An accomplished pilot, he took her body onto a four-passenger Cessna 172 Nighthawk and, as the plane flew over the Atlantic, tossed it out the aircraft door. Once over the ocean, Rowley slowed the plane, took both hands off the controls, opened the passenger door and easily shoved the duffel bag out, the article said. He also gave inconsistent statements about his wifes disappearance to various women he dated after Katz vanished. All three subsequently contacted Katz and warned her that her life could be in danger, the newspaper reported. In the former, the previous aggression principally indicates intent, or motive, or identity; whereas in the latter it can predominantly give rise to an inference of propensity. Additionally, her key reason for precluding the professionals from giving oral testimony at trial was that one of their purposes for consulting with defendant's closest family members was to gain insights from his family members, insights which might enhance their treatment of defendant. We recognize that the law most often views consciousness of guilt evidence as weak-but not always. Instead, he consistently told the police and others that he remained in the marital apartment from the time the victim had left at 11:00 A.M., until 5:30 P.M., then going directly to his nephew's birthday party at his sister's New Jersey home; 6. Second, he admitted that their marriage was unhappy and virtually over, and that his own anger had reached a level tempting him toward violence against her because he was so frustrated by the strife between them. After the verdict,Snyder ordered him jailed to await sentencing. Whether earlier acts of alleged violence or threats are admissible depends on the circumstances surrounding both the past and the currently charged aggressive acts or threats. That defendant was the last person who saw her, and who was known to have been alone with her until 11:00 A.M. that day, cannot be persuasively disputed on the basis of this record. Third, he argues that the trial justice should have precluded, and that the prosecutor inappropriately used, evidence that defendant choked his wife rendering her unconscious in the autumn of 1983, including evidence of her statements to her cousin over the phone, which the court admitted as excited utterances.. When one applies the appropriate legal principles, these conclusions become most compelling for a rational, dispassionate and attentive fact finder. A trial court must not merely count the number of past incidents, but it must engage in a qualitative assessment of the words and deeds which create the history of the relationship between defendant and alleged victim. As discussed at greater length elsewhere in this opinion, notwithstanding defendant's contentions to the contrary, this evidence is clearly relevant not only to motive, but to intent and identity. Regarding the videotape, defendant stated he had no objection to its introduction when, on October 16, 2000, it was offered into evidence at trial. The Court of Appeals has made that clear. Since there may be reasons other than guilt of the crime charged which would prompt a person to give a false statement, the probative weight of such statements depends upon the facts of the particular case. And, while we agree this type of evidence, alone, may not and should not form the basis for a finding of guilt, it may be taken into account in evaluating all the other evidence. of Cal., supra, at p. 442, 131 Cal.Rptr. In People v. Cintron, 95 N.Y.2d 329, 332-333, 717 N.Y.S.2d 72, 740 N.E.2d 217, the Court said that the probative weight of evidence of consciousness of guilt is highly dependent upon the facts of each particular case. In an earlier case, specifically referring to a defendant's false statements, the Court said: In the circumstances of this case, it is difficult to come to any other conclusion than that these false statements indicate a consciousness of guilt. Robert Bierenbaum was convicted of second-degree murder in 2000 and sentenced to 20 years to life in prison. However, apparently also on July 8, defendant told the victim's therapist, Dr. Sybil Baran, that he and the victim had argued and that she'd gone off in a huff; 8. Robert Bierenbaum daughter, second wife, family Gail Katz Bierenbaum./Robert Bierenbaum. Illustrative-but not exhaustive-are the following examples: 1. Inmate Search | Washington State Department of Corrections That is not to say that some of the many items of incriminating evidence, when each is evaluated in isolation, are not susceptible to arguable inferences which at first blush seem consistent with defendant's claim of innocence. Ex-surgeon confesses he took wife's 'body out of the airplane over He said Katz had stormed out of their apartment following an argument the morning before and not returned. While no one other than the victim and defendant was present to observe what transpired in the marital dwelling on the morning of July 7, the inference from the foregoing circumstantial facts is most compelling, if not irresistible, that they had a hostile confrontation that weekend about the future of their marriage, its serious problems, and how each would deal with them. The Surgeon's Wife The protective privilege ends where the public peril begins (Tarasoff v Regents of Univ. Surely, killing her would not only end their miserable and loveless marriage, and end it without the expenses and financial burdens of divorce, but it would also stop her from carrying out her threats to expose his violence and his alleged fraud. He was convicted in her death in 2000, but her body was never found. It was appropriately rejected by the jury. He also said that he hated the victim so much, and that she would get him so upset, that he wanted to kill her. Furthermore, when defendant spoke to Det. The December parole hearing at which he admitted his guilt was unsuccessful. Robert Bierenbaum This Court has reviewed these various instructions given during trial and at its end. Former New York surgeon admits killing wife, throwing body from Bierenbaum was on the staff of Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn. NR | 10.22.21 | 01:19:49 | CC more episodes 01:20:43 But, when one attentively reviews and critically assesses all the circumstantial evidence, cast in its aggregated and interwoven symmetry, and after applying all natural and reasonable inferences, the conclusion that defendant murdered his wife on July 7, 1985 becomes inescapable, and the evidence excludes beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. 831), a physician is required to disclose to the extent necessary to protect a threatened interest. He again omitted on July 14 to tell Dalsass-and O'Malley as well the day before-that he was a licensed pilot, rented a plane in New Jersey, and flew it for two hours from 4:30 P.M. to 6:30 P.M. on July 7. Therefore, the trial justice's ruling was a careful and completely reasonable exercise of judicial discretion. To begin with, the court, on a number of occasions during trial and at its conclusion, gave the jury cautionary instructions about the victim's statements and other related evidence, evidence the People had introduced to explain two critical factors, i.e., the state of this marriage and both parties' state of mind. We disagree. He is incapable of a shred of remorse.. Any friends, relatives, anything that could assist me would certainly be very beneficial in locating her as quickly as possible. dr bob bierenbaum parole 2020 CMI is a proven leader at applying industry knowledge and engineering expertise to solve problems that other fabricators cannot or will not take on. 79 N.Y.2d 673, 584 N.Y.S.2d 770, 595 N.E.2d 845 [uncharged evidence of prior assaultive acts may be admissible as background to support testimony that otherwise might be unbelievable or suspect]). In 1989, while Bierenbaum relocated from Manhattan to Las Vegas, Nevada, to set up a new medical practice, a partial female body washed ashore in Staten Island, New York, near the area where authorities believed Bierenbaum dumped his wifes remains, according to The Charley Project. Through the testimony of several witnesses, including four expert witnesses-New York City's Chief Medical Examiner, an experienced New York City Police Pilot, an aviation safety inspector, and an airline transport pilot/flight instructor/FAA flight test examiner-the People established that it was physically possible for defendant, a surgical resident and pilot, unassisted, to disarticulate a recently expired body of the victim's size (5ft. By 1985, the parties' three-year-old marriage can fittingly be described as an emotional battleground. He didnt understand how to deal with his anger, Bierenbaum said, according to the transcript. This abundant array of damning circumstantial evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt that defendant intentionally killed this victim, that he did it on the date, at the time and for the reason the People offered; and that he disposed of her body as the People contend. York surgeon admits killing wife, throwing body However, in 1982, in People v. Lipsky, 57 N.Y.2d 560, 457 N.Y.S.2d 451, 443 N.E.2d 925, the Court of Appeals overruled Ruloff. Robert Bierenbaum Today: Where Is He Now in 2021? Defendant also disputes the instructions' adequacy, and, beyond that-in addition to urging this Court to reject the notion of a background exception to the hearsay rule-he further argues that the testimony recounting the victim's out-of-court statements was largely unreliable. Dalsass' office arranged by the deceased's sister Alayne Katz, and with her parents and defendant's father also present, Dalsass interviewed defendant again face-to-face. That the victim died July 7, 1985 is conceded. Her stated intentions, should defendant refuse to accede to those demands, were plain. In it, they located a handwritten entry which appeared to have been changed from the original notation of 7/7/85 to the substituted date of 8/7/85. denied 88 N.Y.2d 1020, 651 N.Y.S.2d 19, 673 N.E.2d 1246 [quoting Poppe]; People v. Govan, 268 A.D.2d 689, 701 N.Y.S.2d 474, lv. Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) Please try again. By 1990, Bierenbaum had relocated to Las Vegas and opened a plastic surgery practice there, ABC News reported. He also failed to mention to both Det. Furthermore, defense counsel's earlier language on October 11, 2000 purporting to object was premature and, in any event, legally inadequate to constitute an objection (id.). Judged by that standard, we find and hold that the circumstantial evidence adduced at this trial decisively extinguishes any doubt that defendant Robert Bierenbaum, and no one else, intentionally killed his wife Gail Katz Bierenbaum, brought her body to Caldwell Airport in Fairfield, New Jersey, loaded it onto a small plane, flew it over the Atlantic Ocean, and, there, dumped her remains. In light of the foregoing, this verdict is supported by legally sufficient evidence and it is thoroughly consistent with the evidentiary weight. Of course, if one were to evaluate each item of evidence in isolation, a different conclusion might be reached for at least some sequestered items. Together, the two women looked for and found defendant's flight log. He never told investigators about the flight. As for now, Robert was sent back to prison. Defendant variously suggested or stated that his wife was wandering around Central Park in a fugue state, that she had a drug problem and ran off with drug dealers, that she possibly committed suicide, that she was on a shopping spree at Bloomingdale's, that she left to hang out with druggie friends, that she might have been killed by drug dealers, and that she had left for the Carribean to be with a boyfriend. Bierenbaum, now 66, convicted of the murder in 2000 under circumstantial evidence, had continually denied any involvement in her death, told parole that he killed his wife Gail At one point while they lived together, on a day that Dr. Karnofsky was angry or annoyed with defendant, and, having heard a number of accusatory answering machine messages directed at defendant, she confronted him to see what his reaction [would be]: What I said to him was, well, I think that if you did this and if it really happened as some people seem to think it did, that perhaps something happened in the apartment and you intentionally or unintentionally-Gail was hurt, you could have put her in one of those big flight bags or duffel bags and carried her out of the apartment since she was very small, put her in the back of your car, drive out to the airport and thrown her body out of the plane. This aspect of the evidence, when viewed with all else the People proved, compels inferences that defendant had an informed reason, based on his own direct knowledge, to be completely unconcerned that: a) his paramour might shortly be forced to confront his missing wife in her own bedroom; and b) his early morning trip to the precinct would reunite him with her. The email address cannot be subscribed. GRAND FORKS -- The story of Dr. Robert Bierenbaum, a plastic surgeon who practiced in Grand Forks and Minot and later was convicted for the murder of his wife in their Manhattan apartment, will air in a two-hour, special 20/20 program beginning at 8 p.m. Friday, Oct. 22, on ABC. A jury convicted Robert Bierenbaum of second-degree murder based on circumstantial evidence that on July 7, 1985 he intentionally killed his wife, Gail Katz Bierenbaum, in their Manhattan apartment; transported her body to a New Jersey airport the same day; loaded it onto a small private plane; and piloted it over the Atlantic Ocean where he discarded her remains. Furthermore, he invited a different woman to move into the marital apartment with him in September 1985. On the other hand, by concomitantly excluding the letter itself, suppressing its factual content and prohibiting the proffered testimony of defendant's three treating mental health professionals whom the People had intended to call as witnesses, these rulings protected the remaining, essential aspects of defendant's statutory privilege under CPLR 4504(a). This station is part of Cox Media Group Television. I was like, Holy (expletive), are you kidding me? former prosecutor Daniel Bibb told ABC News. He told her friend, Dr. Feis, that they had a severe argument the day of her disappearance, more severe than he had originally described to her and to various other people. The trial testimony and physical exhibits revealed the following: In 1982 defendant and the victim married. denied 75 N.Y.2d 924, 555 N.Y.S.2d 43, 554 N.E.2d 80 as follows: [w]hen reviewing a case based exclusively upon circumstantial evidence, the facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the People [citations omitted], and it must be assumed that the jury credited the People's witnesses and gave the People's evidence the full weight that might reasonably be accorded it [People v. Benzinger, supra; other citations omitted].. As for defendant's remaining reliability claims, they raise questions quite properly within the jury's province. Finally, although the alleged assault she recounted was undoubtedly extremely frightening, the proof shows her mental state so many hours later was not shown to be dominated by the same level of heightened excitement that would normally overwhelm a person in the immediate aftermath of such a recent traumatic shock. Defendant also argues that although this contested hearsay information, emanating from the victim, was admitted purportedly as legitimate background evidence, there is no background exception to the hearsay rule, and, beyond that, this background information was highly prejudicial, and, therefore, the trial justice should have precluded it. However, because we find it harmless, we affirm. Furthermore, were we to reach the merits of the videotape's admissibility, we would reject the defense argument that its contents are based on pure speculation and thus were improperly placed before the jury. The justice allowed the jury to learn only of its existence and nature, but not of its specific contents beyond its warning to the victim that defendant posed a threat to her. Bierenbaum, an experienced pilot who had been convicted on circumstantial evidence, was serving his 20 years-to-life prison sentence when he made the chilling confession during a December 2020 parole board hearing. At the time, the plastic surgeon claimed innocence, but that has all changed. The court did, however, permit the prosecution to adduce testimony that the victim had received a letter from one of these psychiatrists warning her of the danger defendant posed to her, although the justice prohibited the People from introducing the letter itself. Moreover, he told Dr. Feis-after withholding the whole truth from others, and from her during their many earlier conversations subsequent to July 7-that his last encounter with his wife on July 7 ended in an argument more severe than he had previously let on, that it had become explosive, and that in its midst he had failed to heed his psychiatrist's advice to defuse the situation. More specifically, he also admitted to his father that they had difficulty in adjusting to each other, and in 1983 [t]hat they had an argument, had some physical contact. By way of corroboration, Dr. Leigh McCullough testified that in November 1983 she saw finger shaped bruises on the victim's neck, and the latter told her that defendant choked her when he became angry at seeing her smoking a cigarette.