LISK Unanswered: Eric Faddis on the Gilgo Beach Killer Gaps

This is Hidden Tillers Live with Tony Bruski and Robin Dree.

Seven women have names attached to that guilty play, but the families who've waited decades

to hear those names spoken in a courtroom won't get a trial.

They'll get a hearing, a sentencing date, and silence, where cross-examination should

have been.

And they're not the only ones left without answers.

Seven sets of remains were found along that stretch of Long Island and authorities

who've said they don't believe he remains responsible for all of them.

Shannon Gilbert's case remains its own unresolved chapter.

The question hanging over all of this is whether a plea closes the book or just closes

the chapter everyone was still reading.

I think that's the other thought that I had come to my mind right away when I heard

always making a plea.

There's a lot of remains that still have not been connected to anyone and remains it seems

like every handful of months we hear another one that gets connected to Rex.

So the idea that Rex here may not ever end up in a courtroom for a murder trial, I don't

think is completely impossible.

This may not be with these seven victims, although who knows if he is to be connected

to one, he may do the same thing and plead guilty.

In any way, shape or form does him pleading guilty to the seven, hinder, slow down, prevent

or do anything to not connect him possibly with these other other mysterious murders that

have been out there?

Is this in any way shielding him from any sort of connection out there?

I don't know the answer to that, I mean, I think I do, but I'm not sure.

From a legal standpoint, what do you think?

So yeah, two things and they're sort of divergent.

So from a legal standpoint, I think it makes it more likely that they'd be able to prosecute

him because once he has entered this plea for these seven killings, there's a concept

called modus operandae, like this is the, he took similar actions in other circumstances

that have distinct characteristics that can potentially tie him to these other things.

So it makes it more likely he did that and past acts, including prior homicide convictions,

can be used to prosecute other homicides for which he has not yet been convicted.

On the other hand, practically speaking, my concern is, is the authorities are going

to be like, hey, we gave it our best shot, we got them on seven, you know, we've got

a, this has been decades of the make, we've got, we're going to close this chapter, we've

got other priorities to work on.

And that is really the tragedy for these families.

Can you imagine how it would feel if, if like, you lost your loved one years ago, had

no answers.

And then they finally find a guy who seems like you might be suspected in it and they

get them on the other stuff, but not on your loved ones case, like the devastating.

So here's what could be good though, you know, if we have great investigators, which I believe

their department has great investigators, like, so here's my mindset.

As soon as you rolled that out, Tony, the first thing going through my mind cited.

I got excited because, oh my God, I can go talk to this guy finally.

He's not in the middle of a trial, you know, the reins are off.

I can go interview him, I can talk to him, I get access to all the data, all the information,

all the leads.

And so if you do have some hungry investigators that are trying to close these cold cases,

trying to figure them out, especially I can only imagine now you have a lot of families

of these unsolved deaths and unsolved missing people that have been hounding that department,

other departments that now that you are once again, once the police accepted and since he's done,

they will have access to him if he's willing to have the access and have those dialogues.

I think there's a lot of children there.

Again, I'm glad he's glass half full on these things.

Yeah, it's a important point.

I guess my concern would be this, everybody's human.

And we know sometimes we've seen cases where you have somebody that's in prison for

their stack of murders and there's these unsolved cold cases out here.

And then if you go and try and tack it onto the guy who's already in there,

who's already admitted to all these, sometimes they just, yeah, I did it.

I'll take that one to whether or not it was actually true or not.

And you actually don't get to the bottom of who was behind the actual murders.

Is that, I mean, are we looking at that?

I mean, being a real risky kind of possibility there, where once you do get him behind bars,

are we going to see a bunch more get tacked onto him with the prosecutors hoping that,

you know, maybe he'll just admit to those two and we can just kind of move along down the line

and get these off of my list of active cases that we're investigating and just shove it down the

line. Or is this more glass half full? Does this take us into a territory where maybe we can

actually find the answers to some of these? And maybe they do lead us to human.

But it is kind of one of those things where you're taking humans and letting them be humans

and humans aren't always the most accurate creatures.

I would say if you're asking him, I'm sorry, Eric, you know, before you go, yeah, I would think

if you're asking him where the bodies, like not just, you know, like do missing people as well.

So that's like singular information, I think you could lead to potentially anyway. So sorry,

go ahead, Eric. Yeah, no, no, I hear you. There's some potential there for further justice.

There's some potential there for the absence of just the façade of justice,

something that is hollow whereby Rex just says, yeah, whatever that was me. And you know,

how satisfying is that to a victim's family? Sure, it gets a conviction, you know,

marked up on the docket, but how meaningful is that if we can't place faith in it?

Is this something where once they got him in the corner, he's obsessed with control.

If he is responsible for more murders, and I believe he is, I think a lot of people do.

I don't think he went silent from 93 to 2000. I think there's plenty more out there.

Can he now use, basically, he's just kind of, okay, I'm locked in the stadium now.

Here's the goalposts and here's where they're at. He can't get out, but he can choose where

he sits. And I'm wondering if that's something he's going to use to his advantage of, oh,

you want to know where the other bodies are? You want to get me on this one? Oh, that's great.

But here's the, here's what I want from behind bars to tell you where they are. I want this in

myself. I don't want to roommate. I don't want, you know, I mean, how much, I guess the question

is how much leverage does an inmate have behind bars? If then they are convicted or accused of

other crimes and he says, yep, did those two, you want to find out where the bodies are? I want this.

Is that something he can use? Is that a lever he can pull once he is behind bars?

Good question. I think we need to look no further than Galein Mexico's case.

She was convicted of some horrendous human drafting crimes. And then when she started

purportedly working with the government, you know, they're exactly what that looked like, but she

got transferred to a brand guy's kind of white group president. And so there are partnerships

that those folks have on the inside and this could in some perverse way allow them to retain

some modicum of control. And he keeps being the puppet master back there. And that would be

miscares of justice. You know, Eric, when you said that, so the first thing that went through my

mind when I saw this, this potential plea was, oh my god, he's been behind bars long enough that he

said, I figured this out. I got it. Let me do this. So I maintain that control. I really think

that's a lot of this was he figured out the system inside, saw that's survivable for him that

what he wants to do for his last few years of life. And he knew if he could actually use this

liver of manipulation or this one of this when using what he could hold in the bank, it actually

thought he could set himself up pretty good for that. That was what went through my mind.

Yeah, I mean, it's almost like he's he's come to the acceptance of he's never going to be on

the outside world anymore. So how can I make my inside world as good as it can be? And we're all

looking at it as, oh, he's he's he's scratching at the doors trying to get back to the outside world.

No, I don't think he is. I think he's pretty good where he's at. And I think he's trying to,

you know, do what he always does control the environment around him. And I wonder if this

is part of that play. I mean, is there, I mean, is there anything that a judge could do going

into his his sentencing here? If he does plea and if he accepts it and all these levers do

fall the way we think they're going to fall, where any of that could be prevented, can they be

could a judge be proactive in this sort of shit to prevent somebody from pulling the glean

Maxwell card of like, you can do all the you, you can make your claims of this and do all you

want, but you know what, at the end of the day, none of it's going to matter because we're,

we've already said to you, no, I mean, and it's a shame that maybe we're not going to find out

where these bodies are, but you are not going to take advantage of the system to your dying day

with what little levers you have left. Even the most righteous judge has very limited control

over those things. For example, the judge doesn't have jurisdiction over the bureau of prisons

and Rex could make a deal with the warning or whatever that doesn't even that that everyone sees

the judge's desk. In addition to that, the judge doesn't have jurisdiction over law enforcement,

so Rex could talk with detectives, he could talk with prosecutors and he could bargain for himself,

some kind of, you know, little benefits here and there, over which the judge has zero control.

So the judge can put some aspirational orders into different rulings, but at the end of the day,

the judge can't say, you know, hey, don't transfer him to this nicer facility,

just can't do that. Yeah, you can really see the thought experiment maybe going through Rex's head

on this where the only thing he's going to be left with when he is behind bars and he came to

that conclusion, there's no getting out of this. So what does he have left? The only currency he can

bring behind bars with him, he probably witnessed this with other people is information. And as soon

as that information is gone, it's so long or currency, he can leverage for the things he wants.

And so I think he he pled because he's going to maintain as much as that control that information

he has so he can actually decide what he wants to spend it on for a life. Yeah, no, I tell you.

One more question and in no way am I accusing Asa of having knowledge of any of this or kids

or anything, I, you know, she may be just as much of a victim as everybody else or she may be

completely clueless. No one can argue like maybe you should have been more aware of what was

going on around you and your family under hot. I mean, that's a whole other conversation.

But there's still a lot of people who look at this, the dynamics of this relationship and go,

you didn't know anything. And there's a difference between, you know, your husband's weird and

you suspect he's up to weird shit, but you don't know what it is. That may be all this is.

But there's some folks who do think that she might have been more involved or had more knowledge

of what was going on. And I'm not saying that she did. I guess I'm just asking this from a legal

perspective of, is there any exposure that she still faces or now faces with him pleading guilty

to this? If he's the one who did this, then we know flat, then that basically says, okay,

this shit was going on in this house where she lived for all of those years. Does that put any sort

of weight into any investigation further into her? Or would they have already, do you think they've

already exhausted those roads and came up to the conclusion of she's got nothing to do with any of

this? And so we're not going to go after her. I mean, we've seen cases where they kind of pick

family member off by family member, Adelson's being one of them. You know, I'm just wondering,

you know, and I get, I'm not accusing her. I'm not saying she did. I personally think she was

just ignorant on the whole damn thing and told herself, whatever she told it, there's self to get

by and blah, blah, blah. Yeah, I really, that's my personal feeling on it after watching this case

for three years. But I don't know the answer, for sure. Only, only a few people do. What's your

thoughts there? You know, and like Utoni, I have zero evidence that the wife had any knowledge

or involvement, but just talking, you know, hypothetically, when you've got seven killings, we've got

these brutal murders going on. Law enforcement is not usually inclined to just give some peripheral

act or a pass. You know, if they were to uncover evidence tying her to some sort of criminal action

and association with these murders, I think they would be remiss not to at least further investigate

that and see if the see if there's any provable crimes there. Would they already be there,

nobody know? Yeah, it's my question too. What did it popped up already or no? You know, we've been

doing this for several years with Rex Herman. I would anticipate that yes. And in fact,

the prosecutors would be smart to, if they did have such evidence, use that as as further leverage

saying, hey, you know, your wife, we believe may have committed these crimes. That's going to be

really a huge bummer for her. And also, we might call her to testify against you in your trial.

So I imagine they would have already taken measures in furtherance of that if they had the goods.

What's likelihood that they could actually that Rex and his team could actually make her immunity

part of that plea deal? Yeah, they would accept it. Yeah, that's that's usually pretty, it's

uncommon because usually an immunity deal is only for the defendant for the party. But you know,

could theoretically a person broker immunity for somebody else? I don't know of any legal authority

prohibiting it. And I think an defense attorney could get creative. That's what I was just

starting to wonder about to Robin when I was asking that question of. Yes. I do wonder about that

like like could they have come to him and said, look, you know, you're going down for this. And

you know, what we're going to take your wife and maybe your daughter too. Not because they were

out there doing this with you, but because we can prove probably to a jury that maybe they did

maybe they did that they had some sort of knowledge of this. Well, we're at least going to maybe

they're scaring Rex. Well, if we think we have enough and we're going to throw this out there

and we're or we can make them immune, they can be witnesses for the state. But unless you go down

this road, we're not going to grant that immunity and we could prosecute them and we could put

them behind bars. So what is it, Rex? Would you like to have your wife and your daughter go to

prison for the foreseeable future? Well, you rot in a cell or would you like to just go rot yourself?

We think it's not because he likes them or cares for them because of the exposure he'd have from

being on trial. I want to go down keep going on the road of him and ask. Not a caring individual.

Anyway, sorry, go ahead. Yeah, yeah, no, you better believe that those conversations happen

oftentimes behind closed doors between prosecutors and defensitaries. You know, you're you're

trying to assess the your client's exposure, you're trying to assess what horrible things could

happen if we don't take this plea. And the prosecutors are not shy about saying could there be

additional charges? Could there be additional defendants? Could all of this stuff happen?

It could. But hey, how about let's just, you know, copy it now and we'll avoid that that huge

nightmare. Yeah, I mean, could and would and stick or two are very different things. I mean,

I mean, that's that's the thing. But if you presented as this could happen and you know,

would the right jury be good? Even if even if there's really not enough to truly because again,

I don't think that they had knowledge. I mean, maybe retrospectively, they may look back and go,

I was weird what happened on that Tuesday, but I never really saw it from that perspective until now.

I mean, there may be some of that, but I don't think they were sitting there like, oh,

look what Dad's has in the document today. Oh, why that tattoo, Dad, why are you cutting that one

off? I don't think it was like that by any means. But if you can put that in front and they must know,

they might know more, they might be able to connect some of your actions to some of these other

crimes. I do wonder. I really do wonder. I think that might be that might be the inspiration

lever that got pulled right there because what they would and final note on that time too,

because what they would know. So even if they weren't winning like, it looks like they're not

winning, but they they know the pattern, his behavior for all those years. Because remember,

they were groomed into complacency. But they have a pattern, his behavior of what he did and what

he did with them when he's doing these killings. And so they could actually then they if they went

to continue to interview her, they could actually uncover even more of his secrets based on not

her knowledge of what he did, but the knowledge of his patterns of behavior they can then superimpose

on all these other cases. So that's why I think the exposure is is that the leakage she could have

inadvertently towards other things he had done is what they could get.

Well, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe racks as a public defender, does he?

I mean, isn't this a paid for defender? Or am I wrong on that? I could be wrong.

Give me one. I'm not sure. If it is a private defense attorney, then the financial piece could

absolutely be playing a role, but off to check my notes on that. Yeah, because that would that

would also then affect because I believe that she got the divorce to protect assets and things

of that nature. But the money is somewhere. I mean, if he's getting if it's not a public defender,

he's being that he's getting paid somehow and that money could either go to Asa and the children

existing or to defending. Yeah, now they're interesting lever. Court of looks like court appointed.

Court of it is court appointed. Okay. Yep. Oh, there we go. That answers that.

Reset was represented by court appointed to sign council. Yeah, I'm like brown from my slip.

Okay. Yeah, I didn't know Michael was okay. I didn't know. Well, that answers that,

but the other one seemed to stick. I don't know. Very interesting. Would we ever know the

answer to that question, Eric? When this once this all comes out and the plea deal is finalized,

would we ever know if that was a lever that was pulled to motivate him to do this?

Unless it is written into the plea, probably not and typically not, you know,

those conversations can be of a threatening

nature between the attorneys and those don't necessarily see the light of day. Sometimes that's a

phone call. Sometimes that's a meeting in a hallway. Yeah, interesting. Whether you go such a

fascinating case, we'll see where it plays out. I still feel like there's going to be more twist

in turns. I don't think this is the end of Rex here. I mean, once he's behind bars,

just like so many of these serial killers seem to be that way. Eric Fatt is defense attorney.

As always, thank you so much for joining us and giving us your insight into this case.

Robin Drake retired FBI special agency for the counterintelligence behavioral analysis program,

his book latest one. It's not all about me available wherever you get your books. Go and check

it out. You please press subscribe wherever you are listening or watching us. Apple podcast,

Spotify. So you don't miss any of our reporting and conversations on these cases and give us your

thoughts in the comments section on Substack and YouTube. We'll continue the conversation right

there. Until next time, I'm Tony Bruceke. We'll talk again real soon.

Want more on this case and others? Then press subscribe now and don't miss a moment of true

crime coverage from Tony Bruceke and the Hidden Killers podcast.