Jo Bradley mediumship

Jo Bradley is a developing physical medium, who also does mental mediumship including trance. I am an ex-scientist with a scientific outlook, only interested in facts and evidence, and interpretation using reason. Jo allowed me to research, in my own amateur fashion, all of her experiences in her PM circle and elsewhere. I examined what evidence there was, talked to witnesses, and asked any question I liked, all of which were answered. After all that, I became convinced that what Jo had told me was genuine, and I wrote a self-published book to record her experiences in her name. Obviously the weakness is that I did not see the phenomena and survival evidence for myself, so it does depend on judgement and trust. We trust each other, without which it could not have been done. My purpose was truth, and if I had found any deceit at all I would not have continued.

Basically, Jo was psychic in her early years, she studied at the CPS in London under Tony Stockwell, Tony told her that she had the gift of PM, and that DD Home had spoken to him from spirit and said that he was an ancestor of Jo and gave personal details, which turned out to be correct. Jo was totally ignorant of PM before that, but read it up, and started holding seances with friends. Phenomena started happening straight away, in circle and outside circle in the home. I have seen purported physical evidence, supported by witnesses, of apports and notes with writing on them. A photo was taken of a white object floating from the cabinet.
This was just the beginning, and intriguing readings with trance mediums who advised on her PM work followed, telling her how she would achieve DV and materialisation in light conditions. There is lots more which I can't explain briefly.
Recently, Jo has become a full-time medium, and is doing PM workshops and mental mediumship as her job to pay the bills.

Hi Normy, does she work in darkness or some sort of light?

Never in darkness Wes, red light or candle light. I called her book "From Darkness to Light".

normy wrote:Never in darkness Wes, red light or candle light. I called her book "From Darkness to Light".

That sounds very positive Normy, have you sat in any of her seances? If so, what were your impressions?

No Wes I haven't as yet. The home circle's spirit team will only allow guests to sit when the development is suitably advanced I'm afraid.

normy wrote:
No Wes I haven't as yet. The home circle's spirit team will only allow guests to sit when the development is suitably advanced I'm afraid.

Hopefully that will happen soon Normy, as it would provide the "icing on the cake" to cap off your research!

Well it has been promised Wes, but they'd better hurry up at my age! I am quite happy at all the evidence I have received from mental mediums though, that would be the cherry on the icing of the cake you mention!

Indeed ;-)

Where does Jo stand on the issue of passive red light cameras filming a seance? As you might know, certain other physical mediums claim they interfere with the energy and forbid there presence.

Hi Normy, if you have been asked to write a book about Jo's mediumship, on some kind of scientific basis, without attending a seance, could you please share the processes that led to you deciding her mediumship was valid?

Surely it is a vital question, research without seeing is impossible, even Victor Zammit's flawed empirical research on David Thompson was, after many seance attendances ( and I well remember Jo's very deteremined opposition to Zammit and Thompson much of which I have copies of).

I know we discussed this issue but I had not realised that, apart from attending her physical mediumship workshop, which you never told me about, but I instinctively knew from your postings, you had written a book supportive, on a scientific basis, of her mediumship without attending a seance.

I suspect this subject will create interest on this forum. I presume you have followed up the geneaological research Jo has specified, which proves her familial links to DD Home and maybe checked back with Tony Stockwell before writing your book about her?

I suppose I feel that to do valid research this is vital stuff. however, I am sure that you have fully satisfied your enquiries, could you please share with us or is the research ongoing?
Jim

I met Jo and used to converse with her for a considerable time, via the net many years ago (on another forum). The forum closed and we went our separate ways... I'm really pleased to learn she is doing so well, she always came across as dedicated, well intentioned person.

All very good questions Jim. Posting on this forum is the only place I have considered doing it, because I know I am at risk of being shot down, but the members seem open-minded and knowledgeable. I won't be offended by honest criticism, each to their own. But I hope that all members will recognise my truthfullness at least, as I see it.

Scientific research without seeing is impossible, as you say, but this was not scientific research as such, but by using the scientific method and reason, my conviction of truth evolved. Like Conan Doyle, I tried to eliminate the impossible, and tried to disprove what Jo told me. If my reasoning as in the book is rejected, so be it, I cannot witness first-hand,unless invited.

Jo did follow up with the genealogical research, and claims to have found links to his family, but it took a long time and is very complicated, so only she could give a good answer. I contacted Tony Stockwell to tell him about the book and his mention in it, but his partner answered and said he remembered Jo and sent his best wishes. I guess he is too important these days to bother perhaps. Jo is reluctant to push herself on to him. My research is open-minded and sympathetic and informal, and continues as Jo is still developing. She is providing me with further details of home seances and teaching workshops with photo and video evidence.

My main intention with the book was to establish whether Jo was in fact a genuine PM, and could all the data I collected have any other cause except the paranormal, and/or spirit activity. For this, I needed witnesses to the data, physical evidence of any kind, and psychic or independent indications.

Briefly, I reasoned that either Jo and her family and witnesses were all complete liars or self-deceived, and it was complete fraud, or she and they were genuine. In other words, Jo must have manufactured apports, direct writing on I think 18 pieces of paper, plasticine models made by a spirit in a seance, all fraudulent evidence which fitted with her accounts to me, and previously on her forum blog. I inspected the evidence and circle log books, and it all truly fitted Jo's accounts.
A proper scientific investigator would probably have interviewed all the witnesses intensively, but I only asked the circle leader and two other sitters to confirm what Jo claimed, and they did so. Jo's family members were also involved in the phenomena, and again what little I said to them was confirmed, as though it was accepted as normal reality.

Two trance mediums, Jay Love and Paul Case, gave Jo trance readings, without knowing she was a PM, and their guides gave Jo lots of confirmation that she was a PM, advice, and how it would develop. Which seems to be happening so far. I transcribed the tapes myself, so I know they are genuine readings. This couldn't have been faked.

There were other very interesting strange unexplained events which again were either fraudently reported or true.
That's basically it. Jo would have been extremely clever and devious to commit fraud on that scale, and I saw no signs of it. All questions and doubts were answered, and not resented or ignored. Jo always says that she would not believe what she claims if she were in my place.
Rightly or wrongly, my reason told me that Jo is genuine and she must be genuine, the alternative of fraud was impossible. Jo after that became a trusted friend. I have never caught her out in deceit, but she knows I would expose her if I proved that she did.

Since the book, from the workshops and at home I have proved for myself that paranormal activity happens around Jo, like table movement and psychic photos and apparent transfiguration, but that's a different story. The eventual aim for her is survival evidence by DV and materialisation in the light, as she always sat for, and was indicated by the trance medium.

Normy

Wes wrote:Indeed ;-)

Where does Jo stand on the issue of passive red light cameras filming a seance? As you might know, certain other physical mediums claim they interfere with the energy and forbid there presence.

I think that as Jo does not sit in the dark, the question doesn't arise for her. She and I have turned away completely from dark seances, for obvious reasons. I remember the upsets in the NAS when passive filming was requested by some of the members.