There is NO proof of a haunting

General Discussion About Anything Amityville And Other Paranormal Topics
jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 635

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by jimmysmokes » Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:15 am

Upon reading this, I'm more confused? George never entered the house again, reportedly, so I think he had already made his mind up then they weren't going back. And the other post (interview) he stated that they left all their stuff there, but obviously they didn't. At some point certain things were picked up by whoever he sent to fetch them? I did read somewhere in an article it was the next day but I don't know. What's interesting is that when these people did go into the house, nothing happened or was reported.

"They didn't flee in terror"? Well, what happened? What caused them to leave right then? I'm guessing that the hooded figure at the top of the stairs didn't happen when they left? We're they fearing for their lives? Just decided it was getting to be too much?

This has always been the problem for me. I still don't know what actually happened to them? Certain details always change or are omitted or exaggerated. Too many holes for me.

User avatar
Amit Y Ville
Streaming on Twitch from the red room
Posts: 601

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by Amit Y Ville » Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:04 am

:wall:
Amityville fan since 1995, believer of the case, often imitated but never replicated

User avatar
TC1
**ACCOUNT BANNED**
Posts: 57
Contact:

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by TC1 » Fri Mar 15, 2019 12:06 pm

haha! 300th view!
Instead of just ignoring this board, I have asked to be banned, because I am mental...

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11567

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by Dan the Damned » Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:24 am

George never entered the house again, reportedly, so I think he had already made his mind up then they weren't going back.
I think it was more like he didn't want to return until the house was "fixed." But as time went on, it wasn't getting fixed, and at some point they just decided to get rid of it.
And the other post (interview) he stated that they left all their stuff there, but obviously they didn't. At some point certain things were picked up by whoever he sent to fetch them?
Yes, a few things were recovered, plus the items they took with them when they first left for Kathy's Mom's house. So technically, no, they didn't leave everything behind. But they did leave behind their cars, motorcycles, boats, toys, family photos, clothes, books, records, furniture, TVs, radios, etc.
"They didn't flee in terror"? Well, what happened? What caused them to leave right then? I'm guessing that the hooded figure at the top of the stairs didn't happen when they left? We're they fearing for their lives? Just decided it was getting to be too much?
The night before they left was the worst night. George rarely talked about it, but I believe he mentions some of it in those interviews. So yes, they were kinda freaking out, and they were trying to reach Father Ray.

When they finally got hold of Father Ray, he suggested that they leave and go stay with a relative while they figured out what to do next. George said his head was so messed-up (my terminology, not his) that the simple act of leaving and spending the night somewhere else just didn't even occur to him.

So they left the house at the suggestion of Father Ray. I mentioned that in my last post.
This has always been the problem for me. I still don't know what actually happened to them? Certain details always change or are omitted or exaggerated. Too many holes for me.
Click on the "Interview Transcripts" link at the very, very bottom of this page (at the bottom of every page on this forum). That will help a lot with weeding out a lot of the fiction from what George Lutz claimed actually happened.

The trouble with newspaper articles and TV reports is that a story about a haunted house is never going to be taken seriously by reporters. It is a fluff piece -- a human interest story. And just as Jay Anson did, a lot of reporters don't really give a crap about accuracy when it comes to human interest stories. People get misquoted, facts get twisted, and that leaves you with a bunch of discrepancies. And that's the problem with Kaplan's book. He was noting discrepancies in the various newspaper stories, and attributing those discrepancies directly against the Lutzes instead of the reporters.

Kaplan even got misquoted, himself, which should have clued him in on what was happening.

The interviews are different. When the Lutzes are shown on film speaking, or when their voices are recorded, you know that the words are coming from them (not translated from a reporter's quickly-scribbled notes).

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 635

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by jimmysmokes » Sat Mar 16, 2019 8:37 am

Yeah, I'll take a look at that. And I agree, people can get misquoted!

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 635

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by jimmysmokes » Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:03 pm

Dan, I have a few questions for you.

First off, what is your take of that "ghostie boy" pic? Who or what is it?

And you stated earlier in a post, you said you thought the Lutzes were figuring on maybe returning to the house after they got it cleaned but were unable to get it "cleaned"? George and Kathy said in an interview I just watched that when they left (the last night they were there) that they couldn't live there anymore and would not return. "They" couldn't eradicate what was there. They did have it "investigated" just to get an opinion what the people investigating might come up with? The people that conducted this did not have the intent to "cleanse" the house and nothing like that ever materialized while the Lutzes owned the house.

So they had no intention of returning to the house nor getting it cleaned.

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11567

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by Dan the Damned » Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:08 am

I think the figure in the "ghostie boy photo" is merely that of one of the investigators. Specifically, Paul Bartz (who was helping the Warrens that night).

Here's what I think happened. After that night, and after the photos were developed, I think the Warrens poured over them, looking for something "paranormal." And I think they found nothing. I think they saw the one photo of Paul Bartz and recognized it for what it was. "Oh there's Paul, ha ha ha," I can almost hear them saying.

Years later, when George Lutz' secretary (or whatever you want to call her) was editing George's "Amityville Photo Book" and came across the photo, apparently she came across this photo, saw Paul's boyish-looking face, and mistook him for a small boy (since he was sitting or kneeling in the doorway). You know the rest of that story.

So then George calls the Warrens and alerts them to this photo. And that's where I think the Warrens were dishonest. Instead of setting George straight and telling him that this was simply an accidental photo of their assistant, they played into George's mistaken belief that this was a photo of a ghost. I believe the Warrens did that to further their own agenda.

That's how I view the ghostie boy photo. I believe George honestly thought it was a photo of a ghost, and I believe the Warrens dishonestly let him keep on thinking that.

As we all know, there are a lot of negative allegations against the Warrens. I don't know much about those allegations other to know that they exist.

Could George have been culpable as well? I can't say for sure. Anything is possible. But if the Warrens and the Lutzes were both involved in pretending this photo was of a ghost, then why wouldn't they just go ahead and fake a photo from the very start? This is an accidental photo of an investigator -- and there are others. This is not a staged photo. This is not a photo of someone pretending to be a ghost. Given that, I think this shows that at least one of the parties involved was genuine in their attempt to uncover something paranormal. And I think it makes more sense that the party would be the Lutzes.

If I lived through what the Lutzes claimed they did, I think I would have some form of PTSD (and if you watched the film "My Amityville Horror," I think its evident that Daniel Lutz suffers from that). And I think, given your mindset (of having lived through the horror), you would be susceptible to the idea of this photo possibly being a ghost (among other things). "Oh my God, do we have proof?!? Dammit! We have proof that we were telling the truth all along!!!"

That sort of thing. A combination of wishful thinking and being susceptible to the idea due to your past experiences.

Ummm, this took me longer to write out than I expected. Didn't think I'd write this much, and it's getting late. I'll answer your other questions later, though I have a tax appointment on Tuesday that I also need to prepare for... Might be a while (or might be tomorrow)...

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9585
Contact:

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by sherbetbizarre » Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:58 am

jimmysmokes wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:03 pm
So they had no intention of returning to the house nor getting it cleaned.
The Warrens claimed they could cleanse the house, but this would involve a team of priests who would be "putting their lives at risk" during an "exorcism". Ultimately George declined, saying no house was worth risking anyone's life for.

Note: The Warrens did involve these priests at the climax of The Devil In Connecticut case a few years later. Successfully too, according to their book.

Also, the Ghostie Boy photo - George showed it to Missy, who said "that's the little boy who appeared in my room". So this is why George thought it was genuine.

Personally I feel it could still be Bartz, crouching at a similar height to Missy's "friend" in her doorway...

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 635

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by jimmysmokes » Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:34 pm

Dan the Damned wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:08 am
I think the figure in the "ghostie boy photo" is merely that of one of the investigators. Specifically, Paul Bartz (who was helping the Warrens that night).

Here's what I think happened. After that night, and after the photos were developed, I think the Warrens poured over them, looking for something "paranormal." And I think they found nothing. I think they saw the one photo of Paul Bartz and recognized it for what it was. "Oh there's Paul, ha ha ha," I can almost hear them saying.

Years later, when George Lutz' secretary (or whatever you want to call her) was editing George's "Amityville Photo Book" and came across the photo, apparently she came across this photo, saw Paul's boyish-looking face, and mistook him for a small boy (since he was sitting or kneeling in the doorway). You know the rest of that story.

So then George calls the Warrens and alerts them to this photo. And that's where I think the Warrens were dishonest. Instead of setting George straight and telling him that this was simply an accidental photo of their assistant, they played into George's mistaken belief that this was a photo of a ghost. I believe the Warrens did that to further their own agenda.

That's how I view the ghostie boy photo. I believe George honestly thought it was a photo of a ghost, and I believe the Warrens dishonestly let him keep on thinking that.

As we all know, there are a lot of negative allegations against the Warrens. I don't know much about those allegations other to know that they exist.

Could George have been culpable as well? I can't say for sure. Anything is possible. But if the Warrens and the Lutzes were both involved in pretending this photo was of a ghost, then why wouldn't they just go ahead and fake a photo from the very start? This is an accidental photo of an investigator -- and there are others. This is not a staged photo. This is not a photo of someone pretending to be a ghost. Given that, I think this shows that at least one of the parties involved was genuine in their attempt to uncover something paranormal. And I think it makes more sense that the party would be the Lutzes.

If I lived through what the Lutzes claimed they did, I think I would have some form of PTSD (and if you watched the film "My Amityville Horror," I think its evident that Daniel Lutz suffers from that). And I think, given your mindset (of having lived through the horror), you would be susceptible to the idea of this photo possibly being a ghost (among other things). "Oh my God, do we have proof?!? Dammit! We have proof that we were telling the truth all along!!!"

That sort of thing. A combination of wishful thinking and being susceptible to the idea due to your past experiences.

Ummm, this took me longer to write out than I expected. Didn't think I'd write this much, and it's getting late. I'll answer your other questions later, though I have a tax appointment on Tuesday that I also need to prepare for... Might be a while (or might be tomorrow)...
Yeah, I tend to agree with you on the photo being Paul Bartz. Interesting theory as to the Warrens? But I was listening to George on an interview last night and he did state that the Ghostie boy was indeed and an entity!?

Or Dan was "acting" in the flick (My Amityville Horror)? And The Lutzes could've taken some pic of certain "activity". The flies or "gelatin". The door being blown off.

I understand. Reason why I was able to respond a lot this past week, was on vacation. So no problem and plus I was watching George & Kathy interviews on youtube, some I had seen (refreshing memory) and one I hadn't heard but was audio. Still haven't finished it yet.

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 635

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by jimmysmokes » Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:48 pm

sherbetbizarre wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:58 am
jimmysmokes wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:03 pm
So they had no intention of returning to the house nor getting it cleaned.
The Warrens claimed they could cleanse the house, but this would involve a team of priests who would be "putting their lives at risk" during an "exorcism". Ultimately George declined, saying no house was worth risking anyone's life for.

Note: The Warrens did involve these priests at the climax of The Devil In Connecticut case a few years later. Successfully too, according to their book.

Also, the Ghostie Boy photo - George showed it to Missy, who said "that's the little boy who appeared in my room". So this is why George thought it was genuine.

Personally I feel it could still be Bartz, crouching at a similar height to Missy's "friend" in her doorway...
Wouldn't he have been putting people's lives at risk having them investigate? Or the friends (movers) on whatever day they came to move out certain items? And accordingly to the Lutzes story, they had to leave because they thought their lives were in danger. That means the demons were there manifest in some form forcing them out. But you will admit that not much happened during the investigation and nothing was reported by the movers as well.

p.s. last night while re-watching the histories mysteries show, George claimed that the movie was fiction but the book was their story. he never mentioned the book contained fiction in this interview.

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9585
Contact:

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by sherbetbizarre » Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:12 pm

jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:48 pm
Wouldn't he have been putting people's lives at risk having them investigate?
No, the "exorcism" would have involved invoking the demons to banish them - so more than just an investigation.
Or the friends (movers) on whatever day they came to move out certain items?
Again, their lives wouldn't be at risk-- however one of them, Benny Montana, was murdered on the instruction of his girlfriend a few weeks later - she waited outside 112, and later "wandered into the garage" - but had planned the murder before that night anyway. See viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5331

User avatar
devilbustedinct
Walking the Burning Fence
Posts: 703
Contact:

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by devilbustedinct » Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:23 pm

This has been a freakin great read. Worst of all I can’t eat popcorn anymore.

User avatar
Amit Y Ville
Streaming on Twitch from the red room
Posts: 601

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by Amit Y Ville » Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:29 pm

devilbustedinct wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:23 pm
This has been a freakin great read. Worst of all I can’t eat popcorn anymore.
Watching Dan talk to himself? I don't see nobody else here. :think:
Amityville fan since 1995, believer of the case, often imitated but never replicated

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 635

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by jimmysmokes » Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:28 pm

sherbetbizarre wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:12 pm
jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:48 pm
Wouldn't he have been putting people's lives at risk having them investigate?
No, the "exorcism" would have involved invoking the demons to banish them - so more than just an investigation.
Or the friends (movers) on whatever day they came to move out certain items?
Again, their lives wouldn't be at risk-- however one of them, Benny Montana, was murdered on the instruction of his girlfriend a few weeks later - she waited outside 112, and later "wandered into the garage" - but had planned the murder before that night anyway. See viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5331
If none of these persons lives would have been at risk for simply being there, then I don't see why the Lutzes had to move out! I'm referring to what was claimed was already there. The demons were already "active", right?

In order to "banish" them, they would already have been present as claimed. And George made it clear he wasn't going back in there? Without this exorcism, what was he afraid of? Did George and Kathy have to "invoke" demons for them to simply haunt the house? No way! You seem to be saying that no activity would no longer occur unless there was an exorcism performed? Remember, they claimed they could no longer stay there because they were afraid for their lives, didn't want to take any more chances. But no one would've been at risk going inside the house? Uh, ok?

Was the girlfriend possessed by the forces at the home as to the killing? I'm guessing this is what you're leading to?

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9585
Contact:

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by sherbetbizarre » Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:27 pm

jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:28 pm
Remember, they claimed they could no longer stay there because they were afraid for their lives, didn't want to take any more chances. But no one would've been at risk going inside the house? Uh, ok?
I don't think they were afraid of getting physically attacked by actual monsters. More a psychological thing that got worse the longer they stayed - "we were having thoughts that were not our own" George would say.
Was the girlfriend possessed by the forces at the home as to the killing? I'm guessing this is what you're leading to?
Not really, cos as I mentioned it came out in the trail she had been planning to murder him before that night at 112 anyway.

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11567

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by Dan the Damned » Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:47 pm

jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:34 pm
The Lutzes could've taken some pic of certain "activity". The flies or "gelatin". The door being blown off.
Yes, that sounds reasonable from our standpoint, today. Looking at the Lutzes story as a whole. But the Lutzes lived this thing out in real time. It wasn't a book or a movie to them. It lasted for an entire month.

Things like the flies and the gelatin were odd. And they were dealt with in that fashion. They didn't automatically think, "Oh, our house must be haunted" when they discovered the flies. No. They looked for rational explanations behind these things. Why would you take a picture of gelatin drops on the carpets, or dead flies on the windowsills? Especially when facebook hadn't yet been invented.

At some point, things got freakier and freakier. You still try to think of rational explanations for the more bizarre events, but now they couldn't be so easily explained away.

I don't think it was until the family started to actually fear for their lives that they felt "this can't be anything other than a haunting." And by this point, their main concern is for their safety, not taking the time to document the haunting.

Also, why would they feel the need to have photographic proof of the haunting? Sure, it would be nice to have later, when people started calling them liars; but why would they feel the need to do it prior to the point where they moved-in with Kathy's mom?

The exception to all this is the front door. You'd think the front door would have been photographed -- at least by the police. Again, I've never been totally clear on what the story with the front door was. That's why I never mentioned it in the FAQ, because I just don't know.

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 635

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by jimmysmokes » Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:50 pm

Some claim (such as Rick Moran) they weren't in the house even that long?

Yeah, I'm going to get into the flies and such later on. I've been going over their so called "true" claims. Now we know that the public first learned of the Lutzes experiences in the Anson's book. That same book was later exposed with countless errors (nonsense), I think it was like 116 before we got to the demonic pig? Reason I mention this is because that certainly provides enough skepticism to toss it out as fiction. One need only to own an original copy and read a later printing version also. First time I read the a later printing, it was far from what I had originally read.

But getting back to Anson, why did he feel the need to toss in all that fiction? Well, to sell the book quite honestly. He had to write (spice up) garbage to sell the story because when you consider what the Lutzes claimed were the "true" happenings, you'll find they are actually very few and not interesting much at all. Plus you'll admit now that with all those errors, Anson didn't do much investigating! With only the "true" claims, the book wouldn't have been a novel but more of a pamphlet. "Amityville Pamphlet" - True Haunting! No that won't sell better add to it. Well Done!

But they can be explained by rational explanations or reasons. As you stated the flies & gelatin are odd. But considering that you and I don't consider those two to prove ghosts or haunting, (nor did they at the time) we can really toss those out now.

They would feel the need for photographic proof of some sort I reckon? Considering all that was going on. One of my favorite things in all this is the pic of the book on the occult that was just happened to be left out and a pic snapped before the Lutzes said goodbye! Well, whoever took it? That always gets me. I wonder why this book had to be photographed? I have my own theory on that. :)

Maybe the police were never at the house Dan? And yes, you are correct on not knowing about the door or anything else as to the haunting for that matter. If you are trying to prove it you only have their claims...

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11567

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by Dan the Damned » Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:02 pm

Yes, I'm sure the reason Jay Anson "spiced-up the story" was to make it a better, more interesting story. And the reason he wanted a more interesting story was to make it more palpable to the reader. And the reason for that was to make the book more successful.

There's no secret about that.

In fact, it's a widespread practice in the publishing industry to make up a few wild stories in most non-fiction books, especially biographies, to boost sales. As an example, radio host Robin Quivers talked about this very issue on her radio show, and how she was told about this practice by her publisher at the time she was writing her book "Quivers: A Life," mentioning a couple of the stories which were false in the process.

It's unfortunate, but it does happen. And Jay Anson admitted as much.

Not sure what that has to do with your repeated claim of "Anson not doing much investigating." I'm not sure what sort of investigation you felt he should do. He did interview people who were involved with the Lutzes at the time. Should he have investigated whether the haunting was a hoax or not? Is that the story he was hired to write? Please explain.
jimmysmokes wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:50 pm
But they can be explained by rational explanations or reasons. As you stated the flies & gelatin are odd. But considering that you and I don't consider those two to prove ghosts or haunting, (nor did they at the time) we can really toss those out now.
By "tossing them out now," do you mean we can delete them from the list of strange events that took place during the haunting? I don't see the point of this.

At the time, the Lutzes found such events "very strange," but were not necessarily alarmed by them. However, when they finally got out of the house, after they had a chance to catch their breath at Kathy's mother's house, they looked back at everything that went on in the house and probably wondered "was this related to the haunting, or was that related to the haunting?".

They didn't know for sure, and nobody knows for sure. You and I don't know for sure. Why "toss them out"? Simply because there could be a rational explanation?

Well, think about it this way: even if they could all be explained-away rationally, the odds would be against dozens of weird incidents happening to one family over the course of one month. Looking at it in this manner, I don't think we can dismiss these items so easily.
jimmysmokes wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:50 pm
They would feel the need for photographic proof of some sort I reckon? Considering all that was going on.
Proof for what reason? Proof for whom? Who did they need to prove anything to at that time, specifically?

Wouldn't it seem odd if they had taken photos of everything as it was happening? Wouldn't the question then be "why would they bother taking photos unless they were planning to write a book all along?" Or "if they were so frightened, then why did they stop to snap photos?"
jimmysmokes wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:50 pm
One of my favorite things in all this is the pic of the book on the occult that was just happened to be left out and a pic snapped before the Lutzes said goodbye! Well, whoever took it? That always gets me. I wonder why this book had to be photographed? I have my own theory on that.
You saw this photo? From where? Was there no explanation given? Did they not say where it came from? Or are you just hearing stories about such a photo existing without having actually seen it, yourself? What was the name of the occult book in the photo?

I know of a photo which kinda fits your description. Link me to yours and we'll see if it's one and the same. And I know who took the photo that I am thinking of, and when it was taken and why.
jimmysmokes wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:50 pm
Maybe the police were never at the house Dan?
Unsure. Kathy said the door was "checked out by the police" in her interview on The 700 Club.
jimmysmokes wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:50 pm
If you are trying to prove it you only have their claims...
Well, yeah. Of course. Has anyone suggested otherwise? Maybe that's why I'm not trying to prove their story was real, because it can't be done...

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11567

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by Dan the Damned » Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:05 pm

I made a new post for this one, since the answer is quite long...
jimmysmokes wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:50 pm
One need only to own an original copy and read a later printing version also. First time I read the a later printing, it was far from what I had originally read.
Yeah? That's odd. Here's an old post where one of our members (a researcher for the 1999 History's Mysteries documentary) researched this very issue:

SHE [Roxanne Kaplan] THEN WENT ON TO CLAIM THAT THERE WERE "HUNDREDS, HUNDREDS, AND HUNDREDS OF CHANGES MADE FROM THE FIRST EDITION HARDCOVER BOOK, TO THE PAPERBACK." EVEN THOUGH SHE PROVIDED ONE OF THOSE CHANGES, HER ESTIMATION OF HOW MANY OTHERS THERE WERE, WAS A MERE FRACTION OF ONE HUNDRED, MUCH LESS SEVERAL.

BELOW IS AN EXCERPT FROM A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE.
L.I. Magazine. September 17, 1978
"Between the Covers, Some Changes"

In July, 1978, Bantam Books published a paperback edition of "The Amityville Horror." The demand at bookstores was so great that by Aug. 15, Bantam had ordered an eighth printing.
By that date, according to Diane Perlberg, (a publicity representative for Bantam) 2,750,000 copies were printed and "we've been back to press for over a million more."
Complete reversals of fact have been edited into the book since its early hardcover printings. Perlberg said the paperback is a word-for-word duplicate of the 14th printing of the Prentice-Hall hardcover.

THE ABOVE ARTICLE ONLY LISTED 5 CHANGES FROM THE EARLY HARDCOVER EDITION, TO PAPERBACK. SOME YEARS AGO, (AS PART OF MY RESEARCH) I DID A COMPARISON BETWEEN:
1st, 7th & 10th PRINTING HARDCOVER EDITIONS
4th & 85th PRINTING PAPERBACK EDITIONS.
ALTHOUGH THERE DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE ANY CHANGES BETWEEN THE TWO PAPERBACK EDITIONS, THERE WERE SOME CHANGES BETWEEN THE 1st - 7th HARDCOVER EDITIONS. THEY ARE ALL NOTED BELOW.


1
In early hardcover editions, photos of George and Kathy Lutz appear between the Preface and Prologue.
In later hardcover editions, the same photos appear left to the title page.
In the paperback edition, they don't appear at all.

2
The disclaimer appearing after the title page in the first hardcover edition reads:
"The names of several individuals mentioned in this book have been changed to protect their privacy. However, all facts and events, as far as we have been able to verify them, are strictly accurate."
The seventh hardcover printing reads:
"The names of several individuals mentioned in this book have been changed to protect their privacy."
In the paperback edition, the disclaimer reads:
"The names and some identifying details of several individuals mentioned in this book have been changed to protect their privacy."

3
Page 9 of the hardcover is the diagram of the first floor, showing a "window" on the north wall of the dining room.
Page 11 of the paperback calls it out as a "door."

4
Page 10 of the hardcover is the diagram of the second floor, showing the "sewing room" at the northeast corner of the house and "Missy's room" at the northwest corner.
Page 12 of the paperback has the two reversed.

5
Page 11 of the hardcover is the diagram of the third floor, showing the north room as "Danny and Chris's room" and the south room as the "playroom."
Page 13 of the paperback has the two reversed.

6 & 7
Page 17 of the first edition hardcover reads:
"The Lutzes' driveway was so cluttered that he had to park his old tan Ford on the street."
In later hardcover editions, the car is changed to an:
"old blue Vega."
Page 26 of the paperback reverts back to an:
"old tan Ford."
The Father's vehicle is mentioned again on page 19 hardcover and page 26 paperback remaining consistent throughout subsequent printings.
(counts as two changes)

8
Page 45 of the hardcover reads:
"Cammaroto, this is Al. You can call North Merrick back and tell them the people in 112 Ocean Avenue are home. Sergeant Al Gionfriddo of the Amityville Police Department was on duty this Christmas Eve, just as he had been the night of the DeFeo family massacre."
Page 65 of the paperback reads:
"Zammataro, this is Gionfriddo. You can call your friend back and tell them the people in 112 Ocean Avenue are home. Sergeant Al Gionfriddo of the Suffolk County Police Department was doing a job this Christmas Eve, just as he had been the night of the DeFeo family massacre."

9
Page 82 of the hardcover reads:
"There was no logical or scientific explanation for Father Frank Mancuso as he prepared to go to bed. He had just prayed at his own altar in his room, searching and hoping for an answer to the reason his palms were beginning to bleed."
Page 117 of the paperback reads:
"There was no logical or scientific explanation for Father Frank Mancuso as he prepared to go to bed. He had just prayed in his own room, searching and hoping for an answer to the question of why his palms were itching so terribly."

10
Page 85 in the hardcover reads:
"All that morning, Father Mancuso had been looking at his hands. His palms, which had begun to bleed the night before, were now dry, but angry red blisters remained."
Page 123 in the paperback reads:
"All that morning, Father Mancuso had been looking at his hands, which had begun to fester the night before. They were now dry, but angry red blisters remained."

11
Page 111 of the hardcover reads:
"The Pastor turned on Father Mancuso, and their comradeship was irrevocably destroyed."
Page 160 of the paperback reads:
"Father Mancuso turned on the Pastor, and their comradeship was irrevocably destroyed."

12
Page 117 of the hardcover reads:
"Father Mancuso was also watching the new day break from his mothers home in Queens."
Page 168 of the paperback reads:
"Father Mancuso was also watching the new day break from his mothers home in Nassau."


THESE WERE THE ONLY CHANGES THAT I COULD FIND THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE BOOK. NOT QUITE HUNDREDS, BUT MERELY 12. GRANTED, MRS. KAPLAN MAY NOT BE AS KNOWLEDGEABLE AS HER HUSBAND WAS ABOUT CERTAIN DETAILS, BUT THAT DOESN'T EXCUSE THE COMPLETELY FABRICATED CLAIMS SHE HAS MADE.

IF ANYONE ELSE HAS FOUND ANY CHANGES THAT I MAY HAVE MISSED, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ADD THEM TO MY LIST.

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 635

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by jimmysmokes » Wed Mar 20, 2019 3:53 pm

Dan the Damned wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:02 pm
Yes, I'm sure the reason Jay Anson "spiced-up the story" was to make it a better, more interesting story. And the reason he wanted a more interesting story was to make it more palpable to the reader. And the reason for that was to make the book more successful.

There's no secret about that.

In fact, it's a widespread practice in the publishing industry to make up a few wild stories in most non-fiction books, especially biographies, to boost sales. As an example, radio host Robin Quivers talked about this very issue on her radio show, and how she was told about this practice by her publisher at the time she was writing her book "Quivers: A Life," mentioning a couple of the stories which were false in the process.

It's unfortunate, but it does happen. And Jay Anson admitted as much.

Not sure what that has to do with your repeated claim of "Anson not doing much investigating." I'm not sure what sort of investigation you felt he should do. He did interview people who were involved with the Lutzes at the time. Should he have investigated whether the haunting was a hoax or not? Is that the story he was hired to write? Please explain.
jimmysmokes wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:50 pm
But they can be explained by rational explanations or reasons. As you stated the flies & gelatin are odd. But considering that you and I don't consider those two to prove ghosts or haunting, (nor did they at the time) we can really toss those out now.
By "tossing them out now," do you mean we can delete them from the list of strange events that took place during the haunting? I don't see the point of this.

At the time, the Lutzes found such events "very strange," but were not necessarily alarmed by them. However, when they finally got out of the house, after they had a chance to catch their breath at Kathy's mother's house, they looked back at everything that went on in the house and probably wondered "was this related to the haunting, or was that related to the haunting?".

They didn't know for sure, and nobody knows for sure. You and I don't know for sure. Why "toss them out"? Simply because there could be a rational explanation?

Well, think about it this way: even if they could all be explained-away rationally, the odds would be against dozens of weird incidents happening to one family over the course of one month. Looking at it in this manner, I don't think we can dismiss these items so easily.
jimmysmokes wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:50 pm
They would feel the need for photographic proof of some sort I reckon? Considering all that was going on.
Proof for what reason? Proof for whom? Who did they need to prove anything to at that time, specifically?

Wouldn't it seem odd if they had taken photos of everything as it was happening? Wouldn't the question then be "why would they bother taking photos unless they were planning to write a book all along?" Or "if they were so frightened, then why did they stop to snap photos?"
jimmysmokes wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:50 pm
One of my favorite things in all this is the pic of the book on the occult that was just happened to be left out and a pic snapped before the Lutzes said goodbye! Well, whoever took it? That always gets me. I wonder why this book had to be photographed? I have my own theory on that.
You saw this photo? From where? Was there no explanation given? Did they not say where it came from? Or are you just hearing stories about such a photo existing without having actually seen it, yourself? What was the name of the occult book in the photo?

I know of a photo which kinda fits your description. Link me to yours and we'll see if it's one and the same. And I know who took the photo that I am thinking of, and when it was taken and why.
jimmysmokes wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:50 pm
Maybe the police were never at the house Dan?
Unsure. Kathy said the door was "checked out by the police" in her interview on The 700 Club.
jimmysmokes wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:50 pm
If you are trying to prove it you only have their claims...
Well, yeah. Of course. Has anyone suggested otherwise? Maybe that's why I'm not trying to prove their story was real, because it can't be done...
The photo taken of the book is in this forum. I don't remember the thread it was on but DC Fan & Sherbetto and I were discussing it. As I stated I don't know who took it?

Dan, Kathy said in the 700 Club interview that the front door was blown off from the inside and checked out by authorities who couldn't explain it? Now later on George changed this and said it was the screen door. They wouldn't have called anyone to check a screen door. Chris said back in 2011 (I believe) that the incident Kathy mentioned never happened. That is three different Lutzes saying three different things!?

You're right they wouldn't need proof but my thought is they could've taken a photo or two of something just for the record. Plus they felt the need to get "self help" tapes made upon leaving the house to have a record of their experiences, obviously for later purposes (and we know what for). Now Dan you know that they had a series of meeting with Weber and you know what they discussed. Your take on that?

Yes, Anson later on admitted it when fronted about his use of fictionalizing.

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 635

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by jimmysmokes » Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:03 pm

Dan the Damned wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:05 pm
I made a new post for this one, since the answer is quite long...
jimmysmokes wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:50 pm
One need only to own an original copy and read a later printing version also. First time I read the a later printing, it was far from what I had originally read.
Yeah? That's odd. Here's an old post where one of our members (a researcher for the 1999 History's Mysteries documentary) researched this very issue:

SHE [Roxanne Kaplan] THEN WENT ON TO CLAIM THAT THERE WERE "HUNDREDS, HUNDREDS, AND HUNDREDS OF CHANGES MADE FROM THE FIRST EDITION HARDCOVER BOOK, TO THE PAPERBACK." EVEN THOUGH SHE PROVIDED ONE OF THOSE CHANGES, HER ESTIMATION OF HOW MANY OTHERS THERE WERE, WAS A MERE FRACTION OF ONE HUNDRED, MUCH LESS SEVERAL.

BELOW IS AN EXCERPT FROM A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE.
L.I. Magazine. September 17, 1978
"Between the Covers, Some Changes"

In July, 1978, Bantam Books published a paperback edition of "The Amityville Horror." The demand at bookstores was so great that by Aug. 15, Bantam had ordered an eighth printing.
By that date, according to Diane Perlberg, (a publicity representative for Bantam) 2,750,000 copies were printed and "we've been back to press for over a million more."
Complete reversals of fact have been edited into the book since its early hardcover printings. Perlberg said the paperback is a word-for-word duplicate of the 14th printing of the Prentice-Hall hardcover.

THE ABOVE ARTICLE ONLY LISTED 5 CHANGES FROM THE EARLY HARDCOVER EDITION, TO PAPERBACK. SOME YEARS AGO, (AS PART OF MY RESEARCH) I DID A COMPARISON BETWEEN:
1st, 7th & 10th PRINTING HARDCOVER EDITIONS
4th & 85th PRINTING PAPERBACK EDITIONS.
ALTHOUGH THERE DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE ANY CHANGES BETWEEN THE TWO PAPERBACK EDITIONS, THERE WERE SOME CHANGES BETWEEN THE 1st - 7th HARDCOVER EDITIONS. THEY ARE ALL NOTED BELOW.


1
In early hardcover editions, photos of George and Kathy Lutz appear between the Preface and Prologue.
In later hardcover editions, the same photos appear left to the title page.
In the paperback edition, they don't appear at all.

2
The disclaimer appearing after the title page in the first hardcover edition reads:
"The names of several individuals mentioned in this book have been changed to protect their privacy. However, all facts and events, as far as we have been able to verify them, are strictly accurate."
The seventh hardcover printing reads:
"The names of several individuals mentioned in this book have been changed to protect their privacy."
In the paperback edition, the disclaimer reads:
"The names and some identifying details of several individuals mentioned in this book have been changed to protect their privacy."

3
Page 9 of the hardcover is the diagram of the first floor, showing a "window" on the north wall of the dining room.
Page 11 of the paperback calls it out as a "door."

4
Page 10 of the hardcover is the diagram of the second floor, showing the "sewing room" at the northeast corner of the house and "Missy's room" at the northwest corner.
Page 12 of the paperback has the two reversed.

5
Page 11 of the hardcover is the diagram of the third floor, showing the north room as "Danny and Chris's room" and the south room as the "playroom."
Page 13 of the paperback has the two reversed.

6 & 7
Page 17 of the first edition hardcover reads:
"The Lutzes' driveway was so cluttered that he had to park his old tan Ford on the street."
In later hardcover editions, the car is changed to an:
"old blue Vega."
Page 26 of the paperback reverts back to an:
"old tan Ford."
The Father's vehicle is mentioned again on page 19 hardcover and page 26 paperback remaining consistent throughout subsequent printings.
(counts as two changes)

8
Page 45 of the hardcover reads:
"Cammaroto, this is Al. You can call North Merrick back and tell them the people in 112 Ocean Avenue are home. Sergeant Al Gionfriddo of the Amityville Police Department was on duty this Christmas Eve, just as he had been the night of the DeFeo family massacre."
Page 65 of the paperback reads:
"Zammataro, this is Gionfriddo. You can call your friend back and tell them the people in 112 Ocean Avenue are home. Sergeant Al Gionfriddo of the Suffolk County Police Department was doing a job this Christmas Eve, just as he had been the night of the DeFeo family massacre."

9
Page 82 of the hardcover reads:
"There was no logical or scientific explanation for Father Frank Mancuso as he prepared to go to bed. He had just prayed at his own altar in his room, searching and hoping for an answer to the reason his palms were beginning to bleed."
Page 117 of the paperback reads:
"There was no logical or scientific explanation for Father Frank Mancuso as he prepared to go to bed. He had just prayed in his own room, searching and hoping for an answer to the question of why his palms were itching so terribly."

10
Page 85 in the hardcover reads:
"All that morning, Father Mancuso had been looking at his hands. His palms, which had begun to bleed the night before, were now dry, but angry red blisters remained."
Page 123 in the paperback reads:
"All that morning, Father Mancuso had been looking at his hands, which had begun to fester the night before. They were now dry, but angry red blisters remained."

11
Page 111 of the hardcover reads:
"The Pastor turned on Father Mancuso, and their comradeship was irrevocably destroyed."
Page 160 of the paperback reads:
"Father Mancuso turned on the Pastor, and their comradeship was irrevocably destroyed."

12
Page 117 of the hardcover reads:
"Father Mancuso was also watching the new day break from his mothers home in Queens."
Page 168 of the paperback reads:
"Father Mancuso was also watching the new day break from his mothers home in Nassau."


THESE WERE THE ONLY CHANGES THAT I COULD FIND THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE BOOK. NOT QUITE HUNDREDS, BUT MERELY 12. GRANTED, MRS. KAPLAN MAY NOT BE AS KNOWLEDGEABLE AS HER HUSBAND WAS ABOUT CERTAIN DETAILS, BUT THAT DOESN'T EXCUSE THE COMPLETELY FABRICATED CLAIMS SHE HAS MADE.

IF ANYONE ELSE HAS FOUND ANY CHANGES THAT I MAY HAVE MISSED, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ADD THEM TO MY LIST.
Yes, Roxanne said hundreds & hundreds of changes and that is not true! Her husband and his book is more accurate and I'm not posting all the pages concerning these changes. You've read the book. Anson wrote the book based on the tapes George & Kathy gave him. And who were these people whom he interviewed? Can these individuals corroborate their claims? And Kaplan actually discussed this with Anson who responded by saying that he was given a job to do and write a story based on these claims. If you care to read the dialogue exchange between Kaplan & Anson, you'll find it rather amusing.

Post Reply