Friday, June 12, 2009

The Ecker Report Continues

And now, we pick up from where we left off...Oh, and this entry also contains mild profanity.
Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester wrote:
From: Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester
To: "Don Ecker"
Subject: Re: Misrepresentation
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 12:15:41 +0100
Dear Don Ecker,

You may raise questions regarding the Highagte Vampire case at

Just how willing Bishop Manchester will be to respond to an American who describes him as being someone who is "either a brilliant opportunist or is vastly deluded"* I really cannot say. Personally, I would be disinclined, if someone spoke about me in that way, to show much co-operation. I only mention this because your first e-mail response talked of having "courtesy" (July 06, 2007 5:56 PM). I do not find your published remarks at all courteous. Far from it. One of his secretaries (I am his national secretary), however, might be willing in the absence of personal abuse to address your queries, but expecting a courteous reply from a highly respected public figure whom you label as deluded is a bit rich.
By the way, David Farrant is not Bishop Manchester's "arch enemy," as you claim on Amazon.* If you read the bishop's Introduction to Confronting the Devil, you will discover he clarifies that the Devil - not Farrant - is his arch-enemy. [which is amusing, considering these renderings of Farrant, by Manchester on his blog -ed.]
This can be found at:
Thank you for deleting the post which duplicates Farrant's libel that "Lusia" is Jacqueline Cooper who is a private individual not involved in any of these matters and clearly not "Lusia" who has never been identified. Farrant takes great pleasure in disseminating misinformation of every conceivable kind where Bishop Manchester and his work is concerned. What the outsider must consider is this: how on earth would Farrant know "Lusia's" identity? Or anything else concerning the case of the Highgate Vampire as recounted in Bishop Manchester's book? Farrant did not meet "Lusia" or any of the other characters mentioned in the Highgate Vampire account. He had no contact with anyone involved with the case and was either out of the country, on remand in prison, serving a prison sentence, or drinking copious amounts of alcohol in his local pub when these events took place. All his claims regarding Bishop Manchester are spurious, fabricated and malicious.


Katrina Garforth-Bles
Well, I was to discover how David Farrant knew “Lusia, aka Jacqueline Cooper” and that part of the story is fascinating as well.

Now as to the last note from “KGB”, quite frankly it pissed me off by the sneering tone about my being an American. Let me refresh you,
“Just how willing Bishop Manchester will be to respond to an American who describes him as being someone who is "either a brilliant opportunist or is vastly deluded"* I really cannot say.”
Okay, I will be the first to admit that I am an American. However, if this bunch is trying to convince the planet that we are all at risk from the dreaded undead stalking us, (to turn us into a happy meal?) then one would think that they would welcome someone who is conversant in investigations to be involved in what would be a world-class criminal case. Not really as I found out, and I will state that all my bull-shit indicators were ringing loud and long.

I still did not wish to totally alienate this bunch so I tried once more and was very polite but honest with them. By now though, I decided this was pretty much a lost cause. This was becoming too “cultish” a group to try to really communicate with.
“Dear Ms. Garforth-Bles,

Firstly, you are welcome. (for the thanks you forwarded for removing my post on Amazon.)

Well, as a former criminal investigator with years on the job, which I might add included investigating murders and the subsequent incarceration of the perpetrators to prison, I will be the first to admit that I am skeptical about the fact of "supernatural vampires." In 1981 I was the lead investigator on two cattle mutilations which in a round about way led me to discovering the Highgate case. (Both animals were exsanguinated.) At first blush, one should not be too harsh when my skeptical side rises, however I was willing to keep an open mind concerning the "possibility" that something with supernatural overtones did in fact occur.

One must agree (perhaps not you) that in light of almost non-existent evidence, supernatural vampires as an answer to Highgate and other cases, is a stretch of logic. The reason I purchased both "The Highgate Vampire" and "The Vampire Hunter's Handbook" was because I was looking for evidence with supernatural overtones. I fear I have not yet found what I am looking for.

Now, placing my "detective" hat on, allow me to tell you what I've been led to.

If, and that is a very big if, a genuine supernatural vampire did exist ... and if said creature attacked and murdered humans, this would be a law enforcement priority of the very first magnitude. How would one go about proving such an outrage? The answer is forensic science. If "Lusia" was in fact a victim of a vampire creature, then her cause of death would be vitally important to not only religious authorities but to Law Enforcement agencies worldwide. (Not to mention her corporeal body turning into a spider… something I’ve never experienced by the way) I still have many law enforcement connections and I must say the idea of "vampiric infestation" does not register anywhere. But then I am trying to examine this using logic and not emotion. Your emotion (and apparent anger) shines through you missives, when if you believe this phenomenon is real, one would think you would be willing to discuss this in a rational manner. (Instead you sound as if you are sneering that I am an American.) On another note, when my father was in England in 1943, the English were very happy to see him. However, water under the bridge.

You seem to castigate me for my initial skepticism about Bishop Manchester's assertion that supernatural vampires are real. Why yes, guilty as charged, but I am still willing to look and perhaps even be convinced with proof. Another Brit, one David Icke, asserts that the controllers of the planet are reptilian humanoids, which include the Queen and former President George Bush among many others. Icke has followers that are as intolerant of questions as you seem to be. Should you and I take Icke's word as fact without proof? Somehow I doubt that.

I have been respectful and courteous in my messages to you. I am genuinely interested in the Highgate case, which explains why I am in communication with you and the Friends of Bishop Manchester. But one thing I learned as a detective that has always rung true, when people are too intolerant of legitimate questions ... or regard such questions as an attack … one must suspect that something is being hidden. If Bishop Manchester would not deem to speak or write to me because I’ve expressed legitimate skepticism, then I suspect he is much too thin-skinned, which would seem to hold true for any group that has a perceived guru or infallible leader. That would be a shame.

With regards,

Don Ecker”
To be continued...

No comments:


Related Posts with Thumbnails