Gilgo Beach LISK Serial Killer, Rex Heuermann, charged with 3 murders, July 2023

[Betty P]

Mikal published his book in 1994. Gary Gilmore was executed in '77.

It was a good book, though very depressing. Mikal Gilmore was/is a very good writer. Used to read his articles in Rolling Stone.

 

[iamshadow21]

It was a good book, though very depressing. Mikal Gilmore was/is a very good writer. Used to read his articles in Rolling Stone.

It's one of the best treatments of generational trauma and family dysfunction I've ever read. And if you stop people being able to write about that kind of thing, then there is going to be a great loss to the world of nonfiction. You're going to not only lose stuff like Gilmore's work, but virtually anything written by incest and domestic violence survivors. People deserve to be paid for their work, and mining your own pain to try to create something that other people can relate to and find comfort and kinship in definitely counts as work. Most of us can't afford to work for free.

To bring this back to the case at hand, I think that whatever profit AE makes is not going to directly benefit her STBX. It's probably going to go right into the pocket of her own lawyer to cover ongoing fees. But whatever happens, it's not really our business, as she hasn't been named a suspect in this case; quite the opposite.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

That seems like stifling free speech and punishing people who had absolutely nothing to do with the crimes, IMO.

I'm not taking a side, because I dont disagree with you or forest wood.but I will say this: sometimes getting the truth out is the motivation for a memoir or a documentary. The reward does not have to be financial profit.

the right to free speech isn't in question. It's the profiting from selling a story rather than just telling it for free is being debated. But still, I think the essence of your point might be, not everybody can give it away for free, and there could be unintended consequences of taking son of Sam laws too far.

it gets very complicated to define profiting. Already, AE is not being paid for her appearance, she is charging a licensing fee for the footage she is letting them take and keeping control of. this loop hole is common on the US, because news stations dont pay people for their stories. talking heads who aren't anchors or reporters end up being contributors or something. There are ways around the US journalism standards of not buying stories. And it is hard to imagine a way to get the ick out of this arrangement with peacock that does not have unintended consequences that are negative.

its a tough one, but this (AE and Macedonio doing what they are doing before there is even a trial) is so distasteful it does seem worth the trouble to grapple with this very serious and complex media issue.

MOO

 

[Izzylizzy]

Mikal published his book in 1994. Gary Gilmore was executed in '77.

Thank you!

 

[girlhasnoname]

I'm not taking a side, because I dont disagree with you or forest wood.but I will say this: sometimes getting the truth out is the motivation for a memoir or a documentary. The reward does not have to be financial profit.

the right to free speech isn't in question. It's the profiting from selling a story rather than just telling it for free is being debated. But still, I think the essence of your point might be, not everybody can give it away for free, and there could be unintended consequences of taking son of Sam laws too far.

it gets very complicated to define profiting. Already, AE is not being paid for her appearance, she is charging a licensing fee for the footage she is letting them take and keeping control of. this loop hole is common on the US, because news stations dont pay people for their stories. talking heads who aren't anchors or reporters end up being contributors or something. There are ways around the US journalism standards of not buying stories. And it is hard to imagine a way to get the ick out of this arrangement with peacock that does not have unintended consequences that are negative.

its a tough one, but this (AE and Macedonio doing what they are doing before there is even a trial) is so distasteful it does seem worth the trouble to grapple with this very serious and complex media issue.

MOO

Agree with both sides of this discussion, I don't know the solution, but the "ick" factor like you mentioned resonates.

Didn't the Anthonys (Casey or her parents) get $250,000 for a photos licensing agreement from some big network? Some of that went to Casey's attorney fees I thought? I could be wrong, it's been so long.

MOO

 

[dotr]

Dec 20, 2023 #Banfield
Lawmakers are trying to stop Asa Ellerup, the estranged wife of suspected Gilgo Beach serial killer Rex Heuermann, from profiting from Peacock's docuseries about Heuermann's trial. NewsNation's Alex Caprariello explains on "Banfield."

 

[Baby baby Jane]

Why aren’t “lawmakers” focusing on laws they make a wider impact on society? - focus on tsunami of corruption and vice related to this case. I’d be more impressed if their political mouths were saying - we need new laws to stop corruption in LE and local gov, criminal gangs, trafficking, drugs … all of these ACTUAL crimes contributed to the current situation.
shining the light on this one person perhaps a useful distraction and a new target to distract voters who are angry about the corruption.

The mistress probably can sell her story, the friend, barber or hairdresser …. But no “family” - hmmm

 

[Betty P]

Why aren’t “lawmakers” focusing on laws they make a wider impact on society? - focus on tsunami of corruption and vice related to this case. I’d be more impressed if their political mouths were saying - we need new laws to stop corruption in LE and local gov, criminal gangs, trafficking, drugs … all of these ACTUAL crimes contributed to the current situation.
shining the light on this one person perhaps a useful distraction and a new target to distract voters who are angry about the corruption.

The mistress probably can sell her story, the friend, barber or hairdresser …. But no “family” - hmmm

Lawmakers and the general public don’t mind when family members sell their stories. The concern is when he funds may be indirectly helping the killer, instead of assisting the victims.

 

[Ruminations]

Why aren’t “lawmakers” focusing on laws they make a wider impact on society? - focus on tsunami of corruption and vice related to this case. I’d be more impressed if their political mouths were saying - we need new laws to stop corruption in LE and local gov, criminal gangs, trafficking, drugs … all of these ACTUAL crimes contributed to the current situation.
shining the light on this one person perhaps a useful distraction and a new target to distract voters who are angry about the corruption.

The mistress probably can sell her story, the friend, barber or hairdresser …. But no “family” - hmmm

It is not easy to figure what can be legislated to stop this sick - dare I say it- money laundering scheme to sell serial killing, and flush the funds to the wife so the children and other relatives of brutally murdered victims are unable to sue.

But it is worth the effort to try. It is hardly the case that this is not a relevant issue to tackle. It is a corruption on its own. It is not trivial.

MOO

 

[Baby baby Jane]

It is not easy to figure what can be legislated to stop this sick - dare I say it- money laundering scheme to sell serial killing, and flush the funds to the wife so the children and other relatives of brutally murdered victims are unable to sue.

But it is worth the effort to try. It is hardly the case that this is not a relevant issue to tackle. It is a corruption on its own. It is not trivial.

MOO

Loving the sarcasm!

 

[Betty P]

It's one of the best treatments of generational trauma and family dysfunction I've ever read. And if you stop people being able to write about that kind of thing, then there is going to be a great loss to the world of nonfiction. You're going to not only lose stuff like Gilmore's work, but virtually anything written by incest and domestic violence survivors. People deserve to be paid for their work, and mining your own pain to try to create something that other people can relate to and find comfort and kinship in definitely counts as work. Most of us can't afford to work for free.

To bring this back to the case at hand, I think that whatever profit AE makes is not going to directly benefit her STBX. It's probably going to go right into the pocket of her own lawyer to cover ongoing fees. But whatever happens, it's not really our business, as she hasn't been named a suspect in this case; quite the opposite.

MOO

From the legislation I read, Mika’s Gilmores book would have been ok. It’s not a strict application, it’s reviewed by a government agency. The law also doesn’t ban anyone from producing a docu or book, etc. It just prevents their profit-taking.

The law, as proposed, only applies in NY.

As for dealing with the corruption that caused these problems in solving the murders, someone needs to step in. Someone did appoint Rodney Harrison, who led the task force that caught Rex H. With Harrison gone, it will take someone higher up the ladder. They’ll need evidence of wrongdoing and the state AG may need to get involved.

 

[Ruminations]

This is what I think is possible with legislation to prevent profiting off of crimes.

Focus on the things being bought and sold, and if their values are impacted by connection to crime. There is no need to worry about how the seller is or is not related to criminal (or if the seller is the criminal). There is no need to tell a person what they can and cannot sell.

And, focus on journalistic standards. (And apply those standards to social media.) Any person has the right to self-expression within limits. (No hate-no defamation-no creating danger.) Any media outlet has the right to put out a story within similar limits and more. ( No lies-opinion vs. facts clear- responsible sourcing-transparency regarding ads.)

Things can spike in commercial value for ugly reasons. When that ugly reason is connection to a crime, that's when a law should apply. It doesn't have to matter if the person who is "selling high" is a relative or not.

I propose a law that the spiked value of an item should have to go into an account controlled by the municipality investigating or prosecuting a crime. The original owner would have a right to the value of the sold item if there were no crime as soon as practicable for the municipality. In addition, if the seller incurred expenses to create the item, like by writing a book, they should have access as soon as practicable to getting that outlay back. Second, the victims would have the right to the inflated value of the items. A certain amount of time after the final adjudication, the original owner would have the right to what is left.

For example, let's say Nassau wraps up their gun investigation and releases some weapons back. Rex had owned some gun that would ordinarily sell for 1000. It sells for 2500, just because it is rumored to be one used by Rex in an infamous crime.

The 1000 dollars could be released to be divided between Rex and Asa quite quickly. But the macabre murder premium money (1500) would be held for the victims.

Seem like a good start for creating a policy?


MOO, MOO, MOO

 

[Pyrite]

This is what I think is possible with legislation to prevent profiting off of crimes.

Focus on the things being bought and sold, and if their values are impacted by connection to crime. There is no need to worry about how the seller is or is not related to criminal (or if the seller is the criminal). There is no need to tell a person what they can and cannot sell.

And, focus on journalistic standards. (And apply those standards to social media.) Any person has the right to self-expression within limits. (No hate-no defamation-no creating danger.) Any media outlet has the right to put out a story within similar limits and more. ( No lies-opinion vs. facts clear- responsible sourcing-transparency regarding ads.)

Things can spike in commercial value for ugly reasons. When that ugly reason is connection to a crime, that's when a law should apply. It doesn't have to matter if the person who is "selling high" is a relative or not.

I propose a law that the spiked value of an item should have to go into an account controlled by the municipality investigating or prosecuting a crime. The original owner would have a right to the value of the sold item if there were no crime as soon as practicable for the municipality. In addition, if the seller incurred expenses to create the item, like by writing a book, they should have access as soon as practicable to getting that outlay back. Second, the victims would have the right to the inflated value of the items. A certain amount of time after the final adjudication, the original owner would have the right to what is left.

For example, let's say Nassau wraps up their gun investigation and releases some weapons back. Rex had owned some gun that would ordinarily sell for 1000. It sells for 2500, just because it is rumored to be one used by Rex in an infamous crime.

The 1000 dollars could be released to be divided between Rex and Asa quite quickly. But the macabre murder premium money (1500) would be held for the victims.

Seem like a good start for creating a policy?


MOO, MOO, MOO

No.

Who would be the decider? Do you want a government dept of true crime book approval. Should we take away all the money from future Truman Capotes, Anne Rules and John Douglasses if they don’t meet some mythical Journalistic standard? I’m pretty sure the first amendment of the constitution would not allow that, nor would the taking clause. (IANAL)

With your gun example, who decides the value of a collectible gun. It’s not so simple as a 1870 Winchester 45 caliber rifle (totally made up firearm) is worth 1000. It all depends on condition and providence (who has owned the gun). If an old colt is wort 1000, but Billy the Kids old colt 45 is worth 10,000, should we take the 9000 away from the seller and give it to descendants of his victims?

I get that we can take civil rights temporarily from people charged with a crime and permanently from convicted felons, but it seems you would also like to remove civil rights from their families. That seems wrong to me.
MOO

 

[Ruminations]

No.

Who would be the decider? Do you want a government dept of true crime book approval. Should we take away all the money from future Truman Capotes, Anne Rules and John Douglasses if they don’t meet some mythical Journalistic standard? I’m pretty sure the first amendment of the constitution would not allow that, nor would the taking clause. (IANAL)

With your gun example, who decides the value of a collectible gun. It’s not so simple as a 1870 Winchester 45 caliber rifle (totally made up firearm) is worth 1000. It all depends on condition and providence (who has owned the gun). If an old colt is wort 1000, but Billy the Kids old colt 45 is worth 10,000, should we take the 9000 away from the seller and give it to descendants of his victims?

I get that we can take civil rights temporarily from people charged with a crime and permanently from convicted felons, but it seems you would also like to remove civil rights from their families. That seems wrong to me.
MOO

You have good points and reservations. But I don't think they amount to a hard no at all. IMO, I'm on to something that needs more development.

And there are no civil rights violations being suggested by me at all. That is an incorrect interpretation of my suggestion.

I did build in a rough draft of an ending, which means there would be no worries about money being held for distribution for generations.

And there are all kinds of professionals who value things for tax purposes, such as to evaluate the value of a charitable donation for a tax deduction, or the value of a gift for gift tax. This is the kind of thing government does. It should keep things fair. As things are going now, it does not seem fair that money is being made on murder, and the murder victims see none of it. Individuals by defini have their own individual interests. If individuals are in a position to exploit one another, that is exactly where government should step in.

Goverment does regulate commerce. Some things may not be bought or sold. For example, sex. Not everyone agrees with the law, but it is not in question that it is appropriate for the goverment to make laws forbidding it or regulating it. There are laws against some opportunistic price gouging. There are not laws against timing markets, but there are laws against manipulating markets. Sometimes, I feel like Macedonio's project with AE has been manipulating a market of gifts from strangers, attempting to sell murder- memory guns- hustling 50 cent and Peacock. It is a lot of money, reportedly over a million dollars. If that cash is changing hands such that some individuals are doing other individuals wrong, maybe there should be a law.

Tthe money issues are civil, not criminal. But it could be a role of government to make note if a business is being established because of crimes, and require that the money that could be attributed to being earned because of the crime be set aside until the fair distribution is worked out. If things shoot up in value because of crimes, it strikes me as fair that the targets of the crimes benefit. Otherwise crime is incentivized.

MOO

 

[Pyrite]

You have good points and reservations. But I don't think they amount to a hard no at all. IMO, I'm on to something that needs more development.

And there are no civil rights violations being suggested by me at all. That is an incorrect interpretation of my suggestion.

I did build in a rough draft of an ending, which means there would be no worries about money being held for distribution for generations.

And there are all kinds of professionals who value things for tax purposes, such as to evaluate the value of a charitable donation for a tax deduction, or the value of a gift for gift tax. This is the kind of thing government does. It should keep things fair. As things are going now, it does not seem fair that money is being made on murder, and the murder victims see none of it. Individuals by defini have their own individual interests. If individuals are in a position to exploit one another, that is exactly where government should step in.

Goverment does regulate commerce. Some things may not be bought or sold. For example, sex. Not everyone agrees with the law, but it is not in question that it is appropriate for the goverment to make laws forbidding it or regulating it. There are laws against some opportunistic price gouging. There are not laws against timing markets, but there are laws against manipulating markets. Sometimes, I feel like Macedonio's project with AE has been manipulating a market of gifts from strangers, attempting to sell murder- memory guns- hustling 50 cent and Peacock. It is a lot of money, reportedly over a million dollars. If that cash is changing hands such that some individuals are doing other individuals wrong, maybe there should be a law.

Tthe money issues are civil, not criminal. But it could be a role of government to make note if a business is being established because of crimes, and require that the money that could be attributed to being earned because of the crime be set aside until the fair distribution is worked out. If things shoot up in value because of crimes, it strikes me as fair that the targets of the crimes benefit. Otherwise crime is incentivized.

MOO

I disagree that no rights are being violated if a law is passed as you suggest. Should Dateline be required to give up all profits? They have made a lot of money over the years by selling crime. Same with the True Crime authors, publishers, podcaster’s and websites. From what you state, you want to stop people from making money from true crime. Am I misunderstanding?

What crime in incentivized by Rex’s gun having a premium due to his alleged crimes? He won’t get the money. He’s heading to life in prison. I hope you aren’t thinking he or anyone else commit’s this tyep of horrible crimes in the hopes his family can make a profit selling his guns and story.

Rex’s wife has not been charged with a crime. It seems tacky to me that she want’s to sell access to herself to peacock, but tacky shouldn’t be against the law IMHO. She may be in dire need of money, without the time and skills required to earn it. In any case, she is not charged with a crime so taking away a legal way to earn money is wrong, IMHO.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

I disagree that no rights are being violated if a law is passed as you suggest. Should Dateline be required to give up all profits? They have made a lot of money over the years by selling crime. Same with the True Crime authors, publishers, podcaster’s and websites. From what you state, you want to stop people from making money from true crime. Am I misunderstanding?

What crime in incentivized by Rex’s gun having a premium due to his alleged crimes? He won’t get the money. He’s heading to life in prison. I hope you aren’t thinking he or anyone else commit’s this tyep of horrible crimes in the hopes his family can make a profit selling his guns and story.

Rex’s wife has not been charged with a crime. It seems tacky to me that she want’s to sell access to herself to peacock, but tacky shouldn’t be against the law IMHO. She may be in dire need of money, without the time and skills required to earn it. In any case, she is not charged with a crime so taking away a legal way to earn money is wrong, IMHO.

MOO

what right do you think I'm proposing to violate? We do not have the right in this country to profit from anything we feel like profiting from.

MOO
(Mod edited out off topic quote and response)

 

[Pyrite]

what right do you think I'm proposing to violate? We do not have the right in this country to profit from anything we feel like profiting from.

MOO
(Mod edited out off topic quote and response)

Freedom of the press. American’s have the write to earn a living by talking or writing about anything we want with a few minor exception. Writing or talking about someone you know‘s crimes and selling that information shouldn’t be against the law IMO and if it was I doubt it would stand up in court.

 

[Betty P]

Rex Heuermann awaits grand jury decision in 4th Gilgo murder

RIVERHEAD, N.Y. (PIX11) — Rex Heuermann, the accused Long Island serial killer, was waiting for a grand jury decision on a fourth murder he’s been tied to, as 2023 moves to a close. A s…

pix11.com

A senior law enforcement source told PIX11 News earlier in December that a decision would be announced in the murder investigation of Maureen Brainard-Barnes “close to the holidays,” but there has been no press notification, so far.

The only news I've heard around the holidays was coverage of Rex's arrest last summer in the news summaries of important events in 2023. A summary on CNN mentioned the corruption that lead to the 13 yr delay and praised Rodney Harrison for his work with the task force.

 

[Forest_Wood]

Freedom of the press. American’s have the write to earn a living by talking or writing about anything we want with a few minor exception. Writing or talking about someone you know‘s crimes and selling that information shouldn’t be against the law IMO and if it was I doubt it would stand up in court.

The thing that concerns me about these family members of SK's receiving copious amounts of money for selling their "stories", is that it's gained on the backs of the victims of these savage crimes. My fear is that the people committing these crimes have nothing left to reign them in when they know their families will come out ahead financially because of their crimes. It seems so uncivilized to me. IMO.

 

[Ruminations]

It is true that freedom of speech is sacrosanct. It is impossible to have a free society without it.

Yet, there can be restrictions on what is bought and sold, and indeed there are, with no harm to a healthy democracy.

We cannot but and sell materials that depict sexual crimes against children. And that is well and good because there are no ways to depict them without actually committing crimes against children.

when it comes to murder and torture, real murder and torture, not fiction, I wonder if there is a way to depict it from the perpetrator' point of view, or from the point of view of people who knew the perpetrator, that does not also harm the victims. But it gets worse when the material from the perpetrator' point of view has a value, because the value would not exist if the crime were not committed. In short, crime is incentivized. That is where I think there is a way to work out a son-of-Sam law that does not trample on first amendment rights. We, as a society, do make decisions on what products may be sold. That is an appropriate role of government.

There is a big difference between getting out a story, speaking freely, for free, and selling a murder product that can exist only because someone committed a murder.

If this "speech" were so urgent to get out there, why is it only available for 7 figures? Victims and witnesses have been telling their stories for free. Because they want justice.

MOO