hermann's basement, that hard drive with
0:55
the sections that allegedly outlined a lot of very specific things, things he tried to
1:00
delete off of it as well.
1:02
When evidence like that lands on a prosecutor's desk, I mean, what does that do to the trajectory
1:09
And also, obviously, if it's on a prosecutor's desk, the defense knows that it's there too
1:13
and that this is going to be part of the evidence.
1:15
I mean, how do you, because you've seen both sides of this, how do you absorb that type
1:21
It seems like a slam dunk if you're the prosecutor like, oh, he's got a document talking specifically
1:27
about dismembering and doing these horrible things that we're done to the victims.
1:31
And then also, I have a client that has a document that talks about doing exactly what he's
1:36
accused of doing, not a good place to be in.
1:41
You know, as a prosecutor, it's kind of like Charlie in the chocolate factory and that's
1:47
I mean, that's going to take you to the promise man.
1:51
That's essentially going to be construed as a confession and confessions are some of
1:56
the most compelling types of evidence.
1:59
And so the weight of that alleged document cannot be overstated.
2:04
Sure, there are ways to challenge it, but that is a tremendous problem for defense.
2:11
What would be the way you challenge it?
2:13
So a few things, especially with modern digital forensics, you know, you would look at who
2:20
had access to the device from which that document was tight.
2:27
You look at, you know, IP addresses, where, where was that, where, where was that document
2:34
If you can look back that far, it depends on a number of factors.
2:38
And then also, you can look at, you know, whether there had been any modification or manipulation
2:43
since the prosecution got it, digital forensics folks could look at that.
2:46
And if you find something suspicious or curious in terms of modifications that might be made,
2:55
sometimes you can sort of try to hang your hat on that and further open that hole, widen
2:59
that and and and alleged that, hey, there's some fishy stuff going on on the other side.
3:04
Are you sure this document's authentic in its entirety?
3:07
There are ways to do it, but let me tell you know, I guess because if he wrote it and
3:12
drafted it and they're able to show it in his in his secret hidey hole in his house or
3:16
no one else had access, that was probably as damning as well.
3:19
That'd be a big big big problem.
3:24
Well, so whole genome sequencing has never been admitted as evidence in the New York
3:29
trial before this case.
3:31
The judge ruled that yes, it can be and would be and would be certainly part of this.
3:36
Now it gets to be someone else's battle, I guess, in another case to be admitted at
3:41
another trial, you know, the fact that it was going to be admitted here, I guess there
3:50
was a long fight of this, you know, over a long period of time.
3:55
Should it be allowed?
3:58
Obviously, if the trial never takes place here, how does that then how does it affect
4:03
other cases going forwarded in New York where they're going to eventually use this is
4:08
because it's newer technology?
4:10
Can they look back on this case and go see it was going to be admitted, they never actually
4:14
Or is it make it, I guess, a hotter potato for another case that could be attempted
4:20
to be argued in another courtroom?
4:23
It's most certainly a precedent that has been set in New York in that sense.
4:29
This case is kind of historic.
4:31
Now, because it was set by a trial judge, it would not be binding on any other trial judge,
4:38
it would not be binding on a Pelachor judge or a Supreme Court judge.
4:41
So it's binding, but it's what's called persuasive authority.
4:45
And that happens all the time when there are disputes about experts testimony and the
4:49
attorneys say, hey, look, this judge said it was sufficiently reliable to admit.
4:56
Our case is very similar.
4:57
New judge, you should admit this and as practicing attorneys, we have a catch of orders from
5:05
judges on issues like this that we then cite to in subsequent cases saying, hey, look,
5:10
this judge thought it was good enough, you should think it's good enough to.
5:14
It's really interesting.
5:16
From what I've researched, again, this whole genome sequencing thing is new to me, too,
5:21
because they're just rolling it out, right?
5:23
From what I understand, in Tony, you probably know more about this than I do.
5:26
They're used to because of the hairs, really, it's because it's the first time they're
5:32
actually able to extract the whole DNA sequence of someone from hair and they couldn't do it
5:36
typical DNA that's been done past cases.
5:39
So just my thought experiment on this as human learning about this whole DNA sequencing
5:44
and seeing how sloppy he was with human hair for so long, maybe again, part of that mental
5:51
gyration he's doing about how to keep everything secret so he can keep it in his own little
5:57
He might have hairs all over that house all over everything else that they'd be able to
6:01
sequence and he'd lose control.
6:03
Again, I think it all comes back to that control.
6:06
Yeah, no, I hear you.
6:07
I think some of these folks are kind of detached from reality and have this delusion that
6:11
they're smarter than everybody else, including the law.
6:14
And when these revelations come out, it can be a bit of a reality check.
6:18
I still think that's a huge part of this case and other long other cases of serial killers
6:23
that span decades, really, where you start your criminal enterprise of murdering people
6:29
when technology was saying I can behave this way, the technology and forensics involved
6:38
There have been cases in the past where people have pled guilty and then I've gotten
6:43
that later because they found out somebody else did it.
6:47
And that they pled guilty for whatever reason they did at the time.
6:50
You got seven murders here.
6:52
So you could be, and I'm not saying this is, but I'm saying you could be looking at
6:57
a scenario where he is responsible for like five of the seven or six of the seven.
7:02
I mean, you could be having one where maybe he isn't.
7:05
They've argued for a long time.
7:06
The very first victim from 93 was not him, but they did find a hair on that one.
7:12
And that's how they connected that one.
7:14
It's not a ton of evidence that connects Rex here and it was very first victim all
7:17
the way back in 1993.
7:20
Let's just for the sake of argument without getting into the weeds too much.
7:23
Let's say something happens here and somebody comes forward or there's undeniable evidence
7:31
that one of the seven was not Rex here, but for whatever reason he's pleading guilty
7:37
because he is responsible truly for five of the seven or whatever it may be.
7:43
Let's say that comes along in the coming years.
7:46
What does that do to this?
7:47
What does that do to this conviction or his guilty plea?
7:51
Does that give him any sort of advantage down the line if he were to be like, no, what?
7:56
Maybe this was a bad idea.
7:57
Maybe prison doesn't suit me so well.
7:59
And then this person over here is truly responsible for this one that I pled to.
8:04
And clearly it wasn't me.
8:06
I've been saying that along.
8:07
I just did it to these.
8:08
Is it where they can look back and go, well, yeah, you're still there for the other six
8:12
and those all stand or does that blow the whole damn thing up and then have to make it
8:18
be retried because they're all interconnected into one specific case really.
8:24
Another separate charges, but it's all in in the one ruling.
8:28
Oh, that's great question.
8:29
So the appellate courts usually favor finality.
8:34
They don't like to reopen stuff.
8:36
They don't like to send stuff back to the trial court overture convictions.
8:40
They prefer to have this secured finality within these cases.
8:44
So if they were to take place, I think that newly discovered expulpatory evidence is always
8:50
a potential reason to withdraw a plea of guilty.
8:55
And so would it be withdrawn, you know, it could be withdrawn with respect to that one
9:03
But that cast further down on the other killings at a, you know, future appellate stage.
9:10
It's at least possible, you know, Rex could save five years from now if that were to happen
9:15
that, hey, actually, this other guy did this.
9:18
When I copped to these, please, I was not in my right mind.
9:21
I had been a custody for a long time.
9:22
My whole life had fallen apart and everything else.
9:25
So there's no certainty that all of the other convictions would be appelled, although an
9:31
appellate court judge would, I believe, try to angle towards upholding the other connections.
9:37
Now is that something a defense attorney is going to counsel him on about a possibility
9:41
of doing or if they, or if they, because again, these are questions I'd love throwing
9:45
at Bob Mata too, is like, hey, or are they just going to do their job and grind it out
9:50
and give them all these options or they're going to say to themselves, I'm not going
9:53
to strategize that with them because he's a guilty douche.
9:58
You have to at least advise the client about, and I've had that conversation, not
10:04
those specific words, but you have to advise the client as to post-conviction consequences,
10:13
potential post-conviction remedies.
10:15
So you can speak in broad general terms about it, but at the same token, if you're the
10:20
lawyer and your client's going in there to plead guilty, you have to have a reasonable
10:24
belief that that is a valid plea.
10:27
And so you can't kind of be like, hey, if someone, you know, great happens later for your
10:32
case, and you can try to, you know, wiggle out of this or something, you kind of have
10:37
to go in there saying, hey, we are taking responsibility and we is the defense, and that
10:43
implicates the attorney.
10:44
Right, and that's my question, sorry, Tony, it was because I love Tony's thought experiment
10:51
That's really intriguing.
10:52
And at the same time, though, is that something a defense attorney, I guess, is really
10:54
going to do in those circumstances, given the fact that like you said, hey, if we're pleading
10:59
guilty, and it means we're taking ownership of it all, a good point.
11:02
Yeah, yeah, that's user health.
11:04
I mean, like in the co-burger situation where part of the stipulation was there's no going
11:12
Once you're pleading, you're done.
11:14
There's no appeals.
11:15
You're not allowed to appeal.
11:16
I would imagine, I mean, do you see a world here where the judge is going to accept
11:21
whatever agreement this is, where he doesn't remove all possibilities of any sort of parole
11:27
or any sort of appealing this in any way, shape, or form down the line, no matter what?
11:34
I think the prosecutor is going to be diligent in terms of divesting, rexheroman, of any
11:41
potential rights down the road to try to undo this.
11:45
That being said, the judge doesn't have complete control over what happens in the future,
11:50
and if in your hypothetical, it was proven that someone else did at least one of these
11:55
killings, even if the judge said, hey, there's no resettancing, there's no reconsideration
12:00
of the plea, there's not going to be any of that, you don't have that right.
12:04
I think hypothetically the Constitution would confer that right, and that would trump anything
12:12
that is in the plea agreement or anything the judge's order.
12:17
What do you think made him make this decision?
12:21
Was it an obviously just conjecture?
12:23
Do you think it was him?
12:24
It was an attorney sitting down going, having to come to Jesus' meeting of like, look,
12:29
we've lost everything that we've attempted to throw in front of this judge leading up
12:36
All of our emotions have failed.
12:38
All the things we try to get excluded are coming in.
12:42
This is not going to go good.
12:44
It's just not Rex, and if you want anything, if you want to save a little bit of whatever
12:50
exists for your family, whatever little bit of dignity you have left, you should probably
12:56
Or do you think this was Rex going to his attorney and saying, I'm out, I think we
13:00
should end this right now.
13:03
I mean, how do you think, how do you think that went down behind closed doors?
13:08
I got to imagine it was sort of at the attorney's be asked because Rex Herman just doesn't
13:15
strike me as the kind of guy who's going to come, oh, hadn't hand and saying, oh, you
13:22
I'm going to do the right thing and take responsibility and I'm going to save these victims, families,
13:26
all of this nightmare of stuff that's going to happen to trial.
13:30
You know the strike, like that kind of guy, but I just don't know.
13:33
I think the attorney is more like, hey, dude, we've exhausted.
13:37
All of our potential outs, you don't have any other outs, man.
13:40
If you want to save, like you said, some modicum of dignity, some very trivial minor
13:45
concessions that we might be able to build into it, now's your chance to do it.
13:50
And that that's how I imagined it went down.
13:55
I wonder, you know, at some point, Eric, I mean, do you see this at all in clients of
14:01
any age where, I mean, Rex isn't elderly, but you know, he's getting more up there.
14:09
You know, he's got a handful of good years left.
14:13
Do you see, is there any correlation between an age at which someone says, screw it, I'm
14:20
just whatever, I got 10, 20 years left.
14:23
If I keep fighting this, I'm just going to be going in and out of court rooms until I'm
14:29
This is, I'll just, I'm going to make peace with this and I'm going to figure out what
14:32
life is like behind bars.
14:34
Do you ever see more backing down versus more fight depending on the age of the, of the
14:42
Oh, you'd be surprised totally.
14:43
So, you know, you might have a 20 year old client and let's say the evidence is significant
14:49
and the offer is five years.
14:51
Well, to a 20 year old, five years, that's a quarter of their life.
14:54
That seems like forever.
14:55
They're like, hey, I'm not, I've got to throw away my life to do this.
15:00
Whereas if you're talking about someone in their 50, 60, 70s, you know, beyond, sometimes
15:07
they do not have that, they have a different perspective, perspective in terms of time,
15:13
in terms of headache, in terms of trauma, how, how shitty is this going to be for me?
15:20
Is there a less painful alternative?
15:24
I see that a lot more of the folks who are up in age interest on it, it's at Donald
15:28
Well, Donna, I think probably believes she will live forever.
15:33
I think you get deep down with her.
15:36
I think she might think she's a deity of some sort, you know, if you really, if you really
15:40
do the digging, yeah, everybody starts in the comments section and sub stack and YouTube
15:46
The links are in the descriptions.
15:49
But more on this case and others, then press subscribe now and don't miss a moment
15:54
of true crime coverage from Tony Bruski and the Hidden Killers podcast.