Borley Rectory—ghost story or Victorian fraud?

So I've been reading the classic paranormal literature - you know, the stuff people cite as evidence that ghosts are real - and Borley Rectory keeps coming up. But every time I look into the actual history, it's absolutely riddled with fraud and selective reporting.

Harry Price was basically famous before his investigation and he had incentive to find something. The "paranormal" events always happened when there were witnesses (conveniently). The investigators would leave and nothing would happen.

I'm not saying nothing weird happened at that house. I'm saying it's the worst possible evidence for the paranormal because the methodology was rubbish and the fraud was possible.

Can someone actually defend Borley as credible evidence? I'm genuinely asking - where does the case hold up?

You're not wrong that Harry Price was dodgy, but the original reports from the 1920s-30s (before Price got involved) were also strange. So was he amplifying something real or manufacturing something that wasn't? That's the actual question.

Borley is defended by believers because it's famous, not because it's actually good evidence. That's the honest answer. The contemporary accounts are genuinely odd, but odd ≠ paranormal. Could be hoaxes, could be hallucinations, could be fraud for attention.

The best defense of Borley is that multiple independent witnesses reported strange things before Price arrived. That's something. But yeah, the whole thing is compromised by sensationalism and Price's involvement.

Can someone actually defend Borley as credible evidence?

I think Borley matters less for proving ghosts exist and more for showing how paranormal research went wrong in the 20th century. The lessons learned from investigating it badly have improved the field. That's actually useful.