Tell me lies...

General Discussion About the 1974 DeFeo Murders and related topics

Tell me lies...

Postby zzvampy » Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:10 pm

What are we to make of these liars and their hidden agendas?

I would like to start with the SCPD and the accusations of the planting of evidence, switching evidence, beating Ronnie, fabricating a story about Ronnie witnessing his brother John's foot was shaking, lying about giving Dawn a paraffin test- etc. etc.

Other "liars" including ( but not limited to ) not only a Family member ( Ronnie's Aunt Phyllis ) , a young friend of one of the DeFeo boys ( John Donahue ), but even those who had actually INTENTIONALLY lied FOR Ronnie and his case! Even his PALS are now deemed as liars!

Moving right along...

Phyllis Procita - Testified that Ronnie told her a multitude of different versions while he was in jail awaiting trial.

John Kramer - Testified, and lied when he said that Ronnie had told him that he first killed Mr. DeFeo...then "went berserk" and killed the rest of the family.

James DeVito - Testified that Ronnie told him that Bobby Kelske, Mindy Weiss, and another man and woman had killed the family. He also mentioned Ronnie recalling the horrible smell that resulted from Allison being shot.

John Donahue - Testified, and lied when he said that he witnessed a fight between Ronnie and Mr. DeFeo shortly before the murders.

Frank Davidge - Testified, and lied when he said that Ronnie fired a shot in his direction while hunting. He also testified that Ronnie once pointed a loaded gun at his head and pulled the trigger ...but the gun didn't go off.

Dr. Howard Adelman - Lied when he said that all the victims were tested for drugs and found to be cold sober.
William Weber - Intentionally attempted to make Ronnie appear to be crazy.

Gerard Sullivan - Instructed witnesses to lie while on the stand.
Bob Keeler - Although a Pulitzer Prize winning Journalist, his 1986 Newsday article was fabrication.

Karen Petterson - Lied about Dawn's nightgown.

Sarah Teale - Lied about the scope of the documentary while pretending to be a friend of the incarcerated as well as his current wife.

Dr. Steven Hoge - Entered the prison under a different name so that he could interrogate Ronnie as well as have this particular interview edited to suit his agenda ( whatever this agenda may be, we may never know! )

Dennis Rafferty - Liar.

Robert Dunn - Liar.

George Harrison - Liar.

Gaspar Randazzo - Liar.

Gerald Gozaloff - Liar.

Again, I must ask, what are we to make of these liars and their hidden agendas? Could ALL of these folks be liars while Ronald DeFeo Jr. and ONLY Ronald DeFeo Jr. speaks the truth?

As Fleetwood Mac once recorded...Tell me lies tell me sweet little lies... *smile*
zzvampy
The Black Bralia
 
Posts: 2521
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:11 pm
Location: PA

Postby msmart112 » Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:22 pm

Outstanding post ZZ! Image
Image
User avatar
msmart112
Amityville_Member
 
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:25 pm

Postby tedbot » Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:23 pm

I have to agree.
No wonder Ronnie can't get a fair shake, eh? Considering all the liars he's brought into his inner circle. Poor, poor guy :roll:
Are you looking at me?
User avatar
tedbot
not the face!
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:08 pm
Location: Who wants to know?

Postby TigresMeow » Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:28 pm

:applause:
If you're gonna kick a tiger in the ass, you better have a plan to deal with it's teeth.

RIP 15

"Have the dogs stopped barking, Clarice?"
User avatar
TigresMeow
Yo Adrian I luv black caulk
 
Posts: 1625
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 3:51 pm
Location: Inside my own mind

Postby msmart112 » Sun Jul 09, 2006 9:00 pm

Regarding Frank Davidge?

At Ronnie?s trial, Frank testified to NUMEROUS instances involving Ronnie and weapons. Among them...

He told the story of Ronnie pulling a gun on a girl after a double date

He told the story of Ronnie firing a few shots in his direction while on a hunting trip

He told the story of Ronnie pointing a loaded shotgun at his head

Now??certain people? will have you believe that Frank Davidge lied regarding all three stories.

Yet?these SAME ?certain people? want you to BELIEVE the story that Frank Davidge told regarding Mr. DeFeo allegedly striking Mrs. DeFeo while she was on the basement stairs.

Basically it?s?don?t believe ANY of Frank?s testimony that hurt Ronnie?but make SURE to believe the one story that could help Ronnie.

Pretty convenient, eh?
Image
User avatar
msmart112
Amityville_Member
 
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:25 pm

Postby msmart112 » Sun Jul 09, 2006 9:54 pm

I wonder if John Carswell is on Ronnie?s/Tracey's ?great big list of liars??

At trial, John (a good friend of Ronnie's) testified to an incident where he had arrived at a bar near midnight...and noticed Ronnie in the parking lot with Mindy Weiss. Mindy had just been fired from her job at the bar, and Ronnie?with a gun in his hand?told John, ?I?m going to go inside. I?m going to get him.?

Many years later?in preparation for his 440 hearing?Ronnie asked John Carswell to sign a false affidavit. Ronnie wanted John to explain that he ONLY testified the way he did because William Weber had instructed him to do so.

And?John Carswell complied. He signed an affidavit that stated?

There were plenty of things that he could have testified to that would have helped Ronnie

?and that?

His original trial testimony was false

But, shortly thereafter, Mr. Carswell had a change of heart.

On March 30th, 1990?John Carswell provided the Suffolk County District Attorney?s office with a written statement.

To make a long story short?John Carswell explained that he had received an affidavit from Ronnie?but had thrown it out. He was later provided with ANOTHER copy?and ONLY signed it because he thought it would help Ronnie with lawsuits?

Image

Image
Image
User avatar
msmart112
Amityville_Member
 
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:25 pm

Postby FoxyJ » Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:21 am

zzvampy<snipped>I would like to start with the SCPD and the accusations of the planting of evidence, switching evidence, beating Ronnie, fabricating a story about Ronnie witnessing his brother John's foot was shaking, lying about giving Dawn a paraffin test- etc. etc.


Accusations regarding the Suffolk County Police Departments are seemingly not without foundation unless, of course, one is to assume that all complainants are liars too but, in any event, its behaviour as a department of law enforcement has been less than satisfactory.

http://query.nytimes.com

http://contentsquad.typepad.com

Many people lie under oath; we all know that; conversely many do not. It is for the jury and we ?outsiders? to make up our own minds after checking out the corroborated evidence.

For someone with a ?personality disorder,? RJD was certainly enigmatic enough to attract his fair share of friends who were prepared to lie for him and later to retract their initial affirmations when, presumably, requested to do so by RJD or their consciences were pricked.

There may or may not have been deliberate lies told about the ?missing? evidence but the clothing certainly doesn?t appear to have been missing at all as it was found by a person looking for something unrelated, precisely where it was supposed to be stored and clearly marked ?DeFeo.? Why then could it not be found when requested? The results of the paraffin test reportedly carried out on Dawn DeFeo?s hands, has been lost despite ?diligent? searches. This latter at least seems to show unacceptable inefficiency within the department responsible for securing evidence for future reference. You may consider that a few items of contaminated clothing belonging to a convicted killer such as RJD have no relevance but, consider this, if you had a relative sitting on death row who?s life depended upon the DNA testing of items of such as these, would you be satisfied to hear they were missing, presumed destroyed?

John Carswell was another prime example of an acquaintance who, although having once found himself at the business end of RJD?s aggression, was still prepared to lie to ?help? him. What enabled RJD instil such misguided loyalty in these people. If I believed a friend of mine to have slaughtered his entire family in an act of such extreme cowardice, there is no way I would have lied to protect him or her.

RJD denies the alleged incidents regarding John?s and Allison?s shooting and his having pointed his rifle at anyone. However, ?he would say that wouldn?t he?? All we laypersons can do is to look at the evidence to support these claims and denials.

I don?t disbelieve that RJD waved his rifle around and threatened people, it seems perfectly consistent with other aspects of his character. Such behaviour is also consistent with the alleged accounts from neighbours that they were quite used to RJD firing guns at his home. It?s surprising to me, therefore, they would describe the family in such glowing terms as reported in newspaper articles of the time. With the greatest respect, it is quite usual for innocent victims of murder to be portrayed in a favourable light with all their human faults forgotten.

Anyway, I?m now off to do something other than dwell on death and prevarication for a while; I have some cobwebs to eliminate.

Fox

[Admin edit: shortened the links so they don't stretch the page - no text edits made]
Image
User avatar
FoxyJ
Amityville Addict
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:05 am
Location: Hertfordshire, UK

Postby TIA » Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:36 am

The neighbours didn't deny that RDJ had problems, they appear to have been talking about the family as a whole when they described them in more favourable terms, rather than RDJ.

You're right, it is possible that some did not want to highlight any faults that the victims surely had. The issue, I think, is whether the characterisation of the victims by their killer is accurate.

This speaks to the issue of this thread. RDJ has accused pretty much everyone of lying. But when he lies, it's always because someone else manipulated him.

People with the type of personality disorder he has can certainly attract and manipulate friends, and inspire loyalty. And before the murders he was able to throw money around to get friends. It's perfectly possible he's done something similar since. Some of his surviving relatives gave him or offered him money to continue his defence (for example, his aunt IIRC offered to pay for those tests that can't clear him).
Occam's razor is lodged in my brain. Ouch.
Image
User avatar
TIA
Amityville Addict
 
Posts: 842
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:49 pm
Location: Where the wild things are.

Postby tedbot » Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:00 am

The issue, I think, is whether the characterisation of the victims by their killer is accurate.


EXACTLY!!!!

I couldn't have put it better myself!! That pretty much sums it up for me.
Are you looking at me?
User avatar
tedbot
not the face!
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:08 pm
Location: Who wants to know?

Postby shattered thoughts » Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:11 am

I think the SCPD have lots of skeletons in their evidence lockers. :(

Sad to say, it is widely known how corrupt police can and will be. I don't appreciate the officers who break the law in the name of upholding it!


http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/pe ... ndex2.html
User avatar
shattered thoughts
Amityville Member
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:39 am
Location: Everywhere

Postby TIA » Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:16 am

I don't think anyone will disagree that there was corruption, the problem is whether or not there was in this case.
Occam's razor is lodged in my brain. Ouch.
Image
User avatar
TIA
Amityville Addict
 
Posts: 842
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:49 pm
Location: Where the wild things are.

Postby FoxyJ » Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:05 pm

TIA wrote:I don't think anyone will disagree that there was corruption, the problem is whether or not there was in this case.


......... and that is what holds my interest in this case and why I've spent far too much of my valuable time and energies Googling around. Every opinion, from whichever source it may come, is as valuable as another.

Thank you

Fox
Image
User avatar
FoxyJ
Amityville Addict
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:05 am
Location: Hertfordshire, UK

Postby TIA » Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:10 pm

FoxyJ wrote: Every opinion, from whichever source it may come, is as valuable as another.


Clearly we think differently. I think the credibilty of a source is important in evaluating it.
Occam's razor is lodged in my brain. Ouch.
Image
User avatar
TIA
Amityville Addict
 
Posts: 842
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:49 pm
Location: Where the wild things are.

Postby msmart112 » Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:53 pm

FoxyJ wrote:Accusations regarding the Suffolk County Police Departments are seemingly not without foundation unless, of course, one is to assume that all complainants are liars too but, in any event, its behaviour as a department of law enforcement has been less than satisfactory.


Accusations against a police department serving an area of WELL over one million people are not uncommon?especially coming from convicted murderers.

Late on November 13th, Ronnie signed a statement where he described being at home as late as 4:40 a.m. on the morning of the 13th. Since all of the victims were found in bed?it was obvious that the murders happened after the victims had gone to bed?but before any of them would have woken up. Since Ronnie admitted being at home until as late as 4:40 a.m., he had essentially created a very short window of time for the murders to have happened?unless of course?he was the murderer.

He told the police that he did not have a key?and that he had to force open a kitchen window to gain entry. Yet?the police found no other signs of forced entry.

The police also wondered why the family?s dog had not ripped into the killer.

At the crime scene, it would have been rather obvious as to what type of weapon had been used given the recovered bullets. Alfred DellaPenna later confirmed that all eight bullets came from a .35 caliber Marlin rifle. Not only did the police find a rifle box that originally contained a .35 Marlin caliber rifle in Ronnie?s bedroom?they also learned that a .35 Marlin rifle that Ronnie owned had been fired into a floor of a home in Amityville. They recovered the bullet from beneath the home?and it matched seven of the eight bullets retrieved from the crime scene/victims.

After all this would have been presented to Ronnie?it doesn?t (to me) seem so unusual that he would have confessed.

FoxyJ wrote:You may consider that a few items of contaminated clothing belonging to a convicted killer such as RJD have no relevance but, consider this, if you had a relative sitting on death row who?s life depended upon the DNA testing of items of such as these, would you be satisfied to hear they were missing, presumed destroyed?


The items that were missing could NOT have conclusively proven Ronnie?s innocence. According to New York State law?Ronnie would have needed to have demonstrated to the court that the testing would be dispositive to the issue of his guilt or innocence.

Also according to New York State law, procedurally, a motion based on newly discovered evidence must be made with due diligence after the discovery of such alleged new evidence.

Since DNA testing wasn?t common until, I believe, the late-eighties?it?s understandable why Ronnie didn?t request testing of HIS clothes before then. But what about the nightgown? The testing of the nightgown would not have involved DNA testing?but rather?simple forensic testing that has been available since before he was convicted.

In the recent A&E documentary, Ronnie stated that Herman Race told William Weber that there were unburned gunpowder particles on the front of Dawn?s nightdress. Since this would have taken place in 1975 (although it?s highly unlikely that it ever happened in the first place)?why did Ronnie wait until 1990 to file a motion regarding this alleged ?newly discovered? evidence? Waiting fifteen years certainly isn?t due diligence.

FoxyJ wrote:John Carswell was another prime example of an acquaintance who, although having once found himself at the business end of RJD?s aggression, was still prepared to lie to ?help? him. What enabled RJD instil such misguided loyalty in these people. If I believed a friend of mine to have slaughtered his entire family in an act of such extreme cowardice, there is no way I would have lied to protect him or her.


John Carswell stated that he only signed the affidavit because he thought it was going to be used in a lawsuit?

Image
Image
User avatar
msmart112
Amityville_Member
 
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:25 pm

Postby FoxyJ » Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:44 pm

Nowhere have I read that the 93 complaints in 30 months were made by convicted killers. They were complaints of Police Brutality.

We seem to be talking at cross purposes: I'm aware of everything you write. I'm aware that there was no DNA testing at the time of the murders.

It was inexcusable for any evidence to be described as 'destroyed' when it clearly was not. It is inexcusable for any Police Department to receive an inordinate number of complaints of brutality (when compared to other neighbouring departments).

I know that any DNA testing now will not clear RJD but for those who are interested, and there are one or two, it would certainly be enlightening. It would be no skin off the noses of the Suffolk Police Department; or would it?

Churning out the same old, same old, is not really advancing this discussion at all.

The majority of documents and information you, and others here have posted (thank you) I have seen elsewhere and nothing, so far, has diminished my interest in the subject of the conducting of the original investigation by the SCPD officers, Sullivan's choice of Judge (Judge shopping), the exclusion of evidence and witnesses and, more recently, the rediscovery of evidence previously reported as having been destroyed. There is still much more that I haven't seen and, hopefully, within a few weeks I shall learn more.

I am perfectly aware, as are we all, that RJD tried to lie himself out of trouble and encouraged others to do the same. That is an entirely separate matter from being deprived of his legal rights which is what is being alleged. RJD is not the only person to (allegedly) suffer at the hands of this particular department and that, at least to me, is totally unacceptable.

RDJ killed both his parents in cold blood and also his sister Dawn. He probably also killed his three younger siblings but there are still many questions that, for me, have not yet been answered.

Fox
Image
User avatar
FoxyJ
Amityville Addict
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:05 am
Location: Hertfordshire, UK

Postby zzvampy » Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:08 pm

RDJ killed both his parents in cold blood and also his sister Dawn. He probably also killed his three younger siblings but there are still many questions that, for me, have not yet been answered.


What is left to question then?
zzvampy
The Black Bralia
 
Posts: 2521
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:11 pm
Location: PA

Postby OldSoul70 » Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:09 pm

I live in suffolk county and I def know how the police around here can be and how most of them act,but im my opinion if those cops did indeed beat the crap out of RDJ I def am glad. Like ive said before he killed them and theres no one who can change my mind until further evidence is brought to the table. I think that anyone who killed 6 people and 3 of them being children needs a good beating and nice blow to the face.
OldSoul70
Amityville Addict
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:30 pm
Location: Long Island , New York

Postby msmart112 » Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:28 pm

FoxyJ wrote:I know that any DNA testing now will not clear RJD but for those who are interested, and there are one or two, it would certainly be enlightening. It would be no skin off the noses of the Suffolk Police Department; or would it?


You would have to ask the SCPD.

Although?as I?m sure you already know?any decision would have to be made by the court (providing that the proper legal channels had been followed).

FoxyJ wrote:Churning out the same old, same old, is not really advancing this discussion at all.


Nor is your continued stating of opinion as fact. In fact?your continued stating of opinion as fact is actually damaging in that you could very well be spreading false information to those attempting to learn more about the case (if you haven?t done so already)?

FoxyJ wrote:Just to elaborate on the 'insanity' plea; RJD was in fact persuaded by William Weber that such a plea was his only chance of a more lenient sentence and, therefore, against his better judgement (of which he appears to have had little) he agreed to comply.


FoxyJ wrote:It's a matter of record that even the prosecution accepted that RJD probably didn't act alone that night: it was, however, considered it didn't reduce his own culpability in the murders.


FoxyJ wrote:The GSR reported to have been found on Dawn?s nightgown was described as blowback (partially burned) therefore it?s unlikely to have been from merely struggling for the rifle.


FoxyJ wrote:Then what do you supposed happened to him after that photograph was taken and before he arrived in court when the judge was so shocked he declined to continue until RJD had been examined by a doctor?


FoxyJ wrote:On 18th November Judge Signorelli ordered a medical examination to be carried out because he was concerned at the injuries to RJD?s face.


FoxyJ wrote:For example, Mrs. DeFeo was covered by an uncontaminated blanket; how could two bullets have passed through this blanket without leaving any signs?


FoxyJ wrote:There is also a rather poor photograph of the crime scene that shows a CSI examining the headboard closely.


FoxyJ wrote:RDJ killed both his parents in cold blood and also his sister Dawn. He probably also killed his three younger siblings but there are still many questions that, for me, have not yet been answered.


Ronnie killed ALL SIX of his family members in COLD BLOOD?

Image
Image
User avatar
msmart112
Amityville_Member
 
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:25 pm

Postby FoxyJ » Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:47 am

msmart112FoxyJ wrote:
Churning out the same old, same old, is not really advancing this discussion at all.


mismart112 ...Nor is your continued stating of opinion as fact. In fact?your continued stating of opinion as fact is actually damaging in that you could very well be spreading false information to those attempting to learn more about the case (if you haven?t done so already)?


Your remarks are noted msmart112 and I could say much the same about your good self. If my 'opinions' disagree with those you hold then that is perfectly fine. I don't have to agree with you and vice versa. You obviously take everything you read and hear at face value and why not? That is precisely what the authors wish.

I am perfectly aware that it is a FACT that his own Judicial Confession convicted RJD of all six murders.

I have always believed that RJD walked from room to room shooting dead each member of his family in turn. This is what was reported on TV in 1974 - I remember it very well.

The character of RJD concerns me not a wit! He is a killer and as such was rightly sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment.

It was not until I read the details surrounding the conviction that I became aware of the controversy that some (I don't include you msmart112) are concerned about regarding the apparent mishandling of the defence, of the investigation and alleged interrogation and the inefficiency of those charged to record, store and protect what the defendant sees as vital evidence.

You obviously have no interest in any input I have to make in this thread, which somewhat surprises me as you seem to respond at length to every post of mine. I also find the tone of your post rather curious; I thought this thread was about discussion and not about who is right and who is not.

You back your own ?opinions? by posting documentation from all over the Internet. I have read most, if not all, the relevant information and have many questions ? I?m not aware that anyone would misinterpret my opinions as fact as you are the only person to date who has commented thus. My command of written English may not be to the standard you would prefer but I write my thoughts as clearly as I know how and it is a matter of regret to me that they anger you so greatly as this has never been my intention.

As to my being ?dangerous,? I?m quite flattered you should think my views and opinions of any importance whatsoever. In the scheme of things they will make little difference to the DeFeo case but it has never been my intention that they should. I do, however, have an enquiring mind and enjoy reading other peoples' slants on everything. In doing so, and responding, I am not aware I have been discourteous to anyone.

Fox
Image
User avatar
FoxyJ
Amityville Addict
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:05 am
Location: Hertfordshire, UK

Postby msmart112 » Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:04 am

FoxyJ wrote:You obviously take everything you read and hear at face value and why not? That is precisely what the authors wish.


Which authors would you be referring to?

FoxyJ wrote:I am perfectly aware that it is a FACT that his own Judicial Confession convicted RJD of all six murders.


What about the physical evidence that was introduced? Couldn?t that also have contributed to his conviction?

You obviously have no interest in any input I have to make in this thread, which somewhat surprises me as you seem to respond at length to every post of mine. I also find the tone of your post rather curious; I thought this thread was about discussion and not about who is right and who is not.


I respond to your posts to help make the distinction between opinion and fact. You?ve stated that you?re interested in learning more about this case. There are others who are interested in the same thing. It doesn?t help when you post something as FACT?when it reality?it?s mere opinion.

For example?you posted?

?I believe that it is a FACT that the scene was 'altered.' For example, Mrs. DeFeo was covered by an uncontaminated blanket; how could two bullets have passed through this blanket without leaving any signs? The ballistic evidence also shows that Mrs. DeFeo was shot at close range evidenced by the blackening surrounding the wounds; could this be possible without marking the blanket covering her? You, of course, may have a completely logical explanation for such a phenomenon.?

?and then I posted the police diagrams showing that the blanket was not in fact uncontaminated.

Had I or someone else not responded, someone very well could have read your post and left believing that the blanket was really uncontaminated.

Following that post?I asked you where you had heard that the blanket was uncontaminated. You replied?

"I have it on 'good' authority that Mrs. DeFeo was covered with a fresh blanket showing no signs of gunshot at all."

?and you accuse ME of taking everything I hear at face value?

FoxyJ wrote:You back your own ?opinions? by posting documentation from all over the Internet. I have read most, if not all, the relevant information and have many questions ? I?m not aware that anyone would misinterpret my opinions as fact as you are the only person to date who has commented thus. My command of written English may not be to the standard you would prefer but I write my thoughts as clearly as I know how and it is a matter of regret to me that they anger you so greatly as this has never been my intention.


You?ve read most, if not all, the relevant information?yet you?ve never read a book on the case? Have you ever seen ANY of the documentaries?

And how can you not be aware that anyone would misinterpret your opinions as fact when you?ve written things such as?

"Just to elaborate on the 'insanity' plea; RJD was in fact persuaded by William Weber that such a plea was his only chance of a more lenient sentence and, therefore, against his better judgement (of which he appears to have had little) he agreed to comply."

"It's a matter of record that even the prosecution accepted that RJD probably didn't act alone that night: it was, however, considered it didn't reduce his own culpability in the murders."

"On 18th November Judge Signorelli ordered a medical examination to be carried out because he was concerned at the injuries to RJD?s face."

FoxyJ wrote:As to my being ?dangerous,? I?m quite flattered you should think my views and opinions of any importance whatsoever. In the scheme of things they will make little difference to the DeFeo case but it has never been my intention that they should. I do, however, have an enquiring mind and enjoy reading other peoples' slants on everything. In doing so, and responding, I am not aware I have been discourteous to anyone.


What?s dangerous is that you are spreading misinformation. And while that certainly makes no difference in regard to the DeFeo case?it DOES make a difference to those trying to learn about the DeFeo case.
Image
User avatar
msmart112
Amityville_Member
 
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:25 pm

Postby FoxyJ » Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:55 am

msmart112 ...Which authors would you be referring to?

An ?author? is a person who writes something for others to read. ie/you are the author of the above comment and I am the author of this reply.

msmart112 ...What about the physical evidence that was introduced? Couldn?t that also have contributed to his conviction?


Naturally it did but that was not the FACT to which I refer.

msmart112 ... I respond to your posts to help make the distinction between opinion and fact. You?ve stated that you?re interested in learning more about this case. There are others who are interested in the same thing. It doesn?t help when you post something as FACT?when it reality?it?s mere opinion.

For example?you posted?

?I believe that it is a FACT that the scene was 'altered.' For example, Mrs. DeFeo[
was covered by an uncontaminated blanket; how could two bullets have passed through this blanket without leaving any signs? The ballistic evidence also shows that Mrs. DeFeo was shot at close range evidenced by the blackening surrounding the wounds; could this be possible without marking the blanket covering her? You, of course, may have a completely logical explanation for such a phenomenon.?

?and then I posted the police diagrams showing that the blanket was not in fact uncontaminated.

Had I or someone else not responded, someone very well could have read your post and left believing that the blanket was really uncontaminated.

Following that post?I asked you where you had heard that the blanket was uncontaminated. You replied?

"I have it on 'good' authority that Mrs. DeFeo was covered with a fresh blanket showing no signs of gunshot at all."

?and you accuse ME of taking everything I hear at face value?


Once again you are misunderstanding me: I said ?I BELIEVE it is a fact;? that is not the same thing as stating it AS a fact.

Regarding the blanket (I had already seen the diagrams) I said ?I HAVE IT ON GOOD AUTHORITY? and you take that as a statement of fact.

I read that as ?I have it ON GOOD AUTHORITY? which leads me to believe this to be true until another GOOD AUTHORITY shows me otherwise.

The document you produce shows a blanket and a sheet; it is not impossible that there was more than one blanket and that the scene had been altered by someone who entered the house during the day. My confidence in at least some of the evidential material in this case is not great.

I am perfectly entitled to BELIEVE what I wish and to place my opinions, beliefs and arguments into discussion. That is not DANGEROUS msmart112, that is DEBATING a concept which, thus far, you seem unable or unwilling to grasp.

You?ve read most, if not all, the relevant information?yet you?ve never read a book on the case? Have you ever seen ANY of the documentaries?

And how can you not be aware that anyone would misinterpret your opinions as fact when you?ve written things such as?

"Just to elaborate on the 'insanity' plea; RJD was in fact persuaded by William Weber that such a plea was his only chance of a more lenient sentence and, therefore, against his better judgement (of which he appears to have had little) he agreed to comply."

"It's a matter of record that even the prosecution accepted that RJD probably didn't act alone that night: it was, however, considered it didn't reduce his own culpability in the murders."

"On 18th November Judge Signorelli ordered a medical examination to be carried out because he was concerned at the injuries to RJD?s face."


Of course William Weber guided RJD on every aspect of his defence, for me to believe otherwise would make no sense at all.

As to reading factional accounts written for commercial reasons, I have stated my opinions elsewhere here.

What?s dangerous is that you are spreading misinformation. And while that certainly makes no difference in regard to the DeFeo case?it DOES make a difference to those trying to learn about the DeFeo case.


That is just laughable msmart112. In order to learn anything one should read and inwardly digest every diverse opinion one can find otherwise one will learn absolutely nothing at all. The only exception I make to this rule is my refusal to pay good money for books written for commercial reasons and prefer to look to factual documents for my answers. Even reports written by, presumably, professional writers show inaccuracies such as the date of the murders, layout of the crime scene etc., so one has much to dissect.

I read your opinions msmart112 and I take them on board along with the comments of everyone else here and elsewhere and I make up my own mind whether I agree with or believe them. The one thing I have never done is to attack a person?s stance on this or any other case I have absolutely no right to do that. Every person?s opinion is as valuable to me as another?s.

Confrontation is not the same as discussion but I?m sure you don?t need me to tell you that. Being the guardian of other people?s views msmart112 is not to be recommended. IMO

Once again thank you for taking the trouble to respond.

Fox
Image
User avatar
FoxyJ
Amityville Addict
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:05 am
Location: Hertfordshire, UK

Next

Return to DeFeo Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group