by Harry Ludlum
A No.
48. Q Is anyone there?
A (No answer).
49. Q Is it Blarnu?
A Yes.
50. Q Will you please continue?
A Ip.
51. Q Is it Ipse?
A Yes.
52. Q Will you please continue?
A (Three times through the alphabet very quickly).
53. Q Is that the end of the message?
A Yes.
54. Q We are feeling very tired, can we continue later?
A Yes.
*Editor's note: 'caedo' in Latin, can be 'to kill' or 'to beat'; 'blarnu' is untraceable, but 'blaudus' means 'flatter', 'tempt'; 'ipse', of course, is 'self'; 'erel' is untraceable as is 'erelmno', but would the next letter be 'p' - as part of the alphabet? The answer could be translatable as 'don't flatter (or kid) yourself', then the rest of the alphabet.
This particular sitting was terminated at that point. Let us now take a look and see what can be gleaned from the results. Fifty-four questions were asked, 48 were answered. The remaining six drew either no response or drew an unintelligible answer.
I would suggest, from a study of the answers, that the sitters at this session were getting feedback from not one, but two entities, and that one of them was the late Henry Dawson Bull. It has to be said that questions 26 to 31 could be criticised as being somewhat leading. However, against that, there is one point that is worthy of consideration.
If the answers recorded as having been received in response to questions about the death of a maid and the matter of a baby were genuine replies, I would suggest that such answers could have come only from Henry Dawson Bull! The reader should not forget about taking séance material at face value without other evidence. Nor should one ignore the possibility of subconscious manipulation through the prior knowledge of details about the Bull family that might have been in the possession of the sitters at the time.
When we come to look at the replies to some of the other questions, some knowledge of general English religious practice will reveal that these could most certainly not have come from Henry Bull. Appeals for Mass, chant and similar features, and what is almost certainly broken and fragmentary Latin, e.g. 'caedo blarnu ipse', could have very little to do with the Protestant faith, but could relate to matters of a Roman Catholic origin.
If we accept the validity of the Catholic origin of the message, then the entity producing those answers could hardly be Henry Dawson Bull. But if not Henry Bull then who?
There are three possibilities, two of which would be the nun or Miss Brackenbury, Harry Bull's stepdaughter, who was a Catholic, but one candidate is prominent - Sir Edward Waldegrave!
Questions and, more particularly, answers numbers 2 and 3, 12 to 15 and 16 to 18 strongly suggest Sir Edward Waldegrave, especially when one remembers the details of his life. That questions 2 and 3, or more precisely the answers thereto, should relate to Sir Edward Waldegrave might at first seem ridiculous, the expression 'Tfismong' looking like irrelevant nonsense, but it is not so pointless as it might appear.
I now refer to the standard work of historical reference, The Calendars of State Papers, Domestic, 1547 to 1580. In Volume 16, on page 171, folio 13, we find a curious entry, which reads as follows:
'Thomas Parker to Sir Edward Waldegrave. Private affairs. Informs him that the wine will cost 10L per tun. Forster the fishmonger is gone to Lynn mart. Gives an ill character of Goldney a serving man.'
Note the words 'Forster the fishmonger'! Some 400 years later, three sitters at a séance at Borley Rectory receive the seemingly nonsensical reply 'Tfishmong', or to split the message up into its component parts, 'T** fis*mong**', or 'The fishmonger'.
This entry in the Calendars of State Papers, Domestic dates from 1561, and in April of that year Sir Edward Waldegrave was arrested on charges of heresy! Could Forster the fishmonger have brought about Sir Edward's downfall through careless or even deliberate 'talk' within earshot of or in the presence of Queen Elizabeth's agents? Another ironic coincidence is that the fishmonger's name was Forster, so close to Foyster, long connected with Borley Rectory!
When one puts the 'Tfismong' response together with the Latin appeals and what is known about Sir Edward Waldegrave's downfall, then it is possible that of two possible mixed-up contacts obtained by the sitters, one was Henry Dawson Bull and the other was Sir Edward himself appealing for redress for his persecution as a Catholic and his ultimate burial in a Protestant grave.
At the same time this could lend further weight to the view that the old Rectory almost certainly maintained by the Waldegraves during Elizabeth I's time stood on the same site as Henry Bull's home, and was very likely frequented by Sir Edward from time to time.
If that is correct, then we can surely suggest that the historical causation of the phenomena is at least 300 if not 400 years old.
Continuing with this particular séance, there is another aspect of the table-tipping replies which may be of interest. Take another look at the answers 40 to 43, which relate to the appearance of the wall writings that were found in the Rectory between 1930 and 1935.
The sitters sought to ascertain who was responsible for the messages on the walls and in answer number 42 the entity replied 'Oif', and confirmed it in answer number 43. May I suggest that what the entity may have been trying to say was 'Foyster', by attempting to spell 'Foister' and managing only the middle piece thus: 'Ois', which was misinterpreted or mispronounced as 'Oif'.
In my opinion, we cannot be sure that Marianne Foyster wrote the messages on the walls, as has been claimed. She did, admittedly, quite openly write questions on the walls, hoping that whoever was responsible for the wall writings would answer the questions.
On the other hand, Peter Underwood who submitted samples of the writings to a graphologist tells us that with one exception the expert opinion was that they all originated with Mrs Foyster. I would repeat the possibility that Marianne was being used as a subconscious 'scribe' by one of the entities in the Rectory, for on their first day in the Rectory in October 1930 Marianne's name was called by a seemingly remote voice somewhere in the building, and pieces of paper with her name on were seen fluttering about.
It has long been suggested that these appeals for help came from the spirit of the nun, but some of the séance answers could suggest that the call for help came from Kate Boreham.
Now we move on to the next session at Borley Rectory, which took place between 1.15am and 1.45am, in the library, on October 24, 1937. The sitters were again Mark Kerr-Pearse, Roger Glanville and Alan Cuthbert. Apart from the light from the fireplace, the sitting was held in darkness.
The numerical sequence of the questions continues from the previous sitting as follows:
55. Q Are you there?
A (In reply the table tilted at 45 degrees).
56. Q Will you please spell your name?
A Caldibec.
57. Q Are you a man?
A Yes.
58. Q Have you lived in this house before?
A Yes
59. Q As it is at present?
A Yes.
60. Q Did you live here before Harry Bull?
A Yes.
61. Q Did you live here before Henry Dawson Bull?
A Yes.
62. Q Are you his son?
A No.
63. Q Are you a relative?
A No.
64. Q Are you a friend?
A Yes.
65. Q Are you his wife?
A Yes.
66. Q Then you are a woman?
A Yes.
67. Q Is Henry Dawson Bull unhappy?
A Yes.
68. Q Can we help?
A Yes.
69. Q By chant, light, Mass and prayer?
A Yes.
70. Q Upstairs?
A No.
71. Q Downstairs?
A Yes.
72. Q In the kitchen passage?
A No.
73. Q In the kitchen?
&nb
sp; A Yes.
74. Q Is he unhappy because of what happened in the kitchen?
A Yes.
75. Q Are you unhappy?
A Yes.
76. Q Do you also want chant, Mass, light and prayer?
A Yes.
77. Q Upstairs?
A No.
78. Q In the kitchen passage?
A No.
79. Q In the kitchen?
A Yes.
80. Q Was Henry Dawson Bull connected with the tragedy in the kitchen?
A Yes
81. Q Was the tragedy connected with the well?
A No.
82. Q Was a baby connected with the tragedy?
A Yes.
83. Q Was the baby connected with the well?
A No.
84. Q Did the baby die?
A No.
85. Q Is it still alive?
A No.
86. Q Was it killed?
A No.
87. Q Then did it die a natural death?
A Yes.
88. Q Was the baby connected with the well?
A No.
89. Q Did the servant die a natural death?
A No.
90. Q Was she shot?
A No.
91. Q Was she poisoned?
A No.
92. Q Did you poison her?
A No.
93. Q Did Henry Dawson Bull poison her?
A Yes.
94. Q Can you give us a sign or a rap?
A No.
95. Q Will you answer some more questions?
A Yes.
96. Q Will you please wait a little as we are tired?
A Yes.
The sitting was halted for a short time, but then recommenced at 2.00am.
97. Q Are you still there?
A Yes.
98. Q Have you a pet name?
A Yes.
99. Q Will you please tell us your Christian name?
A Yes.
100. Q Will you please spell it out?
A Yes.
101. Q Will you please start?
A Jane.
102. Q Is it Jane?
A No.
103. Q Is it Janet?
A No.
104. Q Will you please give us the fifth letter?
A N.
105. Q And the next?
A (Three times through the alphabet).
106. Q Is your name Janen?
A Yes.
107. Q Will you tell us your maiden surname?
A (Uncertain).
108. Q Will you spell it?
A (Uncertain).
109. Q Do you remember it?
A No.
110. Q Do you find it difficult to communicate in this room?
A No.
111. Q Would another part of the house be easier?
A No.
112. Q Is there too much light?
A No.
113. Q Is there anything we can do to make it easier?
A No.
114. Q Is the fire too bright?
A No.
115. Q Do you meet your son Harry Bull?
A Yes.
116. Q Is he happy?
A No.
117. Q Has he money troubles?
A (Uncertain).
118. Q Are there money troubles?
A (Uncertain).
119. Q Did he die in this house?
A Yes.
120. Q Did he die a natural death?
A No.
121. Q Was he poisoned?
A Yes.
122. Q Do you know who poisoned him?
A No.
123. Q Are you sure?
A (Uncertain).
124. Q Did his wife poison him?
A No.
125. Q Do you think you know?
A (Uncertain).
126. Q Did you rather we did not ask these questions?
A Yes.
127. Q Are you certain you would like light, Mass, prayer, etc. in the kitchen?
A Yes (very decided).
128. Q Can we help you in any other way?
A No.
129. Q Can we stop now?
A Yes.
130. Q Can we talk with you tomorrow?
A Yes.
131. Closing comment by the sitters: 'Good night and thank you'.
Once again, the writer feels that there is a tangle of contacts, of which two are rather interesting. One is very probably Mrs Caroline Sarah Bull, Henry Dawson Bull's wife, who died in 1914.
The other suggests strongly in places, not Henry's or Harry's wife, but Harry Bull's stepdaughter Miss Brackenbury! Since Miss Brackenbury would presumably have still been alive in 1937, at the time of the experiments, one may well wonder why she should respond to questions put to entities in Borley Rectory.
A good many people interested in spiritualist activities think that if such responses are genuine they can come only from persons who are dead, but I am not at all sure.
Is it not possible, for example, that if something untoward has occurred in one house, an 'atmosphere' built from the lives of occupants who then move elsewhere remains present in the old abode, along with an ability to respond to, or communicate with, people who come afterwards?
After Harry Bull's death in 1927, Ivy Bull left the Rectory and her daughter would either have gone with her, or if old enough gone her own separate way. One important link here, between Ivy Bull's daughter and Borley Rectory, is that relations between Harry Bull and his Catholic stepdaughter were said to be so bad that he is alleged to have struck her.
Her time at Borley Rectory could not have been happy under such circumstances and as the Rectory already had an unpleasant atmosphere, probably as a result of a misfortune in connection with the maid and a child, and not forgetting the details about Harry Bull's will, then the potential unhappiness of Miss Brackenbury would have pervaded the place as well, and very probably remained after she had left.
Once again we come across appeals for Mass, light, etc., which are chiefly Catholic symbols. The matter of a baby and an incident in the Rectory kitchen crops up again, but if there was an appeal for help from an entity, then it's unlikely to have been Kate Boreham, for she and her husband Walter would have been Protestants.
Miss Brackenbury, however, was a Catholic. One might well ask whether she could have discovered something about the Rectory kitchen that disturbed her. The reader is reminded that after Harry Bull's death, a half-empty bottle of 'sugar of lead' was discovered in the house. If true, then it is surely possible that Miss Brackenbury might have discovered that same bottle earlier in a cupboard in the kitchen.
It doesn't require much thought to picture just such an occurrence, at which point Harry Bull might even have snatched the bottle away and consigned it to the Rectory cellars, locking the access door after him.
That anybody finding such a substance in the kitchen would not query its presence there is inconceivable, but if Harry Bull had knowledge of what the bottle of 'sugar of lead' meant, then for him to be faced with its discovery by his stepdaughter would probably have aroused something akin to panic!
There is, however, another suggestion. Given that relations between Harry Bull and his stepdaughter were bad, there is the possibility, however appalling the idea might be, that she poisoned him out of hatred, the instrument of the deed being disposed of in the cellar by her, or discovered by her mother who hid it, realising what her daughter had done, and of course trying to shield her daughter from an accusation of murder.
How can we tie these possibilities in with the answers from the table-tipping sessions?
I believe that the answers to questions 65 to 67 probably came from Mrs Caroline Sarah Bull, Henry's wife. Numbers 68 to 69 suggest Miss Brackenbury, though there is a third personality that we will consider.
Numbers 70 to 74 bring us back to Caroline Bull, troubled by some knowledge of the episode of the maid and the baby. Questions and answers 76 to 79 once again suggest M
iss Brackenbury, but numbers 80 to 93 must surely revolve around Caroline Sarah Bull, because between herself and Miss Brackenbury, Caroline would surely have been more likely to know the true extent of any such episode than Miss Brackenbury?
It should, however, be remembered that there was an overlap, because Miss Brackenbury would have come to Borley in 1911, when her mother Ivy married Harry Bull. At that time, Harry's mother Caroline Sarah Bull was still alive and indeed she did not pass on until 1914.
It has also been suggested that a Catholic symbol such as a medallion of some sort might have been hidden from her stepfather by Miss Brackenbury, knowing that if he found such an article its existence in the Rectory could provoke yet another scene of unpleasantness between Harry Bull and his seemingly unwanted stepdaughter.
While recognising the shortcomings of séance material, unless backed up by other evidence, one cannot easily escape the feeling that these table-tipping results, even if only half correct, do little or nothing to counter the impression that Borley Rectory was, by the 1900s at any rate, a rather unfortunate house.
The next session was held in the Rectory later the same day, October 24, 1937, in the kitchen with Alan Cuthbert, Sidney Glanville, Roger Glanville and Mark Kerr-Pearse.
132. Q Is there anyone there?
A Yes.
133. Q Is it Henry Dawson Bull?
A Yes.
134. Q Did you know Marianne Foyster?
A No.
135. Q Did you wish to speak to her?
A No.
136. Q Did you die in the room over the library?
A Yes.
137. Q Did you die naturally?
A No.
138. Q Were you shot?
A No.
139. Q Were you poisoned?
A No.
140. Q Were you killed?
A Yes.
141. Q Can you spell it?
A LANVOISEFAIDF.
142. Q Did your son Harry Bull die naturally?
A No.
143. Q Was he killed?
A No.
144. Q Was he poisoned?
A Yes.
At this stage, the sitters failed to obtain any further replies, so they moved to a position outside the adjacent sewing room and the session continued thus:
145. Q Are you Henry Dawson Bull?
A No.
146. Q Will you please spell your name?
A Kat.
147. Q Is it Kate?
A No.
148. Q Is it Katie?
A Yes.
149. Q Were you the maid here?
A Yes.
150. Q Have you a message?