How Much Did Asa Ellerup Make From the Rex Heuermann Story?

**Tony Brueski** (0:01)
This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Brueski and Robin Drake.

**Robin Drake** (0:08)
Asa Ellerup skipped the sentencing. Her attorney said the day should belong to the families. And it should. But Asa's legal problems may have just started. Valerie Mack's son has filed a wrongful death lawsuit naming Asa, her daughter Victoria and Rex, alleging they knew or deliberately avoided knowing what was happening inside that house. Eric Faddis, defense attorney, former prosecutor with us. Tell us if there's any teeth to a suit like this. The lawsuit doesn't just say Asa missed the signs. It says she actively concealed what was happening. Civil conspiracy.
That's calling the wife of a serial killer his co-conspirator. What does have to be proven to make something like that stick?

**Eric Faddis** (0:59)
Sir, Tony, and I've read the complaint and respectfully, I think there are some problems with it legally. But to make that stick, what they would have to prove is that Asa had an agreement with Rex. Now, it doesn't have to be an express agreement. It could be implicit or whatever, but there was an agreement for her to provide material aid. She knew of the crimes he was committing and she wanted to further them and somehow, including trying to conceal them.
That's a tall order. When you look at the complaint, it has a lot of somewhat bold allegations regarding that, but not a ton of details on it. They're going to have to prove a lot to get there, to say Asa was essentially complicit in all of this. Just saying it is one thing, but proving it's another.

**Tony Brueski** (1:49)
Yeah. I'm curious because we've been talking about Asa so much in the last couple of weeks, in the last couple of days, even more. And she seems to have these completely like very, very thick rose colored glasses when looking at Rex. I can almost imagine him doing these things in front of her and her being blind to it because she's just, her blinders are so narrowly focused when regarding him.
So what's a prosecutor going to be able to, I mean, even if they had a photo of her, I mean, watching this, is that enough? In other words, what do they need to be able to prosecute this if her context, I mean, I guarantee you she could possibly polygraph most likely because she doesn't internally believe it that these things ever happened or that he ever did them or she was ever present for him, whatever the charges is going to be on it. And so outside of that, how does her context of what happened really play into the prosecution?

**Eric Faddis** (2:45)
Well, they'd have to prove her knowledge, her agreement with Rex and her providing some kind of material aid. So that can come in the form of witness statements. I mean, if Rex were to turn on her and say, hey, yeah, I told Asa about this, and then we had an agreement, she'd help me cover it up. And then she took these acts, X, Y, and Z. She provided me these supplies. Here are the receipts, here are the text messages, here are the emails, something like that.
That would be the type of evidence we'd be looking for.

**Tony Brueski** (3:10)
Oh, so that's an interesting... So let's go down that one a little bit.
I'm sorry, my conjecture rode. So I don't imagine a world where he probably openly discussed these things with her, sent her text, because he's a smart guy about this, and it would probably fly over her head because she's got it blocked out. But this material aid is an interesting one. What if they were able to show through purchases and stuff that she actually was tasked by Rex to go out and purchase things for decapitating, for all the horrendous sadistic things he was doing, that she actually made purchases or was aware of those purchases. Is that enough?

**Eric Faddis** (3:48)
She would have to be knowingly aiding him in the commission of a crime, simply saying, hey, can you go purchase this saw or something? That wouldn't be enough.

**Robin Drake** (3:56)
And that's where it gets in a tricky territory. I was wondering the same thing, because providing aid and concealment of crimes, people can do both of those things and not be aware that they're providing aid or concealing a crime at the same point, if that context is lifted. So the awareness piece is the lever that the prosecution would need to pull and need to make the jury feel that, yes, she was certainly aware. But I guess, is there a line ever that courts draw, even when the person says, I had no idea that I was doing this? I mean, a simple example would be like, hey, honey, my clothes are real dirty. And she washes his clothes. I'm not saying this happened. I'm just, for a pure conjecture example, she washes the clothes and they had blood on them.