by Rich Newman
According to them, while they were using the restroom, something kept turning off the bathroom light and knocking on the bathroom door. Once they had finished up, they immediately ran back to their beds and jumped under the covers. Eventually, they drifted off to sleep once again. But this wasn’t the end of it.
Off and on, for the rest of the night, they would both feel something tugging at their blankets—and, on occasion, their feet. They would wake up, peer over the covers for any intruder, then, seeing nobody was in the room with them, they would dive back under the blankets. Much to their dismay, this went on till sunup. It was the following morning, though, that they received the biggest surprise of all …
After they had gotten dressed and went downstairs for breakfast, they heard and saw a strange sight: the woman of the house was going about cooking their meal—while having a conversation with nobody! When they asked who she was speaking to, she told them that her son was still there with her in the house and that she still liked to talk to him. Then she calmly served them their food. I probably don’t have to tell you that they never spent the night there again.
Years later I would see the old house, now empty, sitting there, falling into disrepair. Was the spirit of the boy still there? Was the poor, lonely woman (who was now dead, too) there with him? I didn’t know, but I wished I could find out. Today that house is long gone or I would have certainly visited it. But it is because of these stories—and many others just like it—that I slowly migrated toward the paranormal. I was determined to find out how this whole afterlife thing worked. And if it meant that I had to visit every haunted place in the state of Missouri to do so, then so be it!
Another reason this story is important to me is that it illustrates an important fact for us investigators: hauntings happen to real people—people we often know and want to help. It’s easy to forget sometimes that ghosts and hauntings are very real things that happen to unsuspecting families all the time. They are not just fodder for horror stories. The compassion I felt for that poor woman and her dead son—as well as the questions her story raised—affects me and my investigations to this day.
Performing an Investigation
Before jumping into the particulars of the Martin case, it’s important that you know how I perform an investigation. In general, paranormal groups fall under three categories: Sci (scientific-based groups), Psi (psychic-based groups), and Religious. As mentioned above, I would definitely consider myself a scientific investigator. So when I approach a paranormal investigation, with or without Paranormal Inc, there are several guidelines that I follow:
Silence is golden. We try to keep our group very small (two to three people if possible) and we maintain noise discipline to keep from contaminating evidence.
Be a neutral investigator. I try not to have any preconceived notions about what is or is not happening at a haunted location. I have gone to too many “investigations” with other paranormal groups where the entire event was an exercise in sophistry. They were already completely sure the place was haunted, so every little knock, creak, etc., was “proof” of paranormal activity.
Be respectful of the location. I always try to leave a place in the condition I found it, and I always get permission to investigate. In addition, I feel there should always be some level of professionalism so that the client doesn’t feel I’m just some thrill seeker who is there to see a ghost.
Evidence, not experience. Again, as I stated above, the goal of any investigation is to get audio, photographic, or video evidence of the haunting. This means I do not go into a room without equipment designed to
do just that.
Detect, interact, capture, and escalate (DICE). This is my basic philosophy for investigating. First, I try to detect where the spirit(s) is by using environmental monitoring gear (EMF detectors, weather/temperature stations, etc.) and performing a vigil. Once there is evidence of a presence, I try to interact with the entity by performing simple EVP work or asking the ghost to manipulate a trigger object. All of this will be captured on audio and/or video recorders. When it appears interaction is happening, I then try to build on what’s happening by escalating the interaction, such as performing a “table tipping” session or providing some ambient energy for the spirit to attempt to materialize.
This is pretty much the foundation of all my investigations—and it has proven to be a good system for obtaining quality evidence when a haunting is actually occurring. If this method of ghost hunting appeals to you, you can always read more about my methods in my book (shameless plug) Ghost Hunting for Beginners from Llewellyn Publishing.
Believers vs. Nonbelievers
Interestingly, I have found over the years that almost
everyone is predisposed to believing one way or another concerning ghosts. For those who believe in spirits, almost everything constitutes evidence. The fuzziest of audio files are voices speaking from beyond, common radios on “scan” can tune in the dead, and Hasbro board games can allow users to speak to long-lost loved ones. (Yeah, you know the one).
On the flip side, those who simply think ghosts are hogwash cannot be swayed by any amount of evidence or eyewitness accounts. I have a good friend (an atheist) in Austin, Texas, who designs new technology for the scientific community. He doesn’t believe in ghosts—and, most likely, never will.
When I tell him of being alone in a haunted location and actually hearing a disembodied voice speak right beside me, he says somebody is “faking it.” It does no good to explain to him that I am alone, that there are no sounds coming in from outside, and that the owners are an elderly couple without the technological know-how to pull the wool over my eyes. Though he is a scientist, there is no level of scientific method that could be employed that will ever convince him that there are ghosts.
Furthermore, he loves to say “prove it” when I bring up the subject. I just have to smile. I know full well there is no proof that would ever be good enough for him—and, of course, he refuses to go along on an investigation. Why bother shaking up what he thinks of as “the truth” by chancing actually seeing or hearing something for himself? My usual comeback for skeptics is to point out that if they believe in science then they should believe what scientists say: Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla, and even Albert Einstein have all indicated a belief in the human soul. Edison even claimed to know how to build a device to speak to the dead. So, how about that, Mr. Skeptic?
The whole belief vs. nonbelief thing also applies to religion. I have approached the owners of homes-turned-bed and breakfasts about performing an investigation on their property. It doesn’t matter that the property has had a long-standing reputation for being haunted (often with some evidence to support it), if they do not believe in ghosts, or if they are members of certain denominations of hard-core Christian churches, they will not entertain even the idea of their home being haunted. To them, when you die you go to Heaven or you go to Hell. There is nothing else.
There is a well-known haunted inn in Virginia that was recently purchased by new owners. When I wrote them concerning a visit to investigate their resident spirit, I was told the only “spirit” there was that of “the Lord.” What can you say to that?
For me, the question of belief was answered long ago. When you’ve been touched by invisible hands, heard disembodied voices speak around you, and seen a pale figure materialize in front of your very eyes, it’s quite easy to believe. But we will talk about these adventures later …
What’s important for us to know now (for dealing with the Martin case) is that cases almost always revolve around either a hard-core skeptic or a person who is already convinced he or she is haunted. Each type of person poses a unique set of challenges and accommodations and both types of client want some type of resolution to their haunting.
Haunted Locations
Despite the naysayers, there are a lot of haunted places. Don’t think so? Just check out the first
paranormal book I wrote, The Ghost Hunter’s Field Guide, also available from Llewellyn Publishing (last plug, I promise). There are thousands of haunted hotels, restaurants, museums, B&Bs, and (most certainly) homes. Over the course of visiting many of these places, I have seen, heard, and been touched by ghosts. And it’s always a unique and startling experience.
Because of this, for me the subject of the paranormal is not about, “Do ghosts exist?” It’s about proving they exist and understanding how and why they exist. Famed investigator and reporter John Keel once wrote, “We must stop asking: Can these things be? And begin asking: Why are these things?” (Operation Trojan Horse, 1970). I agree.
It’s interesting to note that for every place out there that chooses to capitalize on their haunting—or at least acknowledge that it’s happening—there are probably a hundred that refuse to admit that they are experiencing some strange things. But, more and more, it is becoming quite accepted for places to admit that they experience paranormal events and to even advertise their ghosts. This is mostly due to a sudden surge in paranormal television programs.
For these haunted tourist sites, getting national exposure on a television show is the ultimate goal. And this has, mostly, worked in the paranormal community’s favor. Ten years ago, if you wanted to do some investigating at a haunted hotel, you’d have to sneak around with your camera and audio recorder in the middle of the night. These days, you can approach the concierge and get most of the “hot spots” in the place pointed out for you. You just may have to leave a nice tip …
On the bad side of the television experience, though, it has released a whole new wave of inexperienced investigators into the world who are claiming to be experts.
Recreational vs. Professional Ghost Hunting
As I said before, it was a batch of television shows that sparked my original interest in exploring the paranormal, so I understand the concept of watching ghost hunters on television and wanting to do what they do. Unfortunately, though, television shows have producers—producers who want tension and suspense in their programs. Even when nothing is going on, they make sure the show is exciting. This is, of course, a concept that almost never translates to real paranormal investigations.
You can always tell when an investigator is a victim of these shows’ high expectations; they fidget, they talk, and generally become bored long before an investigation is actually over. And they almost never produce any good evidence—even when they are at a great, haunted location. This is because they pollute all their audio and video footage by constantly talking, they give up too easily, and they don’t take the time to properly review the data/footage they have collected (because this task is even more boring). In short, they are recreational ghost hunters. And there is nothing wrong with this—as long as they know they are recreational ghost hunters and do not attempt to do private cases.
When a researcher performs an investigation at a private home, the inhabitants will want answers! It’s not like on a television program where you can do some sort of brief “show and tell” and scoot along your way. As you’re going to find out while you are reading this book, investigating a private case means understanding the psychological elements of the household, the personal belief system of the family, and often helping them cope with what’s going on in their house.
One of our investigators in Paranormal Inc was once approached by a coworker who claimed her home was haunted. She said activity was happening on a regular basis and that she wanted us to attempt to get “proof” so others would stop thinking she was crazy. It sounded simple enough. As we drove to investigate this location, I asked for more information about the case from my co-investigator. Where were the hot spots in the home? What kind of activity had been witnessed? Did the client have any idea of who may be haunting the place?
After thinking for a few minutes, he had to admit that he had none of these details. After talking about this for a few minutes, we quickly figured out that his coworker was being evasive concerning the details of her haunting. She hadn’t said who she thought was haunting the place or provided any details regarding the actual occurrences in the home.
When we arrived at the house and were taken on a tour of the premises, the woman (along with her husband) pointed out specific places where they claimed to have heard or seen something, but it was becoming painfully obvious that she was not telling us the whole story. So I asked her directly who was haunting their home. That was when she dropped the bomb.
Her teenage son had recently passed away on the property and she was convinced that he was there in the house with her. She told us this with tears appearing in her eyes. Behind her, her husband watched anxiously. I would later learn from him that she had been getting counseling from a psychiatrist since the boy’s death. So, needless to say, there was more going on than us simply investigating whether or not the house was haunted. We could potentially undo years of psychological counseling and send this woman over the edge if we said to her that her dead child was haunting their home.
Conversely, it might even send her over the edge if we told her that he wasn’t in the house with her! This kind of conundrum is common with private cases—and one of the pitfalls that cause a lot of amateur paranormal groups to prematurely make decisions about a case and, often, say things because they want to make the client feel better by saying what they want to hear.
We would go on to find nothing paranormal at this particular house (thank goodness). Seeing that she was a devout Catholic (statues of Mother Mary were all over the place), I told her that she should be content that her son was not there and that he had “moved on” to a better place. At this, though, she vehemently disagreed. “I want him here with me,” she said. “I don’t care if it’s selfish.” I stressed to the husband that he should probably make sure she still gets counseling and reiterated that the “haunting” of their home was simply wishful thinking on her part. He agreed and thanked us.
Imagine the scenario at this house if a self-professed psychic had pretended to speak to their dead son or if an amateur, thrill-seeking ghost hunter had walked around the house, jumping at every pop made by the water heater and claimed to hear/see something that wasn’t there. Either would have been disastrous and might have caused irreparable psychological harm to this poor woman. Of course, there is also the possibility of another danger with this type of case as well …
Obsession
There is an age-old question that’s popular with all ghost hunters: Why is it that some places are haunted and some are not? Having a death occur within the property seems to be no factor where this is concerned. Every hospital in the world has had deaths, yet you rarely hear of haunted, currently operational hospitals. Some places even claim to
be haunted by someone who died in a whole different location—this is why there are multiple properties that claim the spirit of Abraham Lincoln.
What’s the deciding factor that creates a haunting? Hand in hand with this conundrum is the fact that not everyone seems to see/hear ghosts. There have been many times over the years that I have visited a haunted place to learn that past residents had “no trouble” while living in the afflicted location. How can some people live for years in a seemingly haunted house without ever noticing a single strange event?
According to some researchers—and I have to admit that my own personal experience with cases seems to back this up—that the more a person pays attention to a spirit, the more activity seems to occur. It is one of the reasons that “interact” and “escalate” is part of my investigative method; the more you interact with a spirit, the more things happen. And, strangely enough, this can even happen in places that were not originally haunted! This concept is termed “obsession” by the paranormal community.
Because of this concept of spurring increased activity, certain clergy urge people to avoid communicating with any spirits they encounter. The presumption is that if you notice a spirit, and it
notices you too, it will stick around. If we are to believe this concept, then even dwelling on the possibility of a place being haunted could (possibly) create such a haunted environment. And it has …
A group in Canada called the Toronto Society for Psychical Research tested this theory in the 1970s by inventing a ghost named “Philip Aylesford” at a place that had no haunting whatsoever. After a few sessions of speaking to Philip, imagine their surprise when they started getting answers! Then, not only did the location begin to exhibit paranormal activity, but the spirit present seemingly adopted the persona of Philip. Since we know that there has never been a Philip Aylesford, who or what is speaking to these researchers?
If dwelling on the subject of ghosts can actually create a haunting, a whole new problem suddenly arises. What if the previously mentioned family had continued to speak to their dead son in their home? Would he have eventually appeared? Or would some random spirit be attracted to the attention and pretend to be their son? These are interesting—and disturbing—questions. And what do you do once the spirits are there?
When we examine the concept of obsession it’s hard to not talk about the tragic case of journalist Joe Fisher. Most of what happened to Fisher was documented by himself in the book Hungry Ghosts—and it makes for a riveting, if not sad, read. The short version is that Fisher, while investigating a story about psychics who could channel the dead, became obsessed with a spirit that he believed was speaking to him through a medium that he trusted.
He soon became obsessed with this “spirit,” who stated that she and Fisher were lovers in a past life. His obsession with this medium/entity became so strong that he lost most of his real-life relationships, including his marriage, and embarked on a quest to Europe to determine if the spirit was, indeed, a real person who once lived there. On this journey, he discovered that most of the information given to him were outright lies. Now, here is where Fisher’s story goes terribly awry …
