Victorian sources—another lead?

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These statements are not 'out of date', either, as they're echoed in his recent writings.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.↩}

Challenger has entered the ring!

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!

Notes on a hatchet job

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?

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.

Pretender to the Throne

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A bit like this ... ?

(Shown pic of David armed with a wooden stake)

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

So far, so good ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope we can unravel more from the Wojdyla angle.

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

The Wojdyla Testimony, Pt. 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what actually happened?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was her testimony a fraud? Mistaken identity?

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

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

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

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

Reconciliation Attempt, Mk. 2

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

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

Hello again Tony,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The comment's awaiting moderation.

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

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

Grave Intent, Pt. 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To which David replied:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't Ask, Just Buy the Book

I've touched on certain similarities between the opposing figureheads of the Highgate Vampire Case and their sympathisers. I've also confronted David about his hucksterism. But another parallel can be drawn there, too.

Dave's not the only one with a tendency to hawk his wares online. An Unexplained Mysteries forum member named Sno shared his thoughts on the Highgate Vampire Case in the wake of posts made by fellow member, VampireResearchSociety. Here's what he had to say:

IMO it sounds like a group of people got together and made up this story about The Highgate Vampire and copyrighted the material so you would have to buy the book to learn their "truth". Every time VRS is asked to show proof we are referred to the book, hmmm pay us for the information that only we have, I’m not thinking so.

If there was such an event happening wouldn't more than just a select group of people be able to get some information about it? There are accounts from people who have lived near there that have stated that the only things happening in the cemetery were some Satanists/Occultists hanging out. Maybe the people “performing” the exorcisms were the Satanists/Occultists?

All in all, this entire thing sounds fishy.

It's good to know that despite the hostility evinced by the opposing sides towards each other, that they resort to similar methods to get their "message" across. It proves that they have something in common, after all.

Questioning Beliefs

One aspect that interests me most about the Highgate Vampire Case is whether or not people actually believe in the events described by its main participants. Especially considering how galvanising it can be.

That's why I set up the polls. I've also utilised my membership to The Supernatural World to open up new topic concerning whether or not people actually believe in the events described. To participate, you'll have to register with the forum, first. But at least it's free.

Over the years, I've noticed that Sean and Dave's respective "sympathisers" are more than willing to attack opponents, but rarely dissect the supernatural angle of the Case itself, or even profess belief in it. As a result, we're left with little more than a clash between cults of personality.

It's quite ironic, considering that their raison d'être revolves around supernatural claims. Without these claims, there'd be no contemporary news coverage. No books to sell. No TV appearances. No radio interviews. Nothing.

And sure, I admit that I dissect the credibility of the main players and such, meself. But I at least spread it out across the board, rather than confine it to one person/side. Not doing so means impartiality goes out the window. It certainly helps disperse the notion of the you're-either-for-us-or-against-us mentality that's been all too pervasive in this thing. Also, it's in context with the theme of my blog: no credible witnesses means no case. But, even then, I leave that for the reader to decide. That's why my blog's title is a question, not an outright accusation of forgery.

Onto a New Arcadia

Despite my terrible experience with Arcadia, I've decided to jump back onto the forum bandwagon. All thanks to a Black Orchid.

"Clarmonde" was someone I occasionally bantered with over at Arcadia. She's lately become acquainted with Dave, as attested by her comments on his blog. However, one of her comments addressed meself:

By the way,Anthony ,ive been reading your blog,Does aWampyr walk in Highgate.Also been posting on the Supernatural World under the name Blackorchid.Someone is asking questions on Arcadia on demons ,which was quite interesting,but i am pissed off with Arcadia at the moment,as they seem to keep on chopping bits out of posts,when its ridiculous.& warnings from Arcadia,and i dont really think this was fair at all.I think someone is just mucking about.Dont know why.

I checked out The Supernatural World. Seemed alright. So, I decided to join it. Registered today, in fact. You can read my first two postings (in order) here and here. To be honest, I kinda miss the banter from Arcadia. It had some entertaining and interesting members (hope you can read this, Hugo First!).

Farewell Arcadia!

Signed into my Hotmail account today and noticed a lovely little e-mail from the Mod of the Arcadia forum ("Suspension from Arcadia Forum‏", Sunday, 16 May 2010 10:36:16 PM):

We have noticed that you have published private messages arising out of the Arcadia forum on your blog. Not only is this against the Arcadia house rules, but we consider this to be disrespectful and unethical. You will therefore be suspended from the Arcadia forum for a period of 6 weeks.
Your account has been deactivated and will be reactivated on 27 June, but only should you delete the messages immediately from your blog (within 24 hours); otherwise consider your ban to be permanent.

The "private messages" he refers to are featured here. It wouldn't surprise me if someone dobbed me in. Otherwise, it means Mr. Mod "checks up" on me, which is cool in itself.

Anyway, I was left with a tough decision, especially in light of the brief timeframe ("24 hours"). I was caught between a rock and a hard place (plus, I've got a busy night ahead). Do I censor myself and ride out the six week suspension or do I make a stand against this hypocrite? After some careful consideration, here's what I wrote back ("RE: Suspension from Arcadia Forum‏", Monday, 17 May 2010 4:05:25 PM):

Let me tell you what's unethical: exhibiting double standards in carrying out your censorship policy against forum members.

You repeatedly censored and warned me about "personal attacks", but allowed David and co. to do the same unhindered (until very recently). You've even been ok with him advertising his merchandise on the forum, even though this is against the board's "spam" policy.

After I reported another member ("Archangel Michael") for posting personal details and such, did you punish them? No, of course not. You slapped me with a two week suspension.

Did you check out the IP of this member against another harasser ("George")? Buggered if I know. And wouldn't you know it? Now clarmonde's been complaining about getting harassed by another member on there. Great "police" work there, Mod!

What choice did I have? You do display double standards in upholding your rules. Slapping me with a six week suspension is an absolute joke. For what? Telling the truth?

So, you know what? Perm ban me. I'm not going to succumb to your threats. Or your double standards.

Have a good one.

Well, it was a good run while it lasted. So, to fellow forum members, no, I haven't chickened out or gotten bored with Arcadia. It's still a lively place for discussion. But there's only so much of this kinda crap I can take. After all, I had to found my own forum to escape this kinda wonky censorship.

Wouldn't be surprised if the Mod starts deleting my posts in a hissyfit or reporting me to "higher authorities". Welcome to the Highgate Madness, folks!

But hey, why not seize a golden opportunity? Here's a follow-up message I've sent to the Mod ("RE: Suspension from Arcadia Forum", Monday, 17 May 2010 4:20:54 PM):

Oh, by the way, would you like to do an interview for my blog? I'd love to hear your thoughts on the Highgate biz, since you've had to filter so much of it via discussions on the forum.

Let me know, ok?

Reckon he'll get back to me? I bloody hope so.