A Tribute To John Burcombe

(This post will make some references to Maurice Grosse and Guy Playfair's Enfield tapes. I'll use "MG" to refer to tapes from Grosse's collection, and "GP" will refer to those from Playfair's. So, MG63B is Grosse's tape 63B, and GP40A is tape 40A in Playfair's collection.)

When the Hodgson family first realized that something paranormal was occurring in their home, they headed for the Burcombes' house. It was only after they noticed the lights on at the Nottinghams' house next door that they decided to go there instead. Though none of the Burcombes were present at the Hodgsons' house on the opening night of the case, the first people the Hodgsons thought to go to for help were John Burcombe and his family. They would often be a source of refuge for the Hodgsons as the poltergeist developed.

John Burcombe was the brother of Peggy Hodgson, and he had a reputation similar to his sister's:

"John Burcombe…like his sister struck all who met him as the most reliable of witnesses…We both [Playfair and Grosse] considered John Burcombe to be the best of witnesses." (Guy Playfair, This House Is Haunted [United States: White Crow Books, 2011], 222, 236)

Melvyn Willin's recent book on Enfield cites other sources referring to Burcombe's credibility. Mary Rose Barrington found Burcombe a sincere witness (The Enfield Poltergeist Tapes [United States: White Crow Books, 2019], 79-80). Enid Grattan-Guinness referred to his "seeming integrity" (82). Bernard Carr found Burcombe "honest, but possibly gullible" (90). The committee that reinvestigated the case for the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) considered Burcombe "an intelligent and careful observer" (92).

Even the foremost critic of Enfield, Anita Gregory, acknowledged, "John Burcombe and Mrs. Nottingham seemed to me sensible and reliable witnesses." (Journal Of The Society For Psychical Research, vol. 50, 1979-80, p. 539)

He often appears on Grosse and Playfair's tapes, in a large number and variety of contexts. I found him to be a credible and unusually valuable witness.

Initially, he was skeptical that anything paranormal was going on (MG2A, 0:42). When he read about poltergeists before the Enfield case began, he thought to himself, "What a right load of old rubbish." (MG99A, 15:02) Even after he began witnessing events, he referred to how he'd sometimes disbelieve what he had seen (MG2A, 15:15). Anita Gregory said that she'd had a conversation with Burcombe in which he expressed skepticism of some of the phenomena. It seems that Gregory misrepresented some of what Burcombe said, but she probably was right about his being skeptical to some degree. See the relevant section of the post here (do a Ctrl F search for "claims about John Burcombe") for further discussion of the issue. He would often acknowledge when he didn't have some information Grosse or somebody else was looking for, that he didn't witness something, that he didn't remember various details, and so on. If he was a dishonest witness, then it's harder to explain why he so often refrained from making claims he could easily have made to strengthen the credibility of the case and why he so often made claims that weaken the credibility of the case when he could so easily have avoided doing so.

I'll highlight a significant example here, one that Gregory makes much of in her doctoral thesis (178-79). Grosse reported that he saw a couch levitate, turn over, then fall back to the floor upside down. Gregory tried to cast doubt on the event by objecting that Burcombe, who was supposed to have been in the room with Grosse at the time and to have witnessed the levitation, didn't remember the incident.

There are a lot of problems with Gregory's reasoning. She ignores most of the relevant evidence. There's a tape of the event, which happened on November 10, 1977. On the tape, Burcombe doesn't say that he saw the couch levitate, but he also doesn't object when Grosse mentions that the couch just levitated and that it happened in front of everybody in the room (MG20Ai, 4:31). Furthermore, shortly after Grosse's comment, Burcombe tells everybody to calm down and not get excited, and he says a little later, "Right, now who's going to, who's going to put the kettle on?" (5:03) Notice that he seems to have been nervous enough to repeat himself ("who's going to, who's going to"). And as I discussed in a previous post, Burcombe seemed to make such comments about tea when he was upset by something he'd just experienced, which suggests that there was something significant that he just witnessed. If it wasn't the couch levitation, what was it? In the original edition of Playfair's book, he comments, "Thanks also to John and Sylvie Burcombe and to Vic and Peggy Nottingham who, with [Peggy Hodgson] and Mr Grosse, have read the manuscript of this book and signed a statement to the effect that it is true." (This House Is Haunted [London, England: Souvenir Press, 1980], 11) The book refers to this couch levitation and describes Burcombe as being present and commenting on the event at the time (88). It seems, from the tape and Playfair's book, that both Peggy Hodgson and Peggy Nottingham were present as well, so that they're two other witnesses to the couch levitation who signed the statement about the accuracy of Playfair's book. Judging by the screaming, nervousness, comments that are made, and other details on the tape, it sounds like Grosse was right that everybody in the room (he names eight people at 6:32) saw the couch levitate.

So, why did Burcombe not remember the event when asked about it later? I discussed the subject in my response to Gregory's doctoral thesis in June of 2018 (do a Ctrl F search for "couch" on the page just linked). It wasn't until the next month that I got the digitized version of Grosse's tapes, so I wrote my response to Gregory without having yet heard the recording of the event. Not only did Grosse get a recording of the couch levitation, but he also recorded some members of the Enfield committee of the SPR interviewing Burcombe about the incident. It seems to be the discussion Gregory refers to. John Stiles of the SPR asks Burcombe about the couch incident at 2:25 on tape MG98B. Just after, Grosse offers some further details to help Burcombe remember the surrounding context. He mentions that it was Janet's birthday, for example. Burcombe recalls seeing a levitation of Janet that happened shortly after the couch levitation (also recorded on the same tape), but he has trouble remembering the levitation of the couch. He comments, "So many of them, wasn't there?" (5:12) He goes on to describe other levitations of that couch that he remembers seeing (7:07). Then Grosse rightly notes, "you're asking him a question as though he'd only seen one episode. That episode of what I described to you, which was particularly strong with me, was not particularly strong with him. He'd seen so much of it, you see, going over." (7:43) While Grosse is making that remark, you can hear Mary Rose Barrington of the SPR in the background saying "Yes.", as if she at least understands, and perhaps even agrees with, what Grosse is saying. Burcombe then comments, "It's like Maurice has said." (8:05) Burcombe then asks the committee members to move on to the next question and come back to the couch incident later, so that he'll perhaps remember it at that point. But later on (16:08), he says he still can't remember it, and his frustration is obvious. And he took the initiative to say that he still couldn't remember the event.

Not only is there good evidence that the couch episode did occur, but there's also good evidence that Burcombe witnessed it. His failure to remember it more than a year later isn't much of a problem under the circumstances. His interview with the SPR, in which he tells the interviewers that he doesn't remember the incident and takes the initiative to reinforce the fact that he doesn't remember it, is strong evidence of his honesty and integrity.

One of the reasons why he saw so many furniture levitations and other events and had difficulty remembering some of them and distinguishing one from another was that he was at the house so often. That had to have been of great benefit to the Hodgsons, especially since Burcombe was often the only man around. There are many references on the tapes to his watching the house while the family was away, making repairs around the house, counseling his sister about how to handle various situations, helping take care of her children, etc. How would you go about numbering how many times, across so many contexts, he provided that kind of assistance?

And the highly unusual nature of the context needs to be kept in mind. Go here to watch a portion of a documentary that discusses some of the disturbing experiences he went through in the process of assisting the Hodgsons as I've described. And the documentary leaves out some of what Burcombe said when Grosse interviewed him. During the discussion of the incident when he went to the Hodgsons' house to get an alarm clock, he told Grosse, "I honestly think if I hadn't have known the history of this house, I'd have probably jumped out the window [upon seeing the door in the bedroom open on its own]." (MG91B, 8:21). He persisted in helping the family, for years, under such circumstances.

His frequent presence at the Hodgsons' house is also impressive in light of the fact that his job involved working unusually lengthy shifts. He'd often arrive at the Hodgsons' house shortly after working a long shift, then stay at the house well into the night, often under disturbing and miserable circumstances.

Though he was afraid at times and sometimes lost his temper, for example, his demeanor was commendable for the most part. Better than what you'd get from the average person, I think. That had to have done a lot to calm and encourage the Hodgsons. It's especially commendable in light of the fact that the poltergeist was often unusually hostile to the Burcombes. The poltergeist voice was often vulgar toward John in particular and sometimes screamed at him. Grosse comments that he thinks the poltergeist is involved in "a deliberate attempt to cause dissension between the two families [the Hodgsons and the Burcombes]…a very calculated move on the part of the entity to cause dissension" (MG19A, 17:38).

There were many times when Burcombe helped the investigators do something they wouldn't have been able to have done, or would have had much more difficulty doing, if he hadn't been around (lifting large objects, restraining Janet while she's in a trance state, etc.). He frequently was the only witness of a paranormal event, provided important information about an event that nobody else brought up, or was involved in the case in some other way that had a lot of significance. He didn't just do what the investigators and others involved asked him to do. He also took the initiative on many occasions, including making his own recordings of some paranormal events.

It's far easier for us to do something like read a book or article about the case or watch a documentary about it than it is to live through it, as Burcombe did. Think of what it was like for him to go through the events of the night of October 15, 1977, for example, when he had what he considered his worst experience of the case. You can go to the page just linked to read about it. Imagine hearing a baby crying upstairs, when you know there's no baby in the house and nobody upstairs. Then you decide to go upstairs by yourself, knowing that it's nighttime and that the poltergeist could shut the lights off, or do whatever else it wanted to do, without warning. Then you have the experience on the stairway that he describes. See my article here on Janet's trance states for more examples of the hardships involved. Imagine living through events like those, all the while knowing that there's so much potential for more of them, not just for days, weeks, or months, but for years.

Some of the medical help Janet received in the context of the poltergeist (and thus the medical documentation we have for the paranormality of some of the events) was brought about through Burcombe's efforts. His medical connections, because of his job, contributed substantially to the value of the Enfield case in a series of contexts, and not just the ones I've mentioned above.

His knowledge of the case and the significance of what he experienced have been persistently underestimated. I don't recall anybody in the media asking him some of the most important questions he could have been asked. Even Grosse and Playfair seem to have significantly underestimated how much more effectively his testimony could have been used for good purposes. For example, see here regarding how his testimony supports the authenticity of the levitation photographs that critics of the case so often highlight and object to. Go here for a discussion of what he experienced in the context of Janet's being dragged out of bed by the poltergeist on December 3, 1977. I don't remember anybody in the media asking him about Janet's gaining weight during that episode or the connection to her positive results in the weight gain experiment done at the University of London in 1982. I doubt that anybody in the media knew of the issue, so asking him about it never would have crossed their minds. I don't recall Grosse or Playfair ever discussing it either. In these and many other contexts, a lot has been lost by the failure to make better use of what Burcombe has had to offer.

He was sometimes a spokesman for the Hodgsons, keeping in contact with the investigators on the family's behalf and often interacting with the media. When Peggy Hodgson's health broke down in November of 1977 (apparently at least primarily because of distress over the poltergeist), Burcombe took the Hodgson children into his house and participated in a BBC television program on the case. Go here to watch the segment in which Burcombe appeared, and notice how nervous he is. We should keep in mind how difficult it can be to interact with the media, especially under the circumstances being considered here. And the fact that somebody appears on television doesn't mean it's easy to do so. People who appear on television in the sort of context Burcombe was involved with are often criticized and mocked, as you can see by reading the comment threads under the Enfield videos on YouTube. Even before the web and YouTube came along, the Enfield witnesses were getting ridiculed by much of the public. See Vic Nottingham discussing an example here.

There are two individuals on Grosse and Playfair's tapes who especially stood out to me as seeming more mature than you'd expect for their age. One is David Robertson, who was only twenty years old when he started on the case, but comes across as significantly more mature than a twenty-year-old. The other is Paul Burcombe, John's son, who was only thirteen when the case began. Paul's maturity reflects well on his father. Denise, John's daughter, also conducts herself well, but she was a few years older than Paul, so her maturity is more expected. But the conduct of both of John's children reflects well on him.

Something important that he did that often gets mentioned only briefly and in passing, if it's mentioned at all, is how frequently his home was a refuge for Peggy Hodgson when she otherwise would have been home alone, such as when the children were away at school. Peggy went so far as to say that she "practically lived" in the Burcombes' house during the opening weeks of the case (MG67A, 37:04). An official with Janet's school commented that Peggy spends "most of the days" at the Burcombes' house while the children are away at school and that the whole family sometimes stays overnight there (GP45A, 9:02). Though the poltergeist was generally less active outside the Hodgsons' house, it would often follow them to the Burcombes' to some extent. It would sometimes be active at the Burcombes' when none of the Hodgsons were around, but the poltergeist was active in the Hodgsons' house before it became active at the Burcombes' (MG98B, 1:40), and the arrival of one or more of the Hodgsons would generally increase the poltergeist's activity at the Burcombes'. They were taking on that additional burden when they took the Hodgsons in.

I think that in some respects this case has been remarkable for the amazing way that the people involved in it - the Hodgson family, the Burcombes, and the Nottinghams - have behaved during the whole of the investigation. They have behaved with an enormous amount of common sense. The incredible lack of hysteria at any time has been quite remarkable, considering that some of the things that have happened have been very frightening indeed. Mr. Burcombe and his son, Paul, have been of great help to us during this investigation, and I can't praise them too high. (Maurice Grosse, MG14A, 18:42)