Diminishing responsibility

BBC

It seems Della Farrant's got an axe to grind with Barbara Green. For some reason.

Green's president of the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society and believes Robin Hood was buried at Kirklees Hall Estate.

She also has the rare distinction of being aligning with both sides of the Highgate vampire case's feuding overlords, Sean Manchester and David Farrant. They've both served as Patrons of the YRHS; the latter as part of a 'calculated snub', in Kai Roberts' opinion.

As of this writing, Della's devoted three blog entries to Green's 2001 book, Secrets of the grave (here, here and here), all of which take potshots at her; increasingly personal in attack. Indeed, the latter post makes several jibes about her mental state—'Anyway, a parting treat is presented below for any of you who can stomach it – it might help if you are a fan of the film ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’'—etc.

Della never really explains her 'beef', but perhaps the clue's in her aggrandising coverage of David's role as patron. She 'lets him off' scott-free: 'As a well known psychic investigator of some standing, and ‘considered the sane one of the bunch’ viz the YRHS, David Farrant (who was at one stage persuaded against his better judgement to act as  Patron for said ‘society’) has benefited from a mutually reciprocal relationship over the years with Dr David Hepworth, a close friend and practical and academic advisor of Lady Armytage (referred to by some as her manager).'

It's rather strange she'd give her husband 'innocent fair maiden' status, chaste as the driven snow, as 'persuaded' waylays the reader into thinking he was somehow conned into the role. Far from it, it's something he openly embraced. 

I'm sure, for instance, that no one made him take part in a 'blessing ceremony' at the gravesite on 20 April 2005 in the presence of film cameras, any more than anyone made him pen this letter to the Halifax Courier in 2008. I'm equally sure no one made him promote Green's article on the supposed Kirklees conspirary in 2009—even though he pooh-poohed the idea two years before, voicing scepticism the day after that post, yet still choosing to be the society's patron.

Della also overlooks the fact that he attempted to arrange another visit to the gravesite—in 2010 (part 1; part 2). If these were mere blips in David's 'better judgement', then let me remind you he maintained his role as the YRHS's patron over a ten year period.

Indeed, the tenth year, 2010, marked a turning point. He was replaced—David says he 'resigned'—by a new Patron: John Pope de Locksley, better-known as John Pope.

Could this all stem from a case of 'sour grapes'? If not, why did David align himself with the society for so long? Perhaps the answer's in his latest post on his involvement with the YRHS: 'There has also been renewed activity on the filmed project involving Gareth J. Medway, Barbara Green and a couple of other assistants on the subject of Robin Hood’s (reputed) grave at Kirklees. I understand this film is now near completion, and will be released publicly later this year. Maybe even at the Brighouse Gala? – and I cannot think of a more glamorous and appropriate setting for its debut.'

It's the same film for which the camera's rolled on David's blessing ceremony in 20 April 2005.

The war on chapter 6

Yesterday, I received a copy of folklorist Kai Roberts' Grave concerns (2011) in the post. It was a belated Christmas present (thanks, Jo!) ordered via Amazon.co.uk. 

The book primarily deals with the alleged gravesite of Robin Hood in Kirklees Park, Yorkshire. However, it also features a chapter on the Highgate vampire case to give the 'story' greater context; after all, Sean Manchester and David Farrant both served as patrons of the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society, both emphasising the site's supernatural 'angle' associated with the place.

While the book was still in draft form, Kai emailed me, asking if I'd look over the chapter in question. He was familiar with my writings on the subject, via this blog. I was happy to oblige.

The book's generally received positive reviews, but there've been two notable sticklers: Della Farrant née Della Vallicrus—and her hubbie, David.

Before even finishing the book, Della honed in on the Highgate chapter, in a review for her blog, The Devil's concubine. Unusually, her criticism isn't directed at the author, but the unnamed 'editor' of the chapter: 'Some of Kai’s points are remarkably similar to those which I raised myself in my May 2010 Introduction to Volume 2 of David Farrant’s autobiography, ‘David Farrant : Out of the Shadows”, which I presume the editor of the chapter has read.'

It's unfortunate she's adopted the oblique, passive-aggressive referencing usually employed by her husband (see: 'A bizarre 'reply''), as Della—a flitting member of The Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation Society—knew that the 'editor' was me. However, considering her associations, it'd certainly explain why she'd go for my neck instead of Kai's due to my overt critical stance on the case. 

As of this writing, no, I haven't read her introduction. But I did ask her if she'd post the introduction on The supernatural world forum while the Highgate section was still active: she told me to buy the book.

Della goes on to criticise the chapter's 'tone': 'But aside from this, I can’t help but feel that its tone is slightly different to the rest of the book, and has perhaps suffered from some rather heavy-handed, subjective editing, alien to the rest of the tract', perhaps not realising that the book's chapter is largely intact from Kai's draft.

What she means by 'subjective editing', is anyone's guess. It's also redundant: aren't all editors 'subjective' by default? By 'heavy-handed', perhaps she's referring to the chapter's copious—albeit, necessarily so—footnotes, of which there's ninety-nine, all taken from various sources. Considering the tangled web of contradictions, claims and counter-claims weaved throughout the case—which Kai readily acknowledges with no 'prompting' from me¹—I can only suggest she grasp the importance of citations in academic works.

At long last, she gives us something to work with, by providing an actual example from the book: '. . . when referring to David Farrant’s arrest for ‘vampire hunting’ in 1970, Kai omits a crucial point. David was, as everybody will remember, acquitted of this charge. The charge itself was being [caught] in an enclosed area for an unlawful purpose. Kai was apparently misinformed when he summarises that David was acquitted on 2 technicalities, namely the definition of an enclosed area, and the fact that it is not actually illegal to hunt a vampire.'

Let's break this down. First, here's what Kai actually said about it:

It was one such [police] patrol that, on the night of the 17th August, discovered David Farrant trying to gain access to the cemetery from the adjacent churchyard of St. Michael's, carrying a crucifix and wooden stake. He was arrested for being in an enclosed space for an unlawful purpose, and bailed at Clerkenwell Magistrates Court the following morning. National newspaper, The Sun, reported Farrant telling the magistrates "My intention was to search out the supernatural being and destroy it by plunging the stake in its heart." The case was adjourned until 30th September, and Farrant bailed.²

That's it. So, what '2 technicalities', exactly? If Kai was, indeed 'apparently misinformed', the 'blame'(?) falls on an article in The Sun's 19 August 1970 issue and Bill Ellis' essay, 'The Highgate Cemetery vampire hunt: the Anglo-American connection in cult lore' (1993), i.e. the 'informants' featured in Kai's endnotes.³

Della goes on to say,

This was not in fact the case. The main indictment in that case was the element of unlawful purpose. That was the only reason David was arrested by police who attempted to persuade the court that his purpose was to break open coffins in search of the reputed vampire. The police evidence (again given under oath) was that David had later told the arresting officer that he intended to drive a wooden stake through the vampire’s heart and then ‘run away’. The latter phrase has always struck me as somewhat bizarre, because, fait accompli, surely there would be nothing to run away from. However…David denied making this statement, in court, and the stipendary magistrate obviously did not believe the police evidence and so the unlawful purpose element was thrown out of court. The conclusion is clear: that David was not acquitted because it is not illegal to hunt vampires, but because the court did not believe that he was trying to do so in the first place. To inadvertently misguide the reader over this important point is regrettable, as it contrasts sharply with many of Kai’s other points which he has investigated thoroughly.

It's a 'conclusion', however, which Kai didn't make, thus, negating Della's 'argument'. It's a fair sticking point, though, but it's no so simple, either. Farrant was caught in the midst of a 'Black Magic probe' launched by police⁴, on account of increased occult-themed vandalism the cemetery was subjected to, in the wake of press coverage relating to Farrant and Manchester's respective claims. Indeed, the Hampstead & Highgate Express had earlier quoted Farrant saying,

"Much remains unexplained, but what I have recently leart all points to the vampire theory as being the most likely answer.
"Should this be so, I for one am prepared to pursue it, taking whatever means might be necessary so that we can all rest."⁵

And he was captured in the cemetery—according to police and press reports—with a cross and stake. You do the math.

The legality of hunting vampires, however, was indeed a big part of the case. At least, as far as contemporary coverage goes. Farrant, himself, has previously acknowledged this 'angle':

But notwithstanding, the case was dismissed, the Magistrate (this time a Mr DJ Purcell) accepting a Defence submission that the Society investigation had already featured on television and in the Press and that, in any event, it was just as akin to "hunt for vampires" as it was for some people to spend vast sums of money trying to locate the Loch Ness Monster.⁶

The real basis of the 'unlawful purpose' was, of course, the implicit actions involved in hunting vampires, i.e. grave desecration. This is also acknowledged by Farrant: 'The Magistrate added that he was satisfied that there had been no intention to "damage coffins"' and that the Cemetery was not an enclosed area in the strict legal sense.'⁷

In his comment on Della's review, Farrant adds,

Very concise review Della; especially concerning the blatant inaccuracies in Chapter 6 of Kai’s book over my acquittal for ‘vampire hunting’. I am not blaming Kai for this important ommission or how he failed to mention that my ‘confession’ for ‘hunting a vampire’ and intention to ‘smash open coffins’ (the fabricated police statement which was largely reported by the Press BEFORE my acquittal), when he was only acting on information given to him in ‘good faith’ by an extremely prejudiced and misinformed party. THAT was shoddy research, but it was hardly Kai’s fault.

One can only wonder whether he'd actually read the chapter, himself. Therefore, the identity of this 'extremely prejudiced and misinformed party' is a bit of a mystery. All I know is, it can't be me, as I made no edits to Kai's paragraph.

Farrant wasn't content with restricting bile to his comments on his wife's blog: his war on Chapter 6 spilled over to Kai's Facebook page. In a posted dated January 26 at 8:41am, he wrote:

Congratulations on your new book "Grave Concerns" Kai, and I agree with my wife that it is a 'well researched academic (and yet accessible) work'. The only part I didn't agree with was your description about the result of my case for 'vampire hunting' back in September 1970. However, I have already made it clear that the only person who can really be blamed for this, is the same person who seems highly confused about the legal outcome of that case in which I was acquitted, and who has a habit of making his erroneous conclusions public. It was not dismissed over any 'technical issue', but because of deliberately fabricated evidence (namely a false statement of 'confession' that one particular police had attempted to attribute to myself) which was not accepted by the Court. That aside, I found your research into the case of Robin Hood to be very accurate: especially your apparent conclusion how sometimes historical legends can be turned in modern day 'facts' by virtue of 'legend tripping'. Professor and historian Bill Ellis came to more-or-less the same conclusion in hs own book "Raising the Devil".

That, of course, erupted into a mini flame war between myself and him after I noted, '. . . if your worst criticism of my edits to the chapter (I've yet to receive the book, so I'm not sure how many of them stayed, intact), is allusions to your court case, then that means the rest of my writings on the chapter must've held up pretty well. Cheers. :D'

Farrant added,

The point is, that if you could get the important facts of my 1970 Court case blatantly wrong, then people are entiled [sic] to ask how many of the other points in your 'editing' were also erroneous. There is no need to list them all, except to say you substituted your personal opinions in favour of events as these actually occurred.

It was getting pretty clear that Farrant thought I was more involved with the chapter than I actually was, but I pointed out: 'They're entitled to ask, but if *you* can't even say what they are, then what you're trying to imply is that the rest of my research is fallacious...without backing that up. Sounds like a 'campaign' to me! lol'

And on it went, along with contradictory amusements like this: 'I am not prepared to discuss your 'editing' here Anthony. Kai has written a well researched book - except regarding the erroneous editing in Chapter 6 regarding Highgate in the early 1970's that was supplied by yourself.'

However, since that time, Farrant's tune's changed. Perhaps he actually sat done and read through the chapter, properly, without resorting to the ad hominem hysterics. In a recent blog entry, he wrote:

I think I have already mentioned this, but Kai Roberts’ book “Grave Concerns” on Robin Hood’s grave has just been released. I did like his assessment of events surrounding the alleged grave of the legendary outlaw, and also appreciated his narrative in chapter 6 which detailed old research about my own involvement as ‘President’ (sorry I meant – or rather he meant – Patron) of the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society.  It seems Kai spent quite a few months if not years methodically researching the book; but in reality, I was only Patron of the YRHS and not its President! (I am the President of the British Psychic and Occult Society and the Highgate Vampire Society, and that is quite enough work for one day!)

But I do wish him every success with the book, and no doubt, that appreciation should be due to other people who aided him in his research as well.

That last bit almost sounds like a compliment. Perish the thought! If there's any criticism I'd personally give Kai's chapter, it's that it overplays the sincerity behind Farrant's vampire-hunting antics. Indeed, in correcting the date of an Evening News article, I added: 'To be fair on David, the 16 October [1970] article does mention (quoted by Copper), that David said he did not believe in the ‘the commercial sense of the word’. That article would be worth seeking out. Of course, that’s in late 1970, after months of brandishing crosses and stakes and all those other claims to the press and so on and so forth.'

It didn't make the cut.

However, keeping in tune with David and Della's respectively absolving Kai of responsibility for the content of his own chapter, we can't 'blame' him for the associations, either. After all, Farrant actively courted the vampire tag—and still does. The current President of the Highgate Vampire Society lists it as one of his greatest regrets. And then takes it back:

The worst I did was to go along with another person's innane [sic] wild assertions about a 'blood-sucking vampire', but again, this was only because this was the 'angle' the Press and television wanted at the time - 'vampires' apparently selling more newspapers or attracting more interested audiences for TV. Even today, aome [sic] of those film clips of myself 'hunting a vampire' are still being shown or repeated. Do I regret this? NO. Because this is the way it happened. I can't change the past, but ironically there are people who would like to try and do so.

Says the revisionist. In the meantime, I look forward to reading the rest of Kai's book. I've enjoyed my correspondence with him—he's got a good head on his shoulders and shares academic sensibilities. I'm also proud to call him a friend. I wish him the best with his work.

---

^{1. K Roberts, Grave concerns: the follies and folklore of Robin Hood's final resting place, CFZ Press, Bideford, U.K, 2011, p. 91: 'It is almost impossible to present an accurate record of the Highgate Vampire drama because - in the opinion of this author, at least - the two principal players have consistently proved to be unreliable witnesses, repeatedly altering or embellishing their recollection of events, often in an attempt to undermine each other's credibility.'↩}

^{2. ibid., p. 95↩}  

^{3. ibid., p. 196.↩}  

^{4. ''Black Magic' probe starts', Daily Express, 1 August 1970, p. 1.↩} 

^{5. 'Why do the foxes die?', Hampstead & Highgate Express, 6 March 1970, p.1.↩} 

^{6. D Farrant, Beyond the Highgate vampire: a true case of supernatural occurrences and "vampirism" that centred around London's Highgate Cemetery, 2nd rev. edn, British Psychic and Occult Society, London, 1992, p. 18.↩}  

^{7. ibid.↩}

An interesting find

Courtesy of Carl T. Ford

Until recently, I thought Sean Manchester's earliest written account of the Highgate Vampire was 'The haunting of Hell House' and his contribution to Peter Underwood's The vampire's bedside companion (both 1975).

That is, until a serendipitous eBay search for 'Highgate vampire' by Redmond McWilliams turned up a startling find: Witchcraft, vol. 2, no. 8 (1973). 'THIS IS ONE OF THE MORE COLLECTIBLE ISSUES AND EXTREMELY HARD TO COME BY,' reads its description, 'AS IT FEATURES AN ARTICLE ON VAMPIRES, INCLUDING THE HIGHGATE VAMPIRE AND THE OCCULT BY SEAN MANCHESTER INCLUDING A BEARDED SEAN MANCHESTER'. The issue's on sale for £75.

Witchcraft (1971–1974) was New Witchcraft's antecedent—the latter published 'The haunting of Hell House'; David Farrant's 'Invoking the vampire' appeared in the same issue. As Tom Brinkmann notes in his not-safe-for-work-or-children article, magazines like Witchcraft were basically 'adult slicks', that 'picked up the satanic/devilish theme' popular at the time.

The content of Manchester and Farrant's articles were later subsumed by their respective self-published material, The Highgate vampire (1985; 1991) and Beyond the Highgate vampire (1991; 1992; 1997), respectively. Both expose the subsequent revisions to their accounts, effectively illustrating the importance of collating contemporaneous material on this case is.

But this find—and I can tell ya, it's a doozy—is now the earliest-known account of the Highgate case by Manchester. I've sourced a copy of the article: it's called 'The world of the vampire' and appears on pages 52–55. The alleged 22-year-old vampire victim, 'Lusia'—as she's addressed and captioned in Manchester's post-1973 accounts—is revealed to be Jacqui Frances, 'a pretty 22-year-old blonde'.¹ Readers will immediately recognise 'Jacqui' as Jacqueline Cooper, who's mentioned several times in Don Ecker's report (pdf).

Ecker's report backs Farrant's allegation 'that Manchester had a romantic interest in her and she was named in Manchester’s divorcing his then wife', Marie Manchester, by including their divorce certificate, which refers to 'Jacqueline Frances (Cited as Jacqueline Francis) Manchester (Formerly Cooper)'. Was Manchester making cryptic references to this relationship when he dubbed her 'Model and girlfriend who had a very sultry look — and green eyes'? After all, you wouldn't know it was Jacqui, unless you're familiar with her other pictures.

This makes Manchester's dispassionate reference to 'A photographic model, and, much later, actresses, portrayed Lusia in representations of her in depictions of the mysterious events which came to be known collectively as the case of the Highgate Vampire', somewhat laughable—and, perhaps, very telling.

After all, Jacqui's appearance in Manchester's 1975 and 1985 accounts wasn't prefaced with her 'role': she's captioned 'Lusia' over and over again. Indeed, one of the 'Lusia' photos—in which her 'sultry' eyes are offset by an Iron Cross adorning her décolletage—has been recycled from the 1973 article. What's distinctive about the article, however, is there's little legroom for the retrofitted 'model' claim in Manchester's online account.

Not only is the aforementioned picture captioned with her actual name, but the text describes Jacqui as someone who'd 'come face to face with the Highgate Vampire.'² However, her subsequent tale shares more in common with the dark-figure-scared-by-oncoming-headlights motif found in several anonymous accounts related by Manchester and Farrant, rather than her 'somnambulating' along Swains Lane, feelings of suffocation at night and pinpricks in her neck, latterly described.³

Thanks to this find, we now have six primary Manchester narratives to wade through:

1. 'The world of the vampire', Witchcraft, vol. 2, no. 8, 1973, pp. 52–5.
2. 'The haunting of Hell House', New Witchcraft, vol. 1, no. 4, 1975, pp. 51–5.
3. 'The Highgate vampire', in P Underwood (ed.), The vampire’s bedside companion: the amazing world of vampires in fact and fiction, Leslie Frewin, London, 1975, pp. 81–121.
4. The vampire exhumed, an unpublished typescript, 1980.⁴
5. The Highgate vampire: the infernal world of the undead unearthed at London’s famous Highgate Cemetery and environs, British Occult Society, London, 1985.
6. The Highgate vampire: the infernal world of the undead unearthed at London’s Highgate Cemetery and environs, rev. edn, Gothic Press, London, 1991.

Many 'alterations' are sure to turn up on closer examination. Famed horror writer, Ramsey Campbell, found many between the 1985 and 1991 editions, alone. I've noticed quite a few, myself.

What concerns me, though, is that if this article was found by fluke, who know what other narratives Manchester has floating about. As if there wasn't enough material to sift through.

---

^{1. S Manchester, 'The world of the vampire', Witchcraft, vol. 2, no. 8, 1973, p. 53.↩} 

^{2. ibid. See also, caption accompanying picture on same page: 'Jacqui Frances came face to face with the Highgate Vampire.'↩}

<sup>3. S Manchester, 'The Highgate vampire', in P Underwood (ed.), The vampire’s bedside companion: the amazing world of vampires in fact and fiction, Leslie Frewin, London, 1975, p. 107.↩ 

4. MV Riccardo, Vampires unearthed: the complete multi-media vampire and Dracula bibliography, The unexplained, the mysterious, and the supernatural: series of topical bibliographic guides to anomalies, vol. 2, Garland reference library of social science, vol. 177, Garland Publishing, Inc., New York, 1983, p. 96.↩</sup>

Medium, identified!

A little bit of this and not so much of that

As part of a ritual which allegedly took place at Highgate Cemetery in 1971, David Farrant recruited the services of a medium to summon the Highgate vampire: 'To the North of the Circle a small "sealed" triangle was cast (also containing a small fire) where the entity would be summoned to appear, and hopefully, be able to "communicate" with a psychic medium who would be inside the protective Circle.'

'As midnight approached, the medium began to make the Commands for manifestation'.

The temperature in the Circle suddenly dropped. The candles blew out. A misty shape began to form. The only thing missing? Thunder and lightning.

'The medium spoke aloud, attempting to aid "its" materialisation and all at once, two eyes could be seen at the top of the moving black form.' Farrant had seen these eyes before: 'They were the same eyes that I had witnessed inside the gate, dull red and almost diabolically evil; only this time, they had increased in strength to such a degree that it was like being confronted by some "living presence".'

The medium decided enough was enough of this supernatural tomfoolery, so Farrant and the medium 'performed a rite of banishment during which the entity promptly vanished.'

Who was this androgynous, anonymous medium? How are we supposed to verify the claims and their experience? Unfortunately, Farrant's account doesn't name our psychic sleuth. We've reached a dead-end.

Or have we? As it happens, I have an article he wrote in 1975 which reveals the medium's identity.

It turns out, the medium's name was—David Farrant. 'I arose to begin the Commands of manifestation'¹, 'I spoke aloud, trying to help its materialisation . . . Seeing the dangers involved in prolonging the ceremony, without hesitation (though with some effort) I performed a ritual of banishment during which the entity vanished.'²

Despite being published only four years after the supposed manifestation, the article relates no familiarity with the smoky entity's eyes, suggesting a latter-day revision to add 'atmosphere' to the tale.

---

^{1. D Farrant, 'Invoking the vampire', New Witchcraft, vol. 1, no. 4, 1975, p. 37.↩}  

^{2. ibid., p. 38.↩}

The Bishop Obviously Reads My Blog

Well, well, well. Isn't this interesting.

By addressing the latest manifestations of the feud in "They Can't Bloody Help Themselves", I wrote that it was

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.

The answer was, of course, David Farrant.

But, you wouldn't know this now, as the images have been changed! Check it out for yourself ("Hate (Emily Dickinson)" and "Resentment (Joseph Wardy)").

Once again, I'm thankful that I save the webpages I cite. So, if any reader doubts that there were "warped, Photoshopped" images of David in the Bishop's blog entries, I'll happily reproduce the proof here.

Strange Goings-On at Facebook

Lone Stranger has written a rather interesting blog entry called "Sean Edits THV Cover for Facebook Page!".

For some obscure reason, the cover of the first edition of The Highgate Vampire (1985), posted on the VRS Facebook page, has been given the Photoshop touch.

An image of the vampire has been conspicuously blurred, which prompted Mr. Stranger to say:

What's wrong Sean? Are you afraid the noobs on Facebook will recognize you and realize you are a fake?

This statement refers to certain claims that Sean Manchester painted himself up as a vampire for the purpose of taking pictures to accompany his book.

Of course, it's not the only picture on the page that has been given a strange tampering. Have a look at the big black smudges that surround David Farrant in this picture.

Psychic energy waves...or a big black texta? You decide.

Mr. Stranger also noted something else interesting about the VRS Facebook page:

Hey and look at the organizers of the new VRS; there's Sean; our good buddy and sock puppet Arminus; and an actual real person from Bristol.

I previously noted that "Arminius" (a copy-n-paste plagiarist of TFO calibre) was also one of its admins.

But of particular interest, is that a new admin has been added to the VRS Facebook page ("an actual real person from Bristol").

His name is David Carter-Green, which keeps in the tradition of hyphenated surnames like the VRS's National Secretary, Katrina Garforth-Bles.

I've never even heard his name mentioned in association with the VRS before, or the Highgate Vampire Case, so his arrival on the scene is certainly a surprise. Especially his out-of-nowhere appointment as an admin on the VRS Facebook page.

Who knows what winning contributions he'll supply to this whole Affair?

David's Proverbial Monkey

As I've previously noted, David is particularly keen in shrugging off any association between him and vampires.

Well, except for some rather obvious slips.

So how come he just. can't. bloody. stop. talking. about it? ("What Really Went On?!"):

Night so often blends into daytime with me, and then, before I know it, its evening again and I’ve missed a large part of the day. (And ‘no’, as I said before, I not a bloody vampire. Sorry to disappoint the pudding, no doubt! and dissipate more of the fiction).

Must...continue...("Stupid 'Vampire' Stories"):

Anyway, back to the interview briefly.

Really, much of it was about stupid vampire myths and people who claimed to have staked them. I just repeated that I did not believe any of the silly nonsense; especially when most of these were the result of fictional stories or the result of deliberate hoaxes.

Wait, you're saying it was a hoax...again?:

I was not saying anything new. I stated in the English press as far back in 1987 that the so-called Highgate ‘vampire’ was one such hoax: not the actual ghost itself seen by so many people but the ‘vampire’ version of it.

So for 22 years, you've been telling people that the Highgate Vampire Case was a hoax?

Hmm, funny that you don't refer to what you said - and did - in the early 1970s, eh? Heh heh.

Anyway, it's good to see this proud debunking tradition being kept alive, despite, oh, say, previous utterances like this:

I have said it before, and I’ll say it again: This Blog is not intended to be about ridiculous fanciful ‘vampires’; although I have said it is OK to discuss ‘ghost cases’ here and the paranormal here if anybody wants to. But NOT talk about bloody stupid vampires or their so-called ‘creators’!

Looks like you've painted yourself into a corner. Or a nice earner!

Denial Ain't Just a River in Highgate

It's nice to see David taking note of my comment-presence on Net Curtains Lurkers:

[...]I see my old friend the Overseer is on there trying to unravel the Highgate ‘vampire’ mystery (at least, what he sees as a ‘mystery’) and the parts various people played in the saga.

No problems so far...

The only ‘mystery’ – if any – is exactly what this apparition was, or is. But the “Overseer” seems to think that this might be a ‘real-life vampire’, or more precisely, he is trying to follow up claims made by others that this might have been the case.

Wait-what? When did I say that it might be a "real-life vampire"?

Well, sorry ‘Overseer’, you’ll have to rule me out of this one, because I never said the ghost reported at HC was a vampire. In fact I was very careful to avoid using that term when talking to the TV or Press. I have never accepted the existence of ‘blood-sucking vampires’ and it was not myself who went on the television twice then advising people how to ‘stake’ them! That was another person. Sorry!

Hmm, that's odd, because I could swear that you did think it was a vampire and refer to it as one.

After all, you might remember that when I asked this

You claim the press connected you to the vampire story due to the court case. So why, as early as March, 1970 were you entertaining the vampire hypothesis as a possibility?

You responded with:

I put many ‘possibilities’ to the Press at this early stage: not lease [sic] that Highgate Cemetery was being used by a group of professional Satanists. I was asked abot [sic] the ‘vampire theory’ – I did not volunteer it.

And let's keep in mind, that what you said to the Press was this ("Why do the foxes die?", Hampstead and Highgate Express, March 13, 1970):

The odd thing is there was no outward sign of how they [dead foxes found in the Cemetery -ed.] died. Much remains unexplained, but what I have recently learnt all points to the vampire theory being the most likely answer. Should this be so, I for one am prepared to pursue it, taking whatever means might be necessary so that we can all rest.

And don't forget, that when I asked

Why is it that after the court case, you allowed yourself to be filmed in a television news article reconstructing your patrols for the vampire with a stake and cross? You also did the same thing for an article with Barrie Simmons. If you say the press labeled you with a "vampire hunter" tag, then why did you give demonstrations of stalking vampires in Highgate Cemetery to other members of the press?

Your response was:

Why not? It was what the Press and television wanted.

And then, of course, while you were promoting your Highgate Vampire Society to the Press in 2005, you said this:

The Highgate vampire has had the effect of completely overshadowing all my other investigations.

It also made you come to this gripping conclusion in the same article:

The sighting of a tall, black figure in April on Swains Lane makes me think the vampire is active again.

Looks like you need to be more cautious, Dave!

Corrections, Revisions, Omissions! Oh My!

A sincere seeker-of-truth named BIGGLESANDSOPHIE8 posted the following request ("Books about the Highgate Vampire") on the British Occult Society forum:

Does anyone know the exact number of books written about the Highgate Vampire to date?

To which DennisCrawford1 (Dennis Crawford) wrote:

The exact number of books written about the Highgate Vampire to date is really just one.

That is, the 1991 edition of Sean Manchester's The Highgate Vampire.

Crawford goes on to mention

Seán Manchester's significant contribution to Peter Underwood's anthology The Vampire's Bedside Companion and a regurgitation in the third person of Seán Manchester's contribution for a chapter in a later book titled Exorcism!

Yet, strangely, he forgets to raise another work of Manchester's that deals with the same case: the 1985 first edition of The Highgate Vampire.

Why the omission?

Perhaps renowned British horror author, Ramsey Campbell, has the answer.

His anthology, Ramsey Campbell, Probably (PS Publishing, 2002) contains an article called "The Strange Case of Sean Manchester" (pp. 139-150). It was originally written for Shock Xpress in 1991.

In it, he reviews a copy of the 1991 edition against the 1985 original, and notes the following changes. And a warning to readers of this blog - here be spoilers:

• omission of an account in which Manchester first learned of vampires from a nanny who used to bathe him as a child (140)
• omission of a quoted article from a February 1970 issue of the Hamstead and Highgate Express (142)
• omission of images of "Luisa", replaced with that of an "actress" and a portrait (142)
• omission of a bulk of "photographic evidence" (142-143)
• Inclusion of a picture of Rosemary Ellen Guiley, who interviewed him for her 1991 book, Vampires Among Us (143)
• Luisa saying "I must find the old place" instead of "must go to the old house". She also appears to be "significantly less loquacious" (145)
• Mould-covered sandwiches become mould-covered sandwiches...plus maggots (146)
• Conversation with Arthur culled back, words slightly altered (146)
• Attempts by Arthur to use a camera, after the vampire has been staked, change from turning away, to taking "several frames" (146)
• Luisa's sister tells him Luisa died of a "blood disorder" rather than a "form of leukemia" (147)
• Manchester's dreams of Luisa ferociously masturbating herself with a stake are reduced to "swaying to and fro" and "making a hissing sound" (147)
• Omission of Manchester quoting Rudyard Kipling's "If" to himself, after losing local council election, which he ran for, under an assumed name (148)
• Addition of an account by where Manchester is bitten by Luisa, after mistaking her for her sister (148)
• Luisa harasses him in a misty form with two burning eyes (148)
• When changing into robes for an act of necromancy, Manchester feels like "a forlorn lover about to encounter the object of his passion" instead of "a school boy on his way to meet his first real date" (148)

I heartily recommend Campbell's article, which also makes other notations on the Case.

You might also like to read some notations I made on the differences between the editions, ("Changes to the New Edition of The Highgate Vampire" thread) byway of Rosemary Ellen Guiley's Vampires Among Us (New York: Pocket Books, 1991).

A counter-case was made by official reps of the VRS, by which I provided my own responses here.