Rabbi Fred Neulander

The trials of Rabbi Fred Neulander

The Neulander case had received widespread media attention for years, but Camden County Judge Linda Baxter rejected a defense request for a change of venue. Jury selection in Neulander’s trial began on August 20, 2001, and testimony began on October 15. By this time, Neulander was 60 years old. The entire trial was televised by Court TV.

Witnesses said Neulander had been at his synagogue the night of the murder, although it was extremely unusual for the rabbi to be there on a Tuesday evening. He sat in on his assistant rabbi’s Judaism class—which he hadn’t done in four years. He walked into choir practice—the cantor testified that he was in “a good mood.” Prosecutors claimed Neulander was establishing his alibi.

Neulander took the stand in his own defense on October 30, saying he was innocent. But the rabbi withered under intense cross-examination from the prosecutor, James Lynch. Neulander was forced to admit that he lied to the police immediately after the murder when he denied any extramarital affairs. Neulander testified that he never loved Elaine Soncini and never planned to leave his wife for her. But the prosecutor read a romantic poem the rabbi wrote for Soncini. Lynch played a message from her answering machine in which the rabbi said Soncini was “the most wonderful thing that came into my life.”

Although many observers thought Neulander’s testimony did little to help his case, the jury was unable to reach a verdict. The judge declared a mistrial on November 13, 2001. The rabbi grinned.

The second trial

That grin motivated the prosecutor to request a retrial, which began a year later with a change of venue—Freehold, New Jersey. The retrial was also televised on Court TV.

Matthew Neulander, the rabbi’s son, testified at both trials, but the second time, he referred to his father only as “Fred.” Matthew Neulander said he was stunned by his father’s lack of reaction the night of the murder. The rabbi made no move to prevent his son from going into the house. Other rescue workers had to physically restrain him from seeing his mother dead and bloodied.

In the second trial, eight years after Carol Neulander died, the jury found the rabbi guilty of murder—for which he could receive the death penalty. Fred Neulander is the only rabbi ever convicted of capital murder in the United States.

The rabbi did not testify in the second trial, but he did address the jury before it deliberated on his sentence. First he quoted the book of Genesis, then he eulogized his wife, claiming that he loved her and missed her. Neulander described a “little dialog” he and his wife shared:

“One of us would say, ‘I want to grow old with you’ and the other would lean over and whisper, ‘I want to grow old with you, too, but let’s do it slowly.'”

Family members were offended by Neulander’s speech. Matthew Neulander called it “absolutely galling.” Attorneys who heard it thought the jury might be angered and recommend the death sentence. Instead, jurors could not decide on a sentence, which meant Neulander got life in prison.

Neulander, the sociopath

Fred Neulander tried to skip his own sentencing on January 16, 2003. But Judge Baxter ruled that Neulander had to be there and listen to the statements of his victim’s family.

Carol Neulander’s sister said the rabbi deserved the maximum sentence. “He is truly a monster beyond human comprehension,” she said. “He should never live free again.”

Matthew Neulander, by this time an emergency room doctor in the South, did not appear but submitted his statement in writing. He wrote from the perspective of his new baby daughter, Madison:

“Fred robbed her of a warm, vibrant, doting grandparent whose late years would have revolved around her grandchildren just as her earlier ones did around her own kids. Madison is left with a worthless, soulless, pathetic shell of a man who did not even have the grace to call or write when she was born. It was further evidence of his unfeeling arrogance and boundless self-absorption—Fred, with warped self-delusion, still feels that he is the victim and not the cause of these events. And it is through Madison that I pass my own sentence, even today as the Court considers its own. Fred is a textbook sociopath, and it is nearly impossible to punish in a meaningful way a man who has no regard for others. However, in Madison’s best interest, I will take from him what would mean the world to a normal man. Madison and her siblings will never know Fred—I will never allow him to be even the most marginal part of their lives. It is with the physical and emotional welfare of my children in mind that I request that the Court permanently remove this vicious and evil person from their respective futures.”

“Fred,” the physician said, “no matter what you say, I can’t help but like you. You’re charming and beguiling. But I think you’re a psychopath and a murderer.” Neulander stood up to leave, walked a few steps away, then turned toward the physician. “Well,” he said, with a half-smile, “nobody’s perfect.”