Dear Andrew:
Borley Rectory: The Final Analysis
We write with reference to your recent review of the above book on the Borley Rectory web site. Everybody is entitled to their opinions but they are not entitled to publish falsehoods. Vincent has offered us the hospitality of the site to set the record straight on the points below; the pages and paragraphs mentioned refer to the review on the Borley Rectory web site.
Page 1, para 2. It is incorrect and disparaging to refer to a book, which has a total of 224 pages including preliminaries, as ‘a little book.’ To call any book ‘little’ is meaningless; one of the highest selling books of all time, ‘A Brief History of Time’ by Stephen Hawking, has only 208 pages, including preliminaries. The two books are not comparable but the illustration demonstrates that you have a poor grasp of semantics.
Page 1, para 5. ‘The Haunting of Borley Rectory’ may have been a sensation when it was published nearly 50 years ago but it became discredited and the Society for Psychical Research felt obliged to publish another account of the affair (‘An Examination of the Borley Report’ by Robert J Hastings, 1969). Equally discredited was the late Trevor Hall, whose main speciality was not ‘The Higher Criticism’, rather it was what some people call ‘Trash Biography’ which means that if enough mud is thrown some of it will stick.
Page 2, paras 6 & 7. It is disparaging to the reputation of the author to say that he is ‘always inclined to accept a supernatural explanation uncritically and avoids embarrassing details that suggest otherwise.’ Throughout the book the approach has been acadamic and very cautious. The quotation from page 183 has been taken out of context and distorted deliberately.
Page 2, para 8. In his introduction, the highly respected Alan Wesencraft, former curator of the Harry Price Library at London University, recalls his pleasurable meetings with Price and, less happily, the unfortunate activities of another researcher who obtained posession by dubious means of some of the Borley-related material in the Harry Price Library and sold it (to his own considerable profit) to American collectors. He claimed falsely to be a Cambridge graduate and was claiming to have earned a doctorate before he was entitled to do so. He was the above-mentioned Trevor Hall. It is incorrect to say that his behaviour was fully vindicated in the 1960s. It is correct to say that the University authorities were giving serious consideration to taking legal action against him.
Page 3, paras 1 - 5. It is untrue to say that events are not in a chronological sequence and to make this assertion is to disparage the competence of the author. Many authors repeat events in different chapters to remind readers of important facts.
Is is demonstrably untrue to say that there are no references and that there is no index. There are 130 source notes covering five pages and there is a comprehensive index of people, places and publications which covers four pages in three columns of 9/10 pt type (text type is 10.5/11.5 pt).
It is incorrect to say that Rev Guy Eric Smith did not believe in ghosts. During his early days at Borley he was indeed bewildered. The following quotation from Underwood, Peter, ‘Ghosts of Borley,’ p 232, a book of which you rightly approve, demonstrates your intention to disparage the author of ‘Borley Rectory: The Final Analysis’ in the face of evidence to the contrary, of which you were fully aware: ‘Mr Smith always maintained that Borley Rectory had an evil atmosphere and that the place was haunted; there exist letters from him confirming this. Mr Smith died at Sheringham, Norfolk, on 3rd August, 1940; Mrs Smith continued to live there, her memories confused and unreliable.’
Page 3, paras 6 & 7. It is incorrect to imply that the authors have overstated the details of Marianne Foyster’s private life. It has been well recorded (see ‘The Ghosts of Borley’ and ‘The Widow of Borley’) and a careful reading of ‘Borley Rectory: The Final Analysis’ would have made it clear that for the reasons stated in the text certain facts could not have been omitted (pp 196 - 198). The authors have expressed their regrets to descendants and the matter could not have been handled more sensitively.
Page 3, para 6 and page 4, para 1. It is incorrect to say that Alfred (not ‘Albert’ as your review states) and Margaret Finch were ‘severe critics of the haunting.’ The authors spent many hours talking to them and never did they deny that there had been haunting at Borley Rectory. The authors would be prepared to accept your version of their beliefs if you produce interview notes, dated and authenticated as is normal journalistic practice, supporting your contention.
Page 4, para 3. It is incorrect to say that it is hard to see any alignment on the map of the many places which are linked by so-called ley lines, four of which intersect at Borley. Another author (Frank Smyth, ‘Ghosts’) referred to them and an analysis of the happenings at Borley Rectory required the author to check the alignments. They are published in the book without comment, for all to see.
Page 4, para 4. It is incorrect to say that the book was not severely edited. Two professional editors (one of them senior editor at a learned institution) separately examined the raw text and each expressed themselves satisfied with the resulting final copy.
It is worth pointing out that your three and a half page review contains more errors than the 224 pages of ‘Borley Rectory: The Final Analysis.’
It is also worth calling to your attention the fact that other reviews have been favourable and that comments from readers have been enthusiastic.
It would show a spirit of generosity, which I think we are due, if a public apology is posted on the Borley Rectory web site in a prominent position, drawing readers’ attention to every one of the above points. It is perhaps worth reminding you that English law in relation to defamation is quite clear:
Æ The words must have been published to a third party. Appearance on the web is now deemed to constitute ‘publication’ and takes place in all countries in which the words were downloaded, not solely in the country of origin. This follows the recent dismissal of an appeal in the Canberra High Court
Æ They must be untrue
Æ They must include an allegation, either of fact or of opinion which is not factually based
Æ They must be understood directly or indirectly to refer to the person complaining about them
Æ They must be capable of bearing a defamatory meaning, ie, a judge must be satisfied in law that the words used are capable of disparaging that person’s reputation
Æ They must actually bear a defamatory meaning which is a question that the jury must decide.
If the above points are tested against the errors and falsehoods in your review it will be seen that a number of them satisfy the criteria.
Yours sincerely
Six Martlets Publishing
(Keld Fenwick & Ted Babbs)