"The nine solved but with-contact cases are interesting. The identity of the prior life had been confirmed, and often the child has been reported to know information about the deceased person, their family, method of death etc. However, there are clearly other means that the child could have received this information. These cases are more interesting, in my view, in demonstrating the strong desire the author has in proving a reincarnation connection. I will talk about four of those nine cases, and also about the two solved but no-contact cases (which should be the strongest in support of the reincarnation hypothesis).

Firstly, here are four of the cases with a family connection. I have provided very brief descriptions – the book naturally has much more.

Corliss Chotkin Jr

In a community that believes in reincarnation, an elderly man tells his niece that he will be reborn as her son. Hey presto, she has a son who she claims is her uncle reborn, complete with birthmarks in the same places as her uncle’s scars. However, by the time Stevenson “first examined these birthmarks… they had both shifted.”

This is wishful thinking on the part of the mother. Also, an apparent indication of credulousness in the author, accepting that the birthmarks had “moved”.

Gillian and Jennifer Pollock

Two twin girls (aged six and eleven) are tragically killed. The father was a strong believer in reincarnation, and was sure they would be reborn to his wife as twins. Twins are born, and between the ages of 2 and 4 they start making statements about their dead siblings.

As the father believed the twins were reincarnations of their dead sisters, it is likely that he talked about it in front of the baby girls. It’s also likely that friends and family talked about the tragic death of the previous two girls. It’s hardly surprising that the girls are reported to have talked about their “previous lives”. The parents could also be reading too much into the twins’ statements, or could be lying. We’ll never know.

Michael Wright

A young girl has a childhood sweetheart who dies in a car crash. She would have married him but for this, but now marries someone else. She then has a child who she thinks is the reincarnation of her sweetheart. (She had a dream about him a year after his death that Stevenson takes as an “announcing dream”.) The child’s mother and grandmother strongly believe in reincarnation, and they are the only ones who have witnessed the child “remembering” his previous life.

This tells us more about this woman’s longing for the dead guy, and her relationship with her actual husband than it does about reincarnation. More importantly, it also tells us a lot about Stevenson’s credulity. A colleague of his, Dr Emily Kelly, apparently agrees with me here. To Stevenson’s credit he quotes her opinion:
“She thinks it quite plausible than some more benign motive, such as nostalgia or a longing for a past loved one, could have led (the mother) to encourage her son’s identification with (the sweetheart) and to have read more into his statements than was warranted”
No shit! The phrase “could have”, indicates this is not proof of reincarnation.
[skepticreport.com]

@sundug It's a matter of opinion. I find the evidence quite convincing, although there is always the possibility of fraud. For that you have to believe that two American physicians, Stevenson and Tucker, have spent their entire careers perpetrating a massive fraud, with the assistance of the University of Virginia. Reincarnation is not part of the Christian religion, so there is no religious reason for American Christians to report it. In my opinion atheist materialists have a strong anti-religious reason to deny that reincarnation happens, regardless of the evidence.

@doug6352 Doing some searches, two things caught my eye-most of the "evidence" is basically second hand hearsay-parents saying their child said something. And checking on the birthmarks showed them to be in a different place than claimed originally. Real evidence is testable.

Yes, I read it and thought it convincing