Jay Anson's claims of Amityville Horror curse.

[Victoria Principles]

What do you think of Jay Anson's claims of the mishaps resulting from people who had a manuscript in possession of the book?

In a March 1979, Writer’s Digest interview, Jay Anson explained some of the misfortunes that befell those involved with the book’s development. A friend of Anson’s took some of the early chapters home to review and that night her and her two children suffocated in a fire. The only item not damaged was the manuscript. After Anson completed

the book, his editor picked up the manuscript and put in his trunk. He later drove through what he thought was a mud puddle; it turned out to



be a 12’ hole. Even though the car was completely immersed, the manuscript remained dry.

http://amityvilletruth.freeservers.com/index2.htm

I wonder if these thing actually happened. Was there ever any documentation of this stuff? I have a hard time believing the 12 foot pot hole. Certainly such a large pot hole would be noticed. Someone would have seen it or there would be a police report on the accident.

[sherbetbizarre]

The article itself can be read here -

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5651

[Victoria Principles]

I don't see Anson naming any names or locations of the suspicious accidents that aledgedly happened. Without names, we can't verify that these accident's actually occured, let alone be caused by the book being published.

I am sure a 12 foot pot hole would have made the news somewhere in a local paper. This claim just seems rediculous. If Jay Anson was a real journalist, he would have been documented these claims. He could have said that Bigfoot was responsible for the hauntings and it wouldn't be any less credible that saying these accidents happened without proving their authenticity.

[Dan the Damned]

To me, "ridiculous" is kinda like saying "too far-fetched to be believed." I would characterize Anson's claims as more "outlandish" but not impossible.

Anson wasn't making these claims as part of some investigation he was conducting. He was simply relating stories of incidents he alleges took place when he wrote the book. Yes, the insinuation of some sort of "curse" can be inferred, but it's not like he's coming right out and saying "this haunting must be real because the curse has reached my friends and associates."

[Victoria Principles]

To me, "ridiculous" is kinda like saying "too far-fetched to be believed." I would characterize Anson's claims as more "outlandish" but not impossible.

Anson wasn't making these claims as part of some investigation he was conducting. He was simply relating stories of incidents he alleges took place when he wrote the book. Yes, the insinuation of some sort of "curse" can be inferred, but it's not like he's coming right out and saying "this haunting must be real because the curse has reached my friends and associates."

But he never named his friends or associates. There is no evidence these accidents even took place.

[Dan the Damned]

That's right. We have no evidence. Did anyone ask him for evidence?

[Victoria Principles]

That's right. We have no evidence. Did anyone ask him for evidence?

Perhaps someone should have ask him for evidence of these alledged accidents taking place.

[Howard64]

sadly we will never know

[Dan the Damned]

Perhaps someone should have ask him for evidence of these alledged accidents taking place.

I'll contact Sherman and Mr Peabody. In the meantime, I agree with your point that we simply don't know if those stories Anson told are true (the ones regarding his friends & associates during the time he wrote the book), but I don't think he should be blamed for failing to provide evidence for these ancillary anecdotes, especially when no one (apparently) bothered to ask for such.

And I think no one bothered to ask for such evidence because it didn't really factor-in with the Lutzes' story. The veracity of Anson's statements have no bearing on the veracity of the Lutzes'. Maybe the situation would be different today.

[KevinW]

Yes, the insinuation of some sort of "curse" can be inferred, but it's not like he's coming right out and saying "this haunting must be real because the curse has reached my friends and associates."

Well, look at how he tells the stories on the video of him on the second History's Mysteries episode. When telling about the car going into the sinkhole, he says that the car was a total wreck and that the only thing dry was a copy of the manuscript of the novel. He then said that he gave a copy of the manuscript to somebody who died in a fire the night after it was given to her. The way he tells about these "incidents", to me, is more than inferring that he is blaming the Amityville "haunting" for them.

Kevin

[Dan the Damned]

Yes, you are correct. I say "inferring" simply because he doesn't come right out and say it point blank. The inference is very strong, but it's still an inference. Really just a minor point -- doesn't really change my point as a whole.

[Victoria Principles]

Perhaps someone should have ask him for evidence of these alledged accidents taking place.

I'll contact Sherman and Mr Peabody. In the meantime, I agree with your point that we simply don't know if those stories Anson told are true (the ones regarding his friends & associates during the time he wrote the book), but I don't think he should be blamed for failing to provide evidence for these ancillary anecdotes, especially when no one (apparently) bothered to ask for such.

And I think no one bothered to ask for such evidence because it didn't really factor-in with the Lutzes' story. The veracity of Anson's statements have no bearing on the veracity of the Lutzes'. Maybe the situation would be different today.

We know the DeFeo's murders happened. There is some stuff that couldn't be explained in it. Whether demons influenced Ronnie DeFeo Jr to murder his family is debatable. We know the Lutz family bought and stayed in the DeFeo house for 28 days. Whether they were driven out by ghost and demons were debateable. We can't even say the accidents Jay Anson talked about actually took place or were made up to help the legend and to sell the book. We can't ask Anson either unless we hold a seance.

[Brendan72]

It almost sounds as if Anson were making it up to add the suspenseful feel to his book, ie promotion! But I say almost ....

Since nobody has come forward to verify these claims with at least a newspaper article about the colleague and her daughter dying in a house fire, then how do we definitely know these are true or just anecdotes, as Dan would put it.

Did it hurt or help the Lutz's claims of the haunting? I agree with Dan in that it should be kept separate, that Anson's claims and the Lutz's claims are not one and the same, that although Anson's claims tie in with the book, the Lutz's claims relate to the actual events. However, because both are linked albeit indirectly, they are still linked, when all is said and done. Hypothetically if Anson's reasons turned out to be baloney, then this would potentially damage the Lutz's claims, whereas if there was evidence of these events, then it would strengthen it. But then again such events, true or not, help the book sales, regardless of who is involved.

[Dan the Damned]

I'm not using the word "anecdote" to portray Anson's stories as necessarily false, I'm using that term in the "very short story" sense -- more like "a funny thing happened to me on the way to the printers yesterday" kind of thing. A way of isolating these stories so people wouldn't think "Anson's stories" is the same thing as "Anson's book." Anecdotes can be true or false.

Hypothetically if Anson's reasons turned out to be baloney, then this would potentially damage the Lutz's claims

Only to the undiscerning eye. It might give some people a reason to disbelieve the haunting in general, but that's a matter of their personal judgement, not one based on facts or evidence. Much in the same way that Holzer's wild stories of Indian Curses has been shown to be fiction, but still has no bearing on the Lutzes' claims.


But I think we're getting a bit off-track. This isn't the point Victoria was trying to make, and I only brought it up as a possible reason why no one bothered to investigate the legitimacy of Anson's anecdotes back in the day. At least not that we know about...

[Fnord]

What do you think of Jay Anson's claims of the mishaps resulting from people who had a manuscript in possession of the book?

I think Anson was most interested in promotion and in his requisite box of sweaters. I don't think playing around with facts in order to increase sales was something he would have lost any sleep over. Basically, everything the man ever said = +grain of salt for me.

I'll contact Sherman and Mr Peabody.

Your cultural references are showing your age!

[Brendan72]

Only to the undiscerning eye. It might give some people a reason to disbelieve the haunting in general, but that's a matter of their personal judgement, not one based on facts or evidence. Much in the same way that Holzer's wild stories of Indian Curses has been shown to be fiction, but still has no bearing on the Lutzes' claims.

You have a point with this, and I thought it would potentially hurt their claims, and at the very least not help it to the undiscerning eye - majority of viewers/readers would just see it as a general interest story, one of those "spooky" tidbidts they read in between front page news and the sports section. Unfortunately this majority I refer to don't look at it closely and see the story behind it.

It's interesting how you mention things "based on facts or evidence" in the context of Anson mentioning these incidences, and how I think in particular the media can operate (particularly today) without using either of these elements. But that is me just being suspicious of the media in general, and can relate to this story (and the media's reporting of events in general, particularly Amityville) - but again it is up to us as individuals to discern what is true and what is not, and take things the media says with a pinch of salts.

But I think we're getting a bit off-track. This isn't the point Victoria was trying to make, and I only brought it up as a possible reason why no one bothered to investigate the legitimacy of Anson's anecdotes back in the day. At least not that we know about...

I like tangents, as long as they don't go too far off-track.

[112 Ocean Ave]

I dont know about the house fire story but with the car i think i can explain it. Maybe the road he was on was an old country road. If it was night he could of drove off the road and into the "puddle". If youever saw a car go into water you would know that it goes down front first. If he put the book in the back of the car it wouldnt get wet. A lot of times after something like that happens we tend to exaggerate what happened. Maybe the car didnt go all the way down but the trunk or backseat was still above water. or maybe like you said it never happened.

[Victoria Principles]

I dont know about the house fire story but with the car i think i can explain it. Maybe the road he was on was an old country road. If it was night he could of drove off the road and into the "puddle". If youever saw a car go into water you would know that it goes down front first. If he put the book in the back of the car it wouldnt get wet. A lot of times after something like that happens we tend to exaggerate what happened. Maybe the car didnt go all the way down but the trunk or backseat was still above water. or maybe like you said it never happened.

Anson didn't say anything about the car going off the road. He was talking about a mud puddle in the middle of the road that was several feet deep. Anson never said anything about the car going off the road. Going off the road is not uncommon.

[Dan the Damned]

[sherbetbizarre]

Pic 1 is authentic, right?

[Dan the Damned]

No idea. Kinda does look fake, doesn't it? I just got them from a Google image search. I was looking for an image I saw on the news earlier this year of a lady who drove into a puddle that turned out to be several feet deep, swallowing most of her car. (Didn't see it, though.)