To sum up, limiting ourselves simply to published documents, we see that the English experimenters paid no attention to the conditions under which it is expedient to operate, that they tired out the medium, surrounded her with elements of suspicion, encouraged her to fraud—Dr. Hodgson especially—and finally concealed from her the severe judgment they had formed about her. As Richet says, the Cambridge experiments prove only one thing, which is, that in that particular series of seances Eusapia frauded with her well-known methods, but it is rash to conclude thereupon that she has always frauded.[41] [41] ‘_A Cambridge Eusapia pendant une série de séances a fraudé avec ses procédés connus._ Voilà la première conclusion. Et voici la seconde. _En mettant Eusapia dans l’impossibilité de frauder, pendant cette même série d’expériences de Cambridge, Eusapia n’a pas pu produire un seul phénomène vrai...._ ‘Il me paraît qu’il est téméraire de conclure que tous les phénomènes produits ou présumés produits par Eusapia sont faux.... Sous des influences morales et psychologiques dont la nature nous échappe, pendant un très long temps Eusapia est incapable de pouvoir exercer une action vraie quelconque, et peut-être, à Cambridge elle s’est trouvée dans ces conditions.... J’en conclus qu’il n’y a encore rien de démontré, ni dans un sens, ni dans l’autre, et qu’il faut courageusement poursuivre la recherche; et expérimenter encore.’—CHARLES RICHET. (_Journal S. P. R._, vii. 179.) The analysis of the documents published permits me to ascertain:— 1. Demonstration of fraud in certain hypothetical cases. 2. Omission to indicate if the medium was conscious or in trance. 3. Omission to discuss phenomena non-explicable by fraud. 4. Apparent contradiction between Dr. Hodgson’s statements and those of other experimenters. 5. Omission to analyse if Eusapia’s suspicious movements were not muscular movements synchronous with the phenomena. This omission is capital, and demonstrates the relative inexperience of the Cambridge group. 6. Evident bias of Dr. Hodgson, who had taken up a decided stand, and treated Eusapia’s phenomena as fraudulent before having seen them. In a word, the Cambridge experimenters operated under bad conditions: they could not obtain any good results by acting as they did. But, even under these wretched conditions, they ought to have received some veridical phenomena, and the reading of their publications leads us to presume they did receive some. In any case, their report does not demonstrate that everything was explicable by fraud, and is not sufficient to justify the sweeping judgment they brought to bear upon Eusapia Paladino.