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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh well. Tough break, "Gothic"!

Gothic Returns!

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

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

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

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

The FoBSM, as understood by most, is an informal support group who act in the bishop's interest as they perceive that interest to be.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Admittedly, this is true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What were the "altered circumstances"?

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

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

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

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

Peroxide Gets Bleached and Unfortune Associations

Well, it looks like another blog dealing with he Highgate Vampire Case has gone and bitten the dust.

Current attempts to access Peroxide's blog, are now met with this calling card:



No surprises there.

It had pretty much degenerating into the typical slanging match found elsewhere. That said, the blog's zealous aim of discrediting David Farrant, probably didn't help much.

Speaking of David, his "Whatever Keeps People Happy..." entry in The Human Touch, has yielded this gem:

I see my interview on the Highgate case has gone up now on “Paranormal Knowledge”.

Nice to be referred to as a “Famous psychic investigator” as opposed to being referred to as a ‘vampire hunter’!

It's strange that David seems adverse to such a term, when his own website advertises a book called (wait for it), Return of the Vampire Hunter: An Exclusive Interview with Reclusive Vampire Hunter, David Farrant (2003) by Rob Milne.

Even the "reclusive" bit is kinda funny, considering how much contributions he makes to discussions concerning the Highgate Vampire Case (which, paradoxically, he claims not to like discussing). Oh, and he's also the head of the Highgate Vampire Society, to boot.

The VRS Has No Problem Disseminating Personal Correspondence

I previously mentioned that I'd be reproducing an e-mail I sent to the VRS website. It found its way into the hands of The (Fake) Overseer, who used it to publicly reveal my name on Did A Vampire Walk In Highgate?.

The e-mail was subjected "The Cross and the Stake" and was originally sent on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 7:49 AM.:

Hello,

I am a member of the Cross and the Stake (The Inquisitive One) and have been most disturbed by something that has been occuring on our forum.

I could not find a means to contact the moderators of the board directly, so here goes:

Hans, aka van_liebenstropf, has been a most disruptive force on it. He continuously ridicules another member - SteadfastCarol - with insults.

He is wasting large amounts of forum space with his twisted posts and I believe he is allowed to do this because of the non-presence of the moderators on the message board.

Please attempt to rectify this situation as his behaviour is getting to the point of either requiring an admonishment or the threat of a ban.

Sinc.,
InqOne

My real name was contained in the e-mail address.

It's nice to know that the VRS isn't above sending along such e-mails onto so-called "independent parties" with an axe to grind. Let that be a warning to anyone else who is concerned about their personal information being sent along to nameless entities.

Impostor Strikes Again!

"Coincidentally", after rumbling a fake Overseer in my previous blog entry, the other (yet, still fake) Overseer of Did A Vampire Walk In Highgate? decided to launch a flurry of posts on Peroxide's blog.

I'll take this opportunity to address the portions of a comment (September 26, 2008 at 8:39 am) he made, which discusses myself:

The person in Australia who now adopts “The Overseer” as his tag, having previously and perhaps more accurately called himself “The Inquisitive One,” is full of double standards. He moans on his personal blog about a request put out by FoBSM for information leading to the discovery of Craig Adams’ whereabouts, but carefully omits mention of the reason, ie that this information was required strictly to assist a police enquiry.

Yes, my username on The Cross and The Stake was "The Inquisitive One". I was unceremoniously booted from it for having the gall to start a so-called "rival forum". No secret there. I've covered the origins of my forum here.

As to "moan[ing]" about the FoBSM's "request", here's what I actually said: "they are allowing a comment by a Manchester-supporting vigilante group (the FoBSM) to request personal details of someone, via a public medium ("Farrant's Friends", 1st comment)".

And while we're at it, I'll mention something else I said, via a comment on Peroxide's blog: "Oh, and what else? Encouraging vigilante-like behaviour, by allowing the FoBSM to post requests for the *personal address of someone*. Since when are they the police?"

Since when is an unrepresentative body like the FoBSM - while hiding behind an alias, at that - allowed to request the personal address of someone, on a police matter? Especially if they claim the police are looking into it already?

It's equally disturbing when the blog's very author reveals themselves to be a stalker of the same person the FoBSM is looking for!

Our Australian false “Overseer” is full of jibes against Bishop Manchester supporters and praise for the likes of Don Ecker and Craig Adams, both flunkies of David Farrant. Adams has received the false “Overseer’s” admiration on any number of occasions, not least on Ecker’s now disabled website where malice was aplenty against Bishop Manchester.

This item is symptomatic of a prevailing attitude that tends to come across in debates/feuds concerning the Highgate Vampire Case.

If you criticise one side, then you must be on the other! For, or against!

This particular item is interesting in light of the fact that I have previously been accused of being Bishop Manchester himself! I've also been censored by both of the main sides of the debate.

Now, regarding the so-called "jibes" I've made against Manchester, well, the accuser seems to have a problem with citations and specifics, as no examples are given in which this is meant to have taken place. Nor are any examples of the praise I am meant to have heaped on Craig or Don. That said, I have complemented Craig for revealing that a batch of usernames emanating from Manchester's IP (See: "Who Is The Informative One?") and for exposing that a picture alleged to be of Dennis Crawford appears in the first edition of The Highgate Vampire (1985) merely as a "freelance vampire hunter". This is in spite of his alleged attachment to the Case since its inception.

Despite going on about people’s privacy, the false “Overseer” turned a blind eye to the fact that Craig Adams posted images of one of the bihop’s private addresses and informed of its location on Ecker’s forum. Adams went to the trouble of having an acquaintance take photographs clandestinely of the house in question.

That's a fair cop. I suppose I should have at least raised a voice in protest. I certainly don't agree with such invasions of privacy, even though the house in question, was meant to have been the Bishop's church, if I'm not mistaken.

This behaviour attracted no criticism from our Australian cousin, but just mention information that the false “Overseer” has already published on the internet about himself and he screams privacy violation and repeats the accusation over and over ad infinitum.

What the fake Overseer is evading, in this regard, is the source of private information, publicly posted about myself.

And it's no surprise, considering that the fake Overseer himself was the one who did it!

The matter regards the public revelation of my name. And, more disturbingly, how the fake Overseer found it out. I've previously covered the matter here.

To give you the gist of it, though, I'll say that it came by way of an e-mail originally sent to the VRS website. I'll reproduce that e-mail in my next blog entry.

Another regurgitating theme this curious inquisitive one from the back and beyond returns to with tedious regularity is how other people post anonymously by using net names instead of their real identity. Hello? Did I miss something? That’s exactly what he does which is why he only posts nowadays as “The Overseer.” It was not always so. There was a time he called himself “Count Dracula” but spelt backwards. There was also a time when he used to post on the internet using his real name. But we won’t mention that. And neither will he!

Again, the fake Overseer decides to selectively represent the issue.

My beef with revealing people's personal names, is how they are acquired.

In this case, through the dissemination of private e-mails by the VRS to allegedly "independent" parties, who, in turn, use them to stalk and harass people.

Regarding my name appearing elsewhere on the internet, sure it does. For example, I have written book and movie reviews on Amazon.com. I used the "tnouc alucard" username in association with my real name under one such review.

But the real matter here is, how would the fake Overseer have even connected my real name to my username...if it wasn't for the VRS disseminating private correspondence in the first place? I certainly didn't use my real name when writing as "The Inquisitive One".

And, lastly, the other factor which the fake Overseer once again avoids, is one of hypocrisy.

Why would someone who hides behind an alias...castigate others for doing the same? This same practice is carried out by Peroxide and "Dissenting Shadows".

As of this writing, the fake Overseer is yet to even reveal their real name.