Another Look at The Imad Elawar Case - A Review of Leonard Angel's Critique of This "Past Life Memory Case Study"

 

Author: Julio Cesar de Siqueira Barros - Biologist.
Date: January 10, 2004.
Email: juliocbsiqueira2012 followed by @ and then gmail.com

Copyright ©  Julio Cesar de Siqueira Barros.

Note: Some special comments in the text appear in this color

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Mr. Leonard Angel for his kind attention in providing me his full critique of the Imad Elawar Case as presented in his book Enlightenment East & West (1994). I would also like to thank Mr. Ian Stevenson, Ms. Martha Mercier, and all the people of the Department of Personality Studies, University of Virginia, for providing me Stevenson's Full Reply to Leonard Angel (1994), that unfortunatelly was only partially published in the Skeptical Inquirer (May/June 1995). 


Summary: The aim of this paper is to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of one case study reported by reincarnation researcher Ian Stevenson (of the so called "Cases of the Reincarnation Type" - CORT -, sometimes also referred to as "Past Life Memory Case Studies"). The case is of the 5-year-old Lebanese-Druse boy Imad Elawar, researched by Stevenson in 1964 and included in his book Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation (1966 and 1974). This case was bitterly criticized by Leonard Angel in an article in the Skeptical Inquirer Magazine in 1994.
           In a careful re-analysis of both the case and the critique of it, I conclude that both parties have made important mistakes. Further, I conclude that there seems to be good evidence for regarding the Imad Elawar case as indicative of paranormality and suggestive of "reincarnation", even though at this stage of human knowledge we have just no way of knowing how this "reincarnation" happens and moreover we have no way of knowing what "reincarnates". Imad Elawar case belongs to the strongest group of cases, that is, the cases that have written records made by the researcher of what the children reported about his/her alleged previous life before any attempts to identify the previous personality. The total number of such cases, including both Stevenson's 3000 cases and other researchers several hundreds of cases, is little more than 10 (i.e. 0.3% of the total).
          A secondary aim of this paper is to give informed insights for a review of Stevenson's research on Cases of the Reincarnation Type and for a fair evaluation of it.         
             This paper begins with a 3-page introduction, followed by an 8-page review of Leonard Angel's critique of the case, and finally with a presentation my own 8-page re-analysis of the Imad Elawar case. In the end, I include Stevenson's original tabulations of the case (19 pages), to enable the reader to perform any methodological evaluation of this work that might be of interest.



Table of Contents:

    1- Introduction
    2- Review of Leonard Angel's Critique
    3- Re-analysis of the Imad Elawar Case
    4- Stevenson's Original Tabulations of the case
    5- Bibliography



Introduction:

In the Fall 1994 issue of the world leading skeptic publication, the Skeptical Inquirer magazine (Skeptical Inquirer - vol 18, Fall 1994, pp. 481-487), phylosopher Leonard Angel (Arts & Humanities Department, Douglas College, New Westminster, B.C., Canada.) presented a critical review of the Imad Elawar Case, as reported in Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation (Stevenson, Ian. Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. 2nd edition, 1974. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press. - the 1st edition is from 1966). This review was also presented in Angel's book, Enlightenment East and West (1994), basically with some additional minor points, and a better explanation of the items presented in Skeptical Inquirer. Leonard Angel attempted to show that the case could be easily explained on "naturalistic" grounds (that is, not resorting to paranormal hypotheses, like ESP or afterlife survival and reincarnation).

It must be stressed that, just as Leonard Angel himself pointed out in his Skeptical Inquirer 1994 article, his analysis of the empirical content of this case was probably the only one that had ever been undertaken by any skeptic so far. And from then until now (September, 2003), the situation has most probably not changed much, except for Angel's own critique of Ian Stevenson's book about birthmarks in children claiming to remember previous lives, (Reincarnation and Biology, a Contribution to the Etiology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects - 1997). This most recent review by Leonard Angel was published in the Skeptic Magazine (vol. 9, No.3, 2002 - Reincarnation all over again: evidence for reincarnation rests on backward reasoning). In Angel's own words (in his 1994 article): "Oddly enough, despite the length of time since publication of Twenty Cases, it is hard to come by detailed examinations of it. Those who endorse Stevenson's work state that they have been persuaded, but do not say more than that. And skeptics tend to dismiss the work without detailed explanation." (Skeptical Inquirer Fall 1994, p.482). Also, anthropologist James G. Matlock says almost the same, in his comprehensive review of Past Life Memory Case Studies: "In fact, readers may have been surprised to learn how weak specific methodological criticisms of Stevenson's work have been." (Past life memory case studies. In S. Krippner {editors}, Advances in Parapsychological Research. S. Krippner Jefferson, N.C. Mcfarland, 1990. Page 253).

Brief description of the Imad Elawar case: Stevenson went to Lebanon, in March 1964, hoping to find cases of children claiming to remember previous lives. On his very first day there, he happened to find a family that had a boy who claimed to remember a previous life. This was the Elawar family, and the boy was named Imad (Imad Elawar), born in December 1958. Stevenson noted some 57 statements (that Imad's parents claimed Imad had said, concerning his previous life) and then set out himself to try to find a previous personality (i.e. a deceased person) that might fit these statements, in the village and family indicated "by Imad" (the village of Khriby; the family Bouhamzy). He ended up finding someone that could fit considerably well the statements, a Ibrahim Bouhamzy, who died of tuberculosis at the age of 25, in September 1949. Two paragraphs in Stevenson's account of the case (page 277 of Twenty Cases) are especially informative:

"Since Imad had mentioned a considerable number of names, his family had tried to fit these names into a pattern of family relationships. The first words he had ever spoken were 'Jamileh' and 'Mahmoud' and he had repeatedly mentioned Jamileh and compared her beauty to the lesser attractiveness of his own mother. He also spoke of an accident in which a truck had driven over a man, breaking both his legs and causing other injuries which led to his death shortly after the accident. Imad had spoken of a quarrel between the driver of the truck and the injured man and he was thought to believe that the driver had meant to kill the injured man by deliberately running over him with his truck. Imad had also spoken of a bus accident. He said that he belonged to the Bouhamzy family of Khriby. And he had further expressed a most unusual joy in being able to walk, saying over and over how happy he was that he could now walk.

His family had put all these statements together as follows. They believed that he was claiming to have been one Mahmoud Bouhamzy of Khriby who had a wife called Jamileh and who had been fatally injured by a truck after a quarrel with its driver. It turned out later that Imad had never actually said the fatal truck accident had happened to him; he had merely described it vividly. Nor had he specifically said that Jamileh was his wife; he had simply often referred to her. Imad's family had assigned other places in his 'previous family' to some of the other people whose names he had mentioned. Thus they had assumed that two of the persons he had mentioned were 'his' sons. They further made some other inferences which proved erroneous and the details of which I shall note in the summarizing tabulation and discussion below. Although I tried to learn exactly what Imad had himself said, his parents passed on to me as having been said by Imad some of these inferences which they themselves had made in their effort to find some coherent pattern in his statements. As it turned out, however, the errors of inference made by Imad's family add considerably to the evidence of their honesty and also to the improbability that they themselves could have provided a source or a channel for the information given by Imad."

The case was not, however, free from some "baffling complexities", as Stevenson himself pointed out. In his own words: "Here I may say, however, that the investigation of the case of Imad encountered at first baffling complexities and on two occasions it seemed to dissolve into unrelated and irrelevant fragments: once when I learned that Mahmoud Bouhamzy had not been killed by a truck, and again when I learned that the life of Said Bouhamzy, who had been killed by a truck, did not match in other details the statements made by Imad. Moreover, someone else had already come forward as a claimant to be Said Bouhamzy reborn." (Twenty Cases, page 280). So, in order to fit Imad's statements to the previous personality, a certain amount of "reinterpretation" was necessary.

This created a rather odd scenario, where a "prior-to-verification" statement that was probably "Imad said he was named Mahmoud Bouhamzy in his previous life" (which was found to be wrong in the course of the investigation, for Mahmoud Bouhamzy was still alive) was in the end reinterpreted as "correct" and inserted in the tabulation as "Mahmoud; name mentioned by Imad: Mahmoud Bouhamzy was an uncle of Ibrahim Bouhamzy". And, the "prior-to-verification" statement that was probably "Imad said he had a son called Adil" (which was a statement that could not fit Ibrahim Bouhamzy) was in the end reinterpreted as "correct" and inserted in the tabulation as "He had a 'son' called Adil: Ibrahim had a cousin called Adil. Another error of inference on the part of Imad's parents. Imad, they later said, had mentioned 'Adil' and 'Talal' or 'Talil' and they had assumed these were the sons of the previous life.".

It is, therefore, no wonder that these "reinterpretations" have led to some suspicions of misconduct on the part of Stevenson. As Leonard Angel put it: "Amazingly enough, the boy's memories are in the end held to be good evidence for reincarnation in spite of the fact that the best past-life candidate Stevenson found was not named Mahmoud Bouhamzy, did not have a wife named Jamilah, and did not die as a result of an accident at all, let alone one that followed a quarrel with the driver." (Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1994, p.483).

Angel pointed out in 1994 that Stevenson failed in the investigation of the case on six fundamental points:

1- The original "prior-to-verification memories" should have been recorded and reported exactly as originally noted.

2- Any attempts on the part of the investigator to distinguish between what the boy stated and what the informant relatives of the boy interpreted him as stating must have been done before efforts at verification.

3- Data must not have been presented in such a way as to obscure alternative hypotheses. Angel considered to be instances of this the statements that the previous life "had lived in Khriby" and was from the "family Bouhamzy". The alternative hypothesis would be that, instead of Imad having really "remembered" this information, he might actually have started refering to them after casual events in his early years of life, maybe by hearing the name Bouhamzy, or after meeting the man from Khriby on the streets when he was almost three years old.

4- The tabulation of the data should not have hidden problems in comments. An example of this would be the "wells" that Imad mentioned, which in the end were considered as "correct" even though "vats" were found.

5- The specific methods of verification should have been properly documented. That is, what kind of questions did Stevenson use to check Imad's statements against the memories of the previous personality's friends and relatives: were they "leading" questions, "open" ("give-away") questions, "single-blind", "double-blind"?

6- The most challenging rival account of the data to the reincarnation hypothesis has not even been raised, let alone assessed. The appropriate rival account has to do with the statistics of the informational nexus surrounding any "psychically" delivered material. That is, could it be that "Imad's" statements could be accounted for merely on the grounds of chance, and the researchers being then impressed merely by unwarranted inflation of the statements' significance?

I have attempted, therefore, to take a closer look at the Imad Elawar case using as a guiding yardstick Leonard Angel's criticism, seeking to find if the case might still seem "interesting" (that is, indicative of paranormality) after a "correction" of it, that is, after trying to remove Stevenson's reinterpretations. All this to see if what remains of the case can really be easily accounted for on "naturalistic" (i.e. non-paranormal) grounds, as Leonard Angle has claimed almost ten years ago.

What follows in the work below is, first, a critical review of Angel's critique to the Imad Elawar case, almost with the same content of a letter that I have sent to him by email; and, second, a "reorganization" or "retabulation" of the case to see if its apparent "paranormal aspects" stand Angel's naturalistic explanatory attempts. 



Critical Review of Leonard Angel's Critique to the Imad Elawar Case Study


Since I told Mr. Leonard Angel that "even taking into consideration your methodological criticism to the Imad Elawar case, I still find this case interesting", I have sent him (as presented below) my analysis and explanation as to why I have come to this standpoint. At the end of this text, I have included a retabulation I made of Stevenson's original tabulation, taking into account Angel's comments regarding the case. Actually, it is this retabulation that is the basis for my present opinion. The text that precedes it is an evaluation of what seems to be weak points in Angel's analysis of the Imad Elawar case.

My analysis proceeded in the following way:

- First, I read Leonard Angel's analysis of the case (Skeptical Inquirer Fall 1994).

- Second, I read the "Follow-up" with Stevenson's reply and Angel's rejoinder (Skeptical Inquirer May/June 1995).

- Third, I read the case as reported in Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation (second edition, 1974 - sixth paperback printing, 2002).

- Fourth, all these materials were carefully read four times, and I did a retabulation of Stevenson's original tabulation.

- Fifth, I got two additional papers on the subject. The papers were two of those that Stevenson indicated:

* Stevenson, Ian, and Godwin Samararatne. 1988. Three new cases of the reincarnation type in Sri Lanka with written records made before verification. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1988, 2:217-238.

* Mills, Antonia; Haraldsson, Erlendur, and Keil; H. H. Jürgen. 1994. Replication studies of cases suggestive of reincarnation by three independent investigators. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 88:207-219. (this one is from 1994, July, and so it couldn't be used by Angel then).

- Finally, I got Angel's full analysis of the case, and I also got Stevenson's full reply.

The first thing that struck me was that Angel was analyzing a case that had been investigated in 1964, that is, thirty years before his analysis of it (in 1994). It is surely the most important one in the Twenty Cases materials, but a lot of research had been done since then. It just makes us wonder what is the quality of the research that followed Twenty Cases. Even though Angel's work is priceless in methodological guidelines, it leaves us with no idea as to the quality of the research in the area. I have acquired and carefully read the two articles mentioned just above, and they seem to be of fairly good scientific quality.

The second thing that struck me was that in Angel's article much criticism was directed at Stevenson's reinterpretation of "Imad's" statements, questioning the very legitimacy, motivations, and intentions for these reinterpretations. Angel said, for example:

"In virtue of what original claims, then, does Stevenson allow himself and the family to zero in on Ibrahim Bouhamzy?" (followed, in your S.I. article, by the list of the "sum total of the correspondences remaining from the original prior-to-verification memories.").

And also:

"Amazingly enough, the boy's memories are in the end held to be good evidence for reincarnation in spite of the fact that the best past-life candidate Stevenson found was not named Mahmoud Bouhamzy, did not have a wife named Jamilah, and did not die as a result of an accident at all, let alone one that followed a quarrel with the driver. Yet Stevenson does not give sufficient information for the reader to know what exactly the parents or the boy himself said that entitled Stevenson to discount the original claims as interpreted by the parents and instead present the very different claims given in the tabulation."

There was surely heavy reinterpretation from the part of Stevenson. I can even say that sometimes he went to unacceptable extremes in doing that. But actually, the "reasons" for Stevenson doing so are all clearly indicated in his report of the case (that is, except for the unacceptable extremes of reinterpretation). And also, all the weaknesses of the case seem (seem, at least!) to have been openly presented, except for details of his interviewing procedures with the "verifiers" (that is item 5 of the six fundamental grounds in which, according to Angel's view, Stevenson failed). That is, what kind of questions did he use? Were they mostly leading ones and open ones? Or, instead, could some of them, or maybe even most of them, be qualified under modern definitions as "single-blind"? Anyway, we all know that they surely were not double-blind, which, by itself, is a serious weakness.

A third thing that surprised me was the limited space Skeptical Inquirer (S.I) gave to the subject. Stevenson's full reply is very interesting and informative (just as Angel's full analysis of the case has additional strengths which the readers would have profited from reading), and it was a great loss that S.I. couldn't (or wouldn't) publish it fully. It would have taken just 5 pages to publish Stevenson's full reply (I had Microsoft Word count the words in the articles to make this estimation), whereas Angel's article had 7, and Big Foot (also in S.I. 1994, Fall) had 11!

Further, I have spotted some factual mistakes in Leonard Angel's analysis. Angel made a list of the "Sum total of the correspondences remaining from the original prior-to-verification memories.". It included the following items:

01- There was an important person (his wife or something like it) named Jamilah
02- Jamilah was beautiful
03- Jamilah wore red
04- Jamilah dressed well
05- Ibrahim was a "friend" of the famous Druse politician Kemal Joumblatt
06- Ibrahim had a farm
07- There was a sort of entrance with a round opening
08- Ibrahim was fond of hunting
09- Ibrahim had hidden his gun
10- Ibrahim once beat a dog
11- There was a slope near Ibrahim's house
12- Ibrahim had been rebuilding his garden
13- Ibrahim had a small yellow automobile
14- Ibrahim had a bus
15- Ibrahim had a truck

At first, I found six mistakes in this list. Actually seven, but the mispelling of Jamileh (which, by the way, is just a pseudonym) is methodologically unimportant. The mistakes are these:

Items Jamileh wore red, Ibahim had hidden his gun, and Ibrahim had a bus should not be in this list. They were not written down prior to verification.

Items Ibrahim had a double-barreled shotgun, Ibrahim kept the car tools in the place with the round opening, and Ibrahim had an oil stove at his house should be included, for they were written down prior to verification.

And then again, in Angel's full analysis of the case, he list 5 items that remained after he made an attempt to account naturalistically for the statements:

1- Fondness for hunting
2- Having hidden his gun
3- Improving garden
4- Having access to some vehicles
5- Entrance with sort of round opening

In these, I still found two mistakes: first the "hidden gun", which was not written down prior to verification. Second, the entrance with sort of round opening, which in fact, if we take in consideration what Stevenson himself had reported, could easily be accounted for naturalistically. Actually, Stevenson himself de-emphasized its potential importance, by stating in the tabulations (item 47, comments): "Although correct, attic openings of this kind also occur on other houses of the area.". Remember that, concerning the "slope near the house", Angel explained it naturalistically saying: "As for the slope near the house, could it be that most of the houses in Druse villages have a slope somewhere near them?". So, the round opening should also be excluded.

As a matter of fact, there seems to be little or no reason for excluding these additional thirteen (13) items: the new garden had cherry trees; the new garden had apple trees; there were two garages at the house; Jamileh wore high heels; there was someone called Amin; Amin lived in Tripoli; Amin worked in the courthouse building in Tripoli; the tools for the car were at the place with the round opening; he had a goat when he was young; he had a sheep when he was young; when asked "who are your brothers?", he correctly replied "Fuad and Ali" (leaving out Sami, the youngest); he had a brown dog; when asked how the dog had been held, he correctly replied "by cord", instead of by chains as many dogs in the area are.

It seemed to me, after reading Angel's critique and Stevenson's report many times, that the Imad Elawar case was probably the very first case where Stevenson had the opportunity to make written records of the statements before any attempt to verify them and then set out to try and find (maybe successfully) a person fitting a child's statements. Stevenson was perhaps unprepared for the "baffling complexities" that he found, possibly because he expected things to appear in a more clear-cut manner. He made a very risky (and utterly naive) proposal when he suggested at his very first interview with Imad's family that they could go to Khriby on the next day to try to see if they could discover something interesting, which of course must have raised high expectations in Imad and in his father. And these high expectations, if they had been later frustrated because of Stevenson, might have had disastrous consequences for the investigation of the case. By then, all Stevenson had was a report that came through a very unreliable interpreter, and Stevenson had no guarantee that he would find someone much better on the following day to do this job. It seems to me that he had not grasped then how much a child's statements may get entangled with its parents' interpretations of it, and how much many further distortions might operate in "memories" like these (And we must add: of course, weakening the case! If reinterpretations are to be allowed, there is a price to pay. And the price is: The weakening of the statement's evidential strength!).

I must say that, being myself a father (I have a daughter, 14 years old, and a son, 8 years old), I do not believe the possibility that a researcher can safely identify what is (or was) the child's statements and what is (or was) the "entangling of it" with its immediate surrounding (mainly, but not only, with parents' interpretations, positive or negative feedbacks, etc).(comment: as a matter of fact, I must say that researchers Erlandur Haraldsson and Majd Abu-Izzeddin seem to have done an excellent work in attempting to do exactly that in a recent case report: Development of Certainty About the Correct Deceased Person in a Case of the Reincarnation Type in Lebanon: The Case of Nazih Al-Danaf. Erlendur Haraldsson and Majd Abu-Izzeddin. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.16, No.3, pp.363-380. 2002. This case, however, did not have written records made prior to verification).

An interesting issue is the "vats-sheds" issue. "Does a five-year-old Druse village boy not know the difference between a vat and a well?" (comment: Angel asked this question in his 1994 Skeptical Inquirer article, because Imad had said that in his previous life there were two wells in his house, one full and one empty. Stevenson found two concrete vats there, and counted that statement as "correct" in the tabulation). We may also ask, "Do grown-up skeptics from Skeptical Inquirer (or the people responsible for the drawings on it) not know the difference between a vat made out of wood and a vat made out of concrete?" (in S.I. Fall 1994 issue, they drew an archetypic brick well by the side of a typical wooden vat - this drawing appears on the cover page and on one page of the article too). The problem of the range of word meanings in different languages is a hard one to deal with, even without having in mind the reincarnation hypothesis. In Brazilian Portuguese, I would never describe a "spring well" using the same word that I use for a "concrete vat" (nor would I describe a "concrete vat" using the same word that I use for a "wooden vat"...). But a shed like that one in Ibrahim Bouhamzy's house, I would surely describe as a garage (in Brazilian Portuguese), the same word I would use for any other ordinary garage. If someone is using the "reincarnation working hypothesis", no matter how weird it is, it has to be taken in consideration the possible distortion of memories through these hypothetical (and weird) soul transmissions, along with all else that could influence these memories (even the fact that the boy cited the "two wells" item during the car trip, that is, possibly rather quickly; whereas "Mahmoud" was most probably cited by the boy many many times, and so it may be more deserving of heavy criticism).

It seems to be true that Stevenson did not try to know when exactly Imad started mentioning Khriby and Bouhamzy (as Angel pointed out in his critique to this case report). But aren't these actually statements of a limiting nature? Don't they limit the possibility of reinterpretation?

Angel asked the question, "What would happen if the boy were taken to another village?". Could there be a reinterpretation that would allow a fake identification (just as Ibrahim might have been a fake identification too)? One way of looking at this question might be if we look at the "unsolved cases", especially cases with written records made prior to verification which have remained unsolved. In Mills et al (Mills, Antonia; Haraldsson, Erlendur, and Keil; H. H. Jürgen. 1994. Replication studies of cases suggestive of reincarnation by three independent investigators. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 88:207-219), they report that out of 19 cases with written records made prior to verification (in Sri Lanka, studied by Haraldsson), four cases had been solved, and 15 had not.

This means 78% of unsolved cases.

Also, anthropologist Matlock (Matlock, J. G. 1990. Past life memory case studies. In S. Krippner - Ed. - Advances in Parapsychological Research. McFarland: Jefferson, NC, Vol. 6, p. 231) says:

3.5.2. Solved Versus Unsolved Cases

Cook et al. (Cook, E. [F.] W., Pasricha, S., Samararatne, G., U Win Maung, & Stevenson, I. 1983b. A review and analysis of "unsolved" cases of the reincarnation type: II. Comparison of features of solved and unsolved cases. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 77, 115-135) describe a series of unsolved cases and (1983b) report a comparison of 576 solved and 280 unsolved cases in six cultures on several variables. They (Cook et al., 1983b) do not say how their sampling was done, but the number of cases involved makes it appear that they used all cases in Stevenson's collection for which sufficient data were available.

This means 33% of unsolved cases. Actually, almost all of the cases above must be cases without written records made prior to verification. So the identification of the "previous personality" was carried out by the families themselves.

In general, it seems that these cases do not get solved so easily as one might expect. But I must say that this is only a very introductory look at this issue anyway. Another way of estimating the likelihood of finding a person that matches these children's statements would be the experimental approach that Leonard Angel used at the Vancouver BC Skeptic society (comment: Mr. Leonard Angel told me this in a personal communication on May 20, 2003: "Another factor is worth mentioning that isn't written up anywhere. When I presented this material to the Vancouver BC Skeptic society, I devised a substitute list of factors similar to the table in the 20 Cases Collection for Imad Elawar. I don't recall the details, but what would have been common for the Elawar context but not common in Vancouver got something that seemed equally common in Vancouver. And what was uncommon in Elawar's context would have been replaced by something equally uncommon in Vancouver. I presented the list to the group of about forty or fifty people, and had them fill out which of the elements applied to them personally. We then found some truly remarkable sounding results--there were several people in the audience who fit as many indicators as the supposed past life of Imad Elawar did for that list. The experiment was not rigorously drawn, it was more to demonstrate the nature of the informational web, how powerful it is, and how easy it is to generate connections that are not causally significant."). So far, I have not come across any article where a researcher on past life memory cases has attempted to undertake this.

A further intriguing issue is Jamileh herself. When Imad went to Khriby, he did not mention Jamileh while he was with the female members of the Bouhamzy family. I believe his mother, or his father, instructed him not to do so, for the relationship of Ibrahim and Jamileh had been a scandal for the family. Anyway, I wonder if Jamileh really ever existed! I think it is kind of likely that she did exist, but it would not surprise me if she actually did not.

The two articles that I further read, suggested by Stevenson in his reply, have many good points.

In Stevenson-Samararatne (1988), many of the problems identified by Angel in the Imad Elawar case seem to have been much better dealt with. The cases seem to have been more deeply and better studied (there were more days of interviews; the researchers spoke the local languages and knew the local culture). There was far less reinterpretation and the tabulations seemed much more clean, that is, they were less confusing and the statements seemed less entangled (i.e. they were better unraveled; actually, there was no tabulation: I had to extract, one by one, the "prior-to-verification statements" from the article, and compare the result with the Table 1 "sum total", which only indicated the total number of statements, the number of correct ones, wrong ones, and unverified). There seemed also to have been less possibility of "sensory leakage" (i.e. less possibilities of contact between the families involved).

In Mills et al (Mills, Antonia; Haraldsson, Erlendur, and Keil; H. H. Jürgen. 1994. Replication studies of cases suggestive of reincarnation by three independent investigators. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 88:207-219), the authors don't really have much material supporting paranormal claims. The only case with records made prior to verification had (from my point of view) a serious weakpoint: all items were "out-door items", which increases the chance that they might have been known to strangers and other non family members. But the authors do make very interesting methodological comments on the possible pitfalls regarding research in this area:

1- They say that "in the cases that do not have a written record made before the case is 'solved', it is difficult to assess how much alteration in the account of the 'original testimony' has taken place".

2- They point out the "difficulty of assessing the independence of statements" (that is, how can one tell how many statements are there in one phrase with exact precision?)

3- They point out the "difficulty of assessing the relative significance or weight of the bits of information contained in each statement".

4- Finally, they comment on the problem of "the assessment of the probability of a match between the statements, behavior, etc. of a child and the characteristics of a deceased person", stating further that "Any calculation of such a probability estimate has a substantial subjective element".

As far as I could understand it, this item 4 above is precisely a reference to what Angel mentioned as "the statistics of the informational nexus surrounding any 'psychically' delivered material" (as Angel put it in his 1994 article in the Skeptical Inquirer: "Most deeply problematic is the fact that the most challenging rival account of the data to the reincarnation hypothesis has not even been raised, let alone assessed. The appropriate rival account has to do with the statistics of the informational nexus surrounding any 'psychically' delivered material."). This 1994 article (Mills et al) of course could not have been used by Angel in his book and article, for it appeared at the very same time that these writings of Angel did.

It seems to me that in terms of methodological criticism Angel's article has stressed the importance of two crucial items: first, how much cases like these could be explained by the workings of sheer chance. And second, how much the researcher could pass to the "verifiers" the very information he or she is attempting to verify. In sum: the chance issue, that has for so long plagued parapsychology; and the sensory leakage issue (either leaking from the researcher to the verifiers, or from the sorrounding environment - newspapers, people, etc - to the subject or to the informants), that, too, has had a devastating impact on the acceptability of the claims of the paranormal.

Presently, I think that only cases with written records made by the researcher prior to verification should be considered as possible source of empirical evidence for the reincarnation hypothesis (comment: there is an interesting 1998 article by Shouten and Stevenson addressing precisely this issue, comparing these "stronger" type of cases with the other "weaker" type, that is, cases without written records made prior to verification. They conclude that the Socio-Psychological Hypothesis cannot adequately explain these "weaker" cases of the reincarnation type, which seems to bring these "weaker" type of cases closer to the "stronger" ones in their possible evidential value to support the reincarnation hypothesis - Does the Socio-Psychological Hypothesis Explain Cases of the Reincarnation Type? Schouten, SA & Stevenson, I. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. Vol.186. No.8, pp.504-506. - However, it seems that in this article the "stronger cases" include both the ones with written records made by the researcher and the ones where the written records were made by someone else, sometimes a relative of the child, like in the Swarnlata case. Also, at least in the Imad Elawar case, Stevenson's quantitative evaluation of the correct, incorrect, and doubtful items does not seem much reliable. For example, he considered, even after Leonard Angel's critique in 1994, that the correct statements amounted to 80%, whereas I myself see his data as having actually 69% of correct statements at most, and perhaps even only 63% if we take a more stringent stand. - see details below - So, the statistics in this 1998 article may be flawed. There seems also to be a curious statistical mistake in Stevenson's 1993 introductory article on birthmarks and birth defects: Birthmarks and Birth Defects Corresponding to Wounds on Deceased Persons. Ian Stevenson. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol 7, No.4, pp403-410, 1993. It has to do with the probability that a death wound on the previous incarnation would match the location of a birthmark in the next incarnation. If there is one birthmark, Stevenson's numbers indicated a 1/160 probability, but the correct statistical figure should be 1/25. And if there are two birthmarks, Stevenson found a 1/25600 probability, but the correct number is 1/625. This mistake was repeated in both his books on the same subject in 1997, and were criticized by Leonard Angel in a 2001 article: Reincarnation All Over Again: Evidence for Reincarnation Rests on Backward Reasoning. A review of Ian Stevenson's "Reincarnation and Biology", Praeger Publishers, 1997. Vol 1 and 2, 2,228 pp. Author of the book review: Leonard Angel. Skeptic Magazine. vol. 9, No.3, 2002). Further, even if you add to that true double-blind verification methods, these cases will never satisfy the strictures that are being demanded from paranormal claims, especially the survivalist ones, for there is no way to have them happen under sensory shielding conditions, which is a tricky weakness. For a hypothesis like the reincarnation one, these demands for strictures come not only from the need to reconcile it with the rest of the scientific body of knowledge: they come top-most from its deep potential social impact. This is an issue where, I think, we cannot allow "temporary scientific truths". We need something stronger.

That is why my viewpoint is that these cases should never be regarded as "proof" of reincarnation. But I do think they already furnish some empirical evidence for it. Weak evidence. But true.

In Angel's more recent article, in Skeptic Magazine (Reincarnation all over again: evidence for reincarnation rests on backward reasoning. A review of Ian Stevenson's "Reincarnation and Biology", Praeger Publishers, 1997. Vol 1 and 2, 2,228 pp.. Reviewed by Leonard Angel. Skeptic Magazine vol. 9, No.3, 2002), he says:

"How has Stevenson's work managed to impress so many people, some of them with solid academic credentials? Part of the problem is what I see as a form of persuasion through faulty tabulation of data too massive to sift through."

It seems to me that this 2,000-page book of Stevenson may indeed have many flaws. I have read some parts of the smaller one, Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect (1997), and even though Stevenson said at its introduction that it was meant to serve almost as a "series of abstracts" to give some background and prepare the reader for the bigger volume (that is, to raise our curiosity and interest on the subjet), this smaller book lacks the details that are necessary even for a preliminary analysis (at least as far as I am concerned). But Angel says: "Part of the problem is...".

I do not necessarily see a "problem" in the fact that even scientists with solid academic credentials get impressed by Stevenson's work. What really worries me is why they get impressed. If you read, even if you read carefully, a case report like Imad Elawar's or those six ones that appear in the two articles that I mentioned above (Stevenson et al, 1988; and Mills et al, 1994), you may very well come out of the reading feeling that there is strong evidence, or felling that there is weak evidence or no evidence at all. I do not believe that anyone can get a good idea of what these case reports really are (that is, their strengths and weaknesses) without carefully reading them many times, and, what is worse, without making retabulations and extractions of the statements to try and weigh the value of the cases.

I very much believe that these case reports are being very poorly read, even by good scientists (and by those who claim that "the belief in reincarnation is as well justified by scientific investigations 'as...say, the belief in the past existence of dinosaurs'.". Either philosopher Robert Almeder did not read the reports carefully and deeply enough, or he does not know much about dinosaurs. Anyway, his reply to Paul Edwards in "Critique of Arguments Offered Against Reincarnation", is fairly good - Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 499-526, 1997. - this is a reply to Edwards' book Reincarnation: a Critical Examination - 1996). And I know for sure that these case reports (at least sometimes) are being very poorly written, in many ways, especially (but not only) in their tabulations. It is my point of view that a carefull and deep analysis of these case reports will lead neither to quick dismissal nor to ready acceptance. Further, as far as I can tell, the objections to "weird things" like the reincarnation hypothesis coming from the supposedly brain-mind "perfect coupling", and from hypothetical "violations of physical laws", are far less grounded than most people seem to be aware of (including both Michael Shermer and Barry L. Beyerstein. Shermer says, in Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition & Other Confusions of Our Time, "Shouldn't we know by now that the laws of science prove that ghosts cannot exist?" (p. 27), quoted in a review of this book by Henry H. Bauer in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. And Beyerstein says, in A Cogent Consideration of the Case for Karma and Reincarnation, a review of Paul Edwards book Reincarnation: a Critical Examination published in the Skeptical Inquirer magazine : January/February 1999: "While modern neuroscience cannot conclusively rule out the possibility that disembodied consciousness could exist, the staggering amount of evidence suggesting that thinking, remembering, and feeling require an intact, functioning brain serves to make the brain-mind link one of the most well-supported postulates to be found anywhere in science.". To me, both Shermer and Beyerstein are misinformative in their statements). 

In that way, I must say that I felt that instead of presenting us with an "unwarranted inflation of the significance of the data", Leonard Angel provided us with an "unmerited deflation of it".

Anyway, I must stress that his analysis (in both of his articles) is priceless in many respects, and I am very much aware that Angel may really be a hundred percent right in his intuition that all this research program has little or nothing of paranormal in it.

Leonard Angel asked, commenting on the Imad Elawar case, "How difficult is it, then, to account for the specific content of the best of the Twenty Cases material on purely naturalistic hypotheses?"

Having studied it deeply, the answer, as far as I am concerned, is: "Certainly not impossible. But very difficult indeed..."


Retabulation of the Imad Elawar case, originally described and tabulated in Ian Stevenson's Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation (1966-1974)

 

Explanation: This "retabulation" is an attempt to see if the Imad Elawar case still seems "interesting" (i.e. indicative of paranormality) after a "correction" of Ian Stevenson's original tabulation of it, trying to take as a guiding yardstick the methodological criticism to this case (and to Stevenson's tabulation of it) that was presented by Leonard Angel both in his book (Enlightenment East and West, 1994) and in his article published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer (Empirical Evidence for Reincarnation? Examining Stevenson's "Most Impressive" Case. Skeptical Inquirer, vol.18, Fall 1994).

In the tabulation below, only the statements that were recorded prior to verification were included. Some further statements were made by Imad Elawar during the visit to the "previous personality's" house (Imad Elawar is the boy who was said to remember a previous incarnation, and he was five years old in 1964; Ibrahim Bouhamzy is the supposedly "previous personality", who died of tuberculosis in September 1949, having died when he was about twenty five years old). Of these further statements, only the ones that were witnessed directly by the interpreter were included. The items that I left out (that is, those not written down prior to verification) would actually strenghten the case. So, leaving them out does not bias this reanalysis towards a paranormal explanation (quite on the contrary).

Each item has its previous number (i.e. its number in the original tabulation made by Stevenson) indicated in parenthesis. For example: 4- (St: 03) means that the original number of this item is 3, whereas I am refering to it in a "retabulated" form as item 4. St stands for Stevenson.

 

Comments on possible weaknesses of the case: While verifying if Imad Elawar's statements were correct or not, the questions could have been presented to the "verifiers" in a "double-blind", "single-blind", or "open" manner (this last category includes the often criticized "leading questions"). We may assume that Stevenson's questions were a mix of "open" and "single-blind" ones, possibly tending to be "open", sometimes (perhaps) even "leading" ones.

 

Possible sensory leakage "from the environment" and useful information regarding the case:

* Imad Elawar was born in December 1958.

* An event that happened possibly in December 1960: Salim el Aschkar, a native of Khriby, had married a girl from Kornayel and sometimes visited the latter village. When Imad was about two years old he was on the street with his paternal grandmother when Salim el Aschkar came along. Imad ran to him and threw his arms around him. "Do you know me?" asked Salim, to which Imad answered: "Yes, you were my neighbor." This man had been a neighbor of Ibrahim Bouhamzy's family, but was not then living close to their house. He was slightly acquainted with Elawar family, and he had been to the Elawar house once before Imad's birth.

* In the Autumn of 1962, a woman from the village of Maaser el Shouf came to Kornayel for a visit, and met Imad's parents. She confirmed that some people with the names indicated by Imad did in fact live (or had lived) in the area around Khriby, including Jamileh.

* Mr. Faris Amin Elawar, a third cousin of Imad's paternal grandfather, had an acquaintance, but not an intimate one, with the Bouhamzy family. His son, Saleem, went to the funeral of Said Bouhamzy (the one that was run over by the truck in June 1943, six years before Ibrahim Bouhamzy's death in September 1949) with some relatives. Mr. Faris visited the Elawar family frequently. (Stevenson said on pages 315-316: "These last two interviews left me with the impression that there had been rather more visiting between Kornayel and Khriby than I had previously thought. At the same time they reinforced my conclusion that persons known to Imad's family did not have knowledge of the details of the intimate life of the Bouhamzy family.").

* December 1963, Imad's father went to Khriby to the funeral of the other Said Bouhamzy.

* Stevenson started the research of the case in March 1964.

* The cities of Kornayel and Khriby are 40 km (25 miles) away from each other. No direct regular traffic links them, but they have moderately good, hard-surface roads. In this area, the people from different cities usually get together mainly in funerals and marriages.

* It is important to have in mind that the informants in this case were, mostly, Imad's parents. Stevenson says on page 277 (in Twenty Cases): "Although I tried to learn exactly what Imad had himself said, his parents passed on to me as having been said by Imad some of these inferences which they themselves had made in their effort to find some coherent pattern in his statements. As it turned out, however, the errors of inference made by Imad's family add considerably to the evidence of their honesty and also to the improbability that they themselves could have provided a source or a channel for the information given by Imad.". So a question that we should bear in mind, while trying to account for this case on "naturalistic" grounds, is to what extent Imad's parents could have gained access naturalistically to the information that they presented as being the memories of the boy. The "naturalistic" options are: confabulation (collective fraude, involving two or more persons); cryptomnesia (source amnesia); and chance plus data-significance inflation.

  

Special indicators used in the "retabulation":

Objective items: O. This kind of item is of special value. It refers to items that could be objectively verified by Stevenson, like, for example, "Just before his house, there was a slope".

High probability items: H. This refers to an item that is not specific. I included all names under this category, for want of information as to their relative frequencies in that population. It must be stressed that my criteria for classifying items as "high probability" or not is certainly only tentative.

Items that might have been affected by sensory cues: C. This affects mostly the "recognitions".

In the "retabulation below", the items were arranged so that the ones having possibly more evidential value appear first. All comments are mine, even though I sometimes "borrowed phrases" from Stevenson.

  Correct statements, either directly or through reinterpretation: Note that "He" at the beginning of the "statements" always refers to Imad-Ibrahim.

01- (St: 01) He was from the village of Khriby. O

02- (St: 34) Just before his house, there was a slope. O

03- (St: 35) There were two wells at his house. O. Stevenson found two concret vats, that in his full reply to Leonard Angel (1994) he said he had never seen in any other house in Lebanon. Correct through reinterpretation.

04- (St: 37) The new garden had cherry trees. O

05- (St: 37) The new garden had apple trees. O

06- (St: 45) There were two garages at the house. O. Stevenson found two sheds under the house. They had a ceiling (the very house itself, so far as I could understand), a door, and this door had a lock. To me, it was very much like a garage. Stevenson considered this item incorrect. I am treating this item as correct. Stevenson's comment was: "Incorrect, but perhaps partially right. Ibrahim kept his vehicles in the open. Below the house there were two sheds and Imad was probably trying to refer to these. This seems all the more likely in that Imad had earlier referred to 'rooms with round roofs' apparently in the same context and these sheds beneath the house did have round ceilings, as I found when I examined one myself.". Correct through reinterpretation.

07- (St: 01) He was from the family Bouhamzy. O H

08- (St: 47) There was an entrance with a sort of round opening (to the attic? this is item 47 in Stevenson's original tabulation, following item 46: "The key to the garage was in the attic"). O H

09- (St: 58) Imad pointed correctly to the general direction of Ibrahim Bouhamzy's house from 300 meters away. He failed to recognize it specifically. O C

10- (St: 72) He correctly pointed to the direction of the village of Maaser el Shouf, where Jamileh used to live. O C

11- (St: 04) Jamileh was beautiful.

12- (St: 05) Jamileh dressed well.

13- (St: 05) Jamileh wore high heels. This is unusual among these Druse women.

14- (St: 09) Amin worked in the courthouse building in Tripoli. Stevenson said: "Mr. Mohammed Elawar later said that Amin worked in the courthouse building and they had therefrom inferred that Amin was a judge.". It seems a little strange to me that a young village boy would say that he knew someone that worked in a courthouse building.

15- (St: 18) He had a friend called Yousef el Halibi. This was the memory-impaired old man that Stevenson did find in Khriby. Yousef claimed to remember being friend of Said Bouhamzy (the cousin of Ibrahim that was run over). Fuad Bouhamzy (brother of Ibrahim) said he knew Yousef. It is probable that Ibrahim knew him also. Stevenson treated this item as unverified. I am treating it as correct. Correct through reinterpretation.

16- (St: 20,21,22) * He engaged in a quarrel with a (truck?) driver. * A truck run over a man, broke both his legs and crushed his trunk. * He was this man. * He was operated on. * The driver meant to kill him because of the quarrel. versus: + There was no such quarrel (from the part of Said), but Ibrahim had a quarrelsome nature. + It was Said (his cousin) that was run over. + The driver did not mean to kill Said. + Ibrahim caused a bus accident; he got anxious after it; soon after it, he fell ill to the disease that ended up killing him (tuberculosis): This is a very tricky and fuzzy group of Imad's statements versus "verified facts". Taken as a group, there seems to be something in it. But it takes a certain amount of reinterpretation, therefore weakening its evidential value. Quantitatively, this group of statements can be roughly seen as three "correct" statements and four "incorrect" statements.

17- (St: 28) He had a double-barreled shotgun.

18- (St: 35) One of the wells was full, and the other was empty. Correct through reinterpretation.

19- (St: 36) They were building a new garden at the time of his death.

20- (St: 39) He had money and land.

21- (St: 40) He had a small yellow auto.

22- (St: 42) He had a truck.

23- (St: 48) The tools for the cars were at the place with the round opening.

24- (St: 50) He had a goat, when he was young.

25- (St: 51) He had a sheep, when he was young.

26- (St: 71) When asked "who are your brothers?", he replied correctly "Fuad and Ali.", leaving out Sami the youngest.

27- (St: 60) In the courtyard of Ibrahim's house, Imad said correctly were the dog was kept. C

28- (St: 64) Asked "How did you talk to your friends?", Imad pointed to a window and said "Through there." C

29- (St: 65) He correctly indicated where Ibrahim kept his gun. C

30- (St: 03) He mentioned a woman called "Jamileh", and she was his woman. H Jamileh is a pseudonym used in this case-study by Ian Stevenson meaning "beautiful girl" in arabic. She was not his wife, but his mistress. They had a love affair but never married. After Ibrahim's death, she married and moved to another village. Although I think she probably did exist, I wonder if she really existed.

31- (St: 07, St: 08) There was someone called Amin, that lived in Tripoli. H

32- (St: 26) He was a friend of Kemal Joumblatt, a well-known Druse philosopher and politician. H

33- (St: 27) He was very fond of hunting. H

34- (St: 31) He had a brown dog. H

35- (St: 32) He had beaten a dog. H

36- (St: 49) There was an oil stove at his house. H Imad was asked if they had had a wood stove at his house, and he replied that they had had an oil stove. Imad's present house have an oil stove too.

37- (St: 61) Asked how the dog had been held, Imad replied "by cord" (correct), instead of by chains (as many dogs in the area are). H

38- (St: 62) In Ibrahim's room, Imad recognized which of the two beds had been Ibrahim's. H C

39- (St: 63) Asked "How was the bed arranged when you slept in it?", Imad indicated the previous position, cross-wise from the present one, arranged so that he could talk to his friends through the window. H C

 Incorrect statements:

01- (St: 52) He had five children. When Imad was talking about children he held up five fingers to indicate the number of children in reply to a question. Possibly, he was referring to the five sons of his friend and cousin Said Bouhamzy. Or, possibly too, he was just plain wrong.

02- (St: 44) He did not drive the truck. He did drive it.

03- (St: 39) He had no other regular business (besides having money and land). Actually he did work with the bus and the truck.

04- (St: 38) The truck was full of stones, which they were using in the construction work on the garden.

05- (St: 09) Amin was a judge in the Tripoli courthouse. He worked in this building, as an official of the topographical bureau of the Lebanese government.

06- (St: 25) The driver was a christian. (of the truck or of the bus?). This seems to refer to a driver related to the events described by Imad. Ibrahim had a friend who was a christian and a bus driver. Ibrahim had (possibly) many friends...

07- (St: 31) His dog was a hunting dog.

08- (St: 02) His own first name was Mahmoud. H There was a Mahmoud who was Ibrahim's maternal uncle. He is still alive. I find it interesting that the name "Mahmoud" may be phonetically similar to "Mohammed" (I do not know how they are pronounced in arabic, but they seem similar). Mohammed is the name of Imad's father...

09- (St: 03) Jamileh was his wife. H. Actually, she was only his lover.

10- (St: 10) He had a daughter called Mehibeh. H There was a Mehibeh who was a cousin of Ibrahim.

11- (St: 11) He had a son called Adil. H He had a cousin named so.

12- (St: 12) He had a son called Talil or Talal. H He had a cousin named Khalil. He would say Tliby, instead of Khriby when very young, and so he might have said Talil instead of Khalil.

13- (St: 15) He had a son called Salim. H His uncle, with whom he lived, was Salim.

14- (St: 16) He had a son called Kemal. H He had a cousin named so. (also a friend, the politician).

15- (St: 13) He had a brother called Said. H He knew two persons called Said. Close relatives and good friends may be referred to as 'brother' .(comment in St. 07).

16- (St: 14) He had a brother called Toufic. H He had a cousin named so.

17- (St: 07) He had a brother called Amin (the one that lived in Tripoli). H He had a close relative named so.

Stevenson's original sum total.

Statements: 61

Correct: 49

Unverified: 05

Incorrect: 06

Doubtful: 01

 * Two of the "Incorrect" were, actually, partly correct or doubtful. Stevenson's "sum total" differs drastically from what is presented in the "retabulation" above.

 

Discussion:

One bad point in case studies like these is that we must heavily trust the researcher. It is a good thing that other researchers have undertaken "replications" of Stevenson's research (among other works: Mills, Antonia; Haraldsson, Erlendur, and Keil; H. H. Jürgen. 1994. Replication studies of cases suggestive of reincarnation by three independent investigators. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 88:207-219).

Another bad point is the fact that we have to trust also the verifiers. This might be avoided if "double-blind" questioning is implemented. Instead, Stevenson's questioning procedures seem to have been at best "single-blind", and very possibly "non-blind" (that is, using "open" questions) many times, perhaps even most of the times. Also, by their very nature, these cases cannot develop under "sensory shielding conditions", and this is surely another pitfall for paranormal hypotheses, especially the reincarnation one.

Some "flaws" and "weaknesses" in this specific case study should be pointed out. It seems that Stevenson was unprepared for what he found in this case, the so called "baffling complexities" as he put it, and I think it was so because this was possibly the very first case where he found the opportunity of writing down prior to verification what a subject was stating. So, it might be that he lacked experience to deal with what he was facing, therefore adding weakness to the investigation and to the analysis of it. Another weak point is the need to use interpreters unknown to him and that were not themselves researchers. A further and serious flaw is the drastic reinterpretations that he used, sometimes (at least) clearly unacceptable. Also, in his "Reply to Leonard Angel" in 1994, he stuck to his original tabulation of the case (presenting the sum total displayed just above, that is: Statements: 61 Correct: 49 Unverified: 05 Incorrect: 06 Doubtful: 01), not acknowledging the mistakes in it, which to me seems to be very bad. Additionally, the case is weakened by five main "naturalistic" potential sources of information: the meeting of Imad with Ibrahim's neighbor; the meeting of Imad's parents with the woman from Maaser el Shouf; the frequent visits to Imad's house of Mr. Faris Elawar, who was acquainted with the Bouhamzy family of Khriby; the funeral of Said Bouhamzy in 1963, that Imad's father attended; and the fact that the two cities involved are not too far away from each other (even though they also are not too close). An important point to bear in mind is that (since Imad's parents were the main informants) when assessing the possibility of "paranormal" acquisition of information, we are actually analysing the possibility that Imad's parents could gain access to that information, and not Imad himself. One last possible weakness is that the "recognitions" and further "statements" that ocurred during Imad's visit to Ibrahim's house are liable to sensory cues.

In making the "retabulation" above, I did not use the statements that were not written down prior to verification, and I did not use the recognitions plus statements noted during the "recognition phase of the case" that were not directly witnessed by the interpreter. These were about twelve items altogether. Of these, only three at most were incorrect. So, this procedure that I used of leaving these items out of the analysis actually weakens the case. I must stress the extreme difficulty in breaking down the statements in cases like these, as previously stressed by Mills et al (1994). Sometimes, what Stevenson considered one statement I have retabulated as two or more statements. In at least one instance, I merged two statements into just one.

I must say that, despite the many pitfalls and possible failures, to me this case is surely not lost. Stevenson's description of the case gave us enough material to think about it and to analyze it (that is, to "re-analyze" it). Stevenson has said that the mistakes Imad's parents commited (in interpreting Imad's statements) ended up adding strength to the case. I agree with this to a certain extent, and I further think that Stevenson's mistakes did also add strength to the case in a certain way. Sometimes, at least, the reinterpretations seemed appropriate. And in these occasions, these reinterpretations (or better, the previous wrong interpretations or expectations) ended up adding a true "double-blind" effect to the investigation of the case. That is, Stevenson was looking for one thing, and he ended up finding something very different of it, but still consistent with the statements to a great deal.

In my tentative retabulation, I noticed that, of the total 55 items, 69% were correct, and 31% incorrect. Further, only in the "correct" statements column do we have "objective items", actually ten of them. In the "incorrect" statements column, most statements were classified as "non specific" items (that is, high probability ones). It must be stressed, though, that my criteria for classifying items as high probability or not (H) is certainly flawed and only tentative.

The tabulation below shows the differences in the "statements", as they appear in the "retabulation". Item 16 of the correct column was left out. It is a very complex "item", and its complexity is dealt with in the retabulation itself.

Rating

Correct

Incorrect

 O

10

(Of these, 2 were H, and 2 were C)

0

not H or C

21

(Of these, 6 were O)

7

H C

17

(Of these, 4 were O)

10

Total (55)

38 (69%)

17 (31%)

 

O stands for "objective item"; H stands for "high probability" (or non-specific) item; C stands for "item subject to possible sensory cues".

 

In my retabulation, four items were considered correct through reinterpretation. One of these, was considered unverified by Stevenson himself ("Ibrahim had a friend called Yousef el Halibi"); and another was actually considered incorrect by him ("There were two garages at the house"). If we take out this "unverified statement", and relocate the 3 remaining items that I considered "correct through reinterpretation" to the "Incorrect Column", then we would have the following sum total:

Correct

Incorrect

34 (63%)

(Of these, 7 were O)

20 (37%)

(Of these, 3 were O)

Even in this last most cautious re-analysis of the tabulation, the correct items clearly outnumber the incorrect ones. Further, they seem to be of a stronger nature.

 

Conclusion: It seems that the case suffered from lack of experience from the part of the researcher (Stevenson). Heavy reinterpretations were used, and this has raised some criticism and also suspicions. Methodological flaws did occur. At least a certain amount of "data-significance inflation" affected the analysis of the case (Stevenson claims on page 2 of Twenty Cases that: "In my discussion at the end I argue that some of the cases do much more than suggest reincarnation; they seem to me to furnish considerable evidence for it."). This case, just like all those in this category, is most certainly rather open to sensory leakages of many sorts.

Yet, the case seems worthy of looking seriously at. All the weaknesses of the case seem to have been openly and fully presented by Stevenson himself. It may be that some of the "weaknesses" ended up adding strength to the case, even furnishing some fortuitous "double-blind" procedures. The naturalistic hypothesis of fraud from the part of the Imad Elawar family seems untenable. Cryptomnesia (i.e. source amnesia), seems unlikely (but perhaps not impossible). Chance alone, in light of the retabulation, seems to me very unlikely. Items 11, 12, and 13 ("Jamileh was beautiful", "dressed well", and "wore high heels") might have been subject to a combination of "leading questions" plus fuzzy memories from the part of the verifier (Mr. Haffez Bouhamzy). For the other items to end up being misreported as "correct" by the verifiers, it seems that it would have been necessary more straight forward lying. The only three hypotheses that seem to remain, then, are: deliberate lying from the part of the verifiers; fraud from the part of the researcher; and, some paranormal process.

Having thought lengthily on this case, and having read and deeply analyzed both the arguments for and against paranormal interpretations of it, I can't help but say that I do not think that it is impossible to account for this case on naturalistic grounds. Nonetheless, it seems very difficult indeed to do so. To me, this case seems to furnish some evidence for reincarnation, especially in light of further studies undertaken both by Stevenson and by other researchers in this area.

If I were to answer to the question "Is there empirical evidence for reincarnation?", presently my answer would be: "The evidence is weak. But it is certainly there."

comment: It is important to stress that even though Stevenson said in his book Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation that he considers that some of the cases furnish considerable evidence for the reincarnation hypothesis (in the introduction to the 1966 edition), he also has some more cautious statements, saying for example that "I would only here reiterate that I consider theses cases suggestive of reincarnation and nothing more. All the cases have deficiencies as have all their reports. Neither any case individually nor all of them collectively offers anything like a proof of reincarnation." (preface to the second edition, 1974). Also, in his 2000 article (The Phenomenon of Claimed Memories of Previous Lives: Possible Interpretations and Importance. Medical Hypotheses. Vol 54. No. 4. pp.652-659, 2000), Stevenson said: "Even after almost 40 years of investigations, research on children who claim to remember previous lives has barely begun." (page 658). Anthropologist James G. Matlock, in his comprehensive review of this research program (Past Life Memory Case Studies. In S. Krippner, editors: Advances in Parapsychological Research. pp. 184-267. Mcfarland. Jefferson, N.C. 1990.), also has a very cautious remark in mentioning the combined empirical strength that had been gathered thus far: ..."it would be rash to declare that reincarnation has been shown to occur. Until the data and concepts discussed in this chapter can be assimilated to the rest of scientific knowledge, the data, at their best, will remain no more than suggestive of reincarnation." (page 255).

Therefore, even though sometimes researchers in the "cases of the reincarnation type" have made some extreme claims, they also have made more cautious remarks, very much compatible with the strengths and weaknesses of the empirical data that has been gathered so far.

As a matter of fact, it seems that much of the skeptics' criticism looks less like original outlook, and more like plagiarism...



Original Tabulations of The Imad Elawar Case


These are the original tabulations (1 and 2) that Ian Stevenson did for the Imad Elawar case, as printed in his book Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation (1974). Stevenson said in his reply to Leonard Angel (Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1994) that this case had 61 statements altogether, of which 49 were correct, 5 unverified, 6 incorrect, and 1 doubtful. In the original tabulations, Stevenson did not consistently apply these ratings, so I had to do my best in guessing which ratings should apply to each item. I have, therefore, included in bold blue type these ratings (as guessed by me) directly in the tabulations, for a clearer view.

TABULATION 1

Summary of Statements Made by Imad Before Arriving at Khriby

NOTE: Unless otherwise stated, Mr. and Mrs. Mohammed Elawar were singly or together the informants for all the statements made by Imad. However, for many of the statements one or several other members of the Elawar family, chiefly Imad's paternal grandparents, were present as vocal or tacit witnesses of the statement made by Imad's parents. For some items I have indicated the vagueness of Imad (or his parents) about a particular relationship by using quotation marks around the indicated relationship, e.g., "brother."

Item

Informants

Verification

Comments

1. His name was Bouhamzy and he lived in the village of Khriby.

correct

Mohammed Elawar, father of Imad.
Nassibeh Elawar, mother of Imad

Haffez Bouhamzy, cousin of Ibrahim Bouhamzy

Several families of the name Bouhamzy lived in Khriby. There is another village called Khriby near Kornayel, but when asked about this, Imad said his village was "far away." Imad seems never to have mentioned the first name of "Ibrahim."

2. Mahmoud (name mentioned by Imad).

correct

 

Haffez Bouhamzy,
Nabih Bouhamzy, cousin of Ibrahim Bouhamzy

Mahmoud Bouhamzy was an uncle of Ibrahim Bouhamzy.

3. He had a woman called Jamileh.

correct

 

Haffez Bouhamzy,
Nabih Bouhamzy,
Fuad Bouhamzy, brother of Ibrahim Bouhamzy

The mistress of Ibrahim Bouhamzy was called Jamileh. Mr. Milhem Abuhassan gave discrepant testimony on this item, but he changed his statement on the item twice and boasted of an intimate knowledge of Ibrahim which was not supported by his answers to questions put to test this knowledge. Two other peripheral witnesses, not members of the family, also gave discrepant testimony about Jamileh's relationships.

4. Jamileh was beautiful.

correct

 

Haffez Bouhamzy

Jamileh was famous in the district for her beauty. The opinion of Mr. Haffez Bouhamzy was supported by the testimony of a woman of the village, Maaser el Shouf, where Jamileh had lived, who had mentioned Jamileh's beauty to Mr. Mohammed Elawar. In a land of beautiful women like Lebanon, this detail may seem to lack specificity, but did not seem so to those who had known Jamileh.

5. Jamileh dressed well and wore high heels.

correct

 

Haffez Bouhamzy

Wearing high heels would distinguish a Druse woman in the villages. Even today this is unusual.

6. Jamileh wore red clothes. He would often buy her red things to wear.*

* This item not recorded in writing prior to its verification.

correct

 

Haffez Bouhamzy

Mr. Haffez Bouhamzy remembered Jamileh as wearing a red scarf around her head.

7. He had a "brother" called Amin.

correct

 

Haffez Bouhamzy,
Nabih Bouhamzy

Amin Bouhamzy was a close relative of Ibrahim Bouhamzy. Close relatives and good friends may be referred to as "brother." It is also possible that Imad's parents inferred the relationship of brother as they did that of son for other persons named by Imad. See comments on items below.

8. Amin lived at Tripoli.

correct

 

Haffez Bouhamzy

Tripoli is a coastal town north of Beirut.

9. Amin worked in the courthouse building in Tripoli.

correct

 

Haffez Bouhamzy,
Nabih Bouhamzy

Amin was an official of the topographical bureau of the Lebanese government. His office was in the courthouse building of Tripoli. He was living, but had retired in 1964. An error of inference on the part of Imad's parents occurred here. They first stated that Imad had said Amin was a "judge" in Tripoli. Mr. Mohammed Elawar later said that Imad had actually only stated that Amin worked in the courthouse building and they had therefrom inferred that Amin was a judge.

10. There was someone called Mehibeh.

correct

 

Nabih Bouhamzy,
Sleimann Bouhamzy, cousin of Ibrahim Bouhamzy (obtaining information from his mother, not directly interviewed by me)

Mehibeh was the cousin of Ibrahim Bouhamzy. Imad's parents had thought that Mehibeh was the daughter of the previous personality.

11. He had a "son" called Adil.

correct

 

Sleimann Bouhamzy,
Nabih Bouhamzy

Ibrahim had a cousin called Adil. Another error of inference on the pan of Imad's parents. Imad, they later said, had mentioned "Adil" and "Talal" or "Talil" and they had assumed these were the sons of the previous life.

12. He had a "son" called Talil or Talal.

doubtful

 

Haffez Bouhamzy,
Nabih Bouhamzy

Ibrahim had another cousin called Khalil (Khalil as a relative of Ibrahim also verified by Sleimann Bouhamzy * (* Sleimann Bouhamzy verifying as from his claimed remembrance of the life of Said Bouhamzy.) and Mr. Assad Bouhamzy, father of Sleimann Bouhamzy.) See comment for item 11 as to the question of the relationship with Talil. The family of Imad could not recal precisely whether Imad had said "Talil" or "Talal." If the former, he could well have been trying to say "Khalil" of which the first consonant is gutteral and might be heard as a "T" sound. Imad's grandparents supported this supposition by mentioning that when he was first beginning to talk about the previous life, Imad had said he was from "Tliby" (Khriby) before he could pronounce the name of the village correctly.

13. He had a "brother" called Said.

correct

 

Haffez Bouhamzy,
Nabih Bouhamzy

Ibrahim knew two persons called Said Bouhamzy. One, his cousin, was killed by a truck in 1943. The other, a friend, died in December 1963. (See comment for item 7.) At the time of the death of the second Said Bouhamzy in December, 1963, some inhabitants of Kornayel were invited to his funeral which was announced in Kornayel. (Imad had been talking about the previous life for several years before this event.) When Imad heard the news of the death of the second Said Bouhamzy he expressed great interest in the event.

14. He had a "brother" called Toufic

correct

 

Haffez Bouhamzy

Toufic was a cousin of Ibrahim Bouhamzy. (See comment for item 7.)

15. He had a "son" called Salim.

correct

 

Haffez Bouhamzy,
Nabih Bouhamzy

Ibrahim's uncle with whom he lived was called Salim Bouhamzy. (See comment for item 7.) Imad's parents afterwards said he had never specifically mentioned anyone as his "sons. They had inferred these relationships.

16. He had a "son" called Kemal.

correct

 

Haffez Bouhamzy,
Nabih Bouhamzy

Kemal was a brother of Toufic and Khalil Bouhamzy, hence another cousin of Ibrahim Bouhamzy. (See comments for items 7 and 15.)

17. He had a "sister" called Huda." **

** This item not recorded in writing prior to its verification.

correct

Kassim Elawar, paternal grandfather of Imad

I met Huda Bouhamzy, sister of Ibrahim Bouhamzy, in Khriby.

Witnesses did not recall whether Imad had specifically used the word "sister" in mentioning Huda. But the informants made a correct inference about the relationship of the person mentioned to the previous personality. Possibly they were helped because when a sister was born, Imad asked the family to name this baby Huda.

18. He had a friend called Yousef el Halibi.

unverified

 

Not verified, but probable.

Yousef el Halibi was still living in 1964 and recalled his friendship with Said Bouhamzy. Probably he was a friend of Ibrahim Bouhamzy also, but this was not specifically verified. Mr. Fuad Bouhamzy said he knew Yousef el Halibi, so it is probable his brother Ibrahim also knew

19. He had a friend called Ahmed el Halibi.

unverified

 

Not independently verified, but see Comment.

Not verified independently. In August, 1964, Mr. Mohammed Elawar told me that the son of Mr. Yousef el Halibi had confirmed in March that his father had a brother called Ahmed el Halibi, but I did not hear this interpreted at the time.

20. A truck ran over a man, broke both his legs, and crushed his trunk.

correct

 

Haffez Bouhamzy,
Fuad Bouhamzy,
Sleimann Bouhamzy *

(* Sleimann Bouhamzy verifying as from his claimed remembrance of the life of Said Bouhamzy.)

True of Said Bouhamzy whose accident and death were known to Ibrahim Bouhamzy.

21. He went to the "doctor's place" where he had an operation.

correct

 

Haffez Bouhamzy,
Sleimann Bouhamzy *

(* Sleimann Bouhamzy verifying as from his claimed remembrance of the life of Said Bouhamzy.)

After the accident Said Bouhamzy was taken to a hospital where he had two operations, one cerebral, one abdominal, but nevertheless died a few hours after the operations.

22. The accident happened after a quarrel and the chauffeur meant to kill him.

incorrect

 

Incorrect

Incorrect, but it is not certain that Imad himself connected the quarrel and the accident. It seems possible that Imad or his parents confused or fused images of the fatal truck accident to Said Bouhamzy and the bus accident to Ibrahim's bus. (See items 23 and 24 and discussion in text.) Imad never specifically said the truck accident happened to him. The driver was tried and sentenced lightly for negligence, but not judged guilty of assault. This would be a likely suspicion. Ibrahim, who had a quarrelsome nature, could characteristically have attributed a hostile motive to the chauffeur. Sleimann Bouhamzy * (* Sleimann Bouhamzy verifying as from his claimed remembrance of the life of Said Bouhamzy.) stated that as he was dying Said Bouhamzy pleaded with those around him to handle the chauffeur gently as he was afraid the chauffeur would be falsely accused of malice.

23. His bus had gone off the road and there had been an accident. But he himself was not driving at the time of the accident. People were killed in the accident.**

** This item not recorded in writing prior to its verification.

correct

 

Nabih Bouhamzy,
Ali Mohammed Abouhassan,
Fuad Bouhamzy,
Mohammed Elawar (reporting verifications of Yousef el Halibi's son)

Once Ibrahim Bouhamzy alighted from the bus he was driving while it contained passengers. His assistant was in the bus and presumably in control. The emergency brake failed, the bus rolled backwards onto a slope, and passengers were injured. A crowd assembled (virtually the whole village) and the police came. One informant, Mr. Nabih Bouhamzy, said that after this accident Ibrahim became very anxious and did not drive the bus again. Not long afterwards he developed his ultimately fatal illness. In March, 1964, I understood that the accident involved a truck (not a bus), but in August it became clear that this was a bus accident both as stated by Imad and as verified to have happened to Ibrahim's bus, not truck. No one was killed in the accident.

24. There had been a quarrel because the driver had insulted his sister. He had struck the driver, knocked him down, and the police and his friend Ahmed el Halibi had arrived.

unverified

 

Mohammed Elawar (quoting Yousef el Halibi's son)

No informant could confirm the details of such a quarrel between Ibrahim and the driver of the bus, but the story seemed characteristic of Ibrahim's quarrelsome nature. After the accident the police came to enquire into claims for damages. In August, 1964, I learned that in March the son of Mr. Yousef el Halibi had confirmed that his father and uncle had gone to the scene of the accident, but the interpreter did not tell me this during the interview. I believe (without being certain) that Ahmed el Halibi and Yousef el Halibi were brothers. This scene followed the bus accident of item 23.

25. The driver was a Christian.

incorrect

 

Nabih Bouhamzy

Incorrect if referring to the driver of the truck which killed Said Bouhamzy. He was a Muslim. Imad may have mixed up the man who drove the truck that killed Said Bouhamzy and another man. Ibrahim did have a close friend who was both a bus driver and a Christian.

26. He was a friend of Mr. Kemal Joumblatt.

correct

 

Haffez Bouhamzy,
Nabih Bouhamzy

Both Ibrahim and Said Bouhamzy were friends of this well-known Druse philosopher and politician. Mr. Kemal Joumblatt lived in a village not far south of Khriby. Imad became very disturbed when one day, to test him, a neighbor said (falsely) that Mr. Joumblatt had died.

27- He was very fond of hunting.

correct

 

Haffez Bouhamzy,
Nabih Bouhamzy,
Fuad Bouhamzy

Ibrahim was passionately fond of hunting. Imad frequently asked his father to take him hunting. At the house of Said Bouhamzy Imad showed great interest in two partridges. Partridges are the chief game of the area.

28. He had a double-barreled shotgun.*

* Recorded after verification had begun, but before this item had been verified.

correct

 

Haffez Bouhamzy,
Nabih Bouhamzy,
Fuad Bouhamzy

Correct. Imad would hold two fingers together to show what he meant in describing the double-barreled gun.

29- He also had a rifle. **

**This item not recorded in writing prior to its verification.

correct

 

Haffez Bouhamzy,
Nabih Bouhamzy,
Fuad Bouhamzy

Correct.

30. He had hidden his gun.**

**This item not recorded in writing prior to its verification.

correct

Kassim Elawar

The place where Ibrahim had kept his gun was shown to me by Ibrahim's mother, Lateife Bouhamzy.

Correct. This item presumably refers to the riHe which it would be illegal for a civilian in Lebanon to possess. Ibrahim had hidden his gun.

31. He had a brown "hunting" dog.

correct

 

Nabih Bouhamzy,
Haffez Bouhamzy

The dog was light brown, but was not a hunting dog. Another inference of Imad's family. Imad had referred to liking hunting, having a gun, and having a dog. The family had assumed the dog was a hunting dog, but it was in fact a kind of shepherd dog.

32. He had once himself beaten a dog.***

*** Mentioned by Imad during journey from Kornayel to Khirby.

correct

 

Nabih Bouhamzy

Correct. Another dog had fought with Ibrahim Bouhamzy's dog and he (Ibrahim) had beaten the other dog.

33. His house was in the village of Khriby.

correct

 

House visited by myself.

The house was in the center of the village, not on the outskirts. On the first day of inquiries Imad was reported as saying the house was on the outside of the village, but this was corrected before we reached Khriby and was probably an error of translation.

34. Just before the house there was a slope.***

*** Mentioned by Imad during journey from Kornayel to Khirby.

correct

 

House visited by myself.

The road slopes rather steeply just before it reaches the house of Ibrahim.

35. There were two wells at the house, one full and one empty.***

*** Mentioned by Imad during journey from Kornayel to Khriby.

correct

 

Nabih Bouhamzy,
Fuad Bouhamzy

"Wells" seen by me at the house.

During the life of Ibrahim there had been two "wells" whose sites were pointed out to us. The "wells" had been closed up since the death of Ibrahim. They were not spring wells, but rather concrete concavities or vats used for storing grape juice. The wells would be used alternately. During the rainy season one of these vats became filled with water, but the other shallower vat did not, because the water evaporated from it. Thus one would be empty while the other was full.

36. They were building a new garden at the time of his death.

correct

 

Haffez Bouhamzy,
Fuad Bouhamzy

At the time of Ibrahim's death they had been rebuilding the garden of the house.

37. There were cherry and apple trees in the new garden.

correct

 

Haffez Bouhamzy,
Fuad Bouhamzy.
 The apple and cherry trees were pointed out to me on my visits to Khriby.

 

38. The truck was full of stones, which they were using in the construction work on the garden.

incorrect

 

Haffez Bouhamzy,
Nabih Bouhamzy

Incorrect or doubtful. Mr. Haffez Bouhamzy recalled they were using and replacing the stones of the existing terraces of the garden. He did not recall that they were bringing in new stones in a truck. Imad might have been referring to the truck which ran over Said Bouhamzy, but this apparently was empty and not full of stones at the time of the accident.

39. He had money, land, but no other regular business.

correct

 

Haffez Bouhamzy,
Nabih Bouhamzy

On the whole true, but Ibrahim Bouhamzy did have a truck with which he worked commercially. He also drove a bus for a time.

40. He had a small yellow automobile.

correct

 

Haffez Bouhamzy,
Nabih Bouhamzy,
Fuad Bouhamzy 

 Correct.

41. He had a bus.*

* This item not recorded in writing prior to its verification.

correct

 

Kassim Elawar,
Fuad Bouhamzy,
Nabih Bouhamzy 

 Correct.

42. He had a truck.

correct

 

Haffez Bouhamzy,
Nabih Bouhamzy,
Fuad Bouhamzy 

Correct. Ibrahim Bouhamzy did not use these vehicles simultaneously, but successively. In fact, he did not "own" them, as they belonged to the family, but the family held much property in common.

43. He used the truck for hauling rocks.*

* This item not recorded in writing prior to its verification.

correct

 

Kassim Elawar,
Nabih Bouhamzy 

 Correct

44. He himself did not drive the truck.

incorrect

 

Incorrect

He did drive the truck himself. It seems likely that this item refers to the bus accident mentioned in items 23 and 24. Imad apparently wanted to emphasize that he (Ibrahim) was not in the bus (i.e., driving) when it went off the road and that his assistant (chauffeur) was responsible for the accident. There was some confusion as to whether Imad referred to a bus or a truck.

45. There were two garages at the house.**

** Mentioned by Imad during journey from Kornayel to Khriby.

incorrect

 

The two sheds probably referred to were inspected by me.

Incorrect, but perhaps partially right. Ibrahim kept his vehicles in the open. Below the house there were two sheds and Imad was probably trying to refer to these. This seems all the more likely in that Imad had earlier referred to "rooms with round roofs" apparently in the same context and these sheds beneath the house did have round ceilings, as I found when I examined one myself.

46. The key to the garage was in the attic.**

** Mentioned by Imad during journey from Kornayel to Khriby.

unverified

 

Unverified

The house had an attic and it is possible that Ibrahim kept a spare key there. His sister could not verify this point. This would have been a key to the sheds of item 45.

47. There was an entrance with a sort of round opening. **-***

** Mentioned by Imad during journey from Kornayel to Khriby.

*** Recorded after verification had begun, but before this item had been verified.

correct

 

This opening was examined by me.

Above the main door to the house from the courtyard, there was an opening to the attic which was almost semi-circular and closed with a window. This apparently could be removed to give access to the attic which could also be reached by a small trap door behind the front door of the house. Although correct, attic openings of this kind also occur on other houses of the area.

48. The tools for the cars were at this place with the round opening.*

* Mentioned by Imad during journey from Kornayel to Khriby.

correct

 

Huda Bouhamzy, sister of Ibrahim Bouhamzy,
Lateife Bouhamzy

Mr. Haffez Bouhamzy, Ibrahim's cousin, did not know that Ibrahim kept his tools in the attic. It is possible that item 46 was an attempt at the same reference and a misunderstanding may have arisen from the fact that the French word for both key and wrench is "clef." Arabic also, which has taken over many technical words from French, uses the same word "clef in both senses. In any case, on item 48 Imad was quite correct; on item 46 the detail could not be verified, but may have been correct also.

49. There was an oil stove at his house.

correct

Majeed Toufic Elawar, cousin of Imad's paternal grandfather

Fuad Bouhamzy

Imad was asked if they had a wood stove at the house of the previous family and he replied that they did not, but had an oil stove. His remark shows he was not misled. The detail itself is not specific since many houses, in Lebanon, including Imad's, have oil stoves.

50. He had one goat and the goat had a baby goat (kid) .*

* Mentioned by Imad during journey from Kornayel to Khriby.

correct

 

Fuad Bouhamzy

When Ibrahim was young the family had had a flock of goats.

51. He had a sheep.*

* Mentioned by Imad during journey from Kornayel to Khriby.

correct

 

Fuad Bouhamzy

Ibrahim's family also had sheep when he was young.

52. He had five children altogether.

unverified

 

Nabih Bouhamzy

Unverified. Ibrahim had no publicly identified children. He never married, but he did have at least one child. Mr. Nabih Bouhamzy heard him admit to this parenthood. When Imad was talking about children he held up five fingers to indicate the number of children in reply to a question. Possibly he was referring to the five sons of his friend and cousin Said Bouhamzy, of whom Ibrahim had been very fond.

53. He was "well to do.'

correct

 

Haffez Bouhamzy,
Nabih Bouhamzy

Not a very specific point, but compared to many of the families in the village Ibrahim would have been considered prosperous.

54. He had a farm.

correct

 

Nabih Bouhamzy

 

55. "I can speak English." *

* Mentioned by Imad during journey from Kornayel to Khriby.

incorrect

 

Incorrect

Incorrect for Ibrahim, who could speak French well, but English not at all. Mr. 

Abushdid said Imad made this remark in the car after hearing Mr. Abushdid and myself exchange a few sentences in English. His father, riding in the car at the time, did not hear Imad make a remark like this, but did hear him say at about the same time: "I can talk like you," referring to the French which Mr. Abushdid and I usually talked. Imad in his first year at school had been learning French and counted up to twenty in French quite correctly. There exists therefore some doubt about this item and in any case it is possible that Imad was not then referring to the previous life. Imad's father had not heard him claim to be able to speak English on any other occasion.

56. You go to Khriby by Hammana.

correct

Naileh Elawar, paternal grandmother of Imad

Roadmaps of Lebanon

Correct. Hammana is a village southeast of Kornayel and one passes through it on the way to Khriby from Kornayel. Imad's father insisted that Imad had not previously been out of Kornayel on that side of the village. It is odd that, since Hammana is not near Khriby, the "Ibrahim personality" would seem to remember this relationship. It would be a more characteristic orientation for someone living in Kornayel who had looked up Khriby on the map and seen which road to take to get there from Kornayel. It therefore seems possible that Imad picked this information up from hearing his father mention it. Perhaps what is important is that he picked it up from his great interest in Khriby and his frequently expressed wish to go there. (See discussion in text on evidence about whether Imad had visited Khriby earlier.)

57. Recognition of Salim el Aschkar of Khriby.

correct

Naileh Elawar

 

Salim el Aschkar, a native of Khriby, had married a girl from Kornayel and sometimes visited the latter village. When Imad was about two years old he was on the street with his grandmother when Salim el Aschkar came along. Imad ran to him and threw his arms around him. "Do you know me?" asked Salim, to which Imad answered: "Yes, you were my neighbor." This man had been a neighbor of Ibrahim Bouhamzy's family, but was not then living dose to their house.

 

In tabulation 2, four items were considered as "statements" in the sum total made by Stevenson in his reply to Angel (which indicated a total of 61 statements). The items were numbers 63, 64, 70, and 72 of the tabulation below. For these, I have also included the ratings, in bold blue type.

TABULATION 2

Summary of Statements and Recognitions Made by Imad in Khriby

NOTE: The following recognitions or statements all took place either in the presence of the interpreter or myself or we were told of them within a few minutes. Mr. Haffez Bouhamzy, Mrs. Huda Bouhamzy, and Mrs Lateife Bouhamzy verified the accuracy of what Imad said or did. Items followed by an asterisk (*) were witnessed by the interpreter directly; other items only reported later by witnesses.

Item

Comments

58. Recognition of location of previous house. (*)

House of Ibrahim Bouhamzy seen later. Imad definitely pointed in the correct general direction of the house from a distance of about 300 yards. But he failed to identify the house specifically.

59. Recognition of the road to Baadaran from Khriby. (*)

Statement made during drive from Khriby to Baadaran. Not a significant item since Imad may have seen a sign pointing the way or perhaps heard someone mention the direction.

60. Recognition of place where Ibrahim Bouhamzy kept his dog. (*)

In the courtyard of the house, Imad was asked, "If you had a dog here, where did you keep it?" He correctly indicated the place in the yard.

61. The dog was held by a cord. (*)

Asked how the doe had been held, Imad said, "By a cord." Many dogs of this area are held by chains, not cords.

62. Recognition of bed of Ibrahim Bouhamzy. (*)

There were two beds in the bedroom. Imad pointed out Ibrahim's.

63. Statement about former position of this bed. (*)

correct

Imad was asked: "How was the bed arranged when you slept in it?" He then indicated that the bed used to lie in a position crosswise from its present position, in a completely different position. (See next item.)

64. Statement about how friends talked with Ibrahim. (*)

correct

During his infectious illness, his friends could not enter Ibrahim's room so they talked with him through a window, the bed being arranged so he could see and talk with his friends through the window. When Imad was asked, "How did you talk with your friends?" he pointed to the window and said, "Through there."

65. Recognition of place where Ibrahim Bouhamzy kept his gun. (*)

Imad, when asked where he kept "his" gun, pointed to the back of a closet fitted into a partitioning wall. He did not point to the doors of the closet, but was quite right about the closet itself. Ibrahim's mother said only she and Ibrahim knew where the gun was kept. Mr. Haffez Bouhamzy, Ibrahim's cousin, did not know this fact.

66. Failure to recognize mother of Ibrahim Bouhamzy.

In the presence of Ibrahim's mother, Imad was asked: "Do you recognize that old lady?" He then said, "No." He was then told to go and say "Hello" to her, which he did. Then when asked if he liked her, he replied, "Yes, a great deal."

67. Recognition of sister of Ibrahim, Huda.

Ibrahim's sister asked Imad, "Do you know who I am?" and he replied, "Huda."

68. Recognition of a portrait of Ibrahim's brother Fuad.

Imad was first shown a rather small photograph of Fuad in a military uniform. He did not recognize this photograph. But when asked of whom was a large oil painting hanging on the wall he correctly said, "Fuad."

69. Recognition of portrait of Ibrahim Bouhamzy.

When shown a moderately large photograph of Ibrahim Bouhamzy and asked who it was of, Imad said, "Me." In this case prompting was offered that it was of his brother or uncle, but no one had hinted it was of Ibrahim.

70. Statement of last words spoken by Ibrahim before dying.

correct

Imad was asked by Mrs. Huda Bouhamzy: "You said something just before you died. What was it?" Imad replied, "Huda, call Fuad." This was correct because Fuad had left shortly before and Ibrahim wanted to see him again, but died immediately.

71. Fuad and Ali were brothers of Ibrahim. (*)

Imad was asked, "Who are your brothers?" and he replied, "Fuad and Ali," both correct. He seemed not to recall a third brother, Sami, the youngest.

72. Statement of where Jamileh lived. (*)

correct

Imad correctly pointed with his finger in the direction of the village of Maaser el Shouf, where Jamileh used to live.

73. Ibrahim's mother had once crushed her finger in the door leading to the courtyard.

For this item I heard conflicting testimony as to what Imad had said and as to what actually had happened during the life of Ibrahim. One witness said Imad recalled an injury to "his" (Ibrahim's) finger. Mrs. Huda Bouhamzy stated Imad recalled that Ibrahim's mother had crushed her finger in the door. This did in fact occur and Ibrahim's mother still had a flattened end of her finger when I saw her during one of my visits to Khriby.


Bibliography:

01- Past Life Memory Case Studies. James G. Matlock. In S. Krippner (editors.), Advances in Parapsychological Research. Mcfarland.  Jefferson, N.C. , 1990. pp. 184-267.

02- Reincarnation: a Critical Examination. Paul Edwards. Prometheus Books. Amherst, New York.1996.

03- Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. Ian Stevenson. Second edition, revised and enlarged. Sixth paperback printing, 2002. University of Virgina Press. Charlottesville, V.A. 1974.

04- Reincarnation All Over Again: Evidence for Reincarnation Rests on Backward Reasoning. A review of Ian Stevenson's "Reincarnation and Biology", Praeger Publishers, 1997. Vol 1 and 2, 2,228 pp. Author of the book review: Leonard Angel. Skeptic Magazine. vol. 9, No.3, 2002.

05- A Critique of Arguments Offered Against Reincarnation. Robert Almeder. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 499-526, 1997.

06- Empirical Evidence for Reincarnation? Examining Stevenson's "Most Impressive" Case. Leonard Angel. Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 18. Fall 1994. pp.481-487.

07- Empirical Evidence for Reincarnation? A Response to Leonard Angel. Ian Stevenson. Skeptical Inquirer, May/June 1995. pp. 50-51. Including: Leonard Angel Replies, p.51.

08- Full Critique of the Imad Elawar Case by Leonard Angel. Personal communication from Leonard Angel through email, containing pages 273-291 of his book Enlightenment East and West (1994).

09- Full Reply from Ian Stevenson to Leonard Angel regarding Angel's critique of the Imad Elawar Case. Personal communication from the Division of Personality Studies through email, University of Virginia 1995-2003.

10- Three New Cases of the Reincarnation Type in Sri Lanka With Written Records Made Before Verifications. Ian Stevenson & Godwin Samararatne.  Journal of Scientific Exploration. Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 217-238, 1988.

11- Replication Studies of Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation by Three Independent Investigators. Antonia Mills, Erlendur Haraldsson, and H. H. Jürgen Keil. The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research. Vol. 88, July 1994. pp.207-219.

12- Past Lives of  Twins. Ian Stevenson. The Lancet. Apr 17;353(9161):1359-60. 1999.

13- Ropelike Birthmarks on Children Who Claim to Remember Past Lives. Ian Stevenson. Psychol Rep. Aug;89(1):142-4.  2001.

14- Birthmarks and Birth Defects Corresponding to Wounds on Deceased Persons. Ian Stevenson. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol 7, No.4, pp403-410, 1993.

15- Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect. Ian Stevenson. Praeger Publishers. Westport, Connecticut. 1997.

16- Development of Certainty About the Correct Deceased Person in a Case of the Reincarnation Type in Lebanon: The Case of Nazih Al-Danaf. Erlendur Haraldsson and Majd Abu-Izzeddin. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.16, No.3, pp.363-380. 2002.

17- Does the Socio-Psychological Hypothesis Explain Cases of the Reincarnation Type? Schouten, SA & Stevenson, I. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. Vol.186. No.8, pp.504-506

18- The Phenomenon of Claimed Memories of Previous Lives: Possible Interpretations and Importance. Medical Hypotheses. Vol 54. No. 4. pp.652-659, 2000