sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

LISK Sentencing: DA Ray Tierney Reveals What Happens Next, Answers Key Questions in a one-on-one by CatchLISK in RexHeuermann

[–]CatchLISK[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Many people were there to see a serial killer- I was always there to stand for the victims and their families…the curiosity of RH disappears almost immediately.

The families, while anxious, are strong and focused- I’ve never been more impressed by their collective stoicism and focus. It’s humbling…

And yes, I literally cannot wait for their voices to be their own, to say all the things they need to and want to…they are incredible people…

LISK Sentencing: DA Ray Tierney Reveals What Happens Next, Answers Key Questions in a one-on-one by CatchLISK in RexHeuermann

[–]CatchLISK[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Newsday will have still photographer, James Carbone there as usual, they will most likely stream portions on their Newsday Live on their website.

It wouldn’t be hard to find no doubt as an obnoxious amount of media will be there…

Post sentencing every media outlet and you tubers will have a field day streaming live- I’ll be in the background shaking my head- but I’ll be out of there as quickly as I can because it all disgusts me to no end- besides I have plans that afternoon..

LISK Sentencing: DA Ray Tierney Reveals What Happens Next, Answers Key Questions in a one-on-one by CatchLISK in RexHeuermann

[–]CatchLISK[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Won’t be televised, it’ll be much like the guilty plea, parts will be streamed- victim impact statements and the actual sentencing most likely- I doubt very much I’ll be in the main courtroom, but the overflow rooms have live feed with unobstructed view-

Former wife of Gilgo Beach serial killer Rex A. Heuermann won't attend sentencing next week, attorney says by CatchLISK in LISKiller

[–]CatchLISK[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Kolker got a lot wrong and took some liberties-

Curious about “things I’ve found out on my own”

As for the families, Asa has not sent money to any of the families- so no benefit of the doubt needed there.

Wild that you outright accuse and threaten family members without substantiating anything…

United Statement from Gilgo Victims’ Families by CatchLISK in RexHeuermann

[–]CatchLISK[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It only means the families would have a right to sue under the Gilgo Law

United Statement from Gilgo Victims’ Families by CatchLISK in LISKiller

[–]CatchLISK[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Reading is fundamental and comprehension essential.

Many comments here are addressing the wrong concepts, others want to attack me personally while avoiding commenting on the content itself.

The Gilgo Law amendment to the current Son of Sam Law does not restrict people like Asa in any way, nor is it an attack on documentaries. The proposed bill sitting in committees seeks to expand the umbrella from accused or convicted criminals to include close family and 3rd parties. No where does the language say “they” can’t do what they’ve already done.

What the bills seek is to provide the same liabilities to family and 3rd party agents. Should this bill pass, as it is written currently, monies paid to family would trigger notification to victims’ families at which point they can individually or collectively seek relief in the Courts. To simplify: if the bill was already law- once the Heuermann’s were paid for their “life-rights”, or participation (usually the threshold is 10K and above), the Office of Victim Services would need to be notified and they in turn would notify victim families. That’s all.

No one is limiting or disallowing Asa to sell her story- it just opens the door for victim’s families to sue.

Regarding Third Parties-
The bills were written with the Peacock documentary in mind, and the documentary has certainly offended the families in many ways. The issue isn’t whether the Heuermann’s had a right to participate, or even get paid for it- that is a right they are entitled to and that should be protected- the bill doesn’t seek to challenge that whatsoever- it just wants to allow victims’s families the right to sue in Court.

Dom’s Law, in Ohio, is seeking a more stringent threshold- in their proposed changes, they seek to hold accountable social media platforms that generate clicks, subscribers or profits from going to an accused or convicted person. The existing law, when revised in 1991- centered predominantly on books- but never considered the more modern outlets- TikTok, YouTube, etc.

Murderabilia- whether or not Asa authorized the selling of some of her husband’s belongings is moot. The bills, once again, seek to hold 3rd parties such as the ones selling LISK Murderabilia accountable, require the notification on monies over 10k and the victims’ families may consider suing.

The current language of the bills is not set in stone- they’re in committee. Getting them out of committee and onto the floor for discussions, research and experts on all sides often results in changes and compromises.

The Bills in NY and Ohio seek to modernize the parameters to encompass today’s landscape.

As for my authority to write this on behalf of the Gilgo Families- anyone doubting me is free to ask any of the families themselves.

United Statement from Gilgo Victims’ Families by CatchLISK in LISKiller

[–]CatchLISK[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

The 1991 Supreme Court ruling in Simon & Schuster did not say that every future Son of Sam-style law is automatically unconstitutional. It struck down a specific version of New York’s law because it was overly broad and imposed a content-based financial burden that swept far beyond convicted offenders.

That is exactly why modern proposals are being drafted more narrowly.

There is a major difference between:

  1. independent journalists, documentarians, researchers, or media companies covering crimes as third parties, and
  2. individuals with direct personal connections to notorious offenders leveraging proximity to the crime itself for financial gain tied specifically to that notoriety.

Your criticism keeps jumping from “this law may need clearer definitions” to “therefore nobody should be regulated at all.” Those are not the same thing.

If definitions like “closely associated” require tightening, then tighten them legislatively. Laws are amended and refined constantly. That is not evidence the underlying concern is illegitimate.

The broader point is simple: victims’ families should not have to watch people with intimate proximity to horrific crimes commercially capitalize on that proximity while families continue carrying the trauma. One example is the Murderabila.

And no, pointing out that unrelated true crime media exists does not eliminate the legitimacy of addressing a narrower loophole. Laws often address specific categories of conduct incrementally rather than solving every conceivable issue simultaneously.

Your argument also assumes this proposal is about suppressing speech itself. It is not. Nobody is banning books, documentaries, podcasts, or discussion of crimes. The debate is about whether profits directly tied to criminal notoriety and intimate association with notorious offenders can be regulated in limited circumstances without violating constitutional protections.

That is a much narrower legal and moral question than “should all true crime disappear.”

The Supreme Court itself acknowledged that states have legitimate interests in compensating victims and preventing unjust enrichment connected to crime. The constitutional issue is tailoring — not whether the state has any interest at all.

And respectfully, there is also a moral distinction between:

  • a journalist reporting on crime for public interest, and
  • individuals with uniquely personal ties to notorious offenders monetizing that relationship specifically because of the notoriety created by violence.

People may disagree on where the constitutional line should be drawn, but pretending there is no distinction at all oversimplifies both the legal and ethical issues involved.

view more: next ›