Can't Say I Didn't Warn Him...

In my previous post, I talked about a fly-by-night-commenter named "Gothic":

Every time I check the link to his profile, it leads me to a dead end. Should this happen again, his comments will be rejected for publication.

On November 1, 2008 4:00 AM, he posted a comment to "Gothic Returns!". I thought he might have learned his lesson, so I checked the link provided via his username.

And wouldn't you know it? Another dead end.

As a result, I'm forced to dispose of his comment. My hand has been forced on this one, due to similar tactics played by other anonymous types. I mean, come on. There's gotta be some kind of accountability for what's being said here. Especially when they attempt to speak with a tinge of authority.

To add insult to injury, "Gothic" didn't even bother responding to the questions I addressed him!

Oh well. Tough break, "Gothic"!

Gothic Returns!

It's nice when I get comments on my blog.

Unfortunately, they've tended to be by the fly-by-nighter, Gothic. Every time I check the link to his profile, it leads me to a dead end. Should this happen again, his comments will be rejected for publication.

Anyhoo, his most recent contributions (perhaps appropriately) have been to "Impostor Strikes Again!".

Let's take a look at what he had to say on October 1, 2008 6:30 PM. I'll add comments of my own:

The FoBSM, as understood by most, is an informal support group who act in the bishop's interest as they perceive that interest to be.

As they "perceive his interest to be", eh? So, in other words, they "represent" him...but without authorisation to do so. Within that context, pretty much anything goes, including stalking, harassment, etc. After all, defense, in this case, is in the "eye of the beholder".

We are given to understand that the police have encountered a problem tracking down the Craig Adams who posted illegally under the nom de plume "Hulk Hogan." They will not interview the wrong person and the crime is not serious enough to warrant them to be spending endless hours on a wild goose chase sifting through everyone bearing the name "Craig Adams."

Your use of "we" indicates that you're a member of the FoBSM. How unfortunate. Although, not surprising.

Anyhoo, regarding the case, you're essentially saying that it's your prerogative to a) request personal information of someone, via online means b) without authorisation of either the law or the person (Manchester) you represent. In other words, the "vigilante" tag I gave your clandestine group, is rather apt.

There still remains a crime to be answered and the police have apparently told the complainant that if an address is confirmed for the offender they will certainly be interviewing him. Craig Adams might not even be the offender's real name, as the police also pointed out. In the United Kingdom the public are asked to assist the police who are overworked and over-stretched. The request made by FoBSM was in that spirit.

Then you'll also remember that Peroxide, the author of the blog, claimed to have had Craig's IP address. She/he also admitted to stalking them via Facebook and Bebo and had no problem in publicly publishing personal details about him (at least, she/he thought it was him) via their own blog.

The FoBSM isn't above such shady tactics themselves, which include forwarding along personal details included in an e-mail, to an "independent" (but obviously not so) source.

So, forgive me if I have little sympathy for their "plight".

You are falling into the trap of employing false and misleading allegations made by those with an axe to grind. This time the piece of misinformation you have used originates with Barbara Green who has repeatedly stated that a property on the south coast of England sometimes occupied by Bishop Manchester and his wife is a church. It is nothing of the sort and has never been described as a church by anyone except Barbara Green.

From my recollection, the picture in question actually had a sign in the window, with a "Holy Grail Church" label on it. That'd be an unusual thing to put on a private retreat.

It has always been described by Bishop Manchester as his private retreat. It does contain a private chapel, but it is not a church and never has been. Repeating Barbara Green's malicious allegations is an indication of partiality - something you try to deny. She knows the property is not a church. Bishop Manchester's principal church is in Glastonbury.

Question: how are you privy to such information? How do you know if it's his retreat or not? The item I referred to was a photograph. Do you have an acquaintance with him? Are you writing in as his representative?

Also, would you mind revealing where in Glastonbury his church is meant to be?

And now, we move onto Gothic's October 1, 2008 10:46 PM comments:

You use the word "revealing" when all Craig Adams posted (copying Farrant's style) is a number of unsubstantiated claims. Adams offered no evidence to suggest that any IPs were the same as Bishop Manchester's IP. He made a false allegation. That is all. A false allegation which you have reproduced as fact, just as Adams reproduces Farrant's false allegations as fact. Where is the evidence?

Admittedly, this is true.

Craig only claimed that the usernames came from the same IP as the Bishop's. Would you like me to get him to publicly publish the IPs, so he can prove his case?

Dennis Crawford requested not to be identified by name or as being part of the investigating team at the time the first edition of The Highgate Vampire was being prepared. This was his condition for including his picture which also includes another member of the team.

What's your source for this bit of information? Can you reproduce it?

The media interviewed him during the case and he did use his first name, but not his surname.

Can you cite an article(s) where this occurred?

That was changed. With the passing of years and altered circumstances he eventually published his full name on the internet and allowed its appearance in The Vampire Hunter's Handbook.

What were the "altered circumstances"?

It was Dennis Crawford's own suggestion to be captioned as an anonymous freelance vampire hunter soon after the case was closed when the first edition was in preparation. He was probably concerned about possible repercussions so soon after the case had been brought to a close. His image was not used in the second edition to avoid any confusion as he had by the Nineties become a familiar figure in his own right and would have been recognised instantly by those in certain circles.

Which begs the question: why would a man so concerned about his private identity, willingly allow his picture to be published in a book associated with the case? People aren't just identifiable by name, you know.

Also, just how had he become a familiar figure "in his own right"? I've seen no mention of him, apart from being association with the Vampire Research Society. And considering that he claims an involvement with the Highgate Vampire Case since its inception, he was hardly earning this fame on his own, independent level.

However, if he was, I invite you to prove it.

Peroxide Gets Bleached and Unfortune Associations

Well, it looks like another blog dealing with he Highgate Vampire Case has gone and bitten the dust.

Current attempts to access Peroxide's blog, are now met with this calling card:



No surprises there.

It had pretty much degenerating into the typical slanging match found elsewhere. That said, the blog's zealous aim of discrediting David Farrant, probably didn't help much.

Speaking of David, his "Whatever Keeps People Happy..." entry in The Human Touch, has yielded this gem:

I see my interview on the Highgate case has gone up now on “Paranormal Knowledge”.

Nice to be referred to as a “Famous psychic investigator” as opposed to being referred to as a ‘vampire hunter’!

It's strange that David seems adverse to such a term, when his own website advertises a book called (wait for it), Return of the Vampire Hunter: An Exclusive Interview with Reclusive Vampire Hunter, David Farrant (2003) by Rob Milne.

Even the "reclusive" bit is kinda funny, considering how much contributions he makes to discussions concerning the Highgate Vampire Case (which, paradoxically, he claims not to like discussing). Oh, and he's also the head of the Highgate Vampire Society, to boot.

The VRS Has No Problem Disseminating Personal Correspondence

I previously mentioned that I'd be reproducing an e-mail I sent to the VRS website. It found its way into the hands of The (Fake) Overseer, who used it to publicly reveal my name on Did A Vampire Walk In Highgate?.

The e-mail was subjected "The Cross and the Stake" and was originally sent on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 7:49 AM.:

Hello,

I am a member of the Cross and the Stake (The Inquisitive One) and have been most disturbed by something that has been occuring on our forum.

I could not find a means to contact the moderators of the board directly, so here goes:

Hans, aka van_liebenstropf, has been a most disruptive force on it. He continuously ridicules another member - SteadfastCarol - with insults.

He is wasting large amounts of forum space with his twisted posts and I believe he is allowed to do this because of the non-presence of the moderators on the message board.

Please attempt to rectify this situation as his behaviour is getting to the point of either requiring an admonishment or the threat of a ban.

Sinc.,
InqOne

My real name was contained in the e-mail address.

It's nice to know that the VRS isn't above sending along such e-mails onto so-called "independent parties" with an axe to grind. Let that be a warning to anyone else who is concerned about their personal information being sent along to nameless entities.

Impostor Strikes Again!

"Coincidentally", after rumbling a fake Overseer in my previous blog entry, the other (yet, still fake) Overseer of Did A Vampire Walk In Highgate? decided to launch a flurry of posts on Peroxide's blog.

I'll take this opportunity to address the portions of a comment (September 26, 2008 at 8:39 am) he made, which discusses myself:

The person in Australia who now adopts “The Overseer” as his tag, having previously and perhaps more accurately called himself “The Inquisitive One,” is full of double standards. He moans on his personal blog about a request put out by FoBSM for information leading to the discovery of Craig Adams’ whereabouts, but carefully omits mention of the reason, ie that this information was required strictly to assist a police enquiry.

Yes, my username on The Cross and The Stake was "The Inquisitive One". I was unceremoniously booted from it for having the gall to start a so-called "rival forum". No secret there. I've covered the origins of my forum here.

As to "moan[ing]" about the FoBSM's "request", here's what I actually said: "they are allowing a comment by a Manchester-supporting vigilante group (the FoBSM) to request personal details of someone, via a public medium ("Farrant's Friends", 1st comment)".

And while we're at it, I'll mention something else I said, via a comment on Peroxide's blog: "Oh, and what else? Encouraging vigilante-like behaviour, by allowing the FoBSM to post requests for the *personal address of someone*. Since when are they the police?"

Since when is an unrepresentative body like the FoBSM - while hiding behind an alias, at that - allowed to request the personal address of someone, on a police matter? Especially if they claim the police are looking into it already?

It's equally disturbing when the blog's very author reveals themselves to be a stalker of the same person the FoBSM is looking for!

Our Australian false “Overseer” is full of jibes against Bishop Manchester supporters and praise for the likes of Don Ecker and Craig Adams, both flunkies of David Farrant. Adams has received the false “Overseer’s” admiration on any number of occasions, not least on Ecker’s now disabled website where malice was aplenty against Bishop Manchester.

This item is symptomatic of a prevailing attitude that tends to come across in debates/feuds concerning the Highgate Vampire Case.

If you criticise one side, then you must be on the other! For, or against!

This particular item is interesting in light of the fact that I have previously been accused of being Bishop Manchester himself! I've also been censored by both of the main sides of the debate.

Now, regarding the so-called "jibes" I've made against Manchester, well, the accuser seems to have a problem with citations and specifics, as no examples are given in which this is meant to have taken place. Nor are any examples of the praise I am meant to have heaped on Craig or Don. That said, I have complemented Craig for revealing that a batch of usernames emanating from Manchester's IP (See: "Who Is The Informative One?") and for exposing that a picture alleged to be of Dennis Crawford appears in the first edition of The Highgate Vampire (1985) merely as a "freelance vampire hunter". This is in spite of his alleged attachment to the Case since its inception.

Despite going on about people’s privacy, the false “Overseer” turned a blind eye to the fact that Craig Adams posted images of one of the bihop’s private addresses and informed of its location on Ecker’s forum. Adams went to the trouble of having an acquaintance take photographs clandestinely of the house in question.

That's a fair cop. I suppose I should have at least raised a voice in protest. I certainly don't agree with such invasions of privacy, even though the house in question, was meant to have been the Bishop's church, if I'm not mistaken.

This behaviour attracted no criticism from our Australian cousin, but just mention information that the false “Overseer” has already published on the internet about himself and he screams privacy violation and repeats the accusation over and over ad infinitum.

What the fake Overseer is evading, in this regard, is the source of private information, publicly posted about myself.

And it's no surprise, considering that the fake Overseer himself was the one who did it!

The matter regards the public revelation of my name. And, more disturbingly, how the fake Overseer found it out. I've previously covered the matter here.

To give you the gist of it, though, I'll say that it came by way of an e-mail originally sent to the VRS website. I'll reproduce that e-mail in my next blog entry.

Another regurgitating theme this curious inquisitive one from the back and beyond returns to with tedious regularity is how other people post anonymously by using net names instead of their real identity. Hello? Did I miss something? That’s exactly what he does which is why he only posts nowadays as “The Overseer.” It was not always so. There was a time he called himself “Count Dracula” but spelt backwards. There was also a time when he used to post on the internet using his real name. But we won’t mention that. And neither will he!

Again, the fake Overseer decides to selectively represent the issue.

My beef with revealing people's personal names, is how they are acquired.

In this case, through the dissemination of private e-mails by the VRS to allegedly "independent" parties, who, in turn, use them to stalk and harass people.

Regarding my name appearing elsewhere on the internet, sure it does. For example, I have written book and movie reviews on Amazon.com. I used the "tnouc alucard" username in association with my real name under one such review.

But the real matter here is, how would the fake Overseer have even connected my real name to my username...if it wasn't for the VRS disseminating private correspondence in the first place? I certainly didn't use my real name when writing as "The Inquisitive One".

And, lastly, the other factor which the fake Overseer once again avoids, is one of hypocrisy.

Why would someone who hides behind an alias...castigate others for doing the same? This same practice is carried out by Peroxide and "Dissenting Shadows".

As of this writing, the fake Overseer is yet to even reveal their real name.

Impostor on My Trail

I recently gave some brief coverage ("Feudy Madness") to an impostor who has appropriated my username (i.e., "The Overseer").

Well, they've been at it again.

They left a fresh comment on "Peroxide'"s blog entry, "Game On". This was my reply.

The person in question, is most likely a member of an MSN Group forum called Did A Vampire Walk In Highgate?.

They are sympathetic to Sean Manchester, or, more disturbingly, alleged to be Sean Manchester himself (See: "Who Is The Informative One?").

My main worry with this miscreant identity-thief, is that he makes use of my username - or, worse, my actual name - to falsely attribute posts or messages to myself.

Nicked at Highgate Cemetery

The reproduction to follow, was originally a response to a request I put to David Farrant, via Don Ecker's now-defunct message board, Dark Matters Radio Exploration.¹ The matter is featured in "Getting Bothered" and "Still Getting Bothered".

David has kindly given me permission to reprint his version of the story:²

FOR THE OVERSEER


ORIGINAL ‘VAMPIRE HUNTING’ COURT CASE OF 1970

This is not just for you personally, Overseer, but to set the record straight over all the confusion that might have occurred about this original Court case; the one which mainly contributed to the story that a ‘blood-sucking vampire’ really lurked in London’s Highgate Cemetery, and which saw myself at the centre of the whole affair.

[The following points have been put in note form to save endless repetition of this event.]

In the late 60s there were voluminous reports about a ‘tall, dark figure’ that had been seen in and around London’s Highgate Cemetery. With the British Psychic and Occult Society (BPOS), I decided to launch an investigation into all these accounts to see if there might be any foundation for them.

December, 1969, I visited the cemetery alone in an attempt to see if there might be any logical explanation behind these reports. That same evening, I actually witnessed a tall dark shape just inside the top gate of Highgate Cemetery. After this, the Society had members stationed in the cemetery by night to see if we might be able to obtain some photographic evidence of the entity’s appearances.

Then, in August 1970, a group of five of us eventually visited Highgate Cemetery (with a psychic medium) with the intention of holding a séance. For this purpose, we had with us several ‘magical implements’, including small Celtic crosses, cameras, candles, incense, and a tape recorder. The area chosen to perform the séance was a flat area of ground above the ‘Circle of Lebanon’, a Victorian circle of tombs not far from the back gate of the cemetery.

Unfortunately this was interrupted by the police, who had been keeping a watch on HC because of serious vandalism in months prior to this.

As the police approached, the four other people headed back towards the front of the cemetery, where they had two cars parked. I decided to leave via the back garden of a house which backed on to the cemetery, situated in South Grove. I knew the people who lived there, and therefore felt quite confident should I have been spotted in their garden. I discarded some of the paraphernalia I was carrying, but was shortly afterwards apprehended by the police.

I was taken to Hornsey Road police station, and the police had obviously found the discarded items, as they were lined up on a desk. These included a wooden cross, a wooden stake with a piece of string attached to it, some candles, my portable tape recorder, and a small camera.

I was questioned extensively by the police, who had already heard stories of a ‘vampire’ that lurked within the cemetery. I told them virtually nothing, except to say our presence was due to a serious psychic investigation into this phenomenon. To protect other members of the society from unwanted publicity, I refused to disclose their names. I also gave them a false name, and refused to give them my address in Highgate (which in fact is why some newspapers quoted me as being of ‘no fixed address’).

The detective in charge said if I was willing to plead guilty to the charge next morning, the case would be over without any fuss, and I would only get a technical warning for trespass.

I took him at his word, and pleaded guilty. But as soon as I had entered my plea, this detective made a statement to the court involving statements that I was alleged to have given. He said the ‘accused’ had told him that I had intended to search through coffins in vaults in Highgate Cemetery, to look for the ‘King Vampire of the Undead’. When I found it, he added, I intended to drive a wooden stake through its heart and then ‘run away’. He went on to say that there had been unlimited serious vandalism at HC since these vampire stories had started, and he believed I was one of those people responsible for it.

Now, ironically, as I had pleaded guilty to the offence, it is little wonder that all of this was being believed by the stipendiary magistrate, Mr. D. J. Purcell. It is also perhaps of little wonder that he remanded me in custody for medical reports, and remarked that I really ought to see a doctor.

As soon as I realized (in fact within half an hour) that the police had attempted to ‘frame me’ by entering a plea of guilty, I immediately changed my plea and decided to fight the case. Unfortunately, this was too late to prevent newspapers from picking up the story, whose reporters had been present in court, and apparently been granted free licence to ‘quote the police evidence’. (Please remember, my own evidence had not even been heard at this stage.) Subsequently, I became known as a ‘vampire hunter’ by the press, and this label has somehow always ‘stuck’.

In reality, after entering a plea of not guilty, I was given bail and went back to court determined to fight the case. It was adjourned twice more (on the second occasion it was heard by Magistrate Christopher Lea!) but finally heard on September 30th 1970. I informed the court that the police evidence had been untrue, that the stake had not been intended to ‘force open’ any coffins, and that in any event it was just as akin to ‘hunt vampires’ (which was the essence of the charge) as it was for some to spend small fortunes hunting out the Loch Ness Monster.

When he had heard all the evidence, the magistrate (D. J. Purcell again), stated that he was quite satisfied that my intention had not been to damage or open coffins. Had he though otherwise, he added, he would have treated the matter much more seriously by issuing a custodial sentence. He also added at the end, that in any event, the cemetery was not even an ‘enclosed area’ in the strict legal sense.

I was formally acquitted, the court having not believed the original police evidence.

End of story really, everyone, it is only some people with seemingly desperate intentions who try to make the facts seem otherwise.

David Farrant.

N.B. Don, please do not take any offence at my attack on the police, as I know you used to be a police officer yourself. But the difference is, in the 60s and 70s the Metropolitan police were notorious for ‘setting up’ innocent people when they could not catch the real culprits. This was before the days when tape recordings, and access to solicitors, were made compulsory.

The response certainly raises some questions, which I'll raise in a future post.

¹ David Farrant. "Re: From David". Sunday, 21 September 2008 12:57:25 AM. The attached Microsoft Word document, from which the reproduction is taken, was called "FOR THE OVERSEER + Vampire hunting case".
² David Farrant. "Re: From David". Thursday, 25 September 2008 3:34:33 AM.

Feudy Madness

One of the disturbing traits to emerge in debates centering the Highgate Vampire Case, is the tendency towards harassment and cyberstalking.

But very few participants have been as blatant about it as the author of a blog called Peroxide's Touch: The Highgate Vampire Fraudster.

It's quite clear that its author is a supporter of Sean Manchester. And they tend to show this "support" by attacking David Farrant at every available opportunity ("David F______ - The Truth"):

Words which sum up the life of criminal who has spent years trying to milk the work of a scholar who has written the definitive modern day Vampire book based on FACT.

When its author, the anonymous "peroxide", isn't making it overtly obvious that they have a tendency to stalk people who sully the good Bishop's name with criticism ("Dark Matters Demise"):

What’s amusing about you...is that you weren’t quick enough to cover your online tracks. Facebook and Bebo made for very interesting reading, whilst your profiles were set to public.
The fact that you have now set them to private makes no difference and it won’t suprise you to know that I saved your details - location, pictures, comments and otherwise.

Then they are allowing a comment by a Manchester-supporting vigilante group (the FoBSM) to request personal details of someone, via a public medium ("Farrant's Friends", 1st comment):

If anyone can help discover the residential address of...who is known to live somewhere in North London (but is far too cowardly to face those he attacks in person), please forward such information directly to Bishop Manchester...

What "peroxide" probably doesn't realise, is that the author of a blog is ultimately responsible for the content that appears on it - including comments.

As if these follies weren't reprehensible enough, "peroxide" also has the audacity to advocate Christian values ("Victorious Christians") despite the bile found in the blog's content, not to mention that fact that its very foundation (its URL reflects its original name) is a dark parody of David Farrant's The Human Touch.

I was driven enough to add the following comment (September 20, 2008 at 9:10 am) to "peroxide"'s "Game On" post:

Hi “Peroxide” (whoever you are),

I gotta admit, you’ve sure done a good job of uncovering the truth and the “facts”!

These aren’t limited to you and your chum “Dissenting Shadows” calling people cowards for hiding behind usernames…

While neither of you reveal your own.

Oh, and what else? Encouraging vigilante-like behaviour, by allowing the FoBSM to post requests for the *personal address of someone*. Since when are they the police?

Revealing yourself to be a stalker (See: “Dark Matters Demise”).

Accusing people of being hate-filled and full of malice…while propagating the same attitude yourself, via your ranting blog entries, against David Farrant.

Oh, and of course the veil of Christianity you wrap yourself in, by citing Bible passages.

I think you’re forgetting the verses on forgiveness, turning the other cheek and whatnot. Is it possible, that you yourself are the Devil’s Fool? I mean, the last I checked, the Bishop didn’t give you any authority to speak on his behalf. Indeed, and as has been repeated elsewhere, the Bishop *avoids* any kind of online activities involving this “feud”.

A feud you seem to take…remarkably close to heart.

If the Bishop has friends like you on his side, he doesn’t need enemies…

After all that, you'd think that the shadyness perpetrated on that blog had run its peak.

You'd be wrong.

While having a scroll through the comments on the aforementioned "Game On" entry, I noticed a comment dated September 20, 2008 at 10:22 am:

It is easy for anyone to find out how many members you have on your msn board, Barbara.

All they need do is go to the msn groups listing where the number of members is shown against the name of each group.

Seems innocent enough, right? Except when you check out the username ("The Overseer") and the link it provides (to this blog).

The problem? I didn't write it!

So now it looks like I've got an impostor in my wake, too. Great.

Still Getting Bothered

I discussed an item written about myself in the previous blog entry. But what I didn't mention, was that I had also posted a response to it! Here's what I wrote back (September 14th, 2008 at 9:22 am):

Hi David,

I wrote about this very entry, in my blog (See: “Getting Bothered”).

For the record, I wasn’t able to read your Medway-transcribed post, because I’ve been unable to access the forum. Seems the whole damn website bit the dust.

Nonetheless, if you want me to read it, I’d be happy to. And if I have any queries about it, I’d be happy to raise them up with you!

Fairly straight forward.

Or so you'd think.

My comment elicited the following response from David himself (September 14th, 2008 at 1:54 pm):

I have allowed your comment, Overseer. However, it will probably be a ‘one off’ as I do not wish to discuss Highgate, ‘vampires’ or ‘him’ on here.
This is supposed to be about my ‘boring’ life in the present i.e. NOW! So I somehow don’t think it would suit you!
This does not mean you cannot ask questions or make comments. I do not believe in censureship of that kind.
But it does mean that I want to avoid Highgate and anybody connected with that time.
That is why I said I somehow don’t think it would suit you!

However, we can always try, I suppose. Its just possible you may have some other interests in life! Welcome anyway. Albeit a very cautious one!

I found this response a tad off-kilter, so in case you don't get to see it, I responded to that item, too!

As of this writing, it's pending moderation (September 18th, 2008 at 4:40 pm):

David, I find that response kind of ingenuine, since your blog is laced with items about the Highgate Vampire and “Bonky”.

Hell, look what this very blog entry discusses!

Alluding to allowing my response to be posted here (”I have allowed your comment, Overseer. However, it will probably be a ‘one off’ as I do not wish to discuss Highgate, ‘vampires’ or ‘him’ on here.”) even though it directly deals with the blog entry you posted…and then going onto say that you “do not believe in censureship of that kind”, well, it seems a tad bit narky.

You'll also note that he didn't even repost the Medway-transcribed response!

The question is, why would David suddenly clam up on such discussions, when he has no qualm incorporating mentions of the vampires ("Quite an Eventful Day", "’till Tororrow") or "Bonky" (his petname for Sean Manchester; "“Not At All, David”", "So That Still Stands", "Truly Shattered"), when he incorporates them into multiple blog entries already?

Getting Bothered

I've recently had the "fortune" of being written about ("I Don't Know Why I Bother Really") in David Farrant's blog, The Human Touch.

Farrant, the founder of the Highgate Vampire Society, has this to write:

Thought I better do a Blog tonight, as Gareth is coming over tomorrow and might not get a chance then. I have already promised my “friend” The Overseer (from ‘down under’) that I answer something for him and that I’d do it on Friday. I don’t know why I bother really concerning myself with old history concerning non-existent ‘vampires’ but I have always tried to answer questions where these concern matters which are in the public domain.

David was addressing a post I made on the Dark Matters Radio forum, concerning various quotes attributing him to a belief in vampires (despite his maintained non-existence of them) in the Press. Or, at the very least, making use of the term to describe his encounters with a supernatural phenomena he allegedly encountered at Highgate Cemetery.

I've touched on this matter in "When a Vampire Isn't a Vampire" and "The Highgate Vampire Resurrected?".

He was also going to discuss the reasons behind his arrests and imprisonment and mentioned that he was going to get his friend, Gareth Medway, to transcribe a rebuttal to my comments.

Unfortunately, I was not able to read Farrant's response, because it seems that the forum has gone offline! As Homer Simpson might say: "D'oh!"

Gothic Speaks!

In "Drive-By Comments", I discussed an unpublished comment by an anonymous poster named "Gothic".

This time, Gothic saw fit to submit another comment (to the above-mentioned blog entry) - and one I've deemed worthy of approval, this time.

So, I'll be taking this opportunity to address the matters raised in Gothic's comment and providing my responses in this very blog entry. If Gothic doesn't mind, of course.

Anyway, here goes:

Just a minute, Anthony, who gave you permission to copy material from "The Cross and The Stake" forum and goodness knows where else over the last couple of years? Who, indeed, gave you permission to identify Seán Manchester which clearly defames and misrepresents him?

Don't you love it when a person doesn't divulge their name...but is happy to address you by your own? It's not the first time Gothic has done this: you'll note that one of the reasons I didn't publish his/her previous post is due to them revealing the name of an anonymous poster on another forum.

Still, it's nice to see I have a "fan", seeing as Gothic reveals I have previously copied "material from "The Cross and The Stake"" (though not on this blog). It gives me a warm, tingly feeling to know I'm being monitored in such a way.

That said, it's not much of a revelation. I'd just call it quoting. Especially as I cite my sources. See, sometimes when people are discussing a matter, they like to actually quote the source they are talking about. You see it done in books. Heaps of times.

Unfortunately, Gothic doesn't seem to be able to make the distinction between quoting something and copy-and-pasting the near-entirety of a document without permission - while the same source chucks a wobbly about copyright violation.

Ya see, I kinda view that as being just a tad hypocritical. I also pointed out that my Windows Live Space blog had been closed down for such unfounded reasons (they ignored my responses proving that I had permission to reproduce certain items).

As to the last portion accusing me of "identify[ing] Seán Manchester which clearly defames and misrepresents him?" - buggered if I know what Gothic is referring to.

If he/she is dealing with stuff discussed in the previous post, then somehow, Manchester must be defaming himself - considering that Gothic's initial problem stemmed from my quoting an extract from Manchester's 1985 book, The Highgate Vampire.

You didn't once approach Seán Manchester for balancing comment or to enquire whether Brautigam's allegations are accurate.

I'd say the more disturbing aspect about this is...how would "Gothic" know if I've consulted Manchester or not?

Besides, the interview was with Brautigam. Also, there have been refutations to it already. Hell, I even linked to one in the previous post.

I've always encouraged open discussion on these matters. That's why I initially founded my forum and blog(s).

Those in support of Seán Manchester, therefore, have every right to address the libellous misinformation you have published and to do so with a rebuttal which obviously includes the original nonsense disseminated by Brautigam and you.

This paragraph highlights another one of Gothic's problems: lack of specific examples.

Here, I am accused of publishing "libellous misinformation" about Manchester. Which information, you might be asking?

Who knows.

Gothic isn't keen to clarify on such things.

Regarding rebuttals, well, the interview itself was partially that. What Gothic doesn't seem to have noticed, is that portions of the questions I asked Brautigam...were based on public [online] items disseminated by Manchester!

So is Gothic trying to say that Brautigam isn't allowed his right-of-reply? That it's ok for one person (Manchester) to publicly comment on another (Brautigam), but if Brautigam wishes to do the same...then all of a sudden, it's "libellous misinformation"?

Talk about a double standard.

For that matter, why is an anonymous poster like "Gothic" even passing himself off as an authority on the matter? How does he/she know that the information was "libellous"? I don't see any credentials, affiliation, not even a name from our Gothic friend.

Indeed, the only hint given to who they are, is this: "Those in support of Seán Manchester, therefore, have every right to address the libellous misinformation you have published..."

That's funny, because that essentially means that Gothic is passing himself off as not only a representative of Manchester, but a legal representative, considering the crimes he/she accuses me of.

I wonder what Seán "Dusted My Sandals" Manchester would have to say about that...

If you don't like it, quit your obsession with Seán Manchester and just try to get a life of your own instead of pursuing people who live on the other side of the globe where distance perhaps makes you feel safe to harass them.

Ah, see, now this is a cunning trick - and one of the oldest in the book.

What you do is, you take something said against you (in this case: "Obviously, "Gothic" is more keen on stalking and harassment than in discussing matters seriously") and then...spin it around and put it on the other person!

Ain't that clever?

Nonetheless, I'll respond to what "Gothic" has accused me of.

Firstly, does Gothic understand that this blog deals with the Highgate Vampire Case, of which, Manchester was a major part of? So how exactly could I avoid talking about him?

That's like me crafting a blog discussing Tom Cruise's film career...but not mentioning the actor himself!

It's also funny that "Gothic" accuses me of "pursuing people who live on the other side of the globe where distance perhaps makes you feel safe to harass them".

How exactly am I even harassing Manchester? If he reads my blog, he hasn't said jack about it. To my knowledge. If I've written untruthfully about him...then how about citing where and when?

It's also quite hypocritical to accuse me of harassment, when an anon like "Gothic" is happy to (attempt) to publish the names of private persons - while remaining anonymous themselves. But worse than that, it's worrying that Gothic seems to embody a vigilante-style attitude towards anything even remotely critical of Manchester:

"Those in support of Seán Manchester, therefore, have every right to address the libellous misinformation you have published..."

Since when?

Drive-By Comments

Speaking of copyright violation, a poster referring to themselves as "Gothic" recently attempted¹ to post a comment on "An Open Query on Religious Belief". I say attempted, because I refused permission for its publication.

And here's why.

Rather than address the issues raised in that entry, they instead accused me of "illegally upload[ing] a book in violation of copyright law".

Which, I didn't do.

They seem to have taken offense at me quoting Sean Manchester from the first edition of The Highgate Vampire (1985). It might have been the bit where Manchster said that was "not pre-eminently religious".

The pseudonymous poster then goes on to provide a link to Manchester's forum before saying, "You may raise any question you like, but kindly observe the forum rule of posting no links and no email addresses."

Almost makes me think they have some kind of authority on it...

But it's hard to tell, because if you click on "Gothic"'s profile, you'll notice that it is inaccessible. Oh well.

However, the main reason I didn't publish the comment, was that it publicly revealed the private identity of a member on the Dark Matters Radio Exploration forum. Obviously, "Gothic" is more keen on stalking and harassment than in discussing matters seriously.

So, permission denied!

¹ Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 6:13 PM.

Copyright Violation

Now isn't this a laugh.

I've just come across a page called "Shroudeater's Truth-Eating - Rob Brautigam's Lies!". It's a copy-and-paste job of my interview with Rob Brautigam,¹ interpolated with anonymous commentary.

Funnily enough, it is identical to an e-mail circulated by the FoBSM...

Now, there's only one problem with the content of the webpage in question: I didn't give its owner permission to reproduce the interview!

This is especially amusing because of the reasons given for the closure of my Windows Live Space page.

I also find it odd that the copyright-violating page is hidden in the website of the Holy Grail Church. I didn't realise plagiarism was part of their ministry.

¹ Which was previously covered in "The Brautigam Interview", "Another One Bites the Dust!" and "The Interview They Didn't Want You to See!".

Highgate Vampire Movie

In the 38 years since the Highgate Vampire story broke in the mainstream press, there have been no movie adaptations re-telling the tale.

Until now.

Well, sort of.

A production by Digital Major and Draw Pictures called Highgate Vampire: The Movie, bills itself as

an interactive horror set in modern times about a vampire infestation in a London cemetery. The story is influenced by true events that happened in and around London’s Highgate Cemetery some time ago.

The description accompanying its trailer on YouTube, goes into a bit more detail:

4 American teenagers hook up online and meet up in London where they embark on a terrifying journey into London's Gothic past.

Personally, I think a straight adaptation would have been much more preferable.

Change of Template

I've never been too fond of the template (a customised version of Douglas Bowman's "Minima Dark") and design I've utilised for this blog:

So, I've decided to select something a bit more aesthetically pleasing.

As of this writing, you'll know be treated to Jeffrey Zeldman's "Son of Moto" template! I still feel a bit guilty for using it, though - it's the same one used by one of my favourite blogs, Niels K. Petersen's Magia Posthuma. Almost feel like I'm ripping him off.

Might have to make some adjustments to it.

An Open Query on Religious Belief

According to the Holy Grail Church's page, "Ecclesia Apostolica Jesu Christi":

Good Friday 1973 and the founding of Ordo Sancti Graal on the summit of an English hill by twelve disciples laid the foundations for the restoration of the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ in Great Britain. The Hampstead & Highgate Express newspaper recorded on 4 May 1973: “Wearing white robes and carrying a nine-foot-high wooden cross, he plans to set off from Hampstead Heath next week on a pilgrimage of peace. Walking all the way with Seán Manchester will be a group of twelve young supporters, who want to spread ‘the simple, spiritual ways of life originally taught by Christ’.”

Indeed, Sean Manchester's The Highgate Vampire: The Infernal World of the Undead Unearthed at London’s Famous Highgate Cemetery and Environs (London: British Occult Society, 1985) proclaims that "All proceeds from this book will be contributed to the Church of the Holy Grail".

So why do we have the following admittance from Manchester on page 12 of the same book?:

Although not pre-eminently religious, I have been left in no doubt by the course of events that evil is not just an abstract force and, most important of all, that such demonic molestation as I have encountered is no match for divine power once invoked. The set of symbols I work with are predominantly Christian, yet you will find in the text that I cast a circle, what some might call a Magic Circle. While I am not a witch in any sense of the word, I suppose as a secular person handling consecrated material as a protection against hostile psychic forces, I am practicing "white magic". The Circle once cast is a ritualised barrier, a consecrated sanctuary; like a church, a mosque or synagogue - like Avebury, Stonehenge and Glastonbury.

It should be noted that Manchester was later ordained by Illtyd Thomas, a

Primate of the Celtic Catholic Church, who, together with Michael Weston and James Henry Vermeulen, on 4 October 1991, consecrated Seán Manchester, Superior General for Ordo Sancti Graal, Primate/Bishop (with dignity of Archbishop) for Ecclesia Apostolica Jesu Christi (an autocephalous jurisdiction). (~"Ecclesia Apostolica Jesu Christi")

A Bishop by Any Other Name...

The use of probable aliases by Bishop Manchester was covered in "Who Is The Informative One?". Rosemary Ellen Guiley's Vampires Among Us (New York: Pocket Books, 1991) gives us a clear example of where else this has occurred:

In representing the ISAIVLR, Manchester occasionally uses the pseudonym "Ruthwen Glenarvon." The name is taken from Byronic associations: Lord Ruthven is the vampire in John Polidori's story borrowed from Lod Byron's writings...and Glenarvon is the name of one of Byron's fictional characters. Ruthwen Glenarvon is listed as the editor of The Cross and the Stake, the newsletter of the ISAIVLR. According to Manchester, the name is used to answer correspondence and protect identities of various staff of the society. He has used it for some years (and, during the Highgate vampire case, he used the pseudonym "George Byron" while investigating the cemetery where Luisa was said to be buried). (p. 126)

I should note that "ISAIVLR" refers to the International Society for the Advancement of Irrefutable Vampirological and Lycanthropic Research, or, Vampire Research Society, for short.

To my knowledge, The Cross and the Stake is no longer a newsletter, but seems to live on as a forum of the same name.

It is strange that Manchester would find recourse into employing such aliases, considering his status as a public figure and author attached to the Highgate Vampire Case. But then again, he isn't the only one:

Other vampire hunters announced their intent to find the vampire and stake it. One of them was David Farrant, born David Robert Donovan Farrant, who gave his name at various times as David Farrant, Allan Farrant, and Robert Farrant. (p. 116)

Who Is The Informative One?

In the previous installment, I covered the actions of a shady Manchester-sympathiser known as "The Informative One". I also revealed that this member's identity is protected by Dennis Crawford and Katrina Garforth-Bles, International and National Secretaries for the Vampire Research Society, respectively.

It's rather bewildering as to why this might be, especially considering the extent of his "independent research" is to regurgitate posts made by others, engage in copyright violation and stalk people critical of Bishop Manchester.

Perhaps the answer can be found in a post called "The List - Complete (Updated 20th June...again!)" by Hulk Hogan, a fellow member of the Dark Matters Radio Exploration forum.

He has published a list of usernames from various Manchester-affiliated MSN Group forums, which, he claims, all use the same ISP. Here's what he came up with:

+Seán (Superior General)
+Seán Manchester
Albé
Bishop's Chaplain
Bishop's PR Secretary
Bishop Seán Manchester
Chairman
Crusader
Crusader Knight
DennisCrawford1
FoBSM Administration
KatrinaGarforth-Bles1
Old Catholic Church
Sangreal
The Apostle
The Author
The Informative One
The Overseer

It should be noted that the last username on the list isn't me, but member of Did a Vampire Walk in Highgate? and Fiends of David Farrant.

The implication of the list, is that they all emanate from one computer. And, more specifically, one person: Bishop Manchester himself.

Could this be the reason Dennis and Katrina are so keen to protect The Informative One's identity?

Comments

After the recent, unsigned comment by "anonymous" on my "Where You Might Find Me" post (no doubt by a member of the shady FoBSM or an associate), I've decided to only allow comments from users with Google accounts.

This will allow for more accountability (theoretically) for the claims made here and in response to my posts.

Sorry for any inconvenience caused.

Manchester on MySpace

Perhaps in an attempt to be "hip" and "down with the kids", Sean Manchester has his own MySpace page!

You can access it here.

On closer inspection, he either has a sense of humour, or someone else is just taking the piss, because he lists his age as "100 years old" and his top 4 friends are "Jesus", "St. Michael", "Saint George" and "The Virgin Mary".

Dark Matters Radio Exploration forum member, Florence King, gives a bit more coverage to the page, here.

The Regurgitating One

There's an MSN Group out there, whose primary function is to:

discuss Farrant and his fiends (demons) and the confrontation thereof.

It's name? Fiends of David Farrant (a parody of Friends of David Farrant).

Its membership consists of members of the clandestine Friends of Bishop Sean Manchester, as well as the Bishop himself (username: "The Author").

Apparently, I'm regarded as one of his "fiends" too, hence topics devoted to myself and my writings, on that forum. It's a strange banner to fall under, considering I've also been considered a Bishop Manchester supporter...if not Bishop Manchester himself, by other persons. See: "MondoSkepto's False Accusations", as an example.

For those not in the know, public figures Sean Manchester and David Farrant, have polarised discussion on the Highgate Vampire Case. "Defendants" and "prosecutors" usually take one side (even if they don't share the supernatural beliefs of either party) and will attack and malign the other party, tooth and nail. The sheer volume of these disputes was partially recorded in the "FeudWatch" category of my defunct Did a Wampyr Walk in Highgate?: The Official MSN Space Site blog.

But let's get back to the matter at hand.

One particular member of Fiends seems to have a real axe to grind with me. His username is "The Informative One" (a parody of my former MSN Groups username, "The Inquisitive One") and seems particularly keen in refuting me or trying to dig up "dirt" on me, too.

Little is known about him. This is partly at the instigation of the National and International Secretaries of the Vampire Research Society:

Dennis and I have met The Informative One and know his identity. We advised him not to use it here and to offer no clues.¹

Why the secrecy? No answer is given. This has led some to speculate that "The Informative One" is actually an online alias of Bishop Manchester.² For you see, despite having engaged in "independent research",³ he has no qualms toeing the VRS-party line, even linking to adverts within his messages, to VRS products.

He was also the founder of pro-Bishop Manchester forum, Did A Vampire Walk In Highgate? (ripping off the title - but not intent - of my Did a Wampyr Walk in Highgate? MSN Group). Which I should mention, is also the refuge of an Englishman who has also blatantly ripped off my username, "The Overseer" (funnily enough, he also resides on "Fiends").

"The Informative One"'s main purpose, contrary to his username, seems to be in regurgitating VRS-related material. For proof, read my "Does a Doppelgänger Walk in Highgate?" thread.

More recently, his inane posts have been regulated to putting me on some kind of "bandwagon" (see: "Anthony Hogg Hops On Bandwagon", Fiends of David Farrant); hunting me down on Amazon with "A Question of Attribution" (The Highgate Vampire), which chastises me for not including Manchester-penned works to any of my lists (!); and the copyright-violating "Shroudeater's Truth-eating"/"A Matter of Fabrication" (Fiends of David Farrant/The Highgate Vampire) which has reproduced my Brautigam interview, without my permission.

I have reported the latter thread to MSN Groups, which is obviously why it has been deleted and reposted on several occasions. Sneaky.

¹ KatrinaGarforth-Bles1. " "HVS" Debate Poll". The Cross and the Stake. 15/09/2006 03:19.
² Florence King. "Dennis Crawford Watch: ID Theft Stupidity". Dark Matters Radio Exploration. Yesterday, 5:41 pm.
³ The Informative One. " "HVS" Debate Poll". The Cross and the Stake. 11/09/2006 21:24.

The Highgate Vampire Resurrected?

Has the Highgate Vampire risen from the dead?

The matter is touched on in The Second Side's "The Highgate Vampire is Back!". After describing the destruction of the Highgate Vampire and one of its victims by Sean Manchester, it goes on to say:

Apparently, the vampire is active again, as a tall, dark figure is haunting the cemetery once more . . .

Spooky stuff.

However, it sounds suspiciously similar to a claim made by David Farrant in 2005 while promoting the reactivation of his Highgate Vampire Society. In "Highgate Vampire at it again!!" for Pentacle Magazine, he stated that:

The sighting of a tall, black figure in April on Swains Lane makes me think the vampire is active again.

Haven't heard much about it since, so I guess we can still sleep safe and sound.

Where You Might Find Me

Recently, I've been participating on Don Ecker's Dark Matters Radio Exploration forum.

To browse through my contributions, click here.

You'll have to register an account to access the contents of that link, however.

Alternatively, you could browse through the "Highgate Cemetery Vampire" section. Your call.

When a Vampire Isn't a Vampire

David Farrant, at least since about 1991, has been publicly emphatic about his view that the alleged supernatural being that haunted Highgate Cemetery was definitely not a vampire:

The sighting of a tall, black figure in April on Swains Lane makes me think the vampire is active again.¹

Thankfully, he has a far more rational explanation for such phenomena:

As for my concept of a vampire, it is necessary to mention the existence of the incubus and succubus, male and female demons respectively (I prefer to call them psychic entities) that visit sleeping people by night and supposedly have sex with them. Reports about the existence of these phenomena date back for centuries and the symptoms of the visitations are invariably the same. People are suddenly awakened in the night to find themselves completely paralysed, often with a tremendous pressure on their chest that 'pins' them to the bed. They are unable to move, even scream, and can only lie helpless completely subject to the entity's will. These visitations often occur with persistent frequency and victims often find themselves growing physcially weaker, becoming anaemic and developing an aversion to bright sunlight. They also become prone to bouts of sleep-walking either soon before, or not long after, the 'attacks'. I am quite convinced that stories of vampirism actually derived, or were based upon reports about the well known existence of these malevolent phenomena; in fact, it is highly likely that Stoker himself could have been aware of such accounts when he wrote his fictional novel, Dracula²

Take that, science!

¹ Mullen, Marc. "Highgate Vampire at it again!!". Pentacle Magazine. Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 02:58 PM.
² "Interview with the Real Vampire Hunter". David Farrant.

The Interview They Didn't Want You to See!

In "Another One Bites the Dust!", I briefly discussed an interview I conducted with Rob Brautigam.

It was originally available on my website, but, unfortunately, is no longer accessible due to an allegation claiming it guilty of "defamation". This claim is pending review.

In the meantime, you can read the interview here. Make your own judgements.

To set the scene; the interview was conceived due to a perceived bias Brautigam seemed to be displaying in the Highgate Vampire Case, on his otherwise impartial Shroudeater website.

There were also quotes and actions attributed to him elsewhere, which I was interested in having him clarify.

He agreed to an interview on this matter. I sent him some questions. Here's how he responded¹ (Note: the interview is taken in verbatim from the e-mail in question, so you'll have to forgive the formatting):

1. What first drew your attention to the Highgate Vampire?

As far as I remember, it must have been around say 1972, 1973. I think the case was mentioned in a book I read, perhaps by Peter Underwood or maybe someone
else. And possibly I did read something some place else as well. A magazine ? A flyer I picked up in some London bookshop ? Forgive me, it is a very long
time ago. And I am just recovering from some serious health problems. So it is hard for me to remember undocumented events like this exactly. Later, before I
first got in touch with Mr. Manchester, I had of course read much more material about the case.

2. You met Sean Manchester, after correspondance, in 1991. What were your initial impressions of him and the claims he made in his books? Have you met
David Farrant, also?

On our first meeting Sean Manchester appeared to be quite friendly. As to his own books, I had only read his article in another Peter Underwood book (The
Vampire's Bedside Companion), and his first edition of "The Highgate Vampire" published by the British Occult Society. As to his claims, I had an open mind
and was actually hoping that there might be some truth in his story. The moment I shook hands with Mr. Manchester, his wife Sarah came jumping out of the
bushes and started to take photographs of Mr. Manchester and myself. She had to leave and we said goodbye. Mr. Manchester apologised for the fact that his
face was covered by a layer of pancake because he had an appointment with a photographer who was going to take some portraits of him in Highgate Cemetery.
At the time I happened to be a member of the "Friends of Highgate Cemetery" and I could not help wondering how this could be possible. The "Friends", who had
been given complete control over the Cemetery, definitely did not approve of any vampire stories, let alone vampire-hunters ! And I very much doubt that
either Manchester or Farrant would have been given entrance if they had shown up at the gate. But another lady, Diana Brewster, appeared who was introduced
to me as being Manchester's "secretary". The photographer appeared, who was called Byron (first name) uh... something, I can't remember. Diana asked: shall
we do it the same way as last time ? Manchester approved. We went to the back of the garden of the teahouse where there was a gap in the wall that closed it
off from Highgate Cemetery. And we entered the cemetery through there. At one point, we were confronted by an old gentleman who seemd to be taking care of
the flowers on top of a grave. He noticed our overdose of photographic equipment. He said: I am surprised that they have let you in at the gate with all that
gear. And Manchester, dressed up as a priest (but wearing a bishop's cross that - in his own words - at that moment he was "not really allowed to wear as
yet") stepped forward and said: No, no, no, these are no video cameras, it has all been taken care off, don't worry, it is alright.
And that was my first meeting with Mr. Manchester. Why did I want to meet Mr. Manchester in the first place ? He is our one and only witness to the Highgate
vampire story. First saying that "The stake was not struck" and then changing the story and stating that he has indeed destroyed the vampire and such. So I
wanted to find out if he was a trustworthy person. Well, I know that I have found my answer...
And, yes, I did meet Mr. Farrant also. And, let us not forget: I did exchange letters and shake hands with the illustrious Brother Keith as well.

3. It is clear that a rift later took place between you and Sean Manchester. What was the cause of it? As evidence of this,in correspondance dated 22 August 1990, you declared Sean Manchester's The Highgate Vampire, to be a "masterpiece of vampirography". However, you now seem to
regard it as an "amusing piece of horror fiction". What changed your view?

Change of view ??? I still think that the first edition of "The Highgate Vampire" as published by the British Occult Society (in contrast to the more recent
expurgated edition) is a great and entertaining novel. It is a cunning and interesting mix of facts and fantasy. All those bizarre photos also add to it all.
But, allow me to stress the fact that at the time I have purposely used the term "vampirography". Because I consider the story to be a piece of fiction
rather than proper vampire research. Had I thought that there was some truth in the story, I would have said: "vampirology". So I do not think that there has
been any change of view in that respect. If there has been a change of view, it is that I have come to learn Mr. Manchester a little bit better. And I have
learned it the hard way. I was publishing a fanzine called "International Vampire". First, Mr. manchester tried to take over control by offering his
"Patronage". I told him - in a diplomatic way - thanks, I don't think so. After that, although we were still supposedly on friendly terms, Mr. Manchester was
already plotting behind my back. If I would announce something that was supposed to appear in my next newsletter he would quickly send some kind of "spoiler"
article to be published by a competing vampire fanzine. This is no speculation, I do have letters that prove it. And I only wish that I can ever forget the
absolutely outrageous things that have happened after our contact ended and Mr. Manchester sent me that message stating that "Those who are not with me are
against me".
The cause of our break ? Mr. Manchester had heard that Mr. Farrant had published a book about the case. And - for obvious reasons - he did not want to order
a copy himself. So he asked a friend of mine to order a copy for him. Obviously, my friend, who at the time was also interested in the case, ordered a copy
for himself as well. And he also told me about it. So I too ordered a copy. I received a very decent letter from Mr. Farrant. Which came as a surprise.
Because Mr. Manchester had always been suggesting that Mr. Farrant was some kind of subhuman satanic monster, living in a coal cellar, feeding on raw fish.
So, after receiving Mr. Farrant's letter, I expressed my surprise to Mr. Manchester about receiving Mr. Farrant's letter. Mr. Manchester instantly went
completely beserk, accusing me of God knows what. Well, after one or two of those ridiculousletters I decided that enough is enough, and I ended my
correspondence and contact with Mr. Manchester then and there.

4. Are you a member of an organisation affiliated with either David Farrant or Sean Manchester?

No I am not. I once payed money to subscribe to one of Mr. Manchester's publications. I paid for 4 editions, but after 2 editions he suddenly sent me a
statement saying that his club had been infiltrated or some other paranoid story, and that the magazine would go underground or whatever. I was sent no
further editions, although some of my correspondents assured me that the newsletter was still being distributed to them, and even sent me copies of it. There
were no attempts whatsoever to send me back the money that I had paid for the two remaining newsletters. What's the name for that, fraud ? theft ? I am no
legal expert... Anyway, at the time, against all odds, I was still hoping that there might be some truth in Manchester's Vampire story, so I did not think
that it would serve my purpose to turn this into an issue and end our contact there.

5. Sean Manchester publicly cites Reggie Naus, a Dutch correspondent of his, with the claim that you appeared on a television show proclaiming that a
vampire can only "drink fresh blood from virgins". Is this quote accurate?

Never mind the pathetic Naus person, who once wrote me an extremely slimey letter. No, no, no. His report on that television appearance is a complete
travesty of the facts. They first asked me a couple of rather stupid and superficial questions and that was it as far as my presence was concerned, and then
they interviewed the 2 British so-called "vampires". Not the other way around, as Mr. Naus has it. The guy who hosted this rather sensationalistic talkshow
did indeed mention something about virgins and their blood. Me, I most certainly did not. Hey, if you doubt my words, please have a look at my website. My
only interest is in historical cases of vampirism. Serious stuff. Not vampire fiction. I leave that kind of thing to Mr. Manchester and his not so merry band
of men. I do have the whole silly show on tape somewhere. So in case there are any doubts...

6. Your review for David Farrant's Beyond the Highgate Vampire on your Shroudeater website is surprisingly glowing. Do you uphold the claims Farrant makes
in that book, to be an accurate version of events - supernatural or otherwise?

Glowing ? I don't know about that. So what is the surprise ??? After falling out with Mr. Manchester, the few meetings that I have had with Mr. Farrant were
like a breath of fresh air. Unlike Mr. Manchester, Mr. Farrant seemed very open and willing to answer every question that I had. His book too, seemed like a
much more plausible account of the happenings. A little bit dull, perhaps. Less sensational. But an awful lot more credible than Mr. Manchester's exciting
fairytale version. For the record, as I have now completely lost my interest in the Highgate Hoax, I have not been in touch with Mr. Farrant for years and
years. Last rumor that I have heard is that he might be under "new management" in a matter of speaking. But if his story has changed, I am unaware of it.
All I can say is that Mr. Farrant has always behaved as a gentleman to me. While we knew each other. And after we knew each other. Unlike some.

7. Do you believe that any paranormal phenomena - be it vampiric or otherwise - took place at Highgate Cemetery? If so, what evidence convinces you of
this possibility?

On the one hand, I do know from my own experience that paranormal (I hate that word !) phenomena appear to exist. Having said that, I willingly admit that I
am a convinced skeptic and sometimes unwilling to admit the things presented to me by my own senses. I have gone through loads of material about the Highgate
case. I have read the old newspaper articles, the complete versions (not the selected highlites by Mr. Manchester), I have talked to others who were there at
the time, I have read police reports, and other rather interesting material. And I can not exclude the possibility that there may have been something unusual
going on. But a vampire ? A real vampire corpse that has been destroyed by Mr. Manchester ? Come on, get real !

8. What is your advice for people who wish to delve into the Highgate Vampire Case?

Please think twice (maybe more than that) before you decide to get in touch with Mr. Manchester and his associates. They are ok for as long as they think
that they can somehow use you for their purposes. But the moment they decide that you are not on their side, may the Good Lord help you. If you do not
believe me, there is a very easy way to find out. In that case, I do wish you the very best of luck. Believe me, you are going to need it !

¹ Source: Rob Brautigam. "RE: Beyond the Highgate Vampire Review". Thursday, 24 April 2008 9:57:46 PM. Reprinted with permission of the author.