A minor but ongoing mystery surrounds a couple of photos apparently taken of the British materialization medium Helen Duncan. The photos show a blindfolded and loosely secured Duncan in a chair during a séance, attended by two different "phantoms" – which, all too obviously, are crude, cartoonish puppets. The implication is that Duncan used these puppets in the dimly lit séance room to fool her clientele, but when they were captured on film in the glare of a photographer's flashbulb, their laughable artificiality was revealed.
Now and then, these photos show up on skeptical websites with some snarky comment to the effect that believers in mediumship actually accept these dolls as spirits. One website claimed that 60% of people on a pro-paranormal forum took the photos as genuine. It appears that the 60% figure was just made up.
I doubt that anyone other than the most hard-core true-believer would be fooled by the puppets, which appear to consist of papier-mâché heads, coat-hanger shoulders, and muslin or cheesecloth "bodies."
The controversy mainly concerns the photos' provenance and whether or not they actually depict Helen Duncan. If you search online, you'll find many sources attributing the photos to photographer Harvey Metcalfe, who took photos of Duncan in her home in 1928. It is said that the photos were reproduced in Harry Price's 1933 book Leaves from a Psychist's Case-Book, though when I searched for the name "Metcalfe" in the Google Books preview edition, nothing came up. (The preview format does not allow me to look for the photos themselves.)
In the forum linked above, a commenter named Open Mind offers this explanation:
The most authoritative book on the Duncan case is Maurice Cassier's Medium On Trial who comments on these photographs' history …
'... Price is silent about their origin in his published works, or about the circumstances under which they were taken—supposedly at Helen’s home ... It is even possible that the photographs are reconstructions of what was supposed to have been seen, in line with others to be presently considered ...'
Manfred Cassier, 1996, Medium on Trial
(Other books imply the photograph was taken by a Harvey Metcalfe due to his claim emerging after Duncan's death, however this claim is doubtful as Metcalfe didn't have the original photographs, only the same 4 photographs as in Harry Price's collection and it is a different name on the back of these)
I've ordered Price's book (used copies are still floating around), and when I get it, I'll let you know if the pictures are really in there and if any attribution is provided. At this point, having read a dozen different versions of the story, I trust no one!
Another photo that seems to be more solidly attributed to Metcalfe shows Duncan in apparently the same surroundings – at least, the wallpaper looks the same – spewing "ectoplasm" out of her nose to produce a materialized infant.In the puppet photos, the "ectoplasmic cord" extending from the puppet to the medium looks very much like a thick strip of cloth secured under the blindfold.)
Photo taken from the website Survival After Death
In his book Hellish Nell, Malcolm Gaskill similarly attributes the puppet photos to Metcalfe. This seems to be the conventional custom, and they may have originated in just that way.
But a question arises. Duncan was put on trial twice in her life, first in 1933 and later in 1944. In both cases, she was accused of fraud. The puppet photos would have been strong evidence against her, but they were not introduced in either trial. Moreover, Harry Price, who apparently published the photos in his 1933 book, was closely involved in the first trial, so he certainly would have known about the photos, if they existed at that time and if they were photos of Duncan herself.
What I've read in other sources is that the photos were discovered after Price's death, unlabeled and undated, mixed in with miscellaneous items in a desk drawer. People who make this claim say that the photos may have been taken later than Metcalfe's 1928 photo sessions, possibly by Price himself, using a stand-in for Helen Duncan and puppets that Price made in an effort to "re-create" the behind-the-scenes reality of a Duncan séance.
The same Open Mind cited above introduced a new bit of information in a comments thread on Michael Tymn's blog. He quoted from the book Helen Duncan: The Mystery Show Trial, by Robert Hartley:
6th November 1931, Empire News. Harry Price confirms he produced photographs using a model similar to Mrs Duncan and Butter Muslin [a gossamer-thin cloth] and that her husband Mr Duncan could not discern the forgery [p. 296]
The Empire News was a weekly newspaper published on Sundays in the UK.
The point of the quote is not that the puppet photos are the ones mentioned in the article, but simply that Price did sometimes photograph re-creations of séances using a stand-in. If he did it once, he could have done it again. If a stand-in was used, this would explain why the photos never came up in any trial. They could not be submitted as evidence, since they did not depict Duncan herself.
There seem to be three possibilities.
- The photos are of Helen Duncan and were taken by Harvey Metcalfe in 1928. Perhaps they were not introduced at trial because Metcalfe wasn't available to testify about them, or for some other reason.
- The photos were taken prior to 1933 and depict Duncan, but were not taken by Metcalfe.
- The photos were taken prior to 1933, were not taken by Metcalfe, and do not depict Duncan, only a stand-in.
- The photos were taken sometime after 1933, using a stand-in.
In the latter three cases, it is possible that Harry Price himself took the photos as part of his practice of re-creating seances. The post-1933 option is the least credible, because multiple sources attest that the photos are reproduced in Price's book, though at this point, as I said, I want to see for myself.
The controversy is not terribly important. Undisputed photos that Price took of Duncan (reproduced on the official Harry Price website) clearly show that the "ectoplasm" she exuded was cheesecloth or muslin. The tight weaving on the edges, known as selvage, is quite visible.
There was also an embarrassing incident when a sitter at one of Duncan's séances grabbed hold of the "materialized spirit guide" Peggy and tried to wrest "her" away from the medium. An undervest worn by Duncan, torn in the encounter, was later produced as evidence in Duncan's 1933 trial. It appears that Duncan had simply pinned a picture of a baby's face to the vest, something she had done more than once; the vest is littered with telltale pinpricks.
Photo taken from the website Survival After Death
Overall, I think Helen Duncan was a fake, though sending her to prison for nine months, as happened after her 1944 conviction, seems a tad harsh. But was she dim enough to think that her subpar "Punch & Judy" puppetry would stand up to flash photography? Or was she — in this case, at least — a victim of circumstances?
Recent Comments