3. The automatic winding up and moving about of a music-box.
4. Sounds proceeding from a piano and from an accordion which had not been touched.
5. A key turned in a lock, on the inside of the room where the séances were held, then placed upon the table, and again put back into the lock.
6. The overturning, by means of slow and correct evolutions, of a heavy moving table, which was afterwards found thus turned upside down.
7. The levitation of a heavy table, under conditions in which it would have been impossible to lift it in ordinary circumstances.
8. The appearance of blue marks upon a table previously spotless, and this done without the help of the ordinary methods of writing.
9. The sensation of blows, as if some one were striking the head, the arms, or the back, while the head, the hands, and the feet of the medium were plainly in view or held apart from the portions of the body that were touched.
It is plain enough what part the above statements play in our argument. They are throughout simply confirmations of the experiments described above.
At Cambridge, Eusapia was taken in the very act of deception; namely, the substitution of hands. While the controllers believed that they were holding her two hands, they were only holding one of them: the other was free. So these experimenters at Cambridge unanimously declared that "everything was fraud, from the beginning to the end," in Eusapia Paladino's twenty séances.
In a paper sent to M. de Rochas, M. Ochorowicz contested this radical conclusion, for several reasons. Eusapia is very susceptible to suggestion, and, by indulging her inclination to fraud and not hindering it, they incite her to it still more by a kind of tacit encouragement. Moreover, her fraud is generally of an unconscious kind. I append here, as a particular illustration of this, a rather typical story about her: