Enigma of Borley Rectory
Page 20
The Rev. Alfred Clifford Henning and his wife stand on the site of the courtyard passage. An early post-war photograph. Note the remains of the pump and the stable cottage behind the couple.
Because of the war, The Bull at Long Melford and virtually all accommodation in Sudbury was taken up by service personnel, and there were restrictions on the letting of rooms and the provision of meals. Petrol rationing was in force, making any travel for non-essential purposes difficult and travelling by train was far from comfortable.
Price, it should be recalled, lived in Sussex, so any visit to Borley involved several hours of crammed trains, air-raid alerts, queuing and slow progress, not to be taken lightly by a man in poor health.
However, things eventually began to move and the dig was begun. Price had received Captain Gregson's permission to undertake the excavations, which became a matter of some urgency by early 1943, for Gregson was offered a post abroad and was anxious to dispose of the remains of the Rectory.
Price realised that whoever purchased the ruins would most likely pull them down to salvage the bricks, mostly still in good condition and of a quality in short supply during wartime. In addition, of course, Price might have found a new owner unwilling to let him dig up his property.
Work on the excavations began on August 17, 1943, but by that time other people had turned up either to help, or to analyse what might be found. Among these were:
The Rev. A. C. Henning and his wife.
Mrs A. English, formerly Miss Beenham and Price's secretary.
Captain W. H. Gregson and two nieces.
Dr E. H. Bailey, MRCS, LRCP, a pathologist.
Mr R. F. Bailey, a barrister.
Flying Officer A. A. Creamer, DFC, LLB.
Jackson, a local labourer from Borley.
Mrs Georgina Dawson, originator of the theory about Arabella Waldegrave.
Having arrived together with some stonemasons hired by the Rector, the party first tried to find the entrance to the sealed crypt of Borley Church, Price himself hoping that some clues as to the fate of Arabella Waldegrave might lie therein. A huge slab, thought to cover the entrance to the crypt, was heaved out with a block and tackle, but beneath it they found only sand embedment and no trace of any crypt.
What they did discover, however, was that the stone was the base of a pre-Reformation altar and at some time in the past, it had been repositioned upside down. Further inspection of likely places for an entrance to the crypt was made, but for Price, this was rather a secondary point to the Rectory itself and the search for the lost crypt was, for the time being, abandoned.
Neither the crypt nor the lost Borley Church plate have so far been located. One cannot help but wonder whether, if the crypt could be discovered, so also might the lost plate. At a time when there might be a threat of the plate being stolen, by Cromwell's men for example, what better solution than to place the plate in the crypt and then seal it, hoping to retrieve it during better times.
To return to the story. Price was anxious to tackle the remains of the Rectory and so work began by clearing the area where they expected to find the shallow well tank, into which one of Price's colleagues had nearly fallen in 1927.
To Price's great surprise, the whole tank had vanished! In spite of clearing large amounts of debris and probing the ground, no trace could be found of it. So the search for it was left and Price turned his attention to one of the wells, which Jackson proceeded to empty. Up came a strange assortment of bits and pieces, including all the usual rubbish: ash, potsherds, old bricks and in this case several old wine bottles, followed by empty tins, broken glass, broken cutlery and a big brass preserving pan.
It should be remembered that Herringham owned a Rectory on this site, though he used Borley Place, and later excavation revealed traces of an even older building on the same site. One can but wonder what interesting articles might have been discarded from the old Waldegrave Rectory, the existence of which seems to be almost certain in the light of documentary evidence and later site investigations.
However, the party's next major find proved to be more recent and all were surprised when Jackson handed up a splendid cream jug, made of silver, absolutely black but otherwise quite undamaged. Later, back at Liston Rectory, Price cleaned it and later had it valued by a London silversmith, who dated it about 80 years old. How did such an article come to be buried in such fashion? Broken or worn out household junk one would expect to find, but a silver jug?
At a depth of about six feet, Jackson hit what seemed to be well bottom, because he had reached old bricks of the same type as those used at the side or body of the well shaft. These they could not break through and yet this well bottom raised something of a puzzle. Why so shallow a well? It set Price to thinking that they might have come upon merely a false bottom, but concealing what? This mystery was never answered and neither was that of the well tank.
So far as the tank was concerned, Price could only surmise that at some time during the previous few years, somebody had removed the tank, or filled it in, and bricked in the space where it had been, except that nowhere could they actually find where any replacement floor bricks had been inserted.
Some people have since suggested that Price was mistaken as to the exact position of the well tank, but it does seem a bit odd that he should fail to remember the position of something that related so strongly to some of the theories about the ghostly nun, surely the most important of all the various mysteries about the place.
Although he never mentioned having done so, Gregson could have filled in the tank, though why he should wish to obliterate all trace of its former existence is a mystery. He did report having covered over the well in the cellar because, in spite of the fact that he had locked the cellar behind him, the wooden lid that he had placed over the well was found lying some distance away. Did Gregson then fill in the well tank? If he did, we will never know.
During 1937, Sidney Glanville and Mark Kerr-Pearse, both taking duty turns as members of Price's team of watchers, did some exploratory digging in the cellar, at a point roughly beneath that of the cold spot on the first-floor landing, but without finding anything of interest. Did they fill in the tank at that time? There seems to be no valid reason why they should.
One is left with only one answer that makes any sense: either Foyster, Henning or Gregson, or perhaps somebody from the Church authorities, had the tank filled in and didn't bother to record the fact. The mystery of the well tank is one of the enigmas of Borley Rectory that seems destined to remain thus. Now, however, we return to the excavations
Having come to a halt in the small well, the group now turned its attention to the cellar passageway and it was here, at a depth of about three feet, that they found the remains that were later to lead to much argument after Price's death in 1948.
First, from out of the blue clay, came part of a jawbone. Price, at that point, didn't really know what creature it came from, but Dr E. H. Bailey, who was assisting, identified it on sight as human. Almost immediately, Jackson unearthed part of a skull, and that was clearly human. Price tells us what Dr Bailey had to say:
'The jawbone is the left mandible, with five teeth in good condition, and probably belonged to a woman. The other bone is from the left side of a human skull and is the parietal and temporal bone.'
On his return to London, Price submitted both these fragments to a well-qualified dental surgeon, Dr Leslie J. Godden for further professional appraisal on August 19,1943. The skull was in a very decayed state, due to the type of subsoil at Borley and the same was also true of the jawbone.
Initial examination of the jawbone by Dr Godden indicated that it had probably belonged to a young woman of about 30, which makes one wonder about the validity of suggestions that it belonged to the nun 'Marie Lairre' who, according to the planchette experiments, was 19 at the time of her supposed death.
Without being dismissive of Harry Price's abilities and knowledge, it does seem to me that there are aspects of the frag
ments the significance of which he may well have missed. For instance, a rather disturbing thought is that according to the death certificate, Kate Boreham of Sudbury, who died at Easter of the year named by the planchette communicator 'Katie', was 31 years of age. After all the theories about Katie, and the allegations by T. H. Hall that the whole business about Katie was nonsense, was it her skull that Price had unearthed at Borley?
Was there, after all, some accident or misfortune concerning one of Borley Rectory's servants, and if so, if it was Kate Boreham, why was the body buried in the foundations of the Rectory? If such was the case, then something else becomes possible, namely that the details on the death certificate now in St Catherine's House, Kingsway, are false! The very idea seems terrible, and yet if one looks into the social background of many wealthy families in Victorian times, then one sees why and how such a thing could happen.
Price made the point that lime-clay subsoil, like that at Borley, would tend to cause a more rapid decaying of bone than some other soils. Taking that into account, is it not possible that the bones could be less than 100 years old? One must remember that carbon dating was not available then. But requests to the Parish to have the bones exhumed from Liston churchyard would almost certainly result in a refusal.
The writer himself, early on in his researches, learned from a local resident that various folk had asked if they could dig up the bones for fresh examination, only to be told 'no'. Not that one should blame the Church authorities for refusing requests for exhumation because it would not be fair to expect them to put up with people digging up the churchyard, only to find that nothing could be proved from the bones anyway.
But what about their true age? Once again, one thinks of 'Katie'. She supposedly died in 1888. Kate Boreham of Sudbury most certainly died in that year. Could the lime-clay of Borley have caused decay at a rate which gave the appearance of an age, when found, of 100 years or more to the bone fragments that were then only 57 years old?
The writer approached the Home Office Forensic Science Service for some guidance, and they suggested approaching Professor Bernard Knight, an expert in pathology of the University of Wales, attached to Cardiff Royal Infirmary. Advised of the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the skull fragments, Professor Knight gave some valuable insight into the difficulties attached to trying to date bones. His remarks show, above all, that Price was working blind in his opinions about the bones and the ageing thereof.
Professor Knight expressed the view that Harry Price was too optimistic in terms of his accuracy in dating the bone fragments, and commented that the longer he had worked on this subject, the more he had come to realise that it is, in fact, next to impossible to get an accurate estimate of the time of death.
Another point made was that though much has been made of the effect of various kinds of soil on the decaying of bones, in practice this is an insignificant factor when it comes to trying to date bone fragments, and cannot be relied on at all. Only very acidic peaty soil has an effect more pronounced than other kinds of soil, and as the Professor demonstrated by example in his letter, even a single bone can show great variation, depending on just how it has lain in the ground. Even radio-carbon dating is fallible, and under certain chemical conditions can give a bogus result.
Taking the Professor's views into account, it does not seem possible to prove with any certainty, that the Borley skull fragments could be older than they appeared. Therefore, although the 1943 dental surgeon's report on the bone fragments provides some basis for the nun stories, Price's interpretations were much too optimistic in scientific terms.
The most likely reason for this would not be that Price was inventing evidence, but more likely he was presenting his ideas on the strength of current scientific knowledge of the subject.
Further to the bone fragment queries, I sent Professor Knight a photocopy of the dental report, with photocopies of the illustrations from The End of Borley Rectory, and he in turn passed them to Dr David Whittaker, of Cardiff University and a Doctor Godden, dental experts. The relatively poor reproduction of the photocopy limited his field of opinion about the jawbone and Doctor Godden's views on it, but he made the following points.
He was not prepared to guess the sex of the person to whom the jaw had belonged.
The root ends or pieces of the lower wisdom tooth, No. 8 in the 1943 report, looked to have completed their growth and Dr Whittaker was of the view that this suggested an age of at least 24 years and that an age of 19, the would-be age of the murdered nun, was most unlikely.
He further thought that the wear on the 1st and 2nd molar teeth indicated an age nearer 30 rather than about 20. He also asked whether there was any information as to how the bone had come to be cut or broken through the canine area, which seemingly had not been noticed by Price, and rather surprised me.
For the benefit of readers, the complete report is reproduced here. It makes rather interesting reading, not least in respect of the allegedly miserable expression on the face of the nun when seen by witnesses.
REPORT ON EXTERNAL APPEARANCE OF JAW
General. The fragment consists of all the left side of the lower jaw from and including the distal wall of the left canine socket. All the appropriate teeth are present, viz., first and second premolars, first, second and third molars. The professional method of writing these is 45678. As a specimen, the condition is good, but the outer plate of the first premolar has been lost POST MORTEM.
Dental. The teeth are well formed and free from decay. A fair amount of tartar is present. 78 are slightly out of alignment owing to lack of room for 8. There is a well-marked attrition, which increases from 4 to 6, where it has destroyed the biting surface of the enamel cap, and then decreases in 7 and still more in 8. It should be remembered that 6 is the oldest tooth of the five and erupted at six years or earlier. There is some absorption of bone, particularly around 6, but not enough to indicate gross paradental disease.
Deductions. From the slenderness of the ascending ramus, and the moderate degree of development of the muscle attachments, I believe the jaw to be that of a woman. From the condition of the teeth and bone, I put the age at death at round about 30 years, with more probability of its being under than over. The diet contained a good amount of roughage and probably some finely divided grit. I cannot assess with any accuracy the age of the specimen.
REPORT ON X-RAY APPEARANCE OF JAW
Teeth. The large pulp chambers suggest the lower end of the probable range of age mentioned in the previous report. Notice the loss of the biting surface of the enamel cap in 6, and the calcific deposits in the pulp chamber. (The presence of these pulp stones, so well defined in a patient so relatively young is a point to be noted. Their presence is consistent with the chronic inflammatory condition to which the tooth was exposed - see X-ray photo.) The anterior root of 6 shows evidence of infection, very likely arising from the fact that the anterior horn of the pulp approaches very closely to the denuded biting surface of the tooth.
Bone. There is a large area below 6, and extending deep into the jaw, of infected bone. It doubtless arises by spread of infection of 6. It is extensive and indicates an infection of some severity. It is in close association with the canal, which carries the main nerve of the area.
Dr Godden sent two of the X-ray films to Price and the accompanying note reads:
'The condition indicated on both the films I have sent you, and on those I still have, could be responsible for anything from a persistent mild ache to any one or any combination of the following: a raging toothache, a persistent severe neuralgia, pain in and anterior to the ear, pain above the eye or down the side of the nose. Which of these really occurred I cannot say, but the fact that the disease is so deep-seated and is in such close association with the mandibular nerve does suggest that the owner of the bone had a good deal of pain from it.'
Interestingly enough, as Harry Price intimated in The End of Borley Rectory, the details given by Dr Godden have a good degree of co
nsistency with the nun theory in that nuns in the days of Marie Lairre, e.g. 1667, would have lived on a diet of very rough food containing quantities of stone-ground flour.
At the same time, Godden's remarks about the probable age of the person at the time of death throw the whole matter of whose bones they are right back into the ball park. We began by wondering whether, if the bones belonged to someone of about 30 years of age, they were possibly those of the elusive 'Katie', but in the light of the dentist's remarks that the person could have been considerably younger, we are brought back to that most puzzling character, the 'Borley nun'.
There remains, of course, the possibility that during the days that we associate with the story of Marie Lairre, the late 17th century, people might have aged more quickly than they do these days, owing to poor diet, lack of cures for common illnesses and bad hygiene conditions. One could therefore suggest that a nun of about 20 years of age or so, especially if exposed to hard living conditions, could look much older. This would surely be all the more likely if the young woman was suffering some illness; and of course any prolonged pain, especially in the mouth or any part of the face, would result in a very careworn look.
Digging recommenced on August 18, and during the course of that day two more unusual objects were dug up, leading in later years to more criticism of Harry Price. The artefacts were a pair of medallions, one of poor quality gold and one of copper. On the latter was, on one side, the words 'O Mary Conceived Without Sin, Pray For Us Who Have Recourse To Thee', and on the other side was an 'M' in monogram form with a pair of hearts surrounded by stars.
The little gold medallion, very badly damaged by time and corrosion, was intact enough to display very faintly the figure of the Virgin and beneath it the word 'Pax'. On the other side were more religious symbols, which included stars as on the copper medallion. Price showed both of these medallions to the Rev. Father M. J. Moriarty, of Westminster Cathedral. The copper medallion proved to be an example of the Miraculous Medal of Catherine Laboure, and briefly, the story of Catherine Laboure is: