Was the priest even in the house?

General Discussion About Anything Amityville And Other Paranormal Topics
jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 613

Re: Was the priest even in the house?

Post by jimmysmokes » Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:05 pm

Toukee wrote:
Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:19 am
sherbetbizarre wrote:Come on... bust this case wide open... I'm sure you're both almost there :P
I actually got there a few days ago, and I'm dissapointed by it, too - but that's life, I guess.
TheVampireologist wrote:
Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:07 am
Digging around and ran across a court document submitted to the southern district court of California by Mr. Lutz's own attorney during these proceedings William D. Daily.


The proceedings were simply an objection from Lutz's attorney for a change of venue for the defendants who in this case were as follows -

William Weber
Paul Hoffman
Bernard Burton
Fredrick M. Marrs
Good housekeeping magazine
...and the New York times/Hearst corp.

In any event contained within these documents on page 2 ,line 24 is the following -

(Rev. Ralph J. Pecoraro who has indicated that his only contact relating to this case was a telephone call from the Lutz's regarding their physcic expieriences.)

This statement was put into wrighting in an official court document by George Lutz's own attorney.Is that statement not proof alone that Rev. Pacoraro was actually never even on the property or am I missing something here?
Damn! Did you run into a brick wall on this thread sherb?

Absolutely brilliant argument vampire!

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11566

Re: Was the priest even in the house?

Post by Dan the Damned » Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:52 pm

Rev. Ralph J. Pecoraro who has indicated that his only contact relating to this case was a telephone call from the Lutzes regarding their psyschic experiences.
SHORT ANSWER: The key words here are "relating to this case."

This court case was all about the book deal Weber claimed he had with the Lutzes (alleging that the Lutzes had breached the contract and owed Weber money). The court case was not about the haunting in general. Strictly about the book deal Weber claimed he had with the Lutzes.

In other words, the Lutzes called Father Ray and they had a conversation about the family's experiences. This call may have been related to the book deal with Weber (ie: perhaps they were asking Father Ray some questions for possible inclusion in the book), but it didn't involve any conversations regarding financial negotiations or details on their book agreement, or things of that nature.

DETAILED ANSWER:

As TheVampireologist says, the document in question was filed by George Lutz' attorney to fight the "change of venue" request by William Weber. You see, the Lutzes lived in California at the time. They filed their initial lawsuit in a California court, but Weber didn't want to travel all the way to California. Naturally he wanted to move the case (change its venue) to New York, where he lived. So he petitioned the court for such a move.

Just as Weber didn't want to travel to California for the trial, the Lutzes didn't want to travel out to New York. Hotels are expensive in New York, let alone the costs for airfare and babysitters for the kids back home, etc. So the Lutzes' lawyer (William Daley) tried to fight this change of venue. That is where this line about Father Ray can be found, in Daley's rebuttal to Weber's argument in changing the venue to New York City.

Weber based his argument (to move the trial to New York) on his insistence that it would be an extreme hardship on the witnesses that he planned to call upon (most of which lived in/around the New York area).

Lutz' attorney claimed that a lot of the people on Weber's potential witness list didn't even have a connection to this case (the book deal). He said Weber was just listing them because they lived around New York and that they were only included to bolster his argument for a change of venue (these people include Sgt Cammaoratto, reporter Laura DiDio, cameraman Steve Bauman, neighbor Diana Ireland, neighbor Stanley Milstein, and Father Ray).

Lutz' attorney wrote: "In order to tally witnesses living in New York, many have been named having no connection whatsoever to any discussions or negotiations between Plaintiffs [Lutz] and Defendants [Weber]."

No involvement in the case? Yes, but it's important that you realize what this court case was about in order to understand this document. This court case was not about the haunting being real or fake, it was all about the Lutzes allegedly walking out on Weber's book deal.

So now when we read the statement, "Rev Ralph J Pecoraro ... has indicated that his only contact relating to this case was a telephone call," it is now plain to see how George's lawyer is saying that Father Ray's only contact relating to the Lutzes' dealings with William Weber came during a phone call (the main conversation of said phone call being related to the family's psychic experiences).

This is simply NOT evidence of Father Ray saying he only ever spoke to the Lutzes once in his lifetime, or only once while they owned the house. It is "only once where the mention of Weber's book project was discussed."

User avatar
Brendan72
Forest Giant
Posts: 2960
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Was the priest even in the house?

Post by Brendan72 » Wed Jul 01, 2020 8:30 pm

This court case was all about the book deal Weber claimed he had with the Lutzes (alleging that the Lutzes had breached the contract and owed Weber money). The court case was not about the haunting in general. Strictly about the book deal Weber claimed he had with the Lutzes.
It is interesting how Weber contended the Lutz's breached a contract which they never agreed to or signed?
- Brendan72

"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house."
- George Carlin. Comedian. (1937-2008)

User avatar
msmart112
Amityville_Member
Posts: 1866

Re: Was the priest even in the house?

Post by msmart112 » Wed Jul 01, 2020 8:43 pm

jimmysmokes wrote:Absolutely brilliant argument vampire!
Actually...it was an absolutely pathetic argument...and Dan just did a GREAT job of explaining why.
Image

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11566

Re: Was the priest even in the house?

Post by Dan the Damned » Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:11 pm

:like: Thanks!

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 613

Re:

Post by jimmysmokes » Thu Jul 02, 2020 1:19 pm

Toukee wrote:
Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:04 am
I'll bet he walked around with a paper bag over his head for a while after his testimony, too - just to guarentee his anonymity!
And don't forget he made an appearance on In Search Of, just to add more fuel to the fire. One thinks that if he had to leave his diocese in order to try and remain anonymous, he would never bring up the subject again? Certainly avoiding tv interviews! People seeing that show would want to track him down even more.

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11566

Re: Was the priest even in the house?

Post by Dan the Damned » Thu Jul 02, 2020 1:26 pm

Or maybe he agreed to appear on "In Search Of" to help out his friends, the Lutzes, who were being called liars.

Perhaps his reason for leaving Long Island was to put a stop to the all the people trying to contact him about the story (making it known that he was no longer in Long Island).

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 613

Re: Was the priest even in the house?

Post by jimmysmokes » Thu Jul 02, 2020 4:12 pm

Dan the Damned wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 1:26 pm
Or maybe he agreed to appear on "In Search Of" to help out his friends, the Lutzes, who were being called liars.

Perhaps his reason for leaving Long Island was to put a stop to the all the people trying to contact him about the story (making it known that he was no longer in Long Island).
He would have done better in helping them by bringing another priest to their home after what he claimed to see if he were hallucinating or not. He gets attacked by unseen forces then abandons them to their home with what he brought on? That sound like helping friends or what a priest would actually do in this event?

You're idea of helping them is for Fr. Ray to go on a Hollywood tv show and convince the masses they weren't lying? :think:

Doesn't appear that it had much effect.

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11566

Re: Was the priest even in the house?

Post by Dan the Damned » Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:45 pm

jimmysmokes wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 4:12 pm
Doesn't appear that it had much effect.
Maybe not on you. To others? Who can say?

User avatar
Amit Y Ville
Streaming on Twitch from the red room
Posts: 591

Re: Was the priest even in the house?

Post by Amit Y Ville » Wed Aug 05, 2020 2:00 am

TheVampireologist wrote:
Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:07 am
Digging around and ran across a court document submitted to the southern district court of California by Mr. Lutz's own attorney during these proceedings William D. Daily.


The proceedings were simply an objection from Lutz's attorney for a change of venue for the defendants who in this case were as follows -

William Weber
Paul Hoffman
Bernard Burton
Fredrick M. Marrs
Good housekeeping magazine
...and the New York times/Hearst corp.

In any event contained within these documents on page 2 ,line 24 is the following -

(Rev. Ralph J. Pecoraro who has indicated that his only contact relating to this case was a telephone call from the Lutz's regarding their physcic expieriences.)

This statement was put into wrighting in an official court document by George Lutz's own attorney.Is that statement not proof alone that Rev. Pacoraro was actually never even on the property or am I missing something here?
Why don't one of you Northies ask him yourself and we can get some answers.

[address removed by moderator]

Love that the zip code has the year the film was released.
"Everything's sliding into place. Just ONE more sacrifice Lisa."

User avatar
Amit Y Ville
Streaming on Twitch from the red room
Posts: 591

Re: Was the priest even in the house?

Post by Amit Y Ville » Wed Aug 05, 2020 9:52 am

Ok after doing more digging, I found out the priest actually died in the 80's of unexpected circumstances which is very sad, but I believe that was his old address. Just verifying the story is true.
"Everything's sliding into place. Just ONE more sacrifice Lisa."

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9561
Contact:

Re: Was the priest even in the house?

Post by sherbetbizarre » Wed Aug 05, 2020 2:54 pm

Amit Y Ville wrote:
Wed Aug 05, 2020 9:52 am
Ok after doing more digging, I found out the priest actually died in the 80's of unexpected circumstances which is very sad, but I believe that was his old address. Just verifying the story is true.
Why would you have thought it a good idea to publish someones real address on the internet?

User avatar
Amit Y Ville
Streaming on Twitch from the red room
Posts: 591

Re: Was the priest even in the house?

Post by Amit Y Ville » Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:10 am

sherbetbizarre wrote:
Wed Aug 05, 2020 2:54 pm
Amit Y Ville wrote:
Wed Aug 05, 2020 9:52 am
Ok after doing more digging, I found out the priest actually died in the 80's of unexpected circumstances which is very sad, but I believe that was his old address. Just verifying the story is true.
Why would you have thought it a good idea to publish someones real address on the internet?
Not sure what you mean exactly Jason, its public info thats on the web.

Anyway, I found this post below quite interesting. How is it a priest dies of such a condition?

Image
"Everything's sliding into place. Just ONE more sacrifice Lisa."

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11566

Re: Was the priest even in the house?

Post by Dan the Damned » Sat Aug 08, 2020 12:20 am

Amit Y Ville wrote:
Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:10 am
How is it a priest dies of such a condition?
Well, the HIV virus duplicates itself in the body using (and destroying) the white blood cells which normally fight infection. This weakens the immune system and opens the door to any number of opportunistic infections, diseases or cancers.

Hope that helps.

BTW, just because someone posts something on the internet doesn't make it true.

Also, please refrain from posting personal information on this board. Doesn't matter if someone's address is listed in the phone book or not. Doesn't matter if "someone else did it somewhere else."

Thanks.

User avatar
Amit Y Ville
Streaming on Twitch from the red room
Posts: 591

Re: Was the priest even in the house?

Post by Amit Y Ville » Sat Aug 08, 2020 2:47 am

Dan the Damned wrote:
Sat Aug 08, 2020 12:20 am
Amit Y Ville wrote:
Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:10 am
How is it a priest dies of such a condition?
Well, the HIV virus duplicates itself in the body using (and destroying) the white blood cells which normally fight infection. This weakens the immune system and opens the door to any number of opportunistic infections, diseases or cancers.ö
You could be more helpful in future by dropping the sarcastic replies Dan. As an admin might want to consider thats why there aren't many posts on this board. Just friendly advice.

Here's what you should have been thinking.

https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview ... h%20saliva.

It's quite unusual for a priest to die from HIV. Not saying it is connected to the house but its definitely not normal.
"Everything's sliding into place. Just ONE more sacrifice Lisa."

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11566

Re: Was the priest even in the house?

Post by Dan the Damned » Sat Aug 08, 2020 10:39 am

You're one to talk. You are often a total jerk to people and then you turn around and whine when people give it back to you.

You want to be a moderator here, but you see nothing wrong with certain things such as publishing people's addresses. And when informed that it isn't allowed, you respond with an attack. Not the sort of thing we're looking for in a moderator, I'm afraid...
Amit Y Ville wrote:
Sat Aug 08, 2020 2:47 am
You could be more helpful in future by dropping the sarcastic replies Dan.
And you can be more helpful in future by not asking ridiculous questions. "How is it a priest dies of such a condition?" Seriously??? Have you stopped to consider that priests are PEOPLE? They have the same feelings and problems that you and I have. The same desires. Just because they've joined the priesthood doesn't mean there's a magic on/off switch that they can use to turn off their sexual desires.
Amit Y Ville wrote:
Sat Aug 08, 2020 2:47 am
It's quite unusual for a priest to die from HIV.
According to whom? You just pulled that straight out of your butt, and you know it. You show me evidence to back up that statement. I bet you can't.

Let's see if I can help you:

ABC News - 20/20: Priests With AIDS
Reporter Judy Thomas, who has collected priests' death certificates over the past few years, says, "We will be able to document that at least 300 priests have died of AIDS -- and that is likely to be conservative."

Oops. Sorry. That didn't help much, did it? Let me try again:

Chicago Tribune - Study: AIDS Rate High Among Priests
The actual number of AIDS deaths is difficult to determine. But it appears priests are dying of AIDS at a rate at least four times that of the general U.S. population, according to estimates from medical experts and priests and an analysis of health statistics by The Kansas City Star.

Dang! That didn't seem to help any, either. One more try:

New York Times - AIDS AMONG CLERGY PRESENTS CHALLENGES TO CATHOLIC CHURCH
Some Roman Catholic officials have begun to acknowledge reports from doctors, social workers and others that members of the Catholic clergy, like Americans in other sectors of society, are suffering and dying from AIDS.

Oh well. Those examples seem to show that it is, in fact, not uncommon for priests to die from AIDS. Maybe you can find some better evidence to back up your statement. When I do it, the internet seems hell bent on showing that you are simply posting your assumptions as facts.

Oh dear. There I go being all sarcastic again...

Something I've noticed reading these various articles -- it seems a lot of priests tend to leave the priesthood after they've been diagnosed. Some of them reportedly feel ashamed, and they have the urge to return home to their families where they can die in relative peace. Some priests leave because they don't want their condition to cause a scandal. Others are just outright forced to leave by their superiors.

And in all those cases, those people have left the priesthood when they die, so in any official accounting, they are not likely to be counted as "a priest dying from AIDS."

If that internet post you shared is true (and this is the first I've heard of that rumor), then Father Ray was also not a priest who died of AIDS (since that same post clearly claims that he left the priesthood and moved back east).


Amit Y Ville wrote:
Sat Aug 08, 2020 2:47 am
As an admin might want to consider thats why there aren't many posts on this board.
Then why are YOU still here? I am being sarcastic to you, so by your logic, you shouldn't be here. You can prove your point by leaving, but you won't. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

Sure, I can be a jerk. When people disrespect me, I disrespect them right back. When people treat me nice, I treat them nice. Hard to fathom, aye?

User avatar
Anarane
Amityville Member
Posts: 63

Re: Was the priest even in the house?

Post by Anarane » Mon Aug 10, 2020 8:59 am

Dan the Damned wrote:
Sat Aug 08, 2020 10:39 am
When people disrespect me, I disrespect them right back. When people treat me nice, I treat them nice. Hard to fathom, aye?
Amen.:clap: I'm so glad Dan saved me from having to call out/respond to such a preposterous question.

User avatar
Amit Y Ville
Streaming on Twitch from the red room
Posts: 591

Re: Was the priest even in the house?

Post by Amit Y Ville » Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:40 am

Dan the Damned wrote:
Sat Aug 08, 2020 10:39 am
You're one to talk. You are often a total jerk to people and then you turn around and whine when people give it back to you.

You want to be a moderator here, but you see nothing wrong with certain things such as publishing people's addresses. And when informed that it isn't allowed, you respond with an attack. Not the sort of thing we're looking for in a moderator, I'm afraid...
Can you quote me where I requested to be a mod prior to last year please. Not much use being a moderator on a dead forum, but it's possible I did around 2010. This forum had a lot of good users back in the day but the cracks are showing and this board still has an error when posts are created, its just not good. I'm not rich but would have been happy to help a board in dire need.

If you think pointing out your rudeness (not just to myself) is an attack then it's no wonder you can't take any criticism. And when I kindly offered to help this poor forum, with either a few dollars to buy more storage or a later version of phpbb, you reacted with a back-handed rejection and deleted the post afterwards.
And you can be more helpful in future by not asking ridiculous questions. "How is it a priest dies of such a condition?" Seriously??? Have you stopped to consider that priests are PEOPLE? They have the same feelings and problems that you and I have. The same desires. Just because they've joined the priesthood doesn't mean there's a magic on/off switch that they can use to turn off their sexual desires.
I don't know any Christian/Catholic church that would allow priests to engage in such sexual activity. Can you provide evidence please? If priests mess up, then they should be in a different occupation.

According to whom? You just pulled that straight out of your butt, and you know it. You show me evidence to back up that statement. I bet you can't.
See above. If you live by a set of rules it's normal to be expected to abide by them. Its either wrong, unusual or both.
"Everything's sliding into place. Just ONE more sacrifice Lisa."

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11566

Re: Was the priest even in the house?

Post by Dan the Damned » Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:19 pm

Amit Y Ville wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:40 am
I don't know any Christian/Catholic church that would allow priests to engage in such sexual activity.
Who said anything about the activity being allowed?

Do they allow priests to have sex with kids? Of course not! And yet we all know what happened with that...
Amit Y Ville wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:40 am
If priests mess up, then they should be in a different occupation.
Okay. But that's quite a different argument.

If you understand how priests can "mess up," then you can understand how a priest can come down with AIDS.

And even if you're so naive to believe that a priest can do no wrong, the screen image you attached talks about Father Ray having left the priesthood -- so it very well could have been that he didn't get AIDS until AFTER he stopped being a priest (if that person's post is even valid).
Amit Y Ville wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:40 am
If you live by a set of rules it's normal to be expected to abide by them. Its either wrong, unusual or both.
Whether or not it's "wrong" is a different argument.

About it being "unusual," well, there are differing degress of how "unusual" something is. A person being left-handed can be described as unusual, as can an alien from outer space.

Your usage of the word "unusual," when coupled with your original statement ("How is it a priest dies of such a condition?"), is more synonymous with "unheard of." And I provided a few articles from major news sources which talk about the problem of priests getting sick with AIDS. There are loads more articles just like these which you can find on Google. They show that "a priest with AIDS" is not uncommon.

It may not be the norm, but it's not uncommon or unusual and definitely not unheard of...

.

.

.
Amit Y Ville wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:40 am
If you think pointing out your rudeness (not just to myself) is an attack [blah blah blah]
I've answered this part of your post in a new thread in the coffee house, as it only serves to derail this thread about the priest...

Post Reply