Puppet show

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.

1. 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.
2. The photos were taken prior to 1933 and depict Duncan, but were not taken by Metcalfe.
3. The photos were taken prior to 1933, were not taken by Metcalfe, and do not depict Duncan, only a stand-in.
4. 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? 

Comments

[Paul]

Very interesting Michael thank you. I’ve often wondered about the provenance of the puppets in the images. The seem to me so awful that only a fool or someone completely bought-into her would suggest they are good evidence. They don’t even look like a good idea if they were simply intended as models.

Helen Duncan is a bit of a curiosity, there are so many seemingly conflicting accounts of her abilities that I find it impossible to consider her work as evidential although many did. I guess seeing is believing.

[Roger Knights]

"The tight weaving on the edges, known as selvage, is quite visible."

I came up with a mischievous refrain employing that word about ten years ago:

WE'RE the sensible selvage, not the lunatic fringe; that's THEM!

[Kris]

I for one not only think the pictures represent perfectly what spirits look like, I look forward to spending the rest of eternity looking just that way :)

The spirits look a little humorless though, they clear have a stick in their butt.

Seasons greetings everyone.

[Paul]

Careful what you wish for Kris.....
Happy 2020!

[David Chilstrom]

It is interesting that the provenance of these bizzare photos goes seldom unquestioned. Were they staged by some unethical photographer while the medium was in trance? Are they ill-conceived publicity photos? Recreations of suspected fraud? It is difficult to believe that even the most enthusiastic Spiritualist would be taken in by such transparent tomfoolery.

Harry Price was, himself, a controversial and perhaps "mixed" medium investigator, who may have sometimes fudged facts for a good headline. Maurice Barbanell, author of The Case of Helen Duncan, editor for Psychic News, and medium for Silver Birch, had the opposite opinion of Helen Duncan from his examination of her talent.

Physical mediumship has often gotten an especially bad rap (pun intended), and the prejudice surrounding it adds to the natural cognitive burden of entertaining the possibility of facts well beyond the realm of typical experience.

If I have to bank on the integrity of these two investigators, then I'm inclined to believe the Price is not right.

[Simon]

While there is little doubt those images do show fake materialisations I think it unwise to dismiss ALL Helen's phenomena as fraudulent.

One only has to read the accounts of those present at her seances to realize that.

See here: http://helenduncan.org/sitters-accounts/

And we also have the report that was submitted by a team of magicians headed by William Goldston, founder of the Magician's Club.

They were astounded when their dead magician friend, The Great Lafayette, materialised and spoke to them. Goldston sent a report to Psychic News confirming that in their opinion Helen Duncan's mediumship was absolutely genuine and that no magician could possibly duplicate the phenomena that he and his fellow magician's had witnessed.

I hardly think such men would be fooled by some paper mache puppets!

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

I don’t know if you used this as a reference Michael but there might be some interest in an article on the web published in Psypioneer Journal, Volume 11,, No. 10/11: October – November 2015 concerning Mr. Harvey Metcalfe and whether or not he was the photographer that took the pictures of Helen Duncan and her ‘control’ Peggy starting on page 225.

An editor of Psypioneer Journal, apparently Paul J. Gaunt , commented that,

“The Metcalfe link to the four images tends to lead only to a book by Alan Crossley published in 1975. Did Crossley give incorrect information about the origin of the images? His book contains numerous errors . . . “

There seems to be some question whether or not Metcalfe actually took the pictures in under discussion. Anyway, there is a lot of interesting information about Helen Duncan, Metcalfe as well as others in this issue of Psypioneer Journal. There is also a photograph of Metcalfe.– AOD

http://www.iapsop.com/psypioneer/psypioneer_v11_n10-11_oct-nov_2015.pdf

[Paul]

Very interesting link Simon - thank you.

[Matt Rouge]

Michael,

Very interesting!

All,

Happy New Year!