Ads heard during the podcast that are not in my voice are placed by third-party agencies outside of my control and should not imply an endorsement by Weird Darkness or myself. Stories and content in Weird Darkness can be disturbing for some listeners and is intended for mature audiences only. Parental discretion is strongly advised. Welcome Weirdos, I'm Darren Marlar and this is Weird Darkness. Here you'll find stories of the paranormal, supernatural, legends, lore, the strange and bizarre, crime, conspiracy, mysterious, macabre, unsolved and unexplained. Coming up in this episode... On April 12, 1961, the first man to ever make it into space was a Russian cosmonaut by the name of Yuri Gagarin. He's considered a hero to his country and an inspiration worldwide to those who are fascinated by space travel. But what few do not know is that there is a theory that there was someone before Yuri Gagarin and the story has been kept a secret. Apparently, if you want to have a satisfying life, it's best to not have the name Elizabeth Brewer. I have two stories completely unrelated except that at the center of each sombre tale is a woman named Elizabeth Brewer. But first, some believe the Ouija Board is a harmless game.  How dangerous is the Ouija Board? We begin there. If you're new here, welcome to the show. While you're listening, be sure to check out WeirdDarkness.com for merchandise, by newsletter, to enter contests, to connect with me on social media. Plus, you can visit the Hope in the Darkness page if you're struggling with depression or dark thoughts. You can find all of that and more at WeirdDarkness.com.   Don't believe in Halloween. Don't believe you can communicate with spirits and don't watch horror films. Ouija Board is traditionally a wooden board decorated with the following characters, the numbers zero through nine, the 26 letters of the alphabet, the word yes and no, and then goodbye and sometimes hello, and sometimes a few other symbols and graphics for decoration and or spiritual meaning. Being the board is a smaller, heart-shaped piece of wood called the planchette. The purpose of the Ouija Board is to receive messages from angels, spirits or dead relatives. Messages are received during seance with one or more participants. Usually more people makes for more fun and more trouble. All those participating place their fingers on the planchette lightly and the idea is that spiritual forces will move the planchette around the Ouija Board. The planchette will point to the various characters on the board, giving and spelling out messages from those spirits. You can consider Ouija Boards as fun toys, spiritual tools or the devil's handiwork. The choice is up to you. Speaking as your host of this podcast, you won't find me playing with one in any way. Oracles have been using divination and receiving messages from spirits throughout human civilization. The use of a planchette-type device can be traced back to the Chinese Song Dynasty circa 1100 A.D. The Chinese scholars of the Kuanzhen School practiced a form of automatic writing called fuji that involved using a planchette and contacting the spirit world. Scriptures of the Dao Zhang are considered to be works of automatic planchette writing. However, we can consider two men to be the modern inventors of the Ouija Board, who also were the first to mass manufacture and distribute commercial Ouija Boards. Businessman and attorney Elijah Bond began selling Ouija Boards with planchettes on July 1, 1890 as novelty entertainment items. Elijah Bond and co-inventor Jishu Thaigarajan were the first inventors to patent a planchette sold with a board on which the alphabet and other characters were printed. U.S. Patent No. 446,054 was granted to Elijah Bond on February 10, 1891. However, in 1901, Elijah Bond sold his patent rights to the Ouija Board to his employee William Fould, who continued to have the novelty item manufactured and sold. It was William Fould who actually came up with the name Ouija to call his boards. Up to that time, the boards were called many other things, including talking board and spirit board. William Fould claimed that another former employer of his came up with the name during a Ouija Board session and that it was Egyptian for good luck. Fould changed that story later though, and he claimed that Ouija was actually a combination of French and German for yes. And that wasn't the only piece of history that William Fould tried to rewrite. While Fould did much to make Ouija boards popular, he did not invent them. However, he did try to claim he did. The term Ouija was trademark registered. However, because Ouija has been used so often in the generic sense, it now refers to any talking board. Is the Ouija Board dangerous? Most paranormal researchers advise against the casual use of the Ouija Board, suggesting that it can be a doorway to unknown dimensions. Religious believers worry that it may result in a form of possession or oppression. Skeptics may dismiss the question or suggest that you are either opening yourself to manipulation by other people or exaggerating the fears deep inside you that were already there. The board itself is not dangerous, but the form of communication that you are attempting often is, says ghost researcher Dale Kasmerich of the Ghost Research Society. He continues, Most often the spirits who are contacted through the Ouija are those who reside on the lower astral plane. These spirits are often very confused and may have died of violent or sudden death, murder, suicide, etc. Therefore, many violent, negative and potentially dangerous conditions are present to those using the board. Oftentimes, several spirits will attempt to come through at the same time, but the real danger lies when you ask for physical proof of their existence. You might say, well, if you are really a spirit, then put out this light or move that object. What you have just done is simple. You have opened a doorway and allowed them to enter into the physical world, and future problems can and often do arise. Many religious traditions advise against using the Ouija board because you are inviting voluntary possession by spirits or demons. Some Christian believers strongly object to using the Ouija board, believing it contacts demons or departed souls and is not an appropriate way to contact spiritual beings. Believers in other spiritual traditions caution that it is pure chance which sort of entity you will contact, and the results may be unpleasant. But what if the Ouija does not contact spirits? What if it only accesses your own subconscious? Some believe the Ouija reflects the state of mind of the people who are using it, if only on a subconscious level. If you are frightened or nervous or even expecting something negative to happen, that is very much what you might get. On the other hand, some people using it with a completely different attitude have had incredibly positive experiences. Whether you believe the board contacts negative spirits or not, the advice might be the same. It is recommended that you follow a few rules. Begin by announcing that the session will only allow an experience that is positive or toward a higher good and that negative energies are not welcome. Right, as if a negative energy is going to listen to your request. Don't ask for physical signs of a spirit's presence. Don't take the experience too lightly. And when you are done, close the board. This is an important step, apparently. When you are done with your session, slide the planchette to goodbye and then remove your hands. Doing these things is for your own good. But even if you follow all the rules, you still risk something dangerous. One specific danger is encountering a demon named Zozo. Zozo is one of the more prominent and well known demonic beings. From reality television shows to literature, Zozo is commonly reported as being behind paranormal activity and hauntings. No one knows what Zozo looks like or what type of being he is, but those who have come into contact with him report terrifying experiences. Most commonly contacted through a Ouija board, he seems to be a powerful demonic being with the potential to do significant physical and mental harm. He sometimes goes by other names such as Zaza, Zo, or infamously Pazuzu. He has been around for hundreds of years. While Zozo is most often connected with a Ouija board, it is possible that he can contact people outside the game as well, through other means. People have reportedly made contact with Zozo during hypnosis, automatic writing sessions, and electronic voice phenomena, better known as EVP. Darren Evans, a man from Oklahoma, reportedly encountered Zozo while using a Ouija board with his girlfriend. The demon reportedly shared information with Evans from the other side and he became obsessed with Ouija, but over time Zozo became more sinister. Evans eventually had a nervous breakdown, claiming that demons were following him. The demon even threatened Evans' young daughter, saying he was going to steal her soul. She nearly died and Evans realized he needed to take action. He pursued an exorcism to get Zozo away from his family, but it was a terrifying experience that left an impression. Evans now runs a site dedicated to warning people about the dangers of messing with Zozo. Like many demons, Zozo typically makes his presence known. Warning signs such as these supposedly indicate that you are meeting Zozo. First, rapid movements. If you are using a Ouija board, the planchette might begin moving rapidly. If you are undergoing hypnosis, the pendant or pendulum might begin to swing more aggressively. Announcements, Zozo might announce himself by spelling out his name on a Ouija board. Feelings of unease. You might feel a sudden weight or dread of unease to send upon you if Zozo is present. And darkness. You might see shadows moving or the room you are in might get darker. If you feel that Zozo is with you, don't panic, but take action to end the connection to prevent bodily or mentally harm. If Zozo has contacted you, take the following steps to protect yourself. First, remain calm. Demons and other evil spirits, they feed off fear, so take deep, calming breaths and steady yourself. Close the session. If you are playing Ouija, move the planchette to Goodbye and formally close the game. If you are using another contact method, close it immediately. Do not speak his name. Using his name gives him power. Avoid speaking about him or to him. Obviously, I am breaking the rules when it comes to this podcast. And seek help. If you feel you still have Zozo nearby, seek out help from a paranormal professional or a religious leader, such as a priest or a rabbi. Zozo is a dangerous demon and he is not something to mess around with, whether you believe in him or not. On April 12, 1961, the first man to ever make it into space was a Russian cosmonaut by the name of Yuri Gagarin. He is considered a hero in his country and inspiration worldwide to those who are fascinated by space travel. But what few do not know is that there is a theory that there was somebody BEFORE Yuri Gagarin and the story has been kept a secret. That story is up next on Weird Darkness. Suicide or murder in a shadow of a nation's capital. The screens master of horror, Bella Ladosi has the answer to this mysterious death. You'll find the answer to this fantastic mystery in Black Dragons. Join us Friday, January 26 for our next Weirdo Watch Party as we watch Black Dragons presented by Horror Hotel's resident vampire Lamia Queen of the Dark, bringing us trivia about the film, the actors and all things horror related in between segments of the show. And then stick around after Black Dragons because Doc Dredd will be with us with one of his popular and fun movie reviews, giving his opinion of 2023's award-winning horror flick Beneath Us All. The Weirdo Watch Party is always free to watch online with everybody, so grab your popcorn, candy and soda and jump into the fun and even get involved in the live chat as we watch the movie. It's Black Dragons, starring Bella Ladosi from 1942 presented by Horror Hotel's Lamia Queen of the Dark, then Doc Dredd's movie review talking about Beneath Us All. Friday, January 26, starting at 10pm Eastern, 9pm Central, 8pm Mountain, 7pm Pacific. See a few clips from the film and invite your friends to watch along with you on the Weirdo Watch Party page at WeirdDarkness.com. We'll see you Friday, January 26 for the Weirdo Watch Party! Everybody knows that Neil Armstrong was the first person to set foot on the moon. Most are also aware that he was not the first person to go into space. After all, Alan Shepard, he paved the way for American astronauts on May 5, 1961, while Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin actually took the lead by rocketing into Earth orbit a few weeks earlier, on April 12. Or did he? Today, Gagarin's name is cemented in the record books and he instantly became a national hero across the Soviet Union. Presented as a triumph of the fiercely fought space race against the U.S., the 27-year-old who'd been chosen just three days before the mission spent 108 minutes in space, orbited the Earth, and returned fit and well following a drama-filled flight. And yet, before he even embarked on his journey skywards, doubt was seeded in many a person's mind. For, rumors had surfaced that the Soviets had successfully launched a man into space before Gagarin set foot in Vostok 1, and the talk was that one cosmonaut had done so on April 7, just five days earlier. Dennis Ogden, the Moscow-based correspondent for the British Communist Party newspaper Daily Worker, reported as such. His story splashed across the publication's front page with a headline, The First Man in Space. It informed readers that the spaceman, the test pilot son of a top-ranking aircraft designer, was back, alive, but suffering from the effects of his flight. Gagarin's feet hadn't even left the ground when the paper hit the newsstands, and it caused something of a stir, sparking the first whispers of a conspiracy theory which has continued to this day. The Soviet Union denied the reports and instead alerted the press to Gagarin's subsequent feat. Ogden also reported this as article again making a splash as he wrote of a hero's welcome and a Soviet Union wild with joy at the first trip outside this world. Ogden's article could have been seen as something akin to a correction, confirmation that he was initially wrong about the flight on April 7, but then French journalist Edward Bobrovsky followed up on Ogden's claims and pointed to The Man in Question as being an accomplished test pilot called Vladimir Ilyushin while also stating that the flight actually took place on March 25. Trouble is, this mission had, according to the press sources, not gone quite as well as planned. That is why, it has long since been claimed, Ilyushin's feet was cast aside in favor of Gagarin's successful launch and landing. Ilyushin was a Soviet general and a test pilot of high standing. He had broken many speeds and altitude records and his father was influential, having designed and built second world war fighters and bombers. Ilyushin Sr. had also earned himself a place in government. To that end, his son would have been seen as the perfect person to send into space. His penchant for risk taking such that the then 34 year old pilot would have surely relished the task. And so the story went that his journey outwards on board his spacecraft was fine. But, after three supposed orbits, Ilyushin's return went awry. Apparently his landing was off course, causing him physical harm and mental anguish. There was even a suggestion that the accident had put him into a coma. The space vessel reportedly was recovered where expected, but Ilyushin was mentally unbalanced and is unconscious in a Moscow hospital set a report in the spokesman review about the journalist's claims on April 12, 1961. The article adds that Bobrovsky said his information came from reliable sources that he could not name and that Russian officers denied the report. The Soviet Union claimed Ilyushin was in hospital being treated for injuries he had received in a car accident. The Soviets were not the only ones blinking with disbelief at this. Even the Americans did not believe the journalist's claims. Indeed, Pierre Salinger, the press secretary to the White House at the time, told reporters that there was no evidence of a flight on April 7 and we have to assume nothing to have raised suspicion in March either. North American Aerospace Defense Command NORAD Space Tracking Stations, it transpired, had not picked up on anything and the U.S. was not about to leap in and heap embarrassment on the Soviet Union without proof. And yet, even this wasn't enough to completely quell suspicion. Some journalists believed the claims of a car crash were a mere cover story and it certainly wasn't beyond the wildest of imaginations to believe the Soviets would seek to bury a mistake since it had been done so many times in the past. What's more, in the framework of the space race, conspiracists could surmise there was a valid reason for trying to bury such a failure. The Soviets would constantly pull out all the stops to present communism as the superior ideology. But is that, together with unknown journalistic sources, reason enough to believe that Gagarin's place in history was not quite what it was? Ogden would later claim that he saw a photograph of Ilyushin wearing space gear at the time of the supposed flight, but it has never subsequently surfaced. Meanwhile, Ilyushin himself, who died in 2010 at the age of 82, never confessed to having flown into space. He lived to tell the claimed tale, but notably didn't tell it. What has been seen, however, are rumours continuing to swirl long after the event and they have even been fleshed out. One of the most notable was a 52-minute documentary in 1999 called The Cosmonaut Cover-Up released by Global Science Productions and directed by Elliot Hamoff, who in the following year also helmed the documentary Vladimir Ilyushin, the real first man in space. Widely broadcast, it claimed Ilyushin had failed to eject from his capsule, crashed in China and, after being captured, was eventually handed back to the USSR in 1962. The documentary makers said Ilyushin wouldn't talk about the alleged incidents on camera, according to an article published on Sun Community News and preferred to maintain his secrecy. But was Ilyushin so fearful that, in verifying such claims, he would open himself up to a world in which he did not wish to boldly go? Given that the documentary was being made a number of years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when secrets were finally being divulged and historical events were being flung open, many would suspect not. In fact, the Soviets began to open up well before the USSR ceased to be. In 1980, the West finally learned of the death of Valentin Bondarenko, who, according to the New York Times, died 10 days into a 15-day low-pressure endurance experiment in Moscow in 1961 when fire broke out, even though they had removed his image from an official subsequent training photograph. It took longer to tell the world of a major launchpad accident that took place on October 24, 1960 and officially killed 78, as eventually revealed to the rest of the world in 1989. There is talk of Gagarin being used for propaganda, but of all the confessions and documents seen since the Soviet Union collapsed, Ilyushin has never featured. And yet there have been some peculiar pieces of evidence. Two Italian former amateur radio operators, Achilli and Giovanni Giudica Cordiglia, claimed to have recorded audio from an orbiting capsule in the days before Gagarin made his flight, and it was actually the fourth slice of startling audio released by the pair. The first was from May 1960 of a manned spacecraft reportedly going off course, the second in November that year of an SOS morse code from a troubled spacecraft leaving Earth's orbit, and most chillingly, a third in 1961 of a cosmonaut apparently suffocating to death. Should these be hard and fast evidence of space flights, then we would have to say that not only was Gagarin not the first person into space, Ilyushin was perhaps not first either. But given the supposition was that everyone involved in those three recordings had died, discovering the truth has been even more difficult. And yet theories still mount up. What could be made of claims by Mikhail Rudenko, a former Soviet senior engineer and experimenter with Experimental Design Office 456, formed in 1999 by members of the editorial staff of the oldest Soviet paper, Pravda, that cosmonauts had been sent into space in 1957, 1958 and 1959. All three pilots died during the flights and their names were never officially published, he is quoted as saying in an article published on pravda.ru on April 12th, 2001, having explained that the pilots involved were called Ladovsky, Shiborin and Mikhov and took part in suborbital flights. The cosmonauts were to reach space heights in the highest point of such an orbit and then return to the Earth, he added. But considering Pravda has also run with headlines such as aliens forced Americans out from the moon and alien and human skulls found on Mars, it is a tough call. Harder still to determine is Ilyushin's in March and April 1961. The Soviets didn't help themselves in this regard either, since they couldn't give a straight answer about the reason why he was seen to be injured, pinned down to that car crash or when it actually took place. Neither could they offer up a suitable explanation for why he might have been in China. They also went as far as to say he was never actually a cosmonaut and indeed it would appear that he wasn't in the original cosmonaut team. No memoirs or declassified information put him there. Yet it is also difficult to corroborate the Judica Cordiglia recordings with any data from official sources. Listing stations did not pick up on what they claimed to have committed to tape and radio astronomer Bernard Lovell, who established the Jodrell Bank Observatory in Cheshire, England, dismissed claims of earlier Russian manned space attempts in 1963. Even that, however, isn't as clear cut as it sounds. Lovell paid visits to Russia around this time and there have even been allegations that he was brainwashed. He fell ill that year following such a trip and the UK Ministry of Defense said it might have been due to an attempt to remove his memory of a Soviet offer to build a telescope facility in the USSR. His son says he was merely ill from exhaustion, according to an article published in February's edition of Psychic's World Magazine. And that sounds more plausible. Besides, supposing Russia had suffered such terrible space attempts which resulted in deaths and crashes, would it really have announced Gagarin's flight in the way it did? As James E. Oberg points out in a 1975 article he wrote in Space World Magazine, the Russian news agency TASS, frequently used as a front organization by the Soviet Intelligence Agency, released its first bulletin while Gagarin was still in flight. If it was worried about the potential for bad news, wouldn't it have been better to wait until the mission was over and Gagarin's feet were firmly back on the ground rather than risk Gagarin's spacecraft hitting the same problems as the one claimed to have taken place just days before? Maybe we will never know. The two men who would have been directly involved are no longer alive. Gagarin was killed when the MiG-15 training jet he was piloting crashed on March 27, 1968, when he was 34, given the evidence that has been made available. The smart money still remains on Gagarin having been the first person on a manned spaceflight. Russian space history can be murky and difficult to pick apart, but in truth there is no real reason to lie in instances such as this. Apparently, if you want to have a satisfying life, it's best to not have the name Elizabeth Brewer. I have two stories completely unrelated except that the center of each somber tale is a woman named Elizabeth Brewer. That's up next when Weird Darkness returns. I'm a man of habits. Okay, truth be told, my bride says I'm boring. I like the same stuff, and that's what I stick with, and that includes what I eat. Even for breakfast, I used to opt for a leftover pizza, hot dogs, hamburgers. Did I mention pizza? Anyway, now that I'm trying to lose weight and cut back on the carbs, I've had to make changes for breakfast. Now, instead of a big, heavy breakfast, I just grabbed one of my built bars, the best tasting protein bar on the planet. Built bars satisfy my hunger with up to 19 grams of protein and also satisfy my sugar craving, despite being less than 3 grams of sugar. And at only about 150 calories per bar, if I'm really hungry in the morning, I can grab two of them and still feel good about it. Try replacing your dessert or even a meal like breakfast with a built bar. You won't even know it's not really a candy bar. Visit WeirdDarkness.com slash built and build a box of your own.  That's WeirdDarkness.com slash built promo code WeirdDarkness. On the 25th of May, 1866, which was a Friday, a young man by the name of Joseph Irons was walking along a street in Limehouse in the east end of London. Suddenly, on seeing a small boy, John Spencer, he came to a halt. He had noticed two things. The first was that the little fellow who was 6 years old was clearly in some distress and was crying. The second was that he had neither shoes nor boots on his feet. Irons' guests that the two were connected. His heart melted and stooping down, he asked the boy what had happened. If we have the right, Joseph Irons, then he was in his early 20s, a working-class lad born in Stepney. At the time of the incident, he was living off the commercial road in Sydney Place where his neighbors were tailors and drapers, butchers and grocers, and dealers in furniture and paint and furs. There was also a maker of nautical instruments, a reminder that the history of the commercial road, which has been built to connect the docks to the city, was inextricably tied up with the life of the river. In fact, Irons was the son of a seafaring man, one of the bronzed-faced individuals who were, to be seen in the words of all the year around, at the edge and final boundary of the easternmost reaches of the city, where the whiff of tar spiced the air and the faint clank of a windlass could often be heard. Limehouse exercised a strange fascination over the more sensitive minds of the 19th century. Arthur Conan Doyle located the opium den in his story of the man with the twisted lip and vile alley lurking behind the high wharves which lined the north side of the river to the east of London Bridge. And when Oscar Wilde sent Dorian Gray to Limehouse in a handsome, there came to him from far away in the darkness the scream of some wandering seago. The skyline of masts and the jumble of jetties and riverside houses inspired artists as well, most notably James McNeill Whistler, but also Gustav Dore and Charles Napier-Hemmy. One of Whistler's Limehouse series is a sketch of Captain Cuddle, the retired sea captain of Dombian Sun. Dickens gives a wonderful impression of the merging of city and river in the vicinity of the old Saltz lodgings which, beginning with the erection of flagstaffs as appartenances to public houses, then came slopsellers' shops with Guernsey shirts, soister hats, and canvas pantaloons at once the tightest and the loosest of their order hanging up outside. These were succeeded by anchor and chain cable forges where sledgehammers were dinging upon iron all day long, then came rows of houses with little vane surmounted masts uprearing themselves from among the scarlet beans, then ditches, then pollard willows, then moor ditches, then unaccountable patches of dirty water hardly to be described for the ships that covered them, then the air was perfumed with chips and all other trades were swallowed up in mast ore and block making and boat building, then the ground grew marshy and unsettled, then there was nothing to be smelt but rum and sugar. Limehouse also features in other works by the great novelist, as does the mingling of city and river, vessels that seemed to have got ashore, he wrote in Our Mutual Friend, and houses that seemed to have got afloat. Not that this and other extraordinary images are merely fanciful, for Dickens really knew Limehouse. The opium eater's den in the opening chapter of The Mystery of Edwin Druid was based on a real dive which Dickens came across while touring the less salubrious corners of the capital with his friend James Thomas Fields. The American publisher was hugely impressed and recalled that, in a miserable court at night, we found a haggard old woman blowing at a kind of pipe made of an old ink bottle. One can only say that on his voyeuristic rambles through the heartlands of the east end, he had in Dickens the perfect guide. Dickens' familiarity with Limehouse dated back to his childhood, as godfather Christopher Huffman lived in Church Row, which ran south of the commercial road. He'd been a rigger in the Royal Navy and no doubt imparted to his godson a rich store of maritime impressions. Many years later, when he was writing Our Mutual Friend, Dickens would be spotted by the locals and the Six Jolly Fellowship Porters is thought to be a fictional version of a real tavern, the Bunch of Grapes, which at the time of our story was run by the splendidly named John Topliff Kinnipple at 36th Forest Street. Indeed, it was at the western end of Forest Street and Narrow Street that Joseph Irons encountered the six-year-old John Spencer, Barefoot and Weeping on that Friday in 1866. Narrow Street, which as the name suggests, was not very wide, ran parallel with and close to the river. Much of the trade along its length was nautical. There were sailmakers and mast makers, as one would expect, and rigors and chandlers, as one would hope, but also bakers, of whom more than one were bakers of biscuits and one was certainly a baker of ship's biscuits. The last of these businesses was owned by Messers Parkinson and Salmon. They were wholesale suppliers to the army and navy, and their premises, Phoenix Mills, housed assorted machinery and sacks and sacks of flour. When Joseph Irons stood up and looked along Narrow Street, he caught sight of a woman moving rapidly away from the scene. Little John Spencer pointed in her direction. Picking the boy up and holding him in his arms, Irons gave chase. He soon caught up with the woman whose name, it turned out, was Elizabeth Brewer. What have you got there under your shawl? Irons demanded. He tugged the woman's arm until she released whatever it was that she was hiding under her shawl, and down onto the pavement fell the boy's boots. Spotting an officer of the law, police constable Hart of the Stepping Division, Irons handed Brewer over. Hart led the prisoner off to the Thames Police Court, which stood north of the commercial road in Arbor Square. Obviously, she was up to no good, or Hart noticed that at some point on the journey, she had taken out three pawn tickets, which she surreptitiously tore up, throwing the pieces down on the ground. At the police court, the constable's suspicions were confirmed when Brewer confessed. Seeing the little boy in Narrow Street, she had called him over. Let me pull your boots off, she had said, and I'll give you a penny. When asked to explain her actions, Brewer said that she had been hungry. The workhouse and poplar had turned her away. She must either steal or starve. In due course, Brewer was brought before John Page, the Thames Magistrate, to answer the charges made against her by the police. She was 48 years old and a seamstress. She stated once again that she had taken John Spencer's boots, which were worth two shillings and six out of sheer necessity. But the witnesses were having none of this. There is not a word of truth in it, declared Inspector Beer at the Stepney Division, that prisoner is an incorrigible thief. The journalist Henry Mayhew knew all about this sort of crime, child stripping, and his account of it in London labor and the London poor, he included some disturbing details. The thieves were typically older women, who would be less obviously threatening than men, and the lure would be either money, as used by Elizabeth Brewer, or sweets. As a rule, the crime was committed in the evening when it was dark and in the winter when little children would be wearing hats and coats, as well as boots and shoes, if they had them. Brewer was unusual though, and that she operated close to her home in North Street in Poplar, risking detection. Mayhew reported that in 1860, only a few years before the narrow street incident, there were almost a hundred thefts from children. He was shocked by the cynicism of the perpetrators. As for Elizabeth Brewer, she was a repeat offender, as Inspector Beer claimed. In 1865, for example, she had been found guilty of stealing boots, worth five shillings, from a girl by the name of Elizabeth Anne Wright. She was sent to the House of Correction at Tuttlefields for nine months, and attacked John Spencer only weeks after her release. Should we take into account the grinding poverty that afflicted those living on the very margins of society? Peje thought not, and he sent Brewer back to Tuttlefields this time for a full year. And so ends her story. What became of her is hard to determine. There were many Elizabeth Brewers. For the same reason, John Spencer cannot be reliably traced. But Joseph Ironskahn, he had various occupations. For many years, he worked as a cab man, and he lived a long life. He must have had his ups and downs, as at one point, he spent time in the Bower Road Workhouse. He also had many children, and one must hope that he kept them supplied with sturdy boots and shoes. As I said, we don't know what happened to Elizabeth Brewer because there were so many women of that name at the time. I'm about to tell you another story that also concerns an Elizabeth Brewer. However, the two Elizabeths are not the same, whereas the first was 48 at the time of her story. That is to say, in the year 1866, this next one was only 16 at the time of her story and was in the year 1880. This second Elizabeth had only just been born when the first was caught robbing poor John Spencer in Narrow Street in Limehouse. As well as having the name of the protagonist in common, the two stories share the setting of the East End of London and, more exactly, the Commercial Road. Furthermore, both must be read against the background of the deprivations of the London poor and both involve the Stepney Division of the Metropolitan Police. But there, as you will see, the similarities end. The White Swan Hotel at 225 Shadwell High Street was once one of the most notorious drinking holes in the capital. Attracting a volatile assortment of local hard men and crews from the ships and the docks, it offered a heavy mix of drinking and dancing and much else besides. Riders with a taste for the exotic and the dangerous gave it a gloriously bad press. They described the vice and the degradation, the brawling and the killing, the bovine appetites that made its patrons easy prey for unscrupulous con men and abandoned women. As one journalist put it, the White Swan was perhaps the most frightful hell hole in all of London. Now, on the 31st of October, which was a cold and blustery Sunday, Elizabeth Brewer came to the White Swan Hotel in search of work. The owner, John Kirsten, took her on. But within a matter of days, he could see that she was struggling with the work, which necessitated long hours on her feet. He guessed from her appearance that the girl was pregnant, and when he questioned her, she admitted that she was. He told her that she would have to leave. And so on Sunday, the 7th of November, at about three o'clock in the afternoon, Elizabeth left the White Swan Hotel. She asked Kirsten if she could leave her belongings until she was sorted. He agreed, and the next day, as arranged, Elizabeth came to collect two parcels which appeared to be all that she had in the world. Kirsten had not noticed the parcels when Elizabeth had arrived the week before, but he did not ask about them, and minutes later, she was gone. Once long ago, where the eastern reaches of Mile End began to peter out, there was a Victoria Road. Now gone, in 1880, it ran from Old Ford Road up to Duckett's Canal at the southern edge of Victoria Park. The dwellings, along its length, were modest, their occupants working men and women in the main, who lived cheek by jowl in rooms packed to the rafters, and in one of these crowded houses, number 8 lodged a woman by the name of Margaret Pilly. Late on Monday, the 8th of November, at about half past 11, Margaret was out and about when she spotted something that made her stop. Some men were standing around the huddled figure of a young girl who was sitting on a doorstep, holding two parcels. Seeing that she was in great distress, Margaret asked her what the matter was, and through her tears, the girl said that she had no place to go. What is your name? Margaret asked. Elizabeth, the girl replied. Well, Elizabeth, Margaret said, you can lodge with me. Margaret led Elizabeth to the house in Victoria Road where she gave her a room with a bed and a cupboard. She observed her closely as she stowed her parcels in the cupboard. Then, struck by her poor physical condition, Margaret put it to Elizabeth that she must have recently given birth. She was met with flat denials, which bothered her, as did the girl's curious habit over the next few days of taking the parcels out of the cupboard when night fell and sleeping with them under her bed. On the Thursday, when there was a sickly smell in the room, Margaret demanded to know what was in the cupboard. There is nothing there that belongs to you, Elizabeth said, standing in the way. On the Friday, a further bizarre incident upset Margaret, when in the evening, Elizabeth went out without saying where she was going and stayed out all night. On the Saturday, she did the same, and on the Sunday, when she did not return and with the smell in the room now becoming intolerable, Margaret opened the cupboard. With thumping heart, she untied two parcels and peered inside. On the night of September 14th of November, a Stepney Division police constable by the name of William Nichols was on duty in Philpott Street when he heard excited voices. He hurried down into the commercial road where people were staring at a young girl who, clutching a parcel, was walking through their midst with a dazed and distracted look on her face. When Nichols asked her where she lived, the girl said that she had been living in Victoria Road but had been ordered to leave. And what is that in there, he asked, as he reached out to open the parcel. Elizabeth stared up at him, tears filling her eyes. With the awful truth of the matter now apparent, a somber silence settled over the crowd of horrified but sympathetic onlookers. However, the constable was obliged to take Elizabeth to the police station in Arbor Square, and because she was on her last legs, he sent for a cab. When they got there, Nichols called for Dr. James Horton, a police surgeon who verified that Elizabeth had indeed recently been delivered of a child, and that the child in the parcel was therefore in all likelihood hers. Elizabeth told Horton her story, beginning with her brief stay at the White Swan Hotel. She went on to explain that when her labor started, she had been in the commercial road. She had been in great pain and then, in a matter of a minute or two, the business had been done. On Thursday, the 18th of November, an inquest was held in the Mile End under the auspices of John Humphries, the coroner for the Eastern District of the County of Middlesex. The witnesses were John Kirsten and Margaret Kelly and William Nicholas. The jury, guided by the police surgeon's medical evidence, concluded that Elizabeth's child had been stillborn, and there one might think that the sorry matter must come to an end. But the law saw it differently, for concealing of birth was and still is a crime. Elizabeth would be charged and would have to explain to the police court in Arbor Square what she had done and why. Even so, justice would have to wait for Elizabeth was very ill. The surgeon had sent her to the Mile End infirmary where, quite possibly, she died. If there is nothing to say that she did die, equally there is nothing to say that she did not. So much about her, the befores and the afters, is wrapped in silence. The facts are few. She was the daughter of a gamekeeper, Joseph Brewer. She had many brothers and sisters. She came from Bramfield in Hartfordshire and went to the National School there before moving down to London. She was pregnant at the age of 15, a mother at 16, and she carried the body of her child in a parcel at once a cradle and coffin until she was discovered late one night alone in the commercial ground. Thanks for listening. If you like the show, please share it with somebody you know who loves the paranormal or strange stories, true crime, monsters or unsolved mysteries like you do. And please leave a rating and review of the show in the podcast app you listen from. You can also email me anytime with your questions or comments at darron at weirddarkness.com. Darron is D-A-R-R-E-N. Weird Darkness is also where you can find all of my social media, listen to audiobooks that I've narrated, shop the Weird Darkness store, sign up for the monthly contests, find other podcasts that I host and find the Hope in the Darkness page if you or someone you know is struggling with depression or dark thoughts. Also on the website, if you have a true paranormal or creepy tale to tell, you can click on Tell Your Story. You can find all of that and more at WeirdDarkness.com. All stories in Weird Darkness are purported to be true unless stated otherwise and you can find source links or links to the authors in the show notes. How Dangerous Is the Ouija Board was written by Stephen Wagner and Mary Bellis for LiveAbout.com. The Cosmonaut Conspiracy is by David Crooks from All About Space Magazine, posted at LiveScience.com. Two terrible tales of Elizabeth Ruer were written by William Ellis Reese for London Overlooked. Again, you can find links to these stories in the show notes. Weird Darkness is a production and trademark of Marlar House Productions. And now that we're coming out of the dark, I'll leave you with a little light. Psalm 19, verse 1, The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of his hands. In a final thought, the souls that have seen the darkest days can shine the brightest light. Keep going. I'm Darren Marlar. Thanks for joining me in the Weird Darkness. But then, French journalist Edward Bobrovsky. But then, French journalist Edward Bobrovsky. But then, French journalist Edward Bobrovsky.


Hi y'all, Liz here again today and this week we're still talking about trainees, information that is useful for trainees and this week we're going to be talking specifically about training and today I want to talk about kitchen basics, the basic things that you can expect to be cleaning in a kitchen and some of the things that you're going to run into, some of the problems, some of the things that you're going to learn how to clean.  Alright your company is going to have a policy on how to clean all of these basic things. On the refrigerator you're probably going to always clean the outside of the refrigerator, some companies will take off all of the magnets and take everything off and clean the whole thing, sometimes they won't, you'll have to know which do you do in your company, also the top of the refrigerator, do you remove everything and clean it, do you clean it only on deep cleans, it's going to be a question that you need to know, do you do inside the refrigerator, only on the initial cleaning, do you do it on a deep cleaning, on a spring cleaning, only on vacans, when do you do inside? One of the things that you're always going to want to clean, I don't care who you work for is the handles, whatever handles are on the refrigerator, you need to clean them, additionally where the little drip pan is you need to clean that, what level you clean it to is going to be depending on your company, some people remove all the hard water every time and some people just give it a quick wipe, I don't know what it's going to be in your company but you need to know, these are things you need to know remember, you'll also need to know how to clean your counters, what's the level of cleanliness that you do in your company, do you have more than one level, do you sometimes clean when you're cleaning the counters, do you sometimes spray them down and wipe them off, do other times you scrub them, do you sometimes move everything off the counters and other times put them back, I don't know what it is but you need to know, how do you clean counters, the counter tops and you need to know how you rinse them also, if you rinse them, you might use a product that doesn't need to be rinsed off, if you do, how do you get it off, do you use a squeegee, do you use a cloth, I don't know but you need to know, you need to find that out, stove tops, you're going to need to know a few things about the stove top, how to clean it first if it's a flat top, can you scrape it, what can you clean it with, you cannot just clean them indiscriminately, they're very specific ways that you can clean them, white ones are cleaned different many times than black, some will scratch, some won't, gas is cleaned different than electric, electric if it has little elements are going to be cleaned different as well, so those are all things you're going to need to learn how to do with your stove top, also the knobs, what do you do with the knobs, some people soak them, some people take them off, some people don't, you need to know what you do with the knobs, it's important, additionally if you do take off knobs don't forget to put them back on correctly, okay the oven, do you clean it or not, if you do clean it when, how often and what do you use, the sinks, do you clean them, everybody cleans the sinks but what if it's full of dishes, do you clean the dishes, do you not, where do you put them, these are all the questions that you need to know, do you clean the sink, do you clean the dishes and then what about that window in front of the sink, do you clean it or not, how often, how about the toaster, do you clean just the outside or do you also remove the crumbs from the inside, do you shake it, do you unplug it, you need to know, what about coffee pots, some people unplug coffee pots, take them over, dump them, empty out the coffee, clean the whole coffee pot inside now, do you, maybe not, maybe your coffee pots have a clock on them and you're not allowed to ever unplug them, you need to know that, these are the questions that I want you to ask and remember and to think about because these are the things that are going to get you in trouble, right, is the unplugging of things, what things that we're supposed to do on a regular basis and what things you're supposed to do on a deep clean basis, another one is the cupboard fronts, do we wipe the whole thing down every time or do we just do around the knobs or do we only do it if we see something, when do we clean the cupboard fronts, how, when, is the upper cupboards the same as the lower cupboards, I don't know, you're going to have to know, your company is going to be different than any other company, onto the kitchen floor, how often do you edge, do you use a brush to do the edging or do you never, maybe it doesn't, maybe you never do, maybe you never need to, what do you use to get the crumbs off the floor, some people vacuum, some people sweep, some people use a dust mop, but you cannot stop mopping until you have removed the crumbs, so how do you remove the crumbs, you need to know, and then how do you mop, mopping is going to be a big deal in your company and you need to pay really good attention, these are the things you need to know about mopping, what product am I using, how much water am I using or moisture, whatever it is, what's the piece of equipment that I'm using and what is the drying process, does it dry by itself, do I dry it with something, what is the drying process, so how do I wet it, what's the moisture that I'm using, what's the product chemical cleaner that I'm using, how long is the dwell time, how long does it sit on there, what am I using to clean it with and how do I dry it, okay, so you need to be responsible for getting all of that information about kitchens, that's the basics and we're going to be talking about bathrooms tomorrow, but for the kitchen have you run into any situation so far where you thought, wow, I didn't even know we clean those and you do, okay, talk to you tomorrow, bye.


So, we have been talking a lot about the Rankine wall where we have assumed that the backfill happens to be pure granular material. In practice many times it happens that you have to retain cohesive soils because of the lack of availability of a pure granular material alright. So, under these conditions though it is not advisable to have a backfill material as a cohesive material, please make it very sure alright. So, we are just doing a hypothetical analysis to make ourselves understand that if cohesion is present in the backfill what would be its implications alright, otherwise by definition backfill material should always be a free draining material of very high permeability so that consolidation does not become a problem alright, long term consolidation should not become a problem water retention should not become a problem. The type of analysis which we have done in the previous modules where we have shown poised water table and the submerged situation where the water gets logged into the retaining wall these type of situations can be avoided by using highly permeable granular material alright. So, let us do analysis of a situation where the backfill happens to be a cohesive soil is a C5 soil let us say and it will be very interesting to see the case of you know a passive operation. So, if this is the trial wedge and we have all those conditions which we have considered earlier there is a Qs height of the wall is h inclination of the slip surfaces theta ok, we are trying to find out the passive earth pressure on the system this is the W weight and this material happens to be a C5 material that is the only difference draw the free body diagram of the forces which are going to act on the system so this part you are very well conversant with you have the normal force acting on this system then we have a component of the shear. Now this happens to be a passive earth pressure so shear force is acting downwards and then the component of C comes into the picture alright. So, the component of the C is getting mobilized in this form which will be equal to C prime multiplied by length of AB is this ok. So, this is the only difference which we have made and LAB is known this is h upon sin of theta now we can solve this problem by using the simple trial wedge analysis. So, try to work out the magnitude of PP what this should be equal to the first component is suppose if I take a worse situation here also if I allow water logics ok. So, the first one would be effect of water if I take it on the left hand side this becomes PP minus half gamma W h square PP prime effective earth pressure under passive conditions plus what is the component of what is the contribution from the soil go and force h square into k p term plus what is the contribution from the C. So, this will be equal to 2 times C prime h root of k p and what else is remaining the surcharge. So, the surcharge will be in the form of q s into h into k p is this fine try to solve this problem or this situation by using trial wedge analysis you know all the forces which are acting on the system and then compute this alright any questions now let me introduce the concept of tension crack in a C5 soil which you have studied already and if you remember we had talked about the soil mass of height h alright and if this happens to be a C5 type of a soil with unit weight of gamma ok what we did we drew the pressure diagram and this is how the pressure diagram looked like and this is the z naught the depth of tension crack. So, here the tension is prevailing here the compression is prevailing in the soil mass this is alright and the z naught value we computed as 2 C upon gamma root of k alright if you are working in pure cohesive soils k term disappears this becomes 2 C upon gamma if you are working in a C5 soil this is the contribution of C this is the contribution of phi in the form of k a. So, we get the value as 2 C upon gamma root of k a and if I multiply this by 2 so 2 z naught is equal to the critical height of unsupported cut alright. So, this concept we are now going to use for analyzing the stability of the walls for finding out active and passive earth pressures is this part ok. So, if I extend this logic to the stability block over here what you will realize is now this is the slip surface this tension crack I am depicting as a crack over here alright. So, this becomes C now C is this D and E. So, this is the tension crack which is developing because of the inherent property of the soil mass being cohesive what is going to happen during rains the water will seep through water gets logged over here and then the water pressure is going to act on the block and which is going to destabilize the entire system alright you remember all these things another property of E and D is this happens to be a free surface now what is the attribute of the free surface this surface has got detached from the parent block alright from the parent wedge that means this is a atmospheric surface there is no reaction which is going to come on the surface in the form of the normal stress that means if you look at the free body diagram of E B D alright here the normal stress is 0 and the shear stress is 0 it is a free surface clear. So, this is the case which is defying the law of mechanics the weight is acting downwards and suppose if this happens to be pure cohesive material this cohesion is going to balance. So, we have 2 forces and under which the body cannot remain in equilibrium. So, what is the way out we have to assume that this block is of infinite decimal weight where weight is tending to 0 then only it is possible this is part clear. So, because the weight is the component which was dealing with the induced cohesion and the way to justify this would be if E D B is infinite decimal that means the weight of the block is tending to 0 then only the equilibration can take place that means 0 weight no cohesion gets mobilized. I can extend this idealization in such a way that I can assume that the mobilization of the cohesion at point B is 0 when you reach the point D it becomes the full mobilization of the cohesion. So, this is the C prime value the maximum cohesion alright and beyond this point what is going to happen the C prime remains uniform. So, this is the variation of C prime starting from C equal to 0 attaining the maximum value at the tip of the crack which is known as tension crack and beyond which C prime remains constant. So, what we will do is we will try to utilize these properties in such a manner that they could be useful to us the total length of the wall is or height of the wall is h ok. This we have computed as Z critical alright is this ok. So, this is your Z critical which I had defined as Z naught or let it be Z naught and this is equal to 2 C prime by gamma root kA fine. Now, can I find out the average C which is going to act on the surface AB. So, C average which is acting on surface AB this will be equal to how would you compute the average C value total length of the surface is this ok I am assuming this as theta. So, h by sin theta is the total length what about this triangle this will be half C prime into this value. So, this will be half C prime into Z critical or Z naught upon let it be Z critical then because standard term is Z critical ok. So, Z critical divided by sin theta plus the rectangular portion. So, this will be equal to C prime h minus this portion goes out Z critical upon sin theta is this ok. So, if you solve this expression what is that you are going to get solve it quickly. So, this will be equal to C prime 1 minus ZCR open here divided by 2h this is right this is ok. So, this is the average value of the coefficient which is going to get mobilized on this surface why we have done all these analysis. We have done this analysis to make sure that we are using the right value of cohesion which is getting mobilized on the slip surface of a C phi retained soil mass for finding out the earth pressures. Suppose the soil happens to be pure frictional clear what is going to happen pure frictional soil no tension cracks C prime is equal to 0 ZCR equal to 0 if ZCR equal to 0 that means the average C is equal to the mobilized C prime this is part ok. And C prime can be neglected because what we are doing is we are assuming C prime to be tending to 0 for pure frictional material. So, value of C average will also be 0. So, this becomes a sort of a correction factor that is the critical depth of the tension crack divided by 2 times the height of the wall. Now using this concept we can find out the active earth pressures and passive earth pressures both. So, suppose if I give you the value of C average now can you write the expression for active earth pressure case because that is more interesting alright. So, this will be half into gamma w h square plus 0.8 half gamma b h square. Now what is going to happen to the C prime case that C prime gets replaced by the value which we have obtained. So, this becomes we are doing active earth pressure case. So, this will be 2 C prime or average value and average value is equal to 1 minus ZCR over 2 h into h into k a root of k fine. So, this term becomes what how would you define this term? This is basically average effective cohesion which is exhibited by the soil mass. Similarly, you try to find out the P P also. So, there is no difference I think you can just substitute the terms accordingly and you will see that most of the parameters remain same in this expression and we can obtain from P P also. So, this will become plus 2 C prime 1 minus ZCR upon 2 h into h into root of k p and then these terms will also we have done a mistake over here. So, this should have been k a this will also become k p.