The Ghost (Stories) of South Brisbane Cemetery & Beyond

In the preceding post I mentioned a recent “Moonlight Tour” of South Brisbane Cemetery. Besides the recurrent gripes at Toowong what also stood out was the occasional ghost tale and paranormal allusion. While there’s nothing inherently wrong with the inclusion of such content it did go counter to some of my expectations. Quite early there was mention of a ‘Lady in Black’ who is reportedly sighted in the upper part known as the ‘teardrop’ (called so because the portions look like a teardrop shape on the map). This same story was reprised when we headed back up to the main gates. Members of the group were told to keep a look out for the spectre.


One point that bothered me about the description of this 'Lady in Black' was that we were never given any historical backing. As told that night, the tale/explanation behind the ghost was that she was in life a loving wife whose husband died young. She tended her husband’s grave side constantly then herself died not long after he had. I carried on wondering if there was an actual grave site in the 'teardrop' which housed the bodies of a man and his wife suitably timed in their deaths to match the narrative. In lieu of that it seemed like no critical reasoning was being applied. Because the tour was conducted by two main guides I should note that this particular narrative was told by Tracey Olivieri.

There was also supposition on the part of the other guide – Liam Baker, from Haunts of Brisbane – that an area around the grave of the captain responsible for the Pearl Disaster (which also contained the graves of a number of its victims) was subject to fluctuating temperatures due potentially to the close proximity of these bodies. Unless the area were shown to be one where temperature fluctuations were not to be expected or at the very least incredibly uncommon yet happening at high frequency then the supposition is meaningless. To posit a causal relation between a location’s temperature and who is buried/what happened there is rampant pattern seeking in the extreme.

With my interest peaked I decided to take a look at Olivieri’s, The Ghosts of South Brisbane Cemetery: Tales from my Backyard (2011). Although there is something of a disclaimer in the ‘Introduction’ where the author states, “I am not a ‘non-believer by any means”, we are nevertheless told that these tales are being cast as stories and nothing more (p.5). To a fair degree we may consider the book to be a brief memoir, comprised of personal and second-hand recollections concerning South Brisbane Cemetery. That provides one way to account for why the tales are simply told and not subjected to full critical evaluation.

Hints of criticality do emerge but are usually abandoned before reaching a conclusion. In an early example we are presented with the same story of the ‘Lady in Black’, then told that some versions of the story feature a nun in habit, while some connect the apparition to a lady who committed suicide in the river adjoining the cemetery in 1900, and others claim the ‘Lady’ is executed prisoner Ellen Thompson (pp.6-8). Giving an answer to the unrequited curiosity I experienced on the tour, Olivieri states in the following section, “out of respect for the deceased and any family members I believe it is always inappropriate to try and ‘identify’ any alleged ghost” (p.12). But isn’t that disrespect just paying the piper? In my view, if one chooses to draw on the appeal of ghost stories during historical talks or tours then it is inevitable that questions of accuracy and tenability will arise. Those questions may well lead to the necessity of assessing if a situation matching the story exists (as with the question of a suitable grave for the ‘Lady in Black’ above) and hence to identification. Furthermore, such inquiry may actually be respectful to the deceased and their descendants when a supposed ghost has previously been given an identity but that identification is entirely inconsistent with historical data (a recent case being that of ‘Mary Mayne’ in the Brisbane Arcade).

Subsequently, the author seems to pursue identification despite the earlier attitude to the contrary. Relating a story told to her by “an old and trusted friend” (p.19), Olivieri writes:

“He later heard from a neighbour that a young man had hanged himself years ago near the cemetery, at a place that was not yet within the cemetery grounds at the time. I looked into this myself and sure enough there have been a few suicides around the cemetery over time, including men who hanged themselves from trees. Are those stories related to this story? I cannot say, because that would just be meaningless speculation” (p.20)

One may try to argue that this isn’t identification because no names are given. However, it must be remembered that due to the very accessible National Libraries Australia online database of newspapers it is quite easy to find out the details of suicides potentially including names as in the case of the ‘Lady in Black’ suicide mentioned above.

Personally, I wouldn’t engage in such efforts as the identification of ghosts. Not in the least because the nature of the phenomenon is in question – are people seeing spirits of the dead, experiencing hallucinations, or something different? We cannot simply assume we all know what a ghost is, nor has anyone proven a connection to demonstrate that such localities as cemeteries, hospitals, or murder sites give rise to a phenomenon and that phenomenon is what we call a haunting. What I do find quizzical is that Olivieri holds these attitudes but nevertheless conducts tours in conjunction with the author of Haunts of Brisbane, a blog that persistently tries to identify the ghosts behind various tales and engages in what Olivieri seems to be describing as “meaningless speculation”.

Of course, the speculation is only meaningless if one doesn’t ascribe to some loose assumption that ghosts exist and hauntings are the product of tragic circumstance. That kind of assumption certainly appears to me to be present on the Haunts of Brisbane where existing accounts behind hauntings/ghosts are disputed and attempts are made to explain what are still taken to be valid occurrences. Putting history into the picture frequently debunks ghost stories in a way distinct to the use of historical material on Haunts of Brisbane though. If a story is shown to be unsubstantiated then it undermines the validity of the account, which in turn pulls the sheet off of a fraudulent ghost.

In my assessment, the efforts of Olivieri and Baker remain qualitatively different from the spurious ramblings of many ghosts and paranormal enthusiasts. Olivieri's book doesn't purport to be anything other than a collection of stories. On that note we may consider it in a different class to the similarly titled, The Ghosts of Toowong Cemetery (originally published in 2007, but reprinted in 2008 minus glaring errors that listed the cemetery as being open between sunset and sunrise only, and intimated that Samuel Blackall was a time traveller, born decades after his death – all quotes are from the 2008 edition) by Jack Sim. So, "Who the hell is Jack Sim?" you may ask. Well, going by his website with the just-quoted title one may be tempted to say he's a vigorous self-promoter. I should also make it clear that this is a different Jack Sim from the man of the same name who heads the World Toilet Organisation. I respect that Jack Sim. Actually, the author and Ghost Tours business owner is only using "Jack" as a trading name (http://businessprofiles.com/details/cameron-owen-sim/AU-54451041904). For the sake of not really caring what people call themselves let's henceforth refer to him as Mr. Sim so that everyone is happy.

Like Olivieri's Ghosts of South Brisbane, there's some author-info in the back of Ghosts of Toowong. Here we are told that Mr. Sim "has dedicated his life to preserving the details of things and subjects that all of us find both macabre and thrilling" and is described as a "dark historian" (p.41). When I want something "macabre and thrilling" I will read Lovecraft. To my mind, trite and irritating are words more fitting to Mr. Sim's self-publications.

Let's now deal with the "historian" label. On no documented occasion has Mr. Sim ever offered proof that he is a legitimate historian. It seems almost a running joke to ask for Mr. Sim's qualifications, in full knowledge that the only response will be silence. But what about amateur historians one may ask. Well, I would argue that Mr. Sim falls far short of even that designation.

Firstly, I say he falls short of being even an amateur historian because for a man supposedly "dedicated ... to preserving the deatils" he fails on some quite basic points. In the ‘Introduction’, Toowong Cemetery is listed as "257 acres (57 hectares)" (p.i). Actually, 257 acres would be a little over 104 hectares but that's not the real issue with Mr. Sim's claim. The problem is its completely wrong - Toowong Cemetery covers an area of just over 108 acres. The sign near the gates has the accurate area so it wouldn't be hard to ascertain, qualifications or not.

Another noticeable piece of historically misinformed writing is the chapter concerning the Mayne family (pp.27-9). Disgracefully the entire family is dubbed "the murderous Maynes" (I have never seen that label used outside of Mr. Sim's work or tours). Even the year that the only suspected murderer (and focus of the chapter), Patrick Mayne died is incorrect: it was 1865 not 1875 as Mr. Sim states! The story he presents has already been summarily deconstructed by Haunts of Brisbane so those wanting to know how it differs from history may visit: (http://hauntsofbrisbane.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/murderous-maynes-patrick-did-um-didnt.html).

A final glaring error is the mislabelling of 11th Avenue as 13th Avenue (p.37) despite the real 13th avenue being the short stretch of road that connects 8th Avenue to Boundary Road. Tragically in my opinion, Mr. Sim doesn't even give us a replacement 11th Avenue. Given that the false 13th Avenue is connected to a story in the book (about the Cemetery's own vampire no less, which "is said to be walking Thirteenth Avenue in the heart of the cemetery) and on Mr. Sim's tour (allegedly the sign is missing because people frequently steal it), I would conclude that the defacing of the Cemetery's map is based solely on Mr. Sim wanting to force it to fit his tales. Not what I would consider the actions of a genuine historian.

Interestingly, Mr. Sim appears to get a mention (albeit without direct identification) towards the end of The Ghosts of South Brisbane. Olivieri tells us that a “few years ago” she was approached and given the opportunity to work as a “ghost tour guide” at South Brisbane (p.36). After deciding not to take the job and “quite recently ... planning a series of not-for-profit night tours”, Olivieri reports that legal action was threatened because the company feared she would use material from its script and claimed their stories were “not common knowledge or in the public realm”. In my opinion, Olivieri is correct in her evaluation that “an attempt was being made to privatise public history and folklore.” Unless the stories were someone’s intellectual property (i.e. they made them up and can prove this) I would greatly doubt anyone’s ability to claim sole ownership of genuine local stories.

Do we have any comment relevant to this in Ghosts of Toowong Cemetery? In the ‘Introduction’ Mr Sim claims "these stories are not made up. They come from local people, old grave diggers and cemetery staff." So what this really means is that the stories are not made up by Mr. Sim. But considering he did not create or invent the stories who is he to claim ownership? Moreover, simply because local people are telling stories provides nothing to assess their truth by. Therefore it’s entirely possible his “local people, old grave diggers and cemetery staff” are making things up. This pertains to the discussion of whether Mr. Sim is a historian because if we look at the references page he states that all chapters use "Various personal oral histories (withheld by request). Authors own collection" (p.40). Unlike the academic history that I practice, there is no accountability whereby source material is available for collective scrutiny. In the case of Ghosts of Toowong Cemetery we are asked to trust that these are valid accounts without ever knowing who, when, where in the cemetery or any other details.

All I see in Ghosts of Toowong Cemetery is a loose compilation of allegedly genuine accounts, perpetuating a set of standards that accepts hearsay at face value. On the occasions previously listed when we can evaluate the accuracy on its contents, the book is sorely lacking. In a final summation I certainly believe that if there was greater concern and awareness of history then what I describe as these commercial sideshows would be either brought up to par or laughed out of existence. Now, I have no problem with ghost stories being presented as nothing but fun and folklore, but when assertions of accuracy or historical capacity are suggested then the standards of the discipline should be met.

Brisbane: Big Enough for Two Historical Cemeteries

In the past I have written and conducted tours for the Friends of Toowong Cemetery as I have more than a passing interest in local history as articulated through cemetery walks. Last Friday I had the pleasure of attending a nocturnal tour of South Brisbane Cemetery conducted by the Friends of said site. I say 'pleasure' in no small part because the tour was lacking the gaudy baubles and irritations (e.g. 'spooky hosts' in questionable costuming, pretending to be vampires etc, and scripts with inaccuracies) that are the hallmark of other night time tours operating in the local region.


My impressions of the tour aside, I decided to write a post because of a general sense of recurrent comparison that the tour guides set up between Toowong and South Brisbane Cemeteries. This comparative reprise had the tone of what might, in vernacular slang, be called a 'pissing contest' over which was the older, grander, more wonderful cemetery. Those which I explicitly remember had to do with the respective 'age' of each (marked by first burial), the number of people interred, and the fact that South Brisbane has "a [Queensland] premier too". On the whole, I found such comments to be quite pointless.

What directly prompted me to write was the reiteration of those same sentiments in the facebook event created for the upcoming tour on 24th August (http://www.facebook.com/events/424863900888632/). The first line of the event description reads: "Whilst Toowong Cemetery on the City's west-side lays claims to a number of Queensland's important pioneers and events, South Brisbane holds yet an earlier record of Brisbane's history".

Does it though? Both cemeteries were established in 1866. The first burial in South Brisbane took place on 1st August 1870. According to information gathered from the Council's Grave Location Search and also from the Friends of South Brisbane Cemetery website, this was the burial of a lady named Jane Hocking (or Hockings depending on source). Presumably she is a relation of Albert John Hocking as they are buried in the same plot. The Friend's site lists A J Hocking as a member of the cemetery trustees. Other than that I know nothing further of Jane. Toowong Cemetery's first burial occurred on the 3rd January 1871, only a matter of months after South Brisbane's debut. The burial in question was that of Governor Samuel Blackall. Not a good place to start a 'pissing contest', Friends...

Looking again at the event page, we see that the two first mentioned topics are the 1896 Pearl Tragedy and the executed criminals buried in South Brisbane. Toowong Cemetery has both victims of the Pearl Tragedy and victims of the hangman's noose. Indeed, the latter are those from Petrie Terrace Gaol which predates the Boggo Road inmates that rest in South Brisbane. How is this proof of a "yet earlier record of Brisbane's history"? It should also be noted that the history which cemeteries bear witness to predates the burial times of those interred in them anyway. That is to say we have as much interest in the lives of the people interred as we do in the date and moment of their death/funeral/burial when studying the significance of a cemetery.

Although it barely merits attention, the event description also lists a "Lady in Black" as being a 'resident' apparition of South Brisbane. If one chooses to focus (or even believe) in such things then Toowong likewise has a catalogue of such characters, some genuine folklore, some the partial fiction of more recent story-tellers.

To conclude, I still find a sense of competition quite meaningless. Brisbane has a long and interesting history, and certainly enough of a colourful past to fill at least two cemeteries. The very fact that many historical events encompass persons memorialised and interred at both Toowong and South Brisbane is testament to the mutual importance of each location.