Justified evidence or jury contamination?

[MorganGrayson]

Part of the article:

TOMS RIVER, N.J. (AP) - The case is so grisly the prosecutor thinks jury selection may take longer than usual. Jurors in the trial of Richard W. Rogers will hear about the slayings and dismemberments of four gay or bisexual men, and pore over photos of severed arms and legs, decapitated heads and mutilated genitals.


Rogers, 55, is charged with killing only two of the men, but the judge is allowing evidence from all four slayings, agreeing with prosecutors that the evidence was so similar that it could amount to a "signature" of a single killer.
"It is bizarre. It is unique. It's chilling," Superior Court Judge James N. Citta said in his ruling. "I don't know if that's a legal term, but that's what it is."

First of all, I'd like to answer Judge Citta's question. It's not a "term," it's a collection of simple, declarative sentences. No it's not a legal term. It's not even a legal "opinion," it's just an "opinion," and one he should not have given. A judge publicly commenting on evidence before a trial? I thought that sort of thing wasn't done?

Now. The gut reaction to this is "hang the bastard." However, this judge has allowed evidence for two crimes for which this subject has not been charged into the trial for the other two crimes. How can this possibly be legal?

I put the poll up to see if anyone else has an opinion on this.