Who Hijacked Whom?

"The bishop rubbishes a book about Farrant." - Angie Mary Watkins (Facebook, Coventry, England, 28 May 2016)

The authoress has not written a book about Farrant. He is credited as one of five "narrators" whom she contacted for the purpose of making her work appear more plausible. In fact, it does the opposite. Sharon Clarke lives in Northern Ireland and quite obviously has scant factual information about him. FoBSM comprises friends of Bishop Manchester whom we consult and also invite input from to clarify and verify in certain instances. Her book per se is not "rubbished" by us, but her glowing appraisal of Farrant is seriously brought into question and naturally dismissed as erroneous.

"While I agree with the bishop to an extent, it was actually him who hijacked David's ghost story in the first place and they've been feeding off each other ever since." - Anthony Hogg (Facebook, Melbourne, Australia, 29 May 2016)

Hogg's absurd claim that Seán Manchester "hijacked" Farrant's ghost story does not stand scrutiny.

Seán Manchester has never subscribed to Farrant's "ghost story" and with good reason. It was a cynical ploy to fool the press and public into believing what has subsequently been exposed as a hoax on the part of Farrant. He was assisted by a small handful of people who allowed their names and addresses to be used in fraudulent correspondence to the editor of a local newspaper. He was also assisted briefly by his "landlord" who rented the flat above the coal cellar occupied by Farrant.

Farrant's "ghost" emerged in February 1970 when his hoax was first vented by him in the Hampstead & Highgate Express newspaper, previous to which time nobody had ever heard of David Farrant.

Seán Manchester and his colleague, Peter Underwood, had been separately investigating reports of vampiric incidents and an associated unearthly spectral manifestation at Highgate Cemetery since the mid-1960s. This led both to make their own independent discoveries. In Seán Manchester's case it was a schoolgirl who, together with a friend, experienced an unearthly vision at Highgate Cemetery.

This occurred in early 1967 at a time when Farrant was not even residing in the United Kingdom. He was living rough in France and Spain at the time. This is where Farrant met his future wife, Mary.

Due to all the speculation caused by the "ghost" hoax in a local newspaper, Seán Manchester felt obliged to acquaint the wider public with his own theory which did not involve a "ghost." One of the schoolgirls had been attacked in the previous year by the supernatural presence in the graveyard, and now he was being contacted by others who had similarly been attacked, eg Jacqueline Beckwith.

Seán Manchester acted expediently to forewarn and prevent further attacks. His vampire theory was published by the Hampstead & Highgate Express as a front page feature article on 27 February 1970 under the headline Does A Wampyr Walk In Highgate? There was no reference or mention of Farrant.

Within days, Farrant ditched his unsubstantiated "ghost" account and started to appear in the press as a "vampire hunter" determined to track down and destroy what was being dubbed the Highgate Vampire. Seán Manchester examined claims made by Farrant and found them unconvincing.

On 6 March 1970, an article appeared on the front page of the same newspaper, the Hampstead & Highgate Express, where, in an interview given to its editor, David Farrant states: "... what I have recently learnt all points to the vampire theory as 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 pursue it he did. Consequently, on 17 August 1970 he was arrested at midnight in Highgate Cemetery and charged with being in an enclosed area for an unlawful purpose, ie vampire hunting.

Seán Manchester had been investigating and indeed pursuing the vampire since the mid-1960s. It would eventually be tracked down and exorcised by him, but there is little doubt, contrary to Anthony Hogg's allegation on Facebook, who hijacked what and who has been feeding off whom ever since.

 

Addendum:

"[FoBSM] needs to pay closer attention to the material [they're] citing. Indeed, the article from Feb. 27 clearly connects the vampire to the ghost -- and that continued to happen. As I said, they feed off each other. ... The fact remains: David came out with the ghost before Seán came out with the vampire. I never said David didn't hop on the vampire bandwagon." - Anthony Hogg (31 May 2016)

To be clear, Anthony Hogg is based in Australia and has never visited the United Kingdom, much less Highgate Cemetery, and has spoken to nobody directly connected with the case; not that they would want to speak to him. He was not born when these events took place, and seeks out the worst imaginable sources - eg people who, like him, now attempt to exploit the case even though they had no part in it whatsoever - to feed the obsession that has preoccupied his cyber-life for over a decade.

Despite the February 27th article attributing quotes to Seán Manchester and the Reverend "John" Neil-Smith (they even got his Christian name wrong, it's Christopher) that were simply not uttered, there is no reference to any "ghost" in the context of what Seán Manchester revealed. According to folklore, vampires manifest in both corporeal and apparition form, metamorphosis being one of the traits which distinguishes them. That is quite different to the "ghost" being touted by David Farrant.

Seán Manchester is explicit in the article: "... not merely the apparition of an earth-bound spirit, but much worse." He then identifies the spectre as being a vampire, as distinct from a ghost. He makes the distinction to avoid any confusion. And that is the only reference and/or quote to an apparition.

Plenty of people were aware of Seán Manchester's investigation into the Highgate Vampire prior to the turn of the 1970s, but not the press. He was careful to keep what was going on in the general vicinity out of the media, and would have continued to do so, but Farrant's publicity-seeking antics made that impossible. He turned the situation to his advantage by providing a means for people to contact him whose experiences he would otherwise not know about. This strategy proved fortuitous.

Hence the local press published a letter from Farrant a couple of weeks prior to the front-page article featuring Seán Manchester. Farrant did not dream up his "ghost" hoax until 1970. Seán Manchester had already before that time been dealing with the nightly visitations of the vampire upon a young lady whose boyfriend assisted him in offering efficacious protection to her from the predatory demon.

Hogg persists with his "they feed off each other" chant without offering a single piece of evidence. 

Seán Manchester no longer provides interviews about the case to the media, and has not done so for some considerable time, despite lucrative offers and persistent requests. He eschews all media publicity, but will talk about the case privately as a guest speaker at closed meetings for those with either academic and/or practical reasons to listen and debate the matter. Farrant from the onset has been an inveterate attention-seeker who will talk to anyone about anything provided there is publicity, even though he knows absolutely nothing. When he talks he is exceptionally tedious and boring.

Hogg is also extremely tedious and, like that other person, will do almost anything for publicity. The trouble is that when push comes to shove he has absolutely nothing of any interest to offer, and holds no experience or expertise in supernatural matters. Furthermore, like Farrant, he is not truthful. He claims to be a liberal Christian, but associates mostly on the internet with Satanists, wannabe "vampires" and like-minded individuals. His behaviour is about as unChristian as you could hope to find, and he appears to have made it his mission in life to harass and denigrate Seán Manchester who is a devout traditional Christian, exorcist and leading authority on demonology/vampirology etc. 

This is the context in which Hogg must be seen. He is a friend of Farrant's son, Jamie, and befriended a person who still proclaims himself to be a "master of the black arts"; someone who stood alongside Farrant in the dock at the Old Bailey in 1974 accused of arson following several attempts to summon a demon in a derelict house with an evil reputation. He was acquitted of arson, but shortly afterwards was found guilty of sexually molesting a young boy. His excuse was that he was following the teachings of the Edwardian Satanist Aleister Crowley of whom he claimed to be the successor. These are the sort of people Hogg seeks out to learn about the Highgate Vampire case, and provide ammunition against Seán Manchester. They can do neither, of course, because none of these people were present (Jamie Farrant was born in 1967) when the case was under investigation. 

Vacuous Voice in the Dark

Sharon Clarke's Voice in the Dark was published a handful of days ago by something called "CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platforms," and is described as "an in-depth look into the world of paranormal investigating centred on Northern Ireland with a mix of photographs and interviews with leading paranormal experts such as Jeff Belanger and David Farrant." 

Page 27 of Ms Clarke's book describes Farrant as playing "a prominent role in the history of 20th century occultism and parapsychology and continues to do so." Such unsupported claims suggest that her interview with him was conducted impersonally, ie via the internet, and that, apart from knowing only what Farrant has told her about himself, this young authoress knows precious little about him. For example, she places the word "vampire" inside inverted commas to suggest the Highgate Vampire case should be disregarded when the only thing which deserves being disregarded is Farrant's cynical attempt to hijack it for his own publicity-seeking purposes. Furthermore, she seems oblivious to the fact that throughout most of 1970 Farrant described himself in the media as a "vampire hunter," and was arrested as same by police in Highgate Cemetery in August of that year.

He appeared on BBC television two months later, pulled a wooden stake out of the back of his trousers, brandished a large cross, and explained how he had been pursuing the legendary vampire in the graveyard. Yet in September 2007, the same David Farrant wrote: "To keep talking about ‘vampires’ when I don’t even accept their existence, is really a bit boring!" Two years earlier he stated on the James Randi forum: "I do NOT believe in vampires. I cannot say it more clearly than that." That same year on the same forum he protested: "As I have said many times before, I do not really 'believe' in anything." Farrant has nevertheless lived off his fraudulent association with the case all his adult life, ignoring the television footage, newspaper articles and images which contradict his protestations. He makes these anomalies and contradictions his means to gain interest in the media who these days never seem willing to actually pin him down and expose him as a hoaxer who keeps crying something then denies he ever believed in it. Examples include vampires, black magic curses, cat sacrifices, naked witchcraft ceremonies, summoning demons, satanic worship etc. This has been his raison d'être throughout his life, ie implicating himself in something sensational and, having achieved the publicity he hungers, explain it all away and whitewash the incident in question.  

If she had only done some proper, in-depth research and, moreover, met him, would she really describe 70-year-old Farrant as a "leading paranormal expert" who "played a prominent role" etc?

Nobody at the time took Farrant remotely seriously, and this book must run the risk of attracting some considerable criticism from the more discerning among paranormal researchers, due entirely to her reckless inclusion and promotion of this man who has caused such upset and grief to so many.

Sharon Clarke's glowing testimony and promotion of the charlatan who was charged and found guilty of many offences in the 1970s, including indecency in a churchyard, tomb desecration, cemetery vandalism, threatening witnesses with black magic, attempting to pervert the course of justice, theft from a hospital, and possession of an illegal firearm with ammunition, will win her few Brownie points.

The Folly of Eating Forbidden Fruit

y

(Click to view the entire programme.)

Forbidden History, now in its third series on the "Yesterday" channel, is one of those programmes that chooses sensationalist subjects but after viewing frequently leaves its audience with a feeling of disappointment. The programme about vampires, transmitted last Friday, had all the ingredients of a topic that would hold the viewer's attention. Inevitably and inexorably, by the time it reached its climax with the Highgate case at the top of the vampire menu, disappointment was all they could evoke. Seán Manchester wrote to the series director and producer. It is now understood that Forbidden History accepts that a mistake was made on their part, and they have agreed to pay an appropriate compensatory sum to Seán Manchester for illicitly using his image in their programme.

Seán Manchester wrote:

Re: http://uktvplay.uktv.co.uk/shows/forbidden-history/watch-online/?video=4790321875001

Forty-one minutes into the programme, a black and white photograph of me appears for seven seconds.

I am the lawful and exclusive copyright owner of that image which shows me standing by the North Gate in Swains Lane, Highgate.

To add insult to injury, my image has been used in the programme to support the words of a charlatan who has shamelessly exploited my work for his own self-serving ends and voracious appetite for publicity for over four decades.

The photograph has been filched from somewhere I have had it legitimately published. If you intended to airbrush the author of The Highgate Vampire from your coverage of the case you should not have included this photograph.

When Andrew Gough, a personal friend of Farrant for some years, first approached me about this programme last year he assured me that "David [Farrant] would not be interviewed." (See below).

Having been a contributor to television for almost half a century, I naturally take nothing I am told at face value. I feel that my persona has been seriously abused by linking me to anything this Farrant character claims.

Most in the section on Highgate is misleading and factually inaccurate. There is enough evidence on public record, however, to have avoided this occurring, even if you expurgated, as you clearly did, all reference to those who actually investigated the case.

Sincerely,

†Seán Manchester

Seán Manchester had fittingly and somewhat ironically written on his website on 13 December 2013:

"I quickly came to realise many years ago that interviewers, regardless of the subject, simply do not know the right questions and the questions are every bit as important as the answers. Another problem in the new century has been one of trust. Seldom have I encountered an interviewer in recent years who keeps his or her word. Consequently, any condition I might have set for providing a contribution was frequently and almost immediately compromised. Without trust and a sense of honour there is nothing. I cannot interact in that way and would rather stay silent than witness yet another agreement broken. I am still having to regularly turn down television and radio interview requests, along with a plethora of other invitations to partake in projects that would maintain a perception of me remaining a public figure."

Despite Andrew Gough's assurance to Seán Manchester that "David Farrant would not be interviewed," in actual fact, Farrant was the only contemporary person who was interviewed about the vampiric goings-on at Highgate. Others who offered their opinions throughout the programme, whether about Highgate or not, were hardened sceptics who view everything in purely materialistic terms. They approached the subject of vampires from a scientific point of view. The problem is that the supernatural cannot be approached in that way because it transgresses the laws of science.

Seán Manchester states in his correspondence to the programme's director that "the section on Highgate is misleading and factually inaccurate." Let's examine that section to see what he means.

Thirty-four minutes into the documentary it finally reaches what a lot of people will have been waiting for when they first began watching: the case of the Highgate Vampire. What the viewer ends up with is a young American woman proclaiming that the Highgate story is "the ultimate British B movie" with"someone running around claiming he's chasing vampires." While this is being stated the viewers are shown Roger Simpson's article about David Farrant's penchant for sacrificing cats in Highgate Woods that appeared in the Hornsey Journal, 13 August 1973, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the case of the Highgate Vampire. Forbidden History is careful not to reveal the article's headline: "Cat's throat slit during witchcraft ritual in woods." Cat's throat slit by Farrant!

Next, while being shown posed images from TitBits magazine of Farrant prancing about in Highgate Cemetery, we are told "a group of ghost hunters in the 1960s, 1970s were ghost hunting in Highgate Cemetery, and one of them spent the night there and believes he saw a ghost, a figure dressed in a cape wandering through Highgate Cemetery." This is clearly a reference to Farrant who did not describe anything "dressed in a cape" and whose wife at the time, Mary, stated under oath at the Old Bailey during his criminal trials in 1974: "We would go in, frighten ourselves to death and come out again. It was just a silly sort of thing that you do after the pubs shut." Mrs Farrant added that her husband’s friends who joined in the late night jaunts were not involved in witchcraft or the occult.

We are then told about Satanists who broke into Highgate Cemetery, exhumed a corpse and "hammered a metal stake through the coffin lid and through the heart of the person in the grave." None of which happened, needless to say. Yet, as the viewer is told about these Satanists, they are shown simultaneously a 1972 photograph of David Farrant and Victoria Jervis being arrested in Monken Hadley churchyard in High Barnet, which owes no connection to the Highgate case.

Viewers are at last treated to something that at least vaguely relates to the cemetery vampire case, albeit in a sensationalist article by Barrie Simmons in the Evening News, 16 October 1970,  covering the antics of the publicity-seeker where he is portrayed as a rank amateur with a protective cross comprising of two twigs held together by a shoelace, plus a Sainsbury's carrier bag for his stakes.

Presenter Jamie Theakston informs viewers that he has "come to Highgate" to meet David Farrant, but Farrant, who hasn't lived in Highgate for four and a half decades, actually lives in Muswell Hill. Theakston interviews him in his bedsit at the top of a house in Muswell Hill Road. He asks Farrant what it was he saw on that night inside Highgate Cemetery, but Farrant's original letter to the editor of the Hampstead & Highgate Express explicitly states that it was while walking along Swains Lane as he passed the North Gate that he saw something on the other side of the iron railings. A description of something as tall as the iron North Gate is alleged while simultaneously the massive stone arch leading to the Circle of Lebanon, which is at the heart of the graveyard, is shown on screen. While all this is being explained, the above image of Farrant armed with a crude wooden cross and stake emerges on the screen. Farrant has always previously insisted that he doesn't believe in vampires and  has never seriously sought them out. This is not a revelation made on Forbidden History! 

As a press cutting of the outcome of his criminal trials at the Old Bailey is shown, Theakston asks Farrant why he was arrested and allows Farrant get away with answering: "I was arrested and charged with indecency in a churchyard." True. He was found guilty of indecency in 1972, but the press cutting related to his trials two years later at which he was found guilty of graveyard desecration and tomb vandalism relating to Highgate Cemetery, threatening witnesses with black magic in an attempt to pervert the course of justice in the trial of a self-proclaimed Satanist who was and still remains his colleague, possession of a firearm and ammunition, plus theft from a hospital.

None of which is mentioned or alluded to, apart from one press cutting, throughout the documentary.

At this point, Andrew Gough proclaims that Farrant "headed the British Occult Society and had a really important role in the whole Highgate Vampire story." Nothing could be further from the truth.

"He's the one going into the tombs and uncovering the fact that satanic rituals were going on there."

"He's the one who identifies this entity, as trying to be manifested, and he's the one who kind of goes on this journey to find the vampire."

Or so claims Andrew Gough who is pictured with David Farrant in the latter's Muswell Hill bedsit. The girl at the centre is an acquaintance of Gough's whose curiosity must have got the better of her.

The fact is that Farrant was exposed by the British Occult Society from very early on. He has had no connection with that organisation beyond pretending to be associated to bolster his own publicity-seeking pranks. Newspapers invariably added to any such claim he made the prefix "self-styled."

Far from being the one who uncovered satanic rituals in tombs, Farrant was found guilty by a jury at the Old Bailey in the summer of 1974 of causing the satanic symbols and thereby rituals in tombs.

Gough's claim that Farrant went on a journey to find the vampire is perhaps the most absurd statement of all. Farrant has spent most of his life strenuously denying the existence of vampires and all newspaper reports that briefly in August 1970 he adopted the role of a "vampire hunter."

"Curiously, to this day, there are reports in Swains Lane of civilians reporting to the police of a tall man walking across the street with dark, piercing red eyes; walking across the street and through the wall. This gets reported to the police every two or three years," claims Andrew Gough near the end.

This is untrue, as the police themselves will confirm. There have been no credible witnesses since the 1960s and early 1970s. Recent claimants have turned out to be associates of one man: Farrant.

The Hypocritical Oaf

"A ghostly unexplained apparition . . . yes. Particularly everyone was in agreement with this, but not with other ‘crank theories’ that there was any substance in the Hammer Horror film portrayals of their horror films portraying vampires, when that international film company had given this idea to thousands – if not millions – of cinema goers throughout that 1960s periods and into the early 1970s. Many were influenced by the vampire horror movies (indeed, these attracted international audiences across the world) but many more tried to imitate this idea (especially college students) by actually trying to make their own amateur ‘vampire films’ in the cemetery itself. But these were really no match for a professional film industry such as Hammer, and such film projects were quickly forgotten, if seen by the general populace at all! But at the end of all this, the phantom figure witnessed in and around Highgate Cemetery lives on. It has been seen by too many witnesses to dismiss its credibility out of hand, as some sceptics and those attempting to jump on the ‘occult bandwagon’, apparently try to do. The conclusion of the 9-hour Symposium (which went on until well into the night ‘after hours’) on July 19th last year, was that this ‘phantom figure’ was still ‘there’. But that it was by no means a ‘blood-sucking vampire’! But after all, we have only got Hammer movie films, and a few of its pale imitators to thank for all that!"

— David Farrant, self-styled president of the non-existent BPOS (28 February 2016)

David Farrant, now slipping into some sort of vampiric half-life in his coffin-like north London bedsit, feebly stuttered the above afterword on his practically lifeless blog two days ago. By "everyone" he means those participating in and attending the Highgate Vampire Symposium held on 19 July 2015. The contributors were a mixture of his flunkies like Redmond McWilliams and Paul Adams, plus an assortment of commentators and dabblers in the dark arts who harbour personal animosity towards author of The Highgate Vampire, Seán Manchester, who investigated the case from start to finish.

The audience, albeit carefully screened to omit any possible sympathisers of Seán Manchester, or anyone else likely to raise awkward questions, was far from in agreement about anything. We have heard from several who attended the Symposium who were less than happy about being fleeced of £12.00 to be sent to sleep by most who spoke from the platform where sat David Farrant and Paul Adams, only to learn nothing about the Highgate Vampire from any of the contributing speakers.

"Crank theories" abound from Farrant who imagines the phoney ghost he hoaxed in early 1970 isn't one, or that his desperate efforts latterly to convince the public and media alike of a "phantom" remaining in the graveyard bisected by Swains Lane, Highgate, amounts to anything more than him riding the "occult bandwagon" that he boarded forty-six years ago which ran out of steam when he was imprisoned for vandalism and desecration in 1974. By which time the predatory entity known as the Highgate Vampire had been exorcised. Farrant, needless to say, played no part in the serious investigation of this case, but he did ruthlessly exploit it for his own attention-seeking purposes and was willing to jump on the vampire theory bandwagon in 1970 to further that ambition.

Those genuinely researching the peripheral madness surrounding events back in 1970 must wonder what Farrant was doing on numerous occasions with an armoury of stakes, crosses, crucifixes, rosaries, holy water and bibles? Was he merely inspired by Hammer's vampire films, or was he, as seems more likely, jumping on what he perceived at the time to be a publicity bandwagon, imitating Seán Manchester and his vampire theory publicised in February 1970, before moving onto more sinister and indeed diabolical attention-seeking magnets to hold the attention of newspaper editors?

Clones, Clowns and Calumny

Forty-six years ago today the Highgate Vampire case was taken into the public domain for the first time in the form of a front-page news feature article headlined "Does A Wampyr Walk In Highgate?" There was no mention of David Farrant in the article which focussed on the findings of the President of both the British Occult Society and the then fledgling Vampire Research Society. Many have since attempted to jump on the publicity-bandwagon that ensued, but none perhaps have been so desperate and compulsive as Anthony Hogg and his collaborators Trystan Lewis Swale and Erin Chapman who are currently trying to track down two females who have hitherto enjoyed their privacy.

A response from the author of The Highgate Vampire, Seán Manchester:

"Hogg, Swale and Chapman make clear their intention to pursue two women who I happen to know will resist any attempt to have their privacy compromised after all these years, but the trolling trio show no interest whatsoever in finding eye-witnesses identified with names and addresses in the Hampstead & Highgate Express in the early months of 1970. These eye-witnesses only differ from Elizabeth (I do not include Jacqueline because she is not 'Lusia' as falsely alleged by the stalkers) in one regard. None of them have any connection to me. Had they a connection to me they would doubtless be pursued to the ends of the earth by these obsessive non-entities out to grab their undeserved fifteen minutes of fame at the expense of innocent women and, of course, on the coat-tails of my book The Highgate Vampire and myself. What they are doing is morally unacceptable, and should not be encouraged or helped in any form." - Seán Manchester (27 February 2016)

Kenneth Frewin, R Docherty, Julian McKennar, Audrey Connely and Nava Arieli (aka Nava Grunberg) were all identified as first-hand eyewitnesses in the Hampstead & Highgate Express, February — March 1970. Trystan Lewis Swale, Anthony Hogg and Erin Chapman are content to ruthlessly pursue Elizabeth while ignoring the other self-proclaimed eye-witnesses. Elizabeth was not identified by name in 1970, albeit she was referred to anonymously on television programmes that year. Mary Farrant and Colette Sully, although sympathetic to David Farrant at the time, might bring fresh evidence and certainly an unheard perspective. Females much less sympathetic to Farrant who were also identified by name in newspapers and magazines, eg Victoria Jervis, Nancy O'Hoski and many others, might equally shed new light on the goings-on in the 1970s. They have unique and privileged information. But you will find neither Hogg nor Swale nor Chapman showing the slightest interest in these females because they have no association whatsoever with Seán Manchester.

As David Farrant, now turned seventy, falls further into an undead slumber, Anthony Hogg, Trystan Lewis Swale and Erin Chapman have replaced him, using pernicious propaganda originating with Farrant to pursue an identical vendetta against the exorcist Seán Manchester. They are this generation's clones of a clown who nobody took seriously back in the 1970s. Swale, who regards Satanists as being mostly atheists and is one himself, declared on his site yesterday that Seán Manchester "doesn't know much about Satanism." The implication is that these clones do and their undisguised empathy with the dark side provides common ground with the source of all the malice.

Seán Manchester's final comment in 2013 on the Highgate Vampire case:

"It was necessary to tell the full story, even though this was not an easy decision, due to the overwhelming public interest in the case, but I really now feel the subject has been exhausted and all there is to say about it has been said. It has also exhausted me after decades of television and radio interviews, film documentaries and related projects concentrating on this one topic. There will always be people seeking to cash in and exploit my work for their own ends. Many, of course, will be too young to remember the happenings at Highgate. That notwithstanding, my book The Highgate Vampire is optioned for cinematic treatment, but that is not something I wish to elaborate upon here.

"I am willing to quietly and privately set the record straight where need be, but I gave my final interview about this case to the broadcast media some years ago and have no intention of returning to the topic despite persistent requests from television and radio programmes for me to do so almost every week. I still make contributions on unrelated matters, but this subject of intense public fascination — in some cases obsession — concerning events at Highgate Cemetery more than forty-four years ago is not something I have an appetite to return to any longer. Having said that, my memoir in its unexpurgated form obviously mentions the case in a proper and fitting context to my life. However, I have no plans to have my memoir published — now or ever.

"Unimaginable horrors were experienced by folk at the time of the contagion and these I feel are best not evoked. They should be left undisturbed. The reality that I and others, most now sadly deceased, experienced all those many years ago no longer exists, and next to the hunger to experience the supernatural, albeit in this case at its most maleficent and deadly, there is perhaps no stronger hunger than to forget.

"Should an individual have a particular query about those mysterious happenings, I will give that person an answer (but not an interview); otherwise I have too much in the present with which to be concerned without reliving nightmares from the past."

The Italian Connection

Alan commented on Trystan Lewis Swale's "Looking for Elizabeth [-------] and Jacqueline [------]."

The following unedited, uncorrected comment was posted by an Italian man to Swale's website blog:

"Good evening. My name is Alan, i’m from Italy, please accept my apologies for my poor english. I study vampirology since many years and obviously i’ve followed the Highgate vampire case with a lot of interest during the last decade. I would like to say a few words.

"Frankly it’s really hard for me to understand why a group of few people has decided to establish a climate of hate, rancour and mockery against the Bishop Sean Manchester. First of all please remember that Bishop Manchester is not a child, he could be your father, and it’s really annoying to read some comments from people that clearly don’t know good manners (i remember the 'Bishop Bonkers' story, just to make an example).

"Second: honestly i don’t understand what kind of result you hope to obtain bothering two ladies that evidently don’t want to speak about the past…the Highgate vampire’s case has happened 46 years ago, a lot of water has passed under the bridge, they never talked about that story and you really believe that they will talk now only because of your call? I think that you’re really optimistic….Guys, get a life! After 46 years every protagonist of that event has said what it was necessary to say, we have a lot of articles, books and testimonies about it… everybody has the right to have his own opinion and believe me, i perfectly understand that it sounds fascinating to investigate but it seems to me that you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel, don’t you think?

"Third: in my opinion we all should say just a big 'thank you' to the Bishop Sean Manchester because it’s only thanks to him if we all write a river of words about the case after almost 50 years after the facts. That Friday 13th Bishop Manchester has made history, period, deal with it. He lit up our passion and interest. Now you can believe in his account or not, it’s your right, if you think that the whole story is a hoax you can just put his books on the library and forget about them. Your choice. You don’t believe in demons? You don’t believe in God? You don’t believe in the existence of vampires? No problem. But please stop bothering him cause it’s very sad to see a coalition of adults acting like childs.

"I wonder why many people attack Bishop Manchester and not a vandal and a black magician like David Farrant?! Maybe because Bishop Manchester talks about God and Farrant talks about magic and occult rituals? It’s clear enough that a Catholic clergyman is surely a easy target in these years of anti christian propaganda but Farrant is just an opportunist who desperately seeked his 15 minutes of fame on Bishop Manchester coat-tails. And he’s still trying to demand attention after 46 years, it’s a little pathetic, but this is just my two cents…Bishop Manchester is much more coherent than a person who organize clownings like the Highgate vampire symposium only to say that he doesn’t believe in vampires… wow! Really interesting! So why he still takes advantage of that story using the terminology “The Highgate vampire”? And you’d really spend your money to see a depressing show of that kind? With what authority Farrant talks about the Highgate vampire case? Honestly i really don’t understand. Moreover i’m pretty sure that he doesn’t remember what he ate yesterday, let’s imagine what he can recall about his awkward wrongdoings dating back to 46 years ago…

"Bishop Manchester has turned the page, he doesn’t organize pointless 'symposiums' and he doesn’t need your money like somebody else…. so i think that the best thing that some people could do is leaving him alone. Regards."

(Comment posted on 21 February 2016 at 6:03 pm)

__________________________________________________________________________________

Swale's offensive reply was steeped in libel and lies repeated from Farrant and it is not worth sharing. Anthony Hogg's comments continued in much the same insulting and dismissive vein. For example:

"Could people call me a 'troll' for referring to your asshole behaviour here? Probably. But then they’d be overlooking the context, wouldn’t they? ... I’m sorry you feel that I’m rude, Alan. But I’m afraid you haven’t left me much choice. ... Don’t waste my time with bullshit, Alan. ... Your condescending, shitty attitude was actually the whole problem in the first place. If you get back to me with some fair and balanced comments, including taking the effort to read what we’ve shared with you [to] discuss their content [and] not whinging on and on about 'rancour' and some other bullshit, then, and only then, will I be able to take you more seriously." (Anthony Hogg on Trystan Swale's website's blog)

Alan (who is a resident of Milan, Italy, albeit falsely accused of being in Germany by Swale) added:

"Anthony, i’ve been polite and reasonable but you insist to be aggressive and frankly this makes me feel unconmfortable. i really would like to examine your points but at this point i guess that it doesn’t matter anymore. It’s a pity but if you don’t know the good manners there’s nothing i can do unfortunately. You’re a guy full of preconceptions. For example: you say that i’m an apologist but i’ve never expressed my opinion about the Highgate case. Never. Surely i believe in the supernatural but i didn’t express an opinion about the case itself. In all my comments i’ve just asked respect and politeness for the Bishop Manchester and for all the people who could have different views. I’ve made some questions and objections but i didn’t offend anyone as you did. Why you need to use personal offenses to express your reasons? I don’t understand…Anyway, if this means to be an apologist, well, i’m guilty but just for the record i’ve spent a lot of years studying vampirology and paranormal so i repeat that your insults are out of place. Maybe you need to insult and provoke because the quality of your topics is low, i really don’t know, it’s just a theory. That said, i’m sincerely sorry cause as said before i was not here to argue and it was not my intention to be offensive. I’ve tried to find a meeting point but it seems that it’s impossible to have a normal conversation with you. I think that there’s really something wrong in your attitude, maybe you should think about it, just my two cents. Thanks to Trystan for the hospitality, much appreciated."

The Unholy Trinity

"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 without a middleman. In their case that third party was none other than Seán Manchester, [author] of The Highgate Vampire! The appeal seems to have ignited something of a spark over on the Portals to the Truth website run by Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester."   — Trystan Lewis Swale

"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)

"How predictable that literally within minutes of a comment from myself in an online newspaper providing publicity for this unholy trinity, one of the three stalkers would be arguing the case to find two women after half a century who definitely do not wish to have their lives disrupted in this way. To be absolutely clear, Jacqueline made me her representative back in the early 1970s. She was absolutely explicit about her privacy not being violated, and I intend to uphold that wish. 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 this trolling trio it might easily become a police matter. I knew these women very 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. There is no honour among trolls and it is up to others to become the 'guardians' of women being pursued in this way." — Seán Manchester

"Some might suggest I remain silent, as this is often the best way to deal with compulsive individuals who want to gain attention to cause distress and some sort of connection. However, silence is often construed as a form of consent, if not tacit approval. That notwithstanding, how do you remain silent when obsessed ne'er-do-wells come metaphorically knocking at the door? The problem with these trolls is that they are intrinsically cowards who cower from any real encounter that would prise them from behind their computer screens where they seem to spend every waking moment. I draw the line when they go after defenceless women, especially those who have been a part of my life and my history. Hogg, Swale and Chapman have overstepped the mark doing that and I really do not understand anyone wanting to assist them in such a despicable endeavour." — Seán Manchester

"I’m not sure why [Seán Manchester] is making this about [him]. By seeking Jacqueline and Elizabeth it isn’t an invasion of [his] privacy. All we want to do is speak to the women quoted in [Seán Manchester's] book. That isn’t stalking, it’s called trying to speak to eyewitnesses." — Trystan Lewis Swale

"Swale then proceeds to turn his blog commentary into something exclusively about me, mentioning me by name at least fifty times and regurgitating the same old lies and propaganda à la Farrant we've heard a hundred times before. None of which has anything to do with the topic at hand. When the opportunity arises to attack me, like his associates Hogg and Chapman, he drops everything to concentrate on defaming me, using malicious falsehood originating with Farrant. If I am making this topic about anything it is a trolling trio who are obsessed with me and have been for some considerable time. It is not about Jacqueline who has been misidentified as being somebody else by them. And it is not about Elizabeth whom I spoke to as recently as February 8th. She made it quite apparent how she felt about being contacted by anyone regarding this history which she considers to be dead and buried. She gave her testimony at the time in the 1960s, and that really must suffice, as far as she is concerned. Anyone wishing to listen to her testimony may do so [by clicking on the image below linking to a television documentary]. Jacqueline had no part in the case, save at the periphery and only because she often accompanied me. She made absolutely clear to me in the 1970s that she wanted her privacy to be protected, but understood that photographs in which she had been used as a model remain extant. When Elizabeth and I talked recently she was also adamant that her privacy remain sacrosanct. She was very clear about that." — Seán Manchester

Portals to the Truth would like to add that the self-proclaimed impartiality of the unholy trinity, who are totally reliant on David Farrant's poisonous propaganda, can be exploded when you consider how obsessed they are in tracking down literally anyone and anything connected to Seán Manchester, but show little if any interest in people connected to Farrant whose son, Jamie, and demented lieutenant, John Pope, they are all Facebook friends with and have been for quite some time. They might occasionally make jokes at Farrant's expense, or question his claim about the Victorian origin of his "ghost," but that is the full extent of their "research." Swale had his nose put out of joint recently when Farrant refused to return some money owed when Swale was told he would not be welcome at a symposium after buying a ticket to attend. There is evidence that Farrant doesn't like any of them.

"Lusia" has never been identified and is not the person used to represent her in books, and, like Elizabeth, 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 on in 1970 by Seán Manchester during television interviews, he did not actually identify her 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, Seán Manchester's own The Highgate Vampire.

There were people that self-identified as correspondents in the Hampstead & Highgate Express who claimed to be eye-witnesses to the supernatural entity at Highgate Cemetery in 1970. Yet we find Trystan Lewis Swale, Anthony Hogg and Erin Chapman showing no interest whatsoever in them.

The question is why? Upon closer examination we discover that some of these correspondents were either put up to it by Farrant, or allowed their names and addresses to be used by Farrant when he submitted fraudulent letters to the editor. With the benefit of hindsight and a considerable amount of solid evidence we now know there was no ghost, as claimed in these letters. Indeed, we know that Farrant himself was the only "ghost" making an appearance at Highgate Cemetery in early 1970.

The following letters to the editor of the Hampstead & Highgate Express appeared immediately in the wake of Farrant's own letter claiming three sightings of a ghost-like figure at London's Highgate Cemetery. The first is written by Kenny Frewin, complete with Frewin's genuine address at the time.

Kenny Frewin was and remains a close personal friend of David Farrant and often acted as his "minder" throughout the 1970s and 1980s. He also collaborated in further stories manufactured by Farrant in the press, but changed his name to "Kenny French" (on Farrant's advice) for that purpose.

The second is also written by a close friend of Farrant. He knew both Audrey and her husband Michael Connely, the latter joining him and his first wife, Mary, whom he married in August 1967, on drunken forays with others to Highgate Cemetery after the pubs had closed. Farrant altered her married status from "Mrs" to "Miss" when he came to write the letter using her name and address.

The third letter is written by someone by the name of R Docherty who was also an acquaintance of Farrant. Docherty allowed his name and address to be used. There were others, Yossel Baker being one, who did not give permission for their name and address to be used. Farrant used it anyway.

The fourth counterfeit letter to the local newspaper is attributed to "Nava Arieli" who, in fact, is Nava Grunberg (later to become Nava Jehans) who was undoubtedly Farrant's closest friend (and occasional girlfriend) at the time. The address is not hers. She lived in Hampstead Lane, and still does. The next couple of fake letters are no less interesting. Yossel Baker often drank in the Prince of Wales pub where Farrant was present with a couple of mutual friends, including Tony Hill. Baker's real name and address was used on the fraudulent correspondence without his knowledge. Farrant assumed that Baker would not be especially bothered about his identity being used in this way.

Finally, we come to a bogus letter written by a certain J McKennar of Muswell Hill Road, N10. By a curious coincidence that is David Farrant's current address where he has resided for decades; indeed, ever since his parole release from prison in 1976. When Farrant wrote his original hoax letter of 6 February 1970 he resided in Tony Hill's coal bunker which was part a communal cellar of similar bunkers belonging to 9 Priestwood Mansions, 294 Archway Road, London N6. Hill, his wife and mutual acquaintances such as Audrey and Michael Connely, were all well and truly in on the hoax.