There is NO proof of a haunting

General Discussion About Anything Amityville And Other Paranormal Topics
Amityville Rock
Amityville Addict
Posts: 298
Contact:

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by Amityville Rock » Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:54 pm

Keep in mind people (as a great man once said) extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If I say I just took a trip to Mars on an alien spaceship the onus is on me to prove the event happened not on anyone else to prove it didn't happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of ... a_negative
Last edited by Amityville Rock on Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Special Guest Star

est. 1999

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9749
Contact:

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by sherbetbizarre » Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:55 pm

jimmysmokes wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:38 pm
Fair enough?
Fine, but why the mystery?

User avatar
TC1
Disciple
Posts: 83
Location: The Twilight Zone
Contact:

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by TC1 » Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:32 pm

What is happening today? Two flame wars in one day? :shock:
Oo-wee-oo I look just like Buddy Holly.

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 595

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by jimmysmokes » Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:56 pm

sherbetbizarre wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:55 pm
jimmysmokes wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:38 pm
Fair enough?
Fine, but why the mystery?
There's no mystery. I'm simply waiting for a response from Dan. I was kind enough to answer him, now he can return the favor but I'm quite sure he doesn't want to. Plus, you and I have discussed this before.

I'm being accused of not being able to set fact from fiction as to what the Lutzes "true claims" were? Well the false ones we know were debunked :lol: that includes the book they put their names on and the movie that followed. Having said that, I don't have much to go on now. And you know what I'm referring to. We've discussed it before. You had no answers. Which of the Lutzes claims are true? What's the real story?

To this day no one has answered me here. What's the mystery? If their true claims are obvious damned if I ever here what they are on here! People are quick to say that I don't know the real story, the facts. What are they? Best I get on here is that something did occur in the house? Ok. Anyone tell me what this something is?
We gonna break it down, let's get into it. No doubt about it.

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11884

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by Dan the Damned » Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:23 pm

jimmysmokes wrote:Now Dan I've answered this for the last time! Now it's your turn to prove a haunting. Give us proof that it happened.
Do you even bother to read what I write to you? I have said repeatedly that there is no proof that the haunting actually took place. So how can I give you proof that it happened?

Do you know the difference between "opinion" and "evidence" and "proof"? Because it doesn't seem like you do.

So I'll say it again. There is no proof the haunting actually happened. And there is no proof that the Lutzes' story was a hoax. If there was proof either way, then this forum and website wouldn't exist. There would be no need for it.

Aside from that, I'm not here to push the Lutzes' side of the story. Although I can understand why it may appear that way, because so many idiots come here thinking they know for a fact that it was a hoax. And they all have the same bullsh*t "proof" that they have cut & pasted from Kaplan's book or Osuna's book or Katzenblech's videos, etc.

I'll give you a glimpse into my mindset here. I don't believe in God, and I have a hard time believing in ghosts and the supernatural. I think all psychics are con artists (including the Warrens).

You would think that I would be one of those people who declare that the Lutzes' story was a hoax. But I try to keep an open mind. I don't have an answer as to why they claimed to have experienced all these things; but at the same time, when you look at the Lutzes' actions, they are not the actions of a couple who are trying to pull off a money-making scheme.

To put it really succinctly, in my opinion, if this was all a money-making hoax (a hoax which has yet to be exposed), then the Lutzes must be expert con-artists. But at the same time, if you look at the Lutzes' actions, they frankly have missed a lot of big money-making opportunities (such as reselling the house to a wealthy paranormal enthusiast for a big profit).

Aside from that, I have spent a good number of years investigating each and every claim of a hoax. Again and again, these claims come up short. There just isn't any hard proof that this was a hoax.

That's why I said earlier that this whole case is in limbo. There really is no definite answer as to whether the haunting was real or not.

Now, it is human nature to hate ambiguity. It is human nature to need a solid answer to life's mysteries. That's why man invented all the gods and religions of the past -- in order to have a reason for our existence. In order to have a reason for anything unknown at the time (be that lightning or earthquakes or even hallucinations).

Along those lines, there will be many who are not okay with not knowing whether this little ghost story was real or faked. They'll choose a side.

I'm not one of those people. Sure, I would like to know the final truth (that's the main reason I first became involved with an earlier version of this board), but I'm okay with the realization that I will probably never know.

Yes, I do tend to sway a bit more towards the Lutzes' side, but, as I've stated, that's really because the "they planned it as a money-making hoax" angle really doesn't seem logical to me, considering the family's actions.


jimmysmokes wrote:There were certain parties involved with the George & Kathy who went on record as saying that they had a plan to have a book written based on their experiences in the house, even before they lived in the house, while they were living in the house. Ok, you following. They made calls to certain parties to have the house investigated only to drop these certain parties after finding out they couldn't be bought. You still following? When George & Kathy got the deal they wanted (book) they cut loose the other parties involved. Then disappeared to the other side of the country. Nice time to cut and run btw.
You say this wasn't Geraldine. So who was it? Can you give us a name?

I'm unfamiliar with this story. It sounds like a twisted version of what went on between the Lutzes and William Weber.


jimmysmokes wrote:Anyway, the certain party whom they gave their story to and turn into a book did not one shred of investigation into their claims and wrote a book sensationalized to promote many claims that actually did not happen proving the story was not true after all.
This "certain party" is Jay Anson. And he actually did some investigatory work into the Lutzes' story. I mean, he didn't call the Ghostbusters team to investigate; but he interviewed the other people involved in the story.

Yes, Anson added some fiction and moved the dates of the incidents around to make for a better story. We all know that. He admitted it in Kaplan's book.

Remember that the Lutzes were just two ordinary people. They had no clout in the publishing world. The book publisher held all the cards. The Lutzes were sent galleys, and they made their corrections and notes. Whether Anson took heed of them was another thing entirely.


jimmysmokes wrote:Now a certain party who knew that their claims were bogus all along exposed many of the falsehoods and outright lies in his own book years later, and was exposing it after the book came out for years. George & Kathy's responses to all this? "Well some of the things didn't actually happen that way", and "well when Danny smashed his hand we didn't really take him to the hospital". "And we can't explain ourselves really what went on now", "but something really did happen in our house"?
Oh. They wrote their own book? So you must be talking about Kaplan.

Is Kaplan the first "certain party" that you claimed was involved with the Lutzes to write a book? So confusing when you are too lazy to include their actual names.

So what's wrong with George & Kathy saying, "Well, some of the things didn't actually happen that way"? What's wrong with them attempting to clear up what was fact and what was fiction?

I have no problem going into detail as to why Kaplan's book is simply NOT a full-on debunking of the Lutzes' story. In fact, I wrote an article about it a decade ago. It was posted on the Amityville Files website back in 2009. Unfortunately, something happened to that site, and most of the links no longer work.

Now this reply is going on way too long, so I'll just post that article in my next post...

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11884

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by Dan the Damned » Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:40 pm

I wrote this article on Kaplan very quickly back in 2009, for a friend who wanted some new content for his own Amityville Horror website:



In 1976, Stephen Kaplan was one of the very first people contacted with regards to help investigate a supposedly haunted house in Amityville, Long Island -- the site of a mass murder just over a year before then where six members of a family were shot & killed by the eldest son. But just days before the investigation was to take place, it was abruptly cancelled.

Quickly growing suspicious of George Lutz (the man who bought the murder house and who now was claiming it to be haunted), Kaplan started telling anyone who would listen how he felt the haunting was just one big hoax.

Nineteen years later, Kaplan published "The Amityville Horror Conspiracy." Written in a diary format, it covers the years 1974 - 1979, and not only gives us a glimpse into Kaplan's world, but shows us how, little by little, the stories of the murder and haunting in Amityville were first revealed to the public, and how that charming Long Island home soon became notorious, with its jack-o-lantern windows giving children nightmares the world over.

Of course the main point of the book was for Kaplan to explain his condemnation of the Lutzes' story. We read how the Lutzes were immediately viewed with suspicion by Kaplan, and how his blood seemed to boil with each step of the Lutzes' story gaining in popularity. Indeed, Kaplan paints himself much as a modern-day Chicken Little, running around trying to inform a misdirected world that there are no ghosts in Amityville. But regardless of his efforts, the Lutzes' ghost story is turned into a book (which quickly becomes a best-seller), then a paperback (which starts smashing sales records), and finally an immensely popular motion picture in 1979, which is the year this book stops, almost as if throwing its hands up in defeat.

While I found Kaplan's book very interesting, and sometimes fascinating (highly recommended to those with a deep interest in The Amityville Horror saga), it fails to provide any solid evidence of the haunting being a hoax, let alone some sort of conspiracy. Kaplan does offer a few good points to suggest something may be amiss (such as George's conversations with famed Wiccan Ray Buckland and Bill Weber's claim that he helped the Lutzes "invent" the ghost story) but overall, most of Kaplan's suspicions seem warrantless.

Despite his best efforts, Kaplan tends to lose credibility fairly early-on when tries to build a case against the Lutzes by nitpicking over discrepancies found from one newspaper article to the next (treating every fact as if it came verbatim from the Lutzes). Lutz is even suspected of being a secret acquaintance of murderer Ronald DeFeo Jr, due to the fact that he referred to DeFeo as "Ronnie" (something Kaplan does himself, starting on page 32, as does Joel Martin & Bill Weber).

Kaplan's treatment of the newspaper accounts is especially troubling because there are various instances where Kaplan points out how he, himself, has been misquoted or misrepresented by reporters; and yet he turns a blind eye at the possibility that the Lutzes are receiving the same treatment.

Along those same lines, Kaplan objects at the dishonesty of Prentice-Hall categorizing Jay Anson's book The Amityville Horror as a non-fiction title. Fair enough, as Anson did include bits of fiction in his account; but how about the cover of Kaplan's book? Appearing on the cover of "The Amityville Horror Conspiracy" is the claim "the dramatic true story of an incredible twenty-year investigation." But that is not the case at all. This book, written as a diary, tells the story of Kaplan's life between the years of 1974 to 1979 and his investigation during 4 of those 6 years. It is a diary, detailing the events of each day. If any subsequent research was done by Kaplan after 1979 (the final diary entry), it is not included in this book.

This is just one of many seemingly-hypocritical tidbits to be discovered in this book. But there are many others.

When Kaplan refers to Ronald DeFeo Jr as "Ronnie," that's okay; but when George Lutz does it, that draws suspicion.

When newspaper articles are inaccurate regarding Kaplan, that is the fault of the reporter; but when the articles are regarding the haunting, Kaplan blames any discrepancy directly on the Lutzes.

And when the cover of Kaplan's book carries an untrue byline, that's fine; but not fine when it is done on Jay Anson's book.

Kaplan really goes all over the map in this book and seems to contradict himself over and over. One such example is with his general theories about the haunting being untrue. In some instances Kaplan seems to suggest that the Lutzes were involved with Bill Weber (DeFeo's defense attorney) in concocting the fake haunting as a possible means of securing a new trial for the mass murderer. At other times Kaplan suggests that the Lutzes misinterpreted the events -- that they were merely dreams or hallucinations.

But if the Lutzes had dreamt or hallucinated the events, then their story wouldn't be a hoax. That would mean they really did think these paranormal events were happening, but were mistaken. And that is quite different from them making the whole story up out of thin air in an attempt to either make money or to help Bill Weber get his client charged with a lesser crime. Kaplan doesn't seem to care whether the Lutzes were hallucinating or whether they outright lied, his main goal is to somehow show the haunting wasn't real -- like an outlaw sheriff attempting to put a man behind bars, no matter what trumped-up charge does the trick. The ends justify the means.

Unethical? Lets look at how Kaplan addresses the question of ethics in these two short excerpts from "The Amityville Horror Conspiracy." The first is from the Feb 18, 1976 entry on page 26:
I was also called by a network TV news program in Manhattan. They wanted me to go on the air to talk about the "haunted house." I told them I had not yet investigated the house, and therefore it would not be ethical to discuss it.
So far, so good -- but look what happens the following day -- Feb 19, 1976:
To end my involvement in the case once and for all, I called the Long Island Press and told them the investigation was off, elaborating on my suspicions of a set-up to reporter Thomas Condon.
In the space of one day Kaplan breaks his own code of ethics by discussing a case he had not investigated! And more than just discuss it, Kaplan condemns it as a hoax! All without ANY investigation being conducted.

But why didn't Kaplan investigate the house in February of 1976 as originally planned? Why was that investigation suddenly cancelled? Some claim Lutz got cold feet after being warned how Kaplan would expose any possible evidence of a hoax to the public. Others claim that George cancelled after discovering how Kaplan's credentials didn't check out. So what's the truth?

In this book, Kaplan gives his side of the story, explaining that George didn't want media attention and asked him not to speak to the press. Soon afterwards, Kaplan sees that George & Kathy held a press conference -- so when a newspaper reporter calls later that evening, Kaplan feels it must now be okay to mention his upcoming investigation of the Amityville house.

The next day, Kaplan tells us about an angry phone call from George Lutz, asking why he spoke to the press. Kaplan mentions the Lutzes' press conference, and George explains they only did that to clear up inaccurate reporting done on the matter. George ends the call by postponing the upcoming investigation until the press interest had died down.

After that phone call, Kaplan discusses the matter with the people who were to handle the investigation. They discuss their various suspicions of the case, and decide that if and when George decided to reschedule the investigation, they would decline. Kaplan then picks up the phone -- the very same night that George postponed the investigation -- and phones a local reporter, telling him how he feels the Amityville haunting is all one big hoax.

So there you have it, straight from Stephen Kaplan, himself -- the investigation was not cancelled by George Lutz, it was cancelled by Kaplan.

Therefore the theory that the Lutzes were worried of being exposed by Kaplan simply doesn't hold water.

So what does this all mean? Was the haunting real after all? No one can prove a haunting is real in an age where science has yet to determine whether ghosts even exist. The Lutzes' story can't be authenticated. If it was a hoax, then there may be hope of uncovering that, but unfortunately this book consists of mere theories and speculation with no hard evidence to back it up. As the years go on, the mystery behind The Amityville Horror is likely to outlive you and I.

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 595

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by jimmysmokes » Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:33 pm

Dan the Damned wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:23 pm
jimmysmokes wrote:Now Dan I've answered this for the last time! Now it's your turn to prove a haunting. Give us proof that it happened.
Do you even bother to read what I write to you? I have said repeatedly that there is no proof that the haunting actually took place. So how can I give you proof that it happened?

Do you know the difference between "opinion" and "evidence" and "proof"? Because it doesn't seem like you do.

So I'll say it again. There is no proof the haunting actually happened. And there is no proof that the Lutzes' story was a hoax. If there was proof either way, then this forum and website wouldn't exist. There would be no need for it.

Aside from that, I'm not here to push the Lutzes' side of the story. Although I can understand why it may appear that way, because so many idiots come here thinking they know for a fact that it was a hoax. And they all have the same bullsh*t "proof" that they have cut & pasted from Kaplan's book or Osuna's book or Katzenblech's videos, etc.

I'll give you a glimpse into my mindset here. I don't believe in God, and I have a hard time believing in ghosts and the supernatural. I think all psychics are con artists (including the Warrens).

You would think that I would be one of those people who declare that the Lutzes' story was a hoax. But I try to keep an open mind. I don't have an answer as to why they claimed to have experienced all these things; but at the same time, when you look at the Lutzes' actions, they are not the actions of a couple who are trying to pull off a money-making scheme.

To put it really succinctly, in my opinion, if this was all a money-making hoax (a hoax which has yet to be exposed), then the Lutzes must be expert con-artists. But at the same time, if you look at the Lutzes' actions, they frankly have missed a lot of big money-making opportunities (such as reselling the house to a wealthy paranormal enthusiast for a big profit).

Aside from that, I have spent a good number of years investigating each and every claim of a hoax. Again and again, these claims come up short. There just isn't any hard proof that this was a hoax.

That's why I said earlier that this whole case is in limbo. There really is no definite answer as to whether the haunting was real or not.

Now, it is human nature to hate ambiguity. It is human nature to need a solid answer to life's mysteries. That's why man invented all the gods and religions of the past -- in order to have a reason for our existence. In order to have a reason for anything unknown at the time (be that lightning or earthquakes or even hallucinations).

Along those lines, there will be many who are not okay with not knowing whether this little ghost story was real or faked. They'll choose a side.

I'm not one of those people. Sure, I would like to know the final truth (that's the main reason I first became involved with an earlier version of this board), but I'm okay with the realization that I will probably never know.

Yes, I do tend to sway a bit more towards the Lutzes' side, but, as I've stated, that's really because the "they planned it as a money-making hoax" angle really doesn't seem logical to me, considering the family's actions.


jimmysmokes wrote:There were certain parties involved with the George & Kathy who went on record as saying that they had a plan to have a book written based on their experiences in the house, even before they lived in the house, while they were living in the house. Ok, you following. They made calls to certain parties to have the house investigated only to drop these certain parties after finding out they couldn't be bought. You still following? When George & Kathy got the deal they wanted (book) they cut loose the other parties involved. Then disappeared to the other side of the country. Nice time to cut and run btw.
You say this wasn't Geraldine. So who was it? Can you give us a name?

I'm unfamiliar with this story. It sounds like a twisted version of what went on between the Lutzes and William Weber.


jimmysmokes wrote:Anyway, the certain party whom they gave their story to and turn into a book did not one shred of investigation into their claims and wrote a book sensationalized to promote many claims that actually did not happen proving the story was not true after all.
This "certain party" is Jay Anson. And he actually did some investigatory work into the Lutzes' story. I mean, he didn't call the Ghostbusters team to investigate; but he interviewed the other people involved in the story.

Yes, Anson added some fiction and moved the dates of the incidents around to make for a better story. We all know that. He admitted it in Kaplan's book.

Remember that the Lutzes were just two ordinary people. They had no clout in the publishing world. The book publisher held all the cards. The Lutzes were sent galleys, and they made their corrections and notes. Whether Anson took heed of them was another thing entirely.


jimmysmokes wrote:Now a certain party who knew that their claims were bogus all along exposed many of the falsehoods and outright lies in his own book years later, and was exposing it after the book came out for years. George & Kathy's responses to all this? "Well some of the things didn't actually happen that way", and "well when Danny smashed his hand we didn't really take him to the hospital". "And we can't explain ourselves really what went on now", "but something really did happen in our house"?
Oh. They wrote their own book? So you must be talking about Kaplan.

Is Kaplan the first "certain party" that you claimed was involved with the Lutzes to write a book? So confusing when you are too lazy to include their actual names.

So what's wrong with George & Kathy saying, "Well, some of the things didn't actually happen that way"? What's wrong with them attempting to clear up what was fact and what was fiction?

I have no problem going into detail as to why Kaplan's book is simply NOT a full-on debunking of the Lutzes' story. In fact, I wrote an article about it a decade ago. It was posted on the Amityville Files website back in 2009. Unfortunately, something happened to that site, and most of the links no longer work.

Now this reply is going on way too long, so I'll just post that article in my next post...
Yes I do read what you write. Thanks for taking the time to respond (even though you didn't answer my question). And since we agree that it cannot be proven legit or hoax, I don't understand why you would have any problems with some not believing it? Matter of fact you should be braced for it. I can't answer everything you've posted here, too long but I'll just toss out some stuff.

If you don't believe in God or supernatural, it is really hard for you to side with the Lutzes on their claims. My opinion. Just that it's hard to believe there being spirits, etc.

Personal feelings aside, Osuna, Katz, and others are part of Amityville lore now. They have their right to their projects and people have a right to defend them if they wish. And sometimes people need to be educated on rights and wrongs.
I have no ill will with any characters in the Amityville drama, certainly not the Lutzes.

Yes, reselling the house would've have made them a bigger profit but that would've taken a bit of time and I think they had other issues on their minds. That's because the certain parties involved were already causing them trouble so I think they got their deal and hoped for the best with the book and split.

Yes, man invented gods and religions. But who created (invented) man?

No Kaplan was not the first to talk of a book with the Lutzes? Not sure where you would get that?

There is nothing wrong with the Lutzes wanting to clear up fictions and facts. However that book was the first evidence that was given to the public and when it's sold as a TRUE STORY, people will take it and run with it without realizing the amount of errors and that it contained and it was the Lutzes story so when some of them learned that it had a lot of lies in it, how would you expect them to react? They will be upset and want to demand answers.

Finally here, having known that this story had a lot of nonsense in it, I need to be told what really happened to the Lutzes. Their real claims, their real story what it is? And sorry if I got a little heated but I come on here and do prefer a good old Amityville "slug-fest" so to speak. I find it more entertaining.
Last edited by jimmysmokes on Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We gonna break it down, let's get into it. No doubt about it.

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 595

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by jimmysmokes » Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:35 pm

Dan the Damned wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:40 pm
I wrote this article on Kaplan very quickly back in 2009, for a friend who wanted some new content for his own Amityville Horror website:



In 1976, Stephen Kaplan was one of the very first people contacted with regards to help investigate a supposedly haunted house in Amityville, Long Island -- the site of a mass murder just over a year before then where six members of a family were shot & killed by the eldest son. But just days before the investigation was to take place, it was abruptly cancelled.

Quickly growing suspicious of George Lutz (the man who bought the murder house and who now was claiming it to be haunted), Kaplan started telling anyone who would listen how he felt the haunting was just one big hoax.

Nineteen years later, Kaplan published "The Amityville Horror Conspiracy." Written in a diary format, it covers the years 1974 - 1979, and not only gives us a glimpse into Kaplan's world, but shows us how, little by little, the stories of the murder and haunting in Amityville were first revealed to the public, and how that charming Long Island home soon became notorious, with its jack-o-lantern windows giving children nightmares the world over.

Of course the main point of the book was for Kaplan to explain his condemnation of the Lutzes' story. We read how the Lutzes were immediately viewed with suspicion by Kaplan, and how his blood seemed to boil with each step of the Lutzes' story gaining in popularity. Indeed, Kaplan paints himself much as a modern-day Chicken Little, running around trying to inform a misdirected world that there are no ghosts in Amityville. But regardless of his efforts, the Lutzes' ghost story is turned into a book (which quickly becomes a best-seller), then a paperback (which starts smashing sales records), and finally an immensely popular motion picture in 1979, which is the year this book stops, almost as if throwing its hands up in defeat.

While I found Kaplan's book very interesting, and sometimes fascinating (highly recommended to those with a deep interest in The Amityville Horror saga), it fails to provide any solid evidence of the haunting being a hoax, let alone some sort of conspiracy. Kaplan does offer a few good points to suggest something may be amiss (such as George's conversations with famed Wiccan Ray Buckland and Bill Weber's claim that he helped the Lutzes "invent" the ghost story) but overall, most of Kaplan's suspicions seem warrantless.

Despite his best efforts, Kaplan tends to lose credibility fairly early-on when tries to build a case against the Lutzes by nitpicking over discrepancies found from one newspaper article to the next (treating every fact as if it came verbatim from the Lutzes). Lutz is even suspected of being a secret acquaintance of murderer Ronald DeFeo Jr, due to the fact that he referred to DeFeo as "Ronnie" (something Kaplan does himself, starting on page 32, as does Joel Martin & Bill Weber).

Kaplan's treatment of the newspaper accounts is especially troubling because there are various instances where Kaplan points out how he, himself, has been misquoted or misrepresented by reporters; and yet he turns a blind eye at the possibility that the Lutzes are receiving the same treatment.

Along those same lines, Kaplan objects at the dishonesty of Prentice-Hall categorizing Jay Anson's book The Amityville Horror as a non-fiction title. Fair enough, as Anson did include bits of fiction in his account; but how about the cover of Kaplan's book? Appearing on the cover of "The Amityville Horror Conspiracy" is the claim "the dramatic true story of an incredible twenty-year investigation." But that is not the case at all. This book, written as a diary, tells the story of Kaplan's life between the years of 1974 to 1979 and his investigation during 4 of those 6 years. It is a diary, detailing the events of each day. If any subsequent research was done by Kaplan after 1979 (the final diary entry), it is not included in this book.

This is just one of many seemingly-hypocritical tidbits to be discovered in this book. But there are many others.

When Kaplan refers to Ronald DeFeo Jr as "Ronnie," that's okay; but when George Lutz does it, that draws suspicion.

When newspaper articles are inaccurate regarding Kaplan, that is the fault of the reporter; but when the articles are regarding the haunting, Kaplan blames any discrepancy directly on the Lutzes.

And when the cover of Kaplan's book carries an untrue byline, that's fine; but not fine when it is done on Jay Anson's book.

Kaplan really goes all over the map in this book and seems to contradict himself over and over. One such example is with his general theories about the haunting being untrue. In some instances Kaplan seems to suggest that the Lutzes were involved with Bill Weber (DeFeo's defense attorney) in concocting the fake haunting as a possible means of securing a new trial for the mass murderer. At other times Kaplan suggests that the Lutzes misinterpreted the events -- that they were merely dreams or hallucinations.

But if the Lutzes had dreamt or hallucinated the events, then their story wouldn't be a hoax. That would mean they really did think these paranormal events were happening, but were mistaken. And that is quite different from them making the whole story up out of thin air in an attempt to either make money or to help Bill Weber get his client charged with a lesser crime. Kaplan doesn't seem to care whether the Lutzes were hallucinating or whether they outright lied, his main goal is to somehow show the haunting wasn't real -- like an outlaw sheriff attempting to put a man behind bars, no matter what trumped-up charge does the trick. The ends justify the means.

Unethical? Lets look at how Kaplan addresses the question of ethics in these two short excerpts from "The Amityville Horror Conspiracy." The first is from the Feb 18, 1976 entry on page 26:
I was also called by a network TV news program in Manhattan. They wanted me to go on the air to talk about the "haunted house." I told them I had not yet investigated the house, and therefore it would not be ethical to discuss it.
So far, so good -- but look what happens the following day -- Feb 19, 1976:
To end my involvement in the case once and for all, I called the Long Island Press and told them the investigation was off, elaborating on my suspicions of a set-up to reporter Thomas Condon.
In the space of one day Kaplan breaks his own code of ethics by discussing a case he had not investigated! And more than just discuss it, Kaplan condemns it as a hoax! All without ANY investigation being conducted.

But why didn't Kaplan investigate the house in February of 1976 as originally planned? Why was that investigation suddenly cancelled? Some claim Lutz got cold feet after being warned how Kaplan would expose any possible evidence of a hoax to the public. Others claim that George cancelled after discovering how Kaplan's credentials didn't check out. So what's the truth?

In this book, Kaplan gives his side of the story, explaining that George didn't want media attention and asked him not to speak to the press. Soon afterwards, Kaplan sees that George & Kathy held a press conference -- so when a newspaper reporter calls later that evening, Kaplan feels it must now be okay to mention his upcoming investigation of the Amityville house.

The next day, Kaplan tells us about an angry phone call from George Lutz, asking why he spoke to the press. Kaplan mentions the Lutzes' press conference, and George explains they only did that to clear up inaccurate reporting done on the matter. George ends the call by postponing the upcoming investigation until the press interest had died down.

After that phone call, Kaplan discusses the matter with the people who were to handle the investigation. They discuss their various suspicions of the case, and decide that if and when George decided to reschedule the investigation, they would decline. Kaplan then picks up the phone -- the very same night that George postponed the investigation -- and phones a local reporter, telling him how he feels the Amityville haunting is all one big hoax.

So there you have it, straight from Stephen Kaplan, himself -- the investigation was not cancelled by George Lutz, it was cancelled by Kaplan.

Therefore the theory that the Lutzes were worried of being exposed by Kaplan simply doesn't hold water.

So what does this all mean? Was the haunting real after all? No one can prove a haunting is real in an age where science has yet to determine whether ghosts even exist. The Lutzes' story can't be authenticated. If it was a hoax, then there may be hope of uncovering that, but unfortunately this book consists of mere theories and speculation with no hard evidence to back it up. As the years go on, the mystery behind The Amityville Horror is likely to outlive you and I.
This is a well written article! Thanks for sharing. Want to reread it tomorrow before I say anything.
We gonna break it down, let's get into it. No doubt about it.

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11884

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by Dan the Damned » Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:04 pm

jimmysmokes wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:33 pm
And since we agree that it cannot be proven legit or hoax, I don't understand why you would have any problems with some not believing it?
That's just it. I actually do NOT have a problem with people who don't believe in the haunting.

My problem is only when people make false claims about the haunting having been "debunked."

When you say it was "debunked" you are saying that it has been proven to be false. And that is simply untrue.

My problem is when people post false statements about what the Lutzes did or said. Attributing stuff from Holzer or the Warrens directly to the Lutzes.

Holzer and the Warrens investigated the house. Their findings are their own. Nothing to do with the Lutzes -- just possible explanations of why stuff may have happened.

This forum is here to strip away all the rumors and falsehoods and myths that have plagued this case for decades. So when someone posts these things, I will usually jump on it. And yeah, when I do, it probably appears as if I am trying to make you believe in the haunting. But that's not my goal. I'm just looking for the truth, wherever that truth takes me.

If you simply don't believe in the haunting, I have no problem with that. As I said, I have a real problem believing that ghosts even exist, so I can totally understand why people wouldn't believe this case at face value. By all rights, I should be one of them. I honestly don't know why I'm not.

jimmysmokes wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:33 pm
If you don't believe in God or supernatural, it is really hard for you to side with the Lutzes on their claims. My opinion. Just that it's hard to believe there being spirits, etc.
Well, yeah, but I would word it differently. I don't think I necessarily "side" with the Lutzes. I tend to believe them, but I am open to the possibility that perhaps their experiences have a more "scientific" explanation. As of yet, I don't know what that explanation could be, however. And frankly, I haven't spent much time researching what these experiences could be if they were not paranormal in nature. That is all theoretical in nature, and it doesn't really interest me too much. Suffice to say, I believe there could be rational explanations to their experiences (instead of necessarily paranormal explanations).

I really don't know. But I'll keep an open mind. Maybe it was ghosts after all. Maybe God really does exist. I honestly don't know.


Yes, reselling the house would've have made them a bigger profit but that would've taken a bit of time and I think they had other issues on their minds. That's because the certain parties involved were already causing them trouble so I think they got their deal and hoped for the best with the book and split.
What trouble was being caused them? The only "trouble" was that some people were doubting their story and calling them liars.

No. I think if they were out to create a money-making hoax, then they would have attempted to cash-in at every opportunity. And that would include selling the house to the highest bidder.

Look, if you're insinuating that the Lutzes felt a book about their experiences would earn them a lot of money, then surely they would also feel that they could sell the house to some rich nutty paranormal enthusiast (Sam Stangl?) for a huge profit as well. And there's no reason not to try.

One big problem is that we're looking at the past from today's vantage point. We already know that the book became a massive, massive hit. But no one knew that back in 1977. If they did, then the Lutzes would have had no problem finding a publisher. I mean a major, more mainstream publisher (with tons of money at their disposal) who would have swooped-in and made the Lutzes a much better deal.

But no. The book was published by Prentice-Hall, a moderately successful publisher that mainly published textbooks.

Today there are many "real-life haunted house books" on the market. Not the case back in the early 1970s. I don't see why the Lutzes would think a book about their experiences would earn them more money than simply selling the house without going through all the trouble of creating a fake haunted house yarn. Yes, the book became a major, phenomenal success, but that was such a fluke.

And as I said, they could have done both. If money was that important to them, they could have easily done the book deal and sold the house at the same time. Just because people were calling them liars would not prevent them from selling the house.


Yes, man invented gods and religions. But who created (invented) man?
I don't know. But I'm fine with admitting that I don't know.


No Kaplan was not the first to talk of a book with the Lutzes? Not sure where you would get that?
I got that because you kept repeating "certain parties," making it sound like you were talking about the same people. So who was it that first talked about a book deal with the Lutzes before they even moved-in to the house? Are you going to repeat that story about William Weber hiring the Lutzes to buy the house and claim it was haunted in order to somehow save his client (Ronnie DeFeo)?


There is nothing wrong with the Lutzes wanting to clear up fictions and facts. However that book was the first evidence that was given to the public and when it's sold as a TRUE STORY, people will take it and run with it without realizing the amount of errors and that it contained and it was the Lutzes story so when some of them learned that it had a lot of lies in it, how would you expect them to react? They will be upset and want to demand answers.
Yes, they will demand answers. And the Lutzes were attempting to do just that. But apparently this wasn't good enough for Kaplan. And I don't recall the Lutzes saying "we can't explain ourselves really what went on now."

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9749
Contact:

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by sherbetbizarre » Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:36 am

jimmysmokes wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:33 pm
Finally here, having known that this story had a lot of nonsense in it, I need to be told what really happened to the Lutzes. Their real claims, their real story what it is?
Aside from the FAQ Dan put together, your best bet are the taped interviews with George and Kathy.

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 595

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by jimmysmokes » Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:56 am

Dan the Damned wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:04 pm
jimmysmokes wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:33 pm
And since we agree that it cannot be proven legit or hoax, I don't understand why you would have any problems with some not believing it?
That's just it. I actually do NOT have a problem with people who don't believe in the haunting.

My problem is only when people make false claims about the haunting having been "debunked."

When you say it was "debunked" you are saying that it has been proven to be false. And that is simply untrue.

My problem is when people post false statements about what the Lutzes did or said. Attributing stuff from Holzer or the Warrens directly to the Lutzes.

Holzer and the Warrens investigated the house. Their findings are their own. Nothing to do with the Lutzes -- just possible explanations of why stuff may have happened.

This forum is here to strip away all the rumors and falsehoods and myths that have plagued this case for decades. So when someone posts these things, I will usually jump on it. And yeah, when I do, it probably appears as if I am trying to make you believe in the haunting. But that's not my goal. I'm just looking for the truth, wherever that truth takes me.

If you simply don't believe in the haunting, I have no problem with that. As I said, I have a real problem believing that ghosts even exist, so I can totally understand why people wouldn't believe this case at face value. By all rights, I should be one of them. I honestly don't know why I'm not.

jimmysmokes wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:33 pm
If you don't believe in God or supernatural, it is really hard for you to side with the Lutzes on their claims. My opinion. Just that it's hard to believe there being spirits, etc.
Well, yeah, but I would word it differently. I don't think I necessarily "side" with the Lutzes. I tend to believe them, but I am open to the possibility that perhaps their experiences have a more "scientific" explanation. As of yet, I don't know what that explanation could be, however. And frankly, I haven't spent much time researching what these experiences could be if they were not paranormal in nature. That is all theoretical in nature, and it doesn't really interest me too much. Suffice to say, I believe there could be rational explanations to their experiences (instead of necessarily paranormal explanations).

I really don't know. But I'll keep an open mind. Maybe it was ghosts after all. Maybe God really does exist. I honestly don't know.


Yes, reselling the house would've have made them a bigger profit but that would've taken a bit of time and I think they had other issues on their minds. That's because the certain parties involved were already causing them trouble so I think they got their deal and hoped for the best with the book and split.
What trouble was being caused them? The only "trouble" was that some people were doubting their story and calling them liars.

No. I think if they were out to create a money-making hoax, then they would have attempted to cash-in at every opportunity. And that would include selling the house to the highest bidder.

Look, if you're insinuating that the Lutzes felt a book about their experiences would earn them a lot of money, then surely they would also feel that they could sell the house to some rich nutty paranormal enthusiast (Sam Stangl?) for a huge profit as well. And there's no reason not to try.

One big problem is that we're looking at the past from today's vantage point. We already know that the book became a massive, massive hit. But no one knew that back in 1977. If they did, then the Lutzes would have had no problem finding a publisher. I mean a major, more mainstream publisher (with tons of money at their disposal) who would have swooped-in and made the Lutzes a much better deal.

But no. The book was published by Prentice-Hall, a moderately successful publisher that mainly published textbooks.

Today there are many "real-life haunted house books" on the market. Not the case back in the early 1970s. I don't see why the Lutzes would think a book about their experiences would earn them more money than simply selling the house without going through all the trouble of creating a fake haunted house yarn. Yes, the book became a major, phenomenal success, but that was such a fluke.

And as I said, they could have done both. If money was that important to them, they could have easily done the book deal and sold the house at the same time. Just because people were calling them liars would not prevent them from selling the house.


Yes, man invented gods and religions. But who created (invented) man?
I don't know. But I'm fine with admitting that I don't know.


No Kaplan was not the first to talk of a book with the Lutzes? Not sure where you would get that?
I got that because you kept repeating "certain parties," making it sound like you were talking about the same people. So who was it that first talked about a book deal with the Lutzes before they even moved-in to the house? Are you going to repeat that story about William Weber hiring the Lutzes to buy the house and claim it was haunted in order to somehow save his client (Ronnie DeFeo)?


There is nothing wrong with the Lutzes wanting to clear up fictions and facts. However that book was the first evidence that was given to the public and when it's sold as a TRUE STORY, people will take it and run with it without realizing the amount of errors and that it contained and it was the Lutzes story so when some of them learned that it had a lot of lies in it, how would you expect them to react? They will be upset and want to demand answers.
Yes, they will demand answers. And the Lutzes were attempting to do just that. But apparently this wasn't good enough for Kaplan. And I don't recall the Lutzes saying "we can't explain ourselves really what went on now."
I'll touch on some of your info here as well as your opinions.

Did George call Kaplan or Kaplan call him? As far as I know the investigation was postponed (called off) by Lutz himself when he found out that Kaplan said that he was going to investigate the house in the public, and Lutz didn't want any publicity. Also, he said Kaplan's credentials didn't check out. So they went with the Warrens instead. Well, I don't even need to get into that. Now when this investigation took place in the house along with the séance (that was absolutely ridiculous), nothing was found of demonic nature and no spirits or activity. And the ghostie boy pic you ripped apart on here so we don't have that either. So nothing was found. The quacks that showed up later on to remove the spirits that were there, (to clean the house) we know that is nonsense because nothing was there.

I'm not sure what kind of profit they would have made on reselling the house? The paranormal enthusiast you mention is a speculative theory to show ways the Lutzes might have made more money off the house. Well, yeah that was the plan all along. And as I stated before this would've taken more time for them and it seems they were more interested in a book and that might lead to a movie and more notoriety for them? But that is the question. Why didn't they do that instead? They took off rather quickly to California so we're left with the book deal to go on.

And also this enthusiast you mentioned, I'm sure he would've visited the house before making a decision to purchase it. And let's say had he went in there and looked around not noticing anything of a paranormal nature, he might not have wanted to buy it! You'll agree with me here that the Lutzes probably considered this beforehand and probably just decided lets stick with the book and hope for the best.

I could get into more of your items you mentioned but I believe this here will do for me. Do take a good look at what I said here. And let me toss in the door thing once again to. You have on record that one Lutz says it did happen and another saying it did not happen. Someone in the family is lying. You can't get around this. I know why you avoid this and that's fine. No one else on here answers it either. But it shows that I do not need the "debunkers" or "hoaxers" to prove that the Lutzes don't always tell the truth. I just listen to them.
We gonna break it down, let's get into it. No doubt about it.

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 595

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by jimmysmokes » Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:12 am

sherbetbizarre wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:36 am
jimmysmokes wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:33 pm
Finally here, having known that this story had a lot of nonsense in it, I need to be told what really happened to the Lutzes. Their real claims, their real story what it is?
Aside from the FAQ Dan put together, your best bet are the taped interviews with George and Kathy.
Yeah I've watched their interviews. If you mean the tapes they made when they left the house, no I never got to hear those. I understand they weren't too proud of those either.
We gonna break it down, let's get into it. No doubt about it.

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11884

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by Dan the Damned » Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:19 pm

George called Kaplan to ask him to investigate the house.

As far as "who called-off the investigation," they both seem to take credit. In Kaplan's book, he says something to the effect of George "postponing" the investigation (as you said, George was upset that Kaplan was talking to the press). Was that an actual postponement, or shorthand for cancelling it altogether? I'm guessing the latter, for right after that phone call Kaplan called the papers and railed against the Lutzes.

So I guess it depends on how you look at it, whether it was cancelled by the Lutzes or by Kaplan.

I believe Kaplan inferred that George cancelled the original investigation due to Kaplan warning him, "If it's a hoax, I will not hesitate to expose it." But that doesn't hold water if Kaplan was the one who cancelled it (as he claims in his own book).





As for the seance and subsequent investigations -- as I said earlier, I feel all psychics are con-artists. I think its all bullsh*t. I think the Lutzes went public with their story, and that made them a target for every con-artist within a 75-mile radius to descend upon them.

Maybe some believe they actually have supernatural powers, but I think its rubbish.



And its hard to say that, because George Lutz absolutely loves Lorraine Warren. George credits the Warrens for literally saving his life and the lives of his family. But I think the Warrens used the Lutzes for their own benefit. And in my posts about the Ghostie Boy photo, I believe I come just short of stating as much. Kinda awkward.

There were incidents that were reported during that investigation/seance thing. A cameraman reportedly had heart palpatations and some people felt "cold spots." Again, not sure what to make of it, if anything. In the end, it doesn't really matter to me. I'd rather focus on the Lutzes and not get distracted by what those on the periphery are claiming.

I tracked down one participant named Michael Linder and interviewed him about his experiences that night (again, in a quick effort at creating some content for my friend's AmityvilleFiles website). Linder basically said nothing happened and that he felt it was all bullsh*t as well.





As for reselling the house, sure, it's not a sure thing to resell if for a profit to a rich paranormal enthusiast. But its also not a sure thing to have a book written about your house being haunted and expect to make some money from it.

If you claim your house is haunted, I think the house loses value (with the exception of a small group of people who may want to buy it simply because it is haunted). If the Lutzes needed money, I think their best bet would have been to stay quiet about the haunting and resell the house. Easy to do if the haunting never happened. But George said he thought the house was dangerous, and couldn't live with the thought of selling it to another family.

But if it was a hoax, there's no reason they couldn't sell the house and do the book at the same time. They didn't have to stay in New York to sell the house. They could have had an agency handle everything and not worry about it.





As for the front door, the following is what I have from George & Kathy regarding that incident.

from a 1977 interview conducted by the Warrens:
ED WARREN: In the book, it also said about that front door – that it was almost ripped off the hinges or something?

GEORGE LUTZ: Right.

ED WARREN: Can you tell us about that, Lee?

GEORGE LUTZ: We just came down one morning, and that's the way it was. We had other doors in the back of the house as well. Where the garbage cans were, there was a whole enclosure, and each one of the enclosures had bi-fold doors. One morning we came down and all of them were open – the next morning we come down and all of them are closed. Eventually half of them were ripped right off their hinges.
from an interview on the 700 Club TV program:
KATHY LUTZ: And each night something terrifying took place. The front door, which is, well, it's an oversized solid wood door, blew-out. Not blew-in, it blew-out. And there was no physical explanation for it. That was checked-out by the police, that was checked out by a repair man.
from a public chat session on this board in 2005:
DAN THE DAMNED: George, I know a lot of people were wondering about the incident with the front door. Was the actual door damaged, or just the screen door? And what exactly happened – did the door come off the hinges without damage?

GEORGE LUTZ: it wa not a screen door..it was a steel storm door

GEORGE LUTZ: it was destroyed

GEORGE LUTZ: the main door was repaired while we were there

GEORGE LUTZ: hinge problems.....not broken from it or off
As you can see from that last one, I, too, was not clear on this incident. And I'm still not.

Like you, I seem to recall hearing that it wasn't the front wooden door after all, but rather a screen door. That doesn't jibe with what Kathy said, however (as you point out), but George doesn't really seem to clear it up, either.

Could it be that the damage to the storm door was caused by the wooden door blowing out? Could that explain the "hinge problems" George is talking about? I'm not sure. If I knew George was going to die just a few months later, I would have asked more questions. I thought I had more time to clear up my questions.

In Kaplan's book, he says that during a radio program on WTIC Connecticut (on Fri Aug 31, 1979) he confronted George about the door. He quotes George as saying, "Well, it wasn't the wooden door that flew off the hinges, it was the screen door."

I haven't heard this interview, so I don't know how correct this quote is, and, perhaps more importantly, I don't know what else George had to say about that.

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 595

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by jimmysmokes » Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:57 pm

Dan the Damned wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:19 pm
George called Kaplan to ask him to investigate the house.

As far as "who called-off the investigation," they both seem to take credit. In Kaplan's book, he says something to the effect of George "postponing" the investigation (as you said, George was upset that Kaplan was talking to the press). Was that an actual postponement, or shorthand for cancelling it altogether? I'm guessing the latter, for right after that phone call Kaplan called the papers and railed against the Lutzes.

So I guess it depends on how you look at it, whether it was cancelled by the Lutzes or by Kaplan.

I believe Kaplan inferred that George cancelled the original investigation due to Kaplan warning him, "If it's a hoax, I will not hesitate to expose it." But that doesn't hold water if Kaplan was the one who cancelled it (as he claims in his own book).





As for the seance and subsequent investigations -- as I said earlier, I feel all psychics are con-artists. I think its all bullsh*t. I think the Lutzes went public with their story, and that made them a target for every con-artist within a 75-mile radius to descend upon them.

Maybe some believe they actually have supernatural powers, but I think its rubbish.



And its hard to say that, because George Lutz absolutely loves Lorraine Warren. George credits the Warrens for literally saving his life and the lives of his family. But I think the Warrens used the Lutzes for their own benefit. And in my posts about the Ghostie Boy photo, I believe I come just short of stating as much. Kinda awkward.

There were incidents that were reported during that investigation/seance thing. A cameraman reportedly had heart palpatations and some people felt "cold spots." Again, not sure what to make of it, if anything. In the end, it doesn't really matter to me. I'd rather focus on the Lutzes and not get distracted by what those on the periphery are claiming.

I tracked down one participant named Michael Linder and interviewed him about his experiences that night (again, in a quick effort at creating some content for my friend's AmityvilleFiles website). Linder basically said nothing happened and that he felt it was all bullsh*t as well.





As for reselling the house, sure, it's not a sure thing to resell if for a profit to a rich paranormal enthusiast. But its also not a sure thing to have a book written about your house being haunted and expect to make some money from it.

If you claim your house is haunted, I think the house loses value (with the exception of a small group of people who may want to buy it simply because it is haunted). If the Lutzes needed money, I think their best bet would have been to stay quiet about the haunting and resell the house. Easy to do if the haunting never happened. But George said he thought the house was dangerous, and couldn't live with the thought of selling it to another family.

But if it was a hoax, there's no reason they couldn't sell the house and do the book at the same time. They didn't have to stay in New York to sell the house. They could have had an agency handle everything and not worry about it.





As for the front door, the following is what I have from George & Kathy regarding that incident.

from a 1977 interview conducted by the Warrens:
ED WARREN: In the book, it also said about that front door – that it was almost ripped off the hinges or something?

GEORGE LUTZ: Right.

ED WARREN: Can you tell us about that, Lee?

GEORGE LUTZ: We just came down one morning, and that's the way it was. We had other doors in the back of the house as well. Where the garbage cans were, there was a whole enclosure, and each one of the enclosures had bi-fold doors. One morning we came down and all of them were open – the next morning we come down and all of them are closed. Eventually half of them were ripped right off their hinges.
from an interview on the 700 Club TV program:
KATHY LUTZ: And each night something terrifying took place. The front door, which is, well, it's an oversized solid wood door, blew-out. Not blew-in, it blew-out. And there was no physical explanation for it. That was checked-out by the police, that was checked out by a repair man.
from a public chat session on this board in 2005:
DAN THE DAMNED: George, I know a lot of people were wondering about the incident with the front door. Was the actual door damaged, or just the screen door? And what exactly happened – did the door come off the hinges without damage?

GEORGE LUTZ: it wa not a screen door..it was a steel storm door

GEORGE LUTZ: it was destroyed

GEORGE LUTZ: the main door was repaired while we were there

GEORGE LUTZ: hinge problems.....not broken from it or off
As you can see from that last one, I, too, was not clear on this incident. And I'm still not.

Like you, I seem to recall hearing that it wasn't the front wooden door after all, but rather a screen door. That doesn't jibe with what Kathy said, however (as you point out), but George doesn't really seem to clear it up, either.

Could it be that the damage to the storm door was caused by the wooden door blowing out? Could that explain the "hinge problems" George is talking about? I'm not sure. If I knew George was going to die just a few months later, I would have asked more questions. I thought I had more time to clear up my questions.

In Kaplan's book, he says that during a radio program on WTIC Connecticut (on Fri Aug 31, 1979) he confronted George about the door. He quotes George as saying, "Well, it wasn't the wooden door that flew off the hinges, it was the screen door."

I haven't heard this interview, so I don't know how correct this quote is, and, perhaps more importantly, I don't know what else George had to say about that.
Yeah, I'm cool with these answers here. Pretty much in agreement with you on this above.

As far as the séance, I have cold spots in my house, rooms are different temperatures a bit. I think it's just heating and insulation. As far as people experiencing heart palpitations, I'm sure if I had been one of the people to go in that house that night (and knowing that the house might be haunted, etc) my heart rate would've have been already been a bit abnormal.

And yes, the Kaplan/George thing we'll never quite know? Doesn't matter.

The door thing was originally put forth as the front door being blown out. And Kathy did stick with that version. Steel storm door damage? Sure happens all the time. But I'm not sure how a screen door would damage a front door? The wind could blow off (damage) a screen door towards a house not vice versa towards the front door.

Yes they could've had an agency handle it but wouldn't they had to still had to made the payments on it until it sold? Considering if they didn't give it back to the bank? That would have been very difficult having moved out to another place financially speaking?
We gonna break it down, let's get into it. No doubt about it.

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11884

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by Dan the Damned » Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:38 pm

The door thing was originally put forth as the front door being blown out. And Kathy did stick with that version. Steel storm door damage? Sure happens all the time. But I'm not sure how a screen door would damage a front door? The wind could blow off (damage) a screen door towards a house not vice versa towards the front door.
I was thinking perhaps the front door somehow was blown outwards (which would mean the hinges would be damaged or torn from the frame) and it crashed into the metal storm door, damaging that. But that's just my guess. Don't know.
Yes they could've had an agency handle it but wouldn't they had to still had to made the payments on it until it sold? Considering if they didn't give it back to the bank? That would have been very difficult having moved out to another place financially speaking?
Apparently they kept making payments until June of 1976, so they could have put it on the market for a normal buyer.

I don't know about their finances, but they were able to buy a new home in pricey Southern California as well as a new car. So they still had money.

If they were short on money, I would think reselling the house would be important to them.

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 595

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by jimmysmokes » Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:03 pm

Dan the Damned wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:38 pm
The door thing was originally put forth as the front door being blown out. And Kathy did stick with that version. Steel storm door damage? Sure happens all the time. But I'm not sure how a screen door would damage a front door? The wind could blow off (damage) a screen door towards a house not vice versa towards the front door.
I was thinking perhaps the front door somehow was blown outwards (which would mean the hinges would be damaged or torn from the frame) and it crashed into the metal storm door, damaging that. But that's just my guess. Don't know.
Yes they could've had an agency handle it but wouldn't they had to still had to made the payments on it until it sold? Considering if they didn't give it back to the bank? That would have been very difficult having moved out to another place financially speaking?
Apparently they kept making payments until June of 1976, so they could have put it on the market for a normal buyer.

I don't know about their finances, but they were able to buy a new home in pricey Southern California as well as a new car. So they still had money.

If they were short on money, I would think reselling the house would be important to them.
That's news to me. Never knew they made payments on the house? Was the first home they moved into bought or rented? I know he sold his business, don't know their finances at that time either? Someone in here claimed they lived off food stamps when they moved out there?

"Normal Buyer" :lol: I don't know? That house & history? Just funny wording you used there.
We gonna break it down, let's get into it. No doubt about it.

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9749
Contact:

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by sherbetbizarre » Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:43 pm

jimmysmokes wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:12 am
Yeah I've watched their interviews. If you mean the tapes they made when they left the house, no I never got to hear those. I understand they weren't too proud of those either.
The one tape they were not proud of was with Weber when he brought up a book deal, and they mulled over the possibility...

The other tapes they made themselves - and were given to Jay Anson for the basis of his book - have never been heard in public. And George appeared to have lost his copies.

As for who cancelled the Kaplan investigation, Kaplan admitted he didn't want to give George a second chance in his book...
George backed down a little with his verbal assault. “Well, I guess you’re right, but we’re really tired of this
whole thing. We only gave that press conference to clear up the exaggerated rumors about our story. I think
I’ll wait until the publicity has died down some before having you investigate. Cancel your plans for this weekend and I’ll call you in about two weeks.”

“Fine, George,” I said. “Our egos will still be intact whether you call or not. We’ll be here if you need us.”

Wishing him and his family good luck, I hung up the phone and went to tell my staff that this weekend was
off. They were rather annoyed that they had changed their weekend plans for nothing and, like myself, could
not understand George Lutz’s rather strange position on publicity. In my opinion, the Lutzes’ press conference
had started more rumors than it had cleared up.

After discussing the situation at length, my staff and I decided that, should Lutz decide to call back again,
we would not accept the case after all. None of us liked the Weber connection between Lutz and DeFeo; it
was possible that George was even a friend of “Ronnie’s.” My group had been set up often enough in the past
to be suspicious of people who changed their stories every day.

To end my involvement in the case once and for all, I called the Long Island Press and told them the investigation was off, elaborating on my suspicions of a set-up to reporter Thomas Condon.
...And as Roxanne said in the interview, some of us believe he regretted that decision for the rest of his life, leading to his 20-year grudge.

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 595

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by jimmysmokes » Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:04 pm

Maybe but I don't think George was going to call him back either.
We gonna break it down, let's get into it. No doubt about it.

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11884

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by Dan the Damned » Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:06 pm

from an interview with Lou Gentile:
GEORGE LUTZ: The house was on the market for $100,000 if I recall correctly we made an offer of 80. It was accepted. I applied for a mortgage from one bank. My credit was excellent. We got approved immediately for a $60,000 mortgage. We had more than enough money to put the $20,000 cash down payment, and I think the closing costs with the insurance and the title fees and the attorneys and all the rest – and we bought some furniture from the estate – was another $4,000 or so.

from the 2002 Primetime Live Internet Chat:
GEORGE LUTZ: Some friends went back and got one of my motorcycles, which I eventually crashed in California, and a wooden chest that my grandfather had made for me. Other than that, we retrieved nothing else. We left our clothes, food, boats, and furnishings. Everything. It was eventually auctioned off in April or May of 1976. After that, we gave the house back to the bank, forfeiting our down payment, and we were glad to be relieved of the responsibility of selling the house to someone else.

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 595

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by jimmysmokes » Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:05 pm

Dan the Damned wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:06 pm
from an interview with Lou Gentile:
GEORGE LUTZ: The house was on the market for $100,000 if I recall correctly we made an offer of 80. It was accepted. I applied for a mortgage from one bank. My credit was excellent. We got approved immediately for a $60,000 mortgage. We had more than enough money to put the $20,000 cash down payment, and I think the closing costs with the insurance and the title fees and the attorneys and all the rest – and we bought some furniture from the estate – was another $4,000 or so.

from the 2002 Primetime Live Internet Chat:
GEORGE LUTZ: Some friends went back and got one of my motorcycles, which I eventually crashed in California, and a wooden chest that my grandfather had made for me. Other than that, we retrieved nothing else. We left our clothes, food, boats, and furnishings. Everything. It was eventually auctioned off in April or May of 1976. After that, we gave the house back to the bank, forfeiting our down payment, and we were glad to be relieved of the responsibility of selling the house to someone else.
They abandoned that house on January 14, 1976, right? And didn't a "crew" arrive the next day to pick up some of their belongings?
We gonna break it down, let's get into it. No doubt about it.

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11884

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by Dan the Damned » Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:33 pm

Not to my knowledge. George mentioned having some friends collect stuff on or around Easter Sunday (which would have been April 18).

from Magick Mind Radio podcast:
ED CRAFT: Just to clear up an issue, didn't you guys go back in and get some family pictures or something, was about the only thing? Or did you take that out with you?

GEORGE LUTZ: No, we didn't get the family pictures. What we did get is some personal records. My grandfather had given me a cedar chest that he had built. And on, this would be Easter Sunday, 1976. A couple of friends went back into the house and got the food and the clothes and gave those to the Salvation Army, and brought out the chest for us with some personal items. But that's the only things that we took from the house.

ED CRAFT: But you actually didn't – you didn't even go back in there and get these things.

GEORGE LUTZ: No, I gave them the key.
According to George, during those final days in the house, incidents were ramping-up. They were trying to contact Father Ray, and when he was finally reached, Father Ray advised them to simply leave the house temporarily and stay with a relative while they tried to sort this whole thing out.

So they packed up a few overnight bags (or whatever) and drove out to Kathy's Mom's place and stayed with her.

They didn't flee in terror, as what was depicted in the movie (although George said there was some unexplained things that happened during that final drive away from the house).

But what I'm getting at here is that when they drove away, they weren't planning on leaving forever -- it was supposed to be for just a short time. They were fully expecting to return to the house. The idea was to move out temporarily, have someone "fix" whatever was wrong with the house (have an exorcism or vigil or whatever), and then move right back in. They loved the house, and they didn't want to give it up.

So there was no reason for anyone to return to the house the very next day. It took them a while to decide what to do.

from a 2004 interview conducted by Tim Yancey:
GEORGE LUTZ: Actually I don't think we made that decision, ourselves. It didn't occur to me to go, give up my house. I became very concerned, very unsure of what steps to take – or not to take – next. We tried very hard to get Father Ray on the phone. It wasn't until he actually said to us – when I think back now about this – that we had to leave. We had to leave the house. It hadn't occurred to me that this was something we really should do, or must do. And as far... When we tried to explain some of the things that had gone on, then his words were, "Go stay at your Mom's and we'll try to figure this out." Words to that effect.

It was my house. I wasn't looking to leave it – all my stuff was there. The idea of going off to live to Kathy's Mom's, and retreat to there in some manner, was just, was such a foreign idea. I certainly would have taken more stuff if I had known that we wouldn't be coming back. So many personal things, let alone the valuables. But I may not have left if he had said, "You're going and you'll never, you know, return." It took us so long to get out of the house that day. It took so much of that day to actually leave. And then the car wouldn't start – which is classic movie stuff, and all it was was I had the same ignition system on my boat – and it was transistorized – you just pushed a button and then it went back to normal ignition. And for some reason the transistorized ignition wouldn't work, and I just got out and pushed the button and closed the hood and got back in the van, it started right up.

There was a banging on the van all the way out of Amityville, from the outside. And I remember being pretty much thrown around on the road a couple of times. It was a frightening trip, but it was frighten— We were frightened. Its a flash of memory with that stuff. There were towels from the boat that were in the van. I still have the towels, but... We use them for car towels. We had so few things. We had, I think, a couple of changes of clothes each. It was just "grab and go." It just had never occurred to any of us that we wouldn't be back. You don't leave your kids' toys and motorcycles and so many different things.

Post Reply