Carl

I. Subject Background

Subject is a Caucasian male, mid-40s, approximately 5'10", residing alone (with the apparent exception of one cat — vide infra) in a single-story ranch on a third of an acre. Subject is employed in what we have provisionally classified as "drywall-adjacent." Subject's mail is addressed to "Carl Heffelfinger" — the surname noteworthy in light of vol. IX of this journal, although the authors decline to draw further inference.

The cat, observed daily, is a tabby of approximately seven kilograms, and is addressed by Carl as Margaret. The cat does not appear to respond to this name, or indeed to any name. The authors have provisionally classified the cat as impartial.

II. Methodology & Equipment

Observation was conducted from a fixed station within a mature privet hedge approximately 14 metres from Carl's kitchen window. Equipment included an 8×42 binocular, a waterproof field journal, a thermos, and a single Clif bar (peanut butter), consumed over 72 hours in deliberate solidarity with the Subject's own apparent austerity. The researcher held station continuously, sleeping in 90-minute intervals in the manner pioneered by the polyphasic-sleep community and abandoned by them shortly thereafter.

No double-blind was attempted; the Subject was never not the Subject. Confounding variables were noted as they arose. There were many. None were controlled for.

III. The Onanistic Vigil (Day 4, 21:14–22:31 EDT)

At 21:14 the Subject was observed to repair to the living-room sofa, where, with the curtains open and the overhead light on, he engaged in what the field literature variously terms self-attendance, autoerotic devotion, or, in older texts, the labour of the right hand. The Subject's chosen visual stimulus was the back of a Domino's pizza box; whether for its imagery or its proximity, the authors cannot say.

Duration: 77 minutes. The authors note this figure not in any spirit of admiration but for completeness. Three pauses were observed, each of approximately four minutes, during which the Subject appeared to text someone, eat a slice of the pizza, and (in the third pause) speak briefly to the cat. The cat did not respond. The cat did not look away.

The Subject made no eye contact with any deity throughout. This is consistent with demonic taxonomy as established by the Pseudomonarchia Daemonum (Weyer, 1577), in which it is held that lesser demons cannot acknowledge the divine even when actively trying to attract its attention.

IV. The Eructatic Outburst (Day 7, 03:14–04:01 EDT)

At 03:14 the Subject entered the rear bathroom of the residence, which is positioned with its small frosted window facing directly toward the researcher's station. He did not close the bathroom door. He sang. The volume of the ablution that followed is not easily rendered in prose, but the field journal records it as "in the upper register for human ablution — specifically, the register reserved for war-cry."

Of the screaming itself, much could be said and little should. The researcher recorded forty-seven minutes of vocalisations ranging from a low, almost prayerful hum to several distinct utterances of the phrase "oh, no, oh, no, oh," with rising urgency, and one episode of pure tonal screaming at what the field journal estimates as approximately concert F. Twice the Subject was heard to apologise to no one in particular. Once the cat entered the bathroom and was immediately ejected.

This event is provisionally classified as the strongest single piece of evidence in the present survey. The Goetia (1577) holds that lesser demons exhibit what the text calls "the Cleansing Bellow" — an involuntary vocal expression accompanying the eviction of corporeal matter. The Subject's performance is in nearly textbook agreement with this description, save that the textbook estimates the duration at 40–90 seconds, and the Subject sustained it for over forty minutes. The authors propose that the Subject is either a particularly emphatic demon, or experiencing what is colloquially termed a rough one.

V. Other Demonic Indicators (Cumulative)

• Subject spoke to inanimate objects on eight (8) separate occasions, including a microwave (twice), a chair, the cat (treated here as an inanimate object), and his own left foot.
• Subject ate while standing on four (4) occasions, in violation of the Lex Vesperum of the lesser scholastics.
• Subject did not sleep in a bed for the entire observation period. Couch only. Often face-down. Twice with one shoe on.
• Subject sang "Don't Stop Believin'" at 02:47 EDT on four (4) consecutive nights, beginning at the second verse each time. He did not appear to know the bridge.
• Subject's mother (audible portion of call only): the Subject said "no mom" 31 times in 13 minutes.
• Subject threw a Papa John's pizza box at the cat (Day 6, 19:22). The cat did not move. The cat appeared to have anticipated the throw.
• The Subject opened the refrigerator and stood in front of it, motionless, for 11 consecutive minutes on Day 9. The light remained on. The light is no longer the light.

VI. Counter-Evidence (Noted Reluctantly)

In the interest of methodological rigor, the authors acknowledge that several of the Subject's behaviors are not, in themselves, demonic:

(a) The Subject pays his bills on time, evidenced by the lack of utility-cutoff notices in the visible portion of his foyer; (b) the Subject feeds the cat regularly, in fact lavishly; (c) the Subject does not bleed when subjected to controlled stress — following a small rock thrown by the researcher in week two, the Subject did not bleed, but rather shouted "FUCK" at approximately 87 dB and went inside. While encouraging, the absence of blood is not conclusive; Goetia records several lesser demons that produce only profanity when struck.

(d) The Subject's wife (?), a woman never seen above the shoulders by the researcher, appears most Wednesday afternoons and departs Thursday mornings, returning briefly on Sundays. Her relationship to the Subject is unclear. She was observed once carrying a bag of celery into the residence and leaving without it. The celery has not been observed since.

VII. The Researcher's Own Condition

The authors feel obliged to note, in the interest of full disclosure, that by Day 9 of the observation period the lead researcher had not bathed in nine days, had eaten only the previously-mentioned Clif bar plus rainwater from an overturned hubcap, and had begun, by his own admission, to "see things at the edge of the hedge." He further reports having developed a deep, almost familial fondness for the cat — whose face, viewed through 8×42 magnification, the researcher described in his field journal as "the only honest thing in Pennsylvania."

On Day 11 the researcher was approached by a Linglestown patrol officer who asked him "what the hell" he was doing in the hedge. The researcher answered, truthfully, that he was conducting a behavioral study of a suspected demon. The officer departed without further comment. He has not returned.

VIII. Conclusions

The authors conclude, on the preponderance of the gathered evidence, that the Subject is almost certainly a demon — specifically, a demon of the lower middle taxa, possibly Marquis-class, possibly merely a tired man in his forties. The two are, in our experience, harder to distinguish than one might expect.

Further observation is recommended. Funding is pending. The researcher requests that any additional grants include a stipend for laundry and a folding chair. The researcher further requests that the cat be re-housed with his sister, should the cat at any point indicate a desire to leave.