MAGICIANS AS DETECTORS OF FRAUD
THE alacrity with which Spiritualists seize upon letters or other statements of magicians that they believe the so-called spirit manifestations which they have witnessed were not accomplished by means of legerdemain but were attributable to supernatural or occult powers has astonished me and while I intend to refute them I want to call attention at the same time to the incompetence of the opinion of the ordinary magician with a knowledge of two or three experiments in Spiritualism who stands up and claims that he can duplicate the experiments of any medium who ever lived.
My personal opinion is that notwithstanding the fact that innumerable exposures have been successfully made, such fact is no proof that any investigator, legerdemain artist or otherwise, is fully capable of fathoming each and every effect produced.
Some magicians with a knowledge of pseudo-Spiritualistic effects imagine that they have all they need to qualify them as investigators, and should anything transpire at a seance which they cannot explain they are mystified into temporary belief and write letters or make statements which they are quite likely to regret as the years roll on.125
A good card “shark” or “brace game”126 gambler can cheat and fleece the slickest sleight-of-hand performer that ever lived, unless the performer has made a specialty of gambling tricks. It seems strange, but it is true, that card magicians are poor gamblers, and mediums, like the gamblers, resort to deception and take advantage of the sitters at all angles.
It is manifestly impossible to detect and duplicate all the feats attributed to fraudulent mediums who do not scruple at outraging propriety and even decency to gain their ends. A slick medium will even resort to drawing on the sitters127 for desired information by recourse to what may be palmed off for a mere lark, and if the bait is swallowed by the sitter the circumstance is turned to good account for the perpetration of deliberate fraud to his consternation and bewilderment.
Again many of the effects produced by mediums are impulsive, spasmodic, done on the spur of the moment, inspired or promoted by the attending circumstances, and could not be duplicated by themselves. Because the circumstances of their origin and performance are so peculiar detection and duplication of Spiritualistic phenomena is sometimes a most complex task. Not only are mediums alert to embrace every advantage offered by auto-suggestion but they also take advantage of every accidental occurrence. For instance, my greatest feat of mystery was performed in 1922 at Seacliffe, L. I., on the Fourth of July, at the home of Mr. B. M. L. Ernest. The children were waiting to set off their display of fireworks when it started to rain. The heavens fairly tore loose. Little Richard in his dismay turned to me and said:
“Can’t you make the rain stop?”
“Why certainly,” I replied and raising my hands said appealingly, “Rain and Storm, I command you to stop.”
This I repeated three times and, as if by miracle, within the next two minutes the rain stopped and the skies became clear. Toward the end of the display of fireworks the little fellow turned to me and with a peculiar gleam in his eyes said:
“Why, Mr. Houdini, it would have stopped raining anyway.”
I knew I was risking my whole life’s reputation with the youngster but I said:
“Is that so? I will show you.”
Walking out in front I raised my hands suppliantly toward the heavens and with all the command and force I had in me called:
“Listen to my voice, great Commander of the rain, and once more let the water flow to earth and allow the flowers and trees to bloom.”
A chill came over me for as if in response to my command or the prayer of my words another downpour started, but despite the pleading of the children I refused to make it stop again. I was not taking any more chances.
I am also aware of the fact that there are effects produced by magicians which they declare are accomplished by natural agencies, which other magicians are entirely unable to account for or satisfactorily explain. A notable case was a card performance by Dr. Samuel C. Hooker which included the levitation of a life-sized head of an animal, possessed of life-like movement while in a state of suspension and still there were no visible means of support. A number of these seances were given to groups of magicians only. On one occasion a dozen or more of the most expert professional magicians were in attendance, but no one could offer a satisfactory solution.
Many magical mysteries as practised for entertainment are just as incomprehensible as so-called Spiritualistic Phenomena and it is not to be wondered at that even minds trained to analytical thinking are deceived and misguided. Were I at a seance and not able to explain what transpired it would not necessarily be an acknowledgment that I believed it to be genuine Spiritualism. The fact that I have mystified many does not signify that what I have done, though unexplainable to them, was done by the help of the Spirits. Mr. Kellar frequently, particularly during the last two years of his appearance on the stage, said to the audience:
“Do not be ashamed if I mystify you; I have seen Houdini and his work and I do not know how he does it.”
The simple fact that a thing looks mysterious to one does not signify anything beyond the necessity of analytic investigation for a fuller understanding. But to return to possibilities; I believe that the great majority of so-called manifestations can be duplicated but I am not prepared to include all, because, as before explained, some are spontaneous, and cannot be reproduced by the mediums themselves unless the identical opportunity should present itself, which is as uncertain as lightning striking twice in the same place—possible but improbable.
It would be extremely difficult, if not out of the question, to reproduce much of the “phenomena” by description as given by those who have witnessed it. The lapse of time and the fact that a story twice told never loses, renders such reproduction extremely doubtful. Were I to be challenged to duplicate any particular phase as presented by a medium, permission would have to be granted to allow me not less than three demonstrations. At the first, not wishing to accept any one’s word as to what happened I should want to see the manifestation so that there would be no surprise attack on my mind afterwards. At the second sitting I would be prepared to watch what I had seen at the first sitting and the third time I would try to completely analyze for duplication. It might be that some peculiar formation or years of special practice enabled the medium to do a certain action and naturally it would require at least three seances to become thoroughly cognizant of the modus operandi, or the manipulative process used. If there were no fraud, then there could be no objection to the demonstrations.
Let us dissect a few of the magician’s statements. First: Belachini, conjuror to the imperial German Court, is claimed by Spiritualists as a great magician countenancing and acknowledging the genuineness of Spiritualism, but by no possible stretch of imagination could he be so classed despite the efforts of modern Spiritualists to prove that he was, for the very nature of his tricks belie his statement. No present day magician would permit him to be mentioned as an authority on Spiritualism notwithstanding the fact that Spiritualists are trying to prove from his letters that he was, just as they have ever since the letters were written.
I have received reports from Karl Wilmann, of Hamburg; A. Herman, of Berlin, and Rosner of Haisenhaid, to the effect that Belachini was solely an apparatus or mechanical conjuror with an adroit and daring address. In fact, his unbounded self-confidence won him the position for which he is famous. He was performing for Kaiser Wilhelm I. who sat amazed at his suave dexterity. The climax of the performance came when Belachini, bowing, proffered a pen to Wilhelm.
“Take this, your Majesty,” he requested, “and attempt to write with it. I warn you it is a magical pen and subject only to my control; I can write anything with it or cause anything to be written; you cannot.”
Wilhelm laughingly took the pen with a confident mien, hiding his real awe of Belachini. He applied it to the paper before him but in spite of his most careful efforts, the pen balked, spluttering and splashing ink, while Belachini stood by smiling.
“Well,” said the Kaiser, “tell me what to write.”
Belachini reflectively caressed his chin, then replied with a dry smile:
“Write this. I hereby appoint Belachini Court Conjuror.”
The monarch chuckled at the wit and without difficulty wrote and signed the order.
A second, famous in his day, was “Herr Alexander,” a magician whose full name was Alexander Heinberger. He gave seances at the White House for President Polk who sent him to South America once on a man-of-war. The President was willing to believe that Heinberger was guided and aided by the Spirits but Heinberger would neither affirm nor deny the suspected origin of his feats but like a good showman left his observers to their own deductions as was the practice of the Davenport Brothers. He lived to be ninety years old, and was a most remarkable old man. I visited him at his home in Munster, Westphalia.
Sometimes a misunderstanding entangles a magician with Spiritualism. The following instance comes to my mind. It is a popular belief among Spiritualists that certain letters and statements bearing the signature of Robert Houdin are acknowledgments of his belief in Spiritualism. On the contrary they refer simply to certain acts of clairvoyance purported to have taken place at the instance of one Alexis Didier. The first statement has been translated as an interview of considerable length which is concluded as follows:
“Ah, Monsieur (Alexis Didier, as addressed by Houdin), that may seem so to a man of no experience in these matters, to the ordinary person,—though even then such a mistake is hardly admissible,—but to the expert! Just consider, Monsieur, that all my cards are faked, marked, often of unequal sizes, or at least artistically arranged. Again I have my signals and telegraphs. But in this case a fresh pack was used which I had just taken out of its wrapper, and which the somnambulist cannot have studied. There is another point, where deception is impossible, namely, in the handling of the cards: in the one case, the entire artlessness of the performance, in the other, that tell-tale air of effort which nothing can entirely disguise. Add to this his total blindness, for need I insist on the impossibility—the absolute impossibility—of his having seen. Besides, even supposing he could see, how can we account for the other phenomena? With regard to my own ‘second-sight’ performances, without being able to divulge my secret to you now, bear in mind that I am careful to tell you every evening, that I only promise a second sight! Consequently in my case a first sight is indispensable.
“The following day Robert Houdin gave me (Alexis Didier) the following signed statement:
“‘While I am by no means inclined to accept the compliments which M—— is kind enough to pay me, and while I am particularly anxious that my signature should not be held to prejudice in any way my opinion, either for or against magnetism, still I cannot refrain from affirming that the incidents recorded above are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, and that the more I think about them the more impossible I find it to class them with those which form the subject of my profession and of my performances.
“‘Robert Houdin.
“‘May 4th, 1847.’”
It will be seen at a glance that the signature in this case refers to a mystification by card handling, clairvoyance, forecasting, etc. His second letter was written a fortnight later and is as follows:
“Monsieur, (Alexis Didier) as I informed you, I was anxious to have a second sitting. This sitting which was held at Marcillet’s house yesterday proved even more extraordinary than the first, and has left me without a shadow of a doubt as to the clairvoyance of Alexis. I went to this seance, fully determined to keep a careful watch on the game of écarté, which had astounded me so much before. This time I took much greater precautions than at the first seance, for distrusting myself I took a friend, whose natural imperturbability enabled him to form a cool judgment and helped me to steady mine. I append an account of what took place, and you will see that trickery could never have produced such results as those which I am about to recount.
“I undo a pack of cards, which I had brought with me in a marked wrapper to guard against another pack being substituted for it. I shuffle and it is my deal. I deal with every precaution known to a man well up in all the dodges of his profession. It is all of no use, Alexis stops me, and pointing to one of the cards that I had just placed in front of him on the table, says:
“‘I’ve got the King.’
“‘But you can’t possibly know yet; the trump card has not been turned up.’
“‘You will see,’ he replies. ‘Go on.’
“As a matter of fact I turn up the eight of Diamonds, and his was the King of Diamonds. The game was continued in an odd enough manner, for he told me the cards I had to play, though my cards were hidden under the table and held close together in my hands. To each lead of mine he played one of his own cards without turning it up, and it was always the right card to have played against mine. I left this seance then in the greatest possible state of amazement, and convinced of the utter impossibility of chance or conjuring having been responsible for such marvellous results.—Yours, etc.,
(Signed) “Robert Houdin,
“16th May, 1847.”
I here embrace the opportunity to make a correction of a statement in “The Unmasking of Robert Houdin” (page 287). The record and source of information at that time was published in Berlin, Germany. It gave the impression that the “letters” cited above referred to Spiritualistic phenomena, but now, having come into possession of a true translation of these documents complete, as published by the Society for Psychical Research,128 I am of the opinion that Houdin did treat the subject of Spiritualism with conservative prudence and impartiality, as recorded by Professor Hoffmann.
But I wish to say that in my estimation of Robert Houdin, despite his wonderful reputation and record as mentioned in Larousse’s Encyclopedia, I cannot agree with his statements, because he misrepresented so much in his “Memoirs of a Magician.” In “The Unmasking of Robert Houdin” I devoted a whole chapter to his ignorance of magic and by investigating I have found that he was not competent as an investigator of the claims of Spiritualists.
It came quite as a shocking surprise to me to find that the letters which were supposed to refer to Spiritualistic seances, and which have been quoted so often as being such, refer only to his experience with Alexis the clairvoyant. It must be apparent, even to the casual observer, that they have no bearings whatsoever on Spiritualism, but refer only to sittings with a clairvoyant in a game of sharp card practice. Knowing, as I do now, what it all meant, the fact that he wrote the letters does not surprise me in the least. I believe a lot of things transpired in that room which he could not see, or know whether there was confederacy, for clairvoyants as well as mediums often get information from the most unexpected sources. Clairvoyance, like Spiritualism, was not in the direct line of professional observation to Robert Houdin. What would he or any of his confreres, who were supposed to be adepts at that time, say if they could visit a seance of some of our present day clairvoyants who are appearing before the public and making use of radio, wireless, induction coils, etc.? What a wonderful bunch of letters they might write because of the simple fact that they could not tell how the effects were produced. It is ridiculous for any magician to say that the work he witnesses is not accomplished by conjuring or legerdemain simply because he cannot solve the problem.
As to his qualifications for adjudging the work of a clairvoyant, we have but to revert to his own narration of the origin and development of second-sight as used by himself. This account can be found in the English edition of his Memoirs:
“My two children were playing one day in the drawing-room at a game they had invented for their own amusement; the younger had bandaged his elder brother’s eyes and made him guess the objects that he touched, and when later he guessed right they changed places. This simple game suggested to me the most complicated idea that ever crossed my mind. Pursued by the notion, I ran and shut myself in my workshop, and was fortunately in that happy state when the mind follows easily the combinations traced by fancy. I rested my head in my hands, and in my excitement laid down the first principles of second sight.”
It is hard to reconcile this statement with truth in view of the fact that memory training, as he describes it, was in vogue and practised long before129 his time and is not the way second sight is learned. It could not have been discovered or invented by him except coincidentally by his utter lack of knowledge bearing on the methods of seership and clairvoyance as practised either in his time or antiquity. Let me explain clearly, and I hope once for all, the valuelessness of his letters as far as they relate to Spiritualism and clairvoyance.
In the first place the blindfold test130 as produced by Alexis Didier to mystify Houdin. Putting cotton on the eyes and covering it with a handkerchief is now used by amateurs in the cheapest kind of what we term “muscle reading.” There is not the slightest difficulty in seeing beneath such a bandage, sometimes over it, and the range of vision can easily be determined by a test. In Paris I saw a mysterious performer, named Benoval, who had his eyes glued together with adhesive paper, on top of it cotton was placed, and over the cotton a handkerchief, but he danced around bottles and burning candles without any difficulty.
Regarding the information given clairvoyantly to Madame Robert Houdin during another seance with Alexis; Houdin at that time was one of the best known characters of Paris, a public person, and it was the easiest thing in the world for Alexis to gather information concerning him and his family. Houdin may not have been acquainted with the subtlety of what we now term “fishing,” “stalling,” or “killing time,” in order to get information or put something over. He might have been mystified but his knowledge of Spiritualism and clairvoyance was nil according to his own statement.
One of the demonstrations presented by Alexis to mystify Houdin was the reading from a book, by the seer, several pages in advance of a page designated by the person holding the book at the time. There does not seem to be any really authentic details reported regarding the exact performance of this man, Alexis, consequently much must of necessity be left to conjecture and a knowledge of the orthodox methods for doing such things. Such information as there is available seems to have passed through several hands and in all probability was first presented to the public through a Spiritualistic publication. However, the particular effect referred to is neither new nor strange but has always been a feature in second sight acts and with clairvoyants. The reading of a book from memory is quite possible to persons of abnormal mind or special training in co-relative memorizing; a very clever system with surprising possibilities. There are many cases on record of persons who, having read a book once, could repeat every word and even tell where the punctuation was. The ability to recite entire chapters or parts of them is much more common, and is not difficult for trained minds such as are possessed by members of theatrical stock companies, who are oftentimes obliged to commit to memory simultaneously three or four plays, and this too while on the road. In order to be prepared to play one part in the afternoon and an entirely different one the same night, stock actors frequently have to do some marvellous memorization work on short notice. It is not an exception but the rule. They get long parts with from fifty to a hundred and fifty “sides,” each side containing from one to ten speeches. The foster-mother’s speech in “Common Clay” is over three pages, and the Duchess’ in the first act of Oscar Wilde’s “Lady Wildmere’s Fan” is about four pages. The well-known actress, Miss Beatrice Moreland, told me that she memorized them both in an hour and was almost letter perfect. The actor’s rule for memorizing parts is to take ten pages first and when they have been committed to memory take ten more. If such feats can be done as the result of training how easy it must be for an abnormal mind to memorize a book.
There comes to my mind a phenomenal memory feat by a blind slave boy called “Blind Tom.” He would listen while a composer played an original composition. As soon as the composer finished Tom seated himself at the piano and reproduced the entire piece with all the composer’s delicacy of shading and technique.
There is a case on record of a memory performance, I think in Rousseau’s time, where a poet read a piece of poetry, a long monody, to the King. At its conclusion the King said:
“Why, that is quite an old story, I have heard it before. As a matter of fact the man who related it to me is in my palace now; I will send for him and have him recite it for you.”
He spoke to a servant who left the room and returned in a few minutes with the memory man who stood in the center of the room and recited the entire poem. It appears that the King, wishing to mystify the poet, had the memory man hidden in a closet where he could hear the poem read.
Inaudi, a Frenchman, has given performances both in America and Europe in which he looks at a blackboard covered with figures written by a committee, then turns around and immediately tells correctly every figure on the board and its position; adds, subtracts, and multiplies them, with lightning-like rapidity, and all without looking at the board a second time. He makes no claim to psychic or clairvoyant powers but simply explains his wonderful performance as being the result of a photographic memory.
I might repeat such instances indefinitely but I think I have given enough to substantiate my claim of precedence for God’s natural laws and their marvellous, even incomprehensible working, over any so-called supernatural endowment of a class of people so thoroughly disqualified by all known laws of moral sociology, as many professional mediums are admitted to be by their most ardent supporters.
Even such an eminent mystifier as Robert Houdin can misjudge when it comes to fathoming the so-called manifestations of the professional medium. As I have explained in “The Unmasking of Robert Houdin,” page 291, he makes two flagrant errors in attempting to explain the Davenport Brothers’ trick. First he claims that “by dint of special practice on the part of the mediums, the thumb is made to lie flat in the hand, when the whole assumes a cylindrical form of scarcely greater diameter than the wrist.” Secondly, he declares that the Davenport Brothers possessed the power of seeing in the dark as the result of practice or training.
Releasing myself from fastenings of all sorts, from ropes to straightjackets, has been my profession for over thirty-five years, therefore I am in a position to positively contradict Houdin’s first statement. I have met thousands of persons who claimed that the rope trick as well as the handcuff trick was accomplished by folding the hand together or by making the wrist larger than the hand, but I have never met the man or woman who could make the hand smaller than the wrist. I have even gone so far as to have iron bands made to press my hands together, hoping to make them smaller than my wrists eventually, but it was no use. Even if the thumbs were cut away I believe it would be impossible to slip a rope that is properly bound around the wrist. Furthermore I know that Houdin was wrong in regard to the Davenports because of what Ira Erastus Davenport himself told me.
Equally preposterous is the gift of seeing in the dark with which Houdin endowed the Davenports. Professor Hoffmann defends Houdin by citing instances of prisoners who had been confined in a dungeon for an indefinite period and had learned to see in the dark. Ira Erastus Davenport laughed at the idea and Morelle, who was confined in a dungeon for a number of years, told me that all the years he had spent in darkness did not accustom his eyesight at all and that to have seen an article plainly he would have been forced to hold it close to his eyes and even then would have had to stretch his imagination.
Baggally, an investigator, a member of the Society for Psychical Research, London, England, emphatically records that he believes the Zancigs are genuine telepathists, and my friend, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, though he says that Zancig has given proof numerous times that he works with a code, nevertheless has stated in writing that he believed the Zancigs to be genuine. I want to go on record that the Zancigs never impressed me as being anything but clever, silent and signal codists. Zancig has admitted freely to members of the Society of American Magicians, of which he is a member, that they were not telepathists but, as we term it, “second sight artists.” They simply have a wonderful code which the public cannot detect. It is interesting to know that after Mrs. Zancig’s death, Zancig took a street-car conductor from Philadelphia and broke him in to do the act. This young man soon quit his teacher, married, and began presenting the act with his wife. Then Zancig took young David Bamberg, an intelligent son of Theodore Bamberg, one of our well-known magicians. The boy proved exceptionally clever but on account of unexpected circumstances he left and went abroad. Zancig came to me for an assistant and I introduced him to an actress. He said he would guarantee to teach her the code inside of a month, but they never came to an agreement on financial matters. Zancig has now married again, this time a school teacher, and they are doing a very clever performance. In passing I would note that in 1906 or 1907 I engaged Zancig to go with my show. I had ample opportunity to watch his system and codes. They are swift, sure, and silent, and I must give him credit for being expertly adept in his chosen line of mystery, but I have his personal word, given before a witness, that telepathy does not enter into it.
Charles Morritt has a code for second sight which is very simple and can be taught to anyone in thirty minutes. He has given me the secret. He gave this code to a banker who performed it with his sister, and Morritt, although he had taught the signals, could not follow or detect them once they began to work smoothly. Of course he knew what they were doing but simply could not follow them.
Regarding the possibility of using codes and cues before others without being detected I can say positively that it is not only possible but simple and practical. I had a fox terrier by the name of “Bobby” that I trained to pick up cards by a cue. On May 31, 1918, I performed with this dog before the Society of American Magicians and I do not believe that there was one in the audience who detected my silent cue. I spoke about this to a number of expert professionals who thought, to all intents and purposes, that Bobby was listening to my speech, whereas I was silently cueing him all the time. I do not wish to expose the silent cue as I know that the great dog trainers of the world use it and it would not be fair to them to make it public. I was able to give Bobby his silent cue in any room or even a newspaper office and the spectators could watch me closely all the time because I never made a move they could see or a sound they could hear.
It is common to train other animals in a similar way. During one of my tours in Germany I saw a horse called “Kluge Hans” that was able to spell, add, subtract, pick out cards, and with his feet make one tap for yes and two taps for no. Kluge Hans fooled the professors for a long time but finally it came out that he got his cues from the trainer’s assistant. It is not generally known that, owing to the position of his eyes, a horse can look backwards to a certain degree and the investigators did not notice the assistant who stood just back of the horse’s head.
At one time William Eglinton, an English medium, was undoubtedly considered by Spiritualists the most powerful professional psychic not only in England but throughout a greater part of Europe. In 1876 he held the palm as a successor to Slade in slate writing tricks. He was a strong card for the cause and was extolled and lauded to the skies by the Spiritualistic press. He produced varied phenomena in addition to his slate writing effects, such as the movement of articles, production of Spirit lights, and materialization. The Spiritualists have told that “he was so skillful that several practised conjurors as well as many investigators” were at a loss to detect or account for his methods. That may have been so. Half a century ago conjurors were not up on Spiritualism as they are to-day, and besides, it must be conceded that even conjurors are not immune to being deceived. Nevertheless there were conjurors and lay investigators fully qualified to discover and expose his frauds.
In 1876, while in his prime as a medium, he was exposed in the materialization of an Arab. This Arab’s flowing beard and draperies were very familiar to English Spiritualists and as proof of the actual materialization sitters were permitted to cut fragments from the beard and robes. Archdeacon Colley, an interested member of a circle of sitters, suspecting fraud, secured some clippings and a few days later when opportunity offered “he found in Eglinton’s portmanteau a false beard and a quantity of muslin to which the detached relics perfectly corresponded.” He was also exposed several other times but this did not preve