The Columbus Poltergeist

In 1984, the Resch family of Columbus, Ohio, experienced a series of poltergeist phenomena centered on their fourteen-year-old adopted daughter, Tina. The case was investigated by Dr. William Roll, one of the world’s leading poltergeist researchers, and attracted significant media attention.

The Events

The disturbances began in early 1984. Lights turned on and off. A shower started running on its own. Pictures fell from walls. The family assumed electrical problems until objects began flying through the air.

The phenomena escalated rapidly. Heavy furniture moved across rooms. A phone repeatedly flew off its cradle. Lamps crashed to the floor. The activity occurred in full daylight, witnessed by multiple family members.

Investigation

Dr. William Roll of the Psychical Research Foundation investigated the case. Roll was experienced in poltergeist research, having studied the Miami poltergeist and numerous other cases.

Roll concluded that the phenomena were genuine and centered on Tina Resch. As in many poltergeist cases, the focus person was a teenager experiencing emotional difficulties. Tina had been adopted and was dealing with issues related to her biological family.

Media Coverage

The case attracted intense media attention. Television crews filmed in the home and captured footage of objects appearing to move. A photographer from the Columbus Dispatch took pictures of a phone apparently in flight.

However, controversy erupted when a television crew claimed to have caught Tina pulling a lamp off a table. Skeptics seized on this as evidence of fraud, while believers argued that even if some incidents were faked, genuine phenomena had occurred.

Aftermath

The controversy overshadowed the investigation. Tina’s life took a tragic turn in later years, including legal troubles. She maintained until her death that the poltergeist activity was real.

Assessment

The Columbus case illustrates the difficulties in poltergeist investigation. Even well-witnessed phenomena can be disputed, and the psychological state of focus persons complicates interpretation. The case remains controversial.