Warner Bros. markets The Conjuring: Last Rites as being inspired by the Smurl family haunting in West Pittston, Pennsylvania. But the Smurl case has always lived in the gray zone where belief, media attention, and unverifiable anecdotes collide—exactly the kind of story that horror movies love and skeptics hate.
What you’re watching is a dramatization built on contested allegations, filtered through the Warrens’ storytelling brand, and shaped by the needs of a studio horror finale.
The Smurl Haunting: What Was Claimed
The core real-world setup is straightforward: Jack and Janet Smurl said their duplex on Chase Street in West Pittston became the center of escalating disturbances starting years after they moved in (accounts varied on the exact timeline).
The story broke nationally in 1986, and coverage described a mix of unsettling sounds, odd smells, and alleged physical incidents—claims the family attributed to dangerous activity.
As the attention grew, the Smurls’ case became a media event as much as a paranormal one: reporters flooded the town, and the family’s allegations spread through wire stories and TV segments.
Where the Warrens Fit In
Ed and Lorraine Warren entered the Smurl narrative in 1986, presenting themselves as paranormal investigators who believed the home was affected by multiple entities, including a dangerous one. Their involvement helped push the story further into the mainstream.
The case then fed the familiar Warren “ecosystem”: a book deal (The Haunted) and later adaptations, long before Last Rites turned it into a big-budget franchise capstone.
The Skeptics’ Take: Why the Smurl Story Never “Closed” as Fact
Skeptics didn’t just roll their eyes—they pointed to specific, practical problems that make the Smurl case weak as evidence.
Independent verification was blocked or limited. In a contemporaneous skeptical review, philosopher Paul Kurtz (then chair of CSICOP, now CSI) described attempts to investigate that were effectively shut down—an issue because extraordinary claims don’t get stronger when they can’t be examined openly.
The evidence wasn’t made available for serious scrutiny. Kurtz also noted that claimed recordings or documentation weren’t provided in a way that would allow independent evaluation—another red flag when a case is being presented publicly as “real.”
The story looked like a media-feedback loop. Once a haunting narrative hits the national press, every creak and coincidence can get reinterpreted through that lens. Skeptics argued the Smurl case had the ingredients of a modern legend: sensational claims, lots of attention, but little testable proof.
Alternative explanations existed (and were offered at the time). Commentary around the case included suggestions ranging from stress and family tensions to misinterpretation and rumor dynamics—mundane possibilities that, while less cinematic, are far more common than demons.
What Last Rites Changes (Because Movies Always Do)
Even when a film names a “real case,” it’s not a documentary—it’s a narrative product.
Last Rites uses the Smurl haunting as a foundation, then heightens, compresses, and rearranges events to deliver scares and an emotional franchise endpoint. Entertainment coverage around the film notes that it dramatizes the case and adds story elements that don’t map cleanly onto the historical record.
That doesn’t mean the Smurls fabricated everything. It means the film’s version is not evidence of anything—just a creative retelling of a disputed story.
Conclusion
If you’re asking, “Did this really happen exactly like the movie?”—no. If you’re asking, “Was there a real family who publicly claimed something like this, and did the Warrens attach themselves to it?”—yes.
So the most accurate way to frame it in your article is:
-
Based on a real, publicized claim (the Smurl family allegations).
-
Heavily dramatized for the screen.
-
Never proven, and challenged by skeptical investigators for lack of verifiable evidence and limited access for independent review.
