The Truth About the Amityville Horror

Everything that I know about the Defeo case tells me that the marlin and ONLY the marlin was used in the murders. If I'm not mistaken, 7 bullets were proven to come from the marlin while the 8th bullet was too mangled for positive identification but still proven to come from that marlin......if that makes sense. I know what I'm trying to say but I can't put it into words.

Yep. Seven of the bullets tested positive as being fired from the Marlin rifle. The 8th bullet was shown to have come from a Marlin rifle, but the damage prevented them from being positive that it came from the same Marlin rifle as the others.
So if there were two gunmen, they were both using a .35 Marlin rifle. No handguns. Unless, as said earlier, the police were lying and involved in a big conspiracy to frame Ronnie DeFeo. And Ryan has already stated that this is his position...

That's exactly it. The 8th bullet WAS from a Marlin Rifle....but because the bullet was so smashed up, they could not determine if it came from the SAME marlin rifle.

Perhaps RyKat needs someone to explain this to him like he's a 5 year old.

Shawn wrote:That's exactly it. The 8th bullet WAS from a Marlin Rifle....but because the bullet was so smashed up, they could not determine if it came from the SAME marlin rifle.

Perhaps RyKat needs someone to explain this to him like he's a 5 year old.

But how on earth would he be able to pawn off his docudrama as factual? LOL

Dan the Damned wrote:Yep. Seven of the bullets tested positive as being fired from the Marlin rifle. The 8th bullet was shown to have come from a Marlin rifle, but the damage prevented them from being positive that it came from the same Marlin rifle as the others.

So if there were two gunmen, they were both using a .35 Marlin rifle. No handguns. Unless, as said earlier, the police were lying and involved in a big conspiracy to frame Ronnie DeFeo. And Ryan has already stated that this is his position...

So basically this is to be RyKat's version of the magic bullet theory?

Eight bullets were fired, seven identified from the same Marlin rifle. Yet the eight was so mangled that although ballistics could not directly link it to the murder weapon they could establish it came from a Marlin rifle or weapon of similar calibre?

Yet, we are supposed to believe that it came from a weapon from a second person?

Sorry, I didn't believe the magic bullet theory from the Warren Commission report, and I'm not going to believe this one either.

Brendan72 wrote:

Dan the Damned wrote:Yep. Seven of the bullets tested positive as being fired from the Marlin rifle. The 8th bullet was shown to have come from a Marlin rifle, but the damage prevented them from being positive that it came from the same Marlin rifle as the others.

So if there were two gunmen, they were both using a .35 Marlin rifle. No handguns. Unless, as said earlier, the police were lying and involved in a big conspiracy to frame Ronnie DeFeo. And Ryan has already stated that this is his position...

So basically this is to be RyKat's version of the magic bullet theory?

Eight bullets were fired, seven identified from the same Marlin rifle. Yet the eight was so mangled that although ballistics could not directly link it to the murder weapon they could establish it came from a Marlin rifle or weapon of similar calibre?

Yet, we are supposed to believe that it came from a weapon from a second person?

Sorry, I didn't believe the magic bullet theory from the Warren Commission report, and I'm not going to believe this one either.

It depends on how you look at it. If you go by the expended shell casings all 8 were tied to Ron's Marlin 336C rifle. If just going by the bullets alone 5 fully intact/nearly fully intact bullets were determined to have been fired by a Marlin 336C and 4 of these 5 definitely fired from Ron's Marlin 336C. The jackets of 2 other bullets were determined to have been fired by a Marlin 336C. So by bullet evidence alone 7 were tied to a Marlin 336C and of these 4 tied to Ron's for certain.

Guess who the odd man out bullet killed, Allison not Louise.

If police were going to falsify evidence as Katzenbach is suggesting then why wouldn't they have falsely asserted the bullet that killed Allison came from a Marlin 336C? The report honestly states it could not establish such. The determination she too was killed by a Marlin 336 mainly came from the expended casing being fired from Ron's Marlin 336C. I specifically asked this question to him but he refused to allow my post on his facebook page to be posted publicly and banned me shortly thereafter.

See my independent thread for a complete ballistics accounting.

scipio-USMC wrote:Guess who the odd man out bullet killed, Allison not Louise.

Wait a minute...

I always thought that the bullet in question came from Louise.

All of this ballistics stuff really makes my head spin.

My thought exactly. I thought it was Louise that the bullet in question came from. That is how Ryan puts it.

Well Ryan? I would like to hear what you have to say about that.

kathyM wrote:My thought exactly. I thought it was Louise that the bullet in question came from. That is how Ryan puts it.

Well Ryan? I would like to hear what you have to say about that.

Ryan alleges the police crime lab lied about one of the bullets that killed Louise. He alleges that item 33 was a .38 special round but the crime lab intentionally lied claiming it was a .35 caliber Winchester brand rifle bullet definitely fired by a Marlin 336C. He claims they did so because they wanted to pin all the killings on Ronald not to look for anyone else.

1) Even if a handgun had been used in addition to the rifle round and it was fired by someone else there is no evidence the rifle round didn't kill her so Ron would still be up for murder of her anyway in addition to the other 5 victims.

2) Even if a handgun had been used in addition to the rifle Ron could have fired both, it would not necessarily mean someone else was involved.

This being the case there was no need at all for the crime lab to doctor evidence.

Furthermore if they were going to doctor evidence it seems that they would also doctor the findings related to the bullet that killed Allison as opposed to declaring such bullet fragment could only be identified as part of a jacketed bullet of undetermined caliber and brand.

scipio-USMC wrote:Furthermore if they were going to doctor evidence it seems that they would also doctor the findings related to the bullet that killed Allison as opposed to declaring such bullet fragment could only be identified as part of a jacketed bullet of undetermined caliber and brand.

I agree. If they were trying to frame Butch, they would've done a much better job.

HorrorBid reviewer wrote:Before I stuffed my face with turkey today, I checked out part II of the Shattered Hopes series. The second part of the documentary trilogy was recently released and much like it's predecessor the amount of information on the Amityville murders is staggering.

This installment titled "Mob. Mayhem. Murder." really explains a lot about the night that the Defeo family was murdered. It does a very good job at going into specific detail about the events that went down on that frightening November night.

The first documentary "From homicide to horror" covered the untold Defeo story before the night of the murders. It helped us see who these people actually were and how they acted as a family. Now in part II, we get to see how the night that the actual murders went down... and there are some shocking accusations and revelations. We also begin to go in-depth with the court case that begins to spread even more speculation.

Full review at http://www.horrorbid.com/forum/viewtopi ... iew=unread

Now in part II, we get to see how the night that the actual murders went down...

I imagine in two and a quarter hours we'll get multiple versions, followed by some flimsy excuse as to why one of them is "real"...

So, over the weekend I watched Part 3.1...

https://vimeo.com/ondemand/part3/101346653

...and things start off pretty well with juror Peggy Giambra as she explains why she was one of the two holdouts on an early guilty verdict - she needed to be convinced Ronnie was sane - her mind finally made up when testimony is re-read on Ronnie leaving the dog outside, showing he "knew what he was doing" that night.

This is nicely done, easing us in over the opening credits without a lengthy recap, and is some of Ryan's best work, but things become confused when Ryan firstly inserts Detective Gozoloff with a nonsensical alternate dog theory, and then Ryan himself, who brings up the "extra accomplice theory" which is totally at odds the story Peggy is trying to tell, and derails the narrative.

In fact, for a documentary purporting to tell the "real" story, it becomes increasingly clear the makers do not know which one the viewer is supposed to follow, as we will see...

The trial is concluded as onscreen text flashes up when people are still talking away - this saves time, but is impossible to take in both things at once!

Then we're onto the "fraud" section. DeFeo turns up (without fanfare) and tells how Weber and Lutzes planned to "exploit me". But he's hard to understand, slurred or clipped words are the order of the day. Good luck getting through a whole video of this interview.

Ronnie then claims he knew the Lutzes before they purchased the house, as he would drive them into Manhattan to score drugs! Him and George were big into heroin, but they had to stop off in the Bronx for Kathy's Cocaine fix

But wait, there's more - "all this can be verified" says Ronnie, as there was a witness. Wow! So who is this reliable source?

Ronnie: "There's an inmate who just left here (prison) who was in the car with me"

Right, cheers Ron! He then has the nerve to say of the Lutzes, "they got some imagination, I'll tell you that!"

This section is highly problematic for Ryan and his credibility, as this story is not only new (and should have been told years ago) but it changes dramatically from the one in the very book Shattered Hopes is based on.

In the book the Lutzes contact Weber when Kathy has psychic visions of an evil in the house. This is before they buy it, so Weber concocts a plan where he allows them to purchase the house, then abandon it with a fake ghost story. Geraldine is present at this meeting (despite being "in hiding" at this point) and relays it all in the The Night The DeFeo's Died.

It was one of the most ridiculed passages in the book. Obviously concocted by Ric Osuna to get back at George, and read like bad fiction. This puts Ryan in a dilemma - does he film a recreation as if it really happened (which would have been hilarious) or does he drop it for being too "out there"?

He wisely dropped it - but this creates a problem -- by leaving out this important meeting, he's essentially admitting Gerri made it up and lied! (She's hardly been in the doc so far, and now claims the first she hears of the Lutzes is months later when they do the Weber press conference)

We can go back further to 2001, when Ric was interviewed by Lou Gentile (who's name Ryan has difficulty pronouncing in this doc) In the Gentile interview Ric claims George met Ronnie in prison before buying the house, so George could learn about the DeFeo's and "compare beards" (I'm not joking)

This too was ridiculed and Ric dropped it from his book.

So we now have three different attempts to connect Lutz to DeFeo, each one dismissing the previous, and we've ended up with a married couple leaving the kids at home, and getting into a car with two younger lads on a NY "drugs trip"

Is this the best they could do?

The rest is a by-the-numbers look at the "hoax" from the biased position the Lutzes controlled every telling of the story. "George and Kathy drew up affidavits to help the appeal" Gerri mysteriously says at one point, before Ryan cuts to something else.

We get the old redundant method of debunking the book and movie - at no time do Ryan or Roxanne Kaplan refer to any later interviews with George himself - so Ryan moaning about the "front door blown off its hinges" complete with the movie clip helps no-one. Time is wasted on 3:15am not being an accurate time of death (George said he never woke up 3:15 on the dot anyway) and whether they stayed there for 10 or 28 days (10 days was used in the very first leaked report, corrected by George that night, but Ryan and Roxanne act like there's more to it)

Then there's this:

Ryan Katzenbach wrote:Of the photos that do exist of 112 Ocean Avenue during the time that the Lutzes owned it, they all have one thing, in my opinion, in common, and that is they all looked very staged. The pictures are devoid of any form of family, or friends, or parties, or activities, or normal day-to-day life. These photos were snapped sort of as an afterthought to the case, like "oh, we need some sort of proof that we lived here." If they actually ever did really live there.

Huh? We've only seen one pic of a thin-looking George by the swimming pool!

And the above speech plays over a pic and footage of the ABANDONED house! So yeah, that explains why it was "devoid of life"

Then there's some attempt to say George lied about when he first saw the house. Rayn: "In The Amityville Horror and subsequent interviews given by George Lutz, he explained that he had not seen the DeFeo house until the fall of '75. Then Ryan shows how "$400 of goods" were purchased from the DeFeo estate in the Summer - but as far as I'm aware George always said they purchased the house the Summer, not the Fall...

Then he gets Ed Asner to narrate this was "premeditation" on the part of George and Kathy, and sums it up himself with:

Ryan Katzenbach wrote:They knew about the DeFeo house (...) months and months ahead of when they claimed they first saw the house for the very first time, and to me that equates to an organised, orchestrated commercial plan.

Hyperbole much?


My Amityville Horror is bought up:

Ryan Katzenbach wrote:In 2012, Danny Lutz came forward with his own account of what supposedly happened in the house. And he's now claiming that the entire haunting really did happen (...) however one of the things that he must forget is that during the 1980's he avtually approached a couple of people trying to sell them a story on how George Lutz had fabricated the whole account.

We then cut to Joel Martin who recounts receiving the call from Danny who wants to sell him the story... but at no point does Joel mention anything about George "fabricating" anything! So here Ryan blatantly lies. Apparently Ryan also interviewed Roxanne post-My Amityville Horror but her recollections are mysteriously absent. Yet Ryan made a big deal on Facebook at how Danny had completely changed his story, so he flew out to specifically re-interview Roxanne about this.

Ryan then says that Danny confirming his parents were into Transcendental Meditation means Stephen Kaplan was right - "that George had a deep knowledge of the occult"



After all this, and the Warrens coming in for much criticism, we wonder how Hans Holzer is going to fare, especially as his daughter is onbaord, and good friends with the director. He should at least be chastised by Ryan for signing a book deal with that dodgy Weber, but this is hushed up -

Ed Asner wrote:As for Butch DeFeo and William weber, they never received a dime from the horror story they helped perpetuate.

But this isn't true, as Weber was behind Holzer's Murder In Amityville, and then was paid again when it became the basis of Amityville II: The Possession.

Alexandra Holzer spends more time telling us the times her father turned down investigating Amityville, and says nothing - NOTHING - about his actual investigation! Which, with his pictures of ghostly Indians and tales of possession, presumably would not fit into Shattered Hopes.

So she happily pisses on his memory by ignoring his Amityville work - which will be highly confusing to causal viewer, because he clearly did something - and instead she tells us what a bad job the Warrens etc. did in their investigation.


After the "fraud" section, we see a reenactment of Gerri bumping into Bobby Kelske on the streets of NY years later and Bobby blanking her.

As the film plays, Ric and Ryan explain what happened... but not Gerri! Even though Gerri's interview is what we want to hear, and not second-hand by TWO other people. Weird. Was her acting not up to it for this bit?

Gerri does pop up later to say she has "no birth certificate because I'm "illegally adopted" which is different from her "mafia destroyed all my documents" story. (tellingly, Ronnie has not said a word regarding Geraldine yet)

Near the end, Ryan pops up one last time:

Ryan Katzenbach wrote:After studying this case for so many years and finally interviewing Ronnie in the summer of 2014, I have absolutely no doubt how this crime played out"

And the last five minutes feature a smirking Ronnie giving a blow-by-blow account leading up the murders, with a caption reading:
...Only Ronnie doesn't give the account in the book of the same name!

It's not even the same account we saw Ryan reenact in Part II of Shattered Hopes! Instead, it's a new version in which only DeFeo and his sister Dawn are in the house, conspiring to kill their parents (the .38 now belongs to Dawn!) And there's no apology on behalf of the film-makers for wasting our time getting it wrong, and making us sit through bad reenactments in the previous chapter.

It treats it's audience with contempt, like they will have forgotten what they saw a couple of hours ago. We see some of the old footage with the actors playing Ronnie and Dawn again, but the other characters have now been cut out!

We end before the shooting begins, but by this point it's all a farce - the revelation of what really went down on the night of the murders has been altered because Ronnie DeFeo is now some speaker of the truth. So where does this leave Ric's book? Or Shat Hopes Part II for that matter! This has been so long in the making, it's gotten a Hollywood remake mid-production.

Ryan received one or two notes of praise on his FB page, but the neutral viewer must surely ask themselves "where does this leave me?" The documentary has taken you down one path, only to pull away the rug and say "yeah, whatever, we're going with this version now."

Pitiful.

No stars.

Wow! Wonderful review, Sherb! I truly appreciate the time you spent putting that together (not to speak of the time you had to waste sitting there watching Part III).

So after a full decade, THIS is the "amazing hoax evidence" that was supposed to blow everyone away? I have to say, I'm kinda disappointed. As you pointed out, Ryan has left himself wide open on multiple fronts. Its like he is exposing himself to us and handing us a pair of scissors to chop off his willy.

Ryan Katzenbach wrote:After studying this case for so many years and finally interviewing Ronnie in the summer of 2014, I have absolutely no doubt how this crime played out"

I'm wondering if Ryan has a little wiggle room here to slip his head out from the noose. Okay, so he says he has no doubt about the events that night -- but does he actually say that it is Ronnie's latest version which he believes to be the truth? Or is this just implied?

sherbetbizarre wrote:Ronnie then claims he knew the Lutzes before they purchased the house, as he would drive them into Manhattan to score drugs! Him and George were big into heroin, but they had to stop off in Bronx for Kathy's Cocaine fix

Does Ronnie give a time frame for this ridiculous story? I mean George didn't know Kathy until June or July of 1974, which was just months before the murders went down (and they didn't get married until June or July of 1975, well after the murders). So does Ronnie trip himself up here by giving an earlier date?

Dan the Damned wrote:So after a full decade, THIS is the "amazing hoax evidence" that was supposed to blow everyone away? I have to say, I'm kinda disappointed.

Me too There's nothing new of any substance here

I'm wondering if Ryan has a little wiggle room here to slip his head out from the noose. Okay, so he says he has no doubt about the events that night -- but does he actually say that it is Ronnie's latest version which he believes to be the truth? Or is this just implied?

I'm glad you picked up on that because I've been thinking about this too... Ryan could easily conclude Part III by sticking to the version with Dawn/Bobby/Augie, and say Ronnie simply fed him another bogus story.

But... he uses this "bogus" story as the entire climax/cliffhanger! This is Ryans full final speech:

Ryan Katenbach wrote:Whether Ronnie DeFeo killed one member of his family, or six members of his family, or whether anybody else like his sister Dawn that participated in the crime with him, the bottom line is that he's right where he belongs, because he was involved in the decision to execute his family. After studying this case for so many years and finally interviewing Ronnie in the summer of 2014, I have absolutely no doubt how this crime played out, and what transpired in the evening of November 12/13 1974...

....with Ryan looking into camera as we pass into Ronnie's first-hand commentary.

So Ryan has set this up as if it's the version he now believes... That's the way it plays anyway, but he could be pulling a fast one, which is a bit underhand of him.

Does Ronnie give a time frame for this ridiculous story? I mean George didn't know Kathy until June or July of 1974, which was just months before the murders went down (and they didn't get married until June or July of 1975, well after the murders). So does Ronnie trip himself up here by giving an earlier date?

He gives no date, but you're right, it would have had to happened in that window. I bet Ryan didn't grill him on that either.

Interesting. And again, kinda funny how Ryan keeps saying "I'm gonna leave it up to the viewer to decide what the truth is" (but then continuously TELLS the viewer what to think).

Funnier still how Ryan's truth keeps changing. Give him another 5 years and he'll come full circle and believe the haunting was real...

I don't ever remember hearing that Dawn retrieved the Marlin from Ronnie's bedroom, took it to the basement where they had a discussion about it, and then Ronnie being unable to locate it when he was ready to shoot because Dawn had secreted it under the living room couch.

I'm not up to speed on every Ronnie version... but that's new, right?

I certainly can't do better than sherbetbizarre's review. To me, it was worth $5 to watch but it could be very confusing for an Amityville n00b (provided those even exist).

I thought Ronnie's demeanor in this one had changed a bit. Up to and through the footage on the Jackie Barrett project his voice has been agitated and defensive. In this one he's almost quiet ... like the fabrications are becoming easier and easier to manufacture on the fly.

Geraldine comes off as less and less credible each time as well.

Fnord wrote:I don't ever remember hearing that Dawn retrieved the Marlin from Ronnie's bedroom, took it to the basement where they had a discussion about it, and then Ronnie being unable to locate it when he was ready to shoot because Dawn had secreted it under the living room couch.

I'm not up to speed on every Ronnie version... but that's new, right?

Pretty much... and he was probably making it up on the spot!

All I was thinking of was "where's Bobby? Where's Augie?" Has Ryan really wasted money on actors and sets to recreate something we are now meant to disregard? I'm confused!

To me, it was worth $5 to watch but it could be very confusing for an Amityville n00b (provided those even exist).

I agree. I think most people are new to the murder aspect, so they are relying on Shat Hopes to guide them... but at this stage they are left hanging with two possible versions. (and yes, the stream only cost me about £3, so Ryan gets less than a cup of coffee out of me)

Over the weekend I also watched one of those "Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings for Nasa" and then "left a bunch of clues in The Shining as a confession" documentaries, which at times felt more plausible than Shat Hopes 3.1!

I thought Ronnie's demeanor in this one had changed a bit. Up to and through the footage on the Jackie Barrett project his voice has been agitated and defensive. In this one he's almost quiet ... like the fabrications are becoming easier and easier to manufacture on the fly.

He's probably relaxed because he struck a deal so Ryan must release the full uncut interview. But there's no hint yet at what Ronnie is desperate to say to the world... and you could argue that Ryan hasn't got much out of this deal either!

And the DVD better have subtitles.

If Geraldine were not legally adopted she could easily access her birth certificate. Only adoptees have limitations placed on receiving their birth certificates, they get a redacted NJ birth certificate instead of access to the full record.

The only way to get a Socual Security card is via a US birth certificate or proof of legal immigration.

The woman makes up the dumbest :) flower :) ever and Ryan is so damn stupid he actually publishes it.

My mother was legally adopted by her biological father and his wife. She was the product of an affair my Grandfather had. (If that helps in any way)

I wonder if Geraldine was a private adoption? I was privately adopted and it was legal. I can't believe the BS Ryan, Ric, and Geraldine expect us to believe. It's getting old IMO.

PeterPisani wrote:My mother was legally adopted by her biological father and his wife. She was the product of an affair my Grandfather had. (If that helps in any way)

Technically that is only an adoption by your grandmother the father already was the father then.

She denies your grandfather is her biological father though. More lies if you are correct about it.

By the way as her son you have a right to a copy of her birth certificate:

http://www.state.nj.us/health/vital/expedited.shtml

That would be a pretty good kick in the teeth for you to prove she is lying about not having one.