Cat's Outta the Bag

David continues his shameless deception and hucksterism. Also, the recent stalking escapades he's condoned, have inspired a new blurb for this blog.

Yes, the great proponent of free speech has been (unsurprisingly) selective in publishing my comments on his blog. My response to one of his latest deceptive tirades is still "awaiting moderation."


Meanwhile, he's allowed comments by regular commentator, "John Baldry's Cat" (JBC) concerning purchasing his latest book. Yes, despite saying "I do not use this Blog to advertise my books". Whatevs! As a result, JBC was left without context for what I actually wrote, instead relying on David's rhetoric.


I followed it up with a comment that David actually allowed, amazingly enough (maybe because of the coverage I've been giving the matter on my blog?), in which I set JBC straight. Yet, he still managed to censor it.


The missing name? Manchester. David frequently alludes to him, but clearly doesn't like using his actual name. So much for "naming names" and backing up his claims. Funnily enough, the Manchester crew likes hiding David's name on occasion, too. Note the reference to "The Devil's Fool" in this thread on The Cross and the Stake message board is actually Farrant. Yet another similarity of the opposing sides.

Now, back to the comments. Next up, Dave tries to dissuade JBC ordering a copy of the book on my behalf, encouraging me to buy my own copy. Yes, yet another sales pitch. He also discusses my lack of awareness of the book's contents:


There's a pretty obvious reason why I don't know what's in the book. It'll become readily apparent. But first up, JBC's response:


Well, I'm gonna take his word on that one. He might be pesky, but I don't think he's that nutty. So it was a longshot. But it still leaves open the mystery of who my stalker was. Notice how conveniently that was brushed aside by Dave? Typical. Anyway, now it's time to reveal why my knowledge of the book is somewhat limited. Strap yourselves in, folks!


Yes, amazingly enough, in all the time Dave's been sales-pitching, he's refused to discuss what the damn thing's about! Do you buy books online without knowing anything about their contents? As I've pointed out before, the damn thing doesn't even have a product description on Amazon. Do authors usually spend this much time dodging questions concerning basic information covered in their book? Worst. Salesman. Ever.

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

Lastly, I come to this blog's new blurb. In light of all the stalkyness that's been going on, I've been concerned that my readers might find themselves exposed to it, considering the nuttiness of the stalker in question. So, I've composed a new blurb for this blog, which'll hopefully give readers (the sane ones) a heads-up on what they might be getting into:


Felt like I needed something a bit more direct than my "Public Service Announcement". If you're a newbie, or never really paid attention, and you wanna see what the old blurb said, then you'll find it here.

Kitty Put to Sleep

Jeez, another Highgate-related blog's going down. This time, John Baldry Cat's The Cat's Miaow is kicking the bucket. Here's its latest post:

Hard hit by the Manchester-Farrant Feud recession, it's inevitable that some blogs have downsized or closed their doors. After more than 150 rollicking posts, we shall follow suit. I don't have to tell you that our rapid rise in advert sales put us over the top for a time. Fat with profits from sponsor deals, we bought a shiny new Jaguar XJ, leased a posh Hyde Park mansion, and purchased Tiffany bracelets for each of our mistresses. And then, the bubble burst. Solicitors from Bournemouth arrived at our door bearing claims of intellectual property theft. Sponsors were harassed. Cash flow dwindled, then ceased. Well, no sense miaowing over spilt milk, eh? Some say The Cat's Miaow represents a rich repository of satire, artwork, and, more importantly -- actual dialogue between the two camps -- that some Feud scholars would give their right arm to study. So the usual exhortations apply: archive any material you wish to save before it eventually, over time, disappears. But what won't disappear is our marvelous cast of humourous characters: David, Bonky, Puddin', Barbara, Gareth, Hoggy, Craig...and of course, the Highgate Vampire. I have a funny feeling you'll be seeing them all again.

Nice to get a mention, there!

Somewhat bittersweet, I guess. Cat had some good stuff on there. Still, I'm sure he'll be making the usual snide remarks on David's blog and dropping an occasional forum post elsewhere.

All the best with your future endeavors, Cat!

David's Garden Party

For the record, David did publish the comment I mentioned in "Ouroboros".

This lead to JBC replying and David stepping in, before I added another comment:

Posting on David's blog is free. JBC was just taking the piss out of my belief that David perpetuates the feud, partly, for financial gain. Funnily enough, JBC has echoed a similar sentiment:

Given the subsequent book sales by the two participants, I'd say it was a financial manifestation.

As I've pointed out, despite David's apparent "dislike" in talking about the Highgate Vampire Case, he has no problem giving TV interviews and conducting talks on it.

Thus, JBC's allusion to Ricky Nelson's song, are obviously much more applicable to his old chum, Dave. Here's some lyrics:

I went to a garden party
To reminisce with my old friends
A chance to share old memories
And play our songs again
When I got to the garden party
They all knew my name
No one recognized me
I didn't look the same

Kinda tragic, really. Especially after forty years.

Ouroboros

Let's just make it clear here: David doesn't like talking about vampires or the Highgate Case:

As to your quip . . . “Without the Highgate vampire case they wouldn’t be talking here at all”, etc, I rather think that relates more to yourself Anthony! You seem unable to talk about little else; notwithstanding its 40-year old history! It is YOURSELF who keeps incessantly referring to this case Anthony – almost like you’ve got some sort of obsession with it!

I am really not interested in that particular case anymore, Anthony, It is DEAD (excuse the pun!) there are far more many genuine cases of psychic phenomena to be investigated apart from that one!

Ok? You got that?

See, that might be believable (hint: it's not) if David didn't go ahead and mention stuff like this:

Had a call earlier from a certain TV company again. Doing another interview on the Highgate case very soon. Will give more details a little later, although you’ll probably see it anyway.

So much for letting its "40-year old history" go to rest.

It's also been nice to see JBC groveling to David over some misunderstanding involving lyrics in a blog entry's comments:


After I rumbled his little attempt at collusion, I added my own contribution. Whether or not it'll be published is another story:

I wonder what brand of cat food Dave feeds him? Does he sleep, curled up at the end of his bed or does he have his own basket?

Hope he's got a scratching post, at least. Although, that's probably what his blog's for.

Sheer Inanity

You would obviously have noticed that I've been letting my blog languish for a while.

The reason for this is quite simple: the sheer tedium and pettiness evinced from both sides of the Highgate Case can get a bit overwhelming.

So, I took an extended break from it.

That's not to say I've been completely dormant. After all, I've been making regular contributions to my other blog.

At this point, there's not much left to pursue, vampirologically, with this Case. The feuding will continue between these two "gentlemen" and their associates for their duration, from the looks of it.

It's still good to see that JBC is interested in some form of reconciliation (or a damn cease fire) from the two main parties, as indicated in his "Fancy a Pint?" entry.

The proposition held that David and "Demonologist" (Dennis Crawford) were to have a meeting at Highgate's Woodman Pub.

Did this meeting come to pass?

Nooooo, of course not.

Yet again, it was stymied by the usual flimsy excuses.

Dennis expected David to rock up to the pub within a 13 hour duration. When he didn't, he canceled the meet.

From there, it lapsed into an argument about the pub's opening times and Arminius hinted that he wasn't a Christian.

Probably so his continuous attacks wouldn't reveal hypocrisy.

And so, the battle rages on.

Who Turned It Up First?

Dennis ("Demonologist"), in his usual state of superficial pedantry, takes issue with me saying that The Cat's Miaow "turned up" Gerald Isaaman's review of Steve Roud's London Lore: The Legends and Traditions of the World’s Most Vibrant City (2009):

It was "turned up" on the Vampire Research Society's blog long before it did on "Baldry Cat's" excuse of a blog to fuel Farrant's vendetta against Seán Manchester.

He then goes on to quote chunks from an entry (which I had to look up myself, as Dennis was too lazy to provide it) on his Vampire Research Society blog.

There are, however, primary differences between John Baldry Cat's use of the article, and Dennis'.

The most obvious one, for starters, is that Dennis didn't link to the review he quotes chunks from. John Baldry's Cat did.

Dennis also doesn't cite the reviewer's name, merely referring to him as "The person who was editor of the Hampstead & Highgate Express in those far off distant days". John Baldry's Cat actually cites his name, i.e., Gerald Isaaman.

But most tellingly, Dennis omits Isaaman's negative criticisms of the Highgate Vampire Case. John Baldry's Cat, however, prints them in all their glory.

Dennis boils down Isaaman's comments to his description of Manchester's appearance ("Manchester arrived at the office wearing a black cloak lined with scarlet silk and carrying a cane"), to which Dennis adds: "He forgot to mention the top hat and tails that were included with the opera cloak and cane."

Dennis also provides Isaaman's overview of the Highgate Vampire story, but not Isaaman admitting he found it to be "a real hoot, and we played the story for laughs."

So, sure Dennis, quotes from Isaaman's review turned up in your blog prior to John Baldry's Cat's mention. But, at least John Baldry's Cat had the temerity to link and cite the damn thing rather than omit Isaaman's criticisms and his name!

Thus, John Baldry's Cat's coverage of the review was far more substantial and worthwhile than Dennis' own piddling extracts.

Making Fun of Hunchbacks

John Baldry's Cat discusses one of the latest anti-Farrant blogs issued from the Vampire Research Society.

It's called The Hunchback of Muswell Hill and was created by Arminius Vámbéry, who obviously has no sensitivity towards people who suffer from kyphosis.

This, from a guy who bills himself as

a trained and seasoned researcher of the arcane, the paranormal, and especially those dark areas of humanity where few dare to venture, namely vampirism and demonolatry.

A Real Hoot Indeed

John Baldry's Cat turned up a rather interesting book review from the Camden New Journal.

Steve Roud's London Lore: The Legends and Traditions of the World’s Most Vibrant City (2009) is the subject. The reviewer is Gerald Isaaman, who, as it happens, was the editor of the Ham & High when the Highgate Vampire first hit the Press.

He candidly admits the Case was "a real hoot, and we played the story for laughs."

This extract from the review is also quite telling:

Then, as Mr Roud recounts: "The rapid escalation of media coverage, from local press to national press to national television, turned a small local event into a major flap. It was the TV coverage that did the real damage, by airing reports with a spurious 'let the viewer decide' angle, and giving some very silly ideas a national platform."
So it was that publicity provided the oxygen to keep alive a fictional story of a vampire terrorising Highgate, and one that exists today, long after after so-called expert scientific investigations, books galore and outrageous new explanations have, literally, gone round the world.

They Can't Bloody Help Themselves

Despite the seeming headway made during the course of the "Tea for Two" saga on The Cat's Miaow, it's no surprise that Team Farrant and Team Manchester have been at each other's throats. Again.

This time, their ire was redirected to this thread on Andrew Gough's Arcadia Discussion Zone.

John Baldry's Cat gave it some coverage here and here.

Thus, it's rather timely that Manchester has gone and made himself another blog: Path of Reconciliation.

See if you can guess who the warped, Photoshopped chap in "Hate (Emily Dickinson)" and "Resentment (Joseph Wardy)" happens to be.

Unpublished Comments Published!

It's been a while since I've signed into this thing, but after all the garbage that piled up, I'm sure you can't blame me.

I did notice 6 unpublished comments to my blog. I've tried to have them published, but Blogger isn't letting me for some reason. Thank goodness for comment notifications.

The comments will be reproduced within this post instead.

Here's Trystan's comment to "Another David Speaks" (Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 7:50 PM):

Hi Anthony - Trystan from Righteous Indignation Podcast here (www.ripodcast.co.uk).

I spent Saturday at an event related to ghosts, ghouls and all things strange. It just so happened that David Carter-Green was present and I ended up having a good chat with him about the whole Highgate thing. He came across as a very articulate and pleasant man who treated the situation with a good sense of humour.

In regard to being friends or followers of anyone on Facebook as being some badge of allegiance I would reconsider. I am Facebook friends with David Farrant and also, until recently, with Sean Manchester. I only removed the latter after he threatened to get our podcast website closed down.

Next up, John Baldry's Cat's comment to "I'm Checking In" (Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 6:06 AM):

I think David's response to the bishop's "offer" was a joke, i.e. "Sure, I'll with meet you, if your internet alter ego is there too." Probably safe to say he never intended to show up on the man's doorstep and risk it being interpreted to authorities as harassment. I don't know the actual details, but it seems Sean and David have a past history of legal court proceedings with charges and counter changes going back several years that featured accusations of "harassment" from both sides.

Now, Demonologist with this for "Strange Goings-On at Facebook" (Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:27 PM):

It should be known that Seán Manchester has cut all ties with David Carter-Green who was summarily expelled from groups associated with Seán Manchester which Carter-Green had joined.

The reason for the expulsion is an increasing number of worrying comments posted by Carter-Green on inappropriate groups. Concern arose solely due to the fact that Carter-Green has always portrayed himself as a devout Christian who belongs to the Orthodox Church. The impression being given to Seán Manchester was at odds with the activity and behaviour Carter-Green was displaying on Facebook and elsewhere.

A comment posted by Carter-Green on a bizarre Facebook group called "David Carter-Green is Totty" reads:

"Have you tried my new line in aftershave, DCG's 'Stench of Death'? It combines the distinctive yet subtle smell of the mortuary, with just a hint of freshly dug grave. It's proved very popular with heavy metal rock fans."

What Carter-Green is now claiming about his non-endorsement of Seán Manchester's views on vampires contradicts what he has written on paranormal websites he has joined that are independent of the Vampire Research Society and Seán Manchester.

It should be made absolutely clear that Carter-Green made all the approaches to Seán Manchester and groups associated with the latter. How he ever became an admin on one or two of them is a mystery and clearly a mistake now rectified.

Carter-Green has shown erratic behaviour in the past where he criticised Seán Manchester's account of the Highgate Vampire case, and then, some time later, endorsed it on paranormal websites.

Mounting anomalies and instability where David Carter-Green is concerned made his expulsion inevitable. He is therefore no longer the concern of anyone associated with Seán Manchester.

His revised comment appeared on the same blog post (Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:33 PM):

Seán Manchester has cut all ties with David Carter-Green who was summarily expelled from groups associated with Seán Manchester which Carter-Green had joined.

The reason for the expulsion was an increasing number of worrying comments posted by Carter-Green on inappropriate groups. Concern arose solely due to the fact that Carter-Green has always portrayed himself as a devout Christian who belongs to the Orthodox Church. The impression being given to Seán Manchester was at odds with the activity and behaviour Carter-Green has been recently displaying on Facebook and elsewhere.

A comment posted by Carter-Green on a bizarre Facebook group called "David Carter-Green is Totty" reads:

"Have you tried my new line in aftershave, DCG's 'Stench of Death'? It combines the distinctive yet subtle smell of the mortuary, with just a hint of freshly dug grave. It's proved very popular with heavy metal rock fans."

What Carter-Green is now claiming about his non-endorsement of Seán Manchester's views on vampires contradicts what he has written on paranormal websites he has joined that are independent of the Vampire Research Society and Seán Manchester.

It should be made absolutely clear that Carter-Green made all the approaches to Seán Manchester and groups associated with the latter. How he ever became an admin on one or two of them is a mystery and clearly a mistake now rectified.

Carter-Green has show erratic behaviour in the past where he criticised Seán Manchester's account of the Highgate Vampire case, and then, some time later, endorsed it on paranormal websites.

Mounting anomalies and instability where David Carter-Green is concerned made his expulsion inevitable. He is therefore no longer the concern of anyone associated with Seán Manchester.

For some reason, he sought to post another slightly revised version on the same blog entry (Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 8:50 PM):

Ironically, Seán Manchester had already cut all ties with David Carter-Green who was summarily expelled from groups associated with Seán Manchester which Carter-Green had joined.

The reason for the expulsion is an increasing number of worrying comments posted by Carter-Green on inappropriate groups. Concern arose solely due to the fact that Carter-Green has always portrayed himself as a devout Christian who belongs to the Orthodox Church. The impression being given to Seán Manchester is at odds with the activity and behaviour Carter-Green has been displaying on Facebook and elsewhere.

A comment posted by Carter-Green on a bizarre Facebook group called "David Carter-Green is Totty" reads:

"Have you tried my new line in aftershave, DCG's 'Stench of Death'? It combines the distinctive yet subtle smell of the mortuary, with just a hint of freshly dug grave. It's proved very popular with heavy metal rock fans."

What Carter-Green is now claiming about his non-endorsement of Seán Manchester's views on vampires contradicts what he has written on paranormal websites he has joined that are independent of the Vampire Research Society and Seán Manchester.

It should be made absolutely clear that Carter-Green made all the approaches to Seán Manchester and groups associated with the latter. How he ever became an admin on one or two of them is a mystery and clearly a mistake now rectified.

Carter-Green has show erratic behaviour in the past where he criticised Seán Manchester's account of the Highgate Vampire case, and then, some time later, endorsed it on paranormal websites.

Mounting anomalies and instability where David Carter-Green is concerned made his expulsion inevitable. He is therefore no longer the concern of anyone associated with Seán Manchester.

And lastly, David Carter-Green posted this to "Another David Speaks" (Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 4:55 AM):

Hello again
Yes I see I am still listed as one of Sean Manchester's 'followers' on his website. I did try and delete my name from it but was unable to!
David Carter-Green

Something to Lighten the Mood

Have a read of (ahem) Grigory Alekseev's psychoanalysis of commentators on JBC's blog.

My favorite bit? This:

"At least i have the balls to post using my real name u hypocritical bell end." - say Mr. Craigbond

Mr. Craigbond refers to shape of human penis; with relation to curvilenear of bell. Not wholesome. Suggest company of woman or small bird.

I'm Checking In

Right, now it's time to check up on the state of the proposed Great Highgate Tea Party, which was last covered here.

After my last comment on JBC's blog, he wrote this:

You know, I just don't understand this "he who makes the first offer is entitled to have all of his conditions accepted" rubbish, Anthony.

I mean, historically speaking, we don't even know if the Bishop's recent offer of a meeting was even the first. What if 3 years ago Farrant proposed a meeting in Scotland suggesting that they both wear pink kilts and lipstick. What then? Wouldn't the Bishop be bound to agree to it? And if he didn't, or wanted to change the locale to England and lose the costumes, would he be "putting up roadblocks?"

This is a reference to Manchester's invitation to David, to pop by for a chat. David requested that Dennis Crawford also be present, which Manchester agreed to ask. Manchester also requested that no media be present and the event kept quiet. He made the public offer via his blog.

After David's request were met...he decided to switch things around. He went on to insist that Manchester contact him or post a comment on his blog.

JBC thinks Manchester's original terms are too disagreeable. For some reason.

This was after I was pointing out that David was putting up obvious tit-for-tat roadblocks to prevent the meeting going ahead. You know, a step towards ending this bloody feud.

That didn't surprise me in the least. After all, the feud is something that feeds the other party. What else would they have to write about after nearly 30 years?

Other than that, the feud's been relatively quiet of late, as Lone Stranger points out.

There've also been some attempts to make the feud more...lucrative.

The person behind this is a dodgy chap named "Cecil Lamont-Dwiggins" (an obvious pseudonym), who wrote on the JREF Forum under the username "CLD". He engaged me in correspondence, asking for my views on the Highgate Vampire Case and then proceeded to write an article in which he said that I was Sean Manchester himself.

He also created a comic which portrayed me as a Manchester supporter because I had the gall to question David on his claims.

So, in this light, it shouldn't surprise you that the comic was published by the British Psychic & Occult Society - which just so happens to be David Farrant's publishing firm.

Talk about being in cahoots.

Popping in to Check-Up on Things

It's been a little while since I last posted here.

Why? Well, quite frankly, couldn't be arsed with it. All seemed quiet for a bit, what with the feud simmering down to offers of a tea party or private phone conversation.

The question is, has any progress been made? Let's have a look.

Now, to re-cap, the last word I had on the feud was this:

Yeah, but this is the thing, Anon...it quite obviously works both ways.

Like I said: claims and counter-claims and yadda yadda yadda.

They both publish "incriminating" things about the other.

Thus, "forgiveness" would be a bit too early for the time being, which is why I view this as more of a truce.

What happened since then?

• Carol started flapping her gums and hurling abuse at all and sundry.
• Another (obvious) VRS "rep" popped on the scene, posting as "Anonymous".
• Barbara was still yammering away with her Greenisms.
• There were disputes over David's contact with Katrina Garforth-Bles and Dennis Crawford.
• JBC had to delete several comments by Craig that revealed her real name.

Sigh. Such silly pettiness.

But a useful distraction from the issue at hand, too. Which means, of course, that I've gotta wade in again.

Here's my say on the matter:

I leave you kids alone for a little while and this is what I come back to! Ha!

To be honest, I'm not surprised it's slipped back into this morass of garbage.

Afterall, it's much more productive, than, say, Dave or Manchester actually bloody contacting each other!

Dave, I know you're not keen on making the move to contact Manchester, which is why you're putting up all these silly roadblocks. After all, you've reneged on the deal several times now.

Trying to twist his public offer (which I clearly notified you about) into your own, proves that.

Carol, you're not helping in the slightest. If anything, you're extremely detrimental to the VRS "cause". Whatever that might be.

"Anonymous", I presume you're Dennis as you got rumbled when you were posting here via your Blogger account. Grow up.

Now let's get this bloody tea party back on the road.

Let the party begin!

Glimmer of Hope Still Remains

In the time since my previous post, the negotiations have been somewhat stalled.

Why?

Well, JBC (and others) take umbrage at my pointing out that Manchester made the initial invite. Apparently, certain qualifiers for the meet, were not in David's favour. Or, as JBC says:

Oh I disagree.

"Travel to MY house, post on MY blog, contact ME first" offered Manchester.

I don't see why these terms must be set in stone and unchangeable. Why should David not be allowed to renegotiate terms more favourable to himself?

Lone Stranger also argues for a meeting on neutral ground:

I agree with JBC, too.

Think of it like a Godfather movie, AH. The heads of two "Families" meet at a neutral location. T. Soprano doesn't meet with the Lupertazzis on Lupertazzis' turf and vise versa.

Under Bonky's terms, he is holding all the cards and David must compromise. That's not fair. Bonky will have to compromise too, for the meeting to be fair and equal for both parties. That's how diplomacy works.

However, as I pointed out:

What's been forgotten here, is that Manchester sent the invite first. That is, invited him over.

David agreed...so long as Dennis was present. Manchester said he'd ask Dennis along.

Then, David said he wanted Manchester to admit that he was actually "Demonologist".

Now, he wants Manchester to contact him, as well.

And you guys are saying that Manchester's holding all the cards?

Come on.

That said, there's no issue with meeting on a neutral ground. Or, the "Godfather" situation, as JBC puts it.

No quarrel there.

However, that means that a private place would need to be decided. I'm not exactly hugely familiar with the local Highgate area.

So, that leaves another option...

David, have you considered inviting Manchester over to your joint?

I'm not gonna be surprised if the suggestion doesn't take. After all, this is turning into the back and forth game I feared it would.

My attempts at diplomacy are somewhat hampered by the Bishop's comment on his blog:

No further comments on this matter will be accepted from anyone other than the individual whom it concerns.

And seeing as David is quite transparently reluctant to do that, it looks like we could be headed for a stalemate, thus, drawing out the feud...yet again.

Flies at the Picnic

As of this writing, I'm still awaiting the Bishop's reply on what pseudonyms he uses online.

I previously asked the Bishop, "Do you use any other usernames online? If so, what are they?"

He responded thusly, in "From DNA to Demons":

Not so as to appear anonymous. My identity would always be clear even if I employ a title which does not include my name in it. One username, for example, is "Apostle of Jesus Christ."

This, however, doesn't detail how many, or what variety he uses.

Carol Dietzler aka SteadfastCarol, someone I previously defended when she was getting abused on The Cross and the Stake forum, is one of the Bishop's supporters. She chose to butt in with one of her usual inane rants, claiming that I know

very well what pseudo-names go with who; so then, WHY does he ask questions that he already has answers for, or, that he has REPEATEDLY ASKED, or, he uses such repetitive discourse to "needle" and to cause dissension and strife, all very clear.

She also requests that the Bishop not answer my query about his other usernames:

Dear Bishop, you disservice yourself to answer these redundant lame questions and the answers are related above AGAIN for the umpteenth time; its all about playing cat and mouse with you, like the bratty teen girls play on boys their own age.

What Carol is obviously oblivious to, is that the query on usernames is a response to David's request that the Bishop reveal whether or not he is "Demonologist" aka "Vampirologist". It is part of the process in making this meeting between the two, happen.

So, here's what I wrote back:

Carol,

You seriously need to get a grip on yourself.

The Bishop has not previously been explicit about which other usernames he has.

The question was also specifically asked in order to help facilitate a meeting between the Bishop and Farrant, as part of a process of healing.

A far more Christian notion than your hate-filled, all-over-the-shop rants.

JBC is obviously keen for this meeting to occur, as well, as his usual acerbic tone has been somewhat what tempered and even goes out of his way to suggest other possibilities regarding the Bishop's online pseudonyms:

David, isn't it "possible" that 'Dennis Crawford" is Brother Keith [Keith Maclean -ed.]...Tony Hill...Mrs. Bonkers [Sarah Manchester -ed.], etc. ?

Someone who knows the bishop quite well could give the appearance of being him online. For example, the The Yorkshire Pudding [Catherine Fearnley -ed.] was once very actively posting in your behalf.

Just saying, perhaps it's possible he uses aliases, but not all of them could be himself?

David, however, isn't one to be moved so easily:

That's a fair point, Cat

All I can say is, there is absolutely no doubt that the person calling themselves 'Dennis Crawford' is really the person really known here = and widely elsewhere - as 'Bonky.

There is absolutely no doubt about it.

However, as I pointed out in my response to him:

David,

The Bishop agreed to ask Dennis to come along too.

Thus, if Dennis does rock up, it renders the whole alias thing null and void, as the gist of it is, that you don't think Dennis is a real person.

Here's hoping.

Stumbling Block?

The tea party's getting warmer.

As John Baldry's Cat (JBC) notes in his blog entry, "Tea for Two":

Well, I never imagined I'd be paying a compliment to that insufferable know-it-all, Cousin Hoggy, but here I go. The ambitious young lad from down under has managed to get Bishop Bonkers himself to agree to take tea with arch-rival David Farrant.

I should point out, that the invite was already open. I only sought to clarify things.

But, we've hit a slight snag.

David, despite his previous stipulation (which was agreed to), is now insisting that the Bishop must "confess that he alone is the sole voice behind all these alias's." That is, "Demonologist", "Vampirologist", etc.

Unfortunately, these happen to be aliases of Dennis Crawford, the International Secretary of the Vampire Research Society.

David, however, also believes that "Dennis Crawford" is an alias for the Bishop himself.

Or, as David explains it:

So, as 'Dennis Crawford'is using Bonk's computer day in and day out (sometimes in te early hours) I'd like to see how the 'bonky one' can explain that!?

I've decided to take the initiative, once again, and have posted the following comment on the Bishop's blog:

Dear Bishop,

In your response to my list of questions in "From DNA to Demons", you mentioned that you use the occasional pseudonym online.

Would you mind being more explicit and say what usernames these are?

For example, do you use the usernames "Vampirologist" and/or "Demonologist"?

I await his reply on the matter.

I've also let David know that I posted said comment on the Bishop's blog.

The main point of contention is over whether or not Dennis exists. Now, considering that the Bishop said he'd extend and invite to him, as well, that should clear the matter up, regardless.

One Step Closer

Not long after my previous post, the Bishop responded via his blog entry, "Public Request for Private Meeting".

After taking a dig at my display picture (which he also reproduces in his post, for some reason)...

It seems not inappropriate, as in the northern hemisphere we move into the darkness which accompanies an autumnal equinox, to have someone hidden behind a demonic mask raising this query about a man convicted of crimes...

...which, for the record, is actually a vampire mask, the Bishop concedes that he's willing to meet Farrant. He said that on a previous occasion, David wanted journalists to be present, something Manchester objected to.

He's also agreed to ask Dennis (who uses the pseudonyms "Demonologist" and "Vampirologist" interchangeably) to come along, as per Farrant's request (see here and here):


The Bishop is "reasonably confident" that Dennis Crawford, the International Secretary of Manchester's Vampire Research Society, will agree to accompany them.

Great!

I've posted the news to David, via The Cat's Miaow. I eagerly await his response.

Laying Down the Gauntlet

Could a meeting between Manchester and Farrant become an actual reality? There have been rumblings of a potential meet between the two over at The Cat's Miaow, based on comments made to the "Farrant Rates Women of the World" post. In his September 23, 2009 12:30 AM comment, David writes:

I might consider it if the 'bonky one' would agree to have Dennis, "Demonologist" and "vampirologist" all there at the same time.

Incidentally, "Demonologist" and "Vampirologist" are the same person: Dennis Crawford, International Secretary of the Vampire Research Society.

I've also left a comment (22 September 2009 22:22) on Manchester's blog saying:

Can the hatchet finally be buried? Are they able to maintain some level of decorum and civility?

Let's hope it goes ahead!

Update on the Varma Correspondence

I previously wrote about a potential bombshell concerning Devendra P. Varma and his alleged correspondence with David Farrant.

I asked David - several times - to reproduce this correspondence. He finally replied with this:

For you Overseer; if this message finds its way through the wreckage!

Overseer, its not quite as easy as that. All the Varma stuff is on my older computer and my scanner's not working for that at the moment. Means I have to find it then transfer it all over manually by disc. These things take time, and I do not have much spare at the moment.

Hmm. It's funny, because a lot of his time, at the moment, seems to be taken up commenting on John Baldry's Cat's "Farrant Rates Women of the World" post, about his pet subject, "Bonky"!

He also added:

In the meantime why don't you email Jeanne Youngson yourself at her Vampire Empire? Sure she would love to help. Say I suggested it if you want.

Here was my response:

Now, David. Ok, I'll buy your line about the Varma stuff. But keep in mind, you make a serious accusation about a guy who's been dead for 15 years.

Thus, you should at least have the courtesy of validating your claim.

In turn, I'll contact Youngson about this Manchester and Varma stuff.

But do keep up your end of the bargain.

And, while we're at it, why don't you post up some scans (not transcripts) of this alleged Manchester-you correspondence.

True to my word, I have contacted her about it. I eagerly await her response, as much as I await David's reproduction of said correspondence.

Staking Himself in the Foot?

In a recent comment to John Baldry Cat's "Farrant Rates the Women of the World", David discusses some of the earliest writings on the Highgate Vampire:

For everybody’s information the first major book that appeared on the Highgate Vampire case was by Basil Copper in 1973 under the title “The Vampire in Legend, Fact and Literature” by Robert Hale in London in hardback. This book was republished by “Corgi” in paperback in1975 under the title “The Vampire in Legend, Fact and Art [ISBN 0 552 09802 7].

This book contained a long chapter on myself and our investigation into the Highgate ‘vampire’ case, although Bonky was not even mentioned (sorry!).

David also writes:

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

Bonky had not got around inventing his vampire fiction at this time and other people who were making all sorts of claims about that case were really regarded as ‘non-entities’.

As it happens, I own a copy of Basil Copper's The Vampire: In Legend, Fact and Art (London: Corgi Books, 1975).

The chapter that discusses the Highgate Vampire is called "Nights in Highgate Cemetery" (199-204).

Let's see how Copper describes Farrant in the text:

The hunt followed a television interview the previous night, Friday the 13th, in which 24-year-old David Farrant had spoken of his plans to go to the cemetery to put a stake throught the heart of a vampire which was lurking in the graveyard (199).

More coverage is given to his vampire-hunting antics:

Mr. Farrant's vampire-hunt that night ended in the prosaic arms of the law as he was caught by a policeman climbing out armed with a wooden cross and a sharpened stake. But as he walked from court he commented, 'I won't rest until I catch the vampire of Highgate Cemetery.' (200)

There are more, equally damning mentions of David's vampire-hunting past, like his telling the court that he would, "have gone into the catacomb, searched through the coffins until I recognised the vampire sleep in one and then I would have driven my stake through its heart." (201)

There's also his mention of having "100 members" of the British Occult Society all over Britain "and Europe searching for vampires" (201). And so on.

Part of David's "investigation", involved stalking about Highgate Cemetery, armed with a cross and stake, in the presence of journalist Barrie Simmons, for an article called, "Midnight Vigil for the Highgate Vampire" (Evening News, Oct. 16, 1970).

In light of all the vampire-hunting references, David also mentions in the article that he didn't believe in vampires in "the commercial sense of the word" (203), not believing that they suck blood. So, he probably courted the vampire hunting angle for publicity's sake.

But, back to the blog entry.

Depending on one's interpretation, the "first major book" that gave coverage to the subject wasn't Copper's, but Donald F. Glut's True Vampires of History (1971). I shall refer to my Castle Books edition.

The mention is brief, but it's clear who's being referred to:

In August, 1970, Reuters told of a twenty-four year-old man named Allan Farrow who was arrested for trespassing in a London graveyard. Farrow, armed with a crucifix and a sharpened wooden state [sic], was caught by police at St. Michael's Churchyard. He said that he was on his way to Highgate Cemetery, where a vampire was supposedly hiding.
"I decided to visit it and see if I could find the vampire and destroy it," said Farrow. "Had the police not arrived it was my intention to make my way to the gravestones and the catacombs in search of the vampire." (190)

"Allan Farrow", is, of course, one of the pseudonyms used by David Farrant.