When the movie The Conjuring became a hit in the summer of 2013, the current residents of the supposedly haunted house in Rhode Island experienced trouble with curiosity-seekers. Norma Sutcliffe and her partner, aged 69 and 73, respectively, are harassed by visitors who seem to pay no mind to property laws and No Trespassing signs, causing damage and entering their house.
What IS it with ghost hunters who think they are given some special dispensation to trespass where ever they want?
Sutcliffe claims that she didn’t know that the story would be made into a movie. This disruption has resulted in the pair suing Warner Bros.
Sutcliffe contends nothing in the movie is true- that the farmhouse is subject to a demonic presence. The former residents, Carolyn and Roger Perron, moved their family into the place in 1971 and claimed to experience strange and frightening events. Infamous “demonologists” Ed and Lorraine Warren were called in. The Warrens conclude, as they always do, that the devil is at work. It’s certain that a considerable amount of license was taken with the movie. No haunting or exorcism is EVER as dramatic as it is in the movies. But there is a draw by some people to experience the location and maybe have a paranormal experiences rub off on them.
There does seem to be a dispute here though, as Sutcliffe has previously publicly claimed that she HAD experienced some seemingly paranormal events. In talking to the daughter of the Perron’s, Andrea, she admitted to some:
The Sutcliffes have reported the door banging in the front hall, sounds of people talking in another room, the sounds of footsteps accompanied by a door opening in another room and her husband’s chair vibrating in the study. The only things that were ever visible to them were a blue light that Norma saw shoot across the bedroom and her husband once thought he saw a fog in the home.
But when the movie became popular, Sutcliffe backtracked and rebuked the idea of the supernatural in the residence.
Will this court case go anywhere? It’s hard to say; there seems to be little merit to it. The real location was never officially used in the movie. Neither was the actual house. It just seems like an unfortunate number of factors play against the current owners who might be better off selling to someone who appreciates the added value thanks to the publicity.