The disturbances reported at Efraim and Eva Martin’s croft in Ylöjärvi in January 1885 became both a local sensation and a court case. Objects allegedly moved, papers appeared outside secured drawers, and a table’s leaves struck together. The surviving accounts also acknowledge ordinary practical jokes. The prosecution’s failure to establish the household’s guilt is part of the history; it is not a judicial demonstration that a ghost or unknown physical force caused the reports.
The croft and the people drawn into the case
The setting was Keijärvi, near Ylöjärvi, in what is now Finland’s Pirkanmaa region. The household included former teacher and local municipal figure Efraim Martin, his wife Eva, and a thirteen-year-old servant, Emma Lindroos. Their ages and circumstances entered the later discussion because observers disagreed about whether they could have produced particular effects. Such assumptions are arguments made by the historical participants, not reliable tests of a person’s abilities or proof of paranormal causation.
The case can be approached through two different early source trails. Aamulehti of 26 March 1885, page 3, reports the hearing held that week. A much longer April 1922 article in Psychische Studien, pages 177–198, reproduces translated court material, later enquiries by Y. Kulovesi and concluding commentary by Albert von Schrenck-Notzing. The latter publication is valuable, but it appeared thirty-seven years after the disturbances and contains several layers of evidence and interpretation.
From a restless door to a crowded house
The translated material describes the disturbance beginning with a door opening repeatedly at night. There followed accounts of clay or plaster collecting on the floor, papers and small objects leaving a writing desk, flying shoes, tools and candleholders, and damage to household goods. Kasimir Liljestrand’s reproduced report to the governor lists these claims and their visible aftermath. Importantly, he also says that his own repeated visits had not given him personal experience of the extraordinary occurrences. An official’s account of allegations is different from that official witnessing their claimed cause.
The chronology is not perfectly uniform. The newspaper places Eva Martin’s opening-door episode on the evening of 11 January; the 1922 material generally uses 12 January. The translated household account gives 27 January as the ending, while an editorial note uses a shorter span. The safe common description is a brief January 1885 episode, not an artificially precise uninterrupted series reconstructed from inconsistent dates.
According to the published testimony, crowds came to the house hoping to see something. Efraim described disruption to his work preparing documents and other difficulties caused by visitors. He said that some behaved badly and he temporarily went to relatives in Tampere for quiet. This social setting matters: the croft was not a sealed experimental room, and the people present changed. The same influx that spread the story also created opportunities for misunderstanding and deliberate imitation.
What the witnesses said they saw
The 1922 transcription preserves named, separately presented statements. Blacksmith Gerhard Grönfors described an awl, shoes, a hymnbook and movements of wooden splints and bread poles. Efraim Eerola reported accumulating clay, moving tools and items allegedly coming from a secured drawer. He described the room as imperfectly sealed, while arguing that he would have seen such a large quantity of material falling. These are observations combined with the witnesses’ reasoning about what could have caused them; the publication does not supply an instrumental record of their trajectories.
The most elaborate table account comes from bell-ringer Karl Frithiof Lindell. He said the leaves of a dining table repeatedly struck together. Pressing one with his knee did not stop the other, so the leaves were bound with cord and wedges. He then described the whole table jumping. Moving it to the middle of the floor stopped the movements even after the cord was removed. His wife Amanda also described the episode. The account is specific enough to examine, but specificity does not itself provide continuous observation of everyone’s hands, feet and movements around the furniture.
Other statements concerned a candleholder apparently moving upright, keys leaving a lock, and implements crossing the room. One witness, David Moisio, said he had observed nothing unnatural on his visits. The contemporary newspaper reports fourteen outside witnesses, while the later article numbers fifteen statements. Neither counting formula should be turned into a claim that every visitor observed the same event or endorsed the same explanation.
The admitted jokes belong in the record
The testimony does not present a household untouched by tricks. In the 1922 transcription, Efraim acknowledges a basis for reports that Emma sometimes threw objects from a corner while playing the part of the troublesome spirit. He adds that other visitors did similar things. Lindell likewise distinguishes later joking from the occurrences he considered genuine. Another statement allows that Emma could have cut a damaged book.
Those passages establish that ordinary human actions formed part of the reported scene. They do not establish that every episode had the same maker or mechanism. Conversely, a witness’s conviction that a particular act could not have been done by a person does not eliminate misperception, an unseen action or uncontrolled access. The evidential task is to connect an explanation to a particular occurrence, rather than letting either “some tricks” or “sworn witnesses” settle the entire case by itself.
What the prosecution decided
The March newspaper report says the enquiry concerned whether the household had caused or encouraged the disturbances and whether spirits had been sold unlawfully to the crowds. It reports that the prosecutor could not substantiate the charges and that the Martins were released from them, with the papers sent for higher review. The 1922 publication also reports acquittal in the lower court on 24 March and the higher court on 11 June 1885. The latter date is taken from that publication, rather than an independently examined original appellate file.
It is misleading to turn that procedural outcome into a finding that invisible forces were real. The failure to prove the allegations against the defendants addresses their liability. It does not authenticate all the witnesses’ interpretations, identify a deceased agent or establish a new physical process. The source review here includes the contemporary newspaper and the published translation, not a complete inspection of the original court manuscript.
The 1921 enquiries and the editor’s explanation
Kulovesi describes obtaining an extract of the court record and a house plan from Efraim’s son Berndt Erland Martin on 3 December 1921. He expressly notes that the son had not been in his father’s house during the disturbances. This is an important collecting connection, but not an additional eyewitness to the January events. Kulovesi also interviewed the elderly Emil Keso, who recalled visiting the croft and seeing objects move. That account is retrospective and should be weighed with its long interval, rather than presented as another statement recorded in March 1885.
Schrenck-Notzing’s concluding commentary proposes unconscious physical mediumship centred on Emma. It connects the reported disturbances with her presence and illness and compares the case with other alleged poltergeists. This is the editor’s paranormal theory. It is not the court’s conclusion, an experimentally demonstrated mechanism or a diagnosis that this article adopts. His broad assertion about the witnesses’ agreement should also be read beside Moisio’s negative statement and the acknowledged jokes within the material he publishes.
Assessment and present location
The outcome is Insufficient evidence. The published records preserve substantial testimony, ordinary imitations and a failed prosecution, but they do not establish a demonstrated explanation for every report or adequately controlled evidence of paranormal action. The stories are neither strengthened into proof by the acquittal nor wholly resolved by the admitted jokes. Folklorist Pasi Klemettinen’s 2018 account for the Finnish Literature Society places the case within a wider tradition of disturbance narratives and identifies the trial translations as central to its survival.
Current regional tourism information identifies the old croft foundations and memorial sign near Keijärventie. The original building was moved and later demolished, so a present-day structure should not be presented as the surviving haunted interior. The map uses a rounded reference for the publicly listed memorial area, derived from the tourism entry’s actual coordinates. The lake photograph provides surrounding locality context only. This reference is not a surveyed position of the table, a currently occupied home or a reproduction of the 1885 room plan.
Visit Efraim Martin croft memorial
Old foundations and a memorial sign are publicly listed by regional tourism. Follow local notices and respect surrounding property.
Official visitor information → · Access information checked 2026-11-13. Check current opening and booking details before travelling.
Share an experience here →Experiences at Efraim Martin croft memorial
First-person accounts shared by visitors and reviewed before publication. They are separate from the researched case above.
No visitor reports have been published here yet.