Screenwriter Authors New Book On ‘Margery’ Mediumship

News reaches me that the Crown Publishing Group has acquired the rights to the non-fiction book by screenwriter David Jehar about the controversial physical medium ‘Margery’ Crandon.

According to Mr. Jehar the advance he was paid for his book was in the “high six figures.”

He said his book will tell the story of Harry Houdini’s campaign to discredit ‘Margery’, who made the front page of the New York Times in the 1920s as the controversy over her mediumship reached fever pitch.

The book depicts the real-life confrontation between the magician and the Boston  medium, casting a light on a moment in history when science seemed on the verge of embracing the paranormal.

The book, unfortunately entitled The Witch of Lime Street, will be out in early 2010, Mr. Jehar said.

One hopes that this new book will not just cover the same old ground as previous books/articles on the Margery mediumship, and will offer new information and insights regarding this extraordinary woman.

Unrelated Video: Houdini Investigates Medium…

Spirit Communication At Devon Seance

By Louise Dobson

I have sat in circle to develop clairvoyance at the Newton Abbot Spiritualist Church in Devon for over two years now, and felt blessed that I had the opportunity to sit with physical medium Stewart Alexander, for what would likely be his last public demonstration.

It was particularly poignant for me since the last time he demonstrated at the Newton Abbot Church in November of 2007, I met my absolute soul mate, who had flown over from New York, just to attend the séance. What a joy then, to be sitting there with him again, almost a year later.

Before entering the séance room, we all emptied our pockets and removed all jewelry. We were then thoroughly searched in order to make sure that absolutely nothing was brought into the séance room. The spirit people that come through Stewart use ectoplasm to materialize and speak, and it is well known that if ectoplasm is exposed to light, it can shoot back into the medium’s body at great speed potentially causing internal bleeding or even death. It was of paramount importance to keep Stewart as safe as possible at all times.

The sitters were then addressed by a gentleman named Alf, who was one of Stewart’s circle members. He explained to the new sitters that we would be sitting in complete darkness for an extended period of time. He gave sitters who had never attended a physical séance before, the opportunity to leave if they thought they could not tolerate sitting under these conditions. Whilst a couple of new sitters acknowledged that they were somewhat apprehensive, the atmosphere of the room was full of eager anticipation and excitement. He explained what was likely to happen, but offered no guarantees, then discussed the do’s and don’ts of séance protocol. Stewart sat in the chair, his arms and legs bound firmly by plastic cable ties.

Illuminated

These were thoroughly checked by one of the sitters. He also had illuminated stripes taped to his knees so the sitters could see in the darkness his location and what position he was in. It was confirmed by some of the sitters that these cable ties were very secure. There was no reason whatsoever to suspect any type of fraud or anything remotely suspicious.

White feather was the first spirit to come through, a Native American Indian who noted how exceptionally good the energy was. He acts as a gatekeeper between our two worlds. White feather then withdrew to allow Christopher to come through. He is a charming young boy of about seven years, whose job it is to relax the sitters. His high pitched, impish voice and cheeky laughter had us all laughing and helped to raise the vibration in the room even higher. He joked with several sitters but he was instructed after only a few minutes by his spirit team that he had to withdraw. Music was then played and we all sang. A short time later, a gentleman named Walter Stinson came through. He was a Canadian who passed over to the spirit world in 1911.

He is a member of Stewart’s spirit team and is responsible for all physical phenomena that may take place during a séance. He is a powerful character and is known to be rather flirtatious with the ladies. He invited any ladies to ask him a question and one of the sitters was invited to sit beside him on his right side. After addressing the questions she had for him, he requested that the red light be switched on, which was located under a glass topped table located in front of the medium. There was a rheostat controlling the intensity of the red light and this was switched on in order to allow everyone to see the two plastic binds connecting Stewart’s arms to the chair. The sitter also confirmed this by touching the ties and checking them to make sure that they were still binding Stewart to the chair.

Evidential Demonstration

The red light was then switched off and there was a noise. The sitter then said that the arm was raised swiftly up into the air. Stewart’s arm was free from the plastic cable ties that bound him to the chair. His left arm was still firmly attached to the arm of the chair by the cable tie. This was an evidential demonstration of matter through matter. The red light was switched off and the audible ectoplasmic rush was heard again. A sitter then confirmed that the arm was back on the armrest bound like before. The red light was again turned on and everyone could see the arm fastened to the chair by the cable ties once again. Stewart Alexander was in trance whilst all this was happening and all direction and instructions were from Walter.

We were then instructed by Walter to lay our hands with palms uppermost on our laps. The trumpets were placed between the feet of the medium and we were invited to sing in order to help raise the energy levels again and increase the vibration in the room. We could see two trumpets levitate and swiftly dance around the room at great speed never bumping into one another. They danced over the heads of the sitters. It should be noted that the ceiling was at least 30 foot high and they were flying right to the ceiling and darting down again very quickly.

Dr Barnett, another member of Stewart’s spirit team who is very philosophical, also came through to speak with us. Next came Freda Johnson. She reunited two sitters with loved ones. It was very emotional for those concerned, as well as everyone else in the room. One of the ladies sitting to the right of me was aware of her son who had passed over and was trying to get through. He was experiencing some difficulty and was invited by Freda to speak to her later after the séance had ended. Stewart would attempt again to bring him through in a private sitting. The other sitters remained in their seats after the séance and the lady was invited through to a small ante room with Stewart. She returned obviously very emotional and confirmed that her son had spoken to her.

Materialized Hand

Walter Stinson’s voice spoke again and invited the ladies once again to ask him a question. I asked a question and to my surprise and delight, he asked me to join him at the front of the room at the glass top table. He answered my question which was relating to how I might best serve the world of spirit and then asked me if I would like to view his materialized hand. I sat opposite him with the illuminated glass topped table between us. The energy was palpable as I sat down and my legs started to shake uncontrollably. I was asked by Walter to place one hand on the table and describe to the other sitters what I saw. An undefined black shadow started to form to the left of the table and slowly started to morph with slight projections. The projections elongated and became finger like, and then a fully formed claw like male looking hand materialized.

The materialized hand crawled across the table onto my hand, and proceeded to pat it three times. It felt warm to the touch and exactly as a normal human hand would look. I could even see the hairs on the back of the hand. It then proceeded to knock the table firmly and loudly which was met by audible exclamations of amazement by my fellow sitters. I feel totally blessed to have experienced this amazing phenomena. Walter spoke to me in his distinctive Canadian brawl and asked “Didn’t you ever want to shake the hand of a man who had been dead for more than a hundred years now, ma’ am, hmm?” Everyone found this very amusing and I for one was buzzing from the whole experience. I kept asking myself how many people in the world have had an experience like this. How lucky am I? I can confirm that this was not the hand of the medium, Stewart Alexander. If this wasn’t enough, he then asked for my new found soul mate Ken to come up. Out of all the sitters the two of us were seated opposite this amazing man from the spirit world, waiting in anticipation for the next demonstration. He then invited Ken’s “betrothed” to sit next to him. Ken and I had discussed getting married however had not made any formal plans or announcements yet so to have someone from the spirit realms acknowledge our intent rendered us totally speechless.

I was unable to respond since I was so overcome with emotion. I recognized Sheila’s voice, one of the administrators of the church call out “She is already there”! Ken was positioned opposite Walter and he invited another female sitter named Heather to sit to the left of the medium. We were then invited to place our hands flat on the table with our thumbs touching and our little fingers touching that of our neighbors. The table started to move, pushing against my knees quite firmly. It then moved backwards and forwards and proceeded to levitate. We all sat there mystified. All of us aware that we couldn’t possibly have lifted the table with both hands flat on the table ourselves. We were then invited to take our seats again.

Ken was addressed again by Walter and he stated “Ken, you are not going to believe what is in store for you in the future!” He did not elaborate on this but filled us both with eager anticipation. He also said “When your big day arrives, and you KNOW what I mean by this, will I be invited?” He was relating to our aspirations of getting married. After the séance, Ken and I discussed the odds of how many weddings there had ever been when someone from the world of spirit asked if they could attend. When the time is right, we will of course be inviting Walter, and know FOR SURE that he will be there in spirit.

Eternity

What a totally amazing evening. One that the two of us will remember for eternity, made so very special by the personal messages. It was my third demonstration of physical mediumship and my second demonstration of ectoplasmic, materialization mediumship, and I can say that with absolute certainty that I never, at any time, suspected any type of fraud taking place. It has confirmed my knowingness, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that our soul and our etheric spirit body are eternal, and that we all survive physical death.

I want to take this opportunity to express my sincerest thanks and praise to Stewart Alexander for his hard work and tireless dedication over the years, in developing his gift and demonstrating it publically, and in bringing the two worlds together and unwittingly two very, very happy people that otherwise, would never have met.

Stewart Alexander Winds Down Public Sittings

After nearly twenty years of public work, well known physical medium Stewart Alexander is winding down the number of his public demonstrations.

Stewart told me:

“The only public physical seances  I intend to give in the future will be our Cober Hill Seminars held twice each year - I would not give them up!

“I shall also be continuing with our Thursday evening Guest Circles - held in our Home Circle room. My seances at Alf and June Winchester’s, which are held in their seance room about 4 times each year, will also carry on.

“And finally, if required I shall continue to give the Xmas Tree seance at the York Church.  This is generally for about 40 people and the Church are very close friends of mine.  This is the only exception regarding large meetings.

“So - following the York Xmas Tree seance this year (and subsequent years if required) I shall no longer be giving large public seances apart from our Cober Seminars.”

More to follow…

Zammit Claims Alan Crossley Return. But Where Is The Evidence?

Modern day physical mediumship is at something of a crossroads. From the halcyon days of Helen Duncan and Alex Harris where evidence was the ‘golden fruit’ of the Spiritualist tree, the intervening years have brought something of a famine to the soil of modern, public, physical mediumship. Many explanations for this have been offered and discussed through the psychic press and public chat forums over the years.

It is not my intention in this article to offer my own views on the mechanics of why this has happened. Suffice it to say that unless the standard of evidence is improved in public seances the future of physical mediumship is under threat of extinction.

Victor Zammit has long been one of physical mediumship’s most vociferous supporters. For several years now he has championed the Australian based medium, David Thompson. Through his weekly Afterlife Report, Zammit updates his readers on the latest seances given by Thompson; seances which regularly witness the alleged communications from personalities such as Harry Houdini, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Winston Churchill. While I applaud Victor’s passion and wholehearted support of physical mediumship, I question his investigative methodology and his stated qualifications as an unbiased judge of physical mediumship.

On his website Victor describes himself as “a full time writer and researcher on empirical evidence for the afterlife.” This is rather an ambiguous description since ‘empirical’ can mean ‘relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory’. A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. And since most, if not all, of David Thompson’s phenomena is produced in the dark then the primary sense Victor is relying upon during these seances is his hearing. Hardly scientific, is it? Moreover, in the cases of Houdini, Churchill and Doyle the voices sound nothing like they did on earth and do not provide any audible evidence whatsoever in order to substantiate their validity.

So, upon what exact evidence is Victor basing his assumptions upon? A voice in the dark claiming to be Harry Houdini or Conan Doyle? As ‘evidence’, this is totally unscientific and can only be dismissed as ridiculous.

As a lawyer, Victor claims he is “an expert in the admissibility of evidence” and I also has “qualifications in scientific method”. Then Victor should know that only relevant evidence is admissible. Admissible evidence, in a court of law, is any testimonial, documentary, or tangible evidence that may be introduced to a judge or jury in order to establish or to bolster a point put forth by a party to the proceeding. In order for evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant, without being prejudicial, and it must have some indicia of reliability. It must also tend to prove or disprove some fact that is at issue in the proceeding.

Non of the recordings of alleged deceased personalities ‘prove or disprove’ anything.

As to Victor’s reference to the scientific method, let us look firstly at what the scientific method is:

The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavour to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world. It has 4 steps:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Victor Zammit has not produced any evidence whatsoever by means of the full scientific method.

Now let me focus upon a recent claim of Victor’s that the well known Spiritualist Alan Crossley communicated through the mediumship of David Thompson. I was fortunate to be a close friend of Alan’s. I was a member of his home circle and he was the Features Editor of Psychic World while I was editor. I knew him intimately.  In the April 4th Afterlife Report Victor states:

Last Sunday night we had a most fantastic materialization session with medium David Thompson. The Circle of the Silver Cord has been working quietly to build the energy and it was one of the very best we’ve ever had. Three brilliant British mediums, Gordon Higginson, and for a very short time Helen Duncan, and one dedicated investigator of physical mediumship Allan Crossley materialized to pass information on to us.

A link is given to a short recording of ‘Allan’: Alan Crossley (Page opens in new window so please disable any pop up blockers.)

Once you have listened to this recording, watch the following video of Alan and compare the two voices:

Upon comparing the two voices it will be clear to the objective observer that there is not the slightest similarity between them. They do not sound alike in any way. The intonation, tone, accent, rhythm, stress and pitch contour of the two voices are completely different. Another important consideration is that at one point in the seance recording ‘Alan’ addresses Victor by his surname only - something Alan never did when talking to people. This is completely out of character.

The argument could be given that it is not always possible for the voice of the communicator to exactly match the voice as it was on earth. This may indeed be the case, and this is why in such instances it is extremely important that the evidence provided by ‘non matching’ voices is credible and verifiable.

So, let us examine the actual evidence that ‘Alan’ proffers as to his authenticity. Well, in the short clip we have heard ‘Alan’ provides no corroborative evidence whatsoever! Moreover, Victor Zammit or any of the other circle members present did not know Alan and are therefore unqualified to state (as Victor does) that it is Alan Crossley.

To recap: Victor Zammit claims that the voice heard in the seance recording is that of the deceased Spiritualist, Alan Crossley. The communicator does not sound like Alan Crossley, nor does the communicator provide one iota of evidence to support his contention. Yet Victor Zammit is quite happy to offer up this seance recording as ‘evidence’ of life after death! Remember, this is the man who states he is a “researcher on empirical evidence for the afterlife” and has “qualifications in scientific method”! There is nothing scientific about the ‘evidence’ Victor offers in support of his contention that the communicator is Alan Crossley for the simple reason that there is NO supporting evidence offered whatsoever! Remember, this is the man who claims to be “an expert in the admissibility of evidence”. Hmmm….

At the beginning of this article I stated that unless the standard of evidence provided in seances was improved physical mediumship was under threat. By providing the above example of contemporary ‘evidence’, I hope the reader now understands what I mean and can appreciate the situation. To put this bluntly, Victor Zammit - despite his good intentions -  is making a complete mockery of physical mediumship. We are expected to believe that voices recorded in the dark are of deceased people merely because Victor Zammit says they are. He provides no scientific research or scientific evidence in support of these claims.

I will now make the following request of Victor in order to give him the chance to substantiate his claims and provide actual evidence to support his contention that the voice in the seance recording is Alan Crossley.
One Thousand Pounds Challenge To Victor Zammit!

I request Victor Zammit to ask the personality claiming to be Alan Crossley 5 questions which I will provide. These questions will be posted on this website before the seance. I will then record a YouTube video detailing the answers to these questions but will not disclose its web address until Victor has uploaded a YouTube video which provide the answers. At a prearranged time, we will email each other the web address of each video - both of which will be posted immediately on this site at a given time.

Will Victor accede to this request? Maybe. More importantly, however, will the alleged spirit of Alan Crossley provide the correct answers to the questions? I do not think so. In fact, I will give one thousand English pounds to the charity of Victor’s choice if this alleged communicator gives just three correct answers out of the five.

It is now time for Victor Zammit to demonstrate to the world that there is substance behind his rhetoric. He makes outstanding claims for David Thompson’s mediumship. Well, let us see if he can provide some credible evidence - for without evidence his words are but sails without wind….

Stay tuned, I’ll keep you posted on Victor’s response.

Update: Victor Zammit has responded.

Zammit Ducks My Thousand Pound Challenge

By SIMON FORSYTH

Victor Zammit, the self-styled researcher on the empirical evidence for the afterlife and chief propagandist for the alleged physical medium David Thompson, has replied in typical fashion to my  previous article on his claims. In a rather hysterical response, bubbling with personal abuse, fizzing with wild accusations and foaming with venomous invective, Mr Zammit offers plenty of bluster but little substance. You can read his reply  here.

Sadly, but not unsurprisingly, Mr Zammit refused to accept my offer to pay one thousand pounds to the charity of his choice if he can provide verifiable evidence to substantiate his claim that my close personal friend, Alan Crossley, materialised through David Thompson’s mediumship. This evidence is in the form of answers to five questions I proposed to ask. Mr Zammit’s refusal of my challenge is quite ironic since it is well known that he likes challenges - his $1M challenge to the sceptics is proof of that. You can read it here.

How strange then, that he rejects my challenge to him. If he is so sure of the high calibre of David Thompson’s mediumship, of the “stunning evidence” and the “world shattering” substantiation which is “taking the world by storm”, then why doesn’t he accept my little challenge? The reader can only draw their own conclusion as to why Victor Zammit chooses to duck out of it. This is what he originally stated on his website -  it has since been removed by Victor Zammit:

As to  ‘Dick’ asking me to ask Alan Crossley some questions. No, I will NOT deal with nor negotiate with proven cowards, liars and amateurs. The whole of this ‘Dick’s’ article is highly venomous, vile and scurrilous and full of lies. It is a personal attack on me.

Why has Victor Zammit removed it? Doesn’t he want people to know that he has directly refused to attempt to provide confirmatory evidence of his claims? Seems so. Yet, Victor Zammit so enjoys issuing challenges to others, such as his $1M and $500,000 challenges. When the boot is on the other foot, however, his bravado seems to desert him.

My challenge, however, remains open. Any time Victor Zammit wants to change his mind he is more than welcome to contact me. And for the record, let me quickly rebut this erroneous statement:

Now, this uninformed critic is offering me a few cents (relative to the half a million dollars I am offering to anyone who can show fraud etc in our materializations) to invoke Crossley and cross-examine him.

The challenge did not call on Mr Zammit to “invoke” Alan Crossley, or “cross-examine him”. The challenge, clearly stated, involves Victor Zammit simply asking the personality claiming to be Alan Crossley five questions which I will provide. If Alan Crossley is absent from the seance, the questions and answers could be communicated through a 3rd party.

Anyhow this is how he first acknowledged my original article on his claims:

A COWARD ATTACKS VICTOR: in my next Friday Report I’ll be rebutting that guy who thinks he’s a smartass by launching an attack against Victor. Typical of this coward, an uninformed defeatist and a know-nothing he does not have the testes, the courage, the honesty and integrity to send me the ‘dirty’ article. Coward! That shows colossal cowardice pushed to its extreme! Next Friday chum!
Note. This statement has also been removed.

Charming man, isn’t he? I’m accused of being a “coward” and not having “honesty and integrity” because - according to Mr Zammit - I never sent him the article. Notwithstanding the hysterical nature of these accusations, the obvious point to make is why would I not want him to see it? I offered him a challenge to demonstrate that his claims are true, so it is in my interest for him to read the article. Nevertheless, Mr Zammit seems to completely miss this point and boldly pounds away at his keyboard, making allegations without the slightest shred of evidence to back them up.

In reality, I sent him an email with a link to the article on the day it was published on my website - Sunday 18th May.

Now let me turn to Victor Zammit’s  main article, and address some of the issues contained therein:

Firstly, he does not give a link to my original article so his readers cannot see what I actually wrote, and in what context. Not exactly fair; particularly since he makes so many ludicrous and factually incorrect representations of what I wrote. I will refute these later in this article.

Secondly, one cannot help but be bemused at his childish reference to me as “Simon Dick”. Is this really a mature, intelligent and professional investigator I’m debating with here, or a 12 year old schoolboy? If Mr Zammit wishes to portray himself as a serious and credible investigator then he is certainly going the wrong way about it with such idiotic nonsense.

Anyhow, Victor Zammit writes:

The main thrust of his complaint is that Alan Crossley did not materialize for the Circle of the Silver Cord. But, we notice very carefully, this complainant, ‘Dick’ acknowledges that voices were recorded. This means that the Circle produced evidence that some entity was speaking.

Yes, of course the circle produced “evidence” that some “entity was speaking”. That is not disputed. It is the identity of this person that is in question, not whether they spoke or not.

Why would people accept that it was Alan Crossley who came through? Firstly, the entity himself claimed to be Alan Crossley. That was noted with great care.

So, we should all accept and believe that it was Alan Crossley because he claimed to be Alan Crossley? This kind of reasoning only perpetrates the sceptics’ argument that Spiritualists are credulous and gullible fools who will accept the veracity of spirit communication without question. This statement is also incompatible with what Mr Zammit says on another page of his website when he writes:

Again, I have to re-state, we do  NOT and have  NEVER guaranteed that those who come through are who they claim to be. The discretion is left up to the person listening to the spirit voices.

So if Mr Zammit cannot guarantee the spirit communicators are who they say they are, why does he:

A.) Explicitly make the claim that it was Alan Crossley: “Three brilliant British mediums, Gordon Higginson, and for a very short time Helen Duncan, and one dedicated investigator of physical mediumship Allan (sic) Crossley materialized to pass information on to us.”

B.) Contend that we should still believe that it was Alan Crossley because “the entity himself claimed to be Alan Crossley”?

Mr Zammit’s statements are simply not logical or coherent. He states people should “accept” it was Alan Crossley because “the entity himself claimed to be Alan Crossley”, while elsewhere stating that he cannot guarantee the communicators are who they say they are.

Mr Zammit also makes the following admission:

For myself whether or not the spirits are who they say they are, is not all that important. But I go on the totality of the evidence.

The fact that Mr Zammit doesn’t think the authenticity of the communicators at David Thompson’s seances is “important” is quite astonishing. Not only does it demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding and appreciation of the purpose of physical mediumship, but it also condones fakery. That this fakery is being perpetrated from the other side makes no difference. The sole purpose of physical mediumship is to provide evidence for the survival of bodily death. And the very best evidence a spirit communicator can give is to provide personal evidence to a loved one: The relaying of a shared experience known only to the spirit communicator and the recipient, for example. This is the kind of evidence which demonstrates the authenticity of the communicator. This is the kind of evidence which convinces a sitter that the communicator was genuine. And  this is the kind of evidence which an imposter would find it very difficult to provide.

This is why I question the veracity of Mr Zammit’s specific claim that it was Alan Crossley who communicated through David Thompson. There simply was no evidence of this kind given. A voice in the dark claiming to be Alan Crossley, in itself, provides no credible evidence of the identity of the speaker.

But I go on the totality of the evidence.

There certainly wasn’t any other evidence given that it was Alan Crossley.

Let’s be clear about this. If the communicating spirits are not who they say they are, then there is clearly some problem with the mediumship. And this is a very serious matter. Some readers will remember when another physical medium, Colin Fry, was allegedly controlled by a mischievous spirit (LINK). This led to Colin being seen holding a seance trumpet when the lights came on in the middle of a seance. It is therefore imperative, if the mediumship is to develop successfully, that the medium’s guides are able to prevent mischievous entities from gate-crashing the seance. For if they cannot, then the imposters can create havoc.

Not only can such low level entities cause disruption and harm on a physical level, but the messages issuing from such a source will not be honest, sincere or reliable. How on earth could they be? And for those attending a physical phenomena seance, the identity of a communicator is of paramount importance. After all, who would want to receive a message from an entity pretending to be a loved one?!

Moving on:

Secondly a member of Stewart Alexander’s Circle who claimed to have been a very close friend of Alan and heard Alan says he felt the contact was genuine  “His voice on hearing it sounded like his earthly one …”

Why doesn’t Victor Zammit name this mysterious person he claims is a member of Stewart Alexander’s home circle? Who, exactly, is this person who declares that “the contact was genuine” and insists that Alan Crossley’s voice “sounded like his earthly one”? Mr Zammit fails to tell us. Why? The alleged voice of Alan Crossley is so unlike his earthly one in so many ways. Not just the sound; but in choice of words, presentation, style of speech, character and personality. I am satisfied that, in common with myself, nobody who knew Alan while on earth would be the slightest bit impressed by the voice in David Thompson’s seance.

So, I will give Victor Zammit the opportunity to withdraw his claim that a member of Stewart Alexander’s circle made the testimonial in support of the David Thompson seance voice. Let this be clear: The ONLY members of Stewart Alexander’s home circle who knew Alan Crossley are Stewart himself and his circle leader, Ray Lister. If Victor Zammit refuses to withdraw his statement then I will have no hesitation in contacting these two gentlemen to solicit their response to Mr Zammit’s claim. I would prefer not to have to do so. In the interests of TRUTH, I request that he publically withdraw his claim.

Thirdly there were two important witnesses at the seance who stated the contact was genuine. They were the reason why Alan Crossley materialized. What we did not reveal to the world before – only to a few people - is that at the materializations session, the grandson of Helen Duncan, David Duncan, was there present with us. That is the reason that Alan Crossley and Helen Duncan and Helen Duncan’s guide Albert all materialized.

The reader will note that, again, Mr Zammit clearly states that it was Alan Crossley. He qualifies the reason for Alan Crossley’s appearance by stating “there were two important witnesses at the seance”. But neither of these “two important witnesses” personally knew Alan (or any of the other alleged “materializations” for that matter). Thus, their opinion that “the contact was genuine” has no more significance than Victor Zammit’s.

In her testimonial Christine Morgan writes about Gordon Higginson allegedly materialising before writing about Alan Crossley…..

“Alan Crossley, a great physical mediumship researcher and friend of my fathers also came through that evening. He greeted me personally, spoke about my dad several times, shook my hand, felt my face and stroked my hair, this causing me to be very moved. Two people in the spirit of whose work I revere, of whom I have only heard about, and here they were speaking and touching me like they knew me personally.”

So, by Christine Morgan’s own admission she has “only heard about” Alan Crossley and never personally knew or met him. Yet Victor Zammit, conveniently, makes no mention of this highly important and relevant fact.

Upon reading the testimonial from David Duncan, we find this perplexing statement:

“Then came a cavalcade of spirit manifestations - not only known to at least one of the guests present, but also would have been known to Spiritualists the world over - Gordon Higginson, Leslie Flint, Alan Crossley, Albert Stewart and Helen Duncan. Each of them speaking very clearly and recognisable to those who knew them when they lived on this material world.”

Who, exactly, are these people who “knew them when they lived on this material world” and consider that the voices are “recognisable”? David Duncan doesn’t say. A glaring omission if his claim is to be taken seriously. In the case of Alan Crossley, no one present in the seance room personally knew him. And his voice is patently NOT “recognisable”. I knew Alan for over 15 years and consider that the voice in the seance sounds nothing whatsoever like Alan Crossley did. I have spoken to other people who knew Alan personally, and they say the same.

On a different page of his website, which can be found  here, Victor Zammit again refers to these “two important witnesses”:

Spirit visitors usually come through when there is a close-tie of affection and a particularly urgent reason to do so. The reason Alan Crossley came through with his friend Helen Duncan on that particular night was that Helen Duncan’s grandson and the daughter of a close friend of Alan Crossley were guests in the seance. So someone who had close contact with Crossley - stated that it was Alan Crossley who materialized.

There certainly was no “close tie of affection” between Alan Crossley and the two witnesses, how on earth could there be  - they had never, ever met. Further, Mr Zammit’s claim that “someone who had close contact with Crossley - stated that it was Alan Crossley who materialized” is completely delusory. How could they have had “close contact” if they never knew him?

In the final analysis, Mr Zammit’s three stated reasons for accepting “that it was Alan Crossley who came through” do not stand up to detailed examination and scrutiny. His first reason - that we should accept it was Alan Crossley because he claimed to be Alan Crossley -  not only condones the acceptance of a communicator’s identity without credible, supporting evidence but is completely at odds with his own admission that he cannot guarantee the authenticity of the spirit communicators.

Victor Zammit’s second reason -  that “a member of Stewart Alexander’s Circle who claimed to have been a very close friend of Alan and heard Alan says he felt the contact was genuine” is not supported by any corroborative detail in the form of the name of this person. This is a glaring omission when quoting from a testimonial.

The third reason - that “there were two important witnesses at the seance who stated the contact was genuine” is completely absurd since neither of these two people had even met or knew Alan Crossley.

Victor Zammit goes on to write:

The fact is that we have definitive evidence of spirit activity and we at least have the spirit voices as hard core substantive evidence of their materializations. And the previous mentioned tape voice correlations I made show at least there is a prima facie case made out that the voices are all different and different from David Thompson’s.

The evidence for spirit activity certainly does not satisfy all criteria, so it can hardly be classed as “definitive”. In the case of the communicator claiming to be Alan Crossley, all Mr Zammit has presented us with is an unrecognisable voice and the testimony of two “witnesses” who had never even met him. Hardly, “hard core, substantive evidence”, is it?

What is most unfair about ‘Dick’s’ article is the lie that the ONLY evidence the Circle has produced of the afterlife is voices in the dark.

I never said any such thing. I advise him to re-read my article properly. Perhaps then he will realise the folly of his statement.

Victor Zammit claims:

To my knowledge, David Thompson is the only materialization medium to allow independent highly qualified investigators to investigate his materialization mediumship every week for over fifteen months.

What evidence has Victor Zammit received that David Thompson is, specifically, a “materialization medium”? What materializations has Mr Zammit actually seen? There are no accounts on his website of witnesses actually seeing materialisations. One cannot claim, with any credibility, that a physical medium is a “materialization medium” when the phenomena are produced in the dark. Materialisations should be seen in order to be validated as such.

Perhaps Mr Zammit is unaware of the fact that all materialisation mediums are physical mediums, but not all physical mediums are materialisation mediums.

And who are these “independent, highly qualified investigators” Mr Zammit refers to? The circle members? If so, how can they be independent? And what are their qualifications as investigators of “materialization mediumship”. How many materialisations have they seen before? Where? When? Who was the medium? Mr Zammit fails to give the reader any of this information to validate and support his statements. Instead, we only have his word for it. And that, unfortunately, doesn’t inspire much confidence.

Mr Zammit states that I allege that:

Since David Thompson’s phenomena are produced in the dark the primary sense being relied on is hearing and thus the evidence is not empirical because it is not observable by the senses.

A glance at my article will prove that Victor Zammit is, yet again, making completely erroneous and misleading statements. Here is what I actually said:

On his website Victor describes himself as “a full time writer and researcher on empirical evidence for the afterlife.” This is rather an ambiguous description since ‘empirical’ can mean ‘relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory’. A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are  observable by the senses. And since most, if not all, of David Thompson’s phenomena is produced in the dark then the primary sense Victor is relying upon during these seances is his hearing. Hardly scientific, is it? Moreover, in the cases of Houdini, Churchill and Doyle the voices sound nothing like they did on earth and do not provide any audible evidence whatsoever in order to substantiate their validity.

Nowhere do I say that “the evidence is not empirical because it is not observable by the senses”. I clearly state that empirically based evidence is “observable by the senses” and Victor Zammit is, primarily, relying on his sense of hearing during these seances. In making such a palpably false claim, Victor Zammit merely exposes his inability to accurately report the facts.

Mr Zammit states that I wrote:

… that Victor’s description of himself as a writer and researcher on the empirical evidence for the afterlife is ambiguous.

Victor: What is so ambiguous about ‘empirical’? For the informed, it is very easy to understand. ‘Empirical’ at university level relates to any experiment which strictly adheres to scientific method. It would be fundamentally wrong to have an a priori ‘theory or system’ – you have a hypothesis to test and only scientific method to work with. ‘Dick’ shows he is a lay person erroneously relying on dictionary definitions and a misplaced ego!

The term “empirical evidence” is certainly ambiguous in relation to Mr Zammit’s use of it. There are various usages and meanings. Mr Zammit, inadvertently admits this when he makes a distinction in the meaning of ‘empirical’ by relating it, specifically, to “university level”.

Empirical evidence can be described as being acquired through direct observation, preferably under controlled circumstances, with results reported in well-defined units of measure. Is Mr Zammit’s “empirical evidence” produced under controlled conditions? No. Non of the sitter’s are controlled, for example.

Empirical evidence can also be termed as provable by means of observation or experiment. Does Victor Zammit’s empirical evidence actually prove anything paranormal is taking place? No. He provides evidence, but evidence isn’t always the same as proof. Are there one or more theories for the origination of the evidence? Mr Zammit doesn’t say. Does the empirical evidence fully or only partly confirm the theory Mr Zammit propounds? Again, he doesn’t say. He gives no precise detail.

So, exactly what is the structure and nature of Mr Zammit’s “empirical” evidence? He never defines it - and that is precisely why his description is “ambiguous”.

Mr Zammit presses on and claims that I stated:

Victor is basing his assumptions purely upon a voice in the dark which claims to be Houdini or Conan Doyle and this is ridiculous and unscientific.

More erroneous misrepresentation. Here is what I actually wrote:

So, upon what exact evidence is Victor basing his assumptions upon? A voice in the dark claiming to be Harry Houdini or Conan Doyle? As ‘evidence’, this is totally unscientific and can only be dismissed as ridiculous.

Victor Zammit doesn’t seem to understand what a question mark is.

He continues by claiming that I stated that he has not:

produced any evidence for materialization having taken place.

‘Dick’ does not put his money where his mouth is. I offered $500,000 to anyone, including this ‘Dick’, to show that what we are doing, producing objective, repeatable evidence is not valid. But one condition was that if the challenger failed, he would have to hand over $500,000 to us. Yet of the vehemently negative critics, not even this vociferous ‘Dick’, had the testes, the courage, the motivation, the stomach to take us on. If he were definitively sure, he would have made a quick half a million dollars. But, this uninformed negative Spiritualist showed that he KNOWS that we are producing hard core objective and repeatable evidence. Put up or shut up ‘Dick’!

One can only shake one’s head, yet again, at Victor Zammit’s blatant falsification. I never stated that he hasn’t “produced any evidence for materialization having taken place.” I never even mentioned the word “materialization” in any of the points I made. The only time the word appears in my article is when I directly quote Victor Zammit from the April 4th Afterlife Report.

And finally, this little gem. He completely misrepresents my point that:

The voice of Alan Crossley was different from his voice while alive.

Here, ‘Dick’ continues to go from bad to worse – he shows more ignorance of basic materialization. The voice in materializations will sometimes sound different to voices when the person was alive, particularly for an inexperienced communicator.

Mr Zammit’s eyesight must be failing him. He obviously couldn’t see this paragraph in my article:

The argument could be given that it is not always possible for the voice of the communicator to exactly match the voice as it was on earth. This may indeed be the case, and this is why in such instances it is extremely important that the evidence provided by ‘non matching’ voices is credible and verifiable.

In conclusion, it is regrettable that so many of Mr Zammit’s statements are inaccurate and misleading. As a consequence, one has to treat with extreme caution the accuracy and reliability of his other claims relating to David Thompson’s mediumship. In spite of all the grandiose claims of “materializations” which are “taking the world by storm”, much of Mr Zammit’s evidence is merely anecdotal. He makes bold claims, but when challenged to provide some supporting evidence he refuses to even entertain the idea.

Physical mediumship has always courted controversy because it is so open to accusations of fraud. Victor Zammit only pours more ‘coals on the fire’ by his heated and sensationalist claims for David Thompson’s mediumship. As a consequence, Victor Zammit should expect people to ask questions, contest his claims and query his assertions. This is how progress develops.

It is unfortunate, both for his reputation and the credibility of his claims, that he chooses to answers his critics with so much abuse and so little propriety.

Warren Caylor Seeks Sitters

Warren Caylor Seeks Sitters

Controversial physical medium Warren Caylor is searching for new sitters as the fall-out from the Psychic News test seance fiasco still rumbles on.

Caylor, 37, who is preently touring the USA has placed an advert on his website….

Victor Zammit Attacks Psychic News Editor

VICTOR Zammit, the self-styled “empiricist” and promoter of physical medium David Thompson, has launched another extraordinary attack upon me. However, this time I’m not alone. Oh, no…  He has also targeted Psychic News editor Susan Farrow in his vitriolic ‘gunsight’.

In the September issue of the Psychic World offline newspaper, Mr Zammit accuses me of telling “lies” to Psychic News and infers Susan Farrow published them in an attempt to “subtly attack the credibility of myself as a professional, as an empiricist… but more likely because I also write for the Psychic World.”

Mr Zammit’s latest childish outburst is in relation to my criticisms published in Psychic News of his claims regarding the alleged materialisation of Alan Crossley at a David Thompson seance.

I originally voiced my scepticism in a previous article in The Psychic Times (published some months before this website was updated with it’s new design). Link

My second article, responding to Zammit’s reply on his website, can be read by clicking on this link.

Zammit’s latest hysterical outburst in Psychic World is nothing short of shameful. By attempting to defame both myself and Susan Farrow with untruthful, unsubstantiated smears he clearly demonstrates that he is incapable of mature, rational, fair-minded debate. Further, his distortions and blatent untruths regarding Susan Farrow and myself highlight just why his claims regarding David Thompson cannot be trusted whatsoever.

It is a great pity that he drags debate into the gutter with his foul-mouthed, insulting tirades.

And this man was a lawyer?

Anyhow, below, I reproduce an article I have penned to Psychic World in reply to Zammit’s September article:

Setting The Record Straight

In his article in the September, 2008 issue of Psychic World (World Shattering Materialisations In Sydney!), Mr Victor Zammit concocted some seriously erroneous and defamatory allegations regarding myself, Psychic News editor Susan Farrow and the thousand pound challenge I issued to him.

I should like to respond to his brazen assault on truth and accuracy and set the record straight regarding these fatuous and spurious fabrications.

I would also like to reference the main points of my website articles regarding the credibility of Mr Zammit’s claims of the alleged materialisation of Alan Crossley. PW readers will then be afforded the facts relating to the reasoning behind my thousand pound challenge, as opposed to the unsubstantiated rantings contained in Mr Zammit’s September article.

Firstly, in his article, I note that he is not man enough to actually name the person he is so vociferously abusing, preferring instead to bestow upon me the monikers of ‘S’ and ‘Simon Dick’.

Such juvenility does nothing to uphold his claim to being a “professional” researcher. “Professional” researchers, by definition, behave in a “professional” manner when debating issues relating to their claims - not like a 12 year-old schoolboy.

He states in his article that he was “informed” that I “probably never attended a materialisation session…”

Since Mr Zammit often refers to David Thompson as a materialisation medium - in spite of the fact that his séances are mostly held in complete darkness and no materialisations are ever actually seen by the sitters – I can only presume that by “materialisation session” he is actually referring to a physical phenomena séance.

In this regard, I have to inform him that he has been badly deceived by his alleged ‘informant’. It appears that even empiricists and lawyers can be fooled rather easily at times.

I have sat with 2 physical mediums (as apposed to materialisation mediums) and one transfiguration medium. I was a member of Stewart Alexander’s circle in Elton, near Chester and was also a committee member of the Noah’s Ark Society for Physical Mediumship.

Mr Zammit would be well advised to check his facts before insinuating completely bogus information.

By repeatedly stating that David Thompson produces materialisations, it is clear that Mr Zammit is ignorant of the fact that for a materialisation to be regarded as such it needs to be seen. The fact of the matter is that all materialisation mediums are physical mediums but not all physical mediums are materialisation mediums.

In a recent item on his website, titled Brilliant Video of William Materialising, his confusion is startlingly clear:

“Last Monday the Circle of the Silver Chord released parts of a film clip which shows materialisation medium David Thompson’s guide ‘William’ in full form behind a curtain.”

How on earth can the film clip ’show’ the “full form” if it is behind a curtain?

Victor Zammit merely assumes it is a full form behind the curtain - unless he has X Ray vision! Further, his statement clearly undermines his claims to being an “empiricist” who only reports the facts. For, there is no credible “empirical” evidence to support Mr Zammit’s claim.

Since the film was taken in poor light conditions, the released clip only shows an unidentifiable blob protruding between the curtains. We are, therefore still waiting for verification that the full video actually shows “William materialising”, as Mr Zammit claims. I won’t be holding my breath…

Since David Thompson’s alleged materialisations are always in the dark, he cannot at present be creditably termed a materialisation medium.

Indeed, he has previously admitted on the Spiritualist Chatroom website:

“I totally agree at this point I am not a full form materialization medium…”

Some well known materialisation mediums include Alec Harris, Helen Duncan, Hunter Selkirk, Ethel Post-Parrish, Florence Cook, Bertie Lilly Candler, Nettie Nichols, Elizabeth Grover, Effie Moss, Dorothy Henderson, William W Aber and William Eglington

All of them produced materialisations in light – unlike David Thompson.

Mr Zammit claims to be an empiricist, an expert “in using scientific method to measure phenomena” and an expert in the admissibility of evidence. Then let him produce the specific observable and measurable evidence he has gathered; the exact experimentation techniques he has followed and what precise hypotheses he has formulated, tested, discounted and accepted in order to arrive at the conclusion that David Thompson is a materialisation medium.

I am sure many Spiritualists, psychical researchers and scientists interested in physical mediumship would be very interested in examining and discussing his data. Not only concerning Mr Thompson’s materialisation phenomena, but his mediumship in general.

Has Mr Zammit had the fruits of his research forwarded for peer review and publication in any of the various psychical research magazines around the world?

One such publication is The European Journal of Parapsychology. This is a peer-reviewed journal for research, particularly theoretical and theory-driven empirical work, relating to the field of parapsychology.

An ideal vehicle, one would have thought, for Mr Zammit to show-case his empirical evidence for David Thompson’s mediumship. However, to date, his research has never been published in this or any other credible publication, as far as I’m aware.

Mr Zammit never tires of proclaiming himself a “professional”, an “empiricist”, an expert in “scientific method” and the “admissibility of evidence”. Well, why doesn’t he prove it?

Let him put his qualifications to good use by presenting a research paper on David Thompson’s mediumship for review and examination by independent professionals.

He continues his article by stating I: “tried to discredit David’s mediumship and the credibility of the circle…”

Anyone who reads my original article will clearly see that it merely highlighted the fact that he gave not one shred of credible and convincing evidence that the alleged communicator was the materialised form of Alan Crossley, as he so boldly claimed.

Some facts:

1. The ‘materialisation’ was not seen by anybody in the séance room. It was pitch black.

2 The voice of the ‘materialisation’ displayed none of the character, personality or mannerisms of Alan Crossley.

3. At two points in the séance recording ‘Alan’ addresses Mr Zammit by his surname only - something Alan never did when talking to people. This is completely out of character. But Mr Zammit wouldn’t know this, since he and everybody else in the séance room never knew him.

In his PW article, he inaccurately reported this opening exchange and quoted ‘Alan’ as addressing him as “Victor”. This is patently not true, as anyone listening to the audio can hear:

Victor Zammit: “This is Victor here, Alan”.

‘Alan Crossley’: “Oh, you’re Zammit!”

Later, ‘Crossley’ declares: “I hear that you cause a lot of controversy, Zammit.”

4. The voice of the ‘materialisation’ sounded nothing like Alan Crossley. (The argument could be given that it is not always possible for the voice of the communicator to exactly match the voice as it was on earth. This may indeed be the case, and this is why in such instances it is extremely important that the evidence provided is credible and verifiable.)

5. The ‘materialisation’ gave no evidence (personal or otherwise) to confirm and verify his identity.

So, a ‘materialisation’ which none of the sitters actually saw claims to be Alan Crossley. This ‘materialisation’ sounds nothing like Alan Crossley, displays none of the personality or mannerisms of Alan Crossley and gives no personal evidence whatsoever that it is Alan Crossley.

I therefore asked the perfectly obvious and logical question in my article: “Where is the evidence” that it was Alan Crossley? My personal belief is that it certainly was not Alan Crossley, who I had known closely for a number of years.

I therefore decided to issue my challenge to Mr Zammit to provide evidence for his unsubstantiated and sensationalistic claims, by way of asking questions only the real Alan Crossley would know. If I was provided with the correct answers, then I offered to pay one thousand pounds to the charity of Mr Zammit’s choice.

These are the basic points I raised in my original article and which prompted him to indulge in an orgy of personal abuse and fabricated allegations, both on his website and in the September issue of Psychic World.

He continued:

“Clearly this uninformed ‘S’ did not understand that the group had only come through on that occasion because of the presence of David Duncan and Christine Morgan.”

The “group” Mr Zammit refers to are the alleged materialisations of Gordon Higginson, Helen Duncan and Alan Crossley.

David Duncan was Helen’s grandson and Christine Morgan’s father was a friend of Alan Crossley - but it should be noted that no one at the séance personally knew any of these three communicators.

In her testimonial, Christine Morgan writes:

“Alan Crossley, a great physical mediumship researcher and friend of my fathers also came through that evening. He greeted me personally, spoke about my dad several times, shook my hand, felt my face and stroked my hair, this causing me to be very moved.

“Two people in the spirit of whose work I revere, of whom I have only heard about and here they were speaking and touching me like they knew me personally.”

So, by Christine Morgan’s own admission she has “only heard about” Alan Crossley and never personally knew or met him. Yet Mr Zammit makes no mention of this highly important and relevant fact.

On his website, he again refers to these “two important witnesses”:

“Spirit visitors usually come through when there is a close-tie of affection and a particularly urgent reason to do so. The reason Alan Crossley came through with his friend Helen Duncan on that particular night was that Helen Duncan’s grandson and the daughter of a close friend of Alan Crossley were guests in the séance.

“So someone who had close contact with Crossley - stated that it was Alan Crossley who materialized.”

There certainly was no “close tie of affection” between Alan Crossley and the two witnesses. How on earth could there be - they had never, ever met! Further, Mr Zammit’s claim that “someone who had close contact with Crossley - stated that it was Alan Crossley who materialized” is completely delusory. How could they have had “close contact” if they never knew him?

On his website, he alleged the following:

“Secondly a member of Stewart Alexander’s Circle who claimed to have been a very close friend of Alan and heard Alan says he felt the contact was genuine:

“His voice on hearing it sounded like his earthly one …”

Why didn’t Mr Zammit name this mysterious person he claims is a member of Stewart Alexander’s home circle? Who, exactly, is this person who declares that “the contact was genuine” and insists that Alan Crossley’s voice “sounded like his earthly one”?

He fails to tell us. Why?

He has subsequently claimed that the mysterious circle member wishes to remain anonymous. If such is the case, then why did they give permission for him to use their testimonial?

Providing anonymous testimonials to back up your claims is certainly not “professional”, or indeed, credible.

Frankly, it is absurd.

The Stewart Alexander Circle were directly implemented and involved in this affair, wholly because of Mr Zammit’s unsubstantiated claim. Whilst, understandably, they were reluctant to become involved in the matter, they were honour bound to state the truth and did so by issuing the following statement – which is on public record - through their circle leader:

“Following the claim made by Victor Zammit on his website that a member of Stewart Alexander’s circle commented upon the spirit voice alleged to be that of Alan Crossley, I would like to make the following statement on behalf of The Stewart Alexander Circle:

“No member of our circle has released any statements to Victor Zammit or anybody else in relation to the alleged spirit voice of Alan Crossley. Further, the only members who knew Alan personally were Stewart and myself, and we deny any knowledge of the quote Mr Zammit uses in his article.

Ray Lister, circle leader.”

In his article in PW, Mr Zammit alleges I: “made a silly offer of one thousand pounds if I would call Alan Crossley back and cross examine him”.

Yet again, he gets his facts completely wrong. I never requested that he “call him back” or “cross examine” him. I requested that he “ask the personality claiming to be Alan Crossley 5 questions which I will provide”.

If Alan Crossley was not present then the questions and/or answers could be relayed via another spirit communicator. It was a simple and straight forward challenge that he flatly refused to agree to, deriding it as “silly”.

What is highly ironic about this jibe is the fact that in his June, 2008 online Early Report Mr Zammit refers to the spirit of the Princess of Wales, allegedly communicating through Andrew Russell-Davis.

He writes:

“I have been asking readers to submit questions that they would like answered in order to test whether ‘Diana’ is who she claims to be. This is a continuous endeavor to validate that she is who she claims to be.”

So, it isn’t silly for people who never knew ‘Diana’ to ask her questions, but it is “silly” for a personal friend to ask ‘Alan Crossley’ questions?

What unmitigated nonsense!

If he is so sure of the high calibre of David Thompson’s mediumship, of the “stunning evidence” and the “world shattering” substantiation which is “taking the world by storm”, then one would assume that he would be only too willing to try and ask a few questions in order to validate Mr Crossley’s communication.

After all, he is only too keen to ask ‘Diana’ questions in order to procure this result.

So, why does he ‘move the goalposts’ when the same request is made in relation to David Thompson’s mediumship?

In his Psychic World article he went on to issue completely fictitious allegations relating to both mine and Psychic News editor Susan Farrow’s motives relating my thousand pound challenge.

He claims I “fooled” website owners, was then “dumped” by them and then claims the motivation for my challenge was to “whip up some excitement for his miserably failing website.”

Quite how I “fooled” them and in what way is not explained. Neither does he elucidate as to how I was “dumped”. And my website actually makes a profit through advertisements, but Mr Zammit obviously doesn’t let facts get in the way of his defamatory fantasies.

He continued by inferring I somehow fooled the editor of Psychic News, Susan Farrow, who fell for my “lies” and published my comments in an attempt “to subtly attack the credibility of myself as a professional… but more likely because I also write for the Psychic World.”

Again, let the reader note that he provides not one shred of evidence, not one modicum of corroboration and not one single scrap of proof to support his shameful and contemptible assertions. This alone should reveal just how much credibility and basis in truth they actually have.

Mr Zammit’s belligerent attitude to my critical examination of his assertions regarding the alleged Alan Crossley materialisation immediately prevents any further meaningful dialogue of the salient points from being discussed.

For, instead of calmly and ‘professionally’ addressing the central questions and points made, he indulges in malicious disparagement of both Susan Farrow and myself with totally concocted and unrelated smears.

Ad hominem attacks are no substitute for factual argument, and only suggest that Mr Zammit has no valid answers to any of my points and concerns regarding his claims pertaining to the Alan Crossley ‘materialisation’.

His behaviour is a complete disgrace and just highlights why I and so many others have grave misgivings over his conduct in regard to promoting David Thompson’s mediumship.

Mr Zammit clearly has a lot to learn in respect to providing corroboration and evidence when making serious allegations. As a qualified lawyer, he should know that a case can’t be made without evidence to support it.

It is unfortunate that he chooses to so blatantly ignore this fact in his odious diatribe.

He assures readers that he knows no trickery is going on during séances because The Circle of the Sliver Chord has:

“… professional investigators who were with intelligence agencies. There is also a former police officer with professional investigation experience. There’s a psychologist with expertise in scientific method, professional journalist and a retired attorney – an expert in the admissibility of evidence.”

But none of these qualifications relate to psychical research and the investigation of the authenticity of séance room phenomena.

How many other physical mediums have these ‘professionals’ investigated or even sat with? What precise expertise, experience and training have they had in the specific investigation of physical mediumship?

Are any of these ‘professionals’ experienced and skilled magicians or escapologists; experts on the legerdemain which can occur during séances?

Mr Zammit has never furnished this information, which is vital when ascertaining if The Circle of The Silver Chord is as qualified to assess the veracity of David Thompson’s mediumship as he alleges.

If he is so keen to demonstrate that David Thompson’s mediumship produces the phenomena he claims, then why hasn’t he invited experienced, independent researchers to a test sitting?

Mr Zammit could quite easily contact The Australian Institute of Parapsychological Research, for example. They have various investigators with actual real life experience and knowledge of how to conduct credible investigations pertaining to paranormal phenomena.

He could also contact the Society for Psychical Research in London. I’m sure they would be more than delighted to arrange a test sitting for Mr Thompson whenever he visits England.

The occurrences in Mr Thompson’s séance room, which Mr Zammit alleges on his website are “taking the world by storm!” are clearly nothing of the kind since nobody outside Spiritualism and psychical research has ever heard of David Thompson. Unfortunately, his boasts merely illustrate his unfortunate tendency for exaggeration and hype when describing Mr Thompson’s mediumship.

Such wild and inaccurate claims do nothing for the credibility of physical mediumship. It is a serious subject, and should be treated as such by those who report on it.

Until Mr Zammit provides more substantive, cogent evidence to support his melodramatic claims of “world shattering” materialisation phenomena and the like, I’m afraid his assertions will continue to be treated with caution by a great many people.

Particularly so in light of the fabricated, defamatory and hate-filled abuse he hurls at people who ‘dare’ to ask questions, present a differing view or seek additional verification for his sensationalistic declarations.

———————

Ray Taylor, Psychic World’s editor, has stated he’ll publish it in the November issue. We’ll see…