June 29, 2006 – St. Petersburg with recheck March 24, 2007
One of the more interesting aspects of paranormal investigation is the difference in perception of the investigators and the homeowners. Perhaps investigators have a stronger connection to the dead, or that studies of post-life existence have rendered them a less fearful complex than the average individual. Homeowners, who are sometimes experiencing the paranormal for the first time, are much closer to the source of the disturbance.
A husband, wife, roommate and two young children resided with one disembodied housemate. The family called the team in when their son claimed to be playing with a ghost boy named “Jack” whose mouth was taped shut. This ghostling was interactive with the family, speaking to the mother to say “hello” one night. The animals acted up, shadow figures were seen and cold drafts felt.
Yet, the group had an entirely different experience upon arrival. For the team, a female entity manifested. She was a quite middle-aged or older woman, associated with the Master bedroom but who checked on the children. She did not heavily interact with equipment, other than to record a humming sound, which, oddly, sounded like the Campbell Soup jingle. (Note that all TVs and radios were off in the house, the sound was only heard on the recording devices that was utilized in the production of EVPs).
The sensitive on the investigation believed that the entity was a female who died in the home. She may or may not be related to the child. It was the children’s description of the ghost child, though, that brought additional attention. We did learn that they watched a cartoon show on TV dealing with a “ghost boy” who is both “real” and a “ghost” (Danny Phantom – a superhero). However, that does not explain why they see their ghost boy with his mouth taped shut. In speaking with the children further, they revealed that “Jack” plays only in their room, has blonde hair, dark eyes, and he can’t speak. One child said that “someone came into the house and did something to him.”
A second, later investigation of the home revealed nearly the same information as the first. The two areas of activity remained active according to homeowner reports, sensitives, and equipment. Yet, no child manifested; again, everything centered on the older woman. However, homeowners also reported that the boy had been quiet since the first investigation, though spectral manifestation had continued.