Flashlight/vision/candles, some questions

General Discussion About the 1974 DeFeo Murders and related topics
Post Reply
rcn
Amityville Member
Posts: 5

Flashlight/vision/candles, some questions

Post by rcn » Sat Nov 16, 2013 1:28 am

Have a few questions about this case, sorry if this has already been asked.....

The military-style angled flashlight found on the chair in the hall......was it ever tested for fingerprints, and if so, what was the result?

Is Ronnie's eye vision known at the time of the murders?

I read somewhere that there were votive candles on the dresser in the master bedroom....is this true? If so, had they been lit recently (or could that even be established?)


I have always thought that Ronnie did this crime himself.....the order of victims is something I'm not sure of though, although I know what he has said.......but the lighting in the master bedroom is something that I've often wondered about. If the flashlight was used to light the victims for the purpose of shooting them, then it would be next to impossible for Ronnie to shine the flashlight AND fire the rifle, which naturally leads to a second person. Of course, he could have just turned the light on and started shooting, but if that were the case, why is the flashlight there?


Anyway, appreciate any insight into these questions.....thanks, great site!!!!!

User avatar
Rokiisun
I am the year 1989
Posts: 1187
Location: Scotland

Re: Flashlight/vision/candles, some questions

Post by Rokiisun » Sat Nov 16, 2013 12:00 pm

I don't think the flashlight has much relevance in the case in my honest opinion. I don't know if it was
tested for fingerprints, but maybe somebody else will. Whilst it's easy to assume Ronnie maybe contemplated using the flashlight as a light aid in the murders, there could be a better explaination as to why it's on the seat.

Maybe a light bulb went out earlier and it was used for the purpose of changing a bulb in a dark room? Maybe one of the younger kids were playing with it and left it there? Could it be possible that it was also used to look for something in a dark cupboard? Maybe the TV remote had no batteries and Ronnie took it out to replace the batteries? There's many reasons as to why the flashlight appears at the crime scene.

I don't think the lack of light in the master bedroom would have played much of a factor. Ronnie knew the layput of the bedrooms and where everyone slept and as a human's eyes adjust naturally in the dark he probably lingered around in the dark for a bit before shooting.
It is better to return a borrowed pot with a little something you last cooked in it.

rcn
Amityville Member
Posts: 5

Re: Flashlight/vision/candles, some questions

Post by rcn » Sat Nov 16, 2013 11:39 pm

You may be right.....we always want all the pieces of a crime scene to "fit" and sometimes they don't. But, the police thought the flashlight was important enough to enter into official evidence. I just wondered if anyone knew whether it had ever been fingerprinted or not.

It had stormed earlier that night, and the moon cycle was one night shy of New Moon, which meant very little outside natural light would have illuminated the room. In Osuna's book he says that Bobby Kelske had the flashlight and turned it on to illuminate the room. I think most of Osuna's book is a bunch of crap, especially the Geraldine "DeFeo" part, so his explanation of the flashlight may be crap also.

Thanks for the reply.

scipio-USMC
Amityville Maniac
Posts: 1693

Re: Flashlight/vision/candles, some questions

Post by scipio-USMC » Sun Nov 17, 2013 9:47 am

Investigators document anything and everything because they do not know what will or won't be significant. On its face it doesn't prove anything. Even if his prints were on the flashlight that doesn't prove he used it during the murders. He could have used it prior to the murders for something and left it there or could have used is subsequent to the murders to search for the shell casings.

Police found no prints belonging to anyone other than family members in the house and found no evidence at all of people having been in the basement as is claimed in The Night The DeFeos Died.

There is no question at all that the claims in the book are complete lies and 99% of the claims came from Geraldine not Ron. Almost everything in the book is from her perspective, which means made up since she didn't even meet Ron until 1985.

The supposed evidence that is relied upon to prove the involvement by others (the alleged attorney notes improperly characterized as affidavits) are not only nonsensensical forgeries, their supposed validation is from Geraldine. Geraldine claims to have been in contact with Siegfried (Ron's initial lawyer) and ells us all about what Siegfried's plans were and what he supposedly attempted to do and his frstrations. Of course Gerladine never actually met him and the claims she made are patently absurd for instance the claim he wanted to seek a change of venue from the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.

Likewise the claim that Siegfried planned to depose himself to get the notes admitted into evidence is absurd, there is no such thing. A lawyer can't give testimony a lawyer must elicit testimony from others. There is no such thing as a disclosure motion to get attorney notes admitted into evidence. Her claim he filed such a motion is impossible since such motion doesn't exist. Moreover, if such a motion had been filed there would be a record of it. The court file contains no records of any such thing and the court file doesn't contian any of these alleged documents. They would have been filed with the court attached to a motion if a motion had been filed. More importantly, if any of these statements had actually been taken by Siegfried then such would have been shared with Herman Rac- the defense's private investogator so he coudl have investigated the claims further. Moreover the defense would have called these people as witnesses at trial. That is how you present evidence at trial, you call witnesses you don't have a lawyer testify that someone came to him and told him ABC and XYZ.

In addition the stories related to how they supposedly found out about these witnesses makes no sense. I love how he didn't even know where Augie DeGennaro lived and yet he supposedly managed to find him to question. How coudl he have easily located a man he had no clue where even lived? The timing is even more funny. Siegfried only started working on the case in early to mid December 1974. We are supposed to believe that after only a couple of days on the job (before he even met Ron Jr) he had already sent numerous disclosure requests to the police (red flag disclosure requests are made to the DA) and the police responded several times including with a list of people they claimed they didn't interview. He asked for a list of those they interviewed and supposedly instead they respoonded with a list they didn't interview. But he didn't believe they didn't interview them so questioned them anyway and found out they did. Only Gerladine coudl make up such a stupid story. On the job a couple of days and instead of interviewing the known witnesses and key people he instead interviewed people who supposedly had not been interviewed and who on their face had no connection to the case? That makes as much sense as Geraldine's claim that each time they renewed their vows it changed their wedding date and complicated locating marriage records. Renewing vows is not done through the state and has no legal significance at all. It is symbolic merely.

The entire story about Kelske makes no sense at all. Kelsek supposedly used a Colt Python to kill Louise. Aside from the caliber of bullets that killed her clearly both being 35 caliber both bullets showed the weapon used had a right hand twist. All Colt revolvers including the Python have a left hand twist. The supposed tale that Augie was going to drive Dawn and the kids all the way to Brooklyn makes no sense either. The entire alibi tale they contrived for the book makes no sense. It was clearly made up after the fact without any attempt to be realistic.

rcn
Amityville Member
Posts: 5

Re: Flashlight/vision/candles, some questions

Post by rcn » Sun Nov 17, 2013 11:50 am

The only thing that would be significant about any prints on the flashlight would be if the prints did not match anyone in the family. And even then it would only be speculative. Sounds like no one knows for sure though whether the flashlight was fingerprinted. Or are you saying you know for a fact that it was?

Osuna's book was interesting in its own way, but I agree that just about all of it was BS.

scipio-USMC
Amityville Maniac
Posts: 1693

Re: Flashlight/vision/candles, some questions

Post by scipio-USMC » Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:10 pm

rcn wrote:The only thing that would be significant about any prints on the flashlight would be if the prints did not match anyone in the family. And even then it would only be speculative. Sounds like no one knows for sure though whether the flashlight was fingerprinted. Or are you saying you know for a fact that it was?

Osuna's book was interesting in its own way, but I agree that just about all of it was BS.
The police dusted for prints all over the place and found no prints aside from the family. Even if they had found prints of others that would not necessarily prove the people were there there at the time of the murder it would simply be a reason to investigate. But they found no evidence of anyone else around recently.

scipio-USMC
Amityville Maniac
Posts: 1693

Re: Flashlight/vision/candles, some questions

Post by scipio-USMC » Sun Nov 17, 2013 1:04 pm

To clarify some, what we don't know is whether no prints were found on the flashlight at all or prints of family because while it would have been reported if they found non-family members' prints, they found family prints all over and since that is expected it was not noteworthy only prints on the murder weapon were noteworthy. At any rate apart from the lens it would be unlikely to be able to get prints anyway from a military style flashlight. Fingerprints need a smooth surface. The body of a flashlight of this sort has ridges running up and down so that it is easy to grip. This means fingerprints are not going to be left on the body because the ridges prevent it. If it were used during the murder it could potentially have blood spatter on it but none was found. The lack of spatter doesn't mean it wasn't used during the murders but is proof it might not have been either. Only blood spatter would be proof it definitely was used during the murders. Ron's clothing had back splatter (indicating he was there when the shots were fired). Likely so would the flashlight had it been held during the murders.

rcn
Amityville Member
Posts: 5

Re: Flashlight/vision/candles, some questions

Post by rcn » Sun Nov 17, 2013 4:35 pm

Is there anywhere on this site (or anywhere else) that has the original DeFeo confession? I did a search on this site but didn't find it.....thanks!

scipio-USMC
Amityville Maniac
Posts: 1693

Re: Flashlight/vision/candles, some questions

Post by scipio-USMC » Sun Nov 17, 2013 6:16 pm

rcn wrote:Is there anywhere on this site (or anywhere else) that has the original DeFeo confession? I did a search on this site but didn't find it.....thanks!
Much of the confession is in High Hopes as well as the crap he spewed before so you can see how they got from point A to Z.

Post Reply