So what was the real reason Hoffman never wrote the DeFeo book? Simple. He was replaced by Hans Holzer. We can see that progression in this segment of a letter sent by William Weber to his client, Ronnie DeFeo (dated Feb 1, 1977):

You can see a jpeg of the full letter here: Page 1 • Page 2

Why were we given this false story of Hoffman quitting Weber’s book project? Could it be that Moran didn’t know Hoffman and was just making up a good story which helped support his claims of a hoax? Possibly. Let’s dig a little deeper…

Now keep in mind that Hoffman was (according to Moran) an eyewitness to William Weber creating a fake haunted house story with the Lutzes. Hoffman would even have access to cassette recordings of these sessions – physical proof that the haunting was a hoax! Given that, and believing Moran’s claim that Hoffman was a founding member of the ASUP in 1972, why would Moran or anyone else need to (or bother with) investigating Jay Anson’s book? They would already have solid proof that it was all a hoax – no further investigation needed!

Even if Hoffman, for some reason, did not have copies of the audio cassettes – he still would have been an eyewitness to the hoax. His story would have been the holy grail for those seeking to debunk the haunting – an eyewitness account that the story was pure fiction. And yet the only mention of Hoffman in the Moran/Jordan FATE article is this brief bit:

“Similarly, in an article in the April 1977 issue of Good Housekeeping, journalist Paul Hoffman quotes George Lutz as saying that temperature changes in rooms did occur…”
—Rick Moran & Peter Jordan, FATE, 1978

Why was Hoffman’s eyewitness account not mentioned in the FATE article? “How about word count,” Moran told me during a telephone conversation. “I have to deal with real editors that say ‘1500 words is 1500 words.’”

But would that mean you decide against presenting your strongest evidence due to the space limitations of a magazine? Surely you could cut some of the repetitive references to the boys’ bedroom window, instead.

“It was already written about,” Rick explained, “Why would I then repeat 3rd-party information?” This puzzled me. Where had Paul’s eyewitness account been published? “I did research into the house,” Moran continued, “Paul published his material, I published mine.”

Was Moran referring to the 2 articles Hoffman wrote for the New York Daily News and Good Housekeeping? I reminded Moran that those articles simply told the Lutzes’ story, and made no mention of it being a hoax. Rick told me to do my research and “find the rest of it.” Did he mean I missed something in those 2 articles, or that Hoffman wrote other articles about the haunting? If he hadn’t hung up on me, I might have found out.

It still didn’t make sense. Kaplan writes about first hearing Rick Moran on a radio show in November of 1977 and fails to use the information from Mike Shaner in his book (about George Lutz knowing DeFeo). Kaplan claims Hoffman was a complete stranger to him. Similarly, Hoffman is dealt with as a stranger by Moran & Jordan not only in the FATE article (where Kaplan is not mentioned at all) but also in a later piece Jordan wrote about the haunting. Moran’s information about Hoffman walking off Weber’s book project is wrong, according to Weber (with supporting evidence from Hoffman writing his 2 articles). Hoffman was supposedly an eyewitness to the whole thing being a hoax, but his eyewitness account is not used in the FATE article or in Kaplan’s book. How am I supposed to ignore all of this and just believe Moran’s word?

It really does seem as if Rick Moran waited until these guys were dead and then decided to use their names in a fraudulent manner – Hoffman, to boost his claims that the Amityville haunting was a hoax; and Kaplan, to boost his organization’s overall credibility. After all, the dead don’t talk back. Maybe there’s some logical explanation, but after endless prodding all Moran seems to give us is “I don’t know why Kaplan wrote that” and “I’m telling the truth.”

The spurious statements Rick Moran has given about the Amityville case simply fly in the face of logic and accepted evidence. His sources seem highly dubious, as does the supposition that he, as a seasoned investigative journalist, would even believe such stories, himself. Moran paints himself as a journalist who seeks out corroboration and proof, and yet when it comes to this case he offers little of either and gets indignant when even asked.

Rick Moran was contacted several times to respond to the statements represented in this article. During my last phone conversation with Rick (prior to him hanging-up on me), he stated that he would rather just ignore me and my article than actually respond to it.

Unfortunately, without anyone being able to verify his evidence, Moran proves nothing, and his claims end up sounding like the pitiful tall tales of the local yokel spending a lazy Sunday afternoon in the rural market.

The case of The Amityville Horror is surrounded by many myths, misconceptions and outright lies. We do not need the likes of Rick Moran further muddying the waters with (what seems to be) his own fiction. And I say this as someone who was alive in 1976 and who saw the case “unfurl” (like that makes a difference)…

Dan would like to thank Kat Thomas and Blaine Duncan for their assistance with this piece.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8