One of the most controversial topics in
The Necronomicon Files is the
Necronomicon's role in two murder cases. While we leave open the exact role that the book played in the crimes, we nonetheless suggest that it should be examined. Simon responds to us at a number of points, of which I have selected one:
Page 250:
QUOTE
Gonce focuses on the Necronomicon because it supports his thesis. He could have easily focused on The Witches Bible, The Satanic Bible, or even Queen of the Damned in the Ferrell case, and any one of a dozen satanic volumes available to Glen Mason, as books that contributed to the killers’ “murderous insanity.” The fact that both son and Ferrell were disturbed youths from broken homes with a history of antisocial acting out is ignored in favor the more sensationalistic claim that somehow the Necronomicon was responsible for their crimes. That the killers ignored the general themes of all of these books and instead ransacked them for anything that would fuel their own perverse delusions is mirrored in Gonce’s own approach when he singles out the Necronomicon when it comes time to point fingers and utter pious condemnations.
Based on Simon's reporting, our claim does seem ridiculous. That is because Simon doesn't tell you the whole story.
What Simon does not mention in his book is that, in both cases, the
Necronomicon was singled out for attention. News reports and subsequent books indicate that both killers had a deep interest in the
Necronomicon, and that both sought to open the Gates of Hell, or to call up subterranean demons, in exchange for personal power. All of this is a matter of public record, and is included in our book.
This concept - that power can be obtained by blood sacrifice that allows the Underworld access to the earth - is not something you'll find in
The Lion King, or
The Witches' Bible, or the other sources that these individuals owned and that Simon mentions as possible avenues. Further, unlike many of those sources, the
Necronomicon is not presented as a work of fiction, but as an honest-to-goodness ancient text that provides the user with power, for good or for evil.
Sure, we could have dressed up a list of crimes where a copy of the
Necronomicon was found in somebody's locker or room afterward, as Simon claims we did. We've got the data for that. In fact, we once had a reporter contact us about a case where the [/i]Necronomicon was owned by a perp. We looked at the facts and told him that we didn't think it was important. He never called us back. For the book we took two cases that we felt were relevant and discussed them, giving people room to consider the evidence for themselves.
Simon has had access to the same resources John and I have. If he claims that he doesn't believe the
Necronomicon caused these crimes, he's free to express that opinion. If he wants to say that he's not responsible for the actions of deranged individuals, he can certainly say so. If he claims that most people who have the book don't commit such crimes, I'd agree with him. This board alone is proof of that. I find it odd that Simon can disclaim that the
Necronomicon is linked to violence in
Dead Names and hype its "role" in the Son of Sam killings and JFK's assassination on the back cover, but perhaps there's a good explanation for that.
Nonetheless, in
Dead Names, Simon has not to include evidence given in
The Necronomicon Files, evidence that might point to a possible motive for these crimes. Simon, I'd like to know why, given the amount of space devoted to the topic of the
Necronomicon's danger, none of this is included.