Will you believe Chris & Danny?

[Jacobmarley1]

Regardless of what they say, will you believe them simply because they're the children of George and Kathy Lutz?

[Victoria Principles]

They are children of Kathy Lutz, not George Lutz.

I believe a lot of what they said. Since they were young, especially Chris, their perspective back then could be clouded. But what they said fills in a lot of blanks. Like why the forces followed them and did not stay in the house. Many people who move from alleged haunted houses don't have the forces follow them. The force at Amityville seem to be attached to the Lutzes, not the house. This often happens when people fool around with the occult without the proper precautions.

I also thought there was something George and Kathy were hiding. It wasn't that they were in on a hoax, but got into something more deeply then what they really intended on.

[Jacobmarley1]

They are children of Kathy Lutz, not George Lutz.

I believe a lot of what they said. Since they were young, especially Chris, their perspective back then could be clouded. But what they said fills in a lot of blanks. Like why the forces followed them and did not stay in the house. Many people who move from alleged haunted houses don't have the forces follow them. The force at Amityville seem to be attached to the Lutzes, not the house. This often happens when people fool around with the occult without the proper precautions.

I also thought there was something George and Kathy were hiding. It wasn't that they were in on a hoax, but got into something more deeply then what they really intended on.

They admitted they were into TM.

[Victoria Principles]

They are children of Kathy Lutz, not George Lutz.

I believe a lot of what they said. Since they were young, especially Chris, their perspective back then could be clouded. But what they said fills in a lot of blanks. Like why the forces followed them and did not stay in the house. Many people who move from alleged haunted houses don't have the forces follow them. The force at Amityville seem to be attached to the Lutzes, not the house. This often happens when people fool around with the occult without the proper precautions.

I also thought there was something George and Kathy were hiding. It wasn't that they were in on a hoax, but got into something more deeply then what they really intended on.

They admitted they were into TM.

I think they were into more than just TM. TM is an eastern religion methodology. George had alleged interest in more western occult practices if you believe what Eric Walter was told by the two boys. You would not visit Ray Buckland for TM advice. You would not chant the name of demons during TM in the eastern tradition.

I don't place all the blame on George. During this time period, interest in the occult was high. George and Kathy may have thought they could have control these powers, but quickly found out they were in over their heads.

[DC Fan]

I never believe anything from someone based on who he is and no matter what he says.

I suspect there will be some truth in what they both say and maybe some things I have a hard time believing. Even Kaplan and Weber also said some things that turned out to be factual, even though I think these self-appointed debunkers can themselves be debunked.

My concern about Christopher so far is how he professes to know that George was conjuring up demons when he admits in the same interviews that his knowledge of such subjects at the time was limited to Scooby-Doo cartoons. I need him to tell about how he came to adult understanding about what George was doing as well as what exactly is true or false in the book. Of course, if he wanted to commit a fraud, he could have done so by now through an agent to get him the best deal possible, without caring about how anyone twists the story into a pretzel.

As for Daniel we just have to wait and see. I would not say automatically that he loses credibility by dealing with Hollywood. I do have some concern with what comes down to the presentation though. If you look at the teaser trailer and MY AH website, you will notice some kind of certificate from the State of New York and a childhood photo in front of the house. If that certificate is of adoption I believe it should be from California. If it is of birth, the original and any registration record associated with it should be in the name of Daniel Quaratino and should make no mention of George. As for the photo, that kid seems too lightly dressed for December/January on Long Island. It reminds me of the way the 2005 re-make opened with phony crime scene documents containing photos of Ryan Reynolds.

Of course, in fairness to Eric Walter, none of this proves that what we eventually get from that documentary will not be the truth. It is a problem with presentation and maybe Eric might explain how I have it wrong, if he wishes.

[Victoria Principles]

I never believe anything from someone based on who he is and no matter what he says.

I suspect there will be some truth in what they both say and maybe some things I have a hard time believing. Even Kaplan and Weber also said some things that turned out to be factual, even though I think these self-appointed debunkers can themselves be debunked.

My concern about Christopher so far is how he professes to know that George was conjuring up demons when he admits in the same interviews that his knowledge of such subjects at the time was limited to Scooby-Doo cartoons. I need him to tell about how he came to adult understanding about what George was doing as well as what exactly is true or false in the book. Of course, if he wanted to commit a fraud, he could have done so by now through an agent to get him the best deal possible, without caring about how anyone twists the story into a prezel.

As for Daniel we just have to wait and see. I would not say automatically that he loses credibility by dealing with Hollywood. I do have some concern with what comes down to the presentation though. If you look at the teaser trailer and MY AH website, you will notice some kind of certificate from the State of New York and a childhood photo in front of the house. If that certificate is of adoption I believe it should be from California. If it is of birth, the original and any registration record associated with it should be in the name of Daniel Quaratino and should make no mention of George. As for the photo, that kid seems too lightly dressed for December/January on Long Island. It reminds me of the way the 2005 re-make opened with phony crime scene documents containing photos of Ryan Reynolds.

Of course, in fairness to Eric Walter, none of this proves that what we eventually get from that documentary will not be the truth. It is a problem with presentation and maybe Eric might explain how I have it wrong, if he wishes.

Christhopher could have gained knowledge of such stuff through the years and perhaps he got some info what really went on from his mother and George.

As for Daniel, are you saying that the guy in Eric Walter's film is not the real Dan Lutz? Another thing is Daniel Lutz is not a kid. He is a middle age adult.
As for the time of the photo, how do you know what month that is taken? You do know that that New York/LI are not always an ice box most of the time in winter and it does get warm during the winter months. I saw motorcyclist and people in short sleave shirts outside this past New Years Day.

[DC Fan]

Victoria:

Sorry but I forgot to mention something: Dig all that foliage in the tree! Compare it to the Newsday photo taken on the morning of the murders. I'm suggesting that the photo is not of Daniel Lutz, who lived there during December/January. It is highly unlikely that he would have been photographed in front of the house during a time when he was so lighly dressed, without even a spring jacket, and that tree is so fully dressed. You would have to postulate the Lutzes going back to the house in order to take the photo, or have them take the photo prior to buying the place.

Christopher can tell us how he came to understand what George was doing. I believe I already pointed it out that I would like him to do that.

I am not denying that the man in the movie is the real Daniel Lutz. There are some indications here that Daniel's participation is at least part of his falling out with his brother.

[Victoria Principles]

Victoria:

Sorry but I forgot to mention something: Dig all that foliage in the tree! Compare it to the Newsday photo taken on the morning of the murders. I'm saying that the photo is not of Daniel Lutz, who lived there during December/January. It is highly unlikely that he would have been photographed in front of the house during a time when he was so lighly dressed, without even a spring jacket, and that tree is so fully dressed. You would have to postulate the Lutzes going back to the house in order to take the photo, or have them take the photo prior to buying the place.

Christopher can tell us how he came to understand what George was doing. I believe I already pointed it out that I would like him to do that.

I am not denying that the man in the movie is the real Daniel Lutz. There are some indications here that Daniel's participation is at least part of his falling out with his brother.

What photo are you talking about?

[DC Fan]

The photo of the child on the "My Amityville Horror" website.
http://www.amityvillemovie.com/

[gmom]

I never thought that was supposed to be a totally real photograph. Looks like one of those old school photos superimposed over a picture of the Amityville house....

[Victoria Principles]

The photo of the child on the "My Amityville Horror" website.
http://www.amityvillemovie.com/

Have you ever thought that this photo of Daniel is of a photo of Daniel in front of a photo of the house. In other words, a photo of the house was used as a backdrop for the portrait. Unless Daniel was huge as a kid (like giant size), that is not a photo of him in front of the actual house.

That boy in that picture is Daniel. No doubt about it. Looks like the same kid with Father Ray in front of Kathy's house.

[Dan the Damned]

I never thought that was supposed to be a totally real photograph. Looks like one of those old school photos superimposed over a picture of the Amityville house....

That's exactly the feeling I had. Totally looks like a posed photo taken at school, and then someone later photoshopped the house behind him. Not out of trickery, but to illustrate who he is, what he looked like at the time, etc.

If that certificate is of adoption I believe it should be from California.

Why California instead of New York?

[Victoria Principles]

DC Fan,

Not sure what you are getting at. What is the big deal about this photo?

[DC Fan]

The photo of the child on the "My Amityville Horror" website.
http://www.amityvillemovie.com/

Have you ever thought that this photo of Daniel is of a photo of Daniel in front of a photo of the house. In other words, a photo of the house was used as a backdrop for the portrait. Unless Daniel was huge as a kid (like giant size), that is not a photo of him in front of the actual house.

That boy in that picture is Daniel. No doubt about it. Looks like the same kid with Father Ray in front of Kathy's house.

OK, I'll agree to a revision. It might well be a photoshopped school portrait of the real Daniel Lutz with the house as a background. Nevertheless, I do have some agreement that the photo is fake at least in a photoshopped or superimposed sense. Of course anyone involved in the film can always take the position that it is not my film and I don't have to watch it, but still it is something I wouldn't want to do.

Now did any of you like the way the 2005 re-make started off with the phony documents? Do other documentaries that you consider credible do that kind of thing? Or maybe you consider it a non-issue?

Dan:

I seem to recall Christopher saying on the radio that George adopted him and his sibs after they moved to California. That's why not New York, if it is a certificate of adoption that has a name change going with it. In my original post on this issue, I did consider that it was simply not an original birth cert to match the registration record but rather a re-issued birth cert after the adoption. I don't know how those things work in New York--maybe they would change the name of the father on a version that they would issue to a citizen. But then again there is that in some sense fake thing.

Of course any of you can still take the position that you don't really care because it might not raise a credibility issue with you, not even with the filmmaker's narrative.

[Victoria Principles]

The photo of the child on the "My Amityville Horror" website.
http://www.amityvillemovie.com/

Have you ever thought that this photo of Daniel is of a photo of Daniel in front of a photo of the house. In other words, a photo of the house was used as a backdrop for the portrait. Unless Daniel was huge as a kid (like giant size), that is not a photo of him in front of the actual house.

That boy in that picture is Daniel. No doubt about it. Looks like the same kid with Father Ray in front of Kathy's house.

OK, I'll agree to a revision. It might well be a photoshopped school portrait of the real Daniel Lutz with the house as a background. Nevertheless, I do have some agreement that the photo is fake at least in a photoshopped or superimposed sense. Of course anyone involved in the film can always take the position that it is not my film and I don't have to watch it, but still it is something I wouldn't want to do.

Now did any of you like the way the 2005 re-make started off with the phony documents? Do other documentaries that you consider credible do that kind of thing? Or maybe you consider it a non-issue?

Dan:

I seem to recall Christopher saying on the radio that George adopted him and his sibs after they moved to California. That's why not New York, if it is a certificate of adoption that has a name change going with it. In my original post on this issue, I did consider that it was simply not an original birth cert to match the registration record but rather a re-issued birth cert after the adoption. I don't know how those things work in New York--maybe they would change the name of the father on a version that they would issue to a citizen. But then again there is that in some sense fake thing.

Of course any of you can still take the position that you don't really care because it might not raise a credibility issue with you, not even with the filmmaker's narrative.

So what if that photo was a picture of Daniel with a photoshopped background of the house or if a photo was taken of the house and used for the background in a portrait studio. It's still is a photo of the real house and the real Daniel. Nothing fake about it.

[Dan the Damned]

I seem to recall Christopher saying on the radio that George adopted him and his sibs after they moved to California. That's why not New York...

Ah, I see. Well, then, if that's what the certificate is, then I guess Chris was wrong. Don't really know one way or the other.

Of course any of you can still take the position that you don't really care because it might not raise a credibility issue with you, not even with the filmmaker's narrative.

I guess it depends on what the story is behind the photo and the documents. I assume the certificate is real. Eric told me what it was, but that was a while back and I've forgotten. You might be right -- it might be a certificate of adoption or something along those lines. Shouldn't be a birth certificate since George's name is on it.

As far as anyone's credibility being in question, it's just way too early to tell for me. Not sure what you mean by "the filmmaker's narrative" either...

[sherbetbizarre]

My concern about Christopher so far is how he professes to know that George was conjuring up demons when he admits in the same interviews that his knowledge of such subjects at the time was limited to Scooby-Doo cartoons.

Agree. I will reserve judgement until I hear his entire story.

My questions would be -

What age were you when you realised the chants were demon names?
How did you find out it was a dmeonic name?
What made you 100% positive it was the same word?
Where was your mother during this? Next to George chanting too, as she is in the book?
Did she realise what she was saying?
If she was still alive, did she agree with you it was a demonic name?
If you told her this before 1999, why do you think she still did the Histories Mysteries interview with George?
How much of George occult leanings did she believe brought on the haunting?
If George were still alive when you found out, did you confront him on it?

[Victoria Principles]

My concern about Christopher so far is how he professes to know that George was conjuring up demons when he admits in the same interviews that his knowledge of such subjects at the time was limited to Scooby-Doo cartoons.

Agree. I will reserve judgement until I hear his entire story.

My questions would be -

What age were you when you realised the chants were demon names?
How did you find out it was a dmeonic name?
What made you 100% positive it was the same word?
Where was your mother during this? Next to George chanting too, as she is in the book?
Did she realise what she was saying?
If she was still alive, did she agree with you it was a demonic name?
If you told her this before 1999, why do you think she still did the Histories Mysteries interview with George?
How much of George occult leanings did she believe brought on the haunting?
If George were still alive when you found out, did you confront him on it?

Actually George was still alive when Chris mentioned that George dabbled in the occult and paranormal.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002267189_amityville08.html

Back then Chris used the term spirits rather than demons.

[Victoria Principles]

I never believe anything from someone based on who he is and no matter what he says.

I suspect there will be some truth in what they both say and maybe some things I have a hard time believing. Even Kaplan and Weber also said some things that turned out to be factual, even though I think these self-appointed debunkers can themselves be debunked.

My concern about Christopher so far is how he professes to know that George was conjuring up demons when he admits in the same interviews that his knowledge of such subjects at the time was limited to Scooby-Doo cartoons. I need him to tell about how he came to adult understanding about what George was doing as well as what exactly is true or false in the book. Of course, if he wanted to commit a fraud, he could have done so by now through an agent to get him the best deal possible, without caring about how anyone twists the story into a pretzel.

As for Daniel we just have to wait and see. I would not say automatically that he loses credibility by dealing with Hollywood. I do have some concern with what comes down to the presentation though. If you look at the teaser trailer and MY AH website, you will notice some kind of certificate from the State of New York and a childhood photo in front of the house. If that certificate is of adoption I believe it should be from California. If it is of birth, the original and any registration record associated with it should be in the name of Daniel Quaratino and should make no mention of George. As for the photo, that kid seems too lightly dressed for December/January on Long Island. It reminds me of the way the 2005 re-make opened with phony crime scene documents containing photos of Ryan Reynolds.

Of course, in fairness to Eric Walter, none of this proves that what we eventually get from that documentary will not be the truth. It is a problem with presentation and maybe Eric might explain how I have it wrong, if he wishes.

My Amiyville Horror is a documentary, the 2005 Amityville Horror was a fictionalized movie, BIg difference. The 2005 movie can't use the real documents since they didn't have permission to use them.

As far as the adoption. This articel indicates they were adopted in NY.http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20147397,00.html
This one says California (from California). http://www.movieweb.com/news/exclusive-part-2-movieweb-talks-to-george-lutz-the-original-owner-of-the-amityville-horror Another thing to consider is that George may have to had adopt them in New York because that was where their natural father lived and he may have had to sign off on that.

[DC Fan]

I seem to recall Christopher saying on the radio that George adopted him and his sibs after they moved to California. That's why not New York...

Ah, I see. Well, then, if that's what the certificate is, then I guess Chris was wrong. Don't really know one way or the other.

Of course any of you can still take the position that you don't really care because it might not raise a credibility issue with you, not even with the filmmaker's narrative.

I guess it depends on what the story is behind the photo and the documents. I assume the certificate is real. Eric told me what it was, but that was a while back and I've forgotten. You might be right -- it might be a certificate of adoption or something along those lines. Shouldn't be a birth certificate since George's name is on it.

As far as anyone's credibility being in question, it's just way too early to tell for me. Not sure what you mean by "the filmmaker's narrative" either...

OK Filmmaker's narrative. When you watch a documentary, there will be several people speaking at various points. In between there will be a narrator or host giving background info to tie it all together. There might be a different term for it but that was what I meant. These different people and the narrator may have different levels of credibility with you, based on what you might already know or believe about them. In the case of My AH, I will be more likely to believe something if it comes straight from Daniel,( as I'm sure much of it will ), rather than from someone who has at least shown me a photo containing something different than what was in front of one lens at one time. If others have a less sceptical criterion of who to believe and when, that's their prerogative.

As for the certificate it might be some genuine adoption or birth re-issue, but which can still give a sense of Hey-wait-a-minute. If I'm on the wrong track, Eric can still enlighten us, if he wants--that's his choice.

[DC Fan]

DC Fan,

Not sure what you are getting at. What is the big deal about this photo?

Victoria:

You have yourself expressed the theory that the photo is edited, even if you don't like the word "fake". So I suspect what we really disagree on is the usage of it. I think a documentary filmmaker should not use it and still expect me to grant him the same credibility as I might grant his guest or another filmmaker who only shows unedited photos. If the real thing just does not exist they are not required to create it. They can go ahead with just a regular school photo or nothing. If you want to disagree with that it's your choice.

The People article mentions that the adoption occured and scrunches it in with events in New York. It does not say exactly that the adoption occured in New York but I agree it can be interpreted that way. In the other article it is George himself saying the adoption occured in California. This is an example of how I use the concept of credibility. George would have known and had no reason to lie about this. To effect this adoption in California, he could have simply paid Mr. Quaratino's expenses in submitting a sworn affidavit through a notary public. Thus these articles do not alter my opinion one iota that if that certificate is of adoption it should be from California.