Friday, June 12, 2009

The Ecker Report Rides Again

Continued from here.
The following is derived both from the show and our telephone discussions. (And this is again to remind the readers that I tried again and again to give Manchester his chance to appear on the show and “correct the record” with anything he may have disputed.

According to David Farrant,
“Well, it's true that Manchester claims that two girls were attacked by the Vampire; Elizabeth Wodjyla and the ever elusive Lusia.
What he fails to point out, is that the only two alleged victims, were friends of his. Allow me to explain.
Elizabeth was indeed a real girl, but she also happened to be the girlfriend of a close friend of his, Keith McClean [Maclean. Incidentally, Keith also happens to be the Regional Area Secretary of the VRS. -ed.], with who Manchester is still friends with.
It was rather convenient, that his best friends girlfriend should be attacked by a Vampire that he created.
Elizabeth, many years later, and in a phone conversation to an associate said that the whole thing "Was just for a laugh."
Now, as to the fact that “The Highgate Vampire” went through two editions, with the second edition having several photographs removed,
“Manchester released two editions of his book The Highgate Vampire. The second edition omits a number of photographs. One in particular, shows a victim with two bite marks on her neck; the problem is, that it isn't Elizabeth's neck, nor is it Lusia.
If it is Elizabeth as he may claim, then the marks are not consistent with later photo's of her wounds. Manchester failed to realize that one day with the aid of digital technology, we would be able to scan and blow up images to such proportions, that even the finest detail would show.
What the original photo shows, is that the marks were quite clearly made by a marker pen or paint. The reason is that the lower bite mark has been dotted in twice; obviously the first attempt was too great a distance from the top mark. That isn't the only problem. If you look at both pictures of two obviously different women (the jaw line gives this away) you can easily see that the width of the two bite marks is different.
Now if this were a vampire in other words, the bite marks would be the same. If a vampire really existed, their teeth and bite marks would be no different forensically than the host body they inhabited.

It is physically impossible to leave two point like marks in a neck and not leave an impression from the mandible; in short, it's impossible to suck blood using only the maxilla and teeth. One need only look at the animal world to see the case in point. Rather than two "Hollywood" pinholes, the throat would be torn apart.
So to recap:
  • Bite marks are inconsistent;
  • Elizabeth was his friends girlfriend;
  • Elizabeth stated in a phone conversation that it was all "just for a laugh".
Now, I must state for the record that I have never seen the first edition of Manchester’s book, it is almost impossible to find one anywhere. I do have the second edition book, but once again these photographs are missing showing “fang marks.” For what it is worth at this point however, I accept what Farrant told me, if for no other reason than the Manchester group (let me use some police speak here) the Manchester group was “SO HINKY” with the information … I knew something was ROTTEN in Denmark.

I spoke to someone that was extremely familiar with all the “in’s and out’s” with this case and after this person was assured that I would keep his name confidential, he provided me with the following.
“I should explain something else here.
In the late 60's/early 70's, Manchester made a short film on an old cine camera called "The Vampire Exhumed". In it, Manchester played not only the Vampire, but the Vampire Hunter as well. Only one picture exists outside of Manchester's lock & key and it was for the poster of his home movie. The poster shows Manchester dressed as a Vampire looking up at the camera after having bitten the neck of a woman who has been identified as Jacqueline Cooper. The film itself was shown to a small number of people back in the '70's. David Farrant was one of them.
A few months ago, by pure luck, one of the members of David's organization and a fellow author, met a man at a book launch who claimed to have seen this film as well, back in the 70's.
A few months ago, by pure luck, one of the members of David's organization and a fellow author, met a man at a book launch who claimed to have seen this film as well, back in the 70's.
He corroborated the exact details that David had given of what he remembered. David always maintained that there was a small section of home movie at the end of the film that featured what he believed to be Manchester and a woman having sex in a garden or in public on some grass, but as soon as this came on, that Sean would automatically put it out of focus so you couldn't see what was happening.
The new witness brought this up himself and said that the woman was Jacqueline Cooper.
He also shed light on something that has either been a source of amusement or wonder; the infamous Vampire decomposing pictures. Well David has maintained all along that it's Manchester himself under the make up, but he didn't know how the effect was created. This new witness explained that when he had asked Manchester back in the 70's with a lot of praise for the effect, Manchester explained how he did it.
Now it's important that you realize that Manchester had a photographic studio at the time; something he brags about given the chance and a knowledge of photography.
The film is basically time lapse photography played in reverse.
Manchester had a watery flour mixture on his face and a heater & fan set up nearby.
The heat source melted the mixture and the fan blew it off of his face.
Once the time lapse photography was finished, the effect was played in reverse.
As the frame rate was so stilted, you wouldn't be able to see the blow off effect but simply a very basic face morph.

It is a set a 3 pictures from his home movie, that made their way into his book and on his own website.
3 very grainy pictures from someone who is supposed to be a professional photographer. The reason that they are so small, is that blowing up a cine film still, would leave too many artifacts in frame that would give the game away as to their origin.
To be continued...

12 comments:

Demonologist said...

"Elizabeth was indeed a real girl, but she also happened to be the girlfriend of a close friend of his, Keith McClean [Maclean. Incidentally, Keith also happens to be the Regional Area Secretary of the VRS. -ed.], with who Manchester is still friends with. It was rather convenient, that his best friends girlfriend should be attacked by a Vampire that he created."

Totally wrong. Seán Manchester was introduced to Keith Maclean by Elizabeth Wojdyla. Had Seán Manchester not known Elizabeth Wojdyla in the first place he would never have met Keith Maclean. Some years later, Keith Maclean became a lay brother in Order Sancti Graal (founded 1973). They have remained in touch for this reason and no other. Keith Maclean has given testimony with regard to his and his girlfriend's experiences in the Highgate case. Elizabeth Wojdyla, like the girlfriend who accompanied her when they walked down Swains Lane in 1967, did not want further publicity after her initial recorded testimony.

Demonologist said...

"What he fails to point out, is that the only two alleged victims, were friends of his. Allow me to explain."

Seán Manchester did not know Elizabeth or her friend Barbara until their experience was brought to his attention by Elizabeth. He did not know Keith Maclean until he was introduced to him by Elizabeth Wojdyla. None of these people were friends of Seán Manchester and only much later did Keith Maclean become a friend of Seán Manchester.

Demonologist said...

"Elizabeth, many years later, and in a phone conversation to an associate said that the whole thing 'Was just for a laugh'."

This is a complete fabrication strongly denied by Elizabeth Wojdyla who has never spoken to Farrant in her life. She wants no further publicity, and certainly no fraudulent association with this interloping charlatan.

Demonologist said...

"The second edition omits a number of photographs. One in particular, shows a victim with two bite marks on her neck; the problem is, that it isn't Elizabeth's neck, nor is it Lusia. If it is Elizabeth as he may claim, then the marks are not consistent with later photo's of her wounds."

The female on page 136 of the first edition of The Highgate Vampire is clearly neither Elizabeth or Lusia. There is no claim anywhere that this woman is either of those two. The fact is that some people were found or came forward who wanted no publicity and certainly did not want to be identified. This female allowed he neck to be photographed and the picture to appear provided her face was obscured and she was unrecognisable. There is nothing in the caption to suggest this is anything other than what it is.

Demonologist said...

So to recap:

"Bite marks are inconsistent;
Elizabeth was his friends girlfriend; Elizabeth stated in a phone conversation that it was all 'just for a laugh'."

They are not inconsistent because they are entirely different people's necks and no claim has been to suggest otherwise.

Neither Elizabeth nor her boyfriend was a friend of Seán Manchester.

Elizabeth Wojdyla has strenuously denied that any such telephone conversation has taken place with anyone and stands by her original recorded statements at the time.

________________________________


"Now, I must state for the record that I have never seen the first edition of Manchester’s book, it is almost impossible to find one anywhere."

That might be due to the fact that it instantly sold out as a bestseller withing months of its release two dozen years ago. This led to a massive printing of the next edition which is enlarged with material not possible to include in the first edition for reasons of space. There are also new images. Seán Manchester wanted a very much more personal second edition which revealed both his and other people's emotions at the time of the events.

Demonologist said...

"In the late 60's/early 70's, Manchester made a short film on an old cine camera called "The Vampire Exhumed". In it, Manchester played not only the Vampire, but the Vampire Hunter as well. Only one picture exists outside of Manchester's lock & key and it was for the poster of his home movie. The poster shows Manchester dressed as a Vampire looking up at the camera after having bitten the neck of a woman who has been identified as Jacqueline Cooper. The film itself was shown to a small number of people back in the '70's. David Farrant was one of them."

Total falsehood. No film was made with Seán Manchester playing vampire and vampire hunter. In fact, no film whatsoever was made and there is nobody who will be found who will say otherwise other than Farrant who is a compulsive liar. Let him and anyone else take a lie detector test.

The "poster" has been doctored, but originally related to a book titled "The Vampire Exhumed" and nothing else. This "poster" appeared in a later decade than that attributed to the "film" and many people would recognise it for what it is. "The Vampire Exhumed" as a title was changed when the book was published. The woman in the poster is not Jacqueline Cooper and the man is not Seán Manchester. Surely anyone can see that much by just looking at it?

Demonologist said...

"A few months ago, by pure luck, one of the members of David's organization and a fellow author, met a man at a book launch who claimed to have seen this film as well, back in the 70's."

Farrant's "organisation" does not have any members as demonstrated by their complete absence whenever he opens a public forum in the name of his "organisation."

This so-called anonymous "fellow author" is invited to come forward. He never will, of course, because he does not exist. If someone fraudulently came forward to lie on Farrant's behalf they would quickly be exposed when questioned.

The Overseer said...

Firstly, "Demonologist", I'm gonna have to take pretty much everything you say with a grain of salt.

I've exposed you as a regurgitator and plagiarist too many times to take you all that seriously.

And, if you're not Sean Manchester - and have no authority to speak on his behalf - then you're pretty much full of hot air.

That said, I'll respond to what I can.

1) Have you actually met Elizabeth yourself? Have you spoken to her? Interviewed her? What's your connection to her to know what you say?

2) The photograph with the bitemarks. As it happens, I've got a copy of the first edition. On page 136, the caption beneath the picture reads, "Mark of the vampire - despite the poor quality of this photograph taken at the height of the vampire infestation, the inflamed swellings on the neck are amply visible".

So, you're being rather disingenuous by saying "There is no claim anywhere that this woman is either of those two." Because one could also counter that, on the other hand, no mention is made that the woman in the picture is merely a model, either.

If anything, I'd say the caption is grossly misleading.

3) If you feel the poster for the alleged cine film ("The Vampire Exhumed") has been doctored, then, by all means, post up the original from the alleged book.

Demonologist said...

1) Have you actually met Elizabeth yourself? Have you spoken to her? Interviewed her? What's your connection to her to know what you say?

1) Have you done any of those things? Answer: no. Has Farrant. The answer is still no. I would sooner accept the word of Seán Manchester than I would a pathological liar like Farrant. And, yes, I do know Seán Manchester.

2) The photograph with the bitemarks. As it happens, I've got a copy of the first edition. On page 136, the caption beneath the picture reads, "Mark of the vampire - despite the poor quality of this photograph taken at the height of the vampire infestation, the inflamed swellings on the neck are amply visible".

So, you're being rather disingenuous by saying "There is no claim anywhere that this woman is either of those two." Because one could also counter that, on the other hand, no mention is made that the woman in the picture is merely a model, either.

If anything, I'd say the caption is grossly misleading.

2) You might think that. I don't. There is no suggestion that the picture is of a model. It is not a model and it is clearly not Elizabeth or Lusia just by looking at it. The woman in the photograph did not want to be identified and therefore has not been. Seán Manchester obviously knows her identity.

3) If you feel the poster for the alleged cine film ("The Vampire Exhumed") has been doctored, then, by all means, post up the original from the alleged book.

3) I don't think it. I know it. Contact Jeanne Keyes Youngson. She also knows that the original title of a book by Seán Manchester was going to be "The Vampire Exhumed." She is certainly no friend of Seán Manchester, but back in the early Eighties she saw this material when she visited the UK. Peter Underwood also saw the original manuscript with this title on it. There was no cine film with this or any other name, as described by Farrant. You are merely disseminating Farrant's libellous allegations without a single shred of evidence to back them up. All these claims stem from one source and one source only: a man waging a malicious vendetta against Seán Manchester.

Take another look at the "poster." Are you seriously suggesting that the "vampire" looks anything like Seán Manchester? You might not be able to say one way or the other anout the "victim," but I can assure you the female is definitely not Jacqueline Cooper.

The Overseer said...

Let's have a look at your answers:

1) So you haven't even met Elizabeth, yet claim some kind of authority over her, on Manchester's behalf. How do you know Farrant has never met her, if you haven't even met her yourself, to confirm or deny this?

2) So you think there's no issue printing a misleading caption under a picture of a woman, with (as it turns out, fake) bitemarks on her neck, in a book covering an allegedly real occurrence?

You think it's ok that no disclosure was made of the use of a model in the picture?

And yet again, you give even less reason for you to be taken seriously.

3) Regarding "The Vampire Exhumed", I do accept the possibility of it originally being a book.

For example, a listing for it appears - as an unpublished manuscript - in Martin V. Riccardo's vampire bibliography, Vampires Unearthed (1983).

However, it is also given the date, "1980".

The alleged film we're talking about, pre-dated this. So, that doesn't rule out the possibility of the film in question.

Especially as David has an - albeit, anonymous - witness to it.

Thus, you can't claim that I am "disseminating Farrant's libellous allegations without a single shred of evidence to back them up." For one thing, I'm not claiming what Farrant said is accurate.

But, I am gonna say that it's possible.

I mean, you haven't even seen the manuscript yourself!

So stop pretending to be an authority on all things Highgate.

As to the poster, I don't have it. Hence, my request for you to reproduce the original...which, you haven't done.

Oh, and if you can assure me that the woman depicted isn't Jacqueline...have you met her? Been in touch with her at all? How do you even know what she looks like?

Ramsey Campbell said...

' "Now, I must state for the record that I have never seen the first edition of Manchester’s book, it is almost impossible to find one anywhere."

That might be due to the fact that it instantly sold out as a bestseller withing months of its release two dozen years ago.'

Gosh! I must have been very lucky to be able to order a copy of the first edition from my local bookshop in 1990, then. After all, the book is clearly dated 1985.

Anthony Hogg said...

Funnily enough, they make the same claims of scarcity on Underwood's book, 'The vampire's bedside companion', but that's piss-easy to get secondhand.

As to Manchester's book, now, I wonder why they wouldn't want anyone to think you could get it elsewhere... ;)

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails