Who or What is David Thompson's 'William"?

These days I seldom take any notice of what David Thompson might be up to. Recently, however, becoming aware of some interesting comments regarding concerns a number of people in Florida had when Thompson last visited there back in 2011 - he is due to visit there again in September 2014 - I took a look at the latest version of the Circle of the Silver Cord website and noticed an intriguing transmogrification of the supposed entity William Charles Cadwell.

As you may remember, in past times David Thompson and ‘William Charles Cadwell’ spoke freely about the fact that William, a “man of science” was born in 1830 in London and died in 1897 in London. In the past, David variously claimed that Montague Keen and then Guy Lyon Playfair had proved this Cadwell character’s existence. These claims were rather blown out of the water when I established that no such person had been born, lived or died in the UK during that time. Since that time, while David has staunchly continued to claim the reality of his main ‘spirit’ communicator, information previously available about ‘William’s’ earthly life no longer is on offer on the Circle of the Silver Cord website.

There is, however, (see http://circleofthesilvercord.net/?page_id=295 ) a new image of ‘William’ now available – remarkably different from an earlier version of this ‘spirit’ entity But more interesting I feel, is that there now appears under this ‘likeness’ of William a cut and paste job of part of a census record:

"William Caldwell  Visitor S(ingle) 27 Lecturer on Philosophy"

Followed by the comment:

"William`s entry in a UK Census (Circa late 1800)"

Noticeably missing from the above is a very relevant part of the census entry, namely the place of birth, and of course, the year of the census. It appears, however, that William Charles Cadwell has apparently inexplicably become someone by the name of William Caldwell.

Intrigued by this alleged census evidence confirming ‘William’s’ past life I did a little searching. This is what I discovered:

1891 Census: RG12 Piece 217 Folio 153 Page 1
3 Elm Court St Clement Danes Westminster

William Caldwell          Visitor  Single   27   Lecturer in Philosophy      b. Scotland

So William Charles Cadwell born 1830 in London has transmogrified into William Caldwell (no middle name) born in Scotland. The William Caldwell age 27 in 1891 was in fact, born in Edinburgh, Midlothian in 1864, the son of William and Margaret Caldwell. As far as I can see 1891 is the only time this William Caldwell, who is now allegedly David Thompson’s well known ‘William’ was residing in England.

As it turns out, the William Caldwell found in the 1891 census left England shortly afterwards bound for America.  With the kind assistance of Marc Demarest, a friend and colleague in America, it was possible to establish that for a time William Caldwell was a lecturer at Cornell University.

The Chicago Daily Tribune Sept. 23, 1892, p. 5, has this to say about the man:

“Prof. William Caldwell, tutor in political economy [at the University of Chicago, newly arrived] took his degrees at Edinburgh University, where he was assistant Professor of Logic during 1888-’90, and for the last two years was lecturer on logic and methodology at the Sage School of Philosophy, Cornell University.”

In 1904 the Huntington (Indiana) Weekly Herald, June 26, 1904, p. 7, records that on June 24:

“Professor William Caldwell, who for nine years has held the chair of moral philosophy at Northwestern university, has accepted the MacDonald chair of moral philosophy at McGill university, Montreal. Professor Caldwell will assume his new duties in September.”

From that time onward Professor William Caldwell resided in Canada, though he did travel back to Scotland to give lectures on several occasions between 1921 and 1928 and also lectured in Czechoslovakia and elsewhere in Europe.

On December 15, 1942 the Ottawa Journal, p. 17 records:

“Ex-McGill Teacher Prof. Caldwell Dies

Montreal, Dec. 14 — (CP) — Prof. William Caldwell, 79, who retired in 1928 as professor of moral philosophy at McGill University, died here today after a brief illness. Born in Scotland, Professor Caldwell came to American in 1890 [sic] and for a time taught at Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill. Survivors include his widow, formerly Atha Haydock of Cincinnati, Ohio.”

So once again there seems to be rather a problem with the ‘evidence’ that David Thompson is putting forward to support the existence of his alleged ‘spirit’ guide.

Surely, David isn’t now suggesting that William Charles Cadwell whom he so emphatically declared was born 1830 in London, and died 1897 in London, was really William Caldwell born 1864 in Edinburgh, who never lived or worked in England, and who died in Montreal, Canada, in 1942! And, as we all know, ‘William’ has a pronounced Home Counties accent, a fact that might be considered surprising if he was born in Scotland, but then again, in the past on one occasion at least when Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had allegedly materialised at a Thompson séance he also failed to communicate with the distinct and profoundly Scottish accent he had when on the earth plane!

Perhaps I am just being too picky! Do the details really matter?

I think they do.

DT has been selective in presenting only a part of the census record, hence obscuring the birth place of this William Caldwell and the census year in which he was in London. I can only assume that this was deliberate, and done to disguise the fact that the hidden details did not fit with David’s prior assertions about William Charles Cadwell’s life and death.

David Thompson is due to undertake a series of so-called ‘materialisation’ séances at the Banyan Retreat in the UK in the next week or two – séances held in the dark, where attendees will experience the ‘presence’ of ‘William’ allegedly in a physicalized form, though none will, as in the days of old with the great materialisation mediums, have the pleasure of actually seeing this ‘spirit’ being, and will be obliged to take the word of ‘William’ and his medium, that he truly exists and has materialised amongst them. Moreover, attendees will have been obliged to sign the Circle of the Silver Cord séance form which requires every sitter to declare they “will not make any claim against David Thompson and his authorized agents or managers in relation to anything which may transpire before, during or after the session or as a result of it.”

Is it too cynical to suggest that when David Thompson become aware of this post, the census ‘evidence’ regarding ‘William’ will disappear from the Circle of the Silver Cord website, and once again, David will make spurious claims about my motivation for revealing this information. Quite frankly, my motivation is a simple one. I maintain that when a ‘spirit entity’ makes claims about their earthly existence, or a medium does so, it is essential that any material put forward as ‘proof’ of that spirit’s life should, indeed must be tested, and when found to fail the evidentiary requirements this needs to be made known.

Is it too much to hope that some brave soul might ask ‘William’ a few pertinent questions about his apparent change of identity – and in the process shine a little light on what is going on.

Thanks Lis I know you and Marc have been working on that one studiously. It seems somehow appropriate that David would select a Professor of Moral Philosophy and Logic as the proof of his guide. Sad that the dates, place of birth, nationality (Scottish) and the actual name do not fit the extremely vocal assertions about the nature of his guide William Charles Cadwell that Mr Thompson (and William himself) have always made.

I think that if a trance guide does give information, which should give proof of their physical existence, then it is vital that this is correct or the entire nature of the Spirit is called into question. I remember when you originally started this whole investigation it was so that you could get a copy of William's birth certificate as a present to David. How times and relationships change when unanswered questions turn up https://www.spiritualismlink.com/t672-questions-for-david-thompson

Perhaps, Mac, but I don't think I will hold my breath waiting.

You are quite right Jim, when I first looked into the evidence for the earth life of William Charles Cadwell, it was shortly after David Thompson had been in Adelaide, and knowing he was due to return to do a number of physical séances, I thought it might be a nice gesture to obtain WCC's death certificate, and possibly his christening record, to present to David as a gift.

It was a sad shock for me to find what I did, or rather not find the claims made about WCC (or his other guides) supported by any records. I was rather more saddened by David's response and subsequent behaviour, and accusations of malice. When a spirit guide makes claims about their earthly life that are not true, or when a medium claims there is evidence for their spirit guide's existence, it has to stand up to examination. When it doesn't, it is not only right, but essential that questions are asked.

It is not good enough for the supposed spirit to then claim they lied about their earthly life for reasons they don't care to reveal. If they have lied to start with, how does one know they are not lying again, when they subsequently claim they were really some other person in an earthly life. Nor is it appropriate for a medium to attack a person because they have disclosed there is no evidence to support the spirit's claims. Such evidence should make the medium stop and think, and ask questions.

Yes Lis, despite David's approach to us we started trying to be helpful.

I agree Lis - details are vital, if they are adduced as evidence, as in this case. Without the details we have no way to validate the purported identify of the ostensible communicator. If identity isn't important then why mention it, or be honest and assume a pseudonym but that wouldn't require the amount of detail given in this case.

As an aside, I love the word "transmogrified", one seldom sees it used these days

Hi Obiwan,

Yes, somehow I just felt "transmogrified" was the most apt word to signify a curious phenomenon.     

Perhaps those following this topic will find Marc Demarest's comments of interest. They can be found on:

http://ehbritten.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/shades-of-adbullah-some-notes-on-spirit.html

A few questions come to my mind.

First, how did David Thompson come upon the census record for Professor William Caldwell? Did 'William' himself reveal the necessary information about his 'true' identity, thus allowing David to find him in the census records, did David engage someone on the earth plane to undertake a search for a likely character to fit 'William,' or did David himself just take a stroll through census records hoping to find someone whose census record he could make 'fit' (with some significant juggling) with what and who he wants people to believe 'William' was in his earthly life? After all, surely "a man of science" and a "man of philosophy" are not too different in the scheme of things? And the discrepancy between the years of birth (1830 or 1863) and years of death (1897 or 1942) are perhaps minor variations?

Of course, that William Caldwell, unlike William Charles Cadwell, being born in Scotland rather than in London, and his never having lived or worked in England, but spent the bulk of his adult life in America and Canada, are facts of somewhat greater significance - and in need of some explanation by 'William,' especially given 'William's  distinct Home Counties accent and claims made by him and 'Timothy' (the lively little street urchin who entertains so many at David's séances) that they had known each other in the 1890s in London.

Second, was David Thompson actually aware, when he inserted that incomplete census transcript on his website, who that 27 year old "Lecturer in Philosophy" went on to become in America and Canada? Was he giving those who visited his website a tantalising 'hint' about the 'real' identity of 'William,' an identity David would 'reveal' when the time was ripe? Or, did David just hope those who seem so enamoured of his mediumship and his 'etherean' companions, would blindly accept that censored census record as truth without further investigation.

I am very aware, having spent a great deal of time in recent years researching the origins and development of physical mediumship, and in particular, 'materialisation' mediumship, and examining in detail the lives and careers of the most well-known, indeed, famous, materialisation mediums of the 19th and 20th centuries (and more than a few of the less well-known), and closely evaluated those that were fraudulent, and those accused of fraud, perhaps unfairly, and explored their possible motivation as mediums of this particular kind of phenomena, one fact repeatedly arises that cannot be ignored. Many who investigated, many who attended those medium's séances, and believed in the 'materialisation' phenomena they thought they saw, were being duped. They were, as their critics so often and cruelly declared "credulous fools."

Now I am not saying that I believe that all materialisation mediums were fraudulent. But there is a great deal of fraud associated with the history of materialisation mediumship. And  the constant exposure of fraudulent mediums caused enormous damage to the credibility of the Spiritualist movement. Damage that continues to affect Spiritualism today. For that reason, we, in the 21st century, as Spiritualist adherents,  mediums, investigators or spectators of mediumistic phenomena, whether that be physical phenomena or mental phenomena purporting to prove survival, must ask questions, demand good evidence, and challenge anyone who wants us to accept something as offering that evidence when it proves not to stand up to scrutiny.

I make no comment about the nature of the phenomena that occurs in David Thompson's séances. I do not suggest or infer he is or might be fraudulent. As I have not, and never will, attend a Thompson séance - a fact which I am sure David and I are equally pleased about - I would not presume to judge the merits of what goes on. I do, however, ask questions about who or what David Thompson's alleged 'spirit control' is, and why this supposed entity appears to have such a problematic and changing identity. I do encourage those who attend David Thompson séances to ask questions, to 'test the spirits,' and insist on a standard of evidence that will stand up to scrutiny.

As I have said before elsewhere "We are obliged to question the genuineness, not only of the apparent ‘spirit’ contact but also its value as evidence of survival over death." It is vital that we do that if we are to overcome the sceptics perception of us as credulous and gullible fools who are being duped by unscrupulous tricksters. Equally, we owe it to our mediums to ensure they continually strive to offer the best possible evidence of survival they can.

David Thompson has stated that he refuses to be answerable to us; he believes he is only answerable to the spirit world. But that attitude is simply wrong, and dangerous too. Mediums, who claim they are offering to provide paying customers with phenomena that purports to prove survival of individual personalities, identifiable persons, have both a moral and a legal responsibility to their clients. I would add, they also have a duty to every Spiritualist, when they present their phenomena under the heading of Spiritualism. If a medium wants to be a 'flag bearer' they cannot abrogate their answerability to the movement.

An Admin Footnote the issue of Cadwell was clouded by Guy Lyon Playfair saying he had found Cadwell but in the end, following considerable controversy, he checked his notes and conceded his work on the genealogical records had been incomplete and that Cadwell did not exist. This make the appearce of William Mothers Sewing kit as an apport in a USA seance quite an amazing feat.

Absolutely correct Lis those who may claim to be flag bearers carry greater responsibility. Marc Demarest's article is great its worth a look at the Abdullah pictures too shame no one is allowed the light to do these type of tests anymore even though modern technology would significantly reduce any risks compared to the pioneers..

Here we go I have just discovered a Prof Cadwell a medium who performed dark séances in Boston in the 1870's. Wrong country, wrong nationality but similar performing style. From the Feb 14th 1872 Boston Investigator.

Of course, for any one attending a David Thompson séance, such underhand tricks like taking matches in the pocket and striking a light is simply impossible, everyone having been obliged to empty their pockets, remove their watches, etc., and take off their shoes.

Now, I am not saying that I condone deliberate attempts to expose a medium during a séance, nor am I suggesting that David Thompson is a fraud. Nevertheless, there is a need to "solve the mystery" of what is occurring in dark séances, and this can only be done by sitters beginning to demand there be light in the séance room.

As for Professor Cadwell, or is it Professor Caldwell or then again William Charles Cadwell, a great deal more light needs to be focused on his biography.

No doubt you are quite correct Mac on both counts, but, the question that arises in my mind is whether those who don't demand light, and don't question the veracity of the 'spirit controls' should do so, and in failing to do so they ultimately bring Spiritualism into disrepute by their willingness to ignore the fundamental questions.

Again, Mac, you are almost certainly right! In the past, and certainly when physical phenomena, and especially materialisation phenomena, first was happening, most, though not all, who attended such séances were Spiritualists. But even then there were significant differences between Spiritualists and spiritualists, or perhaps more accurately between Spiritualists and phenomenalists. Between those who saw in the phenomena the means for proving survival and those that were just enamoured with the phenomena whatever might ultimately prove to be the cause.

But in accepting that today those who attend the dark séances are mostly interested in the production of physical phenomena rather than the Spiritualist hypothesis means that we are prepared to let the phenomenalist take control of what is fundamentally a Spiritualist forum, and in doing so we literally give Spiritualism away.

Unless those, whatever they call themselves, who attend physical séances purporting to provide evidence of survival, question, challenge and act in a discerning manner about what occurs in the darkened séance rooms,  and Spiritualists who are aware and understand what the phenomena is and should be about, question and challenge and demand integrity of evidence, then there is really little point in there being physical séances unless we are all prepared to treat it as nothing more than an amusing entertainment.

Might it be the case that folk are so inured to whizz-bang gimcrackery via their TV screens, which seems to require a somnolent state of mind, that séance room trickery is almost expected?
The phenomena of earlier times seemed to encourage engagement of the onlookers minds.
In any case, photography in the dark is more readily possible today, so why the coyness?

I agree totally with your conclusion, Lis.

I find it sad and frustrating that on a certain PM website it's the norm to discuss phenomena but rare for there to be a demand that they be produced in visible light.  Discussions about Spiritualism are even more rare and believe me I've tried to engage with other subscribers on that site.  

Many appear to be 'spiritualists' (or phenomenalists - great word) rather than Spiritualists.  Early on, when I were but a lad, I was taken to task by a certain NAS president when I suggested in PN that some NAS members were more interested in phenomena than in evidential mediumship.  Things don't appear to have improved....

Perhaps the ratio of Spiritualists to phenomalists has changed simply because generally there are now fewer committed Spiritualists and many more phenomalists.  Spiritualism is hardly part of the picture anyway so giving it away is an academic issue. I doubt that situation could readily be changed and, as you'll know, I see a bleak time ahead for us dinosaurs.  I do hope I'm wrong.    

I share your cynicism Mac but also hope you and I are wrong.

?

Hi Waller,

You say you will be attending both Kai Muegge and David Thompson séances later this year, and ask what questions, other than those related to the "William" matter, I would propose be put to the mediums and/or their attendant spirits.

In response I would suggest that the questions that might be asked may be somewhat different in the case of each of the named mediums. In terms of David Thompson, there are many questions that have been raised over the years regarding his mediumship. These can be found elsewhere on this forum and remain valid questions yet to be answered. In regard to Thompson, however, I do believe the "William" matter remains fundamentally important. Also the matter of how what occurs in the séance room can be promoted as "materialisation" when all occurs in the dark - by definition a materialisation is something that is seen
not merely heard.

With regard to the work of Kai Muegge, I think an obvious question might be, having been caught out cheating in the past, how does he intend to prove that he is not cheating in the present. Also, it might be quite interesting to ask him what he believes is the purpose of physical phenomena, and why he has chosen to work as a physical phenomena medium. Rationale and motivation.

Obviously both mediums might reasonably be asked why they refuse to be tested by appropriate scientists and open-minded sceptics. Sadly, I suspect the response yet again might be along the lines of "the spirit guide/s say it is not time/is too dangerous, etc., etc. In the past, genuine physical mediums had no fear of being tested, indeed, many insisted on being placed under the severest test conditions at all times, to ensure that they were not fraudulent and to give confidence and certainty of the truth of the phenomena of spirit.

There are many other questions that might be appropriate, but it is not for me to say what any individual attending a séance should ask. That is for them to determine based on their own perception of what is occurring and their own desire to understand and assess the nature/meaning/purpose of what they observe/sense/feel.

You make reference to the different attitudes that people may have towards physical phenomena mediumship. Indeed, those who fit your first category "Proponents" are sometimes people who believe unquestioningly and as such are at risk of being duped if a purported medium is in fact an unscrupulous trickster. Other proponents are very discerning, and have had a great deal of experience in the field of physical phenomena and do question and assess. Some in the latter group are among those who are expressing concerns about certain mediums of today.

As for what you call "full on pseudoskeptics" - such people are the bane of all investigation - and some are without doubt quite unscrupulous and dishonest in the way they attempt to refute and deny the reality of genuine phenomena. True skeptics - those who are open-minded and willing, as you say, to "make discrete decisions that are unclouded by dogma, preconceived notions and nihilistic materialism" are what is needed in this field of PM. Indeed, even committed Spiritualists who know the reality of spirit communication, need, in the field of PM, to strive to be open-minded skeptics willing to objectively assess what is going on in the séance room.

As for your remark regarding David Thompson:

"David Thompson is answerable to himself and himself alone." I will continue to disagree. No person is answerable to themselves alone. We are all responsible for our actions and for the impact our actions have on others. When we enter into the area of commerce - and that is what it is when people charge a fee to attend a séance - there is a legal responsibility to be offering what they claim to be offering. If not they are acting fraudulently and that is theft by deception and a criminal offence. For that reason I also disagree with your final remark: "They have a moral and legal responsibility to give their best efforts and nothing more." I say they have a moral and legal responsibility to do, without deception or dishonesty, what they claim they are doing.

Lis

Hi Waller. Attending Muegge and Thompson seances does not mean you will have a chance asking question.

Especially questions that are not comfortable.

Since Muegge and the Felix Circle actually face some problems concerning credibility by the quite strong and evidental article that appeared in the Journal of Scientific Exploration Vol. 28 that comes to the conclusion that at least fraudulent action is more than possible in some cases (based on strong evidence) I dont think you will run in open doors there.

Thompson is quite familiar with Muegge. I wonder how he reacted on the report in the Journal as such news on one of the kind for sure also put a bad light or at least new question on the rest of the guild. If one is suspected of trickery or even found having the hand in the candy jar his fellowes for sure are questioned as well.

But have a try and good luck. It would be interesting if you could get some answers.

Warm regards

Interesting. I cannot link to the article I mentioned. But you should check this Forum on other posts. Also check the names Steven Braude and Michale Nahm wo sat with the Felix Circle many times and made many investigations. The results are to find in the Magazine above. Due to Copryight issues I am unable to make copy paste here you sure understand. But the "News in there" are quite interesting and put some dark clouds on the FEG as the suspection of fraud arose by strong evidence. I for sure dont want to Insult your friendly contact with Muegge, I just think you should know the facts! I will check your links, thanks for that.

Waller, thanks for the link. I will listen to that.
I can tell you that in the journal mentioned as well Michael Nahm as well as Stephen Braude made critical statements on the FEG. The Report and Investigation of Michael Nahm is more than 280 pages. This guy and in my eyes expert in this case really took all means and chances as well as fairness to make a report and open minded investigation. However many evidence especially arising on the final end of the time showed a picture that noone wished to see and believe. Also Braude and Nahm really wished all phenomena could been tested and classified as genuine, however some of them went a different way. I have to stress out some phenomena still are unexplainable and the both experts also Point that out. So far they stay fair BUT some things like telling not the truth, deleting reports from the blog and more did not push Muegges reputation back into the right direction. The good thing is for sure if he is genuine he may be able to prove the reports fearing fraud in some parts are wrong. Until then the facts shown speak a different language.

Concerning Braude. It seems he was (and maybe is) a great supporter of Muegge, the last weeks for sure were not easy for a person that supported this group. Braude is a man of wisdom intelligence and has a big reputation, he for sure is not amused facing the possible fact ob beeing tricked many times. You dont travel that far for magic tricks (if they are) and it is now much harder talking about those experiences if you are informed on some strange phenomena behind the phenoma.

  

Thanks to zerdini for the advice, I followed his lead