The magician Joseph Rinn and his debunking of Leonora Piper

[PainKiller]

I am not sure if many readers on this forum will know Joseph Rinn. He was a magician and life-long friend of Harry Houdini. But never received much recognition like Houdini.

Rinn had coached Houdini as a teenager at a running club. It's possible he influenced Houdini's interest in magic.

In 1950, Rinn published a book entitled Sixty Years of Psychical Research: Houdini and I Among the Spiritualists . The book is out of print now, but well worth hunting down.

The book includes the tricks of many fraudulent mediums such as the Fox sisters, Eusapia Palladino and features the only exposure of a medium named May S. Pepper. The book is also controversial because Rinn claimed to have observed the medium Leonora Piper and he dismissed her as a fraud after claiming to have caught her in a trap, he also accused her of muscle-reading.

In recent years, Daniel Loxton has highly praised Rinn's book, describing it as a classic skeptic book in the field (Loxton, 2013).

The book however, was heavily criticized in a review for the American Society for Psychical Research (which Rinn had at one time belonged to) by a reviewer known as "L. A. Dale". The reviewer accuses Rinn of never actually meeting Leonora Piper or attending a séance with her. The review basically claims Rinn was a charlatan and liar.

Here's what part of the review says:

Mr. Rinn claims to have met Dr. Hyslop in 1888. “In the course of conversation we found out that we were both members of the Society for Psychical Research . . . This fact led to our working together in psychic investigations for many years.” This is indeed a curious statement, since Dr. Hyslop himself did not become a member of the Society until 1891, nor Mr. Rinn, as we have already pointed out, until 1897. It is also curious that, since Mr. Rinn and Dr. Hyslop “worked together in psychic investigations for many years,” not a reference to the former appears anywhere, as far as we have been able to ascertain, in Dr. Hyslop’s voluminous writings.

Throughout the book Mr. Rinn repeatedly states that he was a member of both the British and the American Societies for Psychical Research. He says he joined the American Society in 1885, after having heard a lecture given by Sir William Barrett ; a search of the membership lists of both societies discloses, however, that Mr. Rinn first joined the (then) American branch of
the S.P.R. in 1897 — a discrepancy of only 12 years! He was never at any
time a member of the English Society, and remained a member of the American branch for only four years, that is, until 1901, at which time his name ceased to appear in the membership list...

Mr. Rinn at this point goes on to describe in detail a sitting with Mrs. Piper that Dr. Hodgson arranged for himself and Dr. Hyslop. It is alleged to have occurred “late in 1896.” Mr. Rinn was “not favorably impressed [with Mrs. Piper] because of her thin lips and rather hard, shrewd face.” Needless to say, all the participants in this sitting, with the exception, of course, of Mr. Rinn, are made to appear in the worst possible light. Mrs. Piper's fingers “began writing on the pad but the sentences were disconnected and meaningless, although Dr. Hodgson guided her hand and interpreted many of the sentences. Some names were given piece-meal, often in a tentative form that made no sense. The writing ‘eb-s-t-gl-nm-thl’ was interpreted by Dr. Hodgson as meaning ‘Billings.’

At the end of the sitting Mr. Rinn explains to Dr. Hodgson and Dr. Hyslop that the whole affair was nonsensical. “Dr. Hodgson did not invite me to any more seances with Mrs. Piper. Wishing to have the endorsement of Professor Hyslop, [however], he invited him to many of her seances.” Actually, it can be proved that no such sitting ever took place. Dr. Hyslop, as stated above, had his first sitting with Mrs. Piper on May 20, 1892.

He [Hyslop] writes in his Report (footnote 9, p. 298) : “So far as I am aware, I never saw Mrs. Piper again or had any communication with her till I went out to Arlington Heights on December 23rd, 1898.” Possibly, however, Dr. Hyslop was suffering from still another painful attack of amnesia at the time of writing this report, which would account for his “forgetting” that he had gone up to Boston with Mr. Rinn “late in 1896” and taken a sitting with Mrs. Piper!

If the objection be raised that possibly Mr. Rinn was guilty merely of an innocent lapse of memory as to the correct date of the sitting, and not of making up “an awful whopper,” we can again refer to Dr. Hyslop’s report. Between December, 1898 and June, 1899 he had 12 sittings with Mrs. Piper, all recorded in detail. None remotely resembles the “Rinn sitting,” nor was Mr. Rinn present at any.

The entire review can be found online in full here:

https://archive.org/stream/NotesonS...iewsRinnJasprXlv1951april015#page/n0/mode/2up

So what do we think?

1. Rinn was a liar, he never met the medium Leonora Piper or James H. Hyslop.
2. Hyslop is the liar and Rinn had actually met Piper.
3. The person who wrote this review has made the mistake and got the facts wrong.

For my own point of view I just find it hard to believe Rinn invented meeting Piper, and entirely invented his séance sitting. Rinn's book has nearly 100 pages that discuss Piper. I find it hard to believe he invented all these details, some of them are very specific.

Rinn in his book also claims to have attended various experiments at Hyslop's house that involved a psychic medium. Rinn noted that the psychic was obviously fraudulent but Hyslop who was not well educated in conjuring methods was easily duped. I find it hard to believe Rinn invented these stories.

Any takers? What do you think of this?

 

[fuelair]

The book can be had: http://www.amazon.com/Sixty-years-p...F8&qid=1464487197&sr=1-1&keywords=Joseph+Rinn

 

[dropzone]

Given only enough data to make this decision, he was right and they were wrong. It pays to bet against nonsense,

 

[Sherman Bay]

The book can be had: http://www.amazon.com/Sixty-years-p...F8&qid=1464487197&sr=1-1&keywords=Joseph+Rinn

$45 is a bit steep.

 

[Mackenberg]

Notably, Joseph Rinn became disillusioned with the extant societies involved in psychic research because he felt that they weren't skeptical enough. In 1905 he was involved in founding the Metropolitan Psychical Society, which (anticipating Randi) offered a substantial cash award to any psychic who could demonstrate supernatural abilities under test conditions. I believe that the award was initially set at $1000, then raised to $2500 and then $5000 in 1908. Presumably the bulk of the award came from Rinn's personal fortune - he was a wealthy merchant.

 

[PainKiller]

The problem is:

1. Rinn claimed to have joined the American Society for Psychical Research in 1885. However the membership list reveals he joined in 1897.

2. Rinn claimed to have to have worked "together in psychic investigations for many years" with the parapsychologist James H. Hyslop. Yet Hyslop in none of his writings ever referred to Rinn, nor any other historical article or book reveals a connection between the two.

3. Between December, 1898 and June, 1899, Hyslop attended 12 sittings with Mrs. Piper. These were all described in detail in a report he wrote. Why did Hyslop not mention the 1896 séance sitting that he and Rinn supposedly attended?

It is possible that Hyslop was embarrassed by the Rinn exposure of Piper so he never made it public or chose to write about it. But Rinn's claims about joining the ASPR in 1885 are obviously not true. He joined many years later.

Just wondering what anyone makes of any of this? Was Rinn a liar? Or was Hyslop suppressing information?

 

[Mackenberg]

If I'm right in understanding that Rinn's comments about his SPR membership were taken from Sixty Years of Psychical Research, then it's possible that he may simply not have recalled the dates or even Society names correctly, over five decades after the fact. I believe that there were several "psychical research" groups active circa 1900.

 

[simonxlong]

The problem is:

1. Rinn claimed to have joined the American Society for Psychical Research in 1885. However the membership list reveals he joined in 1897.

2. Rinn claimed to have to have worked "together in psychic investigations for many years" with the parapsychologist James H. Hyslop. Yet Hyslop in none of his writings ever referred to Rinn, nor any other historical article or book reveals a connection between the two.

3. Between December, 1898 and June, 1899, Hyslop attended 12 sittings with Mrs. Piper. These were all described in detail in a report he wrote. Why did Hyslop not mention the 1896 séance sitting that he and Rinn supposedly attended?

It is possible that Hyslop was embarrassed by the Rinn exposure of Piper so he never made it public or chose to write about it. But Rinn's claims about joining the ASPR in 1885 are obviously not true. He joined many years later.

Just wondering what anyone makes of any of this? Was Rinn a liar? Or was Hyslop suppressing information?

It's very possible that it was a combination of mistaken memory and exaggeration which people are prone to over time. He was involved in a lot of debunking and many years after the fact I would guess that many of those experiences eventually blended together in his mind. I remember going house hunting and after looking at ten or fifteen houses, their individual features began to blend together and it was hard to keep straight exactly which house had what, and that was only over the course of a month, involving the most significant financial investment of my life.

Now imagine going to hundred of seances and spirit readings over your life and then recalling exactly what happened where, with each spiritualist, exactly when it happened, and doing so accurately forty or fifty years after the fact. It's no wonder he got dates, times, and places wrong, in addition to probably accidentally attributing occurrences at one event to a different event.

Additionally, Rinn probably embellished events and altered details through the natural course of his memory shifting over time. We all know how prone to change memory can be, especially after such a long period. It's very likely that the specific details that he records in his book are altered or even partially made up, though he may have honestly "remembered" them at the time he wrote the book.

It's also possible that he may not have been overly concerned with getting the details accurate. For instance, he knows he joined x society sometime in the 1800's and that he attended x medium's readings around that time. He may have simply been guesstimating dates, and not bothered himself with being super accurate. It's also possible that there may have been more than one Society going by that name, or a very similar name, and the records were simply lost over time. The name American Society for Psychical Research is pretty generic. It is easy to believe that the name got picked more than once or that people tried to open multiple chapters or affiliates on their own.

Lastly, it is possible that Rinn simply lied about some of the events. Just because he was a debunker of fraudulent psychic practices doesn't preclude him being deceitful himself, especially when he is writing what he may consider to be the book that might very well define his legacy. He may have been trying to cast himself and his exploits in the best possible light.

My guess is that he was just mistaken about the details of events occurring over 50 after the fact, and that those seeking to discredit him are probably casting any mistakes in Rinn's book in the worst possible light because they have a specific agenda to achieve.

 

[Mackenberg]

Bearing in mind that Rinn was a New Yorker, it's worth noting that there was a semi-formal "New York Psychical Society", apparently distinct from either the British or American Societies of Psychical Research, in operation at least from 1891.

 

[PainKiller]

Good posts.

I couldn't agree more. His book was published in 1950, so there was 50 or more years between some of his experiences. Mistaken memory and exaggeration would come into play.

My guess is that he was just mistaken about the details of events occurring over 50 after the fact, and that those seeking to discredit him are probably casting any mistakes in Rinn's book in the worst possible light because they have a specific agenda to achieve.

There are three reviews for Rinn's book in the SPR. I am in the process of reading the other. You are right the review is entirely negative written by a paranormal believer so he does have his own axe to grind. He wanted to put the worst things onto Rinn, what he doesn't do is cite any of the good evidence in Rinn's book on debunking various mediums tricks.

Marcello Truzzi has more of a balanced take:

A flawed but nonetheless very important critical work by a man prominent in conjuring circles (Rinn was a successful businessman and part-time magician and exposer/ investigator of spirit mediums) who has given us material in this that today appears nowhere else. Because Rinn deals with his own direct experiences and, especially, because he quotes at length from now obscure and forgotten newspaper records, the book is invaluable. It is a book full of opinions, gossip, and anecdotes, and it needs to be read that way — not as a work of objective scholarship. Aside from its wealth of detail, the book is also an important document showing the outlook of a strong skeptic.

I will try and get the other reviews online.

Bearing in mind that Rinn was a New Yorker, it's worth noting that there was a semi-formal "New York Psychical Society", apparently distinct from either the British or American Societies of Psychical Research, in operation at least from 1891.

Thanks for this. I did not know about the New York Psychical Society, have you got any other information on this?

A newspaper clipping from 1908 I found online states "The New York Psychical Society has offered a reward of $5,000 for any real communication with spirits." Was Rinn involved in this group?

There is not much online about his "Metropolitan Psychical Society", there really is some forgotten history here.

 

[Mackenberg]

Thanks for this. I did not know about the New York Psychical Society, have you got any other information on this?

A newspaper clipping from 1908 I found online states "The New York Psychical Society has offered a reward of $5,000 for any real communication with spirits." Was Rinn involved in this group?

There is not much online about his "Metropolitan Psychical Society", there really is some forgotten history here.

I'm not certain at this stage, but I believe that at least some of the 1908 articles are highly likely to be referring to Rinn's Metropolitan Society, described casually as "a New York psychical society" but perhaps not to be confused with the actual Society of that name. Tthe Metropolitan Society was definitely offering a $5000 reward at that time.

You quickly end up playing the "telephone" or "Chinese whispers" game in following early 20th century newspaper stories, as details get elided, misinterpreted etc. between journalists.

I'm currently looking at the relationship between Joseph F. Snipes, who was the long-time president of the NYPS, and Joseph Rinn. Just to complicate matters, Snipes was apparently the author of a book called Fifty Years of Psychic Research (1927), not to be confused with Rinn's Sixty Years of Psychical Research (1950).

I'm also prepping an article on the Metropolitan Psychical Society - will post in this forum when it's available.

 

[fuelair]

$45 is a bit steep.

Depends on a lot of things. For research purposes I have a moderate number of books of rather a goodly amount over that, but I am a very good Hunter!!!!!

It really depends on supply and demand and how much you need the information in the book that is not easily available elsewhere. I like to know well what I want to know!!!

 

[fuelair]

I'm not certain at this stage, but I believe that at least some of the 1908 articles are highly likely to be referring to Rinn's Metropolitan Society, described casually as "a New York psychical society" but perhaps not to be confused with the actual Society of that name. Tthe Metropolitan Society was definitely offering a $5000 reward at that time.

You quickly end up playing the "telephone" or "Chinese whispers" game in following early 20th century newspaper stories, as details get elided, misinterpreted etc. between journalists.

I'm currently looking at the relationship between Joseph F. Snipes, who was the long-time president of the NYPS, and Joseph Rinn. Just to complicate matters, Snipes was apparently the author of a book called Fifty Years of Psychic Research (1927), not to be confused with Rinn's Sixty Years of Psychical Research (1950).

I'm also prepping an article on the Metropolitan Psychical Society - will post in this forum when it's available.

That would be this one: http://www.amazon.com/Fifty-Years-P...d=1464567866&sr=1-1&keywords=Joseph+F.+Snipes and only $35.00

 

[fuelair]

To be perfectly honest if this were a major field of interest to me on either side, the lowest price copies (total $80.00 plus 8.00 shipping and possible tax) would have already started heading my way!!!!!

 

[PainKiller]

Depends on a lot of things. For research purposes I have a moderate number of books of rather a goodly amount over that, but I am a very good Hunter!!!!!

It really depends on supply and demand and how much you need the information in the book that is not easily available elsewhere. I like to know well what I want to know!!!

Rinn's book was reprinted in Britain under the title Searchlight on Psychical Research in 1954. For some reason this version seems to be cheaper.

Rinn's book can be obtained for $5 or $10 on ebay, but it rarely turns up. I obtained a copy for $5 plus postage.

The first 38 pages can be read online if you want to take a look:

https://issuu.com/conjuringarts/docs/pages_from_searchlight_on_psychical

The book is useful because it contains information about little known fraudulent mediums that is hard to find elsewhere. The book also quotes from a lot of old newspapers, some of which are probably not even online or have been lost. It is a very valuable book in this regard, but like all books it does contain mistakes. I have found a few notable ones.

 

[PainKiller]

I'm not certain at this stage, but I believe that at least some of the 1908 articles are highly likely to be referring to Rinn's Metropolitan Society, described casually as "a New York psychical society" but perhaps not to be confused with the actual Society of that name. Tthe Metropolitan Society was definitely offering a $5000 reward at that time.

You quickly end up playing the "telephone" or "Chinese whispers" game in following early 20th century newspaper stories, as details get elided, misinterpreted etc. between journalists.

I'm currently looking at the relationship between Joseph F. Snipes, who was the long-time president of the NYPS, and Joseph Rinn. Just to complicate matters, Snipes was apparently the author of a book called Fifty Years of Psychic Research (1927), not to be confused with Rinn's Sixty Years of Psychical Research (1950).

I'm also prepping an article on the Metropolitan Psychical Society - will post in this forum when it's available.

Very interesting information, thank you. I had never heard of Joseph F. Snipes before. It would be lovely to get hold of an original copy of his book but this looks hard to come by. I see it has been reprinted but I don't enjoy reprints as much as original copies.

Harry Price wrote a book Fifty Years of Psychical Research (1939). Interesting how some of these books have similar titles.

 

[fuelair]

Rinn's book was reprinted in Britain under the title Searchlight on Psychical Research in 1954. For some reason this version seems to be cheaper.

Rinn's book can be obtained for $5 or $10 on ebay, but it rarely turns up. I obtained a copy for $5 plus postage.

The first 38 pages can be read online if you want to take a look:

https://issuu.com/conjuringarts/docs/pages_from_searchlight_on_psychical

The book is useful because it contains information about little known fraudulent mediums that is hard to find elsewhere. The book also quotes from a lot of old newspapers, some of which are probably not even online or have been lost. It is a very valuable book in this regard, but like all books it does contain mistakes. I have found a few notable ones.

Yep, I know about the old papers problem from other research which is why I was pointing out what I did!!!! And thanks for the link!!! I will check it out!!!