Release the Tapes!

For several years, Manchester and his sockpuppets have discussed a supposedly incriminating tape in their possession, featuring a discussion between David Farrant and Anthony Arthur "Tony" Hill. It apparently captured Farrant's intent to hoax a ghost story for the local press.

Shortly after covering the controversy on this blog, I confronted Farrant with the claim. He stated that the allegations were untrue, and apparently concocted as revenge for Farrant discussing Hill and Manchester's intent to hoax a vampire story for the press—the one that became the Highgate Vampire case. Considering the magnitude of this allegation, I've wondered why Manchester—or his sockpuppets—have never released the tapes. It'd blow the lid right off their archnemesis, Farrant's, claims and vindicate their frequent, extensive, repetitious and negative commentary about him. To that effect, I also told them to put their money where their mouth was.

Now, Farrant's laid down the guantlet, himself: he's openly challenged Manchester to release the tapes:

Many readers here will be aware of a vindictive claim being desperately circulated on the Internet by a very mentally disturbed person masquerading as a ‘bishop’ and a ‘vampire hunter’ (and who is widely known by the nickname ‘Bonky’ [Farrant's nickname for Sean Manchester] by his friends and enemies alike), that I hoaxed the Highgate Vampire story back in 1970. The fake story being put around by this bonky individual is, that I colluded with one [Anthony] Arthur “Eggmanne” Hill (a close friend and associate of this bonky person) to invent this vampire story and he (the ‘bonky one’) was given a tape recording of myself (secretly recorded by Hill) which could prove this allegation. Well, despite being challenged by many and various people to publish this tape (or tapes) and do just this, the ‘Bonky one’ has declined to do so. Why? - one can only ask! 

Could it be that this is because this tape simply does not exist? Or if there exists such a tape its content is entirely different from the falsified interpretation being circulated by ‘Bonky’? 

People will have to make their own minds up about that if – or when – this alleged recording is ever released. I have no objection to its release. Indeed, I welcome it…But I fear that the only person it could incriminate is the very person who is now admitting to having such a recording.

So, Farrant's given his approval for the public release of these alleged recordings. The ball's in Manchester—and his sockpuppet's—court. If they still refuse to release the recordings despite permission being granted, they should immediately retract their claim, apologise, stop promoting it on various blogs and blog comments, and get off Farrant's back about it.

The prevalence of secret recordings

Smoking guns are hard to come by in this case. One must duck and weave through a wave of paltry excuses, revisionism and flat-out stonewalling. That, of course, doesn't stop the claims a-rollin' on in, though.

But one of the more explosive claims, something that could hammer a nail into the coffin—and reputation—of one of the 'vampire''s leading proponents, burying the case once and for all, is also one of the most elusive pieces of 'evidence'.

Oddly enough, it originated from one of the deepest, darkest recesses of the web: the MySpace page of an undead Hungarian scholar.¹ His entry discusses a dinner held at Sean Manchester's place, notable for the presence of David Farrant's former friend, Tony 'Hutchinson' Hill. 'It was in the winter of 1969/70 that Farrant suggested to Hill they attempt to hoax a ghost story to see what the public reaction might be,' so claims Arminius Vámbéry.

CBS Miami

Vámbéry goes on to assert that 'Farrant could not afford to allow Hill to come forward if he wanted to retain any semblance of credibility because, more than anyone else, Hill knows that Farrant is a fake.' While none of the content of his blog entry contains any direct quotes—nor does its author disclose his attendence, suggesting he's relying on the story 'secondhand'—it also alleges Hill 'still possesses secretly recorded tapes of their forty-year-old conversations to prove it. On these tapes, Farrant can be heard conspiring to hoax a ghost story using acquaintances' addresses to send fraudulent letters to local newspapers, and by dressing up as a "ghost" and wearing make-up for photographs.'

There's certainly a precedent for the letters and Ghost Dave is backed by photographic evidence, do the tapes actually exist? Unfortunately, the credibility of Vámbéry's claims is undermined by saying, 'It was not long before Seán Manchester was advising caution where Farrant's claims were concerned, and by the end of that year he had publicly dissociated himself from Farrant on a television programme (BBC's 24 Hours, 15 October 1970) and in both the national and local press.' Considering the 'access' he has to Manchester's personal life—or so his photos of the dinner would suggest—you'd expect him to know that Manchester and Farrant's association continued long after this time.

But where Vámbéry stumbles, the Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester pick up the slack, by regurgitating his entry for their blog. In another entry, 'Mug shot', the the allegation of Farrant and Hill's hoaxing a ghost story, rears its head again. It also makes an appearance in Vampire Research Society member, Vampirologist's blog, under 'The ghost writers', but adds further detail: 'Hill was in on the hoax and can be heard colluding with Farrant in conversations secretly recorded in December 1969, January and February 1970.'

Farrant is certainly aware of these claims: I showed them to him and asked him to comment. For the record, he said, 'The content of this document is untrue, and apparently concocted because of a disclosure I made on an American Radio broadcast recently to the effect that the above named ‘Tony Hill’ together with his ‘side-kick’ and close friend one Mr. Sean Manchester, had hoaxed their version of the infamous Highgate Vampire in the year of 1969 by making a home-made 8mm cine film (this film was in colour but had no sound) about its (The Highgate ‘Vampire) alleged activities. This film showed Mr. Manchester himself disguised as a ‘vampire’ and Mr. Tony Hill assisted in its original production.'

That is an unlikely claim, due to the timing of the postings. I would suggest, along these lines, that the 'secret recordings' were a 'comeback' to Farrant's publication, The Seangate tapes, which feature alleged transcripts of incriminating phone conversations between Farrant and Manchester. These, too, were 'secret recordings'. As far as I know, Manchester—a man keen to invoke DMCAs, as Brendan Kilmartin, owner of The supernatural world forums will also attest—has not pursued legal against against Farrant for their publication.

But, on the other hand, Farrant, who took the Daily Express to court over allegedly defamatory comments², has not made any such injunctions, either, despite repeated insinuations that Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester, Arminius Vámbéry and Vampirologist are actually Sean Manchester in disguise.

Seeing as The Seangate tapes have remained in circulation, relatively unhindered, I think it's time Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester, Arminius Vámbéry and Vampirologist—and Hill, too, presuming he actually made such allegations—put their money where their mouth is and produce the tapes. Otherwise, they should retract their statements.

---

^{1. The real Arminius died on 15 September 1913. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminius_Vambery.↩}

^{2. ‘Occult man appeals for help after libel cases’, Daily Express, 16 February 1980, p. 4 and ‘Witch left with £20,000 libel bill’, The Guardian, 16 February 1980, p. 3.↩}

Farrant Responds to Hill's Hoax Boasts

David responded to the claims of hoaxing addressed in the previous entry. Unfortunately, he compounded his response with snide attacks against me and customary errors.

He began his post by making "it quite plain, as I have done in the past, that I do will not respond to malicious propaganda issued on the behalf of the 'Friends of 'Bishop' Manchester', alternatively known as the 'Vampire Research Society'." He then responded to it.

True, there's little difference between the two groups, but technically-speaking, they're separate entities. As to that "on the behalf" bit, I didn't post it on the forum at their request. I did it of my own accord. Like I said, I happened to come across the blog, which also targets me. Thus, why would I post things on their behalf? Indeed, I wasn't saying their blog entry was accurate, I just wanted David's official response to it, especially as David never denied knowing Tony Hill. So, we've got another one of those rare cases in which a "witness" has been on both sides of the Manchester-Farrant "feud".

David went onto speculate on why the blog had been written. Thus, serious accusations made against him are countered with more serious accusations:

The content of this document is untrue, and apparently concocted because of a disclosure I made on an American Radio broadcast recently to the effect that the above named ‘Tony Hill’ together with his ‘side-kick’ and close friend one Mr. Sean Manchester, had hoaxed their version of the infamous Highgate Vampire in the year of 1969 by making a home-made 8mm cine film (this film was in colour but had no sound) about its (The Highgate ‘Vampire) alleged activities. This film showed Mr. Manchester himself disguised as a ‘vampire’ and Mr. Tony Hill assisted in its original production.

He's given us two "leads" here. Firstly, there's the broadcast. If it was indeed intended as "payback", then it'd have to pre-date the Tony Hill article. Second, we have a film seemingly confirming Manchester and Hill's role in a hoax. Great! Not only that, but a third lead follows shortly thereafter:

It is perhaps little wonder why I do not take this issued propaganda by the ‘Vampire Research Society’ in the least bit seriously. Suffice to say, that the contents of the VRS post are totally untrue and that the ghost seen in and around Highgate Cemetery could be traced back to Victorian times, and it is, of course, not possible to hoax a ghost that had already been witnessed by so many people.

So now our "vampire" has a lineage: Victorian era London. We've also got circumstantial evidence heaped on, namely, so many people saw it that it couldn't be fake. There's only two problems with this reasoning. Firstly, the phenomena reported at Highgate was much more varied than David implies. We're not talking about one "ghost" here, but many. As Wikipedia notes, "Hardly two correspondents gave the same story."

Second, Tony Hill's account reveals exactly how such sightings could be faked. The majority of sightings were derived from newspaper correspondence. Hill indicates that he and Farrant used multiple addresses and names to send off fake accounts to the local paper. Many other witnesses were anonymous. The paper's editor saw the whole case as a bit of a laugh.

Oh, and wanna know how it's possible for a ghost story to be faked, despite a glut of witnesses? Ever heard of mass hysteria?

After railing against Manchester for the better part of the post, David took aim at my journalistic credibility because I asked him about an account of his involvement in an alleged hoax:

The main motivation for the 'VRS's' current allegation, is because I described in detail how the Highgate Vampire hoax had really been perpetrated in 1970. Mr. Hogg’s motivation for repeating this untrue allegation against myself here seems to be borne solely out of spite, and a lack of insight into any kind of serious research or journalism.

Due to his low level comprehension and quickness to "deal with" critics like myself, I had to point out a few of his, let's be diplomatic and call them errors. I also took the opportunity to ask him for evidence on his claims. Namely, did he have a copy of the mysterious 8mm film? Could he reference any Victorian era sightings that confirm his "ghost" theory? I also illustrated the ludicrousness of his attack against my leet journalistic skillz:

You'll recall I prefigured the quote with: "What do you have to say to Tony Hill's claims about your involvement in the Case?" I was not printing Hill's account as accurate. I was asking what you had to say about it. You know, to go on "record" if you will.

Asking for a response to such charges is not "a lack of insight". Jumping to conclusions, however...different story.

Beforehand, one of the forum's moderators, "Phenomenon", said that Hill seemed "far from impartial". I had to point out that David was far from partial, himself.

So, did David respond to my basic requests for evidence of his claims? Did he acknowledge having a copy of the 8mm film? Did he cite any Victorian era sightings? Did he mention which broadcast had been retaliated against? Did he provide anything substantial to validate his own claims? Of course not.

Instead, he deployed a passive-aggressive tactic he frequently uses on the forum. What's the recipe? Vaguely address what I say, avoid addressing me directly, stir in some rhetoric and compound it with an ad hominem attack and voila! You get garbage like this:

I'd better not go to far here Phen, but there is definitely a reason. This reason is unknown to Mr. Hogg, who I think would otherwise feel quite foolish for posting links to a 'hate site'dedicated solely to attacking myself and others members of the BPOS. As I stated in my post, this only indicates a total lack of any serious research on his part. I do not blame him for not knowing what this reason is (he couldn't in any event), but this could surely not excuse him for blindly repeating frivilous allegations made by others without first being aware of the true facts.

The problem is, David perpetuates the idea (as does Manchester) of "exclusive domain" of the Case. There's no doubt either of them played a central role, but it's a shame he has trouble upholding the ethos of his own Highgate Vampire Society:

After all, the case of the so-called Highgate phenomenon is not really a private issue or one that can be affected by personal views or interpretations. It is a matter of public record and should thus be open to continued input and debate, and not one that should not be allowed to become clouded or influenced by any who have no knowledge of events (which they certainly do not ‘own’) as these actually occurred or happened. There are many such persons around (including sensationalistic authors and members of the Press) but their stories should really be shared in total, and not be allowed to become ‘dictorial’ in the sense that these necessarily represent the public view of things.

David seems oblivious to his own "dictorial" nature. His concept of having the "true facts" involves repeatedly saying he has the "true facts". It's a cult-like mantra. It might fool some, but not me.

When dealing with a Case like this, we must verify as many of the claims and counter-claims as possible. This helps eliminate much of the feud overlay and gets to the truth. What really happened?

There's a reason a fact "can refer to verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented as objective reality. In science, it means a provable concept." This case demands that approach.

Outright Hoax?

"Duh," some of you might've said. But during the course of this thing, how many times have you come across someone actually admitting their part in a hoax at Highgate? Yeah, I thought so. Read on.

A coupla days ago, I stumbled across the FoBSM's new blog. It's written under a collective name, "Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester" and serves as a veritable "hitlist" of their perceived enemies (including myself). Awash with Manchester-worship, maliciousness, fabrications, hypocrisy, copyright violation, horrid photoshop and regurgitations from elsewhere, the clandestine group has the seal of approval from Seán Manchester, himself.

Buried deep within the manure, you'll find the occasional items of interest. One particular entry concerns an "informal dinner party in the summer of 2009 hosted by Bishop Seán Manchester and his wife at their spacious retreat on the south coast of England", the latter probably funded by the generous donations of Manchester's parishioners. Or, perhaps purchasers of his "best-selling books", which have been in continuous availability since 1991.

Anyhoo, the dinner in question was held in honour of Tony Hill, an associate and former employee of Manchester's. As is usual in the Case, some cross-contamination's involved: Farrant used to stay at Hill's place, after he was evicted and bankrupted. "Some of the guests were also members of the Vampire Research Society fascinated to hear what Mr Hill might have to say about David Farrant", namely, the same group that advises Farrant is best "ignored". The Bish can't get enough of him, either, despite giving the same "advice".

There's three stand-outs about the FoBSM blog entry in question: 1) it reveals the Bishop has actual friends even if they have no names, 2) it's plagiarised from a dead Hungarian scholar's MySpace blog, 3) Hill boasts about participating in a collaborative hoax with Farrant. Here's the claim:

It was in the winter of 1969/70 when Mr Farrant suggested to Mr Hill they attempt to hoax a ghost story to see what the public reaction might be. Mr Hill went along with Mr Farrant's idea, but had lost interest by the end of the year. In the pubs he frequented, Mr Farrant heard tales of a vampire reputed to haunt Highgate Cemetery and wanted to see how easily it would be to convince local residents that there was also a ghost in the vicinity. Mr Hill photographed Mr Farrant wearing "ghost" make-up at night in the graveyard. He was also privy to Mr Farrant using the addresses of acquaintances such as Nava Grunberg, Kenneth Frewin and Audrey Connely to submit fraudulent letters to local newspapers. It was always Mr Farrant's intention, Mr Hill revealed, to eventually expose the "ghost story" as a hoax to show how gullible the public are when it comes to things paranormal, but events overtook this plan as the terrifying reality of an emerging supernaturalism eclipsed David Farrant's asinine antics. Meanwhile, Mr Farrant was quickly becoming addicted to the attention he was starting to receive in the press.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I've asked David what he has to say about these charges, but he hasn't responded yet. In the meantime, let's turn to his blog. Or, specifically, one of its entry's comments section.

The entry in question concerned yet another talk (yawn) on the Highgate vampire. John Baldry's Cat, one of David's fans, got the ball rolling with a comment concerning the "ghost" photo depicted at the top of this page:

What’s with this picture, David? Does “Bonky” own the copyright on this? What was going on there? – It looks like you’ve had about 15 drinks at a pub, or are “auditioning” for an east end musical, or both!

As usual, David handpassed the blame back onto Manchester, not-so-subtlety referred to as "Bonky:

That was just one of the many pictures Bonky took of myself Cat in early 1970. He said (then) he wanted them for a book he was planning on myself.

I believe he used a couple of these at a later date, but completely out of context from their original meaning!

So that’s how they’ve turned up on his self-originatd site!

The conversation's joined by American Psycho, who pointed out a rather obvious "glitch" in the photo, that is, a sizable portion looks like it's been scribbled over by a 3 year-old with a texta: "Erm, with that pic, looks like Bonky blacked out parts of it…more of his revisionism?"

John Baldry's Cat made like Rorschach and squinted background details into the picture:

That photo is odd, over Farrant’s right facing shoulder you can barely make out an angled window, similar to a van’s windscreen. The blacked-out portions seem to be an attempt to disguise a street sidewalk.

David where was this photo taken?

David didn't confirm Cat's "angled window" theory, but did revert the "blame" back onto Manchester:

It was taken by Bonky, Cat, in late 1969/early 1970 and is of the path leading frm the top gate in Highgate Cemetery. In fact, the ground was covered in snow which might explain all the ‘blacking out’.

Anyway, the photo was taken by the bonky one who was with Tony Hill when it was taken.

He censored snow? You know things have gone barmy when he presents this deliberate topographic omission as it was the most obvious thing in the world.