The prevalence of secret recordings

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.↩}

Two sides of the same coin

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'.↩}

Sigh. Another impersonator

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.

Notes to notes on a hatchet job

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

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.

The Hatchet Job

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.

Outright Hoax?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David where was this photo taken?

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

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

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

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

FoBSM Bugs Out

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

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.

The Not-So-Autonomous FoBSM

Previous claims have held that Manchester has no involvement with the faceless FoBSM, especially considering TFO's word on the group:

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.

So then one's really gotta ask why he's an admin on its Facebook group (along with David Carter-Green and Ordo Sancti Graal).

In fact, its website contact info is a link to Bishop † Seán † Manchester, the blog in which Manchester answers readers' questions.

Now Stop...Ecker Time!

Continued from this post.

Now you say you want to follow up her cause of death?
Well sir, again, here is where fact and fiction get mixed up.

Jacqueline Cooper was his live in lover and common law wife.
His first wife, Marie, divorced him on grounds of adultery and named Jacqueline Cooper as Co-respondent on the Decree Nisi Absolute.”

“Jacqueline is listed under a series of surnames, one being Jacqueline Manchester, although they were never married.

So you see sir, Lusia was actually his common law wife who he had used for a series of publicity stunts around the same time.”

Now, when I had requested what John Spencer might be able to “dig up” concerning this death and burial, John found nothing. This is what Farrant’s research had to say regarding the burial of Lusia. (And once again, the Manchester group, nor Manchester would speak to me concerning any of this information. Pretty odd for someone that alleges that the dreaded undead are stalking the land.)

“In his book, he claims that after he killed her, he buried her in the Great Northern Cemetery. Not true.

One of our researchers got in touch with the administration department of the cemetery prior to their renovation which saw hundreds of old graves bulldozed for a housing complex to be built over. She confirmed that no woman called Lusia or Jacqueline Cooper had been buried in the year stated in his book. Furthermore, no woman matching the age that Lusia would have been, was buried in any grave in that time frame.

Realistically, what we have here, is a man claiming to have killed his common law wife and buried her in a cemetery. Were it true, then he would have been arrested for publicly admitting his crime.”

I asked Farrant on the show about the decades long feud that has existed between Sean Manchester and himself and as he said “I could hardly deny that, it is a matter of public record.”

I mentioned on the air that I had invited Manchester to do a show, but that according to Manchester’s National Secretary, Katrina Garforth-Bles,

“Dear Don Ecker,

In October 1970, Bishop Manchester announced that he would not engage in any programme, project or debate that includes the interloping charlatan and selfpublicist David Farrant. He is not about to overturn that decision thirty-seven years later.”

According to Farrant this was a rather odd thing to allege because David Farrant stated on the record that Manchester had not only written him while in prison, but when Farrant was released Manchester interviewed him. When I asked him why the FoBSM would tell me the above if that were not the case, he simply stated they were lying.

According to Farrant, the audio clip I had played on the show that Manchester’s “FoBSM” group had sent to me was from that interview and had Farrant making the following statement,

“As to the question of whether a vampire exists in Highgate Cementery [sic], well I can only say yes.”

Farrant went on to state that about 1977-78 during that interview, Manchester told him that he (Manchester) wanted to write a book on the Highgate Vampire and detail David Farrant’s involvement in the case. Farrant stated on the show that Manchester had brought a small tape recorder to his “flat” and requested permission to tape him, then told Farrant what he wanted him to say. (This must be a British thing) Farrant went on to state that over the years this tape was altered using clips from the tape that were mis-leading. One example involved what Farrant claimed was his explanation of “white magic vs. the dark arts.” Farrant went on to explain that he broke down the differences of “Wicca vs. Black Magic” and explained that Wicca had two deities, a male represented by the Sun, and a female represented by the Moon. He said that in early Wicca, Lucifer meant the “Light Bringer” and later in the early Christian Church, in an effort to “demonize” pagan beliefs, turned Lucifer into the Christian devil. Manchester asked him if he “worshipped Lucifer” and Farrant said that in respect to how he just explained Lucifer, that yes he did. Farrant then went on to state that later Manchester took this out of context to discredit him.

One of the really funny anecdote’s as relayed by David Farrant involving Sean Manchester, were rumor’s that circulated that there was a “duel to the death” by swordplay that was supposed to have taken place in France. Farrant alleges that Manchester himself circulated a photograph that showed his “dead body” along with a obituary of Manchester. Farrant told me that in the “obit” and photo of the “dead” Manchester, gore and all was a solicitation for funds so his body could be shipped back to Glastonberry [sic], a place that had been “near and dear” to Manchester. The upshot was when the Highgate CID (Criminal Investigative Divison) showed up at Farrant’s flat and asked him what he had done with Manchester’s body? Farrant was very amused and decided to be “funny” and told them that since Manchester’s death was outside UK jurisdiction they should contact Interpol! He said that the investigators were not amused. “I didn’t know what to tell them” he went on to say “because I didn’t know where his body was!”

To be continued...

The Ecker Report Rides High

Continued from the previous page.

Of course much more was to come, but after I had requested getting an interview with Manchester via “KGB” this came to naught. I also asked John Spencer to make some inquiries to the Farrant group, John did and I received a note from his webmaster. I explained my interest to them and asked if I could speak to Farrant and also do an interview with him. After a few days (Farrant was tied up with some other matters) he agreed to my calling him for a short conversation. We agreed on a time and I called him and had a very interesting chat. I questioned him about “Elizabeth Wojdyla” and of course “Lusia.” David Farrant gave me information I would of otherwise not been able to get on this side of the Atlantic ocean. For example, in the first edition of “The Highgate Vampire” there was a photo of “fang marks” on Wojdyla’s throat and in the second edition this was removed. Farrant told me that he was able to find her in the late 1970’s and according to what he told me, Elizabeth admitted to him that the picture was done as a joke with Manchester putting the “fang marks” on her with a “Magic Marker” pen. As far as Jacqueline Cooper, Farrant told me that Manchester had a romantic interest in her and she was named in Manchester’s divorcing his then wife [Marie Manchester -ed.] with Cooper being named as cause.

[Don's original report was originally accompanied by a reproduction of the divorce certificate (No. 11323 of 1970). Indeed, VRS representative, "Demonologist" (note that at least two VRS pages - its homepage and "Highgate Vampire Domain" - link to his blogs, not to mention his frequently speaking on their behalf and claiming to be "personally acquainted" with Manchester himself) makes oblique reference to it in this comment: "Never mind the uploading of a confidential high court document that was obtained through deception by David Farrant and forwarded to Don Ecker whose reproduction of it is in breach of UK law." He doesn't make any claims against its authenticity, but instead notes it as a "confidential high document", thus, we can be assured that it's the real deal. And, it does indeed list Jacqueline Cooper for the reasons mentioned. -ed.]

On July 26, 2007 I interviewed David Farrant, long distance, for my Dark Matters Radio Show. The interview was not quite two hours in length and was enlightening in the depth of information garnered.

By this time I had gathered reams of information on the case, documents, geographical areas of interest, and from contacts in the United Kingdom, information that I would not have otherwise been able to gather because of my distance from the site. The Manchester group, or FoBSM, had been of no help what so ever, except they were very quick to send me news stories of Farrant’s legal troubles over the years including a “news story” about his “de-flowering” a young “virgin” girl.

The following news story was taken from “The Sun”, a British tabloid newspaper, dated October 31, 2006, sent to me by the FoBSM.

[Rather than reprint the article, as Don did in the original report, I'll instead provide this link to it. I should also note that the FoBSM regularly distribute this article and it occasionally finds itself embedded into VRS material. It can even be found in the text that accompanies Sean Manchester's "Dæmon" blog entry for his Metaphysical Meanderings. -ed.]

In this particular email a photograph of Farrant was included of him wearing a “t-shirt” and smoking a cigarette. The t-shirt was a cartoon-ish character called “Bishop Bonkers” taken from a short lived parody titled “Bournemouth Nights” that in a very funny manner, detailed the feud between Manchester and Farrant. This cartoon series ran on a website called “MondoSkepto.” When Manchester found out about the series it was eventually taken down because of his complaints and possible legal actions. The following was also included in the email to me.

[I've omitted the photographs due to potential accusations of copyright violation. Incidentally, the comic was a product of collusion between David and JREF Forum member, CLD (Cecil Lamont-Dwiggins. Most likely not his real name). I was depicted within it as a Manchester sympathiser because I regularly questioned David's claims on the JREF Forum. (see entire thread related to David, here) Indeed, at one point, I was even accused of being Manchester himself. The comics were later collated and published by the British Psychic and Occult Society. David hijacked the JREF Forum thread to give it publicity, generate sales and further line the BPOS's - i.e. his, coffers. -ed.]

David Farrant “advertising a T-shirt distributed and sold by members of the J.R.E.F.F. [James Randi Educational Foundation Forum. -ed.] The T-shirt displays on its front a crude cartoon of Bishop Seán Manchester who is described as "Bishop Bonkers." Talk about infantile!

Is this the best the J.R.E.F.F cronies can come up with in their hate campaign against the bishop? In having David Farrant model their "merchandise" at London's Muswell Hill, however, they have exposed the degree of collusion (behind the scenes) between the J.R.E.F.F. and David Farrant in their mutual vendetta against a man who stands firmly by his faith and his principles.

David Farrant was sentenced to four years and eight months in the UK following convictions for vandalism, desecration and threatening witnessess in a case of sexual assault. David Farrant also has convictions for indecency in a churchyard, theft and illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition. He has spent his entire life living off state benefits and still occupies the attic bed-sitting room he was found while on parole in 1976. David Farrant is a sixty-one-year old publicity-seeker.

One of the foremost inciters of hatred against Bishop Manchester is prominent J.R.E.F.F. member Catrena Hxx of XXXX, North Carolina, USA. She advertises anti-Bishop Seán Manchester items and other material on her websites. She nearly always uses the pseudonyms "The Vampire" (on the J.R.E.F.F.) or "vampire406" on her sites and elsewhere. She is a fifty-year-old female with irrational hatred and contempt for anyone who is Christian or who believes in the supernatural. Last year she also joined David Farrant's personal forum which is devoted exclusively to fabrication, falsehood and malice against the author and exorcist Bishop Seán Manchester.

During the course of the interview I conducted with Farrant, he was open and he was willing to discuss any aspect of the case. He was completely open in our discussion concerning his incarceration in prison, and while he did not discount some type of supernatural influence that may have “haunted” the Highgate Cemetery, he totally denied that there had ever been a vampire haunting the area.

I wanted to know about the two “vampire victims” that were discussed in Manchester’s book. What was the story about Elizabeth Wojdyla and of course Lusia/Jacqueline Cooper? Had they, either of them, been afflicted by anything weird, odd, unusual?

To be continued...

The Ecker Report Continues

And now, we pick up from where we left off...Oh, and this entry also contains mild profanity.

“Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester wrote:
From: Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester
To: "Don Ecker"
Subject: Re: Misrepresentation
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 12:15:41 +0100

Dear Don Ecker,

You may raise questions regarding the Highagte Vampire case at
http://groups.msn.com/TheCrossandTheStake

Just how willing Bishop Manchester will be to respond to an American who describes him as being someone who is "either a brilliant opportunist or is vastly deluded"* I really cannot say. Personally, I would be disinclined, if someone spoke about me in that way, to show much co-operation. I only mention this because your first e-mail response talked of having "courtesy" (July 06, 2007 5:56 PM). I do not find your published remarks at all courteous. Far from it. One of his secretaries (I am his national secretary), however, might be willing in the absence of personal abuse to address your queries, but expecting a courteous reply from a highly respected public figure whom you label as deluded is a bit rich.

By the way, David Farrant is not Bishop Manchester's "arch enemy," as you claim on Amazon.* If you read the bishop's Introduction to Confronting the Devil, you will discover he clarifies that the Devil - not Farrant - is his arch-enemy. [which is amusing, considering these renderings of Farrant, by Manchester on his blog -ed.]

This can be found at: http://clearblogs.com/confrontingthedevil

Thank you for deleting the post which duplicates Farrant's libel that "Lusia" is Jacqueline Cooper who is a private individual not involved in any of these matters and clearly not "Lusia" who has never been identified. Farrant takes great pleasure in disseminating misinformation of every conceivable kind where Bishop Manchester and his work is concerned. What the outsider must consider is this: how on earth would Farrant know "Lusia's" identity? Or anything else concerning the case of the Highgate Vampire as recounted in Bishop Manchester's book? Farrant did not meet "Lusia" or any of the other characters mentioned in the Highgate Vampire account. He had no contact with anyone involved with the case and was either out of the country, on remand in prison, serving a prison sentence, or drinking copious amounts of alcohol in his local pub when these events took place. All his claims regarding Bishop Manchester are spurious, fabricated and malicious.

Regards,

Katrina Garforth-Bles
FoBSM”

Well, I was to discover how David Farrant knew “Lusia, aka Jacqueline Cooper” and that part of the story is fascinating as well.

Now as to the last note from “KGB”, quite frankly it pissed me off by the sneering tone about my being an American. Let me refresh you,

“Just how willing Bishop Manchester will be to respond to an American who describes him as being someone who is "either a brilliant opportunist or is vastly deluded"* I really cannot say.”

Okay, I will be the first to admit that I am an American. However, if this bunch is trying to convince the planet that we are all at risk from the dreaded undead stalking us, (to turn us into a happy meal?) then one would think that they would welcome someone who is conversant in investigations to be involved in what would be a world-class criminal case. Not really as I found out, and I will state that all my bull-shit indicators were ringing loud and long.

I still did not wish to totally alienate this bunch so I tried once more and was very polite but honest with them. By now though, I decided this was pretty much a lost cause. This was becoming too “cultish” a group to try to really communicate with.

“Dear Ms. Garforth-Bles,

Firstly, you are welcome. (for the thanks you forwarded for removing my post on Amazon.)

Well, as a former criminal investigator with years on the job, which I might add included investigating murders and the subsequent incarceration of the perpetrators to prison, I will be the first to admit that I am skeptical about the fact of "supernatural vampires." In 1981 I was the lead investigator on two cattle mutilations which in a round about way led me to discovering the Highgate case. (Both animals were exsanguinated.) At first blush, one should not be too harsh when my skeptical side rises, however I was willing to keep an open mind concerning the "possibility" that something with supernatural overtones did in fact occur.

One must agree (perhaps not you) that in light of almost non-existent evidence, supernatural vampires as an answer to Highgate and other cases, is a stretch of logic. The reason I purchased both "The Highgate Vampire" and "The Vampire Hunter's Handbook" was because I was looking for evidence with supernatural overtones. I fear I have not yet found what I am looking for.

Now, placing my "detective" hat on, allow me to tell you what I've been led to.

If, and that is a very big if, a genuine supernatural vampire did exist ... and if said creature attacked and murdered humans, this would be a law enforcement priority of the very first magnitude. How would one go about proving such an outrage? The answer is forensic science. If "Lusia" was in fact a victim of a vampire creature, then her cause of death would be vitally important to not only religious authorities but to Law Enforcement agencies worldwide. (Not to mention her corporeal body turning into a spider… something I’ve never experienced by the way) I still have many law enforcement connections and I must say the idea of "vampiric infestation" does not register anywhere. But then I am trying to examine this using logic and not emotion. Your emotion (and apparent anger) shines through you missives, when if you believe this phenomenon is real, one would think you would be willing to discuss this in a rational manner. (Instead you sound as if you are sneering that I am an American.) On another note, when my father was in England in 1943, the English were very happy to see him. However, water under the bridge.

You seem to castigate me for my initial skepticism about Bishop Manchester's assertion that supernatural vampires are real. Why yes, guilty as charged, but I am still willing to look and perhaps even be convinced with proof. Another Brit, one David Icke, asserts that the controllers of the planet are reptilian humanoids, which include the Queen and former President George Bush among many others. Icke has followers that are as intolerant of questions as you seem to be. Should you and I take Icke's word as fact without proof? Somehow I doubt that.

I have been respectful and courteous in my messages to you. I am genuinely interested in the Highgate case, which explains why I am in communication with you and the Friends of Bishop Manchester. But one thing I learned as a detective that has always rung true, when people are too intolerant of legitimate questions ... or regard such questions as an attack … one must suspect that something is being hidden. If Bishop Manchester would not deem to speak or write to me because I’ve expressed legitimate skepticism, then I suspect he is much too thin-skinned, which would seem to hold true for any group that has a perceived guru or infallible leader. That would be a shame.

With regards,

Don Ecker”

To be continued...

More of the Ecker Report

Continued from the previous entry. Note: contains mild profanity.

“Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester wrote:
From: Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester
To: "Don Ecker"
Subject: Re: Misrepresentation
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 15:13:53 +0100

Dear Don Ecker,

I do not appear to have answered your question as to why Farrant should want to "smear" Bishop Manchester.

The online extracts from a work by Bishop Manchester prove a comprehensive explanation. When you access the main page, you need to scroll down and start with the Introduction, moving upward through the seventeen parts which are extracts from Confronting the Devil (Gothic Press, 2007). I was under the impression that you have read some of the bishop's books dealing with vampire cases and some of these would have informed you about the motivation behind Farrant.

The address for this data is:
http://clearblogs.com/confrontingthedevil/page2/&thisy=&thism=&thisd=

The main body of text can be found at: http://clearblogs.com/confrontingthedevil

Regards,

Katrina Garforth-Bles
FoBSM

Farrant's known crime sheet:

Occupation: (since release on parole in autumn 1976):

Unemployed (permanently in receipt of state benefits).

Criminal Convictions:

November 1972 (Barnet Magistrates’ Court):

Indecency in Monken Hadley churchyard (Ecclesiastic Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860).

June 1974 (Central Criminal Court, London):

Malicious damage in Highgate Cemetery by inscribing black magic symbols on the floor of a mausoleum.

Offering indignities to remains of the dead via black magic rites in Highgate Cemetery where photographs were taken of a naked female accomplice amidst tombs.

Threatening police witnesses in a separate case where his black magic associate, John Pope, was subsequently found guilty of indecent sexual assault on a boy named Blackwell. Pope, on his current website, still describes himself as a “master of the black arts.”

Theft of items from Barnet Hospital where the offender worked briefly as a porter in late 1970.

Possession of a handgun and ammunition kept at Farrant address, which also contained a black magic altar beneath a massive mural of a face of the Devil that had featured in various newspapers, not least full front page coverage of the Hornsey Journal, 28 September 1973.

Sentence: Farrant was arrested in December 1973 and held on remand until his trials at the Old Bailey in June 1974. He received a prison sentence of four years and eight months. He was released on parole in the autumn of 1976 and took up residence at a multi-occupied house in a bed-sitting room at [I have opted to remove David's private address -ed.], which he still occupies.

Civil Actions:

Two libel suits brought by David Farrant resulted in the News of the World (on a claim that his publicity-seeking was a substitute for his failed sexual libido) failing to produce their principal defence witness owing to Farrant making sure she remained in her native France, and his losing against the Daily Express (who had accused him of being a black magician and of being insane) where £20,000 court costs were awarded against him. In the News of the World action, which he won on a technicality, he was awarded the derisory sum of £50. The newspaper’s star witness who failed to appear for their defence was Martine de Sacy, an ex-girlfriend of Farrant’s who was identified as the naked female in the infamous “nude rituals trial” at the Old Bailey in 1974. Farrant persuaded her not to appear, causing the News of the World to lose their star witness. Farrant was arrested in December 2002 and charged with the harassment of Bishop Seán Manchester, Mrs Sarah Manchester, Mrs Diana Brewester, and Br Keith Maclean, but the CPS did not prosecute due to Farrant taking great care to stagger the frequency of incidents so that they fell just outside the remit for the minimum number of offences necessary per month for a case to be successfully prosecuted. Farrant is still being monitored by the police.

Other Arrests: Farrant has been arrested on various occasions throughout his life. Those that made the headlines for which he was later not found guilty include being in an enclosed area for an unlawful purpose at Clerkenwell Magistrates Court in August 1970 (because a Highgate Cemetery cannot be defined as an “enclosed area”); arson (along with John Pope), and theft of a corpse and placing it in someone’s vehicle at the Old Bailey trials in June 1974.

It became very apparent to me that I would get nowhere with “KGB”. I finally “caved” in and I wrote her (?) the following note.

“Dear Ms. Garforth-Bles,

Please be advised that under the guise of furthering Anglo/American

relations, I have deleted the post concerning "Lusia-Jacqueline Cooper." I still have several questions regarding the case, I hope either you or perhaps Bishop Manchester will be available to answer.

With regards,

Don Ecker”

Okay, using the “street parlance” sometimes you gotta give a little to get a

little. I wanted to interview Manchester on my radio program. By now however I held out slim hope because he had to know who I was and he had to at least suspect I have a short fuse with someone trying to “bull-shit” me.

Now, allow me a second to relay a short exchange that took place on the Amazon horror chat forum. After I asked if anyone had been aware of the Highgate case, someone chimed in with their belief that Manchester was an “opportunist” with the Highgate case. I then stated that I thought he was "either a brilliant opportunist or is vastly deluded" and that came back to haunt me in my next email from “KGB”.

To be continued...