Katzenbach's alleged Eye on New York interview

General Discussion About the 1974 DeFeo Murders and related topics
Post Reply
scipio-USMC
Amityville Maniac
Posts: 1693

Katzenbach's alleged Eye on New York interview

Post by scipio-USMC » Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:25 pm

Did anyone watch Eye on New York this morning on CBS at 6:30AM? Katzenbach claimed he would be on it.

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9821
Contact:

Re: Katzenbach's alleged Eye on New York interview

Post by sherbetbizarre » Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:36 pm

Nope, and neither have any of his Facebook fans it seems...

kathyM
Princess
Posts: 2701

Re: Katzenbach's alleged Eye on New York interview

Post by kathyM » Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:37 pm

:lol:

That early in the morning on a Sunday? Yeah he is really going to reach a huge audience. :lol:

User avatar
msmart112
Amityville_Member
Posts: 1946

Re: Katzenbach's alleged Eye on New York interview

Post by msmart112 » Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:07 pm

Image

User avatar
msmart112
Amityville_Member
Posts: 1946

Re: Katzenbach's alleged Eye on New York interview

Post by msmart112 » Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:23 pm

You're welcome, GoonieNick. :lol:
Image

User avatar
GoonieNick
Amityville Addict
Posts: 273
Location: Selden, Long Island
Contact:

Re: Katzenbach's alleged Eye on New York interview

Post by GoonieNick » Sun Mar 11, 2012 9:30 pm

Thanks beautiful :fp:

scipio-USMC
Amityville Maniac
Posts: 1693

Re: Katzenbach's alleged Eye on New York interview

Post by scipio-USMC » Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:01 pm

Well he lied. He claimed he would be releasing more evidence. All he did was repeat the saMe manTra not release any evidence.

MOREOVER HE STILL MAINTAINS A GUN THAT DOESN'T EVEN FIT THE HOLSTER AND WAS NOT MADE FOR THE HOLSTER AND FIRED BLACKPOWDER ROUNDS is the gun that fired item 33.

I did notice though that he said in 2010 is when they got the file with the records he claims proves his case. The book asserted the claims long before they supposedly received the document then. That is more evidnece they simply are seeking things to fit the theory they already came up with without any evidence other than Geraldine and Ron's supposed claims.

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9821
Contact:

Re: Katzenbach's alleged Eye on New York interview

Post by sherbetbizarre » Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:13 am

Too many "My feeling is...", "I believe" and "I think"s for him to label his trilogy of three as The True Story.

It's funny how he acts different on TV , compared to on the internet.

The big admission comes at 8:35 -
Chris Wragge
And one of those things you did see in the file too was the ballastics match, the bullet in the mother, Louise, did not match the other ballastics, and that basically lead you to "hey, there were two gunmen involved here!" - correct?

Ryan Katzenbach
That is correct, that is correct, two gunmen, uh, you know, our film explores the accomplice theories, you know, in great detail, um, the accomplice angle, a little uncertain, but I can say, certainly, that I do believe 100% that there was a 2nd gun involved, based on that ballistics report.
Wow - and this ties in to the recent interview with Brian Jasik where Ryan and Bill went to great pains NOT to say who threw the pistol despite working from a book which clearly fingers Kelske!

At one point in the Jasik interview, Ryan cuts himself off from saying "Ronnie", so you could hear him say something like "Ro-- uh, he threw the gun"

So, in just his second major interview, Ryan has spoiled his big Act 3 reveal... no accomplices, but Ronnie did fire the pistol.

Which begs the question, why go the great lengths filming Ric's :) silly dilly :) reconstruction of Ronnie, Dawn, Kelske and Augie ALL planning the crime beforehand?

From Ric's book -
Since Butch and Geraldine DeFeo insist that Bobby Kelske was the one who disposed of the rifle, it is probable that Kelske had every intention of discarding (the pistol) into the water at the small landing’s edge.
So, if Geraldine "insists" Kelske was an accomplice, what's he doing giving her a starring role in Shattered hopes?
“I was at the Brigante house in Brooklyn,” Geraldine said, “when Mr. Race told Mike that he should have nothing to do with Kelske because he had found evidence that Kelske had a role in the murders. But Mike always believed in keeping your friends close, but your enemies closer. So until his death, he kept a tab on Kelske, even inviting him over for an occasional dinner.”
:roll:


Scipio, is the pistol they overlay at 5:35 the same one you think it is -

http://www.amityvillefaq.com/truthboard ... f=9&t=9238

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

Re: Katzenbach's alleged Eye on New York interview

Post by astonio » Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:30 am

I'm curious if the Attorney General will intervene on Ryan's request regarding getting the gun back.
"Everywhere I went wuz like uh telephone; no answer."

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9821
Contact:

Re: Katzenbach's alleged Eye on New York interview

Post by sherbetbizarre » Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:50 am

astonio wrote:I'm curious if the Attorney General will intervene on Ryan's request regarding getting the gun back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujpsLPAXrd4

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

Re: Katzenbach's alleged Eye on New York interview

Post by astonio » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:29 am

:D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap: :D :clap:
"Everywhere I went wuz like uh telephone; no answer."

Victoria Principles
I Am Insane
Posts: 3113

Re: Katzenbach's alleged Eye on New York interview

Post by Victoria Principles » Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:27 am

Didn't the back of the shirt of one of the crew removing the gun say in large lettering "UFO"? Waiting for Ryan to state that gray aliens were also involved in the DeFeo murders along with the mob, the black helicopters, Area 51, etc.

scipio-USMC
Amityville Maniac
Posts: 1693

Re: Katzenbach's alleged Eye on New York interview

Post by scipio-USMC » Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:55 am

astonio wrote:I'm curious if the Attorney General will intervene on Ryan's request regarding getting the gun back.

Not a chance

scipio-USMC
Amityville Maniac
Posts: 1693

Re: Katzenbach's alleged Eye on New York interview

Post by scipio-USMC » Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:07 pm

Sherbetbizarre wrote:Scipio, is the pistol they overlay at 5:35 the same one you think it is -

http://www.amityvillefaq.com/truthboard ... f=9&t=9238

The overlay just added grips and removed rust didn't it? that is my recollection of it, I watched yesterday though so maybe I am mistaken.

And actually the more I research the more I am convinced the gun is in fact a 22 not a 38.

Ryan maintained in various interviews that it is a hammerless H&R top break.

I agree it is most likely a top break H&R but not a hammerless model. (for the record the shape of a S&W top break is quite similar)

Hammerless models have a slightly different shape and ther eis more length between the cylinder and the end of the gun because all the firing parts are contianed inside the gun thus the end needs to be longer to fit the extra parts. There is no doubt in my mind this is a model that contains a hammer. Because of the rust and decay plus I was not able to physically inspect it, I can't judge whether the hammer is broken or this is one of the old models that had a safety hammer. A regular trigger the part you pull back with your thumb to cokc is called the spur. The spur can get caught on thigs and cause the gun to discharge by accident. The safety hammer models did not have a spur it was removed. The spur can also be filed down after purchase by a gunsmith this is called a bobbed hammer when it has been filed down. It definitely is a model with a hmmer whether it was borken, had a safety hammer or was bobbed at some point I can't say for sure. I can say it isn't a hammerless model though.

Image

Here is the hammerless model you can see how much extra length there is between the cylinder and end of the gun where the hammer would be is higher up and curves in a different manner. The model with a hammer has a larger cutout for that hammer and the back slopes down like most revolvers.

The H&R top break came in 3 different calibers .38 S&W (different than 38 special), 32 S&W, and 22.

The latch is supposed to be attached to the other part of the gun that is missing. he fac tit is not, means the latch actually broke and appears to be melted onto the receiver. Most of the latches on these guns are round. The rectangular latch is what made me think this had to be a 38, that and the trigger guard. I could nto find any evidence of the rectangular latch on the .32 model only he 22 and 38. But I could not find any evidence the 22 uses the trigger guard in question. I could only find 38 Defender models with such a trigger guard.

However last night I found schematics for the 22 and found out there is a trigger guard of the other style available.

Another tidbit is that the handle was changed in the 1952-53 era. The handle grip on the old models was rounded on the bottom not squared.

Image

This was called a rice frame.

The grips hid that the base was not flat.

The handle of the 22 was changed from that shape to a flat handle base in the 1952-53 era.

I assumed the base of the 38 was changed as well and while it was, it was not made flat. It was given a modified Rice frame thus is still curved but not the same way. The handle base is not flat like the gun they found.

Here is the modified Rice Frame:

Image

Note that the gun is at an angle, in your mind straighten it out and then you will see that the handle is longer on the front side than the back side and the bottom runs diagonally from the longer side to the short side.

In the 1900s the top break chambered in 38 S&W were only made with these two frames neither of which is the one they found and thus the gun found can be ruled out completely as being a 38.

This effectively means the gun they found either is from the 1800s or can't possibly be a .38. In the 1900s H&R did not make and 38 top breaks with that style handle.

I have not been able to find out whether the 32 was changed to a flat base or not. It was not a popular caliber and thus finding schematics and information on whether it was updated is not easy for it. I can't find a single photo though of one that had a rectangular release they all had rounded releases. Thus most likely the gun they found is a 22 not a 32 but I can't rule out it being a 32 completely only rule out it is not a H&R 38 unless it is from the 1800s. I am still not sure the 1800 model had a flat handle base by the way just unsure so can't rule it out as being from the 1800s.

So if made in the 1900s for sure it is either a .32 S&W or .22 caliber revolver.

Here is a schematic of the release I have been discussing:


Image

This is upside down to show how it works. You can see how sides are flat and squared. The holes in the fron are where it would be screwed to the barrel portion. Consult the photo above to see how when opened it is attached to the barrel portion. The latch stuck to the gun they found lacks these screw holes and thus clearly broke.

Now the .32 latch had round sides:

Image


While I found the squared latch for sale for the 22 and 38 I can't find a squared latch available for the 32. Nor do any photos exist of the 32 with a squared latch. Whether that is because they never made a squared latch for it or it was not popular enough to produce many wiht a squared latch and thus didn't produce many extra parts thus no surplus is available I can't say with certainty. Thus there is always a possibility it is a 32 but most likely a 22.

What is the chance of mistaking a 22 or even 32 S&W round for a 35 rifle round? Give me a break...

scipio-USMC
Amityville Maniac
Posts: 1693

Re: Katzenbach's alleged Eye on New York interview

Post by scipio-USMC » Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:59 pm

Oh and by the way, if he owned a 38 he would have owned bullets for that 38. He intentionally got rid of all the extra boxes of .35 bullets and dumped them in the storm drain with the spent rounds so ther ewould be no sign of owning a 35 anymore. Indeed he told police he had gotten rid of the rifle in the past but forgot who he sold it to. If he owned a 38 he would have had 38 ammunition to get rid of. He would have gotten rid of that ammo with the 35 ammo.

Ryan didn't think out his theory at all.

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9821
Contact:

Re: Katzenbach's alleged Eye on New York interview

Post by sherbetbizarre » Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:35 pm

Too bad Ryan will not respond to any of this now he's entered the "big time"...
SHATTERED HOPES: THE TRUE STORY OF THE AMITYVILLE MURDERS wrote:We're so far beyond listening to the criticism of others -- as I think it's plain to see, this case has taken on yet another new life.

User avatar
Rokiisun
I am the year 1989
Posts: 1191
Location: Scotland

Re: Katzenbach's alleged Eye on New York interview

Post by Rokiisun » Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:51 pm

And here it is: (Eye on New York Interview)

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/11/ ... e-murders/

For some reason though, the page likes to stop and refresh every few seconds on me,
meaning I have to load the video up again to see the rest of it... :fp:
It is better to return a borrowed pot with a little something you last cooked in it.

scipio-USMC
Amityville Maniac
Posts: 1693

Re: Katzenbach's alleged Eye on New York interview

Post by scipio-USMC » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:16 pm

Rokiisun wrote:And here it is: (Eye on New York Interview)

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/11/ ... e-murders/

For some reason though, the page likes to stop and refresh every few seconds on me,
meaning I have to load the video up again to see the rest of it... :fp:
You are not missing much. He didn't post any evidence just his usual doublespeak. He says he answered all his own questions he had and is 99% sure he knows what happened. Then he hedged and said he was sure another gun was involved but not positive of acocmplices.

kathyM
Princess
Posts: 2701

Re: Katzenbach's alleged Eye on New York interview

Post by kathyM » Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:53 pm

I have never seen a guy more full of himself than Katzenbach.

He is trying to sell the whole story of another gun and second shooter but goes on tv and says he is not sure about that? Why, because there is no evidence to prove that maybe?

User avatar
BooshaGirl
Amityville Addict
Posts: 695

Re: Katzenbach's alleged Eye on New York interview

Post by BooshaGirl » Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:14 am

kathyM wrote:I have never seen a guy more full of himself than Katzenbach.

He is trying to sell the whole story of another gun and second shooter but goes on tv and says he is not sure about that? Why, because there is no evidence to prove that maybe?
To quote Fonzie (he was a famous character on a TV show for you youngsters who wouldn't know): "EXACTAMUNDO!"

Post Reply