2007 parole hearing transcripts

Post by **sherbetbizarre** » Sat May 24, 2008 3:00 pm

THE INMATE: No. I'm not saying that. I don't know what happened, which is -- I thought I was having a nightmare, you know. Maybe I don't want to remember what happened.

"I thought I was having a nightmare" is kind of an admission he knew what was going on..?

Post by **msmart112** » Sat May 24, 2008 10:19 pm

sherbetbizarre wrote:
THE INMATE: No. I'm not saying that. I don't know what happened, which is -- I thought I was having a nightmare, you know. Maybe I don't want to remember what happened.
"I thought I was having a nightmare" is kind of an admission he knew what was going on..?

Indeed, Sherb.

And when he says..."Maybe I don't want to remember what happened."...it's also kind of an admission that he knew what was going on (and that he remembers it).

If he truly doesn't remember...then he wouldn't have the option of "not wanting" to remember.

Post by **sherbetbizarre** » Sun May 25, 2008 6:47 am

The only thing he claims to remember is the war picture - or "wall" picture as the transcript has it!

Post by **Howard64** » Sun May 25, 2008 8:20 am

he remembers...he knows exactly what happened that night.

but by lying and manipulating, he gets attention, which is exactly what he wants.

Post by **Grave** » Sun May 25, 2008 9:14 am

Post by **VicRealty** » Sun May 25, 2008 11:59 am

I think what he's having trouble living with is the fact he will never get out, not what he has done. (NO REMORSE, Just feeling sorry for himself.)

Post by **BellWitch74** » Mon May 26, 2008 10:20 am

Nope, no remorse and still no responsibility taken - now he can't remember a damn thing. He takes "responsibility" but he doesn't remember what happened. Why would you take responsibility then?

w/e

Post by **astonio** » Mon May 26, 2008 1:02 pm

Curious, but Butch starts from a 'no' place when entering the hearing room. What could he say or have since demonstrated that would consider a paroled release? I would think that somewhere in the annals of crime, someone was released on parole for committing at least 6 murders, right(sarcasm)? If no precedence has ever been recorded, how can a panel even entertain the idea under the circumstance of this crime?

...always wanted to put these questions out there.

Post by **Dan the Damned** » Mon May 26, 2008 1:32 pm

I don't think there is anything he could have said that would have granted him a parole. I think if he finally confessed to the murders (and saying "I don't remember anything" isn't a confession), but if he confessed and showed deep remorse and maybe took years of psychological counselling (if its available), and if he stayed that course, then maybe he might get parole when he's 70 or so (if he lives that long).

But that's just my guess. I picked "70" since its an age where he'd likely be considered too old to kill again...

Post by **Dutchcolonial** » Mon May 26, 2008 7:06 pm

I dunno.............if they haven't let out Leslie Van Houten:

http://www.mansonfamilytoday.info/manson.htm

I doubt they'll ever let a pig like Butch out. He takes absolutely no responsibility for what he did. They even tell him what they want to hear (like he'll ever hear it) by saying: "You have little insight and show little remorse for these vulnerable victims....."

I guess they don't consider his wife's lame attempt to eulogize his family members valid. Imagine that.

Dutch.

Post by **BellWitch74** » Tue May 27, 2008 5:23 am

I agree, if he put forth some effort into some counseling and saying yes I did this and I repent rather than "I don't know, someone else did this" (especially after 30+ years!) then he'd have a better chance at parole.

Post by **leathermonkey** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:36 pm

Thank you for posting this transcript.

Post by **Beroin** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:30 pm

Well the mans old he has been in there awhile I think they should let him out but make him go twice a week to counsling and keep a eye out on his behavour,and drug test him for real

Post by **Dan the Damned** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:04 pm

He's not old. He should be in his mid-50s these days.

I don't think he should be let out. I don't think you get to murder entire families and be able to walk free again. He's lucky to still be alive.

Post by **TigresMeow** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:02 pm

I agree with you, Dan. I don't think Ronnie should ever see the outside of the prison.

Post by **iamthejoker** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:00 pm

Littlechinagirl wrote:I have to agree with ZZ on these transcripts. I couldn't help but feel a little pity for the guy. I think it is even obvious to him that there is no chance he is ever going to be a free man again and I don't think the comment about not wanting to remember says a lot. It's just a sad case all the way around.

I do hope that with him admitting that it was ALL HIM now, that the whole Dawn BS will finally be put to rest. If Ronnie is admitting to it all, I think it would be foolish of others, who weren't there to begin with, to try and fight that it was Dawn Dawn Dawn.

yeah i feel pity for him too, but is he lying or telling the truth.....is the house really haunted?

Post by **Dan the Damned** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:15 pm

The story of the house being haunted came from the Lutzes, not DeFeo. DeFeo told stories about ghosts being in the house at a later date, during an interview with Hans Holzer. He has since recanted, saying that he was lying during that interview -- that the house wasn't haunted at all.

But that doesn't discount what the Lutzes experienced/claimed.

Post by **Chichibcc** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:19 pm

Dan the Damned wrote: DeFeo told stories about ghosts being in the house at a later date, during an interview with Hans Holzer. He has since recanted, saying that he was lying during that interview -- that the house wasn't haunted at all.

The fact that he did that made it even harder for the Lutzes to be taken seriously-as if it hadn't been hard enough already!

Was there any excuse this man wouldn't use to try to take the blame off himself??? Unbelievable.

Post by **Dan the Damned** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:32 pm

Yes, it probably did hurt the Lutzes' case.

Some people hear "Ronnie DeFeo said he was lying about the house being haunted," so they may conclude that it was all a fake, not realizing that the claims of a haunting did not originate with DeFeo, but the Lutz family (who maintain it was real).

And some people hear "William Weber confessed it was a hoax," and upon hearing that they may conclude it was a hoax. "After all, they confessed." But what they fail to realize is that William Weber made that "confession" while he was in court trying to get money from the Lutzes (and his "confession" was part of his "we all made up this fake story together, therefore I am entitled to a share of the enormous profits from the movie & book" strategy. It doesn't mean his claims were true.

But some people might view William Weber's confession as if it were the Lutzes confessing.

I could confess here and now that I took part in the assasination of John Kennedy. That doesn't mean its true. And only the people who take the time to research will discover I wasn't even born at the time...

Post by **Howard64** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:34 pm

just because someone holds a title that would normally generate some form of trust, doesnt mena they should actually be trusted.

for instance...

You would think automatically a doctor is someone you can trust. But he may have the worst bedside manner around. Dont take things at face value.

I mean at one time, i was asked to take tracey defeo at her word about the autopsy reports. HA! Thats like president bush saying "trust me".

Post by **Chichibcc** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 8:27 pm

Howard64 wrote:just because someone holds a title that would normally generate some form of trust, doesnt mena they should actually be trusted.

So true...

The Truth About the Amityville Horror

2007 parole hearing transcripts

hmm?