Caller relays a friend’s story of children and a fatal house fire
A caller who gives his name as [name withheld], from Hayworth, Illinois, passes on a secondhand story. He says an unnamed friend told it to him a few years earlier. It concerns a family of five in a house in a small town south of where he was calling. After the three young children were put to bed one evening, the parents reportedly did not take seriously whatever the children said, and reassured them. A few days later, he says, the house burned down and the three children were killed. He offers no cause and no explanation beyond calling it “pretty strange.”
This clip comes from the source recording. AI chose where it starts and ends, so it may start or end a little early or late. The word-for-word transcript is not published. You can hear the source recording on the Internet Archive (file “Ghost to Ghost 1999.mp3”, starting at 1:09:03). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
A caller who gives his name as [name withheld], says he is from Hayworth, Illinois, and says he is listening on WJBC in Bloomington, tells Art Bell a story he attributes to an unnamed friend. The friend told it to him [quote withheld] He places the events [quote withheld] in [quote withheld] south of where he was calling. He says a family lived in a house there, [quote withheld] reportedly “pretty young.” One evening, after the children had gone to bed, the parents were sitting watching television. About eighteen seconds of the transcript are missing at this point. When it resumes, the caller says the parents [quote withheld] and told the children it was okay, not to worry, and to try to go back to sleep. He says the parents went up, [quote withheld] and then went to sleep. A few days later, he says, the house burned down and the three children were killed in the fire. He gives no cause for the fire, no link between the nighttime episode and the fire, and no names for the family or town. He closes, [quote withheld] Bell replies, [quote withheld] then repeats his [quote withheld] remark from the previous caller’s story.
Reported events, in order
- 0:03
The caller identifies himself as [name withheld], calling from Hayworth, Illinois, and listening to WJBC in Bloomington.
- 0:22
He says an unnamed friend told him the story a few years before. It happened, he says, within roughly the previous ten years.
- 0:42
He says a family of a mother, father, and three young children lived in a house in a small town south of where he was calling.
- 0:57
One evening, after the children had gone to bed, the parents were sitting watching television.
- 1:05
A gap of about eighteen seconds follows. Whatever the children are said to have reported is not in the transcript.
- 1:23
When the story resumes, the caller says the parents did not take it seriously and told the children not to worry and to go back to sleep.
- 1:32
He says the parents went and checked everything and reassured the children.
- 1:38
The parents went to sleep.
- 1:41
A few days later, the caller says, the house burned down.
- 1:51
The three children were killed in the house fire, according to the caller.
- 2:00
The caller says he does not know what to make of it and thought it was “pretty strange.” The host agrees and returns to the red-eyes theme from the previous caller.
Claims
Each claim is labeled as something the person telling the story noticed (observation), what they made of it (interpretation), something others told them (hearsay), or something the host said (host statement).
- hearsay· 0:22
The story is secondhand. The caller says a friend told him the story a few years before the broadcast.
- hearsay· 0:34
The event is said to have happened [quote withheld] in a small town south of the caller’s location.
- hearsay· 0:42
A family of five, a mother, father, and three young children, is said to have lived in the house.
- hearsay· 1:23
The parents reportedly did not take seriously whatever the children reported after being put to bed, and told them to go back to sleep.
- hearsay· 1:41
The house is said to have burned down a few days later.
- hearsay· 1:51
The three children are said to have been killed in the fire.
- interpretation· 2:00
The caller’s only stated conclusion is that the sequence seemed strange to him. He says “I don't know.”
- host statement· 2:09
The host calls the story strange and repeats his red-eyes remark from the previous caller’s story. He does not tie red eyes to this story.
Scores, with reasons
An AI model gave these scores using a fixed set of scoring rules (scoring-v1). They are editorial judgments and rough guides, not the odds that anything paranormal happened. How scoring works.
Scored as a secondhand story with a very thin factual base. Closeness to the source, specific detail, and alternative explanations all score low. A coherent sequence and unusually restrained claims offset this only partly. The score is capped at 60 for a secondhand story and falls well below the cap.
Evidence for and against
- The caller is clear about how the story reached him and about his own uncertainty: “I guess,” [quote withheld] [quote withheld]
- The sequence is coherent and has no self-contradiction: bedtime, the parents’ response, checking on the children, then the fire days later.
- The caller does not escalate. He never claims the children foresaw the fire, never claims a ghost, and never claims a cause for the fire.
- The story is secondhand ([quote withheld]), and the friend is unnamed.
- No town, street, family name, or date is given. The place is only [quote withheld] and the time only [quote withheld]
- Ordinary accidental causes of house fires fit easily and are not addressed. Nothing in the transcript links the nighttime episode to the fire except the order of events.
- The central content, what the children reported, is missing from the transcript because of a gap.
- What the children reported is missing from the transcript, so the story cannot be judged on what was actually claimed.
- It is not stated whether the friend heard the story from the family directly or at further remove.
- 0:22
- 0:34
- 1:23
What the model inferred (not said on air): The component scores (closeness to the source 8, specific detail 5, internal consistency 11, alternative explanations 5, calibration 11, about 40 in all) are the editor’s judgment from the transcript’s content, not facts stated by the caller.
This is the caller’s word at one remove only. A fatal fire is in principle a matter of public record, but the transcript gives a researcher nothing to find it with, and no outside check was made.
Evidence for and against
- One detail could in principle be checked: a fatal house fire in a small Illinois town within roughly the previous decade. Nothing identifies the fire, and no check was made.
- No names, street, town name, date, or records are offered.
- No physical evidence of any kind is mentioned: no photograph, recording, document, or news story.
- No second witness speaks on air. The family described never appears.
- Whether any public record of such a fire exists cannot be learned from this transcript, and no outside check was made.
- 1:41
- 0:42
What the model inferred (not said on air): The low score follows the scoring guide: word alone, with no identifying details that can be checked.
The unsettling part is the contrast between a dismissed bedtime complaint and the deaths of the children who made it, with no explanation. There is little lasting dread or vivid imagery, so it rates above mildly eerie but below frightening.
Evidence for and against
- Intrusion into a safe family space: young children in bed and parents watching television nearby.
- The warning is dismissed, and the outcome is fatal for exactly the children who reportedly raised it: [quote withheld]
- The ending is unresolved, with no cause, explanation, or closure.
- The story is brief and gives no descriptive detail about the nighttime episode. There is no sensory horror.
- No being, threatening presence, physical contact, or repeated haunting is described.
- The host’s “red eyes” remark belongs to the previous caller’s story, not to this one.
- Because the content of the nighttime report is missing, the degree of implied menace cannot be judged.
- 0:57
- 1:51
What the model inferred (not said on air): The rating reflects the editor’s judgment of the story’s emotional effect on a listener, not any claim by the caller about how frightening the events were.
A familiar [quote withheld] setup with one distinctive feature: the young children who give the warning become the victims. That puts it modestly above stock material, but the events themselves are not unusual.
Evidence for and against
- The distinctive turn is that the people who reportedly raised the warning are the ones who die: the children give the report and are then killed in the fire.
- The claimed sign is not a figure, voice, or object but a child’s nighttime report whose content is never stated, because of a gap in the transcript.
- The setup is familiar: an ignored warning or omen, followed by a disaster.
- The story is short and lacks the unusual details that usually set ghost stories apart.
- It is hearsay with no distinctive imagery.
- If the missing passage held an unusually specific warning, the originality estimate could go up.
- 1:26
- 1:51
What the model inferred (not said on air): The provisional model score is the editor’s judgment from the content. The score compared with the rest of the archive cannot be worked out here and would be applied later.
Scoring confidence 0.45 · analysis confidence 0.55 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller’s secondhand word only (a story he attributes to an unnamed friend).; No names, dates, street addresses, or town name given.; No photographs, recordings, documents, news reports, or other material mentioned.; No other witness speaks on air. The family described never speaks.. The originality score blends the model's score (55) with how rare the story's details are across the archive. This method is still provisional.
Ordinary explanations to consider
These are possibilities only. None is a finding about what happened.
- The fire had an ordinary accidental cause, unconnected to the children’s earlier nighttime complaint. · The caller gives no cause for the fire. House fires commonly have ordinary origins (electrical faults, heating, cooking, smoking), and fatal house fires with child victims are a recognized, non-paranormal kind of event.
- The children’s nighttime report was an ordinary childhood fear or bad dream, not a warning. · The parents’ reported response, [quote withheld] fits a child waking at night with an ordinary fear or nightmare. What the children reported is not in the transcript.
- The nighttime episode and the later fatal fire are a coincidence that looks meaningful only in hindsight. · The caller openly declines to link the two ([quote withheld]). The story is a coincidence seen in hindsight: a household event followed days later by an unrelated tragedy.
What stands out
The sign the caller describes is not a figure, sound, or object. It is a young child’s nighttime report, and the transcript never says what it was. In the caller’s telling, the children who raised it are the ones who die in the later fire. The caller draws no supernatural conclusion at all, saying only that it was “pretty strange.”
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.