Rex Heuermann, an architect who had lived most of his life in Nassau County and worked in Manhattan, was taken into custody in connection with at least some of the killings, said an official with knowledge of the case. — The New York Times
The 59-year-old was the owner of a Midtown Manhattan-based consultancy practice that offered “concept-driven designs at multiple scales from educational facilities, residential works, as well as mix use and office design, public works, and master planning,” according to its website. Heuermann usually met his victims in the vicinity using a series of disposable “burner” phones which were later linked by investigators to those used by the women via what the New York Times deemed "sophisticated technology."
Heuermann has pled not guilty. An odd 19-minute interview in which he describes his expertise in building codes and regulations can be viewed below via Bonjour Realty.
50 Comments
As I study up about this man: my initial impression is that he is smart and intelligent, and his aptitude with the regulatory codes is quite brilliant. If he is guilty of the murders, it is extremely sad for the profession. We need people like Rex (minus any serial killer part) in this profession. Even if he is found not guilty, the stench of the serial killing controversy will permeate his career potentially ruining it and his firm.
What we know, is that serial killing will have another victim..... Rex's architectural/professional career regardless of the verdict. If guilty, he murdered his career. If not guilty, someone else murdered his career.
Are you seeing a connection?
Between his professional background, the building codes, etc. and serial killing (if guilty, of course.... right now, not deciding that)... I do not see a connection. I do not see why being an architect or building code expert would make a person a murderer.
What I do see is how people too impatient to wait through pre-trial hearings and trial will jump to conclusion. I do see how a reputation is tarnished and how it will likely kill his career regardless of whether he did the murders or someone else.
His career will already be the victim long before any trial. His career may already be a victim, today.
Even if he is found "not guilty" (acquitted), he will always be associated with the killing and there will be that distrust because people already made up their mind from the media coverage.
If he's guilty, so be it.... he made his bed.
If not guilty, he will have been convicted guilty by members of the public, the profession, etc. all before there were even the pre-trial hearings let alone the actual trial. Why is that?
"If he is guilty", he not only murdered his career, but he murdered 4 people or more. Thinking only about his career makes you sound a psychopath as much as possibly Rex himself.
Here are my observations as of 7-14-2023 @ 8:34pm PT:
1. There are evidence that at face value appears to be convincing that there is the plausibility of Heuermann's involvment with the crimes.
2. His reclusive personality and social life (or more like the lack of) with his neighbors appears to be one that makes him suspicious. Alone, this does not and is not reasonable basis for guilt.
3. His personal internet activity has issues that the public's perceived idea of a"normal person" would not do. Problem is the idea of the "normal person" doesn't exist. Well over 50% of the population would not meet that.
2 & 3 does seem to point to a person that is inherently not comfortable with being around other people. It is not uncommon for people in this profession to be introverted instead of extroverted. This appears to be the case. Introverts may often be first suspected because they are perceived as abnormal due to not being outwardly friendly, even feeling discomfort and expressing through body language that discomfort. However, they are also not likely to be violent or do something like killing but this doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It would require other psychological issues not just merely being introverted.
#1 involves phones, DNA, etc. It is unclear if it completely places him as the murderer beyond ALL reasonable doubt. Can it be someone else? Maybe his spouse? Who knows but we don't know. Not today.
I see a case potentially sufficient to indict but not necessarily up to convicting. This is because what we know may not be all there is. It is possible to feel he is guilty. The tone of the media will almost certainly style the writing to poke at those emotions to invoke you to feel he's guilty. It's the art of narrative to persuade. What do the facts actually say? I can feel suspicious that he's guilty but I have to be careful to not let my emotions dictate. What we don't see or don't know is if there are any exculpatory evidence to any or all of the crimes. Law enforcement and prosecutors are going to keep that quiet. The defense attorneys may also for a variety of legal strategy reasons.
Media often excludes publishing anything about exculpatory evidence because it undercuts the narrative they are using. It's money in their bank account. People are attracted to bad news like a fly is to a turd. Sick but unfortunately true in general.
You're getting warmer.
He’s guilty. The evidence described in the press conference is damning.
Men, so often, are the source of violence. I don’t understand it but we need a cultural reckoning about it. Musk and Zuck are out there screeching about having a cage match or whatever without even acknowledging that they’re perfect examples of how culture has changed from our violent roots: they’re not powerful because of physical strength. They’re filthy rich. Physical power doesn’t really gain one anything in the current culture. It’s time to put physical aggression aside and be smart, compassionate, and collaborative with others for success.
Men who use physical violence should be shunned, at the very least.
You may be correct about this. Probably for a lot of what you said. However, with that alone, you would not be selected on the jury during the voir dire process if you lived in the jurisdiction. This attitude causes guilty people to walk especially if everyone has your attitude. How can anyone have a fair trial if everyone finds them guilty on accusation alone?
You spoke to evidence but how are they, not just circumstantial evidence? A jury is required by law to acquit if all you have is circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence alone is reasonable doubt and the law requires the prosecution to prove the defendant committed the crime BEYOND (all) reasonable doubt. The law requires NO reasonable doubt. Of course, there can be doubt but if it is reasonable, the jury must acquit.
Having said that, reserve judgment because it is possible that the crime was committed by someone else. The evidence, as so far, as presented at this time does not prove that no one else did it.
He's just the leading suspect and arrested and arraigned. That does not mean there isn't someone else.
Patience, Donna. I know you have what appears to be a bias against the male gender as evidenced by your post but women are capable of heinous crimes of violence as well. That someone else, that I mentioned, could be male or female. The crimes could in fact involve multiple murderers.
When it comes to crimes and investigations, emotions must be *checked* at "the door". Again, shunning is convicting and punishing the person. Wait for the jury to arrive at the verdict. If he is found guilty, shun him... THEN. If he is found not guilty, shunning him now is punishing a person for what they did not do.
Why are you eager to punish men? Do you really hate men?
FYI: Any evidence presented by media is seen as damning. Pretty overused when the media only presents the evidences that supports the indictment but not the exculpatory evidence that may exist.
On one hand, I do hope they got the right person but I also hope they are not prosecuting the wrong person.
I don't disagree, but following the reasoning in what you typed - men (and women) who employ the violence of economic and political power should be shunned as well. Or maybe they deserve some physical violence? IDK.
I think in both senses, our culture could use more compassion, intelligence, and empathy.
But again, playing my own critic - where would the French Revolution have gotten to if they had been overly empathetic with the aristocrats?
Ricky, you're really warm now.
archanonymous I agree with you that economic violence, that resulted in physical violence of starvation, abuse, etc. against the powerless, was committed in the the French Revolution and violence against the perpetrators was justified. But that was hundreds of years ago. We have better ways of stopping people these days. And this serial killer obviously got *pleasure* out of committing violence against innocent people. That’s unacceptable in s society.
Absolutely agree with you there! I suppose I'm wondering about the "Dexter" scenario where a serial killer starts dispatching the politicians and oligarchs responsible for a great deal of real (not metaphorical or psychological) suffering and death. I can't imagine I'd shed a single tear.
Not sure why you feel the need to make a generalized about ~ 50% of the human race on a thread that has nothing to do with the generalizations of men. The biological sex of the accused is hardly evidence. Furthermore, while men do tend to, in a general sense, be more aggressive (or at least be more capable of aggression) than women, it’s hardly something that needs a “cultural reckoning.” It’s the product of evolution and it’s not unique to humans and no amount whining from behind a keyboard is going to change that. Here’s a generalization for you: males are the protectors and women are the nurturers. And being more capable of aggression ≠ pathology. What Rex is alleged to have committed illustrates deep-rooted psychological pathology. Males, with their innate ability to display physical aggression when the need arises (protecting their offspring and mate, clubbing a lion to death too bring protein back to the cave), are not inherently pathological as you seem to have eluded to. It would seem some might need to reckon with fact that evolution is not about to change any time soon and nor should it.
Sorry kiddo but "males are the protectors and women are the nurturers" is a bullshit idea pushed by men who don't want to control themselves or relinquish power to women. We don't live in an age of right making might; we live in a civilization that values intellect, ability, and cooperation.
MEN commit exponentially more violent acts. MEN are the ones who need to evolve and fit with the current age.
(Also, it's alluded to. See, intelligence matters.)
Architects are not known for being kind to people unless they are admirers and pay well and promptly. Renderings once did not show people in them or just stick figures. Obession about buildings was, is, fundamental to the profession, same forpreservationists, planners, consultants, financiers, developers, unions, politicians, real estate peddlers, maintainers, and many more. Cities and landscapes show that overriding conceit which demeans the populace with dismissive characterizations and hollow promises of health, education and welfare, whinings and cheatings about compliance with codes, and eager participation in after-disaster opportunities.
So it needs to pointed out that Mr. Heuermann may possess the exact personal characterisitcs which draw mean-hearted people to the built environment as well as its destructive aftermath. The term "starchitect" is a useful reminder of the evil that lurks in the heart of ego-driven monsters. NYC and Long Island are perfect examples of what is killing the planet.
Whole lot of generalizations in this comment! Starchitects are highly visible in media but not highly visible of what the vast majority of architects are like.
The fact that the building industry is problematic does not require any kind of mean-ness at all. We are messing our planet with all the best of intentions to the contrary. It might be easier on our souls to imagine only mad people do mad things. Instead we can make a complete mess of our environment just by being average in a system that is tilted in the wrong direction.
As for star architects being a problem, yeah some have ego problems that are effed, as we saw with the recent news about Adjaye. Doesnt mean they are all assholes or evil. I worked with starchitects in Japan for years and at least two of them remain fixed in my mind as the kind of person I would like to become when I grow up. That is for their humanity, not their design chops.
which is to say, crazy murder person happening to be an architect is a ridiculous opportunity to propose all high-end architects have some kind of murder-y intent in their hearts.
I have practiced Architecture and design in NYC for over 35 years, an RA, and a woman, in large well known firms and then my own small firm. I have seen the field change for the better for women, but not enough. I read these comments about the arrest of Rex Heuermann with interest.
I met Rex in NYC in 2017, in a work related capacity. When I read late last night about the arrest in the NY Times, you could have knocked me over. His area of expertise is in deciphering NYC's byzantine building codes and finding a method to comply that the DOB will agree to and get projects signed off that languish for years, but are otherwise completed, following the code, but hitting a bureaucratic snag and delay.
He was currently working with me in this capacity; I spoke with him not more than 10 days ago about a DOB issue. While I found him a bit unusual; he always seemed to talk too long and get off the topic, he was always polite in his manner with me.
So, to read the indictment, the articles, and his background, I was astounded. While some evidence is circumstantial, it seems not all of it, and yes, we will have to wait and see if he is the murderer and if he is convicted at trial.
Not great for the architectural profession, which has many hardworking and dedicated professionals.
and yes LI sprawl, lack of regional planning, overbuilding, etc. has altered the NY and LI landscape, not in a positive way, and no doubt is an area in NYS contributing to climate change.
If he is guilty, what might he have also done that we do not yet know?The majority of violent crimes (and serial murders) are committed by men, not women. The US has critical issues to face around violence. He had licenses for more than 90 weapons. To be honest, I was completely unable to sleep the entire night thinking and reading about this arrest. In some ways, he seems to fit the serial profile.
This description sounds very much like one of our regulars....Very interesting.
That’s pretty terrifying that you were that close to him. Good thing he’s off the streets. They have DNA matching him to at least 3 of the girls. I read a story today of a recent interaction that a 22 yo girl riding a bike had with him at a park in massapequa. She was so creeped out that she called someone to pick her up.
Be careful in believing a person commits a crime because of DNA. All it says was he was close to them at some point. Hell, you can get DNA off a person that just walks past you. We need more to go on to convict him. Seriously. Creepy behavior does not mean he committed murder. That is why it is called circumstantial evidence. Could he have done it? Possibly. It is important to keep in mind that like almost every crime, there is information withheld from the general public, which means withholding information from media as well, prior to trial. It will be more than a month before it gets to trial. There are all the pre-trial motions and hearings to go through, the discovery process where information is shared between prosecutors and the defense attorneys. Let us be patient and wait for the trial before making a judgment. Regarding the genetic development of the human brain, it is very difficult and nearly impossible for a human to change their mind if they are highly emotionally invested in their current view. Emotional investment becomes the barrier. It becomes for all intent like a religious belief. Fundamentally in the bioscience of the brain, it is indistinguishable just like politics.
RB, that's ridiculous. The police have been building a case on the guy for a year. They would not arrest him, be able to get warrants, and charge him if they didn't have tons of evidence. Sure it happens for low profile cases, but not such a high-profile case that has had numerous documentaries and a Netflix movie made about it...where the whole nation is tuned in...He did it.
x-jla, that's assuming they did everything right but even they screw up. There are multiple cases where they spent a year or more and still got the wrong person. It happens. Even high profile cases, prosecutors and law enforcement screw up.
Rick, you're so warm right now.
Jurors are supposed to be impartial. You are prejudging his innocence by offering possible defense arguments which is different from assuming his innocence. RB, you are the most biased person commenting on here you just don't realize it.
Really Arch2. I'm following the law. You're not. The law is that the defendant in a criminal case shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt in a court of law. We are not a court of law. To comply with the spirit of the law, I do not establish a verdict before the facts are all presented. We don't have that. Arch2, what is the principle and reason for the "presumption of innocence" as applied in the U.S. judicial system?
You are not presuming his innocence. You are arguing for his innocence. It is not the same thing. You are biased on the other direction.
Answer the question I asked: Arch2, what is the principle and reason for the "presumption of innocence" as applied in the U.S. judicial system?
The principal is called projection and the reason is to deflect. My statement still stands.
Rick, if some random kid got picked up a day after someone was shot at a gas station I’d have a presumption of innocence because lots of people are wrongly arrested for such crimes. A 15 year old high publicity high scrutiny serial killer case where the suspect was under surveillance for a year, very very very unlikely that he’s innocent.
I have not ever said the guy is innocent. You guys are judging him without the facts. Not even the media has the actual facts. x-jla made a false assumption that the police wouldn't arrest someone falsely. The case wasn't even that high profile until recently. I called x-jla on the bullshit basis of his argument. I was simply suggesting not making decisions about whether the guy is guilty or innocent until you actually have the facts.
You may actually be surprised that my gut feelings lean more toward him being guilty than innocent but I am not closed off from considering other possibilities. Regardless of my gut feeling, I must by law, as well as you, presume innocence until he is proven guilty BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.
Do I have reasonable doubt? Yes. At least at this point in time.
How do they prove he actually killed the women not just that he had been physically close to them?
What facts do they actually have that they have publicly disclosed?
Is there gaps in the facts that we do not know about?
Do these gaps cause reasonable doubt?
We must not assume they have anything else or opine about what they may or may not have. We need to make our decisions on the actual facts of the case not just pretrial media coverage noise.
Maybe we should compile the facts of the case. No arguments about guilt or not guilt. Let's compile the facts and testimony. Let's not make any judgment. This compiling of the facts will have to be updated and additional facts and information is added as they become available.
“x-jla made a false assumption that the police wouldn't arrest someone falsely“. No, I said that they wouldn’t for such a high profile case. I even have an example of the type of cases that warrant more skepticism. This is not one of them. It would be a huge national embarrassment if they dropped the ball on this case after 15 years.
Possible sure, but highly unlikely that they would put their political careers on the line on flimsy evidence.
Maybe but it happens. It had happened before on multiple occasions. I do hope they have the right suspect. How can you or I, without evidence, arrive at a conclusive position?
The fact is, we do not have any evidence for any basis to judge. The investigators may have the evidence but you and I do not have copies of those evidence. You and I do not have a damn thing. We just have the media coverage, which they, too, do not have a damn thing. Just the words from press conferences. Those are not trial evidence a jury can make a verdict.
A jury is required to set aside whatever they have heard or read from the media or anywhere else and disregard every single word. They have to shitcan whatever they may have read or heard about the case. Otherwise, it is a basis for a mistrial or even the verdict being completely overturned, vacated, etc. Do we really want that?
"Rick, if some random kid got picked up a day after someone was shot at a gas station I’d have a presumption of innocence because lots of people are wrongly arrested for such crimes. A 15 year old high publicity high scrutiny serial killer case where the suspect was under surveillance for a year, very very very unlikely that he’s innocent."
Maybe but there have been multiple high-profile serial murder cases where they did what you said and still got the wrong person convicted. It happens. As I said, it is possible that the murders were caused by someone else or multiple murderers which may or may not include Mr. Heuermann.
Police investigations are frequently pressured to convict somebody. Political pressure and angry public pressure to convict someone, anyone, for the crime so they choose their current leading suspect.
They might have the right person. They might not. We on this forum do not know because we do not have the actual facts of the case and the investigation. There are not enough of the actual facts of this case presented for a reasonable person, who is applying the judicial burden of proof for criminal cases in the United States, to arrive at a conviction verdict.
Why are you and others not applying the judicial burden of proof? Do you have the police evidence of this case? Do you have copies of the depositions of the witnesses? Do you have copies of the coroner's and medical examiners? Do you have copies of the DNA results reports? Do you have any exculpatory evidence? Do you have phone data? Do you have photos and video evidence?
Do you actually have any of these?
These are things you need to show and present to a trial jury. You need evidence to rule out other possibilities of other murderers. Prosecutors need to prove HE did the murders beyond all reasonable doubt. This means they need to prove no one else can be the suspect. They must prove not only that we were near them but actually committed the crime. They have to place him at the crime. They have to actually rule out all other possible suspects with the exception that there may be co-suspects which will also have to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt to have been part of the murders in some fashion.
Do they have this proof? I do not know. We do not know. It is way way too early before trial to even know what they have to present at trial. Why is it that hard to understand my position of "undecided"?
Read this VERY carefully:
We owe it to the victims of this crime and any crime that we do not rush to conclusions, have evaluated all the facts available, and are certain beyond all reasonable doubt that we have the right person we indict and prosecute and hopefully convince a judge or jury that we have the right person and prove beyond all reasonable doubt has committed the crime(s). This also means we owe to the public that we do not indict or convict the wrong person.
Your honor, the defense rests.
Rick, you're on fire right now.
I can't wait until we all read about the building designer with a menagerie of taxidermied bodies stored in the attic.
“His search history showed obsessive google searches for things like ‘Do taxidermied bodies count towards building occupancy limits’
Yeah, but I bet the code officials thought he had killer code sheets.
He only made the dead load calculations
I watched the interview. His resemblance to DJT is uncanny in sight, sound, and demeanor. It's like DJT was born into the middle class and this was the result. He even says- referencing his work- things along the lines of "I alone can do this. No one else can."
The fact that he's an architect has no bearing on the profession. It's got nothing to do with it.
just when you think the reputation of architects couldn’t sink any lower
From Time Magazine covers to Law and Order
he pled not guilty, yet had 200 guns, dna evidence.
Maybe some day the age of design will return. And weirdo code experts like this can be replaced by AI
200 guns? Hmm... odd and excessive. DNA evidence... already talked about that. Reputation of this man is pretty much at its worse.
OJ and the Central Park 5 was innocent amiright
Central Park 5 is innocent.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.