Sunday, September 13, 2009

Youngson Responds

As mentioned in "Update on the Varma Correspondence", I sent an e-mail to Jeanne Keyes Youngson concerning alleged correspondence she had been sent from Gothic Scholar, Devendra P. Varma (1923-1994), concerning negative views of Seán Manchester.

Youngson is the President and Founder of the Vampire Empire (formerly the International Count Dracula Fan Club) and has been an active and respected participant in vampire fandom and study since 1965.

Her e-mail response was dated Saturday, 12 September 2009 12:12 AM.

In regard to Varma's views on Manchester, and her own dealings with Manchester, she wrote this:
He attacked me and members of the VE staff for no reason at all. Never met the man which made it even more peculiar that he would go out of his way to slander us. As for Varma, he spent two extra days with us here in New York visiting the Dracula Museum. It was very exciting to spend quality time with such a learned man. He said one of the worst mistakes he had ever made was to have anything at all to do with Manchester.
She also gave me permission to reprint it, so she obviously stands by her claims.

The question is, will the VRS continue to revere Varma as their "Honorary Vice-President"?


Vampirologist said...

I had warned you previously that Jeanne Keyes Youngson would back Farrant's malicious and despicable allegation to the hilt.

Youngson, an Aleister Crowley apologist, absolutely despises Bishop Seán Manchester (largely due to his views on vampiroids and malefic occultists) and has regurgitated much of Farrant's hateful propaganda in her own tracts and newsletters down the years.

Her allegation about Professor Devendra P Varma with reference to Bishop Seán Manchester is completely without foundation and, of course, is totally unsubstantiated.

It is very easy for this woman to put false words into the mouth of someone who has been dead for fifteen years!

What Youngson says is not backed by Dr Varma's close colleagues; especially not by mutual friends and associates of Professor Varma and Bishop Manchester, eg Peter Underwood.

Someone else who relied on Youngson, a certain Leonard R N Ashley, for a book published in 1998, misinformed readers of "The Complete Book of Vampires" that the bishop is no longer with us, implicit in Ashley's reference to "the late Seán Manchester."

Youngson did this, of course, because she wanted Ashley to libel the bishop, and he obliged her with his defamatory and false claims, knowing that he couldn't be sued for libel if someone is dead.

The UK publisher settled out of court whereas the United States edition stands, and readers of Ashley's book in America might still labour under the false impression that Seán Manchester has been dead for all these years!

Anthony Hogg said...

The problem here, Deme, is that Youngson isn't recounting something David told her, but something Varma told her, himself.

You'll have to be more specific on what Farrant "regurgiations" (ironic coming from yourself and your mass of copy-n-paste diatribes) she's actually printed elsewhere.

If her claims about Varma are "without foundation", then I could equally say the same about yours, as we've established that you don't speak with the Bishop's authority. You've indicated no relationship with Varma, yourself, to contradict the claim, either.

The error printed in Ashley's book (I'd say it has more errors than indicating the Bishop's "death") is something you try to correlate to Youngson.

Where is your proof she even fed Ashley such a thing?

Vampirologist said...

Did I not say that that Jeanne Keyes Youngson would back Farrant to the hilt and is doing precisely that by claiming the same malicious allegation as Farrant.

Are you not aware that Youngson and Farrant have been in contact for quite some time and that she would be primed and ready for your enquiry? Ask her about her communications down the years with Farrant while you're asking her questions on his say-so.

As you keep telling me I "don't speak with the Bishop's authority," why don't you deal directly with Bishop Seán Manchester instead of posting unsubstantiated claims by his enemies on yours and other people's blogs?

Anthony Hogg said...

How is Youngson's comments about what Varma said backing David "to the hilt"?

She related it as a personal experience, not something fed to her by David.

I am aware that she and David had been in contact. She mentioned it to be in the same e-mail, but said it had lapsed.

I'd be happy to find out what the nature of her communications were.

And yes, I keep telling you that you don't speak with the Bishop's authority. That's because, he said so himself.

How about backing up what you've said about her, rather than just slinging mud?

I asked several questions from you concerning your evidence for your claims, and they went unanswered.

Let's hear your response to them.

Vampirologist said...

What would you expect her to do?

Are you really that naive?

Farrant would have primed her and she would have added the comment regarding Dr Varma to her familiar attacks on Bishop Seán Manchester.

Why do you take this woman's word when you question mine? What makes her so different? It is generally accepted in the subculture that she has a mighty large axe to grind where Bishop Manchester is concerned. She will say absolutely anything that paints him in a bad light. The woman is poisonous.!

You accept these people's false allegations on their word alone, but you demand evidence from me. Where is Farrant's evidence? Where is Youngson's evidence?

They have produced none!

As for "mud-slinging"? Aren't you doing a good job of that yourself on your own and other people's blogs? What are these false allegations about the late Dr Varma other than mud-slinging that you are disseminating on the internet?

Anthony Hogg said...

Hi Dennis,

It's nice to see you follow my blog so closely, that you decided to either hide or delete your profile on Bloody Feather so soon after I wrote my latest blog entry.

Now, as to your recent (and rather "timely") comment.

I simply asked Youngson if Varma had a negative view on Manchester. She confirmed it. This was related as a personal communication she had with him.

If you're saying that Farrant "primed her", then you're basically calling her a liar.

Furthermore, you'd need proof to verify your own claim that he did.

Why do I take her word over yours? 1) She's a direct source 2) you don't actually speak with the Bishop's authority 3) you've repeatedly demonstrated shady tactics and harassing behaviour

Generally accepted she's got a big axe to grind against Manchester? That's funny. You seem to be the only one really making such a deal about it. And you're a VRS member, therefore, biased.

Nor have you even actually said what she has said about Manchester, in the first place.

Vampirologist said...

It naturally follows that Jeanne Keyes Youngson is a liar.

And so is Farrant.

It was Farrant who originally posted the falsehood that it was "Jeannie [sic] Youngson of the Count Dracula Fan Club, who informed [Farrant] that Devendra regretted the day he had ever got in contact with [Seán Manchester]."

Next you are told by Youngson that her contact with Farrant has "lapsed." Yet Farrant is privy to a so-called "personal communication" between Youngson and Devendra P Varma. How can that happen unless they are still in communication?

You are for ever telling me that I need proof for what I say while you apparently require no proof before publishing libellous allegations about a much respected author, exorcist and bishop.

You describe Youngson as a "respected" member of the vampire "community." Where is your proof for that statement? Over the years, the VRS has received more complaints (for selling cheap rip-off junk under the guise of vampire interest items) against Youngson than anyone else, and no person has attracted more vitriol in the vampire aficionado/vampiroid subculture where she is loathed. Again, this dislike of her appears to be fundamentally rooted in her exploitation of others.

Youngson clearly dislikes Christians and is supportive of all things associated with the dark occult. That much can be gleaned from her journals and newsletters under the New York Count Dracula Fan Club label.

You started this "bombshell" nonsense on the say-so of Farrant and continued it on the say-so of Youngson who you describe as a "direct source." Both are sworn enemies of Bishop Seán Manchester who is definitely a direct source and the one person, as far as I can tell, you have not contacted.


Anthony Hogg said...

"It naturally follows that Jeanne Keyes Youngson is a liar."

And your proof for this is...?

Yes, Farrant posted that Youngson reported that Varma had said some very negative things about Manchester.

But what you don't seem to grasp, is, that she also confirmed it herself.

Youngson did tell me that the contact between her and Farrant had lapsed.

And you'd also note, in that case, how David had said correspondence, cos he mentioned it himself.

Yes, you do need proof in what you say. What I've published are allegations (which I clearly label as such) and I've also published the words of the person their attributed to, i.e., Youngson herself.

Your counter-claims consist of...what? Saying I'm "naive"? That she was "primed" to say them?

Piffle. If I'm publishing libel, then you're doing the same thing yourself, with nothing to back up what you say.

Where's my proof that she's respected? She's been in the biz for 44 years now. Her Library has been consulted by multiple vampire authors. She has thousands of members across the globe...

I'd say that gives her some level of respect.

What do you have? Multiple pseudonyms. You follow your own blog. And you engage in continuous acts of copy-n-paste.

Hell, you even refuse to explain your role and involvement in the Highgate Vampire Case.

Not even the Bishop authorises you to speak on his behalf.

Where is this vitirol? And if she's so loathed by the "vampiroid community", then why would you list Manchester's criticisms of said community as one of the reasons she's against him?

I didn't start the "bombshell" nonsense on Farrant's behalf. There's heaps of things he says which I don't feel the need to quite here. But it's a potential bombshell if Varma did indeed utter bad tidings against Manchester, considering you guys revere him as your "Honorary Vice-President".

Youngson is a direct source, as she claims he said this stuff to her. You, on the other hand, are not.

Hell, you don't even admit any interaction with Varma.

And you want me to contact the Bishop about Youngson's experience? Puh-lease.

But, since you're so against her, let's see you reproduce some of this anti-Manchester stuff she's perpetuated. Go on.

Baldry's Cat said...

This "Farrant said that Person B said that Person C said that Manchester is a wanker" rubbish leaves me bored to tears.

There must be dozens of people who knew both David and Sean from the 1970s, who are not aligned with either one. Wouldn't it be great to interview such people in order to get a more truthful picture of what happened from actual 3rd party independent sources?

Anonymous said...

# 1. I told you to use "demo" to refer to "demo-nologist"; all you do is make yourself look LIKE A BUMBLING uneducated MORON and this discredits you, and since the Lord knows your nasty covert aims this is exactly what will continue to transpire---lack of credibility on your part and your deep involvement with the workings of Satan himself.
I discern that you are a younger man who got into the church--probably due to appeasing your past girlfriend ---and for the wrong reasons and then got disillusioned or bored with the entire thing--and you lacked humbleness to believe what they were teaching and have more or less developed your own beliefs which are misconstrued and false--and because of lack of meaning or purpose in your own life and your deep need to validate that you ARE important and involved with something that makes you FEEL important--you got into this entire F___ circus. And I can guaranty you, there are those that know about this history and are not involved because they are wise and are laughing at your complete moronic immaturity and outright idiocy because you simply do not have the backing or credibility to even involve yourself ----no matter how much you've read and studied or "investigated"----which you know nothing of either. Your lack of education and professionalism shines over everything you state and attempt to do within this circus. And I'll also bet you don't work and are living at home with mom.

#2. With the short amount of reading I did on Devendra, he clearly believed in the supernatural AND in the manifestation of "vampires"; isn't that yours and F___ point---that nothing happened at Highgate ? Why don't you spend TRUE QUALITY time researching the supernatural or metaphysical---before you enter into debate about an academic subject you know nothing about--you just keep making a blundering fool-ass out of yourself and because you don't believe in hyper-dimensional manifestations: demons, etc even though the Bible clearly states the truth of this, and that good angels appear as men and demons possess men or worse, "masquerade" and that refers to = appearing as something they are not-- and they also have the power to appear as any other form because they are capable of transforming into personified evil---which is what took place at Highgate and has increased in frequency, order of form, variation in presence AND INTENSITY.


What both you and F___ need from the Lord is a good spanking which He will do in his time, and a few supernatural experiences---which will also happen, because He loves both of you and Dad always chastens His child and God's parenting is FAR more judgmental and severe in this world vs. anything your own Dad did to you....and I really wonder if your own father was even in your life...Because you present a particular profile......and go too the university and at least bring some ounce of credibility to what you are attempting to do.

Did you see my other post on Baldry's to you from me---seems they decided to "remove" it...cuz a day later it wasn't anywhere to be was a good one

Anthony Hogg said...

John Baldry's Cat,

Yes, third parties would be a great source of info, considering how "incestuous" the Case is.

Its wellsprings are two primary sources: Manchester and Farrant.

This blog attempts to find some kind of common ground.

Maybe, one day, they'll both make up. But considering they've reveled in a forty year feud, that day might be a long way off.


It's somewhat difficult to wade through the vomit that is your comments.

Can you please make them a little more coherent and, if you've got a criticism against me, could you lay it out more plainly.

What is your take on this whole affair? Do you believe Manchester's claims about his alleged dealings with the undead?

Vampirologist said...

"There must be dozens of people who knew both David and Sean from the 1970s, who are not aligned with either one. Wouldn't it be great to interview such people in order to get a more truthful picture of what happened from actual 3rd party independent sources?" cliams John Baldry's Cat without a shred of evidence to support such a statement.

"Yes, third parties would be a great source of info, considering how 'incestuous' the Case is," blurts "The [Australian] Overseer."

The case is not at all incestuous, and the very fact that dozens of people are not emerging to put their spin on the matter lends credence to Seán Manchester's version of events, ie that he investigated Farrant on a one to one basis and sometimes spoke to people who knew Farrant, including Farrant's girlfriends, but that is all the commonality that existed between them.

"Its wellsprings are two primary sources: Manchester and Farrant," claims "The [Australian] Overseer."

There is only one repository of information and that is the Vampire Research Society headed by Seán Manchester, plus such witnesses mentioned or referred to in the published account. This cannot include Farrant whose original claims have been exposed as fraudulent and who later contradicted and denied such claims as made in the media by him at the time of the happenings.

"This blog attempts to find some kind of common ground," alleges "The [Australian] Overseer" somewhat unconvincingly.

There is no common ground. Anyone can see that. This blog attempts to stoke what is perceived to be a "feud" for the blogger's own amusement while offering the pretence of having an insight into what took place at Highgate, England, before the Australian blogger was even born.

Anthony Hogg said...


I don't know why you need to refer to me as the "Australian" Overseer. I mean, I used the "Overseer" moniker before you decided to hijack it. You know that quite well.

Your use of it "in protest" (while speaking in the third person) is even more of a joke.

And sorry, but the case, as it stands, is pretty incestuous. It tends to be galvanised by two sides: Farrant or Manchester.

Representations of these sides (your unauthorised self, included) highlight that. Even more amusingly, the claims and counter-claims even tend to be similar.

A perfect example is the secret recordings Farrant and Manchester made of each other.

By saying that there is "only one repository of information and that is the Vampire Research Society headed by Seán Manchester" (a society you happen to be the International Secretary of) only enhances my point about incestuousness.

As to the witnesses involved, well, Luisa is a false name and Keith Maclean is now the Regional Secretary of the VRS. So, unbiased, outside sources are pretty hard to come by.

And Dennis, you can't blame my blog for stoking a feud that has raged, as you would point out, "before I was born". Whether my blog existed or not, you know very well that it would continue thanks to efforts from chaps like yourself.

Vampirologist said...

"As to the witnesses involved, well, Luisa is a false name and Keith Maclean is now the Regional Secretary of the VRS. So, unbiased, outside sources are pretty hard to come by," states Anthony Hogg.

"Luisa" is deceased and therefore cannot be regarded as a witness. Her status from the beginning was always that of victim. Keith Maclean, Elizabeth Wojdyla's boyfriend at the time of molestation by the Highgate Vampire, was nothing to do with the VRS until well after the case had been closed. Seán Manchester became acquainted with him through Elizabeth Woydyla who is a witness and provided recorded testimony. There are others too numerous to list whom you have also omitted.

Seán Manchester has openly stated since the mid-1980s that he was working undercover and did and said whatever he felt was necessary to get to the bottom of Farrant's claims. Even so, the incredibly poor quality recordings made by Farrant are so obviously doctored as to be laughable. Even to the untrained ear, the cuts and splices are quite audible.

The secret recordings made by Tony Hill in December 1969 and January 1970 clearly reveal Farrant conspiring to hoax a ghost story for his local newspapers with faked letters using friends addresses (but not their names).

Anthony Hogg said...


Yeah, Keith became involved with the VRS after the case...based on...your say-so. And you don't even speak with Manchester's authority. Interesting.

How do you know they both didn't collude on concocting a false story? What if Elizabeth was in on it, too?

Do you know? Were you there? What precisely was your involvement in the Case?

And isn't it a bit convenient that the other witnesses are "too numerous to list"?

Which brings me back to the point, and the one John Baldry's Cat raised: bugger-all outside witnesses.

So the Bishop did a bit of a James Bond on Farrant which included...what? Faking news stories? Swearing over the phone?

Have Farrant's tapes, themselves, been examined by a recording professional to determine if they've been doctored?

Considering he had a publication called "The Seangate Tapes" serving as a transcript to said convos, why haven't you guys had him in court?

It makes all your talk of "libel" and "slander" and "defamation" seem nothing more than lip service.

Ah, Tony Hill. Isn't he a friend of Manchester's now?

Vampirologist said...

"Tony Hill. Isn't he a friend of Manchester's now?" asks Anthony Hogg.

The chronology is as follows:

Tony Hill worked part-time in Seán Manchester's studio darkroom until his elopement with Farrant's wife, Mary, in 1968.

Seán Manchester did not know either David Farrant or Mary Farrant, but had seen the latter working as a barmaid in The Woodman. He did not speak to her or her to him. They did not know each other. The same goes for Farrant whom he did not even notice when performing music in The Woodman.

Seán Manchester was acquainted with Tony Hill and his wife, but not close enough to have been a guest at their wedding.

Tony Hill was very friendly with Farrant from circa 1967/8 until Farrant's incarceration on remand in the late summer of 1970. It was probably a friendship designed to get closer to Mary Farrant with whom Hill had an affair in 1968/9. None of this was known to Seán Manchester until Hill turned up on his doorstep with Mrs Farrant in tow. A schism occurred between Hill and Seán Manchester at this point. It would last many years.

It was during the end of 1969 and beginning of 1970 that Hill and Farrant colluded to hoax a ghost story. When this got out of hand and Farrant didn't stick to the plan, Hill abandoned Farrant. The plan, according to Hill, was to hoax a ghost story for several weeks and then to expose it as being a hoax to reveal how seemingly gullible the press and public are on such matters. Farrant apparently did not believe in things paranormal and saw it all as a prank at the public's expense

Farrant, however, received considerable publicity due to his arrest on the night of 17 August 1970 and consequently refused to stick to the plan they had both concocted. By now he had boarded the vampire bandwagon owing to statements he had heard Seán Manchester make on television and in the press. Hill lost all interest in Farrant from this point and wanted nothing more to do with him. When anyone mentioned Farrant's name in mixed company, Hill would apparently refer to him as "that useless article." Seán Manchester quickly rumbled Farrant as an interloping charlatan. The rest is history.

When Seán Manchester was episcopally consecrated he invited many old acquaintances to be in the church congregation. Hill, now a changed man from the person he was when he knew Farrant, was one of those old acquaintances.

Hill also attended a funeral approximately six or seven years ago held by Seán Manchester for the latter's London secretary and close friend. A cassette tape was handed over before Hill's departure. It contained crucial excerpts from the hoax conversations of 1969/70. Farrant is quite audible and is clearly engaged in a fraudulent ploy to deceive the press and public.

Seán Manchester regularly holds reunion dinners at his retreat for old comrades and other acquaintances. Anyone can apply to come to one of these if they have been acquainted with the bishop. Hill has attended one or two of these reunions in recent years. Whether this would constitute a "friendship," I cannot say, but they are acquainted with what appears to be no more than very infrequent contact. Hill, after all, no longer resides in the United Kingdom.

"Considering he had a publication called 'The Seangate Tapes' serving as a transcript to said convos, why haven't you guys had him in court?" asks Anthony Hogg.

The question about taking Farrant to court has been dealt with so many times it is is now becoming tiresone. There is also the argument that it would publicise Farrant's malicious falsehood on a massive scale, whatever the outcome of the case. Only Farrant would benefit from such action because he has never paid court costs and damages in the past when he has lost a case because he is exempt due to being a social security claimant.

Anthony Hogg said...

So, after all that, you've established that Tony and Manchester are at least presently acquainted. Gotcha.

The argument that taking Farrant to court would have the horrifying effect of giving him further publicity is undermined by your own efforts.

You continuously choose to engage him in debate, yet, what have you actually won? Even if most of what you say is true, it'd be merely a Pyhrric victory.

Farrant, at least, speaks on his own behalf. You, however, speak with no authority and hide behind a batch of usernames, while continually distributing salacious diatribes against him.

You, my friend, are the fuel to the fire.

Incidentally, why have you been alternating between the "Vampirologist" and "Demonologist" name? Why not put your actual one down, Dennis?


Related Posts with Thumbnails