Wednesday, 30 November 2016

The Devil is a Liar and so is James Whale

James Whale (born 13 May 1951) gained national prominence in the late 1980s with The James Whale Radio Show, a late-night programme produced by Yorkshire Television for ITV. In 1995, he hosted The James Whale Show on TalkSport until he was sacked in 2008. He presented on Bid TV before returning to the airwaves on LBC in London. In September 2013, he brought back The James Whale Radio Show, and began covering shows on TalkRadio in October 2016. He started presenting the Monday to Thursday evening show between 19:00 and 22:00 on 7 November 2016. A fortnight after the new manifestation of James Whale on TalkRadio, our story begins. Or, rather, ends.

Whale, who has often stated his admiration for Margaret Thatcher, is an atheist who loathes religion, particularly Christianity. In February 2002, he interviewed Seán Manchester, which resulted in hundreds of complaints from listeners due to Whale's treatment of the bishop who made his own complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Commission. His complaint was upheld by the BSC.

Not all that long before interviewing Seán Manchester, and unknown to the bishop at the time, Whale interviewed David Farrant and, therefore, had been primed. This was transparent when he came to talk to the bishop who mentioned "Ferrell" (an American youngster who had murdered people while claiming to be a vampire). James Whale reacted to the name as if "Farrant" had been uttered, and literally jumped in his seat. "Who?" he almost shouted. The truth is that Seán Manchester has not mentioned David Farrant in an interview on radio or television since 13 March 1970, and only then once to warn the charlatan to not go ahead with his planned nocturnal sojourn in Highgate Cemetery.

A stream of snide and negative comments have been forthcoming from James Whale whenever Seán Manchester's name has been mentioned down the years, and this is largely due to whatever Farrant misinformed him, but also because the radio presenter dislikes clergy. It certainly could not have sat well with Whale that, after his sacking from TalkSport, the bishop was invited back to discuss the supernatural in an interview that went extremely well where he was warmly received.

Then came the call from someone on Whale's recent show on TalkRadio where erroneous attributions and claims were made. Whale's co-presenter remembered that there had been a complaint made by Seán Manchester and that the bishop had won. James Whale completely denied that this had happened, and did so in a published sentence, which he repeated: "No, he did not! No, he did not!"

Seán Manchester wrote to Dennie Morris, the Station Editor at TalkRadio, but promptly had his email referred to Alice Furse, the Listener Response Officer who responded on 25 November 2016:

"We’ve listened back to the audio and note that the co-presenter made it clear that your 2002 complaint was upheld. Furthermore at no point was it claimed during the brief exchange on last night’s programme that you are not a Bishop. Therefore at this stage we’re unclear as to why it is that you feel that an apology is required. Perhaps you can clarify this matter further so that we can ensure that we have addressed your complaint properly."

Seán Manchester clarified the nature of his complaint: 

"The co-presenter said he thought I complained and that my complaint was upheld. James Whale, whose show it is (and as far as the listener is concerned would know the facts), categorically refuted any suggestion that I had complained or that my complaint was upheld.

"James Whale repeatedly said: 'No, he did not; no, he did not.' This left the listener with a completely false impression about what really happened. Mr Whale knew the truth, and was quite obviously lying to my detriment.

"It was claimed by the caller that I was not a Catholic bishop. I am. The caller also attributed the statement 'take that lie from your mouth' to me. I said nothing of the kind to Mr Whale on the occasion of our interview in February 2002. I was civil and courteous throughout."

Seán Manchester heard nothing further from TalkRadio. The listeners were obviously aware of James Whale's denial. That is what will stick in their minds.

History once again comes to be rewritten by those who determine what we hear and what we know.

More Green Than Cabbage-Looking

Saturday, 19 November 2016

When Moore is Less


"I like David [Farrant]; a lot more than some people I could mention - he's a very easy going and polite gentleman with a great sense of humor [sic]. ... Who has actually 'won' re Highgate - everyone is still clutching at straws. I would suggest Farrant could be the 'winner' as his theory of it being a 'tupla' (or thought form) could be close to the truth; read as 'psycho-social construct' if you are sceptical! ... Being nominated as a Bishop is a vocation and spiritual path - it has nothing whatsoever to do with Highgate or 'winning' or 'losing.' One could argue that Farrant has followed his own spiritual path - which has been a harsh one at times." - Robert Moore (ASSAP Secretary, commenting on Farrant and Seán Manchester on Hogg's Facebook hate group, 19 November 2016)

Being a consecrated bishop with a vocation and spiritual path, and exorcising evil, whether at Highgate or elsewhere, are not mutually exclusive pursuits. Being the secretary of the ASSAP, a registered charity, requires impartiality as a condition for remaining a charity; something Moore has failed to demonstrate over and over again. The influence of Farrant, Hogg and Swale is palpable.

Farrant's latest fad is a "tulpa" to explain away what he used to call a "ghost" (described by him in March 1970 on Thames Television to Sandra Harris as a dead body emanating evil). Now it has become a projection of the mind. This will ingratiate him with the people he surrounds himself with nowadays and relies upon for what publicity he can garner, eg sceptics like Moore, Hogg and Swale.

Robert Moore talks of Farrant following his own sometimes harsh spiritual path, being easy going and, moreover, a polite gentleman with a great sense of humour? Really? Can Moore be serious?

Farrant's only path has been the selfish pursuit of self-publicity at the cost of other people. Those who actually know him, and knew him almost half a century ago, are all too aware that he believes in nothing spiritual. Even his witchcraft and black magic capers were manufactured for publicity. As for Farrant's sense of humour, if he has one at all it is a sense of humour that is certainly sick and cruel.

Those who really knew and in some cases still know David Farrant have a very different tale to tell:

Actually, it's the same Muswell Hill bedsit he was found by his Probation Officer forty years ago!

Farrant was arrested in December 2002 and charged with the harassment of Seán Manchester, Sarah Manchester, Diana Brewester, Keith Maclean and others. The Crown Prosecution Service did not proceed with their case, however, due to him taking great care to stagger the frequency of incidents so that they fell just outside the remit for the minimum number of offences required per month for a case to be successfully prosecuted via the precise charge brought under the section of the Protection from Harassment Act invoked. This was confirmed by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. Had the police merely charged him with sending malicious mail, Farrant would have undoubtedly been found guilty but his punishment would have then only been a fine. Whereas the actual charges for harassment brought by the police were more serious, and if the CPS had allowed the case to be taken to trial it could have resulted in him receiving a custodial sentence.

Diana Brewester, Seán Manchester's friend and London secretary died of cancer in December 2003, having been harassed and libelled by Farrant in her latter years. Farrant invariably sent his malicious pamphlets to his victims. One such item contained Diana's private address which he published and circulated via the pamphlet. He also published false and disgusting claims about her private sexual life, none of which were true. Farrant has absolutely no regard for the way he maligns people, steals, lies and causes grief to whomsoever he pleases. Throughout his life he has not shown any remorse for his behaviour and crimes. Indeed, he has always sought to capitalise on them; bragging to the press and regurgitating them in self-published pamphlets crammed with libel and copyright infringement. His entire life has been predicated on the execution of grievances, vendettas and depraved pranks. Apart from a week or two as a porter in late 1970, he has received state benefits his entire life. Yet this same man has managed to hoodwink latter-day academics and journalists.

Farrant's many criminal convictions began in 1972 with an indecency charge in Monken Hadley churchyard under the Ecclesiastic Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860. Victoria Jervis was also found guilty. Her revelations under oath when called as a witness during Farrant's Old Bailey trials at the Central Criminal Court two years later are damning, to say the least. This is what she said:

"I have tried to put most of what happened out of my mind. The false letters I wrote to a local paper were to stimulate publicity for the accused. I saw him almost every weekend in the second half of 1972 and I went to Spain with him for a fortnight at the end of June that same year. I was arrested with him in Monken Hadley Churchyard. That incident upset me very much. Afterwards, my doctor prescribed tranquillisers for me."

Facing David Farrant in court to address him, Victoria Jervis added:

"You have photographed me a number of times in your flat with no clothes on. One photograph was published in 1972 with a false caption claiming I was a member of your Society, which I never was."

On another occasion, she recalled, how she had written pseudonymously to a local newspaper at Farrant's request "to stimulate publicity for the accused."

Back in 1972 during the indecency case, "Mr P J Bucknell, prosecuting, said Mr Farrant had painted circles on the ground, lit with candles, and had told reporters and possibly the police of what he was doing. 'This appears to be a sordid attempt to obtain publicity,' he said." (Hampstead & Highgate Express, 24 November 1972).

Speaking at the April 1996 Fortean Times Convention, Maureen Speller commented: "The programme came up with ‘His investigations had far reaching and disturbing consequences’ which I said meant he’d been arrested a lot. Strangely enough, this is more or less what he said. God, I felt old being the only member of [my] group who could remember this nutter being arrested every few weeks.” 

“The wife of self-styled occult priest David Farrant told yesterday of giggles in the graveyard when the pubs had closed. ‘We would go in, frighten ourselves to death and come out again,’ she told an Old Bailey jury. Attractive Mary Farrant — she is separated from her husband and lives in Southampton — said they had often gone to London’s Highgate Cemetery with friends ‘for a bit of a laugh.’ But they never caused any damage. ‘It was just a silly sort of thing that you do after the pubs shut,’ she said. Mrs Farrant added that her husband’s friends who joined in the late night jaunts were not involved in witchcraft or the occult. She had been called as a defence witness by her 28-year-old husband. They have not lived together for three years.” (The Sun, 21 June 1974).

“All he talked about was his witchcraft. He was very vain.” (Julia Batsford, an ex-girlfriend quoted in the Daily Mail, 26 June 1974).

"Au pair Martine de Sacy has exposed the fantasy world of David Farrant, self-styled high priest of British witchcraft, for whom she posed nude in front of a tomb. Farrant was convicted last week by a jury who heard stories of Satanic rites, vampires and death-worship with girls dancing in a cemetery. Afterwards, 23-year-old Martine said: 'He was a failure as a lover. In fact, I think his trouble was that he was seeking compensation for this. He was always after publicity and he felt that having all these girls around helped. I'm sure the night he took me to the cemetery had less to do with occultism than his craving to be the centre of something.' ... While Martine told her story in Paris, customers at Farrant's local — the Prince of Wales in Highgate, London — chuckled over the man they called 'Birdman.' One regular said: 'He used to come in with a parrot on his shoulder. One night he came in with photos of Martine in the nude. We pinched one, and when she next came in, we told her he was selling them at 5p a time. She went through the ceiling.' ... Farrant called his estranged wife Mary, in his defence. She said: 'We would go in the cemetery with my husband's friends when the pubs had closed. We would frighten ourselves to death and come out again. It was just a silly sort of thing that you do after the pubs close. Nobody was involved in witchcraft or the occult'." (News of the World, 30 June 1974).

“The jury were shown folders of pictures of naked girls and corpses, and told about a black-clothed altar in Farrant's flat with a large drawing of a vampire's face. When questioned, Farrant said: 'A corpse was needed to talk to spirits of another world'.” (George Hunter & Richard Wright, Daily Express, 26 June 1974).

“The judge said any interference with a corpse during black magic rituals could properly be regarded as a ‘great scandal and a disgrace to religion, decency and morality’.” (The Sun, 26 June 1974).

“Judge Michael Argyle QC passed sentence after reading medical and mental reports. He said that Farrant — self-styled High Priest — had acted ‘quite regardless of the feelings of ordinary people,’ by messing about at Highgate Cemetery.” (Hornsey Journal, 19 July 1974).


This is how Sue Kentish's feature article in the News of the World, 23 September 1973, opens: 

"But for the results of his actions, this scruffy little witch could be laughed at. But no one can laugh at a man who admits slitting the throat of a live cat before launching a blood-smeared orgy. Or at a man who has helped reduce at least two young women to frightened misery. Farrant runs his wretched cult from a cluttered flat above a chemist's shop in Archway Road, Highgate, London. When I first met him, he seemed normal enough. But over the course of a few weeks, I got to know him better. I found him to be totally besotted by witchcraft and the occult and ready to do anything in pursuit of both."

Farrant is later quoted as saying:

"My curses have never failed, as far as I know. Situations have always righted themselves after I put a curse on. Others will tell you how I reduced one man to a mental breakdown and in the end he begged me to remove the curse."

Sue Kentish continues:

"With a shrug of the shoulders he admitted mercilessly: "If somebody crosses me or my friends, I will use a curse, but only if it becomes necessary as a last resort'."

Wiccan high priest Stewart Farrar said of Farrant: "He gives witchcraft a bad name" (Daily Mail, 26 June 1974).

Farrant's journalist collaborator Frank Thorne dubbed him the "Prince of Darkness" (Sunday People, 16 April 1978).

The person closest to an accurate appraisal is author Dennis Wheatley who stated "I cannot believe for one moment that he is a serious student of the occult. In fact I believe [him] to be evil and entirely to be deplored." (Daily Express, 26 June 1974).

In the same article Canon Pearce Higgins said "I think he's crazy."

Farrant sued the Daily Express, Canon Pearce Higgins and Dennis Wheatley but lost the action, receiving a bill for £20,000 court costs, none of which has been repaid.

He told readers of New Witchcraft magazine, issue #4, the following in an unedited article penned at the behest of the magazine's editor from his prison cell:

"The intrinsic details regarding this part of the ceremony however, must remain secret; suffice it is to say here that the entity (in its now omniscient form) was to be magically induced by the ritual act of blood-letting, then brought to visible appearance through the use of the sex act. ... I disrobed the Priestess and myself and, with the consecrated blood, made the secret sigils of the Deity on her mouth, breast, and all the openings of her body. We then lay in the Pentagram and began love-making, all the time visualizing the Satanic Force so that it could — temporarily — take possession of our bodies."

On his 1975 article, Farrant later recalled (to his friend and collaborator Kevin Demant):

"When I had time to spare I wrote a few articles. I sent one to New Witchcraft which was used, and I mean, every single word was used. It was written on old scraps of paper, anything I could get together because obviously, they wouldn't have given me official writing paper to do that, apart from which, it would have been stopped anyway. That was smuggled out and used. I also wrote one for Penthouse, because ... they'd played up the sex angle in court and all the papers were implying ... I thought, well, it's a magazine, they could be half-serious. I mean, bloody hell, it was sold in W H Smiths!"

Wednesday, 16 November 2016

Hogg's Cognitive Dissonance

Elizabeth                            Jacqueline

These images are Seán Manchester's lawful copyright. Hogg nevertheless stole them to publish them on his website in order to aid his stalking of the two women, one of whom he misidentifies.

Seán Manchester has been a close friend of both women. He now offers his final word on the matter:

In the last few hours, Anthony Hogg has claimed that his and Swale's widely disseminated stalking of two women also included others who are not female. He identifies Keith Maclean in a recent comment on his Facebook group, but nobody else, certainly nobody who is unconnected to me.

I have taken a look at all the newspapers and their respective websites where the advertisement appears and only the names of Jacqueline and Elizabeth appear. No other names are included. This is confirmed in Trystan Lewis Swale's original statement: 

"Through [my] site I recently issued a joint appeal with [Anthony Hogg and Erin Chapman] to trace two alleged victims of the Highgate Vampire: Jacqueline [surname deleted] and Elizabeth [surname deleted]. Collectively, we are keen to obtain something that nobody else has — first hand recollections from the pair."

Swale and Hogg made it abundantly clear their pursuit concerned only the two identified women.

Despite all that has been shared, Hogg insists that the women must speak out or be forever stalked:

"We don't really know if they want to be left in peace. As explained, several times over, [Seán Manchester] is not their guardians. [He's] not their representatives. ... Our position on this matter is fairly clear and reasonable." - Anthony Hogg (The Enfield Independent newspaper)

Jacqueline made me her representative a very long time ago. She was absolutely explicit about her privacy not being violated, and I intend to uphold that wish. I knew her extremely well, and am all too aware of how she would react. Elizabeth reiterated her desire to have her privacy protected when we recently spoke at length about this matter. I represent her, too. Should either female be run down by these stalkers it might easily become a police matter. I knew both these women extremely well and am in no doubt how they would feel about being exploited by the likes of Anthony Hogg, Trystan Lewis Swale and Erin Chapman. Brushing aside my words while insisting that the women speak for themselves defeats the exercise because by that point their privacy will have been violated.

Hogg keeps referring to both women as "witnesses," but only one of them was a witness. He demands that he hears what she has to say, and insinuates that I might be "scared" of what she reveals. This ignores the fact that she gave her testimony at the time. It features in her own voice on the Discovery Channel's True Horror: Vampires where Elizabeth can be heard from the late 1960s discussing her experiences at Highgate. The other person named by Hogg was a personal friend and photographic model. Jacqueline is not identified by me as a witness in the Highgate Vampire case because she was not a witness. She is misidentified by Hogg as "Lusia" who, in fact, has never been identified and is not the person used to illustrate her in my books. Like Elizabeth, "Lusia" was not referred to in the media during the time when massive interest was being shown. 

Though her experiences, eg nightly visitations etc, were briefly touched upon in 1970 during television interviews I gave, Elizabeth was not actually identified by name. That came later when the hysteria had died down and she was eventually identified in Peter Underwood' anthology The Vampire's Bedside Companion and, of course, my own The Highgate Vampire. Regarding Jacqueline, Swale and Hogg are pursuing this woman due to their own Farrant-inspired false attribution.

Yesterday Hogg reiterated that his stalking of the women will continue:

"We made it very, very clear to Manchester, repeatedly, that we were not going to take his word on the matter. The only people we were going to listen to is Jacqueline and Elizabeth. The reason is obvious: a) Manchester isn't these witnesses, b) his word is notoriously unreliable. The search still stands."

Hogg's condition undermines the wishes of Jacqueline and Elizabeth to be left in peace. Why should they be obliged to explain why they do not wish to be contacted? And were they to do so (something I know will not happen) they would have created the very situation they want to avoid because Hogg and Swale will by virtue of that fact have established contact with the women and will have successfully run down their quarry.

Finally, I should remind these offenders that stalking and harassment of another or others can include a range of offences such as those under: the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; the Sexual Offences Act 2003; and the Malicious Communications Act 1988.

Sunday, 13 November 2016

Seriously Suspicious Stalking

"Two female victims of the 'Highgate Vampire' are being sought to help solve this decades old supernatural mystery. Editors of the on-line Highgate Vampire magazine are confident that new testimony could expose the assailant. Trystan Lewis, the magazine's editor, is particularly looking to contact Elizabeth [DELETED] and Jacqueline [DELETED]. Those with information regarding their whereabouts can contact Mr Lewis Swale on severnforteana@[DELETED].com and Mr Hogg on anthonyhogg@[DELETED].org." – ASSAP  "Research Request" (ongoing from March to October)

The official ASSAP member's E-News bulletins have been constantly featuring this stalker's charter on behalf of Swale and Hogg, whom they identify, and their lackeys, Chapman and McWilliams, since March 2016. Indeed, they are still including it in bulletins and no doubt will continue to do so.

Trystan Lewis Swale and David Farrant have been invited speakers at ASSAP conferences on various occasions in the past where Seán Manchester has been the subject of defamation, and the Highgate Vampire case that he investigated has been misrepresented and ridiculed. Seán Manchester ceased giving interviews on the topic in 2011, prior to which he was never once invited by the ASSAP to present his account of what happened despite him being at the centre of the investigation and the author of The Highgate Vampire (BOS, 1985; Gothic Press, 1991). Swale was not around when the case was ongoing, and Farrant had nothing whatsoever to do with the Highgate Vampire case beyond attempts to exploit it for his own self-serving publicity. Farrant has not claimed to have investigated the case and regularly reiterates that he does not believe in vampires.

The ASSAP's chairman, Dave Wood, protested earlier this year that nobody had shown any interest in the past for Seán Manchester to discuss the case before one of his audiences. It was pondered who had shown any interest in hearing Swale or Farrant pontificate about the Highgate Vampire? There was no response from the ASSAP who are a charity and must, therefore, conform to charity regulations, which means they must demonstrate impartiality, guarantee balance and a right of reply.

As we now know, having invited Seán Manchester to rebut what was being said about him on their forum, he was banned after a mere two weeks of doing so. Hogg, McWilliams et al saw to it that the whole discussion descended into a flame war with them setting fire to every thread with their trolling.

The ASSAP continue to evince partiality by providing a platform to Hogg and Swale in order to facilitate the stalking of two innocent women who do not wish to have their names dragged into it all after half a century. One of them was not involved in the case, and is misidentified as "Lusia" by those stalking her in order to justify their behaviour. This piece of misogynistic malice originates, as does much else, with Farrant who is exacting revenge on a female whose witness statement at Highgate Magistrates Court forty-six years ago contributed to him losing a case he had brought. Jacqueline had received harassing and threatening telephone calls from this person whom she did not know and had not met. The calls were tape-recorded. Seán Manchester identified the voice.

"I had publicly released a request for Elizabeth [DELETED] and Jacqueline 'Lusia' [DELETED] to step forward to speak to me, Erin [Chapman] or Trystan [Lewis Swale] about their experiences. That sentiment echoed Manchester's claim exactly. But the most basic scrutiny will show that it simply doesn't make sense. How is asking for WITNESSES to step forward the same thing as posting up someone's (supposed) home address, especially when it was Seán [Manchester] himself who made Elizabeth and Jacqueline 'famous' in the first place?" – Anthony Hogg (13 November 2016)

Hogg, true to his trolling temperament, will not accept that the women do not wish to be contacted (after Seán Manchester made it clear that they do not), and insists on hearing it from themThat would entail them doing the very thing they wish to avoid. Hogg denies them that right, and wants both women to contact him or Swale and say that they do not wish to be contacted. He cannot see how illogical that is because what is logical, legal and moral has no bearing on the stalker's mind.

Seán Manchester did not make Jacqueline "famous," ie she is not "Lusia," as alleged by Hogg.

Elizabeth put her experience on record herself almost half a century ago, and Seán Manchester chronicled it when he came to write about the case in 1975, 1976, 1985 and 1991. Elizabeth and everyone else have since moved on, and all concerned wish to have their privacy respected.

Shortly after this blog appeared, Anthony Hogg posted on one of his Facebook hate groups:

"FoBSM also reveals why the search continues; we made it very, very clear to Manchester, repeatedly, that we were not going to take his word on the matter. The only people we were going to listen to is Jacqueline and Elizabeth. The reason is obvious: a) Manchester isn't these witnesses, b) his word is notoriously unreliable. The search still stands."

We have made it very, very clear to Hogg and his fellow stalkers that the condition he sets overrides the desire of Jacqueline and Elizabeth to have nothing to do with these people, much less explain that they do not wish to be contacted - by which time they would have created a communication they do not want. This is how stalkers operate. They always excuse their own unacceptable behaviour and blame others when their stalking does not pay off. However, enough evidence has been accumulated for a criminal case should either female fall prey to this degenerate or his accomplices.

Thursday, 3 November 2016

Aaron Mahnke's Lore Variations on the Facts

Narrated by Chad Lawson, written and researched by Aaron Mahnke.

(To listen to the podcast, click on the above image.)

From 11:15 Highgate Cemetery is discussed and by 12:40 Aaron Mahnke already has his facts muddled. It is claimed that in 1970 David Farrant was at the centre of the British Occult Society investigatory group. He was not. In fact, the British Occult Society were to publicly warn against Farrant's lone activities in Highgate Cemetery. By 13:10 we have been misinformed that on 21 December 1969 Farrant camped out overnight in the graveyard. Farrant is described as a "paranormal investigator." Neither of those statements are true. Farrant stated originally, as confirmed in his letter to a local newspaper (Hampstead & Highgate Express) on 6 February 1970, that the occasion was on Christmas Eve 1969 while he was walking down Swains Lane past the cemetery's top gate. Far from being a paranormal investigator, Farrant made clear in the same letter that he had "no knowledge in this field." He said he had seen a tall, dark figure, but there was no mention of eyes "glowing brightly" in his letter, or any of the interviews he gave immediately afterwards. When interviewed by Sandra Harris on a television programme the following month he only described the figure as being tall and resembling someone who was dead. He felt it was evil.

At 13:50, we are told that "Farrant's partner, Seán Manchester, left the group to start his own and made further discoveries." How can such recent history become so distorted in so short a time?

Seán Manchester was President of the British Occult Society from 1967 to 1988 when the BOS was formally dissolved. A specialist research unit within the BOS became autonomous in February 1970 to concentrate on the Highgate Vampire case, and is still extant. It is the Vampire Research Society.

At no time were David Farrant and Seán Manchester "partners." They met as a result of Farrant writing a letter to his local newspaper in which he claimed to have sighted an unearthly spectre. Farrant agreed to show Seán Manchester where he thought he had seen the spectre. This incident where they met in the cemetery was covered by the Hampstead & Highgate Express, 6 March 1970.

Following his arrest in August 1970, David Farrant became increasingly belligerent toward Seán Manchester who nevertheless agreed to visit Farrant in prison after he had received a written plea from him. By which time the British Occult Society had already condemned Farrant's behaviour.


At 14:25, we hear a repeat of the "King Vampire" attribution which nomenclature Seán Manchester did not utter. He explains in detail how it arose in his concise vampirological guide. It is then claimed that Seán Manchester had already staked two vampires by the time he started investigating Highgate Cemetery case, which is more "creative" writing falsely attributed half a century after the events.

At 16:39, we hear the narrator claim: "They weren't on the same side anymore." They were never on the same side. Only Aaron Mahnke, who wrote the Lore podcast's script, is claiming otherwise.

At 18:40, it is absurdly alleged that Seán Manchester "preferred to conduct his exorcisms in broad daylight which allowed him to be safer and, as some critics pointed out, also made it more likely there would be an audience around to watch him." The "critics" being Farrant and his cronies. 

Seán Manchester's exorcism at Highgate Cemetery was later described by the uninvited media as "secret," and, as it happened, was the only one he carried out during the daylight hours. All the other exorcisms were held in the dead of night. There were never members of the public or media present. The nocturnal exorcism at the derelict house in 1974 and the final exorcism in the night at the Great Northern London Cemetery only involved Seán Manchester and anyone who was assisting him. Nobody else was aware of them taking place. Compare this with Farrant's arrests at Highgate Cemetery in 1970 and Monken Hadley churchyard two years later in 1972. Not only were journalists and photographers conveniently to hand, but Farrant was accused in Court of having alerted the police himself in order to ensure coverage throughout the media. His appearance on a Hallowe'en afternoon at Highgate Wood, ostensibly to demonstrate his prowess as a sorcerer (in full knowledge that he would be arrested long before his "magic" could be put to the test), resulted in every national and local newspaper in the country being invited by him. There was also a heavy police presence.

At 20:08, we are told that "Manchester found a way to make a career out of his adventures in Highgate." The narrator adds that Seán Manchester has written two books. In fact, Seán Manchester has written seven books with further unpublished manuscripts in abeyance which he has not tendered in favour of a private life out of the spotlight. He ceased giving interviews about the Highgate Vampire case for the same reason, and nowadays avoids any contact with the media. Not so Farrant who remains every bit as desperate for publicity today as he did back in 1970 when he was twenty-four-years old. Indeed, it was Farrant's hunger for attention that led to him receiving a four years and eight months prison sentence in 1974. Nobody ever really believed any of his claims.

Totally absent from Seán Manchester's career profile is that he is an accomplished photographer, musician and artist who entered the minor order of exorcist in early 1973, and later took holy orders.

At 20:50, we are told that after Farrant left prison "he went back to heading up the British Occult Society where he still works today." If Aaron Mahnke has researched this history beyond visiting Farrant's self-published works and online self-pronouncements he would know that David Farrant was at no time ever a member of the British Occult Society which organisation was instrumental in declaring him a lone publicity-seeker and charlatan in search of a bandwagon to jump on. Sadly, the eerie history (often talked about in local pubs in the 1960s) of Highgate Cemetery and its sinister spectral manifestation provided a suitable vehicle for Farrant and some others to ruthlessly exploit.

So who is Aaron Mahnke who managed to get so much wrong, and has obviously not read the two books he identifies in the podcast, ie The Highgate Vampire and The Vampire Hunter's Handbook?

He was born and raised in Illinois, and now lives with his wife and children on the north shore of Boston where he works on Lore, a bi-weekly (twice a month) podcast. He has apparently written three thrillers and one fantasy novel. What a shame he couldn't entirely move away from fiction?