Patrick Sean Manchester's Reaction to Poll—He's Not Happy

Patrick Sean Manchester negatively responded to a Facebook poll hosted on my Facebook group: "who do you believe? Both David Farrant and Patrick Sean Manchester investigated the Highgate Vampire case. However, their accounts wildly differ and both accused the other of fakery. But who do you believe based on your own readings/watchings of the case? Choose your options, below." The options were: David Farrant, Manchester, Not sure, Neither, and A bit of both.

In response to a vote that has so far only swung between Farrant and Neither, Manchester had the following to say: "The name of Hogg's group (identical to the name of one of my own groups) is paraphrased from a newspaper headline and article that introduced me and the Highgate case to the world a long time before Anthony Hogg was conceived, much less born, in far off Australia."

Regrettably, Mr. Manchester failed to mention that the group's name was identical to one of his because he had copied my group name. The group name—sharing its title with this blog, and initially used in 2006 as a MSN Spaces forum—was indeed based on a newspaper headline. However, Mr. Manchester did not disclose the relevance of my age and location.

His post was accompanied by the following diatribe embedded into a screencap he took of the poll, despite previously acknowledging he has blocked my account thus indicating he should have no means to view it bar alternative identities: "Anthony Hogg has begun to run a poll on a Facebook group he uses to post abuse and misinformation about me [Mr. Manchester gave no examples of this alleged abuse and misinformation]. Anthony Hogg has begun to run a poll on a Facebook group he uses to post abuse and misinformation about me. It was opened a handful of hours ago and apparently nobody believes my account while 25% believe the late David Farrant's account regarding the Highgate Vampire case, which is curious view of the fact that Farrant didn't believe in the Highgate Vampire." Why Mr. Farrant would have been obliged to believe in the existence of a vampire to investigate a case was not disclosed.

Mr. Manchester continues: "That notwithstanding, those who are members of Hogg's group are extremely hostile towards myself. That also applies to visitors to his group for the most part." Of the group's 252 members, only a handful post or comment in the group. Few are overtly hostile toward Mr. Manchester (the group's posts are viewable to readers due to its public setting). However, there is no standing policy against who may join save those who agree to follow the group rules. Indeed, Mr. Manchester has previously been invited to join the group himself but appears to be too frightened to do so.

Mr. Manchester, a frequent visitor of the group, did not disclose how he determined visitors from members as only members may comment in the group. 

"Furthermore in his preamble above the poll," Mr. Manchester continues, "Hogg describes my name incorrectly. It is correctly described in all my documents that are used for identity, and not as Hogg would have it. The false addition comes from Farrant without whom Hogg would flounder." While the description of his name was derived from Mr. Farrant in a roundabout way (the divorce certificate included on Don Ecker's report on the Highgate Vampire was obtained by Ecker from Farrant), it has been independently verified from birth records viewable on ancestry.co.uk. Mr. Manchester's penchant for aliases has been remarked on this blog before.

Several hours later, Mr. Manchester posted another diatribe against the poll: "After nine hours, Anthony Hogg's poll reveals that 50% of all who voted believe David Farrant's version of events while 0% believe mine. However, this could be due to only six votes being cast on a group exceptionally antipathetic towards me." Far likelier the result reflects the implausibility of Mr. Manchester's account, riddled as it is with inconsistencies, revisions and a lack of reliable evidence.

Mr. Manchester's grumble continued thusly: "One could almost name who those 'six' people who voted are. Hogg being one, McWilliams being another, and, of course, Fugly, etc. Morever, they all have multiple Facebook accounts." The easiest way for Mr. Manchester to avoid this uncharitable speculation is to vote on the poll himself:

I have not actually voted on the poll, McWilliams has not voted (as of this writing) and no one named "Fugly" has. However, I suspect that "Fugly" is a pejorative for a member of the group (a portmanteau merging "fucking" and "ugly") rather than an actual person's name—a somewhat jarring term employed by an alleged bishop.

The hypocrisy of Manchester alluding to multiple accounts used by other persons (but with no evidence of the same person voting more than once), has been commented on many times before.

Notes

"who do you believe?": Hogg, "Poll time, everyone!," Facebook, August 23, 2022, https://www.facebook.com/groups/awampyrwalks/posts/10166918240880494.

"The name of Hogg's group": Manchester [The Cross & the Stake, pseud.], Facebook, August 23, 2022, https://www.facebook.com/VampireResearchSociety/posts/pfbid02GVUQAFsqdX8qy53Q2Yw3KQBvmYRiaSzVB87fnd2zD7r1fFYYQYSPWVdw88DVVj6Pl. Subsequent quotations from Manchester are derived from this post unless otherwise noted.

based on a newspaper headline: "Does a Wampyr Walk in Highgate?," Hampstead & Highgate Express, February 27, 1970, 1. In a book review written almost forty years after the story was published, the paper's then-editor, Gerald Isaamann, revealed "we played the story for laughs." Review of London Lore: The Legends and Traditions of the World’s Most Vibrant City, by Steve Roud, Camden New Journal, January 29, 2009, http://www.thecnj.com/review/2009/012909/books012909_01.html.

Don Ecker's report on the Highgate Vampire: see Ecker, "My Inquiry into the Highgate Vampire," Paracast, accessed August 24, 2022, [p. 16], https://www.theparacast.com/darkmatters/borisdocument.pdf.

Mr. Manchester's penchant for aliases: See http://dawwih.blogspot.com/search/label/Aliases.

"After nine hours, Anthony Hogg's poll reveals": Manchester [The Cross & the Stake, pseud.], Facebook, August 23, 2022, https://www.facebook.com/974672275997573/posts/2691335964331187/. Subsequent quotations from Manchester are derived from this post unless otherwise noted.

a lack of reliable evidence: see, for instance, Erin Chapman, "5 Reasons Why a Wampyr Didn't Walk in Highgate Cemetery," Vamped, February 27, 2015, https://vamped.org/2015/02/27/5-reasons-why-a-wampyr-didnt-walk-in-highgate-cemetery/.

"Fugly" is a pejorative: D.A.T, Urban Dictionary, s.v. Fugly, https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fugly.

And the votes are in...

Last year, I set up a poll asking readers whether or not they believed in the Highgate Vampire and if they thought Sean Manchester or David Farrant were credible witnesses. It closed on 19 July 2011, 11.59pm. Here's the results.

After years of delving into this thing, I started wondering what other folk thought about the case. That intent also kicked off my postings on The supernatural world forum. Still going strong.

I should clarify that this ain't science; it was born of genuine curiousity. It's good to take a look outside the box, sometimes. I don't know who voted and I don't know how many times they did, so the results can only speak for themselves. I can say that they couldn't select multiple answers, though.

The first question, 'Do you believe the Highgate vampire was real?', giving voters the option of 'Yes', 'No', 'Maybe' and 'Undecided'. It received 37 votes. Let's break 'em down into delicious Microsoft Excel pie chart form:


That's one undecided (3%), four maybes (11%), nine yeses (24%) and, overwhelmingly, 23 nos (62%). 'No' wins this round. To be honest, I can't say I find that too surprising.

Let's take a look at the second poll. I asked, 'Who is a more credible witness?', namely, whose testimony do you find more reliable. I stuck to the main players, so the options were 'Sean Manchester', 'David Farrant', 'Neither' and 'Undecided'. This one scored more votes (47), perhaps because it was less ambiguous than the first.


One undecided (2%), eight for Manchester (17%), 13 for Farrant (28%) and 25 neithers (53%). That means slightly more voters believed in Farrant's version of events than Manchester's, but the majority thought neither of them were credible. I'm not overly surprised by that outcome, either.

Thanks to all who voted! It's certainly interesting getting 'outside' feedback and we, at least, know it wasn't overridden by supporters of Farrant and Manchester as I anticipated it might've been.

Moved to WordPress

I've been forced to move my Windows Live Spaces (WLS) site over to WordPress. Nothing sinister to that.

If you're interested as to why, check out my first WordPress post. I'm still getting the hang of all its functions and such, so it looks kinda drab at the moment. But in terms of usability and variety of function, it's miles ahead of WLS.

That transitory process bears no impact on this Blogger blog, which will remain open. Oh, and speaking of things staying open, eagle-eyed voters may have noticed an extension in the polls' expiration date. Around New Years' time, I decided to let the polls stay open for a year after I wrote 'em, rather than the end of 2010, as I originally planned. Make your voice heard! Vote today!

Questioning Beliefs

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

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

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

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

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

Polls Apart

Time to bring a lil Internet democracy to the proceedings. I now present you with Did a Wampyr Walk in Highgate?'s very first opinion poll!

Shift your eyes a few centimetres to the right and you'll see not just one, but count 'em, two polls you can vote on.

Voting lines are open till, uh, the end of this year, so don't delay. Cast your vote on DAWWIH today!