The Wojdyla Testimony, Pt. 3

As mentioned, I'll be covering a rebuttal to Farrant's allegations concerning Wojdyla. I'm also gonna garnish it with a few other relevant items.

Forum member, Cú Chulainn, stepped into the debate concerning the hoax allegations, and shared a rebuttal from an unnamed, Manchester-friendly source. He prefaced it with this:

I hope that I'm not about to feed the flames with this posting - given the recent heated exchanges, but I recieved this communique from a representative of the Manchester camp and have been given permission to post it here. I am no way endorsing these opinions by agreeing to post, but I feel that on an open forum, they deserved to be aired and discussed:

Which, I feel, perfectly surmises the importance of balance in the Case. For the sake of disclosure, a few words on the formatting of the post. Chulainn originally posted it as a slab of plain text. The sections of the response quoting Farrant, I've marked in grey, for the sake of clarity. I've also closed up the spacing between paragraphs. Here goes:

But now let me get back to the Polish schoolgirl, Elizabeth, and the purpose of your question . . . Well, as stated just before, in 1985 , an aspiring ‘vampire hunter’ self-published a book on an alleged ‘vampire’ (and its so-called disciple) that he claimed had existed in London’s Highgate Cemetery.

The Highgate Vampire (unlike all of Farrant's self-produced efforts) was not "self-published." It was published by the British Occult Society in 1985 whose registered offices were at 13-15 Pond Square, Highgate, London N6 6BA. The "claim" of a vampire at large in and around Highgate Cemetery was made by scores of people over a few weeks in February/March 1970 and literally hundreds of people in the preceding and following years.

It didn’t anymore, he claimed in this book, as he had ‘staked’ it back in 1973 [sic] and then ‘tracked down’ its disciple “Lusia” whom he also ‘staked’ after she had changed into a ‘giant spider’ in 1982. The name of this particular author (there were many more) was Mr.[sic] Sean Manchester.

The Highgate Vampire was successfully exorcised in the only traditionally effective manner in 1974, not "1973." That such entities can sometimes be corporeal is a matter of public record stretching back to antiquity. It is recognised throughout advanced occultism, metaphysics and demonolatry in general that a small amount of blood provides the necessary component for the materialisation of a corporeal form. Such materialisations are not dependent on the operational needs of organs in the human body as we understand it in the natural world. The use of impalement and decapitation is a symbolic act backed by faith. Cremation is the only effective and final remedy for any host to the demonic agency. The host can be destroyed. The demonic agency cannot. The latter is expelled when exorcised to where it came from.

All good stuff for lovers of vampire fiction, I suppose.

A bit like this ... ?

(Shown pic of David armed with a wooden stake)

Mr.[sic] Manchester writes that in the late 1960’s, a story was brought to his attention of how two Convent schools, Elizabeth and Barbara, had seen ‘bodies rising from the graves’ as they walked past London’s Highgate Cemetery late one night.

So far, so good ...

Now, by coincidence – or perhaps not – one of these girls (Elizabeth) was the live-in girlfriends of one of Mr.[sic] Manchester’s friends called Keith – or ‘Brother Keith’ as Mr.[sic] Manchester ‘reverently’ refers to him.

Wrong. As stated on many previous occasions - including on this forum - Seán Manchester did not know Keith Maclean until he was introduced to him by Elizabeth Wojdyla in 1969, by which time he had known Elizabeth for two years. Four years later, Keith Maclean entered a Christian order as a "Brother" and was thereafter Br Keith. Farrant refers to this man in his self-published pamphlets as a "drug addict" and a "Jesus freak" due to Keith Maclean wearing his hair long and having a full beard. Such is David Farrant's mentality and manner of deduction and judgement. Farrant has not met or had any form of contact with Keith Maclean.

Now Keith began to get concerned about Elizabeth’s health; she lost her appetite, began to have vivid nightmares and became subject to bouts of sleep walking. Keith calls in Mr.[sic] Manchester for his ‘expert advice’ and it doesn’t take him (Mr.[sic] Manchester) that Elizabeth has been bitten by that Highgate ‘vampire’!

Seán Manchester became aware of Elizabeth Wojdyla's worsening condition when he met her on a public thoroughfare by accident two years after her experience at Highgate Cemetery, by which time he had still not met Keith Maclean.

Manchester immediately instructs that her room but adourned with fresh garlic, and she be made to wear a large Christian cross.. He also instructs Keith to feed her on some of his ‘nourishing broth’ in order to help her recover.

Seán Manchester did not "insruct" that Elizabeth be fed "nourishing broth." She was fed broth by Keith. Both she and her boyfriend were vegetarians. Indeed, she worked at Cranks vegetarian restaraunt off Carnaby Street, London, at the time. The constant mention of "nourishing broth" as a vampire repellant is a puerile joke created by Barbara Green and continued by Farrant who has the mentalitiy of a four-year-old. It is on par with him constantly referring to Seán Manchester's "tea-pot cosy," a traditional priest's/bishop's headwear (known as biretta), and use of the term "the bonky one." The man employing these infantile references is sixty-five-years-old next month!

In 1979, an Australian friend of mine phoned Elizabeth’s home in Southgate.

The "Australian friend" is Farrant's second wife, Colette Sully, who has since admitted that she was put up to lying for Farrant on innumerable occasions to blacken the name of Seán Manchester. Farrant had divorced his second wife by 1979. Elizabeth Wojdyla has never lived in Southgate. Elizabeth's parents have never lived in Southgate.

We were anxious to discover Mr.[sic] Manchester’s whereabouts as I wanted to ask him about a series of private photographs of myself that had been sent to New Witchcraft magazine and been published.

This is a bare-faced lie from start to finish. Farrant has always known where Seán Manchester resides and most certainly did in 1979. Seán Manchester did not send any material relating to Farrant to the editor of New Witchcraft magazine.

The editor told me that these photographs had been submitted by Mr.[sic] Manchester and he (the editor) assumed that he had my permission. In fact, he didn’t, but that’s another story.

It is safe for Farrant to make these false allegations because the magazine ceased to exist thirty years ago! The editor is probably dead. Nothing Farrant ever says can be backed by any evidence. You will discover he made no such allegations closer to the time.

When my friend phoned Elizabeth’s home, she spoke to her parents who gave her then work address and phone number. She was working at Thompsons Travel at the time.

Colette Sully did not telephone Elizabeth Wojdyla and did not speak to either Elizabeth or her parents. Based on what Elizabeth's brother has told us, it would have been impossible because none of them were in the country at the time.

She spoke to Elizabeth, but was informed she had lost all contact a few years before.

Neither Colette Sully, nor anyone else connected to David Farrant, spoke to Elizabeth Wojdyla at any time. Seán Manchester did have contact with Elizabeth during this period. Farrant has neither met nor spoken to Elizabeth Wojdyla at any time in his life.

"Please feel free to publish any of the above material should you choose to do so. The VRS has already done so on countless occasions and will only ignite more abuse from Farrant if it were to comment on the forum again. David Farrant, like other propagandists before him, believes that if you repeat a lie often enough people will start to believe it. This is why we and others refute his malicioius lies which have only one purpose, ie to feed his forty-year-old vendetta against Seán Manchester who has only sought to bring about reconciliation to end the vitriol. Farrant thrives on falsehood which he self-publishes and distributes for personal gain. He never conducts any interview or self-publishes any tract, pamphlet or booklet without defaming Seán Manchester throughout. In the meantime, Seán Manchester has not once mentioned David Farrant in any radio, television or internet interview he has given since March 1970."

Unfortunately, before the matter could be explored any further on the thread, it was locked due to abusive, sidetracking posts by forum member, BLACKORCHID (aka Claremonde). Indeed, the only rebuttal Farrant's provided thus far, is this, on a the thread I started, specifically relating to the Highgate Vampire Case:

I feel you had no right Cu to be allowed to post up the comments that you did from the 'vampire research society', which after all, were only being made by one person only, and one alone. That person does NOT reflect the general view of members here, and I think most of them realise this.

The problem therefore, is certainly not my own. I can only answer questions as these are put to me. But there is a difference between answering genuine questions, and being expected to answer allegations based solely on malice or with malicious intent. Whatever, I am afraid I must stay with my desision not to answer queries put to myself on this thread.

Talk about double standards. Chulainn later courteously apologised to Farrant for causing unintended offence, but emphasised the need to hear opposing views on the Case, adding: "I think that everyone would appreciate it if both sides could be heard so people can be free to make up their own minds."

I commended him for this approach, agreeing that the other side should speak out more, rather than sending rebuttals to his inbox.

There've been a few follow-ups on the Wojdyla claims since then. Fellow forum member, timelord, posted a video link which I recognised as an extract from the "Vampires" episode of True Horror with Anthony Head (2004). For the curious, here's the video:

I also followed-up with a few more comments on the vid, the hoax allegations and its Wojdyla's role in the Case:

As to Elizabeth, the clip you've posted features her testimony at the 2:34-2:43 and 3:09-3:19 marks.

David said she wasn't aware her "fangmark" photos had been distributed and considered them part of a "joke". However, he obtained this information from a secondhand source and has provided no follow-up to the rebuttal posted via Cu, except to say that it shouldn't have been posted here.

Point is, if Elizabeth did dismiss the "fangmarks" as a joke, then the recording provides a more sinister edge, implying her participation in an outright hoax.

I hope we can unravel more from the Wojdyla angle.

Which means the next step involves finding Wojdyla. If she can verify that it was all "just a joke", then a significant chunk of Manchester's case topples over and we'd be well on the way to establishing a smoking gun in the hoax claims. The question is: where is she? That's one mystery I'm yet to unravel.

The Wojdyla Testimony, Pt. 2

In the previous instalment, I discussed Elizabeth Wojdyla's role in the Highgate Vampire Case. Most of our knowledge of her involvement stems from Sean Manchester. Here I'll deal with Farrant's claim that Wojdyla was "duped" and raise questions about his allegations.

One of the latest conversational threads on The Supernatural World forum concerns the reliability of Wojdyla's testimony as "evidence" for Manchester's claims. Della Vallicrus got the ball rolling with this question: "David it would be really interesting to hear whether what I vaguely remember reading is true, in that you spoke to Elizabeth or heard from her, and that she admitted her part in a 'hoax'."

Her query aroused my interest. I added, "we'd have ourselves a smoking gun. So, let's see some proof. Something in writing, a recording, something, not vague allusions that can't be verified."

Byway of response, Farrant snidely summarised Manchester's account, before addressing the hoax allegations concerning Wojdyla:

This basically concerned the two 'vampire bite marks' on her neck after she had told the author of this book that she had having nightly visitations form the Highgate Cemetery 'vampire'. He published a photograph of Elizabeth on page 73 of his self-published book together with a caption which read . . . "The controversial punctures on the neck of Elizabeth Wojdlya".

So to come back to the main point of your question, Della. Yes I can confirm that Elizabeth confirmed that her whole part in this whole thing had just consisted of a joke - or at least, what she considered to be a 'joke' at the time this photograph of her alleged 'vampire marks' was taken. She also confirmed the identity of the person who took this photograph of her. It was the same person who published the fictional accounts of how he 'staked' the Highgate 'vampire' and its unfortunate disciple he calls "Lusia".¹

He then promised he'd "give details about that tomorrow . . ." In the meantime, I countered Farrant's accusations with an extract from Bill Ellis' essay and encouraged him to say Manchester's name. Didn't have to wait much longer for the second part of his response, which arrived about two hours later:

So what actually happened?

Well, as stated just before, in 1985 , an aspiring ‘vampire hunter’ self-published a book on an alleged ‘vampire’ (and its so-called disciple) that he claimed had existed in London’s Highgate Cemetery. It didn’t anymore, he claimed in this book, as he had ‘staked’ it back in 1973 and then ‘tracked down’ its disciple “Lusia” whom he also ‘staked’ after she had changed into a ‘giant spider’ in 1982. The name of this particular author (there were many more) was Mr. Sean Manchester.

All good stuff for lovers of vampire fiction, I suppose.

But its not quite the end of the story. In fact, an equally ‘good part’ comes near the book’s beginning . . .

Mr. Manchester writes that in the late 1960’s, a story was brought to his attention of how two Convent schools, Elizabeth and Barbara, had seen ‘bodies rising from the graves’ as they walked past London’s Highgate Cemetery late one night. Now, by coincidence – or perhaps not – one of these girls (Elizabeth) was the live-in girlfriends of one of Mr. Manchester’s friends called Keith – or ‘Brother Keith’ as Mr. Manchester ‘reverently’ refers to him.

Now Keith began to get concerned about Elizabeth’s health; she lost her appetite, began to have vivid nightmares and became subject to bouts of sleep walking. Keith calls in Mr. Manchester for his ‘expert advice’ and it doesn’t take him (Mr. Manchester) that Elizabeth has been bitten by that Highgate ‘vampire’! Manchester immediately instructs that her room but adourned with fresh garlic, and she be made to wear a large Christian cross.. He also instructs Keith to feed her on some of his ‘nourishing broth’ in order to help her recover.

She does apparently ‘recover’, and Mr. Manchester goes on to state that she was rescued from the clutches of vampirism – by himself, of course!

That would really be the end of this story, except that in 1985, Mr. Manchester published a photograph in his vampire book showing Elizabeth with two distinct ‘vampire puncture marks’ on her neck. He claimed these to be genuine ‘vampire bite marks’.
End of story? Well, not quite!

In 1979, an Australian friend of mine phoned Elizabeth’s home in Southgate. We were anxious to discover Mr. Manchester’s whereabouts as I wanted to ask him about a series of private photographs of myself that had been sent to New Witchcraft magazine and been published. The editor told me that these photographs had been submitted by Mr. Manchester and he (the editor) assumed that he had my permission. In fact, he didn’t, but that’s another story.

When my friend phoned Elizabeth’s home, she spoke to her parents who gave her then work address and phone number. She was working at Thompsons Travel at the time.

She spoke to Elizabeth, but was informed she had lost all contact a few years before.

But while she was on the phone, my friend had cause to ask her about a black and white photograph (in fact the same photograph that Manchester had published in his vampire book in 1985) that had been published by author Peter Underwood in his book “The Vampires Bedside Companion” published in 1974.

Elizabeth was extremely surprised saying she did not realise that any of these photographs had been published anywhere, and in any event, although Mr. Manchester had taken these photographs, she thought the markings had only been made on her neck .for a joke’!

Serious implications there, but ones that only raised further questions and a few corrections. Here's what I wrote back (sans quotations from Farrant's response, so forgive its disjointedness):

Firstly, kudos for referring to Manchester by name for a change. Well done.

Let's get technical here. The coincidence you're inferring is ex post facto. If we stick to Manchester's narrative, that is. There's no doubt Keith 'n' Sean were (or are) friends. At one point, he even served as the VRS's Regional Secretary (since replaced by Robert Finch) and yes, he later became "Brother Keith" within Manchester's Church.

Question is, were they friends at the time or did they become friends through the alleged experience? Manchester claims in The Highgate Vampire (London: British Occult Society, 1985), that the earliest meeting between 'em occurred in "the summer of 1969" (34). Manchester goes onto say that Elizabeth "introduced [him] to her boyfriend, Keith, a tall young man of Scottish decent whose help was to prove invaluable" (34-35).

Do you have any evidence that they knew each other before this time?

The only mention of "broth" in the whole text is this: "I arrived two hours ago and have been trying to get her to eat some broth I made, but she's hardly touched it," he said (37). That was Keith, not Sean.

While her room was adourned with garlic (the door and window of her bedroom, actually), there's no mention of her being made to wear a "large Christian cross". The closest mention is "A handful of salt in a piece of linen must be hung around her neck together with a silver cross" (39).

What he actually says is, "Keith bathed the small punctures on her neck with holy water until they faded and eventually disappeared. When Christmas came that year, she was her happy, normal self and all was well" (40). But yes, in a roundabout way, she was "rescued" through Manchester's advice.

The picture appears on page 73 and is captioned, "The controversial punctures on the neck of Elizabeth Wojdyla". For the record, she also appears on page 29 in two other photographs. The first's labelled, "Following the authors instructions, Keith did everything in his power to help Elizabeth fight the vampire's influence". The second, "The Polish girl, Elizabeth Wojdyla, in her bedroom towards the end of her nightly visitations".

The "Polish girl" pic appears on the VRS website, captioned "Elizabeth, the convent schoolgirl who months later fell victim to nocturnal visitations from the vampire."

What was your Australian friend's name? How did Manchester obtain a series of "private photographs" of yourself? In what context did they appear in the magazine?

Underwood's The Vampire's Bedside Companion: The Amazing World of Vampires in Fact and Fiction (London: Leslie Frewin) was actually published in 1975. Yes, the bitemark does appear in it, on the plate next to page 64. It is captioned, "The 'mark of the vampire': two highly inflamed swellings on the neck of Elizabeth Wojdyla, a tiny hole in the centre of each. (This picture has been darkened to enhance the marks.)". So, the photo's not quite the same.

Which doesn't really explain her participation in the other photos, unless, of course, you're implicating her in a hoax. It also overlooks her account, published in Manchester's book (presuming of course, that she actually submitted it to him). It allegedly occurred in 1967:

Normally going past the cemetery, when you're just in a normal mood, you can feel the evil presence from the old cemetery. But this time my friend and I were coming down from Highgate Village and we were really in a great mood: we had just been to see a girlfriend and we were happy. We were not talking, just walking. And we were walking down, having just passed the north gate, when we both saw this scene of graves directly in front of us. And the graves were opening up; and the people were rising. We were not conscious of walking down the lane. We were only conscious of this graveyard scene. (22)

Was her testimony a fraud? Mistaken identity?

Your secondhand source does confirm what she did about her photos being published. The only person who could really answer that, is Elizabeth herself. Have you been in contact with her, yourself?

Farrant didn't answer my questions, as he's got me on ignore (so he says). So, if anything, they were for the benefit of the other forum members. Although, it's a bit of a "coincidence" that after I encouraged him to explicitly name Manchester, he actually did so in his follow-up post.

Anyhoo, in the next instalment, I'll discuss a rebuttal to Farrant's claims from a source close to Manchester.

¹ I have discussed "Luisa" elsewhere in this blog.

The Wojdyla Testimony, Pt. 1

One of the few named (and photographed) witnesses in the Highgate Vampire Case, was a young woman by the name of Elizabeth Wojdyla. I'll be discussing her testimony and its significance to the Case.

Edit note (11 January 2011): Picture from website captioned "Highgate Cemetery’s eerie north gate in Swains Lane at the time of the vampire panics of early 1970", removed by request).

Elizabeth's tale was first publicly recounted in "The Highgate Vampire", a chapter Sean Manchester contributed to Peter Underwood's The Vampire's Bedside Companion: The Amazing World of Vampires in Fact and Fiction (London: Leslie Frewin, 1975).

He claims his attention was was drawn to the Highgate case by "[t]wo seemingly unconnected incidents" which occurred in the "early months of 1967" (89). Our focus will be on the first incident, which concerned the testimony of two sixteen-year-old girls, Elizabeth Wojdyla and her friend, Barbara¹, both pupils of Le Sainte Union Convent, Highgate.

One night (no specific date is given), they were walking home from visiting friends² in Highgate Village, and passed along Swains Lane, near the Cemetery, when they were confronted with a remarkable sight:

We were not talking, just walking. And we were walking down, having just passed the north gate, when we both saw this scene of graves directly in front of us. And the graves were opening up; and the people were rising. We were not conscious of walking down the lane. We were only conscious of this graveyard scene (90).

Their immediate reactions are not recorded. Manchester's narrative skips ahead to this:

For some time afterwards, Elizabeth was troubled by a series of nightmares all with one thing in common: something evil was trying to come in through her bedroom window at night (90).

These dreams involved a "deathly white" face, resembling the faces of the corpses leaving their graves. No definitive explanation is given as to why she became the target of supernatural phenomena, causing Manchester to wonder:

Was this convent schoolgirl in possession of extra-sensory perception, or was everything imagined? If an illusion, it is interesting to remember that her friend, Barbara, experienced an identical one (90).

Indeed, Barbara gets off relatively scott-free: "She did not, however, suffer the nightmares as described by Elizabeth" (90). And with that, Barbara's role in the Case disappears and she's not mentioned again in Manchester's narrative.

Elizabeth's role in the Case resumes "during the summer of 1969" when Manchester had a "chance meeting" with her. She was "anxious" to speak with him (94). He noticed her "features had grown cadaverous and her skin was deathly pale. She appeared to be suffering from a pernicious form of anaemia" (94). Pernicious anaemia is "one of many types of the larger family of megaloblastic anemias. It is caused by loss of gastric parietal cells, and subsequent inability to absorb vitamin B12." It is also a trope associated with vampire attacks, hinting at blood loss.

A meeting was arranged for "coffee at a nearby restaurant". When they met, she mentioned that she was now working (Manchester does not list her occupation) and lived by herself in a flat "in the Highgate area" (94). Her nightmares had returned and intensified. One concerned a form entering her bedroom, with a face resembling a "wild animal with glaring eyes and sharp teeth", which she realises is a man with this expression. His "face is gaunt and grey" (95).

After noticing other strange behaviours and the awkwardness of discussing such a thing in public, he arranged to meet her in her flat, the following evening. She introduced him to her then-boyfriend, Keith Maclean (95). While she fixed him a drink, Maclean shared some of Elizabeth's background info, namely, her "Southern Polish descent", she was "brought up in a strict Catholic atmosphere" and her "father was born in Krakow and was something of a strict disciplinarian" (95).

After recounting further strange experiences, Maclean mentioned "something about marks on the side of her neck", just as Manchester was preparing to leave. They'd apparently been there for "some time" (96). She was reluctant to discuss the matter further, so Manchester left.

A few weeks later, Manchester received a phone call from Maclean, asking to see him as soon as possible. They met later that night, in which Maclean revealed that Elizabeth's appetite was fading and she was so weak, she could barely walk. He added that a doctor had proscribed iron tablets and vitamin pills, "but I think she needs the help of a different kind. She is being overcome by something" (96-7). After prompting, Maclean elaborated that "at times she appeared to be possessed by something sinister" (97).

And that begins Manchester's investigation into her condition. He concludes that she is under attack from a vampire, especially after first viewing the marks on her neck. "They were two inflamed mounds on the skin, the centre of each bearing a tiny hole" (97). A few days later, he arrives at her flat, after an urgent letter from Maclean. By now, Manchester was convinced that Elizabeth had come under attack from a vampire.

He proscribed garlic and a crucifix to seal her bedroom's door and window, a small linen bag (containing a handful of salt) hung round her neck together with a small cross, and a piece of paper with the first fourteen verses of the Gospel according to St John, to be placed under her pillow (101).

Maclean followed this and other rituals Manchester advocated - including bathing her neck wounds with holy water - and by Christmas, she was "her happy, normal self" (102). That's pretty much where her story ends in The Vampire's Bedside Companion.

But what I haven't mentioned so far, is that the book also contains pictures of her. The first is the plate adjoining page 64. It is captioned "The 'mark of the vampire': two highly inflamed swellings on the neck of Elizabeth Wojdyla, a tiny hole in the centre of each. (This picture has been darkened to enhance the marks.)" The second appears on the plate, overleaf, and says "A picture of the Polish girl, Elizabeth Wojdyla, taken in her bedroom towards the end of the 'nightly visitations'". This second picture can be viewed on the Vampire Research Society's "Highgate Vampire Picture Gallery". It is captioned, "Elizabeth, the convent schoolgirl who months later fell victim to nocturnal visitations from the vampire."

So what happened to her after all that? The trail picks up in Manchester's The Highgate Vampire: The Infernal World of the Undead Unearthed at London's Famous Highgate Cemetery and Environs (London: British Occult Society, 1985). The Elizabeth content in his 1975 chapter is largely regurgitated in the book. After destroying the Highgate Vampire, Manchester finds out about new "contagion" stemming from it. Or, as he puts it:

The Highgate Vampire, now consumed in flames, was almost certainly the instigator of the present outbreak and though destroyed, had left a legacy which carried the curse of immortality and the need to quaff warm blood. If I was to find this new undead which haunted the dark hours, I would need to discover someone who had been contaminated by the Highgate Vampire and subsequently expired (117-8).

This supposition lead him to tracking down Elizabeth. Fortunately, he was able to cross her off the list of suspects: "I managed to contact Elizabeth Wojdyla, no longer with Keith. but happily settled with someone else and living very normally" (118).

The book contains three pictures of her. The first shows her looking kinda "out of it" standing before Maclean, who is wielding a prayer book or Bible in his right hand and holding a candle in his left. It is captioned, "Following the authors instructions, Keith did everything in his power to help Elizabeth fight the vampire's influence" (29). The second pic, also on page 29, is the same one that appears in Underwood's book, but is captioned slightly differently: "The Polish girl, Elizabeth Wojdyla, in her bedroom towards the end of her nightly visitations".

The third one is nearly identical to the "fangmark" pic in Underwood's book, except the marks are much less noticeable. Black spots, not much bigger than pinpricks, opposed to the big black circles. It is captioned, "The controversial punctures 0n the neck of Elizabeth Wojdyla" (73).

The fangmark pics - and the questions they've raised - will be the crux of the second instalment of this article.

¹ Manchester does not list her surname, but it's given as Moriarty in "The Haunting of Elizabeth Wojdyla", Journal of a Vampirologist.

² Elizabeth actually says "we had just been to see a girlfriend" (90), thus the visit to "friends" recounted by Manchester (89), appears to be an error.

Loop the Loop

The Möbius strip is "a surface with only one side and only one boundary component." It's not a concept usually applied to vampire theories, but I'm about to do just that (in a figurative manner).

The "model" I'm gonna work with is David Farrant's "The Highgate Vampire - How It All Began", in which he discusses his initial reaction to the vampire theory espoused by Sean Manchester.

Manchester's theory was first published in "Does a Wampyr Walk in Highgate?", Hampstead & Highgate Express, February 27, 1970, p. 1. It came in the wake of various sightings of apparitions in or near the cemetery. And it concerned an honest-to-goodness-bloodsucking undead corpse.

The following week, the same paper covered David's discovery of a dead fox in the cemetery at the spot in which he'd allegedly encountered an spectre. The article was called "Why Do the Foxes Die?", Hampstead & Highgate Express, March 6, 1970, p. 1:

Tobacconist, Mr. David Farrant, 24, who first reported seeing the ghost last month, returned to the spot last weekend and discovered a dead fox.

“Several other foxes have also been found dead in the cemetery,” he said at his home in Priestwood Mansions, Archway Road, Highgate. “The odd thing is there was no outward sign of how they died.

This lead him to the following conclusion:

“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.”

The article goes on to chronicle their meet, indeed, the earliest public record we have of meeting in person. At this point, their theories complemented each other:

Mr. Farrant and Mr. Manchester met in the cemetery at the weekend. They are pictured left, Mr. Farrant pointing out the spot where he saw a spectre and Mr. Manchester with prayer book in hand.

Mr. Manchester, when told of the dead foxes, said: “These incidents are just more inexplicable events that seem to complement my theory about a vampire.”

Indeed. Now, back to David's "The Highgate Vampire - How It All Began". It is well-established that David no longer takes such theories seriously, instead offering an alternative theorum. However, his article is comparatively moderate on vampires, in light of his crusade to convince the world that bloodsucking vampires don't exist. Take this, for example:

When the investigation proper began in January 1970, I undertook the task of checking the cemetery's history. Some interesting things came to light ... First, it became apparent that stories of an apparition at Highgate Cemetery had by no means begun with the current sightings. Indeed, similar tales dated back to the Victorian era and, interestingly enough, many of them had 'vampiristic' connotations.

And this:

But perhaps most interesting was the 'vampire-like element' that had crept into these stories. Although it was difficult to pin-point the reasons or origins from whence the vampire legend came, it had nevertheless become an integral part of the cemetery's supernatural traditions. The Victorians, with their deep-rooted fears of the unknown and self-righteous attitudes towards religion, morals and death, may have contributed towards establishing - or perhaps re-establishing - a legend that was already in existence.

Whatever the case, it is reasonable to suppose that the Highgate phenomenon could have been connected with stories of vampirism.

David claims Stoker injected - and drew upon - a Victorian era association of vampires with the Cemetery. This presumably refers to the alleged basis of Lucy Westenra's resting place in Dracula (1897). However, her tomb isn't listed as Highgate, but a fictional place called Kingstead. See: "Bram Stoker vs Highgate".

Indeed, David doesn't elaborate on the supposedly "local tales" told about the place. I've repeatedly asked for sources to confirm his claims about these stories (one example here), but have heard nothing back. I find it rather peculiar that he'd go out of his way to establish a vampiric connotations for ghostly sightings at the Cemetery, only to turn around and dismiss the existence of vampires.

It becomes even more bizarre, when David admits to the vampire theory's plausibility:

The Ham and High, however, seemed especially interested in the 'vampire' possibility and the fact that black magic had been taking place at the cemetery. On March 6th, 1970, they ran a front page story entitled, perhaps appropriately "WHY DO THE FOXES DIE?" The implication was, was that in some manner the 'ghost' was no less than a 'vampire' which had been responsible for the death of the foxes. It was interesting hypothesis, and one which had not been overruled by the author himself. In fact, I held the view that as the phenomenon seemed definitely malevolent by nature, it was quite conceivable that it possessed sufficient power to have some affect upon 'weaker forms of intelligence's' - such as animals.

There was a reason for the Ham & High's interest in the theory, as I've revealed elsewhere. But I digress.

We now stray into folie à deux territory, when David tries to distance himself from the vampire theory:

Although these remarks were obviously intended to create maximum publicity, in reality, they were based on a misunderstanding of a report in the local Press the previous week when, humouring some over-zealous reporter, I had stated that if the apparition at Highgate Cemetery turned out to be anything like a 'vampire', I, for one, would be prepared to take any means necessary so that everybody could 'rest in peace'.

Yes, despite all his concurrences with the vampire theory (again, one that upheld a bloodsucking vampire was haunting the cemetery), not to mention saying that he'd take precautions against it, apparently, Manchester's remarks were "obviously intended to create maximum publicity"!

He then tries to emphasise the caution he displayed in discussing his sighting for an interview with Sandra Harris, March 13, 1970...

During the interview, and to avoid any possible sensationalism about 'vampires', I took great care to avoid such a term when referring to the phenomenon. Of course, it was realised that local opinion tended to support a 'vampire theory', but I certainly didn't accept the existence of vampires in their strictly commercialised sense and I had no intention of being misunderstood or misquoted.

...which was the same night a mass vampire hunt took place at the Cemetery. Too little, too late. You also have to question David's cautious approach, in light of vampire hunting re-enactments, posing for pictures with crosses and stakes, as well as his comments on another television interview, all covered here.

And guess what? He participated in those after the mass vampire hunt of March 13. Caution to the wind.

The vampire association hasn't stopped. Indeed, he's helped perpetuate it, himself. Take a look at the titles in his booklist, if you don't believe me. The case has dominated so much of his life (despite blaming me, for his continued association with it), that he even named his multi-volume autobiography after it: In the Shadow of the Highgate Vampire.

To put this in perspective, David was 24 when the story broke in the press. On January 23rd, next year, he'll be 65.

Christmas Dinner Dodged

In the previous entry, I discussed an offer that'd been made to David, concerning a Christmas dinner at Manchester's place. After several weeks, he's finally made a decision.

And it's an incredibly disappointing one: David's gonna be having Christmas dinner elsewhere. He announced his decision via his blog, yesterday:

Had quite a long call from Bev to confirm Kev and her got the new DVD this morning. She said they are going to watch it tonight. (Its 1hr 1hr. 10 mins. long).

Anyway she said she and Kev would be moving before Christmas and its not at all far from here. Kev was there but she said she wouldn’t put him on the phone because of his hearing problem.

Well. Then came the surprise. She said if I wasn’t doing anything, they’d be very happy for me to go for Christmas dinner. She said they were both ‘health nuts’ and it would be organic wine and food, and Kev had a load of past memories to share with me . . . photo’s, letters and emails going back some 35 years and all the emails were on a memory stick. (I wasn’t sure what a ‘memory stick’ was, but I didn’t like to ask as Kev told me before she was somewhat of an expert on a computer: oh all right then . . . I didn’t want to make myself look stupid!).

Kev said he had heaps to show me and thought that Xmas would be a good time. He said he would gladly come over and pick me up and run me back again.

Well, I was a bit embarrassed as I don’t know them that well, but I agreed to go over, especially when she said only her and Kev would be there. That really decided me as I might have otherwise have been embarrassed with people I didn’t know. So it seems that that’s my Christmas day taken care of. And at least it’s a genuine invitation, unlike that other one I had!

So, that's it then. Can't say I'm all that surprised. After all, some kind of civility between the two would be contrary to their attempts to mine an income from the Case through their feud. Can't have that now, can we!

Oh well. Here's to...Easter!

Reconciliation Attempt, Mk. 2

During discussions on The Supernatural World forum, "Tony Sheridan" interrupted to ask about a recent offer made to David. An offer he shouldn't refuse.

Now that caught me off guard. It almost, almost distracted me from my line of querying concerning David's posts. Especially after David's reply:

Hello again Tony,

I can confirm that such an invitation has been made, yes, (and in all seriousness I might add) but I haven't confirmed it one way or the other yet. Yes, you are right where its to, but it all depends on two other people at the moment who own a car. But I'll certainly let you know here whether its 'yes' or 'no'.

I quickly expressed my support for the proposed meet. Yes, it might seem a rather odd thing to do, in light of my criticisms of each party, but let me explain: I'm sick and tired of the feud. I'm sure many of you are. While I largely concern my self with exposing their malicious tactics and contradictory claims, deep down, I just want them to get along. Honestly, the feud is repetitious, boring, distracting and pointless. It's just too damn circular. Claim versus counter-claim and so on and so forth. Did I mention that it's been going on for forty years?

As some of you might know, I've tried to get 'em to make up before. That petered out when it became clear David wasn't gonna live up to his own requisites for the "tea party" meet. Indeed, as of this writing, he's yet to offer a final answer. He's at least covered the offer on his blog, even if he uses his customary oblique terminology:

Oh yes, nearly forgot . . . received an invitation for dinner over Christmas from Bournemouth. Seems a long way to go, but I have been offered a lift by car. Shall I go? Haven’t made up my mind yet.. I won’t leave you in the dark, but tell you all later.

Bournemouth is, of course, the location of one of Manchester's residences.¹ In reading David's flippant coverage, is he actually implying that the only thing stopping him from going there is a bloody lift? This prompted me to ask him the following: "I’ve a question, David: why don’t you just drive there yourself? Is obtaining a lift the only thing stopping you from going there?"

My comment's "awaiting moderation", so we'll see what comes of that.

The optimistic side of me holds out hope that this meet'll go ahead. I mean, surely they'd have to bury the hatchet at some time, right? Why not over a nice, Christmas dinner. It'd be perfect. However, the cynical side of me thinks Dave's gonna bail. Why? Reconciliation isn't as financially feasible as perpetuating a feud. With a sizable chunk of his output devoted to attacking Manchester, that'd also leave a whole lot less to talk about, leaving his own claims open to further scrutiny. We'll wait and see, eh?

*****************************

In the meantime, I was somewhat disturbed by this. That tall bloke's Andrew Gough, that is, the owner of the Arcadia forum. You know, the one I was banned from, after covering its double standards and featuring my correspondence with him.

We've made up since then, in a no-hard-feelings kinda way, nonetheless, it's a bit unsettling to see him in the presence of the guy who got away with many, many personal attacks on that forum, while I copped a perm ban, instead. I'm hoping the connection isn't as sinister as it appears to be. Oh, and I'm surprised Andrew was ok with this sleaze. Unless, of course, he's into that kinda thing. In response to David's question of "What Happened Next?!", I could only add, "Uh…suckin’ necks? :D"

The comment's awaiting moderation.

¹ Matt Salusbury, "40th Anniversary of the Highgate Vampire", The Cholmeleian (Summer 2010), p. 15. While researching this blog entry, I also came across an eBay listing for Manchester's The Highgate Vampire, rev. ed. (1991). Its seller is gothicpress (Gothic Press), Manchester's vanity press. The listing contains the following contact details under "Business seller information":

Gothic Press
51 Southern Road
Bournemouth
Dorset
BH6 3SS
United Kingdom

Farrant Responds to Hill's Hoax Boasts

David responded to the claims of hoaxing addressed in the previous entry. Unfortunately, he compounded his response with snide attacks against me and customary errors.

He began his post by making "it quite plain, as I have done in the past, that I do will not respond to malicious propaganda issued on the behalf of the 'Friends of 'Bishop' Manchester', alternatively known as the 'Vampire Research Society'." He then responded to it.

True, there's little difference between the two groups, but technically-speaking, they're separate entities. As to that "on the behalf" bit, I didn't post it on the forum at their request. I did it of my own accord. Like I said, I happened to come across the blog, which also targets me. Thus, why would I post things on their behalf? Indeed, I wasn't saying their blog entry was accurate, I just wanted David's official response to it, especially as David never denied knowing Tony Hill. So, we've got another one of those rare cases in which a "witness" has been on both sides of the Manchester-Farrant "feud".

David went onto speculate on why the blog had been written. Thus, serious accusations made against him are countered with more serious accusations:

The content of this document is untrue, and apparently concocted because of a disclosure I made on an American Radio broadcast recently to the effect that the above named ‘Tony Hill’ together with his ‘side-kick’ and close friend one Mr. Sean Manchester, had hoaxed their version of the infamous Highgate Vampire in the year of 1969 by making a home-made 8mm cine film (this film was in colour but had no sound) about its (The Highgate ‘Vampire) alleged activities. This film showed Mr. Manchester himself disguised as a ‘vampire’ and Mr. Tony Hill assisted in its original production.

He's given us two "leads" here. Firstly, there's the broadcast. If it was indeed intended as "payback", then it'd have to pre-date the Tony Hill article. Second, we have a film seemingly confirming Manchester and Hill's role in a hoax. Great! Not only that, but a third lead follows shortly thereafter:

It is perhaps little wonder why I do not take this issued propaganda by the ‘Vampire Research Society’ in the least bit seriously. Suffice to say, that the contents of the VRS post are totally untrue and that the ghost seen in and around Highgate Cemetery could be traced back to Victorian times, and it is, of course, not possible to hoax a ghost that had already been witnessed by so many people.

So now our "vampire" has a lineage: Victorian era London. We've also got circumstantial evidence heaped on, namely, so many people saw it that it couldn't be fake. There's only two problems with this reasoning. Firstly, the phenomena reported at Highgate was much more varied than David implies. We're not talking about one "ghost" here, but many. As Wikipedia notes, "Hardly two correspondents gave the same story."

Second, Tony Hill's account reveals exactly how such sightings could be faked. The majority of sightings were derived from newspaper correspondence. Hill indicates that he and Farrant used multiple addresses and names to send off fake accounts to the local paper. Many other witnesses were anonymous. The paper's editor saw the whole case as a bit of a laugh.

Oh, and wanna know how it's possible for a ghost story to be faked, despite a glut of witnesses? Ever heard of mass hysteria?

After railing against Manchester for the better part of the post, David took aim at my journalistic credibility because I asked him about an account of his involvement in an alleged hoax:

The main motivation for the 'VRS's' current allegation, is because I described in detail how the Highgate Vampire hoax had really been perpetrated in 1970. Mr. Hogg’s motivation for repeating this untrue allegation against myself here seems to be borne solely out of spite, and a lack of insight into any kind of serious research or journalism.

Due to his low level comprehension and quickness to "deal with" critics like myself, I had to point out a few of his, let's be diplomatic and call them errors. I also took the opportunity to ask him for evidence on his claims. Namely, did he have a copy of the mysterious 8mm film? Could he reference any Victorian era sightings that confirm his "ghost" theory? I also illustrated the ludicrousness of his attack against my leet journalistic skillz:

You'll recall I prefigured the quote with: "What do you have to say to Tony Hill's claims about your involvement in the Case?" I was not printing Hill's account as accurate. I was asking what you had to say about it. You know, to go on "record" if you will.

Asking for a response to such charges is not "a lack of insight". Jumping to conclusions, however...different story.

Beforehand, one of the forum's moderators, "Phenomenon", said that Hill seemed "far from impartial". I had to point out that David was far from partial, himself.

So, did David respond to my basic requests for evidence of his claims? Did he acknowledge having a copy of the 8mm film? Did he cite any Victorian era sightings? Did he mention which broadcast had been retaliated against? Did he provide anything substantial to validate his own claims? Of course not.

Instead, he deployed a passive-aggressive tactic he frequently uses on the forum. What's the recipe? Vaguely address what I say, avoid addressing me directly, stir in some rhetoric and compound it with an ad hominem attack and voila! You get garbage like this:

I'd better not go to far here Phen, but there is definitely a reason. This reason is unknown to Mr. Hogg, who I think would otherwise feel quite foolish for posting links to a 'hate site'dedicated solely to attacking myself and others members of the BPOS. As I stated in my post, this only indicates a total lack of any serious research on his part. I do not blame him for not knowing what this reason is (he couldn't in any event), but this could surely not excuse him for blindly repeating frivilous allegations made by others without first being aware of the true facts.

The problem is, David perpetuates the idea (as does Manchester) of "exclusive domain" of the Case. There's no doubt either of them played a central role, but it's a shame he has trouble upholding the ethos of his own Highgate Vampire Society:

After all, the case of the so-called Highgate phenomenon is not really a private issue or one that can be affected by personal views or interpretations. It is a matter of public record and should thus be open to continued input and debate, and not one that should not be allowed to become clouded or influenced by any who have no knowledge of events (which they certainly do not ‘own’) as these actually occurred or happened. There are many such persons around (including sensationalistic authors and members of the Press) but their stories should really be shared in total, and not be allowed to become ‘dictorial’ in the sense that these necessarily represent the public view of things.

David seems oblivious to his own "dictorial" nature. His concept of having the "true facts" involves repeatedly saying he has the "true facts". It's a cult-like mantra. It might fool some, but not me.

When dealing with a Case like this, we must verify as many of the claims and counter-claims as possible. This helps eliminate much of the feud overlay and gets to the truth. What really happened?

There's a reason a fact "can refer to verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented as objective reality. In science, it means a provable concept." This case demands that approach.

Outright Hoax?

"Duh," some of you might've said. But during the course of this thing, how many times have you come across someone actually admitting their part in a hoax at Highgate? Yeah, I thought so. Read on.

A coupla days ago, I stumbled across the FoBSM's new blog. It's written under a collective name, "Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester" and serves as a veritable "hitlist" of their perceived enemies (including myself). Awash with Manchester-worship, maliciousness, fabrications, hypocrisy, copyright violation, horrid photoshop and regurgitations from elsewhere, the clandestine group has the seal of approval from Seán Manchester, himself.

Buried deep within the manure, you'll find the occasional items of interest. One particular entry concerns an "informal dinner party in the summer of 2009 hosted by Bishop Seán Manchester and his wife at their spacious retreat on the south coast of England", the latter probably funded by the generous donations of Manchester's parishioners. Or, perhaps purchasers of his "best-selling books", which have been in continuous availability since 1991.

Anyhoo, the dinner in question was held in honour of Tony Hill, an associate and former employee of Manchester's. As is usual in the Case, some cross-contamination's involved: Farrant used to stay at Hill's place, after he was evicted and bankrupted. "Some of the guests were also members of the Vampire Research Society fascinated to hear what Mr Hill might have to say about David Farrant", namely, the same group that advises Farrant is best "ignored". The Bish can't get enough of him, either, despite giving the same "advice".

There's three stand-outs about the FoBSM blog entry in question: 1) it reveals the Bishop has actual friends even if they have no names, 2) it's plagiarised from a dead Hungarian scholar's MySpace blog, 3) Hill boasts about participating in a collaborative hoax with Farrant. Here's the claim:

It was in the winter of 1969/70 when Mr Farrant suggested to Mr Hill they attempt to hoax a ghost story to see what the public reaction might be. Mr Hill went along with Mr Farrant's idea, but had lost interest by the end of the year. In the pubs he frequented, Mr Farrant heard tales of a vampire reputed to haunt Highgate Cemetery and wanted to see how easily it would be to convince local residents that there was also a ghost in the vicinity. Mr Hill photographed Mr Farrant wearing "ghost" make-up at night in the graveyard. He was also privy to Mr Farrant using the addresses of acquaintances such as Nava Grunberg, Kenneth Frewin and Audrey Connely to submit fraudulent letters to local newspapers. It was always Mr Farrant's intention, Mr Hill revealed, to eventually expose the "ghost story" as a hoax to show how gullible the public are when it comes to things paranormal, but events overtook this plan as the terrifying reality of an emerging supernaturalism eclipsed David Farrant's asinine antics. Meanwhile, Mr Farrant was quickly becoming addicted to the attention he was starting to receive in the press.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I've asked David what he has to say about these charges, but he hasn't responded yet. In the meantime, let's turn to his blog. Or, specifically, one of its entry's comments section.

The entry in question concerned yet another talk (yawn) on the Highgate vampire. John Baldry's Cat, one of David's fans, got the ball rolling with a comment concerning the "ghost" photo depicted at the top of this page:

What’s with this picture, David? Does “Bonky” own the copyright on this? What was going on there? – It looks like you’ve had about 15 drinks at a pub, or are “auditioning” for an east end musical, or both!

As usual, David handpassed the blame back onto Manchester, not-so-subtlety referred to as "Bonky:

That was just one of the many pictures Bonky took of myself Cat in early 1970. He said (then) he wanted them for a book he was planning on myself.

I believe he used a couple of these at a later date, but completely out of context from their original meaning!

So that’s how they’ve turned up on his self-originatd site!

The conversation's joined by American Psycho, who pointed out a rather obvious "glitch" in the photo, that is, a sizable portion looks like it's been scribbled over by a 3 year-old with a texta: "Erm, with that pic, looks like Bonky blacked out parts of it…more of his revisionism?"

John Baldry's Cat made like Rorschach and squinted background details into the picture:

That photo is odd, over Farrant’s right facing shoulder you can barely make out an angled window, similar to a van’s windscreen. The blacked-out portions seem to be an attempt to disguise a street sidewalk.

David where was this photo taken?

David didn't confirm Cat's "angled window" theory, but did revert the "blame" back onto Manchester:

It was taken by Bonky, Cat, in late 1969/early 1970 and is of the path leading frm the top gate in Highgate Cemetery. In fact, the ground was covered in snow which might explain all the ‘blacking out’.

Anyway, the photo was taken by the bonky one who was with Tony Hill when it was taken.

He censored snow? You know things have gone barmy when he presents this deliberate topographic omission as it was the most obvious thing in the world.

Halloween Treat

A special Halloween entry and boy, have I got an exclusive for you. I've recently come across some compelling footage taken in Highgate Cemetery a few years ago. The 29 second clip also happens to be the most convincing evidence of supernatural phenomena there, that I've seen so far.

Before you play it, just a few pointers. You'll need to turn the volume on your speakers, as the sound quality's not all that great. Wait for the video to load and pay close attention or you'll blink and miss it. When you see it, though, you'll know exactly what I'm referring to. It's pretty trippy stuff.

How to Visit Highgate Cemetery...Legally

Just a brief note. I've come across a site that gives instructions on how to visit Highgate Cemetery without stepping on any toes. So, yes, it's quite unlike this approach.


Naturally, the keepers of Highgate Cemetery aren't all that thrilled with the vampire stories and the publicity-seekers who tried to profiteer off them. Why? Not only do they detract from its famous, uh, residents, but the stories also helped trigger off spates of vandalism back in the '70s, leading to a few arrests (click on the pic for more).

Of course, this hasn't stopped contemporary attempts at drumming up interest in the vampire. There've even been further alleged sightings there, notable for the paucity of witness names, descriptions of what exactly they saw, etc. Anyhoo, if you wanna visit the Cemetery, yourself, here's a handy guide. But, please, don't mention the "v" word!

Bishop Plagiarises Bishop

When will he learn? Despite the occasional cries of "copyright violation!" regaring his own material, the Bishop has no qualms in plagiarising others. This time, he's cribbed a sizable chunk of one of his blog entries from a fellow man-of-the-cloth.

It's a shame that hapless readers still tune into his blog, Bishop † Seán † Manchester Answers Questions, for spiritual queries, counsel, advice or even requesting the Bishop's opinion on political personages. It'd be just as easy to obtain his "answers" by Googling them yourself. Or shaking a Magic Eight Ball.

Take one of his latest posts, "Demonic Influence on World Events". It was written as a direct response to reader, Abby Murray's following query:

As a historian, I am curious about your thoughts on any vampire or supernatural involvement in major wars, from ancient to modern times, and if there is any involvement, specific examples. Are vampires and other supernatural beings conscious enough to involve themselves with world events, or do they mostly keep to themselves?

At that point, Manchester might as well've given her a link to Bishop Donald W. Montrose's "Spiritual Warfare: The Occult Has Demonic Influence". But, rather than show this courtesy, he regurgitated large chunks of Montrose's sermon, passing them off as his own. For instance, here's what Montrose says about Satan's kingdom:

Satan's kingdom is a lie. He wants to be like God. But in the very first of the Ten Commandments, God told Moses: "I am the Lord your God. You shall not have strange gods that are proposed to us in the kingdom of darkness. " St. Paul tells us to be on our guard: "The Spirit says clearly that some men will abandon their faith in later times. They will obey lying spirits and follow the teaching of demons" (1 Tim. 4:1). Let us hold fast to our faith in the Lord Jesus and his Church. Our salvation is brought about by Jesus Christ alone, through prayer, by reading and studying the Word of God in the Bible, and through the presence of Jesus in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in our tabernacles.

When the Israelites were about to come into the promised land, the Lord God gave them many commandments that had to do with the true worship that He desired, and the false worship that He hated. These same commandments hold for us today.

And here's Manchester's "rendering":

Satan's kingdom is a lie. He wants to be like God, but in the first of the Ten Commandments, God told Moses: "I am the Lord your God. You shall not have strange gods that are proposed to us in the kingdom of darkness." St Paul tells us to be on our guard: "The Spirit says clearly that some men will abandon their faith in later times. They will obey lying spirits and follow the teaching of demons" (1 Timothy 4: 1). When the Israelites were about to come into the promised land, God gave them many commandments that had to do with the true worship that He desired, and the false worship that He hated. These same commandments hold true for us today.

Over to Montrose again:

Therefore, in Satan's kingdom he wants everything that is in the Kingdom of God. But his kingdom is a lie; it is false. In the kingdom of darkness, there is false worship and adoration; there is evil prayer. He offers us false happiness and peace. He holds out to us dark wisdom and knowledge. This is how he tempted Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:5). Satan said: "No, God knows well that the moment you eat it (the forbidden fruit) your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad." In his kingdom, Satan also offers us a health that is unto death, and a protection that is false. Just as we picture the angels of heaven singing and worshipping God, there is also a special music that is evil in the kingdom of darkness.

Back to Manchester:

In Satan's kingdom, the Devil wants everything that is in the Kingdom of God, but his kingdom is counterfeit. In the kingdom of darkness there is false worship, adoration and evil prayer. He offers us phoney happiness and peace. He holds out to us dark wisdom and knowledge. This is how he tempted Adam and Eve (Genesis 3: 5). Satan said: "No, God knows well that the moment you eat it [the forbidden fruit] your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad."

In his kingdom, Satan also offers us a health that is unto death, and a protection that is false. Just as we picture the angels of heaven singing and worshipping God, there is also a depraved sound which is the musical din of the kingdom of darkness.

And with that, we've already covered about half of Manchester's blog entry. Montrose isn't even mentioned, let alone cited. This conveniently erases a paper trail. But only if you think pasting a few lines into Google involves too much "detective work".

So, kids, next time Manchester (or his cronies) spring "copyright violation!" on you, simply point out his own nefarious practices. That should shut him up. At worst, you could be painted as an anti-Catholic homosexual. But the laughs at the expense of his blatant hypocrisy would be worth it.

Grave Intent, Pt. 2

In the previous instalment, I discussed the strange goings-on at Kirklees Hall Estate, surrounding the alleged burial place of Robin Hood. Now, we'll look at plans underway for another venture to the much-trespassed spot.

Recent postings on The Supernatural World forum have concerned the Kirklees "mystery". And not just talking about it, but a proposed second "visit". When Barbara (aka "greenorchid") asked David whether any "progress" had been made at the site, David replied:

I'm afraid the answer to that is that we can't really know, Barbara. At least, not without visiting the site again. Maybe next year Gareth and myself can visit you again, but this year is out for me as I have another book to get finished. Might even be able to pick up Black Orchid on the way - that's if she wants to go, of course. If she does, would you be able to put the 3 of us up for a couple of nights? Its too far for a day trip!

I am quite convinced that the fact Robin Hood's Grave is situated on a ley line (possibly at the intersection of two) has something to do with all the reports of 'resless phenomena'. But this would involve furthe inspection on site. I might well write to manager David Hepworth again and see if he could get permission to hold a nightly vigil there. Attitudes might have changed a little now with the demise of Lady A; well, I can all but try. But I'd obviously keep you up to date.

So, that's the answer really . . . it would mean going there again.

"Black Orchid" (actual name unknown) is a fellow forum member, who went under the "Clarmonde" moniker on the Arcadia forum. Oh, and "the demise of Lady A"? That'd be Lady Armytage who died in 2008. She opposed repeated requests by the YRHS to gain further access to the site, which was on her property. As we've established, the YRHS proceeded without her permission, anyway.

Blackorchid expressed immediate interest, prompting David to say "Well, that's settled then; providing Barbara agrees. I could aim to get it arranged for next May?" The May date will become significant soon enough. But here's what Barbara wrote back:

Hi David--that's a great idea, but doubt you will get permission! I dont even know if the boys, Hep and Holl, are still there--well if they are they are keeping very quiet--so is everybody else! In fact it is absolutely no different to when her ladyshop was around! And before anyone makes the sarky comment , my involvement would be purely along Church lines, with the palm crosses and holy water as I did before Gareths and your ceremony.

I have to be careful also if it came to wall-scaling---I have crumbling bones so dont want to fall, though when my dog pulled me over last year and I broke my wrists I healed up okay.

To which David replied:

Thanks Barbara. Then consider it arranged (well, subject to details etc).

When my next book is out this year, I will have far more time. I suggested May as you know my thoughts about the cold weather. I have re-found DH's address, but if not him, I will write or speak to somebody.

And next time, when I give you any money towars the food, I will make sure I hand it to you personally.
Okay, Robin Hood's Grave, here we come again!

The thread quickly devolved into the so-called conspiracy surrounding Red Monkey's post-production status of the documentary. Barbara seems oblivious to the audacity in criticising the film company for requesting permission from Lady Armytage to use the Kirklees footage. The same footage, mind you, that concerns YRHS members trespassing on her property and follows it up with more references to trespassing:

Against our verys trong advice, Andy went to Kirklees to ask for permission to release the film--and got a flea in his ear we presume, but the point was our ceremony was only about 10 minutes in a 90 minute film--something could have been doen if we could not release the real ceremony.

Whether David will get permission to revisit I dont know, and he cant climb over the wall cos of his dodgy foot and back--watch this space,

It's possible that Barbara isn't familiar with the concept of location permission. But considering the lengths she and her "merry men" have gone to show their so-called "respects" to the gravesite, it's also possible that she doesn't give a toss.

Later on, David discusses travel arrangements for the upcoming "investigation" even though he hasn't secured permission to visit the site. More audacity concerning the footage shortly follows thereafter:

And yes, I'll get the transportation arranged somehow. Well, we've already got out destination arranged (thamks Barbara) so we can just take it from there. Try and get permission for an official visit to Robin Hood's Grave to be arranged. It has been done before, so there shouldn't be to much problem (well, hopefully!). Will let you know once I hear.

The coptright issue is not so simple. The copyright of any film remains in the hands of the people who filmed it - not in the hands of people who may have participated in any filming. But having said that, I do feel that Red Monkey Films remain inder some moral obligation to give us a copy of the film we all helped them with. Just have to see how they respond.

Yes, that's right: "moral obligation". The guy who trespassed on private property and participated in an unsanctioned ritual on a tomb, expects Red Monkey to live up to a "moral obligation". Further on, in the midst of discussing attempts at arranging permission, he goes ahead and confirms the date for the "visit", anyway. However, his tone is obviously more reserved as I raised just how dodgy their actions are during the course of the thread:

On the other matter of the Robin Hood investigation, as I told you last night, I shall be phoning the manager of the Kirklees Estate to get permission organised. In fact I tried earlier but no reply, so I will try again this evening. I will obviously let you, Barbara and Gareth know in private what he says and the way arrangements are progressing, but there's still plenty of time left yet. I will not be posting up the progress of these arrangements here for the simple reason that 1) I think most people would find this a little boring and 2) I am not obligated to discuss the private content of arrangements being made of any Society investigations. In fact, I am not evn obligated to discuss the results of any such investigations unless I choose to do so, but the latter remains a matter at my discretation. I have simply said that the Robin Hood investigation remains incomplete and (answering a question from Barbara on ley lines, I believe) said that nothing further could be done until another on-site visit was arranged. That is still how the matter stands, and I can confirm another visit will be made to Kirklees next May. I can tell you however, that I have since spoken to Gareth, and he is all for the idea of another visit.

The sad thing is, there are legitimate means by which they could visit the site. The Kirklees Council has a page for people wanting to visit to Robin Hood's Grave:

The site is on privately-owned land at Kirklees Hall and occasional visits are arranged through the walks programme of Calderdale Heritage Walks. Booking via the visitor centre is essential.

In fact, Barbara's YRHS listing on the Council's website (ironically) advises: "(For advice regarding access to Robin Hood's Grave please ring Hebden Bridge Tourist Office on 01422 843831.)". Clearly, she should take her own advice.

Grave Intent, Pt. 1

I don't usually discuss the Kirklees Vampire Case on this blog, but the latest rumblings of a proposed "investigation" are notable for their sheer audacity.

On April 22, 1990, Sean Manchester conducted an "unofficial vampire hunt" at the Kirklees Hall Estate, to determine the source of alleged supernatural phenomena reported in the area. He had previously requested permission to hold a "vigil" on the grounds from its owner, Lady Margarete Armytage. When this wasn't granted, he proceeded with the hunt, anyway. This act was subsequently watered down by the Vampire Research Society.

Nearly 15 years later, the site was trespassed by another group. It was lead by Barbara Green, president and founder of the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society (YRHS). Also present were Catherine Fearnley, Gareth J. Medway and David Farrant, the Society's Patron. Their intent: to "conduct a full-scale exorcism at the grave". This occurred on April 20, 2005.

So, what's the Robin Hood connection? The grave in question is (allegedly) the last resting place of the legendary outlaw. However, the evidence for this claim is incredibly flimsy (see: here, here and here). Yet, it's not Robin's ghost who's meant to haunt the area, but a "wicked prioress" who (allegedly) bled him to death at Kirklees Gatehouse, nearby. Historical record is noticeably silent on this (alleged) murderess.

Back to the "exorcism". What's the connection between this spectre to the grave? Sightings of a strange apparition have been reported there, and according to Farrant, Green, herself, actually witnessed it "pointing" at the tomb. Armed with this "proof", the following rationale and course of action took place:

Stories and controversy continued to surround the grave until, in the latter part of 2004, the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society decided that perhaps the best way to 'quiet' the restless phenomenon said to haunt the grave, and to thereby put at rest the fears of many local residents in the process, was to conduct an official exorcism at the gravesite to dispel the malevolent force - or forces - there.

The nature of this "malevolent force" has wavered over time. Indeed, despite Farrant's dismissals of the vampire hypothesis in the same article, Green previously gave it some serious consideration. At one point, after Manchester offered his patronage to the YRHS, he had proposed a vampire theory to her, concerning Robin Hood's death. When she was interviewed by Rosemary Ellen Guiley for Vampires Among Us (New York: Pocket Books, 1991), she told her that "it seemed worth pursuing" (129).

Indeed, the book also relates a visit Green made to the tomb with "a small band of like-minded friends, dressed in period costumes from Robin Hood's day" in April 1990, where they found "the body of a goat with its throat torn open, which they took as another sign of something evil afoot" (130).

Clearly, the prospect of "something evil" at the site has long influenced the YRHS's so-called "investigations" of the tomb. Their desire to dispel it, has even lead them to breaking the law. You see, none of the visits to the tomb were authorised by the property's owner, Lady Armytage. The "full-scale exorcism" of April 20, 2005, was also unauthorised as Barbara boasts (see May 23, 2010 at 07:02 comment):

Local people have always gone up to the grave so finally that is what we did. When we heard all the posh or “important”people were allowed access of course we were miffed. So okay we did get a bit infected with the spirit of Robin Hood–it was exciting trespassing and we felt we had a right to show our respects, even if some people deny his existence there are plenty of other bodies on the hillside, outside the consecrated grounds of the nunnery.

Yet, the "respects shown" mainly consisted of an hour-long pagan ceremony conducted by Medway, in which he invoked three ancient Greek goddesses: Athena, Hecate and Themis. Did any overt manifestations of supernatural activity occur while this ritual was performed? Here's what Medway reported: "What I did notice was that, when I arrived, I felt very cold and my nose kept running, but that after the ritual I did not notice the temperature at all." David elaborates on this seemingly unnatural coldness in the same article:

This group, accompanied by some others, met at the grave site at around 7 p.m. - several of them having approached from different directions to avoid suspicion from one large group of people travelling together.

It was a forlorn evening; not too cold, but a stubborn 'dampness' pervaded the atmosphere. As well, all observed a distinct 'coldness' that seemed to encompass the actual grave within an area of two feet or more. Thermal readings confirmed this, but compass alignments reacted unpredictably - although the latter could have been caused by the old rusty railings that surrounded most of the grave.

The need to "avoid suspicion" was necessary, of course, because they were trespassing on private property. Another explanation for the mysterious cold and "dampness", which is unexplored in David's report, is the actual location itself. Here's a picture of the tomb. See if you can work out why these atmospheric conditions may have been present during the "fast approaching darkness":


One also has to question the "respects shown" when you realise that this ritual was also filmed for an intended documentary. As Barbara's chronology reveals, Red Monkey had approached the YRHS in 2004, requesting an interview for an upcoming feature. The film's still in post-production, which Barbara believes is part of a conspiracy to stifle her Society's efforts (note her comments under username "damiana").

In the next instalment, I'll discuss current plans for another venture to the gravesite.