This was just too good to pass up...
WARNING:: LONG POST AHEAD
SPOILER ALERT: ED AND LORRAINE WARREN MAY BE FRAUDS!
Karma. Irony. Fate. Contradiction. Truth. Lies. A ton of money.
What do all these things have in common? The recent $900,000,000 lawsuit filed by author Gerald Brittle against Warner Brothers, Lorraine Warren, James Wan, and a slew of others who are probably sitting back this past weekend wondering “WTF just happened?”
I don’t know why Mr. Brittle didn’t just round it off to a cool billion. That’s what he figures he is owed by being “scammed” by the infamous Ed and Lorraine Warren and their success with “The Conjuring” franchise and its numerous spin-offs, which Mr. Brittle claims he is actually the rightful owner of and says he has been irrefutably screwed out of tons of money, royalties, percentages, credits, bonuses, fame, and gift cards because he wrote 1980’s “The Demonologist: The Extraordinary Career of Ed and Lorraine Warren." It appears several of the stories contained therein finally hit the big screen decades later and made a sh*t ton of money for everybody...but him.
Mr. Brittle swears that at the time, he was “duped” into believing Ed and Lorraine Warren were honest, truthful, gifted, God fearing Catholics doing the work of the Lord to free thousands of innocent victims of demonic hauntings, possessions, and cursed dolls, and the stories and recollections they relayed to him to record were truthful and accurate.
What he claims he failed to realize at the time was that the Warrens were actually just “making stuff up.” Surprise! Here is a learned man with advanced degrees in literature, psychology, and mystical theology, but it took him over 40 years to figure out the Warrens were selling damaged goods and were about as Kosher as a Milky Way. Any reasonable person should have been able to see right through most of the Warren’s scams after a little thought and observation, but this man now claims he fell for it hook, line, and sinker, and it took the box office success of a few horror movies (based on his fiction decades later) to give him a wake-up call that said, “Hey, I think I just got screwed by Ed and Lorraine Warren!” Join the club Mr. Brittle, you can be the president.
Whoa, let’s take a step back. For those not in the know, Gerald Brittle is the author of 1980’s “The Demonologist,” and 1983’s notorious, out of print “The Devil in Connecticut,” both which deal with Ed and Lorraine’s courageous fights against Satan and his minions. The latter, “The Devil in Connecticut” also known as “The Brookfield Demon Murder Case,” was the focus of another lawsuit filed against Mr. Brittle and Lorraine Warren in 2007 by Carl and David Glatzel, family members of this “true story of demonic possession” for being re-released without their knowledge or permission, not having obtained their life rights, and believing they were exploited for profit as children by Ed and Lorraine Warren, as well as Mr. Brittle himself. Here, I will let Mr. Brittle explain it in his own words from his website:
Of course I could pick apart the above statements, such as the fact that according to Deborah Johnson, Mr. Brittle never even spoke with the chief protagonist of the story, Arne Johnson, nor the chief of police, the head investigator, the State attorney, the prosecuting attorney, the Judge, the acting Bishop, the priests, the ambulance drivers, and most importantly, Carl Glatzel Jr., who Gerald carefully neglected to mention was there the night of the murder and watched Alan Bono die as he tried to help and comfort him. If you were writing a factual book about the "demon murder case," don't you think the most important person you would need to interview would be the accused murderer? But I digress. Gerald continues to say:“But how true was it, how deep did it go, what really happened inside that home in Brookfield, Connecticut? Millions of people who’d followed the case wanted to know the answer. At the time, as a writer for the William Morris Agency, I was assigned the task of finding that out - and if true - to produce an “impeccably accurate, legally flawless” book on the subject. This I did by going directly into the home, and acquiring specific documentation and eyewitness testimony not just from the family, but from everyone and anyone who was on-the-scene at the time these extraordinary events had occurred. Corroboration and verifiable facts were essential, and such data was abundant at every turn. In the end I was able to compose a nonfiction work in which every sentence was true, justifiable, and able to withstand withering scrutiny from literary lawyers, demanding editors, and a skeptical press that ultimately conceded to its accuracy.”
“Fast forward twenty-five years to 2006 when a Hollywood film company contacted the Morris Agency with a desire to turn the Brookfield case into a movie. Accordingly, the necessary papers were drawn up and signed, an advance was paid, and a complete film script was prepared. Then, suddenly, out of the blue the book became the victim of a complex, premeditated fraud, asserting the book was a ‘hoax’ and that the possession never happened."
According to Mr. Brittle, this is where I came in as the mastermind of this get rich quick scheme:
Again, I’ll spare you explaining the many absurdities I find in these claims, such as the fact that he did not “decide to take the book off the market” to "end a travesty," but he was in fact plainly told by IUniverse they would no longer publish his book due to the lawsuit (Gerald gave an even earlier version of this story in a PR stunt; stating the book was pulled from the shelves by the Catholic Church because it contained “secret information” when in fact, under Gerald’s own admittance in the previous lawsuit, it was pulled due to lack of sales in 1984).“Typical of such cases, false accusations were put forth in a quest for money. In everyday terms it was a get-rich-quick scheme. Bogus claims were posted on the internet, and then through the aid of a crooked law firm, a lawsuit was filed demanding millions upon millions of dollars in damages. All this thirty-five years after the book was published! It was a stupefying lie, totally at variance with the public record, totally at variance with the evidence, totally at variance with the clergy’s ordeals, totally at variance with the travail of the family - but curiously it went forward nonetheless. In the end, though, the case never went to trial: truth was stronger than the lie. Disgusted, however, like anyone else would be, I determined - as the book’s author - to take The Devil In Connecticut off the market and put a permanent end to this travesty. That then is the status of the book: it is no longer actively for sale. An abundant number of copies nevertheless remain available and can be obtained from a variety of internet booksellers or from second-hand bookstores. My apologies to those who are seeking to purchase this book but that is the situation and that is where it stands today.”
I will however call attention to the important fact that Gerald Brittle maintained, and still maintains, that “Every sentence in The "Devil in Connecticut" is true."
But, wait a sec!
Isn’t there a major conflict here? What are we to make of all these new claims that he was a victim of the Warrens himself? That he was sucked into a fantasy world of ghosts and demons and falsely used by the Warrens to exaggerate, use artistic license, and exclude incriminating evidence from their claims for the sake of a scarier story? And who and what are we supposed to believe...
What, you lied then, but are telling the truth now? Or you told what you thought was the truth then, and now you know the truth was untruthful and now you’re telling the truth? Or the untruths you told now are more truthful then…damn, even I’m confused.
Maybe he is most upset by the fact that he, along with Lorraine Warren, agreed to settle out of court for an undisclosed amount in 2011 in the lawsuit filed against them by Carl and David Glatzel. I suppose that would have made an interesting trial. Disclaimer: Settling out of court is not admission of guilt.
But what I still don’t quite understand is how Mr. Brittle stood by Lorraine Warren and defended himself and still insisted that "every sentence in the "Devil in Connecticut is true,” yet at the same time he is now saying everything else he wrote for the Warrens is not based on fact and mostly made up?
The few who know me here know that I have taken a harsh stance against Ed and Lorraine Warren in the past, not because I am a skeptic, atheist, or a “vengeful Warren hater,” but because I feel that conning and exploiting dysfunctional or grieving families with problems other than demons for a pay check is a rather shrewd and disgusting business. This is charlatanism at its worst, because not only does it damage true investigations into the paranormal, but because it permanently damages people and families as well.
Let’s have a look at just a few highlights of this massive 355 page lawsuit, obviously penned by Mr. Brittle himself and signed off by a lawyer.
Lesson? Don’t conflate Warrens with fact. Never.“An “actual case” of the Warrens should never be conflated with fact, historical or otherwise. The evidence presented by Plaintiff herein leaves no doubt as to the Warrens’ total lack of credibility regarding their business dealings as well as their Cases and Case Files."
“The Warrens’ claims of what happened in their investigations (i.e., the content of the Warren Case Files) is directly tied to their credibility, or more appropriately their lack of credibility. The Warrens are the source of the Case Files, if their credibility is compromised so are the Warrens’ Case Files. If the Warrens credibility is compromised, then Defendants cannot claim the case files are “based on historical fact.”
Um, right. The lack of credibility on the Warrens behalf compromises the Warren's case files, which in turn compromises fact. Or something like that.
Really? The Warrens were making it up the whole time, and with all of his research and investigation as an author and journalist, he was “duped?” Kind of hard to believe, no?“Additionally, as detailed below, Plaintiff believed, at the time he wrote The Demonologist that the Warrens were being truthful with him and were giving him the “facts” of the cases he wrote about and that their Case Files themselves were grounded in fact. What is a now clear, only some forty years later, is that the Warrens duped the Plaintiff as they did with other writers in an elaborate decades old scheme they designed to deceive the public and line their own pockets. Plaintiff, like other writers that worked on books with Warrens, was led by Ed and Lorraine to believe they were writing about factual events, when in reality the Warrens were “making it up” the entire time”
He had a few choice words for the Warren’s involvement in Amityville, including a photocopy of a letter to him from Geroge Lutz stating:
Mr. Brittle follows up Amityville with:"If it comes about that you are to give up rights to the movie based on content -be sure that the "lost" material supplied cannot be used - this can't be discussed but can be covered in the content clauses - I,E, if enough material is in Jay's hands - he can produce a sequel without your control or approval., You must be careful here that you do not grant blanket approval to terms such as "Lives of the Warrens, portray, etc.”
“In 1974 Ed and Lorraine Warren were two of a number of researchers and investigators that took part in the “Amityville Horror’ case. When Jay Anson wrote the book about the case (not with the Warrens collaboration or involvement), they watched as the case and book became a worldwide phenomenon and a motion picture generating millions of dollars. None of that money went into the pockets of Ed and Lorraine Warren. However, they saw the financial potential and the absolute need to control the subject of those cases. They understood the “real” money was not made from charging people to rid them of their “demonic” problem. The real money was made from the book and movie rights to a spooky story. The Warrens saw firsthand that it did not matter if the story was real, as the Amityville story was admitted to be a hoax from one of the Lutz’ family lawyers who helped concoct the story. It only had to be scary.”
As for “The Conjuring,”…
What? They’ve been perpetrating a pattern of deceit for years! Holy smokes! Who would have thought?“Lorraine and Ed Warrens claims of what happened in their Perron Farmhouse Case File, which the Defendants freely and publicly admit their The Conjuring movie was based on, does not at all jive with the real historical facts as detailed in the Mehrtens report. This is a pattern of deceit that is part of a scheme that the Warrens have perpetuated for years.”
And “The Conjuring 2?”
You don’t say. Enfield could be a hoax? That famous photo of Janet Hodgson levitating is really her leaping off the bed? You mean to say “The Conjuring 2” isn’t a true story? Good thing I didn’t pay to see it or I would have to demand my money back.“What we do know is that the children in the Enfield case publicly admitted to faking the “voices’’ after the investigation became public, so as far as that tape being “historical fact,” it is not.”
Now we have something truly profound, if not utterly obvious but nonetheless damaging:
“Something as important, “earth shattering” and precedential as a tape evidencing such supernatural occurrences, if in the Warren’s possession, and if it actually ever existed, would be irrefutable evidence that could fully and completely, once and for all validate not only the Warren’s credibility, but show proof of the supernatural, God and the Demonic. Such a tape would have been afforded the premier place in the Warrens’ Occult museum with the rest of the items they have collected from their investigations; if such a tape existed. Such a tape of the Warrens’ would have been kept safe and secure. The Warrens would have made multiple copies of that tape and then given a copy to every television station, newspaper and media outlet in the country. Such a tape could have once and for all silenced all their critics and detractors… if such a tape of the Warrens actually existed. But the Warrens did none of this with the supposed tape they claim to have had. What happened to the purported tape? They “lost it,” not only casting doubt that such a tape ever existed, but casting even more doubt on the Warrens’ claims of what took place in the Snedeker Case, Case File as well as all their claims of what happened in all their other cases - in the process destroying their own credibility.”
Just wow. I’ve been saying the same damn thing, almost verbatim, for years. How can he swear his name to “The Devil in Connecticut” after such an admirable, coherent statement? Doesn’t this mean that his own credibility is destroyed as well?
So what he is essentially saying is that he and other authors made up scary stories because they never had any evidence because the Warrens always lost it. Makes perfect sense. A shame Ed Warren, a self proclaimed “man of science,” refused to share any of his scientific evidence with any his colleagues in the paranormal field. He was also very good at losing "proof" or "giving it to the church for review." There must be a huge "Ed Warren lost and found" section out there somewhere.“In not one of at least the 8,000 cases that the Warrens claim to have investigated over their 50-year career have they been able to secure real and verifiable proof of even one supernatural event to evidence same as a “historical fact.” Not one verifiable piece of evidence was obtained by the Warrens and given over the press, or the public, over the course of their fifty years of their conducting thousands of investigations to evidence and confirm that any of the events in the cases they investigated were actually historical facts. This includes, but is not limited to, the tapes that the Warrens gave to Brittle that they purportedly made while such supernatural phenomenon was “taking place.” Again, the Warrens have no credibility; their cases are not based on fact, historical fact or even the truth. They put out books in the “true story” category yet, without the public’s knowledge, they tell the writer to “make it up” when the facts don’t add up. They repeatedly cannot deliver the evidence in cases despite their claims to possess such evidence (but when pressed they alternatively fall back on claims that they have lost the evidence).”
Say what? But what about “The Devil in Connecticut?” What is he trying to say? Is he dodging something? The only real mention of “The Devil in Connecticut” was:“Neither the Warrens nor their cases hold any credibility. Their cases are certainly not based on facts, historical or otherwise.”
Convinced them? But so did Mr. Brittle! Did he not read his own book? In addition he states:“Ed and Lorraine Warren heard about the case, and convinced Johnson and his family that he was innocent because he was demonically possessed and not responsible”
“The Warren’s charade?” How could Mr. Brittle not see through this same charade back in 1983 when he released his book?“The Johnson case puts a punctuation mark on the Warrens pattern of attempting to pass off what is contained in their Case Files as “proof,” “evidence” and “historical facts.” Judge Callahan readily saw through the Warren’s charade they tried to employ in his courtroom as noted above.”
We then move on to chapter about the Warren’s tactics, or more accurately titled by Mr. Brittle as:
“THE PATTERN OF THE WARREN’S SCAM EMERGES:"
“Only now, decades after the Prentice Hall Deal was executed, does the pattern of the Warrens’ deceit emerge. [sic] The Warrens deceived the Plaintiff by representing to him when he wrote the book, that their files were factual source material. In reality The Demonologist is actually based on fictions created by the Warrens rather than fact, let alone historical facts.”
So “The Demonologist” is fiction. And Mr. Brittle wrote it and is the sole author of it. Got it. But that’s not enough, Mr. Brittle hammers it home and just to make sure it’s crystal clear and he means business, he drops a few bombs on his ex-partners:
“In short, the Warrens have no credibility whatsoever. They have lied and deceived business partners, their collaborators, the subjects of their investigations and the public at large. The “facts” they claim as being “real” and “true” regarding their Case File and Cases are now evidenced to be no more than fabrications, an elaborate sales pitch designed to deceive the public. Why would they do this to their own business partners and the public? The answer is simple. Money.”
I think I was just plagiarized. Yes, haven't we heard that money was the root of all evil? Isn't he proving it...literally?
Mr. Brittle then goes on to trash Tony Spera (the inheritor and Godfather of the Warren industry), praise author Ray Garton (a previous whistle-blower on the Warrens who reluctantly penned their book, "In a Dark Place," which ultimately transformed into "The Haunting in Connecticut" movie), continues to compare his book versus movie script, give numerous examples of how the Warrens supposedly swindled scores of others, states they actually have no official affiliation with the Catholic church, and so on and so on…but then he really gets to the dirt on Ed and Lorraine in this major spoiler. As a coup de grace, he spills:
Now why on earth would he mention that? And why would such a clause be put in place? Extramarital affair? Please go on...“What is also not factual, and maybe the biggest fabrication of all, is the Warren family dynamic regurgitated repeatedly by Lorraine and Ed Warren for nearly fifty years and Case depicted in Defendants’ movies - that of Ed and Lorraine Warren as being a loving husband and wife and devoted parents. It is most curious that in the Warren 2011 OQA Agreement there is a clause which states the studio cannot show the Warrens as engaging in any “extramarital affair.”
So Mr. Brittle is really going for the jugular here with this info, clearly stating that the whispers heard about the Warrens over the years only pretending to be loving husband and wife solely for the sake of business, and the entire dynamic of the family, is a scam, and that Mrs. Judy Penny was actually...well, I don't know. You figure it out. Hey, Gerald said it, not me.“Plaintiff plans to have Ms. Judy Penny testify as to the absolute charade of this family dynamic as told by the Warrens, and as depicted as “fact” in all of the Defendant’s movies. The true family dynamic was known at the highest executive levels of both New Line and Time Warner. These executives of the studio Defendants chose to willfully and knowingly ignore the truth in order to protect their billion-dollar franchise rather. Ms. Penny is not only the witness to the bulk of the publishing agreements discussed and exhibited herein, for years she actually lived in the Warrens’ house and has an intimate knowledge of, and is readily able to testify to the epic falsity of this aforementioned family dynamic. A family dynamic that was knowingly, fraudulently and to this day still perpetuated by the Warrens, their daughter, son-in-law and the studio Defendants herein on the public at large – all to make, and protect a billion dollar franchise – at all costs, including the truth.”
More than suspect? Agreed. Perhaps he should have become a bit suspicious when Lorraine described her heart warming psychic conversation with a wounded Bigfoot in the deep woods of Tennessee in their 1989 book “Ghost Hunters.” That would have tipped me off that something wasn’t quite right with this couple. When they started exorcising cabbage patch dolls, known pedophiles and werewolves, Mr. Brittle should have seen the sea of waving red flags. Many of us did. He for whatever reason, did not. Let me ask, do you see any red flags below?“There is no proof that paranormal or demonic activity, no historical proof, or proof of any kind that preternatural activity occurred in any of the Warren Cases. In retrospect, given the facts delineated herein relating to the Warrens lack of credibility, only discovered years after the book was written as discussed above, it means that, especially without any evidence to support their claims, any retelling of events by the Warrens of what happened in these investigations is more than suspect.”
So what do I think about all this? Mr. Brittle had similar unflattering words to say about me in familiar prose during the the Glatzel case:
So naturally, I am a bit biased. If you're interested you can find my reply to Mr. Brittle's accusations in an earlier post on this forum: http://www.amityvillefaq.com/truthboard ... f=1&t=7672
There is so much irony on so many levels. Only five years after being sued and staunchly defending his book “The Devil in Connecticut” as being truthfully accurate in every way, he is suing Lorraine Warren (again) for being a fraud and saying everything they have ever written, including his own works, are “made up works of fiction.” I don’t believe Gerald Brittle is a victim or a martyr. I don’t know what type of conspiratorial world he lives in or what he actually believes. I guess I can’t blame the guy for being pissed off to a certain degree, but I don't believe he owns Enfield, or the Borley Rectory nun, or any of the other cases that I've been reading about since I was a child that have somehow become official contents of "The Warren Files." If parapsychologist and author Harry Price were alive today, he just might be suing Mr. Brittle. In the end, remember with whom Gerald Brittle chose to deal with. The general rule is when you deal with crooks, you should expect at some point to be cheated.
And a billion dollars? Really? ONE BILLON DOLLARS?
I’m not a lawyer nor a paranormal investigator, and I really have nothing personal against Mr. Brittle or Lorraine Warren, but I find the double standard to be quite curious; after being sued for what Mr. Brittle called a fraud and a scheme to make money, he is suing in what he calls a fraud and a scheme to make money.
A major difference in the cases is that David and Carl Glatzel Jr. sued Gerald Brittle and Lorraine Warren because they did not have their permission to re-release the book that they believed libeled them, cost them jobs, friends, and the right to a normal childhood. Gerald appears to be doing the same thing, except he was never exploited as a child for profit to my knowledge, but instead only now as a grown adult who is responsible for his own choices, actions, and consequences. Carl and David did not, and do not, hate Gerald Brittle, nor the Warrens; it was a simple matter of principle when it came to life rights, permission, decency, requested privacy and honesty. Mr. Brittle’s 180 degree turnaround and tactics almost appear one step short of blackmail in my opinion.
You know what they say about Karma. I hope there is something to be learned here for all, regardless of your beliefs. Good luck with your billion dollar lawsuit Mr. Brittle, and folks, get your buttered popcorn and your favorite beverage ready and get ready to enjoy the spectacle to come. I’m also pretty sure you can still count on “The Conjuring 3” coming to a theater near you sometime in the future, probably with a few lawsuits attached to it…but hey, it’s all fun and games until you make a buck ruining someone’s life.
Thanks for reading.