CHAPTER NINE
Suffolk: Another Murder?
Rumors of murder weave themselves through the Borley legend over the centuries. The monk and the nun were allegedly murdered after trying to elope. Harry Bull was supposedly poisoned by his wife. A servant by the name of Kate Boreham was rumored to have died while attempting to give birth to Henry Bull's child. Bull, in turn, was subsequently murdered by his jealous wife. Many of the murder stories came about as the results of various seances.
Trevor Hall researched the subject thoroughly and decided "it is extremely improbable that any murders took place at all during the Bull incumbencies, despite the widely held belief that they did."(1)
Even with this in mind, Hall was only days into his five-year investigation of Marianne when he hit upon the theme she murdered Lionel. His research began under this mysterious cloud of suspicion:
An ugly rumour about Mrs. Foyster had been brought to the attention of Mrs. K. M.Goldney, the organising secretary of the Society for Psychical Research, on 8 February 1950 by Mrs. Gay Taylor of . . .Chelsea, London. Mrs. Taylor had become interested in Borley during the winter of 1946-47 after reading Price's second book, and had held sittings with a glass and alphabetical letters in company with her friend and former neighbor Mrs. Norman Parkinson. During these sittings, in which for some reason the Society appeared to take no interest whatsoever, a number of spontaneous and violently abusive comments about Mrs. Foyster had been made which had no connexion with the leading questions asked by the sitters relating to the Borley nun.(2)
The sittings were "interrupted" with references to things not asked. The "spirit" claimed responsibility for giving Marianne a black eye, and the sitters asked him why. "Out of cruelty" was his first response, and then he replied, "loathing." When asked directly why he hated Marianne, he replied, "Damned bitch." There were "violent" references to an illegitimate child.(3)
The spirit giving the messages to Taylor and Parkinson identified himself as Charles - supposedly Charles Waldegrave. He told the couple on March 28, 1947 that Marianne wrote the wall messages, "Light, Mass, Prayers."
The ladies had heard the story of Marianne becoming a G.I. bride, so they asked for her new married name. The results were "Nel," and "Fisni." Hall found those responses remarkably close to "O'Neil" and "Fisher," Marianne's later married names, but names Mrs. Taylor did not know.
Charles also told the sitters, without being asked, that Marianne died in Arkansas March 13, 1947.This information was wrong, but Hall observed she had by then left for America.
Lionel's return?
Silvia Thorn-Drury told Mrs. Taylor she heard footsteps walking about Borley church in July,1947. Another friend of Taylor's - James Turner - heard lame footsteps and the swishing of clerical clothing August 2, 1947. A Miss Backhouse was followed by lame footsteps in September.
Taylor knew Foyster was crippled with rheumatism, and had heard a rumor Marianne tried to poison him while at Borley. Hall noted that no recorded accounts of footsteps had been made at Borley Church prior to Foyster's death.
Trevor Hall then noted, "On the basis of the apparently veridical nature of the seance data, Mrs. Taylor firmly believed that Mrs Foyster had murdered her husband and suggested that the police might be persuaded to investigate the matter if approached by the Society [for Psychical Research]. Mrs. Goldney prepared a brief report for the files, but no further interest of any kind was taken by the Society in the affair." The report is titled "The Mystery of Marianne Foyster, "and was part of a file labeled, "Secret - Members Only."
Paranormal author Guy Lyon Playfair was kind enough to search the Society files for me until he uncovered the Goldney material. With the cooperation of the Society, and the efforts of the Honorable Secretary, Eleanor O'Keefe, I am able to reproduce the entire letter here for the first time:
THE MYSTERY OF MARIANNE FOYSTER
On the evening of Wednesday, 5th February, 1950, Mrs. Gay Taylor of 1 Cheyne Mews, Chelsea, S.W. 3, visited the rooms of the Society for Psychical Research and was interviewed by Mrs. K.M. Goldney and Dr. E. J. Dingwall. She became interested in Borley about 1947 and held sittings with a glass and alphabetical letters in company with her friend and ex-neighbor, Mrs. Norman Parkinson (formerly Mrs. Haines).
Mrs. Haines, as she then was, had been staying in Glouchestershire and mentioning Borley met a lady (whose name has not been revealed) who averred that Mrs. Foyster had bigamously married this lady's brother at a time when Mr. Foyster was very ill and Mrs. Foyster was keeping him shut up in one room. The brother was weak, if not weak-minded, and his sister eventually got him away. It was stated there were two children of this connection.
After Mr. Foyster's death, Mrs. Foyster married a Canadian soldier (said Mrs. Taylor)and went out to Canada, leaving the two children of the bigamous connection in a convent supported by their father. Adelaide Foyster is now in training as a Norland nurse, intending to join her mother in Canada. Mrs. Haines also produced a tale that Mrs. Foyster had poisoned her husband, and that this was the real cause of his death. Mrs Taylor said that even the Rev. H.C. Henning had told her that Mrs. Foyster had been taken very ill to Long Melford hospital whilst they were at Borley and that the hospital rumour was that it looked like he had been poisoned.
It is curious that in a file of Borley memoranda presented to [Trevor Hall] by the late S. H. Glanville, is a note from Mark Kerr-Pease made in 1937 to say that a friend of his who visited Borley - a Miss Reid - said that in a hospital where Mr. Foyster had been a patient, the doctors "were suspicious of what he had been given to eat." The information came from a nurse at the hospital.
[Hand written note at the bottom by Trevor Hall] This testimony was not followed up because it was considered desirable that the name of the Society should not be mentioned in the investigation. It is, however, included although valueless as evidence as it stands because of the remarkable confirmation on many points in the later enquiries.
Hall was generous with his conclusion, since so many of the facts in the "Mystery" were not substantiated. Note that Hall calls it "valueless as evidence."
1. Have you a message? W... (indefinite)
2. If the word is "well," say yes. Yes
3. (No question asked) Marianne
4. Do you want us to look in the well? Yes.
15. . . .has [the well] been filled in? Yes
16. (No question asked) Marianne (4)
The results of a similar sitting October 31 also had unexpected answers:
Who is Jane? Foyster
Whose wife is she? Henry
Did Jane Foyster have another name? Jane Marianne Foyster
Is she still alive? Yes
Where is she living? Ipswich
Is Marianne in trouble? Yes
What kind of trouble? Love
Who are you? Henry
Are you happy? No
Who caused you unhappiness? My wife (5)
On November 5, a sitting produced:
Who is speaking now? Henry
Can you use [one of the sitters] more than another? Yes
Which one? Sidney [Glanville]
Who is next? Marianne
Why did not Marianne help you? Bad woman (6)
The sitters thought "Henry" referred to Henry Bull, but Hall concluded since Bull died seven years before Marianne was born, it must be a different Henry. At the time of the sitting, Henry Fisher and Marianne were living in Ipswich. The sitters apparently did not have this information. A sitting on December 5 seemed to corroborate Hall's theory:
Are you writing for someone else? Yes
For whom? Henry
Why are you writing for him? Unable
Why [can't he] speak to us? Gone to Ipswich (7)
Mrs. Parkinson ran into the sister of Henry Fisher two years after her own sittings with a glass and letters. By coincidence, the sister was using the name "Mrs. Mary Shaw" while living with a George Harris. Hall recorded:
Mrs. Mary Shaw of Bredon was convinced that Marianne was responsible for Mr. Foyster's death at Rendlesham in April 1945, and did not hesitate to voice this opinion to Mrs. Parkinson at Christmas 1949. During my own talk with Mrs. Shaw I found that her view was not based on any concrete evidence. She said that the brutal treatment which Marianne had meted out to her brother Henry [Fisher] and to the children convinced her that Marianne was capable of any crime, and that she knew that Marianne was friendly with some Jewish chemists in London {Mr. and Mrs. Fenton) from whom she could obtain certain drugs. The rest was supposition.(8)(Emphasis mine.)
Supposition or not, Hall concluded after his investigation of the seances:
I do not think that the series of spontaneous messages, apparently from "Henry," on the constant theme of "Marianne," can reasonably be accounted for by chance. My tentative theory is that these writings were veridical and paranormal and that they probably emanated from the unconscious of the mentally unstable Henry Fisher of whose existence the sitters were completely unaware.
Henry's sister had discovered and had disclosed to him that he had been tricked into a bigamous marriage and both she and her brother believed that the children were illegitimate. Mrs. Shaw suspected, on the basis of what Marianne had tried to do to Henry, that Mr. Foyster might have been murdered at Rendlesham.(9)
After tracking down all the various addresses used by Marianne, Hall was convinced she "deliberately ran dangerous short term risks to avoid being traced" while waiting for probate on Lionel's estate. Hall concluded she was trying to avoid questioning "at all costs" for events that happened at Rendlesham, and that is why she used different names and false addresses after April of 1945. (10)He did not explain why she used different names and addresses before April 1945.
Hall had no concrete evidence, and the accusation was supposition. Perhaps this explains one reason he never published his theory.
It is very interesting to note that Hall has been described to me by Iris Owen as a "strange man, obsessed, and unbending and rigid in his views. He made up his mind early on that all of parapsychology was a fraud and a cheat, and all of his writings are destructive and vindictive. He saw himself as somewhat of a crusader against parapsychology." This opinion of Hall came from someone who not only worked closely with him, but who had meals with him on many occasions.
In a letter written in about 1968 to someone identified only as 'John,' Mrs. C. C. Baines recalled that before the publication of The Haunting of Borley Rectory in 1956, Trevor Hall asked her to "trace Marianne Foyster, on the grounds that she had done a bunk via Dublin to the USA to marry a G.I. and left several children - inference being they were illegitimate - in the care of the Suffolk County Council." Baines explains, "I was so angry I never answered that letter which in any case was a bit of utter nonsense, and a very stupid attempt to deceive me, quite apart from anything else. First, the Suffolk County Council would have had no jurisdiction over Mrs. Foyster - or whoever she became - in the USA for most certainly no one would have found it worth their while to apply for an extradition order IF THERE HAD BEEN ANY CRIMINAL OFFENCE which would have had to be proved. Second, the Suffolk County Council with all its resources and legal powers did not need the offices of any outsiders and amateur enquiry agents to do their own work in this respect." (Emphasis original.) Baines continues, "Only recently did I learn from Dr. Gauld that Hall is willing to show anyone and everyone with pride four or five typescript bound volumes of these researches [into Marianne] WHICH HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH PSYCHICAL RESEARCH OR BORLEY BUT WERE THE VILEST FORM OF DIRT-DIGGING POSSIBLE." She indicates that Mrs. Goldney went to see Dom Richard Whitehouse "immediately after the publication of HBR evidently disclaiming her part, and fearing an action for libel, which Dom Richard told me his abbot had considered, but wiser reflection prevailed." The letter goes on to tells how she will resign from the S.P.R. if Hall joins, and will encourage others to do the same. In her opinion, "All this was a typical Trevor Hall 'smear' - and this has become his speciality. But I am now attacking him hard and strong as (a) a lazy, superficial, and arrogant so-called researcher who even cannot give facts. . . . (b) as a far greater suppressor of facts, or able to have slanted them to suit HIS THESIS, than Price, attacked on those grounds, ever was. In fact, highly dishonest intellectually - ergo most limited intellectually - and as a person, an absolute horror."
The Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology reports that in one of his books Hall"demolishes the character and achievements" of one psychical researcher. He "denigrates the character and work of . . . Harry Price" in another volume. In yet another work he attempted to "destroy the reputation of [William] Crookes." The Encyclopedia concludes, "his consistent attempt to demolish the reputations of famous workers in psychical research is perhaps too consistently destructive and one-sided."(11)
The same man who decried the paranormal, used the results of seances as evidence against Marianne. His five unpublished volumes contain several chapters devoted to "testimony" against her from such sittings.
In her private notes, psychic researcher Iris Owen noted, "The planchette readings of Helen Glanville - in the light of modern knowledge - are irrelevant. Such writings are now recognized as coming form the subconscious minds of the persons concerned." Owen should know. She took part in a lengthy experiment where a group of eight people "created" the persona of a mythical person named "Philip." Even though Philip never actually existed, he communicated freely with the experimenters on many occasions, including while on television! I have devoted an entire chapter to this "phenomena" in my book, Borley Rectory - The Ghosts That Will Not Die.
That the lady I knew for 47 years could ever be thought of as a murder suspect strikes me as preposterous. My first introduction to such an idea came during preparation for probate following her death. In a letter discussing ownership of our ancient family Bible, my mother's personal representative wrote, "When Reverend Foyster passed away, Marianne fled to the United States, with the Bible and other Foyster possessions. She was at that time under investigation for the murder (suspected) of Lionel A. Foyster."
A copy of another letter was sent to me that included the phone number for Adelaide. At the time, I was on a mysterious search for my identity, so as soon as I calmed down enough to dial the phone, I called Adelaide. She knew nothing of any "suspicious death." Research turned up similar results wherever I looked. The only public mention of such a claim was made by Robert Wood in his book, The Widow of Borley. I can only conclude that he based his findings on what he found in Trevor Hall's unpublished Marianne Foyster of Borley Rectory.
That no other researcher in the long history of Borelyania even remotely suggested such a possibility, seemed very remarkable to me. Surely, if there was any evidence to support this theory, wouldn't at least one other researcher have raised the question previously? It wasn't as if there hadn't been more than several curious people digging about all these years!
Alfred Hitchcock and other tall tales
The lady I knew as my mother delighted in murder mysteries. I was extremely hard pressed to meet her challenge of finding a detective novel she hadn't read. Her favorite television show was Alfred Hitchcock Presents. In fact, she used to say she was going to go watch "my Alfred," just before his shows began. The two shared more than a common birth year, they were both fascinated by plot twists and quirky endings. Several of the many pieces of fiction she wrote included submissions to his mystery magazine.
"I have written and sent to Alfred Hitchcock Magazine a story," she once told me. "If it returns, I will send it out to you to read. Gee, it even frightened myself! It wasn't my Aunt Minnie who came up into my bedroom, remember?"
No, I didn't remember that particular story, but she loved to read and write mysteries. She joked with me about how since we were both quite clever, if we put out minds to it we could commit the perfect crime together. We were very poor when I was a child, but she scrapped up enough money to take me to see Psycho with her when it first came out.
In my mind, it was impossible to think that anyone who was ever "under investigation" would immerse themselves in books and movies about murder! It would take a particularly cold-blooded person to continually remind herself of what she had done. Such an unfeeling person would not hesitate to commit other crimes and would not spend the rest of her life trying to help people.
On the other side of the equation, it was impossible for Mom to watch even a simple documentary about WW II, never mind a movie on the subject. Dredging up memories of that horrible conflict made her physically ill, and I remember more than one episode when she cringed or turned pale after hearing a sudden, sharp noise. I was always told to walk boldly into a room to prevent her from jumping up in fright.
She hated cleaning chickens and talking about gory subjects, both of which made her sick. In a letter to me dated October 7, 1965 she wrote, "I still regret that I did not stand up for myself and be a hen med - lady doctor to you. I know I would have made a good one, and I know that I could have overcome my nausea and malaise concerning cadavers, blood and guts."
Several months after she came to Utah in 1992, my mother broke her hip and landed in the hospital. While there, she had a stroke and eventually ended up in a nursing home. As her condition progressively worsened, I would occasionally ask if she wanted to visit with some member of the clergy. She could not talk, but her reaction was always a violent motion clearly meaning, "NO!" She clung stubbornly to life, even after being told it would be "okay to let go." I have to admit even I had my doubts about why she was so afraid to die. Even if she had "helped" a very sick loved one out of his misery, wouldn't she be afraid to discuss such an event with her maker? Such thoughts evaporated, however, when I later learned about a letter that was read to her December 18, 1992. It was from two of the children she had left behind in England. It contained a pet name, so she would recognize who it was from, and read simply, "To Morny; From all over here - love and forgiveness." After it was read to her, a look of relief and happiness came over her face and she passed away. It was concern for the children that kept her alive, not some obscure reference to euthanasia, poisoning, or starving a beloved husband.
Deadly conclusions
When Wood promoted the suspicions of murder stirred up by Trevor Hall, he did not have all the evidence. Perhaps he read the following conclusion by Hall in his private papers:
Marianne was far too shrewd to attempt anything so clumsy and dangerous as poisoning. If she did kill Mr. Foyster, she did it in a much simpler way. He was crippled, bed-ridden and helpless, confined to one room in a lonely cottage in the middle of Rendlesham Park. The neighbors had never even seen him during Marianne's tenancy of Dairy Cottage. Fisher was away for long periods of time, and the children were presumably at school during the day. A pillow pressed over Mr. Foyster's face for a few minutes would do all that was necessary to ensure his departure from the miserable existence to which he had been reduced during the preceding ten years. If he did manage to cry out, there would be nobody to hear him. It follows that I believe that Marianne had both the opportunity and the means to murder her elderly and helpless husband if she chose to do so.
In April 1945 her affairs were reaching a climax. Mrs. Shaw had discovered that her brother had been trapped into a bigamous marriage. The police had begun to make enquiries about Marianne's use of the names "Fisher" and "Foyster." Her chance of escaping form these difficulties lay in leaving England, which she ultimately did... She was the sole beneficiary of Mr. Foyster's estate of £850.
Her opportunity to leave England lay with O'Neil, with whom she was almost certainly already acquainted. He had to be trapped into marriage by the method she had used with Fisher, and she had to obtain the £850 before she left the shores of England if she was to possess it at all. I am inclined to think that Mr. Foyster's death fitted too conveniently into this programme to be coincidental.
When Marianne married O'Neil she was a widow, and she was the late Mr. Foyster's sole executrix and beneficiary. Nobody could have offered any criticism of either her marriage or her claiming of Mr. Foyster's money. During the period that she had to remain in England, however, to wait for the granting of probate of her late husband's will, she deliberately ran dangerous short term risks to avoid being traced. She fled from Dairy Cottage secretly during Fisher's absence, and when she married O'Neil she gave a fictitious address in Ipswich. When she took the house in Deben Avenue, Martlesham, she gave her name as "M. Fisher" and not "M. O'Neil."
Whether the desperate subterfuges during her last months in England require no other explanation than the discovery by Mrs. Shaw that the marriage to Fisher was bigamous and the interest of the police in Marianne's use of more than one name, is for the reader to judge. My own impression is that her fear and anxiety to avoid questioning at all costs were related to some occurrence at Rendlesham which she still thought might be the subject of enquiry by the police if the full story was known. [Emphasis mine.]
I am of the opinion that Marianne had the motive, the means and the opportunity to encompass the death of her husband, for whom she clearly had no affection at all. The fact that Mr. Foyster died at a time which could hardly have been more convenient for Marianne's plan to marry O'Neil and leave England, leads me to the conclusion that his death was probably not a natural one.
The importance of the opinion expressed in this chapter, if it is well-founded, lies in its relation to the message regarding Mr. Foyster's death obtained during the Chelsea seances in 1947. (Seances as evidence - from someone who does not believe in the paranormal!)(12)
After reading the above material, Wood could have then made his erroneous conclusion in The Widow of Borley:
Foyster was shamefully neglected during his last days, and therefore 'disposing' of him might have meant no more than locking him up and waiting for him to die of neglect. On the other hand, given that Marianne was desperate, she might have pushed a pillow over his face. Foyster's relatives had become very concerned about him towards the end, but were unable to gain access to him...(13)
Those statements did not ring true with an earlier entry in Wood's own book where he pointed out Lionel's relatives were "comparatively wealthy and influential to whom he could have appealed if he had been in trouble." Wood also wrote, "through his mother's family Lionel Algernon had another set of relations of considerable social standing and influence, at least some of whom would have helped him had he so requested during the period of his supposed imprisonment by his wife."(14) Would not these same people have seen to it Marianne was arrested in they truly believed she had killed him? Or "rescued" Lionel from her clutches sometime during the ten years they spent away from Borley if they suspected mistreatment?
Wood later proposed, "When we consider her involvement with Dr. Davies...the possibility suggests itself that she had entangled him in the affair and blackmailed him. She may well have done the same with the doctor [who signed Lionel's death certificate], who was obliged to keep quiet about any doubts he might have had about the circumstances of Foyster's death..."(15) There is no documentation to support the allegation K.J.T. Keer, MRCS - who signed the death certificate - was in any way involved with or blackmailed by Marianne.
Hall had suggested that Marianne "clearly had no affection" for Lionel. This goes against all the evidence I have been able to gather. As Iris Owen told me when reflecting on interviews with Marianne's acquaintances, "Everyone who knew Marianne commented on how fond they were of each other. I remember even the last house they were in - the neighbors made such comments, even though some thought he was her father. In all her correspondence and talks, Marianne came over clearly as having been devoted to "Lion," as she called him. I just do not believe it and neither does anyone else I know connected with the case. Trevor is the only person who has ever suggested [murder] - and I have certainly never heard that there has been an investigation, or uncertainty. He was obsessed with murders and suicides. Lionel's disease was terminal, and he lived well beyond his projected life span."
In her private papers, Owen wrote, "If she wanted to leave Foyster there was no reason why she should not have done so - she wasn't even legally married to him! She was clearly capable of earning her own living and attracting men if she wanted marriage and support." (Emphasis mine.)
The notes Owen made in preparation for her own SPR report include this observation: "Marianne was genuinely very fond of Foyster - she talks of him affectionately even now, using nicknames and diminutives. She clearly enjoyed their life together, and in spite of her need of an amount of 'sexual relief,' in her little flings never hesitated to return to him, and looked after him with devotion."
In her interviews with Swanson, Marianne was asked about this allegation:
S[wanson]. Now, Marianne, you had told me a few minutes ago that d'Arles tried to accuse you of killing or doing away with Reverend Foyster. Would you mind elaborating on that statement?
M[arianne]. Not of killing him because at the time of Lionel's death he was nowhere near the house. I hadn't seen him for years, but during the time Lionel was at Borley he had one or two illnesses, which, I think on one or two occasions he was in a nursing home at Long Melford, but on one of them he was very ill and that was the time d'Arles said I was trying to poison him, and I had called in - you see what we didn't know at the time was that Lionel's heart was queer. Yes, I beg your pardon, we did know. That was after he had been to - but we didn't know how serious it was. But he had been prescribed by St. Luke's Hospital in London - that's I think a hospital for clergy - he had been there and they had prescribed what was then a new thing, synthetic digitalin, and it was found that Lionel was taking too much of it, and when the dosage was reduced, then he didn't have the stomach upsets. It was found that he was taking too much of it, and it was accumulative thing and then he would get violently sick from it.(16)
My Internet friend Nick Rowland pointed out to me in July 1995, "She could have packed him off to his family at any time for them to look after him." He added, "She could have done him in at any time, especially in Woodbridge Road - but she didn't. I don't think she did anything at all except fib a lot. Maybe your Mom [even told her executor] that she did him in, but really didn't. Don't forget, your Mom wasn't always good at the truth and in later life was getting a bit muddled. Finally, people who have done such things never sleep easy, and I don't think your mom had a problem there."
Some new evidence
In a letter to me in November 1994, Peter Underwood wrote, "Lionel's brother [said] kindly and a little sadly, that they had lost touch with her," after she left England. Lionel's brother thought kindly of Marianne and said "they" - the Foyster family - were sad to have lost touch with her.
Unfortunately, neither Trevor Hall nor Robert Wood had in their possession the Underwood letter or the following two letters Lionel's sister wrote to my mother:
From: Mrs. S.O.
Hanbury
The Inch
Mayfield, Sussex
Jan 22.
53
To: Mrs. R.V. O'Neil
523 Third Avenue
S.W.
Jamestown, North Dakota U.S.A.
Dearest Marianne
I meant to have written this sooner to wish you many happy returns on your birthday, as now I am afraid it will arrive late. When I thought about it, it was too early, and somehow this week I've not had the time.
I was so very glad to get a letter from you the other day. With your very busy life, I don't wonder that you find it hard to get time to write letters. You say you are sending me a parcel, which is very good of you, but I do feel you have more than enough to spend you money on, and you should not do it.
I am sorry to say that since I sent my Christmas letter (I am so glad you liked my little present), poor Gertrude had a stroke and could neither speak nor write. That was about a week or so before Christmas, as far as I remember. She is slightly better now, and can say a little, but I gather that her brain is still affected, and she does not understand what has happened to her and [lost] happy. I don't hear about her very often, as Arthur has so much to do, he finds it hard to write letters. They have a night nurse, and she and the very nice housekeeper get G. Out of bed for a little while in the morning.
My latest news was Arthur's C[irculating] L[etter]. He did not say how the shingles were. It's very hard for Barbara, she goes up to Pinner when she can. Arthur seems to be wonderful, considering. But it is extremely sad. I don't know what prospects the doctor holds out. Then I have another piece of sad news. Edith Foyster died on Jan 2nd. She had very severe bronchitis -was taken to a nursing home & died 2 days later. I managed to get to the funeral as Joyce Jansen/a niece of the Bowens [?], is spending the winter with Winnie and has a car. But it was a nasty day, snow and fog. She was buried next to Henry. The present rector gave such a nice address, he evidently thought the world of her. Considering the weather and the rather awkward time, 12 noon, there was a good congregation. The Rector said that one man, when asked if he could manage to come said, "at any hour of the day or night I would come to Miss Foyster's...[lost]"
Everything is [obscure] now. I expect we shall get sick of the sound of it before it comes!
I don't know what Constance will do. Basil's wife [obscure] is very ill [obscure]. I think C. is going to stay there soon. She was wonderfully calm at the funeral.
As I think I told you, we spent X-Mas at a small hotel in T.W. Our little holiday was spoilt by very bad weather. Christmas day was lovely, but otherwise fog and rain.
I found Daisy Head in bed, where she has been for weeks, as her heart was bad after some infection of "virus." She looked so frail, and had just come out with shingles in the head! But not as severe as G.'s. Now I hear that her stepdaughter Betty, is down with chickenpox, caught from it (as I expect you know this does happen - weird though it sounds).
I have just had my quarterly blood test, and am actually over the 5 million quota of red corpuscles!!! I am now promoted to three weekly injections instead of fortnightly.
Selly has seen his specialist for more penicillin. His sinus has been extra tiresome lately. They have given him wonderful little green pills to take twice a day for a fortnight, warning him they may make him appear intoxicated, and he should not drive a car while taking them!! No pronounced side effects yet, but he's only had 5 so far!
This letter seems to be all about illness.
I am so glad you like your work - I would just hate it! I think it's splendid you are doing so well.
Poor Adelaide! I do hope she will learn more sense in time.
Molly [?] had a whole T.V. children's [show] to herself before Christmas. She demonstrated how to decorate a room, tree, and table for Christmas, and was quite good. It's the first time she has "appeared." She has enormous energy, and I think in time will "burn herself up" she does so much. I have seen her 3 times in the last 8 years!
Unlike you, we are having a horrid winter which started very early. So much for [lost].
This week we had 2 heavenly [lost].
No room for more. Much love from us both. Yours ever
HFH
To: Mrs. O'Neil
217 So. 16th
Street
LaCrosse, Wisconsin U.S.A.
Dearest Marianne;
I have been meaning and meaning to answer your very welcome letter of June 27, but always have so many to write and never get it all done. I read in the papers of disasters in your part of the world and was relieved to hear you have so far survived.
What a busy and useful life you lead, I think you are wonderful. Your old people's home sounds just like what we would have liked! We are getting into a groove here, and managing some short walks each day, but then poor Selby got dreadful pains in his back and pelvis region again, and could not sleep. We had to have a doctor given us by Nat: Health (all, including him, had refused to take us, as "full up," and we feel he resented having us thrust on to him!). He would not for along time take S's complaints seriously but at last got the head of a very big hospital here to come and see him, and he examined him throughly and after a blood test made him go into the hospital. No private wards, and he was put into a noisy "geriatric" and hated it.
I wanted to move him to another hospital in Hastings, but he could not be moved there as his specialist had gone on 3 weeks holiday. He was getting so desperate that I moved him to a nursing home, from where he'd go by ambulance as out patient to St. Helen's Hospital once a week for more blood tests. It is arthritis in his blood stream.
He is put on a strict and meager diet, and has got very thin (lost a stone in weight and is very weak). Our doctor Cliff has now agreed to his returning here (last Tues.) and has just gone, by ambulance, to St. Helen's for his weekly blood test. So I am writing on my knee outside, as its fine.
We started a heat wave just as he returned, and that has put him back again, and he can't sleep and is in much pain. What worries him so is that his hands have lately become so painful and swollen and he can't write or do up buttons. He found the Nursing Home quiet, but very lonely, and as [he] did not require actual nursing - he has all along got up and dressed, and Cliff agreed he might return. Diet of course is difficult - no salt is one thing. He is being given a lot of "Prednisone[?]"
I feel his arthritis is rather different to dear Lion's, but equally agonizing. I know you can sympathize more than most people.
I find my hands stiff and clumsy now, and even sewing on a button is quite a job.
I have several of the lovely handkerchiefs you made me, and always think of you and wonder at your cleverness when I see them. I am finishing this indoors.
Averil came home for a very short leave this summer. She rang me up. She seems [to be] doing very responsible work for Randolph Steiner.
Betty and her husband have just inherited a lot of furniture and money from John's aunt who has always been good to him. They are moving to King's Langley. I have not seen her or the 2 children in some time.
Molly and Alec [?] came one Sunday and took us out to lunch at Rye. They went with a party on a week's trip to Russia after Xmas and were much feted, and every minute filled with sightseeing. But picked up a nasty germ in Warsaw, which went on [obscure].
Barbara [?] came and saw us while when staying in Bexhill[?]. Ursula likes the boy, Michael. Ursula is very occupied teaching domestic science in 2 schools. Now on holiday.
Harold [?] and Joan [?] seem to like their very big house in Wales with huge grounds. He is always working.
Constance Foyster is quite an invalid now, but has an old servant of Basil's and her sister looking after her.
I am so glad your "Pee Wee" is doing so well & is such a comfort to you.
Selby and I are both very unsteady on our feet now, and we do miss not being able to walk even as much as when we first came here. I will really not be so long before writing again.
With much love from us both,
Yours
ever
Hilda F. Hanbury
Words such as "Dearest Marianne. . . .I think you are wonderful. . . .I know you can sympathize more than most people. . . .much love from us both," and "Yours ever" do not come from the pen of someone who suspects her sister-in-law of murder. The letters were written from 1953 to 1967 and demonstrate in several places both ladies kept in touch with each other over the years. We changed address many times during those years.
The letters from Hilda do not support the claims that Foyster's relatives came to the conclusion that Lionel was murdered. Only one researcher - Alan Roper - has dug deep enough to find out that Hilda willed £200 to Marianne when she died in 1972! Hardly the act of a suspicious sister-in-law!!
Hilda Foyster was not the only person in England who knew where my mother was. I saw letters from W.L. Moyle, B.J. Richardson, and Peter Underwood addressed to Mom. The nuns taking care of Astrid forwarded at least five letters. Ian told Trevor Hall where Mom was, and I have seen a copy of letters they wrote to one another. Her brother Geoffrey Shaw wrote to her. A friend named "Letty" wrote. An old boyfriend by the name of Sarto wrote. Edwin Whitehouse wrote to her. She had correspondence with Mrs. Fenton. As late as 1972, Mrs. Fenton gave Marianne's address to Alan Roper, who visited her in Wisconsin. The detective Robert Swanson found her, as did Pauline Mitchell and Iris Owen. If she had been "under investigation for the murder (suspected) of reverend Lionel A. Foyster," why didn't the authorities find her?
Reverend Foyster died April 4, 1945. We did not leave England until August, 1946. If the police were looking for a suspect in anything suspicious, surely they would have found her during those 15 months. Murder is a capital offense with no statute of limitations. Any one of the people listed above should have informed the authorities how to locate Marianne and have her arrested if they truly believed she had murdered Foyster.
Lionel Foyster was 67 when he died. He left Canada because of his failing health, and lived fifteen years after coming back to England. He was an invalid for ten years.
In June of 1995, two independent studies conducted by two separate and reliable researchers were unable to uncover any police reports relating to any investigation whatsoever into the alleged "mysterious death" of Lionel Foyster. Papers were found, however, relating to the missing person report on Marianne filed by the Fisher family. It is highly unlikely one set of papers would surface,and not the other, especially when both events happened within a short time span of one another and within the same general location.
New Evidence From Louis Mayerling
In December of 1995, I became acquainted with the remarkable Dr. Louis Mayerling, an alleged friend of Marianne's who supposedly had intimate knowledge of her relationship with Lionel. This part of their story has never appeared publicly. Mayerling told me about an unexpected meeting he had with Marianne in 1945:
She said she had something very urgent to tell me, and could we go somewhere private. Although I was extremely busy at that moment, I agreed to walk over to Bereau's little French cafe in Greek Street. . .
In the cafe, Marianne assumed her very best demure and petulant aspect. . .eventually, we got back to "the dreadful times" she'd had with Lionel. "Do you remember all those different ways we'd thought to get rid of him?"
This I did. Quite precisely, in fact. I could remember one dreadfully depressing wet Sunday afternoon when Cathy had wrecked the dinner by forgetting to attend the oven - and the resulting row with Lionel who retired to his 'chapel' for more medication. Marianne said, "I can't stand this any longer. He's got to go."
I think the Sunday papers had been reporting a big murder trial centering on the use of poison. I had to agree with M., but of course, took this to be just another outburst in their love-hate relationship. M. had known that in the current murder trial, the use of powdered glass had been dominant, which produced the query, "How do you get glass to powder, I wonder?" I said you'd probably grind it on a grinding wheel.
Taking leave of them that day, I really thought no more about it - there was nothing unusual about it at that time. Jokingly, I had suggested a good way to "get rid of him" would be to "lock him in the chapel and let him be molested by half a dozen chorus girls," or to "disconnect the brakes on his car."
Sitting now in the cafe, I wondered why M. had brought up this conversation. However, M. continued with a dialogue containing such passages as, "Do you remember talking about the rat poison and the phosphorous in the jam jars in the stables?"
Yes - I did recall all of this - especially the phosphorous. . .which had been used to stuff into ratholes in the rectory to produce small fires whenever necessary.
I still could not see where such an odd conversation was leading over these forgotten incidents. But gradually this became clear. She related that, "Poor Lionel has been very ill and he refuses to take the doctor's medicine. They can't find anything wrong with him, and I'm sure they blame me, but it's not my fault. I can't do anything more for him.
"Now. . .I know we both talked about getting rid of Lionel, but you know that was just in fun, wasn't it?
"Frankly, things are becoming a little uncomfortable for me, and there are some awful rumors going around - especially in Borley hamlet. It is very unfair to me, and a lot of my papers have gone missing from my drawer.
"But if at any time you are asked about our awful times at the rectory, I am sure you will stand up for me, won't you? We never did anything to be ashamed of, did we?"
Well, of course my conscience was quite clear over what she had said, and I had no hesitancy in agreeing with our innocence in anything that had happened in the distant past. And so, with my acquiescence, we left the cafe.
A few weeks later, I was staggered to get a phone call from Marianne saying she was now living in Hampshire, only about six miles away from me in London.
Some weeks later, there was a rather despairing letter posted from Portsmouth - and then a phone call where M. appeared to be distressed.
She told me that Lionel had finally "kicked the bucket," and had "passed over." I think she was genuinely grieving.
You may smile at the thought of poor M. murdering L., but there were, indeed, very strong rumors floating around - especially in Borley. There were news cuttings which mentioned the possibility. I remember two short clippings, and I think one was from a parish magazine. But I discounted the idea, as I could not believe M. was capable of this. And I had no right to assume such a thing! Eventually, the rumours seemed to disappear.
Yes, M. did think there was a murder investigation. (Emphasis mine.)
If M. Did poison L., then we shall never know the extent to which she was driven. Anything is possible of course, especially under war conditions, but I would always stand up for her!(17)
Lionel was unable to drive, so fixing the brakes would not have been an option. Would a parish magazine discuss such a thing - where are the newspaper clippings? No printed material of this nature has surfaced, despite my intense and constant efforts. Researching Borley and my mother is ALL I do - my sole endeavor since 1994. So far nothing public on this subject has surfaced.
Before leaving the remarkable story of Louis Mayerling, a couple of important points must be made. First, if what he says is true, the meeting in the cafe must be read very carefully. Mayerling did not say she murdered Lionel, rather that she was afraid the local gossips would accuse her of doing it - "I'm sure they blame me, but it's not my fault. I can't do anything more for him." This is a very important point. She was looking for his reassurance that it was idle chatter, that she really didn't mean any of it. In North Dakota, she was constantly telling me to be discrete and not invite neighbors to talk. An autograph book she gave me in 1958 was signed with advice she may have learned the hard way. She learned from bitter experience that:
They never taste who always drink.
Who always talk, they never think.
Set a watch upon thy tongue
'twill spare many a wrong
Thy tongue can tie a knot
thee can't undo with they teeth.
Second, can we even accept the Mayerling testimony as accurate? No one connected with the media or with paranormal research that I have talked to takes Mayerling at face value. Perhaps the best counterbalance to his testimony comes from Iris Owen. In a letter she wrote to me December 21, 1995, she said, "I utterly disbelieve the conversation he alleges he had with Marianne about killing Lionel. In the first place, the remarks 'that the doctor couldn't find anything wrong with him' is nonsense - he had been deteriorating with his form of arthritis for 15 years and had lived far longer than originally predicted - and his illness and its prognosis was known to everyone in the area - it was the reason he had come to England, the reason he retired - everyone knew. (See letter from Lionel's brother to Glanville in The Locked Book. ) Lionel died during that period after the War had ended in Europe but before the dropping of the bomb in Japan - August 1945. Marianne stayed with him to the end - then she soon after married O'Neil and went to the U.S.A. She was looking after the [evacuee] children - remember?"
In June of 2000, Mayerling wrote in We Faked the Ghosts of Borley Rectory, "I had no doubt at all that Marianne, even in her wildest state, would have been completely incapable of such an act to her suffering invalid!" (p. 176)
Still more information
Around 1972, there was a search on to find Adelaide. Before the Foysters adopted her, she had been a Tower. A neighbor of the Tower family was located - Bill Burton - and Alan Roper became involved in the search. Alan took Bill and his wife Della to Borley before they knew anything about Marianne. Della concluded Adelaide's adoption was never finalized. She believes Adelaide can't remember what happened at Borley because it is a "convenient way to get rid of the unhappiness." About the haunting, she believes "Lionel fixed it with the lights." In her view, Lionel was a very difficult man to live with, and caused a great deal of discomfort.
Della had connections, and got in touch with Scotland Yard in her attempt to find Adelaide. Inevitably, the name "Marianne" surfaced. In relating the story to me in October of 1997, Della volunteered some startling new information. Not realizing the significance of what she was saying, Della told me, "Scotland Yard was thinking of taking your mother back to England to face charges. They left her in LaCrosse [Wisconsin] because of the good job she was doing with the senior citizens."
Della did not know what the charges were, but thought they might be bigamy. My mind swirled with the possibilities as we talked. Mom was being chased by the Fishers to recoup silverware and such they couldn't find after she left Ipswich. Scotland Yard would not be thinking of extradition for a petty theft case over 25 years old. It would have to be for something far more serious. On the other hand, they would have pursued her if she was under suspicion of murder - for which there is no statute of limitations.
The story Della unraveled in the 70's caused her to take copious notes. Enough notes to write a book she called "Marianne." Eventually, she burned everything because she felt it was better to "let her live." She would leave my mother alone "because of all the good she was doing." Now approaching her ninth decade, Della doesn't remember all of the contents of the notes - which would be invaluable to me. However, after all her involvement in her insvestigation, she has NO MEMORY of anything so horrible as an alleged murder.
Conclusion
Did Marianne murder Lionel? My own personal opinion is, of course not. In the interest of fairness, however, I have gathered as much evidence as possible, and attempted to be as objective as possible. No newspaper clippings have surfaced claiming suspicions about Lionel's death, but that does not mean they don't exist. Many people have worked with me to gather, sift, and analyze what data is available. I sincerely appreciate all they have done to help. Perhaps the only thing left undone is an autopsy on Lionel, but that would be drastic and would unnecessarily upset too many people's lives.
It is remarkable that so many clues from unconnected sources have surfaced. First, there was the letter from the executor of her estate mentioning Marianne was "under investigation for the murder (suspected) of Lionel A. Foyster." Second, the unpublished Hall material. Third, the Louis Mayerling letter. Fourth, the Della Burton story. Incredibly, none of these sources knew about the other! In the case of Mayerling and Burton, the information was volunteered without my asking.
At times, I have wondered if perhaps Mom left the remote cottages in Rendlesham for a day or so to break the monotony. Caring for Lionel must have been a full-time job, at best. Maybe she went on a date with my father, or went into town to buy supplies. When she returned, she found Lionel had passed away. She must have been devastated, and blamed herself for leaving him alone. If she talked to Louis Mayerling about the death, she could have talked to others. Did one of those other people tell someone in authority how Marianne left Lionel alone? Lionel had ten years to change his will if he was being treated badly, but he left Marianne in charge of everything after his death. During the time he was writing about Borleu, he surely could have written a new will, which he did not. Does that sound like the action of a victim?
A former police officer in Suffolk has told me records of investigations remain sealed for 100 years. Through discrete inquiry, however, I have been told no record exists with the name "Marianne Foyster" on it.
In 1966, my mother sent me a long letter. It included her rebuttal to a letter I sent previously bemoaning my lot in life. She told me, "Say, what's this bit about bringing you up in such sad circumstances....get off the water wagon my boy and fight your old lady.....You never went hungry by gosh. You ate chicken and steak and all the cookies and cake you wanted. You had good clothes, a warm clean bed. . . as many toys as you could stuff in your closet. We were respected members of the community and I swear I was never arrested for any crime - so how come I dragged you up in underprivileged circumstances....." [emphasis mine]
It has been suggested that to write a balanced report about my mother, this scurrilous accusation "needs" to be addressed. I violently disagree. Prior to The Widow of Borley literally millions of words were written about Borley and about my mother without ever once brining up this garbage originally based on a seance! My bibliography alone is in the hundreds of pages, including thousands upon thousands of books, magazines, newspapers, audiotapes, and even a compact disk. Amidst these millions and millions of lines, only a very few paragraphs by Robert Wood have ever addressed this insanity. If we were to arbitrarily assign 100,000,000 lines of print to Borley, the 100 lines written by Wood would produce a rather weird formula, indeed - .000001 to 1. "Balance" in future presentations would suggest one line of copy dealing with anything untoward, for every 1 million lines of copy about Borley. My best friend Bill Vicars put it this way, "For a truly 'balanced' meal, if you ate a juicy 16 oz. steak, with a delicious 16 oz baked potato, you would also need to down one pound of salt! How disagreeable would that be!" It is unlikely any future article addressing this subject will leave the impression the question is still open. Be it a headline, a sub-headline, a side-bar, or a simple pull-quote, the lasting impression on the audience will be one word - "murder," even if the rest of the article presents all the evidence against such an insensitive accusation! "Headlines is what sells newspapers," as we used to say. Would a "balanced" article also devote an equal amount of space to the terrific good Marianne performed? Would it reprint her wonderful legacy from the United States (Chapter 16) that included the Pope John XXIII award for "truth, justice, charity and freedom?" Would their be as much space devoted to her time spent caring for evacuated children during WWII?
It has been suggested to me by several people that I have grounds for a law suit for liable, defamation of character and gross discomfort. After all, the threat of a lawsuit is what kept Hall from publishing his report in the first place. I have letters proving the paranormal world believed my mother died six years before she did, do Duckworth Publishing probably felt comfortable releasing the Robert Wood version of Hall's research. They didn't know I would soon find out everything! Perhaps Wood and Duckworth worried about the legal ramifications, as Wood soon after disappeared - Duckworth told me they could not forward my mail to him. "Widow" was the last paranormal book Duckworth ever published, after a very long string of such books. They decided to restrict their work to text books after that. There is no doubt I have grounds - I simply don't have the health. It was about the same time the Wood book came out that I ended up in the hospital. I've been in and out for various reasons ever since. I've had a pacemaker installed, and coupled with other maladies, my heart and my emotions could literally not stand the strain of a prolonged court battle. The statute of limitations has run out on Woods/Duckworth, so that is now a moot point. However, I will not ignore any further similar attacks, whatever the personal circumstances.
Short of a time machine or a crystal ball, the question remains open to the public. In my mind, it is settled - my mother did not murder Lionel Foyster. In the minds of those obsessed with sensationalism, the question adds one more twist to the already incredible Borley Legend.
1. Hall, Trevor. Marianne Foyster of Borley Rectory. Unpublished, 1958. Vol.III, p. 64.
11. Encyclopedia of
Occultism and Parapsychology, Third Edition. p. 716.
12. Hall, op. cit. Vol. II, pp. 76-77.
13. Wood, Robert. The Widow of Borley. Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd.London, 1992. p. 147.
16. Hall, op. cit, Vol. V, p. 1
17. Mayerling, Louis. Letter to the author, November 11, 1995.