Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

General Discussion About Anything Amityville And Other Paranormal Topics
jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 551

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?
FIRE THAT THING UP!

You can wake up a sleeping sheep but you can't wake up a walking dead...

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11866

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: 551

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.
FIRE THAT THING UP!

You can wake up a sleeping sheep but you can't wake up a walking dead...

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9734
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: 551

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.
FIRE THAT THING UP!

You can wake up a sleeping sheep but you can't wake up a walking dead...

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11866

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: 551

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?
FIRE THAT THING UP!

You can wake up a sleeping sheep but you can't wake up a walking dead...

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11866

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.

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 551

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by jimmysmokes » Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:15 am

Upon reading this, I'm more confused? George never entered the house again, reportedly, so I think he had already made his mind up then they weren't going back. And the other post (interview) he stated that they left all their stuff there, but obviously they didn't. At some point certain things were picked up by whoever he sent to fetch them? I did read somewhere in an article it was the next day but I don't know. What's interesting is that when these people did go into the house, nothing happened or was reported.

"They didn't flee in terror"? Well, what happened? What caused them to leave right then? I'm guessing that the hooded figure at the top of the stairs didn't happen when they left? We're they fearing for their lives? Just decided it was getting to be too much?

This has always been the problem for me. I still don't know what actually happened to them? Certain details always change or are omitted or exaggerated. Too many holes for me.
FIRE THAT THING UP!

You can wake up a sleeping sheep but you can't wake up a walking dead...

User avatar
Amit Y Ville
Amityville Addict
Posts: 533

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by Amit Y Ville » Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:04 am

:wall:
"Everything's sliding into place. Just ONE more sacrifice Lisa."

User avatar
TC1
Amityville Member
Posts: 36
Location: Faraway Place

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by TC1 » Fri Mar 15, 2019 12:06 pm

haha! 300th view!
If I had the Chubbuck tape? It's going RIGHT into the Hudson.

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11866

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by Dan the Damned » Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:24 am

George never entered the house again, reportedly, so I think he had already made his mind up then they weren't going back.
I think it was more like he didn't want to return until the house was "fixed." But as time went on, it wasn't getting fixed, and at some point they just decided to get rid of it.
And the other post (interview) he stated that they left all their stuff there, but obviously they didn't. At some point certain things were picked up by whoever he sent to fetch them?
Yes, a few things were recovered, plus the items they took with them when they first left for Kathy's Mom's house. So technically, no, they didn't leave everything behind. But they did leave behind their cars, motorcycles, boats, toys, family photos, clothes, books, records, furniture, TVs, radios, etc.
"They didn't flee in terror"? Well, what happened? What caused them to leave right then? I'm guessing that the hooded figure at the top of the stairs didn't happen when they left? We're they fearing for their lives? Just decided it was getting to be too much?
The night before they left was the worst night. George rarely talked about it, but I believe he mentions some of it in those interviews. So yes, they were kinda freaking out, and they were trying to reach Father Ray.

When they finally got hold of Father Ray, he suggested that they leave and go stay with a relative while they figured out what to do next. George said his head was so messed-up (my terminology, not his) that the simple act of leaving and spending the night somewhere else just didn't even occur to him.

So they left the house at the suggestion of Father Ray. I mentioned that in my last post.
This has always been the problem for me. I still don't know what actually happened to them? Certain details always change or are omitted or exaggerated. Too many holes for me.
Click on the "Interview Transcripts" link at the very, very bottom of this page (at the bottom of every page on this forum). That will help a lot with weeding out a lot of the fiction from what George Lutz claimed actually happened.

The trouble with newspaper articles and TV reports is that a story about a haunted house is never going to be taken seriously by reporters. It is a fluff piece -- a human interest story. And just as Jay Anson did, a lot of reporters don't really give a crap about accuracy when it comes to human interest stories. People get misquoted, facts get twisted, and that leaves you with a bunch of discrepancies. And that's the problem with Kaplan's book. He was noting discrepancies in the various newspaper stories, and attributing those discrepancies directly against the Lutzes instead of the reporters.

Kaplan even got misquoted, himself, which should have clued him in on what was happening.

The interviews are different. When the Lutzes are shown on film speaking, or when their voices are recorded, you know that the words are coming from them (not translated from a reporter's quickly-scribbled notes).

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 551

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by jimmysmokes » Sat Mar 16, 2019 8:37 am

Yeah, I'll take a look at that. And I agree, people can get misquoted!
FIRE THAT THING UP!

You can wake up a sleeping sheep but you can't wake up a walking dead...

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 551

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by jimmysmokes » Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:03 pm

Dan, I have a few questions for you.

First off, what is your take of that "ghostie boy" pic? Who or what is it?

And you stated earlier in a post, you said you thought the Lutzes were figuring on maybe returning to the house after they got it cleaned but were unable to get it "cleaned"? George and Kathy said in an interview I just watched that when they left (the last night they were there) that they couldn't live there anymore and would not return. "They" couldn't eradicate what was there. They did have it "investigated" just to get an opinion what the people investigating might come up with? The people that conducted this did not have the intent to "cleanse" the house and nothing like that ever materialized while the Lutzes owned the house.

So they had no intention of returning to the house nor getting it cleaned.
FIRE THAT THING UP!

You can wake up a sleeping sheep but you can't wake up a walking dead...

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11866

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by Dan the Damned » Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:08 am

I think the figure in the "ghostie boy photo" is merely that of one of the investigators. Specifically, Paul Bartz (who was helping the Warrens that night).

Here's what I think happened. After that night, and after the photos were developed, I think the Warrens poured over them, looking for something "paranormal." And I think they found nothing. I think they saw the one photo of Paul Bartz and recognized it for what it was. "Oh there's Paul, ha ha ha," I can almost hear them saying.

Years later, when George Lutz' secretary (or whatever you want to call her) was editing George's "Amityville Photo Book" and came across the photo, apparently she came across this photo, saw Paul's boyish-looking face, and mistook him for a small boy (since he was sitting or kneeling in the doorway). You know the rest of that story.

So then George calls the Warrens and alerts them to this photo. And that's where I think the Warrens were dishonest. Instead of setting George straight and telling him that this was simply an accidental photo of their assistant, they played into George's mistaken belief that this was a photo of a ghost. I believe the Warrens did that to further their own agenda.

That's how I view the ghostie boy photo. I believe George honestly thought it was a photo of a ghost, and I believe the Warrens dishonestly let him keep on thinking that.

As we all know, there are a lot of negative allegations against the Warrens. I don't know much about those allegations other to know that they exist.

Could George have been culpable as well? I can't say for sure. Anything is possible. But if the Warrens and the Lutzes were both involved in pretending this photo was of a ghost, then why wouldn't they just go ahead and fake a photo from the very start? This is an accidental photo of an investigator -- and there are others. This is not a staged photo. This is not a photo of someone pretending to be a ghost. Given that, I think this shows that at least one of the parties involved was genuine in their attempt to uncover something paranormal. And I think it makes more sense that the party would be the Lutzes.

If I lived through what the Lutzes claimed they did, I think I would have some form of PTSD (and if you watched the film "My Amityville Horror," I think its evident that Daniel Lutz suffers from that). And I think, given your mindset (of having lived through the horror), you would be susceptible to the idea of this photo possibly being a ghost (among other things). "Oh my God, do we have proof?!? Dammit! We have proof that we were telling the truth all along!!!"

That sort of thing. A combination of wishful thinking and being susceptible to the idea due to your past experiences.

Ummm, this took me longer to write out than I expected. Didn't think I'd write this much, and it's getting late. I'll answer your other questions later, though I have a tax appointment on Tuesday that I also need to prepare for... Might be a while (or might be tomorrow)...

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9734
Contact:

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by sherbetbizarre » Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:58 am

jimmysmokes wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:03 pm
So they had no intention of returning to the house nor getting it cleaned.
The Warrens claimed they could cleanse the house, but this would involve a team of priests who would be "putting their lives at risk" during an "exorcism". Ultimately George declined, saying no house was worth risking anyone's life for.

Note: The Warrens did involve these priests at the climax of The Devil In Connecticut case a few years later. Successfully too, according to their book.

Also, the Ghostie Boy photo - George showed it to Missy, who said "that's the little boy who appeared in my room". So this is why George thought it was genuine.

Personally I feel it could still be Bartz, crouching at a similar height to Missy's "friend" in her doorway...

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 551

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by jimmysmokes » Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:34 pm

Dan the Damned wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:08 am
I think the figure in the "ghostie boy photo" is merely that of one of the investigators. Specifically, Paul Bartz (who was helping the Warrens that night).

Here's what I think happened. After that night, and after the photos were developed, I think the Warrens poured over them, looking for something "paranormal." And I think they found nothing. I think they saw the one photo of Paul Bartz and recognized it for what it was. "Oh there's Paul, ha ha ha," I can almost hear them saying.

Years later, when George Lutz' secretary (or whatever you want to call her) was editing George's "Amityville Photo Book" and came across the photo, apparently she came across this photo, saw Paul's boyish-looking face, and mistook him for a small boy (since he was sitting or kneeling in the doorway). You know the rest of that story.

So then George calls the Warrens and alerts them to this photo. And that's where I think the Warrens were dishonest. Instead of setting George straight and telling him that this was simply an accidental photo of their assistant, they played into George's mistaken belief that this was a photo of a ghost. I believe the Warrens did that to further their own agenda.

That's how I view the ghostie boy photo. I believe George honestly thought it was a photo of a ghost, and I believe the Warrens dishonestly let him keep on thinking that.

As we all know, there are a lot of negative allegations against the Warrens. I don't know much about those allegations other to know that they exist.

Could George have been culpable as well? I can't say for sure. Anything is possible. But if the Warrens and the Lutzes were both involved in pretending this photo was of a ghost, then why wouldn't they just go ahead and fake a photo from the very start? This is an accidental photo of an investigator -- and there are others. This is not a staged photo. This is not a photo of someone pretending to be a ghost. Given that, I think this shows that at least one of the parties involved was genuine in their attempt to uncover something paranormal. And I think it makes more sense that the party would be the Lutzes.

If I lived through what the Lutzes claimed they did, I think I would have some form of PTSD (and if you watched the film "My Amityville Horror," I think its evident that Daniel Lutz suffers from that). And I think, given your mindset (of having lived through the horror), you would be susceptible to the idea of this photo possibly being a ghost (among other things). "Oh my God, do we have proof?!? Dammit! We have proof that we were telling the truth all along!!!"

That sort of thing. A combination of wishful thinking and being susceptible to the idea due to your past experiences.

Ummm, this took me longer to write out than I expected. Didn't think I'd write this much, and it's getting late. I'll answer your other questions later, though I have a tax appointment on Tuesday that I also need to prepare for... Might be a while (or might be tomorrow)...
Yeah, I tend to agree with you on the photo being Paul Bartz. Interesting theory as to the Warrens? But I was listening to George on an interview last night and he did state that the Ghostie boy was indeed and an entity!?

Or Dan was "acting" in the flick (My Amityville Horror)? And The Lutzes could've taken some pic of certain "activity". The flies or "gelatin". The door being blown off.

I understand. Reason why I was able to respond a lot this past week, was on vacation. So no problem and plus I was watching George & Kathy interviews on youtube, some I had seen (refreshing memory) and one I hadn't heard but was audio. Still haven't finished it yet.
FIRE THAT THING UP!

You can wake up a sleeping sheep but you can't wake up a walking dead...

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 551

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by jimmysmokes » Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:48 pm

sherbetbizarre wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:58 am
jimmysmokes wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:03 pm
So they had no intention of returning to the house nor getting it cleaned.
The Warrens claimed they could cleanse the house, but this would involve a team of priests who would be "putting their lives at risk" during an "exorcism". Ultimately George declined, saying no house was worth risking anyone's life for.

Note: The Warrens did involve these priests at the climax of The Devil In Connecticut case a few years later. Successfully too, according to their book.

Also, the Ghostie Boy photo - George showed it to Missy, who said "that's the little boy who appeared in my room". So this is why George thought it was genuine.

Personally I feel it could still be Bartz, crouching at a similar height to Missy's "friend" in her doorway...
Wouldn't he have been putting people's lives at risk having them investigate? Or the friends (movers) on whatever day they came to move out certain items? And accordingly to the Lutzes story, they had to leave because they thought their lives were in danger. That means the demons were there manifest in some form forcing them out. But you will admit that not much happened during the investigation and nothing was reported by the movers as well.

p.s. last night while re-watching the histories mysteries show, George claimed that the movie was fiction but the book was their story. he never mentioned the book contained fiction in this interview.
FIRE THAT THING UP!

You can wake up a sleeping sheep but you can't wake up a walking dead...

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9734
Contact:

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by sherbetbizarre » Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:12 pm

jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:48 pm
Wouldn't he have been putting people's lives at risk having them investigate?
No, the "exorcism" would have involved invoking the demons to banish them - so more than just an investigation.
Or the friends (movers) on whatever day they came to move out certain items?
Again, their lives wouldn't be at risk-- however one of them, Benny Montana, was murdered on the instruction of his girlfriend a few weeks later - she waited outside 112, and later "wandered into the garage" - but had planned the murder before that night anyway. See viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5331

User avatar
devilbustedinct
Walking the Burning Fence
Posts: 699
Contact:

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by devilbustedinct » Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:23 pm

This has been a freakin great read. Worst of all I can’t eat popcorn anymore.

User avatar
Amit Y Ville
Amityville Addict
Posts: 533

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by Amit Y Ville » Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:29 pm

devilbustedinct wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:23 pm
This has been a freakin great read. Worst of all I can’t eat popcorn anymore.
Watching Dan talk to himself? I don't see nobody else here. :think:
"Everything's sliding into place. Just ONE more sacrifice Lisa."

Post Reply