Bananaskins

I recently discussed Della Farrant's comments on Kai Roberts' write-up of the Highgate vampire case. She took issue with the coverage Roberts gave to David Farrant's 1970 trial for being in an 'enclosed area for an unlawful purpose', i.e. intending on breaking into tombs [to stake a vampire] at Highgate Cemetery.

I contrasted her criticism—'. . . 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'—with what he actually wrote, and quoted a relevant passage.

However, my counter was a bit short-sighted. Roberts wrote more on the case than I realised at the time of writing the blog entry. I should've paid closer attention to his text. My goof. Anyway, here's what he added:

When Farrant's case finally came to trial, he was discharged after his lawyer successfully argued that hunting a vampire was not in itself unlawful and that a cemetery did not satisfy the legal definition of an enclosed space.¹

It's this particular definition Della was unsatisfied with, which is why she added:

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. 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’ . . . However…David denied making this statement, in court, and the stipendary [sic] 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.

If Roberts was 'apparently misinformed' about this matter, the 'blame' falls squarely on his source: 'Ellis, p26'², i.e. Bill Ellis' 'The Highgate Cemetery vampire hunt: the Anglo-American connection in satanic cult lore' (1993). Though the source isn't directly correlated with her critique, he does cop a serve—on an entirely different matter: his 'angle regarding the validity of contemporary claims that most of the damage at Highgate Cemetery during the late 1960s and early 1970s was caused by “adolescent gangs expressing rebellion to adult norms or carrying out dares or hoaxes.”'

While her criticism of the way Roberts covered Farrant's acquittal seems reasonable, one can only wonder why she sidestepped Roberts' coverage of the trial's aftermath. After focusing so much on this aspect of the case, you'd think she'd have something to say about it:

Following his acquittal, Farrant made his intention to continue hunting the vampire perfectly clear. The ensuing blaze of publicity saw him holding a nocturnal vigil in the cemetery, accompanied by a reporter [Barrie Simmons] from the Evening News. The article was published on 16th October under the headline "Midnight date with Highgate's Vampire", alongside photographs of Farrant wielding a cross and stake.³

Indeed, Farrant's 10 January 2012 comment to a recent Hampstead & Highgate Express article boasts this event as the first time the cemetery's undead denizen was explicitly labelled the 'Highgate Vampire':

As a matter of interest, the title “The Highgate Vampire” first appeared in an article published in connection with myself in the London Evening News on October 16th 1970. This headline ran “Midnight Vigil for the Highgate Vampire” [sic] and followed a BBC television transmission the evening before which featured myself and my investigation into a ‘vampire-like figure’ that had been sighted in and around Highgate Cemetery.

Roberts mentions the transmission—and Farrant's 'investigation', too:

The previous day, the BBC had broadcast a segment on events at the cemetery as part of their flagship current affairs programme, 24 Hours. It featured reconstructions of both Manchester's exorcism in the vault and Farrant's fateful vampire hunt of 17th August, in which he is once again seen brandishing a cross and stake.⁴

Farrant's YouTube channel features relevant 'excerpts' from this episode—with Manchester's participation cut-out:

Fortunately, Kev Demant's website provides a full transcript of the vampire segment. Instead of an 'investigation into a "vampire-like figure" that had been sighted in and around Highgate Cemetery', the clip features a much more literal rendering: 'Now, in spite of all attempts by the cemetery owners to bar him Farrant and his friends still maintain a regular vigil (of the ?) catacombs in the hope of sighting either the vampire or the Satanists.' Not the first time Farrant's commentary on contemporary coverage doesn't tally with what's represented.

That said, the Simmons article appears to be the first public source to confirm Farrant's unbelief in vampires. At least in 'the commercial sense of the word'; mainly because Farrant clearly believes in a different type of vampire. This explains why he repeatedly emphasises 'bloodsucking vampires' when ridiculing Manchester's account; to take the heat off his own vampiric allusions and publicity-seeking antics. Perhaps Della's critique should've been asking: who was 'inadvertently' misguiding who?

---

^{1. K Roberts, Grave concerns: the follies and folklore of Robin Hood's final resting place, CFZ Press, Bideford, U.K, 2011, p. 96.↩}  

^{2. ibid., p. 196, n 39.↩} 

^{3. ibid., p. 96.↩} 

^{4. ibid.↩}

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.

Victorian era vampire or modern-day sham?

Was Highgate Cemetery homes to ghosts, bogies and beasties over 140 years ago? Time to examine claims made by David Farrant.

He maintains that 'in the late 1960’s/70’s . . . wide reports began coming into the British Psychic and Occult Society about a "tall dark figure" with "hypnotic red eyes" that had been sighted in and around London's Highgate Cemetery', offering precious little evidence to that effect. Indeed, not only were early reports often contradictory, but the description does not even match his original sightings.

This attempt to link a dubious 'past tradition' to the cemetery was expounded in an article he wrote called, 'Invoking the vampire', New Witchcraft, vol. 1, no. 4 (1975). During the course of his alleged investigation,

Some interesting facts came to light. Firstly, it became apparent that stories of an apparition in Highgate cemetery had by no means begun with the then current sightings. Indeed, similar tales dated from the Victorian Era and interestingly enough more of them had "vampiristic" connections. One of the common tales of that time told of a "tall man dressed in black" who used to disappear mysteriously through the cemetery wall (p. 34).

On the same page, he also discussed a famous 'witness' to this phenomena: 'That Bram Stoker was influenced by the Highgate Vampire when he wrote "Dracula" . . . is almost certain.'

How Farrant obtained this information is a mystery. After all, there appears to be no contemporary record of such tales told in association with Highgate Cemetery. I asked him for his sources on The supernatural forum (the Highgate section is password protected as of this writing), only to be confronted with nonsensical and evasive replies like this:

All you are doing here, Anthony, is just 'cut and pasting' your own questions, yet again!, most of which I have already answered in the past - many of these to you directly. For example: I have answered the question about the ghost sightings and how many times these occurred (and to whom) in detail near the beginning of this thread in my answer to the bogus "Vampire Research Society" - in fact the product of just one person, and one person only.

As I had to point out, several times, he had no answered questions regarding sources for his Victorian era claims. Indeed, his nonsensical claims were undermined by his partner, 'Della Vallicrus', who took also took up the conversational thread I was pursuing by asking, 'Also - I would also be interested to hear about pre-1969 sources, oral or otherwise, regarding the "ghost" or "ghosts".'

However, he wound up brushing off her query, too: 'Of course, I will Della. But it cannot be this precise moment. I have three people coming later, and I am not even half ready yet. I still think the allegations about the Ham&High letter and demands for "proof'' about the ghost's Victorian origins and comparatively trivial being based mainly on wild speculation by only a couple of people.'

It would soon become clear that Vallicrus' heart wasn't really in pursuing this lead. She'd later write, 'I know, that the entity he describes is real. Descriptions may vary. So what? This is not a stone-tape esque image from the past. It is a living, metamorphosising being, in a sense. David saw it. Others saw it. Others have seen it since. But in a strange way - if y'all want to pretend or hope it was a hoax - get on with it.'

I continued pursuing this angle, even engaging Vallicrus in discussion on the side, only for Farrant to pipe in with a decidedly warped view of our exchanges. He also offered a new 'validation' for not answering my (and, by default, her) queries:

You are now even ‘switching’ your personal obsession onto Della, just because she does not happen to agree with your own interpretation of the 1960 sightings. The only reason I have not answered Della’s question about Victorian sources now despite saying I would is simply because to do so would be to effectively answer yourself, when I have just explained why I will not do so. But rest assured, the ‘sources’ you are trying to dispute DO exist, and both Della and myself have examined them …

Yet, at no point did Vallicrus make any reference to examining these alleged sources. Indeed, as of this writing, she's yet to 'speak up' about them. It comes as no surprise that direct citations to the material are carefully avoided in Farrant's reply, which I'd call him out on:

Telling me the sources exist is not the same as stating what they are. I'm not asking you to prove the entity existed. I'm asking you to prove that there was a recorded history (from the Victorian era) of its 'existence', whether it be oral tales, books, articles, whatever...especially when a named person (Bram Stoker) is involved.

I should've been more cautious in providing a leading comment like 'whether it be oral tales, books, articles, whatever', but I needn't have worried, as he continued to evade providing any sort of reference. Instead, he made a vague offer to share his sources if I would discuss my Christian views on ghosts (?!): 'You have had my answer, i.e. that when you are prepared to explain your views here simply - and without further prevarication - I may then take up your repetetive [sic] question about "Victorian sources".'

I knew this was another ruse. After all, we had already discussed my views on the matter several times on the same forum, not to mention previous interactions on Arcadia. Nonetheless, I took the bait and provided an extensive answer on 11 July.

As of this writing, he has not replied. Therefore, the question still remains: do such sources exist or are we dealing with a manufactured history to 'validate' relatively recent claims? The jury's out, but my request/offer for him to provide sources still stands.