TIA wrote:[color=violet]In most Amityville documentaries, William Webber turns up at some point to say the haunting was a deliberate hoax
usually his phrase is 'commercial venture.' But everything he says afterwards is carefully worded (possibly for legal reasons).
he says that when the Lutzes told him about green slime he told them that what they probably saw was green fingerprint powder, and when they told him about the flies, he said there were flies on the bodies.
What he's not saying is that they came to him and told him they were going to make up a story about a haunting. In fact, I've never seen him say that is the case
he always seems to be saying, in essense that it was an exaggerated account. Laura Didao (sp?) heard the tapes and said they were discussing making the account more lurid and exorcist like, and that they weren't proud of their tipsy musings.
sherbetbizarre wrote:So this is interesting... in 1979 he's quite happy to say he helped concoct the story (for his lawsuit) but now he's trying to pass all the hype onto the Lutzes!
sherbetbizarre wrote:Not true - George was embarressed they were discussing a book contract so soon after leaving. No-one ever claimed to hear the Lutzes trying to exaggerate their own story.
“Before I even listened to the tape, both Kathy and George Lutz said to me we’re not very proud of this. They were talking about I guess how you could expand on the events, make it more lurid, um, more like the exorcist if you will.”
Good post, don't think we've caught Weber changing this part of his story before
TIA wrote: I went back to the clip to check, because this is the first time I've seen this interview with her and I thought perhaps I'd got it wrong. But it really does seem to be what she is saying:
Laura Didio, c. 5mins 20 seconds in
sherbetbizarre wrote:TIA wrote: I went back to the clip to check, because this is the first time I've seen this interview with her and I thought perhaps I'd got it wrong. But it really does seem to be what she is saying:
Laura Didio, c. 5mins 20 seconds in
Ah yes - think we discussed this when the show first aired...
This COULD be what she means... however, she never mentioned this on previous interviews (when talking about the tapes, and I'm sure George's "not proud" warning was more to do with a possible book)
And there's an edit in the interview, which is obvious when you close your eyes and listen.
So either she means what she says, or its (purposely) bad editing.
I'm sure Weber would be playing the tape to this day if true.
LAURA DIDIO: The Lutzes let me listen to a tape recording that they had made with William Weber and in fact George Lutz, before playing the tape, prefaced his remarks to me and said I’m not particularly proud of this.
LAURA DIDIO: I think when they sobered up [unintelligible] the cold light of day they felt, "hmmm," maybe this didn't feel right to them. But in this tape William Weber already had - he was purporting to say, "Hey, we can get movies, books, film rights." He was already talking about percentages and cutting deals.
"Before I even listened to the tape, both Kathy and George Lutz said to me we’re not very proud of this. They were talking about I guess how you could expand on the events, make it more lurid, um, more like the exorcist if you will."
Dan the Damned wrote: The one thing we do know is that Laura believes the Lutzes were being honest about the haunting, and she heard exactly what was on that tape.
Getting back to Weber -- yeah, he choses his words very carefully. If you're not listening carefully, he makes it seem like the story of the haunting was created out of thin air. But he does admit (in at least one interview) that the Lutzes came to him and honestly told him that their house was haunted.
So it might be infered, but Weber never comes out and says "the Lutzes felt there really was nothing wrong with the house after all"...
sherbetbizarre wrote:Is he making the same mistake Allison's friend did on That's Incredible?
Confusing the entire closet, with the smaller "red room"?
Dan the Damned wrote:And then we come to the real kicker -- the contract for Weber's book project, which has a clause stating that the Lutzes are to take a polygraph test which, if they fail, means they lose all rights and equity in the company (the company formed especially for this book project). That means if they fail the polygraph, the Lutzes don't get any money plus they lose the rights to their story.
And yet, despite this clause, Weber still maintains that he and the Lutzes sat down and made up the whole thing.
That makes no sense. The only reason for having a polygraph clause in the contract was if Weber wasn't sure the Lutzes were telling the truth. If Weber sat down with the Lutzes and they all created the story together, then Weber would know for a fact that it was all fiction, and he would know there would be no way the Lutzes would sign a contract with that polygraph clause in it (for they would surely lose).
DAN THE DAMNED: Hey, Stephen King! I have a business proposal for you.
STEPHEN KING: Okay.
DAN THE DAMNED: I want to write a ghost story with you, and then I want you to claim its true.
STEPHEN KING: Really?
DAN THE DAMNED: Yeah. And then I want you to sign this contract which has a provision in it. The provision states that you will take a polygraph test, which, if you fail -- and we both know you'll fail because we're making-up this story together -- if you fail the polygraph test, then you don't get any money and you lose all rights to the story. Sound good?
STEPHEN KING: Tabitha, call for security...
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], FindFiles [Bot], Google [Bot] and 1 guest