‹ Back

JENNIFER MURPHY STILL LIVES is a short experimental horror film written, produced, and edited by Damian K. Lahey and read by Danielle Harris. The piece presents an urban legend about a teenage girl who was murdered, her story continuing to circulate through whispered rumors and half-remembered details within the town she left behind. We recommend watching the short in full before reading the analysis below, as its power lies in atmosphere, repetition, and implication rather than narrative resolution. The accompanying essay explores how the film constructs horror through absence, accumulation, and sound, and how it uses urban-legend structure, communal silence, and gendered neglect to examine what happens to women both before and after disappearance or death. Together, the short and the analysis invite viewers to consider how memory and refusal become lasting sources of horror.

 

 

 

Horror as Absence: When a Body Is Replaced by Memory in JENNIFER MURPHY STILL LIVES

By. Professor Horror 

 

“Something plastic had been burned in the lawn,” a detail offered without explanation, lingering just long enough to suggest that someone noticed, even if no one spoke. From this accumulation of quiet remnants emerges the film’s refrain: “I know Jennifer Murphy still lives.” JENNIFER MURPHY STILL LIVES is a short experimental horror film currently available to watch on YouTube, and from its opening moments it establishes memory rather than revelation as its central concern. Written, produced, and edited by Damian K. Lahey, and read by Danielle Harris (known for her roles in Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers, Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers, Hatchet, and Urban Legend), the piece operates less as a conventional narrative short than as a spoken-word horror poem accompanied by fragmentary visuals and persistent sound design. Rather than offering a mystery to be solved, the film constructs unease through implication, repetition, and withholding. Its focus is not what happened to Jennifer Murphy, but what remains when what happened is ignored. In doing so, the film positions memory itself as the primary site of horror.

 

The poem unfolds through an accumulation of objects and traces that resemble a crime-scene inventory without a body. The narration references “tattoo ink fingers,” “cooked spoons,” “a diary under the bed,” “a lighter found on the shelf,” and “a locket clenched in her fist.” Each item is ordinary, easily dismissed when encountered in isolation. Together, however, they suggest a pattern of warning signs and aftermath that was visible long before Jennifer’s disappearance and remains visible after it. Horror emerges not from a single act of violence, but from the uncomfortable recognition that these details were present and unaddressed. This logic mirrors how harm toward women is often normalized: fragmented, minimized, and only recognized retroactively, once it has become irreversible. The film does not ask viewers to reconstruct events, but to sit with the weight of what was noticed and ignored. Central to this effect is the film’s refusal to show Jennifer as a complete figure. She is never presented whole, never offered to the camera as a body to be examined or consumed. Instead, she exists only through fragments: dark hair framing faces that are never fully revealed, hands without identity, clothing without a body, stains without an act. A torn blouse and a crimson-stained scarf appear onscreen, but violence is never depicted directly. Blood is implied through rust-colored textures rather than spectacle. This refusal is not an act of restraint for its own sake, but it is the film’s thesis. Jennifer survives not as an image, but as residue...the traces left behind when attention arrives too late.

 

This fragmentation does not remain confined to Jennifer’s representation, but it also extends outward, shaping the social world around her and transforming absence into a communal condition. The film’s emphasis on environment and community turns the town itself into the haunting presence. Lines such as “You can lock the door, but you can’t hide from yourself,” “Everyone weeps, but not everyone forgives,” and “Go ahead, ask questions, but don’t try too hard” implicate collective silence as a form of violence. Jennifer’s disappearance is framed not as an isolated tragedy, but as the outcome of patterns that precede it: rumors ignored, warning signs minimized, discomfort avoided. Crucially, this neglect does not end with her disappearance. The community continues to live around the absence, allowing memory to stand in for accountability. The town becomes monstrous not through action, but through refusal...a familiar and deeply unsettling dynamic in narratives of gendered violence.

 

 

Without careful framing, JENNIFER MURPHY STILL LIVES risks being misread. Some viewers may mistake it for a true-crime reenactment or expect narrative payoff that never arrives. Others may interpret its restraint as aestheticizing trauma rather than resisting exploitation. These misreadings reflect a broader cultural tendency to seek resolution in stories about harmed women while overlooking the conditions that made harm possible in the first place. The film resists this impulse at every turn. It is not procedural, investigative, or interested in reconstruction. Instead, it operates as a poetic meditation on disappearance, memory, and communal failure, aligned with the logic of folklore rather than evidence.

 

The repeated insistence that “Jennifer Murphy still lives” ultimately crystallizes the film’s argument. The phrase does not suggest survival in a literal sense, but persistence through memory, rumor, and unresolved guilt. Jennifer lives because what happened to her was never addressed...before or after her murder. In the final moments, the speaker admits, “I don’t know what happened. I wasn’t even there,” even as the refrain returns once more. The contradiction is deliberate and devastating. JENNIFER MURPHY STILL LIVES understands horror not as a single act of violence, but as a condition sustained by neglect. By replacing the body with memory and spectacle with absence, the film reveals how ignoring what happens to women becomes a form of horror in itself, and one that allows harm to persist long after violence has passed. It is through this refusal of closure that the film’s final insistence takes hold: I know Jennifer Murphy still lives.