by Harry Ludlum
Now to the 1881 Borley parish census returns, and to the same sheet that carries the information about Maria Rolf. At the bottom of that same document one finds not a Joe Miles, but Joseph Tyler.
In 1881, Joseph Tyler was the Bull family coachman and in the light of that, a possible sequence of events takes shape regarding the fate of Kate Boreham. It now becomes feasible that Kate Boreham, having become ill as a result of trying to use lead acetate as an abortifacient after being made pregnant by Henry Bull, was placed in the carriage, and Joseph Tyler detailed to drive with all speed to Sudbury and deposit the dying Kate at the house in Priory Walk.
This was probably done after dark when nobody would be about. The Rectory bell might be rung to summon Tyler from the stable cottage, he would be given his orders, and told to keep his own counsel over what he was to do. Possibly Henry Bull himself rode up on the driver's box to satisfy himself that the plan had succeeded. And there you have the hurtling carriage and the two men seated on the driver's box, another of Borley Rectory's mysteries that has puzzled the curious for years!
Although I thought for some time that Kate Boreham originated from Borley, she was born Catherine Barber in Ballingdon, Sudbury, in 1857 and married Walter Boreham at Borley Parish Church on February 19, 1876, aged 19. Henry Dawson Bull conducted the wedding and Catherine signed herself Katherine Barba, no occupation being stated. Her husband, Walter Boreham, came from Acton, Suffolk, on the other side of the River Stour.
The couple's first child was baptised by the Rev. Bull on June 4 that same year. Mrs M. M. Cook, wife of the Rector of Foxearth and Borley thought this not necessarily unusual, but she wondered about the 14th Bull child, because the registers only show 13, including Cyril Carwood Bull, who died only a few weeks after he was christened.
Mrs Cook was of the opinion that Kate was a maid to the Bull family. Kate also had other children later, and their baptisms are also recorded in Borley's registers. Her burial on Easter Day 1888 is also most certainly recorded in Borley's registers, though my doubts about the truth of this have already been noted.
Kate's first child, born so soon after her marriage, may have been by Walter Boreham out of wedlock, but the possibility that it wasn't Walter who was the father is rather obvious. Personally, I would be prepared to lay odds that Kate Boreham was employed by the Bulls at Borley Rectory, and that her first baby was not her husband's. I would also suggest that she became pregnant again much later, also not by her husband, and that this child was either aborted, or died at birth or soon after, and that Kate died as a result of that pregnancy and the possible use of sugar of lead in terminating it.
A Bull child, Cyril Carwood Bull, died on April 9, 1887, aged only 16 weeks, but there is no evidence to link Cyril with Kate.
I would now offer the following conclusion:
Kate Boreham, who came from Sudbury and who married an Acton man, the couple moving to Borley, was at some time between 1881 and 1888 employed at Borley Rectory as a maid to the Bull family.
At some time during 1887, she may have been involved in an affair with Henry Dawson Bull and became pregnant.
Either she took or was given sugar of lead in a vain attempt to induce abortion, and this failed, Kate giving birth to a child that either died at birth or soon after, or perhaps was born dead as the result of the lead acetate. Kate herself also died as a result of this episode, and to cover up a possible scandal, she was removed to a house in Sudbury and an inexperienced doctor then gave 'cerebritis' as the cause of death.
It is my opinion that the death of Kate Boreham, while in the employ of the Bulls, was the root of some of the psychic disturbances at Borley Rectory, and that there was an attempt by Katie's spirit to reveal to the sitters at the séances, during 1937, the truth of her demise.
CHAPTER 22
The Screaming Girl Mystery
We now come to the alleged incident of a young girl seen not long after the building of the Rectory, clinging to the outside sill of an upstairs window and screaming for help, only to lose her grip and fall to her death.
It was explained earlier that for Harry Price, at least, the incident was of dubious feasibility and Price himself showed no further interest in the alleged occurrence, beyond saying that he had found no evidence to validate the story.
However, let me attempt to do so.
Consider the possibility that some kind of incident did, in fact, occur, with apparently tragic consequences. Who could she have been? It seems, from all available records, that the Bull girls can be eliminated, for there is no evidence to suggest that any of them were ever the victim of any such tragedy. That leaves the following possibilities:
1. A possible visitor to the Rectory killed in an accident.
2. A household servant caught up in similar circumstances.
3. A victim of an assault by a person in the Rectory.
4. A youngster engaged in some stupid prank.
5. A suicide.
One answer may be that it was an incident involving a household maid. The victim was said to have been seen dangling from the window of the Blue Room. If the occurrence did involve a maid, what would she have been doing in the Blue Room in the first place? Perhaps she had to clean the upstairs rooms of the Rectory, and in the case of the Blue Room, its window, since it was not accessible from outside.
As the writer has already intimated, Harry Price stated quite clearly that he could find no evidence to vindicate the claim, but I thought the alleged incident deserved a fresh look. I tried to locate coroner's records for the Sudbury area, but without success.
I have already suggested the remote possibility of a suicide, but if this is what happened, who was it and, of course, why?
The gutted Rectory after the fire of February 1939.
Let us just suppose that this incident did occur. One could imagine various scenarios. Suppose some young woman having an affair with Henry Bull discovered his involvement with Katie Boreham, and was driven to suicide because of his betrayal. This resonates with the theory of the supposedly betrayed bride-to-be of Henry Waldegrave, in connection with the many theories of the nun of Borley.
Another possibility is that such an incident of a woman falling to her death from one of the windows was seen, but what the witness saw, was a ghostly re-enactment of a tragedy that occurred in the old Rectory that stood there prior to the Herringham house. Remember the figure seen standing at the burned-out opening of the Blue Room window not long after the fire, at a spot where no mortal body could be standing because the floor had been burned away?
Was this incident, mentioned by Price in passing, a true occurrence, or was it just a local story, which would be the most obvious answer to Price being unable to find evidence to vindicate it?
CHAPTER 23
The Seances
The subject of séances, as a means of obtaining information from persons who are presumed to be dead, remains highly controversial. Notwithstanding this, the séance has for a very long time been a popular method of obtaining allegedly posthumous information.
Borley Rectory, during the latter years of its extraordinary existence, was the setting for various séances, and as they relate to the history of the Rectory and the site on which it stood, some of the results are given in this chapter.
Many investigators have warned of the dangers of taking séance material at face value without cross-checking it with documentary evidence. But I think the Borley séance results provide clues to a possible answer to the mystery. These clues are often scattered and sometimes fragmentary, but there is a strange feedback from some of them, as I found during my consultations with several archive establishments, conventual orders, etc.
One of the first séances recorded at Borley Rectory was on the night of June 12, 1929, under the auspices of Harry Price and in the presence of the Rev. Guy Smith and his wife, both of whom took part. The party assembled in the Blue Room on the first floor.
Some of the questions asked of the planchette were later
recorded by Sidney Glanville in the Locked Book and are reproduced as follows:
Q Is that Harry Bull?
A Yes.
Q Are you happy?
A No.
Q Do you mind Mr and Mrs Smith being here?
A No.
Q Is there money trouble?
A Yes.
Q Were you killed?
A Yes.
That Harry Bull should appear to have responded, post mortem, to such questions is perhaps not altogether unexpected in the light of what we now know about him and his life. The question as to the method of his dying seems to have been a little risky, bordering on 'leading', but there was family talk among the Bull sisters about their brother Harry having been poisoned.
Others since have suggested that he might have taken his own life. I have already detailed the upsets that are apparent by reading between the lines of Harry's life, regarding his marriage to Ivy Brackenbury and the departure from the Rectory of his sisters in 1920, as well as the matter of his will.
Another point about this séance is that, according to Mabel Smith, Harry Price surprisingly reported having seen the figure of Harry Bull standing behind Guy Smith during this séance. One possibly relevant point here is that Harry Bull had died in that same room, two years earlier, in June 1927.
Following the answers to the questions, Mr and Mrs Smith found the tone of the proceedings upsetting and asked for it to be stopped. According to Sidney Glanville, the Smiths refused to allow further séances to be held at the Rectory during the remainder of their time at Borley.
Probably the most chilling and prophetic séance connected with Borley Rectory was held, not at the Rectory itself, but in the home of Miss Helen Granville, Sidney's daughter, at Streatham on March 27, 1938, and revolved around the use of a planchette or 'psychic aid' that still arouses arguments to this day.
It is basically a heart-shaped wheeled board, about the size of a beer mat, with a pencil fitted vertically at its apex. When placed on a flat sheet of paper or any other flat writing surface, with the sitters' fingers resting lightly on its surface, it appears to move and write in response to questions put verbally.
Many people think that it merely responds to the muscular action on the part of the operators, however careful they may be, and others that it works from the subconscious thoughts of the sitters. On the other hand, there have been occasions on which the planchette appears to have genuinely responded of its own accord.
What is ironic about the session at Streatham is that it foretold the ultimate fate of the Rectory, but which subsequently came to pass through a normal incident. The planchette produced the information that the Rectory would burn that same night, but it was 11 months to the day later that it burned down. The planchette sessions, conducted by Helen Glanville and her brother Roger, went as follows:
Q Does anyone want to speak to us?
A Yes.
Q Who are you?
A Sunex Amures and one of the men (indistinct) mean to burn the rectory tonight at 9 o'clock end of haunting go to the Rectory and you will be able to see us enter in our own and under the ruins you will find bone of murdered (indistinct) wardens (not clear) under the ruins mean you to have proof of haunting of the Rectory at Borley (indistinct) the understanding of which gamenl (large full stop written) game tells the story of murder which happened there.
Q In which room will the fire start?
A Over the hall. Yes yes you must go if you want proof.
Q Why cannot you give us proof here?
A We will.
It is, perhaps, a pity that Helen and Roger did not travel down to Borley that night! For a long time many have believed that the Amures threat was carried out to the letter, but evidence strongly suggests that the Rectory was in fact deliberately set on fire by its then owner, Captain Gregson, to claim on the insurance.
An obvious question would be 'who was Sunex Amures?' A possible answer is that what the planchette may actually have written was 'Senex Taurus', which in Latin translates as 'Old Man Bull'.
To those with a belief in spiritualism, it might seem as though either Henry or Harry Bull's life at the Rectory had been so troubled that in death, either one or the other was determined to destroy the scene of the events, and to reveal as a result the truth of what had occurred.
Harry Bull has long been cited as being at the root of the Rectory's troubles but if the expression from the planchette did mean 'Old man Bull' it might not have referred to Harry, but to his father. I would repeat that there are strong indications that the Bull family's life at the Rectory seems to have gone badly wrong vis-à-vis the Katie episode, Harry Bull's will and his disapproved of marriage to Ivy Brackenbury.
Now to the séances at the Rectory using the tilting table, for which purpose a very lightweight 12" square, 2' 2" high table was constructed by Sidney Glanville. In this method of operation, the sitters place their hands very lightly on the table surface and, according to an established code, the table tips either one way or the other in response to questions put verbally.
Before going on to detail some of the results of these sessions, there is an important point to be made about the presentation of the details that shortly follow.
The details are drawn from the Harry Price Library's copy of the Locked Book, compiled by the late Sidney Glanville, the original of which was in the hands of T. H. Hall. In this publication some people's full names were omitted and shown only as initials or by a letter, followed by a blank space, because at the time of its compilation some of the people referred to were still alive, others not long dead. The results could have been distressing to those living, especially the surviving members of the Bull family.
To carry out some analysis of the séance results, I have inserted the missing full names, in the knowledge that all those originally mentioned are long since dead. Some of the Gregson family and other sitters may still be alive, but they are considered as 'operatives' and not 'subjects'.
A table-tipping session was conducted at Borley Rectory on the night of October 23, 1937, between 9.55pm and 10.30pm. The sitters were Alan Cuthbert, Roger Glanville and Mark Kerr-Pearse, and they established themselves in the kitchen passage on the ground floor, outside the sewing room.
During the sitting, especially when the rocking of the table was most rapid, all present were conscious of an 'ice cold draught' and Roger Glanville felt a sensation of being watched.
The séance ran as follows:
1. Q Is someone there?
A Yes.
2. Q Who are you, will you spell your name?
A Tfisme.
3. Q Will you please repeat?
A Tfismong (then very indistinct and uncertain).
4. Q Are you a man or a woman?
A (Uncertain).
5. Q Is your name Bull?
A No.
6. Q Is your name Foyster?
A No.
7. Q Have you lived here before?
A Yes.
8. Q What is your age?
A 91.
9. Q Have you a message for Marianne?
A No.
10. Q Have you a message for anyone here?
A No.
11. Q Have you a message?
A Yes.
12. Q Will you please spell it?
A If chant mass light erel caedo.
13. Q Is it erel caedo?
A Yes.
14. Q Is erel an abbreviation?
A Yes.
15. Q Will you please continue?
A Blarnui.
At this point the sitters stopped, mainly through tiredness, but the sitting was restarted and continued at the same location.
16. Q Is your message 'If chant mass light erel caedo blarnu ipse*?'
*See editor's note later.
17. Q What is 'erel' in full?
A Erelmno.
18. Q Do you mean 'Erelmno'?
A Yes.
19. Q Can you indicate the date you died?
A (an indistinct reply).
20. Q Have you lived in this present house before?
A Yes.
21. Q Are you Henry Bull?
A No.
22. Q Harry, Henry Foyster Bull?
A No.
23. Q Will you spell your name?
A Car.
24. Q Is it Carlos?
A Yes.
25. Q Then you are Henry Dawson Bull?
A Yes.
26. Q Did something unfortunate happen in the kitchen?
A Yes.
27. Q Did a servant girl die in your presence there?
A Yes.
28. Q Did she die a natural death?
A No.
29. Q Was she poisoned?
A (Hesitation)
30. Q Was she poisoned?
A No.
31. Q Was there a baby?
A Yes.
32. Q Do you mind these questions?
A No.
33. Q Are you sure you don't mind these questions?
A Yes.
34. Q Are you angry with us?
A No.
35. Q Can we help you?
A Yes.
36. Q Will light, mass etc help you?
A Yes.
37. Q (Asked by Mark Kerr-Pearse) Do you remember me, I've been here before?
A Yes.
38. Q Do you mind me being in the house alone?
A No.
39. Q I am staying here this week, is there any danger?
A No.
40. Q Did you write the messages on the wall?
A No.
41. Q Can you tell us who did?
A Yes.
42. Q Who was it, can you spell it out?
A Oif (then indistinct).
43. Q Is Oif correct?
A Yes.
44. Q Will you please continue?
A (indecipherable).
45. Q Was it a man?
A No.
46. Q Was it a child?
A No.
47. Q Was it a woman?
