Adisham is a small, secluded Kent village lying to the north of the M2 between Canterbury and Dover. Number 3 Church Lane is a semi-detached, brick-built cottage situated adjacent to the 13th-century Church of the Holy Innocents, near the end of a quiet country lane on the edge of the village. Since 1953, this had been the happy, tranquil home of Joe and June Orchard and, later, their son David (seen opposite). That changed in 1976, when a bizarre and terrifying phenomenon invaded their lives.

'The force', as June soon named it, appeared to gradually feel its way into the Orchards' lives through phenomena that could quite easily have been blamed on faulty equipment: the domestic lighting would suddenly dim and the vacuum cleaner and spin drier would cut off and surge into life seconds later.

On the morning of Monday, 1 November 1976, Joe Orchard was at work with the Water Board and June was renewing the wallpaper in the bedroom when David, on his half-term holiday, called out to say that there was water on the floor of the living room. As it was raining, June assumed that it was a leak and told David to mop it up, but the water was appearing faster than it could be mopped up. June rang Joe, who left work early and arrived home to find water still flooding the floor. He also noticed water on a wall against which a radiogram stood. When it was moved away from the wall, water was seen to seep from it; and when the back was removed, more water poured out. The water was warm with a 'mineral' smell. Joe telephoned a local builder, who thought that a faulty down pipe might be the cause of the problem. This was plausible, because the down pipe entered the ground just outside the living room window, but excavation showed that, at a spade's depth, the soil was bone dry ’ as as would have been expected, drainage on the site being very good.

The baling of the water continued through the night and the following day, when it was noticed that the chimneystack on the wall dividing the two cottages was soaking wet. The wet patch took the form of a large ring, a sign that was to appear many times and in many places during the saga; in June Orchard's words, "the water always left its mark". At about 2.30am, the influx of water abated and the Orchards were able to relax, but not for long. The rain had stopped but at about 7.00am, the water once again flooded the cottage to a depth of some three inches. A plumber was called to check the Rayburn stove but this proved to be in perfect order. By the end of the afternoon, water was still appearing – but it was now hot and steaming.

To facilitate the mopping up, a table was moved to the centre of the room and various articles – saucepans, cushions, china and ornaments – were piled onto it. Shortly afterwards, a hissing sound was heard and the table was seen to rise some five to six inches (12.7–15cm) above the floor before dropping down again. This was the first indication that there was an unusual force involved; a force that was ultimately to prove awesome. When Joe noticed that the TV plug and socket were soaking wet he decided to call Seeboard, the electricity supply authority. A service engineer arrived later in the evening, dried out the plug and socket and mentioned that there was a very bad short on the pole in the garden, which he would report to the office. This was the pole that provided the PME (protective multiple earthing) and may have played a significant role in the drama.

The following day, Dudley Morrison, a Seeboard lines foreman, arrived to look at the pole and test various circuits. He pointed out that the meter was moving forwards and backwards when the circuits were isolated – and this was witnessed by William Walker, a farm worker, of Hamletts Oast Houses, Bekesbourne, Walter Simpson of 12 Station Road, Adisham and two members of the family. Despite this very obvious sign that something was drastically wrong, Seeboard decided that there was nothing they could do to stem the incursion of water or to rectify the problems with the lights and the meter. On 10 November 1976, they confirmed this in a letter and suggested that the Orchards should "look in a direction other than the electricity supply for an explanation". In fact, the finger of suspicion was pointing at David.

LOSING THE BATTLE

In desperation, due to the increasingly bizarre events taking place in their home, the Orchards had called in the police and were visited by a PC from Bridge who then telephoned Seeboard. As a result, Seeboard wrote to Canterbury Subdivision HQ of Kent Police suggesting that quantities of water may have been thrown at or onto electrical equipment, despite the fact that the actual quantities involved, at any one time, could amount to very many gallons, which could be seen running down the lane. The police responded by replying to Seeboard with a letter – a letter that demonstrates how once a preconceived notion has taken root in a case like this, the intelligent consideration and analysis of evidence goes out of the window. "As is known," the police wrote, "we both have the same ideas as to the cause of these incidents and the police, in fact, have advised the parents of their feelings in this matter. However, the parents refuse to accept what has been said and prefer to delve into the mysterious occult for the apparent cause".

This, of course, was quite untrue; the Orchards were certain that the root cause of the problem was the PME pole in the garden.

Towards the end of 1976, the water 'attack' seemed to have become consolidated; the Orchards were losing the battle against this invasion and nobody in authority wanted to know. The erratic behaviour of the meter, the lights going on and off of their own accord and water making a beeline for anything electrical was nothing whatever to do with electricity supply authority Seeboard. Of course it wasn't; David was switching the lights on and off without being seen and pouring water over the floor and walls without being caught – enough water to run all the way down the lane. How he could have caused the meter to fluctuate and show a recording with all circuits isolated was never explained.

Weeks of sleepless nights spent baling water and a total lack of help from the authorities, including Seeboard, the Electricity Consultative Council and the local MP, was, hardly surprisingly, beginning to have a devastating effect on the mental and physical health of the Orchard family. When the metal plate rack flew off the gas cooker it was the last straw; on 20 December 1976 the Orchards instructed Boys and Maughn, solicitors in Canterbury, to take appropriate action against Seeboard.

Week after week, month after month, the water incidents continued. Sometimes they were severe, sometimes just the water "leaving its mark". The last of these incidents occurred on 24 June 1977, but from this point the phenomena took on a new dimension, which was to become bizarre and terrifying. A pair of scissors flying across the room and glasses being ejected from a cabinet to break against the wall marked the beginning of an onslaught that included furniture being turned over, mattresses being pulled around, heavy objects like the gas cooker being thrown onto their sides and pipe-work being torn from the walls. The immensity of the force responsible was demonstrated when the settee was frequently upended and could not be moved "until the force let it go". This kinetic activity was not limited to within the cottage. Buckets, tools and any loose objects would fly to the top of the PME pole and fall off "when the force let it". Considerable damage was caused in the garden by flying objects of various kinds, not all metallic. Neighbour Barbara Lucock had her windows protected by mesh after a brick broke one while she was speaking to David and his mother in the garden.

By July 1977, the cottage was completely uninhabitable, with ceilings down, doors wrenched off and windows broken. The situation was untenable and the Orchards decided to lmove to a rented cottage on 23 July.

ENTER THE EXPERTS

By this time, a number of experts had been called in, one of them being AJ Saunders, the Technical Director of Electrical Inspection and Commissioning Services, Tenterden, whose reports formed the basis of the writ issued to Seeboard on 6 January 1978 by Roderick O'Driscoll and Partners, the Maidstone solicitors who had taken over the case because nothing practical had ensued for over two years. In addition to preparing reports, Mr Saunders had inserted a number of metal electrodes in various parts of the garden and this appeared to have been responsible for the cessation of the water-related incidents.

The expert who was perhaps the best placed to comment and advise on the case was Professor Arthur Ellison, Fellow of both the Institute of Mechanical Engineers and of the Institute of Electrical Engineers. In his report, Professor Ellison says: "Seeboard may have washed their hands of the matter because they have never met anything quite like it before – or at least their local officials have not heard of similar earlier phenomena. This does not prove that they have no responsibility. If the complete facts are to be discovered and understood, and the Orchard home made habitable again, then considerable further work may be needed. The scientific and other resources of Seeboard, backed up by the Central Electricity Research Laboratory, should be quite adequate for this and I should like to see the latter solve these problems".

Professor Ellison concluded his report by saying that "the cavalier attitude of Seeboard towards a small customer, for which they may well have some responsibility, I find difficult to understand. I should have thought that the time to declare themselves to have no responsibility for the driving out of the Orchard family from their home was when their Research Division had produced a complete and verified explanation of the occurrences showing them clearly to be uninvolved".

On the advice of counsel, Professor Ellison was not called as a witness for the Orchards, because despite his considerable expertise and professional standing he was also a past president of the Society for Psychical Research.

This deprived the Orchards of an extremely well qualified witness and followed what looks like an obvious attempt by Seeboard's own solicitors to discredit Professor Ellison. In a letter to O'Driscoll and Co. dated 3 March 1980, they say:

"We thank you for your letter of 27 Feb. enclosing the preliminary report of Professor Ellison. Our first comment is to express great regret that you have chosen to employ an expert who not only believes in ghosts and poltergeists, but is in fact a past president of the Society for Psychical Research".

This attitude, as well as showing considerable rudeness and ignorance, is hardly conducive to scientific progress in matters that don't appear to abide by the known laws of science.

Meanwhile, Mr Saunders had carried out considerable research and tests. His general conclusion was that all the damage caused at 3 Church Lane had electricity as its origin: the water incursion due to electro-osmosis and the movement of objects due to the passage of current through the earth creating a high level of ionisation which, in turn, caused "electro-kinetic effects".

In 1982, another expert was consulted – electrical engineer Mr Bowie – and, on his advice, the allegations to the effect that dynamically caused damage had an electrical origin were abandoned. He never mentioned electro-osmosis but did conclude that it would be possible for a heavy ground current to cause the hot water and steam that could be pushed through the floor under pressure. He also said that alternating current could cause the gaseous production of hydrogen and oxygen that could explode and be responsible for some of the dynamic effects.


UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE?

The case was finally heard at the Royal Courts of Justice before Mr Justice Steyn on 8 March 1985, some nine years after solicitors were first instructed. The trial lasted 12 days and evidence was heard from a large number of witnesses. Surprisingly, the case went against the Orchards, who were found to be untruthful in their testimony. Turning to the supporting witnesses called on behalf of the Orchards, the Judge said: "The credibility of none of these witnesses was challenged; only their reliability was in issue. It has been emphasised in particular that Mrs Evans, Mrs Lucock, Mr Watts, Mr Goldsack and Mrs Watson were independent witnesses. I accept this submission. I have, however, reached the same conclusion in respect of all Mr Orchard's supporting witnesses, irrespective of whether they were independent or related. Insofar as these witnesses simply testified to water being present in the cottage their evidence is neutral. Insofar as their testimony is to the effect that they saw water appearing on the floors or elsewhere I reject their evidence as unreliable. In my judgment they were to some extent subconsciously trying to assist Mr and Mrs Orchard and, in the drama and consternation of this traumatic period, they were prone to suggestion".

The Judge said that he would take as his starting point "an initial disbelief that Mr Orchard, his wife and their son, or any of them, would deliberately cause serious damage to their own property" and "all the evidence was to the effect that the house was then (November 1976) in excellent condition". He then went on to say, in relation to the accounts of metallic and non-metallic objects flying around, causing massive damage to the interior of the cottage: "It is recorded in the diary for the 14th July 1977 that the top of the Rayburn hit the bathroom door and the hot water tap went through the bathroom door. Electricity was plainly not the cause. It is to be inferred that such damage, which is vividly portrayed in the photographs, was caused by one of the inhabitants of the cottage".

It seems strange that the Judge happily embraces the intervention of the subconscious mind as a factor in the case and yet, almost in the same breath, rejects the observations of witnesses he has already accepted as being independent.

It's difficult to look at the many witness statements (see 'The Witnesses') and understand how Mr Justice Steyn could dismiss such overwhelmingly positive evidence and conclude that the "subconscious minds" of these independent witnesses had somehow conjured up a misleading belief, on their part, that they had actually seen the events. One is left with the question: how many people does it take to see a large piece of metal fly out of an empty house before Mr Justice Steyn would accept it as evidence? Because observations don't appear to agree with the known laws of science, it should not mean that they are invalid.

AN IDEAL CASE FOR RESEARCH

If the reports of events observed at 3 Church Lane are valid, a more scientific, and indeed reasonable, approach would be to ask what was causing the events. Mr Saunders's suggestion that electro-osmosis was responsible for the incursion of water is difficult to substantiate. It is a technique that is used on some large constructional sites and can remove very large quantities of water from the ground. It involves porous tubes being driven into the ground after which a heavy direct current (DC) is passed down them, setting in motion the process of electro-osmosis. Alternating current (AC) is the method used for the distribution of electricity in this country, but Mr Saunders suggests that this could have been changed to DC by the action of natural salts in the ground; a theory even more difficult to substantiate. To raise the water, presumably from the water table, in the quantities that appeared in the cottage would have required a very large amount of energy, and hence current, the volume of water being proportional to the energy supplied.

Mr Bowie, in his report, suggests that jets of steam or the explosion of hydrogen, formed by electrolysis, could be responsible for the movement of objects.

Once again, there is the problem that AC, when passed through mineralised water, produces oxygen and hydrogen on one half of the cycle but is cancelled out on the second half of the cycle when the polarity changes.

If the movement of objects was due to a magnetic field, an extremely large current would be necessary to produce a magnetic component able to move a settee and, of course, there was propulsion of non-magnetic objects – although these could be susceptible if they had recently been soaked with ionised water.

It should never have been necessary for the Orchards to seek a legal remedy, and the legal advice they did receive was not good. Shorting on the PME pole, the erratic behaviour of the meter and the lights going on and off of their own accord – all witnessed by Seeboard – provided clear evidence that something was very wrong with the electrical system and yet, without a shred of evidence, Seeboard preferred to use David as a scapegoat. After some 29 years with a trouble-free electrical supply, the problem began to emerge following the introduction of PME, which, under certain circumstances, seems to somehow set in motion forces that don't obey the normal laws of science. As in the Iverson Cottage case (FT171:48-53), these strange forces presented an ideal case for research, which Seeboard could have well afforded to carry out. Unfortunately, fortean-type phenomena are not always in accord with the known laws of science – and it is much easier to say that they never occurred.


The Witness Accounts

Janet Evans, 1 Church Lane, Adisham
"We were in the kitchen and there had been no flooding during the day up until this time. Quite suddenly, the wire that held the light over us started to swing about and we knew that flooding would shortly start. There was a hum. It was very frightening. The swinging of the light took the bulb almost up to the ceiling. After perhaps a minute, water suddenly appeared around the floor. We could not hear the water coming. It came up gradually and then at a greater rate. It came up by our feet and then spread all over the place through the concrete floor. The water was hot like bath water. At other times it would flow down the stairs, having come through a rose in an upstairs room. It would happen when David was away at school or when David was there".

Barbara Mary Lucock, 4 Church Lane, Adisham
"I saw a piece of the Rayburn shoot out of the back door. I was on my side of the fence chatting to David and his mother – Joe was at work – when suddenly a nine inches square piece of metal which was a piece of the door of the Rayburn came flying out. I do know the house was empty when that came out. I also saw, on another occasion, the meter going round when the supply had been cut off".

William Watson, 67 Milner Crescent, Aylesham:
"I was the officer in charge of the Aylesham retained fire station. On a Saturday morning we were called out to a cottage near Adisham Church. I had never been there before nor previously met the occupants. In the house I saw water coming from the rose of the light into the main bedroom. I was up there with Leading Fireman Osbourne. The bed below was soaked. Mrs Orchard showed us a cupboard in the kitchen and inside was a biscuit tin with tea bags in it. The tin was three-quarters full of water. I could not see where the water could have come from. The Orchards were very upset and asked us to help but there seemed nothing we could do.

"In the afternoon, I told Mr Bob Johnson who is Assistant Divisional Fire Officer. He said he would like to have a look at it and we went down in our own time that afternoon. On this occasion, I saw water coming out of a socket fixed on the skirting board. It was coming out of the holes; the actual casing was not wet. While we were looking at the socket, Mr Johnson’s pocket alerter went off. He went to his car alone but came back saying that they had not called him. He seemed to think there was some kind of electrical force in the house".

George John Goldsack, 5 Mummery Place, Adisham:
"On one occasion, I saw boiling water come out of the floor in the kitchen. David was with me and helped mop it up. A further occasion I remember was water flowing up to the meter on the wall. It was warm water. As to items moving, I saw the fireplace come out into the room. It got so I was frightened to come in".

John James Watts, Whitehall, Adisham
"I knocked on the door and Mrs Orchard invited me in and, as I was going in, the lamp in the porch started flowing with water. I saw the water dripping from the rose down the cable and across the bulb. It seemed to be running out of the rose, down the wire and it dropped down from the bulb onto the floor. I put my hand under it and felt it. It was hot water, almost too hot to hold my hand under there. I went upstairs and saw that water was coming out of the rose in the bedroom in the same way that it had been downstairs".