Latest / Murder Files Unsealed / Judge Allows Advanced DNA Evidence in Gilgo Beach Serial Killer Trial, Defense Appeals

Transcript

Judge Allows Advanced DNA Evidence in Gilgo Beach Serial Killer Trial, Defense Appeals · Murder Files Unsealed

0:00
Speaker 1: Imagine a haunting mystery, one that has held an entire
0:03
community captive for well for decades, a chilling tale of
0:07
fear and just so many unanswered questions. For years, the
0:11
south shore of Long Island felt this, this cold shadow
0:15
of a serial killer, bodies appearing along the desolate Ocean
0:18
Parkway near Gilgo Beach.
0:20
Speaker 2: A truly terrifying time for residents.
0:22
Speaker 1: There right, and the identity of the perpetrator remained, this
0:26
agonizing enigma, you know, frustrating investigators, terrorizing residents. But what
0:30
if the relentless march of scientific progress, a truly cutting
0:35
edge breakthrough, could finally slice through those lingering shadows. Could
0:40
it bring long awaited answers?
0:41
Speaker 2: What if the impossible suddenly became within reach?
0:43
Speaker 1: Exactly?
0:44
Speaker 2: That's precisely the crossroads where we find ourselves today. This
0:47
deep Died isn't just about revisiting a notorious, long unsolved mystery.
0:51
It's really about a monumental decision in the Gilgo Beach
0:54
serial killer trial involving Rex Hoyerman. Okay, and this ruling
0:59
it isn't just some proceed step. It's a moment that
1:02
could well fundamentally reshape the landscape of forensic science and
1:05
criminal justice as.
1:06
Speaker 3: We know it.
1:07
Speaker 1: And this isn't just any legal footnote, right, it's New
1:10
York State Supreme Court Justice Timothy Mazzy's landmark ruling on
1:14
September third, twenty twenty five.
1:16
Speaker 3: That's the one.
1:16
Speaker 1: This decision green lights the use of a truly groundbreaking
1:20
DNA analysis technique it's called whole genome sequencing in court,
1:26
and crucially, this marks the very first time this advanced
1:29
method will be admissible.
1:30
Speaker 3: In a New York court, a major first for the state.
1:34
Speaker 1: Yeah, District Attorney Ray Tyranny described it as a significant step.
1:38
But I have to wonder, how does a decision like that, actually,
1:41
you know, get made, and what makes this one so
1:43
pivotal for the entire state of New York.
1:45
Speaker 2: Well, it's pivotal, absolutely. The implications are enormous, not just
1:48
for this specific case, but for the broader legal and
1:51
scientific communities. This ruling immediately establishes a fundamental tension, doesn't it. Huh,
1:56
You've got the relentless march of scientific progress on one
1:59
side versus the painstaking, often slower evolution of legal precedent
2:04
on the other.
2:05
Speaker 1: Right, the law always seems to be playing catch up
2:07
with the science.
2:08
Speaker 2: Often yes, and as is usually the case with such
2:11
significant advancements, Hoyerman's defense team has swiftly appealed. They're raising
2:16
crucial questions about its legality, its reliability.
2:20
Speaker 1: So it's not just a clear win for the prosecution then.
2:23
Speaker 2: No, not at all. It's more like opening a brand
2:25
new frontier where every single step forward is going to
2:28
be met with rigorous and frankly necessary legal challenge.
2:32
Speaker 1: Okay, let's unpack this for you, our listener, for our
2:35
deep dive today. Our mission is to truly understand the
2:38
science behind whole genome sequencing, how it works, why it's
2:42
dramatically different from the traditional DNA analysis we're kind of
2:45
familiar with from countless crime dramas.
2:48
Speaker 3: You see it all the time on TV.
2:49
Speaker 1: But this is different, totally different. We'll dive deep into
2:52
the Gilgo Beach case itself, providing the crucial, frankly agonizing
2:57
context for this monumental scientific and lead development.
3:00
Speaker 2: You need that background to really get the significance.
3:03
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Then we'll delve into the intense legal battle, the
3:07
prosecution's hard won triumph in getting this evidence admitted. The
3:11
defense's powerful and multifaceted objections and what it all ultimately
3:16
means for justice, not just for the victims and families
3:19
in this specific case, but potentially for countless cold cases
3:22
across the country that have long been considered well unsolvable.
3:26
Speaker 2: Consider this a journey with us really into the fascinating
3:29
and often challenging intersection of cutting edge science, complex legal precedent,
3:34
and the enduring human quest for long awaited closure for
3:37
victims and their families. Yeah, it's a story that brings
3:40
together decades of mystery with the very latest in genetic technology,
3:44
a true collision of past and future. The lingering shadows
3:48
of Long Island, the Gilgo Beach case background.
3:51
Speaker 1: Okay, so to truly grasp the significance of this ruling,
3:55
we have to start by revisiting the scene of this
3:57
enduring mystery. And you set the stage exactly. For nearly
4:00
three decades, starting back in nineteen ninety three, all the
4:03
way to twenty eleven, the South store of Long Island
4:05
was just haunted by a series of horrifying killings.
4:08
Speaker 3: Truly horrifying.
4:09
Speaker 1: The discovery of remains along Ocean Parkway near the picturesque
4:14
but also really desolate Gilgo Beach. It painted such a
4:18
grim picture.
4:19
Speaker 2: Yeah, that juxtaposition is striking. Beautiful area, terrible secrets.
4:24
Speaker 1: And these were the remains of at least seven women,
4:26
most of whom were identified as sex workers. The identity
4:30
of the killer or maybe killers, we don't know for sure,
4:33
remained this terrifying unknown. It cast a long, dark shadow
4:37
over the community, and it cast her national attention, didn't
4:40
it just because of its sheer complexity and the profound
4:43
terror it instilled.
4:45
Speaker 3: Oh?
4:45
Speaker 2: Absolutely, It's crucial to appreciate the pervasive fear that gripped
4:49
Long Island during those years. I mean, the community lived
4:51
with this mystery, this really unsettling sense that a predator
4:55
was just operating undetected.
4:56
Speaker 1: Right under their noses, potentially potentially.
4:59
Speaker 2: And then investigation itself. You didn't actually begin with a
5:01
breakthrough in the Gilgo cases directly, but rather with a
5:05
desperate search for another missing person.
5:07
Speaker 1: Oh interesting, how did that unfold?
5:09
Speaker 3: Well?
5:09
Speaker 2: Back in twenty ten, the search was sparked by the
5:11
disappearance of Shenan Gilbert. She was a twenty four year
5:15
old aspiring actress. What began as an urgent missing person's
5:18
case quickly took a tragic and completely unexpected turn and.
5:22
Speaker 1: That tragic turn is what really brought the Gilgo Beach
5:25
murders into the national spotlight, wasn't it.
5:27
Speaker 3: It was the catalyst.
5:28
Speaker 1: Yes, The search for Shannon Gilbert unexpectedly led to the
5:31
discovery of multiple bodies, initiating this new, horrifying chapter in
5:36
the region's criminal history. These initial discoveries were just harrowing,
5:41
and the first four victims found were soon tragically dubbed
5:44
the Gilgo Four.
5:45
Speaker 2: That name stuck. We're talking about Melissa Barthelemy Megan Waterman,
5:50
Amber Costello and Marine Brainerd Barnes. These were the women
5:53
whose remains were found within just days of each other
5:56
back in December twenty ten.
5:58
Speaker 1: Such a concentrated discuss must have been.
6:00
Speaker 2: Shocking, absolutely terrifying for the searchers in the community. But
6:03
the initial findings were concentrating. Yeah, But the horror didn't
6:06
stop there. The investigation widened and over time, additional human
6:11
remains were discovered and meticulously linked to this broader pattern
6:14
of killings.
6:15
Speaker 1: So it wasn't just the four, no, not at all.
6:18
Speaker 2: This expanded the scope of the case to include Jessica Taylor,
6:22
Sandra Costia, and Valerie mac bringing the total number of
6:26
identified victims to at least seven. Wow, and East Discovery
6:30
just added another layer to an already complex and devastating puzzle,
6:35
you know, deepening the mystery in the community's anguish.
6:37
Speaker 1: I can only imagine.
6:38
Speaker 3: And the prolonged.
6:39
Speaker 2: Nature of these discoveries, plus the inability to identify a
6:42
suspect for so long that kept the case very much
6:45
in the public eye. It was fueled by true crime documentaries,
6:48
constant media speculation.
6:49
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, it was everywhere for a while, it really was.
6:52
Speaker 3: Yeah.
6:52
Speaker 2: Then, after years of dead ends and frankly frustrated hopes,
6:56
there was a significant breakthrough July thirteen, twenty three, right
7:01
the arrest Rex Horman, a sixty one year old Manhattan architect,
7:04
was arrested. He lived in Massapequa, a town on Long Island,
7:07
actually not far from where the remains were found.
7:09
Speaker 1: And he's pleaded not guilty.
7:11
Speaker 2: He has pleaded not guilty to all charges. And it's
7:14
important to note even before this new ruling about whole
7:17
genome sequencing, the prosecution had already started laying out their
7:20
initial case. They were alleging back then that traditional DNA evidence,
7:25
specifically hair fragments, tied Horman his ex wife Ansa Eluup
7:30
and their daughter Victoria to the crimes.
7:32
Speaker 1: So DNA was already part of the picture, even the
7:34
older kinds.
7:35
Speaker 3: Exactly.
7:35
Speaker 2: This initial claim was absolutely critical because it established the
7:38
importance of DNA in this case before the introduction of
7:42
this this cutting edge technique. It suggested a direct physical
7:47
link between the accused, his household, and the crime scenes.
7:52
So this pre existing DNA evidence, even gathered through older methods,
7:56
it really set the groundwork. And now with the court's
7:58
decision regarding old genome sequencing, that DNA evidence takes on
8:02
an even more critical, potentially decisive role. It offers a
8:06
level of detail that was previously just unimaginable to unlocking
8:10
cold cases. The science of whole genome sequencing.
8:13
Speaker 1: Okay, so let's dive into that science now because it
8:15
sounds truly revolutionary and understanding is just key to everything
8:18
else in this case, isn't it?
8:19
Speaker 3: It really is.
8:20
Speaker 1: When we talk about whole genome sequencing or WGS, we're
8:24
moving light years beyond the basics of traditional forensic DNA analysis. Right,
8:29
explain the core concept for us? What is WGS really
8:33
and why is it such a significant leap forward?
8:35
Speaker 3: Right?
8:36
Speaker 2: Well, at its heart. Whole genome sequencing is a highly
8:39
sophisticated DNA analysis technique. It allows scientists to map an
8:43
individual's entire genetic sequence, the whole thing, the whole thing.
8:47
Think of it like this, Your DNA is this incredibly vast,
8:52
comprehensive instruction manual for building. You a manual thousands of
8:56
pages long.
8:57
Speaker 1: Okay.
8:57
Speaker 2: Traditional forensic methods, which have been our standard for decades,
9:01
they typically only look at a very small number of
9:03
chapters in that manual, specifically about twenty four to twenty
9:06
seven distinct locations or markers on the DNA.
9:09
Speaker 1: Strand just twenty four so spots.
9:11
Speaker 2: Yeah, these are regions known to be highly variable between individuals,
9:14
which makes them useful for identification. But they're really just
9:17
tiny snapshots of.
9:17
Speaker 3: The whole picture.
9:18
Speaker 1: Okay. So if traditional DNA is like reading a few
9:21
carefully chosen sentences from this massive book, WGS sounds like
9:26
it's reading the entire library. Am I getting that right?
9:29
Or is there maybe a more nuanced way to describe
9:32
that exponential leap in information.
9:35
Speaker 2: No, you're absolutely getting it right. In terms of scale.
9:37
That's an excellent analogy. WGS, in stark contrast, analyzes thousands
9:43
or even hundreds of thousands of genetic markers across the
9:46
entire genome.
9:47
Speaker 1: Hundreds of thousands.
9:48
Speaker 2: What it provides an incredibly comprehensive and detailed profile, yielding
9:51
an exponentially larger amount of data compared to those traditional messods.
9:55
And here's where it gets really interesting, particularly for challenging
9:59
cases like Gilgil each It's unparallel power for dealing with
10:03
degraded samples.
10:04
Speaker 1: Ah. Yes, because we're talking about evidence that's been exposed
10:07
to the elements for decades, found in difficult conditions. Maybe
10:10
that can't be good for preserving DNA in a pristine state.
10:13
Speaker 2: Precisely, biological evidence collected from crime scenes, particularly those dating
10:17
back decades, often suffers from significant degradation, age, environmental exposure, decomposition.
10:24
It all takes a toll, makes sense, and this is
10:26
where WGS truly shines. It offers a solution where traditional
10:31
methods often just fail. Its particular value in cases like
10:34
Gilgo Beach where samples have deteriorated is immense. It can
10:38
extract nuclear DNA.
10:40
Speaker 1: Okay, what's nuclear DNA again.
10:41
Speaker 2: That's the primary DNA found in the cell's nucleus. It
10:44
contains the vast majority of our genetic information, and it's
10:47
typically much more stable than say, mitochondrial DNA. WGS can
10:52
get this nuclear DNA even from severely damaged.
10:54
Speaker 1: Samples, so even tiny broken bits.
10:57
Speaker 2: Exactly, it's designed to work with minimal and compromise material,
11:00
making the previously unworkable suddenly actionable.
11:04
Speaker 1: That sounds like a genuine game changer, not just like
11:07
a minor upgrade. Imagine a cold case evidence sitting in
11:09
a forgotten box for thirty years, seemingly useless, right, a
11:13
microscopic hair strand that means nothing, and then suddenly this
11:16
new technology comes along and breathes new life into it,
11:20
potentially revealing a story that was previously completely hidden. Michael
11:25
Marciano he's the director of research at Syracuse University's Forensic
11:28
and National Security Sciences Institute. He highlighted this capability, stating
11:33
that WGS enables identification from old, rootless or poor quality
11:38
hair strands.
11:39
Speaker 2: It's a perfect illustration of its transformative power. See when
11:42
DNA degrades, it often fragments into tiny pieces. Traditional methods,
11:46
they need longer, relatively intact segments to match their twenty
11:49
four to twenty seven markers. It's like trying to find
11:51
the specific paragraph in a book when all the pages
11:54
are torn and scattered.
11:55
Speaker 1: Yeah, impossible, pretty much yeah wgs.
11:58
Speaker 2: However, it isn't looking for those long stretches. Instead, it
12:02
can piece together information from these much smaller fragments, almost
12:05
like reassembling a shredded document by finding thousands of tiny
12:08
word and letter matches.
12:10
Speaker 1: Ah okay, that makes sense.
12:12
Speaker 2: This resilience to degradation is its secret weapon. It turns
12:16
what was once basically unusable biological dust into a potential
12:20
trove of identifying data. This is why it's truly being
12:23
described as a game changer for cold cases that were
12:27
previously deemed unsolvable due to insufficient or degraded evidence. It
12:32
quite literally expands the universe of solvable crimes.
12:35
Speaker 1: Incredible. And the lab behind this specific breakthrough the one
12:38
generating the DNA evidence in the Gilgo beachcase. That's astro Forensics, right,
12:43
a California based lab that specializes in analyzing these highly
12:47
degraded DNA samples.
12:48
Speaker 3: That's them. They're specialists in this area.
12:50
Speaker 1: And it's also worth noting you mentioned this before, but
12:52
a separate crime lab using more traditional DNA analysis also
12:56
confirmed connections between hairs found on some victims and Hoyer
13:00
or his family members.
13:01
Speaker 3: Yes, that's a key point.
13:02
Speaker 1: That seems like a powerful corroborating factor for the prosecution's case,
13:05
doesn't it suggesting multiple layers of DNA evidence are pointing
13:09
in the same direction.
13:10
Speaker 2: It absolutely does provide a critical layer of validation. It's
13:14
not just one new, perhaps unproven technique standing alone. It's
13:18
the advanced WGS confirming and actually expanding upon what traditional
13:23
methods could only hint at. Okay, And what's important to remember
13:26
is that while it's using criminal forensics in a your courtroom,
13:29
is new. WGS isn't some completely novel technology cooked up yesterday.
13:36
In the broader scientific.
13:37
Speaker 1: World, right, It's used elsewhere definitely.
13:40
Speaker 2: Nathan Lenz, he's a biology professor John j College of
13:43
Criminal Justice, points out its established use in other fields
13:47
like identifying human remains, think disaster victim identification. We often
13:51
have very fragmented samples.
13:53
Speaker 1: Oh sure.
13:54
Speaker 2: It's used in clinical settings too, like tailoring cancer treatments
13:57
based on a tumor's genetic makeup or diagnosed rare genetic diseases.
14:01
Speaker 1: So it has a track record in other serious scientific applications.
14:05
Speaker 2: Exactly, This existing broad scientific validity in other arenas really
14:10
helped bolster the prosecution's argument for its reliability and its
14:14
general acceptance in a courtroom setting. It provided a strong
14:18
foundation for its admissibility. Three, a monumental step the court's ruling.
14:24
Speaker 1: So, Okay, the scientific foundation for WGS might be solid
14:27
in the broader scientific community, but that doesn't automatically mean
14:30
it just walks right into a criminal courtroom, especially not
14:32
for the first time in New York.
14:33
Speaker 3: No, definitely not. There's a process, right.
14:36
Speaker 1: Justice Mazzi's twenty nine page ruling came after months of
14:38
rigorous fry hearings. Can you explain what a fry hearing
14:42
is and why it was so crucial in determining whether
14:44
WGS would be allowed in this well monumental case.
14:48
Speaker 2: Sure, The fry hearing is a critical legal process. It's
14:51
specifically designed to evaluate the admissibility of novel scientific.
14:55
Speaker 1: Evidence, novel being the keyword there exactly.
14:58
Speaker 2: It's named after a case f I v. United States
15:01
from way back in nineteen twenty three, and it essentially
15:04
serves as a gatekeeper. It ensures that any new science
15:07
presented in court meets a stringent standard of reliability.
15:10
Speaker 1: Okay, and what's that standard?
15:12
Speaker 2: Generally? Typically, it's that the scientific principle or discovery from
15:16
which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to
15:20
have gained general acceptance in the particular scientific field to
15:24
which it belongs.
15:24
Speaker 1: General acceptance, got it.
15:26
Speaker 2: So for months, both the prosecution and defense brought in
15:29
legions of expert witnesses to argue about the reliability, the validity,
15:35
the scientific acceptance of whole genome sequencing. This wasn't a
15:39
quick decision. It was a deeply contested evidentiary battle, a
15:43
true academic and legal showdown right there in.
15:46
Speaker 3: The court room.
15:47
Speaker 1: Sounds intense, and the prosecution really brought out the big guns,
15:50
so to speak, to make their case for WGS.
15:52
Speaker 2: Oh they did. They argued forcefully that WGS is widely
15:56
accepted in the scientific community. They had experts like doctor
15:59
Richard Green, who was actually the founder of astro Forensics,
16:02
the lab that did the work. Okay, They emphasized its
16:05
rigorous validation, mentioning its successful use in hundreds of cases
16:08
already to identify human remains.
16:11
Speaker 1: So they pointed to existing applications.
16:13
Speaker 2: Yes, and to underscore its high scientific credibility and demonstrate
16:17
its robust nature. The prosecution even cited its role in
16:21
major scientific achievements like the twenty twenty two Nobel Prize
16:25
winning mapping of the Neanderthal genome.
16:28
Speaker 1: Wow, they connected it to a Nobel prize.
16:30
Speaker 3: They did.
16:31
Speaker 2: It was a very strategic move, right, connecting the forensic
16:33
application to this highly acclaimed, pere reviewed scientific endeavor. They
16:40
were arguing that the underlying methodology itself isn't just robust,
16:43
but it's trusted and validated by the broader scientific community
16:46
at its absolute highest echalons.
16:48
Speaker 1: So the message was this isn't some experimental, fringe science.
16:52
It's established, just new to this courtroom.
16:54
Speaker 2: Precisely. That was the core of their argument.
16:56
Speaker 3: On a science.
16:57
Speaker 1: So, after months of these intense arguments and all this
16:59
experts testimony, Judge Mazzi ultimately made his decision in that
17:03
long twenty nine page ruling, and it sounds like it
17:06
was a pretty clear affirmation of WGS. He dismissed the
17:09
defense's arguments quite strongly.
17:11
Speaker 3: He did. Yes.
17:12
Speaker 2: Madze ultimately concluded that the defense's experts failed to provide
17:16
and this is his wording, empirical proof to refute the
17:20
validated empirical evidence presented by the prosecution.
17:23
Speaker 1: Okay, so the burden was on the defense to disprove it,
17:27
and they didn't meet that bar in his view, that's the.
17:30
Speaker 2: Key distinction exactly. He specifically dismissed several of the defense arguments,
17:34
particularly their claim that Astrias statistical analysis, which utilized the
17:39
open source one thousand Genomes project database that has about
17:43
twenty five hundred DNA sequences, that this analysis somehow exaggerated
17:47
the likelihood of a DNA match. He called those specific
17:51
claims flawed and misguided.
17:53
Speaker 1: Flawed and misguided. That's pretty strong language from a judge.
17:56
So this one thousand Genomes project database, it's basically a large,
18:00
publicly accessible reference library of human genetic variations from different populations.
18:04
Speaker 3: Right, that's correct. It's a standard resource.
18:06
Speaker 1: And the defense was essentially arguing Astria's interpretation of how
18:10
common a specific genetic pattern was based on this public
18:13
data was somehow skewed or misrepresented. They were questioning the
18:16
math basically exactly.
18:18
Speaker 2: They were trying to poke holes in the statistical interpretation,
18:21
suggesting maybe the database wasn't sufficiently representative for this purpose,
18:25
or that the calculations of the probability of a random
18:29
match were somehow flawed in Astria's methodology. Okay, However, the
18:33
judge found that the defense's experts couldn't present concrete, peer
18:37
reviewed evidence to really back up their challenges to Astria's methodology,
18:41
especially when weighed against the extensive validation data Astria itself presented.
18:46
Speaker 1: So the evidence just wasn't there for the defense's claims.
18:49
Speaker 3: In the judge's view.
18:51
Speaker 2: No, Ultimately, the judge's core finding was unequivocal. Whole genome
18:55
sequencing is quote generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.
19:00
That ruling cleared the way for its use in Horeman's trial.
19:03
A profound legal victory for the.
19:05
Speaker 1: Prosecution and District Attorney Ray Tiarney wasted no time celebrating Diddy.
19:09
He declared, we were able to prevail for one simple reason,
19:12
the science was on our side. He described the ruling
19:15
as a monumental step that could, in his words, revolutionize
19:19
forensic DNA analysis.
19:20
Speaker 2: He was clearly very pleased and saw the broader implications.
19:23
Speaker 1: But this wasn't entirely unpreced and in a broader sense,
19:27
was it? You mentioned Idaho?
19:28
Speaker 2: That's right, Well, it's a first for New York. The
19:31
decision aligns with a prior instance in Idaho, whole genome
19:35
sequencing was used there to secure a conviction in a
19:37
very cold case, the nineteen eighty two murder of nine
19:41
year old Darryln.
19:42
Speaker 1: Johnson Wow nineteen eighty two.
19:44
Speaker 2: Yes, so this provides crucial context for his viability and
19:47
its growing acceptance in other jurisdictions. It demonstrates that the
19:51
methodology has already been vetted and successfully applied in other
19:55
really challenging cold cases, which certainly lends further weight to
19:58
New York's decision.
19:59
Speaker 1: Now, so it shows it's not just an isolated experiment here.
20:03
It's part of a growing trend in forensic science exactly.
20:06
Speaker 2: It's becoming part of the toolkit four the defense's counterattack
20:11
new legal hurdles.
20:12
Speaker 1: But as you pointed out right at the top, this
20:14
is far from over. The defense wasn't just disappointed. They
20:17
moved fast.
20:18
Speaker 2: They certainly did almost immediately. Hoyerman's defense team, led by
20:22
attorney Michael Brown, they immediately expressed their profound disappointment with
20:27
the ruling, and almost without missing a beat, filed a
20:31
motion to block the DNA evidence on entirely new.
20:34
Speaker 1: Grounds, entirely new grounds, so shifting tactics completely.
20:38
Speaker 2: This indicates their clear determination to continue challenging the admissibility
20:43
of this crucial evidence. They're shifting their focus now from
20:46
the scientific validity, which the judge up held pretty strongly,
20:50
to procedural and regulatory issues surrounding the lab itself. Ah okay,
20:54
to a classic legal maneuver. Really, if you can't beat
20:57
the science, try to beat the process.
20:59
Speaker 3: Or the source.
21:00
Speaker 1: Right. So this raises an important question, what exactly are
21:02
these new grounds for exclusion. It sounds like they're going
21:05
after the lab, Astria Forensics, rather than the science of
21:08
WGS itself.
21:09
Speaker 3: Now that's precisely right.
21:11
Speaker 2: Their primary new argument contends that Astria Forensics, because it's
21:15
a for profit lab based out of state, violates New
21:17
York public health law.
21:18
Speaker 1: Okay, how so they allege that.
21:20
Speaker 2: This specific law prohibits unaccredited out of state labs from
21:25
submitting evidence in New York criminal cases. The defense claims
21:29
Astria lacks a specific New York State Health Department permit
21:33
and doesn't meet the state's minimum standards required for clinical
21:36
laboratories operating.
21:38
Speaker 3: Within New York.
21:39
Speaker 1: Wow, so this is just a minor technicality. Then it's
21:42
a fundamental challenge to the integrity of the evidence's origin exactly.
21:47
Speaker 2: It goes to the legality of how the evidence was
21:49
procured and presented.
21:50
Speaker 1: So if that's true, if Astria Forensics doesn't have the
21:53
proper New York accreditation or permits, that could mean the
21:56
evidence is, as the defense argues, patently unreliable and unlawfully procured.
22:02
That's a huge challenge, isn't it potentially even bigger than
22:05
arguing the underlying science itself, because it questions the very
22:08
legal standing of the evidence getting into court.
22:10
Speaker 3: It absolutely is.
22:11
Speaker 2: I mean, imagine a situation where a critical piece of evidence,
22:14
say a drug test, is performed by allow without the
22:17
necessary state certifications. The results, however accurate they might be scientifically,
22:23
could potentially be thrown out on purely procedural grounds.
22:26
Speaker 1: Right because the rules weren't followed.
22:28
Speaker 3: Exactly.
22:29
Speaker 2: The defense is essentially arguing that New York's public health
22:32
law demands a specific stamp of approval for labs submitting
22:36
evidence in criminal cases, a stamp that Astria Forensics, as
22:40
an out of state for profit entity, allegedly lacks. Now,
22:45
what's particularly complex here is that Astria might be accredited
22:49
by other national or international bodies upholding the highest scientific
22:54
standards globally. Perhaps, But the defense is pinpointing a specific
22:58
New York state permit or accreditation requirement that they claim
23:03
is missing.
23:03
Speaker 1: So it's very specific to New York.
23:05
Speaker 2: Law, very specific. This isn't about the science being wrong anymore.
23:08
In this argument, it's about the source being legally compromised
23:11
according to New York regulations.
23:13
Speaker 1: And what kind of precedent does this set if a
23:15
successful scientific method can't be used because of well regulatory
23:19
red tape, And how might New York's law compare to
23:21
other states on this front? It really feels like the
23:23
legal system is playing catch up with science here.
23:26
Speaker 2: Sometimes it often does feel like that, and it's a
23:28
crucial point. Many states have specific regulations for forensic labs
23:33
submitting evidence in their courts. New York's law in this
23:37
instance seems potentially quite stringent regarding in state accreditation or
23:42
permitting for out of state labs. Okay, If the defense's
23:46
argument prevails on this point, it could indeed create a
23:49
significant hurdle, not just for this case obviously, but for
23:53
any future use of advanced techniques developed by specialized out
23:57
of state labs in New York courts.
23:59
Speaker 1: Right because law one of this cutting edge stuff might
24:01
come from specialized labs not based in New York.
24:04
Speaker 2: Precisely, it forces a difficult question about whether regulatory frameworks
24:08
need to evolve to accommodate rapidly advancing forensic capabilities, particularly
24:13
when those capabilities are often found in these highly specialized,
24:16
private or out of state facilities. Michael Brown, the Defense
24:20
Council reiterated their stance quite clearly, stating, we disagree with
24:25
the court's decision. We think the evidence is clear that
24:28
they didn't sustain their burden. So this new line of
24:30
attack cleverly sidesteps the scientific validity that judgments I just
24:34
upheld and instead targets the regulatory compliance of the lab
24:38
producing the evidence. It's a different but potentially equally powerful
24:43
legal avenue for them.
24:44
Speaker 1: Okay, So beyond trying to exclude the DNA entirely based
24:48
on this accreditation issue, what other strategies are they looking
24:51
at for the trial itself? Assuming this appeal doesn't succeed
24:54
and the WGS evidence does come in.
24:56
Speaker 2: Well, even if they can't exclude it entirely beforehand, the
25:00
defense plans to challenge the DNA evidence is validity during
25:03
the trial itself through rigorous cross examination.
25:06
Speaker 3: That's standard practice.
25:07
Speaker 1: Sure.
25:08
Speaker 2: Their aim here would be to neutralize its impact on
25:10
the jury, essentially trying to sow enough doubt in the
25:13
juror's minds that they either disregard the DNA evidence or
25:17
significantly discount its weight.
25:18
Speaker 1: How would they do that.
25:19
Speaker 2: They'd scrutinize every single aspect of the process, how the
25:23
sample was collected initially, how it was handled, stored, transported,
25:27
how it was analyzed by Astria, and crucially, how the
25:31
results were interpreted and presented. Statistically, they'll look for any
25:34
potential contamination, any break in the chain of custody, any
25:38
ambiguity in the interpretation, hoping to discredit it entirely if possible.
25:43
Speaker 1: Basically create reasonable doubt around the DNA exactly.
25:48
Speaker 2: It's a common defense strategy if you can't get it
25:50
thrown out before trial, make it seem unreliable to the
25:53
jury during the trial.
25:54
Speaker 1: And they've also requested something else that's pretty significant strategically,
25:57
which is to split the case into multiple trials, one
26:00
for each victim.
26:01
Speaker 2: Yes, that's another key strategic move they've made. The defense
26:04
has formally requested that the case be split into multiple trials,
26:08
with potentially one trial dedicated to each victim Hoyerman is charged.
26:11
Speaker 1: With murdering and the strategic why behind that, it's pretty clear.
26:15
Speaker 2: They aim to avoid prejudicing the jury with the sheer
26:19
cumulative emotional weight of all the charges being presented together.
26:23
If say seven murder charges are heard all at once,
26:26
the jury might be overwhelmed or subconsciously swayed by the
26:29
sheer number of victims.
26:31
Speaker 1: Right, it pends a picture of a monster just by volume.
26:34
Speaker 2: Potentially, yes, it could lead to a broader sense of
26:37
guilt by association rather than a focused examination of the
26:40
specific evidence for each individual crime. By fragmenting the prosecution's narrative,
26:47
the defense hopes to prevent that collective emotional impact and
26:50
force the prosecution to prove each case individually based only
26:54
on the evidence directly related to that specific victim. That
26:57
can be much harder for the prosecution to achieve seven
27:00
times over.
27:00
Speaker 1: Potentially, that certainly makes a lot of sense from a
27:02
defense perspective, trying to break down the prosecution's potentially powerful
27:06
holistic case. So, with all these complex legal maneuvers, happening.
27:10
What's the immediate next step in this ongoing legal chess match.
27:14
Speaker 2: Well, Judge Mathay has already scheduled a hearing for September
27:17
twenty third, twenty twenty five, which is just a few
27:20
weeks after his initial ruling on the Fry hearing.
27:22
Speaker 1: Pretty quick turnaround.
27:24
Speaker 2: Yes, this hearing will serve a dual purpose. It's set
27:27
to address both the defense's latest motion to exclude the
27:30
DNA evidence based on this new accreditation challenge and their
27:34
request for separate trials.
27:35
Speaker 1: So two major issues on the table.
27:37
Speaker 2: Two major issues, And what's clear from all this is
27:40
that no trial date has been set yet. These ongoing,
27:43
very contentious disputes over the admissibility of key evidence and
27:46
the fundamental structure of the trial strongly suggest that there
27:50
will likely be further, potentially significant delays in bringing this
27:54
incredibly complex and high stakes case to trial. The defense
27:57
is utilizing every available avenue to challenge the prosecution's case
28:01
before it even gets to a jury.
28:03
Speaker 1: VI.
28:03
Speaker 2: The ripple effect impact on justice and forensics.
28:07
Speaker 1: Okay, so let's zoom out a bit now and look
28:08
at the ripple effect of all this. What are the
28:10
implications for the Gilgo Beach case specifically first, and then
28:13
maybe more broadly for justice and forensics across the country.
28:17
Speaker 2: Well, for the Gilgo Beach case itself, the admissibility of
28:20
whole genome sequencing is undoubtedly a critical development. I mean
28:24
this DNA evidence, particularly those hair fragments we talked about,
28:28
it's considered a cornerstone of the prosecution's.
28:30
Speaker 1: Case because it's the direct physical link exactly.
28:34
Speaker 2: It directly ties Rex Hoyerman and intriguingly, his family to
28:38
the crime scenes. It's the physical biological link that prosecutors
28:43
always crave. Now, it's important to say the prosecution's case.
28:47
Speaker 1: Isn't just DNA, right, You mentioned other things.
28:49
Speaker 2: Yes, it includes other powerful investigative tools, things like cell
28:52
phone tracking data that apparently placed Toyman near the dumping
28:55
sites around the times the victims disappeared or were discovereddence
29:00
of his alleged online searches related to the killings, torture,
29:03
and even a disturbing document described as a blueprint for
29:06
the killings found in his possession.
29:07
Speaker 1: Okay, so the DNA isn't the only pillar, not the.
29:10
Speaker 2: Only one, but the DNA's admissibility significantly strengthens their overall position.
29:16
It provides that direct biological link that is often incredibly
29:20
compelling and frankly easier for a jury to grasp than
29:24
complex cell tower data.
29:25
Speaker 1: Yeah, DNA feels very definitive to people and the family
29:29
dynamic you mentioned earlier, with hares linked potentially to Horrman's
29:32
ex wife Asa Ellerup and their daughter Victoria. That's still
29:36
a really intriguing aspect of this, isn't it. Asa ellerp
29:39
was even present in court during that September third hearing.
29:42
Speaker 3: Weis.
29:42
Speaker 1: It just underscores how deeply this affects everyone around Horerman,
29:46
even though no charges have been file against them. What
29:49
does the presence of their DNA potentially mean for the
29:52
prosecution's narrative if anything?
29:54
Speaker 2: Well, her presence in court, certainly, along with the mention
29:57
of family DNA, absolutely underscores the profee sound personal toll
30:01
this case takes on everyone involved, including.
30:03
Speaker 3: Those closest to the accused.
30:05
Speaker 2: The questions raised by the presence of family DNA near
30:08
victims are certainly complex.
30:09
Speaker 1: Yeah, it doesn't automatically mean they did anything wrong.
30:12
Speaker 3: Not at all.
30:12
Speaker 2: It doesn't necessarily imply direct involvement. It could simply suggest
30:17
shared living spaces or objects like clothing or blankets where
30:21
hair transfer is common. However, the prosecution would likely present
30:25
it as further circumstantial evidence tying the accused household to
30:29
the crime scenes, strengthening the link between Hoyerman and the victims.
30:33
Speaker 1: Okay, another piece of the puzzle for them.
30:35
Speaker 2: Exactly the road ahead remains complicated, no doubt, the lack
30:38
of a confirmed trial date, these ongoing contentious debates, It
30:43
all reflects the case's immense complexity, and District Attorney Tuney's
30:47
public statement ruling out a plea deal signals the prosecution's confidence.
30:52
They clearly believe they can secure a conviction at trial,
30:54
suggesting they think their evidence, now significantly buttressed by WGS,
30:59
is strong and enough enough. They're clearly preparing for a
31:01
long and arduous legal battle.
31:03
Speaker 1: Okay, So turn to the broader picture. Now, what does
31:06
this all mean for forensic science as a whole, especially
31:09
for jurisdictions grappling with their own mountains of cold cases,
31:12
some stretching back decades. This seems like it could potentially
31:15
open up a whole new world for investigators, couldn't it?
31:18
Speaker 2: Oh, it absolutely could. The far reaching implications for forensic
31:22
science are potentially profound. Wgs's unparalleled ability to generate detailed
31:28
DNA profiles from minimal or severely degraded samples could unlock
31:33
completely new possibilities for solving crimes that have long gone
31:37
unresolved just sitting in cold case files collecting dust for decades.
31:41
Speaker 1: Cases everyone thought were impossible to solve.
31:43
Speaker 2: Exactly as District Attorney Tierney noted, this is another tool
31:48
in our toolbox, and it's a very, very powerful one.
31:51
It potentially allows prosecutors across the country to revisit countless
31:54
cases previously deemed unsolvable simply due to insufficient or compromise
31:59
by a logical evidence. This could lead to a massive
32:02
wave of renewed investigations, giving hope finally to victim's families
32:06
who had long given up on ever finding answers.
32:08
Speaker 1: And it also speaks to the rigorous vetting process that
32:11
new forends of techniques have to go through, like these
32:13
Fry hearings before they become standard practice.
32:15
Speaker 3: Right.
32:16
Speaker 1: If this holds up in New York, it could really
32:17
encourage other states to adopt similar approaches, making New York's
32:20
ruling a kind of bell.
32:22
Speaker 2: Weather precisely Nathan Lentz, the professor we mentioned, emphasized this
32:26
intense legal scrutiny that new forensic techniques undergo. This successful
32:30
admission in New York, which is a major jurisdiction often
32:33
seen as a trendsetter in legal precedence, could certainly set
32:37
a powerful example and encourage other states to explore and
32:40
adopt similar advanced DNA analysis methods.
32:43
Speaker 1: We've seen that before with other forensic.
32:44
Speaker 2: Tech Absolutely, Historically, every major advancement in forensic science think fingerprinting,
32:50
traditional DNA profiling, has faced initial legal challenges before eventually
32:54
becoming standard practice. WGS is just the latest technology navigating
32:59
this familiar path, and New York's decision, if it stands
33:02
through appeals, could definitely accelerate its nationwide adoption, further revolutionizing
33:07
how cold cases are approached.
33:08
Speaker 1: But it's not without caveats. As you said, the defense's
33:11
concerns about lab accreditation and the novelty of the technique
33:14
do underscore the critical need for rigorous standards in forensic science.
33:18
This debate over Astri Forensics's compliance with New York Public
33:22
Health law raises really important questions about the regulation of
33:25
private labs contributing to criminal investigations, doesn't.
33:28
Speaker 3: It, It really does.
33:29
Speaker 2: It highlights a potential gap or friction point.
33:32
Speaker 1: So there's a flip side here. If the defense's appeal
33:35
on accreditation succeeds, it could significantly limit the use of
33:39
such evidence in future cases, at least in New York
33:42
maybe elsewhere.
33:43
Speaker 3: It could.
33:43
Speaker 2: Indeed, at least temporarily or in certain circumstances, if the
33:47
defense's accreditation challenge were to prevail in New York, it
33:51
might force prosecutors back to more traditional methods in some instances,
33:55
or at least significantly restrict which labs can process such
33:58
advanced DNA evidence for New York courts, perhaps limiting it
34:02
to in state labs or those who go through a
34:04
specific New York permitting.
34:06
Speaker 1: Process, which might slow things down or limit access to
34:09
the best tech.
34:10
Speaker 2: Potentially. Yes, This highlights the ongoing tension and the careful
34:15
balance that must be struck between embracing scientific innovation and
34:19
ensuring that all legal and ethical safeguards are robustly in place.
34:24
It's a constant reminder that justice isn't just about finding
34:28
the truth, but about doing so strictly within the bounds
34:31
of the law, even when the law sometimes feels like
34:33
it's trailing behind the curve of technology.
34:35
Speaker 1: And of course, at the absolute heart of all of
34:37
this are the victims and their families. The Gilgo Beach
34:40
case has left such a profound and indelible mark on
34:43
Long Island for so many years.
34:44
Speaker 2: It's a deeply human story stretching over decades now. While
34:48
this ruling certainly brings renewed hope for justice after years
34:51
of uncertainty and profound grief, it also inevitably reopens wounds
34:55
for those affected.
34:56
Speaker 1: I can't imagine how hard that must be.
34:58
Speaker 2: No, and the presence of victims families in the courtroom
35:01
during the hearing really highlighted this immense emotional weight and
35:04
their enduring, painful quest for answers and accountability. Public interest
35:08
in this case remains incredibly high, as we know, fueled
35:11
by relentless media coverage and countless documentaries, and this fuel's
35:16
broader societal discussions. Doesn't it about the delicate balance between
35:19
scientific innovation that urgent desire we have to solve crimes
35:23
and bring justice, and the essential legal safeguards required in
35:26
high stakes criminal trials to ensure due process and prevent
35:30
tragic miscarriages of justice. The push and pull between these
35:34
powerful forces really defined this current moment in forensic science.
35:38
Six outro.
35:39
Speaker 1: This case truly encapsulates such a pivotal moment, doesn't it,
35:43
in the evolution of criminal justice. On one side, we
35:46
have the incredible, almost unimaginable power of whole genome sequencing,
35:51
offering this new hope for justice, potentially unlocking decades old
35:55
mysteries that once seemed forever lost to time.
35:57
Speaker 3: The potential is staggering.
35:59
Speaker 1: But on the other side, the defense's robust legal challenges
36:02
question not just a specific application of this cutting edge
36:05
science in this instance, but also the compliance and the
36:07
regulatory framework of the very lab that produced the evidence.
36:11
Speaker 2: It's a clash on multip fronts scientific, legal, regulatory.
36:14
Speaker 1: Yeah, and this isn't just about rex Horman, though his
36:17
trial is certainly the immediate focus and obviously a matter
36:20
of profound importance to the families involved. This case is
36:24
really a battleground, isn't it. It could determine the future
36:27
landscape of forensic DNA analysis and the criminal justice system
36:31
across the entire country.
36:33
Speaker 2: Absolutely, the president set here in New York, whichever way
36:36
they ultimately fall after appeals, will undoubtedly reverberate far beyond
36:41
Long Island. They will influence how cold cases are pursued
36:44
and how sophisticated scientific evidence is treated in courtrooms for years, maybe.
36:49
Speaker 3: Decades to come.
36:50
Speaker 1: So if we connect this to the bigger picture for you,
36:52
our listener, maybe consider this. As science continues to evolve
36:56
at this incredible, almost dizzying pace, constantly put wishing the
37:00
boundaries of what's possible in solving crimes and identifying perpetrators,
37:04
how do we ensure that our legal systems, our regulatory
37:06
frameworks actually keep pace.
37:09
Speaker 3: That's the critical question.
37:11
Speaker 1: How do they adapt and evolve to embrace these advancements
37:15
while simultaneously upholding the fundamental principles of justice and due
37:19
process that are, you know, the bedrock of our legal system.
37:23
What do you think is the right balance between rapid
37:25
scientific innovation and meticulous legal scrutiny, especially when lives and
37:29
liberty hangs so directly in the balance.
37:31
Speaker 3: It's a profound question.
37:33
Speaker 1: It really is, and it's one we'll all be grappling with.
37:35
I think as technology continues to reshape our world and
37:38
our very understanding of justice,