Long Island Serial Killer Agrees to Be Studied: Dr. Katherine Ramsland on What He May Tell FBI | Rex Heuermann

Summary

Podcast Summary

Podcast: Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield
Episode: Long Island Serial Killer Agrees to Be Studied: Dr. Katherine Ramsland on What He May Tell FBI | Rex Heuermann
Date: April 13, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode centers on the recent courtroom confession of Rex Heuermann, now officially identified as the Gilgo Beach Serial Killer. Ashleigh Banfield discusses Heuermann’s plea deal—which uniquely compels him to submit to in-depth interviews by the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU). The episode's highlight is an extended interview with noted criminologist Dr. Katherine Ramsland, who unpacks how the FBI will approach interviewing Heuermann, what they hope to learn, and the challenges inherent in getting honest insight from serial killers. The episode takes a personal, candid tone, blending Banfield’s decades of crime reporting with Ramsland’s clinical expertise, for a nuanced look at the value—and limits—of studying serial killers post-conviction.

---

Key Segment Breakdown

1. The News: Heuermann’s Confession and Unique Plea Deal

• [00:35–09:30]

  • Ashleigh Banfield announces that Rex Heuermann, long suspected, has confessed in court to being the Gilgo Beach Serial Killer.
  • The plea deal includes an unprecedented agreement: Heuermann will participate as a subject in the FBI’s BAU interviews.
  • Banfield expresses both relief and hope that studying Heuermann will help prevent future crimes:

    “Anything that we can learn from a monster like this to help us identify the wolves that walk among us in the flock, I say amen.” (03:12)

• Victims & Sentencing

  • Heuermann admitted to seven murders he was charged with and an eighth, Karen Vergata, not formally charged.
  • Victims’ families and Heuermann’s own wife and daughter were present in court—Heuermann did not acknowledge them, which Banfield sharply criticizes.
  • Sentencing set for June 17: three consecutive life sentences and four 25-to-life sentences.
  • Banfield calls for a full allocution at sentencing, hoping families get answers about “how, why, when, where.” (12:40)

2. Families of Serial Killers: Victims Too?

• [05:20–09:00]
  • Banfield argues for empathy toward Heuermann’s wife and daughter, noting parallels with Dennis Rader’s (BTK killer's) family—often completely in the dark, later villified by the public.

3. Interview: Dr. Katherine Ramsland on the Behavioral Analysis Unit’s Task

• [14:59–53:53]

  • What Can Be Learned? ([14:59])

    • Ramsland: “If it's really going to be authentic and honest…it's a great opportunity... There'll be some things unique to him.”

  • Spotting Lies ([15:34])

    • BAU will compare Heuermann’s responses to his known behavior and background—old interviews, coworkers’ statements, and objective evidence.
    • “You can spot lies and inconsistencies or inconsistencies with evidence. Gaps in the story are outright contradictions…” —Ramsland (15:48)

  • Key Interview Strategies

    • Focus on first murder, planning, victim selection, and his feelings after the crime—the "crime script"
    • Avoid direct questions (“Are there more victims?”), probing instead for behavioral details and indirect gaps ([19:02–21:33])
    • Use of a nonjudgmental, patient approach reminiscent of the Keppel–Bundy interviews ([21:45])

      “Patience and a nonjudgmental approach. And patience can be days, weeks, months…” —Ramsland (21:45)

    • Importance of ego-stroking:

      “Most of these guys are narcissists…they want to control the narrative. So you want to let them believe that that’s what’s happening. And that means ego stroking.” (23:16)

  • Handling Embellishment and Lies

    • Risks of embellishments are high; spending time and matching stories to known facts helps sift truth ([23:47])

      “You’re not necessarily going to know if you have the full truth…but you will get some things that will make the journey worth it.” (24:09)

    • Priorities differ: Law enforcement seeks practical prevention and unsolved case leads; academics study developmental trajectories and motivations ([24:54])

  • Protocols and Teaching Use

    • The FBI has developed protocols for these interviews to standardize and compare to other cases ([25:55])
    • Heuermann’s case likely to become a teaching tool for future agents due to its complexity and duration.

4. Double Lives, Families, and Red Flags

• [27:02–29:42]

  • Ramsland discusses family members' typical ignorance:

    “It’s not obvious…even if they do see something… you’re not going to immediately think, ‘Oh my God, he’s a serial killer,’ because you know this guy.” (28:11)

  • Example: BTK’s wife noticed spelling quirks but never drew the right conclusion, while Jeffrey Dahmer’s father missed highly suspicious signs as normal parenting responses ([38:44])

• Handling Confrontation

  • When confronted with inconsistencies, serial killers like Rader would become defensive, withdraw, then attempt to reassert their narratives with justifications ([29:42])

5. Living in a House of Horror: The Perpetrator’s Home

• [31:14–36:44]
  • Banfield and Ramsland dissect the symbolism of Heuermann’s decrepit house, speculating it may connect to his dead father.
  • Family living above hidden atrocities isn't unique but is rare due to the risk and control involved ([33:51])
  • Proximity between violence and normal family life suggests complex compartmentalization or lack of remorse.

6. Victim Numbers and Behavioral Patterns

• [41:11–44:38]
  • From an academic perspective, the precise number of victims is less crucial than understanding the methods, timing, and gaps—though more victims or longer intervals could mean very different psychological conclusions ([41:11])
  • Gaps between crimes may signal periods of fear, contentment, or failed attempts, not necessarily true inactivity ([42:04])
  • Aging, changing physical abilities, and psychology can all affect patterns:

    “...as they’re getting into their 50s and 60s...their desire tends to dim—not fully, but it does…” (43:58)

7. Behavioralist Tactics & Interview Environment

• [45:00–50:42]
  • The best FBI behavioralists are ultra-prepared, patient, and nonjudgmental—sometimes using teams and even choosing interviewers (e.g., petite women) who might provoke revealing behavior in the subject ([47:11])
  • The interview space—couch or standard cell, presence of treats—can be leveraged for comfort or information.
  • Balancing incentives (time out of cell, snacks, attention) with genuine data collection is tricky, as some serial killers exploit these situations for personal gain ([50:02])

8. Evasion and “Luck” Over Genius

• [50:42–53:37]
  • Heuermann evaded detection for decades, but Ramsland suggests luck and investigative failures, not brilliance, played a larger role ([53:37])

    “He wasn’t a mastermind. I think he was more lucky. Same thing with Dennis Rader…” (53:37)

  • The psychological reward of control—revisiting his dump sites, disdain for victims—likely reinforced Heuermann’s behavior ([52:50])

---

Notable Quotes

• Ashleigh Banfield:

  “Anything that we can learn from a monster like this to help us identify the wolves that walk among us in the flock, I say amen. Thank you for that.” (03:12)

• Dr. Katherine Ramsland:

  “Patience and nonjudgmental approach... Capo approached [Bundy] several times over the course of several years... finally got stuff just before Bundy was about to be executed.” (21:45)

  “Most of these guys are narcissists. They feel entitled, they feel powerful... you want to let them believe that that is what's happening. And that means ego stroking.” (23:16)

  “It's not obvious... even if [family] do see something, you're not going to immediately think, ‘Oh my God, he’s a serial killer,’ because you know this guy. No way is it him.” (28:11)

  “He wasn’t a mastermind. I think he was more lucky.” (53:37)

---

Memorable Moments

• Banfield’s personal outrage at Heuermann’s lack of remorse or acknowledgment of his family (06:06).
• Clinical insight into why serial killers’ families almost always miss the signs (28:11, 38:44).
• Discussion of the eerie symbolism of the “house of horrors” (31:43).
• Speculation about the possibility—and purpose—of using female behavioralists in interviews to simulate the killer’s dynamic with victims (47:11).
• The “prison informant” paradox: Ramsland notes that while killers like Henry Lee Lucas lie for perks, enough time and smart questioning can still yield truths (50:36).

---

Important Timestamps

• Rex Heuermann’s confession and plea deal: [00:35–09:30]
• Victim roll call and impact on families: [10:00–12:20], [05:20–09:00]
• Interview with Dr. Katherine Ramsland begins: [14:59]
• FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit’s interview tactics: [17:24–24:36]
• Family member experiences and missing red flags: [27:02–29:42], [38:44–40:07]
• Psychology of the “house of horrors”: [31:14–36:44]
• Discussion of gaps between murders: [41:50–44:38]
• How and why killers eventually slip, and evasion of law enforcement: [50:42–53:37]
• Episode close/host commentary: [54:11]

---

Final Take

This episode presents a rare confluence of breaking crime news and seasoned analysis: after a confession decades in the making, the justice system and behavioral experts now have a historic chance to plumb the mind of a serial killer for preventative insights. Through Ashleigh Banfield’s passionate framing and Dr. Ramsland’s clinical breakdown of both killer behavior and investigator strategy, listeners are left understanding both why these interviews are so rare—and so potentially valuable—and why the real victims extend far beyond the crime scenes.

Transcript

[A]

Mom, can you tell me a story?

[B]

Sure. Once upon a time, a mom needed a new car.

[A]

Was she brave?

[B]

She was tired, mostly. But she went to Carvana.com and found a great car at a great price. No secret treasure map required.

[A]

Did you have to fight a dragon?

[B]

Nope. She bought it 100% online from her bed, actually.

[A]

Was it scary?

[B]

Honey, it was as unscary as car buying could be.

[A]

Did the car have a sunroof?

[B]

It did, actually.

[A]

Okay, good story.

[B]

Car buying. You'll want to tell stories about. Buy your car today on Carvana. Delivery fees may apply.

[A]

Hey, everyone. I'm Ashley Banfield, and this is Drop Dead Serious. Okay, so this episode's a little different than usual. I do have news. But I think the interview about the news and about what the news tells us is the most fascinating thing I've done in a long, long time. Because I don't know about you, but I cannot wrap my head around serial killers. Why they do what they do, why they get off on it, how they continue, how they evade. Especially the ones like Rex Heuerman, who've done it for decades. So you probably already heard that Rex Heuerman faced the Piper today and in fact faced a judge and admitted he's the Gilgo Killer. He's the Gilgo Beach Serial killer. We all knew it all the way along, but now it's official. And we don't have a trial with details, but a few things were said today that are. Are helpful. The most important thing that I think was said today was that in the plea deal that Rex Heuermann agreed to in court, he is agreeing that he will be a guinea pig. He agrees that he will submit to the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit for questioning. So to that I say thank you, Jesus. Because anything that we can learn from a monster like this to help us identify the wolves that walk among us in the flock, I say amen. Thank you for that. It's the least he can do, right? Submit to the behavioral analysis unit so they can ask him every fucking question under the rainbow, right? So that we can learn more about people of his ilk, monsters of his ilk. Why they do these things to us, and how we can catch them before they get too many of us. So clearly, the questions that I have are, what do you ask this guy? What are these behavioral analysts ask? How did they go about getting the real information? How do we know he's not lying? How do we know he just doesn't want the free donuts and a trip out of his Cell for the day. Like how do you know that you're getting the goods? And as it turns out, they know. There's a way that they know. And the reason I know this is because I asked the best in the business. Dr. Catherine Ramsland is basically the guru of serial killers. She knows everything there is to know about serial killers. She writes books about serial killers. That has been her life's work. And so now naturally, she'd be the first person I would want to ask. What will this mean for the FBI and the Behavioral analysis unit? What are they going to ask? What would you ask if you had your time across the table with a Rex Heuerman and I don't know how many hours they're guaranteed. I don't think they put a guardrail on that, right? There's no governor on the number of questions or the number of hours that they can spend with him. But this guy's got sick ego, right? Sick ego. They all have ego. I know they all have ego, but this guy. And here's what I can tell you from the court hearing before I get to Katherine Ramslin and all the amazing things that she told me. I think she's the real life's Clarice Starling, right? Katherine Ramslin. But in court today, Rex Heuermann's wife, Azza Ellerup, and his daughter Victoria Heuerman were in the courtroom. His son, to my knowledge, was not there. That's an interesting development. But they sat there, they took their place in the courtroom. I think they were like two rows back and he never looked at them. How do you like that, you fucking dirtbag? You don't even have the decency to acknowledge them. Our reporter from News Nation in there, Tommy Cristaldi, said, nope, no, Rex never once looked back at the victim's families, the press, etc. Victoria Heuerman is holding a tissue, but does not appear to be crying. Maybe I should temper that that he didn't look at the victims families, the press, etc. I took to mean everybody in the gallery doesn't say anywhere in the observation notes that he acknowledged his long suffering wife Azza and, and daughter. You ask me, I think they're victims too, because they've been under the microscope. Everybody thinks they're complicit in some way. And you're about to hear from Dr. Ramsland how serial killers families are often absolutely in the dark, like Dennis Raider's family. And they become victimized too. First of all, they've been living with a serial killer. Second of all dad is a serial killer. It's like a death, but worse, you know? So I think you gotta be real careful when you look at Aza Ellerup and Victoria Heuerman, what you ascribe to them, because this very well could be so catastrophic for them. I mean, I tend to believe this is truly just about the worst thing that could happen to you, other than being a victim of a serial killer and being killed by him. So let me give you a couple of other things. He copped to it. He copped two, seven murders, okay, that he's charged with, and he admitted to an eighth that he's not charged with. And I don't think they're going to bother with all that because they feel like the punishment and putting him away, life, no parole, that will take care of the punishment for the eighth death. Karen Vergata is the eighth victim that he wasn't charged with. Maybe they just didn't have enough evidence to get that charge on him. But if you've been following this case, you probably have seen that it was Gilgo 4 at first. And then one by one, these other victims would be added on to his charging document. And that's because they developed the evidence that they felt they had enough to prosecute him on, and he became the Gilgo serial killer, as opposed to just the murderer of the Gilgo 4. How many others? Don't know. But that's, I'm assuming, a big question for the FBI Behavioral Analysis unit to try to scrape out any more potential victims that he might have killed. You know, they'll ask. You know, they'll. But how. How do you ask so that you actually get the answers? You're going to find out in just a moment. Because Katherine Ramsland is so smart at this stuff, and she's interviewed a ton of serial killers, loads of them. So also in the courtroom, it was full. You know, the victims families came in, they took their seats in the first few rows, and they filled up at least three half rows. The judge came in and said to the courtroom, the defendant may enter a guilty plea today, which was probably the worst kept secret in this building because we all kind of knew this was coming. Yes, the plea announcement in court is today, but we'd been reporting on it for a while that this was coming. And so then they bring out this hulking monster of an ogre, and he's wearing a dark grayish black suit with his freaky haircut. I can't get over it. It's just so gross. He's so gross. His haircut's gross, his face is gross. His everything is gross. He's given three. Well, he will be. This is the deal, you know. He'll be given three consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole. And consecutive, you know, means one after the other, not concurrent. And he'll also be given four sentences of 25 to life. It's odd how they're different. I mean, these are all murder victims of his, but there are different reasons based on what they can prove, what kind of evidence they have. So that's how it's going to shake out. That won't happen till June 17. That's the formal sentencing. Here's what I hope and I hoped this in Coburger, and it didn't come to bear. I'm hoping on June 17th there'll be some kind of allocution where he has to spit out the details. You son of a bitch. Tell these family members what you did to their loved ones. Tell the world what you did to us as a society. You stole people from us and you murdered them and tortured them and threw them out like garbage. We deserve to know how, why, when, where, so that we can spot scum like you in the future and catch you before you can do this much damage. I don't know how much allocution, if any, there will be. I thought there would be in Coburger. Nope, nope. We didn't get any satisfaction there. We're still left with all the most important questions, like why. Why would you do something like this to innocent people you basically didn't even know. And for his part, Rex Heuermann gave up. Acknowledged that he's giving up a lot of his rights, including by pleading guilty. He gives up his rights. And the judge reminded him that he's waiving his right to appeal as part of his plea agreement as well. There's no death penalty in New York, so I never really understand why somebody would plead. You know, I mean, it's. You're going away forever, so what do you got to lose? You go to trial, have a few more, you know, field trips out of your cell, but this is. This is what's happened. And the judge actually commended the quote. Excellent. Unbelievable. Attorneys on both sides of the case for coming to this plea agreement. I'd like to remind you who's at stake here. The people that we lost, the members of our flock that he stole, tortured, tossed out like garbage. Melissa Barthelemy, July 10, 2009. Megan Waterman, June 6, 2010. Amber Costello, September 2, 2010. Maureen Barnes, July 9, 2007. Jessica Taylor. July 21 through till the 26th. It's hard to determine what day it happened. 2003. Valerie Mack, between September 1 and November 19, 2000. Sandro Castilla, 1993. Karen Vergata, April 1996. So he copped to with Melissa. Strangulation. Transported her body. He copped to Megan Waterman. Strangulation. Did you leave the remains near Gilgo Beach? Yes, he copped to Amber Costello. Strangulation. Do you admit that you intended to cause the death of each of these three victims? Yes. Maureen Barnes. Same questions and same answers. You can hear people audibly crying, the notes say, wiping their tears away when Maureen Barnes is discussed. Jessica Taylor, same questions as above. Admits to dismembering her remains and leaving them in Manorville and near Gilgo Beach. Valerie Mack, same questions again. Strangulation. Yes. And here's something that reporters from NewsNation noted from the courtroom. Just sort of some courtroom color, some descriptions. He's showing no emotion. Dare I say he looks almost smug. He's not smiling, obviously, but I would almost say he's smirking. I don't even know what to say. Same questions pertaining to Sandra Castilla and Karen Vergata. Strangulation, same as the above. So there you have it. Very few details, just strangulation. And, yes, I dumped their bodies at Gilgo beach and the surrounding area. Victoria Heuermann. Just one more piece of color. The reporters in the. In the courtroom say that she was holding a tissue but does not appear to be crying. That's her dad. Can you imagine the anger, the betrayal, the disgust, the loss, All. All of this that you would feel. And you're sitting across from the people who literally lost so much more, right? The murder, the torture. Everything that's going through their minds about what their loved one went through, the horrors, the years that they've had no answers. The sadness in that courtroom I cannot even fathom. But I'll tell you one thing I will not be sad about is the pain and suffering that Rex Heuermann will have for the rest of his life. I think he's 62, so. 30 years maybe, of living in a cell. And since he's really big, the cell's gonna seem smaller. Sucker. I cannot wait to find out what the FBI can learn from someone like this. Because if we have to deal with scum of our society, at least maybe the only way they can give back is to teach us what they are, who they are, why they do what they do, and how maybe we can get better at stopping them. And so for that I turn to Katherine Ramsland. Dr. Catherine Ramsland is brilliant in this subject matter. She has more degrees than a circle. And whenever there are issues with psychology, I turn to her, especially when it pertains to serial killers. She has written the book on serial killers, many of them her most recent one called the Serial killer's apprentice in 2020. She has interviewed more serial killers than I can imagine speaking to in my lifetime. And she has a lot to say about what the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit will likely try to ask and glean of Rex Heuermann. And she was kind enough to give me a very big piece of her time today and answer some really important questions. Here's my conversation with her. Dr. Ramsland, it's always so good to talk to you. I thought of you as soon as I saw that Rex Heuerman has agreed to talk to the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit. Does that news make you excited, being in the business you're in?

[C]

Well, I'm excited if it's really going to be, you know, authentic and honest. I think it's a great opportunity for the FBI agents who are going to be handling him to extract information. I mean, obviously it's going to be similar to many other things that we already know about some of these offenders, but there'll be some things unique to him. And if he's definitely going to be honest about it and not secretive or deflective, I think it's going to be great.

[A]

Can you often tell, let's just say you're the interviewer. Can you often tell when they're lying?

[C]

Well, you can tell because if you, if you know prior behavior. And with human, they have a video of him giving an interview to somebody about being an architect. They also have a lot of comments from his co workers and customers and families. So they have a frame against which to measure some of the things he might say. So that's one thing. So you can spot lies and inconsistencies or inconsistencies with evidence. Gaps in the story are outright contradictions in the story. And you also. They have baseline behavior in that video. So you also can use that. It isn't that you can just go, oh, tell by the look in their eye or something like that, or any specific behavior. But they'll be specific. There'll be behaviors that he does that when he's telling the truth or not telling the truth or exaggerating something that will tip them off.

[A]

It's interesting. I remember looking at that interview he was With a friend, somebody who's French. And he was conducting the interview and it was about architecture in New York. And I recall that interviewer saying that Rex Heuermann was very egotistical. That was his sort of read on him. But that's enough. That's one interview is enough to provide a baseline to help know what his behaviors typically will be if he's lying.

[C]

Not just one, because they also have things that his co workers talked about in terms of his behavior. There was certain amount of paranoia. There was definitely control issues. He wanted to. He didn't like being double crossed, that was one thing. So you'd pick up a number of things from people who've worked with him or known him as customers, and then use that interview to help with the behavior.

[A]

So if you had the luxury of being able to, say, sit across from him for untold number of hours and pick his brain, what are the things you'd want to know?

[C]

So many things. Interestingly, he did actually have a book in his possession. The cases that haunt us that I worked on with John Douglas. I was the researcher for most of the cases in that book. So I would certainly want to know about what, you know, what he read in that book that might have inspired anything, what he did. But I would be very focused, if I had limited time, I'd be very focused on that planning document, because the minutiae of that document, the preparations, the dump site information, the mistakes that he has seen, that others have made, that he wanted to be careful not to make, that's all very interesting, but also the torture porn, you know, that was, was found in his possession and the, the fact that he wanted particularly small women that he would go with, you know, he, he would use sex workers because they would make themselves vulnerable to people like him, unfortunately. And so. But he wanted petite women. So what was that about? I want to know things like that. I want to know about his background, his relationship with his father, his grandfather, his mother. Why did he stay in that house? Why didn't he fix it up? I mean, there's so many things I'd want to know about. Why did. And his first murder would be the most important one to really ask him about.

[A]

Tell me about that. Why the first murder?

[C]

Because the decision to kill is a big one. To cross the line if it was planned out rather than an accident or, you know, some kind of desperation move because he did something and now he's got to get rid of a witness. These are all very different. And so if it was planned out and I'd want to know, how did he choose his victim? How did he decide how to dispose of her? What did he think about afterward? How did he feel? Was he relieved? Was he afraid he might get caught? So a lot of the behaviors with the first victim show you, first of all, the amateur aspect of it and, you know, what his feelings were about it, his decision making process, what they call a crime script, gives us a sense of where he starts and how his fantasy life possibly led him to this and then what he would do next and the next one that we know of. And I want to be very clear, just because he stipulated to 8 doesn't mean 8 is all there is. The next one that we know of. Then some time had passed. So why, what was going on in that time period? And then why would he then go about doing this again?

[A]

The numbers, I mean, obviously I would think that one of the biggest questions would be how many were there really? You were charged with seven. You agreed to eight. Would you want to know numbers at this point? Does it matter what the numbers are? I mean, just for behavioral aspects, clearly for victims, family members out there, it matters. But then do you even believe what he says? Because he's got such ego.

[C]

Well, you're not going to just directly ask him, is this all there is? Because that's not going to get you anywhere. He knows the parameters of the plea deal and to say anything more risks something else. So. But we do want to know about the Asian male who is small in stature, who is found, whose body was found near the four victims that were wrapped and placed very fairly close together in Gilgo Beach. So, you know, so far, nobody knows much about that person and how that person came in to meet his killer, his or her killer. So we want to know about that. We want to know about his other properties and his business trips. I just think that there's going to be. I don't know if there'd be more victims necessarily, but we want to know more about his, the behavior that's missing in the gaps.

[A]

How do you get there if you can't ask outright, are there more victims? Who else is there? What did you do on your business trips? How do you get that information? How do you ask the questions? What kind of questions?

[C]

Well, you know what Bundy said to Robert Keppel, the homicide detective, Two things, patience and nonjudgmental approach. And patience and really can be days, weeks, months, getting there. In fact, Capo approached him several times over the course of several years and finally got stuff just before Bundy was about to be executed. But Bundy's advice is right. It takes time and your willingness to be invested in their story and in a non judgmental way, which not easy to do.

[A]

I mean, I don't know how you do it, how you put on the poker face when you're just, you've got so many thoughts of how vile the behavior is and how vile the human is who's sitting in front of you. How do you do that?

[C]

Well, you keep your goals in mind. You know, for me it's, it's clinical. I was looking for when I worked with Dennis Rader over the period of five years, it was about getting information that was going to be helpful to law enforcement, criminologists and psychologists. So you keep your goals in mind and you move them toward that. But you also know that you're going to sometimes get too close and they're going to withdraw, they're going to clam up, they're going to lie, they're going to manipulate. So you want to be cautious about what you do.

[A]

Do you stroke their ego? Is that a tactic that's typical for most of these people?

[C]

Whatever it takes. Absolutely. Most of these guys are narcissists. They feel entitled, they feel powerful. They want to control the narrative. So you want to let them believe that that is what's happening. And that means ego stroking.

[A]

If you stroke their ego and you're patient and you're not judgmental and they get a kick out of spending time with you because they feel great, what's to say they aren't going to just embellish everything just to keep that feeling going?

[C]

Happens. That's absolutely the risk. But if you spend a long time, you're going to start seeing those inconsistencies and embellishments and also presumably you'll have evidence against which to compare what they're saying. So you, you will see and I think Keith Jefferson, as you know, as one who's pretty famous for embellishments, Henry Lee Lucas was another one. There are others who've talked about having many more victims than they actually had. So yes, you know that that is always the risk. But you also have some, some guardrails. And you know, to some extent you're, you're not necessarily going to know if you have the full truth and nothing but the truth. But you will get some things that will make the journey worth it, is the journey.

[A]

And maybe it's a combination of all these things, but is it a focus on social, solving unsolved crimes first and then finding behaviors that will help future investigators find the next serial killer. Like, where are the priorities?

[C]

It depends on who you are in terms of what you're going for. If you're in law enforcement, it is about future offenders. And what has this person given us insight about that can help us with either an unsolved case or a potential future case? But someone like me is looking at this for what's the developmental trajectory? What do we know about Heuerman's childhood and perceptions about the way he was treated by his parents, for example, and how does that figure into what we know about other troubled children and what path they might be on? So it's about prevention and prediction as well.

[A]

And, say the FBI investigators who are tasked with interviewing Rex Heuermann get, let's say, 50 hours worth of interviews. What do they do with that? Do they synthesize it down into a case where they then hand it off to all the new FBI agents who want to work in this field?

[C]

Well, presumably they have a protocol. I mean, they started using a protocol back in the 1980s when they first started doing the prison interviews, and that was to keep some standardization in the process. So they have certain things that are going to be going into it, trying to get information about so that they can compare it to those they already have information about, because they do have a lot of cases in their database. So they want to be sure that they will get that kind of information. If they get anything surprising, of course, then Heuerman's going to become a case, a teaching case, and I think he will be anyway, because it's all so fresh. And how he got away with it for so long is interesting. The same thing with Dennis Rader, similarly, but also with this case, you have the complexities of what happened early in the investigation, not with the team that finally arrested him, but with the earlier people. There were some complications, and that, I think, will make it a very interesting case for teaching to police officers.

[A]

What about Rex Heuermann's family? That's not thrown into the deal. You know, interviews with his wife and his daughter and the son. Does that help? Do you think that's something that the FBI would be interested in and discussing with the family members, the kinds of behaviors he exhibited? Any red flags? I mean, they swear up and down there was nothing they could have ever known?

[C]

Well, I mean, they didn't tend to do that. They didn't tend to go outside the offender to find the people who knew him unless they thought they were immediately involved, like a Spouse or a partner of some kind. Law enforcement has a very different agenda. But certainly someone like myself or prison psychologists want to know more and would want to talk with as many people as possible to put together a full and comprehensive picture of this person.

[A]

Did you have a chance to talk to Dennis Raider's family?

[C]

I did.

[A]

And what did you glean from them in terms of the way he presented to them and to the outside world while, you know, exhibiting behaviors as a monster to his victims?

[C]

Well, I think what, what often happens with family members is everybody accuses them of knowing something. How can you live in the same house with somebody like this when it's so obvious he's a monster? Well, it's not obvious. Most family members, even if they do see something, like his wife, for example, saw that he spelled words the same as the communications that the BTK killer was sending to newspapers. You're not going to immediately think, oh my God, he's a serial killer, because you know this guy. No way is it him. And in fact, when he was arrested, his brothers, his minister, his wife, they, they all went and said, you have the wrong guy. They just did not believe it. Even while he was confessing, they still just couldn't believe it. So I do want to say that more often than not, the family members really don't know much, but they're still going to be valuable in terms of telling you about what they do know about. For example, his daughter Carrie wrote her own book and talked about some of the times she saw him get angry. Now that's an important piece of the puzzle. So he would lose control. Despite what he says, he says he stays in control. But now we have an eyewitness saying, no, he didn't. And so now we have an inconsistency in Raider's story.

[A]

What happens when you confront a Dennis Raider with an inconsistency? Does he shut down and say, get out, I'm not talking anymore, or do you just keep it locked in the back of your mind?

[C]

No. And it was classic. What he would do is he'd get angry with me that I wasn't just taking his word for it. And he'd withdraw for a day or two, and then he'd write a letter, long, like three, four page letters, justifying everything and categorizing everything and trying to get retain control over the narrative. But the justifications were often absurd. I know that this is not true because of the way you're approaching this. And so those would be tells to me. Those would be behaviors. I've seen before when I knew that he was trying to manipulate me. So, again, takes time. Takes time and experience to see. To spot all these things.

[A]

And when they cut you off, when they cut you off, they don't really want to cut you off, because you're probably one of the only lifelines they have to the outside world.

[C]

Right. You're the ticket to fame for them. You know, for him, it was. This is his big shot to tell his story his way, and he wasn't going to lose that.

[A]

You know, I don't know what it is about Rex Heuermann. I'm going to be very judgmental for a minute here. I'm. I'm fascinated by the folks that don't look the part. You know, the Dennis Raiders, the Bundys, they just. It's. It's hard. They're wolves. True wolves in sheep's clothing. When I see Rex Hurman, I almost feel like, makes sense. Am I wrong?

[C]

No. And, in fact, his house was in such a disheveled shape that there were people in his own neighborhood who said if a serial killer lived here, it would be that house. So, I mean, in retrospect. Yeah. I mean, he looks like he could be one of these people, but you're not going to know that without context. And he also looks like an ordinary businessman in New York as well.

[A]

Could be both. Yeah, I mean, you're right. I think some neighbors actually counseled their children. They couldn't go to that house at Halloween. I mean, that's a lot when you tell kids you can't go to that house. That's. Talk to me about that house and what it says to you.

[C]

Well, that's such an interesting question. And I would really want to know a lot about that from him, because he was an architect. He had access to all kinds of builders and people who could fix up that house, and yet he let it slide. Why? He had the means to repair it and modernize it and do things to make it habitable for his family, yet he didn't. And I really want to know a lot more about that behavior.

[A]

Does it say something to you right away? Does it stand out in terms of the, you know, all the examples you have in your quiver, like, oh, well, this matches so. And so they also love to live in a hovel?

[C]

Well, no, because I had heard early on, and I don't know if it's true at all, but that he had told somebody that he left it the way it was because it was in homage to his father, that this is the way his father had had the house. And so he wanted to keep it that way. And regardless of whether that. That's really why he did it, that he might say something like that tells you something about his relationship with his father. So why would you keep your house with a wife and kids living in it? Why would you keep your house like this, knowing you are avoided by neighbors? You know, the trick or treaters, nightmare kind of house, just to make it, to reserve it your father's honor or memory. That's so odd.

[A]

Your dead father, by the way. Your dead father. Not even your live father. Your dead father, right?

[C]

Yeah. And he's living in the house of his parents.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

So that's rare.

[A]

Do you. How many other cases do you know of where the perpetrator is doing this? In the home where his wife and children live, he is literally torturing in a chamber beneath the people he loves.

[C]

I do know of other cases. Jerome Brudos was like that. He'd keep body parts in the freezer and then he'd go get the frozen dinners rather than let his wife go see the body parts. There have been a few. I think it's rare because it's very risky, highly risky. But it really depends on who you live with and how much control you exert.

[A]

Well, what does it say also to the decision to do this beastly behavior so close to the loving behavior. Clearly, when your daughter's going to bed, there's probably a good night, sweetheart. I mean, what does it tell you that there's such approximate location to these two diametrically opposed lives and behaviors?

[C]

Well, that's why I'd want to talk about the first murder. Because if he had like we call, ego dystonic, where he doesn't. It just doesn't fit within his sense of himself and he's ashamed or embarrassed or horrified. He might get caught and probably disgusted. If he says any of those things, then you would ask, well, why did you keep doing it? But if he didn't feel any of those. If he felt like, wow, I got away with it. It was so convenient to do it this way. While my wife's out of town. I can get sex workers over here. I can do things to them. I've got total control over this house and it's working because I'm not getting caught.

[A]

Do we know, and forgive me if it was written in his journals and I just don't know this. Do we know if he kept any of his victims alive in that basement while his wife or his daughter may have come home or spent days and then left. Like, were there any. Was there any time when the women were downstairs?

[C]

Yeah, I don't know that there was. I do know that there are people who have those kinds of dungeons where they do keep them. In fact, I was just writing about a case where a guy kept a teenage girl tied up for days in the basement, and his wife came upon her, and so then he had to kill her right in front of her. Because now you've seen her, she's got to die. But he kept her there as a sex slave. Right. Right in the.

[A]

Where.

[C]

Just like a curtain over it.

[A]

And what happened with the wife? Did she. Did she give him up?

[C]

She complied because he told her if she helped to. To hide the body, because he told her, if you don't do this, I'm going to kill you, too. And it. For many years, she kept a secret. Then they finally divorced, and then she went to law enforcement.

[A]

Dear God. Well, that tells you a lot about the fear and the control that he obviously exerted over here over her during that. During that marriage. My God, unless you walk in someone's

[C]

shoes, people are always curious about someone who has married what I call a doubler. The people who live these double lives. But there's a lot of variation among them. I mean, they can't really be grouped as they're all the same as they're not. Circumstances are different. We don't know much about Asa, but I guess she did do the Peacock documentary. But still, I don't think you really know a lot about their relationship. The fact that she's standing with him. She was in court. She went to meet with him while he was in jail.

[A]

Fiercely defended him. Fiercely.

[C]

Not at first.

[A]

Well, it was quiet at first, I think, but then very fiercely had her lawyer.

[C]

Yeah. She speaking on her behalf. She came around.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

And. And I think worst we haven't seen the end of this. I think there. There are going to be some lawsuits against the family by relatives of victims.

[A]

What do you make of that, though? I mean, given that what you've just said about Dennis Raider's family and the fact that most families just don't know these people are doublers. They're good at it. Is it fair for people to go after these families?

[C]

Well, I think the victims families feel that a trial might have brought out more details, and now they've been deprived of that.

[A]

Well, that's Rex's decision, not Asa's or her daughter or son. Right.

[C]

But they will still feel like they are a unit, and that if she did know something, they want to find out. And so they're going to try what they can through legal means to try to get her to talk.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, that's a really tough one. Especially. Especially since you just said, like, so many of these families don't know. And. And if they see a red flag, I mean, who's going to jump to the possible conclusion that, oh, my loved one must be a serial killer, as opposed to that must be a weird coincidence. I can't even let my head go that. That direction.

[C]

I mean, the. The best book I can recommend on this is Jeffrey Dahmer's father because he had so many things and yet still saw nothing.

[A]

Like what? Give me a few examples of the things that Jeffrey Dahmer's father saw.

[C]

Yeah, I mean, it was amazing. He had a box that Dahmer had with a head, and Dahmer persuaded him not to open it. He bought the freezer that Dahmer used to store body parts. He. There were a number of. Dahmer had police involvement, and Lionel Dahmer found ways to minimize it and think he's just going through a phase or it's not, or he's telling me the truth and they're exaggerating what happened. His book is so painful about the things he missed, one thing after another. I think that's a really instructive book.

[A]

Well, missed or. You know, parents are fiercely protective of their children, and clearly Dahmer was one of those children who had a lot of special needs. And maybe those parents just wanted so badly for this troubled child to have some normalcy and to, you know, explain away weird behaviors as just part of his, you know, troubled existence.

[C]

I mean, there was. There was one where Dahmer was, I think, 12 years old, passed out from drinking, where he'd substitute water in the vodka bottles. And how do you totally miss that? He. He thought his son was just daydreaming.

[A]

Well, that's just bad parenting. But it's not someone who believes that, you know, there's murder going on, and I'm just gonna turn my head the other way. I mean, bad parents are all over the place, but I can. I can see as a parent how hard it would be to believe anything so sinister is going on with your. With your child or spouse. Yeah, no, you're right. Talk to me a little bit about the number of victims of Rex Herman. Is it important to know how many in terms of the academic side of interviewing them? Like I said before, for the victims Families of unsolved crimes. Absolutely. But for the academia and the knowledge and the, you know, desire to learn more about how to solve these crimes and find the next serial killer, is it important to know numbers?

[C]

It's not necessarily about numbers, but about treatment to victims. And I think it is important in terms of. Are there any on other properties? Were there any on business trips? So how. How flexible was he in terms of his M.O. and yeah, I think it's important. I don't know that I'm not going to say we need to know if he had 20, but 20 is different than eight, for sure. And we need to know those time periods, the gaps from one to another, if there's more in those time periods. Because that would give us a very different picture of who he was and how successful he was and as a serial killer.

[A]

And what. What about just gaps in general? Because we've heard of gaps. I mean, even the. The Golden State Killer had gaps. Like, what are the gaps about? Are they second thoughts? Are they fear? Are they. What do you make of gaps? What would you want to ask about gaps?

[C]

I would want to ask what were you doing during the gaps that was different than when you were actively stalking or murdering somebody? Like, Dennis Rader has stories about the gaps. He had kids, for one thing, and that kept him busy. And then he told me that some of the gaps weren't about being dormant, they just were about not being successful. So what people thought about him was that he had stopped and he said, no, I didn't. I just didn't succeed. And that's big different. I think it's important for us to know if these gaps are real and what was going on in the gaps.

[A]

How often in your line of work have you come across gaps in, you know, people like this, where it was fear, just didn't want A, didn't want to do it, didn't have the desire, or B, too scared I was going to get caught.

[C]

Oh, I think. And Raider was certainly scared. He. He killed a family, and then he killed a young woman three months later. And then three years went by and he was scared. But I think it. I mean, it's hard to give you a general sense of that since these cases are so distinct. I don't have statistics on it in terms of that question. But, yeah, I mean, I think. I think as they develop, and this is something Bundy said, as they develop, they get used to things and they get bolder. And like, his ritual certainly was to drink a lot, that would make him bolder. But then he got angry toward the end and that's where he started making his mistakes. What was the anger about? We don't really know.

[A]

And what about just the loss and desire to do this? Like, do these, these kinds of people ebb and flow with their psychoses and their, their sinister desires?

[C]

Yeah, I mean, we definitely have some, some studies that show as they're getting into the 50s and 60s. And Raider even said this, I just didn't have the ability to escape, you know, if I were caught because I just wasn't physically as, as fit as I had been when I was in 20s and 30s. So that's something. But also their desire tends to dim, not fully because Raider actually did have, did target a victim when he was, I think 58 years old. He was caught at 59. But he was going to go for this victim. He didn't succeed, but he planned it and then was going to go back. But he was arrested before it happened.

[A]

This seems to me like it would be a really fascinating area to plumb for behavioralists that what is it about the times that you didn't want to do these things? And is there something in our brains that we might be able to treat people who have these tendencies to allow those gap emotions to prevail instead?

[C]

And there have been offenders like that. There was one in Connecticut who wanted to stop and actually he was treated with the medication and it did after he was convicted and it did dim his fantasies and his urges, which was a very interesting thing to study. But unfortunately that kind of thing doesn't go on once they're in prison very much.

[A]

Hard to sort of pinpoint them before you catch them. And by the time you've caught them, that's a prosecution, not a treatment. The other thing is in popular culture is that the behavioralist will be somebody like Clarice Starling. You know, tell me a little bit about the kinds of behavioralists that would get the most information out of a Rex Heuermann.

[C]

Well, for somebody who's going to be patient, who's going to be very prepared, do a lot of studying before they ever even meet him, they're going to know things about him, they're going to have talked to people, they're going to have looked at that interview and any other kinds of documents that they can find so that they know his trust story before he begins to tell it. That would be the first thing. And then patient, non judgmental, as I've already mentioned, and then letting the interview be organic, they will have an agenda and Maybe a protocol. But a certain amount of that interviewing has to be what's going on in the exchange, because you don't want to ignore something that they're saying, because you've got a protocol, and you want to get answers to this. You want to make sure you're able to go in the direction they're taking you in while also maintaining your sense of what you're there for.

[A]

Is it different? And would you choose a female investigator based on the fact that these men have these predilections, and maybe you can actually stimulate that part of them so that they show their true colors because they're. Maybe the desires are starting to come out during the interview with.

[C]

With human. I probably would have a team, and one of them would be a petite female.

[A]

You would do that?

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

I wonder if you wanted to replicate. Yeah, of course. But you'd want to replicate somehow something in the victims that he. That stimulates him to see how he

[C]

acts with her, what kinds of. Especially when she's asking the questions. He had a lot of disdain for sex workers. I mean, he. That was clear in some of those phone calls that he made. I just want to see how he operates. And it's not necessarily that she'd stay with it, but I think that would be an interesting initiating interview.

[A]

And when you say a team, I'm assuming you mean you'd want that person to have someone with them physically while they're doing the interview, because clearly there'd be protection for anybody who's going to face a serial killer.

[C]

Well, it's hard to watch behavior and also interview somebody. I think the other person is going to be able to give a different sense of what they're seeing and maybe think of questions that the initial interview doesn't think of. So you just want multiple perspectives on this if you can. And likely they would have somebody watching through one of these two way mirrors so they can brainstorm this and get as many perspectives as possible. But I think in the room you should have two and sort of seated in a way that one can really watch and see how he responds to things.

[A]

Don't these perpetrators behave differently if they know there's two way glass?

[C]

Depends on what. Who they are. They might. They might like it. They might like knowing that they're so important that they have, you know, this much attention on them. But if that's the protocol, you know, then you just see how he or she settles in and responds to that. If it seems like it's. That is making what you're doing. Ineffective. Then you might rethink where you're going to have them. You might not even have them in a typical interview room. Maybe you'll have them in a more comfortable room, like with a couch, and, you know, where they can feel at ease. So different interviewers approach it differently, and you might try different things.

[A]

With him, is it also like a rewarding kind of thing? For instance, it's no fun to be in jail. It's no fun to be in prison. And he's got a life to think about that. So every opportunity that he gives the FBI, he gets donuts, coffee, a comfortable couch, he doesn't have to wear his restraints. I mean, are there all sorts of incentives for these people to have as many meetings as possible rather than what's in it for me?

[C]

Well, and that's the risk is you have someone like Henry Lee Lucas who played investigators from all over the place so that he could get outings and steak dinners and a nice bunk and lots of attention and had a lot of fun, you know, as he said, fun in with them. You. You have that risk of you're just giving him what he wants, you giving him. But were there payment? You're giving him, you know, attention.

[A]

Were there gems? In the rough, though, maybe he's giving a lot of garbage information, but among it, there's good stuff, and that's what

[C]

you're hoping for, and that's what you're going to sift through all the information you get to look for.

[A]

What about the evasion factor? What would you want to know about how he evaded authorities for so long? Because I look back, and, you know, early on, forensics weren't what they are now.

[C]

They weren't, but. And we. They didn't have all the surveillance kinds of cameras and whatnot that we have now. But look, I mean, people can still get away with things. What's going on with Nancy Guthrie? Honestly, there's. There's still lots of gaps. I think that he. I don't know enough about the first murder, and that's what I would want to know from him. Was this something intended and planned, and was he being a predator or was this an accident or desperation? That all matters in terms of answering your question, because if he was afraid that he might not have gotten away with this, and this happened to Dennis Raider because his first victims were four people that he didn't expect in the house, and he sweated it. He thought he'd get caught. So when Heermann wasn't caught, then that empowers him, but he didn't kill somebody that we know of. Quickly thereafter, I think it was two or three. 1996, I think, was the next one. So he didn't really have to work much at deflecting. After that, he starts learning more about that. Nobody's coming for me. And I think the Gilbert four tells you a lot because those are girls wrapped and placed not too far from one another in the underbrush one after another. And like, my God, he must have just felt so empowered. He. He was close enough to just go drive by and feel like, oh, my God, those my victims are right in there, and nobody's found them. And for quite some time.

[A]

Yeah. He had his own personal dumping ground that he could revisit if. I mean, who knows? Maybe he did. Would you think he probably did?

[C]

I think he definitely did.

[A]

Wow. Just to see his handiwork.

[C]

Yeah. And to experience a sense of control. And I do think he had disdain for sex workers. So a sense of superiority.

[A]

I wonder if his father at any point had been with a sex worker, and that was the genesis of his hatred. I mean, who knows? I'm guessing only this is a dead man who I shouldn't besmirch. But I'm always curious about what makes someone develop that kind of hatred.

[C]

I mean, we don't know anything about his religious upbringing. There's so little we know about his background, and that's a lot of questions to ask.

[A]

But the other issue is the evasion. How much of this of his evading do you think is because the policing wasn't great as opposed to he's some mastermind?

[C]

The policing was problematic. So I don't want to get into all the complexities of what happened with that, but he wasn't a mastermind. I think he was more lucky. Same thing with Dennis Rader. He was no mastermind. He was lucky, and he almost got caught.

[A]

Yeah. Well, I tell you what, I tend to think that of the Nancy Guthrie investigation, but time's gonna have to prove me wrong on that one. Katherine Ramslin. I love my conversations with you. And now that I'm podcasting, I get to do nice, long ones. So thank you for all your time.

[C]

You're welcome. Nice to be here.

[A]

So there you have it. I mean, literally, I've just got one thing to say to Rex heuermann after the 17th and after the sentencing, and that is good riddance. People like you deserve to suffer for the rest of your lives. It is nothing compared to the torture that you exacted on all of your victims nothing. Your torture is a picnic compared to theirs. And so that's why I say good riddance. I have zero else to say except I really hope the FBI gets what they need and what they deserve. Thank you everyone, so much for watching and listening. Don't forget to subscribe. And also hit the like button. It really helps us and keeps us, you know, going and supports this, this channel. In the meantime, as I always say, thanks so much for your support. Don't forget, the truth isn't just serious, it's drop dead serious.