Contrary to the fantasies of Louis Mayerling, neither he nor my mother were responsible for the alleged hauntings at Borley Rectory. In his new book, Mayerling lays claim to “How We Faked the Ghosts of Borley Rectory” in great detail - detail that is all imagination.
My mother was the former Marianne Foyster, who spent five years in the supposedly “most haunted house in England” starting in 1930. The Foysters left Borley in 1935 due to the illness of Reverend Lionel Foyster. Marianne remarried in 1945 after Lionel died, and shortly thereafter adopted one of the thousands of “war babies” left by the tragedy of World War II. I was born in Ipswich, and she changed my name to reflect that of my new father, and never told me I was adopted. She also never told me about the tremendous publicity surrounding Borley. We left for the United States when I was still an infant, and I was in ignorance of what went before until after my mother died in 1992. When I heard the truth in September of 1994, I dedicated the rest of my life to researching all the facts.
I published my own book about the mysterious search for my identity in 1995 - “Who Am I?” While only 75 copies were printed, the circulation of those copies was to all the right corners of the globe. People who were aware of my situation but who had been sworn to secrecy, opened their hearts and their considerable resources to me. The BBC put me in touch with other adopted children of Marianne. Parapsychologist Iris Owen sent her entire collection of Borley research, including interviews with my mother, Marianne. Author Peter Underwood had written to my mother, and sent everything he could to further my investigation. Alan Roper dug up certificates and records. Alan Wesencraft, long-time curator of the Harry Price Library in the University of London, opened his files and his heart to my research. The list of people who came to my aid is very long. It was a wonderful time of discovery - some of it not as uplifting as one could desire - for which I will always give sincere thanks to those who helped.
Since I started with nothing, I was hungry for all the snippets and documents I could get my hands on. One of my many new friends gave me a lead to another person who claimed to know my mother intimately, and I struck up a correspondence with Louis Mayerling immediately. I shared a copy of my book with him, and then sent him a copy of my manuscript for a new book about my mother, “The Most Haunted Woman in England.” He returned pages and pages of edits and suggestions after reading my manuscript. (1)
Mayerling and I had a lively correspondence until late one day in 1995, Mayerling mysteriously insisted I cease and desist from contacting him. It seemed odd at the time, but I went on with my research. (2)
In addition to Louis Mayerling, my manuscript about my mother was distributed to several people in Canada and England in 1995. Their names are available upon request.
I opened an Internet web site and entered everything I knew in hopes of opening even more doors. It has worked splendidly, and people from all over the world have now helped me form the Internet-based Borley Ghost Society to aid me with my search.
In recent months, Mayerling paid to have his own book published, and now I know why he insisted on severing relations with me. “How We Faked the Ghosts of Borley Rectory” contains a great deal of the ideas from my book and from my manuscript, including at least two photographs. At no time did I authorize the use of this material, and absent my signed approval, it should not have been used. Mayerling admitted his mistakes in a letter dated December 6, 2000. (3)
He has offered to pay me retroactively, but there is more at stake here than mere plagiarism. He is also guilty of slander and libel.
Mayerling makes claims about my mother that are absolutely untrue. He asserts she as much as haunted Borley - often with his assistance - which she firmly denied while alive. In his book, Mayerling makes countless references to Marianne assisting with the haunting. This flies directly in the face of what she told her own son, Ian, in a letter from April, 1956: "What set out as a bit of fun can surely get one into trouble. Not that I ever did haunt Borley. There were plenty of others who did that. It was haunted since 1860 and that's a little before my time." She told paranormal researcher Trevor Hall on July 3, 1956: "I do not know who did the haunting . . . .If you mean did I haunt the place, the answer is No. And there is nothing going to make me say I did, not all the pressure because of life can make me."
Mayerling also asserts my mother was a pagan - something which I firmly deny. He states that my mother "had seriously reflected upon the earth-bound doctrines of paganism," (p. 209) and that she "took an interest in a paganistic form of faith." (p. 220) Indeed, quite the opposite was true. Although seemingly small and insignificant in his book, the statement about paganism is one linchpin that by itself topples Mayerling's house of cards. There are many other cards he has removed himself. (4)
Mayerling sums up the history of my mother's love interests on page 147 of his book. "It was perfectly obvious that Marianne's life was being governed by sexual desires, and perhaps always had been." Yet, in a November 25, 1995 letter to me, he indicated "just the opposite" was true. "If it is of any small consolation to you, I feel I can say quite truthfully that Marianne was not a particularly physically lustful person and, if anything, I would have thought just the opposite and less interested in any such thing than most." His defamation of my mother's character in public has caused painful ridicule to her remaining relatives: myself, a surviving granddaughter and great grandson, another adopted son, two adopted daughters, my own chidlren, and my granddaughter.
My mother did not haunt Borley Rectory, and neither did Louis Mayerling. I was taken in by his initial contact with me, and thought he was just one more person coming to my aid in my search for the truth. He was only using me as a resource in his quest to achieve fame and noteriety. At one time I thought we were good friends. Unfortunately, he has used that friendship for his own profit - at my emotional expense. He has used material and photos from my various works - as well as others - without authorization. If he sent a letter requesting permission, it never reached me, but my phone number has not changed in over 15 years. Absent my approval, the photos and paraphrased text should not have been used.
If Mayerling has originals of any of the items reproduced in his book - including my mother's passport photo - he must produce them before they are accepted by a publisher. The passport photo should show the appropriate signs of aging, and not be printed on modern paper. Likewise, he should also have copies of the original floor plans, and the watch my mother supposedly gave him.
If he is willing to "lift" photos and mislabel their source, then he is also willing to create false memories of Borley. I have only mentioned a sample of the instances where Mayerling used my material - I have not included examples of unauthorized copying from other sources such as the Harry Price books or the Ivan Banks book. The captions he has put under those photos are inaccurate, as they were taken from sources readily recognizable to even the most casual reader of the Borley history. Only one proof of unauthorized use is enough to justify pulling this book from circulation.
I have repeatedly asked his publisher to remove this book from circulation, and renew this appeal publically. (5)
His work is currently undergoing revisions so it can be re-issued, but there will be precious little left after he removes stolen and libelous material. The publisher of his book has been encouraged to obtain a copy of "Who Am I?" and "The Most Haunted Woman in England" from a variety of sources so that comparisons can be made with Mayerling's effort. If an edited copy of "We Faked the Ghosts of Borley Rectory" is re-issued, how can any publisher be positive it is completely "clean" of unauthorized material?
What is really at stake here is the presentation of photographs, relationships and questionable stories as fact. I do not see how any doctoring of the current text can address all the challenges it has presented. Until ALL challenges are addressed, the printing and distribution of this work should be stopped.
If Louis Mayerling is willing to use material from other sources without authorization or acknowledgment, how can any of his history be trusted? Many of the photos used in his book are grainy - a clear indication of being copied from second or even third sources. (6)
I no longer believe that Mayerling knew my mother, and if he met her at all, it was only for a brief period of time. As with the other Borley-related memories from his book, the time spent with my mother happened only in his imagination. Unfortunately, he has lived with these false ideas so long, he probably now believes them to be true. There is no credible evidence to support his claims, however.
On the other hand, there is a great deal of evidence to support the truth - neither my mother nor Louis Mayerling haunted Borley Rectory. (7)
Vincent O'Neil
Box 12911
Ogden, UT 84412
USA
www.borleyrectory.com
RVONeil@aol.com
EVIDENCE:
(1) http://www.borleyrectory.com/mayerling/edit.htm - Mayerling edits O'Neil manuscript
(2) http://www.borleyrectory.com/mayerling/split.htm - Mayerling splits and reconciles with O'Neil
(3) http://www.borleyrectory.com/mayerling/6dec00.htm - Mayerling admissions to O'Neil
(4) http://www.borleyrectory.com/mayerling/pickacard.htm - Mayerling destroys his own house of cards
(5) http://www.borleyrectory.com/mayerling/toPenPress.htm - Request to have book pulled
(6) http://www.borleyrectory.com/mayerling/lifted.htm - Mayerling's thefts from O'Neil
(7) http://www.borleyrectory.com/mayerling/mayerling.htm - complete Mayerling file
Manchester Evening News News Desk,
newsdesk@mcr-evening-news.co.uk
Daily Mail, London
editor.it@dailymail.co.uk
Daily Telegraph, London
et.letters@telegraph.co.uk
Ipswich Evening Star
nigel.pickover@ecng.co.uk
Cambridge News,
editorial@cambridge-news.co.uk
Essex Chronicle,
simon.leek@notes.newsquest.co.uk
Amelia.Hill@guardian.co.uk,
rickard@forteantimes.com,
colin.chinery@ecng.co.uk,
john.cranston@bbc.co.uk,
jonb@suffolkfreepress.demon.co.uk,
Patrick.Lowman@ecng.co.uk,
Philip@carrp.freeserve.co.uk,
penpress@btconnect.com,
amelia.hill@observer.co.uk,
media@guardian.co.uk