This book has everything: Ghostly hitchhikers, haunted scenes of mass murder, cemeteries, weeping statues, the cult of saints, a fireman's premonition of death, poltergeists, Native American burial sites, etc.

The story of Mary Worth, the witch, is presented as one where her ghost self comes out of a mirror in a darkened room and scratches the face of the person. According to another version, Mary Worth emanates from the mirror and strangles the victim, using her stocking.

To me, the most interesting part of this modest-sized book was the account of the Our Lady of the Angels School fire. A woman who had just identified her son at the morgue woke up to see him sitting next to her, holding her hand and consoling her. A dead sister appeared to her brother, and promised to watch over him. At the rebuilt school, it is said, the sounds of children screaming can sometimes be heard. (Not to spoil it, but my mother taught at the rebuilt school ten years after the fire, and never reported anything unusual).

The author takes a middle view of the paranormal. They should neither be believed uncritically, nor summarily rejected.

As the author of the "Chicago Haunts" series of books it's beyond frustrating to read reviews that ask these questions:



Did I "ever leave my house" during the research for my books?



Did I "ever visit any of these sites?"



You've got to be kidding.



When "Chicago Haunts" was published in 1997, not a single book had ever been published regarding Chicago's ghost stories (save for Kenan Heise's excellent novel, "Resurrection Mary"). As a matter of fact, I spent twenty-nine years "leaving my house" (yes, in Chicago--a haunted one at Irving Park and Western), obssessed with the pursuit of the stories and people behind Chicago's haunted history.



Furthermore, the Internet as a "research tool" did not exist for me. The "Chicago Haunts" research--which officially went on for nearly five years after the liftetime obsession--gave me muddy shoes and a dozen citations for trespassing . . . and put about 100,000 miles on my car and the same in dollars in the coffers of the CTA. I was welcomed into the homes and offices of hundreds of people who kindly and emotionally shared their stories, experiences and memories with me.



Yes, in this 21st century, I, too, know a number of "ghostwriters" who publish prolifically without leaving their homes, writing about Haunted American cities from their offices in Canada and beyond. I am not--and never will be--one of them.



Now, on the subject of "inaccurate" history: Much has been discovered about the Grimes slayings--and the Schuessler-Peterson murders--since "Chicago Haunts" was published amid times of even sketchier knowledge of those cases. Many I spoke to who knew Jayne described him as more of a skid row groupie than the wealthy breeder he was, and Bidwell did "disappear from the face of the earth" as far as the Grimes case was concerned--though he shouldn't have.



Historian? That's what they call me. I have an M.A. in Cultural and Intellectual U.S. History which publishers, librarians and marketers like, because it makes me sound like I know what I'm talking about. However, as an historian, I know that none of us knows what really happened--anytime, anywhere. That's precisely what historiography teaches. Unfortunately, my classification as a historian makes many people focus on the "proper" historical nature of my writing, something that is of far less concern to me than the way we today interpret these "historical" events--and how we react to them, overtly or unconsciously. This is not, of course, to say that we as authors and publishers do not want our facts straight--whatever the consensus of the time may specify as "facts." So yes, please correct our errors . . . but please, please see beyond them.



Who really was Silas Jayne? What was going on in Bidwell's mind? None of us will ever know.



What we do know is that Chicago will be haunted (in many, many ways) by their thoughts--and actions--forever.



Thanks for reading!

Ursula Bielski

As the author of the "Chicago Haunts" series of books it's beyond frustrating to read reviews that ask these questions:

Did I "ever leave my house" during the research for my books?

Did I "ever visit any of these sites?"

You've got to be kidding.

When "Chicago Haunts" was published in 1997, not a single book had ever been published regarding Chicago's ghost stories (save for Kenan Heise's excellent novel, "Resurrection Mary"). As a matter of fact, I spent twenty-nine years "leaving my house" (yes, in Chicago--a haunted one at Irving Park and Western), obssessed with the pursuit of the stories and people behind Chicago's haunted history.

Furthermore, the Internet as a "research tool" did not exist for me. The "Chicago Haunts" research--which officially went on for nearly five years after the liftetime obsession--gave me muddy shoes and a dozen citations for trespassing . . . and put about 100,000 miles on my car and the same in dollars in the coffers of the CTA. I was welcomed into the homes and offices of hundreds of people who kindly and emotionally shared their stories, experiences and memories with me.

Yes, in this 21st century, I, too, know a number of "ghostwriters" who publish prolifically without leaving their homes, writing about Haunted American cities from their offices in Canada and beyond. I am not--and never will be--one of them.

Now, on the subject of "inaccurate" history: Much has been discovered about the Grimes slayings--and the Schuessler-Peterson murders--since "Chicago Haunts" was published amid times of even sketchier knowledge of those cases. Many I spoke to who knew Jayne described him as more of a skid row groupie than the wealthy breeder he was, and Bidwell did "disappear from the face of the earth" as far as the Grimes case was concerned--though he shouldn't have.

Historian? That's what they call me. I have an M.A. in Cultural and Intellectual U.S. History which publishers, librarians and marketers like, because it makes me sound like I know what I'm talking about. However, as an historian, I know that none of us knows what really happened--anytime, anywhere. That's precisely what historiography teaches. Unfortunately, my classification as a historian makes many people focus on the "proper" historical nature of my writing, something that is of far less concern to me than the way we today interpret these "historical" events--and how we react to them, overtly or unconsciously. This is not, of course, to say that we as authors and publishers do not want our facts straight--whatever the consensus of the time may specify as "facts." So yes, please correct our errors . . . but please, please see beyond them.

Who really was Silas Jayne? What was going on in Bidwell's mind? None of us will ever know.

What we do know is that Chicago will be haunted (in many, many ways) by their thoughts--and actions--forever.

Thanks for reading!
Ursula Bielski

As the author of the "Chicago Haunts" series of books it's beyond frustrating to read reviews that ask these questions:

Did I "ever leave my house" during the research for my books?

Did I "ever visit any of these sites?"

You've got to be kidding.

When "Chicago Haunts" was published in 1997, not a single book had ever been published regarding Chicago's ghost stories (save for Kenan Heise's excellent novel, "Resurrection Mary"). As a matter of fact, I spent twenty-nine years "leaving my house" (yes, in Chicago--a haunted one at Irving Park and Western), obssessed with the pursuit of the stories and people behind Chicago's haunted history.

Furthermore, the Internet as a "research tool" did not exist for me. The "Chicago Haunts" research--which officially went on for nearly five years after the liftetime obsession--gave me muddy shoes and a dozen citations for trespassing . . . and put about 100,000 miles on my car and the same in dollars in the coffers of the CTA. I was welcomed into the homes and offices of hundreds of people who kindly and emotionally shared their stories, experiences and memories with me.

Yes, in this 21st century, I, too, know a number of "ghostwriters" who publish prolifically without leaving their homes, writing about Haunted American cities from their offices in Canada and beyond. I am not--and never will be--one of them.

Now, on the subject of "inaccurate" history: Much has been discovered about the Grimes slayings--and the Schuessler-Peterson murders--since "Chicago Haunts" was published amid times of even sketchier knowledge of those cases. Many I spoke to who knew Jayne described him as more of a skid row groupie than the wealthy breeder he was, and Bidwell did "disappear from the face of the earth" as far as the Grimes case was concerned--though he shouldn't have.

Historian? That's what they call me. I have an M.A. in Cultural and Intellectual U.S. History which publishers, librarians and marketers like, because it makes me sound like I know what I'm talking about. However, as an historian, I know that none of us knows what really happened--anytime, anywhere. That's precisely what historiography teaches. Unfortunately, my classification as a historian makes many people focus on the "proper" historical nature of my writing, something that is of far less concern to me than the way we today interpret these "historical" events--and how we react to them, overtly or unconsciously. This is not, of course, to say that we as authors and publishers do not want our facts straight--whatever the consensus of the time may specify as "facts." So yes, please correct our errors . . . but please, please see beyond them.

Who really was Silas Jayne? What was going on in Bidwell's mind? None of us will ever know.

What we do know is that Chicago will be haunted (in many, many ways) by their thoughts--and actions--forever.

Thanks for reading!
Ursula Bielski

An astounding piece of work, this first of Ms. Bielski's growing series changed the way so many of us look at Chicago--and beyond. Clearly, the author is haunted by the city's past--and thoroughly engaged in bringing it back to life through, ironically, the stories of the city's dead. Throughout, she demonstrates an intense awareness of what the changing face of the city means for our memories and for our future, and of what the experiences of the dead mean for those of us here today.

Not easily categorized, this volume cleverly combines sketchy history and hard facts with testimony and memory, rumor and theory, myth and intuition to tell some of the city's most provocative--and, yes, haunting--tales.

I truly enjoy reading book on the paranornal but was not too impressed with this book. Dates and information were not exactly right, so why even place them in the book. I was counting on finding more information about a haunting but often came about conflicting accounts. Where did she get her information? I just wonder if the author has even been to any of these locations she talks about in her book. If you don't know much about Chicago and its ghostly lore, then you'll be impresssed by this book. Then again, if you read a few books and know some information, your going to get yourself confused reading this book.Nice effort the least...

Ultimately, this book is cocktail chatter--provocative facts (but with appalling gaps), dramatic scenarios, terribly entertaining. But only convincing if you believe in ghosts in the first place.

Some of the stories the author relates--she can't even pinpoint the decade. Some stories, after a full paragraph of setting the mood, you only get one sentence about the ghost in question. Some stories--they just turn out to be essays about how ghost stories grow by word of mouth. Some stories turn out to be totally forgettable.

However, from a factual standpoint, she's very good about giving the exact street address of any and all sites she expounds upon--this can indeed be used as a travel guide.

But I should close by saying several passages raised the hairs on my neck, to wit:

You meet a beautiful stranger at a dance club, she dances with you, she asks you to take her home, she directs you to stop at the gates of a cemetery and says she has to leave you now--and disappears!

Driving home after Midnight, a woman suddenly appears in the road--you run her down! You stop and run back to find her. The crumpled, bloodied corpse vanishes before your eyes.

You and a friend visit an infamous cemetery; you start to feel nauseated; you tell your friend to take a photo--and the photo portrays a cloud of mist gathering around your head--something neither of you saw with the naked eye.

You stumble upon a forgotten cemetery behind a tract of woods. The trees block the sunlight. You get chilly. You see a hooded figure step out from behind a tree--and then it vanishes.

A child dies, and her parents commission a sculpture of her to be erected behind her tombstone. It disappears, only to show up a few days later, in a different spot of the cemetery. Vandals, right? A glass case is mounted over the sculpture, bolted to the pedestal. The next night, a watchman finds the glass case EMPTY.

Police receive a call from a motorist stating that he saw a young woman struggling from inside the gates of a cemetery--she must've accidentally gotten locked in. A squad is dispatched, but no one is found. However, her hand-prints were found upon the gate bars--and thirty years later, the hand-prints ARE STILL THERE.

You get the picture. (Are you really sure you're alone right now?)

I have the revised edition of this book, and I cannot understand how this author can claim to be a "historian" and get so much of the history wrong. For instance, the Grimes Sisters story, Ms. Bielski states that "the police investigated a second confession, that of Silas Jane, a skid row transient who was believed to have been involved in a a string of murders in Chicago" Silas Jayne (correct spelling) was a millionaire horse breeder, which is a far cry from being a skid row transient. There was a 22 year old transient who worked for Silas Jayne by the name of Kenneth Hansen who is believed to have murdered the Schuessler/Peterson boys, but he was a homosexual pedophile, so with his attraction to young boys, it is doubtful that he committed the Grimes murders.
Also in the very same story, Bielski claims that another suspect, Mr. Benny Bedwell "disappeared for all purposes from the face of the earth", that is also not true. For awhile, Mr. Bedwell was a fugutive, but was arrested on a warrant from Florida for the rape of a 13 year-old girl. The crime he was charged with in Florida closely resembled the one that took the lives of the Grimes sisters but he managed to avoid conviction for it, thanks to the passage of time while he was a fugitive. According to reports, Bedwell's accuser had been held captive for three days before escaping and notifying the police of her abduction and rape. Bedwell later spent time in prison on a weapons charge and died at some point after he was released in 1986.
If you have more than one discrepancy per story, how is any of the book to be taken seriously?

To "a reader" below: True, Ursula Bielski is not a "ghosthunter" in the infrared-gadgetry sense. She is an historian, a folklorist, and a talented, engaging, and professional writer and speaker with over 20 years experience investigating the paranormal. That is, both external supernatural phenomena and the internal, personal experiences of such.

There is a reason this book has been Lake Claremont Press's best-seller since 1997, when its first edition was released; that people from all walks of life give it rave reviews; and that it jumpstarts previously reluctant readers' interest in reading more about Chicago and deepening their understanding of their city.

Simply, she starts with a wildly-popular topic (evidenced in part by the number of imitators her book has spawned) that she is an expert in, then delivers her substance and seriousness with style, charm, and accessibility. Before they know it, readers find they are not only being entertained, but that they are learning something, even being pushed to make their own sense of the interplay of history, mystery, and belief.

In writing the first book on this subject, Bielski wrote the best--something wonderful that works on different levels for different people. Her complex telling of new and old ghost stories combines historical and sociological context, parapsychological theories, colorful legendary details, and a dash of mischief.

Take a copy out of your local library, and judge for yourself.

--Sharon Woodhouse, publisher, Lake Claremont Press