Contrary to [what] Louis Mayerling [says], neither he nor my mother [was] responsible for the alleged hauntings at Borley Rectory. In his new book, [....] .. "How We Faked the Ghosts of Borley Rectory," [Mayerling makes his claims] 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 [Rev] 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 [...]. 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 [called], “The Most Haunted Woman in England.” He returned pages and pages of edits and suggestions after reading my manuscript.

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.

In addition to Louis Mayerling, my manuscript about my mother was distributed to several people in Canada and England in 1995. [......]

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. He [also] offered to pay me retroactively, but there is more at stake here than [allegations of] plagiarism. [. . . .].

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. [. . . .]

Mayerling also asserts my mother was a pagan - something which I firmly deny. [. . . . ] 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. [. . . .]

[..................]

My mother did not haunt Borley Rectory, and neither did Louis Mayerling. [. . . . . ]

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.

[. . . .] 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.

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.

My sincere thanks to the Suffolk Free Press for printing the truth January 18 about the notorious work of Louis Mayerling in his book "We Faked the Ghosts of Borley Rectory."

In response to that article, Mayerling told Barbara Eeles, "I stand by every word I wrote." This is not true. His reply only serves to forward the indictment against him. He has recanted first one portion and then another of his manuscript until the whole has been weakened - if he is willing to fudge the facts in one area, who is to say what is truth in the portions that remain?

In another part of his reply, Mayerling accuses me of "orchestrating a malicious campaign against him." There is no campaign against you, Louis. You grant me more power than it is mine to possess. Those who have responded to your fiction did so of their own free will, and were not coerced by me in any way. As world famous author Colin Wilson has said, "....it seems fairly clear that the book is intended either as fiction or as a hoax." (Daily Mail, 3 January 2001).

Alan Wesencraft, long-time former curator of the Harry Price Library at the University of London has told me that the Colin Wilson article "is useful as a corrective to anyone thinking the book by Mayerling in any way throws doubt on the Borley Haunts. I have heard from many people on the "expose'," and they all say it is absolute and clearly demonstrable nonsense."

Renowned Borley author and expert Peter Underwood has told me, "Mayerling's book is far, far more fictions than fact. The Harry Price Library at the University of London has no information, and Alan Wesencraft tells me that over 42 years he almost certainly never met and conversed with every person who has done any serious investigation of the Borley mystery and he is positive that there was no mention of Mayerling or George Carter. Also, he has examined the files of Harry Price, Mrs Baines, Eric Dingwall and Trevor Hall. This is, I am sure, a novel and should be treated as such."

Borley researcher and Essex resident Edward Babbs said, "Far from Borley Rectory being Mayerling's second home, one has to consider if he ever went there, in view of the glaring errors in his book." (Suffolk Free Press. January 25, 2001.)

Essex resident Andrew Clarke wrote to the publisher, asking for the book to be pulled from circulation. He called the book, "a tiresome and offensive screed." He added, "The author claims that what he writes is a factual first-person account of the Borley Rectory incident. It requires very little effort to prove that it is no such thing, and it would have saved a great deal of distress to relatives of the unfortunate people involved, as well as local people around the parish, if the book had been checked out before publication. Its' publication. . . . led to a considerable increase in nuisance to local residents and farmers. Although it is portrayed as a debunking of the Borley Myths, the book actually tries to perpetuate them . . . . Worse still, it accuses the poor rector at the time of being a drug-addict and [an active] homosexual, and his wife of being promiscuous. . . . . I can imagine that Lionel Foyster's surviving relatives must also be very displeased by the accusations. Even I . . . . find the slur on a former rector of one of the 'four parishes', distasteful. . . . I find the morality of digging up the Foysters' private life, for nothing more than profit and entertainment, very questionable. The ministry of the Bulls and Foysters in our parishes was exemplary, and the families are still held in deep respect by local people. . . . one must not forget that Borley really exists as a community that wants no more of the Halloween fable that the Borley Rectory incident has become. . . . .This is a sacred place, the focus of the spiritual life of the village for over two millennia. It is not a Disney theme-park. Please withdraw this book."

As for his accusation against me for being "malicious," Mayerling's promotion of my mother as a promiscuous pagan bent on haunting Borley is where the maliciousness started. It continued with his threat to blackmail me in a December 6, 2000 letter: "I am thinking that it might be very interesting to reveal your own CV for others to digest. You have already told me a lot."

It was in that same letter of December 6 that he admitted he made mistakes. He did not, "stand by every word" he wrote. Instead, he confessed, "I offended you by using Marianne's photos [from your book "Who Am I?"]. And I am extremely sorry about this. . . . I will willing pay you, say, 150 [UKP] for the privilege of keeping them in the book."

Mayerling described how he lifted another picture of my mother from my book, and then doctored it to show another background - "a staircase at Branshill House in Hampshire."

Mayerling went on to admit, "the marriage photo of Prince Feodor [is] of course, quite ridiculous. It is of my own marriage reception to Barbara."

In that December communique to me, Mayerling included a copy of "Journey Into The Unknown" from Inside TV, London: October, 1994. p. 49. He admits this was the source of "the 'skewered' photo" of my mother he transposed into his book.

Yet another admission involves the claim in his book to have been born in Vienna. "So my 'birth certificate' has been wrinkled out. Well, this would have been simple, it's there for anybody to find." The record clearly shows he was born at 63 Mayes Road, Wood Green, Middlesex.

I am not the only one privileged to hear the truth from Mayerling. In November 2000, he wrote a letter to the Suffolk Free Press explaining, "I have made at least two significant mistakes. . . . . my inclusion of the name of 'Sir. Bertram Montague' as the governor of the Bank of England. This should be 'Sir Montague Norman.' As regards my second error, I'm not telling! Let the experts find out."

In the Free Press article itself, he admits to more skullduggery when he "used a copy of Marianne's signature [from "Who Am I?" by Vincent O'Neil] that I shouldn't have done."

If he admits he is guilty of all these various deceptions, how can ANY of his record be trusted.

Mayerling has never addressed my continued insistence that he produce ANY proof to verify his book. He says the letters my mother wrote to him before 1968 were burned in a fire. Fine, let him produce any she supposedly wrote AFTER that date and before her death in December of 1992.

He makes no excuse for reprinting a 1945-46 passport photo of my mother which I first published in my book "Who Am I? He claims to have an IDENTICAL copy. Odd, since passport photos are notorious for being unique. Odder still when it appears to have survived that 1968 fire! Prove you have a second copy Louis, by showing it to a credible witness. It should, of course, show the appropriate signs of aging, on paper from the era.

He claims my mother gave him a watch with a lengthy inscription. Fine, let him show it to a credible witness. Even if the inscription has worn down over time, SOME PORTION of it must still remain - with the appropriate signs of aging.

Produce one letter; produce the watch; produce the duplicate passport photo to Barbara Eeles and one other respected witness. While you are at it, show these witnesses any copies of the Borley floor plans you claim to have purchased from the Gregson's. Demonstrate the origin of the other photographs in your book you actually lifted from the Ivan Banks book "Enigma of Borley Rectory" and the Harry Price book, "The Most Haunted House in England." Show us the proof, Louis.

In his reply to Eeles, he accused me of becoming "so persistent" in my correspondence with him that "in the end I asked him to stop." In reality, one of my letters did reach him after he asked me to stop writing, but only because his initial request crossed in the mail. The truth comes out in his December 6 letter: "Feeling rather repentful after all about my rejection of you...." This was after an October 2000 letter wherein he said, "Firstly, I have to say how sorry I have been regarding my attitude to you!" He claimed in that letter his request to break off our relationship "was a political move" due to "various threats and an attempt had been made on our lives." It was nothing personal against me. It can only be assumed the alleged threats were eliminated before he went public with his book and the subsequent notoriety he sought out in order to promote it.

Mayerling points out in his reply that I have been in turmoil because of his actions. Yes, Louis, your Christmas Day phone call DID leave me emotionally upset. I was trying to cope with the betrayal of a friendship. Any kindness you showed me in earlier letters was all part of your long- range confidence game into which I was blindly swept. I was desperate for news of my mother, and you took advantage of my weakness.

Finally, Louis, I am not "jealous of [your] relationship with [my] mother." How can I be, when it is clear that you never met the woman. If you had, you would be too mortified to print these lies about her - embarrassing not only her memory, but causing pain and anguish to her survivors. If you have any shred of decency left, you will withdraw this onerous work and apologize.