The third installment in the Conjuring series is coming out in late May in England and in early June in the United States. The first two installments were among the most popular horror movies ever made. Like other popular movies, their influence overflows into other contexts. One of those other contexts is the predictable discussions of Ed and Lorraine Warren that come up whenever a Conjuring movie is released.
There's a large amount of material on the web discussing the case The Conjuring 3 is based on. The best articles I've come across are this one in the Washington Post that was published in 1981, shortly before the trial of Arne Johnson began, and this one published in 2014 in the Hartford Courant. And here's a more recent article that summarizes how various aspects of the case have developed over the last few decades.
I want to quote and comment on some portions of the first two stories linked above, since I found those portions especially pertinent to evaluating the genuineness of the case. First, from the Washington Post story:
Showing posts with label The Conjuring 2. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Conjuring 2. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 18, 2021
Thursday, May 25, 2017
Ed And Lorraine Warren's Involvement In The Enfield Case
A movie came out last year that's loosely related to the Enfield Poltergeist, titled The Conjuring 2. The movie, which I haven't seen, apparently portrays Ed and Lorraine Warren as central to the investigation of the case. As a result of the movie and for other reasons, there's been a lot of discussion lately about the Warrens and their involvement in Enfield. A commenter in another thread asked me, about three weeks ago, what I thought of the Warrens. I said, "From what little I've heard about and from the Warrens, their work seems highly problematic. [Guy] Playfair discusses his view of Ed Warren in the MonsterTalk interview I linked earlier (start listening at 26:30). The Warrens' involvement in the Enfield case was negligible." I have no reason to significantly change my view of the Warrens in general, but I have changed my mind about their involvement in the Enfield case.
Since I posted my comments on the Warrens quoted above, I've read an article on the Warrens' involvement in Enfield by Tom Ruffles of the Society for Psychical Research. I've also read Gerald Brittle's coverage of the Enfield case in his book on the Warrens, The Demonologist (Los Angeles and New York: Graymalkin Media, 2013). I've read some comments by the Warrens' son-in-law, Tony Spera, about the Warrens' involvement in the Enfield case. And I've listened to the Warrens' audio recordings of their time in the Hodgson house that have been posted at the web site for The Conjuring 2. (Click on Menu on the left side of the screen, then The Warren Files, then Explore The Case Files.)
I don't understand why these tapes have received so little attention. Brittle refers to them in his book and cites some portions of them, but doesn't discuss the majority of the most important content. (The book doesn't give much coverage to the Enfield case.) I don't recall any other book or any article I've read discussing the tapes in any significant depth. I saw one commenter in one thread, at a web site I don't remember, link to the tapes at the movie's web site, which is how I found out that they were available for the general public to listen to. Spera, the Warrens' son-in-law, refers to the tapes being played publicly prior to the release of The Conjuring 2, but I don't know how extensively the tapes were made available to the general public at that point. The tapes ought to be discussed more than they have been.
I have a lot of problems with the Warrens and their handling of the Enfield case in particular. But Ed Warren and his colleagues deserve some credit for traveling to England, getting entrance to the Hodgson home, and arranging these recordings. I didn't notice anything on the tapes that fundamentally changes my view of the Enfield case or adds to the evidence in any major way, but there are a lot of bits and pieces of valuable information on a large variety of topics. I want to use the rest of this post to give some examples.
Since I posted my comments on the Warrens quoted above, I've read an article on the Warrens' involvement in Enfield by Tom Ruffles of the Society for Psychical Research. I've also read Gerald Brittle's coverage of the Enfield case in his book on the Warrens, The Demonologist (Los Angeles and New York: Graymalkin Media, 2013). I've read some comments by the Warrens' son-in-law, Tony Spera, about the Warrens' involvement in the Enfield case. And I've listened to the Warrens' audio recordings of their time in the Hodgson house that have been posted at the web site for The Conjuring 2. (Click on Menu on the left side of the screen, then The Warren Files, then Explore The Case Files.)
I don't understand why these tapes have received so little attention. Brittle refers to them in his book and cites some portions of them, but doesn't discuss the majority of the most important content. (The book doesn't give much coverage to the Enfield case.) I don't recall any other book or any article I've read discussing the tapes in any significant depth. I saw one commenter in one thread, at a web site I don't remember, link to the tapes at the movie's web site, which is how I found out that they were available for the general public to listen to. Spera, the Warrens' son-in-law, refers to the tapes being played publicly prior to the release of The Conjuring 2, but I don't know how extensively the tapes were made available to the general public at that point. The tapes ought to be discussed more than they have been.
I have a lot of problems with the Warrens and their handling of the Enfield case in particular. But Ed Warren and his colleagues deserve some credit for traveling to England, getting entrance to the Hodgson home, and arranging these recordings. I didn't notice anything on the tapes that fundamentally changes my view of the Enfield case or adds to the evidence in any major way, but there are a lot of bits and pieces of valuable information on a large variety of topics. I want to use the rest of this post to give some examples.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)