← Back to the archive

GHO-006 · Ghosts

Battersea poltergeist reports

Ghosts are not established facts. This entry documents reported experiences, folklore and their historical context.

The case record

What was reported?

The Battersea case centres on Shirley Hitchings and a reported presence called Donald. Contemporary newspaper coverage establishes that the family’s account circulated in 1956; later books and broadcasting expanded its public profile.

The family described tapping, moving objects and messages attributed to the presence. Harold Chibbett kept a substantial case record, and retrospective accounts extend the disturbances over roughly twelve years. Those reported durations should not be confused with uninterrupted independent monitoring.

1956 marks contemporary publicity; the longer duration comes from retrospective case accounts rather than continuous observation.

Reported date
1956–1968 reported disturbances
Witnesses
Residents, staff, visitors or later storytellers; distinctions described in the case narrative. · No independently established total; repeated retellings are not additional witnesses.
Investigation
Source authors, heritage custodians and investigators identified in the references.

Evidence in the record

Historical recordsFolklore and reported experiences

The Poltergeist Archive reproduces dated 1956 press items, including reports of renewed tapping after a séance. The SPR encyclopedia surveys the case and criticism. Newspaper publication documents what was reported, while copies, recollections and investigator notes require attention to their authorship and context.

Competing explanations

Official and research context

No official finding establishing a supernatural cause was identified in the reviewed sources.

Conventional explanations

Ordinary household noises, human production of messages and the interaction between expectation, attention and interpretation are alternatives worth testing. The surviving public record does not identify a single cause for every event. It also does not justify accusing a living participant of deception or attributing illness and death to a supposed spirit.

Arguments that remain contested

The cited material records history and reported experiences; it does not establish that any unexplained detail had a supernatural cause.

Locations & timeline

Coordinates are representative. Area and route labels do not imply exact paths or object positions.

  1. Primary reference location

    Battersea district, approximate area

    Representative map point for Battersea district, approximate area; this is not an independently measured apparition location.

    Representative setting for the reports or tradition · Approximate area radius: 3 km

    51.473°, -0.154° · area · Approximate representative locality

Record notes

Reported haunting or folklore; historical events and later supernatural interpretations are distinguished.

Dated contemporary coverage and retrospective case analysis reviewed; original private records were not inspected. Feature should emphasise the evidential distinctions.

Original dataset status: disputed

The conversation around the evidence

What do you make of the record?

0 case views

Assess the evidence, rather than the people involved. Community votes express reader opinion and do not change the case’s public status.

Discussion & submitted updates (0)

No contributions yet. Start with a question about the evidence.

Moderation & appeals · Corrections and source updates