Enfield Poltergeist

Courtesy of the SPR Facebook page, here's a summary of information about William Wilkins, the former occupant of the allegedly poltergeist-infested house in Enfield, who has been identified as the "Bill Wilkins" who purportedly spoke through one of the children:
http://www.xenophon.org.uk/billwilkins.html

"Bill Wilkins" said he had come out of a grave in Durant's Park, was 72, and had died of a haemorrhage after going blind - he had fallen asleep and died on a chair in the corner downstairs.

Apparently Maurice Grosse was approached nearly 20 years later by William Wilkins's son Terry, who confirmed that "his father had died in the house many years earlier in the circumstances that Janet’s ‘voice’ had described" (thus according to the Psi Encyclopaedia). 

Judging from online sources, it seems to be widely accepted that Wilkins did die in the way described. But according to the death certificate (which Grosse did apparently obtain), in fact he died he died of a coronary thrombosis, not a haemorrhage. That is the only cause of death stated, so there is no indication of any other condition that would have caused blindness. He died at the age of 61, not 72. And he was buried not in the cemetery adjacent to Durant's Park, but in Lavender Hill Cemetery, three miles away.

It seems very surprising that the investigators didn't check for themselves whether anyone named Wilkins had previously lived in the house (Mrs Wilkins was the immediate predecessor of the family troubled by the poltergeist). It's also unfortunate that when this did come to light, the impression was given that the circumstances matched what had been said by "Bill Wilkins".

Courtesy of the SPR Facebook page, here's a summary of information about William Wilkins, the former occupant of the allegedly poltergeist-infested house in Enfield, who has been identified as the "Bill Wilkins" who purportedly spoke through one of the children:
http://www.xenophon.org.uk/billwilkins.html

"Bill Wilkins" said he had come out of a grave in Durant's Park, was 72, and had died of a haemorrhage after going blind - he had fallen asleep and died on a chair in the corner downstairs.

Apparently Maurice Grosse was approached nearly 20 years later by William Wilkins's son Terry, who confirmed that "his father had died in the house many years earlier in the circumstances that Janet’s ‘voice’ had described" (thus according to the Psi Encyclopaedia). 

Judging from online sources, it seems to be widely accepted that Wilkins did die in the way described. But according to the death certificate (which Grosse did apparently obtain), in fact he died he died of a coronary thrombosis, not a haemorrhage. That is the only cause of death stated, so there is no indication of any other condition that would have caused blindness. He died at the age of 61, not 72. And he was buried not in the cemetery adjacent to Durant's Park, but in Lavender Hill Cemetery, three miles away.

It seems very surprising that the investigators didn't check for themselves whether anyone named Wilkins had previously lived in the house (Mrs Wilkins was the immediate predecessor of the family troubled by the poltergeist). It's also unfortunate that when this did come to light, the impression was given that the circumstances matched what had been said by "Bill Wilkins".

Anyway you slice it, it seems problematic. That a young  girl would have some but not all of the facts correct is odd. 
I dont want to go to far into apologetics. But veracity and poltergeists .......?

Anyway you slice it, it seems problematic. That a young  girl would have some but not all of the facts correct is odd. 
I dont want to go to far into apologetics. But veracity and poltergeists .......?

I think the only facts we know she had correct were the name of the previous tenant and the fact he had died in the house (which had happened 14 years earlier). It doesn't seem too difficult to believe she could have picked up that information from neighbours.

It might though be taken into account that the cause of death as recorded on a death certificate may frequently state 'heart failure' or similar, when in fact there were one or more other conditions which were the 'real' cause. We should not rely on such a document to tell us anything particularly useful, to the contrary, it may often be misleading.

[Ninshub]

Reporter on the case back at the time, and witness, Roz Morris, has recently been interviewed on a couple of podcasts about the case (the Coast to Coast one is partial).

Here's a review for the SPR by Nemo C. Morck of a recent book entitled "The Enfield Poltergeist Tapes: One of the most disturbing cases in history. What really happened," by Melvyn J. Willin:
https://www.spr.ac.uk/book-review/enfiel...ned-melvyn

Always been fascinated by this phenomenon.  Listened to a couple podcasts recently about this new book and the case in general.

I keep thinking.... all it needs is for the moving of an object in an obvious and gross manner as to flip what is known about physics all up on its head.
I do believe that has happened not only once, but an innumerable times through history already. And that its happening in this universe, there's got to be some unknown physics behind it all.

As far as kids caught faking, if I imagine placing my young self in such a situation and  becoming friendly and comfortable with any researchers involved, I could see having a bit of a laugh 'faking' stuff.

Here's a review for the SPR by Nemo C. Morck of a recent book entitled "The Enfield Poltergeist Tapes: One of the most disturbing cases in history. What really happened," by Melvyn J. Willin:
https://www.spr.ac.uk/book-review/enfiel...ned-melvyn

Here is Tom Ruffles's take on the book, in a post at his blog "The Joy of Mere Words":
https://tomruffles.wordpress.com/2019/11...-j-willin/

The review ends on an equivocal note:
Is it then ‘one of the most disturbing cases in history’, as Willin’s subtitle indicates?  Personally, while one can sympathise with the stresses in the home, I am not sure it is disturbing for the reader, though there are other epithets which could be applied, such as ‘weird’ and ‘over-hyped’.  Now the principal investigators are both dead and the threat of litigation no longer held over critics, perhaps we will be able to read the unpublished reports compiled by Tony Cornell and Anita Gregory, possibly allowing for a more balanced assessment.  One suspects though that after so long, Enfield will retreat ever-further into myth, leaving the truth unresolved.

Courtesy of the SPR Facebook page - Jason Engwer has a blog post entitled "The Quality Of The Initial Enfield Investigation" at Triablogue:
https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2020/03/...field.html

[Laird]

Courtesy of the SPR Facebook page is the article by Jason Engwer over at Triablogue: How Much Of The Enfield Case Was Faked?

(I haven't yet read much of this blog post so am posting it mainly on the SPR's implied recommendation)