Enigma of Borley Rectory
Page 30
A Yes.
151. Q Will you please spell it out?
A Light Mass erslre.
At this point replies ceased again for a while, but the sitters pressed on once again:
152. Q Are you there?
A Yes.
153. Q Are you Henry Dawson Bull?
A No.
154. Q Are you Katie?
A No.
155. Q Are you Caldibec?
A Yes.
156. Q Are you Henry Dawson Bull's wife?
A Yes.
157. Q Have you a message for us?
A Yes.
158. Q Will you spell it out?
A Ainrric (then no more).
159. Q Are you there?
A (No answer).
160. Q Are you there?
A Yes.
There was another break in the replies at this stage, but they then continued:
161. Q Are you tired?
A Yes.
162. Q Shall we stop?
A Yes.
163. Q Is your power gone?
A Yes.
164. Q Do you wish to rest?
A Yes.
165. Q May we return later?
A Yes (weak).
166. Q Had we better go to another part of the house?
A Yes.
167. Q Upstairs?
A Yes.
168. Q Landing?
A No.
169. Q End bedroom?
A Yes.
170. Q Is Henry Dawson Bull there?
A Yes (definitely).
171. Q Are you certain you are tired?
A Yes.
Goodbye and thank you.
This session ended at 9.44pm, but they began again at 10.20pm in bedroom number seven, and continued until 2.00am, by which time they had moved to the landing outside the Blue Room. The sitting was held in darkness, and continued as follows:
172. Q Are you there?
A Yes.
173. Q Will you please spell who you are?
A (Reply unintelligible).
174. Q Have you a message?
A Get ... (then indistinct).
175. Q Have you difficulty in communicating with us?
A Yes.
176. Q Is there too much light?
A Yes (moon then shining into room).
177. Q Would the passage be easier?
A Yes.
178. Q If we go there will you give us a message?
A Yes.
179. Q Are you Harry Bull?
A Yes.
The sitters then moved into the 'passage', or more correctly, on to the landing outside the Blue Room and continued:
180. Q Are you there?
A Yes.
181. Q Is that Harry Bull?
A Yes.
182. Q Have you a message for us?
A Yes.
183. Q Will you please spell it out?
A Mifor ... (then indistinct).
184. Q Do you mean misfortune?
A Yes.
185. Q Will you continue?
A Awife.
186. Q Do you mean your wife?
A Yes.
187. Q Did you die in this house?
A Yes.
188. Q Did you die in the room we left?
A Yes.
The reader will recall that both Henry and Harry Bull died in the Blue Room.
189. Q Did you die naturally?
A No.
190. Q Were you poisoned?
A (Uncertain answer).
191. Q Were you poisoned?
A Yes.
192. Q Were you poisoned by your wife?
A Yes.
193. Q Was your wife with you when you died?
A No.
194. Q Can we help?
A Yes.
195. Q Have you a message?
A Yes.
196. Q Will you please spell it out?
A Ask ...
197. Q Do you mean Ask?
A Yes.
198. Q Will you please continue?
A Marr.
199. Q Do you mean Marianne?
A Yes.
200. Q Will you please continue?
A Mass.
201. Q The next word please?
A Ligh.
202. Q Do you mean light?
A Yes.
203. Q What sort of light. Candles?
A Yes.
204. Q As in a Roman Catholic church?
A Yes.
205. Q Will you please continue?
A Pr &
206. Q Do you mean prayer?
A Yes.
207. Q Will you please continue?
A Get &
208. Q Do you mean get?
209. Q Will you please continue?
A Cha ...
210. Q Do you mean chant?
A Yes.
211. Q Is that all?
A Yes.
212. Q Did you give us a message last night?
A Yes.
213. Q In Latin?
A Yes.
214. Q Was it caedo blarnu ipse?
A Yes.
215. Q Was there any more?
A Yes.
216. Q Will you please continue?
A Isiaceai ... (then indistinct).
The sitters broke for a meal in the library base room at this point, so let us now examine what we have.
The tangle of contacts persists through this session, as in the previous ones.
Questions and answers 132 to 139 seem to be fairly straightforward, and can probably be taken to centre on Henry Dawson Bull.
Question 140 and its answer constitute something of a puzzle because they could relate to either Harry or Henry Bull, but the most curious response among this particular group comes in number 141.
'Lanvoisefaidf' seems a ridiculous and irrelevant non-entity, but if one takes another look at it, something interesting reveals itself. The curious response may have been an attempt to produce the simple words 'Lionel Algernon Foyster', a mixed up contact like the word 'Oif' from an earlier session.
But if the words were meant to be 'Lionel Algernon Foyster', then they could hardly be anything to do with Henry Dawson Bull who died in 1892, long before a Foyster had anything to do with Borley Rectory as a resident, but this could be connected with Harry Bull.
Harry Bull lived until 1927 and Lionel and Marianne Foyster came to Borley in 1924, during the course of a short holiday from Canada, a fact very rarely mentioned. That members of the Bull family came to know the Foysters during this visit to Borley is clear from various comments made by the Bull sisters later, including telling Sidney Glanville that they thought Marianne to be a little beast!
Questions and answers 142 to 144, from the tone of the replies, seem to relate once again to Henry Dawson Bull, while numbers 145 to 149 obviously relate to Kate, or Katie Boreham, but in answers 150 and 151 we are back to a Catholic basis again, which means either Sir Edward Waldegrave, the nun or Miss Brackenbury, with the most likely choice being either Miss Brackenbury or Sir Edward.
Numbers 152 to 160 show all the signs of having come from Mrs Caroline Sarah Bull, Henry Bull's wife, but the expression 'Ainrric' in the answer to 158 does not respond to dissection, unless it is again a mix up of part of the name Marianne. If it is, then that tends to cancel out Caroline Sarah Bull. All very confusing, irrespective of whether one accepts the idea of table-tipping as a means of communication with the dead or not.
Numbers 161 to 171 can be viewed as probably relating to Henry Dawson Bull, while 172 to 199 strongly indicate Harry Bull, with a possible link to Marianne.
In 200 to 216, a Catholic entity has seemingly broken through again, but this time the contact is very broken and fragmentary. Could this be the nun?
One could suggest the passage of time might weaken any genuine spiritual contact, especially after 300 or 400 years, even after 200 years; but if that is the case, we could still be dealing with the unfortunate Sir Edward Waldegrave.
But to continue with the séance:
217. Q Are you Henry Dawson Bull?
A No.
218. Q Are you Harry Bull?
A Yes.
219. Q Was 'Ceai' correct?
A Yes.
220. Q Was it Latin?
A Yes.
221. Q The next letter please?
A H (T)? K (one only) ADSEIHVESAB (indistinct).
222. Q Are you Harry Bull?
A Yes.
223. Q Was your message a legal one?
A No.
224. Q Did you write the messages?
A No.
Then there followed a lot of rather inconsequential and meaningless material, together with repeats of answers given to the earlier questions. This can safely be ignored, and we can continue with the following:
225. Q Has the kitchen anything to do with the misfortune in this house?
A Yes.
226. Q Was your father the cause of the trouble?
A Yes.
227. Q Has there been any other cause for the trouble?
A Yes.
228. Q Concerning yourself?
A Yes.
Questions and answers 225 to 228 echo loudly the Katie story and the later years of Harry Bull's life, reinforcing the belief expressed over the years that an illegitimate child was born to Katie Boreham by a prominent member of the Bull family, often believed to be Harry, but the possibility that it was his father Henry keeps coming to the surface.
The next few questions centred on the story of the nun and whether or not the kitchen had anything to do with her, to which the response was 'No'.
The next stage to be examined starts with:
229. Q Was your wife the cause of the present trouble?
A No.
230. Q Did it start with your father?
A No.
231. Q Was it before his time?
A Yes.
232. Q Was it long before his time?
A No.
233. Q A previous Rector?
A Yes.
234. Q In a previous house?
A No.
235. Q In this house?
A Yes.
Assuming that it was still Harry Bull who was producing the contact, the foregoing details are contradictory!
If the problems of the Rectory originated with a previous rector to the Bulls, they could not have occurred in the Rectory, because prior to the arrival of Henry Bull in 1862, Borley Rectory as we know it did not exist, Borley Place on the opposite side of the road being used as the Rectory.
Borley Place, owned by the Bull family and once used as a rectory
However, the previous rector, John Herringham, did have a rectory on the same site, a house which by all accounts he didn't use. So, was Harry Bull referring to events occurring in Borley Rectory as an establishment rather than specifically his father's own rectory.
Curious indeed, and it suggests that for perhaps the first time some attention ought to be directed to the time of the Herringham Rectorship, with the obvious question: Why did he use Borley Place and not the old Rectory?
Readers may recall my hypothetical question as to whether the Herringham rectory could have been haunted in the same way as Borley Rectory was?
But we must press on:
236. Q Did your father build this house?
A Yes (faint).
237. Q This house is supposed to be haunted. Was it haunted before your father's time?
A (No reply).
In question 237 the sitters themselves have made the mistake about the existence of the house before Harry's father's time, thereby rendering the question invalid, though as the question was not responded to, it does not really make any difference in this instance. The next question did make sense:
238. Q Was it haunted during his time?
A Yes.
239. Q Did your father see the nun?
A Yes.
240. Q Has the nun left now?
A No.
241. Q Is she happy here?
A No.
242. Q Can we help her?
A Yes.
243. Q By a service?
A No.
244. Q By a Christian burial?
A Yes.
245. Q Is she in the garden?
A Yes (very definite).
246. Q Shall we see her?
A No.
247. Q Is she near the house?
A Yes.
248. Q Is anyone buried in the garden?
A Yes (definite).
249. Q Has there been a burial in the garden in your time?
A No.
250. Q Has anyone been buried in the garden?
A Yes.
251. Q Only the nun?
A Yes.
252. Q No one else?
A No.
253.Q Is she buried under the house?
A No.
Answer 253 is very odd, because the 1943 excavations proved that somebody was most certainly buried underneath the cellar of Borley Rectory, and that some individual's remains now rest in the churchyard at nearby Liston.
But to continue:
254. Q Near the house?
A Yes.
255. Q Could we find her?
A Yes.
256. Q Is she deeply buried?
A No.
257. Q Is she buried near the summer house?
A No.
258. Q On the east of the house?
A No.
259. Q On the north side of the house?
A No.
260. Q On the south of the house?
A Yes.
261. Q On the west of the house?
A Yes.
262. Q On the south-west of the house?
A Yes (definite).
263. Q Is she buried under trees?
A Yes.
264. Q Is she buried in a coffin?
A No.
265. Q Is she buried under a stone?
A No.
266. Q Is she buried under a cedar tree?
A No.
267. Q Is she buried near the low brick wall?
A No.
268. Q Is she near the path by the south-west of the house?
A Yes.
269. Q Is she buried near the path?
A Yes.
270. Q Has she ever been found?
A No.
271. Q Is she buried within two yards of the path?
A Yes.
272. Q Is she buried near the greenhouse?
A No.
273. Q Is she buried near the stables?
A No.
274. Q Is she buried near the earthen bowl by the lawn?
A No.
275. Q Is she buried near the small pond?
A No.
276. Q Is she buried under a tree within two yards of the path?
A Yes.
277. Q Is she buried under a large tree?
A Yes.
278. Q Can you spell the name of the tree?
A Yes (then out of control).
279. Q Do you know the kind of tree?
A Yes
280. Q Can you spell its name?
A Fi.
281. Q Is 'fir' correct?
A Yes.
282. Q Within two yards of a fir tree?
A Yes.
283. Q Is the fir tree a large one?
A Yes.
284. Q Is the fir tree near the vine by the corner of the house?
A Yes.
285. Q Are you certain?
A Yes (definite).
286. Q Shall we have difficulty finding the tree?
A Yes.
287. Q Has it been cut down?
A (No reply).
288. Q Would she like us to look for her?
A Yes.
289. Q If we look for her, shall we find her?
A Yes.
290. Q Is she buried in the garden?
A Yes (definite).
291. Q Is she buried fairly nea
r the greenhouse?
A Yes.
292. Q Is she buried more than three feet deep?
A No.
293. Q Is she buried under a small stone with B on it in the path?
A Yes.
294. Q Are you certain she is under the stone?
A Yes (definite).
At that stage, the sitters broke off for supper and Alan Cuthbert went to bed. The time was 12.20am.
According to the microfilm copy of the Locked Book, this break in the session was recorded by Glanville on page 144, where he informs us that the break lasted until 1.40am, but the next page, 145, picks up the session not at 1.40am but at 4.15am, a session which is treated as a new one by Glanville. What, one wonders, has become of the questions and answers that presumably arose during the period from 1.40am to 4.15am?
I cannot but wonder whether the Locked Book's contents have been laundered.
A search through The Most Haunted House in England reveals no answer, because of course although Harry Price included a large part of the séance results, he didn't include all of it, for various reasons.
The times indicated by Sidney Glanville strongly suggest that at some time between 1.40am, when they presumably finished their supper, and say about 3.45am or 4.00am (allowing for another short break before the 4.15am session started) they must have picked up on and completed the session that had begun at 10.20pm that night.
However, at the beginning of the typed record of that session, the times are given as from 10.20pm to 2.00am. This partly explains the course of events, so that what we now have is the following:
Start 10.20pm.
Break 12.20am
Continue 1.40am
Finish 2.00am.
... but, the details of the period from 1.40am to 2.00am are still missing!
The entity replying to 236 could only be Harry Bull, while 237 was an invalid question.
Harry Bull answers again to questions 238 and 239.
From here on, the most obvious subject of the answers is of course Marie Lairre, the supposed Borley Nun. But who is answering questions numbered 240 to 294? As the previous questions seem almost certain to have been answered by Harry Bull, the natural assumption would be that he is also answering questions about the nun as well.
But would the fate of a dead Catholic nun be of any concern to a Protestant rector? But if not Harry Bull, could it be Edward Waldegrave or Miss Brackenbury (Harry's stepdaughter), both of whom were Catholic?
The idea of Edward Waldegrave has certain attractions, but there is a problem. Edward Waldegrave died in 1561. The Borley nun is alleged to have died in 1667. Could the spirit of one dead person be conscious of the fate of another who dies a century later? If so, this could suggest that spirits attain a universal and parallel time zone, irrespective of the era of their physical existence as living people, which may concentrate the minds of the thinkers of the spiritualist world.
There is also in this proposition another, which is that our whole existence and what comes after is a set of dimensions. There are three dimensions of every solid object, while the fourth dimension is time, which is of man's invention. So is the afterlife, with its survival of the spirit, the fifth dimension?