With
the release imminent of James Wan’s The
Conjuring 2, in which Ed and Lorraine Warren fearlessly battle the Forces
of Evil in a north London suburb, it is worth examining the contention that the
Enfield Poltergeist was really a demon come to persecute the Hodgson family. The tiny extent of the Warren’s connection
with this classic case has already been analysed so it could be argued that whatever they had to
say on the matter has little merit, but surprisingly while Maurice Grosse and
Guy Lyon Playfair of the Society for Psychical Research, who had by far the
most to do with the case, were quick to dismiss the Warrens’ claim, newspapers
at the time did in fact occasionally raise the possibility of a demonic
component to the events that were besetting the Hodgsons.
For
example, Psychic News of 6 January
1979 devoted considerable coverage to Enfield, including much of the front
page. On p. 3, one of the sub-sections
is firmly titled ‘No demon involved’ and Playfair gives his opinion in
forthright terms:
‘Guy dismissed
any suggestion that the phenomena were demonic.
“I have no time for this devil rubbish,” he said. “It is an invention of medieval religious
dogmatism. There is no connection with
reality.”
‘“I can well
understand how some fanatical exorcist would feel he had a whole legion of
devils in the house.”
‘”We have had no
indication at all of any diabolical activities.”’
Why
he should have been asked this question by the Psychic News journalist is curious; possibly the Warrens had been
in touch with the paper (they had made a flying visit to the house on 16 June,
1978). Playfair may have thought that
the only behaviour that could be characterised as diabolical in connection with
the affair – though not of course demonic – was that of the Warrens.
It
is worth pointing out that it was not only the Warrens who considered exorcism
to be an appropriate solution for the Hodgsons.
The same idea came from a more surprising quarter. In This
House is Haunted (2007, pp. 238-9) Playfair recounts how he visited the
eminent German parapsychologist Hans Bender, who was staying in London, and
discussed the matter with him.
‘”I would be
inclined to try exorcism,” Professor Bender said, rather to my surprise. “I’m not convinced that a discarnate agency
is involved, but you can never prove it.”
‘”I replied that
I was reluctant to get involved with exorcists, as were both Maurice Grosse and
Mrs Harper [Mrs Hodgson]…”
‘”Oh, the
Catholic rituale is disastrous,” he
replied. “Because it is a mechanical
form of applying a rite without the slightest understanding of the
psychological background.”’
Bender
said that he thought it would be preferable to have a psychologist examine the
case, then find a Church of England clergyman willing to help. Playfair goes on to say that at the same time
he and Bender were discussing the advisability of calling in an exorcist, one,
an Anglican monk, actually turned up at the house, brought by a journalist from
the National Enquirer. Grosse took him to one side, explained Mrs
Hodgson’s attitude to exorcism, and asked him to leave, which he did with good
grace. The fate of the Enquirer hack is unknown.
The
Daily Star used the Enfield case to
begin a series called ‘The world beyond’.
Playing up the sensationalist angle, its front page on 10 March 1980 was
dominated by a large close-up picture of Janet Hodgson with ‘Possessed’ in
large letters under it. It shows her, according
to the first paragraph, as she
‘lets out a
spine-chilling scream in the dead of night.
She is a girl possessed … by a supernatural force.’
She
looks as though she could be enjoying herself, but who can tell what form
intense fear, let alone possession, might take. The story covers several pages and while it
all sounds dramatic, the case could be explained without recourse to demons
despite the paper’s best efforts. True,
the first page of the extended story inside has the headline ‘”The thing” tried
to strangle Janet with the curtain’, and ‘Possessed by a devil? Turn over to
centre pages’ placed seductively at the bottom.
There is as well an emphasis on the ‘family in fear’ angle. But even with these cues to orient the reader
to a verdict of devilish possession, it is clear that the actual events do not
match the claim.
Turning
to the centre pages there is the large headline: ‘Was Janet possessed by a
devil?’ This part of the spread was written
by Daily Mirror photographer Graham
Morris, someone who in his own way has done much to make the case famous with
his images. Appended to his by-line is the
declaration ‘who shared the family’s nightmare’, indicating that he is someone worth
listening to. He gives a brief account
of his experiences in the house in which he says specifically that:
‘Although the
word was never mentioned in the house I was sure that we were experiencing
“poltergeist” activity. Experts say awareness
to (sic) this phenomenon is experienced more often by pubescent girls so Janet
is the obvious suspect.’
Morris does not specifically refer to demonic possession and only makes
oblique hints – the reader is informed that ‘In many photographs when the rest
of the family look terrified, Janet seems to have an evil grin on her face’, and
her nocturnal flying occurred without her being conscious of it, even though on
occasion it left her bruised. Yet he
considers the phenomena to be centred on Janet as a typical poltergeist agent,
rather than caused by a demonic entity.
Trying
hard, the article’s main author, Ellen Petrie, quotes Janet: ‘“Some people say
the house is even more haunted than the one in that Amityville Horros (sic) –
the American haunted house which became the subject of a book and a film.’ (The
final part of that was by Petrie, not Janet; the Star was obviously saving money on sub-editors.) Sceptics may be sagely nodding at the
information that Janet was aware of Amityville (book 1977, film 1979), but
considering its high profile in the media at the time it would be more
surprising if she had not heard of it.
The
evidence for demons on the Star’s
showing looks flimsy. Janet may have
been ‘a girl possessed … by a supernatural force’ as the front page trumpets,
but ‘supernatural force’ is not synonymous with ‘demonic possession’. The Star
was trying to whip up that angle to increase the drama, but it wasn’t putting
heart and soul into it. Significantly
perhaps, Grosse and Playfair are absent from the Star’s coverage; perhaps the editor had read Playfair’s comments to
Psychic News on the matter of demons
the year before.
It
was left to the Weekly World News of
26 April 1983 to really lay out the case for demonic intervention at
Enfield. The front page screams:
‘The most
bizarre story of the year… POSSESSED! Top exorcist battles a terrifying demon
who makes young children fly across the room.’
That’s
more like it. If you want to argue that
there are demons involved, have the courage of your convictions; as long as you
don’t go overboard because then it resembles satire.
Seeing
that blaring headline the reader might breathe a sigh of relief: ‘the Warrens at last’. But the article is not about them. The ‘top exorcist’ is none other than Maurice
Grosse! Was the article making fun of
the Warrens’ general approach to such matters without the hazard of being sued by
them (the pair not being famous for having a lively sense of humour, Grosse far
away and more obscure) – or simply reflecting the fact that their association
with the case was barely noticeable?
The
article, written by Clifford Montgomery, starts as it means to go on: ‘In a
bizarre case that defies sanity, two young girls are being hurled through the
air like rag dolls – by demons from hell that have taken control of their
bodies.’ There is more of the same,
making life in the house sound, well, hellish.
The article continues:
‘Why these two
young girls of Enfield, England, have been singled out for such satanic horror
is a mystery that has baffled church exorcists who have failed in their efforts
to drive the demons out.
‘Now famed
demonic investigator Maurice Grosse has taken up the battle to rid the
youngsters of their evil captors before their sanity is shattered forever.
‘The man who has
been battling the devil all his life thinks this case may be his greatest
challenge.’
That
the story has bypassed the stringent fact-checking stage can be judged from a
supposedly direct quote:
‘”He is the last
hope for our daughters,” their anguished mother told The NEWS. “If God is merciful, he will help Mr. Grosse
drive the Dark Angel from their souls before it is too late.
‘Why has Satan
done this to us?
‘What does he
want with innocent little children? My
babies are being driven mad by fiends from the fires of hell. Why won’t he leave my children alone?”’
That
may all have sounded vaguely plausible in the American Bible Belt, but not to
anybody with some knowledge of the case. Sadly, the paper concludes, ‘Grosse has not
yet found the key he needs to drive the demons from the two little girls.’
Grosse’s
view of this ridiculous farrago is contained in a letter, dated 27 April, 1983,
which he sent to his correspondent who had supplied the article. He minces no words. It begins:
‘I was
absolutely dumbfounded! I have never
experienced such a monumental case of mis-information in my life … when I read
the rubbish he had written about the case, and me being a “demonic
investigator”, I didn’t know whether to collapse in laughter or explode.’
One
suspects he collapsed in laughter in preference to exploding. He briefly ponders whether a remedy might be
available through the American legal system, but concedes that it is not an
area with which he is familiar. Then he
muses that it would probably be better to ignore the article, which is
evidently what he did.
Despite
these sporadic tabloid efforts there is little evidence to support the contention
that a demon was orchestrating events at Enfield. Playfair and Grosse thought the idea
preposterous, and Graham Morris, who had ample opportunity in his Star article, could not bring himself to
say outright that he was confronted by a demon rather than psychokinetic energy
emanating from Janet. Even the guttural
voice that looms large in any demonic interpretation can be more easily
explained in other ways; Grosse and Playfair, who set much store by the voice
productions, certainly had no need to invoke a demonic aetiology when analysing
the recordings.
There
are various explanations for what happened at Enfield, extensively debated in
the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research and other publications, but
to argue with no evidence that it has to have been a demon and all alternatives
are wrong is irresponsible. James Wan’s
film, by buying into this distorted narrative, will be the cinematic equivalent
of that Weekly World News article, with
about as much truth in it and with as little respect for those who, unlike Ed
Warren, demonologist, experienced it all at first hand.
