Podcast criticism (1)

In the wake of my (first ever!) podcast, criticism's been relatively minor–a good thing, as far as I'm concerned! I believe I presented a fair and balanced assessment of the Highgate Vampire case overall; but I did make a few slip-ups. Nothing major.

However, one long-standing critic–Vebjørn Hästehufvud–suggests my interview was a total disaster. Before I discuss Hästehufvud's criticisms, I'd like to tell you a little more about him.

Notes on Vebjørn Hästehufvud

Likewise, Vebjørn Hästehufvud is my real name, contrary to what a certain person obsessed with the Highgate Vampire falsely alleges. You will not find me using any name other than my real one.

– Vebjørn Hästehufvud, "HIGHGATE! HIGHGATE! HIGHGATE!", 26 February 2013.

Hästehufvud actually writes under several usernames, including "Vampirologist", "Demonologist", "Gothic", "Dennis Crawford", "The Overseer" (not to be confused with my former username) and "Arminius Vámbéry" (Fig. 1; Fig. 2). Not bad in its own right for privacy's sake–except Hästehufvud also pretends they're other people and uses each one to attack critics of Manchester's account. Also, the latter alias was cribbed from a real person.

Fig. 1. Vebjørn Hästehufvud posting under the alias, the alias "Arminius Vámbéry". Source: uncarved.org blog.

Fig. 2. Clicking on the Gravatar profile Hästehufvud used to comment on uncarved.org blog as "Arminius Vámbéry" unravels the deception.

Hästehufvud was a member of "The Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation Society" Facebook group, but was banned for excessive trolling. Soon afterward, he founded his own Highgate Vampire Facebook group called... "The Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation Society". It was co-admined by "Arminius Vámbéry", i.e. himself.

The group is presently administrated by Hästehufvud, "Veritas Aequitas" and Bishop Seán Manchester. Manchester accepted administrative duties, despite knowing its name was stolen.

Hästehufvud describes himself as an "independent researcher", but is strongly pro-Manchester (whom he calls a "friend") and virulently anti-David Farrant. Under his present alias, Hästehufvud writes blogs targeting critics of Manchester's account. I'll highlight two of them.

The first is the The Inhuman Touch, whose title mocks Farrant's blog, The Human Touch. In this case, I use the term "write" very loosely as it's primarily composed of random press clippings supposedly "exposing" Farrant. The entries feature no accompanying text. The scans are reproduced sans citation, context and often incomplete. They were also copied from the Vampire Research Society's "archive".

His other notable blog, Hoggwatch–complete with a picture "found on" my "Microsoft messenger profile" (even though I've never corresponded with with Hästehufvud by email)–is supposedly intended to

monitor this troll's libellous and malicious allegations about Bishop Seán Manchester which appear every day of the year across the internet, invading other people's blogs and forums when he is not posting abuse on his own. Evidence will also be amassed to assist with any future action at law when his location is finally pinpointed to proceed with a prosecution. Any help that could be given in assisting with the locating of Hogg would be greatly appreciated.

Why Hästehufvud needs a blog to "monitor" me is not explained. Hästehufvud's allegation that I post "libellous and malicious allegations about Bishop Seán Manchester" on a daily basis is undermined by the fact that it presently features a single blog entry (30 November 2012) ripe with selective quotes, misrepresentation and deliberate lack of citations, lest the reader appreciate context and double-checking sources. I may address its content at a later time.

In the meantime, I will clarify that the only legal action Manchester has taken against me–even though I've written about the case since 2006–was a string of DMCA takedown notices hypocritically issued against my WordPress blog. Hypocritical in the sense that Manchester frequently violates copyrights, himself.

Hästehufvud vigilantism implies he is acting acting on Manchester's behalf, yet Manchester makes clear that "Nobody is authorised to speak in my stead." Indeed, Manchester has not publicly revealed any desire to pursue an "action at law" against me. Therefore, it's safe to say Hästehufvud has two angles with Hoggwatch: the first is to discredit me through misrepresentation. The second, is to obtain and post personal information about me online. The "location" mention gives the game away.

Hästehufvud has a history of stalking Manchester's critics in this manner, as demonstrated by his blog, The Strange Case of Della Farrant, written under his "Arminius Vámbéry" nom de plume. However, the former approach bears greater relevance to his criticism of my podcast.

Hästehufvud's Criticism of My Podcast

On 5 March 2013, Hästehufvud posted two extensive criticisms of my podcast on Angie Watkins' Facebook group, "HIGHGATE! HIGHGATE! HIGHGATE!". The first will be dealt with in this blog entry. It opens with "On his first and so far only audio interview, Hogg makes no serious criticism of David Farrant and spends his entire time (rather like Farrant himself) attacking Seán Manchester."

Hästehufvud must've overlooked the episode's topic: the Highgate Vampire. Farrant doesn't believe in its existence, despite contemporaneously giving that impression to the press. Farrant's account is also decidedly less-detailed. Manchester, however, promotes it as a real entity. He literally wrote the book on the subject: The Highgate Vampire (1985; rev. edn. 1991). If the interview was skewed in Manchester's direction, that'd be the main reason.

As to "attacking Seán Manchester", Hästehufvud did not clarify what attacks I made–therefore, I can not address the "attacks" directly. His use of the emotive term suggests I vilified him in someway or attacked him, personally. I didn't.

Until he elaborates further, I conclude Hästehufvud confused "attacks" with criticism. I was critical of Manchester's account and credibility–but gave a context for my stance with specific examples. It's a perfectly reasonable approach and entirely consistent with my writings on the case: I critique it.

Let's take the Draculesque elements in Manchester's account and his proclivity for plagiarism as two examples I honed in on. Making references to these traits isn't an "attack": they're criticisms validated by evidence and offered in conjunction with what I was being asked about Manchester's account and credibility. Indeed, at one point, I was asked if Manchester was a "liar". The fact is, Manchester's account is Draculesque and he does plagiarise. It's not an "attack" to discuss facts in context.

Hästehufvud added, "The mistakes Hogg makes are legion. I would need something the size of a small book to address them all." Thing is, Hästehufvud does have "something the size of a small book": his blog, Hoggwatch. I invite Hästehufvud to catalogue the "legion" of mistakes, because his subsequent examples doesn't do the allegation justice.

"For example," Hästehufvud continues, "he talks about the derisory cartoons that feature him without mentioning the somewhat important fact that they are published and distributed by David Farrant and that Seán Manchester is personally and abusively attacked in these self-published booklets under the "BPOS" imprint more than anyone else." This omission wasn't a "mistake". 

I was asked about a character called "Cousin Hoggy" who appears in satirical comic strip, The Adventures of Bishop Bonkers. A mistake implies I slipped-up. I didn't. Instead, it simply didn't occur to me to mention. I was focused on discussing the character on its own terms. The podcast wasn't about a comic book. That said, should I have mentioned that the comic was published through Farrant's imprint, the British Psychic and Occult Society? Maybe. But did I commit a cardinal sin by not mentioning it? No.

There's nothing sinister involved. No cover-up. Hästehufvud may not have known–or deliberately avoided mentioning–that I've previously discussed the comic and its origins on this very blog: "Farrant went onto publish the a 12 page collation of the comics that same year [2007], 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."

"Such details are clearly considered irrelevant by Hogg," Hästehufvud rambled on, "especially as the context of him mentioning the derogatory cartoons occurs during one of his tirades against Seán Manchester." Nonsense. I was asked about a character in the comic; I answered. Hästehufvud suggests that the "cartoons" only targeted Manchester. They don't. Indeed, "Cousin Hoggy" is portrayed as Manchester's sockpuppet; his porcine "Australian cousin" who lives in a billabong. This character is later butchered, eaten by Manchester and Farrant, then gets sent to Hell. If Manchester is treated in a "derogatory" fashion, spare a thought for poor "Cousin Hoggy"!

"Hogg also claims that both Seán Manchester and David Farrant stood as local councillors (being very careful not to identify what they stood for)." Not true. I didn't deliberately avoid mentioning their respective platforms–I offhandedly mentioned their respective standings while discussing the divisiveness of the case; that it's like a "two-party political system" between Manchester and Farrant. Once again, context is important. It wasn't an episode of Meet the Press.

However, if you're curious about what Hästehufvud thinks I should've elaborated on, here goes.

Farrant ran for election under the Wicca Workers Party banner (FoBSM version; Farrant version) in 1978.  As Farrant notes, "One of the main policies in the manifesto was to make Wicca the official state religion.  To this end I called for more power to the Monarchy and a ban on communism, which everyone knows is opposed to any belief in God or religious worship." The FoBSM/Manchester version holds that Farrant's party had fascistic ties.

Manchester, however, stood as an independent under the pseudonym "George Byron". His official aim was to deter development of the South East corner of the Great Northern Cemetery, New Southgate, under the pretext of "conservation" in 1981.

However, according to Manchester's later account, his actual aim was to afford himself more time to locate a suspected "undead lair", "Otherwise, all manner of dilettante would descend upon the place, which would only suspend the young vampire's wanderings and make it dormant until it stirred with some future generation."¹ The "young vampire" was (spoiler alert!) "Lusia".

Hästehufvud didn't just take issue with offhand mentions, though. He also tried demonstrating the "paucity" of my "knowledge" about the Highgate Vampire case in my "interview with Trystan Swale (another friend of Farrant)". This–I shit you not–is the actual example he provided:

He claims that Seán Manchester "played sax" at The Woodman, Highgate, in a group called "The Southlanders." Wrong. He played saxophone in a modern jazz group at The Woodman on just a couple of occasions. "The Southlanders" were a completely different bunch of musicians (a showband, in fact) with whom he played regularly at dance hall venues.

Firstly, I'll confess I'm not exactly sure what Swale's relationship with Farrant is, but "friend" doesn't automatically suggest a conspiratorial alliance or lock-step thought process. Swale is not a vocal supporter of Farrant's claims. But if friendship implies collaboration and conspiracy, then Manchester's "friend", Hästehufvud, has a lot to answer for. 

Second, how does Hästehufvud know how many times Manchester played at The Woodman? How does he know that the band Manchester played with at The Woodman wasn't The Southlanders? He didn't say. Then again, neither did Manchester:

It was whilst blowing a long jazz solo on the tenor saxophone in The Woodman, Highgate, where his wife worked some evenings as a barmaid, that Farrant first caught sight of me in 1968. I would remain oblivious to him, however, until the beginning of the next decade. Who knows what went through his mind as he listened to my improvised harmonic structures, accompanied by a perspiring rhythm section, in that dimly lit venue for modern jazz aficionados?²

Until Manchester speaks up, it'll remain unconfirmed. In the meantime, I'll clarify The Southlanders issue. Swale and I briefly discussed the first time Manchester and Farrant met. To elaborate further, Farrant claims Manchester approached him in the late 1960s; Manchester claims he was "oblivious" to Farrant's presence there was while he was blowing his "improvised harmonic structures". However, both agree their paths first crossed at The Woodman while Manchester played gigs there. I said the name of Manchester's band was The Southlanders. That's it. That's Hästehufvud's evidence for saying I barely know anything Highgate Vampire case. You couldn't make this stuff up, folks.

So, what was my Southlanders reference? A picture Manchester captioned "The Southlanders showband for whom I played tenor saxophone" ("The Sixties", Metaphysical Meanderings). Same decade, same sax type. Bit of a leap, sure, but not a huge one. If I'm wrong, no biggie.

Hästehufvud then sashayed from pathetic trivialities to swipes at my geographic location: "If internet users are going to rely on the retelling of history through the voice of somebody on the other side of the world like Anthony Hogg who has never set eyes on England and has never met one person involved in the Highgate Vampire case, then heaven help us all."

Yes, I've never "set eyes on England". I've never met anyone involved in the Highgate Vampire case. Know how I make up for that? Corresponding with people involved and reading what they've written about the case. I also consult various sources (that's a partial list), then compare and contrast what's being said. Weight it up. Seek verification. If needed, I'll also make further queries. It's called "research" and "investigation". Hästehufvud doesn't understand these concepts, as he's content regurgitating pro-Manchester material under various aliases.

Hästehufvud concludes the first round of his criticism with "Anthony Hogg is a complete waste of time. He is someone trying to make a name for himself off the back of public figures already known in their own right."Am I, though?

When I began writing about the case, I didn't seek fame. When I started my own forum on 22 September 2006 I wrote posts as "The Overseer". On the very same day, my forum title was stolen and my username copied. That was the first obvious sign this wasn't gonna be an easy patch of grass to maintain.

Nonetheless, I carried my username and title over to this blog. I viewed the case as a hobby; something to banter about, seek info on, that kind of thing. At that point, interaction was sparse. I'd barely get comments on this blog–I thought I was pissing in the wind. But that didn't matter, because I wrote about this thing out of personal interest. Little did I know how many other people were reading it, too. That became apparent when I installed the "Total Pageviews" gadget. I'd gotten thousands of hits. Even so, I didn't want to relinquish my privacy. I'd still likely be using an alias–if my real name hadn't been publicly revealed under malicious circumstances.

They'd obviously tried–like Hästehufvud and his stalker blog–to deter my investigations into the case by violating something I hold dear: my privacy. It's the Highgate Vampire case version of Scientology's "Fair Game" policy. In this case, you get blogs like Friends of David Farrant and Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester. I'm featured on both. If I'm "trying to make a name" for myself "off the back of public figures already known in their own right", then they ripped me from the bowels of obscurity and cast me into the spotlight. Thanks, guys!

This free publicity is a double-edged sword. On one hand, I'll garner negative attention. Hoggwatch was created to make sure I do. On the other, it means my name gets "out there" and people gain a greater familiarity with my work. Kai Roberts didn't consult some random when he asked me to look over the Highgate Vampire chapter in his 2011 book, Grave Concerns: The Follies and Folklore of Robin Hood's Final Resting Place. Trystan Swale didn't pick me out of a hat for a podcast. If I wanted "fame" for anything, it's the merit of my work. To that effect, what I do is successful.

In the meantime, stay tuned for the next thrilling instalment of "Podcast Criticism"!

---

<sup>1. Sean Manchester, The Highgate Vampire: The Infernal World of the Undead Unearthed at London's Famous Highgate Cemetery and Environs (London: British Occult Society, 1985), 121–130.↩
 
2. Seán Manchester, The Vampire Hunter's Handbook: A Concise Vampirological Guide (London: Gothic Press, 1997), 10–11.↩</sup>

Podcast goes live!

My podcast interview with Trystan Swale is now online. Give it a listen, tell me what you think. But first, some criticism! 

As I noted in the previous entry, 'Writing about the case is one thing–especially with immediate access to materials–but speaking about it 'live', is another, especially as I'm put on the spot'–not that I'm making excuses here, but I did get a few things wrong. If readers spot any more, feel free to add them to the comments section.

The date of David Farrant's letter

David Farrant's initial letter to the Hampstead & Highgate Express was published on 6 February 1970, not 7 February.

David Farrat, 'Ghostly walks in Highgate', Hampstead & Highgate Express, 6 February 1970, p. 26.

The (revised) date of David Farrant's initial sighting

I also referred to two dates for Farrant's initial sighting of the 'vampire', mentioning Christmas Eve, 1969 (as mentioned in Farrant's letter, above) in contrast with his latter-day revision, 21 December 1969: 'The date chosen was December 21st - the eve of the winter Solstice and a traditional time (due to the maximum hours of darkness) when potent psychic forces have easy access to the 'earthly plane'.' I said the Solstice was in 'November' instead of the December date. Oops!

The Wojdyla attack

Elizabeth Wojdyla was attacked by the vampire in 1969, not 1967. I got my dates jumbled up. In 1967, Wojdyla was walking past Highgate Cemetery with her friend, Barbara. Both were 16 year old students of La Sainte Union Convent. Highgate. They passed the north gate and supposedly saw, 'this scene of graves directly in front of us. And the graves were opening up: and the people were rising. We were not conscious of walking down the lane. We were only conscious of this graveyard scene.'¹

She was subsequently plagued by nightmares of something evil trying to creep into her room. Its face was 'deathly pale'. If the implication here is that Wojdyla was being visited by the vampire, then it must've been a remarkably patient fiend, as it seemingly waited two years to get really stuck into her.

The allusion in Manchester's account holds that the attacks proper began in 1969–as dealt with in the interview. Manchester re-encountered Wojdyla by 'chance meeting', and it was her pallid, sickly state, followed by a stereotypical vampire victim diagnosis–'She appeared to be suffering a pernicious form of anaemia'²–that compelled him to re-establish their acquaintance. It was via this re-acquaintance that Manchester first came to meet her boyfriend, Keith Maclean.

A Sean Manchester blog title

While discussing Manchester's tendency to steal other people's work, I referred to Manchester's blog as 'Ask Bishop Manchester' by way of example: it's a plagiaristic hotbed. However, his blog's actually called Bishop † Seán † Manchester:  questions & answers. Concerning a specific example I mentioned–involving Manchester stealing material from a British National Party blog–see: 'Manchester vs. Google'.

---

<sup>1. Sean Manchester, "The Highgate Vampire," in The Vampire's Bedsite Companion: The Amazing World of Vampires in Fact and Fiction, ed. Peter Underwood (London: Leslie Frewin, 1975), 90.↩

2. ibid., 94.↩</sup>

My first podcast

Unseen films

On Valentine's Day at 11am, I was interviewed by Trystan Swale for Fortean radio. As you may've gathered from its mention here, we discussed the Highgate Vampire case. It's the first podcast I've ever done–hell, it's the first time I've ever been interviewed about the case.

Apart from nerves, and learning how to use Skype, my main concern with the interview was not having enough to say. Writing about the case is one thing–especially with immediate access to materials–but speaking about it 'live', is another, especially as I'm put on the spot.

Thankfully, years of reading about this thing prepared me well. It turns out my brain isn't like a sieve; it's just that I'm not used to talking about it 'out loud'. You see, my friends have an idea about what I do–some have read my blogs and are aware of the way I've been stalked on account of my criticisms–but as they're generally not interested in that sort of thing, so I keep mum about it. Most of my discussion about the case is online.

It's even weird saying 'David Farrant' and 'Sean Manchester' out loud, too, like they're hushed words discussed in the darkest recesses of the 'net.

Nonetheless, I think I handled myself well. If anything, I probably had too much to say. There are so many twists, turns and details about the case, I had to try making it as comprehensive, comprehensible and linear as possible. That's hard to do, when you've got two primary conflicting narratives; not to mention a raft of peripheral material to draw upon.

Thankfully, Trystan put me at ease–not only in the lead-up to it, but afterward, too. By that point, I felt like I needed a stiff drink. Anyway, I hope you like it. Here's a teaser. The interview will be out on 1 March. I'll post up the link when it's ready. Stay tuned!

Update (2 March 2013)

The podcast's release is now scheduled for 3 March.

Second Interview with Catherine Fearnley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interview with Catherine Fearnley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interview with Barbara Green

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BG: NO

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

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

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

Paranormal Tidbits

Came across a coupla interesting items over at Paranormalknowledge.com.

The first is "Interview with David Farrant, Paranormal Investigator" and the second's a brief overview of the Highgate Case.

The Final Interview?

Have a read of "Interview with a Vampirologist", which was conducted by David McNamee for a student-based journal named Cry Wolf, in 2002.

It is billed as "the last interview given by Bishop Manchester on the subject of vampires for a publication."

Indeed, the following question and its response highlighted the need to retreat from the spotlight:

Have any threats of injury or harm ever been made to you over information you possess or information you have attempted to make public?

I have been advised not to attempt to provide an answer to this question. There is a current criminal investigation for a pending case to be brought before the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is of the kind to which you allude.

It comes with the following purple addendum:

[That investigation resulted in an arrest, but the source of the problem still remains. Bishop Manchester ceased making media appearances in July 2002, and no longer gives interviews to anyone. His privacy is now paramount.]

Fast forward to the October 2008 issue of It's Fate.

A reproduction of the article can be found in "UK magazine features Seán Manchester", courtesy of katrinagarforth-bles1 (Katrina Garforth-Bles, National Secretary of the Vampire Research Society) on The Cross and the Stake.

Copyright Violation

Now isn't this a laugh.

I've just come across a page called "Shroudeater's Truth-Eating - Rob Brautigam's Lies!". It's a copy-and-paste job of my interview with Rob Brautigam,¹ interpolated with anonymous commentary.

Funnily enough, it is identical to an e-mail circulated by the FoBSM...

Now, there's only one problem with the content of the webpage in question: I didn't give its owner permission to reproduce the interview!

This is especially amusing because of the reasons given for the closure of my Windows Live Space page.

I also find it odd that the copyright-violating page is hidden in the website of the Holy Grail Church. I didn't realise plagiarism was part of their ministry.

¹ Which was previously covered in "The Brautigam Interview", "Another One Bites the Dust!" and "The Interview They Didn't Want You to See!".

The Interview They Didn't Want You to See!

In "Another One Bites the Dust!", I briefly discussed an interview I conducted with Rob Brautigam.

It was originally available on my website, but, unfortunately, is no longer accessible due to an allegation claiming it guilty of "defamation". This claim is pending review.

In the meantime, you can read the interview here. Make your own judgements.

To set the scene; the interview was conceived due to a perceived bias Brautigam seemed to be displaying in the Highgate Vampire Case, on his otherwise impartial Shroudeater website.

There were also quotes and actions attributed to him elsewhere, which I was interested in having him clarify.

He agreed to an interview on this matter. I sent him some questions. Here's how he responded¹ (Note: the interview is taken in verbatim from the e-mail in question, so you'll have to forgive the formatting):

1. What first drew your attention to the Highgate Vampire?

As far as I remember, it must have been around say 1972, 1973. I think the case was mentioned in a book I read, perhaps by Peter Underwood or maybe someone
else. And possibly I did read something some place else as well. A magazine ? A flyer I picked up in some London bookshop ? Forgive me, it is a very long
time ago. And I am just recovering from some serious health problems. So it is hard for me to remember undocumented events like this exactly. Later, before I
first got in touch with Mr. Manchester, I had of course read much more material about the case.

2. You met Sean Manchester, after correspondance, in 1991. What were your initial impressions of him and the claims he made in his books? Have you met
David Farrant, also?

On our first meeting Sean Manchester appeared to be quite friendly. As to his own books, I had only read his article in another Peter Underwood book (The
Vampire's Bedside Companion), and his first edition of "The Highgate Vampire" published by the British Occult Society. As to his claims, I had an open mind
and was actually hoping that there might be some truth in his story. The moment I shook hands with Mr. Manchester, his wife Sarah came jumping out of the
bushes and started to take photographs of Mr. Manchester and myself. She had to leave and we said goodbye. Mr. Manchester apologised for the fact that his
face was covered by a layer of pancake because he had an appointment with a photographer who was going to take some portraits of him in Highgate Cemetery.
At the time I happened to be a member of the "Friends of Highgate Cemetery" and I could not help wondering how this could be possible. The "Friends", who had
been given complete control over the Cemetery, definitely did not approve of any vampire stories, let alone vampire-hunters ! And I very much doubt that
either Manchester or Farrant would have been given entrance if they had shown up at the gate. But another lady, Diana Brewster, appeared who was introduced
to me as being Manchester's "secretary". The photographer appeared, who was called Byron (first name) uh... something, I can't remember. Diana asked: shall
we do it the same way as last time ? Manchester approved. We went to the back of the garden of the teahouse where there was a gap in the wall that closed it
off from Highgate Cemetery. And we entered the cemetery through there. At one point, we were confronted by an old gentleman who seemd to be taking care of
the flowers on top of a grave. He noticed our overdose of photographic equipment. He said: I am surprised that they have let you in at the gate with all that
gear. And Manchester, dressed up as a priest (but wearing a bishop's cross that - in his own words - at that moment he was "not really allowed to wear as
yet") stepped forward and said: No, no, no, these are no video cameras, it has all been taken care off, don't worry, it is alright.
And that was my first meeting with Mr. Manchester. Why did I want to meet Mr. Manchester in the first place ? He is our one and only witness to the Highgate
vampire story. First saying that "The stake was not struck" and then changing the story and stating that he has indeed destroyed the vampire and such. So I
wanted to find out if he was a trustworthy person. Well, I know that I have found my answer...
And, yes, I did meet Mr. Farrant also. And, let us not forget: I did exchange letters and shake hands with the illustrious Brother Keith as well.

3. It is clear that a rift later took place between you and Sean Manchester. What was the cause of it? As evidence of this,in correspondance dated 22 August 1990, you declared Sean Manchester's The Highgate Vampire, to be a "masterpiece of vampirography". However, you now seem to
regard it as an "amusing piece of horror fiction". What changed your view?

Change of view ??? I still think that the first edition of "The Highgate Vampire" as published by the British Occult Society (in contrast to the more recent
expurgated edition) is a great and entertaining novel. It is a cunning and interesting mix of facts and fantasy. All those bizarre photos also add to it all.
But, allow me to stress the fact that at the time I have purposely used the term "vampirography". Because I consider the story to be a piece of fiction
rather than proper vampire research. Had I thought that there was some truth in the story, I would have said: "vampirology". So I do not think that there has
been any change of view in that respect. If there has been a change of view, it is that I have come to learn Mr. Manchester a little bit better. And I have
learned it the hard way. I was publishing a fanzine called "International Vampire". First, Mr. manchester tried to take over control by offering his
"Patronage". I told him - in a diplomatic way - thanks, I don't think so. After that, although we were still supposedly on friendly terms, Mr. Manchester was
already plotting behind my back. If I would announce something that was supposed to appear in my next newsletter he would quickly send some kind of "spoiler"
article to be published by a competing vampire fanzine. This is no speculation, I do have letters that prove it. And I only wish that I can ever forget the
absolutely outrageous things that have happened after our contact ended and Mr. Manchester sent me that message stating that "Those who are not with me are
against me".
The cause of our break ? Mr. Manchester had heard that Mr. Farrant had published a book about the case. And - for obvious reasons - he did not want to order
a copy himself. So he asked a friend of mine to order a copy for him. Obviously, my friend, who at the time was also interested in the case, ordered a copy
for himself as well. And he also told me about it. So I too ordered a copy. I received a very decent letter from Mr. Farrant. Which came as a surprise.
Because Mr. Manchester had always been suggesting that Mr. Farrant was some kind of subhuman satanic monster, living in a coal cellar, feeding on raw fish.
So, after receiving Mr. Farrant's letter, I expressed my surprise to Mr. Manchester about receiving Mr. Farrant's letter. Mr. Manchester instantly went
completely beserk, accusing me of God knows what. Well, after one or two of those ridiculousletters I decided that enough is enough, and I ended my
correspondence and contact with Mr. Manchester then and there.

4. Are you a member of an organisation affiliated with either David Farrant or Sean Manchester?

No I am not. I once payed money to subscribe to one of Mr. Manchester's publications. I paid for 4 editions, but after 2 editions he suddenly sent me a
statement saying that his club had been infiltrated or some other paranoid story, and that the magazine would go underground or whatever. I was sent no
further editions, although some of my correspondents assured me that the newsletter was still being distributed to them, and even sent me copies of it. There
were no attempts whatsoever to send me back the money that I had paid for the two remaining newsletters. What's the name for that, fraud ? theft ? I am no
legal expert... Anyway, at the time, against all odds, I was still hoping that there might be some truth in Manchester's Vampire story, so I did not think
that it would serve my purpose to turn this into an issue and end our contact there.

5. Sean Manchester publicly cites Reggie Naus, a Dutch correspondent of his, with the claim that you appeared on a television show proclaiming that a
vampire can only "drink fresh blood from virgins". Is this quote accurate?

Never mind the pathetic Naus person, who once wrote me an extremely slimey letter. No, no, no. His report on that television appearance is a complete
travesty of the facts. They first asked me a couple of rather stupid and superficial questions and that was it as far as my presence was concerned, and then
they interviewed the 2 British so-called "vampires". Not the other way around, as Mr. Naus has it. The guy who hosted this rather sensationalistic talkshow
did indeed mention something about virgins and their blood. Me, I most certainly did not. Hey, if you doubt my words, please have a look at my website. My
only interest is in historical cases of vampirism. Serious stuff. Not vampire fiction. I leave that kind of thing to Mr. Manchester and his not so merry band
of men. I do have the whole silly show on tape somewhere. So in case there are any doubts...

6. Your review for David Farrant's Beyond the Highgate Vampire on your Shroudeater website is surprisingly glowing. Do you uphold the claims Farrant makes
in that book, to be an accurate version of events - supernatural or otherwise?

Glowing ? I don't know about that. So what is the surprise ??? After falling out with Mr. Manchester, the few meetings that I have had with Mr. Farrant were
like a breath of fresh air. Unlike Mr. Manchester, Mr. Farrant seemed very open and willing to answer every question that I had. His book too, seemed like a
much more plausible account of the happenings. A little bit dull, perhaps. Less sensational. But an awful lot more credible than Mr. Manchester's exciting
fairytale version. For the record, as I have now completely lost my interest in the Highgate Hoax, I have not been in touch with Mr. Farrant for years and
years. Last rumor that I have heard is that he might be under "new management" in a matter of speaking. But if his story has changed, I am unaware of it.
All I can say is that Mr. Farrant has always behaved as a gentleman to me. While we knew each other. And after we knew each other. Unlike some.

7. Do you believe that any paranormal phenomena - be it vampiric or otherwise - took place at Highgate Cemetery? If so, what evidence convinces you of
this possibility?

On the one hand, I do know from my own experience that paranormal (I hate that word !) phenomena appear to exist. Having said that, I willingly admit that I
am a convinced skeptic and sometimes unwilling to admit the things presented to me by my own senses. I have gone through loads of material about the Highgate
case. I have read the old newspaper articles, the complete versions (not the selected highlites by Mr. Manchester), I have talked to others who were there at
the time, I have read police reports, and other rather interesting material. And I can not exclude the possibility that there may have been something unusual
going on. But a vampire ? A real vampire corpse that has been destroyed by Mr. Manchester ? Come on, get real !

8. What is your advice for people who wish to delve into the Highgate Vampire Case?

Please think twice (maybe more than that) before you decide to get in touch with Mr. Manchester and his associates. They are ok for as long as they think
that they can somehow use you for their purposes. But the moment they decide that you are not on their side, may the Good Lord help you. If you do not
believe me, there is a very easy way to find out. In that case, I do wish you the very best of luck. Believe me, you are going to need it !

¹ Source: Rob Brautigam. "RE: Beyond the Highgate Vampire Review". Thursday, 24 April 2008 9:57:46 PM. Reprinted with permission of the author.

Another One Bites the Dust!

Looks like my interview with Rob Brautigam ruffled some feathers.

I signed into my e-mail account today and was greeted by this wonderful message in my inbox:

Dear FreeWebs User,

On [May 12, 2008], Freewebs received written notification that your website contained allegedly defamatory content.

http://www.freewebs.com/dawwih/robbrautigam.htm

After reviewing your site, Freewebs determined that the content was in fact defamatory or otherwise objectionable. Accordingly, pursuant to the Freewebs Terms of Service, Freewebs has suspended your website pending the removal of this content.

If you believe that the website was suspended mistakenly, and wish to have the content restored, please provide us with the following:

1. your name, address, phone number, and written or electronic signature;
2. identification of the material that was removed and its location before removal; and
3. a statement explaining under penalty of perjury that the material was removed mistakenly.

Upon receipt, Freewebs will review your explanation and, in its sole discretion, will determine whether to restore the website.

Best Regards,
FreeWebs¹

It seems that someone wasn't just content with having my Windows Live Spaces blog shut down, but wanted to go for my website too.

And I've got a pretty good idea who it was.

You see, on Wednesday, 14 May 2008 3:06 AM, I received an e-mail subjected, "Shroudeater Lies! - Rob Brautigam's False Allegations" from a mysterious source named "Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester". It was a copy-and-pasted version of my interview, with their "INTERPOLATED COMMENTS IN RED".

Coincidence?

Either way, the anonymous sender has since been added to my Block List.

Anyhoo, I've written back to FreeWebs, in the hope that they'd recognise the concepts of "right of reply" and "free speech":

Good afternoon FreeWebs,

I'm writing in regards to your claim that my website is guilty of defamation.

I strongly contest this claim.

Firstly, the website you cite as being in violation is actually an interview with a public figure - a Dutch vampirologist named Rob Brautigam - who is, in turn, discussing another public figure - a famous English vampirologist named Sean Manchester.

The claims Brautigam makes is in regards to perceived fraud on the part of Manchester...who claims to be a vampire hunter. Yes, an actual vampire hunter. The vampire hunter's website can be accessed here: http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/Vampire%20Research%20Society.htm

Secondly, the interview was conducted as a response to public claims made by Manchester against Brautigam! (You'll note that the interview in question, cites these claims).

I would like to know what grounds you have, in regards for suspending my site, to claim that Brautigam calling an alleged vampire hunter a fake is grounds for "defamation".

What part of Manchester's character did the man assault?

Are you also validating that one position of a public disagreement is allowed to perpetuate allegations against one party...but that the other may not reply with their version of the story?

Here's the proof: http://ephesians6v12.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/Brautigam.htm

It looks like your service has been fooled in a tactical manner, by biased parties who refuse to allow criticism on their part.

In fact, I'd be almost certain that the person who reported my website for perceived "defamation" did not even sign as the person being "defamed", i.e., Sean Manchester!

If you can specifically cite which portions of my interview were "defaming", I will happily address them.²

I eagerly await their response.

¹ FreeWebs Tech Support. "Site suspended due to defamation [dawwih]". Thursday, 15 May 2008 11:42:31 PM.

² Did a Wampyr Walk in Highgate Manager. "RE: Site suspended due to defamation [dawwih]". Friday, 16 May 2008 12:56:01 PM.

The Brautigam Interview

I've finally added some decent content to the DAWWIH website.

Rob Brautigam - webmaster of the excellent vampire resource site, Shroudeater - served as my first interview subject on the Highgate Vampire Case.

I corresponded with him in regards to a perceived bias found in his review for David Farrant's Beyond the Highgate Vampire: A True Case of Supernatural Occurrences and "Vampirism" That Centred Around London's Highgate Cemetery (3rd rev. ed., 1997) and he agreed to answer a series of questions I put to him. His responses were rather frank and candid, and you can read them here.