A detective's email: a boy's ghost and a murder weapon
Art Bell reads aloud an email he says he received from an unnamed homicide detective, whom he describes as a non-believer in the paranormal. The writer says that while working the murder of a young woman, they twice saw a boy's figure that faded and vanished. They say they later recognized the boy in a photograph at the victim's mother's home as her grandson (the victim's child, dead two years). They then found the bloody knife and fingerprints at the spot where the figure had appeared. The email ends by asking Bell to explain the events. Bell replies that he cannot.
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 2001-3.mp3”, starting at 3:36). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
Art Bell reads an email he says he received from a homicide detective. He withholds the detective's name, saying [quote withheld] According to the email, the writer was working the murder of a young woman. While at the scene, the writer says they saw a young boy standing in a vacant lot across the street who appeared to wave them over. As they approached to about ten feet, the figure faded and then disappeared. After finishing at the crime scene, the writer was driving to the morgue when they say they passed a large apartment building and saw the same boy on the steps. They stopped the car and approached, and the boy vanished again. This time, the writer got a closer look at the face. The writer says they saw blood droplets on the steps and leading inside the building, which they recorded. The next day, the writer says, they went to notify the victim's mother. In her living room, they saw a photograph of the victim with a boy on her lap. The mother told them the boy was her grandson, the child of the murder victim, who had died two years earlier after being struck by an automobile. The writer says they returned to the vacant lot where the boy had been seen. At the spot where they thought the boy had stood, [quote withheld] they found a bloody knife. The writer calls it the murder weapon and says it bore the murderer's fingerprints. The writer then went to the place where the blood was found and where the murderer lived and killed the woman. The email ends by asking Bell to explain what happened that night and by saying the writer never believed in ghosts. Bell answers, [quote withheld] No names, dates, or locations are given.
Reported events, in order
- 0:33
The writer says they were working the murder of a young woman (as read by the host).
- 0:39
At the scene, the writer says they saw a young boy standing in a vacant lot across the street who appeared to be waving them over.
- 0:50
The writer says the boy's figure faded as they approached and vanished entirely at about ten feet.
- 1:01
After finishing at the crime scene, on the way to the morgue, the writer says they passed a large apartment building and saw the same boy on the steps.
- 1:14
The writer says they stopped the car and approached. The boy vanishes again, this time giving them a closer look at the face.
- 1:30
The writer says they saw blood droplets leading into the building and recorded their findings.
- 1:39
The next day, the writer says they went to notify the victim's mother.
- 1:44
In her living room, the writer says they saw a photograph of the victim with a boy on her lap and recognized the boy.
- 1:53
The writer says the mother told them the boy was her grandson, the child of the murder victim.
- 2:03
The writer says the mother told them the boy had died two years earlier after being struck by an automobile.
- 2:15
The writer says they returned to the vacant lot and found a bloody knife, which they call the murder weapon, at the spot where they believed the boy had stood.
- 2:25
The writer says the knife bore the murderer's fingerprints.
- 2:28
The writer says they went to the place where the blood was found and where the murderer lived and killed the woman.
- 2:39
The email closes by asking the host to explain what happened and saying the writer never believed in ghosts. The host replies that he cannot explain it.
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).
- host statement· 0:09
The email was sent to the host by a homicide detective whose name is withheld.
- host statement· 0:04
The host says the writer is not a believer in the paranormal.
- observation· 0:39
The writer says they saw a young boy standing in a vacant lot across from the murder scene.
- observation· 0:50
The writer says the boy's figure faded as they approached.
- observation· 1:14
The writer says they saw the same boy again on the steps of an apartment building and that the boy vanished a second time.
- observation· 1:30
The writer says they saw blood droplets leading into the building and recorded them.
- observation· 1:44
The writer says they recognized the boy in a photograph of the victim that the victim's mother showed them.
- hearsay· 1:53
The mother told the writer the boy in the photograph was her grandson, the child of the murder victim.
- hearsay· 2:03
The mother told the writer the boy had died two years earlier.
- observation· 2:15
The writer says they found a bloody knife, which they call the murder weapon, at the spot where the boy had appeared.
- observation· 2:25
The writer says the knife bore the murderer's fingerprints.
- interpretation· 2:39
The writer implies that the boy's ghost led them to the evidence. The writer asks the host to explain it and says they never believed in ghosts.
- host statement· 2:56
The host says he cannot explain the 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.
A structured, step-by-step first-person story with some concrete detail. It arrives entirely through an anonymous letter with no details that can be checked. Ordinary explanations, such as a living child lost from view or an invented story, are not clearly ruled out, and the writer does not address them.
Evidence for and against
- Concrete sequence and sensory details: [quote withheld] the second sighting on [quote withheld] and blood droplets leading into the building.
- A consistent order of events: crime scene, second sighting, trip to the morgue, notifying the mother the next day, return to the vacant lot.
- The writer separates their earlier beliefs from the events and asks for an explanation instead of offering one: [quote withheld]
- The story reaches the audience only as an email read by the host. The writer is anonymous and never speaks, so there is no firsthand voice on air. The host says, [quote withheld]
- No names, dates, city, agency, or case number are given, so the story cannot be located or checked.
- No third party or document is offered for the claimed knife, fingerprints, or photograph.
- The transcript cannot show whether the story is relayed exactly as written.
- Several lines carry confused labels showing who is speaking, though the wording of the letter is largely continuous.
- 0:09
- 0:55
- 2:39
What the model inferred (not said on air): The component split is my judgment. Source proximity gets no credit because the eyewitness story arrives only in writing through the host. Specificity is credited for the sequence and distances but not for the missing names, dates, and places. Calibration is credited for the writer's stated earlier disbelief and their request for an explanation, which is a stance, not evidence that the story is true.
The only support is the writer's word inside an anonymous email. The claimed physical evidence exists only within the story. It is neither produced nor examined, and no details that can be checked are given.
Evidence for and against
- Physical items are claimed within the story: [quote withheld] and [quote withheld]
- A photograph is said to exist showing the victim with the boy: [quote withheld]
- Nothing is examined on air. No photograph, knife, report, or record is described as being in the host's hands.
- No second witness speaks. The only claimed second source, the mother, is reported through the letter and says nothing herself.
- No names, dates, or locations are given, so no outside check is even possible.
- If the email could be traced to an actual case file, the evidence score would rise sharply. The transcript offers no such link.
- A hard cap of 50 applies because no outside check was done.
- 2:15
- 2:25
What the model inferred (not said on air): This gets a score of 11 to 25, not 26 to 40. The physical evidence is asserted only inside a letter that cannot be verified, with no detail that would allow it to be traced, and the scoring guide calls for caution without verification.
The subject matter is unsettling: a murdered woman and a dead child whose figure points to evidence. But the delivery is matter-of-fact, and there is no escalation or menace aimed at anyone.
Evidence for and against
- A woman has been murdered, and the story centers on finding the weapon that killed her.
- The figure is a child who died two years earlier, struck by an automobile ([quote withheld]).
- The repeated vanishing figure and the unanswered question at the end ([quote withheld]) leave the encounter unexplained.
- The telling is clinical and procedural, with few emotional descriptions.
- No physical contact, threat to the living, or lasting sense of dread is reported.
- Listeners' reactions will vary with how much weight they give the murder.
- 2:03
- 2:25
What the model inferred (not said on air): This is a judgment about the story's effect on a listener, not about the events or the writer.
A familiar setup in which a ghost points to the evidence, with a specific and less common detail: the figure is identified through a photograph as the victim's own dead child.
Evidence for and against
- The distinctive combination is a police detective who meets a child's figure and then identifies it as the murder victim's own dead son in a family photograph ([quote withheld]).
- The story is told as a step-by-step police procedure (crime scene, trip to the morgue, notifying the next of kin, finding the weapon), not a haunting of a home.
- A helpful ghost that leads a living person to hidden evidence or a body is a well-established ghost-story setup.
- The vanishing figure, the child ghost, and the photograph identification are all familiar parts.
- The comparison with the rest of the archive cannot be judged from this story alone.
- 1:53
- 1:44
What the model inferred (not said on air): The model's score reflects the content alone. The published value will be blended with how new the story is compared with the rest of the archive once the archive has more stories.
Scoring confidence 0.68 · analysis confidence 0.76 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The story is secondhand even as it is delivered: the host reads an email written by an unnamed homicide detective.; No second witness on air. The victim's mother is mentioned but does not speak.; Physical evidence is claimed inside the story (bloody knife, fingerprints, blood droplets, photograph) but is not produced, described, or examined on air.; No names, dates, city, department, or case numbers are given, so nothing in the story can be checked from the transcript.. 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.
- A living child, or another person, was glimpsed at a distance and then lost from view. The later photograph made the resemblance seem convincing in hindsight. · The two sightings are brief and at a distance. In the writer's words, [quote withheld] A living child who walked or ran out of sight behind cover could give the same impression, with the later photograph supplying a resemblance.
- The email may be an invented or embellished story written for a paranormal radio program. This is a possibility about where the story came from, not a claim about the writer's character. · No names, dates, department, or city are given. The only channel is an unsolicited email read aloud by the host, who says, [quote withheld] Nothing in the story can be checked.
- The knife and the blood trail may have turned up in a routine search near the crime scene. The ghost story may have been built around them afterward. · The weapon was found in the vacant lot next to the crime scene, and following a blood trail is ordinary police work ([quote withheld]). The link between the sightings and the discovery comes only from the order of events as the writer tells it.
What stands out
The story is framed as police work, not a haunting of a home. The ghost is said to appear twice to an investigating officer. The officer then identifies it through a photograph of the murder victim's own dead child, after which the murder weapon and fingerprints are reportedly found.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.