by Harry Ludlum
582. Q Is that Henry Dawson Ellis Bull?
A Yes.
583. Q Did you build Borley Rectory?
A Yes.
584. Q Do you resent others living there?
A (Indistinct reply).
585. Q Will you please try again?
A (Indistinct reply).
586. Q Will you write one letter at a time?
A No o.
587. Q Which part of the Rectory do you like best?
A Library.
588. Q Did you send us a message in Latin?
A Yes.
589. Q Will you repeat it so that we can understand?
A Ad ... (rest uncertain).
590. Q Is 'Ad' the first word?
A Yes.
591. Q The next word please?
A (Indistinct reply).
592. Q is the message 'erel'?
A (No reply).
593. Q Can you tell us in English?
A (No reply).
594. Q Will you please repeat the whole message?
A (Indistinct reply).
595. Q Did you give us a message 'if chant light mass'?
A No.
596. Q Do you know who did?
A (Indistinct reply).
597. Q Do you wish to leave Borley?
A Yes.
598. Q Are your own past actions the cause of your being unable to leave?
A Yes.
599. Q What was that action?
A Death.
600. Q Whose?
A Katie.
601. Q What shall we do to help?
A (Indistinct reply).
602. Q Please repeat, we do not understand.
A In church.
603. Q What do you want in church?
A Light Mass prayers (one word uncertain).
604. Q Please repeat the last word, we do not understand.
A Incense.
605. Q Please continue your message.
A (Indistinct).
606. Q Please repeat carefully, we do not understand
A Get help.
607. Q Who do you want to help you?
A Glan ... (rest uncertain).
608. Q Will you repeat carefully as we wish to help you?
A Glanville.
609. Q Which one, spell name?
A Sidney.
610. Q I am not able to hold a Mass. What can I do for you, Sidney?
A Get ... (indistinct).
611. Q I do not understand, please try to tell me more clearly.
A Get a priest.
612. Q Can Father Henning help you?
A Yes.
613. Q Did you write the messages on the walls at Borley?
A Yes.
614. Q Do you want the Mass on any special day, as we wish to help you?
A Yes.
615. Q Which month?
A June.
616. Q Which day?
A 13.
617. Q Is it Henry Dawson Bull still speaking?
A Yes.
618. Q Can you tell us why you want Mass that day?
A (Indistinct reply).
619. Q Please repeat very carefully.
A My murder.
620. Q Who was murdered?
A (Indistinct reply).
621. Q Please repeat carefully and name.
A (Indistinct reply).
622. Q We cannot understand who was murdered, please tell us if you can.
A Glelegin.
623. Q Do you want us to stop?
A Yo no.
624. Q Please try to tell us the name of the person who died on June 13.
A Katie.
625. Q Please tell us the surname.
A Boreham.
626. Q Are you sure that the date June 13 is the correct date?
A (No reply).
627. Q Is there anyone else at Borley who wishes to speak to us?
A Some.
628. Q Who?
A Jane.
This section is also interesting, being very much connected with the death of Katie Boreham, but the whole episode is also rather odd, because assuming that this is Henry Dawson Bull, why, one wonders, is he seeking a Catholic Mass when he himself was a Protestant Rector?
Here again the apparent confusion over the date of Kate Boreham's death comes to light, the entity stating June 13, whereas according to her death certificate she died in March. There is, of course, still the question as to whether Kate Boreham's death certificate can be believed, in the light of correspondence with Professor Bernard Knight. And so to continue:
629. Q Can you tell us your full name, please try?
A Jane ... (Uncertain).
630. Q What comes after 'Jane'?
A (Indistinct reply).
631. Q Will you please try to tell us your surname?
A (Indistinct reply).
632. Q Please try hard to tell your surname, we are anxious to help you.
A (Indistinct reply).
633. Q Could you write one letter at a time?
A Jane Foyster.
634. Q Are you married?
A Yes.
635. Q Who did you marry?
A Henry.
636. Q Henry Dawson Bull?
A Yes.
637. Q Were you his only wife?
A Yes.
638. Q Is your name Caroline Sarah?
A Yes.
639. Q Did your husband call you Jane?
A Yes.
640. Q Were you ever called by another name?
A Yes.
641. Q What was it?
A Caldibec.
642. Q Who named you?
A (Indistinct reply).
643. Q We do not understand, please try again.
A Mother.
644. Q Do you mean your mother?
A Yes.
645. Q Is it in the Bible?
A Yes (this referred to Caldibec).
646. Q Do you know anything about the Latin message?
A (No reply).
647. Q Is Marie Lairre there, will she speak to us?
A (No reply).
648. Q Do you know anything about the Latin message?
A Yes.
649. Q Can you spell the first word?
A (Indistinct reply).
650. Q Can you write each letter alone?
A Ad ... (Uncertain).
The anomalies continue in this section, throwing up a confusing tangle over the actual identity of Henry Dawson Bull's wife, whose real name was, of course, Caroline Sarah Bull. Out of this tangle, answers 634 to 638 are basically right, and one could therefore suggest that two entities are responding, Caroline Sarah Bull being one, but who is the other? Marianne possibly ... or Miss Brackenbury?
Numbers 642 to 646 seem to be emanating from Mrs Caroline Bull. From 647 onwards, we seem to be dealing with the Rectory's elusive nun, Marie Lairre, although the results here are vague and non-committal.
We now turn to the last séance session of which a record survives in the microfilm copy of the Locked Book. This took place on the night of November 20 and 21, 1937, at the Rectory and was attended by Dr H. F. Bellamy, H. G. Harrison, Sidney Glanville and Roger Glanville.
The results proceeded as follows:
651. Q Is anybody there? (marked tipping)
A (No reply).
652. Q Who is there?
A (Indistinct reply).
653. Q Please try again.
A (No reply).
654. Q Can we speak to Harry Bull?
A (No reply).
655. Q Is Harry there?
A Yes.
656. Q Please try again.
A (Indistinct reply).
657. Q Is it Harry?
A Yes.
658. Q Will you tap, to show your presence, at 10 o'clock on your bedroom door?
A Yes ('Y' reversed, 'es' upturned).
659. Q Who ordered that the window should be bricked up?
A Henry.
660. Q Why?
/>
A Nun.
661. Q Do you know of the finding of the skull in the library cupboard?
A Yes.
662. Q Whose skull is it, do you know?
A (no reply).
663. Q From where did it come?
A B ... (then indistinct).
664. Q Would you write each letter separately?
A BURES (written upside down).
665. Q Do you know that the windows here light up?
A Yes.
666. Q Can you tell us who does it?
A Ma ...
667. Q Separate letters please.
A MarieLa ...
668. Q Do you mean Marie Lairre?
A (Indistinct reply).
669. Q Please try again.
A Yes.
670. Q Is that the nun?
A Yes.
671. Q Will the windows light tonight?
A Yes.
672. Q What time?
A 12.
673. Q Which window?
A SCHOOLROOM.
674. Q Can you use this board? (Dr Bellamy's board now in use).
A Yes.
675. Q Thank you. Shall we see the window alight?
A Ye ...
676. Q Who is there?
A Henry.
677. Q Is this room a tragic one for you? (referring to the library).
A (Indistinct reply).
678. Q Will you please try again?
A V.
679. Q Was a woman the cause?
A Yes.
680. Q What was her name?
A Katie ... (then indistinct).
681. Q We do not understand, please repeat.
A (Indistinct reply).
We have now reached the point where we can stand back from the séances and assess their role and any possible value in the overall story of the Rectory and the many stories and theories about its existence and its past.
Remembering the dictum of not relying on séance material without other more credible evidence, it is interesting to look at the results in the light of information public records, which I am still convinced supports the validity of many of the ghostly happenings at Borley Rectory.
Those same public records in many cases reveal that Price was so often closer to the truth of things than he himself could have known, but it should be remembered that Price was a psychic researcher, not a historian. Had he taken the historical aspects of the case further, he might well have been able to assemble more readily provable material in an addition to his own work.
In reality, perhaps the biggest tragedy of the story of the Borley investigations was Price's untimely death in 1948. Had he lived to commence his planned third Borley monograph, he might have properly capped the story from a historical point of view.
When we turn to the murder of Kate Boreham, whose possible role in the story of the Rectory has so often been ignored by the critics, one only has to set the séance results against what has been discovered from public records, and from professional medical opinion, to see that many of the responses gained by the sitters at Borley Rectory justify themselves. Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that by no means all of the theories about Katie can be proved conclusively.
Similarly, there are clear indications in the séance results of the closeness to what has been discovered in public archives in respect of the lives of the two Bull rectors, Henry and Harry.
The evidence of Henry Bull's death from a syphilis-related disease, and of his son's lack of impact on his early clerical duties, and the obvious 'atmosphere' in the family over Harry's marriage and his will, speak for themselves!
The one area where the séance results tend to remain very much a mystery is where they relate to the nun, and the possibilities as to her true identity and her ultimate fate.
It is curious that the contact from one of the supposed entities should so closely resemble the name Joanne or Joanna; curious also that Joanna proves to have been a Waldegrave, Abbess Theodosia of Brussels.
Not only that but Sister Joanna belongs to the same period in history as the young woman supposedly murdered at Borley in 1667. Only the fact that Joanna lived after this date stops her from being one of the prime candidates for being the Borley Nun.
But when one looks at the association between the persecution of Sir Edward Waldegrave and the existence of a great-granddaughter he was never to live to see, then one sees where a very likely possibility lies.
The question will probably always remain ... was Barbara Waldegrave, daughter of Sir Nicholas of Borley, the real Borley nun, and if so, why did she haunt the site of the Rectory for so long?
In the matter of the fire that destroyed the Rectory in 1939, the séances were indeed prophetic, and yet they leave unanswered as many questions as they pose in this particular instance. To this day it is impossible to positively identify 'Sunex Amures', although it could have been either Henry or Harry Bull ... 'Senex Taurus' ... Old Man Bull.
If so, then the supposed entities that seemed to want someone to be there to see the truth revealed when the Rectory was destroyed, came closer than they knew to the episode of Katie Boreham, at which point the name Senex Taurus would make sense, whereas Sunex Amures is a riddle!
I am firmly of the opinion that the troubles of the Bull family and the fate of Katie Boreham were inextricably linked.
It would be too much to expect a series of séances to provide the entire solution to the historical aspects of the Borley hauntings, and indeed not only did Harry Price warn of the dangers of taking séance material at face value, but he also openly stated that several of the Borley séance responses were contrary to known facts.
However, I am convinced that, despite some obvious shortcomings, the seances do provide several very telling pointers to Borley Rectory's stormy history and that of the site on which it was built.
CHAPTER 24
Some Views from Contemporaries
In compiling this work about the enigma of Borley Rectory, I have sought the opinions of others familiar with the story. One person who has been in direct contact with almost everything pertaining to Borley Rectory for many years is Mr Alan H. Wesencraft, head of the Harry Price Library at the London University, in whose capable hands has rested the care of Price's books and files since 1956, when he took over from the previous librarian.
Oddly enough, Mr Wesencraft's views on the Borley case have really never been published, except for a brief comment in the Hastings' report, and so I asked him for his own thoughts on the Borley saga. He writes (June 10, 1985):
'I first met Harry Price in 1937 when he was negotiating for the acceptance by the University of his gift of his superb library. He used to come to see Mr Rye, the Librarian, and while waiting in the corridor of the University building at South Kensington, he would often talk to me about his work.
I can't remember very much but my impression is that he was sincere, devoted to his work and liked to talk about it to anyone who cared to listen. I do remember that he told me that Psychic News was by far the best of the Spiritualist journals.
When World War II came, I was out of touch with the University for seven long years, i.e. two years in full-time Civil Defence, five years in the Army. I had heard of his success with the Borley Rectory haunts but unfortunately never met Mr Price after the war, for he died in 1948.
Of course I had read all Price's books, which came out before the war and many of his magazine articles, but it was not until I was appointed Curator of the Harry Price Library in 1956 that I started to read all the rest of his works.
Borley Rectory fascinated me (as indeed it does everybody) and I thought the story and Price's presentation of it had a certain ring of truth. On studying the enormous Borley dossier in the HPL, I realised that a case could be made against Price on the grounds of exaggeration and possible distortion of evidence. For example, he admits in a letter to a friend that Mrs Foyster was probably faking some of the phenomena, but this is not mentioned in his books.
The criticism of Price's books on Borley, which was published by the Society for Psychical Research in 1956, is very much a case for the prosecution and needed a suitable rejoinder and this was provided by the excellent study by Mr Hastings some years later, also published by the SPR.
I met Mr Hastings who worked for a time in the HPL and during the many conversations I had with him I came to realise there was much to be said on Mr Price's behalf. Mr Hastings' report did indeed redress the balance and I realised that the Borley story cannot be dismissed as a journalistic stunt. Many people have reached the same conclusion.
For example, Mr James Turner, who lived for a time in the coachman's cottage adjacent to the ruined rectory, assured me there was definitely something very mysterious about the place. I have discussed the matter with him and also with Mr Peter Underwood, who is of the same opinion.
I may add I have visited Borley on many occasions and have succumbed to its charm, though I have never experienced any psychic manifestations there, apart from the extraordinary stillness that pervades the location.'
That then is Mr A. H. Wesencraft's view of the Borley story and Price's role in it. There are one or two points I would like to make by way of addition.
There is evidence to suggest, especially with regard to some of the accusations of exaggeration against Price, that some of these errors occurred through his writing some of the text of his books from memory, and indeed Robert J. Hastings points out in his report that Price was inclined to a certain carelessness in his writing.
It is worth remembering, however, that at one stage Price was also without a secretary who could have checked his files for him.
Mr Wesencraft's point about the Foyster phenomena is probably down to the change in Price's view of Marianne as a result of the findings of his chief associate, Sidney Glanville. At the time of the wine-into-ink episode, Price felt that Marianne Foyster was indeed faking phenomena. That was in 1931.
By 1939 he had received Sidney Glanville's findings, which gradually caused him to change his opinion of Marianne and this had, of course, a considerable bearing on the way in which he eventually presented the Foyster period in his later book.
Another view of the Borley story is offered by one of the co-authors of the book on the more recent and well-known Enfield Poltergeist case, Mr Guy Lyon Playfair, who kindly agreed to contribute a précis of his thoughts on the Borley Rectory episode and Harry Price's role in it. Mr Playfair writes:
'The Borley saga is a classic instance of the great difficulty in researching any field of the so-called paranormal. Vigorously defended by Harry Price, equally vigorously attacked by Dingwall, Goldney and Hall, what is the jury member to decide?
