The Newark Disturbances

Reprinted from the Yournal of the American Society for Psychical Research Facet tense 7. dee toes The Newark Disturbances W. G. Rott! INTRODUCTION Early in May, 1961, a series of ostensible RSPK disturbances (recurrent spontaneous psychokinesis or “‘poltergeist”’ phenomena) erupted in the apartment of a Negro woman, Mrs. Susie Parks, and her grandson, Arnold Brooks (pseudonyms are used), in a housing project in Newark, New Jersey. The disturbances began on May 6, Arnold's thirteenth birthday, and lasted slightly more than a week, after which he left the apartment to stay with his uncle, Mr. Harold Brown. There were recurrences later on in May, and in June and August when Arnold returned to his grandmother’s apartment for short periods, I first heard about the case from newspaper reports in May, but only became interested in it the following September when I met Dr. Charles D, Wrege, then assistant professor in the Department of Management at Rutgers, at the Parapsychological Association Convention and learned that he had been present in the apartment during some of the occurrences and had been unable to account for all of them in terms of known causes. I visited the apartment on September 9 in the early evening with Mr. W. E. Cox, who was also in New York for the convention. Arnold was still staying with his uncle and there had been no * disturbances since his last visit to the apartment a few weeks before. To determine if the case was active, I suggested that Arnold be brought back for the night. Mr. Cox and I then left. When I phoned the family later in the evening, I was told that occurrences had taken place. I returned and stayed in the apart- * An essential part of the eee of this case was undertaken by Dr. Charles D. Wrege of the Department of Management at Rutgers University. His collabo- ration is greatly appreciated. My thanks also to the following for their assistance: Dr. John Altrocchi, Departments of py chology and Psychiatry, Duke Uni- versity; Dr. John L. Artley, Department of Electrical i ing, Duke; Dr. Ben W. Feather and Dr. Walter D. Obrist, Department of Psychiatry, Duke; Dr. I. H. Paul and Dr. Gertrude R. Schmeidler, Department of Psychology, City College of the City University of New York; and Dr. J. G. Pratt, Department o Psychiatry, University of Virginia. Dr. Donald S, Burdick, Department of Mathematics, Duke, assisted in the statistical calculations and his help is also gratefully acknowledged. A part of the bts eng was conducted at the Parapsychology Laboratory, pera aoe Peete of Dr. J. B. Rhine and others on the Laboratory staff is gratefully acknow: Some of the material in this paper was presented at the Fifth Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association, Durham, N.C., September, 1962, in a panel discussion,

124 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research ment until noon on September 10. I made two other visits, on September 13 and 15. A psychological examination of Arnold was conducted at New York University on September 16 and psychological and other studies were carried out with both the boy and the grandmother in Durham beginning December 16 and lasting about a week. The disturbances appear to fall into two categories: The first phase consists of the incidents that took place between May 6 and the middle of August, several of which could not be explained by the adults who were in the apartment. In the second phase of the occurrences, which lasted from September until December, some were known to be fraudulent and none occurred under conditions where trickery could be ruled out. Tue First Puase I shall first present a list of the sixty-four events that were reported between May 6 and mid-August, 1961. After that I shall discuss some of the incidents which took place when Dr. Wrege and others were present. The information about the occurrences was obtained from inter- views by Dr. Wrege with Mrs. Parks and Arnold on May 12 and 13 and by my interviews with Mrs. Parks and Mrs. Mary Leiden on tember 9 and 13. Mrs. Leiden is a neighbor whom Mrs. Parks ed in for assistance when the disturbances began and who was resent during several of the incidents. Newspaper reports by . Douglas Eldridge and Mr. William Gordon in the Newark News for May I through 14 have been used for supplementary informa- tion about dates and about details not found elsewhere; for instance, regarding the origin of a moving object, and also information regarding incidents when the reporters were present. Mr. Eldridge, in order to facilitate the investigation, did not report incidents that happened after Dr. Wrege’s arrival. Mr, Eldridge’s accounts are generally conservative and consistent with information obtained by Dr. Wrege and myself. The newspaper articles also do not describe many of the incidents that happened prior to Mr. Eldridge’s arrival in the apartment on Wednesday, May 10. One event described by Mr. Eldridge and not by Dr. Wrege was a movement of a small bottle on May 10 which Mrs. Parks and Mrs. Martha Knoll, another neighbor, described to Mr. Eldridge as one of four incidents that happened before his arrival. In the cases where there was : conflict about the pei la events as reported by the family and other witnesses to avert r rters and to Dr. Wrege or myself, I have assumed that a atiation provided at theshortest interval after the events was most likely to beaccurate, The Newark Disturbances 125 In several instances, however, the sequence of events and the dates when they occurred remain in doubt. When a rough estimate of the number of events was given by the witnesses, the lowest figure is used, The location of cach disturbance in the apartment, the direc- tion of movement, and the distance the object traveled are shown in Figure 1. Fig. 1. Plan of Mrs, Parks’ apartment showing the locati and chronological order of the disturbances. The numbers refer to the List of Events described ie the text. The arrows indicate the approximate direction and distance of motion, when were known, of objects displaced from their original position. Arrows drawn a solid line refer to movements when adults were present and it seemed aerated EEE cote have cued the fncideat; aexown drawn occurrences w ¢ boy was not supervised; dotted lines indicate the path of objects whose original position wen in dauker

126 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research List of Events On Saturday, May 6, 1961, in the evening, when Arnold was in his room and Mrs. Parks and Mrs. Knoll were in the living room, a noise was heard by them and a small jar (1) from Mrs. Parks’ bedroom dresser was found on the floor. On the evening of Monday, May 8, while Arnold and Mrs. Parks were in the kitchen eating dinner, four of six punch bowl cups (2, 3, 4, 5) came off their hooks and crashed to the living room floor, one by one, The same evening, while Arnold and . Parks were in the apartment, several bottles (6, 7, 8) with cleaning fluids and other contents on the shelf in the back hallway broke and a bottle of Mercuro- chrome (9) moved from the medicine cabinet in the bathroom and broke on the living room floor. Mrs. Parks said that the door to the bathroom was closed. After Mrs. Parks put all the bottles on the floor in the bathroom to prevent further breakage, and while she and Arnold were watching TV in the living room, Mrs. Leiden also being present there, the latter saw a cologne bottle (10) from the bathroom move into the living room, “turning a jig in the air’ before it fell to the floor. She said the door to the bathroom was closed. On the same day, when Arnold was in his room and Mrs, Leiden was in the kitchen, she saw a glass decanter (11) move to the edge of the refrig- erator. She reached it before it fell to the floor. The night of the same day, when Arnold was in bed in his room, Mrs. Parks was in the living room, and Mrs. Leiden was also in the apartment, a light bulb (12) came off the socket in the bathroom and moved into the hallway, Arnold saw the bulb and Mrs, Parks heard the sound. Probably on the same night, the /amp (13) on the end table to the north of the sofa or the amp (14) on the record player broke. In any case, both lamps broke sometime during this peri Because of the incidents, Arnold and Mrs. the apartment that orenee © stay with the Browns, returning Tuesday morning. On Tu , May 9, in the evening, when Arnold and Mrs. Parks * In this section of the paper, the boldface numerals in parentheses refer to the number of the event. 2 In an interview with W.G.R., Mrs. Parks incorrectly placed these incidents in June, saying that three or four came unhooked from the bow! at different times and stating that the bow! belonged on the sideboard, close to the living room entrance, According to Arnold said he saw two cups fly off the ich, in Dr. apartment, was then on the side table to the ior of the sole, where it woulll GO 26s Seo ow reine, The sideboerd i i ! The Newark Disturbances 127 rn ae he Hitchen cable and bended Se tweineeday evening, May 10, 0 . ednesday evening, 10, when Arnold was in his room and Mrs. Parks and Mrs. Knoll were in the living room, a small mirror (16) on Mrs. Parks’ dresser fell to the floor in her room. The same night, while the same three people were in the apartment, a small bottle (17) had been left in the center of a dresser (probably in Mrs. Parks’ dropped to the floor and a light bulb (18) from the shelf in the lway fell to the floor. This incident took place while Arnold room and Mrs. Parks and Mrs. Knoll were in the kitchen. night, while Arnold was in his room and Mrs. Parks was in room, he saw a bottle of Mercurochrome (19) from the bath- fall to the floor in the hallway, Mrs. Parks hearing the (This event as reported to Dr. W may be the same one Mr. refers to in the Newark News, May 11, where he a bottle of disinfectant which stood on the window sill thtub moved over the tub and landed on the bathroom feet away.) evening, when Arnold was in bed and Mrs. Parks, ll, Mr. Brown, Mr. Eldridge,* and a newspaper photog- in the kitchen, a cup (20) from the rear of the shelf in was heard when it fell to the hallway floor. This cup had the same shelf as the light bulb, Mr. Eldridge had inspected t half an hour before, while Arnold was in bed, and had Ben i ri Arn evening, old was in his room and Mrs. Parks and Mrs. Knoll were in the living room, the same bottle of Mercuro- chrome ee wach ee gia to the bathroom shelf, again moved to the hallwa' r. incident was observed b and was heard by ha tvio ladies. se igo On Thursday, May 11, when Arnold and Mrs, Parks were in the she saw the large mirror (22 over the sofa in the living room back and forth. She took it down to prevent its breaking. In the evening, when Arnold was in his room and Mrs. Parks, Mrs. Knoll, Mr. Brown, and Mrs. Leiden were in the living room, a jar of elly (23) from the bathroom shelf fell to the living room and roke, That same evening, when Arnold was in the kitchen, he saw a pepper shaker (24) “float” through the air and land him. (‘This be the same incident which Mrs. Parks referred to in an interview with W.G.R. when she said that she saw a pepper shaker disappear from the open kitchen closet and then padre Ge foe by the kitchen window.) : evening, when Arnold was in the kitchen washing the dishes and Mrs. Parks Sad Mrs. Frances Coates, a neighbor, were ctl 3 F E ETA TTLELLE sre a i tf * Mrs. Parks thought that the phenomena had ceased Tuesday evening. When they etarted again Wet » she called her son-in-law, Mr. Brown, who in turn

128 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research in the kitchen or living room, a drinks fren’ pal ib seep a sink flew into the living room and broke. Id said he saw the glass in flight and the two ladies saw it as it broke. (According to the state- ments given to Mr, Eldridge as reported in the Newark News on May 12, the glass “swung around a corner" before it broke on the floor.) On the same evening, when Arnold was in his room, he said w a light bulb (26) from his floor lamp unscrew itself and smash Arno still in his room, and Mrs, Parks, oll, Mr. Brown, Mr. William Gordon, and a fifth person were in the kitchen or living room, Arnold saw his lamp (28) fall against his bed. In another occurrence that night, when also Mr. James Moore (Assistant Director of eo gS for the Newark Housing Authority) and a reporter, probably Mr. Gordon, were present, an ory bottle (29) from the same shelf in the hallway where the cup been, moved into Mrs. Parks’ bedroom. Because of the incidents Arnold and Mrs, Parks left the apartment Thursday night and stayed with the Browns. On Friday, May 12, in the morning or early afternoon, when Arnold fernture polish (30) from the shelf inthe hallway slide narose the floor iture polish (30) from in ide across r prpaogirsong ing this same period, when Arnold was in his room sagen Sey iden, he was in the bathroom at the time), and Parks and Mrs, Leiden were in the living room, a five-pound electric tron (31) moved from the in the and fell to the floor in the direction of Mrs. Parks’ bedroom. Mrs. Leiden told W.G.R. that she saw the iron while it was in the its cord was stretched out stiff behind it. Also during that period, when Arnold was in the kitchen and Mrs. Parks was i living room area, Arnold saw the cover of the sugar bowl (32) come off when he reached for it, and break agai i 3 a 3 i E re, shelf and hit Arnold lightly on the (According to Mr. Eldridge, as reported in the Newark News on May 13, this was ; In the evening of that day, when Arnold was in his room and Mrz. Parks, Mrs. Knoll, Mr. , Mr. Eldridge, and Mr, Edward J. DelRusso (a building contractor who had come to exorcise the peste tes a ee Living sa Ee een oe Bac On Saturday, May 13, when Arnold was in the kitchen washing dishes, Mrs. Parks was in the kitchen-living room area, and Mrs. Coates was in the living room, the saltcellar (35) from the open kitchen shelf made a right turn into the living room, hi rs, Coates behind the shoulder. On the same day, when at the south end of the sofa in the living room and Mrs, Parks and Mrs. Coates were in the kitchen, a glass i The Newark Disturbances 129 heard by the others. Sometime later, when Arnold was in the same position, and Mrs. Parks, Mrs. Knoll, Mr. Gordon, and a photog- tapher were in the kitchen, the same ashtray (37), which had been ced ference ereres Dy reporter, moved toward the front door. in ce said nooo phost aie fame papa ae Serern Also , a pint can of paint (38) on same hallway shelf iis forntince pola of moved to the floor of Mrs, Parks’ ‘room. Another occurrence that day happened when Arnold was in his ‘room, about one foot inside the doorway, and Mrs. Parks, Mr. Moore, and Mr. Ward Ulrich (a reporter from the Newark Star Ledger) were the living room: the Mercurochrome bottle (39) from the bathroom ! shelf fell to the floor of Mrs. Parks’ room. Arnold said he saw the as it landed. Also on that day the cover of the sugar bowl (40) fell to the kitchen floor. (This incident may have been the same as the o | gegen dladdr Sha eametter st -egtimctherpad a saucer as a cover for the sugar bowl, pares Ah lacement for the sugar bowl top that broke earlier, lift up and ti the floor.) Still on the same day, when Arnold was in the kitchen and Mrs. Parks __was in the kitchen-living room area, Arnold saw the cover (41) ___ in the open kitchen closet come off the pot and fall to the floor, Mrs. Parks heard the sound. ____ About 10:00 p.n. that night Arnold said he saw an ashtray (42) ___ from the table in the livi ap ea boat ah tee rine amery the wall near the TV set; Parks and Mr. Brown heard the sound. Mr. Brown then phoned Dr. Wrege, who arrived at 10:35 p.m. Dr. Wrege asked Arnold to choose an object as a for the RSPK _ forces. Arnold selected an empty mustard jar and p this on the kitchen table, About 11:00 p.at., when Arnold was in the living room : a eening t the kitchen, Mrs, Parks was in her room, and _ Mr. Brown and play seagate er byaiapetaated ot ag left the table and moved over the heads of the two men, crashing against the kitchen wall. Arnold said he saw the jar “float” over the heads of the two men before it picked up speed, About 11:15 p.at., when Arnold was in the living room on the sofa and Mrs. Parks, Mr. Brown, and Dr. Wrege were also in the living room, a glass ashtray (44) from the table near Arnold moved to the sce Mrs. Parks’ room. Arnold said he saw this incident; the others About 11:45 p.m., after Mrs, Parks and Mr, Brown had left the - sgh-aen and while Arnold was in the doorway to his room and Wrege inside the room, the glass ashtray (45) from the table next to the sofa which had previously moved, was heard to fall on the the kitchen with Dr. Wrege, who was about to pick up the telephone, a ing glass (46) from the counter next to the kitchen sink was by ey ee short time after this incident, while Arnold was standing in the kitchen to the right of Dr. Wrege who was next to the phone table, replacing the receiver with his left hand with his right arm around

130 Yournal of the American Society for Psychical Research Arnold, no one else being in the apartment, the lamp (47) on the table to the south of the sofa in the living room fell to the floor in the back hallway and smashed. sete gare, sc ile Arnold was in the back hallway holding a dustpan with hands, and Mr. Brown (who had returned in response to a phone call from Dr. Wee) and Dr. W were up the broken picces of lamp, Mr. i oS and fell to the floor of Mrs. Parks’ room. The ashtray nged on the table to the south of the sofa in the living room. Shortly afterwards, as Arnold went into the kitchen to put the lamp pieces in the trash can, and when Mr. Brown was in the living room close to the back hallway and Dr. Wrege was in Mrs. Parks' bedroom picking up the glass ashtray, a shaker (49) struck Mr. Brown in the back. Shortly afterwards, when Arnold was in the hallway outside the t, Mr. Brown was preparing to turn off the kitchen and living room lights, and Dr. was in the hall inside the apartment close to the front door, Mr. Brown was hit lightly on the head by the salfcellar (50), which then struck the wall behind the sofa with great force, falling in back of the sofa. Immediate- ly afterwards, when Arnold was still in the outer hall, Mr. Brown was turning off the living room lights, and Dr. Wrege was in the inside hallway close to the front door, a heavy ceramic ashtray (51) Brown and Dr, Wrege. The following events also took place in May, either before Dr. spattneat, < plore tay (55)-60i Gains Oe sahgeeaine to eon soher a ent, a tr ¢ m i tor to or to ho Boe Whe bien of Mrs. Parks also was present, a saucer (53) fell from the open kitchen cupboard to the floor in front of the closet as Mrs. Parks was talking with her friend. Also in May, a bottle (54) on top of the refrigerator fell down and hit the washing During the same month, when Arnold and Mrs. Parks were home, at least one cup ©) and one giass (56) from the closed kitchen cabinet fell to the floor. Later in May, while Mrs. Parks and Arnold were in the apartment, the bookcase (57, 58) in the living room fell over two or three times. Mrs. Leiden was present on one of these occasions (but she placed the incident in June) and told W.G.R. that the bookcase fell over one evening as they were putting on the lights in the room. On another occasion, when she and Arnold were outside the apartment and the boy was placing his key in the door, the 7'V set (59) fell over. No one was in the apartment. In June, while Arnold and Mrs. Parks were home, the bottom section of the punch botel (60), which had been placed on the floor for safety, broke. And in August, when the two of them were in the st the punch bowl (61) itself, which was in the front part of living room, broke, Arnold watching it go up into the air. ] In mid- while Arnold and Mrs. Parks were in the apart- ment, the (62, 63) fell twice and broke. On one of e occasions, Arnold was in bathroom with Mrs. Leiden. at the time was staying with Mr. Brown, returned to the | Gpartment for the night. Wrege first visited the apartment in the evening of May 12. were no occurrences. On the evening of May 13, he received call from Mr. Brown, who said that an ashtray had fallen Mrs. Parks, Arnold, and he were in the apartment (Event 42), Wrege hurried to the apartment where he arrived at 10:35 p.m. ing at 11:00 and lasting until around midnight, there were incidents (43-51). Some of these, namely Events 44-46, and 49, probably have been done normally by the boy without ection since he was not under observation at those times. In the case of Event 43, trickery would have been more difficult. Dr. Wrege had asked Arnold to select an item from a kitchen cupboard and ce it on the kitchen table in the hope that this might become an PK target while Dr. Wrege was watching. Arnold chose an ‘empty mustard jar, About twenty minutes later, while Dr. Wrege and Mr. Brown were in the kitchen at the other side of the table, facing away from the jar, and when Arnold was in the living room close to the kitchen entrance and about six feet from the jar, this left its place, moved over the heads of the two men, and crashed ‘Against the southwest wall of the kitchen, In view of the fact that Ir. Wrege suspected that Arnold was the agent for the incidents and in view also of his special interest in the mustard jar, it would have been difficult for Arnold to move into the kitchen, throw the jar, and return to his place outside the kitchen without detection. Dr. Wrege saw the jar as it reached the wall: “The jar seemed to shatter before reaching the wall, but the event was so sudden that poet hit [the] wall and shattered.” Dr. Wrege also noted that the broken pieces were of uniform size and that they fell to the floor directly below the place of impact rather than i widely as might be expected had the jar smashed against the in a normal fashion. Arnold said he saw the jar as it “floated” over the heads of the two men after which it picked up terrific speed before it shattered. Tn the case of three events, 48, 50, and 51, these apparently could not have been perpetrated by Arnold acting alone. Following the lamp incident (Event 47), which I shall refer to later, Dr. Wrege,

132 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research Mr, Brown, and Arnold were cleaning up the remains of the lamp. Dr. Wrege states that “Arnold was holding the dustpan handle with two hands as I t the pieces into the pan. Mr. Brown was to my left by the door of Mrs, Parks’ bedroom, picking up other pieces of the lamp. He suddenly moved back and there was the sound of a piece of glass hitting the floor of Mrs. Parks’ room,”” Mr. Brown said the ashtray had grazed his chin. Evidently the only way in which the event could have been caused normally is if Mr. Brown himself threw the ashtray into the bedroom, while claiming that it had grazed him. This was the same ashtray which had moved on two occasions earlier that evening (Events 44 and 45). After the second of these, Dr. Wrege and Arnold found the ashtray in Mrs, Parks’ room and returned it to the table south of the sofa. At the time of Event 50, the two men and Arnold were on the point of leaving the apartment house. Dr. Wrege had told Arnold to go into the hallway outside the apartment, Dr. Wrege was inside the apartment in the hallway leading to the front room and Mr. Brown was in the living room at the point of turning off the lights when he cried out that something had hit his head after which there was a crash and Dr. Wrege saw a saltcellar as it smashed against the living room wall ind the sofa. Here too, the only possible no explanation would seem to be that Mr. Brown only said that he had been hit and had, unseen by Dr. Wrege, tossed the object against the wall since the latter’s attention was directed more toward Arnold than to his uncle. Immediately afterwards, when Arnold was still outside the apart- ment and Mr. Brown was again on the point of turning off the lights and Dr. Wrege was still in the inside hallway close to the front door, a heavy ceramic ashtray from a bookcase near the front door fell to the floor between Mr. Brown and Dr. Wrege (Event 51). Also in this case it seems that the only person who could have rpetrated the occurrence was Mr. Brown since Arnold was not in the room and could not have thrown anything into it without detection by Dr. Wrege. There was one incident, Event 47, which could not apparently have been caused normally either by Arnold or by anyone else, This took place when Dr. Wrege and Arnold were alone in the apartment, Mrs. Parks and Mr. Brown having left around 11:30 p.m. At about the same time the ashtray fell in Mrs. Parks’ room (Event 45), some drunks were banging on the front door demanding to see “the boy with the flying objects.” A moment later a window in Mrs, Parks’ room was broken h Presumably by a rock thrown y the same men. Dr. Wrege decided to call the police and went into the kitchen with Arnold when the water smashed by the sink (Event 46). Dr. Wrege then placed his holding the phone The Newark Disturbances 133 ith his left hand, the right arm he had around Arnold holding him tightly in order to comfort him and thereby pinning both the ’s arms to his sides. As he finished the conversation with the ce department, “‘there was this tremendous crash in the living ‘The closest lamp to us, one of two large crockery lamps, had ed to the floor. Arnold could not have done this physically se of mi over him—but since neither of us actually lamp fall (it was around the corner, out of sight) I suspected use of strings and the like. I checked the remains of the lamp the cord to see if any strings or wires were attached. There e no such objects and ... I do not know how this event could i ickery ...” The lamp crashed to the floor about three feet southeast of the table where it stood (see Figure 1). Arnold seemed very “3 eer at this point (after the previous events Dr. Wrege had found him relatively unafraid). He asked that his uncle be called because he wanted to leave the apartment. Dr. Wrege oan and called Mr. Brown. Shortly afterwards the uncle and ike Dr. the lice arrived. The fact that Mr. Brown was on hand to take Dr. Wrege's call indicated that he was at home and not outside me when the lamp fell and therefore could not have caused the incident by strings or other means, Dr. Wrege examined the table on which the lamp had stood for traces of explosives or foreign matter but found none, He considered the ossibility that the incident could have been caused from outside he 3 t by an arrangement of strings operated by an unknown ‘accomplice. The failure to find a string might be explained by the theory that it was pulled away when the lamp fell. There are two string h eses: The string could have been fastened to the damp earlier in the evening or the string could have been placed in position by Arnold and passed to an accomplice outside th apap after the lamp was examined by Dr. Wrege. Regarding he first theory, Dr. Wrege does not think he could have overlooked 4 string in his examination of the apartment prior to the lamp incident. He was on the lookout for concealed devices and finds it highly unlikely that he could have overlooked a piece of string. mrding the second theory, Dr. Wrege reports that Arnold was always near him and that he does not believe that the boy at any time had the opportunity to fasten a string to the lamp and pass it through the door or a window to an accomplice outside. After the drunks threw the rock, Dr. Wrege was careful to place himself between Arnold and the windows in order to protect the boy. This would have made it even more difficult for Arnold to pass eg ig to accomplices outside. . Wrege and I both found it difficult to suppose that Mr. Brown was involved fraudulently in the phenomena. He is a draftsman by

134 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research profession and appears to be a responsible person. He seemed to be disturbed about the incidents and was doing whatever he could to alleviate the situation, The phenomena created some hardship for him and his family since they took Arnold into their home when it seemed that his presence in his grandmother's apartment engendered the occurrences. The Browns had two small children and the addition of Arnold to the household was a burden and pete which they felt it a duty to assume, but did not come. Other Events When Arnold Was Not in Area There were several instances when Mrs. Parks and other adults stated that Arnold was not present in the area where an occurrence took place. The four cups from the punch bowl fell to the floor while Arnold was in the kitchen having supper with his grand- mother, nine feet or more away, and when no one else was present (Events 2-5). Mrs. Leiden told me that while Mrs. Parks and Arnold were with her in the living room watching TV, she saw a bottle of cologne that belo in the bathroom move into the living room “turning a jig in the air’ as she watched it, and then fall to the floor (Event 10). On that same day, when Arnold was in his room, Mrs. Leiden, who was in the kitchen, said she saw a glass decanter on is: of the refrigerator move to the edge (Event 11). She grabbed it before it fell. She also once saw a saucer which had been placed over the sugar bowl as a replacement of the sugar bow! top which had broken earlier, lift up and fall to the floor (Event 40). On another occasion, Mrs, Leiden said that when she was with Arnold outside the apartment and no one was inside, the TV set fell over when he put his key in the door (Event 59). Another time, she said that Arnold was in the bathroom with her when the radiogramo- phone in the living room fell over (Event 63), In summary, most of the sixty-four occurrences could have been perpetrated normally by Arnold without detection. In fourteen, however, an adult stated the boy was in one room or area of the house while the incidents took place in another. In five cases this person was Dr. Wrege. With rd to the events that could have been caused by fraud, neither Dr. Wrege, Mr. Eldridge, nor any of the other investigators and visitors ever uncovered any evidence that trickery was used or attempted. The possibility that non-personal physical forces were respon- sible seems to be ruled out by the fact that the occurrences were restricted to Mrs. Parks’ apartment and to periods when Arnold was present; the neighboring apartments in the project were unscathed The Newark Disturbances 135 hi was operating in Mrs. Parks’ home. Moreover, Housing Authority of the City of Newark examined “every ” (2) of Mrs. Parks’ apartment and the basement of the z. Nothing was found to explain the events. p is a tendency when something strange happens to ns 8 monplace events in terms of the unusual occurrences. It is ble that some of the less striking events, such as the glass nter that reportedly slid across the top of the refrigerator nt 11) or the incidents with the sugar bowl lids (Events 32 and ere normal household accidents which became exaggerated and tized because of the other occurrences. -four events, however, are used for the analyses to be f red in this paper. If any of them are spurious, it is to be hoped that they are in the minority and will not seriously alter the interpretation of the overall results. Tue Seconp Puase _____When I first visited the apartment on September 9, Arnold was still staying with Mr. Brown. I told Mrs. Parks that RSPK cases are Secerally short-lived and suggested that Arnold return to the apartment so we might determine, while I was still in the area, whether or not the case had died down. Mrs, Parks agreed with the plan. That same night I was called back to the apartment with the news that the disturbances had resumed. When I arrived at 11;00 p.m. I found that in the period between 9:35 and 11:00 p.m. a glass plate, an ashtray, a toaster, a can of tobacco, and a small b had broken or had moved various distances. Mrs, Parks and Mr. Brown, who were in the apartment at the time, left shortly after my arrival while Arnold and I remained there for the night. The single incident that evening was when a lamp bulb fell to the floor in Arnold’s room when he was in bed and I was in Mrs. Parks’ room. The next morning, September 10, shortly after eight o'clock, when Mrs. Parks had returned and was in the kitchen and while Arnold was in his room and I was in the bathroom with the door closed, I heard a sound from the hallway and found a brush from the hall closet lying on the floor. The door to Arnold's room was shut. Arnold said it was also closed during the incident. Later in the morning Arnold told his grandmother, “You better put that mirror in the bathroom away, that might go.”’ Shortly after that, while Arnold was seated on the sofa in the living room, he remarked to his grandmother, ‘I saw your bag open and close.” This bag lay on a chair in Arnold’s room and was visible from his Position on the couch. Mrs. Parks examined the bag and found that

136 Fournal of the American Society for Psychical Research a purse containing fifteen dollars had disappeared. About half an hour after the loss was discovered, when Mr. Brown (who had arrived shortly before the purse disappeared), Mrs. Parks, and I were in the living room and while Arnold was in the hallway looking for the wallet behind the curtain in the hallway closet, a sound was heard from Mrs. Parks’ room and the wallet was found on the floor, minus the fifteen dollars. Arnold was then sent downstairs with the garbage; when he returned he brought two dollars which he said e found by the front door. Mrs. Parks asked him, “This isn’t a trick, is it Arnold, you are not playing a prank, are you?” She said that recently, during Arnold’s visits to the apartment, wallets belonging to her daughter (Mrs, Brown) and to two friends had disappeared, During this period Arnold had found about forty dollars in cash and various other objects, including a baseball bat and a baseball. Mrs. Parks tended to interpret these events paranormally. However, she was not wholly credulous: ten minutes after the boy had found the two dollars, she said, “Arnold, come here a minute.” She then emptied the boy's pockets looking for the remainder of her money, but found nothing except his belongings. After that she asked him to go to the cellar again to see if more money would appear when he returned. He brought another two dollars which he said he had found outside the front door, Arnold was then sent out for the newspaper and a few minutes afterwards Mrs. Parks discovered that a picture had fallen to the floor in her room. When the boy returned from his errand he handed over three dollars which he said he had found by the door. During the next five minutes he first found one piece and then the remainder of a ten dollar bill, probably the one that had been in Mrs, Parks’ wallet. This Seebinae the total to seventeen dollars, somewhat more than the amount Mrs. Parks remembered having had. I discussed the incidents with Arnold to see if he had any awareness of reasons or motives for them, but his remarks suggested none. In order to explore this question further and to determine whether ypnotic suggestions for RSPK incidents might be effective, I began a hypnosis experiment with the boy. But before I was able to induce a trance, Mr. Brown, who had left a short time prey oe wishing to take Arnold out to play. Shortly after I returned to the apartment on September 13 in the evening, staying for some hours and discussing the events with Mrs. Parks. Arnold came in shortly after 7:00, but there were no incidents. My last visit was on September 15, in the evening. The previous eee ey, ee eee ee Mrs. Parks’ wallet again disappeared. On the morning of the 15th a box of moth powder, a bottle of Windex, and two bottles of shampoo he Newark Disturbances 137 d various distances. Also in the morning, as Arnold left for school, he said that a Vaseline jar and a bottle of liniment fell in ont of him in the courtyard outside the apartment. all these incidents, and in those that hap earlier that h, Arnold was or easily could have been at the place where the ye apron —— Mrs. Parks or ; t Arnold was in one part o a it while thing happened elsewhere. Spree was evident to me at this stage that privacy was a preferred ‘ion for the phenomena and that I was a particularly inhibiting ence. After Arnold had arrived in the evening of the 15th, the a for short periods on various pretexts, At 43 p.m., while I was returning, coming up the steps outside, a bottle from the table to the south of the couch where was seated watching TV, moved to the back hallway. Parks was in the kitchen at the time. At 8:45 P.M. I was st next to the door outside the apartment when there was a erash. I rushed in and found the dish from the top of the TV set “broken on the kitchen floor. The boy was sitting quietly on the couch. At 9:00 p.m., when I was again outside, there was another i I an rushed in and found a green ashtray still moving on the floor. It belonged to a self-righting ashtray stand in the area bet the TV and the sofa. The ashtray had hit the control button on the TV, turning it off. Arnold was still on the couch. A minute later the same ashtray fell under similar circumstances, At 9:05 P.M., when I was again outside, I entered the apartment, though I was ‘Not consciously alerted by any noise, and saw the ashtray stand rolling on the floor. Arnold was sitting quietly on the sofa as usual. Tt would have been difficult for him to have set this stand in motion i fone his peat without detection. - be course of these incidents, I seemed to i rogres- sively closer to seeing an object start to move. While T' beeame more hopeful and excited, the renewal of the disturbances made Mrs. Parks increasingly more anxious and insistent that Arnold leave the apartment. At 9:45 p.m. I was in the kitchen helping Mrs. Parks clean up the pieces of the broken plate and trying to de her to let Arnold remain, promising that I would pay or further breakages and also pointing out that whatever the cause of the disturbances was, nobody had been hurt. I said, “It doesn’t hit people.""* At that moment a small bottle grazed Mrs, Parks and hit me squarely on the head. The bottle came from the side table at the south of the sofa, next to where the boy sat, and about eight feet from me. At the time of the incident, I was facing in his general . B *In any case an unconvincing statement in view of Events 33, 35, 48, 49, and 50.

138 Yournal of the American Society for Psychical Research direction, but not looking at him. I looked up at once and found Arnold as usual, unmoving and stoical. A few minutes after 10:00 p.m. Arnold left the apartment, returning immediately afterwards with a small bottle belonging to Mrs. Parks, which he said had hit him on the head. He then left again, but came back shortly afterwards with Dr. Wrege whom he had met outside, the boy saying he had been hit by another bottle. Shortly after that, when Dr. Wrege and Arnold were to leave again, we searched the boy and found a piece of wood under his shirt, of which he disclaimed any knowledge. Dr. Wrege and I speculated that this was to be the next object to be “found” outside and that his shirt front was the hiding place for the objects that followed him out of doors and perhaps for the money he said he found in various places. The discovery of the piece of wood, together with the losses and findings of money, which seemed uncharacteristic of RSPK occurrences, and also the fact that nothing happened while I or others had Arnold under observation, suggested that the earlier osten- sibly parapsychological phase of the disturbances had been replaced by a fraudulent one. I therefore decided to terminate the para- psychological part of the investigation and returned to Durham on the following day after arrangements had been completed for Arnold to take a series of psychological tests at New York Univer- sity. After these, Arnold returned to his uncle's home. On November 1, 1961, Mr. Brown sent Arnold back to his grandmother’s apartment, saying he could keep him no longer. Shortly after, Mrs. Parks’ TV set, the washing machine, the refrigerator, and the kitchen cupboard fell over. Mrs. Parks then brought Arnold to a friend's home where an ashtray went and to a second friend where a vase fell, and then, finally, to a hotel where he stayed for the night. On the morning of November 3, he returned to the apartment when the refrigerator again turned over. This ‘ae of equipment belonged to the housing project, and from ing a family problem, the poltergeist now mushroomed into a problem for the housing project and thereby the county authorities. Arnold was brought to a temporary shelter for children, after which the State Board of Child Welfare took over. In all of these incidents Arnold was alone at the time and could easily have caused them normally, Whether or not the events were fraudulent, they suggested that the psychological tensions which I assumed were behind the incidents, spurious and genuine alike, still existed. It was therefore decided to carry out a more thorough study of Arnold by bringing him to the Parapsychology Laboratory at Duke University. The visit to Durham was arranged through Miss Marjorie Cummings, Supervisor of the New Jersey Board of ‘The Newark Disturbances 139 Child Welfare, and Mrs. Rose Lemberg, Casework Supervisor at the Board’s Essex District Office. Since the poltergeist incidents seemed to depend on the presence of Mrs. Parks, it was arranged for her to participate in the psychological studies. Also, if there were still genuine RSPK incidents, Mrs. Parks’ presence would pe stimulate these under controlled conditions of observa- tion. Arnold and his dmother arrived in Durham on Decem- ber 16. This was the free time since November that they had been zi and that same afternoon there was an incident. I had gone out of my office at the Parapsychology Laboratory and Arnold and Mrs. had just left it and were walking along a narrow hallway, when a book that had earlier been on my desk fell to the hallway floor. As with other recent events, Arnold could have caused it normally since he was not watched at the time and could have vi the book up when he was leaving the room before throwing it. Nevertheless, this episode gave me two cues I had been hoping for: the “poltergeist’’ was still active and was ready to be confronted on laboratory territory. However, there was not enough time for more studies that day. I brought Arnold and Mrs. Parks to the Jack Tar Hotel, saying that they should get in touch with me if anything further happened. When I reached home I found a that the incidents had resumed. I returned to the hotel and learned that an ashtray had fallen to the floor and that a glass in the bathroom had smashed while Arnold was in there. Shortly afterwards a lamp, which had been placed on the floor for safety’s sake, turned over and the phone fell to the floor. Mrs. Parks said she saw the phone when it landed, at the same time watching Arnold, who was seated on the floor holding the TV set to prevent it from falling. It seemed possible, however, that he might have pulled the cord without detection. Arnold told me that while he was in the bathroom he saw the toothpaste leave the shelf and fall into the bathtub. I remained with them for a couple of hours in the hope that there might be additional incidents. At 10:20 P.m., while Arnold was in the bathroom, there was a crash and I found the light fixture in the sink. The plastic frame covering the bulb was bent in a way that would be consistent with someone having peed it and pulled it from the wall. Since the phenomena were ming destructive of hotel property without occurring under conditions that allowed for observation, I brought Arnold home with me. Nothing happened at the house that night or for the rest of the week Arnold stayed there. The fact that even the Parapsychology Laboratory failed to in- hibit the “poltergeist” offered an opportunity for closer observation than we had been able to achieve so far. Though the episodes from September on were suggestive of trickery and though the case had

140 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research become atypical as an RSPK case, extending for such a long period of time and over such a wide terrain, there was no proof of fraud. But the events on December 18 caused me to reject the parapsy- chological hypothesis for the later phase of the occurrences. The Parapsychology Laboratory possessed an experimental suite with a one-way mirror between two of the rooms. Dr. J. G. Pratt cooperated as the observer in one of these and I brought Arnold and his grandmother into the other, asking them to remain there while I attended to some matter. After a while, when Mrs. Parks left the room for a moment, Dr. Pratt saw Arnold take two meas- uring tapes from a table and hide them under his shirt. Mrs. Parks returned and left again, at which time Arnold tossed the two tapes after her. Mrs. Parks then called out to me that there had been an incident; she showed no suspicion of her grandson. This incident confirmed my doubts regarding the occurrences that had taken place since September. Until Arnold had been seen throwing the two tapes, it had been at least conceivable that the act of observation, particularly by outside witnesses, interfered with the phenomena and that this might be the reason why none were reported under good conditions of observation. The most reasonable view now seemed to be that all or most of the later incidents were fraudulent. Tue PotycrapH EXAMINATION The discovery of fraud convinced me that the paranormal aspects of the case had passed. However, it opened up a new avenue in the study I h to conduct with the “‘lie detection’’ method. In this, a series 0: penne is asked while the subject is attached to a polygraph which measures his neurophysiological reactions. If he tells a falsehood, this is likely to result in a reaction on the graphs. The procedure was planned for an earlier RSPK case (3), but could not be carried out. I was particularly anxious therefore to use the method in the present case and to determine how useful it might be asa of our RSPK procedures. Since we now had an incident, Arnold's throwing of the two tapes, which was definitely known to have been caused fraudulently and since he disclaimed any knowledge about it, I planned to question Arnold while he was attached to the polygraph in the hope of demonstrating that he was telling a falsehood when he asserted ignorance of what caused the tapes to move, Such a record was important for comparative purposes for the polygraph interview about the first phase of the disturbances. I decided to choose the most convincing of these disturbances, the lamp incident (Event 47), If Arnold disclaimed “The Newark Disturbances 141 any knowledge of how this event was initiated and if the polygraph ‘record supported his claim but indicated that he was lying when sring the question about the tapes, then this would give added rt to his claim of innocence regarding aris oe es the lamp rence. Following the interviews concerning the lamp and the I hoped to be able to throw light on other incidents _ My expectations were not fulfilled: the interviews supported Arnold's claim of innocence in connection with the lamp, but there was no clear evidence of deception when he denied knowing how a. moved, as observed by Dr. Pratt. This did not come as a cor rise, however, because in a hypnosis inerdes con- -ducte Dr. Ben Feather prior to the po’ examination, Arnold Slowed no pees of the tape indent Dr. Feather the was of the opinion that the boy threw the tapes while in a state of dissociation. Since the polygraph method is incapable of rey acts for which the subject has no conscious memory, Dr. Feather predicted that it would fail.* ANALYSES FOR AGENCY In tergeist disturbances, the victims often suppose that Mgpiris” see responsible. Mrs. Parks’ worry about the diovesbances was caused not only by the destruction of her belongings but also by ension that the deceased Mr. Brooks, Arnold's father and her son-in-law, might be responsible. This person, tape a man of violent temper, had been shot and killed by his wife during a family argument two years before and Mrs. Parks wondered whether he had come back and was causing the incidents in order to get Arnold away from her. . , as already indicated, the incidents seemed to point to a living agent; namely, Arnold himself. This conclusion was based on a study of the temporal and spatial distribution of the incidents. These analyses, and the search for other patterns in the disturbances that may reveal their nature, are guided by the same considerations on which the study of the Lessing case prev in the (3) was based. For the sake of brevity I shall not repeat in the rationale underlying these methods, but refer the reader to the earlier paper. fae ereee Se00re ont tes pekygran snegetigetion oF Ge ap enon from

142 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research Temporal Distribution of the Occurrences The occurrences began on Arnold's thirteenth birthday, May 6, 1961, with a single occurrence in Mrs. Parks’ room. However, most of the sixty-four occurrences were clustered in the following week (see Table 1). The day-to-day grouping is statistically significant, Table 1 ‘TemporaL Distapution or Occunnences Distribution of Occurrences over Days: X* = 33.96 (6 d.f.); P < .0001 Distribution of Occurrences over Hours: X* = 62.26 (2 d.f.); P < .0001 * Events 48-51, which took place on the evening of Saturday, May 13, may have occurred at 12:00 midnight or shortly after. but uninformative since we do not know if there was anything unusual about the activities of the two occupants of the apartment to correlate with the groupings. As a rule, the exact times of the events were not reported. A large proportion happened in the late afternoon or evening. Though it is possible that some of the incidents for which no times are given took place in the morning or early afternoon, there scems to have been a preference for the later periods. This distribution is also significant. The times of inactivity coincided with Arnold’s school hours. Mrs, Parks, however, had no fixed periods when she was away from the apartment. There were no disturbances late at night when the family could be presumed to be deep asleep. But since we do not know the exact times for most of the disturbances, it is not possible to determine if there were any when Arnold, but not his grandmother, was sleeping. However, the fact that they were restricted to periods when he was home from school, points to him as the agent. Spatial Distribution of Occurrences If we count the disturbances which happened when Arnold was in the outer hallway with those that took when he was at home, The Newark Disturbances 143 there were sixty-four incidents when Arnold was in the vicinity. However, there were eight disturbances (Events 45-51 and 59) when Mrs. Parks was known to be absent. Assuming that presence in the home suggests agency, Arnold rather than Mrs. Parks is __ If proximity to the events is taken as another sign of x we may take the average distances from the origin of the sserealatints of the two persons in the house and compare them. In the case of Arnold, his location at the time of a disturbance was reported in many instances. With regard to Mrs. Parks, often it is only stated that she was in a given room but not where in this room. In those cases where Arnold’s and Mrs. Parks’ locations were indicated in this manner, the distance from the center of the room in question to the disturbance was measured, There were forty events when the distance between Arnold and the origin of the movements was known or could be inferred. The sum of their distances from him was 317 feet. His average distance from the events consequently is (317/40 =) 7.9 feet. In the case of Mrs. Parks, there were twenty-eight events where her distance or approximate distance could be determined. Her average distance from the events was (306/28 =) 10.9 feet. If proximity is an indi- cator of agency, the figures suggest that this odie should be assigned to Arnold. This impression is strengthened if we look at each event y. Of the twenty-cight disturbances where an estimate could be made of both Arnold’s and Mrs. Parks’ distances from the events, in nineteen Arnold was closest, in eight Mrs. Parks was closest, and in one their distances came out the same. The difference between the figures for Arnold and Mrs. Parks is significant at the level of P = .03 (x* = 4.48; 1 d.f.) and supports the other indica- tions that Arnold rather than Mrs. Parks was the agent. A spiritistic explanation is of course still possible. It is conceivable that some incorporeal entity had attached itself to Arnold and caused the disturbances. However, such a theory is more complex Since it postulates both the existence of such an entity its Psat to cause disturbances by PK, while the hypothesis that d was the sole agent only requires the latter supposition and therefore is more acceptable. PuystcaL Aspects Attenuation Effect If Arnold was the source of the PK energy responsible for the events and if this energy obeys similar laws as other forms of energy in nature, then we might expect the force or energy. to. be weaker

144 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research the greater the distance in space from Arnold. One way in which such attenuation might appear would be in a decrease of incidents the greater the distance from the boy. As already stated, there were forty occurrences where Arnold’s distance, or approximate distance, from the events could be determined. These have been reduced to groupings of occurrences at 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, and 21-25 feet Arnold. The number of occurrences for the five categories was fifteen, fourteen, seven, two, and two. A linear regression analysis shows the decrease to be statistically significant (¢ = —5.66; r= 95 (3d.f.); P < .025).’? Evidently, the disturbances were attenuated with distance from the agent. As stated in the earlier paper (3), attenuation effects can arise as artifacts in various ways. I have referred to these as “motivational artifacts,” “observation and target-grouping artifacts,"" and “fraud artifacts,” Motivational artifacts: It is possible that objects in the visual field of a person are more likely to become RSPK than those that are concealed from view, say in a different room. As a result there might be more incidents close in space than further away. There were seven instances (Events 4, 5, 26, 27, 32, 41, and 61) where Arnold apparently saw both the origin and termination of movement and therefore must at least have been looking in the general direction of the object when it began its flight. Then there were another seven cases (Events 15, 25, 28, 36, 37, 43, and 44) where it is possible but not certain that he saw the beginning of the incident. Thirdly, there were two instances (Events 24 and 42) when he saw the object in flight and then saw it as it hit the floor or wall. Finally, there were four cases (Events 12, 19, 21, and 39) where he evidently only saw the terminating stages. If we subtract the fourteen cases where it was possible that he watched the object as it took off (actually only thirteen since Arnold's distance from Event 61 was not known) from the original set, the distribution comes out as five, thirteen, seven, two, and zero. This causes the first category to drop from the attenuation picture while the last cal fits somewhat better. Chcheted and target-grouping artifacts: An attenuation effect could result from a deficiency of RSPK targets at the greater distances from Arnold or to a failure by observers to notice dis- turbed objects at these distances from him. If Arnold’s movements in the apartment brought him close to sensitive objects or if 7 In linear regression analyses the of freedom are N — 2 and not N — 1 a case the d.f. are there- in single restraint chi In the fore = 25), the Lesing study Gp 263) Sas ue wae incorcety wien 005 rather than .00 ay ge The Newark Disturbances 145 Mrs. Parks and the other witnesses were especially attentive to occurrences in Arnold’s immediate vicinity, we should expect the events to be concentrated in the close proximity groupings. __ No occurrences were reported from the apartments adjacent to ‘or above Mrs. Parks’. Since her neighbors were alerted to the occurrences, it is to be expected that they would have reported anything unusual at least to the Housing Authority, which made an attempt to discover the cause of the disturbances. However, no such reports were made. Undoubtedly, the targets for Arnold’s RSPK abilities were limited to his grandmother's apartment. If ‘Arnold was in his bed at the southeast end of the apartment (see F 1), for all practical purposes the greatest distance at which ‘an event could be observed would be about twenty-six feet from ‘him, the positions of the TV set in the living room and the sideboard jn the outer hallway, which both figured in the disturbances. ‘There were no occurrences that far away, the most remote events falling into the 21-25 feet category. If the phenomena decrease with distance solely because the available targets exist in a limited area and regardless of Arnold's position in that area, then we should find a decrease with distance also in the case of Mrs. Parks. The distribution of the twenty-cight occurrences when her distances from the events could be calculated were as follows in the five categories; four, cight, twelve, four, and zero. To compare these with Arnold's, both scts have been converted to percentages the totals for each person and are shown in Figure 2.° It is clear that the figures for Mrs. Parks do not decrease in the same regular manner as those for Arnold. However, the lack of occurrences in Mrs. Parks’ 21-25 feet category and beyond suggests that the Scarcity or absence of occurrences also in Arnold's case might have been a result of the rather small area in which his RSPK abilities were operating rather than the limitation of these abilities to that area, : A large proportion of the occurrences took place while Mrs. Parks was 11-15 feet away. This concentration is due mainly to events in the back hallway and in the bathroom which took place while she was in the kitchen or living room and Arnold was in his own room. As far as can be determined, Arnold was not likely to be in close imity to “sensitive” objects any more often than Mrs. Parks. the contrary, the latter was probably more active in the back hallway where cleaning liquids and similar materials were stored and in the kitchen where were also many incidents. If there * The distances of the events from visitors to the apartment are not shown since there were too few cases in which these were known to make the distribution

146 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research were groupings of potential targets in areas frequented particular! often both by Arnold and his grandmother, this should have oo une! aa sopemannaaaeg era caenGed amas ttaimiyresiactd saw, there was no tendency for . Parks to be igi pl pe telat cy © be close to the origin SLILIELILSS TLL ULLLLLALLLLALLLAL LLLLLLLLL LLL ALL LLL LMALALLLLM LA 1-5 6-10 u-15 16-20 21-25 Distance in Feat Fig. 2. of number of of pad rag occurrences in relation to the distance from It is conceivable that both ping and motivational contaminated the results. In that case both the close and remote distance categories might have been affected, resulting in a gradual decrease in incidents such as was observed in this case. Fraud artifacts: If Arnold caused some or all of the incidents fraudulently, we might expect the largest number to happen in close proximity to him since it would generally be easier to interfere The Newark Disturbances 147 fraudulently with objects close at hand than those further afield. ‘There were fourteen incidents when Arnold was with an adult at the time of the occurrences and when this adult was of the set that Arnold had not caused the event normally. These are r uted as follows over the five distance categories: two, six, four, zero, and two. Most traces of attenuation have disa: : ‘This is not surprising because as a rule it is only when the was with Arnold in a different room from the one in which the disturbance took place that he could satisfy himself that Arnold ‘was not perpetrating it normally. In the present case the decrease of incidents with distance can _ be accounted for in terms of a combination of motivational and target-grouping artifacts or by su ing that Arnold was using fraud in all or most cases in which frand was possible without detection, The analysis of the attenuation effect to be discussed shortly as well as the other studies of the sixty-four incidents rests on the assumption that most of them were genuine and that the ies ro ek co casaen ei P a A mathematical study of the attenuation effect was made by Dr. John L. Artley. Figure 3 shows four curves, a freehand estimate X Observational Points Bstimated Curve ©——@ inverse Function Curve A—— <> Exponential Decay Curve - — 4} Cardinal Function Curve Fig. 3. Number of occurrences in relation to Arnold's distance from the Occurrences,

148 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research of a smoothly decreasing curve which fits the five observational points, a curve of the inverse function, an exponential curve of decay, and a curve of the cardinal function. As is to be expected, the d curve fits the data best but has no theoretical impli- cations. The inverse function docs not fit the observations very well. This function describes the way in which energy is dissemin- ated with increased distances from point sources. For instance, the attenuation of light with increased distance from an electric bulb follows the inverse function (though only approximately since the bulb is not a true point source). The cardinal function and the exponential decay function both fit the data reasonably well. The cardinal function gives the better fit, but so far it has not resulted in any meaningful theoretical view of the phenomena. The function used to express exponential decay is written: where N is the number of occurrences, ¢ is the base of the Naperian logarithm system, K, and K, are parameters which are used to fit the observed points and R is the average distance from the agent. In the present case, K, and K, have been chosen so that the expo- nential decay curve passes through the points which are at the smallest and the greatest distance from the source. In this case N = 20.4e~-10 The best way of obtaining an impression of how the four curves fit the data is by calculating their “standard deviations” (SDs). In this usage of the term, the SD refers to an area covering the two sides of the curve in which the observational points are found. If the observational points are dispersed at great distances from the curve, they can only be accounted for if the area on the two sides of the curve is very wide, that is, if the SD is large. Obviously, the best fit is provided by a curve which is in the closest proximity to the observational points and thus has the lowest SD. In the case of the four present curves, the SD for the graphical curve is 1.2, for the inverse function, 5.2, for the exponential decay function, 3.1, and for the cardinal function, 1.9. The exponential decay function applies to many physical situa- tions. For instance, the attenuation of a plane electromagnetic wave penerenne into a flat conductor (1) such as sunlight penetrating the ocean is described in terms of the exponential function. In this example the “decay” consists in the conversion of light to heat energy. With regard to the RSPK occurrences, there evidently was a conversion of psi energy to kinetic energy, ‘The Newark Disturbances 149 _ Tt makes good sense that it is the exponential decay function rather than the inverse function which provides the better fit for the data. In RSPK disturbances kinetic energy is produced. If the ena follow known rules, then the creation of this energy _ should result from the conversion of some other energy form and the number of such energy conversions should diminish with increased distance from the source in the same manner as other in nature that involve energy expenditure. The inverse ition, on the other hand, is concerned with the dispersal of ‘ in space rather than with its conversion into other forms and should therefore not provide as good a fit for the data. As mentioned before, the decrease could have been due to artifacts. However, the fact that the exponential decay curve, makes sense logically, should provide a good fit seems to the view that the attenuation is due to the nature of the ic process itself rather than to extrancous factors. i Tf psi energy is similar to known energy forms, there might be ‘attenuation with distance not only in the number of incidents observed but also in the amount of energy expended on each incident. Among the forty cases where the distance from Arnold ‘was known, in i the object only fell over. The average distance of movement for the others is shown in Table 2 together with the Table 2 Avimace Distance or Movement iv Furr mv Rucation to Proxmrry To Acent* 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 Case 5.4 (14 7.9 (1 7.0 (7) 1.0 2.0 (2) es Case $.8 (11 7.6 iy 8.75 (8) 4.0(1) 2.0 i Ray ° : nd figures i theses refer to the number of incidents from which the 71 peTeepe nding figures from the Lessing case (to be discussed later). ‘The longest movements occurred in the 6-10 and 11-15 feet categories and the shortest in the two distant groupings. The lengths ‘traveled by objects close to Arnold fell between these. Since there too few objects to base any conclusion on, especially in the two categories, and since the longest motions occurred in the 6-10 and 11-15 groupings rather than in the 1-5 grouping, there is no Smooth attenuation curve here, However, there was perhaps a

150 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research preference for lighter objects over pieces of furniture. Also, when Se Gite ace dictated, thay tly tok Genoa didnot measurable distances as did the smaller items. This seems consistent ee ee ee Pr pe an object a given distance is related to the mass object. ee * STANDING ** SITTING ‘The Newark Disturbances 151 In Figures 4 and 5 the origins, directions, and length of move- ments are shown when Arnold's position in relation to them was reported or could be inferred. These movements can be regarded ——* 4% SCALE ws sy SFEET j 5, Onigio, lnngiha. adi Sieseten sf movenens: of in relation to

152 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research as vectors in Arnold’s psi field. In Figure 4 Arnold's location and the way he faced are shown by the circle and enclosed arrow at the center. In Figure 5 movements are indicated where it was not sis which direction Kaisa faced at the time. ¢ movements y originated in front of Arnold. There were thirteen of this kind St Tate where the occurrences were initiated at his back. This difference is significant (x? = 4.76; Id.f.; P << 03). There was no favoring of sides, six incidents originating at his right and seven at his left. The objects tended to come toward Arnold, twenty-six following this direction while ten moved away (x* = 7.1, | d.f.; P < .01). There was no suggestion that the electrical properties of the objects (sce later this section) bore any relation to the direction they moved with regard to Arnold. Twenty-three objects moved clockwise while only seven moved counterclockwise (y* = 8.53, | d.f.; P < .01). _Table 3 shows the directions of movements in relation to the directions of the arp my: Most objects moved toward the northeast, but none of the differences were statistically significant. Table 3 Dimections of Movements or Onyncts in Revation ro Compass* Westerly Eas E--3SfoE-3 North-West Due North North-East 2 4 12 oD 6 6 South Due South-East 10 i ; compass which started out in a no direction which qt seen so chair smaigae ge hase began Other Aspects of Movement ean aren: tne obsocts seomasieasotete or tnen. Mrs. Leiden a ¢ was “turning a jig in the air’ (Event 10 Arnold said he saw a lamp bulb unscrew itself (Event 26) i Newark Disturbances 153 In several instances, the objects ap tly moved in a curved At least such a motion has to be assumed if the points of ‘origin and termination of the motions were correctly reported. It is conceivable that the objects ricocheted off the walls hereby turning corners but there is no evidence for this. It seems most reasonable to suppose that their motion was a curvilinear one. It is possible that there were more such motions than are shown in Figure I. For instance, Events 29, 30, 31, and 38 are shown ouiginating at the southern end of the hallway closet, but the exact places of origin of these movements are not known. If the objects came from the northern end of the closet, they too would have to describe curved lines in order to have terminated in the places reported in or near Mrs. Parks’ room. At the least, therefore, there are eleven cases where the objects describe a counterclockwise curvilinear motion (Events 9, 10, 12, 19, 21, 23, 39, 44, 45, 48, and 50). There are two jects that went in the opposite, clockwise, direction (Events 35 and 49). This difference is statistically significant (y* = 6.23, | d.f.; P < .02). However, it is not possible at this stage to determine whether this peculiarity of motion is due to the energetic process itself or results from some psychological factor guiding the objects into Mrs. Parks’ room or into the living room. On two occasions (Events 24 and 43) Arnold claimed that he saw the object “float” through the air suggesting an abnormally slow motion. The latter of these two objects then picked up speed and shattered against (or shortly before hitting) the wall. On another occasion (Event 50) a saltcellar touched Mr. Brown and then with great force hit the wall. It is conceivable that there was a change in velocity for these objects. However, the observations are too few and uncertain to base anything on. Mrs. Parks and Mrs. Leiden stated that two bottles (Events 9 and 10) came from the bathroom while the door was closed. These are the only claims of this nature and it seems easier to attribute them to mistaken observations regarding the door to the bathroom or the origin of the bottles than to postulate additional parapsychological processes. Nature of Objects The nature of the objects that are disturbed in RSPK cases may give clues about the nature of the energy. The electrical and chem- rest insofar as these are known or can be , are listed below. Electrical ies: Table 4 shows the objects and their electrical properties as far as these can be determined. Objects consisting ‘mainly of metal or having substantial metal components were listed as conductors or probable conductors, respectively, while objects

154 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research Table 4 Evecrnicat Paorenties or Onyects Com- bined Con- Number Prob- Prob- ductors of able able and Occur- Con- Con- Dielec- Diclec- Dielec- Object Disturbed rences ductors ductors trics trics trica Empty Glass Objects 20 Vv Furniture Polish Bottle 1 v Cleaning Fluid Bottle 2 Vv Mercurochrome Bottle a v Cologne and Perfume Bottles 2 Vv Bottles and Jars with Unknown Contents 4 v Glass Vaseline Jar 1 v epper Mirror 2 Vv Light Bulb 3 v Glass Lamp Base 1 Vv Empty Porcelain Objects 8 v Pore Lame 3 Vv Wood Bookcase 2 v Metal Floor Lamp ! v Radiogramophone and TV 3 Vv Electric Iron 1 v Can of Paint 1 64 es Leen aid Won Wale SANE: areas CO ey contained something or had a component which was ibly a conductor, as roth dielectrics. ‘Some objects gel oe be combinations of conducting and dielectric components. A fifth category has been introduced for these. There were many more dielectrics and probable dielectrics than conductors and probable conductors. bp we do Page know the relative oma 6 of the two types of objects in me, it is not possible to be certain that there was a preference for non-conductors. However, if the principle of selection had been entirely random, there probably would have been a few pots and or knives and forks among the eighteen objects disturbed in the kitchen, yet there were none. There may therefore have been a preference for dielectrics. If there was such a preference, it is of course possible that this was not due Chemical elements: In determining the chemical composition of the objects, a rough estimate was made based on the commonly known constituents of the kinds of objects that were involved (see ‘Table 5). The method is outlined in the previous paper (3). Table 5 Crmucar Composrrion or Onyects * (\/) = less than one per cent by weight. Hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon headed the list of elements present in the disturbed objects, The possibility that an object containing such clements is more sensitive than others because the same ele- ments are abundant in the bio eptesar ina. baa sini me Arnold's body, is discussed in revious paper. For being it is not possible to decide whether the large number of RSPK episodes with such objects is because they are more sensitive than others to PK energy or simply because they are more common in household objects than non-organic materials.

156 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research Focusine Errects In the Lessing case there seemed to be a marked tendency for certain objects or types of objects to be repeatedly disturbed (3). An attempt was also made to see whether the psi effects were concentrated in certain areas of the house. I referred to these effects as “object focusing” and “area focusing.” Before we can determine whether certain objects or areas are associated with more disturbances than others because they are endowed with a special sensitivity to the psi energy, we need to know whether these occurrences could be due to other factors, such as their increased exposure to the energy by virtue of proximity to its source. In the Lessing case the RSPK occurrences were clustered in the 1-5 feet category but in the present study we find there are about equally many in the 6-10 feet grouping. On the assumption that the greater jodie of episodes, including repetitions, within this area may be due to greater psi energy close to the t rather than to any special sensitivity to this by the objects, we shall first examine repetitions beyond the 1-10 feet . In these only the repetitions with the same object or kind of object or in the same area are given; the first event is not listed. Object Focusing Individual objects: In Table 6 I have shown repetitions of disturbances of single objects in relation to their distances from Arnold. In each case the check mark indicates the first distur- bance of that object, the second check mark, the second disturbance, and so on. Seven objects were involved, accounting for eighteen incidents of which pst were ey aoe somewhat less than one-sixth of the total of the sixty- occurrences. If we ignore repetitions within the 1-10 feet range, only one remains; namely, one of the saltcellar episodes (Event 50). Apparently there is no evidence of focusing in the present case other than what can be attributed to the proximity factor. If any of the five repetitions where the distances were not known occurred beyond the 1-10 feet range, the evidence for focusing would be stronger. There is perhaps some indication of focusing in the four cases where the repetitions happened immediately after the first occurrence with that object (Events 37 and 45) or with only one iary event (Events 21 and 35). Undoubtedly, there were other objects in Arnold’s immediate vicinity that could have been affected in addition to the object that its second per- formance. These four events (six, in case Events 58 and 63 closely followed the first episodes with these objects) suggest that the he Newark Disturbances 157 pbjects were endowed with some special quality which made them re sensitive to the PK effects than other objects in Arnold's ediate surroundings. However, I have not been able to assign ‘g statistical value to this phenomenon. Table 6 Focusine on Inpivipvat Osyjects ee Occurrence Number 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 ? * Possibly not the same ashtray as 36 and 37. nied broke. : *** Not certain that this event followed immediately after previous, objects: The analysis for focusing on kinds of objects in ta ah ll ine is shown in Table 7. With regard to the individual objects repeatedly disturbed, which are shown in Table 6, only the first incident with pe Le is vege in Table 7 to keep this is independent other. If we again ignore episodes in the 110 ican; there was no evidence of focusing on types of objects. It is of course possible that several of the twenty-one events whose distances were not known in the greater distance categories and that there would have been evidence for focusing could these distances have been established,

158 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research ee) Vn &enw Sal Tableware: Punch Bowl Set Ss bool and T ‘eapot Co’ Drinking Glasses =ikimeni ——— hh Sars and Pepper Shakers Decanter Totals: Mincellancous Objects: Lamps Ashtrays Light Bulbs Tron ~~ No Nhe 8 er nuwwa VUeKwnNeu Totals: Furniture: Bookcase Radiogramophone TV Set Bl w--- In some cases, events with the same kinds of objects followed so closely on each other as to suggest some selective principle other than proximity or chance. This is true for Events 3, 4, 5, 7, 28, and 36. However, except for Events 4 and 36, the objects disturbed were i ‘i ta same places ie the apartment as the objects previously ve suggests that it have been the tise abled! that wae the focal poliit ih diese canes. kar in ia Area Focusing Table 8 gives the distribution of events over the areas of the apartment, If we subtract object repetitions, events in the 1-10 feet The Newark Disturbances 159 range, as well as cases where the distances from Arnold were not known (since there were so many of these), there seems to be no evidence for area focusing. The most extreme figures are three and zero, representing the three incidents each for the living room and Mrs. Parks’ room and none for Arnold’s. However, the picture changes if we consider the sequences of events. In many instances the repetitions followed immediately on each other or with only one intervening event, suggesting that something other than proximity or chance was responsible. If we disregard recurrences which might be due to focusing on individual objects (Events 21, 35, 37, and 45) or on of objects (where this could not in turn be attributed to area ing, namely Events 3 and 5), and if we also disregard those cases where it is not known whether events listed chronologically in fact followed each other, and if we restrict ourselves to events immediately following each other or with only one intervening occurrence (one-interval repetitions), the following picture (see Figure 1). In the living room one incident (Event 48) followed immediately on the preceding one and another (Event 44) after one interval. Moreover, these two episod oe tock aes te ta eee ae re on the table at the south of the sofa. Also, though the consecutive order is uncertain, the concluding events of the case, except for Event 64, all ap d to occur in the living room (Events 58-63). In the kitchen, there were four such recurrences (Events 25, 33, and 50 being immediate, and 43 a one-interval repetition). In addition we have a sequence of events whose order is not known but which may have taken place at about the same time (Events 53-56). Also, five of the events in the hallway closet were immediate (Events 7, 8, 30, and 31) or one-interval repetitions (Event 20). In the bathroom there was one immediate (Event 10) and a one-interval repetition

160 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research (Event 12). In Mrs. Parks’ room there was an immediate repetition (Event 17). Finally, two of the occurrences in Arnold’s room were immediate repetitions (Events 27 and 28), these events also happen- A in the same part of his room as the first one which took place ¢ Adding together the repetitions for the living room, kitchen, hallway closet, bathroom, Mrs. Parks’ room, and Arnold’s room, the number of recurrences are eight, eight, five, two, one, and two. Though there seems to be evidence that the occurrences were concentrated in one area at a time, the unequal distribution over the apartment of such clusterings is not necessarily to be interpreted in terms of focusing on the favored rooms. We might expect large numbers of recurrences in the living room and kitchen because these rooms contained so many potential PK targets and target sites and because Arnold probably spent many of his waking hours there, However, the scarcity of occurrences in his own room, where he undoubtedly also spent much of his time, suggests that this lay outside the general . f course, there was clear evidence for area focusing insofar as the disturbances were restricted to Mrs. Parks’ apartment, at least in the first, ostensibly genuine phase of the occurrences. There seemed to be something in the home which liberated Arnold’s PK abilities which was not found elsewhere. PsYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS In the previous parts of this paper I have discussed the RSPK process in terms of its end product, the movements and disturb- ances of the objects in Mrs. Parks’ apartment. I shall now turn to the apparent source of the events, to Arnold, in the search for factors which might give a clue to the origin of the energy respon- sible for the events, Personality Studies Psychological tests were given to Arnold by Dr. I. H. Paul at New York University on September 16, 1961. The tests adminis- tered on that occasion were the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, the Rorschach test, the Thematic A: perception Test (TAT), and figure-drawing tests. While Arnold and hi d- mother were in Durham, December 16-20, three iatric interviews were conducted with him and one with Mrs. Parks Dr. Ben W. Feather at Duke University. In the same peri Dr. John Altrocchi, assisted by his graduate students, Mr, Leonard The Newark Disturbances 161 . Fink, Mr. Bruce Grossman, Miss Lou Hicks, Miss Margaret Scholle and Mr. David Sandler, gave Arnold the Minnesota -Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), a word-association 1 and an Inte nal Check List in which Arnold was asked EB describe himself his ideal self, his grandmother, and his ideal other. Mrs. Parks was given a general interview, a TAT, a Rorschach, an MMPI, and an Interpersonal Check List in which she was asked to describe herself, her ideal self, Arnold, and her ideal Arnold. In addition, they were both given a brief situational 0 | interviews. : Se Pots rp Except for the results of the intelligence test, Dr. Paul’s main findings are discussed by Dr. Altrocchi so this of his study will not be quoted here. With regard to Arnold’s tcl: gence, Dr. Paul observes: show him to be somewhat below average in intelligence, He falle into the category of dull-normal; though his Verbal IQ is ee ee one In , his functioning is likely ony, He may occasionally show an ability to do rather well at tasks, but at other times his performance may deteriorate. His thinking tends to be rather concrete, and he sometimes shows poor discernment and sensitivity to reality. His ability to test reality ts not well devel- oped. At the same time he is imaginative, in that he can give free rein to the play of a rich — varied imagination, In ds is probably a , when it comes to o k ge lender gle yy hey Synge he and presccupicl. Moreover, while he can apply aren | and to problems and tasks, he is liable to be too and ; instead of trying to analyze and understand a task, he goes at it with trial-and-error. . . Freedom from his severe emotional Dr. Feather's Report: In his interviews with Arnold, Dr. Feather noted that Arnold, when telling about his past, real personal references, such as statements concerning Kis feolings for the significant people in his life. He has had a rather traumatic childhood in that he has been raised by several different families other than his real parents, He has lived varying lengths His description of his father is of a man Frequently beat Arnold and his mother and spent a great deal of time in jail. Two years ago one of these battles ‘S$ parents

162 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research feelings of remorse over his father’s death, and in fact, says that he felt glad when it happened for he had feared that his father might kill his mother. In a later interview, however, he did begin to express more feeling of admiration and fondness for his father, and t the impression that in the first interview he was echoing attitudes toward his father expressed frequently to him by all of his mother’s family. Throughout the three interviews with Arnold the most striking feature was the degree to which he used denial and repression as defenses. There was considerable evidence of an intense, underlying anger toward his grandmother, but he was never able to verbalize The Newark Disturbances 163 of to borderline intelligence. He shows little affect duri Ke interviews but this appears to be more Pred Rees deter- mnined phenomenon than a true disorder of affect. ... ‘ There is no direct information about the nature of the poltergeist phenomena, but due to his tendency toward repression and denial, it is quite likely that some of these phenomena have occurred in dissociative states and that he is, indeed, unaware of what he is doing. If such is the case, the motivation is most likel the wish to act hostilely and destructively toward his grandmo and to effect their separation and yet to be able to do this in such a way that the intense natureof these feelings need not be fully admitted to awareness. this, When encouraged to do so, he would relate many instances of his grandmother setting rather stringent restrictions on his activity, such as not permitting him to play with the neighborhood children his age, going to movies, watching television, etc., and nonverbal cues of his resentment and anger were quite apparent. Yet when it was gently suggested that he must feel quite ann at his grand- mother at times, this was immediately denied, and he would attempt to change the subject. At the present time, he is living in a children’s shelter separated Dr. Altrocchi’s Report: Dr. Altrocchi’s report includes, in addition to the work conducted by himself and his students, the main observations made by Dr. Paul. He was aware of the simulated poltergeist disturbances at the Parapsychology Laboratory and of the hypothesis developed by Dr. Feather that this and other occurrences might be dissociative in nature and therefore not remembered by Arnold. Dr. Altrocchi writes: from his grandmother and the rest of the family. He appears to like this home for children very much and does not speak of returning home when he leaves here, but rather, returning to the shelter. He adds, almost as an afterthought, that he would really like to live with his dmother and if only those objects would stop flying through the air he would be able to return to her. One definitely gets the impression, however, that he is quite happy to be away from her and has no desire to return. On the third interview, Arnold’s defenses had been raised con- siderably and he remained quite guarded throughout the hour. He was quite anxious and eager to leave the interview. Most questions were with “I don't know” or “I can’t remember.” During this third interview I hypnotized Arnold and asked him to recount the details of one of the more striking of the poltergeist episodes. He did this without changing in any way his previous stories. When posed for more information about it he was unable to give any. The evel of y ag eg was deep enough to sustain induced anesthesia, and amnesia for the hypnotic trance was induced. I interviewed Mrs. Parks, Arnold’s grandmother, on two brief occasions. On the surface she appears to be very puzzled about the events that had been occurring in her apartment, but at a deeper level she seems to believe that Id is entirely responsible for them. There is evidence of considerable annoyance and anger SUMS shies hor crochinty Ga ee ee guilty about her consciously admitted wish to Arnold live elsewhere and I attempted to relieve some of this guilt and assure her that for now at least this seemed to be the most practical arrangement. Arnold's mental status has not revealed any evidence of organicity or of disordered thought processes, hallucinations, delusions, or paranoid ideas. He is well oriented in all spheres and appears to be ing from this examination is his massive use of repression and denial, For instance, he is the only person I have ever examined with no discrepancy between self and ideal self on the Ini onal Check List. Brea more dramatic was his thorough Ghalst of Soetiogs in general and anger in particular during my interview wi his grandmother together. ... At one point, both his grandmother and I were pressing him rather vigorously on a point in such a way that it was almost certain that he would have some feeling reactions. And indeed, tears came to his eyes. But even with tears in his eyes he denied having any feelings whatsoever. There is evidence in the test materials of an underlying sadness and fear of separation (Arnold has grown up in at least four homes) but he denics 8 in this area too. Under some pressure and hagerd cieenig, he did admit to feelings of anger when picked on b other boys. en asked when he had most angry in his life, he said that he was most angry when he was beaten by his father as a child. It became clear that at that early age, no matter how furious he was, he felt completely helpless and unable to express or act upon the anger. It is as if this way of dealing with—or not dealing with— has and ized so that it pervades his personality now. = Purmting the theme of eager = little further and. Denes 9 eons interesting to note that his grandmother describes him as timid, like his mother, so that it is conceivable that he has the idea that if he should ever let any anger out he would kill somebody as his mother did, Yet there is also some evidence of identification with his father. Mr. Brooks was a boxer and Arnold is a special fan of heavyweight

164 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research champion Patterson.... Whether the events were carried out trickery, or by dissociation, or are genuinely cred groin | effect is certainly to dismay upset the grandmother so that Arnold’s hostility toward her becomes important. Arnold seems to be a shy, inhibited, and rather withdrawn boy and, while I have not examined many N boys his age, I would suspect that these qualities cannot be entirely attributed to being examined by strange white people in hospitals and laboratories five hundred miles from home, The underlying complex forces in his personality seem to have most in fantasy—in the TAT stories he told to Dr. Paul. These long and detailed stories include themes of achievement and glory, kindness and vengeance, rejection and loneliness, robbery and murder, guilt and awakening adolescent sexuality, disastrous events and happy endings. It is also important to underline Dr, Paul's inference that is a great need on Arnold's part to be the center of attention, “to be admired and noticed others, to achieve spectacular success and renown... a poignant desire to be wanted and loved, especially by his mother." One has to admit that, however the events concerning the flying objects have occurred, Arnold has spectacularly succeeded in making himself the were ee a (can deal of attention (although he is not ee ay Sg resumably desires particu eather shy ‘and tabibieed % las are ad Other data about Arnold's that might be useful in understanding the poltergeist include word-associa- tion teat. Arnold had particular y long reaction times, or unusual associations to the words “birthday,” “home,” “trick,” and the ll The Newark Disturbances 165 people, and especially because she felt that the focus of the examina- tion should be on Arnold and her orientation was much more toward hoping that we would help them than toward their helping us ina research sense. Furthermore, while Mrs. Parks’ ego th seems erally adequate, her ability to form Rorschach pts that fit the Fane of the blots deteriorated somewhat under the stresses of con- tinuing examination and the complexity of having to deal with several colors in the blots. Thus she would not be expected to react in a highly mature manner to stress. This seems confirmed by her reactions to the current, admittedly rather difficult situation with flying objects. In addition to this degree of immaturity she has strong dependency needs which are probably less gratified now that her husband is dead. ... The strong dependency needs combined with the death of her husband a year ago raises the question of whether she might be spate, Bae of her needs onto Arnold now that her husband is dead and thus placing more than usual stress on an already tenuous and difficult relationship. There seems to be some basic distrust and pessimism (as in a dog-eat-dog world) in Mrs. Parks’ life orientation. Furthermore, she is much less inhibited and more impulsive than Arnold. A high Hn tic underlying hostility is quite apparent and amare into her ior much more easily than is the case with Arnold. She was able, for instance, to march into my office once and ask me what was taking us so long. She is able to release some of this hostility by chiding and eaicosiee Aron and some of the rest of it seems channeled into controlling him. In this regard it is especially i i With the background of these two ¢ personality sketches, first started paying pone Aaceengor seg, 2258 — Prebed ere wa we can look more specifically ot the relationship between Arnold when a small jar on her dresser fell to the floor and this occurred on and his grandmother. I was able to observe very little real communica- tion between them. One can say that they really do not understand each other very well. I would say in general that the relationship between these two people is significantly more pathologi than either of them are as separate personalities. When one is able to cut through the denial and defensiveness on the part of both Arnold and his grandmother about their relationship (at first she described him Arnold’s birthday—a time when one might think that he wanted and content of his Ro: : nara br se van. Vane’ pret ees as 24 unbelievably good boy), one sees that she describes Arnold as cesar even for a hrenic breakdown if life Siviade 7 dependent ae Bs eaters or ig enough. een pas fo w without a concomitant in hi satisfy e question of wi r she may be trying to substitute haces eb cei for tis grandfather in some unconscious way.) She wants to know see him as a boy who badly needs the kind of growth that might be provided by psychotherapy, but whether he is motivated to enter into more about what he thinks and feels and docs, and she asks him directly about these things. At such a ion one sees a good example r a therapeutic relationshi distress in therapy is mu Sisaunea bit ng of eta an in their Stacie ee en her in oo Parks’ level of personality adjustment would probably fall very brief or noncommittal way, such as “I don’t * or “Yes,” within the generally ange: While’ there te which leaves the grandmother thoroughly unsatisfied. Her reaction i aaae . sibeee is to press and he continues to balk and she gets very angry evidence that she is a very anxious person, there were man: rare anxicty during our examination, One would thus infer that she was very anxious about and threatened by the of being here in Durham, examined by strange white ve richly and they are then at an impasse. I spent some time in my Wey iit vinw with them trying to help them start to improve their intercommunication but whether or not I made any impact on them is hard to tell, Finally, concerning their relationship, it should be

166 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research inted out that the overall effect of the flying objects is to foie wedge in this relationship, While alba ek pio ection the desire to continue living together, it is clear that there are motiva- tions on both sides to takes sso and I think the greatest help we can be in advising the N authorities is to tell them that it would probably be helpful all around if Arnold and his grandmother lived > ios n conclusion, I am very impressed with the degree i evidence from this examination is congruent with De, Feathers hypothesis that Arnold is subject to dissociative episodes and that many of the events concerning flying objects may be caused directly by him without his having any conscious memory of them. One way thatsuch a hypothesis is important is that it leads to the prediction ne the polygraph results would suggest “innocence” (as I gather Paty in this case) because the boy really is telling the truth as I ws it when he denies causing the events. It would be most interesting to see whether other poltergeist cases involve potentially dissociative people. Whether the events involving the flying objects are paranormal, trickery, or dissociative, it seems that there is considerable motivational and interpersonal background which might psy explain some of the psychological forces behind such events. specifically here to an extremely neurotic relationship between these two people where real emotional communication, especially from Arnold toward his 4, seonaapatserns is completely blocked. Adding to this the high degree of anger underlying his quict exterior and his massive use of repression, one can easily imagine rather explosive forces that would be expected to be triggered in this relationshi especially at times connected with such events as a birthday at ey intolerable relationship between Arnold and his grand- BEG Examination An electroencephalographic (EEG) examination of Arnold made by Dr. Walter D. Obri OLS was Be CR a ey fe aaae SEN OraNY: The subject was quiet and cooperative; he responded i to questioning. There was some restlessness duri tid cootietion ma alep , ss bea ORHORne of the mouth. Slight drowsiness, but : is characterized by an intermittent 10.0 to 10.5 occipital alpha rhythm, averaging 30 to 50 microvolts, and bilaterally symmetrical, This rhythm extends to the parictal and posterior reeosroral regions, The frontal and anterior temporal areas revealed voltage fast waves mixed with irregular low-to-moderate ampli- ee psi activity (4-7 cps.). The latter was not considered excessive The Newark Disturbances 167 Five minutes of fairly strenuous overbreathing resulted in a slight buildup, which recovered promptly. Very brief sections of drowsiness were uneventful. At no time were there any seizure patterns, focal disturbances or other specific abnormalities. Dr. Obrist’s general impression was that Arnold was within the normal limits for his age. As I was p ing this material, I asked Dr. Obrist if he had anything to add to his report. He replied that there was a burst of 14 per second positive spikes during a short portion of the record when the boy was drowsy. If this effect had been more pronounced it would have indicated a form of epileptic discharge which is common in adolescents who have behavioral problems, including dissociative episodes. However, in Arnold’s case the effect was too small to provide anything but the barest sugges- tion of this disorder. In view of the evidence of dissociation from the other studies, the finding becomes more suggestive and will at least make us attentive to EEG responses of this type in future RSPK investigations. Psychological Data in Relation to Occurrences Perhaps the clearest finding from the psychological studies was the evidence of Arnold's repressed hostility toward his grand- mother, It seems reasonable to interpret the destruction of Mrs. Parks’ belongings in terms of an expression of tensions which could find no other outlet. Let us now consider whether the psychological material throws light on any of the disturbances or the nature of the movements. Focusing effects: When we took into account the time sequence of the episodes, there were a few clusterings with r to individual objects and types of objects. These forms of focusing involved a Mercurochrome bottle, a saltcellar, two ashtrays, and the punch bowl cups. This is skimpy material to build on, but we ma te that the disturbance of the medicine bottle and the tableware were symbolic expressions of the boy’s dependency needs. There is evidence for area focusing insofar as the objects often flew from the same site in short succession, but it was not possible to interpret this in terms of any general preference or avoidance for the rooms in question except with regard to Arnold’s own room, which was less often the scene of disturbances than we might . This of course is consistent with the psychological picture which does not suggest that Arnold’s emotions were directed against himself to any unusual extent,

168 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research Direction of Movement _ Figure 1 shows a tendency for the objects to move toward or into Mrs. Parks’ room. These intrusions into Mrs. Parks’ living space seem consistent with Arnold's hostility toward the grand- mother. On the other hand, Mrs, Parks was never actually hit by any of the objects, though others were. The objects in several cases moved toward Arnold, and on one occasion (Event 33) he said he was actually hit by one. Once a saltcellar (Event 35) hit a neighbor, and when Dr, Wrege and Mr. Brown were in the apartment, an empty mustard jar (Event 43) flew over their heads crashing in front of them, Later, an ashtray (Event 51) fell between the two men. The same night, Mr. Brown had been hit by another ashtray (Event 48) as well as by a pepper shaker (Event 49) and a saltcellar (Event 50), It seems strange that Arnold, Mr. Brown, a neighbor, or other Paseo to. bd spartan all = one time or another were targets or the missiles, but never Mrs. Parks, who apparen focus for the boy’s aggressions. fi a Agent's Activities In order to determine whether Arnold’s activity was related to the disturbances, his behavior at the time of the occurrences (wh this could be determined) has been entered in Table 9. awe ata Table 9 Agno.o's Activiry is RELATION To OccuRRENCES Objects Disturbed - Total Minus Miacel- 1-10 Feet Con- Tuble- lancous Fur- | To-| and Distance tainers ware Objects niture|tals| Unknown “i nwnooco Cnn The Newark Disturbances 169 events he was lying down in bed, in eight he was seated, and in thirteen he was standing. If we follow the rule of ignoring episodes within the 1-10 feet range, all figures are greatly reduced with no clear indication of favoring activities. Unconsciousness of Phenomena Arnold's responses in the hypnotic interview and in the poly- ph examination suggest that he was not consciously aware of ving caused the movements and b of objects in his grandmother's apartment. However, some of his responses in the word-association test raise the question whether he was entirely innocent of everything that went on. Several of the words were meant to refer to the disturbances and the means by which they might have been caused normally. Arnold’s responses to “money,” “trick,” and “hide” were followed by delays suggesting an emotional reaction. His replies to the three words were “pocket- book,” “game,” and “find.” It will be recalled that in the second, apparently spurious phase of the occurrences, money belonging to Mrs. Parks and others mysteriously disappeared from their books, later to be “found’’ by Arnold. It was my opinion at the time that this was simple trickery. His responses to the words are consistent with this view and suggest that at least these episodes did not occur in dissociated states. Three other words referred to the disturbed objects. These were “lamp,” “dishes,” and “television.” Arnold’s responses were immediate and common, namely “table,” “sink,” and “radio.” The words “kitchen” and “bathroom” referred to places where incidents had taken place. Also here, there were no delays and the replies of “bathroom” and “living room” were ordinary, There were also words which described the manner in which the objects might have been disturbed, namely “throw” and “toss,” to which he immediately gave the stereotyped responses of “catch” and “throw.” The words “crash,” “hit,” and ‘‘clean,” which referred to the effects of the incidents, produced the normal responses of “bang,” “strike,” and “dirty” with no delays. In short, the word-association test supports the view that Arnold was unaware of any involvement in the movements and breakages of objects. However, as pointed out earlier, there were fourteen instances where, ing to Arnold's accounts, he may have seen the objects take off and where it seems possible that his looking at or attending to them may have been a causative factor. If this is the case, some involvement with these disturbances is suggested at least at the periphery of consciousness.

170 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research CONCLUSION In this study, as in most other RSPK investigations, only a few of the events occurred under conditions which allow us to be reasonably certain that we are dealing with genuine psychical effects. As with other puzzling events in nature, the best assurance that they are real is when they show characteristics which turn up elsewhere. Shared patterns ho y also point to the modus operandi of the process. It may therefore be of interest to conclude with a comparison between the present and the Lessing case previously discussed in this Sarat (3). In both cases, the agents were boys about the same age, Michael being twelve and Arnold thirteen. The Lessing phenomena lasted about six weeks and the Newark case about fourteen. By a curious coincidence there were sixty-four reported disturbances in both (three unexplained sounds bring the total for the Lessing case to sixty-seven incidents). However, more information was available about the Lessing than about the Newark occurrences and it is possible that the latter included phenomena additional to those reported, especially in its beginning and concluding phases. Again, the incidents that were known could often not be described in as much detail as was the case for the Lessing disturbances. In both cases, the day-to-day and hourly distributions of the events are statistically highly irregular. There is little similarity between the daily groupings, but the hourly distributions resemble each other. In the eight-hour intervals beginning at midnight, the figures for the Lessing case are six, fourteen, and forty-four, and for the Newark case zero, four, and thirty-eight. In neither case were there any known incidents when the boys were away from their homes nor when they were deep asleep. When we turn to the spatial relationships we find that in both cases the boys on the average were closer to the events than other members of their families. We also find a significant gradual decrease of number of incidents with increased distance from the agents. If we suppose that objects in the visual field of the agent are more likely to become RSPK targets, we find that Arnold reported that he was looking at several of the objects in his imme- diate vicinity at the time they began to move while Michael apparently never did. The possibility that “observation and target- grouping artifacts” caused the attenuation seems unlikely in both cases because the episodes did not show a gradual decrease in relation to the other members of the family, except for the most remote distance groupings which therefore were probably affected by the limited area in which the phenomena took place. It is possible, however, that the attenuation could arise as a by-product The Newark Disturbances 171 of fraudulent interference since this was most likely to go un- detected in close proximity to the boys. On the assumption that the two curves were not entirely due to artifacts they were studied from the point of view of known energy processes. In both cases the exponential decay curve was found to give a good fit. Since this curve is found in natural processes where one form of energy is converted to another and since it is reasonable to postulate such conversions to explain the kinetic effects observed in RSPK occurrences, it makes good sense that the pattern of events follow this function. The fact that this curve also fits the Newark disturbances, which seem more open than the Lessing case to explanation in terms of motivational and fraud artifacts, gives some added assurance as to the genuineness of this case as a whole. In neither case, however, was there a reduction in the length of movements with increased distance age the sip 8 we might with familiar en sources. However, there is some similarity between the racemes as shown in Table 2. In both, the longest average flights occurred between 6-15 feet, followed by the 1-5 feet category, with the shortest movements recorded in the 16-25 feet groupings. However, it is premature to singe = interpreting this effect until we see whether it occurs in other RSPK cases. Also, in both cases only a few pieces of furniture were involved and they only turned over without moving any distance. 1 When we look at the directions of movement, we find that in both cases there was a significant tendency for the disturbances to originate in front of the agent and in neither case was there any favoring of sides. There was an insignificant tendency for the objects to move away from Michael but a significant tendency for them to move toward Arnold. There was a significant trend for the movements to be clockwise in relation to bse and a similar, insignificant, tend with respect to . ae eh eas ears moved in a northeasterly direction than in the other compass directions, but the tendency was only significant for the Lessing case. This ph pattern is probably to be interpreted in terms of the location of psychologically significant rooms in the two homes rather than to any preference for this direction as such. vie the Lessing case the removal of caps from bottles as well as three personal observations of the incidents suggested that the movements were affected by a circular or rotating force or, possibly, by a force moving in a straight line which struck the sides of the piiecth, thereby causing the circular movements. In the Newark case two observations suggested that the objects moved in a circular manner. In addition, curved paths of motion seem the most reasonable way of describing several of the movements since the

172 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research objects could not have followed straight lines to arrive at their destinations, There was no indication from the Lessing case that any objects traveled around corners. In both cases there were many more dielectric objects than conductors, and hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon headed the list of elements composing the disturbed objects. Whether the selection of such objects as RSPK targets has anything to do with their physical characteristics or is a chance effect due to the abundance of such objects in the two homes remains in doubt for the present. In the Lessing case, there was considerable evidence of focusing on individual objects. The twenty-four repetitions amounted to three-cighths of the total of sixty-four occurrences. In the Newark case there were only eleven repetitions or somewhat less than one-sixth of the total. In both cases some of these recurrences were in close consecutive order. With regard to focusing on types of objects, the Lessing phenomena showed a tendency for con- tainers and perhaps figurines to be affected. In the Newark case, ibly because the distances of many of the incidents were not own, there seemed to be no evidence for such focusing which could not be attributed to the proximity effect. When we examined the Newark episodes for temporal clusterings, it appeared that most of these were associated with sites in the house rather than types of objects. Neither case contained definite evidence of focusing on any of the rooms which could not be accounted for by other factors. However, in the Newark case there seemed to be a marked tendency for the occurrences to follow each other in certain places. Having found this effect in the Newark case, I looked for it in the earlier case and found it well represented also there.° Apparently, objects and areas became sensitized to the PK en so that an occurrence was likely to herald additional events wi that object or in that place. When we compare the two psychological pictures, again there is much similarity. Both Michael and Arnold showed evidence of repressed hostility. In Michael this seemed to be a aire element of his personality and expressed itself in themes of violence and aggression in his Rorschach and TAT stories. In Arnold there is also some evidence of aggression in this material but on a much lower key. I showed Arnold’s responses to Dr. Gertrude Schmeidler e ing object focusing, there was one one-interval recurrence in the Lessing living room (Event 34), two immediate repetitions in the dining room hind 36 and $2), and five in the bathroom (Events 4, 8, 15, 19, and 20). In "s room there were also five immediate recurrences (Events 28, 29, 48, 57, and 58) as well as a one-interval repetition (Event 45), Finally, in Mr. and Mrs. # room, there were two immediate (Events 13 and 24) and two one-interval recurrences (Events 26 and 51). The Newark Disturbances 173 in the hope that she mi t detect something bearing on the inter- setition the case as she had in the previous study. She found fittle to add to the psychological reports. With regard to the Rorschach and TAT responses, she said, “I would never have guessed the poltergeist from this, Childhood naughtiness which he conceals, maybe—but deep inner hostility, no” (4). The other tests and interviews did show that Arnold had strong feelings of aggression which he was incapable of either expressing or acknowledging, but these were only significant in his relation to his grandmother. Outside this situation, he seemed an and normal boy. In the Lessing case, the selection of o appeared to be symbolic of the boy’s psychological needs. Newark disturb- ances seemed psychologically more random, Perhaps Michael’s richer and more violent fantasy life was reflected in psychologically more interesting disturbances such as the “bottle poppings” and the ights of figurines. : th both cases the directions of movements tended to point toward the rooms of family members which were the main objects of the boys’ feelings of hostility. But when somebody was in the object's path, in neither case was this the disliked family member. It seems that even on the “poltergeist level’’ of the personalities of the two boys, it was not possible to turn the incidents into instruments of irect threat or harm to the disliked persons. ; awe do not have as much information about Arnold's activities at the time of the disturbances as we do about Michael’s. However, in both cases there were incidents when the boys were lying in bed, when they were eating, and when they were seated or standing and en in various activities. ? ‘ e do not have any EEG data on Michael so a comparison with Arnold is not possible. : : The Lessing study strongly suggested that whatever Michael's role in the disturbances was, he was unaware of it. This came out a aac y strongly from the word-association and Rorschach tests. ¢ Newark case is similar. A hypnotic interview, the polygraph examination, and a word-association test failed to provide any evidence that the boy was aware of having caused the phenomena in his home. Ley ' - In addition to shedding light on the psychological aspects the phenomena, these findings are relevant to question of conscious fraud. In this connection it is also interesting that the boys’ performance IQs were relatively modest. Arnold a ance IQ (of 80) was even lower than Michael's (109) and neither makes it easy to su that the boys could have installed, operated, and the instruments which would apparently have been necessary to produce fraudulently the occurrences that

174 Fournal of the American Society for Psychical Research took place when they were watched by adult visitors and inves- tigators. From the point of view of the people most directly involved in the disturbances, the Lessing family and Mrs. Parks and Arnold, the main purpose of the investigation was to obtain aid in dealing with the occurrences, the problems which had engendered them, and the problems which they in turn produced. The Lessing family seemed to gain some insight into the tensions within the family which appeared to be at least a contributory cause of the disturb- ances. Arnold’s psychological and psychiatric reports were sent to the Board of Child Welfare of New Jersey. On January 22, 1962, Mrs. Lemberg wrote: . . . we are pleased to report that Arnold has been placed in a group setting, in accordance with your recommendation and our own feeling about the situation. Upon his return from Durham, Arnold was placed in a temporary foster home for a period of two weeks until these plans could be worked out. Arnold adjusted very well in the foster home, the foster mother is a particularly competent person and was able to meet many of Arnold’s needs during this period. Arnold had an opportunity to visit the group placement before permanent placement there, and appeared to be very pleased with it. Arnold’s relatives will be able to visit him while he is there. However, our Worker made it clear to Arnold that he could decide who he would like to visit him. REFERENCES 1. ArtLey, J. L. Fields and Configurations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965. 2. Lasxow17z, I. I., Director, Tenant Relations Division of the Housing Authority of the City of Newark. Personal communica- tion, March 8, 1963. 3. Rott, W. G. “Some Physical and Psychological Aspects of a Series of Poltergeist Phenomena.” Journal A.S.P.R., Vol. 62, July, 1968, 263-308. 4. ScuMeEIDLeER, G. R. Personal communication, September 6, 1968. Psychical Research Foundation, Inc. Box 6116, College Station Durham, North Carolina 27708 PRINTED IN BRUGES, BELGIUM, BY THE ST. CATHERINE PRESS, LTD,