Page 2 of 3

Re: William Webber's Hoax Stuff

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:04 am
by # 13
TIA wrote:
::sigh:: I wish we could hear those tapes. I think it would clear up a lot.
Thanks for the video TIA

And like the 1/4 moon windows, the squirrel and the High Hopes sign, those tapes are not the kind of thing you throw away.

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:14 am
by Dan the Damned
Especially the tapes, as they are the key to the biggest investigation case Weber has ever been involved in. And now with both Kathy & George dead, Weber might even be able to publish the tapes if he so wanted (I'm guessing).

So yeah -- those are something you don't misplace. They are gold.

Re: William Webber's Hoax Stuff

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:21 am
by # 13
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!
Now that I have read this post it does occur to me that Weber, in recent interviews, has used the phrase "I don't recall..." a couple of times in reference to questions about the interviews with the Lutzs. It might not mean anything but who knows. Just my thoughts :idea:

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:25 am
by # 13
Dan the Damned wrote:Especially the tapes, as they are the key to the biggest investigation case Weber has ever been involved in. And now with both Kathy & George dead, Weber might even be able to publish the tapes if he so wanted (I'm guessing).

So yeah -- those are something you don't misplace. They are gold.
Good point Dan, he could end the whole debate and say "Here ya go, proof we got totaly smashed and made the whole thing up" That is of course, if they are in his possession. But who else would have them is my question.

Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:28 pm
by Stewie
I really don't like how William Weber comes off, he seems pretty sleazy to me and not very believable, in contrast the Lutz's seem to be far more believable.

Just watched that 'History's Mysteries' show last night on History Channel about Amityville (show from 2000). Weber's just mad because the Lutz's rejected him and didn't want to go along with his hyper-exaggerated book plans, and how he wanted to cut Ronnie DeFeo in the deal for some reason.

Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:02 am
by Salem
Ok, can I get this straight? There were taped discussions amongst the Lutzes about their experiences, and there was also a tape of the discussion the Lutzes had with Weber? I didn't know that. The only tapes I've heard about are those the Lutzes made as a family, I didn't know that the meeting they had with Weber with the so-called bottles of wine was also taped. If the Weber conversation was taped, and Weber had the tape (which as a lawyer, why wouldn't he have at least a copy of that tape that contains discussions on a major 'commercial venture'?) then if the tape backed him up, as others on here have said, you'd think he'd release the tape.

Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:41 am
by sherbetbizarre
Yep, two seperate sets of tapes :)

Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 9:40 am
by Dan the Damned
I was led to believe that the Lutzes made tapes as a family, but its now my understanding that it was just George & Kathy together (not the kids). And this would make sense as George once told me that there was some frank language used -- I don't think they'd do that on purpose in front of the kids.

So on the FAQ website it might say "tapes made as a family." That's something I need to edit.

I think Weber's current claim is that he lost his copy of the tapes made between him and the Lutzes. I don't believe that. In his 1979 interview he says that George had possession of those tapes, but due to a court order (or something) George had recently given them back to Weber.

So as late as 1979 Weber had them. And that was when the popularity of the Amityville Horror was at its apex. And here Weber was with perhaps the only known smoking gun that could bring the whole house of cards tumbling down.

Yeah, I don't see how he would misplace something that important -- or fail to write a tell-all book, using those tapes as evidence. I mean its possible, but doesn't seem likely.

Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:49 pm
by TimYancey
well.... if you just watched the book on the best sellers list for a billion years.... wouldnt you want a piece of it? So... if you could SAY that you help create the story... you would be eligible for a portion of the profits. motive.

Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2008 6:22 pm
by sherbetbizarre
He made the story public...

But never "created" any of it.

Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:37 am
by Dan the Damned
TimYancey wrote:well.... if you just watched the book on the best sellers list for a billion years.... wouldnt you want a piece of it? So... if you could SAY that you help create the story... you would be eligible for a portion of the profits. motive.
Exactly. And Weber points at that, himself, when asked by Joel Martin why he waited until years later to sue. Weber stated that they didn't have money back then, so the suit would be an empty judgement.

So Weber admits to being more concerned with monetary compensation than in winning his point in court. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it does paint Weber a certain way, doesn't it?

Another thing is that Weber only brought the case AFTER the Lutzes filed that lawsuit against him and Hoffman (for the "Good Housekeeping" article). Weber's case was really a counter-claim.

And George says he was pushed to bring that initial lawsuit against Weber/Hoffman by Prentice-Hall, who were angered by the two Hoffman articles and wanted them stopped.

So would Weber have brought that lawsuit against the Lutzes if he wasn't dragged into court first? Was Weber's lawsuit... retaliation?

Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 9:33 pm
by JODY FRIEND
hi again...... i am not happy :cry:

Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2008 11:10 am
by Dan the Damned
Are you Doc? Or Sneezy?

Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2008 1:59 pm
by Chichibcc
JODY FRIEND wrote:hi again...... i am not happy :cry:
Why not?

Re: William Webber's Hoax Stuff

Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:13 am
by sherbetbizarre
Not to fear - Shattered Hopes will have this covered too -
SHATTERED HOPES: THE TRUE STORY OF THE AMITYVILLE MURDERS wrote:Yes...but I still believe Weber because when you match the crime scene pics to the assertions made in the transcript of that interview, it's plain as day to see the genesis of the Lutzes ridiculous claims.
:think:

Re: William Webber's Hoax Stuff

Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 12:27 pm
by VampireKen
I always realized Webber said the Lutzes came to him asking for information after experiencing phenomena in the house (therefore he didnt create the story). However I never realized he changed his story over the years.....little bit of a hypocrite?

Re: William Weber's Hoax Stuff

Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 1:38 pm
by Christopher Lutz
Very interesting points made in this thread. !

Max or Dan or Sherb,
can you guys hook me up with any additional transcripts.?

also, does anyone have contact info for Joel Martin?

out of respect for Joels' privacy, please send that info via message.

Thanks in advance
Christopher

Re: William Weber's Hoax Stuff

Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 12:00 am
by Shawn
Hi Chris! How r things?

Re: William Webber's Hoax Stuff

Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 10:52 am
by Brooke Forrester
VampireKen wrote:I always realized Webber said the Lutzes came to him asking for information after experiencing phenomena in the house (therefore he didnt create the story). However I never realized he changed his story over the years.....little bit of a hypocrite?
That's the sad thing about all this, it's hard to know what really happened because everything seems to be changed now and then and just so many things that are said somewhat make sense, and then don't make sense. It's very confusing!

But one thing I noticed is that people accuse the Lutzes and Anson of changing the date of the move-in in the book. Re-reading that part, I don't think that's what happened.

The part where it says they moved in on December 23, that was I believe being quoted from a television news segment. Later in that chapter, Anson says that George was getting concerned that facts were being distorted, and that what we read as followed after that is the real story.

So I don't think Anson or George had the dates mixed up, but the television segment did, and that was just part of the things that were getting mixed up and confused.

Re: William Weber's Hoax Stuff

Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 5:58 pm
by Brendan72
I'm curious as to why Weber has never released the tapes, even with George and Kathy now passed away - if their being alive was one reason for him not releasing them, for fear of legal repercussions? I think another reason he would not release such tapes to the public could possibly be that there is something on them that would incriminate him, make him look less than credible?

Re: William Weber's Hoax Stuff

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:55 pm
by kelkel
I've read a lot about this case and I've heard Defeo talk about the murders and I listened to George Lutz and Kathy speak.
I had heard all the controversies surrounding what Weber had said happened and how they made it all up while drinking wine. I really like the Warrens and wanted to believe what they had to say about the house. Something seemed off to me though, I felt the truth was somewhere in the middle.

Then one day I saw a documentary with Daniel Lutz, the son, and everything made sense to me at that point. He basically said that his step dad George Lutz dabbled in the occult the entire time they were in that house. I know for a fact that when you dabble in the occult doors can be opened and taking into account the evil that had happened there, the murders, well I think George was the spark that lit the fire. There was an undercurrent of evil and he opened a door and then things started happening there. Daniel said George had a lot of occult books and would chant and do things to conjure up spirits, that's a good recipe to call up demons. Daniel did see things, an apparition that came at him and disappeared and other things, the documentary is called My Amityville Horror.

He said that George was a showman and they exaggerated everything in the book which I believe. I think some things did happen in that house because of the step dad but I also believe they made things up for the book so it would sell. I think after what happened they saw an opportunity to make money but that does not mean nothing happened in that house. I am keeping an open mind about it because I have seen the demonic and so I do know it exists and I do know if you try to conjure things up a lot of times things happen and so when I heard what George did right then I knew. They both died very young too...