When the second exposure was completed, Mr. Hope took the slide out of the camera, carried it into the dark room, and emptied the plates into my hands in front of the red glass window. Making sure that my signature was on each of the plates, I placed them in a shaded receptacle, signed other two plates and put them into the slide with the same precautions as before. Then, seeing Mr. Hope out of the room, I shut the door and stood before it whilst two other exposures were made. Re-entering the dark room, I received the plates from the slide as before and proceeded to develop the four plates with material supplied by Mr. Hope, who remained in the room but stood as far from the developing dish as possible and left the whole of the handling to me.
Standing before the red window, I saw the images come up on the plates and noticed that on three of them there were figures other than the ordinary representations of the sitters. When development was finished, I carried the plates from the dark room and, before anyone else was allowed to touch them, I examined them individually and satisfied myself beyond doubt that they were the four identical plates on which I had written my name and that the normal figures on these plates corresponded with the four exposures I had seen made.
That each of the four plates bore my signature, clear and characteristic, I accepted as proof that these were the plates I had placed in the slide and no others, for it was impossible that my signature could have been forged: therefore, I reasoned, there had been no substitution of prepared plates.
Looking through the negatives, I could see that, in addition to the normal figures of the sitters, there were distinct “extras” on three of the plates, each “extra” being distinct in form from the others.
On No. 1 plate—that for which my wife and I had been the sitters—there was the clear representation of a face looking out from an arched veil. This “extra” was superimposed on the image of the sitters and partially obscured them, as if the “something” it represented had come between them and the lens.
As soon as the plate was dry, a rough print was obtained by placing a sheet of printing paper over the negative and holding it up to the window, through which the sun was shining. That rough print showed the normal figures and the “extra” as they were afterwards printed by Mr. Hope.
Five possibilities are, therefore, ruled out in seeking to account for this particular “extra”:
- 1. The plates were not faked before exposure.
- 2. There was no substitution of plates.
- 3. There was no double exposure.
- 4. There was no double printing.
- 5. The plate was not faked after development.
As soon as the rough proof of plate No. 1 was obtained, the face of the “extra” was recognised by my wife and myself as an unmistakable likeness of our elder son, who had been killed in the war, and this recognition was corroborated fully and completely later on by other members of the family, and is therefore beyond dispute.
In considering this likeness and its recognition, I take note of certain facts, namely: (1) That Mr. Hope did not know me and did not know my son, or even that I had a son; (2) that neither Mr. Hope nor anyone in the room, save my wife and myself, had ever seen my son, and that it is unlikely that any one of them had seen his photographs; and (3) that although the likeness is unmistakable, the image of the face is not a reproduction of any normal photograph.