Providentia

The Rise and Fall of the "Clearing House of Cupid" (Part One of Two)

By all accounts, the large old-fashioned white building standing on an 80-acre estate on Syosset Road, near Cold Harbor, Long Island wasn't a particularly scenic place.   It's main claim to fame was that it was the site of the Eugenics Record Office (informally known as the "Clearing House of Cupid").   Between 1910 and 1939, the office served as the center for eugenics research across the United States and its influence over public policy, not to mention the lives of countless thousands of men and women, would be profound.

Though the eugenics movement of the early 20th century got its start in the United Kingdom, largely spurred by the writings of such notables as Francis Galton,  it was in the United States that the movement would truly take root.   In an era of rising racial tensions as well as the perceived threat of the thousands of immigrants entering the country through Ellis Island, applying the "scientific" principles of eugenics to "weed out" undesirable genetic traits and encourage the development of a race of improved humans was irresistible to many.   Since "anti-miscegenation" laws banning marriages between people of different racial groups were already in place in many states, the appeal of expanding these laws to limit marriage to people with "positive" genes, or at least providing prospective couples with the genetic counseling to make such choices seemed eminently sensible.

Or so, Charles Benedict Davenport thought.

An eminent biologist with an aristocratic bearing, Davenport became one of the true leaders of the American Eugenics Movement and the director of the Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory.  It was there that he founded the Eugenics Record Office in 1910 and, for many years, he remained the public face for eugenics across the United States.   Through various public appearances, lectures, and newspaper articles, Davenport continued to champion the need for more stringent laws governing marriage as well as the establishment of "State Eugenics Boards" to determine who was fit for marriage (and who wasn't).   While the Eugenics Record Office he ran didn't have that kind of power, he still encouraged young men and woman across the United States to send in data concerning any marriage they were contemplating so that he and his team could determine the suitability of these matches.  

To make these applications even easier, Davenport even had a special blank form that could be sent out to anyone who asked for it.    With the lofty title of "index to germ plasm: a parallel record of innate traits for prospective marriage", the form needed to be filled out by both parties to determine the presence of positive and negative traits that could affect marital success.   Once the form was received, Davenport's office then provided a "scientific" determination of whether the match would be for the eugenic good of the race.   

Along with pronouncements on the likelihood of such traits as hair and eye color being passed on to any children of the proposed marriage, Davenport's team also looked for evidence of prospective insanity or vulnerability to diseases such as cancer and tuberculosis (never mind that genetic testing was almost completely nonexistent at the time).   During the summer months,  Davenport and Eugenics Record Office Superintendent Harry H. Laughlin also operated a  training school for eugenicists where applicants with the necessary college degree could learn to become eugenics field workers 

Though Davenport himself claimed to be "unusually liberal" when it came to heredity, the records maintained at Cold Springs still represented an encyclopedic database for would-be eugenicists to consult free of charge.  This also included thousands of "surname trait cards" that could be searched to determine how many people with the same surname had adverse genetic traits.  For example, anyone searching for people with the surname of "Brown" or "Smith" who shared some common trait such as a hare-lip or depression, could receive the information free of charge.   

With funding from fervid eugenicist John D. Rockefeller as well as Mrs. E.H. Harriman (who also donated the building and the land on which the Office was situated), Davenport and Laughlin oversaw a staff of 34 field workers who were in charge of collecting and maintaining the archives as well as handling all information requests and conducting research on various topics related to eugenics.   This included family studies looking at the effects of inbreeding in some communities as well as geographic-based studies (basically a look at the :"good and bad blood" in a given community).   They also collected family "pedigrees" relating to musical or mathematic talent, vulnerability to tuberculosis, and hundreds of other positive and negative traits.

It was Harry Laughlin who provided reporters with what he felt was the ultimate purpose of the "Clearing House of Cupid":

"Eugenics is a long-time investment.  Fundamentally, it has two purposes - the first to supply some means of cutting off the supply of degenerate and defective social misfits;  the second to increase the fecundity of eugenically desirable families.  The first we call negative eugenics; the second, constructive eugenics... We know from the great superiority of the cultivated plant and the domesticated animal what splendid results may result from intelligent mating.  It is one of the functions of this office to promote such intelligent mating and to study how to cut off the supply of defectives."

Though Davenport and Laughlin denied being more preoccupied with defective rather than superior genes,  there is no disputing that he Eugenics Record Office had its greatest success when it came to "negative eugenics"    Field workers from the Office crisscrossed the country to find examples of genetic "defectives" and, almost inevitably, championed the passage of laws to sterilize different populations deemed to be unfit, including patients in psychiatric hospitals, people with substance abuse problems, and career criminals.  This also meant administering "intelligence tests" to would-be immigrants to weed out anyone deemed not to "measure up" to societal standards of mental ability.   That a disproportionate number of these "defectives" happened to belong to racial and ethnic minorities was hardly acknowledged (though it was often used to justify blatantly racist policies across the United States).  

With the still-controversial Buck vs. Bell Supreme Court decision in 1927, eugenics sterilization statutes were passed in were passed across the United States.   It was Harry Laughlin who first advocated what he termed a "Model Eugenical Sterilization Law" calling for the sterilization of anyone who "because of degenerate or defective hereditary qualities are potential parents of socially inadequate offspring, regardless of whether such persons be in the population at large or inmates of custodial institutions, regardless also of the personality, sex, age, marital condition, race, or possessions of such person. Standards established and terms defined by the statute."   

Along with being a model for U.S. states to follow (often replacing relatively toothless laws already in place), Laughlin's Model Law also helped inspired Adolf Hitler's his Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring which was enacted in 1933.    In fact, Hitler and his fellow Nazi eugenicists held Laughlin in such high regard that he was offered an honorary doctorate from Heidelberg University in 1936.   Unfortunately, for all the popularity that eugenics had enjoyed up until then, news stories about what was happening in Nazi Germany and other parts of occupied Europe would soon redefine how people viewed eugenics.

To be continued next week

 

 

 

Exploring the Beast Within

It was in the autumn of 1572, following a rash of animal attacks in the woods near Dole, France, that the local peasants were authorized to seek out the werewolf assumed to be responsible. There were few actual sightings of the animal but the "loup garou" had carried off several small children and attacked horsemen who had driven it away " only with great difficulty and danger to their persons". The peasants were instructed "to assemble with pikes, halberts, arquebuses, and sticks, to chase and to pursue the said were-wolf in every place where they may find or seize him; to tie and to kill, without incurring any pains or penalties". Despite their search, it was only on November 8 of that year that peasants came upon a "monstrous creature" attacking a young girl. The creature was driven off although the girl later died of her injuries. Even in the darkness, some of the peasants thought they recognized the creature as a local hermit named Gilles Garnier.

Garnier was not popular in the region and was arrested after fifty witnesses filed depositions against him. Whatever protests of innocence he had were quickly ended by a session on the rack which "persuaded" him to confess to the charges. Garnier was sentenced to be burned alive at the stake and "that his ashes be then scattered to the winds". He was also ordered to bear all court costs and the sentence was carried out on January 18, 1573.

A similar case was brought to trial in 1603 involving a mentally disturbed (and possibly intellectually challenged) boy named Jean Grenier. Following reports of animal attacks on children in Gascony, France, Grenier confessed to all of the attacks and claimed to have eaten some of the children involved. He also stated that he was part of a werewolf "coven" and transformed himself using a "wolf's skin" given to him by a mysterious stranger.  Survivors of the attacks confirmed Grenier's testimony and he was found guilty.

In a remarkable move for the time, the court concluded that Grenier was mentally ill (but possessed) and he was sentenced to a Franciscan monastery for the rest of his life. When visited in the monastery years later, he was reported to be "diminutive in stature, very shy, and unwilling to look anyone in the face. His eyes were deep set and restless; his teeth long and protruding; his nails black, and in places worn away; his mind was completely barren; he seemed unable to comprehend the smallest things". Jean Grenier died at the age of 20.

There were an estimated 30,000 lycanthropy cases reported in Europe between 1520 and 1630 alone. The epidemic of werewolf hysteria that plagued Europe seemed to be linked to the witchcraft mania occurring during the same period. Witches were frequently accused of changing themselves into cats or rabbits and attending demonic Sabbaths to meet Satan. Werewolves, in turn, were accused of transforming themselves with the Devil's aid. Convicted werewolves and witches were often condemned to be burned alive (except in England where they were merely hanged).

The werewolf hysteria seemed to be largely fueled by lurid stories of wolf attacks (which were more likely to be due to wild dogs) and only subsided when wolves were hunted to virtual extinction across Europe. The growing recognition that testimony obtained through torture was basically unreliable probably played a role as well (waterboarding advocates take note). The last major werewolf panic was in Gevaudan, France following a series of killings by a "wolflike creature" between 1763 and 1767. The killings were never solved.

While clinical lycanthropy (the delusion of changing into an animal) remains a recognized psychiatric condition, actual cases tend to be rare (I've never encountered a case myself, alas, although I remain hopeful). Reports in the forensic literature of clinical lycanthropy patients committing violent acts are even rarer (but they have happened). Modern cases of lycanthropy tend to be part of broader psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia. Along with the classic werewolf delusion, there have also been reported cases of patients believing that they have been changed into other types of animals including dogs, frogs, and bees. While werefrogs do not evoke the same superstitious terror associated with werewolves, the unusual nature of the psychopathology makes for fascinating case histories in the clinical literature.

Treatment seems to be straightforward as lycanthropic delusions respond well to medication (no burning necessary). Despite the popularity of werewolf movies in the past few years, there has been no evidence of any upsurge of cases and the condition remains rare. Although werewolves live on as a cultural phenomenon, the hysteria that condemned Gilles Garnier to death has mercifully subsided (I hope).

Click here for a recent case history.

Hanging Margaret "Bill" Allen

On January 13, 1949, 42-year-old Margaret Allen was hanged at Strangeways Prison (now the HM Prison Manchester).   Not only did this make her the first woman to be hanged in the United Kingdom in 19 years, but the very circumstances of her life, as well as the nature of the murder she committed , has given her a unique place in Britain's forensic history.

Born in 1905 as part of a very large family (she was the twentieth of twenty-two children), Margaret apparently knew that she was different from an early age.  Not only did she refuse to do "female chores" preferring more "masculine" tasks such as shoveling coal and doing household repairs, she also hated wearing dresses.  Instead, she insisted  on more masculine clothing instead, same as her brothers.  While this would be much more acceptable today, her odd behaviour made her into a virtual outcast as far as her family was concerned. 

Never having married, she embraced a completely masculine lifestyle including cutting her hair short, wearing men's clothing exclusively, and insisting on being called "Bill" instead of her given name.   She also told friends that she had undergone an operation to change her sex, something that was highly unlikely in that era (though a female-to-male sexual reassignment operation had taken place in the UK just two years earlier). 

Despite being largely estranged from her family, Margaret took her mother's death in 1943 especially hard.  Not only did she begin smoking heavily but she sought medical treatment for depression and anorexia.  To support herself, Margaret/Bill worked as a bus conductor though she eventually lost this job due to her tendency to strike passengers on the back on the head if they weren't seated fast enough.   In any event, by 1948, she was in financial trouble.  Not only couldn't she afford her rent or her electric bill, she apparently couldn't even afford cigarettes (this will become important later).   

All of which brings us to the events of August 29, 1948 when a neighbour, 68-year-old Nancy Ellen Chadwick, came to Margaret's door to borrow a cup of sugar.  Chadwick was a wealthy widow with a reputation for being eccentric but largely harmless.  Unfortunately,  Margaret considered her annoying so they didn't go on particularly well.  For reasons that aren't quite clear, Margaret viciously clubbed Nancy Chadwick to death using a coal hammer.   She then  placed the body in her cellar before going out with her only friend, Annie Cook.   After sharing a couple of drinks together, Margaret returned home to deal with the problem of the body.   First she poured grate ashes on the face of her victim and then dragged the body outside to leave in the street nearby.   She apparently hoped that the soot on Chadwick's face and the injuries to her head would convince police that she had been the victim of a  hit-and-run.

When bus driver Herbert Beaumont found the body at 3 am on the following morning, he immediately called police who launched an investigation.  Another bus driver insisted that he had passed by that same spot fifteen minutes earlier and saw no body at the time.   Since it seemed unlikely that Chadwick had been walking outside at that time of morning, they quickly dismissed the possibility of a hit-and-run.   They also found the woman's purse floating in the nearby River Irwell though all money had been removed. 

Since Margaret Allen seemed to be taking a keen interest in the investigation, police came to question her about the death on September 1.   They quickly discovered blood stains on the inside of her front door as well as  a shopping-bag filled with grate ashes in one of her closets.    As she was being questioned, she confessed to the killing almost immediately but added that she "didn't do it for money, I was in one of my funny moods."  She told them “‘I just happened to look around and saw the hammer in the kitchen. Then, on the spur of the moment I hit her with it. She gave a loud shout and that seemed to start me off more, and so I hit her a few times more, I don’t know how many.”  Margaret later insisted that being unable to smoke had made her especially irritable.  The fact that she was heavily in debt and that she had apparently been hoping to rob her victim seemed a likelier explanation, however.

Though a murder would not ordinarily generate much interest from the press, many of the details of Margaret's life helped ensure that her case would receive international coverage.    Virtually every newspaper played up Margaret's "mannish" appearance, including her refusal to wear female clothing and her previous claims that she had undergone a sex change operation.   The papers also played up her "spinster" status though Margaret largely remained silent throughout the trial.  What was likely even more upsetting to her was that she was kept in a woman's prison despite insisting she was male.   While in prison, she only received one visitor, a woman named Anne Cook though the exact nature of their relationship is still debatable.

As for the trial itself, it was held on December 8, 1948 and only lasted five hours.  Given that Margaret had already confessed to the crime, there really wasn't all that much for the defense to do in her case.  Though her lawyer, William Gormann K.C., tried to argue for the insanity defense, the jury rejected this completely.   They seemed completely swayed by the argument of the prosecutor, E.G. Robey, that Margaret's sole motive for the murder was robbery and it only took fifteen minutes to hand down a verdict of guilty.  Then again, Margaret's wearing a man's suit for the trial (she insisted) probably worked against her as well.   Once the verdict was in, the judge, Mr. Justice Sellars, sentenced her to be hanged.

Despite a last-minute attempt to have the sentence commuted, including a petition with 162 signatures, the Home Secretary denied any reprieve and Margaret's execution date was set for January 12.   Though she had been cheerful at first while still hoping for an appeal, her mood quickly changed when the prison governor told her the execution would go on as scheduled.  At her final meeting with Annie Cook, Margaret told her not to come to the hanging but, instead, to go to the corner where they usually met at 9 am, the hour of execution.   

Irritable to the end, Margaret kicked over her breakfast on the morning of her hanging saying that, "I don’t want it and no one else is going to enjoy it!”   Even worse, the prison refused to allow her to wear men's clothing to the hanging and she was forced to wear a prison dress instead.   She was hanged at 9 am on schedule by Alfred Pierrepoint, assisted by Harvey Kirk.   The only real mourner she apparently had was Annie Cook, who was seen crying at the corner where Margaret had asked her to wait.  

While Margaret/Bill was evidently a pre-operation transgender male, the fact that she lived in an era before such operations  were widely available certainly made her life more difficult than it might have been.   As it happens, the case of Christine Jorgensen only a few years later would help open the floodgates (though it would be twenty years before Sweden became the first country to allow people to legally change their sex).    Despite there being no real indication that Margaret's transgender status played a role in her crime, she may well have been treated more harshly by the court as a result of her "mannish" appearance and general refusal to abide by the accepted sexual stereotypes of the time.  It would take a very long time for these attitudes to change.  

 

Are Psychopathy Checklist (PCL) psychopaths dangerous, untreatable, and without conscience? A systematic review of the empirical evidence.

The Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL; Hare, Neumann, & Mokros 2018) scales are among the most widely used forensic assessment tools. Their perceived utility rests partly on their ability to assess stable personality traits indicative of a lack of conscience, which then facilitates behavioral predictions useful in forensic decisions. In a systematic review recently published in the journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, researchers evaluate the empirical evidence behind 3 fundamental justifications for using the PCL scales in forensics, namely, that they are empirically predictive of (1) criminal behavior, (2) treatment outcomes, and (3) a lack of conscience. We found the PCL scales can predict criminal behavior to a statistically significant degree, though with important limitations. We found no evidence of PCL psychopathy being predictive of treatment and rehabilitation outcomes. The researchers found no evidence of PCL psychopathy being predictive of a lack of conscience. These findings disprove widespread beliefs about PCL psychopathy among forensic practitioners

For the abstract

Laying an Egg

England was in full religious ferment during the first few years of the 19th century.  Joanna Southcott was leading a messianic crusade with countless followers revering her as "the Lamb" who would bring them to salvation.  Other prophets like Richard Brothers had their own crusades  promising the imminent coming of God's kingdom on Earth (the English were considered to be God's chosen people).  Tales of signs and wonders proclaiming the impending Second Coming spread widely.

Which brings us to Mary Bateman (a.k.a. "The Yorkshire Witch")...

Born Mary Harker on a small farm in North Yorkshire in 1768, Mary had few choices but to go into service (much as Joanna Southcott did).  Unfortunately, Mary was not a particularly good servant and quickly acquired a reputation for petty thieving which got her fired.  As a compulsive liar, thief, confidence artist, and all-around crook, Mary never managed to hold any job for long.  She was a very good actress however and managed to impress people with her claims of supernatural powers.  By 1788, she had set herself up in Leeds as a dressmaker and part-time fortune teller.  Her marriage to John Bateman nearly ended when her husband discovered his wife's criminal past.  On one occasion, she tricked him into going to his home town to see his father who was supposedly ill.  While he was away, Mary sold her husband's clothes to pay off a debt and avoid prison. He eventually joined the militia to get away from his treacherous wife but  later returned.   The two of them then settled down into a larcenous life together (they had four children and Mary was the main supporter of the entire family).

With no other source of income, Mary became a full-time fortune teller and con artist.  Posing as "Mrs. Moore", a seventh child of a seventh child, Mary carried out elaborate schemes to trick victims into handing over their savings to her.  She developed quite a reputation as a local miracle worker who could accomplish amazing things with her powers.  She was also a keen observer of new trends and always trying to find ways to exploit them for her own profit.  When Joanna Southcott began "sealing" her followers in 1802 (giving them a special token to mark them as being among the 144,000 to be saved according to the Book of Revelation), Mary managed to get one of the markers herself.  It was then that she began one of her most notorious (and profitable) schemes.

Although her reputation as a fortune-teller had begun to suffer (too many of her victims complained), Mary played on her status as one of Southcott's "sealed" to make an amazing announcement. Like many other country women of her time, she kept several hens to supply her with fresh eggs and she claimed that one of them had laid an egg with the inscription "Crist is coming."  Mary announced that she had been granted a vision which told her that her hen would lay fourteen special eggs and that the last one would mark the beginning of the Apocalypse.  As word of this marvel began to spread, more eggs bearing religious inscriptions were laid and crowds quickly gathered (she charged them a penny each to seen her marvelous hens). Not only did the eggs proclaim Christ's coming, but they announced that it would happen very soon which added to the growing hysteria.  Along with making money from displaying the chickens, Mary also began providing pilgrims with special "seals" (a piece of paper bearing the initials "JC") which would guarantee its bearer admission into Heaven following the Apocalypse.  Thousands of visitors came to be saved. 

It's hard to say how long this would have gone on but a skeptical doctor managed to examine one of the eggs and found that the inscription had been written in ink.  When authorities were notified, they staged a raid on the tavern where Mary lived with her chickens.  They caught her red-handed (so to speak) inserting one of her special eggs up the chicken's egg duct so it could be "laid" later.  Mary was arrested and the resulting scandal forced Joanna Southcott to stop sealing her own followers because of the stigma.  

A little thing like public exposure didn't stop Mary Bateman for long.  She simply switched to becoming a practitioner of folk remedies (as well as being an abortionist).  Her services were in high enough demand that the inevitable rumours about the people buying her "medicines" didn't deter other customers.    Two Quaker sisters named Kitchen sought out her services until one of them sickened and died after taking "medicine" that Mary had provided.  When the mother of the two women arrived to deal with her daughter's death, she ended up sickening and dying as well along with her surviving daughter.  All three of them were buried in the same grave.  Although Mary insisted that all three of the Kitchen women had died of the plague, authorities quickly became suspicious.   After their creditors investigated what property was remaining, they found scarcely any furniture or belongings left in the Kitchen sisters' house. 

Amazingly, Mary was able to continue with her frauds despite the suspicion that she had crossed the line from theft to murder.  The previous death of another woman, Rebecca Perigo, was also being investigated after her husband complained to authorities in 1808.  It was the husband, still being fleeced by Mary two years after his wife's death, who arranged for a meeting at which she was arrested by two officers.  A search of Mary Bateman's house turned up items that had belonged to Rebecca Perigo and the Kitchen sisters.  The various ingredients that went into her "remedies" were also found, including poison.  After going on trial at York in 1809, Mary was quickly found guilty of murder despite her repeated claims of innocence.  Desperate to escape hanging, Mary even tried "pleading her belly" (claiming to be pregnant) although a medical examination proved otherwise.

With all her legal options exhausted, Mary Bateman went to the gallows on March 20, 1809.  More than five thousand people turned out for the hanging including many who still believed in her supernatural powers and were convinced that the "Yorkshire witch" would somehow save herself from death.  As the Annals of Yorkshire later described the hanging, Mary "was launched into eternity with a lie upon her lips having denied her guilt to the last".   As was the common practice of the time for executed murderers, her body was turned over the the local medical school for dissection.  There was enough public interest in Mary's corpse for the local hospital to charge money to see the body (more than 2500 people paid threepence each).  Her skin was also tanned and cut into pieces so they could be sold as souvenirs.  Believers in the powers of the ``Yorkshire Witch`` used the skin pieces as talismans (it would have galled Mary to know that she wasn`t making any money from her corpse).

Mary Bateman`s skeleton is still on display at the Thackray Medical Museum in Leeds, England.  Visitors seeing her there can appreciate her presence as a strange sort of testimonial to the power of human gullibility and how easily it can be exploited. 

The Possession of Nicole Aubrey

In November 1565, a married teenaged girl named Nicole Aubrey (also spelled Obry) began experiencing physical torments that she claimed had been brought on by a vision of her dead grandfather.   A native of Vervins, France, the fifteen-year-old Nicole had become so sick that she could not eat and reportedly went into such contortions that, as one eyewitness would later describe, twelve or fifteen men were needed to hold her down.   She also spoke in a gruff and frightening voice and claimed that the spirit of her grandfather was possessing her.   The grandfather told that that he had died without confessing and instructed Nicole and her family to carry out various penances as a result.   Despite  the family doing what was requested, the possession continued.

Nicole's family arranged for a Dominican priest, Pierre de la Motte, to exorcise her.   Through repeated exorcisms,  de la Motte managed to get the possessing spirit to confess that it was a devil rather than an angel.   Nicole's possession became worse and she became deaf, blind and mute (to make her unable to take communion).   Also, the chief devil possessing her reportedly invited numerous other devils to come in to possess her body as well.    According to reports,  de la Motte drove out twenty-eight of the demons possessing Nicole after which they "fled to Geneva" (which was the centre of the Calvinist movement at the time).    The chief demon possessing her,  who named himself "Beelzebub, the Prince of the Huguenots"  (Huguenots were French Protestants)  insisted that no one less that the Bishop of Laon could drive him out.   When  Bishop Jean de Bours arrived in Vervins in January 1566 to do an exorcism, he was no more successful than the other priests.

The case quickly took on political dimensions with the local Huguenots insisting that the entire possession story was a hoax and attempted to have the exorcisms stopped.   They had good reason for their skepticism considering that "Beelzebub" was accusing them of consorting with Satan.   Largely for her own protection, Nicole was transferred to Laon where she was subjected to a series of public exorcisms which took on all the pomp of a religious pageant.     Each day, Nicole was taken from the convent where she was staying in a great religious procession to the majestic Cathedrale Notre-Dame de Laon where she mounted a specially constructed scaffold.   There, before a large audience, the exorcist would order "Prince Beelzebub" to speak and Nicole would dutifully deliver a sermon on the evils that the Protestants would inflict on France's Catholics.   The content was little different from the anti-Huguenot sermons that priests and bishops across the country were delivering on a daily basis.  

That a demon, one of Satan's fallen, was telling the Catholics who were listening what they largely wanted to believe about their Huguenot neighbours seemed guaranteed to boost religious tensions.   Among other things, "Prince Beelzebub" told his listeners that local Huguenots had stolen a communion wafer, cut it up, and burned the pieces.   "Beelzebub" also boasted that "I with my obstinate Huguenots will do Him [Christ] more evil than the Jews did!"   

According to one Catholic chronicler describing Nicole Aubrey's public exorcisms, "The Catholics in great joy gave thanks to God, being more confirmed in their faith; while some Huguenots returned to the way of salvation, others became more and more stubborn, mocking the entire proceeding thing.”    That Huguenots continued to insist that the entire spectacle was a hoax perpetrated by the Church using a gullible young girl did nothing to ease tensions.     On February 8, 1566, the "miracle of Laon" occurred when the Bishop of Laon held up a communion wafer and drove out the last of the demons from Nicole's body.    Nothing more seems to have been recorded about Nicole and she faded into obscurity afterward.

The Laon "miracle" helped reinforce anti-Protestant attitudes with Catholic clergy spreading the word across Europe to become one of the rallying points of the Counter-Reformation,.    It also played an important role in the religious holy wars that wracked France during the 16th century.   That included the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre in August 1572 in which thousands of Huguenots were killed.   The French Wars of Religion would drag on until the end of the 16th century and would eventually lead to the expulsion of the Huguenots from France.

One of the most intriguing descriptions of Nicole's possession was how she was able to speak without the apparent use of her vocal cords.  According to Jean Boulaese, who wrote the most well-known description of Nicole and her possession:

Speaking in Nicole, with her mouth open wide enough to allow the passage of a walnut, and with a swelling beneath the throat; or, to be more exact, in the throat beneath the chin; but in any case without either making use of or moving the lips, the grandfather replied loudly in a cracked voice: I am from God, who endured death and suffering for us all, from the virgin Mary, and all the saints of Paradise. I am the soul of Joachim Willot.

Though Nicole had initially insisted that her grandfather's spirit was using her body with her conscious cooperation, she was later forced to revise this to be more in keeping with Catholic doctrine.   Since doctrine didn't allow for the existence of "good spirits" using living people to pass on messages, their interrogation shaped her responses to comform with Church views on demonic possession.  Given her desire to please her interrogators, the anti-Protestant message she delivered hardly seems that surprising.  

Along with spurring the anti-Huguenot mania gripping France,  Nicole Aubrey's possession also became influential in terms of inspiring copycat cases of possession.     In the French city of Soissons,  four people were publicly exorcised in 1582.   One of these, a 13-year-old boy named Laurent, was reported possessed by a demon calling himself Bonnoir.    Another possessee was more unusual since he was a 50-year-old man who managed to be possessed twice (repossessed?).    A third case was more unusual still since it was a woman named Marguerite Obry (no relation) who claimed to be possessed by the same Beelzebub who had possessed Nicole Aubrey years before.   

Though the Soissons possessions were never as well-known as Nicole Aubry's case  there were numerous similarities.   All of the the possessees went into convulsions whenever holy relics were placed on their stomach or when they were forced to drink holy water.    And, like Nicole Aubrey, they accused the local Huguenots of various religious crimes.   The demons reportedly claimed that they had come to "give comfort to their Huguenot friends" but were forced to recognize the power of the True Church during the public exorcism which drove them out.e

The last great possession case of the 16th centuy was Marthe Brossier who apparently became convinced that she was possessed after reading about Nicole Aubrey's case.   Beginning in 1598, Marthe's family carried her from town to town in the Loire valley where she received multiple public exorcisms.    This continued for over a  year before French authorities had her arrested out of fear that she would stir up anti-Huguenot prejudice.    Marthe either escaped (or was helped to escape) and returned to seeking out exorcisms, this time in southern France.   Despite travelling to Rome and appealing to the Vatican,  Marthe was diagnosed as suffering from illness rather than being truly possessed.   According to the various doctors and theologians who examined her, her condition was  nihil a daemone: multa ficta: a morbo pauca (nothing from the demon; much invention; a little from illness).  

Though the age of possession was hardly over (there would be other cases throughout the 17th and 18th centuries), the Nicole Aubrey exorcism and others like it became a central plank in the propaganda war being waged by the Catholic Church against Protestant movements.  The "miracle of Laon" would be part of Catholic tradition long after the political turmoil that inspired it died down.   That exorcism and cases of demonic possession are still with us today in many societies demonstrates its popularity as a tool for propping up belief systems being threatened by skepticism.   How effective that tool is depends on the willingness of people to believe the unbelievable.

Vaccines and autism: A preliminary qualitative study on the beliefs of concerned mothers in Italy.

While a large body of evidence has shown that the administration of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine is not associated with an increased risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), a hesitant attitude towards childhood vaccination is still present among the public. A new study published in the International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being investigates the mothers’ perceptions of the cause of their child’s ASD in order to increase our understanding of vaccine hesitancy.  This study draws on the analysis of 18 semi-structured interviews of mothers of children with ASD on the causes of autism. Results of the content-analysed interviews showed that the main themes were 1) childhood vaccines; 2) genetics; 3) specific conditions of the mother or the newborn at the moment of delivery; 4) environmental factors such as the mother’s lifestyle or her diet. The link between vaccines and autism was prevalent. About one third of the mothers reported that their child’s ASD was a consequence of a combination of two or more factors, i.e., childhood vaccines and specific conditions of the newborn or the mother at the moment of delivery. This study provides preliminary insights into recurring sets of beliefs concerning the causes of  ASD among the mothers of affected children. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)

For the abstract

 

William Miller and the Great Disappointment

William Miller was never your typical doomsday prophet.

Born in Massachusetts in 1782, he was the son of a captain who had served in the American Revolution and spent most of his early life in Washington County, New York.   Despite his solid Baptist upbringing,  William Miller would later say that he always felt the need for a more personal connection with God but was never quite sure of the form that relationship should take.

After marrying and settling down to his life as a farmer, he likely would have had an uneventful life had it not been for the War of 1812 where he served as a captain.   In 1816, likely as a result of his wartime experiences,  Miller developed an obsession with the afterlife and the need to use the Bible to develop clear and accurate answers to all of the questions in life.   He then spent the next fifteen years in a careful study of the Bible where he "found everything revealed that my heart could desire, and a remedy for every disease of the soul."

Along with his Bible study, William Miller also followed news of the various millennial movements that were springing up throughout the United States at the time.   It is hard to say why people were so receptive to idea that the Second Coming was at hand in that part of the country.   Whether it was due to anxiety over the worsening economic climate (the Panic of 1837 had led to a terrible recession), political uncertainty (the tension that would lead to the Civil War breaking out was already being felt), or lingering anxiety over New England's Dark Day,  numerous religious figures came forward with their own message of coming doom and the need to repent.  

Religious figures such as Jemima Wilkinson ,  Ann Lee and even the venerable John Wesley were proclaiming an impending day of judgment.  Many of these inspirational preachers advocated postmillennialism with Christ returning after a thousand years of universal brotherhood and peace.  Miller was deeply bothered by these teachings since he believed that the Second Coming of Christ would happen first with the millennium of peace following. 

In a statement of faith which wrote to his brother, Miller said that Christ would come:

In the glory of God, in the clouds of Heaven, with all the saints and angels, change the bodies of all that are alive on Earth that are his, and both the living and raised saints will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air. 

As for the ones "left behind" however,they would not fare so well.   Miller maintained that the Earth would be "cleansed by fire, the elements will melt with fervent heat, the works of men will be destroyed, the bodies of the wicked will be burned to ashes."    Not only would the wicked (i.e., anyone who rejected the Gospel) die but their spirits would be "banished from the Earth, shut up in the pit" and not be allowed to return to Earth for 1000 years.    Along with Isaac Newton and a host of other Bible scholars, William Miller examined apocalyptic works such as the Book of Daniel and Revelation to calculate when the Second Coming would occur.

Working from Daniel 8:14 "Until two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed", Miller determined that the Second Coming would occur on March 23, 1843.   Knowing full well that he would be mocked if he openly announced this to the world, Miller only told a few friends and likely would never have come to public attention at all if not for Joshua Vaughan Himes.

Himes, was the minister at Boston's Chardon Street chapel and also a zealous evangelist.   Convinced by Miller's message, Himes invited him to give a sermon in 1839 which led to numerous other invitations from other ministers for Miller to speak.   Not only did this lead to Miller's message being heard by thousands of people, other ministers (including Himes) began preaching the message of imminent judgment as well.

In addition to frequent sermons, Joshua Himes also published a series of magazines and pamphlets including the Midnight Cry and Signs of the Times.   Though Miller and his supporters gained countless supporters,  there was considerable public scorn as well.  Newspapers began reporting on Miller's appearances and the crowds that inevitably gathered.   Editorials blaming Miller for cases of insanity or suicide that they attributed to his message became common. 

The sighting of an extremely bright comet in 1843 set off new apocalyptic fears and William Miller had more followers than ever.  Oddly enough, he largely ignored the comet since he felt that the Bible alone provided all the information needed.    He certainly had no intention of founding a new religion (why bother with converts when Judgment Day was just around the corner?).   Most of his teachings were perfectly consistent with what mainstream Christian preachers were saying in their own sermons, hence his frequent invitations to give guest sermons across much of the country. 

Despite Miller's reluctance to pin down a specific date for the Second Coming, he and his followers eventually settled on April 23, 1843 based on their careful calculations.    As the date approached, the crowds attending his sermons swelled and newspapers were alarmed by his message.   Newspaper editorials warned that widespread belief in Miller's message might lead to social and economic upheaval if farmers decided not to plant crops or if craftsmen stopped producing goods.  

When April 23 came and went with no Second Coming, William Miller went back to the Bible and started recalculating.   Concluding that he had made a mistake by relying on solar years instead of lunar years, he recalculated the date as occurring in the spring of 1844.   Despite their previous disappointment, the Millerites (as they were then known) decided to prepare for the new date in spectacular fashion.  After purchasing an enormous tent capable of holding more than two thousand people, they went on a grand tour through New York and Ohio.  Rumours also began circulating that the Millerites had prepared "ascension robes" that they could wear as they rose into Heaven.  Though these rumours were likely exaggerated, some sources suggest that many Millerites prepared special robes for that reason (even though Miller never called for any special preparations). 

March 21 came and went with nothing remarkable happening.  Undaunted, William Miller insisted that the Second Coming was at hand but concluded that it would likely happen in the fall instead (though this time, he was careful not to provide an exact date).    Another Millerite, S.S. Snow, floated the suggestion that October 22, 1844 would be the correct date since it fell on Yom Kippur (also my birthday, but that was likely a coincidence).   William Miller had his doubts but allowed his followers to convince him.  

At the same time, there was also a growing disenchantment with Miller and his followers.  Many of the ministers who had invited him to speak to their congregations were now ignoring him completely.  Even the newspapers were doing little more than ridiculing the movement.    Editorials predicted "mob scenes" and public disorder while many stores and shops were closed with signs saying "This shop is closed in honor of the King of Kings, who will appear about the 20th of October.  Get ready, friends, to crown him, Lord of All."    When October 22 came and went, the Millerite movement was essentially over though William Miller and Joshua Himes took up a new cause raising money for Millerites who had impoverished themselves by leaving their jobs and giving away their possessions.

Thus began the period known as "the Great Disappointment".   While many Millerites tried to come up with varied explanation of which Christ failed to arrive (eg, Miller had his date wrong, Christ HAD arrived secretly, etc.), the anguish that many of the followers felt was immense.   As one follower later wrote, "Our fondest hopes and expectations were blasted, and such a spirit of weeping came over us as I never experienced before... We wept, and wept, till the day dawn."     Though the movement struggled on, William Miller was no longer part of it.   Though devastated by the failure of his calculations, William Miller continued preaching until his eyesight failed him.   He died on December 20, 1849, still convinced that the Second Coming would happen at any time. 

The Millerite movement might well have petered out completely if it had not been for Joshua Himes.  Refusing to give up on the message of imminent salvation, Himes and his son established the Adventist movement and launched a series of publications, including the Advent Christian Times.    Himes eventually abandoned the Adventists and rejoined the Episcopalian church before dying in 1896 but, by that time, Adventist churches were well-established with various offshoots including the Seventh-Day Adventists and Advent Christians. 

Though the Adventists who followed after Miller and Hines tended to downplay Miller's message of imminent judgment, there were several other false alarms involving Adventist predictions of Christ's return.  These included Jonathan Cummings' prediction that Christ would return in 1854 and William Thurman's prediction that it would happen in 1875.   Despite attracting a small following, neither of them had the impact that William Miller did.

Miller's ultimate legacy was to discredit Doomsday prophets for a least another generation.   Though other doomsayers would arise, it would a long time before any of them would work up the nerve to have their predictions put to a public test and risk the same fate as Miller and his followers.    The "Great Disappointment" would cast a shadow on evangelist movements for decades to come.

Why Are People So Skeptical About Psychology?

Why can't psychologists get respect?

A provocative article published in American Psychologist a few years back tackles that very question.  Written by Emory University psychologist , Scott Lilienfeld (who is also one of the co-authors of 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: Shattering Widespread Misconceptions about Human Behavior), the article examines why psychology has become the "Rodney Dangerfield of the sciences" with a public reputation for being unscientific.    While the science of psychology has often faced legitimate criticism for overly depending on statistical significance testing, overly vague psychological models, and political correctness that limits legitimate scientific investigation into sensitive issues,  most of those criticisms have been raised by psychologists on the inside seeking to strengthen the discipline as a whole. 

Most of these disputes are often invisible to people outside psychology itself and public skepticism concerning psychology typically focus on misunderstandings of what psychology is and the sorts of questions that psychologists attempt to answer.  And this pervasive misunderstanding can have far-reaching consequences.   Not only do elected politicians voting on science funding often short-change psychological research projects for not being "real science" (including omitting psychology from some funding agencies lists for  STEM disciplines), but potential mental health consumers who might otherwise benefit from psychological treatment may be reluctant to seek help due to misconceptions about what a psychologist actually does.

While psychologist advocacy groups (including the American Psychological Association and the Association for Psychological Science) have tried to fight back against these misconceptions, public attitudes concerning psychology and psychological research have been slow to change.  In 2006, the American Psychological Association Science Directorate released a pamphlet titled  Prepare Now to Prevail If Your Research is Attacked:  Self-Defense for the Psychological Scientist which basically advised researchers on how to defend themselves  against political, media, and public attacks that misrepresent their findings.   The pamphlet provides basic self-defense tips such as: 

• Be aware that the grant application abstract from your research is accessible to and searchable by the public and Congress and should describe your research in lay terms.
• Create an easy-to-understand, one-page summary of your research that illustrates why it is important to the public.
• Request media training from your university.  and
• Establish a relationship with your university’s public and legislative affairs office.

Unfortunately, as Dr. Lilienfeld points out, efforts by researchers to fight misconceptions about their research are only mildly effective since they overlook the underlying reasons for widespread skepticism about psychology.   In addressing this skepticism, he focused on two basic questions:  a) are the negative views of psychology's scientific status held by many outsiders warranted? and b) what are the principal sources of the views?    Negative media views about psychology date to the very beginnings of psychology itself wth early psychologists such as William James who wrote uncritically about spiritualism and other pseudoscientific fads.  While other psychologists including Hugo Munsterberg and Theodore Flournoy distinguished themselves as skeptical debunkers, their efforts tended not to be so well-publicized.  Early attempts by forensic psychologists to prove the credibility of psychological research in the courtroom also helped damage the credibility of psychologists as a whole.  As one example, Harvard psychologist, Hugo Munsterberg, had a particularly troubling love-hate relationship with the media and his testimony during the 1907 Harry Orchard trial severely undermined the credibility of the fledgling science of forensic psychology for years afterward.  Regardless of the scientific merits of the research, media  controversies surrounding psychologists such as William Moulton Marston and his lie detector, B.F. Skinner' and his "Heir Conditioner", and Wilhelm Reich and orgone technology likely reinforced the view of mental health researchers as wooly-headed and unscientific.

Even in the the present day, numerous editorials and unflattering stories about psychological research are still common.  A 1982 New York Times editorial by Nicholas Wade reported on a Psychology Today survey that asked eleven psychologists to identify the most significant finding in psychology for the previous fifteen years.   The editorial, titled "If This is Consensus, Psychology Can't Be Much of a Science" used the lack of consensus among the polled psychologists and concluded that  "The results are astonishing: it would seem that there have been none".  The editorial's author added that the failed consensus "evinces a serious problem in their academic discipline".    It was during this same period that David Stockman, President Reagan's then-Director of the Office of Management and Budget justified the decision to slash behavioural science funding by declaring that psychology was a pseudo-science. 

Along with unflattering criticisms of psychology in the media, opinion surveys have indicated that large segments of society continue to view psychology as unscientific and that daily life experiences were often sufficient to provide most people with adequate exposure to make informed opinions about human behaviour.  One 1998 survey study found that both the general population and college faculty rated psychology and sociology as being significant lower than five other disciplines (biology, chemistry, economics, medicine, and physics) in terms of their "contribution of the discipline to society".  Psychologists were specifically identified as being lower in expertise than most other disciplines and that the general population was typically better off relying on "common sense".

A 2008 marketing study commissioned by the American Psychological Association reflected ongoing public misgivings about the scientific value of psychology.  While 82 per cent of study respondents agreed that psychological research helped to improve people's lives, only a minority of participants had a clear idea of what psychologists actually did or the full range of research issues addressed by psychological research.  The overwhelming consensus was that psychology is a "soft science" with less rigour than most other disciplines as well as requiring less time to develop expertise as opposed to other sciences.   Other studies have shown widespread skepticism about psychology's value to society compared to other scientific disciplines seen as more important.

But why is this skepticism so widespread?  According to Dr. Lilienfield, the skepticism often focuses on six common misconceptions about psychology that are often cited by critics:

• Psychology is merely "common sense"
• Psychology does not use scientific methods
• Psychology can not yield meaningful generalizations because everyone is unique
• Psychology does not yield repeatable results
• Psychology can not make precise predictions
• Psychology is not useful to society

While psychologists can respond to these misconceptions effectively, Dr. Lilienfield stresses that widespread skepticism is often reinforced by the slowness on the part of psychologist to weed out those questionable practice that often still thrive.   These practices include the continuing use of treatments and tests that do not have adequate scientific support such as alternative medicine, "recovered memories" of past abuse using hypnosis or other suggestive techniques, as well as the failure of psychologists to use the best evidence-based treatments to treat emotional or behavioural problems.   Of the thousands of self-help books (many of which prominently feature the authors as psychologists), only a small percentage actually off scientifically tested information.  These books often feature oversimplified advice or make elaborate claims that go well beyond established scientific research.   Also,there seems to be widespread resistance among psychologists to test established mental health treatments scientifically which can often feed into public skepticism.

In the end, this failure to police psychology as a whole means that media psychologists such as Dr Phil McGraw and Dr. Laura Schlessinger (whose Ph.D is in physiology) are free to present themselves as psychology's public face and to dispense unscientific advice freely.  That  the American Psychological Association invited "Dr. Phil" to speak at its 2006 annual convention to highlight the effective communication of psychology to the public reflects the problem that many psychologists face in being accepted as scientists.  Even the very word "psychologist" is often a source of confusiondue to role diffusion between psychologists, psychotherapists, psychoanalysts, social workers, and psychiatrists who often provide highly similar services.   Surveys have consistently shown that large segments of the American general population are unable to distinguish between different mental health professionals.

Along with the general role confusion facing psychologists seeking acceptance, Dr.Lilienfeld also identified cognitive biases underlying public skepticism of psychological research.   These include hindsight bias (regarding a research conclusion as seeming obvious in hindsight),  that research questions addressed by psychologists are often perceived as less difficult to answer than questions addressed by scientists in other disciplines, the failure to distinguish basic from applied research, the popularity of reductionist explanations of human behaviour (including explanations based on neuroscience, biochemistry, and human evolution),  as well as the refusal to accept that certain subjects can be tested empirically at all, a.k.a  the scientific impotence excuse. 

So where does this leave us?   While large segments of the general population are still skeptical of psychology's value, survey data suggests some cause for optimism although there is considerably more that needs to be done.   As Dr. Lilienfeld points out, psychologists cannot blame their continuing credibility problems exclusively on public misconceptions.    The failure of psychologists to embrace evidence-based practices and to keep advocating treatments that have been shown not to work effectively is definitely part of the problem.  As well, we shouldn't let flashy media psychologists continue to be seen as psychology's public face instead of the more legitimate research psychologists who can provide a more balanced view of what psychology is realy about.   Since academics are often reluctant to confront pseudoscience, misconceptions continue to flourish.

In his conclusion, Dr. Lilienfeld makes the following recommendations:  on the individual level,  psychologists need to make a greater effort to make their work available to the public through popular writing (Daniel Kahnemann, Steven Pinker, Dan Ariely,  Christoper Chabris and Daniel Simons are all examples of psychologists who have written bestselling books on psychology).   On the institutional level, universities and psychology advocacy groups need to make a greater effort to integrate psychological research into psychology's public face instead of simply reacting blindly to controversies as they arise.  He also stresses the need to debate the often legitimate objections that many people raise to questionable practices in psychology and to weed out those fads that are ultimately damaging to our reputations as psychologists.  Psychologists should stop feeling threatened by public skepticism and learn to recognize that this skepticism can be a useful way of identifying potential problems in our profession and how we are seen by non-psychologists.

To close this post, I think Dr. Lilienfeld's closing words would probably work best:

Just as former New York City Mayor Ed Koch (1981) became famous for asking his constituents “How'm I doing?” as a means of gauging his performance, we as a field should continually be asking the general public “How are we doing?” and be prepared to take their critical feedback to heart if their answers are not to our liking

For the abstract.

The Lady and the Ouija Board

It's still not certain how "Patience Worth" came into Pearl Curran's life.

Born Pearl Lenore Pollard in 1883, her childhood seemed normal enough. By all accounts, she was extremely sensitive about her appearance and wished that she were more attractive. While not a good student (who eventually dropped out of high school), she had a passion for singing. Pearl's parents arranged for voice lessons and she eventually moved to Chicago to continue her voice training. To support herself, she worked in a music company and taught music herself.Whatever dreams Pearl had for a career as a singer or actress ended when she married John Howard Curran at the age of 24 and settled down to be a housewife in St. Louis, Missouri. While John wasn't wealthy, he made enough for Pearl to have a comfortable life, a maid to do the housework, and a fair sized home. The first seven years of marriage seemed happy enough.

Except...

Spiritualism was tremendously popular during the early years of the twentieth century with countless occult believers across most English speaking countries. Mediums like Eusapia Palladino and Helene Smith regularly conducted seances for the rich and not-so-rich alike and news of "spooky" happenings definitely sold newspapers. While Houdini's anti-spiritualism crusade helped deflate spiritualist claims, there was still enough interest for ouija boards to be a common item in many homes.

Which brings us to Pearl Curran having a quiet tea with her mother and a family friend at her home in 1913. Pearl was reluctant about using the ouija board that the friend had brought to her home but, after some initial success with messages from "Pat-C", the three of them decided to keep trying. On July 8 of that year, they received the following message: "Many moons ago I lived. Again I come. Patience Worth my name. Wait, I would speak with thee. If thou shalt live, then so shall I. I make my bread at thy hearth. Good friends, let us be merrie. The time for work is past. Let the tabby drowse and blink her wisdom to the firelog."

The "entity" in question identified herself as Patience Worth and that she had lived in one of the American colonies between 1649 and 1694. Pearl seemed to be the main target for the messages though she soon outgrew the need for the board.   As she later reported, she realized that the board was unnecessary since she could see the sentences "forming" in her mind at the same time that they were being spelled out. While she later hired a secretary to keep track of Patience's messages, she often wrote them out herself.

According to Patience, she was born "across the sea" (later identified as Dorsetshire in England) and made an Atlantic crossing in a three-masted schooner to live in one of the American colonies. The details of Patience's life (and her violent death by natives) were typically sketchy with no real details that could be independently verified. Despite initial skepticism, Pearl (and Patience) were able to gain a considerable following. During the next 25 years, "Patience Worth" would dictate an estimated 400,000 words including 5,000 poems, a play, various short stories and four novels.

The controversy over Pearl Curran and her writing quickly polarized into two camps. On one side, the skeptics picked up on the various inconsistencies of her story. Not only was there no evidence that Patience Worth had ever existed, but at least one of the novels she wrote was set in Victorian England, long after Patience "lived". On the other side, Pearl's supporters stressed her limited education making it unlikely that she could have written everything on her own.

One researcher in particular who took an interest in Pearl's case was Walter Franklin Prince (who had already made a name for himself through the Doris Fischer multiple personality case). He first began studying Pearl Curran in 1926 and, after a thorough investigation, published The Case of Patience Worth in 1927. Prince described the case as representing "an unexpected display of literary genius, ability to carry on complex mental operations, together with apparent divination of other minds". While he was ambivalent about whether Pearl Curran was actually "channeling" Patience, Prince wrote an article that was published in the 1926 issue of Scientific American titled The Riddle of Patience Worth.In the article, he specifically asked anyone with information that could related to the case to come forward. Nobody took him up on the offer.

Whatever reservations John Curran had about his wife's link to a long-dead women, he would keep careful records of the sessions until his death in 1922. Afterward, Pearl supported herself and her family through lecturing and financial help from friends but the sessions went on. She received her final communication from Patience in November, 1937, a little more than a month before Pearl's death from pneumonia (which Patience reportedly predicted). While later mediums would claim to receive messages from Patience over the years (Pearl didn't seem inclined to make contact herself), nobody would ever match the quality of the original writing.

Although Patience Worth is still considered to be a genuine example of spirit writing by true believers, skeptics tend to regard the case as being an example of dissociation (if not an outright hoax). Although automatic writing has long been recognized as a clinical tool by Freudian psychoanalysis, its value has been hotly disputed by other clinicians. Research into automatic writing tends to be limited although the phenomenon has been linked to hypnosis and suggestibility. There have been more recent examples of literary works being produced through automatic writing but the case of Pearl Lenore Curran is still the most well-known of its kind.

In the meantime, ouija boards continue to be sold (Parker Brothers still owns the trademark) but they're not as common as they used to be.  Fledgling writers hoping to get published would probably be better off with a good writing class.