×
Create a new article
Write your page title here:
We currently have 245 articles on The Vault @ The EERIE Files. Type your article name above or click on one of the titles below and start writing!



The Vault @ The EERIE Files
Amityville Horror
TYPEAlleged haunted house case
REGION112 Ocean Avenue, Amityville, New York, USA
FIRST REPORTDecember 1975 – January 1976


STATUSWidely regarded by researchers, journalists, and DeFeo's own attorney as a fabrication

The Amityville Horror refers to a claimed haunting reported by the Lutz family at 112 Ocean Avenue, Amityville, New York, beginning in December 1975 — thirteen months after a real mass murder was committed in the same house. Popularized by author Jay Anson's 1977 book and its 1979 film adaptation, it became one of the most commercially successful haunting narratives of the 20th century. It also remains one of the most thoroughly disputed cases in American paranormal history, with the attorney who represented the convicted killer having publicly stated that key elements of the story were invented.[1][2]

Background: the DeFeo murders

In the early hours of November 13, 1974, twenty-three-year-old Ronald "Butch" DeFeo Jr. shot and killed his parents and four siblings as they slept at 112 Ocean Avenue.[2] DeFeo initially told police the killings were the work of an organized-crime hit squad, but confessed within a day. At trial, his defense — mounted with attorney William Weber — argued that DeFeo had been driven to violence by voices and a malevolent presence in the house, and entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.[3] The jury rejected the insanity defense, and DeFeo was convicted on six counts of second-degree murder in November 1975, receiving six consecutive terms of 25 years to life.[3] He died in prison in 2021.

The Lutz occupancy

In December 1975, George and Kathy Lutz purchased 112 Ocean Avenue at a reduced price of roughly $80,000, aware of the house's history, and moved in with Kathy's three children.[4] According to the family's later account, they experienced a rapid escalation of phenomena over the following weeks: doors and windows opening and slamming on their own, swarms of flies in midwinter, a demonic red-eyed pig-like face glimpsed at a window, green slime oozing from walls and keyholes, and a visiting priest allegedly warned away by a disembodied voice.[5] The family fled after 28 days, in January 1976, leaving behind most of their possessions and never returning to live in the house.

Publication and franchise

The Lutzes took their account to writer Jay Anson, previously known for a short documentary on the making of The Exorcist.[2] Anson's book, The Amityville Horror: A True Story, was published by Prentice-Hall in September 1977, sold more than ten million copies, and was adapted into the 1979 film of the same name, which grossed over $80 million and launched a franchise of more than a dozen sequels, remakes, and spin-offs.[2][6]

The Warrens' involvement

Paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren, founders of the New England Society for Psychic Research, became involved after a local television crew invited them to a filmed séance at the house in March 1976, several weeks after the Lutzes had already left.[7] Other investigators present at the taping reported nothing unusual, and journalist Marvin Scott, who covered the event, later said the crew's chief excitement that night was waiting to eat their sandwiches; Lorraine Warren, by contrast, described sensing overwhelming evil.[7] The Warrens went on to publicly and repeatedly affirm the family's claims of demonic activity for decades afterward, with Lorraine Warren calling it, in a 2013 interview, the case that haunted her most.[8] Their role in the case later inspired the 2016 film The Conjuring 2.

Evidence of fabrication

Weber's admission

Ronald DeFeo's own defense attorney, William Weber, stated in a 1979 People magazine interview that he had helped construct the haunting narrative with the Lutzes "over many bottles of wine," partly to support a possible retrial defense for DeFeo and partly for shared profit from a prospective book deal.[1] Weber described specific plot elements as embellishments of mundane details from his own investigation: a neighbor's cat that used to peer into the DeFeo house at night, he said, became the demonic red-eyed pig; an incident in which DeFeo's father struck his mother while she was holding a plate of red-sauced spaghetti became the green slime bubbling from the walls.[2] "We took real-life incidents and transposed them," Weber said. "In other words, it was a hoax."[2] DeFeo himself later corroborated this account in a handwritten letter, writing that "Amityville was a hoax that Weber and the Lutzes started ... to make money," and that it began while his trial was still in progress.[9]

Weber and the Lutzes fell out over how to divide proceeds from a proposed joint venture, the "Hoffman, Weber, Burton and Mars Corporation," which Weber had structured to control the book rights; the Lutzes instead signed independently with Jay Anson for a larger share of royalties.[10]

The 1979 lawsuit and judicial findings

In May 1977, the Lutzes sued writer Paul Hoffman, William Weber, and two magazines over unauthorized use of their story, seeking $4.5 million for misappropriation, invasion of privacy, and mental distress — before Anson's book had even been published.[11] The defendants countersued for fraud and breach of contract. Presiding over the case in Brooklyn's U.S. District Court, Judge Jack B. Weinstein dismissed the bulk of the Lutzes' suit on September 10, 1979, remarking that "based on what I have heard, it appears to me that to a large extent the book is a work of fiction, relying in a large part upon the suggestions of Mr. Weber."[10] Weinstein additionally raised ethical concerns about Weber's dual role as DeFeo's attorney and a prospective literary agent, stating there was "a very serious ethical question when lawyers become literary agents," and indicated the matter could be referred to the New York State Bar Association.[10]

The priest's affidavit

Father Ralph Pecoraro — fictionalized as "Father Mancuso" in Anson's book — separately sued Prentice-Hall and the Lutzes over the depiction of his involvement. In an affidavit filed during related litigation, he stated that his only contact with the Lutzes regarding the alleged haunting had been by telephone, contradicting the book's account of an in-person exorcism attempt.[12] In 2001, Geraldine DeFeo — Ronald DeFeo's wife — successfully petitioned to unseal further records from the Lutz v. Weber case, which included Pecoraro's sworn denial that the events in the book had occurred; in 2002 the Diocese of Rockville Centre issued a letter likewise maintaining that the described hauntings were false.[11]

Subsequent owners

The family who bought 112 Ocean Avenue after the Lutzes left reported no unusual activity during their long tenancy. James Cromarty, who purchased the house in 1977 and lived there for a decade, was blunt about it: "Nothing weird ever happened, except for people coming by because of the book and the movie."[11] The house's address was later changed and its exterior substantially remodeled specifically to deter sightseers.[3]

Skeptical analysis

Researchers and paranormal skeptics have treated the case as settled for decades. Folklorist and skeptic Joe Nickell has summarized it bluntly: "The bottom line is that ... it was a hoax, or is, simply, at best, a matter that's not proven. And that's not very good for America's most famous haunted house."[4] Investigators Stephen and Roxanne Kaplan, who examined the case independently in the late 1970s, likewise concluded the story had been invented.[13] Discrepancies noted between editions of Anson's book — such as inconsistent descriptions of Father Pecoraro's car, changing between a Ford and a Chevrolet Nova across printings — have also been cited as evidence the narrative was never grounded in a fixed, verifiable set of events.[14]

George Lutz maintained until his death that the core of the story was true and offered no further corroborating evidence beyond his own testimony.[1] Lorraine Warren likewise continued to reject hoax claims publicly for the rest of her life.[13]

Legacy

Despite the substantial documentary evidence pointing to fabrication — Weber's own admission, the presiding judge's finding, the priest's sworn denial, and the uneventful decades-long tenancy of subsequent owners — the Amityville story remains a fixture of American popular culture. It has spawned more than a dozen sequel and remake films, a 2005 remake that itself drew an unsuccessful defamation lawsuit from George Lutz (dismissed on the grounds that the film was protected fictional speech),[3] and continues to be cited, often uncritically, as one of the best-known "true" haunted house cases in the United States.


EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT

★☆☆☆☆

Confirmed murders; alleged haunting assessed as fabricated

SUMMARY
The underlying 1974 mass murder is a matter of public record. The subsequent haunting claims, however, are contradicted by the defense attorney who helped originate them, by the presiding judge in related litigation, by the priest depicted in the account, and by the uneventful decades-long tenancy of later owners.
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
George Lutz maintained the core events were true until his death. Ed and Lorraine Warren publicly affirmed a demonic presence for decades. The book and film present a detailed first-person account from the family.
COUNTER EVIDENCE
Attorney William Weber stated on record that he and the Lutzes constructed the narrative "over many bottles of wine," and described specific plot elements as embellishments of mundane incidents. Judge Jack Weinstein found in a 1979 ruling that the book was "to a large extent...a work of fiction." Father Ralph Pecoraro stated in an affidavit that his contact with the family was limited to a phone call, contradicting the book's account. Subsequent owner James Cromarty reported no unusual activity across ten years of residence. Ronald DeFeo Jr. himself corroborated the fabrication in a written letter.
CONCLUSION
The consensus of court findings, participant admissions, and subsequent occupancy points to fabrication rather than an unresolved paranormal claim. This entry documents the case as a culturally significant example of an alleged haunting for which the fabrication itself is well-evidenced.


See also

References