Daughter’s imaginary friend “Roger” and the cigarette butts in the garden
A caller the host introduces as [name withheld] from Melbourne, Australia, describes their young daughter’s long-running imaginary friend. She called him Roger, a tall old man, and talked with him, played with him, and held tea parties with him. The caller says the household had no other paranormal activity. But their daughter once told them Roger disliked them because they threw cigarette butts into the garden, a habit the caller says she did not know about. The story ends with the host’s reaction and no resolution.
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 2013.mp3”, starting at 56:31). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
The host addresses the caller as [name withheld] (“Andy”) from Melbourne, Australia. The caller tells Art Bell about their daughter’s imaginary friend. According to the caller, for a number of years their daughter described an imaginary friend as [quote withheld] The caller says it was [quote withheld] and sometimes blame him for things. The caller says they and their wife would watch their daughter hold conversations with what appeared to be an unseen person. Their wife looked into it and [quote withheld] The caller notes their daughter was an only child at the time and that they considered the behavior normal and age-appropriate. The caller says they never had any paranormal activity in the house: no ghosts, no disembodied voices, no [quote withheld] They say they suspected she might have been talking to a ghost. The one incident they say unsettled them was their daughter telling them that Roger did not like them. Asked why, she reportedly said Roger did not like it when they threw cigarettes in their garden. The caller says their daughter did not know they smoked. They had cut down, smoked only at work or late at night when she was in bed, went outside to light up, and threw the butt into the garden. They conclude that Roger was not fond of their habit. The host calls the story creepy and moves on to a break.
Reported events, in order
- 0:14
The caller tells the host their story involves their daughter’s imaginary friend.
- 0:19
They say that for a number of years their daughter had an imaginary friend she described as a tall old man named Roger.
- 0:27
They describe textbook imaginary-friend behavior: talking, playing, tea parties, and blaming Roger for things.
- 0:37
They and their wife would see her holding conversations with what seemed to be an unseen person. Their wife researched it and put it down to an overactive imagination.
- 0:49
They say their daughter was an only child at the time and the behavior seemed normal and age-appropriate.
- 1:22
They say they never had any paranormal activity in the house: no ghosts, voices, or [quote withheld]
- 1:33
They say their daughter once told them that Roger did not like them, which unsettled them.
- 1:50
According to the caller, their daughter said Roger did not like it when they threw cigarettes in their garden.
- 1:55
They explain that they smoked only at work or late at night when she was in bed, went outside, and threw the butts in the garden. They say she did not know they smoked.
- 2:06
They conclude that Roger was not fond of their habit. The host calls the story creepy and moves to a break.
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· 0:19
The caller’s daughter had an imaginary friend she described as a tall old man named Roger.
- observation· 0:27
The imaginary friend behaved like a textbook imaginary companion: talking, playing, tea parties, and being blamed for things.
- observation· 0:37
The caller and their wife saw their daughter talking with what appeared to be an unseen person.
- observation· 1:22
The household had no other reported paranormal activity.
- hearsay· 1:33
The daughter told the caller that Roger did not like them.
- hearsay· 1:50
The daughter said Roger disliked the caller throwing cigarette butts in the garden. The caller says she did not know they smoked.
- interpretation· 1:17
The caller suspected their daughter might have been talking to a ghost.
- host statement· 2:23
The host stresses the significance of the daughter knowing something she could not have known.
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.
The caller is a firsthand witness to their daughter’s behavior and gives a coherent story that does not escalate and explicitly denies other paranormal activity. However, the strange element rests on what a child reportedly said, no dates or full names are given, and an ordinary imaginary-companion explanation plus her possibly noticing their smoking fits easily.
Evidence for and against
- Firsthand observation at the time of the child’s behavior by the caller and their wife
- Concrete details: the name Roger, “tall, old man,” tea parties, cigarette butts in the garden, smoking only at work or late at night
- The caller explicitly separates what they observed from what they concluded (“I always suspected”)
- The paranormal content comes through a young child rather than being experienced by the caller
- The caller reports nothing else strange, so the single remark carries the whole claim
- An ordinary imaginary-companion explanation fits easily, and the family adopted it at first
- No dates, full names, or address are given
- It is not stated when, how often, or under what circumstances the remark about the cigarettes was made
- 0:19
- 1:22
- 1:17
What the model inferred (not said on air): Source proximity and coherence are read from the transcript. The weight I gave to the easy ordinary explanation and to the claim coming through a child is my judgment under the scoring guide, not something the caller states.
Only the caller’s assertion is offered. No document, photograph, recording, or object is produced, and the second witness (their wife) does not speak on air. Specifics that could be checked, such as the caller’s first name and city, are given, but nothing was verified.
Evidence for and against
- A claimed second witness (the wife) who is said to have seen the same conversations
- Some specifics that could be checked: the caller named as [name withheld], the location Melbourne, Australia, and an imaginary friend named Roger
- No physical evidence of any kind is claimed or presented
- The key strange event is a reported remark by a child, with nothing about it that can be inspected
- No second witness backs the caller up on air
- Whether the wife’s observation would match the caller’s story is unknown, since she does not speak
- No dates are given that would allow any record to be checked
- 0:37
- 1:33
What the model inferred (not said on air): The placement (the caller’s assertion plus a claimed witness who is not heard) is my application of the scoring guide. The lack of any offered object comes from the transcript.
The story is mildly to moderately unsettling: a child’s unseen companion voices a preference about a private household habit, and the caller describes the hair on their neck standing up. But there is no threat, contact, harm, or escalation.
Evidence for and against
- The friend is said to dislike the caller, which they say made the hair on the back of their neck stand up
- The child reportedly knew about a habit the household believed she did not know about
- The setting is the family home and involves a young child
- The events are harmless and domestic: tea parties, playing, blaming Roger for things
- The caller explicitly denies ghosts, voices, or [quote withheld]
- No threat, injury, physical contact, or escalating activity is reported
- The host’s repeated “creepy” framing may color how the story reads, and the host’s reactions are not evidence
- 1:33
- 1:27
What the model inferred (not said on air): The score reflects my reading of the mood and stakes of the story, not any claim by the caller about how frightening it was.
The imaginary-friend setup is familiar. But the specific hinge, the invisible friend objecting to cigarette butts thrown in the garden, is a distinctive, concrete detail rather than a stock haunting element.
Evidence for and against
- The strange detail is a household habit (discarded cigarette butts) rather than a classic ghost or haunting device
- The caller notes the absence of the usual ghost-story trappings, so the single detail carries the story
- Stories of a child with an imaginary friend, and of a child knowing something she shouldn’t, are common motifs
- The structure (a parent retells a child’s companion, and the host reacts) is a standard call-in format
- Originality is scored on this part of the broadcast alone and is labeled provisional while the archive is small
- 0:27
- 1:50
What the model inferred (not said on air): The comparison with common ghost-story motifs is my judgment. The details themselves are the caller’s.
Scoring confidence 0.60 · analysis confidence 0.70 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller’s firsthand story about their daughter’s behavior; Secondhand content relayed through the child about “Roger”; A claimed second witness who is not heard (the caller’s wife); No photograph, recording, document, or physical evidence offered or examined. 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.
- An ordinary childhood imaginary companion, a commonly reported stage of development, which the parents themselves first assumed. · The caller says [quote withheld] Their wife [quote withheld] and the parents considered the behavior [quote withheld]
- The child could have seen or worked out the father’s smoking (butts in the garden, the smell, seeing him go outside) rather than learning it from something unseen. · The caller says they went outside to smoke and [quote withheld] They say she did not know they smoked, which is their own view, not something they show.
- She repeated something she overheard from adults, or made a chance remark that was later read as meaningful. · The caller reports nothing else strange and describes normal household life. The single remark is told with no detail about when or how it came up.
What stands out
The story has almost none of the usual ghost events. The caller explicitly denies ghosts, voices, or other activity. It rests entirely on a child’s imaginary companion reporting a household habit the caller believes she could not have known about. The only strange element is a piece of apparent knowledge credited to the imaginary friend, not anything an adult saw or heard.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.