0215C-1977 - The Enfield Poltergeist

In 1977, a house in the north London suburb of Enfield was the scene of violent disturbances of apparently paranormal origin. The occurrences were similar to those reported in other cases of the ‘poltergeist’ type: knockings and other noises with no apparent cause; doors opening and closing by themselves; furniture overturned; small objects hurled across rooms; picture frames ripped from walls; small fires that started and went out by themselves, and suchlike. The events continued for just over a year and in many cases were witnessed by neighbours, investigators, technicians, press reporters and broadcasters, police officers and others. In its later stages the case was notable for the emergence of abusive and often obscene speech from the mouth of a twelve-year old girl. Tape recordings were made of the voice, which was gruff and masculine, apparently that of an old man.

Maurice Grosse, a successful inventor, initiated an investigation soon after the start of the events on behalf of the Society for Psychical Research. Grosse was soon joined by author and paranormal investigator Guy Lyon Playfair, whose 1980 book This House is Haunted: An Investigation of the Enfield Poltergeist is the main source of information about the events.1 Detailed and broadly accurate reports published over a period of time by the Daily Mirror led to widespread attention by other newspapers, radio and television.

The Family

The house is 284 Green Street, a three-bedroom council-owned semi-detached house dating from the 1920s. At this time it was occupied by a family consisting of 47-year-old divorcee Peggy Hodgson and her four children, Margaret (13), Janet (12), John (11) and Billy (7). (All except Janet are referred to in This House is Haunted by pseudonyms, respectively Peggy Harper, Rose, Pete and Jimmy.)

Peggy Hodgson was considered by those who knew her to be a pleasant and conscientious person, overcoming financial insecurity to do her best for her children. Margaret was serious and reserved, Janet lively and extravert. John was only at home during the school holidays and some weekends since he boarded at a special school. Billy suffered from a severe speech defect but in other respects was a typical little boy.

Mrs Hodgson’s brother John Burcombe, a hospital worker, lived nearby at 272 Green Street with his wife Sylvia and two children Paul and Denise. The two families appeared to be close, and John was supportive towards the Hodgsons.

The Hodgsons’ next door (282) neighbours were builder Vic Nottingham, his wife Peggy and their twenty-year-old son Gary. Relations between the families were seen to be friendly and supportive.

The First Incidents

On 31 August 1977 at around 9.30pm, the children Janet and John heard shuffling in their bedroom. Their mother entered the room and all three heard knocking sounds. A chest-of-drawers moved eighteen inches across the room without any apparent physical contact. They immediately went to fetch help from the Nottinghams next door.

Vic and Gary Nottingham entered and heard further knocks. Vic later stated that he could find no source for the knocks, which seemed to follow him round the house. At this point Peggy Nottingham called the police.

WPC Heeps and PC Hyams arrived at around 1am. Heeps witnessed a chair move three to four feet across the living room floor without any physical contact.2 There were further knockings.

Over the next few days marbles and toy (Lego) building blocks appeared to fly around the house of their own volition, witnessed by members of the family and the Nottinghams. There followed visits by council officials, clergymen and others, but none of these deterred the phenomena, which continued unabated.

On 4 September, Mrs Nottingham phoned the Daily Mirror in the hope it would put her in touch with someone who could help. Reporter Douglas Bence and photographer Graham Morris visited the house. Both men witnessed flying objects and the latter was hit on the forehead by a piece of Lego travelling at speed (he said the bruise was still visible some days later). On 7 September, senior reporter George Fallows and photographer David Thorpe visited the house.

Maurice Grosse and Guy Playfair

In early September, the Daily Mirror’s Fallows contacted the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) and spoke to the secretary Eleanor O’Keeffe. O’Keeffe got in touch with Maurice Grosse, who had recently joined the organization and declared his willingness to act as an investigator, if any interesting cases should arise.

Grosse was a successful inventor, responsible among many innovations for the rotating advertising billboard. His interest in paranormal phenomena had been awakened by a series of meaningful coincidences that followed the death of his daughter Janet in August 1976, of head injuries sustained during a motorcycle accident.

Grosse visited the house on 5 September. He advised Mrs Hodgson to remain calm, and recommended she take notes of any incidents. On 8 September, Grosse and three Daily Mirror reporters witnessed ‘a loud crash’.3 Convinced that Hodgson’s claims were genuine, Grosse how decided to take on the case. During subsequent visits he and others observed:

marbles that flew through the air and landed on the floor without rolling,
doors and drawers that opened of their own accord
door chimes that swung
objects (teaspoon, cardboard box, fish tank lid) that jumped

The movements were witnessed by Grosse, the Hodgsons, Peggy Nottingham’s father and four reporters and photographers from the Daily Mirror. At this relatively early stage, as many as ten people not related to the family had witnessed the phenomena at first hand.

Author and investigator Guy Playfair responded to an appeal to the SPR for assistance by Grosse and arrived on 12 September, along with Rosalind Morris from BBC Radio 4, The World this Weekend. He and Grosse worked together for more than a year, making a total of 180 visits and 25 all-night vigils at the house.

Phenomena

The incidents at Enfield are among the most closely recorded in any ‘poltergeist’-type case. Grosse, Playfair, Mrs Hodgson and other witnesses kept records, of varying levels of detail. Tape recordings, mainly by Playfair and Grosse eventually totalled over 180 hours.

An incomplete list is as follows:4

marbles and pieces of Lego seen travelling through the air at great speed, seemingly emanating from walls or windows
a teapot shook vigorously on a cabinet in the absence of any external vibration
metal spoons bent and the lid of a metal teapot was deformed
the shade of a bedside lamp tilted and then straightened
a toilet door opened and closed when nobody was nearby
cardboard boxes and cushions were thrown by an unknown force
a slipper was thrown across a room by an unknown source
a framed certificate was pulled off the wall (Grosse alone in the room)
a bedroom carpet was pulled up at the edge to form an identical shape each time, an effect which Grosse was unable to replicate
a settee was levitated and overturned in front of several witnesses
eleven-year-old Janet was levitated and deposited in different places at different times
kitchen unit doors slid open of their own accord
tubular door chimes swung from side to side many times
footsteps were heard when nobody else was present
twelve-year-old Margaret was held fast by an unknown force
knocks, bangs and crashes heard, not caused by plumbing, vibration or other external sources
coins disappeared from one room and reappeared in another
small fires started and extinguished themselves without causing damage
water appeared in circumstances not understood
normally reliable electrical equipment (tape recorders, cameras etc.) failed to work
apparitions were seen (partial and total)
the iron frame of a built-in fireplace was wrenched from the wall
excrement appeared in inappropriate places
written messages
the abusive remarks and swearwords in a gruff masculine voice apparently produced by Janet (and sometimes Margaret)

Some effects occurred simultaneously. Many were repeated at different times and places both day and night. Some were seen by members of the public who in many cases had no interaction with the Hodgson family. They included John Rainbow, a local tradesman, Richard Grosse, a solicitor, and Hazel Short, a road-crossing council employee (‘lollipop lady’).

Short told Playfair that she had been walking towards Number 284 to pick up her lollipop sign, which she normally concealed under the hedge at the front of the house.

I was standing there looking at the house, when all of a sudden a couple of books came flying across and hit the window. It was so sudden. I heard the noise because it was so quiet, there was no traffic, and it made me jump…

Then after a little while, I saw Janet. I don’t know if there’s a bed underneath that window, but she was going up and down bodily as though someone was just tossing her up and down bodily, in a horizontal position, like as if someone had got hold of her legs and back and was throwing her up and down.

I definitely saw her come up about window height, but I thought if she was bouncing, she’d bounce from her feet, she wouldn’t be able to get enough power to bounce off her back, to come up that high. My friend could see her as well, we both could see her.5

WPC Caroline Heeps testified to the investigators as follows:

On Thursday 1st September 1977 at approximately 1am, I was on duty in my capacity as a policewoman, when I received a radio message to 284, Wood [sic] St, Enfield. I went to this address where I found a number of people standing in the living room. I was told by the occupier of this house that strange things had been happening during the last few nights and that they believed that the house was haunted. Myself and another PC entered the living room of the house and the occupier switched off the lights. Almost immediately I heard the sound of knocking on the wall that backs onto the next door neighbour's house. There were four distinct taps on the wall and then silence. About two minutes later I heard more tapping, but this time it was coming from a different wall, again it was a distinctive peal of four taps. The PC and the neighbours checked the walls, attic and pipes, but could find nothing to explain the knockings.

The PC and the neighbours all went into the kitchen to check the refrigerator pipes, etc., leaving the family and myself in the living room. The lights in the living room were switched off again and within a few minutes the eldest son pointed to a chair which was standing next to the sofa. I looked at the chair and noticed that it was wobbling slightly from side to side, I then saw the chair slide across the floor towards the kitchen wall. It moved approximately 3-4 feet and then came to rest.

At no time did it appear to leave the floor. I checked the chair but could find nothing to explain how it had moved. The lights were switched back on. Nothing else happened that night although we have later reports of disturbances at this address.6

George Fallows, a The Daily Mirror reporter, gave this account of events that he witnessed.

Because of the emotional atmosphere at the house and in the neighbourhood, ranging from hysteria through terror to excitement and tension, it has been difficult to record satisfactory data. Nevertheless, I am satisfied the overall impression of our investigation is reasonably accurate. To the best of our ability, we have eliminated the possibility of TOTAL trickery, although we have been able to simulate most of the phenomena. In my opinion this faking could only be done by an expert.7

The Voice

In December 1977, three months after the start of the disturbances, an anomalous voice began to emanate from Janet. It started as a series of whistles and dog-like barks, and developed into a human voice, that of an elderly male, harsh and guttural, and quite unlike Janet’s.8 The voice identified itself as ‘Joe Wilkins’ (pseudonym ‘Watson’ in This House is Haunted) and claimed that he had lived in the house (the previous occupant was in fact a Mr Wilkins who had died in the house, a fact seemingly unknown to Janet). It habitually swore, and claimed to be still living and to sleep in Janet’s bed.9

Interrogated by Richard Grosse (Maurice Grosse’s son, a solicitor) the voice gave further details: “I went blind, and I had a haemorrhage, and I fell asleep and I died on a chair in the corner downstairs”.10

To eliminate the possibility that Janet was herself faking the voice, Grosse taped up Janet’s mouth. The voice continued to be heard, somewhat subdued, as was the case on future occasions when Janet’s mouth was also filled with water. Early in January 1978, Margaret started to speak in a similar harsh voice, but without the same intensity or duration as Janet’s.

The Source of the Voice

Many hours of recordings of the voice were made. A contact microphone placed on the back of Janet’s head picked up what appeared to be a different and louder sound than her normal voice. A speech therapist approached by the investigators was unable to say where the sound was coming from or how it was being sustained; it had had some resemblance to a ‘false vocal chord tone’.11

John Hasted, a physicist at London’s Birbeck College, carried out an experiment together with Adrian Fourcin, a phonetics expert at University College, London. Tests with a laryngograph indicated an effect known as plica ventricularis, where muscle tension in the throat can produce sounds independent of the vocal chords. However, there are known side-effects in this condition, around six weeks of hoarseness and a sore throat, neither of which were exhibited by Janet.

Ray Alan, a ventriloquist, felt that the voice was being produced via the diaphragm, but this was disputed by Grosse and Playfair. Grosse was so convinced of the paranormal origin of the effect that he offered £500 (later £1000) to a nominated charity if any child could replicate the voice under the terms he specified.12 Nobody took up his offer. He was further encouraged in his conviction that the voice had an unknown source when reading of similar historical cases from people suffering possession, for example:13

At the moment when the countenance alters, a more or less changed voice issues from the mouth of the person in the fit…The top register of the voice is displaced, the feminine voice is transformed into a bass one.14

There have been more recent reports of a similar phenomenon. In 2012, Professor Richard E Gallagher (New York Medical College) reported that a woman known as ‘Julia’ would enter a trance and utter obscenities in voices completely different from her own. In 2014, police in Indiana in the US investigated a case where the children of Latoya Ammons displayed what she took to be signs of demonic possession, such as speaking in unnaturally deep voices.15

Methods of Investigation

Varying other methods of investigation were undertaken by a number of people between August 1977 and October 1978.

In May 1978, the SPR commissioned a committee to investigate the investigation consisting of Mary Rose Barrington, Hugh Pincott, Peter Hallson and John Stiles. They carefully interviewed many of the witnesses considered much of the testimony to be clear and convincing. They also sought expertise from Charles Moses of the Southern California Society for Psychical Research, an experienced investigator. The committee concluded that there was good evidence for paranormal phenomena described by credible informants, though judgement was reserved on incidents that could not have been clearly observed, or where witnesses were found to be not entirely convincing.16 They were wary of attributing a paranormal origin to Janet’s ‘other’ voice. Barrington felt ‘personally satisfied’ that paranormal events took place at Enfield, and considered the tearing away of the fireplace ‘an item of poltergeistery of the first order’.17

Physicist John Hasted found that Janet’s body increased in weight when she was strapped to a ‘Blundell’ couch devised to measure such anomalies. He reported ‘two sudden five-second weight-increase signals of about one kg and a minute gradual weight increase which eventually returns to normal’ – an anomaly he was unable to explain.18 He was further intrigued by a light bulb that exploded in an unusual way, finding that one of the glass supports on which the filament was mounted had snapped,19 an event he considered very rare.

Physicist David Robertson carried out experiments at Enfield. He attempted to video Janet secretly, but found it impossible to conceal the equipment from her. He reported a levitation of Janet; the ‘teleportation’ of a large cushion to the house roof; the overturning of a side board; his head being struck by a flying plate; his hair pulled when he slept on the floor of the front room.20

A local psychiatrist examined the girls and maintained that if they were left alone then the disturbances would stop. This did not happen, however.

Janet was given a detailed physical and psychological assessment at London’s Maudsley Institute of Neuropsychiatry by Dr Peter Fenwick. No abnormality was discovered, such as damage to the brain or evidence of epilepsy.21

Hypnosis similarly failed to uncover any evidence of psychological frailty. Playfair undertook some research that found similarities with some manifestations of Tourette’s Syndrome, including explosive utterances, barking and swearing. When medical doctors were called out they usually prescribed calming drugs to help Janet sleep.

National press reporters, photographers and television crews used different approaches to try to uncover the reason for the phenomena. Some introduced professional magicians to try to discover fraudulent activity. Others brought spirit mediums to make contact with the haunting entity.

Mediums

Two Brazilian mediums, Luiz Gasparetto and Elsie Dubugras, apparently had some beneficial effect on Janet’s behaviour. A somewhat theatrical performance by another medium, Gerry Sherrick, also resulted in relative calm for a short while.

Matthew Manning, a healer and psychic, visited the Hodgsons wishing to share knowledge of such events from his own experiences which he believed originated from an individual’s own energy.22 Manning said he had experienced headaches of a similar nature to Peggy Hodgson’s at times when phenomena was about to take place.

Dono Gmelig-Meyling, a Dutch healer and clairvoyant, visited in October 1978, finding connections between the incidents and the death of Grosse’s daughter.

Controversy and Scepticism

Grosse and Playfair conceded that Margaret and Janet had sometimes tried to trick them, but insisted these occasions were very few, that they were quickly discovered, and that the girls had then admitted their deceit. Indeed, they held that it would have not been normal if the children had not tried to copy what they were seeing happen all around them. Janet later admitted that they cheated ‘about two percent of the time’.23

The family and direct neighbours believed the phenomena to be real. Those who knew Peggy Hodgson had no doubts about her personal integrity. However, some potentially credible witnesses disputed the veracity of the phenomena – often after just a few visits and in some cases without having visited at all.

Media coverage was typically trivial and sensationalist, with headlines such as ‘Terror for family in spook riddle’,24 ‘Ghost hunters clash over mystery of spook or spoof kids’,25 and ‘Phantom Fred is a force to fear’26 (accompanied by a ghostly image of Playfair).

This House is Haunted was published in 1980. It was reviewed sceptically by Anita Gregory, a SPR member and investigator who had visited Enfield with John Beloff in December 1977.27 The pair argued that the girls enjoyed play-acting; Gregory alleged that John Burcombe told her that Janet taught herself the trick of talking in a deep voice and that she enjoyed keeping strangers hopping about’.28

Gregory also stated that Peggy Nottingham had told her that what was going on now was ‘pure nonsense’, and ‘it was kept going by the investigators’.29 After rejoinders from Grosse,30 Gregory repeated her suspicion regarding the paranormality of the girls’ voices and her belief that Playfair’s book was far too sketchy, unsystematic, imprecise, ambiguous and confusing to be seen as a contribution to research.31

Melvyn Harris, an author of debunking books, analysed the photographs in This House is Haunted, concluding they showed the girls indulging in ‘spirited high-jinks’ and forcefully denying that they could be held to represent paranormal events.32 In reply, Playfair defended the photographs as follows:

On the curtain-twisting sequence, [Harris] suggests that the curtain ‘has simply been hit by the bedclothes and knocked off the window-ledge’. He does not explain how the curtain then moves into the room, as it can plainly be seen to do in the first picture, instead of towards the window, as one might expect. Nor does he explain how it moves to the right, the opposite direction to that of the bedclothes, and then twists into a tight spiral. In the pillow sequence, he does not explain how the top pillow doubles up in mid-air and changes direction, which it clearly does. Had both pillows been thrown (with one hand) by Rose, they would presumably have followed the same trajectory and landed together, which they do not. Such movements, he says, “easily correspond with those to be found in commonplace, everyday events”. Not in the world I live in.’

In a later response to Gregory, Grosse defended himself against her criticisms and pointed out that she had conceded the case included some good evidence and testimony’, being answered in turn by Gregory with more criticisms, including a complaint about the lack of evidential video footage.33

Grosse and Playfair published further reflections some years later, in 1988.34 Here they drew attention to the large number of written and spoken testimonies from witnesses. They described in detail the constant and anomalous problems that they and professionals had experienced with sound and video recording equipment when trying to capture evidence. They bewailed the lack of balance shown in some sections of the media, denouncing the ‘…many inaccuracies, distortions, half truths and blatant lies about the Enfield case that have found their way over the years into print or radio and TV programmes’.35 Some journalists, they revealed, had tried unsuccessfully to bribe a next door neighbour, Mrs Nottingham, with £1000 if she would state that the events were all ‘a pack of lies’ (she and her family subsequently made signed statements repudiating allegations of faking).36

Professional sceptics continue to criticize the Enfield investigation.37

In 2012, Janet appeared on the television programme This Morning with Playfair and Deborah Hyde, editor of The Skeptic magazine. Criticism by Hyde of views put forward by Mary Rose Barrington led to correspondence by both parties in a later edition of the magazine.38 Barrister and SPR Council member Alan Murdie returned to the topic in a later magazine article, arguing that Hyde had wasted an opportunity to ask detailed questions, preferring instead to speak in generalisations.39

Towards the end of his life, Grosse was much occupied with defending his investigation of the Enfield events, writing articles for wide range of publications and speaking at conferences.40 In 1995, he took part in an edition of the popular ITV television programme Strange but True with presenter Michael Aspel. Two years later, having been attacked by the psychologist Nicholas Humphries in Channel 4’s Is There Anybody There, he appeared in its Right to Reply programme to give his version of events.

A dispute arose over the 1992 BBC drama Ghostwatch, which was modelled on some aspects of the Enfield case; Playfair received a settlement out of court. In 1998, Grosse took court action against the comedian David Baddiel for giving his name to a character in his novel Time for Bed, a psychic investigator who runs away with a married woman. Baddiel paid out of court; the winnings went to charity.

Grosse appeared in a French documentary The Strange Odyssey (1995). He was interviewed by a Japanese film company in 1996, at which time Terry Wilkins, son of the former occupant of the Enfield house and putative entity ‘Bill Wilkins’, confirmed that his father had died in the house many years earlier in the circumstances that Janet’s ‘voice’ had described.41

Playfair remains an active researcher, author and SPR Council member. He vigorously defends the legitimacy of the investigation and the claims of paranormality. In 2007, he took The Times to task for making unfounded comments about the case.42 Playfair has also pointed to support from the academic community for his comparisons of features of the case with Tourette’s Syndrome.43

Later Developments

Peggy Hodgson died in 2003 (her older son John died in 1981 aged 14). Janet left home at 16, married young, and suffered the loss of her son when he was aged 18. Maurice Grosse died in 2006.

Peggy Hodgson avoided publicity after the disturbances subsided in 1978, but never changed her position about the anomalous nature of what she had experienced. Billy, a young child at the time, remained largely indifferent to events. Both Janet and Margaret have made brief appearances on television documentaries, insisting on the genuineness of the phenomena.44

Asked in a 2011 newspaper article whether she believed the house was still haunted, Janet said: ‘Years later, when Mum was alive, there was always a presence there — something watching over you.’

Janet, now aged 45, mentioned having been bullied at school as a result of the incidents, being nicknamed ‘Ghost Girl’. She also mentioned having played with a Ouija board before the trouble flared up. She said she had been unaware that she went into trances until shown the photographs.45

I knew when the voices were happening, of course, it felt like something was behind me all of the time. They did all sorts of tests, filling my mouth with water and so on, but the voices still came out. The levitation was scary, because you didn’t know where you were going to land. I remember a curtain being wound around my neck, I was screaming, I thought I was going to die.

After Peggy Hodgson died the house was briefly occupied by mother of four Clare Bennett, who stated: ‘I didn’t see anything, but I felt uncomfortable. There was definitely some kind of presence in the house, I always felt like someone was looking at me.’ Her sons would wake in the night, hearing people talking downstairs. Bennett then found out about the house’s history. ‘Suddenly, it all made sense,’ she said. The family moved out after just two months.

The house is currently occupied by another family, who do not wish to be identified. The mother says: ‘I’ve got children, they don’t know about it. I don’t want to scare them.’

Film and Television Dramas

Steven Spielberg’s Poltergeist was based on ‘a documented haunting in England’ (presumably Enfield) according to the film’s scriptwriter Dan Aykroyd.46

A three-part dramatization of the events was broadcast in May 2015 by Sky Living under the title The Enfield Haunting, featuring Timothy Spall as Maurice Grosse and Matthew Macfadyen as Guy Playfair. Playfair was consulted by the programme makers, but commented later that the result bore little relation to the actual events, with almost none of the phenomena shown having anything to do with the real ones.47 The programme contained notable inaccuracies, such as the use of CCTV – not available at the time – and omitted key features such as Janet’s alleged levitation.

Melvyn Willin

Literature

Brennan, Zoe. 2011. What is the truth about the Enfield Poltergeist? (October 28). www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2054842/Enfield-Poltergeist-The-amazing-story-11-year-old-North-London-girl-levitated-bed.html

Fodor, N. (1958). On the trail of the poltergeist. New York: Citadel.

Gauld, A. and Cornell, A. D. (1979). Poltergeists. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Gregory, Anita, (1980). Review of ‘Guy Lyon Playfair This House is Haunted, an investigation of the Enfield poltergeist’. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 50, pp. 538-41.

Hasted, J., Robertson, D. and Spinelli, E. (1982). ‘Recording of Sudden Paranormal Changes of Body Weight’ in Research in Parapsychology, Jubilee Centenary Issue, 1995. Scarecrow Press.

Knight, D. (1977). Poltergeists. London: Dent.

Matthews, R. (2009). Poltergeists and other hauntings. London: Arcturus.

Nickell, J. (2012). ‘Enfield Poltergeist’. Investigative Files. Skeptical Inquirer 36/4, July/ August.

Oesterreich, T. K. (1966). Possession – Demoniacal and Other. New Hyde Park: University Books.

Playfair, Guy Lyon (1980/2007). This House is Haunted. Stroud: Sutton Publishing.

Playfair, Guy Lyon & Grosse, Maurice, (1989). ‘Enfield Revisited: the evaporation of positive evidence’. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 55, pp. 208-19.

Playfair, Guy Lyon (2015). ‘The Enfield Saga: From This House is Haunted (1980) to The Enfield Haunting (2015). Paranormal Review 75, Summer 2015, pp. 26-7

Price, H. (1993). Poltergeist. London: Bracken. (also see Ghosts for Price)

‘Report of the Enfield Poltergeist Investigation Committee’. SPR Archive. Cambridge University Library.

Thurston, H. (1953). Ghosts and Poltergeists. London: Burns Oates.

References

1. Playfair, 2007.
2. SPR archives Cambridge University Library (CUL)
3. Playfair, 2007, p. 24.
4. Some of these items can be found in the SPR archives.
5. Playfair, 2007, p. 153.
6. Reproduced in ‘The Report of the Enfield Poltergeist Committee (SPR archives).
7. Reproduced in ‘The Report of the Enfield Poltergeist Committee (SPR archives).
8. Playfair, 2007, p. 128 passim.
9. Playfair, 2007, p. 140.
10. Playfair, 2007, p. 145.
11. Playfair, 2007, pp. 200-201.
12. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 50, 1979, p. 258.
13. Oesterreich, 1966.
14. Playfair, 2007. p. 132.
15. www.indystar.com/story/news/2014/01/25/...latoya-ammons/4892553
16. Report of the Enfield Poltergeist Investigation Committee (SPR Archives).
17. Report of the Enfield Poltergeist Investigation Committee (SPR Archives).
18. Hasted et al. (1982).
19. Playfair, 2007, p. 249.
20. Private correspondence with the author, July 2014.
21. Playfair, 2007, p. 272.
22. Playfair, 2007, p. 162.
23. Brennan, 2011.
24. Daily Mirror, 10 September 1977.
25. News of the World, 2 April, 1978.
26. Evening News, 11 June 1980.
27. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 50, 1980. pp. 538-541.
28. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 50, 1980, p. 541.
29. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 50, 1980, p. 541.
30. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 51, 1981, pp. 34-35.
31. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 51, 1981, pp. 115-116.
32. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 50, 1980, pp. 552-554.
33. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 52, 1983, pp 92-95.
34. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 55, 1989, pp. 208-219.
35. Playfair, 2007, p. 301.
36. Cited in Playfair, 2007.
37. Nickell, 2012.
38. The Skeptic, Summer 2012, p. 31.
39. Murdie, Alan in Fortean Times, 288, 2012.
40. SPR archives
41. SPR audio-visual archives.
42. Playfair, 2007, p. 300.
43. Cited in Playfair, 2007, p. 299.
44. For instance, ITV This Morning, 23 February 2012; Maurice Grosse Video Diaries 1996; The Enfield Poltergeist: Jane Goldman Investigates. Youtube.com. Enfield Poltergeist Nationwide Special. Youtube.com. (originally shown 23 November 1977). Interview with a Poltergeist, 28 August, 2008.
45. Daily Mail, 28 October 2011. Interviewed by Zoë Brennan.
46. Playfair, 2007, p. 302.

0215C-2019 - M. Willin - The Enfield Poltergeist Tapes

Do not buy this book if you want to read a biased account of the famous Enfield Poltergeist Case from 1977 through to 1978. There are many other choices you could make which will either try to convince you of the genuineness of the phenomena produced or its fraudulent origins according to the interpretation of the authors concerned. I do not mind whether you have a wide-open mind or a totally shut one, since I shall not be trying to convince you one way or the other.

Do buy this book if you want to know what really happened! I have listened and transcribed all of the several hundred audio tapes that were made by Maurice Grosse and Guy Playfair during their investigation of the alleged poltergeist case that took place in Enfield some 40 years ago and I shall present, in chronological order, what occurred. It will then be your decision as to whether you believe the phenomena came from spirit entities; psychic forces; mistaken interpretations; hallucinations; naughty children or any other source you might wish to present. I shall strive very hard not to be influenced by what I have read, however intelligent it might be, and instead rely on my ears to describe what was happening via the tapes.

I shall leave out the many hours of general conversation that took place between the parties concerned since I do not believe that the reader will be particularly interested in the weather; special offers in the local supermarket; or what happened in Coronation Street ... except, of course, when any of these discussions may have been pertinent to the phenomena. I shall include some of the more humorous occurrences since the events occasionally demanded this. Perhaps some light relief from the sometimes all-pervading chaos. Because of their age some of the audio tapes were corrupted beyond recognition and at other times the sound quality was poor. I have therefore had to listen very carefully to unravel the indistinct voices especially when people were often talking at the same time or were not specifically identified by name. There is substantial screaming at times which was difficult to distinguish between the children concerned, so I may have attributed the wrong name to a 'screamer' at times...sorry, but I've tried to get it right! The language used is extremely crude, abusive and explicit at times, so the reader should be aware that parts of the book should be 'X' rated, as films used to be in bygone days.

If all this hasn't put you off then read on and prepare to possibly find out what happened in Enfield from 31, August 1977 onwards.

0215C-1977 - The Maurice Grosse Recordings

Radio interview — Tape #764

Q: Mark Russell Bell

L: Lou Gentile, “The Lou Gentile Show”

N: Narrator of ‘Enfield Poltergeist’ tape

V: Voices heard on ‘Enfield Poltergeist’ tape

E: Enfield spirit voices

K: Kevin, caller from Pennsylvania

M: Mark, caller from Pennsylvania

R: Rose, caller from Pennsylvania

J: Jacob, caller

L: And we’re back to “The Lou Gentile Show” broadcasting live and we’re speaking tonight with Mark Russell Bell, author, researcher, Hollywood publicity manager — or former Hollywood publicity manager. And we’re talking tonight about talking poltergeists, paranormal activity and the spirit world. Different things like that. And you might want to write this toll-free number down. It’s — it’s a new one so here it is: (gives number). That’s (gives number). Unfortunately, it works only in the United States so our Canada and U.K. listeners, at least for right now, can’t give a call in.

Hopefully, that’ll be taken care of within the next week — actually next week. So, anyway, what I’m going to be doing when we come back because as you know in the — in the very beginning of the — at least at the top of the hour I have a couple minutes to say my spiel, basically we’re going to be playing something that I — I — I very rarely play. I’m not going to play it in its entirety; however, Mark was a little inquisitive about the Enfield Poltergeist case. As a lot of the listeners of the show know, the Enfield Poltergeist case was probably one of the most documented poltergeist cases in human history basically because there were photographs, there was audio, there was video, there was all kinds of different things — levitation of objects.

But for the most part, the one thing that stood out in the Enfield Poltergeist case was the voice. And the voice developed over many months until it finally developed into singing and things like that. And then it developed into a full-fledged voice that would manifest out of thin air. Now there were a lot of skeptics out there that thought that the little girl was throwing her voice and things like that but when people are trying to explain things scientifically that’s all they have to pull out of their hat.

However, when Ed Warren investigated it as well as a — a lot of other researchers that were there, they had heard the voice when the girl was not in the room or anywhere around. So where does that lead us to believe? Basically, it leads us to believe that these voices were coming out of thin air from somewhere. Dr. John Beloff—I believe was his name—who did this — I don’t know. I forget. But you’ll hear it in the — in the little clip that we have here. Mr. Beloff, when he investigated it, had also claimed that the voice was not around the little girl although it did for the most part happen a lot around the girl but even when the little girl was out of the room this voice still manifested. And Mr. (“GG”)— Mr. Beloff has a lot of audio and things like that. And he also has — there were photographs taken of these kids actually levitating in midair, cris-crossing in the middle of the night as they slept, which was very interesting. And that had aired on I believe it was “In Search Of” at one point. So when we come back to “The Lou Gentile Show,” we’re going to explore a little bit about Enfield, take your calls after we play this five minute piece or whatever.

And I’ll be taking ’em at (gives number). We’re speaking tonight with Mark Russell Bell when we return to “The Lou Gentile Show.” (commercials for International Broadcasting Corporation, Miracle Slim Down, and Matthew Lesko) And we’re back to “The Lou Gentile Show” broadcasting live. Now what we’re about to do is we’re going to play an — the excerpt that we have made. You can hear the full thing at — at my lectures. But you’re going to hear excerpts from this — it’s about twenty minutes long but we’re not going to play that much of it. We’re only going to play a couple minutes of it. Going to go into exactly what happened in the beginning and you’re actually going to hear some of these voices. And I — I do — I really would like to relate to people that if you have a haunting in your home or you think your house is haunted then turn off the radio or — or your speakers because this is not a joke. And I do not — do not take kindly to playing these all the time. That’s why this is only the second time that I’ve actually played these particular voices. Because there have been reports where other voices from these different tapes that were collected from Mr. Beloff and Ed Warren where a lot of people have reported that things were happening in their homes. So right now we’re going to go into the Enfield Poltergeist. Here we go. (music)

N: When investigating the paranormal world it’s easy to become overwhelmed by the hundreds of strange stories describing strange encounters with the unknown. It’s often difficult to separate the accounts of true hauntings and incidents from the various myths and legends that might be fictional things. Once in a while, however, an incident comes along that is not only bizarre but backed up by reliable investigation and solid photographic and audio evidence. This is precisely what occurred when paranormal investigators were called in to examine and document the frightening and real life haunting that occurred in 1977 in the town of Enfield in Northern London.

A haunting which would come to be known as the Enfield Poltergeist. Before we begin our examination, however, a word of warning. Some of the evidence we will present are actual audio excerpts from the case which contained disturbing and frightening sounds. Your discretion is advised. Our case begins on the night of August 30th, 1977 in the home of Mrs. Peggy Harper, a divorcee in her middle 40s along with her four children, Janet and Peter, Jimmy and Rose. It was a quiet night like any other until Janet sleepily appeared at her mother’s bedroom door. Janet stated to her mother that something strange was happening in her bedroom. She said that quite suddenly and for no reason at all, her and Peter’s beds had began bouncing up and down, jolting about and in her words “going all funny.” Peggy immediately went to the room but the movements had stopped, leaving her to believe that the children were perhaps having a bit of fun. Everyone returned to bed and all remained quiet for the rest of the night. Around 9:30 the following evening, the mother was perplexed to hear the children laughing excitedly from their bedroom.

This time, Janet and Peter told her that there were strange noises coming up from the floor. They heard a strange shuffling, scraping sound bumping along the floor of the bedroom. Janet described the sound as that of a chair scraping along so Peggy took the only chair in the room and moved it quietly downstairs. Within a few moments however, Peggy was horrified to hear the strange sound herself. The same shuffling noise that Janet had described coming from the children’s bedroom above her head. Hurrying up the stairs and into the room, the sound immediately stopped when she turned on the lights. The children were under their covers and no furniture was out of place. (last two sentences repeated) That same night, four loud knocks were heard emanating from the walls of the house. Investigating the sound, the mother watched with total shock as suddenly a heavy chest of drawers began sliding across the floor, traveling a distance of about 18 inches. Somewhat frightened, Peggy managed to push the chest back against the wall, only to have it move once again across the floor . . . (fast forward) . . . of water began to appear on the floors. The banging and knocking sounds . . . on the floors.

L: I’m going to try and get this right. (small laugh)

N: The banging and knocking sounds were a nightly phenomenon and pillows and blankets were photographed being ripped off their beds, sometimes levitating in midair. Furniture slid across the floor, drawers being pulled out and contents smashing on the floor of the bedroom. It seemed as if all hell had broke loose in Enfield but the reporters, investigators and photographers were all in the right place at the right time to capture the events as they unfolded. They documented the incidents on video, photographic and audio equipment as they occurred . . . (fast forward) . . . and the microphones that had been placed in the house. And Janet asleep in her bed was suddenly ripped from her covers and hurled not only from her bed but completely out of the room and onto the stairs down the hallway. Startled investigators and family can be heard looking for the missing girl.

(TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE: THE VOICES ON THE TAPE PLAYED ON THE BROADCAST WAS HARD TO TRANSCRIBE DUE IN PART TO THE ACCENTS SO BELOW ARE SOME OF THE THINGS SAID THAT SOUNDED CLEAR ON THIS PART OF TAPE TO PROVIDE A GENERAL IDEA.)

___________________________________________________________

V: (shout)

V: (gasps)

V: Janet! (“GO”)

V: Why? Why?

V: Where is she?

V: Don’t know.

V: (shout)

V: (something concerning a room)

V: (groans)

V: This time Janet was thrown right out of the room onto the stairs.

V: That’s incredible. How the hell did she get through there?

V: Did the door open? That door was closed when I got here.

V: The door opened.

V: The door opened as she went through.

V: She went right near the door and it opened like this. And I tried to get out. I couldn’t.

V: The door opened to let her out the door.

V: Just what happened? Just tell me what happened?

V: . . . I felt something pull me by the arms like this. And I tripped over there and I went there. Then he picked me up. Then I saw — the door opened and I . . . (fast forward) . . .

V: When it pulled the picture off the wall.

V: Oh Janet you . . . (fast forward)

N: . . . grunting noise that began to manifest.

L: Here we go. Now we’re coming to the voices.

N: As the haunting continued, the sounds grew louder and gradually began to develop into a voice. Surely of all the occurrences at Enfield, the most fascinating incident had to be the voice. What made this case unique in Ed’s opinion was even though skeptics had claimed that the little girl could’ve been throwing the voices, Ed Warren heard the voices often while he was alone in various rooms where there were no family members present. The voices spoke to Ed and gave him information relating to the existence of hell. This confirmed his suspicions these entities were actually devils. During Ed’s visit to the Enfield case, these entities screamed, moved objects, levitated people, and tried to hurt individuals through unseen forces. This is also one of the few cases known to man that an entity has actually manifested a larynx in order to speak.

E: (growls and groans and howls)

N: In the early stages of the haunting, many people investigating the case theorized that these entities were from a cemetery located nearby the home. But after repeated contacts with the voices, the demonic entities grew enraged by the questioning and began to reveal their true origins. At one point, Ed asked one of the demonic entities where it was from. The reply given in a Cockney accent was “are-my.” This in English translates to ‘army.’ Ed asked again if the spirit meant army, to which he received the answer, “Yes.” It seemed at first that the entity had great difficulty speaking. In this next audio segment taken from the house, investigators are trying to coax the voice into saying the name of one of the investigators present, Dr. James Beloff.

V: Say Dr. Beloff. Go on. Let me hear you say that.

V: Right. Go on.

V: Let’s hear you say Dr. Beloff. (pause; other voices hard to hear) Say — say Dr. Beloff . . . Can’t you speak a bit? I can’t hear you talking. Now say Dr. Beloff. Come on. Come on, say it for me. Dr. Beloff.

E: Dr. Beloff.

N: Time continued and the voice grew stronger. The entity began to talk more frequently and for longer periods of time. It often told outrageous lies and described itself as being several different spirits. This segment shows the spirit identifying itself as a man who was 52 years old and used to live in the house. And then he had a hemorrhage, went blind and fell asleep and died in a chair in the corner.

L: Alright, I got to take a short break. I went a little over my five minute thing but it’s very interesting. You’ll hear the rest of these voices when we return to “The Lou Gentile Show” right after this. (commercial begins)

L: You there?

Q: Yes, I am.

L: (small laugh) We’re off the air.

Q: Right.

L: Now, playing that segment, did you hear it?

Q: Yes, I did.

L: Okay, yeah, I got to — we’re going more into the voices. I just wanted you to hear this because it’s very interesting.

Q: Yeah.

L: I don’t usually play this.

Q: Yeah, it — it’s interesting. (“UM-HUH”)

L: Alright, I’ll — we’ll — we’ll be back probably at 33 after.

Q: Okay.

L: So. Alright?

Q: Okay.

L: And then we’ll take some calls and stuff like that.

Q: Okay. And I’ll just — let me conclude (“THE MAIN” “V”) my experience.

L: Yeah.

Q: Okay.

L: Yeah, we’re going to go — we’re going to go into that. I’m holding people’s attention.

Q: Yeah.

L: (small laugh) Alright, hang on.

Q: Okay. (commercial for IBC’s Penny Stock Premium Service)

L: And we are back to “The Lou Gentile Show.” We’re speaking tonight with Mark Russell Bell, author, researcher and former Hollywood publicity manager. We’re talking about talking poltergeists, paranormal activity, the spirit world, and a lot of the different experiences that Mark has had involving the spirit and paranormal world around him. We will be back with him at about 33 after. I’m going to finish up these Enfield voices so the people who’ve never heard this before can hear this. And the warning — if you have a haunted house I suggest you don’t listen to these voices because it could promote something going on. Anyway, we’re going to continue where we left off. And here we go.

V: I want you to tell me what do you remember — what happened to you when you died? Just before you died and just after you died.

E: Days before I died, I’d — I went blind. Then I had a hemorrhage and I fell asleep. And then I died in a chair in the corner downstairs.

V: Do you have any friends there with you?

E: Yes. . . . 69 dogs.

V: And what do you got 69 dogs for?

E: Now then they can protect me from you killing me. . .

V: How can we kill you, Bill?

E: You . . .

V: And how do we — how do we kill you, if we can’t see you, Bill?

E: By praying to God.

V: Sorry, I didn’t mean that, Bill.

E: By praying to God.

V: By praying to God? So what you’re saying is we could get rid of you by praying to God?

E: Yes.

N: Several prominent researchers in the field have reviewed the tapes captured at Enfield. Recently investigator Lou Gentile discovered several other voices layered within the recording. He feels that based on the audio evidence, these may be the voices of several entities contained within the tapes. While Ed Warren was investigating the Enfield voices he had asked the spirits for some sort of confirmation that they were indeed spirits and asked for information that Ed could verify. With that, one of the demonic entities asked Ed what Annabelle was doing at his house. Annabelle was a Raggedy Ann doll that had been involved in a separate haunting case that he had investigated previously in the United States. The doll had been known to move about during the haunting and had been removed from the afflicted home and placed inside a glass case in the Warrens’ office. The voices direct reference to the doll prompted him to call his wife Lorraine back in the U.S. Over the phone, he asked Lorraine if she could check on Annabelle. Lorraine discovered that Annabelle was indeed outside her glass case once again and was discovered peering out the window.

Ed’s suspicions were confirmed and the more Ed spoke to these entities, the more information they gave Ed as to their origins. During the Enfield haunting, Jimmy became aware of being tired and not feeling up to his usual self. Many people noticed that Jimmy began to look tired and haggard in appearance. By the end of the Enfield case, Jimmy took on an appearance of an old man in his 90s, which could’ve been attributed to a disease but accelerated over the course of a couple of months. Jimmy died from these complications and all activity at Enfield ceased. Or at least they thought. On the day of Jimmy’s funeral, Jimmy’s body was physically thrown outside of the casket by unseen forces in front of everyone in the church in a last attempt to show that devils really can kill people. This may all sound like some world class horror novel but this is one of the most documented paranormal cases in the history of ghost. Consider this. People say that a ghost can’t kill you but if things can be levitated and objects can be moved about by unseen spirits then how easy it would be for them to trip someone, launch objects at a person with deadly consequences.

L: And there we go. That’s Enfield. That’s some scary stuff there. Extremely scary. Imagine having that in your house. Voices coming out of nowhere. Things being moved or levitated. We’re taking your calls toll-free for tonight’s guest Mark Russell Bell. (gives number) That’s (gives number). When we return to “The Lou Gentile Show” right after this. (commercials for IBC’s Penny Stock Premium Service, Inventech, and International Broadcasting Corporation) And we’re back to “The Lou Gentile Show” broadcasting live. We’re speaking tonight with Mark Russell Bell, author, researcher and former Hollywood publicity manager. We’re talking about talking poltergeists, paranormal activity, the spirit world and a lot of the different activity that has been around Mark. Mark, welcome back to the show.

Q: Hi, Lou.

L: What’d you think of the Enfield?

Q: Well — well I was thinking first of all that Mighael of course is the Entity that channels the other entities, almost the One who brings forth other spirits at a given time. I was interested in the synchronicity. (“OF”) When I was a — a talent agent — I was a talent agent before I was a publicist — one of my clients was named Banks Harper. She was very talented, very beautiful but yet she never really got anywhere much in her career. I remember booking her in a few shows like “The Twilight Zone.” (“BUT”) She — (“PSEUDO”) I remember there was one film in particular that was only casting scale-plus-ten actors and I thought this is it for her. But they ended up casting a name who was wrong for the role. It almost ruined the movie. And she went on in her anonymous ways, struggling. In fact, I wanted to be a screenwriter. Neither one of us was successful in what we wanted yet can you imagine what kind of people we would have turned out to be if we had been successful?

L: Um-huh.

Q: So some people would say that our lack of failure could be attributed to a demonic force while others would attribute the same fortune as an Angelic Force. So I was impressed by the ‘bel’/’bell’ synchronicity and the ‘Harper’ synchronicity.

(TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE: HARPER WAS NOT THE REAL NAME OF THE FAMILY IN ENFIELD.)

Q: And in my own family tree one of my ancestors is Abraham Warren who was born in 1575 England. And regarding Annabelle, as I’ve said before, if you don’t think God has a sense of humor just read the “Annabelle” story in that book The Demonologist by Gerald Brittle.

L: Um-huh.

Q: I’ve sent Emails to my cousins. (“BUT” “I”) And I once called them when they were on “Coast to Coast AM” but I really haven’t had much of a conversation with them over the years.

L: Alright. Let’s — let’s go right to the phone lines. You’re on “The Lou Gentile Show.” Who am I speaking with?

K: This is Kevin from Pennsylvania.

L: Yes, Kevin from Pennsylvania, what’s going on?

K: Yeah, my question is from these voices that — that can be heard. How come they’re usually not sentences, they’re just (“LIKE”) phrases or one or two words? (“WHY”) Why do you think that they just say, you know, a little bit and not, you know, explain what they’re doing?

Q: Are you referring to on tape or w(hat) —

K: On tape. (“O”)

Q: On tape. Well I believe it’s — (“WHEN” “WHEN”) — when I’ve heard EVP on radio shows, different people hear different words altogether. So I think something telepathic may be going on. I know in my own case when I tried to interpret EVP, there was one occasion recently when I couldn’t understand what was being said. And then my mom went into the hospital. And then I thought it was saying, “VISIT.” And if I hadn’t visited I don’t think my mother would’ve made it because she needed attention and the nurses were ignoring her. So if you listen to some of the EVP people on some of the shows and people call in and say what they think they’re hearing, it seems fairly obvious that they’re not hearing the same things. So that’s why I think They don’t speak in complete sentences.

L: Okay.

Q: Sometimes they do, by the way. I might mention that in my own experience (“WITH”) with all the Bell synchronicity, it culminated when I came back from Oklahoma and I was trying to decide if I was the reincarnation of Jesus Christ. And I found the book The Wars of Gods and Men by Zecharia Sitchin and on page 224 it talked about Heinrich Zimmern transcribing and translating an Ashur text from clay tablets in the Berlin Museum. He found a “pre-Christian Mysterium dealing with the death and resurrection of a god and thus an earlier Christ tale.” And this turn out — turned out to be someone by the name of Bel-Marduk. So I think that Jesus of Nazareth was one of many christed ones throughout history and, obviously, Bel-Marduk had an earlier resurrection story. And I found out about it in this book by Zecharia Sitchin. So that was the culmination. And I also found a pendant — an Egyptian — an Egyptian pendant with my likeness on it. And you can see it on the Testament index at the website but I found this at — a few blocks away from my home in Echo Park. And it is of, apparently, this Bel-Marduk character who Edgar Cayce also had talked about as Ra-Ta.

L: What do you think about Zecharia Sitchin?

Q: Well I think that — (“AA”) I like the factual material he presents. Of course, he has his own interpretations. For example, where Bel-Marduk is concerned, he believes that this ancient script that he found (“O[N]” “A[T]”) talks about ‘Bel who was confined in The Mountain.’ Now he interprets ‘The Mountain’ as being the Great Pyramid in Egypt. And I, myself, don’t really know. I do know that I worked at Paramount Pictures, which was trapping me in the corporate world of (“AA”) the Paramount mountain for many years. So I do have that correlation also with Bel-Marduk. One thing also when I was hearing your Enfield tape when it was talking about hell, it did remind me of something that the original Bell Witch had said. There was a book by Charles Bailey Bell, a descendant who talked about John Bell Jr. being visited by the ‘Bell Witch’ later on and there’s a large portion of information said to be attributable to the Bell Spirit which they called a witch and it did mention that very thing. If we have time, maybe I’ll — I’ll read that portion. Should I go ahead?

L: Yeah, sure.

Q: Okay:

If Rome had been a follower of Jesus Christ nineteen hundred years ago, on to the date of the decline of their government, they would not have fallen. Selfishness, licentious habits, oppression of the poor, the rich profiting on the suffering of the poor ultimately leads to the downfall of any country. I have seen it for some millions of years. Your country will be tried out. You may be sure there will be a great social change, and the government itself will undergo trials unexpected; it should be equal to this great trial. I shall be there at that time; there will be thousands of spirits unrecognized. As to whether your world continues and recovers, or ends, will depend upon whether the minds of men receive favorably the thoughts given to them spiritually, and unselfishly strive from the highest to the lowest, not merely to recover financially, but each strive to uplift his fellow man and bring the country back to Jesus Christ. Your preachers have at all times, as a class, been your best men, but they can do more harm than any others. Some will at that time outspokenly deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, even deny that there is a Heaven or Hell. There can be no doubt of the serious damage of such a belief; the world should never become converted to the doctrine that sin will not be punished, both here and hereafter.

Q: So that’s a portion attributed to the original Bell — what they called — Witch.

L: Now is — is there a lot of documentation on the Bell Witch you’ve come across?

Q: Yes, it’s — it’s the most documented case. I went to the original Authenticated History of the (Famous) Bell Witch, which had a lot of the relatives — and there were affidavits. It was copyrighted in 1894 by M. V. Ingram. And it’s probably the — the closest source and there have been many different accounts since then. I’ve also found interesting accounts even in such sources as Newsweek magazine, the November 20th 1938 issue had an article about Alice Belle Kirby, which is right in keeping with what we’ve been discussing tonight.

L: Alright, let’s go to the phone lines. You’re on “The Lou Gentile Show.” Who am I speaking with?

M: This is Mark from PA.

L: Okay, Mark, and what’s your question?

M: You mentioned Jesus and reincarnation of him?

Q: That’s right.

M: (archive tape only) This was you?

Q: I — I said that my belief after reading the various paranormal cases and seeing (“THAT”) the miracles of old are just as ever-present throughout the ages—sometimes relegated to these ‘paranormal’-type accounts—led me to the realization that there had been many Christed ones throughout the years and I have read some of — some of those cases.

M: Okay, I — what I’m — my question is you said, if I understood this right, you’re a reincarnation of?

Q: Bel-Marduk. He was an — he was an earlier Christed one. There are a lot of parallels between Egypt and Christianity. (“SER”) For example, the ankh and the cross. There are a lot of books on the fact that many aspects of the Christian story can be traced to an — to earlier gods.

M: Okay. Earlier gods —

Q: God-kings.

M: — plural thereof.

Q: Right.

M: Ahh. Okay. Alright.

Q: We — I believe that we’re each a manifestation of God. But, however, this Michael Force, if you look at all the famous paranormal accounts you’ll see that this is chronicled. The Son of God revealing Themselves to the world through the various paranormal cases. (“FOR”) For example, that account of Dr. George Ritchie in his book.

M: Okay. Well I thank you.

L: Alright. Thanks for the call. (gives number) That’s (gives number). We’re speaking tonight with Mark Russell Bell and we’ll go back to the phone lines. You’re on “The Lou Gentile Show.” Who am I speaking with?

R: This is Rose in Pennsylvania.

L: And what’s your question for Mark?

R: Mark, I saw your website a little earlier today. How are you doing?

Q: Very good. (“I”)

R: Good. I have a question about your New Testament —

Q: Okay.

R: — book. Could you explain to me a little bit more about what that is. Is it meant to be a New Age version of the Bible? I noticed it was in question and — and — question and answer format.

Q: Well my original experience in Oklahoma — I decided the only way to do justice to it was to present it in a question and answer format. And that, of course, was published in paperback as the book Testament.

R: Um-huh.

Q: I put the entire book on the Internet free of charge because I wanted it to be available for everybody. I spent my life savings doing this. I couldn’t afford to publish — self-publish another book so I’m just now adding (“II”) interviews and journal material to this new book entitled New Testament which is also available free of charge at the website.

R: Is it meant to be — just so we understand — is it meant to be a version of the Bible?

Q: Well there’ve been many versions of ‘The Bible’ throughout history. For example, I don’t know if you’re familiar with The Nag Hammadi Library —

R: Yeah.

Q: — but there are many comparable books. (“THROUGH”) You know, through many different cultures. (“THEY”) All — every culture has their own Bible. I would say that mine’s a contemporary ‘New Consciousness Bible.’ (“IT’S A”) It’s a contemporary Bible.

R: I see. Did — is that connected — your need to write that or your mission, as it were, to write that. Is that connected to your belief that you’re (“AA”) reincarnated Jesus?

Q: Well I was reincarnate(d) — well Jesus Christ, again, is two different beings. I’m apparently the reincarnation of Bel-Marduk as I have physical proof. So I am another Christed one and I — at first, I didn’t set out to write the book but I received Guidance every step of the way in terms of meeting the right people to make the book happen.

R: I see.

Q: And I must say too that this Force manifesting around me — (“CAUSE”) the Angelic Force does choose individuals to manifest around, either with healing abilities or as Tiger Woods on the golf course, or you name it — (“AS”) being someone being able to bend keys and spoons. There are individuals selected by this Force to help expand the awareness of others as to the nature of this Force and that’s why I think we’re alive in the first place is to understand this Loving, kind Force that manifests in every person that we meet. And every animal, I might add.

R: I see. Alright. Well thank you very much.

Q: Thank you, Rose.

L: Thanks.

R: Bye-bye. (“GOOD”)

L: (gives number) That’s (gives number). We’re speaking tonight about talking poltergeists, paranormal activities, the spirit world and many other things with Mark Russell Bell. What did you come up with as far as paranormal activity that surrounds you? What — what’s your opinion on it? I mean if somebody was to come up to you — hear what you’re story is, what would you say that — that you think the problem is or do you think that the . . .

Q: Well, again, Spirit communicates us — with us on the level that we’re — that — that — where we find significance. For example, I myself interpret pennies as a good sign and quarters and dimes as different — (“AS A”) different sizes of warning. And this — I can’t tell you how many times this has proved to be true. Now Michael is the Angel associated with the commandments and there was one time when I was bitten underneath one eye by an ant. I then focused on “An eye for an eye” and foll(owing) — and the same night another ant bit me (“BO[TH]” “BB”) beneath the other eye. Needless to say, that these are the only two times that’s ever happened to me. (“SO LIKE”) Again, the Angel Michael/Mighael, the Son of God, is still manifesting what I like to call ‘spiritual advice’ and doing it through myself. One of the other spiritual advices given to me was “Love is the only true religion,” which I mentioned before, which originated as a TV set commercial going on and off.

L: Out of curiosity, why — why did you — why did you finally leave the media? Why did you leave Hollywood? (“WW”)

Q: At — when I came back from Oklahoma, I called the vice president of publicity and I said, ‘I have major paranormal phenomena going on around me. I can’t do any more work. I have” — (“I — I”) I — it’s just — I mean this was all very insignificant in comparison to sharing my experience. I remember saying to her at the time. I said, ‘My friend Marie’s bank account was just cleared out. (“TH”) The Angel could destroy our world in a second.’ In fact, when I called her later to check in like about a year later, her voicemail system came on in the middle (“O[F OU]R”) of our conversation so I’m sure that was enough evidence for her — to know that something was (“GG”) — was happening.

L: Have you ever been a part of an exorcism or anything?

Q: No. (“I”) Well when — when I first was manifesting when I came back to L.A., my friends — I think that they thought that I was possessed and that’s why I ended up in Alhambra. And one night there, for example, in the next bed over from me, a young man was making demonic howling noises, which upset me because I — ’cause nobody outside in the building would — would know that it was coming from him and not from me. So I woke him up and I said, “You were snoring.” I mean it’s hard to — when you — when these things happen, (“E” “IT”) they’re different — you don’t know really how to respond.

L: Alright. We’ve got —

Q: And that was one case of that.

L: Alright, we’ve got to take a short break and we’re going to take the remainder of the calls—(gives number) That’s (gives number)—when we return to “The Lou Gentile Show” right after this. (commercials for IBC’s cultmoviesonline.com, International Broadcasting Corporation and Miracle Slim Down) And we’re back to “The Lou Gentile Show” broadcasting live and we’re speaking tonight with Mark Russell Bell, author, researcher, former Hollywood publicity manager, talking about talking poltergeists, paranormal activity, the spirit world and other things of the unknown. Welcome back, Mark.

Q: Hi.

L: And let’s go to the phone lines. Last call of the night. You’re on “The Lou Gentile Show.” Who am I speaking with?

J: Hello? My name is Jacob.

L: Yes. And what’s your question?

J: . . . question about the — the Midichlorian.

L: What is it?

J: Midichlorian.

L: Can you hear that?

Q: State the question again.

J: Midichlorian. They’re — how do you say? I try to — I — the Midi — chlo — clorian.

Q: What — what are — what kind of — is this a — an entity of some kind?

J: Hello?

L: Yeah. Go ahead. You’re on the air.

Q: Yeah. State the whole question.

J: Okay — let me try to think.

L: Any day.

Q: Well while you think, let me just make one statement about Thanksgiving tomorrow. Of course, Thanksgiving can be traced back to 1623 when there was a day of thanksgiving and prayer appointed, held on July 30th that year because there had been a drought for six weeks that had almost destroyed the crops. So the governor appointed the day (a day in mid-July) as a day for prayer and soon a gentle rain came that lasted for several days. And this was followed by more good news about different supplies being delivered so we can trace tomorrow’s holiday to successful prayer. And I think a lot of people forget that. It’s almost become more of a time of thankstaking than thanksgiving. And the Pilgrims’ early survival depended upon prayer and a greater sense of — a very great sense of Spirit.

L: Okay. Vlad, are you there?

J: Hello?

L: Yes. What’s your — what’s your question?

J: My question was about the — the Midichlorian.

L: About Midichlorians?

J: Yes.

L: Okay.

Q: Is that an alien?

J: I don’t think so.

Q: Oh.

L: What’s a Midichlorian?

J: (no answer)

Q: Is there — is there — is there an equivalent English word for that?

L: This — hello?

J: Hello?

L: Yeah. What — what’s with Midichlorians?

J: I — they — yes, they’re a type of alien.

L: Okay. And your question for Mark?

J: Have — have you ever heard of them?

Q: No, I haven’t.

L: Okay. What — what — what are they?

J: They are an alien from — they — they talk to me psychically.

Q: What do they say? Do they say good things or bad things?

J: . . . Not — not bad things. They are good things.

Q: To help your fellow man and help clean up the planet?

J: Sometimes stuff like that. But mainly more personal things like for me to do in the day.

L: Alright. I got to — I got to end the show, guys.

Q: Okay.

L: Thank — thanks for the call. Alright, and I want to thank you very much, Mark, for being on the show tonight. It was definitely a pleasure and I hope to have you back.

Q: Thank you, Lou.

L: And you have a good night.

Q: You too, Lou.

L: Alright.

Q: Bye-bye.

L: Alright. Thanks for listening to “The Lou Gentile Show.” I’ll see everybody Friday night. Will be no show tomorrow so, everybody, we’ll be running ‘best of.’ So I will see everybody Friday night when we speak with Mark Macy on “The Lou Gentile Show.” Good night, ladies and gentlemen. And God bless.

( . . . )

Q: (speaking into tape recorder) I went into the livingroom to let my mother know the interview’s over and she’s watching A&E about Sheila Bellush’s murder. Ann Rule apparently did a book on her or something. I said to my mom, “Isn’t that sweet? The Bell synchronicity again.” She looked thoughtful.

( . . . )

Q: So after thinking about that interview which was difficult because of all the commercials constantly interrupting, I guess I need to mention my perception of hell and heaven based on some of the things heard during the show. I do believe that there is a hell and a heaven, not as a physical place but as a mental state. I know that when I first realized that Spirit was participating in my life and making things happen for me, bringing me my wealth and bringing me everything that I had — and I realized that I should have been doing more for others, I was in a state of hell. Luckily, in my case it happened while I was still alive and I could change my perception of my relationship with Spirit: God and Mighael. So, yes, there really is a hell. It’s something that we, ourselves, create. Do you believe in guilt? Is there such thing as guilt? Have you ever felt guilty about something? Yes. Maybe for some people the answer would be no. That’s what’s interesting about some of these channeled books — (“IS”) reading other observations. After all, it’s usually just one spirit speaking, one of many egos linked with God. We’re all just one ego linked with God. I don’t believe everything I read from these beings. (“I”) Some of it sounds like it could be correct but the main thing is that my overall perception of God and life is an experience — well “It’s all good” was the T-shirt I saw last week at work. Bad things do happen. They’re beyond understanding. But if you look at life, many more good things happen than bad things. Unless we feel guilty, then you’d have to say the opposite would be true. Attempting to walk with Spirit is a good feeling. And I like my new job. That’s an answered prayer. No apparent travesties or cover-ups. People just trying to do the best they can.

(TRANSRIBER’S NOTE: WHILE IT WAS MANY YEARS AGO WHEN I PURCHASED A COPY OF THIS HOUSE IS HAUNTED SUBTITLED “AN INVESTIGATION OF THE ENFIELD POLTERGEIST” BY GUY LYON PLAYFAIR, I HAD NEVER READ MUCH OF THE BOOK AS THE BOOK JACKET DID NOT MAKE EVIDENT THE SUBSTANTIAL ‘TALKING’ ASPECT OF THIS CASE. I FINALLY READ THE BOOK FOLLOWING MY INTERVIEW WITH LOU GENTILE AND FOUND MANY PARALLELS WITH OTHER ‘TALKING POLTERGEIST’ CASES.

0215C-1977 - The Ed Warren Recordings

A TRANSCRIPT OF ED WARREN’S [EW] INTERACTION WITH “THE ENFIELD VOICES” APPEARS IN CHAPTER XIV OF THE DEMONOLOGIST BY GERALD BRITTLE. WHAT FOLLOWS IS “AN EXTRACT OF THAT INTERROGATION” WHICH APPEARS ON PAGES 213 — 218 OF BRITTLE’S BOOK.)

Ed Warren: Hello?

Voice: Hello.

EW: Do you know who I am?

V: Yeah.

EW: Who am I?

V: Ed.

EW: That’s right, Ed. Who are you?

V: Fred-die.

EW: You’re Freddie, huh? What’s your real name?

V: Yeccccch . . . (noise)

EW: When are you going to leave here, Fred?

V: Five hundred years.

EW: That’s a long time. Can you move something to show us you’re here?

V: No.

EW: Why not?

V: Tommy pulled my arm out.

EW: Oh, there’s two of you? Put Tommy on.

V: (A new voice, though still gruff and gutteral) Yeah. I’m Tom-my.

EW: Tommy, how do you think we could get rid of all the problems that are happening in this house?

V: Kill the ghosties!

EW: Kill the ghosties? Aren’t you a ghostie?

V: No!

EW: Tell me, how did you get into this house?

V: Came up from under the floorboards.

EW: How many of you are there all together?

V: (Counting slowly and deliberately) Ah . . . uh . . . one . . . two . . . three . . . four . . . five . . . six. Six are here — no, five.

EW: What are their names?

V: Fred-die, Tom-my, Billy, uh . . . Charlie, and Dick. John’s not here.

EW: Where’s John?

V: Don’t know.

EW: Who’s the leader? Are you the leader?

V: Nobody. Nobody’s the leader. I’m a liar.

EW: Who else is there? Is there anyone else there?

V: Yeah.

EW: Who?

V: Gutter-Man’s here.

EW: Put Gutter-Man on. Let him speak. Are you there, Gutter-Man?

V: Yeah (a different voice, this one a bit clearer).

EW: Gutter-Man, what do you have to say?

V: (Yelping noises) This house is haunted. Kill the ghosties!

EW: Gutter-Man, were you ever alive?

V: Yeah.

EW: Where?

V: In soldiers. I’m a soldier.

EW: In whose army are you a soldier?

V: All armies. I’m a soldier.

EW: Who else is here, Gutter-Man?

V: Ah . . . uh . . . Zachary’s here.

EW: Put him on, Gutter-Man. Let Zachary speak.

V: (Suddenly there is incredible moaning and groaning. The voice is utterly bizarre. The wailing ends up in a long cry of “Help” that takes ten seconds to come out.)

EW: Holy cow. What was that? Put Zachary back on.

V: (Woeful moaning recurs.)

EW: Who else is here, Fred?

V: I ain’t Fred, I’m Tommy!

EW: Put Fred on. . . . Fred, are you there?

V: Yeah, Fred’s here. (Voice change indicates “Fred” is speaking.)

EW: Fred, put Zachary back on.

V: Won’t come. (Pause) I’ll tell you someone else who’s here. Teddy’s here. Teddy-Man’s here.

EW: Put Teddy-Man on, Fred.

V: Yeccccch . . . (Noise. Then silence, broken every few seconds by a parrot-like voice saying, “Hello.” A second voice then picks up and says “hello,” to which the parrot-voice responds with two hello’s. A third voice joins in the hello’s, then a fourth voice chimes in with its “hello”; then a fifth and a sixth voice join in, forming a chorus of parrot-like voices all saying “hello,” which build finally into loud, wild shrieks. The additional voices then fall away, leaving the original parrot-voice repeating its singular “hello.”

(Ed addresses the spirits again after the outburst, but there is no feedback.)

“All the while I was talking to these spirits,” Ed notes during the lull in the tape, “things were flying around the room. That’s what those crashing and bumping sounds are in the background. Chairs and tables were lifting and dropping. Small, little objects would whiz across the room and bounce off the wall. In the dining room, the wallpaper was peeling away from the walls as we watched. A butcher knife materialized in the lap of my assistant, Paul. A nail was also produced out of thin air. And, as has come to be expected in the house, the spirits left a pile of excrement on the mother’s bedroom carpet upstairs at three in the afternoon.”

When the spirits on the recording weren’t going through a fit of random insanity, they seemed to amuse themselves by filling the room with grunts, quacks, barks, shrieks, and a variety of other animal sounds—the most annoying being that of a shrill, screeching cat. One particular spirit put out a tortuous, unworldly howl which brought on another interchange.

EW: You guys sound like something right out of hell. Do you know where hell is, Fred?

V: Yeah.

EW: Where is hell, Fred?

V: Yeccch . . . (noise)

EW: How old are you, Fred?

V: Sixteen.

EW: Are you a ghost, Fred?

V: No . . . uh . . . yes. I’m a ghost.

EW: Who?

V: Batman. I’m Batman.

EW: Batman isn’t a ghost.

V: (Spirits lapse into an array of animal sounds, the most predominant being that of a barking dog.)

EW: You want to be animals? Imitate some animals. Imitate a pig.

V: (The snorting of a pig.)

EW: How about a dog?

V: (Barking.)

EW: How about a cat?

V: (Loud, screeching me-ow.)

EW: How about a turkey?

V: (Gobbling.)

EW: How old are you, Fred?

V: Seventy-eight. I’m a liar. Tommy’s a liar.

EW: I know.

V: Can I sing a song?

EW: Sure, Fred, go ahead and sing.

V: La-de-da-de-da . . . (gruffly) Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of holy water . . . ha . . . ha . . . ha . . .

EW: Are you a Christian, Fred?

V: Yick. A soldier. I’m a soldier!

EW: When did you die, Fred, as a soldier?

V: I’m always dead.

EW: Were you ever married, Fred? Did you ever have a wife?

V: Yeah.

EW: What was her name?

V: I don’t know.

EW: How old are you now?

V: Thirty. I’m thirty.

EW: Do you know what day it is?

V: Yeah. The uh . . . seventh.

EW: Right. Do you know what month it is?

V: Au-goos. Awwguss. August. August seventh!

EW: Where did you get those names: Fred and Tommy and Billy and so on?

V: The graves.

EW: Do you go over to the old graveyard near here?

V: Yeah.

EW: Why?

V: To read the graves.

EW: Do you like the graveyard, Fred? Why do you like the graveyard?

V: Death! (grunts).

EW: What do you think of us Americans?

V: I hate you, I hate you, I hate you. . . .

EW: Do you know where America is, Fred?

V: I don’t know. Can I come?

EW: No, Fred. I’ve got enough to do without you.

V: Ed. Ed . . . Ed . . .

EW: What do you want, Fred?

V: Smash the recorder.

EW: You’d like that, wouldn’t you?

V: Yeah. (Spirits pull original tape out of recorder during session.)

EW: (Resuming) Do you know what I’m going to do with these tapes, Fred? I’m going to play them to some scientists I know in America. They’re going to be very interested in you, Fred!

V: I’m gonna smash it in the night! (A quarrel then develops between two spiritsas to who is going to “smash” the tape recorder. As the voices rise from the level of argument into one-against-one “yikes” and “howls,” Ed sends Paul out to the car to get a bottle of holy water drawn from Walsingham Shrine, north of London. Paul returns to report the bottle of holy water is missing.)

EW: Where’s the holy water, Fred?

V: I slung it!

EW: You slung it? If you don’t bring that holy water back, we’re going to perform exorcism on you!

V: Ha, ha, ha.

EW: Do you want me to bring a priest in here?

V: Yeah, all right. Bring ‘im in. I’ll kick ‘im in the backside.

EW: What would you say if the Blessed Mother told you to leave, Fred?

V: Yecccch. Ugh.

EW: Do you know what this is Fred? What do you see?

V: Uh . . . a cross.

EW: That’s right, a cross. That cross means your days are numbered here.

V: I’m gonna chop somebody’s head off.

EW: The next time I come back here, Fred, you’d better be gone. Because the next time I come I’m bringing a very powerful exorcist with me, someone you won’t want to mess with.

V: (There is a long lull.) Ed. Ed. Ed . . . Ed . . . Ed-ward.

EW: What is it, Fred?

V: Let’s play exorcist. Go get the holy water. . . .

(TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE: THIS IS THE END OF THE ‘INTERROGATION’ TRANSCRIPT FROM THE DEMONOLOGIST.)

0215C-2023 - The Enfield Poltergeist - AppleTV

Episode 1 - The Happenings

The.Enfield.Poltergeist.S01E01.720p.ATVP.WEBRip.x264-GalaxyTV.mkv

Transcript - The Enfield Poltergeist – The Happenings - Season 1, Episode 1

A series of mysterious events begin to torment the Hodgson family, prompting inventor Maurice Grosse to investigate.

( vehicle engines humming )

( tape recorder whirring )

narrator: It's now quarter past 11:00.

Janet appears to be in sleep and breathing regularly.

( breathing heavily )

( knocking )

( breathing heavily )

( gasps )

( Janet gasping, screams )

( whirring )

( overlapping tape recorder chatter )

( tape recorder chatter continues )

narrator: A year ago, a number of strange coincidences in my personal life made me feel I should try to understand the paranormal.

Grosse: "If you get a good poltergeist case,"

I said to the Society for Psychical Research.

"Let me have it."

Then one day, they phoned me up.

I had no idea when I walked into that house, how long I would be involved.

But I did have a strong feeling that we were in for a pretty difficult session.

Grosse: Testing. One, two, three, four.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten.

Grosse: The time now is, uh, 7:55.

And, uh, I arrived at 284 just over half an hour ago.

Uh, I'm recording this in the kitchen.

Mrs. Hodgson is now going to tell me of events that took place here on Friday night.

Mrs. Hodgson: Oh, Billy, here, on here.

Billy.

Grosse: Is that mine?

Mrs. Hodgson: Yes, no sugar. Go on.

Yes. Yes.

Peggy: It all started in the back bedroom.

I could hear this, um, sort of rustling...

Very light rustling sound as though there was some movement in the bedroom.

Not a heavy movement, but I sensed that something was there.

But I laid with my eyes shut until Janet woke up.

First of all, I thought it was the mice or rats or something.

I come out and stood in the doorway, and there was a chest of drawers moving towards the door.

And I... W-Well, at that time, I stood there, and I was really, literally petrified.

Well, I went in, and I pushed it back once.

I stood back in the room and I watched, and I saw it moving.

And then I pushed it back again, and the third time I went to push it, I couldn't move it.

Peggy: ...then I pushed it back again, and the third time I went to push it, I couldn't move it.

( indistinct recorder chatter )

( typing )

Grosse: Persons involved.

Mrs. Peggy Hodgson is 47.

A divorced mother of four children.

Her daughter, Janet, aged 11, is a reasonably bright child.

Rather excitable, with a strong imagination.

She shares a bedroom with her older sister, Margaret, who is inclined to be overemotional.

She cries a lot.

Billy, the youngest, is intelligent, but he has a speech defect, which makes him very difficult for me to understand.

The older brother, Johnny, is away at a school for troubled children.

I'm determined to study the paranormal in a purely scientific manner.

The introduction of a tape recorder is essential to be able to analyze events in the cold light of day.

Grosse: What was actually the first thing you saw?

John Burcombe, brother to Mrs. Hodgson...

Oh, God. Uh, the actual first thing I saw...

Grosse: Deputy head porter in a hospital.

A down-to-earth, intelligent man who lives five doors away from the Hodgsons.

You see things that you can't explain, you've got a tendency not to believe them.

You've got a tendency to say, "I didn't really see 'em."

But you know you did.

Grosse: His son, Paul, 12.

A lively boy.

Paul: You're the first person I've spoken to.

I just... I've never discussed it.

It was a Sunday night.

Peggy came down and told my dad that there was lots of noise, banging...

And she was obviously really, really scared.

I don't know why, but I went with my dad down to the house.

It was dark.

We went upstairs and there's a massive oak wardrobe, and that had been moved to the middle of the room.

I felt terrified.

Grosse: And now, was it possible for her to push the cupboard?

No way. No.

Grosse: No way?

I see.

photographer: The first that I knew about it was a phone call coming through to the news desk.

I was early 20s.

I was scared of the dark.

If I'd stopped to think about it, I would've run a mile.

Yes, this is, uh... this is bri... ( laughs ) bringing it back.

The house.

It was so many years ago, but this is... ( stammers ) This is weird.

This is very strange.

We arrived at the house at about midnight.

Uh, the family were next door with the neighbors.

I came through into the... Into the kitchen.

Here it is.

The family came in one by one.

As they came through, they all just stood 'round here.

I remember the Daily Mirror reporter, Doug Bence, suit and tie on, hand in his pocket.

And the last one in was Janet.

And I'm here, ready, and then as... as Janet was... Was carried in...

Just... ( sighs ) ...unbelievable.

Just... Things just started flying around the room.

( shouting )

( crockery clattering )

The lingering memory is of those two girls screaming.

They were absolutely terrified.

( shouting )

Just mayhem.

Morris: LEGO bricks, marbles started flying around the house.

One of them struck me on the head.

Nobody moved their arm.

Nobody could've thrown or flicked that piece of LEGO.

There, th... I mean, that's the sort of force and the speed and the impact that you'd need for that.

Now, you can't be stood in a corner with a camera, watching everybody in the room, and not see somebody do that.

Pincott: I think it was Thursday, the phone rang.

The Daily Mirror.

A poltergeist in Enfield.

I was, at the time, the honorary secretary of the Society for Psychical Research, the SPR.

We used to have calls like that at least once a week.

Sometimes, twice in a day.

Who could we send?

Maurice Grosse.

Now that's an idea.

You see, Maurice was a relatively recent member of the Society, and he was a thorough nuisance... ( chuckles ) ...to be honest.

He was forever plaguing us with that it was a scandal that these things so demonstrably occurring were not investigated properly.

He was impatient. He wanted action.

He wanted to be involved in investigations.

Grosse: Animals.

There is only a budgerigar and two goldfish in the house.

The budgerigar belonged to an old lady who died.

And the phenomena did start shortly after the bird came into the house.

( bird chirping )

( Peggy speaking indistinctly )

Grosse: The witnesses include the next-door neighbors, who have heard raps and knocking for three days.

This recording is being taken at 8:30.

Your name is...

Peggy Nottingham.

And you wanna know when it first started from the...

Grosse: Well, yes. You had heard all these bangs yourself.

It was banging on the side of the walls, and on the ceiling.

On the floor.

So my husband come in.

It was just a strange knock on the wall.

I went up the stairs, and as I went up the stairs, this knock followed me.

I got three knocks. Three distinctive knocks on the wall.

I go into the front bedroom, same thing again.

The knocks followed me.

And I didn't know what it was.

Being in the building game, I thought to myself, well, I'll have a look around the house, I gotta be brave.

You know, and try and find out what it is. So I go through all the pipes.

No air locks or nothing like that.

Then I said to Peg... I said to her... I said, "Mrs. Hodgson, there's something definitely strange in your house."

I said the best thing there is to do... I said, "You're all coming to my house," and I said, "We'll phone the police."

Then when we phoned the police and they... ( stammers )

Grosse: The police say that as they could not arrest whatever was causing the disturbance, they can be of little help.

Grosse: But WPC Carolyn Heeps has made a striking statement about a chair in the living room.

Heeps: It, um, came off the floor, oh, nearly a half inch, I should say.

And I saw it slide off to the right, about three and a half to four feet, before it came to rest.

Um, I checked to see whether or not it could possibly have slid along the floor.

I placed a marble on the floor, to see whether or not the marble would, um, go in the same direction as the chair did, and it didn't.

It didn't roll at all.

I checked for wires under the cushion of the chair, and I could find no explanation at all.

reporter: For two weeks, they'd been terrorized by objects inexplicably shooting through the air, or furniture moving for no apparent reason.

I don't know if you read the Daily Mirror this morning, but rather a spooky story about the family who's living in fear of strange goings-on that are driving them from their home.

Morris: Being on the front page of any national newspaper, not alone the bestselling one in the country, was... Ah, I wouldn't say fame, but notoriety.

We just felt that it was such an important story.

It was just something that no one, that any of us knew, had ever experienced anything like this before.

Relatives, friends, the police saw it.

It, um, came off the floor, oh, nearly a half inch, I should say.

And I saw it slide off to the right, about three and a half to four feet, before it came to rest.

I walked into the room... As I walked into the room, the LEGO began to fly.

Marbles shooting around the living room.

Cups and saucers, books, chairs...

We was all just standing in the kitchen all of us together.

Beds, you name it.

Tha... That's supernatural.

reporter 2: It's said to be Britain's most publicized haunted house.

A semi-detached in a quiet corner of Enfield.

It's all very intriguing, so we sent Rosalind Morris ghost-hunting.

Can I rearrange people, so that I can do an interview?

Is that all right? Can you sit over there?

I'll sit where Maurice is.

And I'll sit over here. And then, um...

Roz: I was working as a BBC Radio reporter.

We didn't have enough to fill the program on the Sunday, and I was sort of threatened all day with "If, um, nothing else happens, you'll just have to go to Enfield and cover this ghost story."

I was pretty skeptical.

I mean, um, I didn't expect anything to happen.

And there is a sort of rule in journalism that the moment a reporter turns up, the ghost disappears.

It's now about half an hour since the family settled down for the night.

And Janet, who's the 11-year-old, the one you've been watching most...

Um, she now seems to be asleep.

She's not really moving around very much.

Mmm.

So, um, what... what happens now? What do you do?

Do you just stand here every night and have a look?

I... I usually wait after these girls are asleep, I wait about another half an hour.

If I don't see any signs of disturbance, I... I go.

I have to go home sometime, you know?

I think we ought to go downstairs again.

Roz: I just thought, well, I'd better record what I can.

( thud )

Roz: Did you hear that thump?

Well, we've just heard a noise, having come downstairs.

We've just heard a noise upstairs.

( inhales shakily ) And the chair, which was standing by Janet's bed, appears to have moved.

Well, Janet appears to be sleeping quite peacefully.

And she was sleeping when we went down just a few seconds ago.

( thudding continues )

Now the chair was by the bed, and it's now by the door.

The chair's been thrown nine feet. It's more violently than last time.

Roz: It's just very strange.

It didn't seem likely that either of the girls could've done it.

Well, I'm hoping I'm not getting, uh, the microphone shaking in my hand, because that was rather an unnerving experience.

I don't know what it is.

But there is something strange going on in that house.

Paul: Our little section of semi-detached box-like houses were very, very basic.

We were definitely working class, and to be honest, we were quite poor.

reporter: For many Britons, these are hard times.

In the last two years, Britain has suffered one of the highest inflation rates in Europe.

And for many Britons, it means a real cut in living standards because...

Paul: All I can say is, whatever struggles I had, Janet and Margaret must have been having the same, if not worse because they didn't have their dad there either.

That green one was mine. I paid 13p for that lollipop.

Listen! Don't you think we ought to get ready for bed?

But Mum, it's not time yet.

Margaret. Janet... ( indistinct )

Paul: Peggy's husband was estranged. I never saw him.

And I don't remember them being a happy family or a happy environment.

reporter: For the one-and-a-half million unemployed in Britain, the pinch is even more severe.

Paul: The '70s were quite a basic time, really.

We never went on holidays, uh, you know, so we just... We just tried to amuse ourselves.

Me and Janet, I just remember we got on.

Family living close by, we were just drawn together.

You had to make your own entertainment.

At the back, there was a bit of a wasteland and all the kids used to hang out over there.

( screams )

It was just general kids' stuff, really.

Never felt like we was ever at the center of the universe.

Yeah, things always felt on the periphery.

And then I just remember seeing this E-type Jaguar parking outside their house, and it was just like this vision of color in this black-and-white world.

I felt like he wanted to talk to you, and he didn't judge.

( typing )

Grosse: 284 Green Street.

List of incidents commencing 31st August 1977.

One: A heavy chest of drawers reported sliding six inches from wall.

Two: LEGO pieces seen in high-speed transit from parts of the room where no persons were standing.

Three: Marbles appearing to emanate from walls and curtains.

They stop dead without bouncing and are hot to the touch.

Four: Persistent raps and knocks moving around the house from no obvious source.

Five: Furniture moving, chairs moving and turning over.

Six: A lamp in the bedroom went out.

Richard: My father brought...

Grosse: Seven...

...a determination to look at the detail.

He was a person who made his career out of detail, making things work.

I mean, understanding things.

He's the type of person that, you know, if you give him, um, a radio, will take it apart, see how it works.

I mean, me, I just switch it on.

Grosse: You see, I'm a professional inventor, and when I get hold of something, I have to dissect it because that's my business.

Richard: He was always very scientifically inclined.

His mechanical engineering was almost natural, and he designed some extraordinary things.

This particular display, as made here, is using a 60-watt bulb with two drums revolving in opposite directions.

Richard: His life had started from hard times and come to better times.

He'd suffered a huge emotional loss, and yet he was a very grounded, realistic, down-to-earth person.

( Grosse sighing )

Many times, I'm tempted to dismiss some of the more bizarre activity simply because it is easier to accuse the children of cheating than to face the necessity of accepting the impossible.

But the accumulating evidence is overwhelming.

( breathing deeply )

Two theories.

One: The mind has powers over and above its normal functions and is capable of affecting physical objects.

Two: It is a poltergeist.

Pincott: It must have been early September on a Thursday, we held a... one of a regular series of meetings for new members.

I was chairing the meeting.

It was on nothing other than poltergeists.

Our speaker this evening has investigated all over the country.

Ladies and gentlemen, may I welcome on your behalf, Nicholas Clark Lowes.

( applause )

Pincott: So, what are poltergeists? I wish I knew.

I mean, the very name itself is a German word meaning, "a boisterous, noisy spirit."

Clark Lowes: Well, what can poltergeists do?

Firstly, they can produce knocks and sounds or even recognizable human voices.

They are capable of responding to requests or orders, either in code, one rap for yes, two for no, etcetera, or directly.

Roz: I'd already read up something about poltergeists, so I knew that this type of experience with similar things happening, um, has been logged for hundreds of years.

In fact, I think the first reports we have are the Romans.

They can move objects and project them often considerable distances.

In some cases, dragging even human beings about the place.

They can alter the temperature of the place.

Normally, this is noticed as a drop in temperature, but in extreme cases, clothes and even houses catch fire.

Furthermore, all poltergeists have a human focus.

It's notorious that they often seem to center around some disturbed person, usually an adolescent.

Roz: Often, it's a young person at a particular time in their life.

Their emotional energy is creating this sort of force.

Clark Lowes: Can it, therefore, be the unconscious mind?

If the answer is no, then it's back to the drawing board.

And we shall have to consider seriously the possibility of matter other than normal, sources of energy other than normal, and perhaps even creation ex nihilo and a fourth dimension.

Pincott: The time came for questions, and one of the first to put his hand up was Maurice Grosse.

Uh, I am at the moment involved in a very interesting poltergeist case in Enfield, and I've been up three nights with it.

The phenomena itself has been flying marbles, flying LEGO bricks, uh, last night, a chair was shot across the r-room.

Four-foot, twice.

We have so many witnesses. We have police witnessing phenomena.

We also have, uh, four newspaper reporters who have seen it.

I mean, this is a most extraordinary case.

I think Mr. Grosse is certainly to be congratulated himself, in that the thing still seems to be there while he watches it.

I would like somebody to come along themselves.

It's in Enfield, it's not very far.

( stammers ) I'm getting to the point of exhaustion.

Pincott: Well, if there are any further volunteers, um, perhaps have a word with Maurice Grosse afterwards.

The lecture had finished, and people were dispersing.

Guy Playfair came up to him, they had a brief conversation, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Richard: Guy realized that my father was probably out of his depth, and the case needed a steady, experienced hand.

The two of them actually made rather a good team.

My father being the down-to-earth one, and Guy probably more of a spiritualist persuasion.

They shared an ambition to fully investigate what had been presented to them as basically a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

This is the tape recorded on the night of Wednesday, the 21st of September, 1977, at 284 Green Street in Enfield.

The Enfield poltergeist case.

I'm starting at approximately 10:00 p.m.

He was a very unusual man, Guy. I'd never met anyone like him.

His book called The Flying Cow, of all things, is a classic on Brazilian magic and the paranormal.

He seemed almost otherworldly, very pale, quietly spoken.

But when he got onto his subject, he knew about it.

You just have to record a vast amount of data to get the really worthwhile stuff.

I'm not saying there's supernatural, there's no such thing as supernatural.

If anything happens, it's natural, we just don't understand it.

It's like filming a story here tonight, innit?

With all the cameras.

Grosse: Absolutely.

We normally have this light on...

There's a little...

...and that one... Is that... Turn that light off.

This is... ( stammers ) Thi-This is the condition as we have it every night.

It's always light. We never operate in the dark.

( Peggy speaks indistinctly, sniffs )

Morris: They were saying that this has never really been proven photographically.

And they wanted me to stay on.

I wanted to stay on as well because it was such a fascinating occurrence.

All right, you can go to sleep... Go to sleep now.

( camera shutter clicks )

Morris: We'd spend the evenings sitting down in the lounge.

We had remote-triggered cameras.

Tape recorders running with a live audio feed to their room so we could hear what was going on and very well.

Very slight... Any creaking of floorboards.

Time is now ten minutes past 1:00.

I'm going to lie down for a bit and I'll leave the tape recorder running.

Microphone close to Janet's bed.

( Janet breathing deeply )

( floorboard creaks )

( screaming, wailing )

Margaret: Mr. Grosse!

Mr. Grosse!

( screaming )

Peggy: What's happening?

I found this curtain round her neck and it jumped out.

Grosse: The curtain jumped at her? Did you see it go?

Peggy: Come on, get out.

Janet.

I nearly suffocated.

Grosse: What wrapped round your neck?

Go to bed, Bill.

She slid under the bed, and the sheet went over her like that.

As though it was holding her down.

Grosse: Come on. Get up, Janet. You'll catch a cold.

Peggy: You know, I'm sure there's something in this house trying to kill her.

I swear it.

( breathing heavily )

( Grosse breathing heavily )

Leave them alone.

I'm watching you.

Leave the curtains alone.

I'm watching ya.

( camera shutter clicks )

( shutter clicks )

Morris: It's something about this girl.

There was something happening around Janet at this time.

Bence: She's an intelligent girl who was terrified.

There was something going on in that house that involved energies that I didn't understand, and, actually, the population at large doesn't understand.

Roz: One theory is that the focus person is piercing the veil between us and the spirit world, and they become like a radio for ghosts.

It seemed there must be something that is coming into the house, which is what Mrs. Hodgson said.

She felt there was something invisible watching them.

If there was an external force, it was... Seemed to be out to get Janet.

Paul: My dad and I, we used to spend quite a lot of nights upstairs supporting them.

Just being there.

I did feel there was something in that house that wasn't good.

I'm sitting on the stairways, on the wall there is a...

Oh, I don't know how to describe this.

Never seen anything like it.

A light.

It looks like an illumination.

It's about 12 inches long and... ( stammers ) ...uh, like a light.

Ooh, bloody hell.

Well, the temperature's... dropped.

It's a very weird sensation.

Like somebody's just walked over my grave.

The best I can describe is...

I'm not alone.

Grosse: Some of the incidents have been more suggestive of a haunting than of a poltergeist.

Such as the laughing, moaning and cries of a small child that have been heard from the top of the stairs.

Grosse: The time, 6:35.

Janet told me of an indentation of a human body on the bed.

Peggy: Well, I can tell you that no one's been upstairs since half past two.

I've said all the way along it's a child.

I've just got that feeling.

Janet: Listen, listen, listen. Guess what?

You know that little girl was killed over the road she was buried in Durants graveyard.

One minute... Remember it's being recorded, only speak one at a time please.

Mrs. Hodgson is now speaking.

Janet: Be quiet then.

There's a long, tall, brutal story behind that.

But he was a man that lived at Hunt's Mead across the way, that murdered his own daughter.

And she was only five or six years of age, and she was apparently found on the landing.

He strangled her.

Grosse: The father killed the...

I thought it might have some connection, you see?

Yes, well, not necessarily has any connection, but...

No.

...I'm interested in this particular story.

Mmm.

It was in the Gazette.

How did he kill her?

Peggy: I think he suffocated her.

Billy: Yeah, he put a cover over her when she was asleep.

Peggy: She was in bed.

Grosse: I see.

Peggy: And my ex-husband, he knew him.

He bought some stuff from the house and brought it over here.

And it wasn't until after he came into the house, I realized what the man had done.

I was in the house the day after she was buried.

Grosse: And you've had these in the house the whole time?

Yes.

And what were the articles you brought in?

Curtaining.

Pelmets.

Grosse: Pelmets.

There was a chair.

Glass cabinet.

This glass cabinet here and curtains?

Now, how long ago did you put them up?

Yes.

About a week before all this trouble started.

Grosse: A week before this trouble started.

Right.

Grosse: Wednesday, September the 28th.

Some of the furniture and curtains in 284 originally came from a house where a small child of five was murdered.

I suggested that the house be redecorated, new furniture brought in and the family all sleep together in the same room.

We are just measuring the rearranged bedroom, which now has all the beds put in the same room and the rest of the furniture put in the backroom.

Hmm.

Grosse: Most throwable objects removed from the room, except one radio, two books, a lamp, two dolls, one teddy bear and a cardboard box.

A much better arrangement.

Uh, where's... where's Billy sleeping?

( Janet chuckles, speaks indistinctly )

Um...

Grosse: With Margaret?

Margaret: He won't go in there.

You wanna go with Margaret?

Let him go over the far side.

( Margaret speaks indistinctly )

The only thing is if he starts any activity.

That's what I'm saying, right? You go in the small bed, Margaret.

Trust you to say that.

Janet: Yes.

Now, you two have been arguing ever since you come back from the shops this afternoon.

Margaret: Right, Mum.

I don't really mind where I sleep as long as I get...

Margaret: Well, you won't get no disturbance, will ya?

Hope you know the tape recorder's on.

newscaster on TV: London funeral workers were pleased with the turnout on the picket lines today.

Their week-old work-to-rule has already led to delays of up to two weeks of burials in some London areas, and there are fears for health where bodies have to be left in the home.

newscaster 2: That's the news tonight. Good night.

It's, uh, 10:30.

News at Ten has just ended.

And, um, I think I'll turn the tape over now.

Richard: My father and Guy spent endless hours there, day in, day out.

I would come home, and he'd be going out at two or three o'clock in the morning to go to Enfield.

Every day there would be a tape recording.

( tape recorder chatter )

Every moment, every hour was different.

( sighs )

Grosse: Ten minutes past two.

( hissing )

Mr. Grosse, come here.

The camera wire's moving and there's handle moving round on that drawer.

See that top drawer...

Janet: Yeah, have a look.

Grosse: Yeah.

Peggy: That knob thing this side.

Yes.

Peggy: I saw the wire move, and I saw that handle move slightly.

Did you?

Janet: Yeah.

I can see the wire moving now myself.

Peggy: You see it?

Grosse: Yes.

The wire coming down from the...

The camera... is vibrating on its own.

Very vigorously.

That's very strange.

As I'm watching it, it's vibrating.

Keep perfectly still, Margaret.

( knocking )

Mr. Grosse, there's knocking on the wall.

( knocking continues )

Where is it coming from?

Where?

Billy: From the chimney.

Grosse: Coming from the chimney?

Billy: Yes, I heard it.

Janet: Mr. Grosse.

( knocking )

( knocking continues )

Peggy: Lay down. Keep quite still.

( children whimpering )

( screaming )

Peggy: Oh, my God!

Janet: Oh, no!

Peggy: Hurry up, Mr. Grosse!

( screaming continues )

Janet, hold my hand.

What happened? Go on, tell me what happened.

( screaming )

Grosse: Wednesday, October the 26th.

( clears throat )

Margaret said a metal part from the fireplace moved slowly across the room before it dropped, to hit the camp bed occupied by Billy.

( sighs, clears throat )

Playfair: The entire gas fireplace was wrenched out of the wall.

Bending the half-inch brass pipe 33 degrees.

I heard that and I recorded it.

It landed on the bed, just by the head of the boy.

If this thing had hit him, he would have been killed.

Pincott: That must have been a what... 10 kilos... 15 kilos of ironware?

Now where's that energy coming from?

What worried me and unsettled me was the fact that it was uncontrolled.

( water running )

Grosse: It appears that high stress triggers the phenomena.

I think the lack of sleep has been the hardest thing to contend with.

Mrs. Hodgson is regularly taking sleeping pills.

And Janet is so exhausted that she appears to be in a complete daze.

Grosse: What?

Nothing.

There must have been something.

My mum.

I keep on thinking about Mum.

In what way?

Nothing will happen to your mum. Perfectly all right.

It gets on my mind here.

If I was far away, it would be much better.

Richard: As tough as Janet was... And she was a tough little girl...

You know, things got on top of her.

And, uh, he was very aware of that and very upset about it.

Grosse: I'm convinced that the only way to stop the activity is to reduce the tension existing in the Hodgson family.

( bell rings )

And to get them away from Green Street.

I asked for a meeting with officials from Enfield Council, Welfare and Social Services, together with the teachers at Janet's new school.

Can I ask, please, whether the family are aware that we're having this case conference?

teacher 2: Yes.

You did ring the headmaster...

Grosse: Yes.

...and express, um, your wish to attend.

Grosse: Yeah.

Well, I have spoken to the headmaster at length.

But, uh, you must accept what I'm saying to you in good faith.

Everything is happening there, furniture is turning over, marbles are being thrown.

It seems to draw its power from tensions created and there's certainly plenty of tension in that family.

( clears throat ) Yeah. Well, Janet... ( stammers ) ...has been our new first year.

And, um, she comes here very, very worn out.

She has a bad night, and she's too tired to work very often at 9 o'clock in the morning.

So we allow her to sleep in-in the medical room.

I think she gets three or four hours' sleep.

And tha... that... that's our side of it.

Well, as I say, it breeds on this particular type of tension.

In poltergeist phenomena, it is very common for the...

For the thing to get on top of them.

And I hate to think what the next thing's gonna be.

You know, I would say a priority is to get the people out of the environment.

A holiday may be the answer.

Well, we have no holidays available.

We don't have the funds for it.

Hmm.

( "Summerlove Sensation" playing )

Paul: For Janet... the anxiety... The worry must have been tremendous.

And I think there's only a few people who were aware of that.

I think Maurice.

And I think he must have helped out with the holiday, definitely.

It was so suffocating, so they went there for... Just to get away from it all.

( children laughing, shouting )

( song ends )

Grosse: Today, November the first, I received a card from Mrs. Hodgson, saying that there had been no incidents since they arrived in Clacton.

But the next-door neighbor, Mrs. Nottingham, says they were awakened at 2:00 a.m. with many raps and bangs.

The house was empty.

reporter: Bonfires were lit throughout the length and breadth of the country.

A 30-foot-high bonfire had been built by local scout groups and in the evening it was lit by the mayor of Harrow.

Grosse: Saturday, November the fifth.

The family have arrived back from their week in Clacton.

They enjoyed their holiday very much and were reluctant to return.

Peggy: See here.

There's clean clothes on there.

I'll have to put those away tomorrow.

Grosse on tape recorder: Saturday, November the fifth. 9:50.

Margaret: Good night, Peggy.

Janet: Good night, Peggy.

Margaret: Night night.

Peggy: Don't faff about now because the tape's on.

Janet: Peggy's coming.

Peggy: Janet.

Margaret gasps: Oh, no.

Five minutes to ten.

Family have just gone to bed.

Apparently we've already had knocks.

Maurice is up there with Mrs. Hodgson and the two girls all in the front room.

Maurice is going to attempt communication with the entity.

( Janet shushes )

What? What, you heard it knocking?

Roz: The knocking's on the wall, is something quite extraordinary.

I went back there several times and heard it.

( knocking )

It was very insistent.

Like someone's knocking to come in.

I-It is November the fifth and there's a lot of noise going on outside.

It gets a little confusing.

Will you knock back?

Did you hear what I was saying?

I-I'm knocking now.

( knocks )

( faint knocking )

( gasps )

There's now a knocking back. It's very weak knocking.

Can you knock louder? One for 'no, ' two for 'yes.'

( fireworks explode )

( knocking )

That's two.

Why are you here?

Is it because you want to give us a special message?

Two knocks for 'yes'... Do it again, please.

Do you want to give me a special message?

( knocking )

You do?

( knocking )

( gasps )

I can feel the vibrations from the knocking on the floor very, very clearly indeed.

Vibration is quite heavy.

The knocking is actually moving backwards and forwards, underneath the bed, across the room and back again.

This is quite extraordinary.

Here, obviously, is a soul who is lost.

And, um...

She really probably doesn't know how to go.

This is something I've got to find out.

Did you die in this house?

One for 'no, ' and two for 'yes.'

( fireworks exploding )

Janet gasps: What's going on?

( Grosse shushes )

( knocking )

Was that three?

Are you having a game with me?

( Janet yelps )

( groans ) Crikey!

Peggy: Mr. Grosse.

As I asked the question, "Are you having a game with me?" it threw the cardboard box right at my face.

Paul: What's a ghost?

I don't know.

Is it physical?

I don't know.

Who'd you go to for help?

Butler: We pray that those in darkness may be made to see the light.

We ask your blessing upon this, our meeting together.

In the name of the Lord Jesus, amen.

Maisie Besant and Edwin Butler at 284 Green Street, Enfield.

I'll just put this a little nearer.

Besant: Yeah.

Playfair: I don't want to miss anything.

Besant: Right.

Richard: Guy, through his experiences in Brazil, wanted to bring in a medium because he believed the medium could ameliorate the situation.

My father was more skeptical but because so many things had opened up to him, he was never going to dismiss anything.

Maybe there are people who are gifted.

Maybe so much is out there, um, and it's always out there, it's just very few people can reach out and see it or feel it or experience it.

Besant: Be still, quiet.

We have got... some entities here.

Speak, entity.

( breathing heavily )

( groaning )

( laughing )

( groaning continues )

( breathing heavily )

Take a look in the mirror.

( whimpering )

Butler: We want to straighten you out.

You try coming in here again and you'll feel that burn again.

( whimpers )

Stay away from this place.

I'll kill you. I'll kill all of you. I'll kill you.

( breathing heavily )

Your predominant desire is to get rid of them.

Cast them out. Hmm?

That's it.

Besant: Out.

If we go there, we shall have a war on our hands. Hmm.

It is centered so much round this one.

Huh? Mmm.

The child is highly sensitive.

And she needs help.

Janet: Mr. Grosse! Mr. Grosse!

( shouting, groans )

What do you want, Janet?

Mr. Grosse!

( mumbling )

Help!

Grosse: What do you want?

Mr. Grosse!

Yes? Yes, yes, what do you want, Janet?

( groaning )

She's written on the paper, "The ghost is in the bedroom...

( shouting )

...this time no warning."

Mr. Grosse! Mr. Grosse!

Mr. Grosse!

( "Sound of the Suburbs" playing )

Source: https://tvshowtranscripts.ourboard.org/viewtopic.php?f=2083&t=66298

Episode 2 - Forces Unknown

The.Enfield.Poltergeist.S01E02.720p.ATVP.WEBRip.x264-GalaxyTV.mkv

Transcript - The Enfield Poltergeist – Forces Unknown - Season 1, Episode 2

The frightening occurrences seem to target 11-year-old Janet. As word spreads, psychic investigators and physicists flock to the house.

( whirring )

( overlapping tape recorder chatter )

Grosse: Would you like to talk to me? Don't forget.

One for no and two for yes.

( wall thuds twice )

Grosse: 284 Green Street.

Inexplicable events personally experienced by Maurice Grosse.

( children screaming )

One.

Marbles and plastic pieces seen in high-speed transit.

And there was a chest of drawers moving towards the door.

Grosse: Two. A chair in the bedroom...

Roz: A chair which was standing by Janet's bed appears to have moved.

( children screaming, chattering )

I went up the stairs, and as I went up the stairs, this knock followed me.

Banging on the side of the walls and on the ceiling.

On the floor.

( Janet screaming, wailing )

You know, I'm sure there's something in this house trying to kill her. I swear it.

We have got some entities here.

And we shall have to consider seriously the possibility of matter other than normal, sources of energy other than normal, and perhaps even creation ex nihilo and a fourth dimension.

( thud )

radio announcer: LBC on 261. Pass it on.

radio presenter: We're talking about poltergeists because rather a spooky story about the family who's living in fear of strange goings-on that are driving them from their home.

With me is Mr. Maurice Grosse.

And you're at pains to mention that it's not an evil spirit, but do you believe in the fact...

I mean, I'm thinking of films like The Exorcist where an evil spirit can get into a child and make it do the most extraordinary things.

Does that sort of thing happen?

Carr: Round about the 1970s, there was a gradual buildup of-of interest in these phenomena.

On the entertainment side, the subject was becoming more topical.

The Exorcist narrator: Somewhere between science and superstition, there is another world.

( gasps )

The world of darkness.

It was The Exorcist movie that's directly related, I suppose, in some sense, to Enfield.

The Exorcist narrator: Something beyond comprehension is happening to a little girl on this street, in this house.

child: No! Please, don't! No, please!

Pazuzu shouting indistinctly: Do it!

I wouldn't tell me wife to go and see it anyway.

( grunts )

Well, I just found it really horrible.

I just had to come out. I couldn't take anymore.

I believe. ( chuckles ) I believe.

But the mainstream view was still that these phenomena couldn't really be real.

radio presenter: Let's go back to the calls.

We're talking to the people who've been suffering from these poltergeists.

Next on the line is Hilda from Wandsworth.

Hilda: When I came down the stairs, I-I would be lifted up and placed down.

I was absolutely terrified to mention it to...

caller 1: The milk bottle lifted itself up and moved, uh, two or three yards to the settee and stood straight up on the...

caller 2: It's quite possible that, um, disasters such as aircraft accidents could be inspired by subconsciously wanting something to happen.

radio presenter: Hmm. Interesting call. Maurice Grosse is with us.

He's a member of the Society for Psychical Research.

Grosse: We tried to investigate it in scientific terms as far as possible.

And my personal view is that it won't be very many years now before people begin to accept the paranormal as normal.

We're only just touching the tip of the iceberg.

interviewer: What sort of a case is this in your experience?

Well, I think this is probably the best case this century.

In fact, as far as documentation is concerned, it may be the best case of all time.

Grosse: Fortunately, we have tape recorders.

Now tape recorders for the assessment of evidence is the best instrument you can possibly have because it is non-selective.

You don't have to point it, you don't have to stay with it, you turn it on and you leave it.

And whatever you pick up, you hope you picked up what you were looking for.

Carr: The Society for Psychical Research were interested in the possibility that there might be evidence for some new force of nature.

( Janet yelps )

Grosse on recorder grunts: Crikey!

As I asked the question, "Are you having a game with me?"

The SPR was a wonderfully... very friendly, but very fuddy-duddy organization.

The vast majority of the people there were elderly men interested in finding evidence of the paranormal, evidence of life after death, evidence that spirits carry on.

When we talk about assessment of evidence, I'm now talking about the assessment of real phenomena.

Not theoretical phenomena. Real phenomena.

Because that's what I specialize in, the real stuff.

Blackmore: Maurice was... ( stammers ) ...absolutely committed.

He really wanted people to... ( stammers ) to know.

Blackmore: You might imagine there are lots of poltergeists around, but there aren't that many.

And when one comes up that lasts more than a couple of days and has things that can potentially be tested, people rushed off there.

From the SPR's point of view, was this a genuine case?

Grosse: November 1977.

Visit by Tony Cornell, Alan Gauld, and Bernard Carr, of the SPR.

I'm not particularly psychically sensitive, so I'm not like a medium that would go into a building and immediately feel, "Oh, there's something... something here."

I wasn't even an experienced investigator of poltergeists.

( stammers ) I was very young. I was just a... a beginner.

On the other hand, Tony Cornell and Alan Gauld were the most experienced ghost hunters, if you like, in the world.

( Grosse )

Yes, you come up, boys.

( Hodgson family, SPR members chattering )

Paul: As time went on, you got this complete thoroughfare of people coming to your home.

( Grosse )

Paul: You got lots of people judging you.

Questioning you. Criticizing you, maybe.

"Well, you didn't see that." "How did that happen?"

"You sure that happened?" Questioning.

That's gonna be wearing on anybody.

( Grosse )

( Peggy )

Right.

( children shout, gasp )

Grosse: What's happened then?

Janet: The... The pillow just jumped over me.

Janet was laying... ( speaks indistinctly )

Grosse: Now how did that... While you were watching how did the pillow go?

Well, Janet moved, and the pillow shot right over.

Like this?

Yes.

This?

Yes.

We'll just go outside again...

Yes.

And listen and see what happens.

( Cornell )

Margaret: Mmm.

( sniffs )

Carr: During the time I was there with Tony and Alan, we did hear bumps.

The children were-were falling out of bed and things were moving around, but only when none of us were in-in the room where the phenomena were occurring.

And so, we couldn't be sure from... from... from the evening we spent there, that it wasn't just the children.

Pincott: Most of the senior members of the society were academics.

In the opinion of many, only academics were thought capable of carrying out a decent, impartial investigation.

The academics were old money, if you like.

Maurice and Guy were, as they called it in those days, trade.

Grosse: The establishment acts like three wise monkeys, "I see nothing, I hear nothing, I say nothing."

( children clamoring, crying )

( Hodgson family speaking indistinctly )

Grosse: This time it's hit the light very hard, and the light's gone out.

Grant: The reason Dad got involved with the Society for Psychical Research was because it was the only scientific institution that... that was trying to look into these phenomena.

Dad was always very interested in science, that's the career he wanted to follow.

And then, of course, the war took away six very important years.

He was 20 when he joined up.

He was at Dunkirk.

He never really spoke about what happened in the war.

And when he came out, he went to work in one of his father's confectioner shops.

Richard: He managed to escape that life.

By chance, he and two friends won the pools.

£3,000 each.

Grant: In the mid-1960s, it was a lot of money.

Richard: Enough for him to get out of the shop and start his own business.

And that's what he did.

The dream of all poster advertisers is to be able to sell one space more than once.

He created a poster advertising machine.

You could have 32 posters in this one box.

He's no fool.

Grosse: My opinion is that, if this was anything other than a paranormal investigation, the verdict would be overwhelmingly in favor of activities of forces unknown.

And as this is a paranormal investigation, we must press on for 101% proof.

party guests: ♪ Happy birthday to you ♪
♪ Happy birthday to you ♪
♪ Happy birthday, dear Janet ♪
♪ Happy birthday to you ♪

( cheering )

Peggy cheering: Well, blow it out, blow 'em out.

( "Daddy Cool" playing )

( family, guests clamoring )

Oh, I saw that go.

Peggy: What was that?

I believe the kettle.

Peggy: Oh, it's started.

I'll wash out the kettle.

Enfield, November the 10th, 1977.

It's the... ( screams )

Peggy: Now the chair gone over.

The red chair has turned over backwards.

Yeah, she-she was... She was like this on it.

Like that over it.

Grosse: Janet was sit... Janet was sitting on it at the time it was thrown over backwards.

I'll sort it out.

Paul: Janet was sitting on the chair, and the chair moved across the room.

Grosse: St-Steady on. Steady on. Calm down.

Paul: And her feet did not touch the ground.

And she was really, um, screaming.

It was really scary but unexplained.

Grosse: It just threw Janet off the chair, absolutely in front of me, and I saw her go flying off the chair.

At the moment, the people in the room are Mrs. Nottingham, Margaret, Janet, Mrs. Hodgson, Billy, Paul, and myself.

And it's activating like mad.

( rumbling )

( screams, groaning )

It just tipped over the settee in front of us all in the room here.

Peggy: Oh, Christ. Come on.

Let's all calm down, shall we?

It's so easy for someone who's not experienced it or seen it to say, "Oh, it's not real."

You... You, particularly. I want you to calm down, right?

Listen, whatever you are, we're not frightened of you.

We're gonna keep on putting everything straight every time you do anything.

Grosse: Well, it's definitely worse. It's the worst I've ever seen.

I've never... ( speaks indistinctly )

No.

Peggy: I've never seen anything like it.

Grosse: We have tried everything in our power to stop the phenomena but to no avail.

The situations we are encountering simply cannot be explained when referred to the accepted laws of physics.

Carr: At the time of the Enfield case, physicists, people like John Hasted started getting interested in the phenomena.

At least a few physicists began to think, "Well, maybe some of these anomalous interactions involving mind and the physical world, maybe they can be described by physics after all."

Pincott: John Hasted was Professor of Physics at Birkbeck College in the University of London.

I'm Hasted, physicist.

I work on these things, and I can speak as a person who thinks that many of these effects are well on the way to validation.

I think it is going to be absolutely central in the next 20, 30 years.

Professor Hasted, like me, wanted to know, actually, what was going on, what the physics was.

What is the nature of physical reality?

That was our key driving motivation.

Pincott: John Hasted sprang on the psychical research scene with the appearance of the metal-benders.

So, the camera will see that, um, there...

You can see that there's no pressure.

None whatsoever.

And I'm doing it on the thin side of the fork, that if it bends it will...

Pincott: In the early 1970s, Uri Geller had surprised audiences all around the world with his paranormal metal bending.

Uri: Do you feel anything in yours, under your fingers, happening now?

Uh-oh, wait.

TV show guest: What's happening?

I already feel something.

TV show guest: You can feel it in your fingertips, can you?

Uri: Well, I can feel the metal cracking slowly.

Ah, well. There it is.

( gasps ) Ah. There it is.

It's over there.

Where is it?

( laughs )

Blackmore: The effect was very dramatic.

I mean, that led people like John Hasted and other physicists to start to investigate.

Hasted: Not bad. Not bad.

Blackmore: He thought that if bending metal by the power of the mind was possible... if there is any telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, precognition, poltergeist, any of these things... that would be dramatic alteration in...

In our understanding of physics.

And I think that's what he was expecting and hoping to find with the Enfield poltergeist.

Hasted: Now the other one.

Grosse: Janet is clearly the epicenter.

Does her mind have powers we have overlooked?

TV show host: It was three days ago since Uri was on Monday's Blue Peter and calls are still coming in from people about strange things that have been happening to their knives, forks and spoons.

We've got some people with us today in the studio with some unusual spoons and forks that, uh, strange things have happened to, like Allison down there at the end.

What have you got there, love? You've got the fork?

Um, what's happening after the program...

Robertson: Hasted asked whether I could go up to the house to, um, be an extra hand to assist with the case.

Grosse: Come in, David.

We're in the living room now, in 284.

( Grosse )

Robertson: Most people do not have experience of the paranormal.

It's very rare.

What, something like one in a million can actually do physical things.

The other 999,000 have got no experience of it at all.

So, what reason have they got to believe that it actually exists?

We took up a strain gauge that was attached to a metal spoon, then that goes to amplifiers... and then the amplifiers go to a chart recorder.

It's basically measuring any bending.

Small changes in length of the metal.

What you do is encourage her to bend the metal.

This went on for about 20, 25 minutes.

The signals built up in strength.

The sensor actually physically bent...

( sensor whirring )

.. then finally broke without any touch.

Janet could produce the signals more or less on command.

My impression was that she was sort of mentally in touch with what was happening with some of the physical phenomena.

It was sort of responsive to her internal state.

Grosse: Can the subconscious mind actively affect its physical surroundings?

Throw things about?

Bend metal?

Is the mind just a product of the biology of the brain?

Or is it a quite separate spiritual entity?

Blackmore: How does mind fit in a world of matter?

That is the question I think has threaded all through this.

Grosse: I think I have studied and listened to practically every theory that's been put forward over the last century.

But I do not find any of them very convincing.

Richard: My father was a thinker, something of a philosopher.

He was always interested in the infinitely small, the infinitely large.

For example, he created a box which was only an inch-and-a-half thick, and you would look into this box, and you would see into infinity.

Grant: It's a mirror within a mirror within a mirror within a mirror.

Going back and back and back and back and back forever.

Just suppose the mind could control matter.

The implications would be tremendous.

Imagine if you could explode an enemy's atom bombs merely by concentrating on the trigger mechanism.

So, some scientists have taken this subject seriously.

They've devised ingenious experiments to find the truth.

Morris: Janet seemed to be the center of everything.

There's this force that's following her around and doing all this stuff.

And I was sort of thinking, well, something has to be done definitively to photograph whatever's happening in that house.

A lot of the photographs I was taking were quite mundane.

I wanted to get the thing moving, flying, falling over, whatever.

It was almost as if whatever this thing was was outsmarting you.

You just had to try and get one step ahead, but you never did.

Uh, I liken this to a game of chess, where the poltergeist makes a move, and we make a countermove.

The essence of the phenomena is a mischievousness.

Morris: One night, I set up the cameras in the corner of the room.

I'm downstairs, we're listening to a live feed on a tape recorder.

And I've got a 25-meter cable that I can hit and trigger the camera.

Suddenly we heard...

( thud )

.. and I'm thinking, "What the fսck was that?"

I hit the button and taken a sequence of pictures.

( children screaming )

( Janet breathes heavily )

Peggy: Janet!

Where is she?

Morris stutters: It was only by processing these the following day that we... ( stammers ) got to realize the true extent of... of what was happening.

Where she was actually flying across the room and crashing down just inside the door.

You could see that Janet has come from prone in the bed, covered up, to upright.

The thing just runs six frames a second.

So, when the pictures were taken, they were at least a sixth of a second between... between each frame.

There's not one picture of her climbing up or moving the covers down to get her legs out, or anything.

She's gone from that to that in a sixth of a second.

All I know is I triggered the camera remotely when I heard the noise.

I wasn't in the room at the time. I didn't see it.

As to what it is, I've absolutely no idea.

Just have to let the pictures speak for themselves.

Grosse: Time, ten minutes past 1:00, 3rd of December.

This time, Janet was thrown right out of the room, onto the stairs.

Try and explain to me what happened. Yeah.

I was in bed, lying down.

And my arms went up like this.

So, then I felt something pull my arm.

And I was pulled out of bed...

You were pulled up by your arms.

.. dragged over there, and fe...

You were dragged along the floor?

Yeah, and I was lifting... No.

What, running? Were you running?

How were you going?

Dragged.

Dragged. Yeah. To where? To where?

Like this. Like-Like this.

Dragged out.

She's showing being pulled forward with her hands together.

Robertson: It was getting to the point where they felt it was out of control.

They couldn't really handle it.

Grosse: This evening I visited Professor Hasted for advice.

Although it is very rare for any person to be seriously hurt from poltergeist incidents, I'm concerned that there could be an accident.

Robertson: Hasted asked me to try and find ways to help the family.

The poltergeist case is a situation where this particular mental state becomes intense.

Hasted suggested that it can actually break through into something beyond our physical reality, and... ( stammers ) ...the energy from it manifests in a physical way.

Grosse: Interview with David Robertson.

Okay.

Um, yesterday morning I took Janet up to the top bedroom where lots of phenomena appeared to happen.

( children screaming )

What's happened there?

Janet: The window!

Robertson: Uh, she described how she was floating about the room.

Margaret screams: She's still going.

( screaming )

I could hear moving, but I was outside the room, of course.

What's happening now?

( Margaret, Janet screaming )

I can't get in. There's a... ( stammers ) .. a really strong force pushing the door.

( screaming )

Of course, all this time, there had been a group of people outside who have actually witnessed what was happening.

Some of the people outside the house witnessed Janet levitating horizontally, up in front of the window, and the curtains were billowing into the room.

Grosse: Following is an interview with Mrs. Hazel Short the woman who looks after crossing of the children.

( Hazel )

And that was followed by a pillow.

Then I see young Janet.

And I could see her going up and down, up and down in front of the window.

Uh, she was curved, as though somebody...

Grosse: Picking her up?

Yeah.

So she was actually curved. So, uh...

Well, that's what she looked like to me 'cause she could...

Uh, remember, I was standing down here, looking up.

Grosse: The following is a statement made to me by Mr. John Rainbow, tradesman of Chatsworth Drive, Enfield, Middlesex.

( Grosse )

( Rainbow )

( stutters )

( Grosse )

Robertson: These are paranormal things that are happening in the neighborhood.

There are actual independent witnesses who saw physical phenomena.

Grosse: This is evidence not just seen by people involved in the case, but by outsiders.

And it all begins to tie together.

( breathes deeply )

( children screaming, clamoring )

Grosse: Consider the idea that we actually exist in various dimensions.

Perhaps thousands, millions of dimensions.

I'm beginning to wonder if we live in many worlds at the same time.

Hasted: Well, we would have to conceive of people's minds being able to have contact with these other dimensions.

Because if all of us believe only in three dimensions, then we'll never see anything extraordinary.

But once we have contact and can persuade other minds also to see this other parallel universe... it may just be a very good formulation for movement and disappearance of atoms.

television host: If people could really spirit objects merely by thinking about them, surely, by this time, spies and bank robbers would've perfected the technique.

Yet if there's one thing we've learned, nature never cheats, but some people do.

They bend the evidence, and that's something that scientists often forget.

And there's no heat at all. Just touch it.

( whistling )

( whistling continues )

Grosse: Saturday, December the 10th.

I arrived at 284 at 7:05 p.m. to be greeted by whistling.

( whistling )

( whistling continues )

( Grosse )

( whistling )

I... I might be... ( speaks indistinctly ) ...the trajectory.

( whistling continues )

This whistling, uh, that's going on now, is paranormal whistling.

Uh, absolutely nobody here is whistling at all.

Billy can't whistle and neither can Margaret.

( whistling continues )

Richard: I was 25 years old, a young lawyer.

And before I went off to work in the morning, I would come down to breakfast and my mother and father would be there.

And my father, every morning, would delight in telling me what had happened the night before.

And I went through day after day of banging's, and knocking's, and screaming, and shouting, and things happening.

Grosse: Time is 10:17.

If there's any entity here, you're welcome.

Please talk directly into the microphone.

You're welcome. Please talk directly into the microphone.

If you cannot do that, please knock on the table or make any other appropriate noise.

Richard: He kept on badgering me. "Why don't you come? Why aren't you interested in coming to the house to see what's happening?"

I said, "Dad, I'm really not interested."

I was what you would call a complete skeptic.

Then I made a concession to him.

I said, "Look, Dad, if this thing ever talks, and can talk to me, I will go."

So one morning, he triumphantly switched on the tape recorder, and he said to me, "Listen to this."

Grosse: Time is 24 minutes past 10:00.

Saturday, December the 10th.

Peggy: Right, are we all in bed?

Margaret: Yes, we are all in bed.

( grunting )

Peggy: Blimey.

Where'd that noise come from?

Margaret: By the wall.

Grosse: Where about?

Where Janet's sleeping.

( entity barking )

Grosse: Under Janet's bed.

Margaret: Yeah.

Seems to be saying it to me.

( entity barking )

Where'd that come from?

Over there. Near your tape recorder.

Near the tape recorder?

Peggy: What it sounded like to me.

From that side of the room, definitely.

Grosse: All right, so it didn't go anywhere near Janet?

No.

Grosse: Right then.

( entity barks )

Grosse: That last noise...

That bark came well away from Janet.

At least six foot away from Janet, and six foot away from Margaret.

( entity barks )

( entity growls, whimpers )

Margaret: Ooh, I don't like that noise.

( entity barks )

( shouts )

Come on. You whistle. You can bark. You can speak. I want to hear you speak.

( entity barks, whimpers )

No, come on, you can do better than barking like a dog.

I want to hear you speak.

Let's have a name. Somebody's name.

Anybody here.

See if you can say my name, "Maurice."

entity barks: Maurice!

( gasps ) Is that it?

Grosse: Come on. Try "Maurice."

entity: Maurice!

( Janet whimpering, inhales sharply )

Richard: I heard this sound.

It went, "Maurice!" Just like that. "Maurice!"

Grosse: Try again.

entity: Grosse!

It said, "Grosse."

Grosse: Did it say, "Grosse"?

entity: Grosse!

Richard: It spoke.

Grosse: Now... Now can you tell me your name?

Tell me what your name is.

I'm Bill.

Peggy: Bill.

Grosse: Bill?

Peggy: I'm getting...

Grosse: Scared?

Have you got another name?

Bill: Wilkinson.

Janet, Grosse: "Wilkinson."

Now, I'm going to ask you another question.

Did you die in this house?

Bill: Yes!

Richard: I was dumbstruck.

And I said to him, "Okay, Dad. ( sighs ) I'll... I'll go."

( footsteps approaching )

I arrived at this house in Enfield.

I was then invited to go upstairs.

The door to the room was slightly ajar.

I thought to myself, "I'm gonna look through at Janet and see what she's up to."

And as soon as that thought had gone into my head, the voice said...

Bill: Shut the fսck¡ng door!

Richard: Read my mind.

And then it said to me, "You can come in, but you must stand by the wall and look at the wall."

Bill: I'm Bill Wilkinson... and I died 15 years ago.

I come from Durants Park graveyard.

Bill: I have come here to see my family.

Richard: And I thought, "I'm having a conversation with a discarnate voice, which is strange, but I suppose it behooves me as a lawyer to ask him some questions."

Bill?

I want you to tell me whether you... you remember what happened to you when you died.

Bill: I had an hemorrhage, and I fell asleep, and I died in a chair in a corner downstairs.

interviewer: And what do you make of that?

( breathes deeply )

Um, that I witnessed and spoke to a ghost.

Janet: Your name?

Bill: Shut up.

Janet: No, your name?

Bill: Shut up, you. Shut up.

Richard: Yeah.

( Bill speaks indistinctly, grunting )

Bill: Get out of here, you... ( speaks indistinctly )

( Bill, Janet speaks indistinctly )

Grosse: It's not the children. It's too quick. It's too sharp.

( Bill speaks indistinctly )

Grosse: It just doesn't fit.

( Bill speaking indistinctly )

Grosse: There's a certain change of tone, from normal tone to this voice.

Bill: I come to see my wife but then she weren't here...

Grosse: Though it appears to come from Janet, and sometimes Margaret...

( Bill speaking indistinctly )

.. when we listen to our recordings over and over again...

( Bill speaking indistinctly )

I get the strong impression that there is another personality at work.

Bill: I don't know.

I'm doing exercises on Janet's bed. ( panting )

Hasted: When you hear the voice, and it comes out, where does it come from?

Here, your throat?

No.

Hasted: Where do you feel it comes from?

Back of the neck.

Mmm, the back of the neck.

Hasted: And so, it must be as if it's somebody else speaking then when you hear it?

Yeah. Behind us.

Hasted: And do you get the feeling, when you hear the voice, that there is a person there?

Margaret: Yes.

Bill: Yeah.

Hasted: Is that the voice now?

Yeah.

Hasted: Is anybody there?

Nothing. No.

No.

It doesn't always do it to order.

No, it doesn't. It goes in spasms.

Like, we're talking now. It may not now, after you've said that, but it won't do it when you want it to.

Hasted: Is anybody there?

Who's there?

( Bill grunts )

Bill: Ghost-chaser's here.

Hasted: Tell me about that.

( chuckles )

Roz: Professor John Hasted and David Robinson recorded the voice on a special thing called a laryngograph.

( speaks indistinctly )

They found that the voices were produced not in the normal way as we are talking now, but... ( stammers ) ...from what are called the false vocals folds which are a... ( stammers ) bit further up from the larynx.

They discovered that... ( stammers ) these voices were not produced normally.

Janet used to say, "It's doing this. It's doing that."

Something was using her.

Bill: I can go on for blinking hours.

Hasted: Don't you ever get a sore throat, Janet?

No. Yeah.

Hasted: Sure?

Hasted: You never get pain in the back of the neck or something?

No.

To keep up this particular type of voice for any length of time without damage to the vocal cords is absolutely impossible.

I mean, there must be some hoarseness attached to it.

But don't forget, these children don't do this for a couple of minutes or so.

They do it for lengths of periods up to three hours.

And without any hoarseness or sore throats whatsoever.

Grosse: What we have done is amass good evidence for activity that has no known physical or psychological explanation.

We now have irrefutable proof that the majority of the manifestations encountered are of a nature not explicable by orthodox science.

Pincott: The international conference at Cambridge on the Enfield poltergeist, presented by Maurice Grosse and Guy Playfair.

And it was an excellent presentation, followed by much discussion and controversy.

host: Now, Mr. Grosse is going to speak first.

( audience applauding )

Grosse: Can you hear all right, by the way?

Can you all hear? Yes? Good.

I'm Maurice Grosse, and my colleague below is Guy Lyon Playfair.

Blackmore: The annual SPR conferences were great.

I went to every one for a couple of decades, at least.

Grosse: ...is to give a brief, brief...

And the Enfield poltergeist, of course, was... ( blows ) you know, for a few years, w-was-was big deal.

On December the 10th, one of the girls began to speak in a voice resembling that of an old man.

Each of us subsequently recorded many hours of what we tentatively term, "automatic speech."

Grosse, through recorder: Now... Now, can you tell me your name?

Tell me what your name is.

Bill through recorder: I'm Bill.

Grosse: Do you know you're dead?

Bill: Shut up!

Grosse: Now, tell me, what are you doing here, and why are you here?

Bill: Shall I tell you really who I am?

I must remind you that's an 11-year-old girl.

Yes, I'd... ( speaking indistinctly )

Carr: I wasn't so impressed with the voices...

( Bill speaks indistinctly )

because, I mean, it was a deep voice.

It wasn't the normal voice of Janet, for example, but it wasn't clear to me that Janet couldn't be producing the voice.

Carr: Grosse and Playfair were convinced this was the...

You know, the case of the century.

Some of the members of the SPR w-were rather skeptical.

( speaks indistinctly ) I'd like to answer that one.

We are observers and we are presenting facts the only way we know.

And we believe this is the first time ever that a poltergeist case has been in-investigated in such depth.

Blackmore: I've got my diary, and it says, "The symposium was boring. What a shambles.

Tapes of little girls woofing et cetera, et cetera.

A quick drink and then back to think about my own paper for tomorrow."

I'm afraid it didn't make very much impression on me. ( chuckles )

Grosse: In this case, we have 1500, at least, episodes.

And I myself... I will stick my chin out and say 1490 of them cannot be called into question at all unless somebody is prepared to stand up and call us either fools or liars. That's is all.

It is very interesting in that clip that Maurice says, "Are you calling us either fools or liars."

As far as he's concerned, those are the only options.

The real point is you need investigators who are going to ask pertinent questions.

And that's what Anita brought to it.

First of all, I think it's very, very difficult to be neutral about a case like this.

I find it very difficult.

I can't say, but I share a feeling of our very devoted investigators.

Blackmore: I always got on really well with Anita.

( stammers ) She had an interest in psychology.

She had interests in all sorts of things. But she was very open-minded.

So, look, for instance, the little dialogue we heard between Maurice and whatever it was.

It was an element of a game in this.

I feel that the investigators, the subjects, that family all play a part in somehow creating this situation.

I have continually challenged everybody to tell me how this girl does it if she does do it deliberately.

And nobody, nobody has been able to come up with an answer.

I'd like to say, uh, as Maurice just said that we are interested in the genuine stuff, and some of you simply must accept the possibility that the phenomenon for which this society was founded do actually exist.

member 1: We do.

Now, if that changes your...

member 2: Well, it could be challenged.

( chuckles )

Yes, couldn't we? I'm sick of it. Yeah.

host speaks indistinctly: ...stop it. Anyway, we are running out of time.

And... ( clears throat )

Blackmore: Anita undoubtedly brought the kind of psychology that would be much more common nowadays, but then, you know, she w... she was quite pioneering in a way.

And saying, "We've got to understand what's going on in the family, what's going on in the minds of these kids."

Grosse: And so we are faced with the big problem of psychic research.

How do we convince the skeptic?

The answer may be that the only way people can be thoroughly persuaded of the existence of phenomena is to experience the activity themselves.

This is a surprise.

Playfair speaks indistinctly: Hello.

( people chattering )

Peggy: Hi. How are ya?

Peggy: Be quiet now.

Grosse: Hello. ( speaking indistinctly )

Gregory: Nice to be here.

Ah, this is Mrs. Hodgson... ( speaks indistinctly )

( Gregory speaks indistinctly )

Grosse: ...and Anita Gregory.

Pincott: "So Tuesday the 20th of December, 1977, in the evening, I went to Enfield. Anita Gregory came, and events took a very interesting turn."

Grosse: Right. Now let's go from where we were before.

We know what your name is now.

Tell me something about yourself.

Pincott: Anita was a lecturer in psychology.

Come on, you can talk now.

( rocking chair creaking )

Bill.

Pincott: She was the ultimate academic.

Gregory: My name's Anita Gregory.

I'm interested in you.

What do you want?

What do you want? Tell us what you want.

Do you want me to go out?

Are you frightened of me?

Bill: No.

Gregory: Tell me how you are.

Bill: fսck off.

Well, that's very good, that's splendid, but you haven't told me how you are.

You've told me where to go, but you haven't told me how you are.

Tell me how you are. I really want to know.

Bill: shit off!

Didn't catch that. Say it again. More distinctly.

Now you're doing very well.

Say it a bit more clearly, please.

You tell me how you are. I really want to know how you are.

How you're feeling. I want to know what it feels like to be you.

Bill: sh¡t you!

Gregory: Really must say good night now. Bye-bye.

Grosse: Okay.

Peggy: Bye-bye.

Pincott: When we went outside, Anita gave me a look. Disbelieving look.

"Do you really believe that?"

Mmm.

( Janet speaks indistinctly )

Grosse: Friday, December the 23rd.

Arrived at 7:50 p.m. and was told that both the goldfish died at the same time this afternoon.

Oh, my God! Oh, my... ( breathes heavily )

Bill: I came to torment you.

Source: https://tvshowtranscripts.ourboard.org/viewtopic.php?f=2083&t=66299

Richard: Read my mind. And then it said to me, "You can come in, but you must stand by the wall and look at the wall."

Bill:

I'm Bill Wilkinson... and I died 15 years ago.

I come from Durants Park graveyard.

I have come here to see my family.

Episode 3 - This Thing

The.Enfield.Poltergeist.S01E03.720p.ATVP.WEBRip.x264-GalaxyTV.mkv

Transcript - The Enfield Poltergeist – The Thing - Season 1, Episode 3

Skeptics challenge Maurice's claims as the family deals with accusations that they're faking the phenomena.

( Peggy )

( Grosse )

( Peggy )

Bill: Here. We should have a little talk.

I come to see my wife but then she weren't here... and I found out she was dead.

I'm Bill...

I'm a G-H-O-S-T.

director: Mark it.

( beeping )

And action.

Think of yourselves as a jury now.

I come along to you, and I say, "A girl has levitated. She seemed to float round the room."

You say, "Right. You're hallucinating."

That's the usual thing. "You're hallucinating."

You know? "You're going round the bend. No such thing can happen."

But...

Robertson: What's happening now?

Robertson: I can't get in. There's a really strong force pushing the door.

What's happening? What? What?

( children whimpering, screaming )

( distorted audio )

( screaming, breathing heavily )

Peggy: Janet. Janet.

( Billy crying )

And I could see her going up and down, up and down.

Morris: She's gone from that to that in a sixth of a second.

Dragged. Like this. Like-Like this.

Grosse: She's showing being pulled forward with her hands together.

The chair, which was standing by Janet's bed, appears to have moved.

Grosse: The chair's been thrown nine feet.

Janet: Help!

Peggy: Now the chair gone over.

Bill: I'm Bill Wilkinson.

I come from Durants Park graveyard.

I had an hemorrhage, and I fell asleep, and I died in a chair in a corner downstairs.

Now, that is what I call first-class evidence.

Gregory: Maurice Grosse seems to imagine that the often barely audible and very noisy sound recordings, of which he plays snatches at meetings, constitute facts that others have to disprove if they are to challenge paranormality at Enfield.

Now can you say, "Anita Gregory"?

Come on. "Anita Gregory."

Gregory: I have visited the house on four occasions.

Come on. Come on, try. I know it's hard. Say, "Anita Gregory."

The extremely uncritical attitude of Maurice Grosse and Guy Playfair seems to me to cast doubt on their reliability as interpreters of experience.

Grosse: The cry that I so often hear is, "You want to believe, so you believe."

We're talking about assessing the evidence because this is very, very important.

First of all, a deep, gruff, male staccato voice coming from the child, Janet, 11 years...

Carr: The Enfield case had been going on for about six months.

It was already very famous.

It had been reported in the media and on television.

( members chattering )

Quite a lot of people were critical of the investigations, and I know that Maurice and Guy were certainly upset by that.

From their perspective, they were spending all their time on this case.

And yet, here they saw these, you know, rather dry, academic types in the SPR who were just expressing skepticism.

Grosse: Janet didn't even know what a poltergeist was.

How is it that she spoke in the same manner as poltergeists were reported two centuries ago?

How does a child of 11 years old cope with this sort of voice?

( person on TV, indistinct )

( audience cheering )

Grosse: Janet still maintains that the only thing she feels when it talks is a vibration in the back of her head and neck.

I've explained to her that she is talking in this voice, but she maintains she is unaware of it.

I have, as yet, found no reason to disbelieve what she says.

Grosse: We've seen, quite clearly, time and time again, that the voice talks through her without any movement of her lips whatsoever.

I mean, people who should know better say, "Well, that's ventriloquism."

Well, you produce me the ventriloquist who can talk without even a tremor on his lips and articulate correctly.

I'd like to see it.

I mean, absolutely impossible.

I mean, if she was a ventriloquist, she'd be world's number one.

Mr. Ray Alan.

( audience cheering )

Alan as Lord Charles, slurring: Thank you so much for having me.

Ladies and gentlemen, I apologize. I've had a couple.

( audience chuckling )

Morris: One evening we're at the house.

I've looked out the window, and this unbelievably expensive car has pitched up outside.

This chap got out. I thought... ( sighs ) ..."I recognize him."

Yes, it was TV ventriloquist Ray Alan.

Ventriloquist.

What is going on? ( chuckles )

Bence: The managing editor of the Mirror sent Ray Alan round.

I can only assume the motivation was to discredit that whole saga.

I was horrified when I found out.

Morris: He was there to work out whether it was physically possible for Janet to make those voices.

Bence: Ray Alan was a very funny man, but if you were choosing a team of people to gather evidence, you wouldn't put Ray Alan in the team.

He wouldn't have been sympathetic.

Morris: He took them off into a room on their own, so no one ever knew what was said in there.

Bence: I think the family were looked down on.

All national newspapers were skeptical, I think, of paranormal stories.

( reporters chattering )

The Mirror was under pressure.

If you want to knock it as a story, you'll knock it.

The story was run that Ray Alan said they put on the voices themselves.

They giggled and laughed about it.

You know, they'd play tricks.

Grosse: Friday, March the 31st.

This morning, Mrs. Hodgson phoned me about the article in the Daily Mirror printed yesterday.

She said that Margaret was most disturbed at the accusations.

I reached the family at 12:00 noon.

Now, Janet, please come over here.

Ja-Janet, please pay attention.

Come on. Look, this is very serious.

Now, listen. Did you, Janet, say to them that you had faked the voices?

So... No.

No, because they didn't ask me, and I haven't faked 'em anyway.

How did he get that idea then? I mean, what exactly happened?

Said that he'd been up here... ( stammers ) and that you'd, uh, given them a long confession to practically everything.

Margaret. Will you come over here, Margaret dear?

What did he say to you, Margaret?

Come on, Margaret. This is terribly important.

You must tell me.

Come on, don't worry about it. What did he say to you?

He was saying... ( stammers )

I don't know what he was talking about.

He was just saying things I didn't understand.

Grosse: What was he saying? Sa...

Well, you see, words I didn't understand.

You didn't understand what he was saying, Margaret?

Margaret: No.

And so what did you say to him?

I was just daydreaming, thinking about what I need for school tomorrow.

I wasn't listening to him at all. I was thinking what I need.

And I'm going like this all the time.

Yeah.

Nodding, that's all.

Okay, so you were nodding your head?

That's right.

Yeah.

I was just daydreaming. ( sighs )

Grosse: I see.

Now, listen, I'm going to ask you a question.

He said that you said you and Janet had got together to fake the voices.

Now, is that true? Yes or no?

No.

Grosse: You definitely did not say it?

I did not say that even if I nodded.

You definitely didn't say it?

I didn't say it with my own mouth, no.

You didn't say it with your own mouth.

No.

Do you think the voice might have said it? As far as you know...

My voice didn't speak once while they was in here, so I don't know why they picked on me.

Well, listen, Mr. Grosse and I have got to know absolutely everything that wasn't quite genuine, you know?

( Grosse sighs )

Otherwise, it's gonna make a lot of m-mess in our work.

You must understand it from our point of view, you know?

That we're trying to defend you against these people, so we've got to be absolutely certain.

Margaret: I was always a nervous child.

I was never that strong.

I always cry at a bat of an eyelid if someone said something wrong to me.

I remember approaching teenage years and being very scared and frightened.

And I couldn't understand why this was going on and what it could be.

And that really emotionally upset me.

Now, Margaret, have you at any time faked the voice at all?

No. Never. You absolutely never?

You have not? Yeah, I'm quite sure.

Now, do you think that Janet has ever faked the voice?

Not that I know of, no. No.

Not that you know of.

Have you ever faked any of the physical things that have happened?

Margaret: No.

Definitely not? Definitely not.

Not even one of them?

No. On my life.

On your life. Right. Thank you.

Why would I say it was a fake?

How could I say it was a fake? I-I can't.

Grosse: Come on, Margaret. I said you can go to sleep as well.

Go on then. Good girl.

Richard: My father had three children, and we were all quite naughty.

And we played games, and he knew...

Knew perfectly well when a child was playing a game.

Grosse through recorder: No, thank you.

I don't want you turning my tape recorder as far as...

Richard: For someone to come along and say that everything was a game.

That, uh, Janet was the greatest ventriloquist in the world.

( inhales deeply ) Uh, that she, um, was the greatest magician in the world.

Uh, that the two of these girls were so brilliant at their deception capabilities, that they could, um... They could fool, um, you know, professionals in... ( stammers )

Of every standing, um, is, frankly, laughable.

Margaret: Things escalated with the press quite fast.

( typewriter keys clacking )

It was disturbing.

Papers were coming after us. They were saying different things.

Some was okay, some weren't.

There was all different people coming in the house, and that scared me.

Grosse: Hello?

Bence: When the story became more well-known in the United States, there was a lot of pressure, and they were very fragile, this family.

( radio host )

( Grosse )

( speaks indistinctly )

( Peggy )

Something that we didn't understand at first.

Margaret: Before we knew it, different countries were phoning us.

( interviewer speaking French )

( interviewer speaking Dutch )

Margaret: People from all over the world just wanted to know what was going on.

The more it escalated, the more press, the more people wanted to come and see.

This is what they're saying in the paper today.

"The guttural voice...

( Peggy chuckles )

.. like that of an old man, swears, threats and growls like an animal. 'It is the voice of the devil'"...

Bence: The Warrens were a couple of ghost hunters.

television presenter: For those who lived through The Amityville Horror, the emotional shock still lingers.

The Warrens have investigated many disturbed houses.

And they examined the empty house...

Whenever you got these odd things reported, um, they would be banging on the door.

If we say that we hear voices, uh, of a supernatural nature, such as in the Enfield home in England, they can't go to the police.

interviewer: All on a level. No baloney.

When we say somebody levitates...

Lorraine: You'll have to find out.

There's no scientist in the world today who could dispute the evidence that we have in regards to the preternatural and the supernatural and possession of individuals.

Let's face it. So, whatever I say is only conjecture.

When I came on this case, it was obvious to me it was genuine.

It had all the hallmarks of a poltergeist case as soon as I walked into the house.

And of course, first thing we looked for is fraud, but I didn't find any.

Right.

But we certainly have had the children motivated, apparently motivated, to do things against their will.

Mm-hmm.

Grosse: Now... Yes, instructed.

Instructed.

Now, I believe that in lots of poltergeist cases where people have walked in and seen children do the things, they've said, "That's a fake. That's a f"...

Well, we call it oppression.

Uh, the... the child is oppressed.

Mmm. Being instructed...

Their thoughts are oppressed to explain something...

Lorraine: Mmm.

And immediately they are the culprit.

The inexperienced investigator will say, "Well, it's all fraud."

Fraud.

Grosse: That's it. Good. Good. I'm delighted to hear you say this.

We've seen this time and time again.

Yes, we've heard it many times.

Of course not.

Ed: We understand...

Well, I'm glad you do because I have had rather a few arguments here with people I-I should've thought would know better.

Of course. But the man who will say that it is not so, Mr. Grosse, we find to be a man who spends most of the time in the lab...

Mmm. Mmm. Mmm.

And very little time in the field.

Grosse: Psychic phenomena are elusive.

They do not conform to the dictates of our very limited knowledge of the universe.

The hardened skeptics may dismiss the evidence out of hand, but if anything, I've been over-cautious and over-careful in my approach.

Grosse: If you're looking at a poltergeist case, it's no good taking this bit and saying, "The kids played around here."

And this bit saying, "Mr. what's-name did this and Mrs. what's-name"...

You gotta look at the whole area.

SPR member: Can I ask you on the ethical front, how far are you willing to go?

You're in this girl's bedrooms, uh...

Grosse: Mmm.

You know, how far are you going here?

If you say this happened, and then someone says it didn't, that's a challenge to your integrity.

Grosse: With respect, you can pull each scene apart, but you gotta take the whole thing collectively.

What-What-What are we looking for?

He could argue.

At the end of the day, you have got to say whether you think it's a genuine case or not a genuine case.

It's as simple and as difficult as that.

And if he felt someone affronted him... he would fight his corner.

Grosse through recorder: I may be... I may be too dogmatic, but I... All right, then you give me somebody who can speak with their mouths closed, and I'll give you £500. In my d...

( SPR members murmur )

Dad... ( chuckles ) ...was quite opinionated and quite argumentative.

Grosse: I've offered £1,000 to anybody who can produce a girl under similar circumstances, and it's never been taken up.

Richard: He's confident, he's tenacious, and he's pugnacious.

Undaunted. Single-minded.

All right, time is, uh, ten o'clock.

( Grosse hums )

( Grosse sighs )

What's that for?

( Janet mumbling )

As far as I can see, the tape is absolutely, completely sealed over her mouth.

Now, just a minute, before we do anything else, Janet, try and say, "Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do."

( Janet mumbles )

Try.

Peggy: Just try.

( mumbles )

Why can't you do it?

( mumbles )

'Cause the plaster is sticking your lips together?

Right. And that's why I used this particular type of plaster.

Grosse: No, she can breathe through her mouth all right.

Grosse through headphones: We're going to try and record the voice.

Are you there, Bill?

Bill, can't you talk when Janet's got her mouth taped up?

( mumbles )

Janet, don't you say anything. Just let him talk.

Come on, Bill. Come on. What have you got to say for yourself?

I'm-I'm facing the wall now, like you...

( Bill growls )

What's that? What did you say?

( Bill growls )

Listen, can you... can you say something clearly to me?

Can you say to me, "Shut the door"?

( Bill growls )

Grosse: No, that's not very good.

You can do better than that. Say it.

Bill: Shut the door.

Grosse: Oh, that was good. Okay, say something else.

What else can you say?

Say, "Hello, Mr. Grosse."

Bill: Hello, Mr. Grosse.

Grosse: Well, that's impossible, isn't it?

That is fantastic. The voice was pretty clear there.

So, I'm going to try something else now.

Right, take the water into your mouth.

( Peggy, Margaret chattering )

I want to see how much water you take, all right?

Now hold that amount of water in your mouth, all right? Right.

Now, off we go again.

I challenge you to talk.

Come on. I'm waiting for you.

( exhaling sharply )

What's the matter? What does that mean?

You can't do it, hey? I'm surprised. I thought you could do it.

( exhales sharply )

What'd you say? You can? Well, do it then.

Paul: I remember feeling uncomfortable... but as a kid, you don't know what's going on.

Say, "Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do."

Or something else. I don't mind what you say.

Anything you like, but I want proper words.

Bill. Bill, you know that you're famous, don't you?

You're very famous now.

( echoing ) Will you say a sentence for me? Come on now.

I say that you can't talk when Janet's got her mouth full of water.

Go... Go on then. I'm wondering if you can say it now. Come on.

Bill. Bill.

( Janet chokes )

Bill: Daisy. Daisy.

( coughing )

Grosse: Janet.

No. Janet, why didn't you spit the water out until I told you?

Janet: You always...

No, I-I don't want you to do anything until I tell you.

You spat the water out too soon.

Janet: He made me.

I know he made you do it.

I know he made you do it, but you mustn't do it...

You must wait until I get in. You...

I can't help it.

Grosse: Janet, please try and cooperate with me, all right?

Mmm.

Grosse: You did very, very well then.

You did very well indeed, and so did he.

He did very well.

Paul: I'm not gonna go with hindsight.

I'm saying at the time, to me, it was real.

In a field where deception and self-deception are the rule.

A field where the imagination may, in fact, play an active and creative part in producing that which is being investigated.

How does one justify a claim to knowledge?

To reasonable belief?

What degree of certainty is it reasonable to demand?

Blackmore: The SPR was full of people who were hunting for phenomena to prove psychic things happen, without being really interested in how we could understand the phenomena in-in other ways.

Anita Gregory was very intelligent.

And she valued openness and honesty, and listening to the evidence in science.

( Janet screaming )

( Janet cries )

Grosse: Right, back into bed.

( thuds )

She's on the bed this time.

( Janet crying )

( gasps ) You didn't get that?

Stop where you are. Oh.

Uh, Anita Gregory. Hi.

Grosse: Go on, in-in you go. In you go.

Saw with your eyes, she was right on the bed that time.

Billy, I don't want any more crying.

Janet: God, I was pulled out that time.

Were you there when she was...

Yes. Yes.

Janet, how do you feel this time?

Is it doing the same to you this time as it does before?

Janet: Yeah.

Tell them how it gets hold of you.

It pulls you up by the hands?

Does it feel as if it's holding you all the way when you go through the air?

Janet: Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Grosse: Are you sure?

( Janet )

What about the blankets?

What does it do about those?

What do you mean about them?

Gregory: Well, uh, they push you back quite a bit, don't they?

Mmm.

Does it push them along with you?

Janet: Nah.

Bill: Get out. You old slսt.

That old cow, I don't like her.

Grosse: Who's that?

Bill: Anita Gregory.

Grosse: Why don't you like her?

Bill: 'Cause she don't believe me.

She will when I pull her pants down.

Blackmore: I think it is not at all surprising that when Anita went there, much less happened than when Maurice was there.

If you ask me what a poltergeist is... ( inhales sharply ) I... ( stammers, exclaims ) I-I don't know, a collection of phenomena driven by, usually, a family situation.

I mean, there's usually children involved, not always.

Um, there's usually all kinds of tensions and things going on.

Gregory: The trouble is that this sort of case is an unwholesome and painful mixture of personal and social pathology...

( typewriter bell dings )

.. play-acting, group interaction, self-deception, trickery, ego-tripping, and conceivably, some authentic paranormality.

The real problem is disentangling them.

( knocking )

I saw you banging on the floor, Janet.

Janet: I didn't.

Grosse: I saw you.

I saw you bang.

Janet: I didn't bang.

Grosse: I saw you bang.

I didn't bang.

I saw you bang.

You may not have known you banged, but I know you banged 'cause I saw you.

All right?

No, I'm not all right.

Grosse: Control yourself. Control yourself.

I can't control myself.

Grosse: Or control it.

Control it to stop you banging.

Janet: I'm not gonna control.

Huh?

I'm not gonna control it.

It's not my fault.

It is if you don't control it.

I can't!

Can't what?

Can't say.

( whispers ) All right.

Bill: Silly old sod.

Bill through recorder: Silly old sod. fսck¡ng old bastard.

Grosse: I've often wondered how many paranormal cases have failed to be recognized because the investigator saw a childish prank?

Grosse through recorder: Did anybody touch this tape recorder?

Janet: No.

Peggy: Nope.

Grosse: I personally would be surprised if the children from time to time had not attempted to copy events.

( through recorder ) Will you all close your eyes and go to sleep now, please. Stop looking for things.

The more you look for things, the more they're gonna happen.

Grosse: Because they're so boisterous at the moment, I'm ignoring all present phenomena as evidence.

( overlapping chatter, through recorder )

Roz: I was definitely, um, on the alert.

I didn't automatically believe everything.

But then I didn't automatically dismiss it.

Grosse: Did you just write this?

Bill: What?

Roz: Janet used to say, "it's doing this," "it's doing that."

Grosse: Did you just write it?

You couldn't tell whether some of it was coming from the conscious or unconscious minds of Janet and-and Margaret. You just couldn't tell.

( Janet muttering, sobbing )

Peggy: What's the matter?

( sobbing )

Peggy: Tell me.

( breathing shakily )

Janet: I don't wanna sleep in here.

Do you know why that is, 'cause she's being watched.

Janet: I wanna get out of here!

( cries )

( sobbing ) I wanna get out of here.

Grosse: What's the matter with Janet?

Peggy: She said she's gonna kill someone in a minute.

Excuse me, Janet. Excuse me, Janet. Come out, Janet.

As it happens, there's one knife missing downstairs.

Janet. ( shushes )

( Janet mutters )

Grosse: I can't hear what you're saying, darling.

No good talking like that. Now, tell me what you're saying.

Janet: I don't wanna sleep in here.

Why not, Janet?

I'm being watched all the time.

Who's watching you?

( sobbing continues )

Who's watching you?

Janet: I will fսck¡ng kill him.

( Grosse shushes )

Here, stop swearing.

Janet, turn round and let me look at you, come on.

Come on, get your head up. Come on.

Nobody's watching you and nobody's blaming you.

Goodness me, Janet, you've known me long enough now.

Nobody's blaming you at all.

Being where?

Now listen. Well, because it's using you, you're the only one who can try and stop it doing this. All right?

I'm trying to make it so that it doesn't worry you all the time, that's what I'm trying to do.

And it's a very hard job, Janet, I'm trying to do.

I know it's very nasty for you as well.

It's very nasty for your mum, it's very nasty for Margaret and Billy.

Do you understand that? I'm doing it to help you, Janet.

( clicks tongue )

Janet through recorder: Mom. ( crying )

Peggy: Christ! What's the matter?

Peggy: What's the matter?

Janet: I can't tell you.

( crying continues )

child Margaret: Sit down, sit down.

Margaret: I remember being very, very scared for Janet, you know. ( mumbles )

Janet: I can't tell you!

child Margaret: Just tell us.

( child Janet crying, speaks indistinctly )

When the things was happening, I didn't understand fully what was going on.

And then we had questions at school.

Children coming after Janet.

Some kids coming round the house shouting outside the window.

Uh, pointing at us in the streets, some calling Janet possessed, some calling me a witch.

"Ghosty, are you in there?" and run off and all that.

I get very tearful over it, even now and I get very upset.

interviewer: There was nowhere...

( gasps ) To run.

'Cause inside you've... ( stammers ) ...experienced all this, I wasn't getting... in my mind, anywhere away from it.

Peggy: Can you tell Mr. Grosse what you actually saw, Janet?

You said you saw a face on the wall.

Grosse: Okay, what sort of face?

A man's face.

Grosse: Can you describe it?

Yeah.

He had gray hair.

Grosse: Yeah?

And he was all wrinkled.

Mmm.

And he had brown eyes.

Is it the sort of face you'd seen before? Have you seen him before?

No.

Bill: Bill wants to come now.

Turn around.

( screams )

Grosse: Try not to be frightened by it.

Some of the... You have...

I'm not frightened for myself.

No, you're frightened for Janet, and I appreciate that.

Myself. I'm more frightened for Janet.

Margaret said to me the other day, and then she said there's something wrong with Janet.

She's very peculiar lately.

Janet's full of hate.

And this is her when she's on her own. I'll show you.

She never does it when anyone's here.

Continually.

Mrs. Hodgson is sitting on the, uh, settee.

She's rocking backwards and forwards and rubbing her hands round and round.

This is Janet. She's like this.

Yes, I've seen Janet do that.

I've seen Janet do that.

Yeah.

Peggy: She did say to me the other week, she said "this thing, this thing" she kept saying.

She knows there's something there.

( screams )

Pincott: "In the evening I went to Enfield by the Piccadilly line and 1-0-7 bus.

Maurice Grosse, Guy Playfair and David Robertson were there.

The talking poltergeist, in quotes, was much improved. Very fluent."

Pincott: Bill, can David... David Robertson come in? Can he come in?

Bill groans: Yeah.

The girls were getting still quite a lot of disturbances at night, being thrown out of bed, that kind of thing.

( whispering indistinctly )

And the voice was very strong at that time.

Bill: David, come in.

Hello, Davey boy.

Hello.

Can I turn around to face you?

No, you'll scare me.

I want you to tell me something.

Go on then.

Bill: I wanna know about periods for girls.

Would you like to talk with someone else?

Bill: No, you. You're a boy, you'll know.

When you earl-earlier on...

Don't change the subject!

I wanna talk about periods!

Being dirty, why can't you stop being dirty?

Robertson: Do you want to take over? Come on, it's all right.

Pincott: All right, I will, if you want.

Great.

Janet: He's being a bit dirty now.

Pincott: Oh, so we heard it, yeah.

Why do girls have periods?

Let me see if I can explain.

You probably know that um, inside little girls, uh...

Big girls.

Or big girls, yes.

There is a little egg and it comes out...

Ou-out of a certain part of the body.

And, um, this happens every month.

And you can't keep these eggs there permanently because they go stale.

So what you have to do is to provide a new one every month.

Does that help about the periods?

Why...

Do...

Hugh: Why do what?

Men...

Robertson: Why do men what?

Bill: Wear...

Those things?

What things?

What-What things?

Pincott: What things, Bill?

Those things.

Pincott: What do they look like?

What do you mean clothes?

Bill: No.

What then?

Bill: Plastic things.

Pincott: Plastic things?

Bill: In bed with a woman.

Aah, yes. Well, that's... That's fairly simple.

Grosse: Is my tape going? The one on the wall.

Yes. Righto.

Pincott: Don't go away, will you?

We'll do our best to answer.

Blackmore: They were mostly men who did these investigations.

And I think they didn't take enough account of the psychology of children.

Bill: How do girls have babies?

Now never mind about babies. Will you forget about sеx?

Is there anything else you want to know? There must be something else.

Well, I'll tell you what, I'll ask you a question.

Bill? Bill, stop bouncing on the bed, Bill. Come on, Bill. Pack it up.

On the whole, women then, especially talking that long ago, when-when most children were looked after mostly by their mothers, and most mothers didn't work, and most women would have been much more familiar with 'kids play' and why and what they're like and so on.

Pack it up. All right, all right, all right, okay.

Okay, Bill. ( speaks indistinctly )

Blackmore: And these were well-educated male scientists with very little experience of young kids.

Not realizing that that was relevant.

Playfair: You know that there are people who consider that you don't exist at all, you're simply a fragment of Janet's subconscious.

What do you think of that sort of theory?

Bill: What do you mean?

Well, as we know, people have a consciousness and some people think that people like you are, in fact, part of the consciousness of, in this case, Janet.

Are you Janet?

Janet: There was always a feeling like, before anything really sort of surfaced properly, I think, you know?

Yeah, looking back, yeah.

It was like there was something there, but you couldn't explain it.

And I was at that age where you're just finding yourself.

Mum and Dad had divorced.

I'd left primary school and I was starting secondary school.

And that is an unsettling time.

It is difficult to work out who you are then.

And then when you were at school, you think "what am I going home to? I don't know where I wanna be."

You just feel so confused in what's gonna happen when I do get home.

I felt used and possessed.

The voice was using me.

It was a feeling like it was behind me.

And it was like a-a gruff... Very gruff deep voice.

Horrible experience.

( child Janet screaming )

Grosse: Janet, tell me what's the matter.

( screaming, straining )

Peggy: Janet.

Grosse: Tell me what's the matter.

Peggy: Janet?

Grosse: Listen to me.

No, it's only me, it's only me.

Peggy: Janet.

Grosse: I think she's angry.

( screaming, straining continues )

Janet: Now when I saw... Go over in my mind the things that did happen, it makes me go cold.

And it was like a-a force.

Grosse: It's all right, ( Peggy ) We need a doctor.

( screaming )

Margaret: Janet was totally in a different place. It was frightening.

And one evening we couldn't get her back.

( screaming, mumbles )

Grosse: Yes?

Janet: Get off me! ( crying )

Who... Who do you want?

Graham.

Graham's here. He's here.

( Janet breathing heavily, whimpering )

Morris: She was thrashing about, and she was gonna hurt herself.

Peggy: Christ.

( Morris shushes )

Steady. Steady.

Steady on. Steady on. There's a good girl. There's a good girl.

Margaret: Maurice was doing everything he could, and my mum was crying. I was scared.

( screams )

( Janet )

Yes, Daddy's here.

( grunts, groans )

Grosse: I... We're here. We're here.

We are... I'm here.

( shushes )

( screaming )

All right, all right. Nobody's...

Yes, yes. All right, it's all right.

Nobody's hurting... Nobody is hurting you, Janet. Nobody is hurting you.

Peggy: That's the impression she's giving me. That she's being hurt.

Morris: The doctor was called and he ended up giving her a tranquilizer which he said would knock out a horse.

( screaming ) You're hurting me.

You're hurting me. You're hurting me. ( crying )

I just remember the doctor being there and giving her this shot and it...

It didn't work. It was horrible.

( Janet screams )

Yeah, she calmed down eventually.

( Janet crying )

Grosse: All right. Yes. All right.

Grosse: If anybody should ask me if I was frightened in the course of my investigations, I would definitely say "yes" to this phenomenon of apparent possession.

Especially when it is accompanied by a show of violence that verges on the self-destructive.

The first time I saw this at Enfield, I was really scared.

Not for myself, but for what might happen to that child.

( indistinct chattering )

doctor: Who's that... Who's that child...

Grosse: It's Janet. Now, here you are. Janet, Janet Hodgson.

Morris: Later, I'm downstairs. I heard a crash from upstairs.

First person in there was John Burcombe, her uncle.

And there's a big old radio.

And Janet is up on top of the whole... of the whole thing, lying-lying across it.

Asleep or just coming round.

( Playfair )

I mean he's...

Janet: Maurice cared about us.

( Playfair )

Janet: He did come to try and help but he probably never experienced anything on this scale before.

Everything had gone, normality and normal life.

Because of what was happening.

That's the only thing. Well, I mean, you have to make it... ( stammers )

Do-Do what we can to try and stop it.

And if that fails, the only way that never fails is to...

Is to split up, you know, because then only one of you can get it.

Um, I should think probably it would be Janet.

Peggy: She seems to be more susceptible because she was more susceptible than Margaret to begin with I think.

Oh, much more.

Definitely.

Yes, this just won't stop.

We just have to use drastic methods, you know?

It's gonna be a bit rough on everybody.

It gets a bit dicey.

It means separating the family, you know.

It's the only way.

Peggy: I'll be honest with you, I don't think this is gonna stop.

I think it's just gonna go on, and on, and on.

We will have to separate the children, this is my opinion.

Yeah, but where do we go?

Well, if it won't stop, you would have to be taken to a special home.

What sticks out in me mind now, in my-my later years, is my mum.

She did what she could, but it wasn't easy for her.

Mum and Dad weren't together anymore.

The upset of me brother Johnny going away to school.

Poor Johnny.

There was only a year between me and him.

Mum would-wouldn't really say too much about the problem.

But I know he was quite a handful and I think they thought it would be best if he went away.

And then the family s-sort of split up.

You know there was six of us and then suddenly there was, like, just Mum and the three of us.

Now, you know, she had to make a choice for me to go into a children's home.

Grosse: The time is now ten past nine and this is Peggy Nottingham.

And she's just going to tell about Mrs. Hodgson coming into her house this morning and how she felt.

She's really gone through a lot, ain't she?

Grosse: Mmm.

She really has.

And I think she's put up with a lot.

Too much for anyone.

She just sat there and broke down.

And she said, "I got up this morning and I see some tablets in the cupboard, bottle of tablets," she said, "and I got hold of them in me hand and I thought of the children." she said, otherwise, she said, "If it hadn't been for my children," she said, "I would have took the lot of them."

I always find it's always the bad things that stick in your mind.

Strangest part about it, I can always remember the bad things more than anything else.

Johnny going away was the biggest heartbreak of the lot, I'll never forget that day.

Ooh, you don't know what a wrench it is.

A seven-year-old child, going away like that.

( stammers ) I can see him now on that coach.

I'll never forget that.

I don't know, I never thought we'd wind up like we are, a really broken family.

Janet: For me, it was like, "Oh, my God, where am I gonna land, you know?"

"What's going to happen to me?"

"Am I gonna be left alone after this, you know?"

Source: https://tvshowtranscripts.ourboard.org/viewtopic.php?f=2083&t=66300

Episode 4 - Entanglement

The.Enfield.Poltergeist.S01E04.720p.ATVP.WEBRip.x264-GalaxyTV.mkv

Transcript - The Enfield Poltergeist – Entanglement - Season 1, Episode 4

Young Janet is sent away. As an adult, she reflects on what happened to her and the impact of Maurice's investigation.

( Janet screams )

( screaming ) You're hurting me.

You're hurting me. You're hurting me. ( crying )

( Janet grunting )

( Janet groaning )

( overlapping tape recorder chatter )

( Janet screams )

( sobbing ) I can't tell you.

Peggy: What's the matter?

Grosse: This time, Janet was thrown right out of the room, onto the stairs.

I saw you banging on the floor, Janet.

Janet: I didn't bang.

Grosse: I saw you bang.

Janet. Can you hear me, Janet?

( Janet breathing heavily )

Grosse: Janet, can you hear me?

Nottingham: One time when we s...

Grosse: Why didn't you spit the water out until I told you?

No, I don't want you to do anything until I tell you.

Grosse: Janet. Janet. Janet.

Janet. Can you hear me? Janet? Can you hear me, Janet?

Grosse: All right, Janet. Well done. All right, now, Janet.

There's a good girl.

There's a good girl. All right.

Janet: I blamed myself a lot.

The fact that I went into care alone and Margaret and Bill were still there.

It was my fault because I was the epicenter.

Why me?

Why did it happen to me, our family? Why?

I've never actually done that many interviews or documentaries.

And I was always very dubious about doing any of them 'cause it does bring it all back again, and there's all the emotions that I've tried to escape all my life.

Margaret: Oh.

Yeah, I remember that one.

The look of terror on Mum's face.

Yeah, I remember.

Janet: That one.

Margaret: Yeah.

Janet: When I was pulled out of bed.

Margaret: And that distressed me to see you like that.

That distressed me terrible.

Yeah, I remember being... Being turned off the settee.

Tipped upside down.

It-It just turned over. And...

Margaret: Yeah.

And she'd run off it, and then it'd be over on the...

Tip up on the floor.

Does feel strange though. Like going back in time.

Really does. All those years ago.

Looking back now, something could come into our lives, into our house.

Could it have been something that drew energy from me?

Grosse: June, 1978.

Janet has now spent six weeks in a home run by nuns.

We are redoubling our efforts to help her, but none of the doctors, psychiatrists, or psychologists who have witnessed her altered states can agree on their diagnosis.

The psychiatrist consulted by the local doctor suggested we simply go away and leave the family alone.

Carr: Maurice was a very compassionate man.

And there's no doubt that he cared about the family.

That's important because, as a psychical researcher, you probably want the phenomena to go on as long as possible.

You know, this doesn't often happen, so you're quite keen to...

To sort of get evidence for this. On the other hand, as a human being, you're dealing... You-you realize you're dealing with people who are going through a very traumatic state.

And... And so, from that point of view, you want the phenomena to stop.

Janet: I was having these bad nightmares.

Nights used to be so long.

When I look back now, I don't know how I stayed sane.

I just wanted to run away.

Paul: I do remember being concerned about Janet.

( stammers ) Just mentally and physically, emotionally.

To be screaming, hysterical, to have that amount of tension, she needed help.

Grosse: July the 26th, 1978.

We have finally got Janet admitted to the Maudsley Hospital under the care of Dr. Peter Fenwick, head of the neurological department.

Fenwick: Guy Playfair said to me, "We've got this fascinating phenomena going on at Enfield.

A poltergeist.

The girl, Janet, goes into strange, contorted positions.

And do you think that she has epilepsy?"

And so, I originally thought, "Well, poltergeists and epilepsy?

Doubt it.

But it's certainly worth looking at Janet."

Janet: I thought I was going home.

So, I was very surprised to be going to stay in a hospital.

Fenwick: Remember, it's 47 years ago, but I do have Janet's permission to talk about her, uh, on... on camera.

I'm a neuropsychiatrist, which means "neuro" understand the brain...

"psychiatrist"... understand behavior.

If you looking at this...

People who had disorders of behavior used to be referred to me.

I was also interested in consciousness.

And so, my interests were wider than just simple reductionist science.

What I was wanting to know is whether you could separate poltergeist effects, epilepsy, and behavioral changes in the person.

( Janet breathes deeply )

We ran a whole lot of tests on her to see, particularly, if there was an organic basis for her behavior.

Janet: They wanted to see what was going on in me brain.

When you're that young, you know, you think, "Psychiatry, what does that really mean?" You know?

People think, "Oh. It's madness. They've gone into there because they're mad."

But there's different reasons.

Is it something in the body? Or is it in the brain?

Or is it something that's happened from the past?

Fenwick: All of the physical tests we did were normal.

And so we then wondered about the behavioral component.

What I did know about poltergeists at this time was that they tended to occur, usually, where there was a very high tension in the family.

Janet: I haven't really listened to the tapes up until now.

But it's like I'm meant to go back 'cause it's gonna teach me something.

interviewer: Why do you think it's chosen you?

Why do you think it's happening to you?

Uh, well, I can't directly answer that, ( Janet ) Looking back now, there was a lot of stress and tension in the family.

The upset of Johnny going away to school.

Mum and Dad had divorced.

Margaret: I remember before I was ten, my parents would regularly have rows.

And one day, I don't know what my mum done...

She went to open the front door, and he shut her arm in it.

I remember this very well.

And I remember things getting a bit overheated, and they were arguing and shouting at each other.

And I remember, my father sat me down, and he said to me, um, "I won't be living here anymore, you know. We're getting divorced, Mum and I."

Our lives changed then.

And then I don't remember much more childhood.

Janet: It did really affect me.

I mean, my dad he... He was hotheaded.

( stammers ) He had no patience.

But then I cried when he left.

It was like there was an absence.

Something was missing.

Did hit me hard, actually. It did. Yeah.

child Janet: That's what I'm saying, right?

You go in the small bed, Margaret.

child Margaret: Trust you to say that.

Grosse: There is a great deal of emotional stress in the family.

Come back from...

Peggy: ...the shops this afternoon.

But how is stress capable of physically affecting its surroundings?

How does all that fit into the picture?

Roz: The chair, which was standing by Janet's bed.

Janet: Mum, he's tricking me.

Peggy screams: Christ! It's the ghost!

And there was a chest of drawers moving towards the door.

child Janet: Bash the window!

Grosse: What's happened?

Peggy: Now the chair gone over.

Grosse: It just tipped over the settee in front of us.

Janet: I've never used to like going upstairs on me own.

It was like there was something there.

It was a feeling like it was behind me.

Grosse, through recorder: Now, tell me, what are you doing here, and why are you here?

Bill, through recorder: Shall I tell you really who I am?

Bill, through recorder: Really?

Janet: Some people have to see it to believe it.

But once you've experienced it, you know that it's real.

27th, 1978, in the Maudsley Hospital.

Well, Janet, um, come over here and stick your mouth near the microphone so we can hear you.

Yeah.

That's all right.

You're saying when you're on your own, you're not... you're not, um...

Playfair: Really? Mmm.

Does it?

I mean... ( stammers )

You'd like to sleep on your own from now on?

Yeah.

What, on your own, without anybody?

Yeah.

( whooshes, chuckles )

I've got a radio.

Mmm. What, on your own, without anybody?

Yeah.

Janet: Strange, sort of, listening to me at that age.

I seem quite determined. I think, "Wow. ( stammers ) Really? Was this me?"

Think you'll forget all about your dad soon?

You know, when you grow up and...

You'll have lots of boyfriends before long.

You won't remember him. ( chuckles )

But... But we gotta stop this damn thing, you know, now.

It's not doing you any good.

I know. That's what Mum said.

Playfair: You know, you're gonna be quite famous one day.

Fenwick: There's no doubt about Janet's relief in getting away from the family.

She immediately relaxed and became really a quite different girl after she'd been with us for a bit.

We had her in there for six weeks, and we found... ( chuckles ) a not-unusual teenager.

Grosse: Mrs. Hodgson is talking about, uh, her interview... with Dr. Fenwick.

Grosse: He asked you how Janet was.

Yeah.

Just tell me that again, will you?

And I turned round, and I said, uh, Janet has been a lot better since she's been away from the house, which she has, and she looked a lot better.

Yeah. Mmm.

You know what she's talking about.

She looked very cowed before she left.

Very cowed. She said it's completely gone.

Yeah. Well, I also said to him... I-I-I must bear in mind, and I must admit that Janet is a moody child.

And she's a very restless child.

John: Yeah.

Peggy: But I'll tell you what I think...

And I'm gonna be quite honest about it...

She's my daughter, and I miss her very much, but I don't think she should come back here.

Janet: With me, like, I was the black sheep, you know?

She didn't really want me 'cause I was trouble.

( sniffles ) I was part of the problem while it was happening.

When I came out the Maudsley, I was picked up by the social worker.

And he was taking me around children's homes, trying to find another children's home for me.

He couldn't find one. They were all full.

Grosse: Okay...

Janet: And in the end, he took me back to Mum.

And Mum's face, ah, I could tell she didn't really want me home.

I think she was fearful that it would all really start up badly again because I was back there.

announcer on TV: This is the...

TV show host: In this program, we're going to explore an area where our common sense notions aren't going to be much help to us at all.

How does the uncertainty principle square up with the everyday world? ( continues indistinctly )

Janet: When I got home, I just needed peace and... ( sighs ) ...to... just to be left alone, really.

( snoring )

( thud )

( grunts, sighs )

( Janet breathing deeply )

( Grosse grunts )

Clear off. Get out. We've had enough.

We've had enough of you. Go back where you came from.

Grosse: I would like, for one moment, to contemplate the word "truth."

Where does the truth lie?

Only in the everyday decipherings of our five senses?

Or might it rest in the depths of an unknown dimension...

( beeping on TV )

beyond our understanding?

Playfair: Hello, Mr. Grosse.

It's Sunday, October the 8th, 1978.

And I'm just going to make a copy for you...

For your private collection...

Of the tape I made with Peter Liefhebber and Dono Gmelig-Meyling.

I thought this most remarkable story needed to be got down on tape at once, so I went round and I made the tape which follows.

I won't comment on it yet until you've had time to think it over.

I think you'll find these coincidences quite interesting.

You'll notice that I didn't offer any information concerning you personally.

( Grosse grunting )

Richard: Before the investigation, my father had suffered a huge emotional loss.

And Guy... because he was a spiritualist, because he believed in those things...

Couldn't get out of his mind a potential connection.

All right. I'll start the copy now.

Friday, October the 6th, 1978.

Belgravia Hotel, to see Peter Liefhebber.

Right. Here we are in the hotel, Peter.

Yes.

Um, well, I wonder, could you tell me roughly what you told me on the phone?

Um, what exactly happened?

Yes.

And he didn't say that about me, for instance?

No. No, no.

( Liefhebber )

Playfair: Well, I didn't...

( Liefhebber )

Mm-hmm. Yes.

Mmm.

( Playfair )

Grant: My sister was a character.

My sister lived life to the full.

She was Janet Esther Grosse, and she was 22 years old.

She was 22 years old. N... No age at all.

Richard: My sister was killed in a motorcycle accident in Cardiff.

And it happened on my birthday.

I received a visit from the police, I think, 2:30 in the morning, telling me that I should go to Cardiff Royal Infirmary because that's where she was.

Janet was lying on the hospital bed with her head wrapped in bandages, and two black eyes.

She'd suffered, um, a major trauma to her head.

And we all sat there. And it was a tragic day.

And we eventually switched the machine off, and my sister passed away.

And around that awful event were some extraordinary things that happened.

Call them coincidence, call them f... fate, call them whatever you like.

The afternoon before, when my sister had her accident, my mother was on the beach.

And at that time, 4:20 in the afternoon, she felt seriously ill, so ill that my father wanted to call a... an ambulance to the beach.

A clock that had always worked stopped at the precise time, 4:20.

Grant: It was the summer of 1976 when it didn't rain for months, and there was a huge water shortage.

And underneath my sister's bedroom window is the roof of the extension to the kitchen.

That roof was soaking wet.

No other roofs anywhere around were wet. Just that roof.

Richard: But I think the most extraordinary event happened to me.

After my sister died, on the way back, on the train, I realized that my sister would've sent me a birthday card.

And that birthday card would almost certainly be on the mat at home when I got in.

Grant: Janet's birthday card to Richard, August the 5th, 1976.

I was absolutely amazed by what I saw.

On the front was a person with a head wrapped in bandages, two black eyes, in a hospital gown.

"I was going to buy you a bottle of toilet water for your birthday... but the lid fell on my head. Happy birthday."

A strange, strange wording for a card.

But what was even stranger was that my sister had written in her own hand an arrow pointing to the word "head."

And it went down, and it said, "And there won't be much left of that soon anyway. Love, Jan."

How could she have... ( stammers ) known, but without knowing?

H... How could... How could something like this happen?

It's...

It's too unreal.

Grant: All these phenomena, and the fact that they all happened at the same time, made us feel that there was something going on.

Grosse: Janet. Janet.

Margaret: Poltergeist.

Grant: Something that we couldn't explain.

Playfair: Are you listening, Janet?

Grosse: P-O-L-T-E-R-G-E-I-S-T.

Poltergeist.

Grant: It changed him completely.

Grosse: Lo-Losing a child...

Time helps, but, uh, you never get over it.

Happens.

I often wonder what would have happened had she lived, how different our lives...

Mmm.

Would have been. Your life would have been quite different.

You realize that, don't you?

My life would have been quite different because it was the extraordinary things that happened when she... ( stammers )

Around about the time she died. Extraordinary psychic thing...

What I consider to be psychic, and so did you...

That happened, that, uh, sort of launched me onto this determination to try and find out more about what happens when you... you die, and what psychic research is all about.

Richard: If you think of coincidence, then how extraordinary not only is that set of circumstances...

But my father goes to the Society and says, "I'd like a case," and the very first case that comes along turns out to be arguably the most important case in the history of paranormal activity.

Grosse: Did you... Did you die in this house?

Did you pass on? You did pass on in this house?

Now why are you here? Are you unhappy?

Janet: Now, I often wonder, you know, strange it may seem, it could be coincidence.

It may not have been that his daughter's name was Janet.

But I think he felt that, at the time...

Like he was put in touch with us for a reason.

Grosse, through recorder: You did pass on in this house?

Now why are you here? Are you unhappy?

( child Janet grunting )

Peggy: Christ! It's the ghost! It's the ghost!

Grosse: Janet. Can you hear me, Janet?

( indistinct recorder chatter )

( screaming )

( sighs )

Because he'd lost his daughter, you could argue that, you know, he had a... a motive... ( chuckles ) a-an incentive to try and find evidence.

But the question of coincidences or synchronicity, this domain of experience is fundamental.

If you yourself have had an experience, that is what's going to make you take this phenomena seriously.

Certainly, for me, I've had experiences which...

Which have, you know, made me feel... ( stammers ) these phenomena are g...

Some of these phenomena are genuine.

The whole point about psychical research is it does suggest that consciousness can actually directly interact with the physical world.

Fenwick: Because I had this interest in consciousness, obviously things like telepathy, psychokinesis and so on were phenomena which I was also interested in.

I began to see consciousness as a much wider phenomenon, not just generated in the brain.

I think the brain is in a field, and I think brain fields interact with each other.

The way that I might look at the Enfield poltergeist would be that you have a highly disturbed adolescent.

They've got this wonderful machine which is called their brain, and it can interact with the field of consciousness.

And if it does that, then these things can arise.

You can, by an intention, change things.

Carr: The physical world is just a sort of, you know...

It's like a four-dimensional slice, in my perspective, of this... of this higher-dimensional reality.

And this higher-dimensional reality is, if you like...

That's the world of... of mind.

The... The truth is, if psychic phenomena were real, it would be so important that we need to be sure.

I got into psychic research through an experience of my own, a dramatic out-of-the-body- turned-mystical experience that I couldn't understand at all.

This was when I was a first-year student at Oxford in 1970.

I became so committed to the idea that my spirit or astral body had left that I thought, "Well, I don't want to carry on with what would've been a sensible career in psychology and physiology," which is what I was doing, "I want to prove to the world that there are psychic phenomena."

I started doing a lot of experiments on telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and so on.

announcer: According to one theory, PK powers fade with age and should therefore be strongest in babies.

The computer will play a nice tune and show a smiling face, which Emily enjoys looking at, um, according to the output of the random number generator.

( tune playing )

And what happens is, if she's using her PK successfully, it will play more often.

Blackmore: To begin with, I got some significant results that you wouldn't expect by chance.

Bye.

( tune playing )

Blackmore: But then, over four to five years, the experimental work that I did led me to be... ( stammers ) ever and ever more doubtful.

And I became more and more worried.

"Well, how am I ever going to find these things?"

"Well, if that doesn't work, there's always this.

And if this doesn't work, then there's this.

There's always another door to open.

There's always another corner to turn."

That was the feeling.

Until one day, this thought came over me: What if none of it is true?

Carr: The whole point about psychical research is that you should be skeptical.

I mean, not disbelieving, but you should start off always trying to find a natural explanation.

That's true of science in general.

You should be skeptical in the sense that you're always open.

The Enfield case is without doubt one of the most evidential cases in the sense that we've got all these recordings.

Gregory: Inevitably, any so-called "spontaneous" case is chaotic, and it is hard to come by any definite conclusion.

There is, as regards Enfield, a considerable amount of testimony.

You see things that you can't explain, you've got a tendency not to believe them.

You've got a tendency to say, "I didn't really see 'em."

Grosse: Ah.

But you know you did.

And there was a chest of drawers moving towards the door.

Nottingham: And there was banging.

Banging on the side of the walls, and on the ceiling.

On the floor.

Gregory: Some of this testimony is quite impressive and reassuring, but there is no real evidence.

My view is that, unfortunately, much of the case withers away on closer inspection.

There was a... an ordinary kitchen chair moved across the room.

Small armchair, and it jumped, was it, about four or five inches from the settee?

And the policewoman saw it.

It, um, came off the floor, oh, nearly a half inch, I should say.

Grosse: It moved approximately three to four feet and then came to rest.

Moved about, well, I expect 18 inches, something like that. Just a short way.

Blackmore: Our brain's main thing they're doing all the time is recognizing patterns.

The more we understand about the brain, the less room there is for belief in paranormal phenomena.

Human bodies are machines, but somehow we want to be more than that.

People want to believe there's more than this world.

Morris: But as I entered the front room, something... I think it was a LEGO brick...

Came from behind me very low down and very fast and hit the wall in front of me.

I went straight toward...

Carr: Looking back on it now...

Morris: ...and stood with my back to it...

Carr: ...my own impression is that, you know, there's so many accounts, so many witnesses.

One can't just dismiss all those and say it was all fraud or imagination.

What's so f-frustrating is we still don't know.

Not just in the Enfield case, it applies to almost everything in psychical research.

But that's precisely what makes psych... ( stammers ) ...the subject so tantalizing.

How would you distinguish between what is nonsense and what is...

What is true? ( breathes deeply )

Grosse: It has been said many times by skeptics and critics of psychic research that my interest in the subject was motivated by grief.

And that this grief distorted my sense of reality.

Their conclusions are entirely mistaken.

The Enfield case proved to my satisfaction and beyond a shadow of doubt, that the realities of life and death are not what they appear to be.

Richard, through recorder: Bill, I want you to tell me whether you remember what happened to you when you died.

Just before you died and just after you died.

Richard: Bill, who was the voice... this is the ghost...

He described how he died.

Bill: Days before I died...

I went blind.

I had an hemorrhage, and I fell asleep... and I died in a chair.

In a corner downstairs.

Richard: Some years later, my father received a telephone call.

And it was from a man who said he knew the voice.

Grosse: Ah, hello.

Hello, Maurice. Nice to meet you again.

Grosse: Nice seeing you again.

Come in.

Richard: This chap identified himself as the son of William Wilkins... Bill.

Richard, through recorder: Bill, I want you to tell me whether you remember what happened to you when you died.

Just before you died and just after you died.

Bill: Days before I died, I went blind.

Then I had an hemorrhage, and I fell asleep, and I died in a chair in a corner downstairs.

Is... That's... That's right?

That's exactly true.

That is exactly true, yes.

Mmm. ( stammers ) Exactly as he did.

And we're... Of course, at that time, we certainly didn't know how he died.

The only thing we knew at that time...

Mm-hmm.

Was that your father had gone blind.

Yeah.

We didn't know anything else.

( stammers ) No, no.

Bu-But it describes exactly how he died.

That's exactly what happened.

He died in the chair, down in the living room.

Uh, my mum popped out to the shop for ten minutes.

Mmm. When she came back, he was dead.

Grosse: Incredible.

Bill's son: That's exact...

Grosse: And here we are... another confirmation.

Mm-hmm.

Mmm. Very interesting.

Se-See, the sort of things like knocking on the wall.

The three knocks, always three knocks on the wall.

It was just a strange knock on the wall.

( air-raid siren wailing )

Bill's son: During the war they-they were air raid wardens together.

And, uh, if ever the sirens went off, one would knock to the other one.

And then they'd meet out the back, "Are you ready, Fred?" "Yeah."

"Okay, see you outside in a moment."

And then they'd go off. That's how they used to communicate.

Rather than go knocking on the door, there'd be three taps on the wall every time. ( chuckles )

Amazing. Hmm.

Richard: "Spoon bent at breakfast by Janet."

These are things. These are just objects.

And without context, they don't mean anything.

Except it represents, you know, this...

Such an important part of my father's life, and the time and effort that went into it.

For me, the whole experience tells me that there are things above and beyond our senses.

When someone tells me their story...

And so many people have stories of things that have happened to them... I don't dismiss them anymore. I listen.

Grosse: Rolling?

passenger: Yeah. Do I need a seat belt?

Grosse: It doesn't need a seat belt.

passenger: No? Oh.

Richard: The last 29 years of his life, he was a paranormal investigator, which I know he enjoyed probably more than any other time in his life.

We went to "intraview" Britain's leading expert on ghosts. Check it.

I is here with Britain's number one parapsychologist, Maurice Grosse.

And we is here, actually in a haunted house, and I is well scared.

I's bricking it.

( audience laughing )

How long has this house been haunted?

This house? Aye.

This... Uh, no. You...

We got it all wrong. This is not a haunted house.

This...

This is my house... ( chuckles )

You investigate things.

Now, one of the... The most difficult things that you ever did was the Enfield poltergeist.

What things did you see?

Well, things flying about. We had...

What things?

Uh, big furniture, small furniture.

In fact, the settee turned upside down and flew across the room right in front of me as I walked into the room.

Had you been drinking?

No.

( audience laughs )

audience member: Too funny.

Grosse: Ah, hello, Uri.

Oh, hello, Maurice.

How are you? Nice to see you.

Hi, how are you?

Lovely to see you.

You're filming, huh?

Grosse: Yes.

Come on in.

Uri: Ready?

Grosse: Yes.

Uri: Ta-da-da-da.

Oh, my God. ( chuckles )

Grosse: Oh, goodness me.

Uri: 5,000 bent spoons and forks on it.

Many of them were bent with my abilities, my powers.

Grosse: Oh, heavens.

Uri: See, it brought a smile on your face.

Grosse chuckles: I'll say. I'll say.

Whatever we know about life, about the world, um, we still haven't cracked it.

Grosse: Here we go.

Grant: There's still things that we... we probably won't ever find out.

Dad tried to find out.

He was a lovely... He was a lovely dad. He was a lovely dad.

Janet: And though the case was over, he used to come once a month.

This evening should be very interesting indeed.

I'm going to see Margaret and her mother, of the Enfield poltergeist case, now nearly 18 years ago.

He'd have, um, boxes of Maltesers for us each.

Well, here I am at this, uh, famous house, uh, in Enfield.

And, uh, here you see Margaret and her mother.

Janet: He'd talk to my mum. She would make him a cup of tea, and he would ask how she's been and how we all are.

Grosse: You remember the day I first came?

Yes, I remember, Mr. Grosse.

Yeah, we do remember that, Mr. Grosse.

And you was on the case ever since then.

Yeah.

Janet: You know, it wasn't like, "Now the poltergeist is finished, I'm just not gonna come."

He made the effort, and he continued to be like a family friend as well.

Margaret: I used to go back regularly just to look at that house.

About two years ago, we went in the car, and my husband drove us.

We got the feeling no one was really in there.

We just had a look, and then all this flashing started in the living room.

All the lights started going on and off, flashing on and off.

I felt like maybe something had recognized me.

I don't wanna go back there now.

I don't wanna go back there.

Janet: I was glad to get out of there. I left home as soon as I could.

Peggy: Where is she?

( overlapping tape recorder chatter )

( Peggy speaks indistinctly )

Janet: It's something that n-not many people experience.

( Grosse speaks indistinctly )

Janet: And I've had to get strong from a pretty early age and build on that.

Grosse: Try-Try and explain to me...

child Janet, distorted: I was in bed, right...

Janet: It used to upset me when they used to say, "Oh, she's faking it."

child Janet: Like this. Like this.

Janet: I know what I experienced, and I know that it was real.

( Grosse speaks indistinctly )

child Janet: Yeah.

Janet: It had such a devastating effect on me.

I've never really said this to anyone, but you never really feel completely yourself.

What is "myself," you know?

It's something you never forget.

Something that you'll just think of, and it'll just come flowing back, you know?

You never feel like you're free of it.

I don't like to say this, you know, but I feel it even now.

It's never left me.

( "I Love the Sound of Breaking Glass" playing )

Source: https://tvshowtranscripts.ourboard.org/viewtopic.php?f=2083&t=66301

Episode 4 - Maurice Grosse Daughter's synchronicities (1976)

23'40''

Grant: My sister was a character. My sister lived life to the full. She was Janet Esther Grosse, and she was 22 years old. She was 22 years old. N... No age at all.

Richard: My sister was killed in a motorcycle accident in Cardiff. And it happened on my birthday. I received a visit from the police, I think, 2:30 in the morning, telling me that I should go to Cardiff Royal Infirmary because that's where she was. Janet was lying on the hospital bed with her head wrapped in bandages, and two black eyes. She'd suffered, um, a major trauma to her head. And we all sat there. And it was a tragic day. And we eventually switched the machine off, and my sister passed away.

And around that awful event were some extraordinary things that happened. Call them coincidence, call them f... fate, call them whatever you like. The afternoon before, when my sister had her accident, my mother was on the beach. And at that time, 4:20 in the afternoon, she felt seriously ill, so ill that my father wanted to call a... an ambulance to the beach. A clock that had always worked stopped at the precise time, 4:20.

Grant: It was the summer of 1976 when it didn't rain for months, and there was a huge water shortage. And underneath my sister's bedroom window is the roof of the extension to the kitchen. That roof was soaking wet. No other roofs anywhere around were wet. Just that roof.

Richard: But I think the most extraordinary event happened to me. After my sister died, on the way back, on the train, I realized that my sister would've sent me a birthday card. And that birthday card would almost certainly be on the mat at home when I got in.

Grant: Janet's birthday card to Richard, August the 5th, 1976.

Richard: I was absolutely amazed by what I saw. On the front was a person with a head wrapped in bandages, two black eyes, in a hospital gown.

"I was going to buy you a bottle of toilet water for your birthday... but the lid fell on my head. Happy birthday."

A strange, strange wording for a card. But what was even stranger was that my sister had written in her own hand an arrow pointing to the word "head." And it went down, and it said, "And there won't be much left of that soon anyway. Love, Jan."

Grant: How could she have... ( stammers ) known, but without knowing? H... How could... How could something like this happen? It's... It's too unreal. All these phenomena, and the fact that they all happened at the same time, made us feel that there was something going on.

Source: https://tvshowtranscripts.ourboard.org/viewtopic.php?f=2083&t=66301

Episode 4 - Bill Wilkins' Son (1996)

42'18''

Richard: Some years later, my father received a telephone call. And it was from a man who said he knew the voice.

Grosse: Ah, hello. Hello, Maurice. Nice to meet you again.

Grosse: Nice seeing you again. Come in.

Richard: This chap identified himself as the son of William Wilkins... Bill.

Richard, through recorder: Bill, I want you to tell me whether you remember what happened to you when you died. Just before you died and just after you died.

Richard: Bill, who was the voice... this is the ghost... He described how he died.

Bill: Days before I died... I went blind. I had an hemorrhage, and I fell asleep... and I died in a chair. In a corner downstairs.

Maurice Grosse: Is... That's... That's right?

Bill's son: That's exactly true. That is exactly true, yes. Exactly as he did. And we're...

Maurice Grosse: Of course, at that time, we certainly didn't know how he died. The only thing we knew at that time was that your father had gone blind. Yeah. We didn't know anything else. ( stammers )

Bill's son: No, no. Bu-But it describes exactly how he died. That's exactly what happened. He died in the chair, down in the living room. Uh, my mum popped out to the shop for ten minutes. Mmm. When she came back, he was dead.

Maurice Grosse: Incredible.

Bill's son: That's exact...

Maurice Grosse: And here we are... another confirmation. Very interesting. Se-See, the sort of things like knocking on the wall. The three knocks, always three knocks on the wall. It was just a strange knock on the wall. ( air-raid siren wailing )

Bill's son: During the war they-they were air raid wardens together. And, uh, if ever the sirens went off, one would knock to the other one. And then they'd meet out the back, "Are you ready, Fred?" "Yeah." "Okay, see you outside in a moment." And then they'd go off. That's how they used to communicate. Rather than go knocking on the door, there'd be three taps on the wall every time.

Maurice Grosse: ( chuckles ) Amazing. Hmm.

Source: https://tvshowtranscripts.ourboard.org/viewtopic.php?f=2083&t=66301

The Enfield Hauntings Revisited - 26/10/2023

0215C-1977 - The Enfield Poltergeist - Pictures

0215C-1977 - The Enfield Poltergeist - The Conjuring 2

The.Conjuring.2.mp4

0215A-2019 - Triablogue - The Different Personality Of The Enfield Poltergeist

How The Personality Of The Enfield Poltergeist Differed From The Personalities Around It

I said a lot about the subject in my 2019 article on the poltergeist voice. I want to expand upon what I wrote there in relation to a certain aspect of the poltergeist's personality.

The poltergeist communicated in a variety of ways (e.g., speaking, knocking, writing), and it communicated through a variety of sources. Most significantly, the poltergeist voice manifested through multiple individuals, not just one, and sometimes was manifested in a disembodied form or through a dog. And some fraud hypotheses would propose that more than one person faked the knocking and writing incidents, for example, which means those hypotheses propose that multiple personalities were behind those phenomena. Even those who believe in the authenticity of one type of phenomenon sometimes reject the authenticity of another (e.g., accepting the knocking while rejecting the voice). So, when there's continuity across multiple types of phenomena and multiple individuals manifesting the phenomena, that continuity can have some significance for a wide variety of views of the case. That's especially true if the continuity involves something that seems to differentiate the poltergeist from the individual(s) thought to have faked the case or thought to have produced the poltergeist through psychic activity.

As I proceed, I'll be making reference to the Enfield tapes produced by Maurice Grosse and Guy Playfair. I'll cite a tape from Grosse's collection with "MG", and "GP" will be used to cite one from Playfair's. So, for example, MG98A refers to tape 98A in Grosse's collection, and GP4B refers to 4B in Playfair's.

Something that's striking about the poltergeist's communication as a whole is the lack of concern shown about Tony Hodgson, the father of the children and the ex-husband of Peggy. Another striking characteristic is the hostility exhibited toward the Burcombes, especially John. I'm not suggesting that those are the only characteristics that are relevant to what I'm discussing in this post, but I'll focus on those ones. The same principles can be applied to other characteristics.

The lack of interest in Tony goes across all of the phenomena, as far as I recall. In the vast majority of the sources I've consulted, including Playfair's book and the tapes, I don't remember any comment from the voice, trances, knocking, dreams, or writing, for instance, that was focused on Tony. Perhaps I'm overlooking one or more incidents. Even if I'm overlooking some events, they have to be rare.

The reason I referred to "the vast majority" above is because of what Anita Gregory reports on page 170 of her doctoral thesis about at least one visit Tony made to the house. Gregory mentions that Peggy told her in January of 1978 that "her ex-husband…brings the children's money on Saturdays, and how they all hate it…the voices told him [Tony] to shove off, f… off, p… off etc, and although Mrs. H says she very much disapproves of this sort of language…it was quite useful in getting Mr. H to go away quickly." I don't recall Gregory or anybody else reporting that the voice acted that way toward Tony on any other occasion. And Gregory refers to how Peggy said the voice's behavior "was" useful, which leaves the impression that such behavior wasn't ongoing. If the voice frequently or always behaved that way toward Tony, I'd expect Peggy to have used different language in describing the situation to Gregory, and I'd expect to have come across other reports of the voice's behaving that way. If the incident Gregory reports only occurred once or some other small number of times, then its significance is less accordingly. And the voice frequently swore at people - the Hodgsons, paranormal researchers visiting the house, people the Hodgsons encountered outside the house, etc. As I mentioned before, one of the reasons the Hodgsons hated the situation with the voice and wanted it to go away was because of how disruptive it was to their relationships (GP91B, 15:20, 25:59; GP94A, 16:45; GP95B, 24:01), sometimes to the point of motivating them to not leave the house. Even when people visited who were highly courteous and got along well with the children, like Playfair and Charles Moses, the voice would be abusive toward them. It didn't always behave that way, but often did. Nothing in Gregory's description of how the voice reacted to Tony suggests that the poltergeist was reacting to him as the Hodgsons would. It may have been expressing the mindset of one or more of the Hodgsons on that occasion, but the evidence Gregory provides is inconclusive. None of Tony's weekly visits to the house were caught on tape, but the visits are sometimes described later. I don't remember anybody else mentioning any behavior of the poltergeist during Tony's visits that's significant in the context under consideration in this post.

The poltergeist was somewhat active while Tony was there, but apparently not a lot. Gregory mentioned that the voice manifested on at least one occasion when Tony was at the house, and there are reports of other activity. There's a reference to a brush hitting him in the face (MG33A, 4:23). And Tony was the one who discovered the poltergeist's writing on a mirror during an incident you can read about here. Peggy noted that when Tony arrived for his weekly visit on December 3, 1977, it was about half past 10:00 in the morning. Peggy made a comment to Margaret about how the poltergeist often becomes active at 25 minutes until an hour, and paranormal events started at 25 minutes to the hour just after Peggy made that comment (GP20A, 2:34). So, Tony not only witnessed the events, apparently, but also heard Peggy anticipating the time when the events would start. But I don't know of any major incidents in the case or any significantly large number of lesser events that occurred while he was visiting.

He typically came to the house on Saturdays. And there was a lot of activity on some Saturdays. I mentioned December 3 of 1977 above, for example, which is the day when Janet got dragged out of bed by the poltergeist a few times. A significant series of events occurred the previous Saturday, November 26, as well (e.g., Janet going into a trance state, being injected with Valium, then getting thrown across the room by the poltergeist). But the December 3 events happened several hours before Tony arrived, the November 26 events happened after he left, and no connection to him was expressed during any of those events, as far as I know. When Janet was in her trance state on November 26 (which was captured on tape), she spoke while in that state and mentioned other people, but I don't think Tony was mentioned at all.

Some of the more eventful days in the case were Saturdays, but some weren't (October 23, 1977; November 10, 1977; December 15, 1977; May 30, 1978; etc.). To whatever extent there was a lot of activity on Saturdays, it's not as though Tony's visiting that day is the only potential explanation (e.g., Saturdays were the first day the family was together the whole day after five days in a row of the children having been away much of the time at school).

It seems that the poltergeist didn't show much interest in Tony Hodgson. By contrast, he was Peggy's ex-husband and the father of her children, and Peggy discusses him occasionally on the tapes and is referred to by other sources as having discussed him on other occasions. Peggy referred to how all of the children had told her that they didn't want to see their father (GP13B, 7:11), so the children weren't silent about their relationship with him either. Grosse went as far as to say that the children "hated" their father (at 1:18:01 in his presentation titled Enfield Poltergeist 25 Years On here). Playfair referred to an effort being made in a local court to try to prevent Tony from visiting the family (GP39B, 39:57). Playfair goes on to mention that Janet discussed her unhappiness over the situation with her father during a hypnosis session (the one conducted by Ian Fletcher on December 8, 1977). Here's a segment from a documentary in which a few witnesses discuss how bad the situation with the father was. The poltergeist's lack of interest in Tony seems to distinguish its mindset from that of the Hodgsons.

Before saying more about that subject, I want to expand on the poltergeist's hostility toward the Burcombes. I've discussed that hostility in some of my previous articles, such as this one on the poltergeist's voice and this one on the writings of the poltergeist. I want to supplement what I wrote in those articles, then address why the poltergeist may have been so hostile to the Burcombes.

Some of the poltergeist's earliest communications through knocking expressed hostility toward the Burcombes, especially John. The knocking began responding to Grosse on the night of October 23, 1977. On that night, John Burcombe asked the poltergeist whether he annoys it, and it knocked twice for "yes" (MG9Bii, 8:30). Just after, one of the children, apparently Paul Burcombe, asked if he annoyed the poltergeist, and he got one knock for "no" in response. The voice of the person asking the question seemed to be Paul's, but it may have been Janet or Margaret instead. It's a child's voice, and I think it's Paul's, but it may be Janet's or Margaret's instead. Even if Paul asked the question, it's still significant that his father got such a hostile response from the poltergeist. At another point during that night, Denise Burcombe asked the poltergeist whether it wanted to speak to her. It knocked once for "no" (MG9Bi, 1:31). Just after, Peggy Hodgson asked if the poltergeist wanted to speak to her, and it knocked twice for "yes". So, there was at least some negative response to two of the Burcombes, John and Denise, especially John. There may have been a more positive response to Paul, but, as we'll see, even if the poltergeist was more positive about Paul than it was about the other Burcombes at that point, it didn't take long for the poltergeist to show a lot of hostility toward Paul.

I've sometimes linked a portion of a documentary on Enfield that plays a few clips of the poltergeist voice expressing its anger. All of those clips come from the night of December 13, 1977. The voice was largely interacting with three of the Burcombes that night: John, Denise, and Paul. In the documentary segment just linked, the person talking to the voice is John. I've said before that the voice seemed to express more anger on that night than at any other point. And that anger seems to have been directed primarily at the Burcombes. In addition to its anger at John in the clips linked above, there's another point when it says of John's son, Paul, "He's a fucking swine." (MG44A, 31:44)

The poltergeist voice manifested through every member of the Hodgson family. Hostility toward the Burcombes was expressed by the voice through four of the five Hodgsons, all of them other than Johnny. I don't have much information on the nature of the voice manifestations through Johnny, for a variety of reasons. He isn't on the tapes much, and I don't recall coming across much information about his voice manifestations on the tapes. So, the lack of evidence for hostility toward the Burcombes through Johnny's voice doesn't have much significance. But Janet's voice is much more hostile toward John Burcombe than Janet seems to be. Billy's voice shows hostility toward both John and Paul Burcombe that seems uncharacteristic of Billy. And Peggy's voice swore at John when Peggy and John were in a store together, which is something I doubt Peggy would have done. So, there's a pattern of the voice showing hostility toward the Burcombes that's uncharacteristic of the individual through whom the voice is manifesting.

That hostility toward the Burcombes might have been due to mechanical factors. The Burcombes may have interfered with what the poltergeist wanted to do. They, especially John, were frequently at the Hodgsons' house and provided another location where the Hodgsons often lived. It would sometimes follow them to the Burcombes' house or go there on its own initiative, but it was substantially less active there than at the Hodgsons' house. We don't know much about the mechanics of poltergeists or the psychology of this particular one, but it could be that the frequent presence of the Burcombes interfered with the poltergeist's activities in some way, and relocating to the Burcombes' house may have involved some difficulties for it or may have placed limits on its actions, limits that it didn't want. (I discuss some potential explanations of how that would occur in my article on the voice.)

The hostility toward the Burcombes also may have been something of a more psychological nature. Perhaps the entity behind the poltergeist disliked one or more of the Burcombes, for whatever reason. Or it may have been picking up on a dislike of one or more of the Burcombes on the part of one or more of the Hodgsons and escalating it. The poltergeist would sometimes reproduce things it seems to have gotten from the mind of Janet or somebody else, but would reproduce it in a distorted form. On the tapes, the Hodgsons occasionally make negative comments about one or more of the Burcombes, but not often and to much less of a degree than the poltergeist did. The evidence I'm aware of strongly suggests that Peggy thought highly of her brother, and I doubt the store incident I referred to originated with her. (It's uncharacteristic of her in multiple ways, not just in its hostility toward John.) Grosse referred to how deliberate and calculating the poltergeist was and compared their interactions with it to a game of chess, in which the poltergeist makes a move and they make a countermove. Grosse thought the poltergeist was involved in "a deliberate attempt to cause dissension between the two families [the Hodgsons and the Burcombes]…a very calculated move on the part of the entity to cause dissension" (MG19A, 17:38).

There's an episode I want to highlight here that combines what I've been saying about the poltergeist's lack of interest in Tony Hodgson and its hostility toward the Burcombes. Earlier, I referred to an incident in which the poltergeist left some writing on a mirror, writing that was discovered by Tony on one of the occasions when he visited the Hodgsons' house. You can read about that incident here. It was the occasion when the poltergeist took a pork pie Denise Burcombe was preparing at the Burcombes' house and wrote "I've got your pork pie" on the mirror at the Hodgsons' house. It's significant that the poltergeist showed so little interest in Tony while he was visiting the house, but, simultaneously, showed so much interest in causing trouble for the Burcombes. That episode is a good illustration of that combination of traits.

Both the lack of interest in Tony and the hostility toward the Burcombes distinguish the poltergeist from the individuals most often proposed as the (normal or paranormal) source of the poltergeist, namely the Hodgsons. Tony was the children's father. Many people suggest that his behavior and the divorce associated with it brought on the poltergeist or were largely responsible for it. Even some skeptics of the case will propose that the children faked the case partly or wholly for reasons closely related to Tony. Similarly, as I've mentioned before, though the Hodgson children seem to have had some hostility toward the Burcombes, it seems to have been much less than what the poltergeist exhibited.

Characteristics of the poltergeist like these are some of the factors we should take into account when judging competing hypotheses about the case. Even within a narrow range of hypotheses, these characteristics I'm highlighting can be helpful in evaluating our options. For example, among those who think the poltergeist is some sort of manifestation of one or more psychological disorders among the Hodgsons, we can ask which disorder or combination of more than one best explains the characteristics I'm referring to. Even those who think the entire case is fraudulent would have an interest in explaining the psychology of the people involved, and the characteristics I'm addressing are relevant to that.

I've explained elsewhere that I think the entity behind the poltergeist was a deceased human with a malfunctioning mind. What the poltergeist thought of Tony and the Burcombes, especially John, makes a lot of sense under that view. Tony wasn't around much and didn't show much interest in the poltergeist. It probably didn't have much interest in him. By contrast, the Burcombes were around a lot, especially John, and he probably was the most skeptical individual and the one most critical of the poltergeist among those who were at the house the most. He and his family also provided the Hodgsons with another place to live occasionally, which may have interfered with the poltergeist's activities in ways it disliked.

But this post isn't intended to be primarily about my view of the entity behind the poltergeist. Rather, I'm focused on some characteristics of the poltergeist that need to be explained by any view, whether mine or somebody else's. It's important to keep in mind that the characteristics I've highlighted were manifested across multiple types of phenomena, multiple circumstances, and multiple individuals through whom the phenomena operated, for example. That continuity across so many contexts needs to be explained. It requires a higher level of intelligence, planning, and such under a fraud scenario, for example. Or under a scenario in which the poltergeist was being produced by the psychic activities of one or more living individuals, it would need to be argued that two or more individuals involved happened to have the trait under consideration, that one individual with that trait was projecting it onto one or more other individuals, or whatever else. And so on.

To fully appreciate the significance of the degree to which the poltergeist was consistent in these traits, it's helpful to think of how inconsistent people often are, including the Hodgsons in particular. As I've listened to Grosse and Playfair's tapes, I've noticed many differences among the Hodgsons and within the life of a given individual over time. Playfair's book on Enfield (This House Is Haunted [United States: White Crow Books, 2011]) sometimes discusses the differences among the Hodgson children. Here's Mary Rose Barrington of the Society for Psychical Research describing some of the differences she noticed between Janet and Margaret. And here's Graham Morris talking about some differences among the Hodgsons. Morris refers to how Margaret would "cry at the drop of a hat". By contrast, Janet didn't cry much. In Stewart Lamont's Enfield video, you see the two girls sitting on a couch together, with Margaret dressed better, sitting up straighter, communicating more clearly, and rebuking Janet for making an inappropriate comment at one point ("Shut up!"). In another context in the same video, we see Janet and Billy on the floor, playing with Legos, while Margaret is sitting with her mother and has a more serious disposition. Notice, too, that Billy is turned away from the camera, with an arm over his face, apparently because he didn't want to be filmed. By contrast, in this segment of a video from November of 1977, Billy lifts his head up from the kitchen table and looks directly into the camera. Maybe he became more self-conscious from November of 1977 to February of 1978 (when Lamont's video was filmed) or handled the situations differently for some other reason. Children are often inconsistent like that. In his book, Playfair refers to how different Janet was after she spent some time in the Maudsley Hospital in the summer of 1978 (241-43). When you're the age the Hodgson children were at that time, you change more rapidly. A period like a year, two years, or even less than a year in some contexts can involve more change than it would during other phases of life. Factors like these should be taken into account when evaluating the consistencies of poltergeist phenomena. Why was the poltergeist so consistent at a time when the Hodgson children were so inconsistent? That isn't to suggest that the children were inconsistent in every conceivable way. Obviously, there were consistencies accompanying the inconsistencies. But it's striking that the poltergeist not only exhibited some characteristics you wouldn't expect from the Hodgsons, individually or together, but also did so with such consistency at a time in life when the Hodgson children were so inconsistent.

0215A-2019 - Triablogue - Apparitions At Enfield

The Enfield case arguably began with an apparition, and apparitions were still being reported around thirty years later. Margaret Hodgson referred to an apparition she saw while using a Ouija board in 1974, and she reported seeing the same apparition when the poltergeist was at the height of its activities a few years later (Guy Playfair, This House Is Haunted [United States: White Crow Books, 2011], 238-39). When the Bennetts moved into the house after Peggy Hodgson's death in 2003, one of them reported that, "The night before we moved out, I woke up and saw a man come into the room."

What I want to focus on in this post is the evidence we have for apparitions between those two points in the case. I'll largely be drawing from Maurice Grosse and Guy Playfair's Enfield tapes. I'll use "MG" to cite Grosse's tapes and "GP" to cite Playfair's. MG99B refers to Grosse's tape 99B, GP14A refers to Playfair's tape 14A, and so forth. It's helpful in some contexts to be able to picture the layout of the Hodgsons' house, so go here to see a floor plan.

On the morning of October 15, 1977, Vic Nottingham was in his back yard, walking toward his house (MG6B, 9:44). He noticed an old woman, with gray hair, standing at the window facing the back yard in the middle bedroom upstairs in the Hodgsons' house. On the floor plan linked above, it's the window to the right on the bottom of the upstairs diagram. None of the Hodgsons were home at the time (MG6A, 11:07). Later in the day, Peggy was out shopping. When she got home, she reported seeing an old woman with gray hair standing at the bay window on the ground floor. She reported that experience before hearing about what Vic had seen. Playfair mentions in his book that, "[Vic] was the last person I would have thought would ever claim to have seen a ghost." (44) Notice the similarities in what they saw: a woman, who's old, with gray hair, standing at a window, on the same day. That much overlap is unlikely to have resulted from something like their imaginations or hallucinations.

On one of the tapes, Janet refers to seeing a vision, apparently of a man standing at the bedroom door (MG60B, 25:09). It lasts a little over half a minute. Peggy can't see it, but Billy makes some comments and apparently refers to seeing something. (I can't understand much of what he's saying, because of his speech impediment.) He seems to say, "I can see it, too." (25:41) Peggy then asks, "Who is it? Do you know?", and the poltergeist voice says, "Me." (26:02)

The audio quality of tape MG86A is poor, but there's a discussion there about an apparition of Grosse (MG86A, 5:17). It sounds like at least two members of the family saw the apparition, at the same time, in the same place, saying the same thing, etc.

Elsewhere, Margaret refers to how she and Billy saw the same apparition, apparently at the same time and in the same place (GP47Ai, 6:16). She goes on to mention that Janet saw it as well, but doesn't say whether Janet saw it at the same time and place.

Typically, I think, the apparitions would only be seen by one person at a time. Click here to listen to John Burcombe describe one he experienced while in the house alone. In another context, he refers to a neighbor who walked by the Hodgsons' house and saw what she called "the face of death", which she described as an old person, in the bay window (MG72A, 13:26).

It was common for people to see partial apparitions, such as a portion of a person's body without seeing the rest of the body. In a previous post, I discussed some occasions when a disembodied hand was seen. Peggy described an apparition she saw "without any doubt in my mind" (MG62A, 0:22). That's a significant qualifier, since she was careful to acknowledge her uncertainty on a lot of other occasions when she described apparent paranormal experiences she'd had. She saw a man's legs going up the stairs, but without seeing anything above the legs. On another occasion, she saw a man's shoulders going through the kitchen door, apparently without anything below or above the shoulders (MG64B, 23:27).

There were doppelgangers as well, like the one of Grosse I referred to above. I believe a doppelganger of Grosse was seen at least four times (e.g., MG13B, 16:19), including one occasion when the doppelganger had a scar across his face for some reason (MG86A, 5:17). A doppelganger of Janet was seen at least twice. I discussed one of the occasions in a post a couple of years ago. John Burcombe reported seeing a doppelganger of Janet, standing at one of the bedroom windows in the front of the house, while Janet was downstairs (GP51A, 15:03). Peggy, who was there at the time, confirmed that nobody had gone upstairs. Janet had been downstairs the whole time. And Burcombe comments that it would have been "impossible" for Janet to have come downstairs after appearing in the window upstairs, since he could see the steps through a window on the front door of the house. He was confident that Janet hadn't come down the steps.

Just after describing the experience mentioned above, Burcombe refers to visiting the Hodgsons' house the next day and seeing another apparition through the bay window. He saw the shadow of a man in the living room, a man about six feet tall, as if he was getting up from a chair in the room. There was no man in the house at the time. Peggy then relates a similar experience she had, seeing the shadow of a man moving through the house. Burcombe and his daughter, Denise, saw the shadow of a man appear on a wall in the Hodgsons' house (GP46A, 19:07). Denise said it remained there for a few minutes. When she was walking by the Hodgsons' house on another day, with none of the Hodgsons home at the time, she saw a shadow walking through their living room (MG92A, 24:59). Page 237 of Playfair's book explains that the family was about fifty miles away from the house on vacation. John Burcombe was watching their house while they were away. It was earlier that day when Burcombe saw the apparition in the house discussed in the documentary I linked earlier. That night, Denise had her experience seeing the shadow.

The apparitions would sometimes be accompanied by other paranormal phenomena or physical evidence corresponding to the apparition. For example, Peggy and Janet woke up around the same time one morning (MG64B, 25:53). Janet's headboard was shaking, and she didn't seem to be causing it. She then said she saw an old man standing in the doorway. After the man left, they heard steps on the staircase. Apparently, Playfair was the only person in the house who may have been walking down the steps, but Peggy apparently saw him walking out of his room upstairs when she came out of the main bedroom, which implies that he hadn't just walked down the stairs. While Peggy is explaining what happened, the poltergeist voice makes comments identifying himself as the old man Janet saw. In another context, Janet reported seeing the bedroom door open, and a man walked in (GP52A, 40:38). He had long nails, and Janet refers to being frightened by him. She refers to trying to get out of bed and being pushed back in by the man, though he eventually left. Margaret then comments that she saw him as well. She doesn't specify the context in which she saw him, but, judging by what she says elsewhere (GP52B, 1:25) and Janet's lack of reference to anybody else being in the room, Margaret probably only saw the man on a different occasion. Notice that multiple objective elements are involved here: the door opening, being pushed back, and another person seeing the man in question, though at a different time. Janet refers to how she ran, screaming and crying, to her mother. Peggy corroborates that aspect of the account and comments on how rare it is for Janet to cry: "She was definitely frightened. There was no ifs and buts over it this time….When she starts crying, well that means business, as far as I'm concerned anyway." (GP52A, 42:18) Grosse says "Yes" while Peggy is talking, expressing agreement about how rare it is for Janet to cry. It seems rare to me as well, judging by the tapes and other evidence I'm familiar with relating to Janet's character at that age. On another occasion, Janet saw an apparition of a man lying on a bed for a few minutes, and there was an indentation of somebody having laid there afterward (MG87A, 7:05). She also reported seeing an apparition of a more positive nature, the (deceased) parents of Vic Nottingham (GP54B, 4:40). She says they helped her make the beds. Peggy commented elsewhere that when Janet was younger, she knew Vic's father well (MG2B, 15:37).

That apparition I just mentioned was exceptional in its positive nature, in the sense of its involving people Janet knew and liked helping her with something. The vast majority of the apparitions were neutral or negative.

At a March 29, 1978 symposium of the Society for Psychical Research (SPR), Playfair made some important points about these apparitions. It's doubtful that the people involved in the case would have made up accounts with some of the features found in the reports of the Enfield apparitions (MG83A, 35:05).

For one thing, you wouldn't expect a family like the Hodgsons and some of the other individuals involved to know much about the paranormal. The Hodgsons were a lower-class family without much education, and their language, grammar, spelling, and other characteristics suggest that they hadn't been doing much research on paranormal issues or other relevant topics. In the early stages of the case, Janet would refer to the poltergeist as the "polkadice" (MG2A, 38:59). Peggy, with a serious tone of voice and without any indication that she knew she was doing anything wrong, referred to a Ouija board as a "Luigi board" (GP49A, 2:44). She also got the SPR's name wrong when discussing the organization in September of 1977 (GP36B, 1:51). The family and others often commented on how little they knew about the paranormal issues involved and how dependent they were on people like Grosse for information (GP35A, 32:54).

Yet, much of what the witnesses reported about apparitions would have required significantly more knowledge of paranormal matters than those individuals seem to have had if the reports were faked. Playfair cites the example of partial apparitions (e.g., a person sees only a disembodied leg, not the whole body, in an apparition). There are reports of such apparitions in other paranormal cases, but how likely is it that so many people like those in the Enfield case (often lower-class people, without much education, etc.) would have been familiar with the concept of partial apparitions? And if they were familiar with it, why would they fake accounts involving such apparitions and do it so often? Full apparitions are better known to the public and would tend to be considered more interesting, disturbing, and so forth.

Another example is what was reported about seeing doppelgangers. People normally associate apparitions with the dead, not with living individuals. There's precedent in paranormal research for doppelgangers, but you wouldn't expect the large majority of people, who don't know much about the paranormal, to be making up apparitions of the living as often as they were reported in the Enfield case.

It's sometimes noted that a lot of popular movies and literature in the horror genre came out in the 1970s and could have influenced Enfield and other paranormal cases. But there isn't much evidence of that sort of influence with the Enfield case in general or the apparitions in particular. To the contrary, the restrained nature of the apparitions is striking. They're typically something along the lines of a person standing at a doorway or walking across a room. The large majority involve a person of normal appearance doing something mundane. Even the most significant exceptions I recall, though disturbing, are less so than what you'd see in a horror movie. The witnesses, both adults and children, don't seem to have put much effort into developing an impressive account. They come across as reporting what they'd actually seen, which doesn't bear much resemblance to popular fiction.

0215A-2019 - Triablogue - The Voice And Personality Of The Enfield Poltergeist

If a poltergeist talks, there's potential to get more information from it. But the value of the information you get is going to depend, in part, on the poltergeist's personality.

One of the most controversial aspects of the Enfield case, an aspect that often gets more attention than is warranted, is the voice that allegedly was manifested by the poltergeist. Despite the large amount of attention the phenomena receive, interpretations of the voice, both in support of its paranormality and against it, are usually remarkably simplistic. That's partly because the large majority of people commenting on the subject have only heard a small percentage of what the voice said. But even what they say about that small percentage is often unreasonable.

I'm revisiting the issues surrounding the voice because I finished listening to Maurice Grosse and Guy Playfair's Enfield tapes earlier this year. The voice is present or discussed on dozens of those tapes, covering many hours, so that the tapes provide a lot of additional information on the issues involved.

When I cite the tapes below, I'll use "MG" to designate a tape from Grosse's collection and "GP" to designate one from Playfair's. For example, MG102B is tape 102B in Grosse's collection, and GP59A is tape 59A in Playfair's.

I'll be including the voice's vulgar language when I quote it. I don't use that sort of language, and I disapprove of it, but it has relevance to some of the points I'll be making. And given how often the voice is vulgar, leaving out the vulgarity would be too disruptive.

I want to start by summarizing the evidence for the authenticity (paranormality) of the voice. That will provide some motivation upfront for working through these issues. I'll then move on to address some objections to the authenticity of the voice. After that, I'll discuss some other subjects. Since this article is so long, some readers may want to use Ctrl F to find what they're most interested in.

The extent to which the evidence for and against the voice is significant, or even relevant, will vary from one view of the voice to another. If somebody thinks that one or more of the Hodgson children had dissociative identity disorder or some other such condition, for example, then that view has different implications than one in which the children faked everything without any of those other psychological issues involved. I'm offering some general considerations with more than one view in mind.

Evidence For The Voice

Manifestations Independent Of The Hodgson Children

One of the most surprising aspects of the Enfield tapes is how often the poltergeist is reported to have spoken audibly independently of the Hodgson children. I don't remember any radio or television program about the Enfield case discussing any of these incidents, and Playfair's book doesn't mention most of them. The number of occasions when the poltergeist was thought to have audibly spoken independent of the Hodgson children is at least in the double digits. Grosse goes as far as to say that "practically everybody" had heard the poltergeist speaking in a disembodied way (GP97B, 4:37).

The earliest occurrences I'm aware of happened before the Hodgsons even knew that something paranormal was going on in their house. In retrospect, it seems obvious that an explanation is needed for why Janet and Johnny were in a bedroom together on the night when the family first recognized that something paranormal was happening (August 31, 1977). Wouldn't it make more sense for the two girls to sleep in one room and the two boys in another? Yes, and that's how they usually did arrange things. But, as Peggy Hodgson explains on one of the tapes, Billy began saying that he could hear his name being called and was frightened by it (MG65B, 14:03). They assumed Johnny was doing it, so the two boys were separated. But I doubt that Billy would have been so frightened by his brother calling his name, and multiple people later reported hearing the poltergeist calling Billy's name on at least a few occasions, so I suspect the incidents in August of 1977 also came from the poltergeist.

In later months, many people reported hearing a disembodied voice on many occasions (e.g., MG30B, 19:56; MG70B, 5:25; MG71A, 0:49; MG76B, 6:25; MG91B, 24:54; MG92A, 5:43; MG94B, 0:51; GP73A, 22:10, 24:37, 26:17). When discussing one of these events, Peggy commented that she heard the voice "quite clearly" and "definitely heard it" (MG87A, 3:00, 3:57). On another occasion, John Burcombe said that he would "stake my very being" on the fact that he heard a voice (GP73A, 26:31). Some of the voices were heard by more than one person (MG63A, 3:02; MG70B, 6:01; MG76B, 8:59; MG91B, 17:05; GP73A, 22:10). The voices occurred when the children weren't in the room (MG70B, 6:01) or weren't even on the same floor (MG70B, 5:25, MG87A, 2:48).

Peggy refers to indistinct voices she heard in a different part of the house than where she was at the time (MG94B, 0:51). That's reminiscent of what was reported by the Bennetts, the family who moved into the house after Peggy's death more than twenty-five years later.

After the voice began manifesting through the children, witnesses reported that it would sometimes come from a different part of the room than where the children were. During an April 8, 2018 program on BBC Radio, Rosalind Morris and Richard Grosse commented on how the voice sometimes couldn't be traced to anybody in the room and couldn't be explained by ventriloquism. Listen from 24:57 to 25:45 here. There are similar comments from other witnesses on the tapes. During a phase when the voice was manifesting primarily through Janet, Peggy seems to say that she thought she heard the voice coming from some other part of the room, away from Janet (MG53A, 21:39).

It should be noted that the disembodied voices often sounded the same as the embodied ones (MG70B, 6:24). But they often sounded different. For example, Grosse and Paul Burcombe heard a disembodied voice upstairs on one occasion, with none of the Hodgson children in the room, and the voice sounded like Grosse's (MG63A, 3:02). In another context, Peggy heard a voice like David Robertson's (GP52A, 43:38).

I've written elsewhere about a voice manifesting through a dog. That apparently happened on two different occasions.

The voice came through Peggy as well. To my knowledge, the earliest report of the poltergeist speaking through her in some form, though apparently just by making some noises, was in March of 1978 (GP51A, 11:28). She and John Burcombe reported that the voice manifested through her when they met each other in a store, without any of the Hodgson children present (MG87A, 5:49; MG95A, 29:40). On that occasion, the voice was swearing at Burcombe. Given how seldom Peggy swore, how she was so apologetic on the rare occasions when she did swear, and how well she got along with her brother (Burcombe), it seems highly unlikely that a middle-aged woman like Peggy would fake a male voice that swears at her brother in public. When she talked to Grosse about the incident, she said she didn't even know that the voice was coming from her at the time. In another context, in August of 1979, Burcombe comments on how there's been a lot of voice activity from Peggy lately (MG95B, 0:32). Though I don't remember ever hearing him discuss the subject publicly, Grosse acknowledges on one of his tapes that the voice did sometimes come from Peggy (MG101A, 40:33).

It seems that some of the disembodied voices were caught on tape. Unfortunately, some of the references to taping discarnate voices aren't accompanied by much detail about where to find the recordings. For example, Grosse refers to how John Burcombe taped a disembodied voice (MG97A, 20:46), but it's not said whether the tape is in Grosse or Playfair's collection and, if so, where it is in that collection. Charles Moses, who was then with the Southern California Society for Psychical Research, mentions the recording of a disembodied voice as one of the experiences he had at the Hodgsons' house that he considered genuinely paranormal (MG69A, 24:43). He disagreed with Grosse on some aspects of the Enfield case, so he wasn't just uncritically accepting whatever Grosse told him. Moses refers to giving a tape of the voice to Raymond Bayless, a researcher who specialized in Raudive issues, and reports that Bayless considered the tape a genuine recording of a disembodied voice (MG69A, 14:41). But I don't know where that recording is in Grosse's collection, if it's there any longer. Some of the tapes have been lost or have significantly deteriorated over the years. The recording in question may be on one of the Raudive sessions that are still extant in Grosse's collection, but, if so, I haven't noticed it yet. There are some places in those sessions or elsewhere in which I think a voice may be present (MG77A, 10:17; GP94B, 3:46) or probably is (GP94B, 32:19).

The best recording of a disembodied voice that I'm aware of is the one Playfair gives the most attention to in his book (This House Is Haunted [United States: White Crow Books, 2011], 202-3). On February 6, 1978, some thumping was heard in the middle upstairs bedroom while nobody was there (MG78Aii, 3:01). Playfair decided to run a Raudive session in the room, so he set up a tape recorder and shut the door. Everybody was downstairs during the session. Nobody went into the room or even went upstairs (2:42). Playfair stayed downstairs the whole time and monitored what everybody was doing. Grosse was downstairs with him, also monitoring what was going on. Playfair was in the kitchen, and Grosse was in the living room, so they had a good view of everything that was happening on that floor of the house. Playfair explains on page 203 of his book that the poltergeist voice wasn't manifesting from any of the children during the Raudive session. Keep in mind that there were several people downstairs, and Playfair notes in his book that the children downstairs "were chattering away" (203). The lack of noise from people downstairs during the recording can't be because the people down there weren't talking much. At 3:23 on the tape, you hear the poltergeist voice saying "Here I come!", something it had said on other occasions as well. It's a quiet voice, but it's louder than the faint noises you hear coming through the floorboards or from outside at other points in the tape, and it's clearer than those other noises. It's also notable that "Here I come!" fits the context well. Playfair was trying to record a disembodied voice, and that sort of comment is significantly appropriate for the occasion. I doubt that one of the children was producing the voice downstairs, just happened to say something so appropriate for the context, that the child's voice downstairs came through the floorboards in a way that's louder and clearer than the other noises that got through the floorboards, and that Playfair and Grosse didn't notice that one of the children was manifesting the voice and doing it so loudly. Furthermore, the thumping heard in the room before the Raudive test suggests that the poltergeist was already active there. So, it looks to me like Playfair did successfully record a disembodied voice. Shortly after, you also hear a growling noise (3:48) and a yelping noise (4:05), both of which the poltergeist often produced, and those are likewise louder and clearer than the noises that come through the floorboards or from outside. It's highly unlikely that both Playfair and Grosse would have missed the fact that the children were producing such noises downstairs and were doing it so loudly that the tape recorder upstairs picked up the sounds so well.

There's another copy of the recording in Playfair's collection (GP34B, 36:22). The copy in Grosse's collection is only a little more than a minute long. Apparently, Playfair cut out the sections with the voice's "Here I come!" comment and its growling and yelping, put those three sections together, and gave Grosse a composite of those three. The audio is adequate in Grosse's version, but it's somewhat quiet and muffled. Playfair's recording has better audio quality than the one in Grosse's collection, but there's audio from some other recording bleeding into it. And Playfair only has about the first five minutes of the session. It looks to me like Playfair decided to only keep the opening minutes of the session, since the bleeding had diminished the quality of the tape. But the opening minutes are important. They capture some details not found in Grosse's copy. If you only listen to the left speaker or the left headphone when playing Playfair's copy, the bleeding is either eliminated or greatly diminished. The session starts at 36:22. Playfair shuts the door at 36:45. Shortly after, you can hear what sounds like objects moving around the room. So, it seems that the poltergeist was still active in the room even after Playfair shut the door. Nobody was in the room at the time, and it's highly probable that the noises are coming from within the room. They're loud and clear, and they sound like objects being moved. Some of the sounds are thumping, which is what Playfair says they heard in the room before they started the session. It sounds like the poltergeist is lifting one or more objects, then dropping them on the floor, which makes the thumping noises. Or it may be throwing the objects or doing some of each. The "Here I come!" comment is at 38:14. It's significantly louder and clearer than what you hear on Grosse's copy. And it's more evident that the comment is louder and clearer than the sounds coming through the floorboards or from outside. When you combine the evidence from Grosse's copy with the evidence from Playfair's, it seems highly probable that Playfair did capture a disembodied voice on tape.

Connections To Other Phenomena

Another line of evidence for the authenticity of the voice is its connections to other phenomena, often multiple phenomena simultaneously and ones for which we have good evidence. The paranormality of the voice offers a better explanation for why the voice is so connected to other phenomena. While it's possible that a poltergeist or some other paranormal source would act in coordination with a faked voice, a more parsimonious explanation of the coordination is that the voice is also a manifestation of the poltergeist.

I'll start with connections between other phenomena and the voices that manifested independently from the Hodgson children, since I just discussed those independent voices. Peggy Hodgson recounted an occasion when she heard a voice speaking to her while she was in the kitchen, with nobody else on that floor of the house at the time (MG87A, 1:45). She explains that there was a draft at the time as well, and she sensed somebody walking by. A nearby door opened by itself as well. On another occasion, John Burcombe heard the sound of a young child laughing in the kitchen while nobody was in there, then felt a cold draft so strong that it moved him forward, then had a sensation of being enveloped in a vacuum (MG91B, 17:05). Afterward, he felt exhausted, even though he hadn't felt that way earlier. Peggy also heard the laughter and felt the cold draft. In coordination with what Burcombe and Peggy experienced, Billy commented on having a sense of fear.

The incidents involving the manifestation of the voice through the children were also accompanied by other phenomena. In his book, Playfair writes about a cushion being teleported to the roof on December 15, 1977:

"So he [David Robertson] took one of the large and heavy red plastic cushions from one of the armchairs in the living room and handed it to Janet. 'Go on,' he said, 'see what you can do with that.' He turned to leave the room. She could not hide that under the mattress. 'ALL RIGHT, DAVID BOY. I'LL MAKE IT DISAPPEAR,' said the familiar voice as he went out of the door. He had barely got through the doorway when Janet called out excitedly. He turned round to see that one of the curtains had disappeared, although the window was tight shut, and the cushion was nowhere to be seen." (143)

See here for a discussion of some of the evidence for the teleportation of the cushion.

Many other examples of a similar nature could be cited. Janet's bed would often shake in coordination with the voice manifesting through her. For instance, you frequently hear the bed shaking, with multiple other people in the room watching her and commenting on the subject, on tape MG40A. The voice manifesting through her claims to be doing the shaking. At 25:51 on tape MG41A, the voice seems to make some comments to the effect that nobody can make it stop shaking the bed (Grosse had just told it to stop), then there's some unusually forceful shaking (26:03). That was a frequent occurrence. In the opening minutes of tape MG41iA, the bed shaking seems to align with the questions Grosse is asking the voice. He notices the alignment and comments on it (4:07), later suggesting that the poltergeist is bouncing the bed when it doesn't want to answer a question (5:35). During a levitation session, in which Janet and Margaret are being levitated in a bedroom with David Robertson outside the door, he refers to a "really strong force pushing the door" that won't let him get in. The voice then affirms that it's doing that (MG48A, 16:27). While testing what the voice can do in the living room on one occasion, Grosse asks it to move a blanket. It does so in front of a few witnesses, including Grosse (MG49A, 9:06). Peggy would often get premonitory headaches that would anticipate paranormal activity. She commented at one point that she used to get headaches in coordination with furniture moving, but that the nature of her headaches changed with the arrival of the voice (GP32B, 10:14). She describes a time when she saw Janet and Margaret levitated from some chairs they were sitting on. The voice then said it was going to lift Peggy. She felt pressure on her back, but she wasn't lifted. The voice then said she was too heavy to lift (GP32B, 52:08). On another occasion, a voice announced that it was going to levitate Janet, after which she did levitate (GP54A, 19:32). At another point, the voice said it was going to throw Janet out of bed, after which the bed shook and she was thrown (GP81A, 0:36). These are just several examples among many more that could be cited.

Another way in which the voice is connected to other phenomena is in the resemblance it bears to them. The personality behind the voice seems similar to the personality behind the knocking, for example. As the voice would keep changing its claims about who it was, so did the entity behind the knocking. Like the voice, the knocking would often answer some questions, but not others, with no discernable reason why it didn't answer certain ones. Often, the questions not answered were easy ones. It would often give nonsensical, suspicious, and inconsistent answers to questions when it did provide answers (GP58B, 4:28; 32:51). John Burcombe noticed that whether they would get knocks in response to their questions would sometimes depend on where he was standing in relation to a bed in the room (GP58B, 26:36, 37:11). Something similar occurred with the voice (GP80B, 4:40). Like the voice, the entity behind the knocking showed an interest in joking and playing games. Some of the tapes that have been aired publicly illustrate these characteristics of the knocking. Listen here and here. In the first of the two clips just linked, notice that the throwing of the box, an event witnessed by a few people and highly likely to be authentic, was connected to the knocking. Like the voice, the entity behind the knocking apparently had the ability to cause other types of paranormal events to occur.

The Origin Of The Embodied Voice

If there were disembodied voices and voices from embodied sources other than the Hodgson children, then what was the significance of the embodied voice that originated on December 10, 1977? Why was Grosse trying to get the poltergeist to speak if it was already speaking? My understanding is that there weren't any embodied voices prior to December 10, and the disembodied ones prior to that date were few and far between, highly unpredictable, didn't say much, and only spoke on their own initiative, not in response to others. It seems that what Grosse was looking for was a voice that would interact with them, one that would carry on conversations as a living human would. And he wasn't looking for the voice he was requesting to be embodied. They initially thought the December 10 voice was disembodied, only discovering later in the month that it was manifesting through Janet.

Every witness I'm aware of who comments on the subject agrees that Grosse's desire for a voice like the December 10 one wasn't expressed to the Hodgsons until December 10 itself. He asked the poltergeist to speak that night, and it started speaking shortly after being asked to do so. At a later date, Grosse and Paul Burcombe comment on how abruptly the voice started after Grosse first asked for it (MG63A, 2:45). Playfair also comments on how quickly the Hodgson children would have to have come up with the voice if they had been faking it (GP34A, 12:50; GP38A, 54:47). Peggy says she isn't aware of any attempts at ventriloquism on the part of her children before the poltergeist began (MG63A, 1:34). She also refers to how the manifestation of the voice through Janet occurred "out of the blue" (GP43A, 34:14). In the video here, Janet also refers to the voice starting just after Grosse asked for it, though she misremembers the date as December 12.

The Initial Characteristics Of The Embodied Voice

The voice sounds different on December 10 than it does later. It's louder, more forceful, and more abrupt (e.g., GP73B, 24:38). It comes across as something that hasn't been done before or hasn't been done much. The difference between the voice on December 10 and its later form isn't what you'd expect if somebody had been practicing the voice previously in order to fake it or had been using the voice previously for some other reason. The volume, force, and abruptness of the voice on December 10 give me the impression of something being pushed through Janet's body with a lot of power. Every recording I remember hearing on YouTube fails to capture the full significance of what I'm referring to here, since the recordings I've heard there seem deficient in various ways. (Some of them are played at a slow speed, perhaps in an effort to make the voice sound deeper and more impressive, and that misrepresents what the voice actually sounded like.) Listen here to get some idea of what I'm referring to concerning the different quality of the voice on its first day, though even that recording is somewhat muffled.

The Family's Reactions To The Voice

The girls often don't react to the voice as you'd expect if they were faking it. Here are several examples of the girls reacting to the voice (gasping, laughing, etc.) after it's spoken rather than anticipating what it was going to say, all from the night when the voice originated: MG38A, 11:30, 12:02, 12:41, 12:59, 13:35, 13:47, 14:21, 16:05, 16:26, 16:45, 17:26, 17:47, 18:03, 18:58, 19:17, 21:17, 22:09, 22:18, 23:51, 24:45, 29:13, 32:59, 34:39, 35:23, 36:07, 36:34, 40:00, 41:20, 43:18, 44:05, 44:20, 44:51. At 40:00, for example, the voice says "Shut up!" in response to Grosse, and both girls laugh a lot. They don't laugh until after the comment. The same happens with some swearing from the voice at 43:18. That sort of thing happened many other times as well (MG40A, 5:54; MG47A, 12:27; GP23A, 4:29, 5:46).

And the girls would often criticize what the voice said, including correcting it on factual matters (MG38A, 16:16, 19:21, 36:11, 44:54; MG47A, 13:40, 17:25; MG55A, 9:38; MG87B, 33:40, 39:40; GP75B, 7:16; GP79A, 38:03; GP86A, 36:41; GP98A, 45:02). The first segment I just cited is noteworthy, since it comes so soon after the origin of the voice. After the voice was asked to say Grosse's name, Janet comments that the voice said "Grosse", but Margaret says it was "Gross" instead. Grosse then asks for confirmation that the voice mispronounced his name as "Gross", and both girls seem to respond in the affirmative. Similarly, later on the same tape, Janet mockingly refers to how the voice sounded like it was saying "woof woof" when asked for its last name. If the girls were faking the voice, you wonder why they were criticizing it for making mistakes. They would sometimes indicate that they didn't understand what the voice had said (MG40A, 6:37, 10:02; MG47A, 6:36, 34:00; MG62A, 57:06; MG63A, 5:36; MG64A, 1:30; GP31B, 15:55). When Charles Moses asks Janet whether she always understands the voice's comments, she responds that she understands "sometimes, not always" (MG65B, 8:35).

On the tapes, you often hear family members groaning, sighing, getting angry, etc. in response to the voice. It was often keeping them up late at night, wasting their time, and such, so it would make sense for them to react negatively if the voice was genuine. If they were faking the voice, then they were unusually good at acting as if they were reacting to something real. There are far too many examples to cite more than a small percentage of them. At one point, the voice roars, and you hear what seems to be a quiet whimper from Janet (GP79B, 21:46). She sounds like she's sincerely weary of hearing the voice. In another context, Margaret's reaction to the voice sounds like she's sincerely impressed with what's happening (MG38A, 24:46). And so forth. The larger and more diverse the set of acting skills skeptics want to assign to the Hodgsons to explain these incidents, the more problematic a fraud hypothesis becomes.

The Family Acting Against The Interests Of Faking

In other parts of this article, I address how the Hodgsons acted differently than they should have if they'd been faking all of the voice phenomena. But I want to set aside a section, this one, to address the subject in more depth.

There was a night when the voice was accompanied by what sounded like clapping. Grosse and the family talked about it on a later occasion (MG62B, 4:25). Peggy said that when the clapping noise occurred, she looked around and didn't see anybody clapping. Margaret then says that some people who were watching were clapping in a normal manner. Grosse says that Margaret is wrong, that there was nobody watching who could have been clapping. Why would Margaret make such a comment if she was faking the case with Janet? (It's also noteworthy that when Grosse and the family were discussing the clapping incident, the voice occasionally interjected some comments, including while the girls were talking. If they were faking the voice while carrying on interactions with each other and Grosse about the clapping incident, then that required a lot of skill.)

In the context of testing the voice, Janet had her mouth taped by Playfair. After the tape has been applied, she says, "I can still talk." (GP31A, 29:46) It seems unlikely that she'd volunteer that information if she was faking the voice.

At another point, John Burcombe asks Peggy if the girls can be taken to a psychiatrist who's skeptical of the voice, so that he can test them (GP34B, 0:12). She isn't given much information about the psychiatrist, and she's told that he's skeptical of the voice, but she agrees to do it.

On another occasion, Peggy takes the initiative to say that she saw Janet's lips moving when the voice was just produced through her (GP86A, 11:31).

Margaret asks the voice, manifesting through Billy at the time, to tell them what happened next door recently (GP99A, 33:12). They often tested the voice that way, asking it to do things that it failed to do, often things that would be difficult or impossible to fake.

The actions of the poltergeist in coordination with the voice, not just what the voice says, are often significant in this context as well. On the night of December 15, 1977, Grosse told the voice to put a book through the window, in the sense of teleporting it through the window (MG47B, 8:51). Instead, it threw a book at the window and broke it. It's highly unlikely that the children would have faked something that left them with a broken window in the room where they slept in the middle of December.

These are just several of many examples that could be cited.

Lip Movement, Taping The Mouth, Filling The Mouth With Liquid, And Other Tests

We need to keep in mind that if a poltergeist uses a person's body as an instrument, there's no need for the poltergeist to conceal its use of that body. It may do so, but that's not necessary. If it wants to avoid moving a person's lips when speaking through him, it can do so. If it wants to move the person's lips as the lips would normally move when speech is occurring, it can do so. If it wants to do some of each, sometimes moving the lips and sometimes not moving them, it can do that as well. The same goes for whether it produces any sensations inside a person's throat, how much it moves a person's throat, whether it moves the person's chest, etc. The same is true of our bodily movements in our everyday lives. How much we control our eye movements, whether we keep our mouths closed when eating, etc. will vary from one moment to another, depending on a variety of factors (how much we're concentrating on controlling those things, how much effort we're willing to put into it at a given moment, who's around us at the time, etc.). We wouldn't expect a poltergeist using a body as an instrument to be able to speak in a normal manner if water is placed in the mouth of that body. If it can speak in a normal way under those circumstances, that's impressive, but there's no need for it. People often act as though the validity of the Enfield voice depends on whether it was able to do things like speak without moving Janet's lips and talk normally with water in her mouth, as if a failure to do such things would cast doubt on the voice or even prove its inauthenticity. But there's actually no need for it.

We also should remember that the December 10 voice was initially thought to be disembodied. Doing things like taping Janet's mouth and filling her mouth with water made a lot of sense as means of verifying that the voice wasn't coming from her. But those tests lost their initial significance once it was known that the voice was embodied. They continued running such tests, but we should keep in mind that the tests originated under different circumstances and aren't necessary for supporting the authenticity of the voice.

Having said all of that, the tests produced mixed results. I think Grosse, Playfair, a lot of people in the media (documentary producers, etc.), and others involved deserve some criticism for focusing too much on the successful tests. The unsuccessful ones don't disprove the authenticity of the voice, as I've explained above, but there were a lot more unsuccessful tests than you'd think from reading Playfair's book, watching the typical television program about the case, etc.

Grosse commented in June of 1978 that when Billy and Johnny speak with the poltergeist voice, their lips move a lot (MG1A, 20:11). On another tape, John Burcombe refers to the mixed nature of the lip movement, how you'd sometimes see lip movement accompanying the voice and sometimes wouldn't (MG62A, 36:03). After Janet left the bedroom to go to the restroom downstairs on one occasion, Grosse asked Peggy and Margaret whether they'd been watching Janet and whether they'd seen her lips move with the voice. They responded that they had been watching her and that her lips weren't moving (MG53A, 21:25). At another point, the voice spoke through Margaret at length, and Peggy said that Margaret's mouth didn't move at all (MG56A, 6:37). On another occasion (MG62A, 33:10), Grosse refers to how the voice just came through Margaret with no lip movement. He says that if it was ventriloquism, then it was very good ventriloquism. John Burcombe and Peggy verify that Grosse is correct about how Margaret's lips didn't move at all (33:57, 35:59; 36:49). Grosse goes on to say that it's better than any ventriloquist he's seen, that he can't even see any tremor in Margaret's lips (38:08). Peggy then expresses agreement, then goes on to relate an experience at an optician's office (38:17). Apparently, the voice came from both girls, and somebody in the office said it couldn't have come from them, because he didn't see their mouths moving. Burcombe later mentions that he heard the voice come from Janet with no lip movement and with Janet biting her lip at the time (39:25). Grosse heard Janet's voice say "hello" with her mouth closed tight (41:08).

They'd often put tape over her mouth. Sometimes they'd mention the details, such as referring to the tape as surgical tape (MG48A, 4:57), and sometimes they wouldn't. Later on the tape I just cited, Grosse explains that he's applied two strips of tape and that it would be "absolutely impossible" for her to talk (6:47). The voice speaks shortly afterward, and it sounds somewhat muffled, but discernable. There's a conversation with the voice that occurs from 7:06 to 15:05 while tape is over Janet's mouth. The voice speaks to some extent, and it's again somewhat muffled, but discernable. David Robertson corroborates what Grosse has said about Janet's mouth being sealed during the conversation (14:08). When tape was put over her mouth on another occasion, Janet's normal voice sounds highly muffled (MG51A, 7:56). The poltergeist voice coming through her shortly afterward is significantly clearer than Janet's normal voice, but also substantially more muffled than what the poltergeist voice usually sounds like (9:50). With PVC tape applied at 9:51 on tape MG52Ai, the voice speaks somewhat clearly, though not as clearly as it does without tape on Janet's mouth. Later on that same tape, Grosse puts some tape over Janet's mouth in such a way as to entirely close her mouth, then places a scarf over the tape (11:23). He says Janet's mouth is "completely sealed". Under those circumstances, the poltergeist voice speaks in a highly muffled way, but noticeably more clearly than Janet's normal speech under those constraints. At a March 29, 1978 symposium of the Society for Psychical Research (SPR), a video was shown of the voice speaking through Janet while her mouth was taped. I don't think the video is extant. I asked David Robertson, who filmed it, to describe what was on it, and he told me the following in a July 18, 2018 email:

I do remember recording the video you mentioned. We did close up video because by that stage the voice was easy to get and Maurice was trying various means to find out if the sound changed when the mouth was sealed. He had some good sticky tape because he wanted to be certain there were no gaps. We had tried several times before, using insulating tape, this isn't quite as sticky. It was difficult removing the tape used for that video, I think he said it was medical tape, wide if I remember rightly. The problem is that a small gap will enable intonations from the mouth. I took the close up to show the details of tape adhesion more than anything else. I think this was why he moved on to water in the mouth. Maurice was very thorough and careful not to do anything that Janet was unhappy with. (You have to be a bit careful with water, but there weren't any problems.) If she were cheating she could easily have declined. I think the laryngograph came after that. We were trying to find the most definitive description of what was going on. In my opinion the agency can probably connect inside and outside regions similar to objects going through closed windows or a jet of blood from the air which I once saw much later on (not at Enfield)….

I do remember though that the shots were about the best you could do with the tools available to show that her mouth was sealed and yet the voice was still able to speak clearly. It seems that with repetition the novelty wears off and we worked with it. It is a noteworthy change and I suppose accounts for how some of the TV film was made. That was easy, the mouth wasn't taped and the lips open.

The video did seem to surprise people, I suppose they must have been familiar with the difficulty of mouth closed talking. As I say, the novelty wore off for us.

Elsewhere, Grosse reports that the voice has been speaking, making noises, and/or singing while Janet is blowing up a balloon (MG49A, 3:53, 23:54, 24:55). According to Grosse and Peggy, Margaret manifested the voice in her sleep, and she seems surprised to hear it (MG67A, 16:10). Grosse refers elsewhere to how certain he was that Margaret was asleep when she spoke with the voice (MG68A, 6:16). On another tape, Playfair refers to how the voice has spoken while Janet had a lot of food in her mouth (GP26A, 16:54). You hear what sounds like some silverware rapidly hitting a plate over and over. Peggy then asks the poltergeist whether it's been making Janet eat fast, and it replies "Yes"!

Most of the tests involving placing water in Janet's mouth either failed or were only mildly successful (e.g., MG49A, 44:53, 45:07, 45:36). But Melvyn Willin's recent book on the Enfield case cites Hugh Pincott discussing a liquid test that seems to have been more successful:

"Simply fill her mouth with a coloured liquid, tape it closed and see what happens. Maurice felt Mrs Hodgson would not allow this: I asked her and she had no objection at all. So Janet willingly filled her mouth completely with cold tea, and we taped it closed securely. But…the Voice continued to speak with undiminished clarity! By this stage, several of us for whom the spiritistic hypothesis was not a first choice, hunched our shoulders and looked around warily! And on removing the tape, Janet spat out a complete mouthful of tea." (The Enfield Poltergeist Tapes [United States: White Crow Books, 2019], 122)

Telepathy

It seems that the poltergeist had the ability to read people's minds to some extent, though not at will. You get the impression that it had the ability to do so sporadically, depending on factors not entirely within its control.

When Richard Grosse (Maurice's son) visited the house, the voice claimed to be able to read his mind (MG44B, 24:26). That would be an unnecessary and counterproductive claim to make if the voice was entirely faked. Watch the video here in which Grosse discusses an example of his mind apparently being read by the voice that night. And here you can read what seems to be a report Grosse wrote about his visit to the house. (As I've said before, the web site I just linked seems to contain genuine Enfield documents, but when I wrote to the owner of the site for confirmation a couple of years ago, I didn't get a response. Given how well the report attributed to Grosse lines up with the tapes from the night when he visited the house, I think it's highly probable that the document is authentic.) He mentions that the voice seemed to exhibit telepathic abilities on multiple occasions on the night when he visited, not just on the one occasion discussed in the video I linked.

The voice, manifesting through Janet, also seems to have had some sort of connection with Margaret's mind (MG47A, 23:35, 26:14). It's unclear whether it was getting information from her mind or placing information there, but it seems that something of that sort was going on.

Peggy likewise refers to the poltergeist, and the voice in particular, reading her mind (MG87B, 15:16).

I suspect the poltergeist read Janet's mind more than anybody else's. And given the embarrassing nature of so much of what the voice said, Janet had some motivation for denying that the poltergeist was reading her mind or underestimating how much it was doing so. I'll have more to say on that subject later. For now, I'll note that Janet denied, with apparent anger, that her mind was being read (MG56B, 36:35). She occasionally seems hesitant when asked about the relationship between her thoughts and what the voice was saying (GP98A, 56:57). On one occasion (GP83B, 3:04), though, she acknowledged that the poltergeist was using her mind and Margaret's, but insisted that what the voice says doesn't represent their thoughts. Grosse responds by saying that the poltergeist is picking out bits and pieces from their minds.

In his book on Enfield, Playfair discusses a visit to the house by John Hasted, a physicist at Birkbeck College. Playfair explains that a ceiling light had been seen swinging around with nobody near it (229). The bulb in the light went out, and Hasted examined it. He found that the manner in which it had broken was "very rare". As Playfair goes on to explain, "It was strange that this happened in the presence of an investigator who would have thought of examining the bulb to see exactly what had broken." I doubt that the entity behind the poltergeist just happened to have studied lightbulbs at some time in the past, had come across such detailed knowledge of lightbulbs in the afterlife, or some such thing. It seems that telepathy is the best explanation for how the poltergeist knew how to break the bulb in a way that would be significant to Hasted. It got the information from Hasted's mind.

And it seems that people affiliated with the poltergeist sometimes acquired telepathic abilities. One of the tapes picked up a conversation Peggy was having with Billy, apparently while Peggy was washing dishes at the kitchen sink. Billy seems to be upset. She tells him that she's concerned about him and about Janet, and she goes on to say that "You've got to know what these things do to you." She asks Billy whether he had read somebody's mind. He says "Yeah", and he sounds upset about it. She responds, "Well, leave it at that, will you? Because I can read people's minds." (MG76A, 20:20) Both of them sound upset. You get the impression that they would have preferred to have not experienced any telepathy.

Knowledge Below The Children's

There's a lot of evidence that Grosse was correct about the poltergeist picking bits and pieces from the girls' (and others') minds, and it often took those bits and pieces out of context. That's one of the ways in which the entity behind the poltergeist can be distinguished from Janet and the other Hodgson children. People often focus on looking for evidence that the poltergeist exhibited abilities higher than the children's, but exhibiting abilities lower than theirs is important as well.

Janet seems to have been somewhat bad at math, and so was the voice. But at 9:25 on tape MG55A, there's an example of Janet correcting the voice, while it's manifesting through her, on a mathematical issue.

In another context, when speaking through Janet, the voice guesses at the kind of car Richard Grosse drove to the house that day and gets it wrong (MG45A, 23:47). By contrast, Janet seems to have typically slept in the bed next to the front windows and often looked out the windows to see who was entering and leaving the house. Anita Gregory sometimes commented that when she would leave the Hodgsons' house after visiting, Janet would wave goodbye to her from one of the windows. You often hear Janet making comments on the tapes about what she sees going on outside. I doubt that Janet would have been incapable of describing Grosse's car. But maybe she didn't look out the window on that occasion, it was too dark for her to see much, or whatever. I wouldn't assign much significance to this incident, but it seems to add a little weight to the notion that the poltergeist was ignorant of some things Janet knew about.

The voice would sometimes claim to have a dog or group of dogs with it. It would refer to the dogs as large, strong, and loud. Grosse asked it, when it was manifesting through Janet, what type of dogs it had (GP75B, 6:07). It said that the dogs are Chihuahuas (6:11). That answer is significant for a few reasons. Margaret mentioned that she had been thinking of Chihuahuas before the voice gave its answer (6:13). The poltergeist probably picked up its answer from her mind. After it gave the answer, Janet made a comment that's somewhat unintelligible to me, but she sounds surprised and critical of the voice's response. She seems to comment on how small Chihuahuas are (6:14). I think she says "That's spriteful things!" Who wouldn't know that Chihuahuas aren't big, strong, or loud? Grosse responds by explaining that the voice's answer doesn't make sense, since Chihuahuas don't have the attributes the voice claimed its dogs have (6:23). Margaret and Janet go on to refer to Labradors (6:40), so they were familiar with the name of at least one type of dog that aligns more closely with the characteristics the voice claimed that its dogs had. Janet showed interest in dogs and discussed them on other occasions, sometimes even naming particular types or hearing other people name them, including types that come much closer to what the voice described than Chihuahuas do (MG64B, 14:30; page 171 in Playfair's book). Apparently, none of the people in the room were as ignorant about dogs as the poltergeist was. It looks like Margaret had been thinking of Chihuahuas for some reason, and the voice picked that up from her mind without knowing much about Chihuahuas, so it gave an answer to Grosse's question that nobody else in the room at the time would have given. This incident illustrates both the voice's telepathic abilities and its ignorance of information that Janet, through whom the voice was manifesting at the time, was aware of.

There's a similar incident involving one of the voice's identity claims. On one occasion, it said it was a man named George Mace (MG51A, 45:46). It originally identified itself as "George", then added "Mace" as the last name when asked for one. Peggy responds "George Mace?" incredulously. There's an eruption of laughter, and Janet, from whom the voice was coming at the time, comments, "Oh my God! He's not that old [unintelligible]!" Margaret comments, "He's a living person!" Peggy goes on to say, in response to the voice's identity claim, "That's a lie, if ever I heard one." George Mace was the name of a friend of Peggy's ex-husband. Billy goes on to make a comment suggesting that he was skeptical of the voice's identity claim as well. The entire family considers the voice's claim ridiculous. Janet and Margaret both sound surprised by it, laugh at it, and ridicule it. The voice goes on insisting that it's Mace, then angrily comments on how it wants the door shut and causes Margaret's bed to collapse. (It would often respond in anger like that when challenged.) The subject is changed as the voice starts claiming to be a man named Barney, and there's a discussion of what to do about the beds collapsing so often. Not much later, though, a chair goes over, and the voice says that George did it (MG51B, 1:01). So, the George Mace identity comes up again. Somebody makes a comment to the effect that Mace is a friend of the family (1:06). Peggy apparently overheard the discussion from another room, and you can hear her yelling, "He's not dead. He's the best friend of my husband." (1:24) It was rare for the voice to claim to be somebody who was still alive. I only remember it happening twice, this time and one other time. I suspect it was a mistake both times. Grosse tells the voice that Mace is alive and asks the voice if it knew that (1:15). There's a pause, then the voice makes some unintelligible comments. As best as I can make it out, the voice says "Who is he, then?" at 1:20. If that's what the voice says, it's highly unlikely that Janet would have made such a comment. She'd already commented, multiple times, on who George Mace is, and it's unlikely that she'd have wanted to fake that sort of ignorance on the part of the poltergeist. A little later, Grosse asks the voice to explain why it's claiming to be Mace. It responds, "I just call myself that." (1:29) I doubt that the voice ever wanted to identify itself as a living individual. People normally associate poltergeists with deceased individuals, if they associate them with people at all. Peggy explains on another tape that she would estimate that Mace is currently 56 years old (GP95B, 10:34). And you'd expect the friend of a middle-aged man (Peggy's ex-husband) to still be alive, even without knowing his precise age. Janet, like her mother and siblings, surely would have known that Mace probably was still living. So, it looks like after the voice made a reference to its name being George, one or more of the people present started thinking about George Mace. The poltergeist then picked up that name from Janet's mind or somebody else's, but was unfamiliar with the surrounding context. Janet knew who Mace was and that he probably was still alive. The poltergeist didn't know that.

Knowledge Above The Children's

There's also evidence that the poltergeist can be distinguished from the children by its exhibiting knowledge above that of the children (and often others involved in the case). The instances of telepathy I've cited above fall into that category, and I'll provide some other examples.

Peggy doesn't think Janet knew the location of some knives, though the voice, apparently manifesting through Janet at the time, knew where the knives were (GP31A, 7:52). The voice seems to know the cost of something, claiming that it saw the person buy it (GP34B, 10:34). Grosse is impressed by the incident. Shortly after, on the same tape, Peggy reports that the voice knew what time somebody had knocked at the door when nobody was home (10:57). She verified the time with the person who had knocked at the door. Though she doesn't say much about it, Peggy remarks in another context that she thinks the voice has some paranormal knowledge (GP53A, 39:40). Margaret comments that the voice that's been manifesting through her has communicated some information she was unaware of (GP88B, 20:12). Elsewhere, Grosse comments on how the voice has been expressing information that was unknown to the family (GP96A, 5:59).

Vocabulary

The differences in vocabulary between the voice and the children fall into both categories above. Sometimes the voice is unfamiliar with words the children are familiar with. And sometimes the voice is familiar with terms the children are ignorant about. Or words often used by one aren't used as often or at all by the other. Both the voice and Janet expressed a lot of ignorance of vocabulary issues (MG44B, 35:19, the voice not knowing "disintegrate"; MG47A, 10:37, the voice not knowing "dimension"; MG49A, 58:46, Janet not knowing "conscious"; GP37A, 7:53, Janet not knowing "stabilizer"). That could create a false impression that the voice was being faked by a child who didn't have much of a vocabulary. But that sort of general ignorance of vocabulary issues doesn't explain the differences in the details of which terms the voice was familiar with and which terms the children were familiar with.

I've already discussed an occasion on which the poltergeist seemed to be ignorant of what a Chihuahua is. By contrast, the Hodgson children showed a lot of interest in dogs and apparently knew more about Chihuahuas than the voice did.

The voice called Grosse a snob at one point (GP83A, 42:01). He asked it what a snob is, and it defined a snob as "a woman". Grosse then asked Janet what a snob is. She hesitated somewhat, but then replied that a snob is somebody who's "posh". That's not quite what a snob is, as Grosse notes, but it's somewhat accurate, and Janet's answer suggests she was more familiar with the term "snob" than the voice was.

In another context, the voice referred to Grosse and Lawrence Berger as "a rabbi", a remark it made many times (GP79A, 37:58). Janet corrected it and commented that the voice doesn't know what a rabbi is.

Charles Moses asked Janet whether she was familiar with all of the words used by the voice, and she said that she wasn't (MG65B, 8:37). I'll give a few examples that seem to illustrate that.

One of the voice's most famous comments was about the circumstances surrounding its death. It claimed to have had a hemorrhage. It seems unlikely that Janet would have been familiar with that term. On an April 8, 2018 radio program, at 24:08, Richard Grosse said that his father asked Janet what a hemorrhage is, and she didn't have an answer.

When Matthew Manning was visiting, he told the voice that his name isn't actually Matthew Manning. That's just a pseudonym. The voice responded, "Like hell it is." (MG50A, 16:25) Playfair notes in his book (223) that John Burcombe later asked Janet what "pseudonym" means (without telling her why he was asking), and she wasn't familiar with the term. It seems that the poltergeist knew what "pseudonym" means, whereas Janet didn't.

Playfair also notes in his book that the poltergeist used a variation of the word "quillet" on one occasion when writing on a bathroom mirror (222-23). It's doubtful that any of the Hodgson children knew about that term in its modern spelling, and it's even more doubtful that they knew of the variation that was on the mirror.

The voice, while manifesting through Janet, used "monstrosity" on one occasion (MG55A, 43:57). There's a reasonable chance that Janet knew that term and would have used it on her own initiative, but it seems unlikely, given her age, social status, poor vocabulary and grammar in general, etc. My sense is that the voice's use of the term adds some credibility to the voice's authenticity, but only a little.

Janet frequently adds the word "right", followed by a question mark, to the end of a sentence (GP53B, 26:07; GP54A, 38:20, 38:28; GP54B, 3:24; GP57A, 1:54; GP57B, 22:28). I don't recall ever hearing the poltergeist do that.

The poltergeist would often repeat the words "yes" and "no". It would say "yes, yes, yes" or "no, no", for example (MG44B, 4:25, 10:48, 23:10, 31:40, 32:45; MG45B, 15:14; GP24A, 3:33, 12:28; 19:00; GP25A, 21:19). I don't remember any of the Hodgson children doing so, much less doing it as often as the poltergeist does.

The poltergeist would often say "That was good!" or some variant after doing something paranormal (MG53B, 0:28; MG68A, 21:27). I don't remember any of the Hodgson children using that phrase as the poltergeist did.

A Different Personality

The poltergeist, and the voice in particular, sometimes identified as a woman, but usually as a man. None of the Hodgson children were nearly as angry, dishonest, or vulgar as the voice. For some examples of that sort of behavior, see the video here. Janet was respectful of religion and showed some interest in it, especially Christianity, but the voice was much more anti-religious. In response to a question asking why he doesn't leave the house and go on to heaven, the voice responds, "I don't believe in that….I'm not a heaven man." (MG40A, 19:16) (You can listen to it here.) Peggy said that the voice called her a "religious old bag" when she read a prayer Playfair gave her, and it apparently made noises in response to the prayer (MG55B, 11:08). It expressed a dislike of prayer on other occasions as well (MG87B, 23:41). It would often call people "a Jewish rabbi" as an insult. On one occasion, you can even hear it apparently getting angry at Margaret (a teenage Gentile girl) and calling her "Jewish rabbi" (GP85B, 34:33)! At one point, the voice calls Grosse and Lawrence Berger "Jewish rabbis", and Janet laughs and tells it that they're not rabbis (GP79A, 37:58). It was often misogynistic. Earlier, I cited the example of it defining the word "snob" as "a woman". It made a lot of other comments of a similar nature (MG49A, 15:28; GP74A, 31:57). And it would express interests that seemed different than those of the girls. From about 13:00 to 16:00 on tape GP94A, for example, the voice keeps making comments about Grosse and Playfair and other matters, even though the girls are focused on discussing other issues at the time. It eventually makes a comment about how it's not going to speak again (15:38), then starts knocking (16:04). You get the impression that it was upset that the family wasn't paying much attention to it. There's a somewhat similar situation around 24:00 on tape GP98A. That sort of thing happened many times. The voice comes across as another person in the room, with different interests, a different focus, and such than the other people present.

We shouldn't begin with a default assumption that a person is mentally ill, but might one or more of the Hodgson children have had some kind of psychological disorder, like multiple personalities, or some similar condition? I'm not in much of a position to comment on the subject. I don't know much about the relevant psychological states. But both of the Hodgson girls were examined by doctors and psychiatrists, and neither showed any signs of mental illness (MG84A, 8:35, GP53A, 8:03; GP54B, 19:14; page 247 in Playfair's book cited above). Some of the testing that was done doesn't seem to have involved much analysis, but at least the testing done on Janet by Peter Fenwick and his team at the Maudsley Hospital seems to have gone into a lot of depth.

Hostility Toward Janet

The voice would sometimes make positive comments about Janet, including ones that are suspiciously positive, and I'll have more to say about those later in this article. But it should be noted that the voice sometimes reacted negatively to her as well.

On one of the tapes, the voice swears at everybody in the room by name, including Janet (MG41A, 15:49, "Fuck off, you, Janet"). Elsewhere, Grosse tries to get the voice to reveal something nobody in the house knows. Janet says she already knew something the voice said about the Nottinghams. The voice responds, "She's just saying that." (MG62B, 3:13) The voice accuses Janet of being too nosey, which gets an angry response from her (GP75A, 20:31). When the voice was speaking one time, Peggy commented that she could see Janet's lips moving (GP86A, 11:31). After Peggy makes that comment, the voice says "Yeah!" enthusiastically, as it often does, apparently through both girls (one just after the other). Janet then objects, with a lot of emotion and sounding as if she's crying or about to cry, "It's not my fault, is it?" (11:37). Peggy then explains that she didn't mean it that way (i.e., didn't intend to suggest that Janet was faking the voice). I doubt that Janet would have enthusiastically said "Yeah!" after Peggy's initial comment if Janet was faking the voice. (Regarding why Janet's lips would move with a voice she wasn't faking, see my comments earlier on the subject.) Many of the paranormal events that had a close connection with the voice exhibited some degree of hostility toward Janet. The events of December 15, 1977, for example, were closely connected to the voice, and the levitation that occurred that day seemed to disturb Janet and involved forcefully banging her against one of the windows. The voice was closely connected to the choking incidents I wrote about in another post. Those events exhibited hostility toward Janet, and the voice would occasionally accompany the chokings with comments like "I'll kill her [Janet]." (MG53B, 0:33)

Hostility Toward The Voice

The children were often critical of the voice, sometimes even taking the initiative to do things that would be counterproductive if they were faking the voice. After the voice claims to have a dog named Goober the Ghost, Janet mentions that Goober the Ghost is the name of a cartoon character (MG41B, 7:06). When Grosse was trying to get the voice to speak in foreign languages, it sang a song in Italian. Margaret responded by saying that the song sounds familiar (MG49A, 33:20), and Janet mentioned that one of their friends has a record with some Italian singing on it (33:30). The girls repeatedly do that sort of thing. They offer less impressive potential sources for where the voice derived its information, even though the voice's comments would seem more impressive if they hadn't provided such information. When Grosse was explaining why he was putting objects in Janet's mouth, to demonstrate that the voice was able to speak without any significant diminishment in spite of the objects being in her mouth, Janet or Margaret (I can't tell which) objected that the voice did sound significantly worse when objects were placed in Janet's mouth (MG47A, 35:01). On another tape, Margaret goes as far as to say that the voice "always" mixes things up, such as by having Janet's voice answer when Margaret's is asked something (MG62A, 35:49). Even though Janet kept saying that her throat didn't hurt after the voice spoke through her (MG64B, 31:37; see here for Janet discussing the subject in a video), and saying that there's no pain is more impressive, Margaret repeatedly takes the initiative to say that she does often have a sore throat after the voice speaks through her (MG64A, 7:03; MG64B, 31:51). Janet makes a comment that diminishes the significance of the manifestation of the voice through Billy, saying that she thinks Billy can imitate it (GP96A, 18:27). You wouldn't expect her to say that if the children were working together to fake the voice. Margaret asks the voice why it sometimes only speaks when people are facing the wall or go out of the room (GP24A, 25:31). (I'll say more about the concealment issue below.) The voice once claimed to have a name that was the same as that of a boy in Janet's school (GP98A, 45:00). She immediately responded by saying that the voice isn't who it claims to be, that the name it's provided is the same as the name of a boy in her class. Not only did that discredit the voice, but it also was something Janet could easily have avoided saying. None of her siblings went to the same school, and it's doubtful that any of the adults involved would have recognized the name in question. If Janet hadn't said anything, the voice would have seemed more credible (less discredited).

Consistencies Among The Children's Voices

It wouldn't be too difficult for the children to fake a voice that would be consistent to some extent, such as often being angry or vulgar. But the more consistent the voice is from one child to another on lesser details, which would be harder for the children to notice, remember, and duplicate, the more difficult the consistency is to explain under a fraud hypothesis.

The tendency of the voice to say "yes" and "no" multiple times (e.g., "no, no") is repeated when Margaret speaks with the voice (GP94A, 2:33). The voice manifesting through Billy and Margaret showed the same sort of hostility toward the Burcombes that was exhibited through Janet (GP55A, 5:33; GP88B, 19:28; GP97A, 7:04). On the last tape just cited, Billy's voice says it doesn't like Paul Burcombe, but Peggy comments that Billy does like Paul. That illustrates how the voice would sometimes express sentiments different than those of the person through whom it was manifesting, and it illustrates the continuity in the voice's manifestations among the children. They kept expressing hostility to the Burcombes, even when the person manifesting the voice didn't have that hostility. Elsewhere on tape GP88B, Margaret's voice repeats other characteristics manifested through Janet's voice: singing simple songs (13:41), raising its voice for no good reason (15:00), saying "hello" to people for no apparent reason (15:16), interest in people's ages (15:30), going through the names of each person in the room and addressing each one (17:44), saying "uuuh" for no apparent reason (18:01), referring to John Burcombe as "nosey" (19:33), referring to people with glasses as "four eyes" (21:31), referring to a "goose chase" (23:20), etc. A significant aspect of these comments on tape GP88B is that the voice, manifesting through Margaret, wrongly refers to Grosse as 59 years old (15:30). In fact, it refers to him as 59 three times. He was actually 58 at that point. The previous month, the voice, manifesting through Janet, gave the same wrong age for Grosse (MG41iB, 32:23). If there was one entity behind the voice, then that offers a better explanation for why the same wrong age was assigned to Grosse both times. The voice was bad at math when operating through Janet, and it was bad at math when speaking through Margaret (GP89B, 6:00).

Tape GP99 provides a good illustration of how extensive the continuity is among the voices. The tape was recorded during a time when the voice was manifesting a lot through Billy. The degree to which he speaks with the voice is significant, given how little Billy commented on paranormal issues and participated in paranormal events during the rest of the case. He was often silent, talking about other issues, playing with Legos, watching television, etc. During most of the tapes, he's a background character, to the extent that you notice his presence at all. The frequency of his manifesting of the voice on this tape is striking. And the number and variety of parallels between Billy's voice and those of his siblings are large.

Frequent Speaking For Lengthy Periods

Critics have made much of the fact that there were pauses between the voice's comments. Even if the voice spoke for much of a three-hour period, for example, it wasn't always speaking during that timeframe. It would say something for several seconds, stop for a while, say something else for a few seconds, stop for a while, etc. Here's a video in which Mary Rose Barrington makes that point. In her doctoral thesis, Anita Gregory wrote that "in my experience 'the voices' spoke in brief snatches" (184). Given how little time she spent with the people manifesting the voice, what she experienced doesn't have much significance. But is it true that the voice only spoke in brief snatches?

Before getting to some of the lengthier comments of the voice, I want to address the issue of pauses. The large majority of human communication involves a lot of pausing. Sometimes people give speeches or talk continually for lengthy periods in some other context, but that's unusual. And even in a context like a speech, there are small pauses from time to time. Pauses make it easier to distinguish words, discern when a sentence has ended, etc. There's no reason to expect the poltergeist voice to have no pauses or only the briefest kinds of pauses for lengthy periods. So, when Grosse and Playfair referred to the voice talking for periods of up to three hours, meaning that it was frequently speaking during such a length of time, that's a reasonable way of framing what happened. Yes, the fact that such a three-hour period involved a normal pace of conversation, with a lot of pausing, diminishes the significance of what the voice did. A three-hour speech would have been more impressive than a three-hour conversation, in which the voice was able to pause while its conversation partners were speaking and so forth. But so what? How many people listening to Grosse and Playfair's initial claims thought that they were referring to something like a speech? Given how quickly people tend to hurt their throats when speaking like the poltergeist voice does, frequent speaking during a three-hour period is impressive, even though it's less impressive than continuous speaking.

There are some tapes of the voice speaking during a large majority of a double-digit number of minutes. From 35:17 to 55:24 on tape MG61B, Janet's voice speaks for the large majority of about twenty minutes. Tape GP90A is significant in this context as well, though it's harder to quantify. The voice speaks extensively through both Janet and Margaret, sometimes simultaneously. There are some pauses, but they speak for a large percentage of more than half an hour.

Evaluations By Professionals

On January 26, 1978, a speech therapist analyzed the girls' voice production, and she provided some comments about her findings on tape. The speech therapist is Daphne Pearce, who was affiliated with Middlesex Hospital in London at the time (MG68A, 0:34). She comments that the poltergeist voice could be produced deliberately in a normal manner for a "very limited" period of time involving "a few words". She doesn't know how the children are able to sustain the voice for "a longer conversation". After producing such a voice for weeks, the normal voice of the individual should have been affected, making the normal voice more "husky". The Hodgson girls' normal voices are in the typical range, however. She doesn't know how the voice is being produced or sustained. In response to Grosse, Pearce affirms that she thinks it would be impossible for somebody like Janet to produce such a voice without results like the ones she'd discussed (hoarseness, etc.) showing up. She refers to how "sensitive" the relevant organs are. Grosse and Playfair seemed to expect her to say that some kind of clearing of the throat would be necessary when speaking with the voice for lengthy periods, but Pearce denies that it would be needed. So, she wasn't just saying whatever Grosse and Playfair wanted to hear or whatever they suggested to her. She discusses how the coughing of the girls doesn't have the hardness and gruffness you'd expect if the voice were being faked. Grosse asks her if she considers the voice a "mystery". She says, "Yes, absolutely." She explains, on her own initiative, that the voice is so different than what she'd expect from a female that she considers it a sound rather than a voice. She's examined "quite a few" children of the Hodgson girls' age, but that's not something she's specialized in. She's never had a child come to her with a disorder that produces something like what the Hodgson girls are manifesting. She's emphatic that the Hodgson girls show no sign of any voice disorder. Their voices are within the normal range. Pearce initiates a discussion of how she'd expect the children to have made up something like a whisper if they were going to fake a voice.

During a presentation on the Enfield case at an SPR symposium on March 29, 1978, Grosse commented:

"I am getting a little tired now of people saying to me that 'this is happening' and 'that's happening', the girls are doing it [producing the voice by a normal means]. I have continually challenged everybody to tell me how this girl does it if she does do it deliberately. And nobody - nobody - has been able to come up with an answer: speech therapists, phonetic experts, and doctors, psychiatrists, and psychologists. You name them, I've asked them." (GP38B, 53:10)

Playfair adds that a science editor of The Daily Mirror wasn't able to explain it either (53:35). In a later discussion with Hans Bender, Playfair says that a speech therapist (discussed above), a laryngologist, and a doctor have all told them that the voice isn't normal (GP39B, 14:26). He noted that the speech therapist asked Janet to cough, which should reflect the full range of a person's voice, and Janet's range didn't line up with that of the poltergeist voice (14:42). He refers to how ventriloquists use a high-pitched voice rather than a low one (13:41). He's "never" come across a ventriloquist who lowers his voice (13:56).

Evidence Against The Voice

I want to address some common objections to the voice and some potential objections, including ones I think have little or no merit. Since some of the objections raise issues that turn out to be supportive of the voice's authenticity, some of the discussions below will supplement the points made above in support of the voice.

Expectations

Expectations have a big influence on how people evaluate something. In the thread following one of the most popular YouTube videos on Enfield, the most popular comment reads, "who is coming after watch the conjuring 2". At the time I'm writing, there are about 2600 up votes for that comment. It's unsurprising that the person who wrote the comment didn't capitalize "who" or the name of the movie, used "watch" rather than "watching", and put no question mark at the end. The same sort of mindset that's behind that comment leads many other commenters in YouTube threads to focus on mocking Janet Hodgson's physical appearance, claiming that they know the entire case is fake because Janet said "It's not haunted." when interviewed by Stewart Lamont, and complaining that the case is so different than a horror movie they just watched. If you come to the Enfield case with ridiculous expectations, then you're probably going to evaluate the case in a ridiculous way.

Some critics are more reasonable than the ones you typically encounter on YouTube. But even the more reasonable critics often don't apply enough scrutiny to their expectations.

Even if the subconscious of a living individual, the spirit of a deceased person, or a demon, for example, is behind a poltergeist, it doesn't follow that a voice produced by that poltergeist should simply be equivalent to that subconscious, deceased person, or demon speaking. There can be a combination of factors involved that produces a mixed result. There's no need for every poltergeist to have the same sort of cause.

I think different sources are involved in different poltergeists. Some cases seem to be best explained by living agent psi, meaning that the phenomena are being produced by a living human. There's no dead person or demon involved. I think the best explanation for the Enfield case, though, is that a deceased person is involved, but one with some sort of mental impairment and who often drew information from the minds of living people and often expressed their thoughts for various reasons. He was largely acting in a parasitic way.

Whether my view of the entity behind the Enfield case is right or not, that kind of potential explanation needs to be kept in mind. There are a lot of explanatory options for a poltergeist. Critics (and believers) need to make more of an effort to familiarize themselves with those explanatory options.

Yes, the Enfield voice is disappointing if you come to it expecting to hear the expressions of a highly intelligent and deeply evil dead human or demon, as you would see in a movie or fictional literature. But it's simplistic to think that such explanatory options are the only alternatives to fraud. The Enfield voice is disappointing in the sense that it expresses such a low intelligence, provides so much less useful information than it could have, doesn't seem as evil as many people expect such an entity to be, and so forth. But it does seem to be a paranormal voice, and we shouldn't let the disappointing aspects of it prevent us from deriving what useful information we can.

Resemblances To The Hodgson Children

There are some ways in which the voice resembles one or more of the Hodgson children, which raises suspicions. The more the resemblance departs from the characteristics you'd expect the entity behind a genuine poltergeist to have, the more suspicious the resemblance is.

Some of the most famous similarities between the Enfield voice and the Hodgson children are its comments on various sexual issues. It asked why girls have periods, for example. As Playfair wrote in his book, "The idea that a dead old man would be obsessed with the details of menstruation was a bit too much for me" (130). Janet was at the age of puberty, so the voice's questions about such issues would make more sense originating from Janet than from one of the male identities the poltergeist typically claimed for itself. Similarly, the voice often expressed a romantic interest in men, such as Richard Grosse and David Robertson (GP24A, 19:37). The voice says it's never seen a man's penis (GP25A, 10:36), which doesn't make sense coming from a man.

Janet seemed to have some hostility toward the Burcombes. The voice expressed a lot of hostility toward them.

On one occasion, the voice was asked why its laugh sounds so much like Janet's (MG44B, 31:11). The unconvincing response was that it likes copying her. It then refers to how it "loves" her.

The voices of the children and the poltergeist voice would often interrupt one another or coincide in some way suggesting a similar mindset (e.g., both laughing around the same time). During singing sessions, for example, the voice would be quiet while Janet is singing, and Janet would be quiet while the voice is singing. Or the comments of the poltergeist voice would be interrupted by laughter from the child through whom the voice was manifesting.

I've only provided several examples here. There are others.

But there's more that ought to be said about these issues. It's doubtful that Janet (or Margaret) would have been unaware that something like asking why girls have periods or showing romantic interest in a man would be inconsistent with a male identity. We're not just talking about one or two comments the voice made, which could be attributed to brief lapses of judgment on the part of one of the children who was faking the voice at the time. Rather, the issue of why girls have periods, for example, was brought up repeatedly over a lengthy span of time. Something that rarely gets discussed is that the voice kept asking the question even after it was answered at length, with a lot of detail, by Hugh Pincott. He gave the voice a lengthy explanation of the science behind periods on the night of December 14, 1977. The next night, the voice is asking the same question, as if no answer had been given (MG47A, 18:06). As Playfair later noted, the voice kept asking why girls have periods even after having an answer provided (GP38A, 33:57).

My impression is that one or more of a few things is going on. Janet did have thoughts of a sexual nature at times, and the poltergeist sometimes picked up on those and articulated them. It may have done so for the sort of reasons why any immature mind (a young child, a mentally ill person, etc.) keeps repeating what it hears other people saying. Or it may have intended to humiliate Janet by expressing thoughts she had that were of an embarrassing nature. Or it may have intended to cause confusion. Grosse referred to the entity behind the poltergeist as "a psychic joker". In a letter to the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, he commented, "This remarkable case taught me one lesson I will never forget. It is a lesson that has been confirmed in other cases I have investigated, namely: be as clinically scientific in your approach as you wish, but if you choose to play 'Hunt the Poltergeist'—'Confusion' is the name of the game." (vol. 51, 1981-82, p. 195) The poltergeist in the Enfield case was of a mischievous nature, and it did seem to enjoy confusing people (among other things).

The romantic interest in men sometimes expressed by the voice was far outweighed by expressions of a traditional male identity, including romantic comments directed toward women. The voice showed romantic interest in Richard Grosse on the day he visited (December 13, 1977), but it had shown romantic interest in Denise Burcombe earlier that night (MG42A, 2:30). The voice repeatedly asked women to marry him (e.g., Grosse's wife and daughter when they visited), to the point that Grosse commented that the voice seemed to want to marry every woman in the house (MG47A, 15:43). Playfair wrote in his book, "'YERR…I KISSED HER [apparently referring to Peggy's hairdresser],' the Voice replied lecherously. This did not sound like Janet, whose conscious mind was already firmly fixed on boys." (170) Similarly, on another occasion, the voice was talking about looking up a woman's skirt (MG64A, 14:05). There's a lot of confirmation on the tapes and elsewhere that Janet's "mind was already firmly fixed on boys", as Playfair put it. Look at the nature of the posters on the walls of her bedroom, for example, which you can see in many of the Enfield photographs that have been released to the public. She married at an unusually young age and went on to have a few children. As I documented earlier, the voice was misogynistic, in addition to showing a lot of romantic interest in women and expressing a traditional male identity in other ways. The much more unusual occasions when the voice expressed a traditional female perspective seem best explained along the lines of what I've discussed in the paragraph before this one. I suspect the entity behind the poltergeist was the spirit of a deceased heterosexual man who, on unusual occasions, expressed Janet's romantic interest in men, for reasons like those discussed earlier.

Concerning hostility toward the Burcombes, the evidence suggests that Janet's hostility toward them was much less than the voice's. It looks to me like the voice would often take something it picked up from somebody's mind and distort it, such as by exaggerating it. Its hostility toward the Burcombes, especially John, was taken so far as to be amusing. It would, at times, yell at John, using vulgarity, calling him a woman, etc. (MG49A, 17:50) There's nothing even close to that level of hostility expressed by Janet on the tapes or anywhere else I'm aware of. As I mentioned earlier, the voice manifesting through Billy once said that it doesn't like Paul Burcombe, but Peggy commented that Billy does like Paul. The voice's hostility toward the Burcombes may be something it originally got from Janet's mind, but the voice seems to have developed that hostility into something that went well beyond Janet's thinking.

Regarding the incident when the voice said that it likes copying Janet, the larger context needs to be taken into account. The voice's comments came shortly after the voice originated, when it was still thought to be a disembodied voice. It seems that the voice wanted to conceal its use of Janet's body at the time. So, when it was asked why its laughter sounded like Janet's (Janet's laughing interrupted the voice just before the question was asked), it said that it likes copying her. I'll have more to say about the issue of concealment (e.g., the voice's desire to initially conceal its use of Janet's body) below.

Whether it's problematic for the children's voices and the poltergeist voice to interrupt each other and coincide as described earlier depends on the circumstances. If two entities are using the same body (e.g., Janet and the poltergeist using Janet's body), then the two are going to influence each other to some degree. If one is laughing while the other starts to say something, then the latter's comments may sound like somebody breaking up with laughter, even if the person speaking doesn't intend to laugh. The children, like other people involved in the case, would often laugh at the absurdity of what the voice was saying, which would mean that the voice's comments would be coming through a body that was laughing, even if the poltergeist didn't intend to laugh. In other words, what comes out of a body manifesting the poltergeist voice could represent only the sentiments of the person who's normally in control of the body, only the sentiments of the poltergeist, or the sentiments of both. And there are many forms the last kind of scenario could take. So, it's a complicated situation, and we need to be careful in evaluating it accordingly.

There are some rare occasions when the voice seems to make a noise through Janet while she's making a noise of some other type. The voice makes some sounds while Janet is humming (MG41B, 32:16). In his notes on his visit to the Hodgsons' house, Richard Grosse refers to an occasion when Janet may have been recorded speaking at the same time as the voice. He may be referring to 17:56 on tape MG45B, where one of the girls seems to be humming or singing quietly while the voice talks. And there's a good chance that the voice is singing with the girls during the singing that begins at 30:29 and 37:35 on tape GP22B, though it's hard to tell. But even if the voice and the person through whom the voice has been manifesting are making noises or speaking simultaneously, it doesn't follow that an embodied poltergeist voice is speaking at the same time as the person in question. As I discussed earlier, there's good evidence that the poltergeist spoke with a disembodied voice at times. That could be going on in one or more of the four contexts I've cited above.

The voice does resemble the Hodgson children at times. But it's also different than the children in other ways, and the similarities can be reconciled with the paranormality of the voice without much difficulty.

The Voice's Failures

The voice often makes claims that are false or is asked to do things that it fails to do. But the issue of expectations comes up again here. Why expect a genuine poltergeist voice to never make false claims or never fail to do what's asked of it?

The voice seems to enjoy lying to people. It's a habitual liar and sometimes makes claims that aren't just false, but are obviously so. On one occasion, the voice was asked to make a coin disappear and kept saying "Gone!", even though the coin was still sitting where it had originally been placed (MG50A, 26:03). At another point, the voice agreed to move a slipper that was inside the house, so that it would appear outside the house. It claimed that it had done so, even though the slipper was still in the room (MG52B, 15:12). The voice would contradict itself within a short period of time for no apparent reason other than that it enjoyed telling a lie (MG44B, 16:27). It tells David Robertson to leave, then tells him not to leave just afterward (MG47B, 4:15). It tells somebody to shut the door, then says to leave the door open just after it's shut (MG51B, 21:52). In one of its many contradictory claims about who it is, the voice claims that it has some children and that its third child is named Henry, then identifies him as Jeffrey just afterward (GP25B, 19:58). And so on.

But the failures are accompanied by success. On the night Richard Grosse visited, he and some of the other people present, especially Paul Burcombe, kept challenging the voice to do various things, which it often failed to do. They criticized it for those failures, which often elicited an angry response from the voice. See the examples that I linked from a documentary earlier. I think all three of the clips that are played in that portion of the documentary come from the night Richard Grosse was at the house. And there are a lot of other segments like those from that night. The voice probably was angrier on that occasion than at any other point, at least on tape. Yet, as I've mentioned earlier in this article, the voice did produce some genuine paranormal events that night.

Probably the best illustration of that sort of combination between failure and success comes in the last few days leading up to Christmas in 1977. The voice would often fail to do anything paranormal or would do something different and less impressive than what was asked (e.g., moving the curtain near Janet's bed rather than moving the curtain that was out of her reach). It kept making false claims and contradicting itself. It claimed to have recently visited Maurice Grosse's house, for example, but kept giving wrong answers to questions about what it supposedly witnessed there. But it also produced some highly impressive phenomena alongside the ridiculous behavior I just mentioned.

After initially failing to move a dressing gown it was asked to move, it did later move the gown (MG52B, 9:59). Although the poltergeist kept refusing or failing to move the curtain that was out of Janet's reach when Grosse asked it to do so, it later moved that other curtain on its own initiative (MG53B, 11:22). It began moving the carpet in highly impressive ways. Grosse comments that it would have been "impossible" for Janet to have moved the carpet as it was moved on one occasion and comments on how impressive it is (MG52B, 3:55). Margaret and Peggy confirm that they saw what happened and that Janet didn't do it. The carpet is pulled up several more times that night, with confirmation that nobody in the room did it. On one occasion, Grosse says that he could "quite clearly" see Janet as the carpet was pulled up, and she not only wasn't touching it, but was lying in bed under the covers at the time (12:11). Peggy refers to the event I just cited as a "very good" demonstration from the poltergeist (12:45). She also saw the carpet move by itself while keeping Janet under observation and confirming that Janet didn't do it (MG53A, 36:30). After one of the carpet movements, Grosse comments that it was "literally…impossible…absolutely impossible" for Janet to have done it (37:43). Grosse goes on to describe the "very strange" way in which the carpet will "billow out" and how he can't duplicate it by normal means (38:21). John Burcombe says the same (47:00). After another moving of the carpet with Burcombe in the room, he confirms that nobody in the room could have done it (50:43). Grosse calls the carpet movements "first class phenomena" and "indisputable" (50:53). A slipper moves without anybody touching it, with Peggy in the room and verifying that Janet didn't do it (MG52B, 21:34). Some rapid knocking occurs, which sounds like it came from multiple locations in the room, and Peggy comments that "Nobody moved." (MG53A, 2:13) She describes how the poltergeist was moving the covers on one of the beds as she was watching (40:24). While Grosse is taking a photograph of the carpet that's moved under one of the beds, a paper tissue materializes above him and drifts down and lands on his head (44:56). Peggy and Burcombe saw it happen, and Peggy refers to the event as "incredible" (47:50). As on other occasions, Janet's bed would often shake. At one point, Burcombe is standing on the bed to adjust the curtain next to it and comments that he can feel vibrations going through the bed (MG53B, 2:59). Later, Grosse comments on how he and Burcombe are trying to hold Janet still in bed, and it's "becoming an impossible job" (52:50). Grosse goes on to comment on how "incredible" the force of Janet's shaking is and how he's almost being thrown up in the air as he tries to hold her down. Shortly after, he refers to how he saw the bed come off the floor (55:25). Later that night, he and Burcombe see Janet go "flying across the room" (MG54A, 0:14). The shade of a lamp in the room bends over by itself to a 45-degree angle, stays there for a while, then moves back to its original position (1:30). Grosse was in the room at the time and refers to the event as "fantastic".

If you were to single out all of the voice's failures and suspicious behavior in the days leading up to Christmas, you could make the voice and the case as a whole seem fraudulent. But if you take the successes into account as well, it's a much different situation.

Concealment

The voice would often conceal its activities. It would tell people to face a wall or leave the room, for example. It would wait until somebody had turned to look in another direction before acting. It initially tried to hide the fact that it was speaking through Janet. It gave ridiculous reasons for why it wanted the door shut at times (MG40A, 20:54). When John Burcombe asks it why people sometimes have to stay outside the room, the voice says that it just likes having things that way (MG44A, 21:10). The voice even claims that it wants the door shut in order to keep germs out (MG44B, 30:18). That kind of behavior raises suspicions about the voice being faked.

But there are a lot of potential reasons why a genuine poltergeist would conceal some of its activities. We can think of those reasons in terms of two categories, psychological and mechanical.

A few examples of potential psychological explanations are mischief, suspicion, and embarrassment. Poltergeists are often of a mischievous nature. They're trying to disrupt people's lives, upset them, anger them, confuse them, and so on. Suspicion could also motivate concealment, much as one nation's military conceals information from the military of an opposing nation. Or as a magician wants to keep people from finding out how he performs his tricks. If a poltergeist doesn't want people to learn how it operates, or wants to minimize the opportunities people have to prevent it from acting, it may conceal what it's doing. And people often conceal something when they're, for whatever reason, embarrassed by it.

This particular poltergeist seems to have been more ignorant than people often expect a poltergeist to be and seems to have gradually learned how to do some of what it did. David Robertson once asked the poltergeist if it was embarrassed to have people looking at it (MG46A, 57:43). I think Robertson was on the right track in thinking along those lines. Poltergeists have some strengths that humans don't normally have. It doesn't follow, though, that they don't have weaknesses as well, sometimes even weaknesses that make them inferior to the humans they're interacting with in some ways.

We don't know much about the mechanics of how poltergeists operate. But it's easy to think of some potential mechanical reasons for a poltergeist to conceal its activities. The voice would sometimes speak more quietly when people were near Janet. Grosse asked it, "We take your energy away, don't we?" (MG53B, 43:27) There may be some truth to that. The famous events of December 15, 1977 were concealed from people inside the house, yet people outside the house were allowed to see what was going on. Why would the poltergeist simultaneously conceal the events from people inside while letting people outside watch its activities? As in the situation I just cited from tape MG53B, it could be that the people outside the house on December 15 were far enough away to not interfere with what the poltergeist wanted to do.

And interference could take a variety of forms. It wouldn't have to be something as overt as somebody holding down an object the poltergeist wanted to move or putting a hand over Janet's mouth to prevent the voice from speaking. It could be something more subtle. Perhaps the activities of people's brains or their immaterial minds could interfere with what the poltergeist wanted to do. Telling people to leave the room, turn their backs, get under the covers of their beds, etc. would be an effective way of breaking up the mental concentration of observers. It would be harder for people to mentally concentrate on the poltergeist and/or its activities if they were further from it and not looking at it (or the medium it's working through, such as Janet). There are indications that whether people were close to the poltergeist and looking at it weren't always, if ever, its primary concern.

There was an occasion when Peggy refused to get under the covers of her bed when the voice told her to. After she refused, the voice made a comment that's hard to discern on the tape, but Margaret repeats it for us (MG52Aii, 2:07). She says that the voice told Peggy to put her hands up. As she's repeating what the voice said, Margaret laughs, presumably because what the voice told Peggy to do is so absurd. What would it accomplish for Peggy to put her hands up? Why make that sort of demand? It's possible that this is just another instance of the voice being irrational or joking. But it's also possible that the voice didn't have much concern about whether Peggy got under her covers or put her hands up, as long as she did something that would diminish her mental concentration on the poltergeist and what it was doing. We can't tell from the tape whether Peggy complied with the voice's demand that she put her hands up, but it does go on to paranormally move a curtain in the room with Peggy watching. It seems that though the poltergeist often did something like tell people to leave the room or tell them to get under their covers, its concern wasn't always, if ever, with being seen. It was concerned about something else.

Just as people in everyday life have different moods at different points in time, as well as different degrees of health, energy, and so forth, the same could be true of a poltergeist. It may have the energy needed to do something at one point in time, but not have it at another point. It may need to break up the mental activities of people who are observing it in order to act in one set of circumstances, but be capable of overcoming the mental activities of observers without doing anything to break them up under another set of circumstances. Presumably, the workings of a poltergeist are highly complicated, much like the workings of a normal human.

The attempts at concealment sometimes failed. On one occasion, when the voice was supposed to move some slippers, it told Margaret to get under her covers. She did so, and acted like she was complying with what the voice wanted, but she actually was able to see around a section of the covers well enough to observe the slippers (MG52B, 8:06). She saw the poltergeist move them. It was a genuine paranormal event. And she commented on seeing it just afterward. At 10:23 on the tape, after Margaret had referred to seeing the slippers move, the voice begins screaming at her and swearing for over half a minute. (If Janet was faking the voice, you wonder why she screamed so loudly and so forcefully for so long when it was so unnecessary to do that.) Even though it had attempted to conceal the event, it failed to do so, and its concealment wasn't meant to cover up fraud. It may be that even though the poltergeist was able to move the slippers with Margaret watching, her observing it made the process more difficult in some way, which is why the voice told her to get under her covers and was so angry that she wasn't fully complying.

In another context, the voice tells Grosse to shut the door, but allows him to remain in the room (MG47A, 56:31). John Burcombe refers to how the voice talks with Peggy in the room and "sometimes" with him in the room (MG44B, 29:39). Grosse points out how inconsistent the voice is, in that it talks a lot upstairs, without so many restrictions, then is more restrained downstairs (MG51A, 5:42). The voice tells some people in the room (apparently Milbourne Christopher, Lawrence Berger, and Grosse) to face the door, so it seems that at least one of them had been watching Janet for a while as the voice spoke through her (GP79A, 42:53). So, it would let people watch it speak through her for a while, then disallow it for a while. Even after it was known that the voice was manifesting through Janet, it would sometimes not speak when people were looking at her or would get quieter when people were closer to her. On the one hand, the voice spoke through Janet with Grosse and John Burcombe standing next to her and looking at her (MG53B, 41:33). On the other hand, several minutes later, the voice isn't speaking much and seems reluctant to speak, and it keeps pulling Janet's bed covers up to her face, as if it's trying to conceal any speaking it does through her (MG53B, 48:45). Grosse and Burcombe try to reason with the voice about how there's no need to keep concealing its speaking, since they know it speaks through Janet. Who it would or wouldn't let in the room at a given time would often vary. People like Grosse and Peggy were allowed in the room while the voice was talking just after the voice originated on December 10 (MG40A, 21:41; MG41B, 5:33, 16:47). It seems that Playfair is sometimes in the room when the voice speaks shortly after December 10 as well (MG41A, 16:40). People would be allowed in the room on one occasion, but not on another. It could be that the poltergeist was sometimes more concerned with the number of people in the room than who was there. It may have been easier for the poltergeist to operate with fewer people around or with fewer people doing something in particular, such as concentrating on the poltergeist or its activities.

But the identity of the people who were around does seem to have mattered somewhat. The most obvious example is Peggy. She was frequently allowed in the room and allowed to watch what was happening while there. The voice would sometimes tell her to get under the covers of her bed, turn in another direction, or some such thing, but not nearly as much as it told somebody like Grosse or Burcombe to do so. I suspect the reason was efficiency. Peggy wasn't just visiting the bedroom. She was sleeping there. It would take more time and effort to get family members to get out of bed, leave the room, etc. So, I suspect the poltergeist generally let the family stay and tried to get other people to leave when it wanted fewer people around. If the children were faking the whole case, they should have made more of an effort to get their mother out of the room, since she's widely acknowledged to have been an honest witness. I've discussed some of the reasons why she should be considered trustworthy in previous posts, and I'll have more to say on that subject in the future. There are many occasions on the tapes when she's watching the children, accusing them of faking something, criticizing them for joking when they shouldn't be, telling them to do what the researchers have instructed them to do, etc. Her frequent presence in the room is a major problem for skeptics and a major problem for any hypothesis that suggests that the poltergeist's concealment efforts were intended to avoid having any reliable witnesses. Peggy was frequently allowed to be a witness, and she was a highly reliable one.

Another factor that needs to be taken into account is that the voice would sometimes try to prevent concealment. It tells Margaret to not get under her covers, then angrily repeats itself (MG50A, 20:39). At another point, after Janet and Peggy have gotten under their covers, the voice tells them to get out from their covers (MG52B, 9:03). In another context, everybody in the room is told to get out from their covers, and the voice then moves a curtain in front of all of them (MG52Aii, 16:44). I think the most significant incident of this sort is the removal of one of the curtains on December 15, 1977. A few people (at least) outside the house were able to see Janet levitating in the bedroom, and they were able to see in the room so easily because the poltergeist had removed one of the curtains earlier that day (page 143 in Playfair's book). I don't believe anybody had asked the poltergeist to move the curtain, and none of the previous events in the day seem to have required the curtain's removal. The removal happened just before Janet's levitation. So, it seems that the poltergeist was removing some concealment, so that people outside the house could more easily see what was going on. At the same time, people inside the house (David Robertson, Peggy Nottingham) were prevented from seeing the levitation. It may have been at least partially a matter of distance. Witnesses at more of a distance (those outside the house) didn't have as much potential to interfere with what the poltergeist wanted to do, so it removed some concealment for them while adding concealment for the people who were inside the house. We see something similar on other occasions, which I've mentioned elsewhere, when Grosse and John Burcombe noticed that the poltergeist's knocking and its voice would get quieter as they moved closer to Janet and louder as they moved away from her (MG53B, 43:21; GP58B, 26:35, 37:12; GP80B, 4:51).

There's no need to provide one explanation for everything the voice did in the context of concealment. I doubt that it had just one psychological or mechanical reason for how it handled concealment issues. Rather, I suspect it had multiple reasons for doing what it did, and those reasons probably varied at times. But here's a summary that I think plausibly explains a large percentage of what happened.

The family was allowed to stay in the room, since moving them around was unnecessary and would be more difficult than getting other people to move. Individuals outside of the family, like Grosse and Burcombe, sometimes were allowed to witness events and sometimes weren't. The number of people in the room often mattered more than who was there. If the poltergeist had a lot of energy, little interference from other minds, or some other advantageous situation at a given moment, it would allow a larger number of people to witness its activities. It even desired a larger audience at times, sometimes to the point of telling people to get out from under their covers, come into the room, and so forth. So, it not only tried to diminish its audience at times, but also tried to expand its audience on other occasions.

And surely there were many other factors involved. The poltergeist's desire to be mischievous. Its anger. Its vindictiveness. Its desire to keep people from figuring out how it was operating. Whatever mental problems it had. And so on. The poltergeist's efforts at concealment can be explained well without a fraud hypothesis, and a fraud hypothesis fails to explain much of what happened in these concealment contexts.

How Could Janet Have Been Ignorant Of The Voice's Use Of Her Body?

It's understandable that it wasn't until later in December that other people figured out that the voice was being produced through Janet. But how could she have taken so long to reach that conclusion? And if she knew of it before other people did, as she surely would have, why didn't she say so?

Janet often described the sensations she had when the voice spoke through her. She would often refer to feeling something on the back of her neck (MG49A, 18:40; MG53A, 1:13; MG57B, 42:37). You can watch her describing what it felt like in a video here. In addition to those sensations she experienced, she would have noticed that the voice sounded like it was nearby. And she should have noticed that some of the content of the voice's comments reflected her thoughts to one degree or another. What about the voice interrupting her or her noticing that she was able to interrupt the voice? How could she go through all of those experiences, along with whatever else, and not have a good idea of at least the general parameters of what was happening?

I suspect she knew more than she was letting on. She would have needed some time to piece everything together, but it doesn't seem like she should have needed so many days to do so. Why didn't she tell anybody else what was happening, then? If the voice is a genuine poltergeist phenomenon, then I would think that Janet initially went through a stage of ignorance, not knowing what was going on, followed by confusion. But even if she needed some time to discern what was going on, why did she stay quiet about it beyond that?

I suspect embarrassment was a factor. Not only was the voice itself something she wouldn't want to be associated with, but she also wouldn't want to be associated with the content of what the voice said. As I mentioned earlier, Janet would sometimes deny, with apparent anger, that her mind was being read by the voice (MG56B, 36:35). She occasionally seems hesitant when asked about the relationship between her thoughts and what the voice was saying (GP98A, 56:57). On one occasion (GP83B, 3:04), though, she acknowledged that the poltergeist was using her mind and Margaret's, but insisted that what the voice says doesn't represent their thoughts. Apparently, she was claiming that the voice uses information from their minds, but distorts that information and combines it with its own sentiments. So, it's clear that she wanted to distance herself from much of what the voice said. But she may have also wanted to feed the voice certain thoughts at times, to get it to say things she found amusing, for example. Even if "feed" is too strong a term, she may have at least noticed the voice taking the initiative to express some of her thoughts, and she may have found it amusing at times or appealing in some other way. Some variation of such a scenario might be occurring in the video I linked above. Watch here. Notice that Janet seems to be acting in agreement with the voice when it says "Yeah!" after Grosse mentions that Playfair might have something to say. That's typical of Janet's personality at the time. She was easily excitable, often happy, and frequently found situations amusing. But, just after that, when the voice says "By making powers!" (or something like that), Janet has her head down and isn't acting the same. It's not the sort of comment Janet would typically make. That sequence in the video might illustrate a distinction between the voice's expression of a sentiment closely aligned with Janet's mind ("Yeah!") and its expressing a sentiment that comes more from its own mind ("By making powers!"). On other occasions, Grosse and Playfair noted that they sometimes saw the children move their bodies in accordance with what the voice was expressing through them or not move their bodies in accordance with it. There was some of each, like we see in the video just linked (MG49A, 58:11; MG68A, 6:16; GP33B, 11:10; page 246 in Playfair's book).

There are some occasions when it's either highly possible or probable that Janet had some control over paranormal events that were occurring. After the poltergeist moved a lamp on one occasion, Grosse told it to do so again. After some waiting, Janet says, with a voice that sounds tired, "Go on, Margaret." (MG54A, 6:28) Grosse asks her what she meant by that, and she doesn't respond, at least in any way that's discernable on the tape. There's good evidence that the initial lamp movement was a genuine paranormal event (the lamp was out of reach of the children at the time; multiple adults were in the room, making it highly unlikely that any of the children could have gotten away with faking the event; Grosse saw the ring of light from the lamp moving across the ceiling, so he could easily have seen the shadow of anybody faking the event, if it was faked; there are no sounds of any children moving around on the tape; see page 167 in Playfair's book). There's a good chance that when Janet said "Go on, Margaret.", Janet was telling her sister to paranormally move the lamp. She realized that she shouldn't have made the comment out loud, so she didn't say anything when Grosse asked her what she meant. She may have meant something other than what I'm suggesting here, though. I don't think we can conclude that it's probable that Janet was telling Margaret to do something paranormal, but there's a significant possibility that she was doing so.

Something similar occurs at 40:04 on GP96A. Janet is having a discussion with David Martin of the BBC. He asks the poltergeist to move an ornament that's on top of the television. Janet responds, "Ask her [apparently Margaret] that. I can't do it anymore." She then sounds flustered and corrects herself, commenting, "I'm sorry, I didn't know what I was saying." Just as she apparently was tired during the previous incident, which happened late at night, she was sick on this occasion when she was talking to Martin. It may not be a coincidence that she made these comments when tiredness and sickness left her more unguarded than she normally was. As with the previous incident, there's a lot of ambiguity. I don't think we can say anything more than that there's a strong possibility that Janet was referring to how she and her sister have some paranormal abilities.

But there are other contexts that don't involve so much ambiguity. David Robertson documented Janet's ability to bend metal and change her weight at will. So, the issue here isn't whether the children could ever perform paranormal acts at will, but rather the degree to which they could.

Grosse once commented that Janet seems to think she has more control over the poltergeist than she actually does (GP45A, 20:40). He doesn't go into much detail, but he refers to having evidence to that effect. I think Janet and Margaret had more control over the paranormal events that occurred than they let on, but I suspect the events were largely out of their control as well. For example, though Janet was successful at bending metal to some extent, some of her attempts failed. I suspect Grosse was correct in his perception that Janet overestimated her abilities.

It could be, though, that Janet didn't know much about what was happening during the earliest days of the voice. Peggy referred to not feeling anything at times when the voice spoke through her (GP51A, 13:09), and she didn't even realize that the voice was coming from her when it manifested on the occasion when she was in a store, which I discussed earlier (MG95A, 29:38). And though Janet usually referred to sensations in the back of her neck, she also mentioned at one point that the sensations had moved to the top of her head (GP92A, 19:53). On one occasion, Grosse refers to Janet not feeling anything as the voice speaks through her (MG53A, 13:55), so there may have been phases when Janet, like her mother, had no sensations accompanying the voice. Though Janet often referred to sensations she had when the voice spoke through her, maybe she didn't have those sensations early on or had them to a lesser extent. And on December 15, less than a week after the voice originated, Janet took the initiative to comment, "It's on top of me, ain't it?" (MG47A, 35:20) On December 17, Janet initiates a discussion of how she keeps getting a pain in the back of her head (MG49A, 18:40). She says she feels something like a vibration in the back of her head when the voice talks. She explains that it's more like an echo than a vibration, and she says the voice sounds loud to her when it speaks. So, she was providing information to some extent, even on her own initiative, during the earliest days.

Still, it seems likely to me that she knew more than she was letting on and did sometimes use the voice for her own purposes (trying to get it to say things she found amusing, not making as much effort as she could have to stop the voice when she was told to stop it, etc.). We'll see more evidence to that effect later on.

Vocabulary

I'm including a vocabulary section in each of the first two segments of this post, since so much of the voice's vocabulary can be cited either for its authenticity or against it. I think the overall balance on vocabulary issues favors authenticity, but I want to address some counterarguments.

The poltergeist often referred to Peggy as "Mum". Like the Hodgson girls, the voice typically referred to Grosse as "Mr. Grosse". It would refer to middle-aged people, like Peggy and Grosse, as "old".

That may initially seem like a convincing argument that the voice was faked, but it doesn't hold up well under scrutiny. To begin with, it's doubtful that the Hodgson children were ignorant of the fact that using different language would have made the voice less suspicious. Given how frequently Peggy is referred to as "Mum", for example, the children would have to have been remarkably incompetent, trying to get caught, or some other such thing if they were faking the voice, and none of those scenarios make much sense.

It's more likely that the poltergeist was calling Peggy "Mum" in a way similar to how people do the same sort of thing in other contexts. Parents refer to a child's grandfather as "Grandpa" when talking to the children, even though the man in question isn't the parents' grandfather. Unsurprisingly, since it's such a common practice, we find examples of that on the Enfield tapes. Peggy refers to herself as "Mum", and I noticed an example of Grosse referring to her that way (MG52Aii, 8:10; MG68A, 19:00). And the voice wouldn't always refer to Peggy as "Mum". At times, it refers to her as "Mrs. Hodgson" (MG44A, 27:45) or "Peggy" (MG50A, 21:06), in addition to sometimes referring to her by various insulting terms. Furthermore, the "Mum" language was used in contexts for which we have good evidence of paranormality. As I mentioned earlier, Peggy described an incident when she saw Janet and Margaret levitated from some chairs they were sitting on. The voice then said it was going to lift Peggy. She felt pressure on her back, but she wasn't lifted. The voice then said she was too heavy to lift (GP32B, 52:08). And she was addressed by the voice as "Mum" in that context. Just as the voice sometimes referred to Peggy by a term other than "Mum", it also sometimes referred to Grosse as something other than "Mr. Grosse" (MG55A, 21:42). The best explanation for why it usually used identifiers like "Mum" and "Mr. Grosse" seems to be that those were the terms most often applied to those individuals in the contexts in which the poltergeist was active. It was just repeating the typical way it heard those individuals being addressed.

The "old" language doesn't have much significance as an argument against authenticity either. David Robertson, who was only 20, was referred to as "old" (MG55A, 32:28). So was Denise Burcombe, who was only in her mid teens (GP74B, 33:05). The voice refers to wrapping the curtains around Janet's "old" neck (GP83B, 39:37), so the terminology was even applied to her. That's also an example of the language in question being closely connected to events for which we have good evidence of paranormality. See my earlier post on the choking incidents, which are highly evidential events that the voice was involved with to a large extent. The voice often applies the term "old" to people and things without much regard for whether they actually are old by typical standards, including people as young as Janet and Denise, so its use of that term doesn't tell us much about how old the entity behind the voice was. After seeing Janet thrown out of bed on one occasion, Grosse refers to "poor old Janet" (MG39A, 2:11).

Janet And The Voice Answering For Each Other

I noticed some occasions when Janet responded to somebody speaking to the voice or the voice responded to somebody speaking to Janet. David Robertson calls out Janet's name, and the voice responds (GP25A, 10:48). Janet responds just afterward, and what she says is the same as what the voice said ("Yeah."). Robertson later calls out the name the voice is using at the time (Bill), and Janet answers. The voice then answers as well, but refers to itself as "Janet" in the process, which it then corrects (GP26A, 13:05).

Given the rarity of these occurrences and the nature of the poltergeist in question and Janet's personality, I don't think we can conclude much from these events. People sometimes answer when somebody else's name is being called. That sometimes happens when people are inattentive, distracted, or whatever. And the poltergeist involved in this case was highly mischievous and seems to have had some mental problems. Then there's Janet's personality. Given how often she was frivolous and involved in joking, she may have been joking around on one or more of these occasions, but you wouldn't be able to extrapolate from that to some sort of fraud hypothesis to explain the entirety of the voice. These incidents do add some weight to a fraud hypothesis, but not much.

There's also the question of the nature of the fraud involved. If Janet pretended to be another entity, but was performing genuine paranormal phenomena in the process, then that is a form of fraud. But it's a form that involves genuine paranormal events. Just after the second of the two incidents I described in the first paragraph of this section, the voice says it's going to levitate Janet. And it does sound like a levitation occurs just afterward. The poltergeist would often keep doors shut in a paranormal manner when levitations were going on. You can hear Playfair, apparently, pounding hard against the door, and he's unable to open it. It does seem that some paranormal events happened on this occasion, and those events were anticipated by the voice. That's harder to explain if the voice was inauthentic.

Margaret's Confession

Margaret was reported to have confessed to The Daily Mirror and Ray Alan (a famous ventriloquist) that she had faked the voice. I consider it unlikely that she made such a confession, for reasons explained elsewhere. However, some comments made by Playfair on one of his tapes provide the best evidence I've come across that such a confession did occur. Playfair says that Bryan Rimmer, the reporter at The Daily Mirror before whom Margaret is supposed to have confessed, mentioned that Margaret had given a "long" confession. Rimmer also told Playfair that he'd had Margaret repeat the confession for him (GP34A, 11:57). Those descriptions of what happened seem inconsistent with Margaret's claim that she just nodded her head while Rimmer and Alan were talking, without paying much attention to what they were saying.

But there still are a lot of problems with Rimmer's account of what happened, problems I discussed in the earlier post linked above. Even with the additional claims by Rimmer added to the situation, I find Margaret's account more likely on balance. I haven't found any contact information for Rimmer, and I don't know whether he's even alive. It would be good to ask him for a response to Margaret's account, and he ought to be asked why neither he nor Alan, as far as I know, ever replied to the account of what happened that's found in Playfair's book. Since the book has been out for a few decades and has gotten a significant amount of attention, you wonder why neither Rimmer nor Alan would have said something publicly if Playfair's account is substantially inaccurate. Alan didn't die until 2010, so even he had a few decades to respond, which he apparently never did.

Can Margaret's side of the story be reconciled with what Playfair says he was told by Rimmer? Perhaps, if Margaret's alleged long confession and repetition of her confession only consisted of nodding in response to what Rimmer and Alan said. That would be an unusual way of describing nodding, though.

Some of what's on the tapes provides further support for Margaret's account. According to John Burcombe, Clifford Davis of The Daily Mirror acknowledged that the girls could be producing the voice without realizing they're doing it (GP98B, 28:31). Why would Davis give credence to such a view if Margaret had made the confession in question? Was he unaware of the confession at that point?

Burcombe also notes that he didn't hear Ray Alan say anything about any confession of faking (GP98B, 28:50). Again, you have to wonder why so many people from The Daily Mirror's team kept failing to mention the confession on so many occasions when you'd expect them to have mentioned it, and didn't quote any part of the confession in the story they published, if such a confession occurred.

There's no easy explanation for what happened. I think the balance of evidence favors Margaret's side of the dispute, and the tapes add further support for her claims. But the tapes also provide additional support for the other side.

Even if Margaret did make such a confession, it was only a confession about her involvement in one type of phenomenon (the voice). That sort of confession would be significant, but it would still leave the large majority of the Enfield case, including most of the voice, unexplained.

Janet's Resistance To Testing

Janet sometimes resisted attempts at testing the voice. For example, she was resistant to putting something in her mouth at one point, apparently a pencil (MG47A, 32:47). In another context, it seems that Janet is somewhat uncooperative with Grosse's efforts to look at her face, since he has to keep telling her to turn her head (MG53A, 6:01) She sometimes was told to stop turning her head away, remove her bed covers from around her mouth, or some other such thing, which raises the possibility that she was trying to cover up what was going on with the voice. She also frequently failed to take steps to silence the voice when told to do so.

But, like many other children her age, Janet was willful in a lot of contexts, not just ones that would raise suspicions about faking paranormal events. In his book, Playfair refers to Janet being uncooperative with a medium who visited the house (51), and that occurred in a context that wouldn't involve Janet faking something. The tapes provide many examples of Janet not doing what she's told in contexts that are irrelevant to faking the paranormal (MG50A, 33:03, 34:09; MG62A, 26:46; GP6B, 0:29).

Regarding the incident when Janet resisted having a pencil placed in her mouth, it should be noted that she initially was cooperative. She later resisted, citing concerns about hygiene. She does express a concern about germs elsewhere. On one of the tapes, she had been told to take her brace out for the night. She says that she wants it placed in a handkerchief (GP97B, 26:10), so it seems that she sincerely had concerns about germs.

And she was often cooperative about testing the voice. I've already cited David Robertson and Hugh Pincott referring to her cooperativeness in running some tests that provided good evidence for the paranormality of the voice. She even took the initiative at times. She encourages putting water in her mouth to test the voice again (MG51A, 2:17). At another point, Janet had her mouth taped by Playfair. After the tape had been applied, she said, "I can still talk." (GP31A, 29:46) It seems unlikely that she'd volunteer that information if she was faking the voice. In another context, Grosse was trying to get the voice to sing along with Janet (GP77B, 13:31). Grosse asked her if she knew the song "Old MacDonald", and she quickly acknowledged that she knew it and agreed to sing it. She could easily have claimed to not know the song or have made some other excuse for not cooperating.

I do think Janet was often disingenuous about stopping the voice. Margaret probably was at times, too, though she seemed to stop her voice more often than Janet stopped hers. To some extent, it makes sense for them to be reluctant to stop the voice even if the voice is genuine. For one thing, stopping it would require a significant amount of effort. That would be difficult to keep up, especially in a nighttime setting, when you're tired. Telling somebody else to stop the voice is one thing. It's something else if you're the one who has to do it. Would you want to have to keep concentrating on stopping a voice that could start at any moment, with no warning, and sometimes would talk frequently for hours on end? And I suspect both girls, especially Janet, sometimes found the voice humorous or enjoyable to have around in some other way. I suspect their efforts to stop the voice from speaking were often half-hearted, if even that. To an extent, you can't blame them. Playfair got so frustrated at one point that he told Janet to "make your mind up" about whether she could stop the voice, as she sometimes claimed to be able to do (GP33B, 13:00). But they did sometimes make a substantial effort to stop it. On one of the tapes, Grosse tells Janet to stop her voice by opening her mouth and putting her tongue out (MG62B, 1:06). She apparently does so, and her voice stops for a while. There are occasions when Janet deliberately interrupts the voice when it's manifesting through her (GP25A, 2:55, 18:48, 20:08). On another tape, Margaret makes an effort to prevent the voice from speaking by counting out loud (GP33B, 31:59).

Other Issues

How Much Of It Is Authentic?

The voice seems to be paranormal to some extent. I doubt that every manifestation of it was genuine. Grosse believed that Billy sometimes imitated the voice by normal means, for example (GP53B, 3:01). Like other young children, Billy often imitated other people and things, so it would have been surprising if he hadn't imitated the voice. Even the adults who were present, like Grosse and Anita Gregory, would sometimes imitate the voice while commenting on it, when joking about it, and so on. We can't determine with much precision how often the voice was produced by normal means, but I think we can say that a paranormal voice was manifested at times and probably accounts for a majority of what's heard on the tapes in the relevant contexts.

Even if the children faked all of the voices that came through them, it would be hard to deny that there's an authentic core to the phenomena in the disembodied voice and the one manifested through Peggy. I doubt that all of the voices that manifested through the children were faked, but we need to keep in mind how inadequate a fraud hypothesis involving faking on the part of the children would be even if we were to accept it. While it would explain what happened with the children, it wouldn't explain what happened on so many other occasions that involved a voice independent of the children.

How Much Precedent Is There For Such A Voice?

Other poltergeist cases have involved a voice of some sort. And those voices have often resembled the Enfield voice to some extent. There are many references to such characteristics (in both poltergeist and haunting cases) in Alan Gauld and A.D. Cornell's Poltergeists (United States: White Crow Books, 2017), for example (e.g., approximate Kindle locations: 1504, talking "loudly and unnaturally…in a rather uninhibited and hysterical way"; 2141, a voice of "a scurrilous and abusive character"; 2380, "a breathy and toneless voice" that "generally reflected the child's [poltergeist agent's] interests of the moment"; 3027, claiming multiple identities; 3220, making animal noises; 3802, whistling). Grosse commented at one point that what the voice says is absurd, and Charles Moses responded by saying that that's always the case with poltergeist voices (GP91A, 33:26). So, it seems that Moses thought poltergeist voices always behave that way. Hans Bender suggested that the Enfield voice is similar to what's occurred in other cases (GP39A, 25:22). He thought the voice content came from "unconscious fantasies". He referred to a case he recently had that involved a young boy who manifested a distorted voice (GP39B, 17:24). Grosse talked about the rarity of voices in poltergeist cases, but he referred to how they're deep voices when there is one (MG100B, 3:36). In his book, Playfair refers to other cases involving a voice with similar characteristics (118-20). Playfair said that barking and whistling often go before speaking in paranormal cases (GP43B, 9:04), and that's what happened with Enfield.

A Female Voice

Though it was highly unusual for the Enfield voice to do so, it did sometimes manifest in what seemed to be a female manner. Peggy and the girls described an occasion when a woman's voice manifested through the children (MG87A, 4:57). Peggy described another incident when she and the children were walking through a park (MG89A, 5:39). Stones were thrown at her and the children with nobody around who could have thrown them. A woman's voice came from Margaret, saying that Janet will be levitated, and she was levitated. Peggy was "sure" Janet did levitate.

More About Mechanical Issues

I should add to what I said earlier about the mechanical reasons poltergeists may have for acting as they do. I referred to the possibility that mental concentration interferes with a poltergeist's, or at least this poltergeist's, operations. That may explain some of the voice's comments. At one point, it said, for no apparent reason, "Look at Margaret." (MG53B, 40:24) That may have been an attempt at breaking people's concentration, and I've referred to other occasions of a similar nature. In a discussion in January of 1978, Charles Moses, Grosse, and Margaret, perhaps Janet as well, agree that the voice doesn't manifest through the girls or has a harder time doing so when they're concentrating on something else, like answering the questions Moses was asking them (MG67A, 25:28). Grosse refers to having seen that sort of thing many times. Elsewhere, Margaret says that the voice seems to start up when you stop talking. If your mind is occupied with something, that prevents the voice from speaking (GP91B, 26:35). Perhaps it wasn't just concentration on the poltergeist and its activities that interfered with its operations. Maybe concentration more broadly did so. Or it could be that multiple types of concentration interfered with the poltergeist's activities, but to different degrees.

The activities of poltergeists are seldom caught on video. There were a few occasions when the poltergeist in the Enfield case was filmed while manifesting its voice and doing some knocking. Other poltergeists have occasionally been filmed in action as well. The poltergeist in the Enfield case often showed hostility toward cameras, especially video cameras. We have good evidence that it sometimes caused cameras to malfunction. Go here and do a Ctrl F search for "equipment" for a summary of the evidence. There are plausible psychological explanations for why a poltergeist, or this one in particular, would often interfere with filming. Given the mischievous nature of many poltergeists, including the Enfield one, there may be a desire to disrupt the researchers' (and others') efforts to document what was going on. Since film evidence is commonly considered the best type of evidence, especially videos, that's a plausible explanation for why a poltergeist would be uncooperative with filming. And to whatever extent poltergeists want to prevent people from discerning how they operate, there could be an effort to avoid filming, especially videos, accordingly. But there may be one or more mechanical explanations as well. Filming often involves long periods of concentration, with a person behind the camera watching what the camera is focused upon. So, cameras may be closely associated with the concentration issue I discussed above. It's also possible that there's something about cameras, maybe especially video cameras, that mechanically interferes with the activities of poltergeists.

The Voice In Later Years

There was still a lot of voice activity in August of 1979, when Ed Warren recorded his Enfield tapes, which include segments with the voice. On an August 14, 1979 tape, John Burcombe refers to how the voice has been highly active lately (MG95B, 0:32, 1:10). Peggy Hodgson died in 2003, and Clare Bennett and her four sons moved in after Peggy's death. They reported ongoing paranormal activity in the house. Part of what they reported, in the article just linked, was that Clare Bennett's "sons would wake in the night, hearing people talking downstairs." That's reminiscent of Peggy's report of hearing indistinct voices in a different part of the house than where she was at the time (MG94B, 0:51). Keep in mind, as I discussed earlier, that there seems to have been a paranormal voice early in the case, which resulted in Billy being moved to another room. That's why Janet and Johnny were sleeping in the same room on the night when the Hodgsons first realized there was paranormal activity in their house. So, it looks like voice phenomena occurred at least as early as August of 1977 and as late as shortly after Peggy's death in 2003. The phenomena didn't just occur in the much shorter timeframe people often think of.

The Witnesses' Impressions About Who It Was

My impression is that the people most involved in the case perceived the entity behind the poltergeist as a deceased human more than anything else. They were often undecided on the subject or changed their views from one occasion to another, but I think the view most commonly expressed by the Hodgsons, the Burcombes, the Nottinghams, Grosse, Playfair, and others who were prominent in the case was that a deceased human was involved (e.g., GP38A, 34:29). They may have been wrong. The impressions of the people most involved in a case aren't infallible. But they aren't worthless either.

It Wasn't Bill Wilkins

It's been popular over the years to suggest that the poltergeist was the spirit of a deceased man who used to live in the Hodgsons' house, named Bill Wilkins. Probably the most famous comments the voice made, the ones most often played and quoted, are its comments about how Wilkins, the individual the voice was claiming to be at the time, died. You can listen to the (somewhat edited) audio here. The video here is an example of how the media are often overly focused on Bill Wilkins when discussing the Enfield case. For another example, see the discussion of Wilkins at the end of the 1995 television program here.

It's highly unlikely that the entity behind the poltergeist was Wilkins, for too many reasons to go into here. The voice claimed to be a lot of different individuals. Wilkins wasn't even the first person the poltergeist claimed to be, and the voice originally referred to Bill Wilkinson rather than Wilkins (MG45A, 5:13). A lot of information about Wilkins would have been easily accessible to the Hodgsons, since Wilkins had lived in their house not too long ago and had been known by some of their neighbors. Some of what the voice said about Wilkins was accurate, and some wasn't. There are some tapes of interviews Grosse did with people who had known Wilkins, and Grosse and those individuals refer to how some aspects of the voice and its claims line up with Wilkins and others don't. For example, the voice seems to have been correct about Wilkins' wife living in an apartment after his death and where the apartment was (MG100A, 17:40). It was wrong about her dying there, though. Charles Kennedy, the husband of a sister of Wilkins' wife, says that the acoustic qualities of the voice Grosse has played for him sound like Wilkins' voice (10:19). Kennedy thinks the tapes reflect Wilkins' personality (13:17). But he only heard a small percentage of the relevant material, in addition to reading Playfair's book. And he thinks Wilkins differed from the Enfield voice in some ways, so he seems to only be referring to a general similarity that includes some exceptions. Elsewhere, Kennedy refers to some of the voice's characteristics and claims as inaccurate (MG100B, 0:22). Grosse also interviewed Terry Wilkins, the son of Bill. A woman present during the interview, presumably Terry's wife, comments that the tapes Grosse has played don't accurately reflect Bill Wilkins' personality (MG101A, 40:12). Terry seems to have come to the conclusion at some point that the poltergeist was his father (see here; Paranormal Review, Summer 2016, Issue 79, pp. 22-23), but he sounds wavering or skeptical of it during this interview. Grosse notes that the voice was wrong about where Wilkins was buried (19:31). And so on. Even if some of the accurate information about Wilkins had been obtained paranormally, it wouldn't follow that the entity behind the poltergeist was Wilkins. As I discussed earlier, there's good evidence that the poltergeist had some telepathic abilities. It could have acquired some information about Wilkins without being him. The idea that the poltergeist was Bill Wilkins ought to be abandoned.

A Disordered Mind

Earlier sections of this article have discussed some of the characteristics of the voice and the poltergeist as a whole (a male, misogynistic, unusually angry, unusually vulgar, highly mischievous, often operating in a parasitic manner, etc.). A characteristic that doesn't get discussed enough is its apparent mental impairment. Peggy referred to how "mindless" the poltergeist was (GP87A, 43:02). Margaret referred to the poltergeist as a "nutcase" (GP86A, 23:03). On the night the voice originated, Janet referred to how it was "going off his head" (MG38A, 36:11). Playfair referred to how poltergeist behavior is so pointless, mysterious, and such (GP40A, 12:14). Why do they keep throwing things around? Why do they not say what they want when asked? A malfunctioning mind would explain much of what Playfair refers to. As I mentioned earlier, the voice would often seem ignorant of information that even a young child would typically know. It would often make nonsensical comments. After it killed the Hodgsons' goldfish, it commented that it wanted to touch the fish, but accidentally killed them in the process (MG53A, 16:56). Who thinks or talks that way? Who, other than a young child or somebody who has a mental problem, would want to touch some fish, would try to do it, then would tell other people about it? And what kind of person would accidentally kill the fish in the process or would want to kill the fish, then would lie about it? On one occasion, Playfair advocates a view in which the poltergeist exists with some sort of simple mind, not even knowing its own name (GP30A, 15:24). Grosse referred to the poltergeist as a "psychic joker", but what should we think of somebody who jokes so much, carrying it to such lengths and keeping it up for so long? That seems to suggest some kind of mental problem. The voice claimed to have a mental impairment (MG47A, 12:52). In the context just cited, it asks, "I'm fucking mental, ain't I?" On one occasion, Grosse asked the voice what they could do to make it easier for it to talk (GP25B, 23:05). Its response was, "Make my brain work right." The conversation eventually turns to joking and laughter, but it didn't start that way. The voice initiated the comment about wanting help with its brain, and it didn't laugh at the time or do anything else to suggest that it was insincere. Grosse initially misunderstood what it said, and the discussion became more frivolous as it went on, but the initial comment about the voice wanting its brain to work rightly sounds sincere. Even if it wasn't sincere, the comment seems to accurately reflect the situation. That remark from the voice probably represents the nature of the poltergeist more than anything else it said.

Source: https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-voice-and-personality-of-enfield.html

0215A-2019 - Triablogue - Some Neglected Evidence For The Enfield Voice

This month and next, I want to discuss a couple of unresolved issues in the Enfield case. My post this month, this one, will address a subject I'm more pessimistic about, and next month's post will be about a topic that's more promising. Something the two posts will have in common is that I'm largely ignorant about some aspects of the issues I'll be discussing. Part of what I'm doing in these posts is bringing these issues to a larger audience with the hope that other people will be able to bring about some progress in the contexts involved.

About 20 years ago, Will Storr went to Philadelphia to spend some time with Lou Gentile, a self-described demonologist who was going to take Storr along with him on some cases Gentile was working. Storr was a British journalist and a skeptic of the paranormal. He didn't expect anything supernatural to occur during his time with Gentile. He thought he would be writing a humorous article about the delusions of a demonologist. Instead, he had some unsettling experiences that he considered supernatural, and he went on to spend a year researching the paranormal and writing a book about it, Will Storr Vs. The Supernatural (New York, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006). You can listen to Storr discussing his experiences with Gentile here, in an interview several years ago.

There was a subject Gentile brought up in his discussions with Storr, and it would be a recurring theme with other individuals Storr came across in the process of doing his research. Gentile mentioned a poltergeist case Storr should look into: "The Enfield case was just insane. One of the biggest, best-documented poltergeist cases in history. A real bad demonic case. Man, you should check that one out." (page 8 in Storr's book) He would check it out, to the point of interviewing Janet Hodgson, often considered the center of the poltergeist, and twice interviewing Maurice Grosse, the chief investigator of the case. Near the end of the second interview, Grosse played a recording of the poltergeist's embodied voice, and it was at that point that Storr recognized a connection between Enfield and the cases he was involved in with Gentile:

Without hesitation I know where I've heard this before. It's precisely the same pattern of sound as the EVP [electronic voice phenomena] Lou recorded in Kathy's house and at the Carvens'. Really, precisely, completely, exactly. The timbre of the growl is identical, as is the timing and suddenness of the yelps. And it's the same in such an unusual, unexpected way….

I'm stunned because the fact that this voice - which was recorded in a London suburb in 1978 [1977] - sounds the same as one recorded over twenty years later, on a different continent, makes complete sense. It adds up. Because if both these recordings actually are the sound of disembodied souls, they would sound the same - whether they were free-floating in the invisible world or whether they'd managed to disappear up the nostril and down the throat of a human with usable voice-amplifying equipment. They would sound the same. And they do sound the same. It all makes heavy, terrifying sense. (224-25)

Judging by the context surrounding what's quoted above, I think Grosse had played a tape he used for demonstration purposes. It seems to be a tape he used when addressing the media, when giving presentations on the case, and so forth. There are multiple versions of the tape in Grosse's collection (all of them having the same content, apparently), but only one of them was copied for the digital collection I have. It's tape 105A. It contains a compilation of audio clips from different dates during the case. Storr refers to some segments of the tape Grosse played for him, and every one of those segments is on tape 105A, and they're in the same order in which Storr mentions them. So, it looks like Grosse played a portion of that tape or one of its copies for Storr.

Here's a YouTube version of the growling and yelping sequence Storr probably heard. But since the YouTube edition is of such poor quality, there's a good chance that the version played for Storr had better audio. And there's a whistling sound just after the YouTube sequence in the original audio. The poltergeist voice had been periodically whistling, in addition to growling and doing other things alongside the whistling. Storr might be referring to the whistling when he refers to yelping. Since that last whistling sound is left out of the YouTube version, it doesn't convey everything Storr heard. What he heard was somewhat lengthier, more complicated, and more diverse. Still, the YouTube clip will give you a general idea of what's involved.

That audio was recorded on the night of December 19, 1977. It happened while the magician Milbourne Christopher was at the house, a context I've discussed elsewhere. Go to the article just linked and do a Ctrl F search for "Milbourne" to find the relevant material (at the second search result). You can also read about Christopher's visit on pages 158-63 in Guy Playfair's This House Is Haunted (United States: White Crow Books, 2011). He discusses the audio segment under consideration here on pages 160-61. Here's what Playfair says about the context just before the audio cited by Storr:

"Then we went through the same old routine of the girls shooting out of bed the minute we were out of the room, one I was getting very tired of, and at last the inevitable happened and Janet's bed collapsed. We again decided to put her in the back room in the hope of getting some peace. When she had settled down, I left her, with the door wide open, and repeated my old trick of going downstairs loudly and then creeping up again, treading on the outer sides of the wooden steps to avoid creaking." (160)

In my article linked above, I discuss the significance of some of the voice's other comments made in the context surrounding what Storr cites. The voice's comment "Get out!" when Playfair was walking up the steps (with no normal way for Janet to have known he was there, apparently) happened at 33:55 on Grosse's tape 51B. The sequence Storr described happened at 36:07. So, we have good evidence for the paranormality of the voice just before the sequence Storr heard. It's also worth noting that the temperament and interests of the voice during these few minutes, concluding with Storr's sequence, contrast with Janet's temperament and interests at the time. The voice is repeatedly expressing anger, yelling, using vulgarity, and making nonsensical comments, whereas Janet is speaking with a normal voice and comes across as calm and sensible from the moment she starts speaking just after the sequence Storr refers to (36:32). Playfair says in his book that Janet seems to have woken up from sleeping at the time just cited (36:32), and she made no reference to having heard the poltergeist voice saying anything when asked what she remembered (page 162 in Playfair's book). If she had been faking the voice, you have to wonder why she would have faked something that would be so difficult on her body (the frequent yelling and loud growling and yelping Storr refers to). Go here and do a Ctrl F search for "therapist" to read what a speech therapist who analyzed Janet said about the difficulties involved in producing and sustaining the voice by normal means. It would have to be even more difficult to produce the sustained yelling involved in the context we're focused on here.

What all of this amounts to is that the audio sequence Storr refers to seems likely to be paranormal for multiple reasons that are independent of what Storr cited. That surrounding context adds credibility to Storr's claims.

And Grosse's audio is unusual enough that a duplicate of it or something close to a duplicate in Gentile's context seems significant. Not only is the sequence of growling in Grosse's audio unusual, but it's also unusual to have that sort of growling followed by whistling (or yelping). Not only are those two types of sound significantly different, but they also seem to be associated with significantly different mindsets, moods, or whatever term you want to use. The growling sounds angry, whereas we'd typically associate whistling, including the particular type of whistling in Grosse's audio, with a significantly different mindset or mood. As I've discussed elsewhere, the entity behind the Enfield poltergeist seems to have had some kind of disordered mind, what we might call a mental illness or combination of mental illnesses. An abrupt change from angry growling to whistling is the sort of irrationality and inconsistency we see elsewhere with that poltergeist. But even though it's common behavior for that poltergeist, the sequence of growls and whistling is highly unusual in the larger context under consideration here, and I don't think we should expect such a sequence to normally be duplicated, or even nearly duplicated, in a context like Gentile's EVP recordings.

It would be good to have those recordings to listen to. There may be privacy, legal, or other reasons for not releasing the audio to the public or to researchers. Or maybe there would be a way to make the audio available, perhaps by just releasing the most relevant portions without making everything recorded at the houses in question available. I don't know. I emailed Will Storr earlier this year, in an attempt to get the audio from him, and he didn't respond. I'd contacted him a couple of times in previous years, on other issues, and he responded once and didn't respond the other time. He may have had a good reason for not responding to my email earlier this year. But I hope that he, Gentile's family, or somebody else with the ability to do it will make the audio available.

Given what I currently know, I think it's likely that Storr has accurately reported some significant similarities between the Enfield audio and Gentile's. Storr brings the subject up multiple times in his book, and he comes across as highly confident about it. He's much less confident about other paranormal issues, and he's often skeptical. On the same page where he first brings up the parallels between the Enfield audio and Gentile's (224) and earlier, he makes some comments about how unconvincing some aspects of the Enfield voice are. So, he expressed some skepticism about the Enfield voice in particular, not just other paranormal matters. His confidence on the issue under consideration in this post is more significant accordingly. Given what he says about the circumstances surrounding the EVP recordings made by Gentile (in the prologue of the book, especially on pages 11 and 17-18), I doubt there's any significant reason to think those recordings were faked in some way. I'd like to hear Gentile's audio myself, but even without that, I'm cautiously optimistic that it's at least largely similar to the Enfield audio Grosse played for Storr.

But there are reasons for pessimism as well. For one thing, just how similar are Gentile's EVP recordings and Grosse's recording? They may be highly similar while still being significantly different. Storr may not have noticed the differences, or not noticed all of them, or he may have underestimated the differences because of how impressed he was with the similarities. For example, he seems to have either interpreted a whistling sound as yelping or to have not mentioned the whistling sound he heard. These details are significant, because so much depends on the degree of similarity between the recordings, and we don't have much to go by to judge the degree of similarity at this point.

And go here to watch a television program about Gentile that aired several years after the events described in Storr's book. (The show was filmed before Gentile's death in 2009 and aired shortly after he died.) I agree with a lot of Derren Brown's skepticism in that program. Many of Gentile's claims about EVP and alleged paranormal phenomena in photographs and other contexts seem unlikely to be true. I suspect that the woman Gentile was trying to help in that program had some genuine paranormal experiences, and I suspect that's true of many of the people Gentile worked with, but it doesn't follow that everything Gentile did in those contexts was appropriate or accurate. From what little I know about him, Gentile seems to have been a sincere man who'd had genuine paranormal experiences (described in Storr's book) and was trying to help people going through similar circumstances. And I think Gentile did a lot of good. But the good was mixed with some bad, like what Brown discusses in the television program linked above. It's sad to see a show like Brown's come out shortly after Gentile's death, but we have to be honest and thorough in handling these issues. Honest mistakes are still mistakes. My understanding is that Gentile knew he had cancer when Brown's program was being filmed. Even under such difficult circumstances, Gentile was involved in doing such significant work in his free time, work that's widely looked down upon, without charging the people he was trying to help, and taking along skeptics like Brown. Sometimes he convinced the skeptics he brought with him, like Storr. Other times he didn't, as with Brown. But it's commendable that Gentile gave so much of his life to doing such important and difficult work in his free time, without charging the people he worked for, and invited skeptics to join him. Contrast that with how most people use their free time. I could say more, but I recommend consulting other sources, like Storr's book, to get a more balanced view of Gentile. Watch Brown's program, but also read Storr's book.

The apparent problems with Gentile's EVP recordings featured in that program raise doubts about such recordings in Storr's context. (And I've heard some of Gentile's EVP recordings in contexts outside of Brown's program, and all of those others I've heard are likewise unconvincing to me.) Maybe one or more of the particular recordings Storr referred to that are relevant to Enfield were genuinely paranormal in the way Storr suggests. (Go here for a discussion of whether and how genuine paranormal phenomena can be accompanied by events that aren't genuine. It's simplistic to conclude that the presence of the inauthentic proves the absence of the authentic.) I hope the Gentile family, Storr, or somebody else who's able to do it will come forward with the relevant audio. If Storr's interpretation of the audio holds up, it would be significant evidence not only for Enfield and the Gentile cases in question, but also Gentile's work more broadly.

Before I end this post, I want to make some comments about Storr's credibility. His book is good, and I recommend it as an introductory work on the paranormal. It's easy to understand, it's written well, and it gives you a good overview of many of the issues involved in paranormal research. Some of the cases he discusses seem to be genuine, and some don't. The book is valuable in providing a broad diversity of cases that will give you an idea of how diverse the field of paranormal research is. There's a lot of vulgarity in the book, and Storr sometimes expresses some anti-Christian sentiments, but it's generally a good book and a good one to recommend to people as an introduction to the paranormal.

However, if the EVP material Storr refers to from Gentile's cases doesn't have the significance Storr suggests, does that undermine Storr's credibility? Maybe not much.

Keep in mind that we have the benefit of fifteen more years of information and time to think about the issues, seeing Derren Brown's program on Gentile, etc. Storr didn't have those advantages. He had just recently begun his research into the paranormal and was taking in and sorting through a large amount of information about many paranormal issues. He presents his book as an account of how his thinking on paranormal issues developed over time. By its nature, that sort of book isn't supposed to represent your most mature thinking on the subject at every moment, throughout the book. Judging by what Storr tells us, it seems that he did experience some paranormal phenomena when he and Gentile went on their first two cases together. So, it's understandable that Storr would have been inclined to interpret Gentile's EVP recordings in a paranormal manner in that sort of context, even if the EVP weren't actually paranormal. And near the end of the book, he raises doubts about some aspects of Gentile's work on a later case. So, it's not as though his presentation of Gentile is entirely positive.

Furthermore, I don't know where all of Storr's audio recordings began and ended. He occasionally refers to how he recorded his conversations with people, at one point referring to how he told one of the individuals he was recording that he did it "So I can quote you accurately" (68). And he does quote people a lot, including in the prologue, which discusses the relevant Gentile EVP recordings. On his last case with Gentile, he makes a reference to his (Storr's) recorder running while he and Gentile are driving to their destination (284). It seems likely that Storr had a tape of Gentile playing back his EVP recordings during the earlier cases discussed in the prologue, but maybe he didn't. He sometimes quotes people in contexts in which he doesn't seem to have had a recorder running (e.g., 134). One of the issues we have to consider is how much Storr was relying on his memory of the EVP recordings. Did he have a tape with the recordings on it, and did he review that tape at all after hearing Grosse's audio, to try to assess how accurate his memory of the recordings was? He seems to have gotten Grosse's audio on tape, since he refers to that audio in so much detail and keeps quoting what he and Grosse said after the audio was played. The biggest questions, then, are whether Storr also had a tape of Gentile's recordings and how much effort he made to verify his memories of how those recordings aligned with Grosse's. Storr's memory may have been accurate even if he didn't go through that sort of verification process. He comes across as highly confident about how closely the recordings line up. But it would be good to know if he took further steps to verify his conclusion.

If Storr has erred on this subject, it may not amount to much of a mistake, and I would expect it to be an honest one. But it would be good to have more information about whether it was a mistake.

0215A-2019 - Triablogue - Knocking In The Enfield Case

Paranormal cases often involve knocking of some sort. But it's unusual to have as much evidence for the paranormality of the knocking as we do with Enfield. Since the layout of the Hodgsons' house is significant in some of the contexts I'll be addressing below, click here to see a floor plan. I'll be citing Maurice Grosse and Guy Playfair's tapes a lot in the discussion that follows. I'll use "MG" to designate a tape from Grosse's collection and "GP" to designate one from Playfair's, so that MG2B refers to tape 2B in Grosse's collection, GP60A refers to 60A in Playfair's, and so on.

If you click here, you can listen to some of the knocking and watch a few witnesses discussing its characteristics. However, the large majority of the knocking on the tapes doesn't sound as unusual as what's played in the clip I just linked, and the knocking didn't always move around the way Grosse describes. It did sometimes have those characteristics, though, as well as other traits I'll be discussing below. I suspect the qualities of the knocking varied for reasons similar to why an individual's speech patterns, diet, dress, and other characteristics vary in everyday life. The poltergeist could have behaved differently on different occasions depending on how much energy it had at the time, its mood, what it was trying to accomplish, and so forth.

Barrie Colvin published an article several years ago documenting that some knocking he tested on the Enfield tapes and some knocking in other poltergeist cases have a different acoustic signature than normal knocking.

There was one occasion when some of the knocking was caught on video. I wrote an article about that video a couple of years ago, and the article goes into a lot of depth about that knocking. It occurs at a few points in the video, not just on the one occasion typically discussed. The Hodgson girls were being filmed sitting on a couch while the knocking occurred elsewhere in the house, seemingly from multiple locations. The reporter who interviewed the girls, Stewart Lamont, has said that all of the Hodgson children were accounted for at the time and couldn't have faked the knocking (Is Anybody There? [Great Britain: Mainstream Publishing, 1980], 6, 27). So, we have video evidence that some of the knocking wasn't faked by the children. And the large majority of skeptics claim that the case was faked by the Hodgson children, not by anybody else. The video is significant for other reasons as well. I suggest reading the whole article linked above.

Even without video footage, the circumstances in which the knocking occurred often make fraud highly unlikely. Let's go back to the night when the family first realized that something paranormal was going on in their house, then consider a couple of other examples in chronological order.

Go here to listen to Vic Nottingham describing how knocking followed him around the house when he went in to investigate what was happening on the opening night of the case. He goes on to mention how the knocking also followed his son, his father-in-law, and a police officer as they went to various parts of the house. Click here to read more about the experiences of the two police officers who visited that night, including some evidence that they considered the knocking paranormal. It would be ridiculous to suggest that all five of the adults I just mentioned and the others present kept hearing knocking throughout the house, including knocking that followed them where they went, without realizing that one or more of the children were faking it all. And the positioning of the children at the time doesn't line up with a fraud hypothesis. On some of Grosse and Playfair's tapes, Peggy Hodgson comments on where the children were that night. She explains that when Vic went upstairs, with the knocking following him up the steps and continuing to follow him as he walked around upstairs, the children were downstairs the whole time (GP26B, 34:50). She refers to how the children were standing in the middle of the room, not next to any wall, when some knocking occurred in the presence of the police officers (GP49B, 16:55). Furthermore, as I discuss in my article on the police officers linked above, one of the officers apparently commented that he thought at least some of the knocking was coming from the Nottinghams' side of the wall(s), meaning that it was coming from a location the Hodgson children didn't even have access to at the time. Peggy Nottingham commented that the knocking that night sometimes came from the ceiling (MG2A, 20:59). Did one or more of the children use a broomstick, stand on top of a chair, or something like that without any of the adults noticing?

The poltergeist began using knocking to carry on conversations on the night of October 23, 1977. You can listen to a little over a minute of one of the tapes from that night here. In a previous post, I quoted a witness statement, signed by ten people who were present in the house that night, about what happened. The statement mentions, "We were unable to give any physical explanation whatsoever to the knocking. A strong vibration in the floor and walls could be distinctly felt during the knocking." Vic Nottingham and John Burcombe "examined the house thoroughly while some of the knocking was taking place but they could find no agency to serve as an explanation". Some adults were in the bedroom during the knocking as well, and they were monitoring the children (e.g., MG9Bii, 7:38). At one point, Grosse explains that the knocking is moving across the room on the floor, and he can feel it, and it sounds like it's moving a lot: "I can feel the vibrations of the knocking on the floor very, very clearly, indeed. The vibration is quite heavy….The knocking is actually moving backwards and forwards. It appears to be moving backwards and forwards on the floorboards, underneath the bed, across the room, and back again." (MG10B, 44:07) Recalling this night several months later, John Burcombe commented, "What really convinced me was the night of the knockings….we're all looking at each other, we've got our hands visible, and nobody in that room was knocking." (MG1A, 53:37, emphasis his)

There was a lot of knocking on the night of November 5 that year as well. Playfair writes in his book that Grosse "was soon satisfied that none of the children was doing it. The knocks came from several parts of the floor, skirting boards and even the walls, and he could see all the children's hands." (This House Is Haunted [United States: White Crow Books, 2011], 68) After some exchanges with the poltergeist on other issues, Grosse asked it how many years ago it left the house. It knocked 53 times and knocked twice for "yes" when asked for confirmation that it had left the house 53 years earlier (68-69). It would be absurd to argue that one or more of the children did the knocking all 55 of those times without Grosse or any other adult present thinking to look at what the children were doing or without noticing that one or more of them had been doing it. With regard to some knocking that had occurred earlier that night, Grosse commented, "We've watched them [the Hodgson children] all the time." (MG12B, 25:27) And why would they fake such a lengthy series of knocks when they could so easily have done fewer or none? Not only was Grosse monitoring the children, but he also was looking for other means of verification. The children were told to put their hands under the covers of their beds, it was verified that they'd done so, and one or more of the adults present tucked the sheets in (MG12A, 0:26). Grosse told Janet to knock on the side of her bed, so that he could compare the sound of her normal knocking to the sound the poltergeist was making, and he watched her bed to see how it would move while she was knocking (MG12A, 8:16). So, he was taking multiple steps to authenticate what was going on.

The November 5 events illustrate a factor I've highlighted when discussing other phenomena. There are connections between one type of event and another. The poltergeist voice and the knocking seem to be connected, for example, which means that the phenomena are mutually reinforcing. Shortly after the sequence of 55 knocks on November 5, which I discussed above, the incident with a box being thrown at Grosse's head occurred. The knocking began giving nonsensical answers to Grosse's questions, so he asked, "Are you having a game with me?", at which point the box was thrown at his head. You can listen to the episode here. (The audio there is edited. What comes before Grosse's question in the video just linked isn't the same as what came before his question on the original recording. On the original, Grosse made some comments about how nonsensical the knocking had become just before he asked the poltergeist if it was playing a game.) It seems that the entity behind the knocking was also able to perform other phenomena, like the throwing of the box.

Knocking often occurred in circumstances in which it would have been difficult, sometimes extremely difficult, to fake what was going on. For example, there was knocking underneath a bed Peggy Hodgson was lying on at the time (MG6A, 1:41). How would one or more of the children have moved far enough to knock on the bottom of the bed without Peggy noticing it? At another point, Peggy was in a bed with both of the girls, with a few other people nearby in the room, when some knocking occurred (MG12B, 5:06). There was a knock on the bedroom door at a time when all of the children apparently were in bed, with Grosse in the room with them (MG15A, 32:47). Elsewhere, Grosse explained that the knocking would sometimes move around rapidly (MG19A, 42:15; cf. GP7B, 7:25; GP8A, 18:01), occasionally coming from multiple locations simultaneously (MG19A, 42:43). Playfair also referred to hearing multiple knocks simultaneously (MG83A, 26:24). On one of the tapes, there's knocking that sounds like it's coming from multiple locations rapidly, and Peggy comments that "Nobody moved." (MG53A, 2:13) At 2:48 on that tape, there's more knocking, and Peggy again confirms that everybody's hands were in bed. Elsewhere, Peggy was watching during some knocking and didn't see anybody doing it, and Janet had her hands up at the time (MG70B, 35:35). Later on that tape, Peggy comments that she thinks some knocking came from the middle of the floor, which couldn't have been faked (37:50, 42:19). In his book, Playfair describes a time when he was monitoring the children well enough to be confident that they hadn't faked the knocking: "The knocking began at once, with me in the room. I could see without any doubt that nobody was doing it on purpose." (59) On another occasion, Peggy heard knocking while she was the only person in the house (MG63B, 7:57; GP33B, 29:21). Playfair referred to "repeated testimony" from the Nottinghams that they heard knocking within the Hodgsons' house on occasions when the Hodgsons weren't home (MG83B, 54:58). Peggy referred to sharp knocking on a cupboard right in front of her, in the kitchen at the Burcombes' house, with none of the Hodgson children in the house at the time (MG2A, 36:17). David Robertson told me of an occasion when:

I had knocking from the bedboard right next to me when Janet was on the other side of the room and no one else on that floor of the house….They [the knocks] came from the front room bedboard next to my head. They weren't insects or anything like that. They didn't come from somewhere else. They were loud knocks on the wood right next to me, as if you hit it with the back of your hand or a hard object. No one was there faking it. It was just creepy. There isn't any doubt about this. That's why it is a bit unnerving. It was quite apparent that it was genuine.

On page 20 of the March 30, 1978 edition of the Daily Mirror, there's an article on the Enfield case by Bryan Rimmer, titled "Ghost Story". Toward the end of the article, there's a section about Robertson's experiences with the case. The article refers to how he "heard knockings from empty rooms - one that he locked himself." So, not only did knocking come from empty rooms on multiple occasions witnessed by Robertson, but the knocking even came from an empty room after he himself had locked it.

Playfair would sometimes interact with the knocking while in a different part of the house than the family. He would get a response from the knocking, even though the family wasn't in a position to hear what he was saying (GP39A, 25:30; MG83A, 26:28).

The knocking often went on for a long time. Vic referred to knocking that went on for about two-and-a-half hours, past 2 A.M. (MG6B, 6:13) Peggy Nottingham goes on to refer to how some knocking in another bedroom continued "most of the night" (7:43). Peggy Hodgson refers to an occasion when some furniture movement and knocking went on for a double-digit number of minutes (GP31A, 0:49). On tape GP93B, there's a long series of knocks accompanied by Peggy describing where some of them are coming from (23:34). She mentions that she watched the children and didn't see any of them doing the knocking. How would the children fake the knocking for so long without getting caught, and why would they want to do it for so long to begin with? Not only would it be highly unnecessary and highly risky, but it also would be tedious and painful.

The acoustic qualities of the knocking were often noted by the witnesses. Peggy describes how unusual the knocking noises were at the opening of the case. They sounded like they were coming from the inside of the objects that were knocked (MG65B, 16:39). On another tape, both Peggy and Grosse comment on how they used to get knocks that had a hollow sound to them. Peggy describes a more recent incident that involved that sort of sound, even though it was happening less often than it did around the beginning of the case (MG92B, 8:44). On one occasion, there's a wide range of knocking sounds, seemingly coming from different places and with other differing characteristics (GP29B, 23:39). It seems unlikely that one or more of the children would have been faking all of that. In another context, there's a series of loud pounding and vibrating sounds (MG68A, 21:26). Margaret comments on how "all the walls" are vibrating, and Peggy adds that a lamp in the room was vibrating as well. How would the children have repeatedly pounded the wall hard enough to get so much vibrating to occur and have done it without their mother noticing? Playfair wrote in his book that "almost all the bedroom floor was covered with a thick carpet, and yet the knocks I had heard from below were definitely not muffled. It seemed they were coming from inside the floorboards….[the knocks] sometimes faded and came back just like a radio programme from a distant station." (57, 63-64)

Source: https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/10/knocking-in-enfield-case.html

0215A-2019 - Triablogue - Teleportations and Levitations

Maurice Grosse's Interview Of John Rainbow

I recently listened to an interview Maurice Grosse conducted with John Rainbow on April 9, 1978. Rainbow was a witness of what happened on December 15, 1977, one of the most eventful days in the Enfield Poltergeist. The interview is highly significant and includes some material I haven't seen discussed publicly.

Before I get to the interview, those who are unfamiliar with the December 15 events can go here for a brief overview from a documentary. It's mostly accurate, but not entirely. It gives the date as December 14, which is wrong. Go here to listen to Rainbow briefly describing his experience in a 1978 documentary. And here he is in a video produced many years later.

The interview between Grosse and Rainbow is about 18 minutes long, and it consists mostly of comments from Rainbow. His wife occasionally joins the conversation. Most of my citations that follow are from tape 84B in Grosse's Enfield collection.

Though it doesn't come up until late in the interview, I should say at the outset that Rainbow was a skeptic of the Enfield case prior to what he experienced on December 15. He'd heard about what was supposed to be happening at the Hodgsons' house, but he didn't believe it and considered the case "a bit of a joke" (14:28).

He worked for a bakery and spent part of his day making deliveries on foot. Though Peggy Hodgson wasn't one of his customers, a neighbor nextdoor was. He was walking to that neighbor's house late in the morning of December 15, still about one or two hundred yards away, when he suddenly noticed a red cushion on the roof of the Hodgsons' house. "One second I never saw it, then it appeared on the edge of the roof….It just appeared on the edge of the roof." (1:21) Later in the interview, his wife seems to say that her husband saw the cushion appear on the roof, as if he witnessed the moment when it went there, and he says "yeah" in response to her comment (10:48). Unknown to Rainbow at the time of the December 15 events, David Robertson was inside the house attempting to get the poltergeist to perform for him. It teleported the red cushion to the roof of the house, and Rainbow witnessed the end result. After the cushion had drawn his attention to the Hodgsons' house, he noticed some banging noises coming from the upstairs windows. Although the windows were closed, he could see the curtains blowing inward, as if some wind was going through the room. He then saw Janet's head bobbing just above the window, in a horizontal position, and he saw between four and six objects (a book, linen, etc.) hitting the window, after which they would continue in a circular, clockwise levitation at the same height around the room instead of falling to the ground as an object normally would after hitting a window. (If you watch this documentary segment, which I linked near the beginning of this post, you'll see Grosse moving his hand around to illustrate the manner in which the levitation occurred.) Rainbow saw Janet levitate in a horizontal position in the same circular pattern as those objects, and he saw her go by the window in that manner twice. As she went past the window, she was thrust hard against it, like the other objects that were levitated, so much so that Rainbow thought she was going to break through the window and land on the street.

He spent some time outside the house, apparently waiting to see what would happen next and talking to somebody. Janet eventually came outside, and Rainbow commented that she looked "completely vacant", that her eyes gave him the impression that she "wasn't with it". She didn't look like somebody who had just been joking around or faking something (12:28).

During the interview, he puts a lot of emphasis on how frightened he was. His wife joined the conversation to note that for two days after his experience, he was incredulous, had goosebumps, looked as if he'd seen a ghost, and felt cold (9:19). It seems that the experience had a major impact on him that was noticeable to other people.

He's cautious in the claims he makes. At one point, Grosse asked him if he'd had a clear view of what was going on in the room. He responded by saying that there were no curtains covering one of the windows and that he could see "partially, not entirely" through the other one (3:19). Grosse later asked if he'd noticed any of the levitating objects appearing a second time as they went around the room, and he replied that he hadn't noticed any of the objects going around more than once, though he had noticed Janet going around twice (6:32). When asked further about the cushion incident, he said that he "can't elaborate" much, since he was so far from the house at the time when he first saw the cushion (10:20). Though he's cautious in what he claims to have seen, often including a lot of qualifiers, he said that he "definitely" saw Janet levitating around the room in a horizontal position (7:31).

He comes across as a credible witness. Since he and the other December 15 witnesses had experiences that were both visual and audible, and they agreed with each other about so many details that are so unusual (a red cushion on a roof, objects banging against a particular window of a particular house at a particular time, a particular girl levitating, etc.), any argument that they were hallucinating or imagining things would be deeply problematic. It's not just a matter of explaining an apparent levitation of Janet. It's also a matter of explaining so many other paranormal events accompanying Janet's levitation (the teleportation of the cushion, the movement of the curtains, etc.).

On another tape, 80A, Grosse and Playfair took some measurements in the room where these events occurred and examined the window and Janet's bed (4:28). Playfair estimated that he could only barely get the cushion on the roof by leaning out the window, with a lot of effort and putting himself in a lot of danger in the process. But he was 5'11" at the time, whereas Janet was only 5'6". The window made a lot of noise when opened and was highly visible from the outside. If the cushion teleportation was faked, the witnesses inside the house and outside it should have heard the window opening (they didn't), and the witnesses outside should have seen Janet leaning out the window (they didn't). Furthermore, the cushion got on the roof far too rapidly for Janet to have placed it there. Playfair wrote in his book that, after leaving the cushion in the room, Robertson "had barely got through the doorway when Janet called out excitedly. He turned round to see that one of the curtains had disappeared, although the window was tight shut, and the cushion was nowhere to be seen." (This House Is Haunted [United States: White Crow Books, 2011], 143) Regarding the levitation, Grosse and Playfair found that Janet would have to have gone at least 28 inches above the bed in order to have been seen as she was by the witnesses outside the house. Playfair tried bouncing on the bed while on his back (the horizontal position Janet was in when she was seen), and he couldn't get up into the air at all, much less the more than 2 feet that would be required. If you watch this documentary segment linked earlier, you can see Hazel Short, one of the witnesses outside the house, saying that she went home soon after the events in question and tried to duplicate what she saw happen with Janet, but was unable to. Keep in mind that Janet was flailing her arms and legs and bobbing her head while going up and down above the bed, which isn't the sort of posture that would be conducive to bouncing high. She also levitated around the room in a clockwise circle while in a horizontal position, which can't be explained by any sort of bouncing on a bed. And Janet bouncing on a bed doesn't explain the levitation of other objects in the room or the movement of the curtains. Nor does it explain why Robertson was unable to open the unlocked door while the events were transpiring or how objects from Janet's room were found in the house nextdoor after Janet claimed to have levitated through the wall around the same time as these other events. There's no normal explanation that even comes close to adequately explaining what happened.

Rainbow also discussed an event that occurred shortly afterward (15:26). After the events of the morning of December 15, he went to his customer's house next to the Hodgsons. While there, the woman at that house expressed her skepticism of the Enfield case. But when he returned to her house the next day, she had a "different state of mind" (17:32). As Rainbow had walked to her house that day, he'd noticed a broken window in the Hodgsons' house and another one in the house of the neighbor he was visiting. The woman at that house explained to him that a rock had crashed through the window the previous night while she and her husband were watching television. He went out quickly, but couldn't see anybody around who could have thrown the rock. Apparently, the unlikelihood that anybody threw it led the woman to reconsider the possibility that something paranormal was going on. John Burcombe also discussed an incident in which a stone went through a neighbor's window, apparently the same event Rainbow refers to (48A, 34:51). Burcombe explains that he was outside with Janet at the time and that Margaret was in the house upstairs. Neither of the girls threw the rock at the window nextdoor, and Burcombe said that nobody else was around at the time who could have thrown it.

It's significant that the incident nextdoor lines up so well with the breaking of the window in the Hodgsons' house. Both windows were broken shortly after the events of the morning of December 15, and the incident at the Hodgsons' was caught on tape (47B, 8:51). It seems to have been paranormal. I suspect that the incident at the neighbor's house was related to the event at the Hodgsons'. And the events of the morning of December 15 involved the poltergeist thrusting Janet and various objects against a window as they levitated around the room, so those events offer additional evidence that the poltergeist was interested at that time in throwing objects at windows. It's more likely that the event at the neighbor's house was something the poltergeist did than that some normal event of such a similar nature happened to occur around the same time.

Rainbow also made some significant comments about Peggy Hodgson. He remarked to Grosse that he felt sorry for her and had noticed that the poltergeist seemed to be taking a toll on her, that her physical appearance had been deteriorating lately (14:19). That's an indication that she was sincere rather than faking the poltergeist. It's also significant that when the neighbor Rainbow talked to expressed her initial skepticism, she thought the Hodgson children were likely faking the whole case (16:32). She didn't accuse their mother of doing it. There seems to be a widespread consensus, including among both the earliest skeptics of Enfield and more recent ones, that Peggy Hodgson was an honest person and wasn't involved in faking anything. And she's the most important witness in the case. She probably experienced more of the phenomena than anybody else.

Source: https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/01/maurice-grosses-interview-of-john.html

0215A-2019 - Triablogue - The Enfield Levitations

Levitations are a prominent part of the Enfield case, and I've discussed some of them in other posts. I've said a lot about Janet Hodgson's levitation on December 15, 1977, for example, such as here and here. In another post, I discussed the famous photographs of Janet moving through the air in her bedroom, which skeptics often dismiss as Janet jumping off her bed. And I've occasionally addressed other levitation issues. But there's a lot more that ought to be said.

As I've explained before, people often apply the language of levitation to events that some people wouldn't place under that term. Some of the events might be classified as throwing instead, for example. But since these categories are so closely related, and they're often lumped together, I'll address all of them under the banner of levitation. And my focus here is on the levitation of people, not objects.

When I refer to Maurice Grosse and Guy Playfair's Enfield tapes, I'll use "MG" to cite Grosse's tapes and "GP" to cite Playfair's. For example, MG12B is tape 12B in Grosse's collection, and GP50B is tape 50B in Playfair's.

Skeptics often act as though we don't have much to go by other than the testimony of the Hodgson children and the photographs I referred to above, which they dismiss as images of Janet jumping from her bed. But many of the incidents were caught on audio cassette, which means we have audio evidence. (See my earlier post on the levitation photographs for some examples of how the audio evidence is relevant.) And many of the levitations were witnessed by one or more individuals other than the Hodgson children. For example: John Burcombe (MG1A, 0:19; MG27B, 16:59; MG34A, 13:37; MG54A, 0:14), Paul Burcombe (MG34A, 19:28, 20:58), Maurice Grosse (MG1A, 13:16; MG20Ai, 6:12; MG54A, 0:14), Peggy Hodgson (MG27B, 29:10; MG70B, 11:14; MG89A, 9:37), Peggy Nottingham (MG20Ai, 6:12 and here), John Rainbow (here), and Hazel Short (here). Furthermore, David Robertson and some colleagues conducted a scientific experiment at Birkbeck College in which Janet was asked to levitate. It took place in the 1980s, well after the height of the poltergeist's activities, and any paranormal capabilities Janet had at the time were likely substantially diminished. But they did get some instrumental readings showing Janet gaining weight when she tried to levitate, for which they had no scientific explanation. See my post here for a summary of the experiment, and see the relevant sections here for some comments Robertson made to me on the subject in an email exchange. And Janet's gaining of weight during that experiment in the 1980s is reminiscent of John Burcombe's report that Janet seemed to have gained weight just after the poltergeist pulled her from her bed on December 3, 1977. As I explained in a post on the subject last year, there was no way for Burcombe or anybody else involved to have anticipated the experiment that would be conducted years later. So, we have far more evidence for these levitations than skeptics suggest.

Even the photos, which skeptics dismiss so confidently, require more of an explanation than I've seen any skeptic provide. The photos sometimes prove that there were more witnesses than the children, for example. See the photo at the top of the article here, which shows Peggy Hodgson looking directly at Janet while she's allegedly levitating. For another example, pause the video here around 16:38 to see a photo of John Burcombe looking directly at Janet during or just after an occasion when both girls were thrown out of bed.

Some of the photos that only show the children require further explanation as well. In some of the photos, the ends of Janet's feet appear to be under or behind the covers as she's leaving the bed near her pillow. See here and here. If she were faking a levitation by jumping from her bed, the most efficient way to do it would be to pull the covers back from most or all of the bed, stand up where your feet are, which would place you on the lower end of the bed, and jump. Instead, the photos show the covers pulled back only near her pillow, with her feet under or behind the covers as she's leaving the bed at the upper end. Nobody would be expecting her to leave the bed near her pillow, and nobody would expect the covers to still be mostly undisturbed after her body had been pulled out of the bed. It would take additional time, effort, noise, and risk to fake a throwing incident that way, and you'd be doing all of that to fake it in a way nobody was expecting. Faking it the other way I mentioned would take less time, effort, noise, and risk, and would be in accordance with expectations. If she repositioned herself in the bed before standing, that would take more time and effort, disturb the covers, and make more noise. And if she was initially out of bed and climbed on her bed near the pillow, that would have the potential of making noise both by means of a creaking floor and the creaking of the bed. Watch here for Graham Morris, the photographer who set up the camera in question, explaining how it was easy to hear people moving around in the bedroom. You can't rule out the possibility that Janet faked these alleged levitations in one or more of the ways I've described, but that sort of faking would require placing herself near the pillow and moving around a lot to position herself there and keeping the covers mostly undisturbed, all of which would be contrary to what people would expect, and all of that would have been done in front of a camera that could be triggered by remote control at any moment. By contrast, if she was pulled out of bed and thrown, as she and witnesses who saw some of the levitations reported, then these photographs make more sense. On the occasions shown in the photos linked above, it looks like the poltergeist pulled her up underneath her arms, near her shoulders, which is why she reached a vertical position in the area of her pillow, after which she was thrown forward.

One explanation that might be offered for Janet's positioning at the top of the bed is that she was trying to conceal footprints by jumping next to where the covers were bunched up near the pillow. But I doubt there would be footprints to conceal to begin with. In my experience, walking on or jumping from sheets doesn't leave discernable footprints, especially if you're wearing socks, as Janet is in both photos. Maybe that sort of interaction with covers does leave footprints in some contexts, such as with certain types of sheets or blankets. I don't know. But it doesn't seem to be a significant issue typically, at least. And placing yourself next to the pillow would be one of the worst places to go if you wanted your footprints concealed. The area next to the pillow is where the covers end. If you jump from the middle or bottom of the bed, you can get a larger amount of the covers to rest against your legs before you jump, then let them fall and bunch up to cover any footprints more effectively. And if these throwing episodes were leaving discernable footprints, she could have just avoided that sort of faking, by not faking any sort of throwing or by faking a different type (e.g., being thrown down at the floor without jumping).

A better argument is that she went to the top of the bed to give herself more space to jump. But she was in a moderately-sized bedroom, not a closet. In both photos, there's a bed along the wall she's moving toward. That would have provided a more comfortable landing than the floor, so jumping further would have been to her advantage. (Both girls sometimes commented on how painful the landings were, especially since the poltergeist would sometimes land them with an abnormally large amount of force.) And if Janet was faking the incident, she had no need to jump a long distance. She could have faked as short a jump as she wanted. If she wanted the event to seem more impressive, landing further away from the bed would have helped, and it would be easier to land further away by jumping from further down the bed, not next to the pillow.

See here for a photo in which Janet and Margaret seem to have been spun around in the air in the process of being thrown out of bed, so that they were facing a different way than you'd expect if they had propelled themselves from their beds in a normal manner. The caption below the photo was written by Playfair. It appears in his book. He refers to Margaret as "Rose", since that was a false name he gave her to protect her identity at the time. Notice, also, that Margaret's feet were caught up in the covers of Janet's bed, which would be counterproductive if the incident was being faked. It's possible that Playfair's caption below the photo is wrong. But, from the evidence I'm aware of (and there's a lot of it), Janet did sleep in the bed next to the windows at least the large majority of the time. Playfair was in a good position to have known the background to this particular photograph, and he took the initiative to provide the background for it in his book, so those factors make it less likely that he was mistaken. Still, there's a reasonable chance that he was wrong. And you could argue that the girls switched beds before faking the throwing, that they deliberately threw themselves in unusual ways, and that Margaret got tangled up in the covers because she was careless, for example, but all of that would be pretty unnecessary and pretty risky if you were trying to fake some throwing in a room with a remote-controlled camera and floorboards and beds that creaked a lot. There's precedent for the poltergeist throwing them in highly unusual ways. There were other occasions when that sort of incident was photographed (e.g., here).

Grosse mentioned that he had one or two photos of the girls allegedly levitating in a way that didn't look like jumping (MG78A, 13:08). I don't remember ever seeing any of Grosse's levitation photos, though, if he's referring to his own photographs. You'd think he would have shown the photos in question to the public if they have much evidential value. However, there's a lot of significantly evidential material on the tapes and elsewhere that Grosse, Playfair, and others rarely or never discussed or never made available to the public. So, there's a reasonable chance that there are one or more significant photos in Grosse's collection that haven't been made available to the public.

As the photos and witness reports illustrate, the girls were levitated in a large variety of ways. Sometimes they were thrown while in a vertical position, which critics dismiss as jumping. Other times they were thrown downward against the floor in a variety of positions. They also were levitated while positioned horizontally at times. The December 15 levitation of Janet involved moving around the room in a circle while positioned horizontally. The November 10, 1977 levitation of Janet that occurred with seven other people in the room involved Janet's moving about four feet through the air in a sitting position, with the chair's cushion still under her and going with her as she levitated (MG1A, 13:16; MG20Ai, 6:12). Johnny Hodgson also levitated in a sitting position on one occasion (GP54A, 23:39). Sometimes they were thrown up in the air upside-down, meaning that their feet came up first (MG34A, 19:47).

In addition to the variety of postures, other factors varied a lot. Peggy saw Janet thrown a distance of about fourteen feet (MG27B, 29:10). Margaret commented on seeing a levitation of Janet in which she was lifted fast, then moved forward and was dropped slowly (MG28A, 2:29). There was a banging noise at the start and finish. Some other levitations also involved slow movement. Peggy saw Billy levitated horizontally a few times and is "certain" that he went up slowly (MG89A, 9:37). On one occasion, John Burcombe saw Margaret thrown, and Grosse described her height as being close to the ceiling (MG34A, 13:37). Burcombe goes on to describe the height to which she was thrown as "impossible" (14:30). One of the most significant dates for the Enfield case, one that doesn't get discussed nearly as much as it should, is May 30, 1978. Several levitations occurred that morning, witnessed by Peggy, and she refers to how Janet repeatedly levitated in a horizontal position and almost went up to the ceiling (MG87A, 11:38). She would sometimes teleport through the covers of her bed, roll over while in the air, be moved over to Johnny and land on top of him, or experience some other variation. There are too many variations in how the poltergeist levitated people for me to discuss all of them here.

There's significant audio evidence for some of the levitations. I gave an example in my previous article on dreams and trances. Janet was thrown from her bed and pushed underneath another bed in the room, wedged facedown between the bottom of the bed and the floor, apparently unconscious the whole time (MG27A, 22:08). On the tape, you don't hear any of the sounds you'd expect to hear if the incident was faked. Rather, you hear a loud thump, then a light and quick brushing sound. It does sound like Janet was pulled off the bed, that her body made the loud thumping noise when she hit the floor, and that she was quickly dragged under the bed, making the light and quick brushing noise in the process. Shortly after, you hear Grosse saying "Where is she?", and he sounds astonished. There's more than a minute of some quiet comments made by Grosse and some rustling noises, presumably from Grosse looking around for Janet and pulling her out. It sounds like he says "Incredible!" at 22:50 on the tape, apparently after finding her under the bed or noticing that she was unconscious. (The reason why he talks so quietly is that the other children are asleep in the same room.) Shortly after, he explains that he found Janet under the bed. He had a hard time getting her out. See pages 91-92 of Playfair's book for further details (This House Is Haunted [United States: White Crow Books, 2011]). He refers to how Grosse shone a flashlight in Janet's eye just after the incident and didn't get the contraction of the pupil that should have occurred if she was conscious. On another tape, one or more of the girls starts screaming, with no relevant noises from the beds creaking beforehand, then you hear a double thump (MG17A, 24:56). It sounds like both girls were levitated around the same time. In another context, you hear a series of thumping noises, with occasional pauses and some heavy panting from Janet (MG61A, 36:24). Peggy saw what happened. She explains that Janet had been thrown around the room.

The levitations were sometimes coordinated with other paranormal events. A piece of clothing moved in another room at the same time as Janet was thrown out of bed (MG22A, 3:18). Around the same time Janet levitated off a chair, Margaret and Billy were levitated as well, Peggy felt as though something was trying to move her, and a couch was moved (MG76A, 14:05). Peggy describes the pulling sensation she felt on that occasion as "quite strong" and something that lasted for about three minutes. In another context, a levitation of Janet was accompanied by the door to the room opening on its own (GP97B, 18:20). On tape MG78A, there's a series of incidents in which Janet is somersaulted around the room (14:26, 15:29, 15:40, 22:32, 24:40, 25:41, 26:08, 27:34). Some of the segments just cited involve multiple somersaults in rapid succession. In the last of those episodes, she was somersaulted out of bed, then dragged across the floor, with the door opening on its own in front of her.

Some adults were thrown at times as well. John Burcombe was thrown off the end of a bed more than once (MG21A, 17:20; GP73B, 34:50). He was thrown off a chair as well (GP12B, 0:37). He also reported seeing Peggy pushed across a room (MG21A, 28:26). And Peggy referred to another context in which she was thrown (GP31A, 12:01).

After Janet's December 15 levitation, David Robertson conducted a couple of other levitation sessions that were caught on tape, one on December 16 and the other on December 17. The layout of the house is relevant to some of what I'll be discussing below, so click here to see a floor plan of the house.

The December 16 recording starts with the session already underway (MG48A, 15:11). Janet and Margaret are in the main bedroom, with the door closed and the bed pushed against it. You can hear the girls screaming. Robertson tries to push the door open, but can't. I wrote to him about this levitation session, and he referred to how:

the door was dead solid against the frame…One could imagine wedging the frame of the bed between door and house in some way, but I don't think this was the case, at least not done by the girls. I don't know if this was even physically possible. I don't remember the door moving at all, if the bed was wedged somehow then there would have been some twisting of the door when I pushed. When it all stopped the bed was up against the door but I was able to push it back and get in to the room, so there was something additional keeping it there and the door closed. (September 29, 2018 email)

He tells the girls to keep describing what's happening in the room, since he can't get in. They keep screaming from time to time, and it sounds like they're at different distances from the recorder at different points. It does sound like they're moving around the room. They claim that they're being levitated. You occasionally hear what sounds like something hitting the door, but it's often unclear what's going on. Robertson eventually comments on how he can't get in the room, because there's "a really strong force pushing the door" (16:28). He asks the poltergeist voice whether it's pushing the door, and it responds, "Yeah." It also makes some other comments, with the usual vulgarity and animosity. Janet mentions that Margaret has teleported out of the room, then has reappeared shortly after. Soon after that, Janet comments on how Margaret has levitated out the window. (Notice the risk involved if Janet was lying. They lived on a busy street with a lot of houses and a lot of traffic, and there was a school across from them. There would be a good chance that one or more witnesses would be outside the house at the time, as had occurred the previous day, especially since the girls were screaming so loudly and so often. Because the previous day's events were so recent, Janet probably would have been aware of the risk involved in making the unnecessary claim that Margaret had gone out the window.) You can hear screaming, and it sounds like somebody screaming about as loud as she could (as Margaret often would), but at a distance larger than the bedroom in question. It seems likely that Margaret did leave the room. You then hear Robertson running down the steps, and he goes outside. See my post here on animals in the Enfield case for a further discussion of the significance of what happened with a dog barking near the house when Robertson went out. After he comes back in, you periodically hear something hitting the door hard, sometimes over and over in rapid succession. The girls say that it's the radio knob, which the poltergeist is moving around the room. Given how loud the banging is, the girls would have to be hitting it against the door with a lot of force if they were faking everything. But you don't hear the noises you'd expect to hear from the knob hitting the floor after being thrown, you don't hear any noise of them climbing on the bed to pound the knob against the door, and there are other events going on at the same time or close by. How could they fake all of the banging noises at the same time or around the same time that everything else was occurring (screaming from multiple locations, keeping the door shut, the poltergeist voice speaking, etc.)? At one point, there's a loud bang that sounds like it's coming from the bedroom next to the main one (18:44), and Robertson comments that he thinks the bang came from "next door". The girls couldn't have faked that, since they had no access to the second room, by normal means, while they were in the main bedroom. Robertson gets into the room shortly afterward, and the session ends. He then has a discussion with the girls downstairs about what happened, but the additional information they offer doesn't have much significance.

The levitation session the next day is shorter. I think Janet was the only one in the room. Robertson is talking to the poltergeist voice, and it sounds like he's doing so from outside the closed door to the room. It says, "We're gonna start now." (GP26A, 13:23) Shortly after, you hear a rapid succession of thumps, and Janet says, "The bed's gone up to the door again." So, it seems that the bed moved up to the door by means of quickly hopping its way there. Judging by the videos and photos of the room that I've seen, I don't think that pushing the bed in a normal manner on the sort of carpeting they had there would have made the sound you hear on the tape. If the carpeting was rough and caused the bed to be jostled, that would have produced a different noise. It sounds more like something hopping up repeatedly and hitting the floor hard each time. It's unlikely that a 12-year-old girl would have the ability, by normal means, to fake that sort of rapid hopping movement of an object as large as a bed. You then hear Janet getting excited and screaming for a brief period, then there's silence. Afterward, there's a lot of pounding on the door, apparently because Playfair is trying to force it open, and he calls out to Janet, trying to get her to respond. You then hear Janet say, "I'm back again. I just went through the wall." Playfair is able to get into the room shortly after. With both of these levitation sessions, you can't tell how Robertson and Playfair were able to eventually get back into the room. As Playfair explains in his book, "we never did work out how the bed had stopped [the door] from opening one moment and not the next" (142).

Neither of these levitation sessions is as evidential as the one the previous day, December 15. But the latter two sessions do seem genuinely paranormal and shed some light on how the poltergeist was operating in these contexts.

As with many other phenomena in the Enfield case, something that's striking about the levitations is the large quantity of them and the quantity and quality of the evidences for them. I don't know of any book, including Playfair's, or documentary or other source that even comes close to conveying the quality of evidence you get for the levitations from the tapes. The somersault levitations discussed above, for example, aren't even mentioned in Playfair's book or in any other source that's easily accessible to the public, as far as I know. They occurred a double-digit number of times within the several minutes I cited earlier, sometimes in coordination with other paranormal events, and it would be absurd to suggest that Peggy was mistaken or lying every time she commented on what was happening during those several minutes. There are some pieces of evidence for the levitations that are strong even when considered in isolation (e.g., the discovery of a book from Janet's room in Peggy Nottingham's house just after the December 15 levitation; the scientific experiment on weight gains done by Robertson and his colleagues). The cumulative effect is even stronger and makes it extremely probable that genuine levitations occurred.

0215A-2019 - Triablogue - Enfield Events With None Of The Children Around

Richard Wiseman commented in 1999 that most criticism of the Enfield case amounts to accusing the Hodgson girls of faking it. (To hear Wiseman's comments, go to 11:26 in the audio here.) And Enfield skepticism hasn't changed much since then. Some critics would accuse the Hodgson children in general, not just the girls, of faking the case. So, events that occurred when none of the children were nearby are especially significant. Even if one or more of the children were in a room when something happened there, it could be unlikely that the incident was faked for whatever reasons. But it's helpful to focus on events that occurred when none of the children were around in order to simplify the issue.

Some events of that nature have been discussed publicly, such as in Guy Playfair's book (This House Is Haunted [United States: White Crow Books, 2011], 121, 237, 246). To listen to John Burcombe describe some paranormal experiences he had in the Hodgsons' house while he was there alone, go here. I've given other examples in previous posts. And none of the Hodgson children were around when the next family that moved in reported paranormal experiences.

What I want to do in the remainder of this post is provide more examples from Maurice Grosse and Guy Playfair's tapes. My citations of the tapes will refer to Grosse's with "MG" and Playfair's with "GP". So, MG91B is tape 91B in Grosse's collection, and GP53A is tape 53A in Playfair's.

When the children were at school, Peggy Hodgson often spent the day at the Burcombes' house, since she didn't like being home by herself while the poltergeist was active. She was sometimes home alone, though, and she provided many accounts of poltergeist activity on those occasions. In early November of 1977, she recounted some events that happened while she was home alone one day: footsteps were heard upstairs, followed by footsteps coming down the stairs, then an "ice cold" gust, as if somebody was walking by her, accompanied by something brushing against her arm (MG14A, 0:30). In another context, she refers to hearing knocking (GP33B, 29:27). Another day, she heard some knocking and saw a light swinging (MG63B, 7:57). John Burcombe was in the house alone doing some remodeling, and his cigarettes, lighter, and ashtray moved on their own at least a few times (MG95B, 14:08).

Phenomena also occurred while nobody was in the house. Vic Nottingham saw an apparition of an old woman at one of the Hodgsons' windows, and Peggy Nottingham heard some noises in the house, when nobody was home at the time (MG6A, 11:07). The noises Peggy heard were significant enough that she went to the Hodgsons' door and knocked. Nobody answered, but she found them at the Burcombes' house and told them what was going on. An insurance agent who visited the Hodgsons' house when they weren't home reported feeling a cold blast of air at their front door (MG30A, 1:24), which is reminiscent of what multiple other witnesses reported regarding cold blasts. She explained that she'd never had that sort of experience before, including when she'd visited the Hodgsons' house on previous occasions. Playfair referred to "repeated testimony" from the Nottinghams that they heard knocking within the Hodgsons' house on occasions when the Hodgsons weren't home (MG83B, 54:58). Peggy Hodgson referred to a time when the family returned home and found that a piece of furniture in their house had moved while they were away (GP53A, 1:01). She goes on to note that none of the children had a key to the house at the time (1:19). The Burcombes had a series of experiences while the entire Hodgson family was about fifty miles away on vacation in August of 1978 (page 237 in Playfair's book). Starting at 19:02 on tape MG92A, there's a recording of Grosse interviewing John Burcombe about some events that happened in that context. He was watching their house while they were away, and he had some paranormal experiences on those occasions, like the one involving an apparition discussed in the documentary I linked above. That same day, his daughter, Denise, walked by the Hodgsons' house and saw a shadow walking through their living room. When John went to the house to check on it on other days, he felt a presence there, had a door open on its own before him and saw the knob turn by itself in the process, and saw that one of the beds had been moved.

Grosse had some significant experiences with cars, with none of the Hodgson children around. On one occasion, he saw a car running with nobody in it (MG86A, 15:40). The doors were locked, and no key was in the ignition. He also noted that the sound the car was making was "very peculiar". After looking at the car for a while, he made a comment (apparently to a neighbor who had walked by) about contacting the police, and the car shut off when he made the comment. In another context, Grosse told the Hodgsons that he'd had a problem with his car, and the poltergeist voice said, "It went too fast." (MG87B, 18:30) His car's engine had been running too fast. It was a highly unusual problem, apparently, one he'd never had before and one the mechanic he went to couldn't explain. Nothing he'd told the Hodgsons would suggest a car problem involving the car's running too fast, so the poltergeist and the Hodgsons apparently didn't have any normal means of knowing what had been wrong with the car. Given the other car incident referred to above, there's precedent for the poltergeist's interest in interfering with cars in connection with Grosse. That makes sense inasmuch as Grosse was known for having a lot of interest in cars and sometimes drove his Jaguar to the Hodgsons' house. It seems likely that both the problem with his car and the poltergeist's knowledge of the problem were paranormal.

Events sometimes happened at neighbors' houses when none of the Hodgson children were around. John Burcombe refers to a tea cup and a lamp moving on their own and some thumping noises at his house with none of the Hodgson children present (MG6A, 11:50). Peggy Nottingham returned to her bedroom one night, after having been away from her house for a while, to find a lot of items displaced within the room (GP51A, 1:03). She reported similar incidents on other occasions (GP53B, 27:02). They found an ornament on their mantle turned upside-down. Vic heard knocking on a wall that wasn't attached to the Hodgsons' house. Peggy Nottingham referred to items appearing and disappearing in their house (GP85A, 5:59). A lot of apports occurred on May 30, 1978, sometimes with none of the children having been in a position to have faked what happened. For example, Jack Richardson, Peggy Nottingham's brother, reported seeing large clumps of dirt moving around outside the Nottinghams' house, with nobody touching the clumps or anywhere near them (MG89A, 0:11). One of the clumps was moving with so much power that it forced the door to the Nottinghams' kitchen open, then kept moving and hit the bathroom door. Richardson was in the kitchen at the time, and he witnessed the event. He refers to the movement of the clump as "impossible". A few people were in or near the house at the time, and they all looked for any children nearby and didn't see any. There are too many other such incidents for me to discuss all of them here. In the opening minutes of tape MG57A, for example, there's a discussion of paranormal events experienced by neighbors, including neighbors other than the Burcombes and Nottinghams, and it doesn't seem that any of the Hodgson children were around when the large majority of the events occurred.

Source: https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/10/enfield-events-with-none-of-children.html

0215A-2019 - Triablogue - Enfield Miscellany

I'm going to periodically post collections of miscellaneous items related to the Enfield Poltergeist, mainly taken from Maurice Grosse and Guy Playfair's audio tapes. These will be discussions of material I didn't include in my earlier posts, that wouldn't fit well in any post I plan to write in the future, etc.

My citations of the tapes will use "MG" to refer to a tape from Grosse's collection and "GP" to refer to one from Playfair's. For example, MG88B is tape 88B in Grosse's collection, and GP3B is tape 3B in Playfair's.

Enfield Miscellany (Part 1/8)

Disembodied Hands

Some individuals reported seeing one or two disembodied hands involved in the paranormal events they witnessed (MG29A, 34:19; GP51A, 3:12; GP52B, 12:39; GP57B, 20:08). On the second tape just cited, for example, Peggy Hodgson refers to how she saw a disembodied hand on the kitchen door, then saw it move away and fade. None of the children were close by, it seems, and she says it looked like a man's hand anyway. In the third context cited above, Peggy saw a small hand, like a child's. The hands would sometimes accompany a paranormal event, so that a hand would be seen throwing a slipper that moved paranormally, for example. There's precedent in other cases for a disembodied hand (Alan Gauld and A.D. Cornell, Poltergeists [United States: White Crow Books, 2017], approximate Kindle location 2185).

Clocks

I noticed a few occasions on the tapes when people commented on watches or other clocks having the wrong time. I initially didn't think much of it (and probably didn't include all of the incidents in my notes), but the cumulative effect seems significant. And other cases have involved the altering of time on clocks (Alan Gauld and A.D. Cornell, Poltergeists [United States: White Crow Books, 2017], approximate Kindle location 4835). On two different days only about a week apart, Grosse referred to his watch having the wrong time (GP71A, 31:21; GP73A, 16:18), and John Burcombe referred to his watch having the wrong time shortly before the second incident Grosse experienced (GP72A, 0:47). In another context, Grosse and Peggy Hodgson talked about how they'd noticed some clocks in the kitchen losing time (GP96B, 1:59). Notice that a few of the occasions involved watches. How would the Hodgson children have faked those incidents by changing the time on watches people were wearing on their wrists? It's unlikely that two people would have taken their watches off and allowed the children to access them a few different times in so short a period.

Tape Recorders

I've referred in previous posts to how the poltergeist often caused camera equipment to malfunction. Go here and do a Ctrl F search for "equipment" for a summary of the evidence. There were occasions when the poltergeist apparently interfered with audio equipment as well. Playfair discusses some examples in his book (e.g., This House Is Haunted [United States: White Crow Books, 2011], 153-54). There are many more on the tapes. Peggy and Margaret saw Paul Burcombe's tape recorder thrown and broken in the process (GP7A, 4:55). Peggy and both of the girls saw a microphone on Playfair's tape recorder move (GP31A, 27:00). Grosse and Peggy refer to a tape recording that was erased, and they suggest it happened paranormally (GP32A, 50:02). The poltergeist pulled the plug from John Burcombe's tape recorder (GP64A, 11:43). After Grosse criticized the poltergeist for doing something he disapproved of, it cut the wire of the microphone on his recorder (MG47B, 16:11). Sometimes it seems that there's a good chance or even that it's probable that audio problems with the tapes were caused by the poltergeist. For example, Grosse told it to stop swearing, and just after he said that, there's more than two minutes straight of distorted audio on the recording, after which it returns to normal (MG52B, 22:09). The poltergeist often responded defiantly when people told it to stop swearing. (Listen here, for example.)

Whistling

The whistling allegedly produced by the poltergeist is often dismissed as unimpressive and something that could easily have been faked. There's good evidence for the paranormality of some of it, though. On one occasion, Grosse commented that he had everybody in the area under close enough observation that he was confident that nobody produced the whistling by normal means, that "absolutely nobody" present was whistling (GP73A, 3:49). Peggy then seems to refer to some whistling that occurred inside the house while all of the children were outside (4:20). In another context on the same tape, Grosse says the whistling that just occurred happened with a scarf tied around Janet's mouth (14:41). He says she couldn't possibly have whistled with the scarf in place, and he says that the scarf experiment completely rules out the notion that the whistling came from Janet. Later on the same tape, he noted that some whistling occurred near a tape recorder when nobody was nearby (19:08). The whistling sometimes occurs so frequently, for such a long period of time, that it's hard to believe that none of the adults present would have seen that it was being faked by the children if it was faked (MG41A, 3:06; MG47B, 25:10). Whistling has been reported in other cases as well (GP43B, 9:04; Alan Gauld and A.D. Cornell, Poltergeists [United States: White Crow Books, 2017], approximate Kindle location 3802).

Wallpaper

In some of the Enfield photographs that have been released to the public, you can see wallpaper coming off the walls in the house. Some of that may be a result of normal causes, but it seems that at least some of it was paranormal. Janet comments on the subject on one of the tapes. She refers to the poltergeist tearing the wallpaper off the walls by itself, apparently without using any person or object to do it, and how it moved the wallpaper into shapes as well, apparently the form of an animal (GP91A, 26:54). It sounds like Margaret says "yeah" while Janet is talking, so Margaret apparently witnessed it as well. On another occasion, John Burcombe asks Peggy whether she saw the wallpaper coming off (MG61A, 58:32). She says she did, and Margaret says that she saw it. There was an event that happened more than a year later that's somewhat related (MG95B, 14:08). Burcombe was in the house alone, remodeling the Hodgsons' living room. He was putting up new wallpaper and was using an ashtray to hold one end of the wallpaper down, since it was so light and tended to curl up if not weighted down. He noticed that the wallpaper had started wrapping around his arm. Apparently, the poltergeist had moved the ashtray. It did that more than once. It also moved some other items while he was in the house on that occasion.

Events Outside The House

One of the things that stands out about the Enfield tapes is how often paranormal events were reported to have happened outside the Hodgsons' house, more than you'd think from reading Playfair's book, watching documentaries, etc. I've given some examples in previous posts, such as events that occurred in neighbors' houses or when the Hodgsons visited a local park. Another context in which events happened outside the house was when the children were at school. The poltergeist was much less active there than at the Hodgsons' house, but it apparently was active in school contexts from time to time. Janet referred to her chair jumping while she was at school (MG2A, 37:19). She was in a medical room at school, lying on a bed, and the bed shook (39:14). Margaret was in a class and something was cut up into eight pieces and distributed (something related to cooking, apparently), but they found that they had nine pieces afterward (MG14A, 2:02). The teacher and Margaret both double-checked how many pieces they initially had, and they were confident that they had eight. What makes this incident more significant is that Peggy goes on, just after Margaret gave her account, to refer to something similar that happened when she was cooking at home. Janet then refers to something similar, again in the context of cooking, and what she reports is confirmed by Peggy. The incidents with Margaret and Janet involved the adding of an item, and the incident with Peggy involved the subtracting of one. The three experiences (Margaret, Peggy, and Janet's) are mutually reinforcing, since they suggest the poltergeist's interest in adding or removing items in the context of cooking, and all three events happened around the same time. Janet referred to the poltergeist "crossing out" her work at school, apparently meaning that it moved her arm when she was writing, and the voice would sometimes manifest at school (MG65B, 8:41; MG87B, 7:32; GP26B, 29:14). Peggy was visiting Margaret's school on the opening day of a school year, and they got a ride home in some sort of school vehicle, which she refers to as a "coach" that had other people in it as well (MG91B, 26:12). The driver stopped at one point, put on the brakes, and turned the vehicle off to do something. Though the vehicle was off, with the brakes on, and they weren't on any sort of slope, the vehicle started moving again on its own. It went the length of a couple of houses. The driver commented that nothing like that had ever happened to him before. Peggy explains that she and Margaret looked at each other, apparently because they both suspected the poltergeist was moving the vehicle.

The Center Of The Poltergeist

It's common to refer to Janet Hodgson as the focus of the poltergeist without qualification, as if she was at the center of the poltergeist's activities throughout the case. But Grosse comments on one of the tapes that although Janet was initially the epicenter, there were multiple ones later (MG1A, 13:05). He refers to a period when Margaret seemed to be the focus of the poltergeist (GP38B, 32:46). In the spring of 1979, Grosse and Peggy Hodgson agree that the poltergeist is currently focused on Johnny (MG95A, 21:32). And poltergeist activity continued in the house long after Johnny's death and when Janet and Margaret had moved out. After Peggy Hodgson's death in 2003, the next family who moved in also reported paranormal activity.

Enfield Miscellany (Part 2/8)

Apports And Teleportation

Objects would often appear in a paranormal way, such as by seemingly falling from a ceiling. Probably the most significant apports in the case were the ones that occurred on May 30, 1978, which I've discussed before (e.g., here) and are discussed in Playfair's book (This House Is Haunted [United States: White Crow Books, 2011], 226-27). A particularly significant episode on another occasion involved a large number of objects appearing from the ceiling and walls of the main bedroom upstairs, witnessed by a few members of the family, including Peggy Hodgson (MG84A, 4:28). The items included marbles, pieces of plastic, and Legos. Apparently, a lot of them came out of the ceiling and walls in rapid succession within a short period of time. The poltergeist would sometimes make coins appear, often dropping them from a ceiling. Talking to the poltergeist voice on one occasion, Grosse commented, "But I want to know how you make them [coins] come into this house and drop from the air onto the floor. I mean, we've seen this happen, and I've got some of those pennies." (GP24B, 4:55) Playfair refers to how John Burcombe saw a coin drop in front of him (GP26B, 23:43). Billy Hodgson saw a coin fall from a ceiling as well (MG59B, 49:25). Peggy and Margaret Hodgson saw some plastic spoons appear in a standing position (GP51A, 5:30). Shortly after (6:59), Peggy discusses an incident in which some ice cubes from the Nottinghams' house teleported through a wall into the Hodgsons' kitchen. In another context, Peggy was looking for Billy's socks, and they apparently were teleported to her and dropped at her feet while she was in one of the other bedrooms by herself (MG48A, 42:49, 44:02)! Peggy also mentions that a coin dropped around the same time the socks appeared. There were many other such incidents, like the teleportation of a cushion onto the roof on December 15, 1977, which I've discussed before. I'm just providing several examples here.

Snowman

The poltergeist voice calls Grosse "snowman" on one occasion (MG51A, 14:27). I don't think it called him or anybody else a snowman at any other point. He responded by saying he's never been called that before, and he didn't seem to understand why the voice was doing it. I suspect the poltergeist was referring to Grosse's resemblance to Sam the Snowman from the Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer Christmas program:

They have similar mustaches, and both wear dress clothes. I don't remember ever seeing a photograph or video of Grosse at the Hodgsons' house without a suit and tie. (Even when wrestling with Janet while she was in a trance state!) Those kinds of similarities are probably enough to explain the voice's comment, especially since the comment was made during a Christmas season (December 19, 1977), and the voice made television references in other contexts.

Was The Television Undisturbed?

In a 2015 article that's critical of the Enfield case, one I've responded to elsewhere, Deborah Hyde wrote:

Touchingly “the television … was almost the only object in the house never disturbed in any way throughout the case”. I’m the same age as Janet, and well remember the importance of the box in the corner in an age before iPads and X Boxes.

Apparently, Hyde is implying that when the Hodgson girls faked the poltergeist, they avoided damaging the television, since it was so important to them. The quote she provides from Playfair's book (page 94 there) is an accurate quotation, but what he says there is either poorly expressed or mistaken. On one of the tapes, Grosse reads some notes taken by Peggy about recent paranormal events: "They were all inside, about to eat dinner, and a piece of slate stone shot through the back door and hit the screen, the television screen, and bounced on the floor." (GP54B, 6:08) And that wasn't the only time the television was in significant danger of getting damaged. Read what Playfair wrote in his book about the poltergeist's activities on the night of New Year's Eve in 1977, going into January 1. Objects were being thrown around the living room, where the television was, and books "shot everywhere…it just literally turned the place upside down" (178). And there were plenty of occasions when some other object the children wouldn't want damaged was either damaged or in serious danger of being damaged (e.g., the window that was broken in their bedroom in the middle of December of 1977, which I discussed in another post).

John Burcombe's Worst Experience

Burcombe is one of the most important witnesses in the Enfield case. On the night of October 18, 1977, apparently, he had what he considered his most disturbing experience. Playfair briefly describes it in his book (43-44), but I don't think he mentions anywhere, nor do I recall seeing anybody else mention publicly, that the event was recorded on audio cassette.

For help imagining what happened, see the floor plan of the Hodgsons' house linked here. I suspect Burcombe had both doors near the bottom of the steps (the front door to the house and the door to the living room) closed, and what he saw seems to have appeared on the wall at the bend in the steps. I think the reporter in the video segment here is standing at that bend.

Burcombe and his daughter heard a baby crying, though there was no baby in the house at the time (MG98B, 12:45). He thought the sound came from around the top of the steps leading to the upper floor. He took a tape recorder with him as he looked around for an explanation of what he'd heard. He got to the bottom of the stairs and looked up, and that was when he had the experience in question. While discussing it the day after it happened, he commented:

"I was petrified….the nearest I would describe it, on reflection, what looked like to me a twelve-inch florescent light behind frosted glass….at the top of the stairway….It was equivalent, I would say, of approximately twelve inches vertical, and it looked, nearest I could describe, it looked like a florescent light behind frosted glass, which burnt fiercely and gradually faded away….It was, I would say, roughly waist height [above the bend in the steps]….I was bloody petrified. I've never seen anything like it, and the feeling that I had was one of fear, absolute fear, like there was somebody standing right by me and watching. I've never known such a feeling in my life….There was no doors open, and there was no way any light could have shone in from the outside." (MG6B, 12:07)

Almost a year later, Burcombe talked to Grosse about an experience he had of seeing an apparition of a man in the Hodgsons' house while he was alone there. You can listen to part of what he told Grosse about that experience in a documentary here. That clip ends with Burcombe saying, "I left the house like a rocket….I was scared, and I, quite honestly, I came back and said to my wife, I said, 'I'm sorry, no way do I go in that house again on my own. The bleeding place is haunted.'" The discussion between Grosse and Burcombe continues for a while longer on the tape. Burcombe goes on to say emphatically, "That scared me. That really did." (MG92A, 23:30) Grosse responds, "Did it scare you more than when you saw the light on the stairs?" Burcombe answers, "No. That was the piece that really scared me….It [seeing the apparition of a man in the house] wasn't fear like, you know, last year when I saw that light." It's significant that the light incident disturbed him more than anything else, given how much he experienced prior to making those comments (people levitating, Janet's trance states, the paranormal strength she had in those states, Janet being dragged by the poltergeist, fires, doors opening on their own, etc.).

On the recording of the event (MG99A, 1:37), you don't hear much aside from Burcombe talking. Before the section I just cited, he explains that he'd heard a baby crying and was looking for the source of the sound, which he didn't find. He tried to get a recording of the crying, but was unsuccessful. It seems that he was by himself when he got to the stairway. He talks somewhat quietly. He explains elsewhere that Peggy was already upset about events earlier in the day, so that he didn't want to upset her further. And he knew his tape recorder was running, so he had that additional motive for keeping himself composed. I'll quote all of what he said during the relevant segment of the tape. To avoid the false impression that I'm leaving material out, I'll use commas and sentence fragments rather than ellipses. There are lengthy pauses between some of the words on the tape. This is what he says during a span of about two minutes:

"Five past nine. I'm sitting on the stairways. I'm sitting on the stairway. On the top of the stairs, on the wall, there is a, a light. It's approximately, it look, it, well, it's like it's a shadow. It looks like an illumination. It's about twelve inches long and like, like a light. Bloody hell. The wall is now, it looks like somebody's shining a torch on it. The temperature's dropped. Bloody hell. Somebody's just walked over a grave. The light's still there. It doesn't seem to be doing anything. Bloody hell. Oh, excuse me. It's a very weird sensation. It's fading a bit now. Now, now, if you forgive me, it's, well, I don't know how to describe this. I've never seen anything like it. I'm getting a sensation like, the best I can describe is, I'm not alone. This shadow is still there. I think it's about time I, I have a cup of tea or something."

Judging by what he said elsewhere, I think he decided to stop looking at the light at that point and walked away. He made a similar comment about tea when a couch was levitated a month later. Just after the levitation, you can hear Burcombe saying on the tape, "Right, now who's going to, who's going to put the kettle on?" (MG20Ai, 5:03). Playfair refers in his book to "the ingrained British tendency to make cups of tea at moments of crisis" (74). Though Burcombe's choice of words and delivery are somewhat awkward, we need to keep in mind that his attention was divided. He was experiencing something he found terrifying while trying to leave a record of that experience as it happened. Grosse encouraged the Hodgsons and others involved in the case to produce records of their experiences when possible, and it's commendable that Burcombe made the effort to do so in this context. He went back to the stairway later that night, and the light was gone.

Other Enfield Tapes

I've just discussed a tape that was recorded by Burcombe. He and his son, Paul, did some recording related to the case from time to time. At least some of those tapes are in Grosse's collection. A couple of years ago, I wrote about Ed Warren's Enfield tapes. And I've commented on a tape Carl Sargent recorded. David Robertson did some recording when a tape recorder was left with him on at least one occasion, which I discussed in another post. Grosse mentioned once that he'd left a tape recorder with the Hodgsons, for them to use (MG87A, 7:53). I don't recall any occasion on which they were reported to have used it, though. Perhaps the family made some recordings on their own initiative in later years. Lawrence Berger did some recording during his visits to the house. So did Charles Moses. Rosalind Morris made some tapes during her work on the Enfield case, and I suspect some other journalists did as well. I doubt that any of these individuals produced even a tenth as many tapes as Grosse and Playfair did. But if you add up all of the tapes outside of Grosse and Playfair's collections, I suspect there would be a double-digit number. There's also the issue of duplicates of Grosse and Playfair's tapes. Some of the tapes circulating on YouTube, for example, have a significantly different audio quality than the versions in the collections of Grosse and Playfair. I suspect at least some of the YouTube versions were copies Grosse and Playfair gave people over the years, recordings from conferences or other gatherings where the tapes were played, etc. So, there is the possibility of such copies circulating that are in some way of better quality than the ones in Grosse and Playfair's collections (e.g., a better copy of Playfair's tape of the fireplace being ripped out).

Enfield Miscellany (Part 3/8)

Why The Family Didn't Move

In the opening paragraph of a post a few years ago, I explained some of the reasons why the Hodgsons didn't move from their house after they noticed paranormal events occurring. One of the reasons I mention there is that poltergeists center around people, not locations, so that moving would just relocate the poltergeist rather than getting rid of it. The family had some experience of the poltergeist following them outside the house soon after the events of August 31, 1977. And if an apparition Margaret saw in connection with using a Ouija board in 1974 in a location outside the house was the first event of the case, then that first event occurred outside the house. There's further information on Grosse and Playfair's tapes about this issue of the potential for the poltergeist to follow the family to another location. Grosse explains that he told the family on the day he began investigating the case (September 5, 1977) that poltergeists usually follow people around (MG2A, 24:41). More significantly, he says elsewhere that a member of the local government who happened to be knowledgeable of poltergeists told the family the same thing (MG1A, 3:00). Peggy Hodgson probably had that man in mind when she said in a 1980 interview that they didn't move from the house because somebody told them the poltergeist would follow them (GP43A, 1:49). It seems that this government official had that discussion with the Hodgsons sometime between when they first noticed phenomena in their house (the night of August 31) and when Grosse arrived (the afternoon of September 5). Judging by what Peggy Nottingham said here, there's a good chance that the discussion with that government official took place on September 1. So, the family initially did leave the house (to go to the Nottinghams) and were told shortly afterward about the potential for the poltergeist to follow them if they moved. Their staying in the house makes a lot of sense, then, not only for the reason just mentioned, but also for the others mentioned in my previous post linked above.

Paranormal Slowness

I've mentioned that poltergeists often operate with unusually high speed. They'll turn a table over faster than anybody faking the overturning of the table could, for example. But there are some occasions, far less common ones, when poltergeists operate in an unusually slow manner. For example, an object thrown across a room will suddenly slow down while going through the air. David Robertson provided an example in a discussion with me a couple of years ago. He recalled an occasion when a large ashtray was thrown at his head and referred to how it "would have been going much faster under normal throwing conditions". You sometimes get the impression that the poltergeist is carrying the object, guiding it through the air much as we would operate a remote-controlled airplane, or doing something else of that nature rather than throwing it. Peggy remembered an occasion when an object slowed down as it was moving through the air, as if the poltergeist was hesitant about where to drop it: "It seemed to me as though it got there, and it was trying to make its mind up where to fall, because there wasn't a lot of space." (MG10A, 16:06). Margaret commented on seeing a levitation of Janet in which she was lifted fast, then moved forward and was dropped slowly (MG28A, 2:29). There was a banging noise at the start and finish, for whatever reason. The poltergeist would often move people's bed covers. Peggy referred to seeing the covers of Janet's bed moving slowly (MG39A, 0:48). Notice how counterproductive that would be if the cover movement was being faked. Slower movement would make faking easier to detect. And Peggy says that the covers "keep" doing that, so it wasn't an isolated incident. Furthermore, it happened shortly before Janet was thrown from her bed (1:56), witnessed by both Peggy and Grosse, an incident that seems highly likely to be genuine. So, the surrounding context supports the authenticity of the cover movement. Robertson reported that a sideboard moved on its own, one that Grosse described as "very, very heavy", and Robertson referred to how it tipped over slowly (MG59B, 1:29). He refers to how he strained his back trying to lift it up. Peggy saw a light bulb move out of a ceiling light and slowly drift down (MG65B, 29:02). She saw Billy levitated while he was in a horizontal position a few times and is "certain" that he went up slowly (MG89A, 9:37). Playfair saw a slipper move over a door slowly (GP39A, 27:56), the slipper movement I discussed in another post. Peggy and the girls referred to a book they saw move up into the air slowly, after which it moved fast (GP45B, 14:58).

Seeing Through A Door

On one of the tapes, there's a loud bang, apparently from a slipper having been thrown at something by the poltergeist (GP9B, 16:19). Shortly after, Playfair comes into the room and mentions that he saw it happen. He then comments on how it doesn't make sense that he was able to see it, since the door was in the way. It sounds like he then goes back out of the room to verify that the door should have been blocking his view. He comes back in and mentions again that he shouldn't have been able to have seen what he saw. He then comments, "I'll work all that out later." I don't think it was ever brought up on the tapes again, and I don't remember seeing it discussed elsewhere. Apparently, the poltergeist or some other factor involved gave him the ability to see through the door in some sense while the event was occurring.

Followed Around The House

There are passages in Playfair's book in which he talks about how he'd make sounds like he was going down the steps without actually going all the way down, then would go back up without walking on the creaky parts of the stairs. That would allow him to be upstairs monitoring what was going on there while the family and others involved thought he was downstairs. He also taught other people, like Graham Morris, how to do it. He does it on one of his tapes (GP11B, 12:38), and it's a tape that has unusually good audio quality. He's explaining to a couple of visitors how he does the trick. You can hear Playfair making the sound of going down the steps, and it's convincing. He then goes back up the steps, and there's no way you could tell from the audio that he was going back up without hearing him say so. Yet, as he notes, the poltergeist would react to what he did in such situations. It seemed to know, at least sometimes, what he was doing when the family and others involved had no normal way of knowing. He explains that when he'd fake going down the steps, the poltergeist would remain inactive upstairs. But when he'd actually go downstairs, it would become active. It knew whether he was around, even when the family didn't. He comments, on the tape just cited, "That rules out fraud." Judging by what you can hear on the tape, it does seem to be a good trick, and it does seem to be significant evidence against a fraud hypothesis. I've given examples of this sort of thing in other contexts in previous posts. For instance, I've noted how a variety of people reported having a sense of being followed around the house, even when none of the children were in the room or even on the same floor. (See the last paragraph of the post here.) When I discussed the knocking phenomena in an earlier post, I mentioned that Playfair would sometimes get responses from the poltergeist through knocking even when he was talking to it in places in the house where the family couldn't have heard what he was saying. I doubt that the poltergeist was able to observe everything that was going on in the area at all times. There were occasions when it seemed to be ignorant of some of what was going on around it. But it seems to have had paranormal knowledge of its surroundings to some extent. The level of knowledge it had probably varied depending on how much energy it had at the time, whether anything was interfering with its operations, or whatever other factors, much as we can be prevented from seeing things with our eyes due to blinking, sleep, getting dirt in an eye, being distracted, etc.

Enfield Miscellany (Part 4/8)

Unknown Precedent

One type of event to look for in paranormal cases is something that has precedent, but only in a context unknown to the people involved in the event. The precedent adds credibility to the claim that the event occurred, and the ignorance of the precedent on the part of those involved in the event undermines the notion that the event was faked based on that precedent. I noticed some incidents in the Enfield case that seem to meet those criteria.

Peggy Hodgson reported experiencing a sensation like a cat sitting on her feet and the bottom of her legs (GP5A, 4:44, especially 5:59). I've come across a similar report, but only briefly and in passing in a summary of a haunting case that occurred in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (Alan Gauld and A.D. Cornell, Poltergeists [United States: White Crow Books, 2017], approximate Kindle location 3236). Gauld and Cornell refer to how a woman in the case reported "a feeling as if a cat were curling round her feet". In the Enfield case, on the tape cited above, Peggy refers to "a cat sitting on you…on your feet, [unintelligible] your legs". In all the books I've read on paranormal topics, articles I've read, podcasts I've listened to, etc., I don't recall anybody other than the woman cited by Gauld and Cornell and Peggy Hodgson reporting such an incident. And it seems extremely improbable that somebody like Peggy would have come across the obscure incident briefly mentioned by Gauld and Cornell or have been significantly influenced by somebody else who came across it.

Similarly, when Matthew Manning (who had experienced a poltergeist of his own) visited the Hodgsons' house, he reported having had unusual experiences similar to theirs. There's a striking example on tape GP26A. Manning is having a discussion with Playfair, and Playfair asks him whether he got sensations similar to Peggy Hodgson's premonitory headaches (sensations she would have in her head that corresponded with paranormal events, often beginning just before the events). Manning responds by differentiating his experience from Peggy's, commenting that "The only feeling that we got was a prickling sensation down the back of the neck" (8:35). It's clear that he's distinguishing between his experience and Peggy's, meaning that he wasn't just making something up to accommodate what Playfair asked him. He seems to be giving an honest answer. More significantly, though, there's a commotion on the tape at that point. You hear one or more of the Hodgson girls gasping, saying "Oh no!", etc. Grosse (who was only listening to the conversation without participating) loudly says "Excuse me. Just a moment. Excuse me. What did you say? They said it about half an hour before you came in this afternoon." Grosse goes on to explain that the sensation Manning described (during his only visit to the house, in response to a question from Playfair that Manning apparently had no way of anticipating) was something the girls had reported experiencing shortly before Manning arrived.

After Charles Moses of the Southern California Society for Psychical Research visited the next month, he noted a "striking" similarity between Peggy's premonitory headaches and the ones experienced by a man in another case (MG69A, 20:35).

This is an area that warrants a lot of further study, in the Enfield case and in other contexts. I've only discussed a few examples here. More should come to light as the Enfield tapes and other relevant sources are studied further.

A Green Face

In early 1978, a highly unusual incident was reported that I don't remember seeing discussed anywhere else. Janet said that her face had turned green for about three minutes (GP51A, 25:06). Peggy mentions that she saw Janet's face discolored shortly after Janet first noticed it, and Peggy explains that Janet's face didn't return to its normal appearance until sometime later that night. Peggy noticed that Janet's face was still discolored when she was lying in bed, but her appearance was back to normal when they got up in the morning. Apparently, the three-minute timeframe Janet referred to was when the discoloration started, when it was at its worst, but there was a lingering effect beyond those three minutes.

Margaret's Worst Experience

In a previous post in this series, I discussed what John Burcombe considered the most disturbing paranormal experience he had during the case. Margaret also commented on what she considered her most disturbing experience, and I don't remember anybody discussing it publicly before. It happened on October 1, 1978. The next day, she told Playfair about it (GP40A, 0:23). The Hodgsons often (most of the time, apparently) tried to avoid going upstairs alone, as I've discussed before. But on the evening of October 1, Margaret went up by herself to get something. It was about to rain outside, so it was unusually dark. She found what she was looking for and walked toward the bedroom door, which was closed, to go back downstairs. At that point, she heard a loud bang, and the door flew open, and she heard somebody breathing, though there was nobody there. She commented that "It's the worst thing that's happened to me." Reading a brief summary of an event like that doesn't convey everything that would be involved in living through the experience, but it's easy to see how that sort of event would be unusually disturbing, especially for a teenage girl. Even after living with the poltergeist for more than a year, its behavior could be so unpredictable and so upsetting.

Creaky Floors And Mattresses

I've mentioned before that one way for witnesses in the Enfield case to evaluate the incidents they experienced was to listen for the creaking of floorboards and mattresses that you would expect to hear if somebody had walked across a floor, moved in bed, jumped from a bed, or done something else to fake an event, for example. It was one way among others to monitor what was going on in the house. Watch here to see Graham Morris commenting on the subject. Morris wasn't the only person who reported the creakiness of the floors and mattresses. Peggy Hodgson also referred to it (GP54B, 42:27). So did Playfair (This House Is Haunted [United States: White Crow Books, 2011], 36). Alan Gauld referred to being able to hear the mattresses creaking upstairs when you were downstairs (in Melvyn Willin, The Enfield Poltergeist Tapes [United States: White Crow Books, 2019], 126). In my experience listening to Grosse and Playfair's tapes, my sense is that you can sometimes hear such creaking on the tapes, but often can't. For example, there's a tape on which Charles Moses refers to hearing people moving upstairs, but I didn't notice any sound on the recording (GP91B, 20:56). So, we have the testimony of multiple witnesses to the effect that you could hear noises like creaking floors in other parts of the house, but those noises won't necessarily be discernable on audio recordings. As good as the recordings are, we have to allow for the possibility that witnesses will provide information about sounds that can't be discerned on the tapes.

Enfield Miscellany (Part 5/8)

The Absurd Logistics Of A Fraud Hypothesis

Part of what makes poltergeists so interesting, and has the potential to make them so evidential, is the variety of phenomena involved. And the Enfield case has a much larger number and variety of events than the average poltergeist. Faking such a large and varied case would be more difficult accordingly. I've written about many of the traditional categories involved: levitations, apparitions, fires, etc. But some of the events don't fit into a traditional category. Or they do, but with one or more characteristics that stand out as highly difficult to fake. Those events add to the variety of the case, and they illustrate the absurdity of a fraud hypothesis that would have one or more of the Hodgson children being skilled enough to so successfully fake such a variety of phenomena. (For documentation of how often critics try to explain the case by attributing the events to trickery on the part of one or more of the Hodgson children, see the first paragraph here.)

Margaret Hodgson and Peggy Nottingham reported that they saw the Hodgsons' refrigerator move about six inches forward, then turn to the side (MG3A, 0:23). Grosse, while discussing the incident a few minutes later on the tape, refers to the refrigerator as "extremely heavy", one that he found "most difficult" to move. When he got it to move, the process of moving it was "very noisy", whereas Peggy told him that the poltergeist's movement of it made no noise.

The poltergeist would often move lights. Peggy Hodgson reported an occasion when she monitored a lamp that was out of her direct line of vision by watching its shadow. She saw the shadow moving, indicating that the poltergeist was moving the lamp, apparently with no shadow of any person near it (MB10B, 8:11, 10:13).

Peggy also saw a light bulb move out of its socket and slowly fall diagonally rather than dropping straight down at a normal speed (MG65B, 29:01). Nobody was near it.

In another context, Janet opened a loaf of sliced bread, and six or so slices shot out of the bag on their own and went across the room (MG95A, 17:30). Peggy saw it happen. She refers to how "the slices kept coming out", and she told Janet, "Quick, shut that bread." Janet goes on to say that the bread came out "bit by bit", so both her comments and her mother's suggest that each slice came out on its own. It's hard to believe that Janet faked it all six times, with Peggy mistaking it for a genuine event each time.

Later on the same tape, Peggy recounts an occasion when she saw a tube of cream moving around by itself on the floor and squeezing out cream as it went (23:59).

On another occasion that also was witnessed by Peggy, a cupboard was moving around by itself and kept moving for about ten minutes (GP31A, 1:27).

Many more such events could be cited. These are just several examples. And the cumulative effect needs to be kept in mind, including the cumulative skills needed to fake all of these episodes.

A Presentation On The Case By Maurice Grosse Shortly Before His Death

If you haven't done so yet, I recommend listening to a presentation Grosse gave on the Enfield case before the Scottish Society for Psychical Research. It's titled "Enfield Poltergeist 25 Years On", and you can find it here. Judging by what he says during the presentation, the 25 years reference was just an approximation. The talk seems to have occurred in 2003, which was 26 years after the case started. He refers to Peggy Hodgson as if she's still alive, though she died in 2003, so it seems that he gave the presentation shortly before her death or before finding out about it. He mostly repeats information that's been widely available to the public for a long time, but some of the details he includes are less known. He included some photographs, and apparently some of them are ones I've posted elsewhere. He provides some background to those photos that I wasn't aware of, assuming those are the photos I posted. He discusses his note-taking practices, his role in editing Playfair's book, how he often carried a Kodak camera with him, around his neck, while at the Hodgsons' house, etc. There are many such details included in the presentation. It's well worth listening to.

Premonitory Headaches

I've occasionally mentioned the premonitory headaches Peggy Hodgson would get shortly before a paranormal event was to occur. An advantage of listening to Grosse and Playfair's tapes is that you get a better idea of how often such things occurred. There's frequent mention of Peggy's premonitory headaches on the tapes, and other individuals would sometimes get them. It seems to me that Peggy got them more than anybody else, though. Playfair went as far as to say that her premonitory headaches were never wrong (GP40A, 20:23). I don't know if that's true. (Peggy was nearby when he made the claim and didn't correct him.) But even if he was going too far in making that claim, it does seem that Peggy at least often anticipated events by means of these headaches.

Sometimes they would be accompanied by one or more other indications of something paranormal. For example, just before an allegedly paranormal writing incident occurred, she sensed a presence in the area and got one of her premonitory headaches (MG19A, 8:32). She commented at one point that she used to get headaches in coordination with furniture moving, but that the nature of her headaches changed with the arrival of the embodied poltergeist voice (GP32B, 10:14). Notice that the headaches not only kept happening in connection with a particular type of event, namely the moving of furniture, but also that the nature of the headache changed with the arrival of a new type of event (the embodied poltergeist voice). It seems highly unlikely that all of that coordination of timing was coincidental or has some other sort of normal explanation.

Grosse referred to how he had "a very bad headache" just before the famous incident when he saw a tea kettle move on its own in the kitchen, with nobody near it, and he refers to how "I don't suffer from headaches. I never have suffered from headaches." (15:58 in his presentation referred to above) That headache went away just after the tea kettle incident. John Burcombe recalls an incident in which he experienced a headache just after Peggy mentioned that she had one (MG91B, 31:54). In an earlier post, I recounted an experience Burcombe had that he considered the most frightening one he'd gone through. Something I didn't mention there is that just after the recording of that event, Burcombe mentions that both his daughter and Peggy had a headache (MG99A, 3:30). If you read the relevant section of the post I just linked, you'll see that there was a lot of paranormal activity reported around that time. On one of the tapes, there's discussion of two members of the family having a headache at the same time (GP13A, 7:41). It's somewhat hard to tell who's being referred to, but I think the two individuals are Peggy and Margaret. Apparently, they were far apart from each other when it happened. (Margaret was at school at the time.)

Earlier on that tape, Playfair asks Peggy for more information about the nature of the headaches (3:33). He asked her if the feeling is always the same. She responded, "It varies. If it's [the poltergeist's] hanging about, I get a slight throbbing sensation. And if it's going to be bad, it's sort of like a tight band across the front of the head. It only affects the front of the head. It's not like a normal headache." Playfair then asks if it's like a migraine, and she says she doesn't know what a migraine is like. It doesn't seem that she regularly got bad headaches before the poltergeist arrived. Even if she did, she says that these premonitory headaches aren't like a normal headache, so the sensations involved are different. She goes on to say that the headaches usually don't last long and that they don't go away until after the poltergeist has done whatever the headache was anticipating.

Enfield Miscellany (Part 6/8)

Hazel Short's Other Experiences

She's typically discussed in the context of a levitation of Janet Hodgson that Short witnessed on December 15, 1977. The other events she witnessed don't get much attention. An article published several years ago reports:

Hazel, now 65, said: “I was once invited into her [Peggy Hodgson's] house, it was a boiling hot summer’s day outside but inside it was like a freezer, ice-cold.

“Peggy, Janet’s mum, led me through to the downstairs toilet and stuck to the wall was the toilet brush and a bottle of bleach.

“I will never forget what I saw and felt in that house. “It’s just a surprise that the story has taken this long to be turned into a film.”

She seems to be saying that the toilet brush and bottle of bleach were sticking to the wall in a paranormal manner.

A Triple-Digit Number Of Witnesses

In an article a couple of years ago, I estimated the number of witnesses of Enfield events to be in the low triple digits. I said I was in the process of doing further research on the subject. Given what I've learned in the years since then, I'm confident that the number is a triple-digit one. I've been keeping a list.

To provide some idea of how difficult it is to arrive at a precise number of witnesses, there was an incident with a bus moving after it had been shut off and the brake had been applied (MG91B, 26:05). Do a Ctrl F search for "coach" here to read more about it. It seems to have been some kind of school bus Peggy and Margaret Hodgson were on, and Peggy refers to how the driver told her "I think we've got room" for Peggy to ride on the bus with the students. So, it seems that a lot of people were on the bus at the time. She goes on to refer to "all the different children" getting on the bus, and she names a few of the individuals present as she goes on to give the rest of the account. It seems likely that the number of individuals on the bus was in the double digits, even though no number is specified by Peggy.

Other examples of the difficulties involved in determining a precise number of witnesses can be seen in a discussion on tape GP26B (2:28). They were talking about the Hodgsons' experiences with the poltergeist in public contexts. The discussion occurred shortly before Christmas, on December 17, 1977. Peggy Hodgson refers to how she and her children had gone to a store "at the top of Green Street", and she explains that "being near Christmas, it was terribly busy". Keep in mind that this was in 1977, with no internet, so stores had more customers then than they do now, especially around Christmas. Peggy told Janet to stay outside the store, since they were concerned about the poltergeist voice manifesting in public, as it sometimes did. Peggy went into the store with Margaret, and after getting in, she turned to Margaret and commented that she (Peggy) was experiencing one of her premonitory headaches, which she often got in anticipation of paranormal activity from the poltergeist. (For more information about those premonitory headaches, see the relevant section of the post here.) She told Margaret she was convinced that somebody was following them. So, she turned around to see Janet following. Peggy was upset and asked Janet why she hadn't stayed outside the store as she was told to. She explained that there were "lots" of people outside the store and that the voice was "roaring". Later, they apparently got behind a woman with a lot of items in the checkout line, so Peggy sent Janet back out due to a concern about the voice manifesting while they were waiting in line. After Janet went back out, the voice began roaring again. It's unlikely that a teenage girl would want to be associated with that sort of behavior in public, her going back into the store suggests she disliked the roaring that was occurring outside, and Peggy's premonitory headache (which she was able to distinguish from ordinary headaches, as explained in the post linked above) suggests that something paranormal was going on. The voice is the only other paranormal activity reported on this occasion, so the premonitory headache probably was connected to that manifestation of the voice. So, this seems to be genuine paranormal activity that took place in the presence of "lots" of people in the context of a store that was "terribly busy" because of the Christmas season. Peggy, Janet, and Margaret go on to talk about other paranormal events that happened in public settings. I'll just mention one other one here. Peggy refers to an incident in a store involving items moving in a paranormal manner. Apparently, somebody working in the store joked with her about how he knew she was coming because of the paranormal activity starting up and was glad to see her go when she left. Judging by what Peggy says, this store employee didn't see the items moving that Peggy had seen. But he may have seen other items moving that day and/or have been referring to one or more other occasions when items had moved paranormally when the Hodgsons were there. The individual who talked to Peggy on this occasion or other people affiliated with the store may still be alive and have relevant memories. Anyway, my main point here is that incidents like these make it difficult to be precise about the number of witnesses. However, even if we estimate the overall number of witnesses involved in the case conservatively, it has to be in the triple digits.

Since writing my post about the number of witnesses a couple of years ago, I came across a 1983 article in which Playfair refers to how he and Grosse "reckon, at a very conservative estimate, that around 2000 inexplicable incidents were observed during the case, by about 30 different people." (The Unexplained, vol. 11, issue 121, "Enfield: The Trouble Begins", 2404) That 30 figure, which has frequently been cited in one way or another over the years, is a very conservative estimate. It seems highly probable that the actual number is in the low triple digits.

Maurice Grosse's Life Story

He appeared on a television program titled Video Diaries in 1996, to tell the story of his life. To my knowledge, only about the first half of the program had been available on YouTube until recently. The full program is now available. It includes some segments about an alleged apport Grosse witnessed, with some video footage, at Charlton House. I linked the Video Diaries program and discussed the Charlton House incident in a post earlier this year, but those who follow my Enfield posts without following my other posts may have missed it. For anybody who's interested, you can find it here.

Christmas Pudding

Much has been said in many places about the events of December 15, 1977. But there are occasional references on the Enfield tapes to details that I've seldom or never seen discussed elsewhere. One of those occurred during a conversation on May 1 of 1978. Janet Hodgson was discussing the events of December 15 with some visitors, apparently some men doing a story on the Enfield case for Esotera, a German magazine. She mentioned that when she teleported through the wall on December 15, into the Nottinghams' house, she saw Christmas pudding in Peggy Nottingham's room. Janet then commented that Peggy later confirmed that there had been some Christmas pudding there at the time (GP52B, 25:54). After Janet's comments, Maurice Grosse said that he hadn't heard that before. However, it should be noted that the people from Esotera initiated the discussion, that Janet made the comment about Christmas pudding in passing, along with mentioning other things she saw in the Nottinghams' house, and that she's unlikely to have mentioned corroboration from Peggy Nottingham if she (Janet) was making that detail up. There was already so much evidence for the teleportation in question. There was no need for Janet to have fabricated evidence like the Christmas pudding detail. And her mother goes on to say that Janet had told her about it, even though they apparently hadn't told Grosse. I suspect Janet was telling the truth.

Enfield Miscellany (Part 7/8)

The Death Of Vic Nottingham

A lot of the Enfield witnesses haven't been discussing the case publicly in recent years, and it's sometimes difficult to find out whether they're still alive. I came across a 2016 article that refers to Vic Nottingham as deceased, so I want to mention it. There are some errors in the article, and it could be wrong about Nottingham's death even if there were no errors on other subjects. But there's nothing in the article that makes me doubt what it reports about his death, and it would make sense for him to be dead by now given his age.

From what I know of him, including hearing him a lot on Grosse and Playfair's tapes, I find Nottingham likeable and honest. He was a good witness who added a lot to the case. I've been recommending the twelve-minute video here, from November of 1977, as an introduction to Enfield. Nottingham has a prominent role in that video. It serves as a good tribute to him. The video refers to how Peggy Hodgson was "ill in bed" at the time of the filming. That's an understatement. See the post here to get some idea of how difficult the events of November of 1977 were and what state Peggy was in at the time. I suspect one of the reasons why the Nottinghams are so prominent in that 1977 program is that they were trying to cover for Peggy, to help her in a difficult situation. They often did that sort of thing. One of the reasons why the Enfield case is of such an unusually high quality is that the Nottinghams were such unusually good neighbors. As Grosse commented on one occasion, "I think that in some respects this case has been remarkable for the amazing way that the people involved in it - the Hodgson family, the Burcombes, and the Nottinghams - have behaved during the whole of the investigation. They have behaved with an enormous amount of common sense. The incredible lack of hysteria at any time has been quite remarkable, considering that some of the things that have happened have been very frightening indeed." (MG14A, 18:42) In his book on Enfield, Playfair wrote, "Nobody could ask for better neighbors in a crisis, or indeed at any time, than the Nottinghams." (This House Is Haunted [United States: White Crow Books, 2011], 3) "They've always been good neighbors….I think a lot about Peggy and Vic. They'd do anything for you." (Peggy Hodgson, MG59A, 30:31, 33:21)

Changes In The Poltergeist's Behavior Over Time

The poltergeist seemed to learn over time. It would gradually get better at doing things, behave differently after getting some information it didn't have previously, and so on. That's one of the problems with thinking that the entity behind the poltergeist was the sort of highly intelligent being people often imagine. A highly intelligent poltergeist makes for a better book or movie, and people's expectations for a poltergeist are often shaped by such sources. But the intelligence of the entity behind a poltergeist can be far from maximal, and the entities sometimes even seem to be inferior to living humans in some ways. (I know the phrase "living humans" is awkward, but I'm using it to distinguish people who are alive from the deceased, since one of the explanatory options for poltergeists is that they're manifestations of one or more dead humans.) A more intelligent poltergeist might sell more books or get more money for a movie, but real life is under no obligation to accommodate people's fictional preferences.

John Burcombe made a significant comment in this context on one of the tapes. He mentioned, "See, and in the early days, when we saw things go, when you actually saw things go, they went [whistling noise], like that, not sort of take off, like they seemed to rise and go like that." (MG87B, 30:26) I'll use the example of a book shooting across a room to illustrate what I think Burcombe is saying. Apparently, he's saying that the book didn't just shoot across the room, with people not noticing until after it had started its flight. Instead, the book would first rise into the air, then shoot across the room, and the poltergeist would let people see the beginning of the process. Later on, however, the event wouldn't start out like that, and/or the poltergeist wouldn't let people view the beginning of an event as much as it had in the early days of the case. Burcombe seems to be trying to expand on what others present, namely Peggy Hodgson and Maurice Grosse, have said, and they don't voice any objections to his comment. So, they seem to agree with him. And I remember hearing at least one other person make a comment of a similar nature elsewhere on the tapes, though I don't recall where.

The poltergeist's motives in this context may have been multifaceted. It was mischievous, so there could have been an element of wanting to frustrate people, anger them, and so on. It would be appealing to a poltergeist with such a mischievous nature to allow people to see something early on, then withhold it from them when they were more attentive and wanted to see more. But the poltergeist also seemed to want to conceal its activities to some extent, like a magician not wanting people to know how he does his tricks or a military trying to conceal information from a rival. That desire to conceal probably explains a lot of what the poltergeist did in this case and what other poltergeists have done. The efforts to conceal are often unnecessary. But if poltergeists want to conceal something, they may make an effort to do it even when they don't need to. And poltergeists aren't necessarily reasonable in everything they do. They're intelligent, efficient, and such in some ways, but not in others. They have a combination of strengths and weaknesses, as living humans do. The poltergeist may have developed more of an interest in concealing its activities over time, or it may have gotten better at concealment as time went on.

My article on the poltergeist's voice and personality provides other examples of how the poltergeist's behavior changed over time.

Additional Content On Playfair's Copies Of Grosse's Tapes

A large percentage of Playfair's tapes are copies of Grosse's. I suspect that's because Playfair wanted copies of many of Grosse's tapes for the purpose of using them in the process of writing his (Playfair's) book on Enfield. I've mentioned before that Playfair's copies of Grosse's tapes are useful in that he has some good copies of tapes that were broken or of poor audio quality in Grosse's collection. But another advantage to Playfair's duplicates of Grosse's tapes is that Playfair's copies sometimes have content no longer included in Grosse's version of the tape. Both of them had reason for editing their tapes over time. You'd have to weed out insignificant content, for example. If you ran a recorder for a few hours one day and didn't pick up anything significant, why keep the tapes? And something that seemed significant initially may not have later. As tapes got used more or wore down with the passage of time, duplicates would be made. A tape that originally had fifty minutes of content might be edited to forty-five minutes, since the last five minutes didn't seem to be worth keeping. It's now impossible to trace the process the two collections of tapes went through over time. We're left with the two collections as they stood at the time of each investigator's death, without, as far as I know, much explanation of what led up to that final form each collection took. But there are occasional glimpses of what the process must have looked like.

One striking example is found on GP69B. It's a tape from the early morning of December 3, 1977. I've written about two dragging incidents that occurred that morning, around 1:20. Grosse's tape of those two incidents (MG32B) begins at 1:10 A.M. The first side of that tape, MG32A, ends sometime shortly before that. But Playfair's copy includes some material between those two timeframes. And something significant happens in that context.

Playfair's copies of Grosse's tapes often have brief pauses at certain points, presumably where Playfair started and stopped the segments of Grosse's tapes that he wanted to copy. At 30:23 on GP69B, there's a sudden silence shortly after John Burcombe makes some comments to Janet. It sounds like Playfair ended his copy of one segment of Grosse's tapes and is starting another segment. That next segment begins at 30:25. Just after, you hear what seems to be Janet gasping and Peggy Hodgson yelling, followed by a loud thump and Peggy calling out "Janet!" (30:38) Peggy then explains, "Janet has been transported across the room to the door." Grosse announces the time as 1:05, so this segment on Playfair's tape must have been between tapes 32A and 32B in Grosse's collection, but was subsequently removed from that collection, for whatever reason. Grosse goes on to comment that the thump of Janet hitting the floor caused a "terrific" and "tremendous" bang that they heard downstairs. Janet and Peggy explain what happened, and one of the details they mention is that Janet hit Peggy's bed in the process of being dragged, which woke Peggy up. It's unlikely that Janet would have done that if she was faking the incident. Peggy comments on how quickly it happened, the unusually high speed at which the poltergeist operated, as it did on other occasions. She goes on to explain that she saw Janet being pulled across the floor ("slipping across the room"), apparently stopping just before getting to the door.

Something noteworthy about this incident is how it illustrates something that can be seen in other contexts as well. The poltergeist would sometimes get better at doing things over time, as discussed earlier in this post. The next dragging incident, which would happen about fifteen minutes later and is one of the ones still found in Grosse's collection and discussed in Playfair's book and other places, is more impressive than this first one that's found only on Playfair's tapes. That may be why Grosse didn't retain it in his collection. Or there may have been some other reason why it was removed or lost.

Enfield Miscellany (Part 8/8)

(See part 1 here for an explanation of what this series is about. Here are the other parts in the series: two, three, four, five, six, and seven. I'll make use of the tapes produced by Maurice Grosse and Guy Playfair. I'm using "MG" to reference a tape from Grosse's collection and "GP" to cite one from Playfair's: MG82B refers to tape 82B in Grosse's collection, GP96A refers to 96A in Playfair's, etc.)

Where The Poltergeist Operated

The large majority of events in the Enfield case occurred inside the Hodgsons' house. But the scope of events outside the house is often underestimated. There were frequent reports of phenomena at neighbors' houses, especially the Nottinghams' and Burcombes', but also on the property of other neighbors. See my earlier post here for some examples. That post mentions some paranormal events that occurred in Grosse's neighborhood in the relevant timeframe, events apparently connected to the Enfield case. Or think of the phenomena produced in a 1982 experiment involving Janet Hodgson at Birkbeck College. It seems that the poltergeist was able to operate at locations as geographically distant from the Hodgsons' house as Grosse's neighborhood and Birkbeck College. And while Janet was present in the latter context, none of the Hodgsons were present in the former. An especially striking example of phenomena occurring with all of the Hodgsons geographically distant was an apparition seen by John Burcombe. Go here for a portion of a documentary discussing the incident. Playfair mentions in his book on Enfield that the Hodgsons were about 50 miles away, on vacation, at the time (This House Is Haunted [United States: White Crow Books, 2011], 237). Presumably, none of the Hodgsons were nearby when the events of 2004 reported by Clare Bennett and her family occurred at the house. Even when one or more of the Hodgsons were home, the events that happened in or near the house were frequently far outside their reach, such as events on another floor of the house or the apports that fell from the sky above the house on May 30 of 1978. The geographical parameters of the poltergeist's activities went far beyond the Hodgsons and their house. Keep in mind that there was an estimated quadruple-digit number of events in the case, so that the phenomena that were more geographically distant could be a small minority, yet still involve a relatively large number. Events that were geographically distant from the house and/or the Hodgsons were reported from the earliest months of the case onward and continued for years.

The Rapid Succession Of Events

Near the beginning of a 2008 documentary on Enfield, Playfair refers to how "You just couldn't document everything in this case. I mean, things happening absolutely all the time." At a symposium of the Society for Psychical Research in 1978, he commented in response to one of his critics, "There have been times on this case when the things have been happening faster than we can write them down. You know, we're only human, you know. I mean, when you've got about four things happening in thirty seconds, what the hell are you supposed to do, you know? Will you tell me? Get up and tell me, you know? What do you do?" (MG83B, 35:28)

I want to cite an example I don't remember having seen anybody else mention publicly. On tape MG30A, John Burcombe discusses a visit he'd made to the Hodgsons' house on the evening of December 1, 1977 (5:37). As he was leaving the Hodgsons' house, he heard a knock on the front bay window. He went back into the house and asked what they wanted. They told him they hadn't knocked, but instead thought he was the one who had knocked on the window. So, he went back out the door. There was another knock on the window. He turned and saw Billy Hodgson looking out at him. He went back in the house, apparently not seeing Billy anywhere in the area, but he did see Janet lying on the couch in the living room, about 6 or 7 feet away from him. At that moment, Janet levitated up about 2 feet, "in a limp condition, not horizontal, but like something or somebody had been holding her", then was thrown across the room "at great speed" and hit the living room door, which then hit Burcombe and knocked him over. Burcombe's daughter, Denise, was present, standing behind him at the time, and confirmed what he reported. She adds that she was knocked back by the vibration caused by the throwing of Janet against the door, because the throwing "was so violent". Around the same time, Margaret was thrown out of her chair and onto the floor. My understanding is that Billy hadn't actually been knocking on the window just before Burcombe entered the house the second time. It seems that the poltergeist had produced a doppelganger of Billy on that occasion, as it had produced doppelgangers of other individuals in other contexts. So, it looks like the poltergeist produced knocking, a doppelganger, a levitation, and a couple of throwings (Janet and Margaret) in rapid succession. You can get some record of the general parameters of what happened during a sequence like that. Some people will see some portions of some events, and you can document some of the details. But there's only so much you can do when so many events occur in such a short a period of time. That's probably one of the reasons why the poltergeist behaved as it did. It knew nobody would be able to keep up with it.

Janet's Stomach Aches

I've occasionally discussed the premonitory headaches Peggy Hodgson experienced. Janet would sometimes report stomach aches she had around the time when paranormal events occurred (e.g., MG10B, 17:05; MG32B, 12:37; MG51B, 5:31). Though most of the comments about a stomach ache came from Janet, Margaret refers to having one just after a choking incident (with Janet being choked) at 43:19 on MG57A. So, it's not just that one person kept reporting stomach aches in coordination with paranormal events, but also that a second person reported the same kind of experience. These stomach aches may just be coincidental, but they happened often enough that I think they warrant mentioning. I'm not aware of any evidence that the stomach aches were premonitory or anything like that. And the evidence for their connection to paranormal events is much weaker than the evidence for a connection between paranormal events and Peggy's headaches. The stomach aches may be a part of how Janet's body (and Margaret's to a lesser extent) reacted to some of the poltergeist's activities.

0215C-2021 - Triablogue - How The Battersea And Enfield Cases Are Similar And Different

The BBC ran a series of podcasts on the Battersea Poltergeist earlier this year. It's gotten millions of streams and downloads and has been widely discussed, and a television series is under development. Comparisons between Battersea and Enfield came up periodically during the podcast series and have often been brought up elsewhere. I want to discuss how the two cases relate.

I've been studying Enfield extensively for a few years now, but I know much less about Battersea. I've read Shirley Hitchings and James Clark's The Poltergeist Prince Of London (Great Britain: The History Press, 2013) and some recent articles on the case, I've listened to the BBC series mentioned above, and I've watched some videos on the subject. Clark's book is good and is the best resource I'm aware of on the case. It had to have taken a lot of time and effort to sort through all of the material involved in such a large and complicated case and to present it so well. I recommend starting with Clark's book, then listening to the BBC series. The podcasts will be easier to follow if you have the background knowledge the book provides, and some of the material covered in the podcast series happened later than the timeframe the book covers.

Unless I indicate otherwise, references related to the Battersea case below will be to the approximate location in the Kindle version of Clark's book. I'll be citing some of Maurice Grosse and Guy Playfair's Enfield tapes. I'll designate Grosse's tapes with "MG" and Playfair's with "GP", so that MG23B is Grosse's tape 23B, GP90A is Playfair's tape 90A, and so on.

I'll briefly discuss what I think of the authenticity of the Battersea case, then address how Battersea and Enfield relate and make some miscellaneous comments about the BBC series on Battersea and other issues. To keep this post from being longer, much of what I'll be saying will be summaries of my conclusions. I can expand on the points I'll be making if anybody wants me to.

- Last year, I posted an article about how to judge the credibility of witnesses, focused on the Enfield case, and the principles I discussed there are applicable to Battersea. And there are other posts in our archives that address the evidential issues involved, in both paranormal and normal contexts. For a case to be paranormal, it only takes one event that seems likely to be genuine, but Battersea has many. The BBC series covers some of the better examples, like the events experienced by the journalist Joyce Lewis, but there's a lot more in Clark's book (e.g., in chapter 2). A paranormal explanation for the experiences of individuals like Joyce Lewis and Andrew Green seems far more likely than a normal one. And the Hitchings family and Harold Chibbett, the investigator of the case, are credible witnesses to varying degrees in a lot of contexts. For example, the poltergeist was detrimental to the health and finances of the father in the family, Wally Hitchings. He was demoted and received a pay cut at work because of the lack of sleep and other problems he was experiencing as a result of the poltergeist. Regarding Wally's efforts to rent out part of his house to raise his income, Clark writes, "A mixed-race couple had also made enquiries about the rooms but had left hastily when the ever-honest Wally told them about Donald [the poltergeist]….The upstairs rooms were still vacant because prospective tenants who called to view them quickly changed their minds when they learned about Donald, and Wally thought it only fair to warn them." (3290, 3625) Evelyn Hollow made some good points in response to skeptical objections during the BBC series, and I would make points about Battersea similar to those I've made about Enfield and in other contexts.

However, I want to make a distinction between the writing phenomena in the Battersea case and the non-writing phenomena. There were many of the latter, but a large percentage of the case consists of the former. And the writing phenomena are problematic in a lot of ways. The problems are discussed at length in Clark's book and in the BBC series. I'll have more to say about some of those problems below, but there's enough that I'm ignorant about, including some things that nobody seems to have resolved, to prevent me from reaching much of a conclusion about the poltergeist's alleged writings. There's a good chance that some of the information in the poltergeist's documents was obtained paranormally, as discussed periodically in Clark's book, but that can be distinguished from whether the letters themselves are paranormal. Paranormal knowledge can be expressed in normal letters. From what I know at this point, I have a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of doubt about the genuineness of the writing phenomena, and the large majority of the argument I'd make for the authenticity of the case would involve the non-writing events.

- And that raises the issue of fraud. To his credit, Danny Robins, the host of the BBC series, has said that he can't dismiss the paranormality of Battersea, despite the doubts that have been raised about it. None of the main participants in the BBC series seem to take an all-or-nothing approach, as if one instance of fraud would invalidate the entire case. As I explained in an article on fraud in the Enfield case last year, all of us accept a combination of the authentic and the inauthentic in many contexts in our everyday lives. No less a critic of Enfield than Anita Gregory referred to how it would be "crude" and "simplistic" to dismiss the entire case because some of it was found to be fraudulent. Similarly, when a skeptic of the paranormal like James Randi is found to be dishonest in a context like the Ted Serios case, we don't conclude that we therefore can't trust anything Randi said in any context. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Shirley Hitchings faked every document allegedly written by the Battersea poltergeist. Would that, by itself, overturn the testimony of individuals like Joyce Lewis and Andrew Green, the authenticity of events that occurred when Shirley wasn't around, etc.? No. Shirley's fraud would have some relevance in terms of demonstrating her willingness to fake things, the failure of some people to discern what she had done in some contexts, and so on. But other factors would still have to be considered before we dismissed the other events in the case.

- The longevity of the Battersea case is often mentioned, and it's sometimes suggested that Battersea lasted longer than Enfield. A lot depends on what you're comparing. The earliest paranormal event that's arguably connected to the Enfield case is an apparition that occurred during a Ouija board session Margaret Hodgson participated in in 1974. A variety of phenomena continued to be reported until just before the Bennetts moved out of the house in 2004. I'm not aware of any reports of activity since then, and a current occupant recently said there's no activity there any longer. Battersea is typically referred to as lasting from 1956 to 1968, but Shirley Hitchings has reported paranormal events related to the case that occurred in the late 1980s and within the last few years (all of which are discussed in the BBC series). If you classify those events after 1968 as ongoing activity in the case, then they extend the longevity of the case and illustrate how activity can cease for a while, then resume. If you accept one or more of the post-1968 events reported by Shirley as ongoing activity in the case, then Battersea is superior to Enfield in terms of spanning a larger number of years. But we shouldn't compare the timeframe for all Battersea events to the time when the Enfield case was at its height (typically thought of as August of 1977 until a little over a year later). That's an uneven comparison. Both cases have lasted a double-digit number of years and could resume in the future.

- The similarities between Battersea and Enfield make for an impressive list. Both occurred in the London area during the second half of the twentieth century. The poltergeist centered around an adolescent girl, one who was tested at the Maudsley Hospital and found to be physically and mentally healthy. The poltergeist lasted unusually long, was unusually communicative, and comes across as a highly immature chronic liar with mental problems. While the poltergeist differed from the adolescent girl at the center of the case in some significant ways, it also took on some of the characteristics of that girl and often acted in her interests. There are even parallels in some of the lesser details of the poltergeist's traits, such as a tendency to tell the family, dubiously, that he's protecting them from other spirits who want to harm them. The case was investigated by a man in his upper fifties who had served in the military, was married and had children, devoted an unusually large amount of time to working the case, and considered it the most important case he'd ever investigated. In both cases, one or more siblings of the parents in the family lived on the same street and sometimes helped the family. And so on. That's just a partial list of the similarities, and it's pretty impressive.

- But you have to take the differences into account as well, of course. People make much of the fact that Peggy Hodgson was divorced and the difficult nature of the family's background. There was nothing comparable in the Hitchings family. Shirley Hitchings and Janet Hodgson were both adolescent girls, but Shirley was 15, and Janet was 11. Four years doesn't make much of a difference later in life, but that sort of age difference typically is much more significant at that earlier stage. Grosse was the leader of a team of investigators, unlike Chibbett, who apparently worked alone. After Grosse started on Enfield in September of 1977, he was joined by Playfair the following week and by David Robertson in December of that year. John Hasted only visited the house once, but monitored the case and provided frequent help. That assistance Grosse received is significant. As he told Playfair in November of 1977, "Well, I mean, if you hadn't have come on the case, it would have been bloody awful for me, to say the least." (MG20Bi, 36:06) While Chibbett had a "long bus journey" (1794) to get to the Hitchings' house, Grosse lived closer to the Hodgsons. Though the two poltergeists were similar in some ways, they also differed substantially. While both claimed multiple identities, the Battersea poltergeist more consistently focused on one, his claim to be a member of eighteenth-century French royalty. The Enfield poltergeist changed its identity claims much more often, which was a large factor in preventing Grosse and the other members of his team from ever going to the lengths Chibbett went to in researching the poltergeist's claimed identity. And although both poltergeists were unusually communicative, there were significant differences in how they communicated. The Battersea entity apparently was much more verbose. He sometimes used a disembodied voice, but communicated through knocking and writing more often, especially writing. Though the Enfield entity also wrote to some extent, he did so much less. He communicated through knocking more than through writing, but communicated through knocking less than the Battersea entity did. The Enfield spirit seems to have communicated through a disembodied voice more than the Battersea spirit did, but the primary form of communication in the Enfield case was the embodied voice. I don't remember hearing of any instances of the Battersea entity communicating that way. And the embodied voice in the Enfield case manifested through all five members of the Hodgson family (and at least one dog, apparently), unlike the close association of the Battersea writings with one person, Shirley. Though the two poltergeists were similar in some of the details of their interests, behavior, and such, there were a lot of differences as well. For example, the Enfield entity apparently swore much more often, was much more misogynistic, and handled names differently (adopting the forms of address most often used by the people in the house, such as referring to Peggy Hodgson as "Mum" and Maurice Grosse as "Mr. Grosse"). Another example that stood out to me while reading Clark's book is the Battersea spirit's tendency to be unduly concerned about imagined dangers. He was frequently expressing concern about burglars outside the house, a plane crashing into the house, a chimney in the house collapsing, and so on. I don't recall a comparable tendency with the Enfield poltergeist. Etc. Again, this is just a partial list, but, like the list of similarities between the cases, it's impressive.

- I referred to how the poltergeist in both cases comes across as a highly immature chronic liar with mental problems. For more about how much precedent we have for such characteristics in poltergeists and in other paranormal contexts, see the section titled "How Much Precedent Is There For Such A Voice?" in my article here.

- Fraud hypotheses often focus on children as the primary or sole suspects. There were four children in the Hodgson family, but only one among the Hitchings. Some events couldn't be faked without more than one person or would be much easier to fake with more than one. Arguments for fraud are harder to make in the Battersea case accordingly.

- One of the most important differences between the cases is the triple-digit number of hours of audio tapes we have for Enfield, including recordings of many purportedly paranormal events and interviews with witnesses, often shortly after the time of the event in question. The tapes contain an enormous amount of information, as my Enfield posts reflect. The tapes are valuable in many contexts: knowing what people said; when they said it; making judgments about their sincerity and other characteristics of their behavior; measuring the speed with which events occurred, since unusually high speed is often a trait of poltergeist activity; measuring the acoustic properties of knocking; etc. The BBC's Battersea series consists largely of dramatizations. You could fill up such a series many times over using nothing other than the Enfield tapes.

- And we have much more information about the Enfield house and its surrounding neighborhood in some significant ways. A floor plan of the Hodgsons' house was published in the first edition of Playfair's book. I think far more photographs have been released to the public for Enfield than for Battersea. We have a lot of video footage of much of the Hodgsons' house and neighborhood, and new videos are regularly uploaded to YouTube. The original Battersea house was demolished long ago, but the Hodgsons' house is still standing. The environment in which poltergeist activity occurs is significant in many contexts, so there's significance in these differences in the information we have about the environment involved in each case.

- I've kept a list of people credibly reported to have witnessed one or more supposedly paranormal events in the Enfield case (a list that's admittedly debatable in some significant ways). My estimate is that there's a low triple-digit number of such witnesses. I don't know how many witnesses there are for Battersea. I suspect the number is at least in the upper double digits, and it could easily be a triple-digit number.

- It seems that the Hodgsons got much more help from the Burcombes and Nottinghams than the Hitchings got from their relatives and neighbors. That sort of additional help isn't just beneficial to the family experiencing the poltergeist, but also adds to the evidence for the case, since there's a larger number and variety of witnesses to the phenomena accordingly.

- The Hitchings had a phone in their home. The Hodgsons didn't. I haven't thought much about the advantages and disadvantages of each situation, and I don't know which was better on balance.

- Something that impressed me about the Battersea case, and which comes across much more in Clark's book than in the BBC series, is the prominence of events involving fire. There were such events in the Enfield case, especially in February of 1978, but they were far less prominent in Enfield than in Battersea. The Battersea entity frequently threatened to start fires and warned of (supposed) other spirits starting them, and fires often did occur. And that began taking place early in the case. There's a lot of evidential significance to the prominence of fires, which I don't recall hearing anybody address adequately when discussing Battersea. If you read my article on the Enfield fires linked above, there's some discussion there of how fires would have worked against the family's interests in a series of ways and how fire episodes would motivate people to watch more closely for fraud (e.g., neighbors who were concerned about their own houses catching on fire). As John Burcombe mentioned in the aftermath of one of the fire episodes in the Enfield case, "There was some tension in the room, because fire is a nasty thing" (MG92A, 2:59). The testimony of so many family members, relatives, neighbors, and other witnesses in the Battersea case in support of its paranormality and their lack of detection of fraud are more significant accordingly.

- Another difference between the two poltergeists that I noticed while reading Clark's book is that the entity in the Enfield case seemed to know more about how to operate machinery and seems to have done so much more often. I posted an article on those aspects of Enfield earlier this year. Clark refers to how the Hitchings would sometimes shut off the electricity to their house to prevent the poltergeist from starting fires. It seems to have taken a while for the poltergeist to figure out how to get the electricity back on, though it eventually did. And I don't recall other instances of the Battersea poltergeist showing significant knowledge about such matters, though I could easily be overlooking one or more episodes. Something that makes the poltergeist's lack of involvement in such activities more striking is how appropriate its interference with machinery would have been in some contexts in which it doesn't seem to have behaved that way. The Enfield poltergeist frequently interfered with cameras and other equipment used by members of the media who were covering the case. And the Battersea poltergeist was highly antagonistic toward some members of the media, probably much more than the Enfield poltergeist was. The Battersea entity kept making negative comments about certain reporters, threatening to harm them, demanding that they be brought to the house, etc. Maybe the poltergeist interfered with cameras or other media equipment on occasions I haven't heard about, and maybe I've forgotten one or more occasions I did come across. But it seems that the Battersea entity was at least much less involved in such behavior than the Enfield entity was, despite the fact that the former apparently was more angry at the media than the latter. That contrast provides an illustration of how one poltergeist can differ from another, and it offers evidence against the common notion that poltergeist activity has been the same across the centuries. See my article linked above for more about the subject.

- The BBC series on Battersea mentions that the Hitchings had a cat who reacted to the poltergeist. Clark's book mentions that some dogs reacted to it (3751). It's noteworthy that Clark refers to two dogs and refers to their reacting in the same manner. There were incidents involving animals in the Enfield case as well, including ones involving dogs.

- If you begin listening at 14:37 in the final episode of the BBC series on Battersea, you'll hear Deborah Hyde and Ciaran O'Keeffe discussing their doubts about the case with Danny Robins. The issue of levitations comes up. I think there were some authentic levitations in the Battersea case, but the ones I've heard about are far fewer in number than those in the Enfield case and significantly lower in quality than the best Enfield ones. See the article just linked for further details.

- Unless you include one or more of Shirley's post-1968 experiences as instances of apparitions, I don't recall the involvement of any in the Battersea case. There were many apparitions at Enfield.

- In one of the final episodes of the BBC series, a handwriting expert said that she concluded that Shirley's handwriting matches the alleged handwriting of the poltergeist after examining two letters written on the same day, one by Shirley and one allegedly by the poltergeist. I don't know much about that handwriting expert or the reliability of handwriting analysis more broadly. Clark's book mentions that other individuals (not experts in the field, apparently) had made such handwriting comparisons in previous years and had reached differing conclusions. From the photos and descriptions I've seen, it seems that the writing style in the alleged poltergeist documents differed substantially from one document to another. See my article on writing incidents in the Enfield case for a discussion of how writing styles varied in that case as well and the evidential significance of that variation. Something the BBC series on Battersea doesn't mention, as far as I recall, is that Clark reports in his book that one of the poltergeist's documents suggested that it produced those documents through Shirley (3065). Yet, Shirley has denied that she had that sort of mediumistic role. In the BBC series, she goes as far as to say that her mother was monitoring her too much for her to have had enough opportunity to produce the documents, and she mentions that she was sometimes away when the documents appeared. I don't know how much research has been done to examine such claims. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that every document was written in Shirley's writing style. How much reason do we have to conclude that a poltergeist wouldn't do that? Poltergeist behavior is often parasitic in other contexts. Poltergeists are often thought to be manifestations of the mind of one or more living individuals, so how would the use of Shirley's handwriting be problematic under that scenario? There's also the issue of how the poltergeist could have used Shirley as an instrument without her knowing it, such as at nighttime or periodically at other times of the day, then delivered the letters whenever he wanted to. We shouldn't assume that the documents are paranormal without evidence. But there is a good chance that some of the information in the documents (though not much) was obtained in a paranormal manner, as I mentioned earlier in this article, and the BBC series didn't address some of the relevant evidence and explanatory options. It seems that more work needs to be done on the subject, though I could easily be ignorant of such work that's already been done.

- In a post last year, I discussed some phenomena in the Enfield case that I referred to as involving unknown precedent. The event in question has precedent in one or more previous paranormal cases, but that precedent is unknown to the people involved in the event. You can read the post just linked for more information on the subject. One example I discussed there was a sense of a cat lying on your feet. Alan Gauld and A.D. Cornell referred to a woman who reported "a feeling as if a cat were curling round her feet" in a haunting case that occurred in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (Poltergeists [United States: White Crow Books, 2017], approximate Kindle location 3236). Similarly, in the Enfield case, Peggy Hodgson reported experiencing a sensation like a cat sitting on her feet and the bottom of her legs (GP5A, 4:44, especially 5:59): "a cat sitting on you…on your feet, [unintelligible] your legs". And I noticed that Clark's book on the Battersea case cites a journal entry from Shirley Hitchings in which she refers to how "We felt something lying across our feet." (287) It would be good to know if Shirley or anybody else involved ever associated the feeling with having a cat or some similar animal lying on you. Even if they didn't think of the feeling that way, there's enough similarity for it to be significant. That sort of connection with other paranormal cases, a connection a hoaxer would be unlikely to have thought of, adds to the credibility of Battersea.

- Janet and Margaret Hodgson have admitted that some of the Enfield events were inauthentic, Janet estimating the number at 2 percent. I'm not aware of any such admission from Shirley Hitchings. Something that often gets overlooked or underestimated in this context is that so many other witnesses in both cases have lived for decades, and many have died now, without retracting their claims to have witnessed paranormal events. And many of those events occurred without the Hodgson or Hitchings children having been present or with their being present, but apparently without any normal means of producing the events. The stability of the witness testimony over time is impressive in both cases.

- There's been a widespread and steady stream of analysis of the Enfield case by both paranormal researchers and the public since the case started. That includes many people who have been antagonistic toward the case, among them such prominent paranormal researchers as Tony Cornell and John Beloff. Anita Gregory not only visited the Hodgsons' house several times over several months and wrote publicly against the case, but even included a large section on it in her doctoral thesis. As I argued in a post last year, it seems that some paranormal events occurred while skeptics of the case were visiting the house, sometimes right in front of them. I'm not aware of a comparable situation with Battersea. I don't know of any Battersea equivalent of, say, Gregory's doctoral thesis, the Enfield committee report of the Society for Psychical Research (SPR), the tapes we have for Milbourne Christopher's visit to the Hodgsons' house, or the widespread discussions of Enfield that have been occurring for decades. Battersea seems to have been subjected to much less scrutiny in some significant ways, and there seems to be a smaller amount of hostile corroboration for Battersea than there is for Enfield.

- More should be said about Deborah Hyde's skepticism of the Battersea case. She appeared on the final episode of the BBC's series. And she later wrote an article about her skepticism of the case. She refers to how much similarity she sees between Battersea and Enfield. I wrote a response to Hyde's claims about Enfield a few years ago. That was before I'd listened to Grosse and Playfair's tapes, read the SPR's committee report on the case, and done some other research that's given me further reason to conclude that Hyde's view of Enfield is wrong. And there's now a YouTube video available to the public that features a portion of an episode in the Enfield case that Hyde dismissed as sleep paralysis. (You'll hear an audio recording of the event, taped by Grosse. There is no video footage of it.) For a link to that video and a discussion of its significance, see here. Listen to the audio, read my comments on it, and ask yourself if it's reasonable to identify what you heard as an episode of sleep paralysis.

Hyde begins her comments on Battersea by saying that the television was the only object in the home that wasn't harmed in some way by the poltergeist. She suggests that Shirley wouldn't have wanted the television harmed and that its not being harmed is evidence for her being behind the alleged poltergeist activities. That take on the Battersea case should sound familiar to those who have read a 2015 article by Hyde expressing skepticism about Enfield. In that article, she wrote:

See the section titled "Was The Television Undisturbed?" here for documentation that Hyde is incorrect about this issue. As I explain there, not only was the television disturbed or in a lot of danger of being damaged on multiple occasions during the Enfield case, but the poltergeist also did many other things that were against the interests of Janet (the person closest to an Enfield equivalent of Shirley) and the other people most involved in the poltergeist.

Besides, even if Hyde were right about the television not being disturbed (she's wrong about Enfield, and I don't know whether she's right about Battersea), that wouldn't do much to suggest the inauthenticity of the case. Though the public seems to usually view poltergeists as either ghostly or demonic, my sense is that the most popular view among researchers who accept the paranormality of poltergeists is that they're manifestations of the mind of one or more living humans. And people often combine these views in various ways, combining a ghostly element and paranormal activity directed by a living human, for example. Or they suggest some other combination. So, the Battersea poltergeist could reflect Shirley's mind while being genuinely paranormal. And even a ghost or demon or some other entity who's not a living human could want to accommodate a living human for one reason or another (e.g., liking the person, as the Battersea poltergeist apparently liked Shirley to some extent). As Clark's book mentions, the poltergeist in the Battersea case said that it liked watching some of the programs the family watched on television. I wouldn't accept Hyde's claim that the television was the only object not damaged in the Hitchings' house just because Hyde says so, and the claim doesn't have as much significance as she suggests even if it's true.

A lot more could be said about problems with Hyde's analysis of both cases, but I'll leave it at that for now.

- Late in the last program in the BBC's Battersea series (54:45), Robins brings up the issue of whether there's been more recent poltergeist activity and the common objection that modern technology would show poltergeist cases to be fraudulent. It seems that an objection that many people have in mind is that poltergeist activity supposedly hasn't been caught on video. But we do have video footage of poltergeist activity. See here regarding a case in Australia in 1998, for example. See my article here concerning video footage of paranormal activity more broadly. We have a lot. I discuss Enfield and video footage of its events near the end of that article.

In conclusion, I think Enfield is more significant than Battersea overall, though Battersea is superior in some ways, is a highly significant case, and should be studied much more than it has been. If you're interested in studying it, I recommend reading James Clark's book and listening to Danny Robins' BBC series.

Source: https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2021/07/how-battersea-and-enfield-cases-are.html

0215C-1977 - The Enfield Poltergeist - Bill Wilkins - First Appearance

BW: My name is Bill Wilkinson.

MG: 'You're dead; didn't you know?

BW: Yes. I come from out the grave.

MG: You come from out the grave?

BW: Yes, In Durant's Park.

'It began to speak in bursts, as if with some effort, one or two syllables at a time.

'MY - NAME - IS - BILL - WILKINSON - AND - I - COME - FROM - DURRANT'S - PARK - AND - I - AM - SEVENTY - TWO - YEARS - OLD - AND - I - HAVE - COME - HERE - TO - SEE - MY - FAMILY - BUT - THEY - ARE - NOT - HERE - NOW.'

'I DIED 15 YEARS AGO'

'What happened when you died?

'I WENT BLIND, AND I HAD A HAEMORRHAGE, AND I FELL ASLEEP AND I DIED ON A CHAIR IN THE CORNER DOWNSTAIRS,'

Source: https://www.xenophon.org.uk/billwilkins.html

0215A-1977 - The Enfield Poltergeist - Voice Transcripts

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse