I recall several flagrant instances in which Sir Arthur’s faith has, I think, misguided him. One particular time was when he attended a public seance by a lady known as “The Medium in the Mask.” Among those present at the time was Lady Glenconner, Sir Henry Lunn and Mr. Sidney A. Mosley, a special representative of a newspaper.
According to reports, the medium wore a veil like a “yashmak.” She appeared very nervous. A number of articles, including a ring that had belonged to Sir Arthur’s deceased son, were put in a box, and the medium correctly gave the initials on the ring, although Sir Arthur said that they could hardly be discerned, even in a good light, they were so worn off.[82]
Later in describing another article, the medium said the words, “Murphy” and “button” and it was afterwards explained that “Murphy’s button” was a surgical operation term. She said that the person described would die as a result of the operation. Unfortunately, for the medium, no one present knew of such a case and yet, Sir Arthur described this seance as very clever.[83]
The “Masked Lady” was sponsored by a theatrical agent and illusionist and all proceedings of the seances were brought to light in a suit against Mr. George Grossman and Mr. Edward Laurillard, theatrical producers, to recover damages for breach of agreement to place a West End theatre at his disposal.
Accounts of mediums by the name of “Thompson” have misled several people. There is a Thompson of New York and a Thomson of Chicago. Sir Arthur had a seance with the Thompsons of New York and according to all the news clippings I have had they claimed to have brought back his mother. In fact it was stated that he asked permission to kiss his mother’s hand.
The Thomsons got into trouble in Chicago and New Orleans also.[84] As a matter of fact I was in Chicago when their trial took place. I had been present at two of their seances. The first was in New York at the Morosco Theatre and I had all I could do to keep J. F. Rinns from breaking up the performance. The second was in Chicago. It was a special seance given after my performance at the Palace Theatre. I was accompanied by H. H. Windsor, Publisher and Editor of Popular Mechanics; Oliver R. Barrett, a prominent member of the bar; Mr. Husband Manning, author; and Leonard Hicks, a well-known hotel proprietor. Among others present at the seance were Cyrus McCormick, Jr., Muriel McCormick, and Mrs. McCormick McClintock. We witnessed a number of unsatisfactory phenomena and afterwards adjourned to the home of Cyrus McCormick and discussed the seance, being unanimously of the opinion that it was a glaring fraud just as I had believed the one in New York to be.
At the Morosco Theatre, New York City, the Thomsons made the broad statement that they had been tested by Stead and Sir Oliver Lodge and at a special seance he had come out and publicly endorsed Mrs. Thomson as being genuine. The following letter not only disproves this but explains the feeling of an active Spiritualist toward the Thomsons.
“Normanton,
“Lake,
“Salisbury.
“7th January 1921.
“Dear Mr. Houdini:—
“It is a pleasure to hear from you, and I thank you for asking the question about the Thomsons. I have replied to one or two other queries of the same kind, but I would be grateful if you would make it known that any statement that I have vouched for their genuineness, is absolutely false.