To sum up, limiting ourselves simply to published documents, we see that the English experimenters paid no attention to the conditions under which it is expedient to operate, that they tired out the medium, surrounded her with elements of suspicion, encouraged her to fraud—Dr. Hodgson especially—and finally concealed from her the severe judgment they had formed about her. As Richet says, the Cambridge experiments prove only one thing, which is, that in that particular series of seances Eusapia frauded with her well-known methods, but it is rash to conclude thereupon that she has always frauded.[41]
The analysis of the documents published permits me to ascertain:—
- 1. Demonstration of fraud in certain hypothetical cases.
- 2. Omission to indicate if the medium was conscious or in trance.
- 3. Omission to discuss phenomena non-explicable by fraud.
- 4. Apparent contradiction between Dr. Hodgson’s statements and those of other experimenters.
- 5. Omission to analyse if Eusapia’s suspicious movements were not muscular movements synchronous with the phenomena. This omission is capital, and demonstrates the relative inexperience of the Cambridge group.
- 6. Evident bias of Dr. Hodgson, who had taken up a decided stand, and treated Eusapia’s phenomena as fraudulent before having seen them.
In a word, the Cambridge experimenters operated under bad conditions: they could not obtain any good results by acting as they did. But, even under these wretched conditions, they ought to have received some veridical phenomena, and the reading of their publications leads us to presume they did receive some. In any case, their report does not demonstrate that everything was explicable by fraud, and is not sufficient to justify the sweeping judgment they brought to bear upon Eusapia Paladino.
Now, if we compare the Cambridge results with those obtained by other experimenters, the conclusion we draw from these documents becomes more precise. I refer my readers to the reports of the experiments at Milan (Ann. des Sc. Psych., 1893), and at l’Agnélas (Ibid. 1896). I will only dwell upon my personal experience with Eusapia. I experimented with this medium in 1895, 1896, and 1897, and I obtained undeniable phenomena with her.
Like other Continental experimenters, I tried to put Eusapia at her ease, to win her confidence and sympathy; and the results of my seances were convincing.
At l’Agnélas, out of seance hours, and in full light, I saw the table raised to the height of my forehead. Every one was standing up, Eusapia’s hands were held and seen; her left hand, held by me, rested on the right angle of the table.
At Choisy, in 1897, we received doubtful phenomena, notably the apport of a carnation which appeared most suspicious to us; but we spoke openly of our doubts to Eusapia. At other times the phenomena were of extraordinary intensity. One afternoon, Sunday, 11th October, all the sitters, even those furthest away from the medium, were touched.