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.