• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Enfield Poltergeist

I don't think the fact the girls faked some stuff does necessarily detract from the whole story. I think in that situation, you'd want to convince people. (Some element of that to Cottingley, too?). But also, these were kids in a stressful family situation, not two pennies to rub together, and there's an element of enjoying the limelight, to some extent too. Even so - how do we account for other witnesses, like police officers and the passerby who saw what appeared to be Janet, levitating?

I think it's complex and it doesn't really mean the whole thing is untrue (or wasn't true in their heads), when some elements have been known to have been faked, for years.

The gravestone thing doesn't really matter, it's just a tangent. Like Cottingley, it's possible that there's an element to it that those involved totally believed to be true, as well as a larger element of things faked to convince others.
 
Maybe it's a sort of sliding scale of unconscious to conscious action.

(I'm coming from the standpoint that I am inclined to believe, of course! We've got many many poltergeist cases where people swear things are going on that can't be explained by someone faking it... can all of those witnesses be wrong? some of them were there with the intention to investigate thoroughly and show it wasn't 'supernatural'. So just assuming that poltergeists are a Thing...)

that if often or usually there's someone at the centre of the phenomena, or at the centre of suspicion at least, they would soon come to realise they themselves were involved. I wonder if they're just going to sit there passively and let things happen. Or whether after a while they would try to interact with and influence what was going on.

But also, if people come deliberately to see what's going on, and things are a bit quiet... well you might be inclined to help things along a bit. Especially if that was the most dramatic and interesting thing that had happened where you lived. It's not exactly mundane everyday life.
 
Ghost In The Machine said:
I don't think the fact the girls faked some stuff does necessarily detract from the whole story. I think in that situation, you'd want to convince people. (Some element of that to Cottingley, too?). But also, these were kids in a stressful family situation, not two pennies to rub together, and there's an element of enjoying the limelight, to some extent too. Even so - how do we account for other witnesses, like police officers and the passerby who saw what appeared to be Janet, levitating?

I think it's complex and it doesn't really mean the whole thing is untrue (or wasn't true in their heads), when some elements have been known to have been faked, for years.

The gravestone thing doesn't really matter, it's just a tangent. Like Cottingley, it's possible that there's an element to it that those involved totally believed to be true, as well as a larger element of things faked to convince others.
Click to expand...
By all accounts the passerby who saw the levitation was deeply affected by what they saw. However, the big “but” is that they could only see through the window and not the walls and exactly how clear was their view? As a rule you can only see what is close to the window itself, especially when looking up at an angle from the ground to the first floor.

I am not saying I don’t believe levitation took place, however has anyone ever tried to replicate the view these witnesses had so as to rule out trickery…?

Personally, I have some reservations about the girl grinning broadly for the camera as she apparently “channels” the voice of a dead man through her throat and without any sign of distress. It seems just a big joke for her. However, this does not discount the poltergeist activity that was witnessed by some many people.
 
WeirdExeter said:
By all accounts the passerby who saw the levitation was deeply affected by what they saw. However, the big “but” is that they could only see through the window and not the walls and exactly how clear was their view? As a rule you can only see what is close to the window itself, especially when looking up at an angle from the ground to the first floor.

I am not saying I don’t believe levitation took place, however has anyone ever tried to replicate the view these witnesses had so as to rule out trickery…?

Personally, I have some reservations about the girl grinning broadly for the camera as she apparently “channels” the voice of a dead man through her throat and without any sign of distress. It seems just a big joke for her. However, this does not discount the poltergeist activity that was witnessed by some many people.
Click to expand...
Yes, agree with you about wondering how clear the passerby's view was. The police officer who seems to have had some pretty clear cut experiences is maybe more convincing, but I wouldn't discount the passerby, either.
 
Ghost In The Machine said:
Yes, agree with you about wondering how clear the passerby's view was. The police officer who seems to have had some pretty clear cut experiences is maybe more convincing, but I wouldn't discount the passerby, either.
Click to expand...
There is a photo of the house from ground level in this article:

https://www.horrifiedmagazine.co.uk/other/the-enfield-poltergeist/

The windows upstairs aren’t that large and also partly obscured by the inset windowsill. Can it be ruled out that, for example, she didn’t wedge herself into the inner frame to give the appearance of ‘floating’ to a passerby looking up from ground level. After all, the photos of her ‘levitating’ around the bedroom are pretty unconvincing and many commentators believe she was simply jumping around for the camera that would then catch her in mid-air.

I don’t wish to take away from the impact witnessing the levitation had on these two external witnesses but before it can be claimed to be the poltergeist spirit of a deceased former inhabitant of the house you have to rule out trickery and fakery and childish pranks.
 
Last edited:
I, rather cautiously, think that poltergeists are internal energy that somehow, through a medium we don't yet understand, can occasionally become external. Like PK, but uncontrolled and without the knowledge of the person manifesting it (so unconscious). So I can absolutely see how a family subjected to 'odd noises' and moving furniture, would try to ascribe it to 'a ghost'.

But if it only occasionally happens, and isn't under any control, there must be a huge temptation (because you know it DOES happen), to try to 'prove' it to others, to make them understand what you are going through, and also maybe to try to impose an element of control over things. And in those cases I can see how fraud would start to creep in. And the 'voices' are an attempt to give some kind of personality to something that you don't understand - because it's easier to relate to a 'something haunting the house' than random bursts of energy that have no sentience.
 
catseye said:
I, rather cautiously, think that poltergeists are internal energy that somehow, through a medium we don't yet understand, can occasionally become external. Like PK, but uncontrolled and without the knowledge of the person manifesting it (so unconscious). So I can absolutely see how a family subjected to 'odd noises' and moving furniture, would try to ascribe it to 'a ghost'.

But if it only occasionally happens, and isn't under any control, there must be a huge temptation (because you know it DOES happen), to try to 'prove' it to others, to make them understand what you are going through, and also maybe to try to impose an element of control over things. And in those cases I can see how fraud would start to creep in. And the 'voices' are an attempt to give some kind of personality to something that you don't understand - because it's easier to relate to a 'something haunting the house' than random bursts of energy that have no sentience.
Click to expand...
I'm honestly not trying to turn that point of view into a crude sexual thing for laughs but I think, from what I've studied so far? .. I think PK is a crude sexual think that's already been identified as .. it happens to/around kids starting puberty to that makes it an especially awkward thing to talk about, especially in the current climate ..
 
Swifty said:
I'm honestly not trying to turn that point of view into a crude sexual thing for laughs but I think, from what I've studied so far? .. I think PK is a crude sexual think that's already been identified as .. it happens to/around kids starting puberty to that makes it an especially awkward thing to talk about, especially in the current climate ..
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't a form of sexual frustration - starting at puberty would be the giveaway for that - that becomes outwardly manifested. Sort of like suddenly finding yourself with a whole 'other' form of frustrations and not knowing what to do with that energy could perhaps cause a part of the personality to almost separate and become an independent entity?
 
Not 100% on this but there’s a program coming up on Blaze I think called Mom it looks to me in a very short trailer to be based on the Enfield Poltergeist I will try to catch it again and post if not on Blaze then The Horror channel only got a flash of it.

Right it's called
MAMA

Thursday 21st April at 9.00 PM

and on the Horror channel though after looking at the trailer it's likely not
anything to do with the Enfield Poltergeist.
 
Last edited:
Swifty said:

Catherine Tate to star in West End play about 1970s Enfield poltergeist​

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/catherine-tate-to-star-in-west-end-play-about-1970s-enfield-poltergeist/ar-AA1dO4Eo?cvid=e927214ef5fb4f49b422034d0e7a46ce&ei=
Click to expand...

Well done Swifty old boy.

I’m looking into tickets as I’m typing this. Last west end play we had tickets for was only fools & horses, but due to a fire on the M11, we couldn’t get into London on time and missed the show.

Gutted, it was my birthday treat as well :mad:

Thanks mate
 
Dick Turpin said:
Well done Swifty old boy.

I’m looking into tickets as I’m typing this. Last west end play we had tickets for was only fools & horses, but due to a fire on the M11, we couldn’t get into London on time and missed the show.

Gutted, it was my birthday treat as well :mad:

Thanks mate
Click to expand...
No worries DT and I envy you, I hope you have a good night and please write us a review here Sir.


edit, more info: https://www.aol.co.uk/catherine-tat...0ngg--lrSBIjETmEflt-1zlvxrQEqF8Ifz15i6d_BzzUs
 
Last edited:
escargot said:
My personal take is that liars are always liars and after I catch them at it, nothing they say can be trusted. I've said all this before.
Click to expand...
Sadly I have to agree. I am still puzzled as to why all the focus was on these two girls and the two other children are hardly mentioned. In fact, how many people who know of this case are even aware there were two other children in the house? This opens up the possibility that the two other children were hurling/catapulting lego bricks etc from the top of the stairs whilst all the focus was on those downstairs. I also can't get over how the girl is grinning whilst the poltergeist apparently take possession of her vocal cords - she should be traumatised at the very least. Also, the evidence for the levitations is thin at best and and you had all this investigated by a man who had lost his daughter and was desperate to prove life after death.

What you have is a girl who can use her false vocal cords to 'throw' the voice of an old man and the knowledge that an old man died in the house. The actual footage of her doing this is minimal in comparison to the claims made. Back in the 1970s/'80s we as children knew everything that had happened in our local area or it is possible she had overheard the adults talking about the deceased. Also, you can't discount that Playfair himself had found about about the old man and mentioned this to her in the form of a question when she was channelling him, for example: "Are you the old man who died in this house?". Then you have some larking around in the bedroom. I mean seriously, that you stick a camera in the bedroom of two children and they don't mess around would be more surprising.

I am not a total skeptic as regards poltergeist activity by any means and have experienced some myself in two different settings. But I am skeptical of poltergeist activity when it becomes a media circus and indeed a 'celebrity' with young children involved and being manipulated by adults desperate for evidence of life after death.
 
escargot said:
My personal take is that liars are always liars and after I catch them at it, nothing they say can be trusted. I've said all this before.
Click to expand...
I feel like life is more complex than that. And there's a definite phenomenon of people sometimes making stuff up to convince people to take them seriously and I can see that happening. Also, they were only kids and kids do lie about stuff, sometimes for good reason, sometimes not. It doesn't make everything else they ever say or do invalid.

This case is interesting because it has another aspect to it. These were working class kids, the poorest of the poor with almost nothing - descended on by all these well-off and well meaning people, trying to "solve' their problems - peak 1970s, in some way. All sorts of things going on, as well as the notoriety of the case, the attention they got which in itself will have changed the narrative. And as Paul_Exeter says, also driven by people desperate to prove life after death. It's almost a perfect storm of different layers of society, different personalities, different motives people had - which is also why it's so compelling.

FWIW, I ended up thinking there were (possibly) elements of truth to the story but the whole thing got out of hand and the kids possibly lying, and making stuff up, was maybe an understandable reaction to all these people descending on the house and the attention they got. If they'd been "nice" little middle class kids in a neat semi they'd have been cut more slack, maybe - or not felt the need to escalate things. Because they'd have been taken more seriously. So I would be open to believing in some aspects of it but not others.

It's such a great story because it's got everything as a story.
 
Last edited:
Ghost In The Machine said:
I feel like life is more complex than that. And there's a definite phenomenon of people sometimes making stuff up to convince people to take them seriously and I can see that happening. Also, they were only kids and kids do lie about stuff, sometimes for good reason, sometimes not. It doesn't make everything else they ever say or do invalid.

This case is interesting because it has another aspect to it. These were working class kids, the poorest of the poor with almost nothing - descended on by all these well-off and well meaning people, trying to "solve' their problems - peak 1970s, in some way. All sorts of things going on, as well as the notoriety of the case, the attention they got which in itself will have changed the narrative. And as Paul_Exeter says, also driven by people desperate to prove life after death. It's almost a perfect storm of different layers of society, different personalities, different motives people had - which is also why it's so compelling.

FWIW, I ended up thinking there were (possibly) elements of truth to the story but the whole thing got out of hand and the kids possibly lying, and making stuff up, was maybe an understandable reaction to all these people descending on the house and the attention they got. If they'd been "nice" little middle class kids in a neat semi they'd have been cut more slack, maybe - or not felt the need to escalate things. Because they'd have been taken more seriously. So I would be open to believing in some aspects of it but not others.

It's such a great story because it's got everything as a story.
Click to expand...
Great post.

There was also the issue of the adult male researchers placing cameras and even spending nights in the young girl's bedroom that would frankly never been allowed today. I agree that there may have been some classic poltergeist activity begin with but by today's standards the intrusive research methods and lack of safeguarding are quite shocking. If that girl was genuinely channelling the deceased old man - or believed she was doing so when she was unctuously faking it - then she needed psychiatric care and not to be paraded in front of the media.

I've often felt Playfair wanted to present as much evidence as possible to validate his beliefs but without involving potential skeptics, such as a university, who might have had access to state-of-the-art camera equipment, been able to rig up the whole house with recording devices and sensors etc. and also test the girl under laboratory conditions.
 
Yes. I think the recent-ish drama with Timothy Spall did quite a good job of it because you saw his character and Playfair's motives pretty clearly - and as a jobbing writer, I really get that pull of the story and at the same time, how uncomfortable it is essentially exploiting someone's life to get to that story, so it is complex.

Never thought before about that aspect re. the middle aged men filming kids and you're right it wouldn't fly (sorry) now. 70s' was so innocent in some ways and so not innocent in others. Janet definitely needed more help and support than I think she got - not her mum's fault, by any means just the general 70s' ambient music of kids not being believed. Especially working class kids.
 
The Battersea poltergeist is in many ways a stronger case with more witnesses and has been discussed at length here, especially following Danny's R4 dramatisation. There is certainly strong evidence from witnesses that classic poltergeist activity took place in the form of knocks/rapping and objects being thrown etc. Yet it too descends into borderline farce, outlandish claims and 'proof' for a deceased individual who is the spirit creating all the chaos. Yet the actual, solid evidence from all of this escalation is little to nothing and is symptomatic of a young person's imagination getting the better of them when the focus of sustained attention (especially in an age when children were told to be seen and not heard). The only other alternative are either the poltergeist working itself into a frenzy or the adults are. I would be open to it being the poltergeist if there was a more evidence for the more outlandish claims from the latter stages of these cases.
 
Going back to the Enfield case, I had forgotten another aspect of the case that is also rather disturbing from a 21st Century viewpoint and safeguarding:

"The spirit of an old man, Bill, who possessed Janet, was obsessed with periods​

‘When Janet was supposedly possessed by spirit of an old man, he took a lot of interest in menstruation. That’s not something you expect an old man to be interested in. But a young girl? Well yes. There are so many question marks hanging over the case.’"

https://www.timeout.com/london/blog...most-famous-poltergeist-case-is-a-hoax-061616

However, puberty in girls (and thus menstruation) as a precursor for poltergeist activity was a belief held by Playfair and many other Forteans of that age (and indeed nowadays, too). I do feel this is more evidence for Playfair in some way feeding her the information that 'Bill' then reveals through her.
 
Don’t they all end in farce and accusations? It seems as people become aware of the cases the phenomena is starting to tail off, Playfair was an excellent writer his books on the Paranormal in Brazil are brilliant, I’ve read about the Enfield case a few times something went on but to what extent we will never know
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top