On January 15th, 1975 Ronnie's then-lawyer, Jocob Siegfried motioned the court to be permitted "the right"to examine, inspect, copy, and photocopy and make the photostatic copies of the original notes of the arresting officers, together with police reports containing statements of the witnesses.  

Jacob Siegfried also requested an Order to inspect the Grand Jury minutes and state as follow:  That the people have failed to establish to the Grand Jury that there was reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crimes set forth therein.  With respect to branch 8, defendant is entitled to a hearing as a matter of law if any statements or confessions do exist.  Edward W. Connors, assistant district attorney informed the courts there is no allegations of fact to support the claims stated above.

 In September of 1975, the defense was also set back when Judge Signorelli announced in a hearing, he was disqualifying himself from the case. There is no doubt that Prosecutor Gerald Sullivan played a big part in maneuvering Judge Signorelli's dismissing himself. Gerald Sullivan's choice was Thomas Stark and on September 22, 1975 Justice Thomas Stark presided over the case.

Ronald DeFeo never got a fair trail.   William Weber coerced witnesses to testify falsely, in hopes of getting an Insanity plea. Quote:  "Make Ronnie appear to be a lunatic, make up irrational acts, ect .ect...."  William Weber never had my husband's best interest at heart.  William Weber was busy making arrangements for book and movie deals with Burton, Hoffman and Mars.  On May 23, 1978, the New York State Court of Appeals denied appellant's application for leave to appeal to that court (People v. Defeo, 44 N. Y. 2d 952 (1978). We believe the courts deemed this arrangement,  "CONFLICT of  INTEREST"  

Ronald Defeo repeatedly contends that the police and the prosecutor offered perjurious testimony to the jury as to the source of the blood on his clothing.  Detective  Dennis Rafferty testified at trail, that Ronald Defeo told him that he retrieved a shell casing from a pool of blood underneath Allison, resulting in him wiping his bloody hand on his pants.  Although during cross-examination, Ronald denied ever making that comment. Ronald Defeo testified at trail that he was physically abused by various police officers, causing his lip to bleed, and that is where the blood came from and not the blood of his sister Allison. Ronald also contends that the police officers removed his clothes from him at the Homicide Squad and then claimed that they were part of the evidence recovered from the storm drain in Brooklyn.   Detective Severino, the serologist employed by the people, testied that although he could determine the blood to be Type A, all of the Defeo's except Louise had type A blood, therefore, he could NOT determine whose blood appeared on appellant's dungarees.

Ronald DeFeo has been fighting the courts for years to prove his innocence of three of the murders.  He admits to the deaths of his Father, Mother and sister Dawn.  Ronnie has stated over the past 30 years, that his sister Dawn DeFeo played a role in this crime.  The DellaPenna Ballistics Report states, "Item # 16-Powder particles from victim (Dawn DeFeo) 3rd Floor east side bedroom. The pieces of  "Powder" are partially burnt particles of Nitro Cellose gunpowder.  Dawn Defeo was shot in the back of  her neck, therefore;  how did the "powderburns "get on the front of her nightdress?

The weekend before the murders, Ronnie states in his 1975 trail, that Dawn got into another fight with her Father, and stated she was going to kill everybody in the house.

Furthermore; Ronnie states in the 1975 trail transcripts, "Dawn wanted to move to Florida to be with her then boyfriend and could not deal with the abusive situation at home. She (Dawn) began using drugs during this time to cope with the abuse of their father.  My father and Dawn always got into fights,  My Mother and I would try to break it up, but wound up getting hurt in the process."

Investigator Herman Race testified at the 1975 trail of Ronald Defeo, that one person could not have committed these murders alone.  He further asserted, more than one person committed this crime. It is also a known fact, Gerald Sullivan wanted this case, because he could not "Begin" to understand why Ronald Defeo would kill his entire family.

 In 1989 an Investigation into the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office and Police Department revealed improper practices in homicide prosecutions, including perjury, as well as grossly deficient investigative and management practices.  Suffolk County's "Overreliance on Confessions" involved 94% of confessions or oral admissions.   This figure was confirmed to the Commission by the former Commanding Officer of the Suffolk Police Homicide Division, Detective Lieutenant Robert Dunn, in a private hearing on January 5th 1987.  This is an astonishingly high figure compared to other jurisdictions, so high, in fact, that in an of itself it provokes skepticism regarding Suffolk County's use of confessions and oral admissions. While Rafferty's convenient talent for producing crucial testimony disturbs the commission, there is a sure remedy to these types of problems in future homicide prosecutions. Not long after the Commission's hearing, Rafferty was transferred from the Homicide Division to the Robbery Squad, after a 17 year career in Homicide. 

In 1990 Ronnie filed suit in the Supreme Court of New York for DNA testing.  On October 9, 1992, Ronnie writes to Judge Stark about Karen Peterson and Barbara Rose.  Quote  "Your Honor has in his possession all of the moving papers pertaining to the 440 motion.  On these moving papers Ms. Petterson, A.D.A. stated on two separate occassions under the penalty of perjury that the "Evedence" (clothing) was "Destroyed."

Shortly after the above, an attorney by the name of Dennis O'Doherty, discovered the clothing in question on or about August 21, 1992.  Karen Petterson, who sent letters to Ronald, Mr. McGuinness, and the Courts, apologizing for her error and that in fact the clothing in question had been found.   Now with the "Newly Discovered" evidence, Ronnie was set. (So he thought). Judge Stark stated in a letter to my husband, "If you want the DNA testing, you will have to obtain the monies for the DNA.  My husband's Grandmother Angela Brigante paid $10.000 and the first installment check of $3,000 was sent to the courts.

However;  The Courts Rendered it's denial stating "The defendant failed to state "When and Where" his arrest took place. It also states the clothing in question has been held for 17 years and not suited for DNA testing.  Christopher Berry-Dee, a Criminologist  from England, interviewed Detective Dennis Rafferty in 1994 about this case.  Rafferty stated to Chris, Quote "This stuff (clothing) will never see the light of day again, we'll make sure of that."

Suffolk County Police Department and  Judge Stark's behavior from the outset is a damning indictment of the American Justice System.  One may wonder with curiosity that this same Judge presided over the 1975 trail, and yet again in the 1992  appeal.  We feel this was Judge Stark's way of ensuring Ronald Defeo never got a fair trail, even though many witnesses came forward ready to take a perjury charge for lying in the 1974 trail.  It is obvious Judge Stark overlooked their Affidavits.

Over the past 30 years there have been many stories told about the DeFeo murders. This case has spun movies, books, documentaries, half truths, nontruths and just about anything else that pops into one's imagination. But one thing is for sure, My husband Ronald DeFeo did not commit the murders of his family alone.

Dawn DeFeo had backfire powder on her clothes, there is no doubt about this. She was involved in the murders of her family. The Proscution knew this, Suffolk County knew this and so did the Judge presiding over the case in 1975.  

My husband and I are asking you to please sign our "Petition" for a chance to exonerate him of the murders of his sister Allison and his Brothers Mark and John-Matthew.

(fields marked with * are required)

* First Name
* Last Name
Email
State	SelectAlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming
Zip Code
* Country	SelectUnited StatesAfghanistanAlbaniaAlgeriaAmerican SamoaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua And BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBoliviaBosnia And HerzegovinaBotswanaBrazilBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo, The Democratic Republic Of TheCook IslandsCosta RicaCote D'ivoireCroatiaCubaCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuamGuatemalaGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHoly See (Vatican City State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic OfIraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKorea, Democratic People's Republic OfKorea, Republic OfKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacaoMacedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic OfMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMicronesia, Federated States OfMoldova, Republic OfMonacoMongoliaMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNetherlands AntillesNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorwayOmanPakistanPalauPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalPuerto RicoQatarReunionRomaniaRussian FederationRwandaSaint HelenaSaint Kitts And NevisSaint LuciaSaint Pierre And MiquelonSaint Vincent And The GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome And PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbia And MontenegroSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard And Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwanTajikistanTanzania, United Republic OfThailandTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad And TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks And Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuelaViet NamVirgin Islands, BritishVirgin Islands, U.s.Wallis And FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabwe
* Age	Your Ageless than 2121 to 2930 to 3940 to 4950 to 5960 to 6970 to 7980+
	Display my name as anonymous on the signatures list

TO: Governor George Pataki, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy, Senator Charles Schumer, Senator Hillary Clinton, Representative Tim Bishop

FROM: (Your Name and Email)

SUBJECT:  DNA Testing and New Trail for Ronald DeFeo jr.

"The prosecution deliberately misrepresented the truth.  More than 30 years ago this court held that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot tolerate a state criminal conviction obtained by the knowing use of false evidence.  Mooney v. Holohan. 294 U.S. 103, 55 S. Ct. 340. 79 L. Ed. 791.  There has been no deviation from that established principle.  Napue v. Illonois, 360 U.S. 264. 79 S. Ct. 1173, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1217: Pyle v. State of Kansas, 317 U.S. 213, 63 S. Ct. 177, 87 S. Ct. 177. L. Ed. 214: Df. Alcorta v. State of Texas, 355 U.S. 28, 78 S. Ct. 103, 2 L. Ed. 2d 9.  There can be no retreat from that principle here."

Since the day these murders took place there have never been an impartial investigation into these crimes.  Ronald DeFeo received beatings at the initial detention at the precinct.  His clothes stripped from him and later alleged by police to have been found in some sewer drain in Brooklyn, N.Y.  Ronald was also denied an attorney during his interrogation. As stated in court records, Richard Wyssling  (attorney) for Ronald DeFeo tried several attempts to find where he was being held, only to get the run around.  Finally at the Fourth Precient at approximately 1:00 a.m. on Nov 14th, Lt. David Menzies the highest ranking police officer in the building, refused to allow Wyssling to see the defendant.

The Newly Discovered Evidence:

More than enough evidence has been entered into the record of 1975, and 1992.  The clothing in question WAS found.  The monies for DNA were substantiated by Ronald's Grandmother. In Detective Severino findings, all of the DeFeo's had type A blood except Louise DeFeo, if Ronald were granted DNA test on the pants he allegedly wiped his sister Allison's blood on, and this proved to be his own blood and not his sister's, we would have proof  Detective Dennis Rafferty perjured himself at trail in 1975.  With that, and the fact Dawn DeFeo had "unburned particles" on her nightdress, as found by the ballistic's expert Sgt. DellaPenna, and Herman Races' testimony that one person could not have committed this crime alone, "The evidence is overwhelming"  Ronald DeFeo is innocent of three murders and deserves a new trail, yet public officials are blocking justice in Suffolk County.  We feel an independent prosecutor must be appointed to oversee this case."  

CONFLICTS:

* The Prosecutor misinformed the jury that certain clothes were found in a storm drain and contained the victim's blood when they actually were clothes the defendant was wearing when arrested.

* The appellant (Ronald DeFeo) also claims that he is entitled to Relief pursuant to C.P.L. Section 440.10 due to the "Newly Discovered Evidence" of  DNA testing.  Assistant District Attorney Karen Petterson contends, Ronald DeFeo is mistaken in his argument, and it should be noted that the clothing in question is no longer in the possession of either the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office or the Suffolk County Police Department.  It is unrealistic to assume that physical evidence of such nature would be preserved for sixteen years after the verdict, particularly when that verdict was affirmed in 1978 and leave to appeal was denied that same year.

* In august of 1992, an attorney by the name of Dennis O'Dorherty found the clothing in question, and reported it to the a Asistant Attorney Karen Petterson, who then called up Ronald DeFeo's then attorney Mr. McGuinness to tell him of her findings, and that she was sorry for the misinformation.

Obstruction of Justice:

* The court contends that Appellant (Ronald DeFeo) has failed to demonstrate the relevancy of any potenial DNA testing, except to erroneoulsy state that "forensic experts would be able to conclude wheter the blood was his....(and) exclude the possibility of blood belonging to other members of his family"

* The court further asserts, appellant must demonstrate two things to this court before any relief may be granted: (1) that testing can be properly performed and (2) that such testing will be dispositive of the blood suitable for testing still exists.  

* The people are not disputing the DNA testing could, under some circumstances, afford a defendant newly discovered evidence.  Under the facts presented herein, however, in the absence of an established scientific foundation for possible testing of the evidence in this case, the people urge that the relief requested be denied.

* The District Attorney opposes the appointment of such expert, questioning the necessity and the reliability of such tests after a seventeen (17) year period.  A question arose as to the location of the garments held by the Suffolk County Police Department property clerk.  

* In moving for the appointment of the expert, the defenant fails to state "Where and When" his arrest took place.  Defendant's motion for authority to hire a forensic expert is denied.