The Bad Place: Foil Wars

The Suffolk County Police Department; The Nassau County Police Department; and the NYPD – All Want Us to Believe that this Girl, Who Washed Up on Gilgo Beach Over Three Months After She Went Missing, Committed Suicide

What are they Hiding?

[REDACTED SALUTATION Etc.]

Dear FOIL Appeals Officer

I am writing to appeal under the Freedom of Information Law (Article 6 of the Public Officers Law) the Suffolk County Police Department’s (“SCPD”) partial denial of my request – through outright denial and redaction ...

[REDACTED MATERIAL]

… What follows is a thorough discussion of the law and a factual recitation of why there is a compelling public interest – although no such showing is required – that supports the provision of the requested information.

THE INFORMATION WITHHELD FRAMES THE ISSUES ON APPEAL

Please refer to the third page of the attached “Response to FOIL Request Packet” which is entitled REASONS FOR REDACTIONS AND/OR DENIAL OF ACCESS TO RECORDS.”

First Issue: The “14 images (deceased)” were “withheld” because “87 2(b) Disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

Second Issue: The redactions of the decedent’s body from the aforementioned crime scene photographs is based upon the same above enunciated justification: because “87 2(b) Disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

I take no issue with the appropriate minimal redactions to the documents.

Third Issue: Please see the first page of the “Response to FOIL Request Packet” which states in script handwriting: “If memo book exist, they will be sent to you upon receipt from police officer.” First there were multiple police officers – not including detectives – that responded as we will see. Finally, for reasons that will be explained this response is inadequate under FOIL. 

Fourth Issue: Amongst the photographs provided there is a partial picture of the first page of a “Crime Scene Log” – just the upper left hand corner. Based upon the photo it appears to be a multi-page document. This was never turned over or accounted for.

[REDACTION]

BACKGROUND

There were multiple articles published in numerous newspapers and other media – all of which are nearly identical – that reported on the disappearance and death of Natasha Jugo. All of the aforementioned transpired between March 16, 2013 and June 24, 2013 – eleven years ago. Established journalists have informed me that the articles were all based in the main on press releases issued by the Nassau County Police Department and the S.C.P.D. [Suffolk County Police Department]

Based upon the press release and the articles the following allegedly transpired:

On Saturday March 16, 2013, Natasha Jugo was seen by a neighbor leaving her Bayside (not Queens Village as reported) home where she resided with her family. She was seen getting into her car at about 4:30 PM by a neighbor. She was variously described as wearing pajamas, a bathrobe, a hoodie, and boots. I visited the area. There are many drive-through eateries, coffee, etc. that she could have been going to. Or a friend's house. Or even a quick stop somewhere, etcetera. If the above were true.

The next day – Sunday – at around 11:00 a.m. a female resident of West Gilgo Beach that lived on Ocean Walk overlooking Tobay Beach discovered Jugo's wallet and identification reportedly on the South Side of Ocean Parkway. I have been there multiple times.

The S.C.P.D. was called but because it was just inside Nassau County the S.C.P.D. called the Nassau County Police to investigate.  They in turn called the N.Y.P.D. because Jugo lived in the City.

The accounts state that the Nassau County Police found Ms. Jugo's 2009 Prius parked on the shoulder of Ocean Parkway. Furthermore, that footprints in the sand led from the car to the surf.  Further that articles of Jugo's clothing including the alleged robe were found at the end of her footprints at the water's edge.

I have been to the Jugo house and driven multiple routes from there to West Gilgo. It is not a short trip – approximately 30 miles. There are many turns just getting out of Bayside to the Parkway. The point is that going to West Gilgo from Jugo’s home required a large amount of deliberation and intention. She did not just end up there. It has been my experience that young woman from Queens and indeed all parts of New York City have no idea Gilgo Beach even exists. Jones Beach is completely another story.

If Ms. Jugo wanted to drown herself there was a convenient Bay five minutes from her home with a nice large pedestrian walkway and bicycles, etc.

Sunset on March 16, 2013, was at 7:02 PM. The water temperature was somewhere around 36 degrees Fahrenheit. The air temperature was in the mid-30s. Walking into the Gilgo Surf up to her head and then inhaling the ocean water would have been an excruciatingly painful way for Ms. Jugo to commit suicide. And quite improbable. Again, a young woman from Queens would not even know where Gilgo Beach is. Such suicidal mechanisms are simply unheard of in science. (See infra)

The narrative is also improbable for the following reasons. No footprints from Ms. Jugo’s car to the water’s edge of the beach could possibly be found. In addition, no articles of clothing could possibly be found at the water’s edge. 

The above is due to the fact that there is a thick area of bramble that walls off Ocean Parkway from the beach in the area where Ms. Jugo’s vehicle was reportedly found – near West Gilgo Beach/Tobay Beach just inside Nassau County. As such no footprints would be visible from where the vehicle was allegedly parked leading to the beach. One must have familiarity with the area to fully comprehend this. Not only is it unlikely that someone would walk through this bramble, if someone did walk through the bramble that person’s footprints would be obscured by the thick vegetation.

Moreover if Ms. Jugo left her home in Bayside on a Saturday afternoon at 4:30 p.m. during the Winter she would have arrived at West Gilgo no later than 5:15 to 5:30 p.m. That means she would have entered the water at approximately 5:30 p.m. while discarding her clothes at the water’s edge. Low tide on March 16, 2013, for Gilgo Beach was 5:08 p.m. High tide was at 11:37 p.m. The next low tide at Gilgo was at 5:52 a.m. on Sunday March 17, 2013. This is followed by another high tide at 12:11 p.m. of March 17, 2013, approximately near the time that the Nassau County Police Department officers would have located the footprints and the articles of clothing.

The problem with that scenario is that Ms. Jugo would have entered the water at low tide. By the time the police saw the footprints and articles of clothing there would have been a high tide, another low tide and most, if not all, of yet another high tide. The footprints would have been washed away. And the clothing allegedly discarded at the water’s edge when Ms. Jugo went into the water would have been out in the Atlantic. I did simulations to prove the point.

Most dramatically Jugo's body washed ashore at 9:30 PM on June 24, 2013. That is over three months by a week. She washed ashore about two miles away from where her footprints purportedly led to the surf. She is reportedly seen by beach goers in the surf. According to the accounts she was quickly identified as Natasha Jugo. "Jugo's body was still closed and showed no obvious signs of trauma."

Reports indicate that the decedent’s family was contacted that same night of June 24, 2013, and informed by the S.C.P.D. that the decedent’s body had been recovered. Ms. Jugo’s sister is quoted as stating that the S.C.P.D. called that very same night wherein they informed Ms. Jugo’s family that they had recovered Ms. Jugo. 

As such the decedent had to be readily identifiable over three months after entering the water. 

It is not entirely but nearly scientifically impossible for the above to occur. 

In review, the decedent is presumed to have entered the water in the vicinity of West Gilgo Beach/Tobay Beach in Nassau County on March 16, 2013. Her body was purportedly recovered at Gilgo Beach in Suffolk County over three months later at approximately 9:30 p.m. on June 24, 2013.

I have consulted with experts. When someone drowns, they sink to the bottom face down. All the way to the bottom.  The body only rises when natural bacteria in the gut feeds on the person's dead cells anaerobically. That causes a methane build up noted by severe bloating like the famous photos of dead soldiers at Gettysburg.  Some bodies actually explode. However, when the water temperature is below 7 degrees Celsius that bacterial reaction does not occur or only occurs to a small degree. The body stays at the bottom. 

The water temperature was somewhere between 2 to 4 degrees Celsius (36 to 41 degrees Fahrenheit) when the decedent purportedly entered the water. Natasha Jugo would not rise to the surface and float to the beach over three months later. 

In addition, the seabed creates a large amount of visible trauma to a human body when that body is on the seabed for a prolonged period. Decapitations and amputations are common. 

Furthermore, sea creatures such as fish and especially crabs feed on bodies turning the bodies into skeletons.

What is more, the reaction of a body to prolonged saltwater exposure is dramatic. It literally causes layers of skin to peel off rendering the body further unrecognizable.

Finally cold water at the temperatures encountered herein encourages the formation of adipocere, a substance with a soapy, wax like consistency. This impedes decay but it turns a body into an unrecognizable mass of protoplasm that resembles melted candle wax after just weeks – not months – of exposure to cold water.

None of this is consistent with 1) Natasha washing back onshore after three months; 2) the ability to recognize her as Natasha Jugo to the degree that the S.C.P.D. would be confident enough to call her family and inform them that this missing young woman is dead. (There would be nothing remotely recognizable)

As discussed, the manner of Ms. Jugo’s alleged suicide is quite phantastic. 

Given events – indeed current events including the arrest of Rex Heuermann – involving the Gilgo/Oak Beach area wherein the decedent entered the water and was recovered over three months later; the public has a right to know the circumstances surrounding Ms. Jugo’s death and the thoroughness of the investigation of said death. 

In fact, Ms. Jugo is often listed as a victim of the so called “Long Island Serial Killer” in the massive Internet based – these are our times – coverage of the murders of 17 victims. In actuality as discussed infra some postulate that the “Long Island Serial Killer” is responsible for many more unsolved killings that have afflicted Long Island from the early 1980s right through the Babylon body parts case. 

There is an immense public interest in the workings of our Police Department especially in light of the Shannan Gilbert case as to what is classified as criminal as opposed to accidental in the suspicious deaths of young women. As you may recall Ms. Gilbert called 911 from Oak Beach. There is an approximately 23 minute long recording of that call that took a decade to be released to the public. During the 911 call Ms. Gilbert claimed that men were going to kill her. Indeed, we hear men’s voices in the background. We also hear Ms. Gilbert running for her life while emitting a blood curdling scream as she knocked on doors. Ms. Gilbert disappeared literally while being recorded on 911.

It took approximately a year and a half to find her body in the marsh near Oak Beach. Before her body was found the S.C.P.D. stated that Ms. Gilbert died of exposure. But it was an abnormally warm May 1, 2010, morning – approximately 60 degrees when Ms. Gilbert called for help. The temperature topped out at around 80 degrees later that day. Then the S.C.P.D. story shifted once again before Ms. Gilbert’s body was ever found to the claim that Ms. Gilbert drown. You need a body before you determine a cause of death. And there is no water there. I have been there a number of times.

Also in the mix is the fact that it is no longer just a rumor. Multiple times disgraced former Police Chief James Burke – who is a proven pervert – removed the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the New York State Police Department; and the Jersey City Police Department – Ms. Gilbert lived in Jersey City – from the Gilgo Beach murder investigation. As part of the Brady material in the Department of Justice’s case against multi-times disgraced former District Attorney Thomas Spota – for covering up Police Chief Burke’s beating of a suspect – the prosecution released statements from Burke admitting the above. I have seen the Brady material and have it in my possession.

THE S.C.P.D. RECORDS PROVIDED THUS FAR PRESENT YET MORE ANAMOLIES

At Page 6 of the “Response to FOIL Request Packet” is the “SCENE LOG” which demonstrates that beginning at 2140 hours (9:40 p.m.) of June 24, 2013, members of law enforcement and other agencies began arriving at the scene where Natasha Jugo’s body was found. Their arrival was logged one by one. The location is noted as “OCEAN FRONT@GILGO BEACH.” The “Incident” is labelled “Death Investigation.” 

All told some 17 members of the S.C.P.D. and other entities arrived and logged in “present.” This included two (2) police officers and one (1) Sargeant from the Marine Unit; three (3) police officers and one (1) Sargeant from the Crime Scene Unit; three (3) Homicide Detectives; two (2) members of the S.C.P.D. “E.S.” (Emergency Services) Unit; three (3) members of the Suffolk County Medical Examiner; and two (2) Babylon Town Constables.

That is a tremendous amount of law enforcement for a poor girl that allegedly drowned.

At the beginning of the investigation the decedent is a “Jane Doe.”

At Page 4 of the “Response to FOIL Request Packet” there is a two page document entitled “Death Report” that is authored by one of the Homicide Detectives on the scene – a Detective Thomas Walsh who arrived on the scene at 23:15 (11:15 p.m.) It is also signed by Detective Walsh’s Supervising Officer Detective Sargeant John Best who logged in at 23:01 hours or (11:01 p.m.) The other Homicide Detective present on the scene is Detective Ronald Tavares – a detective of note – who also logged in at 23:01 hours (11:01 p.m.) 

The second page of the Death Report notes that Detective Walsh interviewed three friends – CHRISTOPHER DIPALO, MICHAEL AUSTIN and KRISTINE DUNN. The three friends related that at about 8:30 p.m. they arrived at Gilgo Beach. They walked down to the beach and saw what appeared to be a human body floating in the water “several yards off shore.” They followed the body as it floated east bound until it washed up on shore. They “blocked the body with a piece of wood to prevent it from washing back into the water. They then called 911 from MIKE AUSTIN’S cell phone.”

On the first page of the Death Report Detective Walsh notes the following: 

The decedent was found lying on the sand wearing only a reddish colored bra.

Here is the first glaring inconsistency.

At page 7 of the “Response to FOIL Request Packet” there is the “Statement of Christopher DiPalo.” DiPalo was a young man 23 years of age. It was DiPalo and the above mentioned two friends that reported Ms. Jugo’s body. He tells a macabre and frightening tale in a fairly detailed statement. He notes that he arrived at Gilgo Beach with his two friends at about 8:30 p.m. They walked “down to the water and sat on the Life Guard Stand.” Mr. DiPalo – 

NOTICED SOMETHING FLOATING ABOUT 100’ TO 150’ [100 to 150 feet] OFF SHORE. [that is approximately 33 to 50 yards] AS I GOT CLOSE IT STARTED TO LOOK LIKE A BODY. WE FOLLOWED IT AS IT FLOATED EAST IN THE WATER FOR ABOUT A MILE AND A HALF. AS IT GOT CLOSER TO SHORE I REALIZED THAT IT WAS A BODY. WHEN IT HIT THE SHORELINE, MIKE [AUSTIN] BLOCKED IT FROM GOING BACK INTO THE WATER WITH A PIECE OF WOOD. AT THAT POINT WE KNEW IT WAS A FEMALE’S BODY.

At this point we have a key agitating inconsistency. DiPalo states:

THE SHIRT WAS UP AROUND HER FACE [of the female body that was Ms. Jugo]. SHE WAS WEARING A BRA AND JEANS. 

Homicide Detective Thomas Walsh stated: “The decedent was found lying on the sand wearing only a reddish colored bra.”

DiPalo who witnessed the decedent’s body wash ashore, helped block the body from floating back out, and along with his friends reported the incident stated that the decedent (Ms. Jugo) was wearing a shirt, bra, and jeans – jeans are pants.

DiPalo’s signed statement is sworn. “I HAVE READ THE ABOVE ONE PAGE STATEMENT AND I SWEAR IT IS ALL TRUE.” DiPalo also took pains to make sure his statement was accurate as noted by several corrections to the statement that DiPalo initialed (the statement had to be drafted by Walsh) 

The above is problematic. Why is the S.C.P.D. stripping clothes off Ms. Jugo?

As will be seen infra this discrepancy perhaps has its genesis in creating a narrative consistent with the narrative created by the Nassau County Police Department.

At the first page of the Death Report Walsh notes that “PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT RAQUEL MANUEL and MICHAEL EVERS responded to the location at 0005 hours on 6-25-13.” According to Walsh: 

P.A. MANUEL noted the following regarding the decedent: The decedent was in an advanced state of decomposition. There was no obvious sign of trauma to the decedent’s body.

The are several issues with the above. First PA Manuel arrived three and a half hours after the body washed ashore. When a body has been in relatively cool water – as opposed to the air temperature – for an extended period of time it goes through a decomposition crash rapidly deteriorating the instant it leaves the water. PA Manuel did not see the decedent’s body until three and a half hours after it left the water. 

Further in an “advanced state of decomposition” it is impossible to note whether or not there was any “obvious sign of trauma.” The whole body is trauma.

Finally, the very night – perhaps before PA Manuel’s arrival – Natasha Jugo’s family is called. They are told that the S.C.P.D. has recovered what they believe to be Natasha’s Jugo’s body. If the body had been in the Atlantic Ocean for over three months and then came ashore in an “advanced state of decomposition” how could the body be identified as Natasha Jugo with enough confidence to make that overly sensitive call to her family. 

In fact, at Page 2 of the Death Report Walsh notes that the autopsy performed in what appears to be some 8 to 12 hours after PA Manuel’s statement “tentatively identified [the body] as Natasha Jugo, DOB 11-14-81, a reported missing person from Bayside, Queens.” The autopsy is performed by DOCTOR HAJAR SIMS-CHILD – the same Medical Examiner who performed the botched autopsy of Shannan Gilbert. The autopsy is said to declare “There was no sign of trauma or injury that would indicate anything other than a drowning.” But how can one tell if there are signs of trauma such as lacerations, bruising or wounds – even stab wounds – on a body that had been in the ocean for over three months and allegedly in advanced state of decomposition – see above supra. And how can one identify such a body as belonging to Natasha Jugo. The next day the identification is confirmed visa-vi dental records – that is at least consistent with science. 

There are multiple other inconsistencies or issues upon examination of some of the documentation received on appeal from the Office of the Medical Examiner but this appeal is already lengthy.

Suffice it to say there is a question as to how long Ms. Jugo had been in the water and concomitantly when she died. Again, while possible it certainly seems scientifically highly unlikely that given the circumstances it was three months and one week. Viewing the photographs of her body would go a long way to resolving that issue.

Further why did Detective Walsh report her only wearing a reddish bra when the witnesses that followed her floating for a mile and a half, watched her come ashore, blocked her in with wood and report her – why did they say she was wearing a shirt, bra, and jeans. Viewing the photographs of the decedent’s body would go a long way in resolving that issue.

Which brings us to Detective Walsh’s summary of the activities of the Nassau County Police Department regarding this case way back in mid-March of 2013.  [The Nassau County Police Department denied my FOIL Request and then failed to respond to my Appeal even though it was sent twice. They did not even sign the return mail receipt. I am commencing an Article 78 against Nassau County wherein I will prevail either at the Supreme Court – Nassau County has a well versed judiciary when it comes to FOIL – or certainly at the Second Department which Court writes the law]

In any event Detective Walsh’s description – 2nd Page of Death Report – of what transpired in March of 2013 as per the Nassau County Police Department differs radically from the news accounts which were based on a Press Release:

On 3-18-13, Nassau County police officers responded to the Gilgo Beach area in response to a 911 call of a woman wearing a red bra walking into the ocean. The woman left her car at the scene and disrobed as she was walking to the water. The responding officers found a vehicle registered to NATASHA JUGO at the scene. There was no suicide note in the car. A search was commenced with negative results. Nassau County Seventh Squad DETECTIVE HILLMAN was assigned to the investigation.

No mention is made of Ms. Jugo leaving her house dressed in a robe on Saturday March 16th with the Nassau County Police arriving on the scene on Sunday March 17, 2013. There is no “identification” belonging to Ms. Jugo found in the vicinity of the beach. Instead, police respond to a 911 call on Monday March 18, 2013, reporting an incident bizarre in extremis. No articles of clothing are found as was reported rather: “A search was commenced with negative results.”

But this recounting by Detective Walsh of the Nassau County Police Department does have Ms. Jugo stripped to only a red bra. Again, that is not how she was found. She was found with a shirt, bra, and jeans – once again jeans are pants and a shirt is a shirt. 

Houston we have a problem. 

It will be an unnecessary embarrassment for Nassau County but we will find out what the Police in Nassau County say based upon their firsthand reports and not hearsay. 

To be sure Detective Walsh cites to a Detective Madden of the N.Y.P.D. Missing Person’s unit who purportedly, allegedly stated that Ms. Jugo was reported missing on March 18th, 2013 – the same day as the above Nassau County Police incident – by her family. The N.Y.P.D. purportedly found “internet searches on ways to commit suicide by drowning” on Ms. Jugo’s computer. They also found garden variety medications that address primarily manic depression. The N.Y.P.D. has requested an extension to July 3, 2024, to respond to my FOIL Request so eventually we will know what they found.

One can perform a search of the Internet as if it were March of 2013. That technology is available and I utilized it. The only information about “ways to commit suicide by drowning” and related word searches uncovered a few articles in medical literature discussing such things as suicide by drowning being a rare phenomenon – approximately 2 to 6 percent of all suicides. Articles discussed such other topics as how suicide by drowning usually ended up being “Complex Suicides” in that there was more than one cause of death. In such cases there was the drowning and some form of trauma from leaping from a height or leaping from a height with a weighted noose tied around one’s neck.

Most tellingly in all the medical related literature there is no mention of suicide by wading into the ocean, let alone wading into the ocean that is near freezing in temperature.

For the morbidly inclined there were posts on Reddit. Such posts consisted of debates over the horror of suicide by death in opposition to some idiot that posted such a death was a pleasant way to go. There were no “how to” manuals.

Finally, we come to the redacted crime scene photos. The S.C.P.D. gave me twelve (12) photos four (4) of which were crime scene photos that had a black rectangular redaction of the decedent’s body. The photos are not close ups but rather depict what appears to be the whole scene. What is noteworthy is that there is a long rope emanating from the edge of the blackened area that is the decedent’s body and extending away from the body and water inland. The rope appears to be long – longer than ten (10) feet – but one cannot tell from the photos. And the photos do not appear to capture the full length of the rope. If one uses their computer to enlarge the areas of the photograph wherein the rope enters the blacked out rectangle that is the decedent’s body one can see the tell-tale knotting indicative of some sort of noose, loop – lasso – around either the decedent’s legs, waist, or neck. This depends on whether the head is toward the water line or toward the ocean parkway.

I have shown these photographs to retired homicide detectives as well as prosecutors. There is no explanation. And I will not engage in baleful speculation."[1]"

Unredacted photographs would resolve the speculation or perhaps deepen it. Either way the public has an interest although such public interest is not an element of FOIL so sayeth the Court of Appeals.

Finally, as stated one of the photographs depicts the upper left hand corner of a “Crime Scene Log.” Based upon the photo it appears to be a multi-page document. This was never turned over or accounted for. I want it and am entitled to it. I will gladly pay the extra 25 cents per page.

THE RELEVANT LAW

All the Materials Withheld and Redacted

FOIL provides the public with broad "access to the records of government" (Public Officers Law § 84). The term "record" is defined to include:

"[A]ny information kept, held, filed, produced or reproduced by, with or for an agency or the state legislature, in any physical form whatsoever including, but not limited to, reports, statements, examinations, memoranda, opinions, folders, files, books, manuals, pamphlets, forms, papers, designs, drawings, maps, photos, letters, microfilms, computer tapes or discs, rules, regulations or codes" (Public Officers Law § 86 [4] [emphasis supplied]).

An agency must "make available for public inspection and copying all records" unless it can claim a specific exemption to disclosure ( see Public Officers Law § 87; § 89 [3]). However, the exemptions are to be narrowly interpreted so that the public is granted maximum access to the records of government. ( Matter of Capital Newspapers, Div. of Hearst Corp. v Whalen, 69 NY2d 246, 252).

Data Tree v. Romaine, 9 N.Y.3d 454, 463 (2007) (Emphasis added)

The Legislature has declared that "government is the public's business" (Public Officers Law § 84). "[T]o promote [such] open government and public accountability, FOIL imposes a broad duty on government agencies to make their records available to the public" (Matter of Abdur-Rashid v New York City Police Dept., 31 N.Y.3d 217, 224; see Public Officers Law § 84). Indeed, "[a]ll records of a public agency are presumptively open to public inspection," and FOIL is to be liberally construed to achieve its purposes (Matter of Buffalo News v Buffalo Enter. Dev. Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 488, 492; see Matter of Abdur-Rashid v New York City Police Dept., 31 N.Y.3d at 225; Matter of Data Tree, LLC v Romaine, 9 N.Y.3d 454, 463). Concomitantly, "the burden of proof rests solely with the [agency] to justify the denial of access to the requested records" (Matter of Data Tree, LLC v Romaine, 9 N.Y.3d at 463), and "[t]his burden must be met 'in more than just a plausible fashion'" (Matter of County Suffolk v Long Is. Power Auth., 119 A.D.3d 940, 942, quoting Matter of Data Tree, LLC v Romaine, 9 N.Y.3d at 462).

[1] One former prosecutor remarked “it looked like she was dragged in the water from a boat.” It appears to be a rope type associated with boating.

Pursuant to POL § 87(2)(b), a government agency may withhold records "if disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under the provisions of subdivision two of section eighty-nine of this article." Pursuant to POL § 89(2)(b), an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy is defined as:

i. disclosure of employment, medical or credit histories or personal references of applicants for employment;

ii. disclosure of items involving the medical or personal records of a client or patient in a medical facility;

iii. sale or release of lists of names and addresses if such lists would be used for solicitation or fund-raising purposes;

iv. disclosure of information of a personal nature when disclosure would result in economic or personal hardship to the subject party and such information is not relevant to the work of the agency requesting or maintaining it;

v. disclosure of information of a personal nature reported in confidence to an agency and not relevant to the ordinary work of such agency;

vi. information of a personal nature contained in a workers’ compensation record, except as provided by section one hundred ten-a of the workers’ compensation law;

vii. disclosure of electronic contact information, such as an e-mail address or a social network username, that has been collected from a taxpayer under section one hundred four of the real property tax law; or

viii. disclosure of law enforcement arrest or booking photographs of an individual, unless public release of such photographs will serve a specific law enforcement purpose and disclosure is not precluded by any state or federal laws."

The material withheld in this matter – photographs, memo books, crime scene log – do not fall under any of the above definitions and are therefore not exempt from FOIL.

The FOIL Denial cited POL § 87(2)(b) in withholding the records, based upon the lack of an authorization to release the records from either of the two retired officers. Notably, however, POL § 87(2)(b) contains no provision requiring such an authorization. That requirement was found in the repealed Civil Rights Law § 50-a(1).

Lockwood v. Nassau Cnty. Police Dep't, 78 Misc. 3d 1219 (Sup. Ct. County of Nassau 2023)

[2] I have no idea what the Nassau County Police Department was thinking when they denied my FOIL Request and did not respond to my appeal.

The Court of Appeals aptly explained the purpose of FOIL in Matter of Buffalo News v Buffalo Enter. Dev. Corp. (84 NY2d 488, 491-492 [1994]):

The Legislature declared "that government is the public's business and that the public, individually and collectively and represented by a free press, should have access to the records of government." . . . FOIL was enacted to provide the People with the means to access governmental records, to assure accountability and to thwart secrecy (see Matter of Weston v Sloan, 84 NY2d 462, 466 [. . .]). All records of a public agency are presumptively open to public inspection, without regard to need or purpose of the applicant. Consistent with these laudable goals, this Court has firmly held that " 'FOIL is to be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly interpreted so that the public is granted maximum access to the records of government'" (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added).

… As stated in Matter of Fink,

. . . while the Legislature established a general policy of disclosure by enacting the Freedom of Information Law, it nevertheless recognized a legitimate need on the part of government to keep some matters confidential. To be sure, the balance is presumptively struck in favor of disclosure, but in eight specific, narrowly constructed instances where the governmental agency convincingly demonstrates its need, disclosure will not be ordered. . . . Thus, the agency does not have carte blanche to withhold any information it pleases. Rather it is required to articulate particularized and specific justification and, if necessary, submit the requested materials to the court for in camera inspection, to exempt its records from disclosure . . . . Only where the material requested falls squarely within the ambit of one of these statutory exemptions may disclosure be withheld.

Id. at 571; see also Matter of Encore College Bookstores v Auxiliary Serv., 87 NY2d 410, 417, 639 NYS2d 990, 663 NE2d 302 [1995]; Matter of Hanig v State of New York Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 79 NY2d 106, 109, 580 NYS2d 715, 588 NE2d 750 [1992]; Matter of Legal Aid Society of Northeastern N.Y. v New York State Dept. of Social Servs., 195 AD2d 150, 152, 605 NYS2d 785 [3d Dept 1993]). Blanket exemptions for particular types of documents are inimical to FOIL's policy of open government (see Matter of Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp., 67 NY2d at 569; Gould v NYC Police Dept. 89 NY2d 267, 653 NYS2d 54, 675 NE2d 808 [1996]). Thus, the exemptions available are to be narrowly construed (Matter of Legal Aid Society of Northeastern N.Y. v New York State Dept. of Social Servs., supra, at 153, 605 NYS2d 785; see, POL § 89(4)(b); see Matter of Hanig v State of New York Dept. of Motor Vehicles, supra, at 109, 580 NYS2d 715, 588 NE2d 750; see also, Daily Gazette v Schenectady, 93 N.Y.2d 145, 158-159, 688 NYS2d 472, 710 NE2d 1072 [1999]). And, the agency at issue must "articulat[e] a particularized and specific justification for denying access" to the requested documents (Matter of Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. supra, at 566; Matter of Fink v Lefkowitz, 47 N.Y.2d 567, 571, 419 NYS2d 467, 393 NE2d 463; Gould supra, at 275).

E. 51st St. Dev. Co. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Investigation, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 33944, 9-10 (Sup. Ct. County of New York 2012) (Hon. Carol R. Edmead)

This brings us to a 2015 Appellate Division Second Department case that is directly on point with the case at bar. See Baez v. Brown, 124 A.D.3d 881 (2nd Dep’t. 2015). In Baez, the Petitioner brought an Article 78 proceeding to compel the District Attorney of Queens County to

produce unredacted copies of certain documents which had previously been provided to the petitioner with redactions, color copies of certain photographs previously provided to the petitioner, color copies of photographs of the deceased victim in a related criminal action, certain material the production of which was denied by the respondent's Records Access Officer in a letter dated May 2, 2008, and certain material that was requested by the petitioner in a letter dated July 5, 2008, and for an award of litigation costs.

Id.

the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied those branches of the petition which were to compel the respondent to produce unredacted copies of certain documents which had previously been provided to the petitioner with redactions, color copies of certain photographs previously provided to the petitioner, color copies of photographs of the deceased victim, certain material the production of which was denied by the respondent's Records Access Officer (hereinafter the RAO) in a letter dated May 2, 2008, and certain material that was requested by the petitioner in a letter dated July 5, 2008, and for an award of litigation costs.

Id. at 881 to 882 (Emphasis added)

The Second Department took great pains to recite the familiar FOIL basics mostly emanating from the Court of Appeals. I am going to leave the citations in the hope that they will be duly noted:

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the production of material pursuant to FOIL, the agency denying access has the burden of demonstrating that the material requested falls within a statutory exemption, which exemptions are to be narrowly construed (see Public Officers Law § 89[5][e], [f] ; Matter of West Harlem Bus. Group v. Empire State Dev. Corp., 13 N.Y.3d 882, 885, 893 N.Y.S.2d 825, 921 N.E.2d 592 ; Matter of Data Tree, LLC v. Romaine, 9 N.Y.3d 454, 462–463, 849 N.Y.S.2d 489, 880 N.E.2d 10 ; Matter of Fappiano v. New York City Police Dept., 95 N.Y.2d 738, 746, 724 N.Y.S.2d 685, 747 N.E.2d 1286 ; Matter of Verizon N.Y., Inc. v. Mills, 60 A.D.3d 958, 959, 875 N.Y.S.2d 572 ). This showing requires the entity resisting disclosure to "articulate a ‘particularized and specific justification for denying access' " (Matter of Dilworth v. Westchester County Dept. of Correction, 93 A.D.3d 722, 724, 940 N.Y.S.2d 146, quoting Matter of Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v. Burns, 67 N.Y.2d 562, 566, 505 N.Y.S.2d 576, 496 N.E.2d 665 ). "Conclusory assertions that certain records fall within a statutory exemption are not sufficient; evidentiary support is needed" (Matter of Dilworth v. Westchester County Dept. of Correction, 93 A.D.3d at 724, 940 N.Y.S.2d 146 ). Because FOIL is " based on a presumption of access to the records" (Matter of Data Tree, LLC v. Romaine, 9 N.Y.3d at 462, 849 N.Y.S.2d 489, 880 N.E.2d 10 ), "FOIL ‘compels disclosure, not concealment’ " wherever the agency fails to demonstrate that a statutory exemption applies ( id. at 463, 849 N.Y.S.2d 489, 880 N.E.2d 10, quoting Matter of Westchester Rockland Newspapers v. Kimball, 50 N.Y.2d 575, 580, 430 N.Y.S.2d 574, 408 N.E.2d 904 ; see Matter of Buffalo News v. Buffalo Enter. Dev. Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 488, 492, 619 N.Y.S.2d 695, 644 N.E.2d 277 ).

Id. at 882-883.

And then the Second Department really made their position known with great haste:

In this case, in response to the petitioner's FOIL requests, the respondent provided the petitioner with certain documents that contained numerous redactions, and denied the petitioner's request for photographs of the deceased victim. The respondent based the redactions and the denial of the request for the photographs upon the "unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" statutory exemption ( Public Officers Law § 87[2][b]). However, since the respondent failed to proffer more than conclusory assertions to support these claims, the Supreme Court erred in determining that the respondent met his burden of demonstrating that the redactions and denial of the request for the photographs of the deceased victim fell within this statutory exemption (see Public Officers Law § 89[5][e], [f] ; Matter of West Harlem Bus. Group v. Empire State Dev. Corp., 13 N.Y.3d at 885, 893 N.Y.S.2d 825, 921 N.E.2d 592 ; Matter of Cook v. Nassau County Police Dept., 110 A.D.3d 718, 719, 972 N.Y.S.2d 638 ; Matter of Verizon N.Y., Inc. v. Mills, 60 A.D.3d at 959, 875 N.Y.S.2d 572 ).

Id. at 883. (emphasis added)

The Second Department even went as far as this:

The Supreme Court also erred in determining that the petitioner was not entitled to receive color copies of certain photographs that were disclosed to him. Public Officers Law § 86(4) provides that photographs are records within the meaning of the statute, and section 87(1)(b) of the statute requires an agency to provide copies or reproductions of records. Pursuant to Public Officer Law § 87(1)(c)(ii), an agency may engage an outside professional service to prepare a copy of a record if its information technology equipment is inadequate to prepare a copy. Applying these principles, we find that since the respondent did not claim he was unable to comply with the petitioner's request, FOIL requires him to provide the petitioner with color copies of all disclosable photographs in his possession.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted those branches of the petition which were to compel the respondent to provide unredacted copies of the documents previously provided to the petitioner, color copies of the photographs previously provided to the petitioner, and color copies of photographs of the deceased victim.

Id. at 883-884. (Emphasis added)

Then the Second Department finished with the coup de grace:

A court may award litigation costs to a petitioner in a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review the denial of a FOIL request where the petitioner has "substantially prevailed" in the proceeding, and "(i) the agency had no reasonable basis for denying access; or (ii) the agency failed to respond to a request or appeal within the statutory time" (Public Officers Law § 89[4] [c] ). In light of our determination, the petitioner is entitled to recover the costs of bringing this proceeding, as he substantially prevailed in this proceeding and the respondent had no reasonable basis for denying access to many of the documents requested. We therefore remit this matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing to determine the amount of the petitioner's costs for bringing this proceeding.

Id. at 884-885.

Appellate printers are extremely expensive but at least there is a light at the end of that tunnel.

See also Planned Parenthood v. Town Bd., 154 Misc. 2d 971 (Sup. Ct. Westchester County 1992):

In Planned Parenthood members of the antiabortion organization, Operation Rescue, demonstrated at the Petitioner's premises, at which time 121 individuals were arrested by the Greenburgh Police Department. They were charged with the violation of disorderly conduct, a noncriminal offense. For identification purposes, each individual was photographed alongside a Greenburgh Police Officer.

The Petitioner, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), thereafter requested the names and addresses and photographs of the 121 arrestees. The Greenburgh Police Department denied the Petitioner's application. An appeal of the denial was then made to the Town Board of the Town of Greenburgh. Prior to a decision by the Town Board, the District Attorney's office of Westchester County released the names and addresses of the 121 individuals.

By decision dated March 13, 1991, and certified March 20, 1991, the Town Board, by a vote of four to one, denied the disclosure of the 121 photographs: "because [the photographs] were compiled for law enforcement purposes and if disclosed would interfere with law enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings and would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication and if disclosed would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." 

The Town Board reasoned that the requested photographs "would seriously and irreparably interfere with pending prosecutions"; that petitioner had failed to demonstrate a "need" for the photographs; that the photographs will be evidence at trial; and that the photographs portray the arrestees: "in a humiliating and unduly degrading position the disclosure of which would result in personal hardship to the subject party and is exempt from disclosure."

Id. at 972-973.

The Petitioner thereafter brought a proceeding seeking an order directing disclosure of the photographs or, in the alternative, an in camera review by the court. The Petitioner contended that the denial of disclosure by the Town Board was arbitrary and illegal. Specifically, there is no requirement to demonstrate "need"; that the photographs are not evidence; that the photographs are not humiliating or degrading; that disclosure would not impair a fair trial nor cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy; and that the record does not support a finding that the photographs were compiled for law enforcement purposes.

The Respondents contended that the photographs are exempt from disclosure under FOIL; that disclosure would result in an unwarranted invasion of privacy which would cause personal hardship to the arrestees; that 78 photographs have been sealed pursuant to CPL 160.55; and that the remaining 43 photographs will be needed at forthcoming trials. “Respondents assert that their strongest argument is the privacy exemption, and that the 78 sealed photographs were not introduced into evidence at trial.”

Id. at 973 (emphasis added)

The Court wasted no time once again getting to the basics:

The legislative intent of the Freedom of Information Law is set forth in section 84 Pub. Off. of the Public Officers Law. Section 84 reads as follows:

"The legislature hereby finds that a free society is maintained when government is responsive and responsible to the public, and when the public is aware of governmental actions. The more open a government is with its citizenry, the greater the understanding and participation of the public in government * * *

"The legislature therefore declares that government is the public's business and that the public, individually and collectively and represented by a free press, should have access to the records of government in accordance with the provisions of this article."

A governmental agency therefore must make available for public inspection all agency documents unless specifically exempted in Public Officers Law § 87 (2) which states:

"such agency may deny access to records or portions thereof that:

"(a) are specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute;

"(b) if disclosed would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy * * *

"(e) are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which, if disclosed, would: 

"i. interfere with law enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings;

"ii. deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication".

If an exemption is claimed by an agency: "the burden lies with the agency `to articulate particularized and specific justification', and to establish that `the material requested falls squarely within the ambit of [the] statutory exemptions.'" (Farbman Sons v New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 62 N.Y.2d 75, 83.)

Id. at 973-974.

The Court took pains to enunciate a rule enunciated by the Court of Appeals which many agencies are completely ignorant of

The Court of Appeals in Matter of Capital Newspapers v Burns ( 67 N.Y.2d 562, 566-567) followed the reasoning in Farbman (supra), and went on to hold: "Moreover, because FOIL has made full disclosure by public agencies a public right, the status or need of the person seeking access is generally of no consequence in construing FOIL and its exemptions." (Emphasis added.)

Id. at 974.

The Court held with regard to the 43 photographs that had not already been returned to the protestors because their cases were sealed:

Respondents fail to satisfy their burden of proving this exemption. Nothing in the record supports a finding that disclosure "would result in economic or personal hardship to the subject party." (Public Officers Law § 89 [b] [iv].) Again, respondents submit mere conclusory statements to the court. (See, Matter of Capital Newspapers v Burns, supra, at 570.) No affidavit has been submitted from any of the 43 subject individuals explaining how disclosure would cause personal hardship. 

Id. at 974-975.

[REDACTED WHERE I REALLY RUB THE COUNTY’S NOSE INTO THE LAW]

A HISTORY OF DEATH

[I WILL REDACT ALL NASSAU COUNTY CASES LEAVING JUST SUFFOLK COUNTY]

Long Island including Suffolk County has been plagued by murder or ignored murder for multiple decades. Herein is but an exceedingly small sample.

October 30, 1981: Seventeen (17) year old Janice Fullam disappeared from Hauppauge, NY. She literally lived around the block from where I live now. I pass her house almost every day. She was never seen again. Hauppauge is also where Long Island Serial Killer victim Megan Waterman disappeared from in 2010.

February 3, 1982: The dismembered remains of Tina Foglia are found in three semen stained garbage bags on the entrance ramp to the Sagtikos Parkway from the Southern State Parkway in Brentwood. The killer smothered Tina before he dismembered her. The killer took the diamond ring that Tina’s father gave her as a memento. She was last seen at Hammerheads in West Islip.

On November 4, 1982, Robin Wolcott is found stabbed to death in a Bay Shore Parking lot. She worked as a bus driver. 

Then shortly thereafter on November 25, 1982, the skeletal remains of Margaret Forbes are found in Bay Shore. Margaret was found in a culvert along the Robert Moses Causeway that leads to Jones Beach. That is near where Tina Foglia was found. That is also the route the Long Island Serial Killer(s) is thought to have taken when he dumped bodies alongside the connecting Ocean Parkway by Gilgo Beach. Margaret had been dead for at least six months. She disappeared in early 1982 around the same time as Tina Foglia. She lived at 241 Windsor Drive in Bay Shore at the time she disappeared.

On January 20, 1984, the body of an Asian man is found. He had been dumped off the Captree Bridge that leads to Gilgo Beach. He had been shot six times in the back of the head. His feet were bound with cord. If that did not kill him the bay below the bridge was frozen rock solid.

On August 12, 1984 Evelyn Battel’s battered body is found in Greenlawn. She too had been beaten to death and thrown from a vehicle. Her clothes were found a half mile away.

On September 10, 1984, the body of 14 year old Laura Parker is found in the woods in Lindenhurst, NY. She disappeared on May 23, 1984.

On February 14, 1985, the skeletal remains of 16 year old Betty Lau were found in a wooded area on the side of the Southern State Parkway in Bay Shore. Her body is found less than a mile from where they discovered Tina Foglia three years earlier – in a similar location along the same highway.

On June 1, 1986, the nude body of Patricia Costello is found in Heckscher State Park – where I camped as a Boy Scout – in East Islip. The killer strangled here with a long “piece of garment” with the end tied to a tree. She lived two blocks from 1982 murder victim Tina Foglia in Bay Shore.

On March 23, 1987, the headless skeletal remains of a woman is found in the woods in East Patchogue, NY.  A remnant of black lacy clothing is found with the body. No one has ever located the poor woman’s head. Perhaps the killer kept it.

Then came November 26, 1987. The decapitated body of Valley Pamela Harry is found in the woods in Amityville, NY.  Her head is found nearby. The killer shot her to death. Amityville is the situs wherein the man and woman were recently dismembered before being spread about Western Suffolk and Bethpage State Park.

Then came the summer of 1997. On June 28th Long Island Serial Killer victim Peaches’ torso is found in Hempstead Lake State Park. She is given the name Peaches because of a peach shaped tattoo on her breast. There are no legs, arms, or head. The torso is jammed into a Rubbermaid container that is placed on a popular hiking trail – staged to be found. Peaches arms and the body of her young child are later recovered along Ocean Parkway in 2011 when the Long Island Serial Killer case broke. Peaches head is never found. The Suffolk County Police Department hid from the public the fact that Peaches’ remains were found on Ocean Parkway and she was the mother of the child for 5 years.

When Valerie Mack’s torso [classic LISK Ocean Parkway victim] was discovered in Manorville in 2000, the remains of an unidentified male, strangled and in his underwear was discovered only four days later and a few miles west. After Jessica Taylor’s torso was found in Manorville in July 2003, [classic LISK victim] the body of male homicide victim was recovered nearby in November. He has been identified but the Suffolk County Police Department refused to release his name to the public. His estimated postmortem interval of three to four months puts his time of death around late July when Jessica Taylor was murdered. These circumstances suggest that the Long Island Serial Killer(s) may have killed and dumped the male victims at the same times as Jessica Taylor and Valerie Mack.

On February 17, 2012, a Suffolk County resident named Matt Samuel walked his dog Molly in the Manorville woods. He noticed a skull sticking out from under the leaves. When he looked closer he found the skeletal remains of a body wrapped in a bed sheet, wrapped in a plastic garbage bag, and bound with duct tape. The remains were determined to belong to a male. A pair of white and green tube socks were discovered as well as Eddie Bauer XL underwear. According to the Suffolk County Police Department, the victim died of “homicidal violence.” This is the same cause of death given by police for the Long Island Serial Killer victims known as the Gilgo 4.

It is believed that the remains had been there for about a decade. A photo from the man who found the remains appears to show duct tape wrapped around the lower part of the victim’s head. The Long Island Serial Killer victims Megan Waterman and Amber Lyn Costello found on Ocean Parkway in 2010 were also bound around the head with duct tape and wrapped camouflage burlap. 

This man is the third unidentified male found in the Long Island Serial Killer(s)’ Manorville cluster site since 2000 when Valerie Mack’s torso was discovered by hunters in the woods near Halsey Manor Road on November 19, 2000. The killer placed Mack’s torso in a plastic garbage bag. Her head, hands and right foot had been removed.

On November 23, 2000, the body of a man is found by hunters in the Manorville woods off the Long Island Expressway approximately five miles west of Mack’s torso only four days later. The victim had been strangled. He wore only his underwear. At the time, the Suffolk County Police Department stated outright that they were not investigating a connection between the cases. A 2002 article in the New Island Ear titled Jane and John Doe of Suffolk County reported “Fitzpatrick [the Commanding Officer of the Homicide Department] and the homicide department are not considering the possibility of a connection between the cases, including the chance of a serial killer roaming the South Shore.” Fitzpatrick blamed it on people from the City just dumping bodies. Rex Heuermann is a Massapequa Park resident and has never resided in the City. 

On July 26, 2003, the torso of Jessica Taylor, whose head, hands, and a forearm were removed is discovered on a sump access road just off Halsey Manor Road almost adjacent to the Long Island Expressway in Manorville about a half mile from where Valerie Mack’s torso had been found three years earlier. At the time, Suffolk County Police Department Homicide Detective Jack Fitzpatrick stated “the similarities are that these are two women with their hands and heads cut off who were dumped in the same geographic area. But that is where the similarities end, and there are a lot of differences. I need to see something more before I can say it’s a serial killer.”

In July of 2023 Mary Murphy of WPIX News reported – this is the first time that we learned this – that an investigator stated of both Mack and Taylor: Their leg area [was] bound in a ball. You’d have to be a hunter to do something like that.” Another investigator stated that for Mack and Taylor “their knees were brought [as in tied] into their chest area.” Obviously, this tells us – along with their location – that it is the same killer. The fact that their remaining body parts were found near each other at Gilgo merely confirms the obvious. I have no idea what was in the head of Detective Fitzpatrick when he made the above statements. But it gets worse.

Detective Lieutenant Fitzpatrick stated that Suffolk County Police Department detectives had looked into a possible connection to the torso of Peaches discovered at Hempstead Lake State Park in 1997 and ruled it out. Both Mack and Taylor’s body parts were later recovered 40 miles away from Manorville at the Long Island Serial Killer(s)’ second known cluster dump site on Ocean Parkway, along with the skull of Karen Vergata for years known only as Fire Island Jane Doe. In any event the “second known cluster dump site on Ocean Parkway” also contained the partial extremities of Peaches, Peaches’ child, Maureen Brainard-Barnes, Melissa Barthelemy, Megan Waterman, Amber Costello, and a male victim found wearing a dress known as the “Asian Male.” 

In November of 2003 – three and a half months after Jessica Taylor’s slaying – a mushroom picker discovers human remains partially covered by leaves and brush in the Manorville woods near the Long Island Expressway. This is close to the location where Mack and Taylor were found. The mushroom picker refuses to call police out of sheer terror about the grisly discovery. He retreats to his home without telling anyone. About ten days later recurring nightmares cause him to lead police to the site. The remains are determined to belong to a male, who is estimated to have been killed 1 to 4 months prior, placing his time of death around the same time as Jessica Taylor’s. He is described as a white or Hispanic male with brown hair, 5’6 tall, approximately 33 to 55 years in age. The Suffolk County Police Department kept the identity secret – they never released this information to the public. It is standard operating procedure for the police to reveal the identities of murder victims to the public because that allows the public to identify potential suspects. The most obvious suspects are people last seen with the victim by members of said public. 

A reporter made an inquiry that finally forced the SCPD to publicly admit that they have been secretly withholding the victim’s identity since 2015. The Suffolk County Police Department refuses to release Manorville John Doe #2’s identity to this day. Attorney John Ray filed numerous Freedom of Information Law requests to obtain documents identifying the victim, which are not exempt from disclosure under the New York Freedom of Information Law. The Suffolk County Police Department refused to comply with all of the Freedom of Information Law requests. 

After Jessica Taylor and Valerie Mack’s body parts are discovered on Ocean Parkway in 2011, the Manorville male victims are never mentioned in relation to the Long Island Serial Killer by the Suffolk County Police Department. Their hesitancy to acknowledge the Manorville male victims and their connection to the LISK case may be motivated by a fear that a serial killer with an even higher victim count than the ten or eleven found on Ocean Parkway could potentially raise questions about the Suffolk County Police Department’s competency.

Manorville John Doe #3 is found in February 2012, one year after the so called “Manorville Butcher” victims Jessica Taylor and Valerie Mack were connected through their heads and limbs to the LISK murders on Ocean Parkway. Still Suffolk County Police Department detective Jack Fitzpatrick stated on the record to Newsday “nothing at all indicates a connection to Gilgo.” This is despite the fact that Doe #3 victim was found near Mack and Taylor, was bound around the head with duct tape just like the Gilgo Four victims on Ocean Parkway, and was found wrapped in fabric and plastic garbage bags like the LISK victims.

The fact that Manorville John Doe #1 was found only four days after Valerie Mack in the same desolate wooded area strongly indicates their murders are connected. The fact that the male was strangled and found only in his underwear, likely means that this was a sex killing. The Suffolk County Police Department’s conduct in secretly withholding and then refusing to release documents identifying Manorville John Doe #2 indicates that the SCPD does not want the information about the male victims released to the public. 

The ten bodies found along Ocean Parkway were left in a cluster and the five victims found in Manorville were clustered in the same stretch of woods around the Long Island Expressway. 

On December 17, 2002, a plastic bag containing “a partial human torso” is found in Averne, New York. The bag contained a skirt, a black bodysuit, and a tank top. Averne is the South shore of Queens West of Gilgo. Shortly thereafter a severed head is discovered on a frozen pond in Moriches on January 25, 2003. Ice skaters found it on the shoreline of the pond at the corner of Montauk Highway and Barnes Road. The Medical Examiners noted a bullet wound to the head. At least it was quick assuming the victim was shot before being dismembered. Over a year later on April 10, 2004, a landscaper found a plastic bag containing arms and legs in a wooded area near a newly constructed home in Moriches. These three sets of remains were linked by DNA analysis. 

Then there is Shannan Gilbert in May 2010. It is the search for Shannan’s body that leads to the discovery of all of the rest of the Ocean Parkway victims. Although everything about her says “murdered” the Suffolk County Police Department called it an unfortunate accident.

Then we have Pura Simancas, found in Manorville Hills State Park on March 21, 2012. Unsolved.

And Carmelina Maria Velasquez Zhau, found in the Manorville woods on July 30, 2020. Unsolved.

See https://www.danspapers.com/2022/02/manorville-murders-dumping-ground/

On February 17, 2012, a hiker searching for deer antlers in the thick, sprawling woodlands of Manorville made a grim discovery: The skeleton of a man who, 10 years later, has yet to be identified.

The case is the latest unsolved homicide unearthed in the rural community considered the gateway to the East End. Located in the heart of the Long Island Central Pine Barrens — 100,000 acres of protected forest preserved to prevent pollutants from infiltrating the region’s aquifer that serves as its sole source of public drinking water — this was not the first dead body to turn up in this area that is desolate by design. Nor would it be the last.

“People say, ‘How come their families don’t come forward?’” says Joseph Giacalone, a retired New York Police Department homicide detective who commanded a cold case squad. “A lot of the time people just leave on their own and don’t want to be found. And then they come up like this, and then there’s no report on them, there’s no other information, maybe their family members have passed away. So, it makes things rather difficult.”

The discovery is one of more than a half dozen sets of remains to turn up in Manorville over the past three decades. Before Suffolk County police found 10 sets of human remains in and around Gilgo Beach in 2010 and ’11 — an investigation that has spawned books and movies — it was the bodies found in Manorville that sparked fears of a serial killer on the loose on Long Island, although only two Manorville cases appear connected.

Suffolk police Det. Lt. Kevin Beyrer, commander of the Homicide Squad, declined to comment on the 2012 case through a department spokesperson, other than to say that the victim died of “homicidal violence” and that there were no updates in the investigation.

On March 12 1990, the body of a young woman was discovered in the woods off Osborn Avenue in Riverhead, NY by a Riverhead Town highway worker. The Suffolk County Police Department described her as an Asian woman, between the ages of 25 and 40, 5’3 and 110 pounds. She was estimated to have been murdered two to three days before her body was found. The victim was wearing a long sleeve black and brown silk blouse, a black leather miniskirt and black pantyhose. She was barefoot. The woman’s face was savagely beaten and she was killed by trauma to the head. 

Riverhead Jane Doe was found murdered approximately 5 miles from the Long Island Serial Killer(s)’ Manorville dumpsite where at least five other LISK victims have been discovered. 

In July 2014, Manorville resident John Bittrolff was arrested for the 1993 murder of Rita Tangredi-Beinlich and the 1994 murder of Colleen McNamee. Bittrolff was convicted in 2017. 

Like Riverhead Jane Doe, McNamee and Tangredi were savagely beaten in the head and at least one of each of their shoes were missing. 

One of John Bittrolff’s alleged victims Sandra Costilla is never really resolved. We are told that she was a probable victim of Bittrolff without any evidence. A convenient way to get that case off the books.



I have barely scratched the surface. I will concentrate on just Ms. Jugo because this one is the most overlooked and the most dismissed of them all.

CONCLUSION

Natasha Jugo’s body washed ashore nearly eleven (11) years ago. Her surviving family has moved to Florida. Her father passed away years ago. The release of the photographs would not in any way degrade or humiliate the memory of Ms. Jugo but will go a long way in satisfying the public’s right to know how their law enforcement system is handling what has been a long standing plague of unexplained or far worse – murders – of young people, especially women, but also men, on Long Island.

Suffolk County is not safe.

Once again the material sought will help determine the validity of the improbable story of Ms. Jugo drowning herself in mid-March and washing back on shore over three months later wherein she is identified. Moreover, the material sought will perhaps give some explanation as to the rope that is attached to her dead body as she washed ashore. (None of the experts I have consulted believe that any competent police force would have attached said rope to her body after she came ashore because that would cause trauma)

Finally, the information sought will determine the nature and competency of death investigations in Suffolk County.

Once again I request the following:

■ The “14 images (deceased);”

■ The redactions of the decedent’s body from the aforementioned crime scene photographs;

■ Memo books

■ The Crime Scene Log

In the last Appeal in this case involving the Medical Examiner I was met with derision for allegedly not citing to any law. I hope I have not disappointed you this time although I will tell you statutory law – which I cited to last time and I cite to once again – is far more compelling than case law.

As required by FOIL, please respond within ten (10) business days of receipt of this appeal and provide access to the records sought or a full explanation of the reasons for further denial. N.Y. PUB. OFF. LAW § 89(4)(a); 10 N.Y.C.R.R. Section 50-1.9(c). As you are aware, FOIL provides that failure to determine an appeal within ten business days of the receipt of such appeal constitutes a denial of that appeal, which may be immediately challenged pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. N.Y. PUB. OFF. LAW § 89(4).

It seems that the Government will routinely deny or ignore FOIL Requests based upon the perception that a requesting party will not have the will to take the denial to Court. But I have the will in spades all the way up to the Court of Appeals if necessary.

[MY INFO REDACTED]

With Much Respect

/s/Raymond Zuppa

Raymond Zuppa