Was the priest even in the house?

General Discussion About Anything Amityville And Other Paranormal Topics
User avatar
TheVampireologist
**ACCOUNT ON HOLD**
Posts: 829

Was the priest even in the house?

Post by TheVampireologist » Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:07 am

Digging around and ran across a court document submitted to the southern district court of California by Mr. Lutz's own attorney during these proceedings William D. Daily.


The proceedings were simply an objection from Lutz's attorney for a change of venue for the defendants who in this case were as follows -

William Weber
Paul Hoffman
Bernard Burton
Fredrick M. Marrs
Good housekeeping magazine
...and the New York times/Hearst corp.

In any event contained within these documents on page 2 ,line 24 is the following -

(Rev. Ralph J. Pecoraro who has indicated that his only contact relating to this case was a telephone call from the Lutz's regarding their physcic expieriences.)

This statement was put into wrighting in an official court document by George Lutz's own attorney.Is that statement not proof alone that Rev. Pacoraro was actually never even on the property or am I missing something here?
[img]http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/2986/22ns2.jpg[/img]

"He took a face from the ancient gallery...and walked on down the hall" - Lizard king

User avatar
Brendan72
Forest Giant
Posts: 2960
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Brendan72 » Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:42 am

There was indeed a priest in the house, Father Pecararo.
The claim that he was NOT in the house is just poppycock.
- Brendan72

"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house."
- George Carlin. Comedian. (1937-2008)

User avatar
TheVampireologist
**ACCOUNT ON HOLD**
Posts: 829

Post by TheVampireologist » Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:35 am

Brenden72 wrote -
There was indeed a priest in the house, Father Pecararo.
The claim that he was NOT in the house is just poppycock.
Poppycrock? Below is a portion of the actual court document submitted by Mr. Lutz's attorney stateing the only contact Father Pecararo had with this entire case was a telephone conversation with the Lutz's.Im well aware of your belief that the house was haunted by reading your theroies that it "contained portals to other dimensions".But I was seeking a little more enlightened response other than "Popycrock" because you evidently believe the entire story here.
[img]http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/2986/22ns2.jpg[/img]

"He took a face from the ancient gallery...and walked on down the hall" - Lizard king

User avatar
TheVampireologist
**ACCOUNT ON HOLD**
Posts: 829

Post by TheVampireologist » Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:37 am

Image
[img]http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/2986/22ns2.jpg[/img]

"He took a face from the ancient gallery...and walked on down the hall" - Lizard king

User avatar
BillyCigars
American Psycho
Posts: 2692
Location: I Have To Return Some Videotapes

Post by BillyCigars » Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:26 am

The Defendant's in this case (Weber, Hoffman, Good Housekeeping, et al) wanted to address this lawsuit in THEIR backyard and therefore petioned the court to require the Lutz's to appear back east where that could be facilitated.

What you've posted is an "Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Change Venue" which in layman's terms simply means that William Daley (the Lutz's then-attorney) was simply trying to keep the Lutz's from having to fly back east to address this lawsuit.

The wording of the document is interesting:

It's difficult to tell if William Daley is re-addressing the claims of the defendants as mentioned in Bernard Burton's affidavit or not. Unfortunately, the document is cut off after page 2 (I thought I had the full set but upon looking back, I only had the same 2 you posted as well).

It could also be addressing the material relevant to this particular case. Notice that it says that Laura DiDio was not present in discussions between the plaintiffs and defendants. No kidding. So maybe that's what this is really addressing (the relevant discussions between those listed in this document and those that are not).

I don't want to put words into the Lutz's mouth so I'll refrain from commenting further about what I *think* it means. But I'll ask George the next time I speak with him and have him send me the originals for comparison and post what I find.

Then again, Sherb is pretty well versed with this aspect of the case. Sherb, you reading this? Enlighten us good sir :)
"The old man's still an artist with a Thompson."

User avatar
BillyCigars
American Psycho
Posts: 2692
Location: I Have To Return Some Videotapes

Post by BillyCigars » Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:36 am

Forgot to add this:

Here's a brief snippet of Father Pecoraro's only on-camera interview:

Father Ralph "Ray" Pecoraro's On-Camera Interview
(Father Ray was the priest that came to bless the Lutz home)
"The old man's still an artist with a Thompson."

User avatar
TheVampireologist
**ACCOUNT ON HOLD**
Posts: 829

Post by TheVampireologist » Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:47 am

Correct Billy this is a motion for change of venue in regards to the lawsuit filed by the Lutz's.

Heres what Daley seems to be addressing here in the document.The defendants (Webber etc.) are claiming all witnessess related to this lawsuit are back east (NY. Long Isl.) and that the trial should be moved back east to accomodate these witnessess.

Daley on the other hand is arguing by way of submitting this document to the court that quote "In an effort to tally witnessess living in New York ,many have been named with no connection whatsoever to any discussions or negotiations between plaintiffs and defendants.

So in an attempt to win the battle of just where the trial will take place (California vs NY)
- Daley or George Lutz's own attorney here is pointing out that Father Pecararo had nothing to do with these events other than a brief phone conversation with the Lutz's about phychic phenomonon.For example he goes on in that document further to state sgt. Pat Cammaorato never even met with the Lutz's and most of the witnessess listed are irrelevant

As for the link to the Pecararo interview I couldnt get it to stream to hear what he had to say in that interview.But im guessing there he was stateing that he in fact blessed the house or what not.Again im not sure what the story is here with Father Pecararo stateing years later in an interview in cognito that he indeed did bless the house when this official court document here claims he himself indicated the extent of his involvement with the Lutz's claims was a phone conversation relating to phychic phenomonon and nothing more.
[img]http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/2986/22ns2.jpg[/img]

"He took a face from the ancient gallery...and walked on down the hall" - Lizard king

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9561
Contact:

Post by sherbetbizarre » Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:37 am

BillyCigars wrote:It's difficult to tell if William Daley is re-addressing the claims of the defendants as mentioned in Bernard Burton's affidavit or not. Unfortunately, the document is cut off after page 2

Then again, Sherb is pretty well versed with this aspect of the case. Sherb, you reading this? Enlighten us good sir :)
Lol. Yeah, if you look under Vamps red pen you'll see the quote is apparently part of "Bernard Burton" affidavit.

So until someone travels to a Brooklyn courthouse to read that affidavit we won't know for sure.

One of out posters - Dvinn - did read through the entire transcript a few yars back (because Osuna was insinuating this trial was very pro-hoax) but he found nothing to suggest that it was.

User avatar
TheVampireologist
**ACCOUNT ON HOLD**
Posts: 829

Post by TheVampireologist » Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:17 am

So Burton was affiliated with a law firm representing Willam Webber in a civil suit initiated by the Lutz's against him.The statement in question was originally put into a document by Burton claiming he contacted Father Pecararo and Father Pecoraro indicated to Burton that the only contact he had with the Lutz's was by telephone and that was his extent to being involved in this entire case concerning the haunting events am I right so far?

Then for whatever reason Mr. Daley (representing the Lutz's) cooberated a false statement regarding the extent of Father Pecoraro's involvement with the Lutz's to win out over where the setting for this civil suit would transpire.

Heres what I find questionable with this.Webbers attorney is actually naming Pecoraro as a witness of intrest here and on the other hand Lutz's attorney is claiming his testimony isnt even all that relevant regarding the case.

Excuse me wasnt Father Pecoraro supposedly exposed to an actual evil pressence inside of the house ,in fact slapped in the face by an invisible entity and told to "Get Out"?Furthermore wasnt Father Pecoraro himself a judge for the Rockville diocease?In that respect wouldnt his testiomy be regarded as almost invaluable to the Lutz's?You would think the dispute between attorneys here would be the exact opposite ,Lutz wanting his testimony and Webber claiming it was irrelevant to the case.

In any event from what I have learned Father Pecoraro did testify to the court by way of telephone and when asked by the judge if he had witnessed any sort of paranormal phenomonon inside the house itself his reply was simply "he wasnt sure."

Now im sure if he had expierienced the phenomonon to the extent claimed he would at least be sure of what had transpired and fulfill his duty to the very distressed people that sought him out for gudence on this matter in the first place by at least cooberating that indeed something occured to him while in the house.After all this man was not only a priest but a judge aswell and im sure he was aware of how evasive sounding his reply on the matter would appear on the record.Not to mention his conflicting statements to Burton ,Newsweek etc.
[img]http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/2986/22ns2.jpg[/img]

"He took a face from the ancient gallery...and walked on down the hall" - Lizard king

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9561
Contact:

Post by sherbetbizarre » Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:45 am

TheVampireologist wrote:Heres what I find questionable with this.Webbers attorney is actually naming Pecoraro as a witness of intrest here and on the other hand Lutz's attorney is claiming his testimony isnt even all that relevant regarding the case.

Excuse me wasnt Father Pecoraro supposedly exposed to an actual evil pressence inside of the house ,in fact slapped in the face by an invisible entity and told to "Get Out"?Furthermore wasnt Father Pecoraro himself a judge for the Rockville diocease?In that respect wouldnt his testiomy be regarded as almost invaluable to the Lutz's?
Sure. But the case wasn't to prove the validity of the haunting.

User avatar
TheVampireologist
**ACCOUNT ON HOLD**
Posts: 829

Post by TheVampireologist » Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:56 am

No I imagine it was about slander or something to that effect.But still then why then did a judge find it neccesary for the priest to actually testify in court by way of telephone?

Or was that in fact from another lawsuit initiated by Mr. Webber?

Of course maybe the suit wasnt to outright prove the validity of the haunting but while unfolding it shed alot of light on subjects such as this regarding the haunting claims wich probably would never have come to light otherwise.
[img]http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/2986/22ns2.jpg[/img]

"He took a face from the ancient gallery...and walked on down the hall" - Lizard king

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9561
Contact:

Post by sherbetbizarre » Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:58 am

I think he didn't appear in person to protect his identity.

User avatar
Toukee
**ACCOUNT ON HOLD**
Posts: 1195

Post by Toukee » Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:59 am

What would it matter if the basis of the lawsuit had anything at all to do with "THE HORROR" or not?????


The details of the priest's involvement in the story shouldn't change from case to case depending upon their content!!!

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9561
Contact:

Post by sherbetbizarre » Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:01 am

Toukee wrote:What would it matter if the basis of the lawsuit had anything at all to do with "THE HORROR" or not?????
It explains why Lutz's lawyer didn't bring him in as a witness.

User avatar
TheVampireologist
**ACCOUNT ON HOLD**
Posts: 829

Post by TheVampireologist » Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:02 am

No I wasnt asking why the judge made him testify by using a telephone I was asking why he would have to testify at all in a civil suit against Mr. Webber?

Or was that detail in fact from a seperate trial altogether?
[img]http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/2986/22ns2.jpg[/img]

"He took a face from the ancient gallery...and walked on down the hall" - Lizard king

User avatar
Toukee
**ACCOUNT ON HOLD**
Posts: 1195

Post by Toukee » Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:03 am

sherbetbizarre wrote:I think he didn't appear in person to protect his identity.

AND WHAT KIND OF NONSENSE IS THAT - ?????


HE'S NAMED IN THE ALL THE TRANSCRIPTS, AFFIDAVITS, ETC - SO NOT APPEARING IN PERSON DOESN'T DO ONE DAMN THING TO PROTECT HIS IDENTITY - !!!!

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9561
Contact:

Post by sherbetbizarre » Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:04 am

Yeah, but it kept his picture out the papers...

User avatar
Toukee
**ACCOUNT ON HOLD**
Posts: 1195

Post by Toukee » Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:04 am

I'll bet he walked around with a paper bag over his head for a while after his testimony, too - just to guarentee his anonymity!

User avatar
TheVampireologist
**ACCOUNT ON HOLD**
Posts: 829

Post by TheVampireologist » Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:08 am

I'll bet he walked around with a paper bag over his head for a while after his testimony, too - just to guarentee his anonymity!
LMAO
[img]http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/2986/22ns2.jpg[/img]

"He took a face from the ancient gallery...and walked on down the hall" - Lizard king

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9561
Contact:

Post by sherbetbizarre » Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:11 am

Come on... bust this case wide open... I'm sure you're both almost there :P

User avatar
Toukee
**ACCOUNT ON HOLD**
Posts: 1195

Post by Toukee » Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:19 am

sherbetbizarre wrote:Come on... bust this case wide open... I'm sure you're both almost there :P
I actually got there a few days ago, and I'm dissapointed by it, too - but that's life, I guess.

Post Reply