The Ryan Katzenbach interviews on Dominion Live Radio

General Discussion About the 1974 DeFeo Murders and related topics
User avatar
TigresMeow
Yo Adrian I luv black caulk
Posts: 1625
Location: Inside my own mind

Post by TigresMeow » Mon Nov 09, 2009 9:20 pm

I think ever since Ric parted ways with George, it's just been about him making a buck with all the research materials.
He will be lucky if he makes one buck. . . . :P
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
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11904

Post by Dan the Damned » Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:17 pm

You bring up an interesting subject. In 2004, Ric said he had spent around $20,000 researching his book (insinuating that most of that was due to multiple trips back n forth from Vegas to New York). As far as profits, he said he sold around 200 books through Xlibris (getting around $4 per book), then he sold around 20 via Katco, and later sold around 200 copies through Booksurge (where he got 25% per book or 10% on sales through Amazon). In total, it seems he made something in the neighborhood of $1,500 in profits minus the $20,000 he spent while writing the book.

So unless Ric erased some of that debt by filing for bankruptcy at some point, then he lost around $18k on this whole mess.

I wonder how much money Ryan's movie will cost him in the end? And they say history never repeats... :roll:

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11904

Post by Dan the Damned » Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:08 am

Just reading Ric Osuna's 2004 deposition:
page 188 (2nd session)

Q. All right. Concerning The Night The DeFeos Died, who did you interview for that book?

A. Off the top of my head, Ronald DeFeo, Jr., Geraldine DeFeo Gates, possibly Roxanne Kaplan, Roger Stacy, Joel Martin, Doug Sparrow. That’s kind of all I can think of right now.
So Ric's book was basically based on these 6 people? What would Roxanne Kaplan know about the murders? What would Roger Stacy know about anything -- wasn't he just a fellow internet board member?

Q. What did Roger Stacy have to offer about the DeFeos or the Lutzes or anything about your book?

A. I felt — he had an interesting thing. He wanted to give the Lutzes a new polygraph test, and he made that offer and it wasn’t elected, so — he had something else to contribute. I just can’t remember what it is off the top of my head.

Q. I just want to know what a 29-year-old lawyer from Southern California can contribute or what you viewed this 29-year-old lawyer from Southern California could contribute to a forensic investigation of 34-year-old murders?

A. I don’t know what my frame of mind was at that time, my mind-set.

Q. Was your mind-set let’s bury George Lutz, the son-of-a-bitch?

And who is Doug Sparrow?

page 261

Q. Do you know any brilliant journalists?

A. Doug Sparrow, Joel Martin.

Q. Did you ever write about George?

A. Who?

Q. George.

A. I think Doug Sparrow did a piece — a couple pieces about The Amityville Horror being a hoax, and I think Joel Martin did several things on the DeFeo murders.
So the people Ric remembers "off the top of his head" as having interviewed for his book are Ronald DeFeo, Geraldine Gates, Roxanne Kaplan, Roger Stacy, Joel Martin and Doug Sparrow. Six people, 3 of whom have nothing to do with the murders.

Roxanne Kaplan and Doug Sparrow are two people who have written pieces on how the haunting was a hoax. Roger Stacy was just an internet forum member, no more involved than any of you out there reading this post.

And where did he get all his info about the murders? From the murderer, his supposed wife (who was later revealed as a fraud), and Joel Martin (a reporter who did cover the murder case back in 1974).

But upon further reading, we see Ric does remember a few others he interviewed:
page 188 (1st session)

Q. Who did you interview for your book?

A. Numerous parties. I interviewed Joel Martin, Doug Sparrow.

Q. Did you interview the real estate agent that the Lutzes bought the house from?

A. She died. She had died. I only was able to use a quote from her husband.

Q. Who did you interview with the Catholic church?

A. Yes, I interviewed the Catholic church.

Q. Okay. You talked to the pope?

A. Well, no. I talked to two — one parish and then one dioceses.

[edit: they show Ric a post he made on his message board concerning how he was told that Father Ray was defrocked by the Church due to his involvement in Amityville. Here George's lawyer finds out that when Ric says "the Catholic Church deems Amityville a hoax," he really is just quoting the opinions of a couple of priests...]

Q. — second paragraph.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. You note that the — you apparently reference that the Catholic church reprimanded Father Pecoraro?

A. That’s what I was told.

Q. By whom?

A. By the priest of the Amityville parish.

Q. And what was his name?

A. Father-something. I don’t remember his name. It started with an S. He’s no longer there.

Q. Did he tell you what the nature of reprimand was?

A. He said — he said Father Pecoraro was a charlatan, he disgraced the church, it was all a hoax and he was reprimanded and either said discharged or defrocked or something to that effect.

Q. Okay. Did you confirm those statements with anyone?

A. I — for years I tried to get confirmation from the Catholic church, and finally in 2002 they sent me a letter saying it was all a hoax.

Q. What was all a hoax?

A. That — well, that many of the events that were purported in The Amityville Horror never actually happened.

Q. What I’m asking is, did you ever confirm with anyone that Father Pecoraro was, one, reprimanded or, two, asked to leave the diocese?

A. I can’t recall.


Q. Okay. And concerning what you just said, let me ask you, when and where or in what forum or format did the Catholic church call Father Pecoraro a charlatan?

A. It was in — sometime in 1999 when I went to Amityville, went into the church to find out — to find out the church’s position. The Father — the monsignor there, and I can’t remember his name, it was a difficult Italian name, I’m assuming it’s an Italian name, basically told me that Father Pecoraro was a charlatan, looking to make a buck and that the church kicked him out or reprimanded him. He said something of that nature. And then during my research for the book, I uncovered audio interviews with the Cromartys that said the same thing that they uncovered during their defrocked and ordered not to celebrate mass, that the church stripped him. They said this on several interviews, so that’s basically it, I suppose, or to my recollection.

Q. Okay. Does this passage meet with your journalistic standards?

A. I don’t know how to answer that. I mean, it’s — I know you agree that it’s just a post. I don’t know what came before this post, because obviously this is a reply. So I don’t know — I don’t know how to answer that except I was answering a question most likely of another post, and I felt that I had spelled out the information numerous times on this.

Q. Just so I understand, a statement by a monsignor in a local parish in Amityville, New York is enough for you to attribute the position to the Catholic church?

A. The Catholic church refused to comment on it for a number of years. I got the monsignor to open up with me, and then I had uncovered my own evidence showing that Father Pecoraro changed his story.

Q. I’m frankly, Mr. Osuna, focusing on the Catholic church portion. I don’t want to mislead you.

A. Okay.

Q. Your attribution of these positions to the Catholic church comes from the statement of the monsignor at the local parish in Amityville?

A. The statement from the monsignor, statement from other sources who requested to remain nameless inside the church and from past interviews with Father Pecoraro and past interviews with the Cromartys, my conclusion was Father Pecoraro was, a, either a charlatan or —

Q. I’m not arguing with your conclusion, okay?

A. Okay.

Q. You conclude that Father Pecoraro is a charlatan.

A. Okay.

Q. This says that the Catholic church says Father Pecoraro is a charlatan. Wouldn’t you agree as a journalist as you read that that that’s the import of the statement?

A. Yeah.

Q. Okay. So you can think he’s a charlatan all day long and you can think George Lutz is a liar all day long. My question is, on what basis do you assert that the Catholic church — the Catholic church has determined Father Pecoraro is a charlatan?

A. On the basis of talking to the monsignor in Amityville, on the basis of talking to several individuals in the diocese that oversaw the Amityville area.

Q. Okay. I mean, I want to know these other individuals you spoke with. Who were they?

A. I don’t have their names.

Q. Okay. I am right here sitting here right now as a good Catholic in the diocese of Las Vegas — actually, yes, that’s our diocese — would I be somebody who could speak for the Catholic church?

A. No, you’re not in a position of authority.

Q. I’m a minister with the church. Am I now in a position of authority to speak for the church?

A. I’m not sure.

Q. What authority did these people have that you spoke to that called Father Pecoraro a charlatan?

A. I’m not rightfully recalling right now.

Q. Anybody higher than a priest?

A. I believe so, yes.

MR. KIMBALL: He’s already testified it was —

MR. NERSESIAN: Other than the monsignor. That’s the only one he named.

THE WITNESS: You know, if you’re asking for specifics of the Catholic church, then the Catholic church has come out and sent me a letter saying basically the stuff in the Amityville Horror didn’t happen. They also basically said through the monsignor that Father Pecoraro was a charlatan.

BY MR. NERSESIAN: Q. Didn’t the Catholic church actually tell you in the correspondence that you did get that they would not comment on Father Pecoraro personally?

A. Well, yes, they did.

Q. And that was a letter from the church, right?

A. Right, but I had interviewed somebody else.

Q. And that was a letter on the Catholic church’s letterhead?

A. Right.

Q. So the official position —

A. But that was —

Q . — of the Catholic church was no comment, and yet you write that the Catholic church says Father Pecoraro is a charlatan, is that correct?

A. That was a year after this was made.

Q. Wouldn’t you agree the proper journalism would be monsignor of such and such parish called Father Pecoraro a charlatan?

A. Not necessarily. The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times —

Q. Wouldn’t it be more correct to say a parish monsignor called Father Pecoraro — all right. Just do you think that a monsignor in a local parish has the authority to speak officially for the Catholic church; is that your personal belief?

A. He has authority to speak for his parish and what affects his parish, and I feel —

Q. What about the question I asked? Do you personally believe, Ric Osuna, that a monsignor at a local parish has the authority to speak for the Catholic church?

A. Sure.

Q. Okay.

A. Yes. MR. NERSESIAN: Let’s take a break.
If you want to read the entire deposition, it's at: http://www.amityvillefaq.com/research/2 ... sition.pdf

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9821
Contact:

Post by sherbetbizarre » Tue Nov 10, 2009 8:01 am

sherbetbizarre wrote:Now tune into Dominion Live Radio Amityville week 2

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2508140

...where he discusses... this forum!
Brian! Where's the show gone? You know, the one where you kept hyping-up Ryan's next show, where's he's going to have this fantastic new "evidence"?

User avatar
Howard64
ta-wo-di u-s-di
Posts: 4300
Location: Athens, Texas

Post by Howard64 » Tue Nov 10, 2009 8:27 am

fantastic, now we are waiting for more extraordinary evidence...how many years will this be and where have we heard this from once before?
" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of
the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

User avatar
msmart112
Amityville_Member
Posts: 1946

Post by msmart112 » Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:10 pm

sherbetbizarre wrote:
sherbetbizarre wrote:Now tune into Dominion Live Radio Amityville week 2

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2508140

...where he discusses... this forum!
Brian! Where's the show gone? You know, the one where you kept hyping-up Ryan's next show, where's he's going to have this fantastic new "evidence"?
http://dominionlivechicago.com

"Ryan will be revealing information regarding this case that has never been revealed before. Information that will prove without a shadow of a doubt what really happened that dark tragic night in 1974."
Image

User avatar
Howard64
ta-wo-di u-s-di
Posts: 4300
Location: Athens, Texas

Post by Howard64 » Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:21 pm

colonel mustard...

did it in the bedroom...

with a marlin...
" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of
the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9821
Contact:

Post by sherbetbizarre » Wed Nov 11, 2009 11:37 am

Dan vs Brian... some of last weeks show returns!

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11904

Post by Dan the Damned » Wed Nov 11, 2009 11:44 am

It'll be interesting hearing Ryan's story without the suggestion that the police falsified evidence...

Link the Labrador
The Lab from Amityville
Posts: 512
Location: Alabama, USA

Post by Link the Labrador » Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:35 pm

msmart112 wrote:
sherbetbizarre wrote:
sherbetbizarre wrote:Now tune into Dominion Live Radio Amityville week 2

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2508140

...where he discusses... this forum!
Brian! Where's the show gone? You know, the one where you kept hyping-up Ryan's next show, where's he's going to have this fantastic new "evidence"?
http://dominionlivechicago.com

"Ryan will be revealing information regarding this case that has never been revealed before. Information that will prove without a shadow of a doubt what really happened that dark tragic night in 1974."
WHY DO THEY KEEP DOING THIS!?!

Butch did it in the bedrooms with a .35 Marlin Rifle 35 years ago! Why are they harping on about this case when there are more recent things to harp on about like Global Warming, Iraq, Darfur, that new movie with [insert name of actor]?

What are they after? Money? Fame? Do they not care that they're defaming the names of the innocent DeFeos that were unjustly slaughtered in their beds?

Even if they were right. Even if Mr. DeFeo was a horrible SOB who abused his wife and beat his children until they bled out of every opening possible, or Dawn was a druggie or Mrs. DeFeo cheated on her hubby...

That still doesn't justify what happened that night. Let's pretend for a second that I'm Butch DeFeo (a nicer, smarter version with properly braced teeth and a sexy haircut. Basically, I'm that guy who plays Dr. Who in the show of the same name) and my dad's this royal SOB that's hurting me and my family. What would I do?

I would see if I could arrange with Dawn to get the kids (and Mrs. DeFeo) away from Mr. DeFeo and urge Mrs. Defeo to divorce her hubby while I shielded the family from him.

Basically, I'd do everything I can to secure a brighter future for the family that doesn't result in bloodshed.

But since Mr. DeFeo was NOT a SOB...

I'd be working in some kind of firm and living in a nice little cottage in Long Island and I'd go: "Hey, if you ever want to visit for the weekend, the door is open and the guest room is prepared."

*pantpant*

Sorry for the long rant. Just had to get it out.

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11904

Post by Dan the Damned » Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:57 pm

Ever hear of the expression "throwing good money after bad"?

Well Ric and Ryan haven't... :wink:

User avatar
Howard64
ta-wo-di u-s-di
Posts: 4300
Location: Athens, Texas

Post by Howard64 » Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:58 pm

this is what people are like in this world. The quest for material possessions and accumulation of wealth is so instinctive they know no better.

Translated..."the world is full of greedy bastards"

A bunch of monkeys trying to reach the bananas...

Image
" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of
the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Link the Labrador
The Lab from Amityville
Posts: 512
Location: Alabama, USA

Post by Link the Labrador » Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:42 am

Dan the Damned wrote:Ever hear of the expression "throwing good money after bad"?

Well Ric and Ryan haven't... :wink:
Never heard of it, what does it mean?

I like Howard64's explanation. They're nothing but greedy, selfish monkeys who are willing to drag the DeFeo memory through a pile of monkey crap just to get money and fame.

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11904

Post by Dan the Damned » Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:03 pm

It means if the project is a failure, don't waste more money trying to fix it. The project being the book "The Night the DeFeos Died" and the fix being "let's turn the book into a movie."

In 2004 Ric claimed he lost around $18,000 on his book "The Night the DeFeos Died." When Ryan Katzenbach was publishing the book, Ric claimed they only sold about 20 copies. And now they're investing a lot of money into this film project of theirs, based upon that same book.

In the 2004 depositions, you can see how Ric was complaining about the direction Ryan took his book and the lackluster sales. Now he's back -- teamed up with Ryan once again to make this movie. Meanwhile, Ryan has never made a movie before. He has admitted to having no business plan for selling the finished product. They've made the film 4-hours long, which means it won't be seen theatrically.

I just forsee a huge financial loss and more hard feelings between Ric and Ryan once again. And all for what?

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9821
Contact:

Post by sherbetbizarre » Fri Nov 13, 2009 5:28 am

Don't forget to tune in to tonight, where Ryan returns with new unheard evidence involving Hermnan Race, Bobby Kelske and Lady GaGa.
High Hopes: By Brian Jasik

When scheduling, and writing the letter to director Ryan Katzenbach’s publicist I never really expected to get him on my show, "Dominion Live Chicago." I was thrilled to have him as a guest and still am. These interviews I’ve had with him have been great! They have been informational and so on. I have tried since the beginnings of Dominion Live to get someone on the show, who was in the know of what really happened in Amityville so many years ago. Ryan Katzenbach, is the man with those answers so I was more then happy to put him on the air.

It just seemed wrong all these years, that people sensationalized and created a fraud, of a haunting and got books published, movies made that, in the end, grossed millions and all of it centered in greed and fraud. Until Ric Osuna came along with his book, “The Night The Defeo’s Died,” and now with Ryan Katzenbach on the case with his upcoming movie “Shattered Hopes” the real story can now be told.

Many years ago as a kid who read the book “The Amityville Horror,” I was in disbelief and wonder of this story. I would have never thought in a million years, I would be part of getting the truth about what really happened in Amityville November 13, 1974 out to the public. I am more then happy to be an acting participant in getting the truth out about this story through the element of media I have available to me.

This story, the story of Amityville, and what happened November 13, 1974, is simply, a tragedy. It’s a senseless death, of a family with two young children. But it's even more then that, when it shouldn't be, and that in itself is a tragedy. The story is also about those who concocted, concealed, the truth of the story, of The Amityville Horror. Those who persist that something mysterious happened in this home (as in haunting), those who would continue to perpetuate a lie by posting up misleading information on web forums, and try and tear down those who would dare speak the truth, those people, are without a doubt, some pretty disturbed, sick and mixed up people. These people clearly need help, and they need to get a life. I recommend they do this quickly. These peoples actions, as mentioned above (concocting, concealing, presenting misleading information, tearing down those who would present the truth, and so on), have performed an "obscenity" toward those young people who died that night, and to those people that grieved over, and still grieve over, the loss of a family member or friend. I personally, am disgusted by their actions.

When finishing the first interview with Ryan, I thought that this would be the end of it. That we would move on to the next weeks show. But as soon as some heard it, controversy arose and the tearing down began. The only difference this time is those who do that tearing down fail to recognize that the form of media I use, is vocal, it's audible. It’s radio and people aren’t reading what I’m saying, they are hearing it. It's a big difference.

In ending, may those who died November 13, 1974 in Amityville New York finally rest in peace. God bless them, and Amen.
http://www.dominionlivechicago.com/

Brian,

No-one here tries to "perpetuate a lie". When we talk about the murders, we talk about the accepted facts... there are only people in the world who dispute those facts, usually they are married to Ronnie, but in this case we are talking about Ric and Ryan.

No-one here is trying to stop Ryan doing his documentary. I mean seriously, how many more listeners did you get 2 weeks ago? 10? 15? If you think that's enough to bother Ryan then he's in serious trouble before his doc is even finished!

Here's a newsflash - most people think the haunting was a hoax anyway... people on this board are in the minority... nothing we say here will interfere with Ryan and his "truth" when he finally presents it.

Unfortunetly, he will find his audience will be even smaller than ours.
These peoples actions, as mentioned above (concocting, concealing, presenting misleading information, tearing down those who would present the truth, and so on), have performed an "obscenity" toward those young people who died that night
Yeah, real nice, Brian :roll:
Last edited by sherbetbizarre on Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
astonio
Resident
Posts: 942
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Post by astonio » Fri Nov 13, 2009 5:46 am

2 children? :roll: Wow.
"Everywhere I went wuz like uh telephone; no answer."

User avatar
Chichibcc
Cat Avatar Lover
Posts: 3251
Location: Battle Creek, Michigan

Post by Chichibcc » Fri Nov 13, 2009 6:20 am

Dan the Damned wrote: Meanwhile, Ryan has never made a movie before. He has admitted to having no business plan for selling the finished product. They've made the film 4-hours long, which means it won't be seen theatrically.
This sounds like a disaster in the making....I think it's really time for Ric and Ryan to move on to other projects.
[size=125][i][color=red]Actions speak louder than words....[/color][/i][/size]

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11904

Post by Dan the Damned » Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:39 am

This Brian guy (from dominionlivechicago) thinks that by proving Ronnie had an accomplice in the murders, then somehow that proves he wasn't possessed, and that this would show the haunting was a fraud.

But the haunting case has nothing to do with the murders. It doesn't matter whether Ronnie was possessed or simply just a brainless loser/junkie -- the haunting was a totally seperate incident which happened a year after the murders. Linking them together is merely speculation by some as a possible explanation for why the haunting took place -- and the theory that Ronnie may have been possessed is loosely based on some crap Ronnie once said years ago (when he was pretending to be insane).

Look, even if a third party entered the home that night and killed everyone (including Ronnie), that would make no difference to the story of the later haunting. So what difference does it make by trying to prove that Dawn helped kill the family that night?
Brian Jasik wrote:The story is also about those who concocted, concealed, the truth of the story, of The Amityville Horror. ... These peoples actions, as mentioned above (concocting, concealing, presenting misleading information, tearing down those who would present the truth, and so on), have performed an "obscenity" toward those young people who died that night, and to those people that grieved over, and still grieve over, the loss of a family member or friend. I personally, am disgusted by their actions.
How does that make sense, Brian? We're out of line by agreeing with the official verdict of Ronnie's trial? We're sick, twisted people by agreeing with the official findings of law that have legally proven Ronnie acted alone that night? And somehow Ric and Ryan are doing the Lord's work by needlessly denigrating the memories of 3 of the 6 victims -- dragging their names through the mud by calling one victim a monster who beat his kids, another victim as a horrible woman (who cheated on her husband and stood by as he beat their children), and worst of all, painting poor 18-year-old Dawn DeFeo as a cruel & heartless beast who, for no reason, slaughtered her 3 younger siblings? Somehow that is okay?!?

And yet you think it's okay because Ryan tells you how they are merely showing that Ronnie wasn't possessed that night, and that this somehow shows the haunting was a hoax?

Boy, what a fool they are playing you for!

Nothing in Ric & Ryan's theories (regarding the murders) has anything to do with the haunting! Yes, they do have some arguments against the haunting as well, but they are in no way connected to the murders. This is not about proving the haunting as a hoax -- they are just building on lies and speculation in order to create some fake "new angle" in the murder case in the hopes that people will become intrigued enough to buy their product. If anyone is "performing an obscenity" with regards to the poor DeFeo victims, it is Ryan Katzenbach and Ric Osuna, who are unfairly painting half of the victims as monsters who deserved to die. Can you really not see that, Brian??? No, you probably don't. I don't think you bother to read these posts. I think you just came here to promote your little internet radio show...

Link the Labrador
The Lab from Amityville
Posts: 512
Location: Alabama, USA

Post by Link the Labrador » Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:55 am

Words cannot describe how much I agree with you, Dan. Words cannot describe it. Especially with Dawn. What possible motive would she have to kill her siblings? Why would she want to kill her siblings?

And a note to Ryan if you read this post, It's L-I-N-K. The only reason I'm not upset about you twisting my name around is because I'm half-blind (and totally deaf) myself, so I have some measure of patience and sympathy for you, only in the visual department though.

Everything else? I'm with Dan.

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11904

Post by Dan the Damned » Fri Nov 13, 2009 4:28 pm

I see Ryan just updated his site. Here's a quote from www.amityvillefilm.com/The%20Film.html
Says Katzenbach of the project, overall, "I knew, like James Cameron, when he did Titanic in 1997 that if you were going to take on a subject that had already been done, then you had better have something new to say or, otherwise, what is the point?"
Exactly! And that is why they push this theory about Ronnie having accomplices that night. They know if they just told what really happened (Ronnie acting alone) then no one would care. So they have to make is special. They have to create this new twist on things.

"We are told that Ronnie killed his family on his own in 1974. Or did he?" :roll:

To believe Ronnie had help that night is to disbelieve the physical evidence. To believe Ric & Ryan's story, you must believe that the police are conducting a major coverup.

To believe that Ronnie acted alone is NOT the same as believing Ronnie was possessed, or had some paranormal help (or that the haunting was real). I don't know if Ryan is foolish enough to take that viewpoint, but Brian sure seems to...

User avatar
Howard64
ta-wo-di u-s-di
Posts: 4300
Location: Athens, Texas

Post by Howard64 » Fri Nov 13, 2009 4:34 pm

this all still makes me wonder how everyone was killed without having to chase down feared family members while shooting...

only way that could have be done "IMO" would be to have six different people each shoot a different family member at relatively the same time. But ballistics indicate the the same weapon killed all of them.
" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of
the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Post Reply