Examining the September 1, 2024, Paranormal 360 interview, the contradictions within Andrea Perron's account, and what other sources tell us about the history of the Round Top Road farmhouse.
On September 1, 2024, Andrea Perron appeared on Paranormal 360 with Dave Schrader to discuss her family's experiences while living at the now-famous farmhouse on Round Top Road in Burrillville, Rhode Island, and the events that eventually became the inspiration for the motion picture The Conjuring.
Over the years, Andrea has shared numerous accounts of what she and her family allegedly experienced inside the farmhouse. These stories have become familiar to paranormal enthusiasts, particularly through her books, interviews, and appearances in documentaries. But familiarity should never replace scrutiny, especially when a story is repeatedly retold and presented as historical fact.
After listening carefully to the September 2024 interview, I found several statements that deserve closer examination. Some appear to contradict other things Andrea says during the same conversation, while others raise questions when compared with information provided by people who lived in the area, including members of the Kenyon family, who owned the farmhouse before the Perrons.
My intention here is to examine the claims, compare the accounts, and distinguish between what someone remembers, what someone was told, and what can actually be supported by historical evidence.
An important distinction: Someone else's experience is not independent confirmation.
Throughout the interview, Andrea recounts numerous incidents involving members of her family. Some of these stories concern her mother, Carolyn, her sisters, her father, and even Lorraine Warren. However, there is an important distinction between witnessing an event firsthand and repeating what someone else has told you happened. For example, when Andrea describes her mother being lifted in a chair or seeing what appeared to be an entire family seated around the dining room table, she is largely relating her mother's experience. That testimony may be important to understanding the family's story, but it is not independent confirmation that the events occurred as described.
Even when Andrea says she was present to witness something, what she offers is still her personal recollection and interpretation of the experience. This distinction becomes particularly important when discussing the séance conducted at the farmhouse. No surviving photographs or footage of the séance have been produced to independently establish what occurred. Andrea's explanation has been that the cameras were destroyed. Again, she is making claims that she cannot back up with documented evidence to provide as fact.
Contradictions within the story itself
One of the more interesting aspects of the interview is how certain statements seem to pull in opposite directions. For on, Andrea maintains that the spirits never threatened her and suggests that the house, in some way, was protective of the family. She refers to her sister Cindy's belief that the house would have protected them had they remained there. Yet, elsewhere in the same interview, Andrea describes incidents involving her mother and sisters that she says could have been life-ending. Also, in an episode of Paranormal Witness, Cindy, the same sister that told Andrea the house would have protected them if they had stayed there, was interviewed stating "If we had stayed, the house would have killed us all."
That raises a reasonable question: If the house was protective and the spirits never threatened the family, how does that reconcile with incidents that allegedly placed their lives in danger? Why did Cindy say one thing to Andrea and then turn around a relay a completely opposite comment in her television interview?
Do you see the contradictions here?
If you have read Andrea's books, you would know that she bases the majority of the story on accounts driven by fear and terror that the family allegedly felt while living in the home. They did not just leave shortly after moving in. Instead the family remained there for 8 years and 3 months, from January of 1972 until the home was sold in April of 1980 to the Schwartz family.
There is another contradiction involving her mother's experience. Andrea describes her mother as having nearly paid with her life during one of these incidents, but then maintains that the entity responsible did not actually want to kill her. Those are two rather different descriptions of the same alleged encounter. If an entity's actions could have resulted in someone's death, how can we confidently determine that it had no intention of causing that outcome?
The interview also raises questions about the family's supposed desire for privacy.
Andrea explains that her father considered the haunting private family business and did not want it discussed publicly. Yet she also describes her mother as being very forthcoming with Lorraine Warren. Since then, Andrea herself has shared the family's experiences through books, interviews, and documentaries. There may be explanations for why the family's position changed over time, but the contrast is worth acknowledging. If the experiences were considered private family matters, when and why did that change?
Bathsheba Sherman: Defender or repeater of the accusations?
Another subject that deserves attention is Andrea's portrayal of Bathsheba Sherman, the historical resident who has become central to the legend surrounding the farmhouse. In the past decade or so, Andrea has repeatedly described herself as Bathsheba's great defender, arguing now that there is no proof Bathsheba committed the terrible acts attributed to her in the stories surrounding the property.
However, Andrea's own discussion introduces an interesting complication. During the interview, she repeats information her mother was allegedly given by the town historian – someone that she still has not proven actually ever existed, including some of the accusations surrounding Bathsheba. She also refers to supposed proof of an inquest in the town of Chepachet.
Let me make this painfully clear - there had never been any sort of accusation or inquest made about Bathsheba during her lifetime. Period. Again, this is a story that was "conjured" up after the death of Earl Kenyon, Sr., quite literally after his death around August of 1973. There had been NO STORIES of the house having been haunted prior to this time period. There had been NO STORIES about Bathsheba Sherman prior to this time period. Do the math. Use common sense. The stories began with the Perrons.
At other points, these accounts are described more generally as tales the family was told.
I have spent over a decade researching both the history of the family who lived in the farmhouse, but initialy I started with my investigation into the horrendous accusations both Andrea Perron and Lorraine Warren accused Bathsheba of having committed. After years of searching for historical documentation supporting an inquest that implicated Bathsheba Sherman, it has been concluded that no such record exists, because it simply never happened.
If Andrea is defending Bathsheba against historical misinformation, shouldn't the same standard of evidence apply to the stories she continues to repeat about her? She might claim that she defends her, but all she has to do is pick up one of her own books and read the slanderous trope she willfully penned in her own words to see she has NOT been a defender of Bathsheba, but instead an posthumous adversary. If she truly wants to defend her now, she needs to:
A) Make a public apology to the entire world and admit to the fact that she did not do any rudimentary research prior to writing her books and thus, the information within her books are not historical fact.
and; she also needs to:
B) Redact everything negative she has ever said or written about Bathsheba, or the Arnolds for that matter, and correct those mistakes in her books. She should also admit once and for all that the accusations against Bathsheba did not exist before 1973, and that no such inquest about any death of any child/infant was ever made.
She keeps beating on that drum that there are records of this inquest. No there are not! Stop already.
The sealed fireplace: A detail that deserves more than a passing mention
Perhaps the most significant inconsistency in the interview involves Andrea's account of an incident in October 1974, when her mother allegedly saw what appeared to be a family gathered around the dining room table. According to Andrea, she had gone into the kitchen to warm some beef stew. While she was away, her mother leaned over to throw another log onto the fire. She reportedly heard laughter and turned to see a dining room illuminated by candles and oil lamps, with an entire family seated around the table.
By the time Andrea returned, the room was dark again. Andrea specifically emphasizes that the fireplace had been sealed for more than 100 years when the Perrons purchased the property. She makes the mention that it was still sealed, too.
There is a rather obvious question here.
How does someone lean over to put another log on a fire in a fireplace that was supposedly sealed?
If the fireplace was closed off, there should not have been a functioning fire to tend. The detail is difficult to reconcile with the story as Andrea presents it. Perhaps her mother experienced a hallucination or some other unusual perception. That would be a different claim from physically tending a fire in a fireplace that could not be used.
I am not suggesting that her mother deliberately fabricated an experience. There are many possible explanations for what someone might perceive, particularly when a person is unwell or not eating properly, circumstances that Andrea herself admits to and openly discusses in connection with her mother's condition.
But the physical details still matter. A story should be examined in its entirety, not just the portions that contribute to its paranormal interpretation.
And there is another problem: Was the fireplace actually sealed for more than a century?
What the Kenyon family says about the chimney
Before the Perrons purchased the farmhouse, the property belonged to the Kenyon family. Pamela Kenyon Cardin's grandmother and grandfather had lived there for decades, and Pam provided me with information about the property's earlier history several years ago.
According to the account Pamela shared with me, sometime during the 1930s or 1940s, lightning traveled down the chimney, moved around the room, and caused damage. Her father, Earl Kenyon Jr., was reportedly sitting on the couch when the incident occurred and narrowly avoided being struck. Following that incident, Pamela's grandmother, Sarah Kenyon, had the chimney sealed. There was also the recurring problem of chimney swifts nesting inside it, so closing it off addressed that issue as well.
If the Kenyon family timeline is accurate, the fireplace had been sealed approximately 30 to 40 years before the Perrons moved into the farmhouse in 1971, not more than 100 years. This is an important distinction, and it also raises another interesting possibility concerning the lightning story that later appeared in connection with the Perron farmhouse.
I have not yet located independent documentation confirming the lightning strike or the precise date the chimney was sealed. For that reason, I am presenting this information as the Kenyon family's recollection, rather than claiming it has been established through contemporary records. Nevertheless, it is a firsthand family account from people who lived in the home before the Perrons. It deserves consideration when examining Andrea's version of the property's history.
The school, the neighbors, and a very different perspective
Andrea also discusses her school years, describing herself as a straight-A student who was threatened with expulsion simply for talking to classmates about the haunted farmhouse. However, there is another perspective worth considering.
Pam told me that her family became increasingly unhappy with the stories being circulated about the property once her grandfather passed away. They believed the claims were false and unfairly portrayed people who had lived and died in their community. According to Pam, at one point it got so bad that her father involved the family lawyer over the matter.
Could that possibly be the reason that Andrea was told to stop spreading her stories?
I have also spoken to a former classmate of Andrea's who just so happened to confirm Pam's story below, giving further credence to the subject.
"Let me give you a brief glimpse into the girl who wrote the stories. Apparently, she always wanted to be part of "the group" in high school. What better way than to tell these really weird stories about he old house she lived in?....... Certainly, this was a way of trying to achieve some kind of popularity...." -- (Pam Kenyon Cardin's opinion)
There are two important qualifications here. I have not located school records establishing why exactly Andrea was threatened with expulsion, so I cannot independently confirm the reason she gives. Likewise, I have not seen legal documents concerning the Kenyon family's reported involvement with attorneys. Those details remain Pam's account.
What is important, however, is that the people connected to the property's earlier history did not necessarily share the Perron family's version of events. The Kenyon family had its own memories, its own history with the farmhouse, and serious objections to some of the stories being told about it.
Their perspective should not simply be dismissed because it differs from the version that eventually became famous.
Looking beyond the Hollywood version
The story of the Round Top Road farmhouse has become so closely associated with The Conjuring that it is sometimes difficult to separate the historical property from the mythology that has developed around it. Something you need to keep in perspective though – the farmhouse existed long before the Perrons arrived, and the people who lived there before them have histories and experiences that deserve to be examined just as carefully.
When I listened to Andrea Perron's September 2024 interview, several questions emerged. Some of her statements appear inconsistent with other statements she makes during the same interview. The dining room account raises a practical question about a supposedly sealed fireplace. The Kenyon family's recollections offer a different timeline for the chimney. And the claims surrounding Bathsheba Sherman and the alleged historical inquest remain in need of documentary support.
Personal testimony is important, but it is not a substitute for historical documentation. Repeated stories do not become historical facts simply because they have been told many times, appeared in books, or inspired a successful motion picture.
I believe the history of this property deserves to be told accurately, including the perspectives of the families who lived there before the Perrons. That means questioning familiar accounts, examining contradictions, and being willing to acknowledge when the available evidence does not support a particular claim.
Ultimately, this is about historical accuracy. The people who once lived in that farmhouse, including those whose names have become part of its paranormal legend, deserve to have their histories represented responsibly.
Sources and research notes:
Paranormal 360, interview with Andrea Perron and Dave Schrader, September 1, 2024.
Paranormal Witness, Season 4, Episode 10.
My July 2016 email exchange with Andrea Perron.
Email correspondence with Pamela Kenyon Cardin, who gave me permission to use the information she shared before her passing.
My own historical and records research concerning the farmhouse, its former residents, and the claims associated with the property.
Quotes and historical details are drawn from the materials identified above. Information attributed to the Kenyon family is identified as family testimony where independent documentary confirmation has not yet been located.-----
Copyright 2026 - J'aime Rubio
No comments:
Post a Comment