If anyone has seen the crime scene photos.......

General Discussion About the 1974 DeFeo Murders and related topics

Dan the damned

Postby lori52976 » Sun Apr 19, 2009 9:09 am

If a hunter went out to kill one deer, would he just bring one bullet?

Ok we are talking about a human not a deer...A 500lb+ animal vs a 200lb man, you cant even compare that. That point is invalid.

As far as contradicting myself I said that I dont think he meant to kill EVERYONE but it did happen...I dont think he meant to kill every single person but def more than 1... however I do think he planned to kill his parents without question and maybe even his sister Dawn since there was some hatred there. Even if he only meant to kill one person (his dad) he would not have fully loaded his rifle and carried more on him to reload. Why so much amo for 1 person who is in bed sleeping? Makes no sense to me.
lori52976
Amityville Member
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:03 pm

Postby lori52976 » Sun Apr 19, 2009 9:26 am

Also regarding Butch's alibi and not thinking of a good one. I am sure if any of you have seen him speak on one of his many interviews such as the one on A&E you can clearly see he is not the most intelligent person. He seems rather dumb and crazy at the same time, and I can only imagine how smart a drug addict could have been 30 years ago in his early 20's.
He def was not smart enough to committ a crime and get away with it. He did admit on his interview that he wanted to kill his father and also mentioned "it wasnt suppossed to happen like that" he had said something about putting a hit on his dad before this even happened. He said in his words "my father had to go, he had to go"
lori52976
Amityville Member
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:03 pm

Postby Link the Labrador » Sun Apr 19, 2009 11:47 am

astonio wrote:Imma give it my best, so here goes:

Dan the Damned wrote:That raises a lot more questions than Shaggy.

If the murders were planned, why did he fail to think up a good alibi? Ans: His intelligence level isn't that great. I believe he just didn't think that completely far in advance. He enacted an alibi, of sorts, by disposing of the evidence and heading to work as usual, assuring he made himself visible through out the day of the 13th by visiting the diner in the morning, taking off a little early from work, heading to Mindy's house, running into Bobby, going to the mall with Mindy, stopping by his friend's house to shoot up, having drinks at Henry's...all the while ensuring he was visibly concerned with not being able to reach anyone at the house.

Why didn't he just drug the family's food to keep them in bed?
Ans: He would have had to have the proficiency of a pharmacist to administer the correct amount of dosage of whatever drug to incapacitate a 280lb man middle aged man to a 9 year old little boy. Intelligence factor played a part in this.

If he was looking for a silencer days in advance, why not postpone the murders until he could get a gun that would work with a silencer? Ans: Because no such silencer was made for a weapon of that caliber and size, so he wouldn't have found such a silencer this way. It didn't exist. Maybe consideration of using a different caliber weapon did come to mind, but everything was "right" that night and he moved forward believing if he stuck to his story, he "could" have been absolved of the crime.

Like the snub-nosed .38 that Kelske said Ronnie fired on several occasions in the parking lot of Henry's bar.
Response: I'm confused when you mention this. Was this .38 outfitted with a silencer? And with his father's girth and that caliber of handgun, maybe he questioned if he would have even been successful in murdering everyone without only wounding them.

And more importantly, why kill the kids?
Ans: Today I believe he feels remorse for the kids, but in '74, not so much. During his questioning with the police, his disdain, to put it mildly, for his siblings and family members was evidenced by his descriptive comments of them. On top of which, had he spared the kids, as you have mentioned, they would have easily pointed the finger at him for the crime.

If he was planning the murder, why even tell his friend he was looking for a silencer? Wouldn't that look a bit incriminating after the fact? Ans: Only if he, say, the next day after not finding a silencer, he kills the whole family could one make the distinct connection to his asking for a silencer. Moreover, what would he have been needing a silencer for? It's a hunting rifle. Would he have been able to tell Bobby, I want to kill my family?

Kelske also said Ronnie planned and successfully carried out a "hide in burglary" at the car dealership (and that he saw the burglar giving Ronnie his share of the money).

I mean, if Ronnie can plan that out, I would think he'd plan his family's murder out just a tad better than how it went down.
Ans: Theft from his grandfather's dealership and the planning of such theft is much lesser than planning murder. Same species, per se, but different animals, if you will.


Conclusion: You have to understand, things were coming to an incredible boil by this point. There were events taking place where his parents very well may have intended to no longer support him, even in defense when concerning the robbery. It may have been the last straw. The "theft" at the dealership ($19K+) occurred two weeks prior. The Friday before the murders, he gets into it with his dad. The Saturday before the murders, he gets busted by his father returning home with a bunch of new clothes and unable to account to his recent windfall. It was his mother's dealership and she probably felt more than slighted by Butch's actions. His parents simply did not believe his story or understand his lack of cooperation with the police to uncover it. He wouldn't or couldn't pick out anyone from photographs. He probably caught more than an earful of possibly his parents discussing the issue of the theft and concluding they are wiping their hands. With this stigmatism floating over his head the two weeks prior to the murders, I'm sure he began to appear different and more troubled in his siblings eyes. No one was believing him and therefore, expendable. Think, if the kids lived, they would have been able to provide not only the identity of their parents' killer, but also the motive, with being privvy to household discussions.


Dawn would have been the only real danger here. I don't put it past Buch to try to bully Allison, Marc, and John into lying for him to cover him up.

Think about it, they're little kids, ages 9-14. Think they're gonna be able to stand up to a 23-year-old drug addict that's physically much more stronger than they are?

Plus, even if Marc (wasn't he the oldest of Allison and John?) went over to the police and told them everything, who are they gonna believe? Him or his 23-year-old brother who's telling him to shut up and sit down?

The only other person in the house beside the parents that could really incriminate Butch was Dawn, so if Butch wanted to spare the children, Dawn wasn't going to be one of them.
Link the Labrador
The Lab from Amityville
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 3:27 pm
Location: Alabama, USA

Postby astonio » Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:27 pm

That's a really hard argument. Allison was the oldest of the younger three at 13 years old. If he spared the kids and the kids, even without Dawn (18), reported to police the killer and provide a reason for a motive, I can't believe Butch would be in a position to intimidate his youngest siblings to remain silent when their parents were killed almost before their eyes. On top of which, if through their testimony to police of what transpired, they would have had the support of their extended family, not to mention law enforcement agencies, protecting their testimonies and person. Moreover, their grandfather referred to Butch as a 'horror' to his daughter, Mrs. DeFeo, so the kids' would have been able to fill in the blanks, so to speak.
"Everywhere I went wuz like uh telephone; no answer."
User avatar
astonio
Resident
 
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Postby Dan the Damned » Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:33 pm

astonio wrote:Think, if the kids lived, they would have been able to provide not only the identity of their parents' killer, but also the motive, with being privvy to household discussions.


Yes, but if he killed his parents away from the house, the kids wouldn't be witnesses. And if he planned to kill the kids all along (thinking far enough in advance to where the kids might tell the cops about family discussions which may incriminate him), then why talk so loosely about "looking for a silencer" to Kelske? Wouldn't the same concern apply there, too?

But who knows. You may be right. It just seems to me more likely that the kids were killed because they were in the house at the time of their parents murder. It seems haphazard. It seems spontaneous to me. So far, I can't go with the "it was planned, but planned badly" theory.

Dan wrote:If a hunter went out to kill one deer, would he just bring one bullet?
lori52976 wrote:Ok we are talking about a human not a deer...A 500lb+ animal vs a 200lb man, you cant even compare that. That point is invalid.


I don't think its invalid at all. Sure there are differences, but what is the commonality? In both instances, the subject can move at the last minute and ruin your shot and waste a bullet.

lori52976 wrote:Even if he only meant to kill one person (his dad) he would not have fully loaded his rifle and carried more on him to reload. Why so much amo for 1 person who is in bed sleeping? Makes no sense to me.


Ronnie's father could easily have awoken when hearing Ronnie coming down the stairs. He could have mistaken Ronnie's footsteps for a prowler, and may have been ready to act. Even if he didn't mistake Ronnie for a prowler, I'm sure when the bedroom doorknob started to turn he may have jumped out of bed or grabbed a gun or something.

Of course none of that happened; but the point is Ronnie wouldn't know that in advance. So he would have loaded the rifle fully. And such an act is, I'm sure, totally normal for any gun owner. If you're going to load your gun, load it fully. Be prepared for some of the rounds to miss the target or for the victim to still be alive, running on adrenaline, possibly capable of a struggle.

We know, looking back at the event, that it only took 2 bullets to kill his father. We know that neither bullet missed the target. We know that Ronald Sr didn't wake up and struggle with Ronnie. We know all that. Ronnie didn't. Ronnie couldn't see into the future and know he'd only need 2 bullets in the gun.

I'm sorry, but I just don't think its valid to conclude that he definitely meant to kill everyone based on him loading the gun fully.

Besides, even if that point was valid, we don't know if the gun was fully loaded or not. We assume the gun was fully loaded because we assume the kids were shot quickly, because we assume if they weren't, they most likely would have run away while Ronnie was upstairs reloading...

Yes, I think that's a likely series of assumptions, but we don't know for sure.

lori52976 wrote:He def was not smart enough to committ a crime and get away with it.


Well, according to Kelske he did just that when he planned a robbery of the car dealership he worked at.
User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
 
Posts: 11757
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:12 pm

Postby astonio » Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:47 pm

Dan the Damned wrote:
astonio wrote:Think, if the kids lived, they would have been able to provide not only the identity of their parents' killer, but also the motive, with being privvy to household discussions.


Yes, but if he killed his parents away from the house, the kids wouldn't be witnesses. And if he planned to kill the kids all along (thinking far enough in advance to where the kids might tell the cops about family discussions which may incriminate him), then why talk so loosely about "looking for a silencer" to Kelske? Wouldn't the same concern apply there, too?


Not necessarily. I base this on convo between friends and the fact that said convo would only matter after the fact and not before. If I were ever to share some of the convos my best friend and I discuss...well, those convos could be incriminating, too.....on his part tho...LMAO!!!
"Everywhere I went wuz like uh telephone; no answer."
User avatar
astonio
Resident
 
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Postby Dan the Damned » Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:52 pm

Yes, the convo would only matter after the fact. Exactly.

My point is that since Ronnie felt okay to ask Kelske about buying a silencer a couple of days before the murders, then he wasn't too concerned with "conversations which could incriminate him."

Therefore he wouldn't be concerned with the kids telling the cops about family discussions which might incriminate him.

Therefore, I feel the kids were not killed because of that, but merely because they were witnesses to the murders.
User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
 
Posts: 11757
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:12 pm

Postby astonio » Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:05 pm

Dan the Damned wrote:Yes, the convo would only matter after the fact. Exactly.

My point is that since Ronnie felt okay to ask Kelske about buying a silencer a couple of days before the murders, then he wasn't too concerned with "conversations which could incriminate him."

- I'm not certain if it was 'days' before the murders. If memory serves me right, there was mention of months prior.

Therefore he wouldn't be concerned with the kids telling the cops about family discussions which might incriminate him.

- I can't see why he wouldn't be concerned since he was suspected in the dealership robbery. It would speak to his character if one or all of them stated he killed our parents and this is what happened the days before leading up to the murders. He would be incriminated on the spot.

Therefore, I feel the kids were not killed because of that, but merely because they were witnesses to the murders.

- Yes, I tend to agree with you here. The kids were witnesses. Whether spontaneous or not, in his mind, they would have impeded whatever plans he was making after the killings would have been behind him.
"Everywhere I went wuz like uh telephone; no answer."
User avatar
astonio
Resident
 
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Postby Dan the Damned » Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:21 pm

We're both wrong -- a quick check of "High Hopes" shows Kelske saying Butch was looking for a silencer "a couple of weeks ago," not days or months...

So if the kids were only killed because they were witnesses, then they were not Ronnie's intended victims.

And if they were not the intended victims, then can we really say this murder was planned in advance?
User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
 
Posts: 11757
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:12 pm

Postby astonio » Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:43 pm

Good point. And thanks for verifying. I was a bit to lazy to walk less than 3 ft to my book case.

I'm having trouble with your argument of the kids not being intended vs. premeditation.
"Everywhere I went wuz like uh telephone; no answer."
User avatar
astonio
Resident
 
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Postby Dan the Damned » Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:49 pm

My argument is that if this was planned, and if the kids were not meant to die, then Ronnie would have planned for the crime to take place either away from the house or at a time when the kids were away. That way the kids wouldn't have to be killed.

Or are you saying you don't think the kids were meant to be killed, but Ronnie simply didn't care whether they lived or died?
User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
 
Posts: 11757
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:12 pm

Postby astonio » Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:56 pm

Very good question...at that time of his life, unfortunate as it may be, I don't think he cared if they lived or died. Something about his movements throughout that entire day stick out to me as lying in wait. Working up the nerve to go through with the crime. Staying home from work that Tuesday feigning illness, the escalation of his circumstance in the days prior. Just a lot. He had some self induced pressure on his back. For whatever reason, those early morning hours proved to be the perfect time.
"Everywhere I went wuz like uh telephone; no answer."
User avatar
astonio
Resident
 
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Postby astonio » Mon Apr 20, 2009 1:01 pm

This just came to me. There's often the argument the kids could or would or should have "run away" at around 3 in the morning from a supposed sound sleep. Where exactly would they have run to if they indeed heard the gunfire from their parents' room?
"Everywhere I went wuz like uh telephone; no answer."
User avatar
astonio
Resident
 
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Postby VampireKen » Mon Apr 20, 2009 1:12 pm

astonio wrote:This just came to me. There's often the argument the kids could or would or should have "run away" at around 3 in the morning from a supposed sound sleep. Where exactly would they have run to if they indeed heard the gunfire from their parents' room?


This is a bad refrence and the layout is different but if you watch Amityville II the kids escape (only to be killed a minute or two later).
"Sometimes, it's not the house that's haunted. It's the People."-Self

For Info on Filming Details of the Amityville Horror Trilogy, please view http://amityvillefaq.com/truthboard/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6594&start=210
User avatar
VampireKen
Amityville Film Historian
 
Posts: 1992
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 12:39 pm
Location: Toms River, NJ

Postby Jetstar3D » Mon Apr 20, 2009 2:05 pm

VampireKen wrote:
This is a bad refrence and the layout is different but if you watch Amityville II the kids escape (only to be killed a minute or two later).



Amityville II is a movie, and a bad one at that. Though in the movie, having the kids get up and try to run makes more sense and no doubt they included this for 'suspense-factor'...
User avatar
Jetstar3D
Shiner
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:45 pm
Location: Sidewinder, Michigan

Postby Dan the Damned » Mon Apr 20, 2009 2:28 pm

astonio wrote:This just came to me. There's often the argument the kids could or would or should have "run away" at around 3 in the morning from a supposed sound sleep. Where exactly would they have run to if they indeed heard the gunfire from their parents' room?


Trying to imagine myself in that position, I don't know if I would even try to run due to the layout of the house -- knowing I would be an easy target all the way down the stairs.

If possible I would attempt to jump out the window, but that's a good height. At the boys' age I would jump off the local pier -- about the same height, but they would have no soft beach to land onto.

If I knew I could escape the house, I would just try to run and hide in a neighbor's backyard, probably -- just like a crook running from the cops...
User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
 
Posts: 11757
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:12 pm

Postby VampireKen » Mon Apr 20, 2009 2:32 pm

I consider that movie a sequel more than a prequel. What's interesting is that Defeo shot his parents first and not Dawn.
"Sometimes, it's not the house that's haunted. It's the People."-Self

For Info on Filming Details of the Amityville Horror Trilogy, please view http://amityvillefaq.com/truthboard/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6594&start=210
User avatar
VampireKen
Amityville Film Historian
 
Posts: 1992
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 12:39 pm
Location: Toms River, NJ

Postby astonio » Mon Apr 20, 2009 2:33 pm

You're allowing yourself time to consider too much before Butch would be in your room aiming the rifle your way.

The fact is, there was nothing the kids could have done. Marc still used his chair to go to the bathroom. All the supposition of what "should" have happened never leaves room an amount of time for consideration. According to Butch, it happened so fast. Once he started, he couldn't stop. Also, from his quote with Holzer, it was over in seconds.
"Everywhere I went wuz like uh telephone; no answer."
User avatar
astonio
Resident
 
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Postby Dan the Damned » Mon Apr 20, 2009 2:58 pm

I agree, I don't think the kids had a chance.

I guess I misunderstood your question. I thought it was more like "if the kids could have gotten out of the house at 3am, where would they have run to".
User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
 
Posts: 11757
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:12 pm

Postby astonio » Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:09 pm

No. It wasn't that.

Lots of folks project what the kids 'should' have done, as if having compiled the evidence in hindsight there was an option, but no one posts, nor could they, what was running through their minds having to hear at least two gunshots, feet from their rooms. As if they would have been schooled in an action plan like the movies. They were HELPLESS, DEFENSELESS CHILDREN. If they heard gunfire, before they could even register the sound, their first thoughts may have been: OMG! By which point, they would have been aimed upon seconds after.

The point of the matter is this: their brother was gunning for them as well that morning. I don't believe they were collateral or secondary in thought. The idea was to wipe out the entire family for an unknown gain.
"Everywhere I went wuz like uh telephone; no answer."
User avatar
astonio
Resident
 
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

reply to all

Postby lori52976 » Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:15 pm

I just feel that all the answers to our many questions are in those crime scene photos....I have looked at how everyone is positioned and I cant help but think that when I see the one of the boys, especially of the youngest boy he just looks so stiff and unnatural as if he wasnt sleeping. Almost like he was scared and awake and just braced himself for what was about to happen. I get this feeling he just buried his face in the bed, completely scared and closed his eyes. Then when I see the older the brother his head is turned out facing where Ronnie would have been standing but he of course was helpless seeing as he couldnt move to well without assistance. I often wonder if he was trying to get out of the bed and pushed the wheelchair out of the way, since I did notice in the crime scene pics there did not seem to be blood on the wheelchair but under it which was strange. As if Ronnie put it back in its place after he shot his brother. Does anyone agree with that?
lori52976
Amityville Member
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:03 pm

PreviousNext

Return to DeFeo Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dotbot [Bot] and 1 guest

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