Podcast goes live!

My podcast interview with Trystan Swale is now online. Give it a listen, tell me what you think. But first, some criticism! 

As I noted in the previous entry, 'Writing about the case is one thing–especially with immediate access to materials–but speaking about it 'live', is another, especially as I'm put on the spot'–not that I'm making excuses here, but I did get a few things wrong. If readers spot any more, feel free to add them to the comments section.

The date of David Farrant's letter

David Farrant's initial letter to the Hampstead & Highgate Express was published on 6 February 1970, not 7 February.

David Farrat, 'Ghostly walks in Highgate', Hampstead & Highgate Express, 6 February 1970, p. 26.

The (revised) date of David Farrant's initial sighting

I also referred to two dates for Farrant's initial sighting of the 'vampire', mentioning Christmas Eve, 1969 (as mentioned in Farrant's letter, above) in contrast with his latter-day revision, 21 December 1969: 'The date chosen was December 21st - the eve of the winter Solstice and a traditional time (due to the maximum hours of darkness) when potent psychic forces have easy access to the 'earthly plane'.' I said the Solstice was in 'November' instead of the December date. Oops!

The Wojdyla attack

Elizabeth Wojdyla was attacked by the vampire in 1969, not 1967. I got my dates jumbled up. In 1967, Wojdyla was walking past Highgate Cemetery with her friend, Barbara. Both were 16 year old students of La Sainte Union Convent. Highgate. They passed the north gate and supposedly saw, 'this scene of graves directly in front of us. And the graves were opening up: and the people were rising. We were not conscious of walking down the lane. We were only conscious of this graveyard scene.'¹

She was subsequently plagued by nightmares of something evil trying to creep into her room. Its face was 'deathly pale'. If the implication here is that Wojdyla was being visited by the vampire, then it must've been a remarkably patient fiend, as it seemingly waited two years to get really stuck into her.

The allusion in Manchester's account holds that the attacks proper began in 1969–as dealt with in the interview. Manchester re-encountered Wojdyla by 'chance meeting', and it was her pallid, sickly state, followed by a stereotypical vampire victim diagnosis–'She appeared to be suffering a pernicious form of anaemia'²–that compelled him to re-establish their acquaintance. It was via this re-acquaintance that Manchester first came to meet her boyfriend, Keith Maclean.

A Sean Manchester blog title

While discussing Manchester's tendency to steal other people's work, I referred to Manchester's blog as 'Ask Bishop Manchester' by way of example: it's a plagiaristic hotbed. However, his blog's actually called Bishop † Seán † Manchester:  questions & answers. Concerning a specific example I mentioned–involving Manchester stealing material from a British National Party blog–see: 'Manchester vs. Google'.

---

<sup>1. Sean Manchester, "The Highgate Vampire," in The Vampire's Bedsite Companion: The Amazing World of Vampires in Fact and Fiction, ed. Peter Underwood (London: Leslie Frewin, 1975), 90.↩

2. ibid., 94.↩</sup>

My first podcast

Unseen films

On Valentine's Day at 11am, I was interviewed by Trystan Swale for Fortean radio. As you may've gathered from its mention here, we discussed the Highgate Vampire case. It's the first podcast I've ever done–hell, it's the first time I've ever been interviewed about the case.

Apart from nerves, and learning how to use Skype, my main concern with the interview was not having enough to say. Writing about the case is one thing–especially with immediate access to materials–but speaking about it 'live', is another, especially as I'm put on the spot.

Thankfully, years of reading about this thing prepared me well. It turns out my brain isn't like a sieve; it's just that I'm not used to talking about it 'out loud'. You see, my friends have an idea about what I do–some have read my blogs and are aware of the way I've been stalked on account of my criticisms–but as they're generally not interested in that sort of thing, so I keep mum about it. Most of my discussion about the case is online.

It's even weird saying 'David Farrant' and 'Sean Manchester' out loud, too, like they're hushed words discussed in the darkest recesses of the 'net.

Nonetheless, I think I handled myself well. If anything, I probably had too much to say. There are so many twists, turns and details about the case, I had to try making it as comprehensive, comprehensible and linear as possible. That's hard to do, when you've got two primary conflicting narratives; not to mention a raft of peripheral material to draw upon.

Thankfully, Trystan put me at ease–not only in the lead-up to it, but afterward, too. By that point, I felt like I needed a stiff drink. Anyway, I hope you like it. Here's a teaser. The interview will be out on 1 March. I'll post up the link when it's ready. Stay tuned!

Update (2 March 2013)

The podcast's release is now scheduled for 3 March.

Downfall

This blog has been dormant because I decided to concentrate my writings to a WordPress blog, also called Did a Wampyr Walk in Highgate?. Unfortunately, that won't be happening any more.

While I was on a trip to Adelaide between 5–12 Janaury, I tried accessing my blog, only to be greeted with this:

Let's say, I wasn't pleased by this turn of events. Nonetheless, I was touched by words of support from my readers. One SMSed me (07-Jan-13 12:34am):

Hi Bud, is everything ok, I see the blogs gone.....was it the potty prelate?

To which I replied (07-Jan-13 8:02am):

I'm looking into that but yes it was him

The reader wrote back (07-Jan-13 9:40am),

What a wanker , can you put it back up somewhere else?

I replied (07-Jan-13 9:50am),

I have to count on it being backed up by wordpress or I have to start from scratch 

The reader added (07-Jan-13 1:40pm),

Hope it is mate...the bloke really is a total cock, I honestly dont know how he can be such a blatant hypocrite!

I'm not going to disclose the identity of this 'potty prelate', 'wanker', 'total cock' and 'blatant hypocrite'. On an unrelated note, in the lead up to my blog's closure, I was subjected to repeated DMCA takedown notices issued by Sean Manchester.

It began when I critiqued Manchester's 'Tamás Ország' entry for his blog, Bishop † Seán † Manchester:  questions & answers (21 December 2012). Manchester's entry discussed candidates for the identity of the Highgate Vampire. One of them was 'a Russian immigrant shoemaker/leather worker called Mikhail Oleg Ostrog'.

My critique, 'Jack the Vampire?' (22 December 2012), exposed several anomalies in Manchester's entry: firstly, it had been plagiarised from ProBoards group, The Highgate Vampire. Second, 'Mikhail Oleg Ostrog' is actually Michael Ostrog: a Jack the Ripper suspect; something Manchester hadn't realised. Third, the Ostrog timeline was at odds with the 18th century date Manchester has suggested for his vampire's origins. Fourth, Ostrog's appearance didn't match his vampire, either.

To illustrate the latter point, I contrasted a photograph included in Manchester's book, The Highgate Vampire (1991)¹ with contemporary pictures of Ostrog. As the reproduction was smaller than the picture's original resolution, and it was being used for critical purposes, I thought I'd be automatically safe on Fair Use principles. Nonetheless, that picture's inclusion triggered Manchester's initial takedown notice against me (DMCA #1414831).

Shortly after receiving the claim, I noticed some substantial–and undisclosed–revisions had taken place on Manchester's 'Tamás Ország' blog entry. Not only did he now dispute the likelihood of Ostrog's connection to the Highgate Vampire, but he also included the same source (Casebook: Jack the Ripper) and primary image I did in my post, to refute their association! In other words, Manchester was content with not only forcing me to remove and image off my blog–he also stole my findings!

I didn't mince words with my follow-up entry, 'Bishop reports me for copyright violation; then steals my findings' (27 December 2012). To illustrate the difference between Manchester's original entry and the post-DMCA takedown notice version, I posted screencaps of the original and updated notice.

Soon afterward, I received another DMCA takedown notice (#1418569), demanding the two screencaps be removed. Manchester had reported me. Again.

Evidentially, the final straw for WordPress.com came when I included a photograph of Manchester in my 3 January 2013 post, 'Lie detector developments'. The picture was sent to me by Manchester's former friend, Kevin Chesham. It showed Manchester, in a cowboy hat, on his 63rd birthday. Chesham assured me the picture was his copyright.

Despite clearly captioning the photo with relevant copyright info, Manchester issued another DMCA takedown notice against me–which was evidentially one too many for WordPress.com, who promptly suspended my blog.

I should mention that I did try challenging these notices, but I was repeatedly placed a very difficult position: in order to file a DMCA counter-notice, one is required to forward their personal details along (home address, etc.), which is then passed onto the claimant. As much as I know Manchester would love having my details because I'm sure he wouldn't abuse them, I declined. Purely on those grounds, not because I didn't feel I had a right to reproduce any of the imagery discussed.

In the first two instances, I wound up removing the pictures. I also (literally) blacked out the screencaps. Each was overlaid with an explanatory message explaining the reason for removal of the originals.

There wasn't anything I could do with the latest claim, because by that point, my blog was no longer publicly accessible. Even providing Chesham's details in lieu of mine–which he said was ok–wasn't good enough for them.

I suggested handing my details over to a third party (WordPress.com). They didn't go for it. How about removing the Cowboy Manchester pic and refraining from publishing potentially DMCA-violating images in future? No dice.

And that's where we're at: my WordPress blog–dawwih.wordpress.com–which had been active since 2009, is dead. Long live the blog!

My primary concern throughout all this, however, was preserving my content. It's not like I could go back and save the pages, as I do for the items I link to. I really should've done that, in hindsight.

Anyway, through the darkness, a saving grace emerged. It turns out WordPress.com allows a special file to be saved in the event of blog closures. A special file that preserves text (but not pictures unfortunately), should the owner of the blog want their writing hosted elsewhere...

That's why my WordPress blog lives, breathes and jumps again.You can read 'Jack the Vampire?' and 'Bishop reports me for copyright violation; then steals my findings' over there. 'Lie detector developments' is there, too–albeit with no picture. For now.

So, nice try Sean–but you can't suppress the truth. It always finds a way.

---

^{1. Photo captioned, 'Pictures showing the vampire in stages of rapid decomposition which were televised in 1990. Only after exorcism was capture on film possible', S Manchester, The Highgate vampire: the infernal world of the undead unearthed at London’s Highgate Cemetery and environs, rev. edn, Gothic Press, London, 1991, p. 144.↩}

Rebutting the Nazi Room

The history guide

The latest controversy involving figures involved in the Highgate Vampire case are the Nazi Room allegations made by Sean Manchester's former friend, Kevin Chesham. 

Chesham alleges Manchester secretly admires Nazis and collects associated paraphernalia. There have been two primary rebuttals to Chesham's claims. The first comes from spider-blogger, Steatoda Nobilis. His blog, Kevin Chesham - Triathlete - Fascist, features doctored pictures, Nazi-related images and a letter reportedly from Chesham to an unnamed 'Brother', extolling the virtues of British fascist, Oswald Mosley (1896–1980). Interestingly, Manchester refers to 'Br. Kevin Chesham' in his 1995 book documenting the founding of his church¹; despite Chesham's Buddhist beliefs.

The second rebuttal comes from Manchester, himself. It's titled, well—as of this writing, it doesn't actually have a title. Instead, it features a quote from Chesham: "The struggle can take many turns and directions", balanced off with a quote from William Shakespeare's Henry VI, part III: 'The smallest worm will turn, being trodden on.'

Manchester dismisses the contents of the 'Nazi room' with militaria from other periods. There are two allusions to the Nazi stuff, firstly: 'German militaria is by far the most popular and most expensive. There are, however, certain items from World War Two that were given me by folk I knew when I was very young (who brought them back from Europe) on the proviso that I did not sell them on. I shall honour that request.' Secondly, 'I have in the past displayed my twentieth century militaria, largely but not exclusively Second World War, in a place where they could be viewed by visitors for inspection.' Militaria is defined as 'collected or collectible military  objects, as uniforms and firearms, having historical interest.'

One must question the 'militaria' claim on closer inspection of the room's contents. For instance, a silver-framed picture of Adolf Hitler adorns the wall. Second, a newspaper article—also silver-framed—sits on the desk. It's titled, 'One in four Germans admires the Nazis'. The article does not date from World War 2: it was published in The Daily Mail's 18 October 2007 issue. Indeed, the Nazi room pictures were taken that same year. Manchester's bookshelf, also pictured, is lined with books on Nazism.

Yet Manchester alleges that Chesham—and his wife, Beverley Mason—are fascists. Not him. Manchester believes Chesham 'became drawn to me because I had met Sir Oswald and Lady Diana Mosley in the early 1960s and, like Kevin, found their incarceration without trial during the Second World War to be unjust.' Manchester also mentions his association with people of far-right—and far-left—views, but omits John Pope, who was embroiled in Manchester's 'phoney Nazis' debacle. 'Raggety Ricketts' notes Manchester has retained associated items from this period. For all this, it is Chesham's friendship with David Farrant, that has rendered him a 'Judas'.

Speaking of which, Manchester's 'archenemy', Farrant, also cops a serve, with his preferences allegedly given to the National Front during the 1978 general election. This, in turn, has been refuted elsewhere.

I am also lumped with Manchester's 'detractors'. My posts on The supernatural world forums have been reproduced, sans citation, i.e. this thread and this one. I commented on Manchester's anti-'just war' policy—which is derived from The Grail Church (1995)—and juxtaposed this stance against his pro-self-defence advocacy, 'the implication being that the Brits should've let the Nazis goose-step all over them and Europe during WW2.' Manchester said, 'I fail to follow that logic'. After defending the right to personal defence, he provided a strange amendment to Britain's involvement in World War 2:

Had Great Britain not declared war on Germany in the wake of a conveniently manufactured agreement with Poland that was designed to be violated, perhaps the sixty million people killed, which was over 2.5% of the world population, might for the most part have survived? Hitler certainly did not want a war with Great Britain on whose Empire he modelled his Third Reich. My country's action resulted in the worst and deadliest military conflict in history. It should have been avoided by every measure available.

At best, this is an incredibly naive stance; Nazi apologia, at worst. Despite Manchester's sizable collection of World War 2 books, he fails to conceive—or deliberately overlooks—that with or without Britain's involvement, Hitler's 'plans' for Europe were quite clear from the get-go. Indeed, Britain was seen as a major obstacle to their aim, despite attempts to avoid war with Germany. This, of course, culminated with Operation: Sea Lion. Rather than model his Third Reich on Britain's empire, he was inspired by the ancient Roman template. Thus the criticism Manchester levels at Britain, is stretching the bounds of credulity.

All up, it doesn't paint a pretty picture for Manchester's rebuttals. If Chesham was, indeed, pro-fascist as Manchester alleges, a similar charge could be levelled at Manchester, consistent with Chesham's own allegations. Add Manchester's pro-BNP sympathies and nationalist leanings to the mix, and you've got a heady cocktail.

What makes these tendencies especially unusual, is Manchester's support for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and criticism of the National Front. You'd think he'd know better. It just goes to show that when it comes to Highgate matters and its associates, things aren't always so clear-cut.

---

^{1. S Manchester, The Grail Church: its ancient tradition and renewed flowering, Penmachno, UK, 1995, p. 128.↩}

Caught in the headlights

Pajiba

One notable aspect of the Highgate Vampire case is what I call the 'caught in headlights' trope. Several variants are related by David Farrant and Sean Manchester. They all share the same characteristics: a person is walking past the cemetery at night, they are attacked by a supernatural force, but 'saved' by the the headlights of an oncoming vehicle.

The earliest version I'm familiar with, appeared in the Hampstead & Highgate Express, 15 October 1971:

Mr. Farrant said that last March a girl waslking past the cemetery in Swains Lane was knocked to the ground by a tall, shadowy figure which then disappeared as a car arrived. The road was lined by 12-foot high walls at that point.

The girl reported the attack to police, who could find no trace of her attacker. She had abrasions on her arms and knees but no other marks.¹

In 1975, he expanded the account in an article for New Witchcraft:

A young girl who was walking past the cemetery in the early hours of the morning was suddenly thrown to the ground with tremendous force by "a tall dark figure" which had appeared behind her from nowhere. Luckily at that moment a car came along, and the girl was taken to Highgate Police Station suffering from shock and abrasions to her legs and elbows. The police immediately made a complete search of the area (the road is bordered by 12ft high walls) but were unable to find any trace of her attacker. The figure had "vanished" in the glare of the headlights.²

In 2005, her vocation was revealed as nurse. The account is expanded, further still, on the Friends of David Farrant:

Reports were coming into the Society that a young nurse had been 'attacked' by the 'vampire' in Swains Lane which runs alongside the cemetery. Eventually, the girl's identity was discovered and I arranged a meeting with her. Although reluctant to discuss the matter at first, I assured her anonymity and she gave the following account:

She was returning home in the early hours walking down Swain's Lane. As she passed the cemetery, a little way further on, she was suddenly 'thrown to the ground' with tremendous force by a 'tall black figure' with a 'deathly white face'. At that moment, a car stopped to help her and the figure 'vanished' in the glare of the headlights. She was taken to Highgate Police Station in a state of severe shock suffering abrasions to her knees and elbows. The police immediately made a thorough search of the area but could find no trace of her attacker. More mysterious still was the fact that where the figure had vanished, the cemetery was lined by 15 foot high walls.

However, in 1973, Manchester published a similar account of his own. 'Jacqui Frances, a pretty 22- year-old blonde'—who I've previously mentioned—had been visiting friends in Highgate Village and was making her way 'down the lane past the graveyard', i.e. Swains Lane. She passed the cemetery gate, turned, and saw a 'tall figure of a man with a deathly-white face' staring at her 'from within the cemetery'. She began walking faster, only to notice that the figure had seemingly materialised from the gate and started following her a few yards behind.³

As it closed in, she noted it stood about 7 feet tall and was 'darkly clad'. It also seemed to be hypnotising her. 'Had it not been for the roar of a sports car tearing down the lane, I might have entered a hypnotic trance there and then.'⁴ As with Farrant's account, the spectre disappeared with the car's headlights—except, in this case, it reappeared once the car was gone. When Francis ran to get away, she inadvertently dropped a 'large silver crucifix' she wore. The last 'sign' of the spectre was a hissing sound—atypical of vampire movies—and 'a glimpse of him as he faded in the darkness of the graveyard's 12 foot high brick wall.'⁵

No date for this attack is mentioned, but we can pinpoint it to 1970, as it is mentioned in conjunction with media coverage given to the case that same year. Strangely, Manchester didn't include Francis' account in his contribution to Peter Underwood's 1975 vampire anthology. Instead, the victim appears to have undergone a sex-change:

In first week of February 1970, a twenty-four-year-old man was knocked to the ground and attacked by something which "seemed to glide" from the cemetery. He was much too shaken to write to the press, but it, nevertheless came to my attention via someone he confided in. The description of a "tall figure which swooped" down upon him with the countenance of a "wild animal" was somehow not altogether unfamiliar.⁶

He, too, was 'saved' by the headlights of an oncoming car.

On the surface, it seems Manchester's borrowed Farrant's account for his own and changed a few details. But Manchester's saved from this conclusion by the disclosure of another similar account. Last year, Farrant mentioned the following on The supernatural world forums:

The BPOS into the frequently witnessed seen in and around Highgate Cemetery had in fact been in progress since early 1969. During the course of this, many local people were interviewed that year, and indeed, I published some of these accounts in my first book on that case in 1991. During 1969, the figure repoprted [sic] at Highgate Cemetery was that of a ghost - albeit a fairly malevolent one. The local newspaper (the Ham & High) had taken a serious interest in all the local 'ghost reports', maybe helped by the fact that a similar 'tall dark figure' had been reported locally just a few years earlier. That was said to haunt the Flash [sic] public house and Ye Olde Gatehouse pub. I told that newspaper at that time, that these reports might well be connected.

Then in January a Ham & High reporter contacted me to say they'd received a Press Release to the effect that a lone student (I was only told his name was 'Richard') had been 'attacked' one night by a spectre as he was passing the gates of Highgate Cemetery. The newspaper automatically contacted myself assuming it had come from my Society, but it had not. You surely don't need three guesses to know who was really responsible! This report was never published to my knowledge, although the person responsible for it was to acknowledge this occurrence about a year later on BBC television. This begs the question, of course, as to how hw [sic] could have known about the Ham&High notification if this had never been published?

He elaborated on the Richard account on his Facebook forum, The Highgate Vampire Society:

I know of 3 incidents back from the early 1970’s of people being ‘attacked’ in – or just outside – Highgate Cemetery. The first one occurred in January 1970 and I know about this because a reporter from the local Ham & High newspaper telephoned to ask if my Society knew anything about this. In fact, we didn’t but I was given basic details by this reporter who told me that he was a young student called Richard who attended the North London Polytechnic (as it then was). He had been knocked to the ground quite violently (in Swains Lane just outside the cemetery) by a ‘tall dark figure” which then just promptly disappeared.

The 'person responsible', i.e. Manchester's appearance 'on BBC television' is our lead. Farrant is clearly referring to the 15 October 1970 episode of 24 hours. Here's what Manchester said on the matter: 'As far as we know, it has only physically attacked one male person who had passed by the gate.'

In making a making a correlation between Manchester's comment with the Richard account, Farrant acknowledges that the Richard account actually pre-dates his own with the 'young girl'/'nurse'. Therefore, what I said about the possibility of Manchester borrowing from Farrant's account, now applies to Farrant, instead. We're left with two possibilities. 

Either one of them 'borrowed' the other's account and added their own embellishments, or two separate people encountered an entity—or entities—along Swains Lane, which they were saved from, in nearly identical circumstances. What do you think happened?

I'd like to thank Redmond McWilliams for his assistance in writing this blog entry. Cheers, mate!

---

^{1. 'Nude exorcists sought vampire', Hampstead & Highgate Express, 15 October 1971, p. 3.↩}  

^{2. D Farrant, 'Invoking the vampire', New Witchcraft, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 33–4.↩}  

^{3. S Manchester, 'The world of the vampire', Witchcraft, vol. 2, no. 8, 1973, pp. 53–4.↩}  

^{4. ibid., p. 54.↩}  

^{5. ibid.↩}  

^{6. 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, pp. 105–6.↩}