Omega
Full Member
Posts: 121
|
Post by Omega on Oct 23, 2020 12:52:27 GMT -6
From the Art Bell show interview with George Lutz - December 27th, 2002 (full long interview can be found on YouTube)
ART BELL: Then you met this, and you're going to have to help me with his name – Father Ralph, is it Pecoraro?
GEORGE LUTZ: Father Ralph Pecoraro.
ART BELL: Pecoraro, okay. When did you come in contact with him, and under what circumstance?
GEORGE LUTZ: He was an ecclesiastical judge. He sat in the diocesan office for the Catholic Church in Rockville Centre as a judge, ruling on various cases that came subject to Church law, for the Catholic Church. My first wife that had, she had applied for an annulment – meant that I had the opportunity to go in and be interviewed, if I wished, about that annulment process. And I didn't understand it at the time, and so I went down and met with him. He called me and invited me in to do that. I really didn't think it was a necessary thing, I really didn't care if she got an annulment or not. I wasn't really sure that an annulment was proper, but end result is that's how I met him.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmik on Oct 23, 2020 12:48:28 GMT -6
I’ll get that address for you. Yes lots to take in. First, my take on the pics from Tinas search site, is it was awful woodsy. So if they searched an area half the size of a baseball field that was lots of ground to cover in the woods. Looks like the old shed was close to the log because you can see the roof in the background of that pic. I agree with Karis if the binding shown is related to Tina it doesn’t appear to be from some flimsy fabric as it held its shape well unless it was buried and not exposed to rain or snow.
The cardboard is a good indication they investigated all Marty claims plus I’d think cardboard could be found in most basements or garages.
yes it doesn’t appear the adults were scared for the remaining kids to be out and about. Seems like the only scared parents were the ones who were still thinking an unknown killer was still out there. If the Sharps were thinking it was Marty he was still very much in town as proven by the tapes made by Doug Thomas and his jail exchange with Wade 2 weeks later.
also I’m on the trail of Jim the ex just got a little more digging to do. That’s okay I love to dig
|
|
hope
Full Member
Posts: 139
|
Post by hope on Oct 23, 2020 12:06:37 GMT -6
So....lots of new info to take in. The cardboard with blood found in 26's basement is interesting. Wonder if they still have it in evidence. Dmac made some good points, 1. why wasnt it found during the first search 2. it could have been planted by somebody and 3. sounds like Marilyn & Wade called PCOS (unless it was prearranged somehow?). It'd be nice they plan on testing it, could see if it's the victims blood & if there is any touch DNA of the perp. Or rule it out as being related. Also, if Doug Thomas & PCOS were covering up for Marty why would they add the bloody cardboard to the search report? They easily could have ommitted it from the report.
Sheila being seen hanging out with friends and smiling the day after the murders. I know everyone reacts and mourns differently, but that is odd. I'm sure that report was based on her overall observed behavior, not just a smile or 2 while hanging out with friends for some comfort. I would have been devastated to lose my family at 14 years old (well, at any age). But it was also always odd to me the way Rick, Greg, and Justin were hanging out, walking around and playing the next day too. Wasn't anyone worried about these kids safety!?! They wouldn't be out of my sight. It's strange, were the adults that uninvolved with these kids or did they feel there was nothing to worry about? It just seems like no one cared this happened, just another day.
Seeing the camp 18 photos and photos of the Tina's bindings, sad. This whole case is so sad. And has so many unanswered questions. And so many contradictions, with more now seen in Bradley's report. Was it ever reported the screams heard were female, or was that assumed? It was only reported that "muffled screams" were heard, correct? Joe Baze coming onto Sheila? So LaRhonda and Sheila both accused him of inappropriate behavior. So many creeps, perverts and pedophiles in this case, its disturbing.
|
|
hope
Full Member
Posts: 139
|
Post by hope on Oct 23, 2020 11:59:10 GMT -6
Got it, thanks! I was wondering if it came out earlier. I read through Meanie's forum a year or 2 ago when you mentioned it once. But I've since forgotten her websites address, do you happen have the link?
|
|
|
|
Post by elantric on Oct 23, 2020 11:19:26 GMT -6
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Amityville_HorrorThe role of Father Pecoraro in the story has been given considerable attention. During the course of the lawsuit surrounding the case in the late 1970s, Father Pecoraro stated in an affidavit that his only contact with the Lutzes concerning the matter had been by telephone.[9] Other accounts say that Father Pecoraro did visit the house but experienced nothing unusual there.[10] Father Pecoraro gave what may have been his only on-camera interview about his recollections during a 1980 episode of In Search of..., a documentary series hosted by Leonard Nimoy.[dubious – discuss][citation needed]
Father Pecoraro's face was obscured during the interview to preserve his anonymity. In the interview, he repeated the claim that he heard a voice saying "Get out", but stopped short of giving it a paranormal origin. He also stated that he felt a slap on his face during the visit and that he did subsequently experience blistering on his hands.[citation needed]
The claims of physical damage to the locks, doors and windows were rejected by Jim and Barbara Cromarty, who bought the house for $55,000 in March 1977. In a television interview filmed at the house for That's Incredible!,[clarification needed] Barbara Cromarty argued that they appeared to be the original items and had not been repaired. The That's Incredible! feature also showed that the "Red Room" was a small closet in the basement and would have been known to the previous owners of the house (Lutzes) because it was not concealed in any way. The claim made in Chapter 11 of the book that the house was built on a site where the local Shinnecock Indians had once abandoned the mentally ill and the dying was rejected by local Native American leaders.[11]
The claim of cloven hoof prints in the snow on January 1, 1976, was rejected by other researchers[who?] because weather records showed that there had been no snow in Amityville on that date.[citation needed] Neighbors[who?] reported nothing unusual during the time that the Lutzes were living there. Police officers are depicted visiting the house in the book and 1979 film, but records showed that the Lutzes did not call the police during the period that they were living on Ocean Avenue.[12] There was no bar in Amityville called The Witches' Brew at the time: Ronald DeFeo, Jr. was a regular customer at Henry's Bar, a short distance from 112 Ocean Avenue.[citation needed]
Critics including Stephen Kaplan have pointed out that changes were made to the book as it was reprinted in different editions.[13][page needed] In the original hardcover edition, Father Pecoraro's car is "an old tan Ford", and he experiences an incident in which the hood flies up against the windshield while he is driving it. In later editions, the car is described as a Chevrolet Vega, before reverting to a Ford.[14][15]
In May 1977, George and Kathy Lutz filed a lawsuit against William Weber (the defense lawyer for Ronald DeFeo, Jr. at his trial), Paul Hoffman (a writer working on an account of the hauntings), Bernard Burton and Frederick Mars (both alleged clairvoyants who had examined the house), along with Good Housekeeping magazine, the New York Sunday News and the Hearst Corporation, all of which had published articles related to the hauntings.[citation needed] The Lutzes alleged misappropriation of names for trade purposes, invasion of privacy and mental distress. They claimed $4.5 million in damages.[citation needed] Hoffman, Weber, and Burton immediately filed a countersuit for $2 million alleging fraud and breach of contract.[citation needed] The claims against the news corporations were dropped for lack of evidence,[citation needed] and the remainder of the lawsuit was heard by Brooklyn U.S. District Court judge Jack B. Weinstein. In September 1979, Judge Weinstein dismissed the Lutzes' claims and observed in his ruling: "Based on what I have heard, it appears to me that to a large extent the book is a work of fiction, relying in a large part upon the suggestions of Mr. Weber."[citation needed] In the September 17, 1979, issue of People magazine, William Weber wrote: "I know this book is a hoax. We created this horror story over many bottles of wine." This refers to a meeting that Weber is said to have had with George and Kathy Lutz, during which they discussed what would later become the outline of Anson's book. Judge Weinstein also expressed concern about the conduct of William Weber and Bernard Burton relating to the affair, stating: "There is a very serious ethical question when lawyers become literary agents."[16]
George Lutz maintained that events in the book were "mostly true" and denied any suggestion of dishonesty on his part.[citation needed] In June 1979, George and Kathy Lutz took a polygraph test relating to their experiences at the house. The polygraph tests were performed by Chris Gugas and Michael Rice who, at the time, were reportedly among the top 5 polygraph experts in America.[17] The results, in Mr. Rice's opinion, did not indicate lying.[18][19] In October 2000, The History Channel broadcast Amityville: The Haunting and Amityville: Horror or Hoax?, a two-part documentary made by horror screenwriter/producer Daniel Farrands. George Lutz commented in an interview for the program: "I believe this has stayed alive for 25 years because it's a true story. It doesn't mean that everything that has ever been said about it is true. It's certainly not a hoax. It's real easy to call something a hoax. I wish it was. It's not."[citation needed]
The debate about the accuracy of The Amityville Horror continues, and despite the lack of evidence to corroborate much of the story, it remains one of the most popular haunting accounts in American folklore.[citation needed] The various owners of the house since the Lutz family left in 1976 have reported no problems while living there. James Cromarty, who bought the house in 1977 and lived there with his wife Barbara for ten years, commented: "Nothing weird ever happened, except for people coming by because of the book and the movie
James Cromarty & family reveal interior of house with no damage.
|
|
|
|
Post by elantric on Oct 23, 2020 11:12:41 GMT -6
amityvillemurders.com/the-haunting/the-amityville-hoax-and-the-catholic-church.html
The facts presented in the Lutz vs. Weber lawsuit showed the ghosts stories surrounding the DeFeo house to be questionable at best. Moreover, facts uncovered in the suit told a very different story about Father Ralph Pecoraro, a.k.a. Father Mancusco, than the one presented by Jay Anson’s fictional novel.
There are discrepancies between what was written in Anson’s book about Father Pecoraro and what George Lutz described in the civil case against Weber. Anson’s book said that Father Pecoraro had met George Lutz two years earlier and that “he had helped Kathy and George in the days before they were married.”
Question #43 of George Lutz’s interrogatories asked, “State whether or not you know the Reverend Ralph Pecoraro. If so, state the date, time and place you first met him.”
Over objections, George Lutz answered, “On or about July 14, 1975, 1:00 p.m., 258 Sunrise Highway, Rockville Centre, New York.”
Kathy’s response to the same question was, “On or about July 30, 1975; spoke to him on the telephone.”
After reading the Lutzes’ answers, it becomes evident that Father Pecoraro did not know the Lutzes for any appreciable amount of time prior to their arrival at Amityville. It should also be noted that the Lutzes were married on July 4, 1975, so Father Pecoraro could not have offered guidance to the Lutzes before they were married.
Moreover, Father Pecoraro’s relationship to the case was described in an affidavit from William Daley, the Lutzes’ then-attorney. It read, “Father Ralph J. Pecoraro has indicated that his only contact relating to this case was a telephone call from the Lutzes regarding their psychic experiences.” In fact, William Weber claimed during a radio interview that the priest never even set foot in the house. The Amityville Horror hoax was taking a whole new direction now.
During the trial, Father Pecoraro testified over the phone and denied any of the so‑called supernatural afflictions that Anson claimed the priest had suffered in his book. He also told Judge Weinstein that he was not sure if there were any supernatural occurrences at the house. According to Newsday, Father Pecoraro allegedly stated that when he went to bless the house that he did, in fact, hear someone say, “Get out!” The priest’s description was vague at best, so a number of explanations could exist.
Since Father Pecoraro is now deceased, it remains unclear if he was a willing participant in the Amityville hoax or uninformed bystander. Therefore, it seems likely that despite his reluctant and often contradictory claims, Father Pecoraro’s visit to 112 Ocean Avenue might never have occurred. After all, the Lutzes’ then attorney, had originally told the court that Father Pecoraro’s only connection to the case was a phone call from the Lutzes.
After several repeated requests, the Diocese of Rockville Centre finally broke its years of silence and commented on the Amityville hoax case. In a May 15, 2002 letter to Ric Osuna, in response to his questions regarding the ghost stories, the assistant to the Vicar General wrote, “The Diocese maintains that the story was a false report. In November of 1977, Diocesan attorneys prepared a substantial list, to be submitted to the publisher [of The Amityville Horror], of numerous inaccuracies, factually incorrect references and untrue statements regarding events, persons and occurrences that never happened.”
Father Pecoraro was eventually transferred to an entirely different diocese, where he purportedly was forbidden to practice certain Catholic rites. But this claim, alleged by the Jim and Barbara Cromarty during a press conference in 1979, has not been substantiated by the Church. Either way, the Diocese of Rockville Centre, responsible for the Amityville area, denied that any psychic events took place or affected clerical officials as reported in Jay Anson’s book.
|
|
|
|
Post by elantric on Oct 23, 2020 11:06:12 GMT -6
amityvillemurders.com/the-haunting/lutz-vs-weber.htmlThe Amityville Horror franchise had its early beginnings in March 1976, when William Weber, attorney for Butch DeFeo, sent a book contract to the Lutzes, which covered a proposed company: The Hoffman, Weber, Burton and Mars Corporation (HWBM). Like Weber, Mars and Burton, Kathy and George Lutz were to receive, each, 12 percent of the shares of HWBM. Since Paul Hoffman was the writer, he would receive the largest share, 40 percent.
The Lutzes terminated their proposed venture with Weber because they felt he wanted to tie them up with an unfavorable contract. Instead, the Lutzes chose to go with author Jay Anson. The contract they eventually signed with Anson offered a more lucrative split of 50 percent. Nevertheless, this did not stop Hoffman from selling two articles about the Lutzes’ experiences.
The first article appeared in an issue of New York Sunday News on July 18, 1976, titled “Life in a Haunted House.” The second was titled “Our Dream House Was Haunted” and appeared in the April 1977 edition of Good Housekeeping. Both articles were nearly identical and were based on the experiences that the Lutzes, Weber, and Hoffman brainstormed in January 1976.
In May 1977, George and Kathy Lutz filed suit against Paul Hoffman, William Weber, Bernard Burton, Fredrick Mars, Good Housekeeping, New York Sunday News and the Hearst Corporation. In the suit, the Lutzes alleged invasion of privacy, misappropriation of name for trade purposes, and negligent infliction of mental distress. They sought relief in the form of $4.5 million.
In turn, Hoffman, Weber, and Burton each placed a counterclaim against the Lutzes for two million dollars, citing they had perpetrated a fraud and breached a contract.
Judge Jacob Mishler dismissed the claims against Good Housekeeping, New York Sunday News and the Hearst Corporation because there were no invasion of privacy issues and because the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted to them. Judge Mishler, however, eventually handed the case over to Judge Jack B. Weinstein.
When the actual trial began, Judge Weinstein, known to be a “no‑nonsense” judge, presided over the case in his Brooklyn U.S. District Court. On September 10, 1979, Judge Weinstein dismissed the rest of the Lutzes’ suit and allowed the defendants’ counterclaim to continue. He said, “Based on what I have heard, it appears to me that to a large extent the book is a work of fiction, relying in a large part upon the suggestions of Mr. Weber.”
In the September 17, 1979 issue of People magazine, Weber reasoned, “I know this book is a hoax. We created this horror story over many bottles of wine.”
Judge Weinstein also pointed out that he saw serious ethical questions regarding Weber and Burton’s conduct. Therefore, he proposed to refer the entire matter to the New York State Bar Association. Judge Weinstein said, “There is a very serious ethical question when lawyers become literary agents.”
The next day, the counterclaim was conveniently settled, and the entire case was dismissed.
In May 2001, Geraldine DeFeo with the assistance of California attorney Roger Stacy requested Judge Weinstein to unseal the remainder of the Lutz vs. Weber files. After proving she was legitimately married to Butch DeFeo, the judge granted Geraldine’s request. What was unsealed was the simple affirmation of the Catholic priest, who testified under oath that the events described in Jay Anson’s book never transpired (More information can be read in The Catholic Church and the Hoax section). Overall, the case helped corroborate William Weber’s claims that the haunting was a fictional endeavor, even though the Lutzes’ insisted it was not a hoax
|
|
|
|
Post by elantric on Oct 23, 2020 10:56:12 GMT -6
www.nytimes.com/1974/11/17/archives/accused-in-familys-murder-defeo-implicated-in-19000-theft.html The man accused of murdering six members of his family in Amityville, L. I., last week is now thought by the police to have stolen $19,000 in cash and checks from his grandfather's automobile dealership in Brooklyn on Nov. 1.
The man, Ronald DeFeo Jr., had reported to the police that he had been robbed of the $19,000.
Detectives said they had arrested an employee of the Brigante Karl Buick dealership Friday evening, charging him with aiding and abetting in a theft of the cash and checks they believed to have been committed by Mr. DeFeo, 23 years old, who is being held for murder.
The arrested man was identified yesterday as Arthur Belin, 31 years, old, of 86 Halsey Street, Brooklyn. The police said both he and Mr. DeFeo had been employed by Brigante Karl Buick, 800’ Coney Island Avenue, owned by Mr. DeFeo's grandfather,‐Michael Brigante.
They said Mr. Belin’ had corroborated Mr. DeFeo's account that on Nov. 1, at CourtelYou and Argyle Roads in Brooklyn, he had been held up, at 2:30 in the afternoon. Mr. Belin was released on his own, recognizance yesterday, the police said, after having been charged with criminal facilitation and obstructing government administration.
The money Mr. DeFeo reported stolen consisted of $19,000 in cash and the rest in checks, the police said.
“We’ now believe there was no such crime,” a detective sergeant. said, yesterday. “The case is under active investigation. But I would say it's all pretty minor’ stuff compared with what he's being held for out in Suffolk County.”
Meanwhile, Mr. DeFeo remained in Suffolk County Jail in Riverhead, L.I., as homicide detectives gathered evidence at the DeFeo home in Amityville.
Mr. DeFeo is being charged with the murder of six family members: his father, Ronald Sr., 43; his mother; Louise, 42; his sisters, Dawn, 18, and Allison, 13; and his brothers, Mark, 12, and John ‐Matthew, 7.
On Friday, It, was disclosed by the police that Mr. DeFeo had been under a special narcotics probation when he allegedly murdered all six members of his family Tuesday night.
He and a friend had also been charged in September of 1973 with taking an outboard motor at the Babylon Town Dock, using it in a family boat In the theft. Mr. DeFeo was charged with grand larceny but, after he was convicted, was sentenced to a year's probation last Dec. 14 on petit larceny. In April, a girfriend of Mr. DeFeo, notified the police he was using drugs, a county probation officer said.
On Friday, in a telephone interview, Mr. Belin gave details, of the story about the alleged robbery that he said, ‘he had given the police.
He said that he and Mr. DeFeo had been robbed while driving a car, which was stopped at the intersection of Cortelyou and Argyle Roads. “All of a sudden there was somebody there inside the car,” Mr. Belin said. “To me, it was like a flash.”
Mr. Belin said that the intruder had, then ordered Mr. DeFeo and himself from the car. “I was so scared I didn't, look back. Finally, Butch [Mr. DeFeo] called the shop, and when we went back to the car, the keys were gone.”
The manager of the used car shop at the Buick dealership said during the week that, when The police arrived to interview Mr. DeFeo and Mr. Belin, their questioning of Mr. DeFeo had “rattled” the young man's lather, who, he said, asked, the police to “take it easy” on his son. But James Manitta, the manager, did not give any reason for the father's reaction.
_______
law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/211/1317.html
Factual Background
In 1974, one Ronald DeFeo murdered his parents and four siblings in their home in Amityville, New York. In the subsequent criminal prosecution, DeFeo claimed he was "possessed" by demons.
In 1975, plaintiffs George and Kathleen Lutz moved into the DeFeo house with their family and for 28 days allegedly experienced psychic phenomena traditionally associated with a "haunted" house.
After the Lutzes moved out, they hired Jay Anson to write a book, entitled The Amityville Horror, about their experiences in the DeFeo home during these 28 days. The book was a national bestseller, selling over three million copies.
In 1977, the Lutzes and Anson entered into an agreement with Professional Films, Inc. (PFI) in which they granted PFI and its assignees the right to produce a motion picture based upon the book, The Amityville Horror. PFI was also given the right to use the Lutzes' name in publicizing the film. The agreement reserved to the Lutzes the right to make sequels based upon the events which happened to them after they fled the Amityville house.
Following the publication of the book and the execution of the agreement with PFI, the Lutzes commenced an extensive publicity campaign, which [211 Cal. App. 3d 1321] included newspaper and radio interviews, television appearances, college lectures, and travels abroad, to promote the book and its forthcoming cinematic interpretation. During these appearances, the Lutzes also spoke of "the additional unique events and happenings" which occurred after they had left the Amityville house and promised there would be both literary and motion picture sequels depicting those events.
Meanwhile, PFI assigned its rights to American International Pictures (AIP). In 1979, pursuant to the agreement, AIP released the motion picture film entitled The Amityville Horror. The movie generated box office receipts in excess of $75 million.
In 1980, the Lutzes contracted with John Jones and Paul Kimatian to write and publish a book about the Lutzes' experiences after they had moved out of the Amityville house. The Lutzes also granted Jones and Kimatian the option to produce a motion picture about those events. In return, the Lutzes received the right to share in the money generated by the book and movie. Jones and Kimatian thereafter partially assigned those rights to plaintiff Gotham Press Publishing, Inc.
In 1981, the book, The Amityville Horror II, authored by Jones, was published. This book chronicled the events the Lutz family experienced after leaving the house in Amityville. It was a bestseller and was also published in a serialized form in a national magazine with a weekly circulation of four and one-half million copies.
In 1982, defendant Orion Productions, the successor in interest to PFI, released a movie entitled Amityville II: The Possession. This film was produced by defendants Dino De Laurentiis, Dino De Laurentiis Corporation, and Productions, Ltd. The film depicted, in a fictionalized manner, the events which occurred at the house before the Lutzes moved into it. fn. 1 In the film's promotional advertising in newspapers, on television and radio, and in movie theaters, defendants used the phrase: "The Night of February 5, 1976, George and Kathleen Lutz and their three children fled their home in Amityville, New York. They got out alive! Their living nightmare shocked audiences around the world in 'The Amityville Horror.'"
In response to defendants' release of Amityville II: The Possession, plaintiffs initiated the present action. fn. 2 In order to moot plaintiffs' request to [211 Cal. App. 3d 1322] enjoin distribution of the movie, defendants modified the promotional advertising to eliminate references to the Lutzes and to include the statement: "This film is not a sequel to 'The Amityville Horror.'"
In 1983, defendants released another motion picture called Amityville 3-D. Using special effects to give the viewer a three-dimensional perception, this film concerned totally fictitious events set in the Amityville house.
Plaintiffs' Contentions
Plaintiffs essentially claim that defendants' use of the word "Amityville" in each of the films' titles in conjunction with the designation "II" or "3-D", supplemented by the reference to the Lutzes in the initial promotional campaign for the first film, misled the public into believing its two movies were the sequels to the Lutzes' story and so diluted the value of their sequel that their plans to produce it collapsed.
|
|
Omega
Full Member
Posts: 121
|
Post by Omega on Oct 23, 2020 10:55:28 GMT -6
Talk about going down a "Rabbit Hole" (although "Amityville" is not as bad as going down the Manson Rabbit Hole!)
On the murders side, main takeaways are how did nobody hear all those rifle shots that night? Neighbor's houses are right on top of each other. Also, all the victims were found lying flat on their stomachs.
Ronnie D - talk about a "piece of....WORK!" He changes his tune more than people change their underwear! He even blamed his sister Dawn for shooting all the siblings and then he (Ronnie) played the hero by killing Dawn for doing that.
He and Berkowitz were in the same prison once - Sullivan Correctional in upstate New York.
I wonder who taught who, as far what tales to spin! (the internet was built for these guys' BS!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Oct 23, 2020 9:40:58 GMT -6
Why? Why talk about THIS "case?" Well, for starters, we have an inexplicable mass shooting of the entire DeFeo family--except for one member. We have a series of ever-changing "confessions" by a young man with at least one screw loose in his Central Processing Unit. We have a three-ring media circus in which the Occult plays a bigger and bigger and bigger role. We have a prosecution case that doesn't line up terribly well with the physical and other evidence. We have a murderer who used LSD and was diagnosed as a sociopath. And who couldn't really explain why he had done it. In his very first statement to police, Ron DeFeo Jr blamed a mafia hit man named Louis Falini. Needless to say, police broke their necks to prove DeFeo Jr had "acted alone," no matter how improbable such a theory is, according to the evidence.
And it happened in 1974 in the part of Long Island where David Berkowitz and Sam Carr had the phone numbers and addresses of quite a few shady rich people. DeFeo Sr and his son worked at VERY high salaries at a Brooklyn car dealership. Stolen cars, body shops, auto parts, and other car-related businesses heavily infiltrated by the mafia figure surprisingly large in the Son of Sam "case." As does narcotics.
And what about the "paranormal phenomena" that supposed took place in the house after the murders? How could it possibly be connected to the murders themselves? Well, the CIA and Defense Department in 1974 were running around playing with toys like the "acoustic laser," which can induce very real phenomena like hearing voices literally inside your head. And another toy called LSD. And these occult "phenomena" happen to BEGIN the activities of a Catholic priest named Ralph Pecoraro (I am going to start playing GTA just so I can use the name "Ralph Pecoraro" for something) who just happened to be a doctor of canon law, and in fact, sat as judge in Ecclesiastical or "Catholic Court." If you're not Catholic, that's the court that decides, among other things, to defrock--or, NOT to defrock--a priest who has been caught doing things like, oh, say, molesting altar boys. Or whether to oh, say, move him to another parish instead. If it matters, an ecclesiastical court is NOT like a modern criminal court, with a prosecutor, defender, and jury, all refereed by a judge. It's literally an Inquisition. And Father Pecoraro sat on such a court. It takes a tribunal of three such judges to officially "defrock" a priest. But the preliminary inquisition is done by a single judge, who decides whether or not the case goes to full tribunal. Here's another interesting point of trivia for all you non-Catholics who may or may not care--"Once a priest; always a priest." A priest can be legally kicked out the Church, but he doesn't stop being a priest, not in the spiritual sense. Unlike Protestant ministers, a Catholic priest theoretically has a unique relationship to God and Christ the rest of us don't have. It's the source of his spiritual power to literally absolve, marry, and confer other...well, you get the point. And once "ordained," no earthly power can take it away from him. Not even the Pope.
So, what? Well, it has become a hyyyyuuuuge (sorry. Couldn't help myself) bone of contention amongst (again, sorry) Amityville Horror hair-splitters concerning just WHEN the Lutz family (who moved in after the murders) met Father Pecoraro. The Lutzes, one a "lapsed" Catholic and the other one a Whateverthehellkindof Methodist, were married July 4, 1975. Supposedly, they did not meet Father Ralph until a couple of weeks LATER. Okay. So, when DID they get advice from a canon judge over the sanctity or not of their marriage?
Why does it matter? Well, why is there any contention over it?
|
|
|
|
Post by james1983 on Oct 23, 2020 5:17:05 GMT -6
Speaking of the "death ray" I remember watching an episode of Leornard Nimoys show in search of, and it showed the militaries death ray. It was the newest in search of series, not the one from the 70s. It was a black glass looking ball sitting on a square looking pedestal. The ball on top pivoted and moved 360 degrees, it's where the laser shot out from. The pedestal holding the ball had the US army logo on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmik on Oct 22, 2020 21:22:52 GMT -6
Meanie told us this in 2015 or 2016. We asked about it again in 2017, on the small forum she had (it's still up but she doesn't use it anymore) and she said the suspect (if we could call him that)was a man and very much alive (she never said she knew who it was) and she never said it was on a piece of tape - just that they had someone's DNA that had been liked to a male who was not a threat to anyone. 2015/2016 would be while Gamberg was working the case he was hired in 2013 to work the car. Don't know how long they have actually had the match.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnreno on Oct 22, 2020 20:40:50 GMT -6
I would add that if the “Crockers” had any affiliation with the railroad/banking family, (and no disrespect to Quincy schools) I seriously doubt they would be publicly schooling their kids in Plumas County, much less be connected to biker gangs in Oroville. Wish we could confirm the name/pronunciation.
|
|
hope
Full Member
Posts: 139
|
Post by hope on Oct 22, 2020 19:56:16 GMT -6
Yes, thanks john! I wondered if maybe Crokers and Comptons were being mixed up too. Or wrong last name all together if there's even any truth to it. You would definitely think a "wealthy & influential" family would show up in those searches.
|
|
hope
Full Member
Posts: 139
|
Post by hope on Oct 22, 2020 19:49:29 GMT -6
Yeah, I really don't understand it. I can understand the budget concerns & newer crimes being a priority, but how long can you use that as the excuse to why nothing is happening? How are other places able to overcome those obstacles? Who knows what's going on behind the scenes. But you always hear the cold case detectives say, when going through cases they look to see if there is evidence available that can be sent forensic testing and that is how they decide what cases to work on. Then the evidence is tested and when they get results they make connections, strengthen the case, etc. It just seems weird the way things are being done. When did Gamberg come of retirement to work the case? And when did meanie first mention DNA hit on the tape? Didnt Josh mention it as well? Was that before Gamberg?
|
|
