David Finally Responds to My Other Queries, Pt. 2

Contined from here.

DAWWIH?: What was the purpose of the stake with string that you mention, as part of your discarded paraphrenalia?

DF: I have told you on countless occasions, it was to cast a magical Circle.

I must profess that I'm not familiar with the use of a stake and string being used to cast magical circles. However, the fact that you later stalked about the Cemetery with a cross and stake as part of vampire hunting vigils you demonstrated to the Press makes this stake-and-string stuff even more unusual, in context.

DAWWIH?: In the March 6, 1970 article for the H&H [Hampstead and Highgate Express -ed.], you said that you would hunt the Highgate Vampire "by whatever means necessary". Do you think the police might've seen the stake you were carrying a tad suspicious, in this context?

DF: No, not together with the other paraphernalia.

As we've established, these other items, you claim, were not presented in evidence. But, in context, carrying a stake in a reputedly vampire-haunted Cemetery does come across as a bit suspicious, surely. And, again, you would go on to demonstrate vampire vigils with a stake (sans string) for the Press at a later time.

DAWWIH?: You say that the police had heard stories of alleged vampire activity at Highgate Cemetery, during their questioning of you. Could they have heard these stories, in light of your connection to the hypothesis, byway of your quotes to the press?

DF: No, the Police were not even aware that the case had been on television twice, as they admitted in Court

If the police had such little awareness of the alleged vampire activity at the Cemetery, then why did you previously say, "I was questioned extensively by the police, who had already heard stories of a ‘vampire’ that lurked within the cemetery"?

Where were they getting this vampire info from?

DAWWIH?: Why did you give the police a false name when they questioned you and why did you refuse to give your address?

DF: I have already answered this at length on your Blog. Go back and re-quote this if you wish.

I'd be happy to. Here's what you said on the matter, previously:

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’).

That's about as extensive as you've gotten on the matter, in my blog.

Of course, considering that you'd already made public appearances regarding the Case, it wouldn't have been too difficult for the police to trace your real name and so forth, so it seems like a bit of a wasted effort. Not to mention being quite deceptive.

DAWWIH?: You say that the police were going to go easy on you if you admitted to trespassing, in which you'd pretty much be let off with a warning. Does this mean you were aware of trespassing in the first place?

DF: Of course I was aware we were trespassing, This was why the Police tried to get the names of the other people and why I refused to give my address. (Society membership records were all in my flat in Highgate).

The question is, why did you go ahead and trespass if you were already aware of the legal ramifications, in advance?

DAWWIH?: You claim the press connected you to the vampire story due to the court case. So why, as early as March, 1970 were you entertaining the vampire hypothesis as a possibility?

DF: I put many ‘possibilities’ to the Press at this early stage: not lease [sic] that Highgate Cemetery was being used by a group of professional Satanists. I was asked abot [sic] the ‘vampire theory’ – I did not volunteer it.

Indeed, and your response was this:

The odd thing is there was no outward sign of how they [dead foxes found in the Cemetery -ed.] died. Much remains unexplained, but what I have recently learnt all points to the vampire theory being the most likely answer. Should this be so, I for one am prepared to pursue it, taking whatever means might be necessary so that we can all rest.

And, as mentioned previously, you would also later demonstrate vampire vigils. So even though you didn't "volunteer it" (Sean Manchester did), you obviously encouraged its perpetuation.

DAWWIH?: Why is it that after the court case, you allowed yourself to be filmed in a television news article reconstructing your patrols for the vampire with a stake and cross? You also did the same thing for an article with Barrie Simmons. If you say the press labeled you with a "vampire hunter" tag, then why did you give demonstrations of stalking vampires in Highgate Cemetery to other members of the press?

DF: Why not? It was what the Press and television wanted.

So I guess if the Press (and television) told you to jump off a bridge...

DAWWIH?: In 2003, Rob Milne authored a book - which was an interview with yourself - called Return of the Vampire Hunter: An Exclusive Interview with Reclusive Vampire Hunter, David Farrant. Do you not see this as a contradiction of trying to shirk yourself from the "vampire hunter" tag?

DF: No, because I didn’t choose that title!

Nice try, David. But, as you'd know, the book was published by the British Psychic and Occult Society (as its Amazon.co.uk listing reveals), which, as it happens...you're the head of. So I highly doubt you had no awareness of this title before it went to press.

DAWWIH?: In court, you compared hunting vampires to people looking for the Loch Ness Monster. Why would you use this defense if you don't actually believe vampires exist in the first place?

DF: The Prosecution were trying to prove that my intention of ‘hunting vampires’ at HC was illegal because it would have involved coffins being opened thus causing damage. That was the essence of that case and that is why I made that comparison. Simple as that!

You previously acknowledged that you were aware of trespassing on the Cemetery grounds. This, alone, is illegal. So why was the Prosecution trying to go the extra mile by claiming you were commiting the "illegal" activity of hunting vampires?

Something which you'd later demonstrate to the Press, anyway...

DAWWIH?: Why did you continue demonstrating vampire hunting vigils after the case was dismissed against you, on a technicality?

DF: The case was not dismissed ‘on a technicality’. Far from it. It was dismissed because the Police were proved to have been lying in Court (at least, one particular Police officer) and so were unable to prove their case.

What were the police lying about? Your claim about hunting a vampire?

If this was disproved as a lie, again, why did you go on to do demonstrations of vampire hunting for the Press, as well as re-enacting one such demonstration on television?

Were the police onto something after all?

DAWWIH?: After the case was dismissed, you were sentenced to jail two years later, for graveyard desecration. How did this come about?

DF: It was not 2 years, it was nearly 5. But that is far too long to explain here. I’ve just completed a 275 page book about the first part of all that, which took me some 18 months to complete. Sorry, no time to do all that again here.

I presume you mean this book. However, for the benefit of our readers, maybe a brief rundown would be in order.