The Conjuring House's Connection To The Legend of the Burrillville Giant

 

There have been legends of large skeleton's being unearthed all over the country for over a century. From the stories of giants remains found in caves in Lovelock, Nevada, to other stories of gargantuan skeletons found throughout the Northern Hemisphere. 

Even an 1892, edition of the Burrillville Gazette mentioned a giant skeleton, over nine feet tall had been discovered in Palermo, Sicily back in the 16th century, and a Native American skeleton unearthed near Antietam in 1897, which made news headlines at the time, too. These stories intrigue and mystify us all. 

There are even stories that date back to the 1800's in Burrillville about a giant man whose remains were found buried under the house of a local resident. 

According to Horace Keach's book, "Burrillville: As It Was, As It Is," published all the way back in 1856, he mentions this alleged giant and another name caught my attention. 

"A few years ago a discovery was made by one of our citizens which reveals the physical character of those with whom our ancestors had to contend. In 1836, Capt. Samuel White, in excavating beneath his wood house, found the remains of a human skeleton of proportions altogether unlike our moder inhabitants.

He called several neighbors to view it, and among them was Doct. Levi Eddy. The body was lying upon the side, with arms folded, head bent forward, and the knees drawn upward. It was exhumed, the bones were put together, and all parties were surprised at its gigantic height. After surveying it awhile the Doctor exlaimed, "He was a bouncer! he must have been as much as eight feet high!"

The author speculated on whether or not this was bones of some ancient Native American. but as he ends that story, "Tradition is silent, echo has no answer."  

Were they ancient native bones? Or could they have been the bones of earlier, larger inhabitants, possibly even ancient ancestors of the norsemen who were said to have explored North America long before anyone else from the European continent? Without the bones to examine, which seem to have been lost to the annals of time, we may never truly know for certain.

What we do know:

Samuel White was about 55 years old when he uncovered the remains of this mystery giant while digging under his home. Why was he digging? The only information given was that he was "excavating" under his home. Perhaps to work on his cellar?  

His neighbor, Doctor Levi Eddy was 61 years old at the time that he examined the alleged remains. I tend to believe this story, only because Doctor Eddy was a prominent figure in the area at the time. I don't believe he would have put his reputation on the line to push a false story for some publicity or fame.  

The connection this event has with the Richardson-Arnold house is simple. Doctor Levi Eddy was the father of Sally Margery Eddy Arnold, the wife of Stephan Arnold. Stephan would have inherited the farm sometime after his father, John Arnold passed away in 1837.  

Although nobody involved in this "giant" incident was living at the farmhouse, and Doctor Eddy certainly didn't live there at any point in time, it is still a fun fact to share, as it did happen in Burrillville.

Yes, there is a connection between the giant skeleton and the house via the Eddy family. Was that supernatural? No. Was that historical? Yes! 

(Copyright, 2024 -- J'aime Rubio, www.jaimerubiowriter.com) 

Norma Sets the Record Straight Regarding Nancy and Cindy's Trip Back to the Farmhouse

 

Back in 2016, when Harrisville hosted the Ocean State Paracon, Andrea, Nancy and Roger appeared before the crowd as a panel of speakers to discuss experiences at the house on Round Top Road. In a segment the Youtube channel that aired this interview dubbed "When They Touch You," Nancy relates her story of when she and her sister, Cindy, decided to drive up to the old farmhouse for a trip down memory lane.

"When they touch you," Nancy started, "It becomes a whole new ball game. You have a vested interest in them, you become almost a part of them. It happened to me, it happened to my sister, Cindy, and I'll never forget it. Not for the rest of my life, I will never forget it. When they touched my face and they touched my hair and they said to us, 'Oh my God, it's you! You're back!'

This is when my sister Cindy & I went to visit after we had moved. It was approximately five years later. 

(Andrea leans in and interrupts - whispers something to Nancy)

Nancy responds, "Well, I don't remember what year it was, all I know is that Cindy and I one day decided we're going to go back and visit and so we headed up to Harrisville and we knocked on the door, and Mrs. Sutcliffe answered the door, and she said apparently she had some things to do, but she was so interested in having us there, that she decided to, you know, to give us a little bit of time to go in and see the house. 

She had a lot of questions for us, and my sister, Cindy and I, we went from what was the wood shed into the summer kitchen and we walked into the house and all of a sudden, imagine yourself inside a balloon. And the balloon is blown up around you and the air pressure is very intense. They began touching my hair very gently, and touching my face and began saying, "Oh my God, it's you! You're back!"

Mrs. Sutcliffe said to us, "Something is happening to you right now, isn't it?" and I was embarrassed and I said "no." But I could hear my sister Cindy say "yes." I didn't realize that she was in that so-called balloon with me. And Mrs. Sutcliffe told us at that point that she had been experiencing some paranormal activity in the house. Her husband had also been experiencing things, and friends of her who had come to visit and stay overnight who were also experiencing some things, and she gave us a tour of the house. 

She asked us several questions, about, an example that was "where was your mother's bedroom?"

And we told her what room it was, and she said "okay, now that makes a lot of sense, we've had a lot of trouble with this room." And that's where the spirit had appeared to my mother and threatened her."---  Nancy's interview, 2016, Ocean State Paracon. 

(to watch this interview please click here)

According to Norma Sutcliffe, who was the owner at the time of Nancy and Cindy's impromptu visit, the story was a little different. It was the late 1980's, about a year after Norma first met Andrea and Carolyn, when she got a knock on her door.

"One of them was Nancy," Norma explained. The other sister's name had slipped her mind. "They came in and were like, "Oh my God! this is so beautiful! If you are going to sell it, please, we want to buy it back!"

Norma recalled that she hadn't heard all the "horror stories" about the house yet, just what Lorraine had told her, and when she had met Andrea and Carolyn just a year prior, the only thing Carolyn spoke of was hearing trumpeting in the cellar. As Norma stated, "back then, the family's claims were a lot more mundane than they later became."

Norma continued to share that the girls talked about their childhood memories and how much they loved it, and that Nancy gave her phone number to her, and insisted that if she ever sold the house, she wanted to buy it. Norma also mentioned that the girls talked about the Warrens and the seance at the house, but that was it. There was no paranormal activity at the house when Nancy and Cindy visited the home. 

On top of that, Norma learned that before the Perron's sold the house to the Schwartz family, that Nancy had lived in the house alone for an entire year.

"Nancy didn't want to go. She wanted to stay in the house," Norma shared. "Now, if the house had been haunted, one would presume that Nancy's parents would have vetoed this. Instead, they moved to Georgia, and they allowed Nancy to stay in the house for a year." 

After Nancy moved out, it was said that she let one of her friends, a single mother with a newborn baby, live in the house for a short time, alone. 

"Why would you bring an infant into a house that apparently tried to kill your kids?"-- 

Norma claims that it was a whole 15 years later that Andrea called her up on the phone, and that is when Andrea told Norma the story about Bathsheba. Now, Norma had only heard that name once before, way back when Lorraine Warren paid a visit to her house unannounced, and long before she had met any of the Perron's. 

We will delve into much more as time goes on: more of Norma's story, more interviews of the Perron's, and of course more about Lorraine Warren, too. But we will save those for another day.

In ending this short blog post, please remember there are always two sides to a story. Nancy claims she had an experience at the house when she visited, yet Norma claims nothing of the sort took place and that it was a very short, and uneventful visit. 

The one thing Norma did recall was thinking that day after Nancy and her sister left, was "if this house was supposedly so evil, and that it tormented the family so bad when the Perron's lived there, why on earth would these two young ladies show up one day and tell her how much they love the house? How much they enjoyed their childhoods there? And that they wanted to buy the house if they could in the future?"

It just doesn't make sense. ---

(Copyright 2024 - J'aime Rubio, www.jaimerubiowriter.com)

Sources:

Norma Sutcliffe personal correspondance

"The Old Brooke Farm," by Norma Sutcliffe, 2020

"Perron Family Round Table," Youtube Video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1wGP1si_Qc

Discrepancies In the Perron's Story About Conjuring House Doesn't Add Up

I have so many blog posts to share with you all, and it is taking me a very long time to get them all up. So, please bear with me, as I slowly get all of my research out there to enlighten you all with the facts surrounding the true history of the "Conjuring House." (Did I happen to mention that I really hate that name?!) 

First and foremost, I have always had a hard time believing the Perron's story. It isn't that I don't believe in the spirit realm, because I do. I have had plenty of paranormal experiences in my lifetime which cannot be explained. I just do not usually delve into that subject with my writing. I am more about documented facts and finding logical explanations for the most part. But again, I do believe supernatural experiences happen. With the Perron's story though, it is more about the credibility factor, as to why I have a hard time believing their story. 

You see, the stories that the Perron's have shared over the years have consistently changed way too much. That is a red flag for anyone actually paying attention. Second, Andrea Perron's stories have started morphing into over the top scenarios as time has gone on, too. (I am not even going to get into the whole alien and bigfoot nonsense!)

Look, if you want to believe everything Andrea says, that is totally up to you, I cannot tell you what to think or what to believe. I can only lead you to the facts, and hope you come to a logical opinion of the situation once you have all the information. 

Do I think the Perron's experienced something at the home? Well, it's hard for me to say. 

On one hand, I think it is quite possible that they may have experienced something; but on the other hand, I think much of what they believe they experienced can be explained logically; and those explanations are not supernatural. We will get into all of that in another blog post very soon, but today we are going to go over some of the interviews and quotes that the Perron's have made about their experiences at the house to analyze how the story seems to have changed over the years.

For one, Andrea has become the "spokesperson" for the family, often being interviewed and giving first hand eye-witness accounts of various experiences, only for us to find out that some of what she so adamantly explains was not even her own experiences, but instead that of her mother's.

Did her mother tell her these stories after the fact? It just seems overly detailed for the memory of a young girl back in the early 1970's - we are talking over 50 years ago. 

A good example, the first encounter Carolyn had with the entity that Andrea would later claim was either Mrs. Arnold or  Bathsheba Sherman** in her book, "House of Darkness, House of Light." 

(**For the record, I have already proven that Susan Arnold did not hang herself at the property, and Bathsheba was also innocent and was wrongfully slandered posthumously in those books as well as in the film, "The Conjuring.") 

***DISCLAIMER: I have posted the interview quotes below under the protection of the FAIR USE LAW as a critical review in order to educate the public of contradictory information that has been published under the pretense of being factual. ***

In the quoted interview below, this was recorded after 2013, after the film had come out, a whole 42 years or more after the initial "experience," Carolyn was said to have had at the house. 

Andrea's Quoted Interview: 

"It floated. It didn't have any feet, and it had a long, kind of gray to brown linen dress, a very tight bodice, wide belt, lace around the neck, and the head was hanging off the neck, to such an extent, that it looked like it had been snapped and then just allowed to fall. It looked like a desiccated hornet's nest. It had no discernable features, the eyes were hollow black sockets, the nose were just two little holes, very, very thin lips, jagged yellow teeth, and the head had sprigs of hair, like wild sprigs of hair. And it looked like it was covered in cobwebs, or something meshy over it, and it was moving closer, and closer and closer to her.  It did not speak to her during the first encounter."-- Andrea Perron

(to watch the video and hear this for yourself, please click here).

That is a lot of discernable features, for something that had "no discernable features."

In an interview in 2013,  for the Channel 4 news, "San Antonio Living," Andrea mentions the day she moved into the farmhouse:

The interviewer asked in regards to the newly released film, "The Conjuring,"

"That was your life, but worse, right?"

Andrea's response:

"They really had to tone it down for the film. James, James Wan, the director was shooting for a PG-13 rating, he wanted to bring this story to as many people as he could, and when he got the R rating, I was with him, and he hit the roof! We had to pull him back down.  He said to the MDAA  (I think she meant MDA) 'what do I have to take out of the film in order to get a PG-13?'  and they said there's nothing you can remove, it's just too scary. And they had already toned it down so much, that he was shocked, but it worked out well, and God knows that it's on dvd now all the teenagers are seeing it........."

When asked about the day they moved in, how much time had passed before they knew that the house was haunted.

Andrea's response:

"About five minutes. We bought the house in December of 1970, but my mother refused to move at Christmas, imagine that! So, we moved in the first week of January, 1971, in the middle of a snow storm. Swirling ice storm. And my dad, it was a whole caravan, and it was chaos, of course, moving days tend to be.  But my dad handed me a large box of the back of the truck and said take this to your mother in the kitchen. So I went through the parlor door, so I had to walk the entire length of the house to get to the kitchen and pantry, and it was more than 110 feet long. 

So, I walked into the dining room, and I saw an oddly dressed man in the corner of the dining room, and I greeted him, because I was a polite child. I said good morning, and he didn't respond to me. His focus was entirely on the elder gentleman who was moving out of the house, who had sold it to us. And so I kept going, and I walked in the kitchen and said 'Mom, who's that other man with Mr. Kenyon in the dining room?' and she said ' there is no other man in the dining room.' 

And then Nancy came in, Christine came in, Cindy came in and then the last sister came in and said, 'that man in the dining room just disappeared.'" --

(you can watch this clip for yourself here)

Interestingly enough, Pam Kenyon was there that day and her recollection of the events were a bit different. Pam, who was an adult when this event occurred remembered that day vividly. Why? Because Pam was not happy with what happened that moving day.

You see, according to Pam, the Perron's decided to move in before her grandfather had even had a chance to move out. Mind you, this was the middle of winter in New England, and so this should have been planned out better. Poor Mr. Kenyon got a knock on the door and here they are moving in and he hasn't even moved out.  

"Perron (the father) had somehow gotten use of a moving van and we had to pack up my grandfather and move him all in one day.... We had to do this, as I said, all in one day. I have no idea why everything had to be done the way it was. Not at all."

Pam went on to describe how it was her, her dad, her mom and others there that day, moving her grandpa's stuff out of the house and the barn. She said that there was nothing paranormal going on, as she was was there. If Andrea and her sisters saw anyone with Mr. Kenyon, it was more than likely his son, Earl Jr. 

Roger claimed in a video taped interview, "On the first day, the owner said, do your family a favor, keep the lights on at night." 

According to Pam, that was not true at all. In fact Pam claimed that her grandfather was a practical, New Englander and he didn't believe in anything like that. She said he never had any experiences in that house for the 47 years he lived there, and if he had said anything along the lines of keeping a light on, it was because he was an elderly man, and had to keep a light on to see at night when he walked down the stairs to go to the bathroom, as he could have fallen and broke a bone, or worse. If he did say something about the light, it was so that the children wouldn't fall down the narrow stairs in the middle of the night, in the dark trying to get to the restroom. There is a logical explanation here! 

Also, going back to the beginning of the interview, remember how Andrea said "they had to tone it down," meaning the film was toned down in comparison to what they experienced in the home? Why is it that later Andrea claimed that the film was overly exaggerated? I have seen multiple interviews where she later backtracked and said it wasn't has bad as the movie led on, and then she would plug her books, so that people would read her story, as she claimed hers was the "true story", not the film.

In an email Andrea wrote to me back in 2016, she said this of the film:

"The Conjuring" and the Warren files did a huge disservice to Bathsheba's memory and I had no control over how she was represented and vilified in the film but I will always defend her because I do not believe she was guilty of what she has been accused of by Lorraine Warren."--- Andrea Perron's email via jaimerubiowriter.com web form submission. 

I can literally quote passages from Andrea's books where she demonizes Bathsheba. I can even quote interviews where over and over she brings up Bathsheba's name and blames her for the things that they allegedly experienced, even going so far as to claim Bathsheba was "lusting" after her dad, so we aren't going to cover that one today, but we are going to get into her comment where she blames Lorraine Warren solely as being the one to start the Bathsheba Sherman lies. 

I place the initial blame on both the Carolyn Perron and Lorraine Warren for the false stories about Bathsheba, as no stories about Bathsheba, or any sort of accusations about her ever existed before AUGUST of 1973. --

I think they are equally guilty of allowing such horrid slander to be shared about an innocent person, but I will not blame just one side and not the other. 

1) There are interviews of Carolyn Perron claiming she did research and found all these records about Bathsheba. 

Fact: There are no such records, so we know this to be untrue. Still, Carolyn perpetuated the false story in filmed interviews. 

2) There were interviews aired of Lorraine Warren claiming that she was the one who initially felt the presence of Bathsheba Sherman when she was in the house, and that she said her name first. 

Fact: She was told of Bathsheba's name prior to coming to the farmhouse, so she didn't just magically come up with that name when she came to the house, as much as she tried to pretend that she did.

So, both women will take an equal part in the blame here........ BUT (and there is a HUGE BUT)

3) Andrea Perron was an adult when she wrote her first book. As an adult, she had the responsibility to do her own research and not just take someone's word or someone's recollection as gospel and run with it. Had she done even the most basic research on Bathsheba Sherman's history, Susan Arnold's history, or any of the other people she has brought up in her books, she would have known that NONE of those stories she has shared in PRINT was true. 

As an author who has published five historical non-fiction books, I can tell you that research is the most important part of writing. If your research is not done correctly, you ruin the entire book. How can anyone believe anything you have to say, if you adamantly state things that you cannot prove?  

So, yes, I also place blame on Andrea Perron for stoking the flames of a forgotten fire that started with her mother and Lorraine Warren back in 1973, but snowballed into the monstrosity that is now "The Conjuring." 

Going back to Carolyn's interviews, on the television program "Paranormal Witness" (Season 4; Episode 10) titled "The Real Conjuring," which aired on October 28, 2015,  Carolyn states:  "I read the medical report, the coroner examined the baby and found that a needle had been embedded into the base of the child's skull. I couldn't believe it.....I wondered if Bathsheba had stabbed me with a needle and planted a curse on our property and on me."-- 

For one, there was no death of a baby, so there would be no medical report for a non-existent event about a non-existent baby. So either Carolyn was lying or she imagined the entire scenario. I am not sure which is worse. 

For the record, mental illness is no laughing matter and I am not a medical doctor, so I am not going to throw in some sort of diagnosis, because I am not in a position to do so. However, I do believe that one should seek help from a professional if they are truly imagining certain things are happening that can be proven did not actually happen. Either way, whether imagined or made up, it is very dangerous to spread false information about someone when you cannot back up what you are saying with documentation. Which is the case here. All the stories about Bathsheba have never been backed up by actual documentation. None! 

Carolyn claimed she did all this research, and yet when the family was asked about said research, they claimed the papers were either taken by the Warrens or were lost. Again, no such records ever existed because none of these events happened on the property. There were never any accusations about Bathsheba,  about a baby dying, and certainly nothing about the property such as tragedies, suicides, drownings, etc.

There is also no record of a Mr. McKeachern in Burrillville, the man Carolyn supposedly got so much information from. How convenient. There was a Mr. McEachern living in Providence at one time, but he died long before the Perron's ever lived there and he was not a historian. So where did she get her alleged information? 

Going back to Lorraine Warren, I found it laughable that she claimed she had stepped into the home and sat down on the bed in the room where the library/study is now, and stated, "I sense a malignant presence and her name is Bathsheba." -- Of course she would say that, but those who are "in the know," are aware that Donna from P.I.R.O. had reached out to Lorraine and told her about the house, about Carolyn, and name dropped "Bathsheba," whom she got the name from Carolyn, before Lorraine had ever stepped foot in that farmhouse. 

Do I think that Lorraine added to the story? Oh yes, most definitely. That is why I still think that both the Warren's and the Perron's are equally at fault for the slander of poor Bathsheba. 

Going back to that Paranormal Witness episode, Andrea never mentioned seeing anything on moving day, but she did in the other interview? That is strange. 

In fact, she claimed it was after they had been living there a while, when she saw someone in the reflection in the glass window as she was washing dishes. She also mentioned hearing a baby crying (an infant) but not knowing where the sound came from. Remember this as we will get to that shortly.

In other interviews they say Roger felt trapped in the basement, but they mention that one of the younger sisters got stuck in a trunk in the basement playing hide and seek.  

I am not sure what type of trunk she crawled into, but it has been known since the 1800's  that children have crawled into trunks to hide and got stuck in them and suffocated. There are plenty of reports of that going back over 100 years. There was even an episode about that exact subject on the hit television series, The Waltons, in an episode titled "The Foundling" where the youngest daughter goes into the said to be "haunted house" to hide during a game of hide and seek and got stuck in a trunk. This episode aired on September 14, 1972, the same time period when these alleged events took place in the farmhouse. Coincidence? 

In fact, there are a lot of things I have caught during different interviews and even in Andrea's books that are reminiscent of different television shows, movies and books during or before that time period. Again, that is for another day.

Going on, Andrea claimed to have witnessed her mother's initial experience with the female entity while in a dream state, and yet, the description Andrea gave in the television program was not anything like what she mentioned in the first interview I mentioned at the beginning of this post. In fact, she hardly described her, and only stated the entity of the woman was hanging over her mother, with wood protruding from the ends of her sleeves, and no hands. 

IS THIS THE FIRST ARTICLE? 

North Smithfield-Burrillville Observer, 1977

In this "Halloween" themed article for the North Smithfield-Burrillville Observer, dated October, 28, 1977, the story isn't as sensational as you see in the movie or in the books, but this seems to be the first published article that I could find mentioning the slanderous story of a witch who murdered her child as a sacrifice to the devil.  In this piece though, they do make the claim of someone being frozen to death on the property, two suicides, and three drownings. We all know there were no suicides or drownings on the property. Yes, Jarvis Smith died from exposure in a rickety shack along Douglas Road (now Round Top Road, the outskirts of the property) after passing out drunk, but that isn't anything sinister, and he was literally just passing through.

This article is the first mention of Carolyn witnessing an "apparition of the old woman with head hanging to one side," and that the ghost spoke, "Get out, get out, or I'll drive you out with death and gloom."  It does not give details on what she looked like, and you would think that if it was a fresh memory, given the time period this was published, this would have been the time to describe the event as vividly as it has been described in the last decade or so.  The "other incidents" mentioned that the Perrron's allegedly experienced was hearing a child's voice crying "Momma," doors banging open after they had been secured shut, being attacked with a clothes hanger, and the orange that bled when cut into it. 

Now, remember Andrea said it was an infant crying that they heard, but in this article now it's a child crying "Momma." So which is it? An infant or a young child? 

Fast forward a few years and now this ghost has changed yet again, and a lot more details than the original article. Like I said, these stories seem to get more and more detailed as the years go by. In investigations usually the first recollection is the clearest, because it is the freshest memory in your mind. As time goes on, the memory becomes more vague, less detailed. It just seems odd to me that the more time that passes, the more elaborate the stories became. 

What happpened to the HEADLESS GHOST??!!

For those of you who aren't aware, one of the other original stories was that Carolyn was seeing a "headless ghost" in her house. Yes, that is right! 

According to a tabloid article that Carolyn and Roger were part of (but their names were changed) which was written by none other than Tony Spera back between 1981-1985, the story was not anything like what was told in later years.

Headline: "Fashion Model Meets Headless Ghost" 

"A former fashion model and her husband were forced to flee and panic from the dreadful headless ghost of an old woman and a host of other unholy terrors they encountered in an old haunted house. Even an exorcism by America's most famous husband and wife ghostbusting team Ed and Lorraine Warren, was unable to cleanse the ancient house of its demonic influence. 

Carol and Ronald Barron thought they were escaping the harsh, cold, city life when they purchased the three hundred year old farm in rural Rhode Island. They were blissfully unaware that this was the beginning of a hair raising horror ordeal--and waiting for them were heart stopping encounters with an ugly, disgusting apparition of a headless woman. 

Vicious beatings by unknown, unseen attackers.  Dirge like music coming from an unattended piano early playing by itself. Terrifying screams in the night and psychic light shooting down the chimney, snuffing out the fire.

 Not even an exorcism could rid the house of its evil presence-- In fact it only increased the strength and determination of the wicked forces. Mrs Barron well remembers the first hair-raising encounter a bare two weeks after she and her husband had moved in. 

"I turned over in bed and standing there at the foot of my bed was this apparition or entity it was wearing a dark gray dress and had NO head. I was literally frozen in my bed," she shuddered. Then this voice began reverberating from the walls getting louder and louder "get out! get out!"

It wasn't long after Mrs. Barron was dressing in her clothes closet after a bath and suddenly an iron coat hanger flew from the rack and began pounding her on the head and upper back," she recalled. 

"I was so frightened ,I ran from the room screaming. The next morning I had ugly welts on my body." 

Yet another time she was snacking on an orange by the fireplace. 

"I cut into the orange to peel it and my God it began oozing red thick blood. In fact it dripped onto my feet and coagulated!"

She and her husband were constantly tormented by doors bursting open and slamming shut for no reason at all hours of the day and night. 

"We even tied heavy rope to the doors and placed heavy deadbolt locks but the doors kept bursting open." 

Equally frightening the phone would ring and kept ringing after it was answered. 

"In the middle of the night our piano which isn't a player type, would start playing this horrible dirge like music. I'd get out of bed and go over to it--- I could actually see the keys depressing. Then the horrible blood chilling screams started like nothing I've ever heard before." 

"One bright summer morning, I went out to my vegetable gardena and I heard the voice of a small child crying out for his mama. One night at dinner party for 12, a small beam of light, no thicker than a pencil came shooting down the chimney and snuffed out the fire in the fireplace." 

"And then shot across the room, withdrew itself, then went back up the chimney-- all in a split second."  (***) 

In desperation the frantic family summoned the Warrens to their troubled farm home. 

The Warrens knew the house well, " it has been plagued by many tragedies over is 300 year existence, murders, suicides and drownings. A 98 year old woman who practiced black witchcraft had lived there," says Ed. 

"In her earlier years, she had murdered her own child ---by driving a nail through her head ---as a gift to Lucifer!"

The Warrens did their best to rid the house of its evil spirits, including conducting a light exorcism. It did no good, if anything it made matters worse. The terror-stricken Barron finally fled the house and moved to Georgia. The Warren say they are now hopeful that the location will at last be freed from its dreadful supernatural captivity when a reservoir scheduled for construction buries the haunted house under 60 ft of water." ---(Tabloid Article, Circa 1981-1985) 

***For the record, that light coming down the chimney swirling around the room and going back up did not happen to the Perron's. This was a story that happened to the Kenyons, when a lightning storm caused lightning to shoot down the chimney and the electricity shot around the room and back to the chimney. Scary? Probably for whoever was there, but it was not supernatural. It was lightning and it did damage to the house, which was repaired. Sarah Butterworth sealed up all the chimney's after that episode. Again, probably scary for anyone who experienced it, but definitely not supernatural. They were lucky the house didn't catch fire and burn down. How did the Perron's hear of the story? Who knows...neighbors maybe? 

So the story went from a woman with her head literally hanging off of her body, to a headless woman and now in recent years she is described as a bent-neck or crooked-neck lady? Okay....

Going back to the television program that interviewed the family, when the mention of the seance came up the reenactment had actors in the show with cameras as if the seance was being filmed. Where is the footage? Where are the photos? 

Kenny Biddle, a very open-minded skeptic famous for his logic based research published in the Skeptical Inquirer, and who has his own Youtube channel on various subjects, brought up that very point the other night on one of his live streams where he mentioned that Andrea even talked about the "shutters" of the camera taking photos during the seance. Yet, no one has ever come forward with any evidence of this event -- the Warren's or the Perron's. 

At the end of the television episode it mentions that the footage was "mysteriously destroyed." Again, how convenient. Family member Cindy Perron, stated "If we had stayed, the house would have killed us all."  If that is the case, why did the family stay there until 1980?  Also, why was Nancy allowed to remain at the house for an entire year, by herself, after the rest of the family had moved to Georgia? Not only that, but it was stated that one of Nancy's friends had stayed at the home with her newborn baby for a short period of time, prior to the Schwartz family taking over the property. 

If the house was so evil, if it had terrorized this family so much, why on earth would you allow your daughter to stay there by herself for a year, or allow anyone with an infant child to live there? 

I think any logical person can come up with that answer. 

In ending this blog post today, I hope you are opening your eyes to see the truth about this whole story. And I have plenty more to share with you coming very soon.

Again, I am not going to flat out say the Perron's didn't experience something, I truly believe they think they experienced something, but I do not believe for one second it was anything as dramatic or sensational as what has been told in interviews, the books or the movie. I will leave that up to you, to weigh out the facts and decide for yourself. 

Until next time........

-- Copyright 2024 - J'aime Rubio- www.jaimerubiowriter.com 

The Ancestral Genealogy of the Richardson-Arnold House (Part 2)

Painting of the Richardson-Arnold House
(Courtesy:Norma Sutcliffe) 

In my last post, The Ancestral Genealogy of the Richardson-Arnold House (Part 1),  I shared with you the earlier history of the families who lived on this property going all the way back to before the house was even built. We worked our way through the 1700's and 1800's all the way to Edwin Arnold's death in 1903. Now, we will continue on with the family genealogy at Edwin and Adeline's children: Abigail, John and Fremont.

Abby Arnold Butterworth

Abigail Frances Arnold was born in November 27, 1851, to parents Edwin Arnold and Adeline Caswell Arnold. As I stated previously in Part 1, Abigail married her first husband, Sumner Walling on July 9, 1871. Sadly, Sumner would die in a drowning accident in Douglas, Massachusetts, in 1874. Their infant son, Sumner Jr., also passed away in his first year (and not at the farmhouse, either). Pam Kenyon Cardin stated that family records show that the baby died of a "disease," although she wasn't absolutely sure what disease it was. 

The idea that Abigail went through the loss of a child and a husband in the same year would be devastating for anyone. Abigail wasn't just anyone, she was a "tough ol' Yankee," according to her great-granddaughter, Pam. In fact, it was said that Abby worked all day outside on the farm while 9 months pregnant, and then went home to have her baby the same day, and back to work the next day. A tough ol' gal is right!  

Speaking of giving birth, let me just clarify something right now. The attic space upstairs in the farmhouse, was just that, attic space, for storage. It was not a "birthing room," as claimed by tour guides at the house. 

Going back to the story.....

Abby would eventually marry again at the age of  42 years, on October 25, 1892, to William Butterworth, who was originally from Fall River, Massachusetts. The two would have one child together, a daughter named May Sarah Butterworth on May 27, 1895  (a later census record would also cite her birthday as April 16, 1894).

On October 15, 1899, when Abby and her daughter were riding around in their horse and carriage, they had an accident on the road. According to the Pascoag Herald & Burrillville News Gazette, dated October 20, 1899, "Mrs. Abbie Butterworth and little daughter May, while out riding last Sunday evening, were thrown from their carriage by the horse being frightened by a bicycle. They were miraculously saved from serious injury."

Thankfully a tragedy was averted in this instance and both Abby and her daughter were okay.

As mentioned in Part 1., Abigail's father Edwin died from exposure in the freezing weather while walking home in October of 1903, and his body wouldn't be found for nearly two months. Abby went through a lot in her lifetime, from losing her husband and her child in 1874, her mother in 1883, and then her father in 1903.

She would also live through another terrible tragedy, which we will get to soon enough, the loss of her brother John, to suicide. I cannot even begin to imagine the pain and sadness she must have felt learning of such a horrible tragedy that happened just down the road near Tarkiln.

Abby would live on the farm for the remainder of her life, as records indicate, her passing away from "chronic nephritis" on April 25, 1930, and it appears that she did pass away at the farmhouse. Her husband, William Butterworth had died 13 years earlier, on August 7, 1917 at the Naval Hospital in Boston. 

John Allen Arnold

The 2nd born of Edwin and Adeline Arnold was John Allen Arnold who was born on May 11, 1855. He would live on the farm and work on the farm for most of his life, until he married in 1883, to Emily Frances Taft on March 11, 1883. A year later, they welcomed one son, Edwin Sylvester Arnold to their family on March 24, 1884. The 1885 Census has him listed as "head of the house" and a "Farmer," just one row below his father and Fremont, meaning he was probably in a dwelling just down the road.  He eventually moved to the east side of Burrillville, where he settled with his wife and son. 

John remained a farmer his entire life, and eventually he fell ill with health problems. The doctor didn't elaborate on what sort of ill health he had been going through, but mentioned that it had been ongoing for years and he felt that contributed to his harsh action to take his own life. 

As the death record indicates, in state of despondency John took rat poison known as "Paris Green" and although a doctor was called to administer life saving treatment, the doctor knew there could be nothing done to save him. John Allen Arnold died at the age of 56 years, on November 19, 1911, in his home near Tarkiln. 

Fremont Arnold

Fremont Arnold was the baby of the family, at least Edwin and Adeline's immediate family, that is. He was born on May 16, 1857, and lived on the farm for most of his early life. By 1885, Fremont is living with his father Edwin, just the two of them. Adeline had passed away, and both Abby and John had went and married their spouses and moved out. At some point between 1885 and 1900, Fremont moved to Douglas and started working as a painter. He is recorded in the 1900 census living in the John Walling household as a "boarder." 

It looks as though even though Edwin left the property to both John and Fremont, both sons chose to live elsewhere. This may be a reason Abby and William Butterworth chose to move back to the farm and remain there. 

By the 1910 census, Fremont is living with an older woman, Sarah Smith, and working as a "hired man," performing farm labor on her property. He continues to do so for over a decade, as he is still listed as such in the 1920 census as well.  

It could have been failing health that caused him to return back to the family farm, but by 1925, you can find him in the census living back at the farm, with Earl Kenyon, Sr., his wife May Sarah Butterworth (or Sarah), his sister Abby Butterworth, and a young, Earl Raymond Kenyon, Jr.

I could find no record of  Fremont ever marrying or having children, but he did go by the name "Uncle Fremont," a lot, according to Pam, his great grand niece. I do know that he liked to travel with his nephew, Edwin, and there are newspaper clippings mentioning them going off to travel. I also know he was very protective of his family and had a big shot gun that he wasn't afraid to use if necessary. 

I have often wondered whatever happened to Uncle Fremont's old shotgun? 

On August 16, 1938, at the age of 81 years, Fremont Arnold passed away at home from "arterial sclerosis with necrosis of the heart."  Fremont Arnold, the last Arnold to live on the property.

The next generation......

May Sarah Butterworth and Earl Kenyon, Sr. 

Now, I get towards the end of the line in the family genealogy of this beautiful and historic property. We have covered the Richardsons, the Arnolds, and of course the Butterworths, but now we will explore the history of the Kenyon family at this wonderful property. First things first, the house you know to be located at 1677 Round Top Road, Burrillville has gone through a lot of changes, even address wise.

At one time the home didn't have an actual address, it was just the Arnold Farm on Douglas Road. Then later on when the road was called Round Top Road, it was still just the Arnold Farm on Round Top Road. Later it would be 189 Round Top Road, and by the time Norma and Gerald purchased the home in the late 1980's, it was changed to 1677 Round Top Road.

Interesting to note, May Sarah Butterworth has two recorded dates of birth. The Rhode Island Vital Records states she was born on May 27, 1895, yet Sarah (as she liked to be called) reported her birthdate as April 16, 1894 in the 1935 census.

Moving forward,  Sarah Butterworth was raised at the home with her mother and father at the farm. On June 12, 1917, Sarah and Earl Raymond Kenyon (Sr.) would run off to Bath, Maine to elope. When and where Sarah met Earl, I am unsure, but she fell madly in love with him and ran off to Bath, Maine, to be married.

Sadly, just two months later, Sarah's father, William Butterworth would pass away. 

Per Pam Kenyon, "My grandfather Kenyon came from the village of Pascoag, a few miles away but prior to that they had been in Douglas, MA. My great grandfather was a millworker and followed the work in the mills. I can also find a little of the Kenyon line in Connecticut. My great, great grandfather was in the sixth Connecticut volunteers in the Civil War. Until my grandfather and grandmother got together, the Kenyons were never involved with the farm at all. In fact, my grandmother went to Maine to get married. My grandfather ended up working for and retiring from Swift and Company.....

As for the Kenyon’s involvement with the house – that began with my grandfather. It doesn’t go back any farther than that. He was born in Bridgeton (Pascoag) to Frank James Kenyon who was probably (like many of the day) a millworker who followed available work...... I’m not sure if any of the other children besides my grandfather and possibly a couple of aunts were born in Bridgeton. My grandfather’s birth, though it occurred in the 1890’s, was not recorded in town records. When he went to apply for social security, his older sister, Laura, had to go with him to vouch for his birthdate. I have a listing of all my grandfather’s siblings but not where they were born.

There is a Kenyon Rhode Island, so one would think that it was easy to find the family. Nope. We’re not related to any of those Kenyons as far as I can tell. It has taken me literally decades to find anything beyond Frank’s father, Albert, who was with the Sixth Connecticut Volunteers in the Civil War. He was married to Lucy Burlingame. Again, (that side of the family) had nothing to do with the house nor ever lived there.

My grandmother – the Arnold connection – went to Bath, Maine to marry my grandfather. I guess she was really determined. But, as I say, my grandfather was the first Kenyon to actually live in the house. He didn’t want to leave, as I recall, but he was getting older and was having problems taking care of things. My father convinced him to sell it. My father wasn’t happy when he found out that the realtor involved was Bessie Lindenbaum..... My grandfather never said anything like “keep the lights on” or close to it. He wasn’t like that. He was a down to earth, practical New Englander."---

As mentioned above, Earl Kenyon was from Pascoag, and was born on January 23, 1893, in Bridgeton, Pascoag, Burrillville.  

One thing to note, when Pam told me that records would get confusing about the townships and such, she wasn't kidding. I have found the farm to be listed as Harrisville, Burrillville, Glocester and even Pascoag at different times in different documents, but each time, it was still the farm on the old Douglas Road (and later Round Top Road). It is odd, but it was what it was. 

By 1920, we see Sarah and Earl Kenyon living in Massachusetts, as a married couple. Their son hadn't been born yet. On May 12, 1921,  Earl and Sarah would welcome their baby boy, Earl, Jr., into the world. At this time they were living at  71 N. Holden Street, North Adams, Massachusetts.

By 1925, we find that Earl and Sarah have moved back to the family farm on Round Top Road to be with Abby and Uncle Fremont, more than likely to help take care of them in their old age.

"Abigail’s daughter, my grandmother, married my grandfather in Bath Maine. Why Maine, I don’t know. My father said that she went to Maine to marry him and that’s what any family records say. For a time they lived in North Adams, Mass., where my father was born in 1921. They must have lived there until 1924/5 when they moved back to the farm and lived there for the rest of their lives. My father lived there until 1945 when he married my mother, except when he was serving in WWII. My grandfather lived on the farm alone from 1967 until he sold it in 1971, to the Perrons." -- Pamela Kenyon Cardin 

By the 1930 census, we don't see Abby's name anymore. This is because she passed away just days before the census taker came to the house. So only Earl, Sarah, Fremont and young Earl, Jr., are listed as living there. Moving onto the 1940 census, Uncle Fremont has since passed away by that time, so now it's just Earl, Sarah and Earl, Jr., living on the farm.  Earl is listed as working at a meat packing company as an accountant. Earl Kenyon, Sr., had worked for the meat packing company, Swift & Co, in Providence on Canal Street for a long time, and later by the 1950 census, he was still there, as the office manager. He would later retire from this job.

Sarah and Earl Kenyon raised their son, Earl, Jr., who lived there most of his life, and eventually he grew up, went to college and eventually went off to war during WWII. He served as a Tech Sargent in the 8th Air Force. His enlistment date was on March 11, 1943, and he served until April 7, 1945. He was part of Burk's Crew, and is listed on the memorial at the Mighty 8th Air Force Museum.

According to Pam, "My father lived there from when he was about 3, to when he married my mother, save for the time he was overseas in WWII. He was also back and forth from college (URI) just before that. "-

Earl Kenyon, Jr. would go on to marry, Miss Marjorie Sweet, the daughter of a pioneer family that was just as widely known as the Arnolds, the Sweets. They would live in town, just on another property.

Sarah Butterworth Kenyon would pass away on December 10,  1967, and Earl Kenyon, Sr., would continue to live in the house alone until selling the property in 1971.

Earl, Jr., and Marjorie would go on to have a daughter, Pamela Kenyon, who I considered to be a very dear friend. She helped me so very much during my most recent in depth research into the history of the property. Her knowledge of her family ancestry, her own memories, and the history of the farmhouse on Round Top Road was an invaluable source that needs to be recognized for posterity.

Sadly, Pam passed away last December and so the direct ancestral line of the original owners of this farmhouse has ended with her. I plan on writing more about her on this blog in the future, as she deserves to be remembered. 

In ending this blog post, I hope that I have enlightened you with the true ancestral history of this historical home. I have not found any events to merit such ridiculous claims as those that have been made about the house over the last several years. As I post more, I will show you that there was nothing sinister about this home or the property, and that the fabricated stories that began in August of 1973, have forever tarnished this beautiful New England home. Let us remember the families who lived and died here, with love and respect, always.

(Copyright, 2024-  J'aime Rubio  -- www.jaimerubiowriter.com)

**All the content that is published on this site or any of my blogs under my profile J'aime Rubio or Dreaming Casually © is my property and is protected by all applicable Copyright Laws. No part of my work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission from me, the publisher/author J'aime Rubio.-- jaimerubiowriter.com**

King Philip's War Wasn't Fought At the Conjuring House Property

Encyclopedia Britannica

In recent years there have been statements made by people representing The Conjuring House  (man, how I despise that name) regarding the history of the land. First and foremost, the area known as Harrisville, a small village within the confines of a much larger area known as Burrilville, did not really even begin to have settlers making homesteads until the 18th Century. With that being said, when the mention of  King Philip's War gets brought up, it is laughable to me that they would make the ridiculous claim that there were battles on the property where the Richardson-Arnold house is located. 

Number one, the parcel of land that exists today that is owned by the current owner of the Richardson-Arnold house is only 8.5 acres. The original land deed was well over 1000 acres. That is a tiny, itty-bitty fraction of the original property. When the King Phillip's War took place the majority of battles were in areas where there were a populace of settlers gathered together. 

The area where Harrisville was, was literally considered "not worth surveying for settlement purposes since these outlands are too far from Providence," according to the Blackstone Heritage Corridor's historical walking tour pamphlet.

Recently, in a Youtube video titled "Boycotting The Conjuring House," former owner Corey Heinzen tried to discredit my historical statements I made in a recent Youtube Video by "The Side Eye Guy." 

According to Corey, who gets really angry when mentioning me ( see the 32 minute mark of the video), he tries to turn everything around on me as if I don't know the history of the King Phillip's War.

Corey's statement: 

"J'aime Rubio went on, was it SEG's freakin' (unintelligible) and she was saying 'oh the King's Phillip's war wasn't fought there,'.... it was fought there!  She's, she was trying to narrow it down to a specific battle, there wasn't a specific battle fought there. The war was fought all over Rhode Island."

Actually, no I wasn't narrowing it down to a specific battle.  I was very matter of fact in the video, that there is no evidence that any battle(s), that's plural, meaning more than one, were fought there, period. A property cannot be mentioned as being haunted for being involved in the King Phillip's war when there are no records showing that it was. 

Fact, the war was fought in certain areas of Rhode Island, not ALL OVER Rhode Island. Again, if you were to do some rudimentary research you would know this.

Corey goes even further with, "and yet she's trying to narrow it down to, 'oh! it was fought right here on this property'  No Mother - - - - - -! (unintelligible). God No! People don't understand they think they do the research correctly, but they're not. They're just jumping to a conclusion. Now, does she have a lot of good points? Absolutely. However, not with that. And that's what aggravates me. Because it's like, so you're throwing out a total, which kind of makes sense, even though it's a theory, but you're just going to throw it out because you think, the battle was fought here."

Correction again -- No, I never said that. I didn't come up with some theory here. 

It has been implied by others that the property is haunted because of it having "survived" the King Philips war.

The property was literally forests during that time period, and had no one living on or near that site during that time period. People settled together in groups back then, because there was safety in numbers, to avoid being attacked by Indians.

My statement on the Side Eye Guy's video was to give folks a history lesson that the war was fought in OTHER areas of Rhode Island and Massachusetts, but not anywhere near the property. Something the average person wouldn't have a clue of.   

Let's take a look at a few maps, shall we? If you look below I have highlighted in red the area where the house on Round Top Road is located according to the map. Where the word or name Narrangansett is on the map, the area where the "a" is encased in red, that is the approximate area where the house is located. 

Now, remember, the house did not exist when the King Phillip's War happened between June 20, 1675 and April 12, 1678.  White settlers did not live in that area at that time, as it was considered an outland of forests. 

Per Historian Elise Giammarco Carlson, "This is one of several maps I found. Where "Narragansett" is spelled sideways....the house is on the line between R.I. and M.A., approximately where the "A" lies. You know, in the big, empty hole between settlements and battles." -- 

Do you see any black dots at or near the red square? No, you do not. Because there were no English settlements in that area, and no attacks were made near there. 

Let's take a look at some more information..... 

I have marked on the map below in a small red square where the Richardson-Arnold house is approximately. Do you see any battles within the red square? No.

You can see a orange arrow showing where English offensives traveled towards Nipsachuck, which we will delve into in just a moment. Looking at the areas on the map, you can plainly see there were no battles on or near the house.

Let's go even deeper into the history.....

According to the book, "Soldiers In King Philips War," by George Bodge, 1891. Bodge mentions briefly that "the English left their horses with a guard , and, with the Mohegans in the van, marched silently forward to a field, at a place called "Nipsachick" (said to be within the present town of Burrillville, R.I.)  The night being very dark, they were forced to wait for light. At dawn they made their attack upon what provide to be Weetamoo's camp. The Indians were taken by surprise and fled, leaving everything behind them. But the Mohegan's and English rushing forward found themselves confronted with Philip's fighting men entrenched behind trees and rocks ready for battle. Adopting the tactics of the enemy, the English and their allies engated them fiercely until 9 o'clock, when still fighting desparately, but with powder nearly spent, the hostiles sullenly retired, leaving many of their dead upon the field. Some twenty three of the enemy were killed, it is said, including a prominent chief Woonashum, called by the English, Nimrod. Of the English, two were killed and one wounded."--- Page 15.

In reality though, Nipsachick, or later "Nipsachuck," was not in Burrillville. 

The First Battle of Nipsachuck as it would later be called, took place on August 4, 1675 in North Smithfield, which is approximately 12 miles from the Richardson-Arnold House. The Second Battle of Nipsachuck took place at Mattity Swamp on July 2, 1676, which is still considered to be within the area of North Smithfield, and approximately 10 miles away from the house as well.

According to a direct descendant of the Richardson-Arnold house's original inhabitants, and certified genealogist, Pam Kenyon Cardin, no battles during the King Philip's War took place near her ancestral home on Round Top Road. In fact, Pam had made this remark when we discussed the accusations made about different types of events at her ancestral home's property. When she mentions the word "mess" she was speaking about the lies being told about the property's history, as she was keeping a record or notes on each allegation.

"Somewhere amongst the mess was a notation about the farm being an active site for King Phillip's war. No. Most of that took place in southern R.I. and in the Great Swamp. Also, in Bristol County, Mass. NOT IN BURRILLVILLE. There were certainly Native Americans living in Burrillville. Many, in fact. Hence why my great grandfather called the dairy "Indian Acres." We have many artifacts from their habitation. In a book Wallum Pond Estates, it gives a brief history of the Native Americans living in the area. I have no idea where the bit about King Phillip came from. Unless someone read various Native American names and somehow decided they must be connected. NOPE. Ah, what a little bit of research could have done for some of these people."--  Pam Kenyon Cardin, 2023.

According to the book, "Wallum Pond Estates," by Harry Lee Barnes in 1877, it states on page 8, that "Ten miles southeasterly of Wallum Pond in Nipsachuck, a place through which King Phillip passed in his flight westward to the Nipmuck country."  That is the only mention of that war in his book after that. And it correlates with the story in the other book, which took place in present day North Smithfield, not Harrisville, Burrillville. 

Fact, there are NO RECORDS or DOCUMENTATION whatsoever that prove ANY sort of battle between Native Americans and English Settlers or Soldiers took place in Harrisville, let alone at the property on Round Top Road. That is my point. Just because a war took place in various spots in Massachusetts and Rhode Island DOES NOT mean that every square inch of those states saw fighting between settlers and Indians. It was in specific documented locations. 

It isn't a THEORY, it is a FACT.  

Yes, there were battles in different areas in Rhode Island, but not on the land where this historic house is situated.

In ending this blog post today, I hope that you have walked away with a better understanding of the history of the property and the general area of that part of Rhode Island. It is easy to make statements when you do not have documentation to back up what you are saying. I do not make statements without having researched the subject before hand. I strongly recommend that anyone wanting to know the truth about the history of the area, to do thorough research on the topic before going on the record and making opinionated statements about it. 

(Copyright 2024 - J'aime Rubio  www.jaimerubiowriter.com) 

 

The Ancestral Genealogy of the Richardson-Arnold House (Part 1)

Photo of the Arnold Family (late 1800's) original property of Arnold/Butterworth/Kenyon Family 

There has been a lot of television programs, blogs, newspaper articles, a few books and even a movie attempting to tell the story of this house, and yet only a few people have been able to tell the facts surrounding whether or not the events claimed in the film, "The Conjuring," by either the Perron family or the Warren's actually took place on this old farm. Even "The Conjuring House" website has a short blurb summarizing the history of the home, although some of it is incorrect, and I will go over that with you here and on other blogs at a future date. Join me today, as I take you back in time to revisit the former residents of the home. 

This will be the first of two blog posts regarding the ancestral genealogy of the people who lived on the property.  I will keep posting more information on the true history of the home, as well as my fact based conclusions resulting from my thorough research to figure out why this whole "ghost story" has taken on a life of its own within this blog site over time.

The area which we know today as Burrillville, Rhode Island, consists of 14 villages spread over 55 square miles. The property the Conjuring House is situated on is within the village of Harrisville, which was named after Andrew Harris, who purchased the area in the early 1800's (which was earlier known as Rhodesville). Prior to that, the land encompassing Burrillville had originally been considered part of Glocester, which is actually about 6 miles south of Harrisville. 

It had been alleged that back in the 1600's, the land was "not worth surveying for settlement purposes since these outlands are too far from Providence," according to Blackstone Heritage Corridor's historical walking tour pamphlet.  You see, although Roger Willams established Glocester and other Providence Plantations, that didn't mean he ever stood on this particular property when it was deeded to the Richardson family. 

According to the genealogical records by Pamela Kenyon Cardin (a direct descendant of the original families who owned the property), the original homestead for the Richardson family was closer to the Massachusetts border on what was the original land owned by the family. 

Going back to the early 1700's, the property consisted of over a thousand acres of land, which is no longer part of the "Conjuring House" property today. Over the time, parcels were broken up and sold off, and once the Perron's purchased the home, the land was significantly smaller than when the original families owned it.

It is my belief due to the timeline of events, that Isaac Richardson and his wife, Deborah Fuller were more than likely the original family to be deeded the land. This doesn't mean that they lived on the land per se, it just means they were more than likely the ones who were deeded that land. Records show that Isaac was born on May 24, 1643, in Woburn, Massachusetts Bay Colony. He married Deborah Fuller on June 19, 1667, in Woburn, Massachusetts. He would have died shortly after having been deeded that land in present day Burrillville, which would mean his son, Johnathan Richardson would have inherited the property. Did they build a home on it then? There's really no way to know for sure. Deeds going back that far are difficult to locate, and many times dwellings weren't always recorded as such. 

Despite what many people assume, there is no evidence that King Philip's War (1675-1676) actually took place on that specific property. Yes, we know there were conflicts in Massachusetts and even the town of Providence was burned in 1676, however, there is no record that a specific battle took place on the exact land that this house was built on. 

Another thing to note, during the Revolutionary War (1775-1783) the only documented battle nearby was in Newport, which is about 60 miles southeast of Burrillville. With that being said, let's go to the next phase in this home's history.

Johnathan Richardson was born on December 12, 1669, in Woburn, Massachusetts Bay Colony. He married Mary Isaac Cutler, and the two of them settled in Glocester, Rhode Island. Now you have to remember, Burrillville didn't exist at this time, so that area was still considered part of Glocester.  Johnathan and Mary went on to have at least three children that I could locate: Isaac, Johnathan and Miriam. 

Did they build the first structure on that massive piece of land? Possibly. There are ruins of the original homestead close to the Massachusetts border of that original property, which would have been the first home to be built on the Richardson land, it is just not certain which of the Richardsons were the first to build that earlier structure.

Personally, based on the records and research of Pam Kenyon Cardin, since her genealogical research dates the Richardson-Arnold house back to closer to 1725 (not 1736 as stated on a plaque at the house*), the more logical conclusion would be that the later structure/home on this land, near Round Top Road was built by or for Isaac Richardson, the son of Johnathan and Mary. 

Isaac married Sarah Aldrich in Glocester on July 17, 1732, and although records indicate that he died at the age of 83 years old in Mendon, Worcester, Massachusetts, it is still possible that at one time he resided in Glocester.  Isaac would pass away at the age of 83, on April 20, 1784. I could not locate a date of death for Sarah, so it is the writer's belief she predeceased her husband.

Next down the line in the family tree would be Joseph Richardson and Susannah Smith. Joseph was born in 1726, in Glocester, Rhode Island to Isaac and Sarah Richardson. He had three siblings that we know of: David, Deborah and Samuel. 

Joseph married Susannah Smith on June 11, 1751 in Glocester.  They went on to have three children: Anne, Joseph Jr., and Sarah.  Joseph would pass away on September 29, 1764, at the young age of 39 years. His wife, Susannah would live to be 51 years old, passing away in 1775, in Providence. 

It was through Anne, John and Susannah's eldest daughter that the property would eventually merge into the "Richardson-Arnold" estate, when Anne married Noah Arnold, Jr., on July 21, 1768. Their union would bring forth eight children: Sarah, Bradford, Nathan, John, Benedict, Anna, Olive and Phoebe. 

So, we know that Anne and Noah lived in the house that stands today, and they raised 8 children there. Noah Arnold, Jr., would pass away on June 20, 1822, while his wife, Anne Richardson Arnold would live another 25 years, passing away at the age of 97, in 1847. Out of Anne and Noah's children, their son, John would later take over ownership of the farm along with his wife, Abigail Cook Arnold. 

For the record, we do not know when John took over the farm. More than likely it was after the death of his father, when normally an estate is passed down to the children. With that respect, that would mean that John and his wife, and young children more than likely lived elsewhere within the area, until Noah's passing in 1822. 

Going back to the story....

John Arnold was born around 1773, on the farm. He married Abigail Cook Arnold, who was born on December 24, 1775, the daughter of Martha Hopkins and Sylvanius Cook, of Glocester in 1795. The couple had at least eleven children to my knowledge: Rosamond, Sally, Manning, Stephen, Sophia, Olive, Ellen, Elmira, John Jr., Mary and Smith. Did their children grow up on this property? I cannot say for certain, as again, the property more than likely was passed down once the family patriarch (grandfather) passed.

From that generation it appears that Stephen would later inherit the farm, when John Arnold passed away on September 19, 1837 at the age of 64 years. His wife, Abigail Cook Arnold would pass away 32 years later on February 10, 1869, at the age of 93. 

Time rolls on, and later we find Stephen Arnold and his wife, Sally Margery Eddy Arnold running the farm. Stephen was born in 1805, just around the time that Burrillville was "established." He married Sally Margery Eddy, the daughter of  Doctor Levi Eddy and Prusia Aldrich. The pair had ten children that I could locate: Edwin, Prusia, Stephen Jr., George, Albert, Mowry, Emeline, Sarah, Abigail and Levi. Of the ten children, all grew to be adults, except for Abigail and Levi. It appears Abby passed away at the age of 5 years in 1848, and Levi passed away at the age of 14 in 1859. According to Pam Kenyon Cardin, the two children had passed away from Typhoid.*

(* I had originally believed they had died from Typhus but according to Pam, she believed it was actually Typhoid). 

Is there a record of this? Their deaths are recorded in genealogical record, but not cause of death. Pam Kenyon Cardin had her family Bible and she stated that the two children of Sally Eddy and their causes of death were mentioned in it. According to Pam, Sally also passed away on October 3, 1844, from Typhoid as well. Interestingly enough, Sally passed away before her two children, so thankfully she didn't have to experience the heartache of losing any of her children while she was alive.  Stephen Arnold would pass away five years later, on October 25, 1849. 

Another thing to mention, Pam Kenyon Cardin explained that Stephen and Sally did live on the farm and did raise their children there. This much we know from her personal family genealogical records and family Bible.

Moving forward, it was Edwin Arnold who would later live at the property and run the farm with his family. Edwin was born at the farm on February 28, 1821. He was married to Adeline Caswell in 1851 in Burrillville. They had three children that I could find information on: Abigail Frances Arnold, John Allen Arnold and Fremont Arnold. 

The 1860 Census lists Edwin as a farmer, along with his wife Adeline, children: Abby (8), John (5) and Fremont (3), as well as Eunice Burlingame (7), Willis (3), Riley Barnes (50), and Eunice Caswell (69). It appears that Eunice Caswell was Adeline's mother, and the rest were obviously relatives, except for Riley, who was a farm laborer.

The 1870 Census lists Edwin again as a farmer, along with Adeline, children: Abby (18), John (15), Fremont (13), along with Riley Barnes (59), Sturbridge Taft (27) both listed as farm laborers, Prudence Taft (18) as a house keeper and Ednah (2). It is obvious that Sturbridge and Prudence were a married couple with their child, Ednah, living and working on the farm for the family.

On July 9, 1871, Abigail Frances Arnold would wed Sumner Walling in Douglas, Massachusetts. The couple would have one child together Sumner, Jr., who was born in 1874. This year would prove to be a difficult one for poor Abby, as the child would not live to be one years old.  Did the child die shortly after birth, or a childhood illness? According to Pam Cardin Kenyon's family records, they vaguely stated the child died from a disease. 

On May 27, 1874, Abby's husband, Sumner would also die, but this time it would be from an accidental drowning in Douglas, Worcester, Massachusetts, where he is also buried. After these two horrible events, Abby moved back home to her parents farm in Burrilville. 

The 1880 Census lists Edwin as a farmer, Adeline, their adult children: Abby (28), John (25), Fremont (23), Riley Barnes (72). All of the men are working for the family as a farmer laborers.

Edwin's wife, Adeline would pass away on December 18, 1883, from Tuberculosis. 

Please take note of the photograph posted at the top of this blog, which has been widespread over the years to perpetuate "The Conjuring" story, was more than likely taken sometime in the late 1800's, thus the people listed in the 1870-1880 census' are more than likely those within the photograph, along with relatives who may have been visiting or even possibly close friends from a neighboring property. 

The photo was property of the Arnold family, which was passed down through Abigail Butterworth down to her grandchildren and great-grandchildren, eventually belonging to the Kenyon family. Per former owner, Norma Sutcliffe, "This was a picture that was taken, that was handed down from the Arnold family. I was given a copy of the original and, sadly, I gave it to Andrea Perron. This was all long before the movie."-- 

So we know now how that photo got circulated all over the internet with false information pertaining to the house and the erroneous story of Bathsheba Sherman.

Going back to the history....

On October 24, 1903, while walking home one evening, Edwin disappeared. His body was located against a rock wall on Smith Aldrich's farm on December 17, 1903. Apparently, he stopped to rest due to exhaustion and he died from exposure from the cold. His body had missing for nearly two months. 

The newspaper clipping of the discovery read:

"FOUND AT LAST -- The Body of Edwin Arnold Discovered by a Hunter Yesterday Morning.

Yesterday morning about 7:25 o'clock the body of Edwin Arnold, who disappeared October 24th, was found by Frank Pierce beside a stone wall on the Smith Aldrich farm. Mr. Pierce was hunting in the vicinity and came upon the body suddenly as he approached a stone wall. The position of the body was such as would suggest that Mr. Arnold had sat down or reclined to rest and death overtook him before he was ready to go on."-- Pascoag Herald, 12/18/1903

It goes on to detail that he had been trying to take a short cut, by cutting through various farms, to avoid the highway, when he probably grew tired and stopped to take a rest, only to pass away in the freezing weather temperatures.

 "The funeral of the later Edwin Arnold was held from his residence on the Douglas Road last Saturday afternoon at 1 o'clock and was attended by many relatives and friends. Rev. Walter Ela, pastor of the Laurel Hill M.E. Church, officiated. the bearers were Smith B. Mowry, A.B. White, Sewell Chace and Horace Arnold. Interment was in the family lot in the Tassel Top Cemetery." -- Pascoag Herald, 12/25/1903

His will would later show that the property and his $1,200 in bonds were left to his sons, John and Fremont. 

One thing I would like to bring up while we are on the subject of Edwin, in a recent Facebook post the administrator of The Conjuring House's Facebook page made a comment about Edwin when they posted some videos of visiting one of the Arnold family plots to leave flowers. The poster goes on to say this of Edwin, "He was not known to be a particularly loving spirit but we sent him love and remembrance. Remember, hurt people, hurt people. We don't know what wounded Edwin to make him an irascible spirit What I do know is that It's never too late to heal our wounds and become better people or spirits for it."

The question I have for the poster is: Where on earth did you get the idea that Edwin was an unkind person or easily angered person? Do you have some written documentation, a biography of sorts written by Edwin or people who knew him, that said he was not a very nice person? You say that hurt people tend to hurt people, but how would you know that he hurt anyone? He could have been a very kind person in life. The fact is that you know nothing about Edwin. You shouldn't make accusations about someone's character if you don't know anything about them personally.  

For the record, we do not know what type of person Edwin was, nice or not. So we have NO RIGHT whatsoever to say anything bad about him, other wise that would be slander. --  Also, why post a video of Prudence Arnold's grave when she has absolutely nothing to do with the history of the house? It was a tragedy how she was murdered, no doubt, but by posting her grave on the page it only further confuses people who aren't aware of the truth, that Prudence Arnold's life and death had nothing to do with the Richardson-Arnold house. She lived and was murdered in Uxbridge, Massachusetts.

In ending, this first part of my ancestral genealogy blog post, we have learned that there have been many people who have lived and died on the property from old age perhaps and illness, but there are no records of any sort of foul play, accident or suicide on this property. Although Edwin died, he did not die on this property, and Sally Eddy and her two children died of illness. It is safe to conclude that there were many deaths prior to and up to this point in the home's history, based on the fact that there were many generations who lived here and grew old here. Family took care of their elderly until they passed away, but that didn't mean anything negative took place on the property.

CLICK HERE TO READ  PART 2. The Ancestral History of the Richardson-Arnold House. 

-(COPYRIGHT - J'aime Rubio, 2024, www.jaimerubiowriter.com ) 

* The plaque you see at the house that says the house was built in 1736 is not accurate. The date was etched in cement on a back step when Norma lived there. You must remember that cement wasn't readily available until the late 1800's and the early 1900's, so the date that was placed on the step had been done well over a hundred years after the home was built, perhaps even later. There is no way to know when the cement step was put in, and just who decided to add that date to it. 

**All the content that is published on this site or any of my blogs under my profile J'aime Rubio or Dreaming Casually © is my property and is protected by all applicable Copyright Laws. No part of my work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission from me, the publisher/author J'aime Rubio.-- jaimerubiowriter.com**