My friend Andrew Green has been very busy of late reviewing this book and that. His schedule has been arduous as he writes for various publications. In his haste, he missed a couple of key points whilst discussing Borley Rectory in the Spring 1999 Ghost Club Newsletter.
Andrew will be excused for reading The Widow of Borley so quickly he failed to note the correct name of the author is Robert Wood, not Robert "Chambers." That scurrilous attack on my mother deserves to be disposed of as rapidly as possible, and I won't honor it with any lengthy mention here. Suffice it to say, that effort was based on the work of a researcher who was determined to refute claims of the paranormal by discrediting the people associated with ceratin key cases. Those notes were not published while it was thought my mother still lived for obvious reasons. Please, Andrew, consider the memory of my dear mother before you declare this work as "one of the best indictments yet."
While I leave open the question of whether the rectory was actually haunted, I am somewhat embarrassed by Andrew's theory that "the rectory was 'haunted' only by Marianne Foyster's various problems; [etc.]" Andrew goes on to list other sources for potential mischief - which are accurate - but the placement of my mother at the head of his list is unfortunate. She accepted certain pranks as originating with her own imagination, but only when certain people were guests, and never to the extent that some people have insinuated. After all, she only lived there five years, and reports from "witnesses" ranged from at least the mid 1800s through the 1940s - after the rectory burned.
As to the source material on Borley, I urge careful consideration of the original records when looking at the latest "blurb." So much has changed over the years as first one writer and then the other rely on secondary and tertiary re-tellings. My Internet bibliography is replete with carefully considered reports such as the one in Rosemary Ellen Guilley's second edition of Encyclopedia of Ghosts and Spirits (Facts on File, 2000). One of the better earlier rebuttals to the attacks on Borley is the now hard to find An Examination of the Borley Report by Robert Hastings (SPR Proceedings, March 1969). Unfortunately, it is less glamorous to quote the balanced articles than it is to feature the more flashy "expose."
I invite Andrew to keep his mind open to the possibilities, as it was during his Ealing days. It would be fasctinating to have him discuss what "turned him around" from being a curious investigator to closing more and more doors. He may have addressed this elsewhere, but I have unfortunately missed it.
As for my own prejudice? On my borleyrectory.com web site I point out, "In presenting the following information [about Borley], I make no judgement as to what is true, what is legend, or what is imagination. Because I have such close family ties to Borley, I have dedicated my life to researching and gathering as much information as possible - Borley is all I do. Every piece of evidence available is presented - pro and con. It is up to the reader to decide what to believe and what to discard."
There is one area in which Andrew and I have complete and absolute agreement. "Borley will never die, much to the discontent of the residents of the village for whom I have great sympathy." It is absolutely appalling to witness the gall of thrill seekers who still insist on poking around Borley 60 years after the alleged ghosts were burned out of house and home. I beseech all visitors to consider the current residents if a visit to this FORMER site is deemed absolutely necessary.