The Science of Ghosts

by Joe Nickell

  As to the boy, Mather writes,

  There remains much to be said concerning him, and a principal sufferer in these afflictions: For on the 18. of December, he sitting by his Grandfather, was hurried into great motions and the Man thereupon took him, and made him stand between his Legs, but the Chair [in which the grandfather sat] danced up and down, and had like to have cast both Man and Boy into the fire. (Quinn et al. 1938, 41)

  On another occasion, Mather says of the lad:

  He barked like a Dog, and clock't like a Hen, and after long distraining to speak, said, there's Powel, 2 I am pinched; his Tongue likewise hung out of his mouth, so as that it could by no means be forced in till his Fit was over, and then he said ’twas forced out by Powel. (Quinn et al. 1938, 42)

  When the boy was taken to the home of a doctor, the disturbances ceased, only to resume when he returned home that evening. He was found to be “best at a Neighbors house” (Quinn et al. 1938).

  Like other poltergeist disturbances, that of the Morse family eventually came to an end. Mather states that a seaman who often visited at Morse's home told him that his wife was not guilty of witchcraft, as some suspected, and that, if he could have the child for a single day, he would put an end to the troubles. Morse agreed and the seaman fulfilled his promise. Mather considers the possibility that a witch or “Conjurer” had been responsible for the disturbances, but he adds: “Or it may be some other thing as yet kept hid in the secrets of providence might be the true original of all this Trouble.” (Quinn et al. 1938; see also Lowance 1974, 96.)

  Clearly it is indeed some other thing, what we today would classify as an example of so-called poltergeist phenomena. The particulars in this account are extremely similar to those in cases we have examined thus far. In Mather's account there is little that is not readily explained by the hypothesis that the grandson contrived the mischief. In fact, on one occasion when he was taken to an aunt's home, he boldly “threw a great stone at a Maid in the house” (Quinn et al. 1938). He was also seen, by his brother, throwing a shoe at their grandfather (Salem 1860, 30). The day spent with the seaman that ended the affair rings true. No doubt the wise seafarer lent the boy a sympathetic ear, counseled him about his problems, and urged him to end his hijinks. His troubles likely stemmed from what seems to have been a broken home, since the boy lived with his grandparents.

  LINDLEY STREET INFESTATION

  The so-called Lindley Street Infestation is named after the site of similar developments in Bridgeport, Connecticut, that came to light in 1977. At the home of “devout Catholic” Gerald Goodin and his wife, the disturbing events had actually begun two years earlier, with noises occurring each night like the house was being pelted with stones. The disturbances, which seemingly centered around the Goodin's newly adopted Native American daughter, Marcia, began to escalate in November 1974. Dishes began rattling, furniture moved and toppled, and a chair in which ten-year-old Marcia was seated was propelled against a wall. Soon, police and firemen were at the scene. So was Ed Warren, the notorious “demonologist” discussed in chapter 36.

  Before long, however, police closed the case. Police superintendent Joseph A. Walsh, who had earlier told reporters, “There are no ghosts in Bridgeport,” made an announcement. The whole affair was a hoax, admitted to by Marcia. She confessed it was she who had banged on the walls, threw items, and created other effects that credulous adults had attributed to demonic activity. Not surprisingly, Ed Warren accused the police of calling the affair a hoax only “to get things quieted down.” He huffed, “If the whole thing is a hoax, it's one of the biggest hoaxes I've ever seen.” Eventually—after the girl was taken for psychiatric evaluation, and after psychical researchers, priests, and demonologists had left—the outbreak ceased (Nickell 1995, 89–92).

  In 1993, researching the case for my book Entities (1995), I visited Bridgeport, but turned up little additional information. Police public relations officer, Sgt. W. Chapman laughingly told me that, although one policeman had been genuinely frightened by the Lindley Street events, he would have had to himself witness paranormal events in order to become a believer (Nickell 1995, 92).

  ENFIELD DISTURBANCES

  This case, taking its name from that of a northern London suburb, began in August 1977. The disturbances included overturned and even supposedly “levitated” furniture, as well as a rock the size of a softball that “manifested out of thin air in the middle of the living room and slammed to the floor with a thud!” This case was also “investigated” by Ed and Lorraine Warren, who (again recall chapter 36) invariably arrived at the scene of a “haunting” or “poltergeist” outbreak and soon transformed the case into one of “demonic possession.” Enfield was no exception, and it is included in a chapter in The Demonologist: The True Story of Ed and Lorraine Warren, the World-Famous Exorcism Team by Gerald Brittle (1980).

  As it happens, however, British parapsychologist Anita Gregory examined the case and found it overrated. Reporting in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, she characterized several episodes of behavior concerning the family's two girls, aged eleven and thirteen, as clearly suspicious. Gregory concluded that the children had nonpsychically effected many of the occurrences. Her view was that the case quickly became a farcical performance staged for overly credulous investigators and reporters eager for a sensational story. As well, skeptical investigator Melvin Harris cast doubt on some of the photos that allegedly depict the Enfield poltergeist phenomena, demonstrating the ease with which they could have been faked (Clark 1981).

  Revealingly, magician Milbourne Christopher—a psychical investigator whose work was an important early influence on my own—had a chance to become involved in the case. He regarded the Enfield poltergeist as one of the most intriguing occurrences of reputed paranormal phenomena he was ever involved in. Christopher (1970, 184–85) stated: “I was there when the ‘strange’ things started happening in this little suburban section of London. It was one of the few alleged poltergeist cases in which I was involved where the strange things happened when I was in the house. Normally when I go to a poltergeist house the ‘haunting’ influences disappear immediately. But there I had a chance to observe the techniques.” Christopher concluded they were the hijinks of “a little girl who wanted to cause trouble and who was very, very clever.”

  COLUMBUS POLTERGEIST

  Again, in 1984, a supposed poltergeist overturned furniture, sent telephones flying, smashed picture frames, set lamps swinging, and caused much other mischief in the household of John and Joan Resch of Columbus, Ohio. Once again, the disturbances centered around a family member, in this case the Resches’ fourteen-year-old adopted daughter Tina (Nickell 1995, 88).

  Fortuitously, some photographs and even television news tapes captured the girl in the act of producing certain phenomena—for example, toppling a lamp. Also, a television technician saw Tina secretly move a table using her foot. Noted magician and psychical investigator James Randi (1985, 234) extensively followed the case and concluded that “she was admittedly under stress and had good reason to want to attract media exposure: she wanted to trace her true parents, against the wishes of the Resches.” Randi (1995, 69–70) observes that “descriptions given by parapsychologist William Roll, who specializes in poltergeist investigations and had examined the situation in person, turned out to be quite impossible sequences.”

  Although the Columbus poltergeist case ran its course, as typically happens in such cases, and faded into relative obscurity, there is a tragic sequel. In 1994 Tina Resch Boyer was sentenced to life imprisonment in Georgia for the murder of her three-year-old daughter. The child, whose body had been badly bruised, had died of injuries to the head (Nickell 1995, 88; Randi 1995, 70).

  THE POLTERGEIST THAT WASN'T

  Of course, not all poltergeist outbreaks are hoaxes, as my friend and fellow ghostbuster, the late Robert A. Baker, found when he investigated one case. While there was a variety of reported events—such as a bedroom door slammin
g and a telephone flying off its table—Dr. Baker noted that the events were atypical of the usual hoax pattern, in which events often suggest outright vandalism and tend to center around a particular suspect. Instead, the disturbances seemed more like random events.

  Visiting the home, he discovered simple explanations for each occurrence. For example, air pressure from the quickly opened kitchen door caused the bedroom door to shut; when a chair leg was placed inside the phone cord on the floor and the chair scooted forward, the telephone was yanked off the table; and so on. Concluded Dr. Baker: “The most fascinating aspect of this case is just how clearly it demonstrates the power of expectation and how our attitudes and mental sets can influence our perceptions and beliefs” (Baker and Nickell 1992, 135–39). Likewise, Houran and Lange (1996) have shown that ambiguities in normal—unhaunted—houses tend to go unnoticed unless subjects are predisposed (as by suggestion) to notice them.

  THE POLTERGEIST-FAKING SYNDROME

  As countless historical examples demonstrate, cases of so-called poltergeist phenomena typically have a number of shared features. Although each is different, these common features are often so characteristic as to define what I term the poltergeist-faking syndrome.

  This describes both the cause and the effect of episodes of disturbance by a hidden agency, which the superstitious attribute to a “poltergeist” and some psychical theorists suggest are psychokinetic (mind-over-matter) phenomena. However, proper investigation and the principle of Occam's razor repeatedly demonstrate that the occurrences are centered around an individual (rarely individuals)—who is motivated to cause the mischief. In numerous instances an obvious suspect is actually observed perpetrating a surreptitious act, and many confessions of such misbehavior have been recorded—with motives ranging from a simple desire for attention to more serious psychological causes. On the other hand, never has a poltergeist or a psychokinetic force been confirmed by mainstream science.

  The term poltergeist-faking syndrome may be used to describe an investigated case of poltergeistlike phenomena having the previously mentioned characteristics as well as to diagnose such misbehavior in a subject when the evidence warrants. It should not be used in an a priori manner (that is, antecedent to inquiry), although one could certainly refer to a suspected case of the syndrome when evidence warrants.

  Called “the first modern investigation by parapsychologists of poltergeist disturbances,” the 1958 case of the Seaford poltergeist, asserts Guiley (2000, 339), “remains unsolved.” Actually, the solution—suspected from the onset—was convincingly argued by a distinguished skeptic, magician Milbourne Christopher (1970, 149–60). Here I add to the evidence and make a complete new study and assessment, having been fortunate to obtain a copy of the sixty-page police file on the case.

  OUTBREAK

  At a ranch-style house at 1648 Redwood Path, the home of James M. Herrmann (age 43), his wife, Lucille (38), and their children, Lucille (13) and James Jr. (12), peculiar disturbances began on Monday, February 3. Mr. Herrmann was away when Mrs. Herrmann, according to the police report,

  heard noises of bottles popping their caps and on checking found that a small Holy Water bottle on her dresser in the master bedroom had its cap unscrewed and was laying on its side with the contents all spilled. In her son's bedroom, which is right next to the master bedroom, a small ceramic doll had its neck broken and a few small pieces had broken off a plastic ship model. In the bathroom cabinet there were two bottles with the caps unscrewed and the contents spilled. In the kitchen there was a bottle of starch under the sink with the cap off and the contents spilled. In the cellar directly under the kitchen a gallon bottle of bleach was also spilled. (Tozzi 1958)

  Three days later, more bottles were found open and spilled, or even broken, when the two children were the only ones present, and there were additional incidents on February 7 and 9. Subsequently, Mrs. Herrmann contacted the police and became the “complainant” in what was prosaically labeled “Local Investigation (Broken Bottles).” On February 11, Detective Joseph Tozzi was assigned to the case full-time, as “the disturbances appeared to be increasing in both number and magnitude” (Pratt 1964, 81).

  Early on, Detective Tozzi (1958, 2) interviewed the children, and “both were informed that if they were in any way connected with this case in that they were causing this disturbance in some way that it was a serious matter.” Mr. Herrmann was also interviewed and stated that his own prior talk with the children had convinced him they were not causing the disturbances. However, after more incidents occurred, Tozzi (1958, 8) again questioned the children, indicating that his suspicions were continuing. Indeed, on February 20, the detective and young James had just gone to the basement when “a small metal horse that was on the cellar stair shelf struck the floor at the writer's [Tozzi's] feet…. The writer accused James of having thrown this figure and interrogated him for quite some time. James again denied having done any of these disturbances and also denied knowing anything about this latter occurrence.”

  COMPETING EXPLANATIONS

  As the movement of objects continued and drew the attention of the Long Island newspaper Newsday and other media sources, famed Duke University ESP pioneer J. B. Rhine dispatched two parapsychologists, first J. Gaither Pratt and later William Roll, who investigated both separately and together but were ultimately unable to explain the phenomenon. Pratt and Roll (1958) did suggest that such cases might be due to what they termed “recurrent spontaneous psychokinesis” (RSPK). This proposes that the person around whom the disturbances center may be unconsciously causing them by psychic force (“mind over matter”). However, the existence of psychokinesis has never been proved, and the Pratt/Roll “theory” has not been accepted by mainstream science.

  For their part, the police considered a bewildering variety of possible explanations, including earth tremors, high-frequency radio waves, a magnetic field caused by the electrical wiring, the oil burner going on, a downdraft from the chimney, vibrations from the TV antenna, and so on. But as experts came and went—setting up an oscillograph, checking the wiring, searching maps for underground streams, and the like—nothing proved fruitful, not even the efforts of a dowser wielding a willow rod. Members of the public sent numerous letters suggesting other possibilities, ranging from “publicity stunt” to “poltergeist,” “black magic spell,” and “Satan.” Proposed solutions included burning sulfur, praying, sprinkling holy water, performing an exorcism, and so on. A few suggested the incidents were children's pranks (Tozzi 1958).

  The obvious possibility that the incidents were the pranks of one or both children could be all but ruled out, however, the parapsychologists concluded. Pratt conceded that “the mysterious events centered around James rather than Lucille (or any other member of the family),” and he admitted that in numerous instances—perhaps fifty out of some sixty-seven recorded events—James could have been responsible, such as when a bread plate was dumped on the floor while “James was sitting at the dining-room table alone” (Pratt 1964, 85, 99, 103–104). However, he and Roll believed there were seventeen events that “cannot, if correctly reported, be explained as easily performed, single pranks” (Pratt 1964, 104).

  POSSIBLE TRICKERY?

  Let us consider one of the incidents, described in the police report. On February 19, Detective Tozzi was in the basement with Mrs. Herrmann and Lucille, at which time young James was reportedly doing homework at the dining-room table. Suddenly there was a loud noise, and the detective, Mrs. Herrmann, and Lucille rushed upstairs. Tozzi reported that in the living room a “porcelain figurine had left the end table at the south end of the sofa and flown through the air approximately 10 feet” where it struck a desk, breaking off an arm. “No one was in the living room at this time,” wrote Tozzi, “and it would have been impossible for James to have left the dining room, thrown the figurine and returned to the dining room” without being heard by those downstairs, since the floors were wooden and “every sound can be heard through them”
(Tozzi 1958, 11–12).

  However, Tozzi could easily have been mistaken. Moreover, young James might have produced the effect by a method Tozzi had not imagined. Suppose the boy had obtained the small object earlier and had hidden it, say under a book, where he was doing his homework. He could then have thrown the object through the open doorway into the living room. The distinguished magician Milbourne Christopher analyzed the reported disturbances in conjunction with a floor plan of the Herrmann house and stated (1970, 157–58):

  It should be stressed that Mr. Herrmann refused to allow lie-detector tests to be made on his family and that the police and the investigators from Duke accepted Jimmy's statements. Let us suppose that what the boy said was not true, that he was in one room when he said he was in another in some instances. Also let us suppose that what people thought they saw and what actually happened were not precisely the same. It has been shown that the police notes record that the boy and his mother “actually saw” the bleach bottle leave a box and crash on the floor. Yet Dr. Pratt discovered during his interviews that neither witnessed the out-of-the-carton action. Any trial lawyer will testify that witnesses often believe that they have seen things that did not occur. For example, a woman hears a loud noise, then sees a pistol. She may be confident she heard the pistol fire, though the noise came from another source—the backfire of an automobile or an exploded firecracker.

  Christopher adds:

  Take the single instance where an outsider, Miss Murtha, saw a statuette take off and land. A television set was on at the time. It is logical to suppose her attention was there. A quick movement by the occupant of the sofa could have jarred the small end table with enough impact to send the upright figurine falling to the floor the mere two feet away.

  The parapsychologists understood little of the possibility of magic tricks. Pratt was completely baffled by Christopher who was able to duplicate the Seaford “poltergeist” effects when the parapsychologist visited him. Pratt had no idea of the simplicity with which the effects were accomplished, and Roll imagined James's tricks would have had to be produced by special “devices” which would then have to be “installed, operated, and removed” in “the presence of adult witnesses” (Roll and Persinger 2001, 127). In explaining the tricks involved, the biggest problem is in determining what really happened, since there are often multiple versions of a given incident (for example, see Pratt 1964, 93–95). As usual, the devil—or rather the nondevil in this case—is in the details.