Ghost Hunters 2.2: "03 Aug 2005"

Case Study #1: Cranston, RI
Case Study #2: Grafton, MA

If you think of this series as a serialized drama with “reality TV” as its source material, to be edited and used as necessary, then it doesn’t take long to wonder if all that attention on Brian last week was meant to inform the events of this episode. There are little hints about things not getting done correctly during the first case, and during the analysis of the second case, the emphasis is strongly on Brian and Steve fooling around and missing possible evidence. Not good for Brian!

This episode also highlights the difference between Jason and Grant, who take this all very seriously and personally, and some of the support staff, who seem to have their own psychological reasons for wanting to be a part of TAPS. I’m not convinced that Brian is there for the work itself; as he mentioned before, it’s more that he’s got nothing else in which to invest his life. At least Steve is just a guy who needs to learn how to retain attention on a task.

Andy’s another odd one. I love his sincerity, but the underlying message of the episode for him was self-control. Andy gets a bit too worked up when on a case, and it hurts the credibility of the team. The way I see it, just reacting like that changed the way everyone else approached the case. Subjective interpretations are par for the course, but it doesn’t help when one person’s reaction (and a questionable one at that) starts influencing those interpretations.

But this was another example of how TAPS operates. Setting aside the usual questions of staged drama and fake cases (I have little patience for those who seek to tear down something based solely on the logic of their own ill-informed conjecture), episodes like this are necessary. Sure, it’s not as much fun as the more active cases, but if every episode was filled with evidence of extreme activity, I’d be a lot more skeptical. Episodes like this demonstrate that some cases have simple, “real world” explanations, and I think it’s important to remind the audience of that.

OK, so on to the cases themselves!

First stop: Cranston, RI. Quite frankly, I think Andy was having a panic attack based on what he thought might happen, not what was happening. That said, I was intrigued by the fact that there could have been something happening in the basement. Sure, basements are drafty, and there wasn’t really enough to pin a case on, but it was intriguing. One can’t help but wonder if there was evidence, but it was missed.

But it’s more of a case of people seeking unusual explanations for things that, at this point, seem rather mundane in substance. It wasn’t exactly hard to figure out what was happening with the kids, and the parents should have considered that possibility. And don’t even get me started about the cat! Any cat owner knows to discount a lot of strangeness when a cat is running around in the dark!

Next stop: Grafton, MA. Well, they really do everything possible to smooth over the news, but Jason and Grant both seem to think that Hayley is at the center of classic poltergeist activity. Typically, it’s not that spirits are hostile towards a young woman, so much as the activity is a subconscious psychic reflection of psychological issues that the young woman carries within her. Why it happens largely to young women is somewhat bizarre, but going by the historically anecdotal conclusions of others, that’s how it’s supposed to work.

The evidence, in my opinion, points to the idea that the two women in the house are causing the phenomena to occur, and when Jason was beginning to catch on to that, he was “attacked”. Is it 100% certain that it happened that way? Of course not. It wasn’t on camera, so we only have Jason’s word on it. But it does fit the profile, doesn’t it?

Anyway, the second case was more important in terms of showing how the evidence should be analyzed, instead of the haphazard manner in which Brian and Steve run through it. I’m not convinced in terms of the EVP, but Brian did miss it, and that’s an issue. Personally, I think that Jason and Grant might be better served to replace Brian with the new guy and put Andy on the review of evidence. If Andy is that hair-trigger with his interpretations, then he’s probably the perfect guy to present possible evidence for Jason and Grant to review. Part of the problem is that Brian and Steve are making the judgments themselves, and it’s clear that it’s not working.

Chill Factor: 6/10