In 1909, W. Usborne Moore attended sittings with Mrs Wriedt in Detroit and reported hearing voices he attributed to deceased relatives and acquaintances. His later published account is unusually useful because it preserves failures, corrections and the conditions of the sittings alongside his strong personal conviction. It is a record of claimed direct-voice mediumship, rather than an independently verified conversation with the dead.
The source and its recording method
Moore’s Glimpses of the Next State (The Education of an Agnostic), published in 1911, contains a dedicated account of the Detroit sittings on pages 276–295. This article follows that 1909 sequence. It does not substitute later British demonstrations for American incidents or combine the work of different mediums into one performance.
In his preface, Moore explained that he made notebook headings during or immediately after experiences and expanded his notes from memory within twenty-four hours. He considered this a practical record, especially where darkness prevented detailed writing. The printed conversations therefore should not be mistaken for a sound recording or a complete stenographic transcript.
The author approached the subject as an investigator but wrote as someone persuaded of spirit communication. His certainty is important evidence of his own response. It is not a substitute for independent verification of what produced a voice or how an apparent communicator obtained information.
How the sittings were arranged
Moore described Wriedt as remaining awake rather than entering trance. A trumpet stood between medium and sitter; its purpose in the account was to make alleged voices audible. He said Wriedt would sit in a position he selected, sometimes opposite him and sometimes beside him, and could speak during other apparent speech.
He initially tried a lighted sitting but conducted most of the described sessions in darkness. His account includes apparent faces or luminous forms as well as voices. He called these appearances etherealisations. Those terms describe the author’s interpretation of sensory experiences; they are not established explanations for the production of a visible form or sound.
An unsuccessful start on 6 January
The first dated entry is 6 January 1909. With gaslight on and the small end of the trumpet at his ear, Moore could make out only a few names. He noted passing streetcars and difficulty obtaining quiet. Some names had associations for him, but another was unfamiliar and a supposed acquaintance’s first names were wrong. He explicitly regarded this sitting as unsuccessful.
He returned that evening to join a small circle. In the dark, a voice associated with Wriedt’s principal “control”, Dr Sharp, was followed by communicators whom participants said they recognised. Moore accepted a purported former naval colleague, but recorded that the voice placed an earlier meeting in the wrong English county. The geographical error stayed in the account despite his overall satisfaction.
Another alleged communicator was Iola, Moore’s name for a deceased relative whom he regarded as a guide. He reported personal references that he considered accurate. The identity judgement was his own, while other sitters’ successful identifications reached the reader through his description of what they told him.
Faces, voices and a neighbouring square
On 8 January, Moore sat alone with Wriedt in darkness. He described a faintly illuminated cloud developing into a face, followed by other forms. One was unfamiliar and was named for him by the alleged control. Familiarity with a later supplied name should be distinguished from recognising the appearance unaided.
During the subsequent conversation, Iola reportedly named Torrington when asked about her childhood home. Moore acknowledged that she had actually lived in the neighbouring London square. He viewed such near misses as puzzling features of communication, rather than reasons to reject it. A modern assessment must retain the mismatch instead of converting the exchange into an exact address identification.
He also made a particularly important qualification: the voices were not recognisable as the actual voices of the people they purported to represent. His identifications depended on names, apparent knowledge and the content of exchanges. His comparison with a long-distance telephone conveyed the experience, but did not supply an acoustic identification of a deceased speaker.
Personal details and attempts at checking
On 9 January, Moore attended with spiritualist Henry Clay Hodges. He reported contrasting accents and conversations with several alleged acquaintances. One detail concerned a cushion admired on an earlier social visit. Moore said he wrote to England and obtained confirmation from someone who had been present.
This was an attempt to check a specific recollection, and it helps explain why Moore found the account persuasive. The present review has not examined the original correspondence or an independently documented account of what was said before the check. Confirmation reported by an author remains distinct from a new verification of the whole exchange.
The following day, a purported deceased sceptic was identified only after questions and initial ambiguity. The exchange included a statement about a daughter’s interests that Moore thought incorrect and confusion about the intended recipient of a letter. He nevertheless regarded other personal details as decisive and considered deception by the medium impossible. That last conclusion was his inference from the information, not a demonstrated exclusion of every ordinary route.
The February sessions and the trumpet
Moore’s February entries continued the same pattern of private references, accepted identities and descriptions of spirit life. On 4 February he said he asked Wriedt to speak while a voice was heard through the trumpet. He reported that she did, and elsewhere described more than one apparent voice at the same time. Those observations mattered to his argument against a single speaker.
The final 6 February entry included a reported physical effect. Moore said Wriedt placed both hands in one of his hands while he continued talking, after which the trumpet struck him and fell behind her. This is an attributed account of contact during that part of the sitting. It does not establish continuous observation of all movements and objects throughout a dark session.
The chapter then turns to another Detroit medium, A. W. Kaiser. His sittings are not being attributed to Wriedt here. Nor are the Bangs sisters’ Chicago portrait claims, mentioned by Moore in related conversations, new Detroit performances. Keeping the people and places separate prevents an apparently larger body of corroboration being manufactured by combining accounts.
Outcome: Insufficient evidence
Moore supplied a detailed and personally convincing account, including material that did not fit perfectly. The reviewed record does not independently establish the speakers’ identities or the cause of the voices and forms. Darkness, memory-based expansion of notes, prompted identifications and the author’s own acknowledgment about unrecognisable voices limit what can be concluded.
This assessment does not establish fraud. It records why a sincere firsthand account is insufficient to verify communication with deceased people. The most informative feature is the surviving texture of the investigation: a failed first sitting, apparent successes, explicit mistakes, attempts at checking, and a witness who interpreted the balance strongly in favour of mediumship.
Location and further reading
The pin is a broad Detroit city reference from the US Census Bureau’s Michigan place gazetteer. The historical private residential address is not reproduced or precisely mapped. The street photograph is period city context, not the house or evidence of a séance.
The primary review covered Moore’s preface and the complete Wriedt subsection on pages 276–295 of the 1911 book, using its full public OCR text. Other chapters and later demonstrations were not exhaustively audited. Related Chicago material is treated separately in the UKPX Bangs sisters case. Source and outcome review: 13 November 2026.