The second of the photographs given as illustrations with this number is perhaps the most remarkable spirit-picture with which I am acquainted, and if one be in existence which is more remarkable, I confess I should like to see it. M. Leymarie, editor of the Revue Spirite, is one of the sitters, and Monsieur C. the other. They performed all the previous manipulations with the plate themselves, M. Buguet having nothing to do with the matter. Between M. Leymarie and his friend, who is shrouded in spirit drapery, comes the spirit, really more palpable and material than the sitters, an old friend who died at Pimprez (Oise) twelve years before, by name, Edouard Poiret. His form is enveloped in fluidic veil, but the face is the thoroughly developed face of a living man, every feature distinct, more so, in fact, than the faces of the sitters.

Source: Stainton Moses [“M.A. Oxon”], “Researches in Spiritualism. By M. A. Oxon. Spirit Photography-Chapter IV-(Continued) M. Buguet,” Human Nature: A Monthly Journal of Zoistic Science (London) February 1875, p. 82 Transcription courtesy John Buescher.

Stainton Moses’ endorsement of Buguet’s claims appeared in Human Nature for May, 1875. In the following month Buguet was arrested and charged by the French Government with the fraudulent manufacture of spirit photographs. When put on his trial Buguet made a full confession. The whole of his “spirit” photographs were, he stated, produced by means of double exposure. [A footnote on this page: A verbatim account of the trial will be found in a book, Proces des Spirites, published in Paris in 1875 by Madame Leymarie. M. Leymarie, editor of the Revue spirite, who had admittedly suggested to Buguet that he should endeavour to produce spirit photographs like those of Mumler, was put on his trial with Buguet, and was in the event condemned, notwithstanding his protestations of innocence, to a like punishment, viz. a year’s imprisonment and a fine of 500 francs.] . . .

Witness after witness–journalist, photographic expert, musician, merchant, man of letters, optician, ex-professor of history, colonel of artillery, etc., etc.–came forward to testify on behalf of the accused. . . . One after another these witnesses were confronted with Buguet, and heard him explain how the trick had been done. One after another they left the witness-box, protesting that they could not doubt the evidence of their own eyes. . . . Incidentally there were two or three curious bits of evidence on the value of recognition as a test. . . . Again, it came out in the evidence that a very clearly defined head (reproduced as an illustration to Moses’ articles in Human Nature), which had been claimed by M. Leymarie as the portrait of his almost lifelong friend, M. Poiret, was recognised by another witness as an excellent likeness of his father-in-law, still living at Dreux, and much annoyed at his premature introduction to the spirit world. [Footnote: Proces des Spirites, p. 42; see also Human Nature, 1875, frontispiece. The spirit head in the photograph is noticeably flat, thus testifying to its origin.]

The effect of the exposure on English Spiritualists appears to have been much the same as the effect on Buguet’s actual dupes. Stainton Moses remarked that the prosecution bore traces of clerical origin, that the judge was strongly biassed, and that Buguet was obviously a genuine medium, who had no doubt been bribed or terrorised to make a spurious confession, and to fabricate a box full of trick apparatus for exhibition at the trial. [Footnote: Human Nature, 1875, pp. 334, 335.]

Source: Frank Podmore, Mediums of the 19th Century, Vol. 2 (New Hyde Park, NY: University Books, 1963. Reprint of 1902 edition published by Methuen, London)– pp. 121-123. Transcription courtesy John Buescher.