Page 1 of 1

Freedom of Information Request for Autopsy Pictures DENIED

Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:30 pm
by gd134
The following posts were deleted from this thread due to an accident:




gd134 wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 6:53 pm
Well, guys. On my recent post, I announced that I will be submitting a Freedom of Information Law Request for the Defeo family autopsy/crime scene pictures. My main purpose was to find out if Dawn Defeo's body was truly less decayed than the other victims. If it was, it would change the context of the murders. Here is the Suffolk County Medical Examiner's response and decision:

Image

As you can see, my request got denied. It is now up to the Suffolk County Police Department to make their decision about releasing the crime scene photos to me. Also, I don't think I will be releasing the photos to anyone if I end up receiving them, which looks unlikely at this point.


astonio wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:40 am

This is a huge invasion of privacy as stated in the response you received and unless you have a medical background in forensics, I don't know how you can look at an autopsy picture and be able to undermine an entire investigation by credentialed personnel. I'm glad the laws continue to protect the dignity of the deceased. This information should never be freely given to just anyone on request.



OntarioGuy1988 wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 10:19 am
I found an unseen crime scene photo of Dawn in Katzenbach's doc. See it here:

The photo of Dawn is around 1 hour 13-14 mins. It is very quickly shown but also a very gruesome photo- her head looks bloated from the gunshot wound

Tell me what you think








gd134 wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:25 pm

I was gonna show the crime scene pictures to a family member of mine who is an expert on forensics and homicides. He can determine if Dawn's body was truly less decayed. In terms of invasion of privacy, I agree with you. It was fairly easy for me, who is not even an adult, to submit a request for the photos. However, I did vow to never disclose the photos to anyone or post them online for the sake of the deceased family. This was simply an attempt to figure out if Dawn was an accomplice in the murders.





gd134 wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:22 am
OntarioGuy1988 wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 7:21 pm
Did you see the Dawn photo in the YouTube link I posted?
Yes, I did. I don't know how to thank you. That photo of Dawn really gives off a lot of detail, but still not enough for me to determine her case. I ended up watching the whole documentary because it gives off a lot of interesting details about the crime scene, most of which I already knew.






OntarioGuy1988 wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:29 am
You are most welcome

One thing that has bothered me for years- Allison and Dawn both shot in face. Allison was shot at closer range, yet there was minimal damage to her face- much more for Dawn, who had a hole in her head. Why do you think Allison's damage was minimal while Dawn's was much worse? I'd think being shot in face at such close range, Allison would have far more damage

Also, any thoughts or analysis on the photo you just saw of Dawn would be very fascinating to me- I am interested in what you have to say

Cheers





GraceMarch wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:05 pm
Actually if there are no living relative to the DeFeo family, it is not an invasion of privacy and they are not legally allowed to deny the request, according to federal law.







gd134 wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:46 pm
Thanks for letting me know! I really appreciate it and I will use this in my denial appeal letter. Do you know the name of the law specifically?







GraceMarch wrote:
Sat Feb 22, 2020 7:03 am
So I tried to PM you, but it wouldn't leave the outbox, and I thought you should have the information quickly. Everything in the first PM is below, I will post the second later.
I figured I would have a lot to write so I decided to just PM you, I hope that's okay. Below I wrote some stuff found and added links.
The Privacy Act is very clear -- it doesn't apply to dead people. Once you die, your information is no longer protected under that law. However, court precedents have shown that the privacy concerns of surviving family members also weigh on the decision to release information via FOIA.
- FOIA and the Privacy Rights of the Deceased | HowStuffWorks

Exemption 1: Information that is classified to protect national security.
Exemption 2: Information related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.
Exemption 3: Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law.
Exemption 4: Trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is confidential or privileged.
Exemption 5: Privileged communications within or between agencies, including those protected by the:
Deliberative Process Privilege (provided the records were created less than 25 years before the date on which they were requested)
Attorney-Work Product Privilege
Attorney-Client Privilege
Exemption 6: Information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual’s personal privacy.
Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that:
7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings
7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication
7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy
7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source
7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law
7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual
Exemption 8: Information that concerns the supervision of financial institutions.
Exemption 9: Geological information on wells.
- https://www.foia.gov/faq.html Under the "What are FOIA exemptions?'
What about requirements for obtaining records on someone else?
If you request records relating to another person, and disclosure of the records could invade that person's privacy, they ordinarily will not be disclosed to you. For example, if you seek information that would show that someone else (including your spouse or another member of your immediate family) has ever been the subject of a criminal investigation or was even mentioned in a criminal file and you do not provide the subject's consent or proof of their death, in almost all cases DOJ will respond by stating that it will "neither confirm nor deny" the existence of responsive law enforcement records. Law enforcement information about a living person is released without that person's consent only when no personal privacy interest would be invaded by disclosing the information, such as when the information is already public or required to be made public, or in cases where the individual's privacy interest is outweighed by a strong public interest in disclosure.
- https://www.justice.gov/usao/resources/ ... uestions#6

I also just now looked into Ronald DeFeo Jr because I was reading over the privacy thing and it occurred to me that he is still alive. 68 yrs-old I think? That could be why they aren't giving you the records. Which is interesting because the last 'rule' states that
Law enforcement information about a living person is released without that person's consent only when no personal privacy interest would be invaded by disclosing the information, such as when the information is already public or required to be made public, or in cases where the individual's privacy interest is outweighed by a strong public interest in disclosure.

But the case was all over the news. If you want I could talk to a friend of mine who is a criminal research specialist about why they still wouldn't fill the request despite this fact, because I find it rather fishy.







GraceMarch wrote:
Sat Feb 22, 2020 7:57 am
gd134 wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:46 pm
GraceMarch wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:05 pm
Actually if there are no living relative to the DeFeo family, it is not an invasion of privacy and they are not legally allowed to deny the request, according to federal law.
Thanks for letting me know! I really appreciate it and I will use this in my denial appeal letter. Do you know the name of the law specifically?
As promised I have the second PM below.
Okay so after I sent the first PM, something just wasn't sitting right; it seemed weird to me that the case was made public, but also you weren't asking information about a living person, yet the Examiner didn't want to (or couldn't) give you the autopsy report/photos? So I went back and re-read the email they sent you and called my sister who is going to school for Paralegal studies, and she read it. After I told her everything I told you and gave her a run down (which didn't take long because she knew about the case anyways), she pointed out the law that the County Examiner chose to use:
Image

She then told me to look up that law and this is what I found:
One such statute is ß677 of the County Law, which refers to autopsy reports and related records. As you are aware, subdivision (3), paragraph (b) of that provision states that: "Such records shall be open to inspection by the district attorney of the county.
[color=#4040FF]https://docs.dos.ny.gov/ ... tm[/color]
(b) Such records shall be open to inspection by the district attorney of the county. Upon application of the personal representative, spouse or next of kin of the deceased to the coroner or the medical examiner, a copy of the autopsy report, as described in subdivision two of this section shall be furnished to such applicant. Upon proper application of any person who is or may be affected in a civil or criminal action by the contents of the record of any investigation, or upon application of any person having a substantial interest therein, an order may be made by a court of record, or by a justice of the supreme court, that the record of that investigation be made available for his inspection, or that a transcript thereof be furnished to him, or both.
https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/county-law ... t-677.html

It says the same thing here too https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CNT/677

Finally my sister said that, that means for some reason the case was sealed when they shut it.
So after all of that, I decided to just go ahead and talk to my criminal research specialist friend and they said, that the way they were all shot vs. how Dawn was shot was particularly interesting. They also mentioned to me that when the case was first released to the press, my friend was actually keeping up with it at the time, but they told me that reports and articles have been changed, and that when the photos first "got out" or "were released" or whatever, Dawn's dead body was by the dresser, and now years later, my friend said that the photo just disappeared and that there is now no evidence that it ever existed.









msmart112 wrote:
Sat Feb 22, 2020 9:34 pm
GraceMarch wrote:So after all of that, I decided to just go ahead and talk to my criminal research specialist friend and they said, that the way they were all shot vs. how Dawn was shot was particularly interesting. They also mentioned to me that when the case was first released to the press, my friend was actually keeping up with it at the time, but they told me that reports and articles have been changed, and that when the photos first "got out" or "were released" or whatever, Dawn's dead body was by the dresser, and now years later, my friend said that the photo just disappeared and that there is now no evidence that it ever existed.
Dawn was found in her bed...and that's what the reports and articles stated from the beginning.

This nonsense about a photo of Dawn being by a dresser is just that...nonsense.








gd134 wrote:
Sat Feb 22, 2020 9:50 pm

There have been some conspiracy theorists online claiming that the Defeo murders were a government operation to create the Amityville horror for social engineering purposes. Some believe that the Defeo's were killed at night when government personnel went in their house and engineered the crime scene.










sherbetbizarre wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 4:41 am
gd134 wrote:
Sat Feb 22, 2020 9:50 pm
There have been some conspiracy theorists online claiming that the Defeo murders were a government operation to create the Amityville horror for social engineering purposes. Some believe that the Defeo's were killed at night when government personnel went in their house and engineered the crime scene.
All that came from one person... and we ended up banning her!






msmart112 wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:04 pm
gd134 wrote:
Mon Mar 09, 2020 3:00 am
msmart112 wrote:
Sun Mar 08, 2020 9:52 pm


Not surprising...you enjoy nonsense.
Yup.... I especially enjoy your nonsense. My favorite one was your explanation of why there was no blood on the headboards of Allison and Dawn. That really cracked me up.
There was no blood on the headboards because the shots were fired downward from a very powerful weapon...while the headboards were above the location of the entrance wounds. The blood went with the bullets...down...not up.

It's pretty simple. Unless you're just a troll or a Ric Osuna fanboy.

And please spare us your usual tripe about how ridiculous my explanation is.

If my explanation as to why there was no blood on the headboards is so ridiculous...please explain to the board why you feel that there would have been blood on the headboards.







gd134 wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:49 am

Okay I cannot believe that you're still sticking to that ridiculous explanation. There is SOLID evidence that Butch cleaned up the blood. I will try to explain this in the best manner possible. When a projectile is fired, it's kinetic energy is released upon the object it hits. In this case, blood does travel in the direction of the bullet, however, the blood droplets immediately scatter due to air resistance. Let's refer to Allison's crime scene photos. She was laying close to the edge of the bed, and forensic evidence indicates that she woke up and lifted her head slightly before being shot. Based on the angle of the bullet, you would expect for there to be at least a little blood on the right side of her headboard or even her lamp. However, there was ZERO blood. When we look at dawn's crime scene photos, we see that half her face is literally blown off. Dawn's head was even closer to the headboard, only a few inches away. Again, considering the fact that half her face is gone, you would expect to see a lot of blood on the carpet, the furniture, and even the headboard. ZERO blood was found in those areas. Again, her head was INCHES away from the headboard. You have to understand that blood doesn't exit the victims head in a straight line.

Essentially, as the bullet travels inside the victim's head, it builds up pressure, which means the blood droplets will travel in all directions. Still don't believe me? Find a can of cock, shake it up, find a BB gun or low powered pellet rifle and shoot it. You will notice that the contents inside the container travel in a spread-out manner. With all due respect msmart112, if this crime scene is still heavily debated, even among forensic experts, why should we trust your explanation? Dr. Howard Adelman, who was a member of the homicide squad on the Defeo murders, admitted that he was "mystified" at the circumstances of this crime. I can't wait to hear your response.








astonio wrote:
Sat Mar 14, 2020 9:13 am
This is so irksome the constant misconceptions such as Dawn’s head being blown off. That’s not at all the case. Dawn’s wound caused the left side of her skull to concave not blow out. This isn’t like the movies.

And why would Ronnie want to clean up? What would be the reason to clean up blood splatter off his sisters’ headboards? And what is this definitive proof he did? Just as lame as those who assert Mr. DeFeo was placed back into bed.

Btw, the only blood spatter found was somewhat on Mrs. DeFeo’s mattress and possibly her headboard as she was more raised from her bed than the others so why didn’t Ronnie clean her bed up?

I feel a lot of people “think” it should be a specific way, gloss over a lot of the actual evidence to conclude some great conspiracy or covering up the facts like it brings mystery and suspense or intrigue. Stick with the facts, drop the supposition and conjecture. In Search Of went off the air a long time ago...









gd134 wrote:
Sat Mar 14, 2020 4:56 pm
astonio wrote:
Sat Mar 14, 2020 9:13 am
[This is so irksome the constant misconceptions such as Dawn’s head being blown off. That’s not at all the case. Dawn’s wound caused the left side of her skull to concave not blow out. This isn’t like the movies.
So what if Dawn's head was caved in? It still doesn't provide a reason as to why blood won't splatter on the headboard or walls.
And why would Ronnie want to clean up? What would be the reason to clean up blood splatter off his sisters’ headboards? And what is this definitive proof he did? Just as lame as those who assert Mr. DeFeo was placed back into bed.
You are now forgetting the basic facts about the murders that everyone knew since day one. Ronnie probably cleaned for basic reasons. Either he didn't like the look of blood on the walls, or he simply did it in the pursuit of manipulating the crime scene. Still don't believe that Ronnie cleaned up the blood? Then explain to me why rags were found in the basement and other places in the crime scene photos. Explain to me why Ronnie had to shower and change his clothes after the murders. The fact that Ronnie had to shower and change his clothes after the murders and the fact that cleaning materials were found on the property is enough to indicate that blood HAD to be present on the walls and headboards. If blood was able to splatter on his clothes, then it can splatter on the walls. Period. Also, please don't compare me to the people that believe that Mr. Defeo was placed back into bed, I definitely think that is false because forensic evidence says otherwise.
Btw, the only blood spatter found was somewhat on Mrs. DeFeo’s mattress and possibly her headboard as she was more raised from her bed than the others so why didn’t Ronnie clean her bed up?
Could be because it was a small amount of blood, since Mrs. Defeo was shot in the head. A head shot and a shot on the back are two very different things. Maybe Ronnie didn't care to check for blood splatter in the master bedroom.
Stick with the facts, drop the supposition and conjecture.
If there's anyone who needs to stick to the facts it would be you. Just because you can't find a reason for Ronnie to clean the blood doesn't mean he didn't do it. The law enforcement officials and first responders never disputed the idea that Ronnie cleaned up the crime scene. I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt it. Unfortunately, people like you deem everything as a "conspiracy theory," and it really degrades those who at least try to find an explanation for these murders. In the end, our idea of Ronnie cleaning up the crime scene is 100 times better then your explanation(including msmart112) of why blood wouldn't splatter on the walls and headboards. If anything is "lame" and silly, it would be your belief that blood didn't splatter on the headboards and walls.








msmart112 wrote:
Sat Mar 14, 2020 8:16 pm
gd134 wrote:Explain to me why Ronnie had to shower and change his clothes after the murders.
The fact that you don't know of another reason why Ronnie showered and changed his clothes speaks volumes as to your lack of knowledge of the basic facts of the case.

Do some actual research....because at this point...you're just embarrassing yourself.







gd134 wrote:
Sat Mar 14, 2020 10:46 pm
msmart112 wrote:
Sat Mar 14, 2020 8:16 pm
gd134 wrote:Explain to me why Ronnie had to shower and change his clothes after the murders.
The fact that you don't know of another reason why Ronnie showered and changed his clothes speaks volumes as to your lack of knowledge of the basic facts of the case.

Do some actual research....because at this point...you're just embarrassing yourself.
When I read this, my mind froze for a minute at the irony that is involved here. After all the things I said in the last 2 days, you chose that to respond to? No wonder it took you a while to reply. If there is anyone who needs to do research, it’s you. The fact that you rarely ever bother to disprove my evidence and reason shows that you are nothing but a hypocrite. You started off by insulting me, then we got into a few debates. I always rebuttal you, but you just pretty much insulted your way through this. Maxwell, why do you think Ronnie had to shower and change his clothes? Why do you think there were cleaning rags found on the property? If blood was able to splatter on Ronnie’s clothes, why wouldn’t it splatter on the wall and headboards? Maxwell, why do you think people still talk about Amityville? Why do you think there is a whole website(the truth board) dedicated to the amityville story? Are you aware that you’ve been active on that website since 2005? I’ll give you the answer to those questions. It’s because the Amityville murders are strange, and even forensic scientists still debate about the topic. Even you dedicate many hours of your life discovering things about amityville. Unfortunately, your ridiculous explanation as to why blood didn’t scatter on the headboards won’t help solve this great mystery that many still discuss, because this isn’t a fantasy world. You can continue the debate and stop insulting me, which by the way only an immature 9 year old would only do, or you can leave this thread. But max, as much as I hate to say this, you are an absolute moron.


Also, might as well change your name to msdumb112.

Best Regards,

Garbage Dump








sherbetbizarre wrote:
Sun Mar 15, 2020 4:24 am
OK, everyone needs to stop with the insults.
gd134 wrote:
Sat Mar 14, 2020 10:46 pm
Why do you think there were cleaning rags found on the property?
I think they were found on the floor of the "unfinished" part of the basement, near the washing machines? I don't think there would be a big mystery as to them being there. And wouldn't they have been tested for blood?









gd134 wrote:
Sun Mar 15, 2020 10:15 am
sherbetbizarre wrote:
Sun Mar 15, 2020 4:24 am
OK, everyone needs to stop with the insults.
gd134 wrote:
Sat Mar 14, 2020 10:46 pm
Why do you think there were cleaning rags found on the property?
I think they were found on the floor of the "unfinished" part of the basement, near the washing machines? I don't think there would be a big mystery as to them being there. And wouldn't they have been tested for blood?
You're right, but there were also a few found on the stairs that go down to the basement. The one's on the unfinished part of the basement were surrounded by bottles of bleach. I know this because Suffolk County sent me a CD with all the crime scene images, excluding post-mortems. I'm not sure if they were tested for blood, I will do more research on that because Ronnie discarded a lot of evidence. He threw some rags in an old poultry-netted trashcan by a park, I believe. There were a bunch of things on that CD. Did you know that Allison(or maybe Dawn) had a syringe in their drawers?





sherbetbizarre wrote:
Sun Mar 15, 2020 4:02 pm
gd134 wrote:
Sun Mar 15, 2020 10:15 am
He threw some rags in an old poultry-netted trashcan by a park, I believe.
"Rags" were found, but never officially entered as being from Ronnie or the crime.






astonio wrote:
Mon Mar 16, 2020 6:32 am
gd134 wrote:
Sat Mar 14, 2020 4:56 pm
astonio wrote:
Sat Mar 14, 2020 9:13 am
[This is so irksome the constant misconceptions such as Dawn’s head being blown off. That’s not at all the case. Dawn’s wound caused the left side of her skull to concave not blow out. This isn’t like the movies.
So what if Dawn's head was caved in? It still doesn't provide a reason as to why blood won't splatter on the headboard or walls.

The trajectory of the wound's path doesn't support your position of blood splattering everywhere. The entrance wound for Dawn was below her left ear behind her neck and the exit wound was her left temple. The trajectory would have gone into her pillow where the bullet fragments was found.
And why would Ronnie want to clean up? What would be the reason to clean up blood splatter off his sisters’ headboards? And what is this definitive proof he did? Just as lame as those who assert Mr. DeFeo was placed back into bed.
You are now forgetting the basic facts about the murders that everyone knew since day one. Ronnie probably cleaned for basic reasons. Either he didn't like the look of blood on the walls, or he simply did it in the pursuit of manipulating the crime scene. Still don't believe that Ronnie cleaned up the blood? Then explain to me why rags were found in the basement and other places in the crime scene photos. Explain to me why Ronnie had to shower and change his clothes after the murders. The fact that Ronnie had to shower and change his clothes after the murders and the fact that cleaning materials were found on the property is enough to indicate that blood HAD to be present on the walls and headboards. If blood was able to splatter on his clothes, then it can splatter on the walls. Period. Also, please don't compare me to the people that believe that Mr. Defeo was placed back into bed, I definitely think that is false because forensic evidence says otherwise.

Your argument is still supposition. You use the words "probably", which doesn't mean factual, but what you think should have happened.
Btw, the only blood spatter found was somewhat on Mrs. DeFeo’s mattress and possibly her headboard as she was more raised from her bed than the others so why didn’t Ronnie clean her bed up?
Could be because it was a small amount of blood, since Mrs. Defeo was shot in the head. A head shot and a shot on the back are two very different things. Maybe Ronnie didn't care to check for blood splatter in the master bedroom.
Stick with the facts, drop the supposition and conjecture.
If there's anyone who needs to stick to the facts it would be you. Just because you can't find a reason for Ronnie to clean the blood doesn't mean he didn't do it. The law enforcement officials and first responders never disputed the idea that Ronnie cleaned up the crime scene. I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt it. Unfortunately, people like you deem everything as a "conspiracy theory," and it really degrades those who at least try to find an explanation for these murders. In the end, our idea of Ronnie cleaning up the crime scene is 100 times better then your explanation(including msmart112) of why blood wouldn't splatter on the walls and headboards. If anything is "lame" and silly, it would be your belief that blood didn't splatter on the headboards and walls.
But you can't support an argument as to why he would want to clean up? It doesn't make sense. And your position concerning Ronnie taking a shower doesn't mean he was into "cleaning up", but rather, he knew he was heading to work later that morning.

It just doesn't make sense Ronnie cleaning certain things and not others nor a reason as to why he would do it in the first place. Conjecture doesn't make facts. Evidence does. I can only argue what was discovered. Now you may be on to something concerning the syringe in Allison's drawer, but that wouldn't have bearings on the murders.
gd134 wrote:
Mon Mar 16, 2020 10:46 pm
sherbetbizarre wrote:
Sun Mar 15, 2020 4:02 pm
gd134 wrote:
Sun Mar 15, 2020 10:15 am
He threw some rags in an old poultry-netted trashcan by a park, I believe.
"Rags" were found, but never officially entered as being from Ronnie or the crime.
Total non-sense. The rags that were disposed of in a poultry netted trashcan by the dock are apart of the complete set of crime scene pictures. Here is the image:

Image

I can guarantee you it's authentic because that is the same exact image Suffolk County sent me when I submitted a Freedom of Information Law request. I can show you another picture that details the inside of the trashcan if you want, just as long as you promise not to reveal it because I don't want to get in trouble with Suffolk County. Because the picture comes from a far location outside the property, it has to have some importance to it. Therefore, it is considered to be apart of the official crime scene.


sherbetbizarre wrote:
Tue Mar 17, 2020 4:15 am
I know they are real pictures from the investigation because they've been on the SH site for years...

http://www.amityvillefilm.com/Discovery ... 20gun.html

...but were the police convinced they are actually part of the crime? After being photographed and analysed, were they even referred to again?




gd134 wrote:
Tue Mar 17, 2020 7:33 am
sherbetbizarre wrote:
Tue Mar 17, 2020 4:15 am
I know they are real pictures from the investigation because they've been on the SH site for years...

http://www.amityvillefilm.com/Discovery ... 20gun.html

...but were the police convinced they are actually part of the crime? After being photographed and analysed, were they even referred to again?
I truly believe so, I know they were referred to in Gerard Sullivan's book (High Hopes) when I read an online PDF version of it. I also remember reading it in a trial transcript, but only the user @Buick-1975 can confirm that since he has the trial transcripts. Suffolk County I believe had a bad reputation at that time for police brutality and bad work. They missed a lot of things in this case, like the empty hand gun holster that was found with the shell casings in the Brooklyn storm drain. That was never mentioned at all during the investigation(correct me if I'm wrong).






msmart112 wrote:
Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:47 am
gd134 wrote:They missed a lot of things in this case, like the empty hand gun holster that was found with the shell casings in the Brooklyn storm drain. That was never mentioned at all during the investigation(correct me if I'm wrong).
They didn't miss the holster...they photographed it and entered it as evidence...

Image

Image

...and later determined that it had nothing to do with the murders.

Lots of items were entered as evidence...and most of them had nothing to do with the murders.







gd134 wrote:
Tue Mar 17, 2020 8:03 pm
astonio wrote: But you can't support an argument as to why he would want to clean up? It doesn't make sense. And your position concerning Ronnie taking a shower doesn't mean he was into "cleaning up", but rather, he knew he was heading to work later that morning.

It just doesn't make sense Ronnie cleaning certain things and not others nor a reason as to why he would do it in the first place. Conjecture doesn't make facts. Evidence does. I can only argue what was discovered. Now you may be on to something concerning the syringe in Allison's drawer, but that wouldn't have bearings on the murders.
Pieces of evidence/logical reasons that I have provided of why Ronnie must have cleaned the headboards: 3

Pieces of evidence that you have provided as to why Ronnie didn't clean the headboards: 0

Remind me again, which one of us is making the conjecture or theory and which one of us is using forensic reasoning and solid crime scene evidence to prove a point? Let me remind you that you still haven't explained to me why blood didn't splatter on the headboards. Just because a theory or idea lacks the evidence that is required to your standards doesn't mean its automatically false. About the syringe in Allison's drawer, I can send you that picture if you would like to have a closer look just as long as you don't disclose it.





msmart112 wrote:
Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:42 pm
gd134 wrote:Pieces of evidence that you have provided as to why Ronnie didn't clean the headboards: 0
How can you seriously expect someone to provide evidence that someone didn't do something that never happened in the first place? :roll:

If that's not crazy enough...
gd134 wrote:
Tue Mar 17, 2020 7:33 am
sherbetbizarre wrote:
Tue Mar 17, 2020 4:15 am
I know they are real pictures from the investigation because they've been on the SH site for years...

http://www.amityvillefilm.com/Discovery ... 20gun.html

...but were the police convinced they are actually part of the crime? After being photographed and analysed, were they even referred to again?
I truly believe so, I know they were referred to in Gerard Sullivan's book (High Hopes) when I read an online PDF version of it.
...there was absolutely NO mention of the rags or the Coles Avenue dock in High Hopes.

There WAS mention of rags and the Coles Avenue dock in The Night The Defeos Died...which explains a lot...since that is your bible when it comes to Amityville. :roll:





Stephanie2019 wrote:
Sat May 09, 2020 9:12 pm
GraceMarch wrote:
Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:43 pm
gd134 wrote:
Sat Feb 22, 2020 9:50 pm
There have been some conspiracy theorists online claiming that the Defeo murders were a government operation to create the Amityville horror for social engineering purposes. Some believe that the Defeo's were killed at night when government personnel went in their house and engineered the crime scene.
Okay, social engineering sounds the most ridiculous for this situation.
People have been using the "social engineering" excuse for every murder from the Charles Manson Tate murders to 9/11, to mass shootings. I think it's just a denial mechanism for some people, because they refuse to believe that yes...there are truly evil people out there, committing acts of violence.





gd134 wrote:
Sat May 09, 2020 11:13 pm
Social Engineering is taking place in the United States everyday, right in front of your own eyes. As a person who follows along with politics, this is achieved not through murder, but biased media narrative. Journalism in the U.S. is dead, since every mainstream news network enforces it's own agenda without reporting real news, which is now up to independent journalists.





Anarane wrote:
Sun May 17, 2020 3:14 am
So if the mainstream media doesn't report the real news, does that mean... DOES THAT MEAN THEY'RE REPORTING FAKE NEWS?! THIS IS BRAND NEW INFORMATION AND MUST BE TRUE.



gd134 wrote:
Sun May 17, 2020 8:50 am
You kinda misunderstood me there. I'm guessing you've never heard of insinuation? Because that's what today's journalism is all about. It is all opinionated and it never bothers to look into the other side of the argument. There is a reason why trust in the mainstream media is at a record low here in the United States. The coronavirus era really exposes flaws in the mainstream media, and I can go on and on about this topic. There are still a few establishments that still report unbiased, neutral news but for the most part, fake news is everywhere. You can see for yourself. You are free to send me a PM to debate me, because this thread is not about politics or the mainstream media.




Brooke Forrester wrote:
Mon May 18, 2020 7:02 pm
My sister is all about mainstream media being fake and government conspiracies.

Yet she believes the Lutz story as told in AH 100%. Try to present her with evidence that shows otherwise, she won’t hear it.

That shows me people believe what they want to believe and won’t believe what they don’t want to. It’s interesting how the mind works.




gd134 wrote:
Mon May 18, 2020 8:44 pm
Are you trying to compare people who think similarly about the mainstream media to your sister? If so, you're ridiculous.

Unlike your sister, I'm an open-minded person. I don't believe what I hear at first glance. Otherwise, I wouldn't be on a public forum asking questions, presenting evidence, and conducting my own research. I was always doubtful of the Lutz story, so I did some research on this forum and made my own conclusions based off of the evidence. Likewise, I've done my own research on the mainstream media. I am proud of what I believe, and I am always open to debate about it.

My confidence and my willingness to debate the topic should tell you a lot about my credibility, so I don't see why you had to compare me to your sister. So, instead of labeling me a close-minded government conspiracy nut, you should've asked why I believe what I believe.

That shows me how hypocritical people can become. It's amazing how the human mind works.


gd134 wrote:
Mon May 18, 2020 8:45 pm
Please note that when I say the mainstream media is used for social engineering I do not mean it works the same way as a North Korean propaganda system.




Anarane wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 1:21 am
gd134 wrote:
Sun May 17, 2020 8:50 am
You are free to send me a PM to debate me, because this thread is not about politics or the mainstream media.
lol no I'm good thanks, pal. Stay classy.





gd134 wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 9:49 am

As you wish, you remind me of Brooke's sister lol.



Brooke Forrester wrote:
Wed May 20, 2020 3:58 pm
gd134 wrote:
Mon May 18, 2020 8:44 pm
Brooke Forrester wrote:
Mon May 18, 2020 7:02 pm
My sister is all about mainstream media being fake and government conspiracies.

Yet she believes the Lutz story as told in AH 100%. Try to present her with evidence that shows otherwise, she won’t hear it.

That shows me people believe what they want to believe and won’t believe what they don’t want to. It’s interesting how the mind works.
Are you trying to compare people who think similarly about the mainstream media to your sister? If so, you're ridiculous.

Unlike your sister, I'm an open-minded person. I don't believe what I hear at first glance. Otherwise, I wouldn't be on a public forum asking questions, presenting evidence, and conducting my own research. I was always doubtful of the Lutz story, so I did some research on this forum and made my own conclusions based off of the evidence. Likewise, I've done my own research on the mainstream media. I am proud of what I believe, and I am always open to debate about it.

My confidence and my willingness to debate the topic should tell you a lot about my credibility, so I don't see why you had to compare me to your sister. So, instead of labeling me a close-minded government conspiracy nut, you should've asked why I believe what I believe.

That shows me how hypocritical people can become. It's amazing how the human mind works.
That was not at all what I was saying. I wasn’t talking about you personally at all. I was simply stating that plenty of people believe the mainstream media isn’t honest but I was also just pointing out how my sister happens to be. She’s a good person, she just has a blind belief in this Amityville story and while she is open minded about other stuff, she either doesn’t want to be or just isn’t, about the idea that the AH isn’t as originally described.

It was simply an observation and wasn’t about you at all. I don’t know you.






Brendan72 wrote:
Wed May 20, 2020 6:49 pm
It used to frustrate me how there are people who believe in the paranormal but still think Amityville is a hoax. It is possible to believe one but not the other but still they give no valid reason why it is a hoax.

If they want to think it is a hoax they can just back it up with something credible other than sourcing Kaplan, Weber or Osuna.



Brooke Forrester wrote:
Sun May 24, 2020 8:12 pm
Perhaps some of the doubt came in when the Cromarty family moved in and experienced nothing paranormal.

Also anything that gets as publicized as this did is going to be open to more scrutiny.