Comments on: Long Island: “Woman who drowned children seeks part of their estate”

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 15:26:37 +0000

Would not the “Son of Sam” law also apply?

I don’t think so. The “Son of Sam” law deals with felons who make money indirectly from the resulting publicity of the crime where they get royalties from the writing of a book or the making of a movie, not directly from the crime itself. Also, some “Son of Sam” laws have been overturned because the publisher’s First Amendment right to publish the book was being violated.

By: Fox 2!

Fox 2! — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 04:06:29 +0000

Angry Taxpayer,

Not knowing anymore of the case than presented here, I am going to say that the mother probably had custody, possibly even sole custody, and may have had a restraining order against the father. And social services had something to do with monitoring the mother’s behavior towards her children.

The father wasn’t allowed to be there to protect his children.

But I could be wrong.

By: Fox 2!

Fox 2! — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 03:54:21 +0000

Would not the “Son of Sam” law also apply? Or does her suffering from a “mental disease or defect” vitiate that statute, as well?

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 10:08:22 +0000

I suppose that her argument might be that since she was not of sound mind when she killed her children, she is not benefiting from her own crime.

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 21:40:39 +0000

Why is there even a question about this? In the case Riggs v. Palmer, 22 N.E. 188 (1889), the court in New York prevented Palmer from profiting from the will of his grandfather who he had poisoned to prevent being disinherited. The court decided he could not inherit the estate, noting that on top of ordinary law, there were “fundamental maxims of the common law.” The court elaborated, “No one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong, or to found any claim upon his own iniquity, or to acquire property by his own crime. Wouldn’t her lawsuit fall under this ruling?

By: Angry Taxpayer

Angry Taxpayer — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 13:28:27 +0000

I am saddened by the leap of logic allowing the father to get compensation from his fellow citizens. Why wasn’t he protecting his children?

By: Ed

Ed — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:19:16 +0000

Wonder if it’s to payoff her defense attorney?

By: boblipton

boblipton — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:54:02 +0000

No, that’s all wrong. Chutzpah is when the children kill the parents and then ask for compensation on the grounds they are orphans.

Bob