Animosity Continues to Brew Between Former Owners of the Conjuring House

 

So, a little over a month ago, I was watching my friend the "Side Eye Guy's" video on "The Boys at the Conjuring House." I just so happened to make a comment on the video when lo and behold, former Conjuring House owner, Corey Heinzen jumps on to argue with me. It seems that every time I am mentioned on Youtube regarding the history of the Richardson-Arnold house (aka the Conjuring House) or even when I just comment on a video relating to the subject, Corey shows up out of nowhere with something to say. Because I have been dealing with some health issues this year, I haven't been online as much as I have been in the past, especially within the last month, so I didn't really have a chance to reply in detail. So, it’s a little late today, but better late than never.

Today, I will be addressing his original comments as well as touching on the animosity that continues to brew between former owner Norma Sutcliffe and Corey Heinzen, which is all based on alleged dishonesty and unethical behavior on the part of Heinzen at the time of purchasing the property from Sutcliffe.

Although a lot of people out there think the Heinzen's are nice people, my personal experiences with them from the very beginning have been anything but nice. In fact, after finding out about them purchasing the property back in 2019, I reached out to them via snail mail with a letter sincerely asking them to preserve the factual history of the home and not to jump on the bandwagon with all of the paranormal groups perpetuating the false lore that has been spread for many years. I also provided them with a copy of some of my thorough research debunking Bathsheba Sherman's false attachment to the home's history, as well as debunking several false claims about deaths at the home claimed in Andrea Perron's books, so they couldn't say they weren't aware of the facts.  I was immediately met with a threatening message from their friend, Bill Brock on Facebook on July 27, 2019, which showed that someone had taken a sharpie and wrote the expletive “Fuck Off!” on my letter that I had sent to the Heinzen's.

I actually spoke to someone who was there at the house when this event took place and this person told me that he saw when Bill Brock took my letter and sent this and that Corey Heinzen was okay with it, despite Corey's email to me on August 1, 2019  claiming he had no idea that Bill had done that. 

But going back to the video on SEG's channel last month, this blog will be to set some information straight so that the public will actually have a chance to know Norma's side of the story, not just a one-sided story by the Heinzen's.

In Corey’s comment to me he states: “So why was Norma on Ghost Hunters, Season 2, Episode 2? Or better yet, why does she talk about it with Andrea Perron on countless videos?”  Then he goes on to ask: “Strange, it didn’t stop her from having other teams in to investigate? Or having her “tea time with the spirits”? Or talking to her former staff at the daycare about the ghosts? Would you like for me to continue? I honestly don’t think you were given the complete story by her.”

Originally my first response to Corey on the Youtube thread was this: 

"First and foremost G.H. Season 2 was filmed between 2005 and 2006. When Norma bought the house she was told a previous family claimed that the house was haunted. She found it interesting even though she was more skeptical than a believer. The Perron's, upon meeting Norma made vague claims about the house in the beginning. It wasn't until years later that Andrea started showing up at the house wanting to share stories with Norma. (Some of which were recorded). At that point Norma didn't know a lot about the history of the house and so Andrea made claims and Norma politely listened. One of Norma's friends talked her into doing the G.H. episode hoping to debunk the rumors. She regretted it later. After Norma started researching the facts about the house she saw that all the so-called " history" Andrea had tried to spread wasn't based on documented facts and Norma even tried to confront Andrea at a local Paracon. That was when Andrea got upset, screamed at her and ran off stage because someone had called her out on her over embellishments. So there you go....."--- --- 

Going back to all the questions coming from Corey on the Youtube video's comment thread, I decided to go straight to the source and reach out to Norma myself for her answers to provide to the public. But first, my question to Corey is how do you live with yourself knowing you tricked an elderly lady, a widow nonetheless, into selling her property to you under the guise you were going to use the property for people and/or children with disabilities and animal therapy? When Norma was told that the house would be in no way used for anything paranormal, and yet the ink hadn’t even dried on the property sales documents, and you were already planning paranormal business on the property.

NORMA’S ANSWERS: 

"Hi. To answer the questions, the only reason I did the Ghost Hunters show was out of sheer curiosity to see what they would claim, long before the movie or the return of Andrea to the farm.  Also, the only other group I had allowed in the home to investigate was Keith Johnson because they called me.  Seeing that he was the original investigator, both groups came because I was very interested in what they would claim, none of which used critical thinking, as Kent Spottswood and I did. 

Why would I speak about facts if I wanted to believe or to make claims about having ghosts? They just used Perron's claims, and Johnson made the same claims in his book without an investigation into the facts.  I never said I believed in the paranormal. Even during the filming of the show.  At the end I said it was “interesting” and would have this to show in the future.  If I wanted that attention I would have done my own ghost tours.  People will believe what they want….. no matter what evidence is given.  The hard evidence against Perron’s claims is at the library and town hall and all the lies about who died at the farm.   I confronted her (Andrea Perron) at the paranormal event in Harrisville in front of her followers and I was booed and told to leave."--

Regarding Operating a Daycare and “Tea Parties”:

"I operated the first group home day care in the state.  I was part of the development of home day care rules and began the home day care association in Rhode Island.  I never told the staff of my daycare that I believed in ghosts. I told them about the Perron claims.  We joked at times about ghosts but only jokingly.  Also, I never spoke of the claims at my tea parties.  I was given a lot of publicity for my “teas.”  In national magazines, local magazines, the news and on local radio and I never mentioned any ghost claims.   Also, my daycare was in Rhode Island Monthly and on the TV news as a great example of childcare in Rhode Island. 

I spoke of visits from the Perron family and Warren’s visit.  May I remind everyone that the Warrens said the Perron family were the most dysfunctional family they had ever met.  The Warren’s told the children their mother was possessed and never to play with Ouija board.  Never had any issues. I was well respected. Licensed in 1975.  Retired. 2012, at age 62. My daycare was unusual because I had sheep, horses, a dog and cats.  Long walks in woods on trails, swimming in the brook, sledding on the hill, etc.   I also did cooking workshops and was featured in many magazines for that.   I was well known in town, and I never received a complaint by any parent."---

Regarding the alleged drawings of the "Crooked-Neck Lady" that was revealed after the Heinzen's purchased the home: 

"There were never drawings in the house like that.  No children ever went to the basement. I saw a photo of  the drawing; they claimed it looked like it was inside door of white cabinet in cellar." --  According to Norma, this drawing was placed after the home was sold, and did not exist prior to her selling the house.     

Regarding the sale of the house and the many items Norma left in the house (antiques):

"Corey lied about his intentions and the neighbors and town were infuriated about it.  They knew me and my husband, how we fully restored the house and farm buildings.  Another lie claimed by Cory that he had to restore the house.

Corey and Roxanne claimed their intention was to open a farm for special needs children with animals. Roxanne was to raise funds having afternoon tea.  Right after closing, Corey forced Roxanne out.  I confronted Corey of their intentions of purchasing the house if it were due to the movie, he just said nothing but moved his head "No."  

Well, Corey lied to me about his intentions. I confronted him about exploiting the farm, he never admitted to his plan.  If he had, I would not have sold it to him.

Roxanne was the main person I spoke to throughout the days before closing.  She was the partner who told me the intentions they had planned.  She did the walk through.  I only saw Corey twice, at the initial meeting and one more time without Jennifer.   We never discussed why I was leaving.  Only asked Roxanne what she would like if I left items.  She was the one who showed the most interest in the books the other items.  During the walkthrough I had to schedule another clean out but Roxanne said don’t bother.  She would do it.  So, I told her what items I was going to leave.  

I had a dealer come who I had hoped would take all antiques I left but did not want large items.  So, I told Roxanne that I would leave big pieces since they belonged in the house. And she had shown great interest in books and large tables; I never discussed anything with Corey.  Except I said to him directly that I assume you do not have plans to exploit this home because of movie. He said nothing.  I went on to say because not only would I be angry, but the neighbors would retaliate.     

Never talked to either Jennifer or Corey about items in the house. That is why I signed a document describing items I left for Roxanne.   She was at the closing sitting right next to Cory.  Next day Corey told her she was out.   She had a key I gave her.  She went back to the house and took whatever she could handle and got a lawyer.   She has emails I believe discussing with Corey the terms of plan once the purchase went through.

This all began with Cory Heinzen’s lies.  Had I known, I would never have sold it to them.  Who would buy the farm now?   I had wished someone would have loved it for its own beauty and peacefulness."---     

What Norma has to say to those continuing to spread false information about the history of the home:

“You are all destroying truth and have no real evidence. So, if you claim the house is so obviously haunted, then get the real scientists and skeptics in to do the research.   But you don’t dare!"--   

In ending, as you can see from Norma's side of things, she has reasonable explanations for her side of the story. There are always two sides to a story, and Norma really hasn't been at the forefront lately stating her side of the story to the public, so unfortunately it's the attention whores who want to remain relevant in the paranormal field that keep spouting out their nonsense without actually stating the truth. Please use critical thinking and common sense to sift between the bullshit and the truth, and come to your own educated and informed opinion.

---- 

(copyright 2025 -- J'aime Rubio -- www.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)