Why this doll became the focus
The doll at the center of this experiment was never acquired as a supposed haunted object. The Paranormal Scholar says it was originally chosen for the séance parlour because it simply fit the room: an antique shop find that felt right as set dressing, not a case file.
That changed after the museum opened to the public. Visitors kept reporting the same kind of reaction before anything was said aloud. They said they were drawn to the doll first, sometimes before noticing anything else in the room. Some described the doll’s eyes moving, its expression changing, or even its head turning. Over time, those reports built into a pattern strong enough to make the doll feel like more than décor, even if that was never the intention.
The other pattern was a name.
How the name experiment was set up
Months of private reports had already pointed the museum in one direction: mediums, visitors, and people using different forms of investigation were saying the same name around the doll. The team kept that name to themselves and decided to test whether it would appear again if the process was opened up to the public.
Visitors were asked to look at the doll and write the first name that came to mind, then place it into a collection box without seeing anyone else’s answer. Some people were said to take the exercise casually, while others treated it more like a quiet mental test, sitting with the doll and waiting for a name to surface.
The museum also added a few pieces of equipment to the session. An LED cat ball was placed in front of the doll, and an empath device was switched on to monitor environmental changes and translate them through a word bank. The idea was simple: if anything connected to the doll wanted to respond, there would be more than one way for that response to appear.
What visitors kept sensing
The video doesn’t present the visitor slips as a neat list so much as a growing pile of possibilities. Some names appeared once and disappeared into the background. Others kept returning.
Emily quickly became the most obvious standout. The team counted 13 responses tied to Emily or similar variants. Annie and its variations also kept appearing, eventually forming a second major cluster. Around those two, there were smaller groups for names such as Jane, Amy, Chloe, Abby, Lucy, Laura, and a handful of others.
That mix is part of what makes the experiment interesting. It wasn’t a case of one name dominating every single response. Instead, the submissions formed a loose field with two names clearly rising above the rest. The museum’s reading of the pile was that Emily led slightly, with Annie not far behind.
A few other details complicate the picture. Jane appeared several times, but the doll sits near objects connected to the Jane Blakemore case, so the team openly wondered whether some of those responses might have been influenced by nearby displays rather than the doll itself. That uncertainty matters, because the experiment was never framed as perfect proof. It was a way to see what happened when people were asked to respond instinctively and independently.
The two names that rose above the rest
The team had already been given one particular name repeatedly over months: Anaise, or in some cases a close variation that included Annie or Anelise-like forms. That name was sealed in a black envelope until the end of the video.
When the envelope was opened, the match was close but not exact. The final tally gave Emily the edge with 13 responses, while Anaise and related forms came in second with 10.
That result is the heart of the feature. On one hand, it confirms a stronger pull toward Emily among the public submissions. On the other, it preserves the oddity that the name the team had repeatedly received in more private settings still landed at the top of the list, just not in first place.
The museum also highlighted a separate moment that fed the sense of strangeness around the doll: a generated image from a previous paranormal investigation using Ghost Tube Sea. The image, according to the creator, strongly resembled the doll itself in details like the lace trim, hair color, green background, and chair. The video treats that as part of the broader pattern around the object rather than as proof of anything on its own.
Why the result matters to the museum
The experiment works because it sits in a narrow space between subjective experience and repeated pattern. Nobody in the video claims to have solved the doll. What the museum does claim is that the same object keeps drawing attention in ways that seem difficult to dismiss as random noise.
That includes the way visitors react to the room, the recurring sense that the doll is being noticed before it is explained, and the repeated emergence of names across different methods: quiet intuition, public submissions, spirit-board sessions, and other forms of investigation mentioned by the creator.
The result also leaves room for ambiguity, which is part of the appeal. If the doll were simply tied to one perfect answer, the mystery would be smaller. Instead, the experiment suggests a cluster of associations around the object, with Emily and Anaise standing out as the strongest contenders.
For viewers, that leaves a practical question rather than a tidy conclusion: when the same object keeps producing the same kinds of reactions, what exactly is being sensed — a spirit, a memory, a suggestion, or something harder to name?
The video doesn’t settle that. It just shows the museum putting the question to the public and finding that the answers repeated more than expected.
Watch the original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMMKaXJYXz0