Is Dennis Crawford Actually The (Fake) Overseer in Disguise?

The latest post on TFO's new blog, Vampire Research Society, would seem to indicate as much.

In strangely referring to itself as an "Advisory Service on Vampires and Vampirism", it fails to mention that its (so far only) post cribs a sizable chunk of Dennis Crawford's ("DennisCrawford1") message 1 on "The British Occult Society & The Ghost Club Society" thread from the British Occult Society MSN Group.

Has a mere Sean Manchester sympathiser (which TFO bills himself to be) set himself as a representative of the VRS? It should be noted that Dennis Crawford is the organisation's International Secretary. (See: Vampire Research Society homepage).

That's not the only thing the homepage reveals.

For some unknown reason, the VRS has decided to incorporate TFO's plagiaristic blog, Journal of a Vampirologist, into its menu. So, obviously TFO must be "speaking" with some air of authority on the VRS's behalf.

The plot thickens when we take into account Dennis' Oct 1, '06 criticism of my use of the username, "The Overseer", in association with my MSN Group:

I nevertheless refer you to the first nine words of St Paul's First letter to Timothy (3: 2-7) which describes qualities required of an Overseer: "An overseer, then, or bishop, must be above reproach ..." The Revised English Bible uses the word "bishop" whereas the New American Standard Bible employs "overseer." An overseer in ecclesial terms is a bishop.

Yet, strangely, Dennis took a completely different, much more tolerant view of TFO ripping-off my own username, for his own purposes:

The manager of Did A Vampire Walk In Highgate? took to employing the pseudonym The Overseer in protest against Hogg's misuse of the title.

"Misuse"?

I fail to see how ripping-off my username "in protest", then using it to repetitively plagiarise VRS and other sources, warrants such acts of social justice. I'd hardly call that action "above reproach".

If TFO is indeed Dennis Crawford, then he's got a lot to answer for.

For one thing, it is fairly indicting of the International Secretary of the VRS, when he engages in the game of publicly revealing personal information (i.e., my real name) of people who use the VRS website, all the while hiding behind a username - one adopted from myself, no less - to carry out a vendetta against myself. This is one in a catalogue of shady tactics.

I'd call for his resignation.

But does Dennis Crawford even speak on his own behalf?

Craig Adams, a former member of Don Ecker's Dark Matters forum, alleged that the following usernames all emanated from Sean Manchester's IP:

+Seán (Superior General)
+Seán Manchester
Albé
Bishop's Chaplain
Bishop's PR Secretary
Bishop Seán Manchester
Chairman
Crusader
Crusader Knight
DennisCrawford1
FoBSM Administration
KatrinaGarforth-Bles1
Old Catholic Church
Sangreal
The Apostle
The Author
The Informative One
The Overseer

The last belongs to TFO aka "Gothic" aka "Vampirologist".

Interestingly, it wouldn't be the first time such pseudonyms have been used.

Manchester on Blogger

Sean (or Seán) Manchester has decided to enter the Blogger arena with Metaphysical Meanderings.

As of this writing, it has two followers.

One's a bloke named Anant Verna (Words 'N' Views) and the other is - perhaps unsurprisingly - "Vampirologist" (aka "Gothic" aka "The Overseer"), plagiari- I mean, author of Did a Wampyr Walk in Highgate?.

Yeah, he couldn't even come up with his own title.

But, back to Manchester's blog.

A couple of things caught my attention. Well, apart from having shameless brown-noser/propagandist/sympathiser TFO being a follower of his blog.

Firstly, Manchester's "Luisa" entry implies that the black and white photograph featured, is none other than a woman who was allegedly turned into a vampire, then later staked by the author of The Highgate Vampire (1985; 1991):

Lusia has never been identified by her real name and, until now, a photograph at the time of my knowing her has not been published. Sufficient decades have perhaps now passed to permit the one shown from my archive.

It's certainly a brazen move.

Especially considering the potential legal ramifications.

The other item of note, is the link given in "My Web Page" within Manchester's profile page.

Where does it lead, you ask?

Why, to the Vampire Research Society's "Books by Seán Manchester" page, of course! Shop smart!

Gothic Revealed!

I first wrote about a mysterious commenter on my blog named "Gothic" in "Drive-By Comments".

In "Gothic Returns!", I also noted that

Every time I check the link to his profile, it leads me to a dead end. Should this happen again, his comments will be rejected for publication.

Well, I noticed something rather interesting when I tried the link again.

This time, it actually works!

But guess where it leads to?

Yup, that's right: none-other than the profile page of TFO!

However, he's had yet-another change of name. This time, he's using "Vampirologist" as his handle.

Interestingly, this is a handle that has been used for some years on the website he lists as his own, on his Blogger profile page.

So why the need to temporarily rip-off my own username? Especially after nonsensically claiming that I "adopted" his username...despite my use of it sometime beforehand. (see: "Insanity, Misrepresentations and Assumptions: Part One")

I also enjoyed his rather-telling view of himself, when criticising my rationale for refusing a comment by "Gothic" aka TFO aka "Vampirologist":

Something the FoBSM Administation did not mention, however, is the fact that Hogg allows no post to appear on his blog in the normal way when the commentator is sympathetic to Bishop Manchester.

So much for being "independent".

Insanity, Misrepresentation and Assumptions: Part One

I guess calling his MSN Group Did A Vampire Walk In Highgate? (which now seems to be defunct) wasn't enough imitation for The (Fake) Overseer (TFO).

It appears to have been replaced by another that apes the abbreviation I use for my blog and forum, i.e., "DAWWIH" (See, for example, "DAWWIH Designs").

On top of that, I've also had the pleasure of having a thread, on his forum, dedicated in my honour!

As it concerns me, I'll address its contents, especially in light of the accusations It's made against myself. We'll start with Message 1:

The following message was left by the Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester Administration recently on the Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester (FoBSM) forum which I found interesting in view of the fact it is about self-styled "amateur vampirologist" and "Overseer" Anthony Hogg who adopted my user name on the same day I opened Did A Wampyr Walk In Highgate? and has continued to employ it across the internet despite having claimed that it refers only to him "overseeing" his blog and message board. It is a term normally reserved for those holding a position of church leadership, irrespective of denomination, but it can also be used to mean someone in a supervisory position. This is how I use it to oversee those commenting on the Highgate Vampire case.

Hmmm. So I "adopted [his] user name on the same day [he] opened Did A Wampyr Walk In Highgate?"? That's hilarious. Especially in light of this little ditty, courtesy of the Vampire Research Society board:

The manager of Did A Vampire Walk In Highgate? took to employing the pseudonym The Overseer in protest against Hogg's misuse of the title.

Interesting. So, if TFO had my username first, how could he have then adapted it "in protest" afterward? Strange.

It's especially amusing that my use of "The Overseer" username initially aroused the wrath of Dennis Crawford, International Secretary for the Vampire Research Society, claiming that it is more befitting of a Bishop. Does that instead make TFO an actual Bishop, considering that his use of it has gone unchallenged by Crawford? No, because he now claims to use the term in a "supervisory" fashion. In other words, pretty much the same reason I gave back in 2006. What a coincidence!

Amidst this comedy of errors, TFO can't even get his own message board's name right. His group was most certainly not called Did a Wampyr Walk in Highgate? before mine was. I previously gave his group (Did A Vampire Walk In Highgate?) a lot of coverage here.

Attempting to change its title long after the formation of my message board (which has always used the same name) does not change the facts. Shame that his defunct message board's URL also gives away its actual original title (i.e., Did A Vampire Walk In Highgate?). Something not so easy to hide from, no matter how revisionist he wants to be.

One must even question whether TFO even founded the board he upholds, considering that it's original welcome message was by someone dubbed "The Informative One".

Anthony Hogg was not born when the case erupted and only very recently read an illicit copy of the first edition of The Highgate Vampire which had been disseminated in breach of copyright law by a certain Craig Adams, a foul-mouthed individual who openly supports and lives in close proximity to someone convicted of serious crimes at Highgate Cemetery in the 1970s. Adams is half his collaborator's age and has scant regard for the law, which will inevitably one day catch up with him.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Wait up!

I wasn't born at the time the case happened? And...? Does that mean I'm only allowed to write about things from a particular era or place I personally happened to be at? If so, you'd be condemning a lot of authors...

But since you raise the issue: were you there, TFO? Did you see it happen? Did you witness the predations of a bloodsucking, possessed corpse, which was subsequently staked through the heart, disintegrated into sludge and cremated? If so, I'd love to read your account of events.

As to this illegal copy of Manchester's book, how exactly do you know if I've read it or not? Is it because I quote Manchester as saying he wasn't "pre-eminently religious" at the time of the happenings, despite other sources saying that he founded the Ordo Sancti Graal in 1973? Or is it because I know that Manchester used necromantic rituals in order to summon a vampire (Sean Manchester, The Highgate Vampire, London: British Occult Society, 1985: pp. 134, 143-145), despite necromancy being a practice forbidden by the Catholic Church?

Anthony Hogg, a self-professed "Christian," has no problem viewing stolen material and seems to accept at face value almost anything he is told by the convicted felon's lewd and disgraceful flunkies of which Adams is one.

Come again? Would you mind telling me exactly what I have taken at "face value"? You seem curiously unable to divulge it in your post.

Something the FoBSM Administation did not mention, however, is the fact that Hogg allows no post to appear on his blog in the normal way when the commentator is sympathetic to Bishop Manchester.

Utter tosh. What TFO seems to be referring to is a mysterious commentator by the name of "Gothic". I've got no problem if someone is sympathetic to Manchester. If someone chooses to believe in his account of undead corpses, or, for that matter, Farrant's account of "vampirelike" psychic entities, then that's up to them.

What I don't like, however, is people being unaccountable for providing potentially libelous information, and posting it on my blog. Gothic was one such example. After posting comments on my blog, via a dead username, I warned him thusly, in "Gothic Returns":

Every time I check the link to his profile, it leads me to a dead end. Should this happen again, his comments will be rejected for publication.

And guess what? He did it again.

He chose to ignore my warning. That's hardly targeting Manchester sympathisers.

Can't Say I Didn't Warn Him...

In my previous post, I talked about a fly-by-night-commenter named "Gothic":

Every time I check the link to his profile, it leads me to a dead end. Should this happen again, his comments will be rejected for publication.

On November 1, 2008 4:00 AM, he posted a comment to "Gothic Returns!". I thought he might have learned his lesson, so I checked the link provided via his username.

And wouldn't you know it? Another dead end.

As a result, I'm forced to dispose of his comment. My hand has been forced on this one, due to similar tactics played by other anonymous types. I mean, come on. There's gotta be some kind of accountability for what's being said here. Especially when they attempt to speak with a tinge of authority.

To add insult to injury, "Gothic" didn't even bother responding to the questions I addressed him!

Oh well. Tough break, "Gothic"!

Gothic Returns!

It's nice when I get comments on my blog.

Unfortunately, they've tended to be by the fly-by-nighter, Gothic. Every time I check the link to his profile, it leads me to a dead end. Should this happen again, his comments will be rejected for publication.

Anyhoo, his most recent contributions (perhaps appropriately) have been to "Impostor Strikes Again!".

Let's take a look at what he had to say on October 1, 2008 6:30 PM. I'll add comments of my own:

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.

As they "perceive his interest to be", eh? So, in other words, they "represent" him...but without authorisation to do so. Within that context, pretty much anything goes, including stalking, harassment, etc. After all, defense, in this case, is in the "eye of the beholder".

We are given to understand that the police have encountered a problem tracking down the Craig Adams who posted illegally under the nom de plume "Hulk Hogan." They will not interview the wrong person and the crime is not serious enough to warrant them to be spending endless hours on a wild goose chase sifting through everyone bearing the name "Craig Adams."

Your use of "we" indicates that you're a member of the FoBSM. How unfortunate. Although, not surprising.

Anyhoo, regarding the case, you're essentially saying that it's your prerogative to a) request personal information of someone, via online means b) without authorisation of either the law or the person (Manchester) you represent. In other words, the "vigilante" tag I gave your clandestine group, is rather apt.

There still remains a crime to be answered and the police have apparently told the complainant that if an address is confirmed for the offender they will certainly be interviewing him. Craig Adams might not even be the offender's real name, as the police also pointed out. In the United Kingdom the public are asked to assist the police who are overworked and over-stretched. The request made by FoBSM was in that spirit.

Then you'll also remember that Peroxide, the author of the blog, claimed to have had Craig's IP address. She/he also admitted to stalking them via Facebook and Bebo and had no problem in publicly publishing personal details about him (at least, she/he thought it was him) via their own blog.

The FoBSM isn't above such shady tactics themselves, which include forwarding along personal details included in an e-mail, to an "independent" (but obviously not so) source.

So, forgive me if I have little sympathy for their "plight".

You are falling into the trap of employing false and misleading allegations made by those with an axe to grind. This time the piece of misinformation you have used originates with Barbara Green who has repeatedly stated that a property on the south coast of England sometimes occupied by Bishop Manchester and his wife is a church. It is nothing of the sort and has never been described as a church by anyone except Barbara Green.

From my recollection, the picture in question actually had a sign in the window, with a "Holy Grail Church" label on it. That'd be an unusual thing to put on a private retreat.

It has always been described by Bishop Manchester as his private retreat. It does contain a private chapel, but it is not a church and never has been. Repeating Barbara Green's malicious allegations is an indication of partiality - something you try to deny. She knows the property is not a church. Bishop Manchester's principal church is in Glastonbury.

Question: how are you privy to such information? How do you know if it's his retreat or not? The item I referred to was a photograph. Do you have an acquaintance with him? Are you writing in as his representative?

Also, would you mind revealing where in Glastonbury his church is meant to be?

And now, we move onto Gothic's October 1, 2008 10:46 PM comments:

You use the word "revealing" when all Craig Adams posted (copying Farrant's style) is a number of unsubstantiated claims. Adams offered no evidence to suggest that any IPs were the same as Bishop Manchester's IP. He made a false allegation. That is all. A false allegation which you have reproduced as fact, just as Adams reproduces Farrant's false allegations as fact. Where is the evidence?

Admittedly, this is true.

Craig only claimed that the usernames came from the same IP as the Bishop's. Would you like me to get him to publicly publish the IPs, so he can prove his case?

Dennis Crawford requested not to be identified by name or as being part of the investigating team at the time the first edition of The Highgate Vampire was being prepared. This was his condition for including his picture which also includes another member of the team.

What's your source for this bit of information? Can you reproduce it?

The media interviewed him during the case and he did use his first name, but not his surname.

Can you cite an article(s) where this occurred?

That was changed. With the passing of years and altered circumstances he eventually published his full name on the internet and allowed its appearance in The Vampire Hunter's Handbook.

What were the "altered circumstances"?

It was Dennis Crawford's own suggestion to be captioned as an anonymous freelance vampire hunter soon after the case was closed when the first edition was in preparation. He was probably concerned about possible repercussions so soon after the case had been brought to a close. His image was not used in the second edition to avoid any confusion as he had by the Nineties become a familiar figure in his own right and would have been recognised instantly by those in certain circles.

Which begs the question: why would a man so concerned about his private identity, willingly allow his picture to be published in a book associated with the case? People aren't just identifiable by name, you know.

Also, just how had he become a familiar figure "in his own right"? I've seen no mention of him, apart from being association with the Vampire Research Society. And considering that he claims an involvement with the Highgate Vampire Case since its inception, he was hardly earning this fame on his own, independent level.

However, if he was, I invite you to prove it.

Gothic Speaks!

In "Drive-By Comments", I discussed an unpublished comment by an anonymous poster named "Gothic".

This time, Gothic saw fit to submit another comment (to the above-mentioned blog entry) - and one I've deemed worthy of approval, this time.

So, I'll be taking this opportunity to address the matters raised in Gothic's comment and providing my responses in this very blog entry. If Gothic doesn't mind, of course.

Anyway, here goes:

Just a minute, Anthony, who gave you permission to copy material from "The Cross and The Stake" forum and goodness knows where else over the last couple of years? Who, indeed, gave you permission to identify Seán Manchester which clearly defames and misrepresents him?

Don't you love it when a person doesn't divulge their name...but is happy to address you by your own? It's not the first time Gothic has done this: you'll note that one of the reasons I didn't publish his/her previous post is due to them revealing the name of an anonymous poster on another forum.

Still, it's nice to see I have a "fan", seeing as Gothic reveals I have previously copied "material from "The Cross and The Stake"" (though not on this blog). It gives me a warm, tingly feeling to know I'm being monitored in such a way.

That said, it's not much of a revelation. I'd just call it quoting. Especially as I cite my sources. See, sometimes when people are discussing a matter, they like to actually quote the source they are talking about. You see it done in books. Heaps of times.

Unfortunately, Gothic doesn't seem to be able to make the distinction between quoting something and copy-and-pasting the near-entirety of a document without permission - while the same source chucks a wobbly about copyright violation.

Ya see, I kinda view that as being just a tad hypocritical. I also pointed out that my Windows Live Space blog had been closed down for such unfounded reasons (they ignored my responses proving that I had permission to reproduce certain items).

As to the last portion accusing me of "identify[ing] Seán Manchester which clearly defames and misrepresents him?" - buggered if I know what Gothic is referring to.

If he/she is dealing with stuff discussed in the previous post, then somehow, Manchester must be defaming himself - considering that Gothic's initial problem stemmed from my quoting an extract from Manchester's 1985 book, The Highgate Vampire.

You didn't once approach Seán Manchester for balancing comment or to enquire whether Brautigam's allegations are accurate.

I'd say the more disturbing aspect about this is...how would "Gothic" know if I've consulted Manchester or not?

Besides, the interview was with Brautigam. Also, there have been refutations to it already. Hell, I even linked to one in the previous post.

I've always encouraged open discussion on these matters. That's why I initially founded my forum and blog(s).

Those in support of Seán Manchester, therefore, have every right to address the libellous misinformation you have published and to do so with a rebuttal which obviously includes the original nonsense disseminated by Brautigam and you.

This paragraph highlights another one of Gothic's problems: lack of specific examples.

Here, I am accused of publishing "libellous misinformation" about Manchester. Which information, you might be asking?

Who knows.

Gothic isn't keen to clarify on such things.

Regarding rebuttals, well, the interview itself was partially that. What Gothic doesn't seem to have noticed, is that portions of the questions I asked Brautigam...were based on public [online] items disseminated by Manchester!

So is Gothic trying to say that Brautigam isn't allowed his right-of-reply? That it's ok for one person (Manchester) to publicly comment on another (Brautigam), but if Brautigam wishes to do the same...then all of a sudden, it's "libellous misinformation"?

Talk about a double standard.

For that matter, why is an anonymous poster like "Gothic" even passing himself off as an authority on the matter? How does he/she know that the information was "libellous"? I don't see any credentials, affiliation, not even a name from our Gothic friend.

Indeed, the only hint given to who they are, is this: "Those in support of Seán Manchester, therefore, have every right to address the libellous misinformation you have published..."

That's funny, because that essentially means that Gothic is passing himself off as not only a representative of Manchester, but a legal representative, considering the crimes he/she accuses me of.

I wonder what Seán "Dusted My Sandals" Manchester would have to say about that...

If you don't like it, quit your obsession with Seán Manchester and just try to get a life of your own instead of pursuing people who live on the other side of the globe where distance perhaps makes you feel safe to harass them.

Ah, see, now this is a cunning trick - and one of the oldest in the book.

What you do is, you take something said against you (in this case: "Obviously, "Gothic" is more keen on stalking and harassment than in discussing matters seriously") and then...spin it around and put it on the other person!

Ain't that clever?

Nonetheless, I'll respond to what "Gothic" has accused me of.

Firstly, does Gothic understand that this blog deals with the Highgate Vampire Case, of which, Manchester was a major part of? So how exactly could I avoid talking about him?

That's like me crafting a blog discussing Tom Cruise's film career...but not mentioning the actor himself!

It's also funny that "Gothic" accuses me of "pursuing people who live on the other side of the globe where distance perhaps makes you feel safe to harass them".

How exactly am I even harassing Manchester? If he reads my blog, he hasn't said jack about it. To my knowledge. If I've written untruthfully about him...then how about citing where and when?

It's also quite hypocritical to accuse me of harassment, when an anon like "Gothic" is happy to (attempt) to publish the names of private persons - while remaining anonymous themselves. But worse than that, it's worrying that Gothic seems to embody a vigilante-style attitude towards anything even remotely critical of Manchester:

"Those in support of Seán Manchester, therefore, have every right to address the libellous misinformation you have published..."

Since when?

Drive-By Comments

Speaking of copyright violation, a poster referring to themselves as "Gothic" recently attempted¹ to post a comment on "An Open Query on Religious Belief". I say attempted, because I refused permission for its publication.

And here's why.

Rather than address the issues raised in that entry, they instead accused me of "illegally upload[ing] a book in violation of copyright law".

Which, I didn't do.

They seem to have taken offense at me quoting Sean Manchester from the first edition of The Highgate Vampire (1985). It might have been the bit where Manchster said that was "not pre-eminently religious".

The pseudonymous poster then goes on to provide a link to Manchester's forum before saying, "You may raise any question you like, but kindly observe the forum rule of posting no links and no email addresses."

Almost makes me think they have some kind of authority on it...

But it's hard to tell, because if you click on "Gothic"'s profile, you'll notice that it is inaccessible. Oh well.

However, the main reason I didn't publish the comment, was that it publicly revealed the private identity of a member on the Dark Matters Radio Exploration forum. Obviously, "Gothic" is more keen on stalking and harassment than in discussing matters seriously.

So, permission denied!

¹ Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 6:13 PM.