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!"