I’ve called this book investigative journalism with tongue in cheek, to be honest James Phelps has simply interviewed a whole bunch of people, believed whatever they told him, then published what amounts to a number of yarns with about as much research as you would expect from someone who writes for Sydney’s Daily Telegraph bin liner. There’s no attempt at investigation and I would imagine most people won’t be fooled by sensational journalism. During this review I am going to use the rule of three, as in three strikes and you are out, while we wade through the barely researched tales of fiction that Phelps breathlessly seems to believe word for word. Let’s get this one in our rear view mirror.

The book is basically made up of various ghost stories of varying interest, many of which have zero in the way of anything approaching proof of concept. Actually make that none of the stories included in the book have anything like proof of concept. In the modern age every single individual in the Western World are basically carrying a film camera with them 24/7 in the guise of a smart phone, yet proof of paranormal activity, well that would be zero. According to Phelps the country is brimming with ghostly happenings, yet to date there has been absolutely no scientifically proven haunting, apparition, or any other supernatural occurrence. Yet Phelps is apparently believing every word he is being told by some well-meaning, but unfortunately deluded people who either really want to see a ghost, as one of his interviewees admits to, or are unduly influenced by what amount to urban legends about various apparent hauntings or seriously spooky locations.

To our first example of the rule of three before having a look at some of the stories in the book. James Phelps is a journalist who has worked extensively for the Daily Telegraph. This is a newspaper held in such low regard that bumper stickers were doing the rounds stating, “Is that the truth or did you read it in the Daily Telegraph”. Generally, opinion is the newspaper isn’t exactly a leading light in Australia when it comes to doing research and actually sticking to the facts. James might be a decent journalist, but seriously he uses the Daily Telegraph as something of a resource in the book, it appeared in the Tele, is that meant to be documented proof or something? So strike one folks, I’m going to take anything written by a Daily Telegraph Journalist with a least a grain of salt if not out and out disbelief. A second strike is immediately in play when Phelps breathlessly uses those old snake oil salespeople the Warrens to back up a claimed haunted house. And wouldn’t you know it Lorraine immediately calls out demonic activity. Seriously has Mrs Warren ever seen a house she didn’t think was a gateway to Hell? Anyways as we all know the Warrens reached peak infamy with their claims about that house in Amityville, we have a large series coming that points out how the Warrens were shilling the rubes over that one. But hey Phelps even references the Enfield Haunting, an investigation that the Warrens had absolutely nothing to do with, as evidence by the actual investigators, but which naturally saw the Warrens battling demons and the forces of Hell. Was Lorraine even in England at the time? Ed was, one of the investigators sent him packing when he claimed they could make big money from the apparent paranormal activities. And a third strike comes into play when Phelps claims authentic photos because they were verified by some minion at the Daily Telegraph using Photoshop. No offense to the image manipulating product, but seriously you are going to use widely available commercial software that is easy to manipulated as your vehicle of choice? Hey, I’ve got a Harbour bridge you might like to buy.  

So let’s check out a few of the haunting James Phelps is apparently obsessed with, remembering none of these have been verified by anything like a scientific investigation. Apparently ghosts are shy when it comes to equipment that might just prove or not their existence. Go figure folks. Let’s start with the haunting Phelps has termed “Australia’s Amityville”, if you are currently laughing out loud I don’t blame you. So we get the full skinny on this house over in Gladesville that is seemingly teeming with paranormal activity, except the only paper that reported on what should have been National wide news was the Daily Telegraph and its stable mates. More reputable newspapers weren’t going near this one, because guess what the Warrens are a sham, anything to do with them is a sham, and only the Tele would have wasted space to what amounts to sensational journalism with no evidence beyond some dubious claims that have never been fully investigated because guess what folks, another con in the paranormal annals.

Having regaled the reader with the plot of a Conjuring movie, hey from the annals of the Warrens don’t you know, we move on to Australia’s “most famous ghost photo”. The photo in question was snapped by Renee English at St Mark’s Cemetery, Picton and was verified by a harried Tele photo dude looking for something to fit on page 3 with a deadline looming, anyone else starting to smirk slightly already. The problem with the photo is that there are numerous explanations for the content, including kids cutting through the graveyard on the way home etc. For many Picton is considered the most haunted place in Australia, which by the way is claimed by multiple locations with no serious proof of that claim for any of them. Also bringing some cynicism to the claims about the cemetery photo is statements by Renee English herself. In one breath she claims to be a sceptic in the next she claims she always wanted to see a ghost. Sorry if you are a sceptic you are hardly hoping to see a ghost as you don’t actually believe in them. Is the photo authentic, sure, does it capture the ghosts of a couple of kids, you make your own mind up, there are plenty of questions regarding what it actually shows. Once again our burden of proof isn’t exactly being support by the Tele’s claims.

I’m not going to cover every yarn included in the book, that would be pretty boring to be honest but think I’ve done enough to prove that we are talking sensationalism rather than hard fact, which the cynical would claim is more to do with moving book numbers than conducting a systematic exploration of Aussie haunts. Now I’m not saying the people interviewed are lying through their teeth, for sure some of them have experienced episodes that are beyond the normal, but proof of the supernatural? Pull the other one Phelps, the book is filled with unsubstantiated yarns, doesn’t include anyone like an expert, and probably does more damage to paranormal research in Australia than it does to help.

Hey back to the rule of three, there’s some serious missteps in this book that make Jay Anson’s The Amityville Horror seem well edited. In a chapter quaintly titled “The Dandy Diner” we learn a family member was uncomfortable talking about an apparent haunting because of her Roman Catholicism. Are you serious Phelps, I was brought up in the religion and it’s all about demons, things that go bump in the night, and visitations. Catholics are not shy in this area, and by my experience love a good ghost story. Completely bogus statement that makes a mockery of the yarn being covered. Even better in the chapter “Grandpa’s Ghosts” we have a two-bedroom cottage in the outback that goes through seemingly miraculous renovations as the homestead apparently, and without explanation has more renovations happening behind the scenes with additional rooms being added at a frantic pace. To be honest this place puts Red Rose to shame! But the biggest fubar the author makes is with the final chapter, in which he claims to have actually taken a photo of an honest to god ghost, and does a “BOOM Mic dropped”. If I was being charitable I would say inconclusive, but since I’m not, what sort of utter bollocks are you doing here Phelps. At best the photo shows a curtain in a breeze, but hey you write for the Tele right, so that’s proof enough for you I guess. There’s plenty of other examples of the narrative breaking down when analysed, but this isn’t a Uni dissertation so let’s wrap it up.

I might have seemed a whole bunch antagonist toward this book during this review, and I was because claims of true paranormal activity via shoddy research does more damage to the field of para-psychology than simply saying here’s a bunch of ghost stories, which you might or might not believe, up to the individual. But overall the book is solidly enough written, if a tad flowery in descriptions, and works as a selection of urban ghost stories without any recourse to fact or at least some semblance of fact. I was bored in parts, some of the chapters are stretched to almost breaking point, but was intrigued by some of the stories contained. I’m not going to recommend this book to anyone, we are once again in the claims section of the ghostly encounters, but hey if wanting some ghost stories then knock yourself out. End of day, “is that the truth or did you read it in the Daily Telegraph”.