BP-2026.001.1
Robert the Doll
- Claim
- 4 of 5
Animals and crops destroyed, or lasting harm to the body, livelihood or estate. - Evidence
- 3 of 5
One contemporaneous document by someone involved, or two independent retellings. - Provenance
- 3 of 3
An unbroken chain to the event it is named for.
These three figures are kept separate and are never combined into a single score. How grave the claim is, what it rests on, and whether the object can be traced are different questions. How the register reads them.
Asserted
Accounts attributed to a source. The register does not adopt them.
That it caused an injury to someone who handled it. The doll is said to move between observations, to be heard speaking and walking, and to answer when addressed. A large body of claims concerns visitors who photographed it without first asking permission, or who mocked it, and who afterwards reported accidents, illness and sustained bad luck. Its expression is said to change between viewings.
- P3
footsteps heard
- P4
voice or speech
- P18
change in appearance or expression
- P20
displacement unobserved
- I1
responds when addressed
- I7
responds to being photographed
- I10
responds to mockery or disrespect
- C1
electronic interference
- C3
recording failure
- C10
material misfortune
- C20
accident or injury
- C21
illness
- E1
an unnamed presence attributed to it
index v0.8: Unnamed presence attributed
- H9
subject of a ritual or curse
index v0.8: Subject of a ritual, curse or blessing
- X14
bound to an act of the observer
reported by: nine people since 1974
Recorded
Established by the register, or received with the object.
File
- Register number
- BP-2026.001.1
- Entry type
- Object entry
- Opened
- 2026-09-15
- Last revised
- 2026-09-16
- Coded against
- Claim Index v0.8
Object
- Type
- doll
- Materials
- kapok, wool, cotton, glass
- Date
- c.1904
- Origin
- United States
- Maker
- not recorded
- Whereabouts
- held by an institution, Key West, Florida
Custody
No custody record has been entered.
On what grounds
A body of letters written to the holding institution by visitors describing what they say happened to them afterwards. Reported by nine people since 1974. Evidence is capped at 3: the strongest element of the claim is absent from the earliest accounts, which describe a family story without an injury motif.
Counter-indications
What weighs against the claim. These are never subtracted from a figure; the lowest applicable ceiling is applied instead.
- CI1
absent from the earliest sources
- CI3
sources conflict on dating
- CI7
an ordinary explanation has been offered
- CI16
attribution rests on style alone
- CI23
the holder has a commercial interest in visitor numbers
Register findings
- MT17
kept covered or otherwise restricted by its holder
- MT27
object of organised visitation
- MT28
has appeared in film, broadcast or viral posts