Conference hydra::dejavu

    Assuming this is a legitimate case, one should make sure it's demons
    and not some unusual form of poltergeist phenomenon (which probably
    would be unconscious psychokinetic).  If it's actually a poltergeist
    or poltergeisten, then other steps are called for.
    
    If demonic in nature, then perhaps a "conventional" exorcism isn't
    strong enough, and an occult specialist ought to be brought in.
     This is not to belittle the faith of the holy fathers; rather,
    it's more like calling in a surgeon for certain medical problems
    instead of relying on a medical practitioner.
    
    From the sounds of it, I'd suggest an advanced Qabballist.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    I say we should all get on a bus and go right down there
    and camp on their lawn.
    
     Hell with all the expert knowledge between us all we should have the
     place cleaned out by suppertime.
    
    We could even have a cookout while we're there.
    Wanna go?
    
    :)

    Re .2:
    
    Please note that the family has four children.  A pubescent child
    is often a focal point for true poltergeist phewnomena; that's why
    I say make sure you know what you're up against: if it is a
    poltergeist, you might hurt the responsible child or children in
    the "cleaning-out" process.
    
    If it's demonic, certain precautions are a great help.
    
    I'm not suggesting people don't try to help out; rather, I'm suggesting
    that people know what they're facing; that takes some knowledge
    and preparation.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

A minor terminological quibble, Steve --

If accurately reported this *is unquestionably* an example of poltergeist
phenomenon -- it may also be due to demons.  Regardless of what is causing
it (generally excluding "normal" causes) we speak of "poltergeists" when
this type of thing occurs.  (The English plural is usually used -- this
term has been "naturalized" into English.)

Except in the extent of the manifestations and the public reaction this
sounds like a fairly typical poltergeist account.  If we compare it to other
newspaper accounts of poltergeist incidents (generally exaggerated) it's
pretty typical in all respects.

Parapsychologists/psychical researchers investigating poltergeist incidents
find that their is usually an individual (the "focus") who is always in the
vicinity when things happen.  Psychological tests tend to show that the
focus is in the middle of an emotional crises (usually a somewhat more
complicated than average adolescence) and has a strong tendency to suppress
and deny feelings of anger.  The usual interpretation is that the
poltergeist phenomena is a covert way of expressing the suppressed anger.
It is not unusual for the focus to sometimes make the phenomena occur by
ordinary means (i.e., to fake it) even though this can be fairly well
eliminated with other incidents even with the same focus.

When someone "makes" something external happen without using any physical
means, we call that PK.  This is irrespective of the (paranormal or
supernatural) mechanism employed.  Generally parapsychologists assume that
the person is the *immediate* cause (i.e., they don't have help from
non-physical entities), but this isn't necessarily so.

So -- although this is by definition a poltergeist case, it might involve
demons either because the focus unconsciously summoned them, or because
it is atypical in that there *is* no focus.

Personal opinion: without further details I lean towards the belief that
this is a case of direct influence by one of the family members through PK
and/or tricks.  It manifests as a "demon" attack basically because that is
what the focus, as a member of a devout Catholic family, expects.  In such
cases exorcism is effective basically if/because the focus believes it will
be.

			Topher

    Steve I was kidding, I was poking fun at all the yeeha's out there
    clogging the street and camping out.  I thought leaving the smiley
    face made that clear. 
    
    Also, I didn't  mean to imply that there is any quick and easy answer
    to the percieved problem (be it real or otherwise). 
    
    
    Paul
    
    

    Perhaps...
    
    I agree with Steve and Topher.  This activity is probably due to
    one individuals energies.  I'd really like to visit them and see
    what the vibs are.  Too bad I'm in Colorado.  When's the next plane
    out? 8-)
    
    Personaly I don't think Demons have anything to do with it.  But
    then again I do have a devilish nature.
    
      Mikie?

    Re .4
    
    The article mentioned the smell of smoke and rotting meat.  Also,
    some of the neighbors mentioned hearing things when the family wasn't
    home.  Is this typical of the poltergeists phenomena?
    
    		Dave

    Re .5:
    
    Sorry; I'd thought the smiley face referred only to the last line.
     
    I did a little exorcism study last night, and the actual procedure
    can be rough.  If demons are present, they will try to interrupt
    the procedure by correcting the procedure, and by telling the exorcist
    of whatever misdeeds he or she has done.  Also, there are sometimes
    quasiphysical manifestations reported, such as ill-smelling "material"
    that's visually repugnant.
    
    If, per Topher, it's actuaslly _non_demonic but manifested that
    way because that's what's expected, things shouldn't get that bad.
    
    Re Topher:  I believe I was ambiguous.  I didn't mean that all,
    or most, poltergeist/PK phenomena were adolescent.  What I meant
    to say that having four children was suggestive that the manifestations
    might be from such a source.
    
    -S
    

    Re .7:
    
    No, but oddly, it is of some reports of demonic possession.  Though
    mostly associated with possession of people, not places.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

Associated Press Fri 22-AUG-1986 07:48                                 Demons

       Priests and Experts Come To The Rescue Of Family Beseiged By Demons
    
   WEST PITTSTON, Pa. (AP) - Roman Catholic Church officials say
they are taking seriously a family's tale of scary goings-on in its
century-old house, but are unconvinced it is the work of a demon.
   ``We don't know what it is - that's the problem,'' said the Rev.
Gerald F. Mullally, the Scranton diocese's chancellor. ``We believe
what the family is telling us. It's the explanation for what they
are experiencing that we are not sure of.''
   Mullally said the diocese is sending a priest experienced in
demonology and parapsychology to help the family of Janet and Jack
Smurl. Mullally declined to name him or discuss his training, but
demonologist Edward Warren said the priest comes from St.
Bonaventure University in New York.
   Warren said he visited the house in January and was terrified by
a dripping message on the mirror that told him to ``GET OUT.''
   In the master bedroom, he said he invoked the name of Jesus and
commanded the spirit to reveal its identity.
   ``Within seconds the room turned icy cold,'' Warren said Thursday.
   ``There was a foul stench - I would describe it as rotting flesh.
Objects on the bureau started to move and then in front of the
bureau gossamer threads - a mucous-like, smoky-type substance -
whirled and materialized on the mirror, spelling out filthy
obscenities, telling me in no uncertain terms to get out of the
house.''
   Warren said he was convinced then that the Smurls, their four
daughters and the in-laws who live with them were in terrible danger.
   The family says the demon resisted two exorcisms and responded to
investigations and growing public attention with more vicious
attacks.
   Warren said he investigated a Brookfield, Conn., case of a
possessed 11-year-old boy, the subject of an NBC-TV movie. He and
his wife, clairvoyant Lorraine Warren, also worked on the case of
the haunted house in Amityville, N.Y., that became the subject of a
best-selling book and movies.
   Warren was one of the first to have taken the Smurls seriously,
the family said. ``It took nine months to even find someone who we
could ask questions of,'' Mrs. Smurl said. ``We are a haunted
family.''
   Her 17-year-old daughter, Dawn, who says she was grabbed by the
arms and bruised by the demon in the shower, said she is scared,
too, but not terrified.
   ``It's like a family member that's bad, that nobody gets along
with. You don't want it there,'' she said.
   Meanwhile, Smurl said he sprinkles holy water about the house,
and he and the family say ``mini-exorcism'' prayers nightly, but the
demon is fighting back.
   ``Sometimes when I say the rosary, it drags me from my knees and
tries to beat me into submission,'' Smurl said.
    
unfortunately what we are dealing with seems to be very powerful,
very strong. We have to call in bigger guns - at least two or three
priests, not just one.''
   During their 14 years in the house, the Smurls have lived with
strange knocks and rapping sounds at night, but the violence began
18 months ago, Warren said. The first attack occurred the night
following the religious confirmation of their daughter Heather, who
was then 12, Mrs. Smurl said.
   Warren said religious rites and puberty often seem to provoke
demons.
   Meanwhile, Smurl said he sprinkles holy water that McKenna left
him about the house, and he and the family say ``mini-exorcism''
prayers nightly, but the demon is fighting back.
   ``Sometimes when I say the rosary, it drags me from my knees and
tries to beat me into submission,'' Smurl said.
   The Smurls said they have smelled the stench of smoke and rotten
meat, heard pig grunts and hoof beats and blood-curdling screams and
moans. Doors have opened and closed, lights have gone on and off,
formless ghostly glows have traveled before them, and the television
has shot across the room.
   ``I am very afraid for this family,'' Warren said.

    re .10:
    
    "..religious rites and puberty often provoke demons."
    
    I never heard it said quite _that_ way before.  However, there is
    at least one pubescent person involved, so either internal or demonic
    PK [using Topher's terminology ;-)] seems highly probable, if the
    thing doesn't turn out to be a hoax.  (I suspect it isn't a hoax,
    but just to cover all bases....)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    	I have only one question to ask ...... why in the world do they
    stay there ? i would of move right after i saw my tv fly across
    the room. if they left would this *what ever it is* go with them ?
    
    		chris
    
    this sound like the movies you know . 

    Re .12:
    
    Looks like two questions to me. :-)
    
    In inverse order, if the effect is caused by poltergeist phenomens,
    it'd probably go with them.  I think that it's more like a demonic
    "haunting" than demonic "house possession."
    
    Secondly, maybe they've nowhere else to go.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    P.S.: Chris, on your slogan -- dead goldfish _can_ fly, if propelled
    psychokinetically. ;-)
    
    -S
    

    Re .12
    
    I saw an interview with the woman on CNN last night. According to
    her they have been plagued by the phenonanon away from the house,
    that is while driving down the road there van would suddenly start
    to sudder and shake from side to side. She stated that she believed
    that the phenomonan would follow them so moving would do no good.
    
    

RE: .7

Despite the name (poltergeist is German for noisy ghost) odors are quite
common.  They are frequently produced by seemingly mysterious but actually
"normal" means (its amazing how creative kids can be; for example, there
are various substances around any home which if ingested will cause the
urine to smell truly strange -- or even strangely familiar).  In other
cases no such explanation can be found. 

Paranormally produced sounds in the absence of the focus are definitely not
typical of poltergeist phenomena, but *reports* definitely are.  It seems
to be a matter of attention.  Sounds/incidents which would be shrugged off
under normal circumstances are paid attention to and interpreted as
"another incident".  Then there is the fact that the newspapers are likely
to report such incidents as much more clear cut than they were described to
the reporter (especially in this case -- see .+3). 

		      Topher

RE: .8

    If, per Topher, it's actually _non_demonic but manifested that
    way because that's what's expected, things shouldn't get that bad.

Actually, I would expect precisely that.  Remember that, under this model,
the focus is releasing suppressed anger and hostility.  The exorcist
represents, quite literally, the forces that are working to suppress that
anger.  I can't think of better circumstances for very powerful
manifestations to occur. 

Add the focus's expectation that the demon(s) would fight back. 

Add the fact that the exorcist (usually a priest) is in an extremely
powerful emotional situation for him/her: a direct *physical* confrontation
with the forces of evil that they have dedicated their life to fighting.
Proof of the devil (physically manifest evil) is proof of their God.  I
would expect that at least their energy, if not their own direct PK would
get included in the situation. 

Finally add that cases where an exorcism is pronounced while no
manifestations are occurring and they simply never recur are less likely to
be reported.  (Cases where exorcism has no effect at all are even less
likely to be reported in literature about exorcism). 

			Topher

RE: .8 (again)

    Re Topher:  I believe I was ambiguous.  I didn't mean that all,
    or most, poltergeist/PK phenomena were adolescent.  What I meant
    to say that having four children was suggestive that the manifestations
    might be from such a source.

Sorry for the seeming correction.  I wasn't disagreeing with you on that
point, I hadn't read that note yet when I wrote mine.  I *would* say that
most (though definitely not all) poltergeist foci *are* adolescents.

		Topher

RE: .10

When I read the base note I said to myself "This sounds like an Ed Warren
Special" but decided that it probably wasn't since it's outside his usual
stamping grounds (New England and New York). 

I would guess that if you investigated "the story behind the story" you
would find that: 

	1) The media were called in by Warren (just what a family in the
	   middle of a serious emotional upheaval needs -- a lot of press
	   attention.  That's also a great help in serious investigations
	   into what's going on). 

	   I think I've started to notice a pattern, in that the early
	   stories never mention Warren, though the later ones indicate
	   that he was involved all along.  I would guess that Warren has
	   found that the media are more likely to pick up his stories if
	   he at first requests to be "kept out of it", and only later
	   "reluctantly agrees" to being quoted. 

	2) Most of the contents of the stories, including quotes from
	   various people involved, were supplied to the press by Warren. 

	3) Warren has spent a lot of time coaching people on what to say to
	   the media. 

	4) Most of the more spectacular and unusual manifestations (e.g.,
	   slime on mirrors spelling out hostile messages) were witnessed
	   only by Warren, or only by Warren and his group (the latter,
	   except for his wife, identified only as his assistants or
	   students if mentioned at all). 

	5) Things get much worse after Warren arrives (in this case the
	   story even said so, though it didn't phrase it like that). 

	6) Events will be much more supportive of the "demonic model" after
	   Warren shows up. 

If Warren is true to form, and if the press continues to jump through the
hoops he sets up for them, the next story (or possibly the one after) will
talk about a team of baffled scientists from some nearby University.  In
the past, its been amazingly difficult to discover just who the members of
these teams were. 

A stronger prediction -- No statement of Warren's will be a prediction
about what is likely to occur, but whatever happens, Warren will have
expected it. 

		Topher

    Topher, are you clairvoyant? :-)  There was more text following
    this but it was a repeat of text in previous articles and I deleted
    it.
    
    		Dave
    
    Associated Press Fri 22-AUG-1986 12:27                              Demons

       Priests and Experts Come To The Rescue Of Family Beseiged By Demons
    
   WEST PITTSTON, Pa. (AP) - A couple's claim that their century-old
house is haunted sounds like ``uncorroborated mishmash,'' but a
group of scientists is reluctantly considering an investigation,
their chairman said today .
   ``We have an open mind, but we tend to be skeptical,'' said Paul
Kurtz, chairman of the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the
Paranormal in Buffalo, N.Y, as he discussed the case of Janet and
Jack Smurl.
   On Thursday, the demonologist linked with the famous Amityville
horror case, the tale of a purported haunted house in a New York
City suburb, said he was convinced the Smurl home here was haunted.
Edward Warren said he was terrified by a dripping message on a
mirror that told him to ``Get out.''
   Kurtz, who is a professor of philosophy at the State University
of New York in Buffalo, said, ``It seems to us that a great to-do
has been made about it, and we wonder if it is like that Amityville
horror hoax, which was based on imagination rather than on actual
hauntings.''
   His group, he said, is made up of hundreds of scientists and
scholars willing to investigate claims of the supernatural. Kurtz
said no member of the committee has yet confirmed the existence of
``real live ghosts, or real dead ghosts.
   ``There is an explanation'' for the Smurl house, he said, ``but I
wouldn't simply assume it is a haunting.''
   Roman Catholic Church officials said they are taking seriously
the tale of scary goings-on at the house, but are unconvinced it is
the work of a demon.
   ``We don't know what it is - that's the problem,'' said the Rev.
Gerald F. Mullally, the Scranton diocese's chancellor. ``We believe
what the family is telling us. It's the explanation for what they
are experiencing that we are not sure of.''
   Mullally said the diocese is sending a priest experienced in
demonology and parapsychology to help the Smurls. Mullally declined
to name him or discuss his training, but Warren said the priest
comes from St. Bonaventure University in New York.

    If I were Warren I suppose I would take credit, but actually Kurtz
    showing up is pretty good evidence that I'm not precognative.  Warren
    is probably as annoyed as (you'll pardon the expression) hell.
    
    The correct name for Kurtz's organization is the Committee for
    Scientific Investigation etc., better known as CSICOP.
    
    I would doubt that there are any conditions under which Kurtz and
    company would conclude that there was evidence for anything
    unexplainable.
    
    Such a group would be as anathama to Warren as, for example, Bill
    Roll (one of the leading experts/investigators on poltergeists from
    a scientific viewpoint).  The presence of an actual, experienced
    or hyper-critical team of investigators will make it rather difficult
    for him to come up with stories of baffled scientists for the press.
    
    <<By the way I'm going to be on vacation for the next week (as I
    was the first two weeks of this month) so any further comments on
    this (or other matters) from me will have to wait.>>
    
    				Topher

    
    re .12
    
    Chris, where do you think the movies get their material?
    
    re .1
    
      I can't help but wonder who in the house decided to play around
    in unfamilar worlds - and what was the emotional and mental health
    of that person(s)?
    
    Cheers all,  Lora

Associated Press Sat 23-AUG-1986 18:35                                 Demons

   Family Claiming Demon Visitation Will Review Scientific Proposals
                            By DAVID MORRIS

   WEST PITTSTON, Pa. (AP) - A couple who say their family is
plagued by demons said Saturday they would spend two days reviewing
proposals from scientists, to choose several to help them try to
oust any evil spirits.
   Jack and Janet Smurl say that for the past 18 months, their lives
have been dominated by demons that lurk in their house and follow
them on trips.
   The Smurls said they have received numerous proposals from
scientists who want to study the case and hundreds of letters from
ordinary people, wishing them well.
   They declined to identify the individuals or institutions
offering to work with them, saying they want to make sure first that
the proposals are legitimate.
   ``We are looking for somebody very reputable,'' said Mrs. Smurl.
   The Smurls say they and their four daughters have been physically
attacked and jarred awake by bloodcurdling noises, and the house has
been filled with foul odors that have no known cause.
   Last week, after two exorcisms and other pleas for help didn't
end their problem, the Smurls decided to go public with their story.
Mrs. Smurl said she thought the publicity would produce someone who
could help the family.
   Despite the public plea for help, Smurl said Saturday that the
demons were still present. On Friday night, he said, a demon made a
loud noise behind his head as Smurl was lying in bed.
   ``As used as I am to all the noise, I jumped,'' he said.
   One reporter asked to stay in the house overnight and tape-record
any sounds, but the Smurls declined, saying that they could not
accomodate all such requests, and that they did not want to be
liable for what might happen to the reporter.
   No unusual sounds or events interrupted the press conference,
which drew about 20 reporters to the Smurls' back yard, and about an
equal number of neighbors to their back fence.
   The family has allowed the demonologist who worked on ``The
Amityville Horror'' case to spend several weeks in the house. That
man, Edward Warren, recently told reporters he knew there were
demons in the century-old house as soon as he entered it.
   The Smurls also said they are still waiting for help from the
Scranton Roman Catholic Diocese. The two exorcisms were conducted by
priests from outside the diocese, Smurl said.
   Many news stories written since the Smurls began to publicize
their story have quoted scientists who discount it. Mrs. Smurl said
she thought those who criticized the family without first coming to
the house or talking to them are ``just looking for media exposure.''
   Her husband also complained about the hundreds of curiosity
seekers who have visited their Chase Street neighborhood. People
have come on foot, by car, on motorcycles and in one case, by
limousine.
   Smurl said he heard traffic on the street as late as 5 a.m.
Saturday.
   Bernard Radzvin, who lives two doors away, discounted the Smurls'
story.
   ``It's a lot of malarky,'' Radzvin said after the press
conference.
   ``They're nice people,'' he said. ``But it seems like it's for
money or publicity. Maybe he's running for mayor.''
   Radzvin is one of the few skeptics who live on the street. At the
opposite end of the block, Lenora Brinser said she believes the
Smurls. She said she had an encounter with one a few minutes after
Mrs. Smurl left the house after telling them of the problem.
   Miss Brinser said she was alone in the house, washing dishes in
the kitchen. Suddenly, the stereo, which had been playing softly,
was playing at high volume and the front door, which had been
locked, was standing open.
   ``I give them a lot of credit,'' Miss Brinser said. ``They're
really strong with their faith. I think that's what's kept them
sane.''
   ``I am very afraid for this family,'' Warren said.

    Re .22:
    
    Why _not_ let a reporter stay overnight if he or she signs a waiver
    so that the family wouldn't be resoponsible for "whatever happens"?
    
    Sorry to say, this one is starting to get a distinct odor to it:
    of fish.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    
    Starting? STARTING?  The whole thing stank from the first report.

    Look, ANYTHING YOU CAN SEE CLEARLY YOU CAN PHOTOGRAPH!  All they
    had to do was wander into any photography shop, buy a polaroid camera
    and film for $100, and prove their story.
    
    Same as UFO's, ghosts, and all the other "this happens every other
    day" phenomona.  They always dissappear when the investigators arrive
    
    		and the people making the report DON'T WANT
    		the investigators to arrive.
    
    
    If I had that in my house, I'd have a bunch of physicists and forensic
    scientists in there so fast your head would swim.
    
    
    /Bevin

    Re .24:
    
    >Look, ANYTHING YOU CAN SEE CLEARLY YOU CAN PHOTOGRAPH! ...
    
    If you'll refer to some of my previous writings, on other
    notes/responses, you'll find I'm not an "accept anything you hear"
    type.  But I was willing to give the reports the benefit of the
    doubt.
    
    Why?  Because first, the reports were of things like odors and groans,
    grunts, and screeches.  The noises would be inconclusive, since
    you couldn't be sure who or what was making them.  Odors would be
    harder, since I doubt any of the people involved heard of
    chroatographs.
    Additionally, it might have been possible that the people _perceived_
    without actually seeing (with the eyes) the manifestations.  Unlikely,
    but possible.  And, for that matter, photos can be faked.
    
    But the further this thing goes, the more rancid it looks.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Sorry Steve, I wasn't meaning to imply you were being gullable,
    I was meaning the general populous and the press who spread such
    stories.
    
    Speaking of the press and such stories, did anyone see a follow-up
    to the LA (SF?) story about the cross of light that people were
    stacking up to see outside some guy's house (he was supposedly dying
    of cancer).
    
    The local (Nashua Telegraph) rag ran the story and a crummy picture
    but I haven't seen anything since.  Another case where the physicist's
    appear to have a phenomona that can be closely studied but there
    was no mention of people actually trying to decide what caused the
    cross of light.
    
    /Bevin

    Re b.26:
    
    I'm sure you weren't singling me out, Bevin.  My point is that if
    there's still a possibility, one should retain an open mind.
    
    There have been reports of both demons and poltergeist phenomena
    as far back as the Middle Ages, so the initial reports looked
    worthwhile.  However, the further along it went, the less credible
    it appeared.
    
    The problem is that a good opinion-molder can say something like,
    "Look!  The Establishment is trying to cover this up!"  He or she
    would imply that it's either because they "don't want to start a
    panic," or even because some in authority are in league with the
    demons[!].
    
    The inconstincies in the story abound.  First, the house is
    "possessed." Then, the demons "follow" the family when they try
    to get away.
    
    Sound familiar?  It should: it's a variant of the movies _Poltergeist_
    and _Poltergeist II_.
    
    If they sell the movie rights to this one, they should be sued for
    plagairism!
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    There is a problem that this sort of activity, if it is a hoax,
    brings up.  Following Sturgeon's Law [:-)], if 99 percent of everything
    is BS, the one percent that isn't may be dismissed.  Hypothetically,
    let's assume that there really are demons.  Let's further suppose
    that a real instance of demonism occurs just after the current thing
    has been exposed, presumably, as a hoax.  [I use these cautionary
    words because there are libel/slander laws.]  The _genuine_ case
    may well be dismissed or ignored because of the exposure of the
    previous case.
                                                 
    -S
    
    

    While I agree it smells like low tide on a mud flat, I do take
    exception to the "anything you can see", etc...
    
    Just try taking a picture of the aurora borelis some time...
    
    Dave

    I agree with Steve.  At first, I was willing to give it the benefit
    of the doubt.  Now it sounds like the plot from The Amityville Horror.
    Gee, I wonder why...
    
    Kathleen

Associated Press Tue 26-AUG-1986 12:45                                 Demons

       Family Gives No Proof of Demons; Calls on Exorcists
    
   WEST PITTSTON, Pa. (AP) - Reporters and researchers looking for
proof of demons that a family claims are haunting its home got into
a shouting match with a family spokesman who said the house needed
an exorcist, not scientists.
   The spat erupted Monday when Edward Warren, director of the New
England Society for Psychic Research of Monroe, Conn., said he would
not release his videotapes of a ``ghost-like specter'' that Jack and
Janet Smurl say lives in their house until the tapes are reviewed by
the Roman Catholic Church.
   ``We would like them to bring in two or three exorcists to clear
this house of what is there,'' said Warren, known for his
involvement in the ``Amityville Horror'' story of a suburban New
York house, which was made into a movie.
   ``Show us something,'' challenged one reporter. ``Give us
something to go with.''
   ``We're giving you everything you're going to get,'' Warren said.
He barred reporters from the house, saying the Smurls were no longer
dealing with the media, although the family sought reporters last
week to publicize their case.
   Also barred from the home was Richard Busch, a Pittsburgh
magician and ``professional psychic impersonator,'' who was sent as
a consultant from the Committee for Scientific Investigation of
Claims of the Paranormal of Buffalo, N.Y., a group that debunks
claims of the supernatural.
   He was invited by Smurl on Saturday, he said, to interview the
family and record unusual phenomena. But Warren turned him away,
Busch said.
   ``What Mr. Warren said is: `We need a church to send an exorcist.
We don't need scientists,''' Busch said. ``And Mr. Warren made it
very clear that he is in charge. He makes all the decisions, and he
doesn't need scientists.''
   Busch said he had intended to examine the home for trickery.
   ``If physical trickery is being used, we can figure that out
relatively quickly,'' he said. ``If it's not being used, we can rule
that out and they will have greater credibility.''
   Mrs. Smurl addressed the crowd briefly Monday to say that Busch
misrepresented himself as a faculty member of the University of
Pittsburgh; Busch said he made no such claim.
   The Scranton Diocese had no comment on Warren's latest appeal,
but said it has put the Smurls in touch with the Rev. Alphonsus
Trebold of St. Bonaventure's University in New York. Trebold is a
specialist in demonology.
   ``The church surely believes in the supernatural, including
spirits'' but other possible causes must first be investigated, the
church said.
   Warren, who says he has encountered the demons and recorded their
activities, said that two previous exorcisms by one priest failed.
   Only a team of priests can overcome the spirits, he said.
   ``The Smurls are very tired, exhausted, tired of this ridiculous
nonsense that they're creating a hoax,'' he said.
   The Smurls have not sold movie or book rights from the story,
Warren said, but he did not rule out the possibility.
   The Smurls and their four daughters have said that for 18 months,
they have been beaten and levitated by the spirits, chilled by
sudden drops in temperature and tormented by shadows, screams and
moans.

    re .30:
    
    >	Only a team of priests can overcome the spirits, he said.
    
    Thought they were "demons."  More and more like _Poltergeist_ (the
    movie).
    
    >	The Smurls have not sold movie or book rights from the story,
    >Warren said, but he did not rule out the possibility.
    
    On the nose, Topher!
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Although "book and movie rights" are certainly consistent with Ed
    Warren's modus operandi, I didn't make any predictions in this regards.
    
    Actually, I think you were the first to hint at it, Steve.
    
    			Topher

    Hey folks what's the latest on this?
    
    Did Warner Bros. cop out on making a movie or something?  Haven't
    seen anything on it lately.
    
      Mikie?

    Re .33:
    
    Neither have I.  Probably the last news story made even the most
    credulous reporters turn up their "doubter" mechanisms.
    
    "You'll get what we give you," is the easiest way to create unsympathy
    in a reporter's mind.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    	The phenomenon mentioned in this note may be a hoax, but where
    did all the details to such occurences come from?  Is it based on
    some REAL supernatural events, or are we simply "modernising" for
    entertainment purposes ancient Medieval superstitions?
    
    	In sum, is there ANY truth to supernatural phenomenon?
    
    	Larry
    

    There have been enough records to indicate that there is _something_
    behind stories of demonic  posession, including stories from the
    Bible and of Apollonius of Tyana involving one or another form of
    exorcism.
    
    Explanations range from the "rational" suggestion of manifestations
    of multiple personalities to the thought that discarnate (and sometimes
    incarnate) beings we'd classify as demons have objective reality.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    RE: .35
    
    I am not sure that "hoax" is a proper description for the supposed
    phenomena (I'm also unsure, very much so, that it isn't a hoax).
    
    One possibility is that there was a "legitimate" poltergeist
    manifestation occuring and Ed Warren came in, raised the hysteria
    level considerably and manipulated the situation and the families
    perception of them to his own ends.
    
    Poltergeist phenomena are frequently faked and frequently, apparently,
    not.  Even when faked poltergeist phenomena can be "legitimate",
    just not paranormal.  In these cases the person faking it are
    manifesting pathology -- they are only semi-aware of what they are
    doing -- so I think "hoax" has the wrong connotation.
    
    The conditions under which poltergeist phenomena take place are
    intrinsically ill controlled.  Although many of the carefully studied
    cases are quit good, the person determined to reject the possibility
    can always do so -- they need only demand that any case considered
    be absolutely airtight and reject the more rational critera of overall
    weight of evidence.  After all, however good the apparent case,
    the poltergeist "focus" may simply be faking in a way too clever
    for the investigator to detect.
    
    The issue is complicated by the fact that the "fraudulent" focus
    and the "paranormal" one are frequently the same person.  That is,
    the person who seems to be producing quite unexplainable phenomena
    is also producing quite explainable phenomena.
    
    It seems, that the *real* poltergeist phenomena -- intense, unexpressed
    anger -- is taking place inside the head of the focus.  Sometimes
    this is externalized as paranormal phenomena (RSPK is the technical
    term), sometimes as covert non-paranormal phenomena (frequently
    it is externalized as sleep disorders, cancer, depression, anxiety,
    etc.).  In some cases both the paranormal and the covert routes
    are used.
    
    Oh, yes -- no I *don't* think that there are any supernatural phenomena
    -- I think that RSPK is natural but unexplained.
    
    				Topher

    re .37:
    
    Topher, the problem is that "supernatural" means _so_ many things.
    In a story, one character once said, "There are no supernatural
    phenomena -- just natural phenomena we don't understand the laws
    for yet."  I agree with that, but use the "supernatural" tag as
    a convenience -- or handle -- for ease in categorizing.
    
    Where we go wrong is if we make "supernatural" mean "inherently
    unknowable.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    	For arguement's sake, let us refer to the supernatural as that
    which exists in a different reality from ours - a reality with
    obviously different physical laws.
    
    	Larry
    

    RE: .39
    
    Under reasonable interpretations of "different reality" and "obviously
    different physical laws."  My answer is the same: I believe that
    there is a single reality, and ultimately a single set of physical
    laws.  Our understanding of that reality, and of those physical
    laws, however, is very limited.  What we refer to as "physical law"
    is simply a rough approximation of the truth, applicable much of
    the time under conditions not too different from that which we are
    familiar with.
    
    As we broaden our understanding, we always find unity.  There is
    no supernatural, only the natural which we do not yet understand.
    
    			Topher

    	Do you accept other dimensions as "realities"?
    
    	They have been proven to exist, and operate under different
    physical laws.
    
    	Larry
    

    Thanx Topher,
    
    That's the way I see it!
    
      Mikie?
    

    re .39, .41:
    
    The problem with "other`dimensions,' other physical laws"
    as an argument is that if something "supernatural" manifests itself
    in "this `dimension,'" it would also have to conform to the physical
    laws we already know and love.  If it didn't conform, it couldn't
    interact in this "dimension."
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    	Just because "it" may have to conform - which I do not totally
    agree with, because then how could "they" (demons, ghosts) do so
    many definetely unnatural phenomenon - still does NOT mean they
    they couldn't have come from another dimension.
    
    	I am in agreement that everything is somehow "connected" with
    everything else in some form of cosmic unity, but there are also
    very real "divisions" to this unity, thus the development of such
    radically different beings as humans and demons (though sadly sometimes
    their behaviors can match).
    
    	Larry
     

    re .44:
    
    > ... how could "they" (demons, ghosts) do so
    >many definetely unnatural phenomenon - ...
    
    Neither Topher nor I say the phenomena are "unnatural"; we just
    say we don't know the laws >yet< that make the actions happen.
    
    Example: in "How Does It Move?" someone asked about psychokinesis.
    Some people responded on how to do it; my response was (in part)
    a discussion of a mechanism that might explain how it works.  The
    principle, that is.
    
    A Boy Scout learns to build a fire through friction (proverbially,
    "rubbing two sticks together").  He doesn't learn the _laws_ as
    to how this is possible (coefficient of friction, conductivity,
    etc), but that doesn't prevent him from starting a fire.
    
    The same is true of "psychic" stuff: If you are, say, a clairvouyant,
    you may be able to pick up visions of distant places -- that doesn't
    mean you know how it is that you're able to do it.  However, not
    knowing how an ability works doesn't mean  you can't do it!  A bird
    doesn't have to study aeronautics to learn how to fly.  But that
    doesn't mean that there isn't a science opf aerodynamics (for the
    bird), nor that there aren't parapsychological laws.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    RE: .41
    
    I don't think that it is at all foolish to believe in "other dimensions",
but I don't think that they have been proven to exist.  Personally, I need
a lot more convincing. 

I know that a number of apparent disincarnate, channeled entities have
claimed this, but I don't consider their claims any more (or less) of a
proof than claims by incarnate entities (i.e., people). 

I do consider it "proven" (as much as anything is proven) that most (note
that I did *not* say all) apparent disincarnate entities are
externalizations of internal personalities (parts of what is usually
referred to as the subconscious).  These internal personalities are
frequently radically different from the person's external personality and
may only vaguely resemble a human personality at all.  Their perception of
the world are frequently very different from what we are familiar with and
their motivations and behavior may be difficult to judge by normal
standards. 

They may have better access to subtle sources of information and means of
expression (both paranormal and non-paranormal) which are difficult for the
"conscious" personality to tap into. 

There are a some cases where it is unclear whether the source of the
disincarnate entity is a human subconscious.  In these cases, this
explanation still "works" but it has to stretch a bit to fit.  These are
exciting, but I choose to assume internal human personalities in these
cases as well, at least as a working hypothesis until a better case is
made. 

Even taking these latter cases as real, we cannot take the disincarnate's
statement as proof of anything.  It might be mistaken, lying, or failing to
communicate clearly. 

There are environments -- worlds if you will -- well accounted for by
modern science, which are unbelievably alien.  Take, for example, a minor
shift in scale -- imagine that you are the size of a paramecium and live in
a puddle of water. 

Not only would things "look" different, the laws of physics would seem to
be radically different.  Gravity would be such a minor force that it would
be imperceptible.  Its effects would be completely dominated by two other
"forces": brownian motion and surface tension.  Every movement would be a
fight against the effects of these two forces, which, relatively speaking
would be much stronger than gravity is to us.  Sight, beyond simple
detection of a source of light, would be impractical.  Ordinary sound would
more resemble an earthquake.  Ultrasonics in the frequency range needed to
be practical would be very different than "sound" as we know it. Perception
would be limited to the perception of chemicals (taste and smell), contacts
(touch), and *gradients* of light, heat, magnetic and electrical fields. 

If we were to contact an intelligent paramecium, or look through its
senses, we would be convinced we inhabited separate realities, and vice
versa.  Now imagine some *really* alien environments within our own
universe, such as the interior of a neutron star. 

Or did you have some other proof in mind?  (In which case I have jabbered
on meaninglessly -- but hopefully entertainingly). 

				Topher

    	No, you make for some very convincing arguements, but there
    is MATHEMATICAL proof of other dimensions, as many as 11 to 26,
    I've read.
    
    	And besides, TIME exists, and it is of the FOURTH dimension.
    
    	Larry
    

    Ah, you mean "dimensions of our space-time".  It is true that
    many attempts to achieve a unified field theory require the
    hypothesis that "the universe" has substantially more than three
    spatial dimensions (and that space is so tightly curved along
    the "extra" dimensions that they become unnoticeable when one
    considers distances as large as the diameter of an atom), but
    these theories are on the boundaries of physics right now, and
    are far from proved.
    
    In any case, assuming the validity of some one of these theories,
    these dimensions are fundamental and intrinsic to the universe
    that we are familiar with.  It is meaningless to speak of them
    having "different laws"--the whole point in postulating them
    is an attempt to produce a more elegant explanation of the natural
    laws that we are familiar with.
    
    	-Neil

    In another note, I went into great (some would say excessive) length
    discussing the different meanings of "dimension."
    
    "Mathematical proof" is a proof of logic and consistency that may
    or may not have validity in the real world.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    re .47, .49:
    
    See the discussions in note 165 ("Other Dimensions"), particularly
    165.4 - 165.8
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    	I was originally asking (193.35) what historical and scientific
    proof there was for such events as reported originally in this note.
    
    	Larry
    

    re .51:
    
    Historical evidence isn't always reliable, but citations about demonic
    possession are mentioned in Philostratus' _Life of Apoollonius of
    Tyana_, for one.  
    
    "Proof" is another, and tougher matter.  How does one prove that
    a discarnate entity occupied a person's body, especially if the
    supposed entity was reportedly exorcised?
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Hi,
       I've only just gotten into this note and find it very interesting.
    Would someone be so good as to tell me the result or current state
    of the "story"? Is Mr Warren still involved and how much of a history
    does he have in these matters? I get the impression he is well known
    for being involved in other, similar incidents. Does he invite himself
    in or get recommended by his previous clients?
       Hope I'm not interrupting your flow by popping these questions
    in.
    
    
    Thanks in advance for any replies.
    
    Bye for now, take care.      Roland

Never worry about "breaking the flow" by asking questions or adding your
own insight in NOTES.  You can't do it.  Its not like a telephone
conversation, since everything people have said previously is always
available.  The only thing that you might be able to do is to provide a
topic that people are more interested in talking about.  Anyone still
interested in the old one can continue without interference. 

Of course, if it is only vaguely related, you should start a new topic by
saying WRITE rather than REPLY.  This doesn't apply in this case since
you're asking about the original topic rather than the side-track that the
replies have gotten into. 

Anyway -- 

I haven't heard anything more about the case, I would guess that he's still
involved if there is still the possibility of publicity/money in the
future.  He has quite a history in these matters -- note .10 mentions his
involvement with Amityville (a very successful piece of hype).  He either
offers his services or is invited in -- people hear about him in various
ways, but don't get the full story.  Generally its not from "satisfied
customers", but this could have happened on occasion; people have an
amazing ability to avoid realizing that they have been conned. 

In a case here in Boston about a year and a half ago, I tracked down how he
had become involved.  Apparently, the police had contacted a professor at
BU who had been involved in some previous investigations of "this kind of
thing."  I forget his field, but something non-scientific. He was preparing
to leave on a year-long sabbatical in the Far East to study fire-walking
and knife-less surgery, so he recommended Ed Warren. When I spoke to him
about it (the day before he left) he just said "Ed knows his stuff, but he
has his own style".  When ever I mentioned something questionable (like
Warren calling in the papers to make a 3-ring circus out of the whole thing
-- sound familiar?) he just repeated the same thing. 

I called Warren, representing myself as the local representative of the
American Society for Psychical Research (well -- I'm a member anyway, and I
had the Executive Secretary's unofficial permission) and asking to be
included in the investigation.  He offered to let me attend his weekly
course at his home in Conn. on Demonological Investigation (or some such)
-- for the regular fee, of course.  I politely declined on the basis that I
did not have the time to make the round trip every week. He promised to
keep me informed, which was the last I heard from him. 

			Topher

    Re .53 (and a bit of .54):
    
    A short while ago, I ran into a book, _The Demonologist_ (author
    I forget) that it turns out is about Ed Warren and his wife.  It
    is written very sensationally (starting out with a demonic attack
    on both parties, serially), with no citations.  It plays up his
    involvement with "the Amityville Horror" and goes on from there.
    
    I don't suggest it as a reliable source about demons, nor do I suggest
    you read it without a whole shaker full of salt, but it will certainly
    give you an idea of Ed & Lorainne Warren and their M.O.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Re .55
    
    Hi,
       I've had no luck at all in my search for "The Demonologist",
    can you supply more details please? If I can get the author and
    publisher details there is a local bookshop who can get it for
    me, even if it has to come from America.
    
    Regards     Roland

    
    Re .56:
    
    I'll look it up again.  Howeever, don't take it too seriously.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Thanks Steve, hope it's not putting you out. I shall definitely
    take the book with a pinch of salt but I would like to read it.
    My interest is aroused and refuses to lie down!
    
    Roland

    Re .58:
    
    Okay --  The book _The Demonologist_ is by one Gerald Brittle,
    published in 1980 by Prentice-Hall (hardcover, listed at $9.00).
    I believe it's out of print, but can probably be picked up at used
    bookstores for a modest price (it's hardly a widely sought-after item,
    after all).
    
    I reiterate my cavaet: it treats "the Amityville Horror" as a real
    event and is written in a sensationalistic style.  I therefore cannot
    recommend it as a good sourcebook for a study of demons (_The
    Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology_ by Russell Hope Hopkins
    is much better, though "witchcraft" is taken in a narrower sense
    than it's understood today).
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    And for a negative update :-) --
    
    Here it is, well into 1987, and nary a whisper of this story remains.
    I'll bet most people have forgotten it, and the newer members of
    the DEJAVU conference might not even have heard of it! [It might
    be an interesting exercise for those who havent to check the base
    note and work forward; it's an interesting case history.]
    
    Maybe it's a case of "You can't fool all of the people all of the
    time."
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Re .60:
    
    >Here it is, well into 1987, and nary a whisper of this story remains.
    
    As a further update, it's now into 1988, and the story isn't even
    history.   
    
    Time apparently _has_ told.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    I don't even hear rumors of a movie....

    As an update to the basenote this article appeared in today's edition
    of the Wilkes Barre Citizens' Voice.  Copied without permission,
    of course:
    
    "A bedeviled Jack Smurl: 'It' has followed us to new home"
    
       Supernatural problems continue to plague the Jack Smurl family.
       The family, which moved to Wilkes-Barre in december, has not
    escaped the demon who tormented them for nearly three years in West
    Pittston.
       Smurl, who would not say there in Wilkes-Barre the family is
    living, said the problems have not stopped since the move.  The
    family has been haunted in the past by falling light fixtures,
    inexplicable cold drafts, and strange voices among other things.
       A book by Robert DeFiore, a reporter who covered the story for
    The Scranton Tribune, will be published shortly on the Smurl's
    situation and Jack Smurl said he is resentful of recent insinuations
    that the problems have recurred in time to help publicize the book.
       The problems abated after each of four exorcisms in the West
    Pittston house, Smurl said, but started again each time.
       "We knew the risk was that our problem would go with us, and
    after a very short time our greatest fears were realized. 'It' did
    go with us," Smurl said.
       Smurl said the family has tried a different approach in dealing
    with the problem this time.  Smurl said the family is under spirtual
    advisement and cannot say anymore about the situation.
       In a letter to the Citizens' Voice, Smurl said he is disappointed
    with the way the press and the public treated his family.
       "In August of 1986, we reached out to the 'Valley with a Heart'
    for help.  What we received was more pain, on top of an already
    unbearable pain.  We were mocked, ridiculed, spit on, mentally and
    physically abused, and our home violated.  Frankly, we couldn't
    tell the difference between the pain inflicted on us by the devil
    or that of mortal man."
       Dick Bridle of Shavertown, who purchased the Smurl house in
    December, would only say the house is currently occupied.
    
    ____________________________________________
    
    If anything else comes up on this subject I'll keep you posted since
    this is right in my town!!
    
    Lori

    Re .62 (Lori):
    
    >   Smurl, who would not say there in Wilkes-Barre the family is
    >living, said the problems have not stopped since the move.  The
    >family has been haunted in the past by falling light fixtures,
    >inexplicable cold drafts, and strange voices among other things.
     
    Hmm.  "... who would not say [w]here ... the family is living, ..."
    That sounds like a telephone interview.  Otherwise, the reporter
    would have more likely said, "who is living at an undisclosed address,"
    or something of that order.  Now if it _was_ a telephonic interview,
    it could _not_ have easily been originated by the reporter ("Hello,
    operator?  Please give me the number of the Smurls.  I don't know
    wherte they live, but I'm _sure_ they're new in town."), which suggests
    Smurl was looking for some notice.
    
    >....... Jack Smurl said he is resentful of recent insinuations
    >that the problems have recurred in time to help publicize the book.
     
    Who ever made such insinuations?  I can't believe someone moves
    into a new town for privacy, isn't in the phone book (otherwise
    the reporter could look up the address) and is hit with "recent
    insinuations."
    
    >   Smurl said the family has tried a different approach in dealing
    >with the problem this time.  Smurl said the family is under spirtual
    >advisement and cannot say anymore about the situation.
     
    Then why does he say that much?
    
    >   "In August of 1986, we reached out to the 'Valley with a Heart'
    >for help.  What we received was more pain, on top of an already
    >unbearable pain.  We were mocked, ridiculed, spit on, mentally and
    >physically abused, and our home violated.  Frankly, we couldn't
    >tell the difference between the pain inflicted on us by the devil
    >or that of mortal man."
     
    Lori, had you heard anything about the Smurls moving in before this?
    
    Also, if I were "spit upon, mentally and physically abused," and
    had my "home violated," at the very least, I'd complain top the
    police; more likely, I'd start a bunch of lawsuits; if I could do
    neither, I'd move, for my family's sake. 
    
    In short, it astill sounds very fishy.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Re .63 (Hi Steve)
    
    The only mention of the Smurl's in recent month's was of the book
    that was to be published soon.  I couldn't find the correct note
    to post that information.
    
    I seem to recall something being mentioned that the house was sold
    but didn't know where the Smurl's were going.  Wilkes Barre, by
    the way, is only 4 miles at the most away from West Pittston.
    
    the article that appeared today does not give any reference to the
    person who submitted it.  It could very likely have been a telephone
    interview but then again could it have been submitted by Mr. Smurl
    himself?
    
    I'm kinda convinced that this all has to do with the book coming
    out shortly.
    
    Lori

    Re .64 (Lori):
    
    Hi!
    
    >the article that appeared today does not give any reference to the
    >person who submitted it.  It could very likely have been a telephone
    >interview but then again could it have been submitted by Mr. Smurl
    >himself?
     
    If it has a reporter's byline, the reporter _wrote_ it.  But what
    prompted the reporter to do so?  A reporter does a story on assignment
    or because he or she gets a tip.  That tip might be from a third
    party or from the subject of the interview.  Now, either a press
    agent for the author (or publisher) might have contacted the reporter
    or Smurl did.   In neither case would it have been sometghing the
    reporter initiated on a whim, unless clairvoyant (and such a reporter
    would be more likely working for a national newspaper like the _New
    York Times_ or _ New York Daily News_). 
    
    >The only mention of the Smurl's in recent month's was of the book
    >that was to be published soon.  I couldn't find the correct note
    >to post that information.
     
    In inverse order: this is the correct note [the Smurl note].  That
    leaves me even more suspicious.  If you live in the area, and this
    is the first you've heard of them living closeby, then by what
    mechanism would their neighbors or others in the town "abose" them
    or "violate" their home?  Don't tell me the[ir personal] devil made
    the others do it. ...
    
    >I'm kinda convinced that this all has to do with the book coming
    >out shortly.
     
    Funny you should mention that. ... :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .63,.65
    
    Steve, I'm still not convinced that there is anything fishy about
    Smurl.  Ed Warren is fishy enough to generate quite a stink all
    by himself.
    
    Of course, even if Smurl started innocent, he may have been seduced
    by supposed money to be made.  The timing *is* suspicious but:
    
    > [The report must have been based on a telephone interview but
    > then why would Jack Smurl have initiated it if he is avoiding
    > publicity?  If he didn't initiate it, how did the reporter get
    > his number but not his address?]
    
    Smurl and his family only moved a short distance.  Smurl probably
    kept his old job, and may have been contacted at work.  The reporter
    may have badgered friends until they asked Smurl to call the reporter
    and speak to him/her.  "Someone" who would be willing to pass the
    information on to a reporter may have been given the phone number
    but not the address (QUIZ TO SEE HOW WELL YOU'VE READ THE 66 NOTES
    up to now: who's the most likely "someone"?).
    
    > [Why contact the reporter now if not because the book was coming
    >  out soon and needed publicity?  How did the reporter find out
    >  about it?]
    
    Manifestations may have just started up again after the move (these
    things, whatever they are, do seem to happen in waves).  Someone
    may have been confided in about it who shouldn't have been (QUESTION
    2: same question as 1), timing just a coincidence.  The manifestations
    may have been going on for some time, and someone else may have
    felt that it was time to call in the press (QUESTION 3: same question
    as 1 and 2).
    
    > [If someone has been making insinuations about the timing how
    >  come Lori hadn't heard about it?]
     
    The insinuations may not have been terribly public.
    
    > [If he was so reviled and plagued by his neighbors, how come Lori
    >  hadn't heard about it?  How come he didn't] move for [his] family's
    >  sake?
    
    She did (in the base note); he did, that's what .62 was about.
    I think that he was refering to the circus in West Pittson not anything
    which has happened in Wilkes-Barre.
    
    >> ...Under spiritual advisement and cannot say any more about the
    >> situation.
    > Then why does he say that much?
    
    Because he honestly wants to communicate as much as he feels he
    can.  Because he hopes to head off offers of spiritual guidance.
    
    The real question is, why doesn't he say more?  There are many possible
    answers.  His spiritual advisement may not be Catholic and he may
    not want the Church to know that he has looked elsewhere.  His
    advisor may not want to become involved in a circus.  His advisor
    may be waiting to spring publicity about it at the best time for
    him/herself.  If his advisor(s) think that this is due to some kind
    of curse, they may not want the curser to know that they are on
    to him/her.
    
    So: Smurl's guilt is still pretty much unsubstantiated.
    
    					Topher 

    re .65(Steve)
    
    >                              If you live in the area, and this
    >is the first time you've heard of them living closeby, then by
    >what mechanism would their neighbors or others in the town "abose"
    >them or "violate" their home?
    
    Don't let me mislead you, I have known about the Smurl's since this
    all started happening.  However when I first got into notes last
    year I was not aware that all of you had heard of this event.  I
    had no idea it had gained that much publicity.  
    
    As Topher says I think the "circus" that was created from all the
    publicity and skepticism made them a most curious tourist attractionand
    I'm sure their privacy being invaded made them feel abused and
    violated.
    
    Unfortunately the people in this area have made many jokes about
    the Smurl house.  I'm very surprized that they only moved as far
    as they did.  I would have expected them to move far enough away
    where no one would know them.  I think I would have.
    
    I'm very curious to see what will happen next.
    
    Lori

    I've been too busy to enter this last week but this letter appeared
    in Tuesday, Feb 23, 1988 edition of Wilkes Barre Citizens' Voice.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    The Smurl family: 'Pain' still with us
    
    Editor:
       We, the Smurl family, have been sitting back and reading articles
    about ourselves and up to now have choosen to keep silent.  We now
    feel this is the time to write a few facts or [of?] our own.
       In August of 1986 we reached out to the "Valley With a Heart"
    for help.  What we received was more pain, on top of an already
    unbearable pain.  We were mocked, ridiculed, spit on, mentally and
    physically abused, and our home vandalized.  Frankly we couldn't
    tell the difference between the pain inflicted on us by the devil
    or that of mortal man.                                          
       No one ever took the time to check out our background because
    they would have found we were good neighbors, hard working,
    community-minded and religious.  This of course would not have fit
    with what they did say - that we were a hoax, drug addicts, alcoholics,
    insane and suffering from mass hysteria.
       When we realized we had a problem in our home, we could have
    cut and run as most families would have, and sold our home to some
    poor and unsuspecting family at full value.  But, no, we decided
    to stand and fight.  Our whole lives were invested into our home
    and we didn't intend to give up without a fight, and one hell of
    a fight we got.                                                 
       After each of the four exorcisms in our home (the last being
    in the spring of 1987) we did have relief for a short time, but
    like taking aspirins for a brain tumor, the pain returned, greater
    than before.
       After a long, painful and tiring fight, we decided there was
    only one thing to do, move, and so we did.  We knew the risk was
    that our problem would go with us, and after a very short time our
    greatest fears were realized.  "It" did go with us.  Now not only
    do we still have the problem, but we've lost our home, and tens
    of thousands of dollars all because of our honesty.  (So much for
    honesty.)
       Some may think we're a beaten family, torn by the pain and agony
    of it all, but we'll continue to fight, and deal with whatever comes
    our way, because we have God and truth on our side.  Through spiritual
    advisement we have learned the reason for our problem, but have
    yet to learn the solution, if there is one.  Most importantly we
    have learned to accept our affliction and how to deal with it.
       Our story, soon to be told, provides of witnesses (excluding
    family members).  These people are from all walks of life, religions
    and nationalities.  And all but a few have given permission for
    their real names to be used.
       Since our story's been written, dozens more have been witnesses
    to our problem, and they too are from all walks of life, religions
    and nationalities.
       Finally, we would like to add that several families with problems
    similar to ours have come to us for help.  Good, honest, hard-working
    and religious people who have no place to turn, and who have seen
    what has happened to us by going public and would rather suffer
    the wrath of the devil than that of mortal man.  What does this
    say for humanity? 
       One has only to look around hom [home?] to see the work of the
    devil - alcoholism, drug adiction, abortion are all running our
    [out?] of control.  Satanic colts [cults?] are rising up everywhere
    and growing as Christianity once did.
       Whatever your personal beliefs, one thing is for certain, something
    is definitely wrong and getting worse as each day passes, pray for
    those afflicted, who know [knows?], you could be next.
       "Our lady of the valley, have mercy on us."
                                                  
                                            The Smurl Family

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    

    Re .68, .64 (Lori):
    
    Thanks for the input.  What's interesting,
    
    >   Our story, soon to be told, provides of witnesses (excluding
    >family members).  These people are from all walks of life, religions
    >and nationalities.  And all but a few have given permission for
    >their real names to be used.
    >   Since our story's been written, dozens more have been witnesses
    >to our problem, and they too are from all walks of life, religions
    >and nationalities.
     
    [From the Smurls' letter]
    
    >I'm kinda convinced that this all has to do with the book coming
    >out shortly.
     
    Sorta sounds that way, doesn't it?
    
    >   In August of 1986 we reached out to the "Valley With a Heart"
    >for help.  What we received was more pain, on top of an already
    >unbearable pain.  We were mocked, ridiculed, spit on, mentally and
    >physically abused, and our home vandalized.  Frankly we couldn't
    >tell the difference between the pain inflicted on us by the devil
    >or that of mortal man.                                          
     
    Again, if I were "spit on," "physically abused," or had my "home
    vandalized," I'd holler cop.  More important, I cannot imagine that
    physical abuse or vandalism wouldn't have hit the papers, especially
    in the case of something that made _national_ news and having to
    do with the paranormal.  [Even if the "legitimate" papers downplayed
    it, I'd think the supermarket tabloids would have had a field day
    with it.]
    
    >   After each of the four exorcisms in our home (the last being
    >in the spring of 1987) we did have relief for a short time, but
    >like taking aspirins for a brain tumor, the pain returned, greater
    >than before.
    >   After a long, painful and tiring fight, we decided there was
    >only one thing to do, move, and so we did.  We knew the risk was
    >that our problem would go with us, and after a very short time our
    >greatest fears were realized.  "It" did go with us.  Now not only
    >do we still have the problem, but we've lost our home, and tens
    >of thousands of dollars all because of our honesty.  (So much for
    >honesty.)
     
    "So much for honesty"?!  That alone speaks volumes.
    
    Set mode/disable=doubter
    
    Setting aside the probability that this might be a hoax, if we accept
    the happenings as genuine, then what's going on would sdeem to be
    more a poltergeist phenomenon than anything else.  The "sulpher
    smell" and "smoke" and pig-like noises are probably secondary to
    the physical manifestations such as breakages.  There are adolestents
    in the house (prime, though not sole, candidates for the roles of
    initiators/foci of poltergeist phenomena).  If these were the agents
    or one was an agent, then _perhaps_ a serious exorcism would quiet
    things down because of inhibitors to the subconscious.
    
    set mode/enable=doubter  
    
    The timing does seem awfully good, though ...
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .69
    
    I still don't see any evidence of Jack Smurl as anything but victim.
    
    The timing that this came out again *is* suspicious and, while I
    would classify Smurl as a "suspect", he comes way, way down after
    Ed Warren and the author of the book (or his/her publisher, agent,
    etc.).
    
    In the letter, Jack Smurl sounds like someone who thinks that the
    book -- telling, as he thinks, his side of the story -- will vindicate
    him.
    
    I think that he is due to be disappointed.
    
    First, there is a good probability that the book won't contain what
    he expects it to.  Second, even if it does, it will just stir up
    more controversy, further polarize things, and open him up for more
    abuse.  
    
    > Again, if I were "spit on," ... I'd holler cop.
    
    So would I.  So Smurl may well have done.  When one person is
    harrasing you, this is effective (although a big hassle in its own
    right).  When you are being persecuted by a large number of people
    it's less than effective.  What can the police do -- set up around-
    the-clock protection for every member of your family and your home?
    Add a certain amount of sympathy for the harrasers on the part of
    the authorities (after all Smurl is "obviously" a nut and/or fraud
    whose statements have resulted (apparently) in a major headache
    (traffic problems if nothing else) for the police.  "Someone is
    in your garden again?  Sure it isn't a little green man?")
    
    > More important, I cannot imagine physical abuse or vandalism
    > wouldn't hit the papers.
    
    I can -- I would be surprised if it got more than the vague mention
    of the circus of onlookers mentioned in one of the earlier stories.
    Perfectly ordinary, mundane, corporeal harrasment is just not the
    story that demons from hell are.  Furthermore, the media has a
    reluctance to report the consequences of its intrusions.
    
    More than that -- I would have been surprised if there had *not*
    been this type of harrasement.  Souvenir hunters, "celebrity hounders",
    neghbors upset about damage done by the curiosity seekers, townspeople
    who feel that they are being made to look ridiculous, religious
    fanatics, and people who are just plain scared by the whole thing
    and so strike out at the only target in sight -- the pattern is
    unfortunately familiar in cases like this.
    
    > "So much for honesty"?!  That alone speaks volumes.
    
    I think it is reasonable to suppose that Smurl does not write with
    the precision of meaning that you or I would.  I suspect that we
    would have said "openness" rather than "honesty".  What I hear is
    what sounds like genuine bitterness.
    
    > [Poltergeist]
    
    I think that we can agree that this is pretty much a classic
    poltergeist case filtered through vernacular Catholic beliefs and Ed
    Warren's standard patter.  I can say that without the "doubter"
    brackets around it, since many, perhaps most classic poltergeist
    manifestations are clearly partially or wholly the result of conscious
    or unconscious fraud on the part of the "focus".  The psychodynamics
    are the same.  The "flavor" of the incidents are the same.  Only
    the use of overt rather than subconscious PK distinguishes them.
    I.e., at most, only some "genuine" poltergeist phenomena are PK.
    (Before you ask, non-genuine poltergeist phenomena would be
    fraudulently created "poltergeist" phenomena for purely for purposes
    of publicity or money).
    
    					Topher 

    Re .70 (Topher)_:
    
    >The timing that this came out again *is* suspicious and, while I
    >would classify Smurl as a "suspect", he comes way, way down after
    >Ed Warren and the author of the book (or his/her publisher, agent,
    >etc.).
     
    Perhaps I came on too strong.  My profession, though, makes me extra
    suspicious of potential manipulations of public opinion.  His quote
    that people of all races, religions, etc., sounds quite promotional;
    however, I'm willing to temper my suspicions to the idea that someone
    on the order of Ed Warren pumped him up with the thoughts so that
    a letter might appear at a propitious time.
    
    >I think that he is due to be disappointed.
    
    I agree fully here.  If the case is geniune, the hooplah the book
    is given will make it difficult for the general reader to take
    seriously; if it's a fraud, I suspect after the _Amityville Horror_
    debacle, the credibility will be insufficient for heavy sales. 
    Nor do we know what cut, if any, Smurl will get from the proceeds.
    (Wouldn't it be ironic if Smurl is a genuine victim got _none- of
    the proceeds?  It's happened in other circumstances that way before.)
    
    >> More important, I cannot imagine physical abuse or vandalism
    >> wouldn't hit the papers.
    >
    >I can -- I would be surprised if it got more than the vague mention
    >of the circus of onlookers mentioned in one of the earlier stories.
    >Perfectly ordinary, mundane, corporeal harrasment is just not the
    >story that demons from hell are.
     
    Here I must respectfully disagree.  Particularly as the interest
    in potential demons might be waning, it would be a _lovely_ human
    interest story (speaking journalistically) to cover the "demons"
    within the Smurl's fellow men.  It certainly would be worth an
    editorial locally.
    
    >> [Poltergeist]
    >
    >I think that we can agree that this is pretty much a classic
    >poltergeist case filtered through vernacular Catholic beliefs and Ed
    >Warren's standard patter.
     
    Here we are in substantial agreement.  However, the "doubter"
    qualification was to discuss the phenomena exclusive of conscious
    fraud.  If we go back to the _initial_ story, before the head of
    Ed Warren began to rise above the surface, and strip away the odors
    and noises, it does indeed sound like a poliergeist manifestation.
    And that wouldn't be demonic.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Re .62  (Lori):
    
>                             -< They're Baaacck >-
 
    They sure are:
    
    >   A book by Robert DeFiore, a reporter who covered the story for
    >The Scranton Tribune, will be published shortly on the Smurl's
    >situation and Jack Smurl said he is resentful of recent insinuations
    >that the problems have recurred in time to help publicize the book.
     
    That book apparently is now out.  On the [Boston] Radio talk show,
    _The Ted and Janet Show_, aired on WRKO, co-host Ted indicated he's
    read the book over the weekend and found it "scary."
    
    Some of the points he summarized:
    
    The Smurls (or someone) supposed that "occult objects" were buried
    under or near the house, which is why the exorcisms "didn't stick,"
    according to Ted.
    
    There were cautions against using Ouija boards or conducting seances,
    as these invited demons in.
    
    The book was written to the time the Smurls moved.  From what Ted
    said, there was no indication that the demon(s) moved with them.
    
    >   "In August of 1986, we reached out to the 'Valley with a Heart'
    >for help.  What we received was more pain, on top of an already
    >unbearable pain.  We were mocked, ridiculed, spit on, mentally and
    >physically abused, and our home violated. ..."
     
    One of Ted's comments was that he was really upset at Smurl's
    description of "how he was raped by the demon."
    
    Curiouser and curiouser.
                     
    The Smurls are scheduled to be interviewed on the T&J show just
    about now.  [Of course, this has nothing to do with publicizing
    the book ... :-)]
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.   

    re .72 (me):
    
    And furthermore ... :-)
    
    I had to swing by my home this noon, and my wife indicated that
    the Smurls were on several televisiobn shows talking up their book.
    
    My wife, who is an incredibly good judge of characters and motivations,
    said that in her opinion the Smurl story seemed other than candid.
    
    Had I known they were going to be on, I'd have videotaped it.
    
    [Nothing _at all_ to do with the book promotion. :-P]
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Hi Steve,
    
    I've been away from notes for a while.  Wanted to let you know that
    I read the book last week and...well...I guess I was disappointed.
    
    The book seems as if it were written by a third grader.  It is very
    lacking in detail.  The book is so bad I think it takes away from
    their credibility.  
    
    
    Have you read the book yet?
                      
    Lor

    Re .74 (Lor):
    
    No.  I'll either look it up in the library or wait for a(n inevitable)
    papernack.  I didn't see any of the interviews that were telecast,
    but my wife (who isn't particularly interested in the paranormal)
    did, and she said they didn't even _sound_ credible.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    [Printed in the 9 August 1988 supermarket tabloid, _Sun_  (c) 1988]
    
    They endure 10 years of terror before ....
       
                DEMONS DRIVE FAMILY OUT OF THEIR HOME   
                          by Raymond LaJoie
    
    Strange noises, ghostly apparitions and evil attacks nearly drove an
    upright, God-fearing family to ruin in one of the most dramatic
    cases of demonic infestation in years.
         The Smurl family -- Jack and Janet and their four daughters
    -- will never forget the decade of hell they endured at the duplex
    they shared with Jack's parents in West Pittson, PA.
    	At first, the weird incidents were merely amusing or mildly
    annoying.  The toilet flushed repeatedly when no one was in the
    bathroom, or radios blared even though they were nunplugged.
    	Tension began to mount in the Smurl household as the mysterious
    events became more and more terrifying.
    	One day, Janet felt an abrupt chill.
    	She looked up to see a black, human-shaped form -- seemingly
    made of dark smoke -- race through the house, leaving a hideous
    odor in its wake.
    	Then Janet and the girls went into the kitchen preparing for
    young Heather's confirmation when a light fixture ripped away from
    the ceiling and crashed to the floor, missing Heather's sister,
    Shannon, by inches.
    	The family was convinced that whatever was tormenting them meant
    business.
    	They began a 10-month odyssey of contacting government agencies
    and university parapsychology departments seeking help.
                                isolated
                                --------
    	Janet said they were treated cooly at best.
    	The Smurls felt isolated, alone and helpless.  The horrifying
    events became increasingly violent.
    	Unsees hands grasped Janet's neck, loosening their death grip
    only when she began to pray and envision herself enveloped in Christ's
    light.
    	Shannon was thrown from her top bunk bed by an invisible force.
     Janet and Jack were both sexually attacked by demons.
                                haunted
                                -------
    	Just when it appeared that the Smurls would crumble under the
    pressure, help arrived in the form of a phone call from a friend
    who put them in contact with noted demonologists Ed and Lorraine
    Warren.
    	Ed, director of the New England Society for Psychic Research,
    and Lorraine, a top psychic, were veterans of demon wars, having
    been involved in the case now known as the Amityville horror.
    	They quickly concluded the house was haunted by agents of Satan.
    	They Warrens prayed and conducted lay rituals in an attempt
    to drive the demons away.  They also enlisted the aid of Father
    Robert McKenna of Monroe, CT, who performed three exorcisms.
    	Eventually, the Smurls moved to Pennsylvania and started a new
    life.
    	The Warrens say the family survived their ordeal because of
    strong moral values, unshakable religious faith and undying love
    for each other.
    	They now ask all who know the Smurls or are acquainted with
    their spine-chilling story to pray that God will put an end to their
    terrible nightmare.
                                  [end]
    =====================================================================
            
    Presented as a public service. ;-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    
    "Smurls"?
    
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !
    
    :^) Thanks, Steve.
    
    
    GCA/
    
    

    
    
    Re: .76
    
    	"Eventually the Smurfs moved to Pennsylvania"
    
    	"The Warrens say the family survived (past tense?) their
    		ordeal..."
    
    	"They now ask all who know the Smurfs...ect...to pray that 
    		God will put an end to there terrible nightmare."
    
    	If they have moved and all this is over how come they are
    		requesting prayer? I doubt it will hurt but it seems
    		like they are praying for "X" when "X" has already
    		happened?
    
    	possible new topic?...
    
    	From what I remember Demonologists used to name the different
    	Demons and explain the "political structure" of Hell. This
    	as well as numbering the Demons was what it used to be. At
    	times I guess this bled over to conjuring up the "little-
    	devils" in order to obtain riches and "other things".
                                                             
    	How does Demonology differ now from what it was way back when?
    	What exactly is it now? what exactly was it then?
    
    	Craig,

    Re .77 (GCA):
    
    "Smurl" is legitimate; see the base note.
    
    Re .78 (Craig):
    
    >	"Eventually the Smurfs moved to Pennsylvania"
    
    Not hard to do since the story said they started out in Pennsylvania.
    As did other stories.
    
    >	From what I remember Demonologists used to name the different
    >	Demons and explain the "political structure" of Hell. This
    >	as well as numbering the Demons was what it used to be. At
    >	times I guess this bled over to conjuring up the "little-
    >	devils" in order to obtain riches and "other things". 
     
    Yes, and that political structure was a real mishmash, though primarily
    reflecting the Medieval/Renniassance  political structure of Europe.
    Baal is a King,  Seere is a Prince, and Leraje is a Marquis, in
    the traditional scheme, for instance.  Yer Ose is a President, as
    is Malpas.  Andromalius is both a Duke and an Earl, from which,
    I suppose, comes the song _The Duke of Earl_.  Murmur has the same
    double rank.  But then, Presidents, Kings, etc., were all small
    potatoes compared to the inner circle, anyway.
    
    >	How does Demonology differ now from what it was way back when?
    >	What exactly is it now? what exactly was it then?
     
    Well, technically, "Demonology" is the study of demons.  Some calling
    themselves demonologists today, though, often try to act as lay
    exorcists.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    
    	I must admit that I am a skeptic...BUT!  I have read so
    	much about this particular family in magazines upon
    	magazines all the way from the supermarket tabloids to
    	magazines such as Redbook, etc.
    
    	With so much publicity going on and the stories all being
    	relatively the same, I am starting to believe this is
    	actually taking place.  The last I heard, their ordeal
    	was NOT over.  They had left their home on a camping 
    	trip in hopes of the leaving the demons behind.
    
    	No such luck.  They followed them wherever they went.
    
    	/Kim
    

    Re .80 (Kim):
    
        >With so much publicity going on and the stories all being
    	>relatively the same, I am starting to believe this is
    	>actually taking place.  The last I heard, their ordeal
    	>was NOT over.  They had left their home on a camping 
    	>trip in hopes of the leaving the demons behind.
        >
    	>No such luck.  They followed them wherever they went.
         
    If you haven't already, you might like to go back to the base note
    and step through the responses to see how this story has evolved.
    Basically, there are four possibilities:
    
    1)  The story is absolutely accurate as reported.  
    
    2)  There is a basic story there that's true, but it's been
        overlaid with embellishments.
    
    3)  (At least some of the) Smurls are victims of a hoax.
    
    4)  (At least some of the) Smurls are participating in a hoax.
    
    If 1) is true, it's a case of demonic infestation.  If case 2) is
    true, then, as Topher Cooper and I discussed, it's probably a classic
    poltergeist manifestation (the "demons" would likely "follow" because
    the prime suspect for such manifestations would be the teenage
    children).  If 3) is true, the Smurls are sincere, but somebody's
    causing them (nonsupernatural) grief.  If 4) is true, then the whole
    story is an attempt to make money off peoples' credibility.
    
    The fly in the ointment seems to be Ed (and Lorraine) Warren.  Warren
    has a reputation that is far from enviable in paranormal circles;
    with him in the picture, 2), 3), or 4) are distinct possibilities.
    
    Concentrating on your first point,
    
        >With so much publicity going on and the stories all being
    	>relatively the same, I am starting to believe this is
    	>actually taking place.  ...
                                    
    ... "publicity" doesn't necessarily equate to "truth."  The world
    is full of famous hoaxes, such as the Cardiff Giant (or in the
    scientific community, the Piltdown Man).  There's some uncomfortable
    validity in the saying that if you say a thing long enough, often
    enough, and loudly enough, people will start to believe you.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .80 (Kim)
    
    >With so much publicity going on and the stories all being
    >relatively the same, I am starting to believe this is
    >actually taking place.
    
    In this case the stories continue to come out and to stay relatively
    the same because they come from two coordinated sources, the Smurls
    and Ed Warren.  Ed Warren in particular is very expert at keeping
    press attention stirred up.
    
    However, even this is not needed for the right (false) story to
    circulate with only minor changes for years.  These are called
    urban legends (though they differ very little in character from other
    legends).  A folklorest named (I'm guessing at the spelling)
    Brunveldt has documented a number of them in a series of popular
    books (the titles I remember are The Choking Doberman, and The
    Mexican Pet.  I'm sure there is at least one more).  He also
    occasionally appears on the National Public Radio program Fresh
    Air.
    
    I highly recommend these books.  You will find many stories you
    have heard, some of which you accepted as true.  Even good newspapers
    regularly print them as true (the reporters and/or editors have
    checked with several sources all of whom are sure its true --
    frequently including the police).  One such story, backed up
    by calls to the police, has recently circulated through the
    electronic mail system here at DEC -- a warning about LSD saturated
    press on "blue-dot" decals.  This story has been circulating since
    the 60's where it probably originated in some confusion with
    "blotting paper acid".  No one has ever found any basis in fact
    to these stories, but fairly regularly some police department
    or another hears of it and issues formal warning to "be on the
    lookout."
    
    					Topher

    Topher,
    
    You got enough of his name right to lead anyone to him in a
    card catalog or in _Books_in_Print_; it's something like
    Brundvandt.  His first book was titled _The_Vanishing_Hitchhiker_,
    and he tracked *that* legend back to the LAST century when the
    hitchhiker rode pillion.
    
    (Two years ago, when I got an anecdote about Mrs. Field's Cookies
    off the net, I thought to myself, "This is the Red Velvet Cake
    story, updated."  So I wrote him, and gave him the story.  Alas!
    his son had sent him an earlier version, but he did send me a
    nice letter about it.)
    
    						Ann B.

    The author's name is Jan Howard Brunvand, and there are three books
    in the series: The Vanishing Hitchhiker, The Choking Doberman and
    a third, whose name slips my mind right now.
    
    Time and time again, it is my sad duty to inform people that things
    like the "Poodle in the Microwave" simply never happened.  People
    can grow *very* indignant and defensive about these things, so tread
    lightly!  An officemate circulated the LSD messae and got pretty
    annoyed when I told her it was proably false.
    
    - Dan Parmenter

    If anyone out there was buying it, the linking to the "Amityville 
    Horror" gave the whole thing away....
    
    							Don

                     Well its almost to the end of 88 and no more
                  responces in this notefile. Has anyone heard how
                  the Smurls are doing?? Are they rich yet or maybe
                  still going through the hauntings or poltergiest
                  activity in there new home, or perhaps after the
                  release of the book the entity felt content and 
                  went away. Well if the ordeal was indeed actual
                  and happen the way they said, well I wouldn't want
                  to be in there shoes. Book or no book its something
                  they have to live with. Unfortunetly if it was
                  real Mr. Warren and others not excluding the book,
                  have surley fueled the fire doubt, and if the
                  activity they have had to put up with all this time
                  is still in full swing to whom do they turn to now?
                  No sir I would not want to be in there shoes.
    
    
    
                                    Mike

    Re .86 (Mike):
    
    The closest thing I saw was a wrtiteup of them in the supermarket_
    tabloid, _The Sun_, which I'm told is one of the more off-the-wall
    of such publications.  It contained no new information, but it did
    make some flattering (and unsubstantiated) references to Ed and
    Louise Warren.   The issue was out a few months ago, and the writeup
    couldn't have been more than 1,500 words.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    It is now half-past 1989, and no more word.  I haven't even seen
    a paperback of the book.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    	It's funny, but I just finished reading the book about the
    Smurl's, the Haunting, I believe is the title.  I had not followed
    this file, and so it was with great interest that I read all the
    replies to this.
    	I would not be as harsh on the book, as someone earlier was.
    But it did leave me wondering.  I think that there is a distinct
    possibilty that at least a portion of this saga is true.  The problem
    is that how much did Warren distort the facts?
    	By the way, this book, which was given to me by a friend, was the
    first that I had ever heard of the ordeal.
    
    	Tim

The movie of the Smurl family was telecast last night; nonwithstanding that it
was a "television premiere" film, it was something that obviously
had been developed for theatrical release: at the beginning of
the film, there was an indication that all the happenings reported
in the film were vouched for, but that the "events in the supermarket"
couldn't be verified by independent witnesses.  As telecast, there
_were_ no events in any supermarket.

Did this ever hit a theater?  I don't know.

The film purports to be a true story, though some scenes were added
or altered "for dramatic effect," according to a subtitle.  This is
not unakin to saying that in _The Wind and the Lion_, the story was
true, but the identity of the kidnapped U.S. citizen had been changed
from a man to a woman "for dramatic effect."

Anyway, the whole story of the Smurls and their reputed case of
demonic harassment broke some years ago on the wire services; 
whether there was or is anything to it may never be known to any but
the principals, since the publicity, the entry of Ed and Louise Warren
(of "Amityville Horror" fame [and the AH was demonstrated to be a hoax,
according to press reports]), and some sensationalist accounts in 
supermarket tabloids have helped cloud the issue.

Since the film acknowledged it took at least some dramatic license,
it can be viewed as fiction.

The story starts when the Smurl family, consisting of Mr. and Mrs.
Smurl, their children, and his parents, move into a house that
was converted into a Duplex.  During the renovation, odd things start
to happen, such as disappearing and reappearing tools, etc.  Then
Mrs. Smurl (who acts as a sort of narrator) starts Hearing Things.
While she's beset, the rest of the family's initially ignored.  Because
of the things happening to her, her husband and children begin to wonder
whether she's all right (in the head), but eventually her husband is
beset, then the kids, and eventually the elder Smurls.

Mrs. Smurl suggested that they move to another house (when she was the
only target), but her husband pointed out that they (a) couldn't 
afford it, having sunk all their money into the (beset) house; and
(b) his mother had a sufficiently weak heart that the move would
doubtless kill her.

The Smurls were presented as devout Roman Catholics, so when they 
were both convinced of the evil presence(s) in the house, they 
approached a priest, whom they extended an invitation to dinner to.
After supper, though not convinced the problem was real, he blessed
the house, room by room, which unnerved him. "If anything further
happens, please let me know," he said, mopping his made-sweaty face
as he bade them goodnight.

To be sure, something did. However, approaching the priest again
did little good: he couldn't perform an exorcism without permission
of his superiors.  However, nearly at the end of their rope(s), 
the Smurls got a breather: Mrs. Smurl attended a lecture by Ed and
Louise Warren, and convinced them to look into their house.  Armed
only with a small Crucifix and "extra-specially blessed Holy Water,"
they visited the house, and determined that there were three ghosts and
a demon in it.  As they were investigating, manifestations started
to take place, but he quiets then with his special Holy Water.

Well, Ed Warren manages to find an Episcopal priest who conducted an
exorcism.  This works for a while, but then They return.  Mr. Smurl
gets raped by a female Something (the mechanism of how this is possible
escapes me), Mrs. Smurl is levitated, and the children now know 
Something Bad is happening.

In desperation, they Go To The Press, and the place gets surrounded by
reporters and the curious.  In times, fellow churchgoers break through
the crowd of press & curious and hold a candlelight service that makes
the Smurls Feel Good.

Eventually, they move, but they're Followed to their new home.  The film sort
of ends there, though in a end subtitle it states that after two exorcisms,
the Smurls found relief.

As a film, a number of questions are left unanswered.  Chief among them is
how the elder Mrs. Smurl, whose heart was supposed to be so weak she couldn't
stand a move moved anyway; much less how she withstood the onslaught of 
supernatural critters without coronary arrest.

I suspect the film was called _The Haunted_ because there is a superb and
tense film called _The Haunting_, taken from a Shirley Jackson novel, that
this sounds close to.

Don't be surprised if it's rentable as a videotape soon.  Probably real soon.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .90 (Steve)

> Did this ever hit a theater?  I don't know.

    Steve, my guess is that this film (which I have not yet seen -- I taped
    it -- so I'm going by your description) was *not* made for theatrical
    release.  A lot of films are now being made explicitly to make money on
    video release.  Some have had a (generally brief) theatrical release
    specifically for publicity and to create name-recognition.  For
    example, the producers who financed the recent restoration of "Lawrence
    of Arabia" were quite open that that was their intent.

    My guess is that the production company who made this film had their
    eye on profits for video release.  Releasing it first on FOX meant that
    they could get capitalization from FOX, and publicity both directly
    from the showing of the film and from FOX's publicity department (I
    understand, for example, that Mrs. Warren was "interviewed" on
    Entrainment Tonight [sic]).  FOX may have decided that the supermarket
    scene violated S&P (Standards and Practices, i.e., it was "censored")
    or it may have been left out of the broadcast version so as to be able
    to provide "something more" in the video release.  (There is probably
    some of the latter in the film, even if the supermarket scene was a
    case of the former -- as implied by the less-than-clean excision).

>Don't be surprised if it's rentable as a videotape soon.  Probably real soon.

    I won't be.  But not because it didn't live up to the producer's
    expectations.

				    Topher

    Cliff,
    
    The Vanishing Hitchhiker story has been traced (by Jan Brunvand)
    back to the 19th century.  The Cheap Cadillac study was traced to
    an actual incident near Detroit in the late 1930s.  That is the *only*
    story that Brunvand could find an actual, concrete beginning for.
    
    						Ann B.
    
    P.S.  Bundvand invites different versions of urban legends.  Yours,
    being older than many, should be of significant interest to him.  Why
    don't you send it?

    I don't remember how old the choking doberman story is -- generally
    no one knows but folklorists can say "at least as old as ..."  Some of
    these stories have circulated, in slowly evolving forms, for hundreds
    of years.  I check the books to see if an earliest known version is
    specified.

    When versions such as yours are traced down, what usually happens is
    that the neighbor to whom it supposedly happens will say, "No, they
    didn't understand, it happend to a friend of my cousin's."  Or someone
    may have attributed the incident to them for various reasons.  (For
    example, in this case, it might be that someone heard the story and
    "knew" that it had to be that person since they were the only person
    who lived around there who had a basement and a doberman).

					Topher

    A very similar tale has been told to me in several versions. Here is a
    generic version of it.

    While stopped at traffic lights late at night the car is surrounded by
    young men. They start to bounce the car and the driver panics, guns
    the engine and runs the red. When he gets home he walks round the car
    to see what damage was done and to his horror finds three fingers in
    the grill on the rear of the car. The location and make of the car may
    vary but the number of fingers is usually three.

    Jamie.

RE: .92 (Cliff)

    I've checked with my copy of The Choking Doberman.  Although Brunvand
    relates the story to several other older ones the "earliest reliably
    dated complete American version of 'The Choking Doberman' story that
    [he has] found" is from June of 1981.  (This is from his 1984 book
    entitled "The Choking Doberman".  His next book, "The Mexican Pet"
    [thought to be a Chihuahua, it is actually a large rat], does  discuss
    the Choking Doberman story some more, but does not give any earlier
    date for the story; I do not have a copy of his 1989 book, "Curses!
    Broiled Again" to check).

    Given the large time gap (and even a small one might be significant
    to a folklorist) between your exposure to this story and his earliest
    recorded version (which are virtually the same), I think it would be
    a service to the scholarly community if you would either send this
    to Brunvand, or give me permission to send it for you.  The address
    is:

		    Professor Jan Harold Brunvand
		    Department of English
		    University of Utah
		    Salt Lake City, UT 84112

				Topher

RE: .95 (Jamie)

    Brunvand does consider your story (which he calls, "The Severed
    Fingers") as related to The Choking Doberman story.  He speculates that
    The Severed Fingers may be descended from a story which can be found in
    a text from 1579.  In that version a thief grabs a horse's bridle, but
    the rider strikes out with his sword and escapes.  A servant finds a
    severed hand still clutching the bridle.

    Brunvand doesn't mention it, but a version of The Severed Fingers is
    incorporated into the first Mad Max movie (the name of which escapes
    me: I sort of remember that it was called Mad Max in Australia but
    something else when it was released here in the United States.  This
    was because the sequal which was a hugh boxoffice success, had already
    been released here under the name Mad Max.  Or maybe I'm misremembering
    it.  Scriptwriters frequently make use of urban myths.

					Topher

    re: .97
    
    Sounds like this is related to a "severed hand" story I heard as a girl
    scout.
    
    Young couple is out necking, hears a report on the radio of an escaped
    psycho (ignored the report).  Later, they hear scrabbling at the car
    doors, panic, and drive off.  When they arrive home, there is a
    hand/arm (I've heard both variation) attached to one of the door
    latches.
    
    Another variation of this has the young man get out to investigate,
    later the girl hears (what she thinks is) water dripping on the hood of
    the car, then the scrabbling, and drives off.  The water dripping was
    actually the young man's blood (he was suspended over the car with a
    slit neck).  A hand is attached to the car door/bumper.
    
    OR, she stays in the car safe till dawn, to find the young man
    suspended over the car.
    
    (do you think Girl Scouts have nothing better to do ;-)
    
    Beth

    And another severed hand (just remembered the details):
    
    Men are out hunting, laying traps.  Upon checking one, they find a dead
    man near one (hand caught in the trap, bled to death).  They bury the
    body and hide the evidence, missing the hand somehow.  Later in the
    night, they awaken to this hand crawling on their tent, they panic and
    head for home.  While driving home, the hand gets into the car and
    grabs one of them.
    
    (a variation of the telling has the teller keep a hand away from any
    warmth, and at the peak of tension, grab somebody by the back of the
    neck with their ice cold hand)
    
    Beth
    
    (Girl Scouts was such fun ;-)

In his book on horror fiction, _Danse Macabre_, Stephen King gives a variant
called "The Hook"; about a couple who drive somewhere to neck.  He turns on the 
car's radio looking for music and hears a news bulletin about a lunatick who
has a hook instead of a hand who's being hunted for a homicide, ansd is thought 
to be in the area where the couple is.  She's scared; there's a scrabbling sound, 
and to humor her, he drives off. When they get home, in the door handle, they 
find a hook....

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    That's an old, old tell it round the girlscout campfire "ghost" story.
    
    Mary

RE: .98 (Beth)

    Your second story is known to folklorists, according to Brunvand, as
    "The Boyfriend's Death".  He discusses it in his first popular book
    "The Vanishing Hitchhiker".

				    Topher

RE: .98 (Beth), .101 (Steve)

    Brunvand also discusses "The Hook" in The Vanishing Hitchhiker.  Beth's
    version seems to be a combination of The Hook and The Severed Fingers.

					Topher

RE: .99 (Beth)

    There is a distinction, although at times a fuzzy one, drawn between an
    ordinary ghost story and an urban legend.  Essentially, the distinction
    is as to whether the teller is likely to believe the story -- or at
    least believe that it very well might be true.  I would guess that the
    vengefull hand story is not an urban legend.  It is, however, folklore,
    and it is, clearly, a related story.

				    Topher

RE: .100 (Cliff)

>As I said in .92, having no reason to doubt the sincerity of the
>originators of the story, I always believed it.

    And there isn't much reason even now to doubt their sincerity.  You
    see, they almost certainly heard it from someone whose sincerity they
    had no reason to doubt.

					Topher

RE: .107 (Cliff)

>            -< Did some bored soul make up _all_ these stories? >-

    I take it that that was meant as a joke -- one person making up all the
    thousands of stories and variants over periods of centuries.

    But it is worth pointing out that no one makes up most of these
    stories.  They start with some generally unguessable root (although
    Brunvand has now tracked down several stories to their apparent roots)
    and evolve.  People misunderstand, misremember, change "maybes" to
    certainties, try to rationalize details that don't make sense to them,
    etc.  Evolution is probably a good analogy -- variants (mutations)
    which have stronger cultural or individual "resonance" are more likely
    to be transmitted and thus live on.  They quickly evolove to a point
    where the original root -- whether an actual event, or an obvious
    fiction -- is almost unrecognizable.

>As I stated previously, to the best of my knowledge they didn't "hear it
>from someone", they experienced it.

    No disrespect, Cliff, but that is not what you said previously -- quite
    the contrary.  You did not report that your informants were the woman,
    involved in the house search with the police, or for that matter were
    the intruder or the dog :-).  Those were the people in the story who
    experienced it.  What you said is that they had heard the story
    somewhere (unspecified) and believed it to be a true story about the
    woman who they babysat for occasionally.  You did not say that they had
    even heard it from the woman (one step removed).  If they babysitting
    was their only direct contact with the woman, and they were now
    unwilling to babysit, then they may have had no further significant
    contact with the woman at all.

    What you describe is not at all an unusual pattern -- a little closer
    than most (a casual aquaintance was involved rather than the classic
    FOAF; Friend Of A Friend) but not unusual.  When investigated it
    usually turns out to not be what the person believed.  The person
    believed to have direct and reliable knowledge turns out upon
    questioning to not have that knowledge at all -- actually it happened
    to a cousin of one of their friends.

    It is very, very easy to be taken in by these stories.  They appear
    quite regularly in even reputable newspapers -- the reporter or editor
    checks with several sources who all agree that it occured, and so
    consider it reliable enough to print.

					    Topher

    
    More "urban legend" stuff:
    
    The story about the child who was kidnapped at a shopping mall
    and found with her hair cut short went around DEC maybe 3 years
    ago.
    
    I've got a copy of a local paper with the "Blue Star LSD Tatoo" story
    from about 4 years ago.
    
    (Both of these are 'certified' urban legends, mentioned by Brunvald)
    
    (I recall it was _The Road Warrior_ that had the severed hand, BTW.
    It's also known as "the Mad Max movie that had to be dubbed from 
    Austrialian into English.")