Sidgwick acknowledges that Eusapia’s tricks do not explain everything, yet he allows Hodgson to expatiate complacently upon fraudulent _attouchements_. The learned lawyer even mimicked Eusapia’s tricks for freeing her hands and feet before members of the Society for Psychical Research. But all this was already known by Continental specialists. Hodgson had invented nothing; why did he confine himself to partial criticisms? why did he not discuss each fact, and especially those which appeared inexplicable? He is very severe with Eusapia; why not treat her as he treats Mrs. Piper? He carefully discusses the Neapolitan’s errors and attempts; but does he think that there is no conscious or unconscious fraud with the American medium, and that defunct Phinuit is alone responsible for the inaccuracies and falsehoods observed in Mrs. Piper’s mediumship, whilst Eusapia’s fraud is conscious and voluntary? As far as his experiments with Eusapia Paladino are concerned, I will reply to him that, in a great measure, he and his friends were responsible for her frauds, and almost wholly responsible for the failure of the experiments. They appear to have neglected the psychological side of a medium’s rôle, and forgot that a medium is not a mechanical instrument. Eusapia was not at her ease, and, if my memory serves me right, she found the Cambridge centre rather disdainful and haughty, save Mr. and Mrs. Myers. She was dull and lonely. I think she was not admitted to the same table. But I will not affirm this detail; it seems to me she told me, she was usually served apart from the members of the household. The seances were too numerous (there were twenty seances held in less than seven weeks—a seance every other day) if we take into consideration her not being very well, and consequently unfit for anything for a few days. This was making sure of bad results, especially as the seances sometimes lasted two and a half to three hours. It was impossible for the medium to recruit her strength physically or morally, especially in a country where the manners, life, language, and even the cooking were so different from those at Naples. She was not well when in England. Was she long ill? I cannot say; but I can affirm that she did not go home satisfied. It appears, however, that the first seances were pretty good; there were some suspicious things, as is often the case with Eusapia. Hodgson’s arrival changed everything: it was then that fraud was discovered, but a long time after Richet and Toselli had pointed it out.