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

[Pyrite]

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 rein them in when they know their families will come out ahead financially because of their crimes. It seems so uncivilized to me. IMO.

How do you feel about complete strangers or acquaintances, making copious amounts of money from reporting or writing books about murder, say, Kieth Morrison or Anne Rule (she was a co-volunteer with Ted Buddy). How does that trigger victims less than than a family member who had no idea their spouse or father was a SK, but write a book or get paid for rights to a movie About their life together?

I don’t get the willingness to punish unknowing family members of SKs. RH’s wife has people willing to pay money for her story. As far as we know she has did nothing wrong. She is going to have a real tough future because of RH. How does it hurt that she makes her future a little easier by selling her story/access to her during the trial?

moo

 

[Forest_Wood]

How do you feel about complete strangers or acquaintances, making copious amounts of money from reporting or writing books about murder, say, Kieth Morrison or Anne Rule (she was a co-volunteer with Ted Buddy). How does that trigger victims less than than a family member who had no idea their spouse or father was a SK, but write a book or get paid for rights to a movie About their life together?

I don’t get the willingness to punish unknowing family members of SKs. RH’s wife has people willing to pay money for her story. As far as we know she has did nothing wrong. She is going to have a real tough future because of RH. How does it hurt that she makes her future a little easier by selling her story/access to her during the trial?

moo

Well, I don't see it as anyone being "punished" for not getting $$$$ off of crime. There are more respectable ways to earn money imo. If they do have the need to make money simply because they were married to, are a child of, or know the perpetrator -- how about a law where the victims get paid half of the profits made, so that it then becomes a win-win scenario for the victims and their families to benefit from. It could transform the endeavour to not only help oneself but to help those harmed. MOO.

 

[Pyrite]

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

I don’t think we will agree on this topic. We do agree on the son of Sam laws at least, but I don’t know where the line can be drawn if you want to extend the laws past the accused and convicted. So the wife shouldn’t make any money about the story of her life with RH, even if she had no idea he was killing sex workers, but it’s ok if she goes to someone (peacock say) and tells her story for free, even if peacock makes a ton of money by airing her story?

I also don’t think any story gets out for free, except in a very local area. TV shows, newspapers, magazines,book publishers, etc all get stories out because they hope it will make them money. Otherwise they wouldn’t tell the story. Why punish innocent family member from getting part of that money? Should we extend it to old friends of the serial killers? How about Law enforcement such as John Douglas or Joe Kenda?

Unfortunately, materials about sexual crimes against children are sold. Many of John Wayne Gacy victims were minors.

https://graphics.chicagotribune.com/john-wayne-gacy-new-victims/blurb.html

Lots of books and shows about him are out there. Lots of other examples as well.

MOO

 

[Pyrite]

Well, I don't see it as anyone being "punished" for not getting $$$$ off of crime. There are more respectable ways to earn money imo. If they do have the need to make money simply because they were married to, are a child of, or know the perpetrator -- how about a law where the victims get paid half of the profits made, so that it then becomes a win-win scenario for the victims and their families to benefit from. It could transform the endeavour to not only help oneself but to help those harmed. MOO.

Hmm, not sure the various newspapers, magazines, book publishers or TV producers would be willing to give up half their profits on true crime related material. If they won’t, why should someone who knows the perpetrator if they are offered money from one of the news papers, magazines, book publishers or tv producers for their story do so?

RH’s wife did not, as far as we know, commit any crime. Therefore, telling her she can’t sell something legal, which someone else wants to pay her for is punishment. What other word would you use?

MOO

 

[Betty P]

Hmm, not sure the various newspapers, magazines, book publishers or TV producers would be willing to give up half their profits on true crime related material. If they won’t, why should someone who knows the perpetrator if they are offered money from one of the news papers, magazines, book publishers or tv producers for their story do so?

RH’s wife did not, as far as we know, commit any crime. Therefore, telling her she can’t sell something legal, which someone else wants to pay her for is punishment. What other word would you use?

MOO

IANAL, but I don't believe Son of Sam laws violate anyone's First Amendment rights. Killers are free to tell their stories, write their books. Publishers are free to sell those books for profit, tv and radio shows are free to make a profit . The restriction is in not allowing the killer to receive any share of the profits or other proceeds.

Until now, family members of killers were able to keep profits from telling their stories, publishing a book, licensing rights, etc. JMO, in most cases, they should be able to do that if they weren't complicit in any way or had any knowledge of the crimes. In the case of RH's wife, though, it seems there may be a conflict of interest, etc. especially if it appears the profits may be used indirectly to benefit the killer. It's a new concern because, in the past, there haven't been many cases of relatives of prolific killers who sold their stories, still believed the killer was innocent and remained married to the killer.

But none of the Son of Sam laws, nor any proposed changes interfere with First Amendment rights, nor the ability of a killer to share or sell his/her story, license, etc. They don't prevent writers or publishers from doing the same, nor from making a profit from it. AFAIK, the only person who can't receive proceeds or profits is the killer.

 

[Pyrite]

IANAL, but I don't believe Son of Sam laws violate anyone's First Amendment rights. Killers are free to tell their stories, write their books. Publishers are free to sell those books for profit, tv and radio shows are free to make a profit . The restriction is in not allowing the killer to receive any share of the profits or other proceeds.

Until now, family members of killers were able to keep profits from telling their stories, publishing a book, licensing rights, etc. JMO, in most cases, they should be able to do that if they weren't complicit in any way or had any knowledge of the crimes. In the case of RH's wife, though, it seems there may be a conflict of interest, etc. especially if it appears the profits may be used indirectly to benefit the killer. It's a new concern because, in the past, there haven't been many cases of relatives of prolific killers who sold their stories, still believed the killer was innocent and remained married to the killer.

But none of the Son of Sam laws, nor any proposed changes interfere with First Amendment rights, nor the ability of a killer to share or sell his/her story, license, etc. They don't prevent writers or publishers from doing the same, nor from making a profit from it. AFAIK, the only person who can't receive proceeds or profits is the killer.

The new law we were discussing would amend the son of Sam law in NY “The new bills would expand the law to include defendants' relatives“. Since the family has not been accused of a crime by law enforcement, I doubt it would stand up in court, although I am not a lawyer. I totally agree that the killer should not be able to profit from the crime.

Lawmakers push to amend Son of Sam laws after Heuermann's estranged wife reportedly paid seven figures by Peacock documentary

Two new bills aim to amend New York's Son of Sam law to prevent family members of defendants from profiting off crimes.

www.cbsnews.com

moo

 

[Baby baby Jane]

Victims of some crimes, and their families shouldn’t get more than others. It should be a fair system.
If the crime was covered by more talented directors, producers or writers and generated more profit then more money would go to those victims? But those with less successful media coverage get less? What about unsolved victims or victims of boring criminals that don’t get covered?
If this becomes law - it must be applied to every case of family benefiting from being related to a convicted criminal (like Growing Up Gotti (V Gotti built a career on her murderous dad), the high bids at Murdaugh furniture auction, every family person benefiting even if it’s all expenses paid trip to a TV studio, including hair, wardrobe, meals and a broadway show. The media that “don’t pay” might offer this type of benefit. “We never pay for a story but you can fly you first class to our studio in New York City” etc)
The money goes into a fund benefitting all victims. With a schedule of who get how much for what type of victim. Fair for all victims….

 

[O.Incandenza]

IANAL, but I don't believe Son of Sam laws violate anyone's First Amendment rights. Killers are free to tell their stories, write their books. Publishers are free to sell those books for profit, tv and radio shows are free to make a profit . The restriction is in not allowing the killer to receive any share of the profits or other proceeds.

Until now, family members of killers were able to keep profits from telling their stories, publishing a book, licensing rights, etc. JMO, in most cases, they should be able to do that if they weren't complicit in any way or had any knowledge of the crimes. In the case of RH's wife, though, it seems there may be a conflict of interest, etc. especially if it appears the profits may be used indirectly to benefit the killer. It's a new concern because, in the past, there haven't been many cases of relatives of prolific killers who sold their stories, still believed the killer was innocent and remained married to the killer.

But none of the Son of Sam laws, nor any proposed changes interfere with First Amendment rights, nor the ability of a killer to share or sell his/her story, license, etc. They don't prevent writers or publishers from doing the same, nor from making a profit from it. AFAIK, the only person who can't receive proceeds or profits is the killer.

Son of Sam laws definitely infringe on criminal's first amendment rights. However, when you're arrested (and especially once you're convicted), you effectively lose many of your rights. Or rather the state's interests in imprisoning you are deemed more compelling than some of your rights.

However even given that, Son of Sam laws are frequently struck down as unconstitutional because they infringe too much on convicts' free speech (Keenan v. Superior Court (Sinatra, Jr.), 27 Cal. 4th 415 (2002), Seres v. Lerner, 102 P.2d 91 (Nev. 2004), Opinion of the Justices to the Senate, 436 Mass. 1201 (Mass. 2002), Bouchard v. Price, 694 A.2d 670 (R.I. 1997). In fact, New York's first attempt at a Son of Sam law was struck down by the US Supreme Court for violating the First Amendment (Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N. Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105 (1991)).

So I have a hard time seeing how an even broader law that restricts the rights of people who didn't commit the crime and haven't been convicted of anything would survive a First Amendment challenge.

 

[Ruminations]

How do you feel about complete strangers or acquaintances, making copious amounts of money from reporting or writing books about murder, say, Kieth Morrison or Anne Rule (she was a co-volunteer with Ted Buddy). How does that trigger victims less than than a family member who had no idea their spouse or father was a SK, but write a book or get paid for rights to a movie About their life together?

I don’t get the willingness to punish unknowing family members of SKs. RH’s wife has people willing to pay money for her story. As far as we know she has did nothing wrong. She is going to have a real tough future because of RH. How does it hurt that she makes her future a little easier by selling her story/access to her during the trial?

moo

I'm not proposing punishing anyone.
It is hardly a punishment to forbid someone from profiting from crime.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

How do you feel about complete strangers or acquaintances, making copious amounts of money from reporting or writing books about murder, say, Kieth Morrison or Anne Rule (she was a co-volunteer with Ted Buddy). How does that trigger victims less than than a family member who had no idea their spouse or father was a SK, but write a book or get paid for rights to a movie About their life together?

I don’t get the willingness to punish unknowing family members of SKs. RH’s wife has people willing to pay money for her story. As far as we know she has did nothing wrong. She is going to have a real tough future because of RH. How does it hurt that she makes her future a little easier by selling her story/access to her during the trial?

moo

I don't know anything about Rule. (I onky follow limited cases, not "true crime" widely.)

But...Keith Morrison manages get the story out within journalistic standards and without paying participants like we are discussing here.

think about it: AE is now incentiviced to NOT talk to LE with anything (inculpating or exculpating) that comes to her mind, but to go to Peacock/50 cent instead. The infringement on her speech, upon entering this contract, is by the contract! what if she can show her husband is not guilty, or at least did not act alone, but 1,000,000 tells her she has to save it for the second season!

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

What's the old saying in the media "If it bleeds, it leads". The public's fascination with murder and the aspects of true crime has long been a money maker for Magazines, TV shows, Films, Books, Documentaries, True Crime Websites, Podcasts, etc. This genre is outselling and outperforming sports, government and typical news cycles.

The only thing that would change that would be if the people collectively decided not to watch, buy or participate. That is a personal choice. Nobody can dictate morality, it just doesn't work. What is offensive to some, is not to others and has been since the beginning of time.

I do feel sympathy for the families of victims and of the perpetrators who are blasted on a national stage with little to no input or perspective of their own typically. They are thrust into an unwanted limelight and retraumatized all over again. I'm linking an article that I thought was interesting on this subject:

The Human Cost of Our True Crime Obsession

JMO

 

[Ruminations]

What's the old saying in the media "If it bleeds, it leads". The public's fascination with murder and the aspects of true crime has long been a money maker for Magazines, TV shows, Films, Books, Documentaries, True Crime Websites, Podcasts, etc. This genre is outselling and outperforming sports, government and typical news cycles.

The only thing that would change that would be if the people collectively decided not to watch, buy or participate. That is a personal choice. Nobody can dictate morality, it just doesn't work. What is offensive to some, is not to others and has been since the beginning of time.

I do feel sympathy for the families of victims and of the perpetrators who are blasted on a national stage with little to no input or perspective of their own typically. They are thrust into an unwanted limelight and retraumatized all over again. I'm linking an article that I thought was interesting on this subject:

The Human Cost of Our True Crime Obsession

JMO

The thing is, media has changed. It could only bleed but so much on classic 6:00 news.

But TV stopped having to be balanced in opinion. And while TV regulations weakened, it was also in competition with virtually unregulated social media.

We, as a nation, have to rethink this deregulation. Laws about what can be bought and sold are regulations. Free speech is a red herring. Sacrosanct-but Not the point. The point is, there is a place in society to regulate media, including new forms of media. Free speech does not mean big publishers like streaming companies should be able to do anything.

We didn't always capitulate to the market and individual decisions in regards to TV and radio; we still don't. There are regulations, if they are loosening a bit, largely from the pressure of competition against unregulated media. Why would we allow companies to make money, no matter how much damage it is doing to our society? And don't get me started on algorithms, and how individual decisions are being pushed out of what we view.

look at what is happening to the victims in this case. A key witness is now owned by Peacock and 50 cent. How are they going to get justice?

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

The thing is, media has changed. It could only bleed but so much on classic 6:00 news.

But TV stopped having to be balanced in opinion. And while TV regulations weakened, it was also in competition with virtually unregulated social media.

We, as a nation, have to rethink this deregulation. Laws about what can be bought and sold are regulations. Free speech is a red herring. Sacrosanct-but Not the point. The point is, there is a place in society to regulate media, including new forms of media. Free speech does not mean big publishers like streaming companies should be able to do anything.

We didn't always capitulate to the market and individual decisions in regards to TV and radio; we still don't. There are regulations, if they are loosening a bit, largely from the pressure of competition against unregulated media. Why would we allow companies to make money, no matter how much damage it is doing to our society? And don't get me started on algorithms, and how individual decisions are being pushed out of what we view.

look at what is happening to the victims in this case. A key witness is now owned by Peacock and 50 cent. How are they going to get justice?

MOO

I agree with your most of your points, but the genie is out of the proverbial bottle and it isn't going to change. I fear regulation, or lack thereof, will only get worse. AI will take it to another level that scares me quite frankly.

We've been allowing companies to make money off our society even at the cost of damage forever. Ads for cigarettes, pesticides, alcohol, Big Pharma and Sports; the list goes on and on sadly. It's a capital consumerism machine and the true crime genre is now a big time player in the game whether we like it or not.

JMO

 

[CuriousCricket]

I can't help but respect Commissioner Harrison. He just seems like a quality person all around, both in his profession and in his personal life. He stands out above the rest of the players in this investigation.
IMO.

He's a breath of fresh air to everyone else I've seen. It is difficult to believe the people/voters of Suffolk County aren't revolting that politics have led to his leaving the force. I have to wonder how deeply the people of Suffolk County love and adore being mired in such ugliness that they ALLOW Commissioner Harrison NOT to be retained - and politics be dam*ed. What is really going on in Suffolk County?

 

[Ruminations]

I agree with your most of your points, but the genie is out of the proverbial bottle and it isn't going to change. I fear regulation, or lack thereof, will only get worse. AI will take it to another level that scares me quite frankly.

We've been allowing companies to make money off our society even at the cost of damage forever. Ads for cigarettes, pesticides, alcohol, Big Pharma and Sports; the list goes on and on sadly. It's a capital consumerism machine and the true crime genre is now a big time player in the game whether we like it or not.

JMO

Off topic, but tobacco consumption is something govt has an interest in controlling, including with ad regulations. I starting bringing babies into this world as delis stopped displaying Joe camel images and the double-speak signs, " Don't buy tobacco for kids," signs, signed with pride by tobacco companies. (Youth not of age read, " Tobacco is a cool thing reserved for adults who are a certain age, and you can't have them, nah, nah, unless you act in an age-appropriate rebellious manor. And you don't have to put up with being called a kid.) But my babies grew up in a world where vaping nicotine was heavily advertised in media places I never knew existed, like in gaming communities. I think this is a good reason for government to regulate advertising policies on more platforms.

Back on topic, government has an interest in fair law enforcement and public safety. If media is making a fair trial impossible, government has a role regulating it. We can't live in some dystopia where the outcome of trials in influenced by what producers predict will make the best content. That could very well be happening now. Rex Heuermann is accused of very serious crimes, and the person who had the most access to him day to day is being produced for a high figure. Money talks, as they say, and it can also shut one up. AE, like every other witness, should be making her decisions about what to say and what not to say for reasons other than money.

At this point, a person who knows something about a crime might reject approaching LE simply because waiting To discuss your situation with a reality TV agent first is profitable! I agree you can't legislate the choices the witness makes. But you can regulate what production companies can make money on, and when, if ever, it is appropriate to to compensate for participation in a documentary/non-fiction series.

I am not against journalism about crime, obviously. But selling murder to the point of incentivizing committing it and incentivizing failing to solve it is a line I'm not willing to shrug my shoulders at, and accept it as what the people supposedly want.

I don't think we have to fatalistically give up on finding ways to prevent production companies from controlling witnesses.
MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Off topic, but tobacco consumption is something govt has an interest in controlling, including with ad regulations. I starting bringing babies into this world as delis stopped displaying Joe camel images and the double-speak signs, " Don't buy tobacco for kids," signs, signed with pride by tobacco companies. (Youth not of age read, " Tobacco is a cool thing reserved for adults who are a certain age, and you can't have them, nah, nah, unless you act in an age-appropriate rebellious manor. And you don't have to put up with being called a kid.) But my babies grew up in a world where vaping nicotine was heavily advertised in media places I never knew existed, like in gaming communities. I think this is a good reason for government to regulate advertising policies on more platforms.

Back on topic, government has an interest in fair law enforcement and public safety. If media is making a fair trial impossible, government has a role regulating it. We can't live in some dystopia where the outcome of trials in influenced by what producers predict will make the best content. That could very well be happening now. Rex Heuermann is accused of very serious crimes, and the person who had the most access to him day to day is being produced for a high figure. Money talks, as they say, and it can also shut one up. AE, like every other witness, should be making her decisions about what to say and what not to say for reasons other than money.

At this point, a person who knows something about a crime might reject approaching LE simply because waiting To discuss your situation with a reality TV agent first is profitable! I agree you can't legislate the choices the witness makes. But you can regulate what production companies can make money on, and when, if ever, it is appropriate to to compensate for participation in a documentary/non-fiction series.

I am not against journalism about crime, obviously. But selling murder to the point of incentivizing committing it and incentivizing failing to solve it is a line I'm not willing to shrug my shoulders at, and accept it as what the people supposedly want.

I don't think we have to fatalistically give up on finding ways to prevent production companies from controlling witnesses.
MOO

Thanks for a reasonable discussion here btw. I'm not saying I agree, I'm simply stating that this is larger than can be managed within reason IMO. Even we as participants on a True Crime Website play a certain part in the big scheme of the murder genre.

<RSBM>
I am not against journalism about crime, obviously. But selling murder to the point of incentivizing committing it and incentivizing failing to solve it is a line I'm not willing to shrug my shoulders at, and accept it as what the people supposedly want.

I'm not sure I know of a case where incentivizing a murder or failing to solve one has been proven? Do you have some examples I can consider?

I don't think we have to fatalistically give up on finding ways to prevent production companies from controlling witnesses.

The willingness to do the moral thing verses financial gain for all parties involved is what keeps the control ongoing. It's not just production companies, it's a whole murder media machine. I don't see that changing as long as there is demand for it. It's been going on to a degree since crime and the reporting of such began. It's only gotten larger and more widespread by Social Media IMO.

ALL MOO

 

[PickleChris]

<modsnip> .. John Ray will not be speaking tomorrow at Molloy. It has been rescheduled and relocated:

LISK SYMPOSIUM: JANUARY 30, 2023 3:30 PM - 7:30 PM
John Ray, the attorney for victims in the Long Island Serial Killer case will be holding a symposium to discuss newly uncovered evidence, and all evidence in the entire GILGO/Oak Beach case. The symposium will be held January 30, 2024 at the Marillac auditorium at St. John's University. Admission is free. Doors open at 3:30 PM and the symposium will last until 7:30 PM.

<ADMIN NOTE: A link to the fundraiser page is not allowed, so the above info is being allowed without a link just as an FYI re the change in date/venue>

Any news on this St. John's symposium? I see nothing on their events page for the 30th.

 

[Ruminations]

Thanks for a reasonable discussion here btw. I'm not saying I agree, I'm simply stating that this is larger than can be managed within reason IMO. Even we as participants on a True Crime Website play a certain part in the big scheme of the murder genre.

<RSBM>
I am not against journalism about crime, obviously. But selling murder to the point of incentivizing committing it and incentivizing failing to solve it is a line I'm not willing to shrug my shoulders at, and accept it as what the people supposedly want.

I'm not sure I know of a case where incentivizing a murder or failing to solve one has been proven? Do you have some examples I can consider?

I don't think we have to fatalistically give up on finding ways to prevent production companies from controlling witnesses.

The willingness to do the moral thing verses financial gain for all parties involved is what keeps the control ongoing. It's not just production companies, it's a whole murder media machine. I don't see that changing as long as there is demand for it. It's been going on to a degree since crime and the reporting of such began. It's only gotten larger and more widespread by Social Media IMO.

ALL MOO

Im not sure how it would be possible to get the citation you seek. We would have to crawl into peoples heads to cite a case where a person withheld evidence from LE because it was more profitable to give it to the media. There would be no reason for any party to admit that,except perhaps as a mea culpa. Whether you know of a real life example or not, doesn't it seem plausible to you that a million dollar contract could cause a person to withhold evidence?

There is no reason that crime has to be a big business at the current scale. Markets can be regulated. Just because naked bowling might be a wildly popular TV show does not mean it would be allowed to air on any channel at any time. There are rules. My opinion is that the rules have not caught up to the current media reality. I dont agree with, " well, it's a billion dollar industry, and people keep buying it," as a reason that nothing can be done. I see that as evidence that markets can't solve their own problems all the time, and therefore they must be regulated.

I hope this answers your questions.

MOO

 

[Betty P]

Im not sure how it would be possible to get the citation you seek. We would have to crawl into peoples heads to cite a case where a person withheld evidence from LE because it was more profitable to give it to the media. There would be no reason for any party to admit that,except perhaps as a mea culpa. Whether you know of a real life example or not, doesn't it seem plausible to you that a million dollar contract could cause a person to withhold evidence?

There is no reason that crime has to be a big business at the current scale. Markets can be regulated. Just because naked bowling might be a wildly popular TV show does not mean it would be allowed to air on any channel at any time. There are rules. My opinion is that the rules have not caught up to the current media reality. I dont agree with, " well, it's a billion dollar industry, and people keep buying it," as a reason that nothing can be done. I see that as evidence that markets can't solve their own problems all the time, and therefore they must be regulated.

I hope this answers your questions.

MOO

Good argument. The market doesn’t need to drive criminal investigations and prosecutions. Commerce can and should be regulated in the public interest.

That said, this issue keeps resurfacing these days as the for profit media places increasing demands on the system in order to generate more program content and revenue. Savvy defense teams are happy to help. It’s not just this case.

 

[NyxNY]

Any news on this St. John's symposium? I see nothing on their events page for the 30th.

As far as I know, it is still scheduled for the 30th.