Enfield Poltergeist Investigator Says Warrens Never Involved in "Conjuring 2" Case

Conjuring the Truth: Enfield Poltergeist Investigator Says Ed and Lorraine Warren Never Investigated Case

Conjuring-sequel-is-a-lie

Hot on the heels of the debut trailer for The Conjuring 2: The Enfield Poltergeist comes a new revelation from Guy Lyon Playfair, one of the original investigators of the famous British ghost appearance, who says that controversial paranormal researchers Ed and Lorraine Warren were never involved in the case.

Billing itself as being ripped from the “true case files of Ed and Lorraine Warren”, the sequel to The Conjuring claims to follow the duo to Brimsdown, Enfield, England, where they proceed to investigate one of the most famous cases of poltergeist activity ever recorded. There’s only one problem: Guy Lyon Playfair, member of the Society for Psychical Research and one of the chief investigators of the Enfield Poltergeist case, says they showed up “uninvited”, stayed for only a day, and alleges that they manufactured their own paranormal evidence simply “to make money out of it.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The claims come from a brand new interview with Darkness Radio host Dave Schrader that aired on Thursday evening. You can listen to the whole interview with Playfair here (which I highly recommend), but I’ve taken the liberty of transcribing the relevant revelation for your convenience:

Dave Schrader: Mr. Playfair, I’m sure you’re familiar with Ed and Lorraine Warren and their research and work. Have they ever worked along with the Society for Psychical Research?

Guy Lyon Playfair: No. I bumped into Ed Warren once or twice, and Lorraine… and I got the impression that Ed Warren was, well.. (laughs) fill in your own expletive. I wasn’t impressed at all. Lorraine is still living, so I’ll refrain from commenting on her, but she was very… quite pleasant when I met her.

They did turn up once, I think, at Enfield, and all I can remember is Ed Warren telling me that he could make a lot of money for me out of it. So I thought, “well thats all I need to know from you” and I got myself out of his way as soon as I could. I said was not impressed. He didn’t spend… I don’t think he went there more than once. And I did read somewhere a transcript of a lengthy interview which he’s alleged to have with one of the girls – which they couldn’t remember giving him – and it was describing all sorts of marvelous wonders which I don’t think ever happened. I think he was a complete…um… well… (laughs)… fill in whatever word…

Dave: (laughs) I understand. So you don’t feel that – and especially in the interactions you had with him – you don’t feel that maybe they had the best intentions when it came to the investigations of these cases?

Guy: No, they just wanted to make money out of it.

Dave: Okay. Did – have you heard, or in your research, have you come across any proof that Ed or Lorraine Warren had anything to do with consulting or being a part of this investigation?

Guy: Certainly not. Nobody ever mentioned them. I mean, I don’t think anybody in the family had ever heard of him until he turned up. Uninvited. And uh..

Dave: Oh, so just came out…

Guy: …he said who he was and he didn’t come again and we just sort of forgot about him.

Dave: So he came out to the site uninvited, and just showed up to try and insert himself into the story, is what you maintain?

Guy: Thats what I remember, yes.

Dave: Okay, fascinating.

Guy: It was quite brief. He was just one.. we had so many people coming and going. I mean I remember one day he did turn up. I think Lorraine was there as well – I’d also met them in Brazil. They sort of pop up all over the place. And it was just no big deal at all. I mean, I had a brief conversation with Ed at Enfield, and as I say, he was telling me how much money he’d help me make, and I politely declined his help, and I strained that that’s not what we exist for in the SPR, and that was the last time I saw him.

The claims shouldn’t come as any surprise to those who’ve taken even a cursory glance at the Enfield Poltergeist case themselves, in which there’s no real record of Ed and Lorraine’s involvement save for their own. Admittedly, as someone who grew up reading the Warrens’ books and was a big fan of the first Conjuring film, I was a little perplexed when the plot for the sequel was announced, already knowing that it was SPR who handled the entire Enfield case.

The question is: why would a studio take two paranormal investigators who worked on cases like The Amityville Horror, wrote six books, and were featured in seven others, and jam them into a story they barely earned a cameo in? Turns out, they probably don’t own the rights to their real cases.

On the set of The Conjuring 2

In the wake of the original film’s box office success, Warner Bros. was subject to a lawsuit that aimed to prevent them from making any sequels. The suit came from producer Tony DeRosa-Grund’s Evergreen Media Group, who owned the rights to the “real-life case files of Ed and Lorraine Warren” before licensing them Warner Bros.. Evergreen Media claims that ‘New Line was only granted rights on a “very limited, selection of the Case Files – i.e., less than one percent (1%) of the total number of Case Files – and the Warrens’ life stories, in exchange for a purchase price for each theatrical production or use of those select Case Files as well as a crediting and employing Mr. DeRosa-Grund as producer.” Fun fact: Evergreen also sold the rights to a Conjuring television series to Lionsgate, which opened a whole other can of worms.

Ed and Lorraine Warren

According to Evergreen Media, the Warrens’ career resulted in some 8,000 “Case Files”, of which 25 were licensed as possible films. Evergreen also claims that in order to circumvent their licensing agreement, Warner Bros. simply optioned rights to The Demonologist, a 1980 book by written by Gerald Brittle about the Warrens, which included brief mentions of their “Case Files”, including one that led to the Annabelle spinoff and another in which Ed and Lorraine claim that they were present for the Enfield Poltergeist investigation. Sneaky stuff, if true.

Sneakier still, is the claim that The Conjuring 2 is from the “true case files” of the Warrens when not only can the original witnesses to the Enfield Poltergeist not recall speaking to Ed Warren, but one of the head investigators for the Society of Paranormal Research adamantly states they allegedly manufactured “marvelous wonders” to make money off their very brief, uninvited house call.

conjuring-2-not-exactly-true

The Conjuring 2: The Enfield Poltergeist invites its way into theaters on June 10th. For the full interview with Guy Lyon Playfair, who spent two years actively researching the Enfield Poltergeist case with the SPR, head over to Darkness Radio.

Ed and Lorraine Warren were known for their collection of haunted artifacts, but do you want to visit a real paranormal museum founded by 20-year veterans of paranormal research? Click here to discover The Traveling Museum of the Paranormal & Occult, the world’s only museum where you can hold actual haunted objects!


MORE GREAT STORIES FROM WEEK IN WEIRD:


Join the Traveling Museum of the Paranormal and get awesome perks!

Greg Newkirk

Greg Newkirk

Editor-In-Chief at Week In Weird
Writer, adventurer, and professional monster chaser, Greg Newkirk is the founder and Editor-In-Chief of Week In Weird, Director of The Traveling Museum of the Paranormal & Occult and one-half of the prolific investigative duo Planet Weird. Learn more about Greg.
Greg Newkirk
Greg Newkirk

Leave a Reply

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
If you seen her on paranormal state and other shows I think her intentions are good and she genuinly care for people and tries to help. She takes the time to speak to the person or families that are involved in the heuntings or possessions, to help them stop their negativy to free them from evil or stop them from attracting evil. Her gift seems real and her stories are interesting. It is a gift for us for them to share their stories with us. I wish people would stop judging and try to understand them a bit more.Compassion is… Read more »

The Warren’s had a tendency to pathologically exaggerate.

had? have you heard some of their family members? LOL They have a nephew who’s just a little more than unusual.

The people on Ghost Hunters sometimes used John Zaffis to help investigate because Ed and Lorraine Warren were a bit too much eccentric/delusional to be taken seriously.

That boy ain’t wired right.

I love the Warrens! Say what you will about them, I think (and this is my own opinion) that most paranormal researchers, societies, television shows are far fetched and complete hoaxes. I personally never got that feeling from them. If the Warrens are “fake” who the cares. Who isn’t fake now a days that’s society! In this ridiculous industry of “paranormal” they were able to make something of themselves, which is more then the boring homedude from the interview above. Yeah I want to watch a movie about a stuffy old British investigator ooooooor I want to watch a movie… Read more »
Kirsty Reynolds-Smith
I always had the impression they were just out for fame and money. I became interested in the paranormal when I was really young, reading my Dads mystery and paranormal books. I first heard about them when I was maybe ten, eleven and even at that age I had the feeling it was all kind of sensationalized? It comes as no surprise to me that they weren’t involved in the case as much as they claim, there are quite a few statements/articles I found online from other investigators claiming that the Warrens were basically con artists. Anyway, I love your… Read more »

The Conjuring was a great horror movie but everything about the Warrens is sideshow hucksterism of the most basic variety. Lorraine appears to be keeping the act alive in her old age as she’s running around claiming she has a piece of the “true cross” and even whipped it out apropos of nothing in “My Amityville Horror” which help further illustrate how much a shyster they were.

The Warrens are proven liars and hoaxers

Ed and Lorraine were known for only getting involved in cases that could make them famous and write books that could make a lot of $$$$. Ed pretended to be an expert on everything paranormal, and would try to shoot down any theories/evidence that went against his own findings. Watch the documentary Supernatural Homicide from the Amityville remake dvd. Lorraine has a smug look on her face when she mentions that Warner Brothers owns the rights to the Warren’s life story. Lorraine is an old kook. She carries a cross pendant that she claims actually contains a piece of the… Read more »

Anything the Warrens did being called true should be taken with a shaker of salt

Funny because the real life Janet Hodgson says they were involved. So you may want to get your facts straight before writing a lengthy article discrediting them.

The Warrens also insisted the Amityville Horror was genuine even after it was revealed that lawyer William Weber and the house owners (the Lutzes), “created this horror story over many bottles of wine.” It was never a haunted house.
http://www.snopes.com/horrors/ghosts/amityville.asp

The more I read about the Warrens the clearer it is they made a career out of serial con jobs. it’s more fun to believe these things so the stories live on.

Point taken, but this was known long before the almighty snopes came along!!

I’ve always thought they were frauds. But hopefully the movie will be good anyway….as a work of fiction.

No, the Warrens never did investigate the Enfield Haunting. I’m not sure why the movie makes it seem like they did…

No, the Warrens never officially investigated the Enfield case. I’m not sure why the filmmakers are having it seem like they did. Their cases included the “Amityville Haunting” house, the Perron’s home, the Smurl’s home, the Snedeker’s home and the case of Annabelle the doll. I never met the Warrens but being interested in the paranormal I have followed their work for some time. Some people believe in the paranormal and some don’t. Whether or not you believe in something I don’t think it’s right to judge others if they do. No one’s right and no one’s wrong; we have… Read more »

When it comes to facts about objective reality, however, those who hold beliefs or opinions that fully contradict these facts are then just wrong.
For example, if someone believed that the composition of water being Dyhydrogen Monoxide (H2O) was false because it provided a sense of comfort, then that belief is just wrong in that case.
As far believing whatever people choose to is perfectly okay, but by no means does every opinion have the same level of validity intrinsically.

How does one “officially investigate” a paranormal event? I’m not defending the Warrens, necessarily. But no one really has any exclusive authority or jurisdiction. Sure, the families or owners of property have authority to grant access. But I would expect that they don’t have specific memories of many of the interviews they give once the volume of interviews grows.

I happened to be involved with the Perron case at the same time Ed and Lorraine Warren were. In fact, it was our case originally, and because the Warrens were friends of ours, we decided to consult with them about the Perron case. This was how they became involved, and without our organization – P.I.R.O., base at Rhode Island College – the original movie “The Conjuring” would never have been made, at least not including the Warrens. Lorraine Warren and I remain close friends to this day, and I also still maintain a close relationship with members of the Perron… Read more »

I heard the interview with Guy Lyon Playfair some time ago and when the subject of the Warrens came up on a face book page a few months ago I mentioned it. You’d have thought that I’d declared war or something, the amount of negative and rude comments I got back was crazy. Obviously from fans of the Warrens who believe everything they’ve said.

A whole bunch of frauds telling lies

Think saves full of shit and the reason he won’t slag Lorraine off is she is still alive and could drag his Arse thru court it’s because he’s not a famous name facts are they were invited and they stayed longer wish people would research propperly before slagging people off pisses me off wake up open your minds to what you can not coprihend as your all bang out of order

Though some people are very critical of the Warrens and others who delve into this field,I don’t believe they could spend time in some of the places the Warrens and other have been. I have always been a follower of the supernatural,ghosts, demons,and shall we just say, the other side. I have written two books about this.I am a first time writer so have not been able to promote them but they are on the market. I am retired and enjoy very much going into different cemeteries and old houses some people say are haunted.

I watched the Sally Jessy Raphael programme where she is interviewing the Warrens re: the Haunting in Connecticut I had to laugh when they claimed to have a researcher who was witness to the case to back them up. It was none other than John Zaffis. Complete and utter frauds.

There is the case of the Bridgeport, Connecticut Poltergeist, and
the Warrens claim to have investigated this case dating bact to 1974.
Lorraine Warren also said Waverly Hill Sanatorium was the most demon infested place in the world.
Lorraine Warren also said She would never step foot in Waverly Hill, but three years later Lorraine Warren was getting paid to give lectures on the paranormal at Waverly Hill.

I’ve cited your article in my blog post about the Warrens’ involvement at Enfield:

http://tomruffles.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/ed-and-lorraine-warren-and-enfield-demon.html

The Warrens always creeped the hell out of me. I loved the first Conjuring and plan to see this one too. But they are pure fiction to me and just really good classic type haunting movies.

Yup. They were there for an hour or so from what I have read. Not “involved” in the case. BUT, the movie is getting great reviews, so as a purely fictional account it could be a great scary movie. Still ticks me off though.

Oh, well!

I see it as entertainment rather than representing a true story.

I figure the studio either didn’t have the rights to the original stories, or Lorraine Warren asked for more money than they were willing to pay. And, the filmmakers already established in the first film that they were noble characters who, while, yes, making money, also truly cared about the people they were helping, so they wouldn’t now include the reality of them. In addition, it’s a fictionalized film, not a documentary.

I don’t know the warrens but I only needed one line of this story to tell me the guy being interviewed isn’t trustworthy! When you refuse to badmouth somebody because they’re still alive and then badmouth somebody who cannot defend themselves, you’re just as big of a fraud as you claim them to be (I’m assuming this guy is still alive and I’m saying this). As for the Warrens, I grew up in New England and I had never heard of the Warrens until this movie, I’m positive I’m not alone here. So, if they were doing this for fame… Read more »

nyc movie …waiting for Conjuring 3

shall we just say, the other side? okay, we shall just say, the other side.

JUST SAW IT DAYS AGO –now i wonder deeply how much they have fabricated in past ????i was on wonderful high about movie till realized they didnt do anything in Enfiled oh well ty hollywood but this is a bad lie to make us all think they were there and saved them from ther demon VALAK ?!?!?!??! WTF IS VALAK ????? who made it all up???? i doubt lorraine has any control over the move i i still love her …….so next movie about the nun will be all hollywood again –sure does ruin a good fright
I am not a fan of the Warrens. Nor of anyone in this field. I am a skeptic who stumbled onto this article after trying to do a little research after watching the movie. The movie contains many scenes/incidents that purport to involve some or all of the four children and the Warrens. Why not just go to the kids and interview them and ask them? Surely by now they’ve seen the movie and could give a play-by-play account of what they remember happening or not happening. Could they be biased now that money is involved? Sure. But the possibility… Read more »
wpDiscuz
Shares