Tell me lies...

General Discussion About the 1974 DeFeo Murders and related topics

Postby TIA » Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:19 pm

FoxyJ wrote: 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.


Try the library. Most books are available via inter-library loan.

And while publishers produce books for commercial reasons, there are many different reasons for writing them. Sometimes it's purely commercial, but writing isn't exactly well paid, and often that isn't the primary motivation.
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 » Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:05 pm

Thank you Tia: DtheD did suggest I should check out the Holzer book as it contains some reliable information.

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

Postby TIA » Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:13 pm

The library systems of many counties are online. You can check and see what Amityville books they have, but you can order books from outside your county, so if they don't have one you want, they can still get it (many of the Amityville books do seem to have been published in the UK as well as the US).

Ric Osuna's book might be a problem. I think it was initially, at least, published by a POD publisher, and may not be stocked in any part of the library system. Unless someone really hated their local library and donated 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 FoxyJ » Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:19 pm

I shall take a look around the 'net and see what I can find. I shan't bother with the RO book anyway as it seems to be complete nonsense - I have read RO's site which is mainly a 'taste' of the book although the photographs, diagrams and part-documents made interesting reading/viewing.

Thank you very much for your advice Tia.

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

Postby TIA » Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:21 pm

That's okay. I used to be a library asistant :D
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 » Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:55 pm

Tia: I just had a Google and found Hans Holzers book on Amazon, I could get a SH copy for around a dollar! The reviews are not too inspiring though. :?

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

Postby TIA » Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:06 pm


Another useful thing with second-hand books is any instance you don't want to give the author or publisher a penny for ethical/personal reasons. They get nothing for those sales.
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 » Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:27 pm

TIA wrote:
Another useful thing with second-hand books is any instance you don't want to give the author or publisher a penny for ethical/personal reasons. They get nothing for those sales.


Good point Tia. :D

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

Postby TIA » Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:50 pm

I just checked Ric Osuna's book, and it does indeed appear to be published by a POD vanity press.
Noble Kai Media charge their authors $195.

:lol:
Last edited by TIA on Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 » Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:01 pm

TIA wrote:I just checked Ric Osuna's book, and it does indeed appear to be published by a POD vanity press.

:lol:


RO's effort is from $13 SH on Amazon! Against my better judgement I've ordered Hans Holzer's at $1.29, the seller of the $1 one wouldn't ship to the UK. :roll: As said, the Amazon reviewers don't think much of it at all.

Thanks for all the advice Dan the Damned and TIA; much appreciated. :)

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

Re: Tell me lies...

Postby msmart112 » Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:38 pm

zzvampy wrote: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*


It really is quite amazing ZZ. Not only the claims that so many people lied?but also?the endless blaming of others in an attempt to explain Ronnie?s admissions, wild stories, and endless contradictions.

Ronnie confessed to the police. The SCPD was blamed for beating the confession out of him. Although?in some versions?he received a beating but never confessed.

Ronnie admitted to all six murders at trial. William Weber was blamed for ?forcing? Ronnie to go along with the insanity defense. Of course, it makes you wonder why Ronnie chose Weber to handle the appeal if he had truly been so disgusted with the way that Weber handled the original trial.

In 1979, Ronnie was interviewed by Hans Holzer, and described killing all six members of his family. Weber and Holzer were blamed. Once again, it makes you wonder why Ronnie was still involved with Weber if Ronnie had truly been so disgusted with the way that Weber handled the original trial.

In 1986, Ronnie was interviewed by Bob Keeler, and stated that his mother had killed all four of the children?and then proceeded to put one shot into herself. Geraldine and Keeler were blamed.

The basis of Ronnie?s 440 hearing in 1992 was that Weber had provided ineffective counsel at the 1975 trial. At that hearing, Ronnie was represented by Gerald Lotto. After the hearing, Ronnie blamed Gerald Lotto for not doing all that he could have at the hearing.

In 1994, Ronnie was interviewed by Christopher Berry-Dee, and stated that he was in the basement with ?Richard Romondoe? when the murders took place. Once again, Geraldine Gates was blamed (i.e. the entire ?Richard? story was her idea). Yet?this interview took place on September 23, 1994?while Ronnie and Geraldine were divorced on September 24, 1993.

Then of course we have the recent A&E documentary where Ronnie embarrassed himself. This time?the executive producer of the documentary was blamed?as well as the interviewer.
Image
User avatar
msmart112
Amityville_Member
 
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:25 pm

Re: Tell me lies...

Postby zzvampy » Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:57 pm

msmart112 wrote:it makes you wonder why Ronnie chose Weber to handle the appeal if he had truly been so disgusted with the way that Weber handled the original trial.


Indeed Max.
Had Ronnie been so unhappy with the way Weber handled the original, why continue to retain him as stated here in Sept. of 1976?


Image
zzvampy
The Black Bralia
 
Posts: 2521
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:11 pm
Location: PA

Postby radiomixer » Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:27 am

FoxyJ wrote:
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.


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


And it is my belief that since this [investigations into the practices of these departments came out *before* the DeFeo murders] had become public, DeFeo was likely to have capitalized on it. He appeared with injuries after his interrogation? Ask one of your local law enforcement how often arrested people inflict injuries upon themselves and cry 'police brutality.' Like Defeo said in that certain documentary you haven't seen: 'I didn't care who took credit for it then, and I don't care now.' [again, paraphrased.] I wouldn't have put it past Butch to have injured himself in attempt to cast any doubt on the investigation, knowing his only hopes were legal loopholes, since he confessed and led police to where he'd attempted to hide/discard evidence.

FoxyJ wrote: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.


Well, I would have to say that you seem to favor more questionable sources, while posters such as Max and Krissy have posted what appears to be far more credible material. Conversely you do not seem to often quote actual sources, and have on occasion, refused/neglected to name sources. This was particularly evident when proof was produced that Louise DeFeo's blanket indeed *did* have bulletholes in it -- complete with a diagram showing where the holes were. Yet you tacitly ask the reader to dismiss this detailed report with your claim, 'I have it on good authority' otherwise.

FoxyJ wrote: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.

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.


Such comments were among the reasons why I posted the post on "Antisocial Personality Disorder," which is how at least one clinical psychiatrist classified Ronald DeFeo; you'll note many mentions of manipulative, charismatic behavior:

People with this disorder may appear charming on the surface, [...]

Manipulative and conning

Deceitfulness, manipulativeness

Some are aggressive, fearless sensation seekers, and others are Machiavellian manipulators.

CHARISMATIC PSYCHOPATHS are charming, attractive liars. They are usually gifted at some talent or another, and they use it to their advantage in manipulating others. They are usually fast-talkers, and possess an almost demonic ability to persuade others out of everything they own, even their lives.

They seem to be able to inhibit their antisocial impulses most of the time, not because of conscience, but because it suits their purpose at the time.


FoxyJ wrote: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?


This is the first I've heard of it being found "precisely where it was supposed to be stored."

I think a reasonable response is that, after a couple of decades, records are harder to locate. I do not accept Tracey DeFeo's claims that the paraffin wax test doesn't exist simply because it wasn't located. I'm not saying she's lying, I'm saying she's not taking into account that the document she produced on this topic stated 'could not be found/located' [paraphrased], and I don't think that is enough evidence to proclaim it never existed. I've also seen no evidence to cast aspersions upon the character of Karen Petterson who spoke quite plainly on the topic. Claiming that Petterson is a liar simply because of prior corruption in an unrelated department of the justice system two decades before is not sufficient 'evidence' with which to 'convict' Petterson.

In fact, the entire spirit of this thread is a point I've wanted to raise myself many times before, however I duly doubt I could have presented it as well as Krissy and Max have. The point is this: What are the statistical odds that ALL of these different, disconnected officials are conspiratorially lying together, as opposed to the statements of a man who has been caught in multiple lies over a span of a few decades, a man who himself recently said 'I didn't care who got blamed for it then, and I don't care now.' Hardly the 'I'm trying to clear my name only' demeanor that DeFeo's supporters frequently attribute to him, a demeanor which DeFeo himself showed no hint of whatsoever in the A&E interview. That's not only my opinion, but the opinion of the psychiatrist who questioned him over a protracted course of time, if I recall Tracey's statements correctly (please correct me if I have not).


FoxyJ wrote: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.


Whether it's mislocated is not the point, particularly when dealing with evidence over thirty years old; professionals within the investigation and (decades) later, different/disparate professionals describe both the test and the outcome. Also, the larger the physical/geographic area, the more instances of foul-ups will occur in any type of organization. Yes the loss or misplacement of evidence is unacceptable, but it does happen. But since more than one person has testified and/or attested to it's existence, there is far more evidence that the test was done than just thinking 'well everyone lied about it existing, it hasn't been produced' as being any sort of 'evidence' with which to proclaim it never existed in the first place. Making statements/reports under oath in a court of law *is* considered to be evidence, testimony.

Furthermore these people presented their evidence during either court/Superior court proceedings, whereas the only 'proof' to the opposite is that one person on the internet claims it *never* existed due to a document that stated it couldn't be located. These people gave sworn testimony under oath in front of multiple legal witnesses, unlike the shards of deceit culled from DeFeo's smattering of 'affidavits.' Let us not forget that among these claims of DeFeo's via these highly suspect 'affidavits' is the inclusion of a person who, to the best of all investigation, someone who appears to not exist at all, that DeFeo just made up to suit his own needs! (If I recall correctly, this, too, DeFeo blamed on 'others forcing him to do so.')

Again, a good time to refer to the post on Antisocial Personality Disorder: the way such people cannot accept blame for their own actions. 'Weber made me say it,' Weber made me do it,' 'Geraldine made me do that,' 'Hans Holzer made me say that,' ad nauseum. Everyone on the planet is a liar except Butchie, who's now told *so* many versions to *so* many people that he himself literally can't keep the stories straight within a five-minute period of his latest interview. His wildly differing claims contradict each other to such a grave degree, and are well-documented over the decades. It's more than obvious who the habitual liar is in this scenario, and it's statistically far less possible for it to have been the legion of professionals DeFeo constantly rails against.


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?


Honestly I find it improper and incongruent to compare DeFeo's dilemma to a "relative on death row" whose "life depended" on the outcome of DNA testing. By saying "who's life depended upon," is a clear suggestion that the DNA evidence in question would exonerate the person in this hypothetical situation from being executed. DeFeo is not on death row, and his life is not dependent upon the outcome of the DNA evidence.

However unfitting the scenario would be, yes of course I would do everything in my power to save a loved-one's life if they were on death row. But if my loved-one committed a crime worthy of life imprisonment, my respect would go to the law.


FoxyJ wrote: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??


"RJD" denied the alleged incidents *after* he himself claimed them. A slew of doctors, detectives, investigators feel that "RJD" has on many occasions described aspects of the children's death scenes that only the killer himself would know. More than a couple of witnesses said he pointed guns at people, again something that DeFeo himself admitted to. Now he wants to wipe the slate clean and start all over (for the umpteenth time/variation). So yeah, "he would say that." Of *course* he wants us to forget that he blamed the Mafia, his own mother, other perps, a laundrylist of suspects and versions. As Karen Petterson said to the Superior Court, "This is merely another unsubstantiated argument that Appellant has developed in the past sixteen years." (emphasis mine, of course)

FoxyJ wrote:All we laypersons can do is to look at the evidence to support these claims and denials.


But as Tia pointed out, rightly so, the validity and integrity of the source must also be kept in mind. Not all sources of data -- especially any data coming from DeFeo himself -- are necessarily factual. I can't agree with your suggestion that all evidence/testimony has equal value -- *especially* when referring to the environment of the Internet!

FoxyJ wrote: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.


I don't know of 'alleged accounts from neighbors' vis-a-vis gunshots at the house, but on more than one documentary I have seen a few people refer to DeFeo Jr. as a "bully," both in reference to school as well as his neighborhood; as well as reports of his having done nice things for neighbors too. This element of his personality, again fits the definition of APD.

FoxyJ wrote: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.


Maybe in the era of Edward R. Murrow or Walter Kronkite, but certainly not in our Rupert-Murdock-tabloid-influenced 'news reporting' of the current day. Sordid 'sells.' I'm surprised, with your husband involved in television, that you'd have assumed such a long-ago-outmoded stance. My line of work and family history are both intertwined in media, we have something in common, btw :)

And it's entirely possible that the family was loving and outgoing with frequent guests, and that Ronnie was the sole problem within the household. Also, this would again fit the APD statistics I posted. It's obvious to me that a relatively short time before the murders occurred, Mr. DeFeo Sr. was scared or worried about *something*, going as far as offering religious medals or relics to coworkers to 'keep the devil away.' Those do not seem like the actions of a man who rules a family with an iron fist and feels they are all under his thumb; they're far more indicative of a man who was truly worried about something bad either happening or impending.
User avatar
radiomixer
Billy's Next Ex-Wife
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 2:28 pm

Postby FoxyJ » Thu Jul 13, 2006 8:10 am

When I first came across the remake details of ?The Amityville Horror,? and the accompanying DeFeo references I wasn?t particularly interested, it all happened a very long time ago. I remembered the Ocean Avenue killings very well also my disbelief at the time that a son could murder his entire family, including young children, in cold blood and whilst they were defenceless in their beds. I followed the trial and was surprised that RJD was allowed to serve his sentences concurrently. That, as far as I was concerned, was the end of it.

Later, from curiosity, I read the original Jan Anson book and its sequel when they were first published and thought them good yarns but didn?t believe a word as non-fiction. I also watched the film, which I also enjoyed, but considered that pure fiction too. I remember feeling quite uncomfortable a film could be made that appeared to be capitalizing on a family murdered in such circumstances.

A couple of months ago I started reading all the many websites and bulletin boards about the case and was surprised to learn that all was perhaps not as cut-and-dried I had first thought way back in 1974/5. Some of the websites I read were informative; others poorly constructed and full of what I later found to be inaccuracies.

My attention mainly focused on why on earth when an anti-social yob like Ronald DeFeo Jr had slaughtered his daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren would Michael Brigante Sr have employed both a defence attorney and a private investigator to assist this evil little creep.

I read on .......

I found that RJD had, apparently, been married at the time of the murders, a fact I found curious as by this time I had read some of the trial transcripts and nowhere was there mention of a wife. It soon became apparent that no marriage had officially been recorded until the mid-eighties although the records show that this ?wife? was already married to someone else and the child attributed to RJD had in fact nothing to do with him. I noted from this site and from Mrs. DeFeo?s that there had been another, this time undisputedly legal, marriage that had ended in divorce but I chose to ignore the bitchiness that surrounded this ex-wife as I found it both unnecessary and irrelevant other than perhaps to emphasize RJD?s apparent reliance upon the support of what he saw as ?strong women? (purely a casual observation on my part, signifying nothing).

I read on ...............

I noted everything that RJD himself had to say about the murders and his subsequent interrogation; that he maintained no confession was made prior to his arrest either in writing or orally and yet this denial was dismissed as both irrelevant and untrue by the court who chose to believe the uncorroborated word of the officers concerned. (Any argument would have been unnecessary had the suspect?s interview and ?confession? been recorded).

I registered on Mrs. DeFeo?s site having read the information in her ?public section? in order that I could read other people?s slants on the case.

I noted that Herman Race, whose services had been paid for by Michael Brigante Sr, maintained he examined Dawn DeFeo?s nightgown and this garment showed unburned powder particles (no reliable indication of the precise area mentioned anywhere that I could find) that might indicate that she had fired a weapon on the night of the murders. My curiosity was aroused, a perfectly natural reaction I would have thought.

I was surprised that this article of clothing along with other items of evidence was at one time reported to have been destroyed and therefore no further examination was possible. I later read that a person looking for unrelated evidence in a local facility for the secure storage of such evidential items, came across a box clearly marked ?DeFeo? and that this box contained the hitherto ?destroyed? evidence.

I read that a ?paraffin test? had also been carried out on Dawn DeFeo?s hands but that despite a diligent search the results of this test could not be located (documented).

I did not deduce from this latter information that the test had never been performed but was surprised at the apparent incompetence of those whose job was to keep track of such evidence for future use.

My curiosity was aroused further by anomalies in the autopsies of the individual bodies of the victims (referred to in a previous post of mine).

I studied every document on Mrs. DeFeo?s site and noted her personal belief in what her husband had to say about the case. It is not for us to criticize her loyalty or to question the validity or otherwise of her defence of RJD. As far as I?m concerned it is not up for discussion.

I was reticent about posting my negative views about her husband and sent Mrs. DeFeo a private message assuring her that nothing I had to say would be disrespectful to her personally but that I had my own views on the subject that would be unlikely to accord with her own. Mrs. DeFeo assured me I could post with absolutely freedom and this I have since done many times.

Mrs. DeFeo has provided me with much information both from her husband and conveyed to her by other family members.

I have no reason to dismiss anything Mrs. DeFeo tells me ? all information is valuable from whichever source it comes. It is for me to make up my own mind what to believe and what to discard. Mrs. DeFeo does not lie about the information she provides; she has her own beliefs as to the truth of what she is told; that is her absolute right; never once has she expected any registered user to act as her mouthpiece or to support her opinions.

I?ve been accused of not posting links to sources of information; much of this is copyright protected with ?right clicking? disabled (yes I?m aware there are ways around this) but I?m not given to ?stealing?. Other information comes from collections of documents in ?members? sections? of sites for which a subscription is necessary and, therefore, linking is not an option.

There is much information about this particular case that is available to anyone prepared to search for it in the same way that I have done and Mrs. DeFeo is quite happy to assist where possible and when asked to do so. It is for we as individuals to decide whether or not we believe information to be valid.

I find it irritating when I read of Mrs. DeFeo?s board users being referred to as, ?Ronnie?s Supporters.? I have found that most, not all, users have similar opinions to my own as to RJD?s character and the way he has conducted himself during the past 32 years, that is not the issue. Mrs. DeFeo named her board ?The Injustices ****? and it is about that which all citizens should be concerned.

It troubles me that it was deemed quite acceptable for a suspect to be moved from place to place, being kept one jump ahead of his attorney, that a suspect should have been interviewed without legal representation whether or not the suspect waived his rights (as alleged), that interviews were not taped and that alleged oral confessions were accepted as evidence. I am also appalled that ?Judge Shopping? was apparently the norm at that time, an action to which Mr. Sullivan freely admitted. I speak in general terms here and not in connection with any particular case.

Rules of interview should, in my view, be tightened so that such musings as ?a suspect probably injured himself on purpose? would not be necessary. In the case of RJD, it has been suggested he could have beaten himself up ? from the medical report this would have been a physical impossibility given the position and nature of some of his injuries ? but then he?s a killer so why bother to afford him the protection to which he is legally entitled? After all it serves him right doesn?t it? I believe such an attitude makes us no better than those we profess to despise.

It has also been suggested that RJD knew of the poor reputation of the SCPD and played on this during and after his trial. Maybe he did but my references have also been to the eighties investigation into this particular department and it?s woeful track record. Personally I feel it?s unacceptable for any police department to obtain confessions by any means available to them, particularly when, as has been alleged, unlawful, or take advantage of their position of authority to indulge in the form of criminal activity for which they were the subjects of investigation.

It appears to be the consensus here and elsewhere that the DeFeo?s was a happy and united family disturbed only by the yobbish and criminal behaviour of their eldest son.

As far as I?m aware, no long-running, extensive and in-depth assessment was ever conducted into RJD?s apparent or if you will, alleged, psychological disorder. Two opposing expert witnesses engaged for the purpose by the defence and prosecution evaluated him in the time available. These two came to differing conclusions and the prosecution held sway.

Despite the castigation to which my opinions have been subjected by a small number of users on this board, I hold to my personal opinion that a normal ?correctional facility? is not the ideal environment for one such as RJD.

I fail to see how people who kill in the way RJD did can reasonably be considered of sound mind. Would they not be of far more use to society if incarcerated for an indeterminate period in an institution for the criminally insane? (We have Broadmoor and Rampton in the UK). There he could have been evaluated over an extended period, in a controlled environment, by dedicated professionals and given the mental healthcare that people such as he obviously need. The knowledge gained by these ?professionals? by close study of these rare cases could be invaluable in the recognition, diagnosis and treatment of patients before they reach the stage of committing the type of heinous crime of which RJD was guilty.

Serving a sentence in a mental facility such as I describe, does NOT lead to a lighter term of incarceration. There are many prisoners in England?s secure units who will never been released; Ian Brady (Moors Murderer) and Peter Sutcliffe (The Yorkshire Ripper) to name but two. Such a facility would also protect the ?patient? both from his own poor judgement and the exploitation of others; this would have been particularly beneficial to Ronald DeFeo Jr.

Whether RJD did kill only his parents and Dawn or some other person was involved is, I feel, irrelevant given the passage of time involved, as it would have made no difference to his original sentence nor, I believe, his chances of being granted parole now or at sometime in the future. Having said that, if and it is a big ?IF? he did not kill the three younger children, then he has every right to fight to clear himself of the ?child-killer? stigma whether you and I like it or not.

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

Postby zzvampy » Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:06 am

I remembered the Ocean Avenue killings very well also my disbelief at the time that a son could murder his entire family, including young children, in cold blood and whilst they were defenceless in their beds. I followed the trial and was surprised that RJD was allowed to serve his sentences concurrently.


Interesting. You are one of only a very few who frequent the message boards to have been aware of the murders prior to the horror. Outside of the residents of Amityville and the surrounding area, most folks came to learn about the DeFeo murders due to the Lutzes experiences in the house.

Mrs. DeFeo has provided me with much information both from her husband and conveyed to her by other family members.


Information from Ronnie? Pertaining to which version? Family members? To whom would you be referring if I may ask?

I?ve been accused of not posting links to sources of information; much of this is copyright protected


Would this happen to be relative to msmart112's request for you to provide a link that would show where one of the judges was ?so shocked? that they ?declined to continue? until Ronnie had been examined? If so, I believe the PM function on this board works very well.


It has also been suggested that RJD knew of the poor reputation of the SCPD and played on this during and after his trial.



The SCPD also knew of the poor reputation of RJD. As a matter of fact, the SCPD were becoming quite acquainted with Ronnie in September of 1973...

Image
I hold to my personal opinion that a normal ?correctional facility? is not the ideal environment for one such as RJD.


I agree.

As noted in this 1999 Newsday article, Ronnie wasn't exactly an exemplary inmate:

"While behind bars, DeFeo, 47, has been disciplined for everything from heroin possession to assault to counterfeiting, said Mike Houston, spokesman for the state Department of Correctional Services. Overall, only five of the 98 state prisoners serving time for murder or attempted first-degree murder between April, 1998, and March, 1999, were granted parole after their first hearing, Grant said."
zzvampy
The Black Bralia
 
Posts: 2521
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:11 pm
Location: PA

Postby OldSoul70 » Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:48 am

zzvampy wrote:
I remembered the Ocean Avenue killings very well also my disbelief at the time that a son could murder his entire family, including young children, in cold blood and whilst they were defenceless in their beds. I followed the trial and was surprised that RJD was allowed to serve his sentences concurrently.


Interesting. You are one of only a very few who frequent the message boards to have been aware of the murders prior to the horror. Outside of the residents of Amityville and the surrounding area, most folks came to learn about the DeFeo murders due to the Lutzes experiences in the house.

"[/b]


When the whole Defeo murder thing came into play it was a big deal on Long Island. My mom said that it was a big deal and that it was a pretty big story, then when the haunting story came that also was pretty big. I think it was big, because it was more of surprise for something that big to happen on the island. Now forget it, nothing is a surprise anymore.
OldSoul70
Amityville Addict
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:30 pm
Location: Long Island , New York

Postby TIA » Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:04 am

FoxyJ wrote:I found that RJD had, apparently, been married at the time of the murders, a fact I found curious as by this time I had read some of the trial transcripts and nowhere was there mention of a wife. It soon became apparent that no marriage had officially been recorded until the mid-eighties although the records show that this ?wife? was already married to someone else and the child attributed to RJD had in fact nothing to do with him. I noted from this site and from Mrs. DeFeo?s that there had been another, this time undisputedly legal, marriage that had ended in divorce but I chose to ignore the bitchiness that surrounded this ex-wife as I found it both unnecessary and irrelevant other than perhaps to emphasize RJD?s apparent reliance upon the support of what he saw as ?strong women? (purely a casual observation on my part, signifying nothing).


Did you also note that he gets those around him to express his lies for him and to lie on his behalf?

I noted everything that RJD himself had to say about the murders and his subsequent interrogation; that he maintained no confession was made prior to his arrest either in writing or orally and yet this denial was dismissed as both irrelevant and untrue by the court who chose to believe the uncorroborated word of the officers concerned. (Any argument would have been unnecessary had the suspect?s interview and ?confession? been recorded).


The court held a hearing to determine whether the evidence obtained as a result of the confession was admissible. The court chose not to accept the word of RDJ, who has changed his story on this as everything else. He has previously admitted he confessed.

It's unfortunate that those types of interview were not recorded. It was not routine in either the UK nor the US at the time. It helps protect the defendant, and the police from false accusations.


I noted that Herman Race, whose services had been paid for by Michael Brigante Sr, maintained he examined Dawn DeFeo?s nightgown and this garment showed unburned powder particles (no reliable indication of the precise area mentioned anywhere that I could find) that might indicate that she had fired a weapon on the night of the murders.


On the recent A&E documentary forensics experts explained why this doesn't mean Dawn fired a rifle.

By the way, could you cite a source for Herman Race actually saying this? Or did this come just from RDJ? Or Ric Osuna?




I did not deduce from this latter information that the test had never been performed but was surprised at the apparent incompetence of those whose job was to keep track of such evidence for future use.


Really? Have you never encountered bureacracy?


I?ve been accused of not posting links to sources of information; much of this is copyright protected with ?right clicking? disabled (yes I?m aware there are ways around this) but I?m not given to ?stealing?.


You don't need to worry. Posting a link to a site like this:

http://www.amityvillefaq.com/truthboard/index.php

is just letting people know where they can reach the source you're referring to.

Quoting a portion of a text (rather than it's entirety) doesn't violate copyright. It comes under fair use. It's certainly not stealing :D.





Other information comes from collections of documents in ?members? sections? of sites for which a subscription is necessary and, therefore, linking is not an option.


Which makes it pretty redundant, particularly in discussion. Someone you're discussing the subject with cannot then check if you have misunderstood what you're reading, if the document has been edited etc.


It troubles me that it was deemed quite acceptable for a suspect to be moved from place to place, being kept one jump ahead of his attorney, that a suspect should have been interviewed without legal representation whether or not the suspect waived his rights (as alleged), that interviews were not taped and that alleged oral confessions were accepted as evidence.


Context is everything. Some things that are routinely done now (for example taping of interviews, at least in the UK) was not procedure then. And whether or not you think someone who has waived his right to an attorney should have one, that's pretty normal as well.

Rules of interview should, in my view, be tightened so that such musings as ?a suspect probably injured himself on purpose? would not be necessary. In the case of RJD, it has been suggested he could have beaten himself up ? from the medical report this would have been a physical impossibility given the position and nature of some of his injuries ? but then he?s a killer so why bother to afford him the protection to which he is legally entitled? After all it serves him right doesn?t it? I believe such an attitude makes us no better than those we profess to despise.


I agree.

Also, I don't think it's likely he beat himself. I could be wrong though. And it's more than possible that the minor injuries he had were as a result of the fight he had with his father, or another incident. He got into a lot of fights. He was a violent man. He also lies pretty constantly.


It appears to be the consensus here and elsewhere that the DeFeo?s was a happy and united family disturbed only by the yobbish and criminal behaviour of their eldest son.


Then you should read more posts here. There is a wide range of opinions expressed here.

Personally I'd be incredulous if the Defeos were a perfect family with no problems (does such a family exist?). But quite what toll a sociopathic son would take on the family I think is an important question. And just as I don't take a rapist's view of his victim as 'asking for it' seriously, neither will I unquestionably accept the shifting characterisations a murderer presents of his victims.


Despite the castigation to which my opinions have been subjected by a small number of users on this board, I hold to my personal opinion that a normal ?correctional facility? is not the ideal environment for one such as RJD.


Disagreement is not castigation.


I fail to see how people who kill in the way RJD did can reasonably be considered of sound mind.


Because it's not as black and white as that.

The kind of personality disorder Defeo has doesn't take away culpability, it doesn't stop him from understanding an action is wrong. That's why he is still legally held accountable.


I wish we could give him the ability to empathise, to fully feel guilt.

The knowledge gained by these ?professionals? by close study of these rare cases could be invaluable in the recognition, diagnosis and treatment of patients before they reach the stage of committing the type of heinous crime of which RJD was guilty.


Such studies are already being carried out. It's increasingly looking as though the brains of sociopaths and psychopaths function differently:

http://www.forensic-psych.com/articles/artGoode.html



Serving a sentence in a mental facility such as I describe, does NOT lead to a lighter term of incarceration. There are many prisoners in England?s secure units who will never been released; Ian Brady (Moors Murderer) and Peter Sutcliffe (The Yorkshire Ripper) to name but two. Such a facility would also protect the ?patient? both from his own poor judgement and the exploitation of others; this would have been particularly beneficial to Ronald DeFeo Jr.


I have no problem with that. Just to clarify though, Ian Brady is still a prisonor serving a sentence but in a different type of facility, and he's not going to be let out. Unfortunately, we're still a long way from effective treatment for these people. I don't think we should ever stop trying.

But such dangerous killers cannot and should not be released.

And those who are culpable, who understand their actions are wrong, should be punished.


Whether RJD did kill only his parents and Dawn or some other person was involved is, I feel, irrelevant given the passage of time involved, as it would have made no difference to his original sentence nor, I believe, his chances of being granted parole now or at sometime in the future.


Of course it matters that he killed the children. Do you honestly think that doesn't effect the parole board's view of his crime?


Having said that, if and it is a big ?IF? he did not kill the three younger children, then he has every right to fight to clear himself of the ?child-killer? stigma whether you and I like it or not.


He can fight all he likes. But whether you like it or not, he doesn't have the right to demand redundant tests to support his latest in a long line of tall tales, when they cannot clear his name of anything.
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 zzvampy » Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:43 pm

I've often wondered if Ronnie's stories of police brutality weren't perhaps the result of an uncooperative suspect. Keeping in mind Ronnie's history of violence and assault ( eventually murder ) would it be that difficult to believe he may have used physical force against those questioning him, leading to the detectives having to restrain him?

Ronnie was well known to the SCPD and had even been in a scuffle with former chief of police Kenneth Greguski. Greguski tells the story of Ronnie being at Henry's Bar with a gun, threatening a patron of the Bar. Eventually, they both ( Ronnie and Greguski ) ended up on the floor until Greguski was forced to handcuff Ronnie and take him to headquarters.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Ronald DeFeo Jr. was NO stranger to SCPD, nor were they to him.

Below, from the UK - "Killing Mum and Dad" documentary, is a link to Ken Greguski's account of that evening.



http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?a ... E86D74D1D5
zzvampy
The Black Bralia
 
Posts: 2521
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:11 pm
Location: PA

Postby FoxyJ » Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:45 pm

Thank you for your comments TIA.

TIA:Did you also note that he gets those around him to express his lies for him and to lie on his behalf?


I have previously expressed my surprise that a man so apparently anti-social was/is able to persuade others to lie on his behalf.

TIA:The court held a hearing to determine whether the evidence obtained as a result of the confession was admissible. The court chose not to accept the word of RDJ, who has changed his story on this as everything else. He has previously admitted he confessed.

It's unfortunate that those types of interview were not recorded. It was not routine in either the UK or the US at the time. It helps protect the defendant, and the police from false accusations.


Your response essentially echoes my own original statement.

On the recent A&E documentary forensics experts explained why this doesn't mean Dawn fired a rifle.

By the way, could you cite a source for Herman Race actually saying this? Or did this come just from RDJ? Or Ric Osuna?


As I have stated many times, I am aware that the GSR described in the initial report would not have been proof-positive that Dawn fired a gun that night but surely testing would have been desirable at that time if only to exclude her as a possible participant, as would the results of the paraffin tests taken from her hands. Had this testing been done and the results published, there would have been no reason to doubt that RJD was the sole gunman.

Ric Osuna?s assertion that others were with RJD at the house that night were, as far as I?m concerned, pure fiction having presumably resulted from false information fed to him by Mrs. Gates and [probably] RJD himself.

Herman Race?s reticence to give his evidence regarding the GSR in open court where family members were present, leads me to believe that he did in fact have reason to believe they may show Dawn?s possible involvement. That is my own personal deduction from my reading of the transcript(s).

TIA:Really? Have you never encountered bureaucracy?


Of course but incompetence as shown here is unacceptable and inexcusable. In other circumstances such lack of care could result in an innocent person being convicted. Hopefully nowadays better care is taken of such evidence that could be vital for the retrieval of DNA. There are many recorded cases of convicted persons being cleared by DNA testing after many years of incarceration.

Which makes it pretty redundant, particularly in discussion. Someone you're discussing the subject with cannot then check if you have misunderstood what you're reading, if the document has been edited etc.


No one?s point of view should ever be considered redundant. I try to draw conclusions from what I read. I like people to consider and question my own opinions that I form from everything I read; therefore I see no point in posting snippets from here and there. I?m absolutely sure that most people commenting on this particular case will have read much the same information as I and will have formed their views similarly.

TIA:Personally I'd be incredulous if the Defeos were a perfect family with no problems (does such a family exist?). But quite what toll a sociopath son would take on the family I think is an important question. And just as I don't take a rapist's view of his victim as 'asking for it' seriously, neither will I unquestionably accept the shifting characterisations a murderer presents of his victims.


Agreed. The DeFeo family were the innocent victims of this dreadful crime, of that there can be no doubt. Like many other people, I look for reasons why a son could, without warning, take up a rifle and systematically slaughter the very people he professes to have loved and with whom he says he had a close relationship. To ?normal? people going about their daily lives and coping with all the many problems that presents, such an act is inconceivable. It is hardly surprising that many of us are seeking the reasons for his behaviour.


We know that RJD had constant arguments with his father; at work, these would have been witnessed by his fellow employees, as was the row between the two following the alleged ?staged? robbery and RJD?s alleged unwillingness to co-operate with the police. It is well documented that he had been in trouble with the law previously ? a girlfriend apparently notified the police that he was taking drugs ? his involvement in the theft of an outboard motor. None of these incidents, however, would have given rise to the suspicion that this young man was capable of the slaughtering his family. It is this one act that has [some of] us baffled and for which we would like answers. Perfunctory examination by two ?expert witnesses? with differing views simply does not satisfy.

Disagreement is not castigation.


I have been accused of imparting ?dangerous? views.

My references to Ian Brady and Peter Sutcliffe were to assure those who believe a ?stint? in a mental hospital might result in early release, that this is not the case with institutions for the criminally insane such as Broadmoor and Rampton. Of course patients are released if it is considered they are ?cured,? but, unlike, regular prisons, great care is taken when doing so.

A fellow inmate made an allegation whilst RJD was on remand that he had bragged he would merely serve a couple of years in a mental hospital before being set free. This is not the type of institution to which I refer.


It matters not a wit whether I ?like it or not? but I stand by my statement that if RJD wishes to try to clear his name of the stigma of ?Child-killer,? then that is his right and if he wishes to have items of evidence ?tested? at no cost to the State, I fail to understand why this would not be allowed especially as Judge Stark originally agreed with conditions that have been satisfied by RJD?s paternal grandmother?s lodging of the necessary expenses.

Whether or not he is ever granted Parole is a completely different issue from why he committed the murders in the first place and whether or not he was originally afforded the protection to which all suspects of crime are entitled; this is my primary interest in the case.

While he continues to protest his innocence of the murder of the children, I doubt he will ever persuade a Parole Board of his suitability for release in the foreseeable future, despite the fact that he has been on Honour Block for the past 31 years and, apart from one incident for which he was cleared, he has no stain on his prison record.

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

Postby TigresMeow » Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:02 pm

Is it possible that the reason testing wasn't done on Dawn's nightgown was because of the location of the powder burns? Maybe no testing was done because it was on the rear shoulder of her nightgown which would have come from being shot at such a close range?
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 zzvampy » Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:05 pm

Tigre§Meow© wrote:Is it possible that the reason testing wasn't done on Dawn's nightgown was because of the location of the powder burns? Maybe no testing was done because it was on the rear shoulder of her nightgown which would have come from being shot at such a close range?


Excellent point Kat, because NO where has it EVER been stated precisely where the powder burns were located.

Front, back, side, etc...and if anyone can show me where it's ever been stated otherwise, I'd be much appreciative. By this I am referring to documented reports, not "he said she said" on "good authority".
zzvampy
The Black Bralia
 
Posts: 2521
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:11 pm
Location: PA

PreviousNext

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
cron