THE APPEAL TO UNPUBLISHED
EVIDENCES
Mr. G.W. Lambert, C.B., President of the Society for Psychical Research,
in his Note, (HBR, p. v), acknowledges the value of Harry Price’s
original files on Borley Rectory, made available to the authors, presumably
through the office of the S.P.R., thusly: “The reader will appreciate the
important part which these files played in this appraisal of Mr. Price’s
investigation.”
Whether it would be more correct to say the “important part which these
files did not play” or “—should have played,” the reader, I trust,
having followed herein the dissection of charges, will be fully prepared to
understand the primary importance not only of these files but of all the
unpublished sources of reference to which the authors have appealed, i.e.,
private papers, notes, accounts, letters, conversations, etc. To be sure,
the reader has been told confidently that “nothing relevant” was omitted—but it
is no longer doubtful that the authors are not able to recognize what is
relevant for the defence, unless their omissions are taken as evidence of
recognition.
All too often, however, conclusive statements are made without reference
of any kind. For example, speaking of Mrs. S.H. Glanville, one of Harry Price’s
best witnesses, we are told, “His opinions were much modified after he became
acquainted with the new facts which have been set out in the preceding pages.”
(HBR, p. 169) Had we been told “—with some of the new facts” or, that Mr.
Glanville had read “the new facts which have been set out in the
preceding pages,” this claim would have been at least comprehensible. As it
appears, without documentation on the authority of the authors whose
evident/intention it is to destroy Price and all his works and
evidence—documentary and testimonial—for Borley Rectory, and attributed to a
gentleman now as silent as Price himself, deceased, (HBR, p. viii), the
presentation is altogether inexcusable.
In addition to such alleged sources, (—(a) unpublished references cited;
(b) sources not given—), other claims and charges equally portentuous rest upon
scraps of sentences, restricted extracts, phrases torn from their context, taken
from (c), published works, and (d), alleged recollections (by note or otherwise)
of conversations and oral accounts of persons sometimes named and sometimes
unnamed.
As an example of the last class, there was “a local farm worker” who told
Dr. Dingwall “that when lights were seen at the rectory these were not due to
‘them ghosts’ but to reflections from other sources—among them being the lights
of Sudbury,” a statement which, now that the rectory has disappeared, cannot be
verified.” (HBR, p. 139.) Which, of course, probably suits the critics’ purpose
well enough anyway; but what the reader would like to know is whether the “local
farm worker” had himself been any where near Borley before the rectory
disappeared—something also which possibly “cannot be
verified.”
It is abundantly demonstrated—indisputably so—that far from honoring the
pledge to provide the reader with the evidence and to do their “best to omit
nothing relevant,” the authors have violated every criterion of honest criticism
and cited facts only so far as they could be presented, or twisted to serve the
particular thesis to which the reporters subscribe. Every source from Harry
Price’s own writings to the common geography book has been so pitilessly
mutilated and distorted, so “ruthlessly edited as to be meaningless”—to adopt
their own phraseology of what they once charged to their
victim.
When we see a hoax of this sort—whether originating innocent delusion or
deliberate deceit, is of no moment—masquerading as an “S.P.R. enquiry,” falsely
pretending to pass “the documents and the motives of all the persons involved
under the most exacting scrutiny,”—as “the intriguing blurb printed on the
wrapper puts it—self-exposed by comparison with its available, cited,
published sources, how much more may we justly suppose it to be liable in
the case of unavailable, unpublished sources with the authors had good reason to
believe their prospective readers would never see.
Leaving entirely aside the question as to documents, unpublished and
uncited, which the authors may have prudently thought best to not mention at
all[1],
a partial list of some of these latter references—though by no means all of the
most important of those referred to—in The Haunting of Borley Rectory
follows:
1.
“Account
of his own residence at Borley,” given by Canon H. Lawton, (p.
ix.)
2.
Report of
Mr. Herbert E. Pratt, “who undertook an immense amount of patient research into
certain aspects of the Foyster case,” (p. ix.)
3.
Lord
Charles Hope, and
4.
Major the
Hon. Henry Douglas-Home, —“some of their original notes and observations.” (p.
ix)
5.
Reports
of Mr. Mark Kerr-Pearse,
6.
Mr. M.
Knox to Harry Price, letter,
7.
Notes of
interview with Canon Lawton. (p. 7)
8.
Mr. S.H.
Glanville’s Locked Book, “complete record of the rectory and its
phenomena.” (p. 11)
9.
H. Price
to Captain W.H. Gregson, letter of
10.
Notes of
conversation with Miss. Ethel Bull, by E.J. Dingwall and Trevor H. Hall,
11.
Miss.
Ethel Bull to T.H. Hall, letter of
12.
Notes of
W.H. Salter and K.M. Goldney on conversation with Miss. Ethel Bull,
13.
Original
notes by Harry Price on first visit to Borley Rectory, June 1929. (p.
20)
14.
Original
Notes by Harry Price’s Secretary, same occasion. (p. 20)
15.
Notes by
E.J. Dingwall and T.H. Hall on interview with Mary Pearson (nee Tatum),
16.
Harry
Price to E.H. Dingwall, letter of
17.
The Rev.
L.A. Foyster to S.H. Glanville, letter of
18.
(Letter)
Shaw Jeffrey to E.J. Dingwall, 1950 (p. 23)
19.
Notes by
W.H. Salter and K.M. Goldney on conversation with Miss. Milly Bull and Mr.
Alfred Bull,
20.
Notes by
E.J. Dingwall and T.H. Hall,
21.
Report by
Lord Charles Hope on Testimony of the Misses Bull, (p.
24.)
22.
Accounts
by Canon Lawton on conversations with the Misses Bull, and Mr. Gerald Bull, (p.
25.)
23.
24.
Notes of
testimony by Misses Bull,
25.
K.M.
Goldney notes on interview with Harry Price’s secretary. (p.
32.)
26.
Signed
testimony of Price’s secretary, (p. 32.)
27.
“Contemporary
hand-written notes,” by Lord Charles Hope, on visits to Borley Rectory,
28.
“Additional
information,” (undated,) by Lord Charles Hope (pp. 32-3.)
29.
Notes by
Lord Charles Hope and K.M. Goldney on Sutton testimony of January, 1949, (p.
33.)
30.
Signed
testimony by Mr. Sutton, (p. 33.)
31.
Lord
Charles Hope to Price,
32.
Letter to
Major the Hon. Douglas-Home, c. 1943, 1949, 1953, (p.
33.)
33.
Signed
statement of accusation by same party, (p. 33.)
34.
Letter of
Hon. Secretary, S.P.R., to Mrs. G.E. Smith, 1949, (p. 43.)
35.
Reply to
same, (p. 43.)
36.
K.M.
Goldney notes of first visit to Mrs. Smith, (p. 44.)
37.
Account
prepared by K.M. Goldney of “all” Mrs. Smith related, (p.
44.)
38.
Letter of
K.M. Goldney to Mrs. Smith, July (?), 1943, (p. 44.)
39.
Reply to
same; and further mutual and related correspondence, (pp. 44,
47.)
40.
Notes of
W.H. Salter, K.M. Goldney, and E.J. Dingwall, on second visit to Mrs. Smith,
August 1952, (p. 44.)
41.
Mrs.
Smith’s Version, Her Signed Statement, 1949,
complete, (p. 44, ff.)
42.
“Additional
comments” by Mrs. Smith, (p. 47.)
43.
K.M.
Goldney to W.H. Salter,
44.
Mrs.
Smith’s annotations to MHH, (p. 47.)
45.
Mrs.
Smith’s annotations to EBR, (p. 47.)
46.
Letters
from the Rev. and Mrs. Smith to Harry Price, 1929-30, and later, including 9
July 1929, 7 August 1929, 20 November 1929, 22 February 1930, 18 March 1930, 9
May 1939, (p. 5, ff.)
47.
Letters
from the Smiths to Lord Charles Hope, including
48.
Notes of
Lord Charles Hope on meetings with the Smiths, (p. 50.)
49.
Smith-Glanville
correspondence, 1937-38, including, 19 November 1937, 23 November 1937, 6
January 1938, 14 January 1938, 23 January 1938, (pp. 50,
53-5.)
50.
Mrs.
Smith to Miss Kaye,
51.
E,
Whitehouse to Smiths, December 1931, (pp. 52-3.)
52.
Letters
of Price to Smiths, 1930-37, and May 1939, (pp. 53, 55.)
53.
S.H.
Glanville’s records on first meeting with Smith’s, (p.
53.)
54.
Letters
of Mrs. Smith to Harry Price, including,
55.
Price’s
replies to same, (p. 56.)
56.
K.M.
Goldney to Mrs. Smith, (p. 56.)
57.
Reply by
Mrs. Smith,
58.
K.M.
Goldney’s Notes on visit to Borley Rectory,
59.
“Other
papers,” (p. 61.)
60.
Letters
of Mrs. Meeker,
61.
S.H.
Glanville to Harry Price,
62.
Report by
C. Gordon Glover,
63.
Report by
Dr. P.E. Ryberg, R.M. Christie, and L.G. Cooper,
64.
Report of
Mr. Glanville and Mr. H.G. Harrison,
65.
“Several
other similar reports,” (p. 67.)
66.
Report by
J. Burden and T. Stainton,
67.
J.
Burdon’s report, December, 1937, (p. 69.)
68.
J.M.
Bailey and C.V. Wintour report, July 1937, (p. 69.)
69.
Mr. H.E.
Pratt, “account,” (p. .69.)
70.
Mrs.
Smith’s statement, November, 1952, (p. 70.)
71.
Major the
Hon. Douglas-Home to Lord Charles Hope, August 1949, (pp. 71,
132.)
72.
Col.
Westland, report,
73.
Report of
M. Savage,
74.
Report of
Dr. J.R.A. Davies, (p. 123.)
75.
Notes of
the “Battersea Poltergeist Case,”
76.
Harry
Price to C. Gordon Glover,
77.
The
“original notes taken down by his secretary on the occasion of Price’s first
visit to the Smiths on 12 June 1929, and there we read: ‘Smiths’ took the
rectory living in September 1928, finding the place in terribly bad repair.
There are rats in the house, and toads, frogs, newts, etc. in the cellars. They
themselves refuse to believe in ghosts and know nothing about them.’” (p.
74.)
(This may be contrasted with Price’s statement, given by the authors,
HBR, page 66, as an extract from MHH, p. 62., that “as for rats or
mice, during my investigation of the Rectory, on no occasion have I seen or
heard the slightest indication of these rodents.”
But it is not at all certain that this is a contradiction, in fact the
authors do not state it to be one.
1.
It is
noted that the confession of “rats in the house” is part of an extract,
the context of which is omitted by the authors.
2.
It is
stated by them to be, (a) “original notes,” (b) “taken down by his secretary,”
(c) on the occasion of Price’s first visit to the Smiths on 12 June 1929.” But
none of these things are at all apparent from the extract given, in which no
date or other identification appears.
3.
It is not
clear from the text whether this is a notation of Price’s own observations, or
the summary of information he had somehow gained, or an actual resume of
testimony given by the Smiths themselves.
4.
That it
is stated the Rev. Smith and his wife “refuse to believe in ghosts” does not
exclude the possibility that these pious folk who “believed in Higher
Protection.” (HBR, p. 47), did not believe in “Lower Powers” that were
still not properly “ghosts.” And that they presumably knew nothing about
“ghosts” would not exclude certain presumptions on their part pertaining to
Biblical “spirits.”
5.
“There
are rats in the house” might be taken as a categorical statement that the writer
or author of the phrase personally knew rats were in the house. But the
similarly unqualified statement that the Smiths “refuse to believe in ghosts and
know nothing about them” may likewise be taken to mean that the writer or author
knew the assertion for a fact. Nevertheless, it is obvious that no one
but the Smiths themselves could properly make such a declaration as the latter.
So also, might only they have properly made the former. That is to say, as the
one statement likewise appears without proper attribution, so may we reasonably
assume the other appears. In any case, as both stand, they do indeed appear to
be raw material, indeterminate notes, immediately incapable of any definite
interpretation.
6.
But so
far has faith in the authors allegiance to responsibility faded that to my mind
there is even a greater question whether the rats-in-the-house extract should
even be taken as it stands. Supposing it to have possibly been a résumé of
information the Smiths had volunteered, a phrase “There were rats in the
house,” that is, when the “Smiths took the rectory living in September 1928
etc.,” would be more grammatically correct. And it is a fact that the close
resemblance between “are” and “were”—especially when transcribed in hasty notes
or copies—is, in some scripts, notorious.
It is a commentary on the authors’ demand upon the reader’s faith that
they failed to (a) say whether or not this notation was made by typewriter; (b)
and did not provide a certified facsimile, such as by photostatic reproduction,
or a document they valued so significant as to reserve for the final denouement
in their chapter, “The Smith Incumbency and Harry Price.”
“In law, evidence is divided into various classes according to its
supposed value. Thus what is termed ‘best evidence’ is that provided by a
witness in the box giving his own observations. In the case of documentary
evidence it is, of course, the document itself.” (Italics mine.)
(HBR, p. 172.)
But then, perhaps, a photostat would have told too
much.)
78.
Harry
Price to Dr. D.F Fraser-Harris, 15 October 1931, (p. 76.)
79.
Harry
Price to the Hob. Everard Feilding, 19 August 1935, (p.
76.)
80.
Harry
Price to C. Gordon Glover, 28 February and 11 March 1938, (p.
76.)
81.
The Rev.
Foyster to Harry Price, including letters of 3 October 1931, 7 January and 16
January 1938, (p. 82, Et. Al.)
82.
Haunting
of Borley Rectory, Diary of Occurrences, by the
Rev. L.A. Foyster, (p. 82, ff.)
83.
Fifteen
Months in a Haunted House, by the
Rev. L.A. Foyster, (p. 83, ff.)
84.
Summary
of Experiences at Borely Rectory, by the
Rev. L.A. Foyster, (p. 83, ff.)
85.
Foyster
to Glanville, 2 Septermber 1937, (p. 89.)
86.
Notes of
“visit” and testimony obtained at “Mrs. Foyster’s birthplace,” (p.
89.)
87.
Reports
or notes of information received from, or about Mrs. Foyster’s circumstances at,
Dairy Cottages, Rendlesham, Suffolk, (p. 88.)
88.
Statement
of Mr. Arbon, 4 November 1937, (p. 90.)
89.
Letter of
Miss. E.R. Gordon to authors, 26 July 1954, (p. 90.)
90.
S.H.
Glanville to Foysters, 8 October 1937, (p. 91.)
91.
Price-Whitehouse
correspondence, (p. 99.)
92.
Original
report of Edwin Whitehouse, (p. 100.)
93.
Notes of
K.M. Goldney conversation with E. Whitehouse, October, 1931, (p.
103.)
94.
Notes by
Dingwall, Goldney, Hall of interview with Lady Whitehouse, 3 November 1951 (p.
104, ff.)
95.
Account
by G.P. J. L’Estrange, sent to Price. 11 November 1944, (p.
106.)
96.
Letter by
Mr. L’Estrange, to Price, 6 December 1944, (p. 106.)
97.
Documented
observation of Mr. S.H. Glanville re: circumstances, vide, footnote (2),
p. 106.
98.
“Testimony
of Mrs. Edith May Wildgoose, S.R.N., (nee Dytor), nurse-companion to Mrs.
Foyster, (p. 110)
99.
“Analysis
of wall-writings,” by L.T. Ackermann, (p. 112.)
100.
Miss.
Mary Braithwaite, J.P., to W.H. Salter, letter of 15 August 1931, (p.
114.)
101.
Reply to
same, with related correspondence.
102.
Sir John
Braithwaite’s report of 13 August 1931, and a letter of 17 August 1931, (p.
114.)
103.
Foyster
to Smith, 4 December 1931, (p. 117.)
104.
“Other
information in our possession”—by which “it appears that her [Mrs. Foyster’s]
approach to the problems which beset her may have been unusual judged by normal
standars,” (p. 119.)
Surely, —no more
than in the case of Harry Price himself—the authors should not allow “personal
considerations” to obstruct their scientific reporting, or must we wait for word
of the lady’s deceased also? As with the case of Mr. Edwin Whitehouse, (p. 103),
might not “a sympathetic but necessarily critical examination” be made? Perhaps
Dr. Dingwall could write a entertaining diagnosis. That is, supposing this
“other information” could withstand the scrutiny. Until then, of course, the
poor reader must wander tantalized and perplexed in “the fog of mystery and
confusion.”
105.
Report of
C.S. Taylor, regarding 8 January 1938, (p. 124.)
106.
Letter of
E. Howe, 14 June 1952, (p. 127.)
107.
S.H.
Glanville to the authors, 13 June 1952, (p. 131.)
108.
The
“original Glanville report,” (to Harry Price,) (p. 130-1.)
109.
Notes of
interview with S.H. Glanville, (p. 135-6.)
110.
The
Henning lecture, 23 July 1952, (notes, or transcript), (p.
136.)
111.
The Rev.
A.C. Henning to Price, November 1937, 2 January 1945, (p. 139, et.
al.)
112.
Statement
of Captain Gregson, (p. 141.)
113.
Letter of
S.L. Croft, 27 April 1947, to Harry Price, (p. 145.)
114.
Letter of
A.G. Smith, regarding June 1947, to Harry Price, (p. 145.)
115.
W.F.W.
Southwood to Harry Price, 16 November 1946, (p. 145.)
116.
Captain
W.H. Gregson’s B.B.C. interview, script, 15 April 1939, (p.
146.)
117.
Captain
Gregson to Harry Price, 11 April 1939, 23 January 1940, (p.
146.)
118.
Account
of Miss Rosemary M. Williams, (p. 147.)
119.
Notes (by
K.M. Goldney and E.J. Dingwall) of interview with R.F. Aickman, 14 January 1953,
(p. 150.)
120.
S.H.
Glanville on “only two” wells, (p. 154.)
121.
Mr.
Ackermann to S.P.R., 8 June 1949, (p. 162.)
122.
K.M.
Goldney notes of Mrs. Thompson’s testimony, 17 October 1950, (p.
163.)
123.
Account,
signed by Mrs. Thompson, (p. 163.)
124.
Mrs.
Thompson to D.J. West, (letter,) (p. 164.)
125.
Notes of
“first meeting” with Mrs. Thompson, (p. 164.)
[1] How many of “the more than twenty thousand letters” Price had filed related to Borley Rectory, and so provided a vast fund for the authors to snip and pick here and there what caught their fancy, we do not know. (Vide. Biography, Tabori, p. vii)
[2] It must not be taken that all the “notes” of conversation and interviews cited do actually exist. It is merely assumed that the interviewers being “Psychical Researchers of standing” would have known enough about the business to prepare such notes. (It would be desirable that such interviews... [text missing]