Did a Wampyr Walk in Highgate?

Diminishing responsibility

2012-02-10T06:33:00.000+11:00

It seems Della Farrant's got an axe to grind with Barbara Green. For some reason.

Green's president of the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society and believes Robin Hood was buried at Kirklees Hall Estate.

She also has the rare distinction of being aligning with both sides of the Highgate vampire case's feuding overlords, Sean Manchester and David Farrant. They've both served as Patrons of the YRHS; the latter as part of a 'calculated snub', in Kai Roberts' opinion.

As of this writing, Della's devoted three blog entries to Green's 2001 book, Secrets of the grave (here, here and here), all of which take potshots at her; increasingly personal in attack. Indeed, the latter post makes several jibes about her mental state—'Anyway, a parting treat is presented below for any of you who can stomach it – it might help if you are a fan of the film ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’'—etc.

Della never really explains her 'beef', but perhaps the clue's in her aggrandising coverage of David's role as patron. She 'lets him off' scott-free: 'As a well known psychic investigator of some standing, and ‘considered the sane one of the bunch’ viz the YRHS, David Farrant (who was at one stage persuaded against his better judgement to act as Patron for said ‘society’) has benefited from a mutually reciprocal relationship over the years with Dr David Hepworth, a close friend and practical and academic advisor of Lady Armytage (referred to by some as her manager).'

It's rather strange she'd give her husband 'innocent fair maiden' status, chaste as the driven snow, as 'persuaded' waylays the reader into thinking he was somehow conned into the role. Far from it, it's something he openly embraced.

I'm sure, for instance, that no one made him take part in a 'blessing ceremony' at the gravesite on 20 April 2005 in the presence of film cameras, any more than anyone made him pen this letter to the Halifax Courier in 2008. I'm equally sure no one made him promote Green's article on the supposed Kirklees conspirary in 2009—even though he pooh-poohed the idea two years before, voicing scepticism the day after that post, yet still choosing to be the society's patron.

Della also overlooks the fact that he attempted to arrange another visit to the gravesite—in 2010 (part 1; part 2). If these were mere blips in David's 'better judgement', then let me remind you he maintained his role as the YRHS's patron over a ten year period.

Indeed, the tenth year, 2010, marked a turning point. He was replaced—David says he 'resigned'—by a new Patron: John Pope de Locksley, better-known as John Pope.

Could this all stem from a case of 'sour grapes'? If not, why did David align himself with the society for so long? Perhaps the answer's in his latest post on his involvement with the YRHS: 'There has also been renewed activity on the filmed project involving Gareth J. Medway, Barbara Green and a couple of other assistants on the subject of Robin Hood’s (reputed) grave at Kirklees. I understand this film is now near completion, and will be released publicly later this year. Maybe even at the Brighouse Gala? – and I cannot think of a more glamorous and appropriate setting for its debut.'

It's the same film for which the camera's rolled on David's blessing ceremony in 20 April 2005.

The war on chapter 6

2012-02-10T02:05:00.001+11:00

Yesterday, I received a copy of folklorist Kai Roberts' Grave concerns (2011) in the post. It was a belated Christmas present (thanks, Jo!) ordered via Amazon.co.uk.

The book primarily deals with the alleged gravesite of Robin Hood in Kirklees Park, Yorkshire. However, it also features a chapter on the Highgate vampire case to give the 'story' greater context; after all, Sean Manchester and David Farrant both served as patrons of the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society, both emphasising the site's supernatural 'angle' associated with the place.

While the book was still in draft form, Kai emailed me, asking if I'd look over the chapter in question. He was familiar with my writings on the subject, via this blog. I was happy to oblige.

The book's generally received positive reviews, but there've been two notable sticklers: Della Farrant née Della Vallicrus—and her hubbie, David.

Before even finishing the book, Della honed in on the Highgate chapter, in a review for her blog, The Devil's concubine. Unusually, her criticism isn't directed at the author, but the unnamed 'editor' of the chapter: 'Some of Kai’s points are remarkably similar to those which I raised myself in my May 2010 Introduction to Volume 2 of David Farrant’s autobiography, ‘David Farrant : Out of the Shadows”, which I presume the editor of the chapter has read.'

It's unfortunate she's adopted the oblique, passive-aggressive referencing usually employed by her husband (see: 'A bizarre 'reply''), as Della—a flitting member of The Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation Society—knew that the 'editor' was me. However, considering her associations, it'd certainly explain why she'd go for my neck instead of Kai's due to my overt critical stance on the case.

As of this writing, no, I haven't read her introduction. But I did ask her if she'd post the introduction on The supernatural world forum while the Highgate section was still active: she told me to buy the book.

Della goes on to criticise the chapter's 'tone': 'But aside from this, I can’t help but feel that its tone is slightly different to the rest of the book, and has perhaps suffered from some rather heavy-handed, subjective editing, alien to the rest of the tract', perhaps not realising that the book's chapter is largely intact from Kai's draft.

What she means by 'subjective editing', is anyone's guess. It's also redundant: aren't all editors 'subjective' by default? By 'heavy-handed', perhaps she's referring to the chapter's copious—albeit, necessarily so—footnotes, of which there's ninety-nine, all taken from various sources. Considering the tangled web of contradictions, claims and counter-claims weaved throughout the case—which Kai readily acknowledges with no 'prompting' from me¹—I can only suggest she grasp the importance of citations in academic works.

At long last, she gives us something to work with, by providing an actual example from the book: '. . . when referring to David Farrant’s arrest for ‘vampire hunting’ in 1970, Kai omits a crucial point. David was, as everybody will remember, acquitted of this charge. The charge itself was being [caught] in an enclosed area for an unlawful purpose. Kai was apparently misinformed when he summarises that David was acquitted on 2 technicalities, namely the definition of an enclosed area, and the fact that it is not actually illegal to hunt a vampire.'

Let's break this down. First, here's what Kai actually said about it:

It was one such [police] patrol that, on the night of the 17th August, discovered David Farrant trying to gain access to the cemetery from the adjacent churchyard of St. Michael's, carrying a crucifix and wooden stake. He was arrested for being in an enclosed space for an unlawful purpose, and bailed at Clerkenwell Magistrates Court the following morning. National newspaper, The Sun, reported Farrant telling the magistrates "My intention was to search out the supernatural being and destroy it by plunging the stake in its heart." The case was adjourned until 30th September, and Farrant bailed.²

That's it. So, what '2 technicalities', exactly? If Kai was, indeed 'apparently misinformed', the 'blame'(?) falls on an article in The Sun's 19 August 1970 issue and Bill Ellis' essay, 'The Highgate Cemetery vampire hunt: the Anglo-American connection in cult lore' (1993), i.e. the 'informants' featured in Kai's endnotes.³

Della goes on to say,

This was not in fact the case. The main indictment in that case was the element of unlawful purpose. That was the only reason David was arrested by police who attempted to persuade the court that his purpose was to break open coffins in search of the reputed vampire. The police evidence (again given under oath) was that David had later told the arresting officer that he intended to drive a wooden stake through the vampire’s heart and then ‘run away’. The latter phrase has always struck me as somewhat bizarre, because, fait accompli, surely there would be nothing to run away from. However…David denied making this statement, in court, and the stipendary magistrate obviously did not believe the police evidence and so the unlawful purpose element was thrown out of court. The conclusion is clear: that David was not acquitted because it is not illegal to hunt vampires, but because the court did not believe that he was trying to do so in the first place. To inadvertently misguide the reader over this important point is regrettable, as it contrasts sharply with many of Kai’s other points which he has investigated thoroughly.

It's a 'conclusion', however, which Kai didn't make, thus, negating Della's 'argument'. It's a fair sticking point, though, but it's no so simple, either. Farrant was caught in the midst of a 'Black Magic probe' launched by police⁴, on account of increased occult-themed vandalism the cemetery was subjected to, in the wake of press coverage relating to Farrant and Manchester's respective claims. Indeed, the Hampstead & Highgate Express had earlier quoted Farrant saying,

"Much remains unexplained, but what I have recently leart all points to the vampire theory as 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."⁵

And he was captured in the cemetery—according to police and press reports—with a cross and stake. You do the math.

The legality of hunting vampires, however, was indeed a big part of the case. At least, as far as contemporary coverage goes. Farrant, himself, has previously acknowledged this 'angle':

But notwithstanding, the case was dismissed, the Magistrate (this time a Mr DJ Purcell) accepting a Defence submission that the Society investigation had already featured on television and in the Press and that, in any event, it was just as akin to "hunt for vampires" as it was for some people to spend vast sums of money trying to locate the Loch Ness Monster.⁶

The real basis of the 'unlawful purpose' was, of course, the implicit actions involved in hunting vampires, i.e. grave desecration. This is also acknowledged by Farrant: 'The Magistrate added that he was satisfied that there had been no intention to "damage coffins"' and that the Cemetery was not an enclosed area in the strict legal sense.'⁷

In his comment on Della's review, Farrant adds,

Very concise review Della; especially concerning the blatant inaccuracies in Chapter 6 of Kai’s book over my acquittal for ‘vampire hunting’. I am not blaming Kai for this important ommission or how he failed to mention that my ‘confession’ for ‘hunting a vampire’ and intention to ‘smash open coffins’ (the fabricated police statement which was largely reported by the Press BEFORE my acquittal), when he was only acting on information given to him in ‘good faith’ by an extremely prejudiced and misinformed party. THAT was shoddy research, but it was hardly Kai’s fault.

One can only wonder whether he'd actually read the chapter, himself. Therefore, the identity of this 'extremely prejudiced and misinformed party' is a bit of a mystery. All I know is, it can't be me, as I made no edits to Kai's paragraph.

Farrant wasn't content with restricting bile to his comments on his wife's blog: his war on Chapter 6 spilled over to Kai's Facebook page. In a posted dated January 26 at 8:41am, he wrote:

Congratulations on your new book "Grave Concerns" Kai, and I agree with my wife that it is a 'well researched academic (and yet accessible) work'. The only part I didn't agree with was your description about the result of my case for 'vampire hunting' back in September 1970. However, I have already made it clear that the only person who can really be blamed for this, is the same person who seems highly confused about the legal outcome of that case in which I was acquitted, and who has a habit of making his erroneous conclusions public. It was not dismissed over any 'technical issue', but because of deliberately fabricated evidence (namely a false statement of 'confession' that one particular police had attempted to attribute to myself) which was not accepted by the Court. That aside, I found your research into the case of Robin Hood to be very accurate: especially your apparent conclusion how sometimes historical legends can be turned in modern day 'facts' by virtue of 'legend tripping'. Professor and historian Bill Ellis came to more-or-less the same conclusion in hs own book "Raising the Devil".

That, of course, erupted into a mini flame war between myself and him after I noted, '. . . if your worst criticism of my edits to the chapter (I've yet to receive the book, so I'm not sure how many of them stayed, intact), is allusions to your court case, then that means the rest of my writings on the chapter must've held up pretty well. Cheers. :D'

Farrant added,

The point is, that if you could get the important facts of my 1970 Court case blatantly wrong, then people are entiled [sic] to ask how many of the other points in your 'editing' were also erroneous. There is no need to list them all, except to say you substituted your personal opinions in favour of events as these actually occurred.

It was getting pretty clear that Farrant thought I was more involved with the chapter than I actually was, but I pointed out: 'They're entitled to ask, but if *you* can't even say what they are, then what you're trying to imply is that the rest of my research is fallacious...without backing that up. Sounds like a 'campaign' to me! lol'

And on it went, along with contradictory amusements like this: 'I am not prepared to discuss your 'editing' here Anthony. Kai has written a well researched book - except regarding the erroneous editing in Chapter 6 regarding Highgate in the early 1970's that was supplied by yourself.'

However, since that time, Farrant's tune's changed. Perhaps he actually sat done and read through the chapter, properly, without resorting to the ad hominem hysterics. In a recent blog entry, he wrote:

I think I have already mentioned this, but Kai Roberts’ book “Grave Concerns” on Robin Hood’s grave has just been released. I did like his assessment of events surrounding the alleged grave of the legendary outlaw, and also appreciated his narrative in chapter 6 which detailed old research about my own involvement as ‘President’ (sorry I meant – or rather he meant – Patron) of the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society. It seems Kai spent quite a few months if not years methodically researching the book; but in reality, I was only Patron of the YRHS and not its President! (I am the President of the British Psychic and Occult Society and the Highgate Vampire Society, and that is quite enough work for one day!)

But I do wish him every success with the book, and no doubt, that appreciation should be due to other people who aided him in his research as well.

That last bit almost sounds like a compliment. Perish the thought! If there's any criticism I'd personally give Kai's chapter, it's that it overplays the sincerity behind Farrant's vampire-hunting antics. Indeed, in correcting the date of an Evening News article, I added: 'To be fair on David, the 16 October [1970] article does mention (quoted by Copper), that David said he did not believe in the ‘the commercial sense of the word’. That article would be worth seeking out. Of course, that’s in late 1970, after months of brandishing crosses and stakes and all those other claims to the press and so on and so forth.'

It didn't make the cut.

However, keeping in tune with David and Della's respectively absolving Kai of responsibility for the content of his own chapter, we can't 'blame' him for the associations, either. After all, Farrant actively courted the vampire tag—and still does. The current President of the Highgate Vampire Society lists it as one of his greatest regrets. And then takes it back:

The worst I did was to go along with another person's innane [sic] wild assertions about a 'blood-sucking vampire', but again, this was only because this was the 'angle' the Press and television wanted at the time - 'vampires' apparently selling more newspapers or attracting more interested audiences for TV. Even today, aome [sic] of those film clips of myself 'hunting a vampire' are still being shown or repeated. Do I regret this? NO. Because this is the way it happened. I can't change the past, but ironically there are people who would like to try and do so.

Says the revisionist. In the meantime, I look forward to reading the rest of Kai's book. I've enjoyed my correspondence with him—he's got a good head on his shoulders and shares academic sensibilities. I'm also proud to call him a friend. I wish him the best with his work.

^{1. K Roberts, Grave concerns: the follies and folklore of Robin Hood's final resting place, CFZ Press, Bideford, U.K, 2011, p. 91: 'It is almost impossible to present an accurate record of the Highgate Vampire drama because - in the opinion of this author, at least - the two principal players have consistently proved to be unreliable witnesses, repeatedly altering or embellishing their recollection of events, often in an attempt to undermine each other's credibility.'↩}

^{2. ibid., p. 95↩}

^{3. ibid., p. 196.↩}

^{4. ''Black Magic' probe starts', Daily Express, 1 August 1970, p. 1.↩}

^{5. 'Why do the foxes die?', Hampstead & Highgate Express, 6 March 1970, p.1.↩}

^{6. D Farrant, Beyond the Highgate vampire: a true case of supernatural occurrences and "vampirism" that centred around London's Highgate Cemetery, 2nd rev. edn, British Psychic and Occult Society, London, 1992, p. 18.↩}

^{7. ibid.↩}

A bizarre 'reply'

2012-02-09T19:08:00.000+11:00

deviantART

After publishing yesterday's blog entry, I emailed David Farrant and asked, 'Quick question: how many articles did you submit to Penthouse?'¹

Instead of an email reply, he 'responded' with a several paragraphs-long blog entry. However, I use the term 'responded' very loosely; for all its waffle, at no point does he actually answer the question.

The closest thing we get is this: 'For the record – but certainly not for his particular benefit – I have written for many magazines in the past, or given interviews if, or when, they came to visit me. Depending on the type of magazine, would usually determine the subject matter. That’s only common sense, but it does not mean I would give interviews on any alien subject matters.' Not the first time I've encountered his patent evasiveness.

Admittedly, my email must've seemed odd and out of the blue, as I gave no context for it—my blog entry's publication still fresh in my mind, I thought Farrant would 'get it'. If he merely expressed bewilderment, fair enough—except prior to writing his blog entry, he clearly read mine, too. The 'context' is readily apparent.

Bizarrely, he takes me to task for asking him about his contributions to it: 'It came from a person I know (of) who lives in the far-flung area of South East Australia (of all places!), and was asking me how many articles I had written for Penthouse magazine. Not, ‘have you ever written’ for that magazine but how many times, as if this was some kind of foregone conclusion!' This, despite his previous boasting of practically writing the source—which I cited in the same blog entry—from which I scored the info. A direct quote from him, no less:

I also wrote one for Penthouse, because ... they'd played up the sex angle in court and all the papers were implying ... I thought, well, it's a magazine, they could be half-serious. I mean, bloody hell, it was sold in W.H. Smiths ! So I wrote to them. As far as I can recall, it was an article about witchcraft, what really went on in Wicca and, more to the point, what didn't. That we regarded sex as a pure and natural thing, that it only became abused and corrupted by the minds of men. And they only sent the article back ...

Unfortunately, these are the sort of 'mind games' you have endure in covering this case. Despite his blog entry's warped commentary about myself—'Obviously his personal interests went far beyond his query. How come he knows so much about it otherwise!? A subconscious reflection of his own guilt perhaps?' and 'So I’m afraid that particular email had to go on the ‘crank file’'—I'm a good sport—I have to be, to make any headway with this thing—so I posted a comment elaborating on why I sent the email:

Hi David,

A blog entry is a really unusual way to respond to a one sentence e-mail, not to mention the oblique references to myself ('It came from a person I know (of) who lives in the far-flung area of South East Australia (of all places!))'.

My question was 'foregone', because, unless you've forgotten, you admitted to writing an article for 'Penthouse' in Kev's 'book'. Why did I ask? Well, I thought that'd be obvious, as you've clearly read my recent blog entry, 'The American magazine', as given away by saying, 'Especially after he had gone on to describe the magazine’s format as a ‘wanking magazine’' (I actually called it a 'wank mag', as many people would). Indeed, type 'wank mag' into Wikipedia, and check the list you come up with.

If you don't 'get' why I asked, allow me to explain: there are discrepencies [sic] in the description(s) you've given for your contribution. That's why I added 'That means Farrant's memory's either faulty, or he's referring to another article for the mag. I'm hoping it's the former.'

I hope that makes things clearer for you. So, how many?

Perhaps due to some glitch, the comment didn't 'come up'. I tried a few more times, with some minor alterations. No dice. So, I apologise, in advance, if it duplicates. But hopefully, this time round, we'll get a straight answer.

And yes, it's true: if you type 'wank mag' into Wikipedia, you'll be re-routed to a 'List of men's magazines', which includes Penthouse—filed under 'Pornographic magazines'. If that's not a redundant explanation for my 'wank mag' reference, I dunno what is.

^{1. A Hogg, email, 8 February 2012, dawwihmanager@hotmail.com↩}

The American magazine

2012-02-08T18:03:00.000+11:00

The Highgate vampire case is spread across a wide variety of media. Newspapers, magazines, journals, books, TV, radio—you name it, it's been there. Until recently, one particular oblique source has eluded me: an American magazine.

This oblique source is surprisingly pivotal to our story, as David Farrant's contribution to it would come back to haunt him at a later time. In an interview with associate, Rob Milne, he mentions: 'I got approached by an American magazine ... they'd heard about the the stories of vampirism (this was obviously before my trial at the Old Bailey) and they were doing an article on Satanism, Highgate Cemetery being used by Satanists, nudity, exorcism ...

RM The usual ...

DF Yes. And bear in mind, this was time all of this stuff was all over magazines, the News of the World - there was really a great interest.

RM I remember that at the time. It was every other week there was an exposé of some Satanic group or some 'black magic outrage' and all that sort of thing ...

DF Well, ironically, I ended up getting - not exposed - but blamed for that.

RM I'll bet, yeah.

DF Foing back. Because what I did was, I knew that this reporter wanted a picture. I [sic] was a big American magazine and I thought, well, there's no problem, its [sic] not England and, you know, they promised quite a good payment for it.

RM Well. Needs first!

DF I took the girl [Martine de Sacy] into Highgate Cemetery one night, and I got her to pose named in front of these black magic symbols that we'd found. I took two or three pictures ... sorry, two. And that was the end of the matter. Until the police raided my flat and found the pictures in 1974. Took them to court and, of course, the judge nearly had a heart attack! Well apparently, he has had one! ... but I know he's dead, I mustn't be ... You know, it would be very tempting to use your interview to lay into the injustices of my trial and judge Argyle. But I'm not going to do that; I'm just telling you all the basic facts. If it sounds a bit frivolous at times, its not because its [sic] not true, but its [sic] because I can look back at it now ... but at the time it was taken very seriously. And he actually said at the Old Bailey, passing the photograph to the jury he said ... "Members of the jury, look at that closely " ... It was almost as if he was enjoying it! ...¹

What was the mysterious 'American magazine'? At first, I thought it must've been an occult or paranormal rag. Makes sense, right? However, finding the right one would've been a needle-in-the-haystack situation. I had no references to work with, so I left it in the back of my mind. That's when serendipity stepped in.

One night, while trawling through Google Books for references to the case, I came across an interesting snippet from a magazine entry. An American magazine, no less. It discusses Farrant and mentions they'd decided against publishing his article. It even dates 1973, contemporary with events described. Tick, tick, tick, tick.

So, what was the name of the magazine? Was it an occult/paranormal rag? No, it wasn't, surprisingly enough. It was, well, how do I put this? A 'wank mag'. Penthouse, in fact.

I was reasonably sure I'd found the mysterious American magazine in question, because Farrant mentions sending an them an article in Kev Demant's 'book':

Apart from the legal stuff, when I had time to spare I wrote a few articles. I sent one to New Witchcraft which was used, and I mean, every single word was used. It was written on old scraps of paper, anything I could get together because obviously, they wouldn't have given me official writing paper to do that, apart from which, it would have been stopped anyway. That was smuggled out and used. I also wrote one for Penthouse, because ... they'd played up the sex angle in court and all the papers were implying ... I thought, well, it's a magazine, they could be half-serious. I mean, bloody hell, it was sold in W.H. Smiths ! So I wrote to them. As far as I can recall, it was an article about witchcraft, what really went on in Wicca and, more to the point, what didn't. That we regarded sex as a pure and natural thing, that it only became abused and corrupted by the minds of men. And they only sent the article back ... [my italics]

I had a citation, so now it was just a matter of tracking a copy of the mag. USEDmagazines.com (ok, not the best site name for selling such mags) had 1973 issues of Penthouse. Perfect! I provided the citation, and made sure the article—'Witch report'—was featured in the relevant mag. However, a stumbling block was immediately thrown my way. Try as she might, Wendy—an excellent and incredibly patient customer service rep—couldn't find the article. She even checked all issues from that year, but it simply wasn't there. How odd.

I located a copy on eBay for £12.99 (+ £6.48 Royal Air Mail) (left). I double-checked with the seller whether the article appeared in it—it did!—but then I figured I only wanted the article, itself. Might've been cheaper. Only two pages long, after all. So, I contacted the Google Books entry's digitzer—the University of Michigan Library—to see how much it'd cost.

The request was processed fairly rapidly. They found the article, too. Then price came: US$44.00. 'This amount includes our MITS fee of US$15.00 and a copyright fee of US$29.00. Would you like us to proceed?' Hell no!

I was much more polite in my response, of course. I settled on snapping up the eBay copy, but was still mystified as to why it wasn't appearing in Wendy's searches. Then, I started paying closer attention to the citations. I figured out the problem: Penthouse, the American magazine, features month and year on the cover...but the UK version features volume and issue number. The issue I was after? Volume 8, number 8. I also learned that their content differed, too (link not safe for work or children!). Mystery solved! And see, ladies? Sometimes we do buy this stuff for the articles!

I ordered it on January 30th and it arrived yesterday. Does the article feature any startling revelations? Game-changing info? No, not really. There are a few interesting tidbits, though. According the article, Farrant's article wasn't simply refused and that-was-that: the magazine actually interviewed him. 'He was careful to stress from the outset that he was a practitioner of witchcraft, not satanism: "Satanists worship Lucifer, the supreme power of evil, whereas witchcraft is a neutral thing—it's only evil if practised for an evil purpose."'²

There's the usual emphasis on special powers derived from sex—'and Farrant acknowledged that his duties as a High Priest included having intercourse with his High Priestess at some—but not all—of his coven meetings, while his followers are also required to perform occasionally.'³

Farrant also mentions helping a man of diminutive stature—'a midget'—who was being booted out of a controlled tenancy and suffering harassment from them, too. As if that wasn't bad enough, the man's wife was preggers and not coping well with the stress. Farrant 'wrote to the landlady saying politely but bluntly that if she didn't stop we would deal with her our own way.' She was sent an amulet 'consecrated' by the coven, along with a rhyme intended to convey that 'once she'd touched it we'd have power over her, and we performed a ceremony in which we cast forces on her wishing her all she wished on the midgets.' Two days afterward, 'she went into the hospital and lost her baby.'⁴

The 'midget' is unnamed, but I've a feeling it's the guy depicted in this photo and this one, too.

It also says Farrant began practising witchcraft, seriously, at 18. Interestingly, the article mentions his current age as 33, which is at odds with the 23 January 1946 birth-date he's usually given.

The last item of note's his accumulation of enemies, including his challenges to duels. One of them, from 'another witch' who challenged him 'to a duel of powers once, and the Sunday papers picked it up and quite wrongly said [he] was going to sacrifice a cat during the course of it.'⁵

There is, of course, a discrepancy between Farrant's account with the content of the article. His interview with Demant suggests the article was written while he was incarcerated, but the interview in Penthouse took place about a year or two beforehand, in his flat. That means Farrant's memory's either faulty, or he's referring to another article for the mag. I'm hoping it's the former.

However, what you make of Farrant's alternating rationales for composing the article(s)—

'I [sic] was a big American magazine and I thought, well, there's no problem, its [sic] not England and, you know, they promised quite a good payment for it'

or,

'they'd played up the sex angle in court and all the papers were implying ... I thought, well, it's a magazine, they could be half-serious. I mean, bloody hell, it was sold in W.H. Smiths !'

—is up to you.

^{1. R Milne, Return of the vampire hunter: an exclusive interview with reclusive vampire hunter, David Farrant, British Psychic and Occult Society, London, 2003, pp. 24–5.↩}

^{2. 'Witch report', Penthouse (UK), vol. 8, no. 8, 1973, p. 19.↩}

^{3. ibid.↩}

^{4. ibid., p. 20.↩}

^{5. ibid.↩}

The prevalence of secret recordings

2012-01-21T21:13:00.000+11:00

Smoking guns are hard to come by in this case. One must duck and weave through a wave of paltry excuses, revisionism and flat-out stonewalling. That, of course, doesn't stop the claims a-rollin' on in, though.

But one of the more explosive claims, something that could hammer a nail into the coffin—and reputation—of one of the 'vampire''s leading proponents, burying the case once and for all, is also one of the most elusive pieces of 'evidence'.

Oddly enough, it originated from one of the deepest, darkest recesses of the web: the MySpace page of an undead Hungarian scholar.¹ His entry discusses a dinner held at Sean Manchester's place, notable for the presence of David Farrant's former friend, Tony 'Hutchinson' Hill. 'It was in the winter of 1969/70 that Farrant suggested to Hill they attempt to hoax a ghost story to see what the public reaction might be,' so claims Arminius Vámbéry.

CBS Miami

Vámbéry goes on to assert that 'Farrant could not afford to allow Hill to come forward if he wanted to retain any semblance of credibility because, more than anyone else, Hill knows that Farrant is a fake.' While none of the content of his blog entry contains any direct quotes—nor does its author disclose his attendence, suggesting he's relying on the story 'secondhand'—it also alleges Hill 'still possesses secretly recorded tapes of their forty-year-old conversations to prove it. On these tapes, Farrant can be heard conspiring to hoax a ghost story using acquaintances' addresses to send fraudulent letters to local newspapers, and by dressing up as a "ghost" and wearing make-up for photographs.'

There's certainly a precedent for the letters and Ghost Dave is backed by photographic evidence, do the tapes actually exist? Unfortunately, the credibility of Vámbéry's claims is undermined by saying, 'It was not long before Seán Manchester was advising caution where Farrant's claims were concerned, and by the end of that year he had publicly dissociated himself from Farrant on a television programme (BBC's 24 Hours, 15 October 1970) and in both the national and local press.' Considering the 'access' he has to Manchester's personal life—or so his photos of the dinner would suggest—you'd expect him to know that Manchester and Farrant's association continued long after this time.

But where Vámbéry stumbles, the Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester pick up the slack, by regurgitating his entry for their blog. In another entry, 'Mug shot', the the allegation of Farrant and Hill's hoaxing a ghost story, rears its head again. It also makes an appearance in Vampire Research Society member, Vampirologist's blog, under 'The ghost writers', but adds further detail: 'Hill was in on the hoax and can be heard colluding with Farrant in conversations secretly recorded in December 1969, January and February 1970.'

Farrant is certainly aware of these claims: I showed them to him and asked him to comment. For the record, he said, '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.'

That is an unlikely claim, due to the timing of the postings. I would suggest, along these lines, that the 'secret recordings' were a 'comeback' to Farrant's publication, The Seangate tapes, which feature alleged transcripts of incriminating phone conversations between Farrant and Manchester. These, too, were 'secret recordings'. As far as I know, Manchester—a man keen to invoke DMCAs, as Brendan Kilmartin, owner of The supernatural world forums will also attest—has not pursued legal against against Farrant for their publication.

But, on the other hand, Farrant, who took the Daily Express to court over allegedly defamatory comments², has not made any such injunctions, either, despite repeated insinuations that Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester, Arminius Vámbéry and Vampirologist are actually Sean Manchester in disguise.

Seeing as The Seangate tapes have remained in circulation, relatively unhindered, I think it's time Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester, Arminius Vámbéry and Vampirologist—and Hill, too, presuming he actually made such allegations—put their money where their mouth is and produce the tapes. Otherwise, they should retract their statements.

^{1. The real Arminius died on 15 September 1913. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminius_Vambery.↩}

^{2. ‘Occult man appeals for help after libel cases’, Daily Express, 16 February 1980, p. 4 and ‘Witch left with £20,000 libel bill’, The Guardian, 16 February 1980, p. 3.↩}

An interesting find

2012-01-21T01:50:00.000+11:00

Courtesy of Carl T. Ford

Until recently, I thought Sean Manchester's earliest written account of the Highgate Vampire was 'The haunting of Hell House' and his contribution to Peter Underwood's The vampire's bedside companion (both 1975).

That is, until a serendipitous eBay search for 'Highgate vampire' by Redmond McWilliams turned up a startling find: Witchcraft, vol. 2, no. 8 (1973). 'THIS IS ONE OF THE MORE COLLECTIBLE ISSUES AND EXTREMELY HARD TO COME BY,' reads its description, 'AS IT FEATURES AN ARTICLE ON VAMPIRES, INCLUDING THE HIGHGATE VAMPIRE AND THE OCCULT BY SEAN MANCHESTER INCLUDING A BEARDED SEAN MANCHESTER'. The issue's on sale for £75.

Witchcraft (1971–1974) was New Witchcraft's antecedent—the latter published 'The haunting of Hell House'; David Farrant's 'Invoking the vampire' appeared in the same issue. As Tom Brinkmann notes in his not-safe-for-work-or-children article, magazines like Witchcraft were basically 'adult slicks', that 'picked up the satanic/devilish theme' popular at the time.

The content of Manchester and Farrant's articles were later subsumed by their respective self-published material, The Highgate vampire (1985; 1991) and Beyond the Highgate vampire (1991; 1992; 1997), respectively. Both expose the subsequent revisions to their accounts, effectively illustrating the importance of collating contemporaneous material on this case is.

But this find—and I can tell ya, it's a doozy—is now the earliest-known account of the Highgate case by Manchester. I've sourced a copy of the article: it's called 'The world of the vampire' and appears on pages 52–55. The alleged 22-year-old vampire victim, 'Lusia'—as she's addressed and captioned in Manchester's post-1973 accounts—is revealed to be Jacqui Frances, 'a pretty 22-year-old blonde'.¹ Readers will immediately recognise 'Jacqui' as Jacqueline Cooper, who's mentioned several times in Don Ecker's report (pdf).

Ecker's report backs Farrant's allegation 'that Manchester had a romantic interest in her and she was named in Manchester’s divorcing his then wife', Marie Manchester, by including their divorce certificate, which refers to 'Jacqueline Frances (Cited as Jacqueline Francis) Manchester (Formerly Cooper)'. Was Manchester making cryptic references to this relationship when he dubbed her 'Model and girlfriend who had a very sultry look — and green eyes'? After all, you wouldn't know it was Jacqui, unless you're familiar with her other pictures.

This makes Manchester's dispassionate reference to 'A photographic model, and, much later, actresses, portrayed Lusia in representations of her in depictions of the mysterious events which came to be known collectively as the case of the Highgate Vampire', somewhat laughable—and, perhaps, very telling.

After all, Jacqui's appearance in Manchester's 1975 and 1985 accounts wasn't prefaced with her 'role': she's captioned 'Lusia' over and over again. Indeed, one of the 'Lusia' photos—in which her 'sultry' eyes are offset by an Iron Cross adorning her décolletage—has been recycled from the 1973 article. What's distinctive about the article, however, is there's little legroom for the retrofitted 'model' claim in Manchester's online account.

Not only is the aforementioned picture captioned with her actual name, but the text describes Jacqui as someone who'd 'come face to face with the Highgate Vampire.'² However, her subsequent tale shares more in common with the dark-figure-scared-by-oncoming-headlights motif found in several anonymous accounts related by Manchester and Farrant, rather than her 'somnambulating' along Swains Lane, feelings of suffocation at night and pinpricks in her neck, latterly described.³

Thanks to this find, we now have six primary Manchester narratives to wade through:

'The world of the vampire', Witchcraft, vol. 2, no. 8, 1973, pp. 52–5.
'The haunting of Hell House', New Witchcraft, vol. 1, no. 4, 1975, pp. 51–5.
'The Highgate vampire', in P Underwood (ed.), The vampire’s bedside companion: the amazing world of vampires in fact and fiction, Leslie Frewin, London, 1975, pp. 81–121.
The vampire exhumed, an unpublished typescript, 1980.⁴
The Highgate vampire: the infernal world of the undead unearthed at London’s famous Highgate Cemetery and environs, British Occult Society, London, 1985.
The Highgate vampire: the infernal world of the undead unearthed at London’s Highgate Cemetery and environs, rev. edn, Gothic Press, London, 1991.

Many 'alterations' are sure to turn up on closer examination. Famed horror writer, Ramsey Campbell, found many between the 1985 and 1991 editions, alone. I've noticed quite a few, myself.

What concerns me, though, is that if this article was found by fluke, who know what other narratives Manchester has floating about. As if there wasn't enough material to sift through.

^{1. S Manchester, 'The world of the vampire', Witchcraft, vol. 2, no. 8, 1973, p. 53.↩}

^{2. ibid. See also, caption accompanying picture on same page: 'Jacqui Frances came face to face with the Highgate Vampire.'↩}

^{3. S Manchester, 'The Highgate vampire', in P Underwood (ed.), The vampire’s bedside companion: the amazing world of vampires in fact and fiction, Leslie Frewin, London, 1975, p. 107.↩}

^{4. MV Riccardo, Vampires unearthed: the complete multi-media vampire and Dracula bibliography, The unexplained, the mysterious, and the supernatural: series of topical bibliographic guides to anomalies, vol. 2, Garland reference library of social science, vol. 177, Garland Publishing, Inc., New York, 1983, p. 96.↩}

Victorian sources—another lead?

2012-01-10T06:28:00.004+11:00

Redmond McWillams recently posted an interesting article by Andrew Gough on our forum, The Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation Society. What fascinated me about it, was its allusions to Victorian era sources concerning supernatural activity at Highgate Cemetery.

Readers may be familiar with the lengths I've gone to try and validate reports of sightings from this era, with only uncited claims and speculations to go on. For instance, I queried David Farrant on the following statements he made in 1975:

Some interesting facts came to light. Firstly, it became apparent that stories of an apparition in Highgate cemetery had by no means begun with the then current sightings. Indeed, similar tales dated from the Victorian Era and interestingly enough more of them had "vampiristic" connections. One of the common tales of that time told of a "tall man dressed in black" who used to disappear mysteriously through the cemetery wall.¹

And,

That Bram Stoker was influenced by the Highgate Vampire when he wrote "Dracula" . . . is almost certain. In his book – written with typical Victorian authority – he makes direct reference to Highgate Cemetery (or at least, an area in the vicinity of Highgate Cemetery) as being the last resting place of one of Count Dracula's disciples.²

These statements are not 'out of date', either, as they're echoed in his recent writings. But rather than provide sources for these claims, I was repeatedly stonewalled. A reading of J.A. Brooks' coverage of the case, also turned up bupkiss.

At the very least, I can establish that the second statement is inherently flawed. The resting place of the Count's 'disciple'—Lucy Westenra—was not formally identified as Highgate Cemetery in the novel, despite common presumption. Indeed, keeping in tune with Stoker's work as a novel—not historical treatise—it's likely her burial place was also fictional.

As no writings prior 1970 equated Westenra's resting place with the cemetery—at least, none I'm aware of—it's also likely the association was made because of the Highgate Vampire case's Draculesque elements, not the other way round.

I digress. Let's get back to Gough's article. What fascinates me about it, is that not only does it allude to Victorian era sightings in the vicinity of the cemetery, but also features a Stoker connection:

The mother of Bram Stoker, author of the horror classic, Dracula, lived nearby and often recounted the legend of a tall, dark, supernatural-looking figure that roamed the area before the cemetery was created.

The Bram Stoker Estate

A missing link! I knew Stoker's mum, Charlotte Stoker (1818–1901), told her son horror stories, but ghost sightings near the cemetery? That was news to me!

Yesterday, I sent Gough a message, via Facebook, asking him what his source was. But soon after that, alarm bells started going off. I started thinking, did Stoker's mum even live in that area? I thought she remained in Ireland all her life. Indeed, Stoker, himself, didn't move to London till 1878. She didn't go with him.

The cemetery, itself, opened in 1839—39 years before his move. If Gough was right, Charlotte, herself, must've had a secondhand source.

I decided to contact The Bram Stoker Estate: 'Good morning, I have a question concerning Charlotte Stoker. Did she remain in Ireland all her life?'

To my surprise, I was answered by foremost Dracula scholar, Elizabeth Miller: 'No. She moved to Italy in 1872 with her husband and 2 daughters. She returned to Dublin in 1886 (by this time her husband had died). She died in Dublin in 1901.'

After alluding to Gough's claim that she lived in the area of Highgate, Miller noted the speculative nature of such things, 'Of course, between 1886 and 1901, she "may" have visited Bram in London, and "maybe" he took her for a walk around Highgate, and "maybe" he explained to her that this was where Lucy was interred.... ad nauseam.' However, Gough's account is pretty clear: she lived there.

I then quoted the passage in question from Gough's article. Her response? 'Balderdash! Double poppycock! Utter garbage! Unmitigated claptrap!'

Miller's word on the subject was pretty substantiate in itself, but the Estate took my query on Charlotte's residency seriously enough to provide an official answer:

Very good question. We know Charlotte Stoker was a great influence on young Abraham Jr; not only did she tend to him while he was bedridden as a child, but it is speculated that her eloquent yet dark storytelling certainly had an influence on the future author of Dracula.

In the years after Bram left home, the Stoker family- composed then of Abraham Sr, Charlotte and their daughters Matilda and Margaret- moved about Europe. They lived in France, Switzerland and Italy, where Abraham Sr died in 1876. Several years later Charlotte returned to Dublin where she lived until her death in 1901.

Strong willed and with a keen intellect, Charlotte Stoker was more than a wife and mother. Through her life she was a staunch advocate for the rights of the disabled. Among her many works, in 1863 she published this paper on the need for state-funded education of the deaf and dumb. Charlotte Stoker's achievements may have been overshadowed by her son's but they certainly should not be overlooked.

So, there we have it. She never lived there, ergo, she didn't hear such stories during her supposed residency. But if that's the case, where'd Gough pull his account from? The ball's in his court on that one, but, at least we can debunk that element of the story.

^{1. D Farrant, 'Invoking the vampire', New Witchcraft, vol. 1, no. 4, 1975, p. 34.↩}

^{2. ibid.↩}

Two sides of the same coin

2011-12-07T15:09:00.001+11:00

The hatchety goodness continues on Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester. Every so often, its anonymous author likes sprucing up (i.e. revising) his blog entry, 'Anthony Hogg'.

The latest version features a colourised image of me wearing a vampire mask—the background texta-ed out—except, this time, it's captioned: 'Anthony Hogg wearing his mask that reveals his own demonic eyes.'

This echoes the Manchesterian habit of comparing enemies and/or critics to demons. Manchester, himself, dubs his adversary—David Farrant—'The Devil's Fool', also literally painting him as a demon.

When describing former friend, Kevin Chesham, he adds, 'If you live by the Buddhist philosophy you would obviously want to avoid bad karma as depicted in my portrait of a Buddhist I once knew for many years before he inexplicably turned to treachery and allied himself with the Devil's own.' The 'Devil's own' segment of that sentence links to one of the FoBSM's blog entry on Farrant.

The FoBSM's blog entry on myself goes onto note, 'Anthony Hogg is not just pathologically obsessed with Bishop Manchester and the bishop's adversary, but is also too stupid to resist Mr Farrant's machinations despite being the subject of ridicule in comics distributed by the latter.' The comic in question, is The adventures of Bishop Bonky—with an updated version called The new adventures of Bishop Bonky.

It features a character—'Cousin Hoggy'—who is 'The bishop's Australian cousin. He leaves his pet kangaroo Skippy at his Billabong home to travel to England. His aim? To 'avenge' the bishop, and verbally defeat the infamous David Farrant.' It was created by a rather 'eccentric' fellow who thinks I am Seán Manchester in disguise.¹

However, despite the character sharing a similar name and Australian background—albeit, a stereotyped version—it's clear 'Cousin Hoggy' isn't a representation of myself, as the comic's disclaimer warns, 'None of the depictions, characters or stories herein are real, nor are they intended to harm living persons. Fictional names are used, except in cases where public figures are satirised. Any use of real names is accidental or coincidental.' Phew, that's a relief.

Therefore, the FoBSM's criticism of the comic is somewhat odd, considering the entry's accompanied by a picture of a pig's head grafted onto the body of an Iraqi woman who wanted to be a suicide bomber for al Qaeda. She was murdered by her father before she had the chance.

Google

The blog entry's author labelled his doctored picture 'StalkerHogg'. The same entry claims I am a stalker. Why would the entry's anonymous author criticise a cartoon pig, yet publish something of such poor taste? Despite these antics, the FoBSM is still endorsed by Bishop Seán Manchester.

On a not-unrelated note, the porcine representations—and, one could argue, the demonic ones—reflect a political attack called zoomorphism, 'a very common theme throughout the world. To abuse one's adversaries, one dehumanizes them by turning them into animals.'

^{1. The author of the article gives his name as 'Joe', but was actually a member of the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum named 'CLD' aka 'Cecil Lamont-Dwiggins'.↩}

Victorian sources—a lead?

2011-11-07T00:22:00.002+11:00

Amazon.co.uk

On Thursday night, I was reading J. A. Brooks' 'Highgate' chapter and came across allusions to the cemetery's haunted past: 'Highgate Cemetery has long had the reputation of being one of the most haunted, evil places in London.'¹ But for how long?

According to David Farrant, 'Some interesting facts came to light' during his investigation. 'Firstly, it became apparent that stories of an apparition in Highgate cemetery had by no means begun with the then current sightings. Indeed, similar tales dated from the Victorian Era and interestingly enough more of them had "vampiristic" connections.'²

Did Brooks—an independent source—cite elusive 'evidence' confirming Highgate's Victorian era reputation for hauntings?

'One of the earliest of the strange incidents that have taken place her [sic]', Elizabeth Siddal's exhumation on 5 October 1869.³ She was the wife of Pre-Raphaelite poet, Dante Gabrielle Rossetti. He'd buried a book of poetry with her when she died in 1862, but later wanted it back. Upon exhumation, her body was 'described as perfect upon coming to light.' But Rossetti was not present.

As noted elsewhere, the witness—Charles Augustus Howell—had a decidedly nasty reputation and his testimony is somewhat suspect, as a result; especially as he was personally invested with publishing the book and perhaps easing 'Rossetti's guilty conscience'. Brooks listed no other 'strange incidents' from this period.

After discussing the Highgate vampire case, Brooks states 'There are more orthodox supernatural activities that occur in the cemetery apart from those involving voodoo and vampires. An old madwoman distractedly searches among the tombs for the children she once murdered; a tall man with a black hat mysteriously fades into the walls of the Cemetery at Swain's Lane; and a ghost with bony fingers lurks near the main entrance.'⁴

Despite claims of spectral consistency, such diversity upholds Bill Ellis' observation that 'the most impressive detail is the sheer amorphousness of the Highgate traditions'.⁵ In other words, different people saw different things there.

Not only did Brooks give no indication these are Victorian sightings, but one of the spectres was seemingly fused from two, different—and comparatively modern—sources. In 1975, Farrant mentioned 'One of the common tales of that time [the Victorian Era] told of a "tall man dressed in black" who used to disappear mysteriously through the cemetery wall.' ⁶ Rather than being one of the 'common tales of that time', it likely stems from a letter written by R. Docherty—in 1970: 'Many tales are told, however, about a tall man in a hat who walks across Swain's Lane and just disappears through a wall into the cemetery.'⁷

Interestingly, Docherty was exposed as a friend of Farrant's—later confirmed by Farrant, himself. Add Victoria Jervis' testimony on Farrant's behind-the-scenes machinations, the hoax tape allegations and we're certainly left with a disturbing picture.

^{1. JA Brooks, Ghosts of London: the East End, City and North, Jarrold Colour Publications, Norwich, U.K., 1982, p. 32.↩}

^{2. D Farrant, 'Invoking the vampire', New Witchcraft, vol. 1, no. 4, 1975, p. 34.↩}

^{3. Brooks, pp. 32–3↩}

^{4. Brooks, p. 36.↩}

^{5. B Ellis, 'The Highgate Cemetery vampire hunt: the Anglo-American connection in satanic cult lore', Folklore, vol. 104, no. 1-2, 1993, p. 22.↩}

^{6. Farrant, p. 34.↩}

^{7. R Docherty, 'The ghost of N6', letters to the editor, Hampstead & Highgate Express, 13 February 1970, p. 25.↩}

Challenger has entered the ring!

2011-11-03T13:15:00.001+11:00

There's a new Highgate vampire forum in town: The Highgate Vampire Appreciation Society. It's a closed Facebook group, though, so you'll need to request membership. I might grant it, too—I'm one of its admins. Ha!

I really didn't want it to be a closed group, but because certain folk seem superkeen on hunting down personal info of their critics, it was really the best option.

It's also good to see a new Highgate blog on the scene. It's called The (Highgate) vampire exhumed!. Its creator—The Dark Spectre—discusses his personal 'journey' with the case and is 'resolved to try to get to the bottom of it all and discover just what was true and what was plain fiction.' Now that's a cause I can get behind! All the best, DS!

Medium, identified!

2011-10-12T05:39:00.002+11:00

A little bit of this and not so much of that

As part of a ritual which allegedly took place at Highgate Cemetery in 1971, David Farrant recruited the services of a medium to summon the Highgate vampire: 'To the North of the Circle a small "sealed" triangle was cast (also containing a small fire) where the entity would be summoned to appear, and hopefully, be able to "communicate" with a psychic medium who would be inside the protective Circle.'

'As midnight approached, the medium began to make the Commands for manifestation'.

The temperature in the Circle suddenly dropped. The candles blew out. A misty shape began to form. The only thing missing? Thunder and lightning.

'The medium spoke aloud, attempting to aid "its" materialisation and all at once, two eyes could be seen at the top of the moving black form.' Farrant had seen these eyes before: 'They were the same eyes that I had witnessed inside the gate, dull red and almost diabolically evil; only this time, they had increased in strength to such a degree that it was like being confronted by some "living presence".'

The medium decided enough was enough of this supernatural tomfoolery, so Farrant and the medium 'performed a rite of banishment during which the entity promptly vanished.'

Who was this androgynous, anonymous medium? How are we supposed to verify the claims and their experience? Unfortunately, Farrant's account doesn't name our psychic sleuth. We've reached a dead-end.

Or have we? As it happens, I have an article he wrote in 1975 which reveals the medium's identity.

It turns out, the medium's name was—David Farrant. 'I arose to begin the Commands of manifestation'¹, 'I spoke aloud, trying to help its materialisation . . . Seeing the dangers involved in prolonging the ceremony, without hesitation (though with some effort) I performed a ritual of banishment during which the entity vanished.'²

Despite being published only four years after the supposed manifestation, the article relates no familiarity with the smoky entity's eyes, suggesting a latter-day revision to add 'atmosphere' to the tale.

^{1. D Farrant, 'Invoking the vampire', New Witchcraft, vol. 1, no. 4, 1975, p. 37.↩}

^{2. ibid., p. 38.↩}

Revamp

2011-10-11T17:59:00.002+11:00

After I shut down Diary of an amateur vampirologist and started a new blog, I've decided this one could do with a shake-up, too. It's been a while a while since I've toyed around with it.

To see what the blog looked like till now, click on the image to the right. But it's not just the layout I want to change with this thing, but the 'tone', too. Some of it. I want it to have more of a scholarly tone. The previous entry gave a taste of that.

Now that I know how to create footnotes in HTML, the main text won't be encumbered with intrusive author-date referencing.

I've also been wondering whether I should merge this and my WordPress blog of the same name. We'll see.

Tomb aux folles

2011-09-20T14:02:00.007+10:00

Yesterday was International Talk Like a Pirate Day. To (belatedly) commemorate the occasion, let's take a peek at a paranormal pirate 'investigated' by David Farrant.

He reproduced an article covering the event from the Evening News, dated 'Wednesday 1, 1972'. While a month would've been helpful for citation purposes, we can pinpoint it to November, thanks to contemporary coverage of the case (e.g. 'Halloween ghost couple held', Daily Express, 1 November 1972, p. 13). Citations have never been Farrant's strong-point.

However, far from detailing any supernatural activity, the press coverage concerns the arrest of Farrant and his assistant, Victoria Jervis (listed as 'Lucy Grant' in the Daily Express account) while conducting a summoning ritual in St. Mary's churchyard, Monken Hadley, Barnet. On Hallowe'en night, no less.

The reproduced Evening News article describes Farrant's intent: 'Farrant, 33-year-old President [Farrant would have been 26 at the time, as he was born on 23 January 1946] of the British Psychic and Occult Society [his organisation was not called this until 1983. Farrant must have incorrectly transcribed the article], explained . . . "The ghost of Wallmsley the Pirate comes out twice a year - on Hallowe'en and Christmas Eve."' The source for this tale, was 'local stories'.

The couple were charged with 'disfiguring a churchyard' ('Halloween ghost couple held'), which later articles would clarify as 'indecent behaviour under the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act of 1860' ('"Ghost watchers" fined for ritual in churchyard', The Guardian, 23 November 1972, p. 10). They were fined £10. The same article mentions the presence of a reporter, who, according to Farrant was only there to 'be a witness if the spirit appeared'. He also denied informing the press. If that's the case, he certainly chose a strange 'witness'.

There is evidence that Farrant didn't tip-off the press, in this instance: mainly because it's clear he got his assistant, Victoria Jervis, to do it instead. After being subpoenaed for another one of Farrant's trials (in 1974), here's what she had to say about her involvement in the ritual:

I have tried to put most of what happened out of my mind. The false letters I wrote to a local paper were to stimulate publicity for the accused. I saw him almost every weekend in the second half of 1972 and I went to Spain with him for a fortnight at the end of June that same year. I was arrested with him in Monken Hadley Churchyard. That incident upset me very much. Afterwards, my doctor prescribed tranquilisers for me.

She added, 'You have photograhed [sic] me a number of times in your flat with no clothes on. One photograph was published in 1972 with a false caption claiming I was a member of your Society, which I never was.'

And reporter in question? 'By coincidence, her cousin was a reporter on the Barnet Press', as Farrant mentioned in Dark secrets: a true story of Satanism, Black Magic and modern day Witchcraft exhortations (London: British Psychic and Occult Society, 2001), p. 70. The irony is, Jervis was not even 'qualified' to participate, as the same page says: 'For the purpose of this ritual, I planned to use a psychic medium (in fact, one who helped in the Highgate Cemetery ritual some two years before) but, as she was unavailable at Hallowe'en, I chose an assistant called Victoria Jervis instead.'

After noting that Jervis was 'visibly shaken' by this event, he went on to say, 'Her cousin had certainly come across a good story but, now, before the case had even come to court, the episode had found its way into the national press' (p. 71).

The funny thing is, all these troubles could've been avoided if Farrant took the trouble to conduct an actual investigation, rather than trespassing on church property to conduct rituals in the dead of night. The 'mystery' of our ghostly pirate, Tom Wallmsley [sic], was unravelled by Jennie Lee Cobban.

For those unfamiliar with Cobban, a local historian and archaeologist in Barnet, she was the original founder of the Highgate Vampire Society. According to Farrant:

So lets begin at the beginning: in the latter part of 1995 a historian from Barnet started The Highgate Vampire Society. Her name was Jennie Lee-Cobham [sic]. She began the Society when she was researching material for a book (published in 1996) on ghosts in North London, including Highgate and the Barnet area. This was started mainly as an historical Society, but in 1997, the work-load got a bit too much for Jennie and she asked me if I would be interested in taking this over from her and running it as a ‘sister society’ to the British Psychic and Occult Society. I agreed, and kept the name and the membership she had gathered up to that point.

A similar version of events was recounted on the Arcadia forum:

In 1995, a lady called Jennie Lee Cobban was researching a book on the history of Barnet and Enfield, and had contacted myself. She was particularly interested in a case I was involved with at Monken Hadley churchyard, when I was arrested for 'summoning up a pirate's ghost' in the churchyard, in October 1972. She was also interested in the so-called Highgate 'vampire' case that had occurred in Highgate in the early 1970s.

She had been commissioned to write a book on the history of Barnet and Enfield, and she also wanted to include the so-called Highgate Vampire case as well.

For this purpose I was invited to her home in 1995, and learned that she had done a lot of research into the Highgate 'vampire' case. Because of all the interest, she had at that time formed a society, the Highgate Vampire Society, which she had set up to deal with the interest into this particular subject.

Her book came out in 1997 [sic], and was titled 'Geofrrey de Mandeville and London's Camelot: Ghosts, Mysteries and the Occult in Barnet', and dealt with these aspects, as well as including a chapter on myself.

As part of her research - as said - Jenny had already formed the Highgate Vampire Society, and because of domestic reasons she asked me if I would be willing to 'take this over'. I did so, using the name, and all of her initial membership.

Those are probably the only references you'll find to its founding, as this 'history' is not mentioned in the Highgate Vampire Society page. If anything, it alludes to Farrant being its sole founder and Cobban's role has been all but 'erased':

But in 1997, following a mass of speculation about the so-called Highgate Vampire and misguided controversy that had come to surround his name - not least because this had spread to a world wide interest in the case - David Farrant decided to form the Highgate Vampire Society, its purpose (as he said at the time) . . . “One of our main aims will be to become a repository for all the oral history and written data concerning the Highgate Vampire”.

While Cobban makes no mention of founding the society in the book Farrant mentions, Geoffrey de Mandeville and London's Camelot: ghosts, mysteries and the occult in Barnet (Barnet, U.K.: The Author, 1996), she does deal with the Monken Hadley case:

David may console himself with the knowledge that even had he managed to conduct his ceremony uninteruppted in 1972, he would still not have managed to raise the ghost of a pirate at Monken Hadley, because no pirate was ever buried there (p. 138).

She went on to say, 'The gravestone in question is that of Walter Walmsley who died in 1723 at the age of 42. His grave is certainly decorated with a design of a skull and crossbones (still just about discernible), but this was a very common funerary emblem and was never intended to imply that a pirate had been buried in the grave.' Indeed, the 'skull and crossbones' motif was used by pirates because of its symbolism, not to signify pirate graves. Here's more on trends with tombstone motifs:

Early monuments and grave stones in Europe and in old New England were crude and were carved with frightening motifs like winged skulls, skeletons and angels of death. The idea was to frighten the living with the very idea of death. In this way, they were apt to live a more righteous life after seeing the images of decay and horror on the markers of the dead. It would not be until the latter part of the 1800’s that scenes of eternal peace would replace those of damnation.

'Coincidentally', Farrant does not mention these revelations in his subsequent books which cover the case. A classic example of 'mystery mongering'. Therefore, it's safe to assume the story's a bunch of arrrse.

Edit (26 January 2012): Farrant actually does acknowledge the revelations in one of his publications, Rob Milne's Return of the vampire hunter: an exclusive interview with reclusive vampire hunter, David Farrant (London: British Psychic and Occult Society, 2003). Sort of: 'A ghostly pirate. Presumably the reason it was supposed to be the ghost of a pirate was because a very small 17th century gravestone known as the pirates [sic] grave, had a skull and crossbones on it and so people imagined that it was a pirate (p. 12).

However, this revelation is obviously derived from Cobban, sans acknowledgement. After all, what was Farrant trying to summon, if he was aware of this 'urban legend's origins at the time?

Articles in VIEN

2011-09-05T13:03:00.007+10:00

On Friday, I received a few issues of the Vampire Information Exchange (VIE) newsletter, VIEN, which discussed the Highgate vampire case.

I chased 'em up based on the citations they were given in Rob Brautigam's article, 'The vampire hoax of Highgate Cemetery'. After reading through them, I was left wondering: was it worth chasing them up in the first place? Here are the articles in question:

Paul B. Thomson [sic]:
"The Highgate Vampire"
in: "Vampire Information Exchange Newsletter" issues 22 and 23
VIEN, New York, USA, 1984

Jeanne Youngson :
"Highgate - Fact or Fraud ?"
in: "Vampire Information Exchange Newsletter" issue 23
VIEN, New York, USA, 1984

I recognised the first article as something that'd also been reprinted in Fate (May 1985, pp. 74–80)*, which, in turn, was originally published in the Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained's journal, Pursuit, vol. 16, no. 3. VIEN adds that the article was originally printed in 1983. It also mentions that Thompson was a former VIE member.

The difference between 'em, is that the Fate reprint omits the reference list that VIEN's version retains. So, you could go out of your way to score the VIEN issues featuring Thompson's article—and believe you me, they're not easy to come by—or, you read its 'missing' reference list here. It's from VIEN's 23rd issue (November 1984, p. 12). I've rendered the underlined titles in italics:

Hampstead and Highgate Express: Feb. 6, 13, 20, 27, March 6, 1970.

Letter from Jean B. Pateman, August 6, 1975

London Times: Aug. 7, 30, 1970; June 11, 15; July 2, 13, 18, 1974.

Occult, newsletter of the British Occult Society, Vol. 14, No. 11, March 13, 1981.

Summers, Montague, The Vampire: His Kith and Kin, University Books.

Sylvaine Super Star, privately published in France, ca. 1980. Her bibliography contains references to the Highgate Cemetery case.

Underwood, Peter, The Vampire's Bedside Companion, Leslie Frewin, London, 1975.

Some interesting stuff there. For starters, Occult, appears to be a precursor to The Cross and the Stake, the Vampire Research Society's newsletter, which, in turn, transmogrified into an online forum of the same name. The volume and issue number of Occult is quite daunting: it must be nearly impossible to score a single issue of the newsletter, little alone all the issues.

Sylvaine Super Star is no doubt the work of French actress, Sylvaine Charlet, who Manchester captions 'a glamourous and invaluable ally' in the '85 edition of The Highgate vampire (1985, p. 100). According to the book, she also accompanied him on vampire vigils...and masquerade ball (pp. 118—20, 123—4).

Thompson's article, itself, makes references to the MS which would later become The Highgate vampire (1985). I definitely recommend Thompson's article, but it might be easier and cheaper to score it from Fate. I, however, am gonna try and find the original Pursuit version, as I'm a stickler for first editions and such.

Youngson's 'Highgate - fact or fraud?' (November 1984, pp. 19—20), on the other hand, appears to be an original article. She was the president of the Count Dracula Fan Club (now Vampire Empire). The article recounts a recent trip to Highgate Cemetery, in which she is taken on tour by a 'member-volunteer'. Naturally, she asks about the vampire, who mentions that such accounts are discredited by the cemetery's caretakers, the Friends of Highgate Cemetery. There's even a perfectly rational explanation for the mysterious dead foxes allegedly found in the cemetery—something neither Manchester nor Farrant seem to have mentioned in their writings.

She is very critical of Farrant's behaviour at the cemetery, however, she mistakenly assumes he was responsible for a corpse being propped up in a car (someone else came forward during Farrant's 1974 trial, admitting to the crime). Lastly, she deals with the 'controversy' over the cemetery's setting for Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897). It is commonly assumed that vampiress, Lucy Westenra's tomb was located there. However, closer readings of Stoker's novel (which Youngson alludes to), have produced very different results.

The issue, itself, is billed as a 'Highgate Cemetery Edition'. Apart from the remainder of Thompson and Youngson's article, it also includes reprints of articles from The Times (referred to as the London Times, due to the paper's American publication) and one from the National Examiner, 'Real-life vampires roam cemetery' (August, 1984). Despite the article's date, its content harkens back to Manchester's 'Highgate vampire' chapter for Underwood's The vampire's bedside companion (1975).

However, there is one very noticeable difference. The assistants featured in Manchester's chapter, are here described as 'two policemen'. Surely there's an error here. That's probably not surprising, considering the paper's reputation: 'Like other tabloids, its contents have often come under question, and it has been derided for its sensationalistic writing.'

So, can I recommend chasing up these issues? Apart from Youngson's original article, no, not really. If you want newspaper articles, you're better off finding the originals, especially with the advent of digital archives. Thompson's article is a goodie, but if you can get it elsewhere, why bother? Its not even the original printing.

That's not to dismiss the VIEN altogether. After all, I've heard of some juicy stuff in the newsletter's sixth issue. Who knows, there might be more interesting tidbits buried there. But I think it's safe to say that you can give these ones a miss.

* A Fate article I already had.

Presenting the amazing...paranormal escalator!

2011-08-11T03:45:00.006+10:00

Props goes to fellow forum member, Cú Chulainn, for sharing a fascinating article on the way (alleged) paranormal phenomena can morph from witness to media.

Maurice Townsend's 'The paranormal escalator' illustrates the need to pay close attention to an eyewitness's original testimony. Go back to the source. It's easy for an original account to morph into something else, especially when overlaid with paranormal assumptions and interpretations on the alleged sightings in question. Benjamin Radford depicts this scenario in Scientific paranormal investigation: how to solve unexplained mysteries (Coralles, N.M.: Rhombus Publishing Company, 2010):

"I saw a Bigfoot."
"How do you know it was a Bigfoot?"
"It was large and dark and hairy and standing on two legs."
"Okay, so you saw something large, dark, hairy, and standing on two legs. But no one knows for certain what a Bigfoot is. So how can you positively identify what you saw as a Bigfoot?" (p. 21)

This supernatural presumption is a hallmark of paranormal investigation. The 'answer' is often pre-determined, despite the use of scientific equipment to make the investigation seem 'legit'. Radford discusses the 'logic' behind this and why it's inherently faulty:

Some people believe that paranormal phenomena are inherently unknowable . . . I have encountered the same position elsewhere; during a haunted house investigation in California for a TV show, I had a friendly discussion with a member of a ghost hunting group. I asked him why the evidence for ghosts never seemed to get any better, and he replied that ghosts were scientifically unprovable. I pointed out that his team . . . had brought with them a huge van full of thousands of dollars' worth of cameras, EMF detectors, and ghost hunting gadgets of all descriptions. What was the point of all that, I asked him? If he was certain that ghosts existed—and he was equally certain that their presence could not be scientifically measured—then all the high tech equipment they used was by definition worthless (pp. 53—4).

In other words, be wary of 'scientific evidence' of the paranormal and those who claim to have it! Especially when 'magical' elements rear their head during supposedly 'serious' investigations:

There are certain methods I can't really talk about. But the Society get together to form a psychic chain and direct the psychic energy towards the person in question., a bit like an exorcism. We very rarely do this unless its a very serious case, and this was a very serious case.

Though, when you think about it, if the paranormal can be examined through scientific means, then is it truly paranormal? Is it really supernatural? After all, if such phenomena can be 'measured' and demonstrated, consistently, doesn't that just make it natural phenomena yet to be verified with sufficient evidence? But if the evidence thus far isn't sufficient - at least, by scientific standards - then what exactly is being measured in the first place? Round and round we go.

Don't get me wrong. I'm far from discouraging attempts to verify the existence of the supernatural via scientific means. On the contrary: knock yourself out! However, the paranormal, by its very nature, is an 'extraordinary claim' that requires extraordinary evidence. The evidence, itself, must withstand rigorous - but fair and reasoned scrutiny - to justify itself as valid 'evidence'. Every alternate solution should be exhausted before a paranormal explanation is put forth.

When it comes to Highgate, how exactly do we prove that the cemetery was haunted by a vampire, ghost or 'psychic entity'? What is the evidence? To that effect, we are dependent on eyewitness testimony. But, as the 'paranormal escalator' shows, this, in itself, is not sufficient. Therefore, we have to examine the building blocks of which the case is composed. That's one reason I was asking about certain Victorian era sightings.

Essentially, these sightings were being used to 'prove' that the cemetery had been 'latently' haunted and its descriptions paralleled contemporary sightings. If so, let's look at the source. Let's see if they do match or whether the claim was pulled out of thin air or, perhaps clumsily shoehorned into something that didn't quite fit. You can see how that went down.

Therefore, the best approach I advise when examining the vampire/ghost/psychic entity is to examine the way the cases have been composed. What was the evidence the main protagonists used to arrive at their supernatural claims? Does it withstand scrutiny? Have all rational explanations been eliminated? Have the investigators displayed sufficient expertise - or deferred to it - to eliminate rational explanations? Are their accounts consistent? Are their investigative techniques sound? Are they prone to lying and misrepresentation? And so on.

In the meantime, I highly recommend scoring a copy of Radford's book. It's also on Kindle, if you're so inclined.

Handling innuendo bluntly

2011-08-10T03:23:00.007+10:00

Innuendo is a passive-aggressive trait David Farrant revels in. Here's the latest example from his blog concerning a certain someone from 'down under'.

That'd be me. Most likely. According to Farrant, he's 'been getting a lot of unsolicited "nuisance value" emails from a certain person who lives "down under".' While it's true Farrant and I have engaged in a recent bout of e-mail correspondence, it certainly wasn't initiated by me. In terms of 'unsolicited', my e-mails have actually been replies to the stuff he's been sending me. That fact is omitted from the rest of his commentary:

I only wish he’d post the bloody things by land mail as at least then they’d take a week or 2 to arrive from his home by a nearby billabong. But no! He has to email them and they keep filling up my inbox so I am really forced to read them for amusement value. You know, the guy should really have been a comedian: I mean, talk about giving me potential ideas or scripts for the forthcoming film! You think I’m joking? Just you wait and see!

I am not going to name the character here – as he has used my name enough already to further his own attempts at self promotion. I suppose it must just keep him happy – just trotting around the bush with nothing else apparently more useful to do!

Firstly, the correspondence started after he began spamming me. I received an e-mail from him out of the blue ('New book list', Wednesday, 22 June 2011 12:09:07 AM) which opened with 'Dear friend', so it was obviously a group-send. It came attached with a pdf document called 'British Psychic & Occult Society publications list June 2011', which included an order form. I replied ('RE: New Book List‏', Thursday, 23 June 2011 5:05:01 PM):

Hi friend,

Is there a reason you're spamming me with your book list?

As you can see, my so-called 'unsolicited' e-mails actually began with his unsolicited e-mail to me. Apart from muddying and misrepresenting the facts in his patent style, one could argue that he suffers from a tendency to psychologically project his own attributes to others, as I've shown before. That'd explain why he also 'blames' me for his own writings on the Highgate case.

However, there's a distinct possibility that the person he's referring to is actually someone who's been dabbling in a bit of identity theft. I recall an e-mail Farrant sent me ('From David Farrant‏', Saturday, 9 July 2011 11:04:21 AM) asking if I was the person who'd sent him a Microsoft Word document which had some very nasty things to say about Manchester. I explained that I wasn't. I asked him to forward me the original e-mail, but he went silent on the issue. Since that time, I actually found out who did write it. Someone quite close to David, in fact. I only withhold their name until I get certain permissions to reproduce correspondence identifying them. That's implied in my response to his blog entry:

Onto the other comments in Farrant's blog entry. The 'upcoming film' Farrant refers to, is derived from his Bishop Bonky publications. It operates under the guise of satire, but is noticeably lenient on one of its 'targets': namely, Farrant, himself. That'd probably be because he published it through his BPOS imprint under the false pretext of 'free speech' (even though it was in violation of StripGenerator's copyright), served a consultant in its creation (this obviously throws the impartiality of the creator out the window—and what a dodgy mofo he turned out to be) and promotes related merchandise.

Apart from these issues, there's a rather unfortunate streak of xenophobia present in his writings. The references to 'billabongs', our postage, etc. are obvious digs at my Australian background. The question is, how is such pathetic stereotyping remotely relevant to discussions on the case? What if I was another nationality, say, Indian for example. Would he take digs at my cultural background then? Either way, it's hardly coincidental that his snide postings have followed in the wake of my exposés on his inability to provide sources for his own claims. A clear sign of desperation.

Presuming my comment gets published, I can already anticipate the response. The 'down under' character referred to wasn't actually me, but 'someone else'. Some other person who he 'coincidentally' refers to in the same derogatory manner as he does myself. Sad.

As to 'land mail', is that really an advisable form of communication with someone who will openly boast about having your address...even when it's not willingly provided?

It's a shame Farrant can't be more honest and openly admit that the Bonky stuff is simply another manifestation of his vendetta against Manchester as well as Farrant's critics (like me). Speaking of Manchester, his book From Satan to Christ: a story of salvation (London: Holy Grail, 1988) gives us a taste of just how vindictive and petty Farrant can be.

According to Manchester, he received a letter from Farrant dated 21 December 1986, which challenged him to a duel in northern France, due to 'deliberate public lies' Manchester had published about him. A meeting was arranged at Highgate Wood instead and took place on 24 January 1987. Manchester said he was 'obliged to ask several times what he considered to be "public lies" and there was clearly some difficulty in finding an answer' (p. 74).*

The source of Farrant's 'grievance'? 'In due course it became evident that all he wanted was some text added to a caption beneath a highly controversial photograph in an earlier book which mentioned his trial at the Old Bailey. He admitted to being exceptionally sensitive about anything concerning this trial' (ibid). Manchester even 'agreed to amend the caption in further editions so that this fine point about a photograph used in evidence was clarified' (ibid).

* I can certainly relate to that. Farrant has an annoying tendency to repeatedly avoid answering basic questions about his own claims and, when he does, it is in the most roundabout fashion and often not even directly related to the question being asked.

Sigh. Another impersonator

2011-07-23T12:00:00.010+10:00

Considering the timing, looks like someone's been getting a little touchy with my recent querying.

Some pathetic wanker - using my Blogger profile, no less - left the following comment on Jamie's blog:

Yes, I cite my sources and ask for proof. Yes, I am a pendant with an attention to detail. I thought that was obvious from the content of my blog! Big surprise, there. But if that's the best sly 'criticism' they can hurl my way, I'll happily grin and bear it. Interestingly, the 'OCD-incited ramblings' are eerily similar to what I recently covered in former critic, Gerard de Saxo's, comments. So much for originality.

Here's another example of their 'wit'. 'I' (the character is named 'Cousin Hoggy', 'Manchester's Australian cousin') am shown as ascending to Heaven after being butchered for a Farrant-Manchester Christmas dinner (a nod to the aborted Christmas dinner proposition). See how they've ingeniously literalised my surname to depict me as an actual pig. Bravo!

It began in 2007. Initial strips were published on JREFF like a shiny new bauble, to distract fellow forum members' criticism of his Farrant's spurious claims. Its creator was a forum member named 'CLD'. The same guy who warped the content of a private exchange I had with him, to publicly proclaim that I was actually Manchester in disguise. A pretty good 'disguise' on my part, considering I live on the other side of the world and have never even met the guy. Hell, I've never even been to England.

The worst part, however, was that CLD didn't tell me he'd written that article. I found out about it from the shadiest sources imaginable: FoBSM. If they hadn't e-mailed me about it, I would've had no knowledge of CLD's 'campaign' against me.*

Despite that CLD's subsequent ban for violating StripGenerator's copyright (karma, bitch!), Farrant went onto publish the a 12 page collation of the comics that same year, through his vanity press, British Psychic and Occult Society under the false pretext of 'free speech'. I say 'false pretext' because free speech is not something he adheres to. The ludicrous 'preserving free speech' justification was easily dismantled on the very same forum he originally used to promote the comics.

His latest anti-Manchester franchise (after publications such as Man, Myth and Manchester, also through BPOS) was just another manifestation of his vendetta with Manchester - with intent to cash in. I'm not kidding about that. Farrant's paraded about in a 'Bonky' t-shirt, promoted and discussed his involvement with 'Bonky' spin-offs ('I have some say in its production as I am really one of the main stars in it'**) and teamed up with 'John Baldry's Cat' to sell 'Bonky' mugs. Despite these efforts, he doesn't seem to be raising much cash off it, otherwise, surely, he'd be able to afford a comb, shampoo and maybe a haircut by now. Seems he's just happy to fuel the 'hate'.

Clearly, due to my criticism, I've become a 'target'. But aligning me with Manchester is both pathetic and stupid, considering that I also criticise his claims and dodgy practices, too. Surely, they should pay better attention to the 'house divided against itself, can not stand' analogy. I'm also on FoBSM's 'hit list', and Manchester, himself, has previously launched a copyright claim against me, when not saying - and encouraging - some vicious commentary about my good self.

Even as far back as 2006, attempts were made to shut down my forum. When that didn't work, they later went after my Windows Live Spaces blog (succeeding, to an extent), which is the main reason I started this blog, in the first place. They even had my website shut down. Yes, I actually used to have a website.

Despite knowing this stuff, they still think - somehow - that I'm one of Manchester's cronies. Talk about desperate.

I guess these are the 'OCD-incited ramblings' fake Anthony was talking about, eh? Ha! That said, my readers certainly like coming back for more, so I'm cool with that.

Anyway, I'm happy for them to have a go at me for 'OCD' habits, because it means they can't devalue the content of my criticism. They can't dismiss the issues I raise. Can't rebut them. That works in my favour, if anything.

What I do find objectionable, however, is the hijacking of my name. Using my Blogger profile to post stuff on 'my' behalf? That's pretty fucked up. Weirdly enough, Farrant also e-mailed me recently asking whether I'd written the content of an MS Word document, that had apparently been sent to him by 'me'.*** How are such acts any different from what this knobend was doing? At least, in his case, he was trying to mark himself out as a different person, even to the point of delusion. You know, a guy playing for the 'opposite' team.

But how 'opposite' are they, really, if they employ the same kind of tactics against me? As Nietzsche said: 'When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you.'

* Incidentally, same goes for the later comics depicting me. My attention were drawn to them by 'Vampire Researcher' (a VRS affiliate - or Manchester, himself, depending who you ask - on The supernatural world forum), who showed me the comics and revealed nasty depictions of myself on Farrant's Facebook page (which Farrant had blocked me from viewing). Talk about 'friends in low places'!

** Since when were the 'targets' of 'satirists' meant to be directly involved in the satire? Lolz. But by that logic, it's kinda strange I wasn't invited as an 'adviser', considering that I'm one of its 'star's, too: 'You should hear the voice given to Hoggy and the ‘Bonky one’. Hilarious is not the word for it!' On that point, we can probably agree.

** * D Farrant, 'From David Farrant', Saturday, 9 July 2011 11:04:21 AM.

The Victorian era sources saga

2011-07-21T14:32:00.004+10:00

My quest to get David Farrant to answer a simple question about sources used in his own writings has come to an end.

Or maybe a standstill. We'll see. For clarification, the sources are alluded to in this extract from his 'Invoking the vampire', New Witchcraft, vol. 1, no. 4 (1975):

Some interesting facts came to light. Firstly, it became apparent that stories of an apparition in Highgate cemetery had by no means begun with the then current sightings. Indeed, similar tales dated from the Victorian Era and interestingly enough more of them had "vampiristic" connections. One of the common tales of that time told of a "tall man dressed in black" who used to disappear mysteriously through the cemetery wall (p. 34).

I have been trying, for several weeks, to get him to simply state what they were. If Farrant is recounted these 'facts' firsthand, that'd mean he's over 140 years old. Despite his decades dabbling with the occult, I find that prospect highly unlikely. I'm sure you do, too. Therefore, we're clearly dealing with some contemporary sources here, whether they be contemporary to Victorian times or contemporary with the time he wrote his article.

It is a 'fact' he has regurgitated in other publications, too. For instance, he wrote the following in Beyond the Highgate vampire: a true case of supernatural occurrences and "vampirism" that centred around London's Highgate Cemetery, 2nd rev. edn (London: British Psychic and Occult Society, 1992):

When the investigation 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 began with the current sightings. Indeed, similar tales dated back to the Victorian era and, interestingly enough, many of them had "vampiristic" connotations (p. 8).

Is 1992 too far away for you? How about his online article 'abridged from the 4th edition [2002] of the author's book'?

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.

Apart from the relatively minor alterations, it's clear that Farrant considers these stories to be 'evidence' for his case, to which I say: prove that this information is valid via documentation, i.e. what's the source(s)? My query has been met with evasiveness, ad hominem attacks, fake deals, etc. I've compiled a narrative of my efforts into this handy, bite-sized list:

In the meantime, I encourage other readers to try and find out the source for themselves. Here's his blog which is open for comments and queries. See how you do. Good luck!

You'll need it.

And the votes are in...

2011-07-21T02:45:00.008+10:00

Last year, I set up a poll asking readers whether or not they believed in the Highgate Vampire and if they thought Sean Manchester or David Farrant were credible witnesses. It closed on 19 July 2011, 11.59pm. Here's the results.

After years of delving into this thing, I started wondering what other folk thought about the case. That intent also kicked off my postings on The supernatural world forum. Still going strong.

I should clarify that this ain't science; it was born of genuine curiousity. It's good to take a look outside the box, sometimes. I don't know who voted and I don't know how many times they did, so the results can only speak for themselves. I can say that they couldn't select multiple answers, though.

The first question, 'Do you believe the Highgate vampire was real?', giving voters the option of 'Yes', 'No', 'Maybe' and 'Undecided'. It received 37 votes. Let's break 'em down into delicious Microsoft Excel pie chart form:

That's one undecided (3%), four maybes (11%), nine yeses (24%) and, overwhelmingly, 23 nos (62%). 'No' wins this round. To be honest, I can't say I find that too surprising.

Let's take a look at the second poll. I asked, 'Who is a more credible witness?', namely, whose testimony do you find more reliable. I stuck to the main players, so the options were 'Sean Manchester', 'David Farrant', 'Neither' and 'Undecided'. This one scored more votes (47), perhaps because it was less ambiguous than the first.

One undecided (2%), eight for Manchester (17%), 13 for Farrant (28%) and 25 neithers (53%). That means slightly more voters believed in Farrant's version of events than Manchester's, but the majority thought neither of them were credible. I'm not overly surprised by that outcome, either.

Thanks to all who voted! It's certainly interesting getting 'outside' feedback and we, at least, know it wasn't overridden by supporters of Farrant and Manchester as I anticipated it might've been.

Notes to notes on a hatchet job

2011-07-20T00:47:00.007+10:00

After writing my previous entry and exposing a malicious practice engaged by the FoBSM, I've noticed a slight - but significant - change one of their blog entries has undertaken.

The FoBSM essentially exists to 'payback' Bishop Manchester's critics, i.e. 'enemies'. Feel free to read through their blog if you don't believe me. A group that malicious and cowardly (the blog's author and/or authors remain anonymous when committing their 'attacks') isn't above engaging in decidedly warped and twisted practices, like intimidation and misrepresentation. The last factor, at least, also applies to the guy they effectively represent.

The knives came out when Manchester's former friends, Kev and Beverly, sent a package to Farrant who, in turn, gleefully mentioned its contents on 15 July:

Well, today is not my birthday but I certainly enjoyed opening Kev’s present! The package contained essential research material dating back many years, including b/w and colour photographs, written correspondence and a selection of personal emails which had been copied onto disc for me. There was also a typed summary of some fairly recent ‘birthday speeches’, or more precisely, suggestions from the host on what should be ‘done about David Farrant’. He (the party host) hadn’t liked my disclosures about fake religious groups and other written material in my published books that debunked a serious belief in vampirism.

The timing of Farrant's blog entry wasn't coincidental. Nor was the mention of birthdays: Manchester was born on 15 July 1944.

Rather than shrug off Farrant's pathetic innuendo, the FoBSM decided to up the ante with a post about Kev and Bev. As I mentioned in the previous post, the entry was threaded with links to their home address. Their blog entry gives no explanation for why their home address was repeatedly linked, nor how it was in anyway relevant to their criticism. I believe this to be an act of cyber-bullying, in which 'passwords, photographs, a home address or a private phone number can become a weapon of intimidation.' See here and here for examples.

Indeed, the FoBSM site is filled with photographs (and mentions of residence) of their 'enemies'. They once even tried blackmailing me by posting my home address (at least, what they thought was my home address) on their blog, as well as an 'unmasked' picture of 'me'. The picture wasn't mine, but that of an innocent caught in the crossfire.

Keeping in tune with their misrepresentation, they also failed to mention that the same picture and address had already been in circulation via their 'confidantes' long before my publishing of a 'UK address' (i.e. Gothic Press's business address, as found in their eBay listings). To compound this hypocrisy, they previously had no qualms with disseminating someone else's business address: Don Peek's. That is, Don Ecker's Internet service provider.

Fortunately, since I exposed their malicious tactic against Bev and Kev, they've altered the links repeatedly appearing under his name to another one of their blog entries discussing the couple (without the same kind of disclosure of personal info). I like to think that in some small way, exposing their disgraceful practices prevents them from 'harming' others.

I have no problem with the practise of criticising the critics, but there's a tactful and respectful manner in which to do that. Perhaps the FoBSM could be taken seriously if they turned down their 'hysterical' tone and learned to engage Manchester's detractors in reasoned discussion, rather than resort to cyber-bullying. The same, of course, applies to the 'opposing' side.

Check out Robert S. Lancaster's Stop Sylvia Browne as an example of reasoned discussion and criticism 'done right'. Funnily enough, I can see clear parallels in the way his subjects have tried to 'silence' him to the kinda stuff I've had hurled my way during my delvings into this case.

Notes on a hatchet job

2011-07-19T13:52:00.006+10:00

As part of their hatchet job on me, the FoBSM used private correspondence from 'Vampire Researcher' to a forum member named 'Gerard de Saxo'. What they haven't noted, are some of his follow-up remarks.

Before reading about it in their blog entry devoted to myself, I hadn't really interacted with de Saxo who was a background presence to our forum debates. Nonetheless, after being 'filled in' behind-the-scenes by 'Vampire Researcher' (a VRS member), de Saxo had this to say about me:

I spent (or rather wasted) a good couple of hours going through Anthony’s blog. Wow – The poor man is utterly comsumed by every little detail, most of it is nothing to do with the original case or anything remotely paranormal. I get the feeling he is trying to garner a reputation purely on the back of stoking the feudal fire. Perhaps he has OCD or something, but he needs get a grip on things.

Let's say it was a bit of a shock seeing his 'assessment' of me with no real prior interaction. Nonetheless, de Saxo's had a change of tune since:

I have only seen the one where private emails between myself and "Vampire Researcher" (concerning Mr Hogg's blogs) suddenly appeared. I did not grant "Vampire Researcher" permission to publish these and I had to contact Mr Hogg to explain. If there are others could you kindly put a link in here or contact me privately and I will take a look. I still think the Bishop was given a hard time by certain posters here, but I'm no longer blinkered and can certainly see his faults now! His conduct has been pretty poor to be honest and I can understand how Mr Hogg felt when attempts to puiblish his address appeared.

Although he didn't revoke his comments about me attempting 'to garner a reputation purely on the back of stoking the feudal fire' or his diagnosis of 'OCD' in his post, it's certainly a lesson in why both sides of a story should be heard before passing judgement.

And speaking of releasing personal addresses, FoBSM's latest blog entry - a missive against one of Manchester's former friends - is threaded with links to the accused's home address (while cowardly hiding behind a collective nom de plume).

The tragedy of the FoBSM, is that they probably think those malicious tactics are a good thing...even though they're 'representing' a Christian bishop. Instead, such gestures can only continue tarnishing Manchester's reputation, especially while he lurks in the background.

Victorian era vampire or modern-day sham?

2011-07-19T12:15:00.008+10:00

Was Highgate Cemetery homes to ghosts, bogies and beasties over 140 years ago? Time to examine claims made by David Farrant.

He maintains that 'in the late 1960’s/70’s . . . wide reports began coming into the British Psychic and Occult Society about a "tall dark figure" with "hypnotic red eyes" that had been sighted in and around London's Highgate Cemetery', offering precious little evidence to that effect. Indeed, not only were early reports often contradictory, but the description does not even match his original sightings.

This attempt to link a dubious 'past tradition' to the cemetery was expounded in an article he wrote called, 'Invoking the vampire', New Witchcraft, vol. 1, no. 4 (1975). During the course of his alleged investigation,

Some interesting facts came to light. Firstly, it became apparent that stories of an apparition in Highgate cemetery had by no means begun with the then current sightings. Indeed, similar tales dated from the Victorian Era and interestingly enough more of them had "vampiristic" connections. One of the common tales of that time told of a "tall man dressed in black" who used to disappear mysteriously through the cemetery wall (p. 34).

On the same page, he also discussed a famous 'witness' to this phenomena: 'That Bram Stoker was influenced by the Highgate Vampire when he wrote "Dracula" . . . is almost certain.'

How Farrant obtained this information is a mystery. After all, there appears to be no contemporary record of such tales told in association with Highgate Cemetery. I asked him for his sources on The supernatural forum (the Highgate section is password protected as of this writing), only to be confronted with nonsensical and evasive replies like this:

All you are doing here, Anthony, is just 'cut and pasting' your own questions, yet again!, most of which I have already answered in the past - many of these to you directly. For example: I have answered the question about the ghost sightings and how many times these occurred (and to whom) in detail near the beginning of this thread in my answer to the bogus "Vampire Research Society" - in fact the product of just one person, and one person only.

As I had to point out, several times, he had no answered questions regarding sources for his Victorian era claims. Indeed, his nonsensical claims were undermined by his partner, 'Della Vallicrus', who took also took up the conversational thread I was pursuing by asking, 'Also - I would also be interested to hear about pre-1969 sources, oral or otherwise, regarding the "ghost" or "ghosts".'

However, he wound up brushing off her query, too: 'Of course, I will Della. But it cannot be this precise moment. I have three people coming later, and I am not even half ready yet. I still think the allegations about the Ham&High letter and demands for "proof'' about the ghost's Victorian origins and comparatively trivial being based mainly on wild speculation by only a couple of people.'

It would soon become clear that Vallicrus' heart wasn't really in pursuing this lead. She'd later write, 'I know, that the entity he describes is real. Descriptions may vary. So what? This is not a stone-tape esque image from the past. It is a living, metamorphosising being, in a sense. David saw it. Others saw it. Others have seen it since. But in a strange way - if y'all want to pretend or hope it was a hoax - get on with it.'

I continued pursuing this angle, even engaging Vallicrus in discussion on the side, only for Farrant to pipe in with a decidedly warped view of our exchanges. He also offered a new 'validation' for not answering my (and, by default, her) queries:

You are now even ‘switching’ your personal obsession onto Della, just because she does not happen to agree with your own interpretation of the 1960 sightings. The only reason I have not answered Della’s question about Victorian sources now despite saying I would is simply because to do so would be to effectively answer yourself, when I have just explained why I will not do so. But rest assured, the ‘sources’ you are trying to dispute DO exist, and both Della and myself have examined them …

Yet, at no point did Vallicrus make any reference to examining these alleged sources. Indeed, as of this writing, she's yet to 'speak up' about them. It comes as no surprise that direct citations to the material are carefully avoided in Farrant's reply, which I'd call him out on:

Telling me the sources exist is not the same as stating what they are. I'm not asking you to prove the entity existed. I'm asking you to prove that there was a recorded history (from the Victorian era) of its 'existence', whether it be oral tales, books, articles, whatever...especially when a named person (Bram Stoker) is involved.

I should've been more cautious in providing a leading comment like 'whether it be oral tales, books, articles, whatever', but I needn't have worried, as he continued to evade providing any sort of reference. Instead, he made a vague offer to share his sources if I would discuss my Christian views on ghosts (?!): 'You have had my answer, i.e. that when you are prepared to explain your views here simply - and without further prevarication - I may then take up your repetetive [sic] question about "Victorian sources".'

I knew this was another ruse. After all, we had already discussed my views on the matter several times on the same forum, not to mention previous interactions on Arcadia. Nonetheless, I took the bait and provided an extensive answer on 11 July.

As of this writing, he has not replied. Therefore, the question still remains: do such sources exist or are we dealing with a manufactured history to 'validate' relatively recent claims? The jury's out, but my request/offer for him to provide sources still stands.

Internet theology 101

2011-04-18T07:39:00.006+10:00

I've questioned the validity of the Bishop's lineage and exposed his propensity for plagiarism on multiple occasions (which is much more extensive than I realised). Let's examine one of his latest posts concerning very, let's say, sensitive theological topics.

A reader of Bishop Manchester's blog named Michael Douglass, asked: 'Do Jews and Protestants go to hell? Can either become vampires?'. His Excellency carefully considered an appropriate response to Mike's sensitive question and painstakingly researched the topic before submitting his answer in a blog entry titled 'Salvation' (8 April 2011).

Nah, just kidding. He engaged in some light googling and copied huge chunks of text from other websites, passed it off his own and omitted links to his sources. Compare the Bishop's Scriptural interpretation...

The statement "born again" means that God has to see you in a body other than the body of Adam. When we place our faith in the Precious Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 6) we are baptised into the Body of Christ. This means that in the eyes of God we are in a Body that has never sinned against God in any way. That is how man is redeemed. Whether you are a Jew or Gentile or any nationality, without the Body of Christ, no man or woman will enter Heaven. So anyone who says Jesus Christ is not risen in a physical body is still yet in his sins (1 Corinthians 15: 17).

...with the following response to 'Do Jews go to Hell?' on Answers.com (17 April 2007):

The statement "born again" means that God has to see you in a body other than the body of Adam, and when you place your faith in the blood of Jesus Christ, Romans Chapter 6 says we are baptized into the body of Christ. This means that in the eyes of God you are in a body that has never sinned against God in any way and that body died and was buried and raised from the dead and brought into the throne room of God with you in Him. So that is how man is "redeemed." It makes no difference whether you are a Jew or Gentile or any nationality -- without the body of Christ, no man or woman will enter heaven. So anyone who says Christ is not risen in a physical body is still yet in his sins. (First Corinthians 15:17).

It doesn't get any better from thereon in, folks. Once again, from the Bishop's entry:

The Jews of today are not the Jews of the Bible. A group of them deviated from their beliefs and rejected their own saviour from their prophesies. Christians are now the new "jews" who did follow the teachings and accepted the saviour when He appeared. Therefore, the Jews of today forfeit their birthright just as their ancestors did during Jesus' time.

And from Answers.com:

The Jews of today are not the Jews of the bible. A group of them deviated from their beliefs and rejected their own savior from their prophesies. The Christians are, of course, the jews who DID follow the teachings and accepted the savior. Therefore, the jews of today forfeit their birthright just as their ancestors did during Jesus' time.

Right-o. To be fair, not all of the Bishop's entry is cribbed from that webpage. Take his comments on grace, for instance:

Redemptive grace is focused most clearly in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, whom Christians recognise as the Living Christ. We might refer to Jesus as Grace Himself, as Grace in the Flesh, as Grace walking around. The grace of Christ can inspire us in such a transformative way as to change our awareness of ourselves, of our potential as human beings and as mankind, and our awareness of God's gracious purpose for us and through us for all Creation. It is this changed awareness which recognises a still more specialised form of grace — the grace made available to all who choose to serve God's hope for all in Christ. This is the grace which makes us disciples and is available as spiritual power for goodness' sake. Jesus exhibited this kind of power and challenged us to do the same.

Inspiring stuff. Shame it's pretty much the same thing the Rev. Dr. Katherine M. Lehman wrote, four years ago, in 'What is meant by the grace of God?':

Redemptive grace is focused most clearly in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, whom Christians call Christ, meaning the one chosen to deliver this particular grace. We might refer to Jesus as Grace himself, as Grace in the flesh, as Grace walking around. The grace of Christ can inspire us in such a transformative way as to change our awareness of ourselves, of our potential as human beings and as humankind, and our awareness of God's gracious purpose for us and through us for all creation. It is this changed awareness which recognizes a still more specialized form of grace—the grace made available to all who choose to serve God's hope for all in Christ. This is the grace which makes us disciples and is available as spiritual power for goodness' sake. Jesus exhibited this kind of power and challenged us to do the same.

To be fair on the Bish, his commentary on the spiritual after-effects of vampiric contamination appear to be his own. However, in saying that 'the person is afflicted in life and is not one of God's true dead, is something anyone outside of a state of grace is susceptible to', really makes me wonder about the kind of shenanigans Lusia must've gotten up to while she was still alive.

On a serious note, my sincere condolences for the passing of Gitte.

The Hatchet Job

2011-04-07T19:48:00.005+10:00

The FoBSM's 'hit list' blog has an entry about me which I've neglected to cover, until now. Time to dissect their hatchet job.

Their blog entry has been revised numerous times (with no notes made about the edits) and one of the reasons I feel 'safe' in covering it now, is that until recently, it featured the photograph of someone they presumed was me along with - what looked like - a home address. It was the exact same photo and address that had been forwarded to me by a stalker on the Arcadia forum.

Therefore, I decided not to draw attention to their blog entry, lest this innocent party be exposed to further attention and distribution of his picture. However, it was some relief to find that the 'home address' they'd posted was actually that of a petrol station. Despite repeatedly telling and proving that neither the photo nor the address were mine byway of the Supernatural World forum, the 'details' of this innocent bystander remained in their blog entry for some time, before they caved into common sense.

How they connected the photo with the address still remains a mystery. Indeed, why they'd even try to seek out an 'unmasked' picture of me as well as publicly posting 'my' address has never been explained. But that's just the tip of the iceberg.

The FoBSM's blog entry labels me as a 'stalker', which I can't help but find amusing, when the same entry describes me as 'Anthony Hogg, who lives in a suburb of Melbourne, Australia', includes a stolen pic of me, publishes my private correspondence with a forum member named 'Vampire Researcher' and, of course, previously featured an 'unmasked' picture of me along with a 'home' address.

I'm also described as an obsessive, once again, an amusing charge, when one of Vampire Researcher's correspondents says 'I spent (or rather wasted) a good couple of hours going through Anthony’s blog', without a trace of irony. Really, I should be flattered.

The third main charge labels me as an 'harasser', but no specifics are given into how my 'harassment' manifests except to say that I harass David Farrant and Sean Manchester 'almost every day of [my] life'.

In the midst of all this guff, there's also a pointed jibe at my anonymity ('Mr Hogg, who always hides behind a demonic mask'), yet the blog entry's author lists themselves as 'Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester'. And here's their own profile pic:

And my 'demonic' mask? It's actually a vampire mask. I thought the fangs, corpse-like 'skin tone' and widow's peak would've given that away.

They also mention my publication of a 'UK address in full', something I won't deny. But what they don't mention is that the address I published was a business address. Gothic Press's, in fact. The same address that Gothic Press freely published online. You can view it in this blog entry's footnote, as well as the link I obtained it from. The hypocrisy in their criticism is revealed in their Don Peek entry, in which they display no issue with posting his business address. Clearly, what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.

But who is Don Peek and what is his relevance to their blog's coverage? FoBSM cites him as 'Don Ecker's internet service provider who stepped in to help when Mr Ecker's previous server deleted a cache of stolen images owned by Bishop Seán Manchester'. I should also point out that they've posted Peek's picture along with the entry.

It's admittedly strange to see them take such umbrage at the publication of 'a cache of stolen images', when the person they're 'defending' is actually a blatant plagiarist, who also includes 'stolen images' in his web output, just as they do.

Lastly, I'll discuss their claims of my (alleged) censorship, or, as they put it 'Mr Hogg who adopts the tactic of censorship with anyone favourable to Bishop Manchester'. Yet another bizarre accusation, considering the posts I've allowed from 'Gothic' aka 'Demonologist' aka 'The Overseer' aka 'Vampirologist'. Read through the comments in this entry, for instance. Oh, and this entry features a comment from Manchester, himself.

Speaking of 'Vampirologist', FoBSM mentions a comment from him 'still awaiting moderation', which will 'most unlikely ever to see the light of day'. The funny thing is, I have not seen his comment awaiting moderation on any of my blogs. I'm not saying it was never posted, of course, I'm just saying I've received no notification for it. I will mention, however, that it's not the first time they've evidenced that kind of paranoia. In fact, I'm more than happy to post Vampirologist's comment right here, byway of their blog. Here it is, and I'll even respond to it:

You offer "[Bishop] Manchester's 'profession'" as "Britain's only full-time vampire hunter" when you know very well that Seán Manchester has never described himself as such. That description belongs to somebody else. You purposely fail to attribute it to its source because that would affect the false picture you wish to present of the man whose profession is that of bishop with a specialist ministry in demonolatry and exorcism. But you already know that, Anthony, don't you? It just suits your agenda to misrepresent what his full-time profession really is.

Your petty obsession with this man and the case he investigated four decades ago is a clear indication of your state of mind. Bishop Seán Manchester has given his final interview on the vampire case that made him a household name. Why can't you now give it a rest?

Year after year you irritate the hell out of people on the internet with your compulsive behaviour and obvious fixation with Seán Manchester whom you misrepresent and abuse from one week to the next. What is the matter with you? There must be something seriously wrong when you focus on a stranger twice your age living on the other side of the world who you don't know or especially like.

You either need to get a life or at least get some professional psychiatric help. I'm serious, Anthony. You are out on a limb. Nobody supports your behaviour. At best, it is tolerated. At worst, it is considered pathological.

This is not the beginning of a dialogue between us, Anthony. Knowing how obsessive you are where these matters are concerned, it is the end of one.

Vampirologist's criticism of my reference to Manchester as "Britain's only full-time vampire hunter" appears to be referring to a recent entry on my amateur vampirologist blog. It's true that (as far as I know), Manchester doesn't refer to himself in this way. However, I didn't say he did, either. Indeed, I placed the description in quotation marks, as you'll see.

The description was taken from Joe McNally's review of Manchester's The Vampire Hunter's Handbook (1997). This 'endorsement' is actually incorporated into Manchester's website. Note, there are no retractions to go with it. Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that it's a title Manchester's happy with.

Once again, the 'obsessed' card is played against me, but with no sense of context. This blog is about the Highgate Vampire Case, as I clearly outlined in my first entry. How exactly am I supposed to talk about the case without discussing Manchester to a large degree, considering he was central to the story's 'plot'? Or David, for that matter. That'd be like advocating a blog dedicated to Dracula, which omits mentions of Van Helsing or the Count. Once again, how my 'obsession' manifests, isn't made clear by my accuser.

Furthermore, Manchester is a public figure and he's a public figure because of the Highgate case, which even Vampirologist mentions made him a 'household name'.

Vampirologist then goes on to claim that I 'misrepresent and abuse [Manchester] from one week to the next' but doesn't say how, when or where. No specific instances are given. No specific posts are mentioned or linked to. Just like FoBSM (of which he's a member), he resorts to hyperbole and ad hominem attacks against me at the expense of proving his case.

The childishness, maliciousness and pettiness displayed by both the FoBSM and Vampirologist makes the purpose of the group redundant if that's how they show their 'support for a man who adheres to traditional values and sound doctrine in the face of incredible antipathy from hostile elements'. Or, in other words: pot, kettle, black. In fact, their blatant hypocrisy could be symptomatic of narcissistic personality disorder, not aided by the fact that the Bishop is very clearly aware of their activities.

Moved to WordPress

2011-02-23T04:19:00.006+11:00

I've been forced to move my Windows Live Spaces (WLS) site over to WordPress. Nothing sinister to that.

If you're interested as to why, check out my first WordPress post. I'm still getting the hang of all its functions and such, so it looks kinda drab at the moment. But in terms of usability and variety of function, it's miles ahead of WLS.

That transitory process bears no impact on this Blogger blog, which will remain open. Oh, and speaking of things staying open, eagle-eyed voters may have noticed an extension in the polls' expiration date. Around New Years' time, I decided to let the polls stay open for a year after I wrote 'em, rather than the end of 2010, as I originally planned. Make your voice heard! Vote today!

Applicants Welcome

2011-01-20T16:55:00.007+11:00

Looking for work? Got nothing else better to do with your time? Well, a recent vacancy's come up. This could be the job for you!

While promoting the second volume of his autobiography, In the Shadow of the Highgate Vampire, David let slip that he's after a new secretary, a role previously occupied by Catherine Fearnley and Patsy Langley:

Which reminds me, I’m STILL looking for a new secretary (but a trustworthy one this time). Anybody got any idea’s? Qualifications not really necessary: except must be female; doesn’t object to working late hours, and making me coffee occasionally (or pouring me a drink!). Other than that, I’m not that fussy!

Well, the byline's David, but apparently, the housemaid-like job description was written by the Vice President of the British Psychic and Occult Society. According to Dave:

PLEASE NOTE EVERYONE!: That comment about my new book and gettiing [sic] a new secretary was NOT written by myself. It was written by Gareth He was reound [sic] here and said he wanted to post something . . . uncensored. Well, as he gave me a lot of helf [sic] with the book, I agreed but it strictly only represents his own opinion – not mine! It is true I am looking for a new secretary, but not in the way he is trying to imply!

I'm guessing Dave could do with an editor as well. If you're still interested in the role, what exactly do you think it'd entail? Apart from fixing David drinks, what would your responsibilities be? How about a testimonial from one of his former secretaries: "WELL AS TO QUALIFICATIONS TO BE BPOS SECRETARY YOU DON'T NEED ANY APART FROM BEING WILLING TO DO MR. FARRANTS DIRTY WORK FOR HIM." Ok, sounds good so far. Anything else?

Well as I’ve previously stated I became involved with Farrant, he didn’t have the use of a computer then as such only a word processor so it was easier for me to do the typing and organise membership cards, newsletters, etc and so forth. Also in and among Farrant asked me to make posts against Bishop Manchester which were of a derogatory nature so he wouldn’t have to put his name to them, all of this I now deeply regret no end. In fact I regret ever getting involved with them in the first place full stop.

If that sounds like your cup of tea, then drop by David's blog. You could probably post your resume (although, you probably won't even need one) in the comments section.

David Attributes His Lack of "Knowledge" to Me

2011-01-20T02:09:00.007+11:00

As mentioned in the previous entry, press coverage of the supernatural hijinks at Highgate began with a letter David wrote to the Hampstead & Highgate Express. Recently, David claims a certain line is his letter was taken out of context. "Nonsense!" says I. I'll show you why.

The Highgate Vampire's "existence" was established by two people: Sean Manchester and David Farrant. Previous sightings (including David's) indicated spectral activity, which was later revised to a vampiric presence. Because of them, we refer to the Highgate Vampire, rather than the Highgate Ghost(s).¹

David has tried to whitewash his part in establishing vampire theory in popular consciousness, by his constant references to not believing in bloodsucking vampires, but contemporary press coverage reveals his true involvement in propagating the theory. Being that duplicitous doesn't come without a price, however. You see, it's caused him to start losing track of his own "story".

David's letter to the Ham & High, "Ghostly Walks in Highgate" (6 February 1970), apparently concluded with the following line: "I have no knowledge in this field and I would be interested to hear if any other readers have seen anything of this nature."² What's its context? Here's the rest of the letter:

Some nights I walk home past the gates of Highgate Cemetery.

On three occasions I have seen what appeared to be a ghost-like figure inside the gates at the top of Swains Lane. The first occasion was on Christmas Eve. I saw a grey figure for a few seconds before it disappeared into the darkness. The second sighting, a week later, was also brief.

Last week the figure appeared, only a few yards inside the gates. This time it was there long enough for me to see it much more clearly, and now I can think of no other explanation than this apparition being supernatural.³

This won't seem important, at first, but note there's no use of the word "vampire". Nothing remotely vampiric is implied in the letter. Yet, apparently, I've taken his "no knowledge in this field" line out of context!

After fellow Supernatural World forum member, Cú Chulainn, pointed out the line's omission from the revised edition of Sean Manchester's The Highgate Vampire (1991), David had this to say:

Regarding the 'missing line' accusing my self of saying . . . "I have noknowledge in this field", this has been taken deliberately out of context and just repeated in ignorance by your correspondent Anthony. I spoke to many reporters around this time and I may well have said (in fact, I am sure I did) that I "Have no knowledge in the field of 'blood-sucking vampires'" which some reporters had been led to believe that it was. And I do not. How can you possibly have knowledge in something you don't even believe exists!?

I'll prefigure my response by saying I haven't read the original letter. I've had to rely on Ellis (1993) for that line. I'll even disclose that the Vice President of the British Psychic and Occult Society, Gareth J. Medway, believes the line doesn't exist and attributes David's acknowledgement of it to False Memory Syndrome.

That said, David's gone and acknowledged its existence again, but added a bizarre twist: apparently he was talking about "no knowledge in the field of 'blood-sucking vampires'". Really? There's one major problem with David's rebuttal: the vampire theory was publicised 21 days after David's letter. Indeed, when the theory was first broadcast (by Sean Manchester), it got front page treatment in the Ham & High: "Does a Wampyr Walk in Highgate?" (27 February 1970).

Prior to that article's publication, there was no mention of the paranormal activity at the Cemetery being vampiric. David's own letter uses the following terms to describe his vision: "a ghost-like figure", "a grey figure", "apparition" and "supernatural". So why on earth would David attribute his "no knowledge in this field" comment to vampires, when no one was asking him about it, least of all himself? The actual implication of his lack of knowledge concerns ghosts (or, one could argue, the supernatural itself). That's blindingly obvious to anyone who's read the letter.

This, in itself, is rather odd considering his latter-day claims about the British Psychic and Occult Society's founding. You really gotta start wondering whether Tony Hill was onto something.

So, what about these reporters banging down David's door asking him about vampires? Funny you should ask! Firstly, the earliest press coverage given to David's vampire views would have to wait 'til March 6, 1970: a month after David's letter. The Ham & High published a front page story called "Why Do the Foxes Die?", in which David posited a supernatural theory for the death of foxes in the Cemetery:

THE mysterious death of foxes in Highgate Cemetery was this week linked with the theory that a ghost seen in the area might be . . . a vampire.

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.

“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 vampire theory was suggested last week by Mr. Sean Manchester, 25-year-old president of the British Occult Society, who believes that “the King Vampire of the Undead walks again.”

So much for taking his lack of knowledge in the field "deliberately out of context" and "repeat[ing] [it] in ignorance". As I've clearly demonstrated, it wasn't me or his imaginary reporters who took him out of context. The only person who did that was, well, him! Not often someone takes themselves out of context. Clearly, the poor guy's got vampires on the brain.

¹ As the Wikipedia's "Highgate Vampire" entry notes: "These ghosts were described as a tall man in a hat, a spectral cyclist, a woman in white, a face glaring through the bars of a gate, a figure wading into a pond, a pale gliding form, bells ringing, and voices calling. Hardly two correspondents gave the same story."

² Quoted in Bill Ellis, "The Highgate Vampire Cemetery Vampire Hunt: The Anglo-American Connection in Satanic Cult Lore", Folklore, vol. 104, no. 1-2, p. 21.

³ ibid.

Pretender to the Throne

2011-01-13T01:22:00.013+11:00

Despite his instance that he doesn't believe in bloodsucking vampires - and never did - contemporary press coverage of the Highgate Vampire Case depicted David, cross and stake in hand, on the hunt for its alleged undead denizen. How did this connection come about? A recent confession holds the key.

The Highgate Vampire Case began with a distinct lack of vampires. The February 6, 1970 issue of The Highgate and Hampstead Express carried a letter called "Ghostly Walks in Highgate". It read:

Some nights I walk home past the gates of Highgate Cemetery.

On three occasions I have seen what appeared to be a ghost-like figure inside the gates at the top of Swains Lane. The first occasion was on Christmas Eve. I saw a grey figure for a few seconds before it disappeared into the darkness. The second sighting, a week later, was also brief.

Last week the figure appeared, only a few yards inside the gates. This time it was there long enough for me to see it much more clearly, and now I can think of no other explanltion than this apparition being supernatural.

I have no knowledge in this field and I would be interested to hear if any other readers have seen anything of this nature.¹

The author of the letter was David Farrant. Despite claiming "no knowledge in this field", his website states otherwise. Here's what it says concerning the formation of the British Psychic and Occult Society (BPOS):

Although formed in its infancy in 1964, by 1967, the numbers of dedicated members had considerably increased, and it was decided to establish all the interest - membership included - into an official Society with the purpose of investigating psychic phenomena and all things ‘occult’. It was then officially named as the British Psychic and Occult Society, and membership was organised more thoroughly with the appointment of executive members and the distribution of a regular newsletter which invited contributions from the general membership, and the opportunity to share knowledge of ’ghosts’ or things occult or to participate in psychic investigations.

What the website fails to mention, is that the (alleged) contemporary name of the organisation was the British Occult Society, with its name changed to BPOS in 1982. However, the earliest public reference to the BOS was published in a Hampstead and Highgate Express article called "Does a Wampyr Walk in Highgate?" (27 February 1970), in which Sean Manchester is listed as its president (1). Manchester also published the first edition of his 1985 book, The Highgate Vampire, under its imprint.

By February 13, 1970, several other witnesses had written into the Ham & High to share their own supernatural sightings at the Cemetery. The most notable thing about these accounts was their lack of consistency: "Hardly two correspondents gave the same story." So what exactly was supposed to be haunting the Cemetery? How did spectral sightings get swept aside in favour of vampires?

It began when Manchester promoted his vampire theory in "Does a Wampyr Walk in Highgate?". What could've been a bizarre footnote in the Highgate Case was given credence by another person investigating the phenomena. On March 6, the Ham & High asked "Why Do the Foxes Die?". You might be surprised by the answer:

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.

“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”(1).

This was far from the only time David jumped on board Manchester's vampire theory, latterly trying to maintain some kind of exclusivity over paranormal investigations at the Cemetery. For instance, here's what David had to say when discussing one of the earliest books to give coverage to the Highgate Vampire Case, Basil Copper's The Vampire: In Legend, Fact and Art (1973):

His chapter deals with my arrest in Highgate Cemetery in 1970 and goes on to detail our findings in that case.

Bonky [David's nickname for Sean Manchester -ed.] had not got around inventing his vampire fiction at this time and other people who were making all sorts of claims about that case were really regarded as ‘non-entities’.

As I've clearly demonstrated, not only were Manchester's "vampire fiction[s]" already in place as early as February 1970, but David subdued the nature of his own spectral sightings, just so he could hop along with Manchester's vampire theory! So much for integrity.

Indeed, David also failed to mention that Copper's chapter mainly concerned David's vampire hunting activities at the Cemetery! And why was David arrested (August 17) in the first place? Under the pretext of (wait for it) hunting vampires!

Let me clarify something here: I don't think it's illegal to hunt for vampires (in England, at least). However, that'd hinge on what you do to hunt 'em out. Considering the vandalism, corpse desecration and what not that'd been already happening in the Cemetery, largely fuelled by the vampire theory's popularity in the press (thanks to Sean and David), you can imagine what the police thought David intended to do when they found him armed with cross and stake at the Cemetery, especially after his vampire-hunting commentary to the press.

He was arrested for "being in an enclosed area for an unlawful purpose" and gave a false name to police. However, the court could not establish that David had an intent to "damage coffins" and the Magistrate mentioned "the cemetery was not an enclosed area in the strict legal sense." He was let off, but not before arguing that looking for vampires was akin to "some people to spend[ing] vast sums of money trying to locate the Loch Ness Monster."

Phew! Talk about a close call! You probably think David gave up the vampire hunting charade by then, right? After all, he'd already been established in the press as a vampire hunter (helped along by his support for the vampire theory and posing with anti-vampire regalia) and even managed to get himself arrested. Surely, he learned his lesson and put the stakes and crosses behind him. Well, you'd think so, but no.

On October 15, 1970, about two weeks after the resolution of David's trial, he took part in an episode of a BBC current affairs program called 24 Hours. He performed a re-enactment of his investigative methods at the Cemetery, which played during his introduction. The following extracts are taken from Kevin Demant's transcript of the episode:

LAURENCE PICETHLY On August 17th, the former associate of Sean Manchester, Mr. Allan Farrant [David's local name -ed.], who used to own this Tobacconist Shop in Highgate, decided to pay a midnight visit to the cemetery to combat the vampire once and for all. At the cemetery, Farrant was forced to enter by the back wall (C/U of DF leaping into the cemetery), as he still does today. He armed himself with a cross and a stake and crouched between the tombstones, waiting. But that night, police on the prowl for vandals discovered him. He was charged with being in an enclosed space for an unlawful purpose but later the Clerkenwell Magistrate acquitted him.
Now, in spite of all attempts by the cemetery owners to bar him Farrant and his friends still maintain a regular vigil (of the ?)² catacombs in the hope of sighting either the vampire or the Satanists.

Yep, "armed himself with a cross and a stake". How does David justify this re-enactment for the cameras, if he claims he wasn't hunting for vampires at the time? A Supernatural World forum member named timelord asked him something along these lines, also touching on why David, a professed Wiccan at the time, would be wielding Christian implements against the undead. Here's how Dave responded:

Why did Perter [sic] Cushing walk around with Christian crosses;carry bottles of holy water and stakes, and make references to the bible? Because he was making films, that why! And why not? But I am sure in real life he did not beieve in vampires. That's the whole point that you seem to be missing:

When I was filmed by the BBC I was asked to bring props with me, including a 'stake'. Their film was based on all the fuss about 'vampires' that had already been reported in the press. If I did photo-shoots (at that tme) it was because the TV and the Press wanted that angle for their interviews.

Thing is, it wasn't a Hammer Films Production: it was a re-enactment for a news program. Nor was it the only time David posed with such regalia (the "photo-shoots" David mentioned).

Let's move onto the rest of the interview. Did David do or say anything that'd make it perfectly clear that he did not believe in vampires? Anything at all? No. Quite the opposite, in fact:

DAVID FARRANT We have been watching the cemetery since my court case ended and we still find (muffled)³

LAURENCE PICETHLY Have you seen this vampire ?

DAVID FARRANT I have seen it, yes. I saw it last February, and I saw it on two occasions.

LAURENCE PICETHLY What was it like ?

DAVID FARRANT It took the form of a tall, grey figure, about eight feet tall, and it seemed to glide off the path without making any noise.

Ok, so he's re-enacted one of his "investigations" on telly, didn't correct the reporter when asked about his sighting and...and...surely, he let it drop there, right? No more vampire associations after that. Must've dropped the act! Guess again.

On October 16, 1970 - the day after the BBC broadcast - Barrie Simmons' "Midnight Date with Highgate's Vampire" was published in the Evening News. The reporter was guided through the Cemetery by someone armed with a "cross made out of two bits of wood tied together with a shoelace and a stake to plunge through the heart of the beast," which he had in a "Sainsbury's carrier bag".

Who was that "someone"? Yep, our Dave. At it again. So what does David have to say for himself, this time? After all, it's pretty obvious that if he didn't believe in vampires, he was certainly going out of his way to convince the public that he did. Unfortunately, rather than 'fess up to his dodgy shenanigans at the expense of his own credibility, he blames other people for twisting the original spectral reports into a vampire. It was the Press that coined the term in association with himself!

Quite apart from this, it was other people who turned the original entity or ‘ghost’ into a ‘vampire’. The Press originally coined this term in connection with myself (the article in the London Evening News dated October 15 was headlined “Midnight Vigil for the Highgate Vampire”) so is it any wonder that I should use this term for the enlightened masses as a point of reference? It is tantamount to me making a statement about the Loch Ness Monster and referring to it as such. It would be a statement for point of reference only. Not an admission that I believed ‘Nessi’ really was a ‘monster’! (In fact, I do not personally believe this to be the case).

It'd be laughable if he didn't actually expect his readers to swallow that garbage hook, line and sinker. Also, as we've seen, David's vampire connection began as early as March 1970 - and only because he directly engaged it, himself.

As if his historical revisionism, buck-passing and shiftiness wasn't risible in its own right, the remainder of his comment has this to say about people who question his contemporary claims and actions to the media, in contrast with his current ones. Yep, you guessed it: it's their fault!

For somebody to select this line (not yourself personally admittedly) and now try and use it as ‘evidence’ that I believe in real vampires, perhaps shows the limits of this person’s mentality ; and, to be honest with you, it does not say much for the mentality of people believing such staged propaganda!

Staged propaganda, indeed! Always someone else's fault! When will he ever take personal responsibility for his own actions? Well, folks, I'm happy to report that he...kinda has. At last.

In one of his latest postings on The Supernatural World forum, he had this to say, in responding to another forum member asking him if he had any regrets about the handling of his investigations into satanic graveyard desecrations at Highgate:

The worst I did was to go along with another person's innane wild assertions about a 'blood-sucking vampire', but again, this was only because this was the 'angle' the Press and television wanted at the time - 'vampires' apparently selling more newspapers or attracting more interested audiences for TV. Even today, aome of those film clips of myself 'hunting a vampire' are still being shown or repeated. Do I regret this? NO. Because this is the way it happened. I can't change the past, but ironically there are people who would like to try and do so.

It's a shame he had to taint his confession with more attacks on other people. This habit reoccurs so often in his writings, I'm starting to wonder whether he deploys psychological projection, "a psychological defense mechanism where a person unconsciously denies their own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to the weather, or to other people. Thus, it involves imagining or projecting that others have those feelings."

This could be a symptom of narcissistic personality disorder, in which persons "can be controlling, blaming, self-absorbed, intolerant of others’ views, unaware of others' needs and of the effects of their behavior on others, and insistent that others see them as they wish to be seen." That'd explain his contradictory stance on freedom of speech.

When forum member, Cú Chulainn, casually mentioned, "Yes, David's claims should be scrutinised and questioned. After all, what would be the point of an open forum? But then so should those of the Manchester camp." David responded without irony:

I don't quite follow that. Surely recalling an event - or events - from the past is not making a claim. Its called memory. You speak like the James Randi lot when you start asking for proof of claims. There are some things that just can't be 'proved' - like the existence of God for example.

Yes, despite over forty years in the field, he can't grasp the concept of scrutiny and questioning his claims. On a public forum. Sheesh.

Incidentally, the "James Randi lot" refers to the members of the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum, which is inhabited by überskeptics of the paranormal. He was a former poster there (and conversation topic), frequently asked for evidence of his supernatural claims, none of which, he could provide.

Yet, at the same time, he expects Manchester and his ilk to provide "modern scientific evidence" to prove the existence of vampires. Once again, he's unaware of the irony:

I have also pointed out that there is no modern scientific evidence to support the existence of such fictitious beins - indeed challenged anybody to produce such evidence here. I very much doubt that anyone will be able to do so. Why? Because such evidence simply does not exist.
As I pointed out (repeatedly) on the James Randi Forum a few years ago; it is not possible to prove - or disprove - the existence of 'non-matter' or spirit. you can't put consciousness in a test tube to analyse it. It is invisible to human perception for one thing.
But I did NOT mean that an inability to 'prove' such things should give a 'free licence' for assuming that other supernatural absurdities, such as 'vampires', might exist. They do not, and never have done! With respect, the psychic and spiritual have always been a part of the human psyche - 'provable' or not - but to attempt to extend thid to 'vampires' or little green men from Mars, is really taking it from one extreme to the other!

And so David's love/hate relationship with vampires continues. On one hand, he's spent years denying their existence, on the other they serve as a signpost to his career. They've wend their way into his life to such an extent (largely through his co-operation), he even named his multi-volume autobiography, In the Shadow of the Highgate Vampire. Talk about a one-hit wonder! All because of a few publicity stunts at the Cemetery.

Speaking of which, he recently published an extract from his book on the forum. It concerns a legendary duel between David and Manchester. The passage serves as an expose of Manchester's own (alleged) publicity-seeking activities, but includes this self-defeating chestnut:

As a result of seeing these posters [advertising the proposed duel -ed.], I was approached by Adrian Roxan, a reporter from the North London Hornsey Journal. He had already been in contact with Manchester who had confirmed that the duel was to go ahead, and Roxan said he wanted to hear my side of the story. He also asked if I would mind being photographed holding a sword. I agreed to talk to him, but said that I didn’t have a sword, but that if he brought one with him next time, I would agree to be photographed [my emphasis -ed.].

David goes on to say that the article ("'Death Duel' May Settle Feud", Hornsey Journal, 28 July 1978) confirmed the duel in question. It never did take place, of course, but it's a fine example of how desperate Dave was for publicity - any kind - despite criticising his rival's aptitude for "obsessive publicity seeking ventures".

Turns out birds of a feather do flock together, after all.

¹ Quoted in Bill Ellis, "The Highgate Vampire Cemetery Vampire Hunt: The Anglo-American Connection in Satanic Cult Lore", Folklore, vol. 104, no. 1-2, p. 21.

² "around the", according to Holy Grail Church's "The 1970 television interviews with David Farrant".

³ "signs of their ceremonies", ibid.

The Wojdyla Testimony, Pt. 3

2010-12-11T00:01:00.002+11:00

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

2010-12-10T22:53:00.007+11:00

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

2010-12-10T20:11:00.008+11:00

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

2010-12-10T16:02:00.011+11:00

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

2010-12-03T16:07:00.004+11:00

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

2010-11-23T00:41:00.003+11:00

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

2010-11-08T03:44:00.006+11:00

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?

2010-11-05T05:21:00.007+11:00

"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

2010-10-31T13:55:00.004+11:00

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

2010-10-29T03:28:00.004+11:00

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

2010-10-05T02:36:00.003+11:00

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

2010-09-14T05:49:00.004+10:00

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

2010-09-14T03:06:00.006+10:00

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.

Second Interview with Catherine Fearnley

2010-09-07T22:13:00.004+10:00

Catherine certainly had some interesting things to say about her past involvement with both sides of the Highgate "feud". She kindly granted my request for a second interview.

Once again, it was conducted via e-mail. I sent her a numbered list of questions,¹ which she duly responded to.² I've retained her upper case replies, as I did with Barbara Green's responses.

Anthony Hogg: There are frequent claims that the Bishop uses aliases online. Indeed, the Bishop confirms it, but without saying what they are. In light of your background with The Cross and the Stake forum, could you tell us any of them? Conversely, do you believe that Dennis Crawford and Katrina Garforth-Bles are actual personages who use the forum?

Catherine Fearnley: I RECEIVED AN EMAIL ONCE FROM BISHOP MANCHESTER SAYING THAT IT'S ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE NOBODY KNOWS IT'S ME WHO IS POSTING ON THESE FORUMS HIS WORDS NOT MINE. I STUPIDLY DELETED THIS EMAIL BUT NOT BEFORE I GAVE MR. FARRANT A COPY OF THIS EMAIL WHICH HE SHOULD STILL HAVE. I KNOW THAT DENNIS CRAWFORD IS A GENUINE PERSON, WHY, BECAUSE ONE NIGHT MR. FARRANT SAID THAT DENNIS CRAWFORD APPEARED AT HIS APARTMENT/FLAT WITH MR. MANCHESTER (AS HE WAS THEN) WHICH TOOK ME BY SURPRISE BECAUSE MR. FARRANT HAD ALWAYS CLAIMED PREVIOUSLY DENNIS CRAWFORD WAS AN ALIAS. I AM NOT TOO SURE ABOUT KATRINA GARFORTH-BLES SO I CAN'T SAY ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

AH: You mentioned that Farrant asked you to "make posts against Bishop Manchester which were of a derogatory nature so he wouldn’t have to put his name to them". What kind of posts where these? Are they still in circulation, online or otherwise?

CF: YES THIS IS WHAT MR. FARRANT ASKED ME TO DO MAKE POSTS ON HIS BEHALF, SOME OF THESE WILL INDEED BE ONLINE STILL I HAVE KEPT A COPY OF SOME OF THESE POSTS IN A NOTEBOOK THAT I HAD AT THE TIME WHICH I STILL HAVE AND NO I'M NOT GOING TO PUBLISH ANY OF THE MATERIAL ONLINE. BUT HAVING SAID THAT BISHOP MANCHESTER ALSO GAVE ME POSTS TO WRITE ABOUT MR. FARRANT SO THAT HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO LIKE I SAID PREVIOUSLY THEY ARE AS BAD AS EACH OTHER

AH: You wrote a work called The Highgate Vampire and Me. However, I've seen no details of its publication, so could you give us an insight into its general contents? Also, is it true that the manuscript was sent along to VRS-friendly sources and, if so, why?

CF: YES I DID START TO WRITE A BOOK TITLED THE HIGHGATE VAMPIRE AND ME THIS WAS OF COURSE AFTER ALL THE MALICIOUS STUFF THAT MR. FARRANT HAD WRITTEN ABOUT MYSELF, AND HE AT THE TIME SAID HE WAS GOING TO PUBLISH A BOOK ABOUT ME. THE GENERAL CONTENTS WERE ABOUT MY RELATIONSHIP WITH MR. FARRANT, AQUAINTENCE WITH BISHOP MANCHESTER, THE WHOLE HIGHGATE THING AND OF COURSE THE ROBIN HOOD NONSENSE THE FULL WORKS. I SENT THE BOOK TO VRS BASICALLY BECAUSE BISHOP MANCHESTER WAS GOING TO BE MENTIONED AND ALSO I WANTED TO CORRECT ANY OF THE DATES/TIMES EVENTS AND TO GIVE BISHOP MANCHESTER THE CHANCE TO ALTER ANYTHING OUT OF PURE COURTESY. THIS WAS NOT OF COURSE GOING TO HAPPEN TO MR. FARRANT WHO HAD ALREADY MENTIONED HIS BOOK THAT HE HAD WRITTEN ABOUT ME.

AH: You believe that the Highgate Vampire Case was a hoax. What motivations do you think its primary participants had in creating it? Do you think there was any collaboration between its two main sides at any point?

CF: I HAVE ALREADY SAID PREVIOUSLY WHY IT WAS A HOAX, BASICALLY BECAUSE ALL THE EVIDENCE STEMS BACK TO THE TWO MAIN INSTIGATORS, NO INDIVIDUAL PERSON HAS COME FORWARD, I ALSO BELIEVE THAT BISHOP MANCHESTER HAS TAPES/CD'S WHERE MR. FARRANT CAN BE HEARD DISCUSSING THE HOAX IN GREAT DETAIL, I HAVE HEARD SOME OF THESE INTERVIEWS AT SOME TIME OR OTHER.

AH: What twigged you onto the idea that the Case was a hoax at all? When did you start suspecting something was "fishy" with either side?

CF: COME ON HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU KNOW CLAIM TO HAVE SEEN VAMPIRES CHANGE INTO GIANT SPIDERS, APPEAR AT GATES WITH RED EYES AND APPEARS AS A MISTY SHAPE THAT DRAINS ENERGY. RUBBISH.

AH: After your role as Secretary for the BPOS was terminated, you were replaced by Patsy Langley, the author of The Highgate Vampire Casebook Files (2007). Did you have any interaction with her prior? If so, do you think she's a suitable replacement? What qualifications do you think one needs to be a BPOS Secretary?

CF: YES PATSY AND MYSELF WERE FRIENDS AT THE TIME OBVIOUSLY THINGS DIDN'T WORK OUT I WILL NOT GO INTO PERSONAL DETAILS HERE. IT DOES NOT MATTER ONE IOTA IF I THINK SHE IS A SUITABLE REPLACEMENT OR NOT, SHE'S WELCOME TO IT. WELL AS TO QUALIFICATIONS TO BE BPOS SECRETARY YOU DON'T NEED ANY APART FROM BEING WILLING TO DO MR. FARRANTS DIRTY WORK FOR HIM.

AH: Shortly after our first interview, you were targetted by the FoBSM. As was I. Do you think this shady group does more harm than help for the Bishop? Do you think he should be more vocal about their actions?

CF: I THINK THAT THE FOBSM ARE INDEED A DANGEROUS GROUP AS ARE THE VAMPIRE RESEARCH SOCIETY AS ARE THE BPOS. BUT THE FOBSM DEFINITELY DO MORE HARM THEN GOOD AND IF I WERE BISHOP MANCHESTER I WOULD WANT TO KNOW WHY ASSUMING OF COURSE HE ACTUALLY CARES ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE BEING TARGETTED.

AH: You've left the Highgate Case behind you. Do you have any other projects on the boil? Are you involved with any other organisations?

CF: YES I'VE WELL AND TRULY LEFT THE HIGHGATE CASE AND IT'S PARTICIPENTS WELL AND TRULY BEHIND. I HAVE COMPLETED A BOOK ABOUT THE HISTORY OF RAF ELVINGTON AND HAVE ONE IN THE PIPELINE ABOUT GLENN MILLER THE FAMOUS BIG BAND LEADER OF WORLD WAR 2. THE ONLY ORGANISATIONS I'M INVOLVED WITH AT THE MOMENT ARE TO DO WITH CHURCH AND I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF YORKSHIRE AIR MUSEUM, PLUS DOGS TRUST AND OTHER CHARITIES WHO NEED VITAL SUPPORT

Once again, I'd like to thank Catherine for her participation with these interviews, especially as she's "held the peace" on her involvement with the feud for a few years.

Now, some notes on content. Dennis Crawford and Katrina Garforth-Bles serve as the Vampire Research Society's International and National Secretaries, respectively. They're also moderators on The Cross and the Stake. Regarding the FoBSM targeting Catherine and myself, that's dealt with here and here. I've also (briefly) discussed Patsy Langley's involvement in the British Psychic and Occult Society.

¹ "Interview Questions", Tuesday, 7 September 2010 4:27:05 PM.

² "RE: Interview Questions", Tuesday, 7 September 2010 7:41:46 PM.

FoBSM Bugs Out

2010-09-03T22:22:00.004+10:00

Catherine's not the only one who's been on the receiving end of unsolicited FoBSM mail. Yep, I have, too.

Sometime ago, I told 'em, "I'm not interested receiving any more of your regurgitated junkmail in my inbox. Now go harass someone else" ("Re: Shroudeater Lies! - Rob Brautigam's False Allegations", Friday, 16 May 2008 4:10 PM). I subsequently blocked their address.

I guess they found a hole in the system, in the wake of a recent configuration of my e-mail. As a result, they managed to send four e-mails, all spaced mere hours apart.¹ All concerned my recent interview with Catherine, but none of them were signed with an actual name.

Apart from the bombardment itself (not the first from Manchester sympathisers), there were two even more bizarre things I noticed about the e-mails. Firstly, they were all forwarded correspondences with Catherine. Second, none of them actually addressed me. That is, no "Hi Anthony". No lead-in. Just a bunch of correspondence they'd passed on. Needless to say, their address has been re-introduced to my block list.

At this point, I think it's a pretty safe bet that Catherine didn't give 'em permission to send along personal correspondence (I'll double-check with her, to make sure), so, if not, they obviously don't give a toss about distributing private info. Like, say, her e-mail address, which was incorporated into the responses. If they're willing to forward such things onto me (and I'm not sympathetic to the FoBSM "cause") then, who else are they forwarding it onto? Who knows? And that's the problem.

Outside of this so-called "informal group", the Vampire Research Society (which the Bishop presides over and founded), has shown the same capacity for passing along personal info. Indeed, only one of the FoBSM e-mails I've received over the years has been signed by an actual person: Dennis Crawford.² That is, the same guy who serves as the VRS's International Secretary.

And what should we make of the Bishop's Holy Grail Church website containing items that the FoBSM regurgitates elsewhere? Just how "informal" is this veritable fan club, when it has the object of its affections serving as an admin on its Facebook group? Makes ya wonder.

Anyway, in my view, the Bishop's namby-pamby attitude to these "Friends" actually makes him look worse. Think about it: you've got a bunch of nameless stalkers, who hand out personal info like candy. They have no clearly-defined purpose ("an informal support group who act in the bishop's interest as they perceive that interest to be"), yet provide seemingly intimate recounts of the Bishop's version of events, without the authority to directly speak on his behalf. Sad.

¹ "Why are you resuming an aggresive stance?" (Tuesday, 31 August 2010 3:13 AM), "Re: Why are you resuming an aggresive stance?" (Tuesday, 31 August 2010 8:00 PM), "Re: Why are you resuming an aggresive stance?" (Tuesday, 31 August 2010 9:33 PM) and "Re: Why are you resuming an aggresive stance?" (Wednesday, 1 September 2010 12:00 AM).

² "Facts you will not find on the James Randi Forum" (Wednesday, 21 March 2007 8:33 PM).

FoBSM Targets Interviewee

2010-09-01T04:35:00.006+10:00

In the wake of my interview with Catherine, she's been "targetted" by the FoBSM, a group of largely faceless individuals who claim to act with the Bishop's "interest as they perceive that interest to be".

It's something she anticipated and resulted in receiving "3 emails, 2 virtually similar in content with a little extra added in". No surprise, given their history of targetting critics of the Bishop.¹ Indeed, she received another unsolicited e-mail shortly afterwards. However, she's stood by her answers to the interview, telling them that "unless Bishop Manchester emails or writes to me himself then I will not answer any more emails/letters" from them. It's a smart approach I'd recommend to others on the "receiving end" of their unwelcome mail. This will become apparent very shortly.

To shed a little light on this decidedly shady organisation, here's what Dennis Crawford, aka "Gothic" aka "Demonologist" aka "Vampirologist" aka "The Overseer", has to say about them: "The FoBSM, as understood by most, is an informal support group who act in the bishop's interest as they perceive that interest to be."

However, you've got to wonder about the autonomy of a group that has the object of their affections as an administrator of their Facebook group. After all, it's kinda like being the president of your own fan club. Indeed, his church's "To contact Bishop Seán Manchester" page provides the FoBSM's Facebook account as a means of contacting him.

Yet, despite a representative air, their authority to speak on the Bishop's behalf is effectively neutered by Bishop's own stance: "Nobody is authorised to speak in my stead." Sure, he amended his comment with a wishy-washy "This does not preclude friends and associates coming to my defence, which choice is theirs to make and not mine to deny." But without the actual authority to speak on his behalf, their e-mails and various online postings are essentially hollow copy-n-paste diatribes. Hot air, really.

Still, you'd think a Bishop would condemn such actions. At the very least, discourage them. After all, the FoBSM's Facebook group features his Path of Reconciliation blog as its website. Allowing them to proceed, unhindered, is hardly conductive to this aim. Especially when the use his name as their banner. But then again, the Bishop had no problem allowing abusive content on his blog against one of his critics. So maybe this namby-pamby, "not mine to deny" approach is for convenience's sake.

¹ See Don Ecker, amcgltd.com, Barbara Green and myself.

Interview with Catherine Fearnley

2010-08-30T23:54:00.004+10:00

Much like Barbara Green, Catherine has had a direct association with the main factions behind the Highgate Vampire Case. However, her role with both, was much more in-depth and a compelling insight into working "behind the scenes".

I interviewed her by e-mail (Saturday, 28 August 2010 5:41:30 PM) and her answers shortly followed (Saturday, 28 August 2010 9:05:10 PM). I've changed the numbering of my questions on this blog entry to our respective names and subsequent initialisation. However, the number form was retained in her post.

Anthony Hogg: How did you first become interested in the Highgate Vampire Case?

Catherine Fearnley: I first became interested in the Highgate Vampire case through a mutual friend who had met one of the key instigators at a fair. I was led to believe that he was a proper Bishop now and also the head of the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society, I soon became acquainted with the Bishop who in turn told me about David Farrant and The Highgate Vampire. To be fair on the Bishop he advised me not to have anything to do with Farrant as I would only be hurt in the long run, but I went my own sweet way and found out the hard way.

AH: You previously served as a moderator on The Cross and the Stake. How did you obtain this post?

CF: Technically this is not correct Anthony, not only was I the moderator, I was also the creator of this group, I started this group because I had an interest in the case anyway and I was aquainted with Bishop Manchester at the time. I also noticed that they did not have any discussion groups. I was advised by Bishop Manchester not to post up any of my own thoughts on here and to let the members ‘sort themselves out’ to this end I did only posting up general responses which Bishop Manchester gave to me at the time.

AH: You were eventually expelled from this post. What were the reasons given?

CF: Again, I was not expelled as such, I left of my own accord basically because I became involved with Farrant at the time. I was told it either had to be one side or the other I could not be party to both, so I went with Farrant, then Bishop Manchester and his group then started being hostile with me for no reason other then I had become involved with Farrant, it got so bad that I had started to take out an injunction against Bishop Manchester but had to drop this due to personal reasons.

AH: Soon enough, you became the Secretary of the British Psychic and Occult Society, and the Highgate Vampire Society. How did you rise to this position? What tasks did you carry out?

CF: Well as I’ve previously stated I became involved with Farrant, he didn’t have the use of a computer then as such only a word processor so it was easier for me to do the typing and organise membership cards, newsletters, etc and so forth. Also in and among Farrant asked me to make posts against Bishop Manchester which were of a derogatory nature so he wouldn’t have to put his name to them, all of this I now deeply regret no end. In fact I regret ever getting involved with them in the first place full stop.

AH: You were eventually expelled from this role, too. How did this come about?

CF: Basicallly because Farrant got it into his head that I was heavily involved with Bishop Manchester again, also our personal relationship had deteriorated because I had changed my religion and faith for personal reasons which I won’t go into, plus another 101 reasons which all added up to one huge massive argument and Farrant and I went our own separate ways,

I want to make this absolutely clear from the start that I am NOT involved with either party anymore, nor do I wish to be. I have my own life now and it is far removed from what I had back then. I’ve met nice people, made new friends, hopefully got myself a new partner, and have moved on. Pity others cannot do the same.

AH: You've had an exclusive behind-the-scenes view of the opposing parties of the Highgate Case. What have your experiences taught you about them?

CF: Not to get involved with either party. I think that the whole Highgate nonsense came about through a hoax on both sides, both parties are as bad as each other as far as internet wars are concerned. They both use the Highgate case to make money, throw insults at each other especially family, friends, relatives, they both want to hurt and threaten all involved as much as they possibly can, it doesn’t matter to either/or if innocent people are involved with all of this. And to be honest it’s all so completely sad that this matter has been allowed to drag on 30/40 yrs down the line when both men are in their 60’s/70’s and should know better.

AH: Do you believe any supernatural phenomena took place at Highgate? If so, what form did it take?

CF: No I don’t believe that any kind of supernatural phenomena took place at Highgate, I think it was all mass hysteria at the time made no better by the public press making reports and then some crazy person organising a alleged ‘vampire hunt’ people making claims that they staked the ‘vampire’ and such forth. Where is the evidence? There is none , save from the two people who created this ‘legend’.

AH: In light of your experiences, what advice would you give to other researchers, with an interest in the Case?

CF: Don’t get personally involved with either party you will come to regret that you ever did. Keep your findings to yourself, don’t get involved in any message boards as you will become involved in a hate campaign. You will receive death threats, have your email accounts hacked into, have personal information found about you and such forth. I was told by Bishop Manchester’s group at the time that they even knew my National Insurance number and the very job centre that I used to visit at the time. The other party is just as bad for obtaining personal addresses and posting these in public so all can see also they publish private and personal correspondence to all and sundry and in booklet form, make ridicule of your religious believes if you have them and both make untrue stories about you. So take my advice and keep well clear of the lot of them.

I'd like to thank Catherine for taking the time to answer my questions. The items on stalking and harassment are quite interesting and something I've experienced, myself. There's a reason I used to employ a pseudonym, afterall. Here's why I started using my actual name. I've also previously covered the use of Catherine's name as a "front" for anti-Manchester writings.

Interview with Barbara Green

2010-08-28T06:38:00.006+10:00

During the course of my discussions over at The Supernatural World forum, I took the opportunity to interview Barbara Green ("greenorchid") for her thoughts on the Highgate Vampire Case, and her interaction with the main parties behind it.

She is the president and founder of the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society. Its current patron is David Farrant; a post formerly held by Seán Manchester. So how did she get mixed up in it all?

I found out by sending her a list of questions via the forum ("Hi Barbara", 16 August 2010 - 03:36 AM), which she responded to ("Hi Barbara", 18 August 2010 - 03:05 AM). I've reconsituted them here in interview form, thus my (originally) numbered questions are replaced with my name and subsequent abbreviations and applied this same procedure to her responses. However, I've retained her upper case replies.

Anthony Hogg: What drew your interest to the Highgate Vampire Case? How did you first hear about it?

Barbara Green: I MET SM [Seán Manchester -ed.] AT THE BARNET CARNIVAL IN 1986. HE CALLED HIMSELF LORD MANCHESTER. I WAS THERE TO MEET JOHN POPE DE LOCKSLEY OF THE LONDON ROBIN HOOD CLUB. SM OFFERED TO BECOME PATRON OF THE YRHS---PLEASE NOTE OFFERED--NOT ASKED BY ME!!!! HE SOLD ME HIS BOOK THV [The Highgate Vampire -ed.].

AH: You were convinced enough of Sean Manchester's claims that you made him the Patron for your Yorkshire Robin Hood Society. On what grounds did you find him suitable for the role?

BG: NO--YOUR ASSUMPTION ISNT QUITE CORRECT---WE NEEDED A PATRON-LADY ARMYTAGE HAD REFUSED. HE ASKED TO BE OUR PATRON. WE THOUGHT HE WAS A LORD AND DESCENDED FROM LOrD BYRON--AS HE CLAIMED.HE THEN TOLD ME ABOUT THE VAMPIRE STUFF.

AH: At some point, your views on vampires changed. What caused you to disbelive in them?

BG: I SUPPOSE AFTER SM STARTED ACCUSING ME OF STUPID STUFF AND I THOUGHT ABOUT IT, I REALISED IT WAS ALL CLAPTRAP IT DID NOT MAKE SENSE FOR VAMPIRES TO EXIST AND HIS KIRKLEES STORY WAS DICKIPOGGY

AH: Later on, you made acquaintance with David Farrant, Manchester's "adversary". How did you get into contact with him?

BG: VIA SM'S INFO HE KEPT SENDING ME ABOUT DAVID.

AH: Eventually, Manchester was replaced as the Patron of your Society, and Farrant substituted in his place. What did you feel that he could bring to the role?

BG: IT WAS JUST HONORARY--BUT HE HAS BEEN VERY SUPPORTIVE WHEN NECESSARY AND HE DID THE EXORCISM!!

AH: What are your thoughts on Farrant's claims of the "psychic entity with vampire-like characterisitics" alleged to haunt Highgate Cemetery?

BG: I GUESS THATS WHAT HE SAW AND THE BEST WAY HE COULD DESCRIBE IT--you problem seems to be with him saying vampire like characteristics, but that is only a descriptive term, it doesnt mean he thought it was a vampire.

AH: Did you ever become a member of any of the organisations associated with Manchester or Farrant? The Vampire Research Society? The British Psychic and Occult Society or the Highgate Vampire Society?

BG: NO

AH: Do you believe that any supernatural events took place at Highgate Cemetery? If so, what do you think the source of this manifestation was?

BG: WHAT I BELIEVE IS NEITHER HERE NOR THERE, AS WITH KIRKLEES WE HAVE TO BELIEVE IT AS TOLD OR NOT BELIEVE IN THE SUPERNATURAL AT ALL; THERE WAS NO DOUBT A LOT OF DICKIPOGGY ALSO AND COMPETITION TO BE THE STAR OF THE SHOW; HOWEVER, I THINK GHOSTS ARE MORE "BELIEVABLE" AS THEY JUST FLOAT AROUND, WHEREAS A VAMPIRE HAS A PHYSICAL PRESENCE, LIVES INA COFFIN, BITES PEOPLE ETC--SO HAVE ALWAYS SAID THE DIFFUCLTIES ASSOSCIATED WITH VAMPIRES ROAMING AROUND JUST COULD NOT SUPPORT THEIR EXISTNCE.IF PEOPLE WERE DYING INEXPLICABLY FROM BLOOD LOSS ALL OVER THE PLACE, DOCTORS, CORONERS AND POLICE WOULD BE INVOLVED, NOT TO MENTION BEREAVED RELATIVES WHOSE COFFINS WERE VANDALISED.

I'd like to thank Barbara for her participation. Just to clarify on a few things, though. The "Kirklees Story" mentioned is something I've previously covered. John Pope de Locksley's also been given a look-in. I've also touched on Manchester's Byronic claims. Lastly, the "exorcism" Barbara mentions, concerns a blessing ceremony held by David Farrant and Gareth J. Medway on the Kirklees estate, to dispell "malefic force reputed to haunt Robin Hood's Grave".

Plagiarism: Not So Enigmatic

2010-08-06T05:52:00.014+10:00

In his response to the latest Mel Gibson scandal, the Bishop says "He is obviously something of an enigma; but, then, in some people's eyes, I daresay so am I." Unfortunately, this principle doesn't apply to the Bishop's plagiaristic activities.

After all, it's pretty hard to be "mysterious" in the face of Google; a plagiarism-detector anyone can use. Time and time again, I've exposed him as a blatant plagiarist. Rather than admit it, he'll delete the incriminating post or turn nasty. Strange actions for a man of the cloth.

The latest example, "Mel Gibson", shows how his heavily his "answers" to reader queries rely on Wikipedia. He just can't bring himself to cite their actual source. But, once again, Google comes to the rescue. Here's a few points of comparison. Firstly, the Bishop's blog entry:

Born in Peekskill, New York, Gibson moved with his parents to Sydney when he was twelve-years-old. He later studied acting at the Australian National Institute of Dramatic Art.

And now, Wikipedia's "Mel Gibson" page:

Born in Peekskill, New York, Gibson moved with his parents to Sydney when he was 12 years old and later studied acting at the Australian National Institute of Dramatic Art.

Here's what the Bishop says about Mel's Traditionalist Catholic background:

Gibson was raised a Traditionalist Catholic. When asked about the Catholic doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, Gibson replied: "There is no salvation for those outside the Church ... I believe it. Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She's a much better person than I am. Honestly. She's ... Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it's just not fair if she doesn't make it, she's better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it." When he was asked whether John 14: 6 is an intolerant position, he said that "through the merits of Jesus' sacrifice ... even people who don't know Jesus are able to be saved, but through Him." Acquaintance Father William Fulco has said that Gibson denies neither the Pope nor Vatican II. Gibson told Diane Sawyer that he believes non-Catholics and non-Christians can go to heaven.

Which was also obviously cribbed from Wikipedia's "Mel Gibson" page:

Gibson was raised a Traditionalist Catholic. When asked about the Catholic doctrine of "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus", Gibson replied, "There is no salvation for those outside the Church ... I believe it. Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She's a much better person than I am. Honestly. She's... Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it's just not fair if she doesn't make it, she's better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it." When he was asked whether John 14:6 is an intolerant position, he said that "through the merits of Jesus' sacrifice... even people who don't know Jesus are able to be saved, but through him." Acquaintance Father William Fulco has said that Gibson denies neither the Pope nor Vatican II. Gibson told Diane Sawyer that he believes non-Catholics and non-Christians can go to heaven.

You'll also find that the Bishop resorts to a lil Internet Theology 101 when discussing beliefs concerning the Virgin Mary as "co-redemptrix": portions of "his" writings have been taken from Wikipedia's "Co-Redemptrix" page.

To his credit, the Bishop doesn't just rely on Wikipedia to "write" his blog entry: he also steals from ReligiousTolerance.org, too. Compare this from the Bishop:

Mel Gibson's precise religious affiliation is obscure in most people's eyes. He once considered entering the Roman Catholic priesthood. He has described himself as "an old-fashioned Catholic," and has made speeches opposing abortion access, the use of contraceptives, and equal treatement and rights for homosexuals and lesbians as heterosexuals receive. Gibson experienced a spiritual crisis in the mid-1990s at the age of thirty-five. He told The New Yorker magazine: "I got to a desperate place ... And I just hit my knees. I had to use [Christ's] wounds to heal my wounds." During September 2002 he revealed that he no longer believed in the Roman Catholic Church as an institution, saying: "I agree with everyone who says the Vatican is a wolf in sheep's clothing."

With this extract from ReligiousTolerance.org's "About Mel Gibson" page:

Gibson's precise religious affiliation is unclear. He once considered entering the Roman Catholic priesthood. He has described himself as "an old-fashioned Catholic." He has made speeches opposing abortion access, the use of contraceptives, and equal rights for gays and lesbians. He experienced a spiritual crisis in the mid 1990s at the age of 35. Gibson told The New Yorker magazine: "I got to a desperate place...And I just hit my knees. I had to use [Christ's] wounds to heal my wounds." During 2002-SEP, he revealed that he no longer believed in the Roman Catholic Church as an institution. He said: "I agree with everyone who says the Vatican is a wolf in sheep's clothing."

In the midst of all this copy-n-pasting, the Bishop leaves room for some of his own scanty thoughts, and indicates, that, yes, there appears to be a conspiracy perpetuated against Gibson: "I regard him as a talented, albeit troubled, soul who might very well be facing a conspiracy to ruin his career since the making of The Passion of the Christ."

Hmm, yes. I'm sure his career tailspin has nothing to do with alcoholism, anti-semetic and other racist remarks, oh, and those horrendeous leaked phone calls to his ex, Oksana Grigorieva. But I digress.

Going by recent comments made by Gareth J. Medway, one of Farrant's close associates, plagiarism's not just restricted to the Bishop's blog. Seems like the printed word cops a fair serve, too:

A few pages back 'Vampire Researcher' was complaining that 'Man, Myth and Manchester' contained material that belonged to someone else's copyright. He did not mention that issues 6 and 7 of that booklet series drew attention to the fact that a certain biography of Lady Caroline Lamb was verbally almost identical to the two previous biographies of Lamb by Henry Blythe and Elizabeth Jenkins. Also, that a book about the 'Grail Church' contained almost nothing that was not to be previously found in various books about 'Celtic Christianity', such as those that were sold in the 1960s at Arnold Leese House in Notting Hill Gate. (The late Arnold Leese had been the author of 'Out of Step: Incidents in the two lives of an anti-Jewish camel doctor'; he fell out with Owsald Mosley, and nicknamed him 'The Kosher Fascist'.) These plagiarisms certainly violate other people's copyright.

The "certain biography" would be Manchester's Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Know: The Life of Lady Caroline Lamb (1992); a work he keenly promotes elsewhere:

Hopefully the Bishop and his supporters will learn a lesson about leveling "copyright violation" charges against their opponents. If not, then they should turn to Matthew 7:3 for a reminder.

The Revelancy of Blog Comments

2010-07-26T15:48:00.014+10:00

After covering yet another of Dave's wonky replies, I'm going to address want some statements he made about my blog's readership. We'll get the answer to a pertinent question: how important are comments to the "relevancy" of a blog?

It's clear Dave has a very dismissive attitude towards my blog - especially when I criticise his claims. But why? Seems that my readership plays a big part.

In a reply to his associate, Barbara Green, he notes that "[h]ardly anyone" reads my blog. In regards to my commenting on his blog, apparently I realise "that little game is a waste of time here. So all he’s got is a one-man platform for his own opinions. For example, how many people have you seen posting there? None!"

He even sees fit to draw a parallel between myself and his feud piggybank, Sean Manchester: "Rather like the tea pot-clad one in that respect – only difference is little Anthony doesn’t employ the use of aliases to hide behind." The "tea pot-clad" reference is an allusion to Manchester's biretta. It's a recurring theme in David's online writings.

Anyway, back to the topic. I accept that my readership isn't exactly setting the world alight. I'm cool with that. As I've said before, this blog's a bit of a "sideline hobby" of mine. I don't need to validate its existence with a swathe of commentators. Hell, until recently, I didn't think many people were reading it at all. So, naturally, the comment ratio was gonna be low. Really low. I've even cautioned people about reading it, in the first place. My writings are free; I'm not selling anything. So, what's the significance of infrequent comments on my blog?

Let's contrast, shall we? Since Dave made such a big deal about it, we'll take a look at the comment activity on his blog. I can only focus on the ones that were published, though. You won't be able to see my unmoderated comments, without reading my blog. The key here is accessibility. Now, because July's still under way, I wanted an established timeframe. A season'll do it, for broad representation. I chose the autumnal (or Spring for readers in the northern hemisphere) months of March, April and May. I'll link to the posts in question, tell you how many comments they got (as of this writing) and the names of their posters. Let's begin.

March

"Ram Inn 2nd Vigil – Pt 2", 1 comment: Barbara Green.
"Blog Time Again", 0 comments.
". . . ‘Us Witches’ Are Lazy!", 4 comments: Craig (1), Barbara Green (1), David Farrant (2).
"Release", 2 comments: Lady K. (1), David Farrant (1).
"2 Bottles of Wine", 4 comments: Lady K. (1), David Farrant (1), Barbara Green (2).
"Far Too Long", 0 comments.
"So Here It Is!", 0 comments.

Total comments: 11

April

"Don’t Want to Look!", 0 comments.
"Thanks Sam", 0 comments.
"Easter Again!", 0 comments.
"Ley Lines and Highgate Cemetery?", 0 comments.
"Highgate Cemetery and Ley Lines?", 1 comment: Matt.
"Barbara, Laura, Jade and Gareth", 14 comments: rob (7), David Farrant (6), Barbara Green (1).
"Better Get Writing!", 4 comments: Barbara Green (2), David Farrant (2).

Total comments: 19

May

"This or That", 4 comments: Barbara Green (2), David Farrant (2).
"Unlikely to Forget", 4 comments: Barbara Green (1), David Farrant (2), Clarmonde (1).
"Here’s a Pic!", 0 comments.
"Choosing Dinner", 3 comments: Clarmonde (2), David Farrant (1).
"A Bit of News", 0 comments.
"Dorm ‘Fight’!", 21 comments: John Baldry's Cat (2), David Farrant (9), Speenqueen (1), Roger (1), Clarmonde (6), Barbara Green (2).
"Those Were the Days!", 0 comments.
"The Ghost of Blackbird Cottage", 6 comments: David Farrant (4), Barbara Green (1), Clarmonde (1).
"Not Far to Go Now . . .", 2 comments: Clarmonde (1), David Farrant (1).
"It Had to Happen!", 9 comments: Marcos Drake (1), David Farrant (3), Clarmonde (3), Barbara Green (2).

Total comments: 49

We have a grand total of 79 comments for that three month duration. Pretty impressive, eh? That is, until we start breaking down the amount of "responses" per commenter:

Craig: 1
Matt: 1
Speedqueen: 1
Roger: 1
Marcos Drake: 1
Lady K.: 2
John Baldry's Cat: 2
Rob: 7
Clarmonde: 14
Barbara Green: 15

And the most frequent commenter on David's blog is (drumrolls)...

David Farrant: 34

During that three month period, there were a whopping eleven commentators on his blog (including Dave). Out of that eleven (including Dave), five of them posted more than once. What a massive groundswell of support after more than 40 years in the biz!

But, it gets better. You see, Dave's already been in contact with the remaining 10 outside of his blog. Clarmonde, for example, is someone he "met" on the Arcadia forum. He's also the patron of Barbara's Yorkshire Robin Hood Society. John Baldry's Cat assisted Cecil Lamont-Dwiggins in profiteering off the feud between Farrant and Manchester through his blog, The Cat's Miaow. "Cecil", incidentally, is responsible for a satirical comic published through, yep, you guessed it: David's British Psychic and Occult Society. Guess who its main target is?

You get the drift. So, what does Dave's snide remarks about my blog's readership and the lack of frequent comments, amount to? Bugger-all, obviously. As this survey attested, his verified readership (by virtue of their comments) is restricted to a fairly small group of people. Sympathisers, no less. No real objectivity or criticism on display. Meanwhile, my blog gets readership from both sides of the fence.

Oh, Dave's grossly mistaken in about no one posting on my blog. Check out the comments here, for instance. The difference is, the comments I get are generally of a less savoury nature. But, at least I don't selectively restrict views to associates and "fans". In that regard, I ironically uphold the ethos of his Highgate Vampire Society better than he does:

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.