Recently I came across the website of ‘Psychic Science’, subtitled ‘Explore psychic abilities & the paranormal with Michael Daniels PhD’. On it is a page devoted to ‘Notable Modern Poltergeist Cases’ (modern being after 1960). Most of these are obvious, if a highly selective assortment: Sauchie, Enfield, Rosenheim, Matthew Manning, plus a few less-well known cases, a couple investigated by William Roll, one from Brazil. The final one is ‘The Brother Doli Case (1997-2002)’, which was investigated by none other than Michael Daniels himself. He wrote it up in some detail, heavily illustrated, in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research in 2002.
The events took
place near Mold, North Wales, at the home of David and Rose-Mary Gower. Living with them was their adopted son
John-Paul, born in 1985, who had Down’s Syndrome. As the ‘Notable Modern Poltergeist Cases’
entry describes it, the phenomena consisted of a variety of aspects:
‘Large numbers of stains and carvings of images and
Welsh words, generally of a religious nature, inside and outside the house.
Intrusions of Welsh religious words in emails, computer files and printed
documents. Noises. Strange smells. Temperature fluctuations. Pools of water.
Electrical disturbances. Object
displacements, disappearances and reappearances. Apparitions of the
Virgin Mary and of a monk. Photographic anomalies. Scratching of skin. No
throwing of objects was reported.’
This doesn’t
really do the phenomena justice, but provides a flavour. ‘Brother Doli (Adolphus) was a nickname given
by the family to whatever was causing the events, though the Gowers’ youngest
daughter claimed to see the apparition of a young monk, Rose-Mary herself saw a
monk-like figure, and a message (we are not told what it said) was found on a
notepad signed ‘Doli’. Following
Daniels’ JSPR paper, the Gowers
themselves had an article, ‘The 'Brother Doli' Case: Family Perspectives’. This is unusual, but we rarely hear directly
from the witnesses themselves in articles written for academic publications. Having the two articles next to each other
might however raise a question in the reader’s mind about Daniels’
independence. He feels less like an
investigator than an agent.
I was somewhat
unimpressed with the case, feeling it did not stand up to careful scrutiny, and
after comparing what Daniels had written with Rose-Mary Gower’s various
internet writings on the subject, wrote a letter to the SPR’s Journal which was published in the April
2003 number. I reprint it here in full,
complete with the web references that were in my letter as submitted to the
editor but omitted when it appeared in the Journal.
To the Editor
‘Michael Daniels, together with
Rose-Mary and David Gower, whose house Dr Daniels investigated for the “Brother
Doli Case” (October issue), spend thirty-two pages describing an investigation
which seems to evaporate the closer one looks.
Indeed, the discussion rehearses most of the objections which a critic
would want to make so clearly that one wonders whether what is left warrants
the expenditure of such a large quantity of SPR resources.
‘What is missing is an analysis of
the pronouncements by Rose-Mary Gower in her Internet writings. The alarm bells should sound at David Gower’s
remark that the details have evolved to make them into a better (more dramatic?)
story, and that “Rose-Mary, like her media contacts, enjoys a good tale”. This is a key element which Michael Daniels
does not address, but which can be appreciated by comparing this account to
those found on the Internet. It can be
seen that each is tailored to the appropriate audience.
‘For example a reference to
John-Paul seeing Brother Doli patting Aslan, the family’s dead Alsatian dog, in
the garden [1], is omitted from the Journal
report. The stone dated 1610 is here
said to look new, and the age of the original building unknown, but in her
Internet writings Rose-Mary claims that the house dates from the seventeenth
century: “We live in a 17th Century farmhouse near Mold in North
Wales UK” [2]; “David, my husband, Down’s Syndrome son John-Paul and I moved
into Penyffordd Farm, circa 1610, just outside Treuddyn, in February 1997” [3]. Her description of smiley faces appearing on
the walls “suggesting that the monk is a happy little spook!” [4] also fails to
obtain a mention in the Journal
report.
‘Rose-Mary does say that the most
likely explanation of the phenomena is a hoax (not by her, of course), but this
apparent candour seems to be undermined by the account of the flowers changing
into wasps. Interpretation of the case
is a choice between the paranormal and a hoax perpetrated by her alone or in
collusion, possibly forming a framework in which mundane occurrences are
interpreted as paranormal by others. One
source of evidence, the possessions of visitors which had Welsh words engraved
(or embossed, depending on the source) on them, does not appear to have been
subject to scrutiny. These items are not
mentioned again, and Michael Daniels has not interviewed anyone outside the
immediate family.
‘In short, Dr Daniels lists a number
of reasons why this case should not be taken seriously, but is less clear about
why it should. The Gowers are active
self-publicists, and this article appears to be one more element in their
endeavours, with the added bonus of being written by someone else and appearing
in a scholarly journal – hence its sobriety compared to the others that are
aimed at a wider audience. This
manipulation fatally damages the case’s credibility.’
[1]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/northeast/guides/weird/ghosts/ghostmonk.shtml
[2]
http://www.ghoststudy.com/ghost_story_welsh.html
[3]
http://www.moldweb.co.uk/monk.htm
[4]
http://www.moldweb.co.uk/monk_update.htm
The reference to
the flowers changing into wasps was an incident recounted in passing on p.195
that I thought should have carried more weight:
‘The next series of phenomena began in August 1997
when Rose-Mary reports that a strange transformation occurred in the kitchen
when she was clearing out a vase of dried blue flowers. Having placed the
flowers on the floor while she stepped briefly outside, Rose-Mary returned to
find that the blue petals had changed into a large group of dead and dying
half-drowned wasps.’
The suggestion is
that she was alone when this happened (the presence of someone else should have
been recorded) and it seems that therefore a hoax by somebody else, or
misperception by her, could be ruled out in this instance. The choice is between such a transformation
occurring without (living) human intervention or Rose-Mary making it up. If the latter, it casts doubt on the rest of
her testimony.
I had several
reservations that I did not include in the letter, but my major one concerned
the possible role of other members of the family. Apart from John-Paul the children remained
shadowy presences in the article. Though
the three daughters were interviewed, little information about them is provided. It is implied they were infrequent visitors,
yet David Gower says his early, albeit later discarded, suspicion was that ‘his
grown-up children’ were hoaxing the phenomena, suggesting they were often in
the house. Relatives, friends and acquaintances
were said to have witnessed events, but information supplied to Daniels was
channelled through the Gowers, mainly Rose-Mary. David seems to have been fairly disengaged
from the business.
Dr Daniels was offered
the right of reply to my letter in the same issue, and it is worth examining in
detail as it is a good indication of his attitude to weighing evidence. He divides my points into four categories:
1) Daniels’
article does not address Rose-Mary’s various accounts that I claimed were ‘tailored
to the appropriate audience’;
2) He had not
interviewed anyone outside the family whose possessions had been affected;
3) The case’s
credibility is too slight to warrant such lengthy treatment in JSPR;
4) The Gowers are
‘self-publicists’ whose activities are encouraged by coverage in a scholarly
journal.
He then responds at
double the length of my letter. To begin
with he states the article ‘provides the reader with addresses of all the main
web sites that have featured accounts of the phenomena at the Gowers' home’,
which would be fine, except he continues: ‘It is true that I do not critically
compare these various accounts’, and that is because some contain inaccuracies
by other hands than Rose-Mary – which implies that journalists were making certain
things up. Yet the Gowers did not seem
bothered enough to correct the record when they saw these errors, surprising
given their readiness to put pen to paper.
Did John-Paul see the ghost of ‘Brother Doli’ patting the dead dog Aslan
or did he not? If so, that would seem to
be an important element of the case and Daniels should have included it. If the incident had been made up by a third
party, how did that happen? It doesn’t
sound the sort of thing to come out of thin air. In sum, Daniels airily waves away
discrepancies with ‘In my opinion it serves no particular purpose to analyse
these accounts’, but fails to say why he then included web links to articles
that were considered untrustworthy. Any
errors by Rose-Mary he thought could be attributed to normal lapses in memory,
as can be found with any witness.
But then he goes
on to admit: ‘As was indicated by David Gower in his commentary, and as
evidenced by some of the Internet accounts, Rose-Mary does tend to embroider
and dramatise her narrations in an attempt to make a good story.’ That’s putting it mildly! What David had said (expanding on the snippet
I included in my letter) is:
‘…we [he and Rose-Mary] differ on the importance of
detailed accuracy and chronological precision in reporting them. I think the
accounts have changed in narrative detail as events have been re-told to
successive friends and acquaintances to make better stories. Rose-Mary, like
her media contacts, enjoys a good tale and has made the name 'Brother Doli'
part of family folklore. I, too, readily participate in such family fun…’
Is this a problem
for Daniels? Not really, because it
might still not necessarily be a hoax, rather ‘the personality and behaviour of
someone who wished, for whatever reason, to publicise a case believed to be
genuine.’ So why ‘embroider’ (which
strikes me as a euphemistic word)? Is
the case not good enough to stand on the facts and needs to be ‘embroidered’,
and the investigator doesn’t feel it worth his while to compare the various
accounts to ascertain what may have happened and what didn’t? By the time Daniels got round to interviewing
Rose-Mary, how could he tell what was real from what was inserted to make a
good yarn?
The reference to
‘media contacts’ is particularly revealing.
Mary-Rose was clearly happy to get as much publicity as possible with a
story that, rogue journalists notwithstanding, could easily change in the retelling. Daniels notes in his article that the story
had been covered by HTV Wales' Weird
Wales series and various other television and radio programmes, including This Morning, Kilroy, and twice on John Peel's Radio 4 show Home Truths. Rose-Mary was
clearly keen to get as much publicity as possible and as her husband acknowledged,
accuracy was not her primary concern.
At least Daniels
concurs that the case is weakened by the lack of independent witnesses: one
might feel, in light of the difficulty in getting a reliable account from
Rose-Mary, fatally. He did not interview
people whose belongings were engraved or embossed, but anyway ‘I doubt that
this would add anything of great significance.’
They were important enough to include in the article, now they don’t
seem to count for anything. As for the
article’s length, I think Daniels believes I should thank him for it because
‘ironically’ it was the degree of detail which convinced me the case is flawed,
yet a shorter report would have given the case more credibility ‘thus
furthering the Gowers' alleged publicist agenda to an even greater extent.’ The logic escapes me, as I can’t see how less
detail would have allowed the case to appear more credible. It was going to be weak whatever the length.
Anyway, Daniels
thinks that even if it all turned out to be a hoax, it’s fine because it can
help future researchers determine ways hoaxing operates more effectively in
order to distinguish genuine phenomena from frauds, making the life of the
hoaxer harder. In what way researchers
could make this distinction on the basis of an article like his is not spelled
out, nor why the enthusiastic hoaxer would necessarily decide hoaxing was not
worthwhile when receiving attention from researchers. He also alludes to the file drawer effect, the
suppression of negative results leading to ‘over-confidence in the reality and
extent of psychical phenomena’. Daniels
thinks this applies to the evaluation of spontaneous phenomena as well as
laboratory experiments, but it is difficult to see how the discarding of
reports such as this one would affect the evaluation of other cases, or by what
method the effect could be determined statistically.
Daniels’ final
point is that if such accounts were not published, then researchers would not
bother to investigate them, or would be biased in favour of a paranormal
explanation if it meant they stood a better chance of publication. It’s an interesting idea, though the archives
contain reports that are thorough but unpublished. To be fair to Daniels, he does not conclude
definitively in his article the phenomena were genuine, contenting himself by
saying they are ‘extraordinary’ but ‘highly ambiguous’, with no degree of
certainty possible. His Psychic Science website entry goes
further, giving it only one star (out of a possible five) plus the comment
‘Paranormal activity is conceivable but unlikely’, which raises the obvious
question, what in Dr Daniels’ opinion makes it a ‘notable modern poltergeist
case’?
In his rejoinder
to my letter he assumes I concluded the case ‘indicates an elaborate hoax’,
which he thinks understandable and a distinct possibility, but not the only
explanation available. Oddly I agree
with him. It is possible there was a
genuine poltergeist at work in the Gowers’ home, albeit the details were
‘improved’ over time. Where I depart
from him is in finding his report a useful analysis as it is impossible to know
what to trust in it. The oddest aspect
of the entire business may be that sceptics Richard Wiseman and Caroline Watt
chose to reprint his Journal article
in an Ashgate anthology on parapsychology, unless this was part of a cunning
plan to undermine the discipline’s credibility, when it all makes perfect
sense.
References
Daniels, M. (2002)
The ‘Brother Doli’ case: Investigation of Apparent Poltergeist-type Manifestations
in North Wales. Journal of the Society
for Psychical Research, 66.4, No. 869, 193-221. (Reprinted in R. Wiseman and C. Watt (eds.)
(2005). Parapsychology (The
International Library of Psychology). Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing.)
Gower, R-M and
Gower D. (2002) ‘The 'Brother Doli' Case: Family Perspectives’, Journal of the Society for Psychical
Research, 66.4, No. 869, 222-4.
Ruffles, T. (2003)
Letter, Journal of the Society for
Psychical Research, 67.2, No. 871, 158; Michael Daniels’ reply: 159-60.
Update 15 July
2015
I have engaged in
a brief email correspondence with Michael Levy, owner of Penyffordd Farm since
August 2012 when the Gowers moved out.
He has indicated that he is happy for me to share his thoughts
here. It is fair to say he too has
reservations about the Brother Doli business: he says in part (13 July):
‘Naturally we were made aware of the ghostly
"goings on" at this address by the estate agent and a few bemused
neighbours. I also read much of the
stuff that was returned following some googling. Nonetheless, this did not sway our view of
this place and we happily moved in.
‘To date, there has been a grand total of zero
unexplained, ghostly, spooky, haunting, para/sub/ab/normal, “monky” business
here. No happy faces appearing on walls
(I think that is because the huge damp problem has now been sorted out). No apparitions, no mysterious engravings or
staining on surfaces. The cross that
Rosemary Gower has referred to on the fireplace lintel has not re-appeared
following a good sanding and rebuilding of our hearth. Ornaments stay put… So far, neither I nor any friend or family member has
spotted the Virgin Mary…. My email and
internet traffic is untainted by the alleged web-wise ghost….
He concludes,
‘things are all normal here’. In a
subsequent email (14 July) he adds that he met Rose-Mary and David once, when
they popped round to introduce themselves after the move but – to put it
diplomatically – he found her claims unconvincing.
Dr Daniels has added to his website summary the information Rose-Mary wrote on an internet forum in April 2014, so quite some time after they had left, that phenomena ceased abruptly in January 2008. Perhaps some psychokinetic energy created by family interactions dissipated with changed circumstances. Or perhaps Rose-Mary just got bored once the media had moved on, and killed the story off off. Whatever the cause, that things are normal in the house these days is good news for the Levy family, if a loss to psychical research; phenomena occurring in the Gowers’ absence would definitely make it worth investigating once more. In the meantime, despite its inclusion on Dr Daniels’ website as a notable case, Brother Doli has not entered the poltergeist canon, no doubt reflecting general unease about its credibility.
