The New York herald., 1922-04-30
Spirit Photographs.
Court Testimony About Pictures
Like Conan D0yIe's.


To THE NEW YORK HERALD: Are the
celestial photographs produced by Sir
Arthur Conan Doyle in any way differ
ent from those produced by one William
II. Mumler In this city in February
April. 1863?
Mumler. old residents will remember.
was indicted for obtaining money under
false pr~tenses, but discharged by quash-
ing Of the indictment on a motion not
affecting the merits, which left the
question of supernatural agency unde-
cided / find a yoluminous report Of
the case of the People VS.. Mumler, in
which Elbridge T. Gerry appeared for
the People, on page AZ OF volume T..
The Law OF Literature by James APP
pleton Morgan, New York, James Cock
roft & Co.. 1875. as
The defendant alleged that he was a
spiritualistic medium. that he had no
idea of how these photographs were
produced, that he had no volition or
control over them other than as pho
tographer of ordinary pictures. That
he took photographs OF any sitter pre-
senting himself or herself, lin the ord-
at $40 apiece. But that on development
certain of these photographs revealed =.
shadowy or ghostly form bending over
the sitter. and that in every case where
these shadowy forms appeared the sitter
recognized the form as that of some
person he or she had known in life, who
at the time was dead; that some OF
these persons had been dead for many
years, and that there was no photograph
or portrait OF them taken in life Of which
either Mumler or the sitter had anv
knowledge or information.
The defendant Mumler offered to call
more than hundred Witnesses who had
sat for these photographs to the above
effect But only thirty witnesses were
called, the most prominent OF them BE-
ing John w. Edmonds, an ex-Justice
OF the New York Supreme Court, who
testified that he knew nothing about
the science of photography, but that No
had paid Mumler SO and had procured
his, Judge Edmonds's, photograph: that
upon this photograph was shauowy
form which he recognized as of a person,
then dead, whom he had known in life.
The witness was not required to say who
that deceased person was when living.
The only evidence to sustain the in
dictment produced by Mr.. Gerry was
that OF two we'll known New York city
photographers. lockwood testified that
he had been photographer for forty
years, that he or any other photographer
could produce spirit pictures similar to
those produced by Mumler by using u
partially predeveloped plate, that by this
partial development only a dim begin
ming OF finished photograph would
appear. and that by using this partially
developed plate upon which to photo
graph any sitter the g3iostly or shad-
owy outline would appear. But on cross
examination the witness could not tes-
tify that these spirit photographs taken
by Mumler were so produced.
Quincy, well known New York city
photographer. testified that he had
watched Mumler take several OF these
spirit photographs; that Mumler placed
the dark cloth over his head before the
plato was placed in the camera. and that
he kept his hand on the camera while
the photograph was being taken. Also
that Mrs. Mumler. the defendants
wife. was present in the room while
these spirit photographs which witness
wa tched were being taken. But the wit
ness could not testify to these condi-
tions when all the Mumler spirit photo
graphs were being taken, but only as to
those occurring when photographs were
taken when the witness was present.
The complainant upon whose state
ment the indictment was found could
only testify to the payment of $40 to
Mumler. to sitting for the photograph,
and that he was unable to recognize the
shadowy form shown upon witnesses
photograph. The witness was unable
upon cross-examination to testify as to
any knowledge or information as to
whether in taking his photograph the
defendant Mumler had used a predevel-
oped or partially predeveloped plate.
The court held that there was insufl-
cient evidence to sustain the Indictment
and granted the motion to quash.
Whatever the effect, IL any, of the
Mumler case upon Sir Arthur Conan
Doyle's statements. 1t must be admitted
that the evidence in the case Of People
VS.. Mumler does not dispose of Sir Ar
thur Conan Doyle himself.
HENRY c. BLAKEsLEB.
Nrn vopr. Arr;t