Narcotics detective reports a dead man standing over his own body
The host reads a brief letter from [name withheld] of Plainfield, Illinois, who says they were a narcotics detective called to a drug-related murder scene. [name withheld] says they saw a man standing over the dead body, telling the victim to get up. The letter ends by saying it was the dead man yelling at his own corpse. The letter is presented as a “fast blast,” and no further details or resolution are given.
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 2007.mp3”, starting at 59:06). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
The host says he receives stories from police officers, ER nurses, and doctors who rarely want to be named, and that he protects them. He then reads a letter from [quote withheld] who calls it [quote withheld] [name withheld] says they used to be a narcotics detective. One night, they say, they were called to the scene of a drug-related murder. When they arrived, they report, they saw a man standing over the dead body telling them to get up. [name withheld] concludes: [quote withheld] The broadcast gives no further details about the location of the scene, the date, the victim, who else may have been present, how [name withheld] identified the standing man as the dead man, or what happened afterward. The host then moves to the next item.
Reported events, in order
- 0:11
The host introduces a letter from [name withheld] of Plainfield, Illinois, described as [quote withheld]
- 0:16
[name withheld] says they used to be a narcotics detective.
- 0:16
[name withheld] says that one night they were called to the scene of a drug-related murder.
- 0:23
[name withheld] says that when they arrived they saw a man standing over the dead body telling them to get up.
- 0:29
[name withheld] says the man was the dead man yelling at his own corpse.
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).
- observation· 0:23
The letter writer reports seeing a man standing over the dead body, telling the victim to get up.
- interpretation· 0:29
The letter writer concludes that the man standing over the body was the dead man yelling at his own corpse.
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.
It is a firsthand written story in form, but it is extremely short and lacks the detail needed to judge how credible it is. I apply the scoring guide's cap for fragments too short to assess.
Evidence for and against
- First-person story: [quote withheld] and [quote withheld]
- The reported sequence is coherent as a brief anecdote.
- Very brief; no names, dates, event location, or detail on how the standing man was identified.
- The story is compressed with “long story short.”
- Event location not stated.
- No witness on air; the host reads the letter.
- Very short segment.
- 0:16
- 0:23
What the model inferred (not said on air): The story is firsthand in form but too brief and thin to assess fully, so the score is capped at 40.
Only the letter writer's word is present, read by the host. There are no independently checkable specifics about the event itself.
Evidence for and against
- A named letter writer and town of origin are given.
- A former occupation is stated.
- No event location, date, victim name, or documentation is provided.
- No second witness speaks on air.
- None of the event specifics can be checked from the broadcast.
- 0:11
- 0:23
What the model inferred (not said on air): Because nothing beyond the assertion is available, the score falls in the 0 to 10 band.
The murder context and the corpse's self-confrontation are unsettling, but the brevity and lack of menace keep it from being frightening.
Evidence for and against
- A drug-related murder is the setting.
- The image of a dead man yelling at his own corpse is uncanny and disturbing.
- The story is framed as a “fast blast” and is very brief.
- No threat to the writer, no escalation, and no lasting dread.
- Brevity limits how much dread can be assessed.
- 0:16
- 0:29
What the model inferred (not said on air): The uncanny twist raises it above mild eeriness, but the short, matter-of-fact delivery limits the emotional impact.
A familiar crime-scene ghost setup is combined with an unusual self-confrontation detail. This is above stock material but not unlike anything common.
Evidence for and against
- The reported detail that the dead man is yelling at his own corpse is a distinctive, unusual twist.
- The basic setup, a ghost at a death or murder scene, is a familiar ghost-story element.
- Originality compared with the rest of the archive is not computed here.
- 0:29
What the model inferred (not said on air): I rate the content as a familiar setup with a distinctive detail. The published score compared with the rest of the archive is to be computed by the automated analysis.
Scoring confidence 0.40 · analysis confidence 0.60 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The letter writer's firsthand written story, read on air by the host.; No physical evidence.; No independent second witness on air.; No outside check performed.. The originality score blends the model's score (68) 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.
- Another living person at the scene: the letter could describe a bystander, suspect, or first responder before the writer concluded it was the dead man. · From the letter: [quote withheld]
- A compressed or imprecise retelling: the letter may leave out details about how the standing man was identified. · From the letter: “long story short.”
- Mistaking one person for another at night: the event is said to have happened at night, when identifying a person can be difficult. · From the letter: “One night.”
What stands out
The story is extremely compressed, and its strange element is a single twist: the figure standing over the murder victim is said to be the victim himself, yelling at his own corpse. This is more distinctive than a generic report of a ghost at a scene.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.