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!

Dennisologist?

Some time ago, I wrote a blog entry which openly queried just who our chum, "Demonologist" aka TFO, might be. I also stumbled across some further clues.

Deme's latest comment-flood, however, gave away something incredibly interesting.

All it took, was this little snippet of text:

Let me make Bishop Seán Manchester's position quite clear. He has no interest in party politics and has at no time in his life been a member of any political party.

What's that? Speaking on the Bishop's behalf with an air of representative authority?

That's a pretty odd call to make, considering that he only claims to be "personally acquainted with Bishop Seán Manchester and have been for some considerable time."

I decided to Google portions of "Demonologist"'s comment-flood with the expectation of finding it regurgitated from elsewhere.

I wasn't let down:

Let me make Bishop Manchester's position quite clear. He has no interest in party politics and has at no time in his life been a member of any political party.

That quote came from a post called "The Devil's Fool", dated 6/23/2007 6:38 AM, on The Cross and the Stake message board.

The most significant item, however, is its author: "From: MSN NicknameDennisCrawford1".

Yep, it's the username of the one-and-the-same International Secretary of the Vampire Research Society.

Funnily enough, remarkably "similar" content to Dennis' post and "Demonologist"'s comments, can also be found on "Arminius Vámbéry"'s "Wicca Workers Party" blog entry for In the Shadow of the Highgate Vampire.

Well, as the old adage goes: with friends like these...

Don Ecker's Report, Compiled

This is certainly the most exhausting series of blog entries I've ever "written", but, all worth it.

You can read the preludes here and here.

Next, we begin with the first installment. And the second. Then, onto the third and fourth. Followed by the fifth, sixth and seventh.

After that, comes number eight. There's also nine, ten and eleven.

Last, but certainly not least, is number twelve.

One post in particular, is even getting "fanfare" from none-other-than TFO! Great stuff.

The Ecker Report's Conclusion

We carry on from here and make our way to the report's gripping conclusion. Contains mild profanity.

Here is the response they posted on their website. And one thing more before I include their response. For some obscure reason, they refuse to spell Farrant’s last name. They simply put David F[--]. Weird, huh?

“Attacks in the 21st century against Bishop Manchester by those with an anti-Christian bias perhaps echo what happened to his predecessor? For example ...

Don Ecker wrote:

"In the late 1990's I began to do some research on Highgate via the web. ... My interest in Highgate goes back to about 1981-82 and I finally was able to get a handle on the case. I just interviewed David F[——] and at this point Sean Manchester does not wish to be interviewed by me. For a really delicious show I invite you all to check out Dark Matters ... etc, etc."

From the onset, Don Ecker's Dark Matters reveals someone who is willing to twist the truth to suit his agenda which certainly includes a form of emotional blackmail to try and force Bishop Manchester into being interviewed by piling up a mountain of libel that some people would want to address. Ecker falsely attributed content of e-mail exchanges he had with Katrina Garforth -Bles, claiming that she made "snide remarks" about Americans and then tried to capitalise out of the initials of her name, ie "KGB." He did this on a number of occasions. Curiously, or not as the case might be, Dav id F—— does exactly the same thing. No need to guess where Ecker's leads were coming from. The claim that Katrina made such remarks is completely untrue and we shall offer to publish all of the e-mail exchanges with him on one of our forums to demonstrate this fact provided Ecker agrees.

Don Ecker allowed and indeed encouraged David F—— to give voice to what can only be described as an endless stream of libellous abuse and fabricated nonsense about Bishop Manchester who is the author of The Highgate Vampire. Not once did Ecker challenge F—— on any of these defamatory insults by simply asking: "Where is your evidence?" David F——, for example, alleged that the good bishop was sellin g to the public. copies of his ordination "certificates" and videos of his episcopal consecration. Bishop Manchester would not dream of doing anything of the kind and anyone who has evidence to the contrary is invited to produce it. Copies of his instrumen ts of ordination and consecration appear in his book The Grail Church. The episcopal consecration was professionally filmed for the Church archive, but this film has never been offered to the public. Some television programmes have requested to use parts of it, but this request has always been refused for copyright reasons. [which is kind of self-defeating, if you ask me. I mean, after all, who holds the copyright to it? -ed.] F—— also made the usual slurs about how this or that Old Catholic community in the USA or Holland had denied all knowledge of Bishop Manchester. In fact, Bishop Manchester is very well known by Old Catholic jursidictions outside his homeland where he just happens to be the presiding bishop of the British Old Catholic Church . Ecker just went along with one fabricated piece of defamation after another, often adding fuel to the fire with his own comments.

Don Ecker is a man who styles himself as a "criminal investigator" yet he showed absolu tely no interest in the crimes of his interviewee who, let us not forget, was sentenced to almost five years' imprisonment for offences relating chiefly to Highgate Cemetery and threatening people with black magic (voodoo death dolls sent to police witnesses). Ecker's interest was clearly focused on the man he was not interviewing about whom both were prepared to misrepresent and libel at considerable length. Bishop Manchester was discussed far more than the topic the programme was supposed to be about.

There was not one single truthful statement made by the character Ecker was talking to on the obscure radio slot where Dark Matters surfaces. It would be pointless to plough through all the poisonous allegations and expose each one for the malicious falsehoo d it palpably is. This would turn into a very long response indeed if I was to attempt to do that. Let me instead take just a couple of brief examples.

Ecker played his guest (who was speaking to the radio programme from Muswell Hill, London in the UK via telephone) a sound file where David F—— could be heard saying: “As to the question of whether a vampire still exists at Highgate Cemetery, well, I can only say yes it does.” This from the man who keeps repeatedly stating that he does not believe in vampi res and has never sought them out. Ecker recognised the voice to be authentic and asked F—— about the sound file which had been forwarded to the radio station by Katrina. [So they were unable to arrange an interview with Ecker about their side of the Highgate Vampire Case, but were more than willing to assist him undermine Farrant? Hmm... -ed.] The identity of the voice was undeniable, but listeners were told by F —— that this was a cut and spliced excerpt from an interview given in the 1970s to the author of The Highgate Vampire, ie Bishop Manchester. Ecker did not question this even though he must have known the words are from a video made and sold by the man uttering them; a vi deo, moreover created in 1998, not in the 1970s. The interview on videotape comprises David F—— sat in his Muswell Hill bed -sitting room talking about his pet subject, peppered with images (some stolen from The Highgate Vampire), with his final comment being the few seconds played by Don Ecker. The video was created in 1998 and offered for sale under the title In Search of the Highgate Vampire. Bishop Manchester had absolutely no part in this video or the somewhat amateurish interview which featured David F——. Nobody has subsequently picked up on this glaring falsehood.

Ecker allowed his interviewee to claim that he was set up in 1970 by the BBC who provided him with "props" to fulfill the role they wanted him to play when, in fact, he was contacted by the BBC as a direct consequence of his arrest in August of that year at Highgate Cemetery, subsequent court appearance and imprisonment whilst on remand. The BBC merely invited F —— to reconstruct what he was doing on the night of his arrest. This involved him prowling about the graveyard with a cross and a stake with the stated intention of plunging the latter into the heart of the vampire if ever he made its discovery. This was reiterated by David F—— in the Evening News newspaper on 16 October 1970 when he took staff reporter Barrie Simmons on a vampire hunt in Highgate Cemetery equipped with cross and wooden stake. Pictures of F—— stalking the vampire at midnight were included in th e article.

David F—— has a history of claiming that he was set up by this journalist or that journalist, by a television company, by the judicial system and, of course, by Bishop Manchester whom he regards as his arch -enemy. Ecker already knew this becaus e Katrina had provided him with facsimiles of the relevant documents that underline the abject charlatanry of this man. This was done at a time when Ecker was trying to interview both parties individually to boost his ratings. [A very sneaky presumption indeed. Seriously, what has the Bishop got to hide? -ed.] It was explained that Bishop Manchester would not wittingly contribute to any programme or project that also includes David F —— and that this has been the status since October 1970. [But, of course, it's ok for the Bishop to depict Farrant in art and to write about him at length. - ed.]

On Dark Matters F—— was allowed to get away with anything and everything. He was provided with a platform on Ecker's programme to propagate lies at the expense of not just the author of The Highgate Vampire but also a totally innocent person, completely unconnected with the case, who was unjustifiably identified by her full name. F ——, of course, will inv olve absolutely any innocent third party to execute his vendetta which now spans thirty-seven years.

Ecker's entire exercise on Dark Matters was a travesty of the first order and should any libel lawyers in the USA show an interest in taking action again st the offenders, namely Ecker and his interviewee, the Vampire Research Society and its founder will co -operate to the fullest on a no win no fee basis. Such a case would be open and shut due to the seriously damaging allegations being completely unsubstantiated and demonstrably false.”

I loved the last part, looking for free-be lawyers to sue us. [Yes, especially in light of Manchester's material possessions. -ed.] Wouldn’t it be fun if someone got Manchester into court?

Okay, so you may ask why I bothered with any of this? A fair question, to be sure.

I was ready to accept, with proof, that something with a “high-strangeness” factor MIGHT have happened ….. but you bet I would want a lot of proof. I never did consider an actual vampire, but I am willing to concede there might be “something.”

All those years ago, something drained those cattle I investigated, something appears to periodically attack livestock in Texas, Mexico, Central America, etc. and they attribute it to a creature they call the “goat-sucker.” Is it possible there is some type of “natural” creature that feeds on animals by ripping out their throats and drinking the blood? I don’t know, maybe.

So, it always rubbed me the wrong way when someone expounds something so preposterous as an actual “honest to God vampire” and I am supposed to simply take their word for it. Furthermore, if you ask legitimate questions suddenly you are the ENEMY! For over 20 years I encountered that in the UFO research field. But I had a reputation because I was willing to expose the frauds and the bull-shit artists that inhabited that field. I know investigations and how to conduct one. This case was no different, even though I was many thousands of miles from the actual site.

I had no doubt that Manchester and his cronies would attack me, or that they would claim I took the word of a “convicted felon” but as a former police officer with some of the information I dug up, Manchester seems to have escaped that fate (of being a felon himself) by “The Grace of God!” They have claimed I defamed him, I liabled him and all the rest of it, but he refused to speak to me either on or off the record. As a matter of fact, if there is a “KGB” he HID behind her by refusing to even write me via email time after time. My impression was he expected me to “Kiss The Ring.” Well sorry, I don’t kneel, nor do I kiss rings. I could have gone on about this case, Manchester’s claims to glory by reason of an alleged ancestor of his, a maid, who refused to keep her knee’s shut and the infamous “Lord Byron” knocked her up. Manchester says this is one of his line. No proof that I am aware of, but still another example of something we are simply to accept because “Bishop Manchester” says so.

So if you ask me for my bottom line on this story, I will simply have to say … “BULL SHIT.” As far as was there ANY SUPERNATURAL influences a-foot? I doubt it. And by buying Manchester’s “The Highgate Vampire” and his “The Vampire Hunter’s Handbook”, well Hell, I’m out over $40.00.

Don Ecker