2020-02-01_Fortean_Times

FT389 47

but withoutsuccess.Eventually the mill

pondwas pumped dry, butthe body was

onlyrecovereddownstream threeweeks

later.After the accident theroad was

straightened andanewbridgewas built.^5

What to makeofall this?Well, it is clear

thatthe descriptions oftheplace,the ‘bride’

andtheexperiencearequitedifferent to

thoseofMiss Wand herFormbyfriends.

Steve sensed someoneunderabridge

whereasthe ‘bride’ seenbyMissWwason

topof one;onebridgerelatestoarailway

andtheotherinvolvesawatercourse;one

location is closeby alarge villagewhilethe

other isoutin the countryside; andGreat

Haywood,being sixmiles eastofStafford

and18 miles south ofStoke-on-Trent, would

representanot impossible buthighly

unlikelyrouteforthe Formbypartytohave

takentravelling home from AltonTowers,

even if theywereabit lost. Inevitablysome

willquestionSteve’s photograph.Iamno

expertin photographyand will acceptthat

the image looksabit likeatwo-dimensional

superimpositionofone photograph on

to another.But, as most critics will be

sceptics who donotbelieve in ghosts, the

questionmust be asked: whatexactlydoes

aphotograph ofagenuine ghost looklike

if ghostsdon’texistanyway? Iadoptthe

forteanstance ofkeepinganopen mindand

simplypresent theevidenceforothersto

debate.

However,Imust stress thatIbelieve in

bothSteve’s and Karen’ssincerity; neither

has sought publicity orgain from the

photograph, andIonlystumbled across

it throughachain ofevents andcontacts.

Thefactthattheelderlygentleman (a)

recognised thewomanfromthe photograph,

and(b) indicatedthathehad regularlyseen

her on Essex Bridgesimplyaddsgrist to the

mill.Ofcourse,even if itis believed that

theimageisthat ofaghost therecan be no

certaintyastothe personinvolved.Maybe it

is MrsChallenor’s niece (giventhe location

is about650yards downstreamfromthe mill

pond), oraservant from ShugboroughHall,

or even ajiltedbride. Sadlywewillnever

know–but ‘Emily’isanicenamefor her,

whoeverorwhatever sheis.

CONCLUSIONS

Idon’tthink thatwewilleverget to the

bottom of whathappenedtoMissWand

her friends thateveningunlesswecan

identifythespecificlocation.Itcould be

that they mistookamist(or similar)for

beingabride on thebridge, giventhatmists

canform aroundwatercourses in certain

conditions.What mayappear solidfroma

distance can thenbecomemoredispersed

as youapproach, potentiallyleading to the

conclusion that ‘it’has disappeared.Also

theyweretravelling inageneralwesterly

direction at or around sunset,and soit

couldbe thatlightfrom thesetting sun

played trickswith whateverwas near to the

bridge,such as treesorbushes,whichmight

thenhave combinedwith anymistthatwas

present.Thefriends thenrationalised the

disappearanceofthe optical phenomena as

beingthe bridefallingoverthe side.

Butwhat of thereaction andresponse

from thepeople inthepub?Ibelieve that

thereare three possibilities:theywere

telling the truth (but thenwhy wasn’tthe

storyof‘Sarah’s’ demisereported in the

press?);they were familiar withalocal

(atmospheric/weather)phenomenon

relatingtothe bridgewhichhad developed

intoaghost storythat they liked to tell

to passing travellers; or theyweresimply

‘havingalaugh’.The landladywouldnot

have hadtoask theLea gueofGentlemen’s

question“Areyou local?” when two

panicking Merseysideyoungstersarrived

withtheir outlandish tale.Why nothumour

them withastory madeuponthe spot?

None of theregulars, enjoying the fun,

wouldcontradict her.Ofcourse,thisis

pure speculation onmypart, deliberately

adoptingasceptical stance, andbuilding

hypothesis uponhypothesisuponhypothesis

in afortean house of cards. All thatIcan

sayisthatMiss Wand her friendssincerely

believedtheyhad theirexperience, which

is reinforced by theirsubsequent actionsin

seeking help.

Theexistenceofthe photographof

‘Emily’ and theclaimthat thisspirit,

or whateveritmight be, hasbeenseen

regularlyonEssexBridgeovermanyyears

makes the GreatHaywood case particularly

intriguing.Other photographshavebeen

taken close to wherethe eventtook place

withorbsbeingspotted; although orbsare

usuallydismissedasphotographic artefacts.

What candefinitelybestatedisthatthis

is acompletelydifferent case to that

witnessedbyMissWand herfriends.Which

begsthe questionofwhether thereissome

connection between ‘brides’and bridges,

particularly in Cheshireand Staffordshire.

Wewillnever knowthe answer, butthese

‘brides’ can be added to the panoply of

White ladies and hauntedbridgesdescribed

by Alan Murdie (FT358:18-20).

Thesefirst- and second-hand storiesare

goodexamples offorteana from this part

of England, andillustratehowthe pursuit

of one investigationcan generateother

interesting tales,even ifthe investigation

itself provesless than fruitful.Of course,

theremay be folkloricelementsin such

tales,whichiswhy it is so important to get

as neartothe source(s)as possible. ButI

am leftwith thecomforting thought that

serendipitycan beakey factorin fortean

research.

Acknowledgements

My thanksto Alan Murdieand Mike Walters

fortheir time, efforts and advice.

NOTES

1 http://www.ghostclub.org.uk/

2 Iwould lik etot hank the CheadlePost &

Times,the Congleton Chronicle,the Leek Post

&Times,the Stok eSentinel, andthe Utto xeter

Post &Times,for doing this.

3 http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/

local-news/supernatural-staffordshire-i-ran-

over-851860

4 Ibid.

5 http://www.search.staffspasttrack.org.uk/details.as

px?ResourceID=597&ExhibitionID=599&Searc

hType=2&ThemeID=26#top

✒ROB GANDYis avisiting professor at

the Liverpool Business School, John Moores

University.Aregular contributor to FT,hehas

written on football curses,hoaxes,statistics

and phantom hitchhikers.

ABOVE:TheEssexBridge atGreat Haywood,whereawitnessclaimsto haveregularlyencountereda

youngwomanresembling‘Emily’.

RO

BG

ANDY